Selectable Traits in P:E

[Lephys]

I can see where you're coming from. But I wouldn't completely disregard restrictions. I mean, as long as they are balanced and the player can choose freely to take them or leave them, what harm do they do?

I realize that "restriction" isn't the most accurate word, as it covers things I don't necessarily want to avoid. But, for the most part, I think traits should affect how you do things or how things happen, rather than whether or not they do. I don't think you should have an inherent trait that strips you of the ability to haggle or persuade, for example. Even if it gives you a different ability and, all things considered, balances out. I just think those are awfully drastic changes for something like a trait. Now, if it was something like "You can't haggle with women" or something, because you're really shy or whatever, or simply that you have difficulty haggling or persuading females... that's different. You're not stripping something like haggling/persuasion from the entire playthrough. You're just affecting it, overall. You're providing limitations/shortcomings.

 

Basically, I wouldn't want to remove restrict anything just as much as I wouldn't want to do away with an existing restriction. i.e. "Because of this trait, you can now throw your sword as a ranged attack, like a boomerang." I wouldn't want that, and I wouldn't want "You can't use swords."

 

The Druid stuff in D&D (I'm sure it changed throughout various versions, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to point out all the specific changes) is a good example; how they "couldn't" use metal equipment. I mean, metal is even already a part of nature. We just shape it. But, they even had spiffy metal-like wood (in 3.5 and Pathfinder, I think?) that essentially took the place of metal armor (and weapons?) for Druids.

 

Annnnywho, the point of that is that I don't think a trait that read "You grew up among naturey folk, so the game is going to actually prevent you from using metal swords" would be nearly as effective as a trait that simply affected how you use swords, or gave you a detriment for certain cultural/factional equipment designs, and a bonus for others. Etc.

 

I feel like your remark about a "Good Guy" trait is directed at my "Pure of Heart" suggestion. All I can reply to that is: I specifically proposed strong restrictions on gameplay because sometimes, I feel like playing a character who suffers from these restrictions (or chose them), but it's nice if I get something in return.

Take the "Honor the Dead" trait I proposed - that is something that certain roleplayers do when they play a Paladin. They want to be a character who has honor and who wouldn't loot a body (and forbids his party from doing it). That is a restriction and usually they get nothing in return. The trait system is perfect for this - they get to play the character they want and they get a little bonus for that. I do not think that this is a bad thing.

I honestly wasn't trying to direct that at your proposal. Their similarity is merely a coincidence. Alignment-type stuff (such as being "good") was just something that popped into my mind as something I wouldn't want to restrict with a trait. I'd much rather see a trait that has you sympathetic toward orphans because you grew up an orphan, even while allowing you to be generally pretty "evil." I'd rather see that struggle than "You can only offer to help people, all the time."

 

I'm not sure exactly what to say about the "Honor the Dead" one. I don't dislike it, personally, but I can see how factors of P:E being the game that it is causing problems in conjunction with such a trait, as loot is a pretty integral part of adventurers' ability to acquire funds. Sure, in the lore, there are plenty of other ways to get money. But, in the gameplay, and in the context of the player's role in the narrative, you don't really have time to operate trade caravans and work at a smithy during the week to procure funds, so it's almost more like a necessary survival tactic. "Hey, we just killed a bunch of bandits who stole from everyone all the time. I don't like looting the dead, but they were bastards, and they have stuff, and we needstuff... so...". Ya know? Now, maybe you feel bad about looting the dead, so you insist on atoning for that, so you always donate 15% of your earned gold to charities? That would be a bit abstracted (since it would pretty much have to automatically deduct 15% from any and all gold you pick up or receive), but altering the way looting is performed and/or affects your character is much more reasonable, in my book, than preventing the looting the dead, at all.

 

That's just me, though, I suppose.

 

Like I said, these different types of traits can coexist. You can have background traits and you can have character traits (the only difference being that the former tell a little story about your past while the latter leave more room for interpretation), you can have neutral traits and beneficial/detrimental ones, and you can have some that impose strong restrictions on your gameplay while others simply shift things around a little bit. And hopefully all of them change dialogue sometimes.

I agree. I just think traits, by default, should generally constitute some distinctive difference about your character that you cannot change. The more something like this affects things like decisions or philosophy, the less it really fits as a trait, I think. How my character inherently feels about something? Sure. What he's allowed to decide? Not so sure.

 

That's one reason I think background-type things might need to be a different category, UNLESS they all simply affect inherent, unchangeable qualities of your character (you're tougher 'cause you grew up a soldier's son, you're more knowledgeable in [category] because you read a lot as a child, etc.).

 

I wouldn't even be against something like "If people ask you for money, you can't say no." Because the number of times people ask you for money (and the amounts they ask for) is something that's balanceably hard-coded into the game. So, again, this comes back to simply an affect on your monetary flow, and not a complete restriction on something. It wouldn't just make you give money to all people you see, and it wouldn't prevent you from attempting to get money out of people, when you saw fit. In other words, it doesn't restrict you to JUST giving money to people. It simply causes you to give money away in times when other people wouldn't.

 

Or, you could even have something like "versus females of Beauty X or higher, you cannot help but flirt with them." And instead of restricting your dialogue options to date requests and innuendo, you'd simply have to supplement whatever questions you're asking or things you're saying with flirtatious things. Almost like a more delayed/segmented reaction modifier. Heck, maybe you even get to choose from a couple of different flirt-type options. You know... flattery versus innuendo? Etc. Maybe one works better on some people, and another works better on others. The only choice taken away from you is, in these specific situations (not all females are going to be above a certain Beauty level), the choice of completely avoiding any and all risk of flirting. It's not like you have to choose between flirting, and something else.

 

Of course, having said that, you could pretty much do that with a lot of things. Although... things like Goodness? I don't know that you can be good, as the result of a trait, without excluding non-good choices. *shrug*

 

Starting to get overly analytical (STARTING?! Haha), so I'm gonna shutup now.

[Silent Winter]

 

So not good for sneaky rogues who want to avoid notice - gave me the idea for the opposite one:

Utterly forgettable: You've just got one of those faces/builds that blends into the background.  People don't remember seeing you, struggle to remember meeting you and couldn't pick you out in a lineup.  +1 to stealth, -1 to charisma.

Indeed, . For what it's worth, though, I actually prefer the specific dialogue/noticeability effects to the simple stat shift. Why? Because Charisma affects FAR more things than just initial reaction and things that would be affected by your "face." In the typical systems, at least. I think it's, in a way, more interesting when a trait actually affects specific aspects/applications of a stat or skill.

 

A good, simple example is the effect on critical hits, rather than simply damage, or ranged weapon range, instead of pure chance to hit bonuses.

 

Oh, my +stat examples were just for example - I don't even know what the actual PE stats and their effects are.

I agree that it could be better as per your example.

[Silent Winter]

I wouldn't even be against something like "If people ask you for money, you can't say no." Because the number of times people ask you for money (and the amounts they ask for) is something that's balanceably hard-coded into the game. So, again, this comes back to simply an affect on your monetary flow, and not a complete restriction on something. It wouldn't just make you give money to all people you see, and it wouldn't prevent you from attempting to get money out of people, when you saw fit. In other words, it doesn't restrict you to JUST giving money to people. It simply causes you to give money away in times when other people wouldn't.

With something like this though, it could simply be left down to the player - I could make my own decision that I want to play that way and simply say 'yes' every time.  It doesn't need to take up dev time to implement.

The other example (about flirtatious dialogue) would need dev input to be included in the game (your dialogue choices and a reaction from the other person).

 

I'm all for 'traits' but not 'absolute restrictions' - even if it's only a few times in a game - UNLESS it makes perfect sense within the game (like 'Uncle Bob won't lend you the money because you chose the 'unreliable' background feat

[UpgrayeDD]

Ass Backwards:  You have an uncanny ability to sense your immediate surroundings making it impossible for enemies to flank you.  However this makes it more difficult to focus on whats in front of you preventing you from flanking others.

 

The Quiet Cool:  You never were the brightest bulb in the box and must of been busy the day they were handing out brains.  You suffer a -1 penalty to intelligence.  However the opposite sex tends not only overlook your simplistic ways but finds them both cute and enduring.  You gain benefits when dealing with the opposite sex.

 

He's Coming Right For Us: You are adept at gaining the upperhand aginst opponents that are not readily hostile towards you and gain a benefiet to attack and damage against oppenents for the first six seconds of aggression.  However word has gotten around at your unsavory tactics and you suffer a penalty to all dimplomacy checks.

 

You Only Live Once:  Your many many brushes with death have taught you to err on the side of caution.  You suffer a penaty to attack in order to gain a bonus to defence.

 

Day Dreamer:  You often find your mind wondering around and thinking of creative ways to use your talents.  Every so often you will gain a flash of insight that will give you bonuses to crafting skills.  However this often distracts you from the present and you find youself lost in thought.  You suffer a penalty to active skills until you are able to bring your creation to fruition.

 

Dirty Bird:  Lets face it you've never made hygiene a priority and it shows.  You suffer a penality to all social interactions.  However your great stench has it benifiets as enemies within 5 feet of you find themselves unable to breath properly and suffer a penalty to attack if they spend more than 6 seconds near you.

[jamoecw]

power overwhelming - whether or not it is true, you and your companions believe that you will explode killing all of those around you at some point, literally a walking bomb.  fear from damage taken is also applied as an aura to you (effectively fear from damage is double for you) and all your companions within 60 ft of you.

sexual perversion - you have unpopular sexual desires.  seduction dialog choices are only half as likely to succeed, and if they fail you suffer a reputation penalty.

killing them softly with words - its not what you say, or how you say it, but something else.  intimidation is twice as likely to succeed and has half the negative effects if successful.

this here's my boomstick! - you feel that those that do not use guns are ignorant primitives, though some just see you as looney.  any time you need to convince someone of your power (like say for intimidation) and you have a gun equipped, you get the option of 'this here's my boomstick!' which has double the benefits of both success and failure.

open handed - you share your things with those close to you, after all you're in this together.  your companions like you better every time you camp out in the wilderness.

inner demons - those close to you get to glimpse the darkness you keep locked away within yourself.  your companions dislike you more every time you camp out in the wilderness.

get it done - you have a tendency to do that which needs to be done, even when others say it is impossible.  your chance to succeed at skill checks involving hands on non finesse tasks (building a crude bridge, pulling someone out of a hole, etc.)have a higher chance of success.

discipline - you believe that consistency is key, and focus on achieving that maxim.  all random numbers associated with things that you do (attacking, skill checks, etc.) is less random (1-100 becomes 25-75).

personal villain - there is someone out there who has grown up to hate you with all their being.  at some random point in the game someone with your same wealth in items and level will attack you with an equal party to boot, if you fail to kill the villain (it isn't pointed out which one it is), it will return later again matching your level and wealth and companions.

Edited September 6, 2013 by jamoecw

[Lephys]

With something like this though, it could simply be left down to the player - I could make my own decision that I want to play that way and simply say 'yes' every time.  It doesn't need to take up dev time to implement.

True, but, in the context of that example, the sheer ability to say "no" would break that. I mean, you could make-believe your own traits by playing the game a certain way:

 

"My guy is super angry all the time, so I'll always pick the hostile dialogue."

 

"My guy is far-sighted, so I'll just never let him attack with his bow within a range of 30 feet."

 

In terms of mechanics and not lore, it's the game's hard-coding of some sort of limitation that actually makes a trait a trait.

 

I agree that there are things that don't need to be hard-coded, but it's not because you could simply happen to end up with the same results voluntarily, without the limitation.

 

That example was given as an iffy thing. It's purpose was more to point out how you can affect things that are a bit delicate without being quite so heavy-handed. I'm not advocating the "you can't help but give people money when they ask for it" trait from a "I just sat down and thought a lot about it, and this would be a really good trait, all things considered" perspective. It was only in response to the "I don't want traits affecting my character's decisions" sentiment.

 

I simply think traits can affect your actual decisions/options without going so far as to just make all the decisions for you.

 

In other words, even if a trait prevented you from NOT-giving people money when they happened to outright ask for it, that wouldn't exclude other options. It wouldn't be a choice between 5 different options, and you HAVE to pick the "give them money" one in lieu of any other option. Maybe if you kill them before they ask you for money, you don't give them money.

 

Again, having to give money when asked, not necessarily a fantastic trait. It's just an example versus "You must always pick the "give them money" option in any situation, excluding other options" on how to handle traits that affect your character's reactions/decision-making.

 

I just don't think that small aspects of your character's feelings/reactions are off-limits. The game already limits you in choice. You COULD burn down every village you see, but the game won't let you. You could donate everything you own to some random peasant, but the game won't let you. And it already decides things that you can and cannot do (including actions such as intimidate, or whether or not your character comprehends something) based on stats such as Intelligence, etc.

 

A trait shouldn't dictate your overall attitude toward everything, but it could always dictate how a small subset of interactions/factors affects your character, limiting you to different dialogue options (for example) than another character without that trait in that same situation.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Lephys

[Lephys]

sexual perversion - you have unpopular sexual desires.  seduction dialog choices are only half as likely to succeed, and if they fail you suffer a reputation penalty.

For the record, this is an excellent example of something that affects your character's interactions without deciding them for you. You can't help that you're inherently more perverted than the average person, but you can still decide whether or not to even flirt.

[Silent Winter]

-----

Quote system being odd - my reply may end up in your quote (ok, I edited and it's now above your quote :? ) but:

As to the former - I disagree - the ability of my character in NWN2 to choose 'help Mossfeld' or 'slit his throat' doesn't break that I'm playing a 'good' character - I simply choose the good option.  (though more ambiguous options is always nice).

As to the latter - I agree, and that's where it might shine.  (always funny in Arcanum to look at your dialogue options for a low-intelligence half-ogre bruiser v. a highly intelligent diplomat).

 

True, but, in the context of that example, the sheer ability to say "no" would break that. I mean, you could make-believe your own traits by playing the game a certain way:

I simply think traits can affect your actual decisions/options without going so far as to just make all the decisions for you.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Silent Winter

[mcmanusaur]

Crusader Kings II has a lot of great examples of traits that are mechanically (not just narratively, which is equally important) relevant, and as far as overlap with feats go, I think feats are the problem there. Feats are one of the most incoherent RPG mechanics I've ever seen, and they need fixing regardless of whether traits are included.

Edited September 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Lephys]

As to the former - I disagree - the ability of my character in NWN2 to choose 'help Mossfeld' or 'slit his throat' doesn't break that I'm playing a 'good' character - I simply choose the good option.  (though more ambiguous options is always nice).

Methinks I have been misunderstood. I was kinda vague with that quoted bit. That's my bad.

 

All I meant was, specifically in the context of my example of the "You can't bring yourself to turn down poor folks asking for money" trait, the ability to say no would literally break the trait. The point of that being that, I think that a trait can essentially "take over" a small enough subset of your decision-making capabilities without intruding too much on player choice.

 

So, things like "OCD" and such -- psychological traits, if you will -- are, I believe, an interesting category for traits. But, just plain "personality/alignment traits" are definitely venturing too far. I'd hate to see a trait that decides I'm nice, and therefore cannot choose mean/hostile options or become angered ever. However, much like low-intelligence/high-intelligence dialogue options, I'm all for certain things affecting your character's inherent ability to react to certain things in a variety of ways.

 

Here's a good example of something else:

 

In a lot of games, you get to make bluffs and such, but the mechanics don't really account for much on the part of OTHER people bluffing against you. I think that IF your character can make an "offensive" skill check against someone to result in their belief of a lie, that other people should be able to do the same to your character. So, maybe you have a trait like "Naive," and all your Sense Motive/"defensive" bluff checks suffer a 10-point penalty on the roll or something. That, I would be okay with, really. Sure, it CAN be handled by just picking whatever the player deems fit. You know, "My characters have ABSOLUTELY no reason to doubt any of this information, but I suspect possible treachery, so I'm going to choose to act really paranoid and shady!"

 

*shrug*

 

Granted, a lot of these types of traits would require a lot of additional/alternate dialogue. So, I get that, and I'm not saying "OMG, MAKE SURE THESE ARE IN THE GAME! LOTS OF THEM! OR IT'LL SUCK!". I simply think that they aren't actually problematic, in terms of flawing the mechanics of the game or the ruleset or anything, and that it's interesting to analyze the possibilities of such traits, and figure out what works, and what's going too far on that scale of decision/reaction "hijacking."

Edited September 9, 2013 by Lephys

[Lephys]

Crusader Kings II has a lot of great examples of traits that are mechanically (not just narratively, which is equally important) relevant, and as far as overlap with feats go, I think feats are the problem there. Feats are one of the most incoherent RPG mechanics I've ever seen, and they need fixing regardless of whether traits are included.

I agree with you. It seems that, more often than not, feats trespass into trait territory rather than traits trespassing into feat turf.

 

"You're Level 7 now! Want to choose to suddenly develop an unnatural steadiness of the hands that grants you a bonus to your aiming with ranged weapons?! 8D!"

 

Or "You suddenly gain tougher skin, resisting 10% of damage!"

 

I'm all for gaining some type of damage resistance, but there's no need to attribute that gain to some kind of inherent bonus you develop that mimics something that would set someone apart from the rest of the populous from birth.

 

Feats should really handle developable things, like skills and abilities, and various paths one can take in the specialization of that development, not mutations to the very nature of your being.

 

Granted, in P:E, we'll have the ever-abstract soul factors. However, I still don't want to spontaneously develop anything that seems to be an inherently distinguishing characteristic.

 

The worst is when a feat overlaps directly with a trait. You can start out as Heavy-Handed for increased unarmed damage, OR you can simply take Dense Fists every three levels (for example). Sure, you could do both, but what's the point in the trait if you can spontaneously develop better fists as you gain experience? That's on TOP of getting better at USING your fists, as well as on top of a potential trait. "The effectiveness of your fists improve each level, AND the inherent effectiveness of your fists improves every few levels with this feat you take, AND your fists were inherently a bit more effective from the get-go."

 

Kinda dilutes that whole "choosing this trait makes me distinct" notion.