Hi, the following comes out of my thinking on an advancement mechanic for politics heavy games, but is of more general applicability. I posted it initially over at rpg.net then thought that actually it's more of a Forge post, dealing as it does with issues of currency and suchlike.

In most games, as a character gains experience that character becomes more effective. So, your barbarian wanderer from the cold wastes becomes a more skilled and kick ass barbarian wanderer from the cold wastes. Your larcenous rogue with his own spaceship becomes a more effective larcenous rogue, possibly with a better spaceship. And so on.

This is the standard for the vast bulk of rpgs. As time goes on characters become increasingly effective at whatever it is they do.

Something which I would like to see more of is increased connectedness as an advancement mechanic, something found in few games (Flashing Blades is one which springs to mind). On this model, as the character progresses and time passes the character gains contacts, status, reputation, wealth and position. Instead of just becoming better at what they do they become more tied to the game world.

So, the wandering barbarian from the cold wastes becomes the general of the armies of the south, a man of position and responsibility. The larcenous rogue with his own spaceship becomes a leading member of the merchant guild with links to several politicians who's campaigns he bankrolled.

Over time, characters become more a part of the world and more important to it. Not because they kick ass better, but because they know more people and more people look to them for guidance and leadership.

It is, I think, a more subtle form of advancement. But it would make practical some games which in the effectiveness scheme are hard to do. If you're playing a game of courtiers at the palace, does it really matter if you're skills improve or you get better at combat? What matters is the Queen's undermaid now shares gossip with you and

...your bed?


Seemed cut off.

But I totally agree with you. I think that several games already do this very well. Hero Wars is the one that first pops into mind, but as I understand it, that is what Trollbabe is *all* about. Many games nowadays have mechanics that allow for such attachments as a normal part of the rules. Story Engine, for example, or the Pool. They are part of Universalis by default (anything can be a Trait), and an important facet of my Synthesis design.

I personally just like treating relationships as any other Trait, allowing them to be "improved" if one likes, or ignored as well. But I could see a whole game that was about nothing but relationships (again I think that Trollbabe is like this). Interestingly, one could turn the tables on traditional design. For example, you could have a game with several social traits laid out (say, for the court game stuff like seduction, lieing, toadying, whatever), and then each character could also have one "non-court" think that they could do, to individualize things. One could be a duelist, another could be a priest, while yet another is an apothecary. These allow you to do a few things outside of the focus of the game, but are ancillary for the most part to what sort of action occurs. Thus social traits are the norm, and non-social traits the exception; a reversal of most traditional designs.

That being the intrugue. Yep, I can say that I'd play such a game.

Mike

En Guard did this well too. Getting the right Mistress was a key to success.

The post should have continued like this:

gossip with you and the Lord Chamberlain is grateful to you for a favour you once did him.

Advancement of this kind would also help to cut down on the wandering psychopath archetype so common in gaming.

Lastly, it would make multi-power level parties easier. Right now, in most games, an experienced character is vastly more effective than a beginning character. With connectedness as the advancement mechanic an experienced character wouldn't necessarily be more effective, he'd just know more people. A new character could therefore be important to the group precisely because everyone doesn't already know who he is.

Thoughts?

I would have edited it, but Mike's comment was too good to render meaningless.

It seems to me that we're still talking increased effectiveness, just effectiveness in a different area of the game. In order for social connection to be a reward, these social connections must be used to move the game along, right? So a character with a lot of connections is more effective than one with fewer.

Not that this is a bad thing. But you still have to worry about situations in the game that revolve around who-knows-who leaving the less experienced characters in the dust.

Lon

Hi there,

Hero Wars, Hero Wars, Hero Wars!! already fired up and ready to do exactly what you describe.

Theoretically, a character could leave all of his traditional RPG abilities (combat, skills, etc, etc), precisely where they are at the start of play, and never increase anything except status, relationships, followers, etc ... and you know what, that character would be just as "effective" as any other. Great fuckin' game system.

Best,
Ron

Lon brings up a good point, but I think that Max already has it nailed. As you increase in connections, you lose obscurity. Make that Obscurity a meaningful trait. Thus everyone is balanced the character's just change as they progress.

What is obscurity useful for? Well, it's a defense against people knowing your secrets for one. Actually, call it Novelty, and it means that people will be interested in getting to know you just because you are new. Thus, as you become more well known, knowing you means less and less.

Now I'm thinking a better term might be reknown or somehting. What I'd do,then is have a character with a low reknown have easy rolls to improve interms of getting to know people. People are interested in the character, and want to get to know you. As you get to know more people, others that you don't have links with will not feel that there is a need to get to know you (they've heard of you, and think they know what you're about anyhow), and the rolls are more difficult.

Thus you have characters starting out with few contacts, but a great ability to make more. Or you can start as a character with a lot of contacts, but a relative inability to make more. Old guard/New guard type stuff. People in the middle are the movers and shakers. They still have few enough people interested in them that they can make more connections, but not so few that they can't get anything done at all.

This is cool, of course, because it gives a lifespan to a character. He makes his plays, gets his connections, and moves up in the court. He keeps at the game until he has played all his cards, and is now somewhat passe. (make that the spectrum; low Reknown is called Novel, high reknown is called Passe, while the middle is thought to be interesting).

Seems classic to me. Play will be all about using what connections you have to leverage more, so as not to burn out too quick, or to get those new connections when you are no longer novel. Low Reknown will be about getting things done by making new alliances, and despite not haing many. High Reknown will be about trying to remain relevant to the intrigue at hand. This is also cool because it allows players to start out at any level of play and have equal opportunity for success. Just different kinds of success.

There might also be a parallel responsibility/power sort of track. Starts out low, meaning little powers, but no responsibilities, and go to lots of power, but so many responsibilities that you never know if you'll have time to use it.

Mike

Mike,

Absolutely, that is precisely what I'm driving at. In terms of previous rpg design this is closer to Zero than anything else. Improvement in one sphere limits you in another.

As you gain renown, you lose obscurity. That means your freedom of action becomes somewhat curtailed as you are no longer anonymous.

A truly obscure character can do anything but nobody cares. They may struggle to make initial contacts.

Once they have some, people start to have heard of them. But, they are not yet well known, so they are interesting. Contacts now come thick and fast.

Eventually everybody knows who you are. You have little anonymity and thus less freedom of action. You are a known quantity and thus less interesting. But, you have clout. You can call the right people. Hell, you are the right people.

So, at all stages characters are in a way balanced. You don't advance so much as move position in life. The senator with his power and contacts may look in envy at the carefree minstrel who may act as he wishes without fear of public disapproval.

For, the worst thing of all is to get to the top and be disgraced. Worse than death perhaps, for then you have no anonymity, no freedom, nobody is interested in learning about you as they already know all they want to but you no longer have any power.

Just wanted to say that the whole idea behind this thread has interested me for some time. Actually anything having to do with char advancement beyond the traditional "increase you skill system" interestes me. I'd like to believe that with enough effort we could all come up with advancement systems that are a bit more subtle and dynamic.

Mike Holmes wrote: This is cool, of course, because it gives a lifespan to a character. He makes his plays, gets his connections, and moves up in the court. He keeps at the game until he has played all his cards, and is now somewhat passe.

One thing I find is that the more renown you have, the less power you have in actually defining your public identity. I treat renown in my games as sorta battle scars, social attributes/traits that are not necessarily true, but assigned to you by the world at large.

Hmm, maybe a mechanic to control/influence WHICH traits get assigned to you? This could be intresting, as politicians do this all the time. Bill Clinton got 'playboy' assigned instead (or at least far more so) of 'liar' or 'corrupt' (politicians are for the most part known for a single negative trait, better for it to be something relatively benign). But this is getting off track of the initial point of the thread.

Ooh, CV, that's very cool. I was struggling with the whole passe, thing, and I think that lack of ability to change your rep might be a better balancing tool. I think there is a possibility here of multiple axes, if done right, that could be very interesting. I'd like to see a system, where the axes are not dicotomies so much as a sort of pool of differing sorts of effectivenesses. Thus, as your power goes up, perhaps your resistance to reputation goes down. Or as your allies flee, your ability to affect your own reputation goes up. Etc. Hmmm...

Mike

This sounds really cool... would look cool in a Supers genre game...
(I do game in other things, honest...)
Bob McNamee

But...

I am relatively unknown compared to Bill Gates, and I think most people given a choice today would rather be his contact than mine. He has clout, and can get things done for you.

The system I am currently developing is based heavily around guilds, and as you move up in guilds you receive influence. Upon meeting NPCs you can 'spend' part of your influence on securing that person as a contact, from whom some sort of loyalty can be expected. Alternatively, influence can be spent on all manner of other stuff.

The point is that people who want things (everyone) are more likely to become Bill's friend, than the friend of some hobo who's only claim to fame is that he has no claim to fame.

I really like the idea that new characters shake things up, and am wondering if there is a way of marrying this with the system above.

nipfipgip...dip wrote: The point is that people who want things (everyone) are more likely to become Bill's friend, than the friend of some hobo who's only claim to fame is that he has no claim to fame.

Mike Holmes wrote: Its going to be hard to make contacts when you are isolated from the world by your current contacts.

Yeah, that's sort of it. Say you have to pay x amount to get an entirely new slot, but you only have to pay a bit less to transfer that slot from one person to the other. This makes total sense. One only has so many hours in the day, and you cannot maintain more than so many contacts. They "erode" over time through disuse. So, iff you swap out, it has to be with the character who you've had the least contact with.

Using your idea with other skills, if you have Sensei 7, perhaps when you leave him, you retain a "Trained by Sensei" 7 skill, but have lost the contact.

Switching contacts would still be beneficial then, encouraging characters to grow. Perhaps switching back to an old contact might be done with a discount. Lots of things to do with this.

Now you have me thinking of a Feudal Japanese setting, something like what I discussed for Shotgun Musashi. Hmmm.

Mike

A thought:

An actual map could be drawn with rings of proximity; family in the first ring, friends in the second ring, professional acquaintances in the third ring etc. Rings indicate intimacy. Entering a romantic relationship would be portrayed by moving an NPC (or PC actually) from ring 2 (friends) to ring 1 (family).

Similarly, characters could be estranged and pushed out of the characters orbit, as it were. Not everyone you are physically related to necessarily counts as family and vice versa.

Contra, nice idea. That way you could represent it visually on a character sheet which makes things much easier in play.

It is a nice idea, although Intimacy isn't enough to represent a relationship. There's also the tone/flavour/emotional content of the relationship.

I suppose it's easier to have strongly flavoured personal relations (love/hate) with those people you are more intimate with.

And you can still do slots as well. Fewer on the inside than on the outside. This seems counterintuitive at first; the objection comes up that a person with a large number of siblings should have more slots. But I think that there are always people even in our own family that we are more or less intimate with, and only the top tier get the inner circle. The rest really are more like friends.

I'd go four rings:

1. Intimate Family, closest friends, true love.
2. Family, close friends, lovers.
3. Friends, professional relationships, dates.
4. Aquaintances, one nighters

The last would be for people that you know fairly well, but have not built any rapport with yet.

And I'd allow people to skip steps.

As for the Male/female relationship, note how I tried to leave sex out of the equation. Sure it will tend to draw people together, but it can be as light as casual friends. In general, I think that any type of relationship can be on any level. There are just tendencies to some. For purposes of this model, and how it will affect things mechanically, I think this will work.

Just a sample model. I'm sure it can be tweaked.

Mike

Hmm, it could also be zoned, but that might get crowded. But say a hex split could be introduced so you get 6 cascading pyramids away from the centre point, the character. The only downside to such categorization is that it might present the possibility that one person needs to appear in two places. On the other hand (and in the light of the discussion of mindreading, teehee) it might indicate ambivalence or confusion on the part of the character to the notional alien anthropologist. You might know that X knows Y, and then be surprised to find out they had two different types of relationships. But that may well not be the most useful form of representation.

The type of relationship you have with someone doesn't seem to be as important in the mechanics that are being discussed as the closeness of the relationship. Thus, there's no need to zone the sheet, or have one person in two places, etc.--you just indicate the nature of your relationship to the person next to them in their box on the sheet.

I'm looking forward to this game. Someone please write it.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: I'm looking forward to this game. Someone please write it.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: I'm looking forward to this game. Someone please write it.

Yeah. Max? Isn't it about time that after all the play you've done across the years that you finally give something back? It was you're idea.

;-)

Mike