Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi I posted this elsewhere, but I think it would be more appropriate here, the site is... hard to navigate.

So I have a unique problem with morality. It plays out a bit weird.

We are playing a mixed force and destiny / edge of the empire game set 200 ish years before the events of episode 1. 2 characters are force sensitive, 4 are not. One of those is a GMPC, though the game has become somewhat troupe play, so it's a good thing he has a character to play when someone else is GMing.

We all have both Morality and obligation, though morality has no effect on the non force users (I think).

The GM has, well, a very loose view of morality, I had this problem before in Mage the awakening and wisdom, he felt that killing people shouldn't risk loosing morality depending on culture, but I digress.

The main GM rarely gives conflict for anything (we played a pure force and destiny game and there was a lot more conflict being thrown around). We have killed a lot of people, and at least for my character each death was unavoidable, the only question was who killed them. There were times that other characters attacked others basically unprovoked, but my character was literally not present or unaware at the time.

Yet very little conflict is given. Also very little emphasis is placed on fear (which leads to the dark side (conflict)) so an entire method of gaining conflict is off the table.

My GM is aware that running conflict this way will make everyone paragons likety split. His solution has been to roll morality at the end of every Story arc, rather than every game.

This has worked so far, though I should mention that though I've done everything I could to avoid conflict within reason after perhaps 20? sessions my morality is roughly 63, we've rolled no more than 5 times.

The problem is I made this character with the long run in view and that long run is a force wizard, and I'm about to start investing in force powers seriously, as soon I'll have a force rating of 3. Before anyone asks I took the long route there, I realize I could have gotten more ratings faster, but I didn't and it's really not relevant to the conversation.

My problem is that with this system of rolling morality I basically can't use any dark side pips, as I will fall very very fast otherwise. I don't really envision my character being that averse to the dark side, but definitely more light than dark. There is no room for any back and forth, every black pip I use sets me back what amounts to around a week of restraint. each individual pip.

Has anyone played with morality so restricted, if so do you have advice? Does anyone have advice for how to convince my gm to roll morality more often, and perhaps give more regular conflict?

I appreciate the help in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who burned through 13 points of conflict in a single session and rolled a 1 on the morality check using the force to keep the other members of his group alive, and in entirely non aggressive ways I've never been a fan of the system. Meanwhile another member was an evil pyscho who routinely did really bad stuff that they completely negated with a good die rolls saw the person acting like a Sith Lord hit Paragon while the Guy acting like a Jedi slow rolled his way to the darkside.

I'm seriously thinking about stealing the Strife system from L5R's beta.

You pick Lightside or Darkside and then you gain conflict when your conflict hits your Composure you have an Outburst like say force choking a subordinate or tossing a lightsaber you used to own over your shoulder and nearly off a cliff.

When your Morality hits 100 you gain an emotional strength and 1 Composure and your Morality resets back to 50. When you hit 0 Morality you gain an Emotional weakness and lose 1 composure then it resets to 50.

Morality gains and losses are based on the player adhering to the Code of Conduct they establish for the character be it Jedi or Sith.

Conflict is gained and loss from successes and failures as well as giving in to emotional weakness or  and of course violating their code of conduct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP,

Perhaps suggest that instead of at the end of every Story Arc, the PCs roll Morality either at the end of an adventure/chapter.  This is the method I use, and it's slowed down the jump to Paragon for my campaign but they do get to roll every two or three sessions, so there's no chance of building up huge amounts of Conflict.  But then neither are they so cavalier about gaining Conflict that they might be if I was doing the "roll at the end of each session."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the rules and running a few games I found the morality system to be worthless due to the fact it relies on a die roll. As Decorus said I've seen a Jedi paragon slowly fall to the dark side (from a higher morality) vs a murder hobo Jedi who happened to have some really good rolls. Once my players started questioning how this works and walking through it paragraph by paragraph couldn't come up with a reasonable way for it to work within the rules. Either A straight up give or subtract morality or just remove it. 

A modified Strife system sounds like a good plan to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ASCI Blue said:

After reading the rules and running a few games I found the morality system to be worthless due to the fact it relies on a die roll. As Decorus said I've seen a Jedi paragon slowly fall to the dark side (from a higher morality) vs a murder hobo Jedi who happened to have some really good rolls. Once my players started questioning how this works and walking through it paragraph by paragraph couldn't come up with a reasonable way for it to work within the rules. Either A straight up give or subtract morality or just remove it. 

A modified Strife system sounds like a good plan to me. 

I like the idea of just giving or taking points.. but then the question arises, what about the talents that give conflict? Instead of giving the conflict at the beginning of the session (as the book implies I actually don't know how much conflict these talents give or how gaining the conflict from them works) or just reduce their morality as the PC uses them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ASCI Blue said:

After reading the rules and running a few games I found the morality system to be worthless due to the fact it relies on a die roll. As Decorus said I've seen a Jedi paragon slowly fall to the dark side (from a higher morality) vs a murder hobo Jedi who happened to have some really good rolls. Once my players started questioning how this works and walking through it paragraph by paragraph couldn't come up with a reasonable way for it to work within the rules. Either A straight up give or subtract morality or just remove it. 

A modified Strife system sounds like a good plan to me. 

 

3 minutes ago, Quigonjinnandjuice said:

I like the idea of just giving or taking points.. but then the question arises, what about the talents that give conflict? Instead of giving the conflict at the beginning of the session (as the book implies I actually don't know how much conflict these talents give or how gaining the conflict from them works) or just reduce their morality as the PC uses them?

The fact that it does rely partially on a die roll is a good thing, IMO, particularly because there is no way to subtract Conflict, only gain or not gain it. Thus, there needs to be a way for your Morality to go up, otherwise it will always go down for any Conflict given. This was the main "flaw" with the older systems, where  gaining DSPs was such a huge penalty. 

And, to answer your question about how much Conflict a Conflit talent grants, it is One Conflict at the start of each session for having the talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ASCI Blue said:

After reading the rules and running a few games I found the morality system to be worthless due to the fact it relies on a die roll. As Decorus said I've seen a Jedi paragon slowly fall to the dark side (from a higher morality) vs a murder hobo Jedi who happened to have some really good rolls. Once my players started questioning how this works and walking through it paragraph by paragraph couldn't come up with a reasonable way for it to work within the rules. Either A straight up give or subtract morality or just remove it. 

A modified Strife system sounds like a good plan to me. 

This makes no sense to me.

The dice roll is literally the only thing that keeps the Morality system from being: "You (player) decide exactly when and if you are Light or Darkside." ie It's what keeps it from being a meaningless metacurrency to track until you get where you want to go. If you don't use the die roll, youmight as well handle Morality 100% narratively - which don't get me wrong, that is the second best way to handle Morality - but to say the die roll is what ruins the vanilla Morality system is nonsense.

So long as you are giving your PCs opportunities to use the Force and have it accomplish fantastic things, using the Fear mechanics, and paying some attention to that Table 9-2 Conflict Penalties (and creating situations and conflicts that favor those Actions as "the easy way"), the vanilla Morality system actually works very well.

I have player that ask for Conflict, that remind me of their Moral Weaknesses, that - wait for it - willingly Engage the Morality system because it's a fun way to explore the struggle of a Force User.

Just ask them to do so. Tell them (and show them) that they can trust you with their PCs story, and that the Morality system isn't a whip, but a carrot, for fun rp. It works quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the central themes about the Force is choice. People don't fall to the darkside because you roll bad on force dice. They fall, because they make the choice to massacre an entire temple of jedi children.  Random dice rolls removes the choice from the game it just makes if you are good or bad entirely up to random chance.

Force choke an innocent to death don't worry that 10 you just rolled completely obliterated your sin. Save your friends from being sucked out into space after your Paragon fired the quad laser inside the docking bay of a pirate vessel well you just came up with 6 dark side pips so do you take the morality hit and use move or do you let literally most of the party die? Watch the evil dark side corrupt you to save your friends because the rng doesn't like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Decorus said:

One of the central themes about the Force is choice. People don't fall to the darkside because you roll bad on force dice. They fall, because they make the choice to massacre an entire temple of jedi children.  Random dice rolls removes the choice from the game it just makes if you are good or bad entirely up to random chance.

Force choke an innocent to death don't worry that 10 you just rolled completely obliterated your sin. Save your friends from being sucked out into space after your Paragon fired the quad laser inside the docking bay of a pirate vessel well you just came up with 6 dark side pips so do you take the morality hit and use move or do you let literally most of the party die? Watch the evil dark side corrupt you to save your friends because the rng doesn't like you.

Here's the problem with your example, however. By having that bit of randomness, it allows a character to potentially learn from, and grow beyond his bad choices, whereas someone who is going all "murder hobo" all the time, is pretty much going to go Dark because he is likely to gain more than 10 Conflict per session, which guarantees a Dark Side descent. Also, without that bit of randomness, your character that just used X number of DSPs to save his friends is guaranteed to drop in morality even though it was for a selfless reason. At least with the die roll, he has a chance of his morality going up instead of down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Here's the problem with your example, however. By having that bit of randomness, it allows a character to potentially learn from, and grow beyond his bad choices, whereas someone who is going all "murder hobo" all the time, is pretty much going to go Dark because he is likely to gain more than 10 Conflict per session, which guarantees a Dark Side descent. Also, without that bit of randomness, your character that just used X number of DSPs to save his friends is guaranteed to drop in morality even though it was for a selfless reason. At least with the die roll, he has a chance of his morality going up instead of down. 

Probably the best response defending the system I've read. Definitely enough to make me understand how the randomness can be added to the narrative.  I'm a new GM and thus being the reason I joined this forum. To see others opinions on the game's mechanics and what can be done differently to get an outcome that is enjoyable for the group.

It's a good system. There's a reason it was put into the core book. It just doesn't always work with everyone's play style, and that's what's so great about games like these. The freedom to do what works for you and your players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Decorus said:

One of the central themes about the Force is choice. People don't fall to the darkside because you roll bad on force dice. They fall, because they make the choice to massacre an entire temple of jedi children.  Random dice rolls removes the choice from the game it just makes if you are good or bad entirely up to random chance.

Force choke an innocent to death don't worry that 10 you just rolled completely obliterated your sin. Save your friends from being sucked out into space after your Paragon fired the quad laser inside the docking bay of a pirate vessel well you just came up with 6 dark side pips so do you take the morality hit and use move or do you let literally most of the party die? Watch the evil dark side corrupt you to save your friends because the rng doesn't like you.

Force choking someone to death is a bit more than 10 though. Murder is at the very least 10, it can be more depending on how it's done. Then you need to use dark side pips for the force choke effect. You're not coming out of that one without conflict. Or rather you shouldn't.

And yeah, the force is sort of a ****** like that. Death is a natural part of the life, their death was at hand because it was the will of force, if you're using dark side points to prevent that then you're opposing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darth Revenant is absolutely correct. If you kill someone in cold blood, that is an automatic 10 Conflict or more. If you're using the Force to do so, that means even more Conflict on top of the conflict gained for committing murder. This means your Morality will go down since there is no way to roll higher than a 10 on a D10. Thus, no matter what, you will roll less than your current Conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Decorus said:

One of the central themes about the Force is choice. People don't fall to the darkside because you roll bad on force dice. They fall, because they make the choice to massacre an entire temple of jedi children.  Random dice rolls removes the choice from the game it just makes if you are good or bad entirely up to random chance.

Force choke an innocent to death don't worry that 10 you just rolled completely obliterated your sin. Save your friends from being sucked out into space after your Paragon fired the quad laser inside the docking bay of a pirate vessel well you just came up with 6 dark side pips so do you take the morality hit and use move or do you let literally most of the party die? Watch the evil dark side corrupt you to save your friends because the rng doesn't like you.

The dice rolls don't deprive the players of choice, or even diminish the importance of choices. That's pure straw man. The known average value of the roll of 5.5 just means that, when taken as a whole picture, all choices do not have an absolute value. That the Force is at times forgiving (when you roll well after having done "bad things"), and at times spiteful (when you roll poorly). Think about that effect - is directly translates in my mind into the fluff, but canon, concept we know as the Cosmic Force - the Will of the Force. That "innocent" you Force choked? Maybe they were gonna go on to do something horrible? That Temple of Children that guy murdered? That was 10 Conflict each murder, there is no ceiling of Conflcit earned per Action. They still dropped to the Darkside in one go even after rolling a 10 (cuz one of those Younglings was a future Sith Lord).

And even with the dice roll, and after years and years of experience with the Morality system, I can confidently say PCs don't fall to the Darkside to dice rolls. They fall to consistently using the Darkside (pips), bad behavior (Table 9-2), and giving in to and using Fear. PCs only fall to the Darkside when they want to. Assuming you're following all the vanilla rules - notifying PCs before they take Conflict causing actions, and so on.

That said, the Darkside is supposed to be a slippery slope. I think it's 100% thematically appropriate that if you consistently earn Conflict (under vanilla rules you are nearly 100% in control of when you take Conflict), even just a little, and have a string of bad rolls, its fully Star Wars thematic that you can slide. If your player pushes their Conflict to its statistical limits, it's gonna have consequences. They're leaving it up to the Will of the Force.

The vanilla Morality system is a good system. It can be a pain for the GM to manage, but it does work when you learn it's ins and outs, and the kind of game it works in. One of constant choices - the easy way or the hard way, getting exactly what you want, or having to compromise.

Edited by emsquared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, emsquared said:

The dice rolls don't deprive the players of choice, or even diminish the importance of choices. That's pure straw man. The known average value of the roll of 5.5 just means that, when taken as a whole picture, all choices do not have an absolute value. That the Force is at times forgiving (when you roll well after having done "bad things"), and at times spiteful (when you roll poorly). Think about that effect - is directly translates in my mind into the fluff, but canon, concept we know as the Cosmic Force - the Will of the Force. That "innocent" you Force choked? Maybe they were gonna go on to do something horrible? That Temple of Children that guy murdered? That was 10 Conflict each murder, there is no ceiling of Conflcit earned per Action. They still dropped to the Darkside in one go even after rolling a 10 (cuz one of those Younglings was a future Sith Lord).

And even with the dice roll, and after years and years of experience with the Morality system, I can confidently say PCs don't fall to the Darkside to dice rolls. They fall to consistently using the Darkside (pips), bad behavior (Table 9-2), and giving in to and using Fear. PCs only fall to the Darkside when they want to. Assuming you're following all the vanilla rules - notifying PCs before they take Conflict causing actions, and so on.

That said, the Darkside is supposed to be a slippery slope. I think it's 100% thematically appropriate that if you consistently earn Conflict (under vanilla rules you are nearly 100% in control of when you take Conflict), even just a little, and have a string of bad rolls, its fully Star Wars thematic that you can slide. If your player pushes their Conflict to its statistical limits, it's gonna have consequences. They're leaving it up to the Will of the Force.

The vanilla Morality system is a good system. It can be a pain for the GM to manage, but it does work when you learn it's ins and outs, and the kind of game it works in. One of constant choices - the easy way or the hard way, getting exactly what you want, or having to compromise.

I hear this so much about the Morality system of this RPG and I have yet to see it.  Though I think its more of a problem with the diverse number of players in our group and our GM trying to cater to everyone in that group.  I feel this slightly random system has a few too many glitches in it especially for very involved RPers like me who do everything in game for a reason especially when mixed with players who are less inclined to do so, are more shy,  or only do so in certain situations (nothing wrong with that just different playstyles).  Our GM wants to treat everyone equally but in that way it may not always be fair just because of how the system is designed and how he tries to make an impact for all Players.

As a very involved RPer I don't ever game the system as this metagaming to paragon isn't very much fun however it does get very frustrating when a player who exploits fear, loves battle, and relishes in killing and conflict ends up gaining more conflict than I do over the course of a session and then he just happens to be on a stroke of luck and happens to always gain morality while I use conflict in a way that makes sense for my character and has meaningful story impact and yet I constantly have bad luck and lose morality.  This is especially true when my character goes out of his way to help others or find alternative ways to solve conflict without violence and yet still i lose morality because i'm stuck in a bad situation or a worse situation such as 2 sessions ago when talking to a war profiteer that my character didn't want any part of and didn't want to actively endorse the planetary civil war (and therefore secretly sabotaged the weapons)  I either have to use the dark side force bind power to get someone to back down or allow full blown violence and death to innocents (hostages and slaves) break out and gain more conflict by standing by. Another player tends to be quiet and as a result only makes one or two moral choices a game and has a pretty difficult morality to use a lot of use (Cleverness/Sophism) and has largely skated their way deep into paragon after only 6 sessions. While i'm doing everything in my power to have my character make interesting moral choices and be both Emotional and Passionate and willing to use any tool able to minimize suffering, show compassion, and be a beacon of hope. Or be a rage-filled and spiteful individual if he gets pushed too far or buttons get pushed by the GM. Yet i'm not rewarded for my moments of Moral Strength but instead I'm constantly getting bad rolls on morality in all 6 sessions my character hasn't rolled more than a 5 and usually rolls lower.  While the other force users roll 6+ most of the time. 

I don't blame them for what they are doing or how they are playing their characters but I feel like the system needs a bit of tweaking for my style of play or needs to be a little less random since I don't actively want to game the system and want to have this character evolve naturally but I am just feeling completely undermined by the roll of the dice and my good actions are being completely overshadowed by what few dark actions I take to either create interesting story moments or take the path of least conflict. The GM has expressed the same sentiments that he feels the system isn't as fair to me because I go out of my way to trigger and involve my character's morality but he uses the vanilla system for the sake of the other players until he can work something out better for me.  

I probably wouldn't be complaining so much If i didn't see both sides of the extreme, one player who is clearly very dark still gaining morality while another skates to paragon while i'm stuck with bad luck falling deeper into the darkside.  It feels awful. I wouldn't feel so bad If i was somewhere between the two of them but i'm not and that is why i'm having issues with this system and so is the person who skated to paragon and so is the person who is actively dark but not getting the fruits of those dark acts.  However if the GM slowed down the dice rolls to once per adventure it would punish me more because I engage a lot with the morality system even more than my fellow players.

My GM and I are at a loss of what to do. 

 

Edited by Earl_of_Madness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for those explanations. @emsquared and @Tramp Graphics. I must say I like the die roll for a different reason: It provides temptation. With the older systems straight-up giving Dark Side Points, the whole thing was obvious: You do a bad thing, you get punished (especially since the DSPs were direct punishment, often leading closer to losing the character). With Conflict, there's some leeway. Telling one lie doesn't really count. Intimidating that guy at least made sure you didn't have to fight him. And hey, while we're already around, why not loot the place? It's just a few points of Conflict, you'll probably roll high enough to negate that. Don't worry. It'll be just fine... until it isn't.

The one change I'd make is halving the amount of morality you gain for rolling over your Conflict points, so climbing back up after falling needs constant effort rather than a few sessions of lucky rolls.

Edited by Cifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Earl_of_Madness said:

...

My GM and I are at a loss of what to do. 
 

The Morality system explicitly has a meta-level component for a reason. Your GM is supposed to let you know when something you've said your PC does is gonna cause Conflict for the very reason that you're supposed to have the meta-ability to say, "Ok, I won't do that then." I treat/narrate it as a an in-game feeling the character gets just before they act, "You feel that familiar, seductive burn building inside you..."

If you choose not to engage that meta-level game, saying "I prefer to hold true to what my PC would do.", then you're saying your PC chooses to ignore that theyre dabbling in the Darkside, and you're choosing to get on the above mentioned slippery slope of the Darkside. You're taking the chance that the above mentioned "the Will of the Force" (unknowable, random chance) doesn't align with you.

Don't get me wrong, I can absolutely see where you're coming from if it seems like you're being punished for being a proactive player, but you can be a proactive player and still engage that meta-level game of the Morality system. You just have to decide that part of what your PC does is reject touching the Darkside if they can.

Ultimately, to me it sounds like your GM is making at least a couple of errors. At a base level, using the vanilla Morality system is saying 'I'm gonna exercise some level of judgement beyond these very stale and limited-in-scope numbers presented in Table 9-2.' The book says it's meant to be a guide, not everything set in concrete.

So, first, if your PC is making choices for the party that cause him Conflict, and the party members do nothing to try to stop it, they c/should gain Conflict too. And it's on your GM to realize that and give the Conflict. And it's perfectly acceptable that the GM decide each PC who goes along with your actions (particularly if they're not very proactive players) is not just engaging in "Knowing Inaction" (for example if the Conflict gained is not enough to "Trigger" Inaction), but the very same original action, and therefore should take all the same Conflict as the Decider in Chief.

Second, if a player is RPing his PC explicitly relishing in killing - like laughing as they die and especially explicitly killing NPCs who might otherwise just be "out" - that's tantamount to the "Emotional Abuse" at least, up to "Unnecessary Cruelty", IMO. 2 or even 6-7 Conflict for ea. instance, if not 10 (for killing a defenseless/unconcious opponent). Enjoying battle is no Conflict, plenty of Jedi lived for the fight, but it's all about the lead up (was it unavoidable?), and the peripheral acts (Unnecessary Destruction? Emotional Abuse? Murder?). If I was that PCs GM, I would be making it clear often that NPCs/enemies are still living - and possess valuable knowledge (your faces?) - will he let them go on living? That's how you expose murderius Darksiders. Very easy.

I feel like I had a third point, but I've lost it now after writing this book.

Anyway, I hope this post can help you. It's not meant to be a lecture on how you/your GM should play. Just letting you know how I can make the system work for me and my table.

If you guys ultimately feel it's not workable for you, you should handle Morality/Dark/Lightside standing completely narratively. It's a fine way to do things, but just one that I personally find less interesting, and of course takes away from some balance mechanics in Force use.

Edited by emsquared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, emsquared said:

Anyway, I hope this post can help you. It's not meant to be a lecture on how you/your GM should play. Just letting you know how I can make the system work for me and my table.

If you guys ultimately feel it's not workable for you, you should handle Morality/Dark/Lightside standing completely narratively. It's a fine way to do things, but just one that I personally find less interesting, and of course takes away from some balance mechanics in Force use.

I'll Bring this up with my GM it definitely is useful insight.  Although metagaming still doesn't sit well with me as a player.  I play RPGs for the narrative mostly.  My GM has made the mistake of keeping our moralities separate rather than tying them together probably as he should. That would probably mitigate some of the issues. However having luck involved that I have little control over just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Or rather I am only in control of his potential for conflict but i'm not in control of his redeeming, righteous and compassionate actions and their effect on his morality. I'd Rather have a calculated risk/reward system that i can integrate seemlessly with roleplay and his moral strengths as well as his weaknesses. The fact that 6 sessions of  really bad morality die rolls under tense situations where the activation of his powers is necessary to success has turned my character nearly to the darkside is just the most frustrating thing because I didn't feel like I could play around it without gaming the system. I wouldn't feel so bad if the dark character didn't come out gaining morality after gaining much more conflict than me off of his moral actions alone, just because of luck.  It feels arbitrary and if this were a film there would be no question who the light side user would be. 

Our players are just frustrated that a good roll on the morality die can completely undermine how a character is being played.  The dark character very slowly gaining morality and the clearly light but perhaps misguided character falling very quickly. 

I know why the die roll exists and its a mechanical thing to prevent the gaming of the system and to make the dark side less punishing but right now i am just unhappy with it because Right now I feel like the only way to rise is to play super passively as a role player And/Or make my force wizard character useless by not using dark side pips (since probability is not in your favor to get light pips).  It just feels like i'm not rewarded for my character showing moral strength and i'm actively punished for showing any sort of weakness even if it benefits the party or others as a whole. Not to say I want a purely narrative force system.  Having some mechanical impact is very interesting and i'm open to that but i'd rather not have it feel so arbitrary. 

I do want to hear recommendations though hence why i'm here.  Either a rework of the system or the way a GM can better use the system and suggestions to make the base system more fun to engage in.  Right now it just feels arbitrary and like the fastest way to gain morality is to actively game the system and be as passive of a player as possible. Maybe that is just my observation of our super quiet and shy player who is deep within paragon after 6 sessions. I'd rather keep the base system but after many different tweaks to make conflict meaningful (our GM was too stingy with conflict at first), it just looks fundamentally flawed at least from a hardcore roleplayer's perspective.  Perhaps this system was designed with more casual and easy going games and players in mind with all of the simplified and narrative mechanics (not a knock on the system i love that about the system, its a nice change from the more crunchy games i play). 

Edited by Earl_of_Madness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Morality system is designed to be interacted with. A passive player should not get to roll the d10 at all. 

Like most problems in a roleplaying game, it sounds like yours ultimately boils down to the GM. Perhaps he needs a house rule or homebrewed sysem to make things a little more systematic or clear. Maybe he needs to be listening to what the players want. Maybe he just needs more experience, or to read the rules in depth to glean some more inspiration. I don't know what the holdup is for your group, exactly, but if at any point the GM throws his hands up (metaphorically speaking) and says, "Sorry, I know it doesn't make any sense but that's how the rules work, so I can't do anything about it" (or words to that effect), something has gone horribly wrong.

Bottom line, the GM should never feel as if he has to hide behind the rules, whether or not he's interpreting them correctly.  If he isn't providing for a fun and satisfying gaming experience, and he knows he isn't, then maybe he needs to learn about GMing some more. If he doesn't know that his players aren't satisfied or having fun, then that's on the players. Communication needs to happen, on a metagame level. Once the GM knows about the general dissatisfaction, he should be able to course-correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Like most problems in a roleplaying game, it sounds like yours ultimately boils down to the GM. Perhaps he needs a house rule or homebrewed sysem to make things a little more systematic or clear. Maybe he needs to be listening to what the players want. Maybe he just needs more experience, or to read the rules in depth to glean some more inspiration.

Agreed, there are many solutions for this problem. Honestly, as a GM I found that I hated Morality from the moment I started using it, so I made my own system to replace it. Morality definitely feels the most incomplete of the three role-play mechanics, partially due to the fact that morality itself is something nobody can agree on in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

Agreed, there are many solutions for this problem. Honestly, as a GM I found that I hated Morality from the moment I started using it, so I made my own system to replace it. Morality definitely feels the most incomplete of the three role-play mechanics, partially due to the fact that morality itself is something nobody can agree on in real life.

Ha ha ha, I just tell my players, "The Force doesn't care what you think about morality." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...