From: markg@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Mark Grundy)
Subject: Re: Mechanics to Support Characterisation?
Originator: markg@vulcan.anu.edu.au
Keywords: characterisation, genre, mechanics, Pendragon, Vampire, CyberPunk
Reply-To: markg@arp.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:10:40 GMT


        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.

      [Comments on Vampire and Pendragon mechanics omitted.]

        Nick Falkner made  the comment that  characterisation does not  need
    mechanics,  and  I  agree.    What  Spike  is  calling  characterisation
    mechanics are something  more though.   They're a  method for  focussing
    characterisation on genre.  In  a flexible-genre game like AD&D,  almost
    any personality and behaviour can be admitted.  In a more specific genre
    game like Pendragon  or Vampire,  the personalities  and behaviours  are
    required to conform to story requirements, and it's this need that makes
    characterisation mechanics so useful.

        Like all mechanics they can be abused, but if they're used properly,
    they provide the  players with a  set of guidelines  about what sort  of
    character traits are important in the game.  This helps them take  their
    character conception and adjust it to the game needs.

        With    Pendragon,    the    personality    traits    (Proud/Modest,
    Reckless/Prudent  etc...)  do  not  work  well  as  constraints  on  the
    characters; they work  better as  _reflections_ of  how the  character's
    behaviour is  being  seen  in  the world.    There  is  no  intelligence
    characteristic  in  Pendragon,  but   there  are  passion  and   emotion
    characteristics.  This gives the players  an idea on how to think  about
    their characters, and how  to go about interacting  with the world.   As
    their characters develop, they  can watch these characteristics  change,
    and hence monitor how their behaviour is being seen in story terms.

        Nick cited CyberPunk as a game without characterisation mechanics; I
    don't agree  there.   The characterisation  mechanics are  lighter,  but
    they're still  present.   The  Empathy/Cyberpsychosis mechanics  are  an
    integral part  of the  game.   They don't  work effectively  as a  power
    balance mechanism -- because  there's no real limit  on how potent  your
    non-cyber arsenal can be anyway.  But they do have an important role  in
    the genre.   In effect, they  tell the  players: ``The only  way to  get
    respect in this world is to get cybered.  It will stuff you up for good,
    but you'll never be a nobody again.'' The same sort of thing can be said
    for Call of Cthulhu sanity mechanics.

        The games I've mentioned  are strong genre games,  and I think  that
    these are the sorts of games in which characterisation mechanics can  be
    most useful.  I think that the efficacy of such mechanics depends on how
    well they sit within the genre, and  on how the GM uses them to  portray
    the world.    As a  Pendragon  GM, I  try  to use  the  characterisation
    mechanics as a focus for what is important in the game, without  letting
    them get in the way  of the players' own inspiration.   In this way,  we
    all reach a fast consensus  on what sort of  game we're trying to  play,
    and then we're freer to get down and play the sucker :-)
-- 

 -----                                                             ---- ------
 markg@arp.anu.edu.au                                              Mark Grundy
Newsgroups: aus.games.roleplay