Hey all,

I've been lurking for a bit, and I finally figured it was time to speak up.

I've been playing with this idea for a bit; but I don't know, it seems maybe a little cumbersome to me.  The initial concept was that I wanted a way to allow the players and GM to choose the thematic elements before play, and then to let the story arise from those elements (rather than have the thematic elements of play come subconsciously).  So far, I have a bit of character gen, which goes as follows:

1. Three Themes are chosen.
Before the game, the players and the GM discuss which themes should be important in their game.  A "theme" is defined as a driving force behind the game.  It can be almost anything; a concept like "Love", a moral question, an in-game or out-of-game philosophical point, or an in-game historical event.  So, after much discussion, the players may come up with, say, "Glory", "Truth", and "Society."

(As other options, the GM may choose the themes himself, or the players may choose themes for their own characters individually.)

2.The player chooses a Positive and Negative aspect of his or her character's relationships to the Themes.

So each player character will have a certain relationship to each of the themes, defined by a positive and negative reaction to that theme.  For example,  example character Phaethon might have the following relationships to the themes we chose above:

[table]
[tr]
[td]Themes[/td]
[td]Positive[/td]
[td]Negative[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Glory[/td]
[td]Desires Renown[/td]
[td]Recklessness[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Truth[/td]
[td]Strives for realism[/td]
[td]Is Stubborn[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Society[/td]
[td]Loves his homeland[/td]
[td]Disregards others' opinions[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

3. The player prioritizes the above Positive and Negative aspects, seperately.
Essentially, the player determines which aspect is most important for their character.  For example:

[table]
[tr][td][/td][td]Positive[/td][td][/td][td]Negative[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td][td]Desires renown[/td][td]2[/td][td]Recklessness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2[/td][td]Strives for Realism[/td][td]3[/td][td]Stubborn[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3[/td][td]Loves his homeland[/td][td]1[/td][td]Disregards others' opinions[/td][/tr]
[/table]

In our example, Phaethon's main driving force is his desire for renown, which eclipses his love of truth and of country.  His recklessness overshadows his stubbornness, and his disregard for others' opinions can often overpower his love for his homeland.  We therefore already have some ideas about the way Phaethon makes decisions in regards to the themes of the game.

4. The player creates a number of traits in the four categories, (Body, Mind, Social, Resources), assigning them points based on the
prioritization of the Theme Relationship to which he links them.

Points are given as follows:

Positive:
Priority 1: 6 traits at 8 points
Priority 2: 4 traits at 6 points
Priority 3: 2 traits at 4 points

Negative:
Priority 1: 3 traits at 8
Priority 2: 2 traits at 6
Priority 3: 1 traits at 4

Traits a player wishes to particularly emphasize may be increased by half by sacrificing another trait that would have been linked to the same Theme Relationship.  This may be done multiple times, with the points added being reduced by half each time, rounded down.

This is a bit of a complicated part.  The player will come up with traits (a la DitV), and will assign each of them to a ruling Theme relationship.  The more important and defining the character's relationship to the theme, the more influential the trait is to the character and the more points it receives (and ostensibly the more use it will see).

For Phaethon, we might get the following:

Body:
Humodified (6) Realism
Synthetic Skin (6) Recklessness
No backups (8) Disregard

Mind:
Base Neuroformed (6) Realism
Indepconciousness (8) Deeds
Augment (4) Loves Homeland
Amnesia (8) Disregard

Social:
Father: Helion (4) Stubborn
Wife: Daphne (8) Deeds
Ally: The Earthmind (8) Deeds
Enemy: The College (8) Disregard
Atkins (6) Recklessness
Enemy: The Nothing AI (4) Loves Homeland

Resources:
Rhadamanthus (House AI)  (9) Realism
Lawyer AI (15 Seconds) (8) Deeds
The Suit (12) Deeds

(This example character will make much more sense if you've read The Golden Age by John C. Wright.)

So that's what I have *so* far.  Questions:

1. Is this confusing?  Does it make sense?
2. Is it cumbersome?
3. Does the idea have merit?  Would basing the story on theme instead of letting the story dictate the theme organically seem forced?
4. I was thinking of adding a trait called "Goal" or "Ambition" where a player would tie in all three themes to something that the character wants.  Do you think this would be helpful?  Any ideas on how it might look or work?

1. The presentation atleast - is a bit confusing. Might work after practice.
2. Hard to say without testing
3. The idea is great. There is nothing wrong in pre-defining elements fo the story or even its outcome beforehand. I think the theme +/- traits could be used for other purposes too. Like reward mechanics.
4. Maybe just rename positive traits to ambitions or goals and find a cool name for negative thematic traits on the same track.

This is similar...
http://callmecurly.blogspot.com/2005/11/do-important-part-first.html

It's an interesting proposal, but I do think the implementation is a bit cumbersome.

The thing I like most about it is basing specific stats off of general and common themes.  Truth be told, this is more or less how I make most characters in most games; I figure out what I'm interested in and I pick stats that will focus the most attention on those interests.  Now, if those interests were shared among the players, and everybody was riffing off the same base concepts, you'd get some very interesting character interactions and dynamics.

As to the cumbersome implementation, you're either (a) overthinking it or (b) designing the character generation without a resolution mechanic in mind.  The numbers of stats that correspond to the rankings, and the rankings of those stats, is a whole lot of numbers all at once, and there's no clear indication of what those numbers do in actual play.  In other words, I'm right with you right up until step four, when things go off the rails.  Why the body/mind/social/resources distinction?  What does that gain you?  Why don't you just have six categories of abilities, corresponding to the three themes' positive and negative aspects?  The higher priority the aspect is, the more points you have to spend in that category.

Thanks for the input everyone!

Yes...the numbers are (were) connected to a resolution mechanic that I more or less ditched (because I'd chosen it rather arbitrarily as a placeholder -- I had the vague impression that it was making things overly complicated.

Why don't you just have six categories of abilities, corresponding to the three themes' positive and negative aspects?  The higher priority the aspect is, the more points you have to spend in that category.

Hey Mr. DNA:

What do those numbers mean? It all looks cool, but is an 8 better than a 4?

Matt,

At the moment they don't really mean much -- they're just placeholders.  8 is better than 4.  In the original concept, it was 2d12, roll under, with a target number of Trait +/- modifier.  ish.

Mr. wrote:
Someone also suggested knocking down the Themes to just one; that would simplify things, too, and would probably work better for one-shots.

I agree with Joshua - three themes is a good idea, one probably isn't.

(sidenote: Just looking at that LONG list of traits, it seems like too many. I don't even know how they work but it seems like too many.)

A few questions about the system:

1.) Are the themes central only to chargen, or to play as well?

2.) How are the themes re-enforced during play?

3.) In this particular campaign, do people make Glory, Truth and Society checks?
Do the mechanics and tests start fixating on these three focal points?

4.) Do these themes evolve or get replaced or altered during play? Can Glory be changed into Fame through reaching a certain plot point or something?

Hi!
  Maybe kick it up a notch, give a mechanical bonus for EACH theme. If people are flummoxed, they can pick one for now. If they have an atomic level detail of what their char is like and what they are facing, let them go for it and reward that creativity. Then balance the mechanics for 3 themes and fire and forget...

Joshua, joe;

I was the one who suggested a single theme per character as an alternative.

I think it's a mistake to dismiss that as 'boring'-- it works fine in Primetime Adventures.

Yes, a character who is internally torn between several motivations is viable.
But a character with one internal drive, who encounters a variety of external elements which
tempt them to renounce or affirm that drive... is another valid (arguably purer) way to do it.

An advantage of a single thematic focus, is that it's easier to keep theme in the spotlight.
To make-sure the story is About that one thing.
As opposed to a character with a sheet full of -possible- motives/ none of which may ever-quite
emerge to drive the action clearly.

So, if you wanna make SURE that theme is addressed: I'd recommend a single theme.
If you are confident you'll get-to theme, but are worried about 2-dimensional characters...
do have them be conflicted between multiple inner thematic desires.

Frankly, I worry that an angst-ridden internally-focused character is becoming something
of a cliche' for indie design.  Sort of like how 'dark, complex' comicbook superheroes
got played-out in the last decade.

Yes, a single-minded externally-focused character can be cheesy and simplistic.
But he can also be outwardly-focused and express himself by Action rather than
by inert internal brooding.  Which is better for engaging with plot events.

See also: Ron Edwards' description of Character-based Premise, Setting-based Premise, Situation-based Premise in his Story Now essay.

Okay.  So, I think I'm going to go with multiple Themes; though making it so the players can scale it to their liking is an intriguing idea. 

I agree that there are way too many traits; I'm going to scale them back.

Joe, to answer your questions,

1. I'm hoping to make the themes matter in play as well; that was one reason that I dumped my original resolution mechanic.

2. That's what I'm trying to decide.

3. (See above -- that's a good idea though!)

4. I think so -- Though how this works, I've not yet determined.

Something else that I've been thinking about as I've been trying to hash out the gameplay is How the Themes are Dealt With in the Story.  For example, it seems like having literal instances and interactions with the themes in the story is only one way to do it.  Perhaps I should allow for more Metaphorical or even Allegorical uses of the themes.  That would be a Step Two: After the group decides on the Themes, they talk about how the Themes will be handled.

So, for example, in a game where the themes are, say, Abortion, Christianity, and Gender Relations:

Literally - The story actually involves instances of the themes.  There may be a character (or characters) who have undergone a crisis pregnancy or an abortion, and perhaps another character is a Christian.

Metaphorically - The themes are symbolized in the narrative, but not necessarily embodied by the player characters.  For example, a character may fixate on an object such as a crucifix or a rosary as a symbol of their relationship with the church.

Allegorically - The characters in the story embody the themes directly.  For example, one character might represent Abortion, whereas another character might symbolize Christianity.

Curly --  In PTA, protagonists don't have themes, they have issues.  Issues are almost always conflicts between themes -- Commander Adama worries about the balance between Law and Order, for instance; Mal's issue is whether cynicism or idealism will kill him.  The totally awesome thing about this set-up is that this will create interlinked character issues -- so you get Adama who focuses on Law & Order, Starbuck who focuses on Order & Chaos, and Roslyn who focuses on Chaos & Law (ie politics).  They all have a single 'issue', but those issues come interrelated.

Mr DNA -- sounds like you need a situation creation engine!  Use the themes to create the situation in play.  See: Shock: and Dogs.

DNA -- Reply #12 is AWESOME. 

JBR-- I think you're mistaking your favorite flavor of theme-stuff for the only valid variety.

"Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing." --Ron Edwards

Not "more than one". One is plenty.  Is more categorically better?
Would Augustus Gloomp be improved by a mandatory 3 themes, instead of just Gluttony?

If he just sat-around brooding about his new internal strife/ and never got-around to falling in the Chocolate River;
I think he'd be addressing premise in a much lamer way.  And he'd fit in fine with those bores on the BSG crew!

Thinking more about the way themes can be handled, it seems like it might even be too limiting to hold the group to one particular method -- perhaps the Themes may be handled in different ways.  For instance, using the abortion/christianity/gender relations example above, one character may "represent" abortion, or may have had an abortion, but they may also fixate on a crucifix as a symbol of their relationship to the Christianity theme.  That implies to me that maybe the methodry involved in the interactions with the theme should be part of the character gen instead of discussed with the whole group (though of course character gen may be done with the whole group -- but you see what I mean.)

Hmmm....

Mr DNA -- I think that's a question for playtest.  I don't know if a game where one character is an allegorical equivalent to an entire issue while another character is simply a person who cares about a related issue would work.  On the other hand, it might work amazingly.  It's just something that I think requires some empirical data to find out, you know?

Curly -- An "issue" or a "problematic feature of existence" is not a theme.  Christianity is not an issue; abortion is not a problematic feature of existence.  Christianity's relationship with the practice of abortion, however, is an issue.  An issue isn't an issue unless it's got sides, or at least discrete elements (themes) that can interact.  Otherwise, it just sits there.

Joshua,

You're making it more complex than it has to be.

Theme: Christianity.
Credible sides: embrace or reject.

Viola!

We're in screaming agreement, I think, Curly, and just griping about terminology. ;)