Mutually Exclusive Character Traits (A,B, or neither)

[Soyokaze]

Recently, I have been considering character creation and the way in which it relates to the natural description of individuals. I've become curious about mutually exclusive traits, as opposed to ability scores.

In many cases, human physical and mental traits are mutually exclusive. IE: One can only be tall, short, or average in height. One can be overweight, underweight, or at a healthy weight. Strength training impedes endurance, and the reverse. One can be characteristically aggressive or passive, impulsive or cautious, etc.

This seems a far more natural method of choice than the distribution of points amongst ability scores, and lends itself to 0 sum - naturally balanced mechanics. Furthermore, such a system would seem to recommend characters to players which emulate their statistics. Far too often, I see players with an 8 Intelligence (in D&D terms), leading the party in strategical and puzzle solving. Likewise, statistics such as a 16 Charisma reflect ambiguous concepts, not conveying weather the character is charming or simply pretty. With a system such as this, however, a player would know exactly what their character is like upon creation. If you want to be able to take a punch without flinching, you MUST be a big guy. IF you want to dodge anything that comes at you, you MUST be lean. If you want to run all day, you're NOT going to have muscles the size of your head. Etc.

My questions to the board: Do any systems currently exist which make use of such a method of character creation? If not, and if you find this interesting, what kind of traits do you think would work/not work within such a system?

[Jeff B]

I think there's a larger problem than just the mechanics of such a system.  For this kind of mechanic to succeed, you will also need a new type of narrative gameplay wherein there is some benefit to each type of appearance and physical attribute.  Otherwise, there will be no enjoyment playing an underweight or overweight character, *if* there is an automatic stigma attached to those qualities.

I completely agree with you that the attributes in D&D do a very poor job of encouraging roleplaying.  I even disagree with the emphasis on attributes having to be "high" to be worthwhile.

I believe many players would feel uncomfortable being constrained by their character's appearance.  Consider the social contract problems when an underweight player is trying to play an overweight character, and an overweight PLAYER in the room has issues with how that problem is being represented, or stigmatized, in the game.  And waiting right around the corner is the issue with navigating the smaller average physical stature of women vs. men.  Try explaining to your first lady-player (with lady-character) why she has to take a -3 on strength.  Good luck.  You're going to find a series of obstacles in that sense, and as I said at the beginning, you will need to design a new game, probably Narrativist in style, that makes legitimate use of these qualities (beyond simply defining character limitations).

In other words, in my opinion:  Not gonna work.  Not at all.

[Moreno R.]

Hi Soyokaze (sorry, how can I call you? There is this tradition at the forge of using the real names as nickname or in the signature...)

I am not sure I understood exactly what you are asking about: only systems without ability scores, or even systems with opposed and exclusive ability scores?

For example, a system that, if you have "lustful +3" give you automatically "chaste -3" would qualify, or you are talking about a system where you only use "chaste" or "lustful" without any number?

In the first case, there are a lot of systems that work on this kind of "zero-sum" principle that I could cite. In the second case, having a system where you have to choose a finite number of adjectives from a finite list would not be the same thing?

[Ar Kayon]

It seems like characters could have layered physical/mental qualities.  For example, you have your mutually exclusive body types: huge, lean, tall, short, etc.  And then attributes will be based upon that.  Huge = 10 strength, 4 stamina, 4 agility, 10 damage resistance, and so on.

[Jason Morningstar]

To answer your question - you should look at the game Trollbabe. In Trollbabe your character has a Number, on a 1-10 scale, and you choose it. Roll over the number in conflicts involving violence and under it in conflicts involving socializing, if I recall correctly. A very simple and elegant way to make a concrete decision about what sort of character you are going to play. The game 3:16 does something very similar.

Any game with freeform trait generation (like Dogs in the Vineyard, for example) allows for essentially binary choices - "I'm real fat 2d8" won't typically be paired with "skinny as a rail 1d4", although there's nothing stopping you. Maybe somebody with a confused self image...

[Soyokaze]

Okay, didn't know about that name thing. I'll make a new account after this post I suppose.

What I had modeled was something like this:



   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

[th][/th]    [th][/th]    [th]Melee[/th]    [th]Melee[/th]    [th]Ranged[/th]    [th]Ranged[/th]
		Attack	Defense	Attack	Defense
Height	Tall	+			-
	Short	-			+
Lifestyle	Active	+	-
	Passive	-	+
Exercise Emphasis	Strength	+	-
	Stamina	-	+
Personality	Patient			+	-
	Impulsive			-	+
Grace	Lumbering	+		-
	Agile	-		+
Build	Large		+		-
	Lean		-		+
Vision	Nearsighted	+	+	-	-
	Farsighted	-	-	+	+
Disposition	Aggressive	+	-	+	-
	Peaceful	-	+	-	+

Pretty rough, but it gets the idea across.

[Soyokaze]

Apologies for the double post, but I can find no edit button. Should have previewed.

If you can't tell from the failed BBCode, the first set of Atk/Def is meant to be melee while the second set is meant to be ranged. I'm not at all satisfied with that list, nor with it's effect being limited to Atk rolls, but it works for illustration purposes.

[Moreno R.]

Okay, didn't know about that name thing. I'll make a new account after this post I suppose.

There is no need, You can ask a moderator by PM to change your nickname (I had mine changed when I began posting here) or you can simply add your name to the signature in your profile.

What I had modeled was something like this:

So, if I understood correctly, you are talking about having a series of binary choices at character creation, and each choice has some effect of the rolls you do in game. The total sum of the effect is zero (same number of + and - ). It's not clear if the choices are on the character sheet (the same for every character. In this case, someone can choose to be "average" and not choose any of the two?) or if you are thinking about a list in the game manual (something like "choose 5 adjectives from this list")

The second option is not very different, in my opinion, from what already happen with the list of "advantages" and "disadvantages" present in a lot of post-'80 games (GURPS, Hero System, Ars Magica, etc..   but the list of these games is very long, almost every commercial game in the '90 had lists of them).  In these games usually you can choose to be, for example, "small" and get some effect on your character, and at the same time you can't take "big" as another advantage.

The first option is more unusual. I have seen versions of that using numbers, both as primary characteristics (for example, the already cited Trollbabe), and more frequently as something associated with the personality of the characters (from the old D&D alignment system to the personality trait of Pendragon to the diagram that track the effect of traumas in Unknown Armies)

Before continuing, to avoid repeating a lot of things that maybe you already know: How many of these games have you already read or played?

[Soyokaze]

(sent that PM)

At-least read the rulebooks for everything you mentioned - haven't played Ars Magica.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking "disadvantages," but, as you say, choices which are freely made - any number and combination of the available options. In the above chart, for example, being skinny makes you less likely to be able to take a punch, but it also makes you a smaller target. Being large has the opposite effect on both axes. Any final system should not, of course, be as rigid as merely covering attack bonuses. Incorporating a skill system would probably be best.

[Thomas Da]

Well, I actually registered just so I could respond to this (I've been lurking for quite some time).  I have been cooking up my own RPG for about a week or so and I had a very similar idea as a character with a strength of 6 and agility of 8 does not seem plausible at all.  So, in each of the sub-categories of attributes (social-mental-physical) I chose two which seemed to be inverses of the other, being strength-agility, power-control (mental), and fear-charisma (social).  So, I set the rule that one of each must be chosen as the dominant trait and that the other can only be a maximum of half the dominant (rounded up).  So, in my previous example, with a strength of 6 you may only have a maximum of 3 agility.

[PeterBB]

Well, I actually registered just so I could respond to this (I've been lurking for quite some time).  I have been cooking up my own RPG for about a week or so and I had a very similar idea as a character with a strength of 6 and agility of 8 does not seem plausible at all.  So, in each of the sub-categories of attributes (social-mental-physical) I chose two which seemed to be inverses of the other, being strength-agility, power-control (mental), and fear-charisma (social).  So, I set the rule that one of each must be chosen as the dominant trait and that the other can only be a maximum of half the dominant (rounded up).  So, in my previous example, with a strength of 6 you may only have a maximum of 3 agility.

I'm not sure that mechanic will do what you want. It means that the lower your strength is, the lower your agility must be as well. It seems like you ought to do it the other way around, so that a lower strength allowed a higher agility. Maybe the rule could be "any pair of inverses must add up to 10 or less"?

[Thomas Da]

I'm not sure that mechanic will do what you want. It means that the lower your strength is, the lower your agility must be as well. It seems like you ought to do it the other way around, so that a lower strength allowed a higher agility. Maybe the rule could be "any pair of inverses must add up to 10 or less"?

I actually thought of that problem while in class today, but more specifically the problem of having low values in each (ie 4-2, 3-2 etc)

Perhaps this factor kicks in once one of the attributes exceeds a value of 4, as 3 was my ideal average for starting characters.  Which would make sense, someone who exceeds the norm must limit themselves in some way.  To clarify my revision, if one of the 'inverse' attributes becomes 4 or greater, they may not progress the lesser attribute until it becomes half of the greater (need to work on my wording.)  For example, someone has a strength of 3 and agility of 3, through training they bring strength up to 4, so they may not progress in agility until they reach 7 strength (as my halves are rounded up).  Although perhaps that is to constraining, in which case I would possibly consider 3/4th instead of 1/2, but I dont want to complicate the math.