There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.
Well, the only thing i can see about this is tthat npc houses have to be up to no good. Think of dune, basicly house/feudal world setting. Of course there you also had somee cross over. Of course, whats the main theme of your game. I think that'd be a ver good place to start. Secondly whats your seettting?
Ack, no spell check! is there anyway to go back and edit a post after you send it, i didn't see one (sorry bout the horrible spelling)
Look at (sorry about this) Harry Potter. Four Houses, right? Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin. The important characters of the book are not restricted to one house -- because Draco, Snape, Cedric, and Cho are all important characters. Sure, said character do not work together, and in fact often work at cross purposes, but there's no reason why you can't set up your game to work like this: with each player taking up a role in the story that is not necessarily that of a Main Character Protagonist With Friends At His Side.
Or you can, as Tim suggested, make some "Good" Houses and some "Bad" Houses. Dune works this way. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind works this way. Changeling (sort of) works this way. Embed it in the game world as the Eastern Houses against the Western Houses or the remnants of a long-ago alliance, or whatever.
Or you can take the moral ambiguity route, and make all the Houses ostensibly corrupt and scheming, at which point individual members would feel free to make alliances outside of their Houses for advantage and gain, perhaps but not necessarily with the intent to double-cross later. The important thing is that, for each individual, there is something to be gained by allying with other Houses.
Or, seriously? Just go with the one PC House option. Make it House Roaring Eagle against the world. Make it so that the players are a tight-knit family of nobles out to win recognition for their House, counter the schemes of other Houses, and dominate the Empire (or whatever).
The important thing -- and the question whose answer will show you which option to pick -- is what kind of a game experience you want to create.
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.
Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.
Hi!
Many chars have strongly divided factions (l5r for instance). I think the key is to cast one or more as bad guys or have an external faction that is up to no good like Exalted. I think if you develop realistic houses, natural synergies/rivalries should be apparent.
To me the real pitfall of highly hierarchical game settings and freeform play is freedom of choice. The lords and societal standards amy prevent players from playing their characters any way they want. This may not be a system requirement for you, but you might want to factor in, how is a character determined to have gone rogue and what are the consequences?
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 30, 2006, 05:19:22 PM
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.
I'd need a definition of "open." If you mean "allows PCs complete freedom of action and decision-making," then the answer is "you don't." If PCs are members, knights or other servants of a noble house or lord, their job and role is to obey their lord's directives. In a feudal society, rank and privilege come with responsibilities that are often more trouble than they're worth. Peasants, meanwhile, really tend not to do much that's of any interest during stable periods of a feudal society. Finally, outcasts like the standard mixed batch of armed psychos (to take a quote from Tastes Like Phoenix Games) you see in the traditional D&D game? They aren't part of the social structure, and I don't believe that a D&D-redux game was what you were implying that you wanted.
Now, one could make the case for making a house controlled by the PCs so they can run their own evil schemes against other houses, but that still isn't "open." There are still strict rules that members of the nobility must follow (in public, anyway), and in a feudal-medieval setting, they are still subjects of His Majesty the King and must obey his instructions when given, unless they have the muscle, reputation and legitimacy to challenge him.
Now, does this mean that players have limited freedom to choose their characters and characters' actions in such a setting? Yes. In Camelot, PCs are expected to uphold the values of chivalry and serve King and Country. In Legend of the Five Rings, one serves one's daimyo and obeys the rules of bushido (in public, anyway). Fading Suns is somewhat more fractured, but even then, one will usually have superiors one must obey and one will always have to keep noble etiquette in mind (again, in public).
Does this mean that there isn't ample opportunity for PCs to engage in a variety of adventures, dance between the wheels within wheels of court intrigue, romance ladies, plot dastardly skulduggery behind the scenes, and occasionally engage in a bit of constructive destruction? Of course not. Legend of the Five Rings is an excellent resource for such a setting, where the rules of bushido, one's clan, and social etiquette are what help define characters and make a group of intrepid heroes more than a simple collection of murderous misfits. And despite, or I would say because of that, the PCs are able to engage in all sorts of interesting trouble.
In short: Giving the PCs rules to follow makes for interesting and memorable storytelling when they do break them.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on January 30, 2006, 05:54:05 PM
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.
Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.
The setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire. Players are characters from this empire, ostensibly from the noble houses that make up this empire. There exist a few organisations/guilds as well as the nobility but they exist as subservient to the nobility. An emperor rules the empire and comes from one of the noble houses as he always has. The nobility enjoy complex relations where some get on with others and not the rest - basically. Beyond the empire exists a number of factions, malevolent, ancient and indifferent that humanity measures up against. The issue is, with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available. I'm not sure if such a game would be ultimately fun; the best rpg settings to me are those that offer the most options for player ang GM alike. For instance Star Wars works better then Fading Suns for those reasons. With the latter players to me seem more or less tied to one house, no matter what their role within. More than that they are subservient to the leaders of that faction. So really what can the characters be if not tools to the regime? Dune is a little different despite the similar setting idea since the story is about (in part) the sweeping changes to that society. If that was a typical Fading Suns adventure (or adventure in mys etting) then the game might as well not exist for the changes it would cause to the setting.
Quote from: Ramidel on January 31, 2006, 05:38:15 AM
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 30, 2006, 05:19:22 PM
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.
I'd need a definition of "open." If you mean "allows PCs complete freedom of action and decision-making," then the answer is "you don't." If PCs are members, knights or other servants of a noble house or lord, their job and role is to obey their lord's directives. In a feudal society, rank and privilege come with responsibilities that are often more trouble than they're worth. Peasants, meanwhile, really tend not to do much that's of any interest during stable periods of a feudal society. Finally, outcasts like the standard mixed batch of armed psychos (to take a quote from Tastes Like Phoenix Games) you see in the traditional D&D game? They aren't part of the social structure, and I don't believe that a D&D-redux game was what you were implying that you wanted.
Now, one could make the case for making a house controlled by the PCs so they can run their own evil schemes against other houses, but that still isn't "open." There are still strict rules that members of the nobility must follow (in public, anyway), and in a feudal-medieval setting, they are still subjects of His Majesty the King and must obey his instructions when given, unless they have the muscle, reputation and legitimacy to challenge him.
Now, does this mean that players have limited freedom to choose their characters and characters' actions in such a setting? Yes. In Camelot, PCs are expected to uphold the values of chivalry and serve King and Country. In Legend of the Five Rings, one serves one's daimyo and obeys the rules of bushido (in public, anyway). Fading Suns is somewhat more fractured, but even then, one will usually have superiors one must obey and one will always have to keep noble etiquette in mind (again, in public).
Does this mean that there isn't ample opportunity for PCs to engage in a variety of adventures, dance between the wheels within wheels of court intrigue, romance ladies, plot dastardly skulduggery behind the scenes, and occasionally engage in a bit of constructive destruction? Of course not. Legend of the Five Rings is an excellent resource for such a setting, where the rules of bushido, one's clan, and social etiquette are what help define characters and make a group of intrepid heroes more than a simple collection of murderous misfits. And despite, or I would say because of that, the PCs are able to engage in all sorts of interesting trouble.
In short: Giving the PCs rules to follow makes for interesting and memorable storytelling when they do break them.
In this case open means allowing players to play characters that feel (at least to the player since that's what matters) different than their fellows. When I play that's what I want. The setting would seem to limit that choice.
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 30, 2006, 05:19:22 PM
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.
Why should people in the same house be doing the same thing? A common RP trope is for each "house" to have it's thing that it does really good. This seems to me to have no real analogue in real world examples (e.g what exactly was the defining functional difference between the Lancastrians and the Yorkists?), and be limited in it's RP potential. If, instead, you set up houses as groupings of allegiance and resources, things are much freer.
Want your PCs to be doing different things, no problem! One can be a soldier, another a diplomat, a third a spy and the fourth a merchant. They've no doubt got different reasons for being part of the house but no reason why they can't all be part of the same house.
The final thing I think scuppers house play in most RPGs is the pre-existing nature of the houses. With Chanter I plan to offer systems for the players to define the house to which they belong as part of group character creation.
First, amen to Jack on thehistory: Noble houses were rarely defined by a clear "house special ability" or "house moral code" -- not in real history, not even in good literature.
Romeo and Juliet: What's the distinctive difference between the Capulets and the Montagues? Nothing but the name -- and "what's in a name?"
And
Romeo and Juliet helps make my second point, too: The noble houses in good literature and real histories are never monolithic. Sure, Juliet's father is in charge of the Capulets, but it's clear at several points (e.g. the party scene) that he'd like to keep the feud under control and focus on making marriage alliances with the Prince's family, whereas Tybalt (Juliet's cousin) is eager to pick fights wherever he can. Medieval nobility definitely had hierarchies, but most of medieval history happened when those hierarchies broke down, either openly -- the King of England, who was also Duke of Normandy, deciding that he didn't want to be a vassal of the King of France, but instead be King of France himself -- or behind the scenes -- all sorts of intrigue here.
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 31, 2006, 05:40:24 AMThe setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire.....with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available[?]
If the setting is something you're making up, then
all options are available: You choose what you want, and then retcon the history and the sociology to explain it. Maybe noble houses are rigidly hierarchical, like the modern military; maybe they're full of internal intrigue, like the houses in
Dune; maybe the house leader has little actual control over junior nobles, as in
Romeo and Juliet. Maybe each house has one specialty skill everyone in it has, or one moral "alignment," as in many RPGs; maybe each house picks, say, 5 things from a list of 10 noble house abilities, and then gets a special customized "signature" ability; maybe every house has pretty much the same abilities and attitudes, and the only differences are who's on what side right now.
Or better yet, maybe all of the above are possible, and -- as Jack said -- you let your players design their House in as much detail as they design their characters. I'd look at
Ars Magica for one of the earliest, most influential sets of rules on how to do this.
QuoteOr better yet, maybe all of the above are possible, and -- as Jack said -- you let your players design their House in as much detail as they design their characters. I'd look at Ars Magica for one of the earliest, most influential sets of rules on how to do this.
I assume you are referring to the covenant creation rules here? The things
Ars Magica refers to as houses are fixed, are they not? In fact, I think this example illustrates my point quite well: what matters in
Ars Magica is the group to which you are aligned and the politicing involved in that group. The groups here are the covenants - which are defined purely by their membership, resources and location.
What if there existed a truce between the major houses/factions/etc.? However, there's also some unknown group trying to break the truce (which would result in an all-out intergalactic war). This way, PCs can be from different houses (and not even have to like each other all that much) and be working together to maintain the truce and perhaps ferret out the instigators.
Just a thought.
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 30, 2006, 05:19:22 PM
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or feudal society. [snip] the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing.
Not necessarily. It requires a lot of work in the setup phase to make it work, though. What you need is 1) a write-up of each house with its specialties, stereotypes, common methods and any advantages and disadvantages that accrue from membership, and 2) a flow chart for the inter-relationships between houses (as in, who is allies or enemies with whom). It'll take some doing, but if you use house membership as a method of political factioning (similar to the way that V:tR uses Covenents) it can help to create mixed groups with complementary -- but not necessarily identical -- goals.
I recommend Steven Brust's Dragaera books for an example.
Quote from: tygertyger on January 31, 2006, 11:46:00 AM
What you need is 1) a write-up of each house with its specialties, stereotypes, common methods and any advantages and disadvantages that accrue from membership, and 2) a flow chart for the inter-relationships between houses (as in, who is allies or enemies with whom). It'll take some doing, but if you use house membership as a method of political factioning (similar to the way that V:tR uses Covenents) it can help to create mixed groups with complementary -- but not necessarily identical -- goals.
"Noooo! Don't do it!" I
hate hate hate hate hate being handed a fixed menu of clans/houses/lineages/whatevers that make most of my choices as a GM or player for me.
Quote from: Jack Aidley on January 31, 2006, 09:01:29 AMI assume you are referring to the covenant creation rules here? The things Ars Magica refers to as houses are fixed, are they not?
Good catch, Jack: I'm talking about "covenant creation" -- not the "orders" (Tremere, Flambeau, etc.). Now, in my Actual Play experience, the player-designed "covenant" -- the group of player-characters plus allied NPCs who all lived in the same place and had the same pressing problems, even if they had very different agendas, interests, and abilities -- was way, way more important than the canonical setting-book "orders." But you're right that
Ars sends a very mixed mesage about the degree to which the players get to define their own world, and it seems that in his later games, i.e. the World of Darkness series, designer Mark Rhein-Hagen emphasized the "splatbook" approach of "here is a menu of things you can be, each comes with signature abilities, predefined attitudes, and a whole bunch of NPCs who are way, way more powerful than you, so suck it up and fall in line." Which is a much-copied approach that I (surprise!) abominate.*
So, "Sign of the Serpent" (and do you mind offering us your real name to address you by?), what I'd recommend is taking the whole "splatbook" approach, grinding it to tiny pieces, and stomping on it. The real people playing your game are what matters, the setting you make up is just a tool for them to have fun with**, and your game should give the players as much power as possible to make up cool stuff about the fictional universe. I love making up setting too, but I've discovered that no matter how cool my ideas were, if I give the players the power to create, they'll come up with something even cooler that I hadn't thought of -- which is the whole point of playing a game with other people instead of sitting by myself writing novels!
* Abominate = a lovely word I learned from Ron Edwards.
** So, "IagainstI": yeah, maybe the major houses should be struggling to maintain an uneasy peace against unknown conspirators. Or maybe the major houses should be trying to kill each other dead, right now. Or maybe the major houses are all working together against the outside enemy, and aren't planning to turn on each other at all, but, y'know, the temptation to let your allies do the hard fighting while you grab the easy plunder is always there. Or maybe you could start out with one of these situations and, because of choices the players make, move to one of the other situations during the campaign. I'd like to see a system that gave the players that much power to shape the story.
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 31, 2006, 05:40:24 AM
Quote from: Andrew Morris on January 30, 2006, 05:54:05 PM
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.
Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.
The setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire. Players are characters from this empire, ostensibly from the noble houses that make up this empire. There exist a few organisations/guilds as well as the nobility but they exist as subservient to the nobility. An emperor rules the empire and comes from one of the noble houses as he always has. The nobility enjoy complex relations where some get on with others and not the rest - basically. Beyond the empire exists a number of factions, malevolent, ancient and indifferent that humanity measures up against. The issue is, with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available. I'm not sure if such a game would be ultimately fun; the best rpg settings to me are those that offer the most options for player ang GM alike. For instance Star Wars works better then Fading Suns for those reasons. With the latter players to me seem more or less tied to one house, no matter what their role within. More than that they are subservient to the leaders of that faction. So really what can the characters be if not tools to the regime? Dune is a little different despite the similar setting idea since the story is about (in part) the sweeping changes to that society. If that was a typical Fading Suns adventure (or adventure in mys etting) then the game might as well not exist for the changes it would cause to the setting.
Hey, SotS, I still don't know what you're looking for, here. You didn't really address the questions I posed to you. Try and answer the following questions (short and simple is good):
1) What is your game
about? (e.g. "It's about killing mosters and getting more powerful." "It's about addressing the erosion of morality when faced with temptation." "Its about exploring this cool setting, and finding out all sorts of neat stuff about it." "It's about taking serious political intrigue and turning it on its ear, making it into a comedy.")
2) What do the characters do? You've sorta hinted at that, but not really gone into detail.
3) What do the
players do? I've heard nothing about that.
Even more specifically:
4) What is it that you want the existence of houses to
do? Why do you want them in the game at all? What do they provide in terms of play experience?
Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).
something to think aboot
Quote from: timopod on January 31, 2006, 05:26:29 PMIn a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing...
"Nooo! Don't do it!" (reprise). I've played in, and GM'd, several very fun games where the players were competing with each other, their characters were in conflict, and it worked just fine. The secret of success is to realize that in this kind of game, "your plot"
is the backstabbing.
And in general, any GM who talks about "my plot" is a GM in whose game I'm not playing. If you're GMing and we're the players, then our characters are the heroes of the story, so it's
our plot: The GM's job is to keep the pressure on, not to decide what happens!
But I'm evangelizing instead of addressing "SotS"'s questions. So let me second Andrew's questions: What do the real live players around the table do that's fun for them? What do their characters do that's going to be fun to play? What is a typical "adventure" or play session going to consist of -- the old "get mission, find clues, wander around, fight bad guy, repeat" or "pass notes and backstab each other" or "come up with cool plot, then execute it against NPC opponents" or something totally different?
Quote from: timopod on January 31, 2006, 05:26:29 PM
Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).
something to think aboot
This is precisely what prevents me from buying the GoT rpg (that and the system). Ultimately the players would have to pick the same house for things to really work long term.
I have decided to take a different approach with the setting anyway. I have had the ideas for a long time in terms of noble houses and other things that share their universe. I am thinking this nobility may be relegated to npc status perhaps as antagonists and that the players will be something else entirely. Thanks for the replies.
To follow on from my last post:
The original brief I gave myself was to think of Warcraft in the same way that Warhammer 40k relates to the fantasy iteration that came before. That doesn't mean giving orcs, elves and dwarves spaceships and guns (40K has - if it ever was - long transcended that). I am also a fan of the 'noble houses' archetype - even if it doesn't suit rpg settings as opposed to fiction. Noble Houses make for great characters, just read the GoT novels with all the background notes on the houses with their mottos and heraldry. The setting was also a kind of fantasy in the way star wars is; fantasy in the storytelling way as opposed to genre types for instance.
At the same time I was making notes for a fantasy chinese setting as I had also been reading some of the wuxia comics my local library stocked (plus Weapons of the Gods, ironically he one comic they didn't have, was receiving much adoration on the internet). So now I have decided to change my brief to something more akin to Star Wars, or perhaps the Clone Wars (which, despite the quality of the prequel movies, makes for a far better rpg setting than the classic era - especially from the Jedi perspective with the war between lightside and darkside underpinning the galactic conflict itself). I have also been very interested in Exalted, despite the silly videogame mechanics ideas and anime obsession the game has (and should ditch IMO), which I feel does epic roleplaying, certainly epic frping, very well.
Now I have an idea for a kind of 'kung fu in space' though much less oriental (if only because the people i play with simply won't relate to chinese culture) way - something like the Jedi and the Force in its 'genericness'. This idea has the players taking on the roles of intergalactic wulin heroes. They descend from more enlightened times when the Wulin were the traditional rulers of the society of men in space. Now exists a dominant authority of order and control that outlaws their practises and activities, relegating them to legend and to a nomadic existence of self-subsistence. Meanwhile this Order has it's own enemies - demons from the hell worlds, evil 'black tao' cultists and rebel nobles who chafe under the iron yoke of control. You get the picture (hopefully).
Thus the noble houses will now become part of the setting and, as with all games and gm's, it might be possible to play them, the focus will not be on them as protagonists.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on January 31, 2006, 12:33:01 PM
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 31, 2006, 05:40:24 AM
Quote from: Andrew Morris on January 30, 2006, 05:54:05 PM
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.
1) What is your game about? (e.g. "It's about killing mosters and getting more powerful." "It's about addressing the erosion of morality when faced with temptation." "Its about exploring this cool setting, and finding out all sorts of neat stuff about it." "It's about taking serious political intrigue and turning it on its ear, making it into a comedy.")
2) What do the characters do? You've sorta hinted at that, but not really gone into detail.
3) What do the players do? I've heard nothing about that.
Even more specifically:
4) What is it that you want the existence of houses to do? Why do you want them in the game at all? What do they provide in terms of play experience?
1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.
2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.
3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.
4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.
well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 31, 2006, 06:36:05 PM
1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.
2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.
3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.
4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.
Okay, cool.
1. Rockin, man. Heroes making their own destiny, balanced against the weight of tradition? Awesome. I'd play that in a heartbeat, especially if we're talking about how their desire for their own destiny/identity
conflicts with their obligation to their traditions, and that's the focus of play.
2. And doing what, once they get there? Destabilizing the status quo? Defending the people? Taking over these worlds? In general, are they going there to
do something, or
react to something?
3. Sure, it's a hard separation to get, at first. Look at it this way. D&D is about killing monsters and getting more powerful. The characters travel around, finding adventures so the can kill monsters, gain experience to become more powerful, buy cooler gear that makes them better at killing monsters, etc. The players, in D&D, balance tactical and strategic options. So, are your players using the vehicle of their characters to make a moral statement? Are they exploring the fictional setting? Making hard choices between what must be sacrificed to achieve goals? Something else?
4. Right on. This seems like it's more to the heart of your intentions with this post. If I'm understanding you correctly, the sole purpose of including noble houses is to provide conflict that the characters will address, without resorting to an alien threat. Gotcha. In that case, my response is that your noble houses have several ways they can support the play experience you're looking for, but they are by no means the only way. Was that the extent of your question, or did you want to propose some specific ideas for the application of noble houses and see if they would tend to support your goals?
Don't worry about all the fiddly little bits yet, like skills and character balance. Figure out what your focus will be, then build around that. If your game is going to be about society-changing political campaigns, then there's no reason to even have combat rules, for example. Just sweep that into your general conflict resolution rules, then make sure you have solid political rules. Don't assume you'll need something just because other games have included it.
Likewise, don't assume that conflict between characters (or even competition between players) is a bad thing. I've played cooperative RPGs and competitive ones, and I've enjoyed both, as long as they fit what the game was about.
Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),
Quote4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.
Cool. That's a worthwhile goal. I wonder, however, whether you need make players part of the noble houses in order to acheive this. What about if they're simply independents who may, or may not, work for the houses at any given moment? That way you get you humanocentric setting, and you get conflict in the setting, without necessarily having to create it within the party.
Quote from: timopod on January 31, 2006, 07:08:42 PM
well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.
I haven't seen the movie but Storm Riders is adapted from the comic of the same name; same sort of thing as Weapons of the Gods - similar art style and setting. Really these comics are primarily about martial arts clans/families and their rivalries (one of these comics, possible Storm Riders although i think it's actually Story of the Tao, features a sword made of babies!?!).
The houses are not really the prime function (since I have taken the focus away from them as options for player characters). Their function really is to create conflict. While it might seem two dimensional and obvious to have each house specialise in certain areas (house X are evil, House Y are good, House A have all the swords and House B have all the secrets, etc), having them creates a nonlinear (ie not blacn and white) setting where confliict becomes more three dimensional as each house will likley have it's own agenda and houses together can form unique factions even kingdoms, like clans. It's just a tool for creating conflict and depth rather than anything else with unique identities from those houses (plus i like coming up with names, something I can do well).
GoT= Game of Thrones, as in the rpg based on the books by Goerge RR Martin. Cuthroat medieval style fantasy; noble houses at war.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on January 31, 2006, 07:28:42 PM
Quote from: signoftheserpent on January 31, 2006, 06:36:05 PM
1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.
2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.
3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.
4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.
Okay, cool.
1. Rockin, man. Heroes making their own destiny, balanced against the weight of tradition? Awesome. I'd play that in a heartbeat, especially if we're talking about how their desire for their own destiny/identity conflicts with their obligation to their traditions, and that's the focus of play.
2. And doing what, once they get there? Destabilizing the status quo? Defending the people? Taking over these worlds? In general, are they going there to do something, or react to something?
3. Sure, it's a hard separation to get, at first. Look at it this way. D&D is about killing monsters and getting more powerful. The characters travel around, finding adventures so the can kill monsters, gain experience to become more powerful, buy cooler gear that makes them better at killing monsters, etc. The players, in D&D, balance tactical and strategic options. So, are your players using the vehicle of their characters to make a moral statement? Are they exploring the fictional setting? Making hard choices between what must be sacrificed to achieve goals? Something else?
4. Right on. This seems like it's more to the heart of your intentions with this post. If I'm understanding you correctly, the sole purpose of including noble houses is to provide conflict that the characters will address, without resorting to an alien threat. Gotcha. In that case, my response is that your noble houses have several ways they can support the play experience you're looking for, but they are by no means the only way. Was that the extent of your question, or did you want to propose some specific ideas for the application of noble houses and see if they would tend to support your goals?
Don't worry about all the fiddly little bits yet, like skills and character balance. Figure out what your focus will be, then build around that. If your game is going to be about society-changing political campaigns, then there's no reason to even have combat rules, for example. Just sweep that into your general conflict resolution rules, then make sure you have solid political rules. Don't assume you'll need something just because other games have included it.
Likewise, don't assume that conflict between characters (or even competition between players) is a bad thing. I've played cooperative RPGs and competitive ones, and I've enjoyed both, as long as they fit what the game was about.
In order to keep the blood flowing I will answer these questions now though the answers are not cast in stone (as if anythign in game design ever is).
1. Thanks.
2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.
3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.
4. Aliens may well appear but only if I am satisfied they are interesting and useful since roleplaying cannot use the same visual tools as movies. Star Wars works very well for instance, with all its cg and alien makeup and wierld planetary environments because it's presented in a visual medium. RPG's really aren't. Aliens may well take the role of demons and spirit forces one might find in traditional chinese/wuxi fantasy or anything that is ineffably 'other'.
Quote from: Jack Aidley on February 01, 2006, 05:03:07 AM
Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),
Quote4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.
Cool. That's a worthwhile goal. I wonder, however, whether you need make players part of the noble houses in order to acheive this. What about if they're simply independents who may, or may not, work for the houses at any given moment? That way you get you humanocentric setting, and you get conflict in the setting, without necessarily having to create it within the party.
You can call me Martin, a name I cannot use online since I would have to add a whole bunch of numbers afterward which I dislike doing.
The players won't necessarily be from the nobility within the setting. They will be or at least become something apart from it. I have decided, as I say, to make some changes.
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on January 31, 2006, 11:57:17 AM
"Noooo! Don't do it!" I hate hate hate hate hate being handed a fixed menu of clans/houses/lineages/whatevers that make most of my choices as a GM or player for me.
Limiting choices is a necessary step if one is going to have a chargen system that creates characters that are true to the setting. That said, it's not like the House write-ups can't have any flex in them.
A) You will note my mention of stereotypes. That's about what people tend to expect of members of the House, not what they'll actually get.
B) Even with such write-ups there's always room for variations. Each House can easily have local factions, and probably will in a starfaring setting. It's unlikely that the members of House Radix (frex) will have the exact same agenda on Alpha Centauri colony that they have on Tau Ceti colony. Add to this the possibility of factions within factions -- and perhaps of PCs starting their own factions -- and it can get pretty wild. Just because House Radix is against alliance with the Traezons (again, frex) doesn't mean that all of them will express their dissent the same way. The Centauri Radix might do so with political maneuvering while the Ceti Radix covertly support terrorist actions. That can get dicey if you have a Centauri Radix and a Ceti Radix in the same PC group.
C) The "splatbook" approach, as much as some people hate it, is a good way to introduce an unfamiliar game world (there's a reason that WW has such a large share of the gaming market, folks -- the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work). But even with choices limited in that way, there can still be room for GM and player creativity. Check out Vampire: the Requiem; the current rules include guidelines for creating Bloodlines and Disciplines that are balanced and consistent with the game world. How hard would it be to include something like that with a House write-up (as in, guidelines for creating factions)?
Quote from: signoftheserpent2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.
3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.
2. Okay, so would it be fair to say that the characters travel from world to world, coming to terms with their internal conflict (identity vs. conformity), then attempt to actualize their decision? If so, are the adventures on each planet there to highlight this internal struggle/actualization deal? Or is the internal struggle/actualization stuff there to provide a framework for the cool adventures on new planets? Or have I completely missed the mark, here?
3. Uhm...okay, your players aren't making moral stands. Cool. What are they doing, though? You didn't answer this.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on February 02, 2006, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: signoftheserpent2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.
3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.
2. Okay, so would it be fair to say that the characters travel from world to world, coming to terms with their internal conflict (identity vs. conformity), then attempt to actualize their decision? If so, are the adventures on each planet there to highlight this internal struggle/actualization deal? Or is the internal struggle/actualization stuff there to provide a framework for the cool adventures on new planets? Or have I completely missed the mark, here?
3. Uhm...okay, your players aren't making moral stands. Cool. What are they doing, though? You didn't answer this.
The characters will most likely travel around since the wandering nature of the kung fu hero is a staple of the genre. Besides the universe is a big place.
The players will get out of the game whatever they put in; they will choose to play the game because they like the setting and because it gives them ideas for characters just as it does for the GM. Really they can play from whatever perspective they wish. If they want to indulge in morality plays then they can. The players are going to be characters who adventure in this setting. That's it. It's as simple as that.
What about the game King Arthur Pendragon?
It's about noble houses as well, and players have to manage their property as well as their relations with neighbours, and they have vendettas between houses, and moral conflicts when they have to choose between their surezain's commands and their family well-being.
The players don't have to fight amongst themselves, their's a whole bunch of NPC noble houses and some other kind of enemies.
If you want a noble house setting, you have the perfect example in this game. This setting is based on historical reality, and the game gives a few rules to manage some important points, like the excellent "winter phase" (sorry I don't know the term in the english version of the game). This game should be a major inspiration for you.
-Shlo.
Quote from: shlo on February 02, 2006, 04:25:36 AM
What about the game King Arthur Pendragon?
It's about noble houses as well, and players have to manage their property as well as their relations with neighbours, and they have vendettas between houses, and moral conflicts when they have to choose between their surezain's commands and their family well-being.
The players don't have to fight amongst themselves, their's a whole bunch of NPC noble houses and some other kind of enemies.
If you want a noble house setting, you have the perfect example in this game. This setting is based on historical reality, and the game gives a few rules to manage some important points, like the excellent "winter phase" (sorry I don't know the term in the english version of the game). This game should be a major inspiration for you.
-Shlo.
Actually the traditional WW splat approach is probably the best since it maintains the factional model while allowing players to create their own faction from among them.