Alternate Common Sense

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think he's suggesting that the other players would be able to offer metagame advice, i.e. when the character is separated or otherwise unable to communicate in character.

This is sort of standard operating procedure in my experience. Probably because we're very good at compartmentalizing metagame information, and probably because this way the high IQ/INT/whatever characters get to say and do smart things while players of brainless idiots can still have brilliant ideas and not sit around biting their tongues.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

That's all very sensible. But as written, it would also appear to apply to the character's stupidity as well. (Not that this distinction is easy to draw at the time of action.)

I guess that when discussing Common Sense in Racial Templates, one has to invent a modifier similar to Game Time, which would shift the 'you' from the player to the (N)PC.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is sort of standard operating procedure in my experience. Probably because we're very good at compartmentalizing metagame information, and probably because this way the high IQ/INT/whatever characters get to say and do smart things while players of brainless idiots can still have brilliant ideas and not sit around biting their tongues.

If you are compartmentalizing the metagame advice, then what good does it do? I think the proposed trait amounts to permission to not compartmentalize it.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As written, it takes pains to draw distinctions between player and character where most other traits do not. I really can't see it being read as applying to anyone but the player, although it has the usual RPG issues with "you" being slightly ambiguous.

I mean that the way it works, it has the result of protecting against character stupidity because all the agency lies with the player.

And I'm okay with that, it was just an observation.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I guess that when discussing Common Sense in Racial Templates, one has to invent a modifier similar to Game Time, which would shift the 'you' from the player to the (N)PC.

I don't really see why . . . there's nothing wrong with a meta-game trait that remains completely dormant in a template until a player assumes control of a character built with that template and needs friendly reminders from the GM not to act the goat. "This race is eminently sensible" is a 0-point feature in itself. The GM is welcome to play every last decision by an NPC member of a race as careful and considered; that's just roleplaying. As far as "what makes sense in this campaign" goes, the GM has all the marbles anyway, and will likely be playing many or all NPCs that way. Adding Common Sense is only meaningful if the players, who don't determine "what makes sense in this campaign," are going to get useful advice from the GM when they play PCs of that race. As far as race design goes, it amounts to a way for the GM to ensure that PC members of a sensible race don't act like wing-nuts.

[MangyElf]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Common Sense does not exist in the game world. This is crucial! If you believe that it has to do with the game world, then your answer is going to be wrong.

Common Sense is a pure meta-game advantage, like Luck. Its express purpose is to give the player an insurance policy against dumb player actions by saying to the GM, "In return for giving up 10 points, please warn me, the player, when my disadvantages in the real world – such as my own bad temper, impulsiveness, undue silliness, or delusion that action movies are real life – lead me to declare actions for my character that would, in fact, be bad for him." Some GMs do this for free, in which case it's 10 wasted points; other GMs do not. Thus, this meta-level mechanic, like all such things, interacts with the social contract at the gaming table.

Of course, the trait has a visible impact in the game world: Characters who have it rarely do random, ill-advised things as if suffering from disassociative identity disorder or possession by evil or chaotic spirits – the fabricated personality or spirits here being the player's personality. That's it.

Making the advantage trigger on an IQ roll is simply an attempt to link the two worlds to minimize damage to suspension of disbelief. As GURPS defines IQ – to include rationale, experience, and mental stability – doing random, ill-advised things goes with having less IQ. Ergo, it's easier to accept that a high-IQ person in the game world might avoid random, ill-advised acts.

And yes, you can modify Common Sense to cast a longer shadow in the game world, effectively making the character aware that he has a special talent. Instead of passively tending to avoid ill-advised deeds, he can approach a situation and actively ask his muse, genius, god, implanted AI, or whatever, "I'm thinking of doing this. Would it be a bad idea?" This ekes out a little extra value from the trait, because it lets even a sensible player who doesn't really need Common Sense ask the GM for a little clue as to whether a given course of action conflicts with what the GM thinks would be unwise in the situation. In effect, the character is somewhat aware of the laws of drama in his world and has a limited capacity to break the fourth wall.

Well, luck has a measurable game-mechanical effect that ties directly into one way in which the player interacts with the setting. It is not vague, ambiguously defined or open to personal interpretations of when it applies. Unlike common sense, which considering a two thread discussion on it within a week seems very much to be all of those.

I don't buy that common sense as a meta-trait would solve any of the problems you listed either. In fact, it may even make them worse. Seriously, if you have to tell someone more than just that one time, before they even saw a character sheet (you usually need to know what setting you'll be playing in before you make a character), that no, they don't have unlimited ammo and car doors won't stop bullets etc, because your game world isn't an action movie, then you're not dealing with someone who can be helped by this advantage.

Whatever you meant, though, how does assigning a point cost at all (despite it being optional to take or pay for) encourage the spirit of co-operation?

<GM> New player, eh? Never roleplayed before? OK, the rules cover that so cough up the points and I'll make sure you don't do anything stupid.
<New Player> 10 points? I only have 100 so no thanks, I think I'll try to muddle through by myself.
<GM> 10 points? Aren't you going to bulk up on IQ too, give yourself a better chance to get advice when you need it?
<Player> More points?! But I wanted to be a brawny warrior. Besides, I don't think I can get my head around too many skills right now and spells would be impossible. Nah, I'll skip it and create the character I had in mind to begin with.
option A: <GM> Seriously? Good luck with that but no points and you're on your own! Screw up and it's tough luck.
option B: <GM> OK but I don't feel that I could ignore it if you did something silly so, everyone, listen up! Have an extra 10 points. Not you, I'm giving you common sense instead. You'll need it so that's an end to the matter and even an IQ 10 is a better chance than none.

Few would do this? No one would? I wouldn't know about that but I do know that assigning a point value to it doesn't say, "hey, ignore the points and just help the guy out until he learns the ropes, like someone probably helped you out back in the day". Or you could look at it another way... would anyone willing to grant common sense for free also grant other meta-traits for free, like luck? For the exact same reasons? If not, why are you giving common sense away gratis? Maybe it's because they aren't even similar, one being, essentially, a bonus to dice rolls while the other is basic gaming knowledge that is in everyone's best interests to share freely.

Meanwhile, I disagree that it is crucial that common sense stays outside of the game setting. Despite clarifying your intentions, I see no reason that it can't be made to function from a character's perspective. It's actually extremely easy to do that because aspects on the character sheet interract all the time. I don't understand why is it crucial that this be different.

What did someone call my idea earlier, "crippleware"? It's not even "crippleware" to take traits that rely upon, say, will rolls and then take weak willed and low IQ, or to take a disadvantage that reduces a skill level and then spend extra on that skill to bring it up to speed (or not and discovering the skill is needed). Those are player choices, like this would be except tying common sense to the character's perspective has no game-mechanical penalties. Common sense would still do what it says in the tin, only from a roleplayed perspective.

How it interracts depends on an agreement between player and GM, no different to considering how any other set of individual traits make a whole character that the player and GM are satisfied with. If for example, your character doesn't have the self-control to resist attacking the local bruiser for insulting you then it's hardly a common sense move but since you'll do it anyway then you might want to think twice about punching the guy... when the place is full of barstools.

There is no reason that common sense won't always be helpful to a character, they paid points to make it so, so by default of the player having chosen to roleplay that specific character it will be beneficial to the player too. The player didn't like how it turned out, despite that it was their choice to make that exact character? Well, if things always had to turn out how we wanted them to then we wouldn't need dice rolls either, or a GM for that matter.

[Flyndaran]

Why do so many have trouble with the idea of a little voice in their voice telling them something's dumb?
Don't most of us have that to a limited degree?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I don't really see why . . . there's nothing wrong with a meta-game trait that remains completely dormant in a template until a player assumes control of a character built with that template and needs friendly reminders from the GM not to act the goat. "This race is eminently sensible" is a 0-point feature in itself. The GM is welcome to play every last decision by an NPC member of a race as careful and considered; that's just roleplaying. As far as "what makes sense in this campaign" goes, the GM has all the marbles anyway, and will likely be playing many or all NPCs that way. Adding Common Sense is only meaningful if the players, who don't determine "what makes sense in this campaign," are going to get useful advice from the GM when they play PCs of that race. As far as race design goes, it amounts to a way for the GM to ensure that PC members of a sensible race don't act like wing-nuts.

It is also a way for the GM to record for herself that the members of the race typically don't act like wing-nuts, and to cast them appropriately in her campaigns.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Common Sense does not exist in the game world. This is crucial! If you believe that it has to do with the game world, then your answer is going to be wrong.

Why crucial? If some GM decides that a non-player character or a race can have the trait, and that it just means that they will usually act 'sensibly', what is the drawback?

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If you have no way to guess that some course of action is a bad idea, doing it isn't stupid.

This will not necessarily stop GMs from berating you afterwards.