Alternate Core Documents

[Kkat]

Originally I wanted these to replace the Destiny system that I was using in my own game. To sortof be a stand-in for the Fate-points in Dark Heresy, but based on your clinging to heroic ideals rather than just being 'blessed' to be more awesome than others.

I think this might actually be the better way to go. Is any more scaling needed than actually having more Destiny points if you have a higher Integrity? If so, perhaps have a scaling set of things you can spend Destiny on. (Something with a structure like "If you have only this much Integrity, you can spend your points on X; but if you have this much, you can spend it on X or Y. And if you really have a lot of Integrity, you can spend your points on X, Y or Z!")

These bonuses are already allowed only when actively upholding your virtue. It only makes sense to keep them something that gives an inner strength fueled by the power of your own conviction. To give an example, Littlepip fighting for her friends in strenuous circumstances allows her to tap hidden reserves that she may not be able to access otherwise -- In a pure gameplay perspective, the rules don't allow for this kind of surge of strength outside of the new virtue rules. I just absolutely love the idea of having rules to define this sort of thing, which is an iconic element in every traditional story of heroes. It really makes it feel like each character has their own inner potential that comes to life at peaks of character development.

You're right. That is very appealing.

[TyrannisUmbra]

(Something with a structure like "If you have only this much Integrity, you can spend your points on X; but if you have this much, you can spend it on X or Y. And if you really have a lot of Integrity, you can spend your points on X, Y or Z!")

This is a very good idea. It makes it much more interesting to be high Integrity, without actively punishing you for having lower integrity. As long as there's not something like, 10 integrity unlocks a more powerful version of this thing you can do with 6 integrity, then I think it could work very well. Make everything unique and not just a straight upgrade to previous 'tiers'.

[Ilushia]

I think this might actually be the better way to go. Is any more scaling needed than actually having more Destiny points if you have a higher Integrity? If so, perhaps have a scaling set of things you can spend Destiny on. (Something with a structure like "If you have only this much Integrity, you can spend your points on X; but if you have this much, you can spend it on X or Y. And if you really have a lot of Integrity, you can spend your points on X, Y or Z!")

Originally I was going to have number of uses be based on Integrity. I suppose I could go back to that and make the mechanics simpler in terms of what advantages you can get.

The idea of having multiple options as you go up in Integrity seems pretty good as well. I'll give it a little thought, see if I can figure out how I'd want to do that exactly.

These bonuses are already allowed only when actively upholding your virtue. It only makes sense to keep them something that gives an inner strength fueled by the power of your own conviction. To give an example, Littlepip fighting for her friends in strenuous circumstances allows her to tap hidden reserves that she may not be able to access otherwise -- In a pure gameplay perspective, the rules don't allow for this kind of surge of strength outside of the new virtue rules. I just absolutely love the idea of having rules to define this sort of thing, which is an iconic element in every traditional story of heroes. It really makes it feel like each character has their own inner potential that comes to life at peaks of character development.

You're right. That is very appealing.

This is very much a part of what the rules are intended to allow you to do. The idea that those who are heroic have deeper reserves than those who are merely survivors. That in some way clinging to your virtue motivates you to do more and work harder than you would otherwise. It's a very common theme in heroic fantasy, which are at the roots of MLP, and thus FoE.

[Viewing_Glass]

I don't look at the topic for 18 hours and two more pages are added. Now I know how Kkat feels.

Really good discussion that has been hitting some of my primary worries with it. I really think the scaling possibilities that were mentioned are the way to go. I also really like the virtues getting example definitions, as that is really helpful for a GM and a player when creating a character. With that said...

I have created a topic for people to chime in with Virtues of characters they are playing, or have played in the past. Hopefully this helps you in outlining more examples, Ilushia.

Topic is located here.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I've been thinking (and brooding) on this subject for a few days now, and I feel like maybe I should contribute my two bits. As always, feel free to ignore at your discretion, these are just suggestions and ideas.

I think it is important that, when a GM poses a complex moral question to their players, that they don't also answer the question themselves by objectively judging the players right or wrong. There is a danger in doing so that the players will stop considering what they actually think, and just thoughtlessly tag along.

Is the character an avenging angel or a unrepentant murderer, a force for progress or a ruthless dictator, a bastion of honesty or an inflexible fool abandoning his own children, an equal opportunity healer or an enabler of monstrous ponies? The person best suited to answer those questions is the player, followed afterwards by the NPCs that the player interacts with, but regardless of what the NPCs think sometimes doing the right thing requires becoming the villain of the piece.

I might recommend focusing on whether or not the action was successful or unsuccessful, rather than right or wrong. When a character emotionally invests in something and then fails to succeed, whether it was right or wrong, there will be an emotional price to pay. Was LittlePip right to want to save Monterey Jack's life? Nobody has a definitive answer. What we do know is that she suffered for failing.

I'm not entirely sure how anyone would forge these ideas into a set of rules, but I think that as long as you can show the players the in-character consequences of their actions, they will have the opportunity to learn and grow.

[Dance_Explosion]

I have to say honestly Ice you hit the nail on the head.

I can already say that a huge amount of game time in the stallion-grad game has been spent arguing about what is the right thing to do. and that was when karma did not ever DO anything, adding in how integrity will effect a lot of things, and provide massive bonuses will make it all the harder for a party with diverse virtues and ideals harder to play. And i can honestly say that lots of parties do tend to get dragged along one set of PC ideals and morals unless the other players are willing to go "ya good luck with that I'm going to do my thing instead" or just give up several points of valuable integrity to not waste game time fruitlessly arguing about what to do.

Also as some have stated, forcing a player to play a virtuous character based on a one word [which is entirely possible for them to not know what their virtue even IS at the start of game] by dangling some potentially massive bonuses seems like a bad thing to me. The feeling that a player/pony is ONLY doing something because it gives them bonuses doesn't seem right for a system proposed to "make all players play their virtues like its the most important thing about their characters" when, right now, its the least important thing 90% of the time.

Is it possible for a pony to loose their virtue and gain a new one even? It's very possible character growth for a pony to hit a low end, and find that the virtue they thought they had was in fact not right. If you want everyone to simply play a hero for bonuses then yes its a fine system that will work well as long as DM's and players manage to nail out exactly what they consider is virtues for themselves and are willing to split the party at any opportunity to avoid loosing any of that tasty virtue points.

[Ametros]

Is it possible for a pony to loose their virtue and gain a new one even? It's very possible character growth for a pony to hit a low end, and find that the virtue they thought they had was in fact not right. If you want everyone to simply play a hero for bonuses then yes its a fine system that will work well as long as DM's and players manage to nail out exactly what they consider is virtues for themselves and are willing to split the party at any opportunity to avoid loosing any of that tasty virtue points.

I find that an interesting point. Rather than the original idea of having a PC without integrity for 3 sessions become unplayable (as originally postulated), perhaps force them to choose a new virtue at that point - a virtue that may or may not be based upon actions taken during the depraved period? As Dance_Explosion pointed it, it adds potential for growth which seems to me would only add to the systems efforts to add to RP, while also adding a bit of flexibility to the system by meaning that virtues aren't set in stone. If a player chose a 'poor' virtue that turns out to not be fun for them, they have the option of developing their character in another direction.

[Ilushia]

Rules for Virtues have been updated a bit. Redid the rules for Effort pretty significantly after Kkat's suggestions and a lot of people being unhappy how big the bonuses were. Gave more examples of Connections which are hopefully more in-line with what they should be. Effort changes are pretty big, changing the rewards for using it and how you regenerate it. Considering changing how much of it you have depending on your Integrity as well.

Is it possible for a pony to loose their virtue and gain a new one even? It's very possible character growth for a pony to hit a low end, and find that the virtue they thought they had was in fact not right. If you want everyone to simply play a hero for bonuses then yes its a fine system that will work well as long as DM's and players manage to nail out exactly what they consider is virtues for themselves and are willing to split the party at any opportunity to avoid loosing any of that tasty virtue points.

I find that an interesting point. Rather than the original idea of having a PC without integrity for 3 sessions become unplayable (as originally postulated), perhaps force them to choose a new virtue at that point - a virtue that may or may not be based upon actions taken during the depraved period? As Dance_Explosion pointed it, it adds potential for growth which seems to me would only add to the systems efforts to add to RP, while also adding a bit of flexibility to the system by meaning that virtues aren't set in stone. If a player chose a 'poor' virtue that turns out to not be fun for them, they have the option of developing their character in another direction.

I considered something like that. But I don't really want to make losing all your Integrity feel that trivial in some senses. The setting says that some heroes fall from the weight of the wasteland and cease to be heroes, retiring or otherwise losing their grip on what made them want to make the world a better place. While the idea of being able to change Virtues makes some sense, it also feels like that particular way to do it would remove some of what the system does in regards to the world at large. That fear of losing yourself and becoming no better than a raider or the like is, to me, an important part of the setting.

[TyrannisUmbra]

Have a quick Virtue page I added to my personal version of the character sheet.

[Thanqol]

It fell under the rug a few arguments back, but there was a suggestion that I should work on buffalo shamanism. Is that still a thing? I've got enough time to theorycraft a subsystem on the topic.