[Anyone]

This would be lots of fun for me. I'm also sure others would absolutely hate it, so it would have to be optional.

In fact, I'd have an option for how much personalities affected morale-- not just the morale system on or off, but those who want a morale system but don't want to get into interpersonal dynamics could have one where morale is just based on winning and players getting the playing time they think they deserve.

So trait effect: None, Low, Medium, High. Medium would be the default, in which players' getting along with each other and the manager/bench coach would be about equally important as the other factors. High would mean that the interactions between personalities would be more important to morale than the team winning (given a player with average desire to win).

I put real people into my fictional game as players (which now that I've learned to make facegens, they actually look like them). I put myself, friends, and here and there people I barely know, in. This type of system would make it that much more interesting.

I'd probably have about 1/4 as many traits (too many is unwieldy), maybe those with the most agreement about what they should do and just the clearest effects. Edit: I said 1/4 as many traits, but really it would best be brought down to maybe 60-70 in total. Then there are a low enough amount that there can be at least one potential storyline per trait (some would have more than one). That definitely doesn't mean that that storyline will happen in a given game; the vast majority won't. But if the number is winnowed down, each can have a storyline that can be triggered for a player only if the player has that trait-- plus, more traits (not every combo, obviously) can be figured to interact with specific others. "If Player X has Playful and Player Y Businesslike, -10 to their relationship." That kind of thing.

Some things I'd do a bit differently:

1) I wouldn't penalize a team for having too many of one primary trait of introvert/extrovert/ambiverts. Extroverts would just tend to have the strongest effects on others, for good or for ill. The two players' traits would determine whether a given extrovert was energizing or annoying. An introvert might be happy to just go about his business, but a really friendly extrovert might make him feel more a part of the team while an annoying extrovert will annoy him more than any introvert could.

What's annoying to one might be positive to another. For example, an introvert who's shy and serious might find a prankster type annoying but a gentle one empowering, whereas an introvert who's less serious and more snarky would enjoy the prankster and be annoyed by the gentler one, whom he'd view as naive.

Too many of the same (normally positive) type could be bad if, say, too many players were trying for leadership roles

2) Manager and bench coach traits would be very important, and might be subtraits under the five managerial styles. How a manager and bench coach get along with the players would be even more important than the players with each other. A controlling manager will get along very well with such traits as submissive/obedient, while assertive and protean (taking that to mean freedom-loving) stand out as traits of guys who'd hate a controlling manager. Again, there'd be subtraits under the managerial styles.

3) The traits would be visible and editable in the editor, but otherwise they'd be incompletely scouted until a player was on your orgajnization for a couple of months, or in your league for years. The basic traits of extrovert/ambivert/introvert and positive/neutral/negative view of life would be known, and some subtraits would be known from all the way back in the draft. For a twist, not all negative views of life would lead to harmful traits, and vice versa. One could view life positively and be overconfident, leading to poor work habits, or have a negative view and need to prove oneself, leading to hustle.

For example, my (subjective) sense is that Pete Rose was a pretty negative person, and in the long run it caught up to him in compulsive gambling, etc, but until then it helped make him a better player as his compulsion was to work his butt off to be a very good player despite not having a great amount of natural physical ability compared to others who had similar quality careers. One can certainly imagine it, even if you think it doesn't apply in his case.

This could be very interesting for a number of us who'd love it, Again, I can see others hating it-- maybe more people hating it than loving it-- but if it's optional and a third or even a fourth of players love it, it's worth doing.