Mechanic for weak characters to surmount the odds -comments?

[Loki]

I have played exactly one session of TROS, and it was with the Quickstart rules, so take this with a grain of salt... but my understanding of SAs seems to match up pretty well with what you want to do here.

To use the LoTR example, Samwise really, really wants to save Frodo. It's one of his SAs: Protect Frodo, or Passion: Frodo, etc. So when he confronts Dabu the orc in the tower, Dabu's combat skill may be a lot higher, but Sam's SA bonuses make him more than a match.

Why? Because Dabu probably doesn't have any SAs, and none of them are Passion: Hobbit meat.

Meanwhile if Sam was confronting Bill Fearny back in Bree, his "Protect Frodo" SA wouldn't apply, and he'd just be a regular working-class hero.

So basically SAs make characters extraordinary when they are doing something that matters to them, but they are otherwise their usual selves. So if someone is a short, barefoot guy who doesn't know a sword from some garden shears, he's pretty much the underdog... unless you get between him and his favorite Master.

p.s. Someone really should run a MLwM where Frodo is the Master, Sam, Pippin, Merry, etc are the minions, and Gandalf is the Outsider.

[Ben Miller]

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

Interesting one this, Mark (it IS Mark right?).  I have GM-ed a game or two recently that made use of 'spiritual-type' attributes (the game system was Fate, as it happens) and I must admist to encountering some difficulty with them.

Your point about the bonuses helping powerful as well as low-power characters equally is fair - I need to decide which I really want.  (Of course, if ability scores have exponentially less benefit for each +1 (or whatever) you have, the bonus method starts to approach the substitution methoid in terms of relative benefit.)

The issue I found with using spiritual attributes or pools (in a bonus or substitutionary fashion) is that players want to abuse them.  It can become a battle between GM and players, with them constantly trying to justify using "Love: Frodo".  Sure, the GM can just veto the attempt (which is how I did it) but it does become a drain on everyone and detracts from the flow of the game.  

Instead of players trying to think through a situation by putting themselves in the position of the character, they start stepping outside the story and thinking about how to squeeze result from the game rules.  I wonder if this might be solved by using some clever mechanic that penalises for attempted use of spiritual wotsit when it is not really appropriate?

Using the method where you have to spend points at least puts a limit on the number of times the player can get the improved chance of success.  I see more potential for player abuse of the substitutionary method (although as a fan of of novel mechanics and a GM I love the idea!).

Still undecided...
Ben

BTW: I can't work out how to get the "So-and-so wrote:" at the top of my quotes - can someone tell me or point me at help doc?  Cheers.

[Loki]

I was re-reading this thread and something occurred to me: I'm not 100% sure which successes by the weak over the strong in LoTR you'd like to emulate. Maybe a good starting point would be to identify which successes in the book are the ones that you have in mind.

For instance, it occurs to me that much of the success of Frodo and Sam is due to a combination of their stealth, Sauron's hubris, Elvish/Numenorian gear and good luck. It seems to me that none of these things need be specifically modeled.

Hobbits are stealthy folks--Tolkien makes a point of that many times, so their ability to escape detection doesn't seem to fall into the category of beating the odds. Although Sauron knows the hobbits have the Ring, he is convinced that the Gondorians, etc will fall to using it, and can't imagine that the plan is to send two midgets into Mordor. This also seems like merely part of Sauron's character (and arguably the feints by Gandalf and his allies). Likewise the Elvish cloaks, possibly the Numenorian swords used by Pippin/Merry... these could purely be covered by game mechanics. Luck is just luck. Tolkien's characters can be presumed to have rolled well. :)

So some of the places in the story that seem to be the triumph of heart over power: Sam v Shelob, Sam v all those Orcs right after that, any hand-to-hand melee with hobbits, Frodo resisting the Morgul blade wound, Frodo resisting the Ring's temptation (which he fails several times)... I'm sure there are others, but I'm drawing a blank.

The melee encounters could be a combination of hobbit dodge-fu and SAs when they attack (since none of them seem to be trained to fight). Shelob and the Orcs are certainly a combination of Elvish swords, armor and Sam's desire to save Frodo. Frodo v the Morgul blade and the Ring? Could be SAs. Although based on what Gandalf says, sometimes the hobbit toughness seems more like something inherent to hobbit-ness.

An idea that I've heard thrown around is to make the corrupting influence of Mordor a central mechanic of the game, the same way that Sanity is a central mechanic of CoC, etc. In that case, all characters have a relevant stat... you could call it Ambition. Failing a roll v Ambition means that your desire to wield power has made you succeptible to corruption by Sauron... you get the idea. IMHO a combination of that type of mechanic plus Story Points ought to get your hobbits through the tight spots.

A final thought: when making a LoTR game, you ought to throw out ideas about balancing character types. The heroes of LoTR are heroes. They are way luckier, pluckier, faster, etc than everyone else. If you were to gather up non-hero characters like Fatty Bolger, Elladan, Kili and Eomer and send them out on an adventure, Elladan would be the best followed by Eomer and Kili and Fatty would probably spend most of the time hiding behind them.

Hope some of this rambling was helpful.

[M. J. Young]

Mark (it IS Mark right?).

Yes indeed, and although on the books it's always "M. Joseph Young", there are quite a few pages under "Mark J. Young" or just "Mark Young" scattered about the Internet, and a lot of sites insist on publishing my articles under "MJ", so I've pretty much resigned myself to being called that, too.

BTW: I can't work out how to get the "So-and-so wrote:" at the top of my quotes - can someone tell me or point me at help doc?  Cheers.

What, like that?

If you hit the quote button at the top right corner of anyone's post, you'll see at the beginning of it in the new window, in [] brackets:

quote="Name of poster"[/list:u]Whatever you put between the quotation marks will appear in bold type instead of the word "quote", followed by the word "wrote" (which you apparently can't eliminate).

You can type the code directly, too, once you know it.

It will only work if there's also a /quote (in brackets) somewhere following it; failure to close loops in this code prevents them from opening.

Clear as MUD?

--M. J. Young

[greyorm]

The issue I found with using spiritual attributes or pools (in a bonus or substitutionary fashion) is that players want to abuse them. It can become a battle between GM and players, with them constantly trying to justify using "Love: Frodo"

On the surface, this is really a style conflict: the players doing this are trying to play Gamist, while the GM (you) is obviously trying to play a different style. It occurs to me that choice of game could have a lot to do with this -- the game or play expectations may not be supporting the style of play you're looking for.

[Grex]

Not a very complete answer, I know... but have you had a good look at Primetime Adventures? It very nicely does away with the wargame-based paradigm of combat ability, by focusing on how important a given character is to the story. Neat stuff, highly recommended.

Best,
Grex

[Callan S.]

...Give the characters a second set of scores that relate to their values, their drives, or whatever you think matters. Use these as substitutionary scores when they are called into question.....

*Cough*Spiritual Attributes*Cough*

I was rather hoping the idea would begin to spread around the industry, even if in somewhat different guises. Although Jake deserves a lot of money from TROS, the industry as a whole could do with the idea, to take it a step forward (IMO and all that).

I haven't seen TRoS, but it's my impression that the SAs provide bonuses to existing scores.

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

But then, maybe I don't understand SAs.

--M. J. Young

I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

If it's because the original stat can increase, thus reducing and finally removing that bonus...well, its just a retarded SA. When I write their school report I'll put 'Could try harder'. ;)

Note: SA's refresh constantly while applicable...they don't dwindle with use.

[Callan S.]

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

Interesting one this, Mark (it IS Mark right?).  I have GM-ed a game or two recently that made use of 'spiritual-type' attributes (the game system was Fate, as it happens) and I must admist to encountering some difficulty with them.

Your point about the bonuses helping powerful as well as low-power characters equally is fair - I need to decide which I really want.  (Of course, if ability scores have exponentially less benefit for each +1 (or whatever) you have, the bonus method starts to approach the substitution methoid in terms of relative benefit.)

The issue I found with using spiritual attributes or pools (in a bonus or substitutionary fashion) is that players want to abuse them.  It can become a battle between GM and players, with them constantly trying to justify using "Love: Frodo".  Sure, the GM can just veto the attempt (which is how I did it) but it does become a drain on everyone and detracts from the flow of the game.  

Instead of players trying to think through a situation by putting themselves in the position of the character, they start stepping outside the story and thinking about how to squeeze result from the game rules.  I wonder if this might be solved by using some clever mechanic that penalises for attempted use of spiritual wotsit when it is not really appropriate?

*snip*

Well, basically the idea of having a mechanic that uses 'love:frodo' is that there will be plenty of opportunities (what is 'plenty' may have to be discussed as a group) for it to activate.

If their trying to argue it in everywhere, it may be frustration on their part because the GM isn't taking these very obvious cues as to the game he should sculpt. I've been in a few riddle of steel game myself where the GM just didn't employ any SA's and then at the end of a session just said we get two points  to put in any SA we like. This is NOT how they should be used.

In my experience, once gamists have been allowed to use their big bonuses quite a few times (how often? Ask your group), their quite happy and wont push. And SA's are telling the GM what content to put in, quite clearly. As long as the GM follows that cue, there will be plenty of opportunties. The only ones who'll try to abuse it are a few exceptions. If all the gamists are pushing its probably because the GM himself abused the idea of SA's and just doesn't include opportunities to use them.

[M. J. Young]

I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

O.K., here's the difference.

I'm playing the boy in Pirates of the Carribean, and I have a combat of 6. I'm up against the captain of the Black Pearl, and he has a combat of 8.

I have the highest value possible in "loves the girl", and would do anything to protect her.

He has the highest value possible in "wants to break the curse" and will do anything to do so.

He believes he has to kill the girl to break the curse; I want to save the girl.

Now, with SA's, I get +3, gives me 9; he gets +3, gives him 11. I haven't really improved my chances significantly--he still outclasses me by two.

With substitutionary scores, I replace my 6 in combat with my 9 in "loves the girl"; he replaces his 8 in combat with his 9 in "would do anything to break the curse"--and now we're on even footing.

So the advantage of the substutionary scores is precisely that it applies more strongly to characters of lower scores than to those of higher scores, even if they have the same ranks in their passions.

Clear?

Now, if you want to say that NPCs don't get SA's, that can work--but then what do you do if the PCs are on opposing sides? A system which gives a standard bonus to your scores will advantage the strong as well as the weak for the same bonus values; a system of substitution will advantage the weak significantly more than the strong, for the same substitution values.

--M. J. Young

[Marhault]

I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

In addition to Mark's answer, can't these stats apply to (or replace) any stat, given the correct situation?  Example:

Roger has:
Combat: 6
Stealth: 4
Mama's Boy: 9

So Roger can fight better than he can hide, but he receives a more substantial bonus when trying to hide his mother from bad guys (Stealth 4, replaced with Mama's Boy 9 = "+5" bonus) than he does if they are found, and he must fight them off (Combat 6, replaced with Mama's Boy 9 = "+3" bonus).

[Callan S.]

I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

O.K., here's the difference.

I'm playing the boy in Pirates of the Carribean, and I have a combat of 6. I'm up against the captain of the Black Pearl, and he has a combat of 8.

I have the highest value possible in "loves the girl", and would do anything to protect her.

He has the highest value possible in "wants to break the curse" and will do anything to do so.

He believes he has to kill the girl to break the curse; I want to save the girl.

Now, with SA's, I get +3, gives me 9; he gets +3, gives him 11. I haven't really improved my chances significantly--he still outclasses me by two.

With substitutionary scores, I replace my 6 in combat with my 9 in "loves the girl"; he replaces his 8 in combat with his 9 in "would do anything to break the curse"--and now we're on even footing.

So the advantage of the substutionary scores is precisely that it applies more strongly to characters of lower scores than to those of higher scores, even if they have the same ranks in their passions.

Clear?
*snip*

What's the value of this? The superior and empasioned swordsman...has no advantage against pissed off bobby no legs.

This is counterintuitive to most everything I've read in literature. People don't win against the odds because the odds were removed from the encounter (They are removing the original stat and using another). They don't win because they equalled out and got lucky. Typically there are two ways bobbby no legs wins against the evil swordsman in books.

1: The swordsman loves nothing and is not impasioned. The moral is, evil has nothing it loves and thus on the day does not have the strength to fight to save what it loves, like good does. Love is the way, yadda yadda yadda.
2: Bobby no legs arcs up TWO spiritual attributes at once. 'WHAT! He's got my girl AND the cure for the plague thats killing my village! YARRRRRGH!' while the swordsman say 'Ha, I'll hand that cure over to Mr evil to break the curse and...oh hell, you really do care about that girl and the cure, don't you...ouchie ouchie ouchie!'. This ties in with most books where the hero starts pissed off, but then in a climactic scene, more info is revealed that gets him DOUBLY pissed off!


Or you can have it that basically personal ability is meaningless when passion arises and the moral that evil is loveless (or has little love) and can not win because it has not the passion to fight, is eliminated. Instead evils got about fifty fifty odds.

Passion shouldn't be about helping wimps equal out, that's not the message literature gives, IMO. It should be about wimps who care so damn much they can even beat baddies who care. The wimpyness is still there, but the passion and care behind that passion is suddenly there to behold. The other system seems to rely on 'transforming' a weak character. As a player you can pretend it's still bobby no legs. But you know really part of hims been replaced during this time. It seems less about beating the odds and more about how he'd be cooler if we just removed this stat and replaced it with this.

And if the baddies actually have more passions/passions activating...well who the hell is the protagonist around here? Certainly the baddie is more interesting to watch given that he cares more!

PS: Spiritual attributes apply to anything...combat or skills, any check that is applicable to that passion.

Also, SA scores are gained not through point expenditure but through facing SA relevant challenge in the game. It's a very direct loop and more consistant with literature for it, IMO.

EDIT: Basically perhaps its just a matter of perception, how to impliment this. But this other systems method looks even worse to me now. It's like if someone fights someone they hate, their rusty sword transforms (say it was weapons that improve with passion) into a different sword, just for that time. The rusty sword doesn't charge up and become better, it just gets replaced entirely for the encounter. Now consider how this is being done with stats intimate to the PC.

It also seems to choke back the relevance of passion in the end. An incredible fighter (max skill) gets no better when fighting for his lady love, one he has loved through the ages, while a hobo makes a literal transformation in skill when his girl of three months is put into peril.

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

I think Loki's last post (Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:28 pm) nailed it.

Why did Gandalf entrust hobbits with the ring anyway?

Because (besides the good points Loki made) the hobbits were simple and pure and devoid of the avarice and delusion of other races. And it is because of these qualities that ultimately the entirety of middle-earth was saved and the dark forces defeated!

Who says hobbits are weak ?!?

[Ben Miller]

I agree with your sentiment entirely.

But the issue here is that in a traditional simulationist-style game, a hobbit is weak: they tend to have stats, skills, whatever that on paper get them killed in a minor tussle.  :)

And hence the discussions on how to bring mechanics into the game in order to implement their strengths.

Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ...

In other words, stories aren't realistic - not even the "realistic" ones.

And yes, this applies just as well to stories which turn out badly for the protagonist, as to the stories in which he "beats the bad guy at the end." It applies just as well to highbrow stories as to lowbrow ones (a distinction I tend to ignore), and applies just as well to conflicts about (e.g.) romantic confusion as to (e.g.) must-kill-slayer-of-my-lord, or whatever.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're objecting to the idea that the protagonist, when impassioned, is better than the antagonist, when impassioned. Again, I'm afraid that this idea is central to any story that I'm aware of, and that ...

It's like if someone fights someone they hate, their rusty sword transforms (say it was weapons that improve with passion) into a different sword, just for that time. The rusty sword doesn't charge up and become better, it just gets replaced entirely for the encounter.

... is exactly how stories do work. There is no "in-game justification" that can really be justified. Even if there's an elaborate explanation ("Your friends turn out to have been looking for you all night, and they were just over the ridge the whole time; good thing they heard your voice, eh?"), it is just as arbitrary, on the author's part, as saying, "Oh, you pulled your friends out of your pocket and here they are to help you."

Differences in stories include the range of justification ... some rely on the greatest contrast possible between information-previously and how-it-works-now (like your sword example), and some rely on complex and subtle foreshadowing in order to have a surprising event "make sense all along" once it happens. But the fundamental notion that "protagonist who cares" just ... gets better in the crunch, in any way at all, is found throughout.

Yeah - even Walter Mitty.

Best,
Ron

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ... {snipperiffic}

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me that, in many cases, stuff like SAs are smokescreens for a "the characters we care about win" strategy.  This isn't a bad thing, but maybe it's an interesting thing.