Rhadamanthus’s Beliefs and Goals

I think most of what’s here goes without saying but, as discussed, I did a quick schematic of Rhadamanthus’s beliefs and the current goals arising from them (this is as at the end of session 5).

Games in Rise of the Tyrants

Just to record another thing decided last night … there are 3 main games played as relaxation and occasionally gambling:

Dice games – popular amongst the ill-educated and gamblers, there are many different types of game and different types of dice

Galleys – a game much like draughts were players try to encircle their opponents pieces (shaped like galleys). Popular for relaxation more than gambling, played by all ages

Stones – very much like Go, a highly strategic and tactical game popular amongst the edcuated and military types. Rarely gambled upon, but much prestige can be gained and/or lost on a game of Stones …

Money in Rise of the Tyrants

As we discussed last night we are using the standard Mongoose RQ monetary system:

5 Lead Bits = 1 Copper Penny
10 Copper Pennies = 1 Silver Penny
20 Silver Pennies = 1 Gold Ducat

In last night’s session we equated these coins to the following current value:

1 Gold Ducat = ~£200
1 Silver Penny = ~£10
1 Copper Penny = ~£1
1 Lead Bit = ~20p

Ancient Hellenic Calendars

It would appear that there were a variety of regional ancient Hellenic calendars that didn’t conform to one particular standard but I pieced together a suggested calendar for Gela with corresponding Gregorian calendar months if you’re interested.

Summer
1	Panamos	June/July
2	Dalios	July/August
3	Thesmophorios	August/September
Autumn
4	Karneios	September/October
5	Diosthios	October/November
6	Theidaisios	November/December
Winter
7	Peageitnios	December/January
8	Badromios	January/February
9	Sminthios	February/March
Spring
10	Artemitios	March/April
11	Agrianios	April/May
12	Gaikinthios	May/June

Beliefs in Practice

Since the last session I’ve been putting quite a lot of thought into beliefs. In total the guidance from others that I put up in my two previous posts basically recommends that beliefs:

should contain an ideological stance of some sort and should express how that ideological stance drives the character to achieve a particular goal

should vary in scope (e.g. some may be shorter term goals that are stepping stones towards your primary goal)

should be driving your next actions

should change during the course of play

should be tied to the NPCs/relationships and to the situation being tossed out by the GM

This all seems like really good advice but I’ve been finding it a little difficult to put this into practice. From a character perspective I’d say Rhadamanthus’s primary belief would be something like:

I will protect the people I care about, those who have shown me kindness or aided me in times of need. They can always depend on me.

There might also be something about believing that he can’t make up for failing those he cared about but deep down wanting to be redeemed – though where does this fit in?

The thing is I’m not sure that these really meet the criteria stated above and, given the situation in the game right now, I can’t see a way for them to be driving my next actions.

Hmmmm… I started thinking about this and want to make a number of observations to see what you guys think.

To start with, though Rhadamanthus’s primary belief doesn’t really meet the criteria right now, it’s ready and waiting to do so. It’s kind of like a primed trigger waiting to be engaged. It says something like “endanger someone I care about” at which point an immediate goal will emerge.

This got me thinking that to me my character’s ‘beliefs’ and the short-term goals arising from them were slightly different things. I began seeing it more as a belief hierarchy. My character has longer-term beliefs that act to define who he is and flag up to the GM where things ought to be going. As the GM guides the story to trigger these beliefs the more dynamic short-term goals appear and I act to resolve them.

This may not be entirely “player-driven” in the sense that Steven Jarvis was discussing. I can see that there is more onus on the GM than if the goals were already expressed in the beliefs and the players were driving play forward themselves but I think what I’m proposing sits with my own preferred style of play better. It’s probably more “reactive” than “active” play but it’s not passive either. It’s kind of saying where you want the story to go, then waiting for the GM to do it and then reacting to that.

Given that the main objective of beliefs would appear to be flagging up directions of play that will engage the players, I wondered if this could be done OOC to some extent. I’m not proposing replacing beliefs as I think they are an excellent way of describing the characters and getting a handle on what they’re all about. What I’m suggesting is that after each session each player (OOC) could state up to three things that he would like to see in upcoming sessions. For example, right now I might say I’d like to see:

A story where someone we collectively care about (e.g. Philomena, Simonedes) needs our help in some way (either directly or indirectly), thus focusing the characters on a joint goal - this could mean first establishing a new character that we are all invested in (perhaps one of the priestesses from the Temple of Asclepia).

More of Kalliope. Another appearance because I feel there’s some potential there and would like to see how things develop.

More situations that extend the number of NPCs we’re invested in because that makes me feel more invested in the world and opens up more possibilities for the future.

Obviously most of these are in line with my primary belief but as they are OOC there’s more freedom for me to say stuff.

Any thoughts?

PS. When I wrote this, as well as thinking about Rhadamanthus’s beliefs, I was kind of considering the beliefs Tony put out for Thanos (see below). I was thinking that they don’t really have any specific short-term goals either (i.e. the same problem I’m having). So they don’t exactly fit the criteria I posted but they do flag up areas of interest than can be pursued and actually define the character really well. I think they’re excellent ones for Thanos. Nice one Tony!

I am mighty and will never be defeated in battle.

The cult of Agonius is upright and honourable. I will advance my position within the cult to better serve and protect the people of this land.

I was not born a slave and will act with honour in all things according to my station as a free man.

Aristocratic Families of Gela

Ancient Greece had no entitled nobility as such. Instead the aristocratic or upper class consisted of rich families who could trace their lineage back many generations, normally to a God or semi-divine Hero such as Heracles or Achilles. There a few such families in Gela, and any native will have heard of them and will know at least a little of the source of their fortune.

Eurypontid – an ancient family who trace their line back to the founder of Gela, Eurypontus himself. Their fortune rests upon the land they own which is rented out to tenant farmers

Hysanian – new arrivals to Gela, having arrived only a couple of years after the removal of Milos the Unjust, the Hysanians trace their family back to Hysanius, a great hero of an eastern Greek city. Their wealth until recently was founded upon the slave trade

Mylinean – Mylineus was a Hero of Gela who destroyed the pirate fleet that threatened its existence after its foundation. The Mylinean family has a long tradition of public service and until recently owned the Arena. Rumoured to have fallen on hard times …

More will be added as and when necessary

Current Oligarchs

Army Ward
Strategos Parmenio, head of the cult of Agonius
The Arena is currently owned by a consortium, who rotate the Senator position every month

Castle Ward
Garonius of the Mylinean family (Head of the Watch, 3yrs of term left)
Geraznovar Stonefist, Master Mason of the Castle

Temple Ward
Representative of the Temple of Zeus
Representative of the Temple of Poseidon
Nerissa, Head of the cult of Asclepia

Residence Ward
Lord Maloch of the Hysanian family
Cagnius Aquilus Memnus (Roman exile)
Lady Hyacinth of the Eurypontid family

Trades Ward
Mechants Guild Guildmaster
Carpenters guildmaster (Craft Guild)
Carters guildmaster (Professional Guild)

Dock Ward
Harbourmaster (has 1yr of term left)
Stevedores Guild Guildmaster

Senators without names have not been heard of by the players as yet. This list will be updated as changes occur

The Oligarchs of Gela

The city of Gela is ruled by a Senate of 15 Oligarchs. Some are elected, some are appointed and some owe their positions on the council due to the roles they hold within the city outside the senate.

The Senate has ruled Gela for the last 40 years since Gela’s last King – Milos the Unjust – was deposed in a popular uprising lead by the aristocratic families. One Oligarch – Geraznovar Stonefist, Master Mason of the Castle – has been on the Senate since its foundation.

Each oligarch purportedly represents a particular ward of the city, as dictated by their position on the Senate:

Army Ward
Representative of the Temple of Agonius – appointed by the Head of the Temple
Owner of the Arena – whoever owns the Arena

Castle Ward
Head of the Watch – appointed by the other members of the Senate for a term of five years, including the prior Head of the Watch
Master Mason of the Castle – appointed by the Senate

Temple Ward
Representative of the Temple of Zeus – appointed by the Head of the Temple
Representative of the Temple of Poseidon – appointed by Head of the the Temple
Representative of the Temple of Asclepia – appointed by Head of the the Temple

Residence Ward
3 Oligarchs elected by collegiate system of families that live in the ward

Trades Ward
Mechants Guild – Guildmaster
Craft Guild – Guildmaster of one of the recognised crafts guilds, each taking a turn for a year in sequence
Professional Guild – Guildmaster of one of the recognised professions guilds, each taking a turn for a year in sequence

Dock Ward
Harbourmaster – appointed by the Senate for a term of five years, including the previous Harbourmaster
Stevedores Guild – Guildmaster

The Senate is currently at the largest size it has ever been, it has been smaller in its history, but never bigger.

The Senate is divided into 3 political groupings. Although not formal parties, and there is no guarantee that the Senators will follow their party in any particular vote. The parties (with their leader first) are:

‘Religious party’: Agonius, Asclepia, Poseidon, Master Mason, Zeus
‘Guild party’: Merchants, Crafts, Professional & Stevedores guildmasters
‘Aristocratic party’: Senior Residence Ward Senator, 2 Residence Ward Senators, Arena owner, Head of the Watch, Harbourmaster

Any statute or policy needs majority support to pass the Senate. With the parties split 6 – 5 – 4, nothing gets passed without some form of compromise …

More on Beliefs

Here’s some more food for thought on Beliefs, mostly gleaned from this blog post by Steven Jarvis. Steven says:

In a player-driven game the players have to freakin’ DO SOMETHING.

Seems like a no-brainer, huh? My Wife would call it a B.F.O. — a Blinding Flash of the Obvious. But, it’s not, especially for players who grew up playing old school RPGs like D&D. We’re used to reacting, not ACTING. We’re used to the GM presenting us with a situation and then us figuring out how to react to it. BW isn’t like that. The action should stem right from the players’ Beliefs and should be OBVIOUS.

And:

Our game was purposely designed to be short term and have some pretty obvious goals. Briefly: our group are trying to overthrow oppressive occupying tyranny. One of the characters is the legendary rightful heir to the usurped throne, and the rest of us are all focused on getting him to that position. The game is pretty epic in scope (though we’re struggling with the pulp concept and the gritty feel of BW — more on that in a later post). The problem is that so are our Beliefs.

In a recent thread about Beliefs on the BW Forums, Luke Crane (creator of BW) said:

[Y]our Beliefs are passable and playable. The third one gets resolved in the first session, the second one shortly thereafter and the first gets teased out over time — as the other two change and color just what you will do to achieve your primary goal.

And a little bell went off in my head: Beliefs can (and should) vary in scope. They can change (and should) during the course of play.

And:

Since all of us at the table suffer from Abused D&D Player Syndrome (ADPS?) and tend to re-act instead of act, we NEED some gritty Beliefs to chase. Because our existing Beliefs are sorta large and amorphous, we’re having trouble doing things that seem to focus on the Beliefs. We’re not powerful enough as a group to directly challenge the Sorceror Kings, but each one of us has a Belief akin to “Malik is the rightful king, and I will restore him to his throne or die trying.” While that’s an okay Belief in the big scheme, it doesn’t give me anything to do RIGHT NOW, and BW should almost always be about the RIGHT NOW.

And:

I’m a half-assed follower of David Allen’s Getting Things Done system. GTD is focused on “Next Actions.” A Next Action is the next physical (more or less — maybe call it “tangible”) step that needs to be done in order to accomplish something on your to-do list (it’s a little more complex than that, but not really). I think a BW character will benefit from having at least one Belief slot occupied by a Belief that’s a “Next Action.” When a scene is completed and the player is wondering what to do next, the player should be able to look down at the character’s Beliefs and go, “Oh yeah, time to do THAT!” Once that Belief is addressed (if it’s something that can be “done”), it gets replaced with another, equally action-oriented, Belief that will keep things moving.

A player will be racking up the Artha if she follows a system something like that for her character’s Beliefs.

In the recent thread about Beliefs that Steve mentions Luke Crane also says:

Your Beliefs should be tied to the NPCs/relationships, tied to the situation that the GM’s tossing out there, too.

Beliefs

After our discussion last night about introducing “beliefs” and “instincts” into Rise of the Tyrants I found some interesting guidance posted by Thor Olavsrud at RPGnet which relates to beliefs in Burning Wheel (see below).

Here’s my current thinking on Beliefs:

 - A belief should contain an ideological stance of some sort.

 - A belief should contain a goal in the “I achieve this goal and earn a Persona point” sense.

 - A belief should express how the ideological stance drives the character to achieve the goal.

Most of the beliefs you’ve got are good proto-beliefs. In other words, almost all of them contain an ideological stance:

 - Valor is precious

 - The strong must protect the weak

 - Never trust someone I haven’t fought with

 - My gang is my family

 - I will not see great men ignored

 - I will support efforts against the nobility

 - Violence alone accomplishes nothing.

All of these are strong ideological stances. With the addition of a goal and an action to achieve that goal, these will be very strong beliefs.

I should make an important point here: Beliefs are not meant to remain static. They are designed to grow and change. To be strengthened, weakened, resolved or broken. If a belief expresses something about your character that you never want to change, then it should be expressed as a trait instead.

A couple of the proto-beliefs build on a goal:

 - I will carry us to the safe, rich side of town.

 - I will get my brother back.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Merged with an ideological stance, these will be beliefs that can be resolved and point players in a strongly proactive direction.

So let’s take 1 and merge it with the crime family proto-belief:

 - My gang is my family and I will carry us to the safe, rich side of town.

That’s much stronger. Now we know what he wants to accomplish (carrying them to the safe, rich side of town). Doing so will earn him a Persona point. We also know why he wants to do it (my gang is my family).

The only thing that’s missing now is the ‘how,’ the action that will accomplish the goal.

It could be:

 - My gang is my family and I will carry us to the safe, rich side of town by destroying the gang that controls it now.

or maybe:

 - My gang is my family and I will carry us to the safe, rich side of town by turning us into a legit, respectable business.

The action really colors the belief, doesn’t it? The two beliefs above are totally different in complexion, even though they appear similar.

Either way, with these beliefs, a player could use every scene he’s in to push toward his goal, earning Fate every time. And when he resolves the goal, he’ll earn a Persona. Then he’ll rewrite the belief.

That’s the player’s responsibility. The GM’s responsibility is to challenge the player’s Beliefs. Find out how strong they are. Try to break them. Try to warp them. Make resolving Beliefs hard. That means opposition. It also means trying to introduce elements that make the player question the validity of his character’s belief (or to sweep aside all questions and continue on single-mindedly).

If your player has the Belief:

 - My gang is my family and I will carry us to the safe, rich side of town by turning us into a legit, respectable business.

What does he do after members of the gang refuse to give up their criminal ways when he orders them? Does he still believe he can turn them into a legit, respectable business?

What if one of his lieutenants, a cousin, tries to off him over the changes he’s making? Does he still consider the gang family?

And so on.

I see the beliefs as providing a way to define some areas of the game world. Most assuredly if and when these beliefs come into play then artha will certainly be dished out. However I don’t see beliefs as being simply a way to earn Fate, Deed or Persona points.

The intention of Beliefs is that they fire all the time during play. They are what play should be about.

In our groups, players generally resolve and change a Belief every 2 to 3 sessions. A couple of campaigns ago, we had a player who in the space of a seven session campaign managed to resolve all three of his Beliefs, change them as they were resolved, and then do it AGAIN. Six beliefs resolved in seven sessions of play.

It wasn’t munchkinism. It was directed, proactive play. It was good stuff.

If you go two sessions without a Belief going off, it’s dead weight in my opinion, and should be jettisoned for something else.

We like to play at a very brisk pace at BWHQ, which is why we push for Beliefs to churn like that. It’s cool to play it in a more leisurely fashion too, but the idea is the same, whether you aim to resolve one of your Beliefs every 2 to 3 sessions or every 4 to 6 sessions.

The important thing is that play needs to really revolve around the beliefs.

Here are a few of the Beliefs from my Burning Iberia game:

 - I may be a bastard, but I’m better than my legitimate brother Raoul. I will prove it by carving out my own fief.

 - Religion gives the people fire, and I will use shows of religion to win the people.

 - My brother Diego is touched by God. I will use my connection with King Fernando to make him Archbishop of Iria.

 - The Tower of my visions is the key to the magic of Iberia. I will go to any length to control the mysterious Tower.

 - The customs of this place are strange and enticing. I must keep Ulf from temptation and on the path to become a traditional viking king.

This approach to beliefs seems well worth consideration, hence my posting of it here. In order to achieve what we are intending with them I’m not sure that it’s necessary to make them quite as tightly focused as Thor suggests. I think that in Burning Wheel beliefs are more central to play and what we have been talking about is simply using them to ‘flag’ player interest in particular aspects of the story. Less tightly focused beliefs will also work to do this. For example, ‘Truisms’ are a similar concept in Matt Machell’s Covenant, which he describes as “questions ready to be asked”

If a character’s truism is “all good men die badly,” the player is really asking the question “do they?”

I think both of these are a means of doing what we want to do and we should probably experiment and try to evolve more/better mechanisms as we go along.

Let me know what you think.