Previously, I explored the idea of mechanizing roleplaying to incentivize and shape character behavior, rather than relying purely on player choice. Games like Pendragon, Burning Wheel, and Exalted have implemented such mechanics, but I found most fell short either by being too restrictive or lacking meaningful consequences. I've written a mechanic, and I want your feedback on it.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UsmzNfy6jWa1xxCkX8jL5Uaue76kcnjM8AkYcNVxaiA/edit?usp=sharingIn short, each character has five core Values that represent aspects of their personality and worldview. These Values are rated from 0% to 100% and categorized as Weak, Moderate, Strong, or Defining, based on their importance to the character. These Values can motivate actions, create internal conflict, and influence how a character grows over time.Each of these Values are refined with a corresponding Value Statement that reflects how the character views that Value. For example, a character with Loyalty might have the statement: "I will always stand by my friends, no matter the cost." These Values are often tested against one another, and whenever that happens, the player may choose to align with the winning Value, or resist it. In either case, the Character grows from the change.I'd love to get feedback on this mechanic - However, I am explicitly Not looking for "This is dumb and I would never play this game" or "This mechanic is stupid" - I understand those arguments, and I disagree with them enough I don't want to rehash them here.What I am looking for is feedback on the mechanic itself - what do you think of it, how good is it, and so on.Thank you very much for reading!
>wojak shit from polFucking gross, no matter how you try to spin it.
>>93897760>Games like Pendragon, Burning Wheel, and Exalted have implemented such mechanics, but I found most fell short either by being too restrictive or lacking meaningful consequences.what problems did you have with each of them, and how does this address them
>>93897801Pendragon's Traits (Virtues vs Vices) were very good, and channeled the thematic nature of the Arthurian Romance. However, they were too specific for that genre. I wanted to make a more generic system that could be adapted to specific genres if need be, but could stand on its own in general. Pendragon's system also lent itself to actual "your character does X" - you have to roll to not boast about your accomplishments, and if you fail, you do. That removes agency from the player in a way that seems a little too rough.Burning Wheel goes too far in the opposite direction. You're rewarded for playing to your beliefs and instincts, but there's nothing restricting you from going against them. They're roleplaying guidelines and bennies at best. Exalted has Intimacies, which I think are a great mechanic, and those work super well, but again, they're not actual roleplaying mechanics.My system addresses each of those faults by A) not making the actions of the Character dictated exactly by the dice, so unlike Pendragon the player retains some control, while also inflicting a penalty if they choose to go against it. Carrot + Stick approach. Similarly, you gain XP and grow from using your Values, like Burning Wheel, but it improves on it by actually having penalties and restrictions.
>>93897760Genesys mechanizes roleplay.
>>93897795nah this one reeks of reddit with all the cringe fake wojak variants that completely ignore the simplicity the original wojak hadand i'm not talking just tacking on some wacky accessory or several
>>93897760Well, this actually looks rather interesting, but I’m sleepy right now. I’ll keep this thread up and read through it tomorrow.
>>93899533Thank you for the interest anon!
>>93897760Time wasting picture.
>>93897760>>93899748Do modern D&D players really hate genociding inferior fantasy races?
>>93897760I'm not very experienced with systems outside of DnD, but I'll do my best to answer. The system feels like it could help certain kinds of players roleplay if it's simplified a little.The system seems like it would increase rather than decrease cognitive load though, here are all the sources for that:1. It should only used for dramatic choices I assume, which is one dichotomy the GM and players have to constantly estimate.2. The players have to figure out which values fit the situation.3. The players have to figure out multiple courses of action that fit their character4. Math to check which Value wins5. Choosing whether to follow the winning Value or not6. Bookkeeping dots on the value sheet7. DM has to track when "Scenes" start and end1., 3. and 5. are inevitable, but everything else is simplifiable. Merge Honor and Loyalty to help with 2., lessen the amount of tracking and math that happens to help with 4. and 6., I'm not sure how Scenes work but sounds like a shoehorning headache for the DM entirely.By the way, please clean up the way you write the rules. I have no idea what " The Player now has two options: Note that in an Opposed Test, if all Values ‘Fail’, you simply treat the Value that wins the Opposed Test with the least Failure Levels as a ‘Neutral result’" is even saying.
>>93900336They really don't, they just tend to think about it a little harder, and Hasbro overcompensated in an attempt to look cool.
>>93897795Where have you been, wojaks have broke containment years ago
>>93898262For what it's worth, in my experience the Pendragon perspective actually restrains powergaming slightly. Not much. But slightly. As you say, occasionally you will lose control of your character, because he can't lie, or won't retreat (or will!), or even go mad from a failed Passion roll, and the idea of that puts a slight curb on the urge to chase those Annual Chivalry/Religious/Famed Glory bonuses.
>>93897760I like this in theory, but I'm iffy on the implementation. Specifically, how acting against your value means you have to make an incremental adjustment to each of the other four values. It just seems clunky to me, though I'm not sure how you'd fix it in the given system. Probably not an issue if value tests are a semi-rare occurrence, but then the system seems to imply that they're pretty common (by some options giving per-scene bonuses on subsequent tests).In addition, you want to look at the meta you're creating. The progression of a value is based on making tests, and tests are very well balanced to the point that there's no real downside to *deciding* to make one, other than potentially having your character act in a way you didn't want to. This incentives looking for low-risk tests of value, where all conentuous courses of action are palatable to the player. It's inadvertently pushing them towards melodrama.Still pretty interesting though. I've seen (and made) several systems like this, and its one of the better ones. Just needs a bit of tweaking IMO. Have you play tested it yet?
>>93901751I have yet to playtest this specific iteration. I am specifically looking for pseudo-melodrama. The idea of the game is you are playing anyone and everyone who are driven by their internal goals and ideals that could consume them. I think what I've got here sort of accomplishes it.What are some of your systems, if you're willing yo share anon? I'm always on the lookout for other systems that do this - I've even compiled a list of systems that attempt something similar:Avatar Legends, Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, MAsks, Monsterhearts, Burning Wheel/Mouseguard/Torchbearer, Worlds/Chronicles of Darkness with Vampires, Cortex Prime, Exalted, L5R 1-4e, Legends of the Wulin, some of the Year Zero Engine games, Hillfolk, Unkown Armies, Heart/Spire with their Beat system, Shadows of Yesterday/Ladyblackbird's Keys, Passions from Runequest/Mythras, and my personal favorite - Riddle of Steel.
>>93903248Well in that case congrats, it seems you've hit it bang on. Of course, a system isn't really done until its tested (and iterated upon), but the foundation here seems solid. And any perceiveded clunkiness might not be apparent during testing, or an obvious solution might present itself.For my game I went through a bunch of prototypes before landing on something kinda similar to Ex.1e's Intimacies:>chars have things they care strongly about>these sentiments can be "staked" to add their bonus to a relevant check>on a pass, increase the bonus (limited by char level). Weaken it on a fail. >sentiments also need to be unlocked/soothed/reinvigorated/etc before they can be staked again, via recreation or various abilities.Because of the variability in triggers, you end up with a meta kinda like BW, where the game you play is skewed by the type of sentiments you give them; a character built around the thrill of battle and the joy of mini-painting is going to be looking for very different opportunities compared to one focused on social solidarity and tulpas. Leads to some cool moments where you fail to save a friend because you were up all night partying, and locked all your sentiments; or where a high-tier character kills a god with the power of friendship; or where reckless usage turns into a death spiral and you become more and more disillusioned with the sentiment. It's very anime.
>>93903760Unironically Anon, I think you just helped me hit v5 of my system. Thank you very much!
>>93904204Happy to help. Good luck on the testing!
>>93897760I would've provided constructive feedback but you're post wojaks, which means that ontologically you cannot be creative, thus your proposed system is shit.Try again without them and I will gladly provide feedback.
>>93904421What about wojaks bothers you so much? I've always liked the setting compasses, and wojaks provide a simple way of communicating the setting, since they're a low barrier to entry for people to share.But I would like to ask you very nicely anon, would you please provide constructive feedback?
>>93897760wordpress has their blogs for free, you know
>>93897795/pol/jaks would be IAS, this is from Preddit
>>93905459Right, but that wouldn't get any traction. I wanted to know what the fine denizens of /tg/ thought of it.
>>93905133They signal the death knell of creativity on 4chan. Instead of people coming up with genuine OC, they just re-decorate an existing wojak or "wojak-ify" a picture. It's creatively bankrupt. As far as your system it's simplistic and seems like it would be a poor bolt-on to any other system. First off it's a d100 which inherently means it's swingy as shit. A dicepool is generally better at describing stuff. Second your list of emotions/values is very arbitrarily and nebulously defined, despite the fact that you are assigning numerical values to them. I would expand the list, make it a spectrum (say from pic related - terror and rage are opposed, so they would be on opposite sides of the spectrum and on opposite sides of the bell curve). Then based on that, I would stick the values when you need to do that sort of test.The problem with this is that it would still cause an optimizer to min-max this, so I think it's a poor idea regardless.
>>93907038Another compass that would've benefited from just picking custom axises, as it is the placement of each tile is really random.
>>93907038No, it isn't. Why not do them as say, ragefaces? Or racist caricatures? Or historic racist caricatures like how the enemies of those peoples would depict them (how Egyptians depicted the Nubians or Jews). Or classical illustrations of these peoples. Honestly, the fact that you have these shit opinions... it's like man, how fucking empty must your life be?
>>93907038And like fuck, the placements don't make sense? Why is the Sumerian authleft? Why is the Babylonian mid-auth-right? You called it "Mesopotamian Political Compass," but like 90% of the cultures purportedly depicted weren't concurrent with Mesopotamia as a cultural hegemon. There's nothing funny or clever about it. Let me break down the thought process of (You) or whomever created this:>see wojaks>think HAHAHAHA FUNNY FACE>see political compass>think HAHAAHA SO TRUEEEE>read about historical "factoids" >write them in "funny" ways >don't understand why the wojak was clever and original, don't understand how political compasses work, don't understand what's funny about ancient cultures>just smash everything together haphazardlyYou know what? I am willing to bet you appreciate AI "art." Because you function like an AI. You can see what actual genuine clever and funny people do and you just ape it without understanding. Like I genuinely pity you. Because you're gonna give a flippant little response or just ignore it and not read my whole wall of text because you're incapable of paying attention when people are offering you criticism with the hope that you improve.
>>93908410>and post your own OC to prove OP wrong.What are you a game journalist making arguments "where is your x?"
>no, I do not create things I likeSelf-swollen tragedian it is, then.
>>93908438I'm not him though.Also still really stupid argument
This was great anon. I tried it last night and usually our games are 90% combat, but this time we actually got some good roleplay. I did make some changes when I used it which I’ll list:>selected different set of values >made values dichotomous such as if you have 40% love you necessarily have 60% hate or 15% security means 85% freedom>Also made it so the shifts in value happen immediately on Crits or big important decisions, but don’t happen any other time>finally, choosing a decision against the will of the dice takes a hit to your character’s sanity since they’re actively going against what they think is right. I already had a sanity system with madnesses that change a character’s personality in my game and your value system integrated really well with it. I made madnesses change value and it clicked together perfectly.
>>93908542Thank you so much for playtesting it anon! What Values did you end up swapping around?
>>93908410>>93908438How predictable. Like fucking clockwork, the hylic challenges the pneumatic without the meta-understanding that is required. My OC? Gladly.
>>93897760I Like this in principle but it will lead to players arguing with you what any of this actually means
>>93910195>You can see what actual genuine clever and funny people do and you just ape it without understanding. Like I genuinely pity you.>anyway, here’s my mtg fanfic
>>93910382Well, considering I actually wrote for the Ravnica 5E book, it ain't exactly fanfiction, is it? ;^)But you want more? Why sure.
I think I'm gonna keep dunking on you.
In fact this thread is now about the shit I wrote. dwi.
>>93910979>le cultist simulator>le yet another magical girl pbta>le deeprock galactic >I actually wrote for the Ravnica 5E bookKek. That explains so much.
>>93910195>>93910979>>93911027Holy fuck lmao you should genuinely kill yourself for this
>>93911863Well, what have you created? I certainly hope you're not OP because if all you have to your name is a d100 "values" system that doesn't work and is prone to abuse... I mean gosh, I wouldn't be pointing fingers. Or are you something else, something that is incapable of creation, only consumption?>>93911922Nah.
>>93897760The fundamental problem with your system is that it's GM-called rather than player-pushed - in this aspect it is no different from the '80s RPG dinosaurs like Shadowrun or L5R where physical or personality drawbacks and advantages are incorporated as part of the character building point-buy process. On paper this looks really nice, in practice the GM has a ton on his cognitive plate and will forget to call for checks. Burning Wheel doesn't look as nice on paper but by tying player incentive to characteristics it works out better in practice - the players will aggressively push to have declare tests against the character's personality/flaw/etc. without any need for prompting by the GM, or any requirement for the GM to remember what's on the character sheet that could potentially come up. Ideally you want mechanical representation of character behaviour to be player managed as much as possible - when I'm GMing, I'm juggling a bunch of NPCs and world responses; I don't want any additional load micromanaging the players.
>>93912501The mechanism for the way values develop is neat, but this essentially just adds busy-work without really addressing the real problem that's present in a real game, which is "the GM is way too busy to try and track every single detail on the character sheet and so mechanical representations need to somehow offload the responsibility for tracking onto the players - while preventing them from metagaming the system too much." Burning Wheel tries to tackle this by tying player management of character attributes to meta-currency rewards, trying to co-opt the whole metagame that could potentially happen where players very selectively apply their advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they essentially become meaningless. The method you propose is mechanically more interesting, but on the balance doesn't actually tackle the player psychology behind it and ends up with the same problem that 80s dinosaurs have - the GM has to know what's on the PC sheet and enforce it rigorously.
>>93912375As not that guy, and as OP, the "prone to abuse" part is actually intentional - if you are powergaming your Values, you're roleplaying and causing drama, which is kind of the point.
>>93897760It's basically just Alignment given more (mechanical) depth. Could work for a vidya where all the beancounting happens in the background, for tabletop I'm not so sure. I fell like it's gonna devolve into debate whether tipping the waitress counts toward Politeness, Charity, or Chauvinism.
>>93912375I don't need to prove jack shit, cuz I'm not the one throwing a holier-than-thou tizzy over a meme. I'm not mocking your stuff, it's cool. I'm mocking your attitude.
>>93912594Hmmmm. That's an interesting thought actually. I assume that at some point it'll hit a breakpoint where it starts to feedback loop, but that's an entirely different consideraiton.>>93912717I only posted my shit because I was called out. I stand by my words about the image macro (it's not a meme). Posting low-effort shit makes the board worse.
>>93910147This is where I ended up:Freedom/dutySelfish/selflessTradition/progressLove/hateMy original thought process was to go broad and political values axis came to mind, but I didn’t stick with it for long. I have no real reason for changing the values except that I thought a dichotomy of values would simplify certain aspects and couldn’t figure out a satisfying dichotomy for the values I didn’t include.Highlights of the session were the Wizard deciding whether or not to retreat (and leave her companions to die) by rolling selfish/selfless; I used it for quickly and fairly making NPC decisions which honestly I think is the best use for the system; causing (in character) conflict in the party when they couldn’t agree on ambushing their target. This was my favorite cause normally they’d all agree to ambush the enemy because “free hits,” but here the knight held too much love for life to take it dishonorably.I had fun and it encouraged my munchkins to make decisions that made sense for the character to avoid sanity loss. I did read the criticisms of the system, and while I experienced no problems myself, I think I like the player driven idea one of the anons had. Next time I try it I’ll add sanity recuperation from following the dice kinda opposite to the sanity loss from ignoring them. I also thought about a bonus equal to degrees of success to the next roll that you make if it’s in favor of what the dice wanted. Should make some risk reward that’ll get players asking for the rolls. We play weekends, so if the thread is still up and we play I’ll share next session’s results.
I have yet to read a compelling argument as to why the RP elements of your character should be codified at all. Because you seem to have thought this out, OP, what’s the point of doing this at all?
>>93916915I like it.But Characters who have a 'mechanical' consistency in their 'Character' are cool. Having those elements be codified as a mechanic means that you can look at the character and see how consistent it is, what kind of person they are at a glance, and so on. Then, because they're mechanical, you can now hook into that and do a bunch of cool stuff. Pendragon is all about Virtues and Vices, you can't have Pendragon without those traits.
>>93917042Fair enough. I’ll probably give your thingy a try. Seems easy enough to slot into what I have going on
