I admit freely that one of the hardest thing in Pendragon for me to get a handle on is using traits. As my old players have, with reason, pointed out that it is much easier to be proactive with the bad traits (for example, drink lots of wine = indulgent, tumble each wench you can = lustful, brag about your achievements = proud), while the good traits tend to need some kind of test to really get any play time... I guess you could claim that you can be exactly as proactive with the good traits, to take the above example making sure that you state at each feast that you are eating bread and drinking water, turning down all amorous serving girls, and downplay your achievements.

So first part of the question would be, is this how people do it? Do you grant checks on those traits even if the use of the trait happens 'off-screen'? Or do you demand that the trait, good or bad, has been used in some significant way (tumbling a serving girl doesn't count, but seducing the wife of Sir Amig surely would)? Or do you look back on the year as a whole in Winter Phase and consider if the PK has consistently been trying to be one or the other, and award a check then?

The other part is the tests. The published adventures already have some examples where a test of a trait is made, with some of the consequences for either side succeeding. I would be very interested in hearing what other tests people are using in their campaigns, in hopes that it would give my brain a bit of a jog, too.

Like I said, the test within quests are relatively easy. It is harder to come up with some on the fly. Feast table offers some suggestions, too, boasting contest for one, but do people reward checks for all of those rolls? How often do you use Feasts in the game year?

Here are some examples that I have used in a previous campaign (although I think 1. and 2. have appeared in published adventures, too):

1. Beautiful maidens dancing around a maypole, inviting the knights to the dance and... the rest of the celebrations: Chaste/Lustful

2. That same party has tables laden with very tasty foods... surely you could stop just a moment to sample them? Roll Temperate/Indulgent.

3. Field of poppies, stolen from the Wizard of Oz: Energetic/Lazy or fall asleep.

4. Very narrow, rickety bridge over a lake, no hand rails, with a sign saying that it is perfectly safe, just walk on: Trusting/Suspicious (magic bridge: if you Trust, it will keep you safe, Suspicious, you will not be able to cross, and might get pitched into the water)

Some ideas you might find useful:

Energetic: Does he/she have a daily regimen of exercise/training above and beyond normal expectations (e.g. dawn P.T. even in the rain or after a feast)? “That’s not an attack, it’s just Sir Ferret jogging around the castle in armor again – go back to sleep, honey.”

Valorous: Does he/she regularly seek combat with people whose weapon skills greatly exceed his own? This is especially good for PSquires. “Sir Helmcrusher, my knight says I must learn to face different weapons and combat styles – would you please give me the honor of a lesson in fighting against mace?”

Generous: IMHO generosity includes generosity with time as well as with funds. Does he/she regularly take the time to help people even when there is no reward for doing so?

The problem I have with some of trait tests is that there doesn't seem to be much consequence for failure. In the GPC there's an example of testing energetic while waiting for ships to sail, just because it's boring to wait. Other than getting a reputation as a loafer (which admittedly could be bad) is tree any consequence to being lazy? If a knight does sample the food, so what?

In my last session the PKs had to hack through a thicket of thorns to get to a tower. I made them test energetic, and those who failed were at -1 to their rolls for the rest of the day because they were worn out. Similarly if failing an indulgent roll (or succeeding at it, rather) means the knight gets drunk, themn he should probably suffer some subsequent penalty.

The problem I have with some of trait tests is that there doesn't seem to be much consequence for failure. In the GPC there's an example of testing energetic while waiting for ships to sail, just because it's boring to wait. Other than getting a reputation as a loafer (which admittedly could be bad) is tree any consequence to being lazy? If a knight does sample the food, so what?


It depends upon what the gm wants. In some of the older canned scenarios, a failure on a certain trait at a certain point meant the knight was out of story. That alone should indicate the seriousness of failing a trait at a crucial point. To drink from the Holy Grail required rolls at a certain level. If the gm wants to require a roll on a trait at a certain point, then there needs to be consequences, else the players may never realize when the gm asks for a roll, it means something import is about to happen.

Bob

If the gm wants to require a roll on a trait at a certain point, then there needs to be consequences, else the players may never realize when the gm asks for a roll, it means something import is about to happen.


Like said, this is easy to do in a quest type of scenario, especially if there is a hint of supernatural so that the consequences can be rather immediate (for example the food mentioned was faerie food; you won't be able to stop eating during the evening!), or if there is a time limit (hence if you stop to fool around with pretty girls, you are effectively out of the story).

But how about the Feast? Do you award checks for tests done in those (Boasting contest, Drinking contest)? Tumbling a pretty serving girl? Refusing to tumble a pretty serving girl?

Reasonably, the knights would get a chance to demonstrate their traits several times a year, but unless it happens on-screen and dice are rolled, are they getting a check? It is virtually certain that the characters will be attending more than one Feast per year, but what if only one feast is played out, or none at all? What about the more 'proactive traits', such as lustful, generous and proud? If the player makes a point of mentioning that his knight is trying to have a girl in every village, does this merit a check? What about a knight who says he won't be having any girls along the way, does this merit a check in Chaste?

Do other GMs go out of their way to make sure that each PK will get tested during the year in various traits to give them a chance for checks? If so, do you interweave them into a scenario, or use them as short vignettes (good example being the court case in Landowner's Solo, where an accused man offers L1 bribe to the knight, Arbitrary check if he takes it, Just if he doesn't)?

Gideon13's reply seems to indicate that the players can fish for checks outside this kind of GM imposed test, for example Sir Ferret's player saying that he is going for a morning jog in full armor around the castle 7 times a week. Another player might comment that his knight is trying to live up to the Christian credo of forgiving, and will make a point of forgiving small slights (i.e. those not rising to the on-screen resolution). Does he get a check?

Gideon13's examples with Valorous and Generous would hint, in contrast, that this needs to come out in play. Or can the player say that his knight is always willing to help his neighboring knights during the year, even if this is not played out?

If only the tested/played traits get checks, then many of the trait improvement opportunities depend on the GM. Especially if the GM insists that there need to be consequences for the 'failure' in the test. The tumbled serving girl is the Host's leman. Or a succubus. Or has a bad-tempered father and a host of brawny brothers. (Of course, this implies that -Chaste- is not a failure. The opposite might apply in some pagan court. 'What? You spit on my hospitality?! What is wrong with my wenches, when you insult them and me by your refusal?')

Just to share... One of the PKs was convalescing in Paris preceding the Battle of Autun. He decided to seduce the innkeeper's pretty young daughter (being a famously Lustful pagan...). After some rolling, he ended up missing the Battle of Autun due to Wound Aggravation (not smart to engage in vigorous physical activity with a still-healing Major Wound) ja married to the girl on Sir Kay's orders ('You think I want this pillar of community running around the streets of Paris screaming that the Britons are raping Parisian maidens? You are marrying the girl. I don't care if she is a commoner. You should have thought about that before you did the deed. That's final.').

Trait checks are a fun part of the game, so I reckon that part of my role as GM is to get checks onto a bunch of traits for each knight - about 6-8 each year is what I aim for.

If these come the 'traditional' way ('moral/ethical challenges during an adventure') then fine, but I'll also use traits (and passions) a bit like compels in Fate - so I'll threaten a complication which can be negated or offer up an opportunity that can be exploited, but only if the player is willing to take an appropriate check.

At the end of the year if things are looking light trait-wise then I'll solicit input from the players on which traits they think are likely to have come to the fore for their characters; this is when the jogging-in-armour guy mentions the habitual jogging-in-armour in order to get an Energetic check (and I file the fact that he's always pounding around the battlements at dawn as something that might be a useful hook for something in future) or if nothing has really jumped out in play then I'll pick a few checks out of an appropriate solo to bring 'em up to scratch.

Regards
Luke

OK, so it looks like you are doing it pretty similarly as I have so far, although I have clearly been remiss/stingy in giving out as many checks.



I'll also use traits (and passions) a bit like compels in Fate - so I'll threaten a complication which can be negated or offer up an opportunity that can be exploited, but only if the player is willing to take an appropriate check. ks out of an appropriate solo to bring 'em up to scratch.


Do you mean in a similar way that you have different choices in your Expanded Raiding Solo (stolen for my campaign, by the way)?

Trait checks are a fun part of the game, so I reckon that part of my role as GM is to get checks onto a bunch of traits for each knight - about 6-8 each year is what I aim for.
I try to average 4-6, but I don't think this is above board.


If these come the 'traditional' way ('moral/ethical challenges during an adventure') then fine, but I'll also use traits (and passions) a bit like compels in Fate - so I'll threaten a complication which can be negated or offer up an opportunity that can be exploited, but only if the player is willing to take an appropriate check.

At the end of the year if things are looking light trait-wise then I'll solicit input from the players on which traits they think are likely to have come to the fore for their characters; this is when the jogging-in-armour guy mentions the habitual jogging-in-armour in order to get an Energetic check (and I file the fact that he's always pounding around the battlements at dawn as something that might be a useful hook for something in future) or if nothing has really jumped out in play then I'll pick a few checks out of an appropriate solo to bring 'em up to scratch.

Regards
Luke



Likewise, I will ask what trait or traits (usually 1-2) each knight wants to work on each year. Even if the trait does not come up in play, the knight gets a check in that trait.

Bob

Do you mean in a similar way that you have different choices in your Expanded Raiding Solo (stolen for my campaign, by the way)?


Yup. That write up was a riff on THE RAID/THE PILLAGE, so there's even canonical rules guidance to use traits this way...

Regards
Luke

1. Beautiful maidens dancing around a maypole, inviting the knights to the dance and... the rest of the celebrations: Chaste/Lustful

2. That same party has tables laden with very tasty foods... surely you could stop just a moment to sample them? Roll Temperate/Indulgent.

3. Field of poppies, stolen from the Wizard of Oz: Energetic/Lazy or fall asleep.

4. Very narrow, rickety bridge over a lake, no hand rails, with a sign saying that it is perfectly safe, just walk on: Trusting/Suspicious (magic bridge: if you Trust, it will keep you safe, Suspicious, you will not be able to cross, and might get pitched into the water)


I'd give trait rolls in exactly the same way. With Trusting/Suspicious I tend to apply it whenever my knights are given something by someone they don't really know. For example, last session a faerie knight offered one of my knights a silver trinket which he said would aid him in locating the object of his quest (and the faerie knight was telling the truth, it would indeed do that), however, he rolled his suspicious, succeeded and refused to take it. (btw that's an interesting example you give there; I've not really used it in that context before)

Traits are one of the areas of the rules which I think can be the trickiest to be consistent with. I was having a discussion with Darren about this which I'd like to open up for general discussion.

A few sessions back a situation arose which caused some uncertainty - I had a player with a 16+ Reckless who was walking along a path in a magical forest which he had been told NOT to leave by Merlin, as the creatures that lurked there would kill him. Now the player had reason to be annoyed with Merlin and so he willfully decided to disobey him and went to step off the path. However, I said he had to make a Reckless check to do so, because of the danger involved and the stern warning he had be given. So my player rolled his Reckless, failed, then succeeded on his Prudent and stayed on the path. This had him fuming as he felt free choice was taken away from him. Now I do realise that characters with 16+ traits have to accept that this can happen from time to time, but it still caused arguments.

In the aftermath several of my players argued that a character should not have to roll vs a trait when he wants to act in the way that the trait supports, only when he wants to act against it. I agreed but later on doubted my judgment. I thought about Valourous; when rolling vs this my knights *want* to be valourous, and their 16+ traits support that, but it doesn't automatically mean they are.

The rules state that there are times when even a very high trait character will act against type as simulated by rolling a 20. I understand this but if I return to the path example, I run into a slight paradox. Let's assume two knights are walking along the path this time, one with a Reckless of 15 and one with a Reckless of 19. The 15 Reckless knight is neither particularly Prudent nor particular Reckless and he has no renown for either. His partner, however, is known throughout the land for being extremely Reckless, always jumping into danger and whatnot. However, only he has to make the Reckless check because the other guy's trait is low enough to allow free choice. This would mean that if they did that same walk 100 times over, the knight famous for being reckless would actually act *more* prudently than the knight who isn't; rolling a 20 on his Reckless check would force him to act Prudently whereas the knight with 15 would never have to roll, always using free choice.

Going back to Morien's examples of trait use prompts more questions. Are you asking for those rolls even when the character has traits below the 16+ threshold? If so, why? Shouldn't free choice be exercised there? That's actually a rhetorical question because I have faced the same dilemma. Just when do you ask for a trait roll and when do you let the player decide and give a tick accordingly? Does check force action or action force check? I tend to force a trait roll - regardless of trait value - whenever the player is surprised by something and has to act on base instinct. If they are prepared then they may exercise free choice. For example, the character is at court watching the ladies go by. He spies a very comely maid and thinks about flirting with her. Here I'd let the player choose his action (unless he had Lustful 16+ in which case I'd require a roll) because he's had time to think about it. However, if later on the same knight is chatting to someone and another wench appears under his nose, unexpected, flashing her cleavage at him, I'd ask for a roll regardless of his trait to simulate his base reaction.

I haven't had any trait problems for a while - not since the path example - but the situation is bound to arise again and I've yet to arrive at a ruling that I'm totally happy with.

To have a notable trait means some free will can be lost. NPCs are easiest to determine here as they have no free will, so to speak. PCs, on the other hand, ALWAYS have free will. If one is notable for a certain trait, say lustful, and a comely wench flirts with him, he has to roll as he has a 16+ in that trait. Whatever the roll says, the player still has free choice in the matter. If he decides that he doesn't want to spend a night with a wench, even if the dice says so, he justs says the word, and he doesn't. (Oh, btw, he does lose a point in the trait immediately.)

Quote from Silburn:

A few sessions back a situation arose which caused some uncertainty - I had a player with a 16+ Reckless who was walking along a path in a magical forest which he had been told NOT to leave by Merlin, as the creatures that lurked there would kill him. Now the player had reason to be annoyed with Merlin and so he willfully decided to disobey him and went to step off the path. However, I said he had to make a Reckless check to do so, because of the danger involved and the stern warning he had be given. So my player rolled his Reckless, failed, then succeeded on his Prudent and stayed on the path. This had him fuming as he felt free choice was taken away from him. Now I do realise that characters with 16+ traits have to accept that this can happen from time to time, but it still caused arguments.


So, in the above example, the knight in my campaign, having achieved the same result, could still walk off the path. He would (1) lose 1 point of Reckless, and (2) have a fight with a creature just powerful enough to cause him a major wound.

I have found my players realize that to have the notable traits (and the prestige and glory) do come with a price.

Humbly submitted,
Bob

First of all, I agree, traits are hard!

Re: Trait 16+.

The way I read it, if you have a famous trait, you will act it. No argument. In fact, when you don't want to act it, then you will need to -fail- in it, first, or you will do stuff anyway. That is the way I'd use it. The Paradox you (Sir Pramalot) allude to is making the 16+ trait roll when he wants to act the type, but NOT making the 10 trait roll when he wants to act the type. If you are making Reckless 16+ roll, then should Reckless 10 as well, even more so! If you are not making Reckless 10 roll, then Reckless 16+ will act reckless unless he fails his Reckless and takes a check in Prudent. This is probably how I'd play it.

Tests are different. If a monster imposes a valorous roll, then they need to test it, even if their Valorous is 16+. Note that this is not the same as an opposed resolution against Cowardly. This acts more like a skill; you'll need to succeed in order to engage the monster.

In contrast, lets say that knights face a following situation: they have ridden through the day and come to an inn. As they step in, in their riding clothes (my PKs usually wear leather armor while traveling), they notice a couple of bandits accosting a lady, and the bandits tell them to get lost, private party. The lady doesn't seem to be in any immediate danger, although naturally discomfited by the ruffians. Now, someone with Valorous 16+ I'd expect to draw a sword right there and then, while someone less Valorous might go back outside, change to the chainmail and then come back in, ready to fight. Cowardly 16+ might decide to ride a bit further away and camp outside for the night. Argument could be made for Reckless/Prudent, too.

I guess I need to reread the trait section, but I'd see these three categories:

1. Free Will
If GM doesn't demand a roll, then each player is free to choose, except those who have trait at 16+, who will HAVE to play it, unless they roll and fail. Might gain a check in the trait they act.

2. Imposed roll
There are examples where even famous traits are rolled. I think the rulebook had Sir Bors blushing while a young lady flirted with him, after he fumbled a Chaste roll, despite his Chaste 19. In these cases, everyone rolls. However, if one fails in both rolls, the player can choose. Might get a check in the trait they act.

3. Test
Everyone rolls. This is a simple roll against the trait. If you succeed, things happen. If you fail, other things happen. Might get a check based on the action.

Now, I am not totally happy with these categories. What decides whether or not it is a free will, an imposed roll or a test? There is too much ambiguity for my peace of mind here. (Some of that ambiguity can result from not having the rulebook before me.)

Consequences to player's choice:

1) Free will:
- 16: 20% chance of free will, 80% will act the trait (no problem here: either he likes being Reckless, or he has been acting Reckless)
- 10: 100% chance of player's choice
- 4: 80% of opposite trait, 20% free will

2) Imposed roll
- 16: 80% act the trait, 9% free will, 11% opposite (original 20 or succeeds after the fail) (I am ignoring fumble in second roll, check Laziness)
- 10: 50% act the trait, 22.5% free will, 27.5% opposite trait
- 4: 20% act the trait, 15% free will, 65% opposite trait

And this is one of my problems with imposed roll. It MATTERS which side gets checked, first! If I call my Honest 10/Deceitful 10 PK to test Honest, he will speak the truth 50% of the time and lie 27.5% of the time, but if I call him to test Deceitful, he will lie 50% of the time and speak the truth 27.5% of the time. This to me is a broken mechanic.

Suggested fix:
Why have different rules for Traits? Do a simple opposed resolution between the pair, i.e. roll both.
Example: Honest 10 / Deceitful 10. Rolls 6 and 7. Deceitful won, so he lies. If both rolls fail, free will. Fumble can be simply a failure or act like the opposite.
Consequences: 37.5% truth, 37.5% lies, 25% free will (if Fumble = failure) OR 39.75% truth, 39.75% lies, 20.5% free will (Fumble = opposite)
Only downside that I see is that you need to throw twice, but you often need to do that anyway, and this would bring the trait system in like with other resolutions.

3) Test
-16: 80% pass, 20% no go
-10: 50% pass, 50% no go
-4: 20% pass, 80% no go


Summa summarum:

I am personally starting to inch towards Free Will system, distributing checks based on what PLAYERS decide, not what the dice roll. Big chunk of the roleplaying enjoyment for me is seeing the players pondering their course of action, and then acting it. Granted, there is a small component of player choice in the Imposed system as well, especially if it is fixed, but it is still mostly dictated by the dice.

The important thing, I think, is to be consistent with the method you are using. Otherwise, the players can be validly upset as to why they need to roll NOW but why didn't they need to roll in the last session? Or half an hour ago? Taking Sir Pramalot's Reckless 16+ PK again, if it had been established that EVERYONE rolls all the time, he would have been less upset at the GM and more upset at his luck with the dice. (And just to hammer this point in again: if Reckless 16+ rolls to be -Reckless-, everyone rolls!)

To have a notable trait means some free will can be lost. NPCs are easiest to determine here as they have no free will, so to speak. PCs, on the other hand, ALWAYS have free will. If one is notable for a certain trait, say lustful, and a comely wench flirts with him, he has to roll as he has a 16+ in that trait. Whatever the roll says, the player still has free choice in the matter. If he decides that he doesn't want to spend a night with a wench, even if the dice says so, he justs says the word, and he doesn't. (Oh, btw, he does lose a point in the trait immediately.)


I disagree... to a point. If using a free will system (i.e. someone with Lustful 10 would not roll), then Lustful 16+ can jump into the sack without even looking at the dice. It is only if he wishes to NOT be Lustful that I would make him roll. On the other hand, if I am making Lustful 10 roll, then I would make Lustful 16+ roll as well.

I probably would allow him to inspire his Chaste with Love(Wife) or some such, if there is a reason, but honestly, what PK has Lustful 16+ and doesn't want to play it???

EDIT: Just to add that I might be fine giving notable trait PK a chance to act against the trait despite the roll result, and take a penalty of -1 to the trait, like suggested by Bob, if I am not imposing the dice rolls to other players. If you want to have Free Will, just don't have any notable traits! Bit ambivalent here, though, since it feels a bit of a cop-out: gather glory until the trouble rears its ugly head and then take a hit in the trait. There, danger averted. And you still might get Glory if your trait was 17+.

Quote from Silburn:

Actually, from Sir Pramalot, I think you will see.



So, in the above example, the knight in my campaign, having achieved the same result, could still walk off the path. He would (1) lose 1 point of Reckless, and (2) have a fight with a creature just powerful enough to cause him a major wound.


He loses a point of Reckless for being Reckless? How does that make sense? (Other than GM imposed punishment to the player for not obeying the mechanic.)

Either players have free will, in which case Reckless 16+ should be free to act as Reckless. That is what he is famous for!
OR
All players roll and the dice decide for everyone. Reckless 16+ is more likely to act Reckless, as it should be. That is what he is famous for! And if the dice don't come down right, too bad. The Dice Gods have spoken and us mortals will obey.



I have found my players realize that to have the notable traits (and the prestige and glory) do come with a price.


Absolutely. But the price should be, IMHO, playing the notable trait and getting into trouble, and not its opposite!

Just finished reading the trait section, and I have to say that it reads exactly like Sir Pramalot GMed. Which is silly. Reckless 16+ has to roll, while Reckless 10 can be totally reckless?

I find the whole chapter confusing. It starts telling about giving the players the choice and then it starts imposing rolls and penalties for using that choice...

The way I interpret the required test for famous traits is that the test is required if the PK wants to act in the opposite way. So, for example, if the knight with reckless 16 said he wanted to stay on the path, then he'd have to make a test; he's always free to act recklessly without testing. The knight with reckless 10 could choose either course without rolling - but if leaving the path is particularly reckless it might earn him a check immediately.

To have a notable trait means some free will can be lost. NPCs are easiest to determine here as they have no free will, so to speak. PCs, on the other hand, ALWAYS have free will. If one is notable for a certain trait, say lustful, and a comely wench flirts with him, he has to roll as he has a 16+ in that trait. Whatever the roll says, the player still has free choice in the matter. If he decides that he doesn't want to spend a night with a wench, even if the dice says so, he justs says the word, and he doesn't. (Oh, btw, he does lose a point in the trait immediately.)


I have it the same way. PCs with 16+ know they will have free will removed from them at times and for the most part they are happy with that (or at least accept as part of the rule system). Your interpretation of the use of free will is right, I've just not been applying it that way. MY PCs have to act with what the trait roll says if they roll it. Now that you bring it up - and from a re-read of the rules - I know that's wrong. Only a 20 should force compliance. I think I've played it this way purely because it seems to be working and because otherwise I thought traits would only have a minor impact upon play (with only the 20s forcing action). Still, that could also be causing me issues as illustrated by my example. Had I played it as you say, the Reckless knight - even though he'd rolled prudent - could still have stepped off the path, and just taken a check on Reckless.



So, in the above example, the knight in my campaign, having achieved the same result, could still walk off the path. He would (1) lose 1 point of Reckless, and (2) have a fight with a creature just powerful enough to cause him a major wound.


I think you mean you would have him gain 1 point of Reckless not lose it. Otherwise I agree. And that would have solved my problem. Still, as mentioned above, I'm not actually applying the rules in that way.



2) Imposed roll
- 16: 80% act the trait, 9% free will, 11% opposite (original 20 or succeeds after the fail) (I am ignoring fumble in second roll, check Laziness)
- 10: 50% act the trait, 22.5% free will, 27.5% opposite trait
- 4: 20% act the trait, 15% free will, 65% opposite trait

And this is one of my problems with imposed roll. It MATTERS which side gets checked, first! If I call my Honest 10/Deceitful 10 PK to test Honest, he will speak the truth 50% of the time and lie 27.5% of the time, but if I call him to test Deceitful, he will lie 50% of the time and speak the truth 27.5% of the time. This to me is a broken mechanic.


Very true. And this is a quirk of the system. In fact in the example given in the rulebook regarding Sir Bors and the fair lady the outcome would not be the same if Chaste was rolled first. Why doesn't he roll Chaste first? The distinction between each is so slim as to be almost non-existent. Should he test Chaste when tested by the beautiful maiden to remain chaste or test Lustful to act lustfully? To apply some consistency, I always have the player roll vs. the dominant trait. So in the rulebook example, I would've had Sir Bors roll his Chaste (of 19) not his Lustful. Where there is no dominant trait I lean towards the left hand ones.



The way I interpret the required test for famous traits is that the test is required if the PK wants to act in the opposite way. So, for example, if the knight with reckless 16 said he wanted to stay on the path, then he'd have to make a test; he's always free to act recklessly without testing. The knight with reckless 10 could choose either course without rolling - but if leaving the path is particularly reckless it might earn him a check immediately.


That would seem the most sensible and that is what my players and I agreed to do after the "path" session. However, that's not how the rules say it should be done, and it does then raise the issue I mentioned about Valourous - and perhaps one or two other trait situations that I've yet to consider. Also, during my initial discussion on this topic, Darren - not wishing to quote you out of turn here Darren by the way so please pick me up if I do - told me that I was right to apply the rules as I did originally, ie forcing the Reckless check to act Reckless, which in turn leads to the paradox situation....

The example given by the OP seems to run entirely counter to the intent of the trait rules. We have a situation where only a reckless person would stray off the path, thus I would probably require a trait test for characters with Reckless < 16 if they declared that they wanted to wander off piste but permit the famously Reckless characters to do so without requiring a test - indeed I might well ask for a Prudent test from them if they wanted to stay on the path or, houserule ahoy, impose a Prudent compel ("of course you can stay on the path, but you take a check to your Prudent for being such a shrinking violet").

People seem to be saying that Sir Pramalot ran the situation strictly per RAW which I find hard to credit, but I don't have my books to hand - could someone quote the relevant bit from the rules please?

Regards
Luke

People seem to be saying that Sir Pramalot ran the situation strictly per RAW which I find hard to credit, but I don't have my books to hand - could someone quote the relevant bit from the rules please?


I agree that your interpretation fits much better with how I would expect the rules to work, and how I would use them. It might be that this is something that has been errataed by Greg in one of his earlier replies in other threads, but I couldn't find a comment on the errata in his page.

I don't have the books in front of me, either, but the trait section starts by an explanation that the players can choose their actions, but if their Trait is 16+, they need to roll. No mention about rolling so that they can act -contrary- to the trait, but rolling every time it is tested. I'll type up the exact quote when I get to my books, if no one has done it by then.

Of course, the rules then continue to imposed rolls where the free will is more curtailed... I will need to reread that bit yet again to make sure, but I think unless a fumble was rolled, the player could still choose to act opposite to the dice roll, but would get a check on the opposite trait?

Tests were the last and there it is a simple unopposed roll against the trait to see if you pass or not.


I had a moment to ponder about the chance to inflict some more trait choices to my players... I guess you could consider these to be a bit more complex solos. Hmm. Perhaps a new thread would be better...

Forgive me not having read this whole great thread before intervening here in ignorance.



The way I interpret the required test for famous traits is that the test is required if the PK wants to act in the opposite way. So, for example, if the knight with reckless 16 said he wanted to stay on the path,
then he'd have to make a test;


Yes, only when it it is "out of character," for a 16+ action, or rather, when he attempts to make a -4 action.



he's always free to act recklessly without testing. The knight with reckless 10 could choose either course without rolling - but if leaving the path is particularly reckless it might earn him a check immediately.


Yes it would, in my game, get him a check. And the naturally risk-taking guy too.
They both get a check for acting the way they are acting,

Having been away camping and posting only when time allowed, I reread my post based upon comments here. Although I did clearly identify which trait the point was lost from, I mistakenly said which trait should be affected. Sorry for the confusion. Because he failed on his reckless, succeeded on his prudent, and then still chose reckless, he would lose a point of prudent, because he is going against the dice.

Looking back at this, it seems odd that a notable knight in reckless would lose a point in prudent because of this, but it would only come up less than 20% of the time.

Bob

Although I agree with the resolution used by Bob, Valourous is still an anomaly. I'm a knight with 20 Valour for example, I see a giant coming towards me and I WANT to be Valourous and attack not Cowardly and run away, but I still have to roll.

Although I agree with the resolution used by Bob, Valourous is still an anomaly. I'm a knight with 20 Valour for example, I see a giant coming towards me and I WANT to be Valourous and attack not Cowardly and run away, but I still have to roll.


Good point.
Perhaps one must roll ONLY if the modified Valor is 5 or less?

Note that a failed Valorous roll against a Giant doesn't mean you run away. It means you are unable to advance and attack the Giant, but if the Giant comes to attack you, you can defend yourself. You are not a coward, you are just not able to force your body to move forward.

I see those valorous tests being imposed as part of the supernatural threat those monsters pose.

In addition, I'd probably allow the knight to re-roll again either next round, or when something changes (for example, a comrade being knocked down or shouting for help).

Rolling only on Modified Valorous 4 or less might be more in keeping with the other system, but I again stress that this should be a Test, not a personality roll. Also, that would make the modifiers either meaningless or so bad that they won't matter. Rolling on Modified Valorous 15 or less would work much better. Famously Valorous would still be valorous, and others might hesitate. Also, I'd stress it to the players that overcoming this test means having that lovely check on their Valor... If they do not face something frightening, why would they feel more valorous afterwards? :P

Note that a failed Valorous roll against a Giant doesn't mean you run away. It means you are unable to advance and attack the Giant, but if the Giant comes to attack you, you can defend yourself. You are not a coward, you are just not able to force your body to move forward.


You're quite right and that is how I apply the rule, my previous post was just a quick reply. However, the principal remains. If it is correct to only roll a Trait when a person wishes to act against it then Valourous remains an anomaly. You DO roll against it even when you wish to act in accordance with it. Also, the threat need not be supernatural. It could be that a particularly savage knight, who has just mincemeated 20 others, is now coming for you, and you're alone.

Greg - from what I understand the trait rules have not changed since 3rd edition, but perhaps during that time, your application of them has? Would you care to shed some light on how you currently use/enforce them? I'm not particularly worried about things such as the slight problem with Valourous, I just want to GM consistently. So;

"Since traits and passions define character personality, they must be consulted whenever the Gamemaster feels them necessary." p66 KAP5.1

Is it correct then to call for trait rolls even if the trait in question is completely average (ie less than 16)? I currently do this when my players are presented with a "test" and allow free choice all other times. By way of example, a test is "you're enjoying yourself at the feast and a drunken Sir Bors grabs you, thrusts another mug of ale in your hand, and wildly suggests another toast", the player rolls his Temperate/Indulgent regardless of trait score.

That seems reasonable and the rules would seem to support this;

In crises, it is assumed, individuals act according to their character, not spontaneous and ambiguous choices. Custom and training triumph over instinct. Players may not want their characters to do something dictated by a die roll, but free choice is not always possible. p66 KAP5.1

But the very next paragraph casts doubt on that;

Only famous traits and passions (i.e., those with a value of 16 or higher) are noteworthy, and such traits or passions must be tested with a die roll whenever character behavior is challenged in a crisis. p66. KAP5.1

supported by

Traits and passions between 5 and 15 do not have to be rolled against if the player wishes to use his free will to determine an action, although rolling is obviously the most impartial way to determine actions. p66. KAP5.1 - I apply the "rolling is obviously the most impartial way to determine actions" whenever the player is unsure which way to act and lets the dice decide for him.

This suggests that no matter what the situation, only characters with high traits are bound to roll. Anyone else may always apply free choice. This is important because in the published adventures (in fact in the GPC too) there are often calls to "make a check against x trait". Should that read "make a check against x trait ONLY IF THE TRAIT IN QUESTION IS 16+", if not then why not? The core rules suggest free choice should be applicable in such instances;

If we assume that there ARE times when traits rolls have to be rolled universally then it brings me back to my initial example (as illustrated in my "path" example above) - Does the Reckless knight have to roll vs Reckless when he wishes to BE Reckless and step off of the path? If yes, then the only way to avoid the bizarre outcome of having a less Reckless knight act more Recklessly (his Reckless trait is below 16 so always excercies free choice while the 16+ knight has to roll) is to enforce rolls for everyone - regardless of their trait score - which I believe runs counter to the rules as written.

If the knight in question does NOT have to roll Reckless to act Reckless then Valourous becomes an anomaly - and now I think of it, Energetic too, see below. Furthermore, there are other instances where it might prove somewhat strange. Say you're at a fest (yes again :)) and the maid brings out another tray of ale, if you're Indulgent 19 do you ALWAYS quaff the lot? Isn't there the chance that just once, just this one time, you don't feel like it, regardless of what the player says? This is simulated at present by the roll of a 20 forcing you to act against type and is somewhat supported by an example in the rule book;

"Lancelot Fumbles an Energetic roll" p71. KAP5.1. With this example, if presented with a similar situation, the player in question would almost certainly say, "I'm Lancelot, I'm known throughout the land for being energetic, so I'm going to be energetic, therefore no need to roll" However, the example shows he DOES make a roll, fumbles it, and on this occasion acts against type. While I think this is a nice quirk of the trait system, if you apply such a ruling consistently then you're back to the Reckless knight having to roll to be Reckless.

I'm not trying to pick holes in the rules here btw, I just find the chapter on Traits to be confusing and in places, contradictory. This in turn has lead me to GM somewhat inconsistently. I don't think my players have really noticed but it still irks me!

- Andy

First of all, thank you for your very comprehensive post. It is what I would have hoped to post myself when I opened this thread. :)




You're quite right and that is how I apply the rule, my previous post was just a quick reply. However, the principal remains. If it is correct to only roll a Trait when a person wishes to act against it then Valourous remains an anomaly. You DO roll against it even when you wish to act in accordance with it. Also, the threat need not be supernatural. It could be that a particularly savage knight, who has just mincemeated 20 others, is now coming for you, and you're alone.



I posit that a knight that has just made mincemeat of 20 other knights and is now coming at you while you are alone, is not a normal threat. :)

I see Valorous 16+ as being famously Valorous yes, but not immune to an occasional 'holy pants, I am going to die' -moments. That is what the Valorous 'test' when facing monsters or clearly significant threats means: the knight being briefly frozen by misgivings or simple adrenaline rush.

Valorous 16+ meets a couple of normal guys? No problem, this is part of the normal risks, no need to roll.

Valorous 16+ meets a snarling beast that seems immune to normal weapons and has just ripped another knight in twain without raising a sweat? Yeah, you are going to roll.

Note! If I am making Valorous 16+ roll, I am making EVERYONE ELSE to roll as well. Valorous 16+ will, on average, be noticeably more Valorous than Valorous 10.

It is not a roll to see if you are acting Valorous or Cowardly. It is a test to see if you can enter combat. It is an anomaly because you are trying to make it a Valorous/Cowardly personality check, and it is more like a test in many published adventures: 'Roll X, if you succeed, you may proceed, otherwise you are stuck.'

Lets say a Test of Chaste. The knight sees a very tempting young maiden, and while the knight decides to ACT Chaste, in his heart of hearts, he cannot help but wonder how it would be like to kiss her passionately. Test Failed. You are not pure enough.

I admit, this does pose some odd results from time to time, with someone with Chaste 10 passing while Chaste 16 does not, but that can be just circumstance. Maybe the maiden reminds Chaste 10 of his little sister, and hence his thoughts do not wander into the lustful territory?

Perhaps a better Test would be the Field of Poppies Energetic test that I mentioned in my original post: The knights are crossing the enchanted field that will put them to sleep. Their bodies start falling to sleep, while it is their force of will (expressed by Energetic here) that is trying to FORCE their bodies to stay awake and cross the field. In similar way, the knight's body is going 'nuh uh, I am staying put' while facing a terrifying opponent (one that GM deems worthy of this test), while his Valorous heart tries to FORCE his body to move forward.




Greg - from what I understand the trait rules have not changed since 3rd edition, but perhaps during that time, your application of them has? Would you care to shed some light on how you currently use/enforce them? I'm not particularly worried about things such as the slight problem with Valourous, I just want to GM consistently. So;


Amen to that. :) Like I have said before, I find the rules very much a matter of the GM's whim, and this troubles me as a GM, knowing myself to be just a mortal.



If we assume that there ARE times when traits rolls have to be rolled universally then it brings me back to my initial example (as illustrated in my "path" example above) - Does the Reckless knight have to roll vs Reckless when he wishes to BE Reckless and step off of the path? If yes, then the only way to avoid the bizarre outcome of having a less Reckless knight act more Recklessly (his Reckless trait is below 16 so always excercies free choice while the 16+ knight has to roll) is to enforce rolls for everyone - regardless of their trait score - which I believe runs counter to the rules as written.


I think the consensus of the replies and the way I have always GMed it... Reckless 16+ is always Reckless when the player would normally get to decide, and HAS to roll if he wants to act COUNTER to his Reckless. Note that I added a caveat: when the player would normally get to decide.

If it is a test or some such and GM calls for rolls, then everybody rolls. Including Reckless 16+. My decision tree goes like this:

1. Is it free choice by the players? If no, go to 2a. If yes, go to 2b.
2a. Everyone rolls, the dice will decide the outcome (which can return the choice to the player).
2b. Is the PK's trait 16+? If yes, go to 3. If no, the player can decide what his PK does.
3. Does the player wish to act according to the trait? If yes, he can, no roll needed. If no, he has to roll and abide by the result.

It is that first step that is giving me the grief at the moment: how to decide whether or not it is the players' choice? Supernatural tests are easy. Valorous causes no problems for me, either. It is that ambiguous middle ground that I have a problem with.

Take for example my Pretty Girls Dancing around a Maypole - Chaste test (assuming no supernatural component here). How is that different from a pretty serving girl whispering into the knight's ear during the feast that she is more than willing to help the knight out of his clothes if he returns the favor? Yet imposing a roll each and every time they are tempted will rob the players the ability to choose freely. Whereas to let them choose freely in one situation and not the other would smack of inconsistency.

One option would be to limit the tests to supernatural, or extenuating circumstances ('You have just watched Lady Ygraine dance, the blood pounding in your ears like the tankards being hammered against the table. A pretty serving girl whispers that she is more than willing to help you relax. Roll Lustful.'). That would mean that a knight who is Chaste or wants to be Chaste, will be Chaste, under normal circumstances. And the GM will just have to play it by the ear what triggers the roll. While it is still GM's choice what constitutes as extenuating circumstances, it does put a fence post up in the yard to mark where the rolls start happening.

Friends,

Good questions
Good discussion

I will enter into this fray shortly

I'd been wrestling with some issues close to this, myself

The quick answer is (I think) that there are two uses of these
normal (only 16+ MUST act)
extraordinary, a test, quest etc. (everyone)

This is how I play it when I'm the GM.

16+ traits, the player may opt to roll or not.
If the player does not roll the result is always as if a roll of '1' is made, so successful but no high result. The action will never give a check even if significant for the tale.
If the player chose to roll and succeds he does get a check if the test is significant for the tale.

Regarding Valour, my players may if they wish roll a "save" with Prudent/Reckless. This so that just because you are brave you don't have to be foolish.
Or as in the post above, meeting the giant, failing valour my players may "save" with a reckless roll and if someone else leads them they may join the fray.
However if they fumble or crit that is always used to the extreme for role playing. ;D

An example would be one of my PK at Mont st Michel, he fails his valour and stands frozen and undecided. Then when Brastias runs by trying to rally the frozen knights PK+NPK, I give my player a choice to "save" and he rolls a reckless=fails, then opposed prudent=fails. I then give the player the choice to join Brastias or cowardly run away. He joins the fray and dies.
Now if my player had rolled the Valour he would still have gotten the choice to "save" with a prudent if he did not wish to charge into the fray.

Greg - Care to share any more thoughts on this? Are you currently tinkering with the Trait system?

Spoonist - That sounds quite neat actually. At first I didn't see how it would change much, but not giving a tick for taking the auto succeed option makes it interesting. How many players do you know that would forgo the chance of earning a tick? Not many in my group.

Spoonist - That sounds quite neat actually. At first I didn't see how it would change much, but not giving a tick for taking the auto succeed option makes it interesting. How many players do you know that would forgo the chance of earning a tick? Not many in my group.

At least it gets them to appreciate the role playing of the situation.

I agree this has been a good discussion. What has been a standard for years has shown some wearing at the seams. I would like to throw one more point into the discussion:

Can a PC try to inspire himself before taking a Trait check?

Take the following as an example. A knight notable for his chaste and for his love of his wife is given a lust potion which gives a +15 to his Lust. Can a knight who is about to lance one other than his enemy try to inspire using his love of this wife. Would this a straight inspiration roll using love, or an opposed roll of love vs. lust?

Bob

I agree this has been a good discussion. What has been a standard for years has shown some wearing at the seams. I would like to throw one more point into the discussion:

Can a PC try to inspire himself before taking a Trait check?

Take the following as an example. A knight notable for his chaste and for his love of his wife is given a lust potion which gives a +15 to his Lust. Can a knight who is about to lance one other than his enemy try to inspire using his love of this wife. Would this a straight inspiration roll using love, or an opposed roll of love vs. lust?

Bob



If I may join the discussion, here's my take. If I have misunderstood any part of your post, please correct me.

1. No need to inspire oneself before a Trait check -- modifiers work just as well and you can ask the GM for a modifier based on your Love (wife) passion under the right circumstances.

2. It's my understanding that inspiration gained from a Passion roll can only modify a skill, not a trait. So rolling for inspiration to help you succeed at a Trait test would do nothing for you.

3. If I understand your hypothetical correctly, "lance" innuendo and all, rolling a Love (wife) passion to help a character bed his wife is...well...odd. If the knight needed the potion to get "in the mood," I would assume that the potion works and the couple enjoy themselves. If he's trying to get into another woman's petticoats, rolling Love (wife) for inspiration would be entirely inappropriate. If the knight is deliberately trying to bed another woman, I would make the player roll Lustful vs. Love (wife). If anything, that potion would serve to help the knight in infidelity and in overcoming the Love (wife) passion.