Good idea, bad idea, or promising but could use improvement?  Watch the video, tell me what you think...

https://youtu.be/SO9TA1BwyWo

Having negative traits that, when they impact the game, give the player some kind of payback (often a narrative token like a luck point/bennie/etc.) is nothing new. Savage Worlds is full of examples of this, and so too are any of the more narrative games out there.

Yeah, I know they aren't new.  I've used them in my own stuff before (i.e. The Outer Presence).  What I would like to know, specifically, is how such mechanics would be received if added to Crimson Dragon Slayer D20?

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 27, 2021, 11:46:40 AM

Good idea, bad idea, or promising but could use improvement?  Watch the video, tell me what you think...

https://youtu.be/SO9TA1BwyWo

The problem with "negative traits" is that all negative traits aren't created equal.  A trait with mechanical consequences seldom seems worth whatever bonus offsets it.  A trait that is primarily "roleplay" based can too easily be ignored by the players or GM and have no effect, giving some characters a small bonus for no real penalty.  Honestly, I seen a lot of games try this, and none of them, IMHO, have ever done it successfully.  Balancing the mechanical effect of a negative trait is almost on the level of adding a new attribute or stat to the game; how do you make it prevalent enough that it's worth the trouble of building it in without making it overly crippling or making it so wildly variable that it is ripe for optimization?  And non-mechanical traits are just free points/benefits in so many circumstances. 

It's a hard balancing act, so here's hoping you've got a lot of levels in designer thief-acrobat...

I happen to be a 10th level game designer/thief/acrobat. 

I'm fixing that by having any bonus tied to the use of that negative trait.  I used this example in the comment section of the video...

Let's say you choose (or randomly rolled) "vengeance".  Any time the character indulges in his vengeful nature, he'll get a point of divine favor (similar to 5e's inspiration).  That way, if it never gets used, the PC never gets the bonus.  If it's over-used, well, being vengeful comes with its own set of disadvantages. 

Thoughts?

I'm going to do a proper blog post tomorrow on the whole thing, plus a list of negative traits.

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 29, 2021, 02:25:07 PM

I happen to be a 10th level game designer/thief/acrobat. 

I'm fixing that by having any bonus tied to the use of that negative trait.  I used this example in the comment section of the video...

Let's say you choose (or randomly rolled) "vengeance".  Any time the character indulges in his vengeful nature, he'll get a point of divine favor (similar to 5e's inspiration).  That way, if it never gets used, the PC never gets the bonus.  If it's over-used, well, being vengeful comes with its own set of disadvantages. 

Thoughts?

I'm going to do a proper blog post tomorrow on the whole thing, plus a list of negative traits.

VS

That's does mute quite a few of the issues.  Looking forward to the post.

Ok, here it is.  This is a work-in-progress, so go nuts!  I'll be playtesting it next weekend at the earliest, so I appreciate any and all feedback...

https://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2021/04/negative-character-traits.html

I think negative traits split into two camps, as do many such rule designing issues. One camp is the universalist approach, where there is some sort of mythical game balance with implied or explicit mathematical formulae behind them justifying each plus or minus to a nicety. The other approach is ultimately to ignore game balance completely in favor of the story telling. The "balance" in the latter approach comes down entirely to why the character is described the way they are.

Breaking Bad as an example.

Universalist Church of the Eternal Balance: the main protagonist is dying, has self doubt, is disrespected. So he gets more pluses, like bonuses on his skill rolls and a unique item - blue drug. And so on. This sort of game design is like a crossword puzzle.

Story Telling League of Balance Ignorers: it makes no difference whatever whether he gets pluses or not that somehow "equal" his negatives. He's dying, and WILL die. He's disrespected not because the world is unjust but because, as later events show, he is a sociopath and probably was from a surprisingly young age. He has the negative traits his player chose because they are what defines this character. Sure, it gives him extra picks of good things. But whether those extras are chosen or not, this is a negative, destructive character, and nothing is going to change that or make him more "playable".

I take the latter approach strongly in my own game design, having wasted years of my life on the Church of the Eternal Balance. It's just less fun to always have it balanced. That's how you get roleplaying turning into sad wargaming, in my experience.

It always comes down to what the players as a group want to do, and it always should. Also the game balance concept itself arises from the "one person runs the game" school, which is the overwhelmingly dominant school. But it truly isn't the only way to do it.

Rather than endless examples of a winged orc hunted by a group of sages who want to dissect him type characters, a better test for negative traits is to make a character like the protagonist of the noir film DOA. There's no last minute cure and he doesn't have a long life. Less enjoyable to play? Or strangely liberating? Damned hard to balance that one out though!

All good stuff!  If possible, I prefer both... combined - balanced and imbalanced.  I want realism, but I also want things to feel right in a subconscious, poetic sort of way.  I'm hoping that what I've created does the trick, but won't know until sufficient playtesting.

Thanks for the reply, WHITEFRANK!