Artorius: Those who desire old age need not apply

[violence in the media]

So the player has a choice, they can Dodge, which is harder to do, or they can block/parry which is much easier but still carries a risk of injury or getting a shield or weapon broken like you mentioned you wanted.

Is that better?

Yes. Very interesting concept - though I'd note that I don't want weapons breaking (shields, yes, swords, no.)

But that as something to work in is fantastic.

I was just leaving the option in for the the situations where you might want rules for breaking an item in hand. A sword might never break in battle, but maybe you want to whack someone's bow, or break a stool over someone in a brawl, or something of the sort. That's all.

Now, if the idea is that having diplomacy as well as war would make this more interesting and more believable and etc., I can believe that.

I think having diplomacy as a viable option would make the game a lot more interesting, as well as supporting a variety of options and play-styles. You're going to have the people that are totally cool with being the trusted knight and conducting a military campaign, and that's fine. But you're also going to have the people that want to play something more intrigue heavy and promote dirty deals and double crossing to the fore of the game. Some people might want to rise to dominance of their own barbarian horde, and turn the game against the king. Those could all be fun campaigns, all set within the same setting and ruleset, provided it can accommodate it.

[Elennsar]

If the game flatly defines the barbarians as evil and immoral from some objective standpoint, you're just creating potential player conflict where you really don't need to.

The problem is, any decision that paints anything as inferior from any objective standpoint in any setting risks some player being upset.

So I'm more concerned with "does it make sense for the barbarians to be evil and immoral (whether that's a result of bad cultural influences or bad racial, in the old sense of that word, traits)

The main reason is that there's a big difference between barbarians who you can civilize (or who are civilized in their own way, for purposes of this statement it doesn't matter) and who are just happening to be doing some undesirable things, and barbarians who are people who there is no point in dealing with.

If this was intended simply to be a Britain-like setting, I would have more trouble writing the barbarians off as a bad thing (however disreputable, the Saxons are my tribal ancestors).

But you're also going to have the people that want to play something (else)...

And so the question is this, not-so-gentle readers.

What should this be?

There are two basic elements in this world that we have to work with.

1) There are barbarians, and presumably there's a reason they're not as civilized (and that term does mean something, see below) that may or may not be deep and important, but is currently having them as barbarians.

2) There are civilized people, and there's something about civilization that is worth cheering for.

I have a mixture of ideas floating in my head for a setting involving strong elements of, for want of a better way to put it, Faith and Horror.

I seriously would like to tie these things together, but I also want a setting that is actually worth doing something with.

Sure makes Artorius's triumph a hell of a lot more meaningful when you're dealing with some of the truly foul things humanity can conjure up, and not just with people who want to carve a kingdom for themselves out of your kingdom (which, unless deemed bad on principle, is hard to condemn in one group but not another without one group having considerably more moral high ground than just "hey, we can read, write, and build roads.")

It also makes for a much bleaker tone to the tragedy and failure aspect. Having to retreat and maybe have a few farmers killed is one thing. Having the undead pass through...well, let's just say you better not leave your casualties behind.

But that takes it several steps away from Barbarians vs. Defenders and into a whole new setting.

I'm not sure if that kind of setting is worth exploring. One thing I do know...if such exists, I do not want to have elves and dwarves and other friendlies. Or even not-friendlies. Orcs as a mockery of Man to spite the Creator (or something), yes.

Its a thought. I don't know if its a good thought, however.

[violence in the media]

If the game flatly defines the barbarians as evil and immoral from some objective standpoint, you're just creating potential player conflict where you really don't need to.

The problem is, any decision that paints anything as inferior from any objective standpoint in any setting risks some player being upset.

So I'm more concerned with "does it make sense for the barbarians to be evil and immoral (whether that's a result of bad cultural influences or bad racial, in the old sense of that word, traits)

The main reason is that there's a big difference between barbarians who you can civilize (or who are civilized in their own way, for purposes of this statement it doesn't matter) and who are just happening to be doing some undesirable things, and barbarians who are people who there is no point in dealing with.

If this was intended simply to be a Britain-like setting, I would have more trouble writing the barbarians off as a bad thing (however disreputable, the Saxons are my tribal ancestors).

Well, it depends what you're designating as inferior and why you are designating it that way. Explaining why you're doing something a particular way goes a long way towards getting people to accept it, even if they don't totally agree with it.

If these barbarians are soulless simulacrums of men from the realm of shadow, then you can totally pull a Kyle Reese on the players and tell them, "Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

Some players might then say that the premise is stupid, but they will at least accept it for the purposes of the game and not go off os some diplomacy tanget that just gets them continuously stabbed in the face. Or worse, forces the GM to retcon the entire setting premise because he's tired of his players getting stabbed in the face.

But you're also going to have the people that want to play something (else)...

And so the question is this, not-so-gentle readers.

What should this be?

There are two basic elements in this world that we have to work with.

1) There are barbarians, and presumably there's a reason they're not as civilized (and that term does mean something, see below) that may or may not be deep and important, but is currently having them as barbarians.

2) There are civilized people, and there's something about civilization that is worth cheering for.

I have a mixture of ideas floating in my head for a setting involving strong elements of, for want of a better way to put it, Faith and Horror.

I seriously would like to tie these things together, but I also want a setting that is actually worth doing something with.

Maybe the something else is having different varieties of knights, maybe it's having the ability to play a noble savage like in Le Pacte des loupes, maybe it's the ability to play a Druid, Scholar, Missionary, or foreign third party. Maybe the players want to play the Barbarians, but you could save that for a future suppliment and put them on the opposition team, as opposed to barbarians in the king's service.

Also, not everyone is going to jump at the opportunity to be a cheerleader for civilization. Though you could rightfully acknowledge that this game might not be for them then.

Sure makes Artorius's triumph a hell of a lot more meaningful when you're dealing with some of the truly foul things humanity can conjure up, and not just with people who want to carve a kingdom for themselves out of your kingdom (which, unless deemed bad on principle, is hard to condemn in one group but not another without one group having considerably more moral high ground than just "hey, we can read, write, and build roads.")

It also makes for a much bleaker tone to the tragedy and failure aspect. Having to retreat and maybe have a few farmers killed is one thing. Having the undead pass through...well, let's just say you better not leave your casualties behind.

It may be bleaker to have a remorseless enemy like Skynet, the undead, or the Daleks, but then you're just back to the easy moral calculations of "kill them all" because you don't have any other options. You're going to get incinerated/eaten/destroyed whether you fight or not, and there's no point in taking prisoners besides scientific study. Personally, a horde of Mongols are scarier than any horde of undead, because those fuckers could choose to do otherwise, and just don't.

But that takes it several steps away from Barbarians vs. Defenders and into a whole new setting.

I'm not sure if that kind of setting is worth exploring. One thing I do know...if such exists, I do not want to have elves and dwarves and other friendlies. Or even not-friendlies. Orcs as a mockery of Man to spite the Creator (or something), yes.

Its a thought. I don't know if its a good thought, however.

Would you want to have other friendlies at all, or possibly even other neutrals? Or is this a hostile, humanity-against-everything-else style setting? Are the barbarians humans, or are they others?

[Elennsar]

Also, not everyone is going to jump at the opportunity to be a cheerleader for civilization. Though you could rightfully acknowledge that this game might not be for them then.

Its not, so that's not a problem.

Personally, a horde of Mongols are scarier than any horde of undead, because those fuckers could choose to do otherwise, and just don't.

Well, do you -want- to face mortal enemies who are for all intents and purposes capital E evil?

As for easy moral calculations: You still have other things than the undead to deal with, and why are hard moral calculations so freaking superior? What is wrong with the idea that you can say "This is good, this is evil." and not spend ten fething years determinating that you're just a biased observer?

This is a question in regards to the game more than philosophy (worth a thread on its own). Yes, someone who doesn't agree with my specific answers will be bothered. So what? Some who doesn't agree with wanting the game set up around civilization as a good thing will be bothered. Someone who doesn't like the fact you will lose a fair amount of the time will be bothered.

What is so damn beneficial about having morality be a murky mess?

Would you want to have other friendlies at all, or possibly even other neutrals? Or is this a hostile, humanity-against-everything-else style setting? Are the barbarians humans, or are they others?

Humans. Humanity is quite capable of conjuring up more than enough sins and plagues without needing orcs, goblins, trolls, giants, dragons, etc.

However, if monsters are invoked at all, they're a product of humanity.

Mindless hordes of undead that exist as part of some undead realm are not what I want - but having to deal with the fact some humans will pursue power at any price, including disturbing the rest of the dead, is.

So not only do you have to deal with barbarians, who may or may not be someone you can bargain with, but you have to deal with even worse threats.

[violence in the media]

Personally, a horde of Mongols are scarier than any horde of undead, because those fuckers could choose to do otherwise, and just don't.

Well, do you -want- to face mortal enemies who are for all intents and purposes capital E evil?

The beauty and horror of the Mongols is that they are NOT mindless automatons. They may be doing horribly evil things, but they are not bound to it through some mystical programming. There still exists the capacity within any of them for mercy, kindness, and brotherhood.

Because of that capacity, in order to be the "good guys" you cannot frame the conflict in their terms. That being the simple logistics of eliminating those in their way. In that case, every Mongol you must kill is a tragedy, because those guys could have been your comrades in different circumstances.

You don't have these sorts of issues with zombie hordes or implacable robots.

As for easy moral calculations: You still have other things than the undead to deal with, and why are hard moral calculations so freaking superior? What is wrong with the idea that you can say "This is good, this is evil." and not spend ten fething years determinating that you're just a biased observer?

This is a question in regards to the game more than philosophy (worth a thread on its own). Yes, someone who doesn't agree with my specific answers will be bothered. So what? Some who doesn't agree with wanting the game set up around civilization as a good thing will be bothered. Someone who doesn't like the fact you will lose a fair amount of the time will be bothered.

Every group you bother shrinks your potential player base. Bother enough of them and no one gives a fuck about your scribblings.

What is so damn beneficial about having morality be a murky mess?

Because it gives players greater control over determining what is right and wrong in their own games.

[Elennsar]

In that case, every Mongol you must kill is a tragedy, because those guys could have been your comrades in different circumstances.

You don't have these sorts of issues with zombie hordes or implacable robots.

Indeed. The problem is finding how they "could have been your comrades..." while still being monsters (for want of a better term) to deal with.

I'm not saying that can't be done, but it would be quite a feat.

Because it gives players greater control over determining what is right and wrong in their own games.

That's not a good thing unless you want players to have that, instead of have those terms actually mean something in the setting that is part of what you accept as part of the setting.

And personally, I find the idea of having right and wrong solely be determined by what the players want right and wrong to be repulsive (and I'm speaking as a player, not a designer). Instead of being something you aspire to live up to whether you have the strength to or not, you set your own rules and your own level of "good enough".

It works for some people, I'm not one of them.

[violence in the media]

Indeed. The problem is finding how they "could have been your comrades..." while still being monsters (for want of a better term) to deal with.

I'm not saying that can't be done, but it would be quite a feat.

How so? You can give the barbarians any type of real-world reason for conquest and decide whether or not diplomacy and intrigues will be successful in resolving the situation. Can they negotiate? Is there a charismatic leader driving them on? Can he be eliminated or can you corrupt his rivals to work against him? Is it possible for someone to pull some Joseph Smith style mind-control and convert all the barbarians to Mormonism and move them to Utah?

Would you be interested in allowing groups to solve the campaign in ways you never imagined, or are they pretty much all going to have to conform to your vision of proper action?

Because it gives players greater control over determining what is right and wrong in their own games.

That's not a good thing unless you want players to have that, instead of have those terms actually mean something in the setting that is part of what you accept as part of the setting.

And personally, I find the idea of having right and wrong solely be determined by what the players want right and wrong to be repulsive (and I'm speaking as a player, not a designer). Instead of being something you aspire to live up to whether you have the strength to or not, you set your own rules and your own level of "good enough".

It works for some people, I'm not one of them.

How do you propose legislating this morality in a game system? If you've played with other humans at all, you know that some of them are going to ignore your morality and do the expedient thing if it's mechanically sound. If you're giving them a mechanical incentive to behave, then they're not "living up to the ideals" as you want them to. If you just give them a list of right and wrong, then they're just checking off a list to the extent that they see fit. Again, no "living up to ideals" involved. If you make the enemies magically evil, then there's no chance the players can't live up to these ideals. Any action they take to thwart the barbarians is a moral one, as the barbarians are EVIL!

[Elennsar]

How so? You can give the barbarians any type of real-world reason for conquest and decide whether or not diplomacy and intrigues will be successful in resolving the situation. Can they negotiate? Is there a charismatic leader driving them on? Can he be eliminated or can you corrupt his rivals to work against him? Is it possible for someone to pull some Joseph Smith style mind-control and convert all the barbarians to Mormonism and move them to Utah?

I used the word "monsters" for a reason. There are all sorts of reasons they're enemies, but "those who resist (and fail) suffer in ways too terrible to mention." - you're not really going to be upset to see them die.

That's the problem...finding a way that you feel that the barbarians losing is a -good- thing, without it being "kill 'em all, God knows they're not His own."

Would you be interested in allowing groups to solve the campaign in ways you never imagined, or are they pretty much all going to have to conform to your vision of proper action?

Depends on the solution. Personally, I'd like to have at least three possible solutions - the one I "intend", the one I'd be willing to see done, and something else.

Just because "canonically" it was solved one way doesn't mean it had to be done that way.

However, I don't intend to support diplomacy and intrigue as "how to win" nearly as fully - I'm fine with them working, but I'm not fine with them being so superior there's no reason not to do them.

How do you propose legislating this morality in a game system? If you've played with other humans at all, you know that some of them are going to ignore your morality and do the expedient thing if it's mechanically sound.

Which, frankly, is a bad thing. Whether doing the moral thing is important for any reason or not, one should not make IC decisions based on OOC calculations that have nothing to do with how the character would act.

Frankly, the thing is this.

Doing the right thing -is important to do-. Its not because doing the right thing wins the war faster or with less losses, its because your ultimate goal (as the Companions) is to (re)build civilization, justice, etc.

It may be expedient to treat using poison as perfectly valid, but being expedient would actually -hurt- having something worth fighting for.

If you make the enemies magically evil, then there's no chance the players can't live up to these ideals. Any action they take to thwart the barbarians is a moral one, as the barbarians are EVIL!

There are plenty of other challenges than "how many barbarians can you kill".

So you have several choices.

Do you do things the hard way, knowing that it is the right thing to do?

Do you do things the easy way, and hope that the good outweighs the bad?

Do you not care?

Ideally, you pick #1. Saying "But how do you encourage people to do that?"

Well, I would assume that if you actually -care- that it is the right thing to do, then that would matter somewhat.

If you're determined to play this as "what is the mechanically most efficient way to win", you're playing a lot of things, 98.75% acceptable (to borrow a number from Seuss) - but you're not playing the game as it was intended to be played and you would really be better off playing a game where tragedy and failure and hard work are not meant to be important elements.

I don't want to write a game that appeals to the "I want to win" side of gaming. I would like to write a game that makes your victory mean something.

And that is ultimately the thing. Yes, you can be a "pragmatic" individual using whatever means are easiest. That won't produce the best long term outcome.

If you don't care that it meant that peasants will suffer and so on, then me saying you get a lower "score" wouldn't really change that.

If you want to play someone trying to do the right thing because the right thing matters, you will see the game work as is intended to work (as in, as distinct from unintended stuff, which is not necessarily worse, just not an intended consequence).

So what path you take is up to you, within reason (horse archery doesn't -exist- here, though it may exist elsewhere in the broader setting, that broader setting is relevant to nothing in this regard).

A game that has to mechanically bribe people to do otherwise "impractical" actions is not a game I want to play or write.

It may be a game that gets more people to play the "heroic" side, but it won't be a game that does justice to what I want it to do justice to...the people who did and do heroic things not because they get something from it, but because they believed it was worth doing.

Hero points are not just a game construct, they're intended to reflect the fact we get people

fighting sixty airplanes in forty minutes, shooting down five, and surviving. Somehow. Mere math doesn't support that very well.

doing things that ought to be impossible, but somehow happened.

Naturally, part of what they do in game is allow you to ignore bad dice rolls, which is a game thing, but that's not their sole purpose.

If it was, I'd just give people X occasions to reroll until they got a 10 or higher (or whatever) per session.

[violence in the media]

It's just easier to not quote things and address some issues directly. From the way that you speak about your vision for this game, you'd be better off writing a choose-your-own adventure book. Maybe some sort of strategy board game. Shadows over Camelot actually sounds like it has a lot of what you're looking for, though it is lacking any sort of historical simulation component.

On a more serious note, you're trying to create a game that controls the morality and thoughts of the players, not the characters. You simply cannot do that. Not, you should not do that, it is not possible to do.

You're also demanding that people become emotionally invested in a game. The people that do that to the extent you seem to want are the ones that make gamers look bad. You want people to take on this White Knight mentality for a game. It's one thing to get emotionally involved and do the right thing, instead of the easy, convenient, or practical thing, when there are real-life things at stake. It is entirely unreasonable to expect or require that from people defending a pretend civilization from pretend barbarians in an alternate history of King Arthur.

[Elennsar]

On a more serious note, you're trying to create a game that controls the morality and thoughts of the players, not the characters. You simply cannot do that. Not, you should not do that, it is not possible to do.

No, I'm not. I'm making a game where you have to actually say "I do the right thing." with the right thing actually being harder if it is supposed to be harder because doing the right thing is what your character would do (if your character wouldn't, that's another story).

You're also demanding that people become emotionally invested in a game. The people that do that to the extent you seem to want are the ones that make gamers look bad. You want people to take on this White Knight mentality for a game. It's one thing to get emotionally involved and do the right thing, instead of the easy, convenient, or practical thing, when there are real-life things at stake. It is entirely unreasonable to expect or require that from people defending a pretend civilization from pretend barbarians in an alternate history of King Arthur.

And this is why the average "roleplaying game" sucks ass. It actively discourages you from getting immersed in the setting and concerned with whether or not you did the right thing or the wrong thing because that's too...whatever the word or words are.

I want people who are playing White Knights to be doing characters who actually -are- White Knights.

http://princessmaker.maison-otaku.net/secret.htm

Another area is the far upper left desert. You'll find an oasis there sitting in the middle of nowhere (Number 2 on the map). Now if you aren't carrying the Spirit Ring, she'll glance at the lake and gain more sensitivity. If you do have it though, a spirit will pop out of the water and ask your daughter for the ring. If you say yes, she'll thank you and your refinement goes up 50 points. About a year later, her daughter will show up to your doorstep, thanking your daughter, and her sensitivity will go up 100 points, PLUS she'll leave 2000 gold for you. Now if you think about that you only paid 1000 for it in the first place, this definantly is a good deal. If you say NO however... the spirit will curse you for being a wreched human, and you will lose half your sensativity. For example, say you have 999 Sensativity, you'll lose 499 of it. Or even if you have 100, you'll lose 50, etc. It's all just a simple mathmatical equation. Not giving her the ring isn't really a good option. Unlike most give or take situations, just give her the ring for crying out loud.

Bold is mine. That's exactly contrary to what kind of game I want to play or write. Instead of doing something generous because generousity is a good deed and your character does good deeds, and the fact that there's no practical reason why being generous is superior to being nongenerous, you do them because you're better off playing that way.

A game where you get (on a scale of 1-100 either way) +20 Evil alignment (from what you would have otherwise, so if you're at 100 Good you become 80) and +X power (superior to the other options) is not presenting an actual choice, it is saying "Look, you can either mantain something which we actively mock the meaning of, or you can be powerful and be just as good for every purpose you'll ever care about (if there even are any, by the way)."

If you're determined to play this with the emphasis on game (in the term "roleplaying game"), then your victory will be more likely and your character probably more powerful and safer - but also winning a victory where the difference to the kingdom and the people between the so-called defenders and the so-called barbarians winning is pretty meaningless.

If you don't care, then go ahead. If you do care, then your character will have to take genuine risks and make genuine sacrifices and it is genuinely harder.

A strategy board game or a choose your own adventure book would not suit this. Nor will a roleplaying game mindset where having ninjas after you is just something you face anyway, so more ninjas = more likely the rule of too many ninjas comes up.

[MartinHarper]

You're trying to create a game that controls the morality and thoughts of the players, not the characters. You simply cannot do that. Not, you should not do that, it is not possible to do.

What Elennsar could do is create a game where there is a Good path and an Evil path to victory, where Good and Evil are defined by him in black and white terms. The Evil path is significantly easier, and the Good path is significantly more fun, and this is made obvious to the players. Then, if a hundred groups play his game, then some of them will pick the Good path.

In practice nobody will play his game, so the problem is moot.

[Elennsar]

In practice, you are capable of staying out of the thread if you have nothing to say that will be helpful in any way.

If you have something useful that would actually assist in designing it to say, I'd like to hear it.

If you think designing it is something you don't like - that's okay, but it is something I like, and "let's make players feel that being heroes is a good idea because heroes get bonuses" is not desirable. It doesn't support the themes at all.

[MartinHarper]

In practice, you are capable of staying out of the thread if you have nothing to say that will be helpful in any way.

You are free to change the thread title if you don't want me to post. In the meantime, I believe I just posted a practical solution that gives you the behaviour you claim to be looking for, without making "players feel that being heroes is a good idea because heroes get bonuses".

Also:

I'm writing this as someone who enjoys tinkering with settings, not as a GM, so no crew to write for.

This is why I say that nobody will play your game.

[Elennsar]

I don't mind you posting, I mind you sniping.

I don't mind your comment, either - in regards to having two paths, that is.

This is why I say that nobody will play your game.

Right, because no one ever played a game created by someone who wasn't designing it based on how to appeal to players as much as possible.

I'm not interested in selling this and I'm not really interested in convincing other Denners to play, I'm interested in making something that tells a good story well and has good "fluff".

If it meets that criteria, its worth it, whether it ever gets played or not.

[violence in the media]

You're trying to create a game that controls the morality and thoughts of the players, not the characters. You simply cannot do that. Not, you should not do that, it is not possible to do.

What Elennsar could do is create a game where there is a Good path and an Evil path to victory, where Good and Evil are defined by him in black and white terms. The Evil path is significantly easier, and the Good path is significantly more fun, and this is made obvious to the players. Then, if a hundred groups play his game, then some of them will pick the Good path.

In practice nobody will play his game, so the problem is moot.

Even that is non-functional. It appears that Elennsar is arguing that if there is any sort of reward to the players at all, then it invalidates their heroic actions. It feels like we're having the argument about altruism under the cover of a game setting.

[violence in the media]

I'm not interested in selling this and I'm not really interested in convincing other Denners to play, I'm interested in making something that tells a good story well and has good "fluff".

If it meets that criteria, its worth it, whether it ever gets played or not.

Then write a book. Seriously. If you have no concern about whether or not any of the plebeians will want to experience or enjoy your art, then you're on your own.

[Elennsar]

If that is so, it is a mistake (poor wording on my part or a misinterpetation).

What I want are people doing characters doing the right thing because the character would do the right thing - not pressing on because of some rule that makes it easier than stopping to rest, not risking their lives because it gives them more Drama Points, not donating to beggars because having 100 Good alignment gives bonuses...

etc.

This is making being "generous" actually entirely in your best interests (particularly since otherwise the ring is a waste of money):
http://princessmaker.maison-otaku.net/secret.htm

Another area is the far upper left desert. You'll find an oasis there sitting in the middle of nowhere (Number 2 on the map). Now if you aren't carrying the Spirit Ring, she'll glance at the lake and gain more sensitivity. If you do have it though, a spirit will pop out of the water and ask your daughter for the ring. If you say yes, she'll thank you and your refinement goes up 50 points. About a year later, her daughter will show up to your doorstep, thanking your daughter, and her sensitivity will go up 100 points, PLUS she'll leave 2000 gold for you. Now if you think about that you only paid 1000 for it in the first place, this definantly is a good deal. If you say NO however... the spirit will curse you for being a wreched human, and you will lose half your sensativity. For example, say you have 999 Sensativity, you'll lose 499 of it. Or even if you have 100, you'll lose 50, etc. It's all just a simple mathmatical equation. Not giving her the ring isn't really a good option. Unlike most give or take situations, just give her the ring for crying out loud.

Besides, in a setting where defeat and failure and tragedy are important elements of how things work (or don't), the game should not eliminate those by making you benefit from so-called defeats.

Violence: Or design a game that isn't set up so that "how many people can I get to play this"?

I would like to see this played. I would consider it successful whether or not it is...I'm not doing this for money or to convince people to change to play the kind of campaign I want to play.

Having other Denners play this would be nice. It would be a lot nicer to get something that is worth writing than something that everyone plays.

[violence in the media]

If that is so, it is a mistake (poor wording on my part or a misinterpetation).

What I want are people doing characters doing the right thing because the character would do the right thing - not pressing on because of some rule that makes it easier than stopping to rest, not risking their lives because it gives them more Drama Points, not donating to beggars because having 100 Good alignment gives bonuses...

etc.

This is making being "generous" actually entirely in your best interests (particularly since otherwise the ring is a waste of money):
http://princessmaker.maison-otaku.net/secret.htm

Another area is the far upper left desert. You'll find an oasis there sitting in the middle of nowhere (Number 2 on the map). Now if you aren't carrying the Spirit Ring, she'll glance at the lake and gain more sensitivity. If you do have it though, a spirit will pop out of the water and ask your daughter for the ring. If you say yes, she'll thank you and your refinement goes up 50 points. About a year later, her daughter will show up to your doorstep, thanking your daughter, and her sensitivity will go up 100 points, PLUS she'll leave 2000 gold for you. Now if you think about that you only paid 1000 for it in the first place, this definantly is a good deal. If you say NO however... the spirit will curse you for being a wreched human, and you will lose half your sensativity. For example, say you have 999 Sensativity, you'll lose 499 of it. Or even if you have 100, you'll lose 50, etc. It's all just a simple mathmatical equation. Not giving her the ring isn't really a good option. Unlike most give or take situations, just give her the ring for crying out loud.

How would you change your spoiler event? Why is giving this water spirit your ring a Good thing to do? Does the watery tart have some particular need for it?

More later.

[MartinHarper]

You're missing my point. If you're not willing to "eat your own dogfood" by playing your own game with your own friends and acquaintances, then it won't go anywhere. I'm not saying that your game won't be played by everyone. I'm saying it won't be played by anyone. It's good, therefore, that you don't mind whether it gets played.

[Elennsar]

In brief, if you don't give the spirit the ring, the spirit dies, the spring dries up.

Will this ever in a million years affect you? No.

And it is probably appropriate that it increases your Sensitivity (which there are things it is good to have at a high level), assuming that doing a deed in accordance with a trait makes it higher.

It probably, similarly, is appropriate that you lose some for being, well, insensitive.

Now, since until you read the secrets, asked someone or find out in play (because you felt it was the right choice to make because of the reasons the spirit gives you) you don't know that it will benefit you, an event or two like that is fine, particularly if you play honestly.

What is not fine is a game being set up so that your "generous" acts are repaid with interest all the damn time since having people do generous things because its the right thing to do doesn't matter to anyone.

Its sort of "we want people to be optimistic, so we make sure nothing ever goes wrong."

At that point, thinking things will work out isn't optimism. Its just a reliable prediction.

You're missing my point. If you're not willing to "eat your own dogfood" by playing your own game with your own friends and acquaintances, then it won't go anywhere. I'm not saying that your game won't be played by everyone. I'm saying it won't be played by anyone. It's good, therefore, that you don't mind whether it gets played.

I never said I was unwilling or uninterested in playing it - simply that I would consider it successful enough to be worth doing to have it meet the objectives I stated. Whether or not it gets played, not "so it getting played means nothing whatsoever".

Creating and tinkering with and discussing worlds is something I find interesting. That's enough of a purpose to work on this for me, and succeeding in that is enough of a success to feel my time wasn't wasted.

[MartinHarper]

Its sort of "we want people to be optimistic, so we make sure nothing ever goes wrong."

More accurately, it's a game with karma (or the equivalent concept in the religion of your choice).

[Leress]

I used the word "monsters" for a reason. There are all sorts of reasons they're enemies, but "those who resist (and fail) suffer in ways too terrible to mention." - you're not really going to be upset to see them die.

Okay

That's the problem...finding a way that you feel that the barbarians losing is a -good- thing, without it being "kill 'em all, God knows they're not His own."

I don't know maybe I succeed in drive back the invasion.

Depends on the solution. Personally, I'd like to have at least three possible solutions - the one I "intend", the one I'd be willing to see done, and something else.

Just because "canonically" it was solved one way doesn't mean it had to be done that way.

However, I don't intend to support diplomacy and intrigue as "how to win" nearly as fully - I'm fine with them working, but I'm not fine with them being so superior there's no reason not to do them.

The way you describe how combat works I would still use those options because I don't feel like dieing and if I can get the intended goal without using my blade I will do so.

Which, frankly, is a bad thing. Whether doing the moral thing is important for any reason or not, one should not make IC decisions based on OOC calculations that have nothing to do with how the character would act.

Since that is up to the players you really can't codify that.

Frankly, the thing is this.

Doing the right thing -is important to do-. Its not because doing the right thing wins the war faster or with less losses, its because your ultimate goal (as the Companions) is to (re)build civilization, justice, etc.

That makes little sense, winning the war faster makes it easier to rebuild/build civilization and more effectively dispense justice.

It may be expedient to treat using poison as perfectly valid, but being expedient would actually -hurt- having something worth fighting for.

No it doesn't, unless it part of my code it is very valid way of doing since apparent I don't care if they die.

There are plenty of other challenges than "how many barbarians can you kill".

So you have several choices.

Do you do things the hard way, knowing that it is the right thing to do?

Do you do things the easy way, and hope that the good outweighs the bad?

Do you not care?

Ideally, you pick #1. Saying "But how do you encourage people to do that?"

Well, I would assume that if you actually -care- that it is the right thing to do, then that would matter somewhat.

If you're determined to play this as "what is the mechanically most efficient way to win", you're playing a lot of things, 98.75% acceptable (to borrow a number from Seuss) - but you're not playing the game as it was intended to be played and you would really be better off playing a game where tragedy and failure and hard work are not meant to be important elements.

I don't want to write a game that appeals to the "I want to win" side of gaming. I would like to write a game that makes your victory mean something.

Any game that is made people want to win. Winning is it's own reward and if I do it quicker than all the better.

And that is ultimately the thing. Yes, you can be a "pragmatic" individual using whatever means are easiest. That won't produce the best long term outcome.

That all depends sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

If you don't care that it meant that peasants will suffer and so on, then me saying you get a lower "score" wouldn't really change that.

True

If you want to play someone trying to do the right thing because the right thing matters, you will see the game work as is intended to work (as in, as distinct from unintended stuff, which is not necessarily worse, just not an intended consequence).

Okay

So what path you take is up to you, within reason (horse archery doesn't -exist- here, though it may exist elsewhere in the broader setting, that broader setting is relevant to nothing in this regard).

okay

A game that has to mechanically bribe people to do otherwise "impractical" actions is not a game I want to play or write.

Fair enough

It may be a game that gets more people to play the "heroic" side, but it won't be a game that does justice to what I want it to do justice to...the people who did and do heroic things not because they get something from it, but because they believed it was worth doing.

They still get something from it...being heroic. You can't mechanically put that in a game. You can only make that an option

Hero points are not just a game construct, they're intended to reflect the fact we get people

fighting sixty airplanes in forty minutes, shooting down five, and surviving. Somehow. Mere math doesn't support that very well.

doing things that ought to be impossible, but somehow happened.

That contradicts what you said about making it more rewarding to doing heroic things. Also you can't have math support that as frequently as you want it too.

Naturally, part of what they do in game is allow you to ignore bad dice rolls, which is a game thing, but that's not their sole purpose.

If it was, I'd just give people X occasions to reroll until they got a 10 or higher (or whatever) per session.

Then what would Hero/Drama points do exactly? How influential are they to the character? Do they work towards make the character better?

[Elennsar]

More accurately, it's a game with karma (or the equivalent concept in the religion of your choice).

Karma carried too far makes you wonder why anyone would choose the selfish option, because not only is it morally wrong, it is actively counterproductive to their goals here and now.

'tis the reason my religion tends to involve mortal agents in this life and anything beyond that in the next.

But this is not the place for a theological discussion...the comment on optimism is just on the idea that you always get rewarded.

The way you describe how combat works I would still use those options because I don't feel like dieing and if I can get the intended goal without using my blade I will do so.

And to the extent that's a reasonable decision (after all, you shouldn't want to die as a character), I am in favor of it being supported...but I am very much against the "I use diplomacy and never fight." being viable.

There are several reasons for that, but I very much do not want that to be the best choice.

That makes little sense, winning the war faster makes it easier to rebuild/build civilization and more effectively dispense justice.

&

No it doesn't, unless it part of my code it is very valid way of doing since apparent I don't care if they die.

If you don't care about being no better than the barbarians, go ahead and treat 'em as monsters to be slaughtered and use poison and treachery and backstab and so on, end of story.

If you want to build something founded on being better, you are going to hvae to be better than that.

Any game that is made people want to win. Winning is it's own reward and if I do it quicker than all the better.

And if that's enough of a reward, fine. You will not get peace, justice, and goodness from picking to do very nasty things and claiming they were necessary - it is possible (just difficult) to win honorably.

If you want to win and are willing to be as bad as what you claim to fight to win, you can win. Congradulations, you're as bad as what you claim to fight. Does that matter to you? Maybe. "Canonically", it did. However, the so-called historical outcome is not the "do this or else" outcome...its the -desired- outcome, but that's me be the kind of person who desires that.

That all depends sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

Sometimes. But when you're willing to do "whatever is necessary" without qualm or hestiation, insisting that you can then turn around and do Justice, Peace, Civilization, Order, etc. as good things is...pushing things.

Naturally, there are going to be times you're faced with hard choices and what would be actually able to work and what would be ideal are in conflict, and you shouldn't feel obligated to lose. But you should (if you want the outcome of the ideals) live up to the ideals as far as -is- possible.

That contradicts what you said about making it more rewarding to doing heroic things. Also you can't have math support that as frequently as you want it too.

I'm against a game making it so that being able to do that -as a rule- is written into the system. Having it be possible with something really costly (blow all your hero points at once and accept them not recharging for twice as long or something) that may well still get you killed is desirable - it wasn't -impossible- for that to be done, and I would like to make it so that you're not dependent on 20 20 20 20 20 20 or something because clearly "luck" alone didn't do it. As stated, mere math doesn't support those things happening, and I am perfectly okay with that - I don't want to represent those things as doable with "roll 3d6+stuff vs. TN" and just set a high TN. That's not doing justice to them.

Then what would Hero/Drama points do exactly? How influential are they to the character? Do they work towards make the character better?

I am not sure.

Ultimately, if you want to play this as a pragmatist who doesn't care whether his options are moral, immoral, or whatever, then you are probably not going to get the most out of a game designed around the struggle of those who do care about that sort of thing (however much living up to it in itself is a struggle all of its own) and I make no appologies for that.

If there's no appeal in "the more arduous the struggle, the more glorious the triumph", then I would really have to advise not playing a game -about- an arduous struggle.

Its that simple.

[Leress]

Sorry my mistake I meant that math can support what you had in the spoilers box.

If you don't care about being no better than the barbarians, go ahead and treat 'em as monsters to be slaughtered and use poison and treachery and backstab and so on, end of story.

I remind you that it was you who said to treat the barbarians as such.

If you want to build something founded on being better, you are going to hvae to be better than that.

Not really, killing is killing no matter how much you want to dress it up with things like honor and justice.

And to the extent that's a reasonable decision (after all, you shouldn't want to die as a character), I am in favor of it being supported...but I am very much against the "I use diplomacy and never fight." being viable. There are several reasons for that, but I very much do not want that to be the best choice.

Why not? Fighting should be a last resort not the first.

And if that's enough of a reward, fine. You will not get peace, justice, and goodness from picking to do very nasty things and claiming they were necessary - it is possible (just difficult) to win honorably.

what exactly is your definition of honorable because that can vary from person to person.

If you want to win and are willing to be as bad as what you claim to fight to win, you can win. Congradulations, you're as bad as what you claim to fight. Does that matter to you? Maybe. "Canonically", it did. However, the so-called historical outcome is not the "do this or else" outcome...its the -desired- outcome, but that's me be the kind of person who desires that.

I would most likely do the "nasty" stuff as a last resort anyway. If I have to fight it damn sure won't be "honorably"

Sometimes. But when you're willing to do "whatever is necessary" without qualm or hestiation, insisting that you can then turn around and do Justice, Peace, Civilization, Order, etc. as good things is...pushing things.

Not really, if I have to fight it would be to defend my homeland. Since I am using that as a last resort, I would go all out and leave no option unused. You seem to be making this plain black and white morality which is even worse than Dnd Alignment.

Naturally, there are going to be times you're faced with hard choices and what would be actually able to work and what would be ideal are in conflict, and you shouldn't feel obligated to lose. But you should (if you want the outcome of the ideals) live up to the ideals as far as -is- possible.

That is pretty much a character/player thing that can't be codified to the rules.

Ultimately, if you want to play this as a pragmatist who doesn't care whether his options are moral, immoral, or whatever, then you are probably not going to get the most out of a game designed around the struggle of those who do care about that sort of thing (however much living up to it in itself is a struggle all of its own) and I make no appologies for that.

The thing is that what you have right now doesn't even encourage a struggle unless it involves stabbing people in the face that don't look like you. You can make a struggle setting wise easily, but you can't ask for struggle and then make characters with hero drama points.

If there's no appeal in "the more arduous the struggle, the more glorious the triumph", then I would really have to advise not playing a game -about- an arduous struggle.

You don't even have that from what I've read so far, it just looks like multiple roads to the same place. Some just made more difficult for no real reason. There is no extra reward. Also since you made the more arduous choices not as viable you undermine that whole statement.

[Elennsar]

Sorry my mistake I meant that math can support what you had in the spoilers box.

Not very well, however.

Managing to make that a one in a million event, period? Yes. Managing to make that normal? Yes. Managing to make it the kind of one in a million event that actually happens for reasons other than mere skill? Not so much.

I remind you that it was you who said to treat the barbarians as such.

The comment on barbarians as monsters is in regards to the Mongols. The Saxons are just nasty enemies. The Mongols, frankly, I wouldn't mind people killing them in droves.

Not really, killing is killing no matter how much you want to dress it up with things like honor and justice.

Yes really. A society that treats violence as perfectly acceptable and which doesn't care if you fight with any pretense towards restraint or not is a society that has knocked one of the pillars of civilization as something that's a distinction from barbarism as a more or less objective judgment.

Why not? Fighting should be a last resort not the first.

Because this is about a war. If you could diplomatically convince the barbarians to go home without any trouble, it would have happened instead.

For one reason and another, its not possible. That's not to say you can't do anything wtih diplomacy, but "solve the situation" - no.

I would most likely do the "nasty" stuff as a last resort anyway. If I have to fight it damn sure won't be "honorably"

Then be prepared for "Well, you are as nasty as any enemy you've fought. Congradulations, you have no moral high ground whatsoever."

If that's okay by you, your call. If that's not okay, then don't fight in a dirty and dishonorable way.

You seem to be making this plain black and white morality which is even worse than Dnd Alignment.

I am making this "your moral decisions actually fucking mean something", and not making it so you can do any amoral thing you like because you can justifiy it and rationalize it.

Murky morality actively punishes taking a stand on principle because there is nothing about any principle that makes giving a shit about it anything other than a sign of neurotic quirks

That is pretty much a character/player thing that can't be codified to the rules.

It can, however, be pointed out that either you live up to the ideals and possibly make something with them or what you do won't reflect the ideals any more than you do, which is to say not at all.

The thing is that what you have right now doesn't even encourage a struggle unless it involves stabbing people in the face that don't look like you. You can make a struggle setting wise easily, but you can't ask for struggle and then make characters with hero drama points.

Sure you can. What you can't do is set things up so that they bypass all your problems so that avoiding getting in the way of an oncoming volley (or whatever) isn't necessary.

You don't even have that from what I've read so far, it just looks like multiple roads to the same place. Some just made more difficult for no real reason. There is no extra reward. Also since you made the more arduous choices not as viable you undermine that whole statement.

Giving an extra reward is saying "Look, you can do this the easy way, and get a little profit, or do this the harder way, and get more profit."

If you want to do something where your goal is to get as rich and successful as you can, and risk is weighed vs. -that- kind of reward, then this is not for you.

This is about people doing something harder because it is better that it be done.

If you don't want to play someone who feels that personal reward is a distant second to doing the right thing, then facing something where you are genuinely challenged to do that and genuinely have a harder time because that is harder to do (if it was easier, it would happen more) is not for you.