Hello All,

It was inevitable that visiting here looking for indie games would inspire me to try creating my own.

I started brainstorming ideas and came up with one I really liked for the character creation process. In short, the players create their characters with points, and the points are derived from a background written for their characters (eg Tragic death of parents gains the player 5 points; Spouse waiting at home for hero gains 2 points; and so on). In theory, the players gain X number of points with which to build their character. X = whatever is appropriate for the game.

Additionally, experience would be gained through play, not by doing things, but by staying true to the character (Maintained secret identity gains 1 point, for example), but the character can also lose experience by breaking with the established background (Some established as brave, acts cowardly, loses the hero 1 point). In this way, it allows characters to both grow, remain stagnant, or even devolve.

I'm concerned that a rule-abusing player could create an epic, rambling background that incorporates everything and end up with twice or three times as many points as other players. This leads to a sense that I may need to cap either a) the length of background permitted (one paragraph? one page?), or b) the total number of points to be gained regardless of background length.

I'm trying to put mechanics behind the narration, and I don't like the idea of limiting the players in this portion of character creation, but I also want to avoid abuse. Do limits inhibit narrative play?

Has something like this already been tried and how well did it work? Does this idea have merit?

Thanks for listening.

Wow that sounds like a really interesting idea...Althought the way points are given sounds a bit loose. As you said yourself, a player could overdo it because of his greed, but I see another problem too: Unless the setting/game is based on characters beeing heroic and the like, won't it be over the top that every character's background will be chock full of dead parents, pregnant wives and all-around drama?

thwaak wrote:

Has something like this already been tried and how well did it work? Does this idea have merit?

I like the idea of gaining experience through staying true to one's character - it's an actualy reward for good acting, which is nice. However, it would also be nice to have a way to "switch" what your character needs to be true to - possibly over time, and due to experience loss. If a good character wants to become evil over time because of the things he's seen and experienced, I think it should be allowed, while an inability to gain experience ever again practically restricts such an option. Maybe you can consider that after a time of following a certain pattern, different from the original one, the pattern to which the charcter needs to remain true also changes?

As for the narrativist idea - it sounds interesting, but as you can see by yourself, it's too easy to exploit it. Even a paragraph can be stuffed with epic deeds that grant you tons of experience. Limiting the amount of points sounds logical, but then it's basically like giving every player an amount of points, much like in GURPS. I'm not sure that the experience points should be tied with a story. A good story is always a good thing on its own right. Plus, the character's background does have a mechanical aspect, as it defines the pattern to which the character must remain loyal.

Also, you can grant different types of experience for different deeds. For example, there may be good XP, evil XP, chaotic XP etc. Thus, if you do things not loyal to your background, you do gain experience - but the wrong kind, which can't be combined with the experience you gained earlier.

Vampire had the same problem with their merits and flaws. Players would take ridiculous amounts of flaws in order to get a bunch of points during character creation. They would end up having so many flaws that the GM and the player would have a hard time keeping track of all the negative game aspects of the character, and many would be ignored. They ended up limiting the amount of merits and flaws you could take.

If you leave it open ended, and your game achieves any amount of success, there will most certainly be players out there who will exploit your lack of a rule to a degree that will ruin the game.

Hi Brent,

How does this mechanic bring your game closer to the awesome vision in your head of how to play it?

thanks,

James

Hello Brent,

May I suggest checking out the Pool (for character creation based on text and points) and The Shadow of Yesterday (for gaining XP for being true to one's character (free version on the bottom of the page), plus an Actual Play thread where you see how interesting it is when the players "abuse" the mechanics)?

As for your questions regarding limits, I don't think they necessarily inhibit narr play. It all depends on what you want to do.
In My Life with Master for example, the characters are limited to being a cruel master's minion and a player is forced to carry out an order if he doesn't succeed in the roll to resist the master.
As a matter of fact, you might want to have limits that focus play on your game's goal.
What you don't want are limits that hinder play towards the game's goal. This is true of any Creative Agenda of course.

Hey Brent,

I'm trying to put mechanics behind the narration, and I don't like the idea of limiting the players in this portion of character creation, but I also want to avoid abuse. Do limits inhibit narrative play?

You're talking about narrativism, so you'll want to somehow proscribe players from "playing out" their characters in the background. That is, the character's thematic reason for existence can't be answered in the background. It has to be answered in play.

Paul

ODDin wrote:
I like the idea of gaining experience through staying true to one's character - it's an actualy reward for good acting, which is nice. However, it would also be nice to have a way to "switch" what your character needs to be true to - possibly over time, and due to experience loss. If a good character wants to become evil over time because of the things he's seen and experienced, I think it should be allowed, while an inability to gain experience ever again practically restricts such an option. Maybe you can consider that after a time of following a certain pattern, different from the original one, the pattern to which the charcter needs to remain true also changes?

As for the narrativist idea - it sounds interesting, but as you can see by yourself, it's too easy to exploit it. Even a paragraph can be stuffed with epic deeds that grant you tons of experience. Limiting the amount of points sounds logical, but then it's basically like giving every player an amount of points, much like in GURPS. I'm not sure that the experience points should be tied with a story. A good story is always a good thing on its own right. Plus, the character's background does have a mechanical aspect, as it defines the pattern to which the character must remain loyal.

Also, you can grant different types of experience for different deeds. For example, there may be good XP, evil XP, chaotic XP etc. Thus, if you do things not loyal to your background, you do gain experience - but the wrong kind, which can't be combined with the experience you gained earlier.

Blankshield wrote:
Hi Brent,

How does this mechanic bring your game closer to the awesome vision in your head of how to play it?

thanks,

James

Paul wrote:

You're talking about narrativism, so you'll want to somehow proscribe players from "playing out" their characters in the background. That is, the character's thematic reason for existence can't be answered in the background. It has to be answered in play.

Paul

thwaak wrote:
Well, I've pretty much nailed down how it works: There are 5 main questions to be answered in a paragraph. Each question answered earns the character 4 poins (for a total of 20 points). Each additional paragraph earns an additional point, to a maximum of 30.

In this way, there is a cap, but the players really have to work to earn the points before they hit the cap, and it does allow for variations in capability between players: Almost like random chargen, but the player controls the randomness.

thwaak wrote:
I am especially taken with the idea of switching 'patterns' over time, rather than a devolution. Sort of the 'darkside of the force' aspect.

Thanks!

I really like where you are going with this.  I think Oddin has a very good idea that could help expand the system you have.  That is opening or closing certain skills depending on the answers to the question.  I like this idea rather than giving a person less points because his parents are still alive (or some other reason).  After all, those living parents could be a strong motivational force to "make them proud" or to "get even for your childhood". 

Since it seems at this point your game will focus on staying in character and evolving over time anything that can tie in the character history with current goals positive.  Any answer to your 4 questions could provide this.  Not just dead parents and pregnant wives.  The point is the players must answer these questions to be effective.  This means even before the game starts they are investing in the character.  That makes it much easier for players to be invested in the game.  I like it.

Jixx

If you're appropriately punitive when people don't stay on character, then the "too-long backstory" problem might solve itself.  Give each character points for each dramatic element they put into their backstory, and reward them when they incorporate these elements into the story, but dock them a point or two each session where they fail to make each element an interesting part of play.  Characters with a huge amount of backstory (and therefore starting points) will find it tricky to keep everything relevent, and will therefore advance more slowly then characters with a more reasonable amount of baggage, and (ideally) everything will balance out.

This sort of rule might create other problems, of course.  For starters, players will quite possibly spend most of their time dealing with their own plots rather then any overarching plot of the campaign...

thwaak wrote:

Blankshield wrote:
Hi Brent,

How does this mechanic bring your game closer to the awesome vision in your head of how to play it?

Hello James,

I'm not quite sure of the answer, honestly. At this point, I have an idea for a game, and I was tinkering with mechanics I decided I wanted advancement to be based on how true to the character the player is, and not about accomplishments (as I see it, one takes care of the other anyway). In order to define that, the game would need a solid idea of what the backstory of each character is, and we all know how easy it is to get the average player to write a backstory. So...I wanted to give a mechanical reason to write the story, and it hit me that if the game assigns point values to elements of the backstory, I could get two birds with the one stone.

Hopefully, with each character having a (semi) detailed past, the players will be more involved in the portrayel of said characters.

Thanks!

thwaak wrote:
I'm trying to put mechanics behind the narration, and I don't like the idea of limiting the players in this portion of character creation, but I also want to avoid abuse. Do limits inhibit narrative play?