The Forge Archives

Archive => RPG Theory => Topic started by: Sydney Freedberg on May 25, 2004, 09:03:33 AM

Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 25, 2004, 09:03:33 AM
Over in the "Fear and Confusion" thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121164#121164), a discussion on how to include morale effects, e.g. fight or flight reactions, in combat systems touched on a wider issue. The question being: "Is it okay to lose control of my character because of game mechanics that simulate his/her emotional reactions? Or is this too deprotagonizing?"

Such game mechanics can mean rules that make your character panic if you're shot at and fail a morale check, or rules for falling in love at first sight, or rules for certain characters (deities, kings, Great Leaders) have overpowering charisma, or simply rules for one character (PC or NPC) being able to Charm / Influence another. The key factor is that at some point, the decision about what your character's choices is taken away.

(In the original thread, comrades Dauntless and Noon suggested this might be a GNS issue -- i.e. gamists don't like losing control of their "game piece," narrativists don't like losing control of their part of the story, but simulationists wouldn't mind. I don't want to wander into the wilderness of GNS angels dancing on the heads of pins, but it's something to bear in mind).

I myself am VERY skeptical about doing this. I am okay with emotional modifiers making it harder to TRY to do something (you're Scared level 3; you don't want to run away? Fine, but you take a -3 penalty to stand your ground), but I worry about ones that simply take over a player's choices. On the other hand, some very interesting rules (notably "Unknown Armies," which I've read but never played) have been written to do just that, where the idea seems to be to force your character (and you) to deal with the aftermath of helplessness.

So what kind of games would benefit from what kinds of emotion mechanics? And what do people feel about the idea of losing control of their character's choices for a time?
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: montag on May 25, 2004, 09:38:08 AM
I'd say it depends on (1) what other options a player has to influence the game (from Hero Points to the ability to coerce the GM into something) and (2) whether lack of control in a particular instance is helping or hindering the kind of gameplay the player (and the group) desires.

For instance, with regards to the latter, in certain cases it might be desireable to loose emotional control because it makes the game more challenging or because it feels more "real" or because it's a useful constraint which provides a twist in the story or a helps prevent the degeneration into pure wish fulfilling.
If however, the loss of control removes player input in situations the player considers essential, it's obviously bad. So for instance, it can be interesting if the group's vehicle-guy is prone to cracking under stress if the player choose to have better skills in exchange for lower stress resistance. It's decidedly lame if a badass assassin suddenly panics due to bad luck. Similarly, it's interesting if the PC is suddenly affected by an intense emotional reaction, if one is exploring the character. If on the other hand, the PC's panic reaction makes it impossible to continue the exploration of the duke's social circles, that sucks. If the group is exploring "what would you sacrifice for power?", a PCs panic reaction might be fine, whereas it would be horrible if the game where about "how far are you willing to go, to get what you want?" it might keep the player from deciding that his PC would be willing to face X {whatever caused the panic reaction}. (the latter example is a bit flawed in that loss of control might be bad in the first case as well, depending on the particular notion of "sacrifice" used. While I'm at it: all the above is meant "in general", YMMV).
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: pete_darby on May 25, 2004, 09:47:20 AM
Well, even in the example you gave ("-3 to stand your graound") that implies that at some point (when you fail your stand your ground roll), the system will dictate behaviour. Unless and until the rules enforce the "role-play it" option, it's pretty much a given that those sort of rules will dictate character behaviour on occassion.

This is related to a point in the latest GNS furball on RPG.net: even with rules at times dictating character behaviour, a determined player will move expression of their agenda to the arena of risk assessment, into managing if and when they place their characters at risk of coming under the control of the system, and, as you say, to dealing with the consequences thereof.

That being said, this approach, or rather these rules systems, arise from the idea that the interests of the player are those of the character, that players will be motivated to get the "best" performance out of the character from their mutual viewpoint, and that sub-optimal but realistic choices should be mandated by the system to prevent unrealistic actions.

Plus, it looks to be a little grounded in fortune at the end, task resolution, where emotional conflicts are resolved as a series of individual tasks, rather than fortune in the middle conflict resolution, where the psychological can be played as a justification for the mandated outcome. Or I may have fried my brain.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 25, 2004, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: pete_darbyWell, even in the example you gave ("-3 to stand your graound") that implies that at some point (when you fail your stand your ground roll), the system will dictate behaviour.

True,  but if we're talking about a mechanic (as opposed to "just roleplay it out"), then it has to have some impact on the resolution system at some point, which by definition has to control the outcome of character actions. Of course there are some games where you control the outcome of your own character's actions (does Ron Edwards' review of Octane go into the problems with this?) but most systems impose some outside control. The distinction I'm struggling to make is between resolving outcomes and dictating choices.

Quote from: pete_darbyit looks to be a little grounded in fortune at the end, task resolution, where emotional conflicts are resolved as a series of individual tasks, rather than fortune in the middle conflict resolution, where the psychological can be played as a justification for the mandated outcome. Or I may have fried my brain.

Hrrm. My brain blew a few fuses on this one too. But I'm not sure you're right. I mean, you could use Sorceror-style currency to carry over from one conflict to the next, right? (You got scared level 3 in the "fight the bad guy" conflict, so now you have a -3 in the next one). Ultimately I think "task resolution" and "conflict resolution" are more two ends of a spectrum than binary, mutually exclusive alternatives.

In any case: Anyone have examples from games they've played, designed, or just read of these mechanics? And how satisfying or problematic were they?
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sean on May 25, 2004, 11:49:35 AM
Check out the Dying Earth RPG on this. It's a totally different paradigm. You may not like it, but if you're thinking about this stuff you should look at that game.

OK, so you're a "Cugel-level" character and you didn't put any points into Resist Rakishness. A hawt chick comes along and the situation is such that she represents a practical temptation.

You now are obligated to put the moves on her and hop in the sack if she's amenable, unless you have another relevant ability that you can convince the GM to allow you to substitute for Resist Rakishness.

I personally think that resistance to social mechanics comes from the old school, 'GM is God' approach to play, where the social dimension of your character was pretty much the only one you had real control over. There, it's totally a bummer if on top of your limited spells, choices, etc. the GM is telling you what to say and think too.

On the other hand, if you're open to getting sucked into weird things not of your own making and playing them out, there's no reason this can't be a really fun way to play. Especially because in the DERPG it cuts both ways: if you want to con a shopkeeper into giving you half his stock on credit, which no GM of the old school would allow, it's just a Persuade contest away. So the social mechanics are empowering as well as disempowering; it just depends which aspects of your character you're willing to 'game'.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: xiombarg on May 25, 2004, 02:39:46 PM
I'd also point out that in my own game, Unsung (http://www.livejournal.com/users/xiombarg/533763.html), the Lapse mechanic takes control of a given character away from the usual player. Do a search for "Unsung", particularly in the Actual Play forum, and you can see how my players felt about this. If anything, I think they were more protagonized by the loss of control, as the mechanic set them up for interesting fallout to deal with.

I'll also note that in Universalis, control of a given character can pass around the table. You might want to see if anyone who plays Universalis finds this deprotagonizing.

I think it's a matter of how such mechanics are written, and how they are contrained. "Roll or run away" is boring, and depotagonizing, at least in part because it specifies a single, robot-like behavior. "Roll or you do something interesting" is less so.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: simon_hibbs on May 25, 2004, 05:31:51 PM
Quote from: SeanOn the other hand, if you're open to getting sucked into weird things not of your own making and playing them out, there's no reason this can't be a really fun way to play. Especially because in the DERPG it cuts both ways: if you want to con a shopkeeper into giving you half his stock on credit, which no GM of the old school would allow, it's just a Persuade contest away. So the social mechanics are empowering as well as disempowering; it just depends which aspects of your character you're willing to 'game'.

You beat me to the point. It realy does come down to the questio of what the game is about. Call of Cthulhu is about Lovecraftian horror, so it has game mechanics for terror and insanity. Pendragon is about Arthurian knights, so it has rules for expressing the Knightly Virtues and tempting the characters to stray from them. HeroQuest is often about community, so it has rules for relationships. If you're going into a contest to achieve a social or psychological goal game emchanicaly, then you're probably also opening yourself up to influence in the same area.

Simon Hibbs
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Shreyas Sampat on May 25, 2004, 06:14:41 PM
I submit that a game only needs to dictate events and (simultaneously) provide meaningful freedom of choice in its area of focus.

I don't see any useful distinction between "you are shot and must panic" and "you are shot and must lose consciousness."

To give an example of a game (which, unfortunately, I have not playtested), my The Calligrapher's Sword is set in a dream-world. (Unknown Kadath crossed with Fantastica is how I see it.) The characters are in fact dreaming, so they are in that hazy state where comprehension is fleeting, events provoke odd emotional reactions, and they lose access to volition occasionally. So the game's mechanics are all emotion mechanics which dictate the character's inner reaction to world events (which the players have authority over). I don't know how satisfying this is in play, but I believe that it serves the purpose of the game precisely, in a way that a game without emotion mechanics could not.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 25, 2004, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Shreyas SampatI don't see any useful distinction between "you are shot and must panic" and "you are shot and must lose consciousness."

Well put.

Quote from: Shreyas SampatI submit that a game only needs to dictate events and (simultaneously) provide meaningful freedom of choice in its area of focus.

In other words, having mechanics for something
1) emphasizes that thing, whether you meant to or not (see Mike's Standard Rant on combat systems)
2) structures player choices about that thing, since you're no longer purely freeform -- which both limits player choices AND, simultaneously, gives them something to work with?
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Eric J. on May 25, 2004, 06:35:55 PM
I am very very skeptical about this kind of thing.  The idea is that you loose control of your character.  It's a certain kind of 'you loose control of your character' but that's the issue nevertheless.

There are times when it can be okay, maybe fun times when you loose control of your character.  Maybe it's part of the GMs naration:

"You can't help but drool slightly at the sight of the every-small piece of meat.  It could have been crafted by an angel.  Well it was, but your character doesn't know that."

Then there are bad times: "Your character runs in fear at the orge, knowing that he can't, will never be able to fight with it long enough to gain any sense of pride from the effort."

Or the possibly more destructive: "You're characters hungry.  You go to the nearest reasteraunt which is pretty nice.  To eat, costs 20 woolong.  While you're there a group of bandits comes over to your table and knocks it over.  It looks like they want to fight.  As your search for your weapon you find that it was left at the base.  After all you don't need a sword to eat your french toast."

Maybe, a game could have rules like the ones you've described in a humerous game or a horror game or something.  Otherwise you're taking away oppertunities for the players to roleplay or you're trying to tell a game that the players are a part of.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Callan S. on May 25, 2004, 09:13:14 PM
Okay, I think were getting ahead of ourselves a few times here. Before we get to being a protagonist, or whether people might enjoy the effects of something or (oh god) whether its realistic, lets look at the basic stem.

If your mechanics cut off a player from contributing to play, they are on a fast road to hell.

Basically, the more the mechanics make someone's presence at the table meaningless/the more  they could be absent and it wouldn't effect a jot, its really screwed.

Only sim guys have a high tollerance for this and I think most of them want to be exploring actively.

Other than that, this core point is not a GNS issue. You don't bring people to a table only to have mechanics that make them redundant. By redundant I mean any amount of time (a minute or a large chunk of the session), particularly if someone is made more redundant than other players.

That's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

Don't look to the integrity of your G, N or S goal, look to the integrity of player input first. Once you've ensured the integrity of your players input, then you can move on to forfilling G N or S goals.

I don't know if I'm missreading the term deprotagonisation here, but only a players PC can be a protagonist. The PC's protagonist state is secondary to whether the player has input into the game. Don't make deprotagonisation your first goal to surmount...it'll miss the point.

Note: My angle here is a little different from the thread this was spawned from, because I'm not trying to fit the context of that other thread here.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 25, 2004, 09:40:09 PM
Quote from: NoonIf your mechanics cut off a player from contributing to play, they are on a fast road to hell.

Amen.


Quote from: NoonThat's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

So ... you're saying you like this idea? (Nudge, nudge). I only ask because it's, err, becoming the central mechanic of My Eventual Game (to appear in the "Indie Design" forum sometime before the Hell of which you spoke freezes over).
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Dauntless on May 26, 2004, 12:49:18 AM
In computer design, the interfaces that you design into the game limit the choices available to the player.  You have to design such built-in limitations because software engineering hasn't reached a point where AI is smart enough to truly make freeform decisions and truly learn and adapt from the problem domain.

How does this relate to pen and paper RPG design?  As Sydney pointed out, when you create a mechanic for something, you emphasize that thing.  It in effect becomes a limitation to choice.  But it also provides the interface (what the character can do, or how a character's actions are affected) that the player has to the gameworld itself.  The more abstract the rules, the less limitations there are, but also the more arbitration that creeps in and the more shaky the shared imaginings amongst the player group and the GM becomes.

So it becomes a tradeoff to a degree.  Morever, the choice of creating mechanics which can take away choice and volition from a player also stems from the often subconscious realization that there is a difference between the player and the character.  In my game, player choice is constrained by the context of the situation around him.  THe player can try to defy his character's personality or impulses, but the player can't simply shirk it off and conjure it up to roleplaying.  The constraint isn't so much in the choice of what the player wants his character to do, rather the constraint comes from the fact that the choice of action is not guaranteed.

So for example, a character might have values similar to Pendragon, and when a situation is presented to a character in which one of his values comes into play, the character is motivated to follow his convictions, for better or worse.  Good roleplayers will probably see such rules as overkill and unnecessary, since good roleplaying is about stepping into the shoes of your protagonist.  However, the desire to weave a good story can overcome the ability to be in the shoes of your character.  The game mechanics can also act as "directorial guidance" in that it suggests what the player should be making the character do.

You can never fully get away from the seperation of player and character.  But depending on the game setting and the experiential gameplay the system tries to provide, losing control of one's character may reinforce the genre or intentions of the premise.  Not all game settings are going to need this level, but realistic settings would probably benefit from it.  The more Simulationist the game system is, the more I would advocate such mechanics, the more narrativist, the more I would stay away from them.  The gamist perspective for including these mechanics are very much premise or setting dependent.  So depending on the genre, setting or premise, it could work for a more gamist approach.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Dauntless on May 26, 2004, 01:09:54 AM
I think the point here needs to be made that while certain events may make the players lose control of their characters, the system should also have options for the players to try to avoid or minimize the effects of the loss of control.

For example, let's say your character has a conviction of extreme piety to a certain religious cause.  Now let's say that the character is captured, and forced to renounce his beliefs, and if he does, he will be let go.  If he does not, then another innocent NPC hostage will be killed.  For those who are not too pious, they may think, "so what, I'll go ahead and say it".  But because this character has a strong belief system in place, what would the character do?

It's hard to say, perhaps he has a stronger motivation to protect innocent lives.  In which case this principle can outweigh his conviction.  But what if he doesn't?  

There are two ways to handle this.  One is, just let the player chose.  Let's say the player decides not to give in because he believes he'll be sent to some sort of damnation if he denounces his beliefs, and perhaps his religious beliefs also tell him that an innocent who is murdered in the name of one's creator is sent to heaven.  In which case, not only does this make sense, the character won't even feel any remorse over what happened.  But what if the religious context isn't like this?  What if the player keeps silent so the innocent NPC dies.  Would the character feel remorse?  If he does, how does this remorse or guilt factor in to actual game play?  In TROS, spiritual attributes could affect actual gameplay, and it got a lot of good press for doing so.  Perhaps you could also set up a situation where the choice is in the hands of the player, but the game effects are system dependent.  So in this case, the player retains his choice, but the guilt he feels will now act as a penalty until some later time (confessional or some other cathartic measure is taken to purge the guilt).

The other option is you have a mechanic in place which affects the chances of the character's choice from taking place.  For example, let's say the player wants to renounce his religion to save the innocent NPC.  However, because he has such a high piety rating, there's less of a likelihood that this would happen.  You can either make some sort of resolution roll against the Piety rating, which can be modified by the player in some game system dependant way.  For example, in my game, one can spend Discipline points precisely to override emotions, principles or beliefs.  

Something else to think about is how to reward  experience for being in character or OOC.  If the player's choice is in character, then the GM can reward the action with experience/hero points/fate points, or what have you...perhaps even extra points can be awarded if the action results in the death of the character.  OTOH, the GM can penalize experience for acting out of character.  But "acting IC or OOC" depends greatly on how well you've defined the characters emotions, convictions, beliefs, principles, mental resilience, etc etc.  If they are not well defined (whether quantitatively or qualitatively) then it becomes much more subjective as to whether the player was acting IC or OOC.

I'm currently trying to figure out if I want to use the first or second method.  In the first method, player choice is retained, but the choice affects in-game benefits or penalties.  In the second method, player decision is not guaranteed depending on the context of the situation, but the player has a chance to modify the likelihood of his choice actually happening.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Callan S. on May 26, 2004, 02:53:25 AM
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg
Quote from: NoonThat's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

So ... you're saying you like this idea? (Nudge, nudge). I only ask because it's, err, becoming the central mechanic of My Eventual Game (to appear in the "Indie Design" forum sometime before the Hell of which you spoke freezes over).

I like that it maintains player input rather than prioritising other goals ahead of player input. I will add that a recent post by Vallamir/Ralph showed me that policing when such negative effects should apply is probably best left in the hands of players rather than the GM, by rewarding them for applying such things...see here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75) and scroll down to Ralphs post to get more of the reasoning behind it. Christ, I think the reasoning even applies to raising children! :)
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 26, 2004, 10:59:57 AM
Over in another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)

Quote from: ValamirGive the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty. They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them.

Noon, is this the bit from Ralph Mazza aka Valamir you were referring to?

I'm intrigued. Not sure exactly how to apply it, but intrigued.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: simon_hibbs on May 26, 2004, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: Eric J.I am very very skeptical about this kind of thing.  The idea is that you loose control of your character.  It's a certain kind of 'you loose control of your character' but that's the issue nevertheless.

Wel, as has been mentioned you can lose controll of your character to varying extents already in many games. Arguably the game master shapes the dmain of available choices for the players all the time regardless of the rules, simply by framing or shaping the situation (scenario) the characters are in. Depending on how psychological effects are introduced they could be seen as simply beign part of that - part of the situation the players find their characters in which is often arbitrary anyway.

QuoteThen there are bad times: "Your character runs in fear at the orge, knowing that he can't, will never be able to fight with it long enough to gain any sense of pride from the effort."

Or the possibly more destructive: "You're characters hungry.  You go to the nearest reasteraunt which is pretty nice.  To eat, costs 20 woolong.  While you're there a group of bandits comes over to your table and knocks it over.  It looks like they want to fight.  As your search for your weapon you find that it was left at the base.  After all you don't need a sword to eat your french toast."

I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to use phsychology mechanics for these kinds of situations. These example simply don't ring true in their arbitrariness. They don't seem to be the consequences of a psychological cnflict. It's all downs to what the domain of conflict is in the game. If the player in the Ogre example had decided to bluff the Ogre and blown it realy badly perhaps you might get a result simila to what you describem, but even then your example is very extreme.

QuoteMaybe, a game could have rules like the ones you've described in a humerous game or a horror game or something.  Otherwise you're taking away oppertunities for the players to roleplay or you're trying to tell a game that the players are a part of.

Sure, in a hrror game it pretty obvious that psychological reactions are important. Conserving your chaacter's sanity is a matter of resource and risk management as much as conserving Hit Points or Wealth might be in other games. Such mechanics can be mishandled of course, but so can any mechanics but I don't see any intrinsic quality of psychological mechanics that makes them less viable than combat mechanics which after all can easly lead to character death. They're certainly a sensitive issue though and you're right that player's concerns must be addresses to ensure that they don't feel deprotagonised.


Quote from: NoonBasically, the more the mechanics make someone's presence at the table meaningless/the more they could be absent and it wouldn't effect a jot, its really screwed.

I could make the same case against combat systems in which characters can die. Surely they're the ultimate in deprotagonising mechanics, and should be expunged from any sensibly designed roleplaying game? The same could be said for games in which characters can be drugged, or lose conciousness, or be captured.


Simon Hibbs
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Valamir on May 26, 2004, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergOver in another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)

Quote from: ValamirGive the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty. They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them.

Noon, is this the bit from Ralph Mazza aka Valamir you were referring to?

I'm intrigued. Not sure exactly how to apply it, but intrigued.

Well, I don't know what kind of game you're designing, but lets say its a horror type game where character panic and loss of control are common enough events to be worth modeling.

Lets take a scenario where the character is snooping through the spooky crone's spooky house looking for some artifact.  You've done all of the tension building stuff, laid on the horror elements, maybe even got the players heart beating a little fast, etc.  The character has the artifact and is making their way out when you drop in the big scary cthulhuoid horror.

Example 1:  GM -- "Ok, make a roll against your bravery (or whatever) with a -3 (cause its big and scary), if you fail you flee in panic, if you fail by alot you drop the artifact on your way out."  This is an example of the die roll taking control away from the character.

Example 2:  Player -- "Ok, I'm like 'oh my god, what is that thing!'.  My face gets all twisted in horror, I throw the artifact at it and bolt from the house screaming in panic".  Ok, I'll take 1 wazzit point for fleeing in terror from a horrible transplanar being, another 1 for playing up my 'screaming coward' flaw, and a third one for volutarily losing the artifact.


Obviously you'd need something a little more solid than the off the cuff Example 2, but that would be one way of applying the concept of letting the player decide when to "lose control" of their character.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Henri on May 26, 2004, 01:08:39 PM
First off, I agree with Noon that GNS is a red herring here.  I can think of arguments both for and against behavior mechanics that are consistent with each of the three modes.  Fortunately, this discussion has generally avoided GNS.

Secondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth."  If you give the player complete control of the character, it is easy for the player to play a character who is completely above temptation, without any chance of failure.  This is because the PLAYER HIMSELF DOES NOT FEEL THE TEMPTATION.  Therefore, he loses nothing by not giving in.  The character is having all sorts of physical, hormonal reactions (probably due either to his instinct for self-preservation in case of reaction to fear or his instinct to procreate in case of reaction to seduction), which cloud his ability to make rational decisions in the moment.  But the player feels none of this.  

I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation.  The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing.  The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in.  That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

EDIT: Oh right, this is the third way.  Completely in-game consequences.  Obviously if you choose not to run from the very scary demon-thing, you are likely to get eaten.  If you choose not have sex with the fickle temptress goddess, she turns you into a newt in a jealous rage (can we say Greek myths?).  But there might be some situations where it is hard to come up with an bad in-game consequence that makes sense.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on May 26, 2004, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: HenriFirst off, I agree with Noon that GNS is a red herring here.

Agreement.

Quote from: HenriSecondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth."  If you give the player complete control of the character, it is easy for the player to play a character who is completely above temptation, without any chance of failure.

Applause!

In My Eventual Game, I'm toying with an idea (not entirely original, I grant you) of depicting both permanent personality traits and temporary emotional states with what I call "ambivalent" modifiers -- that is, they can act as either bonuses or penalties depending on what the character chooses to do. Act in accordance with the personality trait/emotional state, you get it as a bonus; act against it, you get it as a penalty.

For example your character has the trait "Lecherous +/-3" and someone tries to seduce him; if you decide to take the bait, all your die rolls to that purpose (conflict or task resolution, whichever) get a +3 bonus; but if you decide to fight temptation, you're distracted and conflicted, so you get a -3 to doing whatever the other thing was you meant to do.

Or your character nearly has her head blown off by a Cthulloid horror with a bazooka, makes a fight or flight test, and gets a strong "fight" result (probably because of personality traits like "Bad Temper" or "Combat Hardened"). Now she's Angry At the Monster +5. She gets a +5 bonus to fighting the monster -- but a -5 to running away from the fight, or trying to make peace with it.

The idea here -- and Henri's on-the-nose discussion of "temptation" just helped me understand my own proposed mechanic much better -- is that you tempt the PLAYER to act in the same way as the CHARACTER is tempted. If you choose to follow your passions / emotions, the ambivalent modifiers act as bonuses and make you more powerful -- but you may be powering up all the way down to your doom. If you choose to fight your feelings, the ambivalent modifiers act as penalties and make you less powerful -- but while you may be crawling, you may be crawling in the right direction.

Now if your character's feelings about what to do are in line with your plans as a player, fine -- you power up in the direction you want to go, and the ambivalent modifiers act as someting akin to TROS Spiritual Attributes. But the fun part of this idea is how they can tempt you to screw yourself over.

N.B. When I say "more powerful" / "less powerful," that could mean either to meet the challenge (Gamist) or to influence the story (Narrativist); this is GNS neutral, as Henri and Noon have said.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: neelk on May 26, 2004, 02:35:54 PM
Quote from: Henri
Secondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth." [...]
I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation.  The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing.  The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in.  That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

You just gave me the ideal lead-in: thanks! Try looking at Wraith's Shadow mechanic. In Wraith, the players all play ghosts, and every PC has a Shadow, which is a kind a personification of the character's dark and self-destructive impulses. Now, the game says that each player plays a wraith, and a different player's Shadow. The Shadow's goal, of course, is to seduce/browbeat/tempt/bargain/trick its "self" into embracing Oblivion. The kicker here is that the Shadow has a set of superpowers, and can use them on behalf of the main PC -- and every time the player of the main PC agrees, then they accumulate Angst, which empowers the Shadow and weakens the Wraith. (And with enough Angst, the Shadow can temporarily "possess" the body, going from a tempter to a possessor -- a possessor with all of the knowledge and personality of the original, only with a dark self-destructive urge.) What makes this so cool is that the internal dialogue of temptation and negotiation is lifted up into the player level. What's also cool about it is that it gives a way to externalize a character's internal monologue -- when the two players are negotiating and arguing, the other players can actually watch and hear the PC's inner life at work. It's incredibly fun.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Henri on May 26, 2004, 03:12:01 PM
To Neel and Sydney:  Hey, these are great examples of rewarding/penalizing the player based on their decision, rather than making the decision for them.  Cool!
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Paul Watson on May 26, 2004, 04:06:51 PM
I've never seen this as a GNS issue. For example, I personally regard My Life with Master as a very Narrativist game. Every number on a character sheet describes emotion: Weariness, Self-Loathing and Love. One of the two numbers that describe the Master is also an emotion: Fear. Characters start the game having pretty much no chance to resist the commands of the Master. If the Master orders your character to go kill his beloved sister and bring back her broach, sister's gonna die.

I think this works because of managed expectations, to use the suit-speak expression, which I believe falls under the heading of Social Contract in Forge parlance. If the players are familiar with MLwM, all that I've described is expected and normal within the context of that game.

I also don't regard it as a matter of good roleplay. Good roleplay can include stepping into your character's shoes. It can also include something more along the lines of Author Stance, group ownership of characters, and the like. (As a side note, I've observed a very general tendency for those who prefer Actor Stance to dislike emotion/personality mechanice, and for those who prefer Author Stance to be more accepting of these mechanics. I present the observation as-is, an unscientific observation of a statistically insignificant sample.)

I don't believe that emotion/personality mechanics are intrisically, objectively a bad thing. I think I all comes down to managed expectations/Social Contract, and "appropriate" use, the definition of  appropriate varying from group to group. Put another way, hosing a player character is not in and of itself a bad thing; hosing the player is. And if the player feels like you hosed her, you probably did.

In some RPGs, emotion/personality mechanics are an integral part of the game, like the aforementioned MLwM. Call of Cthulhu and its Sanity mechanic is another good example. In CoC, the Sanity mechanic can dictate character action (run away, stand frozen, curl up on the floor and soil yourself, etc), change the character's personality through the addition of some sort of psychological condition, and take the character out of the game.

Here, even though the Sanity mechanic is an expected and integral part of CoC, I feel the GM still must keep in mind "appropriate use." For example (and this comes from the CoC rules, version 5 or something like that), if a character is rendered inactive (ie: helpless) by a Sanity shaking monster, perhaps its more appropriate, and more interesting, for the monster to for whatever incomprehensible reason to leave the character sitting there gibbering rather than to kill the helpless PC. An example of an inappropriate use, IMHO, would be having a character who was forced to run away in terror from the monster go charging over a cliff, into traffic, or into some other negative (and uninteresting) situation.

In some games, these mechanics are a very minor part. Off the top of my head, I think Werewolf: the Apocalypse is a good example of this sort of game. A player can enter into this game never expecting the use of emotion/personality mechanics against his character by an NPC. This player could react negatively to, for example, an elder Shadow Lord imposing his will on the PC to force him into the GMs plot. The player didn't know what he was getting into, didn't anticipate this situation. If, on the other hand, the player is aware of the mechanic that allows a higher ranking werewolf to force a lower-ranking one to back down through force of will, and still decides to have it out with an elder in the middle of a moot, I would feel that the use of the emotion/personality mechanic in this case was appropriate. The player entered into the contest knowing what the possible outcomes were.

In FATE, emotional/personaity traits are modelled using Aspects. In vanila FATE, Aspects are freely chosen and invented by the player. Aspects can represent a great many things, including experiences, relationships, significant possessions, physical attributes, and personality traits. Players can invoke these aspects in positive ways a limited number of times. GMs can invoke them in negative ways, but the player gains FATE points for this, which they can then spend in various ways, including blocking a negative invocation. For example:

QuotePlayer (facing a nasty fight): "Hmmm ... the odds are against my character, but she stands and fights anyways."
GM: "I'm invoking her Cowardly aspect. Here's some FATE points for you."
Player: "You can keep the points, and I'm spending a few more to negate your invocation. Bring it on!"

I like that this system leaves it up to each individual player to decide which personality aspects to take, and how many, if any at all. If you don't want your character's life complicated by such issues, don't take such aspects. (As another aside, I also like that this approach incentivizes the players to take interesting aspects which can be negatively invoked.)

HeroQuest has an interesting take on this. Emotional/personality aspects are modelled like any other ability, such as the classic Hate Lunars 17. These can be used to positively or negatively augment another ability. One could conceivably roll this as a direct ability, such as rolling Fear Dragons, hoping for a failure to avoid running from a dragon (why you'd want to avoid running is beyond me). It can get a little complicated. Perhaps you negatively augment Fear Dragons with your Brave ability, and so forth. If your son is trapped behind the dragon, perhaps you could also negatively augment Fear Dragons with Mother of Soandso. Alternatively, you could role Brave 17 augmented with Mother of Soandso against your own Fear Dragons 17.

There's a more general case in which emotion/personality plays a role in HeroQuest, and can have direct mechanical affect on your character; non-physical wounds. The best example I can think of is the one Mark Galeotti included in the Hero's Book (as cited in this thread. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=1682705#post1682705)

QuoteMassanwa was trying to negotiate safe passage through the Grazelands, but failed so disastrously (an injured result) that not only have the Grazers threatened to scalp her or her friends should they ever be seen anywhere near their territories but she has suffered such a disastrous blow to her confidence and reputation that her attempts to use most abilities involving interaction with others or personal force of character are at only 50% the usual ability rating. In an attempt to repair the damage, her friend Sarea will later try to use her Invent Stories 8W to construct a face-saving version of events to tell everyone.

Now, in this example, the rules haven't dictated a character action, as such. Instead, the character's state of mind is being established by the rules. I wonder, how would a player who objects (for perfectly valid reasons) to having her character's actions determined by the rules ("She runs away") react to having her character's state of mind determined by the rules? Is "your character suffers a disastrous blow to her confidence" tanalogous to "she runs away from the Deep One", or is this a different issue entirely?
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Callan S. on May 28, 2004, 02:34:07 AM
I'd just like to clarify that while the techniques I talked about are GNS neutral, what I wanted to get at is that before you start shaping rules to support a CA you need to insure player input isn't cut off (which makes the players presence redundant as long as its cut off).

Basically: The integrity of player input comes before GNS design direction in importance.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: M. J. Young on May 28, 2004, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: simon_hibbsI could make the same case against combat systems in which characters can die. Surely they're the ultimate in deprotagonising mechanics, and should be expunged from any sensibly designed roleplaying game? The same could be said for games in which characters can be drugged, or lose conciousness, or be captured.
Such an argument has been made. The best that can be said is that "plot immunity" is a good device for some games, but not for all. There are gamist systems in which the life of the character is the "big stake", which can be risked for the big win; in such games, character risk is a critical component of the challenge. In simulationist games, these "deprotagonizing" possibilities may be necessary to the exploration--if you do this, these will be the probable consequences. Even in narrativism, the ability to risk the life of the character in the address of the premise may be valuable, and it may be deprotagonizing to have a character who cannot die for what he believes.

What should be recognized is that a game needs to consider the inherent problems of character death and other loss of player control situations, and address these. Note that in Multiverser, character death becomes a means of advancing the character's story, and not an end of the player's control over the character.

--M. J. Young
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Autocrat on June 03, 2004, 05:26:32 AM
Hi... just thought I'd throw a couple of stones in the pond as well!

I'm more than a little confused..... I can understand the GNS stuff, I can understand Player vs. character control, hell I can even unbderstand the reward/punishment ideas.... the bit that really confuses me is why people dislike/like it so much!
If the rules say it, and the mechanics can do it.... then that is it really.

It doesn't matter whether you want to or not.... nor does it even matter if it is beneficial or detrimental!


If on the other hand it is merely a question as to whether this is a good/bad sort of thing..... well, if you want "real" gaming, where the character is a seperate persona/entity, and the player is merely a voice of conscience, then yes, the character should be able to be removed from conscience control every now and then, or suffer rather hindering consequences.... it's not just real life... more importantly, its in most books, films and even comics.... you see the protaginist, even antagonists reduced to doing things due to emotion, acting out of character etc., it's really no diffeerent than being injured, intoxicated or losing control of a vehicle or animal.

I think tyhe real issue is the results of such loss of control.  If I loose control of my character, and it results in a huge loss of money, or items/resources, characters health, powers etc., and there is not a superb and fundemental reason, I'm going to be upset!
On the other hand, if the control loss is short of duration, has little detrimental affect, and most importantly, helps the game along, (doesn't matter whether GNorS), then thats ok and understandable.

I suppose it's a preference thing... maybe it should be on a case by case basis, depending on how important it is to the game, the setting , the character and then the player, in that order.  Work out the scale, and decide on whether there is complete loss, partial loss, roll to keep control, or control is maintained yet you are penalised somehow.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: John Kim on June 03, 2004, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: HenriI see two ways to give teeth to the temptation.  The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing.  The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in.  That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

EDIT: Oh right, this is the third way.  Completely in-game consequences.  
I can point to my old article on Personality Mechanics.  One that you didn't mention here is what I called "representative" -- which would include Sorcerer's Humanity, for example.  So what you do will mechanically influence a character rating, but it isn't a direct reward or penalty.  I don't address reward/penalty mechanics in there, though I think many of the same principles arise.  

We can split emotional reward/penalty mechanics into subjective and objective.  Objective would mean that there are unambiguous rules, like "+2 points for running away".  A potential pitfall is that this can encourage strategies like "I should run away a few more times so I can be brave when it really counts".  This seems too simplistic for a believable representation of emotion.  Subjective mechanics would be based more on someone's decision: presumably the GM's or perhaps group vote.  However, in essence this is just spreading the decision around more.  

I dislike personality mechanics which are an attempt to make play more "realistic" because they generally do the opposite -- or at best priviledge the GM's vision of character over the players (which may help realism if you have a good GM and weak players, but isn't a general solution).  I am more tolerant of them as a device to encourage certain genre conventions -- like Call of Cthulhu or Pendragon.  However, in general I just don't use them.  

There is a common concern that unless mechanically forced to, players will not act emotionally.  I don't encounter this in my experience, though.  I suspect that players who do so are following an expected group contract that PCs are supposed to act for maximum effectiveness.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Doctor Xero on June 04, 2004, 02:55:52 AM
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergIn My Eventual Game, I'm toying with an idea (not entirely original, I grant you) of depicting both permanent personality traits and temporary emotional states with what I call "ambivalent" modifiers -- that is, they can act as either bonuses or penalties depending on what the character chooses to do. Act in accordance with the personality trait/emotional state, you get it as a bonus; act against it, you get it as a penalty.

For example your character has the trait "Lecherous +/-3" and someone tries to seduce him; if you decide to take the bait, all your die rolls to that purpose (conflict or task resolution, whichever) get a +3 bonus; but if you decide to fight temptation, you're distracted and conflicted, so you get a -3 to doing whatever the other thing was you meant to do.

Or your character nearly has her head blown off by a Cthulloid horror with a bazooka, makes a fight or flight test, and gets a strong "fight" result (probably because of personality traits like "Bad Temper" or "Combat Hardened"). Now she's Angry At the Monster +5. She gets a +5 bonus to fighting the monster -- but a -5 to running away from the fight, or trying to make peace with it.

The idea here -- and Henri's on-the-nose discussion of "temptation" just helped me understand my own proposed mechanic much better -- is that you tempt the PLAYER to act in the same way as the CHARACTER is tempted. If you choose to follow your passions / emotions, the ambivalent modifiers act as bonuses and make you more powerful -- but you may be powering up all the way down to your doom. If you choose to fight your feelings, the ambivalent modifiers act as penalties and make you less powerful -- but while you may be crawling, you may be crawling in the right direction.
This sounds a tad like the personality rolls in Ars Magica, but overall it sounds delightful.  When can we hear more about it?  I'd want to incorporate it in my next game!

Doctor Xero
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on June 05, 2004, 09:20:00 PM
Quote from: Doctor Xero
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergIn My Eventual Game, I'm toying with an idea (not entirely original, I grant you) [details snipped]
This sounds a tad like the personality rolls in Ars Magica, but overall it sounds delightful.  When can we hear more about it?  I'd want to incorporate it in my next game!

Yes, it is indeed inspired by Ars, along with quite a few other bits of my system, although the mutation level is pretty high. Glad you like it as sketched out so far. The other fun thing I didn't mention is that this allows player characters to be the object of social rolls by other characters (including other player characters) seeking to influence them: just treat a margin of success of +x as giving the target character an ambivalent trait of +/-x in "doing what I want him to do."

Eventually when my 3-month old baby allows I might even write this up in coherent format....
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Doctor Xero on July 09, 2004, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: HenriI see two ways to give teeth to the temptation.  The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing.  The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in.  That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?
Yes, but I don't how to incorporate it into game design : having players who all take pride in their finesse as actors.

The vast majority of my gaming has been with other people involved in writing, acting, music, poetry, and the other storytelling arts, either professionally, semi-professionally, or as involved hobbyists (such as community theatre and public poetry slams).  Getting experience points has always been secondary to doing a good job of playing out their characters.

Doctor Xero
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: calebros on July 12, 2004, 07:16:06 AM
Basically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :

1 - You get a penalty which is calcullated by the system. So it's "stat" damage instead of HP damge. Such rules as "undead are very frightening, anyone engaging them in melee gets -2 to his attack rolls"

2 - You are not frightened, you are a hero (see Shadowrun)


3 - The GM informs you of this state, and you roleplay your trouble (including the "I flee in panic statement")

4 - The GM informs you, let you roleplay most of the time but stattes a few tangible conseuquences (Vampire exemple : you are summoned by presence and feel an unresisitble compulsion to go somewhere. Roleplay it as you want).

5 - Same as 3, but you don't roleplay it

6 - The GM deprotagonizes you


5 is of course, IMHO, bad roleplaying. 6 is, IMHO, bad DMing unless it's an evolution of situation 5, in which case it is perfectly acceptable.

A few G or N players, who are IMHO immature and power hungry, consider outcome 2 as the norm, outcome 1 as the result of a spell or in-game mechanic and 5 as the other, default solution.

I think 3 or 4 should be the norm, with the exception of 6 being used as a narrative tool to describe plot elements and blank periods (GM speaking to everyone, Mike included :Mike's character leaves the camp for a natural urge. He sees a move in the wood and looks at its origin . You hear Mike's charcater running back to the camp yelling senseless things. He seems panicked and his hair looks white)
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on July 12, 2004, 10:44:16 AM
(Looking around nervously for the Dark Lord Edwards to smite us with Thread Splitter for reviving a dormnant discussion...)

Dr. Xero and Calebros make good points, but they still boil down to "just roleplay it." And ultimately no mechanic can substitute for good roleplaying... but my hope is to make mechanics that encourage and facilitate good roleplaying. ("System does matter").

I get the impression from Calebros that he thinks mechanics just ain't gonna make it happen, though. Am I reading you right?

Quote from: Calebrous
Basically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :

1 - You get a penalty which is calcullated by the system. So it's "stat" damage instead of HP damge. Such rules as "undead are very frightening, anyone engaging them in melee gets -2 to his attack rolls" ...

This is your one system-driven (as opposed to GM-driven or player-driven) example, and you don't like it much. Okay. Question: Would this option be more interesting if (as Henri & I discussed above) the mechanic for "you are frightened" didn't just impose a flat penalty to what you were going to do anyway, but imposed a penalty to one course of action (-2 to attack the scary thing) and simultaneously gave a bonus to another (+2 to run like hell)? The idea is not to dictate the players' choices but to give them an incentive to act as their characters' plausible emotions would prompt them to -- while letting them struggle forward in the face of those emotions if they so choose.

I guess ultimately the question comes down to "what am I roleplaying?" Clearly you're not roleplaying everything about your character's physical body: Even in a LARP, where you run, jump, and swing boffer swords, you don't actually get your limb cut off or knock yourself unconscious for the sake of being "in character." But, on the psychological side, are you roleplaying the whole of your character's mind -- including choosing when and how his subsconscious and emotions betray him, without any mechanical constraints -- or are you roleplaying the Ego (in Freudian terms) alone, the essential inmost self that chooses -- in which case the Id and Super-Ego can be portrayed to some extent by mechanics?

I think either answer to the question is legitimate, mind you. I'm just busy exploring "I roleplay the Ego, the Id and Super-Ego aren't under my control" at the moment.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: John Kim on July 12, 2004, 01:57:13 PM
Quote from: calebrosBasically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :
...
OK, all of your options state that either the GM or a GM-mandated roll are what decides the PC's state (i.e. whether and how she is scared).  This misses at least one important option:
7 - The player decides on the character's state, and role-plays it.  

I think this should at least be listed as an option.  This has been my choice for most games which I run.  It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it works.  I have heard some people claim that players will never role-play fear -- but in my experience this is due to negative reinforcement.  More specifically, if a PC runs away from the enemy, the GM usually gets angry and tries to force the PC into the dangerous situation anyhow.  

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergDr. Xero and Calebros make good points, but they still boil down to "just roleplay it." And ultimately no mechanic can substitute for good roleplaying... but my hope is to make mechanics that encourage and facilitate good roleplaying. ("System does matter").  
Well, I agree that system does matter -- and I agree that mechanics can encourage and facilitate good role-playing.  I just don't feel that, for me, coercive behavior mechanics do that.  In my experience, players usually enjoy role-playing emotion.  So what is needed are results which do not overly penalize fear and other emotions.  For example, a combat system can be tactically exacting (i.e. one wrong move and your chances are majorly decreased) and/or make running away nigh suicidal.  

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergQuestion: Would this option be more interesting if (as Henri & I discussed above) the mechanic for "you are frightened" didn't just impose a flat penalty to what you were going to do anyway, but imposed a penalty to one course of action (-2 to attack the scary thing) and simultaneously gave a bonus to another (+2 to run like hell)? The idea is not to dictate the players' choices but to give them an incentive to act as their characters' plausible emotions would prompt them to -- while letting them struggle forward in the face of those emotions if they so choose.  
Giving them a penalty and bonus isn't any different than giving them a penalty, in my opinion.  It might appeal esthetically to some, but it doesn't really make a functional difference -- especially if the difficulties faced are set by the GM.  I think the more overwhelming problem is what to do if the players act according to plausible emotions.  

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergOn the psychological side, are you roleplaying the whole of your character's mind -- including choosing when and how his subsconscious and emotions betray him, without any mechanical constraints -- or are you roleplaying the Ego (in Freudian terms) alone, the essential inmost self that chooses -- in which case the Id and Super-Ego can be portrayed to some extent by mechanics?

I think either answer to the question is legitimate, mind you. I'm just busy exploring "I roleplay the Ego, the Id and Super-Ego aren't under my control" at the moment.
Well, roleplaying Ego-only has a lot of potential problems.  For one, it requires buying into Freudian psychological theory, which many people don't.  It also offloads an enormous amount onto the GM (i.e. role-playing the Id and Super-ego for all the PCs in addition to role-playing all the NPCs completely and all other GM duties).  It also would require near-constant negotiation, since the Id and the Super-ego are so central to most activity.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on July 12, 2004, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: John KimIn my experience, players usually enjoy role-playing emotion.  So what is needed are results which do not overly penalize fear and other emotions.  For example, a combat system can be tactically exacting (i.e. one wrong move and your chances are majorly decreased) and/or make running away nigh suicidal....I think the more overwhelming problem is what to do if the players act according to plausible emotions.  

Excellent point. The rest of the system needs to be forgiving enough to let people roleplay emotions and not die. Not necessarily a cuddly system, but one which offers at least equal opportunities to hose yourself through any number of choices, instead of penalizing all choices but one.

And earlier in this thread, Ralph Mazza made a lovely suggestion about handing out character points / plot points / whatever every time players roleplaying themselves into more trouble. Systems really should reward people for screwing themselves -- not "you defeated the bad guy, you get 5,000 XPs," but "you ran screaming from the bad guy and didn't look where you were going and fell down the hole full of giant spiders, here's 5,000 XPs."

Quote from: John KimGiving them a penalty and bonus isn't any different than giving them a penalty, in my opinion.  It might appeal esthetically to some, but it doesn't really make a functional difference -- especially if the difficulties faced are set by the GM.

Sniff... you don't like my mechanic.... sniff.... whimper.

Quote from: John KimWell, roleplaying Ego-only has a lot of potential problems.  For one, it requires buying into Freudian psychological theory, which many people don't.  It also offloads an enormous amount onto the GM (i.e. role-playing the Id and Super-ego for all the PCs in addition to role-playing all the NPCs completely and all other GM duties).  It also would require near-constant negotiation, since the Id and the Super-ego are so central to most activity.

Right. I'd overstated my case, there. What I was trying to express was the idea that I, playing an RPG, might not be totally in control of my character -- just as I, in my real life, am not totally in control of myself. I have emotions and prejudices and habits (good and bad) which I can either repress, be swept away by, or struggle to harness for positive purposes, but which I cannot really control.
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: calebros on July 13, 2004, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg
Quote from: Calebrous
Basically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :

1 - You get a penalty which is calcullated by the system. So it's "stat" damage instead of HP damge. Such rules as "undead are very frightening, anyone engaging them in melee gets -2 to his attack rolls" ...

This is your one system-driven (as opposed to GM-driven or player-driven) example, and you don't like it much. Okay. Question: Would this option be more interesting if (as Henri & I discussed above) the mechanic for "you are frightened" didn't just impose a flat penalty to what you were going to do anyway, but imposed a penalty to one course of action (-2 to attack the scary thing) and simultaneously gave a bonus to another (+2 to run like hell)? The idea is not to dictate the players' choices but to give them an incentive to act as their characters' plausible emotions would prompt them to -- while letting them struggle forward in the face of those emotions if they so choose.
.

This one isn't meant to roleplay fear. It is a mechanic one, for pure mechanic situations that arise from the use of some powers. I like it, but only when the use of some powers require it.

Like "The evil necromancer casts aura of fear. Everyone gets -2 to attack rolls and saves. He follows up with a quickened fireball. Roll reflex save, target number 18."

It should never arise from non-system based interaction, and it is not mean,t to have that many roleplay consequences (appart from "I cast protection from fear").
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: calebros on July 13, 2004, 05:13:46 AM
Quote from: John Kim
Quote from: calebrosBasically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :
...
OK, all of your options state that either the GM or a GM-mandated roll are what decides the PC's state (i.e. whether and how she is scared).  This misses at least one important option:
7 - The player decides on the character's state, and role-plays it.  

I think this should at least be listed as an option.  This has been my choice for most games which I run.  It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it works.  I have heard some people claim that players will never role-play fear -- but in my experience this is due to negative reinforcement.  More specifically, if a PC runs away from the enemy, the GM usually gets angry and tries to force the PC into the dangerous situation anyhow.  

This is of course a perfectly viable choice.

Quote from: John KimSo what is needed are results which do not overly penalize fear and other emotions.  For example, a combat system can be tactically exacting (i.e. one wrong move and your chances are majorly decreased) and/or make running away nigh suicidal.  

I think there we come back to questions of GNS.
G : I have to hold the line so that Bill and Bob can smash the monsters with their arrows and spells. Hey, why should I run I am a hero with a cause. Now I know that Bob isn't reliable. So I tell Bill to be one squzare behind Bob, ready to cast "slow" on him if he tries to flee. Now, from a gamist point of vue, if the group is penalized beacause Bob flees it's the fault of the groups paladin who didin't anticipate this. I think quality gamist paly doesn't exclude playing: "non superheroes" who can feel emotions, fear, and adjust accordingly.
S : The situation is risky, will we flee ? This should be possible, though there is a high risk of one player  tripping another (while a ctulhu mythos creature runs after the party). However, this is a very viable choice from the party in which the GM could slightly fudge the rolls in order not to penalize the party because a ^player roleplays his character a sensible way. As a player with strong gamist tendencies , I hate GM dice fudging but I  think it can be used in simulationnist play
N : There is no  notion of penalty. Which is the choice that will lead to the more interesting story ?
Title: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Callan S. on July 13, 2004, 07:30:42 AM
In terms of gamist, I'm not sure if self applied challenge is recognised enough as being valid just yet (though the technique is used regularly I believe, just without recognition). For instance, I'm not sure if anyone has played a video game but given themselve a handicap that isn't part of the game itself (eg not letting yourself use the best gun, whatever), its a handicap you introduced.

The 'just roleplay it' thing is frustratingly flimsy. But really that's all about peer evaluation (well, mostly for gamist).

So why not just tack on an evaluation system, with everyone evaluating someones 'fear' performance (no, not just the GM). Use some rating they can write down and then a formula translates that to a reward of some kind. And in terms of the fear performance, leave it to the player to decide his own modifiers and actions. I think its important that it isn't just evaluated by the GM because then it isn't living up to the fickle preferences of someone (err, that's not a game, its fawning), its living up to something which isn't owned by anyone, but does represent everyones intelligence to some degree.
Title: New thread spawned
Post by: Sydney Freedberg on July 13, 2004, 02:31:13 PM
I think we've argued ourselves into a dead end because, in large part, I originally formulated the question as "is it okay to lose control of your character?" I want to spin that around to talk about emotion as a source of power, but that's a distinct enough question that I thought it would be best served by starting its own thread, here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=127929#127929).
Title: Re: Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character
Post by: Tomas HVM on July 15, 2004, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergSo what kind of games would benefit from what kinds of emotion mechanics?
Any and all kinds of games, I believe. I've made use of such techniques in very different games, from traditional fantasy to modern social dramas.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergAnd what do people feel about the idea of losing control of their character's choices for a time?
I'm comfortable about it. I'd like to know what options of interaction I get, but as long as those are made clear to me, I would enjoy playing a character subject to limiting conditions, those conditions being mental, social or physical.

As long as a game present itself to be somewhere near realistic, creating characters with both physic, social and mental abilities, I would expect it to make use of techniques to manipulate the characters in all these areas. And I would expect it to be done in some kind of believable manner, including the effects of unruly emotions or highly stressful situations on the mind of my character.

It may be meaningful interaction, it may give me severe challenges as a player, and it may leave my character stranded in a mental desert, but I'm into it! Oh yeah!