Hi,

SAs are an interesting idea that really do have the capacity to reinforce role-playing through in-game benefits. A really great design idea.

I have a couple of questions that relate to SAs.

If a PC has an SA of something like "Hates Jean d'Aubremont" then in encounters that involve the PC and Jean d'Aubremont the PC can gain extra dice due to their SA. Fair enough. What happens if the PC decides not to do anything in the situation? So the PC hates the character, they have an opportunity to exercise their hatred, but they decide to ignore the opportunity. Must the SA reduce, as the PC has demonstrated that their hatred is mellowing into mere dislike?

Secondly, if the gaming environment is such that all PC characters are law abiding is it reasonable to insist that all the PCs have an SA relating to being law abiding? Or if all PCs in the area belong to a specific religion then they have an SA pertaining to that religion? In other words, is it reasonable to insist that certain SAs are compulsory simply because the PC belongs to a specific ethnic group? That having grown up in that environment they have certain passions that were inculcated during their upbrining -- passions that are difficult to ignore.

Cheers,

I am of the opinion that I would not force upon any character an SA.
If all PC's were law-abiding... that does not mean that they all let law and justice rule their daily lives like it would for say... a paladin-like character.
Hell, I view myself as a law-abiding citizen. But let's say I'm driving on the highway going 60 mph, instead of the posted speed limit of 55. I am therefore breaking the 'law' am I not? However insignificant this may seem to you all, it holds to the idea that not everyone who is law abiding obeys all laws, or consciously goes out of his way to obey every one of them.

The subject of a character 'hating' someone came up in the last session.. where a character had a deep resentment of my character's employer. Having found out who my employer was, and that my friend was going to run and confront this guy.. I took off after him and prevented an impromtu duel of sorts. Now if this character had an SA involving his hatred for this individual... but chose not to use it.. it could be that he was waiting for a better opportunity to release his hatred on this individual and possibly to do so in a manner that had no witnesses or people restraining this character from escalating his hatred into violence. So it is my opinion that the character's SA should not weaken in this case.(If he had one, I do not know because I don't look at other player's character sheets)

Hope my opinion can help.
-Ingenious

On that note, concerning "weakening" SA's that a PC decides not to follow through with in an encounter... I say that not using your SA's allready has a significant penalty enough. Being that you won't gain SA points and cannot improve your character.

I agree with Ingenious about the fact that not all "Law Abiding" people obey all laws conciously. Also on religion, not all religious people make religion a large enough part of their life to warrent it being an SA.

I do not think SA's should be compulsory, but I do feel there should always be a logical reason. Perhaps something that happened to the character to make that an SA. Also it is good to help players cultivate SA's that will then tie them into a common goal with the other players in the group.

YMMV,
Luke

Law Abiding: Not really. SA's are the most fundamentally important things to your character. Just because I am law abiding doesn't mean that being law abiding is the most important thing to me. Someone mentioned Paladins above, that's a character concept where this might work.

SA enforcement: I completely disagree with the above posters. SA's tell the Seneschal (and everyone else) what is most vitally important to your character. Ignoring an SA is like not being angry when you find out your partner cheated on you. It would be like Conan not bothering to get revenge on Thulsa Doom, The Man in Black not fighting his way through Inigo, Fezzik and Vicini to get back to Buttercup, or Aragorn hiding until Lurtz had left instead of insanely attacking him to "save" an already going-to-die Boromir. Ignoring SA's doesn't make sense and yes, if a character ignored an opportunity to exercise an SA a) it gets reduced and b) I would be asking if they wanted to re-write it since they obviously no longer feel passionate about it.

Brian.

Hi,

Ingenious wrote: I am of the opinion that I would not force upon any character an SA. If all PC's were law-abiding... that does not mean that they all let law and justice rule their daily lives like it would for say... a paladin-like character.

Ingenious wrote: The subject of a character 'hating' someone came up in the last session...(snip specifics)

Hi,

Brian Leybourne wrote: Law Abiding: Not really. SA's are the most fundamentally important things to your character. Just because I am law abiding doesn't mean that being law abiding is the most important thing to me.

Brian Leybourne wrote: SA enforcement: I completely disagree with the above posters. SA's tell the Seneschal (and everyone else) what is most vitally important to your character...(snip) Ignoring SA's doesn't make sense and yes, if a character ignored an opportunity to exercise an SA a) it gets reduced and b) I would be asking if they wanted to re-write it since they obviously no longer feel passionate about it.

Law abiding is valid as an SA only if it's what the player wants his character's story to be about. That should be true for all SAs. I don't think an SA should ever be forced, therefore, but I do think that a play group can all agree to take one in order to make sure that the story is unified in that direction.

As for not doing it...SA's aren't a tradeoff. They're a reward system, and that's it. I don't think that reducing an SA is a good idea, though I do think that if a player clearly isn't into it that he might want to re-write it (otherwise, as stated above, the character won't improve).

However, if you force an SA then you must punish for it not being there, because the whole thing wasn't based around will to begin with. TROS is really about choices, priorities, and free will. That's what I wanted the mechanics to reflect, at least. Both of these ideas seem to run contrary.

That doesn't mean that decisions don't have consequences--they most certainly do! But it does mean that actual cause-and-effect should be a governing factor, not metagame punishment. Make sense?

There isn't a "wrong way" to do it, though.

Jake