Personality Traits: How Many?

[RaconteurX]

Let's not forget that personality traits are great abilities to use in contests too. One of the more humorous extended contests I have run involved a merchant and a lawspeaker attempting to persuade a weaponthane along a particular course of action. The weaponthan resisted using Belligerent, augmented by Strong and Reputation as a Bully.

Merchant: "We really should do X."

Weaponthane: "No!" <shove>

Lawspeaker: "But our mission demands Y!"

Weaponthane: "Bugger that!" <shove>

... Etc.

[Brand_Robins]

The weaponthan resisted using Belligerent, augmented by Strong and Reputation as a Bully.

Merchant: "We really should do X."

Weaponthane: "No!" <shove>

Lawspeaker: "But our mission demands Y!"

Weaponthane: "Bugger that!" <shove>

... Etc.

That's a really fun example of how to make seemingly not-fitting personality traits work in a contest. I'm a bit jealous of that player, actually.

As for my use of opposing personality traits -- it is something that carries over from my Pendragon days. Generally I do it when the character has such powerful, conflicting emotions that I'm really not sure what they would do. Most of the time it isn't necessary, as my characters tend to be pretty well defined, but in times of extreme stress (such as when caught between the evil but sexy priestess who is about to make the innocent daughter of his ghost-worshiping and insane companion into an acolyte just as his younger brother comes into the room and accuses him of being a hypocrite for telling father not to kill daughter as murder of family is what Thomas is all about, and meanwhile his evil blood-drinking sword is starting to demand that he kill everyone in the area so it can feed on their blood....) it can be hard to sort through the mass o massive emotions. That's when I roll.

And I gotta say, so far the results have been pretty good.  I loved Pendragon to death, still do, and in some ways HeroQuest really does feel like Pendragon freed up. Not just from BRP, but from the "Christian Knight" game as well.

[Mike Holmes]

(such as when caught between the evil but sexy priestess who is about to make the innocent daughter of his ghost-worshiping and insane companion into an acolyte just as his younger brother comes into the room and accuses him of being a hypocrite for telling father not to kill daughter as murder of family is what Thomas is all about, and meanwhile his evil blood-drinking sword is starting to demand that he kill everyone in the area so it can feed on their blood....)

Come on, give a realisitic example, dammit, nobody was ever in that weird a situation before. ;-)

And why is it that everyone hates the Lawspeaker? On the HQ rules list, he gets nutted. Here he gets shoved. Anyone get the idea that the Lawspeaker is an asshole? In fact, I'm betting Asshole 5w2 or so. To get back on topic, I can't see Asshole as being a flaw that would hold you back in, say, a fight. OTOH, is it legitimate to allow players to declare other's flaws as positive augments for themselves? This works in Synthesis, and my instinct is to say yes. Further, I'm not sure if the rules directly prohibit it (though I think it implies that you're only supposed to use your own).

IOW, if I'm fighting the Lawspeaker (because he's yabbered at me one too many times) can I get a +5 because of his Asshole 5W2 flaw?

Mike

[Scripty]

And I've seen Brand do it, too. He'll make two rolls without explaining why, and then announce an action. I think that often, when you're not sure what to do next, it's fun to see "what the character would do" using the system. Shouldn't be used solely, but it's what Ron would call a "springboard for imagination". Once you see the result, like any other result in HQ, you start to imagine the details of why the character is doing what they're doing, and suddenly you're off running again.

Is that what he's doing?? I was beginning to wonder.

Oh, it is all so much clearer now...

Brand, maybe you could let Dana and Bob know that this is what you're doing and why. It might give them a similar tool to use in play. I just thought you were flipping a coin or something. I didn't realize you were actually rolling between two opposing personality traits.

That's a great idea. I'll have to ruthlessly borrow that one...

Scott

[Brand_Robins]

OTOH, is it legitimate to allow players to declare other's flaws as positive augments for themselves?

I generally say yes, especially in a situation where the character is in good position to take advantage of that flaw. The one thing I'd say is that you can't double bag it. That is, the flaw shouldn't give both one character a bonus and the other a penalty. Either the Lustful 5w lowers the seducees resistance, or it raises the seductress's effect -- it wouldn't normally do both.

As for which way you go, it may depend on the situation. Something like "Lustful" might normally just lower the victim's stat, as it's probably always on and an inherent part of them. Something like "protective of nice girls who cry", however, might act as a bonus to the seductress if she plays the nice little crying girl as part of her act.

In otherwords, if it's part of their weakness always they should take a penalty for it. If it's a specific point that you're deliberatly using for your own benefit, you should be able to gain an augment from it.

(Mechanically the two options will rarely be different, but they can feel different in play -- as one is giving the player a reward for being particularly clever while the other is simply letting them take advantage of a normative part of the world.)

[RaconteurX]

One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.

[Mike Holmes]

One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.

LOL

Ah, I see, that explains a lot. Not too far from Pedantic to Asshole, really. :-)

Brand, you're almost making the opposition case back there. Consider that an alternate way of handling this, is simply to consider the character's response to the personality trait in question, and then give the character their own relationship to represent this. So, if Thurm is annoyed by the Pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker, then the GM should give him Annoyed by Lawspeaker at an appropriate level.

This is more precise in that the level of annoyance can be guaged for the character in question - some might be more or less annoyed by the pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker. The problem with it, and why I might use the other method, is that it's a lot of extra recordkeeping that may become pointless when, for instance, the Lawspeaker bites it having been left to fend off that cave bear by himself.

Mike

[RaconteurX]

As I mentioned here, I think flaws are a great thing and I even want to go so far as to encourage players to take them by awarding Hero Points every time I activate one during play. I think a HP bonus at the end of a session equal to the auto-augment the ability would provide works pretty well. Thus, a Friend of <Sidekick> or Member of <Community> at 17 would give the player two additional HP... not a bad deal.

Because relationships are typically reciprocal in nature, most could act as flaws (and hence sources of HP) whenever the subject of that relationship needs the hero's help rather than vice versa. Narrators could require that the HP awarded for the activation of a relationship-as-flaw, or some fraction thereof (I would suggest a minimum of one HP), go to improve that relationship... representing the strengthening of the relationship bond and the gratefulness of the subject.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Scripty]

As I mentioned here, I think flaws are a great thing and I even want to go so far as to encourage players to take them by awarding Hero Points every time I activate one during play. I think a HP bonus at the end of a session equal to the auto-augment the ability would provide works pretty well. Thus, a Friend of <Sidekick> or Member of <Community> at 17 would give the player two additional HP... not a bad deal.

Because relationships are typically reciprocal in nature, most could act as flaws (and hence sources of HP) whenever the subject of that relationship needs the hero's help rather than vice versa. Narrators could require that the HP awarded for the activation of a relationship-as-flaw, or some fraction thereof (I would suggest a minimum of one HP), go to improve that relationship... representing the strengthening of the relationship bond and the gratefulness of the subject.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I think that is a GREAT idea, Raconteur X. If I ever get to run HeroQuest again, I may very well use it. Give a base of 1 HP for showing up, 1 HP for being a human being during play, and a third for anything spectacular. The rest will all come from flaws or relationships that were active during play.

That idea just rocks the house, IMO. Thanks RacX.

[Mike Holmes]

Heh, Michael, that's exactly how Aspects work in the game FATE. Fred makes a good point when he says that double edged Aspects are your best friend. Because they can make the character more successful, or then can give him more Fudge Points. Either way you come out ahead. More importantly, either way, the character is more of a protagonist than when he started.

I'd only consider giving the players HP, however, if they pointed out a flaw to me. Because, otherwise, as I've said, I'm making the character more of a protagonist by using the ability against them, and really rewarding the character design already. The HP in this case would be to get players to help out the GM who forgets to look for flaws all too often. And I'd only give one, because with these players, they'd soon have stacks a mile high. I might even limit it to just one or two per session. Even from a Gamist POV, what's a -4 on a roll as compared to the relative +20 that the HP gives me (and don't give me the can't spend it on this roll argument, because that assumes that the player is out of HP). ]

In any case, the way that I've been getting players to take Flaws is by proper advertisement. Any ability can be used positively or negatively (even specifically says that about Flaws in the book). So, really there's no difference between Flaws and any other ability except in general applicability. So what I do is tell players that they can get "Free Abilities" in chargen, so long as I think that they're something that might be used against the character a lot. As long as I don't call em Flaws, I get players flocking in droves to take these at all sorts of ridiculous levels.

So, I'm not sure I need further incentive.

Hell yeah, NPC relationships are double edged. Hence why I tend to give them out for free under the argument that they are flaws. PC relationships I usually charge for - let the player assume the risk there.

Hey, that's a good point to seque into another question I had. Brand, your character has both "Loves Whatshername", and "Loved by Whatshername", doesn't he? I think that's an interesting idea. Much like the Asshole problem above. What your method does, quite interestingly, is to allow for unrequited love. I think that when a player takes "In Love with Soanso" that they intend for it to be mutual. Have you "discovered" something here? Shouldn't that Abilty be on the NPC, and not your character?

Mike

[RaconteurX]

Heh, Michael, that's exactly how Aspects work in the game FATE.

I am quite aware of that, as I mentioned FATE was my inspiration in the earlier post to which I linked. I just wanted to add my recent thoughts on the number of Hero Points to award.

FATE seriously rocks, regardless. It makes FUDGE so much cooler a game engine... :)

[Brand_Robins]

Hey, that's a good point to seque into another question I had. Brand, your character has both "Loves Whatshername", and "Loved by Whatshername", doesn't he? I think that's an interesting idea. Much like the Asshole problem above. What your method does, quite interestingly, is to allow for unrequited love. I think that when a player takes "In Love with Soanso" that they intend for it to be mutual. Have you "discovered" something here? Shouldn't that Abilty be on the NPC, and not your character?

It probably would be on her sheet -- however she's an NPC and might not have a full character sheet. I've no problem letting PCs have things like that on their sheet as it defines the world through the protagonists, which is often a good thing.

The other thing that I did with Thomas and Alitia is that his "Loves Alitia" is a Personality Trait, while his "Loved By" is a relationship. There is a love relationship -- a specifically focused relationship that allows him to interact with her, and there is an aspect of his personality that relates to that relationship. Similarly he has a "member of Stern family" relationship, but a "Patricide" personality trait. What I'm attempting to do there is mechancially relate the idea that he is a member of the family -- he has obligations to them, and they to him -- but the aspect of his personality influences that relationship. If they call upon him to do something, then he has to do so by his relationship. If he calls on them, however, he has to overcome his patricide to do so.

I supose what I was doing was making the relationship the general interaction, the personality traits a specific focus to give them more detail wich may (or may not) apply in different situations.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. That's some tricky stuff. We'll see how it works out in play.

Michael, sorry I didn't check the link. D'oh! :-)

Mike

[buserian]

Mike said:

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:01 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RaconteurX wrote:
One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.


LOL

Ah, I see, that explains a lot. Not too far from Pedantic to Asshole, really. :-)

Brand, you're almost making the opposition case back there. Consider that an alternate way of handling this, is simply to consider the character's response to the personality trait in question, and then give the character their own relationship to represent this. So, if Thurm is annoyed by the Pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker, then the GM should give him Annoyed by Lawspeaker at an appropriate level.

This is more precise in that the level of annoyance can be guaged for the character in question - some might be more or less annoyed by the pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker. The problem with it, and why I might use the other method, is that it's a lot of extra recordkeeping that may become pointless when, for instance, the Lawspeaker bites it having been left to fend off that cave bear by himself.  

An easy way around this problem could be to define the nature of the relationship between the characters. Most heroes, I think, neglect to have relationships with each other during the game. They might all have a relationship to their hero band, but most don't define their relationship to each other as "adventurers". If they did, instead of "Friend of Thurd the Lawspeaker", the relationship could be "Friend of Thurd the Annoying Lawspeaker". This involves no more record-keeping than just having the relationship itself, but the relationship is defined a bit more than usual, giving it character. All friends occaisonally fight, and all friends annoy each other. (Hell, that's how you know they're your friends....) But now I can use my relationship as an augment when I am dealing with him being annoying. I can use it to help _resist_ beating on him (because I'm his friend) or to help beat on him (because he's annoying).

buserian

[Mike Holmes]

Cool. We'll have to give that a try. I have no problem with players having thier characters taking relationships with the other characters (almost seems like all we do in terms of development, actually), but they might be a bit better if they had slants like this. I may suggest something like this next time.

Thanks,
Mike