Understanding Spiritual Attributes

[Nicolas Crost]

I was thinking about using a broadened mechanism of Spiritual Attributes (The Riddle of Steel) in my game. Therefore I was pondering what Spiritual Attributes are in game terms. I came up with two functions of them:

1. In-Character motivation and development. Basically the TRoS SAs work as a basic motivation structure for the character as well as an incentive for the player to behave according to said motivations.
2. An indicator for the GM, showing him what the player would like to see in the plot (topic-wise).

Is there anything I missed regarding the functions they have in TRoS?

So I was thinkig what different types of SAs there might be and came up with three different levels:
1. In-Character Motivation (mostly actor stance). Passion and Drive would be such attributes.
2. Character based topics (author stance?). Destiny would be here, being character related but definitely OOC.
3. Non-Character topics (director stance). TRoS lacks them with Luck coming close.

Now why am I telling you this? I was looking for a mechanism, that shows the GM what players would like to see in the adventures (perhaps resulting in rewards for the GM when he incoporates them into the plot) and at the same time giving the players the nifty bonus dice (bonus something) they get in TRoS (and thereby rewarding them when the situation comes up). So basically do you think these three levels I mentioned are a good way of rating SAs?

But at the same time I was looking for some kind of more universal Spiritual Attributes, not just the ones mentioned in TRoS. I came up with the following:
On level 1 it all boils down to strong positive or negative emotions towards someone or something. I guess thats what motivation is all about. Passion, Drive and Conscience are special cases of such strong emotions.
On level 2 it would be something related to the character, but direct motivation. I can´t think of anything though.
Level 3 is everything else.
Is there any Ideas for SAs (epecially on levels 2 and 3)? Always bearing in mind that Players should get some kind of reward when the SA related situations come up.

Last question: Do you think it is a good idea to try and take a more basic approach to spiritual attributes? If so, is the one presented viable? (ok, two questions...)

Please feel free to ask me to clarify my post(s) since my english i snot that good yet when it comes to laying out complex issues...

Thanks
Nicolas

[Valamir]

Excellent topic.  I think you nailed things down pretty well

There are several rules of thumb that I think are important when dealing with SAs...either TROS or the concept ported to other games.

1)  SAs are not "what the character wants".  SAs are "what the PLAYER wants the character to want".  Since characters don't actually exist outside of scribblings on a piece of paper this should be obvious...but it bears repeated.  Too much thinking of SAs as "well my guy would do X because its written on his sheet" will deflate much of what makes SAs so powerful.

Destiny is a particularly clear example of this.  The character may have no knowledge whatsover of his destiny.  The SA is entirely the player announcing that he is going to attempt to manipulate things so that the character winds up fulfilling that Destiny


2)  SAs should require action.  If the SA is passive...meaning it never comes into play unless the GM forces the issue...then IMO its a poor SA.  SAs should function like a to-do list.  The player should be able to look at his SAs and immediately say "ok...this is what I need to go accomplish this session".  

For instance "Hate Duke Leopold" may be a good SA...but not if the player goes about a bunch of other things waiting for the GM to throw Duke Leopold at him.  Consider the following:

GM:  "Oh, so you hate Duke Leopold?   Well what do you plan to do about that...how is this hatred going to manifest?"
Player:  "Well, I'm just a commoner so I can't really do much.  I probably won't do anything other than think bad thoughts about him until something happens that will enable me to do more".
GM:  "soo...you're going to just wait and see what happens?   I guess you must not hate him all that much...choose a different SA please, that one obviously doesn't mean much to you".

It ok for some peasant NPC to have his hatred for Duke Leopold manifest by faint grumblings under his breath.  That's not sufficient for a PC...in fact, I'd argue this is why PCs get SAs and most NPCs do not.  

If the player isn't fully ready and willing to do everything in his character's power to thwart, inconvenience, overthrow, humiliate, or otherwise effect Duke Leopold in a negative manner (risking life, limb, and property in the meantime)...than he clearly doesn't hate the Duke enough to take it as an SA.


3)  All SAs must have the potential for consequence.  There is no such thing as a free ride SA.  The player should be putting his character at risk everytime he activates an SA.  Having "Hates Duke Leopold" as an SA isn't simply an easy way to get bonus dice to kill the Duke's men.  Its a sure fire guarentee that the Duke is going to find out who you are, where you are, where your connections are, and begin to go out of his way to destroy you as his enemy.

In Robin Hood Prince of Theives, Robin's father was killed, his keep burned, his retainer blinded, his property taken, and he himself declared outlaw and stripped of rank and privilege.  THIS is what it means to take "Hatred of Duke Leopold" as an SA.  

Make sure that the players are as into the consequences of their SA choices as they are into the situations where bonus dice come up.

As a corollary, any SA which appears to give a player easy access to bonus dice without any real consequence means 1 of 2 things.

1) The player is being dodgy and you should work with him to find something more appropriate.

2) You aren't thinking creatively enough as to what the cost inherent in the SA might be.


Further.  If the GM isn't willing to enformce that cost, because the GM (and other players) aren't really interested in taking the campaign in the direction that 1 player's consequences are likely to go...than the GM and player should consider revising the SA.

[simon_hibbs]

At a bit of a tangent, in Amber there's some advice that the GM should pay attention to how the players spent their points on attributes. i.e. If most of the players spent heavily on Warfare, it behoves the GM to make Warfare a usefull attribute in the game, and have lots of fights.

I know you're talking about narrative considerations, but the two are related to some extent. I try to signpost to the players what a scenario or game is going to feature from my point of view as Narrator, whatever the game, but it is also very important to take into account the interests of the players and there are several aspects of this.


Simon Hibbs

[Windthin]

If I might take the topic of Destiny earlier mentioned... think perhaps in the method of the Greeks, their view of destiny, for there are many views of it.  For the Greeks, your destiny was predetermined because it hinges on you being you.  That is to say, the only way you can change your destiny is to cease being who you are, to change at a quintessential level your nature.  Even a character who is aware of their destiny might not be able to change it, because to do so, this character would have to change themselves.  Not the easiest of tasks always, to say the least.

I agree with Valamir... if a character is to have a particular aspect of their nature that drives them, makes them part of who they are, they cannot expect it to hide it in the background.  This is the difference between a quirk that is notable but not worth being on a sheet and a true aspect, facet, that effects the character's life on a higher level.  At the same time, remember that there are different degrees of hate, different degrees of greed, of fear, of rage.  Pet peeve or utterly intolerable?  And what happens if the character MUST swallow their pride and/or bile and/or urges in the face of such a drive, because something even MORE important is staring them down?  If I hate Duke Leopold, but he is the only person with enough power and men to halt the berserker invasion, where do my priorities lie?  Do I hate the Duke enough that I'd be willing to take him down and let the rest of the duchy burn in the process, including friends and family?  Or do I have any left, and am so bitter and spiteful that I don't care who else gets hurt so long as Leo grovels at my feet before I end his miserable life?  These are things to consider... and to see if your players consider as well.  How complex of a situation are they able to handle?

[Rico]

Spiritual points, in my opinion, is the best the TRoS has, and the most unique thing also. Spiritual points turn a guy with a bunch of numbers and stats, into a person. A person with Drive, Passions, beliefs, a conscience, and maybe evan a destiny, and then of course there is Luck. If you have good characters with good spiritual points and a Campain to fit the characters, you should be able to turn that campain into a good book with awesome characters. That Is what i'm currently doing, writing a short story about a campain I was the seneschal for. It works well except for the characters with no story and dumb spiritual attributes. (Like a passion to kill just because there is a lot of killing involved in campains. Or just an easy destiny) We need to find the people that make spiritual attribute points just so they can get more powerful, and slap them.

[Brian Leybourne]

I'm not going to jump into this conversation (quite just yet, I'll be in soon), but I will be watching with slathering enthusiasm to see where it heads.

However, as a means of attempting to fuel discussion, I would like to present the comments of a good roleplayer friend of mine who doesn't quite see the use for SA's in a game. I'm not going to include my response to him, because I want to see what others' opinions are. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? I think the answer is quite important to the discussion at hand.

Note: I'm not trying to steal your thread, Nicholas, but rather "fuel the fires of discussion" perhaps.

Code Select Expand

(His comments edited to remove personal remarks to me).

> I think
> the principle of the SAs is good, the concept of motivation meaning
> something to the action or the character's capabilities is a nice one.
> The thing that I'm uneasy about is putting it in to a game mechanic.
>
> The reason I'm uneasy about assigning a mechanic is purely stylistic
> again: I feel that character motivation is way too complex to be
> represented by an
> attribute or game system. Now, this might sound odd coming from a
> GURPS GM,
> as the system gives Advantages and Disadvantages to define all sorts of
> aspects of the character, but the way I see it, the Ads and
> Disads in GURPS
> reflect the personality of the character rather than defining it, giving
> points where I know the character is limited by their behaviour
> and beliefs.
> The concept of an SA, a single description of motivation that is used to
> define when a character can receive bonuses for the epic feel
> seems rather limiting. Sure,
> they can be changed at will, but I was left wondering why have them at all
> as a codified system if they can change as required? It's not that I feel
> the SA is a bad idea, so much as an unneccessary codification of something
> I'd rather handle at a roleplaying level, providing bonuses as
> the GM where
> the player is doing something important to their character.
>
> I have an example I trotted out on a thread somewhere. The scene was a
> pitch battle between invasion forces and local armies, with the
> characters (who are rather potent now) playing support and helping out
> where needed. In this
> scene, one of the players told me what he was about to do, indicating that
> he fully expected to die. He decided to leap in to the middle of
> a group of
> soldiers to try and take out as many as he could to prevent them reaching
> the city. He told me he expected to die, which is a fairly big thing given
> the general no death rule, and in leaping in I decided to give
> him bonuses.
> The first bonus wasn't even a rules one, it was a description of his
> attacks, taking down soldier after soldier (he's a pretty good
> combatant :).
> If I'd just given him dice bonuses, he couldn't have done that
> because he'd
> have to fight round by round etc. The second bonus was a period
> of survival
> (as it happens, he'd underestimated his own abilities), a round or two of
> frenzied battle in which he did more than he would normally have been able
> to do as the troops advanced. It ended with him still alive as it
> happened,
> other characters getting involved and doing enough to the
> surrounding troops
> that he had time to back off.
>
> While there's not necessarily anything in there that you can't do with
> an SA, it illustrates to me at least that the SA isn't needed for it,
> and that character motivation can be defined on the spot as an
> application of all the
> motivations that make up the personality. My unease is really just that in
> codifying it and having a single drive/passion etc. you are not
> necessarily
> gaining anything, and in fact may be limiting the situation because the
> player just knows 'I can get x dice' in a situation in which those
> predefined motives are met, rather than simply knowing that if they put
> everything in to it, they can achieve more than they otherwise could.
>
> It's a fairly complex interaction of systems really. My own approach
> to it only really works thanks to the other rules in there such as no
> death, and without that the SA may be far more appropriate. Generally,
> the SA concept seems fine to me and is really pretty similar to what I
> describe, I just tend to pull back from adding rules to things that I
> feel merit systems too complex for rules to cover. It's definitely
> nice for a game to look at character motivation like that however, and
> it seems to me to be a far far cry above facile systems like
> Alignment.
Brian.

[Jason Lee]

Nicolas,

I very much like the break down between level 1 and 2.  I'm not sure a distinction is needed between level 2 and 3.  Level 2 could include just as much director stance as level 3.  If you have a destiny to kill Duke Leopold, that could say a lot about environment (for example: he exists and you'll end up hating him).  Also, if it actually doesn't relate to the character, I don't think you need it on the sheet.

In my opinion, running with only level 1 type SA-things favors muted focus on the story.  It will encourage the characters to react to whatever theme is put into the game, without creating the theme itself (a mechanic for how the characters address conflict, but not what the conflict is).  

The levels 2/3 will encourage player definition of the theme.  That out of character stuff will be all about what the player wants (as Ralph pointed out), the players will be defining the conflicts through the SA-things.

I don't see any hazard in mixing level 1 and level 2/3 where player definition of conflict is a goal.  However, when definition of conflict is in one person's hands (GM crafted plot/PC party format), or simply not desired, you could make level 2/3 off limits.

*****
Brian,

All I've got to say is that this guy is already using an SA-like system.  It's just in his head instead of on paper.  He must have personal rules for how to make these 'bonus when it matters' decisions, complete with recommended bonuses and how you figure out what matters to each character; though, the rules may be rather freeform.  SA's are just a little more concrete, and less dependent upon GM fiat to function.

[Jake Norwood]

All I've got to say is that this guy is already using an SA-like system. It's just in his head instead of on paper. He must have personal rules for how to make these 'bonus when it matters' decisions, complete with recommended bonuses and how you figure out what matters to each character; though, the rules may be rather freeform. SA's are just a little more concrete, and less dependent upon GM fiat to function.

This is exactly how I played every game, ever, before writing TROS. Funny, that.

Jake

[Windthin]

To a fair extent... I agree: SA's are quite complex, and I don't feel you can truly map out every single one.  It is difficult enough to quantify such things as physical and mental prowess, but trying to do so with more esoteric, ethereal, and variable qualities such as drive, passion, urges, and destiny... there are just too many factors to think of.  Even so, some people desire these things, but I feel that you need to recognize that such aspects are not the ONLY things your character should focus upon.  A fully-fleshed character should possess more than one or two or even three main engines to power, empower, them.

One thing I try to do when I run a game is know my players, their characters, and their motivations.  If a character is fighting desperately to save a beloved relative or friend, I might take that into account and add a few bonuses.  No, it's not on their sheet.  But that's a snap decision, a situational decision, and something I am comfortable making.  If a player feels their character deserves a temporary bonus -- or penalty, for a situation, and they can reasonably explain why and roleplay this out, they may well earn one.

It does help at times to have certain things noted, if only to remind the player and GM both, especially if it is something that could have a great effect on the character but doesn't come up with enough regularity that it's constantly memorable.  As with everything... moderation is the key.  Too much detail bogs things down, too little and you have a wooden character who is difficult to pull into the story.  I know that having things on sheets can especially help newer players, and also players who are finding a difficult time at the moment connecting with their characters.  It's all a matter of what the individual, player and storyteller alike, require.

[Nicolas Crost]

Jason,
I guess you are right about levels 2 and 3 being not really different.

So basically what I am looking for is a way to classify Spiritual Attributes and to broaden the scope. As I see them, they are a way to a) reward players for giving their characters focus and b) tell the GM what the players want to see in the adventures.

With level 1 that is all good and simple: it comes down to which motivations the player thinks are important to the character. It is pretty easy to sum up all possible Spiritual Attributes by saying that at this level the come down to positive or negative emotions towards someone or something (organization, idea).

But now I was thinking that the second level is at least as important: what does the player want to happen to his character in the game?
And with this level I have a problem: is there a way to basically sum up all possible Attributes at this level with a short (or at least understandable) definition? And the Attributes should still be useful as a way to give the players bonus dice (or whatever) when the situation arises.
I don´t know if it is possible to develop a good catchphrase to get all the SAs here and therefore would be happy for any suggestions. The definition can also be entirely metagame, since it does not affect any In-Character motivations, thoughts or feelings.

It would be great to extend the SAs to a broader level, because I really like them rewarding players for making the GMs job easier.

Nicolas

[Windthin]

Try a page from acting... "what's my motivation?"  That's what all of these things really are, Motivation.  They are qualities that drive a character, consciously, subconsciously, or behind the scenes, beyond the construct of the game world.  You have Conscious Character Motivators (revenge, love, fear, faith), Subconscious/Unknown Character Motivators (this can include sheer dumb luck, an unknown destiny, or a latent urge to be the best), and Player Motivators ("I want my character to eventually discover himself/his destiny/his place in the world.")

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think people should recognize that the technique represented by Spiritual Attributes has been present in the hobby since its beginnings.

Did you know that in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign (early 1970s), characters were permitted to spend experience points only after they invested gold in their "sphere of interest"? Stuff like art, literature, whatever.

Did you know that in some Champions groups (mid-1980s), house rules included spending experience points for automatic results on a given dice roll?

You can find all kinds of examples of metagame mechanics, both formal and informal, scattered through most RPGs. Now, most of them are "correction factors" for systems that have high failure rates (d6 being the first example that springs to mind; L5R's Void Points being the second). But I'm talking about metagame mechanics that play a more concrete role.

1. They correspond to a "story role" of a character, whether in terms of his or her personality, or in terms of what the character is expected to do or struggle with.

2. They are under the control of the character's player, to some extent, in terms of whether they apply or not, and how.

These two points do not apply to all metagame mechanics. Nor do they apply to all personality descriptor mechanics, some of which are merely punitively-enforced parameters ("I promise to play this character as a truthful person, or forfeit my experience points for the session," e.g.). But when they both do apply, you are looking at a formalized mechanic for sharing power over what happens in the game.

Therefore, I think the "motivation" angle is mistaken, Windthin. We're not talking about the character at all - we're talking about the people at the table, and what they want for the character.

Nicolas, what do you think of classifying these things, not by relationship to character, but rather by game function? We have effectiveness (bonuses to rolls), reward/improvement, and "game-world interference" elements all intertwined. Anything else?

Best,
Ron

[Nicolas Crost]

Well, this still doesn´t solve my problem.

The point is (regarding level 2): when should the player get any bonuses? When the situation the player likes happenes? What about destiny then? Does the player get a bonus for achieving the destiny or for working towards the destiny or even for trying to defy his destiny? That my basic problem with this level of SAs.

Now that I think about it: It might be possible to divide the second level in two kinds of SAs: goals the player wants his character to achieve and event he wants to happen to the character?
What do you all think? Might this be a good approach? If so, when should the SAs "kick in" regarding an OOC goal?

Nicolas

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nicolas,

My only advice at this point is to familiarize yourself with the following game texts:

Sorcerer & Sword (supplement for Sorcerer)
Dust Devils
InSpectres
The Dying Earth

All of them involve personality mechanics and "destiny" mechanics in one fashion or another, some rather small-scale and some much more out-of-character or explicitly player-oriented. The authors all worked pretty hard to make these mechanics central, fun, and powerful without turning the games into "I say so" consensual-storytelling.

Best,
Ron

[Nicolas Crost]

Thanks Ron! I am going to take a look at these.

Nicolas