Lila: Infinite Scale

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

Hi all,

I'm designing a Mahabharata RPG, Lila, and have most of the system down already. The part I am struggling with is scale (in magic and combat). Any of you familiar with the Mahabharata will probably immediately spot my dilemma.

The characters are for the most part acting on a normal human level but because they are born of the gods through mystic processes can on occasions perform extraordinary feats like assume forms the size of mountains. I would like the PC's to develop this power gradually. Therefore in the beginning if they double their size they also double their Hit Points and damage potential. When they are a hundred times their normal size everything is times a hundred. Does anyone know of a system or dice mechanic that can handle this?
I realize I could handle this narratively once the PC assumed a massive size (e.g. You assume the size of a mountain and the arrows of the army now bounce off your thick skin) but I would also like NPC'c to have this ability as well, thus making everything relative.

Can anyone please suggest a system or mechanic that can scale infinitely? - or close to infinitely will be good enough :-)

[Jason Petrasko]

Sounds to me that a scale like the decibel would fit your needs. In this scale everything is relative. Perhaps select 0 as normal human.

Then every shift +/- 3 is double/half strength. Every shift +/- 10 is about ten times/one tenth.

A rolling mechanic for this scale is harder, depending on how random you want it to be. A simple one could be roll 2d10 count them 0-9. Take the highest minus the lowest as a bonus to ability score for a total.

Just a passing thought...

[james_west]

Fudge (freely downloadable, I think) is designed to be greatly scalable. However, I'm still inclined to think that you're thinking of your rules in an excessively 'physics oriented' way.

- James

[Kryyst]

I would recomend using a size scale combined with a percentile system.

So for example say a human is size scale 10 a mouse is size scale 1 an elephant size scale 20, a mountian....who knows 1000 perhaps.  Then when you are comparing creatures of different sizes for every differnce just modifiy their value by maybe 40%.

So a human with strenght 50 would be (compared to a mouse) would have a modifier of 9*40 = 360% for a relative strength of 230. An elephant with a strength of 50 compared to a human would have strength of 430.

What you get is that when ever two equal characters are compared you just use straight rolls, whenever the size changes the weekest one stays the same and the strongest gets a modifier to the roll.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Lorenzo:

Is this a revision/extension of the previous versions of Lila that float around the web?

My suggestion is that it doesn't make sense, neither in the source material nor in play intended to evoke that feeling, to have "extensible" powers; the magical feats in the Mahabharata appear, to me, to be single, unchanging actions.

You don't need a mechanistic system to handle power-scaling; you could easily do what I did in Torchbearer, and have actions of superior mythicity simply invalidate lesser actions.  In the context of Lila, you could say that "characters that have superior enlightenment are, in their field of expertise, unquestionably champions."

I cannot suggest anything more substantial than "reexamine your assumptions" without knowing more about your system, though.

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

Shreyas, I'm not sure whether there is another RPG called Lila floating around but it is a project I have taken over from my friend Sam Luther. Yes the original file was a bit "iffy" and yes the entire thing is still up in the air. But I think you are mistaken with this assumption: "My suggestion is that it doesn't make sense, neither in the source material nor in play intended to evoke that feeling, to have "extensible" powers; the magical feats in the Mahabharata appear, to me, to be single, unchanging actions."

The hero's of the Mahabharata had human mothers and various gods as fathers. There latent powers were not immediately apparent in most cases and under the guidance of their Guru these powers were awakened and developed. When Bhima, who was born of Vayu and already possessing super human strength, drank the juice he received from the Nagas, his strength increased tenfold or more. Etc.

"You don't need a mechanistic system to handle power-scaling; you could easily do what I did in Torchbearer, and have actions of superior mythicity simply invalidate lesser actions. In the context of Lila, you could say that "characters that have superior enlightenment are, in their field of expertise, unquestionably champions.""

Unfortunately in the Mahabharata the hero's were not "unquestionably champions" as on many occasions there strengths were questioned (even if it was a plot ploy). Yes they could beat a Raksasa (a very powerful vampire like demon) in the day time but after twilight the Raksasa's strength doubled and the hero's on one occasion expressed their concern for defeating the raksasa during the daylight. Etc.
I won't get to deeply philosophical here but if you consider the events of the Mahabharata to be Lila (God's play) then it makes sense that for the purpose of interesting pastimes the hero's appear to be vulnerable and indeed by the gods desires (for a good yarn) can become weaker than humans in an instant.

I have downloaded Torchbearer but haven't read it yet. I'll definitely read it.

Another thing I guess you should consider (and this more probably where you're getting at) is that this particular game is squarely aimed at young (Hindu) teenagers who, and to answer James Wests "excessively physics orientated" observation, would appreciate a more gamist style. It is a way that they may be interactive in the story that they have already heard narrated to them. I am by no means going to recreate a D&D system – no it will be much simpler then that and very freeform.

After I read your messages I thought about them. I read Fudge and thought it a possibility but fortunately for me I did find the mechanic I was after scouring through old posts at various forums.

I already had (as in Sam's idea for Lila) The Window as the basis for the dice mechanic (and some of the philosophy as well) but I was willing to use a different one for magic and combat. Fortunately I don't have to now. It matched the mechanics I already had (The Window) and it turned out a lot simpler than I would have expected so I it didn't end up being an exercise in quantum physics after all!

Thanks for all the input and advice everyone. Much appreciated.

If you are interested here is the way you can scale infinitely using The Window, written by Antoine:

"since I wanted to have a continuous and wide range of superpower intensities, I would
like to be able to compare classical human ranks with "more than
human" rank and "more than human ranks" with "even more than human"
ranks and...blablabla. The She-Bang rule creates two different ranges
of powers (normal vs super), which is perfect for classical SH
univers, but not in the mood of my world where the frontier between
normal and superpowered is blurry.

For doing this, I devised the "Sliding" Window optional rule :
- You create above-human levels noted d4+1, d4+2, d4+3...
- when you want to compare two ranks and one of them is above-human
, you "slide" both levels down of an equal number of ranks until the
higher goes to d4. If during this process the lower level goes under
d30 (which happens when there is more than 7 ranks between the two
scores), the victory of the stronger is automatic and blatant. If not,
you have two classical levels, one at d4 and the other between d30 and
d4, and you roll the dice the normal way.

Ex 1 : Jim is a chess player with a d8 score and he's opposing Joe
with a d4+3 level (in fact, joe is an IA with superhuman chess
ability). You slide Joe score of 3 ranks to reach d4, and slide Jim
score from the same number to reach d20 (d8->d10->d12->d20). Jim now
rolls a d20 against Joe's d4.

Ex 2 : Jim (full name Jim Kirk), is now playing chess against
Rtjtuf'l, an ultraterrestrial being (indeed, an poor actor with
ridiculous make-up) who wants to annihilate our universe unless
somebody beats him at Chess. Rtjtuf'l is a damn good player, with
d4+6. It would slide Jim score from 6 ranks, that is :
d8->d10->d12->d20->d30->!!!->??? Sadly for our universe, Jim looses
the game in three moves. (Hopefully, Scotty comes at the last moment
and saves the day by stunning Rtjtuf'l with a frigolite "rock").

You can also compre two above-human scores, like D4+3 with D4+7, which
makes you roll a d12 against a d4 (four ranks of difference).
"

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm not sure you're getting the thrust of my point, but I see that your design goals don't really mesh with the point anyway.  However, I will try to explain.

The fabulous abilities displayed by such folk as Bhima and Arjuna, though they seem to vary, do not vary independently; the magnitude of their effect is strictly related to the spiritual advancement of the character.  In your daytime/nighttime rakshasa example, again the characters' abilities vary as a function of another variable.  Thus I don't believe it is strictly necessary to even represent these powers as independent mechanical entities; in a different sort of game, you could easily say, "this character displays his prowess through his magnificent charioteering", or "this character uses his supernatural archery to bring rightness and virtue to the world" and handle it through abstraction.

So what I'm saying is that the powers are not important to the story, and they need not be important to the mechanics either - they are simply ways in which the characters express their subtler qualities, whether these are divine ancestry, relationships with supernatural beings (Bhima and the nagas), environmental factors, etc.

I think Heroquest may be of more use to you than Torchbearer, as it turns out; the document I have for public viewing is neither clear nor complete.  Heroquest's model for supernatural abilities seems to fit your bill better.

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

"So what I'm saying is that the powers are not important to the story, and they need not be important to the mechanics either - they are simply ways in which the characters express their subtler qualities, whether these are divine ancestry, relationships with supernatural beings (Bhima and the nagas), environmental factors, etc."

I do get your point and appreciating the depth of the spiritual instructions of the Mahabharata and the parallels they have with our life will be a real challenge for me to make a game out of. There is an interesting post by Dr Xero http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9576 which you have read that lucidly explains some of the things I want to achieve e.g. situations or monsters as metaphors or symbols of our own struggles.

"So what I'm saying is that the powers are not important to the story, and they need not be important to the mechanics either..."

Towards the end of the Mahabharata Arjuna throws all his weapons (including the divinely powerful ones) away, as he realizes they are useless. I'm sure he would empathize with you!

However, as I said, my target audience is young kids and I would like to address these things under the disguise of a very gamey traditional style of play. When they realize they don't need weapons and the game mechanics become useless then we have reached the goal of the game :-)

I will check out Heroquest. Thanks for the tip.

[Shreyas Sampat]

However, as I said, my target audience is young kids and I would like to address these things under the disguise of a very gamey traditional style of play. When they realize they don't need weapons and the game mechanics become useless then we have reached the goal of the game :-)

If I may be blunt, this terrifies me.  You seem to be designing from the assumption that the game cannot have any intrinsic value, and that the important moment is in the rejection of the game because you have designed it to be rejected.  I think Sorcerer and kill puppies for satan illustrate, very eloquently, the opposite premise: that actual gameplay can be valuable and expressive in ways that are difficult to accomplish in, for instance, discussion.  I argue that this model is probably the stronger one.

If you are designing a game with the intent that the game be instructional, then why would you want to put mechanics in that game that are directly opposed to the message you are trying to convey?  This doesn't just obscure the message - it undermines your credibility, and creates another message entirely.  There is absolutely no good reason for a rule set that deliberately represents gameworld reality incorrectly.

I recall that there have been some discussions on the connection between game rules and the implied physics of the setting - that game rules are literally "what is true about the setting".  Is your design attempting to refute this observation?  What do you intend to accomplish by having facts of the setting and the rules of the games at odds?

I'm not advocating a "lite" system or one that deemphasizes "gamey" play; I am trying to say that if you intend the game to be instructional, then I believe a better way to do it would be to design rules that, in a "gamey" way, express correctly the facts of the setting and the messages you are trying to convey, and then provoke thoughts about why things work this way; take advantage of rules discussions and references to the source material to bring messages home.

Finally, I evoke the ghost of genre emulation:  If Arjuna discarded his weapons in the source, then the players will be asking themselves, "Why did he do that?  What was the utility of it?"  If they cannot answer this and similar questions in game terms, then they will probably relegate the game to the status of amusing pastime, rather than respecting it as the educational tool that you obviously intent it to be.

Rant mode off.

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

To explain myself: The game mechanics, and the weapons, are representing the physical mundane world. The Mahabharata, and life for the devout, is about the transition from identifying oneself with the physical body and the external ephemeral material realm to our real identity as eternal spiritual beings.

From a spiritual perspective - I am assuming you are a Hindu or have Hindu heritage - the brahmajyoti, the spiritual effulgence is everywhere, our real constitutional position as spirit souls means that we actually know everything, we are eternal, we naturally have all mystic potency, the ability to travel at the speed of the mind for example.

But we can not experience this because we are currently covered by the sheath of matter. We are identifying with our body as though it is ourselves, we are taking these ephemeral phantasmagoria as reality. The Matrix is a good analogy of what I am getting at.

My intentions are that the PC's will experience this transition and therefore, going back to the original idea about scale, scale is imperative to this game. Eventually when they come to the philosophical conclusions that Arjuna came to, they can abandon their weapons. And as they come closer to "who they really are" they will become so realized that the game mechanics will become irrelevant. Why do you need to roll to defeat a Raksasa at this stage? You are unconditioned by the laws of physics and besides you are on a completely different level where good and evil are meaningless.

I think the problem is, is that you are jumping to the end. Just because you know the philosophical conclusions of The Mahabharata doesn't mean everyone else does. I do intend it to be an instructional tool and therefore will start at the beginning philosophically and work up to deeper levels. In this regard the PC's will start in a conditioned state and the process (the game) will be about their reawakening.

I'm not denying there is an element of "amusing pastime". That is a large basis for Role Playing in the first place. Creating and playing fantastic things like the mystic power of being able to fly is appealing. That is what attracted me to D&D 13 years ago. But, for example, in the context of a Mahabharata educational tool, players will learn that the desire for mystic powers alone is an impediment to their spiritual advancement.

I hope this helps.

Afterthought:

I think our opinions on system and subject matter differ. You attach great importance to the system being intrinsically linked to the subject matter. Whereas I, because my primary focus is the retelling of the Mahabharata and using the game as a teaching tool, see the system as secondary. It would not be impossible to play a Mahabharata RPG using The Riddle of Steel, The Window, Fudge, GURPS or any other universal or fantasy based system. GURPS and the Mahabharata!?! Sacrilege! I hear you say :-)

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

Afterthought #2

Shreyas, I haven't explained the type of characters the players will play and I think this may be the crux of our misunderstanding. It would certainly explain how "the ghost of genre emulation" and the handling of mythic levels is not an issue with my game.

The characters in my game are NOT Arjuna's and Bhima's. That would probably be offensive to Hindus. It would be like saying to a Christian, "Hey we're playing this RPG where you can play Jesus". The hero's of the Mahabharata were born from the great gods. They are not your average folk. They are Nitya Siddha or eternally liberated.

My characters are simply from the same planet as these gods. Just as we are from the planet of Bhumi (Mother Earth) so too the characters are from the planet of Indra, Chandra etc. Thus the characters are not unlike us, except that they are more pious, and for this they are privileged to partake in God's Lila, namely the Mahabharata. My characters will not have the Bhagavad Gita spoken to them on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, they will be the ones in the million strong crowd in the background ready to fight.

It might help you to think of my game as not a Mahabharata RPG but an historical Ancient India RPG that just so happens to be set the same time as the events of the Mahabharata. Thus the heroes, like people today, will need to practice yoga to attain their goals, they will need to learn the codes of honour of the Ksatriyas if they are to fight etc... They are not automatically at a legendry level like Bhima and Arjuna. But they can reach this status with great endeavor. Dig?

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hm. You're making assumptions that I ask you to examine:

What makes it offensive to Hindus for their characters, rather than some metaplot, to be the turning points in the story? It may be the corrupting influence of such games as Heroquest and Exalted talking, but I personally would not be interested in playing characters that are explicitly unimportant to the passage of events. Are you sure that your intended audience will be satisfied with playing supporting roles? (If so, go for it, but do think about it first!)

I would totally play "this RPG where you can play Jesus." That would rock, being a humble miracleworker who attracts followers through his cause simply because he is a beacon of virtue.


The point is, if the character "need to practice yoga to attain their goals", then they will do that only if there is some logical in-game reason to do so, particularly if they are uneducated in the religious teachings that you are trying to express. I will say again that the best way to express a message is to simulate its effect by taking it as a physical law of the game universe. If the characters need to practice yoga to attain their goals, then the game mechanics should make them fail to attain them if they do not practice yoga!


As for your earlier post regarding metaphysics:

Jumping to the end is the entire point; if the game does not do that, then it will block the insight of the players, who will say, "Well, this is the effective way of defeating Ravana.  Let's roll."

You are conflating the material world with the mechanics of the game, and I am trying to tell you that this is a mistake. Spiritual reality has discernible laws and effects in the game world, and because the game is focused on these issues, and you profess a Sim/Gam agenda, it is (in my opinion) necessary for you to include rules that deal with the spiritual issues at hand. I realize that these are complex! This is where the opportunity to teach really comes in - through your understanding of the spiritual conclusions, you can create rules that covertly support them, and then your player/students can uncover them through cogitation. That's a very Simmy sort of thing.

I believe that a game that doesn't deal with these issues mechanically could be a wonderful "Ancient India RPG", but it will fail as a teaching tool.

I agree that our opinions on system and subject matter differ, and I will explain to you why they differ in this occasion exactly:

John Kim is always talking about game realism being related to the patterns of events that the mechanics produce.

I believe that we draw conclusions from these patterns, consciously or unconsciously. For instance, in Storyteller system games, we draw the conclusion that "dextrous men are better fighters than strong men" because of the effectiveness patterns that they display in combat. In D&D we see the effectiveness patterns of single-classed vs. multi-classed characters, and conclude, "it is more difficult for a multi-classed characters to be maximally efficient". Thus there is an emphasis on minimizing the variety of classes that a particular character has.

So, if you are expecting players to learn and draw conclusions from a game, it stands to reason that you would covertly encode those conclusions in the system, for two reasons: it illustrates the point you are trying to convey, and it prevents the game mechanics from conveying some message that you did not expect or desire.

In conclusion, System Does Matter.


An example of covert use of the mechanics:
You can spend points of "enlightenment" to buy spiritual powers like flight or the ability to see the future or shoot fire from your eyes or whatever.
However, "enlightenment" figures into the derived stats that determine the effectiveness of these abilities, so that if you have lots of powers you probably don't use them very well.
"Enlightenment" is also a measure of the character's piety, so it will be a prestige item in your player pool and they will try to retain it.

[edit]
To extend an analogy, imagine that you are playing a game intended to teach typing and spelling; objects appear on the screen and you are to write their names.
The game never shows you what you type or tells you whether you spelled the item's name correctly or not; it does nothing at all.  It just shows you pictures. It is a slideshow.
But you are expected to learn how to spell from it.

This is the message I'm getting from your description of your game; you are using a tool with no feedback to attempt to teach.

And, finally, if system doesn't matter, then why are you bothering to write a wholyl new system for your game? Take a tried and proven Sim/Gam tool like Hero or GURPS and write a Mahabharata supplement to your satisfaction; this saves you the trouble of doing a lot of hard system thinking.

[Jonathan Walton]

It would be like saying to a Christian, "Hey we're playing this RPG where you can play Jesus".

I've actually been seriously considering this for a long time (7 sessions representing 7 days of holy week, everything is pre-framed, so Jesus knows what's going to happen and gets to struggle with it, etc.)

And, I think, if done tastefully and sincerely, most Christians of moderate to liberal bent would have nothing to complain about.  After all, actors portray Jesus in plays and movies all the time.  Sure, many people were worried about Jesus Christ Superstar and Gibson's Passion, but that's mostly because of the potential for injecting other political messages into Jesus, not the fact that someone was portraying Jesus in the first place.

I think it would be the same for moderate-to-liberal Hindus.  As long as you were respectful and sincere in your approach, there's not a lot of people who could find fault with you.

[Luke]

Not to comment on-topic, but I couldn't help but feel that Burning Wheel would be great for your needs.

I'd love to see a BW Mahabarratta setting! Rock and roll.

BW uses three different scales of potential: Black, Gray and White. Each level of potential has a its own target number on a d6 (all TNs are otherwise fixed in BW, difficulty is determined by # of successes needed), Black is TN 4, Gray is TN 3, White is TN 2.

I labelled these TNs with Shades (as we call them) so they could be reinterpretted from setting to setting. In the basic fantasy setting they equate to Mundane, Heroic and Supernatural levels of being.

Characters can have mixes of potential or be of one particular shade.

For example, a hero like Joan of Arc might have a Gray/Heroic Conspicuous skill, but all her other stats and skills would be mundane (she was obviously quite mortal). The heroes of the Mahabarratta sound as if they are a mix of all three shades.

Beings that exist entirely in one shade can only be killed by elements of that shade. The Rakshasa from your example would be Gray/Heroic at the height of his powers, and therefore reasonably indestructible to mundane weapons.

Using the BW traits system it is to bestow traits like Night Blood on the Rakshasa -- they are Heroic at night, but Mundane during the day.

Anyway, just a thought. Let me know if i've piqued your interest.

-Luke

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

Shreyas wrote:

"What makes it offensive to Hindus for their characters, rather than some metaplot, to be the turning points in the story? It may be the corrupting influence of such games as Heroquest and Exalted talking, but I personally would not be interested in playing characters that are explicitly unimportant to the passage of events. Are you sure that your intended audience will be satisfied with playing supporting roles? (If so, go for it, but do think about it first!)

I would totally play "this RPG where you can play Jesus." That would rock, being a humble miracle worker who attracts followers through his cause simply because he is a beacon of virtue."

I think playing Jesus is going into territory that we don't understand and we would only be imposing our shallow understanding of reality on him. You view Jesus as "being a humble miracle worker who attracts followers through his cause simply because he is a beacon of virtue" but I think a Christian would see Jesus as much more than that. And I would agree, even though I am not a Christian. It would cheapen it somewhat.

It would also be a bore for me, playing any historical figure. Where's the suspense? Where's the character development? Half the fun of role playing for me is developing your own unique character. And wouldn't this nullify the rolls? "O.K. Hitler roll a D12 to see if you win or lose the war". We all know who he is and what happens to him. Wouldn't this be more of a reenactment than a role playing game? What if you are playing Jesus and your character fails the resist temptations of the prostitute roll. It wouldn't be historical, and if Arjuna's arrow missed it wouldn't be The Mahabharata -thus destroying my whole purpose of retelling the original story!

Are you going to take the ROLL playing elements out Jonathan?

Shreyas wrote: "but I personally would not be interested in playing characters that are explicitly unimportant to the passage of events. Are you sure that your intended audience will be satisfied with playing supporting roles?"

I never said that they would be unimportant. Every one of those million men on the battlefield were important. To give you an example of how important the characters would be: Dhrtarastra and his sons made a plan to finally kill the Pandavas by constructing a flammable house for them to stay it, with the intention of burning it down when they were asleep. Vidura, who was always looking out for the Pandavas welfare, got a tip off from one of his many spies, of Dhrtarastras plot, and then informed the Pandavas, and thus they survived. Vidura's spies are barely given a mention in the story but they are absolutely imperative to the Pandava's survival. So perhaps my characters could be these spies. And if they botch there mission to find this information then it doesn't matter. Vidura has spies everywhere. It is just a tool to "suspend your disbelief", as they say in theatre, and gives them a sense that they are involved in the plot.

I totally agree with you that system does matter. You wrote: "And, finally, if system doesn't matter, then why are you bothering to write a wholly new system for your game? Take a tried and proven Sim/Gam tool like Hero or GURPS and write a Mahabharata supplement to your satisfaction; this saves you the trouble of doing a lot of hard system thinking."

Um... I'm not. I am using The Window. I just thought: why reinvent the wheel when there are already brilliantly designed games out there. I realized that whatever game I chose would need some tweaking (e.g. matras don't work quite the same way as spells) and your GURPS is a perfect example. This saves me from starting from scratch and working from the ground up. Unfortunately for me I chose a very light system! The Window is hopeless for combat and magic and doesn't even go near what you're talking about. But it is simple and I thought it would also be simple to add a few more simple things. As it turns out I may end up with something that doesn't resemble The Window in the slightest and WILL be my own system!

I was being a bit silly saying GURPS. Obviously some systems would be more suited than others. I have read the quick start rules for TROS and it would be an example of a more suitable system (with a few tweaks of course). However this weekend I'm going out to buy Heroquest. Yay. It may or may not be suited for my RPG but it looks interesting anyway.

Your "enlightenment points" are a very good idea. Yes, you are right; I must reflect the subject matter in the system design but I imagine it would be a very simple thing.

Shreyas, Luke and anyone else interested who is familiar with the subject matter: If you had to make a few points (say 3 or 5) of what you believe would be imperative to system design for a Mahabharata RPG, what would they be?

Luke I will most definitely check out Burning Wheel. In fact, I'm going there right now. :-)