Post/Author/DateTime	Post
elliott20 03-20-08, 10:18 AM	I've been playing Burning Empires for a bit lately, and one of the things I really liked was how the system doesn't enforcing roleplaying, but it encourages it by rewarding players for doing it. Upon looking over some of the D&D mechanics, I realized that you actually CAN do it for D&D if people are willing to give it a whirl. To make this work though, we need to set down some basic concepts: Beliefs: These are things you believe that will lead you to act in a certain way. Something to lines of "I believe all Orcs are evil, so I will exterminate all Orcs" is an example of a belief. In BE, playing towards a belief gets you a thing called a fate point (which can modify your die rolls) and actually resolving a belief can earn you a deeds point (a fate point that can significantly modify your die roll). Instincts: these are things your character will always do automatically. i.e. "always carry a weapon" or "shoot first, ask questions later". The main usage of instincts is to 1. identify and characterize your characters behavior in certain situations and 2. gain fate points with them. In BE, defying an instinct or obeying it when you know it will get you into trouble will net you a fate point. So if your instinct "always strip search someone" could end up getting you a bunch of fate points, because obeying it could get you in trouble A LOT. What are fate points? Fate points are basically like "hero points". In BE you use them to either modify a roll, re-roll a failure, or give yourself a bonus to a roll. Fundamentally, this needs to be reworked for D&D. But the idea here is that these are points you use for crucial encounters. Earning them in BE is restricted to sessions and you can only earn a certain amount of points per session. This basically means you're constantly working towards your goal and you're constantly getting yourself in trouble through your instincts. I have more ideas but I want to see how receptive people are towards these concepts in rough draft form.
Kraik 03-20-08, 02:00 PM	i kinda like this idea, though i don't see why getting yourself into trouble is such a big thing? I think that each character should have another thing called a goal, and should only gain these 'fate points' (may need a to be renamed for DnD) by working towards this goal, whether it be "exterminate all Orcs" or "Finding my long lost childhood companion" The overall idea is a good one and i'd like to see what other ideas you have -Kraik
elliott20 03-20-08, 02:39 PM	well, getting yourself into trouble is not really the best idea. But the fact of the matter is, D&D players have a tendency to take the course of action that is the most calculated and most sound at ALL times, which, in my opinion makes for bad heroic tales. Allowing yourself to get into trouble on account of your instincts, knowing that it's not the best idea, however, can be. Look at Han Solo, the man probably fails as much as he succeeds and often, his actions are not calculated, just based on his gut. That's what instincts are meant to represent, your characters gut reaction to certain situations. Belief as written, is pretty much goals, just worded slightly differently since it ties itself to your characters beliefs and can be used as a reflection of how your character thinks. It is a very useful roleplaying tool, if used correctly. But for mechanical purposes, beliefs and goals are essentially interchangeable, because both will lead to actions that the character will perform. The one weakness with this though, is when people write self-preservation characters. Characters with beliefs like "I will always look out for number one" or "I will always save myself" will always run away from danger and not take on any risks, which in turn means they basically need to be PUSHED into action, which is not fun for any GM. So, when using this system, you have to keep this in mind. We'll call these points you earn "Quest Points" then, just to fit the flavor a little better. Here's how it works: Every character starts with a certain number of QP decided by the GM. (I'd say no more than 4-5 to start) At creation, every character comes up with 3 beliefs (or goals) and 3 instincts. At the end of the game session, the players and GM will go over each player's performance by examining people believe they've acted upon their beliefs (or goals, if you prefer) and instincts. You gain ONE QP for each belief you worked towards this session. You can only gain one QP from one belief per session. (or every half if you feel it appropriate) So, this way, you can't just spam the same belief to get hundreds of QP in one session. If the players and GM believe that the player has taken this belief to the next level and has played it out interestingly, they can give him an extra bonus QP for it. The same works for instincts. Each instinct that you use to get yourself trouble (or deliberately not used, knowing that you're gonna get in trouble for it) gets you a QP as well. Then we move onto the next portion, resolving beliefs. If a character's goal/belief has been resolved through gameplay, (finally avenging your father's killer, finally getting that coveted magic item) you gain 4 QPs for this. When this happens, the player must then write in a new belief in place of the old one, signifying their character's mental growth as well. In the case that a player feels a belief or instinct is just not working out very well (in that it hasn't really done anything for the player in a while) or is just not fun to play, the player can ask the table to allow him/her to change that belief or instinct. If the table thinks it's okay, the player may go ahead and change the belief/instinct to something he feels would see more usage. However, the player does not receive any QP for this belief change. how spells interact with beliefs - any spell/power that can change a character's alignment/alter their memory/change their personality/alters their disposition can also be used to change a character's belief or instinct. The character is entitled to any saves/resistance just they normally should. If the change is temporary, so is the belief change. What do QPs do? - You may apply 1 QP prior to a roll to give it a +1 unnamed bonus to any one roll. - You may spend 4 QP to re-roll a botched roll. - You may spend 8 QP to just declare that you roll a 20 or max roll on the die. (we can play with the numbers as we go)
Kraik 03-20-08, 04:05 PM	Wow, thats shaped up extremely nicely and i like QP, it fits nicely with the theme. I really like the idea and after you explaining a few things to me, i may add it to my game. It seems well thought out and does well to reward roleplaying because some DM's (myself included) just sometimes forget about giving Exp for roleplaying. I really like the 3 beliefs and 3 instincts too, having 3 of each constantly always gives players something to strive for as well as fleshes them out a bit more. This will also be good for anybody who is no good at doing character backgrounds and personalities because it's simple, and shows what the character is aiming towards. May i applaud you for this, it's very good and i may be using it once it is done :D -Kraik
elliott20 03-20-08, 05:28 PM	well, the system is taken directly from Burning Empires, so most of the conceptual stuff has already been taken care of. I just adopted it after reading up on it a little bit. Another note on beliefs: do not forget, any time a belief is changed in some way, this is a pretty momentous situation. I would suggest such changes to coincide with either leveling up, alignment changes, or some other mechanic changes within the game to help reflect this change in philosophy. But let me know how it all works out. I'm not running a D&D campaign at the moment so I won't be able to play test it. Consequences, stakes and social encounters In D&D the consequences of ones actions are often not decided by the player, but by the GM. This is true in terms of alignment changes, combat, and just about every other action that takes place in game. The upside of this is that the player never really knows what to expect. The downside is that the player sometimes is subjected to entirely to the arbitrary whims of the GM. In most cases, the way consequences are decided are as follows: 1. Players initiates an action 2. GM decides the resolution mechanic of the action, and the consequence (if the consequences were not pre-written by the game) 3. resolve action 4. player receives consequences of action. In this model, the player, as you noticed, doesn't really have narrative control over his failure or even his own success. the new model here introduces the concept of "stakes", that is, what is on the line here. 1. play proceeds that the player and GM feels they need to enter into a conflict 2. GM and Player decide what it is they want to get out of the conflict. (In essence, the winner gets what they want, the loser doesn't) 3. GM and player discusses and negotiates out of character the stakes. 4. If either party feels the stakes are not worth the struggle, they can walk away from the conflict, and not pursue it any further. If, however, they agree on the stakes, the party enter into the conflict with their stakes in place. 5. resolve conflict 6. winner of the conflict gets their desired "stakes". The loser, depending upon their performance, is either entitled to a compromise (if they did well) or nothing at all (if they didn't do so well and got bulldozed). This, of course, requires that both parties honor the stakes they agreed to. what effect does this have? well, it can bring consequences to a character's actions. Consequences, good or bad, almost always drive the story forward. This keeps action flowing and keeps the game moving forward. This also has the consequence that if bad things happen to a players character, they cannot complain as they have agreed to the terms prior to entering the conflict. This means the players will be more likely to roll with whatever penalty.
elliott20 03-24-08, 01:46 PM	Pulling it together: using the Belief system to help play a paladin one of the most controversial figures within the D&D system is the paladin. ****-retentive zealots or chivalrous icons of good? When you mechanically force a character to maintain an LG alignment at all times, but then contrast that with people's inability to agree on what is LG necessarily, you have a character that often faces moral challenges with substatially different measuring standards. The result? players will often find themselves arguing with the GM over what is LG, what does paladinhood entail, and should they fail to be convincing to the GM, they face actual, mechanical penalties that can severely cripple their character. (if not outright break them) What I have come to believe, over the course of my RPGing years, is that character development should primarily be driven by the player. It should not be simply selected by the whim of the GM alone. This is the core problem of the paladin. The GM must create a moral standard for the player, assume they agree with him, and then punish the player if they cannot, for some reason, follow this code that they cannot agree on. The belief system, if used properly, can actually help alleviate this issue. (Arguably, the belief system could even do-away with alignment all together. But D&D is too heavily mechanically hinged on alignment to do that without a giant overhaul) Consider that a paladin, with his 3 beliefs, writes 2 of them specifically towards his own spiritual development as a paladin, and writes 3 of his instincts to conform to paladin code. Now, the player is REWARDED for playing his paladin to his alignment. Every time he gets himself in trouble for following a paladin code, quest point. Every time he works towards his paladin goals, quest point. And on top of this, his paladin role is defined by him, and thus will see more consistency throughout gameplay. In my experience, when you want to foster a certain behavior in someone, it is far more effective to reward them for doing it than punishing them for not doing it. This is what I mean. Let us now also consider how this can work with a fallen paladin. In essence, we're talking about a paladin who has lost his belief. Hey, how about that, we already have belief structures set up. You want a fallen paladin? re-write one of his beliefs to justify the fall. That way, sure, he might have lost his paladinhood, but you know what, you also know what caused him to lose it in the first place, and you can work towards regaining it through whatever plotline. Now, obviously, most players are not going to willingly lose their belief just because mechanically it's just not a very sound decision. This is where you can pull in the previous social conflict model. With beliefs set in place, you can use that drive conflicts and the "stakes" within conflicts. When the GM felt appropriate, he can suggest that the stakes of this conflict is, "if the player loses this conflict, be it combat or social, he loses his paladinhood". If the player agrees to this, it means the player feels this conflict is important enough for his character to risk his paladinhood for. (and if you do your job right creating your beliefs, it damn well should.) And should the player lose this conflict, he needs to honor the deal he made with the GM, change his beliefs to reflect it, and lose his paladinhood. But hey, no worries. With the right beliefs in place, he knows what he needs to focus on to regain his belief and grace! And plus, if he resolves that belief, he'll gain more quest points too! tell me that kind of story doesn't inspire you just a little?