Creating Values the Players care about

This is the third post transition to the Mound from Reddit!

Original can be found here.

No significant changes were done since it’s creation. Just minor rephrasing for clarity, trimming fat and fixing typos.

====

The Intent

This post is a continuation of What makes for an Interesting Situation?

One thing in my original criteria stood out to me more than the others: point 3, in which “Players share those contradictory values“. Looking at the other points, they seem like something straightforwardly achievable, something I can largely just sit down and do. I can pit values against each other, I can inform Players of these values and I can empower them to make choices. These, of course, also deserve their own research that no doubt will show some interesting an unexpected finding, but that particular point stuck out as a sore thumb.

But where do Values come from? If you want to have a Value in your Adventure to pit it against another, where do you get them?

This post will attempt to list the sources of Values an adventure can offer, will talk about how specific tools provide examples of these tools being employed. I am not sure if the list is comprehensive at all, which is why I would love to hear your inputs, both on the list and on practical advice.

The Sources of Values

Here is the list of Value types that an TTRPG Situation can use:

1. Mechanical Values
2. Values that are part of the Situation’s Hook
3. Values shared by Characters
4. Values created during the Play

Mechanical Values

This is the easiest category to understand. System provides you with the mechanics, and through them it can make certain things inherently desirable or undesirable.

Tool 1: Using what the system offers

If the system values hit points, one can threaten to take them away, and one can promise to give more of them. Having more Fate points is desirable. Survival, loot, reward. Number big good.

There will be no specific examples for this tool, as I consider this self evident.

Pros: This is the most efficient method. The players have agreed to share these Values when they agreed to play a game in this system, so it should be completely safe to use.

Cons: This is the only system-specific tool. It’s very hard to design an Adventure neutrally if you want to use this.

Tool 2: Introducing new mechanics

There is no reason to be bound by the system, of course! One can add unique mechanics to an Adventure. This can come in any form, be it a unique magical item, a quality of a setting, or a direct change to the way system normally works.

Example 1: The Salt Plague rages on in these lands! A terrifying sickness that slowly petrifies these who venture into the salted desert winds. Mechanics describe how the process of getting sick works, and how to cure it. Now a Situation can use this as one of the Values. “Is it worth to go there if there is a chance to encounter the winds?” “Should we leave now, before the the plague progresses?”

Example 2: The Legendary Sword, the Bloodletter! It’s stats are very high. “Is it worth to fight a risky battle to get this sword?” “Can we risk the Bad Guy taking it?”

Pros: You are unbound from the system. You can make unique mechanics for anything you desire.

Cons: This is still system-specific. As you are now directly messing with the system, you are now shouldering the responsibility mechanical consistency and the quality of your mechanics.

Values that are part of the Situation’s Hook

This is probably the most fascinating discovery I’ve had during my research. If Players are engaging with the Situation, that means that they’ve already accepted a Hook that led them there, and we can use that as an assumption within said Situation.

Tool 3: Reusing the Hook’s Value

Example: The Players agreed to find a missing Noble for cash. Money, therefore, is a Value they share! When designing the Situation in which Players search for the Noble, you can use Money as a Value, and it doesn’t have to be the specific Money promised for finding said Noble. For example, they might find a crooked cop during an investigation, and that cop might offer them money for their silence. Or, perhaps, when the Players finally get their hands on said Noble, a different group might offer them a more lucrative offer for the man.

Pros: Players have agreed to share these Values when they agreed to engage with this Situation. This allows one to design a part of the Adventure with said Value in mind. Technically, one can make very esoteric and weird Values and this won’t be disruptive, as Players only engage with these Situations if they share them.

Cons: A “good” Situation usually has more than one Hook, otherwise the Situation is likely to remain unengaged. If you have many Hooks, you cannot be sure which ones the Players have agreed to, so you’ll either have to take a shot in the dark, or provide a lot of redundancy.

Values shared by Characters

A seemingly obvious thing at a glance turned out to be troubling in practice. Sure, I can use a Character’s backstory or an obvious Value as a GM, but here I am not a GM. I am an Adventure-writer. I don’t even know who these characters are! What can we even do with an issue of the scale? Well, I think I’ve found some things!

Tool 4: Pregen Characters

A very straightforward tool! Adventure has some Pregen Characters, that already have some Values! Players agree to play them, and therefore agree to try and portray said Character’s Values, which we do know!

Example: Player agrees to play as Martha, the Tortoisewoman Monk that cares a lot about Nature. We can use it as a Value now! “Is it worth it to destroy nature for this?” “Is it worth to fight to protect this oasis?”

Pros: You really do get to know the Characters as an Adventure-writer. You can even do very specific things for specific characters like that!

Cons: Not everyone likes playing Pregen Characters! If that’s merely an option rather than a necessity for the Adventure, you don’t know if any of them will be taken at all. Additionally, even if someone agrees to play as such a character, there is no guarantee that they will play in accordance to the stated Values. Additionally, this tool is very hard to use in an Adventure that is inserted in the middle of an ongoing campaign. Finally, the effect is limited to a single character rather than the group.

Tool 5: Background options

Effectively a lighter version of Tool 4, except here the proposed are some setting-specific details that can or must be incorporated into Player-made Characters. This version is more likely to be used by players, but is also less potent.

Example: Player, making a Character looks at the setting specific options and choses a background detail of “Child of a family destroyed by the Black Baron’s rule”. We can reasonably assume that taking down the Black Baron is a Value shared in some form by this Player.

Pros: Same as 4, but lesser. Less guarantees, far less specific things.

Cons: Same as 4, but lesser. Many people who would dislike the idea of playing a Pregen would still take care to Incorporate some background options.

Tool 6: List of Replaceable Entities

In the beginning of this section I bemoaned not being the GM who actually runs the Adventure. But what if we provide this GM some tools instead?

I propose the following tool: a dedicated addendum to the Adventure that lists various entities (people, organisations, countries, items) that are easy to swap for something else. It would list entities that only must possess a short list of qualities, and, of course, it would list said qualities. This would make it easy for a GM to incorporate something Characters care about into the Adventure, thus allowing certain Values to be represented throughout.

Example: The Adventure at one point provides an opportunity: get your hands on a Nobleman who knows Black Baron’s lair secret entrance! However, this is not a terribly developed character, so it goes on the list, the only qualities are that he is from a family that opposed the Baron, and that he was imprisoned and ran way from the Baron’s lair. Now, a Player makes a Character, Elric, who is of noble descent and whose parents from the background was murdered by the evil Lord Derrek. GM notices that, looks at the list and swaps that Nobleman for Elric’s father, who, as it turns out, survived, but was Imprisoned! Perhaps we can even swap the Black Baron for Lord Derrek altogether. Now there are all sorts of potential Values injected into the Situation for Elric’s Player!

Pros: Very malleable, and will allow all sorts of Character Values to be injected into an Adventure. Also, unlike the previous two, this can be used for an Adventure set in an ongoing campaign.

Cons: It’s GM-reliant and scattershot. No guarantees either, one cannot assume where exactly will the links form. Effectively this works better as a strengthening tool, not as a sole source of any Value. Also, a lot of changes like this might make the Adventure harder to run, since the GM has to remember which parts are supposed to be replaced with something and which are not.

Values created during the Play

Honestly, this is the hardest category to pin down in this list, and the one I am least sure of, including even the name.

All previous categories effectively tried taking a Value that was already there and using it in our Adventure. But what about creating some during one? This is theoretically the most potent tool. For example, this sort of stuff is related to Character Growth, changing one’s Values, etc. A Character has interacted with an Adventure and the prism though which they make their decisions have changed during the process. But actually writing down the ways in which an Adventure-maker can provide such an experience seems to be the million dollar question. After some thinking and talking to other people I think I can provide some tools here.

Tool 7: Parts of a Bigger Whole

First, let’s talk about one of the biggest problem of this approach: the guarantees. If we can’t know for sure that Value is in play, we can’t make Interesting Situations out of it. The Value in question is something that happens during the Play, where Players can actually chose what do they do and how. Therefore we don’t have the direct control here at all. How can we make it at the very least likely that a certain Value would be shared by the Players nonetheless?

By throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks, of course.

Or, to be more precise: use a lot of tools forming the same Value, hoping that at least some of them will work work for some Players though sheer quantity and variety.

This Tool won’t have an explicit Pros and Cons sections other than what’s described above, as it’s effectively an umbrella that uses other tools, including all the previous ones.

There are, however, some unique sub-tools here.

Tool 7.1: Aesthetics

Some players might be attracted by encountering interesting concepts. So, diversity is the king. If Players encounter something interesting or cool they might get invested into that!

Here are some good qualities to be on the lookout:

• Evocative
• Detailed
• Believable

Example 1: Characters arrive at a town built on the side of giant purplish crystal. One of the Players thinks that’s a cool looking town, and through that interaction starts caring about the town.

Example 2: Characters see the legendary Wyvern Knights flying in the sky! One of the think this is really cool and also wants to learn how to fly a Wyvern.

Tool 7.2: NPCs

Technically, this could be filed under a 7.1, but I think it’s so prominent that it deserves it’s own section.

Likeable, hatable, or just interesting NPCs can make Players care about things.

Same qualities as in 7.1 apply. Cute animals and children also seems to work well.

Example: There is a young orphaned girl in town! One Player, seeing her, wants to help.

Tool 7.3: Accomplishments

Players care for the marks they made on the world. This makes them invested, makes them want to protect what they’ve created or to fix their mistakes.

By the end of a big Adventure Players have certainly engaged in many Situations, and left a lot of marks. Knowing what these Situations are, we can use them to fuel some Values!

Example: Players have defended a city from an alien invasion! If aliens return or a new threat appears, they are more likely to be invested in saving this city now, a proof of their original stand against the aliens.

Tool 7.4: Time

The more time Players spend with something, the more familiarity and chances to start caring about something they get, generally. This works only in tandem with other tools and sub-tools, of course.

Example: The Players’ Spaceship has been their base for many sessions! They now would be upset if something happened to it, because it’s they’ve been travelling in it for so long.

Tool 7: Example

Players arrive to a cool crystal city (7.1) under a siege! They help to protect it, and are now considered local heroes (7.3). Then, they stay in the city for a while(7.4), resolving various situations. They don’t care for some, but engage with others (7). For example, they help an orphaned girl to find a new place (7.2), and at the end of one ‘quest’ they get rewarded with free beers in a tavern they’ve taken a liking to (7.3, 7.1). The city also provides them with a resting place now, and has an altar that empowers them (1).

So, here, through a mix of tools, we’ve made Players to care for this crystal city. City’s fate is now a viable Value to use. Note that if a city had enough Situations that players might like and just generally has interesting NPCs and stuff, we can start reasonably assuming that Players will care for the city though caring about Some things within the city, regardless of what exactly they choose.

Of course, this is not a bulletproof thing, but nothing is, and “works for most tables” is a level of success that would satisfy me as an Adventure-writer.

So, which of the Sources of Value should we use?

All of them, at the same time! None of these tools save for [1] provides any guarantees, so it’s best to use multiple Sources for any given Value.

Conclusive words

And there you have it – my attempt at classifying ways to ensure Players care about some things.

Unlike the previous post, here I am pretty sure that I left some blank spaces! Or, perhaps, over-assumed something. I’d love to get other’s feedback on this post!

So, what do you all think? Is this list good enough, or have I maybe lost my mind? Either way, thank you for your time!