I figured I start the new thread as Ron suggested, I went with Emily's title idea as it was there.

From my reading so far the premise reminds me quite alot of movies like "Once upon a Time in China" and some what of "Crounching Tiger Hidden Dragon". Now I know the combat within these movies is highly fantastical in nature but they do have the same feel otherwise. Now I know the game so far seems to be narrativist in aprroach but I could also see the rules being very cinematic in nature.

Does someone with their head straight want to recap all that is done so far? I don't want to goof it up by mistyping something.

Sylus

Hi there,

Here's the link to the thread which preceded this one:

Let's make a game!, initiated and more-or-less overseen by Mike Holmes.

Best,
Ron

Sylus,

Welcome aboard.

While I think there are elements of those movies that are similar to what we're looking at doing, I think that the consensus so far has been that we are trying to avoid anything supernatural, and resolution via combat as well. IOW, the idea is that fighting would be a bad thing, as represented by the mechanics. So there may be more differences than similarities to the films you cite.

OTOH, we could go that way if that's what people thought was best.

I've been thinking that the TV show Kung Fu is more like what we've been driving at.

Mike

The struggle between conflicting desires/values characters deal with in movies like Crouching Tiger capture the kind of internal dynamic the monks should experience in this game. However, the spiritual orientation of the monks would give them a different set of issues to deal with than the martial arts characters of much of Hong Kong action cinema.

Are ten people already working on the outline? :)

--Emily Care

I've started one! I'll be number 11 ; )

Actually although I agree that it would be more like Kung Fu and that violence would probably be the characters last resort, the questions is how would that violence be represented. Even in Kung Fu it was very cinematic while still remaining simple, we can thank Bruce Lee for that. Anyway, if we are going for a traditional and historical bend to the monastical orders we should remember that martials arts played a very key role, especially as they walked their particular path to enlightenment. This is why I bring it up, are we going for a more historical approach or more of a fantasy approach? And if it is historical which culture would it lean towards?

Sylus

OK, evidently we're a little further off than I thought we were.

Here are my assumptions; please sound off as to whether or not they are correct.

1) Enlightenment is a game about pacifist monks.

2) Our mechanic of enlightenment is paired stats good/bad, which increase and decrease with PC actions.

3) The characters start out as (postulants is the Western term) wannabee monks, and will eventually be influencing the countryside around their monestary.

4) Game play is based on a mission model -- the PC's are given a task to perform by their superiors (or, eventually, those who depend on them to solve their problems) and need to figure out a solution without violating their tenets.

5) There are a few ways to determine the tenets of the monastic order: either the players come up with a concensus, we build it into the setting portion, or the GM designs a setting. (I believe the unspoken consensus was the first of these three)

As a side note, this almost begs for a panentheistic worldview.

Hmm... Well, it's something to start from.

Enlightenment - working outline

1)Character Generation
a)choose 1st stat pair (personal), some #(7? or 9?) allocated between the two (ie: greed=3, thrift=4)
suggested pairs:
greed/thrift
deceit/respect
mastery/service
lust/purity
aphathy/industry
fear/courage
hope/despair
shame/confidence
pride/humility
etc.
b)physical etc. description
c)in-character role-play sequence illustrating dynamic of trait pair in char's life

2)Interview with High Priest/acceptance into Monastery
a)characters interact as waiting to be interviewed
b)grilled by HP
c)gain second stat pair
always:
Worldliness/Spirituality
d)group of characters are assigned a spiritual advisor (Teacher level character)

(order of 3 and 4 is interchangeable)

3)Campaign Initiation
a)new characters are sent to accomplish a task that has to do with some problem facing Monastery:

suggested by Mark Eddy:
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
b)Characters take corresponding trait pair or other according to in-character actions. Players or gm, if there is one, can assign #'s to match character experience.
c)village or monastery can be assigned trait pair corresponding to issue being face. Outcomes of character actions raise/lower traits.

4)Monastery Development
suggestions:
a)each participant suggest a series of devotions or trials that neophytes (and other monks) must undergo.
b)doctrine or dogmas, as they affect initiates or community can be developed in play
c)structure of monastery can be determined in response to character descriptions--tie conflict to character issues
d)spirituality need not mirror real world monasteries

Ah, here it is:
each character's personal trait pair could be taken to represent on aspect of the tenets of the religion.
--if we tie the third pair that a character gets to the issue facing the monastery that helps tie them in thematically to the broader plot. Also allows for characters introduced later to have a different set of issues in response to changing times.

5)Episode Structure
suggested by Mike Holmes:
1.The characters, members of the organization are brought together for the briefing on thenature of the problem.
2.Do research and get stuff together, etc. And do some pre-mission soul-searching.
3.Head out into the harsh world looking for more data. Meet NPCs, and get involved with them.
4.Once they have the problem figured out they have to find a way to overcome it.
5.Execute plan (recover bodies).
6.Return to "base" and get debriefed.
7.Train, intrasession.


6)Character Advancement
a)Characters will gain one more personal and one more religious trait pair during course of campaign.
b)trait pairs can be "solved" by reducing negative trait to 0 and max'ing out positive trait
**Insert mechanics here***
b)when "solve" 3 pairs, can become "Teacher" and train acolytes.
c)When solve two more stat pairs, gains sixth, becomes High Priest and can train other Teachers or go start another monastery
e)once solve all six, retire character from use


questions:
--pairs will change over time in response to character actions. Are trait pairs adjusted during sequence or at "debriefing" interval?
--exact mechanisms need to be agreed on. There have been some suggestions. What do we want to go with? Anyone want to state them here?
generally:
a)negative traits can increase effectiveness, but their use makes it harder to increase positive


note:
--Character play could mirror change in trait pair values
--When character max's out multiple negative traits, there could be consequences in game--trials to be undergone, exile from the monastery.
--if max's out all negative traits, they could be promoted to antagonist for the monastery/some character. :)


--Emily Care

I've edited this 4 times between when it was posted and 5:15 pm 10/22/02. mostly minor letter/word changes.

There's been a lot of movement in other threads; this one may have seen its day. I really like what we came up with collectively and am interested in fleshing it out. I've got some free time coming up, so I'll be playing with it.

If other folks who gave input into developing it are interested in continuing, let me know!

--Emily Care

Emily Care wrote: There's been a lot of movement in other threads; this one may have seen its day. I really like what we came up with collectively and am interested in fleshing it out. I've got some free time coming up, so I'll be playing with it.

If other folks who gave input into developing it are interested in continuing, let me know!

Me too, I'm like Talysman though, still trying to come up with something useful to say.

Sylus

Can anyone help here? I've been following this, but havn't had time to
write much. That and I know very little about eastern philosiphy.

Here's some suggestions though.
It was suggested before, but I'd bring up the Ars Magica analogy again.

Each player would create an elder and a neophyte. The elders would be primarly used to dynamicly create a structure for the religion & monastary, but
you could also match elders and tutors in a mentor relationship(with different players, of course). That way each player could take both sides of a students development. It also gives a good way for players to suggest missions.

Emily Care wrote:


questions:
--pairs will change over time in response to character actions. Are trait pairs adjusted during sequence or at "debriefing" interval?
--exact mechanisms need to be agreed on. There have been some suggestions. What do we want to go with? Anyone want to state them here?
generally:
a)negative traits can increase effectiveness, but their use makes it harder to increase positive traits

I think I've identified our central problem.

We don't have any resolution mechanics.

This is a huge problem, when one of our central "gimmicks" is that stats change as monks approach/fall from enlightenment, where 'unenlightened' actions are easier and more powerful, but 'enlightened' actions are more desirable.

I'm still being the guy who just throws things out there, so here is an idea -- I honestly don't have any clue how 'fair' or 'smooth' it is.

Stats total to ten. For unenlightened action: Roll (Unenlightened stat)d10, target number (Enlightened stat). Any success is considered a sucess, extra successes provide "power ups". For enlightened actions, roll d%, target number (Enlightened stat)x10+(Unenlighened Stat). There is no chance for "power ups".

Does anyone have any idea how this would work in play?

You have it that there is difficulty matched to numbers of successes. For example 1 succes is just simple success and each extra success ups how well you succeeded up to say 5-6 levels of success. But you could also have have failures apply to the negative side of the stat, kind of a yin and yang sort of thing.


Sylus
Not sure if that made sense or not?

A stray thought that I had would to have all actions/resolutions tie in some way to the Worldiness/Spirituality pair...either influencing it or being influenced by it in some way.

Thus being more Worldly you may be influenced to choose the more expedient Violence side of the pair...or you may try for the harder route of Compassion and thus influence your Spirituality side of the pair.
(or a bit reversed...you may try for calling on your weak Spirituality to increase your Compassion roll).

Something like using Dual stat pair rolls...
example
Worldly/Spirituality plus
Violence/Compassion (assuming V bad, C good)

results
roll to Influence Result
Worldly Violence V 2 / W 1
Worldly Compassion C 1 / W 1
Spirituality Violence V 1 / S 1
Spirituality Compassion C 2 / S 1

Violence Worldly W 2 / V 1
Violence Spirituality S 1 / V 1
Compassion Worldly W 1 / C 1
Compassion Spirituality S 2 / C 1


I'm thinking that a failure at either roll impacts negatively with both pairs

this would be a way of having decisions that impact one way on your Self and another way on the Monastery (or personal Monkhood).

Kind of unclear I think... I'm groping for something that has a bit of Succeed, Succeed, but... Marginal(fail,but)...Fail, and... type feel

Greetings all and sundry,


Truth be told I have sort of been following bits and pieces of this thread, so my comments may be a bit narrow.

On the "enlightenment" questions.

If by this you are stating Enlightenment to be the ultimate goal, as in Eastern religious practice (read: the reaching of Nirvana) then there would have to be some mechanic beyond the mere statistical measure (1-10 I believe was the example) to indicate the approach/achievment of Nirvana, would there not?

Enlightenment is supposed to be the *penultimate* state, the goal which every monk strives for, but how many have reached it?

Not even the Dhali Lama. Maybe, and I stress *maybe*, Enoch could qualify. Having "walked with god" Enoch could be said to have achieved a state of transcendance. Of course his is a very special case, mainly because the intimation is usally taken that he was directly elevated into the Empyrean (or into "Grace" if you prefer) by God.

So, what does this mean for lowly mortals?

Meditation. Ecstatic trance states. Etc.

These could be used as a dynamic to raise (or "elevate" if you prefer a play on words) ones "Enlightenment" Stat.

What is to happen to these monks once Elightenment is achieved?

If you set Enlightenment up as a goal then, once reached, game over. Perhaps, and you can throw tomatoes at me later (if you can find me) one should ues Enlightenment as a measure, a *degree* (note I did not use the word Level nor did I imply it, don't throw those tomatos yet) of...

Now that is the question, isn't it?

I know confounding and probably not very helpful. But I am earnestly curious. (You may throw your tomatos now.) Just a few thoughts.



Kind Regards.

here are some quick replies and additional comments:

Mark D. Eddy wrote:
Stats total to ten. For unenlightened action: Roll (Unenlightened stat)d10, target number (Enlightened stat). Any success is considered a sucess, extra successes provide "power ups". For enlightened actions, roll d%, target number (Enlightened stat)x10+(Unenlighened Stat). There is no chance for "power ups".

Bob McNamee wrote:
A stray thought that I had would to have all actions/resolutions tie in some way to the Worldiness/Spirituality pair...either influencing it or being influenced by it in some way.

continuing with ideas on mechanics:

one rule we could add is that a monk can add a new trait pair in play by attempting to use that pair to resolve a conflict. we could assume that any new trait pair can be added with the same score as the highest trait the character possesses. all traits would be assumed to be present in a potential state; when the character is accepted as a neophyte, the mentor determines the single trait a character is most in need of resolving. also, the mentor determines how spiritual the applicant's request is: if accepted, the neophyte's Worldliness is lowered from 10 to a score equal to the starting trait.

using this rule, a beginning character suffers a temptation: roll extra dice now and manifest negative traits at higher scores, or work on lowering a single trait for now and explore other character flaws later, after progressing a little further towards enlightenment?

also, here's another rule suggestion: the Worldiness of a monastery equals the highest Worldliness of the monks present.

I haven't described yet how to lower Worldliness. I'm inclined to make it a little tougher than lowering traits. a neophyte can't lower Worldliness at all until reducing one trait to zero. this drops Worldliness one point. once Worldliness has dropped, say, 3 points, the neophyte becomes a fully vested monk and can share the burden of mentoring new neophytes. this could fit in with damion's idea here: a player could create a couple neophytes as secondary characters, or opt to continue on the solitary path, acquiring new traits and working them down.

the benefit of creating neophytes is that whenever a neophyte lowers Worldliness, the mentor lowers Worldliness one point as well. once a mentor's Worldliness drops to zero, it's time to strike out into the wilderness and found a new monastic community.

I still have some issues with the basic mechanic. maybe it should be 3 dice versus Worldliness, plus extra dice for relevant traits as described.

what does everyone think?

Sounds good, John, everyone.

Going back a bit--having each player choose a mentor to play as well as a neophyte is great. As you said, it gives an avenue for players to develop the monastery as well as direct the missions. I think it's necessary for the game, however, that means we have to come up with character generations mechanics (or a process for it anyway) for the initial Teacher level monks as well as the neophytes.

John Laviolette wrote: a neophyte can't lower Worldliness at all until reducing one trait to zero. this drops Worldliness one point.

John wrote: roll 1d10 under Worldliness to succeed in worldly conflicts; roll equal to or higher than Worldliness to succeed in spiritual conflicts. if one or more stat-pairs can be applied creatively to the conflict, narrate how they apply and roll one d10 for each pair used; the target number for this roll is the highest score (if rolling equal or over) or the lowest score (if rolling under) out of all stat-pairs used.

Kester wrote: What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

Assuming a total of 7 (which we can retool if we like), I was thinking something like rolling d6 equal to the stat and adding everything but the sixes. Opposed by a similar roll. So, Bob the Monk has Compassion 4, and is testing that against a disease with a rating of 3. Bob rolls, 1, 4, 6, 6, for a total of 5, and the disease rolls 2, 3, 3 for a total of 8. Bob loses, and the disease takes another victim. In another case, Bob, angry at finding that the disease was started intentionally by a Bandit Clan, uses his 3 Violence against the bandit leaders 5 violence. Bob rolls. 3,4,5 for 12, and the Bandit leader rolls 1,2,4,4,6, for 11. Bob defeats the bandit leader (and possibly increases his violence stat).

Is that too simple?

Another idea that crosses with Worldliness, is to roll d8s equal to stat, and count all that roll worldliness or less as successes. To be precise, the target number would be equal to the side of the worldliness stat-pair that matched. So for Compassion, you'd use Enlightened (or whatever the opposite of worldly is), and for Violence, you'd use Worldliness as the TN.

Mike

Greetings Emily,

Emily Care wrote:

Kester wrote: What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

As it has been conceived, once a monk reaches a certain point of development (solving all their trait pairs) they leave play, moving into the higher echelons of the monastery and devoting all time to things spiritual, and no long attending to the worldly. Their inner conflict has been resolved, so it is a natural step to remove them from play. This doesn't necessarily match with real-world issues of Enlightenment, but it seems to fit with the needs of the game. If you have suggestions of ways that the "solved" character can continue being used, Kester, please go for it. :)

Greetings Emily,

Emily Care wrote: Worldliness would become a meta-trait, affected by the monk's progress on the other traits. This could be the last trait pair, then to be "solved", after which you retire into High-High-Priestness. However, if that was the case, based on some suggestions we've had for the structure of a monastery (the highest HP being one with all pairs solved) there would always be at least one monk max'd out. That would eliminate the dynamic for the monastery unless they were missing a character at that level. Perhaps we could use only the highest character that's in play for the monastery.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Emily Care wrote:

Kester wrote: What is to happen to these monks once Enlightenment is achieved?

As it has been conceived, once a monk reaches a certain point of development (solving all their trait pairs) they leave play, moving into the higher echelons of the monastery and devoting all time to things spiritual, and no long attending to the worldly. Their inner conflict has been resolved, so it is a natural step to remove them from play. This doesn't necessarily match with real-world issues of Enlightenment, but it seems to fit with the needs of the game. If you have suggestions of ways that the "solved" character can continue being used, Kester, please go for it. :)

Are you sure that solving the issues of trait pairs, while on the surface sounding intriquing, is really what you want to center game goals around?

Kester Pelagius wrote:
The reason I ask this is because many types of monastic orders have been touched upon in the discussion of this game concept. Far be it from me to speak out of turn (sound of bull elephant pushing it's way through the cue) but wouldn't it be better to expand upon the basic premise by having a number of "paths" which the characters could follow?

Monasticism, on a whole as discussed of late herein, I think, has devolved to the Medieval sort. There are/have been Buddist monks, Franciscan monks, Gnostic monks, etcetera. And what about Cabalists? Nuns?

Kester Pelagius wrote:
Meditation, indeed attempts to seek enlightenment, are hardly limited to monastic orders. In fact the underlying premise could easily (perhaps) be expanded to include <<gasp>> "Fraternal" organisations; read: secret societies with claims of inisghts into "gnosis", knowledge.

I'll try to respond to this (Kester's questions) fairly generally. My vision for Enlightenment is that the players (with or without GM direction) will determine the stat-pairs for their group of monks. (Note that, in this unique circumstance, I am considering Monk to be a gender-neutral term encompassing both monks and nuns.) As they "solve" their stat-pairs they become gradually more Enlightened. Once a character has "solved" a certain number of stat-pairs, they become Enlightened. This effectively takes the character out of play, and should be a campaign-culminating event. Earlier, the evocative line of "The Enlightend One passes within, and is not seen again" was used. There was also the proposal that the next character brought into the game by that player would have some sort of leg up (or the group would...) to make them more effective.

If anyone had liked my dual mechanic set up, I would have added that any roll that precisely matched their stat-pair on an enlighened action would gain a level (or tick) of enlightenment, representing a "Zen moment." I don't understand the other resolution mechanic well enough to propose a similar mechanism.

In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy, many with as much power as a bishop (and in a few limited cases more power -- these were the 'mitred' Monestaries and Convents). I seem to recall that the same is true in Buddhism, where (as an example) the Dalai Lama is not just the reincarnation of a Great Spirit and a priest, he is also a Buddhist monk. An exception is Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism, which is heavily laicised.

I agree with John, Kester, that we have cerainly not gone with the Western idea of monks, but that we have in fact decided to leave it open ended. My use of the term priest (which Emily followed up on) has to do with the idea that in Bhuddist temples, the higher-ups are in fact referred to as priests in translation. I'm sure something is lost in the translation.

Not that we have to go that way. I just wanted there to be a concept of rank in these organizations. I could have as easily used abbot. The point is that we need to have some term to discuss the idea of "the guys who are higher up on the ladder than the monks and teachers". I just chose high priest as a convenient term.

As far as Worldliness, that's the negative trait opposite Enlightenment. It's the bad side. And it soes seem to be the universal thing about monks. The cloistered lifestyle seems to be chosen specifically because it reduces the monk's Worldliness. So I would vote for it's retention as a central trait.

Mike

Greetings talysman,

talysman wrote: you might want to go back and read the previous thread called Let's Make a Game, since we covered some concepts about what play would be like there. we've already mentioned gnostics, for example (I specifically suggested a historic game with wandering cathar monks after the destruction of their abbey during the french crusade, for example; we moved away from that for a couple reasons.) I think if you read that thread, it will become clear that the goal of the game is not really enlightenment, especially not enlightenment as defined by a specific belief system; the goal is to design a belief system and attempt to live up to your own values.

some more mechanics issues:

Kester -- Worldly/Spiritual is a trait pair. this is why we keep talking about Worldliness: it starts high and you must lower it.

Emily -- I'm not sure what you mean here:

Emily Care wrote:
This means there needs to be a range of possible totals for any given trait pair, instead of a constant value that is dispersed between the two traits. Is that the direction we want to go? If so, characters could start with low trait totals and slowly progress, based on successes they have in either half of the pairs. More successes in the negative or worldly halves would raise their traits that way, and the same for the positive side. The mentors of the monks would be responsible for sending characters on missions that would help their spiritual development, and guide them away from "the dark side".

And I think it's worth considering having the rolls be against the halves of the trait pairs seperately rather than against the total.

Mark D. Eddy wrote: In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy, many with as much power as a bishop (and in a few limited cases more power -- these were the 'mitred' Monestaries and Convents). I seem to recall that the same is true in Buddhism, where (as an example) the Dalai Lama is not just the reincarnation of a Great Spirit and a priest, he is also a Buddhist monk. An exception is Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism, which is heavily laicised.

talysman wrote: maybe they are aware that the catholic church still has monastic orders, but for the most part they regard catholic monks as male nuns -- and nuns get little respect these days, either.

Greetings Everyone,

There's a lot of comments in this post so take your time in plodding through it.


RE: Mark D. Eddy and Mike Holmes comments:

Seems I miscontrued something. Did I mention that I had been reading bits and pieces of this thread? I did? Whew. In that case you were very kind with your remarks.

Mark D. Eddy: In the medeval setting, Abbots and Abbesses *were* considered clergy...

Mark D. Eddy: I agree with John, Kester, that we have cerainly not gone with the Western idea of monks, but that we have in fact decided to leave it open ended.

Mark D. Eddy: ..representing a "Zen moment"..

Mark:

"Enlightenment is a game about pacifist monks."

Now to really take the rose by the thorns!

My suggestions for fleshing out CharGen in Enlightenment - working outline are as follows ::


Stats (possibles): Gnosis, Willpower, Psyche. There should only be three (3) Stats, no more and no less, whatever they turn out to be.

Stat numerical range is from 0-7. (Yes, there is a reasoning behind these numerical values, as I am sure many of you have begun to notice.)

Trait Pairs should be choosen as "aim for: Courage, must fight against: Fear" and should have a mechanic for in-game use applied accordingly.

There should only be twelve (12) Trait Pairs. Each Trait Pair should be required to have FULL RANK mastery before anyone can be proclaimed as "Enlightened".


NOTE: Those wishing to delve into the darker side of things can institute an mechanic for the "Three Entered into Pardes but only One came out whole" effect on the Psyche. But I would leave that up to group vote/decision as to whether such a negative aspect of the game should even be addressed.

There should be nine (9) Character Archetypes.

Alternatively the number of Trait Pairs and Character Archetypes could be reversed. Then again they could also be arranged in Ogdoads, though I wouldn't suggest it.

There should 13 Ranks/Levels of advancement.

Comments?

Questions?

Rants?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Mike Holmes wrote:

talysman wrote: maybe they are aware that the catholic church still has monastic orders, but for the most part they regard catholic monks as male nuns -- and nuns get little respect these days, either.

Heh, I'll mention that to Brother Marv when I see him next. Of course having been raised Catholic might have something to do with the fact that I know quite a few Monks. ;-)

Want a stereotype from someone who talks to monks occasionally? Monks, rock, and are, in the very Catholic tradition, all pretty decent basketball players. Which only makes sense, as the Spirituality of B-Ball brings one closer to God.

Get to know a monk; they're fun guys. Franciscans, especially.

Mike

P.S. if you get a chance to, talk to a Jesuit priest some time as well. Yeah, they still exist, too.

IOW: Design a core rules system. Take the "premises" which have been outlined by various people, many of which were very good by the way, develop them into full fledged "campaigns" or "scenarios" and what you have is an instant RPG with playable scenario modules.

Hope that made sense?

Greetings,

Even having saved this thread to file I feel I cannot hold my proverbial water as I feel strongly about this. My apologies, but read near the end, it is topical to this thread. I ask, kindly, for my fellow Forgeites indulgence in this matter. Your support or contempt is your own regard and you may act accordingly.

(text expunged)

talysman: anyways, we're zooming way off topic. oh, and to Kester: please re-read that thread I mentioned for more information about the game's premise. this thread is not about changing the premise of the game to make it more historical or whatever; it's about implimenting the existing premise through game mechanics. if you still have questions about what the premise is, you could private message me, I suppose. also, please keep opinions about NeoPaganism or other religions in another thread. this thread is in the "RPG Theory" forum and is about making a game. thanks.

Mark D. Eddy wrote:

IOW: Design a core rules system. Take the "premises" which have been outlined by various people, many of which were very good by the way, develop them into full fledged "campaigns" or "scenarios" and what you have is an instant RPG with playable scenario modules.

Hope that made sense?

Oh, yes. It makes perfect sense. The problem is that we seem to have a pile of people who are great at ideas and concepts, but lousy at mechanics.

The closest we've been able to come to what we want are the following:
1)It should be easy to raise the Unenlightened stats, but difficult to raise the Enlightened stats.
2)The stats should be paired up to represent the two sides of an Enlightenment coin.
3)There should be enough power in Unenlightened action to tempt the character to temporarily abandon his path of Enlightenment.
4)There should be some mechanism by which the Stat-pairs (as I have been calling them) can be customized.

Kester Pelagius wrote: As to the remainder of your remarks, having read the originating thread, I was under the impression this was an OPEN DISCUSION to develop the best game possible.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: As to the remainder of your remarks, having read the originating thread, I was under the impression this was an OPEN DISCUSION to develop the best game possible.

Well, John could have been more polite. We certainly were chit-chatting at least as much as you were. OTOH, he had put at the end of his response a note saying that he and I were off topic and that we, too, should get back on topic. So he wasn't being that hypocritical. Just trying to get things back on track in general terms.

Greetings All,

Rather than propitiate what the near semi-divine moderaters may take as a flame war (and forever banish me from these sacred halls) I would just like to say, next time just E-Mail me. I actual included my email in my info when I logged in initially. Should save on wasted space on "misunderstandings".

Additionally, for my part, I apologize if any thought my response was out of line. Speaking of which, to get back *into* line... Believe it or not talysman, me boyo, that post did inspire.

I started a thread here on the RPG.NET Game Design Forum which you may find of interest.

In an attempt to clarify my part in all this let me just begin by saying it is my *opinion* that what is required is a codefied Core Mechanic, meaning specificaly a complete Rules System encompassing (in outline) 1) definitions of the Attributes/Stats; 2) CharGen methodolgy; and 3) whatever else my fiendish imp of memory may have absconded with into the shadowy closet in the corner.

In otherwords a rules referent which *everyone* can agree upon and have to hold as model for their designs/ideas/etcetera.

As for the rest of it, I was just trying to suss out what, exactly, everyone wants/intends the overall game premise to be. In my *opinion*, I think there *could be* a larger game here encompassing *everyone's* ideas. Perhaps it is not practical to impliment, but from what I have read it appears like there is a cornucopia of ideas. If there was *just* a Core Rules outline, in my *opinion*, I think something wonderful could be hammered out here.

Which is why I was asking round about questions, more or less.

You have all done a lot of work, very interesting and thought provoking, and I was trying not to seem like someone coming up to your gaming table and saying, "Hey what's that? Oh," picking up the dice without asking, "pretty, but funny looking. So what's this all about then."

As for the rest of it. My suggested mechanics tie in to the premise.

I wont bore you with lame attempts to explain why as most here probably already are well aware of the numerical associations, and could probably tell you better than I the reasons why.

I will save this thread for further review. Good evening to you, sir talysman, and a good and safe weekend may it be.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

EDIT: One day I will learn the "preview" button is there for a reason, and that the board administrators provided it so people wouldn't have to correct grammar and syntax errors this way. But did I find them all?

One thing that hit me at work today after having posted my thought about doing a combined stat pair roll method. I'm putting cart-before-horse ...

Are we doing task resolution, conflict resolution, scene resolution, narrative control rolling?

I/We should try to hammer out an example description of "the game in play"

Bob McNamee

Bob McNamee wrote: One thing that hit me at work today after having posted my thought about doing a combined stat pair roll method. I'm putting cart-before-horse ...

Are we doing task resolution, conflict resolution, scene resolution, narrative control rolling?

I/We should try to hammer out an example description of "the game in play"

talysman wrote:

Bob McNamee wrote: One thing that hit me at work today after having posted my thought about doing a combined stat pair roll method. I'm putting cart-before-horse ...

Are we doing task resolution, conflict resolution, scene resolution, narrative control rolling?

I/We should try to hammer out an example description of "the game in play"

good idea. I was just thinking we do need a sample of how it would play out. I've been posting really simple examples, the kind you would see as explanations of rules, not a sample of play.

as for the resolution system, we've been mostly talking conflict resolution. I think everyone's anxious to avoid the task-resolution level. this so far seems Narrativist rather than Simulationist or Gamist.

Kester,

thank you for accepting my apology.

Kester Pelagius wrote:
In an attempt to clarify my part in all this let me just begin by saying it is my *opinion* that what is required is a codefied Core Mechanic, meaning specificaly a complete Rules System encompassing (in outline) 1) definitions of the Attributes/Stats; 2) CharGen methodolgy; and 3) whatever else my fiendish imp of memory may have absconded with into the shadowy closet in the corner.

In otherwords a rules referent which *everyone* can agree upon and have to hold as model for their designs/ideas/etcetera.

talysman wrote: Kester,

thank you for accepting my apology.

talysman wrote: Kester,

we're probably not all going to agree. that is OK. I've already had a couple of my ideas shot down (and I was the one who suggested monks!) it's no big deal... if someone's vision doesn't get accepted by the group as a whole, there's always the possibility of a "rules fork" -- someone develops the rules in the specific direction they find most inspiring.

talysman wrote: this is why we are discussing "Enlightenment the RPG" as a generic, low-detail, ahistorical background; it's easier for group to cooperate on. highly specific settings are really more like personal visions and are best designed by one person (or maybe a two-person partnership.)

talysman wrote: plus, we have to be realistic about this. we're designing a game as a group, in the forums. I doubt you could do a 100+ page game that way...

talysman wrote: your earlier suggestion (3 stats, 12 trait-pairs, 9 archetypes, and so on) is just far too complicated for a small Narrativist rpg. plus, the carefully-selected numeric values and stat names fit in with a specific religious background rather than being generic. they would be good for a different game, maybe (specifically, one designed by a single designer.)

talysman wrote: plus, one of the reasons why we went with a monks-only game was the challenge of creating a single-character-type system; nine archetypes sounds like nine character classes, to me. we're not doing "Monk: the Enlightenment", just a nice simple game you could play for 3-5 sessions.

talysman wrote: as we develop the system, there's a chance we may discover a need for another stat or two. we just might take your suggestion to add Psyche or Willpower (probably not both, since one stat could be used for all "internal" issues, in contrast to the stat for "external" issues.)

talysman wrote: still, why not describe how you see psyche or willpower being used, or how you would break down nine archetypes of monk? if there's something that just screams "USE ME!", or something that raises some issues that need addressing, that would help a lot.

thank you for your suggestions!

talysman wrote: Kester,

thank you for accepting my apology.

Kester Pelagius wrote:
In an attempt to clarify my part in all this let me just begin by saying it is my *opinion* that what is required is a codefied Core Mechanic, meaning specificaly a complete Rules System encompassing (in outline) 1) definitions of the Attributes/Stats; 2) CharGen methodolgy; and 3) whatever else my fiendish imp of memory may have absconded with into the shadowy closet in the corner.

In otherwords a rules referent which *everyone* can agree upon and have to hold as model for their designs/ideas/etcetera.

we're probably not all going to agree. that is OK. I've already had a couple of my ideas shot down (and I was the one who suggested monks!) it's no big deal... if someone's vision doesn't get accepted by the group as a whole, there's always the possibility of a "rules fork" -- someone develops the rules in the specific direction they find most inspiring.

this is why we are discussing "Enlightenment the RPG" as a generic, low-detail, ahistorical background; it's easier for group to cooperate on. highly specific settings are really more like personal visions and are best designed by one person (or maybe a two-person partnership.)

plus, we have to be realistic about this. we're designing a game as a group, in the forums. I doubt you could do a 100+ page game that way; it's too much work for what may later turn out to be a "just for fun" experiment. we're really talking about a 30-pager, here. that's quite enough on our plates.

your earlier suggestion (3 stats, 12 trait-pairs, 9 archetypes, and so on) is just far too complicated for a small Narrativist rpg. plus, the carefully-selected numeric values and stat names fit in with a specific religious background rather than being generic. they would be good for a different game, maybe (specifically, one designed by a single designer.) plus, one of the reasons why we went with a monks-only game was the challenge of creating a single-character-type system; nine archetypes sounds like nine character classes, to me. we're not doing "Monk: the Enlightenment", just a nice simple game you could play for 3-5 sessions.

so far, what we have been aiming for is:



• one stat (not decided yet, although I suggested Past);
• a variable number of trait-pairs (start with one, acquire others during play);
• a Worldly/Spiritual stat-pair for each scope of play (one personal, one for the monastery as a whole, perhap one for the order as a whole.)



as we develop the system, there's a chance we may discover a need for another stat or two. we just might take your suggestion to add Psyche or Willpower (probably not both, since one stat could be used for all "internal" issues, in contrast to the stat for "external" issues.)

still, why not describe how you see psyche or willpower being used, or how you would break down nine archetypes of monk? if there's something that just screams "USE ME!", or something that raises some issues that need addressing, that would help a lot.

thank you for your suggestions!

Bob McNamee wrote:
I was thinking earlier that maybe there was a need for a stat like Family, Friends...etc that acted as a pull away from the contemplative enlightment into the world. Something mechanical to keep you from just deciding your way up the ladder. (always choosing the monkly choice)

I like the sound of the idea of a Past...
I'll have to go find where you mentioned it.
Does it work like a target number (maybe a target roll to even attempt a Worldly / Spiritual roll...a chance to leave your past behind)? This would make Worldly/Spiritual a very slow moving stat pair since there would be an addition "activation roll" to try for changing it. Perhaps the target number starts high as an initiate... lowering as you make successful Worldly / Spiritual decision rolls.

Alternately, you could include a Past stat as an Other-player director stance stat...that is, If you wish to jump in and use directors stance to up-the-emotional-ante for another Player's character... you can jump in (with a roll) and create ties to the Past of the character...actual ties or parallel situations that charge the scene for them.

I know...more thoughts...still no real mechanics...
(and now I'll go look for your last mention of Past stat to see if I've reinvented the wheel)

Perhaps we could call the negative side of a trait pair a Temptation?

I like the idea of the negative side being easier to use, thus Tempting. In the long run leading you astray and losing power and perhaps your monkhood. Perhaps, the worldly trait can be used to judge when you have fallen into the trap of worldly connections through dropping too low and perhaps maxing a negative trait pair moves Worldly automatically.

Hello! Yay, actual mechanics to work with! Excellent. Good work. :) Sorry this post is so g_d-awful long...

talysman wrote: one side note: as you can tell, I keep switching around on what to call each half of the trait-pair.... one possibility is to call the positive side of the trait a Virtue, but I'm not sure we want to call the negative side a sin... not sure what we should call it, though. Obstacle, maybe?

if each stat pair has to add up to 10 (for example,) why not just write "Monk Theo has a 7 in Pride/Humility", then roll over for actions invoking humility and under for actions invoking pride.

Bob McNamee wrote:
I was thinking earlier that maybe there was a need for a stat like Family, Friends...etc that acted as a pull away from the contemplative enlightment into the world. Something mechanical to keep you from just deciding your way up the ladder. (always choosing the monkly choice)

this would also work well with the "add a trait-pair on the fly" idea I suggested in this thread. if you add a whole bunch of trait-pairs during the early stages of play, your character becomes burdened with many bad behaviors and must work harder to get rid of them... but also has more passions (and virtues!) to draw on in play... by waiting until later, the trait-pairs are added at the character's current Worldly score and may thus be closer to resolving.

I've written an example of play as I understand it. Here are some suggestions I've thought of as I was writing it:

--Especially given the setting, letting other character support someone making a roll would be good.
--Past could be invoked to tempt characters into using their more worldly trait-pair half. You could have to make a saving throw to avoid doing it.
--If a "Path" pool (from experiences after becoming a monk) look useful, it could be increased by completing signigicant tasks, and dice from it could use spiritual sides of the trait pairs more efficiently somehow.

--An alternate approach altogether that we could explore would be doing something like in Shadows, where the player narrates two actions: one using the negative half of the trait pair, one using the positive. The resolution could determine that narrative that happens.

talysman wrote:
normal roll:


• describe action being attempted
• roll dice equal to Past, opposed by opponent's Past, or:
1 die for common actions, or
3 dice for actions within the boundaries of your Past, or
5 dice for actions outside your experience.
• dice higher than opposing dice count as successes



negatively empowered ("unenlightened") roll:


• describe action being attempted, including how you are drawing upon your passions or attachments
• roll dice equal to Past, opposed as above, but add dice equal to the negative stat involved
• dice higher than opposing dice count as successes
• add 1 point to negative stat used



postively empowered ("enlightened") roll:


• describe action being attempted, including how you are drawing upon your virtuous behaviour
• roll dice equal to Past, opposed as above, but add dice equal to the positive stat involved
• dice higher than opposing dice count as successes if they are also higher than your Worldly stat
• mark a tally next to the positive stat used (for a possible later gain)

talysman wrote:
postively empowered ("enlightened") roll:


• describe action being attempted, including how you are drawing upon your virtuous behaviour
• roll dice equal to Past, opposed as above, but add dice equal to the positive stat involved
• dice higher than opposing dice count as successes if they are also higher than your Worldly stat
• mark a tally next to the positive stat used (for a possible later gain)

talysman wrote:
postively empowered ("enlightened") roll:


• describe action being attempted, including how you are drawing upon your virtuous behaviour
• roll dice equal to Past, opposed as above, but add dice equal to the positive stat involved
• dice higher than opposing dice count as successes if they are also higher than your Worldly stat
• mark a tally next to the positive stat used (for a possible later gain)

I like the idea of all new monks starting with a Worldly / Spiritual trait pair of 'X' / 1...
Worldly / Spiritual (5/1) or (9/1)
New characters start the game mostly connected to the
world... even those with a "spiritual bent" are much more connected than they realize.

I like Past and Path as... categories / traits / dice pools / target numbers concerning connections to the worldly Past (family, attitudes, experiences) or things learned along the spiritual Path (wisdom, selflessness, enlightenment).

The possiblity of doing something Shadow-like with them would be cool.

Emily Care wrote: I've written an example of play as I understand it. Here are some suggestions I've thought of as I was writing it:

--Especially given the setting, letting other character support someone making a roll would be good.
--Past could be invoked to tempt characters into using their more worldly trait-pair half. You could have to make a saving throw to avoid doing it.
--If a "Path" pool (from experiences after becoming a monk) look useful, it could be increased by completing signigicant tasks, and dice from it could use spiritual sides of the trait pairs more efficiently somehow.

--An alternate approach altogether that we could explore would be doing something like in Shadows, where the player narrates two actions: one using the negative half of the trait pair, one using the positive. The resolution could determine that narrative that happens.

She has many attachments to her past, so her Worldly stat is correspondingly high. (Should it simply start out the same as the "worst" trait pair the character has?)

Yaffa is assigned to help with the sick children who have been brought to the monastery. Many of them have the same illness, a fever that has swept through this part of the country side. She is working with a team of other monks, to provide the round the clock care the children need to have any hope of surviving. She is shown how to prepare the herbal decoctions and compresses used to treat those with the fever and assigned to making sure there is a steady supply.

Yaffa's player, or the gm, states that Yaffa has a hard time connecting with the children. There is a tense moment or two when she realizes that one of the children is from a family of one of the tax-collectors who beat her. This would be a good moment for some kind of roll "against" making a Violent action of some sort.

A Suggestion:
The player could narrate what the character would do if she fell into her darker side, and then make a saving throw to avoid it. All penalties of the usual use of the worldly or tempting traits would apply. This would be a good place for Bob McNamee's suggestion about players having Family stats or having the Past come back somehow.

The support of the other monks could allow her to only have to roll as high as her positive trait, rather than her worldliness. So instead of only getting one success, this roll would give her three successes.

here's another thought, which may resolve the issue about using actual stat-pairs versus using a single number and a roll over/roll under mechanic: if we record the number right on the character sheet, we can use pairs of numbers and still only erase once every time the stat-pair changes. here is how we can record a stat-pair on the character sheet:

[code]

VIRTUE: Compassion 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
< > < > < > < > < > <*> < >
PASSION: Violence 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

[/code]

thus, you would make a mark in the diamond representing both your Compassion and your Violence, simultaneously.

I'll work up a character sheet mock-up (a little hard to do, seeing as we don't know all that's needed, but it will help...)

Just a comment on the Worldly/Spiritual stuff. You might indicate that these values also show the level of engagement of the character with that aspect of the world, and their withdrawal from it into monkhood. A character still heavily engaged with (say) Family would get issues from family matters brought to their attention; say a cousing travels to the monatsery to ask advice, tacitly offering temptation to abandon the pursuit of enlightenment in response to present needs. Typiing this, I see I have more or less just described the Yoda-Luke-Obi Wan scene before Luke goes to Dagobah.

Anyway, this would shift attention to Embracing or Denying a particular temptation, while driving towards Enlightenment, the complete repudiation of the world (if that were of interest).

At this point, I think we have enough mechanics ideas in general terms. If people have a few more ideas, please post them. But we should start to make some solid decisions soon. So after a bit more posting on the subject, I think we should use some determination method to decide on exactly what to go orward with. I see this working one of two ways.

- We nominate people and vote on someone to write up the mechanics into a coherent whole. Then once written up, we tweak the mechanics.

- We bring up points one at a time, and vote on them individually, going back and forth on the rules until we have a complete set. Then sombody writes that up, and we tweak teh results.

The first method would be more expedient, but would result in a rule set that was less of a group effort. The latter would be a ton of work here, but would result in a more democratically chosen set of rules.

Let me say that I am of the belief that democracy is not always the best way to accomplish something. In the Roman republic, when a time of crises came upon Rome, the senate would appoint a "Speaker" who would wield complete authority for purposes of getting rid of a problem. This has it's dangers as well, however. Remember that "Speaker" translates to "Dictator" in Latin. Just something to think about.

Anyhow, what do people think about how to proceed?

BTW, I remove myself at this point from any writing duties. As originator of the thread, I may have undue influence (or have had). As such it should be somebody else who has that authority, whether the writing is done earlier or later.

Mike

P.S. In the future, I was thinking of designing a game by actual commitee. That is, several comittees of a limited number of persons would be set up as people joined, and each would have a distinct purview. Just an idea.

Virtue and Passion are good descriptors for the trait pair halves. They will distinguish them from the individual pairs, without laying a strong value judgement on either half. The "diamonds" looks like a good format, though it will take up a bit of space. Be interesting to see what these character sheets will look like.

talysman wrote:
so Theo is with Yaffa... he tells Yaffa "remember the words of the prophet: to heal the wounds of the spirit, you must heal the wounds of the flesh" and rolls the dice. if Theo gets two successes, Yaffa's Worldly score dropps to 3 for this scene, making it easier for her to invoke her Virtue.

talysman wrote: just to clarify, I didn't suggest Past as being another form of attachment or obstacle, although I suppose we could use it that way. I think players should have a basic opportunity to resolve a scene without using
any Virtue or Passion/Temptation at all; using a trait-pair would boost the basic opportunity. Past is thus just what you started to do before hearing the Call and seeking the monastery.

talysman wrote: we could change it to another possible trait-pair, I suppose, and shift the game mechanic away from opposed rolls. for any action, roll 3 dice if it would be easy for anyone in your environment, 2 dice if it requires training and you've had that training, or 1 die if it's outside your training.

contracycle wrote: You might indicate that these values also show the level of engagement of the character with that aspect of the world, and their withdrawal from it into monkhood.

Mike

P.S. In the future, I was thinking of designing a game by actual commitee. That is, several comittees of a limited number of persons would be set up as people joined, and each would have a distinct purview. Just an idea.

Thanks for starting this ball rolling, and continuing to keep it contained and on track, Mike.

Mike Holmes wrote: - We nominate people and vote on someone to write up the mechanics into a coherent whole. Then once written up, we tweak the mechanics.

Mike Holmes wrote: P.S. In the future, I was thinking of designing a game by actual commitee. That is, several comittees of a limited number of persons would be set up as people joined, and each would have a distinct purview. Just an idea.

Emily Care wrote: Thanks for starting this ball rolling, and continuing to keep it contained and on track, Mike.

I suggest we pick an approach (general form of mechanics)--I listed some on my last post--and determine who will write them up. Nomination would help us be more democratic, but how would we figure out who is best suited?
Or we could solicit suggestions and "vote" on them, then whoever's suggestion won approval could be be nominated to write it up.

Sounds interesting. Each committe would get it's own thread that certain folks would work together on? Good idea. Please continue your efforts. Count me in, too.

First one sounds good... second one sounds like it could devlove into what we were already doing...no final decision

This makes me want to use Universalis rules to govern the creation of game rules...with Currency to creation, Challenges to unliked approaches, and possibly Complications for elaborating on rules...

:>

Hello,

Emily mentioned I should look into this post, as some mechanics I had mentioned may be of interest. So here goes, hoping I'm not to late to offer an option.

Build PC's of 4 virtues and 3 faults.

Assign each of these a die type - higher indicating a stronger proclivity. Loosely this is one "past" trait and 3 positive traits, and the faults are the negative traits.

When performing a virtue based action, roll the virtue's die and the 3 fault dice. The highest die determines the outcome, with the value of the roll being the degree of success or failure.

A fault based action is performed by rolling just the faults, with the fault in use being treated as the virtue of the previous example.

Ties of virtue and fault permit the fault to be lowered, but at the cost of success. This is often a moment of revelation for the character.

So what do you think?

-Mendel S.

Wormwood wrote:
Emily mentioned I should look into this post, as some mechanics I had mentioned may be of interest. So here goes, hoping I'm not to late to offer an option.

Build PC's of 4 virtues and 3 faults.

Assign each of these a die type - higher indicating a stronger proclivity. Loosely this is one "past" trait and 3 positive traits, and the faults are the negative traits.

When performing a virtue based action, roll the virtue's die and the 3 fault dice. The highest die determines the outcome, with the value of the roll being the degree of success or failure.

A fault based action is performed by rolling just the faults, with the fault in use being treated as the virtue of the previous example.

Ties of virtue and fault permit the fault to be lowered, but at the cost of success. This is often a moment of revelation for the character.

So what do you think?

Mike Holmes wrote: At this point, I think we have enough mechanics ideas in general terms. If people have a few more ideas, please post them. But we should start to make some solid decisions soon. So after a bit more posting on the subject, I think we should use some determination method to decide on exactly what to go orward with. I see this working one of two ways.

- We nominate people and vote on someone to write up the mechanics into a coherent whole. Then once written up, we tweak the mechanics.

- We bring up points one at a time, and vote on them individually, going back and forth on the rules until we have a complete set. Then sombody writes that up, and we tweak teh results.

The first method would be more expedient, but would result in a rule set that was less of a group effort. The latter would be a ton of work here, but would result in a more democratically chosen set of rules.

talysman,

There seems to be something wrong with the idea of one person hurriedly generating the base mechanics, and then trying to cirtique them. I also think that there are some fundamental questions about the game that still need to be answered before the system can be adequately generated.

One very important idea is, are actions spiritual or physical? Is the resolution of the actions intended to ascribe the spiritual consequences first, with the more concrete consequences being added afterwards (or with less mechanical notice)?

The difference is striking, on one hand you handle Brother Thomas' temptation to hit the bandit who is chasing after the peasants he has chosen to protect, with the idea of damage almost unnecessary. On the other you have him hitting the bandit for 3 damage, and lossing a point of this and/or gaining a point of that. What are the main consequences of a given action?

Also what distinguishes monks? Their past? Their virtues? Their temptations? Obviously all three matter, but when monks are assigned to a mission, are they assigned because their past are applicable, because their virtues will shine brightest, or because they gain a chance to challenge their temptations, and hopefully grow from it.

Normally that's a more GM based decision, but it seems that if you want to start from a mission, that is a very important question to ask. What kind of missions in basic sense are we talking about?

Related to my first question, are players in control of their character's temptation? Will a character with a high wrath rating simply lose it, regardless of what the player prefers, or are we trying to make it mechancall tempting to use the wrath, even though the player knows it's dangerous. I'm heavilly in favor of the later, as the mechanic I offered shows.

Lastly, power curves. I propose that this game should have a decreasig power curve, as power itself is worldliness. High virtues are never as good as high 'sins'. Also I see the idea of low worldiness characters being politically in charge as somewhat counter-intuitive. Rather virtuous, but not fully enlightened characters would fit better, a hierarchy of enlightenment seems downright silly, I'd suggest rating something more measurable as the analogue of rank. Perhaps seniority or service?

I hope that is food for thought,

-Mendel S.

Perhaps I was being premature. Maybe we don't have enough material or consensus yet. In any case, we will postpone a vote until more stuff has been discussed. At some point, I hope that one of the options becomes valid. We shall see.

Til then, please continue with discussing what you think has not been well enough addressed.

Mike

Regarding Past and Family....my thought was that Past would encompass all worldly influences from your Past, whether Family, Attitude, or Experience.

Actually perhaps this trait idea isn't needed either...

Worldliness could be said to encompass all this, as well as one's continuing bonds to worldly matters...

and Spirituality could encompass everything that Path does...

My preference for Action resolution...

The conflict is internal, its all about the spiritual consequences for mechanics.
How that consequence manifests itself in outward acts would be part of the narration. Who narrates for each character's conflict, and who narrates, in what order, for group checks would be something else to decide...perhaps by number of successes?

We have concensus, I believe, about the fact of the trait pairs and that actions taken increase or decrease the respective halves of the pairs.

Past was suggested to give us a pool of dice to roll against the values of the trait pairs. If we like the idea of a dice pool, perhaps Worldliness and Spirituality could act as the dice pool numbers.

This eliminates the need for additional stats. Keeping the trait pairs central to the characters is in keeping with our original conception of the game.

If use of one pool excludes the use of the other, then the renunciatory vows a new monk makes on joining the monastery would be reflected in their newly limited abilities since the Spiritual value should start pretty low. The temptation to use the Passion traits (and thus have access to the initially higher Worldly pool) would be very present. This would give the player incentive to work on increasing their Spiritual aspects.

Alternatively, the two pools could be used to make opposed rolls against one another. The player would need to narrate action appropriate to which pool "won". Traits could be invoked to give bonuses dice to whichever pool.

--Emily Care

Wormwood wrote: One very important idea is, are actions spiritual or physical? Is the resolution of the actions intended to ascribe the spiritual consequences first, with the more concrete consequences being added afterwards (or with less mechanical notice)?

The difference is striking, on one hand you handle Brother Thomas' temptation to hit the bandit who is chasing after the peasants he has chosen to protect, with the idea of damage almost unnecessary. On the other you have him hitting the bandit for 3 damage, and lossing a point of this and/or gaining a point of that. What are the main consequences of a given action?

Also what distinguishes monks? Their past? Their virtues? Their temptations? Obviously all three matter, but when monks are assigned to a mission, are they assigned because their past are applicable, because their virtues will shine brightest, or because they gain a chance to challenge their temptations, and hopefully grow from it.

Normally that's a more GM based decision, but it seems that if you want to start from a mission, that is a very important question to ask. What kind of missions in basic sense are we talking about?

Related to my first question, are players in control of their character's temptation? Will a character with a high wrath rating simply lose it, regardless of what the player prefers, or are we trying to make it mechancall tempting to use the wrath, even though the player knows it's dangerous. I'm heavilly in favor of the later, as the mechanic I offered shows.

Lastly, power curves. I propose that this game should have a decreasig power curve, as power itself is worldliness. High virtues are never as good as high 'sins'. Also I see the idea of low worldiness characters being politically in charge as somewhat counter-intuitive. Rather virtuous, but not fully enlightened characters would fit better, a hierarchy of enlightenment seems downright silly, I'd suggest rating something more measurable as the analogue of rank. Perhaps seniority or service?

Bob McNamee wrote: Regarding Past and Family....my thought was that Past would encompass all worldly influences from your Past, whether Family, Attitude, or Experience.

Actually perhaps this trait idea isn't needed either...

Worldliness could be said to encompass all this, as well as one's continuing bonds to worldly matters...

and Spirituality could encompass everything that Path does...

Talysman,

I'd suggest keeping worldly and spiritual elements the same in terms of mechanics, a symmetry will greatly simiplify the rules. The assymetry should be from the initial values rather than as additional rules.

One major criticism of the mechanic you've presented is that monks don't ever actually risk failure, except in a spiritual sense. It seems thematically appropriate that monks have a high tendency to fail a spiritual attempt, but improve the virtue they used at the same time.

I'd suggest reversing the idea Emily mentioned, and using worldliness and spiritual as the 'difficulty' and the pools as the passion or virtue used.

Then everytime a spiritual roll would fail - there is the temptation to make it worldly, to improve the 'difficulty' on the roll to make it succeed. Each time this happens the associated passion is raised by 1.

Is there any need for the virtues and the passions to change independantly? I know this was brought up before, but it didn't seem anyone answered either way. And it seems there is little reason for the pairs not be locked.

Either way, I suggest everytime a passion rises, the virtue is decreased. But virtues can be cultivated over time, at the end of a mission, when it's moral has been discussed with the characters, but only virtues where they have avoided temptation can be raised.

Of course this avoids the whole "choose a worldy and a spiritual effect" but I think that takes the choice of temptation away from the player, something I thought was to be avoided. Better to choose between virtue with failure and temptation with success.

-Mendel S.

Wormwood wrote:
I'd suggest keeping worldly and spiritual elements the same in terms of mechanics, a symmetry will greatly simiplify the rules. The assymetry should be from the initial values rather than as additional rules.

One major criticism of the mechanic you've presented is that monks don't ever actually risk failure, except in a spiritual sense. It seems thematically appropriate that monks have a high tendency to fail a spiritual attempt, but improve the virtue they used at the same time.

I'd suggest reversing the idea Emily mentioned, and using worldliness and spiritual as the 'difficulty' and the pools as the passion or virtue used.

Then everytime a spiritual roll would fail - there is the temptation to make it worldly, to improve the 'difficulty' on the roll to make it succeed. Each time this happens the associated passion is raised by 1.

Is there any need for the virtues and the passions to change independantly? I know this was brought up before, but it didn't seem anyone answered either way. And it seems there is little reason for the pairs not be locked.

Either way, I suggest everytime a passion rises, the virtue is decreased. But virtues can be cultivated over time, at the end of a mission, when it's moral has been discussed with the characters, but only virtues where they have avoided temptation can be raised.

Of course this avoids the whole "choose a worldy and a spiritual effect" but I think that takes the choice of temptation away from the player, something I thought was to be avoided. Better to choose between virtue with failure and temptation with success.

back to facts!

we've also been discussing adding facts or descriptions to the monk's background. Emily suggested describing one fact of a neophyte's background for each point in a Passion. plus, I suggested something about making all non-spiritual details about a character into words/facts, to de-emphasize them. thus, instead of having a Strength score, you might say "my character is strong" and leave it at that.

looking at the most recently-suggested mechanic (opposed Worldly vs. Spiritual rolls,) it looks like we may need an opportunity for bonus dice. here's a way to do it with facts.

for each Passion, describe one fact related to that passion. thus, if your character's Passion is Violence or Pride, you could say "my character is exceptionally strong" as a possible fact.

you also get two facts for Worldly/Spiritual: a fact about your background and a fact about what lead you to a spiritual path (you could think of the second fact as a Kicker, although it doesn't have to be as extreme as Sorcerer's Kickers.)

now, suppose a neophyte is attempting a Virtuous act. even with the bonus dice from the Virtue, it's going to be hard to get those successes. but if the player describes an action based on one of their facts, the GM may allow them to add 1 bonus die to either Worldly or Spiritual. if the player can work in more than one of those facts, the GM may allow more bonus dice.

this would be where we would have monks calling upon their premonastic background as carpenters to build houses for the poor, or monks on a healing mission calling upon their strength to carry an injured peasant to a nearby cottage.

we could even allow adding facts during play. characters would need to seek out appropriate situations where such a fact could be added, then attempt a series of rolls. the GM would set a "scene rating" for this exactly as for mission-related scenes.

talysman wrote: I think the monks do risk failure. definitely, if Brother Theo attempts a Spiritual action, the player would describe a successful Spiritual roll and an unsuccessful Worldly result. if the Worldly dice succeed, the Spiritual action failed and the second description is narrated.

she has Sloth/Industry 2/4, Violence/Compassion 5/1, and Worldly/Spiritual 5/1. she is trying a Spiritual, Compassionate act, so she rolls 2 dice versus 5 Worldly dice.

this is 1 die Spiritual plus the 2 dice Industrious bonus, for a 3 dice against 5 Worldly dice roll. slightly better than before, and if she's lucky, she gets those two Spiritual successes and ends the scene with the children healed (and two tally-marks next to Industrious for those two successes.)

(Mendel's) idea about spiritual advancement when failing physically is a good one. I suggest this could be the result of a tie.

talysman wrote:
for each Passion, describe one fact related to that passion...

you also get two facts for Worldly/Spiritual... (you could think of the second fact as a Kicker, although it doesn't have to be as extreme as Sorcerer's Kickers.)

but if the player describes an action based on one of their facts, the GM may allow them to add 1 bonus die to either Worldly or Spiritual.

this would be where we would have monks calling upon their premonastic background as carpenters to build houses for the poor....

I'm really liking the way things are going now!

I'm thinking that it would be cool if the monks only need to specify the Worldly Spiritual Facts to start off, leaving all the rest to be revealed in play. This would let the Players tailor their ideas based on what ends up becoming important to the conflict at hand, hopefully not chosen in a very Gamist way.
(I've always wanted to do something very "discover-in-play")
I like the idea of being able to riff off ideas as they are explored, and introduced by others.
(Sometimes in Universalis that plot twist just introduced leads to even cooler ideas about your character than you had in mind when first created)

Emily Care wrote:

she has Sloth/Industry 2/4, Violence/Compassion 5/1, and Worldly/Spiritual 5/1. she is trying a Spiritual, Compassionate act, so she rolls 2 dice versus 5 Worldly dice.

She gets 2 dice to roll against the scene rating: 1 from her Spiritual rating, one from her Compassion Virtue. correct?

this is 1 die Spiritual plus the 2 dice Industrious bonus, for a 3 dice against 5 Worldly dice roll. slightly better than before, and if she's lucky, she gets those two Spiritual successes and ends the scene with the children healed (and two tally-marks next to Industrious for those two successes.)

The character has a 4 Industrious, so wouldn't she get 4 dice?

Emily Care wrote:
Ah, description based mechanics, rather than numbers. Delightful!

We may want to allow players to write a statement for each stat pair from either the Passion or the Virtue or both. Or we could require it be from the higher of the two.

Adding statments in play is great, especially since the character will be adding trait pairs as we go along. The scenes framed could be in the present or flash-backs.

Flashbacks of previously unknown events in the character's history illustrating formerly un-activated aspects of their personality would be in keeping with some film that has been influential as we've written this (melodramatic HK action like Crouching Tiger) and meshes with the narrativist goals we've been moving towards.

What are other folks leaning towards? Time for a vote?

As we wait for concensus, here are some points brought up earlier by damion that I don't want to forget about. We may want to address them on the next thread, whatever it may be.

damion wrote: Each player would create an elder and a neophyte. The elders would be primarly used to dynamicly create a structure for the religion & monastary, but
you could also match elders and tutors in a mentor relationship(with different players, of course). That way each player could take both sides of a students development. It also gives a good way for players to suggest missions.

damion wrote:

Emily Care wrote:
--pairs will change over time in response to character actions. Are trait pairs adjusted during sequence or at "debriefing" interval?

I would actually tally changes 'in sequence' although the changes may not take effect until the 'debriefing'. Trying to do the tallying at the end is hard, IMHO.

I'd suggest changes happen in sequence, just becaues it's more interesting, although in some cases the new value may not take effect until the next scene. (I can see arguments both ways here).

damion wrote: I'd also suggest giving everyone one a hand in trait changes, possibly via some bidding mechanism. This could be done through the mentor, or out of some per characther currency each neophyte has.

damion wrote: The idea would be to keep morality a little 'fluid'. I.e. sometimes violent solutions don't actually increase your bad traits (whereas a peaceful solution never does :) ).

Bob McNamee wrote: I'm thinking that it would be cool if the monks only need to specify the Worldly Spiritual Facts to start off, leaving all the rest to be revealed in play. This would let the Players tailor their ideas based on what ends up becoming important to the conflict at hand, hopefully not chosen in a very Gamist way.(I've always wanted to do something very "discover-in-play")
I like the idea of being able to riff off ideas as they are explored, and introduced by others.(Sometimes in Universalis that plot twist just introduced leads to even cooler ideas about your character than you had in mind when first created)

The gm or whoever is framing the plot will benefit from having ready made hooks--as John suggested the Spiritual statement could be a sort of "kicker".

I have a question. If I created a character, we'll call him Kaethan, and He was formerly a soldier within an army and then truned to order to get away from his violent past how would this apply to things as they stand now? How would you show his skill with weaponry and knowleedge of defense when in a combative situation? Would his past come into play if he were unable to remain passive? Or would their be some other form of rules for true combat situations?

Just some questions that popped into my head.

Sylus

My preference is that he would have a crisis concerning trait pairs...(perhaps including the Worldly Spiritual trait)
for instance
Violence / Compassion
Action / Stillness
Bravery / Cowardice

based on which he wishes to try be succesfull at (modifying the roll based on his personal Facts for the traits)
then, narrate based upon the results of the roll(s)

I would want his former military training to come out as part of the narration. The way he approaches the situation. (like getting across a battlefield to tend the wounded)

A former cowardly scapegoat might roll the same "success" in the same situation, but how he appproaches getting to the other side of the battlefield may be a very different thing.

some good stuff in there about using mini-kickers and the like. I have some more thoughts about how to impliment the mini-kickers, how to handle advancement/chargen, and how to keep the scenes flowing...

so far, my description of trait changes has mentioned tally-marks. let me explain some more about how I imagine these being used. first, obviously, when a Passion is used, one of two things happens:



• it increases one point; or,
• it increases if one of the die rolls matches the current Passion score.



either way, it's immediate. I think this is easier than waiting for a scene to end. option 2 is probably better, since it leaves a chance of acting against the principals of the monk's religious beliefs without being penalized, making it a little more tempting.

Virtue rolls, however, get a tally-mark next to them (or the player gets a token) whenever they are used (successful or not.) this means there is no immediate Virtue increase, but there is an immediate increase in something -- a currency.

per something Mike said in the previous thread, you would need to match your trait score with points of this currency in order to increase the Virtue. we have three options here, depending on whether we want Virtue improvement to start slow and speed up later, or start fast and slow down as the Virtue gets higher, or a mix of the two:



• start slow: neophytes must spend currency points equal to their Passion in order to lower the Passion (and increase the corresponding Virtue) one point; or,
• start fast: neophytes must spend currency points equal to their Virtue in order to increase that Virtue(and lower the corresponding Passion) one point; or,
• hard on either end, easier in the middle: neophytes must spend currency points equal to the higher trait (Passion or Virtue) in order to reduce the Passion/increase the Virtue by one point.



I'm leaning towards number three, although it looks a tiny bit more complicated, because I think it best reflects how most people think about self improvement: it's hard to start making a change, gets easier, but then gets harder again as you approach perfection.

what about the mentor? I said earlier that the neophytes can only spend the currency if the mentor approves. here is how I imagine the "exit interview":



• neophyte selects a trait for improvement: "master, I learned a lesson about Compassion and Violence while fulfilling my duties";
• mentor asks neophyte for a summary of the mission;
• neophyte summarizes each decision/action made: "I healed the children that were taken to the chapel in the village using herbs I had gathered";
• mentor asks about the outcome of each action and how the neophyte felt;
• if the mentor agrees the neophyte learned a lesson about Compassion and Violence, the neophyte spends the currency on reducing Violence;
• if the mentor disagrees, the neophyte loses the same amount of currency.



we might as well call this currency "Lesson points" or "Lessons".

that's from the neophyte's viewpoint. but what about the mentor?

since mentors aren't "adventuring", the only way for them to continue on the path toward enlightenment is to lead the neophytes. every time a neophyte lowers a Passion, the mentor can lower one Passion as well. this gives the mentor a desire to see the neophyte improve.

but the mentor must also judge wisely: to encourage this, the mentor's player gets to keep any Lesson points "docked" from a neophyte who did poorly. the Lesson points, however, transform into Event points for the mentor's player; Event points can be spent on three things:



• adding one "grog" neophyte to the monastery; or,
• training one neophyte in a skill (like the KP duty Mike mentioned); or,
• introducing a dramatic change to a scene.



each of these must be narrated as an event.

you can probably tell where I'm heading with this: rotating GM duties. each player has a mentor character and one neophyte (in normal play.) when it's one player's turn to be mentor, that player describes a mission for the neophytes. that player also gets a small number of Event points (two per neophyte on mission, maybe?) plus whateve other Event points that player may have accrued.

ok, this leads to questions about chargen. here's how I envision it:



• each player suggests one trait-pair important to the religion;
• players then design neophytes, selecting two trait-pairs from those suggested;
• one of these trait-pairs would be 5/1, the other would be 4/2 (Passion is higher, Virtue is lower;
• Worldly/Spiritual is also set at 5/1;
• players write four facts about their character: one for each trait-pair, one Worldly fact, and one Spiritual kicker;
• next, each player designs a mentor by taking three trait pairs, setting two at 0/6 and one at 4/2;
• set the mentor's Worldly/Spiritual trait scores at 3/3;
• write five facts for the mentor;
• name the characters and introduce them in the first session.



for the first session, every player takes turns describing one fact about the monastery or the immediate surroundings (nothing further than three days walk from the monastery.) this could be a description of common labors, improvements made to the original abbey, adding a village nearby, describing events in the village or along the roads... when one person describes an event that sounds like the basis of a good mission, the other players chime in, selecting that mission (and selecting the player who thought of it as the mentor for that mission.)

players playing mentor cannot improve their own neophytes during a mission they are mentoring, although those neophytes can participate in the mission. also, when mentors add neophytes to the monastery, these are considered "grog neophytes", playable by anyone.

for true GM play, players opt to have one person as permanent mentor. it's otherwise handled the same: the GM position doesn't rotate. otherwise, the position must rotate: no player can be mentor twice in a row.

that's a rough sketch of the game as I see it right now.

Good sketch of the game, John. Thanks for following through on your suggestion to write one up.

Shall we continue in this manner, on this thread? Or pick something to firm up, like char gen, and begin a new one?

Some more thoughts:

Worldliness/Spirituality values seem like they should increase/decrease according to the rise and fall of trait pairs. Perhaps, Worldliness could increase when any Passion hits it's maximum level. I'm not sure how to determine when Spirituality rises, since that is harder to arrange.

When Spirituality=0, the character should probably leave the monastery, or go out of play. And I still like the idea of a character with all it's Passions max'd becoming an antagonistic character somehow.

Mike Holmes wrote: Other skills can be learned at the monastary.

Good Stuff!

I like the GM variable rules.
"Lesson points" are a good term.
Are we still doing something pointwise that deteremines when a scene ends?

Monestary becomes a little like a franchise in Inspectres.
I wonder if the Monestary as a whole should have a gauge of how it is seen by the outside world (Meddlesome / Mediating)... probably not (or only in games with specific types of problems)

I'd say if this recent post looks good to everybody we should start splitting of posts to look at character creation etc.

Bob McNamee wrote: Are we still doing something pointwise that deteremines when a scene ends?

talysman wrote: here's an idea on the way scenes could work: each scene has a single-digit rating (doesn't need to be higher than 5, and will be lower in most cases.) players narrate an action and suggest the two possible outcomes, as mentioned above. when the dice are rolled, the number of successes on a positive outcome are added to an accumulating "success pool", and the "negative successes" are added to the scene rating. when the success pool is greater than the scene rating, the scene is resolved; otherwise, the player must narrate why the action is successful but the scene isn't resolved.

Bob McNamee wrote: Monestary becomes a little like a franchise in Inspectres.
I wonder if the Monestary as a whole should have a gauge of how it is seen by the outside world (Meddlesome / Mediating)... probably not (or only in games with specific types of problems)

Bob McNamee wrote: I'd say if this recent post looks good to everybody we should start splitting of posts to look at character creation etc.

I like that mix of personal - order advancement!

This may not be totally appropriate, but I'd be inclined to think that the game should accumulate dogma over time. So maybe when a sufficient number of lesson points have been earned, the master asks "what have you learned from this" and the student must express it in a sort of Koan. "I have learned that that the empty hand carries the heaviest burden" or some such. This is then recorded in the monastaries Big Book 'O Truth as a prop/play aid. Ah well thats tuppence for ya.

Edit: or, existing koans could be established, in a more mission-based model, and a student tasked with "come back to me in a month ands explain the sound of one hand clapping" or something to that effect.

Koans would be a wonderful way to make some of the statements come out of in-play interactions...

Scratch some of my musings from yesterday. Vincent reminded me last night that:

Character spirituality level increases when other trait pairs are resolved.

Of course, how could I have forgotten.
:)

--Emily Care

Hi there,

Totally unsolicited interjection: I really like Gareth's suggestion about dogma accumulating. I especially like the possibility, which occurs to me, that such accumulations are less effective later - i.e., they have become dogma per se, no longer meaningful (ie experienced/understood) but merely obediently mouthed and hence worthless.

If it doesn't fit with the other notions about playing the game, that's cool, but I love that idea.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I especially like the possibility, which occurs to me, that such accumulations are less effective later - i.e., they have become dogma per se, no longer meaningful (ie experienced/understood) but merely obediently mouthed and hence worthless.

Another suggestion from Vincent (who starting at midnight last night is now embroiled in the National November Writing Month--write a 50,000 word novelin a month!!!--so I don't expect him to have time to post about this :) was for us to seperate the die pool roles for Worldliness and Spirituality from the Virtue/Passion (and statement?) bonus die rolls.

In other words, let the player decide on the forking narration (Worldly outcome, Spiritual outcome) and just roll the initial die pools. Then, after seeing how that comes out, decide whether to pull in a Virtue or Passion, and incorporate the trait of choice into the narrative at that point. This allows greater choice on the part of the player.

--Emily Care

Hi Em,

My thoughts, as you probably already divined, are in fact Premise-based and possibly strategic as well. The accumulating dogma presents an evolving conundrum for player-characters. As the dogma is more immediately accessible/familiar/encoded, but it gets less effective, and "new" insights and so forth are harder to generate, but very powerful. Seems like a good Gamist-Narrativist hybrid to me.

Best,
Ron

On the speed of advancement.

I prefer #3 - Slow at start, Fast mid, Slow at end

Would fit with the Dogma concept too.
Takes a while to wrap mind around Koans (or whatever) at first, then you "get them" easier, then they either lose their inspirational aspect for you or you have learned all you can from them.

I wouldn't mind the Dogma idea with respect to the Mentor level.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Totally unsolicited interjection: I really like Gareth's suggestion about dogma accumulating. I especially like the possibility, which occurs to me, that such accumulations are less effective later - i.e., they have become dogma per se, no longer meaningful (ie experienced/understood) but merely obediently mouthed and hence worthless.

If it doesn't fit with the other notions about playing the game, that's cool, but I love that idea.

Bob McNamee wrote:
I'd say if this recent post looks good to everybody we should start splitting of posts to look at character creation etc.

Bob McNamee wrote: I prefer #3 - Slow at start, Fast mid, Slow at end.

talysman wrote:


• a "feature freeze"
we can add more to the game system later, but let's concentrate on implimenting the suggestions we already have.

talysman wrote:


• a "run-through"...



here's a crude outline of a play session:



• players gather and describe the general setting they want to play in (historical france under charlamagne, fantasy medieval europe with a european version of taoism, whatever.)
• players suggest trait-pairs. perhaps each player suggest a Passion or a Virtue, then other players suggest what the opposite or compliment should be.
• chargen, roughly as described before.
• round-robin setting description, starting with abstract facts about the religion, moving to facts about the monastery, then on to the surrounding countryside, and finally on to interesting events. setting description stops when one player suggests an event that gives the others an urge to intervene.
• the mentor (temporary GM) describes the selected event in more detail and assigns each player a general duty.
• continue in round-robin fashion, but each player describes a scene for how they will fulfill their duty. the scene is then played out.
• when all the duties have been completed, the players have a scene with their mentor for possible character advancement.
• round-robin setting description begins again, until a new event suggests a new mission.

I say lets start at the beginning... with setting char / monestary gen...
for the new threads