anger in game 3.5

[ps377]

Hi, im thinking of adding "anger" in my party. It may make the game a little more interesting.

Im thinking of having a character being calm while nothing bad happens and getting more nervy when "bad things" for him are happening. DM (me) will have to be careful on how to give to a player anger points and then a character will get calm points maybe 1 per hour or when something "good" for the player happened. Having being at a battle wont earn you anger points since a battle is something that usually happen.

I think i will have my players have a total of calm points as much as the sum of their mental abilities is and a total of anger points as much as the sum of their physical abilities is.

Everyday will start at 0 points unless they didnt rest very well the night before and will gain calm or anger points by the ways i described before. Gaining anger points while having calm points will make your calm points decrease.

When a character reach at 5 anger points will get +1 str and -1 dex and at 10 anger points a character will get +2 str, -2dex -1 attack roll. I think this will not change the game too much..

When a character reach 5 calm points i havent thought anything for him to gain yet, neither when reach 10 calm points.. Maybe +1 at their spells DC or +1 at mental based checks or something..

A character that didnt reach a total of 10 anger points (for example) wont be able to reach at 10 anger points and wont be able get the bonus and minuses of reaching 10 anger points obviously. Thats how i thought of keeping the balance at lower levels.

Maybe i should add bonuses and minuses for reaching 15 anger or calm points but im not sure yet..

what are your thoughts about this? Do you see any fatal flaw on this idea? Any suggestions?

[lunar2]

yeah, here's a flaw. it is the player's decision, and only the player's decision, what emotions their characters are feeling. if the weapon finesse rogue doesn't want to be angry and lose dex, they simply are not angry. barring NPC magic, you as the DM do not control the PCs. at all. you already control the world and all the other creatures in it, you do not get to dictate what the PCs are feeling.

[Vhaidara]

yeah, here's a flaw. it is the player's decision, and only the player's decision, what emotions their characters are feeling. if the weapon finesse rogue doesn't want to be angry and lose dex, they simply are not angry. barring NPC magic, you as the DM do not control the PCs. at all. you already control the world and all the other creatures in it, you do not get to dictate what the PCs are feeling.

First, this.

Second, if you do, I would have Dex go to calm. And maybe, to offset it, each player picks a mental towards anger. I was going to say Cha, but paladins have a hard enough life already.

[ps377]

Thank you for your answers. I will look more into it! But, no, its not a players option to not get angry if their pet dies.. (or that's what i think)

[Krobar]

I recommend rethinking this. You're crossing a line now and dictating what the PCs think, feel and ultimately do.

[Zweisteine]

Well, some people would hardly blink if their pet died. It depends on the character's personality. They might view a familiar as nothing more than a tool and a class feature: a disposable minion to do free scouting. Also, only some people would feel anger; many would just feel grief and sadness.

Ideally, your players would roleplay their anger at their pet's death, but if your players were likely to do that, I doubt you'd have asked. If your players tend not to roleplay that deeply, you can't really do much about it, and trying to force emotions on their characters would most likely make the players angry.

If you are really bent on this, you could try some variant on the Sanity rules.


But really, if your players don't roleplay their characters so deeply, don't try forcing personalities/emotions onto the characters.

Also, if the pet was being used for something (as opposed to just hanging back and looking cool out of combat), the player would likely react to the pet's death themself, which might cause them to make their character act differently.

[TheIronGolem]

But, no, its not a players option to not get angry if their pet dies.. (or that's what i think)

You're wrong.

[Osiris]

You're giving every person in the party Barbarian Rage?:smallconfused:

Geez! You don't need to make the game more complicated!
If you do, Calm Emotions will need to give "calm points" or whatever
That's just more thinking to do, and it's unnecessary. Just take the Aggressive trait. I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend why you'd want this, or why you'd want to considerably slow the game down.

[Invader]

First I'll say imo it's a terrible idea to dictate a players mood for him.

Secondly, it's not really a very well thought out system as you give them +2 str and then a - 1 to hit so they just cancel each other out.

[Zweisteine]

Question: Are you planning to kill a character's pet, did one die and cause an unsatisfying reaction, or are you just planning for every contingency?

If you are planning to kill a character's pet, I would recommend not doing so. Aside from being unkind, you should not plan to kill players or anything/anyone that is part of their group (I don't mean not to kill them when it should happend; just don't ever plan things based on characters dying). If you are planning to kill the pet just to enrage a character, you are at the point where you are attempting to directly control PCs, which is bad. Do not try to railroad anyone to that degree, ever.

If it already happened, you could talk to the player about it, and point out that their character would probably be more emotional.

If you are just trying to be ready for everything, you could tell your players to try to treat the pet like a character (i.e. tell them to consider its presence while roleplaying). If your group doesn't roleplay with such depth, don't bother, see below.


And remember, if character personality roleplaying is already minimized in your group, don't bother, you'll just start an argument.

[Machinekng]

I like the idea of a pool of "composure" points as a resource, but I don't feel that 3.5 is the game for this mechanic. It'd be better for a more narrativist game, where role-playing and mechanics are more integrated. There's nothing wrong with having spells or effects that make characters angry, but those effects should offer will saves, so to speak. If you want to make your players play angry characters, then attack what's valuable to them. If your players like loot, have a villain destroy their "earned" loot out of spite. If a player has put effort into creating a relationship with a NPC, go after the NPC.

Whatever you do, don't just tell your players "you're angry." They won't believe you.

[Flickerdart]

I think this will not change the game too much..
This here is the problem. You're making a whole new little subsystem thing and require everyone to keep track of different points for what amounts to very little effect. If you don't enforce this, nobody will remember, and if you do, it will be a huge chore.

[Slipperychicken]

If you are really bent on this, you could try some variant on the Sanity rules.

Yeah, this was what I was going to suggest. Here's a link to the Sanity rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm).

[INoKnowNames]

Thank you for your answers. I will look more into it! But, no, its not a players option to not get angry if their pet dies.. (or that's what i think)

As a matter of fact, it is indeed the player's option to be angry or not if their pet dies. They could be sad? Bitter? Broken? Depending on their view of the afterlife, maybe even happy that their pet gets to get to the great beyond, though most likely a bit upset that they themselves didn't get to join them. Heck, given this is a game world that has plenty of it, eagerness at Necromancy ingredients is a possibility.

You might be able to engineer scenarios to attempt to manipulate characters, but You Yourself have No Right to determine what the player characters themselves feel outside of magical manipulation, and I doubt I would be the first person who would personally fight you if you attempted such a thing on any character I play.

I literally saw this out of the corner of my eye, and with just that glance felt the need to add this input to the others whom I assume would also veto this. I think this is a terrible idea.

[BWR]

If your players are ok with this, fine, but personally I'd be quite upset at this. Either you can trust me to be able to role play my character appropriately or you just want a bunch of retarded Mr. Furious. If I want to play an ice cold rogue who never lets her feeligns get the better of her, then you force me to get angry and do something stupid, I would feel you are taking control over her for no good reason.

There is nothing wrong with a 'lose control of your character' system per se. Lots of games have something similar: sanity for CoC, Humanity/frenzy for V:tM, Rage/whatever for W:tA, fear/horror/madness for Ravenloft, Taint for L5R, but these are essential parts of the game. They are important aspects of your character and important metaphysical aspects of the setting. Just adding this for no reason other than the lulz, which is the impression you give, is just pointless and would make for a less enjoyable game, imo.

[TheIronGolem]

Just adding this for no reason other than the lulz, which is the impression you give, is just pointless and would make for a less enjoyable game, imo.

In the interest of being fair to the OP, I don't think he's doing it "for the lulz". I think he just thought it would add realism but didn't stop to consider the implications.

[Slipperychicken]

If your players are ok with this

This is a pretty important part of it. You should try asking them what they think about the idea before devising a system for it.

[Faily]

I would say that this is a superfluous and needless mechanic that does not provide anything to the game.

Basically, as a player, I would feel upset that the GM tells me "your character is angry because of X", because I am actually a decent roleplayer and I decide what my character's feelings are. As the one who made the character, I know best what their feelings are.

As a GM, I trust my players to be able to invest emotions into their characters, based on my *own* performance as a GM. I didn't need to tell my players that their characters were upset when the adorable little priestess who had travelled with them for over a year out-of-the-game/over three years in-game had been assassinated. They managed to feel and portray their character's emotions because I, the GM, had done a good enough job to bring that NPC to life so they felt an attachement towards this. So, in a way, it is the GM's job to invoke feelings in the player characters, but not through adding mechanics. The GM must roleplay just as much, if not more, than the players.

[Crake]

Thank you for your answers. I will look more into it! But, no, its not a players option to not get angry if their pet dies.. (or that's what i think)

I dunno about you, but when my pet dies I feel sad, not angry.

[Kid Jake]

I'd just like to point out that if you've reached the point that you feel the need to determine the PC's reactions to the situations you've laid out for them; then the players are pretty much vestigial. Things would probably go smoother if you just played by yourself.

[The Oni]

if you're looking for a way to make your players actually get into a character, carrots work better than sticks. If they're rollplaying and not roleplaying, give out rewards for good roleplay.

It sounds like the thread got off on a tangent pretty fast, it doesn't look like the OP is suggesting controlling people's characters but rather just tweaking their stats based on a scenario - that said, Rage-For-Power has always been a mostly Barbarian thing and giving it to everyone makes Barbarians seem less interesting by comparison, yeah?

[pwykersotz]

It sounds very off the cuff. I would play with a system like this, but I would want it defined in rules. "Something bad" is not a good way to assign points. The Nature and Demeanor from Mage the Ascension might be a place to look, the things that tweak a character being directly tied to who they are.

On the other hand, I'm actually running a game right now where my friend created his own subsystem. He's been playing this character in my games for five years now, so we both know him really well. When he has an inner conflict, such as needing to face something that terrifies him in order to save his friends, he tells me that he wants to make a will save. I determine, based on the factors involved, what I think the DC would be and have him roll it. If he succeeds, he overcomes his nature and presses on. If he fails, he is unable to that round.

Naturally, this works because the player is not only complicit, but is the one who developed the system and because I know and respect his character. If you can do that, then the system could work.

[CrazyYanmega]

Assuming you are trying to get the players to Roleplay more, try talking to them about Roleplay XP. An extra 100-1000 points of experience for a snappy one-liner or fabulous strike is a great motivator.

[OldTrees1]

Sidenote: +1 str is bad design. Either a +1 str will result in a +1 str mad (equivalent of +2 str) or it will do nothing (equivalent of +0 str). So a +1 str bonus is either twice or half as powerful randomly depending on whether the character has an odd or even str. I would recommend keeping stat bonuses even.

[The Oni]

On the other hand, I'm actually running a game right now where my friend created his own subsystem. He's been playing this character in my games for five years now, so we both know him really well. When he has an inner conflict, such as needing to face something that terrifies him in order to save his friends, he tells me that he wants to make a will save. I determine, based on the factors involved, what I think the DC would be and have him roll it. If he succeeds, he overcomes his nature and presses on. If he fails, he is unable to that round.

This kind of thing is pretty common for our group too, but we're all heavy roleplayers.

[ps377]

Oho! So many answers over the night! Thanks guys!



If your players tend not to roleplay that deeply, you can't really do much about it, and trying to force emotions on their characters would most likely make the players angry.


That thought help me a lot really. If my players likes to rp, whey will do it, if not, they will not. Its true.



Question: Are you planning to kill a character's pet, did one die and cause an unsatisfying reaction, or are you just planning for every contingency?


I think its bad to plan to kill a PC or his pet..



Yeah, this was what I was going to suggest. Here's a link to the Sanity rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm).

I will look into that! Thanks!



Assuming you are trying to get the players to Roleplay more, try talking to them about Roleplay XP. An extra 100-1000 points of experience for a snappy one-liner or fabulous strike is a great motivator.

I already give xp for rp.


Conclusion, while trying to sleep last night, i thought i could use axis of calm-anger, happy-sad, and each part of it to give its own bonuses and minuses. But reading your thoughts today i decide to do nothing but reading the sanity rules and decide later.

Thanks a lot for your reply!

[lunar2]

if you're looking for a way to make your players actually get into a character, carrots work better than sticks. If they're rollplaying and not roleplaying, give out rewards for good roleplay.

It sounds like the thread got off on a tangent pretty fast, it doesn't look like the OP is suggesting controlling people's characters but rather just tweaking their stats based on a scenario - that said, Rage-For-Power has always been a mostly Barbarian thing and giving it to everyone makes Barbarians seem less interesting by comparison, yeah?

it's not even just that. like i pointed out before, some characters don't want the modifiers associated with anger, so it's doubly bad to tell the weapon finesse rogue when he's angry. 1 because you are trying to control his character, which is an automatic no, and 2 because the modifiers are an arbitrary nerf to his character.

[TuggyNE]

Conclusion, while trying to sleep last night, i thought i could use axis of calm-anger, happy-sad, and each part of it to give its own bonuses and minuses. But reading your thoughts today i decide to do nothing but reading the sanity rules and decide later.

A wise decision. The best way to change the rules is not to change the rules. *monkish expression*

[Fouredged Sword]

IF you where to implement this kind of system, I would make it adaptable and broad, with a focus on positive character interactions.

I would make it so characters are rewarded for roleplaying, with minor bonuses for expressing emotion during play.

Lets break down the boost into three groups.

Anger, Drive, and Grit.

Expressing relevant emotion and roleplaying the results offers minor bonuses, in the force of moral bonuses to various things. These bonuses have tiers (Minor, major, and epic) and increase in effectiveness as the player roleplays more.

Anger is focused on strength. A character can get angry when they feel wronged by a target or event. It grants a +1 per tier bonus to damage rolls, strength checks, and temporarily lowers the effects of fatigue on your character. (Minor anger halves the penalties of fatigue for an encounter, Major anger also halves the penalties for exhaustion, Epic anger ignores fatigued and takes half the fatigued penalties for exhausted. This does not remove the conditions, and you character can still fall unconscious if effects are stacked), as well as +Tier to willsaves

Drive is the focus of dexterity. This can be claimed when a party member feels that they have a vitally important goal is at stake. It adds +1 per tier to attack rolls, dexterity checks, A bonus to reflex saves, and as a moral bonus to defense.

Grit is the focus of constitution. This can be claimed when a party member feel like their character cannot afford to loose. It grants 5X tier Hp added to the character's total HP (not temp HP, can kill a character when they vanish), +tier to con ability and skill checks, and +tier to fortitude saves. It also adds +5 per level extra negative HP required before the character dies.

A character can choose to gain 1 tier of focus at first level, and one additional level of focus per 6 character levels (2 at 6th, 3 at 12th, and 4 at 18th).

A character must have a goal in mind when claiming a focus level. Failing this goal causes emotional backlash called loss. Loss is a negative focus that effects the next few encounters. Loss lasts the number of tiers a character had claimed worth of encounters, and causes a penalty on all rolls equal to the highest tier claimed during the encounter that caused the loss.

So, Biff the 18th level fighter is fighting his nemesis who killed his wife for the artifact needed to ether revive the lost wife or destroy the kingdom.

Biff chooses to claim some focus to give him an edge in the fight. He gives a cool speech about the emotions raging through Biff, then claimed minor anger, minor focus, and major grit, because Biff is still angry at his opponent about the loss of his wife, and wants to succeed and bring her back, but his greatest duty is to the survival of the kingdom and everyone in it, so not loosing is his primary drive. He gains ALL the bonuses from the various focuses he claims.

If he failed his tasks, he would suffer loss for the next four encounters he was in, and he would suffer -2 to all rolls for those encounters as he would be crippled by the loss of his kingdom, the renewed failure of saving his wife, and the bitter defeat from his hated foe.

[Vhaidara]

...That actually sounds like a really cool idea.

[Slipperychicken]

Conclusion, while trying to sleep last night, i thought i could use axis of calm-anger, happy-sad, and each part of it to give its own bonuses and minuses.

So basically using a chart like these?

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v17/17578f01.gif
http://img.springerimages.com/Images/Springer/JOU=11042/VOL=2010.47/ISU=3/ART=2009_332/MediaObjects/WATER_11042_2009_332_Fig1_HTML.jpg

[There are a number of models for how emotions and cognition work, and the ones I've seen are all pretty cool. These charts just reflect a two-dimensional model for emotions.]

[Phelix-Mu]

Horror and frustration are more easily implemented as an atmosphere than a subsystem. Players often react to the story and telescope that emotion into their character. Create a dynamic in the story that is frustrating, and it's fairly likely that characters will begin to feel frustrated (though maybe not at ideal times nor in the ways anticipated, but that's all part of the fun). Encourage players to have their characters express their emotions in-game with quirks or outbursts (within boundaries, ofc), and if the players are up for it and it fits their concepts, you can usually get some of the desired effect going.

Anyway, the soft hand is much more useful as a DM than the beatstick. Players see the beatstick coming and dodge; the soft hand guides the group unseen and unknown, and, if you are lucky, the pcs end up thinking it was all down to them that everything went well or didn't.