Thanks to Ron for the GNS essay which I grabbed this phrase out of and may even have have mislabeled for something else entirely. Thanks Ron!

I've always found personality mechanics rather interesting, my defination being things like Spiritual Attribuites in TROS, the virtue system in Exalted, Sanity checks, attribuites in Ghost Light/Wuthering Heights etc etc. In GURPS, you have a plethora of different psychological limitations and tendencies to give your character, but I something I found lacking is for want of a better word "Life". Say I have a character in GURPS take curiousity. It gives a readout of how severe each version of Curiosity is, and instructs you to roleplay it out(Several other psychological disadvantages say that if you don't roleplay it out, the GM is apt to remove it at point cost.)

So you have a general description of a personality trait, a sentence or so detailing how severe this trait is, and an instruction to roleplay, damnit. But there's very little symettry with the rest of the system that you don't create yourself. This leaves to a feeling of isolation from the rest of the system so there's less undelying logic. If an extremely curious individual has a moment of restraint and decides to not explore the nuclear warhead, what than?

In systems such as Exalted, TROS etc, this isn't a problem because you're supplied with answers to suhc cases that tie into the game's system. In Exalted, it reuires willpower to betray personality traits, in TROS, characters that do not follow their passions, drives etc are simply less "spirited", and a good deal less capable in the world. To me, that changes the words written on a sheet to a living, breathing presence in game.

So, what are personalty mechanics that you do (not) like and what makes them (not) "come to life"/"work"?

Hi Sirogit,

There's an important distinction between the kinds of "personality" mechanics you've mentioned. GURPS personality disadvantages, Hero System Psych Lims, and SAN are all proscriptive traits. They determine how the character acts and are hard for the player to change. For the most part, these kinds of traits penalize the player for choosing not to go along with them.

On the other hand, a mechanic like Spiritual Attributes in TROS and Humanity in Sorcerer leave character behavior up to the player. In both these cases, these traits reward the player for using them.

The elements of where the decision lies and penality/reward create different player behavior. The proscriptive/penalty category are like stage directions to an actor and can be invoked by the GM against player wishes whenever the situation applies, giving a consistent character feature. The voluntary/reward category sets out a theme that the player may choose a variation of, or not, as he desires in play. They aren't features of the character so much as features of the character's personal story.

I don't think there's one best kind of personality mechanics. Reward mechanics are more pleasant, and open decision-making allows creativity in that area. On the other hand, people enjoy playing games with penalties all the time - and solid stage directions can feel comfortable and stable, allowing the player to concentrate creativity in other areas.

I think that's worther repeating: for some players and some activities proscription is a good thing because it allows the player to put their energy into some other ascpect of play that interests them.

But to get back to your question, while there may not be a best _kind_ of mechanic, I think there are elegant executions for particular designs. Humanity in Sorcerer and SAs in TROS get my vote for best system integration.

I'll tip my hat to Unknown Armies in this area. The passion traits there have three different categories but are defined by the player, resulting in a player who has the opportunity to examine his character in a more three-dimensional manner and an elegant integration into the UA madness and magic system.

Those three categories of passion, Rage (something that makes you mad), Noble (something that brings out your morality and humanity), and Fear (something that makes you afraid), may not be suitable for all settings but it's very easy to augment it to suit the frequently triggered personality traits of other worlds.

Were D&D to use a passion trinity, the categories Rage and Noble would certainly suit the orc-slaying adventurers of that game. Fear might not be so compatible, however, so that could be either ditched entirely or replaced with a more relevant passion category. Perhaps some sort of material goals? "Greed"?

The trinitity I used for PUNK was based on primal instinctual urges of aggression, desire and fear. Fight (something you hate and are compelled to rebel against), Fuck (something you want more than even your own life), and Flight (something you fear beyond any sense of loyalty to friends, family, or loved ones.)

Excellent point, Alan.

Pendragon Personality Traits are often misinterpreted as proscriptive in this regard. In fact they are designed primarily to react and change based on how the player chooses to play. They *become* proscriptive at high levels, but its impossible to get to those high levels unless the player actively tries to do so.

I find the systems that work best offer a reward for playing to the trait rather than a penelty for violating it. In TROS the benefit is additional dice to roll and spend on Insight. In Pendragon the benefit to playing to a trait is a higher trait score which can lead to glory rewards for being renown in that trait and even special "powers" in the form of religious and chivalraic bonuses for having certain traits at certain levels.

Just to clarify, In GURPS it does require a will roll to avoid succumbing to a disad. This defaults to IQ, and can never be higher than 14, IIRC. In that way it's just like all the others of the sort.

Mike

Valamir wrote: I find the systems that work best offer a reward for playing to the trait rather than a penelty for violating it.

Well, because I'm entirely biased, I like the way Aspects handle it in Fate, but I'm hardly a fair judge.

From a purely practical/in play standpoint, 7th Sea's Arcana system does a wonderful job with this. The personality traits covered are all larger than life (as suits the genre), provide rewards for use (I love being able to throw my "rash" player a die and say "do something stupid") and go a long way to support certain genre tropes (One Hubris which Villains may take, for example, allows the players to spend a drama die to have him explain his villainous plan. Another can be invoked to make the villain only kill captives in an elaborate death trap sort of way.)

Better yet: You get ONE arcana, that's it. It's something that's supposed to help define the character, and allowing that kind of clear specialization is pretty handy for group dynamics.

In theory, the 7th sea system is a little more ham fisted than a number of other personality systems out there, but in play, I've never been anything but pleased with it.

-Rob D.

Hi there,

Me, I like the system in InSpectres. A player, speaking strictly in-character, may assign another player's character a personality trait. Later in play, if the second player gets that trait rolling in play, then it's worth a bonus.

What's really cool about this is as follows:

1. The bonus applies whether the trait is negative or positive.

2. The trait could be absolutely descriptive or absolutely mistaken, a pure unfair judgment on the part of the first player's character! The system therefore provides either a straightforward "add a detail" feature or a very sophisticated misunderstandings-among-us feature.

3. It all arises directly from the Stress-based adventures and interactions among the members of the fictional franchise, and feeds back into it.

4. It begins utterly unstructured; characters begin with no descriptive personality traits at all, and hence players are motivated only out of in-game events in coming up with them.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: A player, speaking strictly in-character, may assign another player's character a personality trait. Later in play, if the second player gets that trait rolling in play, then it's worth a bonus.
...
The trait could be absolutely descriptive or absolutely mistaken, a pure unfair judgment on the part of the first player's character! The system therefore provides either a straightforward "add a detail" feature or a very sophisticated misunderstandings-among-us feature.

John Kim wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: A player, speaking strictly in-character, may assign another player's character a personality trait. Later in play, if the second player gets that trait rolling in play, then it's worth a bonus.
...
The trait could be absolutely descriptive or absolutely mistaken, a pure unfair judgment on the part of the first player's character! The system therefore provides either a straightforward "add a detail" feature or a very sophisticated misunderstandings-among-us feature.

Interesting -- but what is the bonus, and who gets it? That is, does the player who is assigned the trait get the bonus, or does the player of the character in question?

The bonus is one die that the player of the "target" character, to which the new charactersitic has been attached, when he does something that incorporates the characteristic somehow in his description of something that he's rolling for.

Mike

Edited to note that I crossed with John, and that I may be presenting an earlier version of the rule.

talysman wrote:

John Kim wrote: Interesting -- but what is the bonus, and who gets it? That is, does the player who is assigned the trait get the bonus, or does the player of the character in question?

the franchise does. the bonus earned can then be assigned to individual characters or improving the franchise as a whole.

What a timely topic...for me anyway. I'm butting my head against this very thing for a system I'm working on.

I'm looking for some mechanics for compulsions and a setting-speciffic promise-efforcement system which could be descibed as convenants or "promises with teeth."

I'd like something more elegant and crunchy than the "Fight the Beast" or Spend Willpower approach.

I know this isn't the Game Design forum, but anything in this thread along those lines could be helpful.

I'll be keeping my eye on this space. Chat it up!

Jason 'AgentFresh' Just Some Guy' Sims wrote: I'm looking for some mechanics for compulsions and a setting-speciffic promise-efforcement system which could be descibed as convenants or "promises with teeth."

I've seen a lot of systems... and see three kinds of prsonality mechanics:

Those which help to drive your character.
Those which help to define your character.
And those which help to bind your character.

The first kind are passions, quirks, all of those odd idiosyncracies, feelings, goals.... and I feel that most of the time these don't need to be marked down in any fashion, but should be acknowledged the most. The problem I see is that many games with personality traits garner players who rely solely on these traits to run their characters, who don't play them so much as expect the traits to play for them. This is especially true of such traits as Charisma, which I emphatically steer clear of (I do not like people who cannot play their states, and thus rely on them to determine how others should react to them)... but I am more comfortable with things like Absent-Mindedness or Curiosity. And yes, I feel they can be brought in line with the character as a hole.

A trait that would define a character is willpower, raw determination. An extremely curious character could well exert his willpower to fight off that need... flat common sense and survival instinct are two others, and don't even need to be on a sheet. Traits that define are underlying traits, not active, not passive... things like intellect and wit and will, sanity and clarity of thought, some of which I feel should be on a sheet and others of which I really do see as the province of the player.

Traits that bind would include, for me, Charisma, but are really any trait that might not necessarily be bad always but which a player or story cannot handle. Some players cannot handle the quirk Curiosity, because they either don't play it at all or play it utterly to the hilt, without any rhyme or reason or rememberance that there are lives on the line, so on, so forth. Some can. We've all played characters with abilities beyond our ken, physically or mentally... and of the two, the latter is definitely the more dangerous, difficult to play often. And not everybody can do it. When all a character IS is a handful of traits and the roll ofa few dice, a few predetermined reactions... a problem exists. Sorry to say, not all players are created equal, and it is up to the GM at times to guide players toward choices that better suit them, that they can better handle, or help them when they make choices that are beyond them, but which may help them to grow.

Hi Windthin,

you wrote: Sorry to say, not all players are created equal, and it is up to the GM at times to guide players toward choices that better suit them, that they can better handle, or help them when they make choices that are beyond them, but which may help them to grow.

gobi wrote:

Valamir wrote: I find the systems that work best offer a reward for playing to the trait rather than a penelty for violating it.

That is my one complaint about the UA passions. Though they're integrated into the rest of the system fairly well, there is little incentive to actually play them except that you can flip-flop or mulligan once per session if it triggers a passion.

Emily Care wrote: Hi Windthin,

you wrote: Sorry to say, not all players are created equal, and it is up to the GM at times to guide players toward choices that better suit them, that they can better handle, or help them when they make choices that are beyond them, but which may help them to grow.

Different mechanics would allow each of these traits you mention to be handled differently. In most games, it's up to gm/play group discretion how much of a given trait the player has to be able to carry off in order to invoke the trait. Sounds like you'd be like mechanics that require more work from the player and give less "mechanical" successes. What games have mechanics that support this?

--Emily Care

Zheng He wrote:
Hi Forge. This is my first post, so be kind to me, will you? Thanks

Well, I think the central point of some traits is to be punished in some way if you don't follow them. Most of psy disads fall inthis category, as long as psychology goes. Someone with a phobia does not get something positive from it, she only gets negative feelings when coming into it. This works also for all the "parental requirements" or superego indications of any sort. They work as triggers that get on only when the person is in conflict with them, but do not bring nothing good by themselves to the life of the person. So, if we want some realistic traits, I think we should stick to the way they're supossed to work in reality. We can bend it after, if they don't work, but they are not a reward, nor a stimulus to play them. They exist by themselves and for themselves, and so should be played.

I really thought that was a great post, Ralph; I sort of disagree about Monk, but it's a minor thing.

If you examine it, Monk is such a great detective precisely because of his particular bundle of annoying problems. He notices when the pictures aren't straight or something isn't balanced in the room because it bothers him; and because he notices these things, he picks up on the clues everyone else misses. That guy has something on his shoes; what is it, and how did it get there? Something is not right here; it bothers him, and he knows it. So in that sense his apparent disadvantages are his advantages.

It would be interesting to try to design that into play; to pair advantages with disadvantages in sensible ways. I suspect, though, that it would be too difficult to really do it well.

You also reminded me of something a Star Trek writer once said: the Prime Directive, in the original series, was never mentioned except when it was a problem. It was mentioned precisely to give conflict to the situation, to make it so that they couldn't just do what they wanted to fix things. They couldn't give guns to the good guys because of the prime directive; but they could invoke General Order 44 to destroy an entire planet when the life of the captain and first officer were threatened, without anyone mentioning the Prime Directive, because there was already enough on the line without that.

In the same way, disads would have to be used to create tension when it didn't already exist. Will Monk be able to overcome his fear of heights to rescue Sharona? In one sense we know he will, because he's the hero and she has to be there next week; in another sense, the fact of his fear of heights creates the tension, as he has to overcome that. Climbing the Ferris wheel is easy; it's beating his inner fears that are difficult.

How to catch that in a game, though, is challenging.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: It would be interesting to try to design that into play; to pair advantages with disadvantages in sensible ways. I suspect, though, that it would be too difficult to really do it well.

gobi wrote: I think the whole concept of an advantage and a disadvantage is dated concept, honestly. Anything that describes the character should be considered a trait and leave it at that. Its mechanical value should be determined in the context of the actions being taken and in what way they affect the dramatic tension either in or against the character's favor.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: ...playing GURPS that in many cases a so-called advantage would be disadvantageous and vice-versa.

Are there any systems where there are no "merits and flaws"? Where the value of a character trait is determined by context and not by an arbitrary attempt to apply, as Andrew said, a numerical value to a judgement call?

It's one of the central premises of the PUNK system I'm currently developing, but I'd definitely like to see other people's takes on the idea.

gobi wrote:
That is my one complaint about the UA passions. Though they're integrated into the rest of the system fairly well, there is little incentive to actually play them except that you can flip-flop or mulligan once per session if it triggers a passion.

Andrew Martin wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: ...playing GURPS that in many cases a so-called advantage would be disadvantageous and vice-versa.

Agreed! I've got an roleplaying acquaintance who regularly turns character advantages into disadvantages and turns character disadvantages into character advantages! It makes a mockery of conventionally designed games, like GURPS and WW Storyteller, where there's points to be gained and lost through advantages and disadvantages.

Lots of games these days do not distinguish between "negative" and "positive" traits in any way. Take Fate, for example. The designers mention "negative" traits as such, but really only to discuss labeling issues. In play, they're handled like any other trait. My Synthesis system charges you points for taking what other games would call flaws or disadvantages. And, well, in Universalis a trait is a trait is a trait.

The GMs mentioned above who are "allowing" their players to turn advantages and disadvantages on their heads are not incompetent, they're drifting the design. What they're saying is that they don't like the way that these things work in these games. That's all a preference issue. In any case, some of the other games mentioned might be more to thier liking.

Unknown Armies is an interesting case. Basically, I think that if the player accepts that the game is going to beat up on him, then the mechanics don't really punish the player, just the characters. I mean, you wouldn't say that a character taking a HP loss in D&D is being punished for anything. In fact, in some ways, they're being rewarded with an interesting challenge. I think UA falls into that catagory with their mechanics in a powerfully sim way.

Mike

It seems to me that this discussion is getting confused between two very different propositions:

1. Advantages and disadvantages are equivalent (and are or should be treaded the same by the system) because the right circumstances or clever play can turn an advantage into a disadvantage and vice versa.

2. Advantagaes and disadvantages are equivalent (and are or should be treated the same by the system) because they're both ways of building interesting situation around a character and/or focussing attention on the character.

Kamikaze, your skepticism regarding proposition 1 is understandable. The occasional exceptional ability to reverse an ad or disad in a specific situation isn't really a very strong argument for ads and disads to be treated as equivalent resource-wise. (This even echoes a real-world practice I find distateful, the lame attempt to find all lots in life equally desirable: sure, there are compensations for being blind and downsides to being rich, but don't try to convince me that being rich or being sighted aren't blessings that few sane people would be willing to give up.) But most of the systems of the type Mike describes, that treat ads and disads the same, are doing it primarily based on proposition 2.

This is largely a matter of GNS-linked differences in perspective and play techniques. Gamist play would strongly tend to test proposition 1, and either accept or (most likely) reject it based on the system and the exact nature of the desired challenge, while finding proposition 2 simply inapplicable. Narrativist play would strongly tend to test proposition 2 and either reject or (most likely) accept it based on the system and the exact nature of the Premise, while finding proposition 1 simply inapplicable. Simulationist play could end up deciding either way on either proposition depending on the style and technique (purist for system, high-concept, open sim, creative pastiche, etc.) or at odds over either proposition if participants are not in agreement with each other or with the system assumptions over the exact creative agenda.

- Walt

I think it has less to do with munchkins or GNS priorities as it does with negative point values are a bad idea. Or, are difficult to get to work well at the very least.

I cite the mass combat rules for original D&D Swords & Spells which gave Orcs a point value of -1. Murphy's Rules noted that you could technically have an infinite number of them.

This problem is evident in negative-point valued disadvantages. IIRC my GM used an arbitrary cap, which is in the book if I am not mistaken. The effect was taking many social/mental disadvantage to gain additional points to spend on combat abilities. Often, these disadvantages didn't have much effect on the game. One time the player who took Odious Personal Habit: Constantly Humming was told by the GM to stop doing that. Five points for free, then.

I like the way other games do it without negative points for anything. Anything you want about your character costs you. There is less change for odd effects that way IMO.

And then there's the way Nobilis handles flaws, which I like:

You don't pay points for them, OR get points for them. However, whenever they come up AND seriously impact/impede you, you get a "reward."

Thus, players are rewarded for negative aspects, which in term encourages them. But they're only rewarded IF THEY ACTUALLY APPEAR IN THE STORY.

It's far from the only good way to do it, but I like it.

When Daniel 'gobi' Solis wrote:

quoting first what I wrote: It would be interesting to try to design that into play; to pair advantages with disadvantages in sensible ways. I suspect, though, that it would be too difficult to really do it well.

I think the whole concept of an advantage and a disadvantage is dated concept, honestly.

M. J. Young wrote: I think he misunderstood my intent, and initiated an entire digression based on that misunderstanding.

gobi wrote: I think the whole concept of an advantage and a disadvantage is dated concept, honestly. Anything that describes the character should be considered a trait and leave it at that. Its mechanical value should be determined in the context of the actions being taken and in what way they affect the dramatic tension either in or against the character's favor.

Some traits really are a little one-sided on the outset: Phobia water, for example. Over-coming such a fear, however, can be intriguing and rewarding to see. I agree with what M.J. says here, about traits which hold a little of the good and the bad. Keen senses definitely go both ways, especially in terms of the eyes and ears... but a highly-developed sense of touch might also mean one is easily irritated, rather ticklish, or does not suffer pain well. Even now, however, we really are looking at the pros and cons of each trait... which, well, let's face it, IS part of working something into the system. While this is necessary, I feel it is also important to remember the broader effect of character traits and quirks, just as you a Strength stat and you have the way this is expression, which goes beyond a simple number.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I think it has less to do with munchkins or GNS priorities as it does with negative point values are a bad idea. Or, are difficult to get to work well at the very least.

I cite the mass combat rules for original D&D Swords & Spells which gave Orcs a point value of -1. Murphy's Rules noted that you could technically have an infinite number of them.

This problem is evident in negative-point valued disadvantages. IIRC my GM used an arbitrary cap, which is in the book if I am not mistaken. The effect was taking many social/mental disadvantage to gain additional points to spend on combat abilities.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Often, these disadvantages didn't have much effect on the game. One time the player who took Odious Personal Habit: Constantly Humming was told by the GM to stop doing that. Five points for free, then.

M. J. Young wrote:
I wasn't talking about spending points at all. I wasn't really talking about a list of ads and a list of disads.

I was talking about a system in which characteristics were defined such that each was defined for both positive and negative aspects.

• Character has an acute sense of smell which makes him able to identify someone and even to some degree track them by their scent, but can't stand to be in a crowded room for more than mere minutes before being overcome by perfumes and body odors.• Character is particularly observant of things that are out of place, and so has an innate sense of what has been changed in any location, but is also overly meticulous about detail and annoying to everyone around him.• Character has an incredible intellect which enables him to understand science and technology (or magic or psychology or some other field) in great detail, but has difficulty making himself understood by others because he tends to talk above their heads and assume that they understand what he is saying.

Things like that.

With that sort of system, you could actually take as many traits as you wanted, as long as they were self-balancing.

--M. J. Young

Hey M.J.,

I was talking about a system in which characteristics were defined such that each was defined for both positive and negative aspects.

• Character has an acute sense of smell which makes him able to identify someone and even to some degree track them by their scent, but can't stand to be in a crowded room for more than mere minutes before being overcome by perfumes and body odors.• Character is particularly observant of things that are out of place, and so has an innate sense of what has been changed in any location, but is also overly meticulous about detail and annoying to everyone around him.• Character has an incredible intellect which enables him to understand science and technology (or magic or psychology or some other field) in great detail, but has difficulty making himself understood by others because he tends to talk above their heads and assume that they understand what he is saying.

Things like that.

Those are great! I know you don't own the game, but have you seen any of the discussions in the My Life with Master playtest forum about the More than Human/Less than Human mechanics? Lesseee...check out this thread...

Paul

kamikaze wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Often, these disadvantages didn't have much effect on the game. One time the player who took Odious Personal Habit: Constantly Humming was told by the GM to stop doing that. Five points for free, then.

This was sheer incompetence on the part of the Judge, but it's also obnoxious behavior on the part of the player, who probably was a munchkin looking for exactly that result. The character having a disad doesn't mean the player has to.

The right way to handle that is to give the player a sign that indicates when the character is humming or not humming, and penalize any kind of stealth or social interactions while the character is doing so; the Will check to stop a disad will probably make it crippling.

If the Judge felt that the character shouldn't have that disad, stripping it and the 5 points worth of stuff from the character is mandatory. Allowing a player to slide on it, or getting rid of negative-point disads, is not good gaming.

Windthin wrote: I'd agree on this, really; the player was seeking something for nothing, and the GM let them have it. You can even go so far as to assume the character IS constantly humming when capable of it (after all, that IS what that flaw states), and apply penalties as necessary, with forced rolls to suppress the habit in required situations.

One very excellent set of personality mechanics which I have not yet seen mentioned can be found in Paul Kidd's Albedo and Lace & Steel. Paul has authored perhaps the most realistic mechanics I have seen to render the effect of a character's emotional state, while remaining simple and easy to comprehend. At least in my opinion... :)

Characters have ties and antipathies which represent, respectively, feelings of amity or enmity toward certain persons, nations, ideas, etc. Reinforce one's sentiment... help a thing with which one has a tie, or hinder a thing with which one has an antipathy... and gain a temporary bonus to Self-Image, which can aid in recovery from injuries, increase the likelihood of learning from experience or study, and generally boost morale and confidence. Fail to aid a loved one, or inadvertently help a foe, and Self-Image is penalized to your detriment.

RaconteurX wrote: Characters have ties and antipathies which represent, respectively, feelings of amity or enmity toward certain persons, nations, ideas, etc. Reinforce one's sentiment... help a thing with which one has a tie, or hinder a thing with which one has an antipathy... and gain a temporary bonus to Self-Image, which can aid in recovery from injuries, increase the likelihood of learning from experience or study, and generally boost morale and confidence. Fail to aid a loved one, or inadvertently help a foe, and Self-Image is penalized to your detriment.

gobi wrote: I may be working up something like that for PUNK, replace self-image with "punk points" and "ties & antipathies" with the three punk passions "fight, fuck, flight" and there ya go.

RaconteurX wrote:

gobi wrote: Perhaps PUNK could use something like "cred" (sadly, I do not recall any of the colorful slang we used for such things back in '81 to '83... my punk days)

Hey, I'm good with Cred. :) Let's take this conversation to PMs though, I don't want to take another thread wildly off-topic. :P