Incoherence in games?

[Arminius]

Bingo, Talespinner. D&D backgrounds are tacked-on, which is why they’re hard to use. Same for inspiration/advantage. D&D, bless its little heart, has always been a core set of mechanics with a bunch of peripheral stuff added. If you tried to change it from a pre-Copernican system of epicycles to a nice, clean integrated heliocentric model, it wouldn’t be recognizable.

The benefit of this is you can get up to speed quickly and then once the core becomes second nature, anything you add can also be quickly assimilated and foregrounded. The downside is if you try to take it all on at once—you get confusion. Also, if the core itself grows & fattens, it’s harder to incorporate the peripheral stuff.

 

[CRKrueger]

That escalated quickly. The insults have begun.

I’m roleplaying when my party is fighting a witch.
I’m roleplaying when I attempt to resist the witch’s Charm.
When the GM tells me I fail and now my character believes she is my best friend, I am not role playing as I accept that information, the character has no knowledge that they have been charmed.
Then I go back to roleplaying now trying to prevent my group from hurting my best friend.

Let’s take a look at CoC.
An IC way for the GM to handle an insanity of paranoia would me to give me false information that makes me think my fellow investigators are cultists or plotting against me. You can’t really do that with every possible insanity result.
Instead, I drop OOC momentarily, as the GM and I discuss my character and they tell me what is happening. Then, I try to roleplay the character in that state.

Pendragon basically has you making these saving throws against your own nature. If I’ve really internalized the character and am in the zone while roleplaying, I’ll make rash decisions, I’ll get myself in trouble, I’ll make epic blunders due to emotions running high, I’ll regret my actions later and have to deal with the consequences. All I really need to get Gawain and the Green Knight type conflict is a good GM to put me in those situations.

I didn’t say I don’t like Pendragon, I do.

 

[Edgewise]

The insults have begun.

Are you serious?? I didn't see anything resembling such.

 

[CRKrueger]

Are you serious?? I didn't see anything resembling such.

Oh, then you won’t mind me saying what an idiotic response?

 

[TristramEvans]

Oh, then you won’t mind me saying what an idiotic response?

I've reread from your previous post to this one three times, and I don't see anything like that? What post insulted you?

 

[Sommerjon]

I've reread from your previous post to this one three times, and I don't see anything like that? What post insulted you?

post 111

 

[TristramEvans]

post 111

ah, OK that last line.

 

[Edgewise]

Oh, then you won’t mind me saying what an idiotic response?

You're going to keep me guessing, I see...

post 111

Thank you...I missed that last sentence. Yeah, that was rude IMO.

 

[CRKrueger]

The reaction produced by some personality/fear mechanics can potentially be more "in-character" than the decisions made by the player sitting calmly at the table. I see "in character" behavior as when my character behaves appropriate to their established personality, which doesn't necessarily line up with my own personality and emotions.

See, now that's a very good point. However, why is that? Why is, say, a fear mechanic more appropriate to the character? If that's true, it's because there's currently a very large disconnect between you and the character. Your character is feeling things you are not. To cross the streams with another thread, that's why horror is so hard, it's hard to get the players immersed into the fear of those characters.

Tristam has given at least one player panic attacks at the table with his horror games. I'd love to know how he does it.

Anyway, I don't see Passions/Personality Traits as being based on something that divorced from the player that should require a mechanic. I can totally see the point that if you're not in the zone, these mechanics can help focus your roleplaying. Can you see the point that if you're already in the zone, they can be more intrusive than helpful?

Getting back to personality mechanics, I have found that the Sanity mechanic in CoC can be a little intrusive at times, taking a big dramatic moment and turning it into a lot of dice-rolling. If everyone is really into a scene, it can be better to defer the Sanity roll until things calm down and people have time to reflect.

Unless you go stark raving bonkers right on the spot, yeah this is good advice.

I don't find that to be the case with passion-style mechanics. If anything, invoking my hatred of an enemy before making a roll only helps me with involvement.

Hmm, "Invoke" can mean many things mechanically. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[CRKrueger]

I've reread from your previous post to this one three times, and I don't see anything like that? What post insulted you?

I wasn't insulted, hence the Anchorman quote and the smiley. I did find it funny we'd gotten there so quickly.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Many of the Chronicles of Darkness games. Half the book encourages you to explore various social issues and the human condition in a freeform way, filled with fiction supporting this viewpoint. The rest of the book contains crunch that would make Mythras jealous, cards, widgets, etc. Combat system is "build" based, widgets are full of metacurrency stuff that doesn't mesh with the more simulationist approach to combat. Simply persuading NPCs is turned into social combat that is itself build based. Very incongruous.

"This is a game of deep personal horror and social exploration. Meanwhile, here's an entire supplement of guns".

 

[TristramEvans]

Tristam has given at least one player panic attacks at the table with his horror games. I'd love to know how he does it.

I think what it comes down to is, if you want your players to believe, you as a GM have to believe, if that makes any sense.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think what it comes down to is, if you want your players to believe, you as a GM have to believe, if that makes any sense.

It does. I've scared the shit out of players before and had the shit scared out of me as well. I'd definitely say that I think it's a harder response to invoke.

 

[Justin Alexander]

Personality mechanics are almost always OOC. Acting isn’t roleplaying, but an analogy is the director stopping you and telling you to act differently. You’re obviously not acting when you’re receiving instruction from the director. Likewise, when the GM tells you your character has a mental condition thanks to Yog Sothery, you’re talking about your character, by definition OOC.

I'd argue that for a lot of people and a lot of mechanics like this, the more accurate analogy would be reading from a script. While there are actors who feel the script "gets in the way" (leading to either improvised lines or acting exercises where the actors play through the action of the scene without using the actual lines from the script), there are other actors who approach acting primarily through textual analysis -- they discover, interpret, and play their character according to the hints, clues, and prompts found within the text.

So, too, with roleplaying in an RPG: There are many players for whom well-designed personality mechanics are not a crutch, but rather an integral part of the roleplaying experience that results in greater and more interesting creativity.

This discussion actually has a lot in common with the use of random tables or other procedural content generators by the GM: There are some who would argue that they're a crutch for GMs who lack imagination. I tend to learn rather more heavily on the fact that they heighten creativity by providing spontaneous prompts.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'd argue that for a lot of people and a lot of mechanics like this, the more accurate analogy would be reading from a script. While there are actors who feel the script "gets in the way" (leading to either improvised lines or acting exercises where the actors play through the action of the scene without using the actual lines from the script), there are other actors who approach acting primarily through textual analysis -- they discover, interpret, and play their character according to the hints, clues, and prompts found within the text.

So, too, with roleplaying in an RPG: There are many players for whom well-designed personality mechanics are not a crutch, but rather an integral part of the roleplaying experience that results in greater and more interesting creativity.

This discussion actually has a lot in common with the use of random tables or other procedural content generators by the GM: There are some who would argue that they're a crutch for GMs who lack imagination. I tend to learn rather more heavily on the fact that they heighten creativity by providing spontaneous prompts.

I never argued that such prompts can't help some people get deeper into character. I simply said (and was questioned on) the fact that the prompts themselves were OOC and thus can be intrusive.

 

[AsenRG]

The part you quoted? He was talking about 5e.

No, I'm asking in general. Since you also reacted like this:

Well...yeah. If, for some reason, you’re actually looking for OOC mechanics to be used and meaningful, the more OOC they are, the better.

“We were so into the roleplaying, we forgot all the cool meta shit.” I’d say you found a good system for you. Feature not bug.

...to this post, which mentions TRoS and Pendragon:

My GM also forgot about backgrounds & inspiration entirely in the couple 5e games we had.

I wonder if it's due to the rule being kinda peripheral to what the game is about? Same thing happens to us in The Sprawl, where characters have "personal directives" which are supposed to trigger XP gains when PCs put their personal goals/flaws/drama above the mission. But in the heat of the mission, nobody remembers that shit. XD

If such mechanics were more "in your face" or better tied to the system like TRoS Beliefs or Pendragon Passions or something, perhaps it would work better?

So I'm not sure which persona;ity mechanics you list under "meta shit".


Edit: Nevermind, you've answered it since then!
And IMO, you're right about "the zone and Passions"...but when not everyone is there, they tend to help.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Saying that someone holds an idiotic opinion is not saying that someone is an idiot. The idea that saying an opinion is idiotic is an insult is a false one.

We all sometimes have idiotic, ill-thought out opinions.

And honestly, if we are going to start treating every aggressive renunciation of an idea as an insult, I'm not sure CRKrueger could make it a day without throwing an "insult".

 

[CRKrueger]

Saying that someone holds an idiotic opinion is not saying that someone is an idiot. The idea that saying an opinion is idiotic is an insult is a false one.

We all sometimes have idiotic, ill-thought out opinions.

And honestly, if we are going to start treating every aggressive renunciation of an idea as an insult, I'm not sure CRKrueger could make it a day without throwing an "insult".

Well, apparently that's all I do, so...

 

[Edgewise]

Saying that someone holds an idiotic opinion is not saying that someone is an idiot.

True, but it's still insulting.

And honestly, if we are going to start treating every aggressive renunciation of an idea as an insult, I'm not sure CRKrueger could make it a day without throwing an "insult".

I dunno, that tracks Is that your standard?

Honestly, you can turn this around and ask if it's necessary to characterize someone's opinion as "idiotic" to make your point. IMO it's very easy to refrain from that sort of thing.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Anyway, I'll phrase it a bit less antagonistically:

If you think that COC Insanity mechanics are OOC mechanics, than literally all mechanics are OOC mechanics.

Because all the Insanity mechanics tell you is how you (I use you in the sense of your character throughout this post) mentally hold up to the things going on around you. Just as HP/Wounds/Etc. tell you how you are physically holding up.

I mean, if you get shot in the leg in Morrow Project and your character goes into shock, is that an OOC mechanic? It's telling you how you should act (being in shock). If the mechanics say you broke your leg, is it OOC? I mean now you have to play your character as though they had a broken leg.

If you hit 0HP and die or fall unconscious, is that an OOC mechanic as well? It's telling you how you can roleplay your character.

Saying that mental health can't follow the same rules as physical health (you take damage, you start suffering from those things) without being OOC mechanics is seemingly heavily implying that real life Mental Health is somehow different from real life Physical Health in how it occurs. That is the part I was calling idiotic. It almost implies that poor mental health is some kind of choice rather than a thing that you have very little direct control over.

 

[CRKrueger]

Anyway, I'll phrase it a bit less antagonistically:

If you think that COC Insanity mechanics are OOC mechanics, than literally all mechanics are OOC mechanics.

Because all the Insanity mechanics tell you is how you (I use you in the sense of your character throughout this post) mentally hold up to the things going on around you. Just as HP/Wounds/Etc. tell you how you are physically holding up.

I mean, if you get shot in the leg in Morrow Project and your character goes into shock, is that an OOC mechanic? It's telling you how you should act (being in shock). If the mechanics say you broke your leg, is it OOC? I mean now you have to play your character as though they had a broken leg.

If you hit 0HP and die or fall unconscious, is that an OOC mechanic as well? It's telling you how you can roleplay your character.

Saying that mental health can't follow the same rules as physical health (you take damage, you start suffering from those things) without being OOC mechanics is seemingly heavily implying that real life Mental Health is somehow different from real life Physical Health in how it occurs. That is the part I was calling idiotic. It almost implies that poor mental health is some kind of choice rather than a thing that you have very little direct control over.

Nah, it just means that in an RPG there is a 100% disconnect between your physical self and your character’s physical self. Your character’s body, stats, wounds, etc are not yours. Most of the time, the character’s mind is yours.

Sure your character may be doing things you would never do, say, think, etc, but thanks to imagination and empathy, we can suspend disbelief when roleplaying.

Personality mechanics change that dynamic.

Don’t know where you’re getting the whole “choose to be crazy” thing, that’s odd extrapolation that’s all on you.

Here’s what I’m saying...
There’s a way to do IC CoC insanity, have the GM say that you notice spiders crawling beneath the skin of your teammates, and hear an odd clacking of their teeth when they talk. In this way, you’re getting the information same as the character.

The OOC way is to pass the character a note or take them aside and tell them they are insane and think the team is infected with alien spider pupae and are turning into monstrosities. You have an OOC discussion about the character and then you go back to roleplaying.

You can’t see the difference, I don’t know how else to put it.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Not all insanity is sensory. Are you saying that no other forms of insanity can be imposed by a system without it being OOC?

 

[EmperorNorton]

On a tangential note, you speak about the "characters mind is yours", but I often find that even our own minds are not entirely our own. Not of our conscious mind anyway.

 

[Baulderstone]

If I want to play a character with a temper, it can be fun to have something like the Passion mechanic in Mythras to determine if I keep it in check. It's true that I can just play my character as having a bad temper and decide when I get angry, but its a bit like getting to decide when I successfully hit in combat. Rolling dice to see which way things go adds excitement to the game.

One thing that I like about Mythras passions is that rolling is entirely voluntary (in fact, taking any passions at all is entirely voluntary. Nothing stops me from having my character just get angry or staying calm when I want to. It's there for the moments when I feel conflicted, when I am unsure which way my character's emotions are going to swing.

 

[Justin Alexander]

If you think that COC Insanity mechanics are OOC mechanics, than literally all mechanics are OOC mechanics.

This starts to delve into the distinction between abstraction, metagame, and dissociation when it comes to mechanics.

All mechanics are OOC in the sense that they exist in the metagame: No matter how closely associated the mechanic is to the character's experience, it's still ultimately a mechanic. You are making calculations and/or rolling dice in the real world that your character is not doing in the game world.

But not all mechanics are OOC in the sense that they're dissociated.

The unspoken and often unseen confusion between the former and the latter is why I largely eschew the "OOC" terminology for this type of discussion.

I never argued that such prompts can't help some people get deeper into character. I simply said (and was questioned on) the fact that the prompts themselves were OOC and thus can be intrusive.

And, as I noted, the exact opposite is the reality of many people's experience.

Nah, it just means that in an RPG there is a 100% disconnect between your physical self and your character’s physical self. Your character’s body, stats, wounds, etc are not yours. Most of the time, the character’s mind is yours.

This tends to embrace a body/soul duality which, as a result of D&D adopting it, is pretty baked into a lot of RPGs, but it's not universal. Nor is it a universal way of understanding how the world works.

There’s a way to do IC CoC insanity, have the GM say that you notice spiders crawling beneath the skin of your teammates, and hear an odd clacking of their teeth when they talk. In this way, you’re getting the information same as the character.

But that's a really hyper-specific understanding of how mental illness works.

Here's a counter-example: Multiple personality disorder. The character is NOT making an IC decision to swap personalities, so I would argue that leaving that decision to the player is FAR more intrusive to immersive roleplaying than having a mechanic that determines when the personality swap takes place. Using the mechanic would be far more representative of the character's actual experience, and by using the mechanic (and prompt) the player is able to remain firmly within the character's POV without taking a step back from the character and having to make a decision that the character does not (and probably would not).

 

[Edgewise]

It's there for the moments when I feel conflicted, when I am unsure which way my character's emotions are going to swing.

That's interesting because, as a GM, that's exactly what I use reactions rolls (and similar mechanics) for. Do we ever have perfect self-control in real life? That's an even bigger conversation, but everyone can relate to moments of feeling out-of-control. Unfortunately, out-of-control isn't always out-of-character.

 

[EmperorNorton]

That's interesting because, as a GM, that's exactly what I use reactions rolls (and similar mechanics) for. Do we ever have perfect self-control in real life? That's an even bigger conversation, but everyone can relate to moments of feeling out-of-control. Unfortunately, out-of-control isn't always out-of-character.

I think being on an RPG forum, we all have plenty of evidence of the fact that almost no one has perfect self control... (Myself included)

 

[AsenRG]

I think being on an RPG forum, we all have plenty of evidence of the fact that almost no one has perfect self control... (Myself included)

Surely you don't mean the size of our RPG collections?

 

[Kilted Rob]

Surely you don't mean the size of our RPG collections?

Hey! It’s not about size but what you do with your collection that matters.,

Rob