Well, I guess I'll have to muddy the waters a bit. *sigh*
* * * * *
Rob Barrett wrote:
"Moreover, no one in our Saga who has a Passion uses it as an RP crutch.
It functions more as a mechanical (since *Ars Magica* can still indeed be
played as a diced game) means of simulating the effect that powerful
emotions can have on a character's abilities and talents in moments of
crisis. W/o it, what benefit does the passionate character get for being
passionate? Esp. in a game like *Ars* where xp awards are small enough
that you're usually lucky to pick up 3 or 4 for top-notch playing of your
character."
Contextualizing Rob's quote, he's a player in the Saga for which I am Alpha Storyguide, as well as being a Storyguide for another, unrelated, Saga. So when he says 'our Saga', if he's referring to my Deadfire stories, he's talking about RPing under the velvet-gloved fist of a notoriously cranky, grim, devious, and overall cheap sonuvabitch who dolls out rewards (whether dramatic, like treasure or power or knowledge; or mechanical, like XPs) as if every experience point or pawn of vis is torn from the flesh of his own tortured body ... well, I wax, but you get the picture. Forward:
Peter Hentges responded:
"You've just articulated my objection to Passions. Passionate role-playing
is, IMHO, its own reward. An artificial mechanic that gives you a die-roll
bonus cheapens it. I would feel further cheated if I role-played with great
emotion as my Passion dictated only to have the fellow on my right say,
'Yeah, and my character is angry so I activate his Anger Passion for a +4
on my rolls.'
[*spang* as Mike's OpinionatedMeter buries the needle.]
Maybe I'm just old and arthritic, but I just can't climb up on that particular pedestal with you, Peter. Do I like 'passionate roleplaying'? Yes. Do I pour my heart and soul into my Saga and my Troupe? Yes. Do I achieve satisfaction, even ecstatic enjoyment, when that magic moment occurs, and the Troupe bursts through the merely mundane interactions of event and character that I establish ahead of time, and consensually invents heights of drama, passion, intrigue, tragedy, and madness that I could never conceive of on my own? Yes. Do I return home some nights and lie awake, running over the session in my head, fevered with excitement, robbed of sleep by the need to relive the experience again? Yes. Have I ever cried at the insane, hopeless beauty of a particular juxtaposition of time and place and person, a particular moment of shining heroism, or brilliant insight, or sheer inhuman determination in the face of stunning defeat and tragic loss? Did I cry even though these moments occured to pretend characters that never existed, mere fictions, no more substantial than the memory of smoke from a candle flame? Yes, and yes.
Does it happen like this every night? No, of course not, don't be a silly ass.
We get a new player; I didn't sleep well the night before; someone had a bad day at work; someone else had a fight with their significant other; we're all in a silly mood; we can't find a quiet, private place to play; there's a phone call I forgot to make. And so on.
Thus the 'artifical mechanic' that Peter feels 'cheapens' the roleplaying. 'Twould be a lovely way to live and play, were I as sure and certain of my self and my Troupe as Peter seems to be of his: but I am human, and my Troupe is a human Troupe, playing at being people who we are not, in a place and time that is not ours.
From a player's point of view, in this less-than-perfect world, it's nice to have something more defining and rewarding than, 'yah, I'm a reeely *angry* guy, man, I just get pissed at everything,' something that offers a simple, tangible, immediate reward to the player and the character, something that strongly defines the character, something that sets him apart, something that _marks_ him. Otherwise, on those nights when you don't just fall into brilliant and inspired roleplaying that is its own reward, why even bother?
From a Storyguide's point of view, in this less-than-perfect world, it's nice to have, bluntly put, a carrot and a stick to either beat or inspire ( depending on your perspective >;) ) those who want it or need it, not because they're bad roleplayers, but because everyone has off days once in a while, and no one in *my* Saga will ever be _required_ to justify their place at the gaming table by continuous, brilliant roleplaying that is its own reward. I suppose that makes me practical rather than aesthetic; I suppose it makes me a hobbyist rather than an artist; I suppose, in some people's eyes, it makes my Saga merely a game like bridge or checkers, and not a bold creative statement thrust upon a cold, banal universe. Ahh, screw it: I've been called worse. ;)
Passionate roleplay, in my humble-yet-strongly-felt opinion, is a gift, not a requirement or a justification. I can neither pinpoint its essential reagents nor catalyze its creation with the sheer force of my own determination and will. I can only hope for it, encourage it when I can, and enjoy it when it comes. And I see by the first sentence of Peter's last paragraph:
"In short, I support passionate role-play."
that we are in agreement. However, when he goes on to say:
"Passions, however, do nothing to guarantee such play. Neither do the current V&Fs, but then they do not have the pervasive, intrusive affect on the game system that Passions do."
my immediate response is a sarcastic, 'guarantee? what's with this guarantee thingie? Geez, 'guarantee' and 'gaming session' are two concepts I try not to mix in one context.
Further, I can only state that, in my experience, in many years and with many different systems, a mechanical treatment of passions or personality traits has *never*, and I really mean that, *not one single instance*, negatively affected the quality of the roleplaying. And, in fact, I remember a *multitude* of times when those passions, mechanistic as they are, 'got us through a slow spot', provided fun, entertainment, and maintained interest ... until the really *rewlistic* stuff came along.
[the term 'rewlistic' is included as final humorous self-reference to the preachy -- one might even say Passionate, if one were naughty -- tone of this post]
-mike,
[who must have had too much coffee this morning]