|
Post by savagedaddy on Nov 20, 2012 11:41:04 GMT -8
I want to develop mechanics that deal with Humanity in certain Savage Worlds settings; e.g., survival horror. Semantics aside, I'm not interested in imposing 'morality' or 'alignments' on players and forcing them to 'be good guys'.
I want a system that applies mechanics to 'role-playing' for lack of a better description. The Hindrance system is a good jumping off point, but it lacks the scope of what I'm looking for. A character with the Heroic hindrance who allows a NPC to be tortured and killed by another member of his party should suffer some kind of consequence. There is a consequence built into the Blood Thirsty hindrance that imposes a charisma penalty if you're caught killing NPCs by a superior. But shouldn't that affect how your 'party' interacts with you?
Thus, this is my dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by stork on Nov 20, 2012 12:04:34 GMT -8
Just take away a bennie if you feel something conflicts with a characters disads.
I mean ask them first give them a chance to role play something appropriate, like:
"Don't you have "Pacifist" for a hindrance?" Are you going to stand by and let this happen?"
If they cant justify their actions you can talk to them about having a moral crisis. And take away a bennie
If they don't have a specific disad, but you feel they wouldn't do it, ask them to justify it anyway.
Savage Worlds Deluxe states: "Hindrances are more about helping a player figure out who his character is than inflicting a penalty on them" pp 28
Notice it doesn't say you CANT inflict a penalty though. I think the wording is such that its an option if you so choose
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2012 14:17:20 GMT -8
Might I suggest looking at something akin to the "Reason" stat from The Rippers setting book which acts as a tracker of character sanity/humanity with the lower the score going the more detached and closer to insanity they get. Events such as what you describe would warrant a spirit role with a failure subtracting from their "Reason". As the stat gets lower you can start using it as a modifier on the fright table as well as a minus to general spirit checks.
The further detached from their core values, their humanity, the harder it is to become unshaken as well as deal with other things which effect or are effected by their Spirit. You aren't imposing any morality, merely encouraging the players stay in character.
Now for this to work you obviously have to talk with your players and get a good idea of who their characters are and give them a chance to explain anytime they might decide to go a different direction. You have to allow character growth and change after all so there will be times where you might want to let things slide. But then in Savage Worlds the players also have the power to buy off Hindrances to change their characters.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Nov 20, 2012 14:24:22 GMT -8
Hmmmph...
I like Stork's confront the issue at the table. If a PC is ignoring there hindrances when it behooves them then make it known that munchkins die horrible, horrible deaths.
As as far a mechanic the only one I can think of is from Star Wars Saga Edition in which if a character commits an evil act he gets a Dark Side point added to its Dark Side Score. (jedi's can get them other ways, but I'm simplifying)
A single Dark Side point has little effect, but once the total score is equal to Wisdom Stat your PC is now the GMs new Evil NPC.
Now you get rid of Dark Points by spend your Force Points which are similar to Bennies, only you get a limited number of them per level. And some GMs house rule your are only allowed to get rid of only 1 or 2 Dark Points a session or a level.
It might be simpler to snatch a bennie away, but a Dark Bennie or Nega-Bennie might fun.
Few ways I can think it could work.
1. just add a bennie to the GM pile (easy but not very exciting)
2. bad luck bennie. GM spends Nega-Bennie to make player re-roll (I think this mechanic exists somewhere)
3. perhaps cancellation, when the player goes to spend a bennie negate it any spent bennie for that challenge
Just some quick ideas.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Nov 21, 2012 7:02:42 GMT -8
Hmmmph... I like Stork's confront the issue at the table. If a PC is ignoring there hindrances when it behooves them then make it known that munchkins die horrible, horrible deaths. As as far a mechanic the only one I can think of is from Star Wars Saga Edition in which if a character commits an evil act he gets a Dark Side point added to its Dark Side Score. (jedi's can get them other ways, but I'm simplifying) A single Dark Side point has little effect, but once the total score is equal to Wisdom Stat your PC is now the GMs new Evil NPC. Now you get rid of Dark Points by spend your Force Points which are similar to Bennies, only you get a limited number of them per level. And some GMs house rule your are only allowed to get rid of only 1 or 2 Dark Points a session or a level. It might be simpler to snatch a bennie away, but a Dark Bennie or Nega-Bennie might fun. Few ways I can think it could work. 1. just add a bennie to the GM pile (easy but not very exciting) 2. bad luck bennie. GM spends Nega-Bennie to make player re-roll (I think this mechanic exists somewhere) 3. perhaps cancellation, when the player goes to spend a bennie negate it any spent bennie for that challenge Just some quick ideas. Deadlands uses a little bit different bennie mechanic. There are three kinds of bennies in Deadlands white, red and blue. White bennies are normal bennies (the game starts with 20 of these) Red bennies can be used as normal bennies or to add a 1d6 to the roll (game starts with 10 of these) the catch is when a pc uses one the gm gets to draw a bennie from the cup. Blue bennies work like red bennies (5 to start the game) but the gm doesn't get to draw. All of the starting bennies go into a cup at the beginning of the game and every player and the gm draws their requisite number of bennies from the cup. Gm's ignore red or blue bennies we're not allowed to use them. What I have found is that players tend to be very wary of using a red bennie because they know that I will get to draw one as well. Just a thought on the subject of matching bennies. JiB
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Nov 21, 2012 7:08:25 GMT -8
I have to preface this by saying that I have truly awesome players in my games. As I have said before, I could throw a dime on the table and they'd make a game out of it. They truly make my job easy. They are all really good about playing their characters and their disads. So, it's not a problem for me, but I have had that sort of problem in the past.
I start with the carrot approach. Every time someone does something that is specifically in character, or even more particularly they do something in character that causes them a difficulty of some sort, I reward them pointedly and visibly for everyone to see. This encourages everyone to do the same.
If, however, I have someone who just wants to be a Mary Sue, or more particularly wants to ignore their disads, my approach is to bring their disads to them.
I've used the example before of someone taking the disad "Allergic to Strawberries" thinking it will never come up. Well, guess what is going to be in every dish they are served, growing f'ing everywhere they go and I will even find some way to let the bad guys use it as a weapon.
The point being, either the player can play their disads or I can. If I have to do it it's going to be much more unpleasant for them.
Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Nov 21, 2012 8:25:58 GMT -8
I have to preface this by saying that I have truly awesome players in my games. As I have said before, I could throw a dime on the table and they'd make a game out of it. They truly make my job easy. They are all really good about playing their characters and their disads. So, it's not a problem for me, but I have had that sort of problem in the past. I start with the carrot approach. Every time someone does something that is specifically in character, or even more particularly they do something in character that causes them a difficulty of some sort, I reward them pointedly and visibly for everyone to see. This encourages everyone to do the same. If, however, I have someone who just wants to be a Mary Sue, or more particularly wants to ignore their disads, my approach is to bring their disads to them. I've used the example before of someone taking the disad "Allergic to Strawberries" thinking it will never come up. Well, guess what is going to be in every dish they are served, growing f'ing everywhere they go and I will even find some way to let the bad guys use it as a weapon. The point being, either the player can play their disads or I can. If I have to do it it's going to be much more unpleasant for them. Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB I think this combined with Stork's questioning style is the perfect fix to this problem.
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Nov 22, 2012 8:38:04 GMT -8
Oops, I did it again. I was afraid this would happen; words are... h-a-r-d. Although I love the concept of punative bennies and bringing a player's hindrances to their door, I'm not dealing with that issue. Obviously, the example I used painted that picutre. (Stupid, stupid, brain!). tentagil's suggestion about reason from the Ripper's setting is more along the lines of what I want to accomplish with a Humanity Mechanic. Thanks btw, I never would have found it on my own. The idea is to 'simulate' that challenge of balancing the character's values, beliefs, and humanity against the hard choices and stark reality of survival. Do you risk life and limb to go back for someone, or leave them behind because the risk is too great? Does clinging to your religious beliefs endear you to a group, or make you a hindrance to their survival? Do you shoot other survivors on sight to protect your groups existance and resources? How does a character deal with the loss of a loved one? I don't want this mechanic to railroad character decisions. I don't want them to ignore their values or beliefs when it's inconvenient. Morality can be situational and we all rationalize our actions when they conflict with our sense of right or wrong. I also want the tension that comes from doing 'the right thing' instead of the obvious 'smart thing'. Going against your values or the group concessous should have long reaching consequences. Sticking to your values may be good for your mental health, but detrimental to your survival and how the group relates to you. This doesn't mean the players have to be goody two shoes! A blood-thirsty sociopath is ideally suited to the world of survival horror. His problems arise from supressing these urges to fit in with 'moral' characters. Afterall, your chances improve greatly when others have your back. Imagine a system that emulates the social dynamics of the reality television show Survivor. And the humanity mechanic should help reinforce the role-play without feeling like a punishment. Whew! That's why I'm staring blankly at the proverbial drawing board. It's a complex and intricate concept. I'm trying to reinforce Savage Worlds style. My rough thought is to have players pick three values or beliefs that fit thier character concept and assign them a weight/priority. Adhering to their values has a mechanical reward; abandoning their values when it is convenient has a a psychological cost. This should model a character's descent into madness; or their refusal to give up their humanity in the face of overwhelming evil. There would be a secondary benny economy (maybe like the deadlands example provided earlier wiht red white and blue bennies) based on a 'Value Points' exahcnge rate. Player characters could use these bennies for small advantages not addressed by Savage Worlds benny rules (for example, reroll one die, or add +1 to the final result) A GM could then compel a character to follow their value when it applies by offering a benny. If they stand by thier value on the issue they get the benny. If they want to ignore their value and take the easy way out, they spend a benny to deny the compulsion. However, denying a compulsion can cost the player a benny or have serious consiquencies to their Humanity (Secondary Stat ala Reason from Rippers). After paying the benny to deny the compulsion and completing the task at hand, the player must rationalize his behavior to himself or the group and make a Spirit roll with a penalty based the weight of the value ignored. Daryl's primary value is 'Look out for number one'. The player announces that hes is going to drive a mini-van into a loose crowd of ten zombies to rescue an NPC who has information about the location of a food stash. The GM holds up a Red benny (primary value) and says, "That's very heroic, but it's not exactally looking out for number one." THe player says, "Screw it" and hands over a red benny. He rescues the NPC successfully and the GM calls for his 'Rationalization'. The character explains that keeping the group fed is ultimately in his best interests and makes a Spirit roll with a -3 penalty. His Spirit is d8, he rolls a 5 (result = 2). THe failure costs a benny. If he doesn't have anymore bennies, he looses a value point. If the denail was a more serious or dramatic value, say 'Keep Becky safe' and the character saved his own skin, but allowed Becky to be kidnapped in the process. A failed Spirt roll would cost a point of Humanity instead of a benny or value point loss. Thoughts? I know this is a lengthy post, but it's also a complex issue. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Nov 22, 2012 14:00:57 GMT -8
Hmmmm ...
I see where you're going, but I prefer to leave that in the hands of the players, but then again I come from the days before extensive mechanics for everything and so rather eschew that idea.
JiB
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 22, 2012 17:09:24 GMT -8
World of Darkness to the rescue! Duh-da-da-DUH! The Morality mechanic in new World of Darkness is part of the reason why I like the system so much. I think it really captures the struggle to remain a good person while having to do terrible things or make hard choices (such as in survival horror stories), or to represent the callousness that starts to set in after seeing really bad things happen. I don't know if people are familiar with the mechanic, so I'l just briefly (heh, when have I ever been brief?) describe it here. Basically you have a Morality scale that ranges from 1 to 10. 10 is the absolute pinnacle of morality; arguably more human than human. We're talking saints here. People who can do no wrong, and devote their lives to helping people. Jesus would have been Morality 10, to use a religious example. 1 is reserved for serial killers and other truly horrific monsters (not the supernatural kind) who have absolutely no regard for humanity. Mass murder, long, drawn out tortures, really, really horrific stuff. Most people fall around Morality 7 or possibly 6. Police officers and soldiers who've seen a lot of bad shit go down might be 6 or even 5. Hardened criminals might be 5 as well, or even 4 if they're particularly violent. Once you hit 3 you start getting into sociopath territory. Each Morality level has a threshold; something a character at that Morality level won't do. The thresholds have guidelines, as follows: - 10 - Selfish thoughts
- 9 - Minor selfish act (not giving to a charity)
- 8 - Injuring another person (including accidental)
- 7 - Petty theft (pickpocketing)
- 6 - Grand theft (burglary)
- 5 - Intentional mass property damage (arson)
- 4 - Impasioned crime (manslaughter)
- 3 - Planned crime (murder)
- 2 - Repeated crime (serial murder)
- 1 - Utterly heinous acts (mass murder)
Whenever a character does something that crosses their Morality threshold, they have to make a Morality check. If they succeed, there are no ill effects. The character stays at their current Morality; the character convinces themselves they had to do that thing for the greater good and is able to retain their sense of goodness. If they fail the check, they slide one step down the Morality scale; the character becomes a little bit harder, a little bit more insensitive and uncaring. When you fail a Morality check, you then have to make another check to see if you get a derangement. If you pass that check, the character is fine; fail and you develop some sort of mild mental derangement. As an example, in one game my character, at Morality 8, picked up a gun and tried to shoot someone who was running through a crowd slicing people up. Intentionally inflicting harm on someone (regardless of the reason) crosses the Morality 8 threshold, and I had to make a Morality check after shooting the guy. I passed, remained at Morality 8, and my character convinced himself that much much worse things would have happened if he hadn't shot that person. Here's what I love about the Morality system. Things get easier the farther down the scale you slide. If, for example, my character had failed his Morality check and dropped to Morality 7, he wouldn't need to make a Morality check the next time he picked up a gun in self defense. Things got easier for him. In that same game, another player was playing as a hardened cop at Morality 6. His character had no problem shooting "bad people" if given a reason, stealing a wallet off a suspect to get information, or even beating information (mildly) out of a criminal. The lower your Morality, the more you're capable of doing because the less you care about other people. That starts to come across to other people though. The lower your morality, the more difficulty you have interacting with "normal" people. In nWoD this meant limiting the size of your dice pool for social interactions. Morality isn't a one-way trip though. You can raise your Morality score by acting in accordance with the Morality score you want. Say you're at Morality 5 but want to be Morality 7. Well, than you can't do anything worse than accidentally injuring another person for a long time. I forget how long exactly, but there is a formula for it. If a character acts "good" for the required amount of time, their Morality score goes up a step. If they did anything that crossed their target Morality threshold though, they have to start over from scratch. You need to find some way to adapt this to the Savage Worlds system.
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Nov 24, 2012 15:21:56 GMT -8
I appreciate the feedback. One of the things I don't like about WoD is the morality system (sorry). Don't get me wrong, it totally works for their setting and system because you kinda start out, oh I don't know... Fucking Evil?! It takes very narrow moral ideals that they have determined to be 'good' and shoves them down the player's throat.
Like I said earlier, this works for WoD. However, I'm not interested in playing TEN COMMANDMENTS: THE RPG!
I'm looking for a simple mechanical system that recognizes violating your personal ideals, or code of conduct has psychological repercussions. The ideals are not necessarily ethical or moral; e.g., "Look out for number one", "Survival of the fittest' are just as valid as 'Thou Shalt not kill' or 'Never tells a lie'. The character can be 'good' or 'evil'. But violating his personal code of ethics has consequences.
The guy who has 'Look out for number one' isn't necessarily a psychopath. If he agrees to put himself at risk for the sake of the game or the group, he is violating a value which can put him at risk of losing his humanity and going mad.
That's the flavor of Humanity mechanic I'm trying to build. Taking the easy road, compromises your personal identity. Standing by your morals to the detriment of others alienates you. Characters in a survival horror genre need to balance their souls, the needs or others, and horrific events -- or watch their humanity slip away.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Nov 24, 2012 21:04:12 GMT -8
1. Under a new section called "Personal Morality" write down 5 core values (e.g. "Look out for number one" or "Protect the innocent") 2. Any time a character violates one of these, the character makes a Spirit Roll at -1. If the roll fails, the morality is crossed off. 3. For each morality crossed off, there is a cumulative CHA penalty of -1 and a cumulative Spirit Penalty of 1/2 the number crossed off rounded up (because -5 would get insane). 4. At the loss of 2 and 4 core values, you gain a hindrance derangement, which will go away if you gain core values back. 5. You can regain a core value by concentrating on one you have lost (or optionally a new one if the GM wants to let this evolve your character that way) by role playing that emphasizes that core value even to the detriment of your character for the entire session. You then spend a bennie at the end of the session (so you need to have a bennie left) to make a spirit roll. If you make the roll, you get the core value back.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Nov 26, 2012 14:18:30 GMT -8
Somehow, I knew that hyvemynd would find his way here ;-)
To be frank, the Morality system is exactly what I thought immediately as well. Another thing that I really like about it is how versatile it is. I know, I know, versatile is the last thing that you're thinking right now, but hear me out.
In nWoD, Morality only applies to mortals. Vampires get Humanity, which is a different code of ethics. Werewolves get Harmony, which is a different code of ethics. Changelings get Clarity which is... you get the point. So, here's what I would do: have your players create their own scale. Each character will value different things, so you'll end up with several different scales, but where they stand on their respective scale will still be a relative measure of how much they're living up to their ideals. You could use just 5 marks, and set them at d12, d10, d8, d6, d4, if you like, and you'll know that someone who's at a d10 "Morality" (or whatever they choose to call it) is less willing to ditch their ideals than someone who's sitting at a d6. You could then have this apply as a modifier to relevant rolls, such as fear.
That being said, this may not be the simplest or most elegant solution, and I know that it would confuse the hell out of my players! Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Nov 26, 2012 15:29:27 GMT -8
I really appreciate everyone's efforts here! Thank you so much for the input. I feel we're on the edge of a Fast, Furious, Fun Humanity/Morality system.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Nov 26, 2012 17:56:38 GMT -8
Well, it's because you saw mine and know it's awesome, even though I have not run nearly enough Savage Worlds to come up with anything coherent....
|
|