Games to challenge conceptions of character?

[lategamer]

I like how XP gets handled in the Between in terms of how it drives character play. Each playbook has a list of XP triggers, some fixed and some floating. SO the player gets to pick at least some of what kind of action or development or whatever they want to take center stage for their character. That isn't external like some of the other examples, but I do think it's an interesting difference from a set list of XP triggers like you see in a lot of games.

It's definitely an improvement and a passable halfway house between set lists and entirely player generated beats. I'm not sold on any version so far.

In TOR, XP is handed out depending on how many hours you played the game. Missing a session is made that little bit more painful.

 

[Fenris-77]

My personal preference is systems that tie advancement directly to the skills and whatnot the character actually uses, so Blades in the Dark, or CoC, or Torchbearer (to pick a range of different examples). I think that's the best way to drive player decision making. Those games don't really address the characters inner life like we're talking about here, but other mechanics, like passions in Mythras, show that it isn't impossible or even that complicated.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't think that we necessarily need to go to 'trying to represent everything mechanically' to discuss this idea. Nor do I think that the only answer is 'simply apply the right roleplaying techniques'.

It is not an either-or situation. The right answer is whatever combo (or extreme) works best with how you and your group think about how things ought to be handled. The criteria for how in this case is what is fun and uninteresting. The other important consideration is does the combo makes this fun and interesting in the time everybody has for the hobby.

I'd agree that there are games that go overboard trying to mechanize everything (and some people like those games), but that isn't the same as talking about the subset of games that strive to provide mechanical handholds for the inner life of the character. The just roleplay it answer is one that can certainly work given the right table of players, but I find it a somewhat unsatisfying answer because it doesn't really address the issue, IMO anyway.

My point in my debate with hawkeyefan is that every thing he describes as mechanics as far as lasting changes to a character conception can be handled with roleplaying. I feel he is focused too much on arguing "what's best". There is no "best" only a combo of techniques and systems that makes the campaign fun and interesting as a leisure activity. It is like arguing what is the "best" movie for an individual. What the best movie is a matter of personal preference.

I think it's more than fair to say that, generally speaking, players of TTRPGs respond in terms of roleplaying and decision making at least in part based on the mechanical cues the specific game they are playing gives them. The rules and mechanics serve as a sort of shorthand for some notion of 'what's important' and even then we're really talking about solidly designed play loops with consequences.

My experience is that what is important are the cues whether they are mechanical or not. Mechanics are not the only type of shorthand to convey this information.

There will always be gamers and tables for whom the sort of inner-character-life mechanic in question is anathema, but that's very different than saying it's not useful, interesting, or even revelatory for other players.

While I have seen and interacted with hobbyists with that level of anathema, my experience is that most players are not interested in exploring the inner life of their characters. And when there is a negative reaction often because they feel having to explore that inner life being shoved down their throat. And these mechanics are no more special in that regard than anything else in a campaign that makes the players feel things are being shoved down their throats.

Most people answer to the above to play with a group of like-minded players. Unfortunately, I live in a rural area, and that is not an option. So how does on accommodate both? By emphasizing first-person roleplaying and leaving it up to the players to resolve how the inner life of their character. As a referee, I am not passive, when asked I will support those players with whatever information or ruling they need. The only hard and fast requirement I have for all players is that you respond as if you were there as the character. Which is why I use the shorthand "First Person Roleplaying".

When you play boffer LARPS like I have this becomes obvious. Boffer LARPS have a mix players with many who are there to enjoy the live-action/sports aspect of the events and others who are there to roleplay as a character. I am in the latter group although I am pretty good at the sports stuff as well. The reason it hangs together well as well as it does is because of the live-action. The "sports" players still have to talk face to face so when stuff happens or a group is in the middle of an adventure they are all on the same level as far social interactions go.

With tabletop roleplaying it is easy to play a character in a third person mode, describing the roleplaying, and how the character reacts rather than acting it out. Not unlike moving pieces on a board in a wargame. I don't ask players to be actors unless they want to do that. But I do engage them directly when it comes to the roleplaying.

Also, I use miniatures and battleboards a lot so I have them show me where their character goes. Which may seem like it makes things more like a board game at first glance. But become surprisingly effective when combined with first person roleplaying. Why? Because for most the board and mini are a better emulation of the situational awareness the character would have in the situation than theater of the mind.

I started doing this because I am 50% deaf and it is easier for me for players to show me what their character does with their mini rather than verbal only. Then way later I started noticing that players are more apt to try things when I have the board set up. So I figured the minimum setup to provide the visual cues and that is what I have done since.

How does this relate to the character's inner-life, their conception? In life, we are shaped by our circumstances. Circumstances change so the player acting as their character also must change to respond to the new circumstances. What about involuntary changes? That is handled by the World in Motion. Not all changes in a character's circumstance are the result of their choices. Many times they change because of things other characters do. Circumstances change and again the players as their characters are forced to respond.

Finally, this is not about Free Kreigspiel which is all rulings. I use mechanics to handle character doing specific things where the results are uncertain. I just don't use them to handle a character's inner-life. I know of some folks that could make the free kriegspiel approach work and I tried it a handful of times. But it has its own set of trade-offs and I like what I do now better. Certainly, those I play with like it better.

 

[Fenris-77]

It is not an either-or situation. The right answer is whatever combo (or extreme) works best with how you and your group think about how things ought to be handled. The criteria for how in this case is what is fun and uninteresting. The other important consideration is does the combo makes this fun and interesting in the time everybody has for the hobby.

Yup, I agree.

My point in my debate with hawkeyefan is that every thing he describes as mechanics as far as lasting changes to a character conception can be handled with roleplaying. I feel he is focused too much on arguing "what's best". There is no "best" only a combo of techniques and systems that makes the campaign fun and interesting as a leisure activity. It is like arguing what is the "best" movie for an individual. What the best movie is a matter of personal preference.

My experience is that what is important are the cues whether they are mechanical or not. Mechanics are not the only type of shorthand to convey this information.

See, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean this is helpful in terms of the conversation at hand. If there weren't people who were interested in TTRPGs with the kind of mechanics we are talking about there wouldn't be so many of them, and there are lots. I'm going to leave 'best' aside here as I'd agree that it's not useful, but I also don't think @hawkeyfan was talking about best or better than either.

As for your second point, I agree again, but the topic at hand seems to be those mechanical cues, and I don't see a lot of value is simply saying 'just roleplay it out'.

As for the notion of shoving things down players throats I also agree that this can certainly be the result at some tables when the GM and/or some of the players try to enforce a play style or whatever that other players aren't interested in or actively dislike. That said, that's again not what I think the topic at hand is discussing. If we assume a good faith approach here then we're talking about tables that want to engage with their characters inner lives in some way and who are also interested in mechanics that can help cue or scaffold that kind of play.

In general, I do completely agree that RP cues are essential and indispensable in the task at hand here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that RP cues be replaced by mechanical cues, or that RP cues and solid RP practices at the table aren't enormously important. Of course they are. I also don't see anything wrong, or bad, or degenerate about wanting to play a system that has mechanical bits as well.

 

[lategamer]

My personal preference is systems that tie advancement directly to the skills and whatnot the character actually uses, so Blades in the Dark, or CoC, or Torchbearer (to pick a range of different examples). I think that's the best way to drive player decision making.

I'd like to see advancement in other areas. TOR divides it to Adventure Points and Skill Points and the former can only be spent on Combat Skills or Valour and Wisdom (which actually act a little like levels). Whereas Skill Points work on stuff like Athletics or Singing.

The focus on skills actually used ... I'm well used to that in BRP/CoC and I also remember a player who would go into battle with 5 weapons, use each one so that he could get the skill checks. That's not throwing shade; every system has weak points and there are always abusers.

I guess what I'd like is maybe more of a Framework on where the character is meant to be going? So the character concept lays out the path ahead. For instance....

I'm playing in a Saxon Britain game. My character is an Irishman in Exile, armed with only a spear and a hurley. My plan is for him to become a mighty axeman (modelled on Slaine the King) but I've focused on personality and other skills at the moment and he has no skills in Axe. He will get an axe at some point and then he will look for training. If he survives. In the system we are using there are some limits on growth without training. XP in some cases can only be spent if you find time to practice etc. But laying out the Personal Plan is a little like the long term goals mentioned before. I'm a little critical of short term goals because I find that RPG play is often reactive. But the concept of the character can be shaped through limiting the way XP can be spent.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'd like to see advancement in other areas. TOR divides it to Adventure Points and Skill Points and the former can only be spent on Combat Skills or Valour and Wisdom (which actually act a little like levels). Whereas Skill Points work on stuff like Athletics or Singing.

The focus on skills actually used ... I'm well used to that in BRP/CoC and I also remember a player who would go into battle with 5 weapons, use each one so that he could get the skill checks. That's not throwing shade; every system has weak points and there are always abusers.

I guess what I'd like is maybe more of a Framework on where the character is meant to be going? So the character concept lays out the path ahead. For instance....

I'm playing in a Saxon Britain game. My character is an Irishman in Exile, armed with only a spear and a hurley. My plan is for him to become a mighty axeman (modelled on Slaine the King) but I've focused on personality and other skills at the moment and he has no skills in Axe. He will get an axe at some point and then he will look for training. If he survives. In the system we are using there are some limits on growth without training. XP in some cases can only be spent if you find time to practice etc. But laying out the Personal Plan is a little like the long term goals mentioned before. I'm a little critical of short term goals because I find that RPG play is often reactive. But the concept of the character can be shaped through limiting the way XP can be spent.

Yeah, there needs to be other things going on as well, for sure. I just prefer that as the base of the advancement system. You can go a lot of ways with concepts, classes and the like, and those can all be super useful. A lot depends on genre and expectation of course.

 

[robertsconley]

See, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean this is helpful in terms of the conversation at hand. If there weren't people who were interested in TTRPGs with the kind of mechanics we are talking about there wouldn't be so many of them, and there are lots. I'm going to leave 'best' aside here as I'd agree that it's not useful, but I also don't think @hawkeyfan was talking about best or better than either.

The questions Lessa asked were these.

• What games you think are good at exploring and challenging characters like that?
• What elements help with that?
• What experiences you had in this style?

Where in those questions about games, elements, and experience tell me I am supposed to limit my response to solutions that only involve mechanics?

If there weren't people who were interested in TTRPGs with the kind of mechanics we are talking about there wouldn't be so many of them, and there are lots.

I didn't see Lessa ask what were the popular ways of handling the changes to the character's conception. He asked what games, elements, and experiences that were relevant to exploring and challenging character without any particular qualification.

As for your second point, I agree again, but the topic at hand seems to be those mechanical cues, and I don't see a lot of value is simply saying 'just roleplay it out'.

But I don't just say "roleplay it out"? I often include detailed explanations of how it works and how to handle specific issues. Some of which you discussed with me.

As for the notion of shoving things down players throats I also agree that this can certainly be the result at some tables when the GM and/or some of the players try to enforce a play style or whatever that other players aren't interested in or actively dislike. That said, that's again not what I think the topic at hand is discussing. If we assume a good faith approach here then we're talking about tables that want to engage with their characters inner lives in some way and who are also interested in mechanics that can help cue or scaffold that kind of play.

I have seen problems arise from good faith efforts involving using mechanics to handle the character's inner-life. The session or campaign starts out fine but then later on the choices arising from the mechanics feel off or jarring to one or more of the players.

As for my approach, I know it is unusual. And if I wrote faster maybe more folks would understand it better. But it seems that over the years many got some use out of the stuff I did write. It was never at any point my answer stopped "Just roleplay". When asked I explain what I did, why I did things that way, and how one learns to do things that way.

I do the same thing with rulings, making dungeons, fantasy sandbox settings, and so on. For most the answer they get is "make stuff up" but I understand that "make stuff up" is not as intuitive as its advocates make it out to be. So I think about what is involved and break it down.

That is what I am doing with the roleplaying approach here and elsewhere.

 

[Fenris-77]

The questions Lessa asked were these.

• What games you think are good at exploring and challenging characters like that?
• What elements help with that?
• What experiences you had in this style?

Where in those questions about games, elements, and experience tell me I am supposed to limit my response to solutions that only involve mechanics?

Your answer was that those things can be handled via roleplay, which, while true, doesn't address handling it other ways. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't discuss the RP angle, but rather that are other useful, interesting, and viable options on the table (mechanics being one of those things).

I didn't see Lessa ask what were the popular ways of handling the changes to the character's conception. He asked what games, elements, and experiences that were relevant to exploring and challenging character without any particular qualification.

Other people were talking about mechanics and mechanics are part of the list there.

But I don't just say "roleplay it out"? I often include detailed explanations of how it works and how to handle specific issues. Some of which you discussed with me.

I wasn't trying to trivialize the RP and if I gave that impression my apologies. I have specifically said in this thread that the RP elements are both important and in fact indispensable.

I have seen problems arise from good faith efforts involving using mechanics to handle the character's inner-life. The session or campaign starts out fine but then later on the choices arising from the mechanics feel off or jarring to one or more of the players.

Sure, it can happen, but that doesn't mean the idea is flawed. Since people are interested in the notion beyond just how RP happens at the table it seems worth discussing.

As for my approach, I know it is unusual. And if I wrote faster maybe more folks would understand it better. But it seems that over the years many got some use out of the stuff I did write. It was never at any point my answer stopped "Just roleplay". When asked I explain what I did, why I did things that way, and how one learns to do things that way.

I do the same thing with rulings, making dungeons, fantasy sandbox settings, and so on. For most the answer they get is "make stuff up" but I understand that "make stuff up" is not as intuitive as its advocates make it out to be. So I think about what is involved and break it down.

That is what I am doing with the roleplaying approach here and elsewhere.

I wouldn't call your approach unusual so much as it's fucking hard to replicate. I mean that in an entirely positive way. GMs and players with less experience than you might benefit from some other handholds to help scaffold their attempt. Mechanics are certainly an option there and I think they can provide a concrete touchstone to help ground players in a particular approach.

 

[robertsconley]

Your answer was that those things can be handled via roleplay, which, while true, doesn't address handling it other ways. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't discuss the RP angle, but rather that are other useful, interesting, and viable options on the table (mechanics being one of those things).

And why would I do that given where my experience and expertise lie? Other folks on this thread seem to be far more able than I am to comment on the mechanical approaches. I am aware of them tried more than a few of them and found them lacking to how I approach things and stated why I found them lacking. But also made it clear I understand why they work for other folks.

I have done enough teaching, training, and coaching to understand that there are no one-size-fits-all all solutions to these kind of things.

Other people were talking about mechanics and mechanics are part of the list there.

As they should given their experience and expertise. I am contributing my games, my experience and the elements I use.

Sure, it can happen, but that doesn't mean the idea is flawed.

Just because the approach is limited doesn't make it flawed. It means that a particular set of mechanics only suitable to handle a limited range of circumstances. I found when the campaign circumstances change the authors of these games make up a new game or a new set of mechanics to handle those circumstances. As I understand it there isn't one universal playbook that PbtA RPGs use they make up new sets for different premises and types of campaigns. The same for other types of games.

I wasn't trying to trivialize the RP and if I gave that impression my apologies. I have specifically said in this thread that the RP elements are both important and in fact indispensable.

(snip) Since people are interested in the notion beyond just how RP happens at the table it seems worth discussing.

And roleplaying is not worth discussing because? Is the conversation here to be limited to mechanical approaches?

just how RP happens at the table

You keep using variants of this statement. It it the same mistake that OSR advocate about "Making stuff up." There is more to it, and there are naunces. It just doesn't "happen at the table".

I wouldn't call your approach unusual so much as it's fucking hard to replicate.

I am aware of the issue and disagree that it is hard to replicate. The problem is that it is not explained or taught well. And my solution to that problem is still evolving. I do know that anytime folks game with me or one of my friends who referee they see what we actions and get it. And they adapt it to their campaign. Up until the 2000s I have given little thought to how to write about what it is I do. Since then I been slowly putting stuff together.

One thing is clear at this point that there is no overarching GNS style theory that ties everything together. Sure "roleplaying happens at the table" is the core of my approach. But that is about as useful as saying "Roll dice" and you can run a tabletop roleplaying. What is important is how accompanied by observation on why it seems to work out.

The result is a laundry list of techniques that are combined in varying combinations depending on what the group is interested in and the circumstances of the campaign. If I had to guess my ultimate work on this stuff would be a cookbook for RPG campaigns. I am not going to tell the reader which meat dish is best for their dinner. But I will explain why each meat dish, dessert, bread, pasta, etc. is in there and when I use the recipes. But leave it up to the reader to decide what works best for a particular dinner on a particular night for a particular group of folks.

I mean that in an entirely positive way. GMs and players with less experience than you might benefit from some other handholds to help scaffold their attempt.

Sure that is a valid approach. My take in contrast is teaching folks how to organize the roleplaying and the session to handle things. Which for the thread is the character's conception.

Mechanics are certainly an option there and I think they can provide a concrete touchstone to help ground players in a particular approach.

And I offer roleplaying as an option, explain its naunces, and what works and what doesn't along with how the mechanics fit in.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is pretty much how it works in Chronicles of Darkness and Exalted and, frankly, I do not like. That's just my experience.
Part of it is the battle of wills between GM and player for contriving what the GM wants to do and what notes the player needs to hit to achieve the beat. Means players end up picking goals that are trivial in order to get Beats

In Heart, there is a finite list of Beats for each Calling, which is something selected for each character that represents their motivation for being a delver. The Calling is the reason the PC braves delving into the Heart. The Beats reflect this calling in some way. They're also broken up into tiers; Minor, Major, and Zenith. So some are simpler to achieve than others, and grant less significant advancement. Each beat on the list can only be hit once.

I don't recall how it worked in Chronicles of Darkness, and I'm not very familiar with Exalted, so I don't know if that makes it a little different... but it seems to?

What I like about it, and the book makes this super clear, is that the chosen Beats of the players are cues to the GM of what they're looking to see happen in the game, so the GM should do what he can to work in opportunities for them during prep or at the table.

I am interested in this. I like the idea of players calculating the risk of calamity but taking further action because of need.

The idea of Heart is very much about the toll that delving takes on an individual. Or tolls, really... there are several types. One cannot delve into the living dungeon of the Heart and emerge unscathed. The way the mechanics work is that if a character gets a minor Fallout, they're less likely to get a major one. So it creates this real tension as a conflict continues and the characters take Stress. If they don't receive minor Fallout, their risk for major Fallout mounts as their stress builds up. So they're free to continue acting unpenalized, but the looming threat grows as they do.

I like how XP gets handled in the Between in terms of how it drives character play. Each playbook has a list of XP triggers, some fixed and some floating. SO the player gets to pick at least some of what kind of action or development or whatever they want to take center stage for their character. That isn't external like some of the other examples, but I do think it's an interesting difference from a set list of XP triggers like you see in a lot of games.

Yeah, Heart is similar as I described above. It lacks the fixed triggers of The Between, but the rest are chosen from a set list.

 

[Lofgeornost]

I guess one thing that has me scratching my head a bit about all this is the difference between attitudes (or emotions, or internal life of the character, or what have you) and behavior or actions. In just about any RPG, a character will have behaviors or do things; these influence the game-world. It's less clear to me that character has attitudes or emotions, in any meaningful sense. That is, as the player I can imagine, 'this is what Dishwater Dull IV is thinking or feeling' but for the most part this has an influence, or maybe even is instantiated, only when Dishwater says or does something.

It's pretty straightforward to come up with systems, or situations, that challenge the player's preconceived notions of how his or her character would act in a given situation: "Dishwater is stoic and will not break under torture." Sorry, buddy, you failed your resist pain roll (or whatever the mechanism is) and Dishwater spills his guts and tells all he knows.

It's a good deal harder, on both a practical and theoretical level, to come up with ways to challenge the character's inner life. Sure, you can make mechanisms that, say, tell the player that the character loves NPC X or hates NPC Y. But these hypothetical attitudes only become significant if they are expressed in actions. So--glossing over a lot--the mechanisms either are a way to affect the character's actions or they are essentially ornamental. Affecting the character's inner life is then something of an illusion; what is affected are his or her actions.

 

[lategamer]

They're also broken up into tiers; Minor, Major, and Zenith. So some are simpler to achieve than others, and grant less significant advancement. Each beat on the list can only be hit once.

The minor, major and zenith might be better expressions than short term, long term and group goals. Worth exploring.

What I like about it, and the book makes this super clear, is that the chosen Beats of the players are cues to the GM of what they're looking to see happen in the game, so the GM should do what he can to work in opportunities for them during prep or at the table.

Yeah I’m not super comfortable with that (it’s in chronicles and Exalted too). Just because I’ve seen it devolve (and I’m as guilty as the next player).

Some players lean into it with goals that match the GM aims and others kinda are unachievable in this context.

For instance.

Player 1 might have the long term goal of becoming a Paladin of Somewuch. As the game is about jousting heroism this works.

Player 2 has the long term of goal of returning home to his village and raising a family.

They’re both possible but they certainly lean into very different styles of play and one PC has effectively written his characters swan song. Which isn’t a problem per se but one of them is achieving it through play, the other through non-play. And I see that as a conflict.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My point in my debate with @

hawkeyefan is that every thing he describes as mechanics as far as lasting changes to a character conception can be handled with roleplaying.

The only thing that can't is the element I'm talking about where the player doesn't control the response. That is not possible through the method of roleplay only.

Yes, a player can decide that his character has been through so much that they're now suffering from some kind of PTSD, and they can roleplay the hell out of that, and they can use it to complicate the character's life, and that's all great. But it's all (or nearly all) entirely up to the player.

What I've been talking about are games that specifically don't leave it entirely up to the player.

I feel he is focused too much on arguing "what's best". There is no "best" only a combo of techniques and systems that makes the campaign fun and interesting as a leisure activity. It is like arguing what is the "best" movie for an individual. What the best movie is a matter of personal preference.

It's not about what's "best" in the sense that there's some objective answer. I'm talking about what I've found to be useful methods for the specific type of play that I'm talking about.

While I have seen and interacted with hobbyists with that level of anathema, my experience is that most players are not interested in exploring the inner life of their characters.

But I'm specifically talking about play that is interested in exploring characters more than exploring setting.

 

[Fenris-77]

And why would I do that given where my experience and expertise lie? Other folks on this thread seem to be far more able than I am to comment on the mechanical approaches. I am aware of them tried more than a few of them and found them lacking to how I approach things and stated why I found them lacking. But also made it clear I understand why they work for other folks.

I have done enough teaching, training, and coaching to understand that there are no one-size-fits-all all solutions to these kind of things.

Why do you keep insisting that I'm trying to prevent you from doing anything, or even suggesting that what you're talking about isn't important? I'm not. I only suggested that we leave room for the other half of the discussion.

Just because the approach is limited doesn't make it flawed. It means that a particular set of mechanics only suitable to handle a limited range of circumstances. I found when the campaign circumstances change the authors of these games make up a new game or a new set of mechanics to handle those circumstances. As I understand it there isn't one universal playbook that PbtA RPGs use they make up new sets for different premises and types of campaigns. The same for other types of games.

The bolded is at once your opinion and pretty insulting to everyone who is interested in other approaches. Was that your intent? I don't agree with your opinion here at all, which might be the core of our disagreement. It isn't worth a back forth though since that's going to detract from the thread and we're entitled to our opinions.

And roleplaying is not worth discussing because? Is the conversation here to be limited to mechanical approaches?

Asked and answered. Lets move on shall we?

You keep using variants of this statement. It it the same mistake that OSR advocate about "Making stuff up." There is more to it, and there are naunces. It just doesn't "happen at the table".

Jesus. If there are any other opinions you'd like to foist on me that aren't mine let me know, K? I wasn't talking about the RP side, which you covered quite nicely, so I short-handed it. It feels like you're looking for reasons to be upset that I'm knocking your preferred playstyle. I'm not. So pretty please, with sugar on top, let it go.

 

[Lessa]

lategamer and

I'd like to see advancement in other areas. TOR divides it to Adventure Points and Skill Points and the former can only be spent on Combat Skills or Valour and Wisdom (which actually act a little like levels). Whereas Skill Points work on stuff like Athletics or Singing.

The focus on skills actually used ... I'm well used to that in BRP/CoC and I also remember a player who would go into battle with 5 weapons, use each one so that he could get the skill checks. That's not throwing shade; every system has weak points and there are always abusers.

I guess what I'd like is maybe more of a Framework on where the character is meant to be going? So the character concept lays out the path ahead. For instance....

I'm playing in a Saxon Britain game. My character is an Irishman in Exile, armed with only a spear and a hurley. My plan is for him to become a mighty axeman (modelled on Slaine the King) but I've focused on personality and other skills at the moment and he has no skills in Axe. He will get an axe at some point and then he will look for training. If he survives. In the system we are using there are some limits on growth without training. XP in some cases can only be spent if you find time to practice etc. But laying out the Personal Plan is a little like the long term goals mentioned before. I'm a little critical of short term goals because I find that RPG play is often reactive. But the concept of the character can be shaped through limiting the way XP can be spent.

This is more or less like the Cortex Marvel I mentioned before. Each PC had a couple "milestone paths" that layed down evolution routes beforehand, with related actions rewarding small XP,. and each ended up in a key choice at some point that changed the character permanently (and rewarded big XP). The problem, as you say, is the fact those milestones were very unbalanced, with some being way easier to trigger than others. Wolverine had something involving violence that gave him XP for every combat, while Captain America had to exhibit leadership in key situations. As you would guess, Wolverine ended up progressing way faster.

I agree with what Fenris-77 says about widening the milestone into a pool of XP keys is an advancement, as it makes sure PCs trigger those with higher frequency. In fact, the very first game I remember using this concept, an indie called "Shadow of Yesterday", already used pools of triggerable XP keys instead of individual ones. Which maybe shows authors already identified the issues lategamer saw since the beginning.

EDIT:

In Heart, there is a finite list of Beats for each Calling, which is something selected for each character that represents their motivation for being a delver. The Calling is the reason the PC braves delving into the Heart. The Beats reflect this calling in some way. They're also broken up into tiers; Minor, Major, and Zenith. So some are simpler to achieve than others, and grant less significant advancement. Each beat on the list can only be hit once.

I don't recall how it worked in Chronicles of Darkness, and I'm not very familiar with Exalted, so I don't know if that makes it a little different... but it seems to?

What I like about it, and the book makes this super clear, is that the chosen Beats of the players are cues to the GM of what they're looking to see happen in the game, so the GM should do what he can to work in opportunities for them during prep or at the table.

This seems a pretty good implementation of the concept, actually.

Dude stop it. You're almost making me break my promise to never buy a physical book again. xD

 

[hawkeyefan]

I guess one thing that has me scratching my head a bit about all this is the difference between attitudes (or emotions, or internal life of the character, or what have you) and behavior or actions. In just about any RPG, a character will have behaviors or do things; these influence the game-world. It's less clear to me that character has attitudes or emotions, in any meaningful sense. That is, as the player I can imagine, 'this is what Dishwater Dull IV is thinking or feeling' but for the most part this has an influence, or maybe even is instantiated, only when Dishwater says or does something.

It's pretty straightforward to come up with systems, or situations, that challenge the player's preconceived notions of how his or her character would act in a given situation: "Dishwater is stoic and will not break under torture." Sorry, buddy, you failed your resist pain roll (or whatever the mechanism is) and Dishwater spills his guts and tells all he knows.

It's a good deal harder, on both a practical and theoretical level, to come up with ways to challenge the character's inner life. Sure, you can make mechanisms that, say, tell the player that the character loves NPC X or hates NPC Y. But these hypothetical attitudes only become significant if they are expressed in actions. So--glossing over a lot--the mechanisms either are a way to affect the character's actions or they are essentially ornamental. Affecting the character's inner life is then something of an illusion; what is affected are his or her actions.

I think this is an interesting point. I agree that these things... changes to the character... need to manifest during play in a meaningful way. This is one reason I think that rules designed to specifically deliver that are very helpful here.

The minor, major and zenith might be better expressions than short term, long term and group goals. Worth exploring.



Yeah I’m not super comfortable with that (it’s in chronicles and Exalted too). Just because I’ve seen it devolve (and I’m as guilty as the next player).

Some players lean into it with goals that match the GM aims and others kinda are unachievable in this context.

For instance.

Player 1 might have the long term goal of becoming a Paladin of Somewuch. As the game is about jousting heroism this works.

Player 2 has the long term of goal of returning home to his village and raising a family.

They’re both possible but they certainly lean into very different styles of play and one PC has effectively written his characters swan song. Which isn’t a problem per se but one of them is achieving it through play, the other through non-play. And I see that as a conflict.

Well, Heart is a game that's a bit more focused. The PCs are delvers... people who delve into the living tear in reality called The Heart. It's a mutable environment that changes based on the desires of those within. There are permanent settlements within (as permanent as can be), and the delvers are experts at traveling from one to another. The Heart senses the desires of those within it, but it's understanding of them is alien and flawed, so what it brings them is seldom exactly what they want.

The setting is very much designed to be mutable... and to allow the GM to craft the experiences towards the players. Characters can certainly have different motivations and different goals, but I don't think they'll tend to be as broad as they may be in a typical fantasy campaign. The setting and the system have been designed in tandem to deliver a specific play experience.

 

[robertsconley]

It's a good deal harder, on both a practical and theoretical level, to come up with ways to challenge the character's inner life. Sure, you can make mechanisms that, say, tell the player that the character loves NPC X or hates NPC Y. But these hypothetical attitudes only become significant if they are expressed in actions. So--glossing over a lot--the mechanisms either are a way to affect the character's actions or they are essentially ornamental. Affecting the character's inner life is then something of an illusion; what is affected are his or her actions.

Something I observed as well. This is why I tailored my approach to focus on the player acting as if they are there as the character as opposed to feeling as if they are there. Sometimes the feeling part happens but I have no surefire way of creating the feeling of immersion. My main observation in that regard is that the more "in the moment" the player is the more apt to be immersed. The more likely they will not only act as the character would under the circumstance but feel what the character would.

 

[Lessa]

It's a good deal harder, on both a practical and theoretical level, to come up with ways to challenge the character's inner life. Sure, you can make mechanisms that, say, tell the player that the character loves NPC X or hates NPC Y. But these hypothetical attitudes only become significant if they are expressed in actions. So--glossing over a lot--the mechanisms either are a way to affect the character's actions or they are essentially ornamental.

Bingo! The kind of games we're talking about here do exactly what you suggest (or so do the ones I know).

Eg: Dogs in the Vineyard challenges PCs vows, personality, and convictions by bringing them into conflicts and risking changing them, for good or bad. So bringing that "The Lord is my Shepard" trait into a heated debate may see you win it.... or it may see it weakened, or even vanished, if you lose the debate.

Eg 2: Pendragon is similar. You bring traits (called Virtues & Passions) to empower your PC during conflicts, but there's always the risk of those failing and being reduced or locked out, etc. thus changing your PC in ways unexpected and out of your control.

 

[gruagach]

This seems a pretty good implementation of the concept, actually.

Dude stop it. You're almost making me break my promise to never buy a physical book again. xD

Ahh, the Pub, where resolutions of frugality and monthly budgets come to die.

 

[Lessa]

This thread inspired a little personal project: a round of games like this, preferentially one-shots and in different genres, to explore the concept with friends. What about this for starts:

1. Investigations: Dogs in the Vineyard, Kult.
2. Adventuresque: Pendragon, The Spire.
3. Dungeon Crawls: Heart, Trophy Dark.

All one-shots with rotating GMs. Could it work?


If anyone have a suggestion for a whatsapp group name lemme know, as "Games to challenge conceptions of character" is way too long. xD

 

[Fenris-77]

This thread inspired a little personal project: a round of games like this, preferentially one-shots and in different genres, to explore the concept with friends. What about this for starts:

1. Investigations: Dogs in the Vineyard, Kult.
2. Adventuresque: Pendragon, The Spire.
3. Dungeon Crawls: Heart, Trophy Dark.

All one-shots with rotating GMs. Could it work?


If anyone have a suggestion for a whatsapp group name lemme know, as "Games to challenge conceptions of character" is way too long. xD

A cool idea for Trophy Dark that I haven't had a chance to try is to run a TD game in an adventure location which will inevitably go badly for many of the players. This gets treated as a legend in the present (game present) where you then run a TG incursion into the same location which is now stocked with evidence of the previous doomed expedition. History informs the present etc etc.

 

[Lessa]

Fucking great idea Fenris-77 . Consider it stolen.


Back to my project: Pendragon one-shot wouldn't do it justice. Scratch that, make Pendragon a few shots.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fucking great idea Fenris-77 . Consider it stolen.

I won't pretend its mine. Someone brought it up on the Trophy Discord.

 

[Lessa]

Yeah but you hit that "Make people happy" trait anyway, so take this XP.


And I think it'll be "Games about characters". The name for that whatsapp group. Nah scratch that, too generic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This seems a pretty good implementation of the concept, actually.

Dude stop it. You're almost making me break my promise to never buy a physical book again. xD

I feel guilty so please accept this link to the digital Quickstart rules as an apology. It's PWYW.

Heart Quickstart Rules

This thread inspired a little personal project: a round of games like this, preferentially one-shots and in different genres, to explore the concept with friends. What about this for starts:

1. Investigations: Dogs in the Vineyard, Kult.
2. Adventuresque: Pendragon, The Spire.
3. Dungeon Crawls: Heart, Trophy Dark.

All one-shots with rotating GMs. Could it work?


If anyone have a suggestion for a whatsapp group name lemme know, as "Games to challenge conceptions of character" is way too long. xD

Sounds pretty great to me. I'm not too familiar with Kult, but the rest of those are great games. I think some work really well as an ongoing campaign, but they can also work well as a one shot.

Not sure of a name for the whatsapp group...

 

[Voros]

I'd say that some of the most intense examples of the concept in the OP can be found in the larpscripts and 'experimental' rpgs of Emily Care Boss, Tim Hutchings and Jason Morningstar.

Most are root and branch of the innovations of Stafford, Wujcik and numerous CoC experiments like In Media Res and others. I'm sure there are a number of important designers in the Larp sphere that I'm unaware of as well.

The more experimental end of PbtA has also been a space for this concept. The Storybrewers Roleplaying team with their Alas for the Awful Sea, Fight with Spirit (sports drama) and Jane Austen games have also been doing a lot of interesting work in this space.

 

[AsenRG]

Did anyone mention Unknown Armies, Delta Green and Nemesis? The last one is a free game, actually...


Fun story about Unknown Armies (and it's possible in the other ones as well): a PC was killing people due to outrageous rolls, and passing the violence checks every single time (and it was self-defense or defense of another, much to his credit - also, we were rolling in the open).
At some point he killed yet another and the player went (paraphrasing): "Ah, I killed a man, again! What's with me? I'm greatly disturbed, let me roll the Violence check".
And we looked at his character sheet and told him: "No, you're unfazed*. It's fine, another one for the body bags. People should just learn to stop assaulting your PC..."

The player needed some time to assimilate that, BTW. And then he had to basically re-examine his concept of the PC.

*Unexpectedly for the player, he had amassed enough Hardened notches that killing in self-defense didn't bother him any more!

 

[Lessa]

Did anyone mention Unknown Armies, Delta Green and Nemesis? The last one is a free game, actually...


Fun story about Unknown Armies (and it's possible in the other ones as well): a PC was killing people due to outrageous rolls, and passing the violence checks every single time (and it was self-defense or defense of another, much to his credit - also, we were rolling in the open).
At some point he killed yet another and the player went (paraphrasing): "Ah, I killed a man, again! What's with me? I'm greatly disturbed, let me roll the Violence check".
And we looked at his character sheet and told him: "No, you're unfazed*. It's fine, another one for the body bags. People should just learn to stop assaulting your PC..."

The player needed some time to assimilate that, BTW. And then he had to basically re-examine his concept of the PC.

*Unexpectedly for the player, he had amassed enough Hardened notches that killing in self-defense didn't bother him any more!

Great stuff, AsenRG. Thanks! And yeah, Unknown Armies is awesome. It seems to me the most conductive to the kind of character challenging we're talking about here, from all the supernatural games I've seen (Vampire, Mage, Kult, etc). I love it's "magical taboo" rules.

I'm not convinced about Delta Green though? I know it has bits & pieces about that, but it seems kind like the D&D 5E example folks brought above, where Inspiration feels kinda vestiginal and not really fitting, or adding much value, to the rest of the game. I could be wrong though, as I've played the new Delta Green only a couple times.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not convinced about Delta Green though? I know it has bits & pieces about that, but it seems kind like the D&D 5E example folks brought above, where Inspiration feels kinda vestiginal and not really fitting, or adding much value, to the rest of the game. I could be wrong though, as I've played the new Delta Green only a couple times.

I think Delta Green is a good example. With Sanity loss and projection onto bonds, I think it goes a little further than CoC. It shows how the agent's continued exposure to the unnatural takes its toll... how their relationships with those they care about deteriorate as a result. The mechanics will eventually bring you to a point where you're either going to go irreparably mad or you have to sacrifice the relationships you care about.

It's a great system in that sense. However, it's a system that basically allows for one type of story. A very suitable one for the genre, but it's going to basically play out the same every time.

 

[AsenRG]

Great stuff, AsenRG. Thanks! And yeah, Unknown Armies is awesome. It seems to me the most conductive to the kind of character challenging we're talking about here, from all the supernatural games I've seen (Vampire, Mage, Kult, etc). I love it's "magical taboo" rules.

I'm not convinced about Delta Green though? I know it has bits & pieces about that, but it seems kind like the D&D 5E example folks brought above, where Inspiration feels kinda vestiginal and not really fitting, or adding much value, to the rest of the game. I could be wrong though, as I've played the new Delta Green only a couple times.

Well, Delta Green uses a somewhat simplified variant of the same sanity rules. That's probably not surprising, given who's the lead designer!

So, I'd say that if one of them qualifies, probably the other one does, too...though possibly to a lesser measure, because of the simplification.

 

[Lessa]

I think Delta Green is a good example. With Sanity loss and projection onto bonds, I think it goes a little further than CoC. It shows how the agent's continued exposure to the unnatural takes its toll... how their relationships with those they care about deteriorate as a result. The mechanics will eventually bring you to a point where you're either going to go irreparably mad or you have to sacrifice the relationships you care about.

It's a great system in that sense. However, it's a system that basically allows for one type of story. A very suitable one for the genre, but it's going to basically play out the same every time.

Well, Delta Green uses a somewhat simplified variant of the same sanity rules. That's probably not surprising, given who's the lead designer!

So, I'd say that if one of them qualifies, probably the other one does, too...though possibly to a lesser measure, because of the simplification.

Fair. Perhaps DG system requires a bit more sessions to give fruits in this sense, something I admit not having in my couple sessions.

I think my disappointment with DG's percentile system may have tarnished my overall judgement too. I was anticipating it as I liked the idea of percentile systems in theory, but in practice it felt somewhat bland in it's numerical coldness. haha

 

[Silverlion]

I keep seeing this thread, and read a bit, and well I keep thinking that it was going to be about games where you are something truly strange: Like the game where you play a magic weapon (inspired by Stormbringer, did that ever come out?) Or the game where you play different aspects of the same person from inside their head all Inside Out (but predating it).

 

[AsenRG]

Fair. Perhaps DG system requires a bit more sessions to give fruits in this sense, something I admit not having in my couple sessions.

I think my disappointment with DG's percentile system may have tarnished my overall judgement too. I was anticipating it as I liked the idea of percentile systems in theory, but in practice it felt somewhat bland in it's numerical coldness. haha

Perfect for a cold, uncaring world, though...

Silverlion you mean Bloodlust.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I keep seeing this thread, and read a bit, and well I keep thinking that it was going to be about games where you are something truly strange: Like the game where you play a magic weapon (inspired by Stormbringer, did that ever come out?) Or the game where you play different aspects of the same person from inside their head all Inside Out (but predating it).

Bluebeard’s Bride is like that. Each player takes on an aspect of the bride’s persona, with only one being in control of the bride at any time.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I keep seeing this thread, and read a bit, and well I keep thinking that it was going to be about games where you are something truly strange: Like the game where you play a magic weapon (inspired by Stormbringer, did that ever come out?) Or the game where you play different aspects of the same person from inside their head all Inside Out (but predating it).

Bluebeard’s Bride is like that. Each player takes on an aspect of the bride’s persona, with only one being in control of the bride at any time.

This sounds like an rpg based on the movie Being John Malkovich.

 

[Lessa]

There was another one, "Everybody is John" or something similar, where all players controlled the same PC. I think it was more on the humour side, though.