Quote from: Azraele;1024692Now, you can overcome this without simply leveling up. That's the glory of the tactical infinity; you can leverage your actual charisma (not the game stat, your ability to persuasively negotiate with NPCs via roleplaying), or your actual knowledge of strategy, or whatever inventiveness you posses within the boundaries of physics (and magic, if we're sticking to D&D) and use that to overcome challenges.

I had a debate with another player about this recently. He felt that if you let non-character mechanics influence the results of the game, that: 1) it wasn't a "real" win because the GM only "let" you do it, rather than something in the rules making it happen, and 2) that you're then playing the "player" rather than the "character," for the IRL charisma example.

This hits on two separate issues, one being that the player believes "wins" only count if they are pulled out of the GM's hands by an "objective" thing like the rules, and two that you should be playing as your character rather than using your own wits and personality.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024714I had a debate with another player about this recently. He felt that if you let non-character mechanics influence the results of the game, that: 1) it wasn't a "real" win because the GM only "let" you do it, rather than something in the rules making it happen, and 2) that you're then playing the "player" rather than the "character," for the IRL charisma example.

This hits on two separate issues, one being that the player believes "wins" only count if they are pulled out of the GM's hands by an "objective" thing like the rules, and two that you should be playing as your character rather than using your own wits and personality.

"How dare you think your MERE ROLEPLAYING can influence my beautiful RULES"

I encounter the attitudes you're describing with distressing frequency online. In person, it doesn't take much convincing to explain how I roleplay to someone, and because I have the advantage of being able to quickly demonstrate how I do it, I can give folks the grand tour. Online, you basically have to type until your fingers cramp for the same effect.

It's a worthy cause though; the way I game is fun, and people deserve to get a chance to know "classic" roleplaying techniques. It's a shame that even the notions of them have become a rarity nowadays.

Quote from: Azraele;1024719"How dare you think your MERE ROLEPLAYING can influence my beautiful RULES"

I encounter the attitudes you're describing with distressing frequency online. In person, it doesn't take much convincing to explain how I roleplay to someone, and because I have the advantage of being able to quickly demonstrate how I do it, I can give folks the grand tour. Online, you basically have to type until your fingers cramp for the same effect.

It's a worthy cause though; the way I game is fun, and people deserve to get a chance to know "classic" roleplaying techniques. It's a shame that even the notions of them have become a rarity nowadays.

I agree, and have argued similarly. It just seems like they have an ideological bent against any sort of "GMing bias" even though the GM can literally do the same things with the rules anyway.

I do think the point they're driving at though is that it's not "roleplaying your character" if you're using your own intellect and charisma and not the characters. What is the character's intellect and charisma represented by? Skill checks... or so they say.

But from there the path eventually leads to "I don't want to think, just have me roll an INT roll for my character."  Which I have seen people claim they want.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024729But from there the path eventually leads to "I don't want to think, just have me roll an INT roll for my character."  Which I have seen people claim they want.

I know, right. Why even play the adventure. "Roll to complete quest."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024638I thought the backgrounds in 5e were just making official what everyone already does anyway.

You thought wrong.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024710It seems I didn't finish my thought. The way I see it the constant threat against and from all NPCs means unless the PCs fight to keep someone or something around it will be destroyed. If the threat is an allied NPC who acts out fighting means creating and enforcing rules that keep the peace. Many institutions (like cults, gangs and hardholds) start with inherently savage tendencies that come into play in times of want or prosperity, simply accepting them will lead to repeat problems, channeling them into something productive or curbing them mitigates this. In practice I've found players usually fall in two camps, some revel in the savagery and keep scrabbling in the Mad Max-level of society, others are aggressive about reforming their own institutions and will later graduate to attack the institutions of the PCs who keep the savagery going.

From my reading and play experience, those institutions (hold, cult, gangs) progress in power, not in order/stability. The Hardholder is the iconic example: it's managed through Hardness (not Sharpness nor Hotness) and this will never change. The ruler is a despot, not the president of a democracy. The same goes with the cult - the Hocus is a weird egothistic bastard that milk the followers for profit and power, and nothing can change that. So ultimately, by evolving their playbooks players get more leverage on the wasteland at a large scale. The hardholder will go on to conquer neighbours, the Hocus spreading the cult in all directions, the Chopper making his gang into notorious and fearsome raiders, the Operator turning into this economic power through his gigs of drugs and whores, the Gunlugger turning into an one-man army, etc. The exception (maybe) is the Waterbearer and it's peaceful oasis, but even so it comes with it's authority attached (agan, no democracy here).

Take that as you will. My take is that the game is promoting constant violence and conflict through those, not rebuilding order/stability.

QuoteI haven't played Sagas so I don't know how they compare.

I just consulted the book, and indeed there is a factor of stability in the christian religious moves (while the pagan ones make players stronger in keeping the cycle of violence). So yeah, Sagas totally adheres to your idea of endgame stability.

I don't see how a hard ruler would be less orderly or stable than a democracy or a leader ruling by their wits or charisma. A society on the scale of AW will function very differently from a modern despotic state with millions of citizens, a large hardhold starts with a population of 300, it is likely the hardholder knows everyone by name and nothing says he doesn't have the consent of the governed or wasn't elected at some point. The starting drawbacks of the hardhold are things like disease, drug use and obligations to an external power, not revolt or assassination.

Well, if such a society don't bother in being eternally ruled by a despot, then no problem. Not my idea of an evolved society, though.

QuoteThe starting drawbacks of the hardhold are things like disease, drug use and obligations to an external power, not revolt or assassination.

Actually, you start with a gang of "unruly bastards", and have starting options as "lucrative raiding", "protection tribute", "decadent and perverse population", and turning your gang into a "pack of fucking hyenas" (+savagery). All this besides the already cited drug- and disease-laden ones. There are a couple options that could be read as stability/progress promoting, such as "bustling market" and a "manufactory". But it's clear the options for promoting the Hard part of Hardholder are more abundant than those. Making such a comomunity civil would be even a challenge, I imagine. And we didn't even count the other fuck-up weirdos that may be around like the Hocus cultists, the Chopper's pack of wolves, or the Brainer with his violation gloves.

Have you looked at Mutant:Year Zero or Legacy:Life among the Ruins? I think a group interested in rebuilding society and improving human condition could be better served by those, as this aspect seems more pronounced in them. The former even provides community options such as "Suffrage", "Tribunal", "Collectivism", "Free Enterprise", "Museum", etc.

Mutant: Year Zero also provides the option of institutionalized cannibalism.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024638I thought the backgrounds in 5e were just making official what everyone already does anyway.

They're a rehash of 1e Secondary Skills.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024802Mutant: Year Zero also provides the option of institutionalized cannibalism.

Well, it's a post apoc game, not a hippie community simulator.