Personality mechanics: Yay or Nay ?

[Longes]

Longes, I dont remember how Passion works in PD. Care to resume it for me ?

Success: Gain +10 modifier
Critical success: Doubled or gains +20 modifier (whichever
results in a higher value)
This inspiration lasts for the length of the task at hand,
but never for more than one full day.

You make a check against your Passion value, which is 3d6 plus however much you raised it. There are harsh penalties for failing, so you are probably not testing against passions less than 15. So you roll a d20, and look for a result less than your passion value. If you roll exactly the passion value, then you get a critical success.
So let's look at the "Young Knight" npc from the book. He is roughly equialent to a starting PC.. He has a sword skill of 15, meaning he fails on rolls 16-20. He calls on his passion "Loyalty (lord) 15" and gets a success. He now has a sword skill of 25, meaning he always succeeds on the rolls and adds 5 to the result. So he crits on 15+. "Average Knight" has a sword skill of 19, meaning he crits on 11+ rolls while inspired.

[GnomeWorks]

I can't comment on your system, but most of the "reward roleplaying" mechanics I've seen have worked the same way -- players who already love doing lots of roleplaying get a big bonus for no particular reason, and players who are weak roleplayers get a much smaller bonus as...punishment?

That's not really what I was getting at. I'll use your example to explain.

For instance, suppose a player chooses the trait "Trusting" during character creation and then later acts suspicious most of the time. That would generally be considered a roleplaying failure, even though if the same player had chosen the trait "Suspicious" that might be considered a roleplaying success.

"Trusting" could be a personality descriptor. In my game, that would have a few small-but-relevant mechanical ramifications, and that's it. Whether or not the player RPs, or if they RP poorly, this is all irrelevant to the mechanics, because the mechanics are (hopefully) written in such a way that when the game tries to interact with the character, the character winds up reacting mechanically in a way that resembles what a "trusting" person would do.

Actual RP at the table is irrelevant, because we can't mechanize it. That's outside my scope of concern, as a designer.

[silva]

Whether or not the player RPs, or if they RP poorly, this is all irrelevant to the mechanics, because the mechanics are (hopefully) written in such a way that when the game tries to interact with the character, the character winds up reacting mechanically in a way that resembles what a "trusting" person would do.

Actual RP at the table is irrelevant, because we can't mechanize it. That's outside my scope of concern, as a designer.

Thats how I see it too. If people sit down to play a rpg then they are roleplaying, no matter if they act it out like a theather, or treat it like a chess or is just there for having fun with friends while eating cheetos and having some jokes. The moment play commences, youre roleplaying.

[silva]

Success: Gain +10 modifier
Critical success: Doubled or gains +20 modifier (whichever
results in a higher value)
This inspiration lasts for the length of the task at hand,
but never for more than one full day.

You make a check against your Passion value, which is 3d6 plus however much you raised it. There are harsh penalties for failing, so you are probably not testing against passions less than 15. So you roll a d20, and look for a result less than your passion value. If you roll exactly the passion value, then you get a critical success.
So let's look at the "Young Knight" npc from the book. He is roughly equialent to a starting PC.. He has a sword skill of 15, meaning he fails on rolls 16-20. He calls on his passion "Loyalty (lord) 15" and gets a success. He now has a sword skill of 25, meaning he always succeeds on the rolls and adds 5 to the result. So he crits on 15+. "Average Knight" has a sword skill of 19, meaning he crits on 11+ rolls while inspired.

Wow, that sounds exagerated and easily abuseable. Didnt remember it was like that. Thanks for the info.

[Stubbazubba]

I prefer the carrot approach. One game that does this relatively well is Marvel Heroic Roleplaying.

Each character takes up to two (IIRC) milestone tracks, each with 1 XP triggers, 3 XP triggers, and 10 XP triggers. A milestone track is like the blueprint for a personal character arc that revolves around a certain issue. For instance, Captain America has a milestone called "Mentor the Hero."

A 1 XP trigger is something you can whip out once or twice every scene, like Captain America aiding a new hero for the first time. A 3 XP trigger is something that can come up multiple times, but probably not in back-to-back scenes, like Captain America helping to mend a KO'd hero's wounds. A 10 XP trigger is a turning point, the resolution of the arc; in this case, Cap either gives leadership of a team over to this hero or forces them to resign.

Don't ask me how that last one is supposed to work exactly, but the structure is still decent: you get a beginning, middle, and end. That might rub some as a little prescriptive, but that's precisely what MHR tries to do.

The idea could be broadened to include personality traits, not just story arcs: you could have a Suspicious milestone where you get 1 XP for expressing doubt about someone present, 3 XP for successfully convincing someone not to trust someone else, and 10 XP when you either admit you should have trusted someone you didn't or get hurt because you trusted someone you shouldn't have. Or something like that.

It incentivizes acting on character traits, bringing them up in play and in interactions, and creates a structure for a little story of some kind.

But once you achieve a Milestone, you have to replace it with a different one, so characters should evolve over time.

[Neurosis]

And I hate rules that encourage players to say "It's not me being an asshole and hurting the group, my CHARACTER is being an asshole; I can't help it!" (which I have seen in real life plenty of times, sadly).

But isn't what you're describing just...to some extent...roleplaying? Sometimes your character IS a bigger asshole than you, because roleplaying.

roleplay mechanics will always be silly i na game where there is combat.

my god shadzar, what the hell is wrong with you

[ACOS]

But isn't what you're describing just...to some extent...roleplaying? Sometimes your character IS a bigger asshole than you, because roleplaying.

But the player chose to play that character - which makes that player a disruptive asshole, and the character is merely an extension of that.
And hiding behind your character as an excuse for being a disruptive asshole is pure, unmitigated cowardice.

[shadzar]

XP is the mechanic for roleplaying. People still cant figure out how to make something as simple as Good<-> Evil, and Law<->Chaos work, so how in the hell would the figure out something with more than 2 sets of 2 options?

Shad, genereally I agree with you but Ill have to disagree here. See, the alignments are bad precisely because they try to emcompass so much meaning in just 2 axis

no, their problem is that they try to overlap the axis. and in doing so have confused people on what things as simple as "good" or "evil" means

when you ahve a binary set if it is not one, then it is the other, so pick the one most easily defined and use it to check against.

was killing the baby orcs evil, when done to eradicate the adults that are terrorizing the local village? local genocide is what you are dealing with, you jsut have to know if your game considers orcs as "creatures" worth living or jsut monsters built from evil. then just leave the christian and other real world religion out of it and think in term of the GAME WORLD.

if it is not evil, then it is good.

same goes for law/chaos

the problem with personalities is that they will ll interact must more strangely. what happens when you add fear into the personalities? what about obsession? (see 3.x kender) things begin to get stupid and go against the players ability to play the character.

if you want heavy story mechanics, then you msut play a game where you have little control over your character and let the story mechanics determine what you can do, AND WHY. how often will this personality trait be used for entertainment or furthering the game, and how often could it be used against a player by a novice DM or asshole DM?

this is why Flint Fireforge way afraid of water and horses/ponies, but no dwarf played in DL else could care less about either.

personality traits are plot devices for author, which do not exist with the kind of power needed in an RPG.

look at all the things that can go wrong with just Fear. right out the pros and cons of having such a personality trait, and then figure how, if it has merit to exist, it could be mechanically added to as not overpower or nerf a character... something you people call a trap option.

now IF you have players who chose their character to be afraid of something and it shows when they want it through play, but really ha no interaction with the mechanics, then it cannot be abused. the moment you create a rule or mechanic about "fear" it could easily turn from a quirk of the player's character into a trap option.

[deaddmwalking]

if it is not evil, then it is good.

Which is why in Shadzar's world, bands of religious monks wander through the cities masturbating furiously. Since it is not evil, it is good. They're masturbating in public as a profoundly 'good' act.

[Cyberzombie]

I've always felt personality traits should be left in the hands of the player, not the rules. There are a few exceptions like Call of Cthulhu insanity or having cursed items that warp the PC's personality. But for the most part, personality traits are played off as something for people to overcome at the dramatically appropriate moment. For that to happen, you really need to let the player, and not the dice decide.

[Whipstitch]

Whether I tolerate dice induced tantrums depends a lot on genre and even then I prefer it if there's some controls in place so that PCs can freak out according to their particular idiom. Werewolves struggling not to hulk out when they feel cornered is about a bajillion times more tolerable than a normal person rolling on a table and being afflicted with anatidaephobia.

[violence in the media]

I'd like for personality/social mechanics to work better for no other reason than to avoid the feeling that it is my personal persuasiveness influencing the PCs/NPCs. I'd rather run afoul of taking the poisoned drink because my character is a lush and failed a roll than taking it because I'm more trusting of the player/MC offering it.

[OgreBattle]

if it is not evil, then it is good.

Which is why in Shadzar's world, bands of religious monks wander through the cities masturbating furiously. Since it is not evil, it is good. They're masturbating in public as a profoundly 'good' act.

There's that pathfinder feat where your life fluids heal people if they drink it.

[silva]

I prefer the carrot approach. One game that does this relatively well is Marvel Heroic Roleplaying.

Each character takes up to two (IIRC) milestone tracks, each with 1 XP triggers, 3 XP triggers, and 10 XP triggers. A milestone track is like the blueprint for a personal character arc that revolves around a certain issue. For instance, Captain America has a milestone called "Mentor the Hero."

A 1 XP trigger is something you can whip out once or twice every scene, like Captain America aiding a new hero for the first time. A 3 XP trigger is something that can come up multiple times, but probably not in back-to-back scenes, like Captain America helping to mend a KO'd hero's wounds. A 10 XP trigger is a turning point, the resolution of the arc; in this case, Cap either gives leadership of a team over to this hero or forces them to resign.

Don't ask me how that last one is supposed to work exactly, but the structure is still decent: you get a beginning, middle, and end. That might rub some as a little prescriptive, but that's precisely what MHR tries to do.

The idea could be broadened to include personality traits, not just story arcs: you could have a Suspicious milestone where you get 1 XP for expressing doubt about someone present, 3 XP for successfully convincing someone not to trust someone else, and 10 XP when you either admit you should have trusted someone you didn't or get hurt because you trusted someone you shouldn't have. Or something like that.

It incentivizes acting on character traits, bringing them up in play and in interactions, and creates a structure for a little story of some kind.

But once you achieve a Milestone, you have to replace it with a different one, so characters should evolve over time.

Yup, MHR is really awesome in this aspect.

[Cyberzombie]

Whether I tolerate dice induced tantrums depends a lot on genre and even then I prefer it if there's some controls in place so that PCs can freak out according to their particular idiom. Werewolves struggling not to hulk out when they feel cornered is about a bajillion times more tolerable than a normal person rolling on a table and being afflicted with anatidaephobia.

I think we can all agree the actual written rules for Call of Cthulhu insanity sucked bad. There needs to be insanity rules, because going insane is a big part of the source material, but they could have done a much better job on them, and sadly they never improved to my knowledge, even after a bunch of editions. It was a lot like the Shadowrun Matrix.

[silva]

I think there is a clear distinction between something crude (like CoC sanity rules, which basically amount to a mental HP of sorts) and something unplayable (which is the case of Shadowrun matrix ).

[ACOS]

It seems that silva has gone from pimping AW to trying to bury SR.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about that.

[silva]

No point in burying something already buried.

[Kaelik]

I think there is a clear distinction between something crude (like CoC sanity rules, which basically amount to a mental HP of sorts) and something unplayable (which is the case of Shadowrun matrix ).

There is a clear distinction. Something Crude like CoC is bad, and sucks, and ruins the games it is used in, which is all of them. However, something unplayable like Shadowrun Matrix rules, literally cannot be used, so people have to make up their own rules instead of using the bad ones. Sometimes they will even make up good ones, so at least some games of Shadowrun can be not shit.

Of course, you still wasted every cent you spent on those rules, because they are useless in both cases, but when things are literally unplayable, they do at least force people to make up their own rules after they waste their money instead of just ruining games.

[silva]

Actually, no. A crude rule is functional and totally useable as long as the group dont care for its crudeness. While a disfunctional rules is.. well, disfunctional and will be ignored, partially or in its fullest, most of the times. If you look at the number of groups that play CoC (and other BRP-family games) and compare it Shadowrun groups you will identify the following pattern: most BRP groups use its rules more or less as written, with none or very little modification, while most Shadowrun groups tendo to heavily modify its matrix and vehicle/chasing rules (supposing they dont simply ignore it).

Wanna proof ? Just search for online games and discussions about those two games. The most popular topic is "Shadowrun matrix sucks - what your group do about it ?" (which more popular response is: dont use deckers players) or "Alternative systems for Shadowrun ?". While BRP-family discussion seldom bring up similar issues.

[Kaelik]

Actually, no. A crude rule is functional and totally useable as long as the group dont care for its crudeness.

Oh, so you were lying when you called CoC rules crude. Because they are really fucking shitty that actively make the game worse whether you care about crudeness or not.

If you look at the number of groups that play CoC (and other BRP-family games) and compare it Shadowrun groups you will identify the following pattern: most BRP groups use its rules more or less as written, with none or very little modification, while most Shadowrun groups tendo to heavily modify its matrix and vehicle/chasing rules (supposing they dont simply ignore it).

Yes, it is almost like I just said exactly that in my post. The difference is that I also explained the consequences that people using CoC rules are actively making their games worse, while people playing Shadowrun could make up completely new rules that don't suck, or they could make up suck rules, and it is a crapshoot.

[silva]

So Shadowrun rules are better because its so shitty it can just be completely ignored ? And CoC rules are actually worse because its rules are actually better and many people use them as is (but are supposedly playing rpgs wrong) ?

Okay.

[ckafrica]

I think the mechanics of how personality disadvantages worked are okay. They were a flat roll based on severity of the disadvantage to resist the perscribed behavior. So moderate lecherousy meant you had to try to hit on the queen if you under an 11 (or something like that). No stat could modify the chance and of course you could decide to just do it without rolling. The problem is not how they work but that the reason for taking them is moar powar.!! As well as the fact there is no real balance for them. That being said, i dont think they add much to the game

[Cyberzombie]

So Shadowrun rules are better because its so shitty it can just be completely ignored ? And CoC rules are actually worse because its rules are actually better and many people use them as is (but are supposedly playing rpgs wrong) ?

Okay.

Well, sort of. A rule that does nothing is better than a rule that does bad things. But before you try to read some really important point out of that, keep in mind that both of those are inferior to a blank page.

[silva]

Except Shadowrun rules dont do nothing - on the contrary, they bog the game down to a crawl, no matter what subsystem were talking about here. Also, the perception of CoC sanity rules being bad is just that, a perception. While Shadowrun rules being slow and unecessarily complex is an objective fact.

By the way, what exactly you think is the problem with CoC sanity rules ?