[LoRD] using my Mind

[Michael]

So my system has the following attributes (ranged 1-7): Body, Mind, and Spirit.

Mechanically, I don't forsee them being used much in conflict resolution. I'm using them more as a measure of a character's aptitude for developing various abilities. Of course, they will be usable for conflict resolution in situations where there is no ability for the task.

Now Body is covering a lot of things. It is going to deal with carry weight, movement action points (for combat), health levels, unarmed damage, and all that fun stuff. Of course, not every Body of 5 is the same, so I came up with the idea of using Traits (Weak, Strong, Clumsy, Slow, Fast, Hardy, etc.) that would give a +/-1 to Body for a particular character element. No problems there.

On the other hand, Mind is a bit more limited in it's scope. At this point, I can only say that it's used for developing knowledge based abilities (and many abilities are considered knowledge-based). Because I am using action points, I am thinking of using it to determine how many segments into which characters can split their action point pools. For example, a character with Body 6/Mind 2 might have six action points, but can only split them into two actions. I'm not terribly sure that this is much of a handicap though, as the action point breakdown (in a really basic form) is looking like this:

1 AP- draw a weapon, sheath a weapon, actions generally considered to be "free"
2 AP- attack with a light weapon
3 AP- attack with a medium weapon
4 AP- attack with a heavy weapon

As a result, most combat rounds are likely to be three actions at the most (so a mind stat higher than 3 is not super valuable in this case).

Anyways, I'm wondering what else I can do with the mind stat. I'm only seeing two directions:

1) Find more uses for the Mind stat.
2) Keep the Mind stat "simple" and only design traits for the Body stat.

Any tips?

[Russell Collins]

What does spirit do?

What else do people do in the game?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  There are different ways you can go:
1) Mind is a non-combat stat, having it has no effect on combat. This is perfectly acceptable if there is a significant amount of non-combat scenes in your game.
2) Body is speed and strength, mind is accuracy. In this way, you can insert knowledge in a meaningful way without having to contrive a use for it.
3) Mind is pseudo-combat effecte. Assuming you have magic, psionics or both, Mind inserts itself in combat through creative uses of those abilities
4) Mind as initiative/tactical advantage. Perhaps high mind gives you init, accuracy or damage mods.
  There are probably other ways to go, take a step back and think about what happens if two guys are basically the same level of fitness, but one is smarter than the other. Extrapolate that into mechanics that reproduce the effects youwant.
  Good luck man!

[Michael]

What does spirit do?

What else do people do in the game?

The basic premise is that the planet itself is "alive" and has a life force (though the players/characters will be unaware of this). Everything that is alive on this planet shares in this lifeforce (aka Spirit). Think of it as a Chi/Interconnectiveness type thing. It's a measure of characters' metaphysical element, which includes the characters' courage, determination, and ability to use and resist supernatural effects (i.e. magic).

People do pretty much anything that people did back in the middle ages. Of course, the PCs lives are going to be a fair bit more exciting, but other than combat there will be a fair bit of exploration/"research", social interaction, diplomacy, etc.

There are probably other ways to go, take a step back and think about what happens if two guys are basically the same level of fitness, but one is smarter than the other. Extrapolate that into mechanics that reproduce the effects youwant.

Yeah, that's where I'm having the trouble, I think. I didn't think of using Mind with initiative, though. I'm still a little unsure on that aspect. Meaning is it mental (as in quick thinking) or physical (as in quick reflexes). Of course, my instinct says both, which complicates things because I already intended character creation to be "fair" in the sense that all players get a certain number of creation points to characters are balance. By making initiative use both, there's no real difference between the Body 2/Mind 5 and Mind 2/Body 5 character. Then again, I could just have character's use their weakest Nature. Well, I'll have to tinker with that.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Init is tricky, what does it represent to you? Speed, position, reach, tactics, etc. In my game, it is supposed to represent a combo of speed and tactics. If init is more tactics and positioning, it's all mental.
  Again, what's the advantage to being smarter and better trained in a fight. It's going to mean accuracy, tactics, prediciton of enemy moves, forcing the enemy off balance, using terrain and props to your advantage, etc. What does that mean in mechanical terms in your game?

[Andy Kitkowski]

Also, the game sounds neat. The background sounds like the MMORPG "The Saga of Ryzom", but without the stupid fucking "Oh, there's a great world or mystery and spirit to explore, but first whack at these rats with a dagger until you can afford pants".

Is there a need for Mind in your game? Physiologically and all, the mind is just an extension of your nervous system.  It sounds like shit is really loaded down at the Physical and Spiritual ends of a scale, but not a lot of focus on Mind stuff... so why not fold that back into the Physical side of things? Call Body "The Physical" and Spirit "The Spiritual" or something, to play off that physical "meat" world and the spiritual entities invoked by the world?

Also, sounds like there's a lot of diplomacy stuff based on your description... were you thinking of rolling that into Spirit? Or was there going to be a "Social" attribute of some kind?

-Andy

[Michael]

Init is tricky, what does it represent to you?

On a basic level, it's who goes first, second, third, etc. So it's who is ready to make their move first. I might have it affect the placement of miniatures on the grid at the start of the battle, but there's complications with that so I might take a pass.

Again, what's the advantage to being smarter and better trained in a fight. It's going to mean accuracy, tactics, prediciton of enemy moves, forcing the enemy off balance, using terrain and props to your advantage, etc. What does that mean in mechanical terms in your game?

Well, taking that into consideration, I suppose Mind should into play when developing certain Techniques (similar to a Feat/Perk element). For example, a Swords ability only represents the character's ability to swing a sword and hit something with it. Effects like disarm, parry, etc. would have to be "purchased" as a technique.

The background sounds like the MMORPG "The Saga of Ryzom",

I've never heard of The Saga of Ryzom, but I looked it up before I posted. According to the official site, I can definitely see some similarities, though I will mention that most characters will actually start the game with pants. :)

Btw, do you play this game? It actually looks pretty interesting and I think I might want to check it out.

Is there a need for Mind in your game?

I'm going to say yes, except...

Call Body "The Physical" and Spirit "The Spiritual" or something, to play off that physical "meat" world and the spiritual entities invoked by the world?

is just brilliant and I can't believe I didn't think of that. Conceptually, it actually works pretty well too, as I can tie it into the creation of the civilized species. If I merge them, I can still use the Trait system, but just put them all together.

Seriously, that's genius, and totally solves that problem.

Also, sounds like there's a lot of diplomacy stuff based on your description... were you thinking of rolling that into Spirit? Or was there going to be a "Social" attribute of some kind?

Kind of neither. Various social abilities are going to be just that...abilities. It's kind of like a "skill" element, though I'm just not comfortable with the term "skill", as "skill" implies formal training (IMO) and abilities will include things like climbing, bluff, and other abilities that can be developed through "normal" use.

I'm kinda bummed that my home computer is busted (and I have to wait another week for the replacement). Those are some great ideas, and now I really want to get back to writing this up.

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey dued (hope I don't mess up some formatting here, I seem to do that a lot with nestled quotes)

I've never heard of The Saga of Ryzom, but I looked it up before I posted. According to the official site, I can definitely see some similarities, though I will mention that most characters will actually start the game with pants. :)

Btw, do you play this game? It actually looks pretty interesting and I think I might want to check it out.

Hells no. :-)  Seriously, every MMO that comes out usually has a three day Trial Weekend (right now "Auto Assault" by the Lineage/City of Heroes guys is up). I seem to, like Ryzom, be interested enough to take a look, but quickly become irritated or disappointed, or find new inspirations for tabletop and leave. With Ryzom, it was the fact that the world seemed to have a lot of "meat", but in play it was just like every other damn game out there, save for the fact that monsters attack in "packs".

Kind of neither. Various social abilities are going to be just that...abilities. It's kind of like a "skill" element, though I'm just not comfortable with the term "skill", as "skill" implies formal training (IMO) and abilities will include things like climbing, bluff, and other abilities that can be developed through "normal" use.

Interesting.  But note that, well, I hate to say "in real life", but still, things like diplomacy, lying and social manipulation can really be improved through use and training. But again, I'm not totally sure on the scope of your game when it comes to these things, so if they're really not that important, they can easily be folded into The Physical or whatever with no problem.

Good luck!
-Andy

[Michael]

With Ryzom, it was the fact that the world seemed to have a lot of "meat", but in play it was just like every other damn game out there, save for the fact that monsters attack in "packs".

Thanks for the heads up then, I'll take a pass.

Interesting.  But note that, well, I hate to say "in real life", but still, things like diplomacy, lying and social manipulation can really be improved through use and training.

Well, technically anything can be improved through formal training. But the philosophy behind abilities is that it takes into consideration certain abilities that do not necessarily require formal training. So I'm not saying that characters cannot have any formal training in an ability, but that it is possible to develop many abilities without an instructor.

[ffilz]

I was reading your Power 19 answers, and have a question on this statement of yours:

On a basic level, it's who goes first, second, third, etc. So it's who is ready to make their move first. I might have it affect the placement of miniatures on the grid at the start of the battle, but there's complications with that so I might take a pass.

It sounds like you are planning on a tactical miniatures based combat system. When I look at your Power 19 answers, particularly the first:

1) What is your game about?

The game is about knowledge, truth, and understanding. In a world that is constantly changing, very little is truly known when it comes to life's greatest questions. Who are we? Where did we come from? What is our purpose? Why? The only answers that exist are conjecture at best. These questions may seem trivial considering all the problems in the world (unnatural creatures engaging in hostilities with the civilized people, the threat of civil war, a supernatural power shrouded in mystery), but the answers are more important than most people think.

I wonder how this is going to fit in. Your game sounds really cool, but I wonder how tactical combat resolution is going to contribute to knowledge, truth, and understanding.

Frank

[Michael]

Your game sounds really cool, but I wonder how tactical combat resolution is going to contribute to knowledge, truth, and understanding.

Because tactical miniatures only apply to combat. Outside of combat a characters rely upon their other abilities. So it's not like the endgoal of all adventures is to have a fight with the BBEG, but that if a showdown goes down, resolution is handled with tactical miniatures, and not some "freeform" combat scenario.

[StefanDirkLahr]

Don't get me wrong, i *love* miniature combat systems, but i have to agree with this critique!

How could such a crunchy - and expensive, in both time and money - sort of conflict resolution system as miniatures on a tactical board help establish a game that focuses on revealing "Truths" about the nature of the world and characters? 

The only thing i can think of is to make the tactical space non-geographical - that is the game resolves *everything* through a tactical positioning system. Sounds crazy, yeah... but if you already have a strong spiritual/magical/philosophic component you could probably find some cool analogies to make it work.

So you have a conflict, and you are resolving it through tactical miniatures, but the conflict isn't "do i slay the monsters?" but something more like "Do i navigate the maze of Doubt and outmanoever the incarnations of Obfuscation?"   

-SDL  (Happy to make your day just that much more surreal... >_>)

[Michael]

How could such a crunchy - and expensive, in both time and money - sort of conflict resolution system as miniatures on a tactical board help establish a game that focuses on revealing "Truths" about the nature of the world and characters?

There is a very good reason for this, which is simply, because I want to.

My view on gaming goes like this, I can't stand LARP (i.e. lightning bolt! lightning bolt! lightning bolt!) and I don't really even like freeform games. I like miniature games though, as it feels more like a game and less like a combination of playing calvinball and make-believe. I could go on explaining why the more freeform a game is, the less likely I am to like it, but I won't. The fact is, it's just my view on games, and I don't think it's any better than anyone else's view, but it's just as valid of an opinion.

With miniature games, playing the games are fun, but I would enjoy them a lot more if they were more than just skirmishes. I would prefer that any combat was much more plot driven than just-for-the-hell-of-it driven (like d20 minis). Basically, I would like there to be a reason for the combat.

That's why I am designing in the direction of plot-driven simulation. Granted, a tactical miniature game doesn't necessarily "help" the focus on revealing truths, but it doesn't "hurt" it either.

As for the time and expense, it doesn't matter to me. I don't intend to publish the game, just run it with a group of friends who are interested in the same thing.

On a side note, I found this video while trying to find the other LARP link. It's pretty funny, if you don't take gaming too seriously.

[ffilz]

Ok, that's cool. I like tactical, miniatures based combat also.

So first suggestion, revisit your Power 19 responses and make sure they reflect your desire to have tactical miniatures based combat as a game focus.

The second is that you need to decide how tactical combat is going to play into knowledge, truth, and understanding. One big possibility is that the reward for success in combat is knowledge, truth, and understanding. One cool possibility would be that rather than characters gaining power by becomming better, they gain by learning secrets about their opponents. So for example, you kill a nasty troll. Now instead of becomming better at fighting, you learn something about trolls, perhaps they aren't quite so nasty as they appear. This knowledge REDUCES the power of trolls the next time you fight them.

Or maybe knowledge is just how you keep "score."

The important thing is to make sure your game vision explains why you have this detailed tactical miniatures combat system when the game blurb talks about gaining knowledge, truth, and understanding. Otherwise you'll wind up with comments about your game like noted in this post on Chris Chinn's blog.

It should be possible to do, you just have to design for it.

Frank

[Michael]

The second is that you need to decide how tactical combat is going to play into knowledge, truth, and understanding.

Or maybe knowledge is just how you keep "score."

Um...I think you're being too literal with the "quest for knowledge" element. It's not exactly what I'm going for.

The important thing is to make sure your game vision explains why you have this detailed tactical miniatures combat system when the game blurb talks about gaining knowledge, truth, and understanding

I totally disagree. The medium is almost irrelevant, IMO. A game could have combat be resolved with miniatures, a single die roll, descriptive narration, whatever, and the literary element doesn't have to revolve around it. I mean, it can revolve around it, but it's not necessary, and I don't intend that.

I'm making a plot-driven RPG with tactical combat. That element has been established, and there's really no point in meta-analyzing it to death.