Hi there.

I'm still juggling with rules and reward systems for a light-weight quasi-simulationist game set in Middle Earth. (I'm tentatively calling it Tales Of Middle Earth at the moment.)

I'm interested in making the main task resolution work in the characters' favour when the odds are stacked against them. This is driven by the idea that if you defined Frodo Baggins in classic games like Runequest or D&D he'd be dead in the first scrap he got into. But in the LOTR he prevails and I want to mimic that.

My thought is to achieve it via the use of Story Points (perhaps I might call them something else though, like Fate Points, Destiny Points, whatever...). These could be spent to improve chances of task resolution success or even to automatically succeed.

However, I want to avoid just giving statistically weaker characters more Story Points to start play. I thought that I way to achieve this might be to allow task failures to somehow generate Story Points for a character, but I want it to feel right to the players (and not promote them attempting things that they are bound to fail at in order to acrue points).

I'm thinking that perhaps when a character fails at something with 'significance to the story' (definition?) they have the opportunity to add something to their character (noting it on their character sheet) and that this could somehow be used at a later date to gain leverage in a situation.

So it'd be like the failure had scarred (emotionally or physically) the character in some way, but that it gave them resolve in a later situation. This sort of thing seems to be an important factor for Tolkien's hobbits for example.

So I'm looking for thoughts on this to help me pin it down.

Cheers!
Ben

I'd be hesitant to tie the "bonus" directly to failure, because that's not really a balancing feature. Even skillful characters will fail at times, and even the best characters will have areas where they aren't so good and will fail more often. Thus, this device will tend to not be something unique for the "weaker" characters to use that differentiates them from the "stronger" but just something everybody gets to use, and the issue won't really be addressed.

Further, I don't know that the point of division is necessarily "weaker vs. stronger". The characters that continue to perservere in the phase of being out of their depth are all hobbits.

I'd consider tying the mechanic directly to race, not just relative character strength.

The mechanic I'd use is something that gives the player the ability to narrate their own failure. Yes the character failed but the player gets to determine exactly what happened. The more "powerful" the race, the less the player gets to do this.

In Middle Earth, Elves are super human. To try to balance them statistically makes them non tolkensien...basically pointy ear humans. I'd allow the elves to have ridiculous levels of power. Yes they can see like an eagle and walk on snow without leaving a track, and sneak up on a dwarf to point blank range and live for ever and never miss with their bow and all of the other things Tolkien's elves do as a matter of course.

But when they do fail...the GM narrates 100% of what happens to them.

Hobbits on the other hand. Not physically that imposing, nor particularly wise or clever, nor possessing of any great skills (save perhaps cooking and sneaking). But when they do fail. the player narrates 100% of what happens to them.

Humans somewhere above hobbits, and Numenorieans and Dwarves somewhere below elves.

As a model for what I mean by "narrates failure" I'd take a look at Donjon which uses some pretty tight and explicit narration mechanics for success and failure.

Yes, you're right about a direct tie between failure and gaining points to spend.

I agree with all that you said about the relative 'power' of the different races in Middle Earth - I've got not real interest in making sure that all characters are on a level footing regardless of culture/race. What I do want to do though, is to encourage players to play to their character's race's (!) strengths. And be rewarded for it.

Perhaps Story Points could be awarded to characters for acting according to some race/personality traits defined during char gen.

I also like the principle of getting more ability to influence the narrative (i.e. more Story Points) if you have been up against it a lot. Perhaps instead of failure you would be rewarded for facing very dangerous situations (regardless of whether you 'won'). That sounds good, cos it would help to dissuade players from getting hyper-sensitive to putting their characters in danger. (My players are generally a lot like that!)

Narrating failure might be a viable option. That way a hobbit will probably get more input into the narrative than an elf (which I'm totally happy with). But I worry that the hobbit player will get sick of constantly having to draw attention to how naff they
have been!

Perhaps when a character fails they get a chance to Turn It Around AND narrate the outcome, or something. In that way, the hobbit would get more chances to narrate AND get more chances to succeed at the last moment (when it looked like they were going to fail). I like that, cos it might help convince players that playing 'weaker' characters can be more fun. (Less pressure on the GM having to dream up ways to stop players all wanting to be Elves!)

Food for thought here.. cheers for the input so far!

Ben

Another idea just popped into my head...

What if each character had a number of 'refueling' actions (need a better name!). When they can indulge activity, they gain story points or something. I'm probably not explaining that very well...

I'm thinging that Hobbits generally enjoy eating a big meal and sleeping in a comfy bed. They're renowned for it! So if they get chance to do one of their 'refueling' activities (comforts? drives? whatever..) then they are rewarded.

Perhaps I have the wrong tack with 'refueling' - I mean things that the character enjoys. The weaker characters could be given a wider range of these and would therefore have more chances to indulge them.

Sorry for the ramble - does there seem to be much of use in there?

Ben

Sure...you could have a trigger moment for characters. Perhaps 2, one for race, and one unique to the character.

Frex, a trigger moment for Elves might be to sing a song about some long ago hero in a longing plaintive voice -- elves seem to always be doing stuff like that...;-)

For a dwarf it might be either completing, or acquiring some artifact of great value (perhaps with more bennies based on value, so that Balin would have gotten a ton for recovering Moria (briefly), and Gimli would get 1 for Galadriel's hair).

For a hobbit it might be eating a good meal (something better than travel fare...which would help create scenes like the one in the movie where Frodo awakes to find the other hobbits cooking dinner at Weather top) or drinking beer or smoking tobacco (as long as its "the best tobacco in the south farthing).

For a man...hmmm, lots of different ways you could go there depending on how you want to approach Tolkien's approach on men. They succumb easily to temptation after all. But rewarding a player for resisting temptation wouldn't be a good thing...because most in game temptations may be tempting for the character but easily ignored by the player. I'd be tempted to give a reward for succumbing to the temptation. That would ensure you'd have players portraying the weakness of men, as when Boromir tries to get the ring, and Isildur refuses to give it up. If story points (or whatever) are awarded proportinate to the amount of harm caused by succombing, there'd be a real motivation for being greedy. Perhaps to keep the race of men for being completely ignoble, story points can also be earned for self sacrifice, as when Boromir sacrifices his life to save the hobbits, or Faramir sacrifices his duty to set them free.

For a Wizard...acting strangely and speaking in cryptic riddles...?



In any case performing these trigger events would earn some "bennie".

These bennies could then be spent to do something particular to the race.

An elf might use these bennies to activate their elven super powers.

A hobbit might use them to find a way to get out of trouble after failing a roll, or to activate some personal hobbit trait to gain a bonus (like Sam's loyalty and love for Frodo, Frodo's perserverance, Pippins ability to cause trouble, Merry's ability to dig deep and rise to the occassion, etc)

A Dwarf might use them to power their ability to craft artifacts of stupendous worth (like the hidden doors, or weapons, with the number of power being proportional to the number of points) or martial prowess. Spend a benny to lay down a serious Dwarven smack down on something.

For men, their advantage might be flexibility. Perhaps the bennies could power bonuses to skill rolls (or perhaps just a few core skills would qualify)...Boromir's defense of the hobbits despite being shot with several arrows in the movie, Aragorn's healing ability

Wizards might use them to power their spells. Which would help ensure the rarity of powerful magics we see being cast about.


I think something like that could work quite well.

This is a different take on things but you could do something like TROS' spirtual attributes. Each character can have some sort of passion or fate, and when they go up against it they get some sort of bonus.

I know this isn't exactly what you were asking for, but you could probably make it work. I don't know what I think about directly linking "weakness" with some sort of bonus. I do, however, like the idea of connecting purpose or fate to a bonus. It was fate for Frodo and Sam to destroy the ring, and that's why things kept working out for them.

The bonus doesn't neccessarily have to numerical, you give the players the power to narrate the story when their character confront their fate.

If you want you could connect this ability to race, giving hobbits a higher number of passions/fate than dwarves or elves, for example. Or maybe just make the bonus more powerful for the hobbits.

I'd have to agree with Tim, here. In fact, I recently used Middle Earth as an example as to why Spirtual Attributes are cool:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/roleplayers/598109.html#cutid2

Some cool ideas here.

I did originally think that each character would have destinies/fates (rather than weaknesses) , which are short descriptions of things they are likely to do (it could be argued that tolkien's stories show that you CAN change fate). I foundered on the reward mechanics of having these 'fates' though... I don't want the main thrust of a character's story to be made up by the player in advance. That feels too restrictive and might railroad the player too much.

How about the GM generates secret fates for the player characters. And then when the characters do things that move them towards that fate, they get some kind of subtle bonus (like succeeding even when a roll appears to show failure). In this way, the player might start to get a feeling for what destiny has in store for their character. A 'calling' if you like.

Hmm, so the question is whether the player should be aware of their destiny. And whether all characters should have one - some might not want one, but I suppose that all comes down to the sort of story I want to tell (i.e. should each character have a fate, as most do in the war of the rings, or should it be more free and easy. Probably the former).

Fates make for great plot hooks too...

Ben

I hope all of this makes sense in the context of the question and the other answers you've received.

I need to ask which aspect of the struggle is important to you?

If it is the underdog, it seems somewhat counter-intuitive to give the character a bonus just because they are facing stiff odds.

If it is the fact that it is a player character that is facing these odds, then I think what you need to ask is how do you tie the mechanic into the character?

HeroQuest has a mechanic where the very means a hero uses to advance (hero points in HeroQuest, but can apply to many systems) is what he uses. Thus, the more often he "saves" himself, the less points he has to spend. This works well in any system where you have to spend something to improve your character. In D&D, you could allow the player to spend some of the character's experience points to modify the results of a die roll (which is how HeroQuest treats the issue).

I think the key is to keep the system as simple as possible, by working within existing mechanics. HeroQuest's mechanic also works because, like most games, a player earns hero points in part on how well he roleplays his hero. A hero who is better role-played has more points to spend, and can get himself out of a jam more often without affecting character growth and development. Thus, good role-playing does not just let a character advance faster, it also helps ensure that he stays alive long enough to advance.

In LotR, despite his frailties, Frodo is a well role-played hero. And although he grows in his character, in a gaming perspective he doesn't seem to "advance" much. Which fits the ideas here quite well -- he is spending all of his "advancement points" in his attempts to stay alive against overwhelming odds.

Another late thought.

Since one of the things it seems you want to represent is Fate, perhaps what you want to do is award extra Story Points (or whatever) for the hero accomplishing specific, appropriate actions. Every time they achieve a Goal (whether personal, or group, or one set for them by the Valar), they get a Fate Point to spend when they really need it.

So, when Frodo leaves on the quest, he gets a point. When he sneaks away from the Fellowship to travel on by himself, he gets a point. (And Sam gets one for following him, of course.) And whenever he resists putting on the Ring, he gets a point.

This has the advantage of helping to keep storylines "on track" by rewarding players for following the story without deviating from it a lot.

But there is a danger in giving Fate such an active role -- is this a role-playing game or a story? The more power you give Fate, the less the players will feel they can decide for themselves. Not that it can't be done, but it is a fine line.

Some systems reward cool moves. In those systems the more rediculous and complex the move, the more likely you are to pass.

Why not have the same, except for narration of fear, etc. Continually through the LOTR books those hobbits go through hard times, scared and feeling little. Imagine that if in all those books, each expression of hopelessness was actually adding dice to the pool!?

I'm getting tired, so I've skimmed over quite a few of the answers; this may be similar to some, but I think it's distinct.

I'll call attention to Legends of Alyria; it should be out soon, and does something very similar to this with its traits system.

Give the characters a second set of scores that relate to their values, their drives, or whatever you think matters. Use these as substitutionary scores when they are called into question.

Let's say that Samwise has Fight 3 and Loves Frodo 9. If the orcs attack, Sam uses his Fight 3 to fight back; but if they grab Frodo, suddenly Sam shifts to using his Loves Frodo 9 as the basis for his combat, as long as it is clear that Sam is fighting to save Frodo.

That's an easy example; but there are a lot of ways you could use it. The function is relatively simple--you have high scores in things that will motivate the character to overcome great odds, and thus the weak characters suddenly become strong when it matters.

At the same time, it makes only a minor difference to the strong characters. Gandalf may have Fight 9, and then he has Opposes Evil Magic 10. This means that he is just a bit better if he battles the Balrog, or Saruman, or Sauron directly than he is when he fights orcs and trolls and other more mundane enemies. It still counts, but it's not as much.

Thus the substitutionary system benefits the weaker characters more than the stronger ones, while still keeping the distinction between them in any situation in which their specific interests are not directly involved.

--M. J. Young

The Alyria stuff looks good. Thanks for the ideas everyone.

Here's what I think I'll go with for now...

Attributes - a short list of abilities that the character has.
Specials - a list of things that are 'always on' for the character (e.g. enhancmed elvish vision, rohirric riding ability, etc)
Motives & Values - A collection of one or more pools that start at zero but can be accrued through play and then points spent from them to increase chance of success on related actions.

So, to use one of MJ's examples (above), Sam might have an Attribute value of "Fight" with value 3 and then a Motive "Loves Frodo" with a pool of 3. He can burn points from the pool to help him fight orcs that are attacking frodo. This was inspired by the TRoS/LoTR examples given by xiombarg in his link (thanks!).

The Motive points can also be used to improve Attributes although I intend to make this very expensive (in terms of pool points that must be spent) since the notion of improving Attributes often doesn't really fit with the world/stories I'm trying to promote.
I also quite liked the idea about using narration of fear to earn Story Points, but i can't see how to implement this without getting into the situation where characters walk around saying how scared they are. Could get a bit farcical! :)

Ben

M. J. Young wrote: I'm getting tired, so I've skimmed over quite a few of the answers; this may be similar to some, but I think it's distinct.

I'll call attention to Legends of Alyria; it should be out soon, and does something very similar to this with its traits system.

Give the characters a second set of scores that relate to their values, their drives, or whatever you think matters. Use these as substitutionary scores when they are called into question.

Let's say that Samwise has Fight 3 and Loves Frodo 9. If the orcs attack, Sam uses his Fight 3 to fight back; but if they grab Frodo, suddenly Sam shifts to using his Loves Frodo 9 as the basis for his combat, as long as it is clear that Sam is fighting to save Frodo.
*snip*

Noon wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: ...Give the characters a second set of scores that relate to their values, their drives, or whatever you think matters. Use these as substitutionary scores when they are called into question.....

*Cough*Spiritual Attributes*Cough*

I was rather hoping the idea would begin to spread around the industry, even if in somewhat different guises. Although Jake deserves a lot of money from TROS, the industry as a whole could do with the idea, to take it a step forward (IMO and all that).

I have played exactly one session of TROS, and it was with the Quickstart rules, so take this with a grain of salt... but my understanding of SAs seems to match up pretty well with what you want to do here.

To use the LoTR example, Samwise really, really wants to save Frodo. It's one of his SAs: Protect Frodo, or Passion: Frodo, etc. So when he confronts Dabu the orc in the tower, Dabu's combat skill may be a lot higher, but Sam's SA bonuses make him more than a match.

Why? Because Dabu probably doesn't have any SAs, and none of them are Passion: Hobbit meat.

Meanwhile if Sam was confronting Bill Fearny back in Bree, his "Protect Frodo" SA wouldn't apply, and he'd just be a regular working-class hero.

So basically SAs make characters extraordinary when they are doing something that matters to them, but they are otherwise their usual selves. So if someone is a short, barefoot guy who doesn't know a sword from some garden shears, he's pretty much the underdog... unless you get between him and his favorite Master.

p.s. Someone really should run a MLwM where Frodo is the Master, Sam, Pippin, Merry, etc are the minions, and Gandalf is the Outsider.

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

I was re-reading this thread and something occurred to me: I'm not 100% sure which successes by the weak over the strong in LoTR you'd like to emulate. Maybe a good starting point would be to identify which successes in the book are the ones that you have in mind.

For instance, it occurs to me that much of the success of Frodo and Sam is due to a combination of their stealth, Sauron's hubris, Elvish/Numenorian gear and good luck. It seems to me that none of these things need be specifically modeled.

Hobbits are stealthy folks--Tolkien makes a point of that many times, so their ability to escape detection doesn't seem to fall into the category of beating the odds. Although Sauron knows the hobbits have the Ring, he is convinced that the Gondorians, etc will fall to using it, and can't imagine that the plan is to send two midgets into Mordor. This also seems like merely part of Sauron's character (and arguably the feints by Gandalf and his allies). Likewise the Elvish cloaks, possibly the Numenorian swords used by Pippin/Merry... these could purely be covered by game mechanics. Luck is just luck. Tolkien's characters can be presumed to have rolled well. :)

So some of the places in the story that seem to be the triumph of heart over power: Sam v Shelob, Sam v all those Orcs right after that, any hand-to-hand melee with hobbits, Frodo resisting the Morgul blade wound, Frodo resisting the Ring's temptation (which he fails several times)... I'm sure there are others, but I'm drawing a blank.

The melee encounters could be a combination of hobbit dodge-fu and SAs when they attack (since none of them seem to be trained to fight). Shelob and the Orcs are certainly a combination of Elvish swords, armor and Sam's desire to save Frodo. Frodo v the Morgul blade and the Ring? Could be SAs. Although based on what Gandalf says, sometimes the hobbit toughness seems more like something inherent to hobbit-ness.

An idea that I've heard thrown around is to make the corrupting influence of Mordor a central mechanic of the game, the same way that Sanity is a central mechanic of CoC, etc. In that case, all characters have a relevant stat... you could call it Ambition. Failing a roll v Ambition means that your desire to wield power has made you succeptible to corruption by Sauron... you get the idea. IMHO a combination of that type of mechanic plus Story Points ought to get your hobbits through the tight spots.

A final thought: when making a LoTR game, you ought to throw out ideas about balancing character types. The heroes of LoTR are heroes. They are way luckier, pluckier, faster, etc than everyone else. If you were to gather up non-hero characters like Fatty Bolger, Elladan, Kili and Eomer and send them out on an adventure, Elladan would be the best followed by Eomer and Kili and Fatty would probably spend most of the time hiding behind them.

Hope some of this rambling was helpful.

hatheg-kla wrote: Mark (it IS Mark right?).

Then he wrote: BTW: I can't work out how to get the "So-and-so wrote:" at the top of my quotes - can someone tell me or point me at help doc? Cheers.

hatheg-kla wrote: The issue I found with using spiritual attributes or pools (in a bonus or substitutionary fashion) is that players want to abuse them. It can become a battle between GM and players, with them constantly trying to justify using "Love: Frodo"

Not a very complete answer, I know... but have you had a good look at Primetime Adventures? It very nicely does away with the wargame-based paradigm of combat ability, by focusing on how important a given character is to the story. Neat stuff, highly recommended.

Best,
Grex

M. J. Young wrote:

Noon wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: ...Give the characters a second set of scores that relate to their values, their drives, or whatever you think matters. Use these as substitutionary scores when they are called into question.....

*Cough*Spiritual Attributes*Cough*

I was rather hoping the idea would begin to spread around the industry, even if in somewhat different guises. Although Jake deserves a lot of money from TROS, the industry as a whole could do with the idea, to take it a step forward (IMO and all that).

I haven't seen TRoS, but it's my impression that the SAs provide bonuses to existing scores.

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

But then, maybe I don't understand SAs.

--M. J. Young

hatheg-kla wrote:

The differences between bonuses and substitutionary scores should be clear. Bonuses have as much impact on high powered characters as low powered characters; substitutionary scores help the low powered ones more. Bonuses are often depleted (can only use so much, or so many, as in Ben's model), but substitutionary scores remain high any time they can be implicated.

Interesting one this, Mark (it IS Mark right?). I have GM-ed a game or two recently that made use of 'spiritual-type' attributes (the game system was Fate, as it happens) and I must admist to encountering some difficulty with them.

Your point about the bonuses helping powerful as well as low-power characters equally is fair - I need to decide which I really want. (Of course, if ability scores have exponentially less benefit for each +1 (or whatever) you have, the bonus method starts to approach the substitution methoid in terms of relative benefit.)

The issue I found with using spiritual attributes or pools (in a bonus or substitutionary fashion) is that players want to abuse them. It can become a battle between GM and players, with them constantly trying to justify using "Love: Frodo". Sure, the GM can just veto the attempt (which is how I did it) but it does become a drain on everyone and detracts from the flow of the game.

Instead of players trying to think through a situation by putting themselves in the position of the character, they start stepping outside the story and thinking about how to squeeze result from the game rules. I wonder if this might be solved by using some clever mechanic that penalises for attempted use of spiritual wotsit when it is not really appropriate?

*snip*

Noon wrote: I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

Noon wrote: I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

M. J. Young wrote:

Noon wrote: I myself can't see the difference between 1: having a stat with 6 in it and then replacing it with a 9 and 2: Adding a bonus of +3

O.K., here's the difference.

I'm playing the boy in Pirates of the Carribean, and I have a combat of 6. I'm up against the captain of the Black Pearl, and he has a combat of 8.

I have the highest value possible in "loves the girl", and would do anything to protect her.

He has the highest value possible in "wants to break the curse" and will do anything to do so.

He believes he has to kill the girl to break the curse; I want to save the girl.

Now, with SA's, I get +3, gives me 9; he gets +3, gives him 11. I haven't really improved my chances significantly--he still outclasses me by two.

With substitutionary scores, I replace my 6 in combat with my 9 in "loves the girl"; he replaces his 8 in combat with his 9 in "would do anything to break the curse"--and now we're on even footing.

So the advantage of the substutionary scores is precisely that it applies more strongly to characters of lower scores than to those of higher scores, even if they have the same ranks in their passions.

Clear?
*snip*

I think Loki's last post (Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:28 pm) nailed it.

Why did Gandalf entrust hobbits with the ring anyway?

Because (besides the good points Loki made) the hobbits were simple and pure and devoid of the avarice and delusion of other races. And it is because of these qualities that ultimately the entirety of middle-earth was saved and the dark forces defeated!

Who says hobbits are weak ?!?

I agree with your sentiment entirely.

But the issue here is that in a traditional simulationist-style game, a hobbit is weak: they tend to have stats, skills, whatever that on paper get them killed in a minor tussle. :)

And hence the discussions on how to bring mechanics into the game in order to implement their strengths.

Ben

Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ...

In other words, stories aren't realistic - not even the "realistic" ones.

And yes, this applies just as well to stories which turn out badly for the protagonist, as to the stories in which he "beats the bad guy at the end." It applies just as well to highbrow stories as to lowbrow ones (a distinction I tend to ignore), and applies just as well to conflicts about (e.g.) romantic confusion as to (e.g.) must-kill-slayer-of-my-lord, or whatever.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're objecting to the idea that the protagonist, when impassioned, is better than the antagonist, when impassioned. Again, I'm afraid that this idea is central to any story that I'm aware of, and that ...

It's like if someone fights someone they hate, their rusty sword transforms (say it was weapons that improve with passion) into a different sword, just for that time. The rusty sword doesn't charge up and become better, it just gets replaced entirely for the encounter.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ... {snipperiffic}

hatheg-kla wrote: I agree with your sentiment entirely.

But the issue here is that in a traditional simulationist-style game, a hobbit is weak: they tend to have stats, skills, whatever that on paper get them killed in a minor tussle. :)

And hence the discussions on how to bring mechanics into the game in order to implement their strengths.

Ben

Heya,

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Actually, Callan, my perception of literature, film, theater, comics, and stories of all kinds is that they absolutely reek of exactly that which you are reacting against.

The character who cares more, or more accurately, about whom the audience cares more, simply does better. Either they do suddenly become "all amazing," or they turn out not to have been hurt as badly as it seemed, or their immediate environment turns out to help them, or their friends show up, or ...

In other words, stories aren't realistic - not even the "realistic" ones.

And yes, this applies just as well to stories which turn out badly for the protagonist, as to the stories in which he "beats the bad guy at the end." It applies just as well to highbrow stories as to lowbrow ones (a distinction I tend to ignore), and applies just as well to conflicts about (e.g.) romantic confusion as to (e.g.) must-kill-slayer-of-my-lord, or whatever.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're objecting to the idea that the protagonist, when impassioned, is better than the antagonist, when impassioned. Again, I'm afraid that this idea is central to any story that I'm aware of, and that ...

It's like if someone fights someone they hate, their rusty sword transforms (say it was weapons that improve with passion) into a different sword, just for that time. The rusty sword doesn't charge up and become better, it just gets replaced entirely for the encounter.

... is exactly how stories do work. There is no "in-game justification" that can really be justified. Even if there's an elaborate explanation ("Your friends turn out to have been looking for you all night, and they were just over the ridge the whole time; good thing they heard your voice, eh?"), it is just as arbitrary, on the author's part, as saying, "Oh, you pulled your friends out of your pocket and here they are to help you."

Differences in stories include the range of justification ... some rely on the greatest contrast possible between information-previously and how-it-works-now (like your sword example), and some rely on complex and subtle foreshadowing in order to have a surprising event "make sense all along" once it happens. But the fundamental notion that "protagonist who cares" just ... gets better in the crunch, in any way at all, is found throughout.

Yeah - even Walter Mitty.

Best,
Ron

Hi Shreyas,

You wrote,

stuff like SAs are smokescreens for a "the characters we care about win" strategy

I'm just a bit confused, as between two quotes from Callan.

First, he wrote: What's the value of this? The superior and empasioned swordsman...has no advantage against pissed off bobby no legs.

This is counterintuitive to most everything I've read in literature.

Then he wrote: Passion shouldn't be about helping wimps equal out, that's not the message literature gives, IMO. It should be about wimps who care so damn much they can even beat baddies who care.

In a later post, he wrote: Whats so wrong with this that anyone can advocate a system where you replace stats/bits of characters and that weak people just have to have to get a better bonus out of this system.

Bonuses and substitutionary scores are equally unrealistic, they are equally abhorrent to "purist" play.

quot;M. J. Young]I'm saying that the answer to the question of how to design a mechanic that will specifically help weak characters overcome difficult challenges without having an identical effect for strong characters is not by giving identical bonuses to all of them.

M. J. Young wrote: I'm just a bit confused, as between two quotes from Callan.

First, he wrote: What's the value of this? The superior and empasioned swordsman...has no advantage against pissed off bobby no legs.

This is counterintuitive to most everything I've read in literature.

Then he wrote: Passion shouldn't be about helping wimps equal out, that's not the message literature gives, IMO. It should be about wimps who care so damn much they can even beat baddies who care.

It's not clear whether Callan is objecting to a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong, or whether he objects because the mechanic does not benefit the weak more than the strong. I suggest a mechanic that benefits the weak more than the strong; I never said that the strong couldn't still beat the weak, or that they would get no benefit from the mechanic, nor did I say that it would never give the weak the edge over the strong. I just said that substitutionary scores can boost weak characters into the levels where they are viable adversaries to strong ones without giving the strong characters the tools to negate that advantage by boosting themselves still further.

Now, apparently Callan finds the idea of substitutionary stats abhorent, and the idea of sudden bonuses palatable. I don't see the difference between them, from that perspective--either way, you're replacing the stat that is normally used with a different stat. You're not replacing the character; you're tapping into something that is inherent within the character.

In a later post, he wrote: Whats so wrong with this that anyone can advocate a system where you replace stats/bits of characters and that weak people just have to have to get a better bonus out of this system.

There is nothing "wrong" with the bonus approach per se; I just don't think it answers the problem posted by the original post in this thread--which is, I believe, how can you devise a system that provides significant bonuses to underpowered characters in difficult situations that it does not provide to high-powered characters in the same situations? If the question is how to power weak characters without giving strong characters a tool to use against them, bonuses don't do that at all, and replacement scores do it very well.

As an aside, in most games, such bonuses wind up helping the more powerful characters more, because they'll usually have more of them, or have them in greater amounts. I don't say that's true of TRoS, but we're not talking about using TRoS here--we're talking about designing a game that empowers weak characters when they face significant challenges but does not do the same thing for strong characters. Bonuses don't do that; substitutionary scores do.

Bonuses and substitutionary scores are equally unrealistic, they are equally abhorrent to "purist" play. Whether the hobbit gets +5 because of his passion or replaces his combat three with a passion 8 as a mechanic, it's going to look like the hobbit suddenly found abilities beyond his expectations.

It makes sense to me from another aspect as well. I don't think being passionate about the outcome of the fight would help the expert swordsman as much as it would help the novice squire. In fact, you could even suggest a situation in which the expert's passion substituting for his skill caused him to fight less effectively, something that substitutionary scores do which bonuses clearly do not--and for this reason, teachers tell their students that they must not let their passions interfere with their fighting, because although when they are novices those passions can bring victory from defeat, when they are experts they can only get in the way.

As I've said, I'm staying away from realism in what I talk about.

Marhault also throws this into clear relief when he shows that the same passion will provide less bonus to a character's stronger abilities than it will to the character's weaker abilities. The novice at anything might well be much better by relying on his passion instead of his skill, but as he improves, the benefit of relying on passion decreases until it is entirely consumed and no longer is of any assistance.

I'm not saying bonuses are bad, or that SA's don't work well for what they do. I'm saying that the answer to the question of how to design a mechanic that will specifically help weak characters overcome difficult challenges without having an identical effect for strong characters is not by giving identical bonuses to all of them.

I think TRoS is an excellent game, from all I've heard, and that SA's are an incredible innovation. That's not at issue here. Please don't think I'm denigrating the idea in general; I'm only suggesting that for the problem posed it is not the best solution.

--M. J. Young

Well, I don't mind telling you that I'm torn on which of the two main methods being discussed to use.

I'd almost decided to use substitution of 'passion' scores for more tangible abilties (rather than have them confer bonuses). Then I started thinking about making characters and realised that is there any point having a passion with a score of 1 or 2?

I mean, if the passion has a low score it's never actually going to et substitued-in during play. Now you could argue that this is quite realistic in the sense that since you are not that passionate about it, it rarely (if ever helps). The thing is, I would deem passions to be things which (almost by definition) the character is passionate about - and hence I'd want to do away with low scores totally. Don't really want to start passion scores to have a min value (such as 5, say)...

Perhaps if I come up with a good mechanic for increasing (and decreasing) the score of a passion then low scores would be ok, cos they are just a step on the way to a potential 'high' score.

I'm wondering if I could just let the GM decide when to increase or decrease a passion score - I'd rather have a more solid mechanic for it though. Perhaps when you choose to substitute it in a given situation, there some randomising factor built in as to whether the passion strengthens or weakens? Any thoughts?

Good discussion happening here, btw!

Ben

Another thing...

My action resolution mechanic is also along the lines of: roll a number of dice, with each even result meaning a 'hit'; compare number of hits to difficulty number.

In terms of scale, I wanted my characters to have a number of traits, each one of which is relevent to a task confers an extra die to roll.

I can see how to use passions as a number of bonus die to a roll, but I can't see how to implement the passion as a substitutionary thing. Any ideas how this might be made to work?

Perhaps I need to go back to some sort of attributes ranging from 1 to 10 or similar.

Ben

Ben a.k.a. hatheg-kla wrote: I'd almost decided to use substitution of 'passion' scores for more tangible abilties (rather than have them confer bonuses). Then I started thinking about making characters and realised that is there any point having a passion with a score of 1 or 2?

I mean, if the passion has a low score it's never actually going to et substitued-in during play.

I'd rename these higher attributes something like insight. As in having a brief...wassit called...starts with e...ephany? (sp?)

Anyway, you can have inspiration triggers. Less like passions and more like moments where your insight kicks in.

After that encounter, its used up for the session. Before the next session the player has to think of another inspiration trigger.

The fun thing about this is that each time the players would be suggesting cool scenes for the GM to use in each new session (frodo gets attack, joes girl gets taken, etc), and the players are being rewarded for that.

Cheers for the ideas boys!

I've now got lots of ideas swirling around in my head about passions. triggers, drives and the such like. I'll try to make something out of it all and let you know how I get on.

I've been looking at the Alyria quick-start rules as a result of this discussion and there's stuff I like in there.

hatheg-kla wrote: Hi there.

I'm still juggling with rules and reward systems for a light-weight quasi-simulationist game set in Middle Earth. (I'm tentatively calling it Tales Of Middle Earth at the moment.)