Yeah, I must admit I lean quite heavily into the internal monologue approach to internal conflict, but I think it is probably better for a game in general to actually externalise that internal conflict. Talk to another character, do something demonstrative and explain your reasoning as you do it. Of course, as a repressed Englishman, this approach should definitely not be allowed to enter real life 
Systems That Drive Toward Inner Conflict
4 Likes
The great thing about games is that there are always so many ways to do they same thing and they are as different as the players at the table!
I will share my biases for being (personally) less inclined towards showing inner state via dialog:
- I am not confident in my dialog abilities. It is something I am working on, but it means having those kinds of scenes you mention tend to be ones I don’t naturally create for my characters. (Though as a GM, especially in Monsterhearts, I will happily make those scenes happen for player characters.)
- I love that in this medium we can do things that can’t be done in film well: get into the actual inner thoughts of characters - either by monologs or just saying what our character is feeling can give our audience (ie our fellow players) so much rich information about our character.
- I don’t do it as much as I would like, but I adore players who can show their inner conflicts through how their character is behaving or perhaps even through their clothing. I recently played in a game where at the tail end one character was wearing a blue dress and that had so much import - and foreshadowed something to come.
- I also just love that we as players through internal monologs or the like can give meaningful information to the other players that either let’s them know our character is going to be doing a thing or perhaps wants something allowing the other players to better position their characters for drama in the future.
6 Likes
Me too! I tend to give a snippet of in character dialogue before shifting to third-person summary of what my character expresses. Something like:
He just breaks down. He explains how the quest has been wearing him down but he didn’t want to let it show. He doesn’t want to let you down, but he can’t keep going. He lets all out and then looks you in the eyes and says: “Sorry, I’m done”.
3 Likes
I really like how Masks supports this kind of externalizing of inner conflict. I think my favorite move in the game is:
COMFORT OR SUPPORT
When you comfort or support someone, roll + Mundane. On a hit, they hear you: they mark potential, clear a condition, or shift Labels if they open up to you. On a 10+, you can also add a Team to the pool or clear a condition yourself.
It gives such a strong mechanical incentive to bring out your inner conflict to another player character. On the other hand, I think the adult move empathize is really strange:
Empathize
When you openly empathize with someone, roll + Mundane. On a hit, they must reveal a vulnerability or mark a condition. On a 10+, take Influence over them as well.
5 Likes
I know what you mean. I love the comfort and support move. I think that giving comfort and support feels like a more overt action than simply empathising. Maybe that is part of it (also being able to potentially clear a condition yourself for it is very incentivising!)
3 Likes
I was also thinking of Masks and the team moves, especially the “share a vulnerability” one. Because I can see that go into Inner Conflict very easily. And it’s not just Inner Conflict that involves the conflicted person, no, they have to rope another one into that, and that’s even cooler.
2 Likes
A new system to add to the list: For the Queen.
The prompts on the cards establish that you feel certain ways about the Queen or have a complex history with her. When the game ends and the final card asks if you defend the queen, the context for your decision is tied you responses to the card prompts.
I haven’t played it yet (though I’ve gotten my copy) but I listened to a great actual play this morning. https://twitter.com/i/status/1143990094937722880
I loved that there was very little “I attempt to do X” that you would see in a more traditional rpg, and (I think) no dialogue, which made it stand out from most improv-intensive story games I’ve played. The pace reminded me of The Quiet Year, but dealing with inner monologue (or retelling of past events) instead of third person narration.
In Red Markets, every character has Tough/Soft/Weak Spot, that complicates the economic drive underpinning the Player Characters. In RM everyone is explicitly out to make money and survive and improve their lives in a world of scarcity and horror - the spots cause tensions for that simple drive of materialism.
The GM gets to use these to mess with you, or you can mess with yourself to get a Will (The metacurrency that allows you to change failed dice rolls into successes). Spots are ultimately a tag attached to your character’s personality.
Your Weak Spot is a character flaw that causes difficulties for yourself and others; quick temper, selfish, arrogant, nervous, etc.
Your Soft Spot is the more noble, higher-minded character aspect that can cause you difficulties; We Look After Our Own, Suffer Not the Children, Patriotism, Charity, Kindness to Animals, Solidarity, Friendly Competition
Your Tough Spot is the label the world puts on you, and has the most mechanical impact on your character outside of the metacurrency/narrative role. These include “Latent” (A carrier of the zombie virus, infectious but immune - and a complete pariah and biohazard), “Immune” (The lucky ones - unless someone decides to harvest your bone marrow for the vaccine), “Roach” (Last survivor of multiple groups, able to burn humanity to help dice rolls but will they be human by the end)…
So it’s a fairly straightforward system but it’s one that does create inner conflict. Your characters want to get paid. To do the job, to keep their clients happy, to scavenge the wastes - they are called Takers and they Take to survive. But these spots create tensions with that goal and with your crew, who may or may not see things the same way as you.
2 Likes