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: 9866860" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is one approach. It's not the only possible approach even with mainstream ways of playing D&D. And of course there are RPGs that expressly preclude this approach: for instance, the player in Burning Wheel does have a right to a roll (as per the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".This shows us that dice can serve other purposes than permitting the GM to disclaim decision-making. They can shape how the fiction unfolds, by helping shape the parameters of who gets to say what.Personally, I think it unduly narrows the range of FRPGing if PCs' emotions are only ever affected by witches and magicians and the supernatural. And in RPGing that is not FRPGing there are no fear or charm spells, but it might still make sense for PCs to be frightened or smitten.That leaves it open how those sorts of effects are to be brought about, in game play terms. I've played RPGs with a lot of different approaches.(And I do think it's more helpful to focus on the approach taken in a particular game than on "what makes for good RPGing". Not every RPG needs to be the same, any more than every boardgame or card game needs to be the same.)When I used to GM a lot of Rolemaster, with a very stable, long-term group, if a player thought that a particular event would upset or emotionally disturb their PC, they would call for a roll on the Depression Crit table, to determine that effect. Sometimes I, as GM, would suggest that such a roll was appropriate. The other players might also express a view. And it was considered pretty poor play to portray your PC as deeply invested in something (say, a relationship with a NPC) but then to ignore that if something terrible happened (say, the NPC was killed).When we were playing Classic Traveller more recently, the players took it as given that a low INT on a character affected how they should portray that character. Traveller doesn't use a skill + attribute resolution system of the modern D&D sort, so (unlike in, say, 4e D&D) the INT was not just a modifier to a skill bonus that factored into a robust mechanical resolution framework. It was taken to be a descriptor that the player was expected to honour in their play of the character.Classic Traveller also has PC-affecting morale rules. These only came into play once or twice in our game, but when they did no one complained. They accepted that this is a part of the game's rules, and went along with it.I don't really follow the sentiment expressed here. I don't normally find players playing their PCs - which includes portraying their emotional and intellectual life - boring.Here are some examplex from actual play:That wasn't boring. It was pretty engaging, and at the key moment, when Fea-bella might have some horrible memory of her parentage, quite intense.Your reference to "play-acting" seems to be intended disparagingly, but I don't really feel its force. All depiction of character in RPGs is play-acting, in the sense that these characters aren't real and we're all pretending, and making it up as we go along. But if you mean something like Telemere's player isn't really angered by having to deal with Lareth who is friends with his hated brother, well that's not quite correct. He is definitely discomforted by it, because - playing his character - he would rather be honest about his feelings towards his brother, and not have to go along with Lareth. And when he fails the roll, and I tell him that Telemere is Angry, he's angry too! Or at least a bit put out: he would have preferred to succeed on the roll, and he has an emotional response to his failure.If a system of social mechanics is producing outcomes that don't follow from the prior fiction, or that don't seem to fit within the unfolding fiction, to me that shows that the systems is a poor one. But there are non-poor systems of social mechanics out there in the universe of RPGs!I think this is another case of different RPGs taking different approaches.In the Prince Valilant RPG, which is one of my favourite, there is a concept of Special Effects: the GM can assign these to significant NPCs as part of their scenario planning; and the players get access to them by being awarded "Storyteller Certificates" by the GM, for good/engaging/compelling play. Here is one Special Effect:INCITE LUST This Special Effect makes one character’s primary thoughts turn to lust for another character of the opposite sex. The user of the Special Effect may select any two characters, even Adventurers, as the lustful party and as the object of desire. The emotion is permanent. The current Storyteller will have to make a ruling as to how the lustful character behaves. If the lustful character is an Adventurer, the controlling player decides how lust affects his character. A Storyteller may veto the controlling player’s wishes only if the intended behavior is unrealistic. If this Special Effect is used to permit one character to dominate another, common sense and logic should be used. The character will not jump off a cliff for the object of his lust, nor will he necessarily wish to marry her. This can be a cruel Special Effect to use, especially if the object of lust is unattainable.The middle paragraph is pretty important: if the affected character is a PC ("Adventurer", in the terminology of the game) then that PC's player gets to decide how their character behaves. But they are expected to incorporate the dictated emotion into their play.I've used this affect in play:It subsequently turned out that, rather than just a token, Elizabeth herself came to join her husband on his knightly travels. Naturally various hijinks ensued.</blockquote>

Verification