The game I'm working on will center on heroic characters.  Heroes are larger-than-life, right?  Their actions are larger-than-life (heroic deeds), their passions run strong, they have great goals, a destiny.

I can have the players put all that on their character sheets.  "Rufus's Destiny is to unite the Kingdoms of Muritana under a single banner!"  Great, but if the only way it comes into play is through good roleplaying, it may as well not be there.  So to encourage these things to be a real part of the game, I created a mechanic that in essence says if your character's destiny (for example) is relevant in the current scene or situation, you get bonuses on your die rolls.

But that introduces the issue where certain players -- the ones who game every rule to maximize their character's advantage -- will come up with a way to involve their character's destiny in Every. Fricking. Scene.  "Suddenly a robber jumps out of the alley and attacks you!"  "Okay, well, if I don't defeat him I won't achieve my Destiny, so clearly my Destiny is at stake here.  Bonus dice for me!"  Then we get into the GM-versus-player situation, with the GM arguing it's not Destiny-related and the player asserting it is.

So I need a way to handle this sort of gamer.  But I'm at a loss.  I'm open to any suggestions, any ideas for me? 

Thanks,
Thomas

First, suggestion: limit the number of times it can be used. This can be done in several ways:
- A number of uses that you get each session
- A pool of uses that you refresh when you actively pursue your destiny
- A counter-mechanism where you have to go through X number of different bonuses before you can use that one again
- Only bringing out the bonus if the character brought about the conflict in pursuit of the destiny

Let me suggest another thing, though: you could play the whole game just about the character's destiny. After all, why are bandits jumping out? Is that just a random encounter? Heroes don't have those. Is it a plot that's unconnected to the character's destiny? Heroes don't usually get involved in those. Etc. :)

Hi Thomas!

The first thing that I thought after reading your post was about having a kind of "cost" associated with the destiny. Depending on the kind of system this could be points to spend, a limited number or uses, or some undesiderable effect that happen when they use their destiny.  So that they will use it only when it's really important, for them, and not everytime.

Another way would be to use that destiny as a trait as any others, a la (for example) Dogs in the Vineyard, where "my destiny is to become the next prophet, 2d6" would give you the exact dice bonus as "I like ice-cream, 2d6" if you can use it in a conflict. In this way the players would choose (and use) a Destiny only of he liked the idea to play one, and not because this give him more bonus that not having one.

There is another way, still:  as suggested in the Sorcery and Sword supplement to the game Sorcerer, you could simply play the character's life starting from the day he get to fulfill his destiny, and after that, simply play his past without worrying about chronological order (as happened with the Conan stories: the first one was about his becoming king. All the other were written and published after this one, so all the readers knew that he would someday become king, even if the character didn't get any "bonus" in the stories for this). THw character destiny would emerge in play even without any game bonus.

xenopulse wrote: Let me suggest another thing, though: you could play the whole game just about the character's destiny. After all, why are bandits jumping out? Is that just a random encounter? Heroes don't have those. Is it a plot that's unconnected to the character's destiny? Heroes don't usually get involved in those. Etc. :)

Heroes don't have random encounters.

Okay, I am willing to buy that up to a point.  In essence that idea condenses gameplay to only the things that are meaningful to the character.  The story then becomes more like a TV show or book in that regard: you're hitting the high points.  Where it doesn't work for me is it takes away player choice in a sense.  I do want the players to be able to choose to do things that are unrelated to their characters' goals/passions/destinies.  Or be forced to by circumstance.  (Where "forced" is really just a euphemism for "the GM makes the alternative unpleasant".)  If the character is always doing something related to their goals or destiny, then they always get those bonus dice.  I want them to be... well, bonus dice.  Not all-the-time dice.

Callan, in my game players do have co-authorship, so this does come into play here.  Good point, bringing that up.

I'll consider the resource-based approach where the bonus dice have to be recharged or something like that.  I'm still open to other ideas though....

Thomas

I've always liked the idea of heroes being more capable during their moments of heroic particularity. Instead of limiting the use of heroic actions, you might make it clear in your rules that, as each player has chosen a heroic destiny of some sort, its part of the GM's job to distract the players from their fated duty, as well as provide challenges associated with the duty itself; the GM is free to define when these situations are as they begin, but the offers should be considerable enough to lure the characters away. By offering players this and that, you know, new and better things of any sort in the game - even belonging to its own set of mechanics and stats - to draw them farther and farther away from their destiny. Failing to fulfill a destiny should have some sort of in-game consequences in the long term, but that's why the draws will generate drama in the long term.

I hope that this helps! Good luck in your work.

What about rewarding taking action that runs against their destinies, too, but make those rewards different? You get reward A for making it about your destiny and reward B for undercutting your destiny. You may want to make the "ignore destiny" rewards short-term and immediate and "live destiny" rewards long-term and coming in the future.

Of course you can flip that if you want the game to be about people struggling against their destinies.

I mylsef feel inclined towards the bonus vs. nothing, and if the hero lets it escape his opportunities to follow his calling, he may end up as an ordinary drunkard in some crummy tabern, annoying customers with his stories of glory and failure.

You're right worrying about the gamist players claiming unjustified bonuses, but I think that with players who have no self control about sticking to the current game, it's nigh impossible to have a good roleplaying experience. And if they just won't even be able to enjoy such a game, maybe this one is inappropriate for them --or again they are so for the game.

Hi-

I toyed with this in Ten-Cent Heroes too, but eventually dropped the idea for two reasons: 1) it didn't really fit the genre too much, and 2) the exact reason you're worried about it-player abuse. In TCH I  had personality and drive; you got bonus points when you operated according to either (they were ranked 1-4 and gave that much of a bonus when appropriate). When the character worked counter to their drive or personality, the character was penalized by the same modifier. My notion, much like yours I believe, was to drive the characters to being in character, but opened the door to players trying to link every stupid thing they do to their drive or personality. Anyway, the penalty aspect of destiny may be an interesting possiblity.

Another possibility is to have two stats; Destiny is your total pool of points; to be used until the character is able to rechange them. Legend (or whatever) are the number of dice that can be used at one time. Maybe this stat would act like character level or something like that. This would allow for multiple uses, keep the maximum bonus fairly constant, and allow players to pick & choose when they invoke their bonus. Somebody suggested getting points back when you pursue your destiny; thats a good idea. For automatic recharge, maybe you could link to the character's legend score.

Just an idea. Thoughts?

Take care,

Ken

Satanman wrote:
I've always liked the idea of heroes being more capable during their moments of heroic particularity. Instead of limiting the use of heroic actions, you might make it clear in your rules that, as each player has chosen a heroic destiny of some sort, its part of the GM's job to distract the players from their fated duty, as well as provide challenges associated with the duty itself; the GM is free to define when these situations are as they begin, but the offers should be considerable enough to lure the characters away. By offering players this and that, you know, new and better things of any sort in the game - even belonging to its own set of mechanics and stats - to draw them farther and farther away from their destiny. Failing to fulfill a destiny should have some sort of in-game consequences in the long term, but that's why the draws will generate drama in the long term.

Thinking out loud, so bear with me:

A Destiny is akin to Fate. As such, it is something that "will happen" (or its failure to happen is the "real Fate" and the Destiny was more akin to an Ambition).

Knowing the Destiny combined with "heroes don't have random encounters" is what causes this perceived problem with "all-the-time" dice.

So... you seem to have a few ways to address these contradictions:
1) Do not let players assert Destinies, but rather let them assert Ambitions. Thus, if they can argue that their Ambition can be progressed in a scene, they can get the bonus dice. PLUS, should they fail to acquire the "stakes" in the scene that would progress their Ambition, the dice they got could become dice LOST in the next scene (if that scene could also progress their Ambition, then they get bonus AND penalty dice, making a net zero bonus; a "push"). This makes a more-dramatic, risk-reward element to taking bonus dice, but avoids a vicious spiral (i.e. only one scene of penalty).

2) Require players to develop Destinies that are partially or fully in conflict with each other--after all, aren't the Villains' "Destinies" in conflict with the Heroes', in some sense? This removes "random" encounters... but it also means that many encounters (N-1, where N is the number of players) are "pregnant" with Destiny opportunity for other characters. This method makes more of a "spotlight time" element to the dice--not only are they a bonus, but they also clearly demarcate whose Destiny is being pinged. Further, you could eventually find that Destinies intertwine--scenes occur which can validly progress two or more characters' Destinies--and them each one gets their bonus dice. Fitting, as the Destinies of several heroes coming into alignment (or direct conflict) tends to make for "big kaboom" situations with significant repercussions.

3) Heroes actually *do* have random encounters... and wasting Destiny dice on them comes with a backlash of some kind (viz others' ideas about bonus dice as a finite resource, or bonus dice doing some kind of "harm" if misused). This has a neat element of making the use of bonus dice totally the player's decision... but he or she could guess wrong and find that random encounter "used up too much mojo / luck / juice / fate points" (or whatever) and actually got him or her nowhere. Do the gods laugh at heroes who tilt against windmills?

4) Players don't know their character's Destinies. (Ick--BIG GM fiat, there.) But adds an element of mystery and tension, for what it's worth.

I like any of the above, except 4, and all of them take away the GM-v-players conflict that you seek to avoid (or move that conflict to a more discrete realm of debate: facts, not perceptions).

HTH;
David

Satanman wrote:
as each player has chosen a heroic destiny of some sort, its part of the GM's job to distract the players from their fated duty, as well as provide challenges associated with the duty itself

contracycle wrote:
This sort of play would be directly adversarial, probably.

I'm not sure this is all coming together neatly for me but I do think there is a nugget in there, inverting the destiny so that it is a goal, and handing its execution to the player rather the GM.

Satanman wrote:
I can see how this might become too much of a tug of war between player goals and GM distractions, though that certainly wasn't my intention. I think that in this situation, the next step of what the player must do to fulfill their destiny must be apparent, but perhaps the player will only sometimes have the resources at hand to further their heroic task. The distractions might be opportunities to gather what is needed in terms of power, support, information, armies, whatever that can easily get out of hand, steer the player away from their fate and into obligations and a snowball of desire.

I also see the idea of player chosen destiny in role play as not so much what an individual Will do, but the contract between the setting and whatever specialness that makes PCs something more than everyone else. If a character fails in their obligation, there are consequences, likely terrible ones, but the situations that arise from these bring with them new heroes capable of dealing with them - leaving the potential hero of a previous moment in an interesting role playing position.

It may seem a little backwards and pigeon-holed for a certain type of system can campaign, but Could It Work?