Stat sets [Cian]

[anthony kilburn]

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions.  Or 20.  In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart.  The idea behind this trait is to give a sense of motion to what would ordinarily be motionless.  It's like "Star Trek: Voyager": the goal is getting home, but that's just the background motif.  The real story is the adventures that occur while getting home.  And sometimes, the adventures are about getting home faster.  It's like the "X-Files": the agents want to prove the existence of ETs, but really, the show concerned itself with various adventures, some even pertaining to that ultimate story of the reality of aliens.  Does this sound convoluted?

To clarify the concepts I think I'm working with:
1) Destiny will be defined as an idealistic goal to be achieved.
2) Pride will be defined as the character flaw (ego) that prevents the realization of this ideal.

Thus, no longer would "take over the world" be a suitable Destiny.  Instead the "take over the world" mindset (a flawwed one) would be the result of Pride corrupting Destiny: placing some kind of ego-play before the ideal.  For example: Anakin Skywalker was going to bring balance to the Force, a lofty Destiny.  But once ego got in the way—wanting to control life and death, craving a clearly distorted power—we was unable to complete his Destiny.  He "switched" tracks.  His Pride told him that he was the balance of the Force.  Does this make sense and correspond to characters in general?

I liked that suggestion about the "switching" from Destiny to Pride based on character actions.... I'd quote it, but for some reason, I can't find it at the moment....  but thanks for that idea.

I want to have a universal character model with this destiny concept so that it's not contrived and can be tested against any character you can come up with, real or fictional.  I want to capture something real and easily identifiable in this system, not just haughty concepts that only apply sometimes or when I twist the logic.  I'll mull it over some more, though, and come up with further developments.

A quick question: Do you think that the universal character necessarily has to have a Pride trait, a tragic flaw?  I wonder if some heroes lack a negative element, and the only thing preventing the realization of Destiny is opposing influence.  And beyond that, does the universal character possess a Destiny, that ideal goal?

[Eric Borzello]

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions. Or 20. In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart. The idea behind this trait is to give a sense of motion to what would ordinarily be motionless. It's like "Star Trek: Voyager": the goal is getting home, but that's just the background motif. The real story is the adventures that occur while getting home.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by destiny.  Given that you want it to serve like the "background" to a player's story; I agree that sub goals (sub-destinies?) probably aren't necessary.  However, it is my understanding that you want the character's destiny to figure prominently in their story.  Therefore, it seems to me that the larger and more nebulous you make their Destiny, the more difficult it could be to tie in to the specific actions the character is taking at any given time.  The above statement may seem strange, but it has been my experience that the more general something is, the more time you spend trying to figure out if it applies.  However, if something is pretty specific it is usually clear if it applies in a given situation.

Also, in response to your question about characters having pride or destiny, I have a question in return.  "Assuming you could play a character without pride or destiny, why would you?"  If it is obviously better to not have a pride flaw, why would the average player take it?  If it is obviously worse to not have a destiny, why would a player make himself comparatively worse than all the other PC's?  Though one can almost certainly conceive of a character without a Pride flaw or without a Destiny, the main question to me seems to be, "What does that type character's inclusion add to the game?"

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Anthony.

I figure characters in the "group" all have a reason to band together, lest why band together?

That's a very good question. Why should all the PCs band together? Why do they have to be on the "same team?" Why do they even have to be in the same story all the time? Why can't they be foils for one another? Does that bring you closer to your Vision for the game, or is it just because you think "that's what role-playing games are supposed to do?"

If hero goes off path, GOD points him in the right direction. GOD still gives hero freedom.... he can do anything.

So the player can have his character do anything he wants, as long as the GM thinks it's the right thing? That sounds like less than "anything." That sounds like the GM's running the show.

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.

Lets talk about Koko's player for a minute, we'll call him Kevin. It's Kevin who decides that Koko has the drug problem, right? Is it also Kevin that decides that Koko has this great Destiny to lead a great ministry? If so, why does Kevin put the drug problem as an obstacle in Koko's path? I know why I might do something like that, but I'm interested to see what you think.

If, instead, the GM--let's call her Gabrielle--decided that Koko is Destined for ministry, then why might Kevin put in the drug problem? It could be for the same reason as before, but it could also be because Kevin has no interest in playing a minister character. Maybe he just doesn't like Gabrielle telling him what his character is going to do.

Finally, what if Gabrielle chose both the drug problem and the Destiny? It might be great set up for story, but why is it a story that Kevin cares about? He hasn't had any say over it.

Re-read the definition of The Impossible Thing, and notice that it uses the words "players" and "GM," not "characters" and "in-game opposition/NPCs." Those words are chosen for a very specific purpose.

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.

::sigh of slight frustration::  You did it again. Right there. You started off talking about "motivation" and ended up talking about "non-biased and random" as if they're the same thing. They're not.

Let's completely set aside the question of whether you, Anthony, might ever want Jack, your shady thief, to fail.

It's true that there are two general ways the story can go: Jack gets caught, or Jack doesn't get caught. We'll also set aside that each side can have many variations. Why should this decision be based solely on Jack's abilities? Is your game conveying the message that we make our own destiny through our competencies? Perhaps your game is saying that destiny is granted by the gods and we can't fight it (like Oedipus). If so, then why should Jack's abilities matter? The gods' interest in him should matter much more and the decision of "is he caught?" should revolve around the gods. Maybe the god player spends a point to make it happen (see John Wick's Enemy Gods for an example). Maybe the god player rolls against one of his scores. Maybe there are various outcomes written on pieces of paper and each god player puts one into a hat and you, as Jack's player, picks one out. It all focuses on what your game is about.

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?

Where to start? I'll start with me. My forthcoming superhero RPG With Great Power... makes use of character motivations to make consequences meaningful. Characters have no numerical stats, just descriptive Aspects.

Dogs in the Vinyard also makes use of all types of character motivation to give weight to conflicts and its Fallout mechanics makes consequences meaningful.

I could go on and on and on, citing Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Dust Devils, Nine Worlds, InSpectres, and a host of others, but read Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby! written by Mike Holmes (not me). Also poke around the Resource Library.

Last thing:

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions. Or 20. In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart.

That's great for nostalgia, but bad for real life. Leisure time in the US is decreasing all the time. Schedules become more hectic, and entertainment that takes less time is constantly edging out entertainment that takes more time. IIRC, Anthony, you said you're not even playing any RPGs right now. If you can't fit in a pick-up game into your life, how are you going to fit in an epic campaign of more than 20 sessions? I know I couldn't do it. And if no one can fit playing it into their lives, why design it? An unplayed game is a tragic thing.

[anthony kilburn]

Why should all the PCs band together? Why do they have to be on the "same team?" Why do they even have to be in the same story all the time? Why can't they be foils for one another? Does that bring you closer to your Vision for the game, or is it just because you think "that's what role-playing games are supposed to do?"

I see role-playing as an opportunity to emmerge myself in my imagination.  Even though I don't role-play doesn't mean I haven't ever (I just haven't been horribly compelled by a setting or game system, and beyond that, I'm quite the hermit these days.... but I digress).  The type of story/game that most engages me, which will most certainly be the type of game I strive to construct, is the adventure—specifically, the "fantastic" adventure, where reality still applies, only with some kind of twist.  I love stories within this genre that involve a diverse group that somehow ended up working together.  They may be friends, co-workers, or just a bunch of pissed-off parents working together to recover their kidnapped children.  I love that character dynamic within the group, especially when the shady, untrusted guy ends up risking his neck for the other guy.

I could certainly see the possibility of having just one/some of the players involved at any given time, having multiple narrators when players aren't involved.  Just as I don't disavow this set-up, I don't necessarily see a need for it either.  It'd be like playing a CRPG, it seems.  I guess that's where "What's the goal of your game?" comes in.

So the player can have his character do anything he wants, as long as the GM thinks it's the right thing? That sounds like less than "anything." That sounds like the GM's running the show.

Maybe I'll rename this the MOM factor.  MOM can point you in the right direction—after all, she knows what's best for you!—but ultimately, it's your choice to make.  "Point" is taken quite literally here—no violent nudging or whatnot, just friendly reminders and "signs".

Lets talk about Koko's player for a minute, we'll call him Kevin. It's Kevin who decides that Koko has the drug problem, right? Is it also Kevin that decides that Koko has this great Destiny to lead a great ministry? If so, why does Kevin put the drug problem as an obstacle in Koko's path? I know why I might do something like that, but I'm interested to see what you think.

Well, right away, under the newly defined concepts, this Destiny might need to be more defined in terms of motivation.  I'll just say that he wants to help people.  And starting a ministry would do just that.  And yeah, Kevin, not Gabrielle, chose this during Koko's creation.  Now, there's no reason why the "drug problem" couldn't be an arbitrary choice.  Or maybe it occurred during game play.  Or maybe Gabrielle suggested it.  A possible reason for the possibility of Kevin choosing this for Koko might be because he understands the idea of the Pride flaw, and thereby decided that since Koko wants to help others, he can't help himself—such arrogance, to focus inward instead of outward.  Plus, Destiny is a big deal with lots of responsibility and hard work.  Some people are scared of it.

You started off talking about "motivation" and ended up talking about "non-biased and random" as if they're the same thing. They're not.

If two characters were motivated to kill each other, how do we determine the outcome?  Anything goes has ruined many a game of make-believe, and narrator decision has gobs of potential for abuse, not to mention takes away focus from the character.  Just relying on constant ratings would make it unrealistic, as the underdog always has a chance.  Chance=dice.  Which is why I jumped so quickly to "non-biased and random" so quickly.

Is your game conveying the message that we make our own destiny through our competencies?

For the most part, but please understand that I'm not a philosopher making some poetic statement about choice and consequence through the medium of role-playing.  I just like adventure games.  And realism.

It all focuses on what your game is about.

It seems that unless you have a point to make with a game, it's just your typical "fantasy heartbreaker".  Why can't a game be about assuming the role of a character and escaping from our boring, adventureless reality?

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by destiny. Given that you want it to serve like the "background" to a player's story; I agree that sub goals (sub-destinies?) probably aren't necessary. However, it is my understanding that you want the character's destiny to figure prominently in their story. Therefore, it seems to me that the larger and more nebulous you make their Destiny, the more difficult it could be to tie in to the specific actions the character is taking at any given time. The above statement may seem strange, but it has been my experience that the more general something is, the more time you spend trying to figure out if it applies. However, if something is pretty specific it is usually clear if it applies in a given situation.

I don't plan to define now broad or nebulous the Destiny is, but I always imagined it as the end point of adventure.  Once you're the CEO of CoCor, your quest is over, which isn't to say that you just wither and die, but if you did die, you'd leave no loose ends.

Which reminds me of another question—can someone have multiple, simultaneous Destinies?  Once he completes the first, can he gain another?  Mind you, these are mostly conceptual questions.  I wanna fully define the universal character before I go and break him up into traits.


By the way, I think I'll start up a new thread in Theory, as this has drifted WAAAAY from its source.  I'll link between them.

[anthony kilburn]

Here's the new thread in the Theory forum.