Hi guys, I'm a new member to the Forge, but have been reading along for ages now. I've been working on a Nar game with a simple Fortune mechanic, and am having some issues I thought y'all could advise me about.

Fist, in a nutshell, the game: Aisling, urban myth - PCs are normal people awakened to the reality of other worlds, faries and goblins and trolls and so on, dealing with the essentially political division between Seelie (pro-Human), Unseelie (anti-human) and Fianna (don't care) courts. It's Nar in style mostly because that's my own gaming style, and I forget to ask for rolls, so it's very rules lite, offering mostly a setting.

Basic mechanic involves Motes - colored tokens (I've been using the little colored glass stones used for Pente or M:tG counters, but dice, tiddly-winks, toothpicks, cards, or polished stones would work). Here's a basic rundown of how it works. When a test is called for, the player draws a number of tokens out of a bag equivalent to his skill rating, or Hand. Each skill has a color associated with it (Red=Athletic, Amber=Precision, and so on), and the skill's color defines the target color of the draw. Exact hits (drawing a red token when testing a red skill) is 2 successes, and drawing a colored token of a color adjacent to the target is one success (Amber and Magenta in the case of Red). If # of successes is >= difficulty of the task, then the action succeeds.

For example, Sally wants her character Kayley to throw a plate at the cop entering the diner. This is a precision skill (as are most firearms), and her Throw Things skill is rated A4 (Amber, 4 motes), against a difficulty of 3. She draws 4 motes (aka tokens) and gets 2 red motes, an amber, and a blue. This is 4 successes (2 for the amber, and 1 each for the reds, nothing for the blue) - she hits the cop square in the face.

So, the problem: the pool of tokens that a player draws from is called a Caern. Each caern has a basic make-up (say 3 of each color, plus 1 white, 1 black, and 1 irridescent) that is then personalized to the character. My problem, on which I'd appreciate your input, is a simple, minimal math sort of way to build the caern. The number of motes in a caern is not an issue (one player could have 30, and another 23), as they are supposed to represent the metaphysical DNA of a character. Anyone have ideas or input?

Thanks in advance,

Aidan[img][/img]

Hi, Aidan. Welcome to The Forge.

I'm not SuperProbabilityGuy, but I can make some observations (and ask some questions):

The number of motes in a Caern does make a difference if the numbers of differently colored motes are uneven. The fewer motes, the more difference an inequality between colors would make.

Are motes replaced after they are chosen? This, too, makes a huge difference.

How many colors are there? Without knowing this, it would be difficult to give you any mathy advice.

One issue, of course, is that finding the right number of objects of the appropriate colors may be difficult for many people.

You've stated that the game is Narrativist in style. Based on the game mechanic you've mentioned, I don't see that (the mechanic itself seems, I guess, Sim-color or something, which isn't a bad thing). There might, of course, be other parts to the system that facillitate Narrativism that you haven't mentioned... or you might simply mean that you tend to run it Narrativist (which says nothing about the game itself). It is good to remember, too, that rules-lite and Narrativist are different things.

Stuart

szilard wrote:
The number of motes in a Caern does make a difference if the numbers of differently colored motes are uneven. The fewer motes, the more difference an inequality between colors would make.

slizard wrote:
Are motes replaced after they are chosen? This, too, makes a huge difference.

slizard wrote:
How many colors are there? Without knowing this, it would be difficult to give you any mathy advice.

slizard wrote:
One issue, of course, is that finding the right number of objects of the appropriate colors may be difficult for many people.

slizard wrote:
You've stated that the game is Narrativist in style. Based on the game mechanic you've mentioned, I don't see that (the mechanic itself seems, I guess, Sim-color or something, which isn't a bad thing). There might, of course, be other parts to the system that facillitate Narrativism that you haven't mentioned... or you might simply mean that you tend to run it Narrativist (which says nothing about the game itself). It is good to remember, too, that rules-lite and Narrativist are different things.

There are 7 main colors, using the additive "spectrum": red, amber, green, cyan, blue, magenta, and clear (=white light). Every caern includes one mote each of white, black, and irridescent. These are the Fate motes, which represent special occurences, auto- or critical success (white), auto- or critical failure (black), and magical, fated, weird stuff (irrid.).

szilard wrote:
One issue, of course, is that finding the right number of objects of the appropriate colors may be difficult for many people.

This is true, though I think having colored dice (a lot of gamers could fudge the colors from their dice bags - the black/red = red, and the black/green = amber, and so on), cards (playing or otherwise), or even popsicle sticks with one end colored would work. I have also worked out a dice method to represent the colors. Crayons would work. Beans colored with magic markers would work. There are options, and I don't anticipate this being a major player in the game market. If it ever goes there, it's already got a built in accessories line! :D

szilard wrote:
I assume black and white cancel each other (or mean something special) if they are drawn together?

szilard wrote:
Cards are probably the simplest of substitutes. Easy to make and/or color code and each character can have a deck to draw from as a caern.

slizard wrote:
As far as Caern creation goes, is caern-makeup the only difference between characters statistically? If so, that's interesting. Is there a reason to do anything other than say that a character gets 3 of each mote color + b/w/irrid + 7 of his choice (limited to the spectrum)?

taalyn wrote:

slizard wrote:
As far as Caern creation goes, is caern-makeup the only difference between characters statistically? If so, that's interesting. Is there a reason to do anything other than say that a character gets 3 of each mote color + b/w/irrid + 7 of his choice (limited to the spectrum)?

I've tried that, and though I have this general rule for character creation ("yes!"), it made for some pretty unbalanced characters who were only good at one thing. I've used the character traits (also associated with colors) as factors too, but I haven't found proportions that seemed "right". For example, I built caerns with 5 of each, and then added in the stats. Then with half of the stats. That is, a Body(red) of 6 would give a caern with 8 red motes (5 base + 3 (6/2) for the stat.

Now that I'm explaining it out, I'm starting to feel like I'm merely indecisive. Maybe this is just fine.

Or how about half the stats + 5 of player's choice?

Hey Aidan,

That is one of the neatest mechanics I have seen in some time. I love the idea of the player being able to stack the deck in such a way. Just as in a Magic deck, composition is a careful balancing act. Plus, it is a new toy to play with when you get tired of putting dice in your mouth.

To avoid completely one-sided characters, I would suggest not making each color a stat or category of action (like red=combat), but instead a stance or attitude (red=action, yellow=defense, etc). That way, any given action could require more than one color, depending on the situation.

Later,
Grant

OK, for chargen what about the character assigns 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 to each color and gets that many of each. Just happens to add up to 28 like other examples. Easy to remember, and no math.

Your game is a Simmy as they come as described so far. Simmy magical goodness. Quick note Narrative != Narrativist. For a game to promote Narrativism it has to have some mechanism whereby players are encouraged and empowered to address some moral or ethical question of thematic weight. Does your game do that? Not that we've seen. That said, I prefer what you have, so don't change a thing. GNS is going to be completely a side issue for you at this point.

Your game reminds me in some ways of Ars Magica. Actually, in a weird coincidence, it's also reminded me of the board game Magic Realm (for the second time in two days The Forge has brought this game to mind). In that game, you have chits that represent spellcasting ability that can be enchanted to provide color magic. To have a spell in effect for a duration, you need to have some color magic active. While using a chit for color magic, that chit is locked into that role, and can't be used to, say, cast more spells. Sounds very similar to what you're doing in some ways. Any chance it was an influence?

Mike

szilard wrote:
Oh. So characters do have stats in addition to caerns?

Right. Your initial example has someone with the Throw Things skill rated at 4.

What are these skill and stats? How do they relate to the colors? What scale are they on/range do they have? How are the numbers determined?

Stuart

ThreeGee wrote:
That is one of the neatest mechanics I have seen in some time. I love the idea of the player being able to stack the deck in such a way. Just as in a Magic deck, composition is a careful balancing act. Plus, it is a new toy to play with when you get tired of putting dice in your mouth.

ThreeGee wrote:
To avoid completely one-sided characters, I would suggest not making each color a stat or category of action (like red=combat), but instead a stance or attitude (red=action, yellow=defense, etc). That way, any given action could require more than one color, depending on the situation.

Mike Holmes wrote: OK, for chargen what about the character assigns 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 to each color and gets that many of each. Just happens to add up to 28 like other examples. Easy to remember, and no math.

Your game is a Simmy as they come as described so far. Simmy magical goodness. Quick note Narrative != Narrativist. For a game to promote Narrativism it has to have some mechanism whereby players are encouraged and empowered to address some moral or ethical question of thematic weight. Does your game do that? Not that we've seen. That said, I prefer what you have, so don't change a thing. GNS is going to be completely a side issue for you at this point.

Your game reminds me in some ways of Ars Magica. Actually, in a weird coincidence, it's also reminded me of the board game Magic Realm (for the second time in two days The Forge has brought this game to mind). In that game, you have chits that represent spellcasting ability that can be enchanted to provide color magic. To have a spell in effect for a duration, you need to have some color magic active. While using a chit for color magic, that chit is locked into that role, and can't be used to, say, cast more spells. Sounds very similar to what you're doing in some ways. Any chance it was an influence?

taalyn wrote: It is easy! But I'm worried that the simple numerical progression means that the lower end would be too weak and the higher too strong. In order to have any chance of succeeding, the player would have to make sure to always balance high with low in adjacent colors. If red/strength was 1, magenta or amber had better be 7 to offset the balance, or you'll almost never succeed in those kinds of skills!

I don't think these questions define a narrative style, per se, but rather a particular kind of story unrelated to the GNS schema.

If anyone knows of something similar, I'd love to hear about it.

Hmmm...

What about scrapping the automatic contributions from adjacent colors (which doesn't really make much sense to me, except statistically) and allowing players to gain extra successes by narrating how they incorporate the other colors they have chosen into their action.

Aidan wrote: For example, Sally wants her character Kayley to throw a plate at the cop entering the diner. This is a precision skill (as are most firearms), and her Throw Things skill is rated A4 (Amber, 4 motes), against a difficulty of 3. She draws 4 motes (aka tokens) and gets 2 red motes, an amber, and a blue. This is 4 successes (2 for the amber, and 1 each for the reds, nothing for the blue) - she hits the cop square in the face.

For example, Sally wants her character Kayley to throw a plate at the cop entering the diner. This is a precision skill (as are most firearms), and her Throw Things skill is rated A4 (Amber, 4 motes), against a difficulty of 3. She draws 4 motes (aka tokens) and gets 2 red motes, an amber, and a blue. This is normally two successes, enough to hit the cop, but she wants to hit him well. She uses her two red motes to leap onto the table of the booth, positioning herself perfectly to hit him in the face. This gives her a total of four successes.

I happen to think that Stuart's suggestion here is great. I had thoughts on a similar thing with a game that I'm working on off-boards, Golden Crow...

Also, I can't believe that no one's mentioned Jared's game Color Wheel yet. It's basically the naked bones of your mechanic, with an interesting implementation for the Black and White colours.

Interestingly, I think your mechanic is probabilistically similar to the TROS dice mechanic - in TROS, your skill sets a target number and your attribute sets a dicepool; here you have exactly the reverse... sort of. The stones-in-a-bag thing is different from rolling dice, yes, but conceptually they feel related.

I look forward to seeing how your game turns out; non-dice randomization is one of my pet interests.

Hey Aidan,

I suspect we are working from very different ideas of how the game works. I would never consider firing a gun a defensive action. I just does not even make sense to me. I would say it is an aggressive action, but dodging would be a defensive action. Running away might be a movement action, taking the punishment might be an endurance action, etc. Any conflict can be broken down into parts so that you have skills/attributes and you have motes, but they are completely separate. Otherwise, I would just make everything draw from the same pool and make my caern very heavily stacked toward one color.

I see the start of dividing effectiveness into different pools, but as in D&D, certain types of characters are going to be inherently more focused than others. If you can live with it, great. Otherwise, it is shuffling time.

On the other hand, I see great things in the magic. It sounds like any magic worth using requires different components, so you have the double fun of building spells and building the caern. Honestly, if the game were just about dueling sorcerers, that would be enough to make a great game.

Later,
Grant

Mike Holmes wrote: But as long as you allow for the points to be distributed as the player sees fit, some players will distriute widely, and others will stack.

Mike wrote:
The urge to stack, BTW, is quite strong. Most players understand two things about characters. One is that stacking up a stat is a good way to stand out from the crowd. There's always one player who'll want to have the "really strong" guy. And another who wants the extremely dexterous guy.

Mike wrote:
The other thing that players understand is that having weaknesses is fun. A character that doesn't have any holes is less fun to play because they won't tend to be included in the action in negative ways.
Basically extreme characters are more fun to the average player.

Mike wrote:
I think what you have is pretty unique. I had to go pretty far to think of Magic Realm. I look forward to seeing the final implementation. I keep getting this feeling that the game is like a really colorful version of Scott Knipe's Wyrd. You might want to check that out (there shouold be a link in the resources).

szilard wrote: Hmmm...

What about scrapping the automatic contributions from adjacent colors (which doesn't really make much sense to me, except statistically) and allowing players to gain extra successes by narrating how they incorporate the other colors they have chosen into their action.

might become:

For example, Sally wants her character Kayley to throw a plate at the cop entering the diner. This is a precision skill (as are most firearms), and her Throw Things skill is rated A4 (Amber, 4 motes), against a difficulty of 3. She draws 4 motes (aka tokens) and gets 2 red motes, an amber, and a blue. This is normally two successes, enough to hit the cop, but she wants to hit him well. She uses her two red motes to leap onto the table of the booth, positioning herself perfectly to hit him in the face. This gives her a total of four successes.

or something like that.

Oh, and I think that making the Caern equal to stats is a natural choice.

four willows weeping wrote: I happen to think that Stuart's suggestion here is great. I had thoughts on a similar thing with a game that I'm working on off-boards, Golden Crow...

Also, I can't believe that no one's mentioned Jared's game Color Wheel yet. It's basically the naked bones of your mechanic, with an interesting implementation for the Black and White colours.

Well, Golden Crow takes a lot of its character structure from Refreshing Rain, which has been discussed here in some length, but its randomization mechanic is totally different, and it has a different feel; it's a game about cultural conflict. If you're interested, I'll PM you with more stuff.

Maybe a combination of the off-colors-equal-bonuses and use-any-color-you-can-describe can work: you can use whatever adjacent (or non-complementary, or whatever) colors you want, as long as you incorporate them into your description.

taalyn wrote:
This is a GREAT idea. two comment:

1) re: adjacent colors - the idea is that Amber is partly red, and thus a partial success; it's just on the edges of being red. Making them whole successes and the target 2 was simply to avoid halves. If, in-game, an action happens because it draws on the universal enegy around us, and which manifests in threads of different colors, and red threads 'power' athletic physical actions, then an amber thread (amber=red light + green light) can power the action to an extent because it can be broken down into a red thread and a green thread. Does that make more sense?

2) It seems like there would need to be a limit on the number of other colors used in your example. That is, how does one describe an artistic (amber) and crafty (cyan) way of hitting the cop with the plate? Obviously, some types of actions are always going to use the same colors. And Luck (generic mystical energy which powers spells) can also be used to adjust draws: I need one more success to succeed in throwing the plate, but didn't draw enough. I can spend 3 Luck, and magically, the plate bounces off someone else's head to hit the cop right in the smacker.

Heya Stuart,

Mostly, no, in-game characters do not know the adjacency issue and mote breakdown, mostly because it's not an issue. I have explpained it in one or two instance where it was relevant, but usually it's not. The players never cared why amber worked other than it was next to red.

I am going to keep the mechanic as is, I think. Your ideas are great, and definitely fall in line with the magic system, but they just don't feel right. I can't offer a better explanation than that - except maybe that my simminess is upset by the freeformity of it all.

Aidan

On Caern: I like the idea of matching your caern picks up with your stats. Defines your character's strengths and weaknesses neatly.

On color associations: I'm not sure I get them. I'm not even sure where the colors themselves come from. When I think of spectrum, I think of the standard 6 colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple. Add clear or grey or something for 7. The way I'd envision it..

Red: Survival
Orange: Action/Proactivity
Yellow: Focusing
Green: Empathy/Assisting
Blue: Social/Speaking
Purple: Mental/Thought
Clear: Spiritual/Magical

If you have a basis for your interpretations, then feel absolutely free to ignore mine completely. Or if you simply prefer yours, for that matter. Mine, however, comes from the 7 main chakras which run up the center of the body, and their basic energy types. You can also determine types of action off of them.

If I shoot you, it's an orange/proaction type. If I run my ass off to keep you from beating my ass, it's definitely red/survival. If I am concentrating on studying, it's purple/mental, and if I am working on bandaging wounds or casting a healing spell, It'd be green/assisting. Meditation would be yellow/focusing, and public speaking would be blue/Speaking.

Also, I like the idea of being able to add more successes from other motes based on actions. It's like the stacking ability in Sorceror, where you justify additional dice by additional effort. It doesn't make sense, to me to automatically add simply based on color, that amber should add to red actions simply because they're adjacent. What does amber/artistic have to do with red/physical? If the player can make it relate though, I'd let it add, but not otherwise. It would encourage the players to be creative and proactive in their descriptions, and reward them for being so. The idea is referred to as Fortune in the Middle (FitM) And goes something like this: Declare intended action, initiate fortune mechanic (roll the dice, draw the card, pull the beads from the bag..) determine what the fortune result means, then apply results.

How I'd apply my colors to the aforementioned example, and use the idea of adding based on other colors and their applications..

Sally wants her character Kayley to throw a plate at the cop entering the diner. This is a proaction skill (as are most firearms), and her Throw Things skill is rated O4 (Orange, 4 motes), against a difficulty of 3. She draws 4 motes (aka tokens) and gets 2 red motes, an orange, and a yellow. This is normally two successes, enough to hit the cop, but she wants to hit him well. She took a moment to aim, focusing on exactly where she wants to hit him, adding one more success to her roll. If he'd been about to shoot her, Sally could argue that she was throwing the plate at his weapon, attempting to knock it from his hand, thus defending herself, and adding another two motes to the action.

But it is of course your game. I'm interested in what you do with it regardless, but I figured I'd offer my suggestions, all the same.

Wolfen wrote: On Caern: I like the idea of matching your caern picks up with your stats. Defines your character's strengths and weaknesses neatly.

On color associations: I'm not sure I get them. I'm not even sure where the colors themselves come from. When I think of spectrum, I think of the standard 6 colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple. Add clear or grey or something for 7.

The way I'd envision it..

Red: Survival
Orange: Action/Proactivity
Yellow: Focusing
Green: Empathy/Assisting
Blue: Social/Speaking
Purple: Mental/Thought
Clear: Spiritual/Magical

If I shoot you, it's an orange/proaction type. If I run my ass off to keep you from beating my ass, it's definitely red/survival. If I am concentrating on studying, it's purple/mental, and if I am working on bandaging wounds or casting a healing spell, It'd be green/assisting. Meditation would be yellow/focusing, and public speaking would be blue/Speaking.

Also, I like the idea of being able to add more successes from other motes based on actions. It's like the stacking ability in Sorceror, where you justify additional dice by additional effort. It doesn't make sense, to me to automatically add simply based on color, that amber should add to red actions simply because they're adjacent. What does amber/artistic have to do with red/physical? If the player can make it relate though, I'd let it add, but not otherwise. It would encourage the players to be creative and proactive in their descriptions, and reward them for being so. The idea is referred to as Fortune in the Middle (FitM) And goes something like this: Declare intended action, initiate fortune mechanic (roll the dice, draw the card, pull the beads from the bag..) determine what the fortune result means, then apply results.

But it is of course your game. I'm interested in what you do with it regardless, but I figured I'd offer my suggestions, all the same.

1. Yes, definitely explain the background behind the color associations. Greater understanding will allow more consistency in rulings.
2. I am to assume that if you make the mentioned changes, firearms and throwing things will become Cyan/Precision based actions? I never could get my head around how firearms was an amber/artistic action. If so, I'd definitely say that it makes more sense.

As for any overlaps in my own color ideas, (such as the red/orange overlap of actions) blame those who conceptualized the chakras. The difference between the two is basically that red is about "I need" and orange is about "I want". Red could also be used as the stat for damage resistance, or anything to do with survival, whereas orange could be almost any proactive physical action. (Both are related to earth/physical)

Your color associations with more explanation do make quite a bit of sense, however. As I answered above, I think the explanation is crucial.

As for probability of success chances, no cut-and-dried chart will be able to accurately predict the chances of success using a system where the player will be able to add to their chance of success by creative narration. But then, a lot of people dig this idea. If you have access to Ron Edwards' Sorcerer, you can get some of the theory behind this idea, but I'll boil it down to the way I see it, personally: No player really likes the survival of their character to be totally up to chance. This allows them to increase their chances by making the story a little bit more interesting. The primary difference between the mechanic used in Sorcerer and the one described here is that in Sorcerer, the player adds dice prior to rolling by additional descriptions, etc. With your system, it makes more sense to do the Fortune prior to the added description, and base the added description on the results. It can vary exactly what happens, and force the players to think in creative ways. Overall, the idea is to improve the scenes and story by encouraging player proactivity. Those who choose not to add a little description beyond "I shoot him" are not penalized, but those who will "leap atop the table to get a clear shot at him, taking a brief moment to aim carefully for his head before pulling the trigger" are more likely to succeed.

It's entirely metagame, but a lot of times, the metagame is what truly makes a game interesting and drives it forward.

One thing that may be of interest is the rate at which the special motes show up. Depending on the number of motes drawn, the chances of getting at least one special stone increase dramatically. Here are the odds of a character with 45 total motes including the three special ones drawing at least one of the three special motes:

[code]Dice Special
1 6.67%
2 13.03%
3 19.10%
4 24.88%
5 30.37%
6 35.60%
7 40.55%
8 45.24%[/code]

By four motes pulled nearly one in four draws will include a special mote. By six, more than one in three will be special. What's the range on your skills? Does this sound like the tight number of appearances of these motes?

Mike

Wolfen wrote: 1. Yes, definitely explain the background behind the color associations. Greater understanding will allow more consistency in rulings.
2. I am to assume that if you make the mentioned changes, firearms and throwing things will become Cyan/Precision based actions? I never could get my head around how firearms was an amber/artistic action. If so, I'd definitely say that it makes more sense.

As for probability of success chances, no cut-and-dried chart will be able to accurately predict the chances of success using a system where the player will be able to add to their chance of success by creative narration. But then, a lot of people dig this idea.

Those who choose not to add a little description beyond "I shoot him" are not penalized, but those who will "leap atop the table to get a clear shot at him, taking a brief moment to aim carefully for his head before pulling the trigger" are more likely to succeed.

Heya Mike,

Something seems off about those numbers. Wouldn't it be closer to 1/45 (* 1/44) = 2% (.05%)? I know there's more to the formula or probability than that, but in my experience (2 years of playing this mechanic every now and then) I drew one of the Fate motes exactly twice. Say in 500 draws. I know that more motes = more chances to draw the Fates, but I don't know why my experience is so different from the math.

Assuming you're right, I wonder if there's something I can do to make the results more realistic - I don't like that the better you are at a skill, the better your chances to fail. Perhaps over a certain hand/# for a skill, the player has a chance to ignore the black mote, or in some other way mitigate it's effects?

Aidan

taalyn wrote: Assuming you're right, I wonder if there's something I can do to make the results more realistic - I don't like that the better you are at a skill, the better your chances to fail. Perhaps over a certain hand/# for a skill, the player has a chance to ignore the black mote, or in some other way mitigate it's effects?

I remember a discussion of a similar concept in the TRoS boards.. When you roll a single die, the possibility of failure is high, but the possibility of a fumble or critical failure is impossible, because it requires 2 or more dice, and zero successes. It was jokingly asserted that the more skilled you were, the more capable you were of spectacular goof-ups. They were unlikely, but it was more likely to fumble the more dice you rolled.

I think that basically you've got two choices; either scrap the white, black and irridescent, or accept that that the chances of drawing the black are greater the higher your skill. If you choose to accept it, you can alter what the dice do, slightly, or just accept it the way it is.

I, personally, have no issues with it. Randomizer's like that make the game more interesting, and you can allow an option to nullify the black with boons or luck.

Randomizer's like that make the game more interesting, and you can allow an option to nullify the black with boons or luck.

These are all good ideas. I've got a couple options, as I see it:

1) lose black and white altogether, as irridescent doesn't do anything but add weird, Lucky coincidence and Fate into the game, and the heroes do tend to attract that.

2) keep black and white, but modify their meaning from failure and sucess to complications and blessings. See above re: heroes.

3) allow Boons and luck to cancel them out, as Spooky suggests.

I'm thinking option 2 and 3 together get me what I want. With option 2, they're vague, and allow more detail to be introduced to the game, just like stacking.

frex:
our guy Jonas is up against an Unseelie troll for the first time (unseelie trolls are unusual - what bridge-liver whants to get rid of bridge-builders? ;). Jonas needs to knock the troll out before it has a chance to clout him one - Troll being famous for their strength. Jonas is going to smack him with a baseball bat conveniently nearby, using his Softball R8 Talent, against a GM set difficulty of 7. Derek draws: RAAACCBK.

1) old style: 2 (R) + 3 (A) = 5, + black = not good. He fails to hit, but the troll sees what he was going for and is now super-pissed, getting a +1 to his atacks (from the complicating black).

2) stacked: 2 successes. Derek argues that the 2 cyans (precision) count because he aimed very carefully. And the 3 ambers (artistic) count because he did it while mimicing saturday morning ninja shows. His histrionics, dubbed dialogue, and outlandish "hai-ya!" distracted the troll from what was really happening. The GM allows it, granting Derek 7 successes - he hit! But there's still that complicating black - Jonas did indeed knock the troll out, but it collapsed onto him, and now our hero Jonas is trapped under 500 pounds of soon-to-be-awake-and-very-angry troll. Oh no! Tune in next week when ...

I didn't apply the limit rules I've mentioned for stacking the colors, just for play purposes. Whaddaya think?

Oh, and I think I'm gonna change the name of the irridescent mote. How about the Lucky mote? Or is that superloading one term? Other suggestions?

Aidan

Wild mote? (You make my heart gloat)

Err... Chance mote? Odd mote out?

If I had time, I'd go look for gaelic words that mean wild, lucky, or chance, but I gotta head off to work soon.

As a Celticist by education (at least, I'm finishing my MA in Celtic langs right now), I feel it's my duty to inform you that there are two languages often confused by the public at large.

There is Irish, spoken in Ireland, known in Irish as Gaeilge, but called Irish by everyone in Ireland if they're speaking English.

Then there is Gaelic, or Scots Gaelic (Irish with 400 years to drift), spoken in Scotland, and called, in Gaelic, Gàidhlig.

The former is pronounced like /GELL-ig/ and the later /G&-lig/, where & is the sound in cat.

Okay, that PSA done, here are words in Irish for wildy sorts of things:

wild: fiáin /FYOIN/
luck: ádh /AW/
bounty, prosperity: rath /RAH/
fortune, ease, satisfaction: só /SO/

A-cha! It shall be called:

Dán /DON/, which is fate and destiny, particularly as described by poets!

Thanks Wolfen - you helped me get past my duh moment (I'm having lots of them lately).

Aidan

First of all, great system. I love the idea of using stones instead of dices.

But there is just one thing bothering me, what happens when you have a skill of 1. You can draw only one stone. Thats not very good odds. Or what if you don't even have the skill needed? In most games, there is a way of using your stats to calculate your success when you don't have the required skill. But the way your system works is that you draw a number of motes equal to your skill and not equal to your stat. How would you roll for a skill you don't have?

I love the idea of using stones for magic and I just might steal this system for my magic system. The way I see my magic work is that a spell slowly degenerates, so by using the stones, each round the player removes a stone from his spell, hence changing the spell slightly, instead of being able to cast the spell at 100 yards, it now only has a range of 80 yards. Ans so forth until the spell breaks down.

Twinsoul (interesting ID - why? You know the other implications, yes?),

Thanks for the compliment! I think it's great too, and I'm hoping I can get the game developed enough to get some of those "favorite indie rpg" votes next year.
If you've only got a skill of 1 - you do suck at that skill, so it's appropriate that you have very poor odds. Other issues can come into play, though - stacking (explaining a wrong color to turn it into a success), Luck, Boons, etc. Some things have changed about those, which I'll explain in a sec...

As far as defaults go, if it's a skill possessed by anyone in the culture, then a PCs Nature steps in. Jonas doesn't have a "shoot 'em up" skill, but his Nature (American innercity dude 4) does, so he'd draw with that, targeting the appropriate color (magenta/precison in this case). If the skill is not something you'd have at all (Nuclear Physics for Jonas, for example), then the GM may allow a draw against the Nature with a significant penalty.

Cool idea for degeneration of magic, but it wouldn't work in my system. If it works in yours, excellent! What happens when it degenerates to the point that essential factors in the spell (what it actually does, as opposed to "side effects" like damage or distance)? Does the effect change? Or does it just unravel at that point?

So, the new bits: a draw is based on skill - skill. If Jonas has strength 9, and the door's Door-osity is 4, then the player will draw 5 motes. If he gets any successes at all, he breaks the door, or whatever. Extra successes just indicate degree of success.

An alternate possibility: Jonas has str 4, and the doorness is 9. In this case, Jonas will automatically fail, unless he spends boons or Luck. Luck is spent 1 mote for 1 mote. If he spends 6 Luck, he can draw 1 mote (4-9 = -5, add 6 motes = 1 mote). Or he can spend 5 Luck (as above) and a Boon.

A Boon is an autosuccess - it turns any mote into one success. Suppose Jonas is drawing 4 motes. He could spend a Boon, and would then only draw 3 motes. The other was already ensured.

He could also spend 6 Boons, and that would guarantee a single success, but that's kind of expensive. Boons are gained by sacrificing degree of success - If I got 4 successes, I could succeed excellently, or lose 3 to gain a Boon. I'd still succeed, though only just, but I'd have a Boon/autosuccess to use later. So 6 Boons corrsponds to 18 motes of degree of success - that's a lot!

Make sense?

Aidan

taalyn wrote: If you've only got a skill of 1 - you do suck at that skill, so it's appropriate that you have very poor odds. Other issues can come into play, though - stacking (explaining a wrong color to turn it into a success), Luck, Boons, etc. Some things have changed about those, which I'll explain in a sec...

taalyn wrote:
As far as defaults go, if it's a skill possessed by anyone in the culture, then a PCs Nature steps in. Jonas doesn't have a "shoot 'em up" skill, but his Nature (American innercity dude 4) does, so he'd draw with that, targeting the appropriate color (magenta/precison in this case). If the skill is not something you'd have at all (Nuclear Physics for Jonas, for example), then the GM may allow a draw against the Nature with a significant penalty.

taalyn wrote:
Cool idea for degeneration of magic, but it wouldn't work in my system. If it works in yours, excellent! What happens when it degenerates to the point that essential factors in the spell (what it actually does, as opposed to "side effects" like damage or distance)? Does the effect change? Or does it just unravel at that point?

taalyn wrote:
An alternate possibility: Jonas has str 4, and the doorness is 9. In this case, Jonas will automatically fail, unless he spends boons or Luck. Luck is spent 1 mote for 1 mote. If he spends 6 Luck, he can draw 1 mote (4-9 = -5, add 6 motes = 1 mote). Or he can spend 5 Luck (as above) and a Boon.

taalyn wrote: Make sense?

Hey again!

The point of the Nature is that you do have those skills. You don't need to have a skill in driving a car or operating a computer, unless your skills in these things are outside the norm.
For example, Amanda and Betty both have Texan teenage girls 4 as Natures. Both know how to apply makeup, but Amanda's particularly good at it; she has a separate skill in it (Makeup M6). Both know how to dance, but Betty's really good at it (Dance A7). Both can dance, both can put on makeup, and they only have separate skills in things that are significant to their lives. Otherwise, you have to have skills for using the toilet, and telling time, and speaking English, and.... why? Nature covers a broad swathe of skills, and Profession another broad swathe, but they're not the only skills a person has.

Aidan

taalyn wrote: Hey again!

For example, Amanda and Betty both have Texan teenage girls 4 as Natures. Both know how to apply makeup, but Amanda's particularly good at it; she has a separate skill in it (Makeup M6).

Well, there are modifiers if a skill is only slightly associated with a Nature or Profession. I'm just not going to define what they should be in every case. I'm also not going to describe very nature or profession - do you know how many skills are grouped together in job counseling summaries? Who would ever want to roll against their "write effective business plans" skill? It's obvious you don't like a game as gritty as mine is shaping up to be - and that's perfectly fine. There are plenty of non-gritty games to play out there! ;)

Aidan

Okay a few points and questions...

1. Define gritty in your own words, so we know exactly what you mean when you use it. When I think gritty, I think Riddle of Steel, where a single sword in the gullet kills you as dead as it would in real life.

2. I really like the concepts of Nature and Profession. It's incredibly stupid to have to have skills for dozens of minor tasks that you should be able to do. It's very similar to TRoS's skill packets, and is an idea that is becoming more attractive, and if I can figure out how to make it workable in Mage Blade, I just might do something similar.

3. I'm slightly dubious about your skill - skill system. I'd have to actually see it in various uses to get an idea for how it actually works, but it seems to me to be a little too cut and dried. An objects rating wouldn't make me any less proficient or strong. I would simply have to try much harder to accomplish the task. It makes more sense to me to simply have the object's rating be the TN for your roll. In your examples..

Jonas is pretty damned buff with his 9 (I was under the impression that 8 was your upper limit? Was I mistaken?) strength, and there's that door sitting there with it's door-ness rating of 4. Simple enough for a buff mofo as he. He draws his 9 motes, only needing 2 of the appropriate color to get through, or some combination of stacking.

Jonas the small with his strength of 4 is staring at a steel security door with a rather smug air, and a door-ness rating of 9. It's looking about impossible. Even if he drew all four of the appropriate color, he'd still be short a single success, so he'd have to rely on luck or a boon to get that last one. The chances of him drawing 4 out of 4 motes of the right color are pretty damned slim, though.

Done this way, you keep unity with the rest of the system.

4. Opposed draws: I've seen no mention of these. There has to be a resolution for them, though. Am I to assume that it's a fairly simple opposed draw, with each attempting to beat the other's draw. In some tasks, I would think that they have to beat a certain TN as well. For example..

Direct opposed draw: Jonas the strong and Jonas the strong are arm wrestling. Jonas the strong draws his strength of 9, and Jonas the small draws his strength of 4. Whoever has the most successes wins.

Opposed draw with a TN: Jonas the strong and Jonas the small are now competition shooting. Jonas the strong has rifles R5 and Jonas the small has it at R6. The TN for the target is 4. They both have to beat 4 successes to even manage to hit the target. If they don't make 4, they miss. If they make 4 or better, then they succeed, and whoever has the larger margin hits a bit closer to center, thus winning.

Do I have the right of it, or do you have something else worked out?

Wolfen wrote: Okay a few points and questions...

1. Define gritty in your own words, so we know exactly what you mean when you use it. When I think gritty, I think Riddle of Steel, where a single sword in the gullet kills you as dead as it would in real life.

2. I really like the concepts of Nature and Profession. It's incredibly stupid to have to have skills for dozens of minor tasks that you should be able to do. It's very similar to TRoS's skill packets, and is an idea that is becoming more attractive, and if I can figure out how to make it workable in Mage Blade, I just might do something similar.

3. I'm slightly dubious about your skill - skill system. I'd have to actually see it in various uses to get an idea for how it actually works, but it seems to me to be a little too cut and dried. An objects rating wouldn't make me any less proficient or strong. I would simply have to try much harder to accomplish the task. It makes more sense to me to simply have the object's rating be the TN for your roll. In your examples..

Jonas is pretty damned buff with his 9 (I was under the impression that 8 was your upper limit? Was I mistaken?) strength, and there's that door sitting there with it's door-ness rating of 4. Simple enough for a buff mofo as he. He draws his 9 motes, only needing 2 of the appropriate color to get through, or some combination of stacking.

Jonas the small with his strength of 4 is staring at a steel security door with a rather smug air, and a door-ness rating of 9. It's looking about impossible. Even if he drew all four of the appropriate color, he'd still be short a single success, so he'd have to rely on luck or a boon to get that last one. The chances of him drawing 4 out of 4 motes of the right color are pretty damned slim, though.

Done this way, you keep unity with the rest of the system.

4. Opposed draws: I've seen no mention of these. There has to be a resolution for them, though. Am I to assume that it's a fairly simple opposed draw, with each attempting to beat the other's draw. In some tasks, I would think that they have to beat a certain TN as well. For example..

Lance, I'd thought you'd already read my rant on the myth of opposed rolls. What Aidan has works fine. Are there "opposed rolls" in AD&D? Nope, totally unneccessary unless you want them for some particular reason.


I had an idea. This system would seem to be perfect for a "pushing" system. As you draw, you can count how many "successes" you have so far. When you get to the end, and you still don't have enough, perhaps you can push your luck. You can keep drawing, but there's some negtive repercussion. Like, perhaps losing the extra Motes from the Caern for a while or something like that.

I was thinking that, in general terms, that it would be neat to have character setbacks (like combat damage, or mental problems, or whatever) be represented by having Motes removed from the Caern. If you want to be really harch about it, replace them with Black Motes to keep the odds the same, but increase the odds of fate kicking in.

What do you think?

I like the idea of it for "advancement" as well. Adding motes of a particular color doesn't really change the character's overall effectiveness. But it does mean that he changes internally, and that he can lose more motes before becoming less effective.

Just some random thoughts.

Mike

I have read your rant, but it's been awhile. And yes, while it may technically be a myth, the system works out entirely differently in this case. The case of a TN is more of a threshold of "successes" to beat, rather than an opposed roll. I also highly dislike the idea of someone else's ability (or an object self-ness rating) reducing your ability. In reality, your ability isn't reduced by difficulty, it simply means you must try harder or do better to succeed.

Do me a favor. Do me a "brute force" spreadsheet for this game using these effects:

difficulty x -vs- ability y

y-x=z draws chances of success.

and

y draws, minimum needed x successes.

then allow it for various difficulties and abilities. assume the color is cyan.

If the results are similar over numerous attempts, I'll be convinced. I somehow think they won't be, though.

All of this is purely speculative. If I knew how to build one, I'd do it myself rather than asking you to, but my command of Excel isn't that good. And regardless of the results, Taalyn is, of course, free to use either method, despite my preferences.

I'm going to change my mind on this one, and bring up some other issues. Lance is right (thanks for making me look closer). Here's my reasoning.

If you go with all unopposed, then the opponent does not have his motes taken into account. This isn't automatically a problem, but given the fact that I like simul resolution, I would have a problem with it, even if just personally. So, you want to have opposed rolls for anything that has motes.

I'm guessing that doors aren't going to be rated by motes, so they should just have TNs to bash down or to lockpick. I can't see a GM taking the time to assemble a Caern for a door. So this is one system that could demand a dual system just because of it's peculiarities.

That said, the inanimate world could have a GM Caern, that the GM used for all resolutions, OTOH. This might be good to have at the very least to represent NPCs. Otherwise you'd have to build an NPC Caern each time you went up against an NPC.

In fact that could be a theme. Only the PCs, and maybe a few important NPCs might have unique Caerns. Everyone else has a standard Caern, and are differentiated only by skills. OTOH, I could see that not being all that palatable in some ways, either.

The other option is to use the current system, "trade blows" and not worry about motes for the "defender". I use those in quotes because it does lead to some interesting situations. Basically you'll need to have something like "initiative" for contests like chess. Anything in which the characters interfere with each other.

I'm voting for the Simul opposed for when rated characters go against each other, and using just TNs for anything less important than the most important NPCs (much like Whispering Vault would do).

Mike

Lance,

Using my brute forced odds, and balanced caerns, a hand of 3, for example, will get 2 successes, on average. A hand of 6 will get 3, on average. In fact, except for larger hands (past 16 or so), the "halve it" method supplies standard, average numbers of successes gained.

So, I draw my 6 motes (getting 3 successes), and you draw your 4 (getting 2 successes) that results in, on average, 1 success for me (3-2).

If I take my skill (6), subtract yours (4) - I get 2 motes, which will get 1 success, on average. Same result.

I've mentioned my dislike for the term "successes" when there's a threshhold to reach, so that's part of the reasoning behind the subtraction. If the opponent is another PC, or an important NPC, I'd certainly use actual draws instead of this simplification. The use of the "one-handed draw", though, is that it can model unopposed actions as opposed ones, but transparently. Or vice versa. TNs are correlated with skill level, so it's unclear whether it's all unopposed or all opposed...

You're not the first to object - I wonder why that is? Is it counterintuitive? One thing I particularly like is that is does set upper limits: there is a point where people will not succeed in reading latin, or climbing Everest, unless they are very skilled. Damn all that anything is possible stuff! At least, it's not possible unless magic comes into play...

Mike,

"Pushing" your Luck is a feature already! Push a mote of Luck, and you can add 1 mote to your draw. Failure wll have more drastic results, of course. There's also this thing called a Gather, usually used in magic. A Gather can also result in loss of Luck, temporary changes to one's caern, and so on.

The changes to the Caern idea is great - I thought of it too! This is how spells (aka weaves) are maintained. Say my invisibility spell cost me 6 motes, 2 of which are magenta. If I use 2 magenta motes from my caern, I am concentrating, and the spell will stay in effect until I let go of those motes. This will (usually) have minimal effect on the odds of my particular caern, but it's not without its dangers.

As to adding and subtracting from the caern - too much bookkeeping. My players didn't like it, and neither did I. Plus, if the caern is supposed to represent the metaphysical make-up of a character, without extenuating circumstances, it shouldn't change. Bob's "Bobness" remains the same, he just becomes more effective at utilizing his own energies. Now, if Bob gets turned into a werewolf, or is cursed/blessed, then there's a case for caern change, but otherwise...

As to your change of heart comments...

Suppose all draws are unopposed. The TN is correlated with skill, so calling it unopposed is sort of a misnomer. The opposer is represented, in the value of the TN subtracted. Golem #4's golemness is 8, which is why the TN is 4. Even though the golem isn't drawing directly, he's likely to get 4 successes if he does, so it's almost as if he did draw.

Suppose all draws are opposed. The TN comes from the opposing skill, but the opposition doesn't actually draw, so it's not quite opposed, either. I tend to see it as an all-opposed system, hidden behind difficulties, at any rate.

Doors are rated by motes, because even if I say it's a door of difficulty 3, that's the same as saying it's doorness is 5 or 6. That is, relative to the average door (3), it's pretty dang good at doing it job. Everything is rated in motes, because motes (of Yliaster, also known as Ki or Prana or the Force...) are what make up everything. No motes = does not exist.

You're absolutely right in guessing that the GM uses a single caern (except for significant NPCs). Average together all possible caerns, and you end up with a balanced caern, 5 (or whatever) motes of each color, plus the 3 Fates (black, white, and Fate/irridescent/shiny). That's what is used for most GM draws. I wonder how you see this being unpalatable in some cases? What bugs you about it?

Aidan

Hm.. Two flaws in your ideology, to my thinking.

First and foremost, you should never change a system because you dislike a term. If "successes" does not jive with you, change the word, not the system.

Secondly, while the brute force method of averages may support it, then the best you get is average draws. With the previous system, you allow for more vagaries of fate.

Also, unless I'm mistaken and you're still using the adjacent system, it is impossible to predict a single success. If you are using it as I believed, then the only successes that rely entirely on the draw are those which match the color of the action. Beyond that, the only way to get successes, in singles, is to describe the character's actions in such a way that other motes apply to the main action. Totally non-adjacent motes can apply, if the player is descriptive and creative enough. Sometimes however, even adjacent motes will not be able to made to apply, except possibly in magic.

This is your game, of course. But until you put your foot down and say that "This is the way it's gonna be" I'm going to keep arguing for the Draw -vs- threshold system, rather than the Diff-ability system. I like it much better personally, and I think that the Diff-ability system is counterintuitive, and does not have outstanding to recommend it.

To drive home the point about how enthusiastic about this system I am, I'll mention that I was looking at beads at the gaming store today. I'd have to buy 7 full tubes, though...

And yes, that was a low-down debater's trick. ::grins toothily::

I'm going to keep arguing for the Draw -vs- threshold system, rather than the Diff-ability system. I like it much better personally, and I think that the Diff-ability system is counterintuitive, and does not have outstanding to recommend it.

Could even call them threads... This way, every action, magickal or otherwise, can be characterized as a weave.

Hell, if you've read Crowley, his theory is that every conscious act is magick anyhow.

Right then! Thanks for the input, guys.

Lance,

You're right, changing system because I don't like "successes" is a bad reason. And yes, vagaries of fate applies better if it's skill-vs.-TN, which was a worry of mine - what happens to all the cool tension?

So, I'll go with you guys, and stick to both sides draw. It makes my sneaky-cool hidden opposition totally obvious opposition, but oh well. I gotta go with what people are going to like. That, and if you all say it's counterintuitive (and much as I want to disagree, I have to say you're right), it's outta here.

I haven't decided on the adjacent/singles issue yet (much better term, BTW - Thanx). I'm thinking to keep the adjacency method as standard, and present singles as an option once your players are more familiar with the system. There is a learning curve for the light-based spectrum, and also for learning the symbolism and meanings of the colors.

Hamshrew,

I think I will call them 'frogs'! Nah....but I will think about something else to call them...maybe if I just distinguish between (useful) motes and 'trash' motes (come up with a term for trash motes, I mean), that will solve my problem.

Thanks for the continuing input, guys.

Aidan

Wolfen wrote: To drive home the point about how enthusiastic about this system I am, I'll mention that I was looking at beads at the gaming store today. I'd have to buy 7 full tubes, though...

And yes, that was a low-down debater's trick. ::grins toothily::

taalyn wrote: I haven't decided on the adjacent/singles issue yet (much better term, BTW - Thanx). I'm thinking to keep the adjacency method as standard, and present singles as an option once your players are more familiar with the system. There is a learning curve for the light-based spectrum, and also for learning the symbolism and meanings of the colors.

Brian, you're so obviously rooted in the TRoS forum... Seneschal.

I mentioned this earlier, but I think it bears repeating: There is no reason that the two systems need be exclusive. There are at least two logical combinations of them:

Adajcents are the only eligible singles.

Adjacents are automatic frogs and then singles can be narrated in.

I think each (and the naked singles system; I don't find the adjacent system by itself too interesting) has potential, particularly if you were to attach some sort of resource-management to the claiming of singles. The downside of that would be that you have a second system - something that I firmly hold should only exist for very good reasons. Three of them, like a Vulcan.

The adjacent system is easier for the seneschal to adjudicate successes fairly, and easier for him to wortk out odds of success etc on the fly. Also, it doesn't punish less quick thinking or smart players as much as the singles system would.

I like Andrew's idea. Allow singles, but make it cost to use the rule.

How about "power" to replace "successes"? Sorta goes with the feeling of motes as energentic. So I draw a matching mote and get 2 power. I draw a supporting mote and get 1 more power for a total of 3 power. Etc. Then your power and the opponent's cancel leaving the remaining power as success.

I had the same problem for my game synthesis, BTW. We kept Successes and then called the subtractive result "Quality", as in the quality of the outcome. Now you have me thinking I need better terms, too. :-)

Mike

I agree with those of you who have issues with the singles system. It's not so much that I dislike it, but that it can be abused, and punishes the less creative/more shy players. I do like it enough, however, that it will be included, perhaps with a maximum of one mote singled.

Since you can "push" your Luck (lose 1 mote of Luck to add I mote to your draw), I'm not sure what else to do to introduce a cost to singling. I think a limit (only 1) would suffice, yes? Well, perhaps a Boon - a guaranteed success - and the singled mote describes how the Boon takes effect.

Mike, I really like "power". I may use a more mystical synonym, but this is definitely the right sort of word. Thanks! The "successes" would simply be motes, and relative success would be power: "Jonas got 5 motes, and I got 2, so Jonas has a Power of 3". This is particularly appropraite, not only because of the idea of Yliaster, but also because power is used to determine damage.

You know, Seneschal is an appropriately Celtic word - but it reminds me of a better word - "seanchaí" (SHON-uh-khee). I hate "DM" and "GM" and people look at me funny when I demand to be called "God Almighty", so this word work well! A seanchaí is a custodian of tradition and history.

Thanks for the thoughts guys - you all rock!

Aidan

I just read that it's recommended to keep stuff in one thread, so that's what I'm doing.

I said elsewhere that I had come up with an idea similar to TRoS' Spiritual Attributes, which is true. But what Jacob beat me to is the division of kinds of Passions (Aisling's word for them). Like almost everything else, I want to associate them with colors - if nothing else, have seven kinds. They don't need to be, I just feel it lends an ongoing theme of 7ness that suits the game.

So, here are what I have so far developing this idea. Anyone have other ideas for types of Passion (i.e. character motivation)? Do these make sense, or should I combine some of them?

red - STR - athletic skills - Passion: love, hate, loyalty
amber - CHA - social - Faith: religion (as a social construct)
green - INT - knowledge - Destiny: knowing what it is and doing it
cyan - DEX - precision - Discipline: codes of honor, charity
blue - WIL - spiritual - Conscience
magenta - PER - artistic - ???
clear - EMP - magical - Drive: determination to do X

Drive and determination might be the same thing. Luck is a separate thing altogether.

I may have to give up my sevenfold structure and just let there be what I can figure out.

Aidan

Little tinkering, surfing, and thought, I have seven now. Though I don't know how the correspond to colors (if they should):

Dignity: similar to conscience, some particular focus that indicates the character's method of acheiveing dignity, through right action, morality, social status, etc.

Devotion: what a character loves or hates, an idea or person or place

Duty: an obligation to something, be it person, station (e.g. to the king), or an idea

Destiny: an ultimate goal and/or role in the world

Discovery: to find something out (My name is Inigo Montoya - did you kill my dad?)

Doctrine: faith in something (magic is real/magic isn't real)

Drive: determination and purpose, a goal to accomplish, sometimes similar to destiny, but the drive is character chosen/created, whereas destiny is outside their choice and something they may rebel against; often something to accomplish simply for "I did it" reasons

or more succinctly:

Dignity: what I hold important for Me
Devotion: who I hold important for Us
Duty: what is important because of It
Destiny: what is important because of Me
Discovery: what I need for Me
Doctrine: what I need for Us
Drive: what I need for It

How's them look? Note that Me is the character, Us is society, and It is the focus.

Aidan