[MECHANICAL] Faults

[Michael Hopcroft]

I dont see the necessity to award players with points for playing out their "flaws". If one plays according to his role, then it should be more than enough to earn the respect of his group for good roleplaying.

I would consider munchkinism an even greater problem in d20, few varieties of which have any sort of system in which to make imperfect characters. But I suspect a philosophiical divide in terms of how much control players should ahve over the creation of thier characters. The "plsy what you rolled" philosophy is completely outdated IMHO.

2 reasons why I don't like this concept:

1. The GURPS mechanism to get points for advantages and disadvantages is the first step to munchkinism and powergaming.

No system is ever going to be immune to these, any more than a human social system can be immune to human nature.

2. It doesn't belong to BRP.

If we were actually discussing BRP, that might be a valid point. However, we are not. We are discussing MRQ, a similar but fundamentally different system.

BRP basic philosophy is built on minimalism and simple but realistic rule mechanics. MRQ has already many "gamey" rules, so its not good for the system to add additional "gamey" rules to them.

I don't see how having "game-like" rules is essentially a bad thing -- after all, this is a game we are discussing. As an RPG writer, I may indeed have a vision I wish to present, but if players aren't playing it I'm not doing my job. (Comments about my own body of work are best left to PM).

 

[Lorgryt]

Enpeze, what makes you so special that a post to the group is automaticly directed to you? Are you suddenly god?

Not that I have any knowlegde about. Have to ask my wife.

I thought it was directed at me. It seemed so because I am the only one at this thread which is against the rule "idea" of the thread opener.

Okay, I gotta suport Enpeze on this one. I've been in the "one against the pack" situtation enough times to know that it starts to seem that things are directed at you.

So have I, and for my part Enpeze, I did not intend that. I didn't even notice that situation occurred. Sorry if I left you with that feeling. My apologies.

I have seen a lot of “No, your thread is wrong because I don’t like where it is going” post here lately, and I was just trying to make the point that both the idea of the post and to opposition were valid, how ever the post was for the furthering of the idea. It seemed like another post where someone was getting fired on for liking a food someone else didn’t.

Between that and the “players can’t be trusted” argument to a rule idea, I was just posting to try and say “settle down, it is their bailiwick, don’t jump them for it.” I guess it was taken a “piss off, as*hat!” That wasn’t the meaning.

All in all I think we are probably all on the same side here, having fun with the game.

So, for ANY offense I have given, please accept my apology.

 

[Enpeze]

So, for ANY offense I have given, please accept my apology.

No offense taken Lorgryt. Everything ok.
Btw. I asked my wife if I am god. She laughed and said something.

 

[Enpeze]

I would consider munchkinism an even greater problem in d20, few varieties of which have any sort of system in which to make imperfect characters. But I suspect a philosophiical divide in terms of how much control players should ahve over the creation of thier characters. The "plsy what you rolled" philosophy is completely outdated IMHO.

well one of the advantages of the "to be what you rolled" philosophy is that munchkinism isnt that easy to conduct than in point buy systems. A second advantage of this is that it is better suited to a simulative playing style, because it is nearer to reality. Remember life is not fair. In reality one with just one arm remaining dont get automatically the "points" to buy himself a degree in astrophysics to even out his handicap.

No system is ever going to be immune to these, any more than a human social system can be immune to human nature.

Of course not. The only thing we can do against munchkinism, is not introducing additional incentives for potential munchkins by "improving" the rules. Instead we should encourage the players to play out advantages/disadvantages during the game without benefits and instant-gratifications during character creations. I always thought our hobby is called "role-playing"? (or is it rather "roll-playing"? or "rule-playing"?)

I don't see how having "game-like" rules is essentially a bad thing -- after all, this is a game we are discussing. As an RPG writer, I may indeed have a vision I wish to present, but if players aren't playing it I'm not doing my job. (Comments about my own body of work are best left to PM).

I admit it is a game and maybe all this is going too far. Maybe I am not right and I should see the new MRQ instead as successor to RQ3 more as hybrid roleplaying/boardgame like d20. The whole time I was very patient with this game. (atgxtg would surely agree with this) I defended it despite its obvious rule problems on many forums and boards. But there is a limit. Be sure, if the next "rule-improvement" of MRQ is more "gamey" stuff like traits or maybe squares to play with minis on it, I will not be here anymore.

Do you really think that advantages/disadvantages have been "forgotten" in other versions of the BRP family all the last decades? No they havent. It was a design decision not to include them, because the designers thought such rules would not fit to the spirit of BRP. IMO they are right. (see the threads with BRP writer Jason Durall about this topic on rpg.net)

Of course if you want to include such "rule improvements" you can do it, but I dont see much sense in them.

 

[Utgardloki]

Of course not. The only thing we can do against munchkinism, is not introducing additional incentives for potential munchkins by "improving" the rules. Instead we should encourage the players to play out advantages/disadvantages during the game without benefits and instant-gratifications during character creations. I always thought our hobby is called "role-playing"? (or is it rather "roll-playing"? or "rule-playing"?)

There are other things a GM can do to combat munchkinism. He can disallow unfair advantages. He can make sure that an advantage has an adequate cost. He can make sure a character with an advantage can't just walk over everything.

Thinking about this topic, I guess I really will be doing something like the original suggestion. If a character has something like a Code of Honor or other personality trait that adds to the game, then I'd give an extra hero point when this is played out well. The difference is that I'm not making a rule or calling it a "fault"; it depends on my subjective opinion on whether it was well played and added to the game.

 

[Utgardloki]

Of course if you want to include such "rule improvements" you can do it, but I dont see much sense in them.

Thinking about this topic, I can say why I am working on such an "improvement".

In deciding what to do, I've decided that I want to get out of the archaic ages for a while. I decided on a setting in which characters often have special abilities that don't fit in well with the skills framework provided by MRQ, so advantages are apropos. If I was just running Glorantha, maybe I wouldn't be doing advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

I admit it is a game and maybe all this is going too far. Maybe I am not right and I should see the new MRQ instead as successor to RQ3 more as hybrid roleplaying/boardgame like d20. The whole time I was very patient with this game. (atgxtg would surely agree with this) I defended it despite its obvious rule problems on many forums and boards. But there is a limit. Be sure, if the next "rule-improvement" of MRQ is more "gamey" stuff like traits or maybe squares to play with minis on it, I will not be here anymore.

Without asking you to defend your personal taste, I think that you are being a bit harsh. Nobody has been suggesting a D&D-style miniatures-based map-style play would be likely to come from Mongoose, or even particularly useful for this system. Mind you, if the license can be worked out a "The battle for Glorantha" miniatures game iws quite likely, becasue that si the way Mongoose's business model works, but that is not the direction in which the MRQ RPG line appears to be headed.

Now I see MRQ as three different and sometimes contradictory things:

1. An attempt to refine RQ3's basic systems to be more in line with what 2006 players are looking for in an RPG, \which will in turn being people into RuneQuest who have never played it before.

2. An attempt to revive and expand the world of Glorantha, by perring into its history with the Second Age line.

3. An attempt to provide the sort of engine for publishers and wriyters that D&D 3e did by opening the license.

It is this third goal that makes MRQ as sort "tabula rasa" onto which writers and publishers can graft things to based on what their ideas and experiences suggest will work. Many of these things would never in a million years appear in a mainstream RuneQuest Glorantha game, but they might appear in other games other publishers produce with the RQ-OGL license.

I am approaching the project mainly from the aspect of the 3rd goal. Apparently a lot of people on this board do not agree with this. That is their right, but it is also not my fault that the questions come up.

 

[iamtim]

I always thought our hobby is called "role-playing"? (or is it rather "roll-playing"? or "rule-playing"?)

I was going to stay out of this debate, I honestly was. But if your quote above is the case, and supports not having gifts and faults, why bother generating numbers for INT or CHA? If your character is really smart or charismatic, just role-play it, right?

Gifts and faults have their place in a game system -- just like any other mechanic. Now, granted, I think the GURPS ads/disads ARE a path to munchkinism -- we've all heard of the one-armed, lame, hemophiliac, overconfident, humorless warrior with a Sword skill of 25 or so. Certainly they [gifts & faults] are a good crutch for those just learning our hobby, and most likely quite ignorable for those of us who have been playing long enough to take on the role of the one-armed, lame, hemophiliac, overconfident, humorless warrior regardless of his sword skill, just for the fun of it.

 

[atgxtg]

I always thought our hobby is called "role-playing"? (or is it rather "roll-playing"? or "rule-playing"?)

I was going to stay out of this debate, I honestly was. But if your quote above is the case, and supports not having gifts and faults, why bother generating numbers for INT or CHA? If your character is really smart or charismatic, just role-play it, right?

Gifts and faults have their place in a game system -- just like any other mechanic. Now, granted, I think the GURPS ads/disads ARE a path to munchkinism -- we've all heard of the one-armed, lame, hemophiliac, overconfident, humorless warrior with a Sword skill of 25 or so. Certainly they [gifts & faults] are a good crutch for those just learning our hobby, and most likely quite ignorable for those of us who have been playing long enough to take on the role of the one-armed, lame, hemophiliac, overconfident, humorless warrior regardless of his sword skill, just for the fun of it.

I have to agree with im here. THe problem that I see is that forcing people to role pay mental advantages while woking up rules for physical ones is unfair. MOst of the gamers I've know can't handle a sword very well, yet we have rules to let them play master swordmen. Why not allow for a master orator or con artitist?

One of my favorite RPGs is PEndragon, a game that has a lot of rules for personality traits and passions, making then=m a strong part of the game. Role playing those traits can sometimes prove quite challenging. Being brave and facing the dragon when the rest of the group is wisely heading for the hills is not conductive to character survival.

Also in Pendraogn, there are situations where a trait is tested much the same way STR or DEX were tested in RQ (well, previous version of RQ), por the way a skill can be tested.

There are even special bonuses that can be applied based upon trait a scores. Now oddly enough, these traits first appeared for RQ, but were modified and used in Pendragon. THey could still be useful in RQ though. Imagine a character working on his Honestry trait and Pious traitsa to pass the "test of the examiners".


Sure advantages and flaws can be used to munchkin. Some of that is expected and even desirable (it shows an interest), but it is up to the GM to keep munchkinism inhand and to make sure that the players "pay" for thier flaws. The one-armed, lame, hemophiliac, overconfident, humorless warrior with a Sword skill of 25 should be the target of arrow fire from time to time, or even get a paper cut. Frankly if the disadvantage isn't hindering the PC, it isn't munchkinism, it's bad GMing. If a charactrer has too many things wrong with him, he will self destruct. Most of my players are a little careful about picking disadvantages because they know that they will come up in play. I have one group that got made at one guy from constantly bringing in new characters with powerfulk eneimies. That player's character constantly got killed, and the group got left with a new villian to deal with.

 

[iamtim]

I have to agree with im here.

You know... that's twice you've admitted to agreeing with me, publically, on the forum. If we don't watch it, people are going to get suspicious.

Heh.

Why not allow for a master orator or con artitist?

Thar's wisdom in them thar words.

I mean... no one expects an RPG player to have *any* idea about how true sword combat works. It's cool if you do, but it can easily get distilled down to a few dice rolls and everyone's happy.

But if you want to create a master orator, RPG players are expected to be able to pull off MLK level speeches at the GMs whim to "cash in" on the character concept.

As there's a mechanic for the former, there should be a mechanic for the latter. Certainly it should still be role-played, but most of us are not master orators. So we do the best we can, toss the dice, and see if the NPCs fell for it.

It's just something of a chore to capture the essence of that mechanic, gracefully, without tossing in something like GURPS ads/disads (which I don't think is a good match for MRQ). Personally, I wouldn't want to make it a manditory system, nor a system which has benefits for taking faults -- it's something that a beginning MRQer could use to help them walk on their own two feet, as it were, and then ignore as they become a good enough player to ignore it.

So at the beginning you'd get, "I wanna convince the Prince to finance my character's expedition," and a few dice rolls.

As the player gets better, it'd turn in to, "My good Prince, wouldst thou finance my expedition?" and a few dice rolls.

It would end up with, "Greetings, my Lord Prince. I believe you have been made aware of my intent to travel to the foreign land of Fleeburflurbur, whereupon the natives have stores of gold and other treasure ripe for the taking. With proper funding from your Lordship I could purchase and maintain the fleet I'd need to travel to Fleeburflurbur and return with more treasures for your coffers than you've seen from any of your beholden -- AND trade relations would be opened with the Fleeburflurburians in your name. I pray, my Lord, what sayest thou?" To which, of course, any GM would be suitably blown away and wave away any attempts to roll dice.

 

[Utgardloki]

I mean... no one expects an RPG player to have *any* idea about how true sword combat works. It's cool if you do, but it can easily get distilled down to a few dice rolls and everyone's happy.

But if you want to create a master orator, RPG players are expected to be able to pull off MLK level speeches at the GMs whim to "cash in" on the character concept.

As there's a mechanic for the former, there should be a mechanic for the latter. Certainly it should still be role-played, but most of us are not master orators. So we do the best we can, toss the dice, and see if the NPCs fell for it.

It's just something of a chore to capture the essence of that mechanic, gracefully, without tossing in something like GURPS ads/disads (which I don't think is a good match for MRQ). Personally, I wouldn't want to make it a manditory system, nor a system which has benefits for taking faults -- it's something that a beginning MRQer could use to help them walk on their own two feet, as it were, and then ignore as they become a good enough player to ignore it.

I think the Influence skill works pretty nicely to enable players to play master orators even if in real life they aren't very good with words. With a specialization variant, orators can specialize in Diplomacy, Seduction, Demogogary, you name it.

My take has always been to ask the player what he wants to say, and then have him roll the dice to see how well he says it. (There was once a trial where a PC was a witness and botched his Diplomacy roll. We decided that he was talking with his mouth full :lol: )

Then I decide how the NPC reacts, based on what I think the NPC's personality was.

It seems to me quite similar to the combat master: the dice determine how well the character swings the sword, but it is still up to the player to determine her tactics and strategy.

Advantages/Disadvantages aren't necessary to be diplomatic or charismatic, although they certainly can be used for the purpose. MRQ is a little bit light in this area because everything is rolled up into an Influence skill. I suppose if you're playing a basic MRQ game, you could load your character up with a bunch of Lore skills as well as Influence, and use Lore to help determine the best way to make friends and influence others.

About the only advantage I have to help an orator is the Attractive advantage, which helps influence the opposite sex. There can also be an Unattractive disadvantage.

 

[iamtim]

I think the Influence skill works pretty nicely to enable players to play master orators even if in real life they aren't very good with words.

Yeah, probably a bad example because I forgot about the Influence skill, but I think my point still stands.

 

[atgxtg]

I have to agree with im here.

You know... that's twice you've admitted to agreeing with me, publically, on the forum. If we don't watch it, people are going to get suspicious.

Heh.

I don't know what you are talking about. My post clearly states that I agree with "im" here.

Why not allow for a master orator or con artitist?

Thar's wisdom in them thar words.

I mean... no one expects an RPG player to have *any* idea about how true sword combat works. It's cool if you do, but it can easily get distilled down to a few dice rolls and everyone's happy.

But if you want to create a master orator, RPG players are expected to be able to pull off MLK level speeches at the GMs whim to "cash in" on the character concept.

As there's a mechanic for the former, there should be a mechanic for the latter. Certainly it should still be role-played, but most of us are not master orators. So we do the best we can, toss the dice, and see if the NPCs fell for it......

:wink:

THat bit of "wisom" was hard earned. For starters, there is the James Bond RPG, where social intereaction is probably at least as important as gunplay. A player can roleplay being nice and charm until it oozes, but seducing the major villians girl so turns over toy your side and sneaks you past the guards requires a little more than acting nice and a 13+ CHA score.

I used to see players try to save all thier XP for combat skills and not put anything into the social skills, stating that they didn't need skils to do that. I backfired in Bond., and it backfired in Trek, and a bucnch of other games.

It is also unfair. Basically, if you allow rpople-playing to replace the social skils you are hurting the people who developed those skills. Why put points in Influence or Bargian if the skill won't do you any good?

I've run a few games where fasirly shy players had to play characters in positions of authority. Now in real life, those players simply were not up to the task . Heck in real life, no player is reall up to commanding a "Starship". Yet thier characters had all the right leadershiip skills and aiblities on thier sheet. THat should count for something. Otherwise those players are being being penalized unfairly, while the players playing Weapons Officers and Doctors are allowed to roll their dice. And how about the spellcasters?

 

[atgxtg]

My take has always been to ask the player what he wants to say, and then have him roll the dice to see how well he says it. (There was once a trial where a PC was a witness and botched his Diplomacy roll. We decided that he was talking with his mouth full :lol: )

Then I decide how the NPC reacts, based on what I think the NPC's personality was.

Pretty cvlose to how I tend to run it. Generally I have the player explain what he is doing, maybe make his "pitch" and then possibly give a bonus or penalty by how well or coninving the player either spoke or the logic behind his reasoning was.

One of the best "saves": "I'm NOT a thief! I didn't come in here to rob you! What? Do you seriously think I'd have come in here all by myself, unarmored, if I thought there was a Dragon in here? No way. I was looking for a place to hide out from all those bandits with the heavy armor and wagons who are comming up the moutainside. Those guys look like they mean business!"