Quote from: blakkieI suspect Jong was being a rationalizing little munchkin.

No, the point is the players themselves realized that they were making the game less fun by overusing passions.
Jong was one of the ones making this argument.  Of course, it was someone else who has a 20 in a passion; If Jong had been the one with 20 in a Passion, who knows?

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurMoreover, so long as the GM is careful about how he interprets the Passion rules (and particularly when it's kosher to roll the Passions), "Maximising bonuses" and "Behaving like an Arthurian Knight from the epics" ends up being actually quite difficult to distinguish. Pendragon is a game where one of the best ways to min-max is to be the best Knight you can (thanks partially to the Passions and Traits system), and for that Stafford deserves much kudos.

Yes, but he could have avoided a shitload of complication by having topped Passions at 19. As it is the mechanic depends largely on the competence of the GM and the goodwill of the players, and that's not good design.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but he could have avoided a shitload of complication by having topped Passions at 19. As it is the mechanic depends largely on the competence of the GM and the goodwill of the players, and that's not good design.

That's easily fixed, then. I don't disagree that there are parts of PD (remembering that I have 4th ed.) that could be better worked out. I don't think the game design has been significantly revised since 1983 or whenever. But your choices are multiple here — you can cap the Passions at 19, you can go hard or soft on when they can be rolled, you can balance it by compelling rolls and hitting them with penalties. Or, you can just embrace it (my preferred option). As Warthur points out, power-gaming in PD miraculously becomes good and correct behaviour for an Arthurian knight.

And ultimately, everybody dies of old age or a nasty wound.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, a few players were making some real stretchy arguments about what would justify a passion  check.  One of them has a "love: wife" passion (very odd for the time, I know, but it happened); and he'd justify rolling it by saying "well, if I don't win this battle, she'll be a helpless widow".  Or rolling "Loyalty: Lord" because "I'm fighting for the honor of my lord" even on quests that had nothing to do with the Countess Ellen.  Or again, Loyalty:Lord because "in these times, the Countess needs all of her knights alive, so if I die here I won't be able to serve her".

Plus the old chestnut of "I check my honour because if I don't win this battle I'll be dishonoured".

Dang, that's stretchy.

The stretchiest argument I ever made for a Passion check was when my character was captured by another Knight, who knew of my Knightly status, but threw me in the dungeon with the plebs anyway. I argued that this was a horrific breach of Hospitality, because captive knights should be treated with a modicum of respect. (To be fair, the GM did specify that this was unusually harsh treatment for a captured Knight).

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but he could have avoided a shitload of complication by having topped Passions at 19. As it is the mechanic depends largely on the competence of the GM and the goodwill of the players, and that's not good design.

Every game in the world will be wrecked, and wrecked quickly, if the GM is not competent or if the players aren't acting in good faith.

Again, Passions at 20 really aren't a problem. They're just a sign that the PCs need to be going up against more Passionate villains. If, as a GM, you're being too lax about when you allow Passion checks, then the Passion system is broken long before anyone's Passion hits 20, and if you're not being lax then it's not problematic.

The mechanic strongly encourages players to play characters with motivations suitable to a Knight from Arthurian myth. That's excellent game design.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the point is the players themselves realized that they were making the game less fun by overusing passions.
Jong was one of the ones making this argument.  Of course, it was someone else who has a 20 in a passion; If Jong had been the one with 20 in a Passion, who knows?

RPGPundit

I, for one, argued that Passions could well reach 20 or more, as long as there was the possibility of failure. Rolling a 20 should always be a Madness-inducing failure.

Thus, a character can earn as much Glory as he can from his Passions, but there's a slight possibility of failure. It'd keep things interesting for them (and the GM, I suspect).

I don't disagree that there are many MANY excellent parts of Pendragon's design, and that the excellence far outweighs any crapulence. Doesn't mean there aren't bugs in the system though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JongWKI, for one, argued that Passions could well reach 20 or more, as long as there was the possibility of failure. Rolling a 20 should always be a Madness-inducing failure.

Thus, a character can earn as much Glory as he can from his Passions, but there's a slight possibility of failure. It'd keep things interesting for them (and the GM, I suspect).

I was thinking of this, and really that's the one biggest regret I have. Its not so much that I'm against passions being at 20 because its impossible to fail, I don't mind that too much.  What I mind is more that its impossible to go nuts, because its so much fun when a PC goes nuts.

RPGPundit

I think saying "you still go mad if you roll 20" for Passions is entirely sensible; Lancelot is clearly fanatically loyal to both Arthur and Ygraine (Loyalty (Arthur) and Passion (Ygraine) both 20 or above, in my book), and yet he still goes nuts thanks to his split loyalties.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the point is the players themselves realized that they were making the game less fun by overusing passions.
Jong was one of the ones making this argument.  Of course, it was someone else who has a 20 in a passion; If Jong had been the one with 20 in a Passion, who knows?

RPGPundit

Yeah, I've seen that before as a player and had to call BS myself. In that case I was the one in the position of recieving "mega free dice bonus stuff without consequences for working on your big thing". The other difference in that case (at least I assume it is a difference, it sounds like it) is when we got down to it the GM was handing out the bonus because it was something he wanted. But he somehow felt compelled to make me roll the dice even though he didn't want me to fail. I was all "Dude, do me a favour and save me the hassle of picking up the dice."

Hi Pundit,

One more thing to remember is the "Shock" rules.

If a Knight is Inspired, either with a Crit or Successful Passion roll, and fails at the deed for which he was inspired, he immediately makes a roll on the Aging table.  This can drop him from zero points to four points on his Stats.

While it's less likely the knight will fail at a dead while Inspired, it is possible and is one more reason to not go nuts with Passions.  The rule is kind of buried in the text.  

I know you guys have sorted it out, but as you noted the rules are kind of soft on this point, so here's how I adjudicate them:

I think the really important thing to remember is these are Passions.  They are untethered emotions that inspire Knights to extraordinary deeds.  As such they depend on a concrete feeling in the moment, not an abstraction.  Does the deed at hand really involve my Knight's Wife in a pure, visceral way.  If it doesn't, then no go.  I might be very Loyal to my Lord, but if my Lord's safety or honor is not being directly threatened, then I don't make the roll (or allow a Player to make a roll).  

The key is this: In most of the examples your Players coughed up, there was a level of philosophical abstraction going on -- "If I die, my lord will be down one more knight and that would be bad for my lord."  Well, I'd say the moment an If/Then statement is introduced to justifying a Passion, it's probably too intellectual to serve as a basis for a PASSION.  

I'm looking for those moments when a Knight is fully and emotionally engaged in the situation, where there is no choice to be big and bold or else what the Knight values most might be lost.

Also, I love Jong's fix of having the Passions being able to go over 20 but still Fumble on 20. Normally I don't like rule with lots of exceptions to remember,  but in this case I'm going to use it.  Warthur's point that it matches the fiction is right on target, and it makes the Passions stand out more as unique elements in the game.

CK

Quote from: WarthurI think saying "you still go mad if you roll 20" for Passions is entirely sensible; Lancelot is clearly fanatically loyal to both Arthur and Ygraine (Loyalty (Arthur) and Passion (Ygraine) both 20 or above, in my book), and yet he still goes nuts thanks to his split loyalties.

This has the one glitch that it would mean that characters with a 20 on their passion would always go nuts when they got a critical.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThis has the one glitch that it would mean that characters with a 20 on their passion would always go nuts when they got a critical.

You call it a glitch: I call it a glorious, blood-soaked, foaming-at-the-mouth feature.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikHi Pundit,

One more thing to remember is the "Shock" rules.

If a Knight is Inspired, either with a Crit or Successful Passion roll, and fails at the deed for which he was inspired, he immediately makes a roll on the Aging table.  This can drop him from zero points to four points on his Stats.

Wow, that is a buried rule: I totally missed that one.

Quote from: WarthurWow, that is a buried rule: I totally missed that one.

Is that one in 5th Edition? Because I had missed that one too if so.

RPGPundit