Let's make a game!

[Emily Care]

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.

The mission format sounds just fine. The big question seems to be how do the traits fit in with characters' progression.
Some thoughts of different options I've had:

--Let the characters progress and change into higher level monks, responsible for the well-being of new recruits, so to speak, once they've maxed out a "good" trait.

--Let the faith have many levels of initiation, that you are only brought into the know about after you reach a certain level.  

--The pairs of traits could be assigned sequentially and each character has to deal with all of them but not at one time.  Each character could have certain abilities based on what issues they are working with, and they can't progress to the next set until they've mastered each in turn.  Hm. I like that.

The paired traits idea is great.  Let's use Mike's spin on it. That dynamic of how many appropriate acts you have to do seems like it would work well.

--Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

The paired traits idea is great.  Let's use Mike's spin on it. That dynamic of how many appropriate acts you have to do seems like it would work well.

Cool. Credit goes to Talysman for the original idea. I only extended it a bit and logically. Also, it was just a first stab at the particulars. I think we should at least rethink it a bit. My design mode is to come up with something that would sorta work to get an idea of a direction to go. But then I tweak it until it's right. I haven't even thought about tweaking it yet. There may be a long way to go on it.

The levels of initiation think is cool. Base them on "solved" pairs or something. How about something like this? A character with a couple is still a "field agent" and those with more are "Trainers". Those who have all but one "solved" (ooh, can we call them "keys"? That sounds cool.) are the "High Priests" who make policy and decide on missions. Those who have all "solved" pass on to another life (possibly with some of the bonuses mentioned).

So players might have a couple of characters at different levels. Only one can go on a mission, however. He can, though, call on the lessons of the higher level teachers, etc.

How's that sounding?

Anyone making any progress on the religion front? Remember, conflict included in the design! And extra cool points if it's not simple us vs. them (though I gotta admit that the idea of monks tackling demons had crossed my mind; too Feng Shui).

Mike

[Valamir]

As I recall from my brief experience as a Dragon Newt in Ron's Hero Wars Game at Gamd Day Chicago, the Dragon Newt's have abilities that work very closely to what you've been describing.

From memory and working only off of sketchy demo game details.
The Dragon Newts get reincarnated as higher order newts if they manage to achieve some spiritual enlightenment during their lower order life.

There are pairs of opposing traits (similiar to Pendragon Traits) which total up to 20 to start.  The goal is to get each side of the Trait to total 20, indicating mastery of balance by fully understanding the nature of both sides of the opposing traits.

The dragon newts have kewl powerz which can be called upon, but each such use sets the newt back on his quest for enlightment.

I don't know if these were old Rune Quest rules modified for Hero Wars or if they were a creation of Ron's...but you may wish to check out the concept for inspiration.

[talysman]

I'm seeing the mission format. Usually goes like this:

[list=1][*]The characters, members of the organization are brought together for the briefing on the nature of the problem. [*]Do research and get stuff together, etc. And do some pre-mission soul-searching. [*]Head out into the harsh world looking for more data. Meet NPCs, and get involved with them. [*]Once they have the problem figured out they have to find a way to overcome it. [*]Execute plan (recover bodies). [*]Return to "base" and get debriefed. [*]Train, intrasession.[/list:o]

Just like InSpectres and other "mission" games. The cool thing would, of course, be to mess with this format dramatically. My throw away idea was to have them never leave the monastary, and sorta fight the battle by proxy looking for info. But I'm sure we can do better than that.

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.

I'm thinking less of a mission format and more of a personal quest format. the monks are seeking enlightenment, and perhaps also seeking to form a new monastic community (not necessarily a new order, just a new "branch office". in keeping with the spritual undercurrent of the game, every single event in their lives after leaving their monastery is treated like a communication from god: the deer caught in the thicket means something, the monk just doesn't know what. the players choose when to become involved and perhaps even state "I want to help the deer as a test of Compassion" or "I want to secretly help the villagers as a test of Humility" and the GM composes a test that brings a negative trait into conflict -- a hunter arrives and claims the deer is his rightful prey, threatening Violence, or a child sees the monk helping the village and wants to tell everyone, threatening Popularity. the conflict would be "how do I solve this problem without violating my own beliefs?"

I had an unusual idea for "what happens to the characters when they reach enlightenment?" maybe the scope of the game should change -- the enlightened character can either choose to retire, passing on a bonus to the player's next character (mentor option) or continue to play, but the player plays an entire group now of 3-4 monks, lead by the master. at this point, the monk has founded the new monastic community, and the  tests are against the community as a whole, which gets its own set of traits as if it were a beginning character. the player still plays only one character at a time, switching from disciple to disciple, but the goal is to enlighten the monastery as a whole.

and once that is achieved, the monastery has survived long enough that a village of a hundred people gas settled nearby, trading with the monastery. the scope switches again: now, the enlightened monastery is challenged to lead the village down the right path. how will they be tested?

it's sort of like Aria from the ground up, and with a spiritual bent.

[Mike Holmes]

To be specific, the idea was to have the characters do inner exploration with the Mission framework merely being the backdrop and additional group conflict. This would provide the GM with ways to play character self-interest off against the group dynamic.

Anyhow, the only problem I see with the "personal quest" idea is that the characters don't seem to need each other. Especially once a player starts playing a group of characters.

I do like you're means of making conflicts with the monks' attmepts to do right. That's cool. So, instead of simply stating "I'm doing something good", the character has to face some temptation or problem.

This last provides some action, but it's disjointed. The Mission format is intended to unify the action. What can we use to unify action instead?

Mike

[Emily Care]

at this point, the monk has founded the new monastic community, and the  tests are against the community as a whole, which gets its own set of traits as if it were a beginning character.

I was thinking of something very similar before I posted last. :)  The monastery could hold the same place as the Covenant in Ars Magica.  A natural grouping for the characters.  

What kinds of challenges would the community face, however?  Seeking enlightenment is rather nebulous and doesn't lend itself to dramatic tension.   I keep coming back to them fighting supernatural threats (ghosts, spirits, etc). But then they end up being very analogous to AM, just being a bunch of clerics instead of magic users.

Talysman, I love the paired traits idea. Thank you!  What I liked specifically about Mike's input on them was the aspect of doing as many "good" deeds as the higher of the two numbers and as many "bad" deeds  as the lower in order to affect the scores positively or negatively.

it's sort of like Aria from the ground up, and with a spiritual bent.

I was thinking of something very similar.  The monastery would make a natural setting, like the Covenant in an Ars Magica campaign (though then we run the risk of just setting up a game with covenants full of clerics instead of magic users).  What kinds of conflict would the community face?
Due to the generally gentle and contemplative nature of gaining enlightenment, the game needs something specific to give it dramatic tension.  The conspiracy idea, rival priests, or supernatural baddies of various types all sound good.  Maybe we could do all three? Also, if we are making the religion up out of whole cloth, we could make the search for enlightentment itself more active and exciting....ie painful and difficult. :)

--Emily Care

[Jeremy Cole]

Perhaps most importantly, how are we envisioning a "typical" game session will work?...

Just like InSpectres and other "mission" games. The cool thing would, of course, be to mess with this format dramatically. My throw away idea was to have them never leave the monastary, and sorta fight the battle by proxy looking for info. But I'm sure we can do better than that.

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.
Mike

Rather than define the religion's ideals of good and evil before the campaign begun, how about the player's actions shape the religion's ideals.  My idea, they are the founding fathers of a religion, and the game could be the POV of acolytes decades later, reading the holy book, written on the monk's initial travels.

More to come...

[Jeremy Cole]

Phase 1 would be an Inspectres type interview, involving the week's ethical debate, "violence or tolerance of immorality" or whatever.  The player's could, in character as young acolytes, ask their wise teacher, the GM, about the religion's values regarding something, and create the opening to a dilemma, the week's premise.

The second phase would involve the monks, the religion's creators, moving through the events, the majority of the game would be here.  Finally, a third phase would involve pulling the religion's belief from the actions of the characters.

Each resolution could carry on from the last, so that, using the example above, you resolved that the religion was mostly tolerant, and only reacted against the most heinous immorality, then in the next chapter players would be required to uphold that belief, as well as define the next moral.  Perhaps they could develop abilities in line with that belief, they might be master diplomats or something.  If they had chosen violence they would be more like inquisitors or something, and have whatever skills that would entail.

Any thoughts?

Jeremy

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. I think I like where you're going, Jeremy. How about a player takes the part of the "teacher" as well. That way the religion is all created by the players as the game progresses.

So the session order would be something like:

1. Interview. Players roll off to determine who gets to be the "High Priest" and who gets to be the "interviewee". Consensus would allow players to just select. Or, for a more mystical feel, a cycle could be followed, or something based on the events of the last session. Lots of possibilities. Anyhow, this little discussion between the two characters would set up the priciple to be explored that session, as you have above. What I think would be cool is that this discussion would establish a stat-pair. All characters thus gain a rating in this stat at this point (perhaps determined randomly, or selected from a pool of metagame points?). This would end with an order from the priest to gather all the "monk" level PCs and go to a "teacher" character for a briefing.

2. The "teacher" character is also played by a player selected in some cool fashion. This player then gets to make up the "problem" that the characters have to address. This is done in brief, and can be left mostly a mystery. The only thing that limits the player's description is that they must try to address the session's principle created in (1) above, and the other players may subtly intervene. They also have creative power, essesentially, in reaction to the "teacher" character. So if the teacher says "No word has been heard from our brother temple, in month," another player can say, "Isn't it true that they sometimes adopt a period of solitude wherin they wouldn't be heard of?" Thus establishing this as fact. Anyhow, this part should end with more questions than answers.

3. Sally forth and encounter whatever. This is where the GM comes in and creates conflicts that revolve around the problem and principles in question. If we design it properly, it should just be the GM draping the mechanics in description, making his improvisational job easier.

4. Return to the temple, where the teacher debriefs the characters, asking them what happened.

5. The original HP and character come back together, and the HP asks the character what he has learned. Thus completing the cycle.

Using a model like this, I see each player taking two stat-pairs as personal issues to start. These unique issues make give the character a separate identity, and are also focused on each session (this gives the personal thing a two to one importance to balance out everyone working on the "issue" stat-pair). Then after the first five sessions the characters will have seven stats. At this point the game shifts into a new mode where the characters may go off and start their new monastery. At this point the old characters become the teachers, and new characters are generated. Wherupon the process starts again. The new teachers can use thier old stat-pairs if they like, or introduce new ones. Thus the religion either stays static, or changes over time.

How's all that sound?

BTW, this is starting to sound more and more generic, as the players can create the setting as they play. Do we want to go that rout? Or do we want to have a specific setting?

Mike

[talysman]

at this point, the monk has founded the new monastic community, and the  tests are against the community as a whole, which gets its own set of traits as if it were a beginning character.

I was thinking of something very similar before I posted last. :)  The monastery could hold the same place as the Covenant in Ars Magica.  A natural grouping for the characters.  

I could tell, actually. your post and mike's have been hinting at player characters taking on pupils or become the head of a new monastery, so I just decided to make that explicit: make the focus of play shift as goals are achieved.

What kinds of challenges would the community face, however?  Seeking enlightenment is rather nebulous and doesn't lend itself to dramatic tension.   I keep coming back to them fighting supernatural threats (ghosts, spirits, etc). But then they end up being very analogous to AM, just being a bunch of clerics instead of magic users.

Talysman, I love the paired traits idea. Thank you!  What I liked specifically about Mike's input on them was the aspect of doing as many "good" deeds as the higher of the two numbers and as many "bad" deeds  as the lower in order to affect the scores positively or negatively.

thank you! I think mike's mechanic will work, too.

as for challenges: I keep thinking of the game in terms of real-world challenges. enlightenment -- defined in our game as reducing negative traits to zero -- is a goal, but the more immediate goals are problems in the real world.

I keep suggesting a time of troubles (impending war, plague, famine, rebellions) because these have happened historically and are usually accompanied by religious revivals -- the founding of new sects or new monastic orders, pilgrims and monks moving in large groups across the countryside, and so on. I keep thinking about bergman's "the seventh seal", with the knight returning home from the crusades to his plague-infested homeland and seeing a travelling group of flagellants (not that I'm suggesting that the focus of our game should be flagellation... that's less nebulous than enlightment, but doesn't make for interesting roleplaying...)

although exactly which trait is perceived to be the opposite of another trait varies from religious tradition to religious tradition, there is always one pair that is the same for all monastic traditions: worldliness versus the divine. monks are never really cut off from the local community, but they do retreat from worldly matters, attempting to focus on spiritual matters instead. but the greatest spiritual insights seem to come from facing the world while being true to the spirit, whether you are a christian saint or a zen master... and ultimately, it is the saint/master's attempt to save the world that earns our respect; hermits who truly cut off all contact with the world are forgotten, while the healers and peacemakers and temple-builders are the ones who make a real impact.

I think this internal conflict between wanting to help the world in a time of troubles and wanting to progess spiritually would make for interesting roleplaying. in mechanical terms, the players confront misery in the world around them: sickness, anger, fear, poverty ... each incident has a temptation to use the far-stronger negative traits to solve the problem quickly; the player's goal is to solve the problem "the hard way", improving the world while improving himself.

it's sort of like Aria from the ground up, and with a spiritual bent.

I was thinking of something very similar.  The monastery would make a natural setting, like the Covenant in an Ars Magica campaign (though then we run the risk of just setting up a game with covenants full of clerics instead of magic users).  What kinds of conflict would the community face?
Due to the generally gentle and contemplative nature of gaining enlightenment, the game needs something specific to give it dramatic tension.  The conspiracy idea, rival priests, or supernatural baddies of various types all sound good.  Maybe we could do all three? Also, if we are making the religion up out of whole cloth, we could make the search for enlightentment itself more active and exciting....ie painful and difficult. :)

I think you can see what kind of conflicts I'm thinking of now... contemplating it some more, I still like the idea of changing focus, but maybe the idea of the monastery or the village around it becoming enlightened needs to be re-phrased... individuals become enlightened, but groups don't. instead, when the players found a monastic community, the question becomes "can the masters keep their new community spiritually focused?" when the focus changes to the village near the monastery, the question is now "can the masters earn the respect of the villagers? will the villagers look to the masters for guidance?"

perhaps the thing to do would not be to stat out the monastic order or the village as if it were a monk seeking enlightenment, but to continue using the original monk. negative traits are zero, but there is still the danger of taking an action that raises it up again. add a new stat pair when the monks found an order: Spiritual and Worldly. the temptation is to let Worldly rise and build a magnificent, wealthy monastery (this happened a lot in the middle ages.) the challenge is to have your monastery become a source of goodness in the world without becoming Worldly.

once the monastery's Worldly hits zero, the focus shifts to the village. there will always be crime in a village, but what's important is whether the village as a whole respects spirituality as taught to them through the example set by the monks or whether the village chooses purely secular methods to solve its problems. the monks get a new Spiritual/Worldly pair, representing the village this time.

and on the scale above that... I'm not sure if you should move to the "county" level or whether you should add a second monastery in a remote location.

[talysman]

BTW, this is starting to sound more and more generic, as the players can create the setting as they play. Do we want to go that rout? Or do we want to have a specific setting?

I think generic is more the way to go. we could define a few monastic orders, but the system should be divorced from a detailed setting. you would simply say "you are in this country, there are these problems". gameplay is mostly on a small level.

this approach would work well with a monastic game, actually. you're a monk. in pre-industrial times, monks were usually sent to the monastery as children by their parents, as an expression of their own piety. so there's a good chance you have only a sketchy knowledge of anything more than a few days travel from the monastery. you would have abstract knowledge of far away important places, but you fill in the map as your character goes out into the world... and the way the game is developing right now, it doesn't look like anyone will need to fill in much of the map.

I think the teacher/acolyte model being discussed would work best as a subgame. include a couple spiritual models, but give the option to build a religion through play, as you describe.

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, that's deep.

I have a character cycle that might be interesting.

1. Characters start their carreer off traveling to the temple. They start with one personal stat-pair (which may be tested on the way), and immediately upon arrival they get John's Worldly/Divine stat-pair and become a monk.

2. They must train at first. Whilst training, they attain another stat pair determined by group consensus representing the religion's specific ideals, and another personal stat-pair representing more personal discovery. during this time, the neophytes are sent on some small errands, etc, and have some conflicts in life about the monastary, etc. This lasts until the character "solves" one of his trait-pairs. At this point he becomes a monk. Phases one and two should last one or at most two play sessions.

3. The monk characters meet with the High Priests occasionally as described in the above. During this period, one new religion stat-pair is introduced, and another personal stat-pair is gained. At this point the monk is sent on missions, etc. This lasts for a few sessions until the monk has "solved" three of his stat-pairs. At this point the monk becomes a "teacher".

4. As a teacher, the character delivers the lessons on the Worldly/Divine stat-pair, and the stat-pair that is taught to new monks. During this time he also sits on the council of teachers that determine what actions to take regarding external problems, and sends monks to handle them. He also continues talking with the HPs, and develops one more personal stat-pair, his last. When he has solved two more stat-pairs as a teacher (total of five), he then has an option. He can either become a High Priest at the current monastary, or he can start his own.

5.a. As a High Priest, the character trains the monks to become trainers. These characters also determine policy for the monastary, and questions of religion, etc. Only one HP character can have six solved stat-pairs. He is deferred to as the head priest. All others just stall out at five solved. This character can then proceed to seven solved, but upon doing so achieves enlightenment, and passes inside. Then another may solve to six.

5.b. If the character instead starts a new monastary, he needs to bring with him at least one other teacher (and can take along as many as will come). If he can't convince anyone to come, then he cannot start his new monastary and must do 5.a. above until he can get someone to go with him.

Anyhow, the way the game would work, then, is that one player would start with a new High Priest founding his monastary. Another player would have a Teacher as his character. The rest of the players would start at number one above. Anyhow, at any point a player can create a new character who sets off from his home to join up. Players can have as many characters as they like, but only one of each level at a time (so effectively five, but practically four as travelers are resolved quickly). If a player has a character move up in rank and has another character already at that rank, he must decide which one becomes an NPC.

Also, I was thinking that at any time a character can call on the wisdom of a character who is his personal teacher or High Priest for inspiration, even if not present. Or on the wisdom of an enlightened character's example.

Anyhow, not quite totally coherent, but what do you think of the model?

Mike

[Bob McNamee]

Intriguing...makes for a cool group dynamic...

I especially like the playing of the travel to become an initiate...the gaining of worldly/divine pair as part of becoming initiated, and the solving of one pair to become a monk.

[Emily Care]

I keep suggesting a time of troubles (impending war, plague, famine, rebellions) because these have happened historically and are usually accompanied by religious revivals

Okay, I'll second that. This will work as a general dynamic given to a generic setting, determined in play by the players and character interaction.  Excellent.

the greatest spiritual insights seem to come from facing the world while being true to the spirit, whether you are a christian saint or a zen master... and ultimately, it is the saint/master's attempt to save the world that earns our respect; hermits who truly cut off all contact with the world are forgotten, while the healers and peacemakers and temple-builders are the ones who make a real impact.

Bellisimo!  That's perfect.  It gives a dynamic tension to the mission of the characters.  Maybe the backdrop of war/famine/disease could be optional.  Or better yet, let the world have a flow of it's own.  Weren't we talking about systems making statements in another thread? :)  Well, why don't we have part of the set up of the game include determining what challenge is facing the community when the game play begins.  We can provide a range of different types that the game participants may want to use, but not limit it to that.  The monastery's overall goal could become overcoming the challenge.  Continuing campaigns would move through them.  They could be seasonal (disease often hits in the spring, bandits in the fall or winter) or new ones could be introduced each year in game time.  This would give the monastery an active role--would protagonize it--and give a dramatic flow to the world into which the characters could tie in their own personal struggles.

I'm liking this.

I have a character cycle that might be interesting...

That's great.  Print it.  

Are there other games that introduce stats like this?  I love that character generation becomes character development.  Having the character become a monk by giving them the spiritual/worldly pair is perfect.  It might make sense for the pair to become High Priest would be a pre-set pair as well, or perhaps the last one before attaining enlightenment.  Have to think about that.

--Emily Care

[Mark D. Eddy]

I tried to post some of this on Friday, before a three-game weekend, but got bolluxed.

(Has this thread been moved elswhere?)

I agree that Mike's cycle is a good one. Here are a few opportunities/perils that could face a medeval monestary:

War: Do the monks take the part of one side or the other? Are they known for healing or some other ability? Can a reluctant warrior safely become a monk to escape military service?

Famine: Are the monestary's granaries full or empty? Is there wealth to buy food? Do the monks share what they have, or keep it to keep themselves alive?

Plague: Do the monks try to help the affilcted, or lock them out so that the spiritual work may continue? Is there a chance to discover a cure?

Religious Fervor: Is this going to strengthen or weaken the monestary? Do the monks have something that others want, or is their way of life being rejected?

Supernatural/Spiritual Attacks: We could do this, or not. Can a monk meditating with a group of other monks fend off strange evils that can only be opposed by a faithful heart?

Conflict with Secular Authority: See Henry VIII vs. the English monestaries for a version of this.

Conflict with Spiritual/Religous Authority: See Francis of Assisi vs. the Benidictine orders for an example.

These are much more broadly limned than I had originally set them up, but I may be able to explain later...