Distinguishing between good-good/bad-good, and simply boring actions

[Daniel B]

I realize the topic title is mystifying, so I'll explain.


I'm working on a character growth/reward system (mentioned in a recent post Chits and the Void) where the PCs are rewarded for simply doing something 'interesting' in the 'story' (I'm intentionally leaving the words 'interesting' and 'story' vague and undefined here)

A corollary of this is that I do not want to focus on an implicit moral point of view. For example, seeking out and killing an evil elf-village-butchering dragon is a good-good action because it (a) has a significant effect on the campaign world since elven folk everywhere can sleep comfortably, and (b) morally good for saving lives. The latter point is debatable, but for sake of argument assume this example works.

By the same token, assassinating a benevolent king who treats his subjects well is an example of a bad-good action. By all standard definitions, this is a very evil act (ignoring context, such as a king's hidden agenda, or maybe taking actions now to prevent future disasters.) However, it still has a significant effect on the campaign narrative since it throws the kingdom into turmoil.

For the character growth and reward system I mentioned, I want to favour these kinds of actions. No moral judgements, just considerations of the magnitude of effect on the story/world. As mentioned, PCs who affect the world significantly will be rewarded for their actions, and will be rewarded by getting an even greater influence. On the other hand, characters who do boring things will be selected against. (By 'boring', I mean actions which affect the campaign world or even just simply the narrative. The PCs may only be in combat with a single low-level orc with no power or influence, but if the orc is important because he's Bob's-Sister's-Cousin, then it may be important to the narrative.)

Again I leave this vague and in the hands of the players and GM as to what's important to the narrative; however, despite what I just said .. I'd really like to find some tools for measuring the importance of events. We all have fuzzy instinctual reactions about what we find interesting, but are there ways to determine this a little more accurately, mechanically? And how about the influence of actions upon the campaign world? I think this would a bit easier to measure since the campaign world is imagined as an external thing, outside of the characters at least.

Daniel

[Luke]

just considerations of the magnitude of effect on the story/world. As mentioned, PCs who affect the world significantly will be rewarded for their actions, and will be rewarded by getting an even greater influence. On the other hand, characters who do boring things will be selected against. (By 'boring', I mean actions which affect the campaign world or even just simply the narrative. The PCs may only be in combat with a single low-level orc with no power or influence, but if the orc is important because he's Bob's-Sister's-Cousin, then it may be important to the narrative.)

Well, it seems to me that you need to create a setting and then build a scale of actions suited to that setting -- from inconsequential all the way up to influential.

That's where I would start, at least.

[Patrice]

Isn't there an implied contradiction here, Daniel? What do you call "character growth"? In what way do they grow? If what you want is to design a story-focused game (okay, forget about defining "story" here), won't the characters' growth be connected with their ability to do something interesting in the story or at least with the scope of their actions? You take the risk of generating a spiral.

[Daniel B]

It's a good suggestion in principle Luke, but I'm trying to stay independent of a particular setting (or scale!) X-) Dang it

Isn't there an implied contradiction here, Daniel? What do you call "character growth"? In what way do they grow? If what you want is to design a story-focused game (okay, forget about defining "story" here), won't the characters' growth be connected with their ability to do something interesting in the story or at least with the scope of their actions? You take the risk of generating a spiral.

Actually Patrice, it's not just connected. Character growth IS an increasing ability to do something interesting in the story. I'm using that as an umbrella term to cover any way they can cause greater influence: stronger muscles, smarter brain, larger or more numerous resources, more social connections. Incidentally, PCs will be able to "buy" artifacts or even property with Chits or "adopt" more social connections.

I'm not sure what you mean by generating a spiral unless you're referring to the self-feedback of story influence. It is a self-feeding spiral, true, but it doesn't have to be any worse than any other kind of character growth. In D&D you generate XP to grow in the level, to generate XP faster, to grow higher, and so on.

Here's the conundrum I'm running into, though. While stronger, faster, etc. characters influence the story, so do hindrances, and weaker characters (but to a much more limiting extent). Even character death shouldn't be mechanically penalized too heavily, if that death occurred as a result of the PC being relevant and interesting in the story. There should be SOME penalty, just like a missed sword-swing has the penalty of wasting time that could be spent defeating a foe, but neither should it be this game-killing loss. By the same logic, any apparent hindrance should not necessarily be mechanically penalized. Instead, the PCs should simply fail to grow if they're doing boring or irrelevant things.

Figuring out the point costs for this sounds brutal. I'm hoping having some metrics or ways to measure effect-to-narrative-influence. For the bonuses, it's much easier to see how the PCs will be able to affect the story more, but not so much with hindrances.

E.G. A dwarf gets too close to dragonbreath and can no longer grow a beard, seriously hurting his standing in Dwarven social circles over the course of his remaining lifetime.. but he got this burn saving an entire Dwarven town from annihilation by same said dragon. Does this have the same story influence as a permanent +2 Strength. I suspect it's context sensitive, but I can't help but wonder if there are ways to get rough numbers, like an estimate which would serve well enough. Obviously the loss-of-Dwarven-beard will change things a lot less than a +1000000 Strength bonus, and a lot more than a +0.00001 Strength bonus.

[Luke]

It's a good suggestion in principle Luke, but I'm trying to stay independent of a particular setting (or scale!) X-) Dang it

Determined to make your game as bland as possible, eh? I understand the urge, but the end result isn't worth it. Your game is not going to be a universal story engine. It's going to do one thing well, if you let it.

Your game design is going to have an opinion, whether you like it or not. Embrace this. Make YOUR game. Not some vague, hands off thing that doesn't really say anything.

YOU have ideas of what a story is, what is moral and what is good/bad/good. Dive into those preferences and embody them. You might be surprised how interesting a game they could be.

[Daniel B]

It's a good suggestion in principle Luke, but I'm trying to stay independent of a particular setting (or scale!) X-) Dang it

Determined to make your game as bland as possible, eh? I understand the urge, but the end result isn't worth it. Your game is not going to be a universal story engine. It's going to do one thing well, if you let it.

Your game design is going to have an opinion, whether you like it or not. Embrace this. Make YOUR game. Not some vague, hands off thing that doesn't really say anything.

YOU have ideas of what a story is, what is moral and what is good/bad/good. Dive into those preferences and embody them. You might be surprised how interesting a game they could be.

Hmmm.. I believe you're saying that because many people try to do everything and end up doing nothing. Like building a steak sandwich with butterscotch whipped cream and pickles. They all taste great separately, why not throw them together? However, obviously this is a bad idea. And I respect your comment that I should be my own game that does one thing well. Six months ago I might even have taken a step back from the project and put it on a back burner. However, my vision for this project has become a lot clearer now (thanks in strong part due to the help I've received on the Forge!)  You say I should have the project find a niche, and tailor my project to that niche so it is the supreme survivor...

in that niche!  You may find this hard to believe, but this vision is very definitely reflective of my own preferences and tastes. Fortunately, my preferences and tastes change because I get bored with routine quickly, even if it was something I previously loved. The vision I have for my project is of a machine that will survive being played/GMed by myself. In other words, something that isn't restricted to a single niche, and which can evolve in the direction I want to take it, on a whim.

This doesn't necessarily sound achievable at first, but thinking back to the metaphor of biology, there is one creature that exists in a wide variety of environments and survives well .. people, of course. How do I build ONE machine capable of adapting to the landscape of human psychology? Well, no matter how good I think the machine is, I fully admit it will have limitations. People can't (naturally) breathe underwater. Nor can they go months and months without water, like some creatures who are tailored to niches can. But we have "survival gear" that certainly makes us more likely to survive a given random niche. For example, we're omnivorous, and tummies can take a wide variety of food. We have hands that are capable of holding tools to adapt to even more situations, and .. well, you get the idea.

Back to discussion on the project .. yes, I do have my own ideas on morality. Yes, I theoretically could make the project say something "meaningful" (whatever that means!) I don't want to, because that's not what I'd want out of that imagined "perfect system" I might buy in a store. I want to imbue my own sense of morality and infuse my own meaning into the system I play while I play it, and not be confined to what's written in the book. (.. actually, I already do, sometimes outright ignoring whole sections of rules.)

But ANYway .. this is all besides the point of the original post.  :-P  All that aside, sincere thanks for the post Luke. I actually enjoy defending my position.. (and clearly I love talking and talking and talking.)

Dan

[Luke]

Back to discussion on the project .. yes, I do have my own ideas on morality. Yes, I theoretically could make the project say something "meaningful" (whatever that means!) I don't want to, because that's not what I'd want out of that imagined "perfect system" I might buy in a store. I want to imbue my own sense of morality and infuse my own meaning into the system I play while I play it, and not be confined to what's written in the book. (.. actually, I already do, sometimes outright ignoring whole sections of rules.)

Right, but you cannot remain neutral. You are deciding even now what elements to retain and what elements to scrap. You're already taking a position about your game. That's good. Go further. You have a vision, make your game that vision.

Unfortunately, part of your vision, to make a featureless, universal story-telling engine is, well, kind of impossible. We tell stories in as many ways as there are stories. There is no one accepted way to tell a story. We often like stories that are told to us in an interesting and unique way -- regardless of the content.

That's your job, to provide the interesting and unique viewpoint on a story that can be told ANYWHERE. No one needs your game to tell this story, meng.

And you're going to inject some of yourself into the game anyway, I'm just telling you to recognize it. Have an opinion about it. Embrace it and have fun.

My games are very expansive and can tell all sorts of stories -- scary stories, adventure stories, dramatic stories, comedic stories, tragic stories -- but my games all have a vision of what those stories will include -- sacrifice, consequences, heroic effort in the face of improbable success and catastrophic failure. But there's an infinite number of stories to tell in that space, but there is NO game like my games.

-Luke

[dindenver]

Daniel,
  Well, to add to what you and Luke are talking about. What if you looked at it from another angle. There are some absolutely awesome universal story engines. But, the are built around specific kinds of stories. PTA is an awesome engine to make a series. ...In Spaaace! is an awesome game to make a one-shot story arc. Alexander Cherry was working on a game for ensemble play.
  In other words, these are specialized games. But, their specializations are not Fantasy, or Military, Cthulu or Realism. But, instead they are engines to tell stories with certain characteristics. Look at PTA, it takes a massive amount of finagling to get it to produce a good one shot. Because it is hardwired for series-type story arcs.

  Once you decide what kind of stories you want your game to tell, this kind of stuff will fall into place almost instinctively...

[Lance D. Allen]

Luke's advice is, as usual, spot on. I'm not going to try to nuance what he's telling you, or add to it or rephrase it.

I'm going to try to address your initial question.

Good/Bad: You don't want to judge morally? Then don't address it.

Big/Small: This is what you seem to want to address. How do you judge what's big or small? Better question: How do you build a toolset so that your players can judge what's big or small?

Here's a rough, off the cuff idea that maybe you can refine and build on.. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Order Effects.

Dwarf gets his beard burned off, and his face scarred so he can never grow a dignified beard again.

1st Order: He's horribly scarred and beardless
2nd Order: He's lacking a visible sign of esteem in dwarven culture
2nd Order: He's highly recognizable

1st Order: His actions are considered heroic by the dwarven community
2nd Order: He's held in a certain esteem for his sacrifice

Based on his high recognizability, and the esteem due his sacrifice:
3rd Order: His scars and beardlessness become a strength in dwarven culture

How to apply this to the game? He gets a small penalty among dwarves who don't recognize him. He gets a small bonus to being recognized when he wants to be, and a small penalty when he doesn't want to be. He gets a larger bonus when dealing with dwarves who recognize him and his sacrifice.

The players determine what the effects are of a given thing, and as the effects spread and become bigger, the larger situational bonus/penalty is granted the character. This can continue to grow as play continues, and the effects spread further, like ripples in a pond. Maybe the kingslayer has a small bonus/penalty at first, but as the kingdom collapses in ruin under a merciless tyrant, that bonus/penalty will grow larger. Whether it's a bonus or a penalty is situational, based on what the character is doing, and who is involved.

Does that make any sense? Is there anything there you can use?

[Anders Larsen]

Again I leave this vague and in the hands of the players and GM as to what's important to the narrative; however, despite what I just said .. I'd really like to find some tools for measuring the importance of events. We all have fuzzy instinctual reactions about what we find interesting, but are there ways to determine this a little more accurately, mechanically? And how about the influence of actions upon the campaign world? I think this would a bit easier to measure since the campaign world is imagined as an external thing, outside of the characters at least.

This really depend on the style of playing. Some players like to be told what is important in the story; what is the right thing to do in this game. I am personally not a fan of that approach, and I guess that goes for most other people around here.

The other style of playing, that I am more in favour of, is that the players during character creation and during the game figure out what is important for there character, and then that's what is important for the story.

In the first approach, the most efficient way is to have the GM determined what is important. This is of cause what most people will call railroading, but in these style of game it is expected. An idea for a mechanical way of doing this, could be that the player will, before the campaign, choose a number of genre tropes which can then give some importance value to different setting elements. If the players choose a genre trope like "Evil Empire", then the corrupt king will get some more importance value. This approach may seem less like reailroading, but since it is not flexible, the job of the rail master, have just been passed from the GM to the system.

If you go for the second style of playing, I can not see a way to do this strictly mechanical, because what is important is a subjective choice of the players that can even chance throughout the game. The best way here is to have the players write down what they feel is important for their characters - like beliefs in burning wheel.

I am working on a game, where I try to take a slightly different approach. The idea I work on there is to have the player invest points (that represent the characters interests) in different elements of the fiction. And where they can throughout the game move the points around when they changes priorities. In this way it is easy to see what things in the fictions that the players feel is important. But I have not playtested this idea yet, so I do not know if et works.

Before I try to come with ideas for the second part of your question, I would like to know what tools your game gives to the players, they can use to affect what happens in the story. Because if the system does not provide the right mechanics for the players to engage what is important in the game, it basically come down to the GM to determined when the characters have made an meaningful influence.

- Anders

[Daniel B]

Hrm ..

despite my love for debating, I also know when to stop. Clearly nothing short of actual proof will change a few minds here, and that only makes sense I suppose; they say the most extraordinary claims require the most extraordinary evidence or some such thing. Coincidentally, I've also had my two partners on the project come back to life and have their interest in the project reawaken. (One of them is married and back from the honeymoon, and the other isn't quite so busy anymore)

Anders .. I'd love to answer your question (re: what tools and mechanics we already have to engage what is important to the players) but, for the moment, I'm going to reconvene with the gang and see what their thoughts are on revealing these. My intention is to see if I can get the other two to agree that secrecy for our project is counterproductive. (I've been doing a lot of work on my own in the meantime, so it's going to take me a while to get the other two back up to speed .. I'm going to forget about this particular post, but hopefully do a lot more posting in the future.)

Lance, that's a really good idea.. determining magnitude ahead of time but only determining the actual effect on the mechanics (i.e. bonus or penalty) in a case-by-case basis. It keeps separate any opinions of what's going on from how weighty those events are. I'm going to work with that and see what happens. Thank you

Daniel