It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do!

[Talakeal]

So a few weeks back I was reading Scion and I noticed that the characters in that game have virtues which will must be rolled against and, if the roll is failed, compel the character to act against their best interests to uphold their virtue.

I didn't like the idea of losing control of my character all the time, and felt it could make for an adversarial game, but whenever I brought it up to anyone I was told some variant of "It is a mechanic to enforce RP so that you act out character motivations rather than being perfectly logical all the time."

Now, my gut response is to say that I know how to RP my character better than the dice do and I don't need any help to do something stupid because it is what my character would do, but then I realized something:

The other people at the table get mad when you do something self-destructive because it is "what your character would do," other players don't like dealing with the consequences and GM's don't like their game derailed by foolishness. It is so pervasive that "I was just doing what my character would do!" is shorthand for a problem player or "that guy".

So then, why is it considered a good thing that a game has built in mechanics to encourage disruptive or self destructive behavior in the name of RP when that is generally considered a bad thing?

Or is it just that people LIKE mechanics that force them to act out because they can blame their behavior on the dice if anyone tries to give them flack for it?

It seems a strange paradox to me. Any thoughts?

[Jama7301]

Or is it just that people LIKE mechanics that force them to act out because they can blame their behavior on the dice if anyone tries to give them flack for it?

Kind of. The dice give a "Not my fault that things broke bad" out.

My guess is that in a game like D&D, the disruptive behavior is seen more as a choice, versus it being built into the game you described. When it's a choice, some people can see it as a person trying to make things complicated or take attention away from the scene (I take the kings crown and try to entertain everyone, to lighten the mood). It sounds like a game of Scion comes with the understanding that things will get derailed by people failing these compulsion checks. It'd be like getting mad at a player for failing a Saving Throw in 3.5.

[veti]

You're describing a way of codifying RP, rather than just making it up as you go along.

I haven't played the game, but from a position of complete ignorance I feel confident that there are times when having "enforced consistency" in your roleplaying would be an extremely frustrating thing. "When I chose $VIRTUE, I didn't mean that!" So you have to put more hard work into character generation (specifying virtues that do reflect your character accurately, whatever that means). But I also feel confident that, having done that, the roleplay can be made more consistent using a mechanic like this.

Whether or not that's a good thing - that's another question.

And yes, you're right in that it gives you - and everyone else - an alibi when they choose to do something against the party's interests/otherwise unpopular. Again, how that will play out at your table is more than I can see. (Although based on past form, it seems highly likely that you'll be back here in a couple of weeks complaining about how the other players are doing it.)

[Talakeal]

I haven't played the game, but from a position of complete ignorance I feel confident that there are times when having "enforced consistency" in your roleplaying would be an extremely frustrating thing. "When I chose $VIRTUE, I didn't mean that!" So you have to put more hard work into character generation (specifying virtues that do reflect your character accurately, whatever that means).

Its actually worse than that. All characters have four virtues which are predetermined by you based on the pantheon you belong to, the only choice you get is exactly how likely you are to be compelled by any given one (minimum 40%).

Again, how that will play out at your table is more than I can see. (Although based on past form, it seems highly likely that you'll be back here in a couple of weeks complaining about how the other players are doing it.)

No need to worry about that, I already left that group, I am just musing on game design theory now.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The other people at the table get mad when you do something self-destructive because it is "what your character would do," other players don't like dealing with the consequences and GM's don't like their game derailed by foolishness. It is so pervasive that "I was just doing what my character would do!" is shorthand for a problem player or "that guy".

So then, why is it considered a good thing that a game has built in mechanics to encourage disruptive or self destructive behavior in the name of RP when that is generally considered a bad thing?

"I was just doing what my character would do!" is more a problem when you're hiding being a piece of **** behind it. It's for things like the rogue stabbing everyone else in the party in their sleep to steal their stuff.

Also, expected character behaviour varies based on the game you're playing. Making self-destructive choices in something like D&D is inappropriate because the game isn't about that. In other more RP focused games then it can totally be about that.

[Arbane]

It's White Wolf (Or Onyx Path. I think they're called now). I think Adventure! was the ONLY game they ever put out that didn't have some sort of Mandatory Angst Mechanic that will occasionally override the player's control of their character. (It made sense in Vampire, where trying to cram down murderous bloodthirst is a major part of the character. Other games? Maybe not so much...)

[Kish]

"Should my character act in a way that's to the detriment of the group?" is a more complicated question than

The other people at the table get mad when you do something self-destructive because it is "what your character would do," other players don't like dealing with the consequences and GM's don't like their game derailed by foolishness. It is so pervasive that "I was just doing what my character would do!" is shorthand for a problem player or "that guy".

presumes. Obviously, it's entirely possible to be an ass and derail the game using "I was just doing what my character would do!" as an excuse. But "your character must function like a perfectly optimized murderbot in battle without regard for any considerations that might dictate otherwise, roleplaying is for when we're not using dice" isn't better, in my opinion. And more to the point, a group which expects the "perfectly-optimized murderbot" behavior has no business going near any White Wolf game. Ever.

[Darth Ultron]

So then, why is it considered a good thing that a game has built in mechanics to encourage disruptive or self destructive behavior in the name of RP when that is generally considered a bad thing?

Or is it just that people LIKE mechanics that force them to act out because they can blame their behavior on the dice if anyone tries to give them flack for it?

It seems a strange paradox to me. Any thoughts?

It's simple rules worship. If it is in the rules, it's fine. But if it is just a person ''acting out'', it's bad.

[Khi'Khi]

While I agree that mechanizing decision-making is a poor solution, I understand the logic behind wanting players to actually RP a character's emotion and thought process. Players are often far more "informed" than their characters in terms of storytelling tropes. It becomes a little jarring when the barbarian who dumped INT down to an 8 for some reason knows not to take the glowing ruby off the pedestal, just because the player saw Indiana Jones.

The biggest thing I see in regards to this is failed knowledge rolls. The player knows they botched, so they try to make their character act on their failed knowledge as little as possible, rather than RPing the failed knowledge fully and taking the consequences.

[GrayDeath]

As the local Scion Specialist (or something similar ^^) let me answer that:

Its actually worse than that. All characters have four virtues which are predetermined by you based on the pantheon you belong to, the only choice you get is exactly how likely you are to be compelled by any given one (minimum 40%).

Wrong.

Firstly you are only forced to choose MOST of your virtues according to your pantheon (ergo depending on your GM one or 2 are free to be switched, with the consequence of your pantheon-kin looking at you strangely ^^)., secondly they can range from 1 to 5, which has nothing to do with the percentage per se, as thats both the number of dice you roll (and btw you have to succeed on that roll, not fail it ^^) if you opr the DM think you need a compel and the bonus you can get for "acting according to that virtue".

Even if the roll is successful you dont lose control entirely, you just have to act according to the virtue.

As an Example: say your character has the Courage Virtue at 3. Courage is personal courage, the Warriors Courage, fighting duels, proving who is better, being couragoeous for yourself/your Ideals (unlike Valor which is more akin to a Soldiers bravery but I digress).

Now your enemy has shown to be very dangerous, and while you (with a Warriors Virtue) are likel the best equipped to deal with him, you dont think your chances great.
You try to run.
Your DM tells you to roll for Courage, and you roll one success.

Now you will not flee, but that does not tell you HOW to engage the enemy. You can rund istraction, you can challenge him to personal combat (maybe on a field of your choosing) etc.
Limiting your choices, yes.
Taking them away, no.

If you dont want to do that you can spend a point of Willpower and supress your virtue for the scene. And run like a coward to fightn another day. :)


Also you forgot to mention that virtues have their Upsides as well.
Every time you act in a way that fits to a certain virtue you can spend a point of WP and instead of getting one success, you get to roll as many dice as you have points in that particular virtue.



In my opinion its one of the best parts of Scion, as the central virtues (and in part vices) of Demigosds and Gods are integral parts of their legends.


Would I like such a system in other Settings? Aside from Exalted, probably not.
But for that kind of games it fits perfectly.

[Talakeal]

As the local Scion Specialist (or something similar ^^) let me answer that:





Wrong.

Firstly you are only forced to choose MOST of your virtues according to your pantheon (ergo depending on your GM one or 2 are free to be switched, with the consequence of your pantheon-kin looking at you strangely ^^)., secondly they can range from 1 to 5, which has nothing to do with the percentage per se, as thats both the number of dice you roll (and btw you have to succeed on that roll, not fail it ^^) if you opr the DM think you need a compel and the bonus you can get for "acting according to that virtue".

Even if the roll is successful you dont lose control entirely, you just have to act according to the virtue.

As an Example: say your character has the Courage Virtue at 3. Courage is personal courage, the Warriors Courage, fighting duels, proving who is better, being couragoeous for yourself/your Ideals (unlike Valor which is more akin to a Soldiers bravery but I digress).

Now your enemy has shown to be very dangerous, and while you (with a Warriors Virtue) are likel the best equipped to deal with him, you dont think your chances great.
You try to run.
Your DM tells you to roll for Courage, and you roll one success.

Now you will not flee, but that does not tell you HOW to engage the enemy. You can rund istraction, you can challenge him to personal combat (maybe on a field of your choosing) etc.
Limiting your choices, yes.
Taking them away, no.

If you dont want to do that you can spend a point of Willpower and supress your virtue for the scene. And run like a coward to fightn another day. :)


Also you forgot to mention that virtues have their Upsides as well.
Every time you act in a way that fits to a certain virtue you can spend a point of WP and instead of getting one success, you get to roll as many dice as you have points in that particular virtue.



In my opinion its one of the best parts of Scion, as the central virtues (and in part vices) of Demigods and Gods are integral parts of their legends.


Would I like such a system in other Settings? Aside from Exalted, probably not.
But for that kind of games it fits perfectly.

Aside from the switching virtues part* none of that is new information or contradicts what I said.

In Scion a success is a 7+ on a 10 sided dice, thus at minimum you have a 40% chance to succeed on a virtue roll.

I wasn't attacking Scion per se, I was just wary about how it would actually work out in play and how it could lead to adversarial GMing and a lot of metagaming. But then I started thinking about how weird it is that it flips the normal expectations of player behavior.

To expand on your example with one of my own, in a recent game of Werewolf we were badly hurt and enemy reinforcements were on their way, the rest of the group wanted to run from what was almost certain to be a deadly encounter but I decided that my character was far too stubborn to give up now and would stand and fight with or without her pack-mates. The rest of the group (including the ST) got extremely frustrated at me for disrupting the game with a potential TPK because I was playing my character.

If we had been playing Scion though, it would have instead required me to roll a courage virtue NOT to stand and fight, which is apparently now a good thing because it coerces you into acting in character.


*: I totally missed the rules for switching virtues, that actually does make it a lot better. Is it in the core rules? And is it something that happens during character creation, a choice made over the course of play, or both?

[Dragonexx]

The way I see it, all this bull**** is about not trusting players to play their characters, thus creating rules that force them to. If a player doesn't want to roleplay (or more likely, not roleplay in a way that strokes the GM's ego) then forcing them to won't make them happier or have more fun.

[Darth Ultron]

"I was just doing what my character would do!" is more a problem when you're hiding being a piece of **** behind it. It's for things like the rogue stabbing everyone else in the party in their sleep to steal their stuff.

It is worth noting that few players fully role play a character, even more so with anything even slightly negative.

For example a classic player made backstory might have ''afraid to death of spiders''. Yet, a bit later during the adventure when they encounter a whole tunnel full of spiders and webs that player is just like ''whatever, I just walk on''. And if the DM points out the fear of spiders the player will just say ''oh, yea, she is totally afraid and everything..ok? So she walked on, what does she see."

And that is why some games force things with rules so the player can't just ignore it.

[Talakeal]

The way I see it, all this bull**** is about not trusting players to play their characters, thus creating rules that force them to. If a player doesn't want to role-play (or more likely, not roleplay in a way that strokes the GM's ego) then forcing them to won't make them happier or have more fun.

The cynical side of me wants to say that both mechanics that force a character to RP and telling people that "just playing my character" is not an excuse to disrupt the session are different ways of telling people that they need to step in line and play the way the GM wants them to play.

It is worth noting that few players fully role play a character, even more so with anything even slightly negative.

For example a classic player made backstory might have ''afraid to death of spiders''. Yet, a bit later during the adventure when they encounter a whole tunnel full of spiders and webs that player is just like ''whatever, I just walk on''. And if the DM points out the fear of spiders the player will just say ''oh, yea, she is totally afraid and everything..ok? So she walked on, what does she see."

And that is why some games force things with rules so the player can't just ignore it.

Counter example:

My character in a recent game was very afraid of water.

We were swimming through an underwater cavern and my character got lost in the dark and started to panic. One of the other player characters saw that I wasn't with them when they got to the other side and went back for me. I said that my character would probably attack the other character in such a situation, drowning and panicking and being grabbed by someone they can't see. It would only be natural for her to fight the other character, which could lead to both of us drowning (as I understand it this is a significant danger IRL as drowning people often panic and drag their rescuer down with them).

The DM told me not to disrupt the game and ruin the fun for other people by initiating PVP.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The point is, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules forcing characters to behave in certain ways. But these rules are heavily game/genre dependent and shouldn't be applied to most games.

[Kish]

The cynical side of me wants to say that both mechanics that force a character to RP and telling people that "just playing my character" is not an excuse to disrupt the session are different ways of telling people that they need to step in line and play the way the GM wants them to play.



Counter example:

My character in a recent game was very afraid of water.

We were swimming through an underwater cavern and my character got lost in the dark and started to panic. One of the other player characters saw that I wasn't with them when they got to the other side and went back for me. I said that my character would probably attack the other character in such a situation, drowning and panicking and being grabbed by someone they can't see. It would only be natural for her to fight the other character, which could lead to both of us drowning (as I understand it this is a significant danger IRL as drowning people often panic and drag their rescuer down with them).

The DM told me not to disrupt the game and ruin the fun for other people by initiating PVP.

Which leaves us with what I said before: If this is the same group, them trying a White Wolf game is a disastrously bad idea. Not to say incomprehensible.

(As for the cynical side of you, tell it that apparently it has the answers it wants all figured out without input from anyone else, so it makes little sense for it to ask questions.)

[GrayDeath]

You can choose other ones at Creation, yes.
I reread, and you can switch all but one, however that makes buying the pantheon/parent purviews more expensive. Might also reduce the cost of other pantheons special boons, each by one xp point per different/same virtue.


You might switch to Dark Virtues (the Titanspawn variant) if you are really really unlucky (and Evilz^^) during the game, but I for one do not know of a way to switch them inGame.
They are a central part of what makes you more than mortal, so changing them is seemingly not really a thing. ;)

Also for the roll: yes, I know the roll statistics, but the way you said it it seemed like "every action has a 40% chance of a virtue making me do something else" ewhich I wanted to refute.

First you ahve to be in a Situation that you want to do something, then it has to contradict a virtue you have, then the DM ahs to decide no other of your virtues directly supports that action (you never roll conflicting virtues, would be farr too miuch rolling for too little effect^^) and THEN you roll and are influenced.
If you manage to be close to out of WP though, it CAN happen that you really floip (rolled more successes on the Virtue roll than you have WP left and you are truly controlled by it).

Still I like the system. Its well done to evoke the feel of great passions and the dangers and boons they provide.

And its up front, so whoever doenst like them sees it right there, not like some of say....D&D`s more hidden problems.
Or Scions own for that ^^

[Genth]

I think you may have the idea of Virtues in Scion wrong. The first thing to understand is Scion is built around 'Heroic Tropes' being a thing, and there being a cosmic force (fate) which will literally bend reality to make what narrative causality says should happen, happen. As a Scion, you are partially made up of Ichor, literally 'Fate-stuff'. And part of that heritage are the Virtues, the way your pantheon and you as a person, are fatebound to act.

The mechanics, just to clarify, although I think you've understood are thus: If you have Courage 3, and you want to act in a way which would be cowardly, by the definition of heroic stories, you need to roll 3d10, and if any of them succeed, you are forced to act with courage. This isn't about forcing you as a player to make your character do something, it's about your character being forced by their own basic nature to do something. Your character may very well not want to act in the way they have to, but they are forced by Fate to do so.

You get advantages from this as well, significant advantages. Your Courage 3 will allow you to spend a point of willpower to roll 3 extra dice for an action. Say 3 extra dice when rolling damage to smite your enemy right in the face.

And personally, I love it. It's very metanarrative and enjoys the kind of trope lampshade-hanging that I personally really enjoy. "Struggling against" your virtues is entirely appropriate for a story arc.

OH, and THEN, there's Titanspawn and Dark Virtues. Having to roll virtues to NOT betray their group. Knowing that betraying their group is a foolish idea, and will cause them more trouble, but inexorably forced to do it by their nature.

But, if that kind of story doesn't interest you, then Virtues are not the best course of action. They're able to be excised from the game, or, like social skills in 3.5/PF, only applicable to NPCs

[Max_Killjoy]

I think you may have the idea of Virtues in Scion wrong. The first thing to understand is Scion is built around 'Heroic Tropes' being a thing, and there being a cosmic force (fate) which will literally bend reality to make what narrative causality says should happen, happen.

For me, as a writer, a GM, or a player, that sounds like nightmare fuel.

[Genth]

For me, as a writer, a GM, or a player, that sounds like nightmare fuel.

Then... don't play Scion? Or read Discworld Novels? Or read OOTS?

My point is that this kind of storytelling and setting isn't unheard of, and personally I really enjoy it.

[Talakeal]

Geeze, I wish I had gotten this much interest in Scion when started a thread about it a couple weeks ago.

I think you may have the idea of Virtues in Scion wrong. The first thing to understand is Scion is built around 'Heroic Tropes' being a thing, and there being a cosmic force (fate) which will literally bend reality to make what narrative causality says should happen, happen. As a Scion, you are partially made up of Ichor, literally 'Fate-stuff'. And part of that heritage are the Virtues, the way your pantheon and you as a person, are fatebound to act.

The mechanics, just to clarify, although I think you've understood are thus: If you have Courage 3, and you want to act in a way which would be cowardly, by the definition of heroic stories, you need to roll 3d10, and if any of them succeed, you are forced to act with courage. This isn't about forcing you as a player to make your character do something, it's about your character being forced by their own basic nature to do something. Your character may very well not want to act in the way they have to, but they are forced by Fate to do so.

You get advantages from this as well, significant advantages. Your Courage 3 will allow you to spend a point of willpower to roll 3 extra dice for an action. Say 3 extra dice when rolling damage to smite your enemy right in the face.

And personally, I love it. It's very metanarrative and enjoys the kind of trope lampshade-hanging that I personally really enjoy. "Struggling against" your virtues is entirely appropriate for a story arc.

OH, and THEN, there's Titanspawn and Dark Virtues. Having to roll virtues to NOT betray their group. Knowing that betraying their group is a foolish idea, and will cause them more trouble, but inexorably forced to do it by their nature.

But, if that kind of story doesn't interest you, then Virtues are not the best course of action. They're able to be excised from the game, or, like social skills in 3.5/PF, only applicable to NPCs

Ok, I didn't realize that Virtues where an actual IC aspect of the universe, I thought they were a meta-game construct to help players RP.

That's actually kind of horrifying, and I don't mean from a game design standpoint, I mean that actually sounds like the premise of a cosmic horror setting. Having some fundamental force of reality that shapes your destiny and can (relatively) easily overwrite your free will to get you to go along with its seemingly unknowable goals actual makes me think a lot more of a Call of Cthulhu inspired setting than a mythological one. It feels less like player gods among men and more like playing sleepers in the Matrix.

Out of curiosity, do the people in the game know that Virtues exist and that Fate is an active force pulling their strings? If so I can't imagine that the central conflict of the game isn't about the gods working to destroy / change fate to earn their freedom (kind of like oWoD Mage's Ascension war) or that interactions between Scions don't just come down to trying to manipulate the other's Virtues, after all when trying to kill a powerful Aesir wouldn't it be far easier to simply goad him into killing himself by doing something suicidal to appease his courage rather than actually trying to fight him?

Which leaves us with what I said before: If this is the same group, them trying a White Wolf game is a disastrously bad idea. Not to say incomprehensible.

(As for the cynical side of you, tell it that apparently it has the answers it wants all figured out without input from anyone else, so it makes little sense for it to ask questions.)

Kind of confused by your post.

I have only been in two groups recently, one which played Werewolf and the other which played Mage, both are White Wolf games. Which group are you referring to?

Also, my cynical side didn't ask any questions, it just made a statement. I asked questions as a whole person of which cynicism is only one small part.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, I didn't realize that Virtues where an actual IC aspect of the universe, I thought they were a meta-game construct to help players RP.

That's actually kind of horrifying, and I don't mean from a game design standpoint, I mean that actually sounds like the premise of a cosmic horror setting. Having some fundamental force of reality that shapes your destiny and can (relatively) easily overwrite your free will to get you to go along with its seemingly unknowable goals actual makes me think a lot more of a Call of Cthulhu inspired setting than a mythological one. It feels less like player gods among men and more like playing sleepers in the Matrix.

Out of curiosity, do the people in the game know that Virtues exist and that Fate is an active force pulling their strings? If so I can't imagine that the central conflict of the game isn't about the gods working to destroy / change fate to earn their freedom (kind of like oWoD Mage's Ascension war) or that interactions between Scions don't just come down to trying to manipulate the other's Virtues, after all when trying to kill a powerful Aesir wouldn't it be far easier to simply goad him into killing himself by doing something suicidal to appease his courage rather than actually trying to fight him?

Agreed. From an IC perspective, it's horrifying.

From an OOC perspective, it's disturbing to watch a work of fiction or an RPG eagerly embrace those sorts of tropes like that, unless it's intended as satire.

[flond]

Agreed. From an IC perspective, it's horrifying.

From an OOC perspective, it's disturbing to watch a work of fiction or an RPG eagerly embrace those sorts of tropes like that, unless it's intended as satire.

Why? Tropes aren't bad. Conventions aren't bad. Going for the stereotypical ending isn't bad. Innovation isn't bad either, but it's not the end all be all. Things get repeated because, unless you're a glimmering star of the genre, what's worked before often works.

[Mr Beer]

Something similar in GURPS with Disadvantages. You get extra points to spend for them and some Disadvantages will compel you to engage in self-destructive behaviour if you fail a trigger roll. You get more points for more problematic behaviour and tougher trigger rolls. A Berserk rage that triggers almost every time you are injured is worth -30 points and something like being a compulsive party animal on an occasional basis would be -2 (IIRC). I think it's a reasonable way to give players extra points to spend but ensure that have the attendant problems that go with them.

[RazorChain]

Gurps has this in the form of Disadvantages that give you character points that you can spend on attributes, skills and advantages.

I'm not a huge fan of it because players always tend to maximize their points by choosing the easiest to avoid disadvantages. Now I just ignore the rules and ask players to pick a couple or make some new.


The disadvantages can be something like Greed, Bad Temper, Lecherous, Miserly, Overconfidence etc. and they have control rolls, the player can always chose to fail his control roll. Now I never had any issues with the control rolls unless the GM forces you to roll them all the time. Now if you are playing a greedy bastard to start with then you should act it. But in my experience it is most often the players themselves who bring up what disads their characters have to have an excuse to act against their and the groups best interest.

Now I have nothing against this as it often leads to interesting roleplaying situations like when one PC sold the group out because he was greedy and then bailed them out again because he had sense of duty to his friends. This lead to him being able to infiltrate the evil organization and the group to take it down from the inside.

[Genth]

Ok, I didn't realize that Virtues where an actual IC aspect of the universe, I thought they were a meta-game construct to help players RP.

That's actually kind of horrifying, and I don't mean from a game design standpoint, I mean that actually sounds like the premise of a cosmic horror setting. Having some fundamental force of reality that shapes your destiny and can (relatively) easily overwrite your free will to get you to go along with its seemingly unknowable goals actual makes me think a lot more of a Call of Cthulhu inspired setting than a mythological one. It feels less like player gods among men and more like playing sleepers in the Matrix.

Out of curiosity, do the people in the game know that Virtues exist and that Fate is an active force pulling their strings? If so I can't imagine that the central conflict of the game isn't about the gods working to destroy / change fate to earn their freedom (kind of like oWoD Mage's Ascension war) or that interactions between Scions don't just come down to trying to manipulate the other's Virtues, after all when trying to kill a powerful Aesir wouldn't it be far easier to simply goad him into killing himself by doing something suicidal to appease his courage rather than actually trying to fight him?

Fate acts more on the Divine then they do Scions, and more on Scions then they do Mortals. To be mortal is (almost) to be free of fate. One reason the Gods envy them.

Scions and Gods definitely know of Fate, and often will know about virtues - there are Boons and abilities which allow you to read and know what another Scion's virtues actually are. And this is reflected. Some gods, Odin and Loki in particular are practically defined by their opposition and their desperate scrabbling to break free of Fate. It's absolutely within the game's purview to try and find a way to break free of Fate. Other than becoming mortal, it's impossible, but people still try. There's even a Titan whom is trying to manipulate fate by acting like the Abrahamic God, and convincing its followers to worship it, and trick monotheistic religions into worshiping it, because then Fate might actually grant it the power of the Abrahamic God. Fate is felt in almost every aspect of the game.

And yes, it's absolutely a sound strategy to manipulate stronger Scion's virtues. That's at least one reason why there are abilities designed to read them. As well as abilities that grant others (usually mortals) temporary virtues like Loyalty.

[PersonMan]

I think it's also a matter of expectations.

In a game where you can lose control of your character, who then does something possibly damaging or trouble-causing, that's part of the expected challenge. It's not just "can we beat X enemy", it's "can we beat X enemy while dealing with our own weaknesses that could screw us over in the wrong situation".

In a game like DnD, the challenge is external. Can you kill the dragon before it kills you? Can you avoid the undead horde and escape their lich master to warn the town? Throwing in something like "my character is deathly afraid of [X] and goes into a panic at the sight" creates internal challenge that is generally not expected and, importantly, offers no reward. Overcoming an external challenge gives a reward, but the DM won't give you more XP because your claustrophobic sorcerer was nigh useless for one of the fights.

A set of rules regarding such matters both formalizes expectations (so no one is surprised when it comes up) and generally offers rewards. It could be that losing control or being disadvantaged by your X-phobia gives some sort of metagame currency, or that the mechanic is a double-edged sword type deal - if it's hard to resist your X-phobia or equivalent, you also gain an equivalent bonus to Y.

[GrayDeath]

So when I wrote thats integral part of feel and setting (which obviously states its not just a metagamey construct, ah well), it was just invisible, Talakeal?

Good to know.

[Cluedrew]

In a game where you can lose control of your character, who then does something possibly damaging or trouble-causing, that's part of the expected challenge. It's not just "can we beat X enemy", it's "can we beat X enemy while dealing with our own weaknesses that could screw us over in the wrong situation".

I think this is important. The "type" of game can determine whether or not it is appropriate.

Not only in terms of challenge but in terms of tone. D&D is not about people dealing with their own problems, it is about them overcoming external challenges. So that is what the rules focus on. Other games have different focuses.

For instance risking drowning two character because of background might be a bit much in D&D. Perhaps it would be better to say she freaks own for a moment but then calms down after she recognises her rescuer. I can't say for sure but maybe.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why? Tropes aren't bad. Conventions aren't bad. Going for the stereotypical ending isn't bad. Innovation isn't bad either, but it's not the end all be all. Things get repeated because, unless you're a glimmering star of the genre, what's worked before often works.

It's bad when those tropes and conventions allow the observant reader, watcher, or player see how the story or game is going to play out step by step.

It's bad when we're rolling our eyes because we've been here before one hundred times before, and while the dancers are different all the moves are being repeated yet again.

It's bad when we know what's going to happen to each character within minutes of their introduction because the writers are all painting by numbers from the same kit.

It's bad when every story follows the same format because all the stories those writers have been exposed to followed that format.