Quote from: Technomancer;384769Because a lot of gamers don't want the system telling them how their character acts.

This is it for me. I am role-playing the character.

Quote from: Technomancer;384809Your hypothetical example is disingenuous bullshit.  Being unable to do something or failing in the attempt is not the same as not being able to even attempt it.  Your way is more akin to this:

Player: I roll to attack the goblin
GM: Ooh, sorry, you didn't roll to dislike him strongly enough, you aren't allowed to attack.
Player: Shit, I hate this game

For the record, I think FATE does it the right way.  You aren't forced to take (or refrain from taking) an action, but the GM can give you meta-game rewards for taking actions that are against your best interest but that match an aspect of your character.

This too. I can see that Technomancer has my proxy here.

Ian, I can see what you mean in your response to GnomeWorks. Regardless, that is not the sort of "control relationship" I want with my character. Inasmuch as I see where you are coming from with respect to character motivations, I think FATE is a much more palatable way to represent it: the player gets to choose the boundaries of traits that are personal challenges for the character, and when it's worth overcoming them. It seems much more consistent with the concept of role playing to me.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;385281The player should get to decide what their character wants to do and does. The GM, rules and the dice decide whether it's successful.

Yep.

Again, one of the main points of Pendragon is testing the moral qualities of the knights. Are you worthy of drawing Excalibur? Are you pure enough to find the Grail? Given that the win/lose condition of the scenario might be based on the moral qualites of the knight, it kind of makes sense to back this up mechanically, to have some way to quantify and test these qualites.

In most other games moral qualites don't come into it so much. Winning is a matter of smarts and superior firepower so these kind of mechanics don't feature so much.

Quote from: Soylent Green;385918Again, one of the main points of Pendragon is testing the moral qualities of the knights. Are you worthy of drawing Excalibur? Are you pure enough to find the Grail? Given that the win/lose condition of the scenario might be based on the moral qualites of the knight, it kind of makes sense to back this up mechanically, to have some way to quantify and test these qualites.

It makes sense, but the system doesn't test them - they don't have free will. Leaving a cookie jar out on a counter and saying to a child, "No cookies before dinner" is a test. Putting the cookies in a wall safe or not buying any in the first place isn't a test at all.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;385935It makes sense, but the system doesn't test them - they don't have free will. Leaving a cookie jar out on a counter and saying to a child, "No cookies before dinner" is a test. Putting the cookies in a wall safe or not buying any in the first place isn't a test at all.

Seanchai

Only it very much is a test of them; in the sense that you don't just get utterly random traits that go up and down randomly.  It is your choices that will determine what your initial traits are, and your choices will determine which traits go up and which go down after that.

You seem to be applying the "fucking magnets" school of thought to traits, as if they were some mysterious miraculous substance that has no reason or rhyme to it. Do you think that way about skills too? Does your Move Silently  go up just because, or is it because you choose to put points into it?

For that matter, let's take it closer to home, with BRP, the system that Pendragon is based on.  Are you trying to claim that in CoC or Runequest, your skills just go up for no reason, and thus checking your Investigation or Pistol or Sword skill would not be a true test because it lacks the "free will" of the person just deciding they succeeded?

What about SANITY in CoC?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;386072It is your choices that will determine what your initial traits are...

To a degree. Valorous always begins at 15. Religious Traits, those important to your religion, begin at 13. In 4th edition, that meant Christian values as you couldn't choose to be any religion. In 5th edition, you can choose between Roman Christian, British Christian, and Pagan. So while you can choose some of your Traits, some are determined for you.

But your argument is rather moot as being allowed some choice over character creation isn't the same as being allowed choice in play. This is the case for several reasons.

The GM may have a different idea of what the Traits mean than the player does. The player may have acted thoughtlessly, simply filling in a number because a number was required. The player is generally ignorant of the context and content of what is to come.

For example, Joe is playing Pendragon for the first time and creates a knight. He's not given a choice to play any other kind of knight than a (Roman) Christian one. As he doesn't know what the adventure is going to be about, much less what his character is really like as this is the first time he's playing him, Joe fills out the character sheet in a rather perfunctory fashion.

Play begins. The adventure is about a black knight who is poisoning a village. In the final session, the group defeats the black knight and as Joe's character is about to land the killing blow, the GM calls for a Forgiving roll as the black knight has genuinely repented.

Joe says he understands the need for forgiveness in a knight's life, but says that the black knight must pay for his deeds. The GM says to roll anyway.

The other, more experienced players point out that it should be a Merciful roll, not a Forgiving one. The GM disagrees.

Joe rolls a 3. As his Forgiving is the 13 assigned to him by the system, he succeeds and forgives the black knight.

Joe grumbles and never plays Pendragon again.

Here we have a pretty typical situation where there's a number assigned by the system - half of Trait values are in Pendragon - and a random roll is made to see what happens. It doesn't take into account Joe's thoughts, his past actions, his plans, or even really his character's personality (as Joe is free to be as Forgiving or Vengeful as he likes until a roll is called for).

In short, it's not a test anything related to Joe or his character.

And that's why players don't like Pendragon.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;386164To a degree. Valorous always begins at 15. Religious Traits, those important to your religion, begin at 13. In 4th edition, that meant Christian values as you couldn't choose to be any religion. In 5th edition, you can choose between Roman Christian, British Christian, and Pagan. So while you can choose some of your Traits, some are determined for you.

But your argument is rather moot as being allowed some choice over character creation isn't the same as being allowed choice in play. This is the case for several reasons.

The GM may have a different idea of what the Traits mean than the player does. The player may have acted thoughtlessly, simply filling in a number because a number was required. The player is generally ignorant of the context and content of what is to come.

Then shit, you must argue against random attribute determination too? In what way do you have a "choice" when made to roll 3d6 in order for your STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA?

Shit being determined randomly or semi-randomly at the start of play and the player having to then figure out how to work out a character from those values has been a part of roleplaying games for far longer than 100% point-buy games where you control every detail of your character build.

QuoteFor example, Joe is playing Pendragon for the first time and creates a knight. He's not given a choice to play any other kind of knight than a (Roman) Christian one. As he doesn't know what the adventure is going to be about, much less what his character is really like as this is the first time he's playing him, Joe fills out the character sheet in a rather perfunctory fashion.

Play begins. The adventure is about a black knight who is poisoning a village. In the final session, the group defeats the black knight and as Joe's character is about to land the killing blow, the GM calls for a Forgiving roll as the black knight has genuinely repented.

Joe says he understands the need for forgiveness in a knight's life, but says that the black knight must pay for his deeds. The GM says to roll anyway.

The other, more experienced players point out that it should be a Merciful roll, not a Forgiving one. The GM disagrees.

Joe rolls a 3. As his Forgiving is the 13 assigned to him by the system, he succeeds and forgives the black knight.

Joe grumbles and never plays Pendragon again.

Joe had one fucking awful Pendragon GM. Wait, was it Ian? I bet it was Ian.

Because in fact, that's not how I (or any other sane person) would run that situation in Pendragon.
For starters, if Joe doesn't have a 16 in anything, what business is it of the GMs to be telling Joe what his character would be thinking? Joe should decide, and then roll what makes sense based on that.
In my game, I'd have let Joe kill the black knight.  He would likely have to have rolled Vengeful after that; he also may have lost a point of Honour for killing a defenceless foe (not a very chivalrous thing to do, you know), or even a point of Loyalty:Lord if he'd been on his Lord's lands (since its the legal right of the Lord, not the Knight, to sentence men to death), but that would be entirely his choice.

Now, you mention that Joe thinks "the knight must pay for his deeds"; that could be the Vengeful trait talking, or it could be the Just trait.  As a GM, I would further ask Joe if he felt that his character wanted to kill the Knight out of a desire for personal revenge, or because he really believes in justice as a principle.  If it was the former, then Joe could go ahead and kill the knight, and get a Vengeful check (plus the other possible consequences aforementioned).  If it was the latter, I'd have Joe check his Just trait, and remind Joe about how the pendragon setting works, and the legal system (such as it is) meaning that in fact the JUST thing to do from the setting's POV would be to take the guy back to his Lord's castle for his Lord to pass judgment over the knight's crimes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;386179Then shit, you must argue against random attribute determination too?

It's not my favorite method, no. But apples and oranges, dude, apples and oranges. Instead of trying to argue why I must think something is okay because of something distantly and tangential related to it is okay, try arguing about the point and game in question.

Quote from: RPGPundit;386179Shit being determined randomly or semi-randomly at the start of play and the player having to then figure out how to work out a character from those values has been a part of roleplaying games for far longer than 100% point-buy games where you control every detail of your character build.

They have. And having a low Strength doesn't prevent my character from thinking about or making a Strength check.

Quote from: RPGPundit;386179Because in fact, that's not how I (or any other sane person) would run that situation in Pendragon.

But, as we've established, you don't know the rules.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;386164Play begins. The adventure is about a black knight who is poisoning a village. In the final session, the group defeats the black knight and as Joe's character is about to land the killing blow, the GM calls for a Forgiving roll as the black knight has genuinely repented.

In fairness what you present is not a great example and I will explain why. The moment you want to test the traits is when the outcome of the scenario depends on it. In this instance it clear that the black knight has been defeated by good old fashioned brute force. Whether Joe's knight kills him or spares his life, the poison problem has been resolved. In this instance the GM should let Joe's character act freely but adjust his Merciful/Vengeful Traits depending on Joe's knight's actions.

Now, say in later scenario, a curse on a manor can only be removed if the knight performs an act of true Mercy,  it is then that testing the Trait becomes significant and Joe may come to rue the day he killed the Black Knight.

See the difference?

Quote from: RPGPundit;386179Joe had one fucking awful Pendragon GM. Wait, was it Ian? I bet it was Ian.

Hah, that's rich.  Been boning up on the rules lately?

QuoteBecause in fact, that's not how I (or any other sane person) would run that situation in Pendragon.

So you're house-ruling?  That's cool.  As long as you aren't trying to represent those as the actual rules of the game.

And, for the record, what you described as your preferred method is totally in conformance with the general explanation of personality mechanics that I gave to Gnomeworks.  Still not a strict reading of Pendragon, but that's cool -- I never used the Strike Rank or encumbrance rules in RuneQuest.  Of course, I never claimed that the Strike Rank and encumbrance rules weren't in the book.

!i!

No true system of mechanics can draw its power from a random trait variables. True roleplaying derives from a mandate from the players not from some collection of personality descriptors....
Now we see that violence is the real point of the system.
Help my actions are being oppressed...

To be honest most players don't give a shit about roleplaying they want to kill things and take their stuff they don't want to bother about the moral implications of setting light to a goblin warren or of the rather dubious ethical choices that allow you to kill a hidden lurker for no other reason than it lives in a cave.

Most players want to run hard arse motherfuckers. They want PCs that never flinch at danger never forget which door to take and always have a plan. This is basically the mind set of a  sociopath.

Implementing a system that restricts PC actions interupts this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;386220Implementing a system that restricts PC actions interupts this.

Implementing a system that inspires PC actions is awesome.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;386224Implementing a system that inspires PC actions is awesome.

!i!

Which is why I wonder why more systems have not tried to do it.

Obviously it would be hard and many people would not be pleased but, that is true for many rules. A system that encourages the player to have a character and not just a "mini-me" seems like a very positive thing.
=

Quote from: Ian Absentia;384786I think most folks -- including many GMs who try to implement them -- have a fundamental misunderstanding of how personality mechanics work.  A failed Calm vs. Angry roll is not hi-jacking or mind control -- it's a jammed door in a dungeon.

(1) The player controls their character. The DM and the rules control everything else. That's the standard dichotomy to be found in most RPGs. You'll notice how utterly lopsided it is. Personality mechanics come in and try to make it even more lopsided. For much the same reason that players don't like being railroaded, they also don't like personality mechanics.

(2) A lot of people play roleplaying games specifically in order to control a fictional character. Personality mechanics disrupt that control.

(3) Standard roleplaying is like freeform improv: You can have your PC do or try anything you want. There's no script to limit you. Personality mechanics, OTOH, begin to apply scripted content: To one degree or another they turn improv roleplaying into scripted acting.

Nothing wrong with scripted acting, obviously. But if that's not what you're looking for, then it's going to be annoying.

But this does bring us to the final problem with personality mechanics that take control of the character: The script isn't being written by William Shakespeare or Neil Simon. It's being written by the equivalent of a random encounter table. Supercomputers still aren't capable of accurately emulating human personalities. What on earth makes you think pen 'n paper mechanics are going to do it?

Suggestive or incentive personality mechanics, OTOH, are generally more acceptable across the board.

I don't know you go to the trouble of adapting one of the most famous quotes from Monty Python into a useful and meaniful comment on use of personality traits in Pendragon and no one even notices... don't know why I bother sometimes....