I'm a little confused about how Trait rolls work. How does one determine which side of the scale to roll on in any given situation? I mean, if I'm faced with rushing in to charge a giant, do I roll against Valorous or Cowardly? Sorry if this seems like a dense question, but I've never seen anyone play this game before and the rules don't address this ambiguity directly, that I can see. That said I just got the rulebook two days ago, so maybe I'm just missing it. I've seen examples in the text illustrating checks on either side of the scale, so I'm trying to understand how one makes this determination.

Thanks in advance,


T.

Hi Taliesin,

Welcome to Pendragon!

I'm no expert, but I think it works like this:


Success: Success in a trait roll indicates that the knight felt, and was moved by, the feelings expressed by that trait....

Failure: Failure at a single die roll is not enough to force a character to act entirely opposite to his usual patterns of behavior; the player must also roll against the opposite trait to see if chance and statistics force his character to break pattern....

From KAP 5.1, pg. 67




So, using your Valorous example: If a player is confronted by a fearsome giant, a Gamemaster can make her roll against her Valorous Trait. If she succeeds, then, that's that. She's Valorous and will confront the brute. If she fails the roll, then that doesn't mean she's Cowardly. She must now roll against her Cowardly Trait. If she succeeds, then she's Cowardly and tries to run away like a smart Cthulhu character. If she fails the Cowardly roll, then the choice is up to her. Being a good Pendragon character, she undoubtedly rushes blindly into danger hoping for Glory.

I suppose failing the Valorous roll is like having a moment of panic. Succeeding the Cowardly roll means the player's character gives into the panic. Failing the Cowardly roll gives the player to right to override her character's panic.

I hope this helps!

Best

D

Thanks, Doon!

No, I'm still a bit stumped. I understand the example in the book as written, but here's what throws me off:

There's a sidebar on page 5 (5.1 rules) that says, "King Mark gets a Cowardly check." I've seen other examples where characters check against the negative trait first. So how does one decide which Trait to test with? In the sidebar example, why doesn't King Mark get a Valorous check? This is what I'm not grasping you have a "light side" and a "dark side". When tempted or tested, how does the GM decide on what "side" to check against?

Here's another, on page 67: "...Sir Bors de Blanc, a religious knight renowned for his purity — he has a Chaste trait of 19 — encounters a beautiful young maiden in a forest clearing while traveling alone. The Gamemaster asks Sir Bors’ player to make a roll against his Lustful..."

Why doesn't he roll against Chaste? Under what scenario would he make a "Chaste" roll?

This is the crux of my confusion.

Best,


T.

There isn't any hard and fast rules on this, as far as I know.

Which I think is good, since it gives each GM some leeway to do things his way.

The Trait system is meant - I think - to be flexible, to some extent, and not a straitjacket for GMs or Players. Just start playing, and take it from there, that would be my advice.

I'm still a bit stumped. I understand the example in the book as written, but here's what throws me off:

There's a sidebar on page 5 (5.1 rules) that says, "King Mark gets a Cowardly check." I've seen other examples where characters check against the negative trait first. So how does one decide which Trait to test with? In the sidebar example, why doesn't King Mark get a Valorous check? This is what I'm not grasping you have a "light side" and a "dark side". When tempted or tested, how does the GM decide on what "side" to check against?

Here's another, on page 67: "...Sir Bors de Blanc, a religious knight renowned for his purity — he has a Chaste trait of 19 — encounters a beautiful young maiden in a forest clearing while traveling alone. The Gamemaster asks Sir Bors’ player to make a roll against his Lustful..."

Why doesn't he roll against Chaste? Under what scenario would he make a "Chaste" roll?

This is the crux of my confusion.

I think I get your problem, Taliesin, but to be honest I think you're overthinking it. No matter which roll you make, the end result is effetively the same, it's almost entirely a question of flavour.

Remember that, to use your example, Valorous/Cowarldy or Lust/Chaste are increased or decreased in relation to each other when one changes. My odds of passing a Valorous 15 roll are the exact same as my odds of failing a Cowardly 5. Similarly, with Chaste 19 I have to have Lustful 1 and as such the dice roll is still weighted to the same odds.

I don't have my books to hand, but I'm pretty sure you get a check only on a critical success or failure, so again the odds don't change depending on which way you do things. (Just the exact number which triggers them)

At heart it's purely a GM decision and perhaps one which might convery some tone. You might view it as the emotion being tempted and roll the negative - such as in the Chaste/Lust example, choosing to roll Lust. Or maybe you prefer to view it as the Knight's holding to their higher morals, and give them Just to roll rather than Arbitrary? But whichever you choose the game mechanics will work out to exactly the same sorts of result.

The Bors example is an interesting one. It is a GM-prompted roll, to be sure, but this maiden may be no ordinary maiden -- Bors finds her alone in a forest clearing. My gut tells me that the maiden is fae, demonic, a divinely imposed test, or something else that fate has thrown in Bors' way. The maiden's purpose is likely what prompted the GM to call for the roll.

In other situations, though, I tend to make the player roll based on what he or she would rather have his or her knight do. For instance, PK Sir Stratford is famously Lustful. He is eating dinner at a foreign castle when one of the women bringing out the feast casts a lascivious eye at him. He realizes, however, that if he accepts her advances, he may lose the goodwill of another maiden who has promised to help him and his friends. So because he wished to abstain, I made him roll Chaste (especially to resist his Famous Trait).

This is a roundabout way of saying that your discretion should dictate what rolls you call for and when. Just be consistent and you'll do fine.

I think I get your problem, Taliesin, but to be honest I think you're overthinking it. No matter which roll you make, the end result is effetively the same, it's almost entirely a question of flavour.

Actually, Taliesin's confusion is understandable, because the odds do change depending on which you ask the player to roll first.
If a player has Valour 16, Cowardly 4, and you ask him to roll cowardly, he has a 20% chance of being cowardly.
If the player rolls Valour first, a failure does not mean he acts cowardly. He must then roll against Cowardly, and then succeed that. Since he needs to roll 17 or more on the first roll, and then 1-4 on the second roll, he only has a 4% chance of being cowardly. Quite a difference.

Thank you, Darren. I quite thought I must be over thinking it—but I still couldn't work it out. As a newbie, this is causing me no little amount of angst and I keep pouring over different examples found throughout the book and I find myself going in circles. To go back to the Sir Bors example, if the GM had asked him to make a Chaste roll and he rolled a "1", per the example, the outcome would have been very different than the one in the book. Bors would have kept his head held high and may have offered a slight smile in recognition of the woman's beauty. Nothing more—no shame or embarrassment, no Courtesy bonus—nothing. So it seems to me it does matter which roll the GM calls for. But how to decide which roll is the appropriate one? I can see my player's asking the same question:

Me: Make a "Lazy" roll to resist sleepiness in the hot sun." (to use another example from the rulebook)

Sir Vigorous: "Why Lazy? Why shouldn't I roll against Energetic?

Me: "Uh..."

This is what I dread. I really need to understand this so I can confidently call for the right rolls for the right reasons. I have similar issues with Valorous and Cowardly. I see examples that call for "Cowardly" rolls in combat. Why not Valorous rolls?

I think one of the things that contributes to my confusion is the use of the words "check" and "rolls" as they pertain to Skills and Traits. They mean something completely different, but I've been conditioned to think of the terms as synonyms.

Any one else want to jump in here? I'm still flailing a bit.

Thanks,


M.

In other situations, though, I tend to make the player roll based on what he or she would rather have his or her knight do. For instance, PK Sir Stratford is famously Lustful. He is eating dinner at a foreign castle when one of the women bringing out the feast casts a lascivious eye at him. He realizes, however, that if he accepts her advances, he may lose the goodwill of another maiden who has promised to help him and his friends. So because he wished to abstain, I made him roll Chaste (especially to resist his Famous Trait).

Thanks, Sir Pelleas. It's this kind of framework, or rule of thumb, that I'm looking for. That does help a bit. Still not crystal clear, though.


T.

I think one of the things that contributes to my confusion is the use of the words "check" and "rolls" as they pertain to Skills and Traits. They mean something completely different, but I've been conditioned to think of the terms as synonyms.

Any one else want to jump in here? I'm still flailing a bit.

Thanks,


M.


I try to let the knight roll for what he wants to do, not make him roll to fail at what he wants to do. Basically, If the knight wants to attack the giant... roll valorous, if he wants to not engage the giant... roll cowardly.

However,I also try to not make a trait roll force the knight do something the player doesnt want to do, when possible. Using the previous example, I wouldn't let him attack the giant if the valorous roll is failed, but I wouldn't make him attack the giant if he failed the cowardly roll and then made his follow-up valorous roll. I would instead make him immediatly gain a point of cowardly (and lose a point of valorous)for the action. Or, depending on the circumstances, he could just run with an automatic check to cowardly, rather than make roll at all.

In circumstances that a roll is needed, like the lazy/energetic situation, I let the knight roll his highest trait because that is what the knight has show that more inclinded to do.

Occasionally the knight does something above and beyond in the course of a game, I will then award an automatic check in the trait without requiring the roll, and I have even awarded an immediate point for the actions of the player, but that is rare.

Of course, there are times that a scenerio requires a specific test and I will force results when those occasions present themselves. Like when the knight is attempting to resist the charms of an evil enchantress that wished to use the knight for her nefarious plans, I could see making the knight honoring his failed lustfull. I try to keep those rare, though.

Actually, Taliesin's confusion is understandable, because the odds do change depending on which you ask the player to roll first.
If a player has Valour 16, Cowardly 4, and you ask him to roll cowardly, he has a 20% chance of being cowardly.
If the player rolls Valour first, a failure does not mean he acts cowardly. He must then roll against Cowardly, and then succeed that. Since he needs to roll 17 or more on the first roll, and then 1-4 on the second roll, he only has a 4% chance of being cowardly. Quite a difference.


Silly me, I'd forgotten the double nature of the roll. (I was at work and didn't have my books to hand) In which case the order you carry the task out in can indeed matter.

Sir Pelleas's idea to let the player choose the roll is interesting but now that you've explained it to me the above way, Darren, it seems a bit wonky to me. The idea that there's a difference between "fail and make a choice" and "fail and do the wrong thing" is sensible, but if in application it means which dice you roll first changes your success or failure odds then that seems a poor choice to me.

Not sure how I'd fix it, though. Randomise which trait to roll in a given check? Always check the larger or smaller trait as a standard rule? (The former meaning characters should act out of character much less likely?) Or is this one of those problems that sounds scary on forums but would play out just fine and no-one would be any the wiser?

[Or is this one of those problems that sounds scary on forums but would play out just fine and no-one would be any the wiser?


Well...note my previous comment about my players asking me how the determination is made and I just give 'em a blank stare.

@ headwound

"I try to let the knight roll for what he wants to do, not make him roll to fail at what he wants to do."

This sounds good on the face of it, and the kind of suggestion I'm looking for, thanks. However, how do you square this with the aforementioned Sir Bors scenario—wear he has to make a Lust roll, when clearly he would want to remain Chaste. Of course, that's a GM-requested roll. Is there a distinction maybe when the GM calls for the roll and the player volunteers for one?

Thanks for all your help, guys. I'm really surprised no one else had had the same issue, being the game's been around so long. I still feel like a dunce because this should be painfully obvious and yet I can't see it! Yet. Will continue to ponder.

This sounds good on the face of it, and the kind of suggestion I'm looking for, thanks. However, how do you square this with the aforementioned Sir Bors scenario—wear he has to make a Lust roll, when clearly he would want to remain Chaste. Of course, that's a GM-requested roll. Is there a distinction maybe when the GM calls for the roll and the player volunteers for one?

Thanks for all your help, guys. I'm really surprised no one else had had the same issue, being the game's been around so long. I still feel like a dunce because this should be painfully obvious and yet I can't see it! Yet. Will continue to ponder.


Oh don't worry, plenty of people have had this issue, it's just a tricky one to sort out - everyone has to work through it on their own.

The question I've bolded above is the way I navigate this thorny issue.
The vast majority of trait rolls that crop up in the game are driven by player actions - something happens, which prompts the player or GM to think, "hmm, this could be influenced by Generous (or whatever)", and so a roll is made. In these cases, you can usually let the player choose which to use. The odds will be different depending on which side they roll, but that's okay - there's no absolute here, the player has some influence over how his character should develop.

Most uses of traits are like this. For instance, the example in the rulebook, where one knight is being boorish, and Ambrut tries to shame him into silence by using Modest vs the knight Proud. But he fails, and so has to make a proud roll - and gets into a bragging contest with his opponent.
In that case, the player's goal was to shut the other knight up - he could have used Modest (to shame him) or Proud (to be more boastful and cow him into submission). Many cases are like this - players are free to choose which side they want to act.

However, there is a special case that occurs reasonably often, where the choice of which trait to use is not up to the player.

From time to time, the GM will create spiritual tests or challenges - like, only those who answer a riddle of Justice may pass into the hall of justice, or (a very frequent one) to face a fearsome monster, you must succeed a Valour roll. In these cases, you do have to succeed a specific side to get a benefit, so that's the side you always roll first.

You can generalise this to: whenever an event depends on a specific side of the trait pair succeeding, that's the trait you roll first. That probably sounds a bit like gibberish, but look back at the above two examples:
In the hall of justice, a play who succeeds the Just roll gets to enter. If he fails the Just roll, even if he also fails the Arbitrary roll, he does not get to enter. It still matters for roleplaying purposes if he succeeds or fails the subsequent Arbitrary roll, but it doesn't matter for the success of that test: that is decided purely by the justice roll.

Many magical tests work this way, but also certain challenges of traits too: Imagine the lord thinks you have been sleeping with his wife, and you must try to convince him you weren't. You could roll Honest, to convince him of your sincerity, but if you did in fact sleep with his wife, it would be more appropriate to roll Deceitful, to lie convincingly that you didn't sleep with her. In either case, a failure of the roll would fail in your attempt, and whether you then fail the subsequent roll on the opposite trait has little added meaning. In Pendragon, everything is situational.

In these cases you are using traits like a skill: success in important, so you pick the side where success actually matters. As the honest/deceitful example shows, which trait that is may vary from knight to knight (if the lord accused all 4 guests, 3 of them might be rolling honest and the one who did sleep with her rolling Deceit!), but there's always one correct trait to roll for that situation.

Here are the best rules to follow that I can give you:
* if a trait roll comes up in play, and you find yourself unsure which side a player should roll, then it really doesn't matter - let the player choose.
* And if you have created a spiritual or personality trait encounter, then make sure you choose a specific trait side to roll.

Not sure how I'd fix it, though. Randomise which trait to roll in a given check? Always check the larger or smaller trait as a standard rule? (The former meaning characters should act out of character much less likely?) Or is this one of those problems that sounds scary on forums but would play out just fine and no-one would be any the wiser?


For the most part, yes, this is one of those things that sounds worrying, but most GMs and groups work out how to deal with it in a way that works for them. It's not something that is going to break the game.

Is there a distinction maybe when the GM calls for the roll and the player volunteers for one?



I just wanted to add a small point to the nice answer that Darren gave. When I design a scenario for the evening, I try to give the players a few situations to allow them to grow their traits to the desired religious or chivalric (we are in the anarchy, so not there yet). It took me the first 5 years of the GPC to realize I was short changing my characters by not challenging their traits as often as I should.

In addition to that, it is fun to test the knights as they develop those traits, by doing the GM called rolls. I generally only require a specific trait roll for plot point in the story. I have also tied a knights magic sword to his valorous trait, and he has to make a successful valorous roll to use the (small) bonus that the sword will give. However, I told him that the roll for the sword does not warrant an experience check.

Thanks, guys, this had been most helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me, and with such generous answers too.


Best,


T.

Sure, glad to help. :) The reason rules-of-thumb aren't clear-cut is, as Darren said, everything in Pendragon is situational (hence why I think the reason the GM called for Bors' player to roll Lustful is because the maiden constituted a test of Bors' Lustfulness). I agree with Darren's rules-of-thumb about Trait rolls.

The RAW state that, most of the time, PKs do what their players want them to do, no rolls required. But it's up to you as GM to decide when a situation prompts a Trait roll or when a Trait roll would add some excitement or uncertainty.

There's a heavy burden of decision-making that falls to you as the GM in Pendragon, and it can become a bit overwhelming at times. Just be consistent, consult your players if you're worried about the fairness of your house rules, and you'll do fine.


P.S. - I also play by a House Rule mentioned on another thread: Should a player wish to defy the dice, he or she can do so, but with an immediate 1-point loss in the Trait the PK is defying. That way, the player still has the choice.

(E.g.: PK encounters a dragon, rolls and fails Cowardly, rolls and succeeds at Valorous. The player still wants PK to flee and defies the dice; the PK flees but incurs a 1-point loss in Valorous.)

Here are the best rules to follow that I can give you:
* if a trait roll comes up in play, and you find yourself unsure which side a player should roll, then it really doesn't matter - let the player choose.
* And if you have created a spiritual or personality trait encounter, then make sure you choose a specific trait side to roll.


On reflection, i'd amend "let the player choose" in the first one to:
* if a trait roll comes up in play, and you find yourself unsure which side a player should roll, then it really doesn't matter - let the roleplay decide the trait.

So, a knight is arguing that charging off against an unknown enemy is reckless and we should scout first - in that case, he is arguing for prudence, so if a roll was required, it would be Prudent.
Later, a famously generous character has just received a horde of treasure for something he and his team did. The GM might ask him to roll selfish: what the character is doing is selfish, so that's the side to roll.

This approach tends to resolve nearly all ambiguities. If you are asking for trait rolls based on character actions, then look at the actions they are performing and that's the trait to roll.

By extension, when a player asks if he can make a trait roll - ask him what his character is doing, and then you'll know which side of the trait to roll.

You are letting the player choose, but those choices are more firmly rooted in the gameplay. It's just another way of saying the same thing.

Some general comments:

Firstly don't forget the rule about Famous traits - once a trait goes above 15 (ie they are getting annual glory for it) then the GM is entitled to require the character to act according to his nature (ie assume that the trait autosucceeds) irrespective of what the player wants to do. I tend to softball the RAW by offering to let the player do what he wants if he take a check in the non-famous trait (sometimes that'll be an immediate increase to the non-famous trait for an especially egregious example). Note that the GM isn't required to enforce trait-appropriate behaviour but he is granted the option so to do.

Secondly, what Darren says about letting the roleplay inform which trait to choose first is good stuff. I will often use traits as a way of opening up a discussion aimed at unpacking the why and how of a player's statement of intent at the table - I find them a very useful tool for that.

Thirdly, don't be shy about crafting (or improvising) situations to challenge traits and (especially) passions. They are there as hooks to amp up the roleplaying. To that end I have nicked the idea of a 'compel' from Fate and use it liberally in my game - in a situation where inclining towards a particular trait has the potential to get the characters into trouble and, because getting into trouble is generally good gaming but poor tactics, I'll offer a up a check on the targeted trait to the PK that opts in to the trouble rather than shying away from it.

Fourthly, traits are great components for mini-games. Look at the Solos or THE RAID/THE PILLAGE in GPC (if you have that) and you can come up with any number of semi-algorithmic procedures which take the PKs fairly swiftly through a chunk of campaign time that you don't want to do in full interactive mode but where decisions made have an impact upon the characters who are making them. I posted something like this to the board a while back... here it is:

www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=704.msg5819#msg5819

Regards
Luke

So it seems to me it does matter which roll the GM calls for. But how to decide which roll is the appropriate one? I can see my player's asking the same question:
Me: Make a "Lazy" roll to resist sleepiness in the hot sun." (to use another example from the rulebook)
Sir Vigorous: "Why Lazy? Why shouldn't I roll against Energetic?
Me: "Uh..."
This is what I dread. I really need to understand this so I can confidently call for the right rolls for the right reasons. I have similar issues with Valorous and Cowardly. I see examples that call for "Cowardly" rolls in combat. Why not Valorous rolls?
I think one of the things that contributes to my confusion is the use of the words "check" and "rolls" as they pertain to Skills and Traits. They mean something completely different, but I've been conditioned to think of the terms as synonyms.

Yes, this still causes difficulty even for veterans sometimes.
but keep it in mind, as it is important!


Any one else want to jump in here? I'm still flailing a bit.


I currently think it best to offer a player option in these rolls, unless the knight has a 15 or more in one.
The GM ought to say something like, "this is a chaste/lustful affair. Who is rolling what? Sir Erection, you roll Lustful."

Hey Taliesin,

As you can see, you're not alone. Part of the problem, I think, is that the example you cited isn't a good one, or at least it's not as fleshed out as it needs to be.


Here's another, on page 67: "...Sir Bors de Blanc, a religious knight renowned for his purity — he has a Chaste trait of 19 — encounters a beautiful young maiden in a forest clearing while traveling alone. The Gamemaster asks Sir Bors’ player to make a roll against his Lustful..."

I think the Gamemaster is wrong in that decision. With a Chaste of 19 (16+), the Gamemaster should *require* Sir Bors to act chastely. Period.

However, I suppose if the Gamemaster is trying to tempt Sir Bors with the maiden, then I suppose he could require him to roll on Lustful. But that means he's rolling against a 1. Also, if he fails the Lustful roll, then he has to roll against Chaste 19. If he succeeds, he's Chaste. If he fails, the player chooses.

Also, suppose that Sir Bors is tired of being so Chaste and *he* wants to become more lustful. In that case the player wants to succeed on a Lustful 1 roll. Tough. He'll probably fail. Now he has to roll on a Chaste 19. He'll probably succeed, and remain Chaste.

Now, a Gamemaster is within his rights to add modifiers (standard +/-5; strong +/-10; extreme +/-15) to alter Trait rolls (not Trait values) in specific situations and to grant Directed Traits (usually as a result of game play) to actually change the Trait in a given situation. For example, a Directred Trait of Lustful (Maidens in the Woods) +10, in which case his Lustful becomes 11 when he encounters a Maiden in the Woods, but no other time.

I'm glad the forum's here's to address questions like these.

Have fun!

D

Hey Taliesin,

As you can see, you're not alone. Part of the problem, I think, is that the example you cited isn't a good one, or at least it's not as fleshed out as it needs to be.


Here's another, on page 67: "...Sir Bors de Blanc, a religious knight renowned for his purity — he has a Chaste trait of 19 — encounters a beautiful young maiden in a forest clearing while traveling alone. The Gamemaster asks Sir Bors’ player to make a roll against his Lustful..."

I think the Gamemaster is wrong in that decision. With a Chaste of 19 (16+), the Gamemaster should *require* Sir Bors to act chastely. Period.


Remember, in any situation of significance, the player *must* roll his trait. He can't simply choose to be chaste and the GM can't require it of him - he is at the mercy somewhat of the number on his sheet. Because the umber is high, he will usually act that way.

This means when he wants to act against the trait, he might not be able to.
But it ALSO means that sometimes when he wants to act chaste, he won't be able to either, because the lustful score will succeed.

That's not a flaw in the rules - it's the way they are supposed to work. Arthurian knights tend to be knights of extremes: Lancelot - a paragon of chastity - did get seduced quite often...

Thanks, Greg—and all of you—for continuing to help me sort this out! I appreciate it, and feel more comfortable now.

Best,


T.

Taliesin - you are not alone :)





Remember, in any situation of significance, the player *must* roll his trait. He can't simply choose to be chaste and the GM can't require it of him - he is at the mercy somewhat of the number on his sheet. Because the umber is high, he will usually act that way.

This means when he wants to act against the trait, he might not be able to.
But it ALSO means that sometimes when he wants to act chaste, he won't be able to either, because the lustful score will succeed.

That's not a flaw in the rules - it's the way they are supposed to work. Arthurian knights tend to be knights of extremes: Lancelot - a paragon of chastity - did get seduced quite often...


I totally agree with your interpretation Darren, but this certainly causes unrest among my players. The argument that a high trait character should *not* have to roll to act in accordance with his trait, just doing so automatically, has reared its head several times in my campaign. I can see the logic of forcing the roll - even Lancelot can be lazy from time to time as illustrated in the rulebook example - it just feels a little awkward.

It also leads to a paradox which I think is inherent in the trait rules - I've mentioned this before so I'll just snap re-state here. High trait characters (16+) have to roll when the trait in question is triggered. Let's say a knight is approached by a flirtatious lady, thereby testing his Chaste. If you assume such a situation to be one worthy of a trait test and apply it to *every* character, regardless of trait score, then the question of 16+ scores forcing action is irrelevant - everyone rolls. If you assume that such tests of character are only forced upon those with 16+ scores then, by nature of having to make a roll that can fail, the high trait character will act against type more often than the low trait one.

Take our knight and lustful lady example. We assume that high trait characters HAVE to roll even when they want to act in accordance with their trait; let's give our knight Chaste/Lustful 19/1. The lustful wench flirts with our knight and he feels tempted, but the player wants to act Chaste and his knight's trait supports this. However, he still has to roll; 95% of the time he will succeed and act in a chaste manner, but every once in a while he will fail and act lustfully.

Contrast this with another knight of Chaste/Lust 10/10. The rules state that as his trait score is below 16 his action is not forced, he can choose what to do. Thus if he chooses to act chaste he will NEVER fail. If you allow the original knight to also choose then, as well as contradicting Darren's statement, and as I see it the RAW, you remove the compulsion of 16+ traits. If you force the 10/10 knight to roll then the 16+ threshold becomes meaningless (all knights roll) and you have a situation where all traits force action.

Over the last 2 years of my current campaign I have flip-flopped numerous times on how best to handle this and I'm still not happy.

D'oh! And here I thought I had an almost tenuous hold on the whole thing...

Okay, so is there any way these questions can be distilled into some simple rules (or at least rules of thumb)? So much uncertainty in what is the defining characteristic of the system causes me heartburn, lol! I don't want this coming back to bite me once we start the campaign in earnest. Should there be this much open to interpretation?


T.

Answering Pramalot's questions:

Your confusion is understandable, it can be difficult to get to grips with because of the way Pendragon uses traits in more than one way. IIRC the trait rules chapter mentions 6 types of trait rolls (maybe 5?). Getting to grips with that section does explain how it works, but I'll give you the simple method. It's how I figured it out.

There are essentially two types of trait rolls: Behaviour rolls, and Challenges/tests. Understanding this distinction is very important.

When a player decides to make a roll against Merciful, to see if he spares the bandit, it's a roleplaying roll. When the GM has a lady come forth and tell the player this bandit murdered her wife, and the GM asks the player to roll Just (or maybe vengeful) vs. Merciful to see if he kills or spares the bandit, it is also a roleplaying roll. Behaviour rolls are all those perosnality and roleplaying rolls that crop up from time to time.
In all of these situations, the dice do not tell you if the knight succeeded at some sort of task, they tell you which way he acts. If a trait 'fails', it is not a failure of a task, it just means the knight may act in a different way.

However, Challenges are different. When a knight makes a valour roll to face a monster, this is something he must succeed. You can think of it like a skill roll. When a sorcerer enchants the knight's hall, and everyone has to make an Energetic roll to stay awake, that's a challenge. You must roll if you want to succeed. Knights with a low rating cannot simply choose to pass, and having a famous trait (16+) gives you a better chance. But everyone who is tested must roll the dice. No-one can choose to succeed, and a higher trait is definitely better.

So, Behaviour and Challenges are two different rolls, and the Famous Trait rule, that which states you must roll in a situation when it crops up, only applies to Behaviour. It;s important to realise that while the rule appears to say, "People with famous traits MUST roll these traits and accept the results in certain situations" what it is really saying is "people without famous traits are free to choose not to roll, when the roll would affect their roleplaying behaviour."

When roleplaying or behaviour type situations crop up, the knight with non-famous traits is always free to decline the roll, and decide what he does anyway. A knight with a Famous trait cannot ignore the role - part of the magic of Arthurian Britain means he is governed by his personality even when he might not want to be.

From an out-of-game perspective: the game tells us that traits of 16+ are special. You don't have to take any traits at this level, but if you do take them, there is a price: that price is that sometimes your Behaviour will be decided by a roll of the dice. In return, you get increased chance of success when it matters (see below), and you get recognition within the game for your great personality which can lead to in-game events and rewards (as well as problems).

So, by taking a trait at 16+, you are saying, "this element of the game interests me, I want to focus play on these things." And that happens, because the GM will put you in situations where, say, Mercy or Lust or whatever you have decided, is important to game play.

Players sometimes complain that the dice sometimes make them do the opposite of what they want to do - yes, but that's part of the arthurian mythos that Pendragon embraces and emphasizes: knights like lancelot can do silly things, because it is dramatic and makes for interesting stories. You can tell players who don't like their characters being at the mercy of the dice, for matters of behaviour, it's very easy for them to avoid. Just make sure their traits don't go above 15.

But if they want a higher chance at Challenges of traits, they need to accept the fact that Behaviour might be affected too.

Does this help clear things up?

Firstly thanks for the answer because it does clarify some parts of the RAW. Traits are probably the one area of the rules that still cause problems. My rulings have certainly wavered somewhat over the years.

The following example is an old and rather extreme one but it's also the first to raise the issue so I'll mention it again.

The knights were helping Merlin retrieve Excalibur in the sword lake adventure. One of my PKs was enraged that Merlin, in his eyes, had robbed him of a glorious death! The knight in question had "died" fighting the giant only to be revived some time later. The fight itself was very very close, with just this one knight and the giant fighting with the PK just losing out (the others had fluffed their Valourous/Cowardly and ran off). Merlin appeared, revived the knight and told the party to follow him along a path, warning everyone not to take even one step off it. The revived PK followed for a bit then said he wasn't following any sorcerer and wished to disobey him. I told him that the forest seemed odd (they had unknowingly passed over to the Other Side), and that like him or not, Merlin was a well known and powerful figure, and not one to be disobeyed lightly. Still the PK wanted to step off the path. His Reckless/Prudent was 16/4, supporting his choice. I made him roll and he failed his Reckless and succeeded his Prudent. I told him he had to stay on the path (or rather I told him that regardless of what *he* thought sitting there at the table, in the game world his character saw it differently). He hated this! He argued that his character was known for being Reckless, that he - as the player - wanted to BE reckless and yet he had to roll. To complicate matters he asked what would've happened had his trait been 15/5. I hesitated in answering because my initial thought was that he would not have rolled but of course I then realised the ramifications of this.

The distinction you mention between Behavior rolls and Test rolls is clear to me, I have no problem with that. My PKs often resort to rolling the dice when they themselves are not quite sure how their knight would act or when a roleplaying moment of importance is at stake. This is fine and the outcomes often add to the flavour of the session.

Would you class the above as a Behavior roll? I don't see how it can be a test as the decision was self imposed. Perhaps I should not have called for a roll at all.

After the event, at the end of the session, the other players voiced concerns over this incident. The point made was that a knight with a trait 16+ should not have to roll when he wished to act in accordance with the trait in question. At the time I thought this made perfect sense and agreed, but of course Pendragon being the well worked system it is means that a small correction can often have far reaching consequences. The problem, or rather paradox, is exactly as you have it here;


However, Challenges are different. When a knight makes a valour roll to face a monster, this is something he must succeed. You can think of it like a skill roll. When a sorcerer enchants the knight's hall, and everyone has to make an Energetic roll to stay awake, that's a challenge. You must roll if you want to succeed. Knights with a low rating cannot simply choose to pass, and having a famous trait (16+) gives you a better chance. But everyone who is tested must roll the dice. No-one can choose to succeed, and a higher trait is definitely better.


Most of my knights have 16+ Valourous and most of them don't want to run away unless it's likely to save their lives, still I make them roll vs Valourous even when they want to be Valourous. Because of this I had to quickly revoke the aforementioned ruling, leaving the initial problem unresolved.

Several such instances crop up from time time, and although they are not as extreme - or as contentious - as the path scenario they do still cause me concern. A few more recent examples;

One of my knights has acquired a scarily high Directed Lust trait toward Igraine (+17). After having acted inappropriately with her once, and narrowly escaped with his life, he asked to be excused from the king's upcoming wedding so as not to tempt himself again. I gave him a prudent roll which he passed. I then told him he would need to speak with the earl to explain his actions. However, when he did so and was asked why he would not attend I made him roll vs his Honest, also high at 19. Now in this instance he criticalled and blurted out the unabridged truth, unable to do otherwise, and got a verbal dressing down for his efforts. This is what I normally do, have PKs that wish to act against famous traits roll and fail in order to do. But say his Honest was 15/5 would he still have to roll? Normally I allow such PKs to act as they desire, within reason, getting ticks here and there depending on their actions so long as no famous traits are involved. With non famous traits should the roll precede the action, and therefore dictate it, or should the action affect the trait (by getting ticked)? This is a very important point, one which the RAW appears to contradict itself on.

Another example - Recently the king imposed a tallage to pay for his war efforts and in good feudal fashion this was passed on down to the PKs. Each of them was asked individually if they wanted to contribute and they all said that they did, thinking it would reflect well on them. Some also had famous Generous traits, and I suggested to them that they felt inclined to give a little more. Had they wanted to refuse I would have made them roll and fail a Generous check in order to do so. But none of them wanted to, in fact one of them demanded he pay more. He rolled his Generous, failed, and made his Selfish, and ended up giving nothing. Another knight, with a non famous Generous, wanted to do the same and as no famous trait was involved I let him do it. The result was a knight famous for Generosity acting selfishly while one of middling virtue did not. Again I don't see how this could be classed as a test because it was a self imposed action. Should no roll have been made at all in this instance? Or should I have forced rolls from all of the knights, generous or not? If the answer to that question is yes then that seems to me to open up the possibility of an endless stream of trait rolls for any action of worth, severely curtailing free will.

In hindsight it might be better if I just worded things differently so as to avoid any upset. Saying that Famous traits leave you open to the vagaries of emotion, occasionally resulting in actions totally out of character, might keep my PKs happy. After all, as you say, you don't have to have traits higher than 16.

In the case of the player-knight wanting to step off the path, I would not ask for a Trait roll at all. I'd simply inform the player that leaving the path means leaving the adventure, with a reasonable chance of not returning since time is meaningless on the Other Side. In fact, I would suggest to him or her that leaving the path would mean death since the knight spoke of being cheated out of that by Merlin. The Other Side being what it is, he or she would find his or her way to whatever afterlife was appropriate to his or her culture and religion.

Firstly thanks for the answer because it does clarify some parts of the RAW. Traits are probably the one area of the rules that still cause problems. My rulings have certainly wavered somewhat over the years.

I'm going to give my rulings for the various examples (note I am not the book, so I'll diverge somewhat from the RAW).


....the others had fluffed their Valourous/Cowardly and ran off

I wouldn't mandate that failing the valorous/cowardly rolls inevitably means the PKs run away. They can fight defensively, fail to close, 'guard the horses', withdraw in good order etc etc before we get to anything so indecorous as legging it from the field. Note that there is some support for this sort of graduated response to a challenge in the Sir Bors Chaste/Lustful example given in the rules.

I also offer players the opportunity to substitute Reckless for Valorous when facing the morale-sapping presence of monstrous foes (and note that Reckless doesn't get any negative mods for especially fearsome monsters), but that's decidedly non-standard.


...said he wasn't following any sorcerer and wished to disobey him.
...
I made him roll [to leave the path] and he failed his Reckless and succeeded his Prudent....
Would you class the above as a Behavior roll?

Absolutely not. A mysterious and uncanny wood, with explicit instructions from the foremost magical practitioner in the land not to stray from the path? IMO this is obviously and necessarily a capital-c Challenge. Everyone has to make a roll on their Reckless if they want to follow through on a declared intent to leave the path.


I don't see how it can be a test as the decision was self imposed.
If a player wants to something challenge-worthy then its a Challenge, simple as. Ruling that it is a challenge is your 'Yes, but...' response to the player's initial 'I want to leave the path' declaration.


Most of my knights have 16+ Valourous and most of them don't want to run away unless it's likely to save their lives, still I make them roll vs Valourous even when they want to be Valourous.
For guys with a 16+ dealing with their bread and butter work? No roll required. Doing something out of the normal run of things (a monster with a valour test in it's write up, facing a beserker in his pomp etc) - roll required. But recall the bit about graduated response from above.


...he asked to be excused from the king's upcoming wedding so as not to tempt himself again. I gave him a prudent roll which he passed.

See I would probably have skipped the prudent roll (unless he was famously Reckless) or offered him a compel (free check) on his Reckless for him to damn the torpedoes and go to the wedding regardless.

<required an Honest check to explain himself to the Earl>

But say his Honest was 15/5 would he still have to roll?
I think so, this is a fairly stressful moment for the PK - he's up before his boss with a tricky bit of business to deal with and character will out in these sorts of situations. The way I would handle it is to ask for the player to explain his approach, what he wants to say in the interview, how he is trying to present his case - then determine the traits to be tested and the stakes of the resolution based on that. Note that I am completely happy to mix up traits, passions, stats and skills when it comes to setting tests - so you could be rolling Honest vs Suspicious (to explain yourself to the Earl without straying into the uncomfortable topic of your unrequited lust for the Queen), Reckless vs DEX (to see whether you manage to ride down a bandit fleeing through dense and tangled woodland), a straight test of Honour (to vouch for someone), Courtesy vs Hospitality (to leave court early) or whatever.

<Rolling Generous/Selfish in respect of a Tallage>

The result was a knight famous for Generosity acting selfishly while one of middling virtue did not. Again I don't see how this could be classed as a test because it was a self imposed action. Should no roll have been made at all in this instance?
Not a test IMO, because this isn't an especially out of the ordinary or stressful situation. The way I would have done this would have been to set the 'expected levy' (say £3 per manor) and then offered the players the choice between two paths of action that would tweak the amount they actually get assessed for. For example:

To increase the amount paid by the PK by £1/manor each

Succeed on a roll vs Courtesy
Check to Generous
Check to Honest
Check to Arbitrary
Succeed on a roll vs Intrigue
Check to Loyalty (Lord)
Check to Concern (My Commoners)

To decrease the amount paid by the PK by £1/manor each
Succeed on a roll vs Courtesy
Check to Selfish
Check to Deceitful
Check to Arbitrary
Succeed on a roll vs Intrigue
Lose a point of Concern (My Commoners)
Lose a point of Loyalty (Lord)

NB1 - Players have to take each path in the order presented, they can't pick and mix
NB2 - It is part of the design intent that knights can make money by going all the way to the further reaches of the second path
NB3 - 'Courtesy' in this instance isn't good manners, but the skill of knowing the right way to go about getting things done at court ('Folk Lore for aristos' basically).


I guess if I were to boil my approach right down to it's essence, the majority of the game should be pretty free-form with players unconstrained as to their declared actions (but with those actions feeding through to traits/passions/skills as checks); then the PKs have to live with the consequences of those earlier decisions when it comes to the crunch and they want to pass through the gate of justice or whatever.


Regards
Luke

Luke, that's a very interesting interpretation you have there.

Your way of dealing with the Generous issue is very bespoke. I'd struggle to whip that up on the fly, keep it balanced and within previously set precedents, especially when so many such incidents come about via free-form play. Despite the issues I've had with RAW Traits, they do provide me with a fairly straight forward mechanism that handles 95% of situations.




Not a test IMO, because this isn't an especially out of the ordinary or stressful situation. The way I would have done this would have been to set the 'expected levy' (say £3 per manor) and then offered the players the choice between two paths of action that would tweak the amount they actually get assessed for. For example:

To increase the amount paid by the PK by £1/manor each

Succeed on a roll vs Courtesy
Check to Generous
Check to Honest
Check to Arbitrary
Succeed on a roll vs Intrigue
Check to Loyalty (Lord)
Check to Concern (My Commoners)

To decrease the amount paid by the PK by £1/manor each
Succeed on a roll vs Courtesy
Check to Selfish
Check to Deceitful
Check to Arbitrary
Succeed on a roll vs Intrigue
Lose a point of Concern (My Commoners)
Lose a point of Loyalty (Lord)



Let me ask you to see that scenario again in the standard RAW. How would you handle it then? Staying with your initial thought, you feel it's not a test, ok. So would you say no roll? This is where we wander into a grey area, because a 16+ trait should mandate a roll, even if it's to abide by it. And if it's a non test situation then one would assume free will dictates action, so no roll for non-famous trait knights. But then you reach a paradox, as in my example. I'm not trying to be some smart arse and and trip you up here, this is the problem I'm struggling with.

Mulling over my previous post I'm inclined to re-evaluate the response I gave to my Reckless path player and agree with you. In such circumstances, the fact that he failed his Reckless - no matter how well known he was for being Reckless - was good enough reason to force him to stay put. My error was in not carrying the same decision thorough to the others, or taking the same stance with non-famous Reckless PKs.



I guess if I were to boil my approach right down to it's essence, the majority of the game should be pretty free-form with players unconstrained as to their declared actions (but with those actions feeding through to traits/passions/skills as checks); then the PKs have to live with the consequences of those earlier decisions when it comes to the crunch and they want to pass through the gate of justice or whatever.


This is how we tend to play it also. It does make me think about the crux of my trait issue though. With non-famous traits what comes first, the trait or free will? Are you giving ticks to player's traits based on the actions they perform, or making them roll traits to dictate those actions?

Let me give another example. One of my PKs was chasing an assassin across the battlements of Sarum castle and when he reached the end of the wall, without thinking, he simply lept off and went crashing 30' below (yes it did make all our jaws drop). His Reckless was something like 12/8 or 14/6, certainly non famous. Afterwards, I gave him an auto increase to Reckless, no roll required. But should it have been the other way round, should I have forced Reckless *before* allowing him to make the leap? Indeed, had he been famous Reckless, then abiding by the RAW, he is mandated to roll. In this instance I just don't think that works at all.

Spiraling off a little bit, still trait connected, but away from this central issue. How are you handling trait non compliance? I allow my PKs to ignore a trait roll (unless a crit or fumble), and act in the way they wish as long as they take a tick in the opposing trait - this is pretty standard RAW i believe. So if my Generous PK makes a standard Generous roll but is so broke he wants to hang on to his cash, he can ignore it and take a Selfish tick instead. This is fine for the most part but that same PK recently faced numerous incidents involving the giving of money, one after the other. He succeeded at his Generous roll every time but because he'd already taken a Selfish tick he could effectively ignore the trait compulsion without penalty. I didn't like this but was not about to make a snap judgement on the spot. I've since thought a decent ruling would be: first non compliance, tick, second non compliance, auto 1 point change, third, another tick, etc, etc.

Let me ask you to see that scenario again in the standard RAW. How would you handle it then? Staying with your initial thought, you feel it's not a test, ok. So would you say no roll? This is where we wander into a grey area, because a 16+ trait should mandate a roll, even if it's to abide by it. And if it's a non test situation then one would assume free will dictates action, so no roll for non-famous trait knights. But then you reach a paradox, as in my example. I'm not trying to be some smart arse and and trip you up here, this is the problem I'm struggling with.

Mulling over my previous post I'm inclined to re-evaluate the response I gave to my Reckless path player and agree with you. In such circumstances, the fact that he failed his Reckless - no matter how well known he was for being Reckless - was good enough reason to force him to stay put. My error was in not carrying the same decision thorough to the others, or taking the same stance with non-famous Reckless PKs.

Spiraling off a little bit, still trait connected, but away from this central issue. How are you handling trait non compliance? I allow my PKs to ignore a trait roll (unless a crit or fumble), and act in the way they wish as long as they take a tick in the opposing trait - this is pretty standard RAW i believe. So if my Generous PK makes a standard Generous roll but is so broke he wants to hang on to his cash, he can ignore it and take a Selfish tick instead. This is fine for the most part but that same PK recently faced numerous incidents involving the giving of money, one after the other. He succeeded at his Generous roll every time but because he'd already taken a Selfish tick he could effectively ignore the trait compulsion without penalty. I didn't like this but was not about to make a snap judgement on the spot. I've since thought a decent ruling would be: first non compliance, tick, second non compliance, auto 1 point change, third, another tick, etc, etc.


If I may butt in -- the RAW states that the GM need not require the 16+ Trait character to roll unless the plot demands otherwise. if it's a non-test, especially if it's not critical to the plot, IMO 16+ characters should not have to roll the Trait if they wish to act in accordance with it. If it is a Challenge, however, or a plot-point test, the chance that these knights might act against the Famous Trait under duress is part of the drama. If your players continue to feel that such mandatory rolls are unfair, perhaps you should reserve those Trait rolls for religious tests (e.g. all must roll Generous to enter the Cave of Charity) and situations in which the PK wishes to defy the Famous Trait.

Your Merlin scenario is a bit of a sticky situation, but ultimately I feel that your inclination is a sound one: the PK's failed Reckless roll and successful Prudent roll means he sticks to the path. Also, if he still wished to stray, I pilfered the way I handle non-compliance from a previous Trait thread: if the PK wishes to defy the dice and the GM allows it, the PK may do so at the cost of an immediate 1-point loss in the Trait he or she is defying. So in your case, if the PK is determined to venture off the path and you don't mind that he does, he'd lose a further point in Prudent. It's a bit harsher than your solution, but it also makes the players a bit more cautious on defying those Trait rolls. Perhaps a compromise between the two -- say, 3-4 ticks becomes an automatic 1-point increase?

Aha, I see something simple that I can answer!!


... you feel it's not a test, ok. So would you say no roll? This is where we wander into a grey area, because a 16+ trait should mandate a roll, even if it's to abide by it.

Knights with 16+ trait scores WILL have to undergo tests more often than ordinary people, even in situations that may not be set up to be a test.


And if it's a non test situation then one would assume free will dictates action, so no roll for non-famous trait knights.

Unless they ask for one, or the scenario calls for one.

But then you reach a paradox, as in my example.

I am afraid that I came in a bit late on this and missed the paradox.
Are we addressing it here?


I'm not trying to be some smart arse and and trip you up here, this is the problem I'm struggling with.

Mulling over my previous post I'm inclined to re-evaluate the response I gave to my Reckless path player and agree with you. In such circumstances, the fact that he failed his Reckless - no matter how well known he was for being Reckless - was good enough reason to force him to stay put. My error was in not carrying the same decision thorough to the others, or taking the same stance with non-famous Reckless PKs.



I guess if I were to boil my approach right down to it's essence, the majority of the game should be pretty free-form with players unconstrained as to their declared actions (but with those actions feeding through to traits/passions/skills as checks); then the PKs have to live with the consequences of those earlier decisions when it comes to the crunch and they want to pass through the gate of justice or whatever.


This is how we tend to play it also.

And me too.
That's what I would call "the right way."


It does make me think about the crux of my trait issue though. With non-famous traits what comes first, the trait or free will? Are you giving ticks to player's traits based on the actions they perform, or making them roll traits to dictate those actions?

Oh please never never never require a character with a non-famous trait to roll to perform an action.
At its extreme this turns into an ugly robot game with frustrated players unable to control or shape their character at all, being entirely at the mercy of die rolling. (I do not imagine you are playing this way, but I have heard of it.)
I allow the players to do as they wish in any situation;
Unless they are famous for it, they they must act according to their natural manner
and if they wish NOT to, they must make a roll against the opposite trait


Let me give another example. One of my PKs was chasing an assassin across the battlements of Sarum castle and when he reached the end of the wall, without thinking, he simply lept off and went crashing 30' below (yes it did make all our jaws drop). His Reckless was something like 12/8 or 14/6, certainly non famous. Afterwards, I gave him an auto increase to Reckless, no roll required.

The rules do not have any way to "auto increase."
However, they give the GM a fiat, and I would have done what you did too here--automatic increase.


But should it have been the other way round, should I have forced Reckless *before* allowing him to make the leap?

No. Unless he was Cautious 16+


Indeed, had he been famous Reckless, then abiding by the RAW, he is mandated to roll.

What's RAW again?
Because to mandate a roll from a 16+ character to act in character is wrong.


In this instance I just don't think that works at all.

And now you know why you feel that way, I hope


Spiraling off a little bit...

You know, I hate multiple subjects per thread?
Will you start a new thread on non-compliance?
and if this is not clear on Traits, continue it here

RAW=Rules As Written



Because to mandate a roll from a 16+ character to act in character is wrong.


If this is how you intended the rules to be played then I have been playing them wrongly, or rather I have interpreted them differently. ::)

That would mean my "path" example knight should have been able to jump willy nilly off the path, no roll required. (Example repeated below)



The knights were helping Merlin retrieve Excalibur in the sword lake adventure. One of my PKs was enraged that Merlin, in his eyes, had robbed him of a glorious death! The knight in question had "died" fighting the giant only to be revived some time later. The fight itself was very very close, with just this one knight and the giant fighting with the PK just losing out (the others had fluffed their Valourous/Cowardly and ran off). Merlin appeared, revived the knight and told the party to follow him along a path, warning everyone not to take even one step off it. The revived PK followed for a bit then said he wasn't following any sorcerer and wished to disobey him. I told him that the forest seemed odd (they had unknowingly passed over to the Other Side), and that like him or not, Merlin was a well known and powerful figure, and not one to be disobeyed lightly. Still the PK wanted to step off the path. His Reckless/Prudent was 16/4, supporting his choice. I made him roll and he failed his Reckless and succeeded his Prudent. I told him he had to stay on the path (or rather I told him that regardless of what *he* thought sitting there at the table, in the game world his character saw it differently). He hated this! He argued that his character was known for being Reckless, that he - as the player - wanted to BE reckless and yet he had to roll. To complicate matters he asked what would've happened had his trait been 15/5. I hesitated in answering because my initial thought was that he would not have rolled but of course I then realised the ramifications of this.

After the event, at the end of the session, the other players voiced concerns over this incident. The point made was that a knight with a trait 16+ should not have to roll when he wished to act in accordance with the trait in question. At the time I thought this made perfect sense and agreed, but of course Pendragon being the well worked system it is means that a small correction can often have far reaching consequences.


Greg you do realise that also means any knight with a trait of 16+ will never have to roll vs that trait ever, as long as he acts in accordance with it? (ok unless it's some spiritual test,eg, Walk through the Gates of Temperance? ok roll Temperate).

You would also have to accept that there are caveats to this. For example, knights of 16+ Energetic could still be overcome by fatigue and act Lazy no matter how much they wanted to BE energetic. Likewise with Valour. Fear and Fatigue are not things you can decide to ignore.

However, if that's how you meant it to be, then that does answer my question.

I had trouble getting to grips with this until I realized the reason for the existence of the trait rules. In my personal interpretation this reason is to stop players weaseling out of hairy situations when their knight’s previously established character comes to bite them in the ass.

In situations when I’m not sure I ask myself two questions: One, is the player acting according to his knight’s traits, and two, will it get him into trouble? If he has Reckless 16 and wants to be reckless and it will complicate his life, he is perfectly welcome to go ahead; no paradox here. I will even throw in a check or, in especially dangerous situations, a trait increase. If he had Prudent 16 and wanted to get into trouble he would have to roll; if he had Reckless 16 and wanted to keep safe he would have to roll.

See also the Q&A page, section Personality Traits, here: http://www.gspendragon.com/questionsanswers.html

A knight’s life is supposed to be interesting and full of difficulties.


[Edit: Hey, first post in the new forum!]

A knight’s life is supposed to be interesting and full of difficulties.

Sums it up nicely. Welcome to the boards. :)

Because to mandate a roll from a 16+ character to act in character is wrong.

If this is how you intended the rules to be played then I have been playing them wrongly, or rather I have interpreted them differently. ::)

which is quite ok
I can only suggest improvements and refinements to my work
I can not, and in fact, have absolutely no interest in, trying to run your game



That would mean my "path" example knight should have been able to jump willy nilly off the path, no roll required. (Example repeated below)

Correct.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID
Remember that the GM always has the option of imposing a Trait roll for any reason whatsoever
some of those reasons might include:
to give a PC a chance to use a Trait
to gently force a player to stay in the game, for example
PC: I want to ride off this trail
GM: OK, but you will almost certainly be out of this game if you do.
PC: I want to try anyway, my knight is Reckless
GM<: Well, I'm not kidding about being out of this scenario. You will have to succeed at a Reckless to do it.
PC: Made it.
GM: Excellent. One chance to stay in, then. Attempt a Hunting roll, and if you make it you will find yourself back on the path.
PC
failed
GM: OK, good night. See you next week.


Greg you do realise that also means any knight with a trait of 16+ will never have to roll vs that trait ever, as long as he acts in accordance with it? (ok unless it's some spiritual test,eg, Walk through the Gates of Temperance? ok roll Temperate).

Yes I do, and this is just fine.
BECAUSE there are always consequences
For instance:
GM: OK, Round three of the battle. Your foe is of, um, Wild Saxons! Oh, and they are from... um, Anglia! Doesn't Sir Reckless hate Anglians? Cool, roll your Passion for that. Made it? Cool, you will have your bonus against them in the fight.
Player of Sir Leader: Wait a minute, we aren't going to fight them.
GM: your unit orders then?
Sir Leader: Stand in place!
GM: OK, Sir Reckless, you are Hating these guys, and you will charge alone.
PC: Mabon's balls I will! I stay with the unit.
GM: OK, roll your Prudent to remain with the unit. Your hated foes are right here now!!
PC: But...
GM: You get Glory for your Recklessness. You don't have to roll to ride off the path. The stats of your behavior say you are Reckless. Now roll.
PC: *groan*


You would also have to accept that there are caveats to this. For example, knights of 16+ Energetic could still be overcome by fatigue and act Lazy no matter how much they wanted to BE energetic. Likewise with Valour. Fear and Fatigue are not things you can decide to ignore.

Absolutely
These are modifiers to the roll
And note the regular modifiers for Valor


However, if that's how you meant it to be, then that does answer my question.

It is my intent to do that

You get Trait Glory = you act as the stats roll

I've been lurking throughout the life of this thread and just wanted to pitch in my two pence worth.

If one of my players wanted to be so reckless and their traits supported the behavior I would allow it, then use it for the development of a side plot. Perhaps stepping off the path would result in Merlin losing track of the knight in the land of the fey and the knight would be lost until his friends managed to find him some distant time in the future.

Did the original adventure define what the consequences would be for defying Merlin's instruction?

Cliff

Mabon's balls! Now we're talking. I think I'll use that as my shocked GM response from now on!

This thread has been most helpful. Greg, between this and the "Trait Non Compliance" thread you have revealed two pieces of new information that are not, to my knowledge, currently in the rules, namely: Traits of 16+ do not need to be rolled for when acting in accordance with them (excepting the caveats you mention above) and Traits of 16+ cannot be acted against by taking a tick in the opposing trait.

I did kindof like being able to act against traits by taking an opposing tick because it created dilemma for my players. There are obviously times when acting in accordance with your trait can damage your health (Faerie Queen "Here drink this steaming brew of mindwarp nettle tea") and sometimes my PKs want to act against type, however, they also want to keep their trait scores high for Glory and potential Chivalry and Religious bonuses, so having the option creates dilemma. Drink the god damned brew, or forgo it and take a tick in the opposing trait - which is almost certainly going to go up come year end.

Note: I only allow such choice when the roll in question is a standard one, not a Fumble or Critical - they force action.



I've been lurking throughout the life of this thread and just wanted to pitch in my two pence worth.

If one of my players wanted to be so reckless and their traits supported the behavior I would allow it, then use it for the development of a side plot. Perhaps stepping off the path would result in Merlin losing track of the knight in the land of the fey and the knight would be lost until his friends managed to find him some distant time in the future.

Did the original adventure define what the consequences would be for defying Merlin's instruction?


Characters who did wander off the path in this adventure - and there were two that did so later on - became entwined in the foliage as it moved to immobilize them. Also, once they came off the path they could no longer see it nor could those on the path see them. Then, much later, when Merlin retrieved Excalibur, the group found themselves attacked by two shambling mound type creatures; humanoids made of briars, brambles and other bits of plant. Peeking out from inside was the helpless bodies of their fellow knights. This made it difficult to deal with the creatures without also harming their comrades. I basically swapped out the nukalavee attack for this.

This was just an example though to highlight the trait mechanic I was having problems with.

Mabon's balls! Now we're talking. I think I'll use that as my shocked GM response from now on!

I try to give my important NPC's one thing that will set them apart, often a phrase like this.
The stories give several Christian ones ("God's hooks!" (spikes))
Pagan expressions are harder to come by. :)


This thread has been most helpful. Greg, between this and the "Trait Non Compliance" thread you have revealed two pieces of new information that are not, to my knowledge, currently in the rules,

I'll make sure they get into the Errata.
Sir Ben, will you make it so?
But, please wait until this discussion is settled, because...


namely: Traits of 16+ do not need to be rolled for when acting in accordance with them (excepting the caveats you mention above)

...Most of the time traits do not need to be rolled to be acted upon,
and it seems most of the time when they are used,
it is to act except against them--that is, Sir Lush wants to avoid the drink
or Sir Rooster Redhead suddenly wants to go limp
or Sir Courageous wants to run away

Most of the time, the knights do what they want to do, and get checks according to what they do.
No rolls necessary


and Traits of 16+ cannot be acted against by taking a tick in the opposing trait.

Now, rather then me starting to make rules which list everything that cannot be cone,
will you do a bit of research and find out where it says or implies that this can be done?


I did kind of like being able to act against traits by taking an opposing tick because it created dilemma for my players. There are obviously times when acting in accordance with your trait can damage your health (Faerie Queen "Here drink this steaming brew of mindwarp nettle tea") and sometimes my PKs want to act against type, however, they also want to keep their trait scores high for Glory and potential Chivalry and Religious bonuses, so having the option creates dilemma.

A weak one though, which gives a bonus only within the representative numerical system.
The real consequences of being a drunkard, dickster, otherworldly pious, honest, courageous, etc.
are when those activities are honored, flattered, respected and required
and challenged
or
have consequences for being that way


Drink the god damned brew, or forgo it and take a tick in the opposing trait - which is almost certainly going to go up come year end.

I confess, the system developed exactly to prevent that from happening.
You get Glory = you lose some control


Note: I only allow such choice when the roll in question is a standard one, not a Fumble or Critical - they force action.

and for clarity, "standard roll" here means..?