Here's something that came up on this thread .

Context: In my game Timestream, characters explicity identify their Goals and the Obstacles that stand in the way of them. In a kind of reversal of SAs as I understand them, whenever pursuing a Goal, you get slapped with the negative rating of the Obstacle.

Now, the way I see it, I'm just taking something that's present in all, or at least the vast majority, of RPGs (namely, individual goals that the characters pursue), and codifying them into the system. I've also gotten multiple comments that there doesn't seem to be any reason for characters to be together.

So I have two options.

1. My game is broken in this regard, and I need to fix it. This may be the case, but I'm also interested in pursuing...

2. The codification of goals in the game brings the awareness of them to the surface. In most open-ended games, it's up to the players (including the GM) to find a reason for the group to be together, and its up to the players to play out their characters goals in the context of group action. Just by codifying goals, does my game become different in this regard? Or is it that people see "oh, individual goals have a lot of attention paid to them. i guess that means that standard-behavior group goals aren't important".

I guess the bigger question here is, by taking some part of assumed RPing behavior and building a system around it, are you obligated to build a system around every aspect of that behavior?

I think, perhaps, I've got your system all screwed up. The way I'm reading it, if you have a Goal, every time you are rolling in relation to the achieving of that Goal, you get a penalty as proscribed by the Goal's Obstacle? Buh. No point in having Goals then...

Should I be reading that incorrectly, the easiest way to make Goals work is to make them work Together. I am going to assume, for the sake of conversation, that a Goal is a purchased trait. If you choose to, you may purchase a Goal, and for having that Goal, you get a bonus to rolls made in relation to achieving it. However, all Goals have Obstacles; whenever you are faced with the Obstacle to your Goal, you suffer a penalty equal to the benefit gained from the Goal.

So let's assume that a Goal is worth a +3bonus to all Goal-related rolls. If you are attempting to achieve your goal, you get a +3 Yay! Whenever you are faced with the Goal's Obstacle, however, you are also faced with a -1 penalty.

So what would be the benefits of having goals in common with the group? Either increased bonuses, or decreased penalties.

Let's say that Bob has the "Free Victoria" goal. Whenever he is attempting to free his sister Victoria, he gets a +3 bonus to his rolls. His Obstacle, however, is "Protect Little Brother Marty." Whenever he has to protect his little brother, rather than free Victoria, he is at a -3 penalty.

John, Vickie's boyfriend, also has the "Free Victoria" goal. Whenever he is attempting to free his girlfriend Victoria, he gets a +3 bonus to his rolls. His Obstacle, however, is "The Other Woman, Barb." Whenever he is faced with Barb and her wiley ways, he is at a -3 penalty.

When Bob and John are together, they have a goal in common. There is support there, knowing that they both want the same things, even if sometimes other things stand in their way. Whenever Bob and John are together, then, and working towards the "Free Victoria" goal, they both get a +4 to their rolls, rather than a +3. They are also less likely to suffer from those things that take them away from that goal; with the emotional support gained from their comrades, they are at a -2 to all of their rolls when Protecting Morty or facing Barb.

They have a goal in common, so they are hanging out together. They have a goal in common because the rules make it appealing to do so.

Just an idea,
~Kris
"The man with the 'Publish a Role-playing Game' Goal, and the 'Lazy' Obstacle..."

For the details on Goals and such, you can check out the draft , specifically pages 9 and 14. The question that I think is more theory-ish, as opposed to design-ish, is this:

by taking some part of assumed RPing behavior and building a system around it, are you obligated to build a system around every aspect of that behavior?

Well, as we are still in the state of defining the art, utilizing a rules set for each part of role-playing behavior would be rather difficult, but we are still doing it. Dramatic Editing is one of the most immediate examples I can think of. My group had been utilizing a no-rules dramatic editing system for years before we ever saw rules built around it.

As behaviors crop up, and they will, we will probably try to formalize those behaviors in the format of rules. This is due to the exact same instinct that makes us name everything we see. We need to formalize things in order to make them fit in our nice, neat versions of reality.

~Kris
"Evil genious."