The Sword of My Father and the moustache of Strum

[Elennsar]

Encouraging people to care about it.

Writing a game where people are told that playing heroes is fun, exciting, interesting, and all those good things is a lot more likely to get heroes than a game where people are told that Good Guys Finish Last, even if you use the same mechanics.

[Leress]

Encouraging people to care about it.

Example?

Writing a game where people are told that playing heroes is fun, exciting, interesting, and all those good things is a lot more likely to get heroes than a game where people are told that Good Guys Finish Last, even if you use the same mechanics.

What are you talking about?

[Elennsar]

Example: None are coming to mind off the top of my head.

As to what I'm talking about: If you describe a game as about brave and bold heroes who do gallant deeds, you're likely to make people (who find that interesting) do heroes.

If you describe it as a game where Nice Guys Finish Last, even if you used the exact same rule system as the first game (let's say you're using some "generic" system like GURPS here), you'll depress that interest.

[Parthenon]

The game should encourage people who actually want to roleplay roleplaying.

Heh heh. I like this image of your PCs playing a roleplaying game.

Yeah yeah yeah, I get what you meant, it was just amusing.

---

I'd be very disappointed in it if it made it just another mechanic to be used to gain bonuses and didn't bother with making playing a character who believed in that sound like fun whether it was beneficial to the character or not.

That is the goal, isn't it? Having fun?

Why do we have to say "Here, you'll get bonuses." when we want a game that makes people say "I had fun."?

Mechanics should not sabotage the guy who wants to honor his father, but making them reward that doesn't make that style of play more desirable than any other method of using a game system to get the same reward.

Okay, so you are saying that:

- The game should encourage roleplaying choices

- Making a roleplaying choice have no mechanical effect is silly.

- Mechanics should not sabotage a character due to a roleplaying choice.

- Mechanics should not reward a roleplaying choice because then people will do it for the rewards not the roleplaying.

A lot of people would argue about the second one. But anyway, is this your position on the matter?

[violence in the media]

Why does the game only promote roleplaying when it promotes people behaving in the manner that you want them to?

Look, people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental reasons are people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental fucking reasons. No one gives a fuck that you enjoy programming in BASIC, or that you love shooting your father's blackpowder rifle, or that you prefer handsaws to power saws. When you're called upon to perform these tasks in a professional capacity (as adventurers are) you are expected, and probably required, to use the best tools available for the job.

What if your father was a minor hero, level 3 at best, and was killed by an owlbear while using a sword he gained from a bandit he killed at level 1? Why should that sword have any special meaning? Why should that sword be effective against outer plane horrors when you're level 13? Unless you plan on incorporating some Huey Lewis Power Of Love mechanics, the answer is that it shouldn't.

[Elennsar]

Heh heh. I like this image of your PCs playing a roleplaying game.

Yeah yeah yeah, I get what you meant, it was just amusing.

It is. Can't argue with that.

A lot of people would argue about the second one. But anyway, is this your position on the matter?

Yes. It may be less powerful, but you should be choosing between...let's say...

50% chance vs. 60% chance, not 30% chance vs. 90% chance.

Unless of course the thing is supposed to be really important, in which case there may be times its justified.

But for the sword, 50% with "my father's" and 60% with "the sword of the guy who slew him" isn't too bad, assuming one is aiming for that general range of success to begin with (for those aiming to hit 75%+ of the time, adjust these numbers accordingly).

Look, people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental reasons are people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental fucking reasons.

What's your point? People DO those things.

Are we playing a game about adventurers who seek adventure and excitement and challenges, or are we playing (Not-so-)Techno-Dungeon: The Looting where risk is only acceptable in exchange for a pay off?

Seriously. A game where you're supposed to care about your father does not have to be a game where the Power of Love is an advantage.

[violence in the media]

Look, people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental reasons are people making sub-optimal choices for sentimental fucking reasons.

What's your point? People DO those things.

Do they do these things when there is an obviously better choice or when they know that their preferred tool won't cut it? How many Jedi use rapiers instead of lightsabers, for example? Didn't Beowulf toss aside the sword he was given when it was clear that it wasn't doing squat to Grendel's mother? Do we have a division of U.S. Marines that insist on using their great-great-grandfather's Winchester Carbines when they head into battle?

Are we playing a game about adventurers who seek adventure and excitement and challenges, or are we playing (Not-so-)Techno-Dungeon: The Looting where risk is only acceptable in exchange for a pay off?

That depends, are we playing a game of romantic fools or calculating professionals?

[Elennsar]

Do they do these things when there is an obviously better choice or when they know that their preferred tool won't cut it? How many Jedi use rapiers instead of lightsabers, for example? Didn't Beowulf toss aside the sword he was given when it was clear that it wasn't doing squat to Grendel's mother? Do we have a division of U.S. Marines that insist on using their great-great-grandfather's Winchester Carbines when they head into battle?

Do we have people prefering black horses over white horses even though there's no difference in anything but color?

Do we have people have people believing that something is good enough even if it isn't the best possible choice?

Just because people don't use actively BAD choices if they can help it (and recognize it) doesn't mean people do only choices that are the best possible choices - unless you honestly think there's some bonus to wearing robes as a Jedi.

That depends, are we playing a game of romantic fools or calculating professionals?

Apparently, we're forced to choose between morons and professionals.

No room for actual humans who make actual decisions based on their feelings as well as logic.

Personally, any game where the mechanical benefit of using a better sword is more important than insulting the character's father's spirit (which may well have no actual effect or even be true, but the character doesn't know that) because who cares about the character's father is a game that really doesn't have the kind of people I want to play or play with.

[Parthenon]

Okay, how about this:

Some MMORPGs have started having two weapon and armour slots: one for what you look like and one for the mechanical benefits.

We could do something similar. You do use the most up to date weapons but it is described as being your chosen weapon. However you get a -1 to hit and damage. Similarly, you just take a -2 on your disguise check rather than it being impossible to disguise your moustache.

This means that you can roleplay that you are still using tSoMF and that there is a cost to it but it is still level appropriate. Unless you make a lot of roleplaying choices affecting the same number which could lead to you being shit anyway.

Then, you ignore the fact that this happens and pretend that you are still just using the original sword. Maybe only swap them around at blacksmiths, repairing the pommel or replacing a worn out blade but it still being the original sword.

---

Do we have people prefering black horses over white horses even though there's no difference in anything but color?

WTF? You just stated a moment ago that "- Making a roleplaying choice have no mechanical effect is silly. " but you are now arguing from the position that choosing a different colour is on the same level as the choices you want to make? Sorry, but if your argument starts changing and you use examples that don't relate to the argument then you stop making sense.

[Voss]

Elennsar, speaking as someone who has to deal with undergraduates in a grading capacity, and has to deal with their almost complete inability to express themselves in a clear and meaningful manner, let me just say:

You are a complete waste of flesh.

Let me explain a simple concept that you should have learned long ago:
a choice that is purely for roleplaying reasons happens regardless of the mechanics. If the system is *encouraging* that choice, it is no longer done for roleplaying reasons. There is no way around this inherent contradiction. So...

Shut. Up.

Find some people who want to play the way you want to, and stop fucking whining already.

Congradulations on utterly failing to understand why anyone would want a roleplaying game to encourage roleplaying things without rewarding them with big numbers.

I understand it quite well. And it is quite simple: The group, as a whole, has to care more about RP than mechanics. Thats it. That is the only solution to this 'problem.'

You want it without numbers? Then no one at the table can care about numbers. This actually happens with real groups. It isn't a problem to solved- but you can't snivel at people on the internet about theoretical game problems and expect them not to talk about numbers.

Your problem is simply that you have no ability to communicate effectively, and you ignore the simple and obvious solutions.

[Voss]

Personally, any game where the mechanical benefit of using a better sword is more important than insulting the character's father's spirit (which may well have no actual effect or even be true, but the character doesn't know that) because who cares about the character's father is a game that really doesn't have the kind of people I want to play or play with.

Then don't, and shut the fuck up about it.

[Elennsar]

This means that you can roleplay that you are still using tSoMF and that there is a cost to it but it is still level appropriate. Unless you make a lot of roleplaying choices affecting the same number which could lead to you being shit anyway.

Or you could make it so that you don't NEED to succeed as close to 100% of the time as possible under the system to be level appropriate so that a +2 flaming sword is fine - sure, you'd be less powerful than someone using a +4 fiery doom sword, but the game doesn't assume everyone and their mother has a +4 fiery doom sword by 16th level.

WTF? You just stated a moment ago that "- Making a roleplaying choice have no mechanical effect is silly. " but you are now arguing from the position that choosing a different colour is on the same level as the choices you want to make? Sorry, but if your argument starts changing and you use examples that don't relate to the argument then you stop making sense.

My arguement is that the game should encourage making roleplaying decisions for in character reasons that make sense to the character - using your father's sword to honor your father, even if there are better swords out there in terms of attack/damage (or whatever).

Making it so that you need a +4 fiery doom sword to be level appropriate and anything less is not level appropriate is making the game entirely too gear dependent.

At least if you regularly fought people of equal ability in all other respects so it became a question of equipment alone and that was the point that would make sense - but last time I checked, that's not what we have for Drizzt, Gawain, Aragorn, Luke, or Conan.

Your problem is simply that you have no ability to communicate effectively, and you ignore the simple and obvious solutions.

False and useless solutions.

I want a roleplaying game that encourages roleplaying. Not a roleplaying game where it is "big numbers if you do what the designers want to encourage" whether it makes sense for people to have big numbers there or not.

You could roleplay in a sense in Monopoly. The game is not designed to encourage it either by mechanics or the fluff it doesn't have.

A so-called rpg being no better is bad design.

Then don't, and shut the fuck up about it.

If you don't like this discussion, then ignore it. Simplest thing in the world.

Of course, that would require you to accept that you don't get to make other people shut up whenever you want to, which doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.

[violence in the media]

My arguement is that the game should encourage making roleplaying decisions for in character reasons that make sense to the character - using your father's sword to honor your father, even if there are better swords out there in terms of attack/damage (or whatever).

How does this mythical game handle the players who decide they're not going to buy into that stuff? How is it going to handle players who will have their characters antagonize your character for his choices and sentimentalities?

The answer is, it won't. What the game "encourages" is meaningless. D&D supposedly tries real hard to encourage good and noble heroes, and people will still play evil, bastardly villans. It comes down to what your group wants to play, and how they want to play it. You can play hyper-cooperative games of Vampire or cutthroat games of D&D. You can play serious, dystopian games of Paranoia or silly games of Shadowrun.

The reality is that inividual groups will take your baby and delete, edit, and change whatever parts of it they want. If you ever made a finished version of your Arturius setting available to other human beings, they will play it in manners you haven't expected and that probably offend your dainty sensibilities.

[Elennsar]

How does this mythical game handle the players who decide they're not going to buy into that stuff? How is it going to handle players who will have their characters antagonize your character for his choices and sentimentalities? The answer is, it won't. What the game "encourages" is meaningless. D&D supposedly tries real hard to encourage good and noble heroes, and people will still play evil, bastardly villans. It comes down to what your group wants to play, and how they want to play it. You can play hyper-cooperative games of Vampire or cutthroat games of D&D. You can play serious, dystopian games of Paranoia or silly games of Shadowrun.

D&D doesn't try really hard to begin with (D&D tries very hard to avoid emphasising roleplaying and the situations that involves at all), and players who play evil, bastardly villains are fine - so what the game encourages isn't meaningless just because there are players who want to play something else and don't care for what the game tries to encourage.

So if someone wants to play a dystopian game of Paranoia - so what? Does the fact the game claims to be about something else mean that it should be forbidden on pain of being whacked by the rulebook to do something else? No.

But a game that claims to be about dystopia should have dystopian fluff as well as the hard rules, and not have the fluff treated as secondary or incidental.

The reality is that inividual groups will take your baby and delete, edit, and change whatever parts of it they want. If you ever made a finished version of your Arturius setting available to other human beings, they will play it in manners you haven't expected and that probably offend your dainty sensibilities.

My danity sensibilities are neither dainty or relevant. If you want to modify the game (fluff or crunch) because you don't care for the intended theme, then do so.

If you actually want to play the intended theme, then I hope it works.

If you want to play a game where seeking every advantage you can get is the encouraged style of play, then play a game built for that type of playing.

[Crissa]

So the game should encourage behavior without rewarding this behavior or even making it mechanically a neutral choice.

You do understand that's something that cannot be, like tea and no tea, right?

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

No, because you can encourage people doing something without making it a mechanically superior choice or even mechanically even.

That's my objection. Any and all of you can find nice rich rewards within the system to give bonuses for any action concievable.

Encouraging people to do something because it is fun and interesting to play heroes or whatever?

No sign anyone wants a game to even mention the concept. No, the best it can do is make it a no brainer to be a good donkey and eat the carrots.

What an unattractive game.

Let's take a situation in Arcanum.

There are several points in which someone offers you money in order to do something.

You can haggle/hold out for more money, or accept their offer.

I would sincerely hope that if the game was converted to pencil and paper that people would not say "I always haggled/held out." and claiming to be playing good and (at least somewhat) selfless/generous characters at the same time.

After all, there would really only be minor consequences for doing so if any most of the time - and having more money lets you get better stuff and such.

[Surgo]

WTF? You just stated a moment ago that "- Making a roleplaying choice have no mechanical effect is silly. " but you are now arguing from the position that choosing a different colour is on the same level as the choices you want to make? Sorry, but if your argument starts changing and you use examples that don't relate to the argument then you stop making sense.

Welcome to Elennsar-land, where he contradicts himself left and right all the time.

[Elennsar]

Welcome to we-don't-understand-what-you-mean-and-we-won't-ask-you-to-clarify-land.

[Maxus]

Elennsar, I don't understand what you want or even mean when you say a system should encourage roleplaying. Would you please clarify?

[Ganbare Gincun]

Apparently, we're forced to choose between morons and professionals.

No room for actual humans who make actual decisions based on their feelings as well as logic.

It's all fine and well that a character would be devoted to honoring the memory of a deceased parent, but given how important powerful magical items are in the D&D game system, most professional adventurers would consider you to be quite insane if you opted to use a non-magical weapon in combat. It's not a question of how the character feels or if the rest of the party is dismissive of those feelings - it's a question of using the best tools to survive a lethal encounter. If you opt to charge into battle with a Masterwork Bastard Sword instead of a +4 Holy Avenger Bastard Sword, you're letting your emotions overwhelm your logic and making yourself into a danger to yourself and others.

Personally, any game where the mechanical benefit of using a better sword is more important than insulting the character's father's spirit (which may well have no actual effect or even be true, but the character doesn't know that) because who cares about the character's father is a game that really doesn't have the kind of people I want to play or play with.

Do you think that the spirit of the character's father would be offended if he set aside his father's sword to wield a weapon that would allow him to better survive the perils of an adventuring life? Especially if that weapon had a special purpose that the father would approve of (such as the aforementioned Holy Avenger)? And once again, it's not a question of "who cares about the character's father" and more of a question of "how can we avoid joining said character's father in the afterlife". Unless you take magic out of the equation (or severely reduce the power of magical items), that non-magical sword is going to stop being used in combat at around level 5.

[Judging__Eagle]

Do we have people prefering black horses over white horses even though there's no difference in anything but color?

No, that is the height of insanity.

People pick a horse based on the individual horse.

If the white horse is a worn out mare, and the black one is a young gelding in their prime, everyone is going to pick the black horse. Even people who like white.

The father's sword only works if the character was actually presented by something much better, and still decides to use their inherited weapon.

It would be the equivalent of Luke prefering to use a Gaffi stick that he got off of a tusken raider on his own, over the lightsaber that Obi-Wan fobbed off on him.

Gaining new, or replacing old, equipment is a very common theme in fairy tales.

On the other hand, using an existing tool the whole story also occurs.

But you cannot have both in the same setting. Either everyone replaces their axes with ogrish axes once the group loots an ogrish village, or the party never encounters weapons better than their inherited/discovered/gifted heirlooms.

The moustache.... there's actually a fairly rules-light system that has players be able to gain the equivalent of "fate points", but only after they are nominated by an other player (and approved by the GM, or a second player) and only when they have described their character failing at something.

I think the "fate points" handed out are based on how many adjectives you use to describe your failure. I think that most failures default to you just not quite making it, or doing a poor job. Then as a player you describe how the failure is worse than the default.

Which leads me to believe that the system promotes really geeky klutzes day-to-day, that are able to lay the smack down on life or death challenges.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/in ... ying-game/

Is an article about it, and the link to the 4 page PDF.

[Elennsar]

Unless you take magic out of the equation (or severely reduce the power of magical items), that non-magical sword is going to stop being used in combat at around level 5.

Choosing to use a +2 defending sword (Dad's) over a +3 flaming sword (father's slayer) should not be the same thing as choosing to use a MW sword over a holy avenger in terms of "using a lesser weapon".

But you cannot have both in the same setting. Either everyone replaces their axes with ogrish axes once the group loots an ogrish village, or the party never encounters weapons better than their inherited/discovered/gifted heirlooms.

So the PCs can't use anything other than the best gear available, whatever that gear happens to be?

How unappealing.

The moustache.... there's actually a fairly rules-light system that has players be able to gain the equivalent of "fate points", but only after they are nominated by an other player (and approved by the GM, or a second player) and only when they have described their character failing at something.

I'm not sure if "really geeky klutzes day-to-day, that are able to lay the smack down on life or death challenges." is appropriate for heroes - but its an amusing thought and probably a fun(ny) game.

Thanks for pointing out the link - whether its appropriate or not, it sounds like it would be fun in a way.

[Ganbare Gincun]

At least if you regularly fought people of equal ability in all other respects so it became a question of equipment alone and that was the point that would make sense - but last time I checked, that's not what we have for Drizzt, Gawain, Aragorn, Luke, or Conan.

It's been a LONG time since I read the Drizzt books, but I seem to recall that he upgraded his gear regularly enough. Aragorn had level-appropriate weapons (though to be fair, he was probably only level 6). Luke had the equivalent of a +1 Adamantine Bastard Sword that deflected blaster fire, and in the film Conan The Barbarian, Conan uses a magical sword that he found in a ruin throughout the majority of the film. These guys really weren't any slouches in the equipment department.

And interestingly enough, the "ancestral swords" that belong to Aragorn, Conan, and Luke all end up being destroyed, lost, or used to make new swords. At least amongst these characters, the common trope seems to be that these heroes are forced to forsake their father's weapons and must either find or create their own sword in order to make their way in the world. Aragon's busted sword is used to create an entirely new weapon, Conan actually sunders his father's sword in combat with Rexor towards the end of the film, and both of Anakin Skywalker's lightsabers end up falling into chasms, never to be seen again.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Unless you take magic out of the equation (or severely reduce the power of magical items), that non-magical sword is going to stop being used in combat at around level 5.

Choosing to use a +2 defending sword (Dad's) over a +3 flaming sword (father's slayer) should not be the same thing as choosing to use a MW sword over a holy avenger in terms of "using a lesser weapon".

The problem is that if they start off with the weapon at the beginning of the campaign, it's going to need to be much, much weaker then a weapon that would be used at the highest levels of play. If the character finds his father's weapon later on in the campaign and is all magicked up, it can still be fairly competitive. But most GMs are not going to let a 1st level character start the game with a +2 Defending Bastard Sword. They may, however, be inclined to let the character magically upgrade a Masterwork Bastard Sword over the course of the campaign in some fashion.

[Maxus]

It's been a LONG time since I read the Drizzt books, but I seem to recall that he upgraded his gear regularly enough.

Well, he started off with ordinary steel scimitars. Then he replaces one of them with a magical frost scimitar. Then he replaces the other with a scimitar which is gifted to him. He hangs onto them.

Later, he gets some mithril chain shirt armor (or something), and he gets the super-speed bracers.

He gets new things fairly often, but he hangs onto them.