Cos sometimes it's a feature, and sometimes it's a bug.

What's the game about? What do the traits do? How do they interact with other system elements? Often trait systems only work if the conflicts the game is about make them matter, and if you use them outside those situations the whole thing feels false. This is why lots of such games say "only roll if it's important", nd then define what important is.

For example, Covenant's traits system. It only works if the characters are put in tense conflicts with people they care about, and the game is geared to hit those conflicts. Because otherwise, yeah, you'll just crowbar in " armed and dangerous" all the time cos it doesn't mater. But if it's your sister? Your mother? Your superior? Suddenly bringing in that trait says something about your character.

Because often in story games, it's not about winning. Winning is tangential to the wringer you're putting your character through and the narrative consequences thereof...

-Matt

Realms Publishing

In my own experience, yes, it is something I have noted and I don't think it is exclusive to convention play.

As people playing a game we have a subconscious desire to 'win', even in a game that is all about the story and the cool stuff that happens. So, we try to stack the odds in our favour, regardless of how nonsensical bringing certain things in. If you really want your character to battle through and succeed, it's a natural reaction to want to have as good a chance of doing this as possible.

There was a discussion on RPGnet recently about using traits in Cold City. The original poster commented that most of the time, his group would bring in 3 - 4 traits for their characters in any given situation. This actually surprised me, because my own experience is that the normal level is 1- 2. Now, perhaps as a GM, I influence this by asking "OK, so how does that apply to this situation, could you tell us a little bit about how you're bringing that into play?" on occasion. I've no problem with people using a whole heap of traits, but I would like them to be justified within the context of the game.

I think that it just boils down to, in the heat of the moment, wanting to 'win'. Sometimes that might be regardless of the coolness factor of a win in the story. Sometimes it's cooler to fail. But, a lot of the time, I think we get carried on with the moment and want to be part of heroic success.

Cheers
Malc

edit: posted at exactly the same time as Matt, who i also feel makes some very good points.

Contested Ground Studios

Maybe Joe can explain it in terms of the FUNnel model? Traits works best when people enjoy their fun one way rather than another.

One solution is to have traits that can only be activated in limited ways, or at a certain frequency or a set number of times. Also its possible that all activated traits are risked in some way in the conflict. Certainly, activated traits commonly affect the consequences of the conflict (this is often thematically the case and sometimes enforced mechanically too).

And after demoing for seven years at conventions, and running a home game for the last 6 months, its seriously put me off running the game. I've got tired of arguing the toss with players who don't bother narrating their actions and try to add as many in. Even having a 'only one' trait per roll rule doesn't work since the little buggers argue that they normally do multi-traiting, or the rules say they can. I especially like the players who declare their action and after a long list of traits mumble in inappropriate traits right at the end, hoping that I won't be bothered to challenged them.

Saying that I do go with the fun factor, so if a big overbloated Trait (or Augmented) roll is fun for everyone I go with it.

Also there is the Traditional GM tactic of getting Trait-cheaters back latter, with the big bad ass with a ton of reasonably thought out traits. That tends to send the message through. If you are going to make the game less fun for me through Trait whoring, I can make the game even less fun for you. Which kinda ties Trait whoring in with the whole issue of games needing mutual respect to be fun (which I guess is whole other issue).

I picked up a certain amount of this during the BW game at Furnace, with a certain player (not you) who I had to challenge several times for multitraiting and over FoRking (not to mention just sliping some dice into his pool thinking I woundn't notice). This game it is easy to stamp down hard on since the game does have very hard limits.

Based mainly on my HeroQuest experience for Monkey I've gone down the limiting traits adding to skill rolls (or card draws in this case) to one per draw and only if the player can weave it into the narrative of their action. Its not perfect and still revolves around mutal respect but its alot easier to police if it gets out of hand. I did notice a certain amount of 'lazy' trait adding during the Game we played in at Furnace, but I let it slide since people were having fun and were new to the game.

Thanks for raising this though Neil. I was just considering adding a Traits system to SimpleQuest, a BRP like game I'm building from the MRQ SRD. This has made me think in detail about whether or not this a good idea. I've come to the conclusion its not.

Regards

;O)Newt
D101games -An Imaginary Company

We call this "banjoing", a term I got from Scott. Apparently a player in his Dogs game was losing an argument with the steward of a town, so he decided to pull out his banjo and play a heart wrenching ballad to win the guy over...

Yes, it happens. Some games seem to lend themselves to it, but generally if the game (either legislated in rules or simply enforced by the GM) requires player to justify the use of traits (as Malcolm describes in his post) people tend to reign that in somewhat.

Also, harsh looks from the GM work, but then if the text of the game doesn't explain this explicitly, how's the GM supposed to know that such behaviour is to be frowned upon?

Interesting that it was in a Dogs game then, as that has explicit rules that if any player thinks a trait is being used badly, then it can't be used.

But yeah, some kind of checks and balances for what is appropriate is needed.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

There's a lot of GM force going on there!

[Oh, I thought he was going to hit the Steward with the banjo, as that's what Glaswegians think "banjoing" means.]

Yet another reply swallowed by the forum software.

Basically: I wasn't there for that incident. I rather get the impression that none of the other players present were impressed by the guys behaviour. He has a bit of a rep for shit like that, apparently. It's a case of the GM talking for the players, rather than the GM forcing them to do or not do something.

Expand that a little, would you?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate." -- Gun'N'Roses, Civil War

What I think I see is that one of the participants (the GM) is dissatisfied with the inclusion of traits from the other participants (the players). But we don't seem to have a dialogue on it, instead we have some (traditional, historical) ways of dealing with it.

"Also there is the ... tactic of getting Trait-cheaters back latter, with the big bad ass with a ton of ... traits."

"If you are going to make the game less fun for me ... I can make the game even less fun for you."

"...it is easy to stamp down hard on (players) since the game does have very hard limits."

"... harsh looks from the GM work."

Why are the players doing it? What is dissatisfying to the players that they feel the need to drag in other traits? Just to win? Because they feel they have to to take down the "bad ass"? Just because that's what they like: winning?

It seems to me that these problems stem out of a breakdown in what the GM and players want out of the game. For players who are happy not to crowbar in traits the GM doesn't stamp down on them because there is a common ground on what is and isn't acceptable.

That's what I was seeing in the reactions to the players breaking the (unspoken) contract to not crowbar things in.

[But, yes, this is a bigger topic than traits.]

Is Trait whoring bad? I'd say whoring in general is inevitable. I'll go with the banjoing terminology, since I'm still confused by Glaswegian...

If mechanics reward banjoing in traits then players will be encouraged for banjoing behaviour and it will increase.

So you need to solve it with a mechanic - usually the catch all fixes of GM fiat or relegation to social contract level. If you don't want trait banjoing limit it mechanically.

I was not aware of that rule in Dogs in the Vineyard but it seems like a reasonable distributed fiat mechanic.

Cos Gregor asked nicely...

In FUNnel model terms the (over)use of traits usually falls into gaming fun, it's a good strategy to use as many as possible. Some sort of trait depletion system adds another layer of resource management.

From an exploration based fun, traits use will still probably be maximised as it's the most effective way for players and characters to explore the setting.

Narratively traits are a bit problematic in that they don't add much to the plot after the first time they are used. Traits do however act as character flags and help reinforce aspects of a character. Players seeking mainly narrative fun have little to gain from banjoing - changing traits are much more important.

Immersion centred fun tends to operate at a very different level than the mechanical rewards of a trait system. Immersion fun, however is to see traits as character flags giving anchors to immerse. Sometimes, these can be overused which will look like banjoing but is delivered in-character. Ultimately immersion fun probably won't be reinforced by narrative advantage (unless playing a high status character) so is unlikely to result in enduring banjoing.

Unity is the key to managing what is considered excessive trait use. Of course solid mechanics specifying the fiat or guiding the social contract can help considerably!

Keep smiling, because as pointed out above by Newt you gotta go with the fun. If you're smiling about trait use go with it!

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

{P*ssfl*ps, I crossposted with Joe who basically said what I wanted to say only better}

I thought that might be what you were getting at. The problem is, that's not what I was getting at.

The GM has a lot of jobs, but one is (usually) to teach the game to the players. He says "You can all traits" and the players will do that, they'll use them all, all the time. If they say "You can use any traits as long as it makes sense within the fiction of the game" that's a very subjective statement. Which is one of the many reasons I think that type of game design is problematic, because you can either get into all kinds of arbitrary, fiat driven bollocks or argue in a "yes it does/no it doesn't" cycle and someone gets pissed off that the decision didn't go their way.

A lot of games have dealt with this in different ways. Like PtA limits the uses of traits and makes people less likely to pull just any old thing in all the time. Mortal Coil limits players to one Trait and gives the advantage to the character with the more specific trait (so Swordsman has the edge over Soldier).

Heroquest is (for me) the most problematic of such systems, purely because is kinda-sorta encourages a lot of things without being terribly explicit about them and straddles the trad/hippy line. Which I think is just a function of it's age more than anything and certainly doesn't make it a bad system. I've had a whale of a time playing HQ and banjoing like a motherfucker. We spent 10 minutes getting all the bonus thingies worked out for one conflict, it was a riot.

On the other hand, I could be talking utter shite.

...but my response wasn't to your post, Rich.

I think your "harsh looks" at a player are an attempt to communicate the disgareement about the addition of traits against what is accepted.

And I like Joe's FUNnel analysis of where the fun is.

It's "Harsh look as teaching tool", which is quite possibly not the best teaching tool in the box. "No, that's not how this game is meant to be played." But the chances of the other player in the group actually reading the rulebook are pretty slim in most of the groups I've been part of, so you have to make do.

Regardless of what the game's text might say, 90% of the time it's the GM who teaches the game to the group. In a GMless game it's the bloke who bought the book. Like it or not, games are usually taught in this way.

Smeaton talks sense...

As the Gruniad explains: "(To banjo is Scottish slang for to hit someone as hard as you can.)"

Traits we banned from Dogs and other such games:
- Lucky
- Intuitive Leap
- Inconspicuous Interrogation

Equally powerful trait we didn't mind:
- "Well, I'm not sure about that"

That's Scottish? Used to hear it all the time around here. I always thought it originated in those old Disney cartoons where one character would invariably hit the other over the head with the musical instrument they had hitherto been playing, often a guitar or banjo (especially if it's a hick musician.)

Incidentally, one bloke I know is writing a system that relies on this method for its skill system. The basics are you get a number of cards equal to your statistic, plus one for each skill that you can persuade the GM is relevant. Since the system was designed as a homebrew to play the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy with, and is being further developed as a riotous comedy-style game, it actually works quite well. I couldn't see it working too well in a serious game, though.

Ash

I ran my developing Wordplay RPG at Furnace, which includes an option for supporting traits. Players can pick out two pertinent supporting traits to provide a bonus to the 'lead trait' which carries the core responsibility of winning the challenge.

However contests were structured in HeroQuest, I always found that the augment hunting was crushingly tedious and, for a narrative game, took players away from the game situation moment into a world of 'bonus seeking' without much thought on the trait's applicability to the contest.

I liked the idea behind augmenting and decided to use something similar in Wordplay. My current 'solution' is to limit the number of supports available in the rules. Not revolutionary, but I have found so far that players are content to provide a couple of supports with a reason for their inclusion. Game flow was not compromised, and the supporting traits used said something extra about the motivation and individuality of the character. A Guide limited number of other players can provide one supporting trait each to help a player character.

I'm not sure if it provides the effect I want yet, but it works and the game isn't halted too much with people scowering their character sheets for endless small bonuses.

First Age
http://www.rpgfurnace.com

Thanks for all these great replies. They have really given me some food for thought. I'll fess up now about the reason for the post - it was all about that 'win at all costs' attitude.

I was talking to one of my D&H playtest group about the Challenge/Mission system on Wednesday and he seemed a little non-plussed that if, for example, you have to defeat someone in a 4 challenge mission you CANNOT defeat them in the first challenge. It's not allowed. Your challenge either has to narrate a roadbump en route to defeating him, an escape on his part or dealing with some other problem that he has put in the way.

The way I explained it was that using that system you aren't 'killing him and taking his stuff' - you are 'building a story and taking his stuff'. It precipitates a 'beginning, middle and end' structure. It struck me that this sort of self-inflicted 'failure' might jar with some people and that brought trait-whoring/banjoing/whatever to mind - the practice of people in so-called 'story games' shoe-horning non-relevant traits into conflicts for no reason other than to increase their chances of winning.

Lots to think about. Many thanks

Neil

Actually from the exellent movie Cool Hand Luke and sampled for some dodgy rock band track some years later... ;)

Back on track... one of my favourite peeves about HQ and other similar games is the rampant Trait Whoring. Apart from anything else, the game grinds to a halt while some munchkin rifles through his character sheet for every last augment, every time they have an action.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of "pick the best tool for the job" type system. UA is fairly woolly for example (with skill penumbras and such), but you'd pick either "Banjo People" or "Kick them in the nuts" - whichever was better and roll them bones.

I've never really seen any people really try to justify their "augments" and when some folk do put in a bit of effort, you've got six people all justifying three or four traits each and its half an hour later before anything has happened.

Its not just traits though, some players just want to "win" and even "good" players look for advantages. I can't count the number of times someone wants to jump into a fight by "getting behind the baddie". Just because your mate punched him, doesn't mean he's ignoring you.

Yes, you can have your +1 ganging up bonus.

If you're going to have a bunch of traits your players can whore from (because some will) then you're best making it limited or your game will be like running through treacle.

Gaz

PS. Sorry if its a bit late in replying, but that Kenrick fella got me interested so I've been poking around the threads now...

I think one of the problems we hit with our Dogs game was inadvertant trait whoring by Oliver. Of course, the rules stop that by making you narrate traits in one by one, but I'd either misread that bit or didn't stamp on him enough.

I know the only time I've played HQ, the game has been marred by trait whoring, with over-eager players looking down at their character sheets like it's a shopping list for the conflict.

Graham's WordPlay system seemed to overcome this by limiting traits, and I've seen similar restrictions used to good effect.

...about traits, is if you limit their use, they effectively become stats hidden behind a layer of text.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I suppose for the most case they are just that, a +1 or a +2 stat or skill.

What if you don't limit their use? What do they become then? (apart from a pain, perhaps ;-)

...when you have a system where traits are binary in nature then bringing in more than one trait is vital to ensure that more talented characters have greater value in a conflict they excel at.

For example, in Cyberpunk I might have Streetwise 7 when you only have Streetwise 2.

In a trait system we both might have "Streetwise". I might additionally have "Can get illegal stuff at the drop of a hat" and "Knows the street like the back of his hand".

Dogs solves this by having Traits have a numerical value.

Bringing in more and more traits can be viewed as bringing in more and more Skills in a task-resolution system, which is where the difficulty lies. And what is the scope of the conflict?

Edit: somewhat cross-posted with Matt.

The trouble with free-use traits is that people can and will use them for anything they can, which is both th attraction and the downfall. Having "Lucky" can be used everywhere, but its not very imginative. Similarly other, similar broad traits will be used to regularly as to make them redundant as individual items. You might as well have +1 to everything.

In order to stop Trait whoring and allow for specialist situations where your character can come into his own I quite like the WW system with specialities. You can't use your speciality with a variety of skills so its not as flexible, but because its not flexible, there's no trait whoring going on. You have to use your "Handgun" speciality with Firearms. In other games "Put a cap in someone's ass" could be used with all Firearms or argued by a player that he's doing it metaphorically to verbally shoot someone down.

You need barriers in the game, because it is a game and players will look for an edge.

I'd have to read up again on nWoD, but as a generic WW thing, having (up to three) specialities in each skill and one for attributes that are exceptional gives you the tack-on extra bonuses in teh right circumstances, without resorting to player shopping-list style scrounges for their "plus ones".

Most trait games like HQ, Dogs etc can end up with a big Ven diagram of traits that overlap in myriad ways and only serve to stymie swift play.

G.

...um, I think that often when someone is viewed as whoring in traits that we're losing focus on the conflict at hand. Y'now?

Anyone can say "no" don't bring that in. In some ways a lot of traits that are seen as whoring are perfectly valid for follow-up conflicts, but perhaps not the one right now, in this roll. Roll your victories over into follow-up conflicts and then bring in that other trait, etc.

Players who see all traits as plus ones and will bring them in regardless of the effect that has on the fiction or the social contract can go screw themselves. I do not want to write a game that satisfies that crowd. It's not my thing.