Greed...But not really

[Mokkurkalfe]

This was on a thread some time ago, but there wasn't any satisfying answer.
Personally, I imagine that many adventurers are similar to colonists; poor lads and lasses who go away, searching for riches(not nessecarily money). I don't see a good way to portrait characters who only adventure to be able to retire and get a better life than being a poor peasant would have.
The general view thinks to be that there should be no "greedy" drives or passions because of the very high munchkin potential, and the Greed flaw is just too greedy.
Perhaps "Drive: get a better life", but I don't know what kind of adventures that would spark.
Is there any other way, or is tRoS just not for those characters*?


* = Let it not be so...

[Nick the Nevermet]

One question would be are social ties.  Are they ONLY out for themselves, or do they want to support a family, or their parents, siblings, etc.  If a character is interested in finding his wealth to give his parents a comfortable life, or buy a cousin out of slavery, then that leads to many good (both mechanically and ethically) passions.

If they are only out for themselves, then the question becomes what is the reason for not being a peasant.  I'd imagine one answer is they thought that staying on the same manor their entire lives to manage a simple life may not suit all people.  These lead to passions that lend themselves to a kind of romanticism that I think can fit in TROS.  Wanderlust, Be one's own Man... passions along this line would make one want to have (and possibly even profit) from the life of an adventurer.  These passions would create great hooks for characters.

Now... if a player character insists he's in it just for the money, and just for himself...

I've found that one of the ways to deflate munchkin fun is to require justifications.  For example, generally speaking, adventuring does not win a cost benefit analysis.  You risk your life constantly (ESPECIALLY in TROS), and your earnings are erratic at best (worse in TROS where you won't find a ton of magic items.  After a while, a lot of characters built off greed will stop being adventurers.  Maybe they'll become taxmen, bandits, merchants, whatever.  The point is that the classic idea of adventuring in a FRPG isn't the best idea for making an income safely.

But lets say the character is from a destitute past and is a risk taker, thereby setting himself up for truly munchkin exploits because adventuring is 'his life.'  First, at this point, you should question the player what on earth he's doing.  Munchkins I've dealt with usually don't understand why I'm annoyed with them, but still conform to my wishes when I'm GM because they want to play, even if they aren't as min/maxed as they wanted.  The few who left, well, they made a choice that made it clear I didn't want them in the game.

Second, if the player manages to stay, but still has passions involving greed and risk-taking, there are a few things to do to ensure the character is not a munchkin's wet dream.  One of the things I truly love about TROS is that the GM can always make a player character own up to its internal contradictions.  If a player really wants a passion as broad as "Greedy," then he should be trying to take everything not nailed down.  If he does this, he'll get caught sooner or later.  If he doesn't get caught, then the GM is essentially approving of the behavior.  If, however, the character DOESN'T steal everything in sight, then you slam penalties on the SAs.  He's not living up to what his character is.

The thing about SAs is that for them to be over-powering for a munchkin, he needs to be able to have things both ways.  If he's greedy, he's greedy ALL the time.  If he takes a more selective SA that allows him to plot 'the big score,' then that SA doesn't apply to that many situations.  An SA for a muchkin is that he needs them broad when they'll help his character, and impossibly narrow when they won't.  The GM needs to either accept that or sanction the character.  Plain and simple.

And plan of last resort: overload a passion.  Throw  a billion things that activiate the passion at the player character.  By the time he gets to the climax and needs SAs, he doesn't have any left.  If he didn't use them earlier, then his character should be dead.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Great answer! Thanks!

The wanderlust hit dead-on what I was thinking about*.

As for the cost vs. benefit. It ocurred to me that should a character that is out there to find a better life actually *get* a better life, there is no need for him to keep adventuring. And since my characters usually get a better life before they get really cool, that's not a very good choice.

I might also add that by adventuring, I mean any career or way of life that fit's for play, including soldier, bandit, "true" adventuring and maybe, just maybe even merchants(altough not taxmen).



*=The peasant toiling in the field thinking: "Man, there's gotta be something better than this."

[Ace]

Interesting you should bring this up.

My first attempt at a TROS character (for a campaign that never got of the ground) had the Greed flaw.

I was trying for the archetypical "adventurer" type character.

How I simulated the wandering urge was to give him a "d" priority in social background-- his parents were peasants who starved for many a season to buy their way out of serfdom.


Having gone hungry before he refused to allow it to happen again

Spiritual attributes were IIRC

Drive: Never be poor again 3
Concience: Honor thy Family 1
Luck  3

This way I had a good reason to push beyond his job as a "Kings Bounder" and seek out opportunity without him being a Riddleseeker

You will note the lack of a Passion/SA a Faith/SA or a Destiny/SA this was intentional. The character is a minor player in the fate of Weyerth and a bit of a cold fish.

Stroy wise I was hoping he would have an opprtunity to build a Passion/SA about some lady or other and widen his story

I will post the character sheet if I can find it but I think a Hef took it :)

[Mokkurkalfe]

That seems like a cool PC.
I'd be nice to see what kind of adventures he'd experienced.
Have you played anything with him yet?

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Another thing again.
I really think we should put up a list somewhere with a lot of really cool SA's(the compendium?).

[Ace]

That seems like a cool PC.
I'd be nice to see what kind of adventures he'd experienced.
Have you played anything with him yet?

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Another thing again.
I really think we should put up a list somewhere with a lot of really cool SA's(the compendium?).

I have never had a chance to play the character but I will oh yes I will :)

AS tot he Be your Own Man SA there are a lot of ways to bring it into use. Lets say a athuggish knight was trying to make him conform to his idea of the social order

Tobias a Knight ---- "Stand down Varlet, Thy langswerd nay belongs in such churlish hands"

Character <eyes blazing> If you want my weapon  come and take it!


Another non combat possibility

Rintain Jur known as the Sly,  a  Merchant of Helena --- "So we will be in bed together eh my beautiful boy, I can make you or break you, prehaps you will find there are more --pleasant things I can do for you"

Character--- "I am no ones boy Merchant shall we continue our discussion?"  

and for the rest of that encounter his SA "Be his own man" comes into play

And as for the "compendium" idea Absolutely!

[Nick the Nevermet]

That seems like a cool PC.
Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Those are obviously two VERY different passions.  The way you figure out what they mean is to have players (*gasp*) discuss their characters personality, explaining what they mean by various SAs.  And then you hold them to it.

So, keeping with my upside/downside tendencies, that would mean the personal freedom version would only kick in when someone or something is trying to control the PC.  The downside is that if this character ever willingly let himself come under the control of something 'bigger' than him, he would SAs.  This character would never join the military, or religious orders, and would be inclined to take on work of a purely mercenary nature (i.e. loyalty is for a paycheck, nothing else).

The everyone-should-be free is more expansive.  Whenever tyrranny pops up, this PC would whack it like whackamole.  The downside is that if he ever 'let it go,' or didn't intervene, then he would lose SAs.

But back to your earlier question, the GM and the player need to have a discussion about what every SA means for that particular character.  Assumptions are baaaaaaaaaad.

"I don't attack"
"But your SAs would compel you to"
"No they don't"

That conversation should be avoided when possible, or ended as quickly as possible due to pre-existing statements.

[Mike Holmes]

Those are obviously two VERY different passions.  The way you figure out what they mean is to have players (*gasp*) discuss their characters personality, explaining what they mean by various SAs.  And then you hold them to it.

Another means, and one that I think is better is to leave it a bit undefined, and have it determined by play. The player can try to explain why they get a particular bonus in a particular situation. As they do so, the player creates a definition that exceeds the small notes on the page. This is coo because it allows the player to define things and develop the character in specific ways on the fly.

SAs are not proscriptive. You can always have your character act against them. Show me where it says you can't. They just give you a bonus when you do act in concordance with them. Positive reinforcement, not negative. The GM has no business telling you that your character with a drive to better his station can't pass up an opportunity to do so. He just gets a bonus if he does go for it.

This is excellent design. Previous designs had "disadvantages" and it was the GM's responsibility to monitor the player. This is not fun for the GM, and not for the player either, usually. TROS allows players greater lattitude in detarmining character actions, and allows for characters to act against their own natures. Which is an important part of developing the character, and allowing for change.

That all said, only take away an SA if the player wants you to. Ask him if he wants it to dissappear givan an action that goes againsst the SA. Remember that the SAs serve as an indicator of what the player wants the action of the game to revolve around. Taking away SAs shouldn't be a punishment, but done to make room for other newer, and more intreresting SAs.

The only "limit" that I see the GM putting on SAs is one of reasonableness of scope. If a player takes drive to be perfect in everything, the GM has to be careful not to allow that to apply to every roll. It should either be specified by the player's requests over time as to when it applies (the player should self limit), or the GM should request that the player change the SA to something less all-empowering. Not becouse it is imbalanced, but becouse limiting the scope of an SA again indicates to the GM player preferences. One that is universally wide does not help the GM.

Nevermet is right, in that just about any SA can find application in ways that does not require the GM to be obnoxious about it. Let the player figure out how these things apply, and the GM then has an ally in defining them interestingly, and in incorporating them into the action.

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

Hey all-

Just wanted to add that this is a fantastic thread, and really shows the true beauty of TROS. Keep it up.

Jake

ps. Isn't it cool that we've got a game where one thread can be about pasions and destinies and another about the relative qualities of an axe or armor. This is the game for me. Wish I wrote it (oh, wait...::grins sheepishly::).

[Jaif]

SAs are not proscriptive. You can always have your character act against them. Show me where it says you can't.

Yes, you can act against them.  However for drive (pg 67, first ed): "If you don't even try, given the proper opportunity, then you lose one point."

Other rules-lawyer things:

Concience: Honor thy Family 1

You do not need to specify conscience; no need to say "Honor thy Family".  Stop fighting to help an old lady get a cat out of a tree? You just got a point of conscience.  Probably also a lvl 3 wound to the back of a leg. :-)

Drive: Never be poor again 3

Drive not permitted by the rules.  By the rules: "Someone with a Drive has a worthy cause that they would die for (and probably will). Examples include the zeal of freedom fighters and patriots like William Wallace, or those that serve great and noble causes or ideals at great personal cost."

Tell me how this drive is 'worthy', 'noble', or in anyway 'ideal'.

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?

That is not a passion.  It may be by the standard english meaning, but by the rules a passion refers to "a single person or entity" (obviously intended as someone else; you can't be that person).  The entire point to the passion is that the object of the passion can toss inconvient situations at your feet and force you to respond (or you lose points).

<exit rules-lawyer, enter rant mode>

I know it's all the rage to dress in black, do your own thing, walk around plundering the land murdering sentients for loot, and generally play the cool, silent anti-hero...but who wants to GM that?  You want big numbers on a character sheet, or want to say "I got this, and I got that, then I got this other thing?" Enjoy.  It's all yours.  Write it down and I'll go watch the LoTR video.

Me, I'm going to reward heros in the traditional mold - people who give of themselves to help others.  If you want to play a selfish character, do so.  Take luck, and nothing else, and live a mediocre gaming life.  Great people do great things for others, not for themselves.

At least when I'm running the game.

-Jeff

P.S. Go play Diablo.  Awesome game, and greed is at its core.

</rant>

[Mokkurkalfe]

To Mike and Nevermet.

I thought that SA's could decrease, should a character ignore an obvious choice, e.g. a PC with Loyalty to the king betrays the king. Is that what you mean by taking away a SA's if the player wants to? He doesn't seem to have that much loyalty to the king after all.

To Jake.

Yeah, we rocks!


And a question:
What kinda cool stuff can you come up with for a guy that has "Passion: Loyalty to the king" and "Destiny: Overthrow the king"?
Would one of them just cancel out the other or what do you think?
And another thing, should a player know his PC's Destiny from start, or have to find out during the game?

[Jake Norwood]

Jaif and all:

I agree that Jaif's interperetation of the rules are, well, lawyer-esque and right.

On the other hand, I think that modifiying what constitutes the SAs is part of what sets the mood of the game. Tweak at will.

I do a bit of both, I think.

Jake

[Mike Holmes]

I thought that SA's could decrease, should a character ignore an obvious choice, e.g. a PC with Loyalty to the king betrays the king. Is that what you mean by taking away a SA's if the player wants to? He doesn't seem to have that much loyalty to the king after all.

Right.

The rules state: "given the proper opportunity"

This is where the GMs subjective opinion comes in. He has to determine what a "proper opportunity" is. I am not going to call it for any situation for which I don't believe that the player wants to actually lose the point. Let's say that Gorgi decides to drop the Book of Zon back into the Black Pit so that he has time to help a teammate. Does that mean that he does not want the book as much any more? No, its more fun to have the character regret the loss and keep after the book (now having to descend into the pit). OTOH, if he drops the book to rescue his true love, and this is one of those moments that the character "realizes" what's truely important to him, then, yes, the drive for the book should go dowm (just as his passion should increase).

Use the discretion allowed the GM by the letter of the rule to allow you to support the spirit of the rule, which is to empower a player to have his character do the things that make the most sense for that character as the player sees fit, and have the result subsequently portray the character in the best way possible.

Is that better stated? Its a cool mechanic, man.

What kinda cool stuff can you come up with for a guy that has "Passion: Loyalty to the king" and "Destiny: Overthrow the king"?
Would one of them just cancel out the other or what do you think?
And another thing, should a player know his PC's Destiny from start, or have to find out during the game?

This is a cool question. I'd allow the player to have both. He will just change over time, and one will take over the other. Until then, the character has an internal conflict that he has to deal with. Problematic for the player, but fun to play.

I think that it works either way, character knowing or not (note in the "not" version how that automatically forces Author Stance). If he knows, it's something like the recent movie Minority Report where he is told that he will do a terrible thing, but he does not believe it. Doesn't mean he isn't destined to do it; things happen, and people change. What will actually happen? Who knows until it gets played out?

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

I personally disagree with Jaif's constant stricture on Drive. Who decides what is worthy? I say it's the player who decides, with the Seneschal only having power of approval/disapproval based on whether or not it can overpower the character. Noble ideals are listed among the examples not in the definition. You're limiting things far too harshly, in my book.

Passions I am also likely to interpret a bit more loosely than you are. I still require a love, hate or loyalty, but what the subject is I allow to be more vague than a specific person or entity. I think that a Love of the Sea is a viable Passion, and can think of a good many situations in which it would be highly appropriate and quite dramatic.

Your rants, on the other hand, I agree with. I have a bad tendency to want to punish those who do bad things, because it's not the sort of play I enjoy most of the time. (There are exceptions, like my V:tM Sabbat game... but that's neither here nor there.) I like heroic stories and characters, and I'm much more likely to reward such play than selfish play.

[Mike Holmes]

I know it's all the rage to dress in black, do your own thing, walk around plundering the land murdering sentients for loot, and generally play the cool, silent anti-hero...but who wants to GM that?  You want big numbers on a character sheet, or want to say "I got this, and I got that, then I got this other thing?" Enjoy.  It's all yours.  Write it down and I'll go watch the LoTR video.

Me, I'm going to reward heros in the traditional mold - people who give of themselves to help others.  If you want to play a selfish character, do so.  Take luck, and nothing else, and live a mediocre gaming life.  Great people do great things for others, not for themselves.

Well, first, this is a preference, so if someone else has a differnent preference it's just as valid, no?

Second, I think that there's a large difference between the "dressing in black and being bad" thing, and having heroes with flaws. The fact that SAs can reflect these flaws (if designed appropriately and withng the rules) is a very cool thing. Note also, how over time, better and better attributes can replace the bad ones. What does this allow? Character development that occurs not in terms of skill and power, but in terms of personality. Few games have that, and I would not want to throw out the possibility of seeing such development.

But then, that's just my opinion; play as you see fit.

Mike