ICA=ICC

[tashiro]

“An in-character action will have in-character consequences”.  A simple rule, but how often is it used in a game, and to what degree?  Essentially, what it means is that when a character performs an action, there will be consequences related to this action, and the player should accept that such consequences are part and parcel of the game.  On the

Comments

[marinredwolf]

*headtilts*

Well, in general, the rule's a pretty basic point of "tabletop" roleplaying. It remains a bit weakness in CRPGs because programming consequences for all the possible actions.

I think there has been some shift in RPG philosophy over the years from random dungeon crawling to collaborative storytelling. In the earlier cases, the game treated characters like little more than a set of stats and gear, so yeah, they were perceived as more expendable. With the shift to story, we got the addition of backgrounds, and deeper settings leading to more action in RPGs that wasn't just "go kill things." Along with that, you get an increase in emphasis on the overall story. And for an ongoing story, it's generally a good thing to have some consistent characters. That led to mechanics to support that from the expectation that a PC is more powerful than NPC to things like "fate points." But... as much as I feel that shift was very real in the industry, it all boils down to how people play the games. The most skeletal, "crunchy" game can

[tcpip]

Back in the day of course it was positively dangerous to invest time in a character's backstory, especially if the first goblin with a pointy stick put an end to your 1st level paladin.

Although Traveller was an exception to this, quite extensive backgrounds at the beginning of play.

[marinredwolf]

Wasn't that the chargen system where you could actually have a character die before you ever started play?

[tashiro]

Yes, yes it was.

[brother_dour]

Hmmm. Every gaming group I've played in has been like this, so I guess I take it for granted. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I also GM under the 'failure is always an option' rule. It shouldn't be an absolute, of course- I've been in campaigns where a PC did something stupid that should have gotten him killed because the player did not understand the full ramifications of his actions. Thankfully the GM was good enough to figure that out and at least kept the character from dying (although he was out of commission for several sessions and the local Lakota really hated the PCs even more afterward). So there's always that too- a player shouldn't be punished if the GM doesn't do a good job disseminating information. Personally, I will flat out tell a player, "You probably don't want to do that" if it seems they seem unwitting to the doom they are about to bring upon them

[tcpip]

Happy to have this reprinted in RPG Review?

[tashiro]

I'd be fine with that. Let me know when it is in?

[tcpip]

It's planned for December which means it'll probably be January.

You should join the very-low volume announce list :)

http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_rpgreview.net