[GroupDesign: Schrodinger's War] Drafting Mechanics

[Tobias]

I'll tell you this honestly - I'm having a hard time finding the good points in this post (which I can tell there are, but they won't sink in my brain). The reason is the (adversarial?) player-GM interaction you're describing.

While I agree that the Great Library description of a Host is external and some surprising passions (item: who creates the surprise c.q. the passion list of the Host?) may exist, I want the player to have authority over the symbiont and what happens. I expect the player to be responsible enough to adress premise on his own when the Host would resist the Archivist. (In other words, not ignore what's going on as the Archivist destroy everyone around without regard to passions).

I prefer the Host description to be made by the GM (or other decision agent) and then passed to the player, whos got total control from then on.

Side notes:

- I'm starting to be 'against' (Burn + Fade) for both Host and Archivist. I guess just Burn for the Host, and Fade (or Burn) for the archivist, will do. It boils down to 'damage', essentially, and I don't think we need 2 damage traits (just like there need be no division between mental burn or physcial burn).

- I love the prayer/meditation/drugs thing... so obvious, but I hadn't thought of it yet.

- I'd rather not have a traditional GM for this game - I'd prefer shared authority over the players, and all players pushing their own (pro-active) Archivist agenda (not just responding to external stimuli). I have visions, also, of the players being (possibly almost) the only Archivists there are. If the dark side is there, mechanically, and the player's goals are tempting enough, some will go to the darkside eventually... :)

But that's just me, maybe. I can accept some of my idea's being 'expansion modules'. ;)

- edit from this point on: oh, and I like Burn being a direct and crude thing when it hurts/supresses passions. No 'tally up the amounts of Burn from different sources and after a certain threshold lose 1 passion, re-set Burn to 0' deal, but straight crude stuff. You're doing subtle stuff that doesn't go against a passion? Fince, go ahead. You're doing stuff that's noticed (and resisted?) start burning passion. This raises a point - if the resistance comes from a certain passion, should it be that specific passion that's burned, instead of just generally excerting control? It's a nice thought, but might leave a trail of gutted useless husks (since you're likely to use the Host for the skill/position he's in, which is likely something he's passionate about). So I probably prefer matching a hosts passion with your Archivist 'Presence' or 'Intrusivenss' or 'Burn' (which is really what it is, after all). It also means that if a Host is a 10-point being, you'd never have to Burn him for more than 6 (because he'll have 4 passion left, and 6>4) IF you're just using him for his skills/passions. If you're using him for more than that (Powerz! Logoi (which term I am now using as Knowledge)!), there go the white hear, stooped gait and decrepid teeth... ;)

(The above is no more than the mechanics I've been suggesting all along, still needs some tweaking to incorporate Free Will.)

On the Free Will thing - does it really need to be a score? Does Free Will vary from person to person (making it a Willpower-like trait), or is it just some cosmic thing bestowed upon every (semi)sentient entity? If the latter, Free Will just might manifest as the score on a die roll...

You all get the feeling I'm rambling a lot recently? ;)

edit 2: clarity

[Sydney Freedberg]

1) Who activates Passions & Logoi?

I like the idea of the player not knowing all the Host's Passions until one of them is stirred up by circumstances; I'd think of this less as the GM invoking them tactically/adversarially than as the GM making a judgment call about what circumstances might reasonably trigger a given Passion (N.B. this is both highly subjective and Simulationist, I know).

Still, I'm not so worried about the "adversarial GM" issue as Tobias is -- although allowing GM-less play as one of our customizable options would be Way Cool. In that case, presumably you could allow another player to add traits to your Host and hide them from you until they're triggered by circumstances, in lieu of the GM doing it: This would preserve the element of uncertainty for the player about his/her character's Host.

On the other hand, I'm less thrilled with the idea of allowing the GM to trigger an Archivist's Logoi. The Archivist is the player's character in the traditional sense of PC, so I don't see the same need for the various mechanisms for splitting control -- e.g. a Free Will die roll/score, involuntary activation of "hidden" traits -- that we're considering to represent the Archivist's (and thus the player's) imperfect control over and knowledge of the Host.


2) Who gets Fade and Burn?

I like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.

As for Archivists being able to take Burn, I know this adds an extra layer of complexity, but I think it's worth it, just as giving Archivists passions and humanity to burn is worth it: It allows you the dilemma of nurturing your residual humanity, even when it is interfering with the mission (the "Joe sure started drinking heavily" example), or sacrificing your residual humanity by Burning it in order to achieve the mission -- making you ever more alien both to what you were and to the people you're trying to help.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I want the player to have authority over the symbiont and what happens. I expect the player to be responsible enough to adress premise on his own when the Host would resist the Archivist.

And I think we may have a significant disagreement here, actually; or alternatively I may just be misreading you. I agree that the player should be, most of the time, playing the role of both Archivist and Host -- the symbiont, as you say -- but I think that there should be actual game mechanics that reflect the fact that the Host is someone else with a will of his or her own. The in-game reality that the Archivist does not fully control, or fully know, the Host should be reflected by game mechanics which interfere with the player's knowledge and control of the Host. As Nate said a while back, such mechanics (e.g. a die roll) can create the sense of a "third presence" at the table besides player and GM, which I think is important for the Host to rise above being a tool and become a character in their own right.

Yes, you could ask the player to "just roleplay it" and act out the Archivist vs. Host conflicts, but I think that's much harder than making the player's primary role the Archivist and then using mechanics to roil the waters and provide conflict.

EDIT: See the "Emotion Mechanics" thread I started a while back in RPG theory for some discussion on players not being totally in control of their characters, which is germane and lays out my views on this in far more length than I'll bore you with at the moment.

[Andrew Morris]

I like the idea of the player not knowing all the Host's Passions until one of them is stirred up by circumstances; I'd think of this less as the GM invoking them tactically/adversarially than as the GM making a judgment call about what circumstances might reasonably trigger a given Passion.

I'm jumping in with a "me too" here.

The Archivist is the player's character in the traditional sense of PC, so I don't see the same need for the various mechanisms for splitting control -- e.g. a Free Will die roll/score, involuntary activation of "hidden" traits -- that we're considering to represent the Archivist's (and thus the player's) imperfect control over and knowledge of the Host.

Again, right on.

I like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.

Ack! No! Sydney, we were getting along so well, why'd you have to go and ruin it? Kidding, of course, but I really think a "namby-pamby buffer zone" is vital. If we don't have that, hosts will quickly become unuseable, no matter how circumspect the Archivists are. I'd like for them to be able to achieve their goals with only minimal damage to the host, if they really try and are subtle. By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.

As for Archivists being able to take Burn, I know this adds an extra layer of complexity, but I think it's worth it, just as giving Archivists passions and humanity to burn is worth it: It allows you the dilemma of nurturing your residual humanity, even when it is interfering with the mission (the "Joe sure started drinking heavily" example), or sacrificing your residual humanity by Burning it in order to achieve the mission -- making you ever more alien both to what you were and to the people you're trying to help.

How about we create some optional rules to allow for Burn to Archivists who have Passions and Fade to hosts who have Transcendence?

[Sydney Freedberg]

I like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.

....By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.

Now I'm torn, actually. Here's a potential compromise which allows immediate pain yet lasting protection (what a slogan): All Burn/Fade takes effect immediately, but there is the potential for the Host/Archivist to recover -- a possibility which of course gets slimmer as the damage gets worse.

The upside of such a mechanic would be that instead of having a buffer zone before the player's choices started to hurt characters, it would provide a recovery capacity after -- so players could still try to protect Hosts from excessive Burn (and Archivists from excessive Fade) but would still face nasty consequences up-front. In this mechanic, "burn out" and "fade out" would be the Points of No Return, when recovery is no longer possible.

The downside is it's one more complication to implement -- note that it's the exact opposite of Tobias's suggestion of simplifying the system by only assessing Fade/Burn effects when an Archivist leaves the Host.

[Andrew Morris]

I love this idea. Sure it'll take a bit more time, but I think it's well worth it. It just fits the game perfectly. Sydney, this is better than a compromise, it's an improvement on both ideas.

[Doug Ruff]

Well, I'm more than fashionably late to this particular party. I've been away from home (and net access) quite a bit, and have also been spending a lot of time trying to revive a 2nd-hand laptop (but that is another story, and not for this thread.)

Here's my latest stab at some base mechanics for this game. Please note that I've been drafting this over the course of a few hours, so there will be some cross-posting!

1) Stats

I like Michael's "aspects" idea (and most of Sydney's "skills deriving from passions" argument) - I think that it also presents an oppprtunity to reduce some of the (now quite large) list of trait-types that we have been discussing.

For example, Loves Family(2), Security Guard(4) All Hosts must Ascend(3) and Molecular Agitation(5) could all be legitimate traits within the setting - as examples of Host Passions, Skills, Archivist "Passions" and Logoi, respectively.

The only distinction that needs to be made is that some of the traits are "transcendent" (eg Reads Minds) and are therefore Archivist-only (with the exception of a few special Hosts). These traits will have their own special rules (mainly relating to Burn.)

I don't see why Archivists cannot have traits which overlap with Hosts - both Archivists and Hosts could have access to Hopeless Romantic(3), Nuclear Physics(5) and I Know Kung Fu(4) for example.

I'm also going to suggest the we dispose of separate Humanity and Transcendence stats (not an original idea.) Very "human" characters have lots of Passions, "transcendent" characters have "transcendent traits".  Humanity and Transcendence still remain as concepts, so I don't think this contradicts the "vote" we had before starrting this thread (but tell me if I'm wrong.)

However, Free Will remains a separate trait.

2) Conflict

In several RPGs I've seen, conflict is separated into two categories: character vs environment, and character vs. character. SW adds a third type of conflict: character vs. self, which represents Archivist-Host conflict, and also character' strugling against their Passions.

I think that character-self conflicts are different from the first two types, and that this is important to the mechanics. The first two types are about whether or not a character succeeds in an action, but character-self conflicts are about what actions the character will take (or attempt) in the first place.

This gives us our first rule: character-self conflicts must resolve first.

Character-self conflicts are triggered whenever a character's intended action would conflict with a trait's "expected behaviour."

For example, the Archivist player wants his character (who is possessing a Host) to shoot his Host's brother. This would trigger a conflict if the Host or Archivist had any traits such as "Loves family", "Honest", "(Good) Cop" (or even "Injury Lawyer) or "Respect for Humans".

A Host's Free Will should also be used to oppose the action if the action would not be in the Host's best interests - for example, the Archivist wants their Host to go to the library rather than go to work (the Host might get fired.) In other words, Free Will represents the "enlightened self-interest" of the Host.

If the proposed action is in the best interests of the Host (but is opposed by another trait), apply the Host's Free Will in favour of the action.

If it's not clear whether the action is in the Host's best interests or not (but is opposed by another trait) then randomly determine which side the Free Will is applied to (perhaps neither.)

Archivists also have a Will score with which to support their action - I think this is mechanically necessary, otherwise the Archivist will never be able to act (not sure I like it though.)

To resolve a "character-self" conflict: add up all the traits which support an action, and all the traits that oppose it. Highest score wins.

If the environment (or another character) resists the action, then use the "roll-over" from the character-self conflict (or just count relevant character traits, if there is no "character-self" conflict). Compare this to the "opposition" traits and highest total wins again.

(A random factor - or "fate point" system - could also be added here, but I'd like to leave this open for now. An environmental penalty for actions which change Important History would also be appropriate.)

3) Burn v1

Archivists have the option of Burning Host traits in order to influence the result of a character-self conflict. They can suppress any host trait, including Free Will. Burning Free Will makes a Host much more predictable (and controllable) but also less useful (a Host gets to use their Free Will to assist any "survival" situation.)

Burning Host traits is a serious act with moral consequences; the effects are permanent (or long-term) - in Host time. Of course, the HTT can change as a result of Archivist action (or naturally), so burn can heal from this perspective (but I'm going to skirt around this for now.)

(question: should this be reflected in the mechanics? I don't think this is necessary, but may be needed to prevent munchkinist players from Burning Hosts with impunity.)

4) Burn v2

"Transcendent" traits also cause Burn if they are applied, but this is a different type of Burn. Every time an archivist uses a "transcendent trait" in a conflict, roll D6 for each point used. Keep a record of the numbers rolled in a the Host's "burn log".

For example, Archivist rolls [1,3,3,4,6] for using a 5-point transcendent trait. Write these numbers in the burn log.

A Host's total "Burn" is equal to the highest number of times a songle number is repeated (in the example above, "2" for the two 3's).

Burn is cumulative:

Example, the Host above already has a "burn log" of [1,3,3,4,6]. The archivist trigers the same 5-point transcendent trait again, roling [1,1,1,5,6]. The "burn log" now reads [1,1,1,1,3,3,4,5,6,6] and the total "burn" is 4.

For every 2 full points of "Burn", the Host gains a -1 penalty to all actions (ie trait totals) for all conflicts except character-self conflicts. When Burn is equal to twice the highest Host Trait, the host is dead (or insane, or a zombie) and is only "in play" for as long as they are possessed.

(Note, this is a rather harsh ratio - feel free to change it if you want a larger "buffer zone")

The act of possessing a Host automatically inflicts a D6 roll to the burn log. For each full day of possession, add another D6 roll to the log.

(Again, this is a harsh ratio - it encourages minimal and careful Archivist interference with Hosts.)

Again, this type of Burn is permanent from with Host-time, but could heal with te passage of Archivist-time (ie from an "outside" perspective.)

5) Fade

Whenever an archivist loses a character-self conflict, they take Fade. This should be directly related to the margin of loss, but I'm not sure yet whether this should be point for point, or rolled for on a "Fade log".

Fade reduces all Archivist actions (trait totals), including character-self conflicts and any other conflicts that Archivist traits contribute to.

If an Archivist takes Fade equal to their highest Trait, they "fade out" and cannot leave their Host. (They lose their connection to the Archivist-Dimension, as discussed in the HTT thread.)

Archivsts can recover Fade after leaving a Host, but this also requires the passage of Archivist time.

(Note for healing Burn and Fade - this could br represented by rolling D6 and removing the appropriate number from the log. If there isn't an equivalent number, no healing this time around. This means that high Burn or Fade could take a long time to heal...)

6) More work needed

There isn't anything in the above to capture different types of Archivist-Host interaction (passive observation, "conversation" between archivist and Host etc.) I would also like a system for archivists and Host "learning" traits from each other - which could also account for Archivists "teaching" Hosts transcendent traits.

Please read, dissect and discuss - in the meantime, I'm going to spend more time studying the rest of this thread - although I have read it a couple of times, it's very "information rich" and I'm sure I haven't done it justice yet.

LATE NOTE: I think these mechanics will support Sydney's latest suggestion, with minimal tweaking.

[Tobias]

I like Tobias's idea that you don't have any namby-pamby buffer zone before the Host starts losing traits: When you choose to take Burn or Fade, it means either Host or Archivist starts losing points off traits immediately -- which pushes the central dilemma of the game (whom will I sacrifice?) right up front where it ought to be.

....By taking away traits any time the Archivist does something, it almost makes it pointless to try and protect the host -- you might as well burn them down to an empty shell and be effective, since they'll be ruined by contact with you anyway.

Note that, with slight adaptation, this is EXACTLY the temptation that could make you a Dark Archivist...

edit: note that I deliberately placed the coupling of skill-passion in my suggestions to have something 'valuable' be erased in that case as well...

Now I'm torn, actually. Here's a potential compromise which allows immediate pain yet lasting protection (what a slogan): All Burn/Fade takes effect immediately, but there is the potential for the Host/Archivist to recover -- a possibility which of course gets slimmer as the damage gets worse.

The upside of such a mechanic would be that instead of having a buffer zone before the player's choices started to hurt characters, it would provide a recovery capacity after -- so players could still try to protect Hosts from excessive Burn (and Archivists from excessive Fade) but would still face nasty consequences up-front. In this mechanic, "burn out" and "fade out" would be the Points of No Return, when recovery is no longer possible.

The downside is it's one more complication to implement -- note that it's the exact opposite of Tobias's suggestion of simplifying the system by only assessing Fade/Burn effects when an Archivist leaves the Host.

Actually, I was always in favor of 'damage up front' with a recovery option (how traditional, now that I state it this way). I'll let go of my desire to assess damage at the end (as a good streamlining simplification) in favor of the image of the white-haired stooped Host, though.

(Although I do think people need to pay close attention to the level of detail they build into their mechanics. There are three types of campaign I see being played - 2 fisted action with historical backdrop, time-twisters extraordinaire (the only campaign where subtle motor control and tiny hints are really interesting, I think), and the deep introspective dramatic Host-Archivist interaction (where there's a lot more 'bonding'). These three types of campaigns require different levels of rule detail).

On free will mechanics, GM-player and Host-Archivist relationship (primarily in response to Sydney's post):

I think there's less opposition than you might expect. What i am against is a GM-driven 'surprise' all the time - but you would expect that, as I am promoting the GM-less game. On issues where there needs to be some inter-player sparring and tension (without feedback, one player's just riffing in a vacuum - scary, freedom without feedback) a group decision mechanic might work a lot better.

I am NOT against a mechanical introduction of something Free Will-esque that will create tension in the Host-Archivist relationship. I just want the player to be in the driver's seat.

I know I have been against a Free Will score, but I am not against Free Will as a concept that manifests in some way.

I haven't gotten around to parsing Doug's Post well yet, since he's coming at it from a fresh angle. There's gems there. I also think there's a good example of 'some mechanics/detail' being right for some different focus in campaign there.

(This whole post IMHO, ofcourse).

[Sydney Freedberg]

Tobias, thanks for elaborating.
Doug, good to have you back, and good to have a new take on mechanics. I'm unsure about the die-rolling scheme, but the idea of implementing Burn slightly differently for erasing inconvenient Host traits vs. manifesting Transcendent powers is interesting. And there's one nail you've absolutely hammered on the head:

[External conflicts]are about whether or not a character succeeds in an action, but character-self conflicts are about what actions the character will take (or attempt) in the first place. This gives us our first rule: character-self conflicts must resolve first. Character-self conflicts are triggered whenever a character's intended action would conflict with a trait's "expected behaviour."

Agreed. My small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.

* Note that the Host's "enlightened self-interest" isn't really the issue here; many people habitually do things against their enlightened self-interest (smoke, drink, go back to abusive relationships) and would take Burn from being forced to do the sensible thing!

As for the full might of Doug's mechanics outline, I'm still digesting, so I may have further thoughts....but I have go to buy my wife a Christmas present now!

[Tobias]

Tobias, thanks for elaborating.

You're welcome. ;)

Agreed. My small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.

So tell me where a GM is needed, here. ;)

[daMoose_Neo]

lol- I'm in the same boat with everyone else on Doug's post. Bravo, bravo.

Now then-

1) I'm siding with Tobias on the GM-less. I think that could work quite nicely.

2) I'm against Tobias on the Free Will. Actually, without a GM, a Free Will score is more neccesary. We're cutting out one human element with the GM-less, an element that (should) have sole interest in moving the world along. Thus, the Free Will takes the place of the GM, allowing the Host to do things for themselves. A GM is normally the NPC voice, and a Host really isn't a PC, more like an NPC you get to borrow. So, taking the GM away, the NPC still needs a voice not belonging to a player.

3) That said, I skimmed Doug's post and am wondering about an Archivist will score. Is that neccesary? The Archivist CAN dump his or her power into a Host, driving down or killing Free Will in most of the examples that have included it.
Its not a question of IF the Archivist can do it, its a question of HOW the Archivist can do it. The Archivist always has the power to, in the end, boss the Host around, but at the cost of damaging the Host, slipping to the "Dark Side" or what not. To quote Genie - "Its not a pretty sight, I DON'T LIKE DOING IT!"

4) Agreeing with Syd, bravo on the conflict brake down Doug. Syd: Consider this- we've stated Burn in Hosts is psychological as well as physical. Of course those situations are bad for people, but for many in those situations thats "normal". They WOULD experiance psychological issues if they were forced out of those situations. "Drama queens", while their life is "so horrible", couldn't function without that drama in their life. If its not there, they'll try to find it in someone elses. If they can't, they're lost.

5) Regardless of how we do Burn, a "healing" mechanic is almost a must. I had something typed up last night before my PC crashed :P
What I was going to suggest was to tie the action of Healing to the Passion. For example, someone with "Loves Family" may need to have some kind of contact with his or her family, to "reaffirm" themselves or rekindle that Passion. Limit it, so that they can't just go home, say "Hi!" to the Wife and Kids and be just fine, but make it an option.

[Tobias]

2) I'm against Tobias on the Free Will. Actually, without a GM, a Free Will score is more neccesary. We're cutting out one human element with the GM-less, an element that (should) have sole interest in moving the world along. Thus, the Free Will takes the place of the GM, allowing the Host to do things for themselves. A GM is normally the NPC voice, and a Host really isn't a PC, more like an NPC you get to borrow. So, taking the GM away, the NPC still needs a voice not belonging to a player.

Note, and I may stating this too much: I don't want a Free Will *score*(because it reeks to me of Willpower, and I think Free will is more... dare I say it... Transcendental and Universal than that. ;) ). But I don't mind a Free Will effect. Have a d10 oppose the Archivist/Allow the Host to do stuff, instead of a score. (Or any other die combo that's appropriate).

3) That said, I skimmed Doug's post and am wondering about an Archivist will score. Is that neccesary? The Archivist CAN dump his or her power into a Host, driving down or killing Free Will in most of the examples that have included it.
Its not a question of IF the Archivist can do it, its a question of HOW the Archivist can do it. The Archivist always has the power to, in the end, boss the Host around, but at the cost of damaging the Host, slipping to the "Dark Side" or what not. To quote Genie - "Its not a pretty sight, I DON'T LIKE DOING IT!"

Yes. IMHO.

5) Regardless of how we do Burn, a "healing" mechanic is almost a must. I had something typed up last night before my PC crashed :P
What I was going to suggest was to tie the action of Healing to the Passion. For example, someone with "Loves Family" may need to have some kind of contact with his or her family, to "reaffirm" themselves or rekindle that Passion. Limit it, so that they can't just go home, say "Hi!" to the Wife and Kids and be just fine, but make it an option.

Sounds good!

It's weekend, in the timeslot I'm in. Have fun with the thread while I'm gone! ;)

[Doug Ruff]

Doug, good to have you back, and good to have a new take on mechanics.

It's good to be back - and thanks to everyone for reviewing it so quickly.

My small refining thought: Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do the stuff the Host would normally do, the player roleplays the Archivist-Host symbiote without restriction and without interfering mechanics, because there's no conflict. Whenever the player-as-Archivist wants the Host to do something "out of character"* -- which primarily means "in conflict with one of the Host's traits" -- the Free Will mechanic kicks in and there's a conflict to decide who decides.

* Note that the Host's "enlightened self-interest" isn't really the issue here; many people habitually do things against their enlightened self-interest (smoke, drink, go back to abusive relationships) and would take Burn from being forced to do the sensible thing!

Actually, that's what I want too - which means you've pointed out a weakness in the current mechanic. There are going to be times when "Normal" behaviour for a Host is going to be against their "enlightened self-interest".

In a Sim game, we could model this by explaining how there are other Traits which counteract their self-interest: I smoke, but it's addictive; I drink, but it numbs the pain; he hits me, but I love him etc.

But that's going to get very complicated, very quickly - and this is a game about Archivists, not psychoanalysts. I think there's an answer, but I need to address the Will/Resistance issue first:

Tobias has a good point here: the effect is more important than the mechanic. If we want to support GM-less play, I think that the Host's resistance to Archivist control needs to be:

[*]Based on the Host's "interests" (which combines "survival" and "what they want", the latter can include things that are bad for them.[*]Unpredictable (which implies a randomising element[*]Discovered during play[/list:u]The last one hasn't really been discussed in any detail yet. But if there is no GM, how about a mechanic that allows players to introduce new Host Traits that oppose the Archivist? Or that support the Archivist?

For example, Bob the store clerk starts with McJob(2) and Welded to His iPod(3). An Archivist wants him to stand up to a bunch of armed robbers who want the day's taking. Can the Archivist spend a resourse to give Bob Survivalist(3) and Tae Kwon Do(4)? and can another player spend points to give Bob opposing traits of Hates the Boss(2) and Pisses His Pants at the First Sign of Danger(5)?

The main advantages of this approach are that initial chargen for Hosts can be fast and loose, and it starts to bring the game away from a dice-rolling exercise. It also may give another way to get the Host to do what you want, without Burning.

Main downside is that it's too damn convenient!

Even then, I think that there needs to be a generic "Will" or "Resistance" stat (or effect) that deals with anything that would inconvenience the Host, endanger them or upset their routine (most people like routines.) Perhaps dice-based, with more dice for greater inconvenience/danger to the Host?

Also that there needs to be some semi-reliable means of geting the Host to do something without Burning them. I think that the Archivist could use their own Traits to produce "internal voices" in the Host's mind, to influence them, but this would have to carefully balanced against the Host's own traits.

This appears a bit "crunchy" right now, but I think it can be stripped down. Also remember that, at this stage, most of the conflict resolution mechanics would fit onto a couple of pages of text-with-layout... I don't think that's bad. The main issue is handling time/simplicity, not length of rules.

[daMoose_Neo]

Actually, Tobias, hows about we rip on my Dungeons/Dummies game?

D/D is a GM-less comedy game I wrote up which uses the players to toss in details about other players. Institute something like this here:
The player picks a Host to possess with a primary Passion that makes them ideal for what needs to be done. Then, the other players write down one other Passion (or two, if its a small group or we want Passionate Hosts). They HAVE to have a justification for it of course, they can't choose a Passion simply to hose the Archivist-Player, but when it comes up in play, it is revealed (or possibly even allow the other players to hint at the hidden passions, allow every one a chance to frame a scene or throw in a detail that hints at it.)
In  D/D, the groups that have played it have worked well in. Chargen portions where these other players choose moved quick and the selections complimented the characters and enhanced them rather than create a messy situation.

[Tobias]

Yeah, I like that, that's what I'm aiming for as well (in general, at least, although the details look good here as well).

I've been doing some Universalis gaming, and after the initial sillyness phase, people get deep and responsible very quickly - and most importantly, it's about story-enhancing play.