Enlightenment is a game that has been collaboratively designed on this Forum at the initiative of Mike Holmes. This thread begins the next phase of its development. The general outline of the game and some specific mechanics have already been agreed on. The specific purpose of this thread is to finalize mechanics for generation of character and setting.

To familiarize yourself with the premise of the game and decisions that have been made about its scope and form, see this thread:
"Let's Make a Game!".
To see how the conflict resolution mechanics were developed and discussion of other aspects of the game, see this thread:
"Enlightenment (GGD Group Game Design)

Setting generation notes:

talysman wrote: 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.)

talysman wrote: 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.

talysman wrote: 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.)

talysman wrote: players suggest trait-pairs. perhaps each player suggest a Passion or a Virtue, then other players suggest what the opposite or compliment should be.

talysman wrote:
chargen, roughly as described before.

round-robin setting description, starting with abstract facts about the religion, moving to facts about the monastery, then on tothe 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.

thanks for posting all the info, Emily! I've been taking a break from Enlightenment because of some other projects that I'm worrying over right now. I don't have much to add just yet.

Emily Care wrote:

talysman wrote: players suggest trait-pairs. perhaps each player suggest a Passion or a Virtue, then other players suggest what the opposite or compliment should be.

Would be the trait pairs associated with the religion or with the monastery specifically? The statements or koans suggested at the end of the last thread could enter here, actually. They could be meta-kickers (is there such a thing? Oh, yeah, that's a premise isn't it? :) Having them relate to a challenge the monastery is facing would seem to be more protagonizing for all.

The process we're describing (with so much group development) seems like it will need collaboration to create dramatic situations and challenges in the premise and setting.

talysman wrote: thanks for posting all the info, Emily! I've been taking a break from Enlightenment because of some other projects that I'm worrying over right now. I don't have much to add just yet.

talysman wrote: players suggest trait-pairs. perhaps each player suggest a Passion or a Virtue, then other players suggest what the opposite or compliment should be.

talysman wrote: yes, I'm seeing the game as having a collaboratively-built setting, with "GM play" simply being a special case of the normal shared mentoring pattern. a sort of non-competitive Rune.

talysman wrote: a note about the trait-pairs: I am using the phrase in the same way every time. the way I'm interpretting the game is: the religion as a whole has a certain number of trait-pairs, not all of which are worked out immediately....

talysman wrote: we need to decide how many trait-pairs a character should start with, but I see new trait-pairs being added to the character during play at the same level as their current Worldly/Spiritual pair. Worldy/Spiritual is thus the default, while other trait-pairs can vary from that.

Just a thought. A lot of people will have an easier time, I think, conceptualising the physical space of the monastery than a set of ethical values. Hence it might be easier to do round-robin monastery design first and then ask what the inhabitants believe. A lot of this may be implicitly influenced by the colour introduced.

contracycle wrote: Just a thought. A lot of people will have an easier time, I think, conceptualising the physical space of the monastery than a set of ethical values. Hence it might be easier to do round-robin monastery design first and then ask what the inhabitants believe. A lot of this may be implicitly influenced by the colour introduced.

There already seems to be a strong sense of connecting trait pairs with 'facts'. Is there any reason not to do this with the monastary design? That would combine the physical creation of the monastary with the spiritual trait development.

Perhaps it would be possible to have each member of a pair separately arrived at, the first of a pair has a tenet associated, the second a more physical feature.

For example,

Player 1 picks Subtlety as a virtue, the associated fact is that the founders believed that the larger the action, the greator the possibility of harm.

Player 2 then picks Pride as the paired passion, the associated fact being that the previous High Priest had been consumed by it, and caused the neighboring villages to be in awe of the monastary.

or

Player 1 picks Lust as a passion, the fact associated is that the desires of the flesh are the root of all suffering.

Player 2 picks Patience as the paired virtue, the fact being that the monastary was built in a virtual wasteland, only made remotely fertile by the monk's ceaseless toil.

To further complicate, several pairs may be started before they are completed. I think this provides an interesting arena for religion / monastary creation.

I hope that is food for thought,

-Mendel

One question in the intial round robin phase...
If the next person in line adds a Passion or Virtue that others don't want, what happens?
In Universalis there would be a Challenge.

This could be assumed to be handled by the social contract, but I think some thought should go into whether the players should just have to 'deal with it, its added...' ,or ' I'm calling for a recall vote...'

I like the idea of adding a Fact related to the monestary, or religion as part of the round robin Virtue Passion creation.

Bob,

I see several methods to resolve conflicts with virtues:

1) Each player gets one veto, which removes a virtue or passion and it's fact when it is introduced.

2) The GM arbitrates.

3) Any player can call a vote, majority passes the trait and fact.

4) Dueling (I'll bring my two-hander)

Toss in the ability to revise a contested trait and fact, as well as the ability to make one revision if it fails, to see if it is then contested, should work.

I'm not sure how Universalis works, haven't yet acquired it. (I know we're both hosted at actionroll, bad Mendel.) I figure it uses a more resource based version of this. Perhaps that adds undue complexity, the veto seems to work fairly well, but no mechanics will solve a minority versus majority dispute in and of itself.

Well, hope that helps,

-Mendel

Good question, Bob. The game needs to allow concensus to arise by addressing the fact that it will break down.

Wormwood wrote:
1) Each player gets one veto, which removes a virtue or passion and it's fact when it is introduced.

2) The GM arbitrates.

3) Any player can call a vote, majority passes the trait and fact.

4) Dueling (I'll bring my two-hander)

Toss in the ability to revise a contested trait and fact, as well as the ability to make one revision if it fails, to see if it is then contested, should work.

Mendel wrote: Perhaps it would be possible to have each member of a pair separately arrived at, the first of a pair has a tenet associated, the second a more physical feature.

Well, hope that helps,

-Mendel

I like the 'first stab at counterproposal' then to a vote if still "objected to".

How many trait pairs?
Hmmm...
I'm inclined to link it to the number of players.
Like 3 trait pairs, plus one trait pair per player.

This would lead you to a fairly complicated religion if you have a lot of players. But around the 'Seven Virtues/sins" at 4 players (which I see as my most common and liked amount of players around my games).

The total amount of trait pairs will impact how long it could take to acheive full enlightenment.

off topic: I had a thought concerning Character death, or other forms of removing a character from play... I'd like it if a character could only be removed by maxing out a trait, or shifting the Worldly/Spiritual dial. I see this as a monk either dying as a martyr, or as a bad example...likewise for just plain leaving the fold, either to become an exemplary hermit, or falling to the temptations of the world. In play this could be stated as , A Character can only be removed from play by creating a Fact (using Lessons?) relevant to the Monestary. This character is held up as an example to other Monks, either a good one or a bad one. (the idea is that Character Monks are more special than NPC's)

I like the 3+players number.

Another opportunity might be to have "becoming eponymous" as a removal condition; the character either pulls a Wilson, and is remembered for their stupidity as an object lesson to other students, or is more or less sainted and heroised as a similar lesson. Either way, their name becomes a term of reference and they move into history.

contracycle wrote: I like the 3+players number.

Bob McNamee wrote: off topic: I had a thought concerning Character death, or other forms of removing a character from play...I'd like it if a character could only be removed by maxing out a trait, or shifting the Worldly/Spiritual dial.

Sounds good!

just a few quick comments and ideas:

I think 3+number of players makes a good number for how many trait-pairs to develop. I thinK I originally suggested two pairs per player, but with a two-player game, option 1 produces five pairs, option 2 produces 4. you will eventually need more pairs...

actually, since max Spirituality is 6 (which is when a character becomes an "ascended master" or whatever happens when enlightenment is reached,) we could go with option 3: a flat six pairs minimum. this can actually be combined with option 1: you can have more than six trait-pairs, but you need six to reach Enlightenment.

hmmm... since unlisted trait-pairs default to Worldy/Spiritual, if we allow adding trait-pairs "on the fly" as I suggested earlier, you might wind up with a character with seven unresolved trait-pairs. when six of those trait-pairs have been resolved, the character is enlightened -- but has one unresolved trait-pair. we could simply include a rule that Worldly/Spiritual can't be fully resolved until all trait pairs are resolved, I suppose...

for NPCs, I'm in favor of not giving them stats at all except for a relevant trait-pair that binds the NPC to the PC. these NPCs would be added as facts, the same as any other fact. so, when you develop your neophyte, you start with two trait-pairs and an appropriate number of facts for each pair; if one of the facts for Violence/Compassion is "a local mercenary took offense to the neophyte and administered a beating that lingers in the neophyte's memory", then the mercenary would have one stat-pair, Violence/Compassion, equal to the character's stat-pair at the moment that fact was added.

some other NPCs would be created as facts related to the monastery, to the mentor, and so on.

I'd handle injury and death based on the fact system as well. this is not a combat Sim, so I suggest we need only three wound levels: Hurt, Badly Hurt, Incapacitated. player characters only die in two circumstances:

(1) the player says it's time for the character to die;
(2) the player's Worldliness maxes out to 6 (Spiritual 0) AND THEN becomes incapacitated.

you could also say that enlightened characters (Spirituality 6) will die if incapacitated, too, unless they are retired. the rationale is that characters who become truly Worldly or truly Spiritual have fulfilled their purpose in existence and are now ready to "pass on".

the beauty of using a fact system to cover wounds and death is that there is no specific ability score for "hit points" -- so you can apply the same system to exhaustion, sanity, or any other "damage system equivalent" you conceive of. want to add saints battling demons? add psychic warfare and use the facts "Tempted", "Badly Tempted", and "Impure" (or the equivalent.) you could add similar facts for negative emotional states, if you wanted to show monks being slowly angered until losing self control.

Greetings All,

There are so many interesting and workable ideas being discussed, it really is an amazing thing to see. So, to borrow from...

talysman wrote: just a few quick comments and ideas:

Kester Pelagius wrote: Greetings All,

There are so many interesting and workable ideas being discussed, it really is an amazing thing to see. So, to borrow from...

talysman wrote: just a few quick comments and ideas:

In the last thread there was discussion of hammering out, formatting, and codefiying a CharGen system. How goes it? What sort of progress has been made toward providing a basic organized reference rules sheet, which all these wonderful ideas can be used to build upon?

Apologies if I missed the post with the basic outline in which the basic rules were thumbnailed.

I know, there was *so much* information spread out in *so many* posts in that last thread that it probably is taking time to edit all that source material together into a essential reference outline. Just thought I'd pop in and ask how things were going. Let you all know that, yes, those of us not actively participating at the moment are still following your efforts and wishing you the best.

Hope it all works out!


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

some ideas occured to me after I posted that response to Kester. another point being discussed right now in the thread is how players reolve conflicts during the round-robin environment generation stage. one possible suggestion occurred to me when I wrote:

play is thus somewhat like Aria: there is a sequence during which the monastery and its surroundings are described collaboratively, folowed by a sequence of narration of scenes affecting individual characters. in a sense, the individual monk scenes flesh out the description of the game world.

I'm interested in the "play out the conflicted item" idea, but I'm not sure I see how this gets done...

Let say Bob says on his round robin Virtue/Passion assignment

Bob; "I'm assigning Violence as a Virtue, for I see the Monks as Norselike..."

Pat says... "no way... I don't want a pro-Violent Religion..." "Courageous maybe, but not Violent as a virtue..."

Bob (with a chance to propose a change): "No I really want to explore a pro-Violent religion"

The other Players are willing to let them play out a past scene of Saintlike figures from the Religion to decide it...

So a scene that highlights say "Slakke the Berserk" (bob), and "Barrek the Brave"(pat) would be proposed (with each of them taking a role) from the early battles that gave the church its right to exist at all...

Then it would be role-played a bit...

Then based on how it went the players should have an idea of why each wants the Virtue, and the significance of it...
If it is clearly an interesting scene do you just take them both?
or at this point do the players vote vote?
or is it up to the disputing players to choose one?

I can see this as an interesting way to find out the implications of someones choice.

I can also see this as a reallly cool way to assign a fact to the religion/monestary (a Lesson etc)

Aha! One of the most commonly ocurrnig forms of philiospphical argument is the dialogue; a set of questions are asked to the sage, and the sages answeres constitute the wisdom of the text.

In which case, having two speakers allows one to be the "master" and one the "student", as judged by history and dogma. But both cases CAN be submitted, both sets of arguments can appear in the Big Book O' Truth, the interpretation of the conflicting positions will be umm, commentary, explanation, and "secret doctrine". [thus, you cannot just 'read the book' for enlightenment]

The only caveat here is that both need to emerge from the same physical/historical context. [As a slight variation, the Other could be from another school of thought - but thats a broader scope than we have tackled to date]. My only concern about this is the potential play-before-you-play thing again.

Bob: I see the playing out of a choice between two potential Passions or Virtues being similar to what you describe, although I would have only one character during each such resolution. that character one be a saint of the order, and the conflicts played out would pit one against the other. I'm not certainly exactly how to do this yet, but here's a suggestion, based on the example you give:

a saint of the order would be described with two tentative pairs, each with a common element: Cowardice/Violence and Cowardice/Courage, for example. the saint's stats are set one point away from resolving the pair (if the dispute is over a Virtue.) each of the players would have a chance to play this saint, with the other players setting up complications that test the two conflicting trait-pairs; whichever trait-pair is resolved first wins.

it's still rough, but I guess you can see what I'm suggesting.

contracycle: I'm not sure what you mean by playing before play. do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing? I am assuming there will be no hagiography phase if no one is interested in playing it out; in fact, I would think the final version of this game would have three ready-made orders for those who don't want to bother with that phase at all: stereotypical western monk (focus on sin,) stereotypical eastern monk (focus on attachment,) and stereotypical fighting monk (focus on control.)

added note: we do need to fix the hagiography section first before creating these stereotypical orders, because the ready-made orders must resemble something you could actually "play out"... plus, we can use whatever rules we develop to create actual playable versions of the ready-made orders.

I like the two idea that the conflicting conflicting parties would play out a Mentor - Student scene together discussing the conflicting traits in the guise of Saintly examples and studious questioning... not sure how to decide 'winner'.

I'm not a big fan of a first to complete trait pair in an example from the past, but maybe I'm not understanding it right.

I don't really think we need to create sterotypical orders... I think one of the appeals will be the tailoring of a religion/order to the group desires.


but if we did, it would be better if we all met in chat or something and actually created these 'eastern/western/martial' orders by using the game rules as finally decided.

Posting these as examples of orders created using different Social Contract expectations would be cool with me.

Bob McNamee wrote: I like the two idea that the conflicting conflicting parties would play out a Mentor - Student scene together discussing the conflicting traits in the guise of Saintly examples and studious questioning... not sure how to decide 'winner'.

I'm not a big fan of a first to complete trait pair in an example from the past, but maybe I'm not understanding it right.

True about the role-playing better than questioning (plus no mentors yet, doh!)

I like the...give 'e, the controversial traits as Virtues Passions and roleplay out.

Of course, all this may be for naught if folks don't disagree during trait creation...

Lot's of good ideas floating around. Excellent.

talysman wrote: I'm envisioning it more as morality plays:you see the saint divided, forced to choose which is the nobler path.

all it boils down to is: the players vote with actual role-playing decisions.

talysman wrote: one thing we are trying to decide at this point is how many facts to develop for every character. we so far have two suggestions:



• one fact for every point in a Passion;
• two facts for every Passion/Virtue pair, one highlighting the Passion, the other highlighting the Virtue.



there is also a hybrid suggestion: one fact for every point in the Worldly stat, plus one pair of facts for each Passion/Virtue pair. this option might be the best, since the pure form of option #1 requires perhaps too much work (about 13-16 facts for every neophyte) while the pure form of option #2 is perhaps too sparse (about six facts for a neophyte.)

talysman wrote: I'd handle injury and death based on the fact system as well. this is not a combat Sim, so I suggest we need only three wound levels: Hurt, Badly Hurt, Incapacitated.

talysman wrote:
1.hagiography (lives of the saints,) or dogma generation;
2.foundation of the order;
3.building the community;
4.initiation into the order;
5.facing challenges to spiritual growth.

Maybe on a dispute...
If the originator doesn't want to change the trait,
the Challenger automatically gets to decide the opposing pair of the trait?

For instance
Bob wants Violence as a Virtue
Pat doesn't ...
Bob won't change...
Pat decides the Passion related to Violence is Courage...
(or Discipline or Compassion or Honor etc)

if this opposing pair gets challenged by someone else then it should default back going round robin to around table... (and maybe they are playing the wrong ghame with the wrong people)

Worldliness/Spirituality
Returning to the Ordinary World

A monk asked Kegon, "How does an enlightened
one return to the ordinary world?" Kegon
replied, "A broken mirror never reflects again;
fallen flowers never go back to the old
branches."
Our Enlightened monks are fundamentally changed.

Okay, I've been thinking about the issue of what to invest into the lives of the saints section, and I've come up with this:
The religion's various trait pairs pose moral dilemmas that the game play will resolve. They are questions that play will answer.

The phase where the participants come up with pairs that are of interest to them is tantamount to an explicit "premise of campaign" segment. I think this is a strong element to the design of this overtly narrativist game.

In effect, playing out the lives of the individual monks becomes living out the lives of the saints. The challenges that arise in the community development, are the moral quandries that confront these "living saints".

Pre-play that resolves these quandries may take away from in-game realizations.

However,

Seperation/Oneness
Manjusri Enters the Gate

One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the
Buddha called to him, "Manjusri, Manjusri, why
do you not enter?" Manjusri replied, "I do not see
myself as outside. Why enter?"
The enlightened monk no longer sees separation.

...that doesn't mean we can't begin play with associated statements of what the monks hope to attain. The trait pair in question becomes the medium by which the Mentors may express to the young monks how they may someday overcome their passions, and attain enlightenment.

Ambition/Equanamity
Everything is Best

One day Banzan was walking through a market.
He overheard a customer say to the butcher,
"Give me the best piece of meat you have."
"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the
butcher. "You can not find any piece of meat that
is not the best." At these words, Banzan was
enlightened.
Grasping and discernment vanish with attainment.

And these tales should, of course be way beyond the ken of our little wet-behind-the-ears W/S 5/1 monks.

Submission/Steadfastness
Maria Goretti

Maria Goretti was born a poor peasant child in Italy in 1890, the third of six children...Her family being too poor to pay for Masses in her father's memory, every night Maria would recite the five Mysteries of the Rosary for the repose of her father's soul.

In June of 1902, 20-year-old Alessandro Serenelli began ordering 11-year-old Maria to perform various difficult chores, none of which could be completed to his satisfaction, and she was often reduced to
tears. Alessandro also began making advances on Maria. She rebuffed them all...On July 5, 1902, he demanded that she submit to him, but she told him that it would be a sin. Enraged, Alessandro stabbed her 14 times in her
heart, lungs, and intestines.

Alessandro was convicted, and sentenced to 30 years in prison. In his eighth year of
imprisonment, he had a vision of Maria. He saw a garden. where a young girl, dressed in white, was
gathering lilies. She smiled, and came near him, and encouraged him to accept an armful of the lilies. As
he accepted them, each lily transformed into a still white flame. Maria then disappeared. Alessandro's conversion was complete. When was released from prison after serving 27 years, his first act was to travel to Maria's mother to beg her forgiveness.

Along with 30 other witnesses, Alessandro testified as to Maria's sanctity during her Cause of
Beatification. In 1950, she was canonized in a ceremony attended by a quarter million people, including
her mother, the first mother ever to see her child canonized.
As the Oxford Dictionary of Saints observes, the canonization of Maria Goretti also honors the
innumerable other courageous men, women, and children who "preferred death to dishonour."
In the presence of a steadfast heart, destruction and death may lead to furthering God's glory.

Whatever happens at the start of play should pose questions to the monks and the players.

--Emily Care

koans from the site: transcending duality.

Maria Goretti's story from here.

Cool stuff...
interesting sites too!

Perhaps the early setup play should just stick to the general terms...with facts as Koan-type stuff... I really like the way this is written up.

As you said, the point isn't to play-before-play... but to explore these questions and contrasts in play.

Bob McNamee wrote: Cool stuff...
interesting sites too!

Bob McNamee wrote: Perhaps the early setup play should just stick to the general terms...with facts as Koan-type stuff...

Greetings Emily,

I must say, I really enjoyed reading this. Very nice.

Emily Care wrote: Worldliness/Spirituality
Returning to the Ordinary World

A monk asked Kegon, "How does an enlightened
one return to the ordinary world?" Kegon
replied, "A broken mirror never reflects again;
fallen flowers never go back to the old
branches."
Our Enlightened monks are fundamentally changed.

That set up sounds good, and making it an optional 'advanced' option is a good idea...

Like you, I think in general all objections should just go to a vote, after one try at compromise.

I was looking at a site of Zen koans.
I just had to post this entry from the site...

20. A Mother's Advice

Jiun, a Shingon master, was a well-known Sanskrit scholar of the Tokugawa era. When he was young he used to deliver lectures to his brother students.

His mother heard about this and wrote him a letter:

"Son, I do not think you became a devotee of the Buddha because you desired to turn into a walking dictionary for others. There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization."

Kester: Thanks! Glad you liked them. :)

Bob quoted:

"Son, I do not think you became a devotee of the Buddha because you desired to turn into a walking dictionary for others. There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization."

talysman wrote: general events around the monastery are then described, again in round-robin fashion. when one described event sounds like an interesting conflict, the players drop into scene-by-scene play to describe how the neophytes deal with the challenge of the conflict.

good work, Emily!

here are my suggestions about the unresolved issues:



• hagiography
it looks like this phase is done.
• foundation
I would set the unresolved mentor trait-pairs at the same level as W/S, which would be 3/3 (if we assume everyone starts at 5/1 and resolving a trait-pair reduces Worldliness one point.)
as for statements... first, we need to set a maximum number of statements. I would say 5 for W/S and for each trait-pair. for the mentors, who are somewhat de-emphasized during actual play, I would say just give them 3 W/S statements and move on; more can be added later, if necessary.
• community
the monastery's W/S is tricky. we haven't decided how the monastery's trait-pairs are resolved. more on that later. but one thing I think is important: the monastery should be old enough to have a local reputation, but it should still be fairly young; I would say that the monastery should have all of the trait-pairs of the religion, with the value of each Passion set at the lowest Passion of the monks that make up the community. if none of the monks have worked on a specific Passion, maybe it should be set equal to the Worldly score of the monastery as a whole.
• initiation
I'm not really in favor of unique trait-pairs, since by defintion they would not currently be part of the religious teachings of the order, which means that the teachings would have no advice for the neophye on how to resolve their personal dilemma. unique trait-pairs would basically be a vote for another religious precept, so it would be played out as hagiography, part of the advanced rules.
I would also shy away from the concept of an interview. true, a neophyte would probably go through an interview before being accepted into an order, but I don't see it as necessary to play; no conflicts would be resolved, no premise would be addressed. there would be a conversation with the mentor before the first mission, which could be considered the interview, but the primary purpose of that interview is to assign the mission; it occurs after a challenge has been set.
I would assume that everyone in the world who isn't specifically working on their spiritual advancement has a 5/1 in Worldly/Spiritual. a 6/0 would indicate that a character's story is at an end (dies at the next incapacitating wound.)
two statements for each trait-pair and up to five statements for W/S are good, however. one statement for each of the trait-pairs should reflect the spiritual side of the pair, indicating the neophyte's potential for spirituality.
• challenges
this is the next step.



about the monastery's trait-pairs: we might want to set these equal to the lowest unresolved trait-pairs of the mentors. the monastery is a community of the monks who live there; if one of the monks is reknowned for waking to reduce Avarice, it will reflect favoriably on the monastery as a whole.

the monastery would be able to rapidly develop a good reputation if it has many dedicated monks; however, the monastery should resolve trait-pairs much more slowly than the monks who live in it. I would suggest one of the following for resolving monastery trait-pairs:



• the monastery stays in-sync with its community. when one monk drops Lust/Chastity below the monastery's Lust/Chastity, the monastery's score changes to match. however, the monastery would only resolve Lust/Chastity once all of its monks have resolved that trait-pair.
• the monastery changes independently. perhaps every time a monk reduces personal Worldly by one point, one of the monastery's trait-pairs is reduced one point.
• the monastery only improves if a mentor spends a Lesson point.



this reminds me, of course, that one of the next steps should be to work out the mechanics for Lesson points.

I like the idea of having a trait pair that provides for uniqueness of the individual, but I agree that it wouldn't provide a unique look at the religion and its teachings.

But I'd still like to see an element of personal uniqueness...
1) either it has to come from the character's Worldly/Spiritual Statements (which I think they should have to state one set relating to the personal level at the start)...
or... (and this might mess the design up)
2)... they can create a unique trait pair for the character, BUT, it has to be composed of at least one Passion or Virtue from the religion's trait pairs. (and I think the character should have to provide a fact statement about the non-religion part of the pair)

Example
Monte the Novice
W/S -5/1
statements (W- Gambler, S- Philanthropist sp?)
Virtue/Passion
Compassion/Violence 1/5
Honesty/Greed 2/4

"Individual" trait pair
Generosity(from the religion)/ Lust (not a rel. trait) 1/5
Statement: Passion (raised in a brothel)

just to clear up something: I thought all of the statements written on a neophyte's sheet would be personal statements. stuff that actually happened. I was specifically thinking of each statement as being an event in the neophyte's life.

does that sound workable?

You all may have noted that I have somewhat lost interest in this project. The concept was to allow anyone who was interested to participate. What happened was that the premise we ended up with only holds so much interest for me. IOW, not too much. Hence I've dropped out more or less to let those more passionate about it take over completely.

That all said, what you have here so far is really, really impressive. Though the premise still does not grab me, the execution does. In fact, I'm tempted to get back into it just to play with the elements of design you've come up with.

But I'll leave it to you to continue your work uniterupted by someone who isn't as passionate about it as you all are.

I guess this is just my way of saying, way to go! and keep it up. If you keep driving forward like this you are going to have a really great game on your hands. I really look forward to a consolidated write up, and what playtesting brings. I am certain that with your devotion that it's going to make it. As I'v said before, the writing is the hardest part. But you've got so much here, that I think it'll go pretty smoothly.

It'll be interesting to se what issues the writer comes up with. That person always discovers the holes that weren't detected earlier.

Mike

Mike: Thanks for the encouragement. I'd welcome your insights on mechanics, but it's cool that your level of involvement has changed. Again, thanks for starting it off.

Bob: That's a good idea for a sort of compromise between a wholly new pair and being limited to the initial pool. I'll set my version of this idea aside for now; it may be more clear at a later point of development whether it would add or detract from the game.

John: I like your suggestions. Any differences or comments I note below:

--I've been thinking of the statements as a short sentence too. So we'd get:


Example
Monte the Novice
W/S -5/1
statements
Has a penchant for gambling-W
Sometimes gives his wins to the poor-S

And so on..

talysman wrote: • community
the monastery's W/S is tricky. we haven't decided how the monastery's trait-pairs are resolved. more on that later. but one thing I think is important: the monastery should be old enough to have a local reputation, but it should still be fairly young; I would say that the monastery should have all of the trait-pairs of the religion, with the value of each Passion set at the lowest Passion of the monks that make up the community. if none of the monks have worked on a specific Passion, maybe it should be set equal to the Worldly score of the monastery as a whole.

Emily Care wrote:
John: I like your suggestions. Any differences or comments I note below:

--I've been thinking of the statements as a short sentence too. So we'd get:


Example
Monte the Novice
W/S -5/1
statements
Has a penchant for gambling-W
Sometimes gives his wins to the poor-S

And so on..

Emily Care wrote:
by "lowest" did you mean worst? ??

So setting the Monastery stats is based on the lowest non-resolved stats of the Mentor level monks? (this makes sense to me...the Monastery runs on the teachers abilities)

On the Gambler worldly fact, I was thinking that it was a tempting worldly inclination...like 'Likes to gamble' ...although making it the reason for becoming a monk could be sweet.

This points out the requirement of writing up Fact statements as whole sentences, perhaps even small paragraphs. Then the meaning and possible use is clearer.

If all the monk statements are personal statements then this helps individualize them quite a bit.

Perhaps the religion level statements could be used to influence Mentor level rolling...which could in turn influence the Novices (...as grasshopper...see the reed bend in the wind....)

Bob McNamee wrote: So setting the Monastery stats is based on the lowest non-resolved stats of the Mentor level monks?

talysman wrote: I would suggest one of the following for resolving monastery trait-pairs:

the monastery stays in-sync with its community. when one monk drops Lust/Chastity below the monastery's Lust/Chastity, the monastery's score changes to match. however, the monastery would only resolve Lust/Chastity once all of its monks have resolved that trait-pair.

the monastery changes independently. perhaps every time a monk reduces personal Worldly by one point, one of the monastery's trait-pairs is reduced one point.

the monastery only improves if a mentor spends a Lesson point.

talysman wrote: I would assume that everyone in the world who isn't specifically working on their spiritual advancement has a 5/1 in Worldly/Spiritual. a 6/0 would indicate that a character's story is at an end (dies at the next incapacitating wound.)

Emily Care wrote:

Bob McNamee wrote: So setting the Monastery stats is based on the lowest non-resolved stats of the Mentor level monks?

I think it would it be based on the lowest level of all the monks, though the example only listed Mentor level monks.

talysman wrote: I would suggest one of the following for resolving monastery trait-pairs:

the monastery stays in-sync with its community. when one monk drops Lust/Chastity below the monastery's Lust/Chastity, the monastery's score changes to match. however, the monastery would only resolve Lust/Chastity once all of its monks have resolved that trait-pair.

the monastery changes independently. perhaps every time a monk reduces personal Worldly by one point, one of the monastery's trait-pairs is reduced one point.

the monastery only improves if a mentor spends a Lesson point.

Ilike the first option best. Wed the monastery's levels to that of the monks. This means that a monastery that takes on new monks is opening itself up to more worldly influence than one without. The monastery's trait pairs are the meta-stats for the whole group of monks, essentially.

Question: Do we want these stats to represent the victory conditions toward which the players are working, or to affect the lives of the monks through the system? Some suggestions on how they could do the latter are: by modifying scene ratings, by affecting how lay people view the monks, by representing the number or severity of challenges that the monastery is facing that relate to each Passion, or by having tangible advantages awarded to the monastery when each pair is resolved, or whatever else.

talysman wrote: I would assume that everyone in the world who isn't specifically working on their spiritual advancement has a 5/1 in Worldly/Spiritual. a 6/0 would indicate that a character's story is at an end (dies at the next incapacitating wound.)

Okay, that's a neat way to do it. If we can work it in, I'd like there to be an option for monks to sacrifice themselves for others. Mechanically speaking, this could give the other monks a bonus to increase their score in a related Virtue. Bonus Lesson points could be awarded to the survivors who were present, or bonus dice could be added to appropriate pools to let the survivors accomplish their tasks. A statement about it could be appended to the each monk who was present, or the monastery etc.

Dare I say it? I think that we've accomplished our goal. The questions I listed in my post have been addressed. The final form may be somewhat different, but we've at least got concrete suggestions for setting and character generation.

Along with what's in the post above, I'm going to list any related questions I have remaining below. I encourage us all to do so. Let's address them (briefly?) and then we can move on to working out more about missions and challenges, Lesson Points and how the mentor's mechanics work or whatever we want to tackle next.

Char Gen & Setting loose ends:

*Have we agreed on how to handle non-monks? I'd like them to have stats solely in relation to the monks. Perhaps as a statement on the monk's char sheet, next to the Passion or Virtue they evoke in the monk.

*Would the monastery's Spirituality rise when the last monk to resolve a given trait pair does so?

Thats all I've got for now. Thanks!

--Emily Care

Hmm... I wonder if future threads about Enlightenment mechanics should go onto the Indie Game Design forum... That sounds like a lot of pressure to me. :) But technically, we aren't talking theory, we're doing development.

Bob McNamee wrote: There might be a case where an NPC could be written up as how they relate to the Monastery as a whole (ie. Warlord Bansi is a devout follower and supporter, beloved and protective of all the Monks... Shogun Waik-zan conspires to steal the land granted to the Monks, and hates all the brothers for 'defying' him)

Makes sense to me...

Love the extension of the example!

I was wondering about the design being in RPG theory. It would make sense to move it to the design area.
(I had trouble finding it one day when I wasn't using the "New posts since last visit" funtion)

I'm going to be doing a lot of shopping, and presents/crafts, over the next month ... so I might not be as active (but then I need to take a break from carving, painting , wrapping etc once in a while.... so who knows?)

As long as we finish this thing. It won't be a Fantasy Heartbreaker!

One question popped up in my head earlier.

What are we rewarding?
I assume narrative struggling with the easy power / virtuous action conflicts.

What is the reward? (other than the facinating play... :> )
This I'm not too clear about...

Although perhaps its the 'franchise' building idea like Inspectres...

It's a self-rewarding cycle.

As the character progresses, that's indicated statistically. IOW, the player is rewarded by the sense that the character (and his organization) are proceeding through their history. That they are "getting somewhere". You don't need more than that.

In this case what sort of play is rewarded? I think it's plainly Narrativist. There is no incentive to play tactically (to "win"), and it's not about an "accurate" portrayal of some part of the world events. It's about how the character changes in terms of his personal themes.

Which is nothing but Narrativist, IMO.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. That sounds dead on.

--EC

True, still a bit of XP's in my background...

I hadn't thought of the fact that addressing the narrative concerns creates change that is its own reward