The care & feeding of Behavior Mechanics...

[Kesher]

I'm interested in people's thoughts on "behavior mechanics"; they get used in many different ways, & as I've been working on a Narrativist-centered game, I find the system's addressment of behavior (read, I guess, "choice") involving into a somewhat intricate Fortune-fueled ratio of effect balanced between character "attributes", "traits" & game "environment" (think small slice of the setting dosed with a particular Color.)

However, that's just for context.  I started this thread to see what people think (I'd also be happy to be directed to what's been "thought" on previous threads) about the relationship between character-based behavioral mechanics & player-driven (traditional) role-playing.

Also, though the game I'm working on is Narrativist in focus, I see no reason not to discuss the tension between these two elements in any corner of GNS (if it doesn't diffuse this Forum's focus.)

I think that's clear.  If not, lemme know below...

[Sydney Freedberg]

I agree this is a key topic, and just wanted to point out that there're some interesting thoughts on it in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11363.

[TonyLB]

I think the question of Fortune at the Beginning, Middle and End makes a behavior dynamic feel very different.  Perhaps enough so to merit inclusion in this discussion.

Specifically, FatM or FatE don't restrict player options, they just restrict character effectiveness.  So you might well decide that your timid character will stand up to his domineering wife at last, roll miserably, and have her brush off your feeble, rabbit-like objections.  That seems (to me) very different from rolling the dice first and losing your nerve entirely before you even try.

I generally like behavior mechanics, so long as they don't deprotagonize the characters.

[Bankuei]

Hi Kesher,

One debate that has been popping up more recently around behavioral mechanics is that "real roleplayers don't need mechanics to tell them how to roleplay".  Interestly enough, most folks who say this have no issues with using Alignments, personality Advantages/Disadvantages, or stuff like Sanity Points.  I think the real issue is that many of the new behavioral mechanics have focused on things other than personality restrictions and survival mechanics.  

A couple of things happen when you add a behavioral mechanic to a game;

Play tends to focus more around it.  Subconsciously people understand that if there's a rule for it, its probably important.  The bigger of a role that this mechanic plays in the outcomes, the more play will focus around it.  This is why stuff like Dust Devil's devils play such a big role, while White Wolf's Willpower is kind of a side rule.

Second, confusion about "how to roleplay" a given situation becomes easier to resolve.  No one complains about becoming and playing an insane person in Call of Cthulu; it's part of the social contract.  Meanwhile, if you were to roleplay someone going insane from trauma in another game(though realistic), most gamers probably wouldn't be able to mentally grasp what's happening with your character; there's no rules saying your character should be insane, so why would you play your character that way?

Third, behavioral mechanics tend to division power a bit more equally amongst the group.  When there's no rule, typically it falls on GM fiat, but when there's a rule, the players can now point to it and say, "Uh-uh, I got 5 more Sanity points to lose before you can take away my character!"  Mechanics tend to nail things down, and some folks fear that.  The highly dysfunctional GM habit of taking character's relationships, kidnapping them, killing them, or having them betray PCs becomes less feasible when behavioral mechanics define the relationship("Love 23.  No betrayal, man!"), or alter the outcome based on them("He kidnapped my wife!  That's +23 for me to do this!  Yeah!").

Another debate that comes up is the belief that you're "less of a roleplayer" if you are rewarded for behavioral mechanics...  It's firmly linked into the negative perception that reward=gamism=bad roleplaying.                   There is a fear that behavioral mechanics will become a means of gamist abuse AND also a fear of system in general("System is a necessary evil..."), usually a result of playing games laden with mechanics designed to prevent gamism("...to keep munchkins from taking over.")

As far as designing Nar behavioral mechanics, I'd say:

-Make sure that it focuses on pushing Addressing Premise, either preloaded(as in Mountain Witch), or customizable (Sorcerer).

-Make sure that there is room for player input and decision into what happens.  This is what differentiates Riddle of Steel's SAs from GURPS allies and enemies.

Chris

[Kesher]

Sydney: Thanks for the link; indeed (as I figured) others have been riffing, as it were.  Many good points were made (not the least being how much darn time those babies demand!  I've a five-month-old of my own!  He may even now wake up at any moment...), including your own about BMs working, possibly with other mechanics, to "tempt the player to act like the character" [my paraphrase].  Also, I agree with assessments made on said thread that this isn't really a GNS issue; it's much more a game-contextual thing.

Tony: I'm not quite sure I understand your point about FiM vs. FaE.  In my mind, even the simplest of BMs can't work without recourse to FiM (Cthulhu appears; sanity check fails; character reaction is described)  Could a BM function with FaE?  Does anyone have an example?

Chris:

Second, confusion about "how to roleplay" a given situation becomes easier to resolve.  No one complains about becoming and playing an insane person in Call of Cthulu; it's part of the social contract.  Meanwhile, if you were to roleplay someone going insane from trauma in another game(though realistic), most gamers probably wouldn't be able to mentally grasp what's happening with your character; there's no rules saying your character should be insane, so why would you play your character that way?

Yah, I agree with that, absolutely.  Two examples from my own experience (both, perhaps redundantly, referencing insanity...) :

1. Back in the misty '80s, I ran a Warhammer Fantasy game, which had a simple willpower mechanic to deal with things like neurosis & insanity.  One (rather exceptional) player ran a ratcatcher who had a hatred of rats verging on the psychopathic.  Once, in ye olde tavern, while the party was trying to gather vital information, he spied a rat creeping along the wall (ol' gm setting sparks to tinder); failing his WP check, I narrated his struggle to maintain control, his shaking hand pulling out the standard-issue meat-cleaver, & let him take it from there.  The other players joined in gleefully & not only did they get the info they wanted, they got free room & board for the ratcatchers service (he was wacked, but still a professional...)  Extremely protagonizing for all involved (including me!); story happenednow, & we didn't know a dang thing about GNS:)

Okay, my boy is making sounds o' waking, so I'll postpone the second example & just drop in one more thought for now:

As far as designing Nar behavioral mechanics, I'd say:

-Make sure that it focuses on pushing Addressing Premise, either preloaded(as in Mountain Witch), or customizable (Sorcerer).

-Make sure that there is room for player input and decision into what happens.  This is what differentiates Riddle of Steel's SAs from GURPS allies and enemies.

Points well-taken.  In my game, I'm working on a way to use BMs to access states where someone isn't in control of their emotions, & yet still give players the chance (if they choose to use "scripting dice/points") to narrate the results of their own loss of control.

[TonyLB]

Tony: I'm not quite sure I understand your point about FiM vs. FaE.  In my mind, even the simplest of BMs can't work without recourse to FiM (Cthulhu appears; sanity check fails; character reaction is described)  Could a BM function with FaE?  Does anyone have an example?

Way back in college I ran a game of Cyberpunk modified for some Cthulhu-type horror and insanity elements.

Nobody wants to have their free will tampered with, but everybody agreed that I could modify their perceptions as much as I wanted.  Go figure.

So when an insanity risk came up (particularly when people were acting alone), I'd just make a mental note that it had, and let people continue.  Then five minutes or so later I'd say "Oh, this is probably a good time to roll your sanity for that disturbing tome you discovered three rooms back."  And if it turned out they'd been insane for three rooms I retroactively changed what the objective situation was, but said that their character had perceived it as it was described in play.

We had some very nice instances of people massacring innocents, fleeing in terror from loved ones and generally doing all sorts of nuttiness that made sense at the time.

So yeah, in at least some instance FatE behavior mechanics can work.  This is a sort of extreme case, of course.  

I think you can get much less extreme instances if the behavior mechanic is linked to a social mechanic, so that at least some of your behavior outcomes are contingent upon how convincingly your character behaves.  But I don't have any examples for that, sadly.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Specifically, FatM or FatE don't restrict player options, they just restrict character effectiveness.  So you might well decide that your timid character will stand up to his domineering wife at last, roll miserably, and have her brush off your feeble, rabbit-like objections.  That seems (to me) very different from rolling the dice first and losing your nerve entirely before you even try.

Tony: I'm not quite sure I understand your point about FiM vs. FaE.  In my mind, even the simplest of BMs can't work without recourse to FiM (Cthulhu appears; sanity check fails; character reaction is described)  Could a BM function with FaE?  Does anyone have an example?

I almost understand what Tony's saying. But not quite (especially since I don't recall what Fortune at the Beginning is...not in Dark Lord Edward's glossary, either).  So I second the motion for Tony to expand & expound on what seems like a really interesting point..

Okay, my boy is making sounds o' waking, so I'll postpone the second example

I've been there, man.

[Kesher]

So when an insanity risk came up (particularly when people were acting alone), I'd just make a mental note that it had, and let people continue.  Then five minutes or so later I'd say "Oh, this is probably a good time to roll your sanity for that disturbing tome you discovered three rooms back."  And if it turned out they'd been insane for three rooms I retroactively changed what the objective situation was, but said that their character had perceived it as it was described in play.

We had some very nice instances of people massacring innocents, fleeing in terror from loved ones and generally doing all sorts of nuttiness that made sense at the time.

Okay, okay, I don't think I'd ever have thought of that, but it works really well, & fits with FatE.  In fact, I'll probably use it sometime:)  I can just imagine players yelling in disbelief, throwing Doritoes, etc...

Nobody wants to have their free will tampered with, but everybody agreed that I could modify their perceptions as much as I wanted.  Go figure.

Ha!  Sounds like college to me...

I almost understand what Tony's saying. But not quite (especially since I don't recall what Fortune at the Beginning is...not in Dark Lord Edward's glossary, either).  

I think you can't find out much about FatB because, if I'm remembering correctly, there aren't really any examples of it out there.  I guess it'd be something like, you roll (or draw a card, whatever); if you succeed, you decide at what you succeed.

Not sure if that's right, but it's an interesting idea (also off topic, I guess; can anyone apply it to behavioral mechanics??)

[John Kim]

One debate that has been popping up more recently around behavioral mechanics is that "real roleplayers don't need mechanics to tell them how to roleplay".  Interestly enough, most folks who say this have no issues with using Alignments, personality Advantages/Disadvantages, or stuff like Sanity Points.  I think the real issue is that many of the new behavioral mechanics have focused on things other than personality restrictions and survival mechanics.

OK, jargon check.  How are you defining behavioral mechanics such that they don't include sanity or personality disadvantages?  I would think that those are prime examples of behavioral mechanics -- i.e. mechanics for the behavior of characters.  I'd also include mechanics like many My Life With Master rolls.

[Bankuei]

Hi John,

Exactly my point.  I'm pointing out that many people who claim to be against behavioral mechanics in fact are often using and supporting them, and that behavioral mechanics are nothing new, and used in all three types of creative agenda.

Chris

[TonyLB]

Chris:  You're not saying that Behavioral Mechanics should not include sanity, personality disadvantages and morale.  You're saying that they should include those commonly understood things and more.

Did I get that right?

[Bankuei]

Tony,

Right.  As far as I'm concerned, they ARE behavioral mechanics, along with Spiritual Attributes, Beliefs/Instincts/Traits, etc.

What I'm pointing to is that many people DO NOT make the connection.  Somehow the newer Nar type behavioral mechanics appear to many people to be some new and scary thing, "telling them how to run their characters", "making player's lazy, instead of roleplaying", etc.  In actuality, most of these folks have been using behavioral mechanics the WHOLE TIME, and in many cases have been strong proponents of them.

I'm pointing out the perceptual disjunction, not agreeing with it.

Chris

[MR. Analytical]

I've always made the connection but I think the disconnect is frequently because of different motivations for the inclusion of the mechanics.  Cthulhu's personality mechanic is just a different kind of hit-point and as a result plays in a similar way "I can't go into that basement, I'm down to 20 san", it's resource management, particularly given that SAN points are the only reward-mechanic in Cthulhu.  If people use the SAN-mechanics to explore the individual then they're a tiny minority.  I've never seen it played that way.  In fact, this form of roleplaying is so prevalent that I think it manages to move over and infect games like Kult that are, ostensibly, about exploration of the self.

SAN's a resource and as a result it gets managed, I actuallly think the same's true of MLWM (but my reading of what MLWM is about is admittedly controversial).


I think the disconnect you're registering (though apart from Gleichman I've never seen anyone harrumph about personality mechanics in the way you suggest) is down to what is considered important and what isn't. Morale, Sanity, Fear are all things that are fairly important and are reasonably the kind of things you'd expect to be outside of the control of the rational mind.  If you go nuts you go nuts, no-one would turn around and say "no way, my character wouldn't go nuts... entrails and demons aren't frightening" and argue for very long... they'd winge that something wasn't that big a deal but nobody would deny the fact that sometimes we lose control.

Alignment people do bitch about, they bitch about it so much that D&D's current alignment system's almost completely meaningless and has zero impact upon play beyond limiting class selection.

Alignment is one of those things that people can reasonably expect to be under the control of the rational mind and as the decision-making-thing in the player-character nexus most gamers reasonably expect to be able to make their own moral choices in line with how they see their character evolving.  Many NAR games tiptoe into this area giving mechanics for things that people expect to have control over... so they get pissed off.


I personallly agree with them... I think that those kinds of mechanics are an unacceptable disempowerment of the players.  It's the equivalent of going "but your character wouldn't do that... you'd be polite to the king!".  They've never sat well with me as a player or GM really.

[Kesher]

Alignment is one of those things that people can reasonably expect to be under the control of the rational mind and as the decision-making-thing in the player-character nexus most gamers reasonably expect to be able to make their own moral choices in line with how they see their character evolving.  Many NAR games tiptoe into this area giving mechanics for things that people expect to have control over... so they get pissed off.


I personallly agree with them... I think that those kinds of mechanics are an unacceptable disempowerment of the players.  It's the equivalent of going "but your character wouldn't do that... you'd be polite to the king!".  They've never sat well with me as a player or GM really.

Sorry, I hafta disagree.  I think "acceptability" of any sort of behavior mechanic generally depends on two things:

1. The ratio of identification between the player & the character; if the player is committed to Actor stance during play, it can lead to a tricky kind of illusion: I don't feel like being polite to the king, so neither does my character.  This illusion gains substance, (at least in my experience) because only certain aspects of "character psychology" are explored, usually ignoring such factors as cultural norms, etc.  Again, in my experience, many players play their characters as Americans with an agenda of "personal freedom & expression of opinions is a god-given right...", no matter what the character's cultural/experiential background may be said to be/have been.  In effect, Chaotic Good/Evil is everyone's alignment, no matter what's written on paper.  Of course, this is complicated by old traditions of gms (& other players) brow-beating players about character alignments or whatever, in order to force certain actions, etc.

2. Probably more fundamental is the Social Contract established right at the beginning of things; does everyone agree on why they're playing, what the point is of the given game, who's playing what roles with what attendant responsibilites/powers, & so on.  If answers to these questions are confused or fragmentary, behavior mechanics are sure to become a source of contention at some point as participants attempt (knowingly or not) to enforce their own creative agendas on play.

As has been pointed out above, in a well-designed game, clearly understood by all participants, BMs have a powerful reason to exist & can lead to powerful instances of protagonism for all involved.  To restate, I don't think that BMs having a clear purpose, clearly understood, can ever lead to "disempowerment"; only misapplication or incoherence can accomplish that.

[John Kim]

As has been pointed out above, in a well-designed game, clearly understood by all participants, BMs have a powerful reason to exist & can lead to powerful instances of protagonism for all involved.  To restate, I don't think that BMs having a clear purpose, clearly understood, can ever lead to "disempowerment"; only misapplication or incoherence can accomplish that.  

OK, I don't agree with this.  Surely I can make behavior mechanics whose purpose is disempowerment.  Indeed, I see that as a powerful use of behavior mechanics -- exploring loss of control or helplessness.  Not everything has to be positive and empowering.  While I agree that they can have an empowering purpose, I don't think that any arbitrary behavior mechanics will be empowering if they are just understood.  

I've got an old essay that I wrote on http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/personality.html">Personality Mechanics, by the way.

Chris (Bankuei) suggested three changes from Behavioral Mechanics:
1) Play tends to focus more around it ([the mechanic]).
I agree with this.  

2) Confusion about "how to roleplay" a given situation becomes easier to resolve.
Here I disagree.  While it's true that mechanics like alignment and psychological disadvantages have been around for a long time, it's also true that arguments over them have been around just as long. To me, the easiest means to resolve "how to roleplay" is strict control -- i.e. it's my character, he does what I say he does.  I'm not saying that this is the one true way or anything, but it is easy to resolve.  

3) Third, behavioral mechanics tend to division power a bit more equally amongst the group.
I don't see this, offhand.  Can you give some examples?  To me, if I compare Call of Cthulhu with Basic Roleplaying, I don't see how it distributes power more equally.