Each cultural and occupational keyword lists typical Personality traits of typical members (Fears Dragons, Proud, Outgoing, etc). How many of those traits can a starting character take?

Are they selected as part of the Keyword process - that is to say, does a starting character get all of the personality traits listed under a Keyword if he wants them? That doesn't seem right.

Are they extra abilities like relationships that you can select during character creation? If so, the character creation examples contradict this.

Do you just take as many as you like? If so, doesn't that give a lot of power to Personality traits as augments?

It seems to me that that is precisely the point.

You can take them all if you like. I usually do. In fact, I usually take all but one just to make the character different from "everybody else" in that group. Then I usually add one or two just to be completely unique. Easily a dozen or so by the time I add virtues on, etc.

Yes, this is loads, and yes it's potent. If you aren't getting at least +6 on every roll from personality traits, consider that you might be in the wrong contests. From the Narrator POV, you should think like TROS SAs. That is, if you can't see a good number of the Hero's personality traits playing into some event, then it's really not interesting to the character.

I had one fight recently where one character was getting about +10 overall from personality. Personality traits tend to be useful in many places, and are really the way that you make a potent character. This is cool, just like TROS, again. It means that the character who's most powerful is the one who gives a damn. It's so cool when a PC can defeat an NPC who has a higher rating in some skill because their augments pump them that far up. This matches life, literature, and the genre so well, I can't tell you how much of an improvement it is to the way RPGs play.

This isn't a bug, it's maybe the game's best feature. When you get done with your character you'll have somebody who's really deep and interesting staring you back from the sheet. Probably as deep as you could describe yourself. That's too cool for words.

Relationships are the focus of those personality traits. That is, personality traits will tell you how and when the character cares, but the relationships will tell you where and what the character cares about and why (Loves Irinia, Defender of Thaylaron City). Together you have a complete map to creating action that will be relevant to the character. In fact, you'll find that players will discover angles that the characters take on issues that you hadn't even forseen. Which means you don't even have to try hard, IME. How different is this from most games where you have to beg the players to pay attention to your plot hooks? It's a godsend.

I mean, throw a bag of money in the center of a ring, and one racial epithet, and that can be a whole adventure write up. The players will look at their character sheets and take it from there.

Sorry to gush, but... :-)

Mike

Edited to note that Shreyas' wordthrifty cross post, as usual, makes mine look clumsy by comparison.

Well, I know HQ isn't a Gamist archetype, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can use Personality augments on a WIDE variety of tests. Picture beady-eyed Powergamer hunched over a glowing copy of HeroQuest:

"If I take Honorable and Courageous as Personality traits ... I can use those in combat, in romantic attempts, in debates, in athletic exertion, in facing challenging puzzles ... I'll be unstoppable!"

(No, not meant as a slight to our Gamer brethren. I pick the extreme case to show a potential weakness, and could make Narrativists look just as silly by picking an extreme Narrativist)

Given that Personality traits can augment more than a few contests, if chosen wisely, including the important advancement tests for ranks in a specialized magic keyword, are there any limits on how to select them?

I suspect that, if applied with common sense (you can't use Fears Dragons to beat down just any guard, but you can use it against the guard that the dragon has posted at its refrigerator door (so you can get out)), then the effect of personality traits should be to make play in different GNS modes superficially resemble each other in play.

No, there aren't any limits to personality trait augments. None that I know of anyway. My advice? Don't worry about it. Sure, it's possible for a player to make a hero with nothing but broad & positive personality traits. It's still the narrator's call as to whether or not they apply as augments to a particular roll. And it's within the narrator's rights to give a hero a flaw, including a personality flaw, at any time. Plus, even with all of those augments, the hero won't be "unstoppable"--there's always someone more powerful than you in Glorantha.

But as Mike gushed, personality traits are fantastic. I love them. Those and relationships. Two of HQ's major points, as far as I'm concerned. Let your players augment like crazy with both. It's tremendous fun.

Deacon Blues wrote: "If I take Honorable and Courageous as Personality traits ... I can use those in combat, in romantic attempts, in debates, in athletic exertion, in facing challenging puzzles ... I'll be unstoppable!"

Quick off-topic comment. In this thread and many others the members of The Forge have deeply impressed me with their exposition of the HQ system. You have opened up many doors to Maximum Game Fun. And all in an atmosphere of politeness and congeniality. Wow and thanks!

I'd like to add that this thread has convinced me of the value of keywords.

I'll also note that all those personality traits can become flaws at other times.

Thanks for your help in elaborating, guys. It confirms what I'd been thinking, and clarifies some issues.

Now, where in the rulebook does it say what you guys said?

[edit] Found it - in the heading of the Keywords sections, where it explains what Typical Personality Traits entail. Hardly the most prominent spot. (Sorry, I have curmudgeonly issues with HQ's layout)

Mike Holmes wrote: I think we'll be seeing the downside of some of his personality traits as he deals with his brother (see Thomas killed their father, y'know, being as he has a personality trait of Berzerker 5W).

Hi guys,

Thought I'd briefly add the value of creating conflicting traits for a character to set up an internal struggle. As a player, you may find it fun to play out the conflict between "Compassionate" and "Overwhelming sense of guilt" in a redemption story, or some other set of conflicting traits.

Chris

Chris, as the creator of Synthesis, you think that maybe I do that sometimes? The entire game is all about that sort of conflict.

And I've seen Brand do it, too. He'll make two rolls without explaining why, and then announce an action. I think that often, when you're not sure what to do next, it's fun to see "what the character would do" using the system. Shouldn't be used solely, but it's what Ron would call a "springboard for imagination". Once you see the result, like any other result in HQ, you start to imagine the details of why the character is doing what they're doing, and suddenly you're off running again.

I've seen people roll even-odd in other games to decide what to do. HQ has a built in method for making "random" actions match character personality. Neat.

Oh, and if you ask the Narrator if it's OK to roll, you don't void any rule in HQ. Nothing in the rules says that resistances can't be internal.

Mike

And I've seen Brand do it, too. He'll make two rolls without explaining why, and then announce an action. I think that often, when you're not sure what to do next, it's fun to see "what the character would do" using the system. Shouldn't be used solely, but it's what Ron would call a "springboard for imagination". Once you see the result, like any other result in HQ, you start to imagine the details of why the character is doing what they're doing, and suddenly you're off running again.

Let's not forget that personality traits are great abilities to use in contests too. One of the more humorous extended contests I have run involved a merchant and a lawspeaker attempting to persuade a weaponthane along a particular course of action. The weaponthan resisted using Belligerent, augmented by Strong and Reputation as a Bully.

Merchant: "We really should do X."

Weaponthane: "No!" <shove>

Lawspeaker: "But our mission demands Y!"

Weaponthane: "Bugger that!" <shove>

... Etc.

RaconteurX wrote: The weaponthan resisted using Belligerent, augmented by Strong and Reputation as a Bully.

Merchant: "We really should do X."

Weaponthane: "No!" <shove>

Lawspeaker: "But our mission demands Y!"

Weaponthane: "Bugger that!" <shove>

... Etc.

Brand_Robins wrote: (such as when caught between the evil but sexy priestess who is about to make the innocent daughter of his ghost-worshiping and insane companion into an acolyte just as his younger brother comes into the room and accuses him of being a hypocrite for telling father not to kill daughter as murder of family is what Thomas is all about, and meanwhile his evil blood-drinking sword is starting to demand that he kill everyone in the area so it can feed on their blood....)

Mike Holmes wrote: And I've seen Brand do it, too. He'll make two rolls without explaining why, and then announce an action. I think that often, when you're not sure what to do next, it's fun to see "what the character would do" using the system. Shouldn't be used solely, but it's what Ron would call a "springboard for imagination". Once you see the result, like any other result in HQ, you start to imagine the details of why the character is doing what they're doing, and suddenly you're off running again.

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, is it legitimate to allow players to declare other's flaws as positive augments for themselves?

One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.

RaconteurX wrote: One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.

As I mentioned here, I think flaws are a great thing and I even want to go so far as to encourage players to take them by awarding Hero Points every time I activate one during play. I think a HP bonus at the end of a session equal to the auto-augment the ability would provide works pretty well. Thus, a Friend of <Sidekick> or Member of <Community> at 17 would give the player two additional HP... not a bad deal.

Because relationships are typically reciprocal in nature, most could act as flaws (and hence sources of HP) whenever the subject of that relationship needs the hero's help rather than vice versa. Narrators could require that the HP awarded for the activation of a relationship-as-flaw, or some fraction thereof (I would suggest a minimum of one HP), go to improve that relationship... representing the strengthening of the relationship bond and the gratefulness of the subject.

Thoughts? Opinions?

RaconteurX wrote: As I mentioned here, I think flaws are a great thing and I even want to go so far as to encourage players to take them by awarding Hero Points every time I activate one during play. I think a HP bonus at the end of a session equal to the auto-augment the ability would provide works pretty well. Thus, a Friend of <Sidekick> or Member of <Community> at 17 would give the player two additional HP... not a bad deal.

Because relationships are typically reciprocal in nature, most could act as flaws (and hence sources of HP) whenever the subject of that relationship needs the hero's help rather than vice versa. Narrators could require that the HP awarded for the activation of a relationship-as-flaw, or some fraction thereof (I would suggest a minimum of one HP), go to improve that relationship... representing the strengthening of the relationship bond and the gratefulness of the subject.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Heh, Michael, that's exactly how Aspects work in the game FATE. Fred makes a good point when he says that double edged Aspects are your best friend. Because they can make the character more successful, or then can give him more Fudge Points. Either way you come out ahead. More importantly, either way, the character is more of a protagonist than when he started.

I'd only consider giving the players HP, however, if they pointed out a flaw to me. Because, otherwise, as I've said, I'm making the character more of a protagonist by using the ability against them, and really rewarding the character design already. The HP in this case would be to get players to help out the GM who forgets to look for flaws all too often. And I'd only give one, because with these players, they'd soon have stacks a mile high. I might even limit it to just one or two per session. Even from a Gamist POV, what's a -4 on a roll as compared to the relative +20 that the HP gives me (and don't give me the can't spend it on this roll argument, because that assumes that the player is out of HP). ]

In any case, the way that I've been getting players to take Flaws is by proper advertisement. Any ability can be used positively or negatively (even specifically says that about Flaws in the book). So, really there's no difference between Flaws and any other ability except in general applicability. So what I do is tell players that they can get "Free Abilities" in chargen, so long as I think that they're something that might be used against the character a lot. As long as I don't call em Flaws, I get players flocking in droves to take these at all sorts of ridiculous levels.

So, I'm not sure I need further incentive.

Hell yeah, NPC relationships are double edged. Hence why I tend to give them out for free under the argument that they are flaws. PC relationships I usually charge for - let the player assume the risk there.

Hey, that's a good point to seque into another question I had. Brand, your character has both "Loves Whatshername", and "Loved by Whatshername", doesn't he? I think that's an interesting idea. Much like the Asshole problem above. What your method does, quite interestingly, is to allow for unrequited love. I think that when a player takes "In Love with Soanso" that they intend for it to be mutual. Have you "discovered" something here? Shouldn't that Abilty be on the NPC, and not your character?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Heh, Michael, that's exactly how Aspects work in the game FATE.

Mike Holmes wrote: Hey, that's a good point to seque into another question I had. Brand, your character has both "Loves Whatshername", and "Loved by Whatshername", doesn't he? I think that's an interesting idea. Much like the Asshole problem above. What your method does, quite interestingly, is to allow for unrequited love. I think that when a player takes "In Love with Soanso" that they intend for it to be mutual. Have you "discovered" something here? Shouldn't that Abilty be on the NPC, and not your character?

Hmm. That's some tricky stuff. We'll see how it works out in play.

Michael, sorry I didn't check the link. D'oh! :-)

Mike

Mike said:

Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:01 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RaconteurX wrote:
One personality trait which always seems to make its way onto any lawspeaker's hero sheet is some variation on Pedantic or Nit-picking, hence their tendency to get nutted by so-called "men of action" who want to accomplish things in their own particular... idiom.


LOL

Ah, I see, that explains a lot. Not too far from Pedantic to Asshole, really. :-)

Brand, you're almost making the opposition case back there. Consider that an alternate way of handling this, is simply to consider the character's response to the personality trait in question, and then give the character their own relationship to represent this. So, if Thurm is annoyed by the Pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker, then the GM should give him Annoyed by Lawspeaker at an appropriate level.

This is more precise in that the level of annoyance can be guaged for the character in question - some might be more or less annoyed by the pedantic nature of the Lawspeaker. The problem with it, and why I might use the other method, is that it's a lot of extra recordkeeping that may become pointless when, for instance, the Lawspeaker bites it having been left to fend off that cave bear by himself.

Cool. We'll have to give that a try. I have no problem with players having thier characters taking relationships with the other characters (almost seems like all we do in terms of development, actually), but they might be a bit better if they had slants like this. I may suggest something like this next time.

Thanks,
Mike