[Divinity Horizons] Destiny mechanic

[Sovem]

(This thread is an extension of this discussion.)

Well, my wife and I spent almost the entire day yesterday trying to figure out a Destiny system for our DH game. One of my playtesters even came over for the discussion, and we got the other guy on speaker phone. Unfortunately, we are actually farther from figuring out this thing than when we started.

Following suggestions from posters on my playtest thread, I started trying to really figure out what it is we want PCs to do in a DH game, and how to make mechanics and rules that sort of reinforce and reward those things. I came to the conclusion that what we want most of all if for characters in a DH game to be the movers and shakers of their world, to become the legends of their own game. I came up with the idea of Destiny to encourage that.

The idea behind Destiny was a ranking trait, something to show, not only how much you'd already influenced the setting, but how much pull you have over it now. (If you've ever read the Wheel of Time, it might be helpful to think of this as a ta'veren rating)

The problem is, nobody can agree on just how easy it should be to get Destiny and what benefits you should receive.

One of the goals for characters in our game is to gain new godshards. In the world of DH, the gods had become so naturalized, so much a part of the physical world, that when the gods died, the pieces of their souls could not get back to the Spiritual realm to reincarnate. However, because humans are a natural amalgam of physical and spiritual, godshards would often seek out humans with particularly "bright" souls, in other words, humans with a strong will, or great potential--people who seem to have a great destiny--and merge with those humans.

So, I thought, "why not have Destiny determine how many shards you can have?" The more Destiny you have, the brighter your soul is, and therefor the more room you have for other godshards.

Their feelings about this idea were mixed. Some of them felt that there shouldn't be a restriction on when you get new shards. I didn't see it as a restriction, I saw it more as an in-game motivator and a release from the pressure of a GM having to decide when to allow characters to find new shards. The issue lies, really, with how easy Destiny would be to get. However, if it becomes too easy, players might start feeling owed shards, which should be somewhat rare and special to get. If it's too hard, though, you may find players becoming grumpy with never being able to get new shards, or players might start pushing limits, trying too hard to get another point of Destiny.

Originally, we had pictured a kind of "sliding scale" with Destiny. You start out making small changes in the setting--save a town, for instance--and that gets you a point of Destiny. As you work your way higher, you must do increasingly epic things to get more Destiny. We were worried, however, that you would reach a point of diminishing returns, where the things you have to do to gain more Destiny just aren't worth the benefits, or are just too hard to work into the story.
Alternately, we considered giving Destiny without any sort of scale. But then the definition for what would change your Destiny seemed to vague; it'd either be too easy, or too hard. We're rather stuck.

Without knowing too much about Divinity Horizons, I don't know if anybody can help. But I've found invaluable advice I didn't expect before from just posting my thoughts, so I thought I'd see if anyone had anything to say on this.

Thanks,
John

[TonyLB]

What's the down-side of high Destiny?

Does it mean that, even to get by in a day to day way, you need to be doing epic stuff?  That'd be cool.

I'm thinking of the Pools in The Shadow of Yesterday, which you spend to be buff and refresh by relaxing.  When you're in a non-relaxing situation (as our entire last game was) you really start feeling the strain of not being able to refresh those pools.  If, for instance, a low Destiny player could refresh such a pool by defeating the Black Knight defending a bridge, but a high Destiny player could only refresh such a pool by vanquishing an army and laying waste a region, then players will learn to self-regulate on what level of Destiny they seek.  They'll seek enough to do the things they want, and not a smidge more.

Indeed, you'd probably end up needing rules for how characters can try to escape the Destiny they've already got.  Thanks ... saved the world ... want to go and retire now!

[knicknevin]

I'm afraid I can only give a tangential response to this, which is; never try to design a game by committee. If DH is your idea, then you should:

1. Write it up: do it the way you want and the way you think it should be.

2. Play it: put your ideas into practice, preferably with a gaming group you are familiar with.

3. Get feedback: listen to what the people who played the game have to say about it and reflect on that, along with your own notes & impressions.

4. Take what you learned in step 3 back to step 1: repeat this cycle until your game 'flies or dies'.

[Sovem]

Thanks knicknevin, but I was just "Want[ing] to discuss [my] new game idea? Not sure where to go from here? Looking for basic feedback?", so I thought I'd post to the forum that had that listed in its description. I am, however, already doing what you listed in steps 1-4.

Tony: that's actually a pretty cool idea. I'l bring it up when my group gathers next.

[Lance D. Allen]

Yay for University wireless connections and void-eaten posts!

knicknevin,

This isn't by any means a personal attack. This is aimed more generally, as I've seen variants on this statement over and over. I believe that saying things like "don't design your game by committee" tends to stifle discussion, rather than focus it. When I see threads like this one, my basic assumption isn't "Design my game for me!" but is instead "I'm having trouble with this. Any ideas that I can riff off of to create something awesome and appropriate to my game?". Now, I can see the point of cutting "what's your opinion on this?" or "How many people think this is a good idea?" posts.. Those don't tend to lead anywhere constructive. The original post doesn't seem to follow that sort of format though, and is more a "this is what I'm trying to do. Any ideas on how I can accomplish that?"

With that in mind...

Tony's got a good start on how it could be done. There may be times when one's personal radiance can be more of an hindrance than a help, depending on what the character wants to accomplish, so emphasizing that somehow may lead to self-regulation on one's destiny level.

Another approach might be to flip the problem around and look at it backwards. Is there a number of godshards you feel is "appropriate" to endgame? Say, should the average amalga have no more than 4-5 once they're deciding the fate of the world? Is there a point where godshards have a lesser effect than societal influence? I would think that the ability to command wolves and summon rain would be less useful when you're at the point of creating a new world order. Once you have a solid answer to these questions, you'll have a rough schedule, relative to the pacing of the game, for the advancement of destiny and acquisition of godshards.. At that point, it just becomes a matter of plugging in the numbers so that they'll match up with your schedule.

[Sovem]

Another approach might be to flip the problem around and look at it backwards. Is there a number of godshards you feel is "appropriate" to endgame? Say, should the average amalga have no more than 4-5 once they're deciding the fate of the world? Is there a point where godshards have a lesser effect than societal influence? I would think that the ability to command wolves and summon rain would be less useful when you're at the point of creating a new world order. Once you have a solid answer to these questions, you'll have a rough schedule, relative to the pacing of the game, for the advancement of destiny and acquisition of godshards.. At that point, it just becomes a matter of plugging in the numbers so that they'll match up with your schedule.

That's actually a good point to bring up. My goal for the game is to allow people to stop playing whenever they want. If it's when they're creating a new world order, as it were, that's fine. If they want to go on and start playing in the realm of the gods (figuratively, as the gods are stuck in the physical), then I want them to be able to do that. If they want to keep on going and have their characters start influencing things on a cosmic level with the midgods, like in a game of Nobilis, I'm good with that, too. Ambitious? Yes. It may take a supplement or two to have that much playability. But that's where I'm headed.

Back to your question: with 10 godshards, you are roughly on the same level as the low gods. If you get lots of the same god's shard, you wil be significantly more powerful than an Amalga with 10 different shards, but you will also be dangerously close to losing yourself to that god's personality and character traits.

Does that help? At 10 shards, the affairs of mortals should start looking pretty pedestrian to you, but a whole new soceity (the low gods who didn't die) is open to you.

[Lance D. Allen]

Does that help? At 10 shards, the affairs of mortals should start looking pretty pedestrian to you, but a whole new soceity (the low gods who didn't die) is open to you.

Let me toss the question back at you. Does it help? Basically, you've the rudiments of a schedule right there. By the time the amalga (plural as well as singular, yes?) are reaching 10 godshards, they should be on schedule to be moving into the godhood game. Obviously there's going to be some flexibility, especially if the individual characters are gaining destiny and godshards at a different rate.

When I say schedule, I don't mean "It should take x sessions to get y godshards". The schedule should be relative to the events of the game.. Kind of like what Tony said. So more like "The amalga are stomping titans and monsters in their spare time, just for fun, while setting up a democratic government.. It's probably about time to step it up a notch".

[Sovem]

Our biggest problem now is determining A) How much Destiny influences your gameplay and, therefor, B) how and how often a character should get Destiny. Obviously, if each point of Destiny is very powerful, Destiny should be difficult to get. If it doesn't do all that much, it should be slightly easier.

I was thinking about the differences between getting lots of the same god's shards, or getting lots of different ones. I realized that the way we had been doing it was alright at lower levels, but if Amalga 1 had 10 of the same god's shard and Amalga 2 had 10 different shards, there would be a huge difference in power. Yes, the Amalga 1 would have tons of disadvantages, being changed almost entirely into the god whose shards they are hording, but I'm not sure the hindrance would outweigh, or even equal, the advantages.
So, the thought came to me that, perhaps, each point of Destiny will allow Amalga 2 to choose some of the powers that Amalga 1 would get automatically? This would help bring the power levels a little closer together. Obviously, Amalga 1 would still be more powerful, but Amalga 2 would have none of the disadvantages.

Thoughts?

[Valamir]

I'm a big fan of mechanical reinforcement for stuff...a BIG fan.  But one hard lesson I've learned is to be wary of adding NEW stats into your system.  Often its more elegant to work with what you already have.

For instance:  why have a seperate system which you need rules for increasing and decreasing that tells you how many shards you can get.  You already have a system for getting (and losing?) shards.  Sounds like a duplication of effort.

Instead why not just have the number of shards you have right now be your Destiny score.  Now you have a score you can do stuff with, and it doesn't require any additional rules to get their.  Number of Shards = Destiny (or God Power, or whatever you want to call it).  Or you could get more complicated with it and have a formula for the shards so that 3 shards from 3 different gods might give you a God Power of 3, but 3 shards from the same god might give you a God Power of 3+2+1 =6.  Whatever. 

More important is to focus on how you want this score to be used in play.  How you get it is really the trivial piece that can be filled in later.  Once you have it on your character sheet...what does it do.

Is it a status thing that indicates what level of people you can cow with your lordly aura?
Does it define what sort of actions you should be taking?


For instance.  What if each God Power level had a scope of an action attached to it and you could not gain another shard until you "primed" youself by completeing the requisite action (or one from a list).  For instance I now have 1 God Shard.  The Level 1 list includes "rescue a maiden from a beast", "help a village solve a problem", "defeat a local hero" that sort of thing.  I can't get another shard until I complete some task that's on par with those.  When I have 5 God Power the list might look like this: Slay the ancient Wyrm of Mount Krykos; Clear the Forest of Kroos of Brigands; Save a Town from destruction; rescue the princess from a mighty monster.  When I have 10 God Power the list might look like this:  Defeat an entire army; overthrow a king.

There are alot of different ways you can go.

My advice is to see how far you can use what you've got to accomplish the overall goal of getting the players thinking in terms of interacting with setting level stuff before inventing new subsystems.  That way you can keep the added crunch to just the essentials.

[Sovem]

You're right. Originally, our idea for Destiny was much more like what you're saying, but after so many revisions, it has become something a bit more redundant.

It's the "how to use it in play" that's got us stumped right now.

Let's go back to the drawing board, if you will, and talk about the Why. We need something in DH that really helps the players know better what they're supposed to be doing. What is it we want characters in this game to do? Become legends. Change the world. As it stands, there's absolutely no mechanical incentive to do this.
Enter the idea of Destiny. The gods have held all the keys to mankind's destiny since the beginning of the world. Now, those keys are in humanity's hands. Amalga, as humans with divine power, will certainly play a big part in deciding that new destiny. Will they make the world Odom created into a testament to the power and ingenuity of humanity, or will they just choose to replace the gods as tyrants? Or, worse, will they help the gods to retake their position?
The idea behind Destiny is that it would be a rating of how much of the destiny of the world you are shaping, how strong a hand you have on the reigns. The more you influence the world, the higher your Destiny rank goes. But what is the reward? Why do I want to raise my Destiny score--why not just ramble around, doing as I please, since I'm a demigod?

Aye, there's the rub. I've toyed with the idea of Destiny being a pool of automatic successes that could be used every so often, but everyone else was worried that would be too much once a character got up in Destiny. Right now I'm leaning towards having a Destiny rank, and a seperate Destiny pool. When you spend Destiny, it's gone until you raise your Destiny rank again, at which point your pool refreshes to your new rank. Destiny would be spent on some special abilities and enhancements that are already a part of the game, so I wouldn't be adding anything new, there. I'm seeing people get Destiny every couple of sessions, depending on the chronicle.
Although I really thought the in-game link between Destiny and godshards was cool, I'm beginning to feel that forcing the two to match up may just be too difficult...

[Valamir]

Let's go back to the drawing board, if you will, and talk about the Why. We need something in DH that really helps the players know better what they're supposed to be doing. What is it we want characters in this game to do? Become legends. Change the world. As it stands, there's absolutely no mechanical incentive to do this.

I'd bet money that the solution will become much clearer if you drill down to specifics.  "Destiny", "Legends", "Change the World"...that's pretty high level and heady stuff.  People don't typically think or act on that level.

What specific things should a character do in the game that would cause history to remember him as a "legend"?  Kill monsters?, become a king? start a new cult worshiping him as a diety?

What specific things should a character do to "change the world"?  Start a revolution?  Influence who wins a war? Conquer the World? Free the serfs and set up a new utopian society?

I've often used the movie analogy.  If Hollywood came to you with a wad of cash and said "get us a script by next friday"...what would you put in it?  What actual things would the actors on the screen be portraying in your archetypical most kick ass DH inspired movie?  Cool...start from there...don't worry about how to get the players to "become legends"...worry about how to get the players to do THOSE sorts of things.  If those sorts of things are "legendary" then the play will encourage "legendary play" by default.  If those sorts of things aren't legendary...then "legendary" was probably not what you were really looking for after all.

[Sovem]

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean. The players certainly have the ability to do all those things you listed in your examples. But I'm not sure legendary play will evolve by default.

Let me see if I can be a little more specific with a few examples:

In the game of Exalted, one of the big lines is "What legends will they tell of your deeds?" The game is advertised as a game of epic storytelling, but when I open the books, I see massive lists of charms and artifacts. This leads me, subconsciously, at least, to believe the my goal should be to get my character all those goodies. Now, we played Exalted for several years, and had some suitably awesome epics; but I believe it's more because we wanted to do something epic, and Exalted looked like the best game in which to do that, rather than that the system actually encouraged doing epic things. We've played games of Exalted that were decidedly lackluster, too; devoid of anything epic.

In Nobilis, players start out as gods and pretty much stay that way. Much like DH, characters have an amazing potential, but because there's not much room to grow, it's often difficult to know where to go. Now, I've played Nobilis and loved it, but when I tried to run it, my players felt like there was no way they could really grow and so they were bored, despite the awesome stories I was throwing at them (if I may say so myself).


I don't want to construct a game where people think objective is to learn every spell in the book. But I don't want them to have all the power they can handle, and not really know what to do with it. Hopefully I have not muddled my point too much.

[Valamir]

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean. The players certainly have the ability to do all those things you listed in your examples. But I'm not sure legendary play will evolve by default.

There's a difference between:
1) "the players have the ability to do all those things",
2) "the players are mechanically guided towards becoming legends"
and 3) "the players are mechanically guided towards an escalating series of great deeds"

Your game currently is #1.  But as you've noted, simply leaving it up to the whim of the campaign isn't very reliable.

Your above approach is #2, which seeks to get passed the limitations of #1...but "becoming legends" is just too vague a concept.  Players can't get their minds around "today I'm going to have my character become a legend"...it doesn't really MEAN anything.  Its not an effective guidepost if folks don't know how to get there.

My suggestion is to move to #3...now I'm assuming that "an escalating series of great deeds" is essentially what you're looking for when you say "become a legend" and "change the world".  If not substitute to taste.  What I'm saying is to get more specific.  What sort of things do you want to see characters do in the world...then build your incentives towards having them do those things.  Players typically can't say "today I'm going to have my character become a legend"...but they certainly can say "today I'm going to overthrow the government of Roosia"

[Sovem]

I see what you mean. I'm not sure how to really impliment what you say, though, without making the game too structured. That is, how do I give advice on what to do without just telling people what to do?

The slaying of monsters is certainly a staple in any myth. As is becomming a ruler. I don't want players to feel obligated to take over some of the game world's main kingdoms if the don't want to... how can I scale influencing government, I wonder? If a character gained the ear of the Queen, that would certainly be a tremendous accomplishment! But is it any greater than gaining the ear of a popular general? It depends on what they do with that influence. How to make mechanics that judge?
Likewise, taking down an army is an impressive task. But what makes it more impressive: the might of the army? Or the importance of the enemy it was sent against?

These are the kinds of questions that are stymying me.

[Lance D. Allen]

Why are you afraid of telling them what to do?

DO tell them what to do. Clear instructions are one of the most important things game text should offer. Check out Dogs in the Vineyard as an example.. It gives explicit, step by step instructions for scenario design, and strongly warns you from deviating from those instructions.

The idea is to tell certain styles of stories.. epics! Tales of slaying monsters, influencing kingdoms, and challenging the gods. If the players don't want to do these things, tell these kinds of stories, they should probably play something else. Now, sure.. maybe they only want to go a certain distance up the path, and that's okay. But that's no reason to not have rules to guide them all the way to godhood, if they want to go that far.

As for your specific questions, about the relative grandeur of influencing a queen or a popular general, or whether it's the size or importance of the enemy force that's important, you don't necessarily want to make rules to judge.. You want to make rules that allow the players to judge for themselves. Set a scale, and let the players (or GM) decide where on that scale the queen and the popular general rank.

A few specific examples, tossed out there.. Gain the ear of General Maximus of Rome: 3 renown. Gain the ear of Ceasar Marcus Aurelius, 10 renown. (Marcus Aurelius has the absolute loyalty of General Maximus, after all..) Single-handedly defeat 1000 men on the field of battle: 5 renown. Single-handedly defeat the enemy ruler's elite guard (about 300 men): 5 renown.

With those numbers, you might be able to decide where your popular general ranks. Maybe he's more popular than Maximus, and has more political heft, but he certainly doesn't command all of Rome, and have the absolutel loyalty of such bright lights as Maximus, so he's about renown 5. Maybe the army your amalga defeated is 1000 men, and is almost as elite as the enemy king's guard, so they'd have a renown of about 7-8.

Basically, all you need is a few points of reference. Make one or two up off the top of your head. Pull the numbers right out of the air, roll a die, whatever. That'll be your zero point, and you can adjust any points of reference from there, and tweak the original ones later if need be.