Roleplaying Mechanics - The Value Test [Mechanics for Roleplaying instead of no mechanics]

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
Characters have a set of Values that enhance who they are, while guiding their actions mechanically - they gain XP for aligning with these ideals, or growing and changing.
That's impressively short! I don't know that role-playing needs "mechanical" guidance. Sounds like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book, more than an RPG.

It sounds like characters get XP regardless of what happens. If that's the case, you don't really need rules for it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Thank you very much for reading!

(As an example, here is the list of games I have found that attempt to do something similar: Avatar Legends, Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, Masks, Monsterhearts, Burning Wheel/Mouseguard/Torchbearer, Heart/Spire, Worlds/Chronicles of Darkness with Vampires, Cortex Prime, Wandering Heroes of Ogre gate, Exalted, L5R 1-4e, Legends of the Wulin, some of the Year Zero Engine games, Hillfolk, Genesys, Unkown Armies, Heart/Spire with their Beat system, Shadows of Yesterday/Ladyblackbird's Keys, Passions from Runequest/Mythras, and my personal favorite - Riddle of Steel. I think that all of these have some great ideas, but they honestly aren't able to do what I'd like them to do).

Gong to respond to the OP when I have more time, but saw Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate mentioned, and as I am one of the designers, I was curious what aspect of the system you felt was connected to the OP
 

Gong to respond to the OP when I have more time, but saw Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate mentioned, and as I am one of the designers, I was curious what aspect of the system you felt was connected to the OP
So, I am gonna be super awkward here - I actually meant to put in Legends of the Wulin, and I mixed up the games (-‿-") - but Ogre Gate does have the Flaws system with actual mechanical implementations, which is similar-ish, which explains why I mixed them up lol. Cowardly as a Flaw is a great example of what I'd like to see more games do.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
So, I am gonna be super awkward here - I actually meant to put in Legends of the Wulin, and I mixed up the games (-‿-") - but Ogre Gate does have the Flaws system with actual mechanical implementations, which is similar-ish, which explains why I mixed them up lol. Cowardly as a Flaw is a great example of what I'd like to see more games do.

Lol. No worries. I was actually kind of confused to see it on the list so that makes sense
 

aramis erak

Legend
5 is probably too few; Pendragon's 12, not counting passions, are often judged a problem by players, rather than a benefit.

Based upon the synopsis, not the file, since I'm reticent to follow links...
It's unclear if your 5 labels are tied to the percentages. If not, it's a layer too much complexity.

The very inclusion of such mechanics is a massive impediment to getting to table. Pendragon gets away with it for genre enforcement reasons, and even has a weasel clause. Fading suns, likewise.

It's a mechanical option that will massively reduce the potential sales base once known, and reduce the player base more. So your goal (home game vs sale) is a major factor. For a home game, if the labels and percentiles are different expressions of the same scale? doable. A game for sale? Many will hard pass immediately...
 

pemerton

Legend
@PerfectPathways

I read your doc. The system lenses that influence how I look at it are Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and Marvel Heroic RP (plenty of play experience): The Dying Earth (Pelgrane version) and Wuthering Heights (a bit of play experience); and The Riddle of Steel and Pendragon (no play experience, but conceptual familiarity).

The presentation could be clearer. There is repetition (esp on pp 2 and 3), and I would suggest replacing the narrative paragraph structure with a dot point structure - even if you ultimately don't like this as a way of presenting your rule, going through this structure in your drafting will help you cut repetition and establish clarity in respect of your procedures.

The mechanic itself lost me in a few places. I gather there is a "roll under" component to tests, as well as the comparison of success levels in an opposed test. How are ties resolved? (Sorry if I missed this, but maybe you can take that as an indicator of how the presentation could be clearer.)

More importantly, when are value tests called for? I saw two statements of this:

Page 2: During gameplay, Characters will face moments of internal, and external conflict that challenge their Values. These moments trigger a special type of Test called a Value Test. Value Tests occur when a Character must choose between conflicting approaches to a problem, an internal conflict arises, the GM deems it appropriate, or if the player recognizes a moment of significant moral or ethical weight. The GM will most often call for these, but a Player can ask for one as well.

Page 3: During gameplay, Characters with Values will face moments of internal conflict - these may be prompted from external events, upon reflection of past events, or any number of situations. These moments trigger a special type of Test, called a Value Test. Value Tests occur when a Character must choose between conflicting approaches to a problem, an internal conflict arises, the GM deems it appropriate, or if the player recognizes a moment of significant moral or ethical weight. The GM will most often call for these, but a Player can ask for one as well. A Value Test can also be triggered without any conflict, to spur the Character forward - this is resolved like a Value Test, but it has a few key differences.​

I think it would be useful to have greater clarity in respect of who gets to decide there's a conflict, and also in respect of what happens if the player disagrees with the GM's reading of their PC.

I also think that the statement of actions probably needs to be thought of in relation to the broader context of the game's approach to action resolution. For instance, is I turn around and return home a permissible statement of an action? In BW probably yes; in D&D probably no (except perhaps in 4e, to be resolved as a skill challenge).

It wasn't clear to me what the point of the Weak, Moderate, Strong and Defining descriptors is. Do these just correlate to percentage ratings? Do they have some other meaning? Can I have a Weak value rated at 90%? EDIT: I just found the chart that explains this. I think the chart and descriptors are redundant - just write the XP rule by reference to the percentage thresholds. (You might also want to look at how Wuthering Heights handles sudden changes in personality ratings.)

It also wasn't clear to me how values drop in ratings - the growth rules imply that acting against a value nevertheless increases it (via the "dot" system). It seems that to drop a value requires challenging it, which seems a slightly complex additional subsystem. Whether the growth system will work in play I couldn't say, as it seemed to depend on a lot of factors - how often dots are filled in, how downtime works, how ingame time passes, etc - that I can't really assess in the abstract.

You asked about the general categories of value. Why are Love and Loyalty separate? And why do I have to start with one from each category? What if I want two loyalties (say, I'm loyal to the bishop and loyal to my mother) as well as my love? What if I want to start out not hating anyone or anything? What if I want two hates (I hate Orcs, and my rival Golin - and now I can get at Golin by going along with the Orcs' plan . . .)? I didn't really get this.

Finally, examples: your example said that the bonus is +10, but the chart says +15 for 5 SL, so I got confused by that.

Sorry that the above is mostly critical: I'm taking it as a given that you want the system to work more or less as you've set it out and described it in your posts, and I'm reading it taking all that as a given.

If you don't know Wuthering Heights, I strongly recommend looking at it, given how close it is to what you're trying to achieve. Here is an English version (wuthering heights), and another English version (https://www.geocities.ws/soner_du/files/wuther.pdf,); unfortunately the French version, which is a bit more complete, seems to have gone offline. I think Ron Edwards' review of it will also be helpful for you. And here's an actual play report from my own Wuthering Heights play.
 


@PerfectPathways

I read your doc. The system lenses that influence how I look at it are Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and Marvel Heroic RP (plenty of play experience): The Dying Earth (Pelgrane version) and Wuthering Heights (a bit of play experience); and The Riddle of Steel and Pendragon (no play experience, but conceptual familiarity).

The presentation could be clearer. There is repetition (esp on pp 2 and 3), and I would suggest replacing the narrative paragraph structure with a dot point structure - even if you ultimately don't like this as a way of presenting your rule, going through this structure in your drafting will help you cut repetition and establish clarity in respect of your procedures.

The mechanic itself lost me in a few places. I gather there is a "roll under" component to tests, as well as the comparison of success levels in an opposed test. How are ties resolved? (Sorry if I missed this, but maybe you can take that as an indicator of how the presentation could be clearer.)

More importantly, when are value tests called for? I saw two statements of this:

Page 2: During gameplay, Characters will face moments of internal, and external conflict that challenge their Values. These moments trigger a special type of Test called a Value Test. Value Tests occur when a Character must choose between conflicting approaches to a problem, an internal conflict arises, the GM deems it appropriate, or if the player recognizes a moment of significant moral or ethical weight. The GM will most often call for these, but a Player can ask for one as well.​
Page 3: During gameplay, Characters with Values will face moments of internal conflict - these may be prompted from external events, upon reflection of past events, or any number of situations. These moments trigger a special type of Test, called a Value Test. Value Tests occur when a Character must choose between conflicting approaches to a problem, an internal conflict arises, the GM deems it appropriate, or if the player recognizes a moment of significant moral or ethical weight. The GM will most often call for these, but a Player can ask for one as well. A Value Test can also be triggered without any conflict, to spur the Character forward - this is resolved like a Value Test, but it has a few key differences.​

I think it would be useful to have greater clarity in respect of who gets to decide there's a conflict, and also in respect of what happens if the player disagrees with the GM's reading of their PC.

I also think that the statement of actions probably needs to be thought of in relation to the broader context of the game's approach to action resolution. For instance, is I turn around and return home a permissible statement of an action? In BW probably yes; in D&D probably no (except perhaps in 4e, to be resolved as a skill challenge).

It wasn't clear to me what the point of the Weak, Moderate, Strong and Defining descriptors is. Do these just correlate to percentage ratings? Do they have some other meaning? Can I have a Weak value rated at 90%? EDIT: I just found the chart that explains this. I think the chart and descriptors are redundant - just write the XP rule by reference to the percentage thresholds. (You might also want to look at how Wuthering Heights handles sudden changes in personality ratings.)

It also wasn't clear to me how values drop in ratings - the growth rules imply that acting against a value nevertheless increases it (via the "dot" system). It seems that to drop a value requires challenging it, which seems a slightly complex additional subsystem. Whether the growth system will work in play I couldn't say, as it seemed to depend on a lot of factors - how often dots are filled in, how downtime works, how ingame time passes, etc - that I can't really assess in the abstract.

You asked about the general categories of value. Why are Love and Loyalty separate? And why do I have to start with one from each category? What if I want two loyalties (say, I'm loyal to the bishop and loyal to my mother) as well as my love? What if I want to start out not hating anyone or anything? What if I want two hates (I hate Orcs, and my rival Golin - and now I can get at Golin by going along with the Orcs' plan . . .)? I didn't really get this.

Finally, examples: your example said that the bonus is +10, but the chart says +15 for 5 SL, so I got confused by that.

Sorry that the above is mostly critical: I'm taking it as a given that you want the system to work more or less as you've set it out and described it in your posts, and I'm reading it taking all that as a given.

If you don't know Wuthering Heights, I strongly recommend looking at it, given how close it is to what you're trying to achieve. Here is an English version (wuthering heights), and another English version (https://www.geocities.ws/soner_du/files/wuther.pdf,); unfortunately the French version, which is a bit more complete, seems to have gone offline. I think Ron Edwards' review of it will also be helpful for you. And here's an actual play report from my own Wuthering Heights play.

Thank you very much for the heavily involved feedback! It was very constructive - you echoed a lot of my own internal thoughts, and other received feedback. I think I have taken a lot of it into consideration with a more realized, and improved upon subsystem.
One of my own major concerns was when and how to trigger Value Tests, so I kind of handwaved a lot of it - I have since refined it, and put that more into the player's hands.

@PerfectPathways - are you familiar with Me, Myself and Die?
Funnily enough, having watched his recent interview with Black Lodge, and also a lot of his Broken Empire games, it seems like we have somehow stumbled onto basically the same game, just done a bit differently.

@payn @pemerton @Pedantic @aramis erak
Thank you very much for the helpful feedback - I've been hard at work on a revised version that I believe solves the majority of issues, that I think is far better than the current version. I think I could probably include a better tagging system, but I believe it should work quite well.
 
Last edited:

dbm

Savage!
Supporter
I really like some kind of personality mechanics in RPGs, ideally carrot rather than stick. Real human beings are not emotionless beings of perfect will but rather we all have foibles, sore spots or things we are a sucker for, be that a cute face, a fluffy tail or a tasty treat. I like it when characters are induced to have similar flaws by a system but where this is a positive thing rather than a negative at a meta level.

Systems like GURPS give you extra points at character creation for flaws, though the lack or subsequent positive reinforcement makes this one of the weaker implementations in my mind and players are kind of encouraged to minimise their failing. More recent systems like Savage Worlds have a similar ‘bonus creation points’ system but they reinforce that choice by either mechanically enforcing a penalty (e.g. if a character only has one eye they have a penalty to ranged attacks) while if they succumb to a flaw of behaviour they get a Bennie (a meta token) in reward. Systems like Fate give you a meta token (a Fate point, here) if you succumb to a foible expressed as an aspect.

Listening to Trevor Duval talk about his upcoming system Broken Empires, it borrows* some ideas from games like Burning Wheel where characters advance most by striving for their own goals and beliefs, which is supported by the personality mechanism he is implementing. I think that is a really good positive reinforcement for these kind of mechanics and makes the game focus on characters goals and ideals rather than just on getting an ever-bigger stick to whack people with.

* Trevor is very upfront that he has taken his favourite bits from many different systems and is mixing them into a new game with the aim of hitting all his favourite notes.
 
Last edited:

Starfox

Hero
I played quite a lot of 1st edition Pendragon, and what we did after playing around different ways was to award glory based on your value in the trait you let direct your action. So the player always decided, no die rolls, but you get more Glory by playing out a high personality score.

You also got a yearly glory award for exceptional personality scores.

What we did roll for was social interactions - which at the time was mainly seduction, so player Lustful vs target Chaste.

Did this work out? Not really. Extreme personality trait were too encouraged, to the point that characters seemed slightly insane, and we didn't give enough emphasis to chivalric traits. If I tried something like this today, I'd encourage more balanced, sane characters. However, the extreme character do fit in the setting of Pendragon. Just not the kind of roles I prefer to see in games.

However, the part of giving awards for playing out your traits instead of rolls forcing PC actions I still believe in.
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top