| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ^This. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | On the topic of acual roleplaying and "related" skills, I've always found that to be somewhat of a cunundrum (sp?).
A particular player may not be a smooth talker or great orator, etc, but his character might be. In cases like this, I feel that the "role" playing doesn't represent the "roll" playing. And in this case, the dice should take precedence, since its what the character is about and invested in.
With regards to psychological effects, if we are going to reduce character choices to being determined by dice rolls, I suppose it's acceptable for their influence rolls to work the same way regardless of any other factors, if the roll is a success, then the targets are compelled to act as the PC wishes). |
Do you apply that logic in reverse, where if the player is a great say Orator/charmer, but his or her PC is not, his roll overrides his ROLE playing?? |
Yes, but if the roll is particularly miserable, and the speech was particularly awesome, I might offer an "automatic" success in exchange for the expenditure of a character point or two (no additional roll, take it or leave it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Giving this a bump and an update for inclusion in my Index. I added an optional rule to reflect the divided opinion on whether or not characters should be forced to perform actions outside the control of their players.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
griff
Captain
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 507
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have not read this entire thread. But if a character is psychologically compromised. The character should not be force to preform action against the player's will. Actions that the player wants to make need to be harder to accomplish or require a willpower roll so not to have a penalty.
_________________
"EXECUTE ORDER 67. Wait a minute, that doesn't sound like order 67..... No, wait. Yes, yes it does. EXECUTE ORDER 68" Palpatine's last moments - robot chicken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| griff wrote: | | Have not read this entire thread. But if a character is psychologically compromised. The character should not be force to preform action against the player's will. Actions that the player wants to make need to be harder to accomplish or require a willpower roll so not to have a penalty. |
Which tells me you barely read the post I linked to.
Justify your statement; from a role-playing perspective, how is role-playing the results of a failed Dodge (getting shot), a failed Sneak (gets spotted and chased), or a failed Piloting roll (crashes their ship) different from role-playing the results of a failed Willpower roll? In all four cases, it's an unwanted result, yet there are no rules in place for a character to refuse a result he dislikes.
_________________
"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: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| griff wrote: | | Have not read this entire thread. But if a character is psychologically compromised. The character should not be force to preform action against the player's will. Actions that the player wants to make need to be harder to accomplish or require a willpower roll so not to have a penalty. |
But that's wht being psychologically compromised is.. Being forced to do something against your will. Whether its someone under the influence of truth serum being made to give up rebel secrets to the empire, or someone who's been mind whacked by affect mind.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | griff wrote: | | Have not read this entire thread. But if a character is psychologically compromised. The character should not be force to preform action against the player's will. Actions that the player wants to make need to be harder to accomplish or require a willpower roll so not to have a penalty. |
But that's wht being psychologically compromised is.. Being forced to do something against your will. Whether its someone under the influence of truth serum being made to give up rebel secrets to the empire, or someone who's been mind whacked by affect mind. |
Exactly. This isn't supposed to happen by declaration; characters get a Willpower roll to resist it, but if they fail, there are consequences, just like every other failed 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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we also need to create a 'resist brownstaining your pants' roll! 
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Maybe we also need to create a 'resist brownstaining your pants' roll! |
LOL. I did mention the possibility of a Panicked character wetting themselves.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4834
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | griff wrote: | | Have not read this entire thread. But if a character is psychologically compromised. The character should not be force to preform action against the player's will. Actions that the player wants to make need to be harder to accomplish or require a willpower roll so not to have a penalty. |
Which tells me you barely read the post I linked to.
Justify your statement; from a role-playing perspective, how is role-playing the results of a failed Dodge (getting shot), a failed Sneak (gets spotted and chased), or a failed Piloting roll (crashes their ship) different from role-playing the results of a failed Willpower roll? In all four cases, it's an unwanted result, yet there are no rules in place for a character to refuse a result he dislikes. |
I think the difference in the examples you listed have to deal with positive action vs. passive effect. If you roll poorly and are hit, it's another character (or NPC) performing something upon the PC. If you fail a sneak, then it's a matter of something happening to you. Another player's skill trumps yours and has an effect.
How is it different from a failed willpower roll with an effect like Hatred in your other post? It means that the Hatred compels the character to take positive action toward something the player is averse to. The difference between passive effect and positive action is pretty fundamental.
I'm not saying it makes it a bad houserule, but you asked for a difference, and I think it's a pretty glaring one.
I've used failed willpower or other similar roles to compel a character to positive action in my games a handful of times. Usually it depends on the type of player as to how it is received. Some have rolled with it, or seen it as scenamatically significant and a positive experience. One or two have seen it as a violation of their character to do something outside of what they feel their charcter would do (even if compelled by an outside force).
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can only imagine that a player who hates having their character forced to perform a certain act has never played D&D (or any other game with magical / supernatural effects). There are plenty of spells that pretty much force a character to behave in a certain way. And I did address that concern by including an option for the final decision to be left in the player's hands, with the incentive of added CP awards for good roleplaying.
It's always been my contention that whether or not a character keeps or loses control in extreme situations should be predicated on the character's strengths and weaknesses (as expressed by Attributes & Skills), not the whims of the player running the character.
IMO, the ROTJ lightsaber battle between Luke and Vader was a good example of this. Twice, Luke was goaded into going on the attack, even though he had expressly stated that he wasn't going to fight Vader. In both instances, after the initial burst of anger, he brought himself back under control.
To me, if played out under gaming conditions, it would be far more suspenseful and dramatic if a character goaded to anger had to abide by the roll of the dice as to whether or not he reined himself in. Having to spend CPs or FPs to insure success might be called for, and might be considered appropriately heroic, depending on the circumstances. This, IMO, is far more compelling than a player simply declaring, "well, my character loses control and attacks the Sith Lord, but next round he thinks better of it and stops attacking." At that rate, why bother having rules at all?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have played D&D and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that characters can be compelled to take specific actions by spells and such. It never sat well with me, for example, that the bravest characters in the group were so easily compelled by fear to literally run to a corner and cower for 10 rounds. At LEAST give fighters and the like a bonus on fear based saves seeing as how they male a living of overcoming and managing their fears (danger is litterally their trade). At least Pathfinder addressed this for the Fighter.
In Luke's case, as a GM, I might uave ruled that his emotions were getting the best of him and allowed Vader to zero in on his hiding spot. I'd drop the hint that his best chance at survival is to attack before he loses the element of surprise, for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | I have played D&D and I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that characters can be compelled to take specific actions by spells and such. It never sat well with me, for example, that the bravest characters in the group were so easily compelled by fear to literally run to a corner and cower for 10 rounds. At LEAST give fighters and the like a bonus on fear based saves seeing as how they male a living of overcoming and managing their fears (danger is litterally their trade). At least Pathfinder addressed this for the Fighter. |
And unlike a class-based system, basing it on Willpower means that any character can 1) spend CP to build his Willpower in general, 2) or get a less expensive build by specializing in Willpower: Emotional Control or 3) spend CP or FP to overcome a result they don't like.
| Quote: | | In Luke's case, as a GM, I might have ruled that his emotions were getting the best of him and allowed Vader to zero in on his hiding spot. I'd drop the hint that his best chance at survival is to attack before he loses the element of surprise, for example. |
I'd say that that description falls short of describing what actually happened. Remember that we see Luke light his saber while screaming "Never!" then immediately cut to Vader's head turning suddenly to look in a new direction. Up until that point in the fight, Luke had been deliberately on the defense, then suddenly went on the offense after Vader's threat to turn Leia to the Dark Side.
Remember, this rule is intended not for everyday occurrences. It's for those moments when your vision reds out, or you are utterly terrified by something. This isn't a rule that comes into play just because a PC gets cut off in a traffic jam, or a waiter screws up his food order. This is for the utterly intense moments where a character has literally been pushed to their emotional breaking point.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In such cases, I have always seen RPing bear this out without need for a roll. As with all things, YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | And I did address that concern by including an option for the final decision to be left in the player's hands, with the incentive of added CP awards for good roleplaying. |
That's great.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | IMO, the ROTJ lightsaber battle between Luke and Vader was a good example of this. Twice, Luke was goaded into going on the attack, even though he had expressly stated that he wasn't going to fight Vader. In both instances, after the initial burst of anger, he brought himself back under control.
To me, if played out under gaming conditions, it would be far more suspenseful and dramatic if a character goaded to anger had to abide by the roll of the dice as to whether or not he reined himself in. Having to spend CPs or FPs to insure success might be called for, and might be considered appropriately heroic, depending on the circumstances. This, IMO, is far more compelling than a player simply declaring, "well, my character loses control and attacks the Sith Lord, but next round he thinks better of it and stops attacking." |
Actually this is a good example of the Dark Side Point rules. Luke was completely outmatched by Vader. The only option for defeating him was with the help of the Dark Side, but the characters racks up DSPs in attacking him. Then on the verge of the death blow, the player thinks better of it because another DSP could be the one that crosses the character over to the Dark Side, and that would mean the PC becomes an NPC. The rules help the player make the moral choice because of the risk of losing the character.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | It's always been my contention that whether or not a character keeps or loses control in extreme situations should be predicated on the character's strengths and weaknesses (as expressed by Attributes & Skills), not the whims of the player running the character...
At that rate, why bother having rules at all? |
The purpose of the rules are to simulate the cinematic reality of the films for the purpose of telling stories set in the same universe. It has always been my contention that players should roleplay their character's strengths and weaknesses realistically, and I make this expectation extremely clear up front. This is more important than any in-play rules. If a player is making choices for the PC based only on player whim of the moment, they aren't truly playing a role. The RPG experience is much more meaningful for the whole group the more the players play their characters appropriately of their own accord without being forced to by in-play rules.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
