Thought I'd stop just leeching and try to contribute as well. First time poster so feel free to poke etc. ;)

Now this all started with a heated discussion in my gaming group regarding passions. Passions are what seperates the noble heroes or villains from your everyday peasant in the field. But as its ruled in KAP5 having a low passion is actually worse than having none at all.
Say that a PK is to defend his guest from insult/bandits/whatever having hospitality <10. Then invoking hospitality is actually statistically going to make it worse than if he never had/used hospitality at all. Especially if failing the task. Say that you have just started courting a maiden and you are slowly building up your amor, having a rival wihtout a passion during this time, even though you are the passionate one, using the amor for her would be detrimental to your cause of pursuing her, so that the rival not having an amor would be better off.
So this means that the system punishes players for having low passions which would leave any passions <10 unused and unwanted. But even a knight with 5 in honor might want to defend it from time to time.

This was opposite to the feeling we wanted to have where each passion regardless of value would be playable and an asset to our roleplaying and interpretation of the characters. So we tweaked it a bit so that all passions would matter. This so that a knightly passion even if low is still better than having no passion at all.
Here is our solution, we divided passion rolls into normal and epic. Both still give shock if you fail the task at hand but they give different bonus/subtraction. So now if you have a low passion you can still claim a normal passion roll, while if you have a legendary passion you may (with the GMs permission) roll for an epic passion roll.
For us this also lead to a solution for petty passion rolls where desperate players would try to get any cause to be about their highest passion. Now instead they select the proper passion but claim normal roll only.


Spoonist's passion house rules:

Normal passion roll
Fumble = Despair, random fumble table and -5 on all rolls
Fail = discouraged ?0
Success = Inspired, +5 on all rolls or +10 on one skill/trait
Critical = Rapture, +10 on all rolls or +20 on one skill/trait
Fail the task and you roll for shock

Epic passion roll
Fumble = Devastated, -10 on all rolls, probably mad
Fail = disheartened -5 on all rolls
Success = Inspired, +10 on all rolls
Critical = Rapture, +15 on all rolls or +20 on one skill/trait
Fail the task and you roll for shock

Passion, new values
*Passion, gained randomly = 2d6
*Passion, chosen = 3d6
*Passion, from adventure = 2d6+6 on a roll of [1] remove a +6 and roll 1d6
*Passion, grand = 1d6+12 on a roll of [1] remove a +6 and roll 1d6
*If affected by grand event during adventure, reroll according to the above
*Passion max 19 (broken by glory points)

Hi and welcome aboard.

Now it's late so I may have missed something here - while I understand what you're trying to resolve I don't see how your new system does this. If you have a normal or epic passion of low value won't you still have the same chance of failing it as before? Your system changes the modifiers of a roll but not the chance of success or failure. Wasn't that the problem you were trying to rectify?

I do agree with you that statistically, passions below a value of 10 could hinder a player.

But if I'm not mistaken, when aquiring new passions (like amor), can't you throw out one that's below a certain level. Therefore partially eliminating part of the problem of the low passions. With regard to having an honor passion of 5 (or at least less than 10), you should not have any PK's with that passion this low. If the honor passion drops below 10, then they are concidered "evil" and are now OOG.

Also, it could be possible for a player to be rolling for a passion with a modified score. For example, if during a battle the unit commander or battle commander crit, all rolls are modified for that round. If a player invoked a passion during that round, it would already be modified. NOTE: I'm assuming that this hasn't/isn't changed by BoB.

aha I've just realised there is no negative modifier for a normal passion failed roll. OK, now I understand.

I've not really had this problem but I see the sense in your argument. However, a low passion score is still IMHO better than no passion at all - the knight with the passion has a choice about whether to invoke it or not whereas someone without the passion has no choice at all.

Don't have KAP5 here right now since my players have it but I do have KAP4.



But if I'm not mistaken, when aquiring new passions (like amor), can't you throw out one that's below a certain level. Therefore partially eliminating part of the problem of the low passions. With regard to having an honor passion of 5 (or at least less than 10), you should not have any PK's with that passion this low. If the honor passion drops below 10, then they are concidered "evil" and are now OOG.
Hmm, don't think so I think the threshold is 5 hence my example. Checking... Jupp, in KAP4 p201, below 5 is unfit for a knight. But the exact value doesnt matter it is more that even a knight with low honor, when his last remaining honor is threatened shouldnt have to refrain from trying to use it.



aha I've just realised there is no negative modifier for a normal passion failed roll. OK, now I understand.

I've not really had this problem but I see the sense in your argument. However, a low passion score is still IMHO better than no passion at all - the knight with the passion has a choice about whether to invoke it or not whereas someone without the passion has no choice at all.

Not really if having the choice is not better than not having the choice. Let us again look into the two rival knights of a maidens interest. The villain is after her dowry but our hero is there out of the passion of his heart, but alas, being young his Amor is only 8. Of course our hero is forced to tilt with the villain to defend his lady's name. Should he invoke his passion?
Of course not because doing so will not only lose the fight, he will statistically also lose the Amor and the maiden. Instead our hotheaded young hero must remain calm and ignore his feelings for the lovely maiden if he wants to keep his affection.

In KAP4 the resolution of a 8 passion roll looks like this
5% fumble = disaster, as it should be
55% fail = -5 to all skills, after action lower passion by 1
35% Success = +10 to one skill, gain a check in the passion
5% critical = fantastic as it shoudl be
So not only if you fail you will most probably fail whatever you tried to do = shock, you will lower the passion as well making it even more useless.
On the off chance that you do succeed you do not get the same benefit, instead you only have a check with a 60% chance of raising it.

This means that any experienced gamer realize that any passion below 12 (roughly break even) should not be used unless forced to by the GM. For our group this took away a lot of the feeling of pendragon roleplayinging the different passions, so we had two options, remove any passion that start/drops below 10, or modify the system.

For us it works fine now, you don't have to be legendary before risking using it and you still have the option to go all out if you want to. I realize that depending on the group and how you play this is not everyones cup of tea.

Yup, this is a real problem. Imagine what a Battlefield in KAP, played by the passion rules, would look like. Assuming we have two armies, where all fighters have some passion (at, say, 14 in general) for their commander, and all roll for it before the first charge (because why wouldn't they?), what we will see is 65% of all fighters/knights on both sides will go bananas with +10 to their skill, 25 % will mope and feel worthless and have -5 to ALL their skill rolls (OMG!), 5% will run away, completely mad and 5% will become super-ninjas with their melee skill of choice at x2. Whattaheck is that all about? Add the Yakety Sax-tune, and we'll have Benny Hill right there.

Yup, this is a real problem. ... Whattaheck is that all about? Add the Yakety Sax-tune, and we'll have Benny Hill right there.


Indeed. Worse, all the NPCs will have odds stacked in their favour, so it really behooves the players to min-max and munchkinize.

Yup, this is a real problem.

For us this was solved with the house rules above. Mostly when they roll for passions they get to roll for "normal", only rarely and when they are specifically targeted are they allowed to roll for epic passion.
In my campain the difference in the battle you mention is that only if the PK is commanding would they be allowed an "epic" roll.

It also means that they never get to roll for a passion not fitting the tale.

I think that if that works for a group. it is outstanding. Pendragon is a gritty game where every injury matters, and it is easy to die, get maimed., etc.... This makes heroic situations favor the player and will no doubt make the players succeed when it matters most. So thats good.
I still prefer the traditional way, and I'll tell you why. Passions arent always good. In fact they can be downright unhealthy. Sir Palomydes is passionate about Isolde, but I always imagine his passion at , like a 7 or something, while Tristrams is like a 25! Thats why whenever they meet and try their passions out, Palomydes is -5 and Tristram is + 10!!!! Palomydes always gets busted up. But once or twice Palomydes makes his roll and actually jousts down Tristram. You see...Tristrams high passion roll is seen by most to be " True Love". Because its so high and always inspires him to do great deeds. If he is doing something For Isolt, he NEVER fails!!!!!!! Now........ Palomydes rarely succeeds at things he is doing for her and his low passion score may be interpreted as infatuation that has led him down an unhealthy road of OBSESSION! An ugly word!!!!! So instead of being a true love-inspired champion, he is the creepy character who watches her when she doesnt know he is around and he doesnt care about Normal things a true lover would. Like her happiness and joy, etc.... His score of 7 indicates that the only passion he has is carnal, and he often loses his cool and breaks down weeping when he thinks of another lover touching her, but his passion is incomplete.
Sometimes passions are bad, not good. Ive felt passionate about certain things in my life and a lot of times the same passion that could drive me to excel at one thing, might hinder me and drive me mad when i dont succeed at another. I think the pointto make her is that passions are passions, they are neither good nor bad. They can be both. Passion is just a word that desribes how badly u want something/someone.
But from a gaming prospective ur rules will make the players feel like heroes more often, so if it makes everyone happy thyen enjoy it! ;)

I think that if that works for a group. it is outstanding. Pendragon is a gritty game where every injury matters, and it is easy to die, get maimed., etc.... This makes heroic situations favor the player and will no doubt make the players succeed when it matters most. So thats good.
I still prefer the traditional way, and I'll tell you why. Passions arent always good. In fact they can be downright unhealthy. Sir Palomydes is passionate about Isolde, but I always imagine his passion at , like a 7 or something, while Tristrams is like a 25! Thats why whenever they meet and try their passions out, Palomydes is -5 and Tristram is + 10!!!! Palomydes always gets busted up. But once or twice Palomydes makes his roll and actually jousts down Tristram. You see...Tristrams high passion roll is seen by most to be " True Love". Because its so high and always inspires him to do great deeds. If he is doing something For Isolt, he NEVER fails!!!!!!! Now........ Palomydes rarely succeeds at things he is doing for her and his low passion score may be interpreted as infatuation that has led him down an unhealthy road of OBSESSION! An ugly word!!!!! So instead of being a true love-inspired champion, he is the creepy character who watches her when she doesnt know he is around and he doesnt care about Normal things a true lover would. Like her happiness and joy, etc.... His score of 7 indicates that the only passion he has is carnal, and he often loses his cool and breaks down weeping when he thinks of another lover touching her, but his passion is incomplete.
Sometimes passions are bad, not good. Ive felt passionate about certain things in my life and a lot of times the same passion that could drive me to excel at one thing, might hinder me and drive me mad when i dont succeed at another. I think the pointto make her is that passions are passions, they are neither good nor bad. They can be both. Passion is just a word that desribes how badly u want something/someone.
But from a gaming prospective ur rules will make the players feel like heroes more often, so if it makes everyone happy thyen enjoy it! ;)


I understand your position but your example also plays out better using the House rules. Because in your example both knights actually roll for the passion in question. While if that where true then Palomydes would very soon get over his "obsession" since by the rules he would lose a point every time he tries it. So he would get less and less passionate and less and less inclined to care or get jealous. Eventually the passion would reach 0 and Palomydes would not care any more. But with the house rules both would still roll, Palomydes with a Normal would end up with +-0 and Tristram with an Epic gets +10. So he would still get stomped, then after failing his task he would be shocked into tears. Something which depending on how he roleplayed it in my campain would earn a check in the passion.
Do your example even work in your own campain? That is do you really force both PK and NPK to ALWAYS roll for the related passion? I am very sceptical and do not think you do. Instead the PK probably try their best to weasel out and the GM removes lower passions from the villains.

We did not come up with the house rules because we do not like passions per se, we came up with the house rules because we love using them and the way the rules worked it did not match the stories nor our game play.

YES..... U have NO choice but to roll a passion if the passion in question comes up. If u have a Love isolt 20 and u see her at an appropriate time where ANY kind of roll could get made u do it. In fact u do not get to even choose the roll! It is the very first roll possible. Its passion, not reason. If u have a hate saxon roll u can not wait until u are fighting the saxon chief and really need it to use it, U use it immediately and at the first opportunity! It is a passion. That is why passions are double edged swords. I dont like your house rule ( or whatever edition u are using) of losing a passion point because u failed at it ( It's just as likely when talking of passions that it increases because a passion is an obssesion!. The more some people fail at something the more stubborn and resolved they get to succeed ) Maybe if u fumbled it yes, but not for a mere failure. Do u lose a trait roll if u fail it? Why not? that is just as silly as losing a passion point for failing it. This is why HOUSE rules are seldom used in my campaigns. They are rarely good or logical, they only ever have to do with mathematical min/max mechanics and take away from actual roleplaying.

Actually im not sure what " RULES" u are using that say if u fail a passion role u lose a point of ur passion. The only way to reduce a passion is by using a point per year or glory point during winter phase. ??? At leat in KAP 5. But as I said if ur group enjoys it then it is a good thing.

Get your facts straight before using that tone, please, Palomydes. It's all on p. 204 in the 4th ed rules and on p.66 in 5th ed. Both the thing about mandatory rolls of passions @16+ (but not passions @5-15) and also about failing a passion roll and thus lowering the passion. Read'em and weep.

YES..... U have NO choice but to roll a passion if the passion in question comes up. If u have a Love isolt 20 and u see her at an appropriate time where ANY kind of roll could get made u do it. In fact u do not get to even choose the roll! It is the very first roll possible. Its passion, not reason. If u have a hate saxon roll u can not wait until u are fighting the saxon chief and really need it to use it, U use it immediately and at the first opportunity! It is a passion. That is why passions are double edged swords.


Hehe. ;D I would get scewered by my players if I did that. That is one weird interpretation of the rules.
But how do you handle conflicting passions? Lets say that a saxon is a guest in your lords court and the very first thing he does when seeing you (and you him) is to point at your shield and laugh heartily saying something in a foreign language. By your house rules would you be forced to roll all of the passions? (Hospitality, Loyalty Liege, Hate Saxons, Love Family, Honor, did I get them all?) Or do the GM just pick one arbitrarily? Highest only? Opposed roll? How?


( It's just as likely when talking of passions that it increases because a passion is an obssesion!. The more some people fail at something the more stubborn and resolved they get to succeed )


Totally agreed. That is the way we have it in our house rules for passions. If the player makes a good tale of the fail/success he gets the check, not for rolling something on the dice. (Note, had it been a skill check it is a different story).




I dont like your house rule ( or whatever edition u are using) of losing a passion point because u failed at it

The losing of the point is not in our house rules it is in the KAP rules. I even have a vague memory of being miffed about such a failed roll in my first campain as a player back in the 80s, when we played with the book with the blue king on the front, anyone got it so you could check? So I think that it has been in the KAP rules for a couple of editions, if not from the start, but I can be mistaken (and usually is my players like to point out).
So if you have a problem with it you should take that with Greg and not with me.




Do u lose a trait roll if u fail it? Why not? that is just as silly as losing a passion point for failing it.


Swooooooosh.
::)



This is why HOUSE rules are seldom used in my campaigns. They are rarely good or logical, they only ever have to do with mathematical min/max mechanics and take away from actual roleplaying.


I sincerely hope you are not trying to say what it looks like you are saying.
>:(
Let me first point out that you by your own definition just admitted to using house rules in this topic.
Then let me point out that house rules by their own definition is good & logical for the "house" in question. It lets you adapt the system to better suit the playing group and the way that that specific group functions. Whether that is grinding or high acting doesn't matter.
Then lets point out that I wrote our motivation and justification for the house rules straight away. I even gave the example with the enamoured youth and pointed out the flaw in your example, neither of which you have addressed properly. You also ignored Noir's point completely.
Lastly lets just agree that the definition of "actual roleplaying" differs greatly, so that we don't have to get into that caltrop field.

Oh and here is a quote from my original post....


This was opposite to the feeling we wanted to have where each passion regardless of value would be playable and an asset to our roleplaying and interpretation of the characters.
Sounds just like min/maxing doesn't it... ::)




Actually im not sure what " RULES" u are using that say if u fail a passion role u lose a point of ur passion. The only way to reduce a passion is by using a point per year or glory point during winter phase. At leat in KAP 5. But as I said if ur group enjoys it then it is a good thing.

I am pretty sure it is in KAP5 but as I said I only have KAP4 here right now.

Get your facts straight before using that tone, please, Palomydes. It's all on p. 204 in the 4th ed rules and on p.66 in 5th ed. Both the thing about mandatory rolls of passions @16+ (but not passions @5-15) and also about failing a passion roll and thus lowering the passion. Read'em and weep.

Oups, sorry didn't see your post before ranting away... :-[
It was not my intention to look like I ignored your input.
Thanks for the data sir nightly knight.

It is well worth noting that the compulsory roll is only forfamous passions (ie 16+), at this level the knight is well known for acting on his passion, for better or worse.

Likewise a character who acts in accordance with his ordinary passions avoids reductions for acting contrary to his passions, and also most likely will avoid the need to roll his passion. The passion may not growstronger, but it is unlikely to be reduced either.

Reductions in passions will thus occur in ordinary knights who continually choose to act against their passions (showing by their actions that the passion is weakening) or in knights who fail a passion roll ( a crisis of faith or test of character leads to a weakening of the passion).

Players who "play the rules but not the game" by asking for passion rolls at every oportunity in hopes of gaining the bonus from a succesful passion check deserve to run the risk of failure and lowering their passion as a consequence.

A player who requests a passion roll because his knight is caught on the horns of a moral dilema and the player wants to use the dice to decide the outcome should be prepared to have it swing ewither way.
Such a player is role playing, not rule playing.
I don't see that the passion sytem is in need of"fixing".
YMMV

I don't see that the passion sytem is in need of"fixing".
YMMV


If it works for your group, that is great. ;D

But you (and Palomydes) are mistakenly suggesting that our house rules have anything to do with min/maxing, "rule playing" or munchkinizing. Therefore I feel obliged to respond to such a challenge. ;)



Likewise a character who acts in accordance with his ordinary passions avoids reductions for acting contrary to his passions, and also most likely will avoid the need to roll his passion. The passion may not growstronger, but it is unlikely to be reduced either.

This is actually one of our issues. Most passions are never used, and never fully role played. Because the system does not let you. As per your example someone who does what he is supposed to will not use most of his passions while a munchkin would try to get his weaker passions 'reduced' so that they will go away completely over time. This to us is "rule playing", you have considered your options and realise that you should play on it but never actually use it.



Players who "play the rules but not the game" by asking for passion rolls at every oportunity in hopes of gaining the bonus from a succesful passion check deserve to run the risk of failure and lowering their passion as a consequence.

You are missing that the reverse is true, munchkins will not be "asking for passion rolls at every oportunity" since that is bad statistically. It will simply not happen. Instead a munchkin would use his legendary passions too much, ignoring the rest preferably openly so that they will get reduced. Just like in your example above.
If you with this where refering to my example with "petty passion rolls" it is not the same. What I was talking about was a desperate player trying to save the situation by using a passion; the amorous knight in the saga above have rescued his maiden but are now surrounded by four villaneous knights while still bleeding from multiple wounds he received doing the daring rescue... Here you are forced by the system to be a munchkin and not use the appropriate passion, instead you benefit if you can argue your way into using a different passion. So if the player of the amorous knight chose to roll for his low amor he will simply statistically die, while if he can play/argue his way to this being about his other higher passion, "this lowly behaviour is an insult to all who champion the chivalry of Arthur Pendragon" then he will probably survive. Which sets the GM in a false dilemma where if he wants to reward his player's grand role playing by giving his character a chance to live he will let the player roll for the "wrong" passion.



A player who requests a passion roll because his knight is caught on the horns of a moral dilema and the player wants to use the dice to decide the outcome should be prepared to have it swing ewither way.

Where having a low to mid one is punished by the KAP rules. Making the GM and the player both aware that such passions should never be used in this way.



I don't see that the passion sytem is in need of"fixing".
YMMV

Yet you have not presented any arguments addressing the points already mentioned.
-A low passion is worse than having no passion. Like Palomydes where saying, a negative "obsession" which have to be forced upon the players. The "rule players" will avoid them and the "role players" will be punished.
-If used mid passions 9-12 will get lower over time. If used low passions will simply dissapear over time unless they kill the character first.
-A knight on the threshold of losing his last shred of honor, counter emotionally, should not use a passion roll to save it.
-Passion rolls are only to be used for high passions, unless you want to get the shock/madness effect.


Why we made our house rules is simply because the KAP rules forces you to be a munchkin. The difference between a failed/successful passion roll is so big that it does force you to "rule play" because you have to take the effects into consideration. This means that you should not "risk it" unless you are forced to. Players who instead "role play" and after a beautiful scene feels obliged to use their passion is punished and killed if they do not calculate on the statistics first. The munchkin instead is rewarded.
All this leads to either accepting that passions should be high 12+ before they should be acted upon and that lower passion 8- are in fact an indication that you are not passionate at all about it.
Our group's feeling is that all your passions should be part of the grand saga and that our house rules encourages that for us. It lets us use passions in the lesser scenes as well as the grander ones. It also lets us use them without having to munchkinize first. All this has lead to a greater diversity in our game.

Please feel free to point out where you think I am mistaken. :D

I'd have to agree, for the most part, with Spoonist.

What spoonist is ignoring is that, if you play a scene out, and play the traits and passions, there is no requirement to roll it, unless it would be out of character.

Sir Kucklehead the Lusty need not make a lustful roll on his 17 lustful to go a wenching... but he might in order to stay home and be hospitable... And further, if he ever opts to avoid a liaison, no need to roll... check in chaste.

Ruleslawyering the system into rigidity is a GM FAIL... and breaks the trait & passion system.

With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

Now Sir Knucklehead has a 8 hospitality. He should get no check, nor be required to roll it, to host his lord's wife.

Now, when his lord's wife insults Sir Knucklehead's wife, opposed rolls of Love Wife and Hospitality are in order. (Or Loyalty Lord and Love Wife, or all three...). If, instead, he tells her to get the * out.... no rolls... lower hospitality by 1, and check love wife. If he tells his wife to shut up and take it, check in hospitality, lose a point of love wife. If he politely defends his wife, but doesn't violate hospitality, check in love wife.

As I have said before I realise that most will be happy with the passion system as it is. Heck, I played with it for a decade before changing it. Our changes is a house rule so it will not fit all. So I understand the position of defending the KAP rules. But if your examples/arguments does not even adress the issues we invented the house rules to fix, then I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish? At least Palomydes had a novel new interpretation/approach which I had not seen.



What spoonist is ignoring is that, if you play a scene out, and play the traits and passions, there is no requirement to roll it, unless it would be out of character.

Not ignoring, it is simply not relevant. That part we have not changed. We have not changed the trait system either. It is when you want/is required to make a passion roll that we felt the need to make a change.



Sir Kucklehead the Lusty need not make a lustful roll on his 17 lustful to go a wenching... but he might in order to stay home and be hospitable... And further, if he ever opts to avoid a liaison, no need to roll... check in chaste.

True and False.
If you have a trait of 17 then you need not make a roll to act according to it, but if you act against it then you should be forced to roll. So a 17 lustful that wants to avoid a liason should have to roll on something to not act like he usually does. Now if the player gives a good performance and motivates why then the roll could be in something else, like hospitality, but then it is that trait/passion that should get the check and not chaste. Because the character did not act chastly, the character acted hospitably.
No way that you should give a famously lustful character a check in chaste because they wanted to "stay home and be hospitable" that is just ignorant of the emotions involved.



Ruleslawyering the system into rigidity is a GM FAIL...

::)
If you think that our house rule is rigid or that it is ruleslawyering to make house rules then at least provide some sort of coherent argument to that effect. Just because you say so does not make it so. As I have already explained, for us the change made it so that the players not wanting to think about the system and just act according to their character and how the scene goes. This makes it less rigid and the players less likely to munchkin.
Others who had the same problems with the passion system as we did will maybe like our house rules and change them a bit to more fit their flair.


and breaks the trait & passion system.

Changing is not the same as breaking.
If you have a system rule that again and again makes the players upset, or that stops the mood/magic of the scene, then you should change the system instead of arbitrarily ignoring it. Because inconsistency from the GM vs the players can ruin any game.


With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

So you are arguing for bad role playing? That as a KAP player I should not play him as his traits/passions are? But instead that the character should change to fit the player? That is weird. A good role player should be able to adapt to any trait/passion values given regardless of whether this fits his current fancy.
I hope that I misunderstood that one.


Now Sir Knucklehead has a 8 hospitality. He should get no check, nor be required to roll it, to host his lord's wife.

Agreed. Especially since it has nothing to do with hospitality... KAP is a feudal world you know.


Now, when his lord's wife insults Sir Knucklehead's wife, opposed rolls of Love Wife and Hospitality are in order.

Why? ???
She made the faux pas not you. Her hospitality on the other hand looks like it is a bit shaky.


If, instead, he tells her to get the * out.... no rolls... lower hospitality by 1, and check love wife.

Why? ???
It could just as easily be argued that sir knucklehead is defending hospitality itself and not his wife. "I remind you that you are a guest in this house" That would have nothing to do with any feelings about the wife. Or Love family "and I remind you that false words against my wife is also against me and my kin"


If he tells his wife to shut up and take it, check in hospitality, lose a point of love wife.

Why? ???
This might be the prudent thing to do since he has had fallings out with his lord before and this could make it worse, if so the wife might take the insults because of her loyalty to house and husband.

What you are not explaining is how the GM & player plays the scene and what emotions they are using when doing so.

But what is more damning for your example is that it has nothing to do with the house rules presented in the first post. Nor does it present a defense for the KAP passion rules.
It just gives a too short example of how you would GM a situation. Which you do without mentioning any emotions, feelings or motivations. You never adress why sir knucklehead does what he does you just give out a check and a minus point at random. Which means that you have punished the player, since a minus point is not equivalent to a check. If you continue to do this then you are reducing the players' passions, which will end you up with a lot of the problems the house rules adress.
;D ;D ;D

With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

Well, that's exactly it. Kinda pointless having a trait or passion then, isn't it?

With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

Well, that's exactly it. Kinda pointless having a trait or passion then, isn't it?


Hardly... the values desired by the players are those that have benefits. It actually rewards playing it quite strongly... because they know that if they don't play it, they WILL lose it.

Very strange. Sir Aramis felt obliged to respond to Master Dao Rin but not to me. I call that a -2 Valorous. ;)





With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

Well, that's exactly it. Kinda pointless having a trait or passion then, isn't it?


Hardly... the values desired by the players are those that have benefits. It actually rewards playing it quite strongly... because they know that if they don't play it, they WILL lose it.


So then it was no misunderstanding. You let your players play differently than their character's values, without having to roll?
Out of curiosity how would you handle this situation?
I play a character with honor, valorous, hospitality, trusting, honest, forgiving & reckless of 18 - no hates -no directed traits - and that character after receiving a major wound seeks shelter from persuers at a small castle close by, when I (heraldry/recognize) notice that it belongs to the son of a knight my father killed in a melee tournament. For the sake of the question imagine that the player plays the situation beautifully. Which of these would you allow me to do without a roll:
A) Ride away because "one can not trust him to help me"
B) Hide my shield & colors before asking for shelter because "I cannot risk another battle right now"
C) Ask for shelter first, then afterwards reveal my name because "that way he is bound by hospitality to help me"
D) Ask for shelter using a different name because "whatever passed between our fathers does not concern him"
E) Ask for shelter without telling him about my persuers because "they might not find me here anyway"
F) Ask for shelter then when asked for my name, refuse because "who I am does not matter"
G) After given shelter, before going to sleep I ask my squire to stand guard because "the host laughed evily when saying good night"
H) After given shelter, when going to sleep I keep my armor on because "I should be ready in case the persuers come"

If you are pressed for time just write the letters of the alternatives you would allow. (If anyone else also feels like answering then please do).

As a GM I would not allow any of them without a roll because that is not how the character's values are and thus not how the character should be played.

Hardly... the values desired by the players are those that have benefits. It actually rewards playing it quite strongly... because they know that if they don't play it, they WILL lose it.


Not really; that's only true if it gets tested every session. The Passions/Traits mechanic is simply not that flexible a role-playing tool. Amor is a perfect example ... love being a fickle thing and all.

Off the top of my head, I probably would have made Passions/Traits a modifer to a d20 roll, rather than have a set number ... but I haven't play-tested that thought to determine if that's the best route for what this mechanic is trying to accomplish.

Very strange. Sir Aramis felt obliged to respond to Master Dao Rin but not to me. I call that a -2 Valorous. ;)





With a bit of common sense, pretty soon, the traits and passions come to represent the character as played.

Well, that's exactly it. Kinda pointless having a trait or passion then, isn't it?


Hardly... the values desired by the players are those that have benefits. It actually rewards playing it quite strongly... because they know that if they don't play it, they WILL lose it.


So then it was no misunderstanding. You let your players play differently than their character's values, without having to roll?
Out of curiosity how would you handle this situation?
I play a character with honor, valorous, hospitality, trusting, honest, forgiving & reckless of 18 - no hates -no directed traits - and that character after receiving a major wound seeks shelter from persuers at a small castle close by, when I (heraldry/recognize) notice that it belongs to the son of a knight my father killed in a melee tournament. For the sake of the question imagine that the player plays the situation beautifully. Which of these would you allow me to do without a roll:
A) Ride away because "one can not trust him to help me"
B) Hide my shield & colors before asking for shelter because "I cannot risk another battle right now"
C) Ask for shelter first, then afterwards reveal my name because "that way he is bound by hospitality to help me"
D) Ask for shelter using a different name because "whatever passed between our fathers does not concern him"
E) Ask for shelter without telling him about my persuers because "they might not find me here anyway"
F) Ask for shelter then when asked for my name, refuse because "who I am does not matter"
G) After given shelter, before going to sleep I ask my squire to stand guard because "the host laughed evily when saying good night"
H) After given shelter, when going to sleep I keep my armor on because "I should be ready in case the persuers come"

If you are pressed for time just write the letters of the alternatives you would allow. (If anyone else also feels like answering then please do).

A: Check in suspicious
B: check in prudent and cowardly
C: allowed
D: check in deceitful
E: allowed
F: check in humble and maybe deceitful
G: Check in prudent &/or deceitful. Possibly a loss of a point of honor, if the host has no ill will.
H: -1 on all actions following day. if done twice in a row, -3 on day 2, and -5 on day three or later. Also a check in prudent.

Mind you, if a check is earned, and another should be, I convert that second to a point lost.

He can thus choose to play out of character... but he'll probably lose a point or two.

Further, if they opt to roll, they are stuck with the results; if they. If asked, I'd suggest to the player to roll Trusting versus Prudent to decide whether to stop in or not. Then when asked for his name (at the gate most likely), deceitful vs honest.

It's not a straightjacket. It's a tool. And it reinforces the appropriate stats.

Now, if the moral dillema is the point of the encounter, I'll call for it, as with the situation when Arthur disinters bran's head, or when rolling valorous at start of a battle with beasts.

Most players wind up with checks in 6-12 traits per session.
Passions, far less so. If a passion applies, I require them to beat a 16+ passion with an opposed roll on a trait or passion to not play it, or to lose a point of it immediately, in order to play against it. Passions I'm more rigid with than traits.

I very rarely compel players to act. I do, however, make certain that they are rewarded or punished for choices to play out of character.

Well...I must congradulate spoonist on one thing at the VERY least.........You, sir, have given us all quite a hot topic to discuss!!!!!!!!!!!! It is bringing out everyones, Excuse me here........Passion!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway. I hope that whatever each group decides for themselves they feel it brings justice to the game and a lot of enjoyment. Ive always seen the trait/passion system as sort of a loose guide anyways, that is a little bit free form and open to some interpretation. I think it is best left that way for everbody. Cheers!! :P

...
I hope that whatever each group decides for themselves they feel it brings justice to the game and a lot of enjoyment. Ive always seen the trait/passion system as sort of a loose guide anyways, that is a little bit free form and open to some interpretation. I think it is best left that way for everbody. Cheers!! :P

I could not agree more and thank you sir knight.



...
He can thus choose to play out of character... but he'll probably lose a point or two.

Further, if they opt to roll, they are stuck with the results; if they. If asked, I'd suggest to the player to roll Trusting versus Prudent to decide whether to stop in or not. Then when asked for his name (at the gate most likely), deceitful vs honest.

It's not a straightjacket. It's a tool. And it reinforces the appropriate stats.

Now, if the moral dillema is the point of the encounter, I'll call for it, as with the situation when Arthur disinters bran's head, or when rolling valorous at start of a battle with beasts.

Most players wind up with checks in 6-12 traits per session.
Passions, far less so. If a passion applies, I require them to beat a 16+ passion with an opposed roll on a trait or passion to not play it, or to lose a point of it immediately, in order to play against it. Passions I'm more rigid with than traits.

I very rarely compel players to act. I do, however, make certain that they are rewarded or punished for choices to play out of character.


Great. :P Now I understand better what you where refering to in your other post.
Looking at the way you play I would say that it runs much faster than our way, which is a good thing especially in a setting like KAP where the flair needs a good flow in the scenes. But it is more demanding on the GM to make all the calls and the players must trust/agree with the GMs calls for it not to bog down.
Since my players are from such a diverse background we could not play like you do because they would endlessly suggest how I should make the call or some harsh calls would ruin their magic in some scenes. For us it works smother if I as GM lay it down that the character values are law and if the player wish to go against the values they must motivate a roll, because regardless of how the roll goes it is followed and the rest of the story continues smoothly. While if using your system if a player disagrees with a call the GM make they must stop the scene and maybe even retract an action.
Like in the example above, if your player say that he does B and you say "check in prudent and cowardly" can he retract the action "then instead I ride away" or can he discuss the call "prudent I agree with but cowardly is a bit harsh" can the other players suggest a change in call "he should get a deceitful as well".
Such meta discussions would ruin our mood beyond repair and knowing my players I would get a lot of them. Do you feel that your group gets a lot of this?

Also from a statistical point of view playing the traits like that would tend to "normalize" them over time bringing a lot of values closer to 10/10 which is something I would not like.

Generally, no, no "take backs"... But if they ask before committing, I'll generally tell them. If they blurt out "I lie about my name", they are stuck. They get the deceitful check. If they run from a potential fight, they always get a check in cowardly.

If they run from a real fight that they are loosing, they get to try and justify it with a passion... like loyalty lord or love wife; if the passion wins the opposed roll, no check in cowardly.

If they run due to a failed valorous, it's not always a cowardly check... A fumble, however, is... and if they opt to run without failing the valor, at least a check in cowardly.