Negative psychological attributes - Vices

[Azael]

- 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?

Now this is a damn good idea, but it should also work the other, that some vices might go away (or become less visible) over time. So that a character with necrophobia would be less scared of the undead after defeating the evil lich lord Scruffy, but maybe picking up an opium addiction in the process after calming his nerves at the local Chinatown? Bad examples, I know, but my point is that vices as well as virtues need to be dynamic in both directions in order to be interesting. Gaining new vices (or virtues) after certain events would be a good thing as well, such as developing an arachnophobia after narrowly escaping an encounter with a giant spider or gaining a bonus against orcs after cleverly defeating a gang of them, etc.

 

[Balor]

Gaining new vices (or virtues) after certain events would be a good thing as well, such as developing an arachnophobia after narrowly escaping an encounter with a giant spider or gaining a bonus against orcs after cleverly defeating a gang of them, etc.

Good idea. Easy to implement, too.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I like the idea of vices, but I don't like the idea of vices taking control away from me at all. I am the one who is roleplaying here, not the fucking computer! I am surprised how eager the elite crew here is to give away to an automated feature - can't you roleplay for yourselves? Vices should unlock options, or confer advantages / disadvantages, nothing more.
E.g. a cruelty vice could unlock a new torture option to dialogue, new dialogue options in general or the ability to kill a foe who has yielded (not available to the saintly character). A gambler vice could lower your stats unless you fulfill your gambling addiction, etc. Others could be handled much like Daggerfall advantages / disadvantages system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I like the idea of vices, but I don't like the idea of vices taking control away from me at all.

Taking away from you what? Do you complain when computer takes control if your character fails Endurance/Con roll and knocks him out due to poison/fatique/radiation? Same here. If you have a weakness, no more different than low INT or low STR, you have a chance to balance it out (decrease vices' influence with points) or to avoid situations where a vice can affect your character. What's wrong with that?

I am the one who is roleplaying here, not the fucking computer!

You have a chance to make a viceless character or balance vices with something else. If you didn't...

 

[Imbecile]

Anyone ever play Rome:Total war?
Your generals build up a variety of Vices and Virtues, that come from behaving in a certain way, visting certain places, or just random luck.
These Vices and virtues can increase or decrease, sometimes going from being a good thing, to a problem.

Examples could include Pious, if you spend a certain amount of time in a temple of the nine divines, giving the beneficiary +1 to Willpower (or something). If you spend too much time in there, you could get It “upgraded” to Religious fervour, giving you –2 to personality (or whatever).

There are plenty of others available – glutton, hoarder, collector, bookworm, lazy, horribly scarred, coward, charismatic leader, mean, despises Orcs etc.. It’s a great idea, and would flesh out characters nicely, and be pretty easy to implement.

The Rome ones would provide a nice list – anyone know where to find them?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I like the idea of vices, but I don't like the idea of vices taking control away from me at all.

Taking away from you what? Do you complain when computer takes control if your character fails Endurance/Con roll and knocks him out due to poison/fatique/radiation? Same here. If you have a weakness, no more different than low INT or low STR, you have a chance to balance it out (decrease vices' influence with points) or to avoid situations where a vice can affect your character. What's wrong with that?

It's not the same thing. The first is a game mechanic, just like in any P&P, the vice reactions are on a much higher level, that should be subject to roleplaying. In fact, playing out such roleplaying situations is about the most fun parts of RPgaming, so why would I want a computer to take charge? We are always talking about decisions and conseqeunces - well, I want to make the decision how I play out this vice, and I want the game to present me with consequences appropriate to the character and his vice, but NOT to just decide for me how I have to rolplay the situation. If you take this thing far enough you quickly end up with a dungeon siege for rolplayers, where your character autmatically kills people or helps grannies over the street and takes mainquest determining decisions while you watch - no thanks. The more control you give me and the more options and feedback I get for my character the better the roleplaying.

I am the one who is roleplaying here, not the fucking computer!

You have a chance to make a viceless character or balance vices with something else. If you didn't...

That's character creation, not roleplaying.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not the same thing. The first is a game mechanic, just like in any P&P, the vice reactions are on a much higher level, that should be subject to roleplaying.

What's the difference between failing a stat roll or a skill roll and a vice roll? They are all mechanics, but you willing to accept only stats and skills, but not vices.

In fact, playing out such roleplaying situations is about the most fun parts of RPgaming, so why would I want a computer to take charge? We are always talking about decisions and conseqeunces - well, I want to make the decision how I play out this vice, and I want the game to present me with consequences appropriate to the character and his vice, but NOT to just decide for me how I have to rolplay the situation.

Ok, your character's afraid of undead. You ignored that flaw for some role-playing, btw, reasons when you created and levelled up that character. You have some minor penalties when dealing with undead, but you are a good fighter, so you manage to take on one or two. Eventually, you make your way into some old temple and started looting/exploring/purifying/whatever. Suddenly, zombies start crawling out of every hole and sarcophagus.

Should the game roll some numbers and compare your fears vs the threat, forcing you to run, or should we rely on you and your superior role-playing skills? That brings us to that old discussion of swimming in TES games. It was a skill with proper mechanics in DF that would sink you if you are trying to swim in heavy armor and carry some loot. Some new-age TES fanboys argued that you could easily do the same in MW by role-playing and pretending that your character can't swim easily in armor.

That's what you want to do, you want to replace a solid mechanic with pretending that you are afraid of undead. Speaking of fear, our characters explore scary-ass dungeons and crypts of legends (and not nice legends, but "nobody came back" type legends), face and kill horrible and terrifying monsters, but do they ever feel fear? They should, shouldn't they? And how would that affect them? Vices are a great way of handling that.

Or a character who generously give money to poor and needy, or refuse rewards. You, the player, can be as generous as you like, but what about the character? What if his greed is so strong that despite being a good person, he's unable to part with money, unable not to ask for more, and it's affecting people's perception of him/her? Etc

That's character creation, not roleplaying.

Don't you think that character creation and development affect your character and, thus, role-playing a little bit? Isn't that where it starts?

 

[Balor]

GBH, spend more time here, TES forums seem to negatively affect your thinking abilities .

If you take this thing far enough you quickly end up with a dungeon siege for rolplayers, where your character autmatically kills people or helps grannies over the street and takes mainquest determining decisions while you watch - no thanks.

You know yourself it's a hyperbole.
And btw, you DID seem to catch that 'MW was a perfect RPG because I could emagine anything and roleplay in my head!' virus from TES forums.
Now replace MW with Mario, he-he-he.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And btw, you DID seem to catch that 'MW was a perfect RPG because I could emagine anything and roleplay in my head!' virus from TES forums.
Now replace MW with Mario, he-he-he.

Exactly.

 

[Azael]

I'm not a big fan of taking control away from the player either, preferably it should be handled in another way such as giving various penalties and restricting choice rather than completely removing it. I think this applies the strongest to single character games where removing control from the player effectively relegates him into a spectator role rather than an active participant. In party based games, removing control of characters is more acceptable since it's not so likely that you'll lose control of all characters at once. However, I agree that vices and virtues should limit your options in many cases.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

What's the difference between failing a stat roll or a skill roll and a vice roll? They are all mechanics, but you willing to accept only stats and skills, but not vices.

The result of the stat roll is an effect either on the world (lockpick failed) or on the STATS of my character (damage taken, stat raised or lowered, etc.) that may further result in death, unconciousness or another limitation of my characters abilities. The proposed result of your vice roll is an ACTION taken by the character (and a fairly complex one at that). See the difference now? You will probably rmark that effects like fear or certain spell effects already make characters take certain actions. So I may concede that in a party based game these might be OK, for a single player game (and certianly for a third or first person game) it would be annoying. BUT as I said vices would still be a good concept even for a first person game, just leave the effects on the low level of affecting stats and abilities and leave the "acting out" to me in that case.

Ok, your character's afraid of undead. You ignored that flaw for some role-playing, btw, reasons when you created and levelled up that character. You have some minor penalties when dealing with undead, but you are a good fighter, so you manage to take on one or two. Eventually, you make your way into some old temple and started looting/exploring/purifying/whatever. Suddenly, zombies start crawling out of every hole and sarcophagus.

Should the game roll some numbers and compare your fears vs the threat, forcing you to run, or should we rely on you and your superior role-playing skills?

See above as to the distinction I would make between first and third person games. In a first person game I should be the one to feel the fear an get the hell out of there - not because it's some roll result, but because it's the only sensible thing to do in that situation. A better example would be a room full of harmless spiders and a character with arachnophobia. A good solution for me would be to reduce my attributes significantly making me a helpless wreck until I remove myself, maybe even counting down until I drop unconscious. So if I rally want to cross that room I can - but I really have to work for it. Better than taking control away from my character.

That brings us to that old discussion of swimming in TES games. It was a skill with proper mechanics in DF that would sink you if you are trying to swim in heavy armor and carry some loot. Some new-age TES fanboys argued that you could easily do the same in MW by role-playing and pretending that your character can't swim easily in armor.

No thats silly, because this is really a physical effect, not an action you play out depending on your characters psychology (which is what a vice is)

Balor - so far I think beat you in the thinking department - don't let your TES forum judgment cloud your judgment of my mental abilities

 

[Vault Dweller]

The result of the stat roll is an effect either on the world (lockpick failed) or on the STATS of my character (damage taken, stat raised or lowered, etc.) that may further result in death, unconciousness or another limitation of my characters abilities. The proposed result of your vice roll is an ACTION taken by the character (and a fairly complex one at that). See the difference now?

Yes. Let's turn it around now. The result of a stat roll may result in you losing control over your character (most mindfuck spells), while the result of a vice roll (claustrophobia, for example) may only limit some abilities. See the difference? Aren't stat rolls evil?

...and leave the "acting out" to me in that case.

Something tells me you will be very happy when Oblivion is released.

See above as to the distinction I would make between first and third person games. In a first person game I should be the one to feel the fear an get the hell out of there - not because it's some roll result, but because it's the only sensible thing to do in that situation.

So, when you explore crypts in MW, do you usually run away when bone lords (or whatever they are called) show up? Yes or No will do.

 

[Balor]

Btw, thank you GBH - your posts reminded me of some ideas I had about definition of RPG, and that would come in handy, since of the event, heh, that is going on now.

 

[LCJr.]

The result of the stat roll is an effect either on the world (lockpick failed) or on the STATS of my character (damage taken, stat raised or lowered, etc.) that may further result in death, unconciousness or another limitation of my characters abilities. The proposed result of your vice roll is an ACTION taken by the character (and a fairly complex one at that). See the difference now?

How about some examples of classic fantasy RPG wizardry.

Hold Person/Paralyze/Sleep type. INACTION, you can't do jack your immobile or unconscious.

Fear type. ACTION, you run away.

Confusion/mind fuck type. ACTION, random movement and attacks usually against own party.

So no I don't see the difference. How is failing save/stat roll/whatever and having actions forced on you by the computer bad guys any different than falling prey to your own vices? In any of these classic cases the computer is taking control of your character away from you.

BTW VD you suck. Now quit getting into arguments on forums and go add vices and pyschological flaws to your game.

 

[Azael]

Poor example, as Morrowind didn't have a system like that in place, so doing that it would be as relevant as imagining that your character in heavy armor can't swim. I don't dig slippery slope arguments, but this is one well lubricated ramp (thesarus is teh fun). Basically, the question I have is why stop at vice and virtue, why not take away control based on skills and attributes as well? Why should the game let a very intelligent character without sufficient skills in disarming traps try to manipulate a trap that the character reasonably should know is way out of his league? Should you have an Intelligence check and if failed (or succeeded, perhaps) the game decides that you leave the trap alone, or should the Intelligence check instead produce a warning "don't mess with this trap, n00b!"? To me, that makes a huge a difference.

 

[LCJr.]

Specific example. In Geneforge if you come across a trapped chest that's beyond your abilities your given a warning BUT you still have the option to try it anyway. I've played other games that do the same thing. You can either the heed the warning and leave it alone or gamble you can survive and something worthwhile is inside and go for it.

 

[Section8]

It should also be noted that you don't need to force a lack of control from the player in certain situations.

For instance.

Surrounded by undead, fear impulse kicks in:

Instead of the player automatically turning and running, give them a reason to do so. Unchecked fear may lead to paralysis. If I'm paralysed amid a horde of shambling undead, I don't like my chances, so the logical alternative is to turn and run. This could be achieved by something as simple as a "Fear Paralysis" status bar that fills up according to certain criteria.

Can't walk way from gambling:

Maybe you can walk away, but it becomes something that nags at the back of your mind. Every action you take that isn't related to satisfying the needs of you gambling addiction is penalised, driving the player to make the logical decision to satisfy those urges.

Consider Lycanthropy in Daggerfall for instance. You don't have to feed on the blood of innocents, but the game provides compelling reasons to do so within the game rules.

Personally, I'm all for the exploration of additional dynamics beyond Hitpoints/Mana/Stamina. Morale in games like X-Com may have frustrated the player, but it's all part of the challenge.

 

[Kraszu]

Instead of the player automatically turning and running, give them a reason to do so. Unchecked fear may lead to paralysis. If I'm paralysed amid a horde of shambling undead, I don't like my chances, so the logical alternative is to turn and run. This could be achieved by something as simple as a "Fear Paralysis" status bar that fills up according to certain criteria.

Good exemple, human have conscious decisions and is also determined by for exemple subconscious (like fear exemple). That's where the line is for me (whithout it we would just make char and watch it progress), i should be able to do all decisions that are part of my conscious, and other things like my str, or subconscious are detrmined by stats and are beyond my control. But it sometimes not so simple, when you are angry you can say someting that you would normaly not say, they let say that you would have some new "angry" posibilities in dialogue, you could not be polite but only choose the respond that better describe whot you don't like about other person or situation. You could hit somebady in anger (like when you could not sudisfy your urge to gamble and somebady would start to nerves you) or destroy someting, and then "conscious would be given back" to you. Lets say that your char is very angry he could lost control in fight for the time when he kills enought to spend itself.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

The result of the stat roll is an effect either on the world (lockpick failed) or on the STATS of my character (damage taken, stat raised or lowered, etc.) that may further result in death, unconciousness or another limitation of my characters abilities. The proposed result of your vice roll is an ACTION taken by the character (and a fairly complex one at that). See the difference now?

Yes. Let's turn it around now. The result of a stat roll may result in you losing control over your character (most mindfuck spells), while the result of a vice roll (claustrophobia, for example) may only limit some abilities. See the difference? Aren't stat rolls evil?

As long as they only affect "some abilities" I am totally fine with it - I thought that would be clear from the above. It's "taking control away from my character" that I have been arguing against.

Something tells me you will be very happy when Oblivion is released.

You said the O word! Stone him!!! So, does Oblivion have vices now? News to me.
VD, I am not arguing against the idea in general, you know, nor that all should be left to imagination. Quite the contrary. But there are different ways to present mechanics and consequences or feedback to the player. You can do many great things without taking control away from the player if we are not considering blatantly obvious results like unconsciousness. That said, I still assume I will, in fact, enjoy Oblivion. I enjoy many games and do not limit myself t the purest (and almost nonexistant) oldschool RPG's. Take your beloved Fallouts perks, some might well make examples for vices (childkiller, blood mess) they are wonderfully imtegrated without ever forcing you to give up control - instead the world reacts and stat changes supply an incentive to roleplay accordingly.

See above as to the distinction I would make between first and third person games. In a first person game I should be the one to feel the fear an get the hell out of there - not because it's some roll result, but because it's the only sensible thing to do in that situation.

So, when you explore crypts in MW, do you usually run away when bone lords (or whatever they are called) show up? Yes or No will do.[/quote]
My low level character usually do. Especially since one of them drained so much of my strength that I had to strip naked to escape said tomb (with two more of them on my heels). At higher levels I tend to take revenge for the insult.

But we are not discussing MW or Oblivion here, or are we? They have no vice system, so all that is left is to play them (imagining them as you would say) - which can be fun, but it is not supported by the game mechanics. Now I am for such support, but it can be done with visual feedback, stat modifiers, etc. there is no need to have the game act out whole activities for me just becasue a role says so.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

It should also be noted that you don't need to force a lack of control from the player in certain situations.

For instance.

Surrounded by undead, fear impulse kicks in:

Instead of the player automatically turning and running, give them a reason to do so. Unchecked fear may lead to paralysis. If I'm paralysed amid a horde of shambling undead, I don't like my chances, so the logical alternative is to turn and run. This could be achieved by something as simple as a "Fear Paralysis" status bar that fills up according to certain criteria.

Can't walk way from gambling:


Maybe you can walk away, but it becomes something that nags at the back of your mind. Every action you take that isn't related to satisfying the needs of you gambling addiction is penalised, driving the player to make the logical decision to satisfy those urges.

Consider Lycanthropy in Daggerfall for instance. You don't have to feed on the blood of innocents, but the game provides compelling reasons to do so within the game rules.

Personally, I'm all for the exploration of additional dynamics beyond Hitpoints/Mana/Stamina. Morale in games like X-Com may have frustrated the player, but it's all part of the challenge.

Yep, something like that. See my earlier examples. My spider room example is pretty uch exactly what you describee for the undead scenario.

 

[Human Shield]

Keep a mental stamina stat that effects most rolls. When put in a stressful stituation (depending on your character) it starts draining, effected by if he has good friends coaching him through, relaxing drugs, etc...

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.

 

[chaedwards]

Certainly including vices as attributes that take control away from the player would enforce the player/character distinction, and so would work best when played in an isometric view rather than first person. Additionally, when used in a party game it would be less annoying than if you only control a single character.

However, I otherwise fully agree with Vault Dweller. If there's a mechanic for fear spells, then why not use that mechanic? Same with any other spell that effects you mentally. It's essentially the same thing, just that magic induces it artificially. Your actual vices are far more genuine, and yet virtually never considered.

And, as section 8 noted, fear can effect you in a number of ways. I'm scared of spiders, but I don't run away every time I see a spider. Different values in a particular vice could impact in different ways, from a slight loss of concentration to turning and running straight away. (Possibly affected by the size of the fear - tarantula vs Shelob.)

I also agree that such vices should be dynamic, and not always kick in. You could get saving throws against them based on the size of the opportunity/fear, and if you succeed your vice could reduce. How many epic fantasies involve the hero having to face down his greatest fear? It adds a lot more to a game if you're not just a combat machine, but fleshed out with virtues and vices of your own.

As I said before, it's not going to be for everybody, but that's obvious. If you try to cater for everybody, you get focus group mush.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Anyone ever play Rome:Total war?
Your generals build up a variety of Vices and Virtues, that come from behaving in a certain way, visting certain places, or just random luck.
These Vices and virtues can increase or decrease, sometimes going from being a good thing, to a problem.

Hmmm... I like this idea. The game never forces the player to do anything, but provides an incentive to use characters in certain ways. I think its very viable for cRPGs to provide incentives like that, especially in games like Morrowind. Take Deus Ex, any character could pick a lock. However, unless you put some points into your lock picking skill, it would cost you half your lock picks to pick an advanced lock. Now imagine a Morrowind where if you go so long in the game without spending money, you get a miserly trait and can never have below X gold. Its a little late, now, but I'll try to find a list of the vices and virtues tomorrow... if I remember.

 

[Section8]

My favourite aspect of Total War's vice system were the secrets, and the ability to reveal them using spies. So for instance, your general might like to bugger little boys, and as a secret vice it has a minor penalty and perhaps a minor gain. If the secret comes out, he'll take fairly big hits to most stats, since his army don't respect him.

 

[Imbecile]

Heres a decent list of the Total War vices - needs downloading though



http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/?mod=44