Personality Mechanics and Gaming

[Al.]

Personally I prefered the use of 'Notable Traits' in the RQ renaisance books (River of Cradles, Sun County, et al).

Two keywords each with a brief description. As a shorthand for describing the character's personality.

But my Pendragon players love the Personality Trait rules.

Al

[SDLeary]

Also, that way around, traits would prevent players doing what they want with their character (when they fail the roll, anyway). That makes character personality into a stick to beat the players with - controlling, not enabling. A classic GM failing.

Character personality should be a good thing, not an obstacle to avoid.

When playing out social situations, you might not make the roll, but that doesn't mean that you fail. The GM might impose a social penalty. Perhaps in your rebuff (or what ever the situation is), you angered one of the persons relatives, and they confront you in public. Perhaps in order to effect your course of action, the GM states that you have to remove yourself from the scene, annoying your lord. Its not that your succumbed to their lusty nature (to continue the example), but that by not acting within their nature, they are more conspicuous to those around them, and may garner additional attention that might initiate other situations in the future.

Is this more work for the GM? Not necessarily more. Mechanically its not much different than combat (roll, succeed, fail, etc), but the results are different, and they do need to think about that. I would assume though, that if they are playing in a game that has social mechanics, or are using the optional rule, that they already understand this.

Having been in a long running Pendragon campaign in the past, I can say that no one playing ever thought (to my recollection) that the mechanics were bad, or the GM think they were hindering.

SDLeary

[frogspawner]

Having been in a long running Pendragon campaign in the past, I can say that no one playing ever thought (to my recollection) that the mechanics were bad, or the GM think they were hindering.

Probably not, since those mechanics are the core of Pendragon - someone disliking them probably wouldn't be playing.

But for BRP I think the traits-like-skills mechanism fits better. It rewards personality traits rather than punishing them (which is what happens even in your example, whether or not we call a non-successful roll a 'fail').

[fmitchell]

Having been in a long running Pendragon campaign in the past, I can say that no one playing ever thought (to my recollection) that the mechanics were bad, or the GM think they were hindering.

In Pendragon, a single player can play multiple characters, as multiple generations of a family. In that case, some personality mechanics can help the player keep characters separate. Also, men (and women) driven by their passions to do stupid things, and conversely knights rewarded for virtuous behavior, are a big part of the Arthurian legends.

In another genre, though, the same mechanics can feel overly constraining. Certainly in a Cthulhu or science fiction game, the emphasis is on characters as investigators, explorers, scientists, and other cool-headed types. Another medieval or pre-medieval fantasy game with different premises (say, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric) might require little or no mechanics.

[Hedgehobbit]

Probably not, since those mechanics are the core of Pendragon - someone disliking them probably wouldn't be playing.

But for BRP I think the traits-like-skills mechanism fits better. It rewards personality traits rather than punishing them (which is what happens even in your example, whether or not we call a non-successful roll a 'fail').

Pendragon has both a reward and "punish" aspect. If a character gets several of his personality traits to match his religious or knightly virtues (I forget the proper terminology) then he gains a bonus. Thus most players have a goal as to which traits should be high and which should be low. The "punish" aspect is used to prevent the player from convieniently ignore certain this he alledgedly dedicated his life to because of player knowledge.

I see Personality mechanics serving four purposes:

1) Reward a player for either playing his character consistantly.

2) Preventing a player from basing his character's action on player knowledge.

3) Give a character an in-game benefit for actions that may be detremental to that character.

4) Allow (or force) a player to play a character that he would normally not play*.

The systems in Pendragon are good at #1-3. The religious and knightly bonuses do #1, the Trait checks do #2 and the Passion system does #3.

Often mixed in with these types of rules is a way to integrate a particular character into the plot or gameworld. These are things like Destiny or Fate type mechanics.

Aaron

* This is especially helpful for groups that have played together for a long time. It can get old when Player C plays either an overly cautious knight or an overly cautious Jedi or an overly cautious Cthulhu investigator, etc. Burning Wheel is good at this (although its crap for pretty much everything else). Since this can be good for some situations, I'm not directly opposed to "straightjacket" types of rules.

[rust]

Certainly in a Cthulhu or science fiction game, the emphasis is on characters as investigators, explorers, scientists, and other cool-headed types.

I have used something very similar to the Pendragon traits in my science fic-

tion setting in order to show the differences in the cultures of human colo-

nies.

For example, the Avalonians usually are rather pacifistic (because of their re-

ligion), most Samarrans are a bit greedy (it is the base of a trading league),

and Flexians are expected to be independent (many of them are asteroid mi-

ners).

While the players do not have to use these personality traits, the traits give

them an impression of what their societies wanted them to be like, and of

what their upbringing and education was aiming at.

If a player decides to use his culture's personality traits, this can give him a

(very small) bonus in certain situations.

For example, an Avalonian who could easily solve a problem through the use

of his weapons, but decides to take a more difficult and potentially dange-

rous way in order to avoid violence, is given a minor reward like the permis-

sion to re-roll one important roll.

I feel that this approach did encourage the players to focus a bit more on

roleplaying their characters without breaking the system in any serious way.

[Nightshade]

For example, an Avalonian who could easily solve a problem through the use

of his weapons, but decides to take a more difficult and potentially dange-

rous way in order to avoid violence, is given a minor reward like the permis-

sion to re-roll one important roll.

I feel that this approach did encourage the players to focus a bit more on

roleplaying their characters without breaking the system in any serious way.

This still suffers from the problem with all such mechanics; it rewards the player with an in-game reward for metagame decisions, and it sets the GM's understanding of the character ahead of the player's. Neither is ideal from some points of view.

[rust]

This still suffers from the problem with all such mechanics; it rewards the player with an in-game reward for metagame decisions, and it sets the GM's understanding of the character ahead of the player's.

I am not sure that a player's decision to play his character according to the

characterization he developed for that character really is a "metagame de-

cision", unless you consider all character roleplay a kind of "metagame deci-

sion" ?

And no, not the GM's understanding. It is the player who decides whether his

character will act according to his "cultural values" or take an easier route,

I have no influence at all on this decision and its consequences, except indi-

rectly through providing the setting.

[Harshax]

When I start my next BRP game, I will likely use something similar to the Pendragon traits. Instead of documenting all 13 pair, I will let each player choose 3 pair that reflect some of the character's core personality.

I agree wholeheartedly with HedgeHobbit's list of why Personality mechanics are good. Point #2 is especially important to me, as it allows me to craft scenes around the characters, and not always around the player's personality.

This is a very important tool in my opinion. I will often structure combat encounters based on the overall weapon skills of the party, and with a little personality mechanics to inform me, I can do the same with social encounters as well.

[SDLeary]

In another genre, though, the same mechanics can feel overly constraining. Certainly in a Cthulhu or science fiction game, the emphasis is on characters as investigators, explorers, scientists, and other cool-headed types. Another medieval or pre-medieval fantasy game with different premises (say, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or Elric) might require little or no mechanics.

Perhaps, but even in the genres you mention they could be fun. Think Mummy (a Cthulhu game) or Flash Gordon (Sci Fi/Sci Fan). You might have cool headed types next to mercenaries and shady slick willy types. But you are right, the game concept of the GM does dictate which mechanics/options are used.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

I am not sure that a player's decision to play his character according to the

characterization he developed for that character really is a "metagame de-

cision", unless you consider all character roleplay a kind of "metagame deci-

sion" ?

Ah, but if the reward is actually mattering to his decision making, it is. If he's doing it entirely by channelling in-character, then the reward doesn't matter.

And no, not the GM's understanding. It is the player who decides whether his

character will act according to his "cultural values" or take an easier route,

I have no influence at all on this decision and its consequences, except indi-

rectly through providing the setting.

But you're the one who decides if he _is_ operating according to his cultural values, not him.

[rust]

Ah, but if the reward is actually mattering to his

decision making, it is. If he's doing it entirely by channelling in-character,

then the reward doesn't matter.

I see the reward as a way to remind him of the "cultural values" of his cha-

racter. Therefore the reward is neither big enough to really influence his de-

cision nor so small that one does not remember it. It is something like an in-

direct way to say "You think of your character's background ?" now and then.

But you're the one who decides if he _is_ operating according to his

cultural values, not him.

In theory, yes. But I never had to decide it. The player explains to me and

the other players why he considers a certain decision of his character to be

based on the character's cultural values. If his explanation is not convincing

(which happens only very rarely), the other players say so, and it is over -

the entire "procedure" usually takes just a couple of sentences.

I would only have to make a decision if the players could not find a common

ground within a very short time.

[raymond_turney]

Hi,

I can see several situations where personality trait rules might be useful.

a) For semi-PC's. Our campaign has several characters who have names and may be developing personalities who are not full player characters. Personality rules provide a rough and ready way for the GM to prevent these characters from being sacrificed to benefit primary PC's.

As a way to determine the award of reputation points. In Fire and Sword, a character's standing in an institution is determined by what he or she has done for the institution, and the extent to which a characters exemplifies the virtues of the instituion. A character can obtain influence with the church by paying for a new temple, or by saintly behavior. Since political influence can be traded in for training, the chance to read scrolls, etc, all the way up to being granted a title or office, characters can benefit from acting virtuously.

c) To provide the GM with a way to veto actions that are totally out of character.

d) as a way to determine a charactr's qualification for titles like old style RQ rune lords {or Fire and Sword champions}. Since whether or not a character qualifies for run lord should depend on exhibiting virtues valued by the cult, and is important enough to create possible disputes between the GM and the players, a means of tracking virtuous action may be important.

The downsides are that some players really hate to be told that their characters wouldn't act the way they are playing, and that this adds complexity.

Oddly, the people most likely to object are the players Robin Laws calls "method actors", who find the idea that the GM has a better idea of what their characters would do than they do insulting to their abilities as role players; and the players Robin Laws refers to as tacticians, who tend to think that their characters have a goal, and would use the best tactics available to achieve that goal Tacticians tend to feel that rules to enforce character traits are a cowardly response by the GM, to ban their tactics rather than fighting fairly.

There is also the fact that personality rules add complexity Do the players and the GM get anything for mastering the additional rules?

In the case of Fire and Sword, I decided against personality trait rules.

The players in our group rarely sacrifice the interests of supporting characters to those of leading characters without justification, and when they do they are willing to accept a GM ruling that the supporting character would not so sacrifice his interests If it is remotely plausible, we usually just call for a leadership skill roll by the leading character. If the leading character can actually lead, he gets what he wants, if not, he does not.

The other GM in my campaign and I usually just award reputation points directly, for organizations that the character cares about, if the player asks for them. We don't bother to have special rules determing when to roll, what trait to roll against, etc.

We occasionally do have players make decisions that are totally out of character. This is rare, though, because players whose characters have a fixed essential nature usually stick to that essence; and the occasional undefined character {most often played by me} does not disrupt the ability to suspend disbelief, because other people do not have firm views about what she would not do

By introducing a wide variety of offices other than rune lord, we have reduced the significance of the rune lord problem. Most characters who don't fit as rune lords have something else to aim for, and they usually aim for that something else. Fitness for rune lordship can be traced in the record of fame and reputation points.

So, basically for our group personality rules didn''t make the cut. Rules resolve disputes, and structure game reality. We just don't have enough disputes over how characters are played to justify rules to resolve them. Also, the decisions made by players about what their characters would do rarely threaten the ability of the other players to suspend disbelief.

If there is a use in your game for personality, I encourage you to experiment with them. i'm interested in how they work, and if our group had a different mix of players, we might have found them necessary.

Ray,

[frogspawner]

Oddly, the people most likely to object are the players Robin Laws calls "method actors", who find the idea that the GM has a better idea of what their characters would do than they do insulting to their abilities as role players; and the players Robin Laws refers to as tacticians, who tend to think that their characters have a goal, and would use the best tactics available to achieve that goal Tacticians tend to feel that rules to enforce character traits are a cowardly response by the GM, to ban their tactics rather than fighting fairly.

I see a fifth way for personality trait rules to be useful: as an aid to roleplaying.

My mechanism is this: Have a few traits like extra skills (e.g. Brave 26%, Lustful 39%), hopefully not adding any significant complexity. Just make the trait-roll, when your character behaves that way, to gain a x2 bonus on a skill-roll. (No bonus when the trait-skill has a tick, though - so they're not over-used.)

"Method actors" should appreciate their acting gives them a bonus; "Tacticians" should be encouraged to act in-character to gain the bonus. Nobody is dictated-to, and the GM never vetoes a player's chosen action - but can sanction out-of-character actions with 'anti-ticks' (which reduce the trait, with decrease rolls instead of increase rolls) on those hopefully rare occasions it happens.

I've only just introduced this system, but it seems to be working well. Die-hard 'tacticians' are starting to role-play...

[aknaton]

My mechanism is this: Have a few traits like extra skills (e.g. Brave 26%, Lustful 39%), hopefully not adding any significant complexity. Just make the trait-roll, when your character behaves that way, to gain a x2 bonus on a skill-roll. (No bonus when the trait-skill has a tick, though - so they're not over-used.)

Seems a good way to do this. Simple mechanics that doesn't *force* the players. :thumb:

[HollyKnight55]

I'm not a fan of personality mechanics. I like my rules to determine success or failure with actions, but honestly not much more. All the rest is roleplaying. Even the small handful of communication skills we use are modified by the players roleplaying.

I would go so far as to say I also don't care for HERO/GURPS style attractiveness levels, enemies, hatreds, codes of honour, etc... It almost seems to take the player out of the equation. You could almost program a computer with all these likes/dislikes/reaction modifiers, and let it play for you.

I do think roleplaying should be rewarded. If a player creates a persona, then roleplays it - particularly in challenging situations or when it isn't convenient - it should be rewarded. Karma, drama points, etc... are great for this.

[Nightshade]

c) To provide the GM with a way to veto actions that are totally out of character.

The problem is that there are plenty of people who think that's the one thing in the game a GM _doesn't_ get to decide; who controls the whole rest of the world, but the decision of what's in character for a PC and how they can act is the one thing he _doesn't_ get to control.

[Nightshade]

I'm not a fan of personality mechanics. I like my rules to determine success or failure with actions, but honestly not much more. All the rest is roleplaying. Even the small handful of communication skills we use are modified by the players roleplaying.

Well, that is part of the point though; without some use of personality mechanics, even some "success" can't be handled mechanically, moving it from the character level to the player level. That's why interaction skills tend to be a polarizing topic for a lot of gamers.

[frogspawner]

Oops double post! (See below...)

[frogspawner]

I'm not a fan of personality mechanics. I like my rules to determine success or failure with actions, but honestly not much more.

Is it you've just not come across a personality system that's simple enough?

(Yes, I agree RP should be rewarded, and use a kind of Karma/Hero points system myself. Not one which involves 'spending' them at critical points, but just makes characters generally luckier all the time. But that's separate from the personality mechanism I'm suggesting.)

The problem is that there are plenty of people who think that's the one thing in the game a GM _doesn't_ get to decide...

Yes, definitely, players control of their characters shouldn't be over-ruled.

I urge you to consider the system I outlined upthread, because it conforms to both your requirements, IMO: simplicity and freedom.

[HollyKnight55]

Is it you've just not come across a personality system that's simple enough?

It's more that I think it's unnecessary - which is one of my large criticisms of other gaming systems. It's sharing a story, with rules helping out when necessary.

As an example, I think the nWoD Changeling: the Lost is a gorgeous concept, and the basic classification of types of Changelings is... pretty darn near perfect. Then they throw in mechanics for willpower, complex mechanics for allegiances, a ridiculous list of magic abilities each Changeling should be familiar with to make an informed decision, etc... Had it been kept simple, I'd be playing that game right now.

:focus: Of course, if you do want those things - like personality mechanics - I'm sure the ones suggested are great.

[HollyKnight55]

Well, that is part of the point though; without some use of personality mechanics, even some "success" can't be handled mechanically, moving it from the character level to the player level. That's why interaction skills tend to be a polarizing topic for a lot of gamers.

For my style, I don't see any gain from an additional mechanic in addition to the communication skill. Maybe I should say I don't see any more benefit than a GM just using his spur of the moment judgement for modifiers or NPC reactions.

But again, I think - if you're into these things - I'm sure these rules suggested are good ones.

[Nightshade]

Is it you've just not come across a personality system that's simple enough?

(Yes, I agree RP should be rewarded, and use a kind of Karma/Hero points system myself. Not one which involves 'spending' them at critical points, but just makes characters generally luckier all the time. But that's separate from the personality mechanism I'm suggesting.)

I have extremely mixed feelings on this whole topic (as one might gather from the posts I've made), but if you'[re going to use an RP reward carrot, I think something like that is better than an experience bonus. In my experience, I think the latter doesn't so much reward good RP as reward players learning to play the GM.

[Nightshade]

For my style, I don't see any gain from an additional mechanic in addition to the communication skill. Maybe I should say I don't see any more benefit than a GM just using his spur of the moment judgement for modifiers or NPC reactions.

But again, I think - if you're into these things - I'm sure these rules suggested are good ones.

I wasn't suggesting an additional mechanic; I was more refering to interaction skills with teeth (i.e. that players don't get to entirely blow off).

[HollyKnight55]

In my experience, I think the latter doesn't so much reward good RP as reward players learning to play the GM.

It's a social game. I think too many systems - like D&D honestly - have almost made it a contest, GM VS Players. You're working together, as a team. If you think your GM is a playable retard, then play a board game.