What is your "Fight Me" thread?

[CharonsHelper]

The old group once had a bard PC who consciously had the motivation of living and retelling "the best stories" possible. So he deliberately did things he though were dramatic, made decisions that complicated things and "made them interesting", etc. By the end of the campaign all the other PCs (and a couple of players) wanted to kill that bard, and would have plead self-defense.

Yeah - that sounds kind of annoying.

I have a bard who adventures for glory as "The Greatest of All Pathfinders", but he's not an idiot.

He does things which he thinks will make him look good, but he won't make things more difficult for no reason. If the story needs to be a bit better, he'll just embellish things later.

[Tinkerer]

Yes I forgot to mention one of the key things that makes a good story is that you are still around to tell it. If you are talking about intentionally self sabotaging themselves for the sake of a good story well... that's not a good story. I wouldn't guess that player is an example of someone looking to tell a good story, I'd guess they were an ******* using that as an excuse to be disruptive.

This discussion did remind me of one hill I'd plant my flag on though.

Threads should stay on topic.

FIGHT ME!!!!

[ImNotTrevor]

Yes I forgot to mention one of the key things that makes a good story is that you are still around to tell it. If you are talking about intentionally self sabotaging themselves for the sake of a good story well... that's not a good story. I wouldn't guess that player is an example of someone looking to tell a good story, I'd guess they were an ******* using that as an excuse to be disruptive.

This discussion did remind me of one hill I'd plant my flag on though.

Threads should stay on topic.

FIGHT ME!!!!

Excuse you, it is vital to me that I know who would win in a fight between 20 duck-sized horses and 1 horse-sized duck.

LET THE DERAIL BEGIN!

[Quertus]

I don't care about the question of "what will make the best story?" It's entirely meaningless to why I game and what makes gaming interesting to me. It's never a question I'm going to ask when making a decision for my PC, or for an NPC when I'm the GM.

Here's the thing... as a player, I don't care about "The Story". At all. A story will emerge, or it won't, and if a good one emerges, cool... but "The Story" is never my concern and never enters into my decision making.

I'll plant a flag very close to yours on this one.

Difference between a PC and a Player.

The PC (As in, the character in the story) probably doesn't care about what makes a better story. They have their own goals, personality, values, hang-ups, and methods.

The PLAYER (The person controlling the character) DOES care about what makes a better story. .

Um, actually, no, I really don't.

Now, after the fact, what stories I can tell about it is cool, but that still doesn't excuse Marty's behavior in making the SUE Files, let alone make him a model GM for how awesome a story the SUE Files are, for example.

Excuse you, it is vital to me that I know who would win in a fight between 20 duck-sized horses and 1 horse-sized duck.

LET THE DERAIL BEGIN!

20 duck-sized horses. My minecraft character would have killed and eaten the horse sized duck.

[BRC]

Um, actually, no, I really don't.

Some players don't, and that's fine. Most of the players I've played with enjoy it when the campaign produces a good story, and make some choices to that end. Some players have very different ideas about what defines a "Good Story".

And I guess it's certainly possible that I've played with people who honestly don't care at all, and just want to roll dice and/or explore a role. But, it's never really come up that they're opposed to a game telling a good story, or the GM/other players trying to make that happen.

Now, after the fact, what stories I can tell about it is cool, but that still doesn't excuse Marty's behavior in making the SUE Files, let alone make him a model GM for how awesome a story the SUE Files are, for example.

How are the SUE files at all relevant here? Because the GM was trying to tell a good story? Because people enjoyed reading about the train-wreck afterwards?

Okay, let me break things down. A story must be judged by, and tailored to, the medium it is experienced through. Watching a film, and reading the script of a film, are very different experiences, even if they both communicate the same Story. A Film needs good Visuals, while a Book could consist entirely of people sitting around in identical beige cubicles talking to one another.

A good RPG story is different from a good Novel story. A key part of how an RPG story exists is that it's crafted by the players at the table and the whims of the dice.

A Good RPG story is not always one that sounds good on the retelling. It's not always a story that looks good written out on paper.

Let me tell you a great RPG story.

Spoiler

Show

This was from our Rise of Tiamat 5e campaign.

My character was a pirate whose ship had been destroyed by a Blue dragon, one working for the Cult of Tiamat. I washed ashore on what was left of the mast, clutching a Rapier that had belonged to my best friend. During the first session, we're discussing how magic items in 5e are supposed to be special. How the 3.5 "Magic Item Mart" is gone, how each item is supposed to have a story behind it.
"So" I said. "If I kill the dragon that destroyed my ship with this sword, would that count for making it a Magic Item?"

"Yeah, sure" my GM says.

Cut to 12 levels, and over a year later. We're fighting the Blue Dragon that destroyed my ship. The party buffs me up with Flight and Invisibility, and I close in. Closing to Melee, I cling to the Dragon and spend every resource I have, stabbing the dragon over and over again with the perfectly mundane rapier I started the campaign with. After a round or two of this (we'd already peppered it at range for a few rounds) the Dragon falls as I stab it through the eye. It crashes to the ground, knocking me out. Once my Party picks me back up again, my nonmagical, PHB-standard Rapier is now Closure, an indestructible Dragonslaying Sword.

So, here's the thing. Seeing it written out like that, it's a pretty lame Story. "Dude carries a sword for a while, kills the dragon who sank his ship, and then the sword is Magic".

But, in that moment, it felt like one of the greatest things I'd ever done in a game. Using that sword for a year real-time, remembering that conversation in the first session. Trading quips with the Dragon in the final moment. Getting a crit in the final rounds. Hearing the other players (Whose characters were NOT clinging to the dragon, and so were too far away to contribute at this point) cheering me on. The knowledge that, not only had this thing happened, but that I had planted the seeds of this moment back when I picked a Blue Dragon to be the one that destroyed my ship? That I had made it possible by closing to melee, allowing me to get the final blow with THAT sword rather than peppering from a range with my longbow (Or using a different, Magic rapier I had since picked up). All that was part of the experience that made that moment great.

It wouldn't have been the same had I gotten my revenge a month into the campaign. It wouldn't have worked had my victory been assured. It wouldn't have worked had I been able to pick up a Dragonslayer Rapier by throwing 8000 GP at a magic item store. It wouldn't have worked nearly as well had it not just been me and the dragon, dueling in the desert sky during those final moments.

And that story could easily have never happened at all. The GM could have decided that it was a different Blue Dragon that destroyed my ship. I could have never seen that particular dragon again, never gotten my Revenge. Nothing in the setting or campaign book would indicate that the blue dragon that destroyed this random pirate ship I made up would be the same one to attack the party in the desert. It wouldn't have happened had I decided to hang back and pepper the dragon with my Longbow. It wouldn't have happened if, instead of casting fly on Me, the spellcasters cast it on the Barbarian, whose magic Greatsword hit harder in melee than I did anyway, and who dealt less damage at range than my Dex based fighter.


So, when people say things like "Telling a good story should never factor into somebody's decisions". What I hear is "You should never have seen that Dragon again". Campaigns should consist solely of cause-and-effect relations and statistically probable outcomes, without so much as a finger on the scale to send things down the path that lets people have a good time.


Stuff like Heavy Railroading, Flagrant disregard for the established rules of the game and setting, 10-minute NPC Monologues, Characters throwing aside their pre-established personalities, Deus-Ex-Machina solutions, NPC's taking precedence over PCs, ect, all hurt the story being told. Even if they produce a sequence of events that would be more fun to read about on paper, they hurt the experience of those sitting around the table, and therefore are not justified by "Telling a Good Story".

[Cluedrew]

I think that is one of the best defences for "for the story" I have seen. When I say that an game should be a good story, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that is one of the best defences for "for the story" I have seen. When I say that an game should be a good story, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.

I agree. That's basically what I mean when I talk about "telling a story" in RPGs.

And isn't the main point to have fun? I mean the people at the table. for me, fun trumps all. It's something that Is different from table (and session!) to table. No system works perfectly, and the adjustments need continual maintenance as the situations and people change. Let's not forget that in our theorizing.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think that is one of the best defences for "for the story" I have seen. When I say that an game should be a good story, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.

When I hear "for the story", this is what comes to mind. Or this. Or this.

E: What comes to mind is decisions made at the expense of character coherence, at the expense of setting continuity.

[kyoryu]

Well, there's three different types of "story" that are generally used:

1) Cool stories that we tell after the fact. The story posted above fits that description.

2) Emergent story as a bunch of stuff that we're doing, where the game is actively about trying to resolve these conflicts.

3) The pre-planned story that the GM has in mind.

Like many things, when people talk about "story" they differ on the meaning, and conversation becomes impossible.

The first type of story is possible in even the most exploration-minded game. The second is a slightly different style of game, and fans of both of those will generally rail against the third.

[Vitruviansquid]

Okay, let me break things down. A story must be judged by, and tailored to, the medium it is experienced through. Watching a film, and reading the script of a film, are very different experiences, even if they both communicate the same Story. A Film needs good Visuals, while a Book could consist entirely of people sitting around in identical beige cubicles talking to one another.

A good RPG story is different from a good Novel story. A key part of how an RPG story exists is that it's crafted by the players at the table and the whims of the dice.

A Good RPG story is not always one that sounds good on the retelling. It's not always a story that looks good written out on paper.

This is why I can't stand it when people want to cite stories from other media to justify messing with or not messing with mechanics in an RPG.

Stuff like "fightery types shouldn't be able to do X because Aragorn and Gimli doesn't do X."

Or the even less honest

"Aragorn and Gimli don't do X and they still contribute in a party that includes Gandalf, so D&D fighters shouldn't need to do X in order to contribute when there's a wizard in the party."

[BRC]

When I hear "for the story", this is what comes to mind. Or this. Or this.

E: What comes to mind is decisions made at the expense of character coherence, at the expense of setting continuity.

Then say that.
Say "I dont like it when people sacrifice character coherence and setting continuity in the name of telling a better story". Your problem in that case isnt that its a priority, it's the cost being paid.

Don't say " Telling a good story should never factor into decisions". Don't act like crafting a good story is an unworthy goal, simply because you object to the lengths some people go for it.

[ImNotTrevor]

Then say that.
Say "I dont like it when people sacrifice character coherence and setting continuity in the name of telling a better story". Your problem in that case isnt that its a priority, it's the cost being paid.

Don't say " Telling a good story should never factor into decisions". Don't act like crafting a good story is an unworthy goal, simply because you object to the lengths some people go for it.

I'm gonna leave this here for you, a token of my opinion of this post:

Spoiler

Show

Stating opinions as facts is annoying, as is being elitist about your position and implying through word choice that those who disagree are lesser for it. It's... very irritating. Doubly so when it is made YOUR job to tease out the meaning from their words, not theirs to clarify.

[Max_Killjoy]

Then say that.

Say "I dont like it when people sacrifice character coherence and setting continuity in the name of telling a better story". Your problem in that case isnt that its a priority, it's the cost being paid.

Don't say "Telling a good story should never factor into decisions". Don't act like crafting a good story is an unworthy goal, simply because you object to the lengths some people go for it.

I thought I did...

Spoiler

Show

Another hill I'll plant my banner on like Jet Li at the end of The One...

Character-driven decisions are not exclusively part "story-focus" games/gaming.

I keep seeing posts claiming or implying that making decisions as the character would make them is inherently and exclusively a "story" or "narrative" element.

It's not.

It's entirely tangential.

Here's the thing... as a player, I don't care about "The Story". At all. A story will emerge, or it won't, and if a good one emerges, cool... but "The Story" is never my concern and never enters into my decision making. My character doesn't care about or even know about "The Story". They have no notion of entertaining some audience somewhere.

As the GM, I have to have some notion of story, but if I'm doing my job then it's just a piece of the informative puzzle, and not anything major.

Good stories might emerge from characters staying true, consistent (as consistent as people are), coherent, etc. Good stories might emerge from adherence to a sort of in-setting cause-and-effect.

But as soon as decisions start to be made for the sake of "The Story", then we have narrative causality (the idea that things happen because "The Story" needs them to).

The old group once had a bard PC who consciously had the motivation of living and retelling "the best stories" possible. So he deliberately did things he though were dramatic, made decisions that complicated things and "made them interesting", etc. By the end of the campaign all the other PCs (and a couple of players) wanted to kill that bard, and would have plead self-defense.

It's fine if a particular character has that sort of motivation ("it will make a good story"), but that's not the same as wanting adventure, or fighting boredom, and it's not going to be a common motivation.

When I hear "for the story", this is what comes to mind. Or this. Or this.

E: What comes to mind is decisions made at the expense of character coherence, at the expense of setting continuity.

I started out arguing against the assertion I keep seeing made that character-driven decisions, and character coherence and setting continuity, are somehow the exclusive province of "story-focus" decisions, and that if you don't care about story, you can't care about those things -- what appears to be another long standing us-vs-them false dichotomy of gaming, "story-focus" vs "game-focus" with any other position excluded out of the middle.

It's almost insulting in how it just dismisses anyone who isn't a "story-focus" gamer as just "another of those uncouth roll-players".

It should be clear by now that character and setting and atmosphere and system/setting synchronicity all matter to me a great deal, maybe even too much sometimes. But I don't need to set out to craft a story to care about those things. I'll lose myself in a world and the characters as a player, I'll dig my teeth into a mystery or a hunt or a problem, you never have to worry about whether I'll find SOME way to engage with the situation and the NPCs and the world around my character... just don't ever expect me to care about The Drama, or The Narrative, or Exploring The Theme, or Archetypes/Roles, or maintaining tropes, or any of it, and don't throw mechanics at me that try to make me care or operate under narrative convention. I'm sure all that stuff is great for other players, but it's pretty much "screech to a halt" / "what the heck?" territory for me.

If it gives any insight, one of my favorite movie scenes of all time is in Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the swordsman confronts Indy with a dramatic flourish of his blade, setting up a moment of tension and drama... and then Indy shoots him and walks away. My PC is not here to entertain, my PC is here to get the damn job done.

The excluded middle might not seem like a big deal... until you, and everything you actually like about RPGs, are part of it. And that's why this is my damn hill, and why I'm standing here with flag unfurled.

[Vitruviansquid]

It's weird that everything people say seems to be different from what Max Killjoy says they say.

You're going on about people eliminating the middle position, when it seems to me like the underlined part *is* the middle position.

Then say that.
Say "I dont like it when people sacrifice character coherence and setting continuity in the name of telling a better story". Your problem in that case isnt that its a priority, it's the cost being paid.

Don't say " Telling a good story should never factor into decisions". Don't act like crafting a good story is an unworthy goal, simply because you object to the lengths some people go for it.

It actually seems like you're the one making these extreme statements on behalf of the other side the whole time

It's almost insulting in how it just dismisses anyone who isn't a "story-focus" gamer as just "another of those uncouth roll-players".

because BRC definitely wrote the underlined here:

Stuff like Heavy Railroading, Flagrant disregard for the established rules of the game and setting, 10-minute NPC Monologues, Characters throwing aside their pre-established personalities, Deus-Ex-Machina solutions, NPC's taking precedence over PCs, ect, all hurt the story being told. Even if they produce a sequence of events that would be more fun to read about on paper, they hurt the experience of those sitting around the table, and therefore are not justified by "Telling a Good Story".

that seems to be an indictment of narrative causality, which you keep railing against.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's weird that everything people say seems to be different from what Max Killjoy says they say.

You're going on about people eliminating the middle position, when it seems to me like the underlined part *is* the middle position.



It actually seems like you're the one making these extreme statements on behalf of the other side the whole time



because BRC definitely wrote the underlined here:



that seems to be an indictment of narrative causality, which you keep railing against.

I also didn't say that BRC said what you seem to be saying I said BRC said... BRC isn't the one who said the things I was planting my flag in opposition to -- again, go back to the first post reposted in the spoilered quotes above. BRC's first comment on the matter comes after when that was originally posted.


If you want to see the sort of thing I'm planting my flag against, start here and keep reading. It's not long until the reasons a couple of us give for why we don't find story-focused games as enjoyable are dismissed as invalid, and we're that we'd love them if we just had a better understanding of them, and that character-driven decisions are by default also story-driven decisions.


E: my stance is against the claim that character-driven decisions belong to story-focused gaming, and more broadly against the ongoing "you're with us or against us" attitude, and attempts to redefine the terms and change the borderlines, by some on both sides of a longstanding feud between "game-focus" and "story-focus".

[GungHo]

So, "Tolkien didn't have the Eagles fly them, and never got around to explaining why" is not comparable to "A PC shouldn't use the Eagles, because it would make a bad story".

It would also have been a bad story had the Fellowship intentionally refused the Eagle's Aid.

Peter Jackson missed an opportunity to show Mordor's extensive anti-aircraft batteries.

[goto124]

So, here's the thing. Seeing it written out like that, it's a pretty lame Story. "Dude carries a sword for a while, kills the dragon who sank his ship, and then the sword is Magic".

I'm someone who's trying to get back into RP, so do bear with my questions.

My fear is that, if I was in a similar situation, I failed to kill the dragon with the rapier, and allowed the dragon to (say) cause a TPK or some other condition of failure, I would be forever remembered by others as That Guy who refused to go all out during a battle with a dangerous dragon, and instead decided to make silly choices based on fluff. I picked an inferior weapon. I forced the casters to waste their precious spell slots instead of buffing someone who needed it more and would have made better use of it.

How can I face my teammates ever again?

[CharonsHelper]

I'm someone who's trying to get back into RP, so do bear with my questions.

My fear is that, if I was in a similar situation, I failed to kill the dragon with the rapier, and allowed the dragon to (say) cause a TPK or some other condition of failure, I would be forever remembered by others as That Guy who refused to go all out during a battle with a dangerous dragon, and instead decided to make silly choices based on fluff. I picked an inferior weapon. I forced the casters to waste their precious spell slots instead of buffing someone who needed it more and would have made better use of it.

How can I face my teammates ever again?

I'll +1 this.

It wouldn't have worked had I been able to pick up a Dragonslayer Rapier by throwing 8000 GP at a magic item store.

What if you could have gotten your best friend's rapier enchanted? You would be taking what was left of your friend and having it help you gain revenge against the dragon when you eventually found it. Sounds better to me than having your friend's legacy make you less likely to be able to gain your revenge.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm someone who's trying to get back into RP, so do bear with my questions.

My fear is that, if I was in a similar situation, I failed to kill the dragon with the rapier, and allowed the dragon to (say) cause a TPK or some other condition of failure, I would be forever remembered by others as That Guy who refused to go all out during a battle with a dangerous dragon, and instead decided to make silly choices based on fluff. I picked an inferior weapon. I forced the casters to waste their precious spell slots instead of buffing someone who needed it more and would have made better use of it.

How can I face my teammates ever again?

I'll +1 this.

It wouldn't have worked had I been able to pick up a Dragonslayer Rapier by throwing 8000 GP at a magic item store.

What if you could have gotten your best friend's rapier enchanted? You would be taking what was left of your friend and having it help you gain revenge against the dragon when you eventually found it. Sounds better to me than having your friend's legacy make you less likely to be able to gain your revenge.

I think this is one of those cases where you can actually do both -- as CharonsHelper notes.

It's completely understandable that a person, and thus a character, would want that sort of symbolic element to their revenge... and would want to make sure the dragon realized why you wanted to kill it specifically and with that sword specifically. Would giving the sword that extra edge against dragons have somehow lessened the symbolism or cheapened the revenge?

It certainly would make it less likely that your new friends would pay for a failed attempt to get revenge for the character's old friend.

[BRC]

I'm someone who's trying to get back into RP, so do bear with my questions.

My fear is that, if I was in a similar situation, I failed to kill the dragon with the rapier, and allowed the dragon to (say) cause a TPK or some other condition of failure, I would be forever remembered by others as That Guy who refused to go all out during a battle with a dangerous dragon, and instead decided to make silly choices based on fluff. I picked an inferior weapon. I forced the casters to waste their precious spell slots instead of buffing someone who needed it more and would have made better use of it.

How can I face my teammates ever again?

With Style. How Else.
But Seriously, the key is to Read your group. In my case, the other players knew exactly what I was going to try to do and fully supported me. Had I failed miserably it would have sucked, but they would have dealt with it. We collectively knew that delivering the killing blow with that sword would give the party a powerful magic item, so it was a risk/reward calculation. This wasn't just my triumph, it was the group's triumph, since everybody bought into it.

And getting that buy-in was part of this being a great RPG story. Everybody at the table got swept up in it, even though it was my character's personal quest. My going after the dragon was a decision made collectively, so had it gone badly there would have been sadness, but not much resentment.

If you're going to do something like this, make sure the group is okay with the risk (This could go very wrong) vs Reward (This will give us a powerful magic item/be an awesome story/makes a lot of sense for my character). Don't make that gamble on behalf of the group.

I can't say if gamers like Max and Querty would have agreed, but in most groups "Go ahead, this will be awesome" goes a long way. We're all here to have fun after all.

What if you could have gotten your best friend's rapier enchanted? You would be taking what was left of your friend and having it help you gain revenge against the dragon when you eventually found it. Sounds better to me than having your friend's legacy make you less likely to be able to gain your revenge.

I mean sure, the story would have WORKED, but it wouldn't have been as cool. But it was less about the sword being Mundane, and more about the fact that the resulting item (A Dragonslaying Rapier) wasn't something we could have bought.

Part of the context that made the story so great was that this magic item wasn't something that would have been otherwise available, had we not forged it from blood and sweat and vengeance. Part of what made the story great was for the rest of the campaign, every time I used that sword (And It was very useful) I remembered what we had gone through to get it. It made the sword, and the whole story, that much more special.

Had we undergone some quest to enchant the sword beforehand, that would have worked as well. Had I paid for a mere Magic sword, but gotten some Unique Item when I slew that dragon, that would have worked.

But, if killing the dragon with this exact sword had the exact same effect as just saving my 8000 GP and a trip to ye olde Magic Walmart, then it's not the same.

[kyoryu]

I'm someone who's trying to get back into RP, so do bear with my questions.

My fear is that, if I was in a similar situation, I failed to kill the dragon with the rapier, and allowed the dragon to (say) cause a TPK or some other condition of failure, I would be forever remembered by others as That Guy who refused to go all out during a battle with a dangerous dragon, and instead decided to make silly choices based on fluff. I picked an inferior weapon. I forced the casters to waste their precious spell slots instead of buffing someone who needed it more and would have made better use of it.

How can I face my teammates ever again?

This is one of the reasons I like games that have a certain amount of meta-currency to them, as you can kind of get these moments rather than having to hope that the dice favor you exactly. (Of course, if the system did it right, you've had a rough go of it before then to bank enough to guarantee it....).

(I also get the counter-arguments - you don't get as many of the cool 1 in a 1,000 crits and the like. I get that. I'm just pointing out the positive in this case.)

[Max_Killjoy]

With Style. How Else.
But Seriously, the key is to Read your group. In my case, the other players knew exactly what I was going to try to do and fully supported me. Had I failed miserably it would have sucked, but they would have dealt with it. We collectively knew that delivering the killing blow with that sword would give the party a powerful magic item, so it was a risk/reward calculation. This wasn't just my triumph, it was the group's triumph, since everybody bought into it.

And getting that buy-in was part of this being a great RPG story. Everybody at the table got swept up in it, even though it was my character's personal quest. My going after the dragon was a decision made collectively, so had it gone badly there would have been sadness, but not much resentment.

If you're going to do something like this, make sure the group is okay with the risk (This could go very wrong) vs Reward (This will give us a powerful magic item/be an awesome story/makes a lot of sense for my character). Don't make that gamble on behalf of the group.

I can't say if gamers like Max and Querty would have agreed, but in most groups "Go ahead, this will be awesome" goes a long way. We're all here to have fun after all.

I'm not going to say you did anything wrong, because your fellow players were totally on board with it, added risks and all. It made the game more fun for that particular group of players, not less fun. Which as you say, is kinda the point.

One thing I'm curious about... did this agreement take place just at the player level, or at the character level as well? That is, were there players who were fine with it or embraced it, while their PCs were either ignorant of or opposed to the whole thing?



In general, I think there's a set of actions/thoughts/etc that a particular character would do, and a set of things that don't ruin the fun for other players, and as long as you're in the space where those sets overlap, you're on good ground. If you want to add "a set of things that make a better story more likely to have emerged through play" to that and find where all three sets overlap, then -- while it's not my cuppa -- I'm not going to call it badwrongfun.


E: the game I'm going to gracefully (I hope) decline to take part in is one where the story is set in advance -- either via GM railroading or some sort of narrative mechanic that puts the players into a pre-scene directorial stance or something -- or where the players are given direct mechanical access to the levers and knobs of the world that has nothing to do with their PCs' abilities and actions from within the world.

This is one of the reasons I like games that have a certain amount of meta-currency to them, as you can kind of get these moments rather than having to hope that the dice favor you exactly. (Of course, if the system did it right, you've had a rough go of it before then to bank enough to guarantee it....).

I'm not dead-set against all meta-currency.

1) It can represent something about the character, such as extraordinary will and determination, the way certain events can bring out the seemingly impossible in people, that they're willing to die to protect someone else, etc.
2) Sometimes failure is just plain bad for the game from multiple perspectives, and mechanisms that can help mitigate things to keep the game above the total failure threshold have merit.

[BRC]

I'm not going to say you did anything wrong, because your fellow players were totally on board with it, added risks and all. It made the game more fun for that particular group of players, not less fun. Which as you say, is kinda the point.

One thing I'm curious about... did this agreement take place just at the player level, or at the character level as well? That is, were there players who were fine with it or embraced it, while their PCs were either ignorant of or opposed to the whole thing?



In general, I think there's a set of actions/thoughts/etc that a particular character would do, and a set of things that don't ruin the fun for other players, and as long as you're in the space where those sets overlap, you're on good ground. If you want to add "a set of things that make a better story more likely to have emerged through play" to that and find where all three sets overlap, then -- while it's not my cuppa -- I'm not going to call it badwrongfun.


E: the game I'm going to gracefully (I hope) decline to take part in is one where the story is set in advance -- either via GM railroading or some sort of narrative mechanic that puts the players into a pre-scene directorial stance or something -- or where the players are given direct mechanical access to the levers and knobs of the world that has nothing to do with their PCs' abilities and actions from within the world.

The Characters didn't know about the whole Magic Item angle, but they knew that killing this Dragon, ideally with this Sword, was very important to my character.
In the party, both my Swashbuckler, and the party Bard were both (in-Character) the type who WOULD get invested in the idea of slaying the Dragon With My Friend's Sword. As far as I'm aware, none of the other party members would have had strong in-character objections. We were all adventuring friends who had faced thick and thin together, and none of them had "Insists on the Optimal Strategy" as a strong character trait. Even if they were not particularly invested in the poetic nature of my Swashbuckler's revenge, they could respect that it was important to Him.

And, if they had Objections, as I see it, the math would have been:
"I think it would be a good story(+), but my character would object, and so having them support it would make them be acting out of character (-)".
Because, at least how I'm defining it, characters acting in-character is part of what makes a story good.


I'd say that while you CAN care deeply about staying in-character for reasons that have nothing to do with producing good stories, you can't really care about producing good stories without valuing keeping your decisions in-character.

That said, I'm going to argue that building a character whose personality is counter to telling good stories could be seen as a pretty selfish move (Not accusing anybody of doing so. But it is a possibility if you have the stance of "I don't care about Stories, just staying in-character"). If your fellow party members want to chase their goals, but you've built a hyper-rational logic machine who doesn't sympathize with his team's personal agendas, and refuses to support anything but straightforward, hyper-rational approaches to any problem (no, I refuse to go find the warlock that killed your family. There's a better risk/reward return for guarding caravans), then while you may be staying in-character, you're kind of stamping on other people's fun.

I'm not dead-set against all meta-currency.

1) It can represent something about the character, such as extraordinary will and determination, the way certain events can bring out the seemingly impossible in people, that they're willing to die to protect someone else, etc.
2) Sometimes failure is just plain bad for the game from multiple perspectives, and mechanisms that help mitigate that can keep the game above the total failure threshold have merit.

I'm currently in a longrunning (Coming up on two, three years now) game of Deadlands Classic, which uses "Fate Chips" as a meta-currency. There are lots of abilities that interact with Fate Chips. Within the mythology of the campaign, the party (or, Posse) members ARE in fact chosen by Fate (as represented by the Fate Chips). They're not fated to die yet, so Fate protects them (Spending Chips to negate wounds, turning direct hits into near misses), they're Fated to do great things, so Fate helps them succeed (Spending chips to boost rolls). They're Fated to achieve greatness (Spending Fate Chips is also how you improve your character). There are certain abilities that directly interact with Fate, such as certain enemies that can "Fate Lock" characters, removing you from Fate's protection and preventing you from spending chips to negate wounds. In areas where the forces of darkness are more powerful, the GM gets more Fate Chips to spend, representing the unseen and subtle advantage evil has in places such as this.

Some characters have special abilities activated by spending Fate Chips of various degrees. There is at least one Blessed power that gives you more Fate Chips, representing the Force of Good granting some subtle influence in your favor.


So, while the meta-currency DOES have an in-narrative explanation, it's not anything our characters have control over. As a player you need to make the calculation of spending chips now vs saving them for later, but it's not like our characters have any power over how the hands of Fate alter their destinies. Spending Fate Chips represents everything from tapping into hidden reserves of gumption and determination to pure luck working in your favor.

[CharonsHelper]

...and none of them had "Insists on the Optimal Strategy" as a strong character trait.

Isn't that just a survival instinct?

[Draconi Redfir]

What if you could have gotten your best friend's rapier enchanted? You would be taking what was left of your friend and having it help you gain revenge against the dragon when you eventually found it. Sounds better to me than having your friend's legacy make you less likely to be able to gain your revenge.

that's the point though. in this particular setting you DON'T just "Get thing enchanted". everything that is magical has some kind of history or story too it. only the weapons that DO do something awsome like take revenge on a dragon after so many years become enchanted.

[ImNotTrevor]

Isn't that just a survival instinct?

Your real life survival instinct is rarely going to find or utilize the most optimal strategy in an emergency. And, it discounts emotional motivation. By survival instinct, you would never run I to a burning building to save a loved one. Emotion overrides survival instinct on a regular basis.

[BRC]

Isn't that just a survival instinct?

People with strong survival instincts don't tend to find themselves in situations where they need to convince a vengeful swashbuckler that he should'nt try to stab a dragon in the eyeball.

Also, while non-optimal, it's not like the plan was Terrible. The Dragon was a lot faster than us, and, having been bloodied trying to fight us in a ranged duel, it was using it's superior mobility to start terrorizing the town we were in until we turned over the Macguffin we had just recovered(A not-unreasonable choice, but one the GM may have made so as to allow for this exact sort of duel) . Somebody going in under fly and invisibility wasn't an unreasonable plan. The Greatsword-wielding Barbarian may have been a Better choice, but a 13th level Battlemaster with an unused action surge and plenty of maneuvers isn't a horrible pick for your designated dragon-face-clinger.

[Lord Raziere]

I'd say that while you CAN care deeply about staying in-character for reasons that have nothing to do with producing good stories, you can't really care about producing good stories without valuing keeping your decisions in-character.

That said, I'm going to argue that building a character whose personality is counter to telling good stories could be seen as a pretty selfish move (Not accusing anybody of doing so. But it is a possibility if you have the stance of "I don't care about Stories, just staying in-character"). If your fellow party members want to chase their goals, but you've built a hyper-rational logic machine who doesn't sympathize with his team's personal agendas, and refuses to support anything but straightforward, hyper-rational approaches to any problem (no, I refuse to go find the warlock that killed your family. There's a better risk/reward return for guarding caravans), then while you may be staying in-character, you're kind of stamping on other people's fun.

Yeah, I don't like the HRLM (Hyper-Rational Logic Machine) character or style of play. I mean sure be smart, but if your just going to do nothing but take the most efficient option ever, then whats the point? The gm might as well say "ok, you win at everything ever, game over." its just not adventurous enough.

also, the people with the best survival instincts are the villagers who run away from any monster and be very polite to the dragon when they come and not try to tick him off. people that focused on survival are not about risk, adventurers is an inherently risky profession. sure you can be a wizard to offset that, but most people are not smart enough to make that work and anyone so concerned about their life is unlikely to be so bold as to start adventuring in the first place. the best way to survive is a cozy home, stable money making and deep reserves of humility and politeness to anything more powerful than you.

[BRC]

Yeah, I don't like the HRLM (Hyper-Rational Logic Machine) character or style of play. I mean sure be smart, but if your just going to do nothing but take the most efficient option ever, then whats the point? The gm might as well say "ok, you win at everything ever, game over." its just not adventurous enough.

I mean, the HRLM isn't the only sort of "Selfish" character choice you can make. A "CHARGE IN" bloodthirsty adrenaline junky can be equally selfish. Same goes for the classic "Fun Police" paladin, Kleptomaniac Rogue, a character who refuses to do anything that doesn't advance their personal agenda, or any of the countless "Sociopathic Murder Hobo" characters that people bring to the table. If you're continually deflecting complaints about your playstyle with "It's just what my character would do", you're either being dishonest, or you've chosen a bad character to roleplay for this particular group.

[Tinkerer]

Yeah, I don't like the HRLM (Hyper-Rational Logic Machine) character or style of play.

Okay I didn't like that style of play until you had to go and give it a really cool sounding name like that. Now I kinda want to play one. Preferably one in a sci-fi setting with a meta-currency so I can play a robot and ignore the meta when telling people the odds.