Game

On Account of our discussion on Friday, I'm intrigued about running a game with much more politicking, much less group unity, PKs, etc. Vampire naturally lends itself to this, as does City of Tears (I just saw the Departed...), but I'd be open to basically any setting for this.

Jason: point well taken, and I think you're right. In that vein, a take on one of Matt's proposals might be interesting: everybody makes their character, then makes a couple of supporting characters relevant to their character. If a session comes up where one or more other "main" characters are not involved, the "lead" for that session could hand out supporting character sheets to players whose characters were excluded from that session's action.

Gabe: Hmm, I like the idea of us making our own backup characters. Very neat. Also Ed's idea for a RPG could work really well with this idea too, though his seems more about group unity. Anyway I'd be down with a game like this.

--Jason 18:16, 19 October 2006 (MDT) I have been thinking about this a lot. One thing I am wondering about is/are factions. Lets assume that each player has a character involved in some sort of machinations. And as you have mentioned each of us have a primary character, and some number of secondary characters, wouldnt it be natural for our secondary characters to be aligned with our primary ones? It would be hard (and relatively useless) for your secondary character to scheme against your primary one. This doesnt mean it isnt possible, because I am certain it is. It just means someone needs to have a better idea than the one I was thinking about.

--BenofZongo 15:44, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Yeah, that would be problematic: it's something I've thought of as well. I guess as you said in your first response, the point isn't necessarily to have the characters be a non-group, more that they shouldn't HAVE to be a group. In the vaguest of terms, my plan would be to bring the characters together, but then let them decide how much/if at all they want to stay together. However, just for shits and giggles, I guess my plan was to let the characters that walk off still get game time: when their plot lines surface, the other players wouldn't be left sitting around by giving them semi-npcs (that might actually develop into main characters) to play, to keep everyone in the action. Of course, for scheming type stuff, this mechanic wouldn't work at all. As an aside, I don't really have a genre/game system I'm terribly excited about right now...in fact, the only game I was ever truly inspired to create was the Iliadic game. Every other time I've run something, it's been based on player input. As such, I just figured I'd put a bit in here soliciting people's desired genre for a more open-ended, do-whatever-you-want, more focused on intrigue, etc., kind of game. Once I have an idea what time, or setting, or whatever, people want to see, I can go to town starting to design my game world/system.

--Edmiao 16:26, 20 October 2006 (MDT)I don't understand what you mean by "intrigue" based game, which it sounds like Jason really really wants to play. could someone spell this out for me with a specific example?

--BenofZongo 17:32, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Well, I admit that my grasp on the idea is tenuous, but I'm trying to self edumacate. When I say "intrigue" heavy, the way I envision it is that there are no "missions": the sense of where to go, and what to do, are much hazier. Second, Enemies and friends are much less clearly defined. Third, consequences for actions are typically enhanced, necessitating much greater subtlety in how the players approach a problem (example: in Vampire 2nd edition, if you killed another vampire, the uber nasty Sheriff vampire of the city came and killed you in return. So, if you want to whack somebody, you better cover your tracks damn well, especially since lots of vampires could mind control you into telling them that you did it...). Third, and this applies mostly to my style of GMing, there would be much less emphasis on making the characters "good guys", also, much less emphasis by me on making the players act as a group: There might still be a hook to bring everyone together, but beyond that, who does what with whom is basically up to the players. Along with the no "missions" thing goes that the plot line is much more open ended: player defined goals, ambitions, and actions set what the characters pursue in game.

--Edmiao 18:32, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Sounds like PA to me.

--Jason 18:45, 20 October 2006 (MDT)How is that at all like PA? How often do characters do things without other characters when their player is present? How many characters have subplots (not plots that recruit the others) that run significant portions of the game? PA has been a strictly missions based game to this time. We get a task, everyone gets together and does that until the task is completed. Actually that could describe every game we have played: meet, get task, accomplish, repeat.

--Edmiao 19:38, 20 October 2006 (MDT)frequently characters are going off to do their own thing. half the party will be in one place, half in another doing something unrelated. take Grant and Angus in the tunnels exploring that room. or Shennong and Angus and Sam went to ghostville, sarah was not interested, so she went to do something else. turned out to be related, but still, the intent was that she was on her own. please provide a concrete example of what you are thinking so i may understand.

--Jason 19:56, 20 October 2006 (MDT)In those examples you cite the player of the character who didnt participate was not present, had they been present they would have gone along. It is always that way. Like in the last PA arc, Sam was basically forced to come into the city and do this stuff he had no interest in doing (and in fact was averse to doing), or else I as a player would have had nothing to do in that session. Our characters have little to no life outside of the group tasks we do, and when we do things they are virtually never contrary to goals the players all share (except when Harry Greenhill killed Hol Giamata). In almost all cases the only times the group separates for significant periods of time are because on an average night only half the players attend. The times when we separate and the players are here everyone else knows where you go and what youre doing and why. Our characters are basically members of a cub scout troop. If you want to go get kool aid, be sure to let the scoutmaster know where you go.

--BenofZongo 14:03, 21 October 2006 (MDT)Although perhaps I don't feel as strongly about it as Jason, i largely agree. There have been plotlines in my games that focus on individual players, but they are the exception, not the rule. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was Ethan's business with Scarlet/Melisande in Champions. Admittedly, it's partly deliberate, since like I've said I like the idea of group unity, etc, blah blah blah. It's something I've always been drawn to, and now, unfortunately, it's become habit. However, I'd also like to point out that in order to have a character-driven game, it will be necessary to alter character creation: players will have to dig deep and create extensive, nuanced backgrounds in order for their character to play a significant portion in the plot. Since not everyone cares for that, I may offer (if ever this aptly titled "game" gets off the ground) a "make your character sheet, and I'll give you a background" option, just in case (although i'd much prefer people created their own).