Roleplaying Mechanics - The Value Test [Mechanics for Roleplaying instead of no mechanics]

[PerfectPathways]

Hello! I have been looking for a mechanic like this in many, many games for quite some time, and I have not found any besides a few. I am here to present my example mechanic, trying to accomplish something I haven't seen anyone do. Previously, in other forums and locations, I explored the idea of mechanizing roleplaying to incentivize and shape character behavior, rather than relying purely on player choice. Games like Pendragon, Burning Wheel, and Exalted have implemented similar ideas of mechanics (mostly Pendragon), but I found most fell short either by being too restrictive or lacking meaningful consequences. My main question was: Can roleplaying mechanics be effectively applied in a generic system without undermining character agency? I argued that while these mechanics work well in genre-specific games, like Pendragon’s Arthurian setting, they often feel inadequate when applied to more open, sandbox-style systems like D&D or generic settings. After much thought, I’ve developed a mechanic of my own that addresses these concerns, blending roleplaying incentives with character consistency. Here's what I've come up with:

Identity mechanics v4

In short, each character has five core Values that represent aspects of their personality and worldview. These Values are rated from 0% to 100% and categorized as Weak, Moderate, Strong, or Defining, based on their importance to the character. These Values can motivate actions, create internal conflict, and influence how a character grows over time.

Each of these Values are refined with a corresponding Value Statement that reflects how the character views that Value. For example, a character with Loyalty might have the statement: "I will always stand by my friends, no matter the cost." These Values are often tested against one another, and whenever that happens, the player may choose to align with the winning Value, or resist it. In either case, the Character grows from the change.

I'd love to get feedback on this mechanic - However, I am explicitly Not looking for "This is dumb and I would never play this game" or "This mechanic is stupid" - I understand those arguments, and I disagree with them enough I don't want to rehash them here.

What I am looking for is:

1. Do you feel the Values themselves are varied enough that you can envision any potential Value statements as belonging in these categories? - Do you think any should be split apart into more Values?
2. Is the system too restrictive or prescriptive? Does it hinder roleplaying flexibility, or does it provide enough room for player agency?
3. Are the rules for Value Tests and how they affect gameplay clear and easy to understand?

3.1 Is the process for defining and using Values straightforward, or does it need more clarification or examples?
3.2 How do you feel about the progression and growth of Values over time? Does it seem like a natural development of character?

Thank you very much for reading!

(As an example, here is the list of games I have found that attempt to do something similar: Avatar Legends, Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, Masks, Monsterhearts, Burning Wheel/Mouseguard/Torchbearer, Heart/Spire, Worlds/Chronicles of Darkness with Vampires, Cortex Prime, Exalted, L5R 1-4e, Legends of the Wulin, some of the Year Zero Engine games, Hillfolk, Genesys, Unkown Armies, Heart/Spire with their Beat system, Shadows of Yesterday/Ladyblackbird's Keys, Passions from Runequest/Mythras, and my personal favorite - Riddle of Steel. I think that all of these have some great ideas, but they honestly aren't able to do what I'd like them to do).

 

[Theory of Games]

How is this any different than D&D 5e's traits, bonds, ideals and flaws? Looks identical in function.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/personality-and-background#PersonalCharacteristics

 

[GMMichael]

I'll look at a TL;DR of this. Not because I'm lazy (this time), but because if you can't reduce the idea down to something digestible or easily conveyed, then it's too complex for me and possibly for the Roleplaying Masses.

 

[PerfectPathways]

How is this any different than D&D 5e's traits, bonds, ideals and flaws? Looks identical in function.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/personality-and-background#PersonalCharacteristics

Well, for one it actually does something innate to the system instead of relying entirely on the GM to handle everything, along with giving specifics for the player to base their choices on, so that they can make informed decisions.

It does so by having a set of Values that are defined by the player, that then have an understandable application, and tie into the system itself, via progression and enhancing the character's abilities if they're acting according to their ideals. This is primarily handled on a player baseline, rather than vague guidelines for the GM to "just hand out Inspiration...whenever you feel like it?"

I'll look at a TL;DR of this. Not because I'm lazy (this time), but because if you can't reduce the idea down to something digestible or easily conveyed, then it's too complex for me and possibly for the Roleplaying Masses.

Characters have a set of Values that enhance who they are, while guiding their actions mechanically - they gain XP for aligning with these ideals, or growing and changing.

 

[Theory of Games]

Well, for one it actually does something innate to the system instead of relying entirely on the GM to handle everything, along with giving specifics for the player to base their choices on, so that they can make informed decisions.

It does so by having a set of Values that are defined by the player, that then have an understandable application, and tie into the system itself, via progression and enhancing the character's abilities if they're acting according to their ideals. This is primarily handled on a player baseline, rather than vague guidelines for the GM to "just hand out Inspiration...whenever you feel like it?"


Characters have a set of Values that enhance who they are, while guiding their actions mechanically - they gain XP for aligning with these ideals, or growing and changing.

You just described how DnD 5e Backgrounds work. I'm not seeing any difference.

 

[PerfectPathways]

You just described how DnD 5e Backgrounds work. I'm not seeing any difference.

I did not. DnD 5e Backgrounds provide minor mechanical benefits - they in themselves do not mechanically prescribe your specific actions, nor do they cause any intentional inner conflict, neither do the backgrounds provide bonuses if you follow the background itself, just an ability that you can use that might be associated. And a lot of that is purely GM fiat if it works. As an example, Researcher, from the Sage background, is incredibly vague as to what kind of information it actually supports you learning - it's entirely based around "Mother May I" style mechanics.

 

[payn]

Is the system too restrictive or prescriptive? Does it hinder roleplaying flexibility, or does it provide enough room for player agency?

It might be too restrictive. I could see a bit of "does my character do A or B? Does my character go left or right? Well, the dice decide!" Though if I get the gist of this, its meant for trying moments of intensity and not every choice before a character. Sort of like that 90's show Herman's Head, only its every character in this particular RPG.

1. Are the rules for Value Tests and how they affect gameplay clear and easy to understand?

Not really. The system seems rather complex, not a bad thing itself, but its difficult to parse this and get an idea of what its going to look like when I engage it. Thats a single read through so take that for what its worth.

Reading again, I see that the player does have choice to disregard the dice, changing my thoughts above. Not sure exactly what going against the grain means for the character and their development. I mean, other than the percentages sliding around between the values.

3.1 Is the process for defining and using Values straightforward, or does it need more clarification or examples?

With a system like this, examples are going to be king. Like 5E BIFTs I think the personal statements for the characters isnt something thats going to be well known among the player, GM, and rest of table. Unlike 5E BIFTs, there is an actual structure that makes the statements matter, its just tough to follow for the group. On one hand, this makes for an excellent smaller group RPG, but the more folks you have the less engaging this going to be for everyone. See Herman's Head example only every character on the show will have their own personality people in their head.

3.2 How do you feel about the progression and growth of Values over time? Does it seem like a natural development of character?

Yes and no. We are shaped by moments everyday that help us form our personality and make our choices. Is it this process something that could be represented mechanically? I think the process will seem the same, but it wont be as organic. Id have to see it in play, but I know a few folks that see numbers and instantly start meta-gaming the crap out of it. The character becomes a caricature in such instance, so guide rails against such are a good idea to have.

Thank you very much for reading!

No, thank you for posting.

 

[Pedantic]

I think you could use more clarification about precisely what should prompt a Value test in the first place. Right now it's largely entirely up to the GM, with some potential input from the player. I think you want more clarity around frequency, the scale of an event that should require value alignment, and maybe some consideration to at the table pacing, as you're effectively doubling the resolution time relevant skill checks when they come up.

 

[PerfectPathways]

It might be too restrictive. I could see a bit of "does my character do A or B? Does my character go left or right? Well, the dice decide!" Though if I get the gist of this, its meant for trying moments of intensity and not every choice before a character. Sort of like that 90's show Herman's Head, only its every character in this particular RPG.


Not really. The system seems rather complex, not a bad thing itself, but its difficult to parse this and get an idea of what its going to look like when I engage it. Thats a single read through so take that for what its worth.

Reading again, I see that the player does have choice to disregard the dice, changing my thoughts above. Not sure exactly what going against the grain means for the character and their development. I mean, other than the percentages sliding around between the values.

With a system like this, examples are going to be king. Like 5E BIFTs I think the personal statements for the characters isnt something thats going to be well known among the player, GM, and rest of table. Unlike 5E BIFTs, there is an actual structure that makes the statements matter, its just tough to follow for the group. On one hand, this makes for an excellent smaller group RPG, but the more folks you have the less engaging this going to be for everyone. See Herman's Head example only every character on the show will have their own personality people in their head.

Yes and no. We are shaped by moments everyday that help us form our personality and make our choices. Is it this process something that could be represented mechanically? I think the process will seem the same, but it wont be as organic. Id have to see it in play, but I know a few folks that see numbers and instantly start meta-gaming the crap out of it. The character becomes a caricature in such instance, so guide rails against such are a good idea to have.

No, thank you for posting.

Thank you very much for the feedback!

0. Yes - it is intended primarily as a "dilemma engine" that will shape your Character through their choices and actions - it doesn't really matter if you go left or right, but in a moment of crisis, if your Character chooses to save the princess or save the king, that's an interesting choice, and a moment where your Character should go towards whatever they've done so far in their lives.


1. Okay, that's great feedback - is there anything specifically that stands out as hard to parse, or is it the entire document itself?
1.1 Primarily, Characters going against the grain represents them losing out on a bonus that they previously would have gotten, so they're not as 'strong' as if they had aligned - it's designed to push the Character towards staying true to who they are, but not overtly punish them if they stray too far, or try to change their ways.

3.1 This is intentionally designed for a smaller, more focused group - I think more than 4 players is stretching it, but with 5 players who are all locked in on the idea and game could probably make it work. I'll note your feedback on the more examples, I wasn't sure if adding more would essentially "wall-in" possible ways to interpret the different Values.

3.2 So, that's sort of my goal: If players see the numbers, and start metagaming, isn't it simple to say that they're roleplaying (be it cardboard cut outs), but they're roleplaying none the less? And shouldn't that be rewarded? I think so, that's what I'm trying to do here. Reward Characters for being Characters.

I think you could use more clarification about precisely what should prompt a Value test in the first place. Right now it's largely entirely up to the GM, with some potential input from the player. I think you want more clarity around frequency, the scale of an event that should require value alignment, and maybe some consideration to at the table pacing, as you're effectively doubling the resolution time relevant skill checks when they come up.

Thank you so much! I'll try to focus in more on that, it was something I wasn't the most sure how to write it out without seeming super restrictive, or too vague. Those are great guidelines, thank you so much!

 

[payn]

Thank you very much for the feedback!

0. Yes - it is intended primarily as a "dilemma engine" that will shape your Character through their choices and actions - it doesn't really matter if you go left or right, but in a moment of crisis, if your Character chooses to save the princess or save the king, that's an interesting choice, and a moment where your Character should go towards whatever they've done so far in their lives.


1. Okay, that's great feedback - is there anything specifically that stands out as hard to parse, or is it the entire document itself?

That 9.5 font makes my old man eyes sad. Though, I think the design goals section is great and wish the rest of the document was more "chunked" as we communicators like to say. Any time you can get away with bullet points or single sentences, you should do so. Im not saying the entire thing should read like a sushi menu, but its pretty dense in the body as is.

1.1 Primarily, Characters going against the grain represents them losing out on a bonus that they previously would have gotten, so they're not as 'strong' as if they had aligned - it's designed to push the Character towards staying true to who they are, but not overtly punish them if they stray too far, or try to change their ways.

Hmm, I see a bit about keeping characters consistent, but what about characters who are not consistent? Im not sure why reinforcing and staying true are things to be rewarded any more than changing with the wind? This was one of the the things folks hate about alignment so much is that mechanical penalties took effect if you didnt stay "true". I understand you are trying to lay a more structured foundation here, but this is where it feels restrictive.

I like the Mass Effect video games and how they had the paragon and renegade system. Leaning one way or another opens up interesting options and pathways to follow. Though, its entirely up to the player to choose. Not sure how to translate that into what you are doing, but I think the answer to agency lies somewhere in that example.

3.1 This is intentionally designed for a smaller, more focused group - I think more than 4 players is stretching it, but with 5 players who are all locked in on the idea and game could probably make it work. I'll note your feedback on the more examples, I wasn't sure if adding more would essentially "wall-in" possible ways to interpret the different Values.

Thats the rub with a system like this. Folks are going to be begging for the walls to guide them. Its also the big debate D&D has been waging for decades. Hands off the social pillar, or add mechanics to aid roleplaying? Seems you are trying to bridge the gap. Speaking of which, is this sytem meant to be largely narrative? Is this values system the be all of it? Or will there be a detailed section on combat and equipment, etc..?

3.2 So, that's sort of my goal: If players see the numbers, and start metagaming, isn't it simple to say that they're roleplaying (be it cardboard cut outs), but they're roleplaying none the less? And shouldn't that be rewarded? I think so, that's what I'm trying to do here. Reward Characters for being Characters.

Well, I think there is a difference between a caricature and a character. Latter is nuanced and complex, the former is simple and predictable. Though, that philosophy and debate is an old one. For example, I dont like experience points. I feel like they dictate behavior and decision making to the point the game becomes purely mechanical and meta. So, I prefer a more ambiguous free flowing system. For example, having rules on how to pick locks and sneak around tell me what the rogue tool kit is. I dont need the mechanics to tell me to do those things to achieve advancement of my character. I leave that up to resolving the adventure itself as my milestone.

That is to say I know folks who cant enjoy the game as a player without those mechanical guiderails. So, its a matter of taste, and definitely something to highlight in your document. I think a designer revealing the concepts nakedly is one of the top priorities they should have.