From: mgb@elec.uq.oz.au (Michael Barlow)
Subject: Re: Mechanics to Support Characterisation?
Keywords: roleplaying, characterisation, rules, mechanics, Pendragon, Vampire
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:32:48 GMT

nick@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Nick Falkner) writes:

>In article <mgb.713502758@sgi.elec.uq.oz.au>, mgb@sgi.elec.uq.oz.au (Michael Barlow) writes:
>|>
>|>Hi. I'm very interested by the concept of mechanics (rules) that support or
>|>encourage characterisation (roleplaying). I'm interested in people's opinions
>|>of such rules, experience with them, and suggestions regarding them.


>I encourage the players to take over the development of the personae
>of their characters and bring it to life by their own abilities - NOT from an 
>obligation to certain stats.
 ^^^^^^^^^^

 This is something I felt about "characterisation mechanics" (I know it sounds
 wanky but I want some label to use) before I played Pendragon. I think there are
 a few points here:-

 1) I think the concept of obligation is a misnomer; and if the rules are written
 or structured in such a way that there is an obligation then the rule is not
 worth using. I think that well written CM (characterisation mechanics--sorry)
 serve as an aid to roleplaying; not a hinderance or straight-jacket. I personally
 have found the Pendragon passion mechanics to serve as an aid to my roleplaying
 not a hinderance/obligation. I feel they encourage genre adherance (valid
 player character reactions within the genre), allow players to influence story
 outcome through roleplaying (see below), and can provide guidelines as to
 possible character reactions when the player is stumped (e.g., "my liege Baron
 Andur has ordered that all his retainers appear in the main hall at mid-morning for
 a council but the Princess Lehkya [my love] rides at this hour. Will I see the
 Princess off and be late for the council or shall I appear on time at the council
 and not farewell the princess?" If I can't easily decide I can consult or even 
 roll against my Loyalty to Liege and my Love of the Princess).

 2) I feel that roleplaying (characterisation) should influence story. That is
 its not just a wargame where each player makes decisions for their character
 based solely on optimal use of skills etc. In many cases roleplaying naturally
 and smoothly influences the story. However it seems to me that there are many
 circumstances (this is genre dependent) in which mechanics would actually aid
 the influence of characterisation on story. Consider Pendragon (again :-)...
 if you read Mallory you'll come across descriptions of combats where the two
 contestants battle for hours then one, inspired by the (dastardly :-) actions
 of the other or some external influence, suddenly "waxes wrathful" and rents
 the shield of his opponent assunder before splitting his helm in twain etc.
 The "point" is there's already a bunch of rules governing the above play-->
 the combat rules. What happens when our knight hears the plaintive cries of
 his lady being dragged away by his foe's retainers? Though the player may
 roleplay his character's anguish the combat rules are heartless...they won't
 let that change the combat one iota. This, for Pendragon, is *not* true to
 genre...the story is made better if the character is spurred on to greater
 efforts or collapses broken. Characterisation mechanics can allow this interface
 of the normal rules systems with the roleplaying of the player.

 As a quick example from another genre consider B-grade martial arts. The heroes
 have a whole bunch of motivations such as loyalty to master/teacher/school,
 love of "soul-mate", commradery with companions, honour etc. The emphasis
 (needless to say) in such genre is often on fighting. Its a recurring theme
 that the above motivations and passions play an extremely important role in
 determining the outcomes of the numerous fights. A set of rules showing how
 such motivations influence the actions and skills of the characters would
 (I feel) enhance the genre feel. These rules are what I call characterisation
 mechanics.

 3) I think this idea of obligation to stats is a wider issue. It doesn't
 solely apply to characterisation mechanics but to *any mechanics* that are
 used for roleplaying. No set of rules (not even Chivalry and Sorcery :-)
 can capture the complexity of real world processes yet most people feel 
 that some rules (gross simplifications) are necessary to cover such things
 as physical actions and social interactions of characters. Most players
 seem to resolve the difference between such gross simplifications as:
 "my character has a seduction skill of 12" with their internal (far more
 complex) visualisation: "...when Sabrina walks she has an unconscious
 sway to her hips and when she wants to come onto someone she lowers the
 pitch and volume of her voice somewhat to give it a throaty, husky 
 quality..." That being the case I feel that characterisation rules or
 stats can be used in the same manner.


>Obviously the kind of character they are is determined somewhat from the ROLE
>that they have chosen and the stats/skills combinations they have but I feel that
>the best 'players' in my group are those who have produced workable personalities
>for their chars that give them full ranges of credible reactions/emotions.

Sure. I agree fully here. I don't for one instant feel that characterisation
mechanics can in any way replace ROLEplaying. However I do feel that they can
supplement and aid the ROLEplaying and in some cases allow a "less kludgy"
influence of the ROLEplaying upon story direction (see above).

>My prime objection to 'mechanics' is that it has the potential to make a player's
>interpretation of their character be stifled by its obligations to the existing
>system.  While this may not be much of a problem in storytelling systems it is
>definitely a problem in role-playing systems.

I agree that CMs do have the potential (like any other rule) to stifle play.
However I think that if they are well written (with genre in mind) and used
wisely then they can enhance rather than hinder play. 
I'm interested in the distinction you draw between role-playing and storytelling
systems. For me, these are one and the same. Roleplaying is about creating and
interpreting a personae and interacting through that personae with others. But
more than that it is co-operating with the other players (GM included) to make
a good story true to the conventions of the genre you are playing. Could you
tell me the differences you see between role-playing and storytelling systems?

>So to tidy up my ramblings, I don't feel that mechanics of this nature have any 
>place in CyberPunk, provided -of course- that your group is capable of playing
>and developing their characters on their skills.  I am advantaged in that my
>group is composed of 22-25 year olds, most of whom have extensive gaming 
>experience.

Forgive my ignorance (I'm familiar with the genre but not the rules) but don't
most cyberpunk rule systems have some sort of "cyber-psychosis" set of rules?
To me these are like CoC sanity rules both of which I feel are characterisation
mechanics. They say something about possible character actions given certain
genre conditions (for cyberpunk being "loaded down" with hardware). I agree that
CyberPunk is a genre which has little or no place for CMs. Maybe rules for
describing character reaction to c-space stimuli (forcible jack-out etc.) could
even be interpreted as CM. I don't think there's a clear division between
"normal" mechanics and characterisation mechanics; just like everything else
its a bit of a grey area.

>I would be interested to hear anyone's comments on thsi thread with respect to 
>CP.

Sorry I couldn't add more thats of relevance to CP. As I said in my first post
the relevance of CM seems genre dependent. I don't feel CM have too much place
in CyberPunk but maybe someone with more insight into the genre has an alternate
point of view?

>Role-playing must come from within.  I don't see how it could ever be successfully
>imposed artificially.
>  

Agreed. Though just to rehash it might be a nice idea to have rules which *support*
roleplaying and its impact on story.

>|> Ihave to say that I've found the Pendragon mechanics to be extremely useful
>|>and I know that they have heightened my enjoyment of the game. I think that
>|>they are very well suited for such a passion driven, larger-than-life genre.
>|>The Vampire mechanics for archetypes I find a bit too simplistic and
>|>constrictive. However the virtues seem a good mechanic to reflect passions
>|>of Vampires when reacting to powerful stimuli.

>Why can't the player do it themselves?

Of course they can, do, and must roleplay it. But see above points for why a set
of mechanics to support the ROLEplaying might be useful.



							Spike
						    Bun Bu RyoDo
--
---------------------
Michael Barlow (Spike)	 mgb@s1.elec.uq.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.games.roleplay