frogspawner

More than an only averagely honest character? That doesn't seem fair. Anyway - how would you record the fact that this character had told a lie? I'd say, just decrease his Honest trait a bit...

Ah yes, but sdavies2720 was saying that opposed Traits were otherwise independent, I think. So you could have, say, Brave 50% and Cowardly 10%. That don't seem right to me, either. Given that I don't think every character should have every possible trait listed, I recommend shifting the scale so that "Normal" is 0%, not 50%. So Brave 25% would be Cowardly -25%, or the equivalent of Brave/Cowardly 75/25 on a Pendragon-like scale (converted to d100).

Ta. Also, I'm glad to hear a system with Traits led to Fun and Glory! Inevitably I disagree with other things, though... The Pendragon model was on a d20 scale, but I get the point: a d100 scale would mirror it more closely. Having thought about it though, I just feel that having Traits on the same scale as skills is actually simpler. With your 01-99 scale the norm would be the mid-point of 50%: Brave 25% would actually be Cowardly 25% - it's counter-intuitive. Sorry, no fiddly bonuses for me, no matter how simplified - I've watched and waited for too long while a supposedly senior accountant player struggles to add up his bonuses! I'd rather not penalize players for their character's traits. I see Traits more as a 'carrot' to encourage good RP, not a stick. The Honest guy who tells significant lies would get an 'anti-tick' for Honest (i.e. a decrease roll). But that's all. Not punishment - just documenting how he is. And obviously I wouldn't concede that any situation would require an opposed roll!

Only quite noteworthy Trait-related actions should be 'applicable'. And yes, there definitely needs to be some limit on Trait bonus usage. Not convinced this is quite the best way. Just give a 'counter-check', I'd say. Simpler. In practice, the player would back down and change their intended action, if they didn't want one. Don't bother with the roll - it's just a way for the player to evade the GM's judgement (which we should assume is correct). Otherwise the GM would be over-ruling the Player's control of their own character - which should be sacrosanct. Doesn't seem right. Should you be able to have 50% Brave and 50% Cowardly? I don't think so. If you have a Trait, you just can't have it's opposite - because they are just different labels for two ends of the same scale.

Brilliant! My hero! The perfect solution! But not all DMs will dare use this utterly correct approach. A small campaign area might help. So there are more likely to be such relationships and... consequences.

'Power' being not just POW, but any skills and such? A game-mechanic for traits which augmented their skills would be that sort of power. So then they'd want to go out and act in their chosen personality, in order to get it - wouldn't they?

Still trying to thrash out a mechanism. Current idea is to let players choose a few traits, initially at a CHA-related percentage (say CHAx5% distributed between up to 3). Percentage shows how much above normal the character is with that trait, e.g. 0% Brave = 0% Cowardly = Regular Joe, but 25% Brave is notable, 50% is renowned and 90%+ is heroic (rather like the scale for skills). Act accordingly, and you get a 'tick' for it. (In systems using XPs/IPs/FPs or whatever, you might get one of those too - especially if it caused you amusing problems...). Act the opposite, and the GM can give you an 'anti-tick' - i.e. a tick for the opposite trait, which will lead to a decrease when checking-time comes. What other use they'd be in terms of game mechanics... I'm not sure! Already mentioned was the idea to add 1/5th Trait% to augment skills when acting especially in accordance with the Trait (or a Passion). But personally, I'm not keen on such fiddly modifiers. Currently I say players have to invoke & successfully roll the Trait% to make a related skill-roll Easy. But it seems a bit kludgy. Ideas would be most welcome! PS: Thinking about it, maybe if the skill-roll is also under the Trait, they get a 'special' result. A bit like Martial Arts.

Naturally. But I wouldn't recommend chasing the latest 'greggings' - even though this one is extremely minor, it's a bad principle. I for one can cope with the idea that in this context 'Pious' means 'Spiritual' (or whatever). It'll be interesting to find out! (In a forensic geeky sort of way... )

Brave/Cowardly; Chaste/Lustful; Energetic/Lazy; Forgiving/Vengeful; Generous/Selfish; Honest/Deceitful; Just/Arbitrary; Merciful/Cruel; Modest/Proud; Pious/Worldly; Prudent/Reckless; Temperate/Indulgent; Trusting/Suspicious + 'Passions' = Love/Hate/Loyalty for something (by 'ad hoc' I just mean some chosen thing/s - there's not a fixed list).

Didn't we establish in another recent thread that Griffin Mountain had the earliest incarnation of Traits?

Munchkins like min-maxing and so forth, so it has to be game mechanics. If you make NPCs/society react against them just because they act like unbridled rapacious killers (!), the players'll just say you're being an unreasonable GM.

I think we should stick with the 13 Pendragon pairs (plus ad-hoc passions) as the "Industry Standard". Plenty there for varied RP.

Thanks, no problem. I just wanted the idea of *non-coercive* Traits to get a fair hearing! On the contrary, I do suggest using Traits. But not in the same way as Pendragon (which can result in players losing control of their characters to the GM or random rolls). I suggest characters have 2 or 3 traits, rated with a skill-like percentage. If they RP something notably in accordance with the trait, they get a tick for it and can gain a bonus to an associated skill roll. (You might like to give bonuses equal to the Special% of the trait; Me, I'm not so keen on fiddly modifiers). They are, however, totally free to act against their traits - but the GM can award them a tick for the opposite trait, which will essentially give them a "decrease roll" for the positive trait. A similar mechanism might be in MRQII or not - I wouldn't know.

Excuse me Wolverine, but I'd rather you didn't bundle my comments together with someone else's. Particularly, my recommendation of Traits was incorrectly appended with 'the GM may require a roll' - and the implication the GM could over-rule the player over character actions - which is exactly the way I was saying Traits should not be used. A character could have 50% Honesty (or Hate Lunars, or whatever) then choose to tell a white lie (or mercifully let a mewling Lunar recruit live) - and may go down to 45%. I think that sort of mechanism would be entirely compatible with what you're saying. This way characters actually have their, er, character documented. But not in any way constrained.

Absolutely. I don't recommend the Pendragon system - that controls the characters too much. But what I do suggest is letting players choose a few traits (like those in BRP or Pendragon, which btw includes 'Passions', i.e. Loves/Hates/Loyalties) - and then giving them some reward if they RP their character that way. So, for example your player would still be free to choose to act out-of-character, but would know he'd lose out somehow.

Basically a good idea. I wouldn't tie yourself to awarding XP for in-game Goals though - they give their own rewards. Give them for the players' ultimate goal - which is to have Fun! So award XP when anyone does something notably heroic, characterful or intelligent (or fumbles amusingly!). I second Rosen's Traits idea. Players can just pick a few, then get XP bonuses when they act accordingly - simple. You need no more of a Traits mechanic than that.

Wow, September 19th has come around again so soon! Thanks for the reminder, it simply would not do to miss International Talk Like a Pirate Day! Mind you, it being a Sunday this year, there doesn't seem much scope for piratical escapades... Vicar: Let us give thanks for this week's unexpectedly large congregation... Congregation: AAARRRRRmen!

Hmmm, sounds like, rather than giving much of a combat advantage, in reality cavalry has more effect on morale... (which BRP doesn't handle, does it?)

Right. But I think the Big Gold Book is actually an attempt to de-fragment - by drawing together the rules for all the BRP-related games that were out there - and then hoping a consistent 'concensus' version would appear. And what options-set are these coming books going to be using?

Useful-looking site, but a bit of a tease. Where's the "Open Source RPG system compatible with RuneQuest III" they promise? Both, since both are given by the GM so can be used to reward RP (that's "RolePlaying" ).

My confused conflation of Improvement Rolls & Hero Points into "Improvement Points". Thought someone had used the term upthread, sorry.

It seemed to me that every decision in the design of MRQ1 was wrong, but I forget the details now. It had a couple of good ideas: (1) Reducing the twin-track Hit Points mechanisms (Overall and Locational) to just one - but chose the wrong one; and (2) Introducing a means of rewarding Role Playing (IPs), the only serious omission from RQ2/3 - but again implementing it wrong by breaking the elegant ticks system. The reason I REALLY didn't like it though, was because of the grossly insensitive D&D-minded way it handled Runes, which wrecked the 'feel' of the Glorantha setting. (Physical Runes, attuned to their owners until death, force characters to go round killing people to get rewards. Yuk!) (So much so, that I didn't even look at this thread until now, just because of the title...)

Isn't it actually called BRP? Or what essential aspects of RQ2 can't be satisfactorily modelled with various BRP options?

Society's response would be delayed; Itinerant and/or over-powered characters could safely ignore it anyway. A traits system can immediately punish the bad behaviour (or reward the good). Yes, of course - the GM *is* the final arbiter! But the system I'm suggesting here would not have any in-game effect. It wouldn't (directly) control the character's personality one iota. The players would still be free to choose their own traits and actions. All it does is let the GM signal what he (or Society) thinks of their actions: e.g. give black marks to the 'Burn Stuff Brigade'. But the bad cases really don't like to be told other people think their 'Hero' is actually just a nasty bullying villain. You'd be surprised how much they kick and scream against that (or maybe you wouldn't). So let the GM be in charge of the game. Nothing wrong with that!

VTT = Virtual Table-Top (i.e. playing on computer)