The Forge Archives

As we wrestled with mechanics a while back, people were thinking one place in an other non-random system to use dice might be to represent human free will. Doug Ruff has taken this idea, cross-pollinated it with another idea being thrashed on concurrently on the Forge (let 100 flowers bloom!), and come up with the following concept:

Quote from: Doug RuffI would note that this was signifantly "inspired" by Vesirus's put my system through the ringer! thread, so I think that this should be acknowledged up front.

This mechanic, so far, only covers the "conflict against self" part of our previous conflict model. In other words, it doesn't include a skills system.

Ever seen those "decision dice", which is usually a 6-sider with a different phrase on each side? It works a bit like that.

Basic model: Each Host has 6 personality traits. Each traits represents a different facet of their behaviour and or feelings. The first trait (no. 1) is their core personality. Draft these in the first person.

For example:

1 - My core personality
2 - I prefer to follow the rules than break them
3 - I believe in being nice to people...
4 - ...Unless they are really pissing me off
5 - I love my girlfriend
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Now, if an unpossessed Host needed to make an important decision, roll the die, and look up the relevant statement.

Does this statement suggest a course of action? If so, the Host takes it. If not, look at the statement fro the next lowest number.

For example, my girfriend asks me to beat up her ex, because he's been pestering her.

If I roll a 4 or 6, I'm going to punch his lights out. If it's a 2,3 or 5, I'm going to refuse.

Example 2, someone asks me for some phone change. If I roll a 4, and they aren't being annoying, then the phrase isn't relevant. So I look up phrase 3 instead ("I believe in being nice to people") and I give them the money.

What about 1s? If I roll a 1, or I get to 1 because other statements don't apply, then I get to choose my response, and add a statement to my core personality. So, over time, I will develop new behaviours.

Possession: In order to possess a Host, the Archivist has to displace one or more of the Host's personality traits.

They can choose which one, BUT displacing the core personality also suppresses the Host's consciousness.

So, say the example character is possessed by an Archivist who needs him to be a bit meaner. The Archivist chooses to displace slots 2 and 3. So:

1 - Core personality
2 - Archivist
3 - Archivist
4 - ... unless they are pissing me off (ie, I won't be nice to people who annoy me)
5 - I love my girlfriend
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Now, if the Host needs to make a decision in future, any rolls of 2 or 3 mean that the Archivist gets to make the decision, instead of the Host. On a 4, 5 or 6, the Archivist may get to make the decision, but only if the Host's own traits don't "fire". On a 1, the Host is in control.

Archivists may choose to possess more traits, or to un-possess traits (the Host Trait comes back into play), but they cannot do this in response to a die roll.

Fade and Burn:

I would like the risk of Fade to be proportionate to the amount of Possession, so - if the die roll matches a slot occupied by the Archivist, then they risk Fading. I think that one neat way of handling this would be to say that if the Archivist decides to act in a way which is consistent with any of the Host's personality traits, they take Fade. If they act in a way which is consistent with one of the traits they have displaced, then they take double Fade.

Archivists do not risk Fade if they get to make the decision "by default", ie if the initial roll matched a Host trait, but this wasn't relevant.

Archivists can decide to Burn a Host trait at any time. This is a permanent injury to the Host's personality. They may also choose to do this in response to a die roll. A Burned Trait automatically contributes nothing to a decision, so it is passed over.

For example, using the previously possessed character. The Archivist wants the Host to steal his girlfriend's car.

The character rolls a 6. Assuming their is not physical confrontation, the trait that wil take effect is number 5 ("I love my girlfriend") so the Host won't do it. The Archivist decides to Burn this Trait, so it no longer applies. Assuming Trait 4 ("...unless they are pissing me off") isn't relevant, the decision passes to Trait 3, which is the Archivist. The Host will steal the car, but they no longer love their girlfriend. The character sheet now looks like this:

1 - Core personality
2 - Archivist
3 - Archivist
4 - ... unless they are pissing me off (ie, I won't be nice to people who annoy me)
5 - BURNED
6 - I don't like physical confrontation

Special rule: Burning a Host's core personality kills the Host

Embellishments:

I would like players to be able to creatively interpret each of the personality traits, or to add refinements to them during play. For example, "I don't like physical confrontation... but I will stand up for someone weaker than myself". However, I don't yet have a mechanic for this.

I think that Host decisions should not be made by the player of the Archivist who is possessing them; this makes it more likely that Archivists will have to possess or Burn more traits. It also emphasises the "multiple personality" aspect of the game.

I had also considered having different personality tables for "Public Self", "Private Self" and "Subconscious Self" but this may be a bit too much.

So, here's the bones of a possession mechanic for the game - anyone want to add some meat to it?

Suggestion: Archivist as mentor/benafactor?
IE "I don't like physical confrontation..." is involved in a situation with the Host, an Archivist who cannot stand brutality, and some guys beating the bejeezus out of someone.
Some way the Archivist can transfer a portion of themselves into the host, not replacing as in the possession but augmenting and taking an amount of fade for that.  Thus, the Archivist, not wanting to take overt action or burn the host further but cannot stand by and see this happen fades himself less than a possession, but enough to impact him/her, and the Host gains "...but will defend those weaker than myself."

Quote from: daMoose_NeoSuggestion: Archivist as mentor/benafactor?
IE "I don't like physical confrontation..." is involved in a situation with the Host, an Archivist who cannot stand brutality, and some guys beating the bejeezus out of someone.
Some way the Archivist can transfer a portion of themselves into the host, not replacing as in the possession but augmenting and taking an amount of fade for that.  Thus, the Archivist, not wanting to take overt action or burn the host further but cannot stand by and see this happen fades himself less than a possession, but enough to impact him/her, and the Host gains "...but will defend those weaker than myself."

Nate,

I like the Archivist being able to act as a mentor/benefactor, but I think that this should require a more significant time investment from the Archivist. For example, at the end of a session, the Archivist can explain what lasting impact they have had on their Host; this changes one of their traits.

To help put things further in context, I should explain that I want the players who are not possessing the Host to be able to add "embellishmentss" to the Host. This allows for a few (possibly nasty) surprises, and represents the Archivist not knowing everything about the Host's personality, just by observing them.

However, in the example you've given, there is nothing to prevent the Archivist temporarily taking over the Host's pacifist traits, and then rolling for a reaction. Burning is only necessary if the "decision roll" has already taken place.

Now, all of this makes it clear that there need to be some clear "timing" rules to determine when a "decision roll" is actually made.

If another player has control of the Host personality, then they should get to make all Host decisions unless the Archivist player wants to intervene. However, the "Host player" must either relate their actions to something which is already on the Host's list of traits, or they must embellish a trait in a way which justifies the action, or they must add a statement to the core personality which justifies the action.

If the Archivst wants to change the Host's decision, they must call for a roll. In other words, the Archivist must "say yes, or roll the dice" (wasn't this one of Vincent's ideas originally?)

Now, should the Archivist player be allowed to change their possession slots before callng for his roll? I'm beginning to think that they shouldn't, so please tell me why they should!

Doug,

It's a nice mechanism.  

Two questions though:

- where do the 'hard choices' come in?
- what do you DO, now that you've posessed the host (i.e. in what context do you use this roll? with what aim?)

Good work, though. I hope somethings crystallises out this week on my end, but this thing's a creative monster for me. :)

I'll add another question:

Quote from: DougI want the players who are not possessing the Host to be able to add "embellishments" to the Host. This allows for a few (possibly nasty) surprises, and represents the Archivist not knowing everything about the Host's personality, just by observing them.

I may have missed something, but is there an incentive for other players to add those surprises?

Quote from: Tobias- where do the 'hard choices' come in?

Within the mechanic, the hard choice is about how much control to exert over your Host. The more control you have, the more slots you occupy - this means that you will either incur Fade (by acting consistently with the Host's own character) or you will have to make the Host act in a way which is inconsistent with his/her beliefs.

By itself, that doesn't appear too tough. The key is to engineer those tough choices in play - if the Archivist needs the Host to steal from his employer, or beat his wife, or kill his father, then it becomes a different story.

There are still "hard choices" which lie completely outside this possession mechanic, which leads to the next question:

Quote from: Tobias- what do you DO, now that you've posessed the host (i.e. in what context do you use this roll? with what aim?)

You change History. The only other reason for possessing a Host would be relive History vicariously, and I want the players to be making things happen instead.

So the Archivists are going to need a reason to change History. That's a no-brainer, but I don't think it's part of the possession mechanic. That's more appropriate for Pillars and Passions, or the other thread I asked Sydney to kick off for me.

Quote from: hixI may have missed something, but is there an incentive for other players to add those surprises?

Good question - there isn't (as things stand) a mechanical incentive to the other players (ie no Story Tokens or equivalent.)

However, there is a genuine incentive if the players have opposed goals; it allows another player to step in with a previously hidden personality trait, which can frustrate the possessor's intent, or advance that other players agenda.

The main thinking behind this is that the Archivist possessing a Host shouldn't know everything about their personality. So, they've observed a Host, and know a few things about their personality from their external behaviour. Just by possessing a Host, they may know a couple more things.

but there is going to be a lot they won't know about the Host's personality, because it hasn't been put to the test yet. By allowing other personality traits to manifest in play, it allows the Archivist to discover that (for example) although his Host loves his girlfriend, he loves money more.

So, this is actually quite powerful within the game, as it allows players to make up traits on the fly, in response to what's actually going on. For that reason, it needs some regulation. I would suggest:

- No more than one "but will do this if X" can be added per trait. That's five dirty secrets, maximum. Everything else about the Host has to be added to the core persona (no.1 on the die)
- The core persona can only be added to when a decision is being made, and on a roll of 1, or if the other traits aren't activated (which means that the decision defaults to the core trait)
- If the core persona already includes something that will make a clear choice for the Host, no more traits can be added.
- If the core persona's traits do not cover the situation, or there is a conflict, then a new trait can be added that covers this eventuality

Now, this is beginning to look quite complicated, I'll try and cook up an example (but it may take a while, I'm a bit busy.)

Not to divert attention from the other active thread, but there's one point about Doug's system I really liked that I wanted to mention: The same character can have completely contradictory traits and it's okay, because the die roll and the 6-category prioritization system determines which is in effect at a given time. Which is cool, because real people are self-contradictory.

Now, in order to flesh out characters fully, especially if everyone around the table is adding neat details in play, you probably need more than six slots, which means probably 10-sided dice. But that's a detail.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergNow, in order to flesh out characters fully, especially if everyone around the table is adding neat details in play, you probably need more than six slots, which means probably 10-sided dice. But that's a detail.

At the moment, Slot 1 acts as a "dumping ground" for everything that doesn't fit in the other 5 slots. There's no limit to the number of traits you can have in the core personality (Slot 1) but most of these traits won't get used very often.

It's not entirely satisfactory, and having 10 slots will help a bit, but that means requiring the Archivist to define 9 traits when they possess a Host, rather than 5, and I think that's a bit steep... unless you can leave some slots blank and fill them in later?

Quote from: Doug Ruff
Within the mechanic, the hard choice is about how much control to exert over your Host. The more control you have, the more slots you occupy - this means that you will either incur Fade (by acting consistently with the Host's own character) or you will have to make the Host act in a way which is inconsistent with his/her beliefs.

By itself, that doesn't appear too tough. The key is to engineer those tough choices in play - if the Archivist needs the Host to steal from his employer, or beat his wife, or kill his father, then it becomes a different story.

When I re-read your initial post, together with this explanation, it's quite clear. I think I stated my question wrongly.

Where's the 'bite'? I'm not feeling any pain as a player right now from either burn or fade. I'm sure you have an idea for it, but without knowing what the bite is, I cannot evaluate how the choice will be hard for me.

There are still "hard choices" which lie completely outside this possession mechanic, which leads to the next question:

Quote from: DougYou change History. The only other reason for possessing a Host would be relive History vicariously, and I want the players to be making things happen instead.

So the Archivists are going to need a reason to change History. That's a no-brainer, but I don't think it's part of the possession mechanic. That's more appropriate for Pillars and Passions, or the other thread I asked Sydney to kick off for me.

Ok.

Again, I could have been clearer. What I meant was: how does this possession mechanic tie into the bigger goals you have? In other words - moving the mechanic out of isolation.

It sounds like a fun mechanic by itself, but (like you suggest yourself), it's true value will show when you cook up something complete.

Which is a b*ch, as I found out myself, I completely understand your schedule issues, so don't sweat it on my account. :)