Mechanic for weak characters to surmount the odds -comments?

[Callan S.]

I agree with your sentiment entirely.

But the issue here is that in a traditional simulationist-style game, a hobbit is weak: they tend to have stats, skills, whatever that on paper get them killed in a minor tussle.  :)

And hence the discussions on how to bring mechanics into the game in order to implement their strengths.

Ben

Could I mention that there are two sorts of balances/strength implement types (as far as I can determine):
1. System has balance/strength implementation  
2. End user (ie the GM) implements balance/strength implementation in each session.

With a quality like 'pure heart' that would seem to clash with simulationist ideals as to just how often this comes up in practical terms (eg, using a sword will come up more often and thus be more useful generally), the system author can't do much about that (save flavour text directions or going against a large amount of simulationist ideals).

[Callan S.]

Heya,

Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ...

In other words, stories aren't realistic - not even the "realistic" ones.

ooh, lets not even go near 'realistic'.

My point is this (I think you may have mistaken what I'm railing against): When the hero gets into the fight, we examine his passion all the better when he is wounded or weak to begin with. This highlights just how empasioned he is, just how much he cares that he can get past disability AND a superior foe, etc.

To examine the weakness and the passion at the same time, you surely, SURELY can not remove the weakness from the equation. But if you use a 'use your combat bonus of 9 instead of your normal one of 6', you are replacing weakness with something else.  You can try and pretend that in the shared imaginative space that he's still weak. But systematically that's been edited out.

A bonus that adds to (weak) stats keeps that contrast (of just how empassioned they are to win regardless) going systematically.
A replacement stat doesn't. It suggests that when the villains around, the hero just gets better and you can forget about what he is normally. In fact, you might have trouble connecting his up coming heroic deed with him, because of it.

Isn't it important for the system to reflect what your examining?

Of course I am running off the idea that most movies or literature, if they have a fight between a wounded hero and the villain, that it keeps mentioning over and over the pain the hero feels (or if their weak, how weak they feel). Thus setting up a contrast. I can't remember many where the wounded guy suddenly hops around like nothing wacked him before because the villain turns up, with no further mentioning of wounds. Yes, most of them do include the hero jumping around like the stab to the heart was just fine...but man do they make mellow drama of the fact he was stabbed. Shouldn't the system reflect the fact its still there, too, rather than replacing it and everyone just pretends that wound/weakness matters?

And yes, this applies just as well to stories which turn out badly for the protagonist, as to the stories in which he "beats the bad guy at the end." It applies just as well to highbrow stories as to lowbrow ones (a distinction I tend to ignore), and applies just as well to conflicts about (e.g.) romantic confusion as to (e.g.) must-kill-slayer-of-my-lord, or whatever.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're objecting to the idea that the protagonist, when impassioned, is better than the antagonist, when impassioned. Again, I'm afraid that this idea is central to any story that I'm aware of, and that ...

Your reading me wrong. :) I hope my support of SA's was clear through the piece, which do just that. However, what they don't do is replace something, making previous and very intimate qualties of the hero mean moot.

I mean nobody like deus ex machina? No one likes someone more powerful flying in and replacing their hero at the fight...so why like a replacement stat? Yes, that stats tied to your character...but its also replacing him. A bonus is better, that's like deus ex machina in a way, but more like the hero and the machina working together to fight.

And yes, that might not be enough to beat an empassioned villain...yes, the weak guy can't match the pirate captains desire to break the curse. And? In TROS you'd still get a bonus point to your passion, assuming good design lets you have some chance at escape. You keep clashing again and again until your boosted so much you can win, or until a startling revelation allows use of two SA's (for example).

Whats so wrong with this that anyone can advocate a system where you replace stats/bits of characters and that weak people just have to have to get a better bonus out of this system. The TROS system either equals you out or enhances you through your (sometimes) epic journeys/deeds, a narrative method. The other equals you out or enhances you through system replacement (the villain simple triggers a deus ex machine of varying size, to my mind).

It's like if someone fights someone they hate, their rusty sword transforms (say it was weapons that improve with passion) into a different sword, just for that time. The rusty sword doesn't charge up and become better, it just gets replaced entirely for the encounter.

... is exactly how stories do work. There is no "in-game justification" that can really be justified. Even if there's an elaborate explanation ("Your friends turn out to have been looking for you all night, and they were just over the ridge the whole time; good thing they heard your voice, eh?"), it is just as arbitrary, on the author's part, as saying, "Oh, you pulled your friends out of your pocket and here they are to help you."

Differences in stories include the range of justification ... some rely on the greatest contrast possible between information-previously and how-it-works-now (like your sword example), and some rely on complex and subtle foreshadowing in order to have a surprising event "make sense all along" once it happens. But the fundamental notion that "protagonist who cares" just ... gets better in the crunch, in any way at all, is found throughout.

Yeah - even Walter Mitty.

Best,
Ron

That's exactly what I've said, the hero gets better because he cares. AND we the viewers see how much he cares by how he wins even though he has poor stats/is wounded. The conflict is an examination tool to see what this character really cares about, the contrast between normal stat and normal stat plus passion a very important way to highlight that passion and its intensity, to frame it for examination.

Replacement stats kills contrast dead. To me, very yuck.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Shreyas,

You wrote,

stuff like SAs are smokescreens for a "the characters we care about win" strategy

What smokescreen? They're screaming-banshee front and center. There's no "illusion" or agreement to pretend it's not happening, or anything similar. When such mechanics have as significant effects as Spiritual Attributes in TROS, then they are plainly and simply handing the authority of "I care about this guy" to the person who has authority over the given mechanic.

In the case of TROS and many similar games, I want to clarify that they are utilized to reinforce the failure and loss of the character as often as they are utilized to reinforce success and increased effectiveness.

Sometimes we care so much about a character that we want to grieve over his failures and/or untimely death. Attributes of this kind permit this option just as well as they permit glorious "golden comeback" victories.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

I'm just a bit confused, as between two quotes from Callan.

What's the value of this? The superior and empasioned swordsman...has no advantage against pissed off bobby no legs.

This is counterintuitive to most everything I've read in literature.

Passion shouldn't be about helping wimps equal out, that's not the message literature gives, IMO. It should be about wimps who care so damn much they can even beat baddies who care.

It's not clear whether Callan is objecting to a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong, or whether he objects because the mechanic does not benefit the weak more than the strong. I suggest a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong; I never said that the strong couldn't still beat the weak, or that they would get no benefit from the mechanic, nor did I say that it would never give the weak the edge over the strong. I just said that substitutionary scores can boost weak characters into the levels where they are viable adversaries to strong ones without giving the strong characters the tools to negate that advantage by boosting themselves still further.

Now, apparently Callan finds the idea of substitutionary stats abhorent, and the idea of sudden bonuses palatable. I don't see the difference between them, from that perspective--either way, you're replacing the stat that is normally used with a different stat. You're not replacing the character; you're tapping into something that is inherent within the character.

Whats so wrong with this that anyone can advocate a system where you replace stats/bits of characters and that weak people just have to have to get a better bonus out of this system.

There is nothing "wrong" with the bonus approach per se; I just don't think it answers the problem posted by the original post in this thread--which is, I believe, how can you devise a system that provides significant bonuses to underpowered characters in difficult situations that it does not provide to high-powered characters in the same situations? If the question is how to power weak characters without giving strong characters a tool to use against them, bonuses don't do that at all, and replacement scores do it very well.

As an aside, in most games, such bonuses wind up helping the more powerful characters more, because they'll usually have more of them, or have them in greater amounts. I don't say that's true of TRoS, but we're not talking about using TRoS here--we're talking about designing a game that empowers weak characters when they face significant challenges but does not do the same thing for strong characters. Bonuses don't do that; substitutionary scores do.

Bonuses and substitutionary scores are equally unrealistic, they are equally abhorrent to "purist" play. Whether the hobbit gets +5 because of his passion or replaces his combat three with a passion 8 as a mechanic, it's going to look like the hobbit suddenly found abilities beyond his expectations.

It makes sense to me from another aspect as well. I don't think being passionate about the outcome of the fight would help the expert swordsman as much as it would help the novice squire. In fact, you could even suggest a situation in which the expert's passion substituting for his skill caused him to fight less effectively, something that substitutionary scores do which bonuses clearly do not--and for this reason, teachers tell their students that they must not let their passions interfere with their fighting, because although when they are novices those passions can bring victory from defeat, when they are experts they can only get in the way.

Marhault also throws this into clear relief when he shows that the same passion will provide less bonus to a character's stronger abilities than it will to the character's weaker abilities. The novice at anything might well be much better by relying on his passion instead of his skill, but as he improves, the benefit of relying on passion decreases until it is entirely consumed and no longer is of any assistance.

I'm not saying bonuses are bad, or that SA's don't work well for what they do. I'm saying that the answer to the question of how to design a mechanic that will specifically help weak characters overcome difficult challenges without having an identical effect for strong characters is not by giving identical bonuses to all of them.

I think TRoS is an excellent game, from all I've heard, and that SA's are an incredible innovation. That's not at issue here. Please don't think I'm denigrating the idea in general; I'm only suggesting that for the problem posed it is not the best solution.

--M. J. Young

[montag]

Bonuses and substitutionary scores are equally unrealistic, they are equally abhorrent to "purist" play.

that idea (in similar words) has come up a few times in this discussion, and I still don't buy it.
The way I see it, there's a lot of factors to consider when assessing the difficulty of an action, but only two major things when assessing ability: effort and motivation. They may often go hand in hand, but are not logically or psychologically dependent on each other. Although I'm in favour of "realistic" mechanics (when appropriate) and am in fact am designing a system without modifiers to avoid the additive vs. interactive dilemma, I see no problem at all with providing a bonus to ability for extra effort (mapping it into level of descriptive detail for convenience's sake) and extra motivation (passions). Like it or not, you _will_ do better on average when trying harder or caring about the result. If one wants to be extra-realistic one might also increase the distribution rage to reflect the fact, that motivation and effort may get in the way, but not changing anything when a character is putting in extra effort or really cares about something is just ridiculous from a "realistic" point of view.

[Marhault]

[quote="M. J. Young]I'm saying that the answer to the question of how to design a mechanic that will specifically help weak characters overcome difficult challenges without having an identical effect for strong characters is not by giving identical bonuses to all of them.[/quote] Emphasis mine

It occurs to me that this might be a key point.  If you're dead set against the idea of trait substitution, it might be possible to duplicate most of the effects with different bonuses for each character.  If we assign a higher currency cost to Standard Abilities (rated as a constant number) than we do for Passions (rated as a bonus), and also make more general or useful passions cost more, things will probably balance out a little bit.  Let me see if I can put together a decent example. . .

Returning to LotR for characters:
Aragorn has Fight 8, Heal 6, Ride 8, Track 7.  He also has Loyalty +1, and Save Gondor +2.  His Passions are small because he spent all his points on Standard Abilities.
Samwise has Fight 3, Cook 6.  His passions are a little bit more powerful, Loyal to Frodo +7, Loves Good Food +3.
and Frodo?  His player new what he was about, not wasting points on stupid useless things like fighting or surviving. . .
Frodo has Fight 1, Dodge 1 and Protect The Ring +9.

Yeah, I know, Frodo and Sam should probably have more passions, or whatever, it's not really balanced.  The idea is that they paid more for the passions that will help them out more in the game, and that the passions are cheaper than the other stats, because the other stats are never "off."

It's also important to note, that this would have to be a pretty well thought out system, with an exhaustive list of what you can buy, and what it will cost.  It also doesn't allow for the "passion interferes" idea that M.J. mentioned.

[Callan S.]

I'm just a bit confused, as between two quotes from Callan.

What's the value of this? The superior and empasioned swordsman...has no advantage against pissed off bobby no legs.

This is counterintuitive to most everything I've read in literature.

Passion shouldn't be about helping wimps equal out, that's not the message literature gives, IMO. It should be about wimps who care so damn much they can even beat baddies who care.

It's not clear whether Callan is objecting to a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong, or whether he objects because the mechanic does not benefit the weak more than the strong. I suggest a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong; I never said that the strong couldn't still beat the weak, or that they would get no benefit from the mechanic, nor did I say that it would never give the weak the edge over the strong. I just said that substitutionary scores can boost weak characters into the levels where they are viable adversaries to strong ones without giving the strong characters the tools to negate that advantage by boosting themselves still further.

Heya,

How bad this mechanic strikes me (now you've explained it further) is on several levels and unfortunately my post reflects this multi hit on my senses inarticulately.

Anyway, the thing that struck me from your post on how that other system works is this:
- Instead of allowing the game events control the use/balancing out of passion, it uses system control over it. It's a design that assumes the system knows best about the human quality of passion! The GM can't design the session it so the weak aren't too weak and the strong aren't too strong (he can do so systematically, but that's not the same as game events controlling such a thing). Whether he'd do that for balance reasons or entertainment/story reasons, such control is taken out of his hands.

There are two ways of balance implimentation (or control over weak getting strong without the strong just making themselves stronger too). Either systematically or by the end user. And I really, really, really don't think the system author should be left to manage passion (like this). It's...gah, its like alignments from D&D. Its somthing thats controling a human trait which just skews it. While on the other hand we could just free them and leave them to the gaming group, who know their human traits and what they want to depict pretty well.

This sounds like this is the only problem with this method...but it has quite a few trickle down effects which are horrid to me as well.

Now, apparently Callan finds the idea of substitutionary stats abhorent, and the idea of sudden bonuses palatable. I don't see the difference between them, from that perspective--either way, you're replacing the stat that is normally used with a different stat. You're not replacing the character; you're tapping into something that is inherent within the character.

Imagine you have a game where, when you get pissed off you turn into a werewolf! :) Now, say you have your human stats and then your werewolf stats. Neither effects the others. It's like having two characters. Now, when something pisses you off...you switch characters.

Now, does this consitute a binary change and thus an examination of your passion is the same (happy/annoyed). Is that really examining anything like the concept of passion?

Where's the qualitive change, which we can examine (ie, where did each point come from?)? Where's the proof that you went through several other hellish challenges to get here (for example, that you'd get from an SA used...each point there exists because its from a previous challenge faced for that passion (won or lost))?

Whats so wrong with this that anyone can advocate a system where you replace stats/bits of characters and that weak people just have to have to get a better bonus out of this system.

There is nothing "wrong" with the bonus approach per se; I just don't think it answers the problem posted by the original post in this thread--which is, I believe, how can you devise a system that provides significant bonuses to underpowered characters in difficult situations that it does not provide to high-powered characters in the same situations? If the question is how to power weak characters without giving strong characters a tool to use against them, bonuses don't do that at all, and replacement scores do it very well.

*sigh*True...I'm not addressing that question. The thing is, using the rich idea of passion for that is like hitching a race horse to a dust cart. I have to say somthing because while it might help somthing in that game, I think they'll be ripping the heart out of somthing else to do it.

As an aside, in most games, such bonuses wind up helping the more powerful characters more, because they'll usually have more of them, or have them in greater amounts. I don't say that's true of TRoS, but we're not talking about using TRoS here--we're talking about designing a game that empowers weak characters when they face significant challenges but does not do the same thing for strong characters. Bonuses don't do that; substitutionary scores do.

Although it'll sound weak because the question is in terms of 'how can I do this via a system', I'm seriously suggesting doing passion balancing via the end user, in their session design. Use some other method, systematically...don't call it passion, call it a heavenly power up or somthing else. I'd rather a system not use/implement passion at all than choke chain it to some balancing task.

Look, yeah, substitutional scores are better mathimatically, no worries there. But surely there must be a better way to impliment that than choke chaining passion as the reason it happens? Passion doesn't 'werewolf' people...werewolfing does.

Bonuses and substitutionary scores are equally unrealistic, they are equally abhorrent to "purist" play. Whether the hobbit gets +5 because of his passion or replaces his combat three with a passion 8 as a mechanic, it's going to look like the hobbit suddenly found abilities beyond his expectations.

It makes sense to me from another aspect as well. I don't think being passionate about the outcome of the fight would help the expert swordsman as much as it would help the novice squire. In fact, you could even suggest a situation in which the expert's passion substituting for his skill caused him to fight less effectively, something that substitutionary scores do which bonuses clearly do not--and for this reason, teachers tell their students that they must not let their passions interfere with their fighting, because although when they are novices those passions can bring victory from defeat, when they are experts they can only get in the way.

As I've said, I'm staying away from realism in what I talk about.

Marhault also throws this into clear relief when he shows that the same passion will provide less bonus to a character's stronger abilities than it will to the character's weaker abilities. The novice at anything might well be much better by relying on his passion instead of his skill, but as he improves, the benefit of relying on passion decreases until it is entirely consumed and no longer is of any assistance.

The other way to look at it is that the majesty and meaning of passion becomes more and more meaningless and finally obsolete. I start in a system with passion and then as I advance, the game turns more and more into something without passion in it, like D&D. Right now that's clicking with me that RP encouragement from the system will reduce with play because of the system mechanics. I'm running off the conclusion that in D&D you can RP well, but a system with passion in it encourages RP even more. So what happens when that passion becomes meaningless systematically, just as its meaningless in a system where it wasn't implimented in the first place (D&D for example (BTW, not bagging D&D...tis fun))

I'm not saying bonuses are bad, or that SA's don't work well for what they do. I'm saying that the answer to the question of how to design a mechanic that will specifically help weak characters overcome difficult challenges without having an identical effect for strong characters is not by giving identical bonuses to all of them.

I think TRoS is an excellent game, from all I've heard, and that SA's are an incredible innovation. That's not at issue here. Please don't think I'm denigrating the idea in general; I'm only suggesting that for the problem posed it is not the best solution.

--M. J. Young

I didn't think you were knocking them. :)

As to the problem, SA's as a system implimented solution for this problem wont do it, you are correct, I concede that fully. But to name passion as the method these substitional stats come into play, will be catching the penny but missing the pound. Although the idea of passion is quite nebulous, I think it should be clear it can be far more powerfully implimented, SA's being a recent example.

[Ben Miller]

Well, I don't mind telling you that I'm torn on which of the two main methods being discussed to use.

I'd almost decided to use substitution of 'passion' scores for more tangible abilties (rather than have them confer bonuses).  Then I started thinking about making characters and realised that is there any point having a passion with a score of 1 or 2?  

I mean, if the passion has a low score it's never actually going to et substitued-in during play.  Now you could argue that this is quite realistic in the sense that since you are not that passionate about it, it rarely (if ever helps).  The thing is, I would deem passions to be things which (almost by definition) the character is passionate about - and hence I'd want to do away with low scores totally.  Don't really want to start passion scores to have a min value (such as 5, say)...

Perhaps if I come up with a good mechanic for increasing (and decreasing) the score of a passion then low scores would be ok, cos they are just a step on the way to a potential 'high' score.

I'm wondering if I could just let the GM decide when to increase or decrease a passion score - I'd rather have a more solid mechanic for it though.  Perhaps when you choose to substitute it in a given situation, there some randomising factor built in as to whether the passion strengthens or weakens?  Any thoughts?

Good discussion happening here, btw!

Ben

[Ben Miller]

Another thing...

My action resolution mechanic is also along the lines of: roll a number of dice, with each even result meaning a 'hit'; compare number of hits to difficulty number.

In terms of scale, I wanted my characters to have a number of traits, each one of which is relevent to a task confers an extra die to roll.  

I can see how to use passions as a number of bonus die to a roll, but I can't see how to implement the passion as a substitutionary thing.  Any ideas how this might be made to work?

Perhaps I need to go back to some sort of attributes ranging from 1 to 10 or similar.

Ben

[M. J. Young]

I'd almost decided to use substitution of 'passion' scores for more tangible abilties (rather than have them confer bonuses).  Then I started thinking about making characters and realised that is there any point having a passion with a score of 1 or 2?

I mean, if the passion has a low score it's never actually going to et substitued-in during play.

First, let me agree with Callan that "passions" probably aren't the best word here. "Interests" has some of the same direction without the implication, and there may be better words somewhere. Alyria calls these "traits", but they have to have some sort of value in this area to count (you can't have a trait of "good with sword", for example).

I don't see a reason why such scores can't be on a higher scale. I note with Alyria that such traits can be changed, but if they are dropped two steps they vanish from the sheet--they no longer are important to the character. (The scale is five steps, but centered on zero.) Saying that any passion starts at five is not unreasonable.

Of course, the question is whether you've got a gamist or narrativist engine at this point, because you don't want to create a system which gamists are going to break by using passions instead of abilities; but you seem to be aiming for something narrativist, so you might be able to manage that.

Also, on low scores, Alyria allows opponents to use your traits against you. Thus for example (in your system) you could force a character to replace is higher ability score with his lower passion, on the grounds that "he really doesn't care about this", although that works better in a system with positive and negative values (Alyria's Diverse Lunacy mechanic is very good for this).

Just some thoughts.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

I'd rename these higher attributes something like insight. As in having a brief...wassit called...starts with e...ephany? (sp?)

Anyway, you can have inspiration triggers. Less like passions and more like moments where your insight kicks in.

After that encounter, its used up for the session. Before the next session the player has to think of another inspiration trigger.

The fun thing about this is that each time the players would be suggesting cool scenes for the GM to use in each new session (frodo gets attack, joes girl gets taken, etc), and the players are being rewarded for that.

[Ben Miller]

Cheers for the ideas boys!

I've now got lots of ideas swirling around in my head about passions. triggers, drives and the such like.  I'll try to make something out of it all and let you know how I get on.

I've been looking at the Alyria quick-start rules as a result of this discussion and there's stuff I like in there.

[Ben Lehman]

Hi there.

I'm still juggling with rules and reward systems for a light-weight quasi-simulationist game set in Middle Earth.  (I'm tentatively calling it Tales Of Middle Earth at the moment.)

BL>  There have been many lovely suggestions for dealing with this, particularly in regard to SAs and similar mechanics, in this thread.  These are all great.  I offer another solution, somewhat more specific to the case of Lord of the Rings or, in particular, Frodo vs. Sauron.

Sauron, as far as I can tell, is not a character in any sense that an RPG game would describe a character -- he is without physical form, substance, or even personal ability.  Sauron is simply a force of corruption and power in the world.

So, when Sauron rolls against you, he isn't rolling "Giant Sauron stats of Doom" against "Your Pewling Weeny Stats of Pain."  The conflict of Sauron is not external.  It is internal.  The conflict is "Your Desires" vs. "Your Will."

So, what do you roll?  You roll Your Own Highest Attribute vs. Your Will.  Now, you might want to discount certain stats (like Will) from this equation, as well as certain skills (like farming and cooking) that are not of interest or use to Sauron.  So mark things on the character sheet -- these are the rolls in which Sauron has an interest.  Sword-play.  Leadership.  Nobility.  Magic power.  Tank them at your own risk.

How come Hobbits are so fiendishly nasty against the Ring?  Because they have the double whammy of a high Will score and a low Everything Else Useful score.

To some degree, ALL conflict in the Lord of the Rings comes down to fighting with one's own vices and ability to do evil, and this system of testing against yourself might be spun out into a longer system of self-testing (do you make every roll against a standard difficulty but, if it passes your will, gain corruption?  That would be interesting.)

Because, in the discussed RPG systems, it comes down to ability+moral clarity.  But in the Lord of the Rings, moral clarity seems to be all that counts.  Ability almost seems to work against you.

Just more food for thought.

yrs--
--Ben