TheRPGSite

I 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. So, 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.

Agreed.  The idea of having disadvantages as a source of resources (XPs or Hero Points or Gummy Bears or whatever) is a cool one, but so far designers seem captivated by the novelty of it, and haven't really dug down to say "How do I make these things consistent and balanced?"

"Hated Enemy" and "Honest" aren't even in the same category of thing, except in the very broadest sense.  I'd like to see a game system that had them more readily separated.

Consistency and balance in GM vs player-activated dis/advantages is up to the GM.

I don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

Uh ... couldn't you have (as the most rough-and-ready possible design) two categories of Disadvantages?  Like "You can have up to three Player-Activated Disads and up to three GM-Activated Disads, and you must have at least one of each"?

Personally, I'd prefer something a bit more elegant, but that would take time to think of.  As a proof of concept though ... they could be separated, I think.

Maybe. But why would you? That would be stupid.

I mean, you could have player and GM-activated attributes, too. "Okay, as GM I'll take Strength and Health, you can take Education and Perception, yeah? So if you want to use Strength, well you can't unless I feel like it." You could do that. But why? What does it add to the game?

Again, we have to distinguish between things which are original and things which are innovative.

What works best is something like Fate 2.0 - the GM can try to activate the traits, but the player can choose not to let the GM do so, or choose to activate them all by themselves. In this way, the game mechanics allow the GM to shape the game, but only by consent of the players.

Whereas your GURPS or similar mean that either the GM ignores the Disadvantages and just hopes the players will roleplay them, or else the GM imposes them. "No, you can't fight because you're a Coward." Thus, arguments, which are boring.

Choice is best.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMaybe. But why would you? That would be stupid.

...

Choice is best.

This is me not getting into a "Winner Take All" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=117723&postcount=38) argument with you.

I recognize the strengths of giving both the GM and the players the right to invoke any type of Disadvantage with consent of the other party.  I think it'd be cool for the player to be able to say "Hey, my Hated Enemy should totally be behind this!" and maybe collect the points (and change the plot).

Separately and without comparison:  It would be cool to have a system that recognizes that some disadvantages (Hated Enemy) are most easily invoked by the GM (who, after all, controls said Enemy) and some disadvantages (Honesty) are most easily invoked by the player (who, after all, controls said Honesty).  Keeping them separate could aid with clarity and communication, and help everyone keep tabs on the bits that have been delegated to them.  That would be a good thing.

Quote from: Kyle AaronConsistency and balance in GM vs player-activated dis/advantages is up to the GM.

I don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

As Tony's said elsewhere in the argument, the separation comes in who chooses when the disadvantage kicks in. If you have a setup where the player can request that their Hated Enemy be behind something (and that might make that particular challenge more difficult for the PCs than it would otherwise have been), or a setup where the GM gets to activate the player's Painful Honesty, then all's fair, but out of all the games I've seen where disadvantages give you XP, you don't have that situation.

What you do have is a heap of advantages which are clearly meant to be GM-activated, and a heap which are meant to be player-activated. While the GM could just make sure the GM-activated disadvantages come into play just as much as the player-activated ones do, that can get pretty crazy pretty quickly - my Hated Enemy shows up in every session, Amy's Hidden Master is giving her orders more quickly than she can complete them, Joe's Nightmares are hitting so frequently he can't get a decent night's sleep and Jen's Haunting is dogging her night and day.

In my experience, though, GMs simply don't slip Hated Enemies and similar disadvantages into the game as often as players invoke their Painfully Honest/Short-Tempered/Dumb as a Rock/whatever disadvantages - they just make sure the consequences are more serious whenever they show up. This just means there's even more advantage to the players in taking player-activated disadvantages as opposed to GM-activated ones. The GM-activated disadvantages will probably show up less often (so you get less XP out of them) and cause you more trouble.

But there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Plus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Kyle, I really don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Er, yes, this is true. But none of the games I have seen which have disadvantages that give you XP have any mechanic which allows the player to decide when, say, a Hated Enemy shows up, or allows the GM to prompt a player to invoke their Painful Honesty. (The XP you get for that is the only bribe, and to be fair it's usually a sufficient bribe: again, you get the player-invoked disads cropping up more often than the GM-invoked ones.)

QuotePlus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Well, that's the thing. In every one of these games that I have seen, the player-activated disadvantages are entirely under the control of the player, because they relate to the character's personality, whilst the GM-activated disadvantages are entirely under the control of the GM, because they deal with "rest of the world" things - hated enemies, hidden masters, other features of the PCs' background which would typically be controlled by the GM.

Quote from: WarthurEr, yes, this is true. But none of the games I have seen which have disadvantages that give you XP have any mechanic which allows the player to decide when, say, a Hated Enemy shows up, or allows the GM to prompt a player to invoke their Painful Honesty.

Then you should go and download Fate (http://www.faterpg.com/), specifically the second edition.

FATE's solution is reasonable, although I still think there is room for other systems - which don't have such a system - to make a distinction between "player-activated" and "GM-activated" disadvantages, for the reasons I've specified here.

In particular, Aspects in FATE don't seem to include things like "Hated Enemy" and other things which would traditionally be under the purview of the GM. It would be odd to play a game where the following exchange happened:

GM: You turn the corner and there is your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick!
Player: I spend 2 Fate points to counteract your invocation of my Aspect.
GM: OK, you turn the corner and there isn't your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick...

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Plus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Fate's a damn fine system.

Other ways of doing things (like, for instance, what Warthur's been discussing) would be cool too.

I don't see how "Fate is cool!" has any bearing on whether this other, different stuff is cool or not ... or vice-versa.

Quote from: WarthurIn particular, Aspects in FATE don't seem to include things like "Hated Enemy" and other things which would traditionally be under the purview of the GM. It would be odd to play a game where the following exchange happened:

GM: You turn the corner and there is your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick!
Player: I spend 2 Fate points to counteract your invocation of my Aspect.
GM: OK, you turn the corner and there isn't your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick...

I've had players who chose "Unknown Enemy" as an Aspect for their character.  I invoked it every couple of sessions. I didn't say, "you turn the corner and there he is", I'd say at the beginning of the session, "you're going to cop an enemy this session - here's a Fate Point, is that okay with you? If not, match it." So I avoided that problem.

Of course, in the case where the GM is a knucklehead and chooses to invoke the enemy Aspect at the very moment the PC turns a corner, if the player says, "no he doesn't appear" and offers the Fate Point, that's easily dealt with. The NPC still appears, but does not appear as an Enemy.

"He passes you around the corner, face down, deep in thought, and doesn't notice you."
"He sees you, but he's unarmed and you've got your sword and scale armour, so he crosses the street to avoid you."
"He sees you, and says, "just the man I wanted to see! You're the only one who can help me!" Will you stop to listen to what he says, or attack him on the spot..? If you attack him, you'd better give me that Fate Point back."

And so on. The possibilities are endless. You just need to use your imagination. The NPC who is an Enemy appears, but doesn't act as an Enemy. It's the same as when a PC who is Strong - their muscles are still there even when they're not using them, even though they may not work so well today because the PC is sick with the flu or whatever. Muscles are to the Strong Aspect what the NPC is to the Enemy Aspect.

I just don't see why you'd make some or all of the traits of a character entirely in the hands of the GM. The GM already has the rest of the game world for that sort of manipulation of things. Let the players have their characters, it's all they've got, really.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't see how "Fate is cool!" has any bearing on whether this other, different stuff is cool or not ... or vice-versa.

I didn't say Fate was cool. I said that it was a game system where the GM and players both were able to invoke PC Dis/Advantages, but where the choice ultimately always lay in the hands of the player, not the GM.  Which has a bearing on the questions raised in this thread.

How does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhy not just play with yourself?

What you mean like CRPGs...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBFate's a damn fine system.

Acutally, I belive that Fate and especially Involuntary Aspect Invocation is problematic to say the least. Let's look at it the way I have to say, I have witnessed more than once.

You have some characteristics of you character (aspects), that describe your behavior, demeanour, habits or whatever. That's what you are.

Now than... there is a situation, where you are tempted to behave as your characteristics says you would behave right. Even if it is dangerous or such. So you either

a) behave as you have defined you character to do so... (and you face negative consequences) and nothing really good goes for you.

or

b) you do exactly the opposite that your character definition says. And that gives you GM great and generous option to actually bribe you with negative aspect invocation and fate points.

So you are a coward. Your friends are attacked. And you flee... later you are no longer friends. Wow, great story.

Or. You are a coward. Your friends are attacked. And you are going to help them! Oh. Wait. GM - you are coward remember. Here, take a FP and flee. (scene of bribery). So you flee. And you have your FPs. Great. Now, you can say... My GM make me do it, right?

Fate IMO is actually supporting anti-roleplaying, or conditioned roleplaying, based on the flow of FP. Sorry to say that. I also thought it is a great game at first. But learned the truth the hard way...

Quote from: Kyle AaronHow does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Man, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about any more.

Are you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

If that's not it ... I mean ... dude, explain.  Give a fictional example or something.  Let's ground this in specifics.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHow does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Because some players think some decisions should be up to the GM? Because as a player I want to feel a sense of verisimilitude in the game, that my character lives in a real world which kicks back at him, and part of that means that his opponents can turn up unexpectedly and surprise me and my character? Because in some games the players can make choices about some things, and the GM can make decisions about some things, and that's all cool? Because having a Hated Enemy turn up under GM fiat in no way undermines a PCs' control of his character?

(Also, I think you are playing up the choice element of FATE too much. It would be a genuine choice if nixing the GM's invocation of your Aspects were free, but it isn't: if you run out of Fate points you can't do it, and if you're worried about running out of Fate points you're less likely to do it. If you've got a carrot on one side and a stick on the other, the choice element is undermined.)

Quote from: TonyLBMan, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about any more.

Are you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

If that's not it ... I mean ... dude, explain.  Give a fictional example or something.  Let's ground this in specifics.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, lots of games have lists of disadvantages that look like this:

DISADVANTAGES
Being Followed
Blackmailed
Code of Honour
Hated Enemy
Obsessive Behaviour
Painfully Honest
Sadistic
Secret Master
Thick As a Brick
Visions
...

And they all work near-identically game mechanically: whether they are GM or PC-initiated is irrelevant. (In the case of the sort of reward system I was talking about in the OP, you get XP whenever the disadvantage causes your character problems.)

What I'm saying there'd be a lot of benefit in splitting the list as follows:

PLAYER-INVOKED DISADVANTAGES
Code of Honour
Obsessive Behaviour
Painfully Honest
Sadistic
Thick As a Brick

GM-INVOKED DISADVANTAGES
Being Followed
Blackmailed
Hated Enemy
Secret Master
Visions

and perhaps having them work differently on a mechanical level.

Quote from: WarthurI see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages:

Jesus, that's easy!  Player-activated "disadvantages" aren't real disadvantages at all; because the player decides when they affect him and when they don't.

This means the player will make use of these disadvantages whenever he can to get extra xp but only in situations where he doesn't believe it will really get in the way of his goals or fuck up his chances of succeeding at what he wants. On the other hand, when things are really serious, he'll NEVER activate the disadvantage, even if it would make total sense for it to happen, because the extra xp isn't worth failing for.

Any disadvantage the DM can't throw at you when he thinks it should happen isn't a disadvantage at all, its just another xp-generating tool for the player (unless of course its one of those "permanent" disadvantages that are always on).

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBAre you imagining that someone is saying "Yes, we will take HONEST and make it a GM-controlled disadvantage ... so the GM can say 'Be Honest!  Now!' "?  I'm pretty sure that's not what Warthur is saying (and I know fer damn sure it's not what I'm saying) ... but it seems the nearest possible misunderstanding.

Here, let me clarify for you: Let's say in Pendragon you've got an Honesty of 14.. that's not a disadvantage at all, just a measure of one of your character's traits. 14 in the game isn't strong enough to force you to do anything, its up to you (the PC) when you choose to be honest or not. So you couldn't exactly call that a disadvantage, could you.

Now, if your Honest trait is 16 or higher, any time you try to lie, the GM can make you roll an Honesty check in order to even be able to lie. That's a real disadvantage, because you can't just use it when its convenient to you and then lie like a dog when its not.  You gain extra xp (glory) for it, but it can really screw you up sometimes when it would be more convenient for you to lie.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHere, let me clarify for you: Let's say in Pendragon ...

Pendragon's a hella cool game ... but it's not what Warthur is talking about here.  Pendragon being cool does not mean that this different concept must be uncool just because it isn't Pendragon.

Quote from: TonyLBPendragon's a hella cool game ... but it's not what Warthur is talking about here.  Pendragon being cool does not mean that this different concept must be uncool just because it isn't Pendragon.

Except that what he's describing is actually quite similar to the mechanics of such disadvantages in games like GURPS.

His comments are both quite on point, and I happen to kind of agree on the first one.

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept that what he's describing is actually quite similar to the mechanics of such disadvantages in games like GURPS.

Well ... GURPS is a cool game too ... but it's not one where players are rewarded for the act of bringing their disadvantages into play, right?

I mean ... if his whole point is that the word "disadvantage" isn't as good as (say) "restriction" or "trope" or some other thing ... okay.  Sure.  Granted.  But I hope that (by now) we're clear on what Warthur is talking about, right?  So what's the relevance of systems like Pendragon and GURPS, that are something else entirely?

Quote from: RPGPunditAny disadvantage the DM can't throw at you when he thinks it should happen isn't a disadvantage at all, its just another xp-generating tool for the player

:idunno:  Okay.  You don't like the term "disadvantage" ... it's just some negative aspect of your character that comes up frequently in play.  Call it what you want.  They're still a very useful tool for encouraging flawed characters in a way different from other disad systems.  Different, useful, cool.

Is there some disagreement on that?  It looks like maybe you think that these kind of player-invoked aspects are ... I dunno ... suspect or wrong-headed or something.  If so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning ... what's wrong with 'em?

Quote from: TonyLB:idunno:  Okay.  You don't like the term "disadvantage" ... it's just some negative aspect of your character that comes up frequently in play.  Call it what you want.  They're still a very useful tool for encouraging flawed characters in a way different from other disad systems.  Different, useful, cool.

Is there some disagreement on that?  It looks like maybe you think that these kind of player-invoked aspects are ... I dunno ... suspect or wrong-headed or something.  If so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning ... what's wrong with 'em?

What's wrong with them is that they're useless. Its giving people extra points for character building or extra xp when they annoyingly act out their disadvantages at their leisure, but in a way that doesn't end up impacting the game at all, because a player won't fuck up his chances of succeeding at anything ACTUALLY IMPORTANT.  So a character listed as "compulsively honest" but left the choice of when he does it will be brutally honest whenever it gets him extra XP with no real cost associated with it, but when it comes to lying to the evil overlord to save his ass or blow up the death star or whatever, he'll lie like a dog with no consequence. So its giving players free stuff open to abuse.

And of course, you might say that "well, some players will be responsible and will use their disadvantages in REALLY disadvantageous situations where it will matter".  That only makes things worse though, because it means certain players, the ones who are doing the right thing, will be punished for their willingness to do so, while others who are only abusing the mechanic will still conveniently ignore activating their disadvantage, creating a situation where the better gamers are being punished and the poorer players rewarded.
Likewise, a really good player who chooses a disadvantage and would be the kind of player to activate that disadvantage in a crucial moment really can't have any complaint about the GM having the power to activate it, could he? Not if he would activate it himself anyways.  
So the only ones out there who whine and protest the idea of the GM being able to force you to actually have to suffer from that disadvantage you've been abusingly gaining xp from are the craptastic players who want free xp and not having to work for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo a character listed as "compulsively honest" but left the choice of when he does it will be brutally honest whenever it gets him extra XP with no real cost associated with it, but when it comes to lying to the evil overlord to save his ass or blow up the death star or whatever, he'll lie like a dog with no consequence.

The simplest solution: the disadvantage is only worth anything whenever it puts the character at risk or otherwise seriously inconveniences him, since at other times it is no disadvantage at all. Telling the truth to the overlord when the consequences will be grievous? Now, that would earn the points. Telling all about your shopping preferences to a market researcher on the phone...? Nah.

Quote from: GrimGentThe simplest solution: the disadvantage is only worth anything whenever it puts the character at risk or otherwise seriously inconveniences him, since at other times it is no disadvantage at all.

I've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

In my experience, players absolutely relish the opportunity to tell the truth to the evil overlord, and get into a whole bunch of trouble.  The fact that they could make just as many XPs doing 5 little truths over two sessions doesn't mean squat.  The five-point payoff is the brass ring that's been hanging in front of them, and they grab for it without hesitation.

So for at least some players, these kinds of systems can lead to them making their disadvantages into huge, earth-shaking things.

And for those groups, the insight that some of these Keys are more heavily in the hands of the player and some of them are more heavily in the hands of the GM is worth investigating.

Quote from: TonyLBI've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

The Restrictions in Nobilis work in a similar fashion, although they yield miracle points rather than bonus XP. Suppose that your character "cannot cross running water". If he's out on a casual evening walk along a riverbank and would like to get to the other side, that's worth exactly nil points. If he's chasing someone who then escapes across the river, that's worth one point. And if he's been cornered by lethal enemies into a bend in the river, that's worth two points.

It's also worth noting that a player may ask the GM to bring one of his character's Restrictions into play so that he can regain MPs, by the way. Of course, if he happens to be in the middle of a desert and has no other disads except that he cannot cross running water, that's not going to help much. In fact, a villain who learns about this personal problem might even lure the PC to an endless desert precisely so that he wouldn't have trouble with it...

Quote from: RPGPunditThis means the player will make use of these disadvantages whenever he can to get extra xp but only in situations where he doesn't believe it will really get in the way of his goals or fuck up his chances of succeeding at what he wants. On the other hand, when things are really serious, he'll NEVER activate the disadvantage, even if it would make total sense for it to happen, because the extra xp isn't worth failing for.

This is true. In my experience while players in games with player-activated disadvantages (including me) will happily cause a lot of in-game trouble and strife in the name of their disadvantage, if it's going to threaten something that they actually OOC want for their character to achieve they're likely to pull their punches.

That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with personality traits - positive or negative - acting as "XP generators" (so long as you can only get XP from them a certain number of times per session). It's a nice, tangible thing to point at and say "I deserve XP, because I made the game more interesting with this trait".

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... GURPS is a cool game too ... but it's not one where players are rewarded for the act of bringing their disadvantages into play, right?

No, but now that I think of it it's a game where the whole player-activated vs. GM-activated disadvantage thing could be even worse if poorly handled: a player could buy a bunch of player-activated disads in GURPS, get the meaty bonus character gen points, and never activate them unless they're not going to wreck the character's chances of getting what the player OOC wants his character to achieve.

On the other hand, from what I remember of GURPS the disadvantages always tended to either a) be GM-activated or b) have very well-defined system effects and so are constant factors rather than being something which is activated by player or GM.

Quote from: WarthurNo, but now that I think of it it's a game where the whole player-activated vs. GM-activated disadvantage thing could be even worse if poorly handled: a player could buy a bunch of player-activated disads in GURPS, get the meaty bonus character gen points, and never activate them unless they're not going to wreck the character's chances of getting what the player OOC wants his character to achieve.

On the other hand, from what I remember of GURPS the disadvantages always tended to either a) be GM-activated or b) have very well-defined system effects and so are constant factors rather than being something which is activated by player or GM.

A lot of the GURPS disads have some kind of will check or dice check involved, even some of the ones you mentioned as GM-intitiated.  

Dependents, enemies, etc., for isntance, have frequency checks the GM is suppsoed to make when planning each adventure, to see if he's supposed to work it into the plot.

Quote from: TonyLBI've also seen the system implemented with a sliding scale (as with many of the Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday) ... 1 point for telling the truth in a way that produces minor inconvenience (max. of 3 points per session from one-point truths), 2 points for telling the truth in a way that seriously inconveniences you, 5 points for telling the truth when it puts you at great risk of death or worse.

I agree with you that the sliding scale mitigates the kind of abuse Pundit is talking about here (which is a very real phenomenon).  

The other way to handle this is to make it perfectly clear to your players that you as GM will make sure that every time they activate disadvantages, it will become significant.

Quote from: AlnagAcutally, I belive that Fate and especially Involuntary Aspect Invocation is problematic to say the least. Let's look at it the way I have to say, I have witnessed more than once.[...]

So you are a coward. [...]

Stop right there. Now see, there's the problem.

You're in a party. A team. You work together. At the player level, you're playing a game which requires participation, and you've just chosen a trait which stops you participating. Coward, mute, shy, loner - all the same thing. You're saying, "I don't want to be a part of the action."

The game system's not responsible for that - you, the player are. You chose a trait which stops you participating in things. And then complained when you couldn't participate... yeah, okay buddy.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're in a party. A team. You work together. At the player level, you're playing a game which requires participation, and you've just chosen a trait which stops you participating. Coward, mute, shy, loner - all the same thing. You're saying, "I don't want to be a part of the action."

Sure. The problem is, that any newbie I know, will inspire himself in the rules. So now, take you FATE, turn to page 19 and look what that damn idiot has like an aspect. That's right cowardly. Exactly what I am talking about.

But that was actually not my point you know. I was talking not about playing coward character but about the principle, where the GM must bribe the characters to behave the way they do. Exactly the same goes for brave one. Oh, my friends are in danger. I will help them. Oh, wait. Why would I do that? No FP, remember... Hey GM, bribe me or I will not follow my aspect...

The true problem of FP is not the aspect selection (aspects are fine, I support them). The problem is FP management. And their flow. The first house rule we had to apply is if player actually follows his character he get his FP. Because otherwise, the players who actually played their characteres were seriously worse treated that the conditioned ones. Yes, Fate is good game, but not great. And it has its issues. Seriously.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe game system's not responsible for that - you, the player are. You chose a trait which stops you participating in things. And then complained when you couldn't participate... yeah, okay buddy.

I agree. In the last instance, players are always responsible. But what is this disussion all about than? And no, it is not about participation so much as about BRIBERY and CONDITIONING! Lucky enough behaviorism was proved wrong. That's why I am not salivating seeing FATE. :p

Quote from: AlnagSure. The problem is, that any newbie I know, will inspire himself in the rules. So now, take you FATE, turn to page 19 and look what that damn idiot has like an aspect. That's right cowardly. Exactly what I am talking about.

Unlike its drooling fanboys who haven't played it, I would say that it can definitely be better-written. Just consider the Extras, what a mess...

Quote=Alnag]But that was actually not my point you know. I was talking not about playing coward character but about the principle, where the GM must bribe the characters to behave the way they do. Exactly the same goes for brave one. Oh, my friends are in danger. I will help them. Oh, wait. Why would I do that? No FP, remember... Hey GM, bribe me or I will not follow my aspect...

An issue I raised when first looking at Fate was a bit similar to that. It's that you have plaeyrs who are active and make things happen and do things, and players who are reactive and wait for GM or group prompting. If Fate Points were only awarded when the GM invoked Aspects, active players would get none and reactive players would get heaps. So the system acts to encourage reactive players to do more things in play, and gives no particular reward to active players. Certainly that's good for bringing reactive players into the action, but...

The solution is simply for the GM to award Fate Points like XP after each session, so that active players are rewarded, too. In this way, players will get rewards for their characters based simply on the things they do, not whether those things were prompted by the player themselves or by the GM. Who cares what starts the fire, so long as it's warm and cooks my dinner?

Quote from: AlnagI agree. In the last instance, players are always responsible. But what is this disussion all about than? And no, it is not about participation so much as about BRIBERY and CONDITIONING! Lucky enough behaviorism was proved wrong. That's why I am not salivating seeing FATE. :p

Behavourism was proved wrong as something which determines the entire of human action. However, it cannot be denied that people are motivated by rewards and punishments. Those are not their only motivations, but they're part of them. Since we have a voluntary social creative hobby here, the "voluntary social" part means we can't use use punishments, but only rewards.

I think it's certainly true that having the GM control those rewards isn't the only way to do things. Group-awarded XP could work, too. Hackmaster, for example, has a "Most Valuable Player" award. The one group I saw using it just had everyone take turns getting it, though. I suggested they just divide it evenly between them as a group bonus and save the figuring out whose turn it was but they didn't like that idea. Apparently in Davd R's (non-HM) group, it's a genuine vote and they don't just swap it around. But you do get that rather socialistic tendency in game groups. After all, the basic model for adventuring parties is a sort of anarcho-syndacalist collective with no leadership and most property held in common...

Quote from: Kyle AaronUnlike its drooling fanboys wh haven't played it, I would say that it can definitely be better-written. Just consider the Extras, what a mess...

Well... to be honest, I usually just skip the Extras, because it was too much for me. We tried them once in a steampunk game, but neither us nor GM was sure, how that should actually work. Yeah. Messy.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAn issue I raised when first looking at Fate was a bit similar to that. It's that you have plaeyrs who are active and make things happen and do things, and players who are reactive and wait for GM or group prompting.

Exactly. I was not as good in designate the problem, but I agree now. Yeah. And I am always depressed from reactive players.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf Fate Points were only awarded when the GM invoked Aspects, active players would get none and reactive players would get heaps. So the system acts to encourage reactive players to do more things in play, and gives no particular reward to active players. Certainly that's good for bringing reactive players into the action, but...

Acutually, there are some specific situation, when active player is rewarded. See page 20 in the middle. There are 2 problems with that. First, this somehow is the part or the rules mostly missed of forgotten. Second, the situations are very specific and some of them actually again encourage the anti-RP ("even if it goes against your best instincts" - read against your character or not a group behavior at all (try to go off alone, don't take no for an answer and such...). Yes, there are countermeasures (don't let anyone go off alone and such) but still...

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe solution is simply for the GM to award Fate Points like XP after each session, so that active players are rewarded, too.

That one is good, because the flow of FP will be more smooth. Or sure. I pretty much agree with that one. Good point.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHowever, it cannot be denied that people are motivated by rewards and punishments. Those are not their only motivations, but they're part of them. Since we have a voluntary social creative hobby here, the "voluntary social" part means we can't use use punishments, but only rewards.

Oh... we can use punishment and we use it. Although it is "volutary" it is also "social" and "social" is so full of punishments one is almost unable to imagine. For the record, refuse to reward is also sort of punishment. The problem of behaviorist approach is mistaken part for whole. There is also a cognitive level of receiving and offering rewards and punishment. Following the simple model (as FATE does) might pretty much saturate the player and he might lost interest and return to old habits (the same way the animals return to instinctive behavior despite their conditioning...).

If you are on a desert and thirsty and somebody will offer you a glass of water how much are you willing to pay? A lot I guess. But how much are you willing to pay for the second glass? Less. And third? And tenth? Etc. That's way obvious, simple, same kind rewards are not as successful in a long term as they should be.

Quote from: AlnagWell... to be honest, I usually just skip the Extras, because it was too much for me. We tried them once in a steampunk game, but neither us nor GM was sure, how that should actually work. Yeah. Messy.

The way we worked it was this. Aspect Extras are things which have Skills and Aspects of their own, eg people and magic items and spaceships. Skill Extras are things which just are, eg swords and money. Easy.

(Sorry for the aside, guys. The little comment wasn't worth a whole thread by itself.)

Quote from: AlnagAnd I am always depressed from reactive players.

Don't confuse reactive players - players who wait for prompting and then react - with passive players - players who never respond or have any ideas. Genuinely passive players are quite rare; most in fact are reactive players but you haven't found what they'll react to, yet, what interests them.

Reactive players can fit well into game groups, as can active players. Passive players there's not much you can do with them...

Relevant to this thread, an active player will activate their character's Dis/Advantages, and those the GM controls, they'll ask or at least encourage the GM to bring them in. Reactive players, you may be best having all the Dis/Advantages be GM-controlled so that you can make sure things happen.

That's why I say it'd be a bad idea to have specific Dis/Advantages controlled by the GM only, and others controlled by the player only. If you have an active player, then you'll miss out on half the action you could have because the player only controls have their Dis/Advantages. If you have a reactive player, then again - only half the action.

What works best in a game group of mixed player types is to have traits which can be invoked by either the GM or the players.

Quote from: AlnagSecond, the situations are very specific and some of them actually again encourage the anti-RP ("even if it goes against your best instincts" - read against your character or not a group behavior at all (try to go off alone, don't take no for an answer and such...). Yes, there are countermeasures (don't let anyone go off alone and such) but still...

I read that play advice as saying that the player should put roleplaying their character "true" to their character's personality and goals before a "tactical" approach, doing what seemed right for the group. I read it as a reaction to a sort of game play where characters have no personality and goals at all, where it's just, "A name? I don't have a name, I'm the fighter. And he's the wizard. And the other guy is the thief. Do you want to be the cleric? List of gods? What for?"

It's what I call Backlash Text. You know when you bend a tree over too far in one direction, it lashes back at you - whap! Sometimes in books and movies you get the same effect. For the writers, perhaps their roleplaying experiences and perception of other people's roleplaying experiences had gone too far in the "tactical" direction, so they did a Backlash Text - a piece of game play advice in the other "roleplaying" direction (as they saw it).

Again, I think their whole "GM invokes Aspects" system was more Backlash Text - designed to deal with reactive players, to get things happening. If you have in your group two active and two reactive players, the actions of the active players will give the other two something to react to, the GM barely has to do anything! But what if you have four reactive players? Hmmm... "I invoke your Bold Warrior Aspect... go fight!" "Okay, cool."

Quote from: AlnagFor the record, refuse to reward is also sort of punishment.

I don't think so. Only people with a strong sense of entitlement regard a lack of reward as a punishment. "I deserve to have stuff! I'm special." A sense of entitlement can be created in players when they're used to receiving a large reward, and then one day don't. So the GM should make the rewards jump up and down a bit randomly :D

Quote from: AlnagIf you are on a desert and thirsty and somebody will offer you a glass of water how much are you willing to pay? A lot I guess. But how much are you willing to pay for the second glass? Less. And third? And tenth? Etc. That's way obvious, simple, same kind rewards are not as successful in a long term as they should be.

Of course. That's why the GM and players should do other things to create a sense of investment in their characters and the campaign. I discuss that a bit in the recent thread about game group and campaign prep (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6697), whether it's participatory or passive, and also more formally in the article about Getting Players to Give a Toss (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=22).

Along those lines...

Quote from: WarthurI 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.

One way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGenuinely passive players are quite rare; most in fact are reactive players but you haven't found what they'll react to, yet, what interests them.

That's what is depressing. No way to stimulate them... they might be reactive in their own way, but in the game, they are acutually passive.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's why I say it'd be a bad idea to have specific Dis/Advantages controlled by the GM only, and others controlled by the player only. (...)

I have to admit, that this was very refreshing reading. Really. Thank you! It helped me, to really get a new perspective on the things, that happen in a games I play or GM. Really worth piece.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's what I call Backlash Text. You know when you bend a tree over too far in one direction, it lashes back at you - whap!(...)

Yeah. I guess, it will be this case... The problem is that it really not expects a full load of active players, four or five. Than it really lashes back on you. Seriously, you can feel the system hinders you... That's why I am sceptical about its universal glory!

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't think so. Only people with a strong sense of entitlement regard a lack of reward as a punishment. "I deserve to have stuff! I'm special."

What if the withholded reward is attention? Or friendship? That is the level of the rewarding, which is not so clear but even more sensitive on the whole reward/punishment thing. Or partial group expulsion. These are severe punnishment that actually happen in RPG groups.

The game is voluntary, but despite that you play because you follow some motivations (social usually). And you have pretty much a good concept of what should be the incomes of you investments into this relations. So if you don't get any incomes like acclaims or praises, attention in general, better treatment by your peers you might feel punished. The fact that it might run  on subconscious level doesn't make it any easier. I would say worse... (I hope it is not much messy, I am bit lacking the proper words here to express myself.)

Quote from: Kyle AaronPC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

Yes. Although in short-term this might create desired atmosphere of desperation, suits eg. a horror.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

Interesting idea crossed my mind. What if the Dis/Advanteges of your character are invoked by other players. It might seem futile as well, despite the players decides everything. It must be you partialy decides on you character D/A, otherwise there is a risk of futility anyway, right?

Quote from: AlnagThat's what is depressing. No way to stimulate them... they might be reactive in their own way, but in the game, they are acutually passive.

As I said, very few players are entirely passive. Most are reactive, we just haven't yet found out what they'll react to. Some people are not very open about the things that interest them. A GM must keep their eyes and ears open... As always, it's easier if you know the players outside the game group, what sort of movies and books and non-roleplaying games they like...

Quote from: AlnagI have to admit, that this was very refreshing reading. Really. Thank you! It helped me, to really get a new perspective on the things, that happen in a games I play or GM. Really worth piece.

If you liked that, try this (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage)!

Quote from: AlnagThe problem is that it really not expects a full load of active players, four or five. Than it really lashes back on you. Seriously, you can feel the system hinders you... That's why I am sceptical about its universal glory!

No system is universally glorious. I just mentioned Fate as being a compromise between "GM controls all" and "players control all" in terms of the Dis/Advantages.

But it's pretty rare to have 4-5 active players! I don't know how any GM would cope with that, I've never had it.

Quote from: AlnagWhat if the withholded reward is attention? Or friendship? That is the level of the rewarding, which is not so clear but even more sensitive on the whole reward/punishment thing. Or partial group expulsion. These are severe punnishment that actually happen in RPG groups.

Those are severe, yes. But also I think they're not so common. More often, the campaign comes to an end and then people just don't game together again. "I'm... uh... busy with study and work and my wife and..."

Quote from: AlnagSo if you don't get any incomes like acclaims or praises, attention in general, better treatment by your pears you might feel punished. The fact that it might run  on subconscious level doesn't make it any easier.

I think a good GM will be conscious of these things. There are lots of little things you can do. For example, whoever is the most quiet and shy player, I try to put them opposite me - so that I make eye contact with them, I remember they're there, and because their eyes see mine, they naturally speak more than if they're in a corner somewhere... But now we're getting quite off-topic. I suppose this could tie in with the GM and player-invoked Dis/Advantages by saying that if you have a more quiet player (either reactive or passive) it's good to have the GM more often invoke the Dis/Advantages.

Quote from: Alnag(I hope it is not much messy, I am bit lacking the proper words here to express myself.)

Your English is much better than my Czech :D

Quote from: AlnagInteresting idea crossed my mind. What if the Dis/Advanteges of your character are invoked by other players. It might seem futile as well, despite the players decides everything. It must be you partialy decides on you character D/A, otherwise there is a risk of futility anyway, right?

That's quite possible. That could be something like the rule in Fate which already allows a player to pass Fate Points to another at the rate of 2 to 1. Perhaps if they spent 2 Fate Points, they could invoke a fellow-PC's Aspects.

But I don't really imagine it happening in play. Players tend to be rather protective of control over their characters.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOne way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

So we've actually be loudly agreeing, then?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOne way in which players lose a sense of investment in their characters is the feeling that their actions are futile. PC actions are futile when their actions do not affect the outcome of the game, adventure or campaign.

If the GM controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, as well as the traditional control of the whole game world, then PC actions are futile, because the GM ultimately decides everything.

If the player controls the invocation of all Dis/Advantages, then PC actions are futile because the player can choose to never have any meaningful failures.

PC actions become significant when control is shared between players and GM, whether formally or informally.

This seems like a basic fallacy, because disadvantages are not the whole of the game.  PCs can still have failures even if they never invoke their disadvantages.  (Indeed, there are many games that don't have disadvantages at all, so this seems fairly obvious.)  

Now, I agree that there needs to be a balance of control between players and game-master -- but that doesn't need to be involved solely through disadvantages.  If the GM completely controls invocation of disads, but the players have other avenues of control, that could potentially be balanced.  

Another fallacy here is that player-invoked disads mean that players get points for disadvantages for doing nothing.  In general, such rules (like Theatrix, The Babylon Project, FATE, etc.) specify that players will only get points in proportion to how much the disads actually cause problems for them.  So players can go ahead and never invoke them when they would actually cause trouble, but that means that they'll never get the extra points for them.

Quote from: jhkimAnother fallacy here is that player-invoked disads mean that players get points for disadvantages for doing nothing.  In general, such rules (like Theatrix, The Babylon Project, FATE, etc.) specify that players will only get points in proportion to how much the disads actually cause problems for them.  So players can go ahead and never invoke them when they would actually cause trouble, but that means that they'll never get the extra points for them.

Please.
Show me any system of absolutely player-controlled disadvantages (ie. one where the GM is not part of the decision process, including having no control over whether or not to give xp for it), and I could abuse the living fuck out of it without ever inconveniencing my player in any significant way.  Any player worth his salt could.

You can make the GM the judge of when a disadvantage comes into play (and that's obviously the BEST option, or else players will never have it come into play when they think it will be really problematic for their character), or you can make it so that the GM is the absolute judge of whether or not any XP is given. But one way or the other, as much as it might irk you, you HAVE TO GIVE POWER TO THE GM, where it belongs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease.
......HAVE TO GIVE POWER TO THE GM, where it belongs.

RPGPundit

 There should be T-shirts printed up that say that .
Hell, nice 1 or 2 pocket button shirts even  with that done as a logo right above the pocket.


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease.

Show me any system of absolutely player-controlled disadvantages (ie. one where the GM is not part of the decision process, including having no control over whether or not to give xp for it), and I could abuse the living fuck out of it without ever inconveniencing my player in any significant way.  Any player worth his salt could.

WTF?!?  Pundit, before trotting out your stupid moronicities over again, please at least read the thread subject: "Player-activated vs GM-activated disadvantages".  

Now take a minute to reflect that "Player-activated" does not mean "Player controls everything and can do whatever he likes without anyone else in the game objecting."  

We're talking about games like The Babylon Project, Theatrix, FATE, Spirit of the Century, and so forth.  TBP, for example, is a totally traditional system.  The distinction is that disads give points when they actually disadvantage your character, rather than a fixed number of points during character creation.  However, within disads there are some that come up mainly by the player (such as personality disads); and some that come up mainly by the GM's choosing (such as enemies).

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

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. :p

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.

QuoteWhat'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.

QuoteThe 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.

As any GM worth his salt will tell you, this "right" only extends as far as the players allow for it.
Any GM who overdoes the charming/mugging/drugging/hypnotizing of the player characters (overdo depends- as always- on what the players like) quickly finds himself without a group or in a not-so-friendly game of "knee meets groin"(KmG(TM)). ;)

But for one idea that isn't considered here: how about disadvantages that are neither player-, nor GM-activated?

I think this is what most disadvantages are balanced against; something like 'weak' or 'one leg' that has an obvious mechanical effect that's just another number of the sheet. They're simple, objective, and most importantly numerary, so  if a player wants to get past his 'weak' disadvantage, he has to figure out a mechanical way to get his strength up. They're also easier to balance XP/bonus point/whatnot to because of this. Most of the time, barring fuzzy rule writing, they don't need to be considered, except in so far as "is this rule written well or not?"

Quote from: AlnagInteresting idea crossed my mind. What if the Dis/Advanteges of your character are invoked by other players. It might seem futile as well, despite the players decides everything. It must be you partialy decides on you character D/A, otherwise there is a risk of futility anyway, right?

In Fate 3.0, you can :)
 
It's called "Tagging".  As well as characters, items and even environments can have Aspects.  You can call upon those Aspects by tagging them.  For example, a fight breaks out in a bar, the GM immediately decides the bar is Crowded and Smokey.  You might tag the Aspect Crowded during the course of the barfight to help escape into the crowd.
 
If you tag an Aspect belonging to an antagonist, then the point you spent gets given to them!  So you can try and capitalise on their disadvantages, but you keep adding to their pool of Fate points as you do so.  And of course, your enemies can do the same to YOU.

Quote from: RPGPunditJesus fuck. Well, again, you demonstrate that you and I are actually playing two completely different hobbies.

I thought his answer was more than reasonable.  Or do you think the GM should be dictating how someone plays their character?  Believe me, I'm not into the whole Forgie crap about player empowerment and GM disempowerment.  But the day a GM forces me to play my character their way, is the day I quit a campaign.  
 
FWIW, this is one of the reasons why I don't really like systems with advantages and disadvantages.  If I want an honest character, then I'll write a background to suit and then I'll try and play the character that way during the game.  I don't need some formal rule mechanic to support my roleplaying choices.