Enlightenment (GGD Group Game Design)

[talysman]

here are some quick replies and additional comments:

Stats total to ten. For unenlightened action: Roll (Unenlightened stat)d10, target number (Enlightened stat). Any success is considered a sucess, extra successes provide "power ups". For enlightened actions, roll d%, target number (Enlightened stat)x10+(Unenlighened Stat). There is no chance for "power ups".

I think it's a little rough having two different dice mechanics for conflict resolution. also, I can't see having the dice rolled or the target number being based on the stat-pair, for a couple reasons:

[*]it wouldn't make sense for non-monk characters (NPCs,) although this might not matter
[*]it prevents monks from making actions that have nothing to do with their stat pairs
[*]the unenlightened number can be lowered to zero, so it needs to be a bonus rather than a dice pool or target number
[/list:u]

also, for simplicity's sake, we might want to represent each stat pair as a single number; if each stat pair has to add up to 10 (for example,) why not just write "Monk Theo has a 7 in Pride/Humility", then roll over for actions invoking humility and under for actions invoking pride.

A stray thought that I had would to have all actions/resolutions tie in some way to the Worldiness/Spirituality pair...either influencing it or being influenced by it in some way.

we could tie this to the above mechanic, since we could assume that non-monks have a Worldiness of 10; the act of applying as a neophyte lowers this. this is important because one game variant might be "the self-made monk", player characters who try to form their own spiritual community.

how's this for a mechanic?

first, assume that there is one primary descriptor, Worldliness (or its inverse, Spirituality) and several possible traits (the stat-pairs that represent personal problems and religious issues.)

roll 1d10 under Worldliness to succeed in worldly conflicts; roll equal to or higher than Worldliness to succeed in spiritual conflicts. if one or more stat-pairs can be applied creatively to the conflict, narrate how they apply and roll one d10 for each pair used; the target number for this roll is the highest score (if rolling equal or over) or the lowest score (if rolling under) out of all stat-pairs used.

there is one other trick to this: if you choose to roll under any trait (in other words, invoke the unenlightened side of the pair,) you add one point to that trait (becoming less enlightened.) on the other hand, if you roll a success on any enlightened trait roll, you can sacrifice that success for a tally-mark next to that trait; when you return to your mentor after the mission and describe your actions, if your mentor feels that you have earned the tally-marks (based on your actions as a whole, not just those with sacrificed successes,) then you keep them -- and if your tally marks in a trait plus your current score in that trait add up to at least 10, you can lower that trait by one point.

here is an example of play: Monk Theo is on his way to a village to purchase grain for the monastery. along the way, he encounters a beggar who is weak with hunger and blocking the road. Brother Theo could simply take the beggar with him to the village (a simple roll above Worldliness) or he could bring him to a nearby farmhouse and offer to pay to make the beggar well (roll over Worldly and Selfish/Generous); he could even try to rush past the beggar, knocking him to one side (roll under Worldly.)

he chooses the farmhouse option and rolls two successes. Theo decides to "burn" one success and marks a tally next to Selfish/Generous; he still has one success, so he is able to help the beggar and continue on his way.

however, with only one successes, the GM rules that it took all Theo's money to care for the beggar. now, he is in need himself. he can't go home to the monastery, so he must rely on the generosity of the village. first, he speaks to the parish priest and attempts to ask for a contribution to the monastery, again trying to use Selfish/Generous as well as Pride/Humility; Theo's player narrates how Theo makes a plea based on his own poverty and the extreme neediness of his brethren at the abbey. that's three dice, and Theo gets two successes. the GM rules that two successes would give Theo enough money to purchase all the needed grain, or one success would purchase part of the supplies; not wanting to risk it this time, Theo uses both successes and proceeds to purchase grain.

taking the grain with him, he is met at the edge of the village by some angry farmers; they say that they are starving, too, and would normally be able to rely on the parish for help feeding their families, but Theo has used up the parish's money. tired and wanting to get home, Theo decides to roll under and uses his Violence/Peace trait for an extra die; he gets his success, but Violence goes up one point.

[talysman]

continuing with ideas on mechanics:

one rule we could add is that a monk can add a new trait pair in play by attempting to use that pair to resolve a conflict. we could assume that any new trait pair can be added with the same score as the highest trait the character possesses. all traits would be assumed to be present in a potential state; when the character is accepted as a neophyte, the mentor determines the single trait a character is most in need of resolving. also, the mentor determines how spiritual the applicant's request is: if accepted, the neophyte's Worldliness is lowered from 10 to a score equal to the starting trait.

using this rule, a beginning character suffers a temptation: roll extra dice now and manifest negative traits at higher scores, or work on lowering a single trait for now and explore other character flaws later, after progressing a little further towards enlightenment?

also, here's another rule suggestion: the Worldiness of a monastery equals the highest Worldliness of the monks present.

I haven't described yet how to lower Worldliness. I'm inclined to make it a little tougher than lowering traits. a neophyte can't lower Worldliness at all until reducing one trait to zero. this drops Worldliness one point. once Worldliness has dropped, say, 3 points, the neophyte becomes a fully vested monk and can share the burden of mentoring new neophytes. this could fit in with damion's idea here: a player could create a couple neophytes as secondary characters, or opt to continue on the solitary path, acquiring new traits and working them down.

the benefit of creating neophytes is that whenever a neophyte lowers Worldliness, the mentor lowers Worldliness one point as well. once a mentor's Worldliness drops to zero, it's time to strike out into the wilderness and found a new monastic community.

I still have some issues with the basic mechanic. maybe it should be 3 dice versus Worldliness, plus extra dice for relevant traits as described.

what does everyone think?

[Emily Care]

Sounds good, John, everyone.  

Going back a bit--having each player choose a mentor to play as well as a neophyte is great.  As you said,  it gives an avenue for players to develop the monastery as well as direct the missions.  I think it's necessary for the game, however, that means we have to come up with character generations mechanics (or a process for it anyway) for the initial Teacher level monks as well as the neophytes.

a neophyte can't lower Worldliness at all until reducing one trait to zero. this drops Worldliness one point.

I like this idea, but I have some hesitations: If you could only improve your worldliness after solving an additional trait pair, would that be automatic? If so,then there would have to be as any trait-pairs in addition to W/S as the character needs to improve their Spirituality score.   If it's not automatic, then what happens if the character doesn't improve it? Would they have to wait until they solved another pair to get another chance?  The interactions of the trait pairs is a complicated issue.

Worldliness would become a meta-trait, affected by the monk's progress on the other traits.  This could be the last trait pair, then to be "solved", after which you retire into High-High-Priestness.  However, if that was the case, based on some suggestions we've had for the structure of a monastery (the  highest HP being one with all pairs solved) there would always be at least one monk max'd out. That would eliminate the dynamic for the monastery unless they were missing a character at that level.  Perhaps we could use only the highest character that's in play for the monastery.

Resolution Mechanics: yes, that is what we've been missing.  

roll 1d10 under Worldliness to succeed in worldly conflicts; roll equal to or higher than Worldliness to succeed in spiritual conflicts. if one or more stat-pairs can be applied creatively to the conflict, narrate how they apply and roll one d10 for each pair used; the target number for this roll is the highest score (if rolling equal or over) or the lowest score (if rolling under) out of all stat-pairs used.

This means there needs to be a range of possible totals for any given trait pair, instead of a constant value that is dispersed between the two traits.   Is that the direction we want to go? If so, characters could start with low trait totals and slowly progress, based on successes they have in either half of the pairs.  More successes in the negative or worldly halves would raise their traits that way, and the same for the positive side.  The mentors of the monks would be responsible for sending characters on missions that would help their spiritual development, and guide them away from "the dark side".

And I think it's worth considering having the rolls be against the halves of the trait pairs seperately rather than against the total.

What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

As it has been conceived, once a monk reaches a certain point of development (solving all their trait pairs) they leave play, moving into the higher echelons of the monastery and devoting all time to things spiritual, and no long attending to the worldly. Their inner conflict has been resolved, so it is a natural step to remove them from play. This doesn't necessarily match with real-world issues of Enlightenment, but it seems to fit with the needs of the game.  If you have suggestions of ways that the "solved" character can continue being used, Kester, please go for it. :)

--Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

Assuming a total of 7 (which we can retool if we like), I was thinking something like rolling d6 equal to the stat and adding everything but the sixes. Opposed by a similar roll. So, Bob the Monk has Compassion 4, and is testing that against a disease with a rating of 3. Bob rolls, 1, 4, 6, 6, for a total of 5, and the disease rolls 2, 3, 3 for a total of 8. Bob loses, and the disease takes another victim. In another case, Bob, angry at finding that the disease was started intentionally by a Bandit Clan, uses his 3 Violence against the bandit leaders 5 violence. Bob rolls. 3,4,5  for 12, and the Bandit leader rolls 1,2,4,4,6, for 11. Bob defeats the bandit leader (and possibly increases his violence stat).

Is that too simple?

Another idea that crosses with Worldliness, is to roll d8s equal to stat, and count all that roll worldliness or less as successes. To be precise, the target number would be equal to the side of the worldliness stat-pair that matched. So for Compassion, you'd use Enlightened (or whatever the opposite of worldly is), and for Violence, you'd use Worldliness as the TN.

Mike

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Emily,

What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

As it has been conceived, once a monk reaches a certain point of development (solving all their trait pairs) they leave play, moving into the higher echelons of the monastery and devoting all time to things spiritual, and no long attending to the worldly. Their inner conflict has been resolved, so it is a natural step to remove them from play. This doesn't necessarily match with real-world issues of Enlightenment, but it seems to fit with the needs of the game.  If you have suggestions of ways that the "solved" character can continue being used, Kester, please go for it. :)

Are you sure that solving the issues of trait pairs, while on the surface sounding intriquing, is really what you want to center game goals around?

The reason I ask this is because many types of monastic orders have been touched upon in the discussion of this game concept.  Far be it from me to speak out of turn (sound of bull elephant pushing it's way through the cue) but wouldn't it be better to expand upon the basic premise by having a number of "paths" which the characters could follow?

Monasticism, on a whole as discussed of late herein, I think, has devolved to the Medieval sort.  There are/have been Buddist monks, Franciscan monks, Gnostic monks, etcetera.  And what about Cabalists?  Nuns?

Meditation, indeed attempts to seek enlightenment, are hardly limited to monastic orders.  In fact the underlying premise could easily (perhaps) be expanded to include <<gasp>> "Fraternal" organisations; read: secret societies with claims of inisghts into "gnosis", knowledge.

While I see nothing wrong with the game concept as it is currently being developed to me, in the early posts at least, there seemed to be the promies of much more.  As it stands the most interest I can see a game about Monks engenering is perhaps a one-shot evening's entertainment.

However add in various sorts of monastic orders with their different approaches to what Enlightenment might mean (and thus differences in the road to Enlightments, perhaps as defined by the use of "trait pairs") and you have a game with potential political machinations, intrigue, and perhaps even education value if you do more than merely model fictional monastic orders on historical ones.

As for "achieving Enlightenment" and what to do with characters who do so.  I should think this should so rare that it would be the culmination of an campaign effort.  But how to actually create such a campaign, I am sorry to say, I can not envision at the moment.

I do like the basic premise though, otherwise I would have remained in "Lurking Troll" mode.

Just my half-pence worth.  What do you think?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Emily,

Worldliness would become a meta-trait, affected by the monk's progress on the other traits.  This could be the last trait pair, then to be "solved", after which you retire into High-High-Priestness.  However, if that was the case, based on some suggestions we've had for the structure of a monastery (the  highest HP being one with all pairs solved) there would always be at least one monk max'd out. That would eliminate the dynamic for the monastery unless they were missing a character at that level.  Perhaps we could use only the highest character that's in play for the monastery.

Again, not trying to be the proverbial bull in a china shop, but I have to ask:  What does Worldliness and Priestess have to do with Monasticism?

Hieriphants and High Priestesses, as I understand the terms, have nothing to do with Monastic orders.  They are leaders of Temples (read: Churches) and are, or can be catergorized as, Clergy.  Monostaries, if my imp of memory serves me well, are usually run by Abbots and Abesses, are they not?  At least the Medieval variety.

While I think the idea of a "Worldliness" trait is a valid one the name, to me, does not imply someone who is seeking "Enlightenment".  Worldliness, to me, intimates grounded in things earthly, the material world, not spiritual matters.

I would suggest terms for use as a measure of "Spirtual Enlightment" either Bodhi, Gnosis, or... I can see your eyes glazing over, ok, how about just plain and simple "Nous" or something similar  (Ens? Psyche?  Spirit?)

The reason I ask this is primarily because, as it stands, there are a lot of good mechanics which have been discussed.  However, at this point, I think the basic underlying premise, namely the shape, texture, and color of the game environment needs to be properly codefied.  Then, I think, this game will really take off.

Your thoughts?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[talysman]

What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

As it has been conceived, once a monk reaches a certain point of development (solving all their trait pairs) they leave play, moving into the higher echelons of the monastery and devoting all time to things spiritual, and no long attending to the worldly. Their inner conflict has been resolved, so it is a natural step to remove them from play. This doesn't necessarily match with real-world issues of Enlightenment, but it seems to fit with the needs of the game.  If you have suggestions of ways that the "solved" character can continue being used, Kester, please go for it. :)

Are you sure that solving the issues of trait pairs, while on the surface sounding intriquing, is really what you want to center game goals around?

technically speaking, solving trait-pairs is a character improvement mechanic, but it's not what the game goals are centered on; rather, it's the "carrot" that leads players to make decisions for their characters that are centered on the values of the religion. if:

[*]the values of the monastic order are expressed as trait-pairs; and,
[*]solving trait-pairs is the only way to improve the character; and,
[*]conflicts are expressed in such a way that they challenge trait pairs,
[/list:u]

... then play will revolve around trying to be as true to one's faith as possible in a world filled with pain and hurt.

The reason I ask this is because many types of monastic orders have been touched upon in the discussion of this game concept.  Far be it from me to speak out of turn (sound of bull elephant pushing it's way through the cue) but wouldn't it be better to expand upon the basic premise by having a number of "paths" which the characters could follow?

Monasticism, on a whole as discussed of late herein, I think, has devolved to the Medieval sort.  There are/have been Buddist monks, Franciscan monks, Gnostic monks, etcetera.  And what about Cabalists?  Nuns?

any suggestions anyone wants to make can be helpful, Kester, so there is no need to apologize for "speaking out of turn". this is a group effort, after all. I think we've already decided on making the trait-pairs definable by the group, so you can design any belief system you wish. I noted, for example, that although Compassion might be paired with Violence in one belief system, it might be paired with Rationality in another (with Compassion indicating a negative in that belief system.)

since it's possible to design numerous belief systems (or at least that is our intention,) you could certainly include rival monasteries, if that is what you prefer. we could include a rules section on how to deal with that in the game system. however, keep in mind we're working on the assumption that the monks are living spiritually in a time of worldly troubles; there are going to be a whole lot of horrible things going on around them (war, famine, disease, robbery, slavery, torture...) don't you think the plate is pretty full already? adding rival monks doesn't add that much to the game.

Meditation, indeed attempts to seek enlightenment, are hardly limited to monastic orders.  In fact the underlying premise could easily (perhaps) be expanded to include <<gasp>> "Fraternal" organisations; read: secret societies with claims of inisghts into "gnosis", knowledge.

certainly you could play whatever kind of order you want, although I think we made a decision not to use real-world religious orders in case anyone was offended. meditation is irrelevant; for certain kinds of conflict, you might narrate "I meditate upon the meaning of Fear" or "I pray for guidance on this tough choice between Compassion and Peace". there probably won't be any game mechanics to specifically deal with meditation and prayer; this enables players to select some other action to replace it for their specific game vision.

you might want to go back and read the previous thread called Let's Make a Game, since we covered some concepts about what play would be like there. we've already mentioned gnostics, for example (I specifically suggested a historic game with wandering cathar monks after the destruction of their abbey during the french crusade, for example; we moved away from that for a couple reasons.) I think if you read that thread, it will become clear that the goal of the game is not really enlightenment, especially not enlightenment as defined by a specific belief system; the goal is to design a belief system and attempt to live up to your own values.

hmmm... it could even be thought of as a learning exercise. "if you think other religions have failed one way or another, now it's YOUR turn. can you live up to your own ideals when faced with a world in despair?"

[Mark D. Eddy]

I'll try to respond to this (Kester's questions) fairly generally. My vision for Enlightenment is that the players (with or without GM direction) will determine the stat-pairs for their group of monks. (Note that, in this unique circumstance, I am considering Monk to be a gender-neutral term encompassing both monks and nuns.) As they "solve" their stat-pairs they become gradually more Enlightened. Once a character has "solved" a certain number of stat-pairs, they become Enlightened. This effectively takes the character out of play, and should be a campaign-culminating event. Earlier, the evocative line of "The Enlightend One passes within, and is not seen again" was used. There was also the proposal that the next character brought into the game by that player would have some sort of leg up (or the group would...) to make them more effective.

If anyone had liked my dual mechanic set up, I would have added that any roll that precisely matched their stat-pair on an enlighened action would gain a level (or tick) of enlightenment, representing a "Zen moment." I don't understand the other resolution mechanic well enough to propose a similar mechanism.

In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy, many with as much power as a bishop (and in a few limited cases more power -- these were the 'mitred' Monestaries and Convents). I seem to recall that the same is true in Buddhism, where (as an example) the Dalai Lama is not just the reincarnation of a Great Spirit and a priest, he is also a Buddhist monk. An exception is Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism, which is heavily laicised.

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with John, Kester, that we have cerainly not gone with the Western idea of monks, but that we have in fact decided to leave it open ended. My use of the term priest (which Emily followed up on) has to do with the idea that in Bhuddist temples, the higher-ups are in fact referred to as priests in translation. I'm sure something is lost in the translation.

Not that we have to go that way. I just wanted there to be a concept of rank in these organizations. I could have as easily used abbot. The point is that we need to have some term to discuss the idea of "the guys who are higher up on the ladder than the monks and teachers". I just chose high priest as a convenient term.

As far as Worldliness, that's the negative trait opposite Enlightenment. It's the bad side. And it soes seem to be the universal thing about monks. The cloistered lifestyle seems to be chosen specifically because it reduces the monk's Worldliness. So I would vote for it's retention as a central trait.

Mike

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings talysman,

you might want to go back and read the previous thread called Let's Make a Game, since we covered some concepts about what play would be like there. we've already mentioned gnostics, for example (I specifically suggested a historic game with wandering cathar monks after the destruction of their abbey during the french crusade, for example; we moved away from that for a couple reasons.) I think if you read that thread, it will become clear that the goal of the game is not really enlightenment, especially not enlightenment as defined by a specific belief system; the goal is to design a belief system and attempt to live up to your own values.

Hmm.  Sounds like the premise of Neo-Paganism as often described in FAQs.  Create as you go, mix and match belief systems and mythos templates to suit personal Ego-identity of the moment, etc.

IOW: fast food religion.

(Put the stones down.  I am only talking about what I have read online, this is not a critical deconstruction of anyone's faith or belief system.  Ok, down, yes.  On the ground... Good.  Now we can continue.)

Now, if you formulated rules to allow for the creation of realistic religious/belief systems for use within the game environment... now that might be interesting.  Educational, too.  Especially if you "referenced" real world religions of the *past* as examples of certain theurgical points of... and... your eyes are glazing over again.  Ok, I digress.

As for the wandering Cathari monks, I have to admit, as the premise for module adventure campaign, it isn't a bad idea.  Hope you haven't abandoned it.  Of course you may have to change the names to protect the innocent and not offend but otherwise a interesting concept.

Then again what is wrong with a Historical RPG?

While your qualms are valid I am moved to ask:  Is this game being developed for the fun and inspiration of gamers by gamers or in a effort to second-guess what a commercial market will find consumable?

Did I mention thta I liked the idea of the wandering monks?  Ah.


Time catches up.  Will have to save this thread (and hope my imp of memory reminds me I did so) for further reading.


Kind Regards

Kester Pelagius

[talysman]

some more mechanics issues:

Kester -- Worldly/Spiritual is a trait pair. this is why we keep talking about Worldliness: it starts high and you must lower it.

Emily -- I'm not sure what you mean here:

This means there needs to be a range of possible totals for any given trait pair, instead of a constant value that is dispersed between the two traits. Is that the direction we want to go? If so, characters could start with low trait totals and slowly progress, based on successes they have in either half of the pairs. More successes in the negative or worldly halves would raise their traits that way, and the same for the positive side. The mentors of the monks would be responsible for sending characters on missions that would help their spiritual development, and guide them away from "the dark side".

And I think it's worth considering having the rolls be against the halves of the trait pairs seperately rather than against the total.

what I was saying was that if each trait pair adds up to the highest possible die roll (10 on a d10, for example,) then having one number which you roll above for virtuous acts and below for base acts is identical to writing two numbers and rolling seperately against each. I stole this idea from Trollbabe, of course, although I'm using it slightly differently. I just think it's easier to erase and change one number instead of two.

we might actually want to go with d6 as Mike suggests, since basing everything on d10 means Worldliness could be as high as 10, in which case you would need to define at least 10 trait-pairs to solve. that might be a little too many religious values than people want to deal with when designing their religion.

how's this for character design?

characters start with two trait-pairs at 5 and Worldly at 3 (so they already have slight spiritual leanings.) they can lower a trait-pair by one point if they then add a point to either the other trait-pair or to Worldly. none of the scores can be raised above 6, nor can Worldly be lowered. we might have something like "Past", which indicates what skills the neophyte acquired before deciding to join a monastic order. Past could be expressed as a score as well, starting at 4; it can be raised only if Worldly is raised by the same amount. (lowering Past is allowed, but only as the last character score change, and it doesn't affect the other scores. no lowering Worldly by being less skilled!)

for dice resoultion, maybe something like what Mike suggested, but instead of rolling a dice pool equal to a trait, roll dice equal to Past. if the challenge you are facing is outside your experience, the opposing roll gets a bonus die. if you opt to use a trait-pair, you can roll extra dice (I'm still inclined to make the virtuous bonus work differently than the nonvirtuous half of the pair; I'd like to see the nonvirtuous trait be tempting because it is more powerful. maybe if you opt for the virtuous route, the challenge dice must be lower than the trait value -- if using a single number for the pair -- or higher than the trait value, if using two numbers for each trait pair.)

[talysman]

In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy, many with as much power as a bishop (and in a few limited cases more power -- these were the 'mitred' Monestaries and Convents). I seem to recall that the same is true in Buddhism, where (as an example) the Dalai Lama is not just the reincarnation of a Great Spirit and a priest, he is also a Buddhist monk. An exception is Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism, which is heavily laicised.

yes... technically, monasticism is the practice of setting up special religious communities to reduce worldly influence. that applies to both christian and buddhist monks... in addition, medieval christian monks were simply a form of clergy that followed a monastic rule; delivering a sermon was one of the duties of a clerical monk above the neophyte level. there were also christian lay monks -- basically, people who lived at the monastery and did work in exchange for room, board, and prayer. lay monks could not perform priestly functions, they simple said their prayers on schedule and attended mass; most were illiterate.

the problem is, most people in the western world don't know what monks are anymore except via kung-fu movies and rpgs. maybe they are aware that the catholic church still has monastic orders, but for the most part they regard catholic monks as male nuns -- and nuns get little respect these days, either.

[Mike Holmes]

maybe they are aware that the catholic church still has monastic orders, but for the most part they regard catholic monks as male nuns -- and nuns get little respect these days, either.

Heh, I'll mention that to Brother Marv when I see him next. Of course having been raised Catholic might have something to do with the fact that I know quite a few Monks. ;-)

Want a stereotype from someone who talks to monks occasionally? Monks, rock, and are, in the very Catholic tradition, all pretty decent basketball players. Which only makes sense, as the Spirituality of B-Ball brings one closer to God.

Get to know a monk; they're fun guys. Franciscans, especially.

Mike

P.S. if you get a chance to, talk to a Jesuit priest some time as well. Yeah, they still exist, too.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Everyone,

There's a lot of comments in this post so take your time in plodding through it.


RE: Mark D. Eddy and Mike Holmes comments:

Seems I miscontrued something.  Did I mention that I had been reading bits and pieces of this thread?  I did?  Whew.  In that case you were very kind with your remarks.

Mark D. Eddy: In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy...[/i]

Yes, Abbots and Abbesses were definately ranked as members of the clergy.  They were not ordeigned Priests, generally speaking; if memory serves.  Monks, on a whole, were usually just lay persons.  Albeit persons who had taken vows, usually specific to Orders.

Sort of like that fine fellow Brother Cadfael.  What, they never showed those murder-mysteries on your local PBS station?

Good series.

I knew this was probably going to be a bad word choice when I used it but in all honesty I couldn't think of a better term so just forged ahead with it.

Mark D. Eddy: I agree with John, Kester, that we have cerainly not gone with the Western idea of monks, but that we have in fact decided to leave it open ended.[/i]

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but when glancing over a post, and specific terminology jumps off the screen, I think most might make some basic assumptions.  As I obviously did.  To my eternal chagrin.

On a whole, if I may amend my previous posted statement, the *feel* of the game seems to be Western.  In spite of comments like:

Mark D. Eddy: ..representing a "Zen moment"..[/i]

Sure Mark didn't use the term "ecstasy" in his example, but overall the *sense* of the *flavor* I got while reading was that of a Western(ised) Monastic system.  Alas, in this, I can only blame my own preconceived notions and world perceptions.

Which means, for once, my imp of memory doesn't get the blame.  Lucky it.  ;)

Mark:

"Enlightenment is a game about pacifist monks."

Nice blurb.  But doesn't that narrow the potential game a bit?

How about something like:

"Enlightenment, the game in which characters dare to know"

This would thus leave the game open to a multitude of possible character archetypes.  Unless it has absolutely been decided that there is to only be one sort of character archetype?



Closing Comments

In short I guess what I am saying is that, while Emily's outline is good and well concieved, I think there could be much more to the game as orignally proposed.  Not that a game that provides a single night's entertainment is a bad thing.  Just that *I think* if the rules and concepts were seperated so that the end result was the concepts complimented the rules, meaning the game not only provided for a rules system by explained how to create a playable concept...

...then"Pacifist Monks" and "Wandering Cathari" could be adventures implemented for use with the core rules system.

IOW: Design a core rules system.  Take the "premises" which have been outlined by various people, many of which were very good by the way, develop them into full fledged "campaigns" or "scenarios" and what you have is an instant RPG with playable scenario modules.

Hope that made sense?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


EDIT:  In my mad-cap rush to get this posted I had a title header in the wrong place.

[Kester Pelagius]

Now to really take the rose by the thorns!

My suggestions for fleshing out CharGen in Enlightenment - working outline are as follows ::


Stats (possibles): Gnosis, Willpower, Psyche.  There should only be three (3) Stats, no more and no less, whatever they turn out to be.

Stat numerical range is from 0-7.  (Yes, there is a reasoning behind these numerical values, as I am sure many of you have begun to notice.)

Trait Pairs should be choosen as "aim for: Courage, must fight against: Fear" and should have a mechanic for in-game use applied accordingly.

There should only be twelve (12) Trait Pairs.  Each Trait Pair should be required to have FULL RANK mastery before anyone can be proclaimed as "Enlightened".


NOTE: Those wishing to delve into the darker side of things can institute an mechanic for the "Three Entered into Pardes but only One came out whole" effect on the Psyche.  But I would leave that up to group vote/decision as to whether such a negative aspect of the game should even be addressed.

There should be nine (9) Character Archetypes.

Alternatively the number of Trait Pairs and Character Archetypes could be reversed.  Then again they could also be arranged in Ogdoads, though I wouldn't suggest it.

There should 13 Ranks/Levels of advancement.

Comments?

Questions?

Rants?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius