Quote from: TonyLBWell ... GURPS is a cool game too ... but it's not one where players are rewarded for the act of bringing their disadvantages into play, right?

No, but now that I think of it it's a game where the whole player-activated vs. GM-activated disadvantage thing could be even worse if poorly handled: a player could buy a bunch of player-activated disads in GURPS, get the meaty bonus character gen points, and never activate them unless they're not going to wreck the character's chances of getting what the player OOC wants his character to achieve.

On the other hand, from what I remember of GURPS the disadvantages always tended to either a) be GM-activated or b) have very well-defined system effects and so are constant factors rather than being something which is activated by player or GM.

Quote from: WarthurNo, but now that I think of it it's a game where the whole player-activated vs. GM-activated disadvantage thing could be even worse if poorly handled: a player could buy a bunch of player-activated disads in GURPS, get the meaty bonus character gen points, and never activate them unless they're not going to wreck the character's chances of getting what the player OOC wants his character to achieve.

On the other hand, from what I remember of GURPS the disadvantages always tended to either a) be GM-activated or b) have very well-defined system effects and so are constant factors rather than being something which is activated by player or GM.

A lot of the GURPS disads have some kind of will check or dice check involved, even some of the ones you mentioned as GM-intitiated.  

Dependents, enemies, etc., for isntance, have frequency checks the GM is suppsoed to make when planning each adventure, to see if he's supposed to work it into the plot.

Quote from: TonyLBI've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

I agree with you that the sliding scale mitigates the kind of abuse Pundit is talking about here (which is a very real phenomenon).  

The other way to handle this is to make it perfectly clear to your players that you as GM will make sure that every time they activate disadvantages, it will become significant.

Quote from: AlnagAcutally, I belive that Fate and especially Involuntary Aspect Invocation is problematic to say the least. Let's look at it the way I have to say, I have witnessed more than once.[...]

So you are a coward. [...]

Stop right there. Now see, there's the problem.

You're in a party. A team. You work together. At the player level, you're playing a game which requires participation, and you've just chosen a trait which stops you participating. Coward, mute, shy, loner - all the same thing. You're saying, "I don't want to be a part of the action."

The game system's not responsible for that - you, the player are. You chose a trait which stops you participating in things. And then complained when you couldn't participate... yeah, okay buddy.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're in a party. A team. You work together. At the player level, you're playing a game which requires participation, and you've just chosen a trait which stops you participating. Coward, mute, shy, loner - all the same thing. You're saying, "I don't want to be a part of the action."

Sure. The problem is, that any newbie I know, will inspire himself in the rules. So now, take you FATE, turn to page 19 and look what that damn idiot has like an aspect. That's right cowardly. Exactly what I am talking about.

But that was actually not my point you know. I was talking not about playing coward character but about the principle, where the GM must bribe the characters to behave the way they do. Exactly the same goes for brave one. Oh, my friends are in danger. I will help them. Oh, wait. Why would I do that? No FP, remember... Hey GM, bribe me or I will not follow my aspect...

The true problem of FP is not the aspect selection (aspects are fine, I support them). The problem is FP management. And their flow. The first house rule we had to apply is if player actually follows his character he get his FP. Because otherwise, the players who actually played their characteres were seriously worse treated that the conditioned ones. Yes, Fate is good game, but not great. And it has its issues. Seriously.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe game system's not responsible for that - you, the player are. You chose a trait which stops you participating in things. And then complained when you couldn't participate... yeah, okay buddy.

I agree. In the last instance, players are always responsible. But what is this disussion all about than? And no, it is not about participation so much as about BRIBERY and CONDITIONING! Lucky enough behaviorism was proved wrong. That's why I am not salivating seeing FATE.

Quote from: AlnagSure. The problem is, that any newbie I know, will inspire himself in the rules. So now, take you FATE, turn to page 19 and look what that damn idiot has like an aspect. That's right cowardly. Exactly what I am talking about.

Unlike its drooling fanboys who haven't played it, I would say that it can definitely be better-written. Just consider the Extras, what a mess...

Quote=Alnag]But that was actually not my point you know. I was talking not about playing coward character but about the principle, where the GM must bribe the characters to behave the way they do. Exactly the same goes for brave one. Oh, my friends are in danger. I will help them. Oh, wait. Why would I do that? No FP, remember... Hey GM, bribe me or I will not follow my aspect...

An issue I raised when first looking at Fate was a bit similar to that. It's that you have plaeyrs who are active and make things happen and do things, and players who are reactive and wait for GM or group prompting. If Fate Points were only awarded when the GM invoked Aspects, active players would get none and reactive players would get heaps. So the system acts to encourage reactive players to do more things in play, and gives no particular reward to active players. Certainly that's good for bringing reactive players into the action, but...

The solution is simply for the GM to award Fate Points like XP after each session, so that active players are rewarded, too. In this way, players will get rewards for their characters based simply on the things they do, not whether those things were prompted by the player themselves or by the GM. Who cares what starts the fire, so long as it's warm and cooks my dinner?

Quote from: AlnagI agree. In the last instance, players are always responsible. But what is this disussion all about than? And no, it is not about participation so much as about BRIBERY and CONDITIONING! Lucky enough behaviorism was proved wrong. That's why I am not salivating seeing FATE.

Behavourism was proved wrong as something which determines the entire of human action. However, it cannot be denied that people are motivated by rewards and punishments. Those are not their only motivations, but they're part of them. Since we have a voluntary social creative hobby here, the "voluntary social" part means we can't use use punishments, but only rewards.

I think it's certainly true that having the GM control those rewards isn't the only way to do things. Group-awarded XP could work, too. Hackmaster, for example, has a "Most Valuable Player" award. The one group I saw using it just had everyone take turns getting it, though. I suggested they just divide it evenly between them as a group bonus and save the figuring out whose turn it was but they didn't like that idea. Apparently in Davd R's (non-HM) group, it's a genuine vote and they don't just swap it around. But you do get that rather socialistic tendency in game groups. After all, the basic model for adventuring parties is a sort of anarcho-syndacalist collective with no leadership and most property held in common...

Quote from: Kyle AaronUnlike its drooling fanboys wh haven't played it, I would say that it can definitely be better-written. Just consider the Extras, what a mess...

Well... to be honest, I usually just skip the Extras, because it was too much for me. We tried them once in a steampunk game, but neither us nor GM was sure, how that should actually work. Yeah. Messy.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAn issue I raised when first looking at Fate was a bit similar to that. It's that you have plaeyrs who are active and make things happen and do things, and players who are reactive and wait for GM or group prompting.

Exactly. I was not as good in designate the problem, but I agree now. Yeah. And I am always depressed from reactive players.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf Fate Points were only awarded when the GM invoked Aspects, active players would get none and reactive players would get heaps. So the system acts to encourage reactive players to do more things in play, and gives no particular reward to active players. Certainly that's good for bringing reactive players into the action, but...

Acutually, there are some specific situation, when active player is rewarded. See page 20 in the middle. There are 2 problems with that. First, this somehow is the part or the rules mostly missed of forgotten. Second, the situations are very specific and some of them actually again encourage the anti-RP ("even if it goes against your best instincts" - read against your character or not a group behavior at all (try to go off alone, don't take no for an answer and such...). Yes, there are countermeasures (don't let anyone go off alone and such) but still...

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe solution is simply for the GM to award Fate Points like XP after each session, so that active players are rewarded, too.

That one is good, because the flow of FP will be more smooth. Or sure. I pretty much agree with that one. Good point.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHowever, it cannot be denied that people are motivated by rewards and punishments. Those are not their only motivations, but they're part of them. Since we have a voluntary social creative hobby here, the "voluntary social" part means we can't use use punishments, but only rewards.

Oh... we can use punishment and we use it. Although it is "volutary" it is also "social" and "social" is so full of punishments one is almost unable to imagine. For the record, refuse to reward is also sort of punishment. The problem of behaviorist approach is mistaken part for whole. There is also a cognitive level of receiving and offering rewards and punishment. Following the simple model (as FATE does) might pretty much saturate the player and he might lost interest and return to old habits (the same way the animals return to instinctive behavior despite their conditioning...).

If you are on a desert and thirsty and somebody will offer you a glass of water how much are you willing to pay? A lot I guess. But how much are you willing to pay for the second glass? Less. And third? And tenth? Etc. That's way obvious, simple, same kind rewards are not as successful in a long term as they should be.

Quote from: AlnagWell... to be honest, I usually just skip the Extras, because it was too much for me. We tried them once in a steampunk game, but neither us nor GM was sure, how that should actually work. Yeah. Messy.

The way we worked it was this. Aspect Extras are things which have Skills and Aspects of their own, eg people and magic items and spaceships. Skill Extras are things which just are, eg swords and money. Easy.

(Sorry for the aside, guys. The little comment wasn't worth a whole thread by itself.)

Quote from: AlnagAnd I am always depressed from reactive players.

Don't confuse reactive players - players who wait for prompting and then react - with passive players - players who never respond or have any ideas. Genuinely passive players are quite rare; most in fact are reactive players but you haven't found what they'll react to, yet, what interests them.

Reactive players can fit well into game groups, as can active players. Passive players there's not much you can do with them...

Relevant to this thread, an active player will activate their character's Dis/Advantages, and those the GM controls, they'll ask or at least encourage the GM to bring them in. Reactive players, you may be best having all the Dis/Advantages be GM-controlled so that you can make sure things happen.

That's why I say it'd be a bad idea to have specific Dis/Advantages controlled by the GM only, and others controlled by the player only. If you have an active player, then you'll miss out on half the action you could have because the player only controls have their Dis/Advantages. If you have a reactive player, then again - only half the action.

What works best in a game group of mixed player types is to have traits which can be invoked by either the GM or the players.

Quote from: AlnagSecond, the situations are very specific and some of them actually again encourage the anti-RP ("even if it goes against your best instincts" - read against your character or not a group behavior at all (try to go off alone, don't take no for an answer and such...). Yes, there are countermeasures (don't let anyone go off alone and such) but still...

I read that play advice as saying that the player should put roleplaying their character "true" to their character's personality and goals before a "tactical" approach, doing what seemed right for the group. I read it as a reaction to a sort of game play where characters have no personality and goals at all, where it's just, "A name? I don't have a name, I'm the fighter. And he's the wizard. And the other guy is the thief. Do you want to be the cleric? List of gods? What for?"

It's what I call Backlash Text. You know when you bend a tree over too far in one direction, it lashes back at you - whap! Sometimes in books and movies you get the same effect. For the writers, perhaps their roleplaying experiences and perception of other people's roleplaying experiences had gone too far in the "tactical" direction, so they did a Backlash Text - a piece of game play advice in the other "roleplaying" direction (as they saw it).

Again, I think their whole "GM invokes Aspects" system was more Backlash Text - designed to deal with reactive players, to get things happening. If you have in your group two active and two reactive players, the actions of the active players will give the other two something to react to, the GM barely has to do anything! But what if you have four reactive players? Hmmm... "I invoke your Bold Warrior Aspect... go fight!" "Okay, cool."

Quote from: AlnagFor the record, refuse to reward is also sort of punishment.

I don't think so. Only people with a strong sense of entitlement regard a lack of reward as a punishment. "I deserve to have stuff! I'm special." A sense of entitlement can be created in players when they're used to receiving a large reward, and then one day don't. So the GM should make the rewards jump up and down a bit randomly

Quote from: AlnagIf you are on a desert and thirsty and somebody will offer you a glass of water how much are you willing to pay? A lot I guess. But how much are you willing to pay for the second glass? Less. And third? And tenth? Etc. That's way obvious, simple, same kind rewards are not as successful in a long term as they should be.

Of course. That's why the GM and players should do other things to create a sense of investment in their characters and the campaign. I discuss that a bit in the recent thread about game group and campaign prep, whether it's participatory or passive, and also more formally in the article about Getting Players to Give a Toss.

Along those lines...

Quote from: WarthurI see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages: the player-activated disadvantages happen when the player wants them to happen, as often as the player wants them to happen, in whichever situation the player deems it's worth having them happen in. And yet, in so many systems, player- and GM-activated disadvantages cost the same, and give you exactly the same benefit.

One way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGenuinely passive players are quite rare; most in fact are reactive players but you haven't found what they'll react to, yet, what interests them.

That's what is depressing. No way to stimulate them... they might be reactive in their own way, but in the game, they are acutually passive.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's why I say it'd be a bad idea to have specific Dis/Advantages controlled by the GM only, and others controlled by the player only. (...)

I have to admit, that this was very refreshing reading. Really. Thank you! It helped me, to really get a new perspective on the things, that happen in a games I play or GM. Really worth piece.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's what I call Backlash Text. You know when you bend a tree over too far in one direction, it lashes back at you - whap!(...)

Yeah. I guess, it will be this case... The problem is that it really not expects a full load of active players, four or five. Than it really lashes back on you. Seriously, you can feel the system hinders you... That's why I am sceptical about its universal glory!

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't think so. Only people with a strong sense of entitlement regard a lack of reward as a punishment. "I deserve to have stuff! I'm special."

What if the withholded reward is attention? Or friendship? That is the level of the rewarding, which is not so clear but even more sensitive on the whole reward/punishment thing. Or partial group expulsion. These are severe punnishment that actually happen in RPG groups.

The game is voluntary, but despite that you play because you follow some motivations (social usually). And you have pretty much a good concept of what should be the incomes of you investments into this relations. So if you don't get any incomes like acclaims or praises, attention in general, better treatment by your peers you might feel punished. The fact that it might run  on subconscious level doesn't make it any easier. I would say worse... (I hope it is not much messy, I am bit lacking the proper words here to express myself.)

Quote from: Kyle AaronPC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

Yes. Although in short-term this might create desired atmosphere of desperation, suits eg. a horror.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

Interesting idea crossed my mind. What if the Dis/Advanteges of your character are invoked by other players. It might seem futile as well, despite the players decides everything. It must be you partialy decides on you character D/A, otherwise there is a risk of futility anyway, right?

Quote from: AlnagThat's what is depressing. No way to stimulate them... they might be reactive in their own way, but in the game, they are acutually passive.

As I said, very few players are entirely passive. Most are reactive, we just haven't yet found out what they'll react to. Some people are not very open about the things that interest them. A GM must keep their eyes and ears open... As always, it's easier if you know the players outside the game group, what sort of movies and books and non-roleplaying games they like...

Quote from: AlnagI have to admit, that this was very refreshing reading. Really. Thank you! It helped me, to really get a new perspective on the things, that happen in a games I play or GM. Really worth piece.

If you liked that, try this!

Quote from: AlnagThe problem is that it really not expects a full load of active players, four or five. Than it really lashes back on you. Seriously, you can feel the system hinders you... That's why I am sceptical about its universal glory!

No system is universally glorious. I just mentioned Fate as being a compromise between "GM controls all" and "players control all" in terms of the Dis/Advantages.

But it's pretty rare to have 4-5 active players! I don't know how any GM would cope with that, I've never had it.

Quote from: AlnagWhat if the withholded reward is attention? Or friendship? That is the level of the rewarding, which is not so clear but even more sensitive on the whole reward/punishment thing. Or partial group expulsion. These are severe punnishment that actually happen in RPG groups.

Those are severe, yes. But also I think they're not so common. More often, the campaign comes to an end and then people just don't game together again. "I'm... uh... busy with study and work and my wife and..."

Quote from: AlnagSo if you don't get any incomes like acclaims or praises, attention in general, better treatment by your pears you might feel punished. The fact that it might run  on subconscious level doesn't make it any easier.

I think a good GM will be conscious of these things. There are lots of little things you can do. For example, whoever is the most quiet and shy player, I try to put them opposite me - so that I make eye contact with them, I remember they're there, and because their eyes see mine, they naturally speak more than if they're in a corner somewhere... But now we're getting quite off-topic. I suppose this could tie in with the GM and player-invoked Dis/Advantages by saying that if you have a more quiet player (either reactive or passive) it's good to have the GM more often invoke the Dis/Advantages.

Quote from: Alnag(I hope it is not much messy, I am bit lacking the proper words here to express myself.)

Your English is much better than my Czech

Quote from: AlnagInteresting idea crossed my mind. What if the Dis/Advanteges of your character are invoked by other players. It might seem futile as well, despite the players decides everything. It must be you partialy decides on you character D/A, otherwise there is a risk of futility anyway, right?

That's quite possible. That could be something like the rule in Fate which already allows a player to pass Fate Points to another at the rate of 2 to 1. Perhaps if they spent 2 Fate Points, they could invoke a fellow-PC's Aspects.

But I don't really imagine it happening in play. Players tend to be rather protective of control over their characters.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOne way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

So we've actually be loudly agreeing, then?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOne way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

This seems like a basic fallacy, because disadvantages are not the whole of the game.  PCs can still have failures even if they never invoke their disadvantages.  (Indeed, there are many games that don't have disadvantages at all, so this seems fairly obvious.)  

Now, I agree that there needs to be a balance of control between players and game-master -- but that doesn't need to be involved solely through disadvantages.  If the GM completely controls invocation of disads, but the players have other avenues of control, that could potentially be balanced.  

Another fallacy here is that player-invoked disads mean that players get points for disadvantages for doing nothing.  In general, such rules (like Theatrix, The Babylon Project, FATE, etc.) specify that players will only get points in proportion to how much the disads actually cause problems for them.  So players can go ahead and never invoke them when they would actually cause trouble, but that means that they'll never get the extra points for them.

Quote from: jhkimAnother fallacy here is that player-invoked disads mean that players get points for disadvantages for doing nothing.  In general, such rules (like Theatrix, The Babylon Project, FATE, etc.) specify that players will only get points in proportion to how much the disads actually cause problems for them.  So players can go ahead and never invoke them when they would actually cause trouble, but that means that they'll never get the extra points for them.

Please.
Show me any system of absolutely player-controlled disadvantages (ie. one where the GM is not part of the decision process, including having no control over whether or not to give xp for it), and I could abuse the living fuck out of it without ever inconveniencing my player in any significant way.  Any player worth his salt could.

You can make the GM the judge of when a disadvantage comes into play (and that's obviously the BEST option, or else players will never have it come into play when they think it will be really problematic for their character), or you can make it so that the GM is the absolute judge of whether or not any XP is given. But one way or the other, as much as it might irk you, you HAVE TO GIVE POWER TO THE GM, where it belongs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease.
......HAVE TO GIVE POWER TO THE GM, where it belongs.

RPGPundit

 There should be T-shirts printed up that say that .
Hell, nice 1 or 2 pocket button shirts even  with that done as a logo right above the pocket.


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease.

Show me any system of absolutely player-controlled disadvantages (ie. one where the GM is not part of the decision process, including having no control over whether or not to give xp for it), and I could abuse the living fuck out of it without ever inconveniencing my player in any significant way.  Any player worth his salt could.

WTF?!?  Pundit, before trotting out your stupid moronicities over again, please at least read the thread subject: "Player-activated vs GM-activated disadvantages".  

Now take a minute to reflect that "Player-activated" does not mean "Player controls everything and can do whatever he likes without anyone else in the game objecting."  

We're talking about games like The Babylon Project, Theatrix, FATE, Spirit of the Century, and so forth.  TBP, for example, is a totally traditional system.  The distinction is that disads give points when they actually disadvantage your character, rather than a fixed number of points during character creation.  However, within disads there are some that come up mainly by the player (such as personality disads); and some that come up mainly by the GM's choosing (such as enemies).