[DF] Making Bad Temper Bad for Murder Hobos

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

You're talking about winning the battles. I'm saying you don't have to ever win the battles and I've quoted RAW on that fact.

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

You're talking about the possibility of winning the battles on a regular basis. At SC 12, that's better than 50% chance your disadvantage isn't effecting your character each time you roll.

If you roll each time it could effect your character, that's just flat bad role playing, RAW.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Sometimes a guy with Bad Temper flips out and punches the electro-orc and sometimes he manages to control himself and not do so.

Not often, if he has a serious mental or social GURPS disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Having to punch sometimes is still disadvantageous...

Not always. In DF, not often. Very rarely, actually.

Originally Posted by Sindri

so if I shouldn't use Bad Temper to simulate it please tell me what I should use.

You could use a few others. There are a number of ways to get to a punch-happy character.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

Sure! You can always choose to fail the roll - it's like flipping a coin to see if you want chocolate or vanilla, having it come up vanilla, and then deciding on chocolate anyways.

Just not the other way around :D

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Personally if it's a significant outcome at all the dice come out. Always.

RAW, that's bad role playing and can be punished by the GM by reduced point rewards.

In my personal opinion, that's bad role playing, too.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

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."

There's a huge gulf between being awarded with XP for good RPing and not, from a certain perspective.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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?

"Not as good," is relative. Remembering to roll is good. Rolling when asked is also good. Not rolling at all while assuming that your PC behaves the way they are inclined is better, IMHO, but I don't expect it, especially if PC death is a potential outcome.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

Genuine cases of mental deadlock are a perfect time for the dice, IMHO.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Stripe

By RAW, he could buy off the disadvantage.

So the guy with Lecherous (15), Impulsiveness (15), and OPH (Filthy Mouth), is face-to-face with the Goddess of Swift Retribution and his only choice is buy off his disadvantages right there, or die? Except he can't just buy them off:

Originally Posted by B p291

This generally
requires a game-world justification in
addition to the point expenditure.

So he just dies?

That's "good role playing"?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Stripe

RAW, that's bad role playing and can be punished by the GM by reduced point rewards.

In my personal opinion, that's bad role playing, too.

<deep breath>

I wanted to tell you how wrong you are, and I wanted to use some strong language to do it. However, I made my Self Control roll for Bad Temper and so instead I'm going to be as calm and courteous as I can. It doesn't mean that I'm acting out of character, or that I don't still feel frustrated. But because I have a Self Control number, it means I'm not automatically ruled by emotion.

If a player has a SC rating of 15-, but never rolls it and always succumbs, that is no better roleplaying than someone with SC 9- who does roll, and so resists the disadvantage 1/3 of the time. In fact, that's exactly what the SC number is supposed to represent: "This character will be ruled by emotion X% of the time." It could be argued that a character with SC 15- who always succumbs is roleplaying out-of-character, just like someone with SC 6- who ignores the disadvantage (not that I'd dock points for voluntarily overemphasizing a flaw). In both cases they have a trait, giving X% chance to act in a certain way, and in both cases they are acting against that.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So the guy with Lecherous (15), Impulsiveness (15), and OPH (Filthy Mouth), is face-to-face with the Goddess of Swift Retribution and his only choice is buy off his disadvantages right there, or die? Except he can't just buy them off:

So he just dies?

That's "good role playing"?

It would be the penultimate height of good role playing. That character would go down in the history books. It would be one of those things we still talked about ten years later.

As a GM, though, I would never do that to a PC.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Stripe

It would be the penultimate height of good role playing. That character would go down in the history books. It would be one of those things we still talked about ten years later.

I have to disagree. It wouldn't necessarily be bad roleplaying, but it wouldn't be good roleplaying, just as a character with HT 15 who chooses not to resist a lethal poison is not demonstrating "good roleplaying". But anyways, there's a lot more to roleplaying than just saying "I succumb to the disadvantages on my sheet" - in fact, I'd much rather have a player who resists his disadvantages in an interesting way than someone who gives in to them without a fight. A hero fighting against his flaws is a much more interesting story than one who is ruled by them.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

<deep breath>

Seriously, man. It's an Internet message board. Calm down.

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

If a player has a SC rating of 15-

RAW is clear. When you start upping the SC, you're less and less effected by the disadvantage. "Choose a self-control number of 15 if you wish to have a tendency toward a disadvantage instead of a full-blown case."

Still, you'd never have to make an SC roll as long as you're role playing well.

In Puddin's wild hypothetical above, the PC with the SC 15's could act suave and debonaire around the goddess with a playful gleam in his eye. But, if he had SC 6's, he'd maybe be trying to rabidly hump her leg, and thus get struck by lightning.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Stripe

RAW, the reasons for them [SC rolls] are clear.

If they aren't to allow characters to exercise self control, I'm not sure what they are for. Can you explain it to me?

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

If not to represent varying levels of self control, then I don't know what that might be. Can you explain it to me?

If they roll their (possibly-modified) SC number or less on the dice, yes.

When do they do this, if they should never roll it?

Of course, you don't have to roll ever and by RAW, it's good role playing not to do so.

It doesn't follow that it is bad role playing when you do roll.

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

If player characters are doing stupid things with no control, they are going to suffer the consequences in my games.

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...

I didn't realize your idea that SC should never be rolled is confined to DF.

Originally Posted by Stripe

If you roll each time it could effect your character, that's just flat bad role playing, RAW.

I'm not sure that what you are talking about is really a "rule" per se, but whatever. It doesn't actually even say that. You can roll and then still waive the result of the roll.

Originally Posted by Stripe

As a GM, though, I would never do that to a PC.

You would never do what? Enforce the consequences of a player's disadvantages?