Looking over the comments for the Personality Mechanics article, it seems I overlooked a newer modification of the concept. Rather than a forced decision, the player gets a bribe to do something in accord with a 'disadvantage', and he can if he wishes refuse the reward and the action. Rewards are things like bonuses for rolls in the game, Fate Points, XP, etc.
Basically you're bribing the player to do what he's there to do- play the character.
Of course, that's not really true. If he was there to play the character, he wouldn't need a bribe now would he? No, what's really going on here is that the system is bribing the player to act out of character for a moment. Or it's bribing players to give the illusion of role-playing to the GM when the player's actual interest lies elsewhere.
If anything I react worse to this than I do the old school methods. In old school, I'm just forced to do something that may or may not be out of character. In this method I have to decide to play my character poorly either strategically (by refusing advantages offered by the bribe), or to role-play him poorly by accepting those bribes.
It's a no win, and thus a no go. Carrot or stick, the best simulator for a person is still a person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Do you also object to the traditional extra XP for good roleplaying?
As a common usage- yes.
The option exists in both ruleset I typically use (HERO System and Age of Heroes), but I've used it once or twice over the last few years. I have to be really impressed to use it.
Also it was for solving rather troublesome problems through role-play, and not just role-play. The amounts were also rather minor.
Personally I favour personality mechanics that grant benefits, as they can make otherwise suboptimal choices less so. Most players will roleplay as much as they would otherwise even when presented with such rules, and foo points are a good buffer against rules producing nasty effects, as long as those events are suitably rare.
Here's another sort of personality mechanic: No tokens are granted, but instead rolls are modified as attributes and skills do. Are they an anathema to you? (I'm asking mostly because I know a person with preferences similar to yours and meeting more similar people is not impossible.)
Just a little remark. At least for the games I was talking about in my comments to your other post, the rewarded behaviours have nothing to do with 'disadvantages'. Example: in The Riddle of Steel if you give your character the Spiritual Attribute (SA) "Love for the Queen", you can choose to gain bonus dice each time you act in a situation where something about the Queen is at stake. If your character also have the SA "I'm utterly loyal to the Prince", what will you do as a player, when the Prince orders your character to have the Queen arrested (for whatever reason)? These are the situations that make the SA Personality System shines.
All these mechanics are about the PLAYER and never about the character. For example, when I choose "Love for the Queen" as one of my character's SA, I'm saying to the GM that I'm interested in seeing my character's love for the Queen addressed during the game. I'm not in any way committing my character to love the Queen! At the end of the very first scene I could simply decide to replace "Love for the Queen" with "Love for the Queen's maid". This is why a player can actually accept or reject this kind of "bribes" without playing his character poorly: because the character is a tool for the player to express himself! For games built upon this kind of Personality Mechanics the point is not about a "person being the best simulator for a person" but about "a person being the author of the thematic decisions of a fictional character that gets defined by those same decisions".
"[W]hat's really going on here is that the system is bribing the player to act out of character for a moment. Or it's bribing players to give the illusion of role-playing to the GM when the player's actual interest lies elsewhere."
This statement is not true. There is no reason that acting in a way that is congruent with the personality mechanic must be out of character. There is also no reason to say that the player's interest lies elsewhere. You are making great leaps in logic here, and the conclusions are not at all valid. Your opinion is, but that is the end of it.
RPers do not need personality mechanics to RP. That does not mean that personality mechanics cause bad RP, or even hinder RP in any way, especially rules designed to give benefits when used, but not provide a straight jacket. They allow the person to decide when the rule is used, but encourages the player to remember the traits that the character has. It also creates those hard choices that are the essence of both heroism and good RP.
Leonardo also states this extremely well. I feel like personality mechanics add some tactics and strategy to the RP parts of an RPG. I really like some versions of personality mechanics, and feel like if used properly, are not at all the RP copout that is implied in this article.
@thanuir - I'm of the opinion that if you don't desire nasty effects, you should use a core rule set that doesn't inflict them. Not a PM or Fate point mechanic that overrides the core rules.
To your question, no I don't like PM modifiers much either.
For games built upon this kind of Personality Mechanics the point is not about a "person being the best simulator for a person" but about "a person being the author of the thematic decisions of a fictional character that gets defined by those same decisions".
Because that doesn't happen without rules? Even worse is how those rules can be twisted or misued, leading to "I only did it, because it's what my character would do!" When now the player gets a bonus on top of that.
You can roleplay with accents and wear a costume if you want. You can just be yourself with a sheet of numbers in front of you if you want. But I'm not a big fan of using rules like these that give little credit to the GM and players as to how they should conduct themselves in regard to character.
@Leonardo- as you describe it (being able to alter SAs on the fly), you've ended up justing giving yourself a bonus whenever you want to. Pointless. Just give the characters the bonus upfront and let them describe it however they wish.
If you can't do it on the fly, you run into the same problems I've already described. Forced plots and character decisions.
As to PMs not always producing poor results, I didn't claim they always did. Just that they often do, and will do more so than actually role-playing your character.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day and all.
@Precocious Apprentice- we're not going to reach an agreement on this point. The moment you claim to add 'tactics and strategy' to RP, you've already conceded every point I've made.
That's not to say that it isn't fun for you. It may well be.
I do not see how this concedes any points you have made. PM rules just increase or decrease the stakes during RP moments, and the good ones only do it when the player feels that it is appropriate for the character.
When I mentioned tactics and strategy, what I was referring to is the fact that PM rules define the terrain a little before the RP moments. The tactics and strategy arise when the player decides how he will approach the terrain. You still play the character. You have just chosen a way to increase or decrease the stakes of the RP, and some general ideas about what the RP will mean. Character (including predefined elements like RP mechaincs), context, and NPCs are the terrain. In character decisions are the tactics and strategy of the RP.
I think that what you are objecting to is just the meta-rules for RP. This is fine, but saying that most games using PM rules will produce poor results is not at all accurate. There is no pure RP. Every RPG gives context to each character, PM rules just add a layer to it that is explicit within the rules. Most RPGs actually do this. Consider in D&D. RPing an elf as an elf is fine. Going against stereotype is fine. This may not be as explicitly stated as PM rules, but it is context. Not really any different than PM rules, just addressing a different aspect of character.
You may not like PM rules. That is fine. But to make the jusp to PM rules encourage bad role play is not at all correct. It would be like saying that the concept of race in D&D is bad for RP, or class, or archetype, or any element in an RPG. They all provide contex. You RP within this context.
@Precocious Apprentice, if you can't understand how: [i]"PM rules define the terrain a little before the RP moments. The tactics and strategy arise when the player decides how he will approach the terrain."[/i] concedes my points...
...then about the only thing I can say is that we see role-playing as two completely different things. There doesn't seem to enough common ground between us to have a meaningful exchange on the subject.
Another option is that you're hung up more on the fact that I reject your approach than what I'm actually saying. That's fine. You don't have to accept my opinion. You're free to be wrong :)
Actually, I would like you to let me know how it concedes your points. I am not being a jerk. I regularly read what you have to say because, even if I don't always agree, you seem to at least have thought about it. My way isn't the only way, and I tend to rip off every good idea I come across. I am not like many internet users just out to show people how they are wrong. I am out to loot the psyches of the collective online world. When I find someone that has good ideas, but I find them to be a little off, I prod them a little. The result is often that we both come away with more than we had before.
So, as it stands, I don't believe that I have conceded any points. If you see something that I have missed, point it out. I am here to loot your psyche. Being coy helps neither of us. How is it that you think that we see RP in two different ways, and how does that make the terrain metaphor for defined character traits an invalid metaphor?
@Precocious Apprentice, ok, we'll give this a try.
As to conceding points- when you say that you insert Tactics and Strategy into RP, you're doing exactly what I want to avoid. From my PoV, it's not playing a character if I'm thinking in terms of advantage/disadvantage or win/lose. Attempting to do so will break my mental image of the character, who should be acting as he would act no more and certainly no less.
This is further compounded because I disagree with the black and white of a PM. To use the Riddle of Steel example: Love of the Queen
In TRoS, when invoked that always gives one advantage. But I don't agree, just because something is important to a character doesn't mean that he will perform better because of it. In fact he can choke on it, losing perceptive and 'trying too hard'. Whenever I see the TRoS mechanic mention, I think of things that should on average cause most characters to *fail*.
And that's just a binary switch that even if it went both ways wouldn't work. I might for example decide that Meler fights better defensively and worse offensively- and that the level of each may differ from time to time depending upon how heavily he drank the night before...
...and at that time (even if the rules handled it), I'm anaylzing the character and no longer *running* him. So even a mythical completely adjustable PM system has failed me. I'm no longer role-playing- I'm playing a mini-game contained in the PM. I may as well break out a hand of poker to determine my next character action, it would be as real to me.
Watching these sort of things in play by others is also a disappointment to me. At *best*, they act as a improv artist does- and that lacks meaning to me because I know it lasts lasting meaning to them. At worst they treat it like it is- a game.
"As to conceding points- when you say that you insert Tactics and Strategy into RP, you're doing exactly what I want to avoid. From my PoV, it's not playing a character if I'm thinking in terms of advantage/disadvantage or win/lose. Attempting to do so will break my mental image of the character, who should be acting as he would act no more and certainly no less.
...
Watching these sort of things in play by others is also a disappointment to me. At *best*, they act as a improv artist does- and that lacks meaning to me because I know it lasts lasting meaning to them. At worst they treat it like it is- a game."
To address the first section, the advantages that I have used are always in conjunction with a disadvantage. They are not meant to give advantage in the game as a stand alone thing. They are meant as a way for the player to change the stakes of an interaction. They are meant to allow the stakes to be changed on a moment by moment basis, with the player being able to dictate what this means to the character. To me, this is RPing. Seems like you want to RP a character as if you WERE the character. I recognise that I am unable to think in any other way than myself. So I am continuously RPing from an actors or authors standpoint. I just don't do the immersive RP thing. I feel very dishonest when I try. If you do, that is great, but I think that this is the big difference between us.
And despite what the second quote states, this does have lasting meaning to me in the same way that reading great literature has for me. It is not me that is experiencing the story, but I have attachment to the characters, and I get my meaning from this connection. The PM rules allow me to set the tone for what it really means to my character, and allows me to have fun with the context, in a way that interacts with the game system. I like this. If you find this jarring, I understand why you don't.
It doesn't follow that the results of PM rules are any less in-character than RP without. PM rules just interact with the game system. Saying that playing without PM rules is any more pure from an RP standpoint is like saying that wargames are only pure if you don't use rules to play them. It just isn't true. It is less immersive, but roleplaying is broader than just immersive RP.
I think that another thing we are missing each other on is the idea that all PM rules are just about bonuses. I like ones that change tone by adding a bonus and a penalty at the same time. I also like it when a player activates a PM rule, then plays against the trait.
As a hypothetical example, take a character that has the trait of cowardice. It might give a bonus to running away, and a penalty to combat. A player that uses the bonus to run away, then comes back to help his team mates, while using the bonus and penalty the whole while would be saying that the character is a coward that is trying to overcome it, and the stakes are higher for him in combat than they are for running away. This character could feel at times that the stakes are worth it, and by using this PM rule, the character is highlighting how difficult it is for him to be brave, and making his bravery even more impressive. All of this is on a meta-game level, but players exist on a meta-game level, and the rules are for the fun of the players.
The PM rules are not fun if they dictate what the character does. They are great fun when they can give context to the RP, when they can define the stakes of the RP, and for when they are there to be overcome as well as taken advantage of. They have definitely enhanced my RP.
I am not at all objecting to your dislike of PM rules. I am objecting to the assertion that they are bad for RP, that they necesarily have to be constraining, or that they make an RP moment any less 'pure'. People RP from a variety of positions, and the fact is that PM rules can greatly enhance the RP experience for many people in the right context and stance.
Precocious Apprentice said... "To me, this is RPing. Seems like you want to RP a character as if you WERE the character. I recognise that I am unable to think in any other way than myself. So I am continuously RPing from an actors or authors standpoint."
This.
It's why we're on such different pages. To me, you're not role-playing, you are at best acting, and doing so while taking direction from a game mechanic instead of your own view of the character.
If you enjoy that, fine. A lot of people do.
But there is an intense conflict between your style and mine. One of the irresolvable conflicts in the hobby.
Post a Comment