| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14035
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I like it... gives yet another reason to have the willpower skill...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I like it... gives yet another reason to have the willpower skill... |
I have all kinds of ideas for Willpower. The other one I'm considering is insanity rules, where insane characters behave in ways out of the player's control, and the player has to roleplay along. I also have an idea for how Willpower could be applied to some of the "gray area" Dark Side powers (see this thread here):
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3274&highlight=
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I have all kinds of ideas for Willpower. The other one I'm considering is insanity rules, where insane characters behave in ways out of the player's control, and the player has to roleplay along. |
The best rules I've seen for having characters behave in ways different than a player might choose was the traits system in Pendragon. Since it was based on paired opposite trait scores (e.g. Chaste - Lustful, Merciful - Vengeful, Modest - Proud, etc.) characters would tend to act in a certain way, but could still based on a die roll act in a surprising fashion. The player then had to roleplay the behavior. It worked very well for Arthurian Knights. Not sure if it is a tone I would like for SWs, but might be something there for how to handle the Dark Side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | The best rules I've seen for having characters behave in ways different than a player might choose was the traits system in Pendragon. Since it was based on paired opposite trait scores (e.g. Chaste - Lustful, Merciful - Vengeful, Modest - Proud, etc.) characters would tend to act in a certain way, but could still based on a die roll act in a surprising fashion. The player then had to roleplay the behavior. It worked very well for Arthurian Knights. Not sure if it is a tone I would like for SWs, but might be something there for how to handle the Dark Side. |
I don't know if I'm looking to go that far. Mostly what I'm trying to create are rules that take the pressure to decide between character survival and good roleplaying out of the hands of the player and the GM and put it squarely on a dice roll. Whether this is a result of mental illness or just because they lost their temper and did something they regret, I feel that having such decisions based on a random roll of the dice will actually improve gameplay by forcing the player to roleplay the consequences of what his character did when he was out of control.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I don't know if I'm looking to go that far. Mostly what I'm trying to create are rules that take the pressure to decide between character survival and good roleplaying out of the hands of the player and the GM and put it squarely on a dice roll. |
That was clear from your Willpower and DSP thread. I get you and understand the intent and motivation. We actually use Willpower to determine if a Jedi is calm when assessing Concentration difficulties. In fact it makes me want to not have my character's willpower get too high, since then the character is always calm and never loses his temper. While safe, this is uninteresting (to me).
If I recall correctly, I chose to have my character use a FP to kill the sadistic, bad guy who had threatened and injured his girlfriend. Got a DSP. Then had to atone. The story arc combining adventure, romance, danger, fear, anger, DSP, and atonement was one of the best in a 10 year campaign.
I don't think the emotional impact would have been as great if I had used a die roll to decide to kill the bad guy.
Possibly you could allow the player to decide to either choose his action or let the dice decide the action. Some players might like a random result they have to play out. Others (as you have heard) seem to really dislike it.
In addition, one problem with Willpower as a single deciding mechanism is you only have success or failure. Thus you can't distinguish if Willpower failure means the PC is afraid and should run away from danger or is angry and should lash out at what is threatening him. Hence the advantage of multiple traits rather than just a binary in control / out of control result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | That was clear from your Willpower and DSP thread. I get you and understand the intent and motivation. We actually use Willpower to determine if a Jedi is calm when assessing Concentration difficulties. In fact it makes me want to not have my character's willpower get too high, since then the character is always calm and never loses his temper. While safe, this is uninteresting (to me). |
Without trying to sound snippy, does that also mean that you don't want to build your Blaster and Dodge skills too high, because you like fire fights to be more of a challenge? People are allowed to allocate their CPs and improve skills however they wish, and in return, they receive corresponding advantages provided by high dice rolls. If a character is using this rule and allocates a regular portion of his CPs to build his Willpower dice to the point where he regularly passes Willpower checks with flying colors, then he has certainly paid the price for it, in the form of dice that could've been placed in other skills.
| Quote: | If I recall correctly, I chose to have my character use a FP to kill the sadistic, bad guy who had threatened and injured his girlfriend. Got a DSP. Then had to atone. The story arc combining adventure, romance, danger, fear, anger, DSP, and atonement was one of the best in a 10 year campaign.
I don't think the emotional impact would have been as great if I had used a die roll to decide to kill the bad guy. |
That was a very well controlled loss of control, then. I commend you on your excellent roleplaying skills. Of course, not all players are so honest as you (most of them, actually). And to be honest, if you had been using this mechanic, had failed your Willpower roll, and had used the corresponding bonus to slay the villain in the exact fashion, would the resulting story arc really have been any different? I have been using the phrase "loss of control", which may be part of the issue, but when I say "loss of control", I am also including those incidents where characters willingly give in to their darker impulses and pay for it later. The Willpower roll in this situation isn't just about maintaining emotional control; it's about maintaining a firm grasp on the character's own sense of morality.
| Quote: | | Possibly you could allow the player to decide to either choose his action or let the dice decide the action. Some players might like a random result they have to play out. Others (as you have heard) seem to really dislike it. |
To me, that brings it back around to the issue of distinction between the player and the character. The idea is for the player to write up a character who is someone other than himself, but far too often, the character ends up mirroring the player's attitude and mindset. The result is a series of well-worn and time-honored cliches about the mercenary and amoral nature of player characters with regards to morality and loot.
With this mechanic, I am trying to introduce a certain degree of control on the character's behalf, taking it out of the player's hands in the interests of improving in-game realism. While the character may be locked in a lightsaber battle with a Dark Jedi who just killed the character's mom, the player's major concerns tends to be much more banal and cynical (such as how many character points will I earn, whether or not I can snag the villain's lightsaber once he is killed, and making sure that my character plays "realistically" without anything "really bad" happening to him). In such a situation, should the choice of action really be in the hands of the one half of the player/character gestalt with the least emotional involvement? No, it shouldn't. The character's psyche and emotions are what is being tested here, not the player's. As such, it should be the character's Willpower that is tested, not a biased decision made by the player with the primary goal of preserving his character for future games.
Many people have said that this mechanic should be the realm of good roleplaying, and in an ideal world, I would agree. Unfortunately, I cannot say with any certainty that I have ever roleplayed in an ideal world. Instead, I see a lot of cheating, rules-lawyering, short cuts and cynical compromises. If it takes a rule to make people play honest, then so be it.
Those who say that this removes an opportunity for roleplaying are ignoring the fact that it also creates an opportunity for roleplaying. After all, in the real world, how many of us have done something out of anger or fear that we later looked back on and regretted? At the time, it seemed like the right choice, but later, once we have come down from the emotional high, we usually end up asking "What was I thinking?" This is a rule for those moments. With this rule, a character who fails his Willpower role is actually losing sight of his moral compass at a critical moment. At the time, it may seem like the right thing to do. It is only afterwards, when he has a DSP and is asking himself "What was I thinking?" that he realizes what he has done.
| Quote: | | In addition, one problem with Willpower as a single deciding mechanism is you only have success or failure. Thus you can't distinguish if Willpower failure means the PC is afraid and should run away from danger or is angry and should lash out at what is threatening him. Hence the advantage of multiple traits rather than just a binary in control / out of control result. |
In that case, I think there should be separate rules applied for the emotional action that is appropriate to the situation, be that reaction rage or fear. After all, fear can have the same motivating effect to spur a character to massacre a crowd of civilians as anger.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Without trying to sound snippy, does that also mean that you don't want to build your Blaster and Dodge skills too high, because you like fire fights to be more of a challenge? |
Doesn't sound snippy.
And yes, I don't want to build Blaster and Dodge skills too high. I look at the character as a balance of skills and boosting certain skills too high detrimentally affects that balance and changes the concept of the character. For me it is important to character concept to know if a character is better at attacking, defending, or is balanced between the two. It tells me something about the character or contrariwise the character's personality should tell me something about his skill choices and level.
It is more interesting for me if my character is good at some skills, but also less good at some skills.
Also as a practical matter, all game systems work best in a certain power range and GMs tend to be most comfortable designing and running scenarios within a certain power range. My metagame goal is to maximize the time that my character is both fun for me to play and fun for my GM to run. If the skills get too high, in effect I don't get to run the character.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | If I recall correctly, I chose to have my character use a FP to kill the sadistic, bad guy who had threatened and injured his girlfriend. Got a DSP. Then had to atone. The story arc combining adventure, romance, danger, fear, anger, DSP, and atonement was one of the best in a 10 year campaign.
I don't think the emotional impact would have been as great if I had used a die roll to decide to kill the bad guy. |
And to be honest, if you had been using this mechanic, had failed your Willpower roll, and had used the corresponding bonus to slay the villain in the exact fashion, would the resulting story arc really have been any different? |
Story arc would likely have been similar or the same. The emotional impact for me, the player, would have been less.
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the Willpower mechanic. My concerns are two-fold.
1) As a mechanic a binary choice seems too limited and to make this work well, I think you need more than just willpower. Something more akin, to say Pendragon paired traits, but this then becomes a very different feel to the game.
2) Many players will not want to give up control of character actions. Forcing them to do so via a Willpower mechanic is unlikely to provide them with a more enjoyable game. Thus I suggested making the use of whatever mechanic voluntary on the players part. That way, those players who are comfortable playing out the randomly determined character choices can do so and those that are not comfortable are not forced to.
| Quote: | To me, that brings it back around to the issue of distinction between the player and the character.
With this mechanic, I am trying to introduce a certain degree of control on the character's behalf, taking it out of the player's hands in the interests of improving in-game realism. |
I understand and somewhat agree with you on the distinction. It is really no different than the issue of who comes up with smart ideas or tactical solutions. The character should be the one doing this, but as a practical matter the player is the one who devises the tactics, the dialog, etc. for the character. And this can lead to similar problems where a clever or inventive player is acting beyond the abilities of the character or the in some ways worse problem of a dim player who can't act up the the abilities of a superior character. Essentially I see these issues as fundamentally irresolvable.
| Quote: |
Many people have said that this mechanic should be the realm of good roleplaying, and in an ideal world, I would agree. Unfortunately, I cannot say with any certainty that I have ever roleplayed in an ideal world. Instead, I see a lot of cheating, rules-lawyering, short cuts and cynical compromises. If it takes a rule to make people play honest, then so be it.
|
Not trying to be snippy, but another solution is find better players or alternatively live with the abilities of the players you have. I question whether players who are cheating, rules-lawyering, and cynical will really get into the spirit of roleplaying you are looking for rather than just being frustrated by your GM imposed mechanic.
But if you find the mechanic helps them to let go of their fear about the character acting from anger, fear, or whatever go for it, say I.
| Quote: |
In that case, I think there should be separate rules applied for the emotional action that is appropriate to the situation, be that reaction rage or fear. After all, fear can have the same motivating effect to spur a character to massacre a crowd of civilians as anger.
|
Sure it can. But I am trying to differentiate a fear = runaway reaction from a fear/anger = attack reaction. While fear may cause a panic lashing out, it may also cause cringing in terror or running away. Unless you can differentiate you are stuck with the character failed a willpower roll, so now what.
Does that mean he is afraid of the Jedi that killed his master and so he runs away or surrenders or he is angry at the Jedi that killed his master so he attacks recklessly. A failed willpower roll doesn't tell me which action my out of control character should take. For your mechanic to do what you want, it should tell the player what action the character takes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | It is more interesting for me if my character is good at some skills, but also less good at some skills.
Also as a practical matter, all game systems work best in a certain power range and GMs tend to be most comfortable designing and running scenarios within a certain power range. My metagame goal is to maximize the time that my character is both fun for me to play and fun for my GM to run. If the skills get too high, in effect I don't get to run the character. |
Then I don't see why you have a problem with my rule. It doesn't change the fact that Willpower is still a skill that has to be improved in the same old way as all the other skills. It simply makes Willpower a little more important in the game (and absolutely essential to any Jedi who doesn't want to pick up DSPs). And this isn't a rule that would be enforced every time the character gets cut off in traffic. This is a rule for critical story-line moments when the character would have to make a major moral and ethical choice between right and wrong. I have seen too much "roleplaying" in my life to believe that that choice should be left up to a biased and emotionally detached player.
| Quote: | | Story arc would likely have been similar or the same. The emotional impact for me, the player, would have been less. |
Personally, if I want emotional impact, I watch Extreme Makeover Home Edition. If I want roleplaying, I play Star Wars. If I want good, realistic roleplaying, I play a version of Star Wars where there are rules to account for many of the ways in which players cheat. Like this one.
| Quote: | I think I understand what you are trying to do with the Willpower mechanic. My concerns are two-fold.
1) As a mechanic a binary choice seems too limited and to make this work well, I think you need more than just willpower. Something more akin, to say Pendragon paired traits, but this then becomes a very different feel to the game. |
But it is a binary choice, between light and dark. Does the character behave in a moral manner, or does he give in to his darker impulses? The exact form that this takes is open to discussion (or roleplaying), but the rule is used to determine a yes/no answer to a simple question; "Does the character choose to react in a manner that does not conflict with his moral code?"
| Quote: | | 2) Many players will not want to give up control of character actions. Forcing them to do so via a Willpower mechanic is unlikely to provide them with a more enjoyable game. Thus I suggested making the use of whatever mechanic voluntary on the players part. That way, those players who are comfortable playing out the randomly determined character choices can do so and those that are not comfortable are not forced to. |
Hopefully, such players never have to face a Dark Jedi with a penchant for Affect Mind. Or play in any D&D game with an Enchanter as a villain. I'm sure if the players had it their way, they would never be in any real danger, would rake in CPs by the gross lot, and would always have the universe's coolest loot. The rules are there to make sure that that doesn't happen. You are placing far too much faith in the idea that players will roleplay their characters fairly and accurately. I am curious as to which golden city, on which high hill, do you game in where the players are all so pure and virtuous. I'm only asking because I bet I could make a fortune there selling loaded dice and copies of "The Power-Gamer's Guide to the Star Wars RPG."
| Quote: | | I understand and somewhat agree with you on the distinction. It is really no different than the issue of who comes up with smart ideas or tactical solutions. The character should be the one doing this, but as a practical matter the player is the one who devises the tactics, the dialog, etc. for the character. And this can lead to similar problems where a clever or inventive player is acting beyond the abilities of the character or the in some ways worse problem of a dim player who can't act up the the abilities of a superior character. Essentially I see these issues as fundamentally irresolvable. |
And you are correct, up to a point. However, that doesn't mean we can't find ways to curtail that activity to a degree. Inventing a rule to cover ways in which the character's emotional state would override the player's control is just one of them. I have also seen/worked on rule ideas for Tactics, whereby it resulted in a bonus to skills and/or initiative, based on how well the Tactician rolled the dice. The issue may be fundamentally irresolvable, but that doesn't mean it can't be curtailed and contained.
| Quote: | | Not trying to be snippy, but another solution is find better players or alternatively live with the abilities of the players you have. I question whether players who are cheating, rules-lawyering, and cynical will really get into the spirit of roleplaying you are looking for rather than just being frustrated by your GM imposed mechanic. |
The problem there is that players who are interested in D6 Star Wars are a rare breed. After all, the system has been out of print for almost two decades. And you're wrong about the players; most of them got that way because lax rules systems and push-over GMs allowed them to push limits. Present them with a formalized rule that doesn't unfairly penalize their character, and most of them will at least try it out.
I'm sure that all the jokes and cliches about mercenary and amoral roleplayers did not originate in my small home town in northern California. Taking a character "out of character" for personally biased reasons is practically a part of any roleplaying game. And again, it's not like I'm hijacking the character for the whole game. This will happen maybe once in a gaming session, at a dramatically appropriate moment. The decision will be based on what the character is capable of, NOT the player. Although, to be fair, if I were to use this mechanic in a game, the players would know about it going in, so if their PC went berserk at the wrong moment because they allocated all their Willpower dice to blaster, it's their own fault.
Also, if I introduce a new rule in mid-campaign, with existing characters, I usually hand out a couple of extra dice for characters to allocate as they see fit, and they usually end up putting it into the skill affected by the new rule. If not, they usually end up paying for it later.
| Quote: | | Sure it can. But I am trying to differentiate a fear = runaway reaction from a fear/anger = attack reaction. While fear may cause a panic lashing out, it may also cause cringing in terror or running away. Unless you can differentiate you are stuck with the character failed a willpower roll, so now what. |
I'm working on that. I see this rule coming into play in four basic scenarios:
1). The villain is taunting the character, either by word or action, and the character must make a Willpower role to maintain control and not give in to an emotional response.
2). The character is in a situation where he feels threatened, and has no way out, save by attacking the threat (Soldier on riot duty feels threatened by an angry but unarmed crowd of civilians and opens fire because he feared for his life).
3). The character is in a truly terrifying situation and bolts, leaving his friends to almost certain death.
4). A Force using character is considering use of the Force in a manner that is morally wrong, or at least morally dangerous, and must resist the call of the Dark Side as it tells him how easy it would be to make this one little compromise, "just this once."
Which reaction would be the most appropriate would ultimately be up to the GM and the player. I am still working on rules that would best reflect each scenario.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14035
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Quote:
2) Many players will not want to give up control of character actions. Forcing them to do so via a Willpower mechanic is unlikely to provide them with a more enjoyable game. Thus I suggested making the use of whatever mechanic voluntary on the players part. That way, those players who are comfortable playing out the randomly determined character choices can do so and those that are not comfortable are not forced to.
Hopefully, such players never have to face a Dark Jedi with a penchant for Affect Mind. Or play in any D&D game with an Enchanter as a villain |
In adnd there is a built in mechanic to get players like that to realize their mess up.. its called Training rating. Where they are graded 1-4. 2 is ave. That acts as a multiplier on their COST to train up a levle as well as the time it takes.
I don't really see a reign in for starwars in a similar fassion, other than docking earned CP.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interior quotes are mine, exterior or single level quotes are crmcneill's.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Then I don't see why you have a problem with my rule. |
I think I answered this already, but here goes.
(1) A willpower only mechanic is too simplistic. A binary choice is too limited to cover the multiple needs of roleplaying.
(2) As a GM, I have mature players interested in roleplaying character choice and angst. Thus they frequently make choices in line with in-game character rather than out-of-game player motivation that results in risk for the characters. They have done this in multiple game systems and universes. I trust them to do this at least as often as they would fail a willpower role. Therefore I don't see a need for a new rule.
(3) As a player in SW, I prefer being the author of my characters actions rather than having critical decisions decided by a random die roll with a difficulty authored by the GM. In other game systems, e.g. Pendragon, a different method may be appropriate.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | I think I understand what you are trying to do with the Willpower mechanic. My concerns are two-fold.
1) As a mechanic a binary choice seems too limited and to make this work well, I think you need more than just willpower. Something more akin, to say Pendragon paired traits, but this then becomes a very different feel to the game. |
But it is a binary choice, between light and dark. Does the character behave in a moral manner, or does he give in to his darker impulses? The exact form that this takes is open to discussion (or roleplaying), but the rule is used to determine a yes/no answer to a simple question; "Does the character choose to react in a manner that does not conflict with his moral code?"
|
So here is where we disagree. I do not see morality as a simple binary choice. Just knowing the character failed an alignment check/moral code test/willpower role, doesn't answer any truly interesting question for me. I want to see how the character acts. Thus I either want more information generated randomly or less.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 2) Many players will not want to give up control of character actions. Forcing them to do so via a Willpower mechanic is unlikely to provide them with a more enjoyable game. Thus I suggested making the use of whatever mechanic voluntary on the players part. That way, those players who are comfortable playing out the randomly determined character choices can do so and those that are not comfortable are not forced to. |
Hopefully, such players never have to face a Dark Jedi with a penchant for Affect Mind. Or play in any D&D game with an Enchanter as a villain. |
Most characters hope never to face a Dark Jedi of any sort. The rules circumscribe what affect mind can do and increase the difficulty or out right prohibit certain types of control. Since we are playing Star Wars D&D actions or fears are irrelevant. Personally it is a game system I moved away from back in 1980.
| Quote: | | I'm sure if the players had it their way, they would never be in any real danger, would rake in CPs by the gross lot, and would always have the universe's coolest loot. The rules are there to make sure that that doesn't happen. |
While this is true of some players, especially immature ones, in my experience it is not true of most players.
| Quote: | | You are placing far too much faith in the idea that players will roleplay their characters fairly and accurately. I am curious as to which golden city, on which high hill, do you game in where the players are all so pure and virtuous. I'm only asking because I bet I could make a fortune there selling loaded dice and copies of "The Power-Gamer's Guide to the Star Wars RPG." |
Well now you are just being sarcastic.
Ignoring the sarcasm, I mainly roleplay with good friends that I've known and played with for decades. That has given us many opportunities to build up trust between players and GMs. I accept that your experience is different. If you are unwilling to accept that my experience is valid there is little point in further discussion on this topic.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Not trying to be snippy, but another solution is find better players or alternatively live with the abilities of the players you have. I question whether players who are cheating, rules-lawyering, and cynical will really get into the spirit of roleplaying you are looking for rather than just being frustrated by your GM imposed mechanic. |
The problem there is that players who are interested in D6 Star Wars are a rare breed. After all, the system has been out of print for almost two decades. And you're wrong about the players; most of them got that way because lax rules systems and push-over GMs allowed them to push limits. |
I disagree with this. Players cheat because they value winning above morals. They rules lawyer because they have found it is a successful technique to win. In my experience more rules may curtail some cheating but this is often at the expense of vastly increased rules lawyering. A far better solution is to a) find better players or b) live with the players you have.
| Quote: | | Taking a character "out of character" for personally biased reasons is practically a part of any roleplaying game. And again, it's not like I'm hijacking the character for the whole game. This will happen maybe once in a gaming session, at a dramatically appropriate moment. The decision will be based on what the character is capable of, NOT the player. |
I prefer, as do many players, to be the ultimate arbiter of what the character is capable of. You want the GM to be the arbiter. While I understand your rationale, I see it as unnecessary and unhelpful for me and my players.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sure it can. But I am trying to differentiate a fear = runaway reaction from a fear/anger = attack reaction. While fear may cause a panic lashing out, it may also cause cringing in terror or running away. Unless you can differentiate you are stuck with the character failed a willpower roll, so now what. |
I'm working on that. I see this rule coming into play in four basic scenarios:
[listing of 1-4 examples deleted]
Which reaction would be the most appropriate would ultimately be up to the GM and the player. I am still working on rules that would best reflect each scenario. |
I feel like I am being repetitive, but the actual reaction is the important and interesting part to me, not the failure to be in control per se. Thus your mechanic removes player control without the benefit of answering what is to me the fundamental question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Giving people with dps random disorders (like in warhammer fantasy rpg) might be more fun than just having them roll willpower against a general dark side force.
Bad roleplaying against the disorders deduct cp. Ofc having a disorder that makes you kill everything in sight isn't very productive for the game experience. It could be megalomania, pathological lying, depression etc.
Then if someone wants to act against the disorder they have to roll their willpower test egainst the number of dsp they have.
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Random Numbers wrote: | Giving people with dps random disorders (like in warhammer fantasy rpg) might be more fun than just having them roll willpower against a general dark side force.
Bad roleplaying against the disorders deduct cp. Ofc having a disorder that makes you kill everything in sight isn't very productive for the game experience. It could be megalomania, pathological lying, depression etc.
Then if someone wants to act against the disorder they have to roll their willpower test egainst the number of dsp they have. |
They already have a list for personality disorders linked to dark side points in Tales of the Jedi. I've adopted it in my games. Oh, did I mention that it's a random roll? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16179
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | (1) A willpower only mechanic is too simplistic. A binary choice is too limited to cover the multiple needs of roleplaying. |
The Willpower roll is about the character's moral choice, specifically, does the character choose the light or the dark. The method in which that choice expresses itself does not interest me, so long as the choice of light or dark is made by the character, not an emotionally detached and personally biased player. That being said, giving in to one's darker emotions (anger, fear, aggression) are usually expressed in a specific fashion, and fear is the only one that doesn't involve trying to inflict bodily harm to one's opponent (although a terrified person backed into a corner and in fear for his life is more than capable of fighting like a trapped rat to save himself).
| Quote: | | (2) As a GM, I have mature players interested in roleplaying character choice and angst. Thus they frequently make choices in line with in-game character rather than out-of-game player motivation that results in risk for the characters. They have done this in multiple game systems and universes. I trust them to do this at least as often as they would fail a willpower role. Therefore I don't see a need for a new rule. |
Well, I'm not asking you to use it. It obviously wouldn't be a good fit for your collection of Lawful Good Paladins. Just don't go assuming that every RPG group matches up to your high ethical standards, or that a rule is not valid for other groups just because it wouldn't be a good fit for yours. I think we have pretty well established that you don't like the rule, so unless you have some suggestions as to how I can improve on a concept that I and others see some validity in, please have the good graces to keep silent as opposed to rehashing the same personal opinion over and over.
| Quote: | | (3) As a player in SW, I prefer being the author of my characters actions rather than having critical decisions decided by a random die roll with a difficulty authored by the GM. In other game systems, e.g. Pendragon, a different method may be appropriate. |
Therein lies the problem. The RAW does not accurately reflect the simple fact that people in the real world often lose control and do things that they regret. Everything is left up to the player, who is always aware of the potential consequences (and made aware if he is not) and is personally biased towards the long-term survival and advancement of their character, whether they admit it or not.
| Quote: | | So here is where we disagree. I do not see morality as a simple binary choice. Just knowing the character failed an alignment check/moral code test/willpower role, doesn't answer any truly interesting question for me. I want to see how the character acts. Thus I either want more information generated randomly or less. |
Key point: You wish to see how the character acts. But when a player declares his character's actions in an emotionally charged situation, you are not seeing how the character acts; you are seeing how the player would act if he were presented with a thought problem with time to consider the issue in a relative absence of strong emotions
| Quote: | | Most characters hope never to face a Dark Jedi of any sort. The rules circumscribe what affect mind can do and increase the difficulty or out right prohibit certain types of control. Since we are playing Star Wars D&D actions or fears are irrelevant. Personally it is a game system I moved away from back in 1980. |
As have I, but I still find there are useful facets to be gleaned from the D&D material, and emotional states and temporary loss of control is one of them. Again, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I'm sure if the players had it their way, they would never be in any real danger, would rake in CPs by the gross lot, and would always have the universe's coolest loot. The rules are there to make sure that that doesn't happen. |
While this is true of some players, especially immature ones, in my experience it is not true of most players. |
Apparently, we don't know the same players.
| Quote: | Well now you are just being sarcastic.
Ignoring the sarcasm, I mainly roleplay with good friends that I've known and played with for decades. That has given us many opportunities to build up trust between players and GMs. I accept that your experience is different. If you are unwilling to accept that my experience is valid there is little point in further discussion on this topic. |
| Quote: | | I prefer, as do many players, to be the ultimate arbiter of what the character is capable of. You want the GM to be the arbiter. While I understand your rationale, I see it as unnecessary and unhelpful for me and my players. |
My problem here is that your discussion seems to be devoted entirely to telling me that my rule won't work because it wouldn't be a good fit for your campaign. Essentially, you are telling me that my gaming experience has less validity than yours, as all your arguments are focused on telling me that this is not a good rule in general. If you are unwilling to accept that my experience is valid, then there really is little point in further discussion on this topic.
| Quote: | | I feel like I am being repetitive, but the actual reaction is the important and interesting part to me, not the failure to be in control per se. Thus your mechanic removes player control without the benefit of answering what is to me the fundamental question. |
Fine. I will try again. The Willpower roll determines a simple yes or no answer - Does the character give in to his darker emotions or not? How that darker emotion is expressed is of little interest to me, but I only see this rule coming into play in pivotal moments, such as:
1). Obi-wan temporarily losing control and attacking Darth Maul after he stabbed Qui-gon, but regaining that control as he continued the fight.
2). Anakin losing control over the death of his mother and slaughtering the sand people.
3). Anakin Force-Choking Padme
4). Luke attacking Vader after he threatened Leia, defeating him, but regaining enough control to keep from killing him.
As a skill, Willpower begins and ends with the degree to which you have control over your own thoughts, and by extension yourself. This rule is intended to introduce a single moment of decision: Does the character behave morally, or does he give into the darker emotions that are pulling at him in this moment? Some will succeed in this moment, others will fail and earn a DSP with their actions, and others will fail the initial roll and subsequently bring themselves under control before they perform an act which would earn them a DSP. The player is then left to roleplay the result of his character's actions.
IMO, roleplaying in such a situation will be more realistic than it would be if the player never lost control and got to direct his character down a flawless path to success. We use the dice to determine the random factors in the gaming universe that are out of our control, so why should a character's emotional state and self-control be firmly in the grasp of a player and left solely up to "good roleplaying"?
My point here is that that control should be reflected in the character, not some vague standard of "good roleplaying" on the part of the player. It is the character's degree of self-control that should be the deciding factor in this situation, not a biased decision made by a nerd sitting at a table who has read about life or death situations, but has probably never experienced one.
They key point to me is that the player is not the character. The player is not the one standing over the body of his own mother who has just been tortured to death. The player is not the one who just watched his friend and teacher get stabbed in the chest by a Sith Lord. The player is not the one who has just concluded that the woman he loves more than life itself has betrayed him. The player is not the one who is driven over the edge by an implied threat to his sister. And yet, in such emotionally charged and volatile situations, the rules place control over the character's self-control in the hands of someone who is not there and whose life experience and emotional state are radically removed from the character they are attempting to portray.
Control during a loss of control is a contradiction in terms. To ask a player to accurately roleplay his character in such a situation is, IMO, asking too much. If you wish to believe your players have such skill, that is certainly your right, but my experience with humanity in general does not lead me to be so trusting. This rule reflects that.
In summary, if you don't like it, don't use it. But either help me make it better or move on to another topic, because its pretty clear we aren't going to agree on this one.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lancil
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can see both sides to this argument. But I must agree that a willpower roll to determine a players decision for his character is probably just going to make an angry player. In all of your examples above, I agree that the player has not ever had to endure any of those situations. However, the player, hopefully, is a good enough roll-player that he will weigh the situation and go with the path that the character would most likely take, and if the player chooses what would be the "best" answer IE: not kill the sand people, or choke Padme' then he might be penalized by the GM with a lack of cp or some thing else similar. And if the player continues to make poor role playing decisions the GM might consider that the player is too immature for his game, and ask him not to return next session. But I also come from a mature gaming group that tries to role play and make decisions based on what the character might actually do in a particular situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Random Numbers wrote: | Giving people with dps random disorders (like in warhammer fantasy rpg) might be more fun than just having them roll willpower against a general dark side force.
Bad roleplaying against the disorders deduct cp. Ofc having a disorder that makes you kill everything in sight isn't very productive for the game experience. It could be megalomania, pathological lying, depression etc.
Then if someone wants to act against the disorder they have to roll their willpower test egainst the number of dsp they have. |
Just wait and see..... 
Hint: They wont be random though, but chosen by the benign GM.. 8)
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
