[The Cauldron] Addressing the Premise

[Joshua Tompkins]

Okay, this is split (sort of) from the other Cauldron thread, still available here.

After some discussion and deepthink about what exactly I wanted the Cauldron to be about, I came up with this:

I want to see cool characters doing cool things - but, more importantly, I want to explore how who the character is effects what they do, and how that "who" changing over time changes the corresponding "what".

From there, I worked up a preliminary description for how the players might fit into the game:

You may not have realized it yet, but you are a Hero, and that makes you special. Not everyone can be what you are; it's not something that can be taught. Heroes truly are born, not made.

You might be King Arthur, or Napoleon. You might be George Patton, or John F. Kennedy. Those things are certainly possible. But then, you might be a temp worker at Kinko's, or a secretary in an office building. Being a hero isn't about what you do – it's about how you feel.

You see, heroes feel stronger then most, believe deeper, are driven by their hopes and dreams and desires harder. What makes you a hero is also what makes you human – your connections to the world around you. Without your hopes, your beliefs, your relationships, you wouldn't be what you are.

Be careful, though – your connections to the world aren't static. They can change at any moment, and they will. What seems right today might not, when tomorrow comes around.

You can be a shining beacon for hope and truth... or not. You can work to make a difference, quietly improving the world around you... or not. You can rescue a child's cat from a tree... or you could be the one who put the cat up there in the first place. Who you are – and, more importantly, who you will become – is up to you.

and an actual definition of the game's Premise:

How will you change the world? More importantly – how will the world change you?

Well, the problem now is that I'm stuck right there.  I have what I think is a cool idea for a game, and a workable Premise, but I'm at a loss as to what to do with it.

Here are my design goals for the game:

- Rules light, but not rules free
- The Social/Emotional/Belief Aspects (what I'm calling them for now) of the character need to have some kind of direct mechanical application in the resolution system.
- I don't want the character's Aspects to be his only stats - one of the original goals is to have "Cool characters doing cool things".
- Support the "Cool Things" part with a Monologue or player narration?
- The resolution system should determine only the winner of a conflict.
- I'd like to have mechanics that can reflect a shift in the character's Aspects - perhaps two systems, one to reflect movement in emphasis between two Aspects, and one to reflect total abandonment of an Aspect.
- I'd like the character's abilities to be pretty freeform - no preset "Ability Scores"
- Settingless

What do you guys think?  You can check out the previous thread for some thoughts on my original mechanics, but I'm wondering if I should move away from those into something better.

-joshua[/url]

[Mark D. Eddy]

Y'know, with that premise and teaser blurb, you might want to write out an example of game play (like the sticky says) without actually putting in the mechanics -- and have a few (mechanics say success) or (mechanics say failure), or the like comments in line.

You may learn things about what you want the system to do (do you want the mechanics to determine the quality of sucess, for example?) that you didn't know before.

[Joshua Tompkins]

Well, I've thought more about what I want from the game, in the light of the Premise and teaster stuff discussed above, and, after quite a lot of thinking, I came to the conclusion that what I really want is to play Clinton Nixon's Paladin.  Well, sort of.

One of the things that, to me, is attractive about Paladin is something that Clinton himself discussed in a recent post over in RPG Theory:

It was based around the idea that there is a universal good, and that characters following it would be able to whip some furious ass.

Really, who couldn't like a game like that?

The problem is that Paladin pretty much enforces moral absolutism through it's use of Light and Dark Animus.  The game I'd really like to play is one where the Paladin is forced to deal with changes in himself, as well as changes to the world around him.

(Just as an FYI, I have no problem with moral absolutism, either in or out of a game.  I just think it'd be fun to go the other way sometimes.)

So - here's what I've come up with:

Characters in the Cauldron are defined by a number of Traits of different types.  Some traits define the things a character can and can't do in a conflict; others represent other parts of the character (still working these out).

The most important type of Traits, though, are the ones that represent the character's social, emotional, and moral connections to the world around them.  The Cauldron calls these "Aspects" (though I'm thinking about other names... how does "Exemplars" (do borrow a neat term from Capes) strike you?).

Aspects come in a couple different types.  I'm thinking about "borrowing" the Paladin method of defining Aspects, and using a series of questions to help players choose (i.e., "What do you believe?", "What do you love?", etc).  Each character starts the game with a single Aspect in each of the types.

Aspects can be used in a conflict roll (called "Invoking" the Aspect), and increase the character's effectiveness for the roll, as they bring the fire of their emotions and beliefs into the conflict (though I'm still working out the actual mechanics of this).

Some conflicts do more then just involve the character's Aspects, though – they directly challenge them (I'm thinking this will happen with some regularity, as Aspects don't even come into play in a conflict unless they're relevant in some fashion).  In a situation like this, the character can do more then just Invoke one of his Aspects – he can Stake them in the conflict, investing part of himself to help bring about victory.  Staking an Aspect should greatly increase the character's effectiveness, but it comes at a cost – losing the conflict results in a permanent level loss in the Aspect Staked.  Emerging victorious has it's rewards, though – a permanent increase in the Aspect's level.

There are times, though, when a conflict doesn't merely challenge a character's Aspect – it directly opposes it with another Aspect (usually through the intervention of another character).  Staking an Aspect has a greater risk, in this case:  one character is pitting his beliefs, his vision of the world against the beliefs and visions of another.  If he loses, the character suffers the permanent Aspect level loss, but he also gains a level in the Aspect that was used against him.

Aspects that are gained in this fashion are no different mechanically from the Aspects the character started the game with – they can be Invoked and Staked in exactly the same manner.

I think this sort of mechanic fits the Premise of the game very well, as characters struggle to impose their vision for the world on the people around them... and on each other.  Long-running characters will slowly become a bubbling Cauldron of opposing Aspects.

I've got ideas for a few other mechanics, as well:  rules to allow for gain and loss of Aspects outside of conflicts, "temptation" rules, a few others, including a version of Paladin's "Warrior's Code" rules.  Those will be really cool, I think – I have the feeling they'll provide the basis for non-conflict Aspect gain/loss, as they'll represent the outward manifestation of the character's inner Aspects.

Any thoughts?  Good?  Bad?  Ugly?

-joshua