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

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay. Why is allowing them to make the choice with the same level of weight applied to the choices involved that the character feels so abhorrent to you?

Because player character "internals" belong to the player.

Or, to put it another way: have you never made a sub-optimal choice in how to spend your time based on what you want to do RIGHT NOW vs. what you know is the right long-term choice? Perhaps you've had a drink when you shouldn't have, or stayed in bed a little longer than was wise, or played video games while putting off homework you really should have been doing, or eaten a dessert when you should have been trying to eat healthy, or refrained from exercise you knew you SHOULD be doing for your health/fitness goals, or bought something you didn't need when you could have saved/invested the money.

Or has every decision you've ever made been 100% optimal, never influenced by things that, if you were a PC, your player would have gotten no benefit from in his gameplay experience with you other than the satisfaction of saying "I made a good RP decision, and it was its own r

If I decide that's what my character does or does not feel, does or does not chose, does or does not do -- that's my business, not the rules and not the game designer and not the GM and not another player.

You seem to see it as making more options viable -- I see it as an attempt at control and constrain.

This sounds an awful lot like, "If you feel like making sub-optimal decisions for RP sake is the game punishing you, you're playing the game wrong."

Which is a cute way of insinuating that those who don't share your play style preferences are having badwrongfun.

No, it's a very direct way of asking why players need all this cover against other players questioning their decisions.

So the only thing we need mechanics for is combat, because nothing else is like combat. Is that the take-away you intend? Because while I suspect you're trying to say something different, I don't think that's supported by this, and what is supported seems to me to be my opening phrase here.

No, I'm saying that it's a poor analogy because combat, social interaction, and the "internals" of the character are all different things, with different challenges involved in bringing them into an RPG session.

Again: it's about ensuring that the PLAYER isn't being told, "Yes, there is absolutely no reason for you to have your character make this decision. And yes, that decision is a bad one. But your character will like it. We promise. You won't, and you won't enjoy your character's enjoyment of it, and it will impede your ability to perform in areas where you actually could otherwise make meaningful gameplay decisions. But you should do it because it's good RP. And whining that you're being punished compared to the bad RPer over there who doesn't do it is you being a bad RPer. you bad gamer, you."

I'm FAR more concerned by and put off by the mechanics of the game and/or the GM trying to tell me what my character does and does not like, what my character will and will not enjoy, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

2: About D&D
Forget about how the situation came up or what the DM's motivations are, that's a whole 'nother tangent. The point is that the D&D alignment rules are written in a black and white manner that absolutely do provide a ceiling for good RP. It doesn't matter why or how a paladin falls, the consequences are the same regardless. It always makes sense for a paladin to toe the line and act within the narrow confines the game provides or they get the stick.

And the Book of Exalted deeds explicitly states that willingly sacrificing your paladin powers for the greater good is amongst the most even acts in the universe and is always the wrong decision regardless of the situation or the outcome.

This is like a page straight out of Why Killjoy Hates D&D's Repulsive Take On "Morality".

[ComradeBear]

Granted, nobody in this argument has ever argued for D&D having anything approaching functional RP rules. D&D's RP rules are comparable to a large pile of feces for all the good they do.

Citing them as the reason RP rules are always bad is like citing bottlerockets for why we couldn't possibly go to the moon.

No one is arguing that bottlerockets will take us to the moon, nor is anyone arguing that D&D has even anything more than primitive, ugly, and ineffective RP rules.

That, and I sit firmly on the side of player-defined end-of-session bonuses and maybe traits, as well as having a system flexible enough to handle it.

For instance, while not particularly flexible as a system overall, Dogs in the Vineyard can actually do an internal emotional struggle as an extended, battle-like conflict between a character and themself/a demon/the King of Life. It is, at the very least, pretty neat. Perhaps not for everyone, but I declare it to be "Neato-burrito."

[Segev]

I will try to be more eloquent later, but for now, I just want to suggest that "character internals" are inextricably tied to in-character social interaction. If either are to be mechanical in any way - if either are ever to be something that doesn't require socially manipulating the player to influence or succeed - then both must have some mechanics tied to them.

[Cluedrew]

To ComradeBear: What gets me with D&D and social rules is that even some people who intellectually accept that things can be done better than D&D still seem to assume that any social rules will make the same mistakes and have the same negative effects. I can never quite figure it out.

Anyways I've been assembling a list of reasons I can think to put personality rules into the game:

Making in character actions more viable: Related to the current topic and a lot has already been said so I will not say much more. Also I don't really care because you can adjust the optimisation level of the game to accommodate. And if only some people are doing it the style miss-match may be the problem.

Source of Challenge: Not only having flaws in a character to make things harder, although I will say that seems to produce a more interesting challenge than "I'll add another 5 orcs". But also that having real social mechanics can create another area of conflict that the characters can exert themselves in creating a new set of challenges. This is where it also starts to overlap with social rules.

Character Expression: Yes, if you are in a group that is good at role-playing you can get the proper actions and re-actions to show off any part of your character. But that isn't quite the same as having it written on you character sheet (although I say this as someone who writes a lot of flavour text on my character sheet). Not to mention if you want it to effect how good your character is at something you will either have to map it yourself (which will probably be an imperfect mapping) or have some personality trait for it.

Those are the three I have so far.

[Segev]

Okay, I am going to attempt a very rough set of mechanics to illustrate what I'm getting at. I will use d20/D&D 3e as a basis, since it's familiar to most of us. Please note that this is hardly refined and will probably have gaping exploits that could be plowed through with ease; it is constructed for illustrative purposes, not real use. So problems should be raised regarding whether it has the desired effect, or creates undesirable limitations, or encourages undesirable behaviors from players in how they play their characters (admittedly, certain "exploits" would fall in this category).


Let's say that we have morale points. I will structure them similarly to hit points for simplicity's sake; this is not essential and could be altered. Characters have a current number and a maximum number. The maximum is 1d8+(wis mod) morale points per level.

Morale points can be expended for morale bonuses! Spend up to your level in morale points on an activity to represent your "feeling good" just making you have a good day as you make a d20 roll representing it; gain a moral bonus equal to what you spend on the roll. If you already have morale bonuses from other sources, you can spend enough morale points to raise that bonus to equal to your level. You may use this to increase any d20 roll or any static value opposed by a d20 roll, e.g. skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, armor class, or save DCs.

Certain activities now have an "unpleasantness" rating. This ranges from 1-10, generally, with 1 being "irritating but not too bad on a regular day" and 10 being "absolute misery." This can be anything from a nasty job or task (wading through raw sewage, spending time with an annoying acquaintance or family member, doing homework, or anything else tedious to disgusting to irritating to painful) to enduring specific suffering (running on a sprained ankle, speaking to the crush who just broke your heart, reaching into a fire to pull out something that's starting to catch). Forcing yourself to engage in such an activity costs you morale points equal to its unpleasantness rating. You can spend morale points even if you're at or below zero; this puts you increasingly negative.

When your morale is at or below zero, you are Disheartened. While Disheartened, you suffer a morale penalty to all things to which you could apply a morale bonus by spending morale points. You cannot spend morale points to gain morale bonuses while Disheartened, though other sources of morale bonus can offset or even overcome the penalty on specific rolls or values.


You regain your level in morale points after a good night's sleep (8 hours for most creatures). Additionally, engaging in recreational and uplifting and enjoyable activities can restore morale points. Some activities have specific rewards the first time they're performed in a given day. Individuals plying a skill to lift spirits can grant amounts based on their threshold of success over a base DC. A bard might, for instance, restore 1 morale point for every 5 by which his Perform roll exceeds a base DC of 15 or 20 (depending how balance works out), when performing to lift spirits and energize a crowd.


This also gives some hooks on which to hang social mechanics. Diplomacy checks could create morale point costs to resist requests, or inspire a desire for an activity which could give the activity a positive rating for restoring morale points. (Here we have the ever-present seductress who can make you have a choice between sleeping with her and getting morale back for the pleasure of the activity or rejecting her by paying morale points for denying yourself the same. We also have the salesman who makes you want his luxury item, costing morale points to refuse it. Or the carouser who makes tavern-crawling grant morale points even to those who don't normally like such activities.)

Vices play into this as things which grant bonus morale points but cost extra morale points to resist. Probably rolled together in the same mechanics as psychological addictions.



Now, this is, again, rough. One of the biggest pitfalls is creating open-ended bonus/penalty rolls that could allow a diplomancer to go right back to effective mind control by morale-bombing people with enormous penalties if they don't do what he wants. Assuming scale and repetition can be handled by tweaking and careful design, though, the principle here is what I'm looking for. Heck, the morale cost for resisting things the player wants his PC to abhor could be instead a representation of how exhausting his disgust is at having it presented to him as something he should do.


I'm pretty sure it won't satisfy Max_Killjoy, because I believe he's stated that he prefers that players simply not be able to have PCs more persuasive than themselves, because to him RP doesn't allow for playing somebody with social skills different from one's own. (If I am misremembering, I am sorry.) I know it "attacks internals" which he feels should be sacrosanct, but it's literally impossible to have social influence mechanics that don't.

It does provide a framework for social interaction on a mechanical level, and for measuring desire for certain activities and a will to push through undesirable ones which the player and PC feel are nonetheless important to do.

For it to be truly useful and not just tacked on, the game would need to have the associated mechanics extended throughout it. Class features would have to be designed or re-designed to exploit and utilize the framework. Magic and many spells would need to be invented or reconsidered in ways to interact with it. (Perhaps antipathy should replace its aversion compulsion with a high Unpleasantness rating that recurs every time somebody tries to draw nearer to it or remain in the AoE.) FAR more thought would have to go in to what constitutes a "desirable" activity which can grant morale back. (This would likely tie in to defining things your PC likes and dislikes, at least in broad strokes. Something akin to, but hopefully better executed than, Exalted's "Intimacies.")

But I hope this essay provides at least some better understanding as to the general "shape" of what I think would be good for social/emotion rules. The PC is still under the player's control, but the player both has mechanical insight into just how his character weights short-term temptations vs. long-term gains, and how he feels in general. His gameplay decisions are now meaningful, rather than "Well, my knight stays where your Queen threatens him, despite me knowing it'll just get my knight captured, because my knight trusts your Queen and thinks she'd never harm him because their forbidden love is so true."

[Quertus]

If a side-effect of a medicine was that you'd sweat profusely and all your food would taste funny, would take it if you didn't need to?

If you were already RPing and having fun doing it, would you appreciate being told how to play your character by a bunch of extra rules you don't need?

Um, perhaps I got confused on the current thread. I thought you were talking about the "declare intention, GM sets difficulty, just roll once" as bad medicine.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about this analogy for RP rules.

Again, I would argue that rules for influencing characters' motivations and drives, and for rewarding following those drives or penalizing resisting them doesn't "tell you how to RP your character" any more than rules about what kinds of dice you have to roll to determine if you hit with an attack, or dodge another's attack, tell you how to fight with your character.

In particular, the mechanics I propose are designed to never FORCE the player to make a decision. Merely to make all available decisions' emotional weight as impactful as they should be compared to the mechanical benefits of alternate choices.

Even if you're NOT playing a ladies' man, though, why does "getting laid in a one night stand" become not an option for your character, should a cute girl take a shine to him? Or should it? Remember, that cute girl might be an agent of Duke dePraave trying to undermine your efforts to infiltrate the imperial court...or she might just be a cute girl. Your character still might view the sexual pleasure as motivation enough to risk it if the odds seem small enough for it to backfire; you, however, may not, since...well, why should you?

And, if you really do view RPing to be your personal goal, and think that good RP would be having that one night stand, why should you be punished in the scope of the larger game, and why should your choice to have "good RP" punish the rest of the party with the difficulties you risk bringing upon you and them, just for making that choice?

Given the example rough mechanics I've proposed thus far have done exactly that, providing bundles of rewards and penalties for each choice so that the choices are as attractive and repulsive to the player as they are to the character,

Why? I don't see how "sleeping with her is something that would give you 1d10 morale points back; refusing to sleep with her will cost you 5 morale points" requires a deep examination of your motives.

Okay, I am going to attempt a very rough set of mechanics to illustrate what I'm getting at.

Let's say that we have morale points. I will structure them similarly to hit points for simplicity's sake; this is not essential and could be altered. Characters have a current number and a maximum number. The maximum is 1d8+(wis mod) morale points per level.

Morale points can be expended for morale bonuses! Spend up to your level in morale points on an activity to represent your "feeling good" just making you have a good day as you make a d20 roll representing it; gain a moral bonus equal to what you spend on the roll. If you already have morale bonuses from other sources, you can spend enough morale points to raise that bonus to equal to your level. You may use this to increase any d20 roll or any static value opposed by a d20 roll, e.g. skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, armor class, or save DCs.

Certain activities now have an "unpleasantness" rating. This ranges from 1-10, generally, with 1 being "irritating but not too bad on a regular day" and 10 being "absolute misery."

I'm glad you're still using the seduction example, as it helps illustrate some of my points. I, personally, get a morale bonus from resisting seduction attempts. So, for the system to properly model me role-playing, well, myself, it would have to give me morale points for resisting a seduction attempt.

Similarly, different people can feel differently about the same things. To give a really stupid example, "make out with cute girl" might be worth 5 morale points to some people, but it might cost morale points to the gay guy or straight girl or loyal partner. And has certainly been a wash, and provided some people I know with 0 morale points.

Dumb example, sure, but the same issue exists everywhere else. Some people get a morale bonus for listening to music or poetry, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus when around cute kittens or babies, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus for reading or killing animals or playing RPGs, while others take a morale penalty for doing that ****.

If I picked 10 events, from having sex to listening to poetry to acting on stage to killing people, and measured exactly what chemicals each each of us produced in those activities... well, other than the fact that most everyone would probably want to opt out of this experiment, I expect we'd get noticeably different reactions from different people.

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?

And, as a follow-up question, at that point, what benefit does this system provide?

I think focusing on what's left one you put it in the hands of the players, "where it belongs", may yield interesting results.

Because, otherwise, you're left with trying to define sufficient descriptors ahead of time to explain why Quertus likes poetry and wine more than kittens and sports, while one person enjoys stories and babies more than music or RPGs, while another enjoys sports and building things more than reading and babies.

If RPing is one's goal, then RPing is its own reward. If one is in a group of gamers who share or at least appreciate your preferences in gaming, then one is not going to be "punished" for making either choice as long as its in-character for one's character.

My old long-time gaming group had a single ongoing oWoD Vampire campaign for about 15 years, with the same PCs and city and so forth. Somehow, the GM managed to give each player what they really wanted out of the game without anyone feeling punished or deprived. One PC got more mysteries and problems to solve, another PC got more political intrigue, another PC got to more personal drama, another PC got more "exploration of the vampiric condition" (sans wangst and woe-is-the-monster), etc. The GM kept the "endanger NPCs" to a minimum for the player who didn't care for it, didn't slap a bunch of mind control attempts on the PC of the player who didn't care for that, etc. Somehow, we never argued over the differences, no one ever griped because the focus wasn't identical for every PC or that there wasn't an even split of each sort of thing across every PC. XP was awarded for a multiple of things -- good RP, combat effort, solved mysteries, whatever, and it all balanced out.

Given all this hand-wringing about "reward" and "punishment" and conflicts between preferences and making sure there are rules in place for players to cover their butts and prevent game-group conflict and hard feelings... I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't the game rules, but the gamers.

This is why I've started to push stronger on the stance that these rules belong at the group level, not the game level.

Just like it would be odd if the RPG had baked into the system whether it was kosher to eat while gaming / lay food on someone else's gaming books, roll their dice, or make out with their sister during the game.

It just feels like something the group should hash out for themselves.

I'm FAR more concerned by and put off by the mechanics of the game and/or the GM trying to tell me what my character does and does not like, what my character will and will not enjoy, etc.

Yeah, this is something of an issue for me, too. Who but Max knows the value to Max of a good meal? If everyone valued things equally... well, it would be a very different world.

I will try to be more eloquent later, but for now, I just want to suggest that "character internals" are inextricably tied to in-character social interaction. If either are to be mechanical in any way - if either are ever to be something that doesn't require socially manipulating the player to influence or succeed - then both must have some mechanics tied to them.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me?

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm glad you're still using the seduction example, as it helps illustrate some of my points. I, personally, get a morale bonus from resisting seduction attempts. So, for the system to properly model me role-playing, well, myself, it would have to give me morale points for resisting a seduction attempt.

Similarly, different people can feel differently about the same things. To give a really stupid example, "make out with cute girl" might be worth 5 morale points to some people, but it might cost morale points to the gay guy or straight girl or loyal partner. And has certainly been a wash, and provided some people I know with 0 morale points.

And, there's the fact that the same person may not have the same reaction to the same activity depending on the context.

Someone might only be comfortable "making out with a cute girl", and get a "morale boost", if that girl is someone they deeply trust -- otherwise it would be a penalty to moral from the anxiety, etc. Now, if it's someone they actually deeply trust, maybe it is a moral bonus.

Who the HELL is anyone else -- GM, other players, game designer, whoever -- other than the player of that character, to decide whether that character has reached that level of trust with the "cute girl" in question?

[Stryyke]

I just wanted to chime in. It sounds more like a group dynamics thing, rather than a rules thing.

For instance, in a game I am in right now, I was playing an Ogre who was following a Tiefling around because he kept giving him "shiny things." At one point the other player was distracted and told the Ogre "just go find some food for yourself." I had established already that my Ogre LOVED horse meat, so he went out to the nearest stables to get himself a treat. I could tell that I got a bad encounter roll when my DM went "Oh boy." It turned out the horse that I grabbed for dinner was actually a centaur. He survived long enough to call the guards, who then came and killed me (but not before I got 12 of them! Oh yea!) The group was forced to leave the area because they were associated with me, and didn't want the guards to come down on them.

This was a situation that was incredibly negative, and very disruptive to the "storyline;" but no one got even a tiny bit grumpy. In fact, in nearly every session, we laugh about the Ogre and the centaur.

It sounds like there is a disconnect between your expectations, and the groups. It's always difficult to overcome those issues. Either someone has to give, or someone has to leave.

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

Anyway, I just thought I would throw my two cents in.

[Quertus]

I just wanted to chime in. It sounds more like a group dynamics thing, rather than a rules thing.

For instance, in a game I am in right now, I was playing an Ogre who was following a Tiefling around because he kept giving him "shiny things." At one point the other player was distracted and told the Ogre "just go find some food for yourself." I had established already that my Ogre LOVED horse meat, so he went out to the nearest stables to get himself a treat. I could tell that I got a bad encounter roll when my DM went "Oh boy." It turned out the horse that I grabbed for dinner was actually a centaur. He survived long enough to call the guards, who then came and killed me (but not before I got 12 of them! Oh yea!) The group was forced to leave the area because they were associated with me, and didn't want the guards to come down on them.

This was a situation that was incredibly negative, and very disruptive to the "storyline;" but no one got even a tiny bit grumpy. In fact, in nearly every session, we laugh about the Ogre and the centaur.

It sounds like there is a disconnect between your expectations, and the groups. It's always difficult to overcome those issues. Either someone has to give, or someone has to leave.

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

Anyway, I just thought I would throw my two cents in.

Different people enjoy different things. We usually play the game at a high level of abstraction / with a lot of time skip and/or fade-to-black. OK...

I don't consider alignment to be much of a system, to be honest, but then again I have never played DnD and no interest in doing so, so what do I know. But why would people "confusing" the two be so bad? Because they "roleplay" in a badwrong way? Roleplaying can take many forms, and I don't find the discussion about which "count" to be particularly worthwhile..

The reason people confusing "alignment" and "roleplay" is bad is because it produces people who believe anything which doesn't adhere to their narrow view of alignment are failing at roleplaying. So, kinda the opposite of what you thought I meant.

I want people to be able to roleplay however they want, including not at all.

This seems to me to be a sideeffect of your very limited definition, incidentally. Where exactly do you draw the border between "roleplaying" and "pretending to roleplay/confusing something else for it"?

Where do you draw the limit between "actual combat" and "a dice simulator"?

And not to sound insensitive, but... so what? I don't want to share a table with the wargamer crowd. I mean, not while playing RPGs. It is their own choice to play what they want, and I would be the last to discourage, but it is not my style, and getting them disinterested in playing the same games as I am... does not strike me as a particularly worrysome event. There are enough systems out there that we can optimise them to each cater to a different crowd and to scratch different urges (Or the same urges in different ways). Why have two that do it the same, undefined way?

Why would I want to buy 50 different systems to play with 50 different groups, if I could instead buy one system, and use different exchangeable parts / house rules / whatever to make the focus of the game fit each of my groups?

Fine if that's not your cup of tea, but, unless you're trying to take an elitist PoV, I'm not seeing the benefit to baking the roleplaying incentives into the system in a way that divides and excludes people.

Discouraging you, personally... I mean, truthfully I also don't quite care One person half a world away doesn't really affect my gaming group size, to be honest.

One death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic. Apparently, this rhetorical device doesn't work on you. Usually doesn't work on me, either.

Also, it's meant to explain that this is an issue I care about, personally, as well as in principle.

To be honest... all of them, except maybe the second.
Hm. Your first point I am still not sold on, since I STILL doubt the automatic birth of a ceiling by introducing a floor.
Your second, see above.
This strikes me as a... weird point, to be honest? I actually don't get what you are trying to say, other then "for me introducing any system at all hinders me" which I still don't understand HOW.
I very much doubt the automatic necessity for houseruling. I mean, rules for combat and everything else face the same problems of imperfection, yet they don't have to be houseruled in every given group, and are just as slow to change? Really don't get the specific problem here.
Yeah, since, as I mentioned numerous times: No experience or interest in DnD. For the rest of my answer to this, see point above.

All? Fair enough. I'll see if I can expand on these points tonight.

To be honest... sounds terrible. If the slightest mistake can get my character killed, I'd go to a system with an easier reset button. CRPGs, for example. Now I don't have any interest in Dark Souls, but it sounds like a much better fit for scratching THAT itch.
Though, I want to also insist I am playing by the rules, and let the dice fall as they may. There is no need to cheat or fudge the dice to produce less deadly situations. Granted, I also don't do much combat in my games.
And, again with the conflicting definitions, this time (from my perspective) yours being too broad instead of too limited.^^

Most "realistic" combat systems, the slightest bad luck can kill your character in a single roll.

Personally, I prefer the less realistic HP system, to give the character some insulation against bad luck, and a chance to realize they're in trouble and retreat.

But, yes, realistic failure (imprisonment in a modern setting being arguably worse than death in a fantasy setting with resurrection) looms as large as the system indicates in my games.

Different people like different things.

And, while I may not like it, I learned RPGs with hyper-fatal D&D.

[jayem]

Dumb example, sure, but the same issue exists everywhere else. Some people get a morale bonus for listening to music or poetry, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus when around cute kittens or babies, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus for reading or killing animals or playing RPGs, while others take a morale penalty for doing that ****.

If I picked 10 events, from having sex to listening to poetry to acting on stage to killing people, and measured exactly what chemicals each each of us produced in those activities... well, other than the fact that most everyone would probably want to opt out of this experiment, I expect we'd get noticeably different reactions from different people.

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?

Which is exactly what social mechanicalists want to reflect in the characters (and don't see them getting in the single model version).
If in your opinion the character absolutely doesn't get the morale boost when doing/not doing and you've picked the option that absolutely gives/takes the morale boost then you've done something very wrong. It's not the Games fault that you've willfully been stupid.
Of course there are cases that are more borderline, maybe the option 'likes a drink' turned out to be a bit more of an alcoholic trait than you expected. Maybe your alcoholic princess isn't tempted by beer (but is by wine). Conversely maybe you didn't pick that, but now your on the exception, the drink they do like.


If totally free choice, then it would be a bit of a recipe for silliness, in the same way if you had free choice over any stat/equipment.
But:
You'd expect combinations of most options (Your suggestion gives a mere 60k characters). 5 options from 60 strong opinions (I.E 30 pro/30 anti) would give 5m* actively different people (before you consider differences that are dealt with by the player & GM).
Depending on the game, some arrangement for partial implementation might be expected (or even built in), which might be a question of noting severe differences (e.g. drink taste / sexuality / etc...).

*that's a slight overcount as it would include "alcoholic-teetotaller.

And, there's the fact that the same person may not have the same reaction to the same activity depending on the context.

Someone might only be comfortable "making out with a cute girl", and get a "morale boost", if that girl is someone they deeply trust -- otherwise it would be a penalty to moral from the anxiety, etc. Now, if it's someone they actually deeply trust, maybe it is a moral bonus.

Who the HELL is anyone else -- GM, other players, game designer, whoever -- other than the player of that character, to decide whether that character has reached that level of trust with the "cute girl" in question?

In which case you have to treat the exception specially.

It depends what game you want to play and what aspects. If you only play that type of game you get that extra bit of fluffy role play, but never experience a whole range of role play challenges (which can indeed go bad).
If you only play the other type you get that extra bit of dicey role play, but never experience a whole range of role play freedom (which can indeed go bad). If you go the third way your vulnerable to the capriciousness and uncertainty of the GM but have all the flexibility of the second without the capriciousness of the rigid rules.

[Segev]

I'm glad you're still using the seduction example, as it helps illustrate some of my points. I, personally, get a morale bonus from resisting seduction attempts. So, for the system to properly model me role-playing, well, myself, it would have to give me morale points for resisting a seduction attempt.

This is definitely one of those longer-term impacts that my proposed system is hard-pressed to model without a lot more depth to it. The reason I say that is inherent to how you express it:

You say you get a morale boost from resisting a seduction attempt.

I want to really examine that by replacing the "seduction" example for a moment, because I think it will illustrate...something...if not my point, at least a point worth discussing.

You could arguably say that a little kid gets a morale boost from resisting an attempt to get him to eat broccoli. (which, for argument's sake, he doesn't like)

But at that point the resistance is "I am resisting emotional ploys to get me to do something I don't want to do."

Now, I'm not sure if the "resist a seduction attempt" morale boost is because you really don't think you'd find the sexual encounter (of whatever number of proverbial bases) to be pleasant, or if it's because of what I initially took it as being - that you're feeling proud of yourself for turning down a genuine temptation.

Would you say you get a similar morale boost from resisting the offer of a delicious dessert that you genuinely like because you know you shouldn't, for health/diet reasons?


This is an important distinction, because "self-satisfaction after the fact," while a very real thing, isn't what I'm looking to model with this highly simplistic first-order system. I agree that it's worthy of examination for inclusion, but I'm not there yet.

What I'm trying to model right now is the temptation itself. The little kid being "tempted" by broccoli is a silly example because we expect kids to have to be cajoled into eating such things, and (translated to my system here) it would be a task with "unpleasantness" that would cost the kid morale points to force himself to do.

Now, if you genuinely would have to resist the temptation represented by the seduction, it would cost you morale points (or, at least, fail to gain you any you would have gotten from the enjoyment of choosing to partake of the proposed activity). It would be some other mechanic, as-yet unmodeled, which would measure your later self-satisfaction, once the temptation was past, that you'd resisted it. We're getting into second-order morale boosts, here. (Similarly, the addict who gives in to his alcoholism and drinks would get a morale boost from that...and probably later feel worse about himself for having given in and not "held strong" against the nefarious bottle.)

Personally, I have never been subjected to a seduction attempt. (Sadly, my romantic life is nigh non-existent.) My morals are such that I would be pleased with myself after the fact if I did resist such an attempt from anybody to whom I was not married, and would feel bad about my choices if I did have sex outside of wedlock. But knowing how my hormones flow when presented with attractive women with intriguing bits of skin exposed, I imagine the temptation would be real.

The "second-order" morale is a hole in the proposed system. If I were working on developing it in more detail, I'd try to model it, but I actually count the fact that we're discussing it as a hole as a success for making the point of what this is meant to model and how it works.

Similarly, different people can feel differently about the same things. To give a really stupid example, "make out with cute girl" might be worth 5 morale points to some people, but it might cost morale points to the gay guy or straight girl or loyal partner. And has certainly been a wash, and provided some people I know with 0 morale points.

(...)

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?

Ideally, you'd set such things up in advance. Yes, this opens you up to exploits of optimizing character preferences, so it's not yet ideal, but I feel it an improvement to move the decisions as to what a character is "in" to out of the heat of the moment. Clearly, the straight woman isn't going to feel nearly the seductive temptation of the bar wench as the straight guy, and the gay guy is going to be likewise less affected by the seductress.

Building the character's hooks to be unique to them (rather than assuming that emotional manipulation is as universal as physical injury - in that all humanoids react similarly to knife wounds in their Achilles tendons) would be necessary to make it model genuinely distinct characters. This is one of the "hard" areas of design for it.

And, as a follow-up question, at that point, what benefit does this system provide?

If you'll permit me, having demonstrated the core mechanic of it, the liberty of making an assumption that is not yet founded...

Let's assume that the system is developed to have ways of establishing the character "map" such that everyone can reasonably agree on what sorts of things do and do not tempt the character. What avenues of temptation and social "attack" can be used effectively (and which are ineffective or counterproductive - e.g. trying to seduce the straight male teenager with a fat, smelly man is more likely to result in disgust than any urge to engage in sexy funtimes).

With this assumption, the benefits this system provides are greater ability for the PLAYER to make informed decisions about his character's choices, the ability to design "mind-manipulation" mechanics that give the player more freedom to say "I resist," by having graduated consequences of those resistances rather than a straight-bar threshold of "nope, you are mind-controlled." They also make it so that the choice to play to the character's temptations is not going to punish him or the party with no benefit other than a nebulous, OOC warm fuzzy that you played "in character." It makes the temptations as mechanically significant as the rewards of resisting them. (Or at least, gives a metric of mechanical values tied to each choice to help the player evaluate the choice with something closer to the mindset his character has.)

The player is connected more strongly to his character, because the "cost" to his character of being a perfect ascetic who never wastes money or time and never makes bad decisions for pleasure or short-term gain is in the emotional and personal comfort level drives. The player feels none of that, absent some sort of system. With such a system, the player now has a mechanical hook - a cost he pays now for his asceticism's benefits later.

It also gives more mechanical grist for social mechanics. Which, for the same reasons as the "mind control" example above, helps move a character's social prowess from effectively being "I take control of your character away if I 'win' this roll" to being something that genuinely tells all players involved just how persuasive the social efforts are. And the emotional costs and rewards of various choices related to them.

Really in-depth rules would have mechanics for manipulating the likes and dislikes of characters, so that the PC who wants to introduce the young noble to a vice and get him hooked on it (say, gambling) so that he can use it to manipulate him (loans, gambling opportunities, blackmail, etc.) would be able to build a liking for that activity.

Again, though, this is getting a lot more in depth than I already have, and would take much more careful dis

I think focusing on what's left one you put it in the hands of the players, "where it belongs", may yield interesting results.

Because, otherwise, you're left with trying to define sufficient descriptors ahead of time to explain why Quertus likes poetry and wine more than kittens and sports, while one person enjoys stories and babies more than music or RPGs, while another enjoys sports and building things more than reading and babies.

There will always be some level of this that is below the level of modeling of the system. Just as we don't model that Segev has a slightly weaker lower back that means it gets sore if he bends over at the waist, but can be ignored or worked out with a bit of effort ahead of time. And we don't model that Segev's brother is missing half the last joint of his right pinkie, even though that might have impact on things like typing speed, because it's just not going to impact things enough at the level the system models.

We model attack bonuses, and don't get into specific maneuvers in D&D without introducing extra subsystems.

So yes, there will be gaps; it won't be complete. But "because it isn't doing everything, it is better to have nothing" is a false dichotomy.

Yeah, this is something of an issue for me, too. Who but Max knows the value to Max of a good meal? If everyone valued things equally... well, it would be a very different world.

Sure. But if we just assume that a good meal vs. an okay meal has no impact whatsoever, it punishes Quertus or Segev if they decide their characters like higher-quality meals, since Max, who decides whatever quality of meal is enough to avoid penalties is lal he needs, can afford extra healing potions or an additional +1 equivalent bonus to his armor.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me?

Oh, that's easy.

"I think this is a dumb idea, so obviously my character would not go for it."
"But, Quertus, this is something your character SHOULD like because A, B, C, and D."

Now, perhaps you think that this isn't persuasion nor manipulation. But it is. In fact, it's persuasion by definition. It's manipulation because the person arguing it is trying to get you to change your mind from an obviously optimal decision to a sub-optimal one based on nothing but the implication that you "should" have your character make the dumb decision to go along with the dumb idea. Whether based on an insinuation that you're not RPing well and should feel bad about your metagaming, or a sense (if you care about these things) that the persuader will disapprove of and/or be disappointed in you for the same metagaming.

Conversely, "But, Quertus, you know how dumb this idea is. You're over-exaggerating your character's flaws if you think he wouldn't see just how stupid it is, too," could be said by the others who don't want you to take that choice. They could throw in, "It will probably get your character killed," or "It could lead to a TPK." Or, if the GM, "Quertus, I didn't plan for anybody to do something quite THAT stupid; please have your character realize it's dumb and don't do it because if he does, it's going to probably lead to the game crashing and burning, at least for tonight."

Now, admittedly, if you're bound-determined that Quertus's PC will/won't do X, in spite/because of how stupid it is, my system is just more manipulation of you to change your mind or reinforce it. But it's a mechanical one meant to help you judge just how tempting your PC really does find it.



And I will admit, it isn't going to turn bad RPers or problem players into good RPers and good players. That isn't really its purpose. It's purpose is to empower players to make IC decisions without the system fighting them for it. Without being punished for it. By having the system make the mechanical consequences to the character reflect the pressures a real person might feel in his situation, rather than the pressures only get applied from one side of the choices on a mechanical level (creating an artificial impetus towards less-realistic behavior).




Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a horrid RPer who plays games wrong when I feel like a game whose mechanics make validating the notion that an NPC is persuasive a purely bad move is punishing me for trying to validate that. Maybe I'm a rotten metagamer for not being able to intuitively evaluate just how good a certain persuasive effort is without mechanics to tell me, and not feeling like the GM's persuasive efforts are necessarily reflective of exactly how persuasive the NPC is.

But I don't think so. I think it reasonable to recognize that mechanics create pressures, and that the "murder-hobo ascetic robot" is a natural consequence of the one-sided pressures endemic to most RPG systems right now that lack mechanics to make things like comfort, luxury, emotional connection, vices, pleasure-seeking, and recreation important.

Heck, when I was a middle schooler, we had an exercise in planning our lives with hypothetical situations. I foolishly was willing to say that I would get no TV, the cheapest apartment, and work 16 hours a day at the highest paying hourly job for 5 years to build up a nest egg before going to college, working and doing homework with no recreation, and maximizing my utility function of "income."

My teacher called me out on this, as nobody lives their lives like that. In truth, I would NEVER live my life like that now, barring extreme need. But if I did, I'd be a millionaire by now based on savings alone.

There is no incentive in an RPG to do anything but optimally use every second of your day for improvement. Nothing beyond rules that say you can't (e.g. you can't spend more than 8 hours a day on item creation). After all, it's not like the person making the decision about how the character spends his time has to actually endure the 16 hours of drudgery; all he's seeing is the high income rate he can expend on cool items for the parts of the game he ACTIVELY controls the character through.

There is no incentive in an RPG for Quertus's PC to be tempted by anything, whether Quertus would be tempted by it IRL or not, other than things which make Quertus's PC better able to do things Quertus will experience him doing.

The benefit of a system like I'm proposing is to provide that benefit, or the converse cost, so that playing your character as other than an optimal robot isn't punished by the system.

If you still can't see why this is a problem, let me ask you this: if you only need 8 hours of sleep per night, but 16 hours of optimally-expended day is "too much to be realistic" for a character, how much IS realistic? 8 hours? Why? Some people can and do work more than 8 hour days on important things. 14 hours? That still seems like a lot; your PC only takes 2 hours off, probably for meals and changing clothes? Without something to measure it, we're left with a gentlemen's agreement. And the persuasive power of your own guilt over being a "dirty metagame optimizer" and the GM and other players vs. your desire to have your character be effective. And when YOU have the reward of "just one more item" (as an example) but only your character has to weigh that against "but no time for anything but work and sleep," you have a harder time judging just how much recreational time he "needs" or would really allow himself to take.

Well, I do. Maybe, again, I'm just a bad RPer.

[Floret]

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

While the rest of your post, from my side, I have already adressed (Short form: No, no disconnect between group and myself, at least for me); I find this to be a very nice note to stress. You are not your character, and perfect control is impossible. It is fair enough if you WANT perfect control in any aspect, but don't act as if that is something inherent to Tabletop gaming.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me?

It is to get you to the "my character is game" part. SOMEHOW you were convinced that they are. This can be done through mechanics (Social mechanics, mostly), or through appealing to you, the player, and moving your opinion to the point of "I know this is gonna bite me, but my character will do it nonetheless". You might not FEEL manipulated, and in fact manipulating has negative connotations that this example might not share, but you could view the GM getting you to the point you say "character is game" as manipulating you into that.

The reason people confusing "alignment" and "roleplay" is bad is because it produces people who believe anything which doesn't adhere to their narrow view of alignment are failing at roleplaying. So, kinda the opposite of what you thought I meant.

I want people to be able to roleplay however they want, including not at all.

Hm. I can see where that might be a problem, yeah. Never thought about it that way. I would still insist that it is, while an example of something done horribly, not something to be taken as proof that such things can't work, only that they sometimes don't.

Where do you draw the limit between "actual combat" and "a dice simulator"?

At the exact point I put my foam weapons down and pick up the dice (Truthfully, when not rolling dice, my players and myself sometimes play around with my foam weapons when gaming at my place, but not for anything relating to the combat, at least not mechanically. Maybe to act out/visualise certain swings or to hit each other for doing stupid ****. But I digress )
C'mon, this was too easy. I will ask again: Where exactly do you draw the border between "roleplaying" and "pretending to roleplay/confusing something else for it"?

Why would I want to buy 50 different systems to play with 50 different groups, if I could instead buy one system, and use different exchangeable parts / house rules / whatever to make the focus of the game fit each of my groups?

Fine if that's not your cup of tea, but, unless you're trying to take an elitist PoV, I'm not seeing the benefit to baking the roleplaying incentives into the system in a way that divides and excludes people.

Because I want my games to scratch different itches, and to take a system optimised for that will work easier than modifying an existing one with a more broad scope down to the narrower spectrum I might want. And... Dunno if you find that elitist or not, but... everyone shall play everything the way they want, unless they are harming people by it. But playing with people with vastly differing playstyles hinders my enjoyment of the game - especially since I as GM need to cater to too many differing tastes, people get bored, and then I feel bad. Nah, I prefer everyone getting similar things out of the game, with everyone WANTING similar things out of the game. So I really, really couldn't care less if some people I have no interest in playing with have no interest in playing the same things as I do. (This does not make me a better person than them, just means our tastes are different and we are imho better off going separate ways.)

Maybe an extreme example (And the most extreme in my collection), but I own a copy of "A single moment", a 2-player RPG for playing samurai facing each other in a final duel, and told mostly in flashbacks. I like that sort of focussed experience and am willing to invest in it. I just don't want my entire RPG-experience to be that limited, so I play other games as well, that provide different experiences. As you might imagine, I am also very much a fan of setting-specific systems.

So, to elaborate: I see benefits in the system being able to provide a more streamlined experience, and just don't care about that supposed drawback. I don't find excluding people to be a benefit, I just don't care either way

[ComradeBear]

I'm just gonna reiterate that I don't support systems that do anything other than reward RP that's already happening. Not ones that dictate character behavior.

Apocalypse World saying "you get XP for rolling certain stats" has had, in my groups, a minimal effect on their decisionmaking. Because levelling in AW doesn't mean as much as it does in other games. The History stat encourages characters interacting. Which is excellent for encouraging RP by proxy.

Belief, Instinct, and Goal have also not done much beyond people learning how to write them well to match what their character usually does in every session.

Systems like these impose minimally, don't affect decisionmaking (or barely do) and don't, therefore introduce a ceiling. For Belief, Instinct, and Goal you either have to purposefully write them so they have nothing to do with your character's behavior/situation or actively try to avoid getting any points to somehow not get points from them.

Systems that say "You will sometimes lose control of your character" require player buy-in. They can be fun if you're signed on for them, but if you're not then there's no convincing that will work.

So that's where I sit.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is no incentive in an RPG to do anything but optimally use every second of your day for improvement. Nothing beyond rules that say you can't (e.g. you can't spend more than 8 hours a day on item creation). After all, it's not like the person making the decision about how the character spends his time has to actually endure the 16 hours of drudgery; all he's seeing is the high income rate he can expend on cool items for the parts of the game he ACTIVELY controls the character through.

I just don't see it as a matter of mechanical incentives or pressures.

The character drives the use of the rules, not the other way around. The setting and characters and the NPCs and so on... those are the actual territory. The rules are just a map for getting around that territory.

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.

[Segev]

I just don't see it as a matter of mechanical incentives or pressures.

The character drives the use of the rules, not the other way around. The setting and characters and the NPCs and so on... those are the actual territory. The rules are just a map for getting around that territory.

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.

Like I said, maybe I'm just a bad megagamer who can't RP to save his life. But when the rules do reward playing a robot who churns out useful utility of every second of every day he's not required to be asleep, and doesn't reward engaging in recreational activities, I feel incentivized to make "a character" who 'enjoys' being a workaholic over one who would hang out in the evenings, or enjoy a good book, or spend money on luxuries rather than more and better gear.

As I sometimes want to play a fop or a socialite, I would like to have mechanics which actually make that a trade-off of valid options rather than "sure, you can trade effectiveness for fluff; the guys who don't will be better, mechanically, than your PC."

I particularly like that, if I build a social-focused PC, my lack of skill in persuading people that their characters should be persuaded by mine is overcome by actual mechanics which demonstrate how persuasive my character is at any given point, and let the other players (and GM) measure a real cost-benefit analysis of in-game resources as to how the characters mine is influencing might respond. And, if they don't respond how my character would LIKE, at least my character's efforts cost them ability to be more effective in the opposition they are now going to present.

[Talakeal]

I particularly like that, if I build a social-focused PC, my lack of skill in persuading people that their characters should be persuaded by mine is overcome by actual mechanics which demonstrate how persuasive my character is at any given point, and let the other players (and GM) measure a real cost-benefit analysis of in-game resources as to how the characters mine is influencing might respond. And, if they don't respond how my character would LIKE, at least my character's efforts cost them ability to be more effective in the opposition they are now going to present.

Ok, I am not sure if that is what you meant, but this sounds actively anti-social.

Would you fell the same way if I said "I like playing a combat monster because I can force the other players to do what I want, otherwise I can just kill their characters. And even if the do band together and defeat me, I will still do enough damage to them first that they won't survive the rest of the dungeon, so I get my revenge on those who dared to defy me."

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

There is a difference between abstracted / glossed over and not having control.

Just because the DM doesn't require you to declare bathroom breaks doesn't mean it isn't up to you when it matters. I think most people would be quite miffed if the DM declared that they peed in their pants during their big speech because "you have no control over when you character goes to the bathroom".

[Stryyke]

There is a difference between abstracted / glossed over and not having control.

Just because the DM doesn't require you to declare bathroom breaks doesn't mean it isn't up to you when it matters. I think most people would be quite miffed if the DM declared that they peed in their pants during their big speech because "you have no control over when you character goes to the bathroom".

I think I would argue that point. Like the player can know things the character does not, so too can the character know things the player does not. While the player can indeed step into any particular moment of the character's life, I dare say the player controls the character less than 10% of his/her life. I'm not suggesting that this is how it must be viewed; but it's how I, personally, overcome the cognitive dissonance posed by the OP. If I can accept that my character lives 90% of his life without my input; I have no trouble accepting that the results of a die roll could make my character do something I, the player, didn't specifically intend.

P.S. You just gave me a great idea on how to make the next couple encounters a little bit harder! Pee your pants during a big speech. LOL!!

[Segev]

Ok, I am not sure if that is what you meant, but this sounds actively anti-social.

Would you fell the same way if I said "I like playing a combat monster because I can force the other players to do what I want, otherwise I can just kill their characters. And even if the do band together and defeat me, I will still do enough damage to them first that they won't survive the rest of the dungeon, so I get my revenge on those who dared to defy me."

I did not mean that, any more than asking for a combat system that would let you demonstrate that your character is, in fact, able to fight that dragon is asking for what you outlined as a negative bullying thing in the above quote.


What I'm looking for is the ability to have my PC be skilled in areas I am not. At least insofar as this specific aspect of what we're discussing goes. Here, it's social skills (which I sorely lack). My socialite PC, given mechanics for interacting with emotions, urges, drives, and preferences of other characters (NPCs are characters, remember), actually has tools to be capable as a socialite. Much like my fighter PC has tools, with a combat system, to be effective in using "fighting" on that monster. Or that noble duelist fop who tried to bully him.

[Talakeal]

I did not mean that, any more than asking for a combat system that would let you demonstrate that your character is, in fact, able to fight that dragon is asking for what you outlined as a negative bullying thing in the above quote.


What I'm looking for is the ability to have my PC be skilled in areas I am not. At least insofar as this specific aspect of what we're discussing goes. Here, it's social skills (which I sorely lack). My socialite PC, given mechanics for interacting with emotions, urges, drives, and preferences of other characters (NPCs are characters, remember), actually has tools to be capable as a socialite. Much like my fighter PC has tools, with a combat system, to be effective in using "fighting" on that monster. Or that noble duelist fop who tried to bully him.

Ok, the way you phrased it made me think you were talking about wanting the system to bully other PCs, which I suspected wasn't actually the case.

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.

The only time it becomes a real issue is when you have a player who wants to use social skills on another player, an NPC who wants to use social skills on a player, or a player who refuses to say what they want and / or what they are offering the NPC and simply insist that they be allowed to "roll CHA!" to get whatever possible rewards the encounter might yield.

I think I would argue that point. Like the player can know things the character does not, so too can the character know things the player does not. While the player can indeed step into any particular moment of the character's life, I dare say the player controls the character less than 10% of his/her life. I'm not suggesting that this is how it must be viewed; but it's how I, personally, overcome the cognitive dissonance posed by the OP. If I can accept that my character lives 90% of his life without my input; I have no trouble accepting that the results of a die roll could make my character do something I, the player, didn't specifically intend.

P.S. You just gave me a great idea on how to make the next couple encounters a little bit harder! Pee your pants during a big speech. LOL!!

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

[Floret]

There is a difference between abstracted / glossed over and not having control.

Just because the DM doesn't require you to declare bathroom breaks doesn't mean it isn't up to you when it matters. I think most people would be quite miffed if the DM declared that they peed in their pants during their big speech because "you have no control over when you character goes to the bathroom".

I would argue that the problem with that example is not the player loosing control, but the GM just taking it. With systems such as the proposed ones you have the player relinquishing control of the character somewhat (While still being the one who determines the CHARACTER, noone is saying the DM should tell you what to do). Not the same thing. And the dice taking my control away feels a lot different then the GM just deciding in a moment disadvantageous to me.

Ok, the way you phrased it made me think you were talking about wanting the system to bully other PCs, which I suspected wasn't actually the case.

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.

The only time it becomes a real issue is when you have a player who wants to use social skills on another player, an NPC who wants to use social skills on a player, or a player who refuses to say what they want and / or what they are offering the NPC and simply insist that they be allowed to "roll CHA!" to get whatever possible rewards the encounter might yield.

Two points from me, as I also heavily advocated for social systems:
1) If I like social interactions to be a focus of my gaming experience, I'd like them to be more than just a "yeah, roll that, at that difficulty I just calculated". First of all, I want at the very least some guidelines as GM for how to set the difficulty, and second, I want something more interesting then a single roll. Combat, when it is a focus of the system, will not boil down to a single roll. I want a similarly fleshed-out system to combat, to have the social "combat" be interesting mechanically.
(Minor note, this also fixes the "simply roll charisma for reward" issue, since you take out the "simply" and at the end had just as much effort as a similar combat might have.)
2) "The only time" is really, really stretching it. Sure, players doing it on each other is a grey area and should be discussed for group contract. It can work though. Also, the NPCs using social skills on a player is EXACTLY what I WANT the system to be able to do. Otherwise I as GM have no ability to undermine in rules and stats, which is ultimately the way to define the capabilities of a TRPG character, that a given character is charismatic, charming and very, very good at convincing people. Outside of being convincing myself, which does get around the problem a bit, but not really, and which I do tend to be (IRL at least...), sure, but that only creates the problem of... when am I TOO convincing? Sure I can dial it down, but to the exact level I want it to be at? And what about a GM with medium to low social skills? Should those people just not be allowed to play convincing NPCs? Or to GM at all?
The player who just wants to roll without describing? Is an issue of group contract. I wouldn't allow it anywhere near my groups, I require at least a rough outline of what the PCs do with what intention, but some people might be fine this way. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

Sounds reasonable, to be honest. Question is though: Does this then not also go for emotions and personality-driven action? And if the system has no way of simulating a personality... how exactly does the system simulate it? Does its best, sure, but without such rules you are adamantly against, there is no way for the system to do it other then resorting to "what an average person would do". And, since we pointed out, people are different... this is bound to run into problems.
I mean, it doesn't. At least not with most people. So appearantly there is some way to, at least for such rough outlines, for other people to understand your character enough to imagine somewhat accurately what that character did "offscreen". If that is possible, however, why would it be impossible to put it into words?

Take for example a situation with the player (deliberately, no worries) relinquishes control to me as GM in my Dark Eye game. He took the "sleepwanderer" flaw, which means every so often, his character will wander off in the night. And for every single time, I describe to the rest of the party that he is missing, and then the situations he got himself into. I go by what I got during game (and from character sheet, there are "personality flaws"/vices in the system you get buildpoints for). So far I have not had a single complaint And this is not the only example of such things I have encountered over the years.

[Max_Killjoy]

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

As a GM, my policy is always that the character would do or being doing what the player would have them do if the player were actively "driving" at that point, so it's never a question.

[Segev]

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)

Partially because I like mechanics to apply equally to NPCs and PCs, such that there's no "magical PC rule" which changes just because the character in question is (not) controlled by the GM.

In essence, I do want these rules to affect PCs. Not specifically for PvP, but so that the same rules I use to get NPC Guardsman to pal around with me while my buddy sneaks past his now-abandoned post are the rules that NPC Guardsman's girlfriend could use to make me feel guilty for getting him in trouble and get my help to break him out of prison.

I mean, sure, the GM could just resort to his own social skills. "Dude, your PC is neutral with good tendencies, and NPC Guardsman was cool to you. Plus, his girlfriend's in tears, here. Is your PC really that heartless? Just ignore that there's no benefit to you unless NPC Guardsman is useful later on in the game." He's manipulating me, either by making me feel for an NPC, or by making me feel that my character should feel for him strongly enough to take risks that have little to no mechanical rewards.

I appreciate mechanics which actually tell me how effective NPC Guardsman's Girlfriend is at this persuasion. Which show me at least in moderate detail just how strongly my PC is affected by her pleas. That, also, make the emotional cost to my PC of refusing her have some weight compared to the costs and risks of doing what she asks, in a mechanical sense.

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.

And that can work. It's a bit unsatisfying if I built my PC around social interaction; you don't tell the fighter that you're going to decide on what the player wants, what the PC can do vs. the skill of the NPC, and then set a DC based on that and tell the PC to roll Strength + Melee (or the game's equivalent thereof). You have a combat subsystem for playing that out.

A social subsystem for playing out my PC's social skills would be nice.

[Talakeal]

I would argue that the problem with that example is not the player loosing control, but the GM just taking it. With systems such as the proposed ones you have the player relinquishing control of the character somewhat (While still being the one who determines the CHARACTER, noone is saying the DM should tell you what to do). Not the same thing. And the dice taking my control away feels a lot different then the GM just deciding in a moment disadvantageous to me.



Two points from me, as I also heavily advocated for social systems:
1) If I like social interactions to be a focus of my gaming experience, I'd like them to be more than just a "yeah, roll that, at that difficulty I just calculated". First of all, I want at the very least some guidelines as GM for how to set the difficulty, and second, I want something more interesting then a single roll. Combat, when it is a focus of the system, will not boil down to a single roll. I want a similarly fleshed-out system to combat, to have the social "combat" be interesting mechanically.
(Minor note, this also fixes the "simply roll charisma for reward" issue, since you take out the "simply" and at the end had just as much effort as a similar combat might have.)
2) "The only time" is really, really stretching it. Sure, players doing it on each other is a grey area and should be discussed for group contract. It can work though. Also, the NPCs using social skills on a player is EXACTLY what I WANT the system to be able to do. Otherwise I as GM have no ability to undermine in rules and stats, which is ultimately the way to define the capabilities of a TRPG character, that a given character is charismatic, charming and very, very good at convincing people. Outside of being convincing myself, which does get around the problem a bit, but not really, and which I do tend to be (IRL at least...), sure, but that only creates the problem of... when am I TOO convincing? Sure I can dial it down, but to the exact level I want it to be at? And what about a GM with medium to low social skills? Should those people just not be allowed to play convincing NPCs? Or to GM at all?
The player who just wants to roll without describing? Is an issue of group contract. I wouldn't allow it anywhere near my groups, I require at least a rough outline of what the PCs do with what intention, but some people might be fine this way. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?



Sounds reasonable, to be honest. Question is though: Does this then not also go for emotions and personality-driven action? And if the system has no way of simulating a personality... how exactly does the system simulate it? Does its best, sure, but without such rules you are adamantly against, there is no way for the system to do it other then resorting to "what an average person would do". And, since we pointed out, people are different... this is bound to run into problems.
I mean, it doesn't. At least not with most people. So appearantly there is some way to, at least for such rough outlines, for other people to understand your character enough to imagine somewhat accurately what that character did "offscreen". If that is possible, however, why would it be impossible to put it into words?

Take for example a situation with the player (deliberately, no worries) relinquishes control to me as GM in my Dark Eye game. He took the "sleepwanderer" flaw, which means every so often, his character will wander off in the night. And for every single time, I describe to the rest of the party that he is missing, and then the situations he got himself into. I go by what I got during game (and from character sheet, there are "personality flaws"/vices in the system you get buildpoints for). So far I have not had a single complaint And this is not the only example of such things I have encountered over the years.

When I say "system" I was referring to the autopilot in the analogy. In the game its not the rules, but the collective imaginations of everyone at the table.

Yeah, clearly something like the sleepwalker flaw would be an obvious exception.

Partially because I like mechanics to apply equally to NPCs and PCs, such that there's no "magical PC rule" which changes just because the character in question is (not) controlled by the GM.

In essence, I do want these rules to affect PCs. Not specifically for PvP, but so that the same rules I use to get NPC Guardsman to pal around with me while my buddy sneaks past his now-abandoned post are the rules that NPC Guardsman's girlfriend could use to make me feel guilty for getting him in trouble and get my help to break him out of prison.

I mean, sure, the GM could just resort to his own social skills. "Dude, your PC is neutral with good tendencies, and NPC Guardsman was cool to you. Plus, his girlfriend's in tears, here. Is your PC really that heartless? Just ignore that there's no benefit to you unless NPC Guardsman is useful later on in the game." He's manipulating me, either by making me feel for an NPC, or by making me feel that my character should feel for him strongly enough to take risks that have little to no mechanical rewards.

I appreciate mechanics which actually tell me how effective NPC Guardsman's Girlfriend is at this persuasion. Which show me at least in moderate detail just how strongly my PC is affected by her pleas. That, also, make the emotional cost to my PC of refusing her have some weight compared to the costs and risks of doing what she asks, in a mechanical sense.

And that can work. It's a bit unsatisfying if I built my PC around social interaction; you don't tell the fighter that you're going to decide on what the player wants, what the PC can do vs. the skill of the NPC, and then set a DC based on that and tell the PC to roll Strength + Melee (or the game's equivalent thereof). You have a combat subsystem for playing that out.

A social subsystem for playing out my PC's social skills would be nice.

Are we on a different topic now? I were advocating for rewarding players for making mechanically suboptimal decisions for the sake of RP, but now we seem to be discussing the merits of social combat systems.

Let me counter your combat example with one of your own; what if the DM had the PCs randomly determine their actions in combat to make up for the fact that he just isnt any good at tactics but needs a way to simulate tactically competant opponents?

Honestly I have never felt the need to use social skills on the PCs, so this has never been an issue. Generally if I cant convince the PCs to do something I let it go, it has never been important enough to force the issue, and the boogey-man of the railroading DM is always lurking in players minds as is.

I dont generally use seperate rules for PCs and NPCs, the rolls are useful for determining how persuasive the character is and the controlling player should act accordingly. If I use a social skill on a player I let them now this, but I dont dictate their actions. Likewise the players dont get to mind control NPCs because of a good roll. If its an NPC I dont have a lot of work put into, like a random mook or town guard, I generally just have them do whatever the players want, but if its an important NPC I am going to react to social rolls exactly as a PC would, doing my best to imagine how that particular character would respond to that particular argument given with that particular level of charisma. But the charismatic PC cant just solve the plot by going up to the bbeg who has spent his whole life preparing the scheme and saying "Bro, would you mind, like, not destroying the world?"

Also, if you do implement social combat rules, expect players to treat most every interaction as a combat encounter. They will start considering every NPC to be actively hostile and do their best to kill them befor they have a chance to open their mouths, or at the very least escalate every argument into a fight to the death.

[Segev]

Are we on a different topic now? I were advocating for rewarding players for making mechanically suboptimal decisions for the sake of RP, but now we seem to be discussing the merits of social combat systems.

It's a drift, I admit. But it's the same thing, really: what is the point of a social encounter but to change how involved characters value something?

When the PC is the target, isn't the social encounter trying to convince the PC to do something other than his default "what is most mechanically optimal?" (Okay, that may not be the default, but unless we're back to "the DM has to be at least as persuasive as his NPCs," it amounts to the same thing: the social interaction shifts the character's value judgment of various options. With mechanics behind it, it changes the balance of incentives to the player.)

Let me counter your combat example with one of your own; what if the DM had the PCs randomly determine their actions in combat to make up for the fact that he just isnt any good at tactics but needs a way to simulate tactically competant opponents?

I don't see the parallel. Simulating "superior tactics" would be better done with mechanics allowing a "tactician" to whip out reserves at key moments, or to grant a "+2 tactical bonus" to attacks for his troops or something.

Forcing PCs to determine their actions randomly doesn't form any sort of analogy to anything I've discussed, so far as I can tell, so I don't really know how to respond to this.

Honestly I have never felt the need to use social skills on the PCs, so this has never been an issue. Generally if I cant convince the PCs to do something I let it go, it has never been important enough to force the issue, and the boogey-man of the railroading DM is always lurking in players minds as is.

You've probably never run a social-heavy game, then. Certainly not of a sort I'm familiar with.

I dont generally use seperate rules for PCs and NPCs, the rolls are useful for determining how persuasive the character is and the controlling player should act accordingly.

Not useful enough. It boils down to a player having to somehow separate his own desired PC reaction from the PC's own desires, and setting a DC accordingly. And weighing that against the social pressure from the DM and other players, whether to "be a good RPer" or "not to screw over the party" or what-have-you. Because "She rolled a 30 on her Persuasion roll" is pretty good, but the player really might not like what she's asking his character to do. But it's a high roll, so is he a bad RPer for going with what he wants?

The goal of mechanics such as I propose is to make the weight of the decisions have mechanical oomph either way. If he refuses to give in, he's being no more a "metagaming optimizer" than if he does give in, because the mechanical costs were there that made "holding out" actually cost something more than the player saying, "he feels really bad about it, but after agonizing over it he says 'no.'" It's easy to say "he pushes through the pain" when there's nothing the guy saying he does so has to do or endure other than SAYING it. Especially when the guy making the choice WOULD have to put up with the problems caused by taking the other option.

With this, the cost in morale points would be measured by just how persuasive the NPC was, and the PC can resist and pay the cost or cooperate and keep them (or reap some extra); it no longer makes the investment in a character's social capabilities entirely meaningless.

I mean, imagine if a PC could just say, "Nah, that's a really impressive attack, but my character dodges," for no cost other than enduring being jeered for his no-selling. Would make the investment in the combat stats of that other character kind of pointless, wouldn't it?

If I use a social skill on a player I let them now this, but I dont dictate their actions. Likewise the players dont get to mind control NPCs because of a good roll. If its an NPC I dont have a lot of work put into, like a random mook or town guard, I generally just have them do whatever the players want, but if its an important NPC I am going to react to social rolls exactly as a PC would, doing my best to imagine how that particular character would respond to that particular argument given with that particular level of charisma. But the charismatic PC cant just solve the plot by going up to the bbeg who has spent his whole life preparing the scheme and saying "Bro, would you mind, like, not destroying the world?"

And this translates to no social mechanics at all. It's really a question at your table of how well the players can manipulate each other (counting the GM as a player, here). "You SHOULD be persuaded by Sir Pantsenpuper, because he is just so charismatic!"

Also, if you do implement social combat rules, expect players to treat most every interaction as a combat encounter. They will start considering every NPC to be actively hostile and do their best to kill them befor they have a chance to open their mouths, or at the very least escalate every argument into a fight to the death.

I have noticed that's more of a problem when the "social combat" ends with mind control. One way to avoid it, though, would also be to not have morale point COSTS, but only give social mechanics the ability to offer morale point awards. This has its own problems, but you can hardly expect players to view all socialites as hostile beings to be destroyed if the only cost for refusing them is being where they were without the social action at all.

You could also make sure to make it clear that there are consequences for having a reputation of murdering anybody who opens their mouth to speak to you.

Spoiler: Another example from Exalted 2E of the kind of problem I see

Show

The Fair Folk have a reputation for ravenous, soul-devouring monsters. While some Fae will shepherd a herd of mortals like livestock, others raid and rampage wildly, leaving soul-eaten zombies littering villages in their wake.

The mechanical representation of their need to feed is that their mana reserves are actively drained by Creation just by existing. But they also have a vanishingly tiny mana pool. Feeding on a mortal even moderately lightly will fill most Fair Folk's reserves entirely. Even the grandest nobles don't need to devour more than half of a mortal's stats that represent their soul.

But the fluff says it just feels so GOOD to do that Raksha will feed and feed and devour mortals whole in rapid succession, far faster than they could possibly drain their reserves and squandering tons of potential food.

The fluff is nice and all. "It's so wasteful; they're REALLY monstrous!" But...it meant that the raksha were just plain stupid. Not only were they burning food away rapidly, but they draw attention from powerful Exalted who might take exception to their feeding habits.

Playing a Raksha "to type" is not just wasteful, it's punitively stupid.

Now, errata gave their various feeding abilities new stuff you could do with the excess. If your mote pool is already full, you can start pumping up your stats in various ways with excess soul-stuff. This makes devouring multiple mortals in quick succession actually rather...tempting. And gives more credence to the "well-fed powerful fair folk monster" that ravages the countryside. Since the stat-pumping is temporary, they have to KEEP feeding at the engorged levels to maintain them.

This is why you want to design mechanics so that the "urges" supposedly felt by a character are mechanically impactful to the PLAYER and what the PLAYER experiences through gameplay.

[Hawkstar]

I prefer to let the player decide whether their character should or not, would or would not --rather than any of the presented alternatives.

So, what you're saying here is that the entire problem that starts this discussion isn't a problem at all, because the "But that's what my character would do!" guy who takes actions that screws over the rest of the party's goals for personal entertainment/progress is totally fine with you.

[Talakeal]

I don't see the parallel. Simulating "superior tactics" would be better done with mechanics allowing a "tactician" to whip out reserves at key moments, or to grant a "+2 tactical bonus" to attacks for his troops or something.

In both situations you are taking control of the PCs away from the players to compensate for a perceived lack of skill on the part of the GM.

You've probably never run a social-heavy game, then. Certainly not of a sort I'm familiar with.

That depends on what you mean by social heavy games.

I have both run in and played plenty of sessions where we just sit around and talk in character, often never even breaking out the dice.

I have also run scenes of persuasion, negation, debate, seduction, or deception which had plenty of dice rolls. However, when it is two players competing it is normally used to convince an NPC third party rather than directly on one another.

Typically groups I am in have a rule against PVP, so no one tries to directly use skills on other PCs regardless of whether they are social or physical. We also don't generally have players stealing from one another or otherwise attacking resources, although I will admit I have been in more than a few groups (mostly when I was younger) where people would bully, rob, or otherwise indirectly attack my PC who would then respond physically and only then would the DM intervene. Of course, I think this is more because DM doesn't pick up on the subtler stuff and only realizes PvP is occurring when it is blatant and in his face.

I will say that when it comes to social situations the PCs are usually proactive; they are the one's trying to persuade an NPC to do something. AFAIK I have never had a situation where an NPC was trying to convince a PC to do something that was against their nature or didn't have worthwhile compensation.

With this, the cost in morale points would be measured by just how persuasive the NPC was, and the PC can resist and pay the cost or cooperate and keep them (or reap some extra); it no longer makes the investment in a character's social capabilities entirely meaningless.

Again, it really sounds like you are asking to bully the other players here. NPCs can be persuaded to do things just fine with basic diplomacy rules (as long as you aren't being ridiculous and asking people to give up on their life's work or become your slave for no reason), so how is investing in social capabilities meaningless?

Or are you strictly talking about NPCs? Because actually measuring an NPC's investment in abilities is a level of razor's edge balancing that I have never gotten to. Could you give me an example of this, I am having trouble picturing a situation where it would actually come up.

And this translates to no social mechanics at all. It's really a question at your table of how well the players can manipulate each other (counting the GM as a player, here). "You SHOULD be persuaded by Sir Pantsenpuper, because he is just so charismatic!"

It is a mechanic for setting the scene, not for resolving the conflict. Of course, neither is morale bonuses / penalties. The only way to make a hard social resolution mechanic is with something akin to the 3.X "Diplomacy is mind control!" which just pisses everyone off.

And again, if it is something straightforward like "bluff the guard into letting me past" or "talk the bar wench into coming to bed with me" you really can just resolve it with a simple mechanical die roll. I would say that trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be with a whole social combat situation is just getting in the way of resolution in these cases.

Spoiler: Another example from Exalted 2E of the kind of problem I see

Show

The Fair Folk have a reputation for ravenous, soul-devouring monsters. While some Fae will shepherd a herd of mortals like livestock, others raid and rampage wildly, leaving soul-eaten zombies littering villages in their wake.

The mechanical representation of their need to feed is that their mana reserves are actively drained by Creation just by existing. But they also have a vanishingly tiny mana pool. Feeding on a mortal even moderately lightly will fill most Fair Folk's reserves entirely. Even the grandest nobles don't need to devour more than half of a mortal's stats that represent their soul.

But the fluff says it just feels so GOOD to do that Raksha will feed and feed and devour mortals whole in rapid succession, far faster than they could possibly drain their reserves and squandering tons of potential food.

The fluff is nice and all. "It's so wasteful; they're REALLY monstrous!" But...it meant that the raksha were just plain stupid. Not only were they burning food away rapidly, but they draw attention from powerful Exalted who might take exception to their feeding habits.

Playing a Raksha "to type" is not just wasteful, it's punitively stupid.

Now, errata gave their various feeding abilities new stuff you could do with the excess. If your mote pool is already full, you can start pumping up your stats in various ways with excess soul-stuff. This makes devouring multiple mortals in quick succession actually rather...tempting. And gives more credence to the "well-fed powerful fair folk monster" that ravages the countryside. Since the stat-pumping is temporary, they have to KEEP feeding at the engorged levels to maintain them.

This is why you want to design mechanics so that the "urges" supposedly felt by a character are mechanically impactful to the PLAYER and what the PLAYER experiences through gameplay.

Mechanical rewards for something like that are great; although if they go too far you might have the opposite problem, people might be afraid to play a restrained character because the advantages of overindulgence outweigh any potential consequences.

Honestly I have never really needed mechanics for this though. If I am playing a glutton I will overindulge, if I am playing an ascetic I will take only what I need to survive. Most characters fluctuate between the extremes based on their mood and the specific circumstances. But then again I am a superior gamer.

Seriously though, this really seems to be a solution in search of a problem, I really haven't experienced much need for it as either a player or a DM. Obviously you have had a lot of trouble with it over the years, but it just isn't something I have ever seen a need for.

[Segev]

I...am clearly failing to communicate what I am saying clearly, because what you're responding to isn't what I mean to get across, and I don't know how to make what I am trying to get across clearer. I am sorry. I might try again later, but for this evening, I think I need to give up, as I am out of ways of trying to say what I mean and what I mean is not being understood.

Sorry for my failure to communicate.

[Cluedrew]

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.

And I hope to one day find a system where there is no distinction between the two. That point may be unachievable but I think closer to that point is generally better. (Damaging the character doesn't count.) See below for why.

Again, it really sounds like you are asking to bully the other players here.

Anecdote; after a play-test of a system I am developing I was asked to add more social rules because of a scene that played out like this:

P1: "P2, I want you to do this."
P2: "My character doesn't want to do that."
P1: "... OK ... ummm..."

Since I was missing a resolution for that (social) situation they actually had trouble resolving the situation. Sure they could do it without rules, and they did, but it is a little bit jarring. Its a bit like this:

GM: "The thug knocks your knife out of your hands."
P3: "I punch him in the face."
GM: "... There are no rules for unarmed attacks."

Sure you could create a ruling for it, or even homebrew a system for it. But I have never known a system to be complemented for how often it forced you to homebrew fixes for it. The closest is some systems are complemented for making it easy, but that is not the same thing.

There is value in freeform role-play, completely unbounded by any rules except group dynamics, and my role-playing roots are deeply set in that soil. But role-playing games, of the table top and pen & paper variety, are about a different something different to me. It is a game and why should the game part stop when you get to the very core of the experience: role-playing your character?

[Talakeal]

I...am clearly failing to communicate what I am saying clearly, because what you're responding to isn't what I mean to get across, and I don't know how to make what I am trying to get across clearer. I am sorry. I might try again later, but for this evening, I think I need to give up, as I am out of ways of trying to say what I mean and what I mean is not being understood.

Sorry for my failure to communicate.

No problem, I have beèn there more than a few times myself.

And I am not saying you are wrong, just treading on dangerous ground.