Hey all, a question for Pendragon fans.  My players have been bringing this up as an issue that is increasingly noticeable as the campaign progresses and characters grow in power.

According to the rules as I understand them, the maximum you can have in a Passion is 20.  This also means that if you have a passion at 20, you can NEVER fail a passion check in it.

The issue then is the following:
1: Is my understanding of this rule correct?

and

2: If so, what stops players from building up a passion to 20 and then using it ALL the time, finding any fucking excuse to justify rolling it in order to get the big +10 (or sometimes +20) bonus to their checks, without any risk of failure that one usually chances when checking a passion?

RPGPundit

It's been a while since I played Pendragon, but my recollection is as follows:

1. It is possible to have Passion scores higher than 20. However, if you have such a high score, it is impossible to fumble. It's still possible to fail in the case of opposed rolls, although opposed Passion rolls are not common.

2. The only way to stop such frivolous use of Passion rolls is to say, as the GM, that you won't allow them without valid in-game reasons. My own preference, though, having dealt with the problem at one point, is to allow the player to make as many Passion rolls as he wishes, when he wishes, and then ruthlessly find ways to make him regret that he does so. For example, if a character uses his Passion (Family) to inspire him all the time, then have his family constantly call on him to do really inconvenient or outrageous things because he's shown himself to be so devoted to them. Alternately, perhaps his family has hated rivals and now they're determined to dishonor or slay him as a way of striking back at his family. The possibilities are many.

Your understandings of the rules are correct. Bear in mind that it would take a good while to boost a passion to 20 if you don't get any skill checks in them - you can boost a single passion by 1 point each Winter Phase (2 if you happen to get a glory bonus that Winter Phase), and that's at the cost of boosting a stat (or maintaining a stat for those characters who are getting on in life) or skill or something. And if you are regularly making Passion checks in order to get those precious skill checks, you're risking a fumble which will make you run screaming into the woods.

If you want to avoid people exploiting Passions, here's some suggested houserules:

- Take out the ability to boost Passions in the Winter Phase entirely (even if you have a Glory Bonus coming your way), so that characters have to boost passions by using them - and thus running the risk of fumbling.

- Be narrow about how you interpret people's Passions, both in when they come into play and how PCs are meant to roleplay them. In the Pendragon game I was in Hatred (Saxons) was one of the most commonly-invoked passions, but we made sure to roleplay it: sure, we'd be able to fight the Saxon hordes more competantly when our Hatred was up, but we'd also be much more inclined to rush into danger (for the sake of butchering more Saxons) and thus putting ourselves at potentially greater peril than if we hadn't invoked our Passions in the first place.

Finally, whether or not you houserule, bear in mind that NPCs have passions too, and villains are likely to have such passions as Hatred (Knights of the Round Table) and the like. In our campaign we found that after a while most Saxon leaders had a potent Hatred (Britons) Passion to hand...

I'm working off the 4th ed. book, so...

I think you can have Passions over 20 with the use of Glory (only).

The GM can compel rolls on Passions of 16 or greater. Also, in certain circumstances the GM can impose a penalty on a roll.

Applying Passions can be problematic in my experience. My suggestion is simply to let players go for it. They will never be able to use their Passion in all circumstances, and meanwhile they get to kick major arse. It's all good. That's PD: escalation is built in.

Well, in the end my group spoke about it and they came to the conclusion that they wanted me to be stricter with the application of the Passions.   So from now on the PCs will only be able to check a passion if its directly relevant to their current situation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, in the end my group spoke about it and they came to the conclusion that they wanted me to be stricter with the application of the Passions.   So from now on the PCs will only be able to check a passion if its directly relevant to their current situation.

So far as I'm aware, this is pretty much in line with the intent of the Passion rules.

Out of interest, what sort of indirect situations were you allowing Passion checks in previously?

Quote from: WarthurSo far as I'm aware, this is pretty much in line with the intent of the Passion rules.

I suspect Jong was being a rationalizing little munchkin.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, in the end my group spoke about it and they came to the conclusion that they wanted me to be stricter with the application of the Passions.   So from now on the PCs will only be able to check a passion if its directly relevant to their current situation.

Watch out for Honour.

Quote from: RPGPunditHey all, a question for Pendragon fans.  My players have been bringing this up as an issue that is increasingly noticeable as the campaign progresses and characters grow in power.

According to the rules as I understand them, the maximum you can have in a Passion is 20.  This also means that if you have a passion at 20, you can NEVER fail a passion check in it.

The issue then is the following:
1: Is my understanding of this rule correct?

I believe so, yes.

Quote from: RPGPunditand

2: If so, what stops players from building up a passion to 20 and then using it ALL the time, finding any fucking excuse to justify rolling it in order to get the big +10 (or sometimes +20) bonus to their checks, without any risk of failure that one usually chances when checking a passion?

RPGPundit

Honestly, my gut-feeling answer to this is "It totally misses the point".  The whole purpose of Passions (IMO,YMMV,EIEIO,ET FUCKING C) is to emulate the Arthurian literary mythos.  "Maximizing bonuses" just isn't part of what the game is about.

I play D&D and would play Pendragon if I could find anybody to play with.  Worrying about maximizing bonuses (boni?) belongs more with D&D than Pendragon, and I say that as someone who has deep affection for both games.

Just like I have deep affection for both Port and Champagne, but I don't want the same experience from them.

As an aside, my first thought on reading the title was "I had lots of passions at 20! Now that I'm over 50, I'm more choosy."

I'm also more married.


-clash

Quote from: Old GeezerHonestly, my gut-feeling answer to this is "It totally misses the point".  The whole purpose of Passions (IMO,YMMV,EIEIO,ET FUCKING C) is to emulate the Arthurian literary mythos.  "Maximizing bonuses" just isn't part of what the game is about.

I play D&D and would play Pendragon if I could find anybody to play with.  Worrying about maximizing bonuses (boni?) belongs more with D&D than Pendragon, and I say that as someone who has deep affection for both games.

Moreover, 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.

Quote from: droogWatch out for Honour.

To be fair, if it's a matter of honour between individuals with an Honour passion, then the other side gets to roll Honour too - so it kind of balances.

And if it's a matter of honour between an individual with an Honour passion and an individual with no Honour passion, then the other guy is a dishonourable cur and has no place challenging a man of honour.

It's all very, very elegant.

Quote from: flyingmiceI'm also more married.

More married? There are degrees of this? Is your spouse aware of this? :confused:

Quote from: blakkieMore married? There are degrees of this? Is your spouse aware of this? :confused:

Actually, I didn't meet my wife 'til after that particular relationship broke up. She was a groupie who stuck for 7 years, a common law marriage, which is, in fact, less than my current fully legit marriage.

-clash

Quote from: WarthurSo far as I'm aware, this is pretty much in line with the intent of the Passion rules.

Out of interest, what sort of indirect situations were you allowing Passion checks in previously?

Well, 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".

RPGPundit