[LoL] New Mechanic

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I need to come up with a new mechanic and I am drawing a blank. MAybe you guys can help?
  What my game is about, at its core is breaking stereotypes. That is really my goal. If somehow I could get my message across without beating people over the head, that would be a dream come true. It is also about Sword and Sorcery Fantasy Roleplaying. It is also about mysteries of the universe and being a hero, even when there is nothing in it for you.
  I was thikning about adding Destiny, but I could not come up with a Mechanic that did not simulate/replace Luck.
  Also, I thought about adding a Common Sense Mechanic, but nothing I came up with felt right.
  I don't need a combat, luck, magic or special ability mechanic, this should be more about who the character is, not so much what they do (although something like that might not hurt if it was done right).
  Any brainstorming or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Arturo G.]

Hi again!

Nice. If you are prepared to consider any alternative to find the system that accomplishes what you really want, think about how is the playing experience you want to obtain and try to further develop your answers to the famous three questions:

1. What is the game about?
2. What do the characters do?
3. What do the players do?

Have a look at the thread Troy's Standard Rant #1 to fully understand them. Specifically I think you have not yet develop the third one.

The question is: How is the playing experience going to be? What are the players of your game going to do to enjoy?

I will try to give you some clues and examples about things you may consider:
Is one of the players going to be a Master in the classical sense, having more authority than the others?
What are the others going to do to enjoy? Just talk to say what are their characters doing, the Master deciding from the description when something should be solved, and which stats of the characters are involved? Or something different, where the players decide what are the stats which they want to use, and this determines how the conflict is going to be solved?
Do you want to have some kind of resources (chips, tokens, points) which players may/should spent to boost their actions (perhaps luck or somethink more elaborated)? Should the players take tactical decisions about where/when to spend them, or should they use them constantly to boost any kind of actions? What of the two things will be more enjoyable for your players?
Are the resources going to represent something in the imagined world, or are they just a meta-game mechanic?
How are the resources obtained? Is someone judging it (the Master)? Perhaps by the group, voting to the player/s who were producing more fun, or those who best fulfil the group agenda whatever it is? Or maybe objectively determined by the rules or system?

There are many more options for you to create your game. Try to imagine an actual play of your game. Try to imagine what you and your players are going to enjoy more. Combat sequences? Social interaction? Pressing the characters to take difficult decisions about their motivations and feelings? They are very different goals which deserve very different mechanics. Where do you think luck (dice rolling) is going to help to create tension? etc.

About destiny and this type of stuff, there are some games which address this topic. You may read the free version of The Shadow of Yesterday. It is a short read and it may give you many new ideas. Check carefully how the experience is obtained through Keys, Secrets, and Fates.


I hope this helps you.
Cheers,
Arturo

[Mark Johnson]

At the end of every session, each player secretly writes down the name of the player that they think did best in that session.  For every vote, that player recieves a "Destiny Point." 

What do these points do?

The player with the most points doesn't have to chip in for pizza/drinks next time.

Points accumulate over sessions.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Check out the new Warhammer rpg for one take on the luck/destiny issue: in that game the character's Destiny points can be used to avoid death, while luck points just allow rerolls. Thing is, luck refreshes to the Destiny value now and then. The end result is that destiny and luck are really just different sides of the same coin, not different at all.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, everything else I have going on is pretty stat heavy, was trying to come up with a more story-driven mechanic. There already is a Luck stat and it works the way I want it to. Even starting characters are fairly competent (they can even start out as a Master of their profession, just not superheroic level, which they never attain), so I don't think they will need much more of a luck mechanism.
  I was thinking about a possible Destiny mechanic, it provides no mechanical advantage/disadvantage. Instead, players use a Destiny Point to introduce a new character/subplot and regain Destiny Points by helping to advance the current story/adventure. Players will start out with a handful, usually 5 to 8, but anywhere from 2 to 10 points and when they are used, the Judge (aka GM) and players negotiate the details of the character/subplot, but the player spending the point gets veto power...

[dunlaing]

I feel like I'm turning into a Weapons of the Gods shill, but one minor facet of that game is that you can spend your Destiny to include things in the plot of the campaign. For instance, you can spend Destiny to force the GM to give you an opportunity to find one of the Weapons of the Gods, or spend Destiny to ensure that your hated enemy will be sent on the same quest that you are.

Maybe you could have something similar, where the players can spend Destiny to call for elements to be added into the next adventure.

[Callan S.]

Hullo,

What my game is about, at its core is breaking stereotypes. That is really my goal. If somehow I could get my message across without beating people over the head, that would be a dream come true.

Who breaks the stereo type? The GM or the player (if it's the players job, I imagine the 'beating them over the head' isn't a problem, since they will be doing it themselves)?

And what do you mean by breaking a stereotype? Is it like a fighter who reveals he's scared shitless of the battle? Or a cleric who decides he doesn't heal some people, leaving the pain as a lesson? So you take the stereotype and then by breaking it, define that particular character?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  The fantasy genre is full of stereotypes: dwarfs are drunk and greedy, elves are haughty, know-it-alls and sometimes they really do know it all. humans are average, Mages are reclusive, Priests can do everything almost as well as everyone else, but don't do anything well themselves, all orks are evil, the list goes on and on...
  I am hoping to introduce the idea that just because a stereotype is commonly accepted, does not mean it is true. But mostly, I want the players to have a good time playing my game. I am definitely giving this message a back seat, rather than being overly overt about it.
  You guys will keep my secret, right?   lol

[Sydney Freedberg]

What my game is about, at its core, is breaking stereotypes.... It is also about mysteries of the universe and being a hero, even when there is nothing in it for you.... I was thinking about adding Destiny, but I could not come up with a Mechanic that did not simulate/replace Luck.... I don't need a combat, luck, magic or special ability mechanic, this should be more about who the character is, not so much what they do (although something like that might not hurt if it was done right).

Aha. This is cool. I now have a much clearer idea of what you want the game to be about. So all the detailed skill lists, weapon lists, country lists, etc. etc. all need to be in support of these central ideas -- and if they get in the way, junk 'em. Now, here's what grabs me about what you've just written (may or may not be what grabs you, of course):

You want mighty heroes; you want glorious destinies; but you also want to break stereotypes. You want to have the archetypes and the myths, but you also want real, quirky individuals who break those molds. What that sounds like, to me, is an essential tension between what people are expected to do and what they really do: A hero is someone who defies expectations, perhaps at great personal cost, to change the world. (Note when I say "expected," I'm thinking of defying the expectations of both the imaginary people in the game world and the real people playing it with their experience of D&D et al).

So maybe you want mechanics that enforce "this is what you're expected to do," and other mechanics that say "here's your opportunity to defy expectations," and then give each player the power to decide, for their character at this particular moment of play, which way to go. And in your game rules as I've skimmed through them (and I can't take credit for reading the whole thing closely; it's too huge!), I see already two elements that pull in these two opposite directions: The "expectations" mechanic is the big stat blocks you have for different races/cultures/species, where each one is rated on each of your standard skills; and then the "defy expectations" mechanic is your Talents, which it seems players can define for themselves.

What I'm thinking of, here, is that players can start out with some tidy template or standard skills package (or "character class," even) like "Goblin Gardener" or "Peasant Boy" or "Spoiled Princess," each of which comes with a whole list of things it's good at: The Goblin Gardener is sneaky and unobtrusive and practical; the Peasant Boy is cheerful, sincere, and strong; the Spoiled Princess is beautiful and manipulative; whatever. This is what "people" expect that character to be like. But then each player gets to choose one special thing about their character that totally breaks the stereotype: Maybe the Goblin Gardener is a great poet, or supremely brave; maybe the smiling Peasant Boy, once exposed to real danger, is a steely-eyed killer; maybe the Spoiled Princess can fireball castles flat or kung-fu you in the head (anyone seen Shrek?). And then, in play, as people play their characters, they constantly have to choose whether to use their stereotype skills, or whether to use their unique, individual skills -- and they have to constantly choose which side to put their precious XPs into, which means which side develops faster.

Destiny (to get back to your actual question) can fit on either side of this equation. Maybe your Destiny is what everyone expects of you, because of your noble birth or cursed lineage or whatever, in which case it's another skill in your stereotype package that you can use for bonuses whenever you're taking actions that will lead you to the fate everyone expects. Or maybe your Destiny is the thing you're going to do that will surprise everyone, in which case it's part of your special talent and you can use it for bonuses whenever you defy expectations and head off in your own direction.

[Arturo G.]

Sydney, this Shrek kind of game sounds really cool, and easy to implement. It may be done in a funny tone like the movie, or much more grim, focusing in the feelings of the characters when struggle with the social conventions.

Dave, is this the kind of thing you want to do?

Cheers,
Arturo

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Why do you ask?
  It feels right. As a player I have always wanted to be able to impact the game world more directly. And when I GM, I have always wanted my players to be more invested in the plots I designed.
  What is on your mind Arturo? Did you have another suggestion?

[Arturo G.]

No, it's OK Dave.
I didn't get that feeling reading your first post in this thread, and I didn't want to continue along this line, at least in this thread, if it was going to derail it.

And when I GM, I have always wanted my players to be more invested in the plots I designed.

That's another thing. How far do you prepare a plot? And how far do you want to go to allow your players to invest on it, before play and during play (which the most satisfactory thing for everyone)?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Sydney Freedberg]

A very good question from Arturo. I'd also add that there are some great techniques for designing "plots" with plenty of room for player control, choice, and creativity in
- Dogs in the Vineyard, with the specific six-step sequence of the "Town Creation" rules (which in turn are a derivative of the looser "relationship map" technique in Sorcerer's Soul);
- Legends of Alyria, where the whole group defines who the major characters in the story are going to be and how they are connected to each other and only then, as I undrestand it, choose who plays which character (another derivative of Sorcerer's r-maps);
- My Life With Master, where all the players, not just the GM, help create the evil "Master," and then the rules impose a fixed skeleton of a plot (the Master keeps making Minions do awful things, Minions try to reach out to ordinary people and get Love, eventually the Minions have enough Love to rebel) whose exact events are mostly up to the players;
- The Riddle of Steel, where the GM has all the traditional GM powers but is pretty much under orders to present plots that hit the "spiritual attributes" (Passions, Destinies, etc.) the players have chosen for themselves.

Some of these techniques are hard to borrow without borrowing the whole rest of the game, but a lot of them are emminently stealable.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Ah, you're really getting to the meat of things here, Dave.

As has already been suggested, I think the key here is to have the players choose stereotypes, then give them resources that they can do anything they want with. I think that's your Destiny, there.

So you have stereotypical descriptions — think of a bunch of pre-defined Traits for Dogs — then players spend Destiny to buy new Traits as they play, to define their characters as unique individuals.

Warriors get Strength and Brashness; Humans get Ruthlessness and Intelligence; Bards get Wits and Knowledge; Orcs get Brutality and Toughness....

Pick a race and a class.

Then, as characters mature, they wind up with Traits like "I hate acting unjustly," and "My songs suck." You wind up with Relationships that are specific and defy categorization.

This starts to sound like a fun game.

[Arturo G.]

You can add some mechanics which imply that using the stereotype traits you keep normal social interaction. But, when you break the rules using the non-stereotype traits you get big bonuses for the non-social conflicts but  get worse social behaviour.

What about to have relationship traits (some with institutions, some with social groups, some with individuals) defining which are the expectations of each one about your behaviour? Do they like you to keep in your stereotype? Do they expect you to break the social rules? Which rules? Specific groups will like you to use specific non-stereotype traits. Main groups will hate you for doing that.
These traits would evolve depending on the character using or not the corresponding out-stereotype traits. The relationship traits should affect the resolution mechanics heavily or they will not become relevant and the game will not be centered about this.
As far as the decision to break or not the social rules is a player choice, and there exist a real balance between the benefits of breaking the rules and the social backdraws it will be fun.

Cheers,
Arturo