Well, getting to Forge-style discussion and the whole d6 starwars thing, I think what really set the game apart was the Dark-side mechanics. I OFTEN had players who wanted to do a "fall from grace" sometimes with, sometimes without, a redeption. Being bad, instead of an outlet of rebellion (as with most RPGs of my youth) was instead a way to re-tell the story of Anakin (or whatever) before we knew much about it. The good-guy who falls to the dark side is a great story, all the moreso because the darkside is "lawful evil" to use DnD (ugh) alignments, not the Chaotic evil (ugh again) of most film baddies. There was something...noble about Vader, and so many of us wanted to walk with a lightsaber and seek our redemption. A parable for how we feel about our own lives, perhaps? If I ever played WEG SW d6 again (and I hope I do, though I might "Riddle" it up a bit), I would definitely be a Jedi that struggle with the pull of the dark side (powerfully represented in all those free dice the mechanics gave you) and finally fell, only to maybe (or maybe not) come out of it and become good again, if not burnt out. That's part of why the "burned out Jedi" was such a cool template--it was someone that had to truly become a hero on their own, not just be the next uber-fighter or whatever.

Jake

Just a brief side-note, not on topic, sorry. Jake -- if you ever do play d6 Star Wars again, tell us what you do to the mechanics. Actually, almost straight Riddle would be interesting... but now I'm so off-topic that it isn't even funny. Bye.

I anly played second edition, which I wouldn't uderstand as being either worse or better at this point. I always wondered why Jedi get lowered attributes. It seem to make absolutelley no sense. It's almost comical to see the long history of people who tried to incorperate force powers into the game and try to keep game balance. It's actually funny.

Pyron wrote: I anly played second edition, which I wouldn't uderstand as being either worse or better at this point. I always wondered why Jedi get lowered attributes. It seem to make absolutelley no sense. It's almost comical to see the long history of people who tried to incorperate force powers into the game and try to keep game balance. It's actually funny.

Couple questions about Star Wars in OTE, particularly character generation. I'll use examples.

1. Let's say I want a Wookie bartender. Is his Primary trait Wookie or Bartender? They're both quite versatile; the first covers hand-to-hand, bowcaster, intimidation, and probably surviving in the cold, while the second offers knowledge and contacts, empathy/half-baked psychology, and drink mixing. I can forsee this problem for a lot of aliens.

2. How many traits does a droid really have? Seems like Threepio and Artoo really just have high ratings in Protocol Droid and Astromech Droid, respectively.

I don't think these are really problems with the system, just things that are difficult to reproduce.

Also, while I like the current solution for Dark Side points and it's probably what I'd use, I'm going to share how I was originally going to do it. I was thinking that when a Jedi is doing something evil and wants to "let the dark side flow into him" or whatever, he can permanently add one level to his Jedi trait. However, that level and one of the ones he already had are "tainted." The tainted ones only count when doing evil.

Hmm. Going ahead with that, redemption would work pretty well. I'd say that if you perform a "redemptive act" (i.e., throwing the Emperor in a hole) you can use some or all of your Tainted levels for that, or even double them, but they go away after that action. That way you do great for that one action, and lose a lot of taint, but your overall Force power is less than it was originally. Seems logical to me, and it's an extra reason why Darth bit it so soon afterwards, eh?

EDIT: Going back to the first part of my Dark Side idea, you should probably gain two extra levels just for that one action, but it goes down to one afterwards. Oh, and you can't do this after all your levels are tainted. Or maybe you have to keep one level un-tainted, thus keeping the chance for redemption without sacrificing all power.

Please, don't go any further. I HATE it when people try to transelate using the dark side into mechanics... It's impossible to corrupt a smart player using mechanics. Becoming dark should NOT be the player's choice, and the reflexion in mechanics should NOT be known to players, if at all possible.

It's impossible to corrupt a smart player using mechanics.

Becoming dark should NOT be the player's choice...

Gaah! I'm sorry, my post about Wookies and Droids and Dark Side mechanics was supposed to be in a completely different thread. Actually, god, that was for a thread on RPG.net. Apologies for the non sequitur.

I'm sorry. You have missinterpreted what I meant. I am becoming a better writer all the time but perfection won't be for a while. Anyway:

That would be an interesting situation, and I oppologise for being so extreme, but I still think that the magority of players (especially thoes who role-play Jedi) would turn down your offer. If you repeatedly did such to them, they'd get REALLY pissed off.

Anakin was SEDUCED by the dark side... That means that it wan't his own choice. He didn't roll for it. However, being the chosen one, kinda screwed things for him... He was given choices, obviously, but I doubt that the emporer went up to him and asked, "Hey, I'm starting an evil cult dedicated to destruction of all of your friends. I've been asking around the neiborhood and I've looked at your credentials. You look pretty good. You might have to be assimilated by some machines, brethe through a mask, and be hated by qua-trillions but the dental plan's good. How'd you like to be the head man?"

Pyron wrote: I anly played second edition, which I wouldn't uderstand as being either worse or better at this point. I always wondered why Jedi get lowered attributes. It seem to make absolutelley no sense. It's almost comical to see the long history of people who tried to incorperate force powers into the game and try to keep game balance. It's actually funny.

wfreitag wrote:

It's impossible to corrupt a smart player using mechanics.

"Okay, smart player, you have one chance to save your peaceful home planet, your family, and all the other ten billion happy people living on it. You get two dice to try to strike your enemy dead before he can trigger the annihilation bomb. Of course, if you release your hatred, you'll get eight dice instead. It's your decision."

Wait, it wasn't a choice because they say he was seduced? So, like "sorry bob, your wife seduced me, I didn't have any say about it"? Nah, that just means the choice to follow the wrong path is really tempting.

A couple of things (which I dislike saying, as I don't enjoy moderating):

- Pyron: I've noticed in several threads that you have a bad habit of saying "I hate X" or "Don't discuss X because I don't like it" when you disagree with something. This is, frankly, non-productive and bothersome behavior. If you don't agree with something, tell us why. Don't expect people to conform to your whims if you don't give them a reason to.

- All: Are we really having a discussion about Star Wars and whether or not using the dark side is a choice? While I'm tempted as hell to make my reply on the matter, as I am a huge Star Wars geek, it's just not an appropriate topic, especially for Actual Play, as I see no actual playing of any Star Wars game being discussed here.

- All: Are we really having a discussion about Star Wars and whether or not using the dark side is a choice? While I'm tempted as hell to make my reply on the matter, as I am a huge Star Wars geek, it's just not an appropriate topic, especially for Actual Play, as I see no actual playing of any Star Wars game being discussed here.

I have split this topic from Scratchware's post in Actual Play. I have specifically named it because, as we've discussed on the forums before, we cannot have a discussion on how to create a game (or a mechanic) based off a piece of intellectual property. The Forge can't be liable for any sort of copyright infringement. If you guys want to continue this topic, please make it as generic as possible.

Hi,

Just to clarify, as long as we're not talking about making a Star Wars game, then we can talk Star Wars (game or movies, preferably the former) 'til the cows come home.

Best,
Ron

Actually I was about to try to generalize this anyway. The danger of characters falling into corruption is a very widely applicable trope. It shows up in gangster flicks, fantasy (that whole One Ring thing), horror, and of course it is central to Sorceror.

The mechanism that I think works poorly, over and over again, is "you just did X, make a roll to avoid corruption." If this is what Pyron was referring to, then I agree with him. This mechanism is just bad for all kinds of reasons:

- In tempts players who do not want their characters corrupted to play the odds anyway. Then if it happens, it feels like bad luck rather than a conseqence of choice.

- Some systems require such rolls involuntarily, based on things the character did that the player (and often, the character) had no control over. It's hard to imagine anything more deprotagonizing, and again it reduces deep moral issues to a damn crapshoot.

- It reverses cause and effect. You're able to commit murder because you've lowered your humanity to do so. It's not that doing it lowers your humanity after you're done. (Oh, wait, your humanity actually went down afterward not because you did it, but because you didn't feel guilty about it afterward? What the heck does that mean? Especially when, in the case where the character did something beyond his control, the corruption supposedly happens because the character does feel guility about it?)

- If you did the deed, why should you be able to avoid the corruption?

All things considered, I'd prefer just about any mechanism over this. Even D&D's "you read the wrong book, take alignment damage and lose all your powers" is better. At least that mechanism doesn't pretend to be taking the moral questions seriously.

- Walt

You sparked an interesting idea Walt.

I'm imagining a game whose focus is narrow enough that most of the "standard" actions characters would take can be listed on a reasonably sized table. Things like "Kill a person to protect yourself", "Kill a person to protect another", "Kill an animal which is threatening livestock", "Steal some money from someone who is rich", "Steal everything from someone and leave them destitute", "Kill an intelligent being and take his stuff even though he isn't technically human", "rape and torture an innocent girl"..."Make her mother watch", etc.

Each of these items would correspond to a level of "humanity", or "goodness" or whathave you. Your character absolutely can NOT, repeat can NOT willing perform any action lower on the table than his current score. The player can, with suitable roleplaying and in character justifying, voluntarily reduce his score to a level where the activity becomes acceptable.

Each occassion where the character performs an act on the table, it is checked off. It becomes progressively more difficult to raise the score the more common the lower activities become. Only by roleplaying a suitable act of redemption can the score increase.

Not sure how it would play in practice, but it would be an interest variation on "alignment". Palladium alignments took small steps in this direction, but, to my knowledge, never made them a central feature of game play.

Which makes perfect sense. I try to justify my opinions, and if I have a bad habbit, of doing that, please tell me WHERE on this thread, or you're just as bad as I am. I would try to correct the problem here or justify my reasoning you'd just allow me. Anyway:

O.K. seduction still allows for choice, as it makes the options still there, but I don't think that any mechanic that could potentially exist would simulate the seduction of the dark side. The problem is, that things that seduce, take away your ability to use logic, while RPG mechanics don't.

I have to disagree with you there on the concept of mechanics being unable to simulate seduction/corruption. For example, any game that requires you to make a willpower type roll of any sort is simulating that right there. If you have any disadvantages, such as greedy, lecherous, or addictions, that also is a simulation of willpower vs. temptation. What I will say is that many(but not all) of these mechanics can be deprotagonizing, but, if you as a player have chosen to take those disadvantages, then really you want to be hosed with them from the start.

What works better, is to have those disadvantages, but allow them to be countered by certain advantages or desires that are stronger, or mitigate the problems. For example, one person could have both Lecherous, and Dutiful, and the two would come into conflict if this individual was asked to guard and protect the King's daughter, soon to be married(who isn't all that virtuous herself...).

On the other hand, mechanics that give big advantages to those who take the temptations(such as the greater dice bonus for Darkside forces), really do make you juggle priorities as a player. It's much more entertaining when the slide into corruption was a price you were willing to pay at the time. Players aren't always necessarily against the idea of corruption. The story of redemption and salvation is always one that is popular throughout the ages.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: What works better, is to have those disadvantages, but allow them to be countered by certain advantages or desires that are stronger, or mitigate the problems. For example, one person could have both Lecherous, and Dutiful, and the two would come into conflict if this individual was asked to guard and protect the King's daughter, soon to be married(who isn't all that virtuous herself...).

The simple problem here, Eric, is that you are expressing your or your players Gamist tendencies. That is, yes, if you are playing in a Gamist fashion, the player will use logic to overcome the situation and thus win out. What you have described is what is referred to as Pawn Stance, that meaning that the players make decisions using their characters as though they were pawns in a game without consideration for the character's feelings, or the direction of the story, etc.

However, what you are missing is that many players play in a Simulationist or Narrativist mode, using other stances like Actor, and Author. In these modes and using these stances, choosing the corruption path is a viable option, because the player is either doing so because he believes that the character would do so (regardless of waht the player thinks is tactically sound), or because it creates a story of higher literary merit, emulating the actual SW saga for example. Lots of players play like this. There are essays on this site that can help you get a grasp on thse concepts.

Until you understand these other modes of play you aren't going to be able to understand a lot of what's going on in these discusions. You simply do not hav enough expeience with other modes of play. Just because your players play Gamist doesn't mean all players play Gamist. Such mechanics as are being discussed do exist (as mentioned, for example, in Sorcerer), and work wonderfully well for such players. This thread does not cater only to you, so it will necessarily include such discussion.

Nobody expects perfection from anyone here, Eric. But this site is peopled by adults. You must either act like an adult here, or you will be treated like a child.

Mike

Mike,

I'm doing this publicly for a reason ...

Back off on Eric. He's doing fine.

Eric, don't flare up on this one. I've covered it.

Best,
Ron

On the note of redemption, we just wrapped up our RoS campaign in which I was playing an ex-soldier with a big thing for not killing. I managed to survive with only killing one person by accident. It was rather fun to play someone struggling to fufill their own vows and work within the self-imposed limitations. On the other hand, I could easily see going over the edge and also being entertaining as well.

What I do enjoy in "seduction" mechanics, which appear in most(if not all) of Whitewolf, L5R, and many other games, is that, when done correctly, help reinforce the setting. L5R's taint can just happen to you by being near it, which isn't so much of a player choice, on the other hand, it shows you just how nasty your enemy is. Abberant's taint on the other hand, is simply the quick route to power, and totally falls in line with the Dark side idea.

Chris

I'll try to clarify my thoughts.

1. This argument is based in mechanics anyway. If players are volintarily being seduced by evil then what is the point of having mechanics there at all? Gamist decisions can have wonderful impact, because they can reflect the player's opinion better than the other two styles, as a whole. I made an immature post, and I appologize. I meant to say that you must try hard to integrate seduction into mechanics to make it work. In Sorcerer it is a premise for the game. Problem solved. People are made to rely on abilities that can cause corruption. I am simply arguing against mechanics that give you a short term bonus with a long term negative impact, especially if the long term negative impact is visible. One of my players recently took on a dark side technique for defence. I told him that he would gain a dark side point but he simply stated that, "I knew that already." I was stunned. Here was my first oppertunity to corrupt a player.

I run a LARP loosely based on V:TM, but since playing's free [1] and we don't do anything with our homebrew rules other than use them I figure I can sort of mention it. Especially if I remember to put the 'This is not a challenge to...' blurb in the rules as soon as I get home. Different background, different system, though some rules are a bit similar. The way we track corruption however, isn't.

Anyway, we got rid of Humanity, because it sucked, and replaced it with Corruption. You don't lose something by doing evil, you gain it. Or rather, this being a Vampire game, your 'Beast' does. Corruption, which is also your evil/vampiric nature increases, within a two stage ten-point scale. Your average human has a corruption of 1:5, say, which means he can lie, cheat occasionally, and speed 'when it's safe'. At 1:9, if he gains another 'point' of corruption, he goes to 2:2. As you've probably noticed, if you gain a point at 9:9 you'll hit an infinite corruption loop.

You gain corruption for performing transgressive acts within your level of corruption. At one, you're a regular joe, by three you're a sociopath who'll reach for violence first, at five you'll kill a boatload of immigrants to power your disciplines/physical attributes for a dirty weekend [2] by seven you'll kill people without thinking about it. The kind of acts that you'd need to perform to get past those levels are, well, unpleasant.

As you go up a corruption level [from 2:9 to 3:3, say], you gain a merit, a flaw, and a point in a discipline. It's got an advantage, obviously, but, at first, our players were kept ignorant of how the system worked. Do bad things, get more powerful. Do bad things, find it harder to keep yourself in check. Because Corruption is numerical, it can be used, within the system, to provide a basis for frenzy tests. We also allow it to be used as a replacement for willpower, and to power supernatural abilities, but that's to tempt them. I think I'm drifting.

The penalties for high levels of corruption come in at a plot/GM level. They can commit vile acts without noticing within their frame of reference. [It helps that downtime tends to be vague]. They also frenzy faster, and stuff. It's not balanced, at all. Two characters of equal age, but differing corruption, will usually, if they fight, see the less corrupt one die. The extra flaws given to the corrupt give them weaknesses, but they can be "coped-with", one way or another.

Losing corruption requires good works on a scale akin to the level of corruption you're at. Building a hospital might start you on the way to losing some of corruption 5. Your good works take a point at a time, and 6:0 become 5:9. It's easy to go up, and hard to come down. Not coming down, however, means that you're easier to spot [if people can see that sort of thing], impossible to trust [ditto], and generally incapable of subtlety. You can get away with it until you do something stupid, when you'll get jumped on and destroyed. It's happened to every high corruption character introduced/developed in our game, and while it's a risk some are willing to take, the dread hand of social justice plays a big role in dissuading people from reaching too far. Much like life, really.

Of course, all that means is that the bad guys are tougher. Which we like.

erith -

[1] Actually free, we don't charge for anything [apart from ribbons, and even then only if they've lost the first set].
[2] Something like 1000 blood points spent by two characters in six or seven days. Players are scary.

Erith,

That is the most interesting take on V:tM that I've ever seen.. If I ever run another Vampire game... mind if I use it?

Not really, no. I've sent you [in the about to sense] a PM with my email address inside, so you can send me yours. I'll probably need to talk to Sam about it [him being the guy who created the rules, but me being the guy who rewrote 'em], but yeah, I don't see a problem with it. The whole corruption business bears a similarity to the system used in Durham By Night [I think], a Dark Ages game. Of course, our one goes up to eleven.

Has anyone else experimented with this stuff outwith the context of a Star Wars or Vampire game? Beyond Paladin and Sorceror, I mean.
erith -

Hey,

Side note: there is no ban on discussing Vampire or any other role-playing game at the Forge, especially in the context of Actual Play or RPG Theory. I'm not sure why Drew felt any hesitation about mentioning it in his post.

Best,
Ron

erith, I like this mechanism. I explained before why I don't like the fortune element in humanity loss / corruption gain mechanisms. Your fractional increments are an excellent alternative.

Having fewer increments at each corruption level is a very nice touch. Of course, as you said it takes a much more serious act to go from say 7.7 to 7.8 than it would to go from 2.7 to 2.8, so each successive level has fewer increments but each increment is more significant. That means if you're bent on corruption you could accelerate into it dramatically, but if you're trying to resist it each level would be about an equal milestone and you might be able to maintain an equilibrium under most circumstances.

The fact that the mechanism leads to an infinite loop after 9.9 is also very elegant. This is one of my favorite things to see in game design: when the game mechanisms themselves express powerful imagery like this.

So now that I've thought about it for three paragraphs, let me amend what I started out saying: I really really like this mechanism a lot! My hat's off to you.

I'm curious about how you interpret ends versus means conflicts in advancing corruption. Let's suppose a character kills someone in order to save the lives of five others. Compared to just a plain murder for personal gain, would this act result in:

- less corruption gain, because your intentions were good.
- the same corruption gain, because it's the act itself that's important.
- more corruption gain, because your attitude that the end justifies the means is ultimately the path to deeper corruption.

Also, what would actually happen in play if someone went past the 9.9 limit into the infinite spiral?

- Walt

wfreitag wrote: I'm curious about how you interpret ends versus means conflicts in advancing corruption. Let's suppose a character kills someone in order to save the lives of five others. Compared to just a plain murder for personal gain, would this act result in:

- less corruption gain, because your intentions were good.
- the same corruption gain, because it's the act itself that's important.
- more corruption gain, because your attitude that the end justifies the means is ultimately the path to deeper corruption.

Erith,
You hit on one of the two problems I have with corruption mechanics. Basicly it's relative vs absolute morality. Does it matter what you do, or does it matter why you do it? Absolute is pretty easy to encode into a mechanic as Valmir mentioned. Relative is a lot harder, as was mentioned. For instance if I reach for the darkside to save the planet AND my friend, why do I get corrupted for this?
(Or more appropriatly, why won't the friggin light side help me?)
The other problem is you it tends to encourage Pawn stance a bit much. If I know 'If I do this, I'll loose my charachter' that is a good incentive not to do that. A gamist will avoid this for obvious reasons. A highly pure simulationist might do it, although the most likely outcome is for them to create charachters where this is not a problem.
A Narritivist might avoid it because it effectivly ends the story for them. You can also run into problems with other players. I remember a Shadowrun game where a player got scratched by a vampire. They ended up hand of Goding because the other players basicly indicated that they would kill their characther.
My point is I prefer to avoid mechanices that put a players 'fun' in conflict with a characthers actions.

damion wrote: Basicly it's relative vs absolute morality. Does it matter what you do, or does it matter why you do it? Absolute is pretty easy to encode into a mechanic as Valmir mentioned. Relative is a lot harder, as was mentioned. For instance if I reach for the darkside to save the planet AND my friend, why do I get corrupted for this?

(Or more appropriatly, why won't the friggin light side help me?)

The other problem is you it tends to encourage Pawn stance a bit much. If I know 'If I do this, I'll loose my charachter' that is a good incentive not to do that.

A gamist will avoid this for obvious reasons.

A highly pure simulationist might do it, although the most likely outcome is for them to create charachters where this is not a problem.

A Narritivist might avoid it because it effectivly ends the story for them.

You can also run into problems with other players. I remember a Shadowrun game where a player got scratched by a vampire. They ended up hand of Goding because the other players basicly indicated that they would kill their characther.

My point is I prefer to avoid mechanices that put a players 'fun' in conflict with a characthers actions.

Erith,
Sorry, wasn't trying to insult your system. Actually, I like it, although I know very little about Vampire. My comments mostly related to systems where the corruption was final and fairly quick. I.e. no fall and redemption story.
Also, my comments were for characthers get corruption due to mechanical rather than story issues. If I slaughter storm troopers with the light side while pentrating the death star it's ok, but if I do it with the darkside to save the planet, I'm evil? My point is that you can end up with some weird situations. Probably some sort of initial social contract would clear this up.

If I understand your system correctly, vampires don't gain corruption in down time. At high levels they may kill & torture people without explic player concent(i.e. do stuff comiserate with their level of corruption) i.e. any gain requires some sort of action.

Are you honestly saying that there being a penalty for playing characters who are monstrously corrupt is a bad thing? It's a real and lasting reminder that evil isn't a good idea. Look at the amount of attention we're paying to it as a concept, now imagine having to deal with it as a player. The mechanic enforces an awareness of morals, and gives players a chance to see how close to the edge they can get. If that's what they want.

damion wrote:
Also, my comments were for characthers get corruption due to mechanical rather than story issues. If I slaughter storm troopers with the light side while pentrating the death star it's ok, but if I do it with the darkside to save the planet, I'm evil? My point is that you can end up with some weird situations. Probably some sort of initial social contract would clear this up.

If I understand your system correctly, vampires don't gain corruption in down time. At high levels they may kill & torture people without explic player concent(i.e. do stuff comiserate with their level of corruption) i.e. any gain requires some sort of action.

A Corruption 2.0 vampire
will be much less effective than a more Corrup one of equal experiance(or whatever vampire has). While being the morally upright, but weaker vampire has a certian charm, it's not a big niche. As, if I understand things right, not only will a uncorrupt vampire have less abilities, but the ones they have will tend to bounce off more, because Corruption affects resistance. (Or maybe I misunderstood).

It's a rather interesting problem actually. (Hmm, giving in to the beast makes me better, but...) It does make the whole moral seesay thing more explict. How far will you go?

Out of curiosity, what is the 'minimum' corruption for a vampire. I mean, you gotta feed, right?

erithromycin wrote: The less Corrupt vampire will, as I said, be less powerful that one of equal age/experience. Their advantage comes from the fact that they've got less flaws and their actions are less confined.

Assuming that you have no ghouls, don't use your disciplines, don't Frenzy, eat only blood donated willingly for you to eat or take it in a humane way from animals without killing them and they're kept in good conditions, you might be able to hover at 1:9.

There's nothing to stop a person from having Corruption 5. They just don't get extra power from it. So it is possible to be less Corrupt than some humans straight off.

Corruption is also a measure of how powerful the Beast is within you, so as a Vampire, it means not using any of your Vampiric powers. Not feeding is kind of hard, but there's a merit that allows you to feed from emotions. If you make sure they're good ones, yes, you could probably get below 1, but then you're in a strange place.

As it goes, most people have a Corruption of 1:5, and most Vampires have a Corruption of 2:5. By their very nature Vampires are more corrupt than people, more given to the Beast within. Of course, that's just how it is in my game. If you want to do it differently, feel free.

Just to clarify, by the way, you only gain powers going up into a new Corruption level once, if you backslide, and come back up, you don't get anything. There's no power-up respawn for evildoing and then remorse.

erith -