[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

On the other hand, I think a lot of people avoid Destiny because they're pretty sure that they're not going to eventually get the Destined Thing.

This is why I'm very saddened by discussion veering into IB/MH. Because I want more insight into ensuring that Destiny-characters get their Destined Thing.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

There's a few reasons that happens. First, you can just tell the GM "I'd like to become the Whatever. That's my goal!" Then you can move in that direction when you can, and you should able to trust that the GM is more-or-less on board with it (depending on the game conceits of course, but in my games it usually works that way: if you're playing the game where you want to eventually become king, then I should be giving you the opportunity to become king). Second, what if you change your mind later? What if you get this other cooler idea ("No, not king. I mean, I lost my eye and I'm fighting all these demons! I think this is way better than running a kingdom!")? Destiny locks you in. Finally, what if you don't know what you want and you sort of what to feel things out, and it you become a king or a famed demon hunter or whatever, it's cool with you?

I suppose it should be okay for a player to opt out of a positive Destiny (except the die-at-X one), much in the same way as a player can opt out of any other concept into which points have been sunk (e.g. get Gunslinger and then give up on guns).

Originally Posted by Mailanka

This is the same logic behind why Terminal Illness is a bad idea. Either the campaign ends before it triggers, or the player just makes a new character that solves the problem. If you want to be a king, why not... be a king? If you want to be a king eventually, why not take heir? And what do you do with the Destiny once it triggers? Just get those points back and spend them on your new traits? And if you don't have the points, does Destiny give you those points for free? Or do you have to pay the rest out of your pocket? If the former, how is that not point crock, and if the latter, what's the difference between just building your character as a king in the first place?

In many ways, Heir is similar to a low-key Destiny game-mechanically, so I don't see much of a contradiction with 'take Heir'. These are two ways of game mechanizing the same outcome based on whether being a hidden prince is important to the concept.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

This sort of Destiny becomes a "I want to have a bit of a say in where the campaign is going," but in my opinion, the players should always have a bit of a say in where the campaign is going. The only way to make Destiny worthwhile, then, is either to be cut throat ("You have no control over this story unless you pay points for it") or to add some sort of supernatural power gained via your Destiny ("Of course you can become King, but Destiny makes it a sure thing!")

I prefer the interpretation that Destiny should be an investment that offers more say in where the campaign is going (relative to whatever the base level of control is). Whether it does so through metagame means or supernatural in-game means is a matter of specific character concepts.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

But if Destiny is already going to offer you a sure thing, why offer it to someone as a tantalizing "Maybe, eventually, you can have the cool thing" when you can offer it now? I believe you should, as much as possible, let players pay for what they have now, not for what they might eventually benefit from, eventually. That's one reason I don't like Unaging (it deals largely with a non-problem, because your character isn't in his 80s now). Don't give them the Destiny "Will get the magic sword" when they can have the magic sword. Don't give them the destiny "Can get a cool power" when you can either give them the cool power, or Latent Power [1], which means they can freely buy the power in the future if they want.

Uh, the whole point is that Destiny is meant to be a promise that you will get Destiny Thing. You probably can't afford to buy Destiny Thing now, and since you don't start with it, you normally have no guarantee that you will be able to achieve the Thing. E.g. you can't become the World's Best Runner in a Cold War (1970) campaign if your character loses legs after being shot by a Soviet Spy . . . but wait, the character has Destiny, so there's some random inventor who develops suitable running prostheses in 1971 (like the ones Oscar Pistorius used in more recent years), and then when your use of a 'technological device' is challenged as cheating, Destiny says that the committees and courts rule in your favour, and by 1974 you break the world's 400m record.