<split from "Confused about Traits" thread to keep both issues separate>

Any advice on handling trait non compliance? I currently 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 (Rules As Written) 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, several times over during the same year. 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.

I wouldn't obsess over a player repeatedly acting against a Trait. If the opposite Trait is low enough, checks will succeed and he or she will lose that notable Trait and its attendant Glory soon enough. Gone also will be his or her reputation for largesse.

If you're feeling as if this knight rebelling against his nature isn't suffering enough consequences, I'd use it as a great opportunity to exert pressure on the knight through NPCs criticizing him. Let this knight's reputation for generosity lead to more than just a few surprised stares when he pockets all of his reward for himself.

This idea is very much in keeping with legend, too. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, for instance, the lady of the castle voices her doubts that the knight she is unsuccessfully trying to seduce is really Gawain, as Gawain is renowned for his romantic nature. This challenge to his hard-won reputation is an attempt to provoke him, which he only barely resists out of loyalty to the lord of the castle. Lots of stress, divided loyalties and concern for one's reputation :)

<split from "Confused about Traits" thread to keep both issues separate>
Any advice on handling trait non compliance? I currently 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 (Rules As Written) I believe.

I need to know what "ignore a trait roll" means in this context
Perhaps someone can direct me to the uncooked section of the book where it states this?
Please


So if my Generous PK makes a standard Generous roll

Under what circumstances?


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, several times over during the same year. 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.

what penalty are we speaking of?
As has been suggested, the real consequences are in the social reactions


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.

That gets sticky, to be sure
Let me know what the above answers are, and I'll keep giving it a go
but find me the parts of the rules

I wouldn't obsess over a player repeatedly acting against a Trait. If the opposite Trait is low enough, checks will succeed and he or she will lose that notable Trait and its attendant Glory soon enough. Gone also will be his or her reputation for largesse.


Let's just say I have a few devious players. Not rules lawyers - we're far too old for that malarkey - just cunning. If they happen to have received a trait check in say Selfish already, they are more likely to attend to other unfinished Selfish type business, knowing the penalty is already paid. It's a relatively minor part of our gaming sessions but as traits were currently being discussed I thought I'd bring it up.



I need to know what "ignore a trait roll" means in this context
Perhaps someone can direct me to the uncooked section of the book where it states this?
Please


By ignore trait roll, I mean the the knight in question succeeds at a trait roll (Generous in this case) but chooses to act Selfishly, thereby gaining a tick to Selfish for doing so.

KAP 5.1 p67
Success: Success in a trait roll indicates that the knight felt, and was moved by, the feelings expressed by that trait. Thus, if he made a Merciful roll, he feels that he should grant mercy in this instance. However, the player
may choose to have the character act in the opposite manner: The penalty for disobeying the roll result is a check in the opposite trait.


So if my Generous PK makes a standard Generous roll


Under what circumstances?


Several events that tested his Generous. His cousin asked desperately for help to pay off a debt that had been run up. Also Earl Roderick was asking for tallage, and as the PK was so Generous (Trait 18) I suggested he was tempted to give a little *more* that was asked for.


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, several times over during the same year. 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.


what penalty are we speaking of?
As has been suggested, the real consequences are in the social reactions


The PK had already taken a check to Selfish as part of that year's normal play. The two events mentioned above then occurred. As he had already taken the tick to Selfish - the normal penalty for not acting as directed by a trait - he was free to act Selfish without any further *game* penalty. Had these events been spread across several years, he would've been less likely to act in such a manner for fear of repeated Selfish ticks.


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.


That gets sticky, to be sure
Let me know what the above answers are, and I'll keep giving it a go
but find me the parts of the rules


Now there is sanction above and beyond what the rules give, the social effect etc, I'm just interested to hear if that's how other GMs would handle it.

It hasn't really come up in my game so I haven't really thought about it, but the solution you floated of "take a check, take an increase, take a check..." seems a bit strong to me - the game assumes that traits don't move around too much each year and I would be loath to introduce a houserule that could make that happen.

If I was wanting to head off people gaming their checks I'd probably just start logging multiple checks. You'd still only change by one point during winter, but having multi-checks give you more opportunities for the change to happen. In the example of the selfishly acting 'generous' knight with three checks, the chance of preserving their trait of 18 undinged the next winter would fall from 10% to 0.1%.

Regards
Luke

If I was wanting to head off people gaming their checks I'd probably just start logging multiple checks. You'd still only change by one point during winter, but having multi-checks give you more opportunities for the change to happen. In the example of the selfishly acting 'generous' knight with three checks, the chance of preserving their trait of 18 undinged the next winter would fall from 10% to 0.1%.

Regards
Luke


This is what I do, for everything: traits, passions, and skills -
When a situation comes up that is worthy of experience, the players roll the check then and there. If they get an increase, they mark the box. If they don't the box remains unmarked - but can get another check later in the adventure.
Then during winter phase, any skill, et., that has a check is just increased by one.

The main reason to introduce this rule was to speed up the winter phase, but i like the fact that some ratings get more chances to increase. There is a flaw with the system: frequently rolled ratings get more opportunities to increase. To counter that, I rule that the situation has to be dramatic or noticable. If you are flirting constantly, you need to flirt in a situation that might draw attention to you or make a difference to the plot to get the check.

Also, for traits, you can get a check on both sides which means no change. So I decided that if you have checks on both Mercy and Cruel, and you get another Cruel success, it erases the opposite mark, the Merciful mark.
So traits can increase only once per year, but if you get a trait check you really don't like, you have a chance of erasing it by making sure to act strenuously in the opposite way.

But this post should really be in the house rules section :)

Thank you, gents, for the replies.


Let's just say I have a few devious players. Not rules lawyers - we're far too old for that malarkey - just cunning. If they happen to have received a trait check in say Selfish already, they are more likely to attend to other unfinished Selfish type business, knowing the penalty is already paid. It's a relatively minor part of our gaming sessions but as traits were currently being discussed I thought I'd bring it up.

Cunning is OK, and I will show how to turn a seeming "bug" to a "benefit."




I need to know what "ignore a trait roll" means in this context
Perhaps someone can direct me to the uncooked section of the book where it states this?
Please

By ignore trait roll, I mean the the knight in question succeeds at a trait roll (Generous in this case) but chooses to act Selfishly, thereby gaining a tick to Selfish for doing so.

Did the GM require the roll?
or, was it a case of the player saying , "Oh, I' think I'll make a roll to see what I do."
I am going forward assuming the former.


KAP 5.1 p67
Success: Success in a trait roll indicates that the knight felt, and was moved by, the feelings expressed by that trait. Thus, if he made a Merciful roll, he feels that he should grant mercy in this instance. However, the player
may choose to have the character act in the opposite manner: The penalty for disobeying the roll result is a check in the opposite trait.

Thank you for the page reference. Take a check in your "Please GS" skill. :)
That page is correct,
except in the case of knights with a Trait of 16 or more
Which is the whole point of these passions that get you Glory
The character does NOT have that choice
As said elsewhere, if the player does not like it, tell him to not have stats that high. Very simple.




So if my Generous PK makes a standard Generous roll


Under what circumstances?


Several events that tested his Generous. His cousin asked desperately for help to pay off a debt that had been run up. Also Earl Roderick was asking for tallage, and as the PK was so Generous (Trait 18) I suggested he was tempted to give a little *more* that was asked for.
but is so broke he wants to hang on to his cash, he can ignore it and take a Selfish tick instead.

Was this simple annual tallage, not something like "the Saxons are coming and I need extra money quick" tallage?
Because I, myself, wold not put that on a PC unless the consequences were going to drive or affect the scenario.
Basically, I mean that there is a deal between the earl and his landholders, and there's no legitimate way to change that on a whim (only a king can do that legally).
Robert might ask directly, do it deviously, etc., all of which have consequences for him concerning your player knight's trust, lo0yalty, etc.


This is fine for the most part but that same PK recently faced numerous incidents involving the giving of money, several times over during the same year. 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.


what penalty are we speaking of?
As has been suggested, the real consequences are in the social reactions


The PK had already taken a check to Selfish as part of that year's normal play. The two events mentioned above then occurred. As he had already taken the tick to Selfish - the normal penalty for not acting as directed by a trait - he was free to act Selfish without any further *game* penalty. Had these events been spread across several years, he would've been less likely to act in such a manner for fear of repeated Selfish ticks.


If "game penalty" means damage to his stats, then you are right.
However, look back at the consequences that I suggest for what a PC might do if Robert suddenly acted out of character.
The results are not about what happens to the PC, but that there is suddenly a whole bunch of people in various places who get checks to their Suspicious, Trusting, Loyalty (of PC) and so on.
One point shift in his trait is not huge for him, but it will undermine everyone else's trust in him.
[/quote]


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.

I'd say not to do that.
Think about how it will be pressed to be applied to other things: sword or Lance for instance...

In other words, as GM I would probably encourage him to go around and be selfish everywhere that year.
Then, rather than be entirely arbitrary by auto 1 point, use your GM fiat to arbitrarily decide that a loss of Trait stats for such widespread, egregious offense is, "Oh, 3 points this time."

Because it is not about rule lawyering.
It is about cunning.

This is what I do, for everything: traits, passions, and skills -
When a situation comes up that is worthy of experience, the players roll the check then and there. If they get an increase, they mark the box. If they don't the box remains unmarked - but can get another check later in the adventure.
Then during winter phase, any skill, et., that has a check is just increased by one.

The main reason to introduce this rule was to speed up the winter phase, but i like the fact that some ratings get more chances to increase. There is a flaw with the system: frequently rolled ratings get more opportunities to increase. To counter that, I rule that the situation has to be dramatic or noticable. If you are flirting constantly, you need to flirt in a situation that might draw attention to you or make a difference to the plot to get the check.

Also, for traits, you can get a check on both sides which means no change. So I decided that if you have checks on both Mercy and Cruel, and you get another Cruel success, it erases the opposite mark, the Merciful mark.
So traits can increase only once per year, but if you get a trait check you really don't like, you have a chance of erasing it by making sure to act strenuously in the opposite way.

But this post should really be in the house rules section :)


I like this. The effect is a subtle one but I would imagine it does up the rate at which your combat skills increase, seeing as they are usually the skills used most often. Over time have you felt that it unbalanced your campaign at all?

I'm going to have to get through the rules a third time, but my book says in Character Generation that Traits affect how a character acts even if it is contrary to what the player wishes. ;D It's also supposed to be a roleplaying aid. It seems to decrease the value of the traits if they are just a guidepost to what a character does. I guess I have to figure out what RAW is.

ArmerdBear

This is what I do, for everything: traits, passions, and skills -
When a situation comes up that is worthy of experience, the players roll the check then and there. If they get an increase, they mark the box. If they don't the box remains unmarked - but can get another check later in the adventure.
Then during winter phase, any skill, et., that has a check is just increased by one.

The main reason to introduce this rule was to speed up the winter phase, but i like the fact that some ratings get more chances to increase. There is a flaw with the system: frequently rolled ratings get more opportunities to increase. To counter that, I rule that the situation has to be dramatic or noticable. If you are flirting constantly, you need to flirt in a situation that might draw attention to you or make a difference to the plot to get the check.

Also, for traits, you can get a check on both sides which means no change. So I decided that if you have checks on both Mercy and Cruel, and you get another Cruel success, it erases the opposite mark, the Merciful mark.
So traits can increase only once per year, but if you get a trait check you really don't like, you have a chance of erasing it by making sure to act strenuously in the opposite way.

But this post should really be in the house rules section :)


Interesting. This might be the mechanic I was looking for. See, I am looking at making attributes more related with skills and an easy* way to do that is to give each skills a driving attribute. Each skills increase at normal rate until they are equal or below the driving attributes and at half rate beyond that. I was concerned it may slow down progress too much but this mechanic could help counter balance the effect.

*Easy in a sense that it doesn't change any cultural skill tables or doesn't add any extra calculation in how to figure skill bases. It does mean that some mental attributes are needed though (BRP inspired of course).

[quote author=DarrenHill link=topic=1292.msg10277#msg10277 date=1312211644]
But this post should really be in the house rules section :)

Please do, to continue
please do continue, too

I'm going to have to get through the rules a third time, but my book says in Character Generation that Traits affect how a character acts even if it is contrary to what the player wishes. ;D It's also supposed to be a roleplaying aid. It seems to decrease the value of the traits if they are just a guidepost to what a character does. I guess I have to figure out what RAW is.



The Confused about Trait Rolls thread might help: http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=1266.30 . it starts out quite confusing, but once you reach page 3 it all should become clear.

For the RAW, see the sections Famous Traits and Passions and Ordinary Traits and Passions on p. 66 (KAP5.0). Basically, unless a character has traits with a rating of 16 or higher, his player can choose to act however he wishes. 16 is the threshold at which players can expect to lose control over their characters now and then.

Sorry to interrupt the interesting trait checks discussion.