Are there any female RPG'ers on this forum?

[frogspawner]

Good roleplaying is the fun part, and should be the focus of the game. That's why it's good to give HPs for it. Beating-up-enemies-and-nicking-their-treasure - that brings it's own reward (or punishment).

I'm not suggesting anyone here wouldn't be able to create their own character's personality without tables, but I'm sure there are people could do with a bit of help, at least at the start. If characterful things were given more prominence at roll-up time, everyone would know that's the important thing from the outset (rather than how much damage you can do).

It's not about "luring" anyone. Just making it easy for everyone to have fun RPG-ing, isn't it?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

As for the point value, the logic is clear.

Not to me, it's not. Not unless you are out to encourage mini-maxing, taking the disadvantages that will have as little impact on play as possible to maximise the points you have elsewhere

Things like "code of honour" or "pacifism" limit the choises available for the character.

With you so far. Now, if you have a code of honour, or pacifism, you no doubt consider it makes you a better person than someone without such a code. However, it doesn't, at least IMO make you a better fighter, or physically stronger, or better at creeping along a dark corridor, or any other skill or advantage you can boost with the extra points you get for choosing the disadvantage.

In fact giving people points for disadvantages do not limit the choices available for the character, they increase them. (If you take a 5pt disadvantage in GURPS you increase the points you can spend on advantages and skills by 5)

A character with no defined personality can be a minimax survivor, being utterly ruthless when the situation so warrants, and gentle and compassionate when diplomacy or romance is in the cards.

...And, of course, some people are like that in real life too...

Real people have personalities and morals that "limit their choises".

But they don't get better in unrelated fields because of them

Again, I've seen this elevate "kill the trolls and take the loot" roleplayers into the realm of actual character roleplaying. This is a good thing.

The point value will encourage players into actually developing some personality for their characters.

The point value will encourage players to write a disadvantage down on their character sheet, It doesn't necessarily encourage them to develop a character.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Good roleplaying is the fun part, and should be the focus of the game. That's why it's good to give HPs for it. Beating-up-enemies-and-nicking-their-treasure - that brings it's own reward (or punishment).

Giving experience for anything distorts the game. If something is fun then you shouldn't need bribing to do it

 

[Trifletraxor]

Good roleplaying is the fun part, and should be the focus of the game. That's why it's good to give HPs for it. Beating-up-enemies-and-nicking-their-treasure - that brings it's own reward (or punishment).

Giving experience for anything distorts the game. If something is fun then you shouldn't need bribing to do it

Hear, hear!

SGL.

 

[Quire]

The problem with playing characters based on a handful of assigned personality traits (or the like) is that you end up playing a cipher, not a character. No RL 'character's' personality is that easily defined, and neither are the personalities of well-written fictional characters. Perhaps such systems can help inexperienced players raise their game out of 'kill them and take their stuff', but experienced players' characters' personalities should come out in play, not on paper.

Duncan's point re: the +/- system of (eg) GURP's also raises the spectre of 'game balance', an unrealistic and illogical concept that - sure - attempts to deal with muchkins and powergamers, but one that in the context of RL simulation makes no sense at all.

I prefer to run and play in groups that don't need such levels of abstraction and restriction. The quality of simulation is compromised enough as it stands.

- Q

 

[Adept]

As for the point value, the logic is clear.

Not to me, it's not. Not unless you are out to encourage mini-maxing, taking the disadvantages that will have as little impact on play as possible to maximise the points you have elsewhere

You are assuming it will automatically be abused. This has not been the case, and a person like that would try to minimax and abuse any system anyway.

Even so, any disadvantages he takes will be fasets of personality to the character he will have to roleplay. That's a bonus, and the fact that he get's to take "keen eyesight" or "combat reflexes" to compensate isn't a problem. Even those things will bring something to the character, and it's the GM's job to get some mileage out of it all.

Things like "code of honour" or "pacifism" limit the choises available for the character.

With you so far. Now, if you have a code of honour, or pacifism, you no doubt consider it makes you a better person than someone without such a code. However, it doesn't, at least IMO make you a better fighter, or physically stronger, or better at creeping along a dark corridor, or any other skill or advantage you can boost with the extra points you get for choosing the disadvantage.

In fact giving people points for disadvantages do not limit the choices available for the character, they increase them. (If you take a 5pt disadvantage in GURPS you increase the points you can spend on advantages and skills by 5)

So what? This is done in character creation. It's like rewarding good roleplaying. Even MRQ does it, doesn't it? You shouldn't try to link the thing in your head "why does he get to be a more skilled fighter because he has a strict code of honour?". It's more like a reward for creating a more interesting and challenging character.

A character with no defined personality can be a minimax survivor, being utterly ruthless when the situation so warrants, and gentle and compassionate when diplomacy or romance is in the cards.

...And, of course, some people are like that in real life too...

If you don't want to take any disadvantages, you don't have to. Such characters are rather boring to me. I'd like to see the vietnam veteran sniper that is perfectly unaffected by his experiences, for instanse.

Real people have personalities and morals that "limit their choises".

But they don't get better in unrelated fields because of them

*sigh* Why do I get the feeling that you are arguing just for the heck of it here? Have you ever tried a good long game using such features? Why did it suck so bad as you are implying?

Again, I've seen this elevate "kill the trolls and take the loot" roleplayers into the realm of actual character roleplaying. This is a good thing.

The point value will encourage players into actually developing some personality for their characters.

The point value will encourage players to write a disadvantage down on their character sheet, It doesn't necessarily encourage them to develop a character.

It won't do any harm. At least the player has given some thought to such things. That's more than you get from rolling up some stats, and deciding that this time you want an axe instead of a sword.

 

[Adept]

Man you people are hidebound*...

Well, I've said my piece. If you are so sure that roleplaying hasn't advanced at all in the last 20 years, you are of course free to do so.

*Another great shorthand for defining a facet of a character's personality.

 

[Rurik]

My summary to date:

Not having Advantages makes a game primitive, and based totally on stats, and therefore leads to Munchkinism.

Advantages/Traits cause players to figure out the most benefit of disadvantages to advantages, and leads to all Munchkinism.

I like traits and advantages in some games, but hardly believe they should be in all games.

I firmly believe that no mechanic can role-play. It takes a role-player to role play. That's why we have players. Some day we may be able to figure out how to eliminate the bastards and replace them completely with rules that make every decision for them, but until then players are a necessary evil.

That being said, I think traits can be a good way to teach a new player to role play. Once someone is a good role player, I find them unnecessary (the traits, not the player).

 

[Adept]

My summary to date:

Not having Advantages makes a game primitive, and based totally on stats, and therefore leads to Munchkinism.
<snip>

I never said that, but your parody of my position is still useful. Your position seems to be the reverse of what you just said.

There can be no need for change. We didn't need a way to represent personality or unique features 20 years ago, so we don't need them now.

Just because you don't absolutely need them to roleplay, doesn't mean the couldn't be useful.

No wonder you say it's really hard to get people to try anything but D&D, if the reactions here are anything to judge by. Tradition all the way.

 

[Greg Smith]

That being said, I think traits can be a good way to teach a new player to role play. Once someone is a good role player, I find them unnecessary (the traits, not the player).

They are also helpful to encourage role-playing.

The quantification of such traits (ie rules) is also helpful to the GM. If I decide my character is claustrophobic, the Gm does not have to pick an arbitrary difficulty for me to make a fear roll (and possibly choose a wildly different difficulty next session).

I'd like to see the vietnam veteran sniper that is perfectly unaffected by his experiences, for instanse.

Good point. Characters with character traits can be just as cliched as the fighter with maxed out physical stats.

 

[Adept]

<snip>
Advantages/Traits cause players to figure out the most benefit of disadvantages to advantages, and leads to all Munchkinism.

Funny thing. After 10+ years of playing with advs and disadvs, I find it hard to recall even a single case where that would have happened. You seem pretty sure about it though. Is this from a wealth of personal experience with such a system? How much worse was the munchkinism than that of young RQ-3 players wanting a halberd, since it does 3d6 damage?

 

[Rurik]

<snip>
Advantages/Traits cause players to figure out the most benefit of disadvantages to advantages, and leads to all Munchkinism.

Funny thing. After 10+ years of playing with advs and disadvs, I find it hard to recall even a single case where that would have happened. You seem pretty sure about it though. Is this from a wealth of personal experience with such a system? How much worse was the munchkinism than that of young RQ-3 players wanting a halberd, since it does 3d6 damage?

My point was that muchkinism and role-playing in my opinion have little to do with game systems and a lot to do with the people who play them..

10+ years with advantages/disadvantages? You are coming late to the game. Most of my experience comes from earlier games than that, namely superhero games, James Bond, and some Palladium games (namely TMNT - yeah, have at me). I recall from limited V:tM experience just about everyone took Celerity.

As I said, I'm not knocking the system at all. It is right for some games, but not every game. To say so would be akin to saying all games should use only d12's, or have roll low mechanics.

I am a bit confused by your halberd example though. Are you saying all modern games that use advantage/disadvantage systems do not have variable weapon damage? Because I'm pretty sure a player who likes big weapons in RQ is going to like big weapons in just about any system they play.

Though honestly, back in my RQ2 days I never had a problem with people using poleaxes. For one, they had a very low base starting percentage, and while they are good at killing things, they are no better at saving a characters life than any other weapon. If a party wants to all run around with big axes so be it. Just throw in an extra scorpion man runelord or two to keep things interesting.

Finally, munchkinism is not a crime. For some people the reward in RPG's is good role playing, for others it is loot. There is nothing wrong with this, we all do this as a hobby, and so it should be fun, which is different things to different people. If my style of play is not fun for another person I should perhaps not play with that person, but that does not make me a better gamer or person than them. I would say, due to the popularity of 3.5 and prestige classes, a lot of players LIKE figuring out the most advantageous combination of class and feats and so on. If it makes them happy, good for them.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Man you people are hidebound*...

Well, I've said my piece. If you are so sure that roleplaying hasn't advanced at all in the last 20 years, you are of course free to do so.

*Another great shorthand for defining a facet of a character's personality.

Is it so hard to hear that some people are actually saying it's possible to roleplay a character well without rules saying how they should act? During my time as a GM a lot of my players have died due to actions they took based on their characters personality, even though it clearly wasn't a good "munchkin" move. Restricting characters play through rules doesn't really seem like a good option to me, even though I have to admit I've never tried it and never will.

SGL.

 

[Adept]

...I would say, due to the popularity of 3.5 and prestige classes, a lot of players LIKE figuring out the most advantageous combination of class and feats and so on. If it makes them happy, good for them.

You say that like it's got some bearing on what I've been talking about?

How is making a character who has "fear of commitment" as a trait related to the godawful minimaxing mess that is D&D?

Anyway, I think I've had enough. This forum seems to be filled with people who love to argue for argument's sake. If you* aren't interested in having characters defined beyond stat & skill, that is fine, but why do you* feel to need to construct and burn strawmen just to mock those who find them useful?

-Adept

*Not directed just at Rurik

 

[Rurik]

My summary to date:

Not having Advantages makes a game primitive, and based totally on stats, and therefore leads to Munchkinism.
<snip>

I never said that, but your parody of my position is still useful. Your position seems to be the reverse of what you just said.

There can be no need for change. We didn't need a way to represent personality or unique features 20 years ago, so we don't need them now.

Just because you don't absolutely need them to roleplay, doesn't mean the couldn't be useful.

No wonder you say it's really hard to get people to try anything but D&D, if the reactions here are anything to judge by. Tradition all the way.

I was parodying both sides of the argument (and have somehow managed to find myself smack in the middle).

You are coming across as equally inflexible as you are accusing the other side as being. You point seems to be that the 'new' advance of traits/advantages/disadvantages should be used in all modern games.

Obviously some people like them, and some people don't. So maybe we should have some games with them, and some without.

I'll play both kinds if I like the game, setting, and group I'm playing with.

 

[Adept]

...even though I have to admit I've never tried it and never will.

SGL.

*sigh* that means you really know what you are talking about then, doesn't it?

I've done both. I can compare. You can't.

 

[Adept]

You are coming across as equally inflexible as you are accusing the other side as being. You point seems to be that the 'new' advance of traits/advantages/disadvantages should be used in all modern games.

From my wery first post on the subject

PS. Oh, and I'm also not saying you can't run a beautiful, complex and character driven game on MRQ. You can pretty much do that with any system (and MRQ works better for that than, say D&D). It's just that the system does nothing to actually help you there.

I was trying to be constructive. MRQ aims at being a general use game. It would be good to keep eye's open to what is happening in the wider world of RPG development.

What you people seem to be saying is that such mechanics are never helpful. Some are even taking this position without ever having tried any.

 

[Rurik]

You are coming across as equally inflexible as you are accusing the other side as being. You point seems to be that the 'new' advance of traits/advantages/disadvantages should be used in all modern games.

MRQ aims at being a general use game. It would be good to keep eye's open to what is happening in the wider world of RPG development.

See what I mean?

What you people seem to be saying is that such mechanics are never helpful. Some are even taking this position without ever having tried any.

I've never said that. I've tried 'em, I like 'em, I'll play with them, I can play without 'em too. Except without 'em all my characters are named Bubba and talk with the same Texas drawl and carry the biggest gun possible (regardless of genre).

But really, we have drifted way off topic here. What has any of this have to do with chicks?

If this back and forth ranting and arguing past eachother hasn't driven off the couple of females we had here I don't know what will.

 

[homerjsinnott]

You are coming across as equally inflexible as you are accusing the other side as being. You point seems to be that the 'new' advance of traits/advantages/disadvantages should be used in all modern games.

From my wery first post on the subject

PS. Oh, and I'm also not saying you can't run a beautiful, complex and character driven game on MRQ. You can pretty much do that with any system (and MRQ works better for that than, say D&D). It's just that the system does nothing to actually help you there.

I was trying to be constructive. MRQ aims at being a general use game. It would be good to keep eye's open to what is happening in the wider world of RPG development.

What you people seem to be saying is that such mechanics are never helpful. Some are even taking this position without ever having tried any.

I have tried them many times (Vampire, L5r, Deadlands, Buffy, Witchcraft ,Gurps and others) and in my experience lots of people use them as a crutch to be lazy with their characters (maybe not intentionally). They never develope, (they are always so and so and so with a limp and a short temper), the characters are by the nature of the A/F very very limited, because there are only a finite number of A/F. They tend to delimit the direction the character goes and encourage them to buy A/F that fit into a mould that has already been establish for that 'type'. Having played very different characters without any merits, flaws, advantages, disadvantages or psychological traits I can say that I feel they are really not needed, but can sometimes be useful.

I quite like A/F to some extent, but they are very much, handle with care.

Adept, you don't seen to be willing to accept any criticism of A/F, isn't that being very black and white (ie inflexible)?

 

[Trifletraxor]

Anyway, I think I've had enough. This forum seems to be filled with people who love to argue for argument's sake. If you* aren't interested in having characters defined beyond stat & skill, that is fine, but why do you* feel to need to construct and burn strawmen just to mock those who find them useful?

Hey, you're the one throwing around slights and arrogance.

*sigh* that means you really know what you are talking about then, doesn't it?

I've done both. I can compare. You can't.

Great for you...

SGL.