The best way to deal with irrelevant rants by people who are so anxious to rant they can't even be bothered reading the thread is to not reply to them, guys.

Now this issue of Disadvantages being disadvantageous or not: it is true that some players, able to active their Disadvantages at this or that time, will choose the least disadvantageous time. It is also true that some wussy GMs will do the same, and some nasty GMs do the opposite. This is again why I would argue that a game system which allows both GM and player to activate Disadvantages is a generally useful one. The biases of both GM and player will balance, and give the overall effect of a sensible impartial GM.

I think though that most GMs are sensible and impartial overall. Whereas players are naturally partial to their character. This is because of their roles in the group: the GM is accustomed to thinking of the whole game world, playing lots of different NPCs, and so on. The player is used to thinking "what would my guy do right now?" So the GM naturally has a wider view of things, the player a more narrow view. It's not a rule, but is a strong tendency - that GMs are more likely to be able to be fair and impartial than players.

There exist also informal rules and procedures in most game groups. If the GM picks on or favours some player, or if some player is being particularly generous or obstinate, then the other players will notice and comment.

Anyway, Disadvantages which are purely GM-activated can but do not always lead to a somewhat adversarial style of character creation and play. "What Disadvantage can I choose that won't disadvantage me much? Curious? Honest? Shit, I'm going to play those no matter what, may as well get points for them. Enemy? Well, not like the GM will ever let us sit around with no-one bothering us anyway!" This adversarial style of gaming is not one in which each character can be well-expressed, or grand story arcs be played out. Which is a problem if you like those, but not if you don't.

Disadvantages which are purely player-activated can but do not always  lead to lplayers choosing genuinely disadvantageous things but which only pop up when they won't really be that much of a disadvantage.

When players and GM are already somewhat adversarial, when players are thinking of "winning", that's when these tendencies come forward. So if players and GM are already somewhat adversarial, viewing the game as a competition, then purely player or purely GM-activated Disadvantages will magnify that.

If the GM is impartial and fair, and players just normal, then GM-activated Disadvantages work well. If the GM is partial and unfair, and players normal, then GM-activated Disadvantages work well. If both players and GM are normal and imperfect, but striving for a good game that's not entirely a competition, then a combination of GM and player-activation of Disadvantages works well.

One thing nobody seems to have noticed is that while the thread title and discussion have been of Disadvantages, I've written Dis/Advantages most of the time - that's to indicate that it'd be good to discuss both bad stuff PCs take, and good stuff. And of course, whether an Advantage is activated isn't always certain. For example, you go to ask your Patron something, but he isn't home or you ask your Ally for help, but she's laid-up with a broken leg. Who decides whether or not they're available to you, these Advantages? That's essentially the same question as about Disadvantages.

And especially for gamers aiming for a literary or movie feel to their games, Disadvantages are sometimes advantageous, and Advantages sometimes Disadvantageous. This is another reason we should be considering Advantages, too.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe best way to deal with irrelevant rants by people who are so anxious to rant they can't even be bothered reading the thread is to not reply to them, guys.

The problem is that people seem to listen to them.  Take this, for example:

Quote from: David R

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

Now, the thing is, I don't think they actually believe this.  i.e. They don't actually believe that it is the GM's job to decide when a PC acts greedy, for example.  However, Pundit mindlessly responded to the term "player-activated" without actually taking any time to understand the subject -- and the problem is that other posters seem to have accepted that.  Let's look back for a moment at the original poster, Warthur's, list of player-invoked disads from his clarification:

Quote from: WarthurPLAYER-INVOKED DISADVANTAGES
Code of Honour
Obsessive Behaviour
Painfully Honest
Sadistic
Thick As a Brick

So, is it exclusively the GM's job to decide when a PC tells the truth or not?  I don't think that Pundit believes this.  He's talking crap, obviously.  However, the problem is that people here listen to him.  So I think I should respond.  

The original proposal here follows an absolutely traditional split of powers.  i.e. The player has authority over what his PC does, the GM handles everything else.  Indeed, it is GM-activated disads that contradict this (i.e. the GM says "Here's what your PC should do -- roll Will or do X").  The fix established by some games like The Babylon Project is to have the players still control what the PC does, but have the GM give points if they act in a way that is genuinely disadvantageous to them.

Quote from: jhkimThe problem is that people seem to listen to them.  Take this, for example:

No I won't take the example. In online discussions, unlike face-to-face discussions, it's always possible to ignore a line of discussion within a larger conversation, or to ignore the irrelevant shit and respond only to the relevant stuff. With the ability to cut out whole swathes of text and reply to the rest, we can direct the conversation in a productive way, ignoring others' attempts to destroy it. You don't have to reply to everything.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, the problem is that people here listen to him.  So I think I should respond.

The thing to do there is to respond as I did, responding to the general points raised without quoting the shit-stirring individual, dealing with them briefly and moving on to the more relevant parts of the conversation.

Quote from: jhkimThe original proposal here follows an absolutely traditional split of powers.  i.e. The player has authority over what his PC does, the GM handles everything else.  Indeed, it is GM-activated disads that contradict this (i.e. the GM says "Here's what your PC should do -- roll Will or do X").  The fix established by some games like The Babylon Project is to have the players still control what the PC does, but have the GM give points if they act in a way that is genuinely disadvantageous to them.

I think that's a good fix, though I'd be interested to hear the details. There are two basic possibilities,

• The GM forces the player to roleplay their character a certain way, but gives them compensation (xp, pizza, whatever)
  
• The GM offers a bribe to the player to get them to roleplay a certain way.

Those are quite different in their results. The latter still offers the player a choice, and will in general not lead to arguments. The former is more adversarial and may lead to arguments, and sounds like what you're saying Baylon Project does? Correct me if I've misunderstood.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe best way to deal with irrelevant rants by people who are so anxious to rant they can't even be bothered reading the thread is to not reply to them, guys.

*shrug* I was not ranting or supporting one, although John Kim's reply does make sense, these kinds of rules...choices...have always seemed to me as a  method of curtailing the GM's influence in the game. Now this may not be it's purpose, but reading the original post I did get this feeling.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBy 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?

GM can not cheat the system. GM is the system.

Quote from: David R*shrug* I was not ranting or supporting one, although John Kim's reply does make sense, these kinds of rules...choices...have always seemed to me as a  method of curtailing the GM's influence in the game. Now this may not be it's purpose, but reading the original post I did get this feeling.

So do you, in fact, feel that allowing a player to decide if his PC acts greedy or not is curtailing the GM's influence?

Quote from: jhkimSo do you, in fact, feel that allowing a player to decide if his PC acts greedy or not is curtailing the GM's influence?

Let's not play this silly game. What bothered me was this from the original post :

QuoteWarthur wrote:
I see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages: the player-activated disadvantages happen when the player wants them to happen, as often as the player wants them to happen, in whichever situation the player deems it's worth having them happen in. And yet, in so many systems, player- and GM-activated disadvantages cost the same, and give you exactly the same benefit.

Which I thought was whiny and another attempt at reducing the influence of the GM.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimSo, is it exclusively the GM's job to decide when a PC tells the truth or not?  I don't think that Pundit believes this.  He's talking crap, obviously.  However, the problem is that people here listen to him.  So I think I should respond.  

The original proposal here follows an absolutely traditional split of powers.  i.e. The player has authority over what his PC does, the GM handles everything else.  Indeed, it is GM-activated disads that contradict this (i.e. the GM says "Here's what your PC should do -- roll Will or do X").  The fix established by some games like The Babylon Project is to have the players still control what the PC does, but have the GM give points if they act in a way that is genuinely disadvantageous to them.

The player should be the one playing out his honesty or truthfulness or what have you. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is that these disadvantages are a back-door way to give Players the power to infringe on two GM rights, namely the assignment of experience points, and the assignment of penalizing events in the environment. You seem to have missed that point completely.

So If a player takes "truthful" as a disadvantage, it would be awfully nice of him to act brutally honest whenever he can; but only the GM should get to decide if that brutal honesty should be worth any XP, and only the GM should have the right to determine if the player's brutal honesty will create problems for him in a scene, even if the player has (for reasons that amount to a desire to cheat the system) that all of a sudden he doesn't want to be so brutally honest.  Whether this is done in the form of having the player make a saving throw, or get a penalty up front, or be forced to do something the player doesn't really want to do, that's all fine.

There's no infringing of player's rights there.  The activation of a disadvantage is as much a right for a GM as it would be for the GM to impose penalties to a PC for being drunk, or for having been hypnotised/drugged/Charm Personed.  Do you believe that a GM shouldn't be allowed to direct the player's character in those circumstances? If so, you're the one who's being anti-traditional.

I mean, when it comes down to it, what you're saying is that you think its ok for Players to cheat the system.  Do you think a player who takes "Brutally honest" should be allowed to NOT be "brutally honest" whenever it would really inconvenience him? I mean, should he take "walks with a limp" and play it out, and then suddenly be able to run at a sprint when the Big Bad Guy shows up? Bullshit!

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimSo do you, in fact, feel that allowing a player to decide if his PC acts greedy or not is curtailing the GM's influence?

Should a player who's been Mind Controlled be allowed to decide that his PC won't attack his fellow party members anyways? :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe player should be the one playing out his honesty or truthfulness or what have you. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is that these disadvantages are a back-door way to give Players the power to infringe on two GM rights, namely the assignment of experience points, and the assignment of penalizing events in the environment. You seem to have missed that point completely.

No, I debunked these earlier.  

The idea that this takes away the GM's assignment of XP is false, since all of the systems mentioned give the GM final say over how XP are awarded for disadvantages.  (I confirmed this for all the systems except Nobilis, and GrimGent confirmed this for Nobilis.)  It is a concrete guideline for certain XP awards, but that's no different than D&D3, which gives a calculable number of XP for each encounter.  

The assignment of environmental penalties is based on your example of a bullshit disad that no one else had mentioned.  I repeated the disads that Warthur actually cited as being "player-activated", and none of them involved penalties from the environment.

I'll repeat my question: do you think that a player who takes a disadvantage (be it mental like "honesty" or physical like "limp") should be allowed to suddenly ignore that disadvantage and act as though it doesn't exist whenever he feels like it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'll repeat my question: do you think that a player who takes a disadvantage (be it mental like "honesty" or physical like "limp") should be allowed to suddenly ignore that disadvantage and act as though it doesn't exist whenever he feels like it?

In the general case, that's a matter for group contract.  That is, what a player should or should not be allowed to do is going to vary depending on what game system they're playing and the nature of the people playing.  I'll concentrate on the honesty question for the moment.  

If I am GM, the answer is generally going to be yes -- the player should be allowed to.  There is such a thing as bad role-players, but having the GM step in and play their characters for them doesn't help the problem.  I might remind the player about how they had described their character, but ultimately I prefer for the player to have final say over their own PC.  For that matter, there are potentially good role-playing reasons why an honest person might stop being honest.  The details of how I would respond will vary depending on the game system.  

For example, in a game system where you gain points for disadvantages up front, then it is usually bad form if you did not follow the disadvantage.  In Champions I'd generally allow it but I would require that the player has to make up the points for it -- probably some combination of a new disad, lost powers, or lost XP.  

However, take another case.  Suppose that a player did not get any points for honesty, say because it's a game system like True20 where there is no such thing as an honesty disad.  However, the player gave a background sheet on his PC where he mentions that his character was honest.  Should that player be allowed to suddenly ignore that and not be honest?  As before, I'd say yes.  I might talk to the player about trying to role-play more, but I'm not going to use their background sheet to take control of their PC away from them.  

Basically the same thing applies to pay-as-you-go disads like we are talking about here.  If the player chooses not a have his PC's honesty serious disadvantage him, then he simply gets no points for it.  No harm, no foul.  Again I might talk to the player, but ultimately it's his call.

Jesus fuck.  Well, again, you demonstrate that you and I are actually playing two completely different hobbies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurI like disadvantages that give you XP, but I don't like the way they're implemented in a lot of games.

For those of you who've not encountered games which do this, a brief rundown of the idea: instead of disadvantages giving you extra character creation points at game start (like in GURPS), disadvantages either cost character gen points or are free (but you can only take a limited number), and give you XP in-session when they cause you trouble.

My favorite. I have come to rue GURPS-style (or as I call them, "Point Farm") disadvantages.

QuoteSo, for example, if you take the "Hated Enemy" advantage and your nemesis shows up to cause trouble in the session, you get XP.

The problem I have with this is that most systems I see which do this make no distinction between player-activated disadvantages and GM-activated disadvantages, even though player-activated disadvantages are plainly better.

To give you an example, my Weapons of the Gods character has the Painfully Honest disadvantage, which gives him XP whenever he's caused trouble by failing to lie (or telling the truth at an inappropriate time/to inappropriate people). He also has (or rather, had) the Hated Enemy disadvantages, which gave him XP whenever his arch-nemesis showed up.

The first one is player-activated: I can always choose to ignore the disadvantage just by having my character keep his mouth shut - sure, I won't get the XP for playing the advantage, but sometimes the IC trouble just ain't worth it. Other times, I can blabber the party's secrets to all and sundry and get the XP whenever I want.

The second one is GM-activated. It's up to the GM, not me, when it's triggered and how inconvenient it is. What's more, if the other players also have a bunch of GM-activated disadvantages, my one isn't likely to come up as often as my Painful Honesty - the GM's not going to be able to work my nemesis into every damn session, whereas I can always find some way to use my Honesty.

I see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages: the player-activated disadvantages happen when the player wants them to happen, as often as the player wants them to happen, in whichever situation the player deems it's worth having them happen in. And yet, in so many systems, player- and GM-activated disadvantages cost the same, and give you exactly the same benefit.

Hmmm. Well, I don't own WotG, but I recall the late Tetsujin telling me they fell in the same category as the per-incident style disad I liked. This distinction wasn't really made clear to me.

In Spycraft, there really aren't disadvantages or flaws. There are subplots, and they are typically invoked
a) automatically, as defined by certain rules, or
b) at the option of the GM.

With "B" being the most common.

I think the problem really isn't something unique to per-incident style of disads. I'm not sure a disads like brutally honest deserves to earn the PC points, well, ever. If a player wishes to play such a character, that's fine, but it seems to me that could be eye-rolling behavior and not necessarily something you want to reward.

But I've seen this sort of poorly thought out disad way back in AD&D 1e with cavaliers that always charge and barbarians who want to make mincemeat of the wizard and break all the magical bling.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'll repeat my question: do you think that a player who takes a disadvantage (be it mental like "honesty" or physical like "limp") should be allowed to suddenly ignore that disadvantage and act as though it doesn't exist whenever he feels like it?

RPGPundit

I do but I think they should have to buy it back, replace it with another disadvantage, or provide some other reason why it's not coming into play.  As long as the player isn't constantly abusing, it's not a problem.  You have to be upfront as a GM before the game though and let them know that selected disadvantages can or will be challenged.  Select with caution.  

My frame of thought, is that if it's on the character sheet the player wants it to come up during play.  For example, if they maxed out their climb skill they probably want some climbing challenges during play.  I frame scenarios around the characters strengths and weaknesses.  I find disadvantages to be GM activated but player responsible.