Over in the "Fear and Confusion" thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121164#121164), a discussion on how to include morale effects, e.g. fight or flight reactions, in combat systems touched on a wider issue. The question being: "Is it okay to lose control of my character because of game mechanics that simulate his/her emotional reactions? Or is this too deprotagonizing?"

Such game mechanics can mean rules that make your character panic if you're shot at and fail a morale check, or rules for falling in love at first sight, or rules for certain characters (deities, kings, Great Leaders) have overpowering charisma, or simply rules for one character (PC or NPC) being able to Charm / Influence another. The key factor is that at some point, the decision about what your character's choices is taken away.

(In the original thread, comrades Dauntless and Noon suggested this might be a GNS issue -- i.e. gamists don't like losing control of their "game piece," narrativists don't like losing control of their part of the story, but simulationists wouldn't mind. I don't want to wander into the wilderness of GNS angels dancing on the heads of pins, but it's something to bear in mind).

I myself am VERY skeptical about doing this. I am okay with emotional modifiers making it harder to TRY to do something (you're Scared level 3; you don't want to run away? Fine, but you take a -3 penalty to stand your ground), but I worry about ones that simply take over a player's choices. On the other hand, some very interesting rules (notably "Unknown Armies," which I've read but never played) have been written to do just that, where the idea seems to be to force your character (and you) to deal with the aftermath of helplessness.

So what kind of games would benefit from what kinds of emotion mechanics? And what do people feel about the idea of losing control of their character's choices for a time?

I'd say it depends on (1) what other options a player has to influence the game (from Hero Points to the ability to coerce the GM into something) and (2) whether lack of control in a particular instance is helping or hindering the kind of gameplay the player (and the group) desires.

For instance, with regards to the latter, in certain cases it might be desireable to loose emotional control because it makes the game more challenging or because it feels more "real" or because it's a useful constraint which provides a twist in the story or a helps prevent the degeneration into pure wish fulfilling.
If however, the loss of control removes player input in situations the player considers essential, it's obviously bad. So for instance, it can be interesting if the group's vehicle-guy is prone to cracking under stress if the player choose to have better skills in exchange for lower stress resistance. It's decidedly lame if a badass assassin suddenly panics due to bad luck. Similarly, it's interesting if the PC is suddenly affected by an intense emotional reaction, if one is exploring the character. If on the other hand, the PC's panic reaction makes it impossible to continue the exploration of the duke's social circles, that sucks. If the group is exploring "what would you sacrifice for power?", a PCs panic reaction might be fine, whereas it would be horrible if the game where about "how far are you willing to go, to get what you want?" it might keep the player from deciding that his PC would be willing to face X {whatever caused the panic reaction}. (the latter example is a bit flawed in that loss of control might be bad in the first case as well, depending on the particular notion of "sacrifice" used. While I'm at it: all the above is meant "in general", YMMV).

Well, even in the example you gave ("-3 to stand your graound") that implies that at some point (when you fail your stand your ground roll), the system will dictate behaviour. Unless and until the rules enforce the "role-play it" option, it's pretty much a given that those sort of rules will dictate character behaviour on occassion.

This is related to a point in the latest GNS furball on RPG.net: even with rules at times dictating character behaviour, a determined player will move expression of their agenda to the arena of risk assessment, into managing if and when they place their characters at risk of coming under the control of the system, and, as you say, to dealing with the consequences thereof.

That being said, this approach, or rather these rules systems, arise from the idea that the interests of the player are those of the character, that players will be motivated to get the "best" performance out of the character from their mutual viewpoint, and that sub-optimal but realistic choices should be mandated by the system to prevent unrealistic actions.

Plus, it looks to be a little grounded in fortune at the end, task resolution, where emotional conflicts are resolved as a series of individual tasks, rather than fortune in the middle conflict resolution, where the psychological can be played as a justification for the mandated outcome. Or I may have fried my brain.

pete_darby wrote: Well, even in the example you gave ("-3 to stand your graound") that implies that at some point (when you fail your stand your ground roll), the system will dictate behaviour.

pete_darby wrote: it looks to be a little grounded in fortune at the end, task resolution, where emotional conflicts are resolved as a series of individual tasks, rather than fortune in the middle conflict resolution, where the psychological can be played as a justification for the mandated outcome. Or I may have fried my brain.

Check out the Dying Earth RPG on this. It's a totally different paradigm. You may not like it, but if you're thinking about this stuff you should look at that game.

OK, so you're a "Cugel-level" character and you didn't put any points into Resist Rakishness. A hawt chick comes along and the situation is such that she represents a practical temptation.

You now are obligated to put the moves on her and hop in the sack if she's amenable, unless you have another relevant ability that you can convince the GM to allow you to substitute for Resist Rakishness.

I personally think that resistance to social mechanics comes from the old school, 'GM is God' approach to play, where the social dimension of your character was pretty much the only one you had real control over. There, it's totally a bummer if on top of your limited spells, choices, etc. the GM is telling you what to say and think too.

On the other hand, if you're open to getting sucked into weird things not of your own making and playing them out, there's no reason this can't be a really fun way to play. Especially because in the DERPG it cuts both ways: if you want to con a shopkeeper into giving you half his stock on credit, which no GM of the old school would allow, it's just a Persuade contest away. So the social mechanics are empowering as well as disempowering; it just depends which aspects of your character you're willing to 'game'.

I'd also point out that in my own game, Unsung, the Lapse mechanic takes control of a given character away from the usual player. Do a search for "Unsung", particularly in the Actual Play forum, and you can see how my players felt about this. If anything, I think they were more protagonized by the loss of control, as the mechanic set them up for interesting fallout to deal with.

I'll also note that in Universalis, control of a given character can pass around the table. You might want to see if anyone who plays Universalis finds this deprotagonizing.

I think it's a matter of how such mechanics are written, and how they are contrained. "Roll or run away" is boring, and depotagonizing, at least in part because it specifies a single, robot-like behavior. "Roll or you do something interesting" is less so.

Sean wrote: On the other hand, if you're open to getting sucked into weird things not of your own making and playing them out, there's no reason this can't be a really fun way to play. Especially because in the DERPG it cuts both ways: if you want to con a shopkeeper into giving you half his stock on credit, which no GM of the old school would allow, it's just a Persuade contest away. So the social mechanics are empowering as well as disempowering; it just depends which aspects of your character you're willing to 'game'.

I submit that a game only needs to dictate events and (simultaneously) provide meaningful freedom of choice in its area of focus.

I don't see any useful distinction between "you are shot and must panic" and "you are shot and must lose consciousness."

To give an example of a game (which, unfortunately, I have not playtested), my The Calligrapher's Sword is set in a dream-world. (Unknown Kadath crossed with Fantastica is how I see it.) The characters are in fact dreaming, so they are in that hazy state where comprehension is fleeting, events provoke odd emotional reactions, and they lose access to volition occasionally. So the game's mechanics are all emotion mechanics which dictate the character's inner reaction to world events (which the players have authority over). I don't know how satisfying this is in play, but I believe that it serves the purpose of the game precisely, in a way that a game without emotion mechanics could not.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: I don't see any useful distinction between "you are shot and must panic" and "you are shot and must lose consciousness."

Shreyas Sampat wrote: I submit that a game only needs to dictate events and (simultaneously) provide meaningful freedom of choice in its area of focus.

I am very very skeptical about this kind of thing. The idea is that you loose control of your character. It's a certain kind of 'you loose control of your character' but that's the issue nevertheless.

There are times when it can be okay, maybe fun times when you loose control of your character. Maybe it's part of the GMs naration:

"You can't help but drool slightly at the sight of the every-small piece of meat. It could have been crafted by an angel. Well it was, but your character doesn't know that."

Then there are bad times: "Your character runs in fear at the orge, knowing that he can't, will never be able to fight with it long enough to gain any sense of pride from the effort."

Or the possibly more destructive: "You're characters hungry. You go to the nearest reasteraunt which is pretty nice. To eat, costs 20 woolong. While you're there a group of bandits comes over to your table and knocks it over. It looks like they want to fight. As your search for your weapon you find that it was left at the base. After all you don't need a sword to eat your french toast."

Maybe, a game could have rules like the ones you've described in a humerous game or a horror game or something. Otherwise you're taking away oppertunities for the players to roleplay or you're trying to tell a game that the players are a part of.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Okay, I think were getting ahead of ourselves a few times here. Before we get to being a protagonist, or whether people might enjoy the effects of something or (oh god) whether its realistic, lets look at the basic stem.

If your mechanics cut off a player from contributing to play, they are on a fast road to hell.

Basically, the more the mechanics make someone's presence at the table meaningless/the more they could be absent and it wouldn't effect a jot, its really screwed.

Only sim guys have a high tollerance for this and I think most of them want to be exploring actively.

Other than that, this core point is not a GNS issue. You don't bring people to a table only to have mechanics that make them redundant. By redundant I mean any amount of time (a minute or a large chunk of the session), particularly if someone is made more redundant than other players.

That's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

Don't look to the integrity of your G, N or S goal, look to the integrity of player input first. Once you've ensured the integrity of your players input, then you can move on to forfilling G N or S goals.

I don't know if I'm missreading the term deprotagonisation here, but only a players PC can be a protagonist. The PC's protagonist state is secondary to whether the player has input into the game. Don't make deprotagonisation your first goal to surmount...it'll miss the point.

Note: My angle here is a little different from the thread this was spawned from, because I'm not trying to fit the context of that other thread here.

Noon wrote: If your mechanics cut off a player from contributing to play, they are on a fast road to hell.

Noon wrote: That's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

In computer design, the interfaces that you design into the game limit the choices available to the player. You have to design such built-in limitations because software engineering hasn't reached a point where AI is smart enough to truly make freeform decisions and truly learn and adapt from the problem domain.

How does this relate to pen and paper RPG design? As Sydney pointed out, when you create a mechanic for something, you emphasize that thing. It in effect becomes a limitation to choice. But it also provides the interface (what the character can do, or how a character's actions are affected) that the player has to the gameworld itself. The more abstract the rules, the less limitations there are, but also the more arbitration that creeps in and the more shaky the shared imaginings amongst the player group and the GM becomes.

So it becomes a tradeoff to a degree. Morever, the choice of creating mechanics which can take away choice and volition from a player also stems from the often subconscious realization that there is a difference between the player and the character. In my game, player choice is constrained by the context of the situation around him. THe player can try to defy his character's personality or impulses, but the player can't simply shirk it off and conjure it up to roleplaying. The constraint isn't so much in the choice of what the player wants his character to do, rather the constraint comes from the fact that the choice of action is not guaranteed.

So for example, a character might have values similar to Pendragon, and when a situation is presented to a character in which one of his values comes into play, the character is motivated to follow his convictions, for better or worse. Good roleplayers will probably see such rules as overkill and unnecessary, since good roleplaying is about stepping into the shoes of your protagonist. However, the desire to weave a good story can overcome the ability to be in the shoes of your character. The game mechanics can also act as "directorial guidance" in that it suggests what the player should be making the character do.

You can never fully get away from the seperation of player and character. But depending on the game setting and the experiential gameplay the system tries to provide, losing control of one's character may reinforce the genre or intentions of the premise. Not all game settings are going to need this level, but realistic settings would probably benefit from it. The more Simulationist the game system is, the more I would advocate such mechanics, the more narrativist, the more I would stay away from them. The gamist perspective for including these mechanics are very much premise or setting dependent. So depending on the genre, setting or premise, it could work for a more gamist approach.

I think the point here needs to be made that while certain events may make the players lose control of their characters, the system should also have options for the players to try to avoid or minimize the effects of the loss of control.

For example, let's say your character has a conviction of extreme piety to a certain religious cause. Now let's say that the character is captured, and forced to renounce his beliefs, and if he does, he will be let go. If he does not, then another innocent NPC hostage will be killed. For those who are not too pious, they may think, "so what, I'll go ahead and say it". But because this character has a strong belief system in place, what would the character do?

It's hard to say, perhaps he has a stronger motivation to protect innocent lives. In which case this principle can outweigh his conviction. But what if he doesn't?

There are two ways to handle this. One is, just let the player chose. Let's say the player decides not to give in because he believes he'll be sent to some sort of damnation if he denounces his beliefs, and perhaps his religious beliefs also tell him that an innocent who is murdered in the name of one's creator is sent to heaven. In which case, not only does this make sense, the character won't even feel any remorse over what happened. But what if the religious context isn't like this? What if the player keeps silent so the innocent NPC dies. Would the character feel remorse? If he does, how does this remorse or guilt factor in to actual game play? In TROS, spiritual attributes could affect actual gameplay, and it got a lot of good press for doing so. Perhaps you could also set up a situation where the choice is in the hands of the player, but the game effects are system dependent. So in this case, the player retains his choice, but the guilt he feels will now act as a penalty until some later time (confessional or some other cathartic measure is taken to purge the guilt).

The other option is you have a mechanic in place which affects the chances of the character's choice from taking place. For example, let's say the player wants to renounce his religion to save the innocent NPC. However, because he has such a high piety rating, there's less of a likelihood that this would happen. You can either make some sort of resolution roll against the Piety rating, which can be modified by the player in some game system dependant way. For example, in my game, one can spend Discipline points precisely to override emotions, principles or beliefs.

Something else to think about is how to reward experience for being in character or OOC. If the player's choice is in character, then the GM can reward the action with experience/hero points/fate points, or what have you...perhaps even extra points can be awarded if the action results in the death of the character. OTOH, the GM can penalize experience for acting out of character. But "acting IC or OOC" depends greatly on how well you've defined the characters emotions, convictions, beliefs, principles, mental resilience, etc etc. If they are not well defined (whether quantitatively or qualitatively) then it becomes much more subjective as to whether the player was acting IC or OOC.

I'm currently trying to figure out if I want to use the first or second method. In the first method, player choice is retained, but the choice affects in-game benefits or penalties. In the second method, player decision is not guaranteed depending on the context of the situation, but the player has a chance to modify the likelihood of his choice actually happening.

Sydney Freedberg wrote:

Noon wrote: That's why its bloody important to have things like the suggested example of scared factor three, where you suffer -3 to actions if you stand your ground. You might have a G, N or S goal in mind, but something like this does not cut off input from the player, making him redundant as his PC spends time running off.

So ... you're saying you like this idea? (Nudge, nudge). I only ask because it's, err, becoming the central mechanic of My Eventual Game (to appear in the "Indie Design" forum sometime before the Hell of which you spoke freezes over).

Over in another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)

Valamir wrote: Give the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty. They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them.

Eric J. wrote: I am very very skeptical about this kind of thing. The idea is that you loose control of your character. It's a certain kind of 'you loose control of your character' but that's the issue nevertheless.

Then there are bad times: "Your character runs in fear at the orge, knowing that he can't, will never be able to fight with it long enough to gain any sense of pride from the effort."

Or the possibly more destructive: "You're characters hungry. You go to the nearest reasteraunt which is pretty nice. To eat, costs 20 woolong. While you're there a group of bandits comes over to your table and knocks it over. It looks like they want to fight. As your search for your weapon you find that it was left at the base. After all you don't need a sword to eat your french toast."

Maybe, a game could have rules like the ones you've described in a humerous game or a horror game or something. Otherwise you're taking away oppertunities for the players to roleplay or you're trying to tell a game that the players are a part of.

Noon wrote: Basically, the more the mechanics make someone's presence at the table meaningless/the more they could be absent and it wouldn't effect a jot, its really screwed.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Over in another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)

Valamir wrote: Give the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty. They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them.

Noon, is this the bit from Ralph Mazza aka Valamir you were referring to?

I'm intrigued. Not sure exactly how to apply it, but intrigued.

First off, I agree with Noon that GNS is a red herring here. I can think of arguments both for and against behavior mechanics that are consistent with each of the three modes. Fortunately, this discussion has generally avoided GNS.

Secondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth." If you give the player complete control of the character, it is easy for the player to play a character who is completely above temptation, without any chance of failure. This is because the PLAYER HIMSELF DOES NOT FEEL THE TEMPTATION. Therefore, he loses nothing by not giving in. The character is having all sorts of physical, hormonal reactions (probably due either to his instinct for self-preservation in case of reaction to fear or his instinct to procreate in case of reaction to seduction), which cloud his ability to make rational decisions in the moment. But the player feels none of this.

I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation. The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing. The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in. That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

EDIT: Oh right, this is the third way. Completely in-game consequences. Obviously if you choose not to run from the very scary demon-thing, you are likely to get eaten. If you choose not have sex with the fickle temptress goddess, she turns you into a newt in a jealous rage (can we say Greek myths?). But there might be some situations where it is hard to come up with an bad in-game consequence that makes sense.

Henri wrote: First off, I agree with Noon that GNS is a red herring here.

Henri wrote: Secondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth." If you give the player complete control of the character, it is easy for the player to play a character who is completely above temptation, without any chance of failure.

Henri wrote:
Secondly, I think the main tension here is that you need a way to "give temptation teeth." [...]
I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation. The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing. The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in. That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

To Neel and Sydney: Hey, these are great examples of rewarding/penalizing the player based on their decision, rather than making the decision for them. Cool!

I've never seen this as a GNS issue. For example, I personally regard My Life with Master as a very Narrativist game. Every number on a character sheet describes emotion: Weariness, Self-Loathing and Love. One of the two numbers that describe the Master is also an emotion: Fear. Characters start the game having pretty much no chance to resist the commands of the Master. If the Master orders your character to go kill his beloved sister and bring back her broach, sister's gonna die.

I think this works because of managed expectations, to use the suit-speak expression, which I believe falls under the heading of Social Contract in Forge parlance. If the players are familiar with MLwM, all that I've described is expected and normal within the context of that game.

I also don't regard it as a matter of good roleplay. Good roleplay can include stepping into your character's shoes. It can also include something more along the lines of Author Stance, group ownership of characters, and the like. (As a side note, I've observed a very general tendency for those who prefer Actor Stance to dislike emotion/personality mechanice, and for those who prefer Author Stance to be more accepting of these mechanics. I present the observation as-is, an unscientific observation of a statistically insignificant sample.)

I don't believe that emotion/personality mechanics are intrisically, objectively a bad thing. I think I all comes down to managed expectations/Social Contract, and "appropriate" use, the definition of appropriate varying from group to group. Put another way, hosing a player character is not in and of itself a bad thing; hosing the player is. And if the player feels like you hosed her, you probably did.

In some RPGs, emotion/personality mechanics are an integral part of the game, like the aforementioned MLwM. Call of Cthulhu and its Sanity mechanic is another good example. In CoC, the Sanity mechanic can dictate character action (run away, stand frozen, curl up on the floor and soil yourself, etc), change the character's personality through the addition of some sort of psychological condition, and take the character out of the game.

Here, even though the Sanity mechanic is an expected and integral part of CoC, I feel the GM still must keep in mind "appropriate use." For example (and this comes from the CoC rules, version 5 or something like that), if a character is rendered inactive (ie: helpless) by a Sanity shaking monster, perhaps its more appropriate, and more interesting, for the monster to for whatever incomprehensible reason to leave the character sitting there gibbering rather than to kill the helpless PC. An example of an inappropriate use, IMHO, would be having a character who was forced to run away in terror from the monster go charging over a cliff, into traffic, or into some other negative (and uninteresting) situation.

In some games, these mechanics are a very minor part. Off the top of my head, I think Werewolf: the Apocalypse is a good example of this sort of game. A player can enter into this game never expecting the use of emotion/personality mechanics against his character by an NPC. This player could react negatively to, for example, an elder Shadow Lord imposing his will on the PC to force him into the GMs plot. The player didn't know what he was getting into, didn't anticipate this situation. If, on the other hand, the player is aware of the mechanic that allows a higher ranking werewolf to force a lower-ranking one to back down through force of will, and still decides to have it out with an elder in the middle of a moot, I would feel that the use of the emotion/personality mechanic in this case was appropriate. The player entered into the contest knowing what the possible outcomes were.

In FATE, emotional/personaity traits are modelled using Aspects. In vanila FATE, Aspects are freely chosen and invented by the player. Aspects can represent a great many things, including experiences, relationships, significant possessions, physical attributes, and personality traits. Players can invoke these aspects in positive ways a limited number of times. GMs can invoke them in negative ways, but the player gains FATE points for this, which they can then spend in various ways, including blocking a negative invocation. For example:

Player (facing a nasty fight): "Hmmm ... the odds are against my character, but she stands and fights anyways."
GM: "I'm invoking her Cowardly aspect. Here's some FATE points for you."
Player: "You can keep the points, and I'm spending a few more to negate your invocation. Bring it on!"

Massanwa was trying to negotiate safe passage through the Grazelands, but failed so disastrously (an injured result) that not only have the Grazers threatened to scalp her or her friends should they ever be seen anywhere near their territories but she has suffered such a disastrous blow to her confidence and reputation that her attempts to use most abilities involving interaction with others or personal force of character are at only 50% the usual ability rating. In an attempt to repair the damage, her friend Sarea will later try to use her Invent Stories 8W to construct a face-saving version of events to tell everyone.

I'd just like to clarify that while the techniques I talked about are GNS neutral, what I wanted to get at is that before you start shaping rules to support a CA you need to insure player input isn't cut off (which makes the players presence redundant as long as its cut off).

Basically: The integrity of player input comes before GNS design direction in importance.

simon_hibbs wrote: I could make the same case against combat systems in which characters can die. Surely they're the ultimate in deprotagonising mechanics, and should be expunged from any sensibly designed roleplaying game? The same could be said for games in which characters can be drugged, or lose conciousness, or be captured.

Hi... just thought I'd throw a couple of stones in the pond as well!

I'm more than a little confused..... I can understand the GNS stuff, I can understand Player vs. character control, hell I can even unbderstand the reward/punishment ideas.... the bit that really confuses me is why people dislike/like it so much!
If the rules say it, and the mechanics can do it.... then that is it really.

It doesn't matter whether you want to or not.... nor does it even matter if it is beneficial or detrimental!


If on the other hand it is merely a question as to whether this is a good/bad sort of thing..... well, if you want "real" gaming, where the character is a seperate persona/entity, and the player is merely a voice of conscience, then yes, the character should be able to be removed from conscience control every now and then, or suffer rather hindering consequences.... it's not just real life... more importantly, its in most books, films and even comics.... you see the protaginist, even antagonists reduced to doing things due to emotion, acting out of character etc., it's really no diffeerent than being injured, intoxicated or losing control of a vehicle or animal.

I think tyhe real issue is the results of such loss of control. If I loose control of my character, and it results in a huge loss of money, or items/resources, characters health, powers etc., and there is not a superb and fundemental reason, I'm going to be upset!
On the other hand, if the control loss is short of duration, has little detrimental affect, and most importantly, helps the game along, (doesn't matter whether GNorS), then thats ok and understandable.

I suppose it's a preference thing... maybe it should be on a case by case basis, depending on how important it is to the game, the setting , the character and then the player, in that order. Work out the scale, and decide on whether there is complete loss, partial loss, roll to keep control, or control is maintained yet you are penalised somehow.

Henri wrote: I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation. The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing. The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in. That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

EDIT: Oh right, this is the third way. Completely in-game consequences.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: In My Eventual Game, I'm toying with an idea (not entirely original, I grant you) of depicting both permanent personality traits and temporary emotional states with what I call "ambivalent" modifiers -- that is, they can act as either bonuses or penalties depending on what the character chooses to do. Act in accordance with the personality trait/emotional state, you get it as a bonus; act against it, you get it as a penalty.

For example your character has the trait "Lecherous +/-3" and someone tries to seduce him; if you decide to take the bait, all your die rolls to that purpose (conflict or task resolution, whichever) get a +3 bonus; but if you decide to fight temptation, you're distracted and conflicted, so you get a -3 to doing whatever the other thing was you meant to do.

Or your character nearly has her head blown off by a Cthulloid horror with a bazooka, makes a fight or flight test, and gets a strong "fight" result (probably because of personality traits like "Bad Temper" or "Combat Hardened"). Now she's Angry At the Monster +5. She gets a +5 bonus to fighting the monster -- but a -5 to running away from the fight, or trying to make peace with it.

The idea here -- and Henri's on-the-nose discussion of "temptation" just helped me understand my own proposed mechanic much better -- is that you tempt the PLAYER to act in the same way as the CHARACTER is tempted. If you choose to follow your passions / emotions, the ambivalent modifiers act as bonuses and make you more powerful -- but you may be powering up all the way down to your doom. If you choose to fight your feelings, the ambivalent modifiers act as penalties and make you less powerful -- but while you may be crawling, you may be crawling in the right direction.

Doctor Xero wrote:

Sydney Freedberg wrote: In My Eventual Game, I'm toying with an idea (not entirely original, I grant you) [details snipped]

This sounds a tad like the personality rolls in Ars Magica, but overall it sounds delightful. When can we hear more about it? I'd want to incorporate it in my next game!

Henri wrote: I see two ways to give teeth to the temptation. The first is the standard "willpower" or whatever roll to resist, but people complain that this is deprotagonizing. The other is something non-random, that leaves the player in charge of making the decision, but somehow either rewards the player for giving in or penalizes the player for not giving in. That way the choice is less of a no-brainer for the player (assuming that otherwise they would always choose not to give in).

Does anyone know of a thirds approach?

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)

(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?

Calebrous wrote:
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" ...

calebros wrote: Basically, I see six ways for a situation of "you are frightened" to happen :
...

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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").

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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 wrote:

Calebrous wrote:
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.
.

John Kim wrote:

calebros wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

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.

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, [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=127929#127929]here[/URL].

Sydney Freedberg wrote: So what kind of games would benefit from what kinds of emotion mechanics?

Sydney Freedberg wrote: And what do people feel about the idea of losing control of their character's choices for a time?