new game and guy - mechanic question

[Lance D. Allen]

Hm.. Two flaws in your ideology, to my thinking.

First and foremost, you should never change a system because you dislike a term. If "successes" does not jive with you, change the word, not the system.

Secondly, while the brute force method of averages may support it, then the best you get is average draws. With the previous system, you allow for more vagaries of fate.

Also, unless I'm mistaken and you're still using the adjacent system, it is impossible to predict a single success. If you are using it as I believed, then the only successes that rely entirely on the draw are those which match the color of the action. Beyond that, the only way to get successes, in singles, is to describe the character's actions in such a way that other motes apply to the main action. Totally non-adjacent motes can apply, if the player is descriptive and creative enough. Sometimes however, even adjacent motes will not be able to made to apply, except possibly in magic.

This is your game, of course. But until you put your foot down and say that "This is the way it's gonna be" I'm going to keep arguing for the Draw -vs- threshold system, rather than the Diff-ability system. I like it much better personally, and I think that the Diff-ability system is counterintuitive, and does not have outstanding to recommend it.

To drive home the point about how enthusiastic about this system I am, I'll mention that I was looking at beads at the gaming store today. I'd have to buy 7 full tubes, though...

And yes, that was a low-down debater's trick. ::grins toothily::

[Hamshrew]

I'm going to keep arguing for the Draw -vs- threshold system, rather than the Diff-ability system. I like it much better personally, and I think that the Diff-ability system is counterintuitive, and does not have outstanding to recommend it.

I'm going to toss in my two pence and agree here.  It's easy for players to understand and get a feel for the odds, and I myself would like to try it out if my players don't shout me down.  They're an odd bunch... can never tell what they'll like.

If you don't like 'successes' call them 'pips' or... hmm... 'points' even would work.  'Measures,' or 'taps' or heck, call the 'frogs' for all I care.  Since you're using motes and caerns and such, make it something in-theme.

[Lance D. Allen]

Could even call them threads... This way, every action, magickal or otherwise, can be characterized as a weave.

Hell, if you've read Crowley, his theory is that every conscious act is magick anyhow.

[taalyn]

Right then! Thanks for the input, guys.

Lance,

   You're right, changing system because I don't like "successes" is a bad reason. And yes, vagaries of fate applies better if it's skill-vs.-TN, which was a worry of mine - what happens to all the cool tension?

   So, I'll go with you guys, and stick to both sides draw. It makes my sneaky-cool hidden opposition totally obvious opposition, but oh well. I gotta go with what people are going to like. That, and if you all say it's counterintuitive (and much as I want to disagree, I have to say you're right), it's outta here.

   I haven't decided on the adjacent/singles issue yet (much better term, BTW - Thanx). I'm thinking to keep the adjacency method as standard, and present singles as an option once your players are more familiar with the system. There is a learning curve for the light-based spectrum, and also for learning the symbolism and meanings of the colors.

Hamshrew,

   I think I will  call them 'frogs'! Nah....but I will think about something else to call them...maybe if I just distinguish between (useful) motes and 'trash' motes (come up with a term for trash motes, I mean), that will solve my problem.

   Thanks for the continuing input, guys.

  Aidan

[taalyn]

To drive home the point about how enthusiastic about this system I am, I'll mention that I was looking at beads at the gaming store today. I'd have to buy 7 full tubes, though...

And yes, that was a low-down debater's trick. ::grins toothily::

  Hehe!! I've started my (sorta) huge list of possible tokens - probably the cheapest is to get coffee sticks (or popsicle sticks) and color one end. Stick 'em in a cup to hide the bottom, and there you go. If you want something a little cooler, you could get blank wooden nickels from a hobby shop, and color them.

  Of course, there's something about little glass bobblies! I went in with a friend and we got all out colors for about $50, and we have more than enough bobblies for everyone. I've since found a cheaper place here.

  Oh- I lied, the cheapest is to write the colors on slips of paper, or color dots of the appropriate colors (or write initials) on a deck of playing cards.

  Anyway, you underhanded villain, I'll get you and your Scooby dog too! ;)

  Aidan

[Brian Leybourne]

I haven't decided on the adjacent/singles issue yet (much better term, BTW - Thanx). I'm thinking to keep the adjacency method as standard, and present singles as an option once your players are more familiar with the system. There is a learning curve for the light-based spectrum, and also for learning the symbolism and meanings of the colors.

I like the adjacent system better. The problem with the singles method is that players will almost always be able to come up with an excuse to be able to use whichever colors they have drawn, more so if they're very imaginative (and most roleplayers are, those who have got past their kicking-down-doors-and-killing-orcs-for-xp phase, anyway). So the difference in draws really becomes how many <specific color> ones did you draw, since they're worth double and you're going to get at least one success/frog per mote you draw anyway. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The adjacent system is easier for the seneschal to adjudicate successes fairly, and easier for him to wortk out odds of success etc on the fly. Also, it doesn't punish less quick thinking or smart players as much as the singles system would.

Brian.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Brian, you're so obviously rooted in the TRoS forum... Seneschal.

I mentioned this earlier, but I think it bears repeating: There is no reason that the two systems need be exclusive.  There are at least two logical combinations of them:

Adajcents are the only eligible singles.

Adjacents are automatic frogs and then singles can be narrated in.

I think each (and the naked singles system; I don't find the adjacent system by itself too interesting) has potential, particularly if you were to attach some sort of resource-management to the claiming of singles.  The downside of that would be that you have a second system - something that I firmly hold should only exist for very good reasons.  Three of them, like a Vulcan.

[Hamshrew]

The adjacent system is easier for the seneschal to adjudicate successes fairly, and easier for him to wortk out odds of success etc on the fly. Also, it doesn't punish less quick thinking or smart players as much as the singles system would.

This is a very good point.  While I'm all for awarding creative players, some people just don't /think/ the same way.  Perhaps the player could spend a single Boon before drawing , and add one color to count as 'adjacent,' assuming they could come up with a reason... this awards creativity, but helps curb abuse of the system.

Just an idea... maybe I missed something similar earlier.  It's morning, don't mind me >.<

[Mike Holmes]

I like Andrew's idea. Allow singles, but make it cost to use the rule.

How about "power" to replace "successes"? Sorta goes with the feeling of motes as energentic. So I draw a matching mote and get 2 power. I draw a supporting mote and get 1 more power for a total of 3 power. Etc. Then your power and the opponent's cancel leaving the remaining power as success.

I had the same problem for my game synthesis, BTW. We kept Successes and then called the subtractive result "Quality", as in the quality of the outcome. Now you have me thinking I need better terms, too.  :-)

Mike

[taalyn]

I agree with those of you who have issues with the singles system. It's not so much that I dislike it, but that it can be abused, and punishes the less creative/more shy players.  I do like it enough, however, that it will be included, perhaps with a maximum of one mote singled.

Since you can "push" your Luck (lose 1 mote of Luck to add I mote to your draw), I'm not sure what else to do to introduce a cost to singling. I think a limit (only 1) would suffice, yes? Well, perhaps a Boon - a guaranteed success - and the singled mote describes how the Boon takes effect.

Mike, I really like "power". I may use a more mystical synonym, but this is definitely the right sort of word. Thanks! The "successes" would simply be motes, and relative success would be power: "Jonas got 5 motes, and I got 2, so Jonas has a Power of 3". This is particularly appropraite, not only because of the idea of Yliaster, but also because power is used to determine damage.

You know, Seneschal is an appropriately Celtic word - but it reminds me of a better word - "seanchaí" (SHON-uh-khee). I hate "DM" and "GM" and people look at me funny when I demand to be called "God Almighty", so this word work well! A seanchaí is a custodian of tradition and history.

Thanks for the thoughts guys - you all rock!

Aidan

[taalyn]

I just read that it's recommended to keep stuff in one thread, so that's what I'm doing.

I said elsewhere that I had come up with an idea similar to TRoS' Spiritual Attributes, which is true. But what Jacob beat me to is the division of kinds of Passions (Aisling's word for them). Like almost everything else,  I want to associate them with colors - if nothing else, have seven kinds. They don't need to be, I just feel it lends an ongoing theme of 7ness that suits the game.

So, here are what I have so far developing this idea. Anyone have other ideas for types of Passion (i.e. character motivation)? Do these make sense, or should I combine some of them?

red - STR - athletic skills - Passion: love, hate, loyalty
amber - CHA - social - Faith: religion (as a social construct)
green - INT - knowledge - Destiny: knowing what it is and doing it
cyan - DEX - precision - Discipline: codes of honor, charity
blue - WIL - spiritual - Conscience
magenta - PER - artistic - ???
clear - EMP - magical - Drive: determination to do X

Drive and determination might be the same thing. Luck is a separate thing altogether.

I may have to give up my sevenfold structure and just let there be what I can figure out.

Aidan

[taalyn]

Little tinkering, surfing, and thought, I have seven now. Though I don't know how the correspond to colors (if they should):

Dignity: similar to conscience, some particular focus that indicates the character's method of acheiveing dignity, through right action, morality, social status, etc.

Devotion: what a character loves or hates, an idea or person or place

Duty: an obligation to something, be it person, station (e.g. to the king), or an idea

Destiny: an ultimate goal and/or role in the world

Discovery: to find something out (My name is Inigo Montoya - did you kill my dad?)

Doctrine: faith in something (magic is real/magic isn't real)

Drive: determination and purpose, a goal to accomplish, sometimes similar to destiny, but the drive is character chosen/created, whereas destiny is outside their choice and something they may rebel against; often something to accomplish simply for "I did it" reasons

or more succinctly:

Dignity: what I hold important for Me
Devotion: who I hold important for Us
Duty: what is important because of It
Destiny: what is important because of Me
Discovery: what I need for Me
Doctrine: what I need for Us
Drive: what I need for It

How's them look? Note that Me is the character, Us is society, and It is the focus.

Aidan