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

[Thomas5251212]

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, given that sort of procedure is, in and of itself, metagaming (after all, what can the evaluation of roleplaying be _but_ metagaming), its hard for me to think but that objecting to metagaming in it is somewhat blowing hot and cold.

Yes, IME Conviction is mostly spent to reduce damage.

I just wanted to clarify, because I don't have any in-the-field experience with True20 or Blue Rose per se; the mechanical assumptions I'm making are from reading and extrapolation from M&M, and its always possible there's something I'm missing, but it didn't seem too likely.

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?

There are many possible ones; by "scene" (which is arbitrary still but even handed) or simply give a flat number and have them all reset overnight. I don't think its actually at all accidental that its done the way it is; I think Steve Kenson fundamentally thinks its a good thing, and that it serves good purposes. I just don't happen to agree with him here. But he's in good company, as many games make this sort of assumption. And to be fair, its far less pernicious in something like Hero Points/Conviction than it is in experience.

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.

I don't think this is an issue of trust (though I think its common in this sort of discussion to conflate trust of intentions and trust of judgement, which are very different beasts); its a simple potential for clashing expectations. The GM can be being very straightforward on his part and tell you right up front that he's not seeing the characterization the way you do. Now what? In the end, there's no intrinsic way for that to be resolved if there's a conflict, and this sort of mechanic virtually requires him to make judgement calls on it. I'd just rather that it was a non-issue, so the system didn't essentially say that if you and your GM have a conflict on your characterization, he essentially _has_ to make you pay for it, and that's what this seems to do.

 

[Father of Dragons]

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).


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

FATE would have the same issues that Thomas5251212 is complaining about, in spades, since aspects are arguably FATE's core mechanism. Every time a user invokes or tags an aspect, the GM has to rule if it is appropriate to the situation or not (from the SotC SRD: "The GM is the final arbiter of when an aspect is or is not appropriate"). Every time the GM compels an aspect, they are stating that aspect applies in this situation (and yes, you can pay a fate point to ignore the compel, but that's still a penalty).

Mind you, I don't have a problem with all of this, but as far as I can figure, Thomas5251212 seems to be assuming a more adversarial relationship between the players and the GM then at least some games assume.

 

[Thomas5251212]

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.

Yes. There's no intrinsic reason that sort of thing has to turn on the rather subjective calls of characterization.

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).

I suspect unless you had fairly fast levelling, that'd be rather slow; the D20 Modern action points don't seem as central as Hero Points/Conviction are.

 

[Thomas5251212]

FATE would have the same issues that Thomas5251212 is complaining about, in spades, since aspects are arguably FATE's core mechanism. Every time a user invokes or tags an aspect, the GM has to rule if it is appropriate to the situation or not (from the SotC SRD: "The GM is the final arbiter of when an aspect is or is not appropriate"). Every time the GM compels an aspect, they are stating that aspect applies in this situation (and yes, you can pay a fate point to ignore the compel, but that's still a penalty).

Mind you, I don't have a problem with all of this, but as far as I can figure, Thomas5251212 seems to be assuming a more adversarial relationship between the players and the GM then at least some games assume.

Its not _quite_ the same thing, but there may be parallels; as I understand the FATE mechanism, its aspects are broad character traits that include ability and skill-like functions; since its rather vague and subjective, I do think there's some problems there, but they aren't quite the same issue as with purely roleplaying issues.

And while arguably I do assume a higher potential adversarial likelyhood than some (because I think its much more common than some people seem to consider it to be), it doesn't have to be adversarial to be a problem; the kicker is that even people _trying_ to cooperate can have problems here as long as there's an unresolved disconnect between the player and the GM on characterization, and it isn't hard for that to happen.

 

[Hjorimir]

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.

Two years experience has taught you that a dying condition is instantly a dead condition?

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.

What about a game where a single die roll can kill a character? Like a failed Fortitude save from Slay Living in D&D? That game doesn't assume Action Points at all.

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

But you also said, "Treasure is normally a non-issue, since who among a group gets treasure is not normally in the GM's bailiwick..." My point is that he doesn't even have to load treasure to favor a certain character to be manipulating events as he also has the option of just not dishing out treasure to anybody at all.

If it is okay for GMs to determine what kinds of encounters to send, when to provide treasure, and what the weather is like, why is the awarding of Conviction any different? You seem to think there is some great difference, but there isn't.

Heck, a GM could - if they wished to - ramp up an encounter to make it more challenging because of how many Conviction points were available to the group and you'd never know about it.

All encounters are relative to the GMs desires at any given point, irrespective of any game system.

 

[buzz]

FATE would have the same issues that Thomas5251212 is complaining about, in spades, since aspects are arguably FATE's core mechanism. Every time a user invokes or tags an aspect, the GM has to rule if it is appropriate to the situation or not (from the SotC SRD: "The GM is the final arbiter of when an aspect is or is not appropriate"). Every time the GM compels an aspect, they are stating that aspect applies in this situation (and yes, you can pay a fate point to ignore the compel, but that's still a penalty).

It's definitely true that there can be issues if the player and GM are not on the same page about what an Aspect means. However, players and GMs are on more equal footing in FATE, and new meanings for Aspects are often (typically) discovered mid-play. Again, the overt-ness helps to mitigate conceptual discrepancies.

Ergo, I think it could be helpful to be explicit about when an Virtue or Vice is being "invoked" or "compelled." E.g., if I specifically make my PC's life harder by choosing to act in accordance with either, I should be able to flag that I am doing so and have the GM stop and make the call whether it's Conviction-worthy. Likewise, allow the GM to offer up a Conviction point if they want to use a Virtue/Vice to my PC's detriment.

 

[Father of Dragons]

And while arguably I do assume a higher potential adversarial likelyhood than some (because I think its much more common than some people seem to consider it to be), it doesn't have to be adversarial to be a problem; the kicker is that even people _trying_ to cooperate can have problems here as long as there's an unresolved disconnect between the player and the GM on characterization, and it isn't hard for that to happen.

Given that the GM represents the entire game universe, unless just about everything is reduced to die rolls, they are going to have to make large amounts of judgement calls about how the character's actions are going to be interpreted and reacted to, anyway. There are some players and GMs out there that seem to believe an absolutely mechanical system where everything is solved by rolling dice or some other completely impartial mechanism would be the perfect RPG (IE, like a computer game). I happen to like the quirks of a game run by an actual human being. Nature (virtues and vices) is just one more such judgement call. The unavoidable differences of opinion involving these calls, are, in my opinion, just one of the costs of having a real live person run the game. And sometimes, one of the charms.

And life is too short by far to play with people I don't trust.

 

[Hjorimir]

Its not _quite_ the same thing, but there may be parallels; as I understand the FATE mechanism, its aspects are broad character traits that include ability and skill-like functions; since its rather vague and subjective, I do think there's some problems there, but they aren't quite the same issue as with purely roleplaying issues.

And while arguably I do assume a higher potential adversarial likelyhood than some (because I think its much more common than some people seem to consider it to be), it doesn't have to be adversarial to be a problem; the kicker is that even people _trying_ to cooperate can have problems here as long as there's an unresolved disconnect between the player and the GM on characterization, and it isn't hard for that to happen.

If FATE states, "The GM is the final arbiter of when an aspect is or is not appropriate" how is that not totally up to the whim of the GM? This is even more powerful, actually, than what we're discussing here. As I understand it, to deny the use of an aspect is to deny a characters ability to do anything (if I'm correct that aspects roughly equate to skills).

 

[Hjorimir]

And life is too short by far to play with people I don't trust.

Agreed.

 

[Father of Dragons]

It's definitely true that there can be issues if the player and GM are not on the same page about what an Aspect means. However, players and GMs are on more equal footing in FATE, and new meanings for Aspects are often (typically) discovered mid-play. Again, the overt-ness helps to mitigate conceptual discrepancies.

As far as I can tell, FATE does nothing to reduce the power of the GM -- it simply makes it a bit more obvious if they are being arbitrary. That said, SotC has really excellent advice for the GM.

Ergo, I think it could be helpful to be explicit about when an Virtue or Vice is being "invoked" or "compelled." E.g., if I specifically make my PC's life harder by choosing to act in accordance with either, I should be able to flag that I am doing so and have the GM stop and make the call whether it's Conviction-worthy. Likewise, allow the GM to offer up a Conviction point if they want to use a Virtue/Vice to my PC's detriment.

Now this would be a very good thing for True20 to borrow from FATE -- the current rules for nature are more vague than I would like, and this is a good clean approach.