The Gaming Den

sigma999 wrote: Game-wise, negligible. It's one of the 'soft' aspects of gaming that is difficult to impossible to put with numbers and checks.

Ok, ok, look carefully at this hypothetical situation:

PC: "I am a brave knight!"
GM: "You see ten orcs."
PC: "Uhh... How strong are those orcs... Can I beat them... What? I might die? Uhh, well... I guess discretion is the better part of valor yet again".

And now compare with this hypothetical situation:

PC: "I am a brave knight!"
GM: "You see ten orcs."
PC: "Hm. So, since I'm brave and have a combat bonus because of that, I can pull it off. CHAAARGE!"

Negligible? Are you sure???

Kobajagrande wrote: PC: "Hm. So, since I'm brave and have a combat bonus because of that, I can pull it off. CHAAARGE!"

"Since I'm Brave and I'm currently acting brave, I get a bonus to my attacks."

On a related note: a system like that should have advantages only, always allow alternative methods and never penalize alternative methods. I.e. the following shouldn't happen:

doing it wrong wrote:"I'm going to hide."
1. "No you cannot, you're Brave, says so on your character sheet."
"But there's, like, 18 red dragons!"
"Fine. Roll a Will save, DC 25, to NOT charge in."

2. "Fine, but you have an additional -6 to hiding because you're Brave."

3. "Let's see... you've evaded combat 7 times already, as compared to 3 times you actually charged in, so you're no longer Brave."

Yes. Negligible. Player can do what they want, illusion of free will or not.

Your example relies on the ability of a player to hypothesize the motives and morals of their PC.
Putting such decisions in to categories would be like AD&D alignment charts dividing relativistic behavior choices in to "Good" and "Evil"; it's an unrealistic and juvenile way of seeing the world and mortal morality.

Assigning people mechanical consequences to playing in-character isn't one of the worst things I have ever heard, but it's certainly up there.

Why? Because it gives players a perverse incentive not to roleplay their character in a way that's best for the story--they roleplay in accordance to what gives them bonuses.

MGuy wrote: Do the two things need to actually be different?

Yes. I'm still developing a method of defining the two, but it's essentially like witnessing a cyborg in action.

They have flesh (RP, setting, plot) and machine parts (mechanics, dice).
It can't exist without the either.
Without machine it's an organic being (Tea Party, Larp)
Without flesh it's a robot (video game, dungeon crawl, hack-n-slash, gamist)

You can have crossover between the two categories, but be aware that it will probably influence one towards the other if there is too much interference.

Assigning numbers, limits, and rules to roleplay, as well as bonus incentives, plants that aspect of decision-making roleplay firmly in the realm of gamism.
That's not good. That's like Neverwinter conversations.

Which could be solved by eliminating the bonuses.

MGuy wrote:hmmm...Well the balance would then be in the hands of the GM at the table then. Since there's no concrete way to say whether or not someones actions are good for the story. And then that could lead to people trying to play for the GM's attention, making choices based on what they assume the GM wants in order to get the bonuses... it would turn into madness @.@

Yes there is! It's called plot structure, flow of events, cause-and-effect, , and so on.

I have a feeling they can be abstracted, but much detail is lost in doing so.

Your concern for GM bias and appealing to their outlook seems more of an individual basis. Their breadth of understanding social interaction would vastly differ from other GMs (and be severely stunted if they don't get out much) but I suspect that with basic guides for deciding NPC interaction and motive there would be fewer problems.
I've seen mechanically sound games ruined by GM shannigans though (HEY GUYS WE NEED CRITICAL FUMBLE HOUSERULES), so that's not really anything new to me on the other end of RP vs. gamism.

In other words, the problem with "RP" in RPGs would lie between the dice and the chair.

sigma999 wrote:Yes. Negligible. Player can do what they want, illusion of free will or not.

BS. Of course players can do anything they want. That's not the point.
The point is, if you publish a game saying "HERE YOU PLAY HEROES" and your game offers absolutely no incentive for your characters to act heroic, then you're either being intentionally deceptive, or you have failed in designing your game.

Look, mechanics influence roleplay. Don't say they don't. You decide how to act based on your chances to succeed. That's perfectly natural. So you simply use that. If you want a game which intends the players to play specific characters (for example, heroes), then you encourage roleplaying of personality traits that are important for the story (modesty, valor, humility, etc.) by making them mechanically relevant.

sigma999 wrote:Your example relies on the ability of a player to hypothesize the motives and morals of their PC.

Umm... No. It was quite obviously thought process of a player. What were you reading?

sigma999 wrote:Putting such decisions in to categories would be like AD&D alignment charts dividing relativistic behavior choices in to "Good" and "Evil"; it's an unrealistic and juvenile way of seeing the world and mortal morality.

But "unrealistic" and "juvenile" are not bad words.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Because it gives players a perverse incentive not to roleplay their character in a way that's best for the story--they roleplay in accordance to what gives them bonuses.

Bull shit. If you award personality traits which encourages creating types of characters which fit the story, then you are doing a GOOD THING.
Even in shittiest, trashiest, pulpiest piece of fantasy I've ever read (something about some deamon awakening and a human ranger trained by elves fighting him) heroes of a fantasy novel have a set of traits which make them join in the fight against evil, which they can expect to get tested during their travels, and thanks to which, they finally triumph against the evil.

How is emulating something fantasy genre should be all about a bad thing?

Kobajagrande wrote:Bull shit. If you award personality traits which encourages creating types of characters which fit the story, then you are doing a GOOD THING.
Even in shittiest, trashiest, pulpiest piece of fantasy I've ever read (something about some deamon awakening and a human ranger trained by elves fighting him) heroes of a fantasy novel have a set of traits which make them join in the fight against evil, which they can expect to get tested during their travels, and thanks to which, they finally triumph against the evil.

People will do whatever gives them the bonus. For any sensibly limited set of bonuses you'll get very 2D characters. If I write 'headstrong' on my sheet I've just made the game very limited because I've aligned in character with mechanical benefit in a way that cuts off stories about subterfuge.

Draco_Argentum wrote:People will do whatever gives them the bonus. For any sensibly limited set of bonuses you'll get very 2D characters. If I write 'headstrong' on my sheet I've just made the game very limited because I've aligned in character with mechanical benefit in a way that cuts off stories about subterfuge.

You are right, of course, but the thing is, no personality mechanics seek to emulate a whole character personality. They all deal only with those traits that are required by the story/genre/however you want to call the overall feel of the game.

If you make a "Homicide: Life on the Street RPG" you want to include the "job screwing up my private life, which screws up my job performance, which eventually leads down to a breakdown" because that's a lot of what the show is about.

Also, if you make a "Heroic Fantasy RPG" you want characters to have virtues which will make them start their fight against the forces of evil, get tempted during the course of the game but stay true to them, and finally, triumph through those virtues.

Does "headstrong" trait has a place in such RPG? Maybe. Headstrong is often used as a trait you'll refuse to join with the badguy at first, and then will eventually overcome by accepting help and advice, and working together with your allies.

Now, with traits you see problematic, you can either say they are irrelevant to the genre your game is emulate (which is a reasonable thing, imho; no RPG should try and pretend it can be used in any genre), or you can present it in such a way that means "not oblivious to reason", which every personality trait should be.

Kobajagrande wrote:Now, with traits you see problematic, you can either say they are irrelevant to the genre your game is emulate (which is a reasonable thing, imho; no RPG should try and pretend it can be used in any genre), or you can present it in such a way that means "not oblivious to reason", which every personality trait should be.

It seems to me that you'd want a party where everyone had the same traits. That way they'd all get a bonus at the same time and you could make plot choices that make the bonus come up as often as possible. How would you stop that cause I don't want to play if the mechanics encourage the party to me the same person.

By all the hells, it's like debating the use of roleplay affecting game mechanics

.. with myself from years ago.

MY OWN CLONE

NOW NEITHER OF US WILL BE VIRGINS

I'm sure most of us in TGD have been through the cycle.
Kobaja is still early on, it seems.

I mean, fuck, I broke the misconceptions of bell curve and probability last spring.
Did a bit of reading dissertations while I was away from TGD (and during months of class, of course, enjoying some 'Sar free time) and now you don't even see me mention probability or issues with dice!
Well, other than now. With this mention. Etc.
It's because I have no questions on the matter!
They were answered by reading on my own, because I realized my own deficiency with math was preventing my understanding of an RPG at its fundamental core.

Seriously, read some blogs and articles on roleplay vs. game mechanics.
Witness what works and what doesn't.
I guarantee, you'll see again and again that the statement, to paraphrase, holds true;

Roleplay and game mechanics mix like oil and water.

Alignment = roleplay.
Alignment and personality affecting combat won't work the way you want; there will be problems, you'll try to 'fix' it, and end up becoming frustrated.
Please consider a bit of research beyond debates.

Draco_Argentum wrote:It seems to me that you'd want a party where everyone had the same traits. That way they'd all get a bonus at the same time and you could make plot choices that make the bonus come up as often as possible. How would you stop that cause I don't want to play if the mechanics encourage the party to me the same person.

Either come up with some smart thing to say, or stop wasting our time.

sigma999 wrote: Roleplay and game mechanics mix like oil and water.[/i]

Ummm... Man... Roleplay is heavily influenced by game mechanics.

Kobajagrande wrote:Ummm... Man... Roleplay is heavily influenced by game mechanics.

Only if you want them to be. In order to prove this, I’m going to jump away from fantasy role playing and talk about an online “nation building” game known as NationStates, invented by a writer by the name of Max Barry initially as a platform to push his book of the same name. The basic nature of the game is simple, you run a nation, you get daily issues; issues change your game stats in some generally undisclosed way. There is a global organization called the World Assembly (originally called the UN, but the United Nations actually wrote a cease and desist letter against the company). Nations form into regions, controlled either by the region’s founder or the current “delegate” to the WA elected by the members in the region that belong to the WA. Regional controllers have the power to do things like kick players out of regions, and password protect the region.

There are three basic types of players. The first type actually play the game as it is written, they respond to the daily issues, take track of their nation’s status and role play their nation accordingly. Then there are the “game players,” the ones who have found that you can “invade” regions, take control of the WA and thus control of the region. The core mechanics of the daily issues are meaningless as well as the nation’s stats as a result. Any role playing they are doing is at an abstract meta-game level. Finally there are those who like to play the game of diplomacy at the WA, ignoring the stats and daily issues while focusing on the text used in WA resolutions (that has no impact on actual game play itself other than the categories used for those resolutions which does impact the stats) roleplaying the interactions of delegates and representatives where defenestration is not only a word, but a way of life! Some players are a mix of these three types.

Using this model we can apply this to most other gaming situations including the role playing model. There are those who do try to link the mechanics with the role playing, there are those who look at the mechanics and ignore the role playing consequences (for example in 3E those who made complex class changing builds without considering why their characters would suddenly make 4 or 5 career changes at strange moments in their lives). There are those who look at the role playing aspect and for the most part ignore the game mechanics aspects (these players tend to have significantly sub optimal characters or on the other side mechanically cheat in subtle ways).

When game play is not in harmony with role play (as can be seen in two of the three NationStates examples) it does seem like oil and water. When they are in harmony there is a good blend. Unfortunately, harmony in game and role playing isn’t always the best in most systems and in some downright broken.

tzor wrote:Unfortunately, harmony in game and role playing isn’t always the best in most systems and in some downright broken.

Why don't you tell me more about what you are referring to here?

The way I see it, mechanics are how the players interact, through their characters, with the setting. In a way, they are the physical laws of the game universe. They also determine what can, and can not be done, as well as what should, and what should not be done.

When a player makes a choice as to what his character is going to do, he takes the mechanics into account. A player know what is possible, what are the risks involved, and makes a decision based on that. So mechanics also influence player behavior.

When you take that all into account, to claim role playing is not influenced by mechanics is utterly stupid. The obvious thing, and people here seemed to have widely accepted that position, is that you decide on what the game is going to be about (genre, feel, flavor, however you want to call it) and then try and do your best to make mechanics actually support that.

For example, if you say you're making a heroic fantasy RPG, where players will play heroes who pop in a village, save it from great danger because they are heroes and ride off into the sunset, you fail if, in actual play, the PCs will act like mercenaries who will milk every spare piece of gold from the village in order to provide help, because the players must care about the PC wealth.

However, you succeed in design if you make it so that the players do not have to worry about the wealth of their characters, and, in actual play, after the job is done, the PCs return to the town mayor, refuse the award and say that the town's safety and prosperity is enough of an award for them. And then they ride off into the sunset, without having shot themselves into the foot for refusing the awards offered.

And that's what this whole thing of "mechanics influencing roleplay" is all about. Through good, solid design, you encourage, no, you enable players to act out fitting roles. You let the characters act like they should. Changing/ignoring the rules in order to do that is all right and well, but... We all know that it speaks more of the system then it does of the players.

MGuy wrote:I once again agree with Kobaj. As I said earlier: "Most people won't follow what the game expects of them unless there is a mechanical benefit. Likewise there's no reason to adhere to a set behavior if there are no benefits for doing so."

That's like motherfucking Ayn Rand of RP behavior there.

How the fuck do you-
Why wouldn't anyone jus-
The human inclination is-

You know what? Nevermind. Just.. take your time to come around. You'll see it eventually.

MGuy wrote: Granted some will prefer to go against this dynamic and role play no matter what.

"role play" does not mean (what sigma seems to think) "we sit around the table and touch our penises together while using no dice". Roleplaying does not stop when you pick up the dice.

Roleplaying is everything you do during the game not including the idle chit-chat about what happened during the week and whatnot. When you enter the combat you still play the role of your character who is in combat.

If anyone thinks otherwise, they should just take a gun, shoot themselves, and stop holding the roleplaying games back with their bullshit views. And no matter how many blogs you've read, sigma, which say that mechanics prevent roleplaying or whatever, doesn't matter, because they are all wrong, and people writing them are stupid.

sigma999 wrote:

MGuy wrote:I once again agree with Kobaj. As I said earlier: "Most people won't follow what the game expects of them unless there is a mechanical benefit. Likewise there's no reason to adhere to a set behavior if there are no benefits for doing so."

That's like motherfucking Ayn Rand of RP behavior there.

I just want to throw in that I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

regardless; Sigma is right to disagree, we've all encountered people who insist on intentionally playing sub-optimal characters because they think it automatically makes them "better roleplayers"