So, I've had an idea kicking around in my head for a rules-lite, genre-vague game set in and called, simply, The Valley. What is The Valley? It's exactly that -- a secluded valley of undetermined size, where a small community lives simple lives (like the village in The Village).
The Valley is being besieged from outside, by a Force That Must Not Be Allowed In. My original concept was that it was some kind of zombie-trope, but recently I've had another idea kicking around in my head. The Valley is the last known hotspot of a terribly virulent disease. Everyone in the Valley has it, and everyone knows it. It kills slowly and indiscriminately, with a 100% mortality rate.
The disease affects different people in different ways. I imagine it to go through different stages, and with each stage, it impacts negatively on someone. However, the onset of each stage is punctuated by a change in the physiology of the sufferers. Some become dull, witless and near-vegetative, but find newfound physical strength. Others take the opposite tack, and instead seem to grow weak and sickly but gain terrible, beautiful insight into their suffering and that of the people around them.
This game has no character advancement, and ultimately is about the exact opposite. You get weaker and weaker, and you eventually die. There is no cure, save that of those outside the Valley with their flamethrowers and hazmat suits.
You, as an inhabitant of the Valley, have one saving grace. While there is no cure, and the disease WILL kill you, each generation suffers less than the last. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you can hold on long enough to raise your family right, and see them have children of their own, you might just be able to keep the Valley alive for one more generation -- a generation that might not suffer at all.
=====
The Valley will ideally be a system that's ultra-lite. I'm thinking possibly four stats, one of which will be a disease-related stat that tracks the course of your own illness. I'm very fond of non-traditional stats (MLwM is a good example). I'm loathe to use a physical/mental/social style of stat distribution, although two will probably end up being Community and Disease.
Every stat is fluid, and can change from sesion to session. Disease will probably increase every session until it maxes out, at which point you're done. Community would change based on how you help (or hinder) the survival prospects of The Valley.
As for mechanics, I'm torn between dice and diceless. Diceless has the advantage of no real randomness, but people like dice. A dice system would ideally be a one die system, probably D6, since they're easy for people to get hold of. I don't imagine pages of rules. I don't want The Valley to be choked with combat modifiers and special circumstantial rules -- I want the person runinng the game to say "okay, roll X" and a player to be able to roll and respond in (at most) 3 seconds.
The next issue is more of a long term thing. While I love this idea, I'm having a hard time coming up with justification for long-term play. You can hold off the "intruders" Half Life-style for only so long before it gets boring. There is the option of making it more like the Mountain Witch, where you have a set goal, and the fun comes from how you achieve it.
That's it for the time being. I'd appreciate input on anything I've mentioned above.
Further thoughts.
Each character is defined by four stats (Competence, Community, Disease, Faith), with further clarification or explanation on the part of the player. The player decides a focus for each stat.
Competence is a fairly generalized measure of how well you do things.
Sample Foci: Farmhand, Notary, Fixing Things, Teaching Children
Community is a measure of your dedication to the people of the Valley.
Sample Foci: Raising Children Right, Helping the Elderly, Reluctant Helper, Young Leader
Disease is representative of the disease's effects on your body, mind and soul.
Sample Foci: Painful Joints, Constant Headaches, Injuries Heal Slowly, Sick All the Time
Faith represents a sense of determination and (sometimes) optimism which may or may not be rooted in religious belief.
Sample Foci: The Good Book, Things Will Be Okay, Be Strong For Those I Love, Too Bitter to Die
Each stat is measured from 1 to 10. As regular citizens of the Valley, characters have 14 points to distribute however they see fit amonf Competence, Community and Faith. Disease starts at 1. For every two points of Disease at character creation, the character has an additional three points to distribute among the other three stats.
Example:
I like the idea of Jacob, an older man who isn't all that smart, but is good with his hands. He reads the Bible every day, and thinks that the Valley has been cursed by God for its sins. He looks something like this...
Competence (Fixing Things) 6
Community (Not One of the Sinners) 3
Faith (Salvation through Disease) 8
Disease (Racking Cough) 3*
* Note that Jacob's disease is 3. I increased his Disease by two (as above), and allocated the extra three points to Faith.
At the end of every session, Disease increases by one for all characters. If a character begins a session with 10 Disease, they will succumb to the sickness during that session.
When characters gain a point of Disease during gameplay, they have the option of re-allocating their stat points as they see fit, at the expense of losing three from their overall pool. This represents the strange effect the disease has on people.
Task resolution is handled like this. Spend a point of an appropriate stat (except Disease most of the time), and roll 1d10. If you get under your stat (including the spent point), you succeed at the task. If you get over your stat, you don't necessarily fail; the opposite of change is the status quo. If you succeed, you get two points back on your stat.
That's about it really.
Thoughts?
Well, you can increase if you Risk 1 and can Gain 2. In fact, you are more likely to grow stronger than grow weaker as game progresses!
Also, what reason would characters have to go against the Community? While Jacob would look down on them for being sinners(technically, so is he), what is the conflict there?
I'd add some hard-material internal strife, perhaps you know someone is working with the Beseiging Threat.
Determining conflict in this game will be tricky, and I'm still undecided on the Risk/Reward mechanic and the "disease reshuffle" idea.
Instead of dice, I'm thinking of another way of resolving tasks.
When a character wants to perform a task, every other player and the GM votes to "allow" the action or to "disallow" it. A majority of votes means the task succeeds. A split vote can be overcome by the acting character gaining 1 Disease.
The previous succeeding character gets the following options, after all other votes:
a) Abstain
b) 2 Votes
c) Call a Goal or Stumble (below). Calling a Goal doubles positive votes. Calling a Stumble doubles all negative votes. Using this option gains the previous succeeding character 1 Disease.
Goals and Stumbles are positive and negative things players choose for their character. Goals are things to strive for, and Stumbles are things that get in the way. A sample Goal would be "Raise my daughter right". A sample Stumble would be "alcoholic".
Quote from: Thunder_God on May 02, 2006, 08:15:33 AM
Well, you can increase if you Risk 1 and can Gain 2. In fact, you are more likely to grow stronger than grow weaker as game progresses!
Also, what reason would characters have to go against the Community? While Jacob would look down on them for being sinners(technically, so is he), what is the conflict there?
I'd add some hard-material internal strife, perhaps you know someone is working with the Beseiging Threat.
I'm tinkering with the idea that the Valley is split into two camps -- the Isolationists and the (other people). The Isolationsists want to be cut off from the outside as much as possible, while the (other people) want to make contact, possibly looking fora cure and a peaceful resolution.
Hiya,
I like it. And I wouldn't worry about the long term playability thing. What you want, in my opinion, is that the couple of games that people do play are really good. And as you have the built in mortality thing (everyone is dying) so the fact that time is running out is what makes it interesting. That to me is a very exciting concept. Like those films that begin at the ending, and the rest of the film is about 'why' it happened. So everyone knows they are dying, the plot about getting to the 'why'. It makes sense that there is no overt character advancement, in the conventional sense.
Perhaps a resource system, based on a dramatic device would be an option to consider. The vote system might generate problems (although I myself am not familiar with resolution of this type, so cant say for sure).
Cheers,
C
More ideas:
* Character's Goals should be short term -- something they can (potentially) achieve before kicking it
* There is a limited supply of equipment, etc in the Valley. A list should be provided.
* The Elimination scenario should come into play, wherein everyone must agree on one person achieving something (perhaps recieving a cure?), or they all suffer.
* This could be adapted to other locales. I imagine The Island would be more popular than The Valley (and will become the default, I think), since the Outside Adversary is remoteness itself. A plague-ridden Island? Wrecked survivors of a scientific expedition trying to find the last dose of vaccine on the island?
If my GM said, "Hey, tonight we're playing a game set in a quarantined zone where everyone is dying, including all the PCs," I'd say, "Cool! But, uh, what do we do?"
I didn't find an answer to that in your posts, so I made one up:
There is some sort of tipping point that will eventually be reached, causing something that almost everyone in the Valley believes to be bad. It's believed that this will one day come.
Let's say it's believed because of a prophecy (though scientific evidence could work), the tipping point is a certain mutation of the disease (or it could be an airstrike), the bad fate is the total extinction of everyone in the Valley.
Then we fill the Valley with individuals and factions with various takes on these. The prophecy is/isn't true. The disease will/won't mutate into a more contagious, faster-acting form. The signs of mutation are/aren't x-colored boils. Mutation will/won't guarantee extinction. Extinction of our wretched clan is/isn't a bad thing.
Then you establish whatever resources you want to be at the PCs' disposal. Outside the Valley: contact w/ HazMat dudes, internet, radio, system of signal flares, antidotes, means to make an antidote, stuff thrown into the Valley by known or unknown outsiders...? Inside the Valley: wood, coal, guns, bullets, gunpowder, horses, food, swords, knives, goods or materials wanted by the outside world, scientific equipment, pathology studies, disease samples, ingredients for an antidote, HazMat suits...?
Then you kick off the game with first signs of the apocalypse, have the Valley factions react in different ways, and let the PCs pick their orientation and plan a course of action. A campaign could end with the Valley's inhabitants being exterminated, or saved from extermination, or the prophecy being revealed as a scam, or the first signs not actually indicating the apocalypse, or whatever, depending on how long you want to keep playing.
I like the idea that an antidote could be created by combining something inside the Valley with something outside the Valley...
If this isn't remotely in the direction you envisioned, feel free to strip-mine it for parts anyway...
-Dave
There definitely needs to be a ratcheting up of pressure as conflicts between personal and community goals are laid bare. Because that's fun. I'm all over games that force you to make difficult choices, and I am so all over games that are all about dying well.
Quote from: David Berg on May 03, 2006, 12:40:31 PM<snip super-cool ideas>
That's for the great ideas, David. Consider them freely strip-mined. :)
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on May 03, 2006, 12:54:48 PM
There definitely needs to be a ratcheting up of pressure as conflicts between personal and community goals are laid bare. Because that's fun. I'm all over games that force you to make difficult choices, and I am so all over games that are all about dying well.
You're definitely right. I'd like to tie that kind of "conflict pressure" with how sick people get. People can be (sometimes irrationally) passionate about things when they know they only have a little time left to live.
I'm fond of the voting mechanic I suggested simply because it causes conflict between members of the group, who at the same time are (theoretically) working towards a joint goal. I wouldn't be surprised if it came down to characters killing each other over very petty things, or perhaps for that last vial of serum.
Another thought re: Goals and Stumbles. I'm going to have each character have a "Secret" that involves another character in the group. Players could collaborate between themselves, but it's imperative that no more than 1/3 of the group share any one secret. Ideally these would be secrets that really expose the rotten core of everyone in the Valley (you know, like "your father didn't die in his sleep, I suffocated him" or "your sister made fun of me, so I paid some men in the Valley to rape her so she would be taught a lesson"). Real button-pushers. As the game progresses, these secrets would be revealed.
As a side note, my big inspirations for this are any 'quarantine' style movie,
Lost, and Hitchcock's
Lifeboat.
Hi there,
Let me put my 2 cents in here. Maybe as an option, there is something in the Valley that slows down the disease. However, it is a very rare herb (or something other item there is only a little of.) I think the addition of such an item would "stir up the pot" escalating tensions among the people as they stramble for the "herb." It would simply subtract 1 from the disease stat while letting keep their +3 in other stats. Depending on what you are after, perhaps there is..say...only one dose worth for one or two people.
2 cents entered,
Sean
Quote from: sean2099 on May 03, 2006, 10:14:43 PM
Hi there,
Let me put my 2 cents in here. Maybe as an option, there is something in the Valley that slows down the disease. However, it is a very rare herb (or something other item there is only a little of.) I think the addition of such an item would "stir up the pot" escalating tensions among the people as they stramble for the "herb." It would simply subtract 1 from the disease stat while letting keep their +3 in other stats. Depending on what you are after, perhaps there is..say...only one dose worth for one or two people.
2 cents entered,
Sean
An interesting idea. I would probably have that as the aforementioned "cure". Everyone knows there's not enough to go around, so there has to be choice -- one person gets the cure or nobody does.
Hi James,
I find the inverse of your idea to be more interesting. The Valley is clean and pure and Outsiders are diseased. Outsiders wouldn't know that The Valley was pure so they might be normal decent people that the players have to scare off, or maybe even kill. The valley being pure would seem to instill more paranoia as the people in The Valley would be hyper-vigilant in examining any sickness to the point of insanity. Perhaps if you get too sick in The Valley, you don't die from a disease but a neighbor's shovel to your head in the middle of the night. This seems like it would let you do shorter play by focusing on the internal conflict right away (Think John Carpenter's movie, The Thing), or longer term play by starting with your focus on external things and then slowly bringing the internal conflict in. (Think Lost reversed)
"Did you just cough? How long you been hunting Outsiders in tha woods, boy?"
To support your present idea.... I wonder what makes these people so altruistic that they voluntarily quarantine themselves? Does the rest of the world know about the disease? If so why are the Valley folks still alive? Is there a fence staffed by guards? How long has The Valley been isolated?
Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on May 05, 2006, 10:20:49 AM
Hi James,
I find the inverse of your idea to be more interesting. The Valley is clean and pure and Outsiders are diseased. Outsiders wouldn't know that The Valley was pure so they might be normal decent people that the players have to scare off, or maybe even kill. The valley being pure would seem to instill more paranoia as the people in The Valley would be hyper-vigilant in examining any sickness to the point of insanity. Perhaps if you get too sick in The Valley, you don't die from a disease but a neighbor's shovel to your head in the middle of the night. This seems like it would let you do shorter play by focusing on the internal conflict right away (Think John Carpenter's movie, The Thing), or longer term play by starting with your focus on external things and then slowly bringing the internal conflict in. (Think Lost reversed)
"Did you just cough? How long you been hunting Outsiders in tha woods, boy?"
That briefly crossed my mind, but I felt that would simply become a very obvious "good = uninfected, bad = diseased" idea. I didn't want it to be too polarized one oway or the other. When you're the one that's "bad" in a sense, it makes things much more interesting.
Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on May 05, 2006, 10:20:49 AM
To support your present idea.... I wonder what makes these people so altruistic that they voluntarily quarantine themselves? Does the rest of the world know about the disease? If so why are the Valley folks still alive? Is there a fence staffed by guards? How long has The Valley been isolated?
There's nothing altruistic about them. There's no self imposed quarantine. Anyone who wants to leave the Valley can do so, but that leaves them at the mercy of the men with hazmat suits and flamethrowers. Whatever happens to them, the residents of the Valley know that they don't come back.
Those questions are part of why I was thinking of making it an Island. Imagine a scientific expedition running aground (or their plane crashing) on an island that was once used for biological weapons testing. I think that makes it much more interesting than, say, a Valley in the middle of nowhere.
Hm. Is there any way I can change the thread title to "The Island" ? :)
How about this disease: very contagious; when you catch it either you quickly die a horribly painful death, or you recover after a moment with no side-effects. You don't have the "getting sicker and sicker" side of things, but you can have a faction who thinks they may as well infect the whole of mankind, like that in a generation it'd be over with, the survivors wouldn't have to worry any more. Or at least, those in the valley would resent being discriminated against (not to mention being shot on sight), since they don't consider themselves really 'sick" anymore.
Another twist: the outside doesn't know the valley is infected. The people in the valley try to keep it a secret, even if that means making people "disappear". (This can work for a couple sessions, then switch to the quarantine-and-flamethrowers version).
Quote from: flammifer on May 07, 2006, 12:57:41 AM
How about this disease: very contagious; when you catch it either you quickly die a horribly painful death, or you recover after a moment with no side-effects. You don't have the "getting sicker and sicker" side of things, but you can have a faction who thinks they may as well infect the whole of mankind, like that in a generation it'd be over with, the survivors wouldn't have to worry any more. Or at least, those in the valley would resent being discriminated against (not to mention being shot on sight), since they don't consider themselves really 'sick" anymore.
Part of the integral "feel" of The Valley would be that everyone is sick; no-one is simply "fine" or healthy.
Quote from: flammifer on May 07, 2006, 12:57:41 AM
Another twist: the outside doesn't know the valley is infected. The people in the valley try to keep it a secret, even if that means making people "disappear". (This can work for a couple sessions, then switch to the quarantine-and-flamethrowers version).
The idea of having the Valley "quarantined" is a way of containing the setting to one area. It provides setting and gameplay boundaries that make for a more interesting game (in my opinion) because you have a limited "space" to play with.
All very interesting ideas, though. Something to think over at least.
Hi everyone,
There seems to be enough variations, in my opinion, to list all of them as options or perhaps it could even be changed to the Valleys or the Islands. If the latter, then perhaps there is more than one place with outbreaks of similar disease. The rate of viral mutation could justify having different variations of the same disease.
Just my 2 cents,
Sean
Having watched this thread for a while, I wonder if you would consider something more "open."
You basically have:
- Contained Space - Valley, Island... Prison? WWI Trenches?
- Cause of Containment - Jackbooted Thugs in Biohazard Suits, the ocean's expanse... Guards? Officers?
- Attrition of Occupants - Outsiders, Disease... Drug Addiction/Gangwars? Battles?
- Spur to Action - ???, ???... ???, ???
(Note: The last one is another point I am going to make.)
Given the somewhat "high concept" nature of your inspiration, why not go all out and make choosing the Space, Containers, and Attrition Source something that each group of players decides?
On the other hand, you don't seem to have a Spur yet, other than Attrition. Sure, "eliminating the Attrition Source" may be the default Spur; but that doesn't work that well for, say, disease (without
deus ex machina) or for prison guards or for officers with pistols loaded for deserters. I guess my second question basically asks is: "What's the point? Why don't we (as characters) just lay down and die, already?"
HTH;
David
Because that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.
Picking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.
Quote from: Thunder_God on May 08, 2006, 04:53:07 PM
Because that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.
Picking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.
I agree. I think, in a sense, that they are more liberated. I mean, they know that they only have so long to live...therefore, they try to live as much as possible for as long as possible. As PC's, they could have goals that they want to accomplish before they die.
On a different note, I just asked myself a "what-if". What if there were two islands (as an example) and they were just far enough away to make rafting impractical but they had short ranges radios? Then, what if they each had a variation of the "disease", one where they became like mindless zombies and one where they achieved mental clarity but became bed-ridden. I just I could see two planes crashing...
Anyway, your game concept is fine. I just find asking what-ifs helps, even if they stray from the original idea.
Sean
Additional twist idea: The people in the valley are sick, but are convced that *they* are the only healthy ones left, and that the people around them are just a band of degenerates who want to get rid of them. Or, the other way around - the rest of the world is diseased, and wants the valley to *join* them.
The "we're not sick, they are" thing can also be just the opinion of a minority faction in the valley.
Quote from: Thunder_God on May 08, 2006, 04:53:07 PMBecause that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.
Bad analogy. Folks who suffered under the Holocaust (a) had at least
some reason for hope (the Allies were fighting) (b) were not perfectly contained (it was at least
possible to escape) and (c) could at least
attempt an appeal to their captors (not all were faceless, heartless jackbooted thugs).
All these Island and Valley and disease ideas are expressly designed to
deny each of those avenues of hope. The game is, it seems to me, defined by its abject, incontrovertible hopelessness. And that's what made me ask for some notions of Spurs.
Quote from: Thunder_GodPicking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.
Well, that is certainly a popular opinion, here on The Forge. I happen to disagree, both with the overarching theory that informs this opinion, and this particular application of it as an objection.
Yes, it can be harder to make a tight system when it has a lot of options; no, it is not impossible; no, it is not mandatory that every system serve one and only one situation and setting.
Further, I didn't exactly propose options much beyond Color, so take it or leave it: Once I have a copy of The Valley, I am sure I can easily "port" its single-situation, single-setting Valley rules (should they be such) to whatever location, containment, and source of attrition I can image.
And others can, too. Which is why I suggest writing that into the basic rules in the first place: easier prep for more players, broader marketability (leverage many genres), and a clear indication that the game is focused on the emotions and explorations of rising above dispair, not some highly contrived Valley. And further, consider replayability: how many full run games of The Sealed Valley of Disease will folks play, before the setting itself becomes uninteresting and, as such, a barrier to investment into the SIS? Two, maybe? Three? And if what the game is trying to "get at" is this ideal of enlightenment through entrapment, then what difference does it make if the whole situation is abstracted... and, therefore, why not make that crystal clear by having a options mechanic that, while facilitating fast prep, also demonstrates its core irrelevance?
Quote from: sean2099 on May 08, 2006, 09:55:27 PMI agree. I think, in a sense, that they are more liberated. I mean, they know that they only have so long to live...therefore, they try to live as much as possible for as long as possible. As PC's, they could have goals that they want to accomplish before they die.
Ah-ha! A Spur! ;-)
Seriously, though, that's exactly what I am asking about. "Goals they want to accomplish" is Spur. Player-defined, situation-defined, no matter. They are Spurs. And I have come to believe that Situation Matters: you may leave it to the GM or players to determine their own Spurs, but wouldn't it be a tighter-fitting product if there were a system in place for preparing/determining Spurs?
Just tryin' to help!
David
P.S. Am I the first one to think this game could be about Hell?
Location: Rings of Hell
Container: The Almighty God and various appointees
Attrition: Insanity, catatonia, or the mindlessness of total agony
Spur: ... (I am still not sure what motivates a doomed but enlightened person--I am only half of one, so far... as are we all, if you think about it on a slightly large scale than a Valley!)
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 09, 2006, 11:00:04 AM
All these Island and Valley and disease ideas are expressly designed to deny each of those avenues of hope. The game is, it seems to me, defined by its abject, incontrovertible hopelessness. And that's what made me ask for some notions of Spurs.
Exactly right. It's about what people do when in the most terrible of situations. I could call it "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" but I'm pretty sure that's taken. ;)
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 09, 2006, 11:00:04 AM
Which is why I suggest writing that into the basic rules in the first place: easier prep for more players, broader marketability (leverage many genres), and a clear indication that the game is focused on the emotions and explorations of rising above despair, not some highly contrived Valley.
This one speaks the truth! I shall learn from his wisdom.
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 09, 2006, 11:00:04 AMSeriously, though, that's exactly what I am asking about. "Goals they want to accomplish" is Spur. Player-defined, situation-defined, no matter. They are Spurs. And I have come to believe that Situation Matters: you may leave it to the GM or players to determine their own Spurs, but wouldn't it be a tighter-fitting product if there were a system in place for preparing/determining Spurs?
I imagine that given the aforementioned "terrible situation" would be an ample source of Spurs. When you drop a terrible, awful situation in a player's lap and say "what do you do?" they tend to think of instinctual things, things that are really gut reactions. That's what this project is about -- capturing those gut reactions, for good or ill.
Also: Hell is an excellent example. I may steal it for a sample Situation.
Glad I could be of help so far....
Quote from: jknevitt on May 09, 2006, 08:44:07 PMWhen you drop a terrible, awful situation in a player's lap and say "what do you do?" they tend to think of instinctual things, things that are really gut reactions. That's what this project is about -- capturing those gut reactions, for good or ill.
Could I, perhaps, get you to share your imaginings of what would happen at a typical game start and throughout typical play?
My concern is that it might run something like this:
GM: [Just finished describing the "vanilla" Valley Location, Enforcers (replacing "Container" as a term, as it was ambiguous), and Attrition] ...So what do you do first?
Player 1: [Looking appropriately abject and going with his gut] So wait, these hazmat guys won't let us out of here? Screw that! I go to the edge of the Valley and try to signal them.
GM: They won't approach you. They are aiming their guns at you.
P1: What? They're gonna shoot me?!
GM: It's a terrible disease; it would wipe out most of humanity; you're a carrier, now. Yep. One shot is all it'll take, judging by where he's aiming.
P1: Don't we have a radio or something?
Player 2: Yeah! I go look for a radio in town.
GM: You find one in the sheriff's office, spend an hour transmitting on it, with no reply. The sheriff watches you impassively, then finally says, "They never answer, now. I guess they's too guilty or sumfin. Can't face us doomed folks."
P1 and P2: [pondering, muttering, thinking]
P1: OK, I am going to try to sneak out, then. There's GOTTA be a way out of here at night, with no moon, on a rainy night. I wait for such a night and prepare... [laundry list]
...
GM: ...and you've been shot in the back. IR scope, you figure, as the black night gets blacker.
P1: Look, is there ANYTHING we can DO?
GM: Nope, you're doomed, and your guy is dead. Player 2, what do you do now?
P2: I contemplate my navel and hope for enlightenment.
Am I being fairly clear? There is a balancing act you need to work out: trap and doom the characters v. engage and stimulate the players. Repeatedly. And I just wonder how the players will feel and react, after Plans B, C, D, E, etc. are met with failure.
Perhaps it's an endgame issue: your game is currently mostly situation, and it is being setup so that attempts at solution will not succeed. Thus, I am finding it hard to see an endgame, something towards which to play, yea, a very reason to play.
I will make an argument via a parallel: My buddies and I spent many hours years ago working out wild, weird, fiendish traps and bombs. If you ever saw the MacGyver episode with the ornate bomb on the cruise ship, you saw our inspiration. Now, these bombs and traps could be anything, but they were often timer-based, misleading, with multiple triggers and such. The whole idea was to present enough info for the other guy(s) to be able to work out what sequence of actions would circumvent the bomb/trap. Many times, they failed at first try... and second, third, etc--this was a sort of game with multiple resets, as the bombs could take a long time to design, only to be "blown up" by the first blunder.
How does this relate to The Valley? Well, the KEY to our traps/bombs was that there was a single, bright hope: a way to defuse or bypass them. SOME way. Not always obvious, not always plausible (groaning was a common GM-feedback system), but a way through. An endgame.
What is The Valley's endgame?
Hope this is still helping;
David
Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 10, 2006, 09:54:28 AM
What is The Valley's endgame?
Still workin' on that part. :D
Really, though, what's the desired endgame in, say,
Lord of the Flies? One could say that the endgame is to survive. That's pretty bleak, and Im' sure nobody would enjoy playing in a game where situationally, the game is rigged against you.
The premise of Containment in this scenario assumes that the characters recognize and accept the Containment as a potentially impassable barrier. In your example, the players had a "just dropped in here by parachute" approach, and so felt they could overcome Containment, which to me isn't really the point of the game.
What is the point? Survival. Doing good things in bad situations. Think of one of those old movies where you see a bunch of people trapped somewhere/sick/etc, and only one person can escape/be cured/etc, so it comes down to making the decision as to who that lucky person is.
That's where I'm going with this. The goal isn't "escape". It's "survival", which are two very different things.
Quote from: jknevitt on May 10, 2006, 10:04:14 AMThat's where I'm going with this. The goal isn't "escape". It's "survival", which are two very different things.
You recognize, however, that saying "the goal is survival" is moving the bar, right? Without defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."
True, my example of play begged the question about escape... but you prompted that with your "go from gut" point. I was going from my gut, as a player just learning about this game. So, OK, maybe the GM simply stipulates, "Do not attempt to escape or communicate with the Containment," and the players bypass all of my current examples of failure. They move on to... what?
That's all I am trying to get you to talk about. You still have to have some kind of Spur. Surviving is not a Spur; it's a requirement without which you don't have a protagonist. Now, surviving in an inimical environment
could be a Spur: the characters must find water, food, and shelter (in that order) within some period of time or die. In such a case, the endgame is "We got it all!" and you are done playing such a Spur. It could even be a thematically interesting Spur, if there is not enough food for all characters to eat indefinitely: now you have a new Spur: determine who is allowed to die. And maybe the guy voted off the island decides he can just reduce the number of competitors the old fashioned way, and you've got ANOTHER Spur: defend against this wacko you sentenced to death (v. knock off a few of those assholes who've doomed you, so that they have enough food to share with you). Now you've got a competitive (PvP) element to your Spur. So the wacko gets killed (or kills) and that is resolved; now you've got still more Spur: (if the game has such mechanics) can the killer deal with the guilt of their crime of pragmatism, or will they become the next loony on the island? Succeed: game over. Fail: go back to the PvP Spur and repeat ad nauseum.
What you have now--as interesting and compelling and succinct as it is--is just a system hanging in space. (Abstracted space, even, if you go with my earlier notions about making the game colorless by default and letting players define Location, Containment, and Attrition.) To use a parallel from one of your inspirations, what would the story of
The Village be about, if there was simply
no way out? Townie in-fighting over mating rights, I suppose. Better farming practices to increase crop yields. Population control to make sure the logical results of those mating rights don't overwhelm the improved yields. Probably a lot of cookouts and sports.
Where is the
game in that mere survival, that maintenance? Why would a player play? What does a player do?
(Aside: I guess Spur is Big Model Situation, technically. Without Situation, you got no game, you have a setting and system. I had to have that hammered into me recently, myself.)
Not trying to knock you, just wanting to see the third leg of the S Triangle;
David
QuoteYou recognize, however, that saying "the goal is survival" is moving the bar, right? Without defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."
Jknevitt, David has sort of expressed this a few times in different words, but maybe not elaborated enough.
For clarity, just if it is required:
In a typical zombie movie, the goal is to not get eaten. only physical survival matters.
Because you are dying, and are diseased, "physical survival" doesn't seem like it can be the sole proponent driving you forward.
I have a situation for you:
Old Man Peters was in terminal condition a month ago.
He was in the final stages, and the disease was overcoming him.
His son went missing, and he mysteriously began climbing back to health.
You ask him, "dude, what restored you to health?" He confesses, "I ate my son."
He tells you that eating someone's soul allowed you to gain their health.
Now, maybe you don't want to see this example come up in-game. Personally, I do.
I think that'd make a wicked story arc.
Think of the angles!
Anyways...
Is Old Man Peters surviving in this case?
Physically surviving, yes....
But I think The Valley has the ability to address survival of the soul, survival of sanity, etc, etc.
Maybe in The Valley, "surviving" means "staying you".
When David says:
QuoteWithout defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."
...I think that's what he's addressing.
What exactly is surviving? The body? (surely not, because the game isn't about navigating physical dangers.)
the soul? the mind? the heart? humanity? kindness?
the ability to do good? the ability to be selfish?