The Forge Archives

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

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'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*

*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).

Quote from: Noon

Quote from: M. J. Young...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