Nonflashy Fighters (Dirty tricks, honor, etc.)

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:14 am

The rules should be tailored to represent how effective poison or whatever is in the setting.

The rules should not be set up so that the resulting characters lose nothing for something where the characters are supposed to be making a sacrifice.

It is a meaningless vow to swear never to use poison when using poison isn't useful.

And while the characters may not know that "poison has a DC of 10, and everyone has at least +5 to save if they're an adult.", they will know whether or not poison works.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:17 am

Elennsar,

You're focusing on minutia. No one has ever said characters should sacrifice something that is meaningless. At any rate, abstract talking about this game concept has run it's course.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:25 am

Those who think a vow of "I shall not use ____" when ____ is actually useful enough that it is a real limitation/inconvenience to not use it is unacceptable unless they get something else that makes it so that they're no worse off for having the vow are very much in favor of the sacrifice being meaningless.

After all, if you're not optimal, you're gimped, as you put it.

Can't have that.

As for abstract discussion - good. What about what we actually intend to do for this as an actual game?

violence in the media · Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:45 pm

Ok, in terms of doing, why don't we have honor function as some sort of reciprocal system?

Let's say that it is dishonorable to fight an unarmed opponent.

So we have Arthur and Mordred duking it out on the battlefield when Mordred drops, or otherwise loses, his sword. Arthur, upstanding chap that he is, let's Mordred recover his sword or pick up another weapon before they resume.

The fight goes on and Arthur finds himself in some situation where it would be dishonorable for Mordred to attack him. Well, Mordred is a bastard and probably doesn't care about honor BUT because Arthur treated him honorably previously, Mordred must make some sort of saving throw in order to perform any action other than the proper honorable one in that situation. Maybe this can be used to prevent any techniques with the [dishonorable] tag as well.

This system would make being honorable something that was potentially smart to do without giving you a +2 for righteousness or something. It also flows along with the "lead by example" idea of upright behavior.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:27 pm

After allaying a revolt at Genoa, and striving with the greatest assiduity to check a pestilence in Dauphiné, Bayard was sent into Italy with Admiral Bonnivet, who, being defeated at Robecco and wounded in a combat during his retreat, implored Bayard to assume command and save the army. He repulsed the foremost pursuers, but in guarding the rear at the passage of the Sesia was mortally wounded by an arquebus ball (April 30, 1524).

He died in the midst of the enemy, attended by Pescara, the Spanish commander, and by his old comrade, Charles, duc de Bourbon, who was now fighting on the opposite side. Charles is reported to have said "Ah! Monsieur de Bayard... I am very sad to see you in this state; you who were such a virtuous knight!" Bayard answered, "Sir, there is no need to pity me. I die as a man of honour ought, doing my duty; but I pity you, because you are fighting against your king, your country, and your oath."

And why can't we have that attitude be held by characters without having it make Mordred not do something.

Why is it so damned important to make it so that not only is it possible to do great deeds and get whatever deserved reward those get, but that the honorable are not disadvantaged at all?

Is it that unappealing to play a character with actual weaknesses and foibles?

This isn't a game design question. This is a game playing question.

After all - having a game system that is perfectly balanced but which none of us want to play would be a lot less desirable than something which some choices are mechanically suboptimal but still interesting.

Assuming that the 75-85% chance of success PCs are supposed to achieve is based on assuming they don't do anything better than what is normally possible, you don't do worse off for being honorable if the assumption is that PCs are honorable (and succeeding that often).

And "Yes, but if you do better with something else that's the same as being worse if you don't do it"...

I'm just feeling this is all boiling down to "We don't really want to play heroes, but we will if its sufficiently advantageous."

If that's the case, we by no means need to make playing heroes the default mode or even viable - we can make honorable equal naive and so on if we really want a dirty game.

But if we do want heroes, is it that unrewarding to be able to say "My character saved a princess, but nearly got killed."?

violence in the media · Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:37 pm

dammit! Quoted instead of editied.

violence in the media · Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:41 pm

violence in the media wrote:
Elennsar wrote:And why can't we have that attitude be held by characters without having it make Mordred not do something.
You can have that attitude without such things. However, you don't get to whine when players elect to do the mechanically prudent thing.

Why is it so damned important to make it so that not only is it possible to do great deeds and get whatever deserved reward those get, but that the honorable are not disadvantaged at all?

Is it that unappealing to play a character with actual weaknesses and foibles?

This isn't a game design question. This is a game playing question.
Because the only thing of any importance in a game is how much fun the participants have playing it. Well, except for gambling. Then the measure is how much money you win. If someone won't have fun playing a game, you shouldn't expect them to play it. And quit pretending that "honorable roleplaying" is the moral high ground that everyone should seek to attain.

After all - having a game system that is perfectly balanced but which none of us want to play would be a lot less desirable than something which some choices are mechanically suboptimal but still interesting.
The problem is that trading mechanical benefits for warm fuzzy feelings isn't a trade that many rational people are going to make for a game.

I'm just feeling this is all boiling down to "We don't really want to play heroes, but we will if its sufficiently advantageous."
I think it might be more "We don't really want to be forced to play heroes, but we will if its sufficiently advantageous."

If that's the case, we by no means need to make playing heroes the default mode or even viable - we can make honorable equal naive and so on if we really want a dirty game.
You're the only one here that operates from that being the default assumption, as far as I can tell. When I talk about heroes in game design, I really mean protagonists. They may or may not be good people. I occasionnally refer to the PCs in Vampire as "the heroes" even though they're almost always bastards.

But if we do want heroes, is it that unrewarding to be able to say "My character saved a princess, but nearly got killed."?
Yes. Because no one who wasn't in the game cares what your character did, we've all heard that story a thousand times before, and we already know how it ends.

I'd be more interested in hearing that story if it was about how your character got killed and TPKed the party and the princess because you were adhering to your character's code of honor. I like stories where people hang themselves with their own rope.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

You can have that attitude without such things. However, you don't get to whine when players elect to do the mechanically prudent thing.

You do get to "whine" that the players are overemphasising "the best mechanical option" and underemphasing the other aspects of a role playing game.

Because the only thing of any importance in a game is how much fun the participants have playing it. Well, except for gambling. Then the measure is how much money you win.

How in the name of everything under the sun and most of what's not is a +24 more fun than a +22?

And quit pretending that "honorable roleplaying" is the moral high ground that everyone should seek to attain.

Since this is a roleplaying game, I damn well hope that everyone playing is actually interested in roleplaying. If its just about winning, there's lots of other games where roleplaying is unimportant.

A RPG should not be designed the same way one of those is.

The problem is that trading mechanical benefits for warm fuzzy feelings isn't a trade that many rational people are going to make for a game.

...let me get this straight.

If you were risking your real life you wouldn't mind only getting warm fuzzy feelings.

If you were playing a game, you want mechanical benefits.

"Bewildered" is a good word to describe how I'm feeling about that.

I think it might be more "We don't really want be forced to play heroes, but we will if its sufficiently advantageous."

If you don't want to be "forced" to play heroes, then don't play a game about the-PCs-are-meant-to-be-heroes when you don't want to play a hero for whatever other reasons.

You're the only one here that operates from that being the default assumption, as far as I can tell. When I talk about heroes in game design, I really mean protagonists. They may or may not be good people. I occasionnally refer to the PCs in Vampire as "the heroes" even though they're almost always bastards.

Possibly - regardless, we do not need to have that be the case, we can make the game about bastards and it would be just as valid a game, or we can make it about heroes or we can even make it about "heroes or not as you choose".

Yes. Because no one who wasn't in the game cares what your character did, we've all heard that story a thousand times before, and we already know how it ends.

Apparently, people who aren't in the game do care that you were able to optimize a character to get +30 at level 6, however.

violence in the media · Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:47 pm

Elennsar wrote: You do get to "whine" that the players are overemphasising "the best mechanical option" and underemphasing the other aspects of a role playing game.

Because railing about those things is a fool's errand. Not everyone who plays a role playing game emphasizes the role playing part of it, and yet those reasons are equally valid to those of the amateur thespians.

You can't make people roleplay. The best you can do is entice them into that behavior somehow. The easiest way to do that is game rewards.

Anecdotally, I once played in a 7th Sea game with 9 other players. Three sessions in, the GM still had still only received 1 character background, despite requesting them all to be in before the first game. After the session, he said that anyone who turned in their background before next game would immediately get 20 exp to dump into their character. He had all 9 missing backgrounds by mid week. Even from the girl who was only playing because all the rest of us were.

How in the name of everything under the sun and most of what's not is a +24 more fun than a +22?

Because the more powerful your character is, the more ability you, as a player, have to control the direction of the story.

Since this is a roleplaying game, I damn well hope that everyone playing is actually interested in roleplaying. If its just about winning, there's lots of other games where roleplaying is unimportant.

A RPG should not be designed the same way one of those is.

An RPG shouldn't be a slave to role playing concerns either. If it's just about roleplaying, then those people can go off and play Magical Teaparty. They don't need game rules to fulfill their fantasies.

...let me get this straight.

If you were risking your real life you wouldn't mind only getting warm fuzzy feelings.

If you were playing a game, you want mechanical benefits.

"Bewildered" is a good word to describe how I'm feeling about that.

Yes. Because in the real world, that person's life matters. In a game, it is totally irrelevant.

If an analogy helps, I play RPGs from a top-down 3rd person POV, not a first-person POV.

If you don't want to be "forced" to play heroes, then don't play a game about the-PCs-are-meant-to-be-heroes when you don't want to play a hero for whatever other reasons.

You try to make every game we discuss about capital-H Heroes. We're trying[/i[ to make games that don't have that assumption. You won't fucking let us because you won't shut up about your goddamn honor hard-on!

Possibly - regardless, we do not need to have that be the case, we can make the game about bastards and it would be just as valid a game, or we can make it about heroes or we can even make it about "heroes or not as you choose".

We've already chosen that 3rd option there. Now we want to make it so that being a good guy is just as viable a choice as being anything else. That is best accomplished through mechanics.

Apparently, people who aren't in the game do care that you were able to optimize a character to get +30 at level 6, however.

Because that is replicable. It's like gearheads discussing how to eke more horsepower out of an already tricked out engine.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:12 pm

Because railing about those things is a fool's errand. Not everyone who plays a role playing game emphasizes the role playing part of it, and yet those reasons are equally valid to those of the amateur thespians.

Not when designing a game that is supposed to be about those things.

A game that is supposed to be about romance -should- go on about romance more than about how to stab people.

An RPG shouldn't be a slave to role playing concerns either. If it's just about roleplaying, then those people can go off and play Magical Teaparty. They don't need game rules to fulfill their fantasies.

No, but game rules certainly make a lot of things that we'd like to be able to do easier to handle.

I mean, how do you determine if you hit someone without some sort of rule? "Umm, well, it hasn't lasted long enough."?

Yes. Because in the real world, that person's life matters. In a game, it is totally irrelevant.

If an analogy helps, I play RPGs from a top-down 3rd person POV, not a first-person POV.

Nothing that happens to your character is relevant if its just "third person" other than the "game" element, which kind of makes it pointless whether the game is about romance or horror or whatever else.

You try to make every game we discuss about capital-H Heroes. We're trying[/i[ to make games that don't have that assumption. You won't fucking let us because you won't shut up about your goddamn honor hard-on!

No, I don't. Show me where I'm trying to make Warp Cult or Gaijin Activities or any of the games being discussed at the moment besides possibly this one about capital-H heroes at all, nevermind "exclusively".

Arturius is marked as "If you don't want to play capital-H heroes, this is probably not a good game for you." If you want to make a game like that, then make a game like that and set up a project devoted to that.

No one is stopping or discouraging you.

We've already chosen that 3rd option there. Now we want to make it so that being a good guy is just as viable a choice as being anything else. That is best accomplished through mechanics.

Who is this "we"? The people who decided that discussing it was unnecessary because it might actually involve dealing with the fact people disagree with them and figuring out how to work with that instead of berate them?

Because that is replicable. It's like gearheads discussing how to eke more horsepower out of an already tricked out engine.

That's no more valid than the people who do care what other people's characters did and want to hear the stories - it may be your preference and that of the majority of the Den and that's fine, dandy, awesome, kickass, cool, etc, etc. - but there are people who feel otherwise.

Some of them would like to have a working game too.

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:38 pm

I had a thought. Why would people be generally more willing to follow an honorable character? I can see it if they all use the same system of rules, but there are plenty of people who have different codes.

On the flipside, a dishonorable character is willing to break their own code given proper incentive. If a hypothetical character is a moral one who acts dishonorably when it improves the lives of others, I don't see that as much of a deterrent to potential followers.

Example situations:

Looting corpses is dishonorable - you and your companion are defending a village from bandits. Your companion's weapon breaks. You give your companion your sword and break taboo by grabbing a spear off a dead enemy. You attempt to rally the village militia to help you.

Using poison is dishonorable - your lord has just declared his intention to raise taxes to a crippling level to support a series of raids that will bring in luxury goods and kill off lots of people in a kingdom he dislikes. You stab him with a poisoned knife and run off to start a rebellion.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:49 pm

You want a general reason, or a reason that means that using poison for instance is ALWAYS A BAD THING AND YOU WILL BURN IN HELL! for doing?

As for the dishonorable activity you just mentioned, though:

A character who "desecrates" corpses is not likely to be trusted.

A character who behaves in a cowardly and treacherous manner is not likely to be trusted.

"The ends justify the means." is a shortcut to the path leading to Hell (to use Christian theology - insert your chosen equivalant), even when it isn't the same as said path to Hell.

That's the general problem. "I'm concerned with doing the right thing and willing to do amoral things in order to do so." is like claiming that your pyromania is a good thing because it keeps the fire department in shape.

Exceptions do not nullify the rule.

As for the different code issue - if we're doing something based on medieval Europe, usually most people have a basically similar understanding of what being a "good Christian" means, and in Europe, most of the people you're dealing with are Christian.

Subsitute "Japan" and "Buddhist" for "Europe" and "Christian", and so on.

This doesn't apply to all settings, but it applies to a fair number, and right now this particular game hasn't figured out what the setting is well enough to know which (and diversity for the sake of diversity sounds almost as bad as uniformity for the sake of uniformity).

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:20 pm

So we are assuming that our hypothetical code of honor is also good, and that the entire population generally believes in the same code of honor?

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:01 am

Elennsar wrote: As for the different code issue - if we're doing something based on medieval Europe, usually most people have a basically similar understanding of what being a "good Christian" means, and in Europe, most of the people you're dealing with are Christian.

Well if we're talking about being what a good christian does in theory, he doesn't do anything that PCs do because killing and taking shit that don't belong to you is wrong.

If we're talking about typical medieval european nobility, we pay lip service to god while raping, pillaging, murdering, backstabbing, fucking our cousins, selling our daughters off for our own political advantage, and basically being a complete and utter bastard, because everyone knows that for a few gold you can pay the morally bankrupt Catholic church for an indulgence to wipe away your sins.

Seriously the middle ages are a terrible place to be deriving any exalted moral system. It's as repugnant a place as you're likely to find anywhere.

violence in the media · Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:46 am

Elennsar wrote: Not when designing a game that is supposed to be about those things.

A game that is supposed to be about romance -should- go on about romance more than about how to stab people.

We're not discussing a game about romance, we're discussing a game about stabbing people.

No, but game rules certainly make a lot of things that we'd like to be able to do easier to handle.

I mean, how do you determine if you hit someone without some sort of rule? "Umm, well, it hasn't lasted long enough."?

Do you really even care in Magical Teaparty or amateur theater hour? It's not like Hamlet gets to not die at the end. You're slave to the story in those situations.

Nothing that happens to your character is relevant if its just "third person" other than the "game" element, which kind of makes it pointless whether the game is about romance or horror or whatever else.

Exactly. You are not your code of honor. You are not your noble sacrifice. You are not your 25th level paladin. You are not your heroic deeds. You are not your fucking character.

No, I don't. Show me where I'm trying to make Warp Cult or Gaijin Activities or any of the games being discussed at the moment besides possibly this one about capital-H heroes at all, nevermind "exclusively".

Arturius is marked as "If you don't want to play capital-H heroes, this is probably not a good game for you." If you want to make a game like that, then make a game like that and set up a project devoted to that.

No one is stopping or discouraging you.

Is this discussion about Arturius? Are you trying to make it Arturius-friendly so you can just port it over to that thread whenever we get anything polished out with this?

Who is this "we"? The people who decided that discussing it was unnecessary because it might actually involve dealing with the fact people disagree with them and figuring out how to work with that instead of berate them?

You know, deciding that you don't need to give any credence to the minority preference is a method of dealing with it. We don't have to work with you.

That's no more valid than the people who do care what other people's characters did and want to hear the stories - it may be your preference and that of the majority of the Den and that's fine, dandy, awesome, kickass, cool, etc, etc. - but there are people who feel otherwise.

Breathlessly expounding upon the adventures of one's character is a horrible thing to do to another human being. You are a horrible person for endorsing it and should crawl back to your cave in shame, you troglodyte.

Some of them would like to have a working game too.

I really doubt that.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:54 am

See what I don't get is this - you constantly emphasize that people should look past the mechanics, and that if you're a good roleplayer you shouldn't care about a less-than-crippling mechanical disadvantage. Ok, fine.

But then, you also insist that the character making a sacrifice has to have mechanical effects, or it doesn't count. Your code of honor has to mechanically disadvantage you. Why? I thought we were supposed to be looking past the mechanics?

Essentially - if mechanics are so important that a vow is meaningless without giving you a mechanical disadvantage, then they're important enough that said disadvantage is a bad thing. If mechanics are secondary and we shouldn't worry about being optimal or not, then they're secondary and we shouldn't worry about vows having a mechanical effect.

And as for why it matters - let's say you have Sir Valiant and Bob the Shifty in the party. Over time, the small advantages Bob the Shifty gets from using dishonorable tactics will add up, meaning he contributes more to the party's success and generally appears more competent. Now the impression this is going to give to people is roughly "Evil will always win, because Good is dumb." ... or the honor equivalent. Is that really what you want?

And for that matter, if the disadvantages of being honorable are mechanically represented, shouldn't the advantages be as well?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:45 am

Ice9 wrote: And for that matter, if the disadvantages of being honorable are mechanically represented, shouldn't the advantages be as well?

Not if dishonorable actions have advantages in areas that are represented mechanically and honorable actions have advantages in areas that aren't. The argument could be made to make those areas be represented mechanically but a competent GM is going to do a better job than a game mechanic is going to do anyways. I think that the system of "honorable characters are mechanically disadvantaged in combat but are respected (or whatever else advantage you want to give them)" could be made to balance honorable and dishonorable characters but why do we even want that? Why not just make it a part of character creation that when you make a character in this game you need to make one that abides by whatever code of behavior you want to impose? D&D doesn't (generally) let you be any number of things and Vampire doesn't let you not be a Vampire, "Honorable hero game" doesn't let you not be an honorable hero. That way we can just make a system for dishonorable combat and if E wants to play games where everyone is a nice guy he can just not let his PCs make shitty people and adjust challenge rating accordingly.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:47 am

So we are assuming that our hypothetical code of honor is also good, and that the entire population generally believes in the same code of honor?

We are assuming that these are possibilities not to be treated as nonexistant.

Well if we're talking about being what a good christian does in theory, he doesn't do anything that PCs do because killing and taking shit that don't belong to you is wrong.

There are "good Christians" who fought people. I hate to be repetitive, but Bayard was regarded as very pious as well as honorable and coruageous.

We're not discussing a game about romance, we're discussing a game about stabbing people.

And that's it? Nonflashy fighters means we don't have anything to do with anything other than combat?

Do you really even care in Magical Teaparty or amateur theater hour? It's not like Hamlet gets to not die at the end. You're slave to the story in those situations.

The reason I don't like those two is because I do care, so I'm not sure what those who like Magical Teaparty think.

Exactly. You are not your code of honor. You are not your noble sacrifice. You are not your 25th level paladin. You are not your heroic deeds. You are not your fucking character.

And when saying that your 25th level paladin does something, it should be based on what the paladin would do with the knowledge he has of what is right and wrong and what is effective and ineffective and what is important.

Your character should be built accordingly if based at all on "what Sir whatever would do".

Is this discussion about Arturius? Are you trying to make it Arturius-friendly so you can just port it over to that thread whenever we get anything polished out with this?

No. Is it an example of something designed for a specific subset of players and with a desire to be built by people who like that sort of thing?

Yes. Thus being mentioned. If you want a game where characters are all bastards, doing what I did with Arturius in regards to "those not interested need not do anything here" from the goddamn start would be appropriate.

So if you want a nonflashy fighters game where refusing to use the best tactics possible is the same as shooting yourself in the foot (literally), make one - but don't insist that this project being discussed here and the other thread gets to be your project because you don't want to have refusing to use poison or whatever actually limit anyone in any way.

You know, deciding that you don't need to give any credence to the minority preference is a method of dealing with it. We don't have to work with you.

Either this is a group project including different viewpoints on what's desirable to produce, in which you have to accept that the majority is not the only part of the group and not just say "We don't like this so fuck off." or it isn't a group project including different viewpoints.

And unless the OP of the other thread has changed, this is a group project involving different viewpoints.

Breathlessly expounding upon the adventures of one's character is a horrible thing to do to another human being. You are a horrible person for endorsing it and should crawl back to your cave in shame, you troglodyte.

No more horrible than explaining how if you own $300 worth of books that you can make a character able to do 13% more damage than the designers intended is.

I really doubt that.

Why, because we don't want to have "optimal" be the baseline for PCs?

Because we want a game where what our characters do is interesting and fun and cool whether or not our kill count is the highest?

See what I don't get is this - you constantly emphasize that people should look past the mechanics, and that if you're a good roleplayer you shouldn't care about a less-than-crippling mechanical disadvantage. Ok, fine.

But then, you also insist that the character making a sacrifice has to have mechanical effects, or it doesn't count. Your code of honor has to mechanically disadvantage you. Why? I thought we were supposed to be looking past the mechanics?

Let's say I vow never to use poison. That vow directly relates to the mechanics. It says "my character will not use this even though it is useful and I may avoid being noticed."

On the other hand, a vow of chastity, however important it may be (and one would assume any game where we care if you made one at least has it worth remembering - it may never be a weakness, but it is different.) may have no mechanical impact at all.

Essentially - if mechanics are so important that a vow is meaningless without giving you a mechanical disadvantage, then they're important enough that said disadvantage is a bad thing. If mechanics are secondary and we shouldn't worry about being optimal or not, then they're secondary and we shouldn't worry about vows having a mechanical effect.

Not necessarily such a bad thing as to make your character a loser, however.

Let's say you win 75% of the time without poison and 85% with.

Assuming no other consequences mechanically, you're at a 10% disadvantage - compared to the people dishonorable enough to use poison.

If the game is set up with most people using poison, that is something of a problem.

If most people don't, but vowing and commiting yourself before God to not do so on peril of your soul is unusual because it means that on the occasions most people would rationalize it in some way you -will refuse to do so-, it may not be.

Now the impression this is going to give to people is roughly "Evil will always win, because Good is dumb." ... or the honor equivalent. Is that really what you want?

What I want is for Good to be perfectly fucking capable without cheating and yet actually forfeiting something that isn't a nonpenalty in refusing to do so.

And for that matter, if the disadvantages of being honorable are mechanically represented, shouldn't the advantages be as well?

Depends on the thing in question.

"I vow never to use poison."

- I never get the benefits of using poison.

Now, let's say Generic Poison does something equivalant to Strength ability score damage a quarter of the time vs. an average opponent.

Mechanical penalty.

+ I am regarded as a noble knight.

If I request food and lodging for myself and my horse (in a group game, "and my friends as well"), I might well get it offered for free, payment turned down even if I can fully afford to pay for it.

Nonmechanical bonus.

Let's take another example.

I show mercy in a joust and let my opponent withdraw honorably.

- I don't gain his stuff.

Mechanical penalty of some relatively mild sort - I already have good stuff or I wouldn't be competing. But its still a good prize.

+ He considers himself to be obligated to do the same to me.

If he beats me on some later occasion, he'll return the favor.

+ I will be regarded as a merciful knight.

What exactly this does could be mechanical (bonuses to some rolls) or not. Maybe it has some limitations (a knight renowned for being merciful making an Intimidate check may be worse off) as well - but those are things I decided I wasn't going to focus on anyway, so its a limitation rather than a "you are penalized and subpar." overall.

Finally, let's take courage/commitment.

- I put myself in more danger than most and continue on at greater sacrifice to myself.

Obvious effects.

+ I can fight harder, not just smarter.

I can summon up the "last of my strength" for one final blowwhich ignores injury and/or fatigue - at of course the cost of slumping to the ground spent afterwards, or close enough, but that one blow might make a difference.

The whole point of cheating is to gain an unfair advantage.

If it doesn't do that, there's no motivation.

Conversely, the whole point of being honorable is that it is the right thing to do and will make the world better.

If I save an Italian virgin from her wicked Turkish uncle (/reference), but it turns out she's a witch and he was a cleverly disguised Inquisitor (and we're assuming the Inquisition is a good thing for purposes of this statement), I just got fucked. Up the ass. With a barbed penis. (/reference)

Does this make sense?

violence in the media · Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:36 pm

[quote="Elennsar]
And when saying that your 25th level paladin does something, it should be based on what the paladin would do with the knowledge he has of what is right and wrong and what is effective and ineffective and what is important.

Your character should be built accordingly if based at all on "what Sir whatever would do".[/quote]

Sir Valiant here does whatever I, the player, decides he's going to do. If I want him to go off the rails on an opium bender, then he does. There is no validity in 3rd party statements to the effect of "Sir Valiant wouldn't do that!" When you're playing Sir Valiant, you can have him do whatever you want.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:06 pm

And if your decisions are based on knowledge your character doesn't have (but acts as if he does because you do) and otherwise influenced by something other than what would the character do we have a problem.

Also, much more relevantly:

Violence in the media wrote: Basically, you want to create a system where anyone who has any notions that a fight has rules is going to lose. That is Conan inspired.

Violence in the media wrote: We've already chosen that 3rd option there. Now we want to make it so that being a good guy is just as viable a choice as being anything else. That is best accomplished through mechanics.

Those two statements are contradicting each other.

Which is it? Are we (not you, we) designing something where "anyone who has any notions that a fight has rules is going to lose", where being honorable is foolish and showing mercy is showing weakness because "that's all mercy is"?

Or are we designing a game where there are elements where being honorable is important and valuable whether or not it is the most powerful option, and we want people doing good guys as well as mercenaries as well as bad guys.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:58 pm

Elennsar wrote: The rules should not be set up so that the resulting characters lose nothing for something where the characters are supposed to be making a sacrifice.

It is a meaningless vow to swear never to use poison when using poison isn't useful.

It should be a sacrifice if taking a vow to swear never to use poison actually gives you something. In GURPS for instance, you get character points for taking a vow like that, because it counts as a disadvantage. In that case, not being able to use poison should hurt your effectiveness in some situations.

If the rules treat a vow like that as just flavor text and your character doesn't get anything for taking it, then he shouldn't be penalized for not using poison either. Poison may well come with drawbacks that make other fighting styles just as good and just amounts to another piece of equipment that you could have purchased but didn't. And the money that you didn't spend on poison is theoretically going somewhere else and helping you.

violence in the media · Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:46 pm

Elennsar wrote:
Violence in the media wrote: Basically, you want to create a system where anyone who has any notions that a fight has rules is going to lose. That is Conan inspired.

Violence in the media wrote: We've already chosen that 3rd option there. Now we want to make it so that being a good guy is just as viable a choice as being anything else. That is best accomplished through mechanics.
Those two statements are contradicting each other.

Which is it? Are we (not you, we) designing something where "anyone who has any notions that a fight has rules is going to lose", where being honorable is foolish and showing mercy is showing weakness because "that's all mercy is"?

Or are we designing a game where there are elements where being honorable is important and valuable whether or not it is the most powerful option, and we want people doing good guys as well as mercenaries as well as bad guys.

I would prefer the first one. However, other people seem to want light-side characters to be equally mechanically viable, and I'm totally ok with that. That's my compromise.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:16 pm

It should be a sacrifice if taking a vow to swear never to use poison actually gives you something. In GURPS for instance, you get character points for taking a vow like that, because it counts as a disadvantage. In that case, not being able to use poison should hurt your effectiveness in some situations.

So it should hurt your effectiveness in some situations as long as it doesn't actually count as a disadvantage (defined as: An unfavorable condition or circumstance. Something that places one in an unfavorable condition or circumstance) because you get 5-10 points (assuming GURPS) to spend elsewhere.

If the rules treat a vow like that as just flavor text and your character doesn't get anything for taking it, then he shouldn't be penalized for not using poison either.

What if the rules treat it as something where the character is at a disadvantage ("...something that places one in an unfavorable condition or circumstance") instead of treating it as "I agree not to be effective in one area in exchange for being more effective somewhere else."?

Poison may well come with drawbacks that make other fighting styles just as good and just amounts to another piece of equipment that you could have purchased but didn't. And the money that you didn't spend on poison is theoretically going somewhere else and helping you.

And it may well be something where there is no mechanical weakness but there's the stuff other than the mechanics that is hurt by it.

If not using poison is no worse than using poison, then its not really a "disadvantage" you should get anything from.

If using poison is actually forfeiting something you could use to advantage because it is actually useful, it should be a disadvantage.

I would prefer the first one. However, other people seem to want light-side characters to be equally mechanically viable, and I'm totally ok with that. That's my compromise.

Righto.

So, what do the others think?

My problem is that if "cheating" is a tactic, having it be so that there's no reason to cheat as opposed to play fair kind of makes it silly that anyone would cheat.

What would the point be?

I would prefer to have being honorable be slightly more (directly) "burdensome" and slightly less directly beneficial to the character - you might make a better world, but your life won't necessarily benefit from it directly.

A 5 point vow of chastity and the Fit advantage in GURPS are not mechanically equal - the vow has no mechanical effects and the advantage does.

So if the mechanics are all that matter, taking the vow is a no brainer. This is a problem.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:45 pm

If we take mechanics to be a highly structured way of affecting the story and the vow to be a means of affecting the story that you no longer have access to then mechanical and non-mechanical advantages and disadvantages can be balanced. If we take mechanics to be something wholly or partially divorced from the story then they cannot be balanced. My opinion is that game mechanics only have value if they increase your ability to affect the story. Having a +300 to space travel in a medieval setting, while a strong mechanical advantage over those that don't have such a bonus, isn't an advantage in any appreciable sense because it has no bearing on your ability to affect the story. Your vow of chastity means that you can no longer have sex with stuff and, thus, your ability to affect events in the story (by having sex with stuff) is diminished. In return you get to affect the story by being more effective in combat (or what have you). As for your question "why would you cheat if you aren't mechanically advantaged to do so?" I would respond "Because it is what my character would do or; because it is what I want my character to do." The same reason that I would choose to use a sword instead of an axe even though they are equally effective weapons. Or why I would have my character be a man instead of woman, or wear a blue hat instead of a red one or any number of things that flesh out a character but don't effect their ability to affect the story.

My vote is that we have rules mechanics for all sorts of things, dirty tricks included, and they are available to anyone. You can choose to use these tactics or not. GM's can choose to have their setting be whatever they want and enforce social taboos however they feel appropriate.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:58 pm

Your vow of chastity means that you can no longer have sex with stuff and, thus, your ability to affect events in the story (by having sex with stuff) is diminished. In return you get to affect the story by being more effective in combat (or what have you).

You get to affect the story -by- being someone who chooses "No, I am chaste." - which has a different impact than being (moderately) lecherous.

As for your question "why would you cheat if you aren't mechanically advantaged to do so?" I would respond "Because it is what my character would do or; because it is what I want my character to do."

Your character would cheat...because he wants to cheat?

The same reason that I would choose to use a sword instead of an axe even though they are equally effective weapons. Or why I would have my character be a man instead of woman, or wear a blue hat instead of a red one or any number of things that flesh out a character but don't effect their ability to affect the story.

The problem is that none of those things are done based on "This is effective." People who cheat in combat cheat to gain something from it.

My vote is that we have rules mechanics for all sorts of things, dirty tricks included, and they are available to anyone. You can choose to use these tactics or not. GM's can choose to have their setting be whatever they want and enforce social taboos however they feel appropriate.

Having "whatever you want" for the setting is no more of a good idea in regards to social taboos than available weapons, and for similar reasons.

A setting where it is considered cowardly to use the bow in war is a situation where any assumption that the PCs win 80% of the time (or however often we want) has to consider the fact using ranged weapons isn't part of Ye Standarde PCs.

A setting where weapons that pierce armor are readily available makes wearing heavy armor a lot less useful.

Either way, if we want the rules to produce PCs winning 80% of the time or whatever, that has to be based on what is being used, and "Whatever you want, it'll all work out the same" sounds like a path to a bland system.