Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")

[Tywin Lannister]

And in addition your character may have such flaws as Addiction or Lecherousness to make the choices easier.

[kenjib]

Temptation in TROS is more than just freeform roleplaying, even if you don't roll for it.  The incentive of SA advancement encourages the player to act in accord with his SA's.  Therefore, if you bait the temptation with SA rewards, you are tempting the player too.  SA's help to put the player more into the mind of the character.  What the character wants, the player wants too, therefor you can tempt the player by tempting the character.

[Jake Norwood]

The thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares?

I do.

The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

Aha! SAs don't ensure anything! That would remove free will, and that's what SAs--and TROS--are about. What do I do with my free will? Sure, the player should act according to their SAs, and if they don't, then it's worth asking them why they chose not to go that way (and even change the focus if need be), but the mechanics don't force action, or even coerce. They tempt the player with a reward for acting a certain way.

This is very neat and simple.

On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

This is absolutely correct. What you're leaving out is the reward mechanism. SAs are rewards for acting a certain way, and, as written, occassionally punishments.

Is there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

A great deal, if I understand you correctly. Most of what characters do in most games is based on the decisions of the players, not on the stats of the characters. Anytime anything is done without a die roll this is the case. Some games use dice or stats to moderate the player's choices for their characters, but TROS does it by handing out doggie-treats (SAs) when characters act one way, and not another.

...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

It was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about."

The game is about improving the values in the character's SAs?

Cheers,

Not quite...SA rewards are just that--rewards for playing according to "what the game's about." A martial art tournament isn't about the trophy--it's about skill and competition. The trophy is just the reward. Even more appropriately, a boxing prize-fight isn't about the dollar amount, but about fighting. The reward is the dollar amount that allows the boxer to continue a professional career and train full-time, thus allowing their skills to improve, etc. The boxer needs to win a match so that his career can continue, but the fight isn't about the money--it's about skill, competition, and a continuing career. Is that helping?

Jake

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

OK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

You could do it that way as an opposed roll if you wished.  I'd probably only do that if the tempation was being actively encouraged by a another person  "sure...take a drink, you can handle it, no one will know" in which case it would be a pretty straight forward Persuasion Test.

Absolutely. From what I've read of Weyrth spiritual development (as opposed to SA development) is not a key area of the game. As such, providing a framework for spiritual development and spiritual conflict isn't needed. Temptation, as you've described it, isn't a spiritual force in its own right and therefore needs no mechanism for its resolution. Resisting temptation isn't a spiritual issue but one of self-discipline.

On the other hand, if you're planning on taking TRoS out of the Weyrth setting and into another gaming setting where spiritual development and spiritual conflict are as important as physical development and physical conflict, where temptation is an active spiritual force, then I think TRoS as it stands might need some changes. It would be useful if the core rules catered for spiritual development/conflict.

Cheers,

[Jaif]

Even then there's no need for a willpower test.  Sure, everybody here knows the story and will give the ring back to Frodo.  But in your sessions, nobody need know all the details.  Remember our player named 'Boromir' knows his history: the ring was taken by his ancester from the dark lord, and is the rightful property of men.  It is generally known that the ring is a weapon of great power too.

Now, when Boromir picks up the ring, tell the player to put +3 next to every stat and weapon skill.  When he gives the ring back, tell him to erase the +3.

The point is make the conflict tangible and real, and let the player decide.

-Jeff

[Brian Leybourne]

Jaif,

Ordinarily I would completely agree with you, temptation should be a player based thing and not decided on WP rolls - that's not really fair to the player as it takes control of the character out of their hand. Besides, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves with it anyway :-)

However, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.

Brian.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

Aha! SAs don't ensure anything! That would remove free will, and that's what SAs--and TROS--are about. What do I do with my free will? Sure, the player should act according to their SAs, and if they don't, then it's worth asking them why they chose not to go that way (and even change the focus if need be), but the mechanics don't force action, or even coerce. They tempt the player with a reward for acting a certain way.

Oh Jake there's no need to be so literal. The SAs make the player predictable. They don't ensure that they are predictable, but they stack the odds in the referee's favour. We might choose to put a different spin on this, but when players are encouraged to question why their character would even participate in activity that isn't related to their character's SAs -- well, SAs can be see as a neat way of ensuring a high degree of compliance with the plot line. This isn't a bad thing. It is a good thing.

On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

This is absolutely correct. What you're leaving out is the reward mechanism. SAs are rewards for acting a certain way, and, as written, occassionally punishments.

I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

Is there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

A great deal, if I understand you correctly. Most of what characters do in most games is based on the decisions of the players, not on the stats of the characters. Anytime anything is done without a die roll this is the case. Some games use dice or stats to moderate the player's choices for their characters, but TROS does it by handing out doggie-treats (SAs) when characters act one way, and not another.

Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

Cheers,

[Jaif]

However, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.

I agree.  I frankly don't think there's any good way to represent things like the one-ring fully.  If I let the player roll, than that act gives them information.  Either I take control at that point, or they figure out what's going, even if only partially, and actively resist because that's 'right', not because they want to.

You could make the roll for the player, and then moderate the response accordingly. Or you can have the player make a roll: if he fails, tell him he's not fully in tune and only gets +3 to his stats.  If he succeeds, tell him he senses an evil presence in the ring, but he's mastered it and it doesn't control him.

I think it would be more fun to ham it up and lie to the player (through the ring, of course), then to just rely on a roll.

-Jeff

P.S. I don't think there's a really good way to represent subtle things like the ring.  Personally between a die roll to decide or an elaborate game, toying with the player, I prefer the game.

[Bill Cook]

Sorry so late.  Just realized you asked me a question.

I absolutely agree.

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

And the answer's not worth the wait:)  I've yet to run a TROS campaign.  But I wonder what my Seneschal would say . . .  I'll ask him.

BTW, my general approach to running antagonists and proponents is to portray some kind of drive, but it's all internalized, i.e. not formally expressed as with SA's.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

I've yet to run a TROS campaign.  But I wonder what my Seneschal would say . . .  I'll ask him.

BTW, my general approach to running antagonists and proponents is to portray some kind of drive, but it's all internalized, i.e. not formally expressed as with SA's.

I imagine most referees won't bother with SAs for NPCs. Instead they'll balance the combat odds by giving the NPC appropriate numbers to offset the PCs SA bonuses.

How do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example,  2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

Cheers,

[Bob McNamee]

If SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play.  The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Dropping them to 0 in order to advance your character...is just another way to create an advantage for the character.

A zero SA still indicates that this story area is important to you as a player to pursue, but until you do so, you gain nothing by pursuing it. The more you pursue the SA the more important you indicate it to be story-wise...thus raising an SA to 5 is a sign of one that is both important and actively used.

Its a bit of a social contract between the player and GM.

Player: I find these areas interesting and want to see it become part of the game.
GM: I can design ideas that will interest the players, if they tie into their SAs, with a mechanic to both monitor and reward whether this is true.

Thats my way of thinking about them, anyway...

[Bob McNamee]

Also, if a player is having his character get involved in areas where he doesn't indicate a Story Advantage, then he is taking on as much risk as any normal human...

He should take on those challenges that he cares about... where SA's are involved. It is there that the bonus dice will let him be heroic.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi Ian.

Oh Jake there's no need to be so literal. The SAs make the player predictable. They don't ensure that they are predictable, but they stack the odds in the referee's favour. We might choose to put a different spin on this, but when players are encouraged to question why their character would even participate in activity that isn't related to their character's SAs -- well, SAs can be see as a neat way of ensuring a high degree of compliance with the plot line. This isn't a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Ah, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Half agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

This is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

I think where we're hitting a wall here is the idea that a player can "win or lose" by making a decision. Temptation is, IMO, entirely an issue of (a) decision and (b) discipline of character ( = WP). I don't see a need for any decision to be handled by mechanics. Temptation, for me, is just like "do I go north or do I go south? North lies fortune, south lies my friends..." There is no mechanic that I would want interfering here in standard TROS play. Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

Jake

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

If SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play.  The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Bravo! Neatly put and I concur wholeheartedly.

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Ah, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

Hours after making a post a little voice inside my head says, "You know, when you thought "blah blah" and posted "rhubarb rhubarb" they may have thought you meant "other stuff" because they were thinking about "different perspective". Naturally I ignore the voice...

I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Half agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

Hmmmm -- and if the gaming world view is one where everyone by definition is inherently flawed?

As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

This is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

Yes, I agree that Bob nailed it.

Personally, I think that if characters in RPGs are to be truly three dimensional and people-like then the gaming framework, both rules and environment, must include a framework for spiritual development and conflict. Belief ties otherwise dispirate people together and medieval communities relied on it for social cohesion. If a spiritual framework is included in the game then it can be ignored by groups for whom such things are uninteresting. If it is not provided then for those groups who are interested in that side of gaming it is hard to build from scratch.

Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

(Snip) Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

Firstly, when you say TRoS do you mean the rule system, the Weyrth campaign setting, or both? When I say TRoS I mean just the rule system. Now, some of the rule system is quite intertwined with the Weyrth game setting (Char Gen, for instance). By and large though they are separate.

In Weyrth, temptation is not a spiritual matter in the sense that there is no spiritual force actively at work in a temptation situation. As an example; an individual is offered a piece of cake at the end of a big meal. They are full but could squeeze it in. The primordial part of the brain kicks in, remembers a time when the ancestors were dieing of starvation, and passes on the message to the mind that the piece of cake should be eaten. The rational part of the brain opposes this suggestion, determining that the stomach is already full and that the cake has little nutritional value. A decision needs to be made. If the cake is eaten then the hostess is happy and certain benefits may devolve from those positive thoughts. If the cake is not eaten then when the character is chased out of the village later that night they won't end up heaving their meal by the side of the road. The decision has consequences both good and bad either way, and the decision was entirely the player's.

In our campaign environment we base our view of the supernatural on St Augustine's view of the spiritual realm (as defined in "City of God"). Such a world view as he presents has broad implications for the campaign environment. Suffice it to say that as far as this discussion is concerned the situation described above would be handled in exactly the same way as described above. That is, core TRoS.

However, our view of the spiritual realm is based on the idea that there are active spiritual forces at work in the temporal realm for both good and evil. As this is a minimalist magic/miracle environment these spiritual forces are subtle and do not manifest directly. The evil spiritual forces use Temptation as a tool to manipulate individuals into performing actions further the goals of these dark spiritual forces. It will seldom be obvious how these events promote those goals -- all the character will be aware of is if they succumb to Temptation their life or the life of someone else will be affected for the worse. This introduces the concepts of attonement and redemption.

Cheers,