Talking Characteristics

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well, partly because it then means those traits can't be easily improved; on the whole in BRP, skills are the improveable parts of a character, attributes the non or hard to improve parts.

Jep. You're right with the rules as they are now. But that is what I'm trying to change. And I don't mean stats should be as changeable as skills, but as I said: find a way to incorporate them into eachother much more, and you have areas of knowledge bound into the character from the beginning.

It all boils down to this, I think: in my view, the PC's are always heroes. They should innately know more, be stronger, faster, quicker to learn and everything should be better. That's the basic reason why I want this work to succeed.

Erik Brickman.

[Atgxtg]

A few idea of making larger than life characters.

1) Go with the metaskill idea. I'd suggest my old option of using the category mod as a sort of base skill. Get rid of the 10 base and do something like Manipulation =INT+DEX+(STR/2). THat would give your character an ability to use all skills if everything was covered under the base. For more heroic character you could either add a flat mod to the base, or double it. So an average PC could have a 50% base chance with all Manipulation skills. Certainly Heroic if you want it.

2) Allow PCs to pick their 10s die after the dice are rolled. So if someone rolled a 73 they could switch the dice and read it as a 37. This would make the character a lot more capable and would avoid doing a major rewrite. PCs would simply do better becuase they are PCs without needing higher scores.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

A few idea of making larger than life characters.[...]

Thank you Atqxtg! Those are a couple of very good ideas there. Hadn't thought of it that way, but they sure sound interesting.

Erik Brickman.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by dracopticon

Interesting to hear that The Fantasy Trip had a greater lethality than RQ

Yup. Very much so. Partly because the game had no real "defensive" abilities. The balance was solely offensively balanced. Characters with heavier armor had a lower chance to hit. Armor was rarely able to avoid all damage, so that meant that if it took longer to defeat the opponent, you likely took more damage in return. The concept was very well balanced (the game originally started out as a set of smaller games that were specifically about player versus player arena type fights), but was quite lethal when expanded into a larger setting (like even dealing with a smallish "dungeon").

Same thing with spells. Your HPs were equal to your str, but were also expended to cast spells (with int determining the highest "level" of spell, and dex determining your chance to cast/hit with the spell). It was all about killing the other guy before he killed you, which made for adventuring through multiple encounters pretty brutal. We added additional items and expanded some spells in order to make it a bit less nasty, but I'd estimate that the kill rate was still around 50% or so...

Fun game though!

That TFT had a broader interpretation of what the stats stood for is really exactly what I'm aiming at with this thread. But I'm not saying this is the ultimate solution, but again, if I cover a lot of ground from the beginning with more statistics/characteristics/attributes and downsize the amount of skills, I think it'll be more playable.

Maybe. The problem with that has been touched upon though. Typically, stats are broad things that define the raw physical/mental capabilities of a character and change very slowly or not at all, while skills define specific chances to do something and should change freely over time. Obviously, you can do this in other ways as well, but unless the game system is carefully designed with this in mind, you'll often end up with the "one size fits all" problem, where a given combination of stats is always best because stats determine so much of the game.

It's doable, but very very difficult. TFT used stats for a lot, but then it only had 3 stats. Even with just those three, there were some pretty clear "dos" and "don'ts" to character creation. I imagine that as you add more stats to a heavily stat influenced game, the problem of balancing them would only grow...

I'm really sad to hear that. I think the Pendragon system of traits is a work of absolute genious. Sure, it "restraints" the free will in certain situations (doesn't real life?). AND: the greatest win is that it simulates real moral and value testing when characters get caught in personal tight spots, moral wise. And why not? Why should PC's be spared from that kind of testing? It's probably the most interesting part of roleplaying, in my view.

Because the problem is that it's not the players being tested, but their die rolls. That's fine when determining if someone succeeds at swinging that sword, or picking that lock, or puzzling out a treasure map, since those aren't things I as a player will be exactly as capable at as my character. I may not be able to pick a lock, but my character can, so it makes sense to have some kind of skill for the character to see if he can succeed at the task.

But "traits" are about roleplaying IMO. That's why we play the game, right? It's what distinguishes a RPG from a game of monopoly. As a player, I'm playing another roll. I choose what personality that character has and I choose how that character reacts to the world and situations the GM puts him/her into. If I'm presented with a choice between saving my fellow party member who's hanging by his fingers from a ledge and could fall any second or perhaps pocketing that large glowing ruby first before anyone else spots it, I shouldn't roll against my "greed" trait. I should be able to simply make the choice. And I should be able to make that choice based on the personality of the character I'm playing if I want.

Because that's roleplaying. If you make those choices by rolling dice, then why play a roleplaying game?

Sorry, but it seems you've totally misinterpreted the whole meaning of using traits. Just consider this (I don't know if it's a better player-climate where you live but): there's a lot of players that don't understand how you even start to roleplay a character. They 98% of the time just 'roleplay' themselves. That is sad in my view. Here's where the traits come in handy because they act as 'handles' to a better roleplaying of the character. And in my experience, the traits model has helped a lot of players really PLAY their PC's personalities instead of themselves. Which is almost always much more interesting.

Well. Except that they didn't. In Pendragon the assumed conflict was based on classic Arthurian legend. Which is basically a struggle by man with his own negative aspects. His knights didn't succeed by defeating enemies, but by fighting and denying the negative aspects within themselves, while striving to embody the best that man could be. And they ultimately lost, not because they lost any specific battle, but because they failed to defeat their own demons. The traits system in Pendragon kinda worked in that context, but *only* that context.

The system was specifically designed to expose the PCs to situations in which they could succeed by calling upon their "good" traits, or fail by falling to their "bad" traits. It was not a guide to roleplaying at all, but a skill system in itself. The opponents were not the physical enemies you fought, but the temptations to do the "wrong things".

Um... I still didn't like the game much though. Way too linear. Far too abstracted. The scenarios were scripted. Overly so. Maybe my biggest problem with Pendragon was that basically everyone was playing the exact same character. The only difference was that your stats determined your ability to succeed at playing that role within the context of a given scene. You couldn't choose to play the loner thief who decides to join up with a band of adventurers for fun and profit only to find himself overtime caring about his friends more then the loot (think Han Solo, or a hundred other similar characters). Nor could you play the reluctant sidekick who wants to help his mentor, but keeps causing more trouble in the process. Or the simple farmer who gets caught up in events and ends up a hero (think Frodo, or another hundred similar characters).

Nope. In Pendragon every single character was striving to be the same "perfect" model. The stats measured the degree to which you'd achieved that. It worked, but only in that incredibly narrow context (and wasn't my cup of tea even then). For any sort of broader RPG, I'd avoid any sort of personality trait characteristics like the plague.


Oh. and I get your comment about some players not knowing how to roleplay. And certainly it's true that new players will tend to simply roleplay themselves (with whatever skills and stats and items are on the sheet in front of them). But I've found that those new players, after they've played a few characters will almost always at some point approach me and say "Hey. I've been thinking I'd like to play a character that's like this....". And at that point, they start roleplaying things other then themselves. It may take a bit, but pretty much every player eventually does "get it". If you allow them, that is. I think if you made a characters personality into stats, this might make the process take longer because they're not actually playing the role, they're rolling their play (if you get that). And it'll also be more likely to annoy players then please them. The traits on their sheet will never perfectly match their own vision of their character's personality, so they'll usually end up being something that prevents them from roleplaying how they want rather then something that helps them.

I have the same problem with alignment from D&D. Yeah. It served a purpose back in the day, but not a very good one IMO.

[Atgxtg]

Gnarsh has some good points here,

The thing with personality traits in Pendragon were that there was an ideal to aspire to, and real game reasons to do so. Actually there were several ideals, depending on your culture and religion.

In most RPGs it is very easy to roleplay a valiant or pious person. Likewise it is very easy to roleplay resisting torture. The player isn't having toothpicks shoved under his fingernails. The risks are all intangible. So players tend to roleplay what works.

In Pendragon adventures could be based around characters having to past tests, not just of prowess, but of character. And that is what the traits did very well. Many stories simply won't work without something to handle traits.

The other thing is that the traits didn't play the character, but the player's actions defined the traits. Unless a character was being deliberately forced to test something by the GM, such as aking a valor roll to face a dragon, the choice was up to the player. Even when the player failed to do something, he could master his passion later. So someone who didn't have the courage to charge the dragon can screw up the courage in a little bit.

[rust]

In our current homebrew system we do use traits, but they are only a part
of the character background. They help the player to define his character,
and they help me as the GM to "reward" the player for staying "in character"
or to "punish" him for suddenly changing his character's personality in mid-
play because it seems convenient at the moment.

However, there are no die rolls during the game. The player decides what his
character will do or not, and the character suffers the consequences. A cha-
racter who is known for his truthfulness will find diplomacy easier than a well
known liar, but will suffer harsh setbacks and a loss of reputation once he got
caught with his first lie.

[dracopticon]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

Yup. Very much so. Partly because the game had no real "defensive" abilities. [...]

Wow! These are some very good answers. And I'm going to answer them all (or atleast most of them) in turn. Because this discussion about traits are one of my favourite ones. But, right now I'm learning the basics in three Microsoft Office 2007 programs, Excel, Word and Outlook, all because I'm going to teach them all during the following wednesday, thursday and friday to a small group of people at a business company here in town. So, my time isn't all that free right now! Sorry for that because I'd like to talk about this right away.

But I'll return with some new energy soon (I hope)!

Bye for now, and thanks again,

Erik Brickman.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

In most RPGs it is very easy to roleplay a valiant or pious person. Likewise it is very easy to roleplay resisting torture. The player isn't having toothpicks shoved under his fingernails. The risks are all intangible. So players tend to roleplay what works.

True. I just happen to believe that the player should simply be allowed to roleplay how his character would react in such a situation. Obviously, his ability to actually resist torture should be based on more physical stats and skills. So say, Con to resist the pain. Perhaps Pow to avoid revealing key information. And there's always the possibility of having a "resist torture" or "endure pain" skill in your game if you so desire.

But by all means the player should be able to decide if his character stoically faces his fate or cries like a baby...

In Pendragon adventures could be based around characters having to past tests, not just of prowess, but of character. And that is what the traits did very well. Many stories simply won't work without something to handle traits.

Yeah. It did work in Pendragon. But IMO you basically have to make the game system revolve around traits to make it work. The choice in Pendragon was that in many situations you could pick which trait to use to try to resolve some situation you found yourself in. But this lead to a much more "free form" type of encounter resolution that I've never been super happy with.

Now, not quite as free form as "Toon" for example, but a bit too open for my tastes. Some may love those types of systems (actually I know that many many people do!), but my problem is that it usually devolved into one of two things:

1. Roleplaying munchkinism. Basically, if you were flowery enough or loud enough in your roleplaying attempts you could justify any roll possibility (always using your "best traits" to accomplish things). This often didn't improve actual roleplay, but lead to the kind of overbearing roleplaying style that I had quite enough of back in my days of GMing game tourneys (there's *always* one at every table if you know what I mean).

A subset of this is players who specifically pick which traits to focus on, not for roleplaying purposes, but so as to maximize their ability to pull this off.


2. Overly strict GMing. This was usually a reaction to number 1. The GM attempts to ensure that his players can't justify using only their best traits to resolve every encounter. So he deliberately crafts them to ensure that a wide assortment of different traits must be used to accomplish the tasks before the party and complete the adventure. Sounds good in practice (and works), but results in exactly the kind of "rolling your play" problem I mentioned earlier.


Dunno. There were just always several aspects of that type of system that I've always disliked. I understand that many people do like them, so that's obviously their choice. However, regardless of personal opinion using traits successfully does require that the game model be shifted significantly. They're just not going to work in a traditional skills based RPG IMO.

[drohem]

Well, in our RQ3 games we never enforced the traits. However, we would fill them out on the character sheet based upon the character's concept. This was mostly for the benefit of the GM in case he had to NPC a player's character during an adventure for whatever reason. Having it filled out helped the GM in determining the player's in-game actions.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by drohem

Well, in our RQ3 games we never enforced the traits. However, we would fill them out on the character sheet based upon the character's concept. This was mostly for the benefit of the GM in case he had to NPC a player's character during an adventure for whatever reason. Having it filled out helped the GM in determining the player's in-game actions.

THat's really how it works in Pendragon for the most part. Except how you act ends up adjusting your trait. The GM may force a roll for some sort of test of if the player is behaving out of character (like the guy who is greedy 99% of the time manages to walk past the pile of gold without batting an eye, but it is really mostly a tool for measuring the character's traits rather than enforcing them.