[Vice & Virtue] My Attempt At Creating Roleplaying Mechanics

[MacLeod]

For the longest time I have been hating on roleplaying incentives and roleplay controlling mechanics. Recently, however, I've decided that I'd like to try my hand at designing such a system for one of my smaller projects in the interest of see how it affects the game.

What I don't need...
Inquires as to how this system fits into the game, just know that it does and have faith in me. =)
Doubt regarding the necessity of including something like this in any game whatsoever.

What I do need...
Constructive criticism on the mechanics presented.
Suggestions on terminology. Specifically regarding the list of Traits at the bottom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Mechanics

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Creation: Distribute the following values amongst your Traits; +3, +2, +1, +1, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -2, -3. With your GM's permission, you may apply more negatives but you must balance it with an equal number of positives.
Setup: Whenever your character's reaction to an event is in question, the GM will call for a Judgment Test. You may then select three Traits, you should choose at least one positive and one negative Trait. The GM will then select one of these Traits based on how what sorts of reactions he suspects should be produced. Situations may come up where the GM deems one Trait, or specific Traits, to be the only applicable choices.
Judgment Test: Roll 1d10 and add the Trait's value to the result. If the result is 6 or higher, your reaction must lean towards the right side (Virtue). If the result is 5 or lower, your reaction must lean towards the left side (Vice). You may refuse to react in the manner that you rolled but doing so accumulates one Stress Token.
Stress Tokens: Stress Tokens are removed over time, very slowly. Usually one per week unless the GM deems a situation of great happiness capable of wiping away your stress. For every Stress Token over 4, apply a -1 to all of your Judgment Tests. If you reach 8 Stress Tokens, your character will be so depressed that he may end up committing suicide.
(while not noted in this section the game text... Stress Tokens also lower the character's Synchronization Level, which makes it more difficult for him to control machines with his mind)

Example: The player's pilot, Neivann, is searching an abandoned warehouse for his brother. He comes upon a man beating a teenaged boy. The man turns to him as soon as he enters and says, "Listen, buddy, you can just forget this happened and take 100 credits for your trouble. Easy money, right?" The GM calls for a Judgment Test, the player chooses Wrath, Greed and Apathy.

Example One: The GM chooses Wrath. Neivann has a -1, he is prone to violence it seems. The player rolls a single d10 and gets a 6, reduced by 1 to 5. He must react in a violent manner. Neivann, with anger in his eyes, draws his pistol an opens fire with no mercy shooting to kill. On the other hand, if he had scored a 6 or higher, Neivann may have accepted the money and went away, or offered the man money in order to secure the boy's safety.

Example Two: The GM chooses Greed. Neivann has a +2, he is not easily swayed by material wealth and is more prone to give than to take. The player rolls and gets a 5, plus 2 is a 7. He must act is a charitable, non-greedy way. Neivann says he will not accept the money, instead he tries to intimidate the thug with the threat of the police. If Neivann had achieved the opposite result, he could have accepted the money and left or asked for more money in order to keep things a secret.

Example Three: The GM chooses Apathy. Neivann has a +1, he is prone to action and emotional attachment. The player rolls, gets a total of 8. Neivann must act with passion and action! Neivann decides he cannot let an innocent boy be treated like this with no recourse, he pulls free his pistol and fires at the thug's limbs hoping to take him out with lethal shots. If Neivann had achieved the opposite result, he may have shrugged noting that this has nothing to do with his brother and walked off to avoid further involvement.

Mental Scars: When characters are presented with tragic, frightening, embarrassing or any other emotionally damaging event the GM may apply a Mental Scar to one of your Traits. The Trait chosen is either relevant to the event that caused the damage or  the character's highest Positive Trait. The next situation that comes up involving that Trait causes the die result to be a 1 automatically. Once that situation is resolved, the Mental Scar is removed. Upon this removal two things occur; the player may decide to decrease that Trait by 1 and increase a different Trait of his choice by 1 and he must roll a d10. If the result is equal to or lower than the number of Stress Tokens his character currently has, he gains another Stress Token.

[Dan Maruschak]

What happens if the player offers the GM choices that don't seem to make thematic sense, such as if in your example with the guy beating the kid, the player chooses Lust, Envy, and Despair?

[MacLeod]

It really depends on how you interpret those traits. Or, rather... how creatively you can maneuver within them.
For instance... Lust could be used... though it would be pretty disturbing. Envy could also be used, what if the character is a psychopath who loves beating children? "No one beats a child unless its ME!" Despair also works. The event is so emotionally disturbing that the character reacts by not reacting, despair grips his heart and freezes his judgment.

Instead of doing my best to wriggle out from under your astute scrutiny, I'll actually answer you. You'll note that I said in the OP, "Situations may come up where the GM deems one Trait, or specific Traits, to be the only applicable choices." This is could be one of those situations... Where the player thinks he is a super sneaky clever guy by choosing Traits that may not make sense for a given situation. The GM would then recognize this as one of those situations, and choose a Trait for the player. Likely one that may produce a result he doesn't like. Just to spite him, naturally.

[Dan Maruschak]

Then it seems like the "player chooses 3" step is kind of illusory. The GM goes into the situation knowing which trait he wants to target. If the player offers up that choice, the GM goes for it. If the player doesn't, the GM says "wrong!" and goes for it anyway.

It also seems like the binary nature of the resolution mechanism might make it very difficult to achieve consistent characterization. Do you think it would be difficult to play a character who is paranoid 70% of the time and trusting 30%?

[Guy Srinivasan]

It really depends on how you interpret those traits. Or, rather... how creatively you can maneuver within them.
For instance... Lust could be used... though it would be pretty disturbing. Envy could also be used, what if the character is a psychopath who loves beating children? "No one beats a child unless its ME!" Despair also works. The event is so emotionally disturbing that the character reacts by not reacting, despair grips his heart and freezes his judgment.

Instead of doing my best to wriggle out from under your astute scrutiny, I'll actually answer you. You'll note that I said in the OP, "Situations may come up where the GM deems one Trait, or specific Traits, to be the only applicable choices." This is could be one of those situations... Where the player thinks he is a super sneaky clever guy by choosing Traits that may not make sense for a given situation. The GM would then recognize this as one of those situations, and choose a Trait for the player. Likely one that may produce a result he doesn't like. Just to spite him, naturally.

What is your goal behind having the player suggest traits? You've told the GM to choose based on what sorts of reactions she suspects should be produced, but didn't tell the player that - oversight or intentional? If both people are supposed to choose based on what sorts of reactions they suspect should be produced (i.e. "what would your character do" as opposed to "what do you want your character to do"), I wonder if it would be better to have the GM select three traits, then the player pick one, then roll. A thought.

[Geethree]

Is there anything to stop players from "powergaming" this mechanic and choosing only slightly negative traits (-1 traits) and strongly positive traits (+2 and +3) in all situations? In other words, let's say I am a player assigning my stats and I put my -3 in, say, wrath/envy. Let's also assume I want to avoid being a wrathful person. Couldn't I just choose to not select wrath/envy unless the GM forces me to, and instead focus on my strongly positive traits?

Also, how does the GM choose which Trait to ultimately test? Is it arbitrary?

Overall I like the system and I like how players accumulate Stress. A system like this could be adapted for, say, horror games or stuff like that.

[MacLeod]

Geethree, my response to Dan seems to handle a few of your issues. =)
Its completely possible for a player to try and powergame his way through Judgment Tests... but the fact of the matter is, he is likely to garner the wrath of the GM who will begin altering events to hurt his character. Hopefully, a lesson is learned at the end of such a punishment. That being, play your character or pick up a different game where power gaming is supported.

@Guy: My goal behind players suggesting Traits is to give them some control over their character's possible reactions. The reason I didn't have it so the players chooses the exact Trait is the very thing that Geethree mentioned... power gaming. People inherently want to win, or control their characters every move. So they will have the inclination to choose whatever they think will benefit them the most. One can easily utilize Vices to their own ends, by the way.
That said, the other way around could work beautifully with two individuals that trust one another quite a bit.

It is my hope that players choose a Trait for what they want their character to do, another representing what they think the character would do and finally another one that may be somewhere in between. You bring up a good point though, it is likely that I'll need to include something similar to what I just said in the game text.

@Dan: It could seem illusory if that is the kind of GM you are. There is no reason to target something in particular unless you are feeling spiteful. The GM always has the freedom to ignore the boundaries of the rules in any game... I simply make the option visible in this particular case.

I agree for sure. That is why a character can choose to ignore the result. This is to emulate those moments where your gut reaction is, "G's, I hate that guy and his kids. I hope the are set aflame!" but you suddenly realize, "That's a horrible thing to think about... he really isn't that bad, just sort of annoying right now." But there has to be a cost for ignoring your gut reaction, thus Stress Tokens.

Also, I want to note that a particular reaction is colored by the Vice/Virtue. Like a theme. So there is plenty of wiggle room left... which makes avoiding Stress Tokens easier.
(obviously you can still gain them from Mental Scars, and, not noted here but you can gain Stress Tokens from taking very large sums of physical trauma)

[Steenan]

I agree with previous posters that the double choice as presented may cause some issues, with both forceful GMs and powergaming players. Maybe it can be solved, at least partially, by a change that makes both choices matter? You could, for example, put the roll between the choices. First the player select three traits, then he rolls for all of them and after this the GM chooses between the highest positive (6+) and lowest negative (5-) results. This means that sometimes the GM has no choice: if all rolls gave 6+ or all gave 5-, the highest or lowest, respectively, goes. It may also be done another way around, with the GM choosing three traits and the player selecting highest or lowest roll.

Another thing worth, IMO, taking into consideration is that not only (and not in all cases) behaving contrary to a vice affects stress. It should be possible to force oneself to act against a virtue, accumulating stress. It should also be possible to reduce stress by acting according to a high virtue (self-realization, motivation, finding your worth) or a high vice (relaxing by drinking, by beating someone). It may motivate players to choose both high virtues and high vices for their rolls, especially when their stress level is high.

My last suggestion is to tie changes in traits' values to the tests and stressful choices. If someone often gives in to a vice, the corresponding value may drop. If he behaves virtuously, accepting stress, it's a good reason for the trait to rise. This way the choices done affect the personality, as it really happens. Good behavior is hard for people of strong vices, but with time and effort they have a chance to reform.

[MacLeod]

I agree with previous posters that the double choice as presented may cause some issues, with both forceful GMs and powergaming players. Maybe it can be solved, at least partially, by a change that makes both choices matter? You could, for example, put the roll between the choices. First the player select three traits, then he rolls for all of them and after this the GM chooses between the highest positive (6+) and lowest negative (5-) results. This means that sometimes the GM has no choice: if all rolls gave 6+ or all gave 5-, the highest or lowest, respectively, goes. It may also be done another way around, with the GM choosing three traits and the player selecting highest or lowest roll.

I'll keep this suggestion in mind, I'd like to see how playtesting proceeds as is for the time being.

Another thing worth, IMO, taking into consideration is that not only (and not in all cases) behaving contrary to a vice affects stress. It should be possible to force oneself to act against a virtue, accumulating stress. It should also be possible to reduce stress by acting according to a high virtue (self-realization, motivation, finding your worth) or a high vice (relaxing by drinking, by beating someone). It may motivate players to choose both high virtues and high vices for their rolls, especially when their stress level is high.

That is how it works already. You can refuse to act in a specific manner, resulting in a Stress Token. The manner rolled could be a vice or a virtue.

I left the Stress Token removal a little wide open at this stage because I haven't actually used this system in a game yet... My plan was to observe the players' decisions regarding Stress removal. Basically, I was going to mine their suggestions and questions for specifics with which to rewrite that section.

As it stands, playing to a major vice/virtue is acceptable but not noted so perhaps I'll go ahead and make that change in the game text. =) However, any action that is done specifically to remove a Stress Token is going to have to be a major event. This isn't meant to be the sort of system that hovers around pointlessly with no effect. I want players to fear the depression their characters can plummet into, especially because their Synchronization will drop significantly (which is a very important mechanic to the rest of the game).

This means that players should be making tough decisions regarding the refusal of a Judgment Test result. Its possible that their characters will do something that's effects will make the player regret his decisions. If things work out the way I want them to... Careful use of this system should result in players doubting themselves and their own gut reactions to a Judgment Test result. =D

My last suggestion is to tie changes in traits' values to the tests and stressful choices. If someone often gives in to a vice, the corresponding value may drop. If he behaves virtuously, accepting stress, it's a good reason for the trait to rise. This way the choices done affect the personality, as it really happens. Good behavior is hard for people of strong vices, but with time and effort they have a chance to reform.

I had an idea like this initially... but the thing is, I want to keep a balance across the board. I know it isn't realistic, but for every Negative Trait I want a Positive Trait to balance it out. This way the heroes of the story always have something good about them even though they are not perfect.
But here is something I thought of... 1s and 10s are automatic results for their corresponding side (vice/virtue). Rolling either of these values gives the player the option of increasing the propensity of that Trait towards Vice/Virtue (whichever was rolled) by 1 point and doing the same for a different Trait only in the opposite direction (to retain balance).

How does that strike y'all?

[JoyWriter]

If I'm not mistaken, don't the +/- scores just act as biases to the random choice between options, with no effect on success of any attempts using the skills?

If that is true, then all the picking of pairs is doing is choosing what question you want to ask about your character: Would he prefer to be violent, or try to defuse the situation?

In that case I have a few questions:

What if someone just puts minuses in all the traits? You know, if they actually want to play a complete bastard? Because it feels sometimes (mainly with the mental scars) that you expect players to want to play their guy all in the positive direction, can you cope with someone who doesn't? If you expect the GM to lamp them for it, why?

Secondly if any trait can be applied to any situation, why do the GM and player do that choice dance? Is it just because you don't want to roll all the stats simultaneously?
Because when reading this I imagined something very different: One of those games workshop scatter dice or a spinner, and a ring around it marking out the different impulses their character has when meeting a situation, with different sizes depending on their importance, and opposites adjacent so they can adjust in size by moving into each-other's space. So this would show your characters first reaction, and they can either suppress it because it's not appropriate or go with it, using the stress mechanic. Another cool thing about that kind of mechanic is that each "trait pole" would then be opposed by two opposites instead of one, the impulses on either side of it.

If you don't want that, which could be interesting enough in itself, presumably you want the choice to always be interesting. Like the opposite of those events in infamous: It's not the game asking you "hero or villain" in a slightly staged way, but you asking the character the very same kind of question. In that case, as with most dice rolls you need to care about both options. What if the GM chooses the three and the player picks one? Then the GM can insure that they are appropriate enough according to his aesthetic standards, and the player gets the final choice, so knows to pick one they can actually play out to their own satisfaction.

Now I would say I think the apathy <-> passion axis is a bit of a bad idea: We put so much bother in games design to insuring that rolls are interesting, and you have a roll to make a character boring. It's application to intention makes it a bit more interesting, with the problem of doing nothing when horrible things are going on, so I'd like to see that axis folded into the others, with wrath vs forgiveness. With forgiveness, chastity, cowardice and trust, you should have enough traits that can be passive to cover apathy when necessary. Then total apathy and disengagement could be the price of too much stress. As usual, take to many "negative points" and you lose your character for a bit.

[MacLeod]

If I'm not mistaken, don't the +/- scores just act as biases to the random choice between options, with no effect on success of any attempts using the skills?

This thing you have said is true. The Trait system will be one of three major building blocks for the RPG side of the game.

What if someone just puts minuses in all the traits? You know, if they actually want to play a complete bastard? Because it feels sometimes (mainly with the mental scars) that you expect players to want to play their guy all in the positive direction, can you cope with someone who doesn't? If you expect the GM to lamp them for it, why?

I think having a character with nothing but penalties in his Traits would be fine... but it would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. By that, I mean the GM will have to give the okay for such a thing... hopefully going off of what he knows about that player.

Its not that I expect the players to have good guy characters, I actually want them to be multifaceted if at all possible. That is why there are a equal number of Positive and Negative Traits.

Mental Scars are suppose to represent psychological trauma manifesting itself negatively... which is why I noted that they should be applied to the highest Positive Trait by default... to simulate a massive deviance from that person's normal personality due to the trauma. I'm not sure if this is 'realistic' or not... I just want a way to generate Trait shifts, Stress Tokens and rare personality deviance. =)

Secondly if any trait can be applied to any situation, why do the GM and player do that choice dance? Is it just because you don't want to roll all the stats simultaneously?

I wanted to insure some control on both sides of the table, basically. I suppose it would be possible to roll a 12 sided die and choose Traits arbitrarily... though I'm not sure how happy most players would be to leave the entire issue to chance.

Because when reading this I imagined something very different: One of those games workshop scatter dice or a spinner, and a ring around it marking out the different impulses their character has when meeting a situation, with different sizes depending on their importance, and opposites adjacent so they can adjust in size by moving into each-other's space. So this would show your characters first reaction, and they can either suppress it because it's not appropriate or go with it, using the stress mechanic. Another cool thing about that kind of mechanic is that each "trait pole" would then be opposed by two opposites instead of one, the impulses on either side of it.

I'm not familiar with the scatter dice you mentioned... Any way you could explain it further, or provide a link that does the work for you?

The spinner thing sounds really neat, to be honest with you. I just have no idea how I would build such a thing. I have the dexterity of a fingerless and toeless idiot. @_@

If you don't want that, which could be interesting enough in itself, presumably you want the choice to always be interesting. Like the opposite of those events in infamous: It's not the game asking you "hero or villain" in a slightly staged way, but you asking the character the very same kind of question. In that case, as with most dice rolls you need to care about both options. What if the GM chooses the three and the player picks one? Then the GM can insure that they are appropriate enough according to his aesthetic standards, and the player gets the final choice, so knows to pick one they can actually play out to their own satisfaction.

Someone mentioned this previously. I've included it as an alternate option, but I have also attached a warning to it... Trust should be pretty good between the GM and his players for this option to be useful or else it falls into the powergaming trap... Well, unless the GM just goes and chooses three Negative Traits and gets all dickish about it.
Then again, these sorts of conflicts may be inevitable with this system given some players' attitudes...

Now I would say I think the apathy <-> passion axis is a bit of a bad idea: We put so much bother in games design to insuring that rolls are interesting, and you have a roll to make a character boring. It's application to intention makes it a bit more interesting, with the problem of doing nothing when horrible things are going on, so I'd like to see that axis folded into the others, with wrath vs forgiveness. With forgiveness, chastity, cowardice and trust, you should have enough traits that can be passive to cover apathy when necessary. Then total apathy and disengagement could be the price of too much stress. As usual, take to many "negative points" and you lose your character for a bit.

Haha, yeah that's true. ^_^ But, not all characters are interesting, or doing something interesting all of the time!
You do bring up a good point though... At this stage, if I were to remove it I'd like to remove or add another Trait. I like 12 or 10, to relate to dice and... well... even numbers. I like even numbers for some reason.

[Geethree]

IMO the other problem with apathy/passion is that it's very broad and thus could probably be applied to nearly any situation. I don't think it's a bad idea conceptually (obviously apathy and passion are real emotions people feel that drive their actions), but for your game it might be better to cut it out in favor of having more specific Traits that better apply during judgment tests.

Entropic/Lawful seems like another problematic trait, so I might consider cutting apathy and entropy in favor of having a more solid list of traits. Maybe roll entropic/lawful and deceitful/honest into one trait?

[MacLeod]

Truth be told.
I wonder if a catchall Trait is an altogether bad thing though? The sort of Trait you could turn to when nothing else seems to make sense?

[JoyWriter]

Mental Scars are suppose to represent psychological trauma manifesting itself negatively... which is why I noted that they should be applied to the highest Positive Trait by default... to simulate a massive deviance from that person's normal personality due to the trauma. I'm not sure if this is 'realistic' or not... I just want a way to generate Trait shifts, Stress Tokens and rare personality deviance. =)

Ah got you, well then you might want the equivalent in the opposite direction too, because otherwise everyone will sink slowly into the vices, with the player who doesn't care about his character being awful paying much less stress than everyone else.

Here's a scatter dice, and you could role it in a jar lid, which is on top of a piece of paper with the groups around the outside like a protractor. Another way to do it is to use shuffled cards, where you can duplicate more of a certain card to weight the probabilities. I'm sure there are many other ways.

Someone mentioned this previously. I've included it as an alternate option, but I have also attached a warning to it... Trust should be pretty good between the GM and his players for this option to be useful or else it falls into the powergaming trap... Well, unless the GM just goes and chooses three Negative Traits and gets all dickish about it.
Then again, these sorts of conflicts may be inevitable with this system given some players' attitudes...

Hang on, what is powergaming here? Even if they could manipulate the system somehow, and I don't see how they could, all they would be achieving was the ability to decide how their character reacts to stuff. Like you said, this system does not change effectiveness! Even if someone cheats this subsystem you're just back with how people have been playing for years, seeing stuff the GM produces and deciding what their character feels about that. What are you worried about them doing?

[MacLeod]

Ah got you, well then you might want the equivalent in the opposite direction too, because otherwise everyone will sink slowly into the vices, with the player who doesn't care about his character being awful paying much less stress than everyone else.

I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps whenever the character witnesses an act of pure honesty, generosity, love, loyalty, bravery, etc... he gains a... ... ... I'm not sure what to call it. Some kind of mental high on a relevant Trait or his worst Negative Trait. This would be the direct opposite of the Mental Scar as you were suggesting... Automatic 10 and a chance to remove a Stress Token.

Another way to do it is to use shuffled cards, where you can duplicate more of a certain card to weight the probabilities. I'm sure there are many other ways.

This one sounds like it is within my immediate capabilities. =D I have a bunch of MtG cards in sleeves with slips of paper inserted in front of the card for my own devices. I think it would still have to be done with the Traits though... so perhaps the card drawing merely selects the the Trait to be rolled for. That wouldn't be too bad. Quicker during play as well.

Hang on, what is powergaming here? Even if they could manipulate the system somehow, and I don't see how they could, all they would be achieving was the ability to decide how their character reacts to stuff. Like you said, this system does not change effectiveness! Even if someone cheats this subsystem you're just back with how people have been playing for years, seeing stuff the GM produces and deciding what their character feels about that. What are you worried about them doing?

Well, the system is designed to emulate your character's propensities, right? Cheating the system by only going with specific results is going to skew what you might call a personality. Which must be this system's form of power gaming, I think. =) In any event, controlling your character's reaction to the absolute fullest (ignoring things by way of metagame thinking) can easily get a character out of an otherwise tight spot.
Hm, maybe I'm just crazy?