I believe most everyone has gone through the failure of a New Year's resolution, a temptation overcome, or a change of character.
The Traits from the Pendragon system are a good way to test a character in a non-combat way and maintain a character separate from the player.

Why do more games that are called "Role" playing not include system level mechanic for the base character like this?

Why do so many players seem to hate this mechanic?
=

Because role playing games are more than the sum of their rules.

Because a lot of gamers don't want the system telling them how their character acts.

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

Player: I roll to hit the goblin with my sword.
GM: You miss.
Player: Shit, I hate this game.

Yep, I see what you mean.

!i!

Quote from: Greentongue;384763The Traits from the Pendragon system are a good way to test a character in a non-combat way and maintain a character separate from the player.

They're one way, yes. Good is subjective.

QuoteWhy do more games that are called "Role" playing not include system level mechanic for the base character like this?

Oof. All this needs is a "Roll" (etc.) to be complete.

QuoteWhy do so many players seem to hate this mechanic?

[citation needed] (i.e., Like who?)


Ian Absentia,

Missing is not an action.

Quote from: rezinzar;384774Ian Absentia,

Missing is not an action.

Player: I roll to stay calm after this guy insulted my family.
GM: You miss.
Player: Shit, I hate this game.

!i!

Quote from: Greentongue;384763Why do more games that are called "Role" playing not include system level mechanic for the base character like this?

Why do so many players seem to hate this mechanic?
=

I think you answered your own question.

Also, it's been my experience that these types of mechanics don't really work in terms of roleplaying. They don't engender roleplaying or necessarily aid or contribute to roleplaying. They can mechanically benefit or punish players, but they're stuck in the realm of mechanics.

That being the case, why use them?

Seanchai

Pendragon 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.

Quote from: Seanchai;384777[Personality mechanics] don't engender roleplaying or necessarily aid or contribute to roleplaying. They can mechanically benefit or punish players, but they're stuck in the realm of mechanics.

Even as a player who likes personality mechanics, I endorse this statement.

QuoteThat being the case, why use them?

They shift the mechanics from a portrayal of interaction with a physical world (e.g. Strength, Constitution, Hit Points, etc.) to a portrayal of interaction with a social and emotional world.  Rather than dealing with the fallout from success or failure of a Strength roll against a jammed door, the player deals with the fallout from success or failure of a Loyalty roll against a bribery attempt.

It's not better or worse roleplaying -- it's a different focus on the game.  And, yes, it's a matter of taste.

!i!

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

PCs are robots.  Players are pilots.  Traits deal with the piloting of the robot, not with the robot's functioning, which is why most players hate them.  For all intents and purposes, it's mind control--you're hijacking their robot--and that's Not Acceptable for most folks.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;384780For all intents and purposes, it's mind control--you're hijacking their robot--and that's Not Acceptable for most folks.

I think most folks -- including many GMs who try to implement them -- have a fundamental misunderstanding of how personality mechanics work.  A failed Calm vs. Angry roll is not hi-jacking or mind control -- it's a jammed door in a dungeon.  The player is not only free to seek another solution to the consequences, he is encouraged to do so.

It's a game.  Admittedly, a different focus on the game.  And, as stated earlier, not to everyone's taste.

However, most people are irrational pussies about it.

!i!

I have much less issue with personality mechanics than I do the GM arbitrarily deciding how I feel or react or what have you...especially if the system allows me to set the normal bounds or reactions or motivations or what have you.

Even something as basic as the "roleplaying" hindrances in Savage Worlds works.  If I take the "Heroic" hindrance, the GM should smack me down if I don't want to save a kid from a burning building (unless I also have a fire phobia).

I'm even fine with things like tests of wills in RPGs being handled with game mechanics, especially if the game allows me make the choice of having things like a high willpower or what have you.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;384786I think most folks -- including many GMs who try to implement them -- have a fundamental misunderstanding of how personality mechanics work.  A failed Calm vs. Angry roll is not hi-jacking or mind control -- it's a jammed door in a dungeon.  The player is not only free to seek another solution to the consequences, he is encouraged to do so.

Could you expand on that analogy?

I've been looking into "personality mechanics" quite a bit over the past year or so, but being deeply entrenched in a d20 mindset, I haven't quite been able to wrap my head around how they're supposed to work.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;384798Could you expand on that analogy?

Certainly.

In a purely abstract sense, mechanics only inform you of the success, relative quality of success, or failure in a test between your character and some element of the world that is beyond his control.

In the examples I gave earlier, the physical tests were the usual with which we're familiar -- swinging a sword in an attempt to injure a goblin, trying to open a jammed door with your shoulder.  In each case, failure doesn't dictate the player's tactical decisions, they simply inform the player of the effect of his intended action -- he wanted to kill the goblin in one fell stroke, but failed; he wanted to get to the room on the other side of the door, but failed.  If the player had his way, he'd just kill the goblin outright and bust the door down, but the fun of the game is in the uncertainty of the character's success.  Sometimes situational failure creates even more excitement than immediate gratification.

Similarly, personality traits inform the player of his character's ability to master internal intellectual or emotional conflicts.  Your character keeping his head in a tense showdown may be of paramount importance, but a rival strikes a low blow and publicly insults your family.  As a player, you may want to simply declare that your character remains calm, because it'd be the most beneficial result, but your character may have other ideas. Or maybe your character is of much the same mind as you, but his emotions get the better of him -- sometimes we just don't have total control over our thoughts and feelings.  Again, the uncertainty of your character's abilities to master a situation create a lot of the fun, and sometimes failing is as much fun as succeeding.

So, mechanically speaking, your character blowing his top against your desires as a player is the same as your character failing to bust open a jammed door in a dungeon.  Thwarted intention in the face of an obstacle.

Now, perhaps more importantly, personality mechanics like this should not dictate elaborate actions -- they only inform the player of precipitating events.  In the example above, the character loses his cool when taunted publicly by a rival -- that's a given if you buy into personality mechanics -- but it's up to you as a roleplayer to decide what your character's response is going to be.  With a jammed door, you can decide whether your character tries to chop it apart, burn it down, look for another path to get around it, or anything else you can think of.  When your character loses his temper to a taunting rival, you still get to decide how your character responds -- slap the offender in the face and demand satisfaction, stick a knife in his ribs, turn red and humiliated and pout in shame, swallow his pride and plot revenge upon the jackass for later, or whatever else you can think of as a player.  The important thing is, metaphorically speaking, you weren't able to just waltz through the door -- some obstacle remained in your way, and you need to improvise your tactics in response.

I enjoy this sort of thing, both as a player and as a GM, but not all the time.  It's also important for the GM to not call for a roll against personality traits at every turn, just as a good GM wouldn't call for a roll to open every single door in a dungeon.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;384786A failed Calm vs. Angry roll is not hi-jacking or mind control -- it's a jammed door in a dungeon.  

Your 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.