Varnias Tybalt said:
So the way I see it, this can be a useful tool in order to give the players a kick in the butt when you clearly see that they aren't roleplaying their characters correctly.
Which is still a crude punishment system for the GM to impose his will on the players as to how they should be roleplaying their characters. "You guys need to roleplay more, or else!!!" isn't really any better than "you guys need to stick to the adventure, or else!"
macd21 said:
Which is still a crude punishment system for the GM to impose his will on the players as to how they should be roleplaying their characters. "You guys need to roleplay more, or else!!!" isn't really any better than "you guys need to stick to the adventure, or else!"
Well what's the point of making up a player character and inventing goals, beliefes and backgroundstory for it if you're NOT gonna roleplay the character fully? It is well within the rights of a GM to make sure that characters are roleplayed accordingly.
It's also well within the GM's rights to arbitrarily kill off the party by putting them in a completely inescapable death-trap, just because he doesn't like how they're roleplaying HIS scenario (this actually happened to me as a player, though not in WFRP).
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. The GM shouldn't be imposing his will on the party, the individual players or their interpretation of THEIR characters.
A GM can encourage good roleplaying and/or good storytelling. GM has to make judgments when it comes to rules and when it comes to do "boundaries" in the game. I don't like punishment mentality as we all are there to have fun. If GM takes control of something as vague as "good roleplaying", the game is set with a negative mood. In that case I see the tension meter showing the tension between players and GM. That is not it's purpose, I think..
Although I have to admit that I've never faced players who deliberately try to ruin the game.. So I gues punishments have their purpose. Yet then again, I would not play with that kind of player either..
I'm somewhat optimistic about the party sheet and tension meter.
1) I have a couple of **** disturbers in my group, including someone who frequently spends more time trying to manipulate and deceive party members into doing his will than messing with NPCs. This is a nice way of tracking the effects of his antics and the heavy handed decisions other players sometimes try to force down the group's throat.
2) Groups have their own special dynamics. There's the ability to anticipate what another character will do without being told, common tactics, etcetera. Tracking this with its own character card is just as legitimate as tracking character development with a character sheet.
3) Game mechanics that track/impose certain behaviors are nothing new, especially in a game that has unleashed fear and terror tests on poor PCs in every previous edition. It is equally valid to track tension as fear and while good roleplaying is always appreciated, just like fear, tension can be purely metagamed out of the way when inconvenient so using game mechanics to track it is completely justified.
I still don't think that the tension meter is designed to be used as a GM stick and viewing it that way may be missing the entire point of it. Now granted, Jay did use the example of the GM moving the tension meter so as to let players know that they were getting out of hand, or whatever the example he used. So maybe that IS the purpose of the mechanic. Which would be a shame since I see it as a very cool roleplaying feature
This tool in my game would be used simply to lend a mechanic to the effect of party cohesion on performance. This is real life stuff and there's no reason it can't serve a very spicy role in an RPG. I foresee folks really and truly roleplaying intraparty conflict, dealing with the stress of being thrust into the role of "hero", even racial bigotry....and as they roleplay these dramatic points an actual mechanic is there to kick in to represent how it effects their performace as a team. Part of the theme of the game then becomes, how do you handle the stress of being an anti-hero in a group of folks with disparate backgrounds, trying to work together for some common good. I can foresee times where players would intentionally throw fuel on the fire in a heated roleplay scene so as to intentionally suffer the mechanical fallout. Just to see if the party to can hold itself together long enough to get the job done. That's rich stuff! And its not JUST for roleplay any more.
That's what excites me about the Tension Meter. Can't wait to see if it can actually serve this purpose...
Varnias Tybalt said:
It is well within the rights of a GM to make sure that characters are roleplayed accordingly.
No, it is not. The GM doesn't get to decide what is the 'right' way for a PC to roleplay his character. The PC doesn't tell the GM every aspect of his character's personality, how things change for the character etc. A character may start with certain goals, beliefts and backstory, but those goals and beliefs may change during the game. What the player does with his character is his perogative, the GM doesn't get to punish him for not roleplaying 'appropriately'.
macd21 said:
Varnias Tybalt said:
It is well within the rights of a GM to make sure that characters are roleplayed accordingly.
No, it is not. The GM doesn't get to decide what is the 'right' way for a PC to roleplay his character. The PC doesn't tell the GM every aspect of his character's personality, how things change for the character etc. A character may start with certain goals, beliefts and backstory, but those goals and beliefs may change during the game. What the player does with his character is his perogative, the GM doesn't get to punish him for not roleplaying 'appropriately'.
Well it depends. Being a Knight Panther (with the orders and rules of the Order) and playing like a robber-knight must have a good reason and the GM will have to know this, has he not??
macd21 said:
Varnias Tybalt said:
It is well within the rights of a GM to make sure that characters are roleplayed accordingly.
No, it is not. The GM doesn't get to decide what is the 'right' way for a PC to roleplay his character. The PC doesn't tell the GM every aspect of his character's personality, how things change for the character etc. A character may start with certain goals, beliefts and backstory, but those goals and beliefs may change during the game. What the player does with his character is his perogative, the GM doesn't get to punish him for not roleplaying 'appropriately'.
macd21 said:
Varnias Tybalt said:
It is well within the rights of a GM to make sure that characters are roleplayed accordingly.
No, it is not. The GM doesn't get to decide what is the 'right' way for a PC to roleplay his character. The PC doesn't tell the GM every aspect of his character's personality, how things change for the character etc. A character may start with certain goals, beliefts and backstory, but those goals and beliefs may change during the game. What the player does with his character is his perogative, the GM doesn't get to punish him for not roleplaying 'appropriately'.
I've got to agree with Varnias on this one. Good roleplayers don't need the GM making such call, but not all players are good roleplayers. Some will use out of game knowledge, they won't react realistically to situations, and they'll forget supposedly deeply held beliefs to get an even slightly cool magic object. Fuyrthermore, the GM has more emotional distance from the player on the subject of how well the player is roleplaying the character and less inclined to produce rationalizations that absolve the player of error. Now a player has the right to argue with a GM about that call and explain why, in his opinion, he wasn't metagaming or whatever. Warhammer has built in game mechanics that take away a PC's ability to roleplay a character by inflicting insanity, fear, terror, etcetera on him. The GM gives out xp and xp is supposed to be awarded for good roleplaying. So yes, the GM is the judge of whether or not the player is roleplaying well. That doesn't mean the GM is infallible, but evaluating how well players are roleplaying is part of the GM's job.
Cynical Cat said:
I've got to agree with Varnias on this one. Good roleplayers don't need the GM making such call, but not all players are good roleplayers. Some will use out of game knowledge, they won't react realistically to situations, and they'll forget supposedly deeply held beliefs to get an even slightly cool magic object. Fuyrthermore, the GM has more emotional distance from the player on the subject of how well the player is roleplaying the character and less inclined to produce rationalizations that absolve the player of error. Now a player has the right to argue with a GM about that call and explain why, in his opinion, he wasn't metagaming or whatever. Warhammer has built in game mechanics that take away a PC's ability to roleplay a character by inflicting insanity, fear, terror, etcetera on him. The GM gives out xp and xp is supposed to be awarded for good roleplaying. So yes, the GM is the judge of whether or not the player is roleplaying well. That doesn't mean the GM is infallible, but evaluating how well players are roleplaying is part of the GM's job.
Just the way I was thinking.
But on these messageboards it is heavily frowned upon when a GM exact's his or her given rights to nudge the players into actually... well ROLEPLAYING. All you get in return is cardboard cut-out responses like: "We just want to have fun!" or "The GM shouldn't penalize players for bad roleplaying!" etc.
My question to this is: Okay, you want to have fun, and that's not strange because we wouldn't play a game if it wasn't fun. But why the hell would you wanna play a roleplaying game if you don't intend to roleplay at all? Or is it that you only roleplay your character during moments where it suits you, but when the opportunity arises to get cool stuff in the game you just toss your character's sentiments and beliefs out the window?
Varnias Tybalt said:
But on these messageboards it is heavily frowned upon when a GM exact's his or her given rights to nudge the players into actually... well ROLEPLAYING. All you get in return is cardboard cut-out responses like: "We just want to have fun!" or "The GM shouldn't penalize players for bad roleplaying!" etc.
The GM can encourage roleplaying with suggestions and advice. Punishing the player for playing as he/she likes isn't on. "We just want to have fun!" is ultimately the only response required. If a player enjoys running a two-dimensional character, so be it.
Varnias Tybalt said:
My question to this is: Okay, you want to have fun, and that's not strange because we wouldn't play a game if it wasn't fun. But why the hell would you wanna play a roleplaying game if you don't intend to roleplay at all? Or is it that you only roleplay your character during moments where it suits you, but when the opportunity arises to get cool stuff in the game you just toss your character's sentiments and beliefs out the window?
Perhaps you enjoy spending time with your friends. Perhaps you like solving puzzles and overcoming enemies. Maybe you like the sense of accomplishment you get when you kill the dragon, rescue the damsel and pick up the +1 longsword of evil-slaying. And yes, maybe you only roleplay your character when it suits you. Whatever floats your boat.
As a GM I would never punish a player for poor roleplaying. I sometimes give small xp rewards for good roleplaying, but stepping in and telling a player "you aren't roleplaying your character - take a stress point"... I don't have that right. It's arrogant. Maybe he doesn't care that he isn't roleplaying his character. Maybe he doesn't feel that his character would see things the way the GM thinks he would. Maybe he decided that his initial premise for the character was a poor one and decided to play him a different way. Whatever the reason, the choice is his, not the GM's.
macd21 said:
The GM can encourage roleplaying with suggestions and advice. Punishing the player for playing as he/she likes isn't on. "We just want to have fun!" is ultimately the only response required. If a player enjoys running a two-dimensional character, so be it.
Im not saying anything against two-dimensional characters. What im speaking out against here is the fact that a player might give you this fukll description of how his or her character is (personality, traits, background, quirks etc. etc.) and then when he or she actually plays the character in question he/she simply ignores all those things and goes powergaming/munchkinism all the way.
My opinion here is that if they wanted to play the treasurehunting, personality lacking, two-dimensional schmuck, why didn't they design such a character from the beginning?
macd21 said:
Perhaps you enjoy spending time with your friends. Perhaps you like solving puzzles and overcoming enemies. Maybe you like the sense of accomplishment you get when you kill the dragon, rescue the damsel and pick up the +1 longsword of evil-slaying. And yes, maybe you only roleplay your character when it suits you. Whatever floats your boat.
As a GM I would never punish a player for poor roleplaying. I sometimes give small xp rewards for good roleplaying, but stepping in and telling a player "you aren't roleplaying your character - take a stress point"... I don't have that right. It's arrogant. Maybe he doesn't care that he isn't roleplaying his character. Maybe he doesn't feel that his character would see things the way the GM thinks he would. Maybe he decided that his initial premise for the character was a poor one and decided to play him a different way. Whatever the reason, the choice is his, not the GM's.
There's a difference between poor roleplaying but actually trying to roleplay, and poor roleplaying stemming from flat out refusal to roleplay. Another thing you don't seem to consider at all here is the fun of the GM. A good gamemaster puts in a lot of effort and thought into his or her campaigns. Therefore why shouldn't a gamemaster have certain expectations on his or her players as well?
However if a GM wish they player to put in a certain amount of effort I'd advise to tell them that on beforehand (which I do myself when im Gm:ing). But there are players who sometimes just won't hear the GM's sentiments and just goes on steamrolling their way through the GM's campaign with poor roleplaying and total ignorance. Such behaviour SHOULD be punished.
You talk about arrogance, but what about being disrespectful?
Varnias Tybalt said:
However if a GM wish they player to put in a certain amount of effort I'd advise to tell them that on beforehand (which I do myself when im Gm:ing). But there are players who sometimes just won't hear the GM's sentiments and just goes on steamrolling their way through the GM's campaign with poor roleplaying and total ignorance. Such behaviour SHOULD be punished.
No, such behaviour should be discussed. If a player is disruptive, talk to him about it. If he still won't change his play style, you kick him from the group. But you don't have the right to punish anyone. You are not their master - you are a fellow player. Punishing players with in-game consequences for out-of-game issues is at the top of the "What not to do as a GM" list.
Punished? Nah, just let them know that their play style isn't meshing with what the rest of you want out of the game and ask them to leave the game. Thanks for playing and best of luck getting into a group that fits you. It sounds like some of you like the idea of punishing players because they perhaps don't do enough play acting for you, or getting into character, really acting out the role in the narrative. To which I say, eh, its just a play preference. I love RPGs, I don't like to play act at the table. I'm not an actor and every single person I've ever seen doing it at an RPG game, well, they stink as well. I'm not saying they're not having fun and I'd never ask them to stop as its obviously contributing to their enjoyment. Just don't ask me to do it. If that bothers you, we can play in separate groups, no biggie.
However, if you're referring to maintaining the continuity of the fiction as roleplaying, then I can see being upset by that. If a player is deliberately being ignorant of the shared imagined space and ignoring established facts within the game as agreed upon by the group, then that's just crappy gaming and being an ass. Even here though, no "punishment" is necessary. Just a simple invitation to leave the group should suffice. Why play with jerks?
donbaloo said:
Why play with jerks?
I don't. It's just that some people can be quite oblivious to their own jerk-like behaviour...
Quite a lot of speculation for now as we do know little about this tension mechanic. It SOUNDS promising and that is good in itself.
One of the golden rules of gaming is: never cross IC with OC. That goes for the GM too. Using the tension meter and punishing characters for their players' mistakes is a bad idea. If someone is getting out of hand OOC they need to be told OOC, otherwise the lines blur and it all goes very wrong.
Having said that the general idea of using it to track inter-party conflict is a good one.
I gotta see how this works.
In some cases, I think it could be a good thing - FREX, a convention game, where the players have all just met each other and the GM for the first time, it oculd be very useful to control conflict among the players, and give hints on how to role-play their group. Or a group that's just formed, and needs a little nudge to actually role-play the inter-party relationships.
But in other cases, I wonder if might not make things harder to deal with. FREX, I ran a large WFRP 1e campaign where two of the players were dating - the guy had actually joined the game because his girlfriend recruited him. Something went wrong between them after about a year of playing, and some things got nasty between them. But both of them were enjoying the campaign so much that other than the first session after their breakup, there was no OC conflict between them at game sessions. Sure, neither spoke to each other out of character after I and another player had a little talk with them about their behaviour after that one session, but when it came to playing, they were both dedicated to the game, and their PCs even managed to work well together as long as the campaign lasted - about two years after that. I wonder, though, if a tension meter that first session wouldn't have worsened the situation - possibly by being used as a crutch for me to avoid having to deal with the situation like an adult, or as a way for the two of them to get little snipes in at each other without being too obvious about it.