Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2019, 03:49 PM   #21
Antiquation!
 
Antiquation!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default Re: Basic Emotional Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver View Post
There's a lot of valuable stuff in that article, yes. I'd go with Stress Points rather than Stability Points myself (and, if used, I'd call the “Long-Term Stress” stuff Stability Points or Madness Points or Derangement points or the like; though I personally prefer to treat the madness stuff as a separate HP-like pool rather than “merely” stress that takes longer to go away); but those are essentially minor quibbles.
Yeah, if making it a focal point of a game I would probably go with Stress as well. That last point about treating madness as a separate HP-like pool is an interesting one, I'll have to think about that.
__________________
- Danny
Antiquation! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 03:55 PM   #22
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Basic Emotional Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
But as to psychological factors? Having to lose agency to them is acceptable if they have taken that in beforehand, by giving their PC a Disadvantage such as Bad Temper, Berserk, a relevant Intolerance etc. And even when they have done so, they will want to try and avoid the problem with the self-control roll, if the Disadvantages entitles them to that. Or, possibly, they do like to roleplay a short-tempered barbarian, so they're OK with this to start with.
But telling them: "you are so angered you can't think straight and you must do the obviously stupid thing", regardless of not being subject to relevant Disadvantages, isn't going to go down well with my players.
I would not be okay with telling me as a player what my character does. I would find it perfectly reasonable for a failed Will roll in extreme emotional situations to temporarily give a penalty to any act not directly tied to addressing the situation. Even then, I'd expect a range of options: lash out, run away, etc.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 04:05 PM   #23
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Basic Emotional Mechanics

Agreed. Any such mechanics need to enhance the game, not detract from it; and while a more generalized version of the Fright Check mechanic would be great for handling overwhelming emotions, milder ones ought to operate on a carrot-and-stick mechanism (you get bonuses in these cases and penalties in these other cases) rather than a loss of agency mechanism: the player should still have final say on what course of action his character takes.
__________________
Point balance is a myth.[1][2][3][4]
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 10:41 PM   #24
namada
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default Re: Basic Emotional Mechanics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michele View Post
And some players find it annoying when they feel their characters lose agency. Losing agency due to physical or somewhat objective factors, they can stand; "that's a failed HT roll, you lose consciousness and fall to the ground".

But as to psychological factors? Having to lose agency to them is acceptable if they have taken that in beforehand, by giving their PC a Disadvantage such as Bad Temper, Berserk, a relevant Intolerance etc. And even when they have done so, they will want to try and avoid the problem with the self-control roll, if the Disadvantages entitles them to that. Or, possibly, they do like to roleplay a short-tempered barbarian, so they're OK with this to start with.
But telling them: "you are so angered you can't think straight and you must do the obviously stupid thing", regardless of not being subject to relevant Disadvantages, isn't going to go down well with my players.
Yeah, that's not what I described at all. What I described was not the GM dictating the characters actions, but a mechanical system to model emotions, just as Fright Checks are a mechanical system to model fear specifically.

If a player can be ok with a failed HT roll causing unconsciousness to the character, or a failed Fright Check having the character run away screaming, I see no issues with a failed Emotion check causing the PC to behave as if they have Bad Temper (or something like that) towards the object of their PC's anger. You'd not lose control of the character so that you can only make one possible choice, but rather have your options limited based upon the specific emotion.

Obviously, they'd be optional and not meant to be used in all types of games, but when you're trying to play a more dramatic game and your players just behave as if their PCs have no emotions at all, always making the most logical choice, or the most mechanically beneficial choice, it can get downright annoying as GM as they consistently ignore the dramatic interactions you slap in front of their characters.

If I'm not mistaken, Cortex has such mechanics in one of its editions. IIRC, there are three: High Drama, High Action, and Superhero, but it's been a long time since I've looked at that, so I'm probably off on the naming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver View Post
I haven't put much thought into this; but my initial take would be to expand on the Fright Check mechanism, which is basically there to add some teeth to Fear (the core element of GURPS Horror). GURPS Powers has something in it about variations of the Terror Advantage that inflict Awe or Confusion rather than Fright, leading to Awe Checks and Confusion Checks; I'd build on that for Emotional mechanics.

And I'd definitely implement something like the Stress and Derangement mechanics in such a case — though if there aren't any Things Man Was Not Meant To Know in the setting, Sanity-Blasting Fright Checks will be rare to non-existent, and Derangement will only ever come about from excessive Stress. Put another way, some sort of Stress mechanic is a good idea; some sort of Madness mechanic is more specialized and not as important; it would be more of an advanced rule than a basic rule, as it were.
That's more or less what I described above, a generalized Emotion Check system, to add teeth to emotions, not just Fear.
namada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 03:22 AM   #25
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: Basic Emotional Mechanics

My two cents …

Taking emotions into account is a good idea. A French game, Rêves de dragons (Dreams of Dragons) does it very well. By the way, it also considers astrological signs.

Giving a bonus as well as a penalty is also a very good idea because it makes everything balanced. Thanks to the penalty, those who get the emotional bonus are not more nor less powerful than those who don’t get it.

Having said that, as others said it above, making it a complete system is a bit cumbersome, especially during combats where there are already a lot of other things to focus on.

Likewise, using the fright check table is a very good idea too, but it also slows down the game with several additional dice rolls …

So, what would I do?

I would just give bonuses and penalties, like AlexanderHowl suggested it. But I would do it without any system, and would choose much lower ones. As noted above, compared with usual combat modifiers, +9/-9 is tremendous! Even +5/-5 is too big. All-out attack only gives a +4 and a major distraction like all clothes in fire only gives a -3.

Thus, when it is obvious that an emotion should improve or lower chance of success (strong anger when attacking, fear when climbing a tree to flee), I would assess a +1/-1 to the relevant skill rolls. If the emotion was far much stronger than that, I would raise it to +2/-2. But no more. And I would do it on the fly, without any system to assess it. That way, it would remain very simple and could even only be used when the player would claim for it: “He just killed my wife in front of me, fury should help me to strike him!” So, it would respect the control that the player is supposed to have on what thinks his character.
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.