Designing for Generational Campaigns: Part II Combat

Previously I provided a overview of my ongoing Fantasy Campaign, which is in a style I call Generational.

There I mentioned that one of the requirements was seamless play, where characters of different generations adventure together and overlap in play without skips in tiem. This was a requirement driven by much of the fantasy fiction that I favor. In Lord of the Rings for example, completely unexperienced hobbits find themselves fighting alongside much more experienced characters. The same very much applies to my other favorite series The Chronicles of Prydain.

Naturally I wanted to recreate this in my table top fantasy world. However back in 1980 this wasn't an easy task, and I note that even today it is basically unheard of.

One of the primary problems is having low and high level character on the same battlemap, and having the low level ones both matter and yet able to survive the encounter. Most rpg combat systems won't allow this, at least if you follow the rules and suggested play styles.

To use D&D as an example- the earlier editions were based upon what is primarily a resource management style of play. Everything from HPs, to number of spells, to magic items, potions and scrolls all played an important role- and frankly high level characters have such things in great numbers and low level ones don't. Add in 'skill' related items (such as THAC0) and things only get worse. Even 4th edition shows the same issues, although to a lesser extent.

Having high level character 'twink' low levels with scrolls and potions wasn't a solution. It was counter-genre and thus undesired.

The simple truth is that anything resource management based (and where resouces increase with character advancement) is unsuitable in direct proportion to its amount of resource management. Such a combat focus is unworkable for my desired style of play. Thus I needed a system that was more focused on maneuver rather than resource management.

By removing much of resource management and adding maneuver (battle maps, facing, multiple target bonuses, terrain, stunning, etc), one changes the dynamic of combat. In this way any character could be placed in danger from lesser foes by means of position or numbers. Thus lower level characters could guard a great hero's flanks, and/or engage opponents that might be a danger from due to their numbers.

The GM and world design has an impact here as well. In contrast to a group of 5th level encountering 5th monsters- the switch is made to a group of 1st to 7th levels encountering foes of 1st to 7th levels (or even perhaps 1st to 3rd as numbers now matter more).

This has the additonal benefit of being more representional of the source fiction as well. And it's always great in game design to hit two targets at once.

Swearing off 4th Edition

Life was busy this pass week and I've left the poor blog by itself. Sigh. However it's time to pick it backup. Hopefully weeks like that will be few.

It's Friday, and time for my look around the web for comments/rants. This time a "4E and I are Done! " post caught my eye at Dungeon Mastering 101. It's a short and simple statement by AnthonyRoberson that he quits due to the simple fact that a Adult Red dragon can't possibly waste a 3rd level character with a single attack of his breath weapon.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

Of course I also note that it's basically impossible to kill a 3rd level character the first stab of a dagger in any of the editions without recourse to special rules (backstab, helpless foe, etc). And I happen to know that people die from single stabs from small blades all the time.

But the nature of D&D hit points is that you're not hitting anything when you hit anyway. That Fighter didn't take 20 arrows to down him, it took 20 shots of which one finally solidly connected.

So D&D just ignores my problems with daggers. That's the nature of the game design. The interesting question is why does D&D's abstraction break at so many different points for different people. Why did it take a dragon for AnthonyRoberson to give up? Why not a Giant's club, a orge's, or even a common thug?

I guess people are driven by extremes. And I'll say this for 4E- it seems to be driven by extremes as well...

Direction of Causality

It's Friday once again, and time for my look around the blogs to see if there was anything I wanted to comment/rant on.

This little article caught my eye over on Tales of the Rambling Bumblers. In it Joshua attempts to define one of the great splits of our hobby over rules. Are rules little more than a simple abstracted and imperfect model of a 'existing world' that has it's own laws and logic, or do they define reality for a fantasy world?

Joshua and I go back a long ways, and he's a sharp guy worth listening too and I think that article is quite good in general. But even sharp people can error when trying to define viewpoints that aren't their own (I include myself here). And I feel that he made such an error in this article. Joshua you see is a solid member of the 'world drives imperfect rules' PoV. And I happen to be in the other camp- that 'rules define the results that are possible in the world'.

So let's take a moment for someone of my viewpoint to respond to the following assertion from the linked article:

• "In original D&D, for instance, the game explicitly took the view that the rules were approximations but in every case the referee was the final arbiter; nevertheless there were rules such as Magic Users being forbidden to wear armor which weren’t explained in terms of game-world logic, leaving different groups on their own to either come up with explanations to justify the rule so that causality still flowed from the game-world to the rules (e.g. “armor is too restrictive, MUs can wear it but any attempt to cast spells will fail”), or to reverse the direction for that rule and say “Magic users can’t wear armor because that’s the rule. There is no why." (Or perhaps by an appeal to a meta-game consideration, such as “MUs can’t wear armor because that would be unbalanced.”) Note that if the group followed the first tack, there would be further in-game consequences that flow from it, such as MUs having their companions carry armor around so that when they ran out of spells they could armor up. If the group took the latter tack, there’s often an awareness that the world is operating in strange and arbitrary ways. Much gaming humor (such as in Order of the Stick) comes from making the characters as aware of the flow of causality from the rules to their world as the players are.

Bolding mine.

Here Joshua betrays his own mindset when attempting to examine an opposing view. In attempting to define it, he insists on still viewing it in terms of the World instead Rules, i.e. he's looking for in-world reasons for the rules. That's not something someone who considers rules to define world does.

As an example, let's pull back a moment to a wargamer playing a WWII battle. He has all the rules needed to resolved a conflict involving German and American tanks- except of course anything that indicates why German tanks have better guns and armor. From Joshua's PoV, such a player (one who lacks any knowledge of the history involved, but yet is still a fan of games set in that background) should be asking 'Why?, what else does that mean?".

But the gamer doesn't care. He assumes it's correct, that it covers all he needs to know as far as results, and given that freedom he's able to focus on having a bang up time playing the game and acting within it's definitions.

Going back to D&D and Magic-Users having no armor- most of the questions and concerns Joshua insist that I have, I don't (or rather didn't, I don't play D&D anymore). The rules are clear, Magic-Users don't use armor. I don't need or even want to understand why. Nor do I need to worry about follow-up effects, for if there were any they too would be covered by the rules. Instead I play and role-play given that result, much the same that people generally go on with their lives living within physical laws they don't really undestand.

I should note here that any attempt to game the rules or the setting by nature reverses causality to match Joshua's viewpoint- not mine.

It's this line of thought at cause me to disagree with much of Joshua's following article about changing 4th edition to work for grognards. The only grognards he's concerned with are those like him- world drive rules types. There is little to no needed changes for 4E to work grognards for such a myself. All the worries and questions he asks have no meaning when the game is being played.


Now I should take a moment here to say something rather important about at least my own approach to this subject. While I'm "rules define world" in play, I'm the reverse when selecting what game to play.

And that's why I don't play D&D of any edition any more. Hit Points, AC, and all that doesn't match any world I'd want to game in. And thus before I ever sit down and play- I select the rules from Joshua's PoV. I also design games from that PoV. But I don't play them that way.

I think many players don't do this. They just grab the rules, take them as defining the world- and go. I also think people may well switch between the two viewpoints, often depending upon the exact subject as each person has different hot buttons. The fact that Joshua can live with games he does while I can't is proof enough of this.

Designing for Generational Campaigns: Part I

One of the least common things I've encountered over the years are people playing campaigns that span generations- which is basically the only type of fantasy campaign I've ever played.

By generations I mean characters who have children, and players who then run those children who in turn have children and so on down the line. The primary campaign I've played in this style has been on-going for 28 years real-time and 80 years or some in-game time.

I've encountered a number online who do something similar, I different from most in the following two ways:

• No Skips: Skipping is a methods suggested in Pendragon and to a lesser extent Ars Magica . Skips are "let's advance thing 10 years and pick things up when...". That's not the method I'm talking about, but rather continuous play of the campaign advancing the time line naturally through play. One may 'skip' or abstract a month of travel, but not years just to get to a new generation of characters or a new point in time.

• Seamless Play: Children will enter play along side older characters, and sometimes even go on the same adventures with them. They interact as families do, not displaying the 'new group of character' mindset common to most campaigns.

Doing this successfully requires a different approach to combat, skills and character advancement. I've found that nearly every game system on the market crashes attempting this type of campaign. I'll cover some of these issues and how I've addressed them in my campaigns as the series continues.

You want to be something different...

...do things right, because almost nobody ever does.

I first said that many years ago about a very different subject, and I'm sure the thought has been expressed better by others in under a great array of conditons. But I think it applies to rpgs in a number of ways.

Did you really love that first season of a TV show but hated when it ended up? Make it into a rpg campaign and do it right. Comic books are infamous for changing writers and directions, and often redefining characters completely. When you don't like the result, do your own.

We've entered the age of the reboot and re-imagined series (Battlestar Galactica is a great example for TV, Batman Begins for movies, The Ultimates for comics), and there's no reason such a mindset shouldn't apply to rpgs. It's quite likely your re-imagined versions are better in any case- for the simple truth is that most creators screw up their originals given time.

There's a new Star Trek movie coming out. If you think they screwed up big time with such a young crew, blow off the movie and do your version of those characters.

One can even do the same with your home-grown original campaigns of past years. Pick up those old characters, dust them off, maybe update them and roll again. Take advantage of a chance to do it better, and maybe this time do it right...

Looking back: Rationales for Mechanics

I'm still rather happy with the original article I reposted yesterday after 6 years. Not much to change or alter there.

One of its outstanding questions is what other possible Rationales are there? At the time I wrote it, I assumed that there would be others but I never had anyone put a suggestion fourth and I haven't came up with any either.

The classic reasons of 'realism' or 'simulation' are covered under V. Illusion.

About the only thing I can think of is a grab bag grouping of 'fun', covering such things as "I like to roll a bunch of dice...". That seems rather silly to someone (like say me) who designs for more defined goals, but I know designers and players who think in that exact way.

My reaction to it is that it's not a Rationale as such, but instead a preference. Something without a goal other than being, while the Rationales are ends toward which mechanics are a means.

So what do people think? Did I miss something important?

Rationales for Mechanics

{or the case for designer notes}
revised from the 2203 article

Why do rpgs use mechanics? Such a simple question, but one with such complex answers. It seems obvious that those answers would be key in the design process or in the judging of an existing game. After all, it's only by knowing your needs that you can chart the nature and placement of mechanical systems properly in such a way that the game meets the desired goals.

Sadly it seems very common for rpg designers of the current day (especially in the free or small print world) to skip right by that question. It is painfully common for me to receive what is in effect a blank stare upon quizzing a game designer as to the reasons and rationales behind their design. Typically the only response is "I was looking for something different" and "It does what I wanted it to do", without being able to express what was different, or what it is doing. The end result is I receive in answer a jumble of words typically tossed on the back cover of a book as basic marketing ("Powerful yet simple mechanics!", "Yes it's a floor wax and a desert topping!").

With this as the common response, there is little reason to wonder that mechanics in many games seem almost pointless- seemly existing often just because other games have included them. The result is typically a distraction from (or misinterpretation of) the purpose of the game, reducing what could have been a powerful design to yet another rpg that will sit on the shelf.

Let's take a moment to consider some important and common rationales, just so we're on the same page. I don't think these are by any means the only reasons, but they are at the very least reasons every designer should consider his mechanics in the light of.

I. Limiting Player Options

If any single rationale could claim to hold prominence in game design, it would be this one. Why can't my 1st level Age of Heroes fighter kill an ancient red dragon with his penknife? Because the combat rules make that all but impossible as a core requirement of design.

The natural result of any mechanic is to limit options. What those options are limited to however determines the actual rationale for the mechanic. In this specific case, the reason is to prevent specific player actions and choices because they are unsuited to a intended purpose of the game- advancing and leveling characters to the point where one can defeat more epic opponents.

Advancement rules are typically guided by this rationale. The player gets X amount of power within the game for Y amount of effort, not no effort at all. Requiring a certain Strength level to break down a specific door is yet another example while falling damage is yet another (for those games limiting a character's ability to jump off 40 foot walls to reach a battle).

II. Providing Meaningful Player Choices

The classic example here is combat mechanics. The idea is to present a complex and diverse enough set of choices in order to make the decisions of the player important in determining the outcome of the game events.


III. Inspiring Player Action

Examples of these are the Sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu which provide a nudge of when and what type of insanity the player is struck with, but leave the exact details of expressing it up to the player and GM.

Psychological and Drama mechanics are normally created with this rationale in mind, to respectively inspire role-play and story creation.


IV. Replacing Player Choice

These mechanics are intended to flat out replace decisions by a player or GM.

Single roll combat resolutions are typically this type of mechanic, the idea is to remove any tactical choices beyond that of the decision to engage in battle (and sometimes even that isn't offered). Another example is the use of straight up 'social' skills like 'bribe' and the like. The concept is to remove choices and actions from extensive play that are felt to be either beyond the ability of the players or outside the focus of the game.

Another way of looking at these mechanics is as a simple and quick method to resolve something so that the game can go forward. Removing significant player input is perhaps the fasted way to achieve that goal.


V. Provide an Illusion

Some mechanics exist to aid in suspension of disbelief. Thus a game may include detailed currency rules because the players have a hard time believing that everyone in the world uses the same coins.

Some mechanics provide an illusion of Rationale II above. A typical example is providing a wide range of combat maneuvers that suggest a good selection- but upon using some math it's revealed that a single one of the provided maneuvers is always the best choice, or that the choice doesn't matter. Sometimes this is a result of failed design, at other times it's done on purpose (often using dice pools mechanics in order to make the illusion more difficult to pierce).



There are other possible reasons of course. I'm sure you can add a few with a little bit of thought.
Once one knows the rationale for a mechanic, it becomes much easier to determine the Layer of Design it applies to as well as its form. Rationale IV mechanics for example tend to be simpler than Rationale II systems by nature.

There's just one gotcha to keep in mind. A little thing called the 'the eye of the beholder'.
Remember Rationale III above, a little thing about inspiring player action? Most of the time I see such mechanics I'm not inspired. Instead I see a Rationale IV mechanic- something that takes my choices away in order to meet a goal of the game design (in the case of Call of Cthulhu, it's enforcing the genre concept that everyone goes insane- a type of railroading with respect to the role-playing of a PC).

Here's another example- Rationale II mechanics become little more than Rationale V mechanics if the players can't grasp the actual effects of choices in the system (dice pools tend to cause this effect by making probability determination exceedingly difficult).

Take a few mechanics from a favorite game of your own and try fitting them into each of the above rationales. With a little bit of work and a talent for seeing things though the eyes of others- you may be surprised how many rationales a single mechanic can fit in.

So in the end you may design a wonderful game, one that has developed mechanics that fit their reasons for use at every point. But in the end the final result may be viewed by others in a completely different light than what you intended.

But all is not lost. The solution to this sad state of affairs is right in the subtitle to this article.
Designer Notes.

Write them. Spend as much time and effort on them as you did in the design of your game- for they determined the design of your game. Put them directly in the book or on your website. Explain why you selected the mechanics you did, what they do in your game, why you rejected other possibilities.

You'll achieve four outcomes.

1. You'll produce a better game. One tailored to your needs and perfect for the type of play you desired.
2. You'll provide the best guide there is to how the game was meant to be played. And you'll do it in a way far better than the typical stilted 'example of play' fiction.
3. You'll define for the reader the terms on which your work is to be judged, so that in that judging they are not looking for a game you never designed. It is much better to hear "Even if I don't care for the style, Game X does what it intends almost perfectly" instead of "This games sucks".
4. I won't get a blank stare when I ask you what makes your game different or what you were trying to achieve. For not only will you be able to answer that question, you've already written it for me meaning the only thing I'll bother you about is the details of your vision. And isn't the details of the designer's vision the reason for making a game in the first place?
   

Edition Wars

It's Friday and time for a look around the web. Seems there's something of a dust-up between the old shool crowd and the 4th edition folks.

One example of dividing line from the Old School viewpoint is found here by Jeff Rients. That post with a follow-up comment sparked this reply by Scott over on A Butterfly Dreaming. In short order insults of tribalism and more are being fired.

In general I find myself on Jeff's side here, not in what I like (because I dislike any and all editions of D&D)- but in the logic presented.

Original D&D was a very different game than 4th edition. That Scott feels that the changes since correct "...those things that I found most senseless and annoying ..." doesn't alter that fact. It only highlights how different the game he plays is. He highlights rules (calling the old ones senseless and annoying) and then goes on to say that D&D isn't about rules.

That's senseless and annoying if anything is.

Yes, D&D is to use Scott's words a- "...game of rules". And there is no irony in Old School saying that, as their whole mindset is a return to the original version of those rules and the methods of play they inspired.

A D&D Campaign is more than the rules of course, as is any other RPG. But relying upon this fact to say we all (no matter the edition) play the same game is as foolish as saying that those playing GURPS are playing D&D. It makes you look silly, and it belittles people playing older editions for no reason.

I'm for accepting the differences, and flowing with them. Let Old School be Old School and accept that they don't like 4th. Like all old timers, they will whine now and then about the 'kids'. So what? They aren't burning your books are they?

What use is the term 'Gritty'?

I often see this or that system described as 'Gritty'. Like most terms in the hobby, its exact meaning varies by the user contributing to flamewars and failures of understanding.

I for example tend to think of the darker genres, lacking a moral compass or if having one- always finding it betrayed. Others tend to view it as a simple matter of how dangerous combat is. Others yet seem to feel that gritty == realistic for some reason. And yet others think it's all that and perhaps more.

Sometime the context tells you what is meant. Saying HERO System can't do gritty for example (they be wrong btw) most likely means the second or third option above, although someone feeling that HERO can't do amoral systems can't be completely discounted.

With all this in mind, the term just isn't that useful for me. At best it can serve as a label to attract attention, so that you'll have time to express what's really meant.

This is something of a pity as words should mean specific things, otherwise they lose their value. In most areas, terms are defined by the profession. If one says LDAP when talking about Active Directory- the meaning is clear. And one says Film Noir about a movie, it's almost as clear despite the fact that movies are by nature more vague than technology.

However the RPG profession is more of a hobby than a profession. No one drives terms and their meaning, not even 'professional' companies like WotC. The result is endless flamewars with people talking pass each other.

Such is the enviroment in which we play. Rather depressing isn't it?

Why I'll never replace RPGs with MMORPGs

Got the lastest patch notes(called Volume II Book 7) a couple of weeks ago for the MMORPG I play on the side, Lord of the Rings Online.

MMORPGs are a different kettle of fish than table top games. Everyone should know this. From pacing to distance from an often hiden ruleset to highly restricted world play. They are persistent in one way only, your character stats and equipment- the world always reverts back to baseline.

And sometimes even the character isn't persistent. Which brings me to the Book 7 update notes I referenced. I run a Captain as my primary, so I always check that section of the notes hoping nothing bad happens. This time they are nerfing what many consider the keystone ability of the class (one that allows them for a handful of seconds absorb damage targeting other members of their group- a "we will carry on no matter what" ability). They've had this for two years, and more. Since early Beta.

Players don't own the rules in a MMORPG, they do own them in table top. They can alter them if they wish. They can refuse new editions if they wish.

And this difference alone is enough reason for me never give up table top.

More on Paladins and Balance

It seems that the owner of Point of Lights decided to respond to my Friday rant on his blog here. And that's fine and I'd like to answer some of his points.

"This does not mean that paladins should also be an ideal choice no-matter-what. A good tenent of game design is that there shouldnt be an immediate "best choice". ", Antioch

The original Paladin n D&D was hardly a 'best choice', for all his additional abilities he was still a Fighter making him combat wise a better choice than that fighter- but he was hardly a replacement for any of the remaining classes.

Even as a Combat selection, there are cases in which he is very much a inferior choice. Various tactical options are off the table when the character is a Paladin. He won't consider them, and perhaps worse from his group's PoV- he won't allow them to consider them. Torture, stealing, taking of hostages, endangering innocents, or just walking away from evil unless it's overwhelming does not fly. His limit on wealth and magic items reduced resources that other Fighters could call upon. And that's just hitting the highlights.

Further the Paladin is interested in his task as an opponent of evil, and this takes away many adventure options that groups typically come across even in the most railroaded campaigns. You don't join up with Joan of Arc and decide that you're rather go dungeon crawling at the crypt instead of fighting the English...

"Now alignment is only as good as the DM enforcing it, so thats not really a balancing mechanic", Antioch

This is an extremely common mistake, i.e. thinking that the rules instead of the GM is the primary enforcer of game balance. It's a common mistake because rules can be viewed as 'balanced' or 'imbalanced' on their own. The error happens when one refuses to see the effect when the players or GMs use those rules, especially those rules that grant them goals and judgment such as Paladin concept.

To use a slightly different example, in the HERO Rules the Stealth ability costs 3 points, points used to buy your character stats and abilities. Out of the box, that's we may say that is mechanically 'balanced'. But such balance can easily fail if the GM is running a Social Romance campaign when the Stealth skill is never used. Or it can be under-costed if the GM is calling for multiple Stealth rolls per session for each character. Rules are very useful, but they are as dumb as bricks. They live only through us.

How people can ignore the players and the GM when evaluting rules and the roles of concepts is a complete mystery to me. But if anything it's becoming more common.


"especially if the player actually wants to play a generally nice guy.", Antioch

I would hope that people playing their characters want to play their character, their weaknesses and limits as well as their strengths. I must wonder at people who want their players to run character they don't want to. And I wonder more at players who stay at that gaming table.

Just because a player is willing, or even enjoying playing under limits that others don't- doesn't mean those limits don't apply.


"I dont care if paladins are supposedly called upon by gods to perform heroic deeds. Its really just a concept, and I dont want their holier-than-thou auras overshadowing the rest of the cast, just 'cause.", Antioch

This was the one completely correct thing Antioch stated. If he doesn't want them, he shouldn't be required to take them.

Running a campaign with a Paladin in the mix is demanding, it will and should take on a air very different than your typical campaign and it's certainly not suited for all groups. I've seen many players in mine and related campaigns attempt to run a Paladin, and after encountering the challenges in do so- give up and went back to the 'lowly' Fighter with his much greater range of freedom and in comparsion care-free life.

Where Antioch (and many modern game designs including 3rd and 4th edition D&D) errors is not refusing to accept the Paladin concept, but instead sticking the players with some pretend 'combat balanced' class with the name of something they are not.

Paladins Shouldn't be Balanced

It's Friday so it's time for a look around the web to see if there's anything to comment on. This post over at Points of Light caught my attention. It's all about how the Paladin is in fact a balanced class in 4th Edition.

I find the point somewhat amusing. The Paladin, a divine warrior- balanced? To ask the question is to highlight that something is missing out of the gate. There is no ratioanl reason for a Paladin to be 'balanced', they are called by God (or god for those multiple deity worlds although IMO splitting Paladins from their Judo-Christian background is a serious mistake). They were called to BE unbalancing. They are there to correct a wrong that cannot otherwise be corrected. Anything else does the concept a disservice.

This is what they were in original D&D. ALL the abilities of a Fighter plus MORE. In exchange for such power, they had a number of social limits. Only that wealth (in money and gear) needed for the task combined with a very high bar of alignment behavior. To fail in meeting those limits was to become a mere Fighter.

So balance as Points of Light is considering it (i.e. combat balance) is absurd on its face. Let Paladins be Paladins, they are more than just a difference of style or professional choice.

HERO System: Does Call of Cthulhu

I've mention before that one example of useful Personality Mechanics is the metaphysical attack, effectively something outside the character's mind damaging his mental abilities (as opposed to him giving into his own weaknesses).

I used Call of Cthulhu as a possible example, although with that system the players and GM have to define the mechanics to work that way.

Here's how you manage the same concept n HERO System, plus gain the advantage of the cause behind the effect being clear:

• Insanity Transform: target to insane version of the target (Minor 10 pts per die): 1d6; No End Cost (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Persistent (+1/2), Based on Ego Combat Value- affects Ego (+1), Area Effect- Radius 4x (+1 1/2), Adds Damage to other CoC Insanity Transforms (+1/2), Fully Invisible (+1), Can affect individual targets only once per encounter (-1), Always on (-1/4), No Range (-1/2). Total Active Points 70, Real Cost: 25 points.

Each creature that causes insanity would buy this ability. One can buy more effect die to represent the more Sanity Blasting creatures. That would also increase the radius of the effect (4" per die) and that suits my tastes. You could for the worst of the setting even add Mega-Scale to the Area Effect and have it blast entire cities with its mere presence...

While this handles the basic CoC Sanity Mechanic, you might want something to represent the short term immediate impact of encountering fearsome critters. Try this:

• Fearsome: +1d6 PRE (5 pts), may only be used for Presence Attacks based on Fear (-1). Active Cost 5 pts, Real Cost 2 pts.

Again, more dice can be brought for the more fearsome encounters. Presence Attacks in HERO nicely represent the immediate "oh my..." reaction. Unlike the transform above the effect is likely limited to a single Character Phase.

The above is a slightly different favor than the CoC mechanic, but hits all the core requirements of the setting.

Personality Mechanics: NPCs

Finishing up the series on Personality Mechanics, we have another possible good usage. While PMs are restrictive and often breaking of role-playing by players- they can actually be quite useful for GMs who typically play their NPCs from a much higher level and greater distance.

Some NPCs are as fully formed as any PCs, and those will encounter the same problems I've detailed previously. Most however are spear carriers and minor characters that the GM likely put little thought into, and are in any case less dependable and more subject to wild flights of behavior in any case.

Such minor PCs can make full use of any PMs to provide inspired moments of RP and interesting twists to the campaign. If combat is a focus, Morale rules are an obvious choice. One must be careful not to involve too much bookwork- otherwise the added burden could easily exceed the benefits gained.

For some genres, this is even accurate simulation. Many horror stories for example has secondary characters fall to insanity or overwhelming terror while the main character keeps his head. Most rpg campaigns are concerned with the lives of 'Heroes', and giving PMs rule over non-heroes is yet another way of highlighting the difference.

So if one encounters a otherwise interesting system that includes troublesome PMs, consider restricting their use to NPCs that you wouldn't put significant Role-playing investment in. They result may be better than dropping them completely.

Personality Mechanics: Genre Conventions

Now that I've covered the downsides of Personality Mechanics, I thought I'd look at a couple of the upsides. One of the reasons given for having them at all is to represent the genre being played. That people should be afraid in horror, or be influenced in political intrigue.

I'm of the opinion that players should role-play such things, because that's really the point of a role-playing game in the first place, and that any mechanical system will restrict that range of role-play and wreck the players internal model of both the character and the world.

Some genres however are a tid bit different. Settings such as Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands- the Weird West, and Dark Heresy are about creatures and threats that may well not just be frightening- they may actually on a psychic level induce terror and shatter minds. An actual metaphysical attack every bit as real as any physical one.

Thus any result that breaks with the player's model of the character can be viewed in the same light as any outside mind control- it broke the model because it in-game broke the model. This is far more acceptable to me than a mechanic intended to in effective role-play my character for me.

Of the three examples, Deadlands provides the best system both for the fact that it offers a range of results that vary by the 'level' of the threat, and for a good number of Edges and advancement options that allow experienced characters to overcome these attacks much like experienced characters can overcome physical ones. Dark Heresy shares some of these although not to the same extent, while CoC provides little help in this area.

Making the Personality Mechanic external to the character removes much of the sting. Allowing in-game methods to defeat the Mechanic completely overturns it, making it a true force for the character to combat and defeat.

So not all PMs are actually PMs, and not all of them are bad. It depends upon the setting and the use.