Negative psychological attributes - Vices

chaedwards · Jan 17, 2006

Given that there's not that much sensible discussion going on here, and that the linear/non-linear thread got some of the more intelligent posters here going great guns, and given that I'm bored at work, I thought I might try to get another interesting discussion going.

Basically, in my trawl through free good rpgs, I recently came across two - Blades of Destiny from the Realms of Arkania, and Runestone 2, recently released as open-source, that give characters negative psyschological attributes i.e. they give numerical values to such facets of personality as greed, acrophobia, lust, curiosity and violent temper. They do this in different ways.

In Blades of Destiny (and I guess in the other two in the trilogy) I think, having not yet played, that the attributes are rolled against in certain situations to see if the character will do something else than the player wants. E.g. a character with a high necrophobia abandons his companions and runs away when they encounter undead, a greedy character opens the chest without looking for traps etc.

In Runesword, the attributes are used as saving throws against various schools of magic, that are based on these vices. Greedspells either steal things or force characters to become extremely greedy and act irrationally; lustspells cause male characters to become infatuated with an illusion and so on. Whilst some of the spells seem only tangentially connected to the vice (Lustspell - Nightmare?), I love this idea, if only because it tries to do something different with magic.

It strikes me that negative psychological attributes like this can flesh out a character a lot, and make him or her far more believable to the player, and I can't see major downsides from leaving them out. Both examples above deal with only negative psychological attributes, but I'd love to play a CRPG that allowed me to define my PC in terms of both psychological virtues and vices - say a curious but lazy wizard, or a stoic knight who can't connect emotionally with people.

Whilst its possible to roleplay this (or at least technically - even in Arcanum, I find myself railroaded into a few archetypes when speaking which don't really reflect my character,) already, IMO building in mechanics would allow designers to come up with some very interesting scenarios, and really make a game more immersive - far more than seeing the fear in an orc's eyes, particularly in party-based games, where pcs are often little more than the roles they embody in the party.

Thoughts?

Human Shield · Jan 17, 2006

Yeah, I love when a system includes character traits within the system. Most of the time adding a flaw to make a character interesting just makes things worse for you and isn't factored in.

I liked the unisystem for this. You could add anything from eyeglasses to heroin addiction and be factored into the ruleset.

kingcomrade · Jan 17, 2006

How would you roleplay such characters, though? The devs would probably have to go through and adjust all of the potential dialogue options to take the various character traits into consideration?

How, exactly, would you represent a knight who "can't connection emotionally with people"? -1 Charisma? Why would anyone take this trait if all it does is hurt them? I think it's better to let the player run his character's personality rather than trying to assign them.

Now, actual vices, like alcoholism, gambling, etc. might fit into game mechanics fairly well. Like, drinking a beer gives everyone else +1 Cha and you -1 Int something. I suppose drinking a beer wouldn't be a terribly bright thing for teh chosan wun saviar of teh werld to do.
Fallout did have mechanics for being addicted to drugs and whatnot and traits to go with them, though they were scarcely used by anyone who knew how to operate the save/load game menu.

There would have to be a tradeoff, or some reason for the player to take or enjoy (if it is given or mandatory) a vice, something that adds to the game.

Like, a PC who enjoys gambling. How would you compel a player to gamble (to roleplay) his character? Give him a bonus to gambling? Addiction to gambling isn't the same thing as skill at gambling. Double both win and loss amounts? This still wouldn't compel the player to gamble, even if he chose the trait himself.

I think that these things should either be built in using something similar to Fallout's addiction mechanic (in a similar manner to the protagonist being a vampire, and you have to sate his thirst one a game week or something or you suffer stat penalties) or left out. Otherwise, why would there be any reason for the character to take a vampire or addict trait, if there are only downsides?

Now, where this IS appropriate is NPCs. This can definitely flesh out NPCs, though if its overdone (or done in the wrong way) it can be cheesy.

Ian: I will need a beer in 23.4 minutes or I'll turn hostile.
...
Ian: Thank you. I will need a beer in 45 minutes or I'll turn hostile.

chaedwards · Jan 17, 2006

Well, such a system necessitates that the pc would have control taken away from him when the vice strikes. If a pc is a gambler, then failing a roll would lead to a loss of control (both figuratively and literally), and of the PC would go to lose money for some time. Fear of cats would just make the pc worse at fighting cats, or even run away. That is a far more fleshed out use of vices than just +ing -ing from stats.

Of course, not everyone would like losing control of their characters, but then, not everyone likes Close Combats system of morale. That's pretty much what I'm advocating - the simulation of psychology meaning the player loses control at some level. And what's the difference between a character who's naturally scared of cats and one who's just had a fear spell cast on them? Both mean the player temporarily loses control.

Whilst this would probably be anathema to anyone who wants to join every guild in the game, I, for one would enjoy it. Particularly as I'd picked the vices when creating the character.

Human Shield · Jan 17, 2006

Failing against a paralyse spell means you lose control. Failing any status effect changes your character that you can't control. Running out of stamina means you can't control actions. Not being able to say "I win" and have the game give you everything is a lack of control.

More rolls outside of combat is good, or you end up with Bioware style dialog where a -10 charisma orc is just as good a diplomat because he can say anything.

The game mechanics shouldn't break out once you leave combat.

Section8 · Jan 17, 2006

Well, I like the idea of player defined character weaknesses as a broader concept, especially within classless systems. But more on that later.

First of all I think defined psychological traits, particularly negative ones are a simple and effective way to define or develop a personality with actual game consequences. Especially within a CRPG, where the computer requires adequate measures of PC personality, be that through dialogue responses or globally integrated character traits.

And to ignore RP for a moment, it can also provide some interesting gameplay dynamics, like you suggest with Runesword. "Weak vs Mind Spells" is nowhere near as intricate as a system where the mind is further sub-categorised.

Now, it seems the biggest issue for debate is revoking control of a character, and while I don't expect to see a great deal of opposition among the hivemind, its certainly something to be aware of.

I'd add a few caveats. First of all, I think that if the situation demands a positive resolution despite the compulsion, for instance, a greedy/curious rogue just has to see what's in that chest, the actual resolution of unlocking/disarming the chest is up to the player, although they can't walk away. If the compulsion is inherently negative, like a PC turning on his comrades, it needs to be AI controlled, since a shrewd player would just guard/dodge/use weak attacks/etc.

Secondly, the game needs to be designed such that a compulsion can't break the game. If your curious rogue jams the lock of a door he wants to see behind, the game obviously can't require the player to get beyond the door, unless there are other means (such as brute force.)

Lastly, there ought to be some advantage gained, if the drawback is a discrete choice. Daggerfall worked well in this respect, and you might cry "munchkin!" but any system that allows gameplay related definition of chraacter will always have potential for "abuse."

Blades of Destiny, I believe, had a system with a die pool for basic stats, and another die pool for psychological stats, so the player couldn't avoid having some negative aspects, and this also works.

Anyway, that's barely breaking the skin. More later.

obediah · Jan 17, 2006

Two points:

* I don't have a problem with a vice or compulsion resulting in the computer taking away control of my character. That's what those things do. For example:

You strike up a conversation with a random patron in a bar. He mentions playing a card game for a few bits, and you can say yes/no/cyber - unless you have a gambling addiction (and perhaps you fail a save or whatever). In that case, you're only choice is "maybe one game...", and after a few rounds it cuts to you lieing outside the bar with all of your money and items gone.

* If it's a rogue-like, or game otherwise designed for replayability, it's okay for a vice to lead to death or failure. In a 100 hour epic, the frustration of getting stuck 96 hours in because of some stupid penalty you took just to get a bonus perk would be too frustrating.

Pr()ZaC · Jan 17, 2006

That's why I still have RoA: Star Trail installed on my PC.

gromit · Jan 17, 2006

My avatar represents one of the greatest, most balanced vices ever put into an RPG.

Pr()ZaC · Jan 17, 2006

Trying a self fellatio? Then your nick should be fallace.

gromit · Jan 17, 2006

Err, yeah, perhaps... btw, nice furry avatar / leetspeak nick

Naked_Lunch · Jan 17, 2006

Like, a PC who enjoys gambling. How would you compel a player to gamble (to roleplay) his character? Give him a bonus to gambling? Addiction to gambling isn't the same thing as skill at gambling. Double both win and loss amounts? This still wouldn't compel the player to gamble, even if he chose the trait himself.

You could give options that allow the PC to use gambling to complete quests and get out of certain situations. Say your character has attracted negative attention towards himself and people want him to be run out of town. Playing as a gambler, you should be able to challenge the sherriff or something to a game of chance, outcome being you lose you get the fuck outta dodge and if you win you get another chance or something to that effect.

Many quests involving money could also easily be solved using gambling. There was a quest in Arcanum where some guy's ship was won in a bet and you had to either buy a new one, go to stringy pete, or win it gambling. Being the adventerous roleplayer I am I made a character who had very high gambling skill and it was great to be rewarded like that for putting some many precious points into a skill (Especially in Arcanum where you get like 1 point to spend per level. Boo!).

Vault Dweller · Jan 17, 2006

chaedwards said:
In Blades of Destiny (and I guess in the other two in the trilogy) I think, having not yet played, that the attributes are rolled against in certain situations to see if the character will do something else than the player wants. E.g. a character with a high necrophobia abandons his companions and runs away when they encounter undead, a greedy character opens the chest without looking for traps etc.

Yep, that was a great feature, and it worked quite well in a party-based system, giving a lot more personality to characters than a forced "I'm afraid of teh dead" conversation.

That was also a great way to develop characters other than just boosting attack skills. Sometimes being a mediocre but brave fighter was more important than being a great fighter who's claustrophobic, for example.

It strikes me that negative psychological attributes like this can flesh out a character a lot, and make him or her far more believable to the player...

Exactly.

Thoughts?

I think it's a great feature, like any advantages/disadvantages system. Any system that only deals with improvement of good traits and skills is flawed by definition. A system that supports flaws and vices offers much more in terms of character development, as it offers a choice & consequences (the most prized RPG element).

Human Shield · Jan 18, 2006

I think a better implementation is a "mental stamina" bar reflecting moral, concentration, and composer.

If your character is an alcoholic not drinking will lower his mental stamina that his thinking is split up, and when presented with a drink if fails the roll will lose a chunk of mental stamina if he doesn't drink.

If he doesn't do enough other actions to keep his mental up he would lose control, much like losing endurance means you pass out or low on blood makes in frenzy in vampire.

And over time he would start to recover but still have to roll on temptation; makes willpower and mental stats more important.

In this way lots of vices can be put up with adjustable strength, setting how much mental stamina is lost and where rolled. Playing a noble character that desires fancy beds and food, a coward, or a even a sympathetic character that could lose mental when attacking certain things (like a certain race or such).

Also strong beliefs like not lying, against slavery etc... would have a roll and loss if they try to lie or do nothing when they see slavery.

It would reflect character guilt in-game but would change dynamically and be under the player's control. After fighting a desire for enough the loss over time gets less (get used to it), and fighting against vices is possible but requires living with a stressed mind.

This also means being a smooth talker or precise crafter is harder, that you have to avoid distractions. Not sleeping and being on withdrawal isn't going to help you pick that lock or avoid that sword.

7th Circle · Jan 18, 2006

Perhaps, whether or not control is lost, could be dependent on the extent to which the vice is being voluntarily role-played. If you have a gambling flaw but are voluntarily gambling a fair bit then the "lose control of character and start gambling roll" would be relatively easy to pass (i.e., you would be unlikely to lose control of your character). If, however, you are not voluntarily spending a lot of time gambling then it would become more likely that you will fail the roll and the character would start gambling regardless of whether or not you wanted him/her to do so.

kingcomrade said:
Now, where this IS appropriate is NPCs. This can definitely flesh out NPCs, though if its overdone (or done in the wrong way) it can be cheesy.

I agree; there is a lot of potential for NPCs using such an approach.

Vault Dweller · Jan 18, 2006

kingcomrade said:
How would you roleplay such characters, though? The devs would probably have to go through and adjust all of the potential dialogue options to take the various character traits into consideration?

Same way you play a character with low "standard" attributes.

How, exactly, would you represent a knight who "can't connection emotionally with people"? -1 Charisma? Why would anyone take this trait if all it does is hurt them? I think it's better to let the player run his character's personality rather than trying to assign them.

Well, if it's done as advantage/disadvantage, by taking a negative trait like "can't connect emotionally", you may gain an opposite bonus trait like a bonus when you are alone, etc. Or it could be a generic list of all traits that's getting adjusted as you make your character (dwarves get lower claustrophobia, but higher avarice; clerics are less intimidated by undead, etc), and then you get some points that you can use on traits, etc.

LCJr. · Jan 18, 2006

It's odd it's something you see in strategy games, like Tropico for instance, but rarely makes it way into cRPG's. Maybe you all should go spam Vaultdweller with the idea if you haven't already.

Tropico used a good trait/bad trait system. You got 2 traits that gave you bonuses and two that penalized. The designers were also smart enough to make picking certain traits lock out it's near opposite so you couldn't try and cancel the effects out.

Edited for bad english. 3 cheers for Newcastle Brown!

chaedwards · Jan 18, 2006

Lots of good points, agree with most of them.

Some more thoughts:

- How vices could affect gameplay style:
My character is a compulsive gambler, and is racking up debts left right and centre. What do I do? - go cold turkey. Don't put him in a situation where he could gamble (ie avoid taverns.) So the vice makes me roleplay the character in such a way that I decide to avoid potentially troublesome locations, for the character's good.

- Certain vices increasing as you get more powerful. You've saved the world six times, get an enormous phallic sword and the public swoons at the merest sight of you. Yet you are still as humble as a farm hand, nor has the sight of so much blood left you with any form of mental scarring, even though you've left many companions dead in the dirt. Right...

We all know that great people tend to be more strange than the average joe, so why not have certain vices increase as you gain in levels, such as arrogance, PTSD etc?

EDIT: I'm a perfectionist. Sue me.

Vault Dweller · Jan 18, 2006

chaedwards said:
How vices could affect gameplay style:
My character is a compulsive gambler, and is racking up debts left right and centre. What do I do? - go cold turkey. Don't put him in a situation where he could gamble (ie avoid taverns.) So the vice makes me roleplay the character in such a way that I decide to avoid potentially troublesome locations, for the character's good.

Or give corresponding skills like gambling. You are a compulsive gamer, but you are really good at it. :wink:

Then throw some small quests at players

Quest A - Your talents have been noticed and you were invited to join a "private party", etc
Quest B - You've lost. You now owe a lot of money to very unpleasant people. One of them offers you a job that doesn't sound very legal...

chaedwards · Jan 18, 2006

Sure, and that would be a good approach for the curious and the angry as well. Not sure about claustrophobes or those suffering from vertigo though {grin.}

Vault Dweller · Jan 18, 2006

chaedwards said:
Not sure about claustrophobes...

Dynamite! "Let's make some room here..." :lol:

chaedwards · Jan 18, 2006

{grin}

BTW VD, does your game have a system that supports flaws and vices?

gromit · Jan 18, 2006

And furthermore, will it change your answer if I tell you my vice is sweet delicious turn-based combat?

LCJr. · Jan 18, 2006

- Certain vices increasing as you get more powerful. You've saved the world six times, get an enormous phallic sword and the public swoons at the merest sight of you. Yet you are still as humble as a farm hand, nor has the sight of so much blood left you with any form of mental scarring, even though you've left many companions dead in the dirt. Right...

I actually like that idea. Perhaps certain events along the way could cause negative effects i.e. traumas. Or every X levels of advancements your existing get worse or you acquire new ones. For example after butchering scores of evil doers you develop a bloodlust. Remember the Peter O'Toole scene in Lawrence of Arabia where he tells the general about executing a man and the general trys to console and he replies something along the lines of "You don't understand. I liked it!"

Vault Dweller · Jan 18, 2006

chaedwards said:
BTW VD, does your game have a system that supports flaws and vices?

Sadly, no. And yes, I was aware of that when I said that a system without flaws and vices is crappy.

Negative psychological attributes - Vices

Liturgist

Augur

Kingcomrade

Liturgist

Augur

Cipher

Erudite

Scholar

Arcane

Scholar

Arcane

Erudite

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Augur

Scholar

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Liturgist

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Liturgist

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Liturgist

Arcane

Erudite

Commissar, Red Star Studio