[Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes

[MJGraham]

Before I ask my question I feel that I should explain a little about my game.

My roleplaying game uses two sets of attributes: virtue attributes (e.g. courage and honesty) and motive attributes (e.g. power and recognition). These attributes are given values from -5 to +5.

To resolve a conflict players roll 2d10 and apply their attribute values to the the roll. Higher results result in better success. Fpr example, a player who wants his or her character to make a successful strike in a duel may use their character's courage value and if there's a substantial crowd watching their character's recognition value to modify the 2d10 roll. Let's assume for the sake of this example that the character in question has a courage +2 and a recognition +1. The player would roll 2d10+3 to see how well/badly the strike was resolved.

The method I have adopted for determining attribute values is to let the players decide their characters attributes. If a player wants +5 in every attribute he or she can have +5 in every attribute. This may strike some people as rather odd because there would seem to be no reason to not have the highest attribute values. But here's the rub. Any bonus can become a penalty and any penalty can become a bonus depending on the context. For example, think of a character with honesty +5. At any time when trying to convince someone of the truth that player receives a +5 bonus. But should the character try to tell a lie that +5 bonus becomes a -5 penalty. This is done to encourage players to roleplay their characters in a manner consistent with their characters' attributes and as means of making no attribute or value of greater importance than any other. A player who gives his or her character an honesty +5 had best be prepared for roleplaying an honest character or face the consequences.

Given that I'm not using more traditional attributes such as strength or intelligence would you imagine players, especially old school gamers, will have a difficult time becoming involved in this game? Does allowing players the freedom to choose their own attributes seem problematic to you?   

[Ricky Donato]

Hi, MJ,

Before I can answer your question, I need some more information. Can you tell me what Insurrection is about? I'm not asking for any mechanical details here: nothing about the resolution system, stats, or XP. Just the concept in a couple of sentences.

[MJGraham]

Hi, MJ,

Before I can answer your question, I need some more information. Can you tell me what Insurrection is about? I'm not asking for any mechanical details here: nothing about the resolution system, stats, or XP. Just the concept in a couple of sentences.

It's a narrativist game set in a fantasy world based upon a dystopian reinterpretation of early englightenment Europe. Players take on the role of insurrectionists from revolutionary cabals who are fighting against oppressive regimes. The only other thing that I can think that might be worth mentioning is that it's a fatalist game. The players know that there will be a revolution no matter what their characters do. The act of roleplaying the characters is not to cause an uprising but to discover what part their characters did or did not have in bringing it about and through such discovery come to a better understanding of who their characters are/were as people.

[GreatWolf]

Well, mechanically it can work.  My game (Legends of Alyria) uses a similar mechanic.  You probably don't need to have any negative ratings.  Instead, just rate an attribute from 1 to 5.  Add or subtract as appropriate by context.  As a bonus, the GM should see higher ratings as an invitation by the player to be challenged in the areas where he has high ratings.  So, a character with "Honest:  5" is asking to have his honesty challenged.

[Ricky Donato]

Hi, MJ,

Given that I'm not using more traditional attributes such as strength or intelligence would you imagine players, especially old school gamers, will have a difficult time becoming involved in this game? Does allowing players the freedom to choose their own attributes seem problematic to you?

Based on your reply, this will not be much of a problem. Really, the big gap of understanding will be the narrativism and the fatalism.

[MJGraham]

Well, mechanically it can work.  My game (Legends of Alyria) uses a similar mechanic.  You probably don't need to have any negative ratings.  Instead, just rate an attribute from 1 to 5.  Add or subtract as appropriate by context.  As a bonus, the GM should see higher ratings as an invitation by the player to be challenged in the areas where he has high ratings.  So, a character with "Honest:  5" is asking to have his honesty challenged.

I particularly like the notion of players inviting a specific kind of challenge by opting for higher values in certain attributes. I can see a player using a character with an Honesty +5 being extremely adept -even predisposed- to telling the truth. But the consequences of their truthfulness being all the more problematic for them. E.g. will the character tell the Duke's daughter that she's a vile and selfish human being or will he lie to her to save his own skin? Can he lie to her?

I'm adopting a reward system which encourages roleplaying that takes into account attributes. Success or failure in resolving conflicts matters less than how the characters approach the conflict. To return to the example above, the player will receive a more significant reward for being honest even if it does have negative consequences for his or her character.

P.S. I had a quick look at Legends of Alyria and I have to admit that I'm impressed with the depth and detail that you've put into it. I'd like to give it a more thorough reading soon.

Based on your reply, this will not be much of a problem. Really, the big gap of understanding will be the narrativism and the fatalism.

I've tried to overcome that gap by making it clear that the characters goal isn't to take part in the uprising or even bring it about. Rather it is for them to become the kind of people who could inspire others to bring about the uprising. Their task isn't to become the heroes on any revolution but to be the precursors of such heroes.

[AmbroseCollector]

There are two main points I see as worth noting on your resolution system.

The first is the choice of Motives and Virtues.  It will be important to make these attributes that can A: come into play on most, if not all rolls, so that success truly is based on a character's concept and not dumb luck, and B: are not easily manipulated such as to get that +5 on every roll.

The second is actually stabbing at a problem that is, as I see it, an important part of your game, and that is the lack of concrete attributes such as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma.

The problem is not, to me, that one person can't chose to play the "strong person" or "smart person" in a group, but rather that one can't chose to play the "weakling" or "dumb guy."

I, as a gamer, and several other people that I game with, enjoy playing a character's weaknesses as much as, if not more than, her strengths.  however, assigning third attributes such as "Strong" or "Smart" not only bates the "Why not all +5's?" question, but also, as I see it, is overly complex and stylistically at odds with your game idea.  Perhaps, instead, there should be a set of optional traits that allow a character to roll only 1d10+/-modifiers, and provide some benefit of these, or perhaps every player must have one?  These would be based on concepts of actual ability, instead of driving emotions behind them, because, for instance, no matter how much a really dumb guy cares about decoding a message, he probably won't succeed.

[MJGraham]

There are two main points I see as worth noting on your resolution system.

The first is the choice of Motives and Virtues.  It will be important to make these attributes that can A: come into play on most, if not all rolls, so that success truly is based on a character's concept and not dumb luck, and B: are not easily manipulated such as to get that +5 on every roll.

A player could manipulate events so that they always enjoy a +5 on every roll and in doing so increase the odds of being successful. But they couldn't avoid the consequence of their success. A player could give their character a courage +5 and they could roleplay this character as someone who never backs down from a challenge and who never runs away, but a time may come when such courage becomes recklessness and almost certain death.

The second is actually stabbing at a problem that is, as I see it, an important part of your game, and that is the lack of concrete attributes such as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma.

The problem is not, to me, that one person can't chose to play the "strong person" or "smart person" in a group, but rather that one can't chose to play the "weakling" or "dumb guy."

I, as a gamer, and several other people that I game with, enjoy playing a character's weaknesses as much as, if not more than, her strengths.  however, assigning third attributes such as "Strong" or "Smart" not only bates the "Why not all +5's?" question, but also, as I see it, is overly complex and stylistically at odds with your game idea.  Perhaps, instead, there should be a set of optional traits that allow a character to roll only 1d10+/-modifiers, and provide some benefit of these, or perhaps every player must have one?

I do allow for concrete attributes as you describe them. But they are more akin to skills in my game than attributes. Or rather they perform the function of expressing the kind of skills that a character has honed. Let me give you an example, there are several fortes (classes) in my game, two of which are heretics and infiltrator. Heretics have a background in which their awareness and understanding have been raised to a greater level than the average persons. The same holds true for the infiltrators' coordination and quickness.

The way that I approach things somewhat differently than the roleplaying games which I have experienced is that instead of saying okay you're strong, clever, but a little clumsy here's a list of skills to choose from... go at it. Instead I say here's what you've devoted your life to doing and this is why you are strong, clever, but a little clumsy. Now in the case of the infiltrator I don't give them a list of skills, rather I say that their coordination and quickness has been developed to a higher standard because of the path they have chosen. From there I conclude that any attempt at being coordinated or quick will be more likely to succeed for them or at least fail less traumatically. An infiltrator is more agile because they have trained in the art of picking pockets, hiding from searchers, prowling through shadows. Let's say for the sake of this discussion that the infiltrator tries to ride a horse over treacherous ground while he's being pursued by an armed militia. There is no ride horse skill, but the infiltrator is agile (we know that because his forte makes him more coordinated than the average person). This means that the agility he developed as an infiltrator doing infiltrator kind of things will benefit him during this pursuit. In essence the infiltrator will be good at anything involving speed and/or agility.

How do these concrete attributes benefit a character? They benefit them by increasing their chances of getting a reroll. There's no numerical value and no modifier attached to them. It's simply the case that if a character such as an infiltrator is in a situation where speed or agility is of the highest importance then their player is more likely to be able to reroll a failed result.

These would be based on concepts of actual ability, instead of driving emotions behind them, because, for instance, no matter how much a really dumb guy cares about decoding a message, he probably won't succeed.

The same holds true for the opposite. No matter how smart a guy happens to be, he will never decode a message if he lacks the motivation or finds the act morally repugnant. The only thing I've done is swap two common sets of attributes for two lesser used sets, i.e. mental and physical attributes for ethical and motivational. The reason for doing this is because I want players to explore who their characters are in ways that do not typify most roleplaying experiences. I want the ethical considerations of a character to have more impact upon the players involvement in the game than whether one character has more charisma than another. And I believe that concrete attributes reveal nothing about the character of a character. Being clever or strong doesn't tell me what kind of a person a character will be. It seems to me to be rather ludicrous that we expect players to make characters out of elements which are so far removed from actual character in itself.

The truth is that almost anything can be an attribute. You could have the attributes of Early Morning, Late Morning, Afternoon, and Night and create a game in which characters are defined by the time of day in which they are at their peak mental and physical condition. You could have a game with only one attribute; perhaps luck in the case or even win. I like the idea of a win attribute. It has a nice ring to it. You could even have no attributes whatsoever. My point here is that what does it matter if a character wins at combat because he is lucky, courageous, strong, or just really good at fighting in the early hours of the morning. What matters is what those attributes mean to the experience of playing that particular game.

[stefoid]

is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat?  If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning.  It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.

Id look at jazzing up when and how attributes are applied so its a special moment when it happens.

[MJGraham]

is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat?  If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning.  It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.

Id look at jazzing up when and how attributes are applied so its a special moment when it happens.

Absolutely. For example, you might apply the virtue of loyalty instead of courage if the fight was to protect the life of a friend. Courage as a virtue attribute can also be used for other activities such as climbing a high wall, making a public speech, defying a direct order from an antagonist with heavily armed guards.

[GreatWolf]

is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat?  If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning.  It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.

Actually, you need to look at this from a few angles:

1)  Courage could always apply to combat, but so could cowardice.  In a system like this, the outcome of the conflict isn't always as important as why that outcome occurred.

2)  Courage can get you into trouble.  The GM and other players should be looking for ways to "punish" a PC with a high courage, such as putting him in a position where it would be better to run away...but he needs to use his Courage as a penalty.

3) "Strength" or "extra combat skill" doesn't have the moral weight behind them like "courage" does.  So, even if a character is always using "courage" in combat, that is saying something about the character, each time.

Trust me, this will work.

[stefoid]

what if, instead of the +1 to +5 modifier being the amount of extra skill it added to your roll, it was the amount of times you could add it per session?

Even a coward can fight with courage sometimes, in fact when a coward does fight with courage, it is in some ways more impressive.

I also like the idea that when a player decides to use an attribute, it has a guarentee of helping, rather than leaving it up to fate which is what adding a number to a roll does.

[GreatWolf]

Stefoid,

I think that you're missing part of the design idea here, which is that Motives and Virtues are supposed to be double-edged swords.  So, taking Courage:  +5 is actually an invitation to be screwed with a -5 penalty when the GM or other players can maneuver you into a situation when your courage will work against you.  Don't think of it as a bonus; rather, think of it as an intensity rating which can be applied both favorably and unfavorably, depending on context.

Honestly, I've played other games which limited the application of "personality" mechanics, and I threw out those limits.  I'm thinking here specifically of Unknown Armies.  If you're going to put personality mechanics at the center of your game, then embrace it!   Let those mechanics drive your conflicts.  Trust me.  My experience with both Unknown Armies and Legends of Alyria bears this out.  It works just fine.

[stefoid]

Dunno if that works all the time, though.  I mean, just because someone is courageous (example) doesnt mean they are reckless, overconfident ,etc...  A brave hero might choose to fight against the odds to rescue the maiden whereas a brave villain might choose to run away - saving his bravery for fighting the bank guards or whatever.  Its more about motivation .

So I think the  pro/con might work for motivations, but not neccesarilly virtues.

The OP gave the example of honesty as a virtue.  In a moral sense its a virtue, but in  a practical sense its not.  More like a motivation in that the character is compelled to tell the truth, the way Im reading the example.  As a virtue, you might be better off with 'believable' or whatever.

Motivations give your character something to care about.  Do they neccessarilly give you an advantage or disadvantage?  Maybe if you are using a virtue in support of a motivation it counts double and if you are using contrary to a motivation it counts half.  i.e. if my motivation is 'self-preservation', it becomes a lot harder to use the 'courage' virtue than if my motivation was 'revenge' and I was fighting the guards standing between me and the 6 fingered man.

[GreatWolf]

So I think the  pro/con might work for motivations, but not neccesarilly virtues.

Okay, I buy that.  A Motivation should be pro/con, but if the designer is wanting a Virtue to always be an advantage of some kind, then it should be handled differently.

In Legends of Alyria, I call these values Traits, which is a more neutral term than a Virtue.  (I also have Virtue in the game, but it's a separate value that affects the cost to purchase Traits.)