Hi! This is an interesting site you have created (and this is my first post here, so if it needs to be moved to another forum, please feel free to do so). I assume that I may post questions here which are not related to an Indie Rpg?

The situation: I'm playing (actually, GMing) Gurps for some years now. To anticipate the question, I'm quite happy with the system. To anticipate the next question, I have already read all the Articles, the Provisional Glossary  and most of the threads belonging to the "Infamous Five". I think I have understood some of them, too. (As an aside: We are, according to Forge terminology, pretty strong Simulationists. I'm aware that what I'm about to describe smells somewhat like Narrativism. Or maybe not.)

In a few weeks I will start a new campaign, probably in a futuristic setting (somewhat dystopian, dark, whatever). I intend to let the players design their character background, after which I do the character, after which we modify the character until we are all happy.

So far, so good.

Here, now, comes the point: I want to have the characters undergo a development. I do not speak of a point-wise/mechanical development here (that is very much a given), but more of the "meets his dark fate", "discovers true love", "finds happiness" "destroys himself through his depravity" kind of development. Rules-wise, this can be done with the "Destiny" advantage (or disadvantage, respectively).

The problem is this: If the player chooses a dark destiny ("will doom himself to despair"), this gives points back. If the player chooses a bright destiny, it's an advantage costing points. Fine. But the rules give me no advice how to implement this destiny. Sure, I can give the player a character point reward if he drives himself to the pit. But I have the nagging suspicion that this will not be enough to make him want to meet his fate. I want the player to actively try to bring this negative end to happen. How do I encourage such behaviour? I'm sure my players will like the idea, but simply telling them (Be so good and try to meet your fate, buddies) will not be enough to keep this goal in the front of their mind.
Even more difficult, what do I do in the case of a bright destiny? With effort, everyone can doom himself. But how to achieve, for example, true love? How to try to do it? I can think of only somewhat obvious approaches ("You meet a girl. It's love on the first sight. Destiny fulfilled.").

So, to the point: how to I encourage players to try to achieve their destiny? How do I reward them in order to do so?

Another point on a related note: I want to introduce moral dilemma. This should ideally help along this destiny idea, but would be interesting in itself. Now, how to do it? Sure, set up a morally difficult choice. But how?

Hopefully, you have some ideas how to adress these issues. Thanks a lot for your input.

You spoke of taking it for granted that the characters will have point-wise/mechanical development. Is that through something like experience points? Could you award extra experience points whenever a character moves closer to his destiny? Or only whenever a character moves closer to his destiny?

hi, Tobias, welcome to the Forge!

I don't have my basic book handy, so I looked up Wyrd in the GURPS Vikings book, which as I recall was the first attempt at a Destiny implimentation in GURPS. I don't recall how similar Destiny was to Wyrd, but I'm seeing the same thing in Wyrd that you're seeing: it's not designed to drive a story and doesn't give much suggestion on how to impliment it, other than as a message from the player to the GM that this is what the player wants to happen.

what I'm thinking is that, if all the players must have a plan for develoopment, you should impliment it a little differently. instead of Destiny, use modified Luck. apply limitations (like you would to a superpower) to indicate that it only applies to specific circumstances.

what happens is this: when a player is making a die roll that can lead closer to the PC's fate, the player is allowed a reroll (for a postive fate.) for a dark fate, the PC gets the reroll when the results would lead away from the dark fate.

so, if your fate is to find your one true love, combat rolls and the like would be treated as normal, but reaction rolls and social skills in romantic situations get X number of rerolls per session. if your fate is to die at the hands of your best friend, you would get rerolls in any potentially fatal situation that would NOT involve dying at the hands of your best friend.

the percentage discount from the limitation would be based on how common the reroll situation would be. "I will die at the hands of my best friend" would cause a *lot* of rerolls in combat situations, so it would be close to full value; "I will marry a vagabond who turns out to be nobility" might affect far fewer situations, so it would get more of a discount.

Hi Tobias,

Welcome to the Forge.

Adam and John have made some good suggestions.  Mine is to bring the players on-board from the start.  Explain the idea in full before characer creation begins and ask each player to activily work their character toward their destiny.  Between each game session you can ask each what might happen to their character that would move them toward their fate.  If you can actually put situations they suggest into play, the players may be happy to face their fate.

TobiasG wrote:
I want to have the characters undergo a development.... of the "meets his dark fate", "discovers true love", "finds happiness" "destroys himself through his depravity" kind of development.

You could play portions of the character's life out of order. A classic example is that the first Conan story shows a mature man ruling a kingdom. The stories written later occur in different periods of his life. In a simpler form, you could play out the destiny story and jump back to an earlier point and play sequentially from there. I think it'd be important to leave enough questions open when doing that. The Darth Vader story in Star Wars could be used as an example.

The 3rd edition text tells the GM to secretly decide the destiny to prevent the character from knowing it. Strange.

John

Tobias,
I'd recommend chucking the points for the dark/bright destiny. The idea of a disad is that it does something that hinders the player, whereas it is central to the style of play you have in mind that the player wants the destiny for the character. So, dark or otherwise, these destinies are no disads. You could charge everybody the same amount for their destiny, of course, except that seems useless book keeping to me.

The moral dilemma needs two ingredients. It needs to relate to the character in order to fit into the SIS and it needs to relate to the player to have impact. A moral dilemma that doesn't take the characters into account will fit in like coal pile in a ball room and a dilemma that doesn't engage the player will be dud. Maybe a beautifully crafted, magnificently customized for the character kind of dud, but a dud.

So there's lots of advice on creating dilemmas out of characters (for example What the heck is a bang???), but you're the only one who can gauge whether the dilemma will be important to the player. You can make that judgement by talking things through with the player, by your knowledge of the player, or by making many dilemmas and just waiting until you see eyes light up and you know you've scored.

SR
--

Hey TobiasG,

SIS = Shared Imagined Space, which is the environment you and your buddies communicate to create in play.  It includes stuff like character and setting.  Shout if the jargon gets too thick!

--Jason

Thank you for the input so far!

First, character development will occur via character points (Experience points, whatever). Only to award them in case of got-closer-to-Destiny will start a riot. That such progress will earn bonus points needs not to be mentioned :)

Second, I really like the idea of using luck to bring the Destiny along. I will definitely use this.

Third, I shudder at the thougfht of chucking points for the whole thing. If I know for sure that my character will die alone, friendless and abandoned, then I'm surely entitled to some character points to make up for it. This is true even if choose my fate. If I choose a disad like Stupid or Ugly, I want to be that way too...

Fourth, I think that this Destiny is (almost) unavoidable, set in stone, approved by God. The player has the possibility to choose and modify during character creation. That has to be enough :)

Then, to play sequentially is a nice idea - but it conflicts with my plan of creating a campaign complete with story arc and tension. btw, as I said, I will let the player choose his fate and ignore what the rules say in this regard (4E continues the practice of 3E and leaves the details to the GM).

Finally, I will have to discuss this with the players.

Thank you so far, you have been most helpful!

TobiasG wrote: That such progress will earn bonus points needs not to be mentioned

I think Tobias means "it goes without saying", not "I won't tell the players that". I hope that's the case, anyway.

I can see sticking with the advantage/disadvantage model of Gurps, but it's worth noting that it works orthagonally to what you're trying to do here. There are a number of systems where a disadvantage has to be purchased with points, since there's a very real benefit to being able to say something like "My Dark Fate will influence play".

What you're looking at here is "Points as measure of game balance" versus "Points as currency to influence the direction of play". One interesting side-effect is that you're likely to have more players take something like Dark Fate, since it intially rewards you points *and* continues to do so through bonus XP. (On the other hand, taking an advantage that rewards bonus XP is a pretty good deal, too, since after a few sessions it's paid for itself.)

Just keep in mind that you're going to have two reward mechanisms that may pull in different directions, and that there's some interesting interactions between them. That, and from my experience, unless you really push this particular element of play, it'll get mostly ignored by players in favor of the traditional reward mechanism they're familiar with.

Andrew wrote:
I think Tobias means "it goes without saying", not "I won't tell the players that". I hope that's the case, anyway.

What you're looking at here is "Points as measure of game balance" versus "Points as currency to influence the direction of play". (...)
Just keep in mind that you're going to have two reward mechanisms that may pull in different directions, and that there's some interesting interactions between them.