Quote from: BalbinusAnother point is that what is written on my sheet is not a good guide to where my interests lie, which is related to John's point.  You cannot reliably look at my sheet and say, ah, that's what Balbinus wants to see in play.

Absolutely.  If you looked at that D&D character, you'd see a chain fighter build that's a munchkin's dream yet the game was very low combat and I was very happy with that.  The game was largely a horror/mystery sort of game and the more interesting subplots to me involved the relationship between the PCs and with some NPCs.  Even then, my character deserted his command and essentially walked off the stage of the campaign because that's what it made sense to do in character.  I'd hate to have mechanics or a die roll tell me that was wrong.

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, and this is related to Abyssal's point, often the schticks on which I hang a character develop in play, usually even.  I had no feel for Benin being a bit of a coward when I started, it just seemed funny to me so that's where I went.  I see part of play being discovering the character, finding out what works and what doesn't.  I prefer to do that in play rather than in chargen.

I do wonder if these mechanics are designed with Develop At Start players in mind rather than Develop In Play players.  When I play games like Champions that strongly encourage personality traits to be written down, it's not uncommon for me to have to rework them a bit after a few sessions.  It's not that I don't play characters with quirks.  I just have trouble predicting which quirks the characters will have before I've started running them.

Quote from: John MorrowI do wonder if these mechanics are designed with Develop At Start players in mind rather than Develop In Play players.  When I play games like Champions that strongly encourage personality traits to be written down, it's not uncommon for me to have to rework them a bit after a few sessions.  It's not that I don't play characters with quirks.  I just have trouble predicting which quirks the characters will have before I've started running them.

The main reason my players like long term campaigns is because they can discover their "characters" during play. Some of them find it difficult, to immediately start of roleplaying a particular trait, even though during the course of the campaign, they may very well slip into said trait with great ease.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe main reason my players like long term campaigns is because they can discover their "characters" during play. Some of them find it difficult, to immediately start of roleplaying a particular trait, even though during the course of the campaign, they may very well slip into said trait with great ease.

I also prefer long term campaigns, though I've had some success playing in 4-session mini-campaigns that had a tight focus.  I tend to not think very highly of one-offs, possibly because I approach them far more superficially than I do long term campaigns.

Quote from: BalbinusThis is why I regard the notion, surprisingly widespread at times, that you can tell what a game is about by looking at what is represented mechanically not only incorrect, but actually slightly stupid.

It isn't really the game at all. It is more what the players have made of the game and/or beside the game. Good? Bad? Well you'd have to ask the players in question.

My experience has been "mixed".

I want to use an examples for the weekend campaign I am a player (rather than a DM) in.

Ok, my character Cyndele I just envisioned as a halfling paladin. That was pretty much the entire character concept. Halfling and paladin. I sorta had this idea of a small guy fighting the good fight. With a rapier. And weapon finesse.

Well, first session in I had to ask about deities because the guy running the campaign had redone his whole pantheon of deities. So I got one called Arinna. Arinna is a hearth goddess.

As my character had picked a rapier as his weapon, I started calling my character "Arinna's Bumblebee" before the game began and I was showing him off.

I even had a little sketch drawn.

Right, well, as the game began, two of the female players referred to my character as "she". Why? Because the name "Cyndele" seemed like a girly name.

Well, rather than correct them, I thought, man, that explains this character perfectly. It's a female halfling paladin-- she's like a female cop. She's tough yet sensitive. She rebuffs the idea of being a little halfling wifey-- she's a bit like Yondalla! She's a defender of home and hearth! All of a sudden I had  a bunch of ideas. So right away, I made a new sketch and prety much went with it.

Over time I've gotten even more details for Cyndele-she rejects all ideas of romance. She secretly loves honey, but get's embarassed that anyone knows she keeps a jar in her pack.  She wants to become dragonborn one day, but fears she isn't worthy (I recently got Races of the Dragon). She's not afraid of outsiders, even if they are far more powerful than she is. She will always let others be healed instead of her... that sort of thing. She's a bit of a puritan in many ways, but she has a secret love of metallic half-dragons.

None of that stuff fits on a character sheet, and all of it developed in the game.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNone of that stuff fits on a character sheet, and all of it developed in the game.

Really? I thought that was what the blank backside was for?

What really disappoints me is when the character has becomes bigger than the system. For example "She's not afraid of outsiders, even if they are far more powerful than she is" is just bigger than the system. Now that example isn't that hard to fake in-and-of itself if you are willing to start overriding the Fear rules. But eventually you come to the point of rewriting the rules and writing a new set of rules to handle it that have little to do with the original game the character started out in....or you just port the character (and potentially the rest of them at the table) to a different game. But even then you often end up having something fall out during the translation that isn't really covered under the new game.

Well, if my character was affected by say.. a Scare spell or 'Cause Fear' and I missed a save I don't think I should start demanding that the rules be changed to accomadate my character or anything. My character would be just as affected as the rules say she was.

However, when we actually played the Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde, most of the other PCs were terrified of the howler in the first dungeon. They roleplayed it up. "we can't go in there... it's a demon!"

Which gave me the chance to be the character that says "well, I'm not afraid. That thing doesn't belong in our world, and I'm going to destroy it... or die trying."

Great little roleplaying scene. And of course we all sorta rallied, came up with a plan and killed that demon. I got pretty heavily injured in the process, tanking for the spellcasters and the missile guys, but that's kinda a paladins job.

If my character was magically gripped by fear, I think Id have to play by the rules. That seems obvious. I wouldn't want it any other way. I do like the option of having rules be a bit malleable. I'm already seriously looking at taking a feat that gives me a +4 against fear affects. That kind of bonus rpresents fearlessness pretty well for me.

On the other hand, halflings already get a +1 bonus vs fear effects... and so do Paladins! (Hah!)

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf my character was magically gripped by fear, I think Id have to play by the rules. That seems obvious. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Oh sure it is nice to stay inside the strictures of the rules. I certainly wouldn't demand something different because how stuff like that ripples. But I would consider asking for small bits that were really, really central. I know as a DM/GM I'm inclined to offer them if I can figure out some way that the rules will flex.  I'd like to have the dilema of whether or not the character stays true to their fearlessness or does the smart thing and books it.

QuoteI do like the option of having rules be a bit malleable. I'm already seriously looking at taking a feat that gives me a +4 against fear affects. That kind of bonus rpresents fearlessness pretty well for me.

You might consider narrowing that Feat down a bit from a blanket coverage against Fear, especially given what you are thinking of emulating. Better to come in a little low on power than high for coolio stuff....because cool factor is the main consideration instead of crunch anyway.

I know Feats take a lot of heat and I agree with some of it to a measure. But oh man even when having to wait to some certian level to buy the Feat (By The Numbers seems a curious option to aleviate some of the wait) for even that little bit of leeway really helps try bring the mechanics inline with a developing character personality. Rather than it always getting driven the other way.  SR4 added something like that where they added a rule where you can buy and buy-off Qualitities (the new name for Edges & Flaws) with Karma during play and I must say I really like that addition. After the events of last night in our SR4 game I'm going to talk to the Adept about taking up the Cat Totem.

Big difference between not being afraid and not showing it. It's the difference between courage and stupidity.

Any player who says "I know it's big and bad, but if I don't get a grip on myself, it will harm those I care about. I fight down my fear for the sake of others." That I'll believe. It's called Courage.

A player that says "That thing can kill me just by spitting on me, loves to eat it's victims alive, after torturing them for weeks, starting by nibbling on toes and fingers..... I'm not afraid of it!" I'm gonna call bullshit.

Courage I can handle. Not being afraid of anything? No. Not unless your character posses some relay fatal flaw. If your that fearless of overwhelmingly powerful opponents, you won't run away. You'll always charge them and fight to the death, cause there is something WRONG with you.

But any player that can give me a good reason as to why they would be immune or less scared in this particular situation. Well, then I'd either consider them flat out immune, or grant a second save, with or with out pluses.

For example. PC A has strong family ties and has demonstrated caring towards family members before, sending money, keeping up with what's going on, going out of their way to attend funerals and weddings, or just visiting. On this visit(or responding to a message for urgent help) one of their family members is in trouble. Arriving on scene, they see a foe about to kill a family member, the one of the foes uses a fear effect(or just seeing them calls for one) and the player blows it. The player says "Hey, Character A isn't just going to let their beloved family member die! They dig deep and fight with all their might to shake it off and charge that bastard." This I would agree to.

PC B has no strong ties to anyone really, and even though they say they fear nothing, never gives a reason for such. "I'm fearless, cause I'm a Badass!" Does. Not. Fly.

People who play their characters as courageous might get second chances in certain circumstances. People who want to be 'fearless' can be so, at the cost a mental problem that causes them to never back down. Even if it will get them killed. (You know the type, "I'm fearless, unless it looks like I'm gonna lose, then I'll run)

I'll also give any mother, protecting her children from harm an immunity to fear. You do NOT want to piss off momma. It will not be pretty......

Quote from: BalbinusThis is why I regard the notion, surprisingly widespread at times, that you can tell what a game is about by looking at what is represented mechanically not only incorrect, but actually slightly stupid.

Frequently the most important elements of play are not represented mechanically at all.  Whether that is a good thing or not really depends on personal taste.

Very important statement, and arguably one that Lev should have heeded in his AD&D review. Misunderstandings arise when one judges a mechanically open (rather than incomplete) game as though it were a mechanically closed (rather than complete) game.

I also agree re. developing the PC during play as opposed to at the outset. (IIRC, HeroQuest encourages that explicitly.) Advantage: this encourages an open PC group dynamic, rather than prescribing such a dynamic before play, with all the problems that may give rise to.

Quote from: NazgulA player that says "That thing can kill me just by spitting on me, loves to eat it's victims alive, after torturing them for weeks, starting by nibbling on toes and fingers..... I'm not afraid of it!" I'm gonna call bullshit.

I'm of the mind to say "Show me!" I can see myself even gutting the automatic Fear Aura out of a deamon (AKA poorman's Fear Imunity ) and replace it with a multiple target Quick Sp Fear (to lay on the rest of the party) or something just to see that. That'd be cool...if not messy.  Under some circumstances you can even rig it with the Fear Aura intact. But tricky and needs a lot of things to fall into place...which means a lot of things to go wrong. Likely better to just do what you mean to do than finese it because those silly players do the darndest things to foul up intricate plans.