Quote from: Technomancer;384769Because a lot of gamers don't want the system telling them how their character acts.

That's not how Pendragon Traits work. Ironically, that IS how D&D alignment works, which far more gamers blindly subscribe to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Soylent Green;384778Pendragon is an unusual game, it draws deeply from it's literary sources. While brute force is great, in a typical Arthurian legend success or failure might depend much more on whether the knight managed to stay chaste and true to his Lady or whether he managed to fasts and say awake.  In short the adventures are tests of the knight's moral qualities even more than his physical prowess (witts really does not come into it very much at all).

The best Pendragon scenarios capture this, but to do so they need to be able to test a character moral qualities mechanically.

I think you subtly catch onto the real answer to the OP's question: its not that Traits system is bad, its that its very hard to implement correctly in an RPG.  A game designer or a GM would have to figure out what are the traits that would make sense within the genre being emulated (you couldn't just move it all as-is; the Pendragon traits would make almost no sense in most RPGs).  

So this is a lot of work to do.  And the "reward" would only be tangible in those certain genres where one's moral choices matter a whole lot, where they should have a direct impact on what the character is, in terms of his very power level and his standing in society (meaning that the latter, standing in society, would also have to be important). In a lot of games, those things are just not important.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Technomancer;384809Your hypothetical example is disingenuous bullshit.  Being unable to do something or failing in the attempt is not the same as not being able to even attempt it.  Your way is more akin to this:

Player: I roll to attack the goblin
GM: Ooh, sorry, you didn't roll to dislike him strongly enough, you aren't allowed to attack.
Player: Shit, I hate this game

For the record, I think FATE does it the right way.  You aren't forced to take (or refrain from taking) an action, but the GM can give you meta-game rewards for taking actions that are against your best interest but that match an aspect of your character.

I too think that Ian's example is crap, but the important thing is that he doesn't actually seem to be talking about Pendragon. He's talking perhaps about some other personality mechanic.

The way personality traits work in Pendragon is like this: You start out your character with average traits (10/10 on all sides) except that the traits your religion values start out a little bit higher (13/7) and you get a higher Valorous because you're a knight. You can also choose ONE trait that starts out really strong (16/4), if you so wish it.

Then in the course of the game, Traits play out like D&D Alignment in reverse. In D&D alignment if you say "I beat up that peasant", you might be told "You're Chaotic Good so you can't beat up the peasant".
In Pendragon, if you say "I beat up the peasant", you can beat the motherfucking prole to within an inch of his worthless life; AT THE END OF WHICH you roll your Cruel, and that means there will be a change that your Cruel Trait will go up at the end of the game, reflecting that you've become just a little more of a sadistic son of a bitch.
Note that the Trait IN NO WAY restricted your action, on the contrary, it is your actions that determine which traits will slowly grow (cruel in the above example) and which will go down (merciful, because its the opposite of cruel).

Now, if you have a ridiculously HIGH trait, 16 or more, only then are you OBLIGED to roll in order to do things. But why is this? Its because for years and years, you've been roleplaying that character in that way until he ended up with a Strong Trait.  Assuming your cruel started at 10, it would take at least 6 sessions (and a shitload of lucky rolls) of you beating the fuck out of peasants to get your Cruel to 16, or that you spend some of your extra training or experience bonus points to pump it up to 16. In other words, you have to really really WANT your character to be a Cruel bastard.

Once your trait is 16, then yes, if you are faced with a peasant that's pissed you off, and he begs for mercy, and you feel like you might be inclined to be merciful, you have to fail a cruel roll not to beat the fuck out of him at least a little.

Players can avoid raising traits to Strong levels by moderating their own actions, but in Pendragon characters with strong traits get glory (experience point) bonuses, plus characters with high chivalrous or religious traits get special superpowers. Its optional, though; you can stay an average kind of guy who isn't running around all passionate about his moral code.


So personally, I find the traits system to be a shitload more liberating than the D&D Alignment System, which really does tell you "Your character is like X and you are not allowed to do Y".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;385119So personally, I find the traits system to be a shitload more liberating than the D&D Alignment System, which really does tell you "Your character is like X and you are not allowed to do Y".

If that was even remotely true, you wouldn't have rules for alignment changes, but all of the editions of the game with which I'm familiar include them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;385119In D&D alignment if you say "I beat up that peasant", you might be told "You're Chaotic Good so you can't beat up the peasant".

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Alignment doesn't prevent characters from acting.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;385119I too think that Ian's example is crap...

Hardly any surprise there, is it?

Quote...but the important thing is that he doesn't actually seem to be talking about Pendragon. He's talking perhaps about some other personality mechanic.

I was referring to personality mechanics in general, but drawing in great part on my experience with Pendragon.

QuoteThe way personality traits work in Pendragon is like this...

What you described are the mechanics for experience checks when acting in opposition to the result of a trait roll.  You cover them well enough, but they don't comprise the entirety of the personality mechanics.  I'm not particularly interested in humiliating you, but you may want to have another look at the Personality Traits rules:  First edition, p. 32, "Using Personality Traits"; Fourth edition, p. 197, "Casual Use of Traits"; Fifth edition, p. 67, "Using Traits".  You'll note that trait rolls are, in fact, made before describing specific action.  And, you may also note that a critical trait roll does, in fact, dictate that behavior must be in accordance with the trait (though the specific course of action is still determined by the player, not the GM).

It doesn't hurt to re-read the rules from time to time.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;384927I'd counter by asking why most players don't want to resolve combat encounters via freeform.

Because there's more at stake in combat. Because combat is traditionally more random and mechanically focused, a type of mini game. Because they expect limitations in combat. Because traditionally it's easier to build a character who is good at combat than one that is good at social situations. Because it's what players expect and want.

That aside, I don't think it's a big deal. As I said above, we've had to deal with issues like these since the inception of RPGs. But I do think it's pretty clear why players tend not to like mechanics like these...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;385192That aside, I don't think it's a big deal. As I said above, we've had to deal with issues like these since the inception of RPGs. But I do think it's pretty clear why players tend not to like mechanics like these...

Seanchai

Is that due to mis-application by the player or the GM? Archaic rules that have not kept up with the improvements made in combat rules?

People are certainly willing to acccept Profession and Racial Packages, why couldn't Personality Packages be just as accepted?
Especially when so many people play most of their characters the exact same way. (and mechanics could give them bonuses.)
=

I don't have a problem with them, per se, but I prefer personality traits to be more abstract and player-define, like BITs in Burning Wheel, or Complications in Mutants & Masterminds.  You get rewarded for playing towards them and creating complications for your character, but they don't manipulate the character directly -- they're just communicators for what the player wants a character to be like and what type of conflicts they want to see happen.

As Ian said, it's mostly preference.  I've no problem with Sanity, just as I've no problem with Willpower, just as I've no problem with Steel, or any other mechanics that relate to the mental state of a character, or their flaws.  They emulate the limits and weaknesses of the human mind.  

It's not for everyone, but sometimes they can be fun because just like in real life, you don't have the capacity to always act exactly the way you'd like.  Sometimes you give into your weaknesses -- it's just a fundamental part of being human.

Quote from: Greentongue;385206Is that due to mis-application by the player or the GM?
=

Neither. As has been said upthread, there's no misapplication - players tend not to like these rules because they don't things mucking about with their character's personality and motivations.

Seanchai

Quote from: Ian Absentia;385183Hardly any surprise there, is it? :)I was referring to personality mechanics in general, but drawing in great part on my experience with Pendragon.What you described are the mechanics for experience checks when acting in opposition to the result of a trait roll.  You cover them well enough, but they don't comprise the entirety of the personality mechanics.  I'm not particularly interested in humiliating you, but you may want to have another look at the Personality Traits rules:  First edition, p. 32, "Using Personality Traits"; Fourth edition, p. 197, "Casual Use of Traits"; Fifth edition, p. 67, "Using Traits".  You'll note that trait rolls are, in fact, made before describing specific action.  And, you may also note that a critical trait roll does, in fact, dictate that behavior must be in accordance with the trait (though the specific course of action is still determined by the player, not the GM).

It doesn't hurt to re-read the rules from time to time.

!i!

You mean the rules that say "Only famous traits and passions (i.e., those with a value
of 16 or higher)...must be tested with a die roll whenever character behavior
is challenged in a crisis." and "Traits and passions between 5 and 15 do not have to
be rolled against if the player wishes to use his free will" (5e, p.66)?
Those rules?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;385241You mean the rules that say "Only famous traits and passions (i.e., those with a value
of 16 or higher)...must be tested with a die roll whenever character behavior
is challenged in a crisis." and "Traits and passions between 5 and 15 do not have to
be rolled against if the player wishes to use his free will" (5e, p.66)?
Those rules?

Yes, that's right, the rules that are in conformance with what I described previously.  And which seem rather at odds with your emphatic statement that rolls are only made after your character has committed an action and that they restrict your actions in no way.  Those rules.

See?  I knew you'd get something from re-reading them.

!i!

Rolls are made before, to determine if it is possible for a character to take an action against strong traits (16+ only).  For anything else, the player can CHOOSE to make a roll, if he wishes to just see what his character might be more likely to do (ie. can't decide).  In turn, the game states that the GM can oblige to make a character check a trait AFTER the character takes an action that is particularly notable in how it ties to that trait.

RPGPundit

Right.  Still in conformance with what I wrote, and still at odds with your post.  This further underscores my previous statement that most people labor under fundamental misunderstandings of personality mechanics -- even people who like them, such as yourself, apparently.

At the very least, this underscores that some people who do understand them -- such as yourself and Technomancer, perhaps -- are willing to misrepresent them in an effort to score points on the Internet.  And that's too bad.

!i!

(P.S. How are you coming along with that example of at least one "Swine" who has successfully propagandised the wrong interpretation of play in CoC?  Because I have one, and he's a biggie.  But I really don't think you do.)

Oh, wait, no.  This isn't quite right...

Quote from: RPGPundit;385247Rolls are made before, to determine if it is possible for a character to take an action against strong traits (16+ only).  For anything else, the player can CHOOSE to make a roll, if he wishes to just see what his character might be more likely to do (ie. can't decide).  In turn, the game states that the GM can oblige to make a character check a trait AFTER the character takes an action that is particularly notable in how it ties to that trait.

To be perfectly clear, if the GM feels that the player's choice to have his character act in defiance of a relevant trait is open to question, the GM may require a trait roll after the action is described.  So, contrary to your initial explanation of Pendragon's personality mechanics, rolls can be made before actions (for traits of 16+ and for lesser traits if the player chooses) and a specific range of action can be mandated by the GM (e.g. when rolling a critical on a trait roll).

Are you still trying to misrepresent the rules to save face, or do you really not understand them?

!i!