The Forge Archives

Archive => Indie Game Design => Topic started by: clehrich on February 03, 2005, 03:59:11 AM

Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: clehrich on February 03, 2005, 03:59:11 AM
So over in Actual Play, Sven started a thread about Operation Icebox (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14170&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) and had a comment also about P.G. Wodehouse's novels in InSpectres.  That started to get crazy, so I'm starting up here where this part belongs.  But remember, guys, this is all Sven's fault -- he's the nut who thought, "InSpectres?  Wodehouse?  Of course!"  So blame him.  I think it's genius, of course.

-----
The Concept
Now the basic idea is that InSpectres rules get used to create Wodehousian madness, specifically Bertie and Jeeves.  I'm crossing my fingers that a whole bunch of folks know the books and stories well.  My brother is insane, and owns every book Wodehouse ever wrote -- no, I do know how many there are, no I'm not kidding, all of them -- so I've got a lot of them pretty solidly.

So Sven started it:
Quote from: SvenThe main thing I'm worried about with using the InSpectres as a model is - what does the group represent?  At the moment, I'm falling back to thinking of it as the character's Club.  Also, it seems appropriate to give players a way to reduce how Boggled their characters are - possibly one or more dice per foolish plan that they come up with.  I'm thinking here of modelling how Bertie is stumped and tongue-tied by a ferocious Aunt, and then comes up with a "brilliant" plan of how to deal with the dilemma, which puts him back in excellent spirits. (In fact, perhaps going along with a plan should help "heal" Boogle dice, since other characters seem to find comfort in Bertie's schemes - until they go horribly wrong, at least.)  And since they're more temporary than the standard die losses, it might be better to have one Boggle pool, that applies to all skill rolls...
My proposal, specifically for a con, was:
Quote from: IHmm.  Clearly Drones members are the way to go.  Why not set up a little more of the situation?

So Pongo Twistleton, visiting at the Glossops', has fallen in love with Honoria Glossop.  Bingo Little (married to Rosie these days) is doing a spot of tutoring at the Glossop house.  Gussie Fink-Nottle is hanging around there too, because Madeline Bassett is visiting Honoria, who's been a bit under the weather, and not surprisingly is chafing at Madeline's nursing.  Pongo isn't sure what to do, so of course he turns to Jeeves.  Jeeves will be going out of town on his annual holiday, fishing somewhere probably, but he comes up with a wonderful plan, which obviously Bingo and Gussie will have to be told about: Bertie is going to the Glossop house and will push Madeline into the weed-choked pond, and then Pongo will jump in and save her while Honoria is watching.  The idea being that Honoria will fall madly in love with Pongo's manly athleticism, Madeline will of course cling to Gussie for comfort, and Bertie will be even less likely to end up engaged to either of them than he is now.  Fortunately Sir Roderick Glossop is away giving a lecture in Austria, because of course he won't have Bertie on the place, as he knows Bertie is totally insane (keeps rabbits in his bedroom, after all).

The PCs:
  • Bertie Wooster
  • Pongo Twistleton
  • Bingo Little
  • Gussie Fink-Nottle[/list:u]Assuming your players know these characters and the rough situation, and you can describe it appropriately just to remind them, I think you're off and running.  God only knows what's going to happen.  Will Sir Roderick pop up?  Will Aunt Agatha visit?  Will the pushing-Madeline-into-a-pond go off without a hitch (certainly not!)?  Will Rosie get suspicious that Bingo is after Honoria again?  What about the little horror, Thomas or whatever his name is, whom Bingo is tutoring?

    One interesting mechanic: is there some way that maybe the Confessional can be used for Jeevesian interventions (since obviously he's going to have to be called in by telegram)?  The idea being that at the very end, somehow, the crowning moment is something that completely hoses Bertie but has everyone else in the appropriate girls' arms (whoever that might be at the moment).
Quote from: And then hix (Steve)Welcome to the Forge, Svend!

And after that Woosterian madness, maybe we can use InSpectres to play a game of Futurama.

Chris,
You're front-loading the situation that much for a con game, right? How much detail do you think an Inspectres-style Wodehouse game would need to provide if everyone was familiar with the genre?

Just a thought: Jeeves-and-Wooster style Inspectres might encourage players to shaft their own characters even more than usual. That'd be fun.
So here's my thoughts.

Bertie
...is a big problem.  He's very dominant, narratively, and is always the one who really gets the shaft at the end.  He escapes, but no more.  He never, ever gets the girl.  The best he can hope for is to survive by the skin of his teeth.  And very often it's Jeeves who puts him in the nightmare situation to begin with, which he never seems to notice.

One way to deal with it is to scrap Bertie entirely, but I hate to leave him out.  If nothing else, the thought of doing an Actual Play writeup where I get to write things like, "I stared down into the plate of fragrant eggs and b. and pronged a moody forkful" just makes my mouth water.

Besides, without Bertie, no Jeeves.

Another possibility is to swap him around.  Each player gets to be Bertie (or has to be Bertie, depending on how you look at it) in rotation, adventure to adventure.

Jeeves
I'm convinced that a really cunning mechanic can be devised, using Confessionals I suspect, by which the whole endgame can be wrapped up elegantly by a piece of Jeevesian invention.  But I'm certain that Jeeves is a true NPC --- really not a player, including not the GM.  He's nobody's, a sort of perpetual deus ex machina who enables good (or anyway not disastrous) results to occur.

Ideas?

The Crew
I would think Drones Club is the way to go.  There are so many loonies in it.  Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps, Pongo Twistleton... the list goes on.  And you can always claim that any friend of Bertie's is a member: sure, Stilton Cheesewright isn't, to my recollection, a member, but did Wodehouse ever say that for sure?  Maybe he is, even if he's also a local policeman on a bicycle.  He went to school with Bertie, after all.

But you may not want the same crew of idiots every time.  Why not have a list of the possibles, with what's currently known about them (generally not a whole lot that's permanent), and people pick as they set up the session?

Remember, when thinking mechanics (if this is necessary at all), that the object of having Drones members and Bertie is to set up conversations like this:The Girls
Oh yes, lots of girls.  All pretty, in their way.  It's essential to have one fewer girls than there are men, unless one of them is truly dreadful and obviously not in any way a romantic interest for anyone.  And even then, she's dangerous.

I think setting up one girl at the start, to give us location and the basic outline, is sufficient.  Then we drag in friends, ex-fiancees, sisters, aunts who turn out to be younger than their nieces, etc.

Aunts
One per show, max.  Don't overdo aunts.  They're dangerous.  Some of them chew broken bottles and howl at the full moon.  Others shout "Yoicks!" when indoors.  An aunt is an instant magnet of danger and excitement, and peaceable men like Bertie avoid them whenever possible.  But they may be demanding something, which can be a hook, and they'll blackmail for it.  Aunts have no morals.

Mechanics
...need a little tinkering.  Ideas?  I do think that it's perfectly legitimate to have every character have one extreme characteristic (Money: Has the stuff in heaping sackfuls), except that Bertie isn't especially anything -- he's just especially preux, you know, what?

I love Sven's Boggle idea.

-----
Okay, what do you folks suggest?
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: Russell Collins on February 03, 2005, 04:37:38 AM
Well, Bertie is especially inventive isn't he? He's always got the mad schemes for everyone else to take part in. And since he narrates the novels, I'd almost vote for him as the GM, setting the scene for the other characters and playing straight man to their innanities. Besides, he should be the one to call in Jeeves to put everything right, signalling the beginning of endgame.

A Boogle trait to track the level of situational misunderstandings would be a necessity for this kind of game. It has to act as a reason to go along with ridiculous plots and desperate measures, but it adds to the difficulty of those very things.

Now I'm thinking about how to work that system to play Fawlty Towers as a game. Time for bed.
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: Svend on February 03, 2005, 04:45:57 AM
I can think of a number of Wodehouse novels where there are more than one protagonist - the psmith books, for example.  Besides, very few literary inspirations make their way into the RPG world completely unscathed.

I feel I should point people who might not know it at The Drones, which is another take on doing the same translation:

 http://www.granta.demon.co.uk/drones/

One problem with the kind of Boggle rules I'm suggesting is that Franchise Dice (or their moral equivalent) don't get soaked up in "healing" the characters.  I'm not sure about the best approach to this.  On a possibly related note, I found (in standard InSpectres) that the more franchise dice we needed to earn, the higher we tended to push the stakes, and eventually it felt like we jumped the shark. (Or in the case I'm thinking of, got backed up by Rudolf and the People's Liberation Army as we took on Santa.)

However, one of the nice correspondences between Wodehouse's characters and Inspectres ones is that they tend to be essentially static, though they will take on various attributes.  So I don't really want a character-advancement mechanic, either.

Perhaps it needs a slightly different approach?

Just to summarize what I was thinking about WRT a character's Boggle pool - you'd use the standard Fear check table, but instead of subtracting those dice from a skill for the remainder of the "mission", you just add them to the character's Boggle pool, and they subtract from all skill checks the character attempts.  They can reduce this pool (normally with a Cunning Plan) - but maybe there's an element of chance as to whether they can succeed in reducing their Bogglement? (Failing this roll would mean that they were unable to convince themselves, or someone points out the Obvious Flaw, I guess.)  I'd say you can only actively reduce Boggle once per scene, but that's just a feeling at this point.

Anyway, those are my not particularly well organized thoughts. :)
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: hix on February 03, 2005, 08:51:08 AM
Chris, it just strikes me from what you were saying (about Jeeves) that maybe Jeeves and Bertie are personaes that only get adopted during Confessionals.

That is: no PC gets a confessional. When you get up onto the chair you either narrate as dry cynical Jeeves or slightly desperate mostly oblivious Bertie.
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: clehrich on February 06, 2005, 05:55:01 AM
Gains and Steve,

I am very hesitant to give up playing Bertie.  Mostly, I just want to do it.  But also I think that Bertie has a special role as the central nexus of insanity.  When the worst happens, he's always standing at ground zero.  

I think one of the best things about InSpectres is the tremendous fun-value in getting hosed.  Bertie is the master, the consummate expert, at getting hosed.  How can I pass that up?
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: clehrich on February 06, 2005, 06:18:29 AM
Quote from: SvendI can think of a number of Wodehouse novels where there are more than one protagonist - the psmith books, for example.  Besides, very few literary inspirations make their way into the RPG world completely unscathed.
Look, you may be able to find zillions of mad kiwis who not only know the Bertie & Jeeves stuff but also know psmith and Featherstonehaugh Ukridge and Blandings and everything else, but the rest of us have to deal with folks whose sole conception of anything Wodehouse is the mediocre Laurie/Fry series (note: I like them in other things, but I did not think that was their finest hour).
QuoteI feel I should point people who might not know it at The Drones, which is another take on doing the same translation
Not great, though, is it?  Your suggestion of InSpectres is much, much better.
QuoteOne problem with the kind of Boggle rules I'm suggesting is that Franchise Dice (or their moral equivalent) don't get soaked up in "healing" the characters.  I'm not sure about the best approach to this.  On a possibly related note, I found (in standard InSpectres) that the more franchise dice we needed to earn, the higher we tended to push the stakes, and eventually it felt like we jumped the shark. (Or in the case I'm thinking of, got backed up by Rudolf and the People's Liberation Army as we took on Santa.)
My immediate thought, and I'd have to playtest this, is that we're making this much too hard.  See, in InSpectres you actually do sort of want to succeed, get franchise dice, and complete the mission.  In InSpector Bertie (or whatever), getting all the Lunacy Dice (or whatever) means that Jeeves comes in and fixes things.  So there's a certain disincentive to acquire Lunacy Dice, since all the fun really happens in the buildup.  

That's the crucial difference I see here: the whole "mission" is buildup, not resolution.  When you have all the dice required, only then can resolution occur.
QuoteHowever, one of the nice correspondences between Wodehouse's characters and Inspectres ones is that they tend to be essentially static, though they will take on various attributes.  So I don't really want a character-advancement mechanic, either.
Agreed, no changes needed there.
QuoteJust to summarize what I was thinking about WRT a character's Boggle pool - you'd use the standard Fear check table, but instead of subtracting those dice from a skill for the remainder of the "mission", you just add them to the character's Boggle pool, and they subtract from all skill checks the character attempts.  They can reduce this pool (normally with a Cunning Plan) - but maybe there's an element of chance as to whether they can succeed in reducing their Bogglement? (Failing this roll would mean that they were unable to convince themselves, or someone points out the Obvious Flaw, I guess.)  I'd say you can only actively reduce Boggle once per scene, but that's just a feeling at this point.
Again, I think we're over-complicating what is basically very simple.

The whole "mission" structure is setup.  Each character of course wants not to get Boggled, because he wants whatever it is he wants: the girl, Aunt Dahlia not mad at him, the silver cow-creamer, etc.  And by default, Jeeves is away on holiday, so the plan is not to get into anything insane, but to have a peaceful, quiet weekend.  This, of course, will never happen.  Even if it starts to happen, Confessionals will ensure that it doesn't go too far.

Confessionals, as you know, can add traits to characters.  This is very important here: "Little did I suspect that young Pongo, having had this little spat with his fiancee Alice Braithwaite, would turn right around and make a play for her sister Daphne."  And Pongo's player gains points toward the resolution by playing that up.

Now when we get to the Resolution, there is certain to be an unholy mess.  So here's my suggestion.  Whoever has the fewest Boggle dice gets to pick the Brilliant Scheme, based upon the Psychology of the Individual.  This, of course, is done in a special Confessional: Jeeves Takes Charge.

Now we get a rapid resolution.  Everyone has to deal with this Brilliant Scheme and revert to his real goals.  So Pongo has to make up with Alice, come hell or high water.  Bertie has to get out of his engagement with Alice, into which he was of course dumped because Alice was made at Pongo (and Daphne), and so on.  This is essentially cooperative insanity, because now (like in normal InSpectres) we actually want to succeed, but only now do we know what our goals are and what the situation is in the first place.

I have some cunning ideas for mechanics; I'll post those very shortly, when I have them written up coherently, and then you can hack them to shreds, you naughty people.
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: clehrich on February 06, 2005, 07:13:36 AM
Jeeves Takes Charge
(This assumes you have InSpectres; if you don't, this will not make sense.  Go buy it right now.)

First, some basic conversions (please propose changes to the terms—I don't love too many of these):Skills
Brains
Sport
Sociability
Funds

Die Pools
Heaping Sackfuls Dice
Card Dice (Athletics, Library, Easy Touch)
Aplomb Dice
Situation Dice
Skill Dice (9 starting)
Boggle Dice
Talent Dice

Mechanics
Exactly as InSpectres, with the following fillips:
Title: [InSpectres] Wodehouse variant thinking
Post by: Jared A. Sorensen on February 06, 2005, 03:02:51 PM
Yeah, write it up and I'll put it on the InSpectres page along with UnSpeakable and In-Speckers.