Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
And apart from definitional issues, I think what you propose is game mechanically unbalanced. Part of the cost calculus for traits that have self-control rolls is that the GM is allowed to deny you experience if you make unnecessary or too many of them, for bad roleplaying; but violating an externally imposed restriction cannot be considered bad roleplaying, and experience penalties would not be justifiable—which removes the major incentive to roleplaying the trait.
|
I've argued before that this line of thought on self-control rolls causes more problems than it creates. The "recovered" alcoholic who battles - and occasionally gives into - their addiction at every turn is just as valid and dramatic a character as the unapologetic drunk. In theory both characters should be making self control rolls in situations where there are high stakes, so the only difference is in moments of RP that have low stakes. The resisting character may get away with fewer small costs due their disadvantage, but it comes at the RP cost of being treated as more reliable than they actually are. This could expose them to making more roles in high stakes scenarios where they lose big. As an example, a "reformed" compulsive gambler insisting they come along to a known gambling den because they believe they've kicked the habit for good this time and end up gambling all of their valuable equipment away. A known and unrepentant gambler would know to stay away themselves, or would not be allowed to go by their friends.
With all that said, I like the idea of attaching a self control roll to pacifism to represent something other than absolute and iron clad commitment to nonviolence. I could imagine a hopeful pacifist who sees the necessity of violence in some situations, but finds themselves unable to commit to the act when they need to. This could be Reluctant Killer, but that doesn't quite work when you have situations when you can line up a sure-thing to overcome the -4. Instead they could have Total Nonviolence with a self control roll, which would also have them deciding not to cut someone's throat during a night raid, not to put a blow into a temporarily stunned or vulnerable foe, or otherwise abandon an attack that someone with Reluctant Killer could have made.
I would likely expand the duration of the effects of pacifism to cover an entire scene, or until you are forced in some way to make a new decision. If you fail a pacifism roll to try and shoot a fleeing enemy you've decided to let them go, not just hesitated for a second. If that enemy continued to attack you then you could make a new roll as you realize they aren't going to take advantage of your offer of mercy. A friendly character might be able to use leadership, intimidation, ect. to force a new roll as well, allowing some more RP interactions.