As we wrestled with mechanics a while back, people were thinking one place in an other non-random system to use dice might be to represent human free will. Doug Ruff has taken this idea, cross-pollinated it with another idea being thrashed on concurrently on the Forge (let 100 flowers bloom!), and come up with the following concept:

Doug Ruff wrote: I would note that this was signifantly "inspired" by Vesirus's put my system through the ringer! thread, so I think that this should be acknowledged up front.

This mechanic, so far, only covers the "conflict against self" part of our previous conflict model. In other words, it doesn't include a skills system.

Ever seen those "decision dice", which is usually a 6-sider with a different phrase on each side? It works a bit like that.

Basic model: Each Host has 6 personality traits. Each traits represents a different facet of their behaviour and or feelings. The first trait (no. 1) is their core personality. Draft these in the first person.

For example:

1 - My core personality
2 - I prefer to follow the rules than break them
3 - I believe in being nice to people...
4 - ...Unless they are really pissing me off
5 - I love my girlfriend
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Now, if an unpossessed Host needed to make an important decision, roll the die, and look up the relevant statement.

Does this statement suggest a course of action? If so, the Host takes it. If not, look at the statement fro the next lowest number.

For example, my girfriend asks me to beat up her ex, because he's been pestering her.

If I roll a 4 or 6, I'm going to punch his lights out. If it's a 2,3 or 5, I'm going to refuse.

Example 2, someone asks me for some phone change. If I roll a 4, and they aren't being annoying, then the phrase isn't relevant. So I look up phrase 3 instead ("I believe in being nice to people") and I give them the money.

What about 1s? If I roll a 1, or I get to 1 because other statements don't apply, then I get to choose my response, and add a statement to my core personality. So, over time, I will develop new behaviours.

Possession: In order to possess a Host, the Archivist has to displace one or more of the Host's personality traits.

They can choose which one, BUT displacing the core personality also suppresses the Host's consciousness.

So, say the example character is possessed by an Archivist who needs him to be a bit meaner. The Archivist chooses to displace slots 2 and 3. So:

1 - Core personality
2 - Archivist
3 - Archivist
4 - ... unless they are pissing me off (ie, I won't be nice to people who annoy me)
5 - I love my girlfriend
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Now, if the Host needs to make a decision in future, any rolls of 2 or 3 mean that the Archivist gets to make the decision, instead of the Host. On a 4, 5 or 6, the Archivist may get to make the decision, but only if the Host's own traits don't "fire". On a 1, the Host is in control.

Archivists may choose to possess more traits, or to un-possess traits (the Host Trait comes back into play), but they cannot do this in response to a die roll.

Fade and Burn:

I would like the risk of Fade to be proportionate to the amount of Possession, so - if the die roll matches a slot occupied by the Archivist, then they risk Fading. I think that one neat way of handling this would be to say that if the Archivist decides to act in a way which is consistent with any of the Host's personality traits, they take Fade. If they act in a way which is consistent with one of the traits they have displaced, then they take double Fade.

Archivists do not risk Fade if they get to make the decision "by default", ie if the initial roll matched a Host trait, but this wasn't relevant.

Archivists can decide to Burn a Host trait at any time. This is a permanent injury to the Host's personality. They may also choose to do this in response to a die roll. A Burned Trait automatically contributes nothing to a decision, so it is passed over.

For example, using the previously possessed character. The Archivist wants the Host to steal his girlfriend's car.

The character rolls a 6. Assuming their is not physical confrontation, the trait that wil take effect is number 5 ("I love my girlfriend") so the Host won't do it. The Archivist decides to Burn this Trait, so it no longer applies. Assuming Trait 4 ("...unless they are pissing me off") isn't relevant, the decision passes to Trait 3, which is the Archivist. The Host will steal the car, but they no longer love their girlfriend. The character sheet now looks like this:

1 - Core personality
2 - Archivist
3 - Archivist
4 - ... unless they are pissing me off (ie, I won't be nice to people who annoy me)
5 - BURNED
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Special rule: Burning a Host's core personality kills the Host

Embellishments:

I would like players to be able to creatively interpret each of the personality traits, or to add refinements to them during play. For example, "I don't like physical confrontation... but I will stand up for someone weaker than myself". However, I don't yet have a mechanic for this.

I think that Host decisions should not be made by the player of the Archivist who is possessing them; this makes it more likely that Archivists will have to possess or Burn more traits. It also emphasises the "multiple personality" aspect of the game.

I had also considered having different personality tables for "Public Self", "Private Self" and "Subconscious Self" but this may be a bit too much.

So, here's the bones of a possession mechanic for the game - anyone want to add some meat to it?

Suggestion: Archivist as mentor/benafactor?
IE "I don't like physical confrontation..." is involved in a situation with the Host, an Archivist who cannot stand brutality, and some guys beating the bejeezus out of someone.
Some way the Archivist can transfer a portion of themselves into the host, not replacing as in the possession but augmenting and taking an amount of fade for that. Thus, the Archivist, not wanting to take overt action or burn the host further but cannot stand by and see this happen fades himself less than a possession, but enough to impact him/her, and the Host gains "...but will defend those weaker than myself."

daMoose_Neo wrote: Suggestion: Archivist as mentor/benafactor?
IE "I don't like physical confrontation..." is involved in a situation with the Host, an Archivist who cannot stand brutality, and some guys beating the bejeezus out of someone.
Some way the Archivist can transfer a portion of themselves into the host, not replacing as in the possession but augmenting and taking an amount of fade for that. Thus, the Archivist, not wanting to take overt action or burn the host further but cannot stand by and see this happen fades himself less than a possession, but enough to impact him/her, and the Host gains "...but will defend those weaker than myself."

Doug,

It's a nice mechanism.

Two questions though:

- where do the 'hard choices' come in?
- what do you DO, now that you've posessed the host (i.e. in what context do you use this roll? with what aim?)

Good work, though. I hope somethings crystallises out this week on my end, but this thing's a creative monster for me. :)

I'll add another question:

Doug wrote: I want the players who are not possessing the Host to be able to add "embellishments" to the Host. This allows for a few (possibly nasty) surprises, and represents the Archivist not knowing everything about the Host's personality, just by observing them.

Tobias wrote: - where do the 'hard choices' come in?

Tobias wrote: - what do you DO, now that you've posessed the host (i.e. in what context do you use this roll? with what aim?)

hix wrote: I may have missed something, but is there an incentive for other players to add those surprises?

Not to divert attention from the other active thread, but there's one point about Doug's system I really liked that I wanted to mention: The same character can have completely contradictory traits and it's okay, because the die roll and the 6-category prioritization system determines which is in effect at a given time. Which is cool, because real people are self-contradictory.

Now, in order to flesh out characters fully, especially if everyone around the table is adding neat details in play, you probably need more than six slots, which means probably 10-sided dice. But that's a detail.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Now, in order to flesh out characters fully, especially if everyone around the table is adding neat details in play, you probably need more than six slots, which means probably 10-sided dice. But that's a detail.

Doug Ruff wrote:
Within the mechanic, the hard choice is about how much control to exert over your Host. The more control you have, the more slots you occupy - this means that you will either incur Fade (by acting consistently with the Host's own character) or you will have to make the Host act in a way which is inconsistent with his/her beliefs.

By itself, that doesn't appear too tough. The key is to engineer those tough choices in play - if the Archivist needs the Host to steal from his employer, or beat his wife, or kill his father, then it becomes a different story.

Doug wrote: You change History. The only other reason for possessing a Host would be relive History vicariously, and I want the players to be making things happen instead.

So the Archivists are going to need a reason to change History. That's a no-brainer, but I don't think it's part of the possession mechanic. That's more appropriate for Pillars and Passions, or the other thread I asked Sydney to kick off for me.