Stat sets [Cian]

[Eero Tuovinen]

If Destiny really is the point (which I kinda doubt; it seems to me that it's definitely secondary to all this setting material), there are a number of good games to grab:

Matt Snyder is the King of Destiny, insofar as all his games include a functional, explicit and central way for the players to manipulate plot in a manner identical to character destiny, even when it's not explicitly called that.
- Dust Devils has the best "issue" mechanic ever, despite it's relative age. It's trivial to see how the Devil in the game serves as character destiny and player thematic commitment at the same time.
- Nine Worlds has an issue mechanic, too. It's real-time redefinable, multipolar, central to the reward system and so on. The Muses are again player commitment combined, which translates into character destiny.

Other games with essentially similar stuff are Riddle of Steel, Polaris (OK, not so similar, but cool still) and Shadows of Yesterday. The common thing between these is that the character's destiny is equated with the player's goals. So a player wants to tell a story about alcoholism, he grabs the destiny of "Dies because of whisky". Then the destiny (or whatever, depends on the game) will help him tell a story about accepting or denying the stuff, or rewards him when he does, or something like that. There are different versions of the idea, but they're best appreciated by looking at the games. The point is, destiny in these games is a tool of plot control.

[anthony kilburn]

If Destiny really is the point (which I kinda doubt; it seems to me that it's definitely secondary to all this setting material)

This is mostly true.  But even when I go back and read old write-ups of the system, I've always focused my game on multidimensionality.  As I define this, the lack of a set "good" or "bad" guy in terms of gamewide morality hurts the game, as there is no central game focus, but helps it, as it removes predetermined roles of morality and allows the players to choose those roles for themselves, based on player interpretation of the setting or character perspective.  And as for that sense of urgency I always needed to throw in (that central focus for the game to have life), though my previous efforts were misdirected, I think the idea of Destiny can solve both issues ideal-wise and mechanics-wise.

I've been applying my own "litmus test" of reality to the concept of Destiny as I've presented it, asking myself to assign a Destiny to various characters in popular story (basically, the movies), seeing if the whole "destiny point/Pride" thing would hold up.  Does the character have an easily identifiable Destiny that he or she strives to achieve?  How does their Pride affect the outcome?  Does this mean that all Destinies must be unselfish?  I'm still playing with the idea.

As far as the setting goes, of course I'm driven by the setting mostly.  IMO, give me a great, unique game mechanic set in a world of standard Tolkien fantasy, and I'll drop it on the ground.  Give me something simple and elegant for the type of game we're playing, but give me a wonderful setting that says something to me, and I'm happy.  And since that's what makes me happy, I don't see why it has to be all dire.  I have the utmost respect for the cutting-edge of gaming, I just don't find it interesting.  I happen to like adventure and the action and stereotypical journey involved (you know, the hero's journey, explored in amazing detail by the late Joseph Campbell).  Maybe my mechanic could be based on that, the hero's quest!  Yeah, maybe, but I'm trying to make a game I would play, which means probably not contributing "great value" to the gaming community.

I'm convinced that it proves a fool's journey for you to design a system at this time

Using another system is not an option for me, though.  No other system would be good for my world, as far as I see it, even WW would need to be modified.  I do have a "primitive" way of looking at "stats" as static, following the mold like it can't be deviated from.  But if I'm going for a Simulationist experience, it seems logical to me that I would want a fairly logical and familar set of abilities and skills.  Adventure being the goal, there is a very consistent, if misguided, precedent regarding character traits, and although it'd be great to have  a stat set that resembles abstract poetry, I just don't feel that it would suit my design goals or the look/feel of the game.  Realistic approach to the game world begs for a realistic approach to the rules.

Yeah, you're surprised, I said Simulationist and not Gamist.  I'm not about the powerplaying or trying to max out abilities.  I dislike the notion of treasure, and I dislike magical weapons.  In essense, I want to create a world in which characters live that upon which can be forever expounded.  Basically, I want a serial drama.  Something I can tune into every week and be amazed.  I want a Destiny that is possibly never met.  I want characters to be alive within the world and act upon their own desires, not the player's.  I don't want advancement of character to be a game goal.  I want the story, the adventure, the fun to be the goal.  The advancement and rewarding  comes upon the actions of the character.  The player has no "investment" in the character, no stakes are at hand.  It's all about a great adventure story.  Like watching Star Wars (it always comes back to Star Wars).

And rather than an accumulation of points, why not a sliding scale that can vacillate back and forth depending on player action?

Well, what I was thinking was similar, just using points as the increment.  A "bar" consisting of, say, 20 boxes that get "x"ed off on the character sheet.  You start left, move right as you accumulate more positive energy.  Pride, or that histamine blocker, starts right, moves left with the blackening of boxes, further blocking any progress.  I figured once the 20 boxes were all "x"ed, that climactic duel of the fates was summoned.

I feel a fluctuating scale indicates a balance between two energies, which is good, but almost requires the presence of both as all times, which I'm not sure I like.  The way I see it, it'd just be the two sides of the Force battling, which then just becomes a morality play.  Maybe I'm reading into this much.  I'll think and rework some more today.

[Michael S. Miller]

Two quick comments:

Yeah, maybe, but I'm trying to make a game I would play, which means probably not contributing "great value" to the gaming community.

You've got this backward. ONLY by make a game that truly, fully, and completely pleases you will you contribute anything of great value to the gaming community.

Secondly, if you want to see a fantasy system that is thorough, logical, fun, drives play toward dramatic stories, and brings the setting to play through rules, play Burning Wheel. Everything you talk about, Luke Crane has already polished in BW. Don't reinvent the Wheel. Play it, learn from it, then invent a better one. One that's yours.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I've been applying my own "litmus test" of reality to the concept of Destiny as I've presented it, asking myself to assign a Destiny to various characters in popular story (basically, the movies), seeing if the whole "destiny point/Pride" thing would hold up. Does the character have an easily identifiable Destiny that he or she strives to achieve? How does their Pride affect the outcome? Does this mean that all Destinies must be unselfish? I'm still playing with the idea.

Here's a suggestion.  Why nto also have each player have a Fate as well as a Destiny.  A Fate is an undesirelabe ending, much like what you are called Pride right now.  You move along the Fate bar b/c of Pride and you move along the Destiny bar b/c of heroism.

BUT, here's the kicker.  Let's say you're on tile 13 of Destiny.  But all of the sudden the character starts acting all cocky and arogant.  Rather than lose his place on the Destiny bar, he *flips* to the Fate bar at the same leve, in this case 13.  If he mends his ways and returns to being a humble hero, he *flips* back.  This way, one is always moving towards their Fate or Destiny, and it isn't until the last moment that the players know which it will be.

As for Michael's comments, yeah I agree a 100%.  Burning Wheel is an excellet FRPG.  You should check it out.  It you are looking for an example of what you might end up with, check out the link on my sig (Ember Twilight).  You should know what is out there.

Peace,

-Troy

[contracycle]

Killacozzy, have you read Aria or Seventh Sea?  

This is mostly true.  But even when I go back and read old write-ups of the system, I've always focused my game on multidimensionality.  As I define this, the lack of a set "good" or "bad" guy in terms of gamewide morality hurts the game, as there is no central game focus, but helps it, as it removes predetermined roles of morality and allows the players to choose those roles for themselves, based on player interpretation of the setting or character perspective.  And as for that sense of urgency I always needed to throw in (that central focus for the game to have life), though my previous efforts were misdirected, I think the idea of Destiny can solve both issues ideal-wise and mechanics-wise.

A lot of this focus can be generated by establishing partisan groups, sometimes mirror images of each other.  As long as you equip both sides with a prima facie plausible agenda and ideology, you get both focus and variety.

And in that vein, I would like to ask, have you played in this world already?  That is, is this world an expansion of what has been a game in play?  Becuase it may be the best way to explore your focus is to discuss what you have already done with it.  I ask becuase I just kinda get the impression that you have.  

I'm also interested to know what you think of this post of mine: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13155 from some while back discussing a deliberately constructed system or rising tension in the game; there is also a longer thread from which this post arise, discussing Situyation and Tension, here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12760

This may be heading in a similar direction to your Destiny concept.  This was also driven by an interest in setting-based 'plot' developement, and an attempt to get the setting to be more alive, for the agendas of the many people in the setting to be the driving concerns of the characters, and thus, the players.

[FzGhouL]

Unfortunantly, I think it may be impossible for you to make your own game that is fully original and geared to your current ideas.

Its not that you aren't capable, but its that you are blinded by other games. Honestly, I've never played an RPG other than one I've created. Never. Not D&D, not any RPG on the Forge, None. Infact, for about 2-3 years of playing RPGs I've designed, I had no idea what an RPG was.

In turn, when I created an RPG it is vastly different than most RPGs, and adheres to my goals extremely well.

But you have played another game, and the such. So I think instead of cluttering your mind with more games, go read the RPG Theory section in and out. Then forget everything you learned from other RPGs. I do not believe that the methodology of reading other games and picking and choosing their pieces that suits you will create the result you desire.

After you have learned about various RPG thoughts, then make a character. Make a character before you have any rules, traits, anything. Design that character in a way you want all your other characters to be designed. Then, make rules, test play with a few close friends, modify, test, modify, test, etc etc untill you are satisfied.

The way I read you, you seem to have a dislike for d20 type games (I do as well), but they are the most "popular" with game designers. You've played D20, you dislike it, you want to break the mold, but you are bound by the very thoughts and limiations of the D20 system.

This is why I think the best RPG designers are little kids :D

[anthony kilburn]

To address contracycle and FzGhouL simultaneously, I don't really play any RPGs.  I know, I know, it sounds horrible and sacrilegious.

Most of my concepts of RPGs come from "make-believe" games of my youth and my experience in both the realms of theatre and writing.  My desire for a Simulationist experience is from those childhood games of "Ninja Turtles Be-Them", as my group called it.  You'd hear "Raphael doesn't act like that!" and "No, Leonardo always hits the Shredder last!"  See, at one point, make-believe is about portraying a role truthfully.  This is also the theatre perspective.  You act like the character would act, period.  Even in improvizational theatre, you act like the character, not yourself.  You act out of the character's desire, not yours.  Unfortunately, the true form of make-believe always loses out to ego 20-minutes later when everyone's arguing over who got punched in the face and died and who has Donatello's bo-staff.

Now from my writing and theatre backgrounds come the standard idea of plot.  Three-act structure, to me, is present even in the Shakespearean five-act structure.  There's the explanation of the story, the stuff that happens that leads to, the dramatic climax when the results of the stuff are seen.  Yeah, that's simplified, but that's the meat.  You can actually break down everything into that structure, even the smaller events in the so-called Rising Action segment of the structure.

"Yeah, yeah, I knew that."

First off, there must be a GM and not a roundtable of storytellers.  Why?  Because I, as a player, have the responsibility of portraying my character, which means I must try to win as my character sees it, and in order for me to win, there must be a loser.  But if I'm acting out my character's best interest, how can I be acting in the story's best interest?  At that, can I, as role-player, even know there's a story at all?  In my model, these roles, actor and director, role-player and storyteller/GM are different.

Secondly, I define that the purpose of role-playing itself is the same as watching an engaging film.  If a movie really grabs you, you are immersed in the imaginary world.  You stop thinking about plotlines.  You don't think about "it's only a movie".  You get angry at the bad guys for being despicable.  You cry when the lovers are reunited.  You take the journey with them.  Subconsciously, we might be aware of the structures of drama, but in effect, we become the character and forget about the story.  The heroes become alive, and the "drama" becomes a real circumstance to be dealt with.  It's no longer a story.  It grows beyond that.  This is my definition of what a role-playing experience should be like.

Third, the thing is, for what I would consider a good and exciting game to play, the GM couldn't possibly plot out an epic saga.  That wouldn't be fun anyway, because the thing that separates good role-playing experiences from bad ones is that the opportunity to really immerse yourself in the freedom of choice your character has.  If there's a truly linear plotline with definite plot points, the world is no longer immersive.  You realize there's a movie because you have no freedom to play the role.  This is not to say that planning shouldn't go into GMing.... obviously, for a STORYTELLER to tell a STORY, there has to be a sense of what's going to happen.  What I'm saying is this:  For Destiny, it would be impossible and undesirable to attempt and plot out the three-act drama of the predestination.  It would hinder freedom of character, primarily by pigeon-holing in linear structure, and secondarily by creating a time-line or event chart for which to plot the major drama.

Now, I've begun to entertain the notion of setting up, say, 5 plot points on the path to Destiny.... like the 5 things Bob has to do before he can rule the world.
1. move out of mom's basement
2. get money or resources
3. and so on.... and so forth....
But I wonder if that would just expedite the process of achieving Destiny.... I mean, if all I have to do are these five things, then my character knows what he has to do to rule the world.  Things, realistically, aren't so cut and dry.  I want an ambiguous sense of drive for the characters so they can realistically do other things besides try to become a fireman (you know, date women, hang out with friends), but then again, I don't want it to just become an unattainable or intangible dream ("I wanna become Superman!") just because of my desire to preserve the "mystery" of what life holds in store for the characters.  I don't want to give the characters any more information than necessary about their purpose in life, but at the same time, by not giving enough information about it, does the character not realize he or she is a hero?

I dunno.  I probably switched topics midway through that essay.  Bare with me!

[FzGhouL]

Ok, sounds alot better now actually. You seem very inspired and pretty much know what you want. Now, you have your mindset and goals pretty much defined for us, it'll be easier to ask questions.

For Conflict mechanics, what is your priority? Do you want it to be realistic, random, unique, equal for ever character, tactical, etc (not mutually exclusive).

You pretty much opened this thread with the tri-stat idea, but you should probably start over in that aspect. Unless you can define it espicially well.

I think you need to focus on making a system that works for your goals, rather than a system that is totally realistic in itself.

[anthony kilburn]

I want characters to be able to fail, fail, and then die.  But I also want characters to be able to change the world through Destiny.  In this, realism is definitely important (a stab in the heart and still walking?), but realism usually gets bogged down with rules.

My priority is a simple system with a small range of rating (poor-good-gooder-goodest) that uses d6, but still retains a sense of realism.  I want a decent enough range of ability that you don't just have a bunch of average characters running around with no differentiation between of strength of a bodybuilder and role-playing game designer, role-playing game designer and infant child, infant child and porn star.... you get the picture.

Currently, my standing system uses 1-6 ratings.  Abilities (the stats in discussion) and skills (specializations of each ability) are each rated on this scale, which actually emphasizes the descriptive adjective over number (this number is always written in parentheses after the adjective, even within the text of the book).  In fact, the only reason I'm using numbers at all is because the face of the dice have numbers of pips.
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Amazing (5)
Superb (6+)
Task resolution involves combining an applicable ability and skill, and then rolling 2d6.  These numbers are combined and checked against a difficulty number set for the action.

I figure this mechanic and system allows for randomness and trait capabilities both altering the outcome of actions.

I need it to be simple but elegant.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Now, I've begun to entertain the notion of setting up, say, 5 plot points on the path to Destiny.... like the 5 things Bob has to do before he can rule the world.
1. move out of mom's basement
2. get money or resources
3. and so on.... and so forth....
But I wonder if that would just expedite the process of achieving Destiny.... I mean, if all I have to do are these five things, then my character knows what he has to do to rule the world. Things, realistically, aren't so cut and dry. I want an ambiguous sense of drive for the characters so they can realistically do other things besides try to become a fireman (you know, date women, hang out with friends), but then again, I don't want it to just become an unattainable or intangible dream ("I wanna become Superman!") just because of my desire to preserve the "mystery" of what life holds in store for the characters. I don't want to give the characters any more information than necessary about their purpose in life, but at the same time, by not giving enough information about it, does the character not realize he or she is a hero?

You don't need to enumerate it exactly.  Just give 5 to 7 broad catagories that the player must complete 1-3 feats in order to advance towards their Destiny.  I'll be very interested to see how you handle that.

Peace,

-Troy

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, K (BTW, what's your real name?)

Thanks for sticking this out. I know it's been a rough couple days for you.

Just a few quick comments:

(1) I was very intrigued by the stuff you started about your "Ninja Turtles Be-Them" game. The insight you have gleaned from can be made into a game that no one else in all the world can write but you.

(2) Reading over your desires for "realism", "fail and die" "being your character" and the desire for "drama" continually trigger in my head: "This guy (?) really needs to play Burning Wheel." I think it would be a good fit for you.

(3) It seems to me that you're stuck in the grip of something that we like to call The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's a logical trap that all of us here have grappled with. I know I have, and still do. It's a powerful beast, and hard to slay. As defined in the glossary:

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

(4) I also can't help but think that you'd do well to read Structured Game Design. It's a great way to get past a lot of preconceptions.

(5)

I figure this mechanic and system allows for randomness and trait capabilities both altering the outcome of actions.

Why do you want "randomness" and "trait capabilities" to play any role in the outcome of actions? Your design goals that you stated so eloquently above all deal with being inside the head of the character. With knowing their situation on such a gut level that you ache for the consequences they suffer. It seems to me that "consequences" and "motivation" are the kind of thing you'd want in your resolution.

[anthony kilburn]

Hi, K (BTW, what's your real name?)

Anthony

Thanks for sticking this out. I know it's been a rough couple days for you.

You make it sound like my entire family was burned in a plane crash a couple days ago!  LOL.

(3) It seems to me that you're stuck in the grip of something that we like to call The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's a logical trap that all of us here have grappled with. I know I have, and still do. It's a powerful beast, and hard to slay. As defined in the glossary:

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

Ach, sooo....

I figure characters in the "group" all have a reason to band together, lest why band together?  So, I figure they're one front, trying to do whatever it is they do.... and then there's the GM.... which I see as a ref, a set of eyes and ears, and the collective consciousness of "story".  Not to say that the GM has full control or is powerless.... it's that the GM has the distinct role of challenging the characters and preparing them for their next conflicts.  This includes acting as opposition, directing antagonists and other such forces against the characters.  The GM must act how he or she feels the NPCs would act, yes, but in a sense, this role of GM, to me, represents that GOD factor.

GOD gives hero the tools to be heroic: weapons, powers, challenges.  If hero goes off path, GOD points him in the right direction.  GOD still gives hero freedom.... he can do anything.  But GOD the onmiscient knows hero's destiny (which hero might not know consciously, but subconsciously is very aware of... it's hero's purpose of being!) and does what HE can to make sure hero gets there.  For example: Koko likes drugs, but his destiny definitely has nothing to do with drugs (being the leader of a great ministry).  Koko, liking drugs a little too much, acts counterproductive to his destiny, and therefore requires a little nudge from GOD in the terms of an adventure to get him off the smack.

See what I mean?  The GM has to represent the forces of reality as a story, along with acting as NPCs.

Does this make sense?

Why do you want "randomness" and "trait capabilities" to play any role in the outcome of actions? Your design goals that you stated so eloquently above all deal with being inside the head of the character. With knowing their situation on such a gut level that you ache for the consequences they suffer. It seems to me that "consequences" and "motivation" are the kind of thing you'd want in your resolution.

Hmmm... tough question.... because I see "acting" and "role-playing" as doing what is in the best interest of the character portrayed.  If I'm a shady thief, I don't crave getting caught.... I want to get away with the stolen art!  Which is why I always figured I'd use standard dice-rolling task resolution: it's non-biased and somewhat random.  As for incorporating "consequences" and "motivation" into the resolution, I couldn't even begin to imagine such a system.  I want quick results so that the story can be told instead of fretting over interpretive rules.  Do any existing systems make use of this type of resolution?

You don't need to enumerate it exactly. Just give 5 to 7 broad catagories that the player must complete 1-3 feats in order to advance towards their Destiny. I'll be very interested to see how you handle that.

Only problem is that then there's a tangible and clear definition to achieving an end point.  By breaking the big goal into mini-goals, it almost makes the big picture smaller. For example: If Bob consciously tried to take over the world, it'd happen soon enough.  He just has to go down the list and tackle each task.  If he had no "map" in getting to his destiny, the path would be more perilous, bumpy, and uncertain—like life.

I almost would rather the Destiny be something far off, to the point that the GM would have as their job reminding the characters through events and story what their purpose is.  For example: Gigi wants to one day repurchase her company from the greedy corporation that sued her for it.  Now that she's broke and alone, she's not constantly thinking about how to get the capitol to buy the company back.  In fact, she's mostly concerned with reconnecting with her past.  But the GM, through Gigi's meetings with the people she grew up with, reminds Gigi constantly what her destiny is.  And slowly but surely, she'll rediscover herself and her confidence and power, and she'll get back her dream.

[Eric Borzello]

Only problem is that then there's a tangible and clear definition to achieving an end point. By breaking the big goal into mini-goals, it almost makes the big picture smaller. For example: If Bob consciously tried to take over the world, it'd happen soon enough. He just has to go down the list and tackle each task. If he had no "map" in getting to his destiny, the path would be more perilous, bumpy, and uncertain—like life.

The only real problem I see with the approach is that the players could lose heart when they are still chasing the same exact same goal ten sessions later.  Furthermore, when the goal is that big the players are going to need to implicitly break it down into subgoals in order to achieve it.  For example, if your goal is "Take Over the World" you're probably not going to go from farmer straight to god king in one leap.  You're going to need to get political connections, amass an army, find the dark artifact of the ancient gods, whatever.  So why not let the player be able to have those as goals too?

I think a hybrid approach to this could be really cool.  Basically, you have a big goal like "Take Over the World" but would also be able to specify a few current sub-goals under the umbrella of the bigger goal.  That way the players get to feel like they are making progress, and it still keeps the large scale goal with no clear end in sight.  Furthermore, since the subgoals are short term they would change rapidly enough that it would probably avoid the recipe feeling of having a big master list of tasks from the start.

Just an idea.

[anthony kilburn]

Now, I'm not saying a character couldn't have such broken down goals, I just think it'd be detrimental to define them as part of the system.  I mean, Bob knows he's not going to move out of his basement and rule the world.  He knows he's gotta do other stuff in the meantime.  But the player gives Bob, as a character, a list of things "to do" to become dominator of the globe, doesn't that seem like the player, and therefore by extension the character, would have too much divine knowledge of his destiny?  Maybe I'm being obtuse.... ??

I think a hybrid approach to this could be really cool. Basically, you have a big goal like "Take Over the World" but would also be able to specify a few current sub-goals under the umbrella of the bigger goal. That way the players get to feel like they are making progress, and it still keeps the large scale goal with no clear end in sight. Furthermore, since the subgoals are short term they would change rapidly enough that it would probably avoid the recipe feeling of having a big master list of tasks from the start.

I was thinking about that.... but wouldn't so many "goals" on paper make a character weighty and difficult to play?

[Eric Borzello]

He knows he's gotta do other stuff in the meantime. But the player gives Bob, as a character, a list of things "to do" to become dominator of the globe, doesn't that seem like the player, and therefore by extension the character, would have too much divine knowledge of his destiny?

If you spell out all of his goals in advance then it would.  The way I think would work best is character would having his/her one big goal, and then a few (one to three) small goals underneath.  These goals would be short term, but would relate to the larger goal.  

Basically:
Big Goal: Take over world
Little goals:
Get Senator Jones to support my big for President
Convince Gen Smith to my way of thinking.