> Peter does tend to not think from the point of view of play
>sometimes - I agree that I really can't see any way to easily roleplay what
>he describes that would also be any fun.
Perhaps you were sleeping when Pendragon mechanics were mentioned?
Erik Sieurin:
>And Peter gives some fairly good methods of checking whether the
>thing is "in character" or not. The method doesn't matter:
>The trouble I have with your view is again: "You don't want to do
>that." "But I do want to!" "No, I'm the GM. You are a nasty bastard
>and would never do such a thing. Shut up. "
But that's *not* what you said the first time around. Then you said that you didn't want to use Pendragon Traits for fear that your players would skin you alive, immerse you in salt and chop you up into little pieces to use as a Skish Kebab. Or something like that. I was only trying to help you bypass your players hatred on Pendragon and not dictate something to you.
It's not 'You don't want to do that', it's 'you think about it but decide against it - by the time you reconsider (if you do), the lion is gone'.
>No free choice = no fun.
So you've never played Call of Cthulhu? "I don't *want* to drool and gibber insanely _just_ because I've seen Azathoth for the second time running" So you don't allow the use of emotion-affecting spells? "But I don't *want head over heels in love with the Evil Seductress, She'll turn me into a Pig!"
>To say that "The Lion doesn't care whether
>you heal him or not, since he sees you doing it just out of greed" is
>perfectly OK with me. To say "No, you won't heal him" is not.
Which if your PCs are consistent, they will start to complain about Lions being initiated into the Lhankor Mhy Cult and the Order of the Golden Lance...
>Furthermore, you said it was impossible to act other than
>instinctively on the Other Side. I'll make myself clearer: All the
>time people think in other ways than by "instinct" - usually it is a
>combination of instinct and reasoning. This means that whichever
>process you're using, you have to do it all the time.
Completely wrong. I did not say it was impossible to act other than instinctively on the other side, I said that one's emotional self is much _stronger_ on the Other Side. I see very little reason why I should be using the process to control all PC actions in the mundane world. And using the process does not rob the PCs of free thought. What do you think the Violent PC deciding to heal the lion is? He entertains the thought but dismisses it from his mind _if_ he fails his kindness trait (or what-have-you). Doing an act against your 'character' on the Other Side is like giving up smoking successfully.
>BTW, I talked to a friend about the problem, and he suggested that
>I'd write up the character's traits in secret, and then roll for them
>as needed.
Ah well, Secret Character Traits. Don't let the Players know how you view their characters. A subtle flaw there methinks.
Powered by hypermail