So, I have been thinking about psychology.

Human behaviour is something that has observable patterns.

There are innumerable games which concern themselves solely with the emulation of observable patterns, and optionally with the creation of new patterns that have some credible congruity with those that are observable.

Nonetheless, I know of very few that are concerned with the patterns of human behaviour.

How can this be?

Hi,

Just consider the amount of effort it takes for people to reach a meta-cognizance of their own behavior... Usually when presented with evidence of behavior patterns people tend to either throw up defensive tactics and not consider the idea, or they nod, agree, and not really consider the idea. For the most part, agreeing/disagreeing becomes a behavior pattern- not an actual process of thoughtful digestion.

With such a game- we'd probably get the same result as a person who sees the world in black and white trying to play Dogs in the Vineyard- that is, all the "real meat" of the concept would go right past them.

I think games that point indirectly to the issues of human pattern conditioning probably do better to address the issue than those that attempt to wrestle it directly. Consider Unknown Armies' psychological rules, such as the Fear/Rage/Noble triggers and the Hardening rules. Although fun, they are simplistic at best. Then compare it to Dog's implicit addressing of ego, greed, jealously, fear, etc. as applied through the various NPCs in towns.

The neat thing about indirect addressing of such issues is that people don't put up their defensive filters as they do when they believe it is being directly addressed to them. This is why many traditions of philosophy and religion throughout history have preferred to teach by way of story- it takes the focus off the listening, and allows the lesson to bypass and avoid it becoming a "preaching" battle of egos. Of course, as much as anything else, it still requires a person to actually think about what is going on in order to get it.

Chris

Shreyas,

Nonetheless, I know of very few that are concerned with the patterns of human behaviour.

And would you say those few games mostly "concern themselves solely with the emulation of observable patterns"? Or are there games among this subset that concern themselves with the "creation of new patterns"?

Paul

Paul, of those games, most of the ones I can think of (MLwM being the canonical example) are concerned with pathological behaviour that I'm not at all experienced with, so I couldn't tell you; I don't know the source material or the designer's intent well enough. A few other games work for deliberately unnatural behaviour - Nobilis, for instance.

I can think of only a single example, FVLMINATA, that has a behaviour mechanic whose goal appears to be to produce naturalistic behaviour in a non-stress situation. In my prior post, I wasn't specific enough; this stuff is what I'm asking about.

Chris, as far as your indirection point: I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that there are games that try to address behaviour covertly? I am getting the impression that you're saying, "Well, people don't write those games because other people are hostile to them," to which I say, "But that didn't stop kpfs. Why this?"

I have my own thoughts on this matter, but I'll reserve them for a little while; I'm much more interested in what everyone else has to say.

Hi Shreyas,

I'm saying that overall, in rpgs or outside of rpgs, addressing conditioned patterns is usually best done covertly not because people are consciously hostile, but usually there is something that "blinds" them to the idea of patterns or recognizing them. In extreme cases, we can see people who are being abused who do not recognize that being unhappy, harmed AND used = abuse.

In general, when we look to pointing out the conditioning of people, we find it in comedy, science fiction, fantasy/myth/religion, or parable. In all cases, it lacks the overt, "This is about YOU" thing that causes people get riled up. KPFS works because it is comedic- no one actually takes it seriously, and although the behavior is exaggerated- it still manages to address the topic of dysfunctional behaviors.

I think any game that dives into human issues, whether on a serious level, or a comedic level, is going to hit human behavior patterns. Dogs in the Vineyard is about people causing problems with other people, and it lists a good set of common problems that come up... Dust Devils & PTA set characters against their own personal issues and behavior patterns, which they either learn to overcome or fold under.

The key is, these games focus on human behavior, while at the same time leaving space for the group to address it according to their own level of understanding. So, kpfs? You could just play it for laughs. Or you might look deeper and shudder. Or feel pity. Or whatever. Dogs? You could just try to do right. Or maybe you look at the Faith and say, "We seem to have a lot of problems for a divinely inspired way of life..."

The games that work best focus on human issues, but allow a group to approach it at their own level.

Chris

Hi Shreyas,

I'm pretty puzzled about this thread topic, because I'm having a hard time seeing that any role-playing (which is to say, in which any Creative Agenda gets expressed) fails to do what you're describing.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Perhaps I have not asked my question in a clear enough manner, then. Perhaps you can help me restate it by providing some example of the addressing you're thinking of.

Hello,

By "addressing," I figure you must be referring to my use of "expressing," in my post. If that's correct ...

... then all Gamist play is about tapping into patterns of resource husbanding, assessing risk to payoff, reversals of advantage and disadvantage, and most importantly, establishing hierarchies of interpersonal status based on performance within arbitrary closed-system parameters.

... then all Narrativist play is about tapping into patterns of recognizable human conflict, as expressed using fictional characters. The origins of these patterns is controversial, but the usual suspects include various aesethetics/metaphysics theories, cultural constructs which are associated with conformity with or rebellion against norms, and sociobiological interpretations of human priorities.

... then all Simulationist play is about confirming shared enthusiasm in a specific set of signs and symbols (semiotics, formally speaking), and in the shared culture which recognizes them.

We can rely, I think, very confidently on the assumption that human leisure activities are often going to center on these large-scale tendencies. The different Creative Agendas are merely the manifestation of these tendencies/interests during the specific activity of role-playing.

Perhaps you mean something different with your use of the term "pattern"? Or that you're focusing on a specific way to bring these things into play?

Or perhaps I should step down from participating in the thread. I'm not sure I'm helping it.

Best,
Ron

I'm talking about game mechanics that explicitly generate human behaviour, not any of this numinous aboutness business.

That is to say, I don't care about CAs in this thread. I care very specifically about mechanics that generate human decisions as their output. FVLMINATA's Influence mechanic is one of these, while, say, the d20 skill resolution mechanic is not, even though, on the level of sufficient abstraction, it's part of a game of resource management.

Basically, I'm indirectly trying to ask, "Games that have declared themselves Sim over the ages have tried to simulate everything but people. Why the weird gap? What's this self-identified Sim phobia of humans?"

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Basically, I'm indirectly trying to ask, "Games that have declared themselves Sim over the ages have tried to simulate everything but people. Why the weird gap? What's this self-identified Sim phobia of humans?"

Hey, :)

I don't see where you're seeing a gap. There's a huge number of games that contain personality and behavior mechanics, which encourage, if not outright enforce, patterns of behaviour in characters.

The one that most immediately pops to mind is the ever-ancient D&D alignment stuff.

Others usually come in sets of advantages and/or disadvantages. Count among these GURPS, L5R, Rolemaster, Shadowrun, and I'm sure there are others.

A softer version of this is Pendragon, whereby your character is defined by a number of value pairs and you are rewarded for acting within what those pairs define as a personality.

I'm sure I could go on, unless this is also not what you mean, in which case, like Ron, I'd like to know more about what it is you're looking for.

Cheers,

J.

I agree with efindel. Think of a game that starts: "Think up a character, make it whatever you like, as long as it suits the group's chosen setting. ... This character is you."
This last sentence would pretty much restict the player in exploring his own behaviour, for the very simple reason that the character is supposed to be him. This makes him responsible for every deed he thinks up. This would mean, every possible action is filtered against a strong social code.
Mostly, we play with friends. We don't want to risk them thinking we are very nasty/dangerous persons.

In not explicitly linking the character to player, the player is granted some safe distance. This way he can do more and show more issues about human nature. (assuming human nature is not always something to be proud of)

JMendes, compare:

D&D Alignment: "If you act outside the strictures of your alignment, the DM should punish you."

FVLMINATA Influence: "Someone attempting to Influence a character provides the victim a set of options and makes an Influence check. As the result of the check improves, the options the victim may choose from decreases."

The former is an example of a mechanic that I'm not talking about; its output is not behaviour. The latter is the subject of the question; it's a structured method that actually decides how people act.

Eva, Travis:

That's what I had originally thought.

My bafflement lies in the idea that this sort of thing, if it were well-developed, could be a really strong tool for, say, a person handling a lot of NPCs in a traditional GM-player setup; it allows him to have diverse and complex characterisation without his needing to "get inside their heads" with immersion techniques, writing pages of amateurish prose, or whatever, allowing games to be run with less overhead and more Actual Play. (I guess I'm betraying some assumptions here about what qualifies as AP.)

I'm still a little confused about the distinction, even with the Fvlminata example.

Shreyas, would something like Vin Diakuw's Reverse RPG count as an example of what you're talking about?

Shreyas wrote: Eva, Travis:

That's what I had originally thought.

My bafflement lies in the idea that this sort of thing, if it were well-developed, could be a really strong tool for, say, a person handling a lot of NPCs in a traditional GM-player setup; it allows him to have diverse and complex characterisation without his needing to "get inside their heads" with immersion techniques, writing pages of amateurish prose, or whatever, allowing games to be run with less overhead and more Actual Play. (I guess I'm betraying some assumptions here about what qualifies as AP.)

Isn't the increase in over-head only because the personality mechanic is a separate thing from the mechanics that are occurring throughout the game anyway?

Like, if rolling a 1 on d20 for monsters were "Monster morale breaks," instead of "Critical fumble" then you'd have zero increase in points of contact or search time.

Hey, :)

Shreyas, sorry to be coming back to this point, but...

L5R RPG wrote: Soft-Hearted (L5R RPG) - 2 points
You have a profound respect for human life. Your conscience overcomes you whenever you are about to commit an act of inhumane cruelty. Whenever you try to take a human life, you must make a simple Willpower roll against a 20 or you can't follow through with the action.

L5R RPG wrote: Insensitive (L5R RPG) - 2 points
The three most important things in your life are your health, your welfare, and your wealth. You care little for the plights of others and don't make any motions to keep it a secret. You must spend a Void Point whenever you want to put yourself at risk for another.

Shreyas Sampat wrote:
Basically, I'm indirectly trying to ask, "Games that have declared themselves Sim over the ages have tried to simulate everything but people. Why the weird gap? What's this self-identified Sim phobia of humans?"

As a heavy simulationist I am very concerned with psychological structures/consistent personality-behavior. I conclude that rolling to govern NPCs is not the preferred way to go. Perhaps for young role players charts w/ die rolls to select a behavior is useful, but an adult GM should be able to put himself in the mind of each character and make decisions for them. On the other hand, some people are prone to unstable behavior and may warrant die-rolls. On some days certain personality types would do X, while on other days they would do Y. But, most people are not very inconsistent their general behavior.

A good knowledge of a variety of personality types is useful to help guide GM decisions. I used to hail the Meyers-Briggs (most game designers will be INTJs by the way) as the best personality guide, but now have replaced that with the Enneagram structure http://www.authenticenneagram.com/what_is_the_enneagram.html (and most designers are Personality #5). This is the structure I’ll be including in my system’s publication as a sideline guide for GMs and to aid players in playing personality types different from their own.

The issue of How People Work is a key one for me, and one that can ruin my fun in a game. However, the mechanics of modelling How People Work in ways that don't instantly get on my nerves are rather tricky. For example, I can't play D&D 3.5 unless I'm in a silly mood, because the rules dicate that people behave in ways that just do not match with my understanding of human behaviour.

So it ends up falling as a burden on the GM (in the case of all the NPCs) and the other players (in the case of the other PCs). Mechanics to help them would be nice for sim games where that is important, but I have no idea where one would start. I mean, I'd already start arguing with Domhnall, because I loath MBTI, don't think Enneagram is much better. The personality model that has the strongest empirical support is the Five Factor Model (most designers will be high on Openness to Experience, but who knows on everything else, which is probably as well, because it wouldn't be very helpful), but nobody seems to think that's so funky.

Thus the essential problem. Everyone has a different view of how people work. There are many patterns in human behaviour, but either people don't know about them consciously, or they likely think they're wrong. So what do you model?

Uh... surely this would fall under the province of Techniques, and not (therefore) be assigned to any particular CA. I don't think a rule-mechanic that helps people to more easily act in believable ways is only important to Sim game-play.

TonyLB wrote: Uh... surely this would fall under the province of Techniques, and not (therefore) be assigned to any particular CA. I don't think a rule-mechanic that helps people to more easily act in believable ways is only important to Sim game-play.

Daniel, care to explain your distate for mechanical methods in greater detail? From your post, I can only guess that you are assuming "mechanics are not useful for anything remotely complex, and a necessary evil that should be avoided wherever possible, and also kids don't know the difference," which I find alternately confusing and insulting on a variety of levels.

James, you're not missing, you're increasing: I'm asking about the existence and function of existing mechanics that determine non-stress behaviour; no one's said anything yet about constraining players with such a thing.

I don't think this is such a bad thing, though: consider MLwM, which (I hear) does something like this with great success.

beingfrank (I'm sorry that I don't remember your name!), the question of where to start bugs me as well. I think Gareth makes a relevant point about the FVLMINATA initiative rule (he's also expressed the distinction I've been trying to get across much more clearly) - you start and stop where it's relevant to your game, and you express a view of human behaviour that's consistent with your other material. So, since F is so class-conscious and takes social stratification to be a good thing, it makes higher social class mechanically better.

To extend that into a larger example, suppose that you've got a game that's concerned with social climbing - maybe it's about "the new kids" finding their place in high school. You might have some trait that measures each character's social prominence, and the social prominence of people involved in a conflict affects the ways it's likely to resolve: Each character's personal prominence sets a basic chance for victory, serving a more-prominent character's wishes adds some portion of their prominence, antagonising less-prominent characters is easier, and so on.

That's the squishy indirect portion of the system.

The bit that simply executes says something like, "You can transfer a point of prominence to someone to make them try to do what you want." Yeah, that's not very clever. I thought of it in five minutes!

So, that's my extended answer to "how people work"; you don't need to comprehensively account for behaviour, but you're able to do so where it counts.

I think, at this point, my question's been answered, so I don't really have a role in the thread any longer. Thanks for all the thoughts, guys; I'm going to turn to implementation. (That's not to say that the thread's closed, for anyone who might want to continue discussing.)

Just a quick add-on to a very interesting thread...

An insight of my own quite recently has led me to considering the use of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for deciding on areas of conflict. I think this ties into Shreyas' question, but I wanted to post that link as being a tool which I find very useful in other areas (I'm a foster parent) but haven't ever seen applied in gaming. No RPG examples available yet; I'm workin' on it.

- Eric

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Daniel, care to explain your distate for mechanical methods in greater detail? From your post, I can only guess that you are assuming "mechanics are not useful for anything remotely complex, and a necessary evil that should be avoided wherever possible, and also kids don't know the difference," which I find alternately confusing and insulting on a variety of levels.

James, you're not missing, you're increasing: I'm asking about the existence and function of existing mechanics that determine non-stress behaviour; no one's said anything yet about constraining players with such a thing.

I don't think this is such a bad thing, though: consider MLwM, which (I hear) does something like this with great success.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Daniel, care to explain your distate for mechanical methods in greater detail? From your post, I can only guess that you are assuming "mechanics are not useful for anything remotely complex, and a necessary evil that should be avoided wherever possible, and also kids don't know the difference," which I find alternately confusing and insulting on a variety of levels.
....

As a biologist, I like to add the following:

Human behaviour is patterned and structured, but not in a simple way. We do have a pretty good simulator for most kinds of remotely or more human characters: we. Perhaps we can't always point to the "why", but we can think up what a certain kind of character would do in a given situation, however complex.

This complexity is what makes simple, straightforward rules on human behaviour so hard: there is no simple and realistic mapping between a pool of dices and human decission making.

This is why a dice-human would be so much less satisfying compared to a GM/player simulated human. The latter feels so much more real. In stead of totally artificial and crude.

To illustrate the point, I make a minor detour. Suppose you have to make an important decision: break up with your girlfriend or don't. Of course, you don't want to rush this, for that could do much damage. So there's a system: make two columns, one for yes, one for no. To each column, add as many advantages (and disadvantages of the other choice). If you can't think up anything else, count, act. Most probably, you either start to think up many more detailed reasons for one side or you end up ignoring the paper completely.
Important decisions are not linear or simple in any other way. The same goes for simulating human behaviour with a simple system. At one point or another it just "feels" wrong.

Hey Folks,

Hmmm… hope people are still reading this thread. I’m beginning to wish I’d responded a couple days ago.

I agree with Eva. It is a waste of time to try to simulate all human behavior in an RPG. Even if you succeeded the results would slower and no more fun then a purely freeform RPG. I once wrote a system that came close to simulating "true human behavior". After a few playtests I abandoned it because it was boring.

A game can benefit greatly, however, from specific aspects of human behavior being highlighted while others are not. If done properly, this will help focus how the game is played, bringing out conflicts innate to all of us. All of the games mentioned previously (at least that I’ve played) focus on a very small subset of human behavior. This subset was chosen by the game designers because it highlighted what the game was about.

I think that psychological/behavioral devices can greatly enhance games. But they can not be used to truly reflect all human behavior.

Best,
Bill