Topic: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Started by: MJGraham
Started on: 10/10/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 10/10/2006 at 1:46pm, MJGraham wrote:
[Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Before I ask my question I feel that I should explain a little about my game.
My roleplaying game uses two sets of attributes: virtue attributes (e.g. courage and honesty) and motive attributes (e.g. power and recognition). These attributes are given values from -5 to +5.
To resolve a conflict players roll 2d10 and apply their attribute values to the the roll. Higher results result in better success. Fpr example, a player who wants his or her character to make a successful strike in a duel may use their character's courage value and if there's a substantial crowd watching their character's recognition value to modify the 2d10 roll. Let's assume for the sake of this example that the character in question has a courage +2 and a recognition +1. The player would roll 2d10+3 to see how well/badly the strike was resolved.
The method I have adopted for determining attribute values is to let the players decide their characters attributes. If a player wants +5 in every attribute he or she can have +5 in every attribute. This may strike some people as rather odd because there would seem to be no reason to not have the highest attribute values. But here's the rub. Any bonus can become a penalty and any penalty can become a bonus depending on the context. For example, think of a character with honesty +5. At any time when trying to convince someone of the truth that player receives a +5 bonus. But should the character try to tell a lie that +5 bonus becomes a -5 penalty. This is done to encourage players to roleplay their characters in a manner consistent with their characters' attributes and as means of making no attribute or value of greater importance than any other. A player who gives his or her character an honesty +5 had best be prepared for roleplaying an honest character or face the consequences.
Given that I'm not using more traditional attributes such as strength or intelligence would you imagine players, especially old school gamers, will have a difficult time becoming involved in this game? Does allowing players the freedom to choose their own attributes seem problematic to you?
On 10/10/2006 at 3:05pm, r_donato wrote:
Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Hi, MJ,
Before I can answer your question, I need some more information. Can you tell me what Insurrection is about? I'm not asking for any mechanical details here: nothing about the resolution system, stats, or XP. Just the concept in a couple of sentences.
On 10/10/2006 at 11:14pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Ricky wrote:
Hi, MJ,
Before I can answer your question, I need some more information. Can you tell me what Insurrection is about? I'm not asking for any mechanical details here: nothing about the resolution system, stats, or XP. Just the concept in a couple of sentences.
It's a narrativist game set in a fantasy world based upon a dystopian reinterpretation of early englightenment Europe. Players take on the role of insurrectionists from revolutionary cabals who are fighting against oppressive regimes. The only other thing that I can think that might be worth mentioning is that it's a fatalist game. The players know that there will be a revolution no matter what their characters do. The act of roleplaying the characters is not to cause an uprising but to discover what part their characters did or did not have in bringing it about and through such discovery come to a better understanding of who their characters are/were as people.
On 10/11/2006 at 12:43am, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Well, mechanically it can work. My game (Legends of Alyria) uses a similar mechanic. You probably don't need to have any negative ratings. Instead, just rate an attribute from 1 to 5. Add or subtract as appropriate by context. As a bonus, the GM should see higher ratings as an invitation by the player to be challenged in the areas where he has high ratings. So, a character with "Honest: 5" is asking to have his honesty challenged.
On 10/11/2006 at 2:35am, r_donato wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Hi, MJ,
Given that I'm not using more traditional attributes such as strength or intelligence would you imagine players, especially old school gamers, will have a difficult time becoming involved in this game? Does allowing players the freedom to choose their own attributes seem problematic to you?
Based on your reply, this will not be much of a problem. Really, the big gap of understanding will be the narrativism and the fatalism.
On 10/11/2006 at 10:12am, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
GreatWolf wrote:
Well, mechanically it can work. My game (Legends of Alyria) uses a similar mechanic. You probably don't need to have any negative ratings. Instead, just rate an attribute from 1 to 5. Add or subtract as appropriate by context. As a bonus, the GM should see higher ratings as an invitation by the player to be challenged in the areas where he has high ratings. So, a character with "Honest: 5" is asking to have his honesty challenged.
I particularly like the notion of players inviting a specific kind of challenge by opting for higher values in certain attributes. I can see a player using a character with an Honesty +5 being extremely adept -even predisposed- to telling the truth. But the consequences of their truthfulness being all the more problematic for them. E.g. will the character tell the Duke's daughter that she's a vile and selfish human being or will he lie to her to save his own skin? Can he lie to her?
I'm adopting a reward system which encourages roleplaying that takes into account attributes. Success or failure in resolving conflicts matters less than how the characters approach the conflict. To return to the example above, the player will receive a more significant reward for being honest even if it does have negative consequences for his or her character.
P.S. I had a quick look at Legends of Alyria and I have to admit that I'm impressed with the depth and detail that you've put into it. I'd like to give it a more thorough reading soon.
Ricky Donato wrote: Based on your reply, this will not be much of a problem. Really, the big gap of understanding will be the narrativism and the fatalism.
I've tried to overcome that gap by making it clear that the characters goal isn't to take part in the uprising or even bring it about. Rather it is for them to become the kind of people who could inspire others to bring about the uprising. Their task isn't to become the heroes on any revolution but to be the precursors of such heroes.
On 10/14/2006 at 9:12pm, AmbroseCollector wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
There are two main points I see as worth noting on your resolution system.
The first is the choice of Motives and Virtues. It will be important to make these attributes that can A: come into play on most, if not all rolls, so that success truly is based on a character's concept and not dumb luck, and B: are not easily manipulated such as to get that +5 on every roll.
The second is actually stabbing at a problem that is, as I see it, an important part of your game, and that is the lack of concrete attributes such as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma.
The problem is not, to me, that one person can't chose to play the "strong person" or "smart person" in a group, but rather that one can't chose to play the "weakling" or "dumb guy."
I, as a gamer, and several other people that I game with, enjoy playing a character's weaknesses as much as, if not more than, her strengths. however, assigning third attributes such as "Strong" or "Smart" not only bates the "Why not all +5's?" question, but also, as I see it, is overly complex and stylistically at odds with your game idea. Perhaps, instead, there should be a set of optional traits that allow a character to roll only 1d10+/-modifiers, and provide some benefit of these, or perhaps every player must have one? These would be based on concepts of actual ability, instead of driving emotions behind them, because, for instance, no matter how much a really dumb guy cares about decoding a message, he probably won't succeed.
On 10/16/2006 at 9:00pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
AmbroseCollector wrote:
There are two main points I see as worth noting on your resolution system.
The first is the choice of Motives and Virtues. It will be important to make these attributes that can A: come into play on most, if not all rolls, so that success truly is based on a character's concept and not dumb luck, and B: are not easily manipulated such as to get that +5 on every roll.
A player could manipulate events so that they always enjoy a +5 on every roll and in doing so increase the odds of being successful. But they couldn't avoid the consequence of their success. A player could give their character a courage +5 and they could roleplay this character as someone who never backs down from a challenge and who never runs away, but a time may come when such courage becomes recklessness and almost certain death.
The second is actually stabbing at a problem that is, as I see it, an important part of your game, and that is the lack of concrete attributes such as Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma.
The problem is not, to me, that one person can't chose to play the "strong person" or "smart person" in a group, but rather that one can't chose to play the "weakling" or "dumb guy."
I, as a gamer, and several other people that I game with, enjoy playing a character's weaknesses as much as, if not more than, her strengths. however, assigning third attributes such as "Strong" or "Smart" not only bates the "Why not all +5's?" question, but also, as I see it, is overly complex and stylistically at odds with your game idea. Perhaps, instead, there should be a set of optional traits that allow a character to roll only 1d10+/-modifiers, and provide some benefit of these, or perhaps every player must have one?
I do allow for concrete attributes as you describe them. But they are more akin to skills in my game than attributes. Or rather they perform the function of expressing the kind of skills that a character has honed. Let me give you an example, there are several fortes (classes) in my game, two of which are heretics and infiltrator. Heretics have a background in which their awareness and understanding have been raised to a greater level than the average persons. The same holds true for the infiltrators' coordination and quickness.
The way that I approach things somewhat differently than the roleplaying games which I have experienced is that instead of saying okay you're strong, clever, but a little clumsy here's a list of skills to choose from... go at it. Instead I say here's what you've devoted your life to doing and this is why you are strong, clever, but a little clumsy. Now in the case of the infiltrator I don't give them a list of skills, rather I say that their coordination and quickness has been developed to a higher standard because of the path they have chosen. From there I conclude that any attempt at being coordinated or quick will be more likely to succeed for them or at least fail less traumatically. An infiltrator is more agile because they have trained in the art of picking pockets, hiding from searchers, prowling through shadows. Let's say for the sake of this discussion that the infiltrator tries to ride a horse over treacherous ground while he's being pursued by an armed militia. There is no ride horse skill, but the infiltrator is agile (we know that because his forte makes him more coordinated than the average person). This means that the agility he developed as an infiltrator doing infiltrator kind of things will benefit him during this pursuit. In essence the infiltrator will be good at anything involving speed and/or agility.
How do these concrete attributes benefit a character? They benefit them by increasing their chances of getting a reroll. There's no numerical value and no modifier attached to them. It's simply the case that if a character such as an infiltrator is in a situation where speed or agility is of the highest importance then their player is more likely to be able to reroll a failed result.
These would be based on concepts of actual ability, instead of driving emotions behind them, because, for instance, no matter how much a really dumb guy cares about decoding a message, he probably won't succeed.
The same holds true for the opposite. No matter how smart a guy happens to be, he will never decode a message if he lacks the motivation or finds the act morally repugnant. The only thing I've done is swap two common sets of attributes for two lesser used sets, i.e. mental and physical attributes for ethical and motivational. The reason for doing this is because I want players to explore who their characters are in ways that do not typify most roleplaying experiences. I want the ethical considerations of a character to have more impact upon the players involvement in the game than whether one character has more charisma than another. And I believe that concrete attributes reveal nothing about the character of a character. Being clever or strong doesn't tell me what kind of a person a character will be. It seems to me to be rather ludicrous that we expect players to make characters out of elements which are so far removed from actual character in itself.
The truth is that almost anything can be an attribute. You could have the attributes of Early Morning, Late Morning, Afternoon, and Night and create a game in which characters are defined by the time of day in which they are at their peak mental and physical condition. You could have a game with only one attribute; perhaps luck in the case or even win. I like the idea of a win attribute. It has a nice ring to it. You could even have no attributes whatsoever. My point here is that what does it matter if a character wins at combat because he is lucky, courageous, strong, or just really good at fighting in the early hours of the morning. What matters is what those attributes mean to the experience of playing that particular game.
On 10/24/2006 at 7:26am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat? If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning. It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.
Id look at jazzing up when and how attributes are applied so its a special moment when it happens.
On 10/24/2006 at 12:33pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
stefoid wrote:
is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat? If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning. It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.
Id look at jazzing up when and how attributes are applied so its a special moment when it happens.
Absolutely. For example, you might apply the virtue of loyalty instead of courage if the fight was to protect the life of a friend. Courage as a virtue attribute can also be used for other activities such as climbing a high wall, making a public speech, defying a direct order from an antagonist with heavily armed guards.
On 10/24/2006 at 3:30pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
stefoid wrote:
is there any time you wouldnt apply courage to combat? If you apply it most of the time, then it kinds of looses its meaning. It might as well be 'strength' or 'extra combat skill' or something.
Actually, you need to look at this from a few angles:
1) Courage could always apply to combat, but so could cowardice. In a system like this, the outcome of the conflict isn't always as important as why that outcome occurred.
2) Courage can get you into trouble. The GM and other players should be looking for ways to "punish" a PC with a high courage, such as putting him in a position where it would be better to run away...but he needs to use his Courage as a penalty.
3) "Strength" or "extra combat skill" doesn't have the moral weight behind them like "courage" does. So, even if a character is always using "courage" in combat, that is saying something about the character, each time.
Trust me, this will work.
On 10/25/2006 at 1:44am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
what if, instead of the +1 to +5 modifier being the amount of extra skill it added to your roll, it was the amount of times you could add it per session?
Even a coward can fight with courage sometimes, in fact when a coward does fight with courage, it is in some ways more impressive.
I also like the idea that when a player decides to use an attribute, it has a guarentee of helping, rather than leaving it up to fate which is what adding a number to a roll does.
On 10/25/2006 at 5:17am, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Stefoid,
I think that you're missing part of the design idea here, which is that Motives and Virtues are supposed to be double-edged swords. So, taking Courage: +5 is actually an invitation to be screwed with a -5 penalty when the GM or other players can maneuver you into a situation when your courage will work against you. Don't think of it as a bonus; rather, think of it as an intensity rating which can be applied both favorably and unfavorably, depending on context.
Honestly, I've played other games which limited the application of "personality" mechanics, and I threw out those limits. I'm thinking here specifically of Unknown Armies. If you're going to put personality mechanics at the center of your game, then embrace it! Let those mechanics drive your conflicts. Trust me. My experience with both Unknown Armies and Legends of Alyria bears this out. It works just fine.
On 10/25/2006 at 7:22am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Dunno if that works all the time, though. I mean, just because someone is courageous (example) doesnt mean they are reckless, overconfident ,etc... A brave hero might choose to fight against the odds to rescue the maiden whereas a brave villain might choose to run away - saving his bravery for fighting the bank guards or whatever. Its more about motivation .
So I think the pro/con might work for motivations, but not neccesarilly virtues.
The OP gave the example of honesty as a virtue. In a moral sense its a virtue, but in a practical sense its not. More like a motivation in that the character is compelled to tell the truth, the way Im reading the example. As a virtue, you might be better off with 'believable' or whatever.
Motivations give your character something to care about. Do they neccessarilly give you an advantage or disadvantage? Maybe if you are using a virtue in support of a motivation it counts double and if you are using contrary to a motivation it counts half. i.e. if my motivation is 'self-preservation', it becomes a lot harder to use the 'courage' virtue than if my motivation was 'revenge' and I was fighting the guards standing between me and the 6 fingered man.
On 10/25/2006 at 2:41pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
So I think the pro/con might work for motivations, but not neccesarilly virtues.
Okay, I buy that. A Motivation should be pro/con, but if the designer is wanting a Virtue to always be an advantage of some kind, then it should be handled differently.
In Legends of Alyria, I call these values Traits, which is a more neutral term than a Virtue. (I also have Virtue in the game, but it's a separate value that affects the cost to purchase Traits.)
On 10/25/2006 at 11:40pm, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
so the summary is that MJ should be more specific as to what virtues and motives are, and ensure they are used consistantly, since they seem to be central to his game.
On 10/26/2006 at 12:14am, Narf the Mouse wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
The upside of courage would seem to be the ability to fight better.
The downside of courage would seem to be a higher chance of dying in a battle.
But, what if your character is perfectly fine with that? Patriot, martyr or just berserker?
I think what my point is, is that 'downside' is all point-of-view. The way I'm envisioning my RPG is that, even if the character dies in battle, they can still win, because they will get meta-game rewards to spend before they kick the bucket - ie., '...Remember my legacy...My people...Remember *Urk* the cause...Fight...On...' (Spending all the meta-game rewards on a morale boost for your side).
I guess the other point is that win conditions are determined by the player and character and thus ultimatly by the player.
So, I guess I sorta meandered my way to a point...Tell me if you find it. :D
On 10/26/2006 at 8:01pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
stefoid wrote:
Dunno if that works all the time, though. I mean, just because someone is courageous (example) doesn't mean they are reckless, overconfident ,etc... A brave hero might choose to fight against the odds to rescue the maiden whereas a brave villain might choose to run away - saving his bravery for fighting the bank guards or whatever. Its more about motivation .
So I think the pro/con might work for motivations, but not neccesarilly virtues.
It's true that a brave person might not be reckless and overconfident. This is my way of explaining such a persons lack of recklessness and overconfidence within the confines of my game. Recall that there are virtues and motives. A courageous person with sufficient motivation can avoid becoming reckless and overconfident. For example a character with courage +4 wants to flee from an opponent. Here his courage +4 becomes a penalty. But his motivation has been accounted for yet. Let's say he his involvement motive is at +5 (he's the kind of person who always has to fit in and always wants to belong). If there is sufficient reason to use his involvement +5 in a manner which is positive for him (if he doesn't flee he will be placing his friends in jeopardy and they've all run so he might as well run too), he will be able to erase the penalty acquired by his courage and end up with +1 bonus.
Any bonus/penalty when rolling to resolve a conflict combines one virtue and one motive. A charlatan's confidence game might work through his negative honesty virtue and his positive affluence motive, i.e. he is greedy and dishonest. A priests rise through the echelons of his church might be a result of his positive loyalty virtue and positive recognition virtue (he is ambitious, craves status, and is completely devoted to his religion).
Virtues only show you half of the picture. To see it fully you need to look at the character's motive too. In some cases a character's virtues and motives will clash. In the example above of the character fleeing from combat, his courage is clashing with his involvement. His involvement motive is stronger than his courage virtue and in the end his involvement wins out, i.e. he gets a +1 bonus. At other time a character's virtues and motives will work together. Returning to the example of fleeing from combat, if the character's courage was -2 it would act as +2 bonus for the purposes of fleeing from combat. This +2 bonus could then be added to his involvement +4 for a grand total of +6. Similarly a character's virtues and motives can work together, but at odds with what the character wants to achieve. Again returning to the same example. What if the character didn't care about his companions? What if he has no qualms about placing them in jeopardy or he doesn't care if they decide to run? What if his involvement was at a -5 instead of a +5. In this circumstance he would add together the penalty for being courageous and the penalty for being exclusionary and too brave for his own good for a grand total penalty of -9.
The OP gave the example of honesty as a virtue. In a moral sense its a virtue, but in a practical sense its not. More like a motivation in that the character is compelled to tell the truth, the way Im reading the example. As a virtue, you might be better off with 'believable' or whatever.
Believability in relation to what? Without taking into account a character's motivation, in my game a character with a positive honesty is believable when telling the truth but as soon as they try to lie they show all the classic signs of a person in the midst of a falsehood. They can try to lie as much as they want, but if they want to stand any chance of being believed they probably need to be more truthful. On the other hand a character with a negative honesty is excellent at fabricating falsehoods but often fails at being believable when it comes to telling the truth.
Does all of this necessarily make a character with a positive honesty an honest character? In a certain sense this character will certainly have spent much of his or her life being honest. They would have honed and practiced their honesty until they became excellent. It helps to think of virtue not as morality alone, but as excellence too. A character with a positive honesty has had years of being honest, they excel in honesty, for them honesty has become second nature. Sure they can choose to lie. But their clumsiness at dishonesty makes lying very difficult for them. To lie goes against years of experience and their very nature. If a player wants to do well, he or she will choose the most honest course of action for such a character.
Motivations give your character something to care about. Do they neccessarilly give you an advantage or disadvantage? Maybe if you are using a virtue in support of a motivation it counts double and if you are using contrary to a motivation it counts half. i.e. if my motivation is 'self-preservation', it becomes a lot harder to use the 'courage' virtue than if my motivation was 'revenge' and I was fighting the guards standing between me and the 6 fingered man.
Motives in my game are not the little pep talks that people give themselves. They're not affirmations. They're not the justifications we offer ourselves for taking a course of action. They are a characters passions. They're a character's enthusiasm. A scientist may want to discover a new theory or to disprove an existing one. But his motive (as it is defined under my game) is not simply what he wants, its what he craves. It might be recognition from the scientific community. It could be power in the form of knowledge that he alone possesses. Perhaps he wants to become wealthy as a result of his discovery. His desire to discover a new theory or disapprove an existing one give a direction and goal for his motive. But his motive is what drives him. Its what fuels him towards his goal.
Try to do something which you are not enthusiastic about. Sure you can do it. But when you're passionately committed to it you'll probably do it so much better. That's where the advantage/disadvantage for motives kick in. Think of all the great works of art, music, literature, the great scientific discoveries, the sporting achievements etc. They were all done by men and women whose passions were manifested in the talents they expressed in their chosen fields.
Asking if motives necessarily give you advantages or disdavantages is very similar to what I asked myself when looking at other roleplaying games with their physical and mental attributes. To use a classical physical attribute as an example, does strength give an advantage or disadvantage? It depends on what the character is trying to achieve. A better question to ask is which attributes should I be focusing given what I am hoping to achieve with my game. One person might say that strength is the necessary attribute in combat. Another person might say courage. Someone else might say that they are both necessary. Yet another person might say that neither are necessary. But they would all be failing to answer the question if they didn't know what they wanted out of their game. In my game I want the character's personality to be the focus of how the player interact with the game. I want all of their decisions for their characters to be weighed up against their characters personality. Instead of only asking themselves how will my character achieve X, I want them to also ask why does my character want to achieve X. I want to bring the parts of a character such as alignment, disposition, demeanour etc. into the foreground. Which is where they belong in my opinion.
On 10/26/2006 at 8:19pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
stefoid wrote:
so the summary is that MJ should be more specific as to what virtues and motives are, and ensure they are used consistantly, since they seem to be central to his game.
Virtues and motives are attributes. Virtues explain how a character does something. Motive explains why they did it. A wealthy merchant who has acquired his fortune by being scrupulously fair with his customers and in doing so winning their fidelity will have done so by honesty (the virtue that shows how he did it) and by affluence (the motive which shows why he did it).
One easy way of distinguishing between motives and virtues is that there are no moral baggage attached to motives. They are amoral. In the example above we would not think of the merchant as being a bad person because is honest and fair in his dealings. But what if a rival merchant was to set up a business and this merchant was a dishonest as the first one is honest? Both are motivated by the desire for wealth, i.e. affluence, but one seeks to achieve it through honest dealings, the other through dishonesty. Despite both of them being motivated by affluence, we would probably consider the first to be moral and the second to be immoral. If we had no knowledge of their virtues (or lack thereof) we would be forced to conclude that these merchants are amoral.
On 10/26/2006 at 8:27pm, MJGraham wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Narf wrote:
The upside of courage would seem to be the ability to fight better.
The downside of courage would seem to be a higher chance of dying in a battle.
But, what if your character is perfectly fine with that? Patriot, martyr or just berserker?
I think what my point is, is that 'downside' is all point-of-view. The way I'm envisioning my RPG is that, even if the character dies in battle, they can still win, because they will get meta-game rewards to spend before they kick the bucket - ie., '...Remember my legacy...My people...Remember *Urk* the cause...Fight...On...' (Spending all the meta-game rewards on a morale boost for your side).
I guess the other point is that win conditions are determined by the player and character and thus ultimatly by the player.
So, I guess I sorta meandered my way to a point...Tell me if you find it. :D
If the character wants to die in battle its not up to me to decide if that's alright. That's a choice the participants have to make for themselves. I would hope the character's death happened in such a way that was befitting the aesthetics of the game. But that lies in the hands of the participants. I can give them the means, I can encourage them, but I cannot force them to play in a manner befitting the aesthetics of the game. Once again, it has to be their choice.
On 10/26/2006 at 11:15pm, Narf the Mouse wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
I wasn't speaking of forcing a player to play a specific way; the way I envision my game, meta-game rewards come when your character risks their life, that's that only 'push'.
I think one of my points was that in some games, dying is penalized as loosing, regardless of the characters' goals. But it sounds like you have that covered.
The dangers of late-night rambling. :)
On 10/27/2006 at 12:22am, TroyLovesRPG wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Hello,
Risking life is a daily thing for most people in this world. There are no medals, prizes or honor rolls for them. Unless, its reported by the media or part of a political agenda. Risking your way of life is another thing. Instead of requesting suicide from the players and giving them a cookie, how about having the players risk what is most precious to the character: money, power, combat effectiveness, knowledge, the senses, use of arms and legs, etc. The players are challenged by the difficulties their characters accept to uphold the virtues and morality they have selected.
Troy
On 10/27/2006 at 1:53am, Narf the Mouse wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
While even crossing the street carries risk, it doesn't take bravery, or self-control, or courage - At least for most people. For most people, all it takes is checking the light, looking both ways and walking.
Quite frankly, most people in most places in the world do not face anywhere near the same risk as the soldier on the battlefield.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that other people don't face risks - You do have a point there. But, here's a question for you: How do you compare someone signing up for the armed forces out of patriotism and a rich person donating every cent they have?
On 10/27/2006 at 3:40am, TroyLovesRPG wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Narf wrote:
While even crossing the street carries risk, it doesn't take bravery, or self-control, or courage - At least for most people. For most people, all it takes is checking the light, looking both ways and walking.
Quite frankly, most people in most places in the world do not face anywhere near the same risk as the soldier on the battlefield.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that other people don't face risks - You do have a point there. But, here's a question for you: How do you compare someone signing up for the armed forces out of patriotism and a rich person donating every cent they have?
In Atlanta I knew a man who was blind, went to Georgia State University, and had to navigate 4 cross walks each morning and afternoon. He only had the cuckoo and whistle to let him know when to cross. That took a lot of courage, bravery and self-control to face rude pedestrians, honking cars and bad weather.
A soldier on the battlefield is not generic. What country and what war? The risk a soldier takes is great but less than a truck driver.
From Brad Edmonds 2004 --
The top 10 most dangerous professions in the US, in order, are timber cutters; fishermen (politically correctly called "fishers" now); pilots and navigators (the only one in the top 10 that would include significant numbers of government personnel); structural metal workers; driver-sales workers (pizza delivery); roofers; electrical power installers; farm occupations; construction laborers; and truck drivers. Notice that with the qualified exception of pilots and navigators, these dangerous jobs are all in the private sector. Firemen, cops, and soldiers don't make the top 10.
I don't easily fall into the trap of comparing apples in bushels and oranges in crates. That's absurd. However, based on the past decade, a millionare donating his fortune to help a community and a soldier fighting a war are comparably two people doing what they think is right and are willing to risk their livelihood. The contrast is that the donation helps a community and the soldier protects a government asset.
My post about risk was similar to MJGraham's in that the player must choose for the character what is at risk. Each person has something to lose and life is not always the most important thing. Within RPGs, death is a system effect. The character took too much damage and died. If it didn't take so fracking long to make a character, I'd probably die more often, just for the cinematic effect.
Troy
On 10/27/2006 at 2:35pm, Narf the Mouse wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
Yes, that guy risked his life. Yes, that would be worth theme points. No, most people aren't blind.
Specifically, I noted 'The soldier on thebattlefield'. Granted, the danger level is different for different soldiers. But, to turn your question around, 'Which truck drivers? Which country and which routes do they drive?'
What is the basis used for comparison? As I understand it, the average battle produces 10% casaulties. Unless you're comparing 'one year in the life', with a number averaged over at least ten years of statistics and taking care to only count the death rates for the time period they were employed in that profession, the comparison strikes me as faulty.
That's ignoring the fact that my game is medieval fantasy and neither pilots, navigators, structeral metal workers, driver-sales workers, electrical power installers nor truck drivers exist - And logically, the most dangerous killer is plague.
Given that one statistic I read said that the average police man fires their weapon in earnest once in their entire carreer (Canadian statistic, will vary with country and city), I can see how those jobs are not as dangerous as advertised.
The contrast is that the rich man likely has a job he can use to continue supporting himself, but the soldier has but one life to give. As for the rest, let's not bring war politics into it, please.
Yes, if someone is willing to risk their for something, it's because they have something they consider more precious than life - Like freedom, patriotism, their ideals, pride, power...In my game, all those would be themes - The things that the character prizes enough to risk his or her life, because, in my opinion, having even one of those things is a big, huge, defining characteristic.
And in the end, my inspiration is more 'There and Back Again, A Hobbits' Tale, By Bilbo Baggins' and less 'Simcity'.
On 10/31/2006 at 3:19am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Insurrection] Motives and Virtues as Attributes
MJGraham wrote:stefoid wrote:
so the summary is that MJ should be more specific as to what virtues and motives are, and ensure they are used consistantly, since they seem to be central to his game.
Virtues and motives are attributes. Virtues explain how a character does something. Motive explains why they did it.
thats a good explanation, which is why I have trouble with the 'if you are courageous you automatically get a penalty to run away type of stuff.'. My motives decide whether or not I choose to run away. My courage virtue determines how steadfast I am in that decision.