Qualities - a nifty little resolution thing?

[Creatures of Destiny]

Okay so after doing the Power 19 and looking at feedback for Creatures of Destiny I realised that I wanted characters to start out fairly vague so that they develop in play. My early character generation (which looked like the bastard son of Runequest and D20) wasn't exactly what was needed. Anyways I went back to the abilities and started thinking about them in a new way.

What I want is for resolution to be "tactical", though not in the count the squares kind of way, just that the way the player decides to do stuff affects the chances of a succesful outcome.

So I decided to have different Qualities: Size, Strength Instinct Reason, Empath, Ego and so forth. All 0 average going from -5 to +5. Okay, nothing so new here. The idea is that players play their characters' qualities ion Pairs (you always play two Qualities for every task). Add the totals and then add 2D10 to get a result. The fun thing is that players can choose different Qualities to play to do the same thing.

Modifiers would affect ceratin qualites in certain situations.

Some examples:

Example 1:
Ray and Charles want to impress the same girl. Ray's a good-looking guy so he decides to play his Beauty (a decent haircut/clothes might add to this) and he's pretty confident so he plays his Conviction. Charles on the other hand is smart and sensitive, so he plays his Reason and Empathy Qualities. Obviously whether the woman is more interested in Looks or personality would eb a factor in this.

Example 2:
Ray's car breaks down. His mates get out and push, using their Size and Strength. One player decides that her character knows a trick or two about cars and decides to play Reason and Strength instead. If the trick seems plausable then Reason can be lìplayed.

Example 3:
Ray gets in a fight using a dagger versus Charles with a bastard sword. Charles plays his Size and Strength and the bastard sword adds to size (because it's big) and to strength (because it's sharp and has leverage); while Ray plays Agility (footwork) and Instinct (reactions) to try and steer clear while dashing in.

Okay so the idea is that players have to describe how they're playing the Qualities and can play any they can justify in a given situation.

What I want to work on is how in  a conflict a character can force another to not play a certain Qualiy, or even render it a liability. So in example 1, say Ray tells the girl how sensitive guys are often leeches, and if he convinces her of this, then Charles can't play his empathy that way. Or in example 3, if Ray cramps Charles then Charles can't use his (or his swrod's) Size Quality until he gets out. I was thinking of making these tactics something called Gambits - Ray plays a Gambit using Agility and Reason (tactics) to close Charles down ( I mean the playrr could play other Qualites to do the same thing), while Charles tries to counter using Size (to fend Ray off and keep him from getting close) and Convictgion (to intimidate Ray into keeping his distance).

Does this make sense? Sound fun? I want this to be the "bring it on" bit of the game (which is mostly about creating legendary stories), but at the same time have it stimulate description and creative ideas.

[whoknowswhynot]

I love this idea!  my only suggestion is that you use a smaller range like d10 or even d6 because the resolution is more creative, narrative and fluid.  A high range adds a level of complexity that I think that you are steering from.  d10 +/- 1 to 3 or d6 +/- 1 maybe.  It may seem to take away from a character's potential, but I think that, for example, you are agile or you are not, strong or not.  A strongman contest starts being won by luck, fate, situation, favor of the gods, etc. so a +1/-1 would be sufficient.  (not saying that there are not really strong guys and then really, really strong guys)  Just a thought.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Glad you're on the same wavelength.

Well the idea of 2D10 was that extreme results are less llikely, but 2D6 would work fine too I guess (it also ties in with another mechanic of Good and Bad Dice which is in the same game but another point).

The idea of having a farily meaty range though is that if you manage to play both your best Qualities against their worst you're pretty much on a winner (though tere's still a random element).

I also thought of making skills, not a bonus, but rather a limit to how much of a quality you can play in a given situation.

What I mean is, if you've never studied physics than you can't just use your high Reason to solve physics problems (you could if given time, basically you'd be studying physics!). I do kung fu (hobbyist not kick-ass) and I'm pretty tall, usually taller than my oponents right, so playing my Size Quality makes sense, but I still have a tendency to close in against people I really should be keeping away from me (stocky brawler types) when sparring. A guy who didn't know how to use a bastard sword would have the same problem - not juding the reach of the weapon right so not maximising the leverage/reach of it to the max. So basically a "skill" is simply something that lets you play a Quality effectively. Some could let you play unusual qualities - like say Aikido might let you play Empathy while wrestling. I mean you can always play any quality in a given situation by using Destiny (the key "gimmick" of my game) but having the skill makes it more of a sure thing.

So if you want to make up something on the spot you stake some destiny and play it, if you develop that as a technique, then you no-longer need to stake destiny.

The idea is that a new character might only have the Qualities on the character sheet, while one that's been played awhile would have a list of Techniques and Details that has developed in play.

[wild_card2007]

This makes character creation/development very freeform and fluid.  I like it.  To lead in to my comments, my approach in evaluating a rule/mechanic is to look first to how players will react to it and how they can min-max to their advantage.  And I try first and foremost to fix that. 

From that perspective, first thing is I'd drop the -5 to +5 range.  Players won't like taking on a "negative" quality, and IMO forcing them to do so through a mechanical means goes against the grain of having fun.  (It reminds me of systems like GURPS where taking on "disadvantages" gives you points to dump into "advantages".  And then, funny thing, those disadvantages rarely-if-ever come to the foreground in play....)  So just give each quality a 1..n range.  A neat aspect of this is players can pick qualities that might often seem to be a handicap, but when well-played are actually strengths.  So Ray might be "Ugly 5", but he's learned to use that to intimidate people.

The next thing that occurs to me is players will want to have 50 qualities all maxed at 5.  So that in any given situation they'll always be able to pick two that fit, and get the +10 initial bonus.   To prevent this one obvious mechanic is to set a limit to the number of qualities a character can have, either directly or by limiting the number of points they have (I like the latter better).  For example a starting character gets a maximum of 5 qualities; or 15 points they can dump into qualities.  I suggest having a mechanic to add qualities/points over time.  Another possibility: any quality that is not used in a gaming session is decreased by one.  There's mental overhead in having to remember to check that you've played a certain quality; but if a player wants a lot of qualities this would force them to be creative in using them -- which might be really fun.  For example Ray might play his Size to intimidate Charles physically into backing away from the girl; or he might use it to show off his physique to impress her (hoping she's into the big strong type).

Okay, now on conflict, which gets right into task/conflict resolution.  In your example Ray gets in close with his dagger so Charles can't use his Size.  I think Charles would just use a different quality in this case... and from a creativity/fun/roleplay perspective I think I'd actually encourage that.  So I would stay away from directly forcing a player not to use a quality. 

One solution is to bind qualities to skills.  Each skill uses two qualities -- picked by the player.  For example Ray and Charles both know kung fu, but Ray binds it to his Size and Strength qualities and Charles binds it to his Agility and Reflexes.  Resolution is then some variant of skill+qualities+dice.  In mechanical terms, it might be an equal match if Ray and Charles have kung fu and their bound qualities at the same level.  But in terms of roleplay and color, they fight completely differently.  Ray tries things like "I keep him at bay with a few reachy punches and then launch a devastating kick at his head"; Charles is "I dodge and nimbly shoot in to kick his knee".  Then, if Charles uses a Gambit to counter Ray's Size by moving in close, Ray can't use his Size: if he keeps using kung fu he's now at a disadvantage.  Or maybe he switches to aikido, which he's bound to different qualities.  And if Charles' Gambit fails, he's now at a disadvantage.

Thomas

[Creatures of Destiny]

Thomas,

Well I actually thought of only having 8 qualities that exist and didn't really want to force any players to take negatives. But basically they spend destiny on their characters and they have a finite amount (and they use destiny for other things too, like introducing story elements, affecting luck and stuff like that). Check out the Power 19 (just dropped off the front page) to get an idea of what I want to do with this. Still after your comment, the idea of being able to make up new qualities is always handy - though what I thought of was having "Details" that affect the base Qualities. For example my big guy is actually tall and skinny - so he writes, Size +2(lanky +1/-1). Details are a stragiht +1/-1 (a bonus and equal penalty) and can be anything that makes sense. So the lanky character uses Size +3 for things that are based on height/reach and size +1 when using it for things based on weight/bulk. A character with a high Reason could be (mechanically minded), a character's beauty could be (sexy +2/-2) - so won't be a catwalk model or impress people with elegance but is sexy. A strong character could have (strong legs) or whatever.

I just wanted 0 to be average - so the little old lady has Strength -3, but there's no need to take negative qualities. Of course I could make them into diametrically opposed pairs, which might be fun. So Ugly/Beautiful, Big/Small. Then maybe a Gambit changes things around - by ducking in close - a sword/dagger user could get a bonus from Small. A guy with Big +3 is also Small -3 and vice versa.

There was another approach, one which works with Size- basically being big can be god, or being small can be good, so I could make all the qualities "double-edged" so to speak. Rather than intelligence, Logical - super high and you're Dr Spock, but that's not always the best way to be. That's why I wrote "Instinct" and not "Reactions", still not quite "double-edged" but still could be. I already had the Mental equivelent to Size, which was Ego - low ego could be either an enlightened guru or a self-harming schoolgirl depending on the other Qualities and how their played. High Ego could eb just super confident or an arrogant SOB.

I wouldn't necessarilty tie them to skills, but you've still got the basic idea - when Ray ducks in close, Charles can't play his Size when using the sword - but he could kick Ray back, or ditch his sword and throw him (these were both tactics bastard-sword fighters used historically, I've got a period manual somewhere). So Charles, ditches the sword and surrises Ray by still using his Size and Strength, Ray then has to decide what to use against Charles - maybe his Instinct.

I was thinking of making skills "techniques" which add a bonus to a single quality when appropriate - so you have Kung Fu (Size+1, Strength +1) or kung fu (Instinct +1, Agility +1) and it only applies to those qualities. On the other hand I was thinking of just making skills a part of "details" so that only the major ones are added - there's no drive skill for just being a normal licence holder, but you can add details like (can't drive) or (Duke of Hazard +3/-3), remembereing that every detail is an equal "+" and "-" . Someone like Bruce Lee or Mozart or Gandhi would just have very high base qualities (so Bruce maybe only has kung fu +1/-1 but all his relevant qualities are maxed out - hell he was a Latin American dancing champ in Hong Kong too you know - probably based off his high Qualities in crossover areas).

With the girl you've hit the nail on the head, there's actually the third element - what the girl actually wants - and which Qualities Ray and Charles play is going to make a big difference - if she wants a Sensitive guy or a big ol' jock, that's going to change their chances.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Okay, now on conflict, which gets right into task/conflict resolution.  In your example Ray gets in close with his dagger so Charles can't use his Size.  I think Charles would just use a different quality in this case... and from a creativity/fun/roleplay perspective I think I'd actually encourage that.  So I would stay away from directly forcing a player not to use a quality. 

One solution is to bind qualities to skills.  Each skill uses two qualities -- picked by the player.  For example Ray and Charles both know kung fu, but Ray binds it to his Size and Strength qualities and Charles binds it to his Agility and Reflexes.  Resolution is then some variant of skill+qualities+dice.  In mechanical terms, it might be an equal match if Ray and Charles have kung fu and their bound qualities at the same level.  But in terms of roleplay and color, they fight completely differently.  Ray tries things like "I keep him at bay with a few reachy punches and then launch a devastating kick at his head"; Charles is "I dodge and nimbly shoot in to kick his knee".  Then, if Charles uses a Gambit to counter Ray's Size by moving in close, Ray can't use his Size: if he keeps using kung fu he's now at a disadvantage.  Or maybe he switches to aikido, which he's bound to different qualities.  And if Charles' Gambit fails, he's now at a disadvantage.

Thomas

Okay at first I didn't like this because it stopped players making on the spur decisions to use other qualities. But it's grown on me a lot because I can see the potential. Here's how I imagine this working:

When a character gains a skill the player assigns two qualities to that skilll. Maybe each skill has a kind of "base" quality - for Science say, you need to get your Reason down pat (the maths, the basic logical concepts) but once you have that you could also add your Instinct, your Empathy and so on to gain insight. When a player wants to improve a skill they basically just expand their reportoire of Qualities (so Ray can play his Instinct, his Agility, his Empathy and his Strength to dagger fighting ) OR they improve the base qualities (like how Olympic Swimmers do weight training).

A player can still pull through a new quality into the mix by staking destiny on the roll (all players have a certain amount of destiny, by staking it they get to do something unusual, but if the roll fails they lose the point, while if it succeeds they can gain what they staked).

Something here still doesn't click though - I want players to be able narrate anything by just choosing two qualities to play and playing them. But at the same time I would like some from of "Skills". Basically I'm unsure how to fit the "not covered by a skill but it's just something people do" kinda stuff. People can still be cooler at that stuff because they can play qualities there that most people don't (like a Taoist motor-car racer who plays his Empathy whiloe driving). One idea is that all the qualities have a "default" use and other uses come under skills. So Empathy's "default" use would be "judging people's emotional state and picking up on their vibe", while a Shaman might apply Empathy to woodlore or the weather (having Empathy with the world).

This fits my game's concept of character abilities and personalities being "revealed" in play rather than all assigned in character creation.

Am I making sense? Any thoughts on this?

Daniel