Uh huh, and WHO decides whether the player is being "actually disadvantaged" or not?

Because it amounts to letting Italian Soccer players decide for themselves whether their fake injuries are worth a penalty kick or not...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditUh huh, and WHO decides whether the player is being "actually disadvantaged" or not?

The GM, or else I'd say that you are in the danger of veering into complaints about purely hypothetical game systems: are there even RPGs which completely hand the power over disadvantages and their point awards to the player alone?

Quote from: GrimGentThe GM, or else I'd say that you are in the danger of veering into complaints about purely hypothetical game systems: are there even RPGs which completely hand the power over disadvantages and their point awards to the player alone?

Yeah.  In all the systems mentioned in the thread, the GM can block point awards if the disadvantage wasn't actually disadvantageous.  

Pundit's just blathering about irrelevant strawmen again.

Quote from: GrimGentThe GM, or else I'd say that you are in the danger of veering into complaints about purely hypothetical game systems: are there even RPGs which completely hand the power over disadvantages and their point awards to the player alone?

I would imagine there are some systems with "Objective" statements about how disadvantages are triggered, automatically generating XP, where the player and not the GM determines when they're activated or not.  Thus, the player and the Game Designer get to decide, and not the GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimYeah.  In all the systems mentioned in the thread, the GM can block point awards if the disadvantage wasn't actually disadvantageous.  

Pundit's just blathering about irrelevant strawmen again.

Oh Really? Every system mentioned on this thread states that explicitly? That the GM has veto power?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI would imagine there are some systems with "Objective" statements about how disadvantages are triggered, automatically generating XP, where the player and not the GM determines when they're activated or not.  Thus, the player and the Game Designer get to decide, and not the GM.

Hmm. The closest thing among actual RPGs that comes to mind is the way in which the Keys are handled in The Shadow of Yesterday, but those aren't (necessarily) disadvantages as such.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh Really? Every system mentioned on this thread states that explicitly? That the GM has veto power?

As far as I know, yes.  Next time, you might try asking that before spending half-a-dozen posts ranting against a straw man.

Quote from: jhkimAs far as I know, yes.  Next time, you might try asking that before spending half-a-dozen posts ranting against a straw man.

"As far as I know"? So you can't confirm it any more than I could, in other words. I thought so.

And in any case, the point isn't about whether the specific systems mentioned in the thread do or do not practice GM-disempowerment, its about the question of the problems with GM-disempowering mechanics in general.

Ok, let's look at this as from the pov of player psychology.  Let's say there's a disadvantage called "Old War Wound", which would mean the PC's old injuries kick in and give him a -5 penalty on a percentage check.

Obviously, any clever player would activate the disadvantage for his PC when he was fighting a lone goblin (ie. when he thinks he has enough of an advantage that the -5 penalty won't matter), and not when he's fighting a Balrog (ie. when a -5 penalty could mean life and death).

Let's say now, that besides that the oh-so-clever indie-game-designer created different xp awards based on the danger of the situation in which the disadvantage was activated. Ok, fine, so a "level 1" opponent like the Goblin is only worth 10xp if you activate your disadvantage there, and the Balrog is worth a whopping 200xp! But as a player, if I think my risk of death with the goblin is negligible against the goblin with the disadvantage, and on the other hand my risk of death with the Balrog is already high, and made higher with the disadvantage, I'd rather have the "old war wound" pop up whenever I'm fighting Goblins and NEVER when I'm fighting Balrogs.  A 0.1% chance of death, played out 20 times, would be better than risking one fight where the disadvantage gives me a 5% chance of death.

Now, I know, I know: you're going to say that "good roleplayers" would choose to activate their old war wound against the Balrog. My point is that in that case, "good roleplayers" wouldn't mind if a GM activated it for them.

The only people who could possibly have a reason to complain about the GM having the power to activate their disadvantages for them are those who only want to use those disadvantages to cheat the system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only people who could possibly have a reason to complain about the GM having the power to activate their disadvantages for them are those who only want to use those disadvantages to cheat the system.

Or those who worry that their GM will use them unfairly.  By your reasoning, isn't it also reasonable to say that the only GMs who could possibly have a reason to complain about GMs not having the power to activate disadvantages are those who only want to use them to cheat the system?

This is all part and parcel of why I'm no fan of the typical implementation of disadvantages.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPundit"As far as I know"? So you can't confirm it any more than I could, in other words. I thought so.

I know for certain that this is true in the case of Spirit of the Century, Theatrix, and The Babylon Project -- having played them.  I don't know anything about Nobilis, so I can't comment on that one.  A suggested exception mentioned was The Shadow of Yesterday, but I don't buy that.  The "Giving out experience points" section is in the "Story Guide" section, and reads:

QuoteAs a Story Guide, you are responsible for binding the game together into an enjoyable narrative. You may be considered responsible by the players for their experience points and advancement. They are, of course, as wrong as they can be. When you see a player have her character act in a way that should earn her experience from a Key, feel free to announce that out loud. Feel just as free not to: that character is that player's creation, and she should well be playing attention to what's going on, and be invested in her character's advancement.

With the exception of Key Scenes, which you are responsible for, an ideal flow of experience point giving should go like this:

QuoteJack, a player: My character, Willis, leaps forward, his ratkin legs kicking to land in front of the sword-blow coming down on Jeph. (rolls) Success! Hey, that hits one of my Keys. 2 experience, right?

Jennifer, the Story Guide: A-yup.

Because it's a bare-bones rulebook, it doesn't explicitly nail everything down, but it seems pretty clear that the Story Guide gives out XP, and has final say over whether XP are rewarded for a given Key.  

(More in next post)

Here's what I see as the up side of player-activated disadvantages -- it frees up the GM from constantly having to police every PC's disadvantages.  

i.e. Suppose that the six PC's each have a list of six disadvantages -- including various ones like like "Greedy" or "Code of Honor" and so forth.  Now, suppose the principle is true that players will never disadvantage themselves.  That means that the Greedy PC's player is never going to actually role-play greed unless the GM tells him to.  That means the GM has to constantly keep thirty-six disads in mind and essentially role-play every players' PC for them.  

When disads are player-activated (even partly), the player knows that he will get nothing out of having the disad unless he actually acts greedy and it causes problems for him.  So rather than being motivated to distract the GM from enforcing disads, he has to bring up his disads to the GM to get value out of them.  

In a system like FATE where aspects can be either player-activated or GM-activated, then being reminded of the PC's Greed can help the GM think of other times to compel that aspect.

Quote from: jhkimI don't know anything about Nobilis, so I can't comment on that one.

The pertinent bit: "Restrictions are miscellaneous and usually smaller* limits, which only affect a Power's miracle points when they become a serious problem for the character in play. At that point, the HG decides how many extra MPs the character should receive, based on how much of a handicap that Restriction is at that time." (Page 127.)

A little example: "Cigarette Bond -- The character is formally bound to befriend anyone with whom they share a smoke, and cannot resist an offer of a cigarette. This gives 1 MP when it binds the character to a nice Power, 2 MPs when it binds them to an enemy Power, and 3 MPs when it binds them to an Excrucian." (Page 130.)

The same applies to all the characters, incidentally, not only the PCs. Whenever NPCs end up having problems because of their Restrictions, they gain those same points as well: the players don't have access to any resources that wouldn't be available to everyone else in the setting, too. Also, the characters know that facing adversity will grant them spiritual strength, and may use that knowledge to deliberately seek out trouble or keep their rivals out of trouble. It's not only an OOC mechanic.

(*: Smaller and less troublesome than actual Limits which hamper characters constantly and automatically yield points at the beginning of each story, that is, like "Deaf" or "Dead".)

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOr those who worry that their GM will use them unfairly.  By your reasoning, isn't it also reasonable to say that the only GMs who could possibly have a reason to complain about GMs not having the power to activate disadvantages are those who only want to use them to cheat the system?

Hardly, since the "system" dictates that these are supposed to be DISadvantages, not "effortless xp generating mechanisms".  A good GM is one who will make sure any disadvantages taken will actually come with an appropriate price.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimHere's what I see as the up side of player-activated disadvantages -- it frees up the GM from constantly having to police every PC's disadvantages.  

i.e. Suppose that the six PC's each have a list of six disadvantages -- including various ones like like "Greedy" or "Code of Honor" and so forth.  Now, suppose the principle is true that players will never disadvantage themselves.  That means that the Greedy PC's player is never going to actually role-play greed unless the GM tells him to.  That means the GM has to constantly keep thirty-six disads in mind and essentially role-play every players' PC for them.  

When disads are player-activated (even partly), the player knows that he will get nothing out of having the disad unless he actually acts greedy and it causes problems for him.  So rather than being motivated to distract the GM from enforcing disads, he has to bring up his disads to the GM to get value out of them.  

In a system like FATE where aspects can be either player-activated or GM-activated, then being reminded of the PC's Greed can help the GM think of other times to compel that aspect.

Oh, I agree that policing disadvantages is a bitch, a lot of effort.  Its why I generally dislike them.

That said, its still the GM's job, if he chooses to use a system that includes disadvantages.

Anyways, point-generating disadvantages, whether in character creation or in play, are generally nothing more than a mechanism for PC-optimizing and abuse in how they are actually put into play.
I'd LOVE to see a system where such disadvantages were set up in a way that didn't require GM effort and couldn't possibly be used by the PC to optimize his character with a minimum of downside. Unfortunately, no system I know of does this.

None of this negates the fact that it is the GM's place to control bad things happening to players, and not the player's choice of when these things happen to him or don't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNone of this negates the fact that it is the GM's place to control bad things happening to players, and not the player's choice of when these things happen to him or don't.

Very true. I have been bothered by the fact that these rules some how undermine (IMO) the main role of the GM

Regards,
David R