Hi!
  I need to come up with a new mechanic and I am drawing a blank. MAybe you guys can help?
  What my game is about, at its core is breaking stereotypes. That is really my goal. If somehow I could get my message across without beating people over the head, that would be a dream come true. It is also about Sword and Sorcery Fantasy Roleplaying. It is also about mysteries of the universe and being a hero, even when there is nothing in it for you.
  I was thikning about adding Destiny, but I could not come up with a Mechanic that did not simulate/replace Luck.
  Also, I thought about adding a Common Sense Mechanic, but nothing I came up with felt right.
  I don't need a combat, luck, magic or special ability mechanic, this should be more about who the character is, not so much what they do (although something like that might not hurt if it was done right).
  Any brainstorming or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi again!

Nice. If you are prepared to consider any alternative to find the system that accomplishes what you really want, think about how is the playing experience you want to obtain and try to further develop your answers to the famous three questions:

1. What is the game about?
2. What do the characters do?
3. What do the players do?

Have a look at the thread Troy's Standard Rant #1 to fully understand them. Specifically I think you have not yet develop the third one.

The question is: How is the playing experience going to be? What are the players of your game going to do to enjoy?

I will try to give you some clues and examples about things you may consider:
Is one of the players going to be a Master in the classical sense, having more authority than the others?
What are the others going to do to enjoy? Just talk to say what are their characters doing, the Master deciding from the description when something should be solved, and which stats of the characters are involved? Or something different, where the players decide what are the stats which they want to use, and this determines how the conflict is going to be solved?
Do you want to have some kind of resources (chips, tokens, points) which players may/should spent to boost their actions (perhaps luck or somethink more elaborated)? Should the players take tactical decisions about where/when to spend them, or should they use them constantly to boost any kind of actions? What of the two things will be more enjoyable for your players?
Are the resources going to represent something in the imagined world, or are they just a meta-game mechanic?
How are the resources obtained? Is someone judging it (the Master)? Perhaps by the group, voting to the player/s who were producing more fun, or those who best fulfil the group agenda whatever it is? Or maybe objectively determined by the rules or system?

There are many more options for you to create your game. Try to imagine an actual play of your game. Try to imagine what you and your players are going to enjoy more. Combat sequences? Social interaction? Pressing the characters to take difficult decisions about their motivations and feelings? They are very different goals which deserve very different mechanics. Where do you think luck (dice rolling) is going to help to create tension? etc.

About destiny and this type of stuff, there are some games which address this topic. You may read the free version of The Shadow of Yesterday. It is a short read and it may give you many new ideas. Check carefully how the experience is obtained through Keys, Secrets, and Fates.

I hope this helps you.
Cheers,
Arturo

At the end of every session, each player secretly writes down the name of the player that they think did best in that session.  For every vote, that player recieves a "Destiny Point." 

What do these points do?

The player with the most points doesn't have to chip in for pizza/drinks next time.

Points accumulate over sessions.

Check out the new Warhammer rpg for one take on the luck/destiny issue: in that game the character's Destiny points can be used to avoid death, while luck points just allow rerolls. Thing is, luck refreshes to the Destiny value now and then. The end result is that destiny and luck are really just different sides of the same coin, not different at all.

Hi!
  Well, everything else I have going on is pretty stat heavy, was trying to come up with a more story-driven mechanic. There already is a Luck stat and it works the way I want it to. Even starting characters are fairly competent (they can even start out as a Master of their profession, just not superheroic level, which they never attain), so I don't think they will need much more of a luck mechanism.
  I was thinking about a possible Destiny mechanic, it provides no mechanical advantage/disadvantage. Instead, players use a Destiny Point to introduce a new character/subplot and regain Destiny Points by helping to advance the current story/adventure. Players will start out with a handful, usually 5 to 8, but anywhere from 2 to 10 points and when they are used, the Judge (aka GM) and players negotiate the details of the character/subplot, but the player spending the point gets veto power...

I feel like I'm turning into a Weapons of the Gods shill, but one minor facet of that game is that you can spend your Destiny to include things in the plot of the campaign. For instance, you can spend Destiny to force the GM to give you an opportunity to find one of the Weapons of the Gods, or spend Destiny to ensure that your hated enemy will be sent on the same quest that you are.

Maybe you could have something similar, where the players can spend Destiny to call for elements to be added into the next adventure.

Hullo,

dindenver wrote: What my game is about, at its core is breaking stereotypes. That is really my goal. If somehow I could get my message across without beating people over the head, that would be a dream come true.

Hi!
  The fantasy genre is full of stereotypes: dwarfs are drunk and greedy, elves are haughty, know-it-alls and sometimes they really do know it all. humans are average, Mages are reclusive, Priests can do everything almost as well as everyone else, but don't do anything well themselves, all orks are evil, the list goes on and on...
  I am hoping to introduce the idea that just because a stereotype is commonly accepted, does not mean it is true. But mostly, I want the players to have a good time playing my game. I am definitely giving this message a back seat, rather than being overly overt about it.
  You guys will keep my secret, right?  lol

dindenver wrote: What my game is about, at its core, is breaking stereotypes.... It is also about mysteries of the universe and being a hero, even when there is nothing in it for you.... I was thinking about adding Destiny, but I could not come up with a Mechanic that did not simulate/replace Luck.... I don't need a combat, luck, magic or special ability mechanic, this should be more about who the character is, not so much what they do (although something like that might not hurt if it was done right).

Sydney, this Shrek kind of game sounds really cool, and easy to implement. It may be done in a funny tone like the movie, or much more grim, focusing in the feelings of the characters when struggle with the social conventions.

Dave, is this the kind of thing you want to do?

Cheers,
Arturo

Hi!
  Why do you ask?
  It feels right. As a player I have always wanted to be able to impact the game world more directly. And when I GM, I have always wanted my players to be more invested in the plots I designed.
  What is on your mind Arturo? Did you have another suggestion?

No, it's OK Dave.
I didn't get that feeling reading your first post in this thread, and I didn't want to continue along this line, at least in this thread, if it was going to derail it.

And when I GM, I have always wanted my players to be more invested in the plots I designed.

A very good question from Arturo. I'd also add that there are some great techniques for designing "plots" with plenty of room for player control, choice, and creativity in
- Dogs in the Vineyard, with the specific six-step sequence of the "Town Creation" rules (which in turn are a derivative of the looser "relationship map" technique in Sorcerer's Soul);
- Legends of Alyria, where the whole group defines who the major characters in the story are going to be and how they are connected to each other and only then, as I undrestand it, choose who plays which character (another derivative of Sorcerer's r-maps);
- My Life With Master, where all the players, not just the GM, help create the evil "Master," and then the rules impose a fixed skeleton of a plot (the Master keeps making Minions do awful things, Minions try to reach out to ordinary people and get Love, eventually the Minions have enough Love to rebel) whose exact events are mostly up to the players;
- The Riddle of Steel, where the GM has all the traditional GM powers but is pretty much under orders to present plots that hit the "spiritual attributes" (Passions, Destinies, etc.) the players have chosen for themselves.

Some of these techniques are hard to borrow without borrowing the whole rest of the game, but a lot of them are emminently stealable.

Ah, you're really getting to the meat of things here, Dave.

As has already been suggested, I think the key here is to have the players choose stereotypes, then give them resources that they can do anything they want with. I think that's your Destiny, there.

So you have stereotypical descriptions — think of a bunch of pre-defined Traits for Dogs — then players spend Destiny to buy new Traits as they play, to define their characters as unique individuals.

Warriors get Strength and Brashness; Humans get Ruthlessness and Intelligence; Bards get Wits and Knowledge; Orcs get Brutality and Toughness....

Pick a race and a class.

Then, as characters mature, they wind up with Traits like "I hate acting unjustly," and "My songs suck." You wind up with Relationships that are specific and defy categorization.

This starts to sound like a fun game.

You can add some mechanics which imply that using the stereotype traits you keep normal social interaction. But, when you break the rules using the non-stereotype traits you get big bonuses for the non-social conflicts but  get worse social behaviour.

What about to have relationship traits (some with institutions, some with social groups, some with individuals) defining which are the expectations of each one about your behaviour? Do they like you to keep in your stereotype? Do they expect you to break the social rules? Which rules? Specific groups will like you to use specific non-stereotype traits. Main groups will hate you for doing that.
These traits would evolve depending on the character using or not the corresponding out-stereotype traits. The relationship traits should affect the resolution mechanics heavily or they will not become relevant and the game will not be centered about this.
As far as the decision to break or not the social rules is a player choice, and there exist a real balance between the benefits of breaking the rules and the social backdraws it will be fun.

Cheers,
Arturo

Hi!
  Those are great ideas, but doen;t quite fit my ideas. The stereotype mechanic is too overt. I was thinking of something like the following:
  When a player declares that they want to use a Destiny Point, that Player and the Judge need to talk about what they want to do. What needs to be understood:

• What is being added to the story (a character, an item, an event, subplot, etc.)?
• What is the urgency of the addition (does the element need to be added immediately, eventually, gradually)?
• What characters are affected (PCs, NPCs)?
• What characters are required for the addition (more relevant with subplots, but it is vital to consider)?
• When it will conclude.

  Other players should make suggestions, additions, comments as ideas occur to them. The player spending the point has veto power on any suggestions, and the Judge has final approval. Players want to be careful not to derail the current adventure and other players should be careful not to make suggestions that are too outlandish or subvert the original intention of the declaring players idea.
Example
  Eric, Nate, Cheryl and Pat are on an adventure in the Fisher Kingdom. They determine that they need to contact a criminal from this part of the country. Nate’s character is a Leshy, so he feels that his character would have a chance to know someone. He declares that he wants to spend a Destiny Point. He wants to come across an old family friend, Cheryl suggests that it could be an old girlfriend, Pat suggests that they have turned to a life of crime and Eric suggests that they are married. Nate is OK with the suggestions and the Judge approves.

  Whenever the Judge feels that a player or character has done something out of the ordinary to advance the current plot, they should award the player a Destiny Point immediately.
Example
  Later in the same adventure, Pat’s Warrior outsmarts an NPC and learns the location of the Bandit’s hideout. The Judge is impressed that the Warrior decided to use his brains instead of his brawn, so Pat’s character gets a Destiny Poiint.
  Do you think it needs a tweak?

dindenver wrote:
  Other players should make suggestions, additions, comments as ideas occur to them. The player spending the point has veto power on any suggestions, and the Judge has final approval. Players want to be careful not to derail the current adventure and other players should be careful not to make suggestions that are too outlandish or subvert the original intention of the declaring players idea.

Hi!
  Well, that is intended as a reminder. It is just possible that a player might come up with a good idea, but that that idea is not practical at this time. Do you have a suggestio n for better wording or mechanics?

Trust your players. All of you want to have a good playing experience. You can just negotiate it. If you explain clear reasons for something not being convenient or interesting most people will accept it. Don't discard it completely, just negotiate something reasonable in-between.

The problem with the veto is that it is very easy for the GM to cut the potential nice ideas of the other players because they don't fit with her preconceived idea of how is the imaginary world, or much worse, what is going to happend in HER world. Then, the players do not enjoy so much because they are not so actively participating as the GM is doing. Well, I'm afraid I'm assuming a Narrativist creative agenda... isn't it?

Cheers,
Arturo

If the GM has the final say, the GM has all the say. This rule, as you've written it, says, "The players get to guess what the GM wants, and if they're right, they get a goodie!"

Give the players a mechanic so you don't have to play "Who's sleeping with the GM?" (NB: you can still play this game if no one's sleeping with the GM. In fact, it might make the problem more pronounced.)

Make it so that Destiny can be spent within your stereotype — which you'll have to define, because they're your stereotypes — for cheap, but it's more expensive to spend it elsewhere. Then design your scenario creation system so that characters will want to be outside of stereotype. Make the princess players choose between being rescued or rescuing. Make the clerics decide between killing and healing. Make the humans decide between progress and environment.

... or some such. Personally, I like the idea of choosing a class with limited usefulness and piling on personal experience until the character's unrecognizable.

I like the idea of a Princess who has the trait "I no longer fear death."

dindenver wrote: The stereotype mechanic is too overt.

your example wrote:   Eric, Nate, Cheryl and Pat are on an adventure in the Fisher Kingdom. They determine that they need to contact a criminal from this part of the country. Nate’s character is a Leshy, so he feels that his character would have a chance to know someone. He declares that he wants to spend a Destiny Point. He wants to come across an old family friend, Cheryl suggests that it could be an old girlfriend, Pat suggests that they have turned to a life of crime and Eric suggests that they are married. Nate is OK with the suggestions and the Judge approves.

Hi!
  Clearly I need to re-write the rules. The Destiny mechanic is supposed allow the player to add something to their character that they neglected for whatever reason during charcter creation.
  Also, the Judge aka GM does not have veto power. Once a Destiny point is spent, something will heppen, they just have the ability to approve the whole addition or ask for a revision. While the player that spends the point has a "line item" veto to take or exclude suggestions from other players. The idea is that it IS an negotiation. Two players have key powers, and the rest are just helping if they have something to suggest. The spending player comes up with the original idea and potentially how it is implemented, the Judge just has a say because even if it's a good idea it may be redundant (the Judge was already adding something like that anywways), out of genre or otherwise unintentionally inappropriate.
  It seems like you all want to trust the players implicitely and not give the GM any say in the matter. Seems like we need to find a balance. Give each of the main participants an equal say...
  Any suggestoins how we can do that?

What you're suggesting means that the Judge has power over a vanishingly small number of items and details. If he doesn't like the player's input, he can simply make it irrelevant.

A simple answer: make the GM spend resources like everyone else to make the story go. His votes matter because he votes more. Make sure he's got enough to make things appropriately detailed and difficult.

The Shadow of Yesterday does this with its Bonus Dice and Keys mechanics, and Dogs in the Vineyard has a tightly prescribed role for the GM, whose resources are infinite but contextually related.

For a more radical, anarchosyndicalist approach, I recommend you check out Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes' Universalis and my two games, Under the Bed and the in-process Shock: Social Science Fiction. They all deal with the power dynamic between players by having no particular GM figure (though there are people doing the GM's jobs, don't worry).

Definitely check out some of those games. But even sticking within a traditional GM-player division:

dindenver wrote: It seems like you all want to trust the players implicitely and not give the GM any say in the matter.

dindenver wrote: The Destiny mechanic is supposed allow the player to add something to their character that they neglected for whatever reason during charcter creation.

My next plan, actually, is to have all character creation happen in play. I'm not sure what game it goes into, but I've got some ideas.

I mean, most of the time, the stuff you put on your character sheet is irrelevant to some degree. That means that, due to conflicting visions of play, some players have wasted their resources, blowing any idea of inter-character parity away.

Note that in the second ed. of Prime Time Adventures, the number of features your characters have is reduced from first ed. You just wound up with stuff that wasn't relevant!

It isn't a negotiation if you have to convince the GM to get your way. The GM holds all the power in that model. It isn't a negotiation if the GM has no power to overrule the player, ever, either. The player holds all the power in that model. There are disadvantages to both models.

If the GM has all the power, then all creative control is in the hands of one player. Certainly, players can contribute, but history shows that players will tend to take a back seat in creating setting and situation content and just let the GM do it. Or they'll eagerly try to introduce new stuff, "hit" some of the time and get the GM's approval and "miss" a lot of the time and get vetoed. The more they miss, they more they try passive-aggressively to guess what the GM wants. This stifles player creativity even when the GM doesn't mean to.

If the player has all the power, the GM has to trust the players to guide the story somewhere good. This will happen more often than you think -- if you give them the tools to do it. The danger is that a single player will do something whacky and the other players (and GM) won't like it. There are different ways to handle it: require unanimous vote, require majority vote, require a "second," spend resources instead of votes, or (the simplest) the other players just suck it up.

Think about an improv jazz band. You have a bunch of musicians doing their own thing. You've all agreed on a few things: key, time signature, maybe some specific transitions. The rest is up to the individuals. Each trusts one another to play nice. They take turns at solos. All this takes a lot of trust and communication -- eye contact, watching each other's fingers, relying on well known modes and themes, and so on. If the jazz guitarist starts blaring distorted Jimi Hendrix in the middle of Watermelon Man, the group is gonna get pissed. If he keeps doing it, maybe you don't invite him to the next gig. How do you validate his contribution to the music? A vote? Who is to say if it's good or bad?

Roleplaying is a lot like that, only there's usually time to talk things over before they happen. It's like the guitarist being able to say, "Hey, can I slip a bit of Foxy Lady into the middle of this jazz song? I think it'll be cool." And the rest of the band might go WTF? and give it a try, or they may say no way.

Make sense?

Hi!
  Adam gets it!
  I am not trying to give one player final say, I am giving two players final say.
  And no Sydney, I don't expect you to know every atomic-level detail of your charcter at char gen. But if another character is a long lost buddy, you'd think they would deserve a mention... The GM has volunteered to spend extra time on the campaign, they have at least as much invested as every other player at the table, let's trust them not to be a jerk as much as we trust the players to be creative and fun to play with, OK? And I'l re-write it so that this idea is somehow conveyed.
  I'll work on the wording and post again, til then, can anyone come up with a revised wording that they want to share?

I get it, but I'm not convinced that you do. =) I'm strongly implying that it's better to put the control in the hands of 3-4 players who have a stake in the game in the form of a character, than it is to put the control solely in the hands of a GM who doesn't have a character.

My game Verge gives the players tools to tell the GM what they want their stories to be about. They pick Enemies and Weaknesses that the GM uses to create adversity. Before the game starts, the players and GM collectively come up with a larger story around which they wrap their own stories during play. Does your game do anything like that?

Put a different way: In your game, how is Situation created?

Hi!
  Well, this is how I want the destiny mechanic to work. A player, who is not the GM, has a brilliant idea, they say they are going to spend a Destiny Point. From that point forward, something is going to happen that the GM did not originally intend. The player states their idea. other players suggest additions, deletions and modifications. The initial player with the idea combines them in a way that they feel is appropriate for their character and the story and the Judge approves it. The story moves in an altered way from that point on and everyone is happy.
  Pitfalls I want to avoid:
1 ) Player comes up with an idea that is not fun for the other players, not in genre or is otherwise a good idea at the wrong time. I know this shouldn't happen, but every once in a while, players come up with ideas that they think are cool that are clearly not.
2 ) Jerk GM domineers the players into using their points into doing what the GM was going to do anyways. I know this is rare, but sometimes a GM thinks they are saving the players from themselves.
3 ) Unwieldy system that is not worth implementing. If we can focus the system on producing the desired results without involving complex math or a bizarre voting scheme, that's wonderful. That's why it is supposed written as the spending player and the Judge must both approve. If there is an unusal number/mix of players that makes unanimous, majority or other voting scheme impossible, then we have to write more riules to compensate, etc...
  I am still swishing the re-write around in my brain, any suggestions?

dindenver wrote: ....something is going to happen that the GM did not originally intend.

Hi!
  Of course the characters should be doing stuff that is unexpected and contributing to the story. But this is contributing to something outside the scope of the current plot.
  Let's try not to focus on the old wording. The difference I am trying to make would be without Destiny a character would have to find a seedy bar, hit up the barkeep and find and persuade the contact into their confidence. As opposed to running across an old friend who just happens to have all the right answers.
  I think both modes of pay are fun and rewarding, and if the destiny system is written correctly, then it will encourage this style of play, no?

dindenver wrote: But this is contributing to something outside the scope of the current plot.