Nonflashy Fighters (Dirty tricks, honor, etc.)

[Elennsar]

This is split off from the main thread so as to allow for discussing the currently discussed aspect (weapons and weapon reach and such) and this without interfering with each other.

It is probably necessary to get at least a rough idea of what setting we're using to determine this...

But what is the level of "dirty fighting" we assume as a baseline this-is-the-level-where-you-get-no-penalty (or bonus)?

I mean, if "Kicking someone in the nuts" is just hitting a hit location that has a higher shock penalty (as GURPS defines shock), but is not dishonorable or even noteworthy, that's rather different than if you're surprised to see someone do that.

Druss and Kane don't encounter that. Since we know Howard is perfectly willing to write some nasty stuff, and Gemmell was influenced by Howard (inspired by? Interested in?) its not because of the authors don't go for that.

So if using that as a baseline, even warriors who have no problem raping children will probably not use dirty tricks very often - that might just be not feeling they're a good idea/necessary, but its not something that comes up.

On the other hand, some things might well be dirty trick heavy.

So what makes dirty trick heavy a good thing, and how do we keep that from going to the point where there's no reason to fight someone at all (as distinct from ambush and stab-at-night and everything else done to carefully minimize the target's ability to recognize he's in a fight)?

Somehow, having +5 to use poison, but -5 if you use it at night, seems a little absurd.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Well this brings up some questions.

1. Do we even want Called Shots in this game? Will adding this mechanic and layer add to the game?

2. What would be the advantage of instituting another layer of attacks and defining those as Honorable/Dishonorable?

3. What would be the advantage of statting out dirty tactic maneuvers that were superior mechanically to "fair" maneuvers. I guess I'm thinking that we already have a subset of RPGers that think gimping themselves makes you a better role-player. Do we want to make gimping yourself as a fundamental tenet of the game system?

[Elennsar]

1) We presumably want people to be able to cut off people's heads, arms, hands, or other things, or at least aim for those with the intent of the disabling consequences - so "called shots" as a default would make sense.

Sometimes you want to go start for the vital areas, sometimes not.

2) What would be the disadvantage of actually caring whether or not something is honorable or dishonorable?

Most attacks are not dishonorable, some will be. It won't complicate things in play, but it may take some design decisions.

3) Do we want to make dirty tricks fundementally superior to fighting fair to begin with, or do we want dirty tricks to occasionally give a sliver of advantage (my preference) instead of setting things up so that only a moron doesn't fight dirty (the attitude present at the moment)?

Do we want to keep reinforcing the attitude that if you're not the best possible build, you're gimping yourself?

So here is the question. Do we want a game where you win a fight because of your skill with a sword, or not?

If the game rewards poison and treats it as "only a moron wouldn't use it", poison is going to be heavily used. If the game treats it as effective but cowardly and being cowardly is regarded as a bad thing, there's less poison being used.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Do we want to keep reinforcing the attitude that if you're not the best possible build, you're gimping yourself?

In my opinion, that's the definition of gimping yourself. Now, best possible build is nebulous in a well designed game. But anything as obvious as, this maneuver does 1d6 damage and this maneuver does 1d6 damage and poison, means that you're gimping yourself by taking the first.

So here is the question. Do we want a game where you win a fight because of your skill with a sword, or not?

If the game rewards poison and treats it as "only a moron wouldn't use it", poison is going to be heavily used. If the game treats it as effective but cowardly and being cowardly is regarded as a bad thing, there's less poison being used.

Why would you make a Conanesque game with Warrior (not Wizard) powers that would let you win without skill in a sword? I define slicing your opponent in the balls and slicing your opponent's chest both as levels of skill.

Regarding Poison: You can also make it hard to find/expensive to buy and make or both. Or you can make it like in upper levels of D&D where poison is weak enough that it's not worth the effort.

However, if mechanically, poison is very good, then arbitrary rules saying that poison is bad or punishing me for using poison, just annoy me. I mean as a observer of a game system, it makes me wonder why the designer included poison in the first place. As a player it makes me want to argue with the DM for enforcing the forced honor and morality of the system, and as a DM it makes me want to write off the honor mechanics entirely.

This is what annoyed me about Star Wars Saga, Force Lightning was a Dark Side spell and gave you Dark Side points. You get too many Dark Side points and suddenly you can't heal people anymore.

Regarding a sliver of advantage for dirty tactics, I'm still not seeing how making it a sliver or a whole pie makes it that much better. The player still has to use a subpar tactic to maintain the honor level the game designer wants him to.

[Elennsar]

In my opinion, that's the definition of gimping yourself. Now, best possible build is nebulous in a well designed game. But anything as obvious as, this maneuver does 1d6 damage and this maneuver does 1d6 damage and poison, means that you're gimping yourself by taking the first.

Then the definition of "gimping yourself" is so broad that any character who isn't min maxed to the utmost is gimped.

And that doesn't allow for any useful conclusions on if someone is actually at a level of power where they can win a reasonable amount of the time.

Why would you make a Conanesque game with Warrior (not Wizard) powers that would let you win without skill in a sword? I define slicing your opponent in the balls and slicing your opponent's chest both as levels of skill.

By making throwing sand in the eyes a good way to blind someone and making shoving pillars over a very good idea.

Now, personally, I'm not sure why "to the balls" is dishonorable, barring an agreement that This Isn't How Things are Done - in which case its keeping a promise/oath, rather than the actual issue of hitting someone in the ball.

Also, in general, why does this pursuit nonflashy look at Conan more than any other examples?

I'm not against it - but my only reason for refering to Conan is that he's recognizable and referencable. Kane, for instance, not so easy.

However, if mechanically, poison is very good, then arbitrary rules saying that poison is bad or punishing me for using poison, just annoy me. I mean as a observer of a game system, it makes me wonder why the designer included poison in the first place. As a player it makes me want to argue with the DM for enforcing the forced honor and morality of the system, and as a DM it makes me want to write off the honor mechanics entirely.

Why? Because you don't want to play an honorable character unless that character loses absolutely nothing for being honorable (whether that means there's no penalty to begin with or all penalties are compensated for)?

Regarding a sliver of advantage for dirty tactics, I'm still not seeing how making it a sliver or a whole pie makes it that much better. The player still has to use a subpar tactic to maintain the honor level the game designer wants him to.

Yes, because people who are concerned about being honorable are more concerned about that then whether or not their tactic is not the best possible tactic that they could possibly use.

Which is not the same thing as being incompetent - unless you want to describe Bayard as an incompetent (which is not supported by his performance).

If you don't want to play an honorable character, then don't. And face whatever consequences (desirable, acceptable, tolerable, or dislikable) that being a guy who uses Force Lightning or poison or whatever has.

So that's the thing. If you want to play a paragon of honorr, that ought to be viable and able to defeat opponents that a character is supposed to be able to beat in the same 75-85% range as a character who isn't striving to be a paragon of honor can.


In an out of order comment on "why the designer included poison in the first place" - because people who aren't concerned with honor do use poison.

It really doesn't mean very much to take a vow never to attack an enemy from behind when doing so is actually less effective than attacking from the front.

Whether you want to emphasis that heroes and/or honorable people make sacrifices, that kind of vow being a joke doesn't feel right.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Then the definition of "gimping yourself" is so broad that any character who isn't min maxed to the utmost is gimped.

Of course, if you are assigning stats/choosing powers that are inferior to other powers, you are gimping yourself.

And that doesn't allow for any useful conclusions on if someone is actually at a level of power where they can win a reasonable amount of the time.

It doesn't matter if you can win with a gimped character 90 % of the time vs. winning with a non-gimped character 91% of the time, you still are at a mechanical disadvantage for choosing the gimped character.

Why? Because you don't want to play an honorable character unless that character loses absolutely nothing for being honorable (whether that means there's no penalty to begin with or all penalties are compensated for)?

I want to play an "honorable character" if the game gives me mechanics that make "honorable actions" superior to "dishonorable actions." I want to play a "dishonorable character" if the game gives me mechanics that make "dishonorable actions"superior to "honorable actions."

What I don't want is a game that makes "dishonorable actions" superior and tries to arbitrarily penalize me for using superior tactics.

Judging Eagle, posted a thread similar to the idea of giving different abilities for being Dark, Grey, or Light. The problem I see is that one of those 3 shades is going to end up being mechanically superior to the others. And making Good, Evil, or otherwise superior to the other alignments I disagree with. But, meh, to each their own.

And I guess I should ask the following questions as well

1. What are dishonorable actions?
2. Is this set of dishonorable actions universal, or does each individual decide their own set of actions that are or aren't dishonorable
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being "honorable" and "dishonorable"

[Elennsar]

Of course, if you are assigning stats/choosing powers that are inferior to other powers, you are gimping yourself.

I disagree - if the expected success rate for the characters is 80%, and it is possible if you make a pact with the devil to have a 85% success rate, then you're making a rather nasty bargain (whether you ultimately get cheated or are just deciding to be evil) - even if it is "superior mechanically".

It doesn't matter if you can win with a gimped character 90 % of the time vs. winning with a non-gimped character 91% of the time, you still are at a mechanical disadvantage for choosing the gimped character.

Not necessarily enough to matter, and nor is it necessarily important to make it so that the powers are exactly equal mechanically (see above).

What I don't want is a game that makes "dishonorable actions" superior and tries to arbitrarily penalize me for using superior tactics.

There are plenty of dishonorable but effective tactics. Should we eliminate them so that your honorable character vowing to never stab someone in the back is not hindered in the least?

Really? What the hell?

There are things that are superior that are dishonorable.

So if you don't want to be unable to heal, don't use Force Lightning.

"Superior" tactics are not the be all and end all of what should be important when a character is deciding what to do, and a game where that is the only concern has no business claiming to be a rpg.

1. What are dishonorable actions?
2. Is this set of dishonorable actions universal, or does each individual decide their own set of actions that are or aren't dishonorable
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being "honorable" and "dishonorable"

1) What are we writing as the setting?
2) It has to be universal or essentially all it is is a personal neurosis with no relationship to even being right (as in correct).
3) Depends on what's honorable and dishonorable and what setting we're using.

In Arturius, for instance, being honorable (based more or less on the old definitions of chivalry - http://www.baronage.co.uk/chivalry/chival1a.html being a good site to look at in that regard.) is harder and more dangerous, but those under you or with you are generally more loyal/dedicated.

On the other hand, being dishonorable is easier, but its kind of hard for Lord Dreadly to inspire his men to march into Hell - they have no reason to want to serve him and will act accordingly.

And of course, being dishonorable is morally wrong. Whether or not you care about that is up to you - but someone concerned about being honorable will resist doing something dishonorable even if no one is around or able to find out.

Regardless, Arturius is about the heroes - the path of infamy is discouraged (despite in some ways that matter being better).

This nonflashy game may or may not have any such desire to encourage noble heroes (though presumably we do want bravery - Conan, for instance, may or may not fight "honorably" but he does put his life on the line) - but removing backstabbing so that "I swear never to attack a foe unawares" is not inferior tactically would wind up with a really bad game.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

There are plenty of dishonorable but effective tactics. Should we eliminate them so that your honorable character vowing to never stab someone in the back is not hindered in the least?

Really? What the hell?

See my response way down below

There are things that are superior that are dishonorable.
So if you don't want to be unable to heal, don't use Force Lightning.

My Point about Force Lightning was that it was a False Choice. Being able to Heal is far superior vs. using Force Lightning: Meaning that Evil is gimped in that game. The designers might as well flatly state out: You can't be evil, and just not print the Dark Side Powers.

"Superior" tactics are not the be all and end all of what should be important when a character is deciding what to do, and a game where that is the only concern has no business claiming to be a rpg.

In a game about combat, then yes, building a character and using tactics that focus on winning combat is a big concern. Also a game can decide not to use intrinsic rules for alignment/honor and still be a good rpg.

And of course, being dishonorable is morally wrong. Whether or not you care about that is up to you - but someone concerned about being honorable will resist doing something dishonorable even if no one is around or able to find out.

LOL! The game designer decides what is or is not morally wrong. If you have not defined what being honorable or "good" is then you cannot define anything as dishonorable or "evil."

This nonflashy game may or may not have any such desire to encourage noble heroes (though presumably we do want bravery - Conan, for instance, may or may not fight "honorably" but he does put his life on the line) - but removing backstabbing so that "I swear never to attack a foe unawares" is not inferior tactically would wind up with a really bad game.

I don't understand why backstabbing is dishonorable. And, if it is, then the game has to define backstabbing as dishonorable. If the game doesn't define backstabbing as dishonorable, then it's not dishonorable.

1. What are dishonorable actions?
2. Is this set of dishonorable actions universal, or does each individual decide their own set of actions that are or aren't dishonorable
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being "honorable" and "dishonorable"

1) What are we writing as the setting?
2) It has to be universal or essentially all it is is a personal neurosis with no relationship to even being right (as in correct).
3) Depends on what's honorable and dishonorable and what setting we're using.

Dude, you've been acting this whole conversation in this thread and the other thread that you know what is honorable and dishonorable, and how honor and dishonor should work, and that you know what the setting is.

Make some design decisions/ideas, write some mechanics for what it means to be honorable or dishonorable, and get back to the discussion after that.

[Elennsar]

My Point about Force Lightning was that it was a False Choice. Being able to Heal is far superior vs. using Force Lightning: Meaning that Evil is gimped in that game. The designers might as well flatly state out: You can't be evil, and just not print the Dark Side Powers.

There are people who use Dark Side powers. Why shouldn't they be printed?

Now, I agree that if Evil is meant to be inferior that it should be labeled as such.

In a game about combat, then yes, building a character and using tactics that focus on winning combat is a big concern. Also a game can decide not to use intrinsic rules for alignment/honor and still be a good rpg.

It is not the only concern, however. And yes, a game can - but a game where the only concern is building the most contest (combat or otherwise) efficient character is not much of a rpg, whether the mechanics define honor or not.

LOL! The game designer decides what is or is not morally wrong. If you have not defined what being honorable or "good" is then you cannot define anything as dishonorable or "evil."

If I was the game designer, I'd come up with something - I rather like Charlemagne's form of the code of chivalry.

I'm not.

I don't understand why backstabbing is dishonorable. And, if it is, then the game has to define backstabbing as dishonorable. If the game doesn't define backstabbing as dishonorable, then it's not dishonorable.

Not necessarily. If the game has to specifically say that it is dishonorable, then the game is going to get excessively long and complicated so that people who don't care about anything that isn't specifically spelled out will have every last action marked - and frankly, if every single thing a character can do is noted as honorable or dishonorable or neither, the game is going to be filled with that section alone.

Dude, you've been acting this whole conversation in this thread and the other thread that you know what is honorable and dishonorable, and how honor and dishonor should work, and that you know what the setting is.

I do know is honorable and dishonorable and I've some thoughts on how they should work, and some feelings on the setting.

Make some design decisions/ideas, write some mechanics for what it means to be honorable or dishonorable, and get back to the discussion after that.

No and hell no.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss those things and see whether or not the kind of game being created -should- focus on this and how it should deal with it to the extent it is focused on it.

This is not my project.

If you have ideas on what would be good to include or good to leave out, show them here.

If you want me to come up with something so you can bitch about how it fucks over your character to not be able to ambush someone and that you don't think ambushing shoudl be dishonorable to begin with, then I'm not sure -what- you want to do in this thread that has anything to do with the reason I created it.

I'd be much more willing to post what I think if it wasn't for the mentality that having honorable characters suffer even the tiniest limitation for their honor is a horrible thing and the lack of any signs that anyone even cares whether or not characters are honorable or dishonorable (let alone what those would do).

So, again, if you want to discuss this and share what you think and what you would do, awesome.

I have a project and setting I'm working on based on my druthers - this isn't it.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Not necessarily. If the game has to specifically say that it is dishonorable, then the game is going to get excessively long and complicated so that people who don't care about anything that isn't specifically spelled out will have every last action marked - and frankly, if every single thing a character can do is noted as honorable or dishonorable or neither, the game is going to be filled with that section alone.

You can just add a keyword: Honorable or Dishonorable. And then have a section saying what it means to use a power that is Dishonorable or Honorable.

I do know is honorable and dishonorable and I've some thoughts on how they should work, and some feelings on the setting.

If you don't tell the rest of us what is honorable or dishonorable, then the rest of us don't know what they are.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss those things and see whether or not the kind of game being created -should- focus on this and how it should deal with it to the extent it is focused on it.

Your initial post leads one to believe that a distinction between dirty/non dirty tactics will exist in the game and the question is to what degree will that distinction exist. Reading your initial post does not lead me to believe that you are asking the question "Should this game focus on dirty tactics"

If you want me to come up with something so you can bitch about how it fucks over your character to not be able to ambush someone and that you don't think ambushing shoudl be dishonorable to begin with, then I'm not sure -what- you want to do in this thread that has anything to do with the reason I created it.

I
want you to post some mechanics for how honor or dishonor will work so that I can understand what the heck you're trying to say, not to denigrate you. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how you envision the honor ideas of yours actually working. So it would help them too.

I'd be much more willing to post what I think if it wasn't for the mentality that having honorable characters suffer even the tiniest limitation for their honor is a horrible thing and the lack of any signs that anyone even cares whether or not characters are honorable or dishonorable (let alone what those would do).

Well Elennsar, you still haven't established in my mind a reason to include honor or dishonor as a mechanic and factor of the game system. If you think an Honor system would really enhance the game; show me how it would enhance the game. If you think defining Honor powers as less useful, and that this would make the game a better rpg overall, then show me.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm biased and can't understand your good game design concepts. That's why I'm inviting you to show me examples of what you're talking about.

Right now I don't understand how honor mechanics, benefits, and penalties would work, or even what constitutes as honorable or dishonorable. And sharing this information and examples would be helpful for everyone reading the thread.

Sincerely,
Bill

[Elennsar]

If you don't tell the rest of us what is honorable or dishonorable, then the rest of us don't know what they are.

If I'm the only one familiar with those concepts, I am going to be a very sad puppy.

Your initial post leads one to believe that a distinction between dirty/non dirty tactics will exist in the game and the question is to what degree will that distinction exist. Reading your initial post does not lead me to believe that you are asking the question "Should this game focus on dirty tactics"

So if using that as a baseline, even warriors who have no problem raping children will probably not use dirty tricks very often - that might just be not feeling they're a good idea/necessary, but its not something that comes up.

On the other hand, some things might well be dirty trick heavy.

There's plenty of nonflashy stuff without much dirty tactics. And this is intended to be a discussion of, among other things, whether that is the stuff we want to write this game around.

I'm using the plural we, not the editorial we.

I want you to post some mechanics for how honor or dishonor will work so that I can understand what the heck you're trying to say, not to denigrate you. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how you envision the honor ideas of yours actually working. So it would help them too.

And I want to know if there's any point to HAVING honor rules or if this is going to be Only Morons Don't Use Dirty Tricks as what we -want- the game to be about.

Well Elennsar, you still haven't established in my mind a reason to include honor or dishonor as a mechanic and factor of the game system. If you think an Honor system would really enhance the game; show me how it would enhance the game. If you think defining Honor powers as less useful, and that this would make the game a better rpg overall, then show me.

Because characters -care- about whether or not they're honorable? Some characters at least. So if we're writing about such characters, it should be represented as part of how the game (both crunch AND fluff) works.

Is a game where the PCs are honorable or brave what we want?

If you think that the game should be dirty and nasty and everyone is a scoundrel, say so.

I'm reasonably sure that its possible to discuss whether or not it is desired to HAVE a game with honor as an important part of it without having "Honorable: You recieve +4 to resist attempts to control your mind." being suggested.

So do you WANT a game about honorable characters? Do you WANT dirty trick central?

What kind of game in that regard are we trying to design has to be set out first before figuring out what impact it has.

So. What. Kind. Of. Game. Is. This.?

I have an opinion. I think it should matter and I don't think it should be made so that "I swear not to stab anyone in the back" is as well off as someone who has no such problem in terms of combat or even better off.

That's what I'd like to design and play.

What do YOU want to design and play?

[Maxus]

You talk about honor and dishonor as if they're universally understood as being the same.

But people find different things to be honorable.

A lot of people find war to be honorable--General Patton even said something to the effect of it being the noblest activity one can participate in. Some people don't find any honor in war, just mass death.

In a lot of fictional thieves' guilds, successful criminals must deal fairly with each other. ("Thou shalt not steal here.")

In just about any junior high, walking away from an offered fight is dishonorable.

Some people view achieving the ultimate goal (such as saving the world/princess/universe/city/etc) as being the real honor, and have no qualms about stabbing guards in the back along the way if that's what it takes.

So, is using poisons dishonorable? Is disobeying a bad law dishonorable? Is talking about peace when others call for war dishonorable? Is charity honorable, or is it aiding those too lazy to earn their own way? Is there, if fact, an ultimate Rightness by which things may be judged?

[Elennsar]

In the nonflashy game, we need to answer those questions.

I have my preferences.

What do those others who want to address it think?

That's the purpose of this thread. A DISCUSSION.

Not a "Make Elennsar answer questions", or Maxus answer questions, or whatever.

What kind of game is desired?

I have my preferences shown in Arturius.

[Ice9]

The thing is, you seem to want a game where being honorable is not the strongest choice, or even an equal choice, but yet everyone should strive to be honorable. But the issue is, while there are reasons to honorable IRL, those reasons don't really apply well in a game - you aren't making the world a better place by not having your fictional character poison another fictional character, and you aren't a better person for doing so. So really, if you want honorable combat to be the primary mode in a game, make it at least as good an option as dishonorable combat, if not better. Sure, the player isn't "really" being honorable, but neither is a player who chooses the mechanically weaker option - it's a game! There is no "actual" honor in rolling dice and choosing what your fictional character does.


And that's not even getting into the fact that "honorable" is by no means a universal definition. Why exactly is poisoning someone less honorable than stabbing them to death with a sword? Assuming your goal is to kill that person rather than to display your superior sword skills or engage in an athletic challenge, how does doing so with a sword make you morally superior? And to look at things a bit cynically, most codes of chivalry were designed by people who were good at sword fighting, for the purpose of ensuring the peasants who vastly outnumbered them didn't use tactics which would negate their superior training or equipment.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Interestingly, a lot of honorable behavior exists because it is more effective than the alternative (especially in the long run).

• The current American use of torture produces bad intelligence while increasing internal unrest, alienating their allies, and strengthening the resolve of their enemies.

• People and armies that accept and honor surrender win more than those that don't.

[Ice9]

Sure, and I can see a case for poisoning being undesirable because of collateral damage, or because it's often unknown who the poisoner was, spreading paranoia. But when we're talking about something like using a poisoned sword, or throwing sand in your foe's face, I don't see a real difference from killing them in the first place.

[Grek]

Those bits are from IRL chivalry, which was designed to be benefital for the knights.

[Roog]

But when we're talking about something like using a poisoned sword, or throwing sand in your foe's face, I don't see a real difference from killing them in the first place.

Unless weapon-delivered poison is quick enough to make real difference in the fight, its not going to help you win the fight. But it will mean that a wounded victor is disadvantaged. In this case it may be to everyones advantage to mutually avoid using poisoned weapons.

[Elennsar]

But the issue is, while there are reasons to honorable IRL, those reasons don't really apply well in a game - you aren't making the world a better place by not having your fictional character poison another fictional character, and you aren't a better person for doing so.

The character is making the world a better place and the character is a better person. And last time I checked, we were roleplaying what the character/s would do.

So if Bob cares about whether or not his world would be a better place, we should act like that.

Now, "Why should I play Bob?" is another question - but that has nothing to do with why Bob would decide not to use poison or whatever.

So really, if you want honorable combat to be the primary mode in a game, make it at least as good an option as dishonorable combat, if not better. Sure, the player isn't "really" being honorable, but neither is a player who chooses the mechanically weaker option - it's a game! There is no "actual" honor in rolling dice and choosing what your fictional character does.

And its a game being played by exactly what inspires the term "roll" players. "Screw whether or not the characters would care about such things. I want my +X, and if that means that I'm going to play a character who is dishonorable, great! I didn't like the idea of 'having' to play a hero anyway."

Making poisoned attacks -less- effective (or no more effective) makes vowing not to use poison a meaningless vow, like an eunuch vowing to never have children, or someone with bad distance vision in the days before corrective methods vowing to not strike from afar.

So if you want to play Bayard, play Bayard.

If you don't care whether your character is honorable or dishonorable or whatever as long as they're optimal, any system where there's anything that limits you for anything is going to suck for you.

If the game is set up so that the normal success range in a given situation for a given type of character is 75-85%, saying that anyone who is less than 85% is gimped and played by a moron is forcing the game to eliminate all actual elements of human irrationality and emotional feelings and everything else that motivates doing something that has a lower success rate in the here and now.

That would be a sucky rpg. "I swear never to attack a foe unawares." is a vow there's no reason for anyone to not take when attacking in honorable combat gives you bigger bonus.

Which means there's nothing about it showing the taker's commitment to principles over self interest because there is nothing involving making such a decision.

I'm not really so upset about this as a design thing - but the kind of game where the kind of character that is intended to be played is better in all ways that matter is not one making me feel more interested in saving the world.

And since if this nonflashy game is created, playing it would be fun, I'd like to have something that doesn't make me feel that the "limitations" of my character are not limitations at all.

"Death is heavier than a mountain, duty lightier than a feather" is not the way the saying goes.

[ckafrica]

Some PCs are predisposed to doing "the right thing" without prompting, others will definitely do it if they can see the benefit of it and some will only do if they see the punishment for doing "the wrong thing" is bad enough that they are unwilling to suffer them.

If you want to attempt to enforce a certain kind of behavioral code from people not prone to acting in that behavior, you have to have advantages for following them, and penalties for disobeying them.

Otherwise you can't complain when people do them.

It is like when Greenspan complained that the only problem with his laissez faire kind of financial regulation was that he did not take into account how greedy some people would be. Well if you don't set out harsh consequences of being greedy at the detriment of the greater system (which is undesirable behavior) then of course your gonna get people who do it!!!

[Caedrus]

Doing the right thing isn't necessarily a disadvantage. Shady tactics aren't necessarily better than honorable ones. For example: Ghandi took out the empire that the sun never set on through peaceful demonstration. That's pretty epic right there, and you couldn't freakin' *do* that with a bottle of poison or a thousand guns.

Torture doesn't actually work. Accepting surrender and treating prisoners honorably makes you more likely to be able to get people to surrender than if they expect that you'll rape them to death upon capture. Helping people gains you allies. Reputation matters. I could on and on.

Heck, you could even have abilities that use *Honor* as a stat, like in L5R, if you really wanted.

I'm not sure why Elennsar seems to expect dirty fighting to be ostensibly better than not fighting dirty.

[Elennsar]

The problem is, there are plenty of consequences for the character that have no mechanical impact whatsoever.

Being scolded by a superior is not a mechanical penalty, or feeling that you have dishonoured your ancestors or yourself...

Signing away your soul to the Devil is a penalty, whether it mechanically hinders you or not.

A game that balances "Sold your soul to the Devil." in such a way that the fact (your character) sold his soul to the devil. is not a thing that says "No fucking way." despite never coming up in the game is not much of a rpg.

[Caedrus]

Being scolded by a superior is not a mechanical penalty, or feeling that you have dishonoured your ancestors or yourself...

But "I got demoted by my superior and no longer get those tasty benefits of rank in the organization" is. Likewise, dishonoring your ancestors can suck if you're playing L5R.

[Elennsar]

As for why I expect people to be treating dirty fighting as better:

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.

I think the guy who throws dirt in the other's face before backpedaling a ways and pelting his opponent with cobblestones a few times should win. Since we aren't talking about "flashy" fighters, things like swords so awesome they compensate for stupid tactical decisions don't seem to fit.

On punishment:

But "I got demoted by my superior and no longer get those tasty benefits of rank in the organization" is. Likewise, dishonoring your ancestors can suck if you're playing L5R.

Or we can play characters that are concerned about that without having their ancestors come down to bitchslap their descendants.

I'm not against having tangible penalties, but I am vehemately against having the game refuse to acknowledge any intangible issues that actual people actually care about as things the characters should care about.

[Ice9]

Making poisoned attacks -less- effective (or no more effective) makes vowing not to use poison a meaningless vow

But to the player, it's a meaningless vow anyway. To the character, it has meaning, but that character is not looking at the rules of the system. Since the players are the ones who actually read the rulebook, the rules should be tailored to them, not the characters.