Hmmm, I'm finding this is coming back to my own philosophy of what a GM and rules are for. I discuss this over on my livejournal.

I think that restrictive personality mechanics are awful. I'm going to go read your livejournal now, because I had a longer post that I erased.

But basicly I said this: The character as an entity belongs to the player. Not the GM. Not the rules. Not the game designer.

Quote from: SpikeIOn 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.

I think this is a key point. As you say, games in which characters can be maimed aren't too popular. It reminds me of what Tyberious Funk said when his character cut his own arm off in combat (yay! GURPS critical fumble tables!) that in some ways, maiming a character is worse than killing them. If they're dead you just roll up another one; if they're maimed, you feel obliged to keep playing them - to keep playing a character who you now don't like as much, because they no longer have the shape you gave them.

I dunno, perhaps I'm just recoiling as I look deeper into UA and see how sloppily-written it is (25 types of firearms, and 72 types of ammo, but no rules for adjusting to hit chances by range? 650 words to explain why they have no skill list, when it could have been another 100 example skills instead? etc), and how Forger it is in some of its philosophies.

My players seem to be happy with it, though. I guess this'll just be another campaign which if it succeeds, it's despite, not because of, the rules.

I have UA, and while I respect their rather elegent game and it's evident popularity I have to agree that the whole thing was rather haphazard and sloppily done.  Everytime I hear praise of their skill system (thankfully not too often) I have to ask 'What skill system?'. Resolution mechanics are all well and good, but where are the skills?

Imagine the powerhouse it could have been if it'd been actually finished!

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut basicly I said this: The character as an entity belongs to the player. Not the GM. Not the rules. Not the game designer.

This is how I see it, for the most part.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think this is a key point. As you say, games in which characters can be maimed aren't too popular. It reminds me of what Tyberious Funk said when his character cut his own arm off in combat (yay! GURPS critical fumble tables!) that in some ways, maiming a character is worse than killing them. If they're dead you just roll up another one; if they're maimed, you feel obliged to keep playing them - to keep playing a character who you now don't like as much, because they no longer have the shape you gave them.

I dunno, perhaps I'm just recoiling as I look deeper into UA and see how sloppily-written it is (25 types of firearms, and 72 types of ammo, but no rules for adjusting to hit chances by range? 650 words to explain why they have no skill list, when it could have been another 100 example skills instead? etc), and how Forger it is in some of its philosophies.

My players seem to be happy with it, though. I guess this'll just be another campaign which if it succeeds, it's despite, not because of, the rules.

The only game where this might not apply is one containing cyberware. Then losing an arm could mean it's time to get a new toy. :evillaugh:

I think encapsulated or choice-based mechanics are fine.  I'm not familiar with FATE, but the description of Aspects given in this thread seems okay to me (is there a third option?  i.e. "I don't agree my character would react the way you say he would, but I think he would react this other way that still invokes the Aspect.")

I do think that you're reading a bit much into UA's meter guidelines.  They shouldn't dictate behavior, but be taken as suggestions.  The only hard and fast mechanics are the ones regarding Fight/Flight/Freeze and what happens when you actually go psychotic/sociopathic.  All of which I find acceptable.  I agree that if I were using the meter descriptions as rules to play my PC's personality, I'd also be balking at them.  Simple solution is not to do so.  

Quote from: JimBobOzSo 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.

I like this part. I think the Honor & Practicality rules of In Harms Way does this nicely.

At the end of the day, for me, it all depends on whether the players are comfortable with the set up regardless of whether the rules dictate, contsrain or shape play and if the rules reflect the tone/theme of the setting. With regards, to the former (although I'm unsure, which category it falls into), my players have no problem with UA (we are using the second edition) and with the latter, I think it does.

Just a slight detour, what do you folks think about spells which control the actions/personality of the pcs. I've never really had a problem with these kinds of spells, simply because my players enjoy acting out of character and are content with the extra xp/skill bonus etc I award for good roleplaying.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RedFoxI think encapsulated or choice-based mechanics are fine.  I'm not familiar with FATE, but the description of Aspects given in this thread seems okay to me (is there a third option?  i.e. "I don't agree my character would react the way you say he would, but I think he would react this other way that still invokes the Aspect.")

It's not covered explicitly in the rules, but as I'm a sensible GM, I ran it that way. The point was to wake up players who were rolling to dodge the plot. "Um... there's a fight... he's supposed to be Daring... why is he just watching?" Tyberious Funk can confirm or deny, but in general I used the "GM can invoke Aspects" thing to move things along in an entertaining way, and I was usually riffing off a player's suggestion, rather than coming up with my own.

So for example Tyberious Funk's character was a rival of an NPC called Egric. He was alone in Egric's room, not having found anything to implicate him in an evil conspiracy, and was pissed off about it. Tyberious Funk said something about how maybe he should take a shit in Egric's helm. I laughed and said, "That's certainly Brash, like Coenred is supposed to be. I'll give you a Fate Point if you do it." He backed off and hummed and hawed and hesitated, and I said, "here's the Fate Point. You going to give me one to match it, or will Coenred drop his trews?"

So it was the player's crazy idea, I just gave him the push as he hesistated on the diving board

Quote from: RedFoxI do think that you're reading a bit much into UA's meter guidelines.  They shouldn't dictate behavior, but be taken as suggestions.

Well fuck, the whole book is a bunch of "suggestions", so what? Anyway, even if this particular game doesn't fit the profile, we're talking in this thread about the general point of character personality mechanics.

Quote from: RedFoxI agree that if I were using the meter descriptions as rules to play my PC's personality, I'd also be balking at them.  Simple solution is not to do so.  

Again, we're speaking generally about such things; UA was just an example to illustrate things. Still... seems to me that stuff is pretty much core to UA, tossing that out would be like tossing out classes in D&D.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell fuck, the whole book is a bunch of "suggestions", so what? Anyway, even if this particular game doesn't fit the profile, we're talking in this thread about the general point of character personality mechanics.


Again, we're speaking generally about such things; UA was just an example to illustrate things. Still... seems to me that stuff is pretty much core to UA, tossing that out would be like tossing out classes in D&D.

You're confusing the shit outta me.  You say we're talking generalities, but when I talk about FATE generalities you go on at length about specifically what happened in your own game.  :confused:

I did mention generalities in my previous post.  I just thought I could be helpful about your specific gaming problem, too.  I apologize if I was giving unsolicited advice.

For the record though, I don't think that the meter guidelines are core to UA.  Certainly not as much as classes in D&D.  The stimuli are probably more integral.  Even the Obsession is an optional player-choice (you can create a PC that isn't obsessed with anything).

Quote from: David RJust a slight detour, what do you folks think about spells which control the actions/personality of the pcs.

Now that I come to think of it, I have never as a GM done this to my players, not in going on 24 years of roleplaying.

It's just lame. If they want to act out of character, they can do it for a bit, who cares? And if they don't want to, it'll piss them off - who games to be pissed off?

On the related thing of NPCs using social skills on PCs, for some time I've done it this way - if the skill use succeeds, the PC will be strongly inclined to behave in the desired way; they'll have a malus to their dice rolls if they do other stuff, and none if they do what the NPC wanted. Same goes for PCs using social skills against other PCs, but when PCs use them against NPCs, they have their rules-as-written effect. So if NPC Jim intimidates PC Bob, succeeding his roll by 3, then if Bob cowers, fine, if he wants to fight, he can, he'll just have a -3 to it, because he's distracted by fear. If NPC Jane seduces PC Jen, succeeding her roll by 6, then Jane can run away, but will be at -6 to do so - that's why people in movies always trip up when they're running away from someone who's trying to seduce them.

That way, the PCs are strongly encouraged to follow along, but they don't have to do it.

Quote from: RedFoxYou're confusing the shit outta me.  You say we're talking generalities, but when I talk about FATE generalities you go on at length about specifically what happened in your own game.  :confused:

It's like this.

"Here is the general question of character personality mechanics. Here are some specific game examples to illustrate how it can work well, and work badly."

"In that specific game, though, that's not actually a mechanical rule, that's just a guideline."

"We're not here to nitpick over whether or not this or that is actually a rule in this or that game, but to talk about what you think of actual rules for it in general."

I know that without nitpicking casual illustrative examples, a lot of forum posts wouldn't exist, but hey...

Quote from: JimBobOzNow that I come to think of it, I have never as a GM done this to my players, not in going on 24 years of roleplaying.

It's just lame. If they want to act out of character, they can do it for a bit, who cares? And if they don't want to, it'll piss them off - who games to be pissed off?

Eh? I'm talking about charm spells, gease, control that kind of stuff..:confused:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's like this.

"Here is the general question of character personality mechanics. Here are some specific game examples to illustrate how it can work well, and work badly."

"In that specific game, though, that's not actually a mechanical rule, that's just a guideline."

"We're not here to nitpick over whether or not this or that is actually a rule in this or that game, but to talk about what you think of actual rules for it in general."

I know that without nitpicking casual illustrative examples, a lot of forum posts wouldn't exist, but hey...

Right, well see I wasn't nitpicking.  I didn't realize you were wishing to talk exclusively about personality mechanics in general in this thread.  In fact, I talked briefly about personality mechanics in general at the very beginning of my post.

Quote from: RedFoxI think encapsulated or choice-based mechanics are fine.

But whatever man.  Sorry for threadcrapping, or whateverthefuck.

I like that RPGs can present you with challenging situations to solve via strategy, roleplaying, deduction (etc).  Physical restrictions (eg. you can't get over the wall) can make for good strategy challenges.  Information restrictions (eg. you find another of those strange circles...but what do they mean?) can make for good deduction challenges.  Personality mechanic restrictions (eg. you have to roleplay that you're actually afraid of the Ghost) can make for good roleplaying challenges.

It really depends on what the game is about, what kinds of challenges it offers, and where everyone finds their "fun" in playing the game.