I know I'm just waving a red flag here, because I've glanced at threads where you go at it with Luke Crane, but have you ever checked out Burning Wheel's Instincts? They're basically three little macros that let players specify how they deal with situations like that. Things like "when surprised, I draw my sword", "if I'm in a dungeon, I'm checking for traps" and "always keep a dagger concealed on my person".

They're a lot like the SOPs someone was talking about earlier in the thread--a good way to cut down on BS arguing about whether somebody drank the wine. Which is pretty much a win all around the table. And it also forces players to make choices: okay, bub, you REALLY want to make sure you never get poisoned? Well, then sometimes you gotta sleep without your full harness and helm.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, mine and the other players'. There's lots of things they can and should be and do end up doing that are precaution enough (like regularly checking for traps, taking turns standing guard when they camp out at night, keeping a weapon at hand when they sleep, and sensing motive or perception checks if they feel that something might be off at the big banquet.

Have you told them that the other precautions are enough? If you've said "having watches and keeping a weapon nearby is enough to protect you from midnight ambushes," then anything they do beyond that they'll know flat out is over compensation.

QuoteOften, these crazy ideas come up AFTER an attack comes along, when they retroactively try to argue for how they didn't really drink the poisoned wine, or how they were sleeping in their full plate, because they fucked up on doing the regular things they ought to do to keep safe.

Sounds like all the more reason to institute SOPs. When the players have told you ahead of time what they do in standard situations, attempting to rollback the clock is useless. If they don't say they deviated from their SOP, they didn't.

cr0m - That sounds like a very good idea.  I'd be tempted to vary the number based upon some stat like Wisdom or Self-Discipline or Robot Nature.  A high wisdom (or whatever) character would have the forethought and follow-through to keep more such precautions.

That would be an interesting way of doing it.

BW also uses something like Bennies/Action Points/Etc, and players can earn them by ignoring or invoking their Instincts in situations where it will make their lives difficult:

"When threatened, draw steel" ... if the player does it even during an audience with the King. Or if the player does not draw his weapon, even when it would be advantageous to do so.

The nice thing about the Bennies/Action Points/Etc interaction (the points are called "artha" in BW's case) is that the GM can tempt a player into going against his better judgement to create more interesting encounters. For instance, if the GM really wants an attack where the characters are all without their armor, he can set up a situation where people normally wouldn't wear armor and then bribe the players into overriding their SOP with points.

Ugh.

RPGPundit

I think I agree with Pundit on this one, although it's hard to tell from that reply.

I'm not a big fan of "please don't take those illogical actions. How about a bribe?" or the converse that starts with "please don't do things that make perfect sense."

Setting up situations where your players' Instincts will get them in trouble is no more of a 'bribe' than an obviously trapped open treasure chest brimming with gold and +1 daggers is to a thief (err...rogue) in D&D. Sure, you get Artha awards, but most groups don't do the awarding until the end of the session so there's no cheesy carrot-on-a-stick dynamic going on.

The best thing about Instincts is that they avoid the exact situation that Pundit's been talking about: the whole "of course my guy would do that!" thing is right there on the character sheet. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. They're a limited resource, too (only three of them per character in BW), so it's not like your God-given GM's right to fuck the PCs is being seriously infringed upon. Instincts are nothing revolutionary, they just make playing a little easier and less contentious.

Jrients idea of tying them to your Wisdom bonus would be an awesome way to implement them in D&D.

The campaign I'm playing in right now consists of a small party of three PCs, who are refugees from an invading necromancer's army. Just for illustrative purposes, here are their Instincts:

Ranger dude:
- If there is danger, I have an arrow knocked.
- If there is down time, I am practicing with my sword. (you can raise skills through practice in BW)
- When invading soldiers are near, I'm Stealthy.

Sorcerer Dude:
- Every morning cast Turn Aside the Blade (a sustainable defensive spell)
- Consult the Heavens every night. (so he can use his Astrology skill at will during the day)
- If I see a book, I snatch it. (wizards like books!)

Man-at-arms Dude:
- If there is trouble, my axe is in my hand.
- When on watch or on the road, my crossbow is cocked and loaded.
- If I see a member of the marauding army, I shoot first then talk.

This particular campaign is deliberately old school in feel and most of these instincts are very combat oriented, but I'm sure any GM worth his salt could find inspiration for some cool scenes from them.

Tim

Quote from: richforestHere's how it works. There are two basic units of gameplay. One is the round (combat!) and the other is the turn (10 minutes).

Excellent description and commentary. I'd like to shake your hand.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not a big fan of "please don't take those illogical actions. How about a bribe?" or the converse that starts with "please don't do things that make perfect sense."

Okay, but this entire thread is about players doing illogical things (like never removing their armor) and refusing to do things that make perfect sense (like eating and drinking at a banquet). My thinking was that if players are going to do that kind of meta-gaming (if I take off armor, I'll get attacked, because this is D&D), might as well work with it by having them make choices about how much meta-gaming they get to do.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get into a discussion of Burning Wheel, just thought that Instincts were relevant.

edit: I agree with Elliot. The round/turn thing was elegant.

This thread helps illustrate the problem with drawing lines in the sand, chosing sides, and declaring war.

I'm sure at some point, at some tables some GM, frustrated by the 'My Players sleep in their armor' bit, came up with some houserule that basically consisted of: Okay, you guys, write down one thing that you always do. Sleep in armor? Fine, but then you won't be 'not eating' at banquets.

Burning wheel is, as we all know from talking with Luke here, filled with rules to make GMing 'easier' for Luke.  You are buying a game made entirely from houserules, with no underlying game system but the houserules themselves (exaggeration for effect....).

Hating instincts instinctively is knee jerking because it's 'Forgite'. I have yet to see a critical complaint of them that doesn't fall back on the 'forgite' insult other than the vague handwavy 'its a bribe...'....

Guess what, guys: Bribery is natural human behavior. Your boss bribes you into working for him by giving you a paycheck.  Some bribery is illegal, and the term has negative connotations to our culture, but the principle of rewarding behavior you want is sound.  I bribe my dog into staying calm when I feed him by giving him a treat when he is actually calm and quiet instead of jumping up and down like a furry loon.

What we're talking about here is basically players trying to cheat, trying to do things against the spirit of the game to "win".

And some people answer, "use something like BW's Instincts." Now, BW is undoubtedly a hippy commie mutant traitor of an rpg, nonetheless I must say that you're understating what Instincts are for in it - they're there for much more than wanky players. They're meant to help define your character.

Instincts are as fundamental to BW as character class or alignment is to D&D. You can't just drag them out like that and slot them into some other game. Won't work.

The solution here is as I said - the GM should take the players at their word. Let their characters have the consequences of the actions they've chosen for them. So yes, they avoid the poison at the banquet - but they also don't get invited to another banquet. Yes, their sleeping in their armour makes them ready to meet the ambush at night - but they also get poor sleep, and their armour is rusty and looks bad and they miss out on the good jobs. And so on.

After the GM has had a talk with the players and explained how the game world works, PCs should have freedom to do as their players please, however smart of stupid that is. And they should get all the rewards and punishments of their actions.

It's really not that complicated.

Bribery is great.

At the start of my Star Wars games featuring the Good Guys(TM) I always say to my players:
"Your characters are HEROES and role models, defiant fighters against the Empire. As heroes, they simply don't do certain things that would be more suitable for villains or anti-heroes, like booby-trapping their hideout like in Conspiracy Theory or torturing captured Stormtroopers for information.
I know this might be hard sometimes, as you might deny yourself advantages by this kind of behavior, but if you stick with it, I'm going to cut you some slack on other fronts, like Stormtroopers who are standing behind one another, so if you K.O. one he knocks a couple of his buddies off balance in the process, like we see in the movies. And of course the main villains will never kill you outright, but instead will always have very good reasons(TM) to capture you alive (which they explain to you, if you give them the chance).

Of course you can say "We don't want to be the heroes", in which case Stormtroopers might just use sensible military formations and the bad guys might put a blaster bolt through your unconscious form, when they get the chance."

Works every time.

Quote from: alexandroBribery is great.

Your idea of bribery is very... odd.

I would call it blackmail, but that would sound sooooo evil

'Extortion'?