From: Peter Metcalfe (
Date: Wed 15 Jan 1997 - 00:18:42 EET

David Cake:

> 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.

- --Peter Metcalfe


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:07 EEST