I've been trying to come up with a new way to approach "Splat-ness" in a game about "great big inexplicable cosmic weirdness" (hereafter, "GBICW"). I think Splats are an okay way to devide people into groups and create interpersonal conflict, but I wanted something that was more freeform and realistic. "I react to becoming a Vampire by embracing beauty as an ideal," isn't exactly a logical progression.

What I'm looking for is a breakdown of how people might conceivably react to GBICW, and what kinds of coping mechanisms they use to deal with the initial explosion of confused emotions.

I'm planning to use something like this in both "Fingers on the Firmament" (where the characters suddenly find that they can travel across the entire length and breadth of space-time) and "We Regret to Inform You (The Gamemaster is Dead)" (where the characters suddenly discover that they are characters in a RPG, and the GM has just died).

My initial brainstorming left me with this:

INITIAL REACTIONS:

Indecision -- so many possibilities of what to do, how do you decide?
Smallness -- feel so insignificant in the face of the GBICW
Rapture -- total awe of the vast glory of the GBICW, starstruck
Shock -- complete inability to deal with or comprehend the GBICW
Terror -- uncontrollable dread of the GBICW, fight or flight

COPING MECHANISMS:

Rejection -- seeks out other "better" explanations for what you experience
Replacement -- comes up with a conspiracy theory or other explanation
Fantasy -- believes it all to be a dream or illusion, refuses to accept consequences
Rage -- channels feelings into anger at a certain person or thing
Zealotry -- takes up a specific cause (or religion) to keep your mind off the truth
Apathy -- feigns indifference
Hubris -- god-complex, believes oneself to be special, egotism
Rooting -- limits oneself to acting within a certain sphere, focusing tightly
Normality -- pretends that nothing's changed, going on with life as usual
Suicide -- decides that death is the only possible response to the GBICW
Gluttony -- drinks deep of the GBICW, insatiably wants more

Basically, my theory is that each of the coping strategies is a possible option of dealing with the emotions of the initial reaction. Obviously some coping strategies might work better or worse depending on what they're responding to. Also, it's going to be completely possible for people to combine reactions or coping strategies or make up their own. It's not going to be as limited as traditional Splats.

If anyone has any other suggestions, disagrees with some of these (or sees them as two sides of the same coin), or has any other thoughts. I would be very appreciative.

Later.
Jonathan

Interesting. I would have said that Splats mostly exist to give players special abilities and a niche in the game. Being a Bruja or Tremere is little different in my mind than being a Fighter or Magic User in terms of what it does for the player. Sure, it can try to inform him as to a sort of manner to look at his embrace, but I always liked to play that stuff "improperly". That is, according to the rules, there's no reason that a player can't play a Tremere more like a Toreador. The personality stuff is left as suggestion, while the Powerz have mechanics attached.

Anyhow, that's not something I'm here to debate, nor is it germaine. The real question is will you have any mechanics backing up these categories of reaction, or will they just be ways for players to choose to codify the possible responses to the GBICW? If the latter, I'd suggest going freeform for more player freedom.

But I'd suggest the former. That is, if this is going to determine at all the character's "Niche" in the game, then I'd have mechanics for how this stuff affects his ability to cope, etc. Could be an interesting central premise, in fact.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Interesting. I would have said that Splats mostly exist to give players special abilities and a niche in the game. Being a Bruja or Tremere is little different in my mind than being a Fighter or Magic User in terms of what it does for the player.

That is, according to the rules, there's no reason that a player can't play a Tremere more like a Toreador. The personality stuff is left as suggestion, while the Powerz have mechanics attached.

The real question is will you have any mechanics backing up these categories of reaction, or will they just be ways for players to choose to codify the possible responses to the GBICW? If the latter, I'd suggest going freeform for more player freedom.

But I'd suggest the former. That is, if this is going to determine at all the character's "Niche" in the game, then I'd have mechanics for how this stuff affects his ability to cope, etc. Could be an interesting central premise, in fact.

Hey Johnathan,

For Quantum Z (working title) I plan on using a yin-yang balancing act between the ego and the weight of the knowledge (universal truths) that the character has to cope with. This can be summed up with a statement like "Our egos protect us from the ravages of the truth."

Being in or out of balance will have some as yet to be determined mechanical effects but I'm hoping to leave the effect on a character's behaviour mostly in the hands of the player. A character's school of thought should play an important role in a character's out of balance behavior. There will be some direction and various possibilities given on how an out of balance character would act, but at this point I don't see the advantage of any kind of mechanical effect being imposed on the character's personality. I hope that some sort of "good role-playing" reward will suffice, although if I do find a mechanic that I feel appropriate I probably will not hesitate to use it.

Hope that was of some help. I've been rereading "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch, so my brain is pretty much fried.

-Chris

To be clear, I wasn't advocating that the splats give you powers per se. What I was advocating is mechanics that somehow support exploration of these elements of the characters psychology. For instance you could have a Sanity stat or somesuch that was modified by in-game actions. When a character acted along his "Splat" he'd do better on rolls to save vs reducing this stat than if he tried to use some other tactic.

So, you have psychology supported mechanically.

What would be further interesting would be if characters were dynamic, and could somehow change their tactics. Thus a character who starts as a "Rejecter" could change at some point to taking an apathetic coping stance, and later shift to Zealotry. Just an idea. Allows players to have dynamic characters if they like. Or they can remain static which is also a cool choice.

Mike

Alternatively, you could treat the Initial Reactions and Coping Mechanisms simply as tools to help the players define the characters - similar to V:tM's Nature and Demeanor, or D&D's Alignments.

In that capacity, the character's Rxns and Coping Mechs become tools to aid the players in role-playing rather than Splats.

I for one have always had difficulty getting into the mindset of a character whose world has drastically changed through the application of GBICW, and just having your initial post in front of me as few guiding options would have been helpful at the time.

I would include the concepts of Initial Reaction and Coping Mechanism with your projects, regardless of whether or not you integrate them into the game mechanics.
-e.

Hi e.

Most games have some sort of section that details what sort of mentality that characters can have. And these are fine as far as they go. But in the absence of mechanics they usually don't do very much as far as defining the nature of play. Your Alignment reference is more like what I'm thiking in that with Alignments there are mechanical penalties for acting "out of character".

But I prefer to reward instead of punish. The problem with Alignments is that since they only punish, players just think of them as something to be circumvented. If you instead reward teh players for playing along these lines, then I think that you'll find that players will be all over trying to play with the selections they take.

The big question is how central to the game does Jonathan want to make these reactions? Are they a (or "the") central focus of play? Or is this just some ancilary mechanic meant for color?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Your Alignment reference is more like what I'm thiking in that with Alignments there are mechanical penalties for acting "out of character".

The big question is how central to the game does Jonathan want to make these reactions? Are they a (or "the") central focus of play? Or is this just some ancilary mechanic meant for color?

Mike Holmes wrote: The big question is how central to the game does Jonathan want to make these reactions? Are they a (or "the") central focus of play? Or is this just some ancilary mechanic meant for color?

silkworm wrote: Incidentally, Jonathan, you might want to take a look at Exalted - specifically the mechanics about the Great Curse. IMO a pretty good "sanity" mechanic, and it might give you some good ideas for your games.