[Divinity Horizons] Epic Playtesting

[Lance D. Allen]

Actually, if you want to be all technical, it says the PCs (as in player *characters*) are expected to change the world. Not necessarily that the players are. So depending on how he meant PC (as it is frequently used interchangeably to describe characters and players, unfortunately) then this could still be very much in line with how the game is meant to be played.

But for the sake of discussion, let's go from the angle that the players' choices are supposed to be strongly a part of how the world changes.. How do you give the players, rather than characters, this power?

Now obviously there's the social method.. The GM picks up on what the players want either through explicit discussion, or implicitly through the things that get them excited, and the choices they make with their characters, and then he gives them what they want. This is a tried and true method, and does work in a lot of cases. But unfortunately, this is implicit in the group makeup, and not in the game, so if player empowerment is important, you're going to want to do it with the game text, rather than relying on the GM.

One way, one that Universalis should demonstrate, is to give the players the ability to add aspects to the setting and situation. Maybe some action in the game gives the player a token that they can spend to say something like "The Red Dawn is secretly conspiring against the queen!"

Another way, stolen from Clinton Nixon's Donjon, is to let the players narrate the results of their information rolls. Where in Donjon a player can say "I listen at the door.. <rolls> Two successes. That means, uh.. There are orcs on the other side of the door, and they're waiting for us to open it, to ambush us." In a game like DH, it might be more like.. I report back to the king, and try to find out what's behind all the monster attacks we've been facing. <rolls> Three successes, which means I can involve a tier three NPC like the king himself.. So the king confesses that he accidentally opened a door to the plane of monsters!"

Or whatever.

Of course, all of this is based on the supposition that players should have a direct effect on what arena they get to play in. If that's not the case, and you're intending that the GM creates the story, and the PCs are the heroes of that story, then disregard.

[Sovem]

Ok, I think I see where some of the confusion is coming from. Lance is right--by "PCs" I was referring to the characters, not the players. I don't like games where it feels like your characters are always just trying to survive, where they can't make any meaninful impact on the setting. In DH, while you might not start out changing the world, you're expected to quickly gain enough importance to do so.

However, I like the notion of player empowerment, so I want to continue this discussion. As I said before, we're tossing around ideas about a Destiny mechanic where each player chooses their own destiny ("I'm going to become a king" or "I'm going to slay the god Azra Firemane"), giving the GM a plain as day statement as to what they want out of the game. Then, the group comes up with a group destiny ("We will conquer the Ondron Commonwealth in our name" or "We will destroy the League and unite all lands under the Commonwealth" or "We will rid the world of monsters, once and for all"), which gives the GM another great idea of which direction everyone wants to go. When they move the story significantly towards their destiny, they would get a Destiny point. We're still tossing around what those points could do, though I'm considering some sort of plot driving effect, like you talked about, Lance.

So, tell me what you think of that idea, but I'd also like to hear what you would have done with that story. Maybe that will help me understand better where you're coming from, because I still don't see the difference between Calliope and the lunatic samurai lord :(

[TonyLB]

We may have different definitions of "change the world" here.  I don't think that being involved with world-changing events is the same thing as changing the world yourself.  Originating the chain of events, that's changing the world.

Scenario #1:  Overlord Bob says "It is time for my world-shaking plot to go into action!  All that remains is to push ... The Red Button!  Igor!  Push ... The Red Button."  Igor pushes ... The Red Button.  The world is changed forever.

Did Igor just change the world?  Sorta depends on what would have happened if he hadn't pushed the button, doesn't it?

Scenario #2:  Igor refuses to push the button.  Bob says "Oh, for pete's sake," walks over and pushes the button.  The world is changed forever.

Scenario #3:  Igor refuses to push the button.  Bob raves, "You fool!  The critical moment has passed!  My plan is RUINED!"  The world spins on in its merry course, unaware of how close it just came to being changed forever.

If Igor is weighing the decision between Scenario #1 and Scenario #3 then he is an active agent with important impact on the course of events.  Igor, in that case, is changing the world in Scenario #1.

If Igor is weighing the decision between Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 then he is just caught up in the course of events.  Igor, in that case, is not changing the world in Scenario #1.

[Sovem]

Ok, I think I'm about to get it.

Basically, you're saying that that event (Scenario #1&3) is dependent soley upon Igor, right? Because the red button would only be pushed if he pushed it, he is the originator of the event. You're saying that, in my story, Igor is going to push the button, and I'm telling the characters they can either try to stop him or let it go, and therefor they are not originating the event, but responding to it.
Is that what you mean?