| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | 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) |
But we all agree that disorders are fun and gives characters more flare. Unless they are just evil...
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, I'm not asking you to use it. |
That wasn't how I interpreted this question from your earlier posting.
| Quote: | | Then I don't see why you have a problem with my rule. |
| Quote: | | 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. |
Than I have not made my point sufficiently clear. I layed out three reasons why I don't like your proposed rule modification.
| Quote: | | Quote: | 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. |
|
Reason (2) alone is based on my players.
Reason (3) is my personal preference as a player. You seem to feel a GM is better positioned than a player to determine what an appropriate in character action is in a crisis situation. While I will concede that a player may be self interested in a characters favor, the skilled player (like a skilled actor) knows the role better than the GM (who is perhaps a mix of director and overall author). Therefore I disagree that the GM is automatically a better judge of what the character should do than the player is. Your mechanic presumes the GM is a better judge in a crisis. Where I have seen something close to your willpower mechanic was when a GM wanted a player to determine if the character was calm by making a willpower roll or when a player wanted to use willpower to determine if his character acted in anger by rolling on his willpower. Note the crucial difference here is the player controls the decision to use the willpower roll not the GM.
Reason (1) is that a simple Yes/No does not resolve the question of what should the character do. Which darker emotions? You appear to see all dark emotions manifesting as hostility. Notice in all three examples you provide the character lashes out in anger as the only result of a loss of control. This seems far to simplistic a response to me.
| Quote: | | 1). Obi-wan temporarily losing control and attacking Darth Maul after he stabbed Qui-gon, but regaining that control as he continued the fight. |
Why is attacking Darth Maul the only result. He could have been overcome with grief leaving himself open to Darth Maul's attack. He could have been overcome by fear and have fled Darth Maul, leaving Maul alive for a sequel. Your Willpower roll says nothing of which action the character should take.
| Quote: | | 2). Anakin losing control over the death of his mother and slaughtering the sand people. |
Again, Anakin could have been overcome with grief leaving him open to capture by the sand people. He could blame the the Jedi Council rather than the barbaric Sand People for the separation from his mother which prevented him from rescuing her earlier causing him to act against the Jedi council there and then. Grief or rage, a failed willpower roll could mean either.
| Quote: | | 3). Anakin Force-Choking Padme |
He could have been grief stricken and helpless. He could have pleaded with Padme to stay true to him. He could have grabbed her and in his pride run away with her to live a life without the Jedi.
Lucas' choice here seemed pretty left field to me. It's not like Anakin had shown jealousy previously. And it seems pretty out of character to kill the one you are betraying everything else to save.
| Quote: | | 4). Luke attacking Vader after he threatened Leia, defeating him, but regaining enough control to keep from killing him. |
He could have kept trying to fight the Emperor who after all was the puppet master rather than spending his energy fighting the puppet. He could have fled the throne room and stolen a ship to try to be with his friends/sister or to get her to safety. He could have fled in fear after realizing the Emperor had anticipated his and the Rebellion's actions.
If I am going to take away the players control over their character, I want to provide more choices for what action the character may take and I need something more nuanced than failed roll = attack someone in anger. As I menioned, I think a system like Pendragon's provides more nuanced choices. But that is not WEG Star Wars. You appear to assume the GM and the player will easily agree on what action a loss of control results in. I suspect that would not be the case for many players. Certainly it would work for most players I am familiar with.
Given the problems you list for your players amicable resolution of what action a loss of control will entail seems an overly optimistic premise to me. But I'd be interested to hear how it works for you both from a GM and a player persepective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can respect that not every gaming group is the same. However, being a devotee of a game that has been out of print for over 15 years means that it is difficult to find players in a smaller population. As a player or a GM, you are often stuck with what you have if you want to have a game at all.
I find myself a little surprised at people's concern over losing control over their characters. After all, there are scenarios already included in the rules that involve players temporarily losing control of their characters because of dice roll failures. A major example would be getting shot:
During character creation, if the player chose to allocate dice somewhere other than Dodge, the character would be more vulnerable to attack by ranged weapons. If, during the game, the character gets shot and takes damage, he must, at the very least fall to the ground and take no actions for the rest of that round, and is subject to a -1D penalty to all actions. And that is just the best case scenario. Alternatives involve being knocked out for minutes on end and needing immediate medical attention, and that's assuming the character even lived.
Now, at that point, will the player's reaction be to get angry because they temporarily lost control of their wounded character? Maybe, depending on their maturity level, but the ideal would be that the player shrugs and moves on to doing their best to roleplay the consequences of that action.
Now, consider my rule. During character creation, if the player chose to allocate dice somewhere other than Willpower, the character would be more vulnerable to loss of control during high-stress moments. This is the kind of rule I see coming into effect only once or twice per campaign, so some characters may never have to deal with it. But, assuming that they do, if they rolled Willpower and failed, they would be required to try and kill the source of that anger or fear, or at the very least beat them to a pulp. The character would be allowed subsequent Willpower rolls every round to try and regain control, which would give them the chance to pull back from the darkness before going too far. However, if they acted in a manner that deserved a DSP, then they would earn one, and that's when the option for atonement kicks in, and atonement provides some great roleplaying opportunities.
Now, this wouldn't be a rule that I would drop on players out of the blue. As a GM, I would forewarn them that this is a possibility, and either advise them to allocate dice to Willpower if they are concerned about it (in the case of new character creation) or give them bonus dice to allocate how they see fit (in the case of introducing a rule to an existing campaign).
Having done some stage acting, I can assure you that improvisation is a learned skill, and not an easily acquired one. Actors always prefer to have a script which gives them guidelines as to how to behave, which allows them to concentrate on staying in character. In the case of an RPG, the players and the GM are essentially improvising and free-flow writing the story's script as they go, with the rules, sourcebooks and character templates as the "script". Any actor will tell you that one of the most difficult parts of acting is getting inside the head of the character you are portraying, and making that character's reaction to their situation seem real. This rule is designed to provide a guideline to the "actor" as to how their character will react in a specific situation.
Speaking for myself, if this rule had been a part of the original SW RPG, I would've been relieved because, even as a person who has received acting training and been recognized by my peers as a person of some skill, I know my limitations with regards to putting myself in the character's head. And if I am facing such limitations, I know others will as well, so I made a rule to make things easier for the player by letting the character have some say in their own actions, as a result of a dice roll.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, I'm not asking you to use it. |
That wasn't how I interpreted this question from your earlier posting. |
Since when is anything we discuss on this forum mandatory? I'm not going to start some crusade to force all D6 Star Wars RPG groups to conform to my alternate rules, and no others. I am simply defending my position as to why I think this is a useful and realistic rule.
| Quote: | | Reason (3) is my personal preference as a player. You seem to feel a GM is better positioned than a player to determine what an appropriate in character action is in a crisis situation. While I will concede that a player may be self interested in a characters favor, the skilled player (like a skilled actor) knows the role better than the GM (who is perhaps a mix of director and overall author). Therefore I disagree that the GM is automatically a better judge of what the character should do than the player is. Your mechanic presumes the GM is a better judge in a crisis. Where I have seen something close to your willpower mechanic was when a GM wanted a player to determine if the character was calm by making a willpower roll or when a player wanted to use willpower to determine if his character acted in anger by rolling on his willpower. Note the crucial difference here is the player controls the decision to use the willpower roll not the GM. |
I feel the GM may be better position to control the character in certain situations strictly as an arbiter of the rules. This is not a mechanic that the GM can randomly inflict on the players for bad gaming, like a bolt from the blue, or "Rocks fall, everyone dies." This would be a rule the GM would institute in highly specific situations, where the character was considered to be sufficiently provoked to the point that they might lose control. At that point, it becomes a simple game mechanic: Pick a difficulty number, roll the dice, and roleplay the consequences.
| Quote: | | Reason (1) is that a simple Yes/No does not resolve the question of what should the character do. Which darker emotions? You appear to see all dark emotions manifesting as hostility. Notice in all three examples you provide the character lashes out in anger as the only result of a loss of control. This seems far to simplistic a response to me. |
Exactly which Star Wars movies have you been watching? Anger and aggression are practically the signature emotions in the loss of control during combat in the SWU. Obi-wan attacks Darth Maul in E1, Anakin attacks the San People and Dooku in E2, Anakin attacks Padme and Obi-wan in E3, and Luke attacks Vader in E6. In the films, anger is always the driving emotion when the character loses control. Fear, on the other hand, seems a more chronic failing, as Anakin is driven by fear for Padme's life throughout the course of E3, leading to his fall.
Your examples are almost categorically silly. Grief is not an immediate reaction. At the moment it occurs, your mind cannot fully process it, and in the midst of an emotionally charged, adrenaline filled situation, grief is generally pushed aside emotionally, in favor of reacting to more immediate stimuli. Being overcome by grief comes later (I have some experience with this).
Attacking Darth Maul is the only result for Obi-wan because he has a mission; to protect Amidala from the Sith Lord. In this situation, he is driven both by duty and emotion to permanently end that threat. He was not overcome by grief because he has been trained as a Jedi Knight, not a Jedi Sissy Crybaby.
Anakin blames the Sand People for his mother's death because they are the ones who tortured her to death. Her death may have been part of the reason why he eventually broke with the Jedi, but there was certainly no cause for him to blame the council for anything in this situation. No one made him leave Tattooine the first time, and his mother actually sent him away, so why would he turn around and blame the council for his own actions?
Yes, Anakin Force-Choking Padme was a little out of left field for me, too, but this brings me back to my point from earlier: we weren't there. We don't know what Anakin was thinking in that moment. However, for a character who had only recently turned to the Dark Side, and all of its attendant power, having him react out of purely selfish rage and aggression would not be out of character.
With the E6 battle, if you recall, the Emperor was Luke's original target when he snapped and went for his lightsaber. Vader then intervened and Luke had to fight him first. If anything, the Emperor's taunting helped Luke regain control of himself, almost a reverse psychology effect. As to your other suggestions? Yeah, those would have made really interesting endings to the trilogy. 
| Quote: | | If I am going to take away the players control over their character, I want to provide more choices for what action the character may take and I need something more nuanced than failed roll = attack someone in anger. As I menioned, I think a system like Pendragon's provides more nuanced choices. But that is not WEG Star Wars. You appear to assume the GM and the player will easily agree on what action a loss of control results in. I suspect that would not be the case for many players. Certainly it would work for most players I am familiar with. |
Again, no one is asking you to use this rule. Everything we do here is optional, and presented to our peers both for their input and their potential use, if they feel there is a need for it in their campaign.
As to the course of action a character may take, in the films, when a character loses control and gives in to their darker emotions, the reaction is almost uniformly anger, hatred and aggression. Even when driven by fear, as Anakin was in the battle with Dooku in E3, he reacts by attacking. I only included the option for a fearful reaction in my list of possible emotional responses because I wanted to account for all the various negative emotions that have come up in the SWU. Cinematically speaking, when characters give vent to the Dark Side within them, anger and hatred are acute responses, reactions to stimuli in the moment. Fear, on the other hand, is a more chronic response, coloring the character's actions and choices more subtly, and over a longer period of time. However, the movies paint a pretty clear picture, in that acute loss of control = anger and aggression.
This rule is still a work in progress, and I am still struggling to work out the nuances of its application. That doesn't mean that it lacks validity: merely form and proper application.
_________________
"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: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I feel the GM may be better position to control the character in certain situations strictly as an arbiter of the rules. |
And as a general rule, I do not. It seems a usurpation of the player’s creativity in developing the character.
| Quote: | | Exactly which Star Wars movies have you been watching? Anger and aggression are practically the signature emotions in the loss of control during combat in the SWU. |
Probably the same movies as you. The fact that they feature a very limited emotional range is due in part to the style of the genre and predominantly to the limitations of Lucas as a screenwriter. Lucas has both strengths and weaknesses. The limited emotional range of his characters is not something I desire to soley emulate nor feel that it needs a game mechanic to enforce. YMMV.
The notion that Anakin is driven by fear for Padme’s life to the dark side, yet his final fall occurs as a result of his killing her (for no good reason) is, in my opinion, a weakness in the prequel films and a failing of the author. Again, not necessarily something to be emulated.
| Quote: | | Your examples are almost categorically silly. |
I am struggling not to reply in kind. Apparently I succeeded in making my willpower roll.
| Quote: | | Grief is not an immediate reaction. At the moment it occurs, your mind cannot fully process it, and in the midst of an emotionally charged, adrenaline filled situation, grief is generally pushed aside emotionally, in favor of reacting to more immediate stimuli. Being overcome by grief comes later (I have some experience with this). |
In my experience and reading of literature, paralysis by grief is not an unknown response.
| Quote: | | Again, no one is asking you to use this rule. Everything we do here is optional, and presented to our peers both for their input and their potential use, if they feel there is a need for it in their campaign. |
Well I have provided my input. A binary willpower mechanic seems like it will suit your view of the game. Good luck with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Each GM (and players) set a certain limit where players lose the control over their characters for the benifit of game mechanics. In fantasy/horror games this is usuallly fear situations. In sci-fi its not that common to have this mechanic, but in SW its the Dark Side in the RAW (ie turning).
For some, extensive game-mechanic control over character seems like a good idea, for others player control is important (perhaps except in extreme circumstances).
As pointed out YMMV 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an idea. Let's get rid of all dice rolls, and invent a gaming system based entirely on a voting system. That way, no one will ever lose control of their characters, and no one will have hurt feelings because they didn't have absolute control over every aspect of their character's life. Here's a potential example of gameplay.
GM: Bob, the Sith Lord steps in and swings his lightsaber at your character. What do you think should happen.
Bob: Well, I don't want my character to die, so in the interests of roleplaying and good storytelling, how about we have the Sith Lord step on a banana peel and fall on his face?
GM: (to the rest of the group) How do you guys feels about that?
All: (shrugs and general agreement)
GM: OK, then. The Sith Lord steps on a banana peel, falls over head first and knocks himself unconscious. Do you guys want to do rock-paper-scissors for his lightsaber, or would that hurt someone's feelings if they lost?
All: (shrugs and general agreement, except Bob)
Bob: Hey, that's not fair! My character was the one that almost got hurt. I deserve the lightsaber.
GM: OK, OK, settle down. How about if the Sith Lord was carrying four lightsabers, so there is one for each of you?
That sure sounds like fun. After all, I wouldn't want my character to get hurt or something. And God forbid that random things actually happen that are beyond our ability to control; that would just be too much for me to take.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you should think before you write what you think about what other people think. 
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Each GM (and players) set a certain limit where players lose the control over their characters for the benifit of game mechanics. In fantasy/horror games this is usuallly fear situations. In sci-fi its not that common to have this mechanic, but in SW its the Dark Side in the RAW (ie turning).
For some, extensive game-mechanic control over character seems like a good idea, for others player control is important (perhaps except in extreme circumstances).
As pointed out YMMV |
But what would be deciding factors? In the movies, the characters involved in the loss of control are all Jedi, and are more than capable of literally taking matters into their own hands. Other, less capable characters might react differently, as Bren suggested. What would be possible deciding factors for whether a character gives in to anger or fear?
If possible, I'd like to find a more potent word to use than fear. After all, everyone gets afraid at one time or another, but we don't allow it to rule our every action. Basically what I'm looking for a difference in terminology to differentiate between a natural emotional response, and an overriding impulse.
_________________
"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: 14045
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Phobic is the closest i can think of.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Here's an idea. Let's get rid of all dice rolls... |
Well there are diceless systems, but I don't think anyone has been suggesting getting rid of all dice in SW D6. After all to do so we would have to change the name of the rules.  So this is clearly a straw man argument.
Nor do I think anyone is suggesting making all character decisions randomly, though that would obviously be straw man argument based on a reductio ad absurdum version of your willpower house rule.
I suppose given a choice between no dice or all decisions based solely on dice. I'd go with no dice as slightly more interesting, since there is at least a need for a human, though I guess I might just prefer a friendly game of Risk to either option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Random Numbers
Commander
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Gladsheim
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Here's an idea. Let's get rid of all dice rolls... |
Well there are diceless systems, but I don't think anyone has been suggesting getting rid of all dice in SW D6. After all to do so we would have to change the name of the rules. So this is clearly a straw man argument.
Nor do I think anyone is suggesting making all character decisions randomly, though that would obviously be straw man argument based on a reductio ad absurdum version of your willpower house rule.
I suppose given a choice between no dice or all decisions based solely on dice. I'd go with no dice as slightly more interesting, since there is at least a need for a human, though I guess I might just prefer a friendly game of Risk to either option. |
Can Risk ever be friendly?!
_________________
Random is who random does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Random Numbers wrote: | | Can Risk ever be friendly?! |
I tend to be very friendly...when I am winning.
But you raise a good point. Since the goal in Risk is to take over the world. (Narf! What are we going to do tonight Brain?) Inherently Risk is a conflict between the players. Which according to the rules of Risk, uses dice to resolve the resultant combat.
Roleplaying games are not necessarily a conflict between players or between players and the GM. A lot of the different takes on rules we see here is based on how much conflict people see in the GM/player relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | Each GM (and players) set a certain limit where players lose the control over their characters for the benifit of game mechanics. In fantasy/horror games this is usuallly fear situations. In sci-fi its not that common to have this mechanic, but in SW its the Dark Side in the RAW (ie turning).
For some, extensive game-mechanic control over character seems like a good idea, for others player control is important (perhaps except in extreme circumstances).
As pointed out YMMV |
But what would be deciding factors? In the movies, the characters involved in the loss of control are all Jedi, and are more than capable of literally taking matters into their own hands. Other, less capable characters might react differently, as Bren suggested. What would be possible deciding factors for whether a character gives in to anger or fear?
If possible, I'd like to find a more potent word to use than fear. After all, everyone gets afraid at one time or another, but we don't allow it to rule our every action. Basically what I'm looking for a difference in terminology to differentiate between a natural emotional response, and an overriding impulse. |
Well, as I have pointed out, I have my own mechanic similar to your idea but that only kicks in after you have at least 1 DSP. This is, IMO, when fear and anger starts to govern your life.. Before that I feel character control should be up to the player.. Of course, its an interaction between GM and players, and my players characters frequently end up doing stuff they hadnt planned from the beginning..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Well, as I have pointed out, I have my own mechanic similar to your idea but that only kicks in after you have at least 1 DSP. This is, IMO, when fear and anger starts to govern your life.. Before that I feel character control should be up to the player.. Of course, its an interaction between GM and players, and my players characters frequently end up doing stuff they hadnt planned from the beginning.. |
I think my idea is that it should be less directly up to the player, and more in the hands of the character he is playing. It is in the player's hands in the sense that he is the one who allocated the skill dice at character creation, and subsequent skill improvement. If the player wants his character to have better control over himself and his emotions, he needs to allocate some dice into Willpower, so that said character may have control over his own emotions, rather than the player making an arbitrary and biased decision on his behalf.
We use random dice rolls to determine so much in this game; how accurately a character can shoot a blaster, how well they can dodge a blaster shot, how well they can resist damage when they get shot, how knowledgeable they are on a given subject, how well they can persuade or con an NPC, how well they play cards, how well they can perform First Aid. All of this and more, we place in the hands of the dice. And yet all I hear, over and over, is that this rule goes too far because it takes away some of the player's control over the character. No one has yet offered me an explanation as to why that is a bad thing, or why it is any different from the dozens of other dice rolls we use that stand in for what our character does differently than ourselves, or the facets of the in-game universe that are beyond our control.
In essence, we are depending on the player's mental faculties, not the character's, to make a decision in-game about the character. Asking someone to roleplay out a Con attempt may add roleplaying points, but usually just ends up with a player saying something stupid or awkward just before he rolls his 12D Con skill and convinces the squad of stormtroopers that their commanding officer is a lizard in a human costume who is scheming to take over the Empire.
We do not require our players to know how to repair droids or starships or be doctors for their characters to have high skill levels on those requisite technical skills. We do not require our players to be crack shots for their characters to have high Dexterity. We do not require our players to actually be Force Sensitive if they play Force Sensitive characters. Why is it then such a stretch to make a decision about the character's emotional state entirely dependent on the character's personal self control, as opposed to simply leaving it in the hands of the player and depending on the nebulous concept of "good roleplaying." Good roleplaying, in my experience, is also code for "slipping in OOC information", "loading the action in favor of my character's survival", and "taking my character as close to danger as I can get without actually being in danger, so that he can accumulate more loot and XP."
Scenario One:
GM: You've been shot. Roll your damage.
Player: (rolls) 15
GM: (rolls) Ouch. 25. You are Incapacitated. Your character falls to the ground and is unconscious for (rolls again) 37 minutes.
Player: Crap. (looks around the room) Do any of you guys have a spare medpac?
Scenario Two:
GM: The Sith Lord just stabbed your fiancee. He's trying to goad you into attacking, so we'll use his Persuasion. Roll your Willpower, with a -10 penalty because of the emotional trauma.
Player: (rolls) 10
GM: (rolls) 27. Your character gives in to his anger and attacks the Sith Lord. What do you do?
Player: Lightsaber attack.
GM: Ok, your loss of control means you burned a Force Point this round, but you only get a Dark Side point if you succeed in killing him before you can bring yourself under control.
Player: When can I bring myself under control?
GM: Starting next round, you roll your normal Willpower against the Sith Lord's original Persuasion roll of 27. If you can beat that, you regain control and can stop attacking him. If you can't beat it, you have to keep attacking him however you see fit for that round, but in each subsequent round you get to roll again and the Difficulty level drops by 5 points per round.
Player: OK. Man, I am sooo putting more dice in Willpower.
(This is a purely theoretical representation, as I have not yet fully developed rules to accurately reflect the concept yet. My working theory is that a Sith Lord would use Persuasion to invoke an angry response and Intimidation to invoke a fearful response.)
Exactly how are these two scenarios so different? How is being knocked out and helpless in a combat situation any less a loss of control then losing emotional control and being required to take a non-specific aggressive act against someone who offered more than sufficient provocation? What about a character failing a Knowledge skill roll when it's a subject that you are perfectly conversant in? What about a character who is so clumsy that he trips over his own shoelaces when you were a star athlete in high school? What about a character who flubs an Investigation roll and sends the entire group off on a Wild Goose chase, when you with your OOC knowledge, know they are chasing the wrong lead? My point in all of this is that, like every other skill, the character's ability to control his own emotional state should be based on the character's skill level, not the player's.
No one has yet offered up a reason as to why this should not be the case. "Because players will get angry at losing control of their characters" is a sham, because players lose control of their characters all the time, subject to simple skill and attribute dice rolls. If I sound frustrated, there is a good reason for that.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
