The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:46 am

Maxus wrote:Because it's hard to teach people to roleplay and to create coolness and fun. I can't think of a way to do it, can you?

Actually, it's because the default expectation for people in the same group's that they're of the same power level - and, should that expectation be knowingly ignored, that there still is a metric by which the disparity's measurable. All of that flies outta the window when the possibility of trading something for nothing arises.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:32 am

Anyhow, I think we got distracted by rewarding players...

...If the character can't gain more by being better than average (loot or xp is based upon character or player rather than challenges) then you've encouraged people to scale back a bit and not worry so much about lagging.

But you introduce the problem of high level characters wandering around saving kittens instead of slaying dragons.

Like was mentioned before, we've had this discussion before, but with people who can come up with these things much faster than Elensar.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:34 am

When you keep insisting over and over and over again that there ought to be a mechanical effect and that not having the best mechanical effect ITSELF is a punishment that needs to be compensated for, then its very hard to seriously think of a reward being discussed that isn't just saying "Okay, you don't want a +3 sword, how about +3 armor?" or something to that effect.

Instead of the idea that having a +1 sword is fine and that you should find something else to worry about rather than the fact your character is not the best possible character you could concievably create.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:11 am

That doesn't even make sense as a retort.

If it doesn't matter, then why did you ask the question?

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:41 am

Because in a rpg, I would like the game to say "Yes, deciding on whether or not your character has a sister/family/whatever might actually come up and stories will be told about that." rather than have a paragraph with things like Alhandra having a tattoo being their only acknowledgement to the idea of characters as fleshed out people.

I don't mind if it winds up as harmful to have a sibling (though I'd prefer to be warned in advance), but if it is interesting, it adds to the game.

If the game treats it as somewhat less important than whether or not I know why dust "bunnies" are called dust "bunnies", then I'm better off spending the time thinking of something that will - like having a convenient excuse to speak Latin, which at some point my M&M character might actually use (even though the odds are that for most of the campaign its a inefficient use 3/4ths of a power point to know Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin, as with Knowledge: Civics - forget how much that cost.).

Still suboptimal, but at least not totally wasted time (or points) - but it is in D&D to do something similar, because a fighter doesn't (even at 4+Int mod) have skill points to spend on those things and keep the things he cares about high enough to be pretty satisified with them.

That particular issue is another story, so my appologies for rambling.

Point is, if the game treats being concerned about my character's family as irrelevant (or whether or not he has a family), the likelyhood is very low that I will want to spend time working on that.

It doesn't have to be beneficial to marry a princess, but it should at least have an effect I can react to, damnit.

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:18 pm

Elennsar wrote:Because in a rpg, I would like the game to say "Yes, deciding on whether or not your character has a sister/family/whatever might actually come up and stories will be told about that." rather than have a paragraph with things like Alhandra having a tattoo being their only acknowledgement to the idea of characters as fleshed out people.

You would like the game, rather than the GM, to say this?

I'm not sure I'd want to GM a game where the rules required that I tell only certain kinds of stories and that I had to utilize every element of a character's backstory over the course of a campaign.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:41 am

Well, you could have a game where cooperatively generating backstory elements to be incorporated into the campaign is part of chargen. From what Elennsar was saying up until the end of the last page, I thought this kind of thing would be completely unacceptable to him (just trading one good thing for another instead of manning up and making the decision that leaves you--at least slightly--inferior). Now I'm really confused.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:20 pm

You would like the game, rather than the GM, to say this?

I'm not sure I'd want to GM a game where the rules required that I tell only certain kinds of stories and that I had to utilize every element of a character's backstory over the course of a campaign.

I'd like to have the game say that the backstory should be taken seriously and should not just be treated as a sign the player is bored silly and wants to write. It "might" come up.

Does that mean the GM has to use every (or even most) elements? No. But it means that the game should acknowledge them and should suggest the GM work with those to make interesting stories rather than "Sure, you could write up a backstory, and you could also write an essay on lichen. Both are irrelevant to this game."

Well, you could have a game where cooperatively generating backstory elements to be incorporated into the campaign is part of chargen. From what Elennsar was saying up until the end of the last page, I thought this kind of thing would be completely unacceptable to him (just trading one good thing for another instead of manning up and making the decision that leaves you--at least slightly--inferior). Now I'm really confused.

I am firmly against "You are not optimal, therefore you are not capable."

I am firmly against "You agree to lose a bonus here in exchange for a bonus to something else." as a way to work "around" that. If a +1 sword is good enough, then it should not require having a +2 bonus to something else other than swording to be good enough.

If the Dark Side is as strong and more permissive than the Light Side, but morally wrong, then the fact that it is morally wrong should matter whether it hurts the character or not.

A game where the Dark Side is punished as way to keep people from playing Darksiders is not a game that is doing that, it is a game trying to avoid dealing with that.

But if the game shows and talks about how screwing over others in pursuit of power is a BAD thing, it should not simply make that "besides, it backfires anyway."

Backstories of at least a crude sense should be part of chargen, however. Unless your character has no memory, their ought to be at least a vague "Um, grew up with _____." to explain why the character is a ranger or whatever.

Absentminded_Wizard · Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:30 pm

Bringing up the "Dark Side" is probably a bad example. In most source material that bothers with corruption, being corrupted screws you over as well as being morally wrong. Usually, it screws you over by robbing you of your free will and sense of self over time, and this is naturally reflected by in-game conventions. For example, in Star Wars d6, if you mess with the dark side too much, your character becomes an NPC and you have to create a new one. This doveteails nicely with the idea that Anakin Skywalker ceases to be himself and becomes Darth Vader.

But back to the discussion about backstory. I believe I posted something a couple of pages ago about giving the guy using his father's sword more stories centered around him and his backstory as a non-mechanical reward. Yes, such a system could potentially satisfy your conditions. There are no die roll bonuses involved. The player is rewarded for his roleplaying choice by having his character in the spotlight more. However, the character has no idea that he's being made the star of the show more often because of his choices, since he doesn't know there's a "show" in the first place.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Bringing up the "Dark Side" is probably a bad example. In most source material that bothers with corruption, being corrupted screws you over as well as being morally wrong. Usually, it screws you over by robbing you of your free will and sense of self over time, and this is naturally reflected by in-game conventions. For example, in Star Wars d6, if you mess with the dark side too much, your character becomes an NPC and you have to create a new one. This doveteails nicely with the idea that Anakin Skywalker ceases to be himself and becomes Darth Vader.

I am not arguing with this, my point is that it should not be treated as "Yeah, its morally wrong - but more importantly, its not a good idea."

But back to the discussion about backstory. I believe I posted something a couple of pages ago about giving the guy using his father's sword more stories centered around him and his backstory as a non-mechanical reward.

It's a thought and a good one. It's also a thought to not give the player MORE -anything- (assuming a reasonable amount of attention to all interesting characters).

Seriously. What kind of roleplaying game does not encourage you to put something in your backstory because it is cool and interesting and evocative whether or not it is gaining you anything?

Having it be "Okay, in exchange for a 'penalty', you get a bonus." is just reinforcing a) rewarding players for doing what they're supposed to do (as in giving them something higher than they would get otherwise) and b) the idea that the +1 sword is a drawback that has to be compensated for.

A is not entirely unbearable. B is irritating.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:23 am

Elennsar wrote:I am firmly against "You agree to lose a bonus here in exchange for a bonus to something else." as a way to work "around" that.
[...]
If the Dark Side is as strong and more permissive than the Light Side, but morally wrong, then the fact that it is morally wrong should matter whether it hurts the character or not.

How do you define "matters"? If something helps or hurts the character, it matters. If it neither helps nor hurts, it doesn't matter. If the Dark Side being morally wrong matters in an advantageous way (by not having DS characters roll willpower vs morality any time they want to kill someone for real), then your game actively punishes Light Side characters. If it's a drawback, then you actually lose a bonus to Sharpshooting and Scoring Hot Chicks in exchange for Awesome Lightning, which is something you're against.

On an unrelated note, if I were running a Star Wars game, I'd steal Frank's adventure karma idea and make Dark Side stronger (lightning and stuff) but penalizing a character with negative karma which would be occasionally used to get the character temporarily under the GM's control and Light Side handing out positive karma which the players could use to wrestle the control of the environment away from the GM.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:31 am

Elennsar, by arguing that the moral rightness and wrongness of an action outweights if it is a good idea or not, you implictly admit that you believe that something that is a bad idea can be morally right and that something that is a good idea can be morally wrong. This results in some profoundly fucked up ethics.

Choices which are morally wrong are wrong becuase they hurt people. There is no other reason for something to be wrong other than the fact that doing that would hurt other people. If a choice does not hurt people, it's neutral at the very worst.

If you are trying to argue that the morality of a choice is independent of whether people are harmed or helped by that choice and that it's ok to do things that hurt people becuase "It's morally correct do hurt them", I am going to put you on ignore because that is seriously messed up and I don't want to talk to you if you think that.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:51 am

How do you define "matters"? If something helps or hurts the character, it matters. If it neither helps nor hurts, it doesn't matter. If the Dark Side being morally wrong matters in an advantageous way (by not having DS characters roll willpower vs morality any time they want to kill someone for real), then your game actively punishes Light Side characters. If it's a drawback, then you actually lose a bonus to Sharpshooting and Scoring Hot Chicks in exchange for Awesome Lightning, which is something you're against.

"Sure, you could use the Dark Side, but then you'd be a Darksider and do evil things." isn't exactly a penalty, but its a reason not to use the Dark Side.

Elennsar, by arguing that the moral rightness and wrongness of an action outweights if it is a good idea or not, you implictly admit that you believe that something that is a bad idea can be morally right and that something that is a good idea can be morally wrong. This results in some profoundly fucked up ethics. Choices which are morally wrong are wrong becuase they hurt people. There is no other reason for something to be wrong other than the fact that doing that would hurt other people. If a choice does not hurt people, it's neutral at the very worst.

And if it hurting people refers to "people who aren't you or those you care about", then you can say "That's okay. Fuck being moral, it doesn't cause any consequences for me to be amoral that are consequences I mind."

And that's a problem. Being a Darksider should not mean that you shoot yourself in the foot, it means that you're a fucking asshole who shoots other people for laughs.

That might not be a net disadvantage. Its still wrong.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:03 pm

Consequentialist ethics is entirely fine. Rule-based ethics also exist - Kant's Categorical Imperative is an example. The idea of punishment-based justice is another, where we kill people because they need killing, rather than for reasons of deterrence or protection.

Rule-based ethics might work better in a game, if you can get folks to agree to the rules, because it's clearer and easier to adjudicate.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:59 am

Doesn't mean that being evil is punished by the rules as in the rule system for the game, though.

A game set in the wild west (reality or myth) might well have the attitude that the "Indians" are the bad guys, but we don't give them -2 to all rolls for being bad guys.