What do you think of games where a character's personality is dictated by the game mechanics?

This is something that's really come forward in my campaign of Unknown Armies, called underground. In UA,  characters have "madness meters", showing how hardened to or traumatised by violence, isolation, the unnatural and so on they are. They aso have a rage, fear, and noble stimulus, as the game calls them - the things that iss them off, scare them more than usual, and make them rise above themselves, self-sacrifice and so on. And then there's an "obsession," too, a driving force in the character's life.

We've just had the one session so far, so I might be speaking too soon, but one obstacle I've found with some of the players is the idea that the game mechanics should dictate how they roleplay their character. For example, if they encounter something violent - a bloody handgun, or a cut-up corpse - they have a violence stress check, and it's a dice roll that tells us whether they say, "world's a tough place, man," or go and throw up. After that, they are either more hardened to, or more traumatised by violence in general. And they've a little rating, and the game book says how they should act now. So for example someone with one failed violence level, they're basicaly okay, just a little edgy if a blade's out and around in their vicinity; but the four failed notches guy, every time he hears a loud noise he jumps and then crouches down defensively, and is constantly imagining people might be about to attack him.

It's a bit like if in Call of Cthulhu, as your character's SAN score dropped, you had to start acting crazier and crazier, rather than just NPCing out when you hit zero. Or like in D&D, having some Potion of Alignment Change pop up for a character every couple of sessions.

The game mechanics are dictating the roleplaying, session-by-session.

Most systems since the 1990s give this as an option. You can choose for your character to be cowardly, get more points and have that cowardice imposed on you after that. I find most players don't mind that too much, because they chose it to begin with, and anyway in most systems they can buy it off later if they find they can't stand it. But when it's imposed during play...

It reminds me of a game session where as a result of a fumble result dice roll, one character ended up losing his arm - the player was pissed off that one crappy roll dictated what happened to his character to that degree. Thing is, when you've got personality in the game mechanics, you get that sort of effect in every session.

I'm interested in the whole thing, I think it has great possibilities. But it feels like I'm imposing these things on my players, and I'm not comfortable with that. No-one's complained, and it's just the first session we've had so I may be speaking too soon.

So, after that ramble, what are people's thoughts on character personality game mechanics?

I don't mind as long as they fit the game. Sanity for Call of Cthulu makes sense. The various descriptors used to regain willpower in WoD seem to match as well, although I could take them or leave them as long as another willpower mechanism replaced them.

Alignment in D&D fits. But it wouldn't fit in Shadowrun and I'd laugh at someone that said they'd added it.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat do you think of games where a character's personality is dictated by the game mechanics?

I don't mind them when they are optional or advisory (e.g., taking a character's Charisma into account to color an NPC's reactions) but I'd prefer they not be manditory.  The one personality mechanic I do often find useful is some sort of willpower role to determine if the character is willing to do something painful or suicidal.  Since I don't have to face real consequences for those things, I'm never sure if I'm giving fear and survival a strong enough say in the decision.  But I can make those rolls myself without formal mechanics.

Yeah, but those are different things.

In Cthulhu, you are not expected to roleplay your character differently when they have Sanity 48 compared to how you roleplayed them when they had Sanity 72, unless they actually acquired some phobias/delusions/etc along the way. If their Sanity was just whittled away at 1 or 2 points a time, then there's no roleplayed difference between the Sanity 99 guy and the Sanity 01 guy - except that obviously the second one is going to be played a bit more cautiously. But they don't have to be.

Alignment, the player chooses one for their character, and generally sticks to it.

So those are character personality character generation things, not really mechanics. "Mechanics" implies something can change. And in UA, your character's personality can change as the result of dice rolls, and you're expected to roleplay it, just as you're expected to be bound by your character having a leg chopped off.

That's a different thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, after that ramble, what are people's thoughts on character personality game mechanics?

IMHO, it's all a matter of degrees.  Most systems have some kind of mechanism to determine if you get smacked in the head whether you fall unconscious or die.  So if you take a socking in an emotional or spiritual sense, why wouldn't you use mechanics to determine the outcome?  Sometimes it's good to have a system to enforce realistic reactions to emotionally stressful situations.

What I don't like, is when the mechanics dictate how a character should behave for a sustained period of time and/or alter the fundamental nature of the character.  So, having a character make a system shock roll to avoid vomiting or fainting when seeing a horrific sight - that's cool.  But telling someone thou must now play a raving lunatic and babble in the corner because thy failed thy SAN check - that's bad.  

By the same token, if you have a character try and pick a lock, most systems will have mechanics to determine whether they are successful.  So I don't think it's unreasonable for a system to demand some kind of mechanical check to see if a character has the stomach to cut up a dead body.

In both cases, the system should support players creating characters that will (dice permitting) perform as expected.  And that includes being able to perform according to their desired personality.  I don't mind being asked to make a check before disposing of a dead body... but if I've created a hardened Mafioso, I expect the system to allow me to tweak my character so he most likely wont barf his guts out at the first sight of blood.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBy the same token, if you have a character try and pick a lock, most systems will have mechanics to determine whether they are successful.  So I don't think it's unreasonable for a system to demand some kind of mechanical check to see if a character has the stomach to cut up a dead body.

Sure, but in this UA case, it goes beyond that - to how your character behaves day-to-day. It's not just whether you can cut up a dead body, it's whether you get queasy when you see a rare steak, whether you're jumpy around other people, and so on.

Hey, JimBob:  I'd love to have a discussion about this, but I don't think I can really express my opinion in terms of how personality mechanics dictate roleplaying.  My thoughts don't fit that wording.  I hope that I can slightly reword this without dragging us into a debate about semantics.

I think that personality mechanics that constrain your roleplaying options, so that you are motivated to (a) find ways to enjoy acting within the constraints and (b) game the system in order to be able to achieve particular types of roleplay ... are pretty cool.  I think that they more closely interweaves the mechanics and the acting, in ways that are often to the benefit of both.

In the case of UA, at least, I think it helps if you think of the descriptions that accompany the Madness Meters in the rulebook more like guidelines than actual rules. A sort of "okay, so my character has two hardened notches. What does that mean for him?"

Note that the madness meters don't involve mechanical penalties for characters who get hardened or failed notches - except when they go permanently insane or sociopathic - nor any way for the GM to enforce character behavior.

So, while the rulebook suggest that a character with three failed levels in Violence might feel uneasy looking at a bloody steak, there's no actual way to enforce that. It's up to the player to decide whether if the character feels uneasy or not - which is fitting, because some people might be that damaged, and not be affected by that particular stimulus.

Instinctively I'd have to say that I don't have any problem with game mechanics dictating restrictions on my character, or suggesting ways that they could be played.  I rather enjoy portraying the psychological conditions imposed by utterly botching a SAN check in CoC for instance.  I find it refreshing to play my character in a different way, either subtly or extravagently.  I'm happy to either do it off of my own back, changing their personality in response to in-game events as I see fit, or go with the flow of mechanically dictated changes.

Still, never having played UA I can't really comment on that game in particular.  What I will say is that I've never heard the complaint from anyone that I know who has played the game.  If what Aegypto says is true it sounds like you might be giving a bit too much authority to the descriptive text attached to the madness meters?  That might be something to consider at least.

I tend to treat most of these game mechanics as a guide.
If I don't have a very clear idea of the characters personality, style, modus operandi etc when I create him/her, then I'll use the mechanics as a guide to actions until I get a grip on the character. The GM/Player should always be able to override the mechanics if they clearly conflict with the running of the game.

Quote from: TonyLB[...] how personality mechanics dictate roleplaying.  My thoughts don't fit that wording.  I hope that I can slightly reword this without dragging us into a debate about semantics.

I think that personality mechanics that constrain your roleplaying options, so that you are motivated to (a) find ways to enjoy acting within the constraints and (b) game the system in order to be able to achieve particular types of roleplay ... are pretty cool.

I think that's a fair distinction, it's what we were getting at above by comparing Fate with this sort of thing. In Fate, you choose Aspects for your character, which if you want them to be, can be about personality traits. You can completely ignore those Aspects after character generation, if you want to. But the GM gets to say, "here's an xp, I invoke Aspect X, surely you should be doing so-and-so now." This encourages a player with a character with a Cowardly Aspect to run away, one with a Brash Aspect to take a dump in his enemy's helmet, and so on. The player can either accept the xp and play it the way the GM suggests, or hand over one of their spare xp to the GM, saying, "no."

So the rules don't dictate the player play according to their character's written-down traits, but they strongly encourage it - they shape their play.

So I guess there are rules that shape play, rules that constrain play, and rules that dictate play. (Wow, we have so many words in the English language to express such shades of meaning, you gotta wonder why some dickheads make up new ones to talk about rpgs.)

Well, I guess the big question is whether Unknown Armies would benefit by giving the players the right to completely control the fate of their character's psyche.

I mean ... Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, would not benefit by giving the players the right to completely control the fate of their character's body.  If the dragon breathed all over you, and the end result was that you were encouraged to play your character dying ... well, that's a different game.

Likewise, maybe Unknown Armies is a game where you're meant to put your right to play the character as a sane and level-headed individual at risk.  That certainly seems to fit with the other things I've heard about the setting and system.

In general I don't like rules that shape or force 'roleplaying'. But that is a gross generalization that ignores a bunch of stuff I do like in RPG's that could be looked at the same way.

In general, if it's a player imposed limitation, I'm good with it. If it's external to the character (aunt may disadvantages) I'm good with it.  I generally like the madness meter for it's elegance over, say San points or CP's humanity points.

On the other hand, your depiction in particular makes me shudder in revulsion at having to play with them overhead. All of a sudden my character concept is less important than the lingering result of this dice roll that made him suddenly queasy?

On your limb lopping analogy... I can think of few 'commercially' successful games where limb severing was a likely result of combat, and probably with good reason. It fucks with the player's idea of his character. After the third or fourth time he felt compelled to retire his character or 'struggle through' it he probably quit playing, multiply by all the gamers out there.

That isn't to say permanent alterations (limb lopping, madness meters) aren't necessarily bad things to have in games. Some players will look forward to the inevitable hardships to overcome.   I just feel they should be in moderation... even optional.

Using the terms JBO laid out, I don't mind mechanics that shape play, but have no use for any others where RP and personality are concerned.

I dont mind them as long as the player get to define what those personality traits the mechanics represent.