Arturius

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:23 am

Remember, all you have control over at the table is a bunch of ink on processed tree. The degree of min-maxing is determined by the social contract, which includes things from the DM not paying for pizza, to whether your vampires are emo, and even whether you talk in or out of character. The problem with this is that every group, or even every campaign, will develop an implicit social contract, and if you want to change behavior at the table, you need to change something in the book. The way we prefer is to set it into the rules, so that even if you get a single person who min-maxes, either because he is unaware that that is not expected or because he is a jerk, you still get something like the ideal situation. The other ways are to write it into all the fluff or to put it into the introduction, which will help to form an assumed social contract.

Honestly, whether you want to write for the min-maxers or not, they are out there, and they may play your game. If there's one guy who will ambush if it helps at a table of people who are your ideal roleplayers, he will ruin the experience for them if ambushing helps. If your game encourages him to do that, you have just ruined the game for the other four people at that table. Congratulations.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:44 am

No, what has ruined the game for the other four is having someone who will min-max whether or not it is appropriate and regardless of what the others feel.

Does a game in the Star Wars universe need to make it so that using the Dark Side is weaker to make people prefer playing nonDark Siders?

I do not want to design or play a game in which the reason to do the right thing is that it is a better option whether it makes sense for it to be more efficient or not.

It doesn't encourage being a hero, it encourages mimicing one.

Since I'm not trying to set this up for the widest possible audiance - the fact that there will be few people playing it is not a problem.

What is a problem is designing a game about tragedy where crying gives you a +2 bonus to punch people. That doesn't encourage your character having real feelings. That encourages onions.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:31 am

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Elennsar - at least a bit.

Designing a game is very carrot-and-stick. If you want to encourage a playstyle, make it mechanically viable. If you want to discourage certain paths, make them have a cost.

I enjoy playing heroes. However, I also enjoy playing effective characters. Now, the two are not mutually exclusive, but if I am to enjoy playing a hero, I need to have a decent chance of success at any given task (unless it's made clear that I shouldn't).

Here's an example. 7th Sea has about 8 different skills that are used for defense based on what you're doing when you're attacked. If you're standing solidly upon the ground, use Footwork. If you're swinging on a chandalier, use Swinging. If you're rolling across the bar, use...you guessed it...Rolling.

This appears logical at a glance, but in fact it punishes swashbucklers for doing swashbuckley things. If I have to keep up eight separate skills in order to dance around like Errol Flynn, I'll ignore 6 of them and limit my combats because it would be insane to do otherwise. The game mechanics actively discourage swinging from chandeliers, balancing on railings, leaping from table to table - you know, swashbuckler stuff - and, as consequence, it's a swashbuckling game where everyone forms two lines and whales away at each other - because you are punished for swashbuckling.

If your players want to do heroic stuff, they will - as long as it's somewhat viable. If it's not viable, they won't do it. Therefore, the mechanics need to make it viable.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:44 am

If your players want to do heroic stuff, they will - as long as it's somewhat viable. If it's not viable, they won't do it. Therefore, the mechanics need to make it viable.

There's viable and then there's viable.

Personally, I would be upset by any game that did what you just said - if I'm supposed to ride in charging, it ought to be capable of working. Having to buy eight skills to do that is nuts - lance (or something) and ride should be fine.

But making it so that being "brave" is safer than being "prudent" would also be nuts.

In other words:

Talisman wrote: I enjoy playing heroes. However, I also enjoy playing effective characters. Now, the two are not mutually exclusive, but if I am to enjoy playing a hero, I need to have a decent chance of success at any given task (unless it's made clear that I shouldn't).

My feelings:

If I'm playing a hero, I need to have a decent chance of success when I'm supposed to be doing something where my character should have a decent chance of success (In 7th Sea, swinging from a chandalier), and I shouldn't insist that being heroic is more likely to have one than not.

Otherwise, there's never any reason to answer "Will you do something morally dubious but effective?" as "Yes." because there is no such thing. And if that question is inevitably answered with "No." because its impractical, it makes it damned hard to see why anyone isn't being heroic.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:42 am

Elennsar wrote:There's a reason that ambushing is frowned on and regarded as a Bad Thing, and it isn't that you get -5 to hit when ambushing.

You don't get a -5 to hit from ambushing. Troops get a -5 morale penalty from being led by a coward who ambushes people and sulks around in the night. You refrain from ambushing because it will make your troops loose respect for you and fight less well because of it.

Doing heroic things helps your side of the combat, because it inspires troops. But it also puts you in personal danger. It's risky, heroic and it helps you win.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:02 am

You don't get a -5 to hit from ambushing. Troops get a -5 morale penalty from being led by a coward who ambushes people and sulks around in the night. You refrain from ambushing because it will make your troops loose respect for you and fight less well because of it.

While I don't think that's a bad idea in its own right - I don't want to set things up so that the reason not ambush someone is because it is less effective.

Again, this is about people who say "There's a right thing to do, and it is worth doing."

Having heroism capable of working so that the risk can pay off is one thing. I do not want a game where being heroic is better strategy than being nonheroic.

Maybe being heroic will make a difference - its certainly easier to inspire troops by doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZWAmsdG ... re=related (4 minutes in) then by staying well behind the lines, but I doubt Hancock actually thought his men vitally needed his presence or they would run like rabbits.

No, Hancock ("There are times when a corps commander's life does not count.") did it because he was that kind of leader.

That makes him heroic.

Sometimes, that makes a (vital) difference. Sometimes...not.

Garnett insisting on riding in that charge (one of perhaps a dozen men, counting Pickett and his aides behind the lines - as was proper, incidently) was not because his men needed it and to be entirely honest I'm not sure it mattered to his reputation - but it was a damn brave thing to do.

Armistead putting his hat on his sword and literally leading from the front of his brigade was brave.

Should that be effective? Probably. Should it be necessary? No.

If you want to emulate one of those three men, then do so.

Maybe it'll inspire your troops. Maybe it'll get you hurt or killed. Maybe both.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:25 pm

Grek wrote:Roy: That isn't helping. You have good points, but the tone you are using to express them is going to make Elennsar unwilling to listen to you.

Grek, perhaps you don't know Elennsar very well, but he is a serial troll, who burned out one forum completely and is moving on to this one. And that's just what I know about. Any and every tone is going to make 'Elennsar unwilling to listen to me' because Elennsar is only interested in failing the Turing test by bouncing back some illogical bullshit at whoever is talking to him, running about in circles like a drunken chicken, and generally spamming the boards with Epic Fucking Fail. However, smiting him ensures that others will not fall victim to his stupidity. It's also quite entertaining.

Edit: Take the above Epic Fail for example. Players will do whatever the system encourages them to do. If it's a system about death scene wankfests, guess what? Anyone who doesn't want to die is going to start looking into ways to not die. They're going to ignore some idealistic useless babbling in favor of ambushing to get those first strikes that are essential in Rocket Tag systems. They're going to make their characters as strong as possible to minimize the inevitable death rate. They are not going to get attached to these characters. They are going to open every fight with their best rocket, because that's how you deal with such things. They are going to solve as many problems as possible via not fighting, be it talking, sneaking around, diverting rivers to drown them all...

And most importantly, if some little twit comes up to them and babbles on that 'the right thing to do' is the incredibly stupid thing from an IC standpoint and the incredibly stupid and pointless thing from an OOC standpoint both player and character are going to tell the twit to fuck off and go get raped by a centaur.

Tshern · Post by **Tshern** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:53 pm

Elennsar wrote:Blowing up the Death Star with them on it and not facing Vader for a long shot chance at redeeming him would probably have been easier.

There was no long shot chance there, Luke knew he sensed the light side in Vader. And, as with the first Death Star, the chances of blowing the newly built Death Star up were remote. Very remote. Unlike turning Vader away from the dark side.

Killing Palpatine would have been easier by ramming his lightsaber through him than hoping dad would (re)turn to the Light and throw him.

Have you read the books or seen the movie? Luke indeed tried to do that, but what happened? Did Vader perhaps interrupt?

Luke seems to have felt "trying to redeem Dad" was a higher priority than "easiest method of removing him from the enemy's team".

Not least because no-one but the Emperor actually had a chance to kill Vader. Not least because he had more midi-chlorians than anyone has ever had even after his 'death' and acquiring the cyborg body.

Anyway, let's leave this out of the thread. The point was your example was a bad one.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:02 pm

Elennsar wrote:
You don't get a -5 to hit from ambushing. Troops get a -5 morale penalty from being led by a coward who ambushes people and sulks around in the night. You refrain from ambushing because it will make your troops loose respect for you and fight less well because of it.
While I don't think that's a bad idea in its own right - I don't want to set things up so that the reason not ambush someone is because it is less effective.

Again, this is about people who say "There's a right thing to do, and it is worth doing."

You've already gone way beyond that in your demands, you want them to say "it is worth doing this way."
Case in point: Ambush vs. straight fight, the "right thing to do" is attack and defeat the enemy, this is "worth doing". what about the scenario and/or the rules will make it worth doing in the non "cowardly" fashion?

Having heroism capable of working so that the risk can pay off is one thing. I do not want a game where being heroic is better strategy than being nonheroic.

define "better" because if the High-Risk option doesn't have a better chance of success then it isn't heroic, just suicidal. And let me assure you that I don't mean survival by sucess, If your side wins the fight, but you die, I would call that a sucess in this context.

Maybe being heroic will make a difference - its certainly easier to inspire troops by doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZWAmsdG ... re=related (4 minutes in) then by staying well behind the lines, but I doubt Hancock actually thought his men vitally needed his presence or they would run like rabbits.

No, Hancock ("There are times when a corps commander's life does not count.") did it because he was that kind of leader.

no, he did it because he was consistant, and had foresight. yes his men probably wouldn't have turned and ran if he had sat this one out, but if he never did anything like that then it would've had effects (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) in everybattle he was ever in.

That makes him heroic.

Sometimes, that makes a (vital) difference. Sometimes...not.

anything different makes a difference, the question is, Is it for the better? and Is it worth counting?

Garnett insisting on riding in that charge (one of perhaps a dozen men, counting Pickett and his aides behind the lines - as was proper, incidently) was not because his men needed it and to be entirely honest I'm not sure it mattered to his reputation - but it was a damn brave thing to do.

no, that one probably wouldn't have mattered to his reputation, although, ont the other hand, if a man with reputation for bravery backs down and things end in disaster for those who go without him, it creates the appearance that he knew something he wasn't telling everyone

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:58 pm

Tshern: Do you mind discussing this somewhere else then? There are a couple points I still want to raise there.

You've already gone way beyond that in your demands, you want them to say "it is worth doing this way."
Case in point: Ambush vs. straight fight, the "right thing to do" is attack and defeat the enemy, this is "worth doing". what about the scenario and/or the rules will make it worth doing in the non "cowardly" fashion?

Well, there's the fact that being morally right is better than being morally wrong perhaps?

The right thing to do is to straight fight. Because there is something shameful and unworthy about being cowardly whether it is -X to anything or not.

define "better" because if the High-Risk option doesn't have a better chance of success then it isn't heroic, just suicidal. And let me assure you that I don't mean survival by sucess, If your side wins the fight, but you die, I would call that a sucess in this context.

And let me assure you that you are fundementally incapable or unwilling to imagine that someone would do something heroic because it is the right thing to do even if it does get them killed for "nothing". No, someone has to be assured that their action will produce a better outcome, because otherwise they're throwing their life away.

Do you insist that you know if your attack roll will hit before making an attack roll?

no, he did it because he was consistant, and had foresight. yes his men probably wouldn't have turned and ran if he had sat this one out, but if he never did anything like that then it would've had effects (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) in everybattle he was ever in.

It seems to have worked just fine for Thomas not to do a "There are times when the life of a corps commander does not count." - his men performed splendidly.

Maybe it would have made a difference. Maybe not. And Hancock had no way to know that it would with absolute, predictable certainty.

anything different makes a difference, the question is, Is it for the better? and Is it worth counting?

It is entirely possible that the only difference in Hancock doing that is that he got shot.

Entirely possible. Do I think that's the case? No. But even with hindsight, I can't say it did more than that. Certainly not with enough confidence to write "+5 to leadership for setting a good example."

no, that one probably wouldn't have mattered to his reputation, although, ont the other hand, if a man with reputation for bravery backs down and things end in disaster for those who go without him, it creates the appearance that he knew something he wasn't telling everyone

Quote: Garnett was in no shape to lead an infantry charge; he was suffering from fever and an injured leg when his horse kicked him and could not walk. But Garnett yearned to settle the record of his military dishonor from Kernstown

During the Valley Campaign of 1862, Garnett's military career took a downward turn at the First Battle of Kernstown in March. Jackson marched his army 40 miles (64 km) to intercept a portion of the Union Army under Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks. On March 23, Jackson's cavalry commander, Col. Turner Ashby, brought faulty intelligence that the retreating Union division of Brig. Gen. James Shields had four regiments in the rear outside Winchester, Virginia. Since that force was of comparable size to Jackson's, he ordered Garnett and the Stonewall Brigade to attack. Unfortunately, Shields had a full infantry division on hand, almost 9,000 men, twice the size of Jackson's force. The attack went badly and Garnett, finding his brigade low on ammunition and surrounded by forces attacking from three sides, ordered a retreat. Jackson was infuriated and accused Garnett of disobeying orders, meaning that he should not have retreated without obtaining permission from Jackson first.

, which the aborted court-martial could not. Despite protestations from other officers, Garnett insisted on leading his soldiers into battle on horseback, becoming a conspicuous target for Union riflemen.

That's the reputation in question.

As for Armistead:

Maybe it did make a difference for Armistead to lead from the front, but insisting that the only reason to do it is that it would be better is missing that plenty of people do those things because they THINK it will be better, or they THINK it is better - even if it doesn't make a difference.

I don't mind if Sir Chivalry's men will follow him into the maw of Hell if he leads by example - hell, they should - but I do mind people only playing Sir Chivalry because he gets +X to leadership.

If you want to play Sir Chivalry, play him. If not, play someone else. Maybe even play something else.

People do things because they think it is worth doing - "Damn the torpedoes." wasn't said because Farragut had intelligence telling him the torpedoes were duds. (As it turns out, they were)

I can say that actions that are supposed to make a difference, will.

Sometimes, it will tip the balance. Sometimes. If you really want to play Sir Chivalry, you're going to have to find out at that particular time, after making the decision, if it was one of those times.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:23 am

Elennsar wrote:
define "better" because if the High-Risk option doesn't have a better chance of success then it isn't heroic, just suicidal. And let me assure you that I don't mean survival by sucess, If your side wins the fight, but you die, I would call that a sucess in this context.
And let me assure you that you are fundementally incapable or unwilling to imagine that someone would do something heroic because it is the right thing to do even if it does get them killed for "nothing". No, someone has to be assured that their action will produce a better outcome, because otherwise they're throwing their life away.
.

wow, truely a supereb display of hollow, meaningless douchbaggary.

I asked you to define "better" specifically to preempt a response similar to this one, similar in that it would open with the same sentence, before continuing in a much more coherant fashion.

I have no fucking idea how you got "someone has to be assured that their action will produce a better outcome" out of "better chance of success" infact I doubt you even read my post, you just chopped it up in the quote tags and then filled your reply spaces with a mass of fistshaking giant frogs.

I made quite clear that I'm perfectly fine with my character "something heroic because it is the right thing to do" if it actuall is the right thing to do. what I am "fundementally incapable or unwilling to imagine" is a character who voluntarily reduces his chance of successfully doing "the right thing" so that he can look cool.
I'm fine with dying to hold the line at thermopylae, I'm not ok with tearing off my armor, throwing down my shield and weapons, and charging the persians unarmed, naked, and alone because it would be "cowardly" to hide behind a shield and my comrades while killing the enemy from 5+ feet away with a spear.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:15 am

I have no fucking idea how you got "someone has to be assured that their action will produce a better outcome" out of "better chance of success" infact I doubt you even read my post, you just chopped it up in the quote tags and then filled your reply spaces with a mass of fistshaking giant frogs.

Bold is mine, as for how:
The part where you want to be told that (for instance) taking a spear for someone will have an impact for the better on your side winning, and the fact you give no indication that you would ICly do it for any other reason. No, you want to have "self sacrifice: +5 (or whatever) to rolls."

Again, if you don't have that problem, then I appologize, but that's the tone I get from reading - being brave and noble isn't enough, you want to be able to count on it working in your favor.

I made quite clear that I'm perfectly fine with my character "something heroic because it is the right thing to do" if it actuall is the right thing to do. what I am "fundementally incapable or unwilling to imagine" is a character who voluntarily reduces his chance of successfully doing "the right thing" so that he can look cool.
I'm fine with dying to hold the line at thermopylae, I'm not ok with tearing off my armor, throwing down my shield and weapons, and charging the persians unarmed, naked, and alone because it would be "cowardly" to hide behind a shield and my comrades while killing the enemy from 5+ feet away with a spear.

Going berserk vs. fighting in formation is an entirely seperate matter from it being cowardly to attack from ambush.

Is there necessarily a better chance of success if you risk your life to keep the unit's flag out of the enemy's hands? Maybe, maybe not.

Sometimes, taking a spear meant for someone else will make a difference. Are you only going to do that when it will or are you going to be willing to do it ICly for a brother (or sister) in arms even if the difference in winning the fight between you taking the spear and them taking the spear is which one of you took a spear?

To use an example...you have 0% chance of saving a child from a burning building without going into the burning building. You have a chance greater than 0 of saving him if you do and it could hurt you (chance also greater than 0).

If you act sooner, it may be better (more likely to save the child). Your character doesn't know if it will or not.

Is that good enough?

I do not want to design and play in a game where its "suicidal" because it could make no difference.

Now, I think Sir Richard o' the Lea shaming the Prior "...with dignity and noble demeanor" was, indeed, what "a true knight should do."

I'm not sure how it helped him or anyone else, but that was very credible to Sir Richard.

Just mentioning it because I really dislike the idea that knights are in the mold of Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Expected.

I doubt any PCs in this will have a chance to do the same as Sir Richard, but paitence, humility, and a sound brain are good things.

violence in the media · Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:10 pm

For fuck's sake, Elennsar. You sound like you're trying to deny people the very basic ability of assessing the outcomes of situations. You don't want people to act with any intelligence at all, because if there is any calculation involved then it suddenly becomes "not heroic."

Look, people rush into burning buildings to save children in real life because it fucking matters. People only do that sort of shit in games because they think it will lead to more fun and awesome and enjoyment. If people are just going to get smacked with the bat of doom and woe at random when they try to do awesome and heroic things, they're going to get disillusioned and they're going to stop.

Will you please get off your high fucking horse and stop pretending that any actions taken in a game have some sort of meaning, correlation, and comparative value to heroic actions performed in the real world?

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:14 pm

violence in the media wrote:Will you please get off your high fucking horse...

...Centaurs.

And for some reason it randomly fucking deleted a fucking bracket. And here I was thinking 'Ok, who's the dumbass that fucked up their tags this time?'

'...'

'Oh...'

Luckily, I can laugh as hard at my own fuck ups as I can at other people's fuck ups.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:03 am

Roy's quote tag is broken.

For fuck's sake, Elennsar. You sound like you're trying to deny people the very basic ability of assessing the outcomes of situations. You don't want people to act with any intelligence at all, because if there is any calculation involved then it suddenly becomes "not heroic."

No, what becomes "not heroic" is when you only do something if the calculations are favorable - nevermind whether or not it would be good or meaningful, if you're likely to die and it isn't more likely to lead to success, you won't do it.

Some of the time, heroic acts will be more successful or bigger than nonheroic acts.

Sometimes not. And the people who do heroic acts don't decide "Nah, I won't risk my life to save Bob, because Bob being alive is no more important to anything than me being alive."

Look, people rush into burning buildings to save children in real life because it fucking matters. People only do that sort of shit in games because they think it will lead to more fun and awesome and enjoyment. If people are just going to get smacked with the bat of doom and woe at random when they try to do awesome and heroic things, they're going to get disillusioned and they're going to stop.

So much for roleplaying a character who thinks it matters and enjoying roleplaying such a character.

Because for the character, who is the one being smacked with any goddamn bat, it does matter.

If you don't want to play such a character unless it is more better (more fun, more likely to succeed, or both) than someone who doesn't do that, then this game is not for you because it is not meant to grant heroes +5 for being heroic as a given.

Some of the time, you do get (or give) a +5. Some of the time, it does matter. Not all of the time - taking a spear instead of Bob is heroic and awesome but its not likely to make the battle go better that you did.

Will you please get off your high fucking horse and stop pretending that any actions taken in a game have some sort of meaning, correlation, and comparative value to heroic actions performed in the real world?

For the characters, who are the ones doing the heroic acts, they do.

For the players, if you don't want to play someone whose actions sometimes make a difference and sometimes just make them get hurt more and so on, then don't play in this!

Don't risk your feelings and spare time if you don't want to deal with the fact that sometimes the good guys lose despite their sacrifices.

There's a reason I've named "tragedy" as one of the elements in this.

At times, the text in italics will be true. I'd like to make that infrequent - but I do not, under any circumstances, want to eliminate it.

From a discussion with Talisman, this is a fair sum up:

1) Combat is deadly,
2) Aside from minions/mooks, everyone has potential access to the same abilities,
3) Dying =/= unconscious,
4) Heroism is viable,
5) Villainy isn't mechanically inferior,
6) Social interactions are more complex and important that D&D Diplomacy.

All of these are true. Add a certain amount of tragedy and the fact that not all heroic acts are acts that will meaningfully alter anything on their own (heroism, overall, is viable - not necessarily better, but heroes can and do succeed - its just not easy.) and you have a pretty good (if basic) description.

What is not the case regarding heroism being viable is that you are better off for doing a heroic deed than the nonheroic form every time.

It might be easier to win as Lord Dreadly, but Lord Dreadly lacks anyone who is truly loyal to him.

Is that a problem? It can be.

Its harder to win as Sir Chivalry (or more dangerous), but Sir Chivalry has his men willing to follow him to the mouth of Hell.

Is that an asset? It can be - and given what kind of situations will come up, its one worth acquiring.

If that's not enough, then this won't work for you. End of story.

violence in the media · Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:58 am

No, what becomes "not heroic" is when you only do something if the calculations are favorable - nevermind whether or not it would be good or meaningful, if you're likely to die and it isn't more likely to lead to success, you won't do it.

Some of the time, heroic acts will be more successful or bigger than nonheroic acts.

Sometimes not. And the people who do heroic acts don't decide "Nah, I won't risk my life to save Bob, because Bob being alive is no more important to anything than me being alive."

So, is it impossible to play a character in your game that is calculatingly heroic? One that is motivated to heroics because it furthers their own ends? I mean, if everyone thinks you're an awesome hero, that gives you a lot of social capital, right? What if such a character angled to be the "noblest knight" and then somehow got the Dux killed off so that they could be in charge? Would that ruin your game? Would you pick up your toys and go home if a player did that in your game?

Answer me this: Why do you expect a player to sacrifice their character to save an NPC if it doesn't matter whether or not that NPC survives? If the player can't perceive some purpose to doing such a thing, why do you insist on it? Can you provide a rational answer?

So much for roleplaying a character who thinks it matters and enjoying roleplaying such a character.

Because for the character, who is the one being smacked with any goddamn bat, it does matter.

If you don't want to play such a character unless it is more better (more fun, more likely to succeed, or both) than someone who doesn't do that, then this game is not for you because it is not meant to grant heroes +5 for being heroic as a given.

Some of the time, you do get (or give) a +5. Some of the time, it does matter. Not all of the time - taking a spear instead of Bob is heroic and awesome but its not likely to make the battle go better that you did.

For the characters, who are the ones doing the heroic acts, they do.

For the players, if you don't want to play someone whose actions sometimes make a difference and sometimes just make them get hurt more and so on, then don't play in this!

Don't risk your feelings and spare time if you don't want to deal with the fact that sometimes the good guys lose despite their sacrifices.

There's a reason I've named "tragedy" as one of the elements in this.

Why? Why do you have such a burning desire to enforce tragedy in this game? I mean, you even want people who play this game perfectly to have a chance of things going horribly wrong. I've read the message boards about your Sword of the Samurai game. Like any video game, there are people who found it trivially easy or figured out how to game its system. In short, even your perfect example gives people the ability to trivialize all challenge if they do everything correctly.

And it's not my feelings that are at risk here, it's yours. You're the one who got bent out of shape when it was pointed out that people in your game are not going to become attached to their characters. You were the one who was insulted when it was pointed out that people are going to treat them as expendable resources. You were the one who essentially said players were assholes if they don't conform to your vision.

Again, if you actually play with humans, you have a very specific (and likely, small) group of people in mind that you're designing this for. If I'm mistaken and you intend to run this at conventions or something with random people, then your sensibilities are going to get raped like a child molester in general population.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:30 am

Answer me this: Why do you expect a player to sacrifice their character to save an NPC if it doesn't matter whether or not that NPC survives? If the player can't perceive some purpose to doing such a thing, why do you insist on it? Can you provide a rational answer?

I expect people who are playing heroes to do heroic things. I expect people who aren't willing to risk their lives for others unless there's "good reason" to even give the time of day to Bob.

Why? Why do you have such a burning desire to enforce tragedy in this game? I mean, you even want people who play this game perfectly to have a chance of things going horribly wrong. I've read the message boards about your Sword of the Samurai game. Like any video game, there are people who found it trivially easy or figured out how to game its system. In short, even your perfect example gives people the ability to trivialize all challenge if they do everything correctly.

Because I find Washington crossing the Delaware to be fucking awesome and Jerry outwitting Tom to be fucking boring, that's why.

As for perfect example - it isn't a perfect example. Its an example of a game that has what I want as someone who's a reasonably good player.

And it's not my feelings that are at risk here, it's yours. You're the one who got bent out of shape when it was pointed out that people in your game are not going to become attached to their characters. You were the one who was insulted when it was pointed out that people are going to treat them as expendable resources. You were the one who essentially said players were assholes if they don't conform to your vision.

Because players who are determined to game any system for maximum benefit and fuck roleplaying in a goddamn roleplaying game are assholes.

Again, if you actually play with humans, you have a very specific (and likely, small) group of people in mind that you're designing this for. If I'm mistaken and you intend to run this at conventions or something with random people, then your sensibilities are going to get raped like a child molester in general population.

I'm not intending to run this at conventions or with random people. I'm designing it for people who want to play this sort of thing, tragedy and all.

If you are that kind of person, your help and advice will be appreciated.

If you're not that kind of person, then this game isn't for you and I'm not trying to sell it to you.

It doesn't add anything to anything for me to have more people playing when those people are determined to game the system for all it is worth and who are more concerned with the answer to "Can I become the Dux king?" then playing a "mere" knight.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:54 am

Elennsar, you're trying to make something that exists on two levels.

On one level, you have a story about heros defending against barbarans heroically, with bravery beyond that call of duty and self sacrifice and sometimes dieing for their homeland. It's supposed to be interactive: the players choose what happens, to some degree.

On the other level, you have a game with plastic fighting men beating eachother up and lots of dice rolls. This is supposed to be a fun way to generate results for the story aspect. It also involves player choice, as that is how the players interact with the story aspect.

This produces a conflict of intrests in the players. On one hand, they want a good story. On the other, they want a good game. If we are not careful in designing the game, then what is good for the story will not be what is good for the game. And we don't want that, because the alternatives are for the players to be disappointed with the story disappointed with the game, totally scraping the story aspect to play hack and slash on the barbarians or scraping the game aspect and just telling stories.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:11 am

Grek wrote:Elennsar, you're trying to make something that exists on two levels.

On one level, you have a story about heros defending against barbarans heroically, with bravery beyond that call of duty and self sacrifice and sometimes dieing for their homeland. It's supposed to be interactive: the players choose what happens, to some degree.

On the other level, you have a game with plastic fighting men beating eachother up and lots of dice rolls. This is supposed to be a fun way to generate results for the story aspect. It also involves player choice, as that is how the players interact with the story aspect.

This produces a conflict of intrests in the players. On one hand, they want a good story. On the other, they want a good game. If we are not careful in designing the game, then what is good for the story will not be what is good for the game. And we don't want that, because the alternatives are for the players to be disappointed with the story disappointed with the game, totally scraping the story aspect to play hack and slash on the barbarians or scraping the game aspect and just telling stories.

Arturius is about the story. The mechanics are there to assist in telling it.

If you're more concerned with the plastic fighting men, then this is not probably not a good story for you.

So if you're upset that gee, not all your choices made as a hero in a game about heroes are mechanically optimal - gee, guess what. Being a hero in this situation is dangerous! Shit happens. Bad things happen to good people.

I'm not sure what your point is - if you don't want to play a story+game where the story is about tragedy and triumph, then this isn't the story+game for you.

So assuming you do find the story attractive, what's wrong with the mechanics actually representing that things are dangerous and not always certain?

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:07 am

It's possible to have tragedy and while also risking your life be mechanically viable.

I would like this to be a game I can play without having to screen the players too extensively. One where the desired results follow naturall from the ruleset.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:23 am

Grek wrote: It's possible to have tragedy and while also risking your life be mechanically viable.

I would like this to be a game I can play without having to screen the players too extensively. One where the desired results follow naturall from the ruleset.

What are we defining as mechanically viable?

You have a reasonably good chance of rallying a group of disordered/demoralized troops by picking up their flag and shouting something inspiring - but you're also risking your neck.

Is that viable?

As for the desired results: If you're going to try and game the system, then you are going to discover that being a hero is HARD. It is meant to be hard. It is meant to involve blood, sweat, and tears.

Its probably easier to survive and kill lots of barbarians by ambush and treachery - but what kind of kingdom are you preserving if you act like that?

If the answer is "Not one I'd want to fight for.", then we think alike, at least in that regard.

If the answer is "Who cares?" or "What does that have to do with this?", under no circumstances I can see is this game for you.

Plain and simple, if you want to game the system and maximizing your chances of survival and success, you can probably break any system that doesn't assume that as a baseline.

And I really do not want to create a game that is set up for people who enjoy gaming systems for all they're worth.

I don't mind going further than I would otherwise go to make heroic acts triumph - this is meant to end happily (if all goes well) when the last battle is fought - but I do mind making it so that you have an incentive to do heroic acts grounded primarily in "heroic acts work better" rather than that being heroic is what you want to do.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:16 am

I want heroism to be successful in winning battles, even if it means dieing and not surviving the battle.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:48 am

I want heroism to be successful in winning battles, even if it means dieing and not surviving the battle.

Some times it helps a lot. Some times it doesn't matter. Sometimes it helps a little.

That's not too important as far as I'm concerned.

What does matter is that while you may not be more likely to enflame the troops you're trying to rally by taking very high risk rather than the basic "take the flag and lead/rally them" is exposing you to, you won't have a chance to enflame them UNLESS you take a risky action.

As in, you need a natural 19 to get "enflamed' if you don't take the risk.

If you take 50% more risk you may only get a 10% bonus though.

Or you may just get to make the roll (to enflame them, not simply raly them) at all.

Sometimes it won't matter, but you -do- get the chance if you take the risk (it may or may not -work-, but you get to -try-) - and if you stay back, you won't get that chance. Someone else might rally them, or someone else might not.

Is it worth it? Presumably - there aren't a lot of frivolous battles here.

But there are things you can and "should" do that don't offer such a clear situation - as stated, it probably won't alter the battle for you to take a spear for Bob, but it would be the heroic thing to do.

And it probably does matter that Bob feels he can count on you. Or that others know that about you.

"All for one me!" does not inspire others. "All for one and one for all!" might make a difference.

I certainly hope so.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:26 am

As for the "taking a spear for Bob" thing, that could be handled with a reputation mechanic. If you are known for protecting your troops and risking your life to save theirs, you will get a bonus when leading them. It doesn't effect that battle, but the knowledge that their commander is a awesome dude who really cares about them -will- make them fight better in later battles. Assuming he survives till the later battles.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:47 am

Right - but the thing is, you're going to have to make a practice of that sort of thing for any reputation to even be made.

And of course, surviving it is an open question (mail vs. spear is relatively safe, but taking a spear for someone is by definition taking something nasty, so...be sure to make friends with the healer.)

But yes, being known as an awesome dude who cares about his troops is well and truly an advantage - that I will fully support.

Because while Arturius is gritty heroism, the appropriate response to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDALH0yR ... re=related (about 7:50) is "Wow. What courage." not "What idiots."

Men who do such things inspire other men. Whether that -in itself- is inspiring, or the fact that you are the kind of man who will be at the van is inspiring, I don't know.

Maybe both.

However, if leading from the front -is-, in fact, the way things are done, a certain amount of it is going to be assumed in your (unmodified) Leadership - in that sense, it isn't "rewarded".