Emotional Conflict Mechanics Options

[shadowfire]

So I have been bouncing around the idea of intergarating more Story game concept into other game. One such concept is the idea that the character's emotions should have an effect on the game and in turn add depth to the role playing experience.
As such i have developed the following (GM Only) rules for the use in Shadowrun. Whenever the character(s) are confronted with a situation that there would in turn be an emotional response on the behalf of the character; i.e. the character's girlfriend is killed in front of him by a Yakuza boss, the character would be affected by the emotions he/she is feeling. Since the character is human they tend to get the better of him even at delicate times. The lengtrh of time that the character is affected by the emotion is up to the GM.

Anger The character must describe a target for their Anger. They gain the Combat monster Flew for the length of time that they are angry. They also gain an Anger Pool of dice based on the average of their willpower and charisma. The anger Dice Pool can be used for any non-resistance test/task, but only if directed at the described target.

Grief The Character gain a +3 modifier to all non-resistance test/tasks as well as being affected by the Impulsive flew.

Fear The Character is considered to be affected by Combat Paralysis Flew and gains a +3 modifier to all non-resistance test/tasks. The modifier does not affect them at any task to remove themselves from the area of the source of the fear.

Love The character gains a Love Pool of dice based on the average of their Willpower and Charisma when it comes to their Loved one. They also gain the Impulsive flew when it comes to their loved one.

[Reg06]

Eh. You'll probably not have success forcing your players to act out their characters emotions more with such a hamfisted approach. This wouldn't actually add any depth to the role playing experience- having the DM play your character for you tends to take one out of the game.
The old World of Darkness system gave each character a nature and demeanor, and you'd regain willpower for acting in accordance with those. Some sort of conversion of that probably work out better for you.

[Critias]

Why not just...uhh....role play?

[Ascalaphus]

How does getting mechanical modifiers for feeling emotions as decided by the GM add depth to the roleplaying experience?

[Earlydawn]

I'll go against the grain and say that I like this idea a lot.

[Zyerne]

Eh. You'll probably not have success forcing your players to act out their characters emotions more with such a hamfisted approach. This wouldn't actually add any depth to the role playing experience- having the DM play your character for you tends to take one out of the game.
The old World of Darkness system gave each character a nature and demeanor, and you'd regain willpower for acting in accordance with those. Some sort of conversion of that probably work out better for you.

Playing Aberant and Trinity right now and I don't think natures have even come up yet.

As to the idea, if you want to give bonuses for roleplaying, cool. If you want to force emotions on people, no so much.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

While I like mechanics for roleplaying, this is just too heavy-handed, and too little PC-centric. Roleplaying should originate from the PC/Player, and not from the GM.

Generally, giving players connections to the world around them will evoke enough emotive response. Tell your players to generate near-full sheets for their contacts, family, loved ones, etc. Have them write a background, rather than just answering the 20 questions. Now, if you target any one of those people, that will get them itchy, and it will show. The GM response to situations like you described is basically already in the game: A composure check. If they manage it, fine. If they don't, then you might give them a modifier to certain actions.

If you want to do more detailed roleplaying with mechanics you could for example give your PCs traits that apply dice modifiers and a bonus perk, for instance, refreshing a point of edge, when used correctly.

Rewarding "Good" roleplaying is very doubtful, since there is no measure for what good roleplaying is. Correct roleplaying is another matter - if there are guidelines and rules, then you can certainly roleplay correctly. However, even then the motivation should be a small bonus, not a penalty.

[pbangarth]

The Composure test on page 138 of SR4A seems designed to allow the GM to deal with such issues, if she wants to.

[Udoshi]

Eh. You'll probably not have success forcing your players to act out their characters emotions more with such a hamfisted approach. This wouldn't actually add any depth to the role playing experience- having the DM play your character for you tends to take one out of the game.
The old World of Darkness system gave each character a nature and demeanor, and you'd regain willpower for acting in accordance with those. Some sort of conversion of that probably work out better for you.

Agreed. If you want your characters to act like emotionally driven human being, the carrot approach will work better than the stick.
first: Karma awards. There are two available for this. 'Good roleplaying', and Player Impressed the group with humor or drama'. Both fit, and are worth 1-2 points each in 4A. thats incentive enough to play your character like a human being.
The second is refreshing a point of edge. If your player's character is drawing strength or desperaton from an emotional connection, well, fuck, give it to them.


On a counterpoint, "Roll to save or be mind controlled" is an approach that will likely piss off your players. Because thats essentially what your rule does. Roll a test, or act in a certain way.
Additionally, all of this is covered by Composure Tests. See attribute only tests in the core book.

Now, what you -should- do is combine the approaches. A very mellow Stick - just suggest that their character may be feeling a certain emotional impact due to an event. Suggest is an important word there. Suggest, encourage - but not force. A good player will sense an opportunity. If they take it, reward them somehow. Edge or a point of karma are good ways to show the other players that good, character-driven roleplaying will be rewarded, and force them to take their game up a notch if they want the same treatment. Or it could even lead to a new and useful contact.

Ultimately, how it works is up to you. But forcing your players to act in a certain way only builds resentment, and that does not contribute to a good game.

[Neurosis]

Not to be unconstructive or anything but...I utterly hate this.

[Dahrken]

This seems more than a little bit heavy handed. I can imagine a munchkin character switching on a "Hate mod ON" personnafix to grab that nifty "Anger" dice pool bonus toward his target of the moment...

[Ascalaphus]

Ooooh, personafix ftw!

[shadowfire]

I really don't have problems with my players "Role-playing" emotions, so the use of these rules is not for that. Sorry if what i wrote made you think it was.
However, the rules are there to create so kind of effect in game for those emotion beyond the player just play-acting.

The idea of nature and demeanor is not too bad, but those are more like a different approach to an alignment system with actual cause and effect rules.

Dahrken- thats why it is listed as a GM rule. It not something that a player can just throw out there for his own use. If the GM sees it fitting with the story then it gets thrown in. As such I can see how many would see this as a "Hamfisted" way of controling a player's character. However, i would argue that it is more of the position of the GM acting as a "Director" of the story, giving his "Actors" assistance in how the character would feel during any given situation.

Also i defend my stance, by disputing the accusation that I am "Forcing" anything on my players. Its not like I am running D&D here. And as any GM should, any changes or added rules are brought to my players attention for them to veto or accept.

Also As stated these rules are still in the early stages.



As a matter of coarse I will point out that I never run/play $th edition and bring up edge is pointless.

[Reg06]

Or how about use the karma award system that's already in place? Hand out karma as normal, and then give bonus karma to players you or the players feel played their character well.

[shadowfire]

yaaaaa. you don't get what i'm saying.

the rules are ingame mechanics is show what the emotions effect in game is.

[Critias]

yaaaaa. you don't get what i'm saying.

the rules are ingame mechanics is show what the emotions effect in game is.

No, we get what you're saying, we just don't like it.

If someone's only roleplaying because the rules tell them to -- a roll of the dice, a "compulsion" to act a certain way because an NPC does a certain thing, free dice to protect a loved one, whatever -- then they're not really roleplaying any more, in my opinion. They're just following the rules of the game like they do for all their other skill tests and attribute rolls and stuff.

Role playing should be rewarded with the carrot, not forced with the stick.

[Yerameyahu]

This isn't a crazy idea. It's an old one. In some games, you get exactly this kind of thing (e.g., Exalted 2e). It's not a question of roleplaying (holy, wonderful) against rules/gaming (skree, bad, evil); it's just a question of what the game wants to *do*. Honestly, people get sooo emotional. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SR already has social active skills, after all, which definitely trespass in the area we're discussing here (seduction, intimidation, etc.). However, SR isn't really set up for a complete emotional conflict system (again, as opposed to Exalted 2e, for example), so it would require an *extensive* set of house rules, which all players would need to be very familiar with. It probably is not worth that level of trouble; if it *is* worth it for your group, enjoy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Personally, I'd just use ad-lib Composure tests.

[ShadowPavement]

Why not just...uhh....role play?

I concur. I have nothing against story games and find some of them really great, but I find it really ironic that it's usually the "story game" people who want MECHANICS for how their characters should act.

[tagz]

I think I get what he's driving at. He isn't trying to get his players to roleplay in the first place, he's trying to give them a bonus for having done it.

Depending on your group, this might work, but if you have anyone who's all about building the best DP they can they'll just get a few emotive tracks and run them through a sim module to force the emotion and bonus.

Personally, I don't like it.

If you ARE to do something like this, I recommend that all the bonuses come with negatives too. Such as to perception, willpower, etc. Something to balance it out so characters don't seek to stay in a constant state of rage (forced by tech or drugs) for a few free dice. Something like that would REDUCE real roleplaying in my opinion.

[Reg06]

I think I get what he's driving at. He isn't trying to get his players to roleplay in the first place, he's trying to give them a bonus for having done it.

But there is a bonus- extra karma. In one of the OP's examples, the characters are rewarded with a flaw. And this system is not for rewarding roleplaying, it's for the DM deciding their character feels a certain way.
If a PC is enraged over his loved ones being harmed, s/he'll spend, and probably burn, Edge to punish those responsible, and may do so without regard for his/her own safety.

[Juggler]

Interesting concept.
I guess I should start rolling up my Emo Adept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[Mayhem_2006]

Just use GM discretion to sling them an occasional bonus dice when they act against mechanical best interests for purely roleplayed emotional reasons.

EG, if the street sam, driven to anger, chooses to unload a full clip against somebody instead of aiming carefully and conserving ammo for the fight that he *knows* is just around the corner, give them a SMALL bonus for the anger-inspired action.

Or if they deliberately choose to take a bullet on behalf of the object of their love, when they could have easily avoided it, give them a SMALL bonus to resisting the damage (thats the power of love!).

It doesn't need to be codified. Just go with the flow when your players pull some great RP out of the hat.

[Ascalaphus]

In most cases, the player should be telling the GM what emotional state his PC is in. Drugs and mind control magic would be exceptions. Story events like a girlfriend getting shot would be the player's choice. If he prefers Grief to Wrath or Shock or Relief (he was about to break up with her!), that should be the player's choice.

What could be interesting is to note down some modifiers that various emotional states could result in. For example, being enraged makes you a bit stronger. Or being euphoric with love gives you some extra resistance against unpleasant mind manipulation.

But the player must choose what emotional state his character is in. Trust the player.

[jaellot]

I applaud the effort to try and bring more emotional response into a game. This desire can never, never be a bad thing.

Some one mentioned White Wolf's (Old World of Darkness specifically) Nature/Demeanor bits. I prefer the current WoD of Virtue and Vice, but the idea is the same. There's just a lot less of the Virtues and Vices to wade through.

Buffy: The Vampire Slayer has an affect you can do with a Drama Point; Righteous Wrath or something like that. You have to be super pissed, and rightfully so, and you get combat/damage bonuses against what pissed you so.

Houses of the Blooded doesn't have skills per se, but have what's called Aspects. Sure, you can take things like "Dueling" and "Athletics" but you can also get very creative with it and come up with things like "My Anger will smite the wicked" or "My Sorrow is all I need". The second could be used to resist seduction attempts, possibly.

You say you aren't doing 4th Ed, so maybe some effect the players do have control over that could be kicked in with a Karma Pool? Like that Anger Pool or something? Treat almost like a second Combat Pool, that can be stacked? A bit much I know, just tossing out ideas.

[Manunancy]

Dahrken- thats why it is listed as a GM rule. It not something that a player can just throw out there for his own use. If the GM sees it fitting with the story then it gets thrown in. As such I can see how many would see this as a "Hamfisted" way of controling a player's character. However, i would argue that it is more of the position of the GM acting as a "Director" of the story, giving his "Actors" assistance in how the character would feel during any given situation.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter where the emotion comes from - wether it's from the situation and the character's personality or it's induced by a personachip or a drug, it affects the character in a similar way and should get similar effects. Some combat drugs get part of their effects form just that premise.

I'd rather control abuse by playing on the side effects (addiction, effects lingering on longer than convenient and the like) than making it a pure GM fiat. There's also a very good chance that someone tinkering with his emotion like that will be viewed as rather odd. It's probably going to have messy side effects in the long run.