Using Personality Traits

[timm meyers]

Following the quick Character Generation suggestions on character traits (P.14 ITL) players are given the option to pick any number of “personality traits” and assign their value of 2 – 12.

These aspects of your PC’s personality are a great aid for roleplaying. They are used by both player and GM as guidelines to help form realistic behavior and reactions specific for the character. The assigned factors could also allow us to interact with these concepts of personality within a rules framework.
These values being based on a 2d6 range of numbers breaks the 3d6 basic test formula and become hard to use. The following are some thoughts on how to make better use of these factored traits.

Anytime a PC or GM encounters a situation where a defined character trait comes into question, they may choose to test against the values by rolling 3d-3 dice.
The PC must roll their character trait value or less with the adjusted result or fail the test. Thus, the trait with a value of 7 = very average, means they need to roll 10 or less (roughly a 50% chance) to pass. The trait with a low 2 value must roll a 5 or less (4.6%) and the high 12 value needs a roll of 15 or less (95%).

Minor fail: missed by 1 or 2 points = The PC has a minor reaction based on the trait tested. The controlling player gets to choose how the trait manifests and the GM should award experience points for honest and creative effects/reactions.

Moderate Fail: missed by 3 to 5 points = The PC’s character trait has manifested in a poor and obvious way based on the circumstances. The player and or GM must choose a course of action or action for the PC that would create a negative effect on the situation. (note sometimes depending on the trait and or action this failed rolled might produce perceived positive results)

Major Fail: missed by 6 or more points = The GM decides the most appropriate and realistic utter failure that the trait would manifest in the situation.

Example- The PC has a “Bravery” value of 7= Very much the average or middle of the road. The PC is not predisposed to hiding or fleeing from danger (that would be a value of 2) nor are they inclined to jump into action at the first sign of trouble (a value of 12).
The GM or player could choose to test the PC’s bravery in any number of situations from wanting to charge into battle to having the courage to approach the princess for a date.
A roll of 4 or less would mean the PC utterly failed at being “Brave”. (soiled clothes and running away?)
A roll of 5 to 7 is a loss of courage but the actionable result must be agreeable to both player and GM. (lets back off/retreat?)
A roll of 8-9 is just barely failing to be brave so the player must modify their desired actions or reactions. (wait for someone else to step up, move behind another PC for better protection?)

[Shostak]

This seems workable, though slightly skewed toward favorable outcomes, since the outcome range is 0-15 against traits ranging 2-12.

It would be nice to see some of the other mechanics tweaked. The social reaction rolls being made on 1d6, for instance, are about as unpredictable as it gets.

[hcobb]

PCs already get bonuses and reduction in XP for playing towards their traits without any forcing of their actions.
As a GM I'd rather let them gain plothooks through traits off-screen. For example the party alcoholic notices that there's a new brand of cheap wine that's flooding the market.

[Shostak]

I think the point is that these traits can guide a player who, due to being more of a power gamer than a story gamer, might otherwise tend toward having all of their characters act more or less the same.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by hcobb

PCs already get bonuses and reduction in XP for playing towards their traits without any forcing of their actions.
As a GM I'd rather let them gain plothooks through traits off-screen. For example the party alcoholic notices that there's a new brand of cheap wine that's flooding the market.

Please expand on these bonuses? Do you mean a good GM will reward xp to players who 1. choose to quantify character traits as suggested on p.14. 2. what "bonuses" do you assign to character traits?

I like a good GM who can really pay attention to all PCs quirks and player motives by including what you suggested as story hooks. What I am exploring is there other ways to codify some processes that encourage good role playing in both players and GM?

[David Bofinger]

I think it's a mistake to see large numbers as good. A high bravery score might make it hard to run away, a high honesty score might make it hard to deceive someone, high friendliness might leave you vulnerable to exploitation by cynical halflings, etc. The trait is supposed to push you toward one option and away from others.

The odd one out of the personality traits is attractiveness: it's about how people react to you, whereas all the others (Bravery, Honesty, Friendliness, Mood) are about how you react to other people. And high attractiveness generally is a good thing for a character.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I think it's a mistake to see large numbers as good. A high bravery score might make it hard to run away, a high honesty score might make it hard to deceive someone, high friendliness might leave you vulnerable to exploitation by cynical halflings, etc. The trait is supposed to push you toward one option and away from others.

The odd one out of the personality traits is attractiveness: it's about how people react to you, whereas all the others (Bravery, Honesty, Friendliness, Mood) are about how you react to other people. And high attractiveness generally is a good thing for a character.

For the most part, I leave reaction of PCs up to the player. If they do something way out of the established character, I may say something to the player so that they are aware of a potential external perception of their actions. How would the NPCs react to their actions? Other than that, it the players call.

So far in my game, PCs haven't gone for the reaction roll modifying talents so, I will admit that I haven't had to deal with it much.

I do rely on reaction rolls for NPCs quite regularly. So, regardless of PC talents/abilities, there some modifiers imposed by the situation. If two groups meet up and they instantly don't trust each other, the reactions will be modified accordingly. Based upon the way that I roll, the PCs get into lots of fights. The reactions are usually one extreme or the other.

If you have a character that has a +3 reaction modifier but they are traveling with a group that doesn't have such an advantage, Their positive modifier gets reduced.

I don't have a problem with reaction rolls at all. They are a great way to add randomness to an adventure. However, on a 1D6, a + or - 1 is an ~16% shift shift in the outcome is quite powerful. If the PCs spend the XP to get those modifiers, so be it. It's not that much different than spending XP to get more DX other than the impact per point on success is less due it being a 3D6 roll.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Shostak

The social reaction rolls being made on 1d6 [...] are about as unpredictable as it gets.

I think that might be intentional. When you encounter a band of humanoids you often have no idea what sort of person they are, whether they hate all foreigners including you or love meeting new people or whatever. So a good degree of randomness in the reaction makes sense.

Henry has pointed out that even in RAW a character built to maximise reaction modifiers (Charisma, Bard, halfling, etc.) will get positive reactions nearly always, and is overpowered if the GM believes in making such rolls frequently.

[David Bofinger]

There are broadly two, well maybe three, ways you could make these traits work:

1. Who knows what effect they have, roll them randomly.
2. High numbers are good, low numbers are bad, and you have to pay to get high numbers: examples might be Attractive vs. Repulsive or Courageous vs. Cowardly.
3. High numbers are good sometimes and bad sometimes, low numbers are the reverse, choose whatever value you think best: examples might be Rash vs. Timid.

(1) is so unTFT and 1970s that even though it's RAW I'm going to dismiss it.

(2) is possible but these sorts of abilities can probably be represented by talents or attributes so maybe it's not a great idea to introduce a new system.

(3) would probably be my preference. Any time you do something which might be difficult to force yourself to do you can roll against the relevant trait. So if you have a Rash of 8 and want to do something rash (attack the troll) then roll 2d6 looking for 8 or less. On the other hand if you're trying to do something timid (e.g. sneak away) then roll 2d6 and try to get 8 or more. If you haven't succeeded then probably you can still try to do the task - this is an RPG, after all, and it's best not to trample on player agency too thoroughly - but it's harder or comes with some increased chance of disaster because the tension between what you want to do and what you're actually doing distracts you.

But the most important thing is not to let these kinds of trait mix together.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

I am all for option 3.

One shouldn't need to roll often, but there definitely could be situations where a player might want to do something, but their character might not be up to the task mentally or emotionally. The most common would be bravery. The player wants to do something really brave, but is bravery really a free agency choice for a character that is a coward at heart or just normal? Sure they might surprise everyone and be brave now and then, but most people want to be brave but can't pull if off consistently.

Another trait, like Attractiveness. Everyone wants it, but it might be better to combine it with something that might also be seen as positive. In this case it could be Forgettable, a good trait for murder hobos and thieves.

So either the pairs should both be bad, or both ends should be good.

That is why I would rather see Rash vs. Timid, both are basically bad. But I don't want to see Brave vs. Cowardly because there is very little upside to being a coward. Or Brave vs. Cautious because both are good and most people have one but not both.

But you could also have Brave/Rash vs. Cautious/Cowardly. Having a high or a low value comes with both an advantage and possible disadvantage, so they are still balanced. One extreme is not necessary better than the other. Sure there might be people who are both brave and cautious, but it is not that common. But if you have such a character just set the value at 7.

A 4th option is to have 3 mainly good parameters like Brave, Attractive, Disciplined, and then 3 bad ones.
And when you put out your values you need to balance the total so you have as many points in good ones as you have in bad ones. But that is little bit more complex.