Ok,

So we all know about Merit/Flaw systems. And we've seen tons of them. Some that are so generic, boring, and overlong that we fall asleep - some with real gems that inspire characters and adventures.

Now, I'm building a system (YGAD) which has no stat scores for things as strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc. I assume everyone is 'standard' and if they want to be strong, they can buy a merit called 'strong'. I'm aware that (similar things to) this has also been done before.

I think merits and flaws are cool, though, because they offer hooks and points to identify with character. It's a bit like lego - if you like playing with it, you can mess around with a ton of building block, and if you want just a few broad strokes, you just paste 2 blocks on a flat surface and smother on colours (backstory without mechanical effect).

So I started making a 'list' of merits that I thought would be good to include - and found myself arriving at the same darn list that's in plenty of RPGs... you know the one, "strong, missing limb, addiction, phobias", etc. This displeased me - I don't want to masticate the same ole stuff needlessly.

So what I'm thinking of is tossing out almost all the pre-defined merits and flaws, EXCEPT where they relate to key issues of YGAD - namely Contact ('mystical effects'), Karma ('fate and successes') and Push ('effort'). Instead, I'll mention in the text that there are a ton of possible 'standard' merits and flaws (and give examples), which players can take in cooperation with their DM. I'll flesh out 2 common ones (like Really Strong and Addiction, for instance), and the mechanical effects they are selected to have, which will save me from having 5 pages of commonly seen merits and flaws. Then, I will focus on the 8 merits/flaws I have for contact, and the 3 each for Karma/Push. I will mention that new merits/flaws for C/K/P are also possible, but that extra care should be taken with game balance in that case. These have been selected by me because they also have an in-setting impact on the world at large, and are close to the 'core' of innovation of YGAD - bag & contact.

Is this an elegant solution? Has it been done before? Would you appreciate not seeing the same old M/F list again?

Are restrictions needed on how GM and player define merits and flaws? (I would tend to 'no', because a playgroup will arrive at merits and flaws that are appropriate for their own enjoyment anyway.)

Halfway through your post, I was about to say: "just write down the merits and flaws that are linked to the core idea of your game!" of course, you had already come up with that rather obvious solution. :)

Yes, I think what you have written down is an elegant solution. Not writing down those pages of common merits and flaws will definitely improve your game, as I think most RPGers have little interest in seeing that old exercise done again. (If one is really desperate for a merit or flaw, one can always randomly open GURPS-lite.) Providing one or two examples should do the trick, and actually encourage players to be more creative.

I would be very surprised if something similar has not been done before, but I do not think this is a problem. As long as the specific M/Fs are original and suited to your game (which they surely sound, although I don't know the details), there's originality enough, and functionality and coherence besides. What more could one want?

On the restrictions: I also lean towards 'no'. You may want to explain carefully how merits and flaws function in the mechanics (if they do), but leaving it at that seems quite appropriate. If people understand your game and what it's meant to do, they'll probably only come up with approriate and fun ideas.

Eh, I don't know about leaving the "standard" merits/flaws undefined. Personally, I'd rather have them all spelled out -- the more examples you have, the easier it is to get a feel for what new ones should look like. Not to mention that certain merits/flaws can be more or less significant depending on the setting. For example, "One Arm" is a pretty serious flaw in a combat-heavy game, but not so important in a cyberpunk game where the players spend most of their time directly connected to their computers. Likewise, something like "Illiterate" would be a major flaw in any game set in modern days, but not so much in a game set in the dark ages. Anyway, just my opinion, but I don't think there's any problem with listing "standard" merits/flaws, especially when they comprise the majority of your mechanics.

(All that follows is laced heavily with my opinion. IMHO, IMHO, IMHO... )

Well, it's elegant, but I'm not sure it's a solution. I think you may just be punting the problem to the players of the game. I'll explain why I think that.

Mert/Flaw systems aren't stale and uninspiring because they have the same attributes every single time. They have the same attributes because they are stale and uninspiring.

A Merit/Flaw system that just says "You can have Merits or Flaws, and they add +/-N to a fairly linear fortune mechanic, now matter what they are" is not giving a whole lot of system-mechanic meat for the players to chew on. It is not telling anyone what is important about this game, and it's certainly not enshrining that in the rules.

The rules, in use, are your best means of getting across what you think is important to the game. People read the color text in the rule-book once, maybe twice. They use the rules hundreds of times every single game. You want to figure out what's important to your game, and you want to make it so that the rules themselves keep bringing that important thing back into the spotlight, time and time again.

Giving the players a system where they can do anything is not so hot. You should give them a system where anything they do plays into the structure of your game. And that means giving them freedom within important limits.

Okay, that was all very general. Let me get specific as regards Your Gods Are Dead.

From the rules (and more revealingly the color text) that I've read, you seem to be aiming for a game that is heavy on themes of Hope, Despair and Abandonment. I loved, for instance, the fact that in a world where the Gods are known to be dead, your example of play was set in a church service. People still want to believe something. They want somebody to trust and plead with and blame. The player characters are endowed with abilities that would make them a natural focus for that worship, in its many forms.

So what you should do (IMHO, added just for good measure) is to address the various ways that characters can interact with their own semi-divinity, what that means to the people around them and what it means to the characters themselves.

I'll create an example, mostly to have something to talk about: Let's say that you decide that the game is about peoples attempts to find a new center of meaning for their lives. Everyone is torn between the old theistic beliefs, which are broken but still compelling, and the remaining things like ideals, love of neighbors, etc.

The place of the characters in the story is to bring those conflicts to a roiling boil, to influence what people decide, and to decide for themselves.

If that was your vision then you'd clearly have to differentiate between supernatural abilities (Really Strong) and mundane (Kind Heart). Maybe, in fact, you would want to say that only supernatural abilities can have a direct effect in many types of conflicts (fighting off demons), while only mundane could have an effect in others (rallying a village to action).

You might want to have rules tracking how strong each set of beliefs is in a given village, and rules for how the people as a whole seek resolution. It seems likely that any merits or flaws which didn't directly touch upon this issue would be unworthy of effecting the rule mechanics.

If the player's characters come in and solve all the villagers problems using their mucho mojo, what does this mean? Is it a good thing? If the characters lurk in the shadows, helping people to help themselves and robbing them of any proof of a power beyond the mundane, what does this mean? Is it a good thing?

And, always, how can your rules mechanics turn this from a subjective choice into an objective one, supported by rules everyone agrees on?

You have some really good stuff floating around here. Now is the time for you to buckle down and turn it into a system. That means making choices that some people will look at and say "Ewww... I don't want to play that game!"

(IMHO, IMHO, IMHO)

Victor - It's good to know I'm estimating at least the opinion of some of the people right. :)

Andrew - while I'm not sold on providing exhaustive lists, I do really like your comment that the way in which certain merits/flaws are presented are a direct mirror of what is important to the setting. As a side-effect, I'm discovering that leaving out all the 'mundane' M/F is causing on unintentional lop-sided effect (at least to me) - because there is no list of 'mundane' M/F, the list of 'special' or 'core' M/Fs becomes relatively more imposing (at least textually/layout technically). This has the unfortunate side effect that while the players are to a degree special and can choose from special merits/flaws, it overly focus on this special nature. Humanism and choices of how to live your life are strong themes in YGAD, and at one point I had so many M/Fs that I was almost overwhelmed at the parallels with X-men (select group of 'super'humans opposed to normal humanity). I might therefore be well-off presenting a big list anyway (maybe as .pdf supplement to the main core?), but casting in a light that will make its relevance to the game more clear.

Tony - very good points. You manage to tear me in two directions. While I would love emphasis on character Values and human choices, removing those merits that don't directly impact that theme would down-play the 'semi-normal' RPG play I also want available: I want a traveling 'party' searching out the best possible way of living among seperate communities and having interesting encounters as much as the socially striving large-city or small-community group efforts. Thus, being able to toil without pause for days (high stamina) on the barren fields of the community is important. When you have lost an arm or not is not only relevant for your own climbing skill, but also how much sympathy you get from your community or how much of a burden you are.

Possibly, some of the difficulties I am having can be given a good outlet in the 'experience' or 'leveling up' system. There are already some rules in place that will make a character more effective at achieving results if they are in line with his personal value (these may not be explicit all that much in the playtest rules, I'm just realising). However, I'm aware of the 'gain XP for good social interaction and as a result gain hitpoints and higher chance to hit monsters' trap a system can fall in. Basically, I desire a ramping system that will make the character linearly more effective in the basic day-to-day efforts he's trying to achieve, but near the end of lifetime of the character (and hopefully also at the top of his power curve, although a decay phase might also be interesting) the impact with which he can press his value on society should be many times that.

One of the things you mention that might help make this measurable is tracking how strong certain beliefs are in a given village, or how they seek resolution. I would prefer not make this too mechanical (since I think it would be hellaciously hard to accurate do this - although there might be anthropologists out there who disagree with me - if so, speak up please! ;) ).

I'll have to just see if I can make a coherent system out of it - the different elements reinforcing each other to the right extent. I want my players to have access to a (light-F)RPG with 'human' issues added to it, with the initial phase of characters rather similar to 'normal' power levels and reasons for interaction. (Without the 'living at the mercy of the benign GM' effect) Then, after a while of playing, the increased impact of their actions on society should take a larger and larger role (which I think is a much more 'natural' progression of power than into semi-divinity with a +5 sword and a dragonling familiar).

I DO like the way you're pushing towards dedication to the 'core' concepts of the game though - and I certainly won't hesitate to add enough strong elements that some might be put off by.

I'm rambling a bit, but that's also how I think, so a quick re-cap:

- I'm leaning to increasing the M/F list a bit again, and at least making sure that the way they are cast/presented are a reflection of the setting and of the theme of the game
- I've gotta get more coherence and the whole self-supporting structure up and running. I've been lucky enough to have experienced that the core system (bag) works - time to buckle down, as you put it.

And I've got my shotgun to shoot sacred cows at the ready.

Thanks!

Had a thought while reading your response. It's not strictly an outgrowth of your comments, so I'm not going to be at all offended if your response is "What? Where did that come from?"

Is it possible for these characters to have (for instance) a crippled leg just coincidentally? Or would it have to have deeper meaning?

Because the way you describe them as effecting and being effected by the deeper rhythms of the world, I would tend to think of the Fisher King legends and such the moment you start talking about such normal Flaws.

And I thought: Hey, wouldn't it be neat if each Merit or Flaw was a two-fold affair... a mundane effect and its deeper symbolic importance? That might well help to bridge the gap between semi-normal RPG (which I agree you'll do well to have available) and later more metaphysical or philosophical stories.

So, like I said, possibly a tangent. Possibly helpful. Your mileage is what counts.

Hehe.

'Or would it have deeper meaning' - well, you're hitting the nail very near the head, at least. Like I mentioned, I would have to 'cast' the merits and flaws in a different light - oriented towards both the 'normal' RPG effects as well as to the 'what does it mean towards society and values' side.

I'm not sure how metaphoric they'll get, but it's worth considering.

So, helpful, yes. Thanks.

Personally, I would train my shotgun on the whole merit/flaw idea. Lose it and do something else.

Why?

Because, as you yourself point out, merit/flaw systems are nothing new, and nothing special.

And because, in my experience, merit/flaw systems don't actually encourage roleplaying. Simply put, if someone wants to play a character with one arm, they will. On the other hand, if someone wants to eek out a few more points for this and such and is willing to give up an arm to do it, I don't see that as roleplaying necessarily- it's more likely just system manipulation. Now, I admit I haven't been following YGAD in detail, but it seems like system manipulation is decidedly not the play experience you're trying to promote.

Hmm.... there's a lot of truth in that as well.

I guess the M/Fs stem from both the 'coolness' of the lego-like modification you can do to your characters - and some desire to get some Simulationist (I hope I am using that label correctly) satisfaction and a sense of difference from character to character (in more than just value, goal, and type of contact). Something to make characters a bit more tangible.

After all, if you take the approach that something like 'skill' or 'career' influences the amount of tiles you're allowed to draw for an action (i.e. increases the chance of succes), that opens the door straight away to other 'logical' real life things that would also influence that chance of success. Like, for instance, the characteristics represented by AD&D stats. Now, I didn't (and still don't) want AD&D stats, because I think a crude description of 'weak', 'normal' and 'strong' will keep the game from overly focussing on numerical values.

But M/F could all go, and be replaced by something like 'story-impacting backgrounds', instead. So, if you want to be strong, or one-armed, because you think that's cool, fine, you are. But if you want to be strong and that MEANS something (where the reason it means something would have to be defined somewhere, I guess), then it'd have to be 'purchased' on the character sheet.

I'm not sure I'm articulating this correctly, but that's also due to YGAD not getting crunched into a more coherent core yet. I don't want to propose M/Fs with just a different sauce slathered upon them.

I'll really just have to buckle down and tie things together soon, before this thing grows over my head... but I can leave M/F out of them in the first compile.

I don't know that you want to leave out the whole business - that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My primary objection with merits and flaws is the idea that they need to be balanced somehow. You can provide a mechanism to distinguish characters without adhering to the merit/flaw concept. Which is what I meant when I said you could do something else.

One idea is to just lose the flaws and keep a list of merits that the players can choose from. Or keep the flaws but make the players pay for them in the same way they pay for merits. Just some quick thoughts.

Anyway, hopefully I'm not scrambling your brain too much. :) I strongly encourage that buckling down you mention. If nothing else, you need an outline for how the game text will be organized and what the text will include.

Hiya,

I guess what I'm not seeing is what system consequences are involved. Right now all I'm dealing with is the image of a character sheet with all this descriptive stuff scribbled on it.

If you really want positive and negative consequences for recorded features of the character, what are they going to be, in play?

Best,
Ron

Ethan and Ron - Thanks for those responses. Let me get to the 'buckling down' phase.

I will mention a few things though:

- I don't believe Merits/Flaws have to be balanced (between themselves). I do, however, believe that their net result (for instance, more (powerful) merits than flaws) needs to be compensated some way, to give players a sense of fairness (and also, in the case of YGAD and it's focus on humanistic issues) and 'created equal'. (Although people aren't created equal in real life, anyway. It's more that they're created with equal 'inalienable' (really?) rights. So I don't need to adhere THAT strongly, I just realised.)

- scrambling my brain is good - it makes me focus on the important things. Do I really want to create ANOTHER basic FRPG? Or do I want to create something a bit more extreme, different, focused? I can always water down the system if I'm playing with people who don't fully dig the setting.

- the merits and flaws I had in mind originally were fairly simple mechanical additions. Like 'strong' would give you additional tiles to draw (for those who haven't read YGAD: equivalent to increasing the chance for more successes) OR give you an automatic success on certain strength-related tasks. Blind would give you a penalty (or make it impossible) on sight-related tests. And some merits and flaws at the 'core' of the system, which would give players options they normally wouldn't have (buy contact by spending karma, 'contagious' contact, wild contact)

Real-life issues force me to stop posting. :)

Let me try to get the buckling down done over the weekend. At least the second play session will also have happened - more food for thought.

Thanks again!

ethan_greer wrote: Personally, I would train my shotgun on the whole merit/flaw idea. Lose it and do something else.

Why?

Because, as you yourself point out, merit/flaw systems are nothing new, and nothing special.

And because, in my experience, merit/flaw systems don't actually encourage roleplaying. Simply put, if someone wants to play a character with one arm, they will. On the other hand, if someone wants to eek out a few more points for this and such and is willing to give up an arm to do it, I don't see that as roleplaying necessarily- it's more likely just system manipulation.

You might try grouping them in logical sets. I guess the idea I'm putting out is that every Merit would have a Flaw of less consequence, but a lot of them together might cause some serious problems. For instance, Great Strength may come with Bad Temper, which would surely give your young fire godling the ferocity to take out demons and villains, but would make it more difficult to interact with the normals. This seems like a reasonable consequence: as the player characters achieve abilities that are more and more god-like, they lose touch with humanity.

This is reasonable in even our society with mere celebrities, let alone those who are truly exceptionally abled.

This is an interesting discussion, and one I'll be following closely.

And I'll throw some thoughts in to season the stew as long as I'm here.

I've always liked the idea of merits and flaws and have planned to include them in my own game, and this discussion has made me question why I like them. And what elements of them I like. Interestingly, I've decided it's the flaws I like the most. And generally the flaws are my favorite part of the character.

Now why on earth would that be?
The answer I've come up with is that for me they provide flavor to the character. I used to play Champions (which is where I owe my first exposure to merits and flaws) and whenever I made a character, the first section of the book I would turn to was the flaws. They made my characters. Strong character, fast character, skilled character, whatever... didn't define the character for me. That was too broad a concept, it was just stats. Just what the character could do rather than who he was. I wanted to start with the person, and then decide what it made sense for that person to do. The flaws (and merits too, though to a lesser extent) helped me do that. They stimulated my imagination and encouraged me to create a more "whole" character. They made me look at the character as a person other than just a hero, question why he would be a hero at all, think about what events in his life made him the person he is.

But then I was never a min/maxer power gamer either so it might not be a system that would encourage the same thing in everyone. Which raises the question... what sort of system would encourage that same thing in everyone? What could be done with the system that would make a person create a character in that way? (Besides just telling the players to do so)

What could duplicate the "encouraging creativity" aspect of merits and flaws, while eliminating the downsides?

Are there any games that have a system (as opposed to simply written instructions) that works well for that sort of creative character design? If so, those might be a good place to look for possible answers to the merits and flaws dilemma.

Some games have randomized flaws. I can't think of specific ones off the top of my head, but I've seen ones where you roll against a chart of "quirks" that give you some odd foible for your character, or similar things that I assume are intended to trigger that creativity effect. Unfortunately that really doesn't work as it's too easy to end up with a flaw you're unwilling to play, or unable to mesh with the concept of the character. So that's probably not a good way to do it.

Anyway... some food for thought.

I have not yet read the details of your system, but I believe you have to draw coloured tokens from a bag, where a certain colour means a success. Perhaps, if you like to have 'merits' and 'flaws' with roleplaying potential, you could do something akin to The Pool? Make people write down some trait ('merits', 'flaws', who cares) and have them distribute a few points among them Whenever they draw from the bag in a situation in which that trait is relevant and has been roleplayed as such, they get to draw an additional number of tokens depending on the number of points they've put into the trait. So I could take "black magic +1" or "one-armed +2", and have a bonus any time I brought it into play. But this system probably works best if the reward for success is narrative power, and as I haven't read YGAD yet I'm not sure if that's the case.


You wrote - this is going off-topic, excuse me: "Although people aren't created equal in real life, anyway. It's more that they're created with equal 'inalienable' (really?) rights."

Inalienable rights are a fiction, an incredibly useful rhetorical device which ought to be applauded; it is also a case of an undefendable philosophical position. So: no, not really, but don't let the word get out.


Madelf wrote: "Some games have randomized flaws. I can't think of specific ones off the top of my head, but I've seen ones where you roll against a chart of "quirks" that give you some odd foible for your character, or similar things that I assume are intended to trigger that creativity effect."

One of them is Wuthering Heights, which also shows the kind of game in which such a system can work. I wouldn't recommend it for general use, no.

From the playtest version of YGAD:

Drawing
You draw a number of tiles equal to 5, plus the amount of careers and hobbies that support the action you want to take. Eugene, for instance, would draw 8 or 9 tiles for acrobatics or riding-related actions, 6 tiles for lockpicking, 6 or 7 tiles for swordfighting, and maybe even a whopping 10 tiles for knife-throwing, if that was his specialty for all of his careers (as well as it is his hobby). Some birth benefits and hindrances may also add or reduce the number of tiles drawn.

Wow. Take a day off (zoo, beach, friends, sister) and things really start happening.

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

Tomorrow (between motorcycle lessons and a party) is 'buckling-down' day. I'll hopefully be able to show everyone what the result is.

I've been trying to tie the central concepts from the charsheet (Value, Goal, Careers, Contact) more to the central premise and to the Bag. It occurs to me that the careers are at the one hand neccesary for the basic feel I want, but on the other hand tie into the Role a character is choosing to play in society as well (capitalized because it might become a descriptor on the character sheet).

I thought of what Victor mentioned as well - why not just have something as a descriptor, which, when relevant for the situation and used appropriately in the intended action description, gives you a bonus tile to draw? Well, one reason is that there would be no 'flaws' any more - which seems a shame, in a simmish way, but might promote more interesting narration.

Lots of people have tuned in to YGAD by now - for which I'd like to thank all of you. Now it's up to me get that next step out there. Thanks for the pressure - let's see what my brain does with it.

Well, life didn't fully co-operate this weekend (at least, as far as YGAD-design goes). Did get a second session in (will be in Actual Play in a few moments), but only got one hour to think about mechanics.

On the Merits and Flaws thing, I've decided to incorporate something like them as follows:

1. Every character may have a number of 'descriptors' equal to 2+X, where X is the number of careers. (This replaces Birth and Life M/F).

2. Every descriptor is an outspoken element of the character. This may be Strong, one-armed, agoraphobic, whatever.

3. Every descriptor can be used both for good and for bad by the character. If the character incorporates a description of why, in the current action, the descriptor is a relevant aid, he gets one bonus tile to draw (shoving someone around for strong, getting sympathy while begging for one-armed). If he describes the descriptor as a hindrance, he gets minus one tile to draw, but gets automatic narration rights over the outcome of the action (still bound by the number of successes).

4. Every descriptor may also be used by the storykeeper in actions by opposing NPCs. This may also modify the amount of tiles opponents draw.

This will hopefully make every descriptor a double-edged sword. Positive descriptors will often aid the character (but not always), negative descriptors will give the player narration power a bit more.

edit: and I will have to think of a more catchy name than 'descriptor'.

Tobias wrote:
edit: and I will have to think of a more catchy name than 'descriptor'.

There's another reason for you... but thanks for mentioning it. Does Story Engine have some of the same mechanics behind the word as well (you imply as much, but there may yet be differences).

I'm amused by the amount of parallels I encounter in other games that are designed (or referenced) around here. A matter of trying to describe elements that are missing from the popular games, or a matter of common heritage causing similar solutions? (In other words, are we inspired by something that's lacking, or by things we've encountered?)

I'm curious about the interaction between the player choosing to use a descriptor, and a player. Who declares first? If a fight's coming up, and both the player and the GM were thinking of using the character's "strongarm," which way does it go? Does the player draw an extra tile, or does his opponent draw one tile fewer (since the GM calling on a descriptor can only affect the tiles enemies draw)? Also, what happens if the GM was thinking of using a trait in a negative way, to give an enemy extra tiles ("you're 'strong but slow' trait allows the little imp to run between your legs and attack you...") but the player also wants to use it, but for a positive purpose ("My 'strong but slow' allows me to pummel the enemy really hard")? In this case, I guess you could just allow an extra tile for each party, but there are various other combinations you might need to consider.

Jasper,

Good point - this is obviously an area that needs to be fleshed out. I'm leaning to the 'award both of them a bonus' in that case, since then the desciptor will feel more present.

What could be even more interesting is: what if the player declares it as a negative, and so does the GM?

A nice clean set of rules is needed here.

Tobias wrote: Does Story Engine have some of the same mechanics behind the word as well (you imply as much, but there may yet be differences).