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

[Thomas5251212]

If you should always have Conviction to spend on Toughenss, which is what you're insinuating here, why even have the roll? It's like you think PCs should be in no danger when in combat. That sounds pretty boring to me.

If you don't understand the difference between having some fallback and having none, I don't know what to tell you.

Imbue Life is pretty trivial as well (even moreso in that it doesn't require an expensive component).

And in games where that's available, death is less an issue. Not all Tr20 games are set where that's an option, you know.

I did read the entire paragraph, instead of chopping it apart as you've done here. If you're going to break from the common parlance the loss of communication is your fault, not mine.

Obviously you didn't, or you wouldn't have ignored that last clause, but by all means pass the buck here.

Yeah, you missed the point that there were other ways for the GM to arbitrarily effect how powerful the characters are at any given time. To argue the Conviction system is bad because it can influence a character's power is pointless if you're not addressing every other means by which the GM does just that.

Once more: I don't care how he's influencing their power: I care about the fact there's a cause and effect issue on their characterization on a _metagame level_ doing it. I think that's a bad idea, and frankly, nothing a GM should be doing. If you don't, you don't.

In the same manner, it makes no difference from where the GM's power turns. To ignore the other means in which a GM can decide how things for for a PC is tantamount to putting your head in the sand.

Except I don't care about any of those, because they aren't there for no reason but to influence how a character is characterized. If that putting my head in the sand, fine.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Yes, Conviction influences the player to stay true to the character's conviction; you say that like it is a bad thing. It would only be a hammer if the system

Because I consider anything that in a metagame manner allows a GM to try and punish or reward someone for characterization a bad thing. Is that clear enough?

instruced the Narrator to remove conviction points when he feels the player character is going against his nature, which it doesn't. The only tangents I've commented on were those of your own creation. Your statement is ridiculous and you know it.

The fact you think it is is your problem, not mine. If you don't like that, then you don't like my position. Since as far as I can tell, your attitude on this is exactly the one I dislike, I'm crying a river over the fact you don't like it.

 

[Father of Dragons]

Even in their case, they're still restrained to some extent by the nature of what they want to do; unless the GM is _actively_ trying to be obnoxious, the fact that you ticked off the goblin doesn't make it any more dangerous.

Edit: And perhaps more to the point, it doesn't tell the player what his characterization is or should be; it just tells him how I've judged others will react to the characterization as I see it. Its more about how I see the NPCs than how I see the PC, and how I see the NPCs is my job. How the PC is is _his_ job.

I don't really think things can be separated out so neatly. After all, (aside from when using pre-generated characters), the player chose the virtue and vice for their PC. Presumably they had some view of what they meant for the character. If both the GM and the player make a good faith effort to stay on the same page (and the GM allows themselves to be guided by the player's opinion to a reasonable extent), then the GM is just giving mechanical confirmation of something the player set up.

Well, of course it is. I simply don't see any benign effect from extending it that way, as I consider most of the areas where a GM has to do that a necessary evil of the cooperative process. It _isn't_ necessary here, so why add to that evil?

This might be the core of our disagreement here: I don't see those as necessary evils, but merely as part of a continuum of possible interaction styles. Sometimes one end of things is fun, and sometimes another. But I like variety.

 

[Hjorimir]

If you don't understand the difference between having some fallback and having none, I don't know what to tell you.

If you don't understand that if you always have a fallback that there's no real risk, I don't know what to tell you either.

And in games where that's available, death is less an issue. Not all Tr20 games are set where that's an option, you know.

Imbue Life is no more optional than Raise Dead is; they're both a part of the core rules.

Obviously you didn't, or you wouldn't have ignored that last clause, but by all means pass the buck here.[/QUEST]
It is your buck, after all.

Once more: I don't care how he's influencing their power: I care about the fact there's a cause and effect issue on their characterization on a _metagame level_ doing it. I think that's a bad idea, and frankly, nothing a GM should be doing. If you don't, you don't.

Yeah, I don't think it's a bad idea.

Except I don't care about any of those, because they aren't there for no reason but to influence how a character is characterized. If that putting my head in the sand, fine.

Not for no reason, but whatever.

 

[Hjorimir]

Because I consider anything that in a metagame manner allows a GM to try and punish or reward someone for characterization a bad thing. Is that clear enough?

At least you've included the possibility that we are, in fact, talking about a reward.

The fact you think it is is your problem, not mine. If you don't like that, then you don't like my position. Since as far as I can tell, your attitude on this is exactly the one I dislike, I'm crying a river over the fact you don't like it.

It isn't a problem, just an observation: your statement about tangets in an attempt to make your position appear stronger was ridiculous. You don't need to cry, Thomas, we're just jawing and I think you're taking this too personal.

 

[Thomas5251212]

I don't really think things can be separated out so neatly. After all, (aside from when using pre-generated characters), the player chose the virtue and vice for their PC. Presumably they had some view of what they meant for the character. If both the

Doesn't mean that that understanding is the same as the GMs.

GM and the player make a good faith effort to stay on the same page (and the GM allows themselves to be guided by the player's opinion to a reasonable extent), then the GM is just giving mechanical confirmation of something the player set up.

I just consider that a massive assumption; that even with good faith they'll manage to. And the problem is that the player has _had_ to set this up; its essentially a systemic requirement. If that wasn't the case, it'd be a non-issue.

This might be the core of our disagreement here: I don't see those as necessary evils, but merely as part of a continuum of possible interaction styles. Sometimes one end of things is fun, and sometimes another. But I like variety.

I didn't mind it years ago either, but over the years I've seen little I thought good come from it, and quite a bit bad. Thus, my attitude.

 

[Thomas5251212]

At least you've included the possibility that we are, in fact, talking about a reward.

Only because I don't consider there to be a meaningful distinction, and fighting about it is a red herring.

It isn't a problem, just an observation: your statement about tangets in an attempt to make your position appear stronger was ridiculous. You don't need to cry, Thomas, we're just jawing and I think you're taking this too personal.

Perhaps you should look to your own language, including the above snipe and reassess that. The tangents reference was the fact you were pursuing minor side issues like they were core to my argument. If you don't see why I tried to sweep that out of the way, that's your deal.

 

[Thomas5251212]

If you don't understand that if you always have a fallback that there's no real risk, I don't know what to tell you either.

Don't recall ever saying always, but by all means put words in my mouth.

Imbue Life is no more optional than Raise Dead is; they're both a part of the core rules.

And of course the vast majority of Tr20 games will have it, fantasy or not. Right.

Yeah, I don't think it's a bad idea.

And I do. What is it you'd like?

Not for no reason, but whatever.

Since I've yet to see anyone explain one, "whatever" indeed.

 

[Father of Dragons]

Doesn't mean that that understanding is the same as the GMs.

Well, I don't think tabletop RPGs are workable without a fair bit of communication, anyway. Mind you, I could see an argument that since human beings are not, in general, very good at communication in the first place, adding anything else to communicate is perhaps an unnecessary and undesirable risk.

I just consider that a massive assumption; that even with good faith they'll manage to. And the problem is that the player has _had_ to set this up; its essentially a systemic requirement. If that wasn't the case, it'd be a non-issue.

It might be an interesting idea to sort of borrow an idea from some of the FATE-based games under development (Dreden FIles and Far West -- developer's blogs are a wonderful thing) that allow you to trade fate point refresh rate for extra stunts (basically, skill specializations). I wonder how it'd work out if you allowed a character to dispense with their nature (virtue and vice) in order to increase their refresh rate for conviction from one point per day to two points per day? They'd be giving up the chance to obtain conviction in mid-adventure, but they would not have the issue you find with the mechanism.

I didn't mind it years ago either, but over the years I've seen little I thought good come from it, and quite a bit bad. Thus, my attitude.

I think my experiences just must have been very different than yours. But I do find your viewpoint very interesting, and this conversation has given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

 

[Hjorimir]

Only because I don't consider there to be a meaningful distinction, and fighting about it is a red herring.

Well, it's an opinion!

Perhaps you should look to your own language, including the above snipe and reassess that. The tangents reference was the fact you were pursuing minor side issues like they were core to my argument. If you don't see why I tried to sweep that out of the way, that's your deal.

Things I discussed are not a tangent because they were germane to the topic at hand.

Tangent: off on or at a tangent, digressing suddenly from one course of action or thought and turning to another: The speaker flew off on a tangent.

I never did any of that. If, for example, I started talking about FATE and what a great game it was because somebody used it as an example, then I'd be off on a tanget. But that didn't happen. Your entire point of saying that I was off on tangents was nothing more than a "clever" way of saying I don't have a firm position and had no place in the conversation.

You've been around since 2005, so I'd think that here at ENWorld the idea is that if you want to disagree attack the position, not the person.