People keep suggesting doing cool stuff, and then not starting the projects up themselves. Guess if you want something done...

OK, here's a thread for a theoretical game design that anyone can jump in on. Hopefully if all goes well, it will serve as an example of how people do game design. If we manage to complete the thing in it's entirety, that's great. But as I feel that it's not particularly likely, and since I'm starting without any ideas, I think that it probably belongs here in theory rather than in Indie Design. If at some point it becomes obvious that it is becomeing a real project we can move it to there.

Until then we'll just consider the whole thing a giant hypothetical case.

So, who want's to start. I could, but I'm kicking it off, and feel that someone else should have first input.

First question, though, I will post. We need to look at a premise. Elements like setting, color, characters, and setting, and what do the players do in play. What sort of game whall we make? Design goals first, then design.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: So, who want's to start. I could, but I'm kicking it off, and feel that someone else should have first input.

First question, though, I will post. We need to look at a premise. Elements like setting, color, characters, and setting, and what do the players do in play. What sort of game whall we make? Design goals first, then design.

Mike

Hmmm. OK, but why these characters? What do they do? I see a lot of sittiong around and playing music and listening to poetry. Dull, dull, dull. Are they sorta superheroes of their age?

Mike

I just wrote:

the pacifist monks could follow a simplified zen/taoist-like philosophy and gameplay could revolve around attempting to achieve enlightenment through simplistic and overcoming passions. hmmm... sort of the opposite of the modern-day bards.

oop, I feel it coming on...

He's a modern day bard with magical musical abilities. She's a pseudomedieval pacifist monk with Zen/Tao powers. Together, THEY FIGHT CRIME!

OK, for the uninformed there was this random website where it would assemble improbably pairs of characters and put them together into a sentence like the above that always ended with "together they fight crime."

I wouldn't suggest that premise (necessarily), but why these characters, with these abilities? What sort of action does play revolve around? Zen investment banking? Why just these two aberrations from the timeline? What do they suggest?

Mike

Bikers. The PCs are bikers.

or its centered around a Rennaisance Festival...

Come on now, modern day bards... It's hiphop superheroes! From Jeru the Damaja("Can't stop the prophet", fighting his arch-nemesis, Mr. Ignorance) to Redman and the Wu-Tang Clan, modern day bards with a hiphop twist.

Chris

Hey, :)

Mike Holmes wrote: He's a modern day bard with magical musical abilities. She's a pseudomedieval pacifist monk with Zen/Tao powers. Together, THEY FIGHT CRIME!

talysman wrote: the best small games have ben those that have limited themselves to one character type.
<...>

modern day bards
pseudomedieval pacifist monks

talysman also wrote: I mentioned this game idea to someone and he suggested "SILENT IS THE TAO" as a possible game title.

So the idea is pseudomedeval pacifist monks? Oriental or Occidental?

The problem is one of conflict. There isn't much there. Seeking enlightment and/or God's blessings....

...oh...

Pseudomedeval pacifist *Western* monks. Fighting in prayer for the well-being of the world around them. Against the powers of Hell. Mind trips, mostly. But then there is the influence of the secular world, and dealing with the people around them. Hmm... does this bare outline jog anything loose for anyone else?

OK Mike, great idea. This is the perfect oportunity for me to mention an idea I've had kicking around for a while, but haven't had enough time or ideas to really flesh out.

Here's the deal:

You all know that I'm a musician right? This involves a lot of travel time between gigs. So, what do I do? I listen to talk radio. [1] So, what does this have to do with gaming? Well, the first seeds of the idea took root when I observed that a lot of the radio personalities don't really seem to be that crazy about each other. The sports commentators make the occasional snide remark about the guy who does the morning news. The weather guy makes fun of the sports guy's Golf skills. They can't say too much on the air, and it has to all sound like they're joking (actually, they probably *ARE* joking) or they get in trouble, right? You can't diss your colleagues where the public can here. So I started thinking... yeah, they're really kidding around, but what if they really mean it?

At this point, I wasn't really thinking in terms of a game, just in terms of "Ha ha, radio station wars."

But then I started noticing the technical difficulties. The weather guy would start doing his forcast a few minutes early and cut in on the traffic guy. The line to the wall street rep would be suddenly cut to a commercial. Rush Limbaugh is replaced by CNN news.

The wheels began turning, the eyes began to gleam with feindish game designer's glee. So, the station probably just had a new engineer who hadn't learned all the ropes yet. But, what if it wasn't? What if all the radio guys are engaged in an all out war for air time? Man, I thought, now *that* is an RPG. The characters are all different radio personalities (like "The Weather Guy," "The Sports Announcer," "The Media Chick," etc.) fighting it out for their moment of glory. It's great... ready made conflict, ready made characters. On the air, you can't go too far, or you lose immediately. But backstage the gloves are off! And why not take it all the way? Guns, grenades, knives, you name it. Or even do it with TV! I've got this vision of Dan Rather in the newsroowm with an AK-47 holding off Connie Chung...

So, great idea seed, great hook. But I haven't had time to do much with it. What would the players actually do in a game like this? How would the scenes be framed? Would you play out all the backstage stuff, having turf wars in the brodcasting building, or would every scene be played out like a broadcast, only painting the full picture through little hints and nuances?

[1] I would listen to classical music, but the local classical station is an FM that fades out pretty quickly. The local news-radio station, though, is AM that I listened to when I was at a music camp in *Michigan* (!) and I live in South / Central Illinois - about an hour east of St. Louis.)

JMendes is right, I meant them as two seperate "jumping off" points. either a game about modern-day bards, or a game about pacifist monks. like I said, not much of a premise yet, just two seed-ideas to get things started...

the modern-day bard idea: no idea yet what the specific conflict would be, but I was thinking loosely in terms of the conflict between artistic integrity and commercialization. this is why I jokingly suggested fighting the music labels.

the monk one... ok, maybe I was thinking something and not articulating it. a friend of mine is publishing his own RPG (he doesn't have details on his website yet, so I won't describe it.) anyways, buddhism actually forms part of the setting and the mechanics -- in the two playtest sessions I was in, we were presented with a mystery (sort of like Call of Cthulhu) which we had to investigate and resolve ... but although there was a potential for battle, experience rewards were higher for nonviolent resolution, and even higher if the "villain" was put back onto the road to enlightenment (we wound up just killing the villain in the first session, but in the second, we scored big! all three tantric monks who had strayed from the path were put back on track and their victims were saved... AND we surprised the GM with our solution.)

so anyways, I was thinking of something like this for the monks, but without necessarily an actual buddhist philosophy. the monks would be pacifist by nature and would have a couple other goals related to enlightenment... game play would revolve around tests of the monks: can they resolve the conflicts they encounter without resorting to violence or otherwise sacrificing their core values? could they possibly even bring someone else closer to enlightenment?

I'm basically thinking of the teevee series "kung fu", but with david carradine in the middle ages instead of the wild west. eastern-style monks, but maybe in a pseudoeurope instead of a pseudochina.

THEY FIGHT CRIME! heh.

Say the year is 2100 and man has colonized the Moon and Mars. Earth, exhausted of resources is home only to the vagrants and criminals who sturggle politically (doing deeds to receive favors with politicians on the Moon) to be the next humans exported to Mars or the Moon.

But these politicians are evil so they must be stopped! He's a red planet! She's a grey moon. Together, THEY FIGHT CRIME!

I hesitate to go with the modern bard idea soley beccause it is so much like Star Children, IMO. Or at least likely to drift that way. OTOH, while the monks have their problems as well, I think that we can look more closely at them.

talysman wrote: the monk one... ok, maybe I was thinking something and not articulating it. a friend of mine is publishing his own RPG (he doesn't have details on his website yet, so I won't describe it.) anyways, buddhism actually forms part of the setting and the mechanics -- in the two playtest sessions I was in, we were presented with a mystery (sort of like Call of Cthulhu) which we had to investigate and resolve ... but although there was a potential for battle, experience rewards were higher for nonviolent resolution, and even higher if the "villain" was put back onto the road to enlightenment (we wound up just killing the villain in the first session, but in the second, we scored big! all three tantric monks who had strayed from the path were put back on track and their victims were saved... AND we surprised the GM with our solution.)

so anyways, I was thinking of something like this for the monks, but without necessarily an actual buddhist philosophy. the monks would be pacifist by nature and would have a couple other goals related to enlightenment... game play would revolve around tests of the monks: can they resolve the conflicts they encounter without resorting to violence or otherwise sacrificing their core values? could they possibly even bring someone else closer to enlightenment?

I'm basically thinking of the teevee series "kung fu", but with david carradine in the middle ages instead of the wild west. eastern-style monks, but maybe in a pseudoeurope instead of a pseudochina.

Mike Holmes wrote:
How about if characters are just not allowed to do anything violent. Just against their nature? Or perhpas only as a last resort, but with dire circumstances?

Sounds a lot like Paladin, Em.

What I'm thinking is that we could get away from the Kewl Powerz entirely, and focus on something more 'real world' in terms of what's potentially lost. So, instead of losing Ki (light animus), the character loses enlightenment or something. Or his negative trait goes up (he gets angrier, or more depressed, or gambles or something). Or both.

Or were you thinking supernatural powers, Talysman? We can go that way, too.

The question is what form should effectiveness take? Can't imagine that they're good at violence, since they avoid it. Interpersonal abilities? Hmm. The idea of a monk's cloistered existence seems to be counterintuitive to most sorts of mission effectivenesses.

We could use that for a juxtaposition. Monks who train to be really great infiltration operatives? Like Mission Impossible or James Bond but starring monks?

Or they could be more about research, etc. Sounds boring on first consideration, but think about it. They get the call from good guys abroad fighting the ancient evil. Their job is to search their ancient library for stories about how to defeat these badguys, and other information. Hmm.

Could add elements of paranioa. NPC monks or even player characters can actually be plants? They spread disinformation.

I don't know, just brainstorming here. Anything sticking?

I do like Em's trials thing. We gotta incorporate that somehow.

Mike

talysman wrote: the monks would be pacifist by nature and would have a couple other goals related to enlightenment...

game play would revolve around tests of the monks: can they resolve the conflicts they encounter without resorting to violence or otherwise sacrificing their core values? could they possibly even bring someone else closer to enlightenment?

Mike Holmes wrote: Sounds a lot like Paladin, Em.

What I'm thinking is that we could get away from the Kewl Powerz entirely, and focus on something more 'real world' in terms of what's potentially lost. So, instead of losing Ki (light animus), the character loses enlightenment or something. Or his negative trait goes up (he gets angrier, or more depressed, or gambles or something). Or both.

Or were you thinking supernatural powers, Talysman? We can go that way, too.

Emily Care wrote:
:) There is a buddhist vow that comes to mind: One takes refuge in the three treasures, I believe: the Buddha, Dharma (Buddhist philosophy and law) and the community of believers. The third refuge could be an aspect of play: the group of characters could be in eachother's sangha, helping them to walk the right path.

Paganini wrote: At this point, I wasn't really thinking in terms of a game, just in terms of "Ha ha, radio station wars."

Well, I'd go with either East or West. The personal path to Enlightenment schtick is certainly a good thing, so I'll concentrate on the pacifist Buddhist monks concept. For those who care, I don't have more than an amateur's level knowledge of how Buddhist monks actually work.

With that caveat, then:

- Buddhist monks, much like western friars, are legendarily famous for being sent out as teachers into the countryside (I'm using a Chinese source here, so you know). They are just as famous for getting in the way of the local bureaucrats -- especially when competing for the best and brightest. This is a potential source of conflict.

- Enlightenment is hard to do (Karma, Karma, Tao dobie Tao Tao); there are a number of competing schools for how to achieve it. From strict asceticism to deranged carrying on, to meditation, anything goes.

- There *were* Christians (of a slightly odd sort) in China and India as early as the second century AD, so if you want to include that, you could.

Does any of this help?

I've been giving this a bit of thought here's what I've come up with:

Your life sucks. You don't like your life. You don't like yourself. You feel trapped, trapped in your rut of an existence, powerless to get out. You are commiting a very slow emotional suicide as you die inside.

Then something happens and your life begins to change. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse, but BY GOD it's different.

OK. At this point we have two completely different and irreconcilable premises being discussed here (or does somebody see a way to merge them?). I think we have to choose one and go with it. Please vote for your choice.

Radio wars

or

Monks

The premise that does not continue on here could, of course, start it's own thread.

Mike

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Then something happens and your life begins to change. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse, but BY GOD it's different.

Please vote for your choice.

Radio wars
or
Monks

Mike Holmes wrote: Alright there, Jack?

Is this an addendum for one of the other premises posted? Mayhap this is how CharGen works, and how new monks are added to the organization?

Or is this a completely new premise idea?

Mike Holmes wrote: Please vote for your choice.

Radio wars

or

Monks

What if you made the traits for the monks what they were short to acheive enlightenment? If they were western monks I would use the seven deadly sins, I dunno fer easterners. The objective is to bring all of your scores to zero.

Mike Holmes wrote: OK. At this point we have two completely different and irreconcilable premises being discussed here (or does somebody see a way to merge them?). I think we have to choose one and go with it. Please vote for your choice.

Radio wars

or

Monks

amiel wrote: What if you made the traits for the monks what they were short to acheive enlightenment? If they were western monks I would use the seven deadly sins, I dunno fer easterners. The objective is to bring all of your scores to zero.

Mike - Yes, I posted Radio Wars early on, and while I was typing it up the other guys beat me to the punch with monks. Like M. J. said, Monks dominates this thread; go with that. Don't worry about trying to combine it with Radio Wars, I think that would be a focus-losing error. I'll just put Radio Wars back on the shelf; maybe we can use it for Let's Make a Game round Two.

M. J. - Dang, man, that's hillarious. I had no idea! What was intended as a farce might almost be a realistic simultion. :)

As might be obvious, I'm all for the Monks concept. I'd like to push this idea a little farther, though.

Monks are about religious devotion. A religious devotion so strong that they are willing to become completely different from the world around them in order to express that religious devotion (with the caveat that sometimes it's the parents' religious devotion being expressed...).

Now, if we're going to avoid the two most famous versions of monasticism (i.e., Christian and Buddhist), we're going to have to either create or research and express a religion where asceticsm is an ideal. I don't know if this is something people are interested in or not; I'm certainly willing and able to help in a project like that, but it seems to increase the scope of the background work we'd need to do.

Unless you end up going with some sort of Secret society group/sect ala "Millenium group"...

I like the no-violence as a solution idea...
If you use violence you lose... embracing the very source of problems in the violent world... you become part of the problem...

Bob McNamee

Mark D. Eddy wrote: As might be obvious, I'm all for the Monks concept. I'd like to push this idea a little farther, though.

Monks are about religious devotion. A religious devotion so strong that they are willing to become completely different from the world around them in order to express that religious devotion (with the caveat that sometimes it's the parents' religious devotion being expressed...).

Now, if we're going to avoid the two most famous versions of monasticism (i.e., Christian and Buddhist), we're going to have to either create or research and express a religion where asceticsm is an ideal. I don't know if this is something people are interested in or not; I'm certainly willing and able to help in a project like that, but it seems to increase the scope of the background work we'd need to do.

Actually, that's a good point. If this is going to be about Pacifist Monks, and their attempt (of whatever sort) to seperate themselves from the Evil World, Violence *has* to be one of the stats that is being lowered.

Yes, I *do* like the concept of "Worldly Values" as stats, and the Monks attempting to lower their stats to zero.

talysman wrote:
that's why I suggested gnostic monks...

the cathars would even give us a Big Enemy, the evil god of the material world (Yaldabaoth)... however, I have my reservations against this, one objection being that I don't like the idea of calling the material world "evil"...

Then there is two groups with mutually exclusive beliefs and goals, but with neither attached to 'evil'. Perhaps one group is fueled by cerebral acts, and the other by base acts, and both could be playable. I'm not sure how the paths to enlightenment would fit this, but I'm sure it all fits together, and perhaps could be formed into one thing.

As another thought, could we establish a system that allows you to play any form of monk? Do we have to focus on one specific faith?

Jeremy

nipfipgip...dip wrote:
I think this is a great setting. As a thought, perhaps the followers or forces of Yaldabaoth would not be 'evil', but merely followers of a different belief. Perhaps they believe that denying the material nature of existance causes the soul to lose contact with earth. The loss of contact causes the soul to move not to the Source of Good but to limbo, or whatever, ie something that must be avoided, so people should retain as strong a connection with the world as possible.

Very interesting.

First, I would be for creating a fictional religion so as to avoid the possibility of annoying anyone who held a real world belief in one of the religions discussed. Even better, it gives us a chance to flex our creative mental muscle. So, somebody propose a ficitonal religion that follows this sort of line. Add stuff that heightens the sense of the characters as protagonists. Areas of conflict. Let's see if we can stay away from making everything Good/Evil, and introduce some other areas of conflict as well.

Anyhow, I am also excited about the "reduce to zero" stats. What I was thinking was that a stat would actually give you effectiveness. So my "Violence" stat would allow me to do violent things. My "Greed" stat would allow me to manipulate money and such. But, yes, using your stats increases them, and brings one further away from the enlightenment sought, and more entangled with the world.

My suggestion would be to have the opposing stats, and make them as effective as their opposites. Thus, mechanically, there is no advantage to going to one side or another. But then, as Talysman suggeted, we make going bad, easier. The idea would be to balance the incentive to "do the right thing" an go enlightened, with the incentive to aquire power more easliy.

This would then represent the struggle to attain enlightenment against the urges of human nature.

OK. Here's a sample model so that we can look at how to manipulate the stats. Let's say all pairs add to seven. So you have Violence/Compassion and Bob gives his character a 3/4 rating. Now, to make the hman nature slippery slope occur, we'd have to make it harder to go up in Compasson than down. A character's Negative trait goes up if he does a number of qualified actions (GM determines that they are violent in this case, and important enough) equal to the lower of his two traits. And the Positive trait goes up if he does positive acts (Compassionate and Important) acts equal to the higher of the two. So, in this character's case, Bob would need to have the character perform, four compassionate act's to go up, or three violent acts to go down. Let's say he did four positive acts, and his trait changed to 2/5. Now he'd need five compassionate acts to go up, and only two violent acts to slip. At 1/6 any violent act sends him down. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, it does not flip, but rather the difficulties are the same as the other end. a character at 5/2 (pretty violent) only takes two actions to become even more violent, and at 6/1 the character is teetering on the edge one act from becoming completely violent.

That is, I'd suggest that any player who took the incentive and rolled the six dice (or whatever) available when at that level of violence, would become 7/0, and Sociopathic at that point perhaps. He can come back but it will take him seven acts of compassion performed at level zero. Or we can say that the character is lost at that point, maybe. See Sorcerer and Soul for options. Perhaps a charcter who gets to a 0/7 (completely Compasionate, for example) is incapable of ever doing the opposite again. He has reached partial enlightenment, and is now incapable of doing the wrong thing in that area.

Just a general idea.

Anyway, the question does occur, what happens when a character reaches all max positive stats? Does he just continue like that, static? Or does he pass on from this world? If the former, the character will be powerful, but have little internal conflict. If the latter, then the player loses his character. What's the player reward? First one to enlightenmen wins the game? ;-) JK, that's too strong a pull in that direction.

Going with something like the mechanics above, I'd have players start with a set amount of points to spread about in the positive stats 9Calculating the negatives from those). So, let's say there are seven stats, I'd give players 25 points to spread about. This means that they'll have some traits in the positive zone (4+ on the positive side), and some in the negative. I'd then require the character to write up a short description of a problem that the chracter has with any trait that starts with a negative total (4+ in the negative side).

Again, just thinking out loud, as it were. Thoughts?

Mike

I like the sound of these mechanics, especially the gain / loss style!

Hmm, what to do after gaining all max positive or negative stats?

Perhaps that would be a level of supernatural ability gain? (don't really like this idea)

Perhaps getting a player character to that level alters the game to a different style of mission? (perhaps making the conflicts a problem of even being able to relate to worldly reality)

or maybe maxing out stats gives you access to metagame mechanics like directors stance?

{edited: I'm not a big fan of losing your character... not much incentive to go that last step...}

{edited:on second thought...perhaps your current character is "taken out of the fray" (being beyond the conflict) and you must create a new character but your old character acts as a sort of "spiritual mentor" to him... allowing you use of a special stance, ability or effect. (Obi-wan Kenobi to Luke for the "good side"... Hannibal Lector to Will Graham for the "bad side")

Some quick trait pair ideas...

not exact opposites, but potential useful traits

Violence - Compassion
Greed - Thrift (or Frugality...ability to do without)
Deceit - Respect
Mastery - Service
Lust - Serenity? (weak...)
Apathy - Inspiration?
Fear/ - Hope/
Shame Courage

each trait could be used to drive Self or Others...

some ideas....

Grabbag of thoughts...

You could use a fictional religion, but possibly also or a dead one? There's plenty of faiths with no followers left to offend.

The sliding scale between the extremes is excellent, but is the book-keeping might be high, depending on the final feel of the game. Perhaps the cost given is the extremity of the act, if you need six points to 'go up' you have to perform an act of very extreme charitableness.

There's the expression, 'So heavenly she's of no earthly use', and it seems to fit here. Characters reaching high levels would be of little earthly use, having mostly celestial power, just a thought.

Perhaps 'good' acts aren't the only way to enlightenment? Could you receive enlightenment of a different kind by being extremely greedy?

How about at extreme levels of greed/generosity you can communicate with, and recieve guidance from, angels and devils, or djinni or whatever variation you want? Mind you, if you allow evil acts to lead to enlightenment then this gets a little...

Any thoughts?

Jeremy

Bob McNamee wrote: Some quick trait pair ideas...

not exact opposites, but potential useful traits

Violence - Compassion
Greed - Thrift (or Frugality...ability to do without)
Deceit - Respect
Mastery - Service
Lust - Serenity? (weak...)
Apathy - Inspiration?
Fear/ - Hope/
Shame Courage

each trait could be used to drive Self or Others...

some ideas....

Here are a few thoughts about a fictional religion for our monks:

1) Are we looking at a polytheistic, monotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, dualist, or other type of worldview? For those of you who aren't into theology, the differences are:
a) Polytheism: Many gods, each of whom has specific duties and/or powers. The relationship between these types of gods often reflect philosophical ideals. Polytheistic monks would be devoted to the ideals of a single deity, and would strive to expand/improve that deity's sphere of influence and power. Allied gods would have allied monks, antagonistic gods would have antagonistic monks.
b) Pantheism: Everything has a god-spirit associated with it (Animism is a subset of Pantheism). These gods are usually less developed in personality than the gods of polytheism, but local gods will be well-defined and understood. Pantheistic monks would typically be devoted to keeping all of the spirit-gods (or, in some cases, just one of the spirit-gods) happy with the mortals.
c) Panentheism: God is a part of everything -- and infuses Its spirit into everything. Hinduism and Buddhism are both technically panentheistic. Panentheism can look Polytheistic or Monotheistic in its iconography. Eventually, the God of Panentheism will retrieve all of Its God-nature into Itself. Panentheistic monks would be attempting to rejoin themselves to the Cosmic All that is their God.
d) Monotheism: There is only one God, and He/She/It has created the universe, and is in control. Any thing that has self-determination was created by God. Any creature that opposes God can only imitate or corrupt, not create, and, in a spiritual sense, will eventually lose in some spectacular way. Monotheistic Monks would be devoted to the worship of their God, and in most cases, teaching those around them the truth about their God.
e) Dualism: There are two opposite and equally powerful Gods, each of whom has control of an aspect of the universe. Individual choice by self-determinate creatures will eventually tip the scales between the Two, and One will prevail and the other will perish with Its followers. Dualistic monks would be trying to gain adherents to their side of the Duality.

2) This has been asked before, but what happens when a PC hits Enlightenment (as difficult as it may be made to be, eventually it will happen)? Here are some choices, based on historical precedent:
a) The PC is taken to the reward of his God, and no longer has any effect on the mortal world. In most cases, a portion of his Spirit falls on another who takes up his burden/path.
b) The PC becomes a contemplative hermit, and students come to pester him about how he did it. Eventually, a new Monastic tradition forms.
c) The PC actively seeks out worthy students to train in his path, forming a new Monastic Tradition immediately.
d) The PC becomes wildly different from what he was before: having acheived Enlightenment, he/she no longer needs to worry about the strictures of his or her tradition.

3) Perhaps most importantly, how are we envisioning a "typical" game session will work?

Excellent post Mark.

I'll skip point one for now. I have no real preference, actually on what the religion should look like, other than it should leave room for conflict.

2) This has been asked before, but what happens when a PC hits Enlightenment (as difficult as it may be made to be, eventually it will happen)? Here are some choices, based on historical precedent:
a) The PC is taken to the reward of his God, and no longer has any effect on the mortal world. In most cases, a portion of his Spirit falls on another who takes up his burden/path.

b) The PC becomes a contemplative hermit, and students come to pester him about how he did it. Eventually, a new Monastic tradition forms.

c) The PC actively seeks out worthy students to train in his path, forming a new Monastic Tradition immediately.

d) The PC becomes wildly different from what he was before: having acheived Enlightenment, he/she no longer needs to worry about the strictures of his or her tradition.

3) Perhaps most importantly, how are we envisioning a "typical" game session will work?

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.

Emily Care wrote: The paired traits idea is great. Let's use Mike's spin on it. That dynamic of how many appropriate acts you have to do seems like it would work well.

As I recall from my brief experience as a Dragon Newt in Ron's Hero Wars Game at Gamd Day Chicago, the Dragon Newt's have abilities that work very closely to what you've been describing.

From memory and working only off of sketchy demo game details.
The Dragon Newts get reincarnated as higher order newts if they manage to achieve some spiritual enlightenment during their lower order life.

There are pairs of opposing traits (similiar to Pendragon Traits) which total up to 20 to start. The goal is to get each side of the Trait to total 20, indicating mastery of balance by fully understanding the nature of both sides of the opposing traits.

The dragon newts have kewl powerz which can be called upon, but each such use sets the newt back on his quest for enlightment.

I don't know if these were old Rune Quest rules modified for Hero Wars or if they were a creation of Ron's...but you may wish to check out the concept for inspiration.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm seeing the mission format. Usually goes like this:


• The characters, members of the organization are brought together for the briefing on the nature of the problem. • Do research and get stuff together, etc. And do some pre-mission soul-searching. • Head out into the harsh world looking for more data. Meet NPCs, and get involved with them. • Once they have the problem figured out they have to find a way to overcome it. • Execute plan (recover bodies). • Return to "base" and get debriefed. • Train, intrasession.



Just like InSpectres and other "mission" games. The cool thing would, of course, be to mess with this format dramatically. My throw away idea was to have them never leave the monastary, and sorta fight the battle by proxy looking for info. But I'm sure we can do better than that.

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.

To be specific, the idea was to have the characters do inner exploration with the Mission framework merely being the backdrop and additional group conflict. This would provide the GM with ways to play character self-interest off against the group dynamic.

Anyhow, the only problem I see with the "personal quest" idea is that the characters don't seem to need each other. Especially once a player starts playing a group of characters.

I do like you're means of making conflicts with the monks' attmepts to do right. That's cool. So, instead of simply stating "I'm doing something good", the character has to face some temptation or problem.

This last provides some action, but it's disjointed. The Mission format is intended to unify the action. What can we use to unify action instead?

Mike

talysman wrote: at this point, the monk has founded the new monastic community, and the tests are against the community as a whole, which gets its own set of traits as if it were a beginning character.

it's sort of like Aria from the ground up, and with a spiritual bent.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Perhaps most importantly, how are we envisioning a "typical" game session will work?...

Just like InSpectres and other "mission" games. The cool thing would, of course, be to mess with this format dramatically. My throw away idea was to have them never leave the monastary, and sorta fight the battle by proxy looking for info. But I'm sure we can do better than that.

Or, perhaps we should do somehting other than the mission format, entirely. Not seeing anything else, at this point, myself, however.
Mike

Phase 1 would be an Inspectres type interview, involving the week's ethical debate, "violence or tolerance of immorality" or whatever. The player's could, in character as young acolytes, ask their wise teacher, the GM, about the religion's values regarding something, and create the opening to a dilemma, the week's premise.

The second phase would involve the monks, the religion's creators, moving through the events, the majority of the game would be here. Finally, a third phase would involve pulling the religion's belief from the actions of the characters.

Each resolution could carry on from the last, so that, using the example above, you resolved that the religion was mostly tolerant, and only reacted against the most heinous immorality, then in the next chapter players would be required to uphold that belief, as well as define the next moral. Perhaps they could develop abilities in line with that belief, they might be master diplomats or something. If they had chosen violence they would be more like inquisitors or something, and have whatever skills that would entail.

Any thoughts?

Jeremy

Hmm. I think I like where you're going, Jeremy. How about a player takes the part of the "teacher" as well. That way the religion is all created by the players as the game progresses.

So the session order would be something like:

1. Interview. Players roll off to determine who gets to be the "High Priest" and who gets to be the "interviewee". Consensus would allow players to just select. Or, for a more mystical feel, a cycle could be followed, or something based on the events of the last session. Lots of possibilities. Anyhow, this little discussion between the two characters would set up the priciple to be explored that session, as you have above. What I think would be cool is that this discussion would establish a stat-pair. All characters thus gain a rating in this stat at this point (perhaps determined randomly, or selected from a pool of metagame points?). This would end with an order from the priest to gather all the "monk" level PCs and go to a "teacher" character for a briefing.

2. The "teacher" character is also played by a player selected in some cool fashion. This player then gets to make up the "problem" that the characters have to address. This is done in brief, and can be left mostly a mystery. The only thing that limits the player's description is that they must try to address the session's principle created in (1) above, and the other players may subtly intervene. They also have creative power, essesentially, in reaction to the "teacher" character. So if the teacher says "No word has been heard from our brother temple, in month," another player can say, "Isn't it true that they sometimes adopt a period of solitude wherin they wouldn't be heard of?" Thus establishing this as fact. Anyhow, this part should end with more questions than answers.

3. Sally forth and encounter whatever. This is where the GM comes in and creates conflicts that revolve around the problem and principles in question. If we design it properly, it should just be the GM draping the mechanics in description, making his improvisational job easier.

4. Return to the temple, where the teacher debriefs the characters, asking them what happened.

5. The original HP and character come back together, and the HP asks the character what he has learned. Thus completing the cycle.

Using a model like this, I see each player taking two stat-pairs as personal issues to start. These unique issues make give the character a separate identity, and are also focused on each session (this gives the personal thing a two to one importance to balance out everyone working on the "issue" stat-pair). Then after the first five sessions the characters will have seven stats. At this point the game shifts into a new mode where the characters may go off and start their new monastery. At this point the old characters become the teachers, and new characters are generated. Wherupon the process starts again. The new teachers can use thier old stat-pairs if they like, or introduce new ones. Thus the religion either stays static, or changes over time.

How's all that sound?

BTW, this is starting to sound more and more generic, as the players can create the setting as they play. Do we want to go that rout? Or do we want to have a specific setting?

Mike

Emily Care wrote:

talysman wrote: at this point, the monk has founded the new monastic community, and the tests are against the community as a whole, which gets its own set of traits as if it were a beginning character.

I was thinking of something very similar before I posted last. :) The monastery could hold the same place as the Covenant in Ars Magica. A natural grouping for the characters.

Emily Care wrote:
What kinds of challenges would the community face, however? Seeking enlightenment is rather nebulous and doesn't lend itself to dramatic tension. I keep coming back to them fighting supernatural threats (ghosts, spirits, etc). But then they end up being very analogous to AM, just being a bunch of clerics instead of magic users.

Talysman, I love the paired traits idea. Thank you! What I liked specifically about Mike's input on them was the aspect of doing as many "good" deeds as the higher of the two numbers and as many "bad" deeds as the lower in order to affect the scores positively or negatively.

Emily Care wrote:

it's sort of like Aria from the ground up, and with a spiritual bent.

I was thinking of something very similar. The monastery would make a natural setting, like the Covenant in an Ars Magica campaign (though then we run the risk of just setting up a game with covenants full of clerics instead of magic users). What kinds of conflict would the community face?
Due to the generally gentle and contemplative nature of gaining enlightenment, the game needs something specific to give it dramatic tension. The conspiracy idea, rival priests, or supernatural baddies of various types all sound good. Maybe we could do all three? Also, if we are making the religion up out of whole cloth, we could make the search for enlightentment itself more active and exciting....ie painful and difficult. :)

Mike Holmes wrote:
BTW, this is starting to sound more and more generic, as the players can create the setting as they play. Do we want to go that rout? Or do we want to have a specific setting?

Wow, that's deep.

I have a character cycle that might be interesting.

1. Characters start their carreer off traveling to the temple. They start with one personal stat-pair (which may be tested on the way), and immediately upon arrival they get John's Worldly/Divine stat-pair and become a monk.

2. They must train at first. Whilst training, they attain another stat pair determined by group consensus representing the religion's specific ideals, and another personal stat-pair representing more personal discovery. during this time, the neophytes are sent on some small errands, etc, and have some conflicts in life about the monastary, etc. This lasts until the character "solves" one of his trait-pairs. At this point he becomes a monk. Phases one and two should last one or at most two play sessions.

3. The monk characters meet with the High Priests occasionally as described in the above. During this period, one new religion stat-pair is introduced, and another personal stat-pair is gained. At this point the monk is sent on missions, etc. This lasts for a few sessions until the monk has "solved" three of his stat-pairs. At this point the monk becomes a "teacher".

4. As a teacher, the character delivers the lessons on the Worldly/Divine stat-pair, and the stat-pair that is taught to new monks. During this time he also sits on the council of teachers that determine what actions to take regarding external problems, and sends monks to handle them. He also continues talking with the HPs, and develops one more personal stat-pair, his last. When he has solved two more stat-pairs as a teacher (total of five), he then has an option. He can either become a High Priest at the current monastary, or he can start his own.

5.a. As a High Priest, the character trains the monks to become trainers. These characters also determine policy for the monastary, and questions of religion, etc. Only one HP character can have six solved stat-pairs. He is deferred to as the head priest. All others just stall out at five solved. This character can then proceed to seven solved, but upon doing so achieves enlightenment, and passes inside. Then another may solve to six.

5.b. If the character instead starts a new monastary, he needs to bring with him at least one other teacher (and can take along as many as will come). If he can't convince anyone to come, then he cannot start his new monastary and must do 5.a. above until he can get someone to go with him.

Anyhow, the way the game would work, then, is that one player would start with a new High Priest founding his monastary. Another player would have a Teacher as his character. The rest of the players would start at number one above. Anyhow, at any point a player can create a new character who sets off from his home to join up. Players can have as many characters as they like, but only one of each level at a time (so effectively five, but practically four as travelers are resolved quickly). If a player has a character move up in rank and has another character already at that rank, he must decide which one becomes an NPC.

Also, I was thinking that at any time a character can call on the wisdom of a character who is his personal teacher or High Priest for inspiration, even if not present. Or on the wisdom of an enlightened character's example.

Anyhow, not quite totally coherent, but what do you think of the model?

Mike

Intriguing...makes for a cool group dynamic...

I especially like the playing of the travel to become an initiate...the gaining of worldly/divine pair as part of becoming initiated, and the solving of one pair to become a monk.

talysman wrote: I keep suggesting a time of troubles (impending war, plague, famine, rebellions) because these have happened historically and are usually accompanied by religious revivals

Talysman wrote: the greatest spiritual insights seem to come from facing the world while being true to the spirit, whether you are a christian saint or a zen master... and ultimately, it is the saint/master's attempt to save the world that earns our respect; hermits who truly cut off all contact with the world are forgotten, while the healers and peacemakers and temple-builders are the ones who make a real impact.

Mike Holmes wrote: I have a character cycle that might be interesting...

I tried to post some of this on Friday, before a three-game weekend, but got bolluxed.

(Has this thread been moved elswhere?)

I agree that Mike's cycle is a good one. Here are a few opportunities/perils that could face a medeval monestary:

War: Do the monks take the part of one side or the other? Are they known for healing or some other ability? Can a reluctant warrior safely become a monk to escape military service?

Famine: Are the monestary's granaries full or empty? Is there wealth to buy food? Do the monks share what they have, or keep it to keep themselves alive?

Plague: Do the monks try to help the affilcted, or lock them out so that the spiritual work may continue? Is there a chance to discover a cure?

Religious Fervor: Is this going to strengthen or weaken the monestary? Do the monks have something that others want, or is their way of life being rejected?

Supernatural/Spiritual Attacks: We could do this, or not. Can a monk meditating with a group of other monks fend off strange evils that can only be opposed by a faithful heart?

Conflict with Secular Authority: See Henry VIII vs. the English monestaries for a version of this.

Conflict with Spiritual/Religous Authority: See Francis of Assisi vs. the Benidictine orders for an example.

These are much more broadly limned than I had originally set them up, but I may be able to explain later...

Mark D. Eddy wrote:
I agree that Mike's cycle is a good one. Here are a few opportunities/perils that could face a medeval monestary:

War: Do the monks take the part of one side or the other? Are they known for healing or some other ability? Can a reluctant warrior safely become a monk to escape military service?

Famine: Are the monestary's granaries full or empty? Is there wealth to buy food? Do the monks share what they have, or keep it to keep themselves alive?

Plague: Do the monks try to help the affilcted, or lock them out so that the spiritual work may continue? Is there a chance to discover a cure?

Religious Fervor: Is this going to strengthen or weaken the monestary? Do the monks have something that others want, or is their way of life being rejected?

Supernatural/Spiritual Attacks: We could do this, or not. Can a monk meditating with a group of other monks fend off strange evils that can only be opposed by a faithful heart?

Conflict with Secular Authority: See Henry VIII vs. the English monestaries for a version of this.

Conflict with Spiritual/Religous Authority: See Francis of Assisi vs. the Benidictine orders for an example.

And here are some stat pairs that can explicitly go with each of the challenges I came up with above:

War: Peace/Violence
Famine: Generosity/Selfishness
Plague: Compassion/Hard-heartedness
Religious Fervor: Zealousness/Indifference
Supernatural Events: Faithfulness/Worldliness
w/Secular Authority: Submission/Intolerance
w/Religious Authority: Poverty/Wealth

How do these look to you?

Shaping up.

OK, I think we've gotten beyond the Premise stage, and we're looking at execution. FWIW, what we've got seems decidedly Narrativist to me so far. That is, I'm seeing the effectivenesses of the stat-pairs as bing more metagame than a simulation of anything. Does anybody have a different vision?

The next step would be for some brave soul to write up an outline of the game. So that we can all see what sort of things we've agreed on together. Then we can modify the outline afterwards. Once the outline is set, then we can pull it together, fleshing out any holes we find.

Make sense? Who's volunteering (this is always the hard part)?

Mike

Hi there,

I'm thinkin' this is also the best time to close this thread and have the outline-stage begin with a new thread. The new thread title, whatever it is, should begin with something like, "[Group game design]" or similar.

Best,
Ron

I suggest we call the game "Enlightenment" and start a group design thread under that title.

--Emily