Emotion mechanics and losing control of your character

[calebros]

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)

[Sydney Freedberg]

(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?

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.

[John Kim]

Basically, 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.  

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").  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

[Sydney Freedberg]

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....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."

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.

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

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.

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.

[calebros]

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").

[calebros]

Basically, 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.

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 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 ?

[Callan S.]

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.

[Sydney Freedberg]

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.

[Tomas HVM]

So 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.

And 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!