What's your opinion on this question. Is that a fair accusation? Do aspects (as in the kind of mechanics you see in games like Starblazer Adventures or Over the Edge, among other games) enhance the depth of a character and provide mechanical benefits to roleplaying, or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

RPGPundit

I think they're simply descriptors that let you make educated guesses as to how to resolve situations.

A GM describes a room as dark and smoky, hey might be a good idea to "I use the dark smoky room to sneak nearer to the mad cultist..!"

It's simply situational modifiers made plain. Rather than the players going 'Hey what's the room like, can I get a bonus because.."

The gm sets up aspects as tagged descriptors, that a player can use or not as they so choose.

Quote from: Silverlion;350691I think they're simply descriptors that let you make educated guesses as to how to resolve situations.

A GM describes a room as dark and smoky, hey might be a good idea to "I use the dark smoky room to sneak nearer to the mad cultist..!"

It's simply situational modifiers made plain. Rather than the players going 'Hey what's the room like, can I get a bonus because.."

The gm sets up aspects as tagged descriptors, that a player can use or not as they so choose.

Exactly, Tim! Exactly!

-clash

Quote from: RPGPundit;350689Do aspects (as in the kind of mechanics you see in games like Starblazer Adventures or Over the Edge, among other games) enhance the depth of a character and provide mechanical benefits to roleplaying, or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

They surely are not any more artificial than a strength score.

And for once they allow to "create any character you like". Something games like Gurps promised.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350689...or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

I'm going to put the onus of this thread back on you and ask for an example of how "aspect" or personality mechanics inhibit or preclude "effective roleplaying".

And I'll still throw you a bone here: The way that I've seen good personality mechanics work is that they provide means for personality to drive and affect conflict resolution. The way that I've seen bad roleplayers use good personality mechanics is to use them just as blandly and mechanically as physical characteristics.

!i!

I'm not totally sure what they are, but by the sound of it I don't think I like 'em... sounds like another one of things to 'facilitate roleplaying' but in my experience ends up getting in the way.
My character sheets always have some descriptor words for me to focus on... but it sounds like this 'aspects' thing would turn those words into actual mechanical entities, and I don't see why I'd want that.

It's a term from FATE. (Unless the Pundit thought about something else called Aspect.)

They are one type of stat characters have. On the one hand there are skills which you buy from a list. (You need to make up the list for the campaign.) And then there are Aspects, which can be anything: Professions, attributes, convictions, mottos,... You can activate your aspects to gain bonuses or tag other peoples aspects to get them into trouble.

Ok, yeah... sounds like something that would annoy me.

Quote from: 1of3;350731And then there are Aspects, which can be anything: Professions, attributes, convictions, mottos,... You can activate your aspects to gain bonuses or tag other peoples aspects to get them into trouble.

But that's not the way traits work in Over The Edge -- which Pundit included in his question.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350689What's your opinion on this question. Is that a fair accusation? Do aspects (as in the kind of mechanics you see in games like Starblazer Adventures or Over the Edge, among other games) enhance the depth of a character and provide mechanical benefits to roleplaying, or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

RPGPundit

I find them as artificial as any other numerical stat. I can't see how they can't get in the way. Care to provide an example?

I think the person who made this statement, a woman in the group of the rpg.net poster who originally posted this query, had misunderstood the mechanic.

I don't personally particularly like aspect mechanics, too meta for me, but they're blatantly not a crutch for those who can't roleplay.  The question is essentially a nonsequitur.

If I had to guess, the "crutch" reasoning is based strictly on how FATE works, rather than OtE. Likely,  she was referring to how you get FATE points for letting your bad aspects get the better of you and spending them on the activation of good aspects, which can easily be described as trying to get bad roleplayers to play their flaws through mechanical (metagame) reinforcement, rather than trusting in players to play well.

It seems to me, having gotten deeper into the thread and uncovered it's source, that the issue isn't do Aspects affect roleplaying, but do they force you to roleplay out something you don't want to - and it that necessarily bad?

Personally, I don't think so.

And I don't think Aspects affect roleplaying much one way or another. People who are going to roleplay, roleplay. People who aren't, don't. I have a vast number of system and I have yet to see one that changed that.

So I never look at roleplaying mechanics in terms of how likely they are to change a player's habits, but their quality as a mechanic in their own right...

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;350689What's your opinion on this question. Is that a fair accusation? Do aspects (as in the kind of mechanics you see in games like Starblazer Adventures or Over the Edge, among other games) enhance the depth of a character and provide mechanical benefits to roleplaying, or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

Aspects probably wouldn't have made much of a difference for the most part in my games.  I suspect they may very well be abused by some of the munchkin powergamers in my previous games.

In most of my games in the past, most of the players didn't really know how to roleplay well.  As a workaround in place of real roleplaying, the players would just describe what they're trying to do.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;350721I'm going to put the onus of this thread back on you and ask for an example of how "aspect" or personality mechanics inhibit or preclude "effective roleplaying".

And I'll still throw you a bone here: The way that I've seen good personality mechanics work is that they provide means for personality to drive and affect conflict resolution. The way that I've seen bad roleplayers use good personality mechanics is to use them just as blandly and mechanically as physical characteristics.

!i!

Well, don't "throw it back at me"; I'm not actually in either camp here. I'm copying a statement I read elsewhere.

In fact, my own view on aspects is that they are completely neutral. The only thing I have against them is the claims by certain Swine that they are somehow the glorious "fix" for RPGs because of how freeform they are, or whatever.

In fact, you could say I think that they are definitely NOT a "crutch" because they can't actually support anything. A gamer who's a good roleplayer will make a Dexterity or Charisma attribute into something that says something about his character; and a gamer who's a bad roleplayer will treat his "a girl at every port" or "the star police's best dog" aspects as just another thing to roll to get points.

RPGPundit