An unusual (?) approach to stats

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

This is a little sketchy at present, an unnamed, but I hope you find it interesting.

There has been a few games recently looking at the power of belief, and utilising the belief mechanincs to fuel a magic system.  It occured to me to place all resolution under the same system, a thought that lead me to conclude that the game would require to quantify belief.  Other than the application of a free-form system, and application of description to make it about belief, rather than skills (Consider FUDGE), I was somewhat stumpted.  And then the breakthrough etc..  This is, as yet, unnamed.

The Stats

There will be a number of statistics.  All characters will have a rating in each, ranging from -5 to +5.  Each statisic will measure some facet of belief, with +5 and -5 being diametrically opposed.  Some statisics include:

Time:
-5 is fully deterministic.  There is no free will, and the future is pre-determined.
+5 is fully fluid.  There is no concept of past, or future, there is only now.

Tools:
-5 Tools are a fallacy.  Man can do evertyhing by himself, and tools are not needed to interact with the physical world.
+5 Tools are required.  Man can barely live without them, and requires them to do anything physical.

Individuality:
-5 We are one.  There is one mind
+5 I exist.  I have no connection to any other being.

Space:
-5 There is no space.  Everything touches another.
+5 Space exists.  Objects must be touching to interact.

There are also two further statistics.  These are Domination, how strongly your character can assert his will over the universe around him, and Submission, how well your character can operate outside of his native beliefs.

The Resolution Mechanic

All resolutions are opposed.  The universe itself is rated (Time -2, Tools +4, Individuality -1,Space +4).  This represents the default belief of a person.  To perform an act, one must unifiy the current belief with ones own.  To assert ones belief over the world around oneself, a number of dice equal to Domination, and requires a number of sucesses equal to the difference between ones paradigm, and the background (generally, though not always, the unversal level).  To allow one to operate as if in the background paradigm, one rolls Submission, and must attain a number of sucess equal to the difference.  Statistics that are irrelevent to the situation at hand are not included in the calculation.

Thus, if a characters paradigm is time: +2, Tools: -2, Ind: -1, Space: +4, and she is trying to open a locked door, there are two choices.  To assert her paradigm, and thus break open the door (self over tools), she must attain 4 sucesses on a Domination roll.  Likewise, to pick the lock, with a set of lockpicks (tools over self), 4 sucess must be attained on a Submission roll.

Notes

This is somewhat sketchy, although I belive (ha!) that the basic ideas are present.  The exact nature of the rolls and range of D/S are not yet determined.  More importantly, however, is the set of statistics.  I'm not convinced that the set of 4 that I have is complete enough.  

Are there any obvious omissions, or can anyone think of a situation that can't be resolved with the 4 above criterion?

[Le Joueur]

Hey Stuart, good list!

One Question; did you reverse the Time Stat?  Compared to the others, running from 'open' (negative) to 'concrete' (positive), Time is backward.  Since the negatives are 'Tools are a fallacy,' 'All are one,' and 'There is no Space,' shouldn't negative Time be 'There is no past/future?'  On the other side, if the positives are 'Tools are required,' 'I have no connection,' and 'Objects must touch,' shouldn't time be 'The future is predetermined?'

Just a thought from a philosopher and rogue scholar.  Hope it works out well.

Fang Langford

[Wormwood]

Stuart,

A very interesting idea, reminds me a bit of a setting I was tossing around a few years ago, where the world consisted of valleys with different levels of the various tenets of reality present in each.

It seems to me that it would be easier to set the scale from 0-10, and less confusing, it avoids making one set of beliefs 'negative'.

One basic flaw I see is that since the difficulty on the rolls are always the same, there seems little reason to use the lower of submission and domination. More accurately you end up with Acceptors and Rejectors, who concentrate on one approach. What are the consquences of the choice? Or is that the sort of divide you are looking for?

 -Mendel S.

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

One Question; did you reverse the Time Stat?

That's a very good point.  I hadn't firmed up which way roud things were - it was just arbitary, and thus coincidence that three were one way.  I'll definit;y firm that up - your suggestion sounds good.

Thanks for the insight.

It seems to me that it would be easier to set the scale from 0-10, and less confusing, it avoids making one set of beliefs 'negative'.

I'm not certain.  Rating one extreme at 10 and the other at 0 would suggest an intrinsic bias on my part, which I'm tring to avoid.  Admitingly, having one negative might also suggest that.  The oridginal conception was to have the universe rated at 0,0,0,0; but I was unable to make that feel right.

One basic flaw I see is that since the difficulty on the rolls are always the same, there seems little reason to use the lower of submission and domination. More accurately you end up with Acceptors and Rejectors, who concentrate on one approach. What are the consquences of the choice? Or is that the sort of divide you are looking for?

Ah.  It depends what the person is trying to do.   It appears that I didn't mention that the larger the number of observers within a paradigm, the more difficult it will be (mechanism is very hazy here.  I think that using D10, and the more observers differing in paradigm the higher the number required to roll over) .  However, if you try to operate in the pardigm of the majority of observers, even if it's not the same as your own, then that will be easier.

Furthermore, submitting to somelses' view of the world is quite a different action, in game terms, from asserting your paradigm.

Just noticed that the one thing I neglected to mention was the scope of actions.  A filght 'spell', for example, would be Tools -4 or -5, and Space somewhere around 0 or +1.

EDIT: fixed the bbcode

[szilard]

I'm not certain.  Rating one extreme at 10 and the other at 0 would suggest an intrinsic bias on my part, which I'm tring to avoid.  Admitingly, having one negative might also suggest that.  The oridginal conception was to have the universe rated at 0,0,0,0; but I was unable to make that feel right.

I don't know what you have in terms of setting, but perhaps the universe did once rate at 0,0,0,0 and is now out of whack...

~szilard

[Aelios]

What makes the universe itself Time -2, Tools +4, Individuality -1,Space +4? Isn't this just the subjective view of one culture, resumably ignorant American. Space, the forces of gravity, electromagnitism, etc. make it seem that objects do not have to touch to interact, yet to a culture with no science such interactions are impossible.

Why shouldn't the universe be 0,0,0,0? Imposing any value on it necissarily imposes cultural beliefs on it.

I guess it depends on what you want to do; is it mage against the universe or mage against the common man? And if it's mage against the man are you prepared to rate the universe for every culture's beliefs?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It's a nifty rating system, certainly. But Aelios' post very clearly points out the next step: whaddaya do with it? Or more accurately, have you put together a context of game-play in which this operates as a significant part? I'm interested in what it might be.

Best,
Ron

[damion]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Stuard, your idea is that the 'background' of the universe can varry from place to place, correct?  (As a take in  'literature' on the idea I'd suggest Weis & Hickman's StarShield series,  might give you ideas, if nothing else. Forgetit if you've heard this one...)

Thus the 'background' in 'ignorant america' my vary from the background somewhere else. I think a way of combining levels of background might be needed.

So you have somethine like this.

Universe:0,0,0,0
Ignorant America -2,+4,-1,+4
Hippie compund  +2, -2,0,-2
(The numbers are pretty random, I was just trying to come up with a subculture with different beliefs, don't shoot!)

Overall: 0,+2,0,+2

There are various ways you can combine, sometimes local believs may dominate, sometimes multiple systems may combine, different ways may work on different axis.

Could be interesting. Like Ron said, need a use though.

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

When I said univerise, I didn't mean universe.  I ment, as I defined later, the dominant belief of people.  There is nothing fundemental about it, it just what most people believe.

The set I quoted for the base level (I'll stop using the term universe - it look like that leads to confusion) is based on a modern western european / north american culture.  Other cultures may well diverge.

I was thinking about having local variations.  However, because of the level of granularity in the rating system (i.e. very coarse), an addtive process would not be useful (the difference between a set of rating is not meaningful, only the actual set of values) .  Any variation would be at most +/- 1.

In terms of use of this system, its for a game about belief (unsurprisingly).  The initial scene I had thought about revolved around the characters discussing a problem and, not how to solve it, but whose method to use to solve it.  This is, in spirit at least, the same idea I mentioned earlier even if it doesn't seem like it.

Thus the character have all discovered that they have the ability to bend reality to thier will.  There are a few ways to progress - To assert thier will over the majority, to go with the flow, or to 'educate' the majority to your way of thinking.  Clearly the second option isn't really an option at all, for someone with a point to make.  The game will revolve around what choices the characters make, and about when, and where, they compromise what they belive in, in the interests of getting a result.

There is also a noticable sub-topic on ego and hubris, although that wasn't intentional.

I see the game as only really working well when played in a Naratavist fashion.

It requires the addition of rules to handle how observers affect actions, in detail, and beyond that, a tightening up of definitions and detail.  However, I have the inescapable feeling that the 4 criterion I mentioned (which I wish to form a complete set) miss something out.  Anyone spot any glaring omissions?

[Don Lag]

Nice.

I can see it working by giving each individual character his own ratings, representing his own (subjective) view of the Universe.

As noted, Sim gaming would be very hard to do since whatever you're trying to Sim is rather abstract.

That leaves focusing on N and G. A Gamist thought I had right away was requiring each character to balance out at 0. So 0, -1, +1, 0 is a valid rating, but -2, +3, -1, +1 isn't. As an "experience" scheme you could eventually let the characters "unbalance" up to the character's "level". So a level 2 character could have a total sum of up to +2 or -2, i.e. -3, +2, 0, -1 is a valid rating for him.

I hope this goes somewhere, sounds pretty cool.

[M. J. Young]

[list=1][*]It might be worth attempting to define the zero value for each of your items, in addition to the extremes. That is, what is the nature of time if it is exactly between fixed determinism and fluid present existence?
[*]On individuality, the extreme opposite of "There is one mind" is "Only I exist"; that doesn't seem clear in your statement, which sounds more like "I exist apart from everyone else, who also exist".
[*]When you started talking about rating the universe, I thought you were working on a multiverse sort of system, something which would be perhaps Generic (permiting you to set up play in any kind of universe by defining the stats) or perhaps Universal (moving characters from universe to universe by some mechanic, allowing every universe to be defined by those stats, and thus changing the core of reality with each new world). I see from subsequent posts that this is not what you mean, but (and at the risk of creating competition for myself) why not?[/list:o]
--M. J. Young

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

It might be worth attempting to define the zero value for each of your items, in addition to the extremes. That is, what is the nature of time if it is exactly between fixed determinism and fluid present existence?

I'm firiming up the definitions, and intend to have defintions for all possible values on each scale.  On time 0, it's currently pegged as a mostly fixed past, with a totally fluid future (i.e. the concept of Future exists, as does Past, and the past has happend, thus is nearly immune from change).

On individuality, the extreme opposite of "There is one mind" is "Only I exist"; that doesn't seem clear in your statement, which sounds more like "I exist apart from everyone else, who also exist".

The opposite of "There is one mind" is "There are many minds".  Solipsism can fit in anywhere on that scale.  What I (intended to) measure on that scale is how a person relates to the apparant existance of others.  If there is only one mind, then all other apprent persons are fully knowable, whereas the existance of many minds would show that other minds are only partially, knowable.  Whether that takes the form of a solipsist creating the others, or a planet hive mind.  Empathy would not exist above a rating of (say) +3.

This is held over because the default setting is a modern day setting, thus the world appears to be as we see it, even if the character decide that it's not actually.

When you started talking about rating the universe, I thought you were working on a multiverse sort of system ... I see from subsequent posts that this is not what you mean, but (and at the risk of creating competition for myself) why not?

Um, most fundementally, that's not what I'm aiming for.  However, that's a somewhat circular answear.

To be direct, I don't like multiverse systems, that's not a form of roleplaying that interests me (any more).  I also don't belive that this would make a useful system for enumerating possible worlds either, given that it talks about philosophical stances, not physical properties.  That is, I'm aiming for a comlete set of ways of viewing the world, not of defining it.

For example, as I've mentioned above, Individuality -5 could be either a solipsitic existance, not appearing too far distinct from what we would recognise, or a world with a Gaian type single conciousness, or where everone is the puppet of an alien being.  Each of these would lead to a substantivly different world, and thus different roleplaying.  No hint would be given as to the nature of the world from just knowing it's stats.

Of course, if someone were to find this useful, and develop these ideas into such a system, then by all means go ahead.  I'd be flattered.