The Forge Archives

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

Quote from: ValamirI 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. Even then, the GM can shut you down. It's nice considering how often a failed roll occurs in UA, but still a rather miniscule advantage weighed against all the penalties that occur if you don't play those passions.

I prefer personality systems that you described, where there is no penalty or bonus for not playing the passion, but there are high reward incentives if you do play them. Jared Sorensen sorta has this kind of thing going with his styles n' plot points interaction, which I really dig.

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

Quote from: Ron EdwardsA 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?

Quote from: John Kim

Quote from: Ron EdwardsA 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 franchise does. the bonus earned can then be assigned to individual characters or improving the franchise as a whole.

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.

Quote from: talysman

Quote from: John KimInteresting -- 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.

OK, so both of them benefit.  Interesting.  On the one hand, players are encouraged to have their PC personality match other's assessment of them.  On the other hand, players are encouraged to make assessments which are accurate and easy to match.  

I wonder how that compares in practice to traits assigned by the player.  For example, disads in The Babylon Project workslike this -- the player can choose psychological disads during character creation, and if they come up during play (and actually hinder the PC), then the player gets extra XP.  I guess, though, the difference depends a lot on how the group works.

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!

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

There aren't real personality mechanics in Multiverser, but there's space for them. One referee dropped me in a world not so long ago in which something very like what you mention--promise enforcement--was integral to the setting. In that world, if you made a promise, the world tended to hold you to it. If you acted in a way that was contrary to your promise, you got penalties on your rolls, and (I think) if you acted to support your promise when it was difficult, you got bonuses.

Thus reinforcement of promise was built into the skill resolution system.

--M. J. Young

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.