Last column I described the transient character traits that I plan to include in Rough Quests, what I called the status quo of the character from the perspective of the setting. In the present column I am going to look at it again but at the game system level.
When the game system is called to handle status quo it can deal with it in two ways: By defining the mechanics that regulate changes in status quo; and by defining stats to model the status quo different domains. The critical point is that the former are required while the latter are not. Let me provide an example, ability advancement.
In D&D character advancement is handled through experience points (XPs). It's obvious that XPs don’t exist in the setting, they are a game system device. Basically the in-setting actions of the characters are evaluated at the game system level by the GM and evaluated in XP terms. Next the player, still at the game system level, assigns these XPs into changes in the character definition, something that is also done in game system terms. These terms can then be mapped into in-setting terms. The process flows like this:
In RuneQuest (and other BRP games) things are simpler. The character takes action that may improve his abilities. Next the player checks with a roll if that improvement takes place. If the result is positive he updates the game system description of the character and that is mapped (informaly) into in-setting terms:
What has just been said about character advancement can be predicated about almost any aspect of the character. Take the basic traits: the traditional way to handle these is by defining them at the system level. On the other hand we have seen that in more recent times game after game coming with character creation rules where the character is defined in setting terms, HeroQuest being the best example (in my opinion, of course).
Now, the balance between in-setting descriptors and game system descriptors can vary widely. Just as much can vary the mechanics that rule how these descriptors change or determine the behaviour of the character. Take as another example the always polemic aligment system in D&D. It's a system device without clear correspondence at the setting level, and the mechanics for its usage are mostly based on fiat:
As with anything else in a rpg there are many ways to handle the status quo descriptors. Let's go back to RuneQuest and one of my examples from last column, the way this game handles damage. The game uses two scales to deal with damage, a quantitative one (hit points) and a qualitative one (functional impact of the damage suffered). HPs are a purely game system descriptor that for normal humans damage ranges from 3 to 21 with the average at 11. while functional damage can be presented at the setting level. We can see how both operate in this graphic:
As can be seen the impact of a loss of HPs in the action of the character is mostly binary: They are at full swing no matter how many HPs they lose until they reach 1 or 2. When their HPs are down to that level the characters simply colapse. (Needless to say, the players may play differently their characters as the HPs decrease; this means that there is a direct impact on the setting – the character becomes a lot more cautious – but there are no mechanics to model this.) On the other hand, RuneQuest has rules that descriminate the damage done to different body parts. Notice that the mechanics are still based on HPs but what I'm concerned with is the qualitative impact that the damage may have depending on its magnitude: Minimal damage (up to the value of HPs / location) does not influence the ability to act; serious damage (from HPs / location to twice that value) diminishes the ability to act; critical damage (above twice HPs / location) stops the character from acting and may even mean death depending on body zone hit. What is striking is that this qualitative system could work without HPs. For instance, consider this alternative:
Yes, there are game systems that handle damage exactly like this (you guessed it, it works like the good old D&D saving roll). The point is that in this system there are no changes to game system descriptors, the game system determines changes at the setting level. Now, both approaches can be used for all status quo descriptors we can conceive. What has to be decided is how to do it in Rough Quests. A final decision will have to be left to future columns, though.
