The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

[violence in the media]

No one is suggesting that the player feel what the character does. I am suggesting that people actually fucking roleplay what the character does based on actual fucking feelings that the fucking character fucking has.

The thing you're denying them is the psychological bonus that they may get for doing these things. In game mechanics, that can translate into +1s and +2s, or re-rolls, or other beneficial stuff.

Or it can be translated as nothing because there isn't a tanigble beneficial bonus.

Giving someone +1 to all their rolls done for their True Love is kind of exagerated.

So what's the fucking problem then? This sounds like a self-regulating situation. Anyone who wouldn't want to put up with the bullshit of grooming their fucking mustache isn't going to play Sturm, and the guy who does is probably going to roleplay him well.

And if Sturm is sub-optimal because of that, well, Mr. Roleplayer should be above such plebian things. He'd better be, because he's making irrational choices and adhering to arbitrary limits. Unless, of course, Raistlin or Goldmoon's players are ragging on him for being such a tool and are refusing to pick up his slack. In which case, he can go whine on message boards about the lack of respect for his excellent 'stache.

[Elennsar]

So you don't actually want an answer. You want us to recognise our evil game designer, game balancing ways and say "Oh, Elennsar, I'm so terribly sorry that I ever tried to make things fair for everyone. Please let me into your elite roleplaying club where everyone does everything according to their characterisation! I'll be good."

Not at all. I want to have "believes in honorable combat - such as fighting opponents one on one" to not be "is a miserablely incompetent idiot who can't face the expected challenges for his level" or "is given big bonuses for doing that".

Game balance is fine and and a good thing. What is not fine or a good thing is making it so that if you don't optimize you're for all intents and purposes incompetent.

So what's the fucking problem then? This sounds like a self-regulating situation. Anyone who wouldn't want to put up with the bullshit of grooming their fucking mustache isn't going to play Sturm, and the guy who does is probably going to roleplay him well.

The problem is games being designed so that playing Sturm's issues is treated as "putting up with bullshit" because having actual issues and actual problems and actually making suboptimal decisions is treated as at best an eccentricity, instead of encouraging players to play characters who believe in such stuff.

[Parthenon]

¿ʎsɐǝ ʎʇʇǝɹd uʍop ǝpısdn ƃuıpɐǝɹ puıɟ ǝslǝ ǝuoʎuɐ ˙ʇı ǝʌol ı ˙ʇuɐıllıɹq ƃuıʞɔnɟ s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙uʍop ǝpısdn 'ʍoʍ 'ɥo

˙ǝuıl ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝpıs ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ dn puǝ ,l, puɐ ,ʇ, sɐ ɥɔns sɹǝʇʇǝl ǝɯos ʇɐɥʇ sı ɯǝlqoɹd ʎɯ

˙ʞɹoʍ ʇ,uop slɐʇıdɐɔ puɐ 'ɥo

˙sǝlʇıʇ pɐǝɹɥʇ ɥʇıʍ sʞɹoʍ sıɥʇ ɟı ɹǝpuoʍ ı ˙spɹɐoq ǝƃɐssǝɯ oʍʇ ɥʇıʍ dn puǝ ǝʍ ǝɯıʇ ǝɥʇ llɐ sıɥʇ sǝop sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ oɥʍ ǝuoʎɹǝʌǝ ɟı os sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɹǝɥʇoq ʇ,uop ǝldoǝd ǝɯos ˙ɹǝʇʇǝq uǝʌǝ sı sıɥʇ 'ʎllɐnʇɔɐ

¿ɟʇn pǝʇɔǝlɟǝɹ ɐ ǝɹǝɥʇ sı

---

Since last time I checked, we were playing a role playing game, meaning that its about doing role playing - interesting people doing interesting things and so on - being more difficult is not unreasonable.

Last time I checked, we were playing a game involving more people than just you, meaning you have to think about others - being more difficult can piss off other people and can be unreasonable.

While it would be nice to be able to be willing to take actively bad decisions due to character emotions and idiocy, the fact that the rest of the group needs to be able to enjoy themselves means that you need to fucking compromise, and pull your weight.

And I'm not saying that you have to optimise to the extreme. Not optimising means Wizards not putting any points in Intelligence. Not optimising means using a dagger instead of a longsword and trying to power attack. Not optimising means taking bullshit feats such as Skill Focus (Fellatio). The optimisation I'm talking about is using the obviously best tool for the job. It's taking feats that complement each other. Its preparing spells that have an effect in combat not possible through application of a sharpened piece of steel.

Allow the DM to give you situational bonuses for roleplaying bad choices. Always keep your dad's sword for backup, drop your main weapon and finish them off with your relic. Allow yourself to be healed even if you hate magic. And so on.

A game where one party member can decide to slow everyone else down to pray for 4 hours a day as roleplaying to gain their magic is not very fun, especially if the guy decided to roleplay it and make lots of Knowledge(religion) rolls.

[Elennsar]

Last time I checked, we were playing a game involving more people than just you, meaning you have to think about others - being more difficult can piss off other people and can be unreasonable.

While it would be nice to be able to be willing to take actively bad decisions due to character emotions and idiocy, the fact that the rest of the group needs to be able to enjoy themselves means that you need to fucking compromise, and pull your weight.

A game where one party member can decide to slow everyone else down to pray for 4 hours a day as roleplaying to gain their magic is not very fun, especially if the guy decided to roleplay it and make lots of Knowledge(religion) rolls.

A game where "slowing everyone else down to pray" is supposed to be appropriate but is also treated as "slowing everyone else down" needs to make up its mind whether it wants praying or race-on-to-do-whatevers.

This isn't about deliberately playing an ass. This is about the attitude that playing someone who prays for guidance before making a decision is being an ass even when you're playing the kind of character who should be praying frequently in a setting where that's not supposed to be some freakish thing.

Also, on "pulling your weight" - are we playing "the brave companions adventuring together", or "the elite team of misfits and pyschos who hate each other's guts"?

[Crissa]

I dunno, the latter seems my games of late.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

That would not be the kind of game I'd want to play someone who cared that their father got killed by someone to begin with - except maybe in some sort of "will kill a hundred _____ for what they have done to me!" soaked in blood maniacial sort of way, and even then, probably not.

[Heath Robinson]

Not at all. I want to have "believes in honorable combat - such as fighting opponents one on one" to not be "is a miserablely incompetent idiot who can't face the expected challenges for his level" or "is given big bonuses for doing that".

Game balance is fine and and a good thing. What is not fine or a good thing is making it so that if you don't optimize you're for all intents and purposes incompetent.

Suggestions

• Play Exalted as a Dragonblooded - Your father's Sword is a Jade Grand Daiklaive, is normally available starting equipment, and is challenge appropriate for almost anything.
• Play Exalted as a Mortal - You can't use the magical equipment.
• Play Exalted as a Raksha - Swords don't use stats when you're a Raksha, and the fact that it's your father's sword is an important part of your story.
• Play Nobilis - It's pretty much part of you, or else it's a memento of your human self. Either way it's perfectly reasonable to take boni based off it without imbalancing play. And Nobilis is 95% social anyway.
• Play WFRP - All the magical swords will rape you and use the corpse for a tea cosy.
• Play an intelligent item instead of a character - you can't stop using the sword. You can switch mortal, though.
• Play a game where equipment doesn't matter. Stop playing D&D. Stop thinking D&D is the only roleplaying game in the world.
• Use the swords as a status or reputation hook. Make the player buy this.
• Play a game where superior equipment doesn't exist, or the best equipment possible is available from character generation.
• Adjust ECL to compensate for the guy not being on par in terms of equipment. He's going to end up higher level, but it's valid to do this since ECL assumes you have level appropriate equipment. Or just give out roleplaying XP.
• Play Unknown Armies.

[Voss]

Voss: All of those options are basically saying "Make it necessary to take the most powerful option."

That, in a word, sucks.

Welcome to D&Dland. Enjoy your stay. This has been a basic fact of life for over 30 years now.

[Elennsar]

Are we suggesting roleplaying games that actually emphasis roleplaying instead of gaining character power as a good thing?

It doesn't look like it. The only other ones seem to be games where things really, really suck.


I don't think D&D is the only roleplaying game in the world, but its the unfortunately the biggest.

Welcome to D&Dland. Enjoy your stay. This has been a basic fact of life for over 30 years now.

And its been shitty design for over thirty years now. Its not even entirely appropriate for a wargame.

[RandomCasualty2]

It comes down to this.

You want your mechanics to encourage the playstyle that you want. A player shouldn't be forced to take a bunch of penalties because he wants to roleplaying an interesting character, while the munchkin gets more benefits for just removing all interesting aspects from his game and just taking the most mechanical advantageous route?

You should be rewarding and encouraging PCs to make interesting characters with odd quirks. If doing so means that you kick them in the nuts and make them worse in combat than everyone else, then you are going to get more powergaming and less roleplaying, and the only one benefiting is the munchkin who designs flavorless combat machines built only to kill. Why should he get rewarded and the roleplayer punished? If anything, don't we want to give incentives to PCs to make characters with interesting personalities and creative backgrounds?

[Elennsar]

If anything, don't we want to give incentives to PCs to make characters with interesting personalities and rich backgrounds?

But why do those have to be mechanical incentives?

That's my problem. I want my emotional investment rewarded, not my math skills.

[Leress]

But why do those have to be mechanical incentives?

That's my problem. I want my emotional investment rewarded, not my math skills.

Because that is up to the player not the game.

[Elennsar]

The problem is, the game can encourage you without saying "you get +5 for this.", or it can be silent and for all intents and purposes still locked in dungeon crawl mode.

It may be up to the player, but it can certainly try to make something that a player interested in such things would to treat it as a game worth their emotional investment.

Dark Heresy, for instance, could get away with it being a fucking grim universe a lot better if the idea that going into battle with "FOR THE EMPEROR!" on your lips was cool was emphasised more than the fact that if you get attacked without the benefit of very good armor you're fucked is.

Of course, the mechanics just plain suck for reasons mentioned by others, but the point is that it doesn't inspire caring enough to work around that and focus elsewhere.

[ubernoob]

If anything, don't we want to give incentives to PCs to make characters with interesting personalities and rich backgrounds?

But why do those have to be mechanical incentives?

That's my problem. I want my emotional investment rewarded, not my math skills.

˙˙˙lɐɹo sɹǝʎɐld ɹnoʎ ƃuıʌıƃ ɟo uoıʇsǝƃƃns ǝɥʇ oʇ ʞɔɐq ʇǝƃ ǝʍ 'uıɐƃɐ

[Voss]

You want emotional investment rewarded? Buy a fucking puppy.

You want gamers to care about roleplaying more than mechanics?
Step 1- find people who actually want to roleplay.
Step 2- Actually play with them and stopping whining on message boards about basic mechanical problems that have existed for years.

Alternatively...
take a normal group of gamers and give them some fucking incentive to care about roleplaying rather than just combat. A DM has to make some effort to make that happen, whether its on a mechanical level, or bribing them with cookies (or blowjobs), or kidnapping and threatening to kill their families.

[Heath Robinson]

If anything, don't we want to give incentives to PCs to make characters with interesting personalities and rich backgrounds?

But why do those have to be mechanical incentives?

That's my problem. I want my emotional investment rewarded, not my math skills.

Elennsar, nobody can make you feel emotionally rewarded except yourself. This kind of thing is impossible to stimulate using a system. Thank you for playing. Good bye.


Play a game where your RP choices are mechanically neutral. I've given you a list already. In Nobilis, what you use in terms of equipment is pure flavour. In Exalted the setting is such that your Father's sword can be amongst the best of the options available, because the Dragonblooded have been creating lineages, or you can't use the better equipment, or the equipment is flavour (Exalted is really 7-8 games that share a setting and system). WFRP only rewards you in emotional investment, the game mechanics exist only to shaft you. This doesn't make it a bad game, just difficult.

[Elennsar]

Elennsar, nobody can make you feel emotionally rewarded except yourself. This kind of thing is impossible to stimulate using a system. Thank you for playing. Good bye.

It is VERY possible to design a system that seeks TO produce that for those who play the game "properly" even if their numbers are lower, however.

[Leress]

Elennsar, nobody can make you feel emotionally rewarded except yourself. This kind of thing is impossible to stimulate using a system. Thank you for playing. Good bye.

It is VERY possible to design a system that seeks TO produce that for those who play the game "properly" even if their numbers are lower, however.

There is no proper way to play. That kind of thinking made the rogue in 4e not be very useful with a sap.

[RandomCasualty2]

But why do those have to be mechanical incentives?

You talk like you're giving someone a bonus. In this case, we're talking about just not making them weaker. We're just saying "you can choose to keep your father's sword and not have to worry about losing character power compared to the guy who didn't."

That's not even an incentive. That's just letting people make roleplaying choices without worrying about mechanically getting screwed over for doing so.

That's my problem. I want my emotional investment rewarded, not my math skills.

Emotional investment isn't something that the game system can give you.

A game system is about math.

[Elennsar]

You talk like you're giving someone a bonus. In this case, we're talking about just not making them weaker. We're just saying "you can choose to keep your father's sword and not have to worry about losing character power compared to the guy who didn't."

It amounts to the same thing. "You are better off using your father's sword."

If the swords are equally powerful, then there is no reason NOT to stick to your father's sword, because it has "this is cool".

And in terms of general design, you are (it appears) talking about bonuses, or at least removing penalties that otherwise make sense.

Emotional investment isn't something that the game system can give you.

A game system is about math.

If that's all that a game is - the math - then your game sucks.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

People who are already into roleplay will do things for IC reasons no matter what the mechanics are. Besides, Elennsar seems to be shifting back and forth between wanting mustaches to have mechanical effects and swords not to have mechanical effects.

That said, the best way to get something like what Elennsar wants mechanically is to use a GURPS-like point-buy system. That way, your father's sword can have cool mechanics without unbalancing you vis-a-vis other characters. Or, alternatively, your father's sword might be just a regular sword, but you can put points into something else to stay on par with the other characters.

[Elennsar]

People who are already into roleplay will do things for IC reasons no matter what the mechanics are. Besides, Elennsar seems to be shifting back and forth between wanting mustaches to have mechanical effects and swords not to have mechanical effects.

I don't want mustaches to have mechanical effects. Where is this from?

Also, if you make a game so that doing something for roleplaying reasons is the same as shooting yourself in the foot, and the game doesn't encourage playing the something in question, then there's no reason to.

In D&D as written from the three core books, playing a character who gives generously to charity is both meaningless -and- hurtful to your character.

Bad combination.

That said, the best way to get something like what Elennsar wants mechanically is to use a GURPS-like point-buy system. That way, your father's sword can have cool mechanics without unbalancing you vis-a-vis other characters. Or, alternatively, your father's sword might be just a regular sword, but you can put points into something else to stay on par with the other characters.

So why bother getting a better sword? It'll be just as good to get something else.

I don't mind somewhat unbalanced characters unless the weaker ones are unable to contribute or the stronger ones are more powerful -and- doing the cool things.

[Heath Robinson]

Elennsar, nobody can make you feel emotionally rewarded except yourself. This kind of thing is impossible to stimulate using a system. Thank you for playing. Good bye.

It is VERY possible to design a system that seeks TO produce that for those who play the game "properly" even if their numbers are lower, however.

You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make them drink. The system can simply avoid dynamiting the boat before it sails.

Like I said, THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. Good bye.


The only thing that can inspire emotional investment is the GM and the Players. Your system can get out of the way and nothing more.

That said, the best way to get something like what Elennsar wants mechanically is to use a GURPS-like point-buy system. That way, your father's sword can have cool mechanics without unbalancing you vis-a-vis other characters. Or, alternatively, your father's sword might be just a regular sword, but you can put points into something else to stay on par with the other characters.

So why bother getting a better sword? It'll be just as good to get something else.

ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU WANT?! THAT MAKING A CHOICE FOR ROLEPLAYING REASONS ISN'T PENALISED? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

[Elennsar]

You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make them drink. The system can simply avoid dynamiting the boat before it sails.

Like I said, THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. Good bye.


The only thing that can inspire emotional investment is the GM and the Players. Your system can get out of the way and nothing more.

It can also actually encourage playing things by describing them as fun and interesting.

ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU WANT?! THAT MAKING A CHOICE FOR ROLEPLAYING REASONS ISN'T PENALISED? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

No. What I want is making a choice for roleplaying reasons to be encouraged EVEN IF the other sword is stronger.

That hasn't wavered in the slightest.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Now I'm confused. I thought you wanted to enable people to make choices for purely IC roleplaying reasons. The best way to do that is to make such choices roughly mechanically balanced with the other available choices. If you want characters to make suboptimal mechanical choices for roleplaying reasons, that's best handled at the gaming table rather than in the rulebooks.