[DF] Making Bad Temper Bad for Murder Hobos

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Yeah, I don't penalize anybody for rolling every time when I GM, because I sort of expect it from the vast majority of players, but I most definitely will reward players who don't.

Most players, IME, role play voluntarily their disadvantages without rolling SC. When I tell them to roll SC, they dutifully do so, but maybe about a third of the time choose to waive a successful roll and succumb anyway.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Stripe

The character has a disadvantage. The player must role play it. If you don't want to role play it, don't take it.

He has to role play having the disadvantage. He doesn't have to roleplay going along with it without a fight all the time.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Sindri

You can roleplay giving in to a disadvantage but you can't roleplay trying to not give in without doing one of the above without self control rolls.

That is completely incorrect. A good role player can play a disadvantage-stricken character waging an internal war against himself without a single SC roll.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Stripe

That is completely incorrect. A good role player can play a disadvantage-stricken character waging an internal war against himself without a single SC roll.

He can't actually have a chance of winning though. Ever.

Not without just roleplaying in lieu of a roll.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Stripe

The character has a disadvantage. The player must role play it. If you don't want to role play it, don't take it.

• Why then have SC rolls (which are, RAW, you know) at all?
• What's the point of taking a disadvantage at (15) or (12) instead of (6)?
• Isn't it reasonable that characters will attempt self control, and sometimes succeed at it?
• Is it a fun game if the PCs are always in prison or lying in bed or whatever?

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Sindri

He can't actually have a chance of winning though. Ever.

By RAW, he could buy off the disadvantage.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Stripe

By RAW, he could buy off the disadvantage.

I'm not talking about the war, I'm talking about the battles.

Real and fictional people struggle with and sometimes win against their flaws while still having to struggle later.

Sometimes a guy with Bad Temper flips out and punches the electro-orc and sometimes he manages to control himself and not do so. Having to punch sometimes is still disadvantageous so if I shouldn't use Bad Temper to simulate it please tell me what I should use.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Yeah, I don't penalize anybody for rolling every time when I GM, because I sort of expect it from the vast majority of players, but I most definitely will reward players who don't.

There's a huge gulf between "Hey, Bruno, roll Mrugnak's self control, that ork's being a jerk" and voluntarily saying "Hey, I better roll self control here."

It's just as valid as not waiting for the GM to say "that ork's a jerk" and voluntarily roleplaying that Mrugnak really is ****** off - or deciding that no, this time he isn't because he only has a SC rating of 15- so he can't be ****** off all the time. If I'm using dice to help me decide if he's ****** off this time, without prompting or enforcement by the GM, why is that somehow "not as good" as someone kinda roughly loosely eyeballing that they're keeping up with the frequency of their disad?

EDIT: After all, I'm playing an RPG with rules and dice, not working on a collaborative fiction project (which I have done in the past). Using dice and numbers suggested by the rules to give me ideas on how my character should react when I'm indecisive seems like a perfectly valid way of breaking my mental deadlock.

[Stripe]

[*]Why then have SC rolls (which are, RAW, you know) at all?

RAW, the reasons for them are clear.

[*]What's the point of taking a disadvantage at (15) or (12) instead of (6)?

In practical reality? Meta-game reasons and munchkin-ism, sometimes. However, RAW clearly states their purpose.

[*]Isn't it reasonable that characters will attempt self control, and sometimes succeed at it?

If they roll their (possibly-modified) SC number or less on the dice, yes. Of course, you don't have to roll ever and by RAW, it's good role playing not to do so.

[*]Is it a fun game if the PCs are always in prison or lying in bed or whatever?

The first is up to the GM to decide and the PC to attempt to avoid, usually with silver tongue or fleet foot.

The second sounds like a disadvantage unsuitable for many games, especially DF. Being a layabout is one thing, but if you're taking some crippling social or mental disadvantage that's not on the list in DF1, then...

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Bruno

There's a huge gulf between "Hey, Bruno, roll Mrugnak's self control, that ork's being a jerk" and voluntarily saying "Hey, I better roll self control here."

It's just as valid as not waiting for the GM to say "that ork's a jerk" and voluntarily roleplaying that Mrugnak really is ****** off - or deciding that no, this time he isn't because he only has a SC rating of 15- so he can't be ****** off all the time. If I'm using dice to help me decide if he's ****** off this time, without prompting or enforcement by the GM, why is that somehow "not as good" as someone kinda roughly loosely eyeballing that they're keeping up with the frequency of their disad?

Personally if it's a significant outcome at all the dice come out. Always. Doesn't matter if the player intends to follow the disadvantage the self control roll tells them if they have a choice. They can always follow it anyway.

Originally Posted by Stripe

[*]Why then have SC rolls (which are, RAW, you know) at all?

RAW, the reasons for them are clear.

[*]What's the point of taking a disadvantage at (15) or (12) instead of (6)?

In practical reality? Meta-game reasons and munchkin-ism, sometimes. However, RAW clearly states their purpose.

[*]Isn't it reasonable that characters will attempt self control, and sometimes succeed at it?

If they roll their (possibly-modified) SC number or less on the dice, yes. Of course, you don't have to roll ever and by RAW, it's good role playing not to do so.

[*]Is it a fun game if the PCs are always in prison or lying in bed or whatever?

The first is up to the GM to decide and the PC to attempt to avoid, usually with silver tongue or fleet foot.

The second sounds like a disadvantage unsuitable for many games, especially DF. Being a layabout is one thing, but if you're taking some crippling social or mental disadvantage that's not on the list in DF1, then...

They are not clear at all with your interpretation. If you aren't supposed to roll and rolling is bad roleplaying why give people the option to roll.

RAW clearly states their purpose as a characters ability to avoid their disadvantage.

Avoiding the consequences of their actions with "silver tongue or fleet foot." doesn't change the fact that they had an unrealistically and unfictional absolute constraint on their actions rather than a real mental disadvantage.

Your "RAW" is clearly dysfunctional if on one hand it demands that people not use self control and on the other has rules built around self control. Not to mention the fact that the only part of the text RAW applies to is the disadvantages and their self control rules, not roleplaying advice or cp granting advice.