Guys, I thank you all for your input, but I want to emphasize something...
I'm not saying "just use another system" is not a valid choice. It is, I've used it a whole lot.
But this thread is not about that, so would you keep it out of it:)? Please?
Also, yes, there is some rationalisation. But you're considering them while out of character, at the same time that you do advancement, chat with other players, and stuff. The point is to adopt the rationalisation before the game begins, and just modify your reactions according to the "new paradigm". Then during the game, you just play your character - it's just that instead of marking off HP, you throw away a Bennie, or some stuff like that.
Similarly, I'm not talking about personality mechanics. I see them as helping my immersion, but I know I'm in the minority. At least Bren is there as well, so we're a good minority to play with.
But mostly, I'd recommend using stuff like Pendragon passions not to determine behaviour, but to determine whether you have a Morale bonus or Morale Penalty to what you decided the character is doing.
The passions are the voice in the back of your head that's either edging you on, dragging you back, or staying silent for a change. When it's edging you on, your focus is unrivaled, though, so it's worth it listening to;).
Sometimes there will be perfectly decent workarounds; sometimes there won't. I don't think there can be a complete solution. Some of the above seem to me to require too much meta-analysis on the part of the player, or are just likely to end up being unconvincing. Nice try though.
Yes, that's what I said as well.
Yes, some of the above would require meta-analysis. The advantage to my approach is, you do the meta-analysis before the game. This frees you to just react during the game.
Or you can just play another game.
Why is this rocket science? It's not 1979 with a handful of RPG options.
Because sometimes you want to play this game? Because sometimes you're curious whether you can make this game work? Because sometimes your friends want to play this game and you'd like to at least give it a try instead of either vetoing their decision, or sitting out the campaign?
Pick one, or invent another. Playing another game is not rocket science - and if you always default to that, and see no reasons not to, this thread is useless for you. Sorry for that, but it happens.
Exactly, Omnifray. When you're asking yourself "How can I take this Out Of Character mechanic and explain it In Character." You are Out of Character!
As stated before, the point is to do it out of the game, while you are Out Of Character anyway.
Doing the "groundwork" then should free you to spend more time In Character during the game.
Now as a GM or a player, you can take the list of options for Fate, Bennies, Karma, Luck or what have you and simply cross things off the list, leaving only things that truly could be IC decisions. Like whether you exert yourself, whether to count on your Luck because you're one of those guys that knows you're not gonna die, no matter the odds, whether to place your trust in the gods or fate and just give in to the moment.
Yes, that's the spirit.
As AsenRG says, those are fairly easy, and with some systems they are possible, but with some systems they are not, the economy and shared narration is just too entrenched, you remove the engine the game runs on and what's left isn't firing on all cylinders. It's better just to trust in the philosopher Eastwood, know your limitations and move on.
Yep, that's also exactly what I said in my last paragraph:D! There are games that act like it for me, and I find them not worth the bother.
So I just don't play them.
That doesn't solve the problem of "I can't play this game even if I like the other players that are joining and know they're going to make for a fun game", though. But there are limits to what I can be bothered to do.
That gets my vote as the simpler path... if I like setting elements I'll port them to a game I know and like... rather than going bonkers trying to fit square pegs in round holes.
I asked somewhere if the 'only players roll' aspect of *World games can be ignored... apparently not. So... not a game I'm going to try to 'fix' when I have others that work for me just fine.
I've never heard of this particular feature being a problem for immersion. Can you elaborate?
I'm not even going to try and suggest a solution, if you're not interested. But I'm interested in why this is a problem.
AsenRG, I'm not saying trying to de-narrative a system isn't worth doing. For example, one of my players wasn't to keen on Combat Maneuvers/Special Effects in RQ6. He thought determining outcome and then picking effect was in essence a form of retcon. I told him to look at the attack and defense more like a single point of a spectrum, like a specific move in a dance, or a single play of a game of chess. At that moment, as the attack and defense occur, if you get a Special Effect, that means there is an opening, not something you planned on doing beforehand, but something that you can exploit, so how do you choose to exploit it? Yeah you could cut the SEs down further depending on style and attack type, etc... but then we're getting closer to a blow by blow simulation, which is to make combat much longer. He got it and loves it.
As a side note, every fencer that I know, who has tried Runequest6/Legend/MRQ2 loved it precisely because of this feature:). But then about half the people in my school have played RPGs, and a few started playing due to our
sinful influence:p!So it seems totally in-character at least to us.
Passions we don't use, haven't gotten a way to make those fly, mainly because personality mechanics basically are an OOC method of reminding the player that the character is supposed to act that way. If your players already act that way, then they're useless, and if your players don't act that way, training wheels aren't the way to teach them.
Have you considered the "voice in the back of your head" option?
If you have, I've got nothing.
Another vote for "just play another game".
"Changing games is always an option".
"The trick is to find another way".
I agree.
Yeah, but the whole thing is, when you're finding out about your character in this way: you are not your character. When we use attack mechanics, our character has already chosen to attack. The choice has been made, the mechanics determine outcome of the choice. Personality mechanics make the choice for you.
Not always. Sometimes, they still determine the outcome of the choice;). See above.
As a side note, I know some people who can leave or take whether their character is going to act lustful or not, but wouldn't accept the character's lunge being beaten aside so sharply they drop their sword "because I'm not playing a weakling". But they're so much in the minority, I don't see a reason to bother with that:D!