Destiny and the Universal Character

[Valamir]

Not a flaw, but let me challenge a preconception for a moment just to give you more food for thought.

Why do you want to segregate the gamemaster and go out of your way to make him MORE different than any other person at the table.

If you start with the assumption that all of the people sitting around the table are intelligent, creative, thoughtful human beings equally dedicated to giving their full effort to making the game fun for themselves and their fellows...then you should be able to pursue less differentiation between GM and players rather than more.

That this is true is witnessed by a number of games that have no seperate GM or which parsel out the GM's job in non traditional ways and which are very successfully and produce highly enjoyable play.

Sooo...why would you be willing to give great power to the players (choosing when and why to call upon destiny) but turn around and be afraid of giving great power to the GM.  I heartily encourage you to embrace the idea that the GM is nothing MORE and nothing LESS than another player at the table.  There is no reason to elevate the GM to godhood and there is no reason to shackle the GM with chains.  Trust them to be good players also.

The system I outlined above was predicated on the idea that the players VOLUNTARILY give the GM the power to use Fate by choosing to engage Destiny.  Any player who doesn't want to do that, has only to avoid engaging Destiny and thus the GM has no Fate to use.  If the players WANT the GM to have that power...why fear it?  

GM using his power against the CHARACTER is GOOD.  GM using his power against the PLAYER is bad.  Trust your players to know the difference.

Now I'm not saying my system is the end all be all, but I submit that perhaps you need to think long and hard about why you're worried about giving power to the GM.

[anthony kilburn]

Well, I guess it's moreso giving the GM sole interpretive power that I worry about....

If the GM gets to interpret singlehandedly what the consequences of inacting Destiny are, what would keep the GM from steering play entirely by use of hefty penalties?

I mean, the way I see it, the player chooses when and what to buy in terms of a penalty.... or the group decides as a whole, which would include the GM.  The timing of this penalty and the nature don't have to be crippling, but simply suitable and harmful.  A group concensus would only be necessary if a fighter tried to enact a magic penalty, which wouldn't really be any kind of penalty at all.

If the GM gets that power, he could choose to cripple a fighter with a horrible physical penalty right before he enters the final duel of his Destiny, simply because the GM wants the Villain to win, because the GM is supposed to act for the NPCs.

Truthfully, I'm trying to figure out how to make story elements into traits ("Villain caputured his daughter [-4]") without giving an opportunity to argue that such a trait would motivate rather than cripple.  I want Destiny to create a penalty for overuse (representing arrogance leading to Doom), and this penalty would cost experience currency to remove.

I dunno, lots of ways I can go, but I'm still searching.

[Valamir]

If the GM gets that power, he could choose to cripple a fighter with a horrible physical penalty right before he enters the final duel of his Destiny, simply because the GM wants the Villain to win, because the GM is supposed to act for the NPCs.

Danger, Danger Will Robinson.

This is exactly the kind of preconception I'm talking about.

WHY is that the role of the GM?  It doesn't have to be.

Remember.  Character vs. Character is NOT the same thing as Player vs. Player...regardless of whether one of those characters is an NPC and one of the players is the GM.

IF the GM chooses to cripple a character with a horrible physical penalty right before entering the final duel...so what?  If all of the players look at each other and say  "ohhh...nasty...I can't wait to see how you overcome this one" then that's a GOOD thing.

Why assume that the GMs goal is going to be to do things that the players hate?  Because its only if you assume that...that you have to be worried about what the GM "might" do.


In otherwords...I'm a big fan of the GM sharing power with players because the primary reason for having a god like GM is a lack of trust in the players...which is provably not the case so there's no reason for it.  Similarly the only reason to put the GM in shackles is if you don't trust the GM...I recommend setting aside those fears and just designing a good core game.

My advice is this:  Don't view rules and mechanics as placing limits on what players can do.  That may be what rules wind up doing, but don't focus on that as their purpose.  Instead view rules and mechanics as a formalized process by which players communicate with each other about what they as individual players want.  Rules signal desire, rules signal intention, rules signal appreciation or lack there of.

WHATEVER rules you wind up coming up with for Destiny...view the actual game mechanics as a tool for communication not as a set of barriers and walls.  Every time you roll the dice, or choose to use a bonus, or don't choose to use a bonus, thats a little nugget of information being conveyed from a PLAYER to the other players.  Think in terms of WHAT information you want your rules to convey, when and to whom.  Don't think in terms of what rules you need to prevent abuse.  That's ultimately a really poor use for rules.

[anthony kilburn]

I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story.  I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

I dunno.

If not for worries about how the game would play, I'd altogether scrap rules in favor of descriptions and cooperative play.  But the fact is that rules exist within these games to give a system of conflict resolution.  And even if conflicts within the game are solved, there's still diverging views on the story itself, which is why most games seem to give the GM omnipotence.  Unfoftunately, that power does no good without omniscience as well.... but that's another topic altogether.


I actually doubt this system myself mostly because it punishes the character on a 1:1 ratio every time Destiny is called upon.... and I'm beginning to lose sight of what Fate even represented.... I guess I only wanted to prevent someone from calling on Fate every roll—abuse of the bonus.  But since this is placing limits on players, you think it should be scrapped?

Originally, I wanted a Pride to interfere with Destiny much in the way that the Dark Side blocked the Light Side [of the Force].  But the only way I could even conceive of enacting such a rule would be to know character intentions and whether or not they're selfish.... it's too vague and wish-washy, I would think.  Not enough concrete system, too much interpretation and room for argument.

But I could always be horribly wrong.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story.  I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

-You cannot plan how each and every group will interact with your game.  There is no way to predict how each unique individual will play your game.  If some GM chooses to abuse the players, what can you do about it?  There is no system in the world that is foolproof in that matter.

-So, just design a rules set explaining how the game is suposed to be played and have faith in the players to trust you as the designer.  As Ralph is saying, don't worry about preconceptions like "The GM is always out to screw the players" because it just isn't true.

Peace,

-Troy

[Valamir]

I only worry that giving vague explanations of possible Fate point expenditures would lead to a lot of abuse by a GM who wanted to tell his story.  I'm all about cooperative play, too, but if you give players concrete rules and then give the GM a vague, interpretive system and a screen to hide behind, it only seems like a timebomb.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.  If you worry that there is a disparity between giving players concrete rules and giving the GM vague interpretive rules...I don't necessarily disagree.  So why isn't the solution to simply give the GM equally concrete rules?  If you think he needs them...write some...I mean isn't that what a designer's job is?

Seems to me you're jumping at shadows.  Write the rules, then PLAY.  Speculating about what might or might not be a time bomb is a good and productive exercise...right up to the point where you start to hit analysis paralysis.  From my perspective you've got more than enough good (i.e. potentially good) ideas to draft a play test document and see how it actually works in play...which is the ultimate litmus test for any design.

If not for worries about how the game would play, I'd altogether scrap rules in favor of descriptions and cooperative play.  But the fact is that rules exist within these games to give a system of conflict resolution.  And even if conflicts within the game are solved, there's still diverging views on the story itself, which is why most games seem to give the GM omnipotence.  Unfoftunately, that power does no good without omniscience as well.... but that's another topic altogether.

See that's another of those prevalent preconceptions I'm trying to warn you about.

This idea breaks down to:  1) The ultimate best way to generate good stories is free form coop play.  2) BUT people can't get along.  3) SO you need rules to play referee

But its demonstratably false.  Its wrong.  Its not true.  None of it.

Freeform is NOT the ideal for producing quality output, and the purpose of rules is NOT simply to play referee.  Not true.  You will produce much more effective game designs if you erase that entire notion from your brain.

The purpose of rules is to facilitate the creation and manipulation of the shared imaginary space in which game play occurs.  That's what rules do.  And rules (good ones) can do it BETTER than free form even when they have little to do with "objective refereeing".  (Note if there's anyone who wants to comment specifically on the validity of this point, please take it to a new thread).

Reread my point above about rules as communication tools.  THAT'S the most valuable insight I can give you about game design, period.  Imagine players talking to each other using words to get their point across...not hard to do, we've all seen that.  THEN imagine players talking to each other using game mechanics to get their point across.  THAT'S what rules do.  If you're not sure what I mean by that, then I recommend some research:  

Start with Riddle of Steel (Spiritual Attributes), and Burning Wheel (Artha and Bits) as traditional seeming games with specific mechanics designed NOT to simulate character (no matter how much it might look like that what Bits are, its an illusion).  Rather those rules are designed to facilitate communication between players.

If you want to get more exotic check out Sorcerer (Humanity).  Humanity is the ultimate example of a game mechanic that has zero representative value whatsoever and is completely about player to player signalling.

More exotic yet try Prime Time Adventure or My Life With Master for examples of rules whose sole function is for players to talk to each other without words.  

Check out the entire resolution system from Dogs in the Vineyard where the rules do zero to prevent "abuse".  I can win every single conflict I'm in (almost guarenteed)...IF I'm willing to escalate to violence and killing.  Thus, my choices as a player in how I elect to use the mechanics serve the function of revealing just how far my character is willing to go.  When the other players see what I'm willing to do (i.e. what dice I'm willing to roll) to get what I want...they get a definite window into the soul of my character without me needing to say a word.  All done by mechanics.

I'm not saying be exotic and bleeding edge.  Go ahead and make a traditionally structured game if you want.  But write the rules based on what information can be conveyed by when and how the players choose or don't choose to use the rules.

I actually doubt this system myself mostly because it punishes the character on a 1:1 ratio every time Destiny is called upon.... and I'm beginning to lose sight of what Fate even represented.... I guess I only wanted to prevent someone from calling on Fate every roll—abuse of the bonus.  But since this is placing limits on players, you think it should be scrapped?

Punish?  PUNISH?   Duuude.  This is so exactly what I'm talking about.   Please understand that what I'm about to say I intend completely in the spirit of constructive criticism and I'm not trying to be snarky or insulting.

If you think for a SECOND that the GM's use of Fate as I outlined above has anything to do with PUNISHMENT, you've got a LONG way to go before my suggestions start making sense to you.

Do you remember the story of Briar Rabbit?  "Kick me, beat me, set me on fire, but please Please PLEASE don't throw me in the Briar Patch..."  When all along the Briar Patch is EXACTLY where the rabbit wanted to be...

Think of your players as the rabbit and the GM's use of Fate (in my outline above) as the Briar Patch.  

Punishment?  Au Contraire my friend.  When the GM uses Fate...he's giving the players EXACTLY what they really want.   Every Use of Destiny by the Players GIVING the GM Fate to use is the player screaming "please don't throw me in the Briar Patch".  If the GM doesn't listen, the player just keeps using Destiny giving him more and more Fate..."Please PLEASE don't throw me in the Briar Patch".

Of course just like the rabbit, that Briar Patch is EXACTLY where the players want to be, and the GM spending Fate is exactly how they get there.

Think about that.  The entire Destiny Mechanic outline I gave above (and it's only a draft outline not a complete mechanic) is predicated on understanding this.