I'm looking to get back into gaming after a long hiatus. The idea that's itching my noodle so bad that I have to run it: explore the moral difficulties in both sides of a terrorist/insurgent conflict in a game setting, by placing the characters between an expanding empire and a small unconventional army. As the terrorists escalate, so too does the empire, in a quagmire inducing spiral. The characters could be running from the empire, and thus sympathetic to the resistance at first, at least until the terrorists really stop pulling the punches. I figure it could make for great gaming if some characters are sympathetic to each side-- each seeing the other as demonic, and therefore justified to use any response.
I've got a lot of ideas for possible settings and systems, but I'm stuck, and I've got players itching for this thing to get rolling. I'd certainly see the game as primarily story centered, so a minimum of "real-world simulation" crunch would be best. I've looked through a ton of systems to run this badboy, but so far nothing has clicked. Possibilities: Dogs, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Paladin, Weapons of the Gods, or Qin.
One thought I had would be to combine wuxia with Don't Rest Your Head: have Open Palm vs. Closed Fist (ala Jade Empire) schools of kung fu tempting players on both sides. Each school has merit, each becomes monstrous when taken to extremes (and thus each school has adherents that are respectable and monstrous). Open Palm is Spock-like rationality and detachment, "the good of the many outweigh the good of the one" in moderation, and the French Revolution at the extreme. Closed Fist is individuality and passion in moderation, and bloody might-makes-right in the extreme.
The story in this incarnation might revolve around kung fu vs. the incoming imperialist armies. It might combine quite well with a wuxia reincarnation of Star Wars.
Please send me thoughts, criticism, and suggestions!
Welcome to the forge, Roy!
You have some really cool ideas. I just want to hone in on a few things:
1.) Why would Sorcerer be a good pick? What would demons represent? I don't get this one.
2.) Are you looking for "find the right side and rise against the evil one"?
Star Wars had a definite set of good guys, and an definite set of bad guys, in its terrorists vs. imperials story.
3.) Are the players going to lead one side to victory, or are they pawns stranded?
What is their role in the clash? (I realize they will be jumping between sides potentially, I'm more asking about their significance and power)
4.) Are we focusing on the battlefront? individual duels that take place far away from the front lines, but have all the power to change the war? Are we in political chambers, arguing over maps and tactics?
Once you answer those questions, some possible ideas to run with a bit:
-You are journalists, employed by FOX NEWS to cover the story of the evil insurgents.
But... along the way, you realize they are human too.
Something like "carry. a game about war" could work for this.
-You are mercenaries, ammunition suppliers and trade route supervisors.
What will you allow? How much does money matter?
-You are there to judge people - to figure out who is right and who is corrupted by hate and animosity.
Dogs in the Vineyard, but the cities are battlegrounds.
-You are a couple lost souls, caught in a shifting landscape of shells, war and secret organizations rallying for war.
Who are the true evils? What must a good person bring themselves to do in the name of good?
Who are these masked men roaming around a blocked-off, secret part of the city?
And why the hell have you found your way into it?
(Don't Rest your Head, 100%)
-Like you said, wuxia meets DRYH. I think it could work really well, and might be hella cool.
Also... for some reason, I can't help but think of The Last Samurai here.
I think america is in episode 2 right now so says the prophet george lucas.
Thanks for the response and all the thoughts, Joepub!
If you don't mind, I'll quote through and answer your questions one-by-one:
1.) Why would Sorcerer be a good pick? What would demons represent? I don't get this one.
I thought Sorcerer might work as the tension and stakes in the conflict rise, each side is contacted by demons looking to feed off of the conflict itself. The fundamental question in the campaign then might become, do the characters succumb to the base urges of violence as the situation descends into anarchy, or do they overcome their literal demons?
2.) Are you looking for "find the right side and rise against the evil one"?
Star Wars had a definite set of good guys, and an definite set of bad guys, in its terrorists vs. imperials story.
I think I'm leaning towards making the resistance the side of right, at least at the end of the story, but both the empire and the insurgents each have their share of saints and sinners. Perhaps it would be best to leave the question of which side to be settled in game, as the players decide?
3.) Are the players going to lead one side to victory, or are they pawns stranded?
What is their role in the clash? (I realize they will be jumping between sides potentially, I'm more asking about their significance and power)
My thought was to make the campaign epic in scale, with the players low on the totem pole at first, but rising to prominence as the war continues.
4.) Are we focusing on the battlefront? individual duels that take place far away from the front lines, but have all the power to change the war? Are we in political chambers, arguing over maps and tactics?
I'd like for the game to include combat, but to not focus entirely on it. My thought was to have skirmishes and politicking as tension is building, building, as an apocalyptic final conflict looms. Who wins this conflict, and at what cost, or whether it can be avoided entirely, would be a central question at the end of the campaign, as I envision it.
I like your campaign ideas...especially the DRYH and the Dogs in the Vineyard. Perhaps the characters could be a sort of inquisitorial/internal affairs group, either part of the empire or the resistance (with one as a secret agent for the other side?), and they could be hunting out traitors and "corrupted." Hmmm...neato!
It seems to me that you don't have found a focus for this game yet, and without a focus it can be very hard to decide on a system. So I have some questions:
What is the central moral dilemma the characters faces?
What is the exact situation the characters find them self in in this game?
What will a typical conflict in this game be about?
You have answered some of these question to some degree, but try to be more specific.
- Anders
Thanks for the response Anders!
What is the central moral dilemma the characters faces?
The central theme I'd like to focus on is, "How much violence is reasonable as a response to violence? Is there a way out of the cycle of retribution? How can two sides who demonize one another be brought back to the table to work out their differences? (i.e. is it possible to deprogram someone after indoctrination?)"
What is the exact situation the characters find them self in in this game?
The characters will initially be fleeing the empire, very aware of its abuses, and therefore initially sympathetic to the resistance. But as the carnage escalates and they meet more sympathetic voices from the empire, and see more demonic characters in the resistance, their loyalty may shift.
What will a typical conflict in this game be about?
One approach that might work would be to have the characters sent on missions for the resistance, some of which they can agree with, while others they do not. Perhaps philisophically opposed, feuding resistance commanders send them on very dissimilar sorts of missions. Thus a question could become, to whom do they pledge their loyalty?
Another thought: Dune might provide another good setting for this type of idea: to have the characters be Fremen fighting the Emperor on Arrakis.
Hope this helps!
(All of my answers are open to adaption if anyone has better ideas!)
Good answers!
Here are some things I would look for in a system for this:
* The conflict between the two fractions should mirror the journey of the characters.
* The characters risk to be dragged into the conflict, especially when they use violence.
* It should be very tempting for the characters to use violence - it will always be the easy way out.
* Loyalty is important. You can not be neutral; you are ether with us or against us!
* The initial goal of the characters is: They want to do the right thing.
Some ideas for mechanics:
Character should have passions - things they feel very strongly about. It can be something they desire or something they hate or some strong principles they have. These passions can drive them forth, but they can also blind them, and drag them down into the conflicts.
"Want to do the right thing" should be the strongest passion, but every time the characters do something that results in violence, this passion will be "reduced".
The more loyal the characters are to one of the fractions the stronger they are. But this loyalty will also bind them, by binding their passions (their desires will be toward the current fraction, their hatreds will be against the other fraction). The character will only have this extra strength as long as they obey the fraction.
The fraction should try to get the characters to do thing that results in violence (this is the GM's responsibility).
The more passions that have bounded the characters the stronger will the conflict be between the two fractions.
You should note that this is only some random thoughts. I have no idea if it can make a complete system. But I hope it can give you some inspiration.
- Anders
Thanks much for the input Anders!
To me, your suggestions would seem to point towards Dogs in the Vineyard, especially regarding the easy but dangerous temptation to use violence to solve problems.
"Want to do the right thing" should be the strongest passion, but every time the characters do something that results in violence, this passion will be "reduced".
This is a cool idea; I'm trying to decide whether this would be best modeled as an explicit mechanic, ala Sorcerer or Don't Rest Your Head, or whether the judgement and consequences should be left more abstract, as in Dogs.
The more loyal the characters are to one of the factions the stronger they are. But this loyalty will also bind them, by binding their passions (their desires will be toward the current faction, their hatreds will be against the other faction). The character will only have this extra strength as long as they obey the faction.
The faction should try to get the characters to do thing that results in violence (this is the GM's responsibility).
These excellent ideas make me think of Star Wars, and the temptation of the dark side.
Perhaps, then, the Banthas in the Vineyard adaptions might make for a good setting for this campaign. Hmmmm....
Excellent food for thought!
Roy,
A fascinating and timely concept for a game. I have a question about the role of the Narrator (assuming there is one). Is the Narrator's main role to tempt the players, create moral dilemmas, and encourage debate? Or do all players have the power to tempt one another or question something asserted as fact (e.g. challenging a phrase like: "Speaking against your government is a form of treason during war time.") If not, what is the Narrator's role?
Do you mean the game to be educational? If so, I suggest you check out A Force More Powerful (http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org). The website talks about non-violence theory and various types of non-violent action that have been successful. You also might check out the Albert Einstein Institute and the Center for Nonviolent Communication.
I'm going to respond to aaronil's question with my own answer.
I think that whatever side the characters side with (if they do...) should be the "good" and "holy" side in their eyes.
But in the end, as per what the WORLD thinks - there are no good guys.
It should (in my opinion) be "pick sides in a world of violence. Who is at fault here? Who, in a world of mutual aggression, do you believe in?"
I'm going to reccomend you watch a movie.
A really, really crappy movie overall: Silent Hill.
Why this movie?
There is this evil demon, in the form of a small, fragile child.
And there is this this crazy cult, in the form of a dedicated, puritan faith.
At one point, the main character decides "this side is the good side."
And from that point on, the church are the bad guys. Their actions are evil things carried out against the "good guys"
And from that point on, the demon is one of the good guys. Her actions are evil things carried out against the "bad guys" - and are thus okay.
Crappy movie, but great for that single point.
Setting issues:
1. Why are the Imperials there?
'They are good people following bad orders' won't work; it's not grey enough. The villains in Rifts were a fascist dictatorship, but justified because they were the only thing between humanity and Hell.
But that won't cut it in your case: if the Imperials are needed, it isn't a dilemma.
2. Where are the characters' loyalties?
Mixed loyalties are actually pretty simple. Consider a South Vietnamese soldier; fighting for a brutal tyrant who was a puppet of a foriegn capitalist democracy against a communist democracy of your own people who had invaded your country to remove your leader and who would probably see you as a traitor to Vietnam.
I've been looking at my first point for five minutes and really have no suggestions. Having the PCs as Imperials may work; a Nazi would concievably dessert, but go over to the Resistance and join attacks on his old comrades?
Aaronil, joepub, and lollerkeet, thanks for the comments!
Is the Narrator's main role to tempt the players, create moral dilemmas, and encourage debate? Or do all players have the power to tempt one another or question something asserted as fact (e.g. challenging a phrase like: "Speaking against your government is a form of treason during war time.") If not, what is the Narrator's role?
I conceive of the game as being structured along fairly conventional RPG lines...i.e. a Game Master providing story elements to push the players to explore their characters philosophical boundaries.
Do you mean the game to be educational?
I don't intend the game to be educational in terms of me instructing the players. Certainly I would like for some intense intellectual exploration to occur, but I'm hoping that will be achieved naturally during the course of play.
I think that whatever side the characters side with (if they do...) should be the "good" and "holy" side in their eyes.
But in the end, as per what the WORLD thinks - there are no good guys.
Absolutely. Both sides will find it necessary as the campaign intensifies to ally their cause with all that is fine and good, and to demonize their opponents.
It should (in my opinion) be "pick sides in a world of violence. Who is at fault here? Who, in a world of mutual aggression, do you believe in?"
Perhaps a good way to go about the story here would be to follow the model of Fahrenheit 451, where the protagonist starts very sympathetic to the empire, hearing only one side of the argument, but as he learns more about the truth of the situation, becomes sympathetic to the opposition. The campaign thus could include revelations about methods being used by the empire, and the lack of credibility about some of their propaganda. Though I'd like to have some characters end up on each side, or at least have to struggle with the issue, rather than having them walk through my story about why empires are bad. I guess this is where I'm not sure how to proceed.
Lollerkeet: I guess I'm not quite clear on your point. From my point of view, the more valid the empire's reason for "intervening," the more grey the conflict becomes.
What I am thinking for a story setup: an empire invades under false pretences, actually merely engaging in a power grab. As the characters learn that not everything they were told about the demonic terrorists or the righteous empire is true, they also find out that the resistance is being led by an old opponent of the empire, who's gone totally off the deep end in his crusade to push back the invasion.
Looming questions:
How to keep the characters from merely washing their hands of the entire conflict?
How to keep this game from being a total GM railroad? How do I provide the players with real choice about the story?
The comments so far are much appreciated...please keep them coming!
An idea about the Setting.
Although there may be nominally two sides, in reality there should be lots of different factions, of different morality, some with the possibility to switch sides. The players can affect the big picture by helping or fighting the different factions on both sides.
I totally agree with NN.
There is an imperium.
It should have multiple inner organizations that function differently.
and inside those organizations there should be dissenters, disagreements, etc.
And there will be more than one group of rebels.
Maybe a peaceful group that wants to tone down violence, but keep the imperium.
And another peaceful group that wants to see decentralized leadership.
And a violent group that wants religious control of state.
And... sometimes they are on uneasy truce against a mutual enemy, but sometimes they are at each others' throats, too.
Ehhhhxcellent. Thank you NN and joepub.
My interest in the topic of terrorism/unconventional warfare started as study of the IRA, and factionalism is of huge import in that theatre. For instance, circa 1969-70, when members of the movement felt that the leadership was going to soft, i.e. not engaging in enough military action and recognizing and negotiating with the government, they split off and eventually pulled most of the organization with them, while delegitimizing the original leadership.
So how would you model this in an RPG? I can easily come up with a kick ass, complex unconvential army with all sorts of factions and personalities, and an invading empire to match, but how would you bring the PC's in, without railroading and fiating them from point to point? Would you start by drawing out a relationship map? (Something I've never really done...any resources that might be useful?)
I recently purchased but have yet to run Dogs in the Vineyard...would its self-judging morality translate well into this type of story? While I can easily see the conflict resolution in play, I'm not sure what would be the proxy for the towns.
First of all, I'm not sure what campaign system you are used to running.
Let me clear up a few things that I, as a player, would NOT like in this campaign:
a.) I don't want to be told what I'm going to do in tonight's session. Don't prepare adventures.
Prepare events.
Let me know that the S'Galian Rebel Army is closing in on the small hamlet of Gavel, and that the Trebian Horde is still sieging upon the Darian Empire Frontier Base.
Let me know that I am STILL being paged by the Darian Patriarch.
Let me decide what I'm going to do. What I care about. What my role is in the war.
If I want to play general, let me. (If this is D&D, don't make me take the Leadership feat. Just tell me I have 1,000 men at my command.) If I want to play messenger in a tense negotiation, let me.
The first step in not railroading is not having this SET PLAN for how things will go down.
Dogs in the Vineyard is great for that - providing interesting places, difficult situations, and human pains... and then turning to the player and saying "now what?"
Do that.
b.) If you want a game about rebels and empires, dissention and factionalization... cool. Design whatever setting you want.
If you want a game about Bush's America vs. the Middle East...
or the IRA movement...
Use that.
c.) I wouldn't want to be put in a game I felt uncomfortable in.
Ask your players what they are okay with playing out.
Are they going to be able to handle a real world empire/insurgent setting?
Would they be comfortable placing their characters in Lebanon right now?
How about at the World Trade Centre during 9/11?
***Figure out what they are comfortable with, in terms of real issues in the real world***
If terrorists torch a house, are they comfortable with hearing that description?
If the government carpet-bombs a town, are they comfortable playing that out?
They are given orders, by their commander, to bomb an orphanage. Are they comfortable with the game at this point?
***Figure out what they are comfortable with, in terms of violence and graphic depiction***
Are they comfortable turning on each other, backstabbing, betraying, or taking different sides?
Is one PC allowed to shoot another PC in the head?
***Figure out what they are comfortable with, in terms of player/character opposition***
Quote from: Roy Batty on August 25, 2006, 09:49:34 PM
How to keep the characters from merely washing their hands of the entire conflict?
That's an important question - if both sides seem pretty bleak and no sane middleground is presented the temptation to say "forget it, I'm out of here" is great. I suggest portraying the two sides sympathetically...realistically...but sympathetically. Emphasize the human, even behind the worst of atrocities. Provide the players with real insight into the minds of the fanatics on both sides ("the path to Hell is paved by good intentions"). Likewise, give the players the power to sway people to their side, to change hearts and minds.
A great example of this is Marshal Rosenberg (director of the Center for Non-Violent Communication), who talks about being in a Palestinian refuge camp and while giving a talk a man comes out of the crowd and shouts "Assassin! Child killer!" The crowd begins to get restless. Long story short, Marshal uses NVC and the man ends up pouring out his grief about the US providing weapons to Israel that had just killed Palestinian children. The man -who had just been calling him a "child killer"- ended up inviting Marshal home for Ramadan dinner.
QuoteHow to keep this game from being a total GM railroad? How do I provide the players with real choice about the story?
The framework is empire vs. insurgents, so that doesn't change, but within that you've got lots of maneuver room. If the story is about a manhunt for a freed convict, have the players run into the brother of escaped "criminal" who challenges their beliefs. Now the players realize that the imperial shock troops hunting this man down don't intend to save his life but to shoot him dead. It's up to the players to get to him first to save his life (and take him back into custody). This plot is well portrayed in the movie "City by the Sea."
QuoteI can easily come up with a kick ass, complex unconvential army with all sorts of factions and personalities, and an invading empire to match, but how would you bring the PC's in, without railroading and fiating them from point to point? Would you start by drawing out a relationship map?
I would let the players choose where they fit in the scheme of things. You give them a short handout and talk to them about the game's premise, then let them come up with their character's motives as a group.
A heart-felt thank you to everyone for your input.
I hedged and hawed over this thing for months, and in a few short days of correspondence and spitballing with you all, I'm rolling like mad.
I think I've got a pretty good setting in mind to pull this off, and I'm reading like mad re: kickers, bangs, flags, all that goodness, to try and turn my ideas of RPGing on their head. I'll drop in with more details soon.
Thanks again! Long live the Forge!
So I've been thinking a hell of a lot about this campaign. I think I've got a handle on the railroading problem through a ton of reading re: flags, kickers, and bangs. My next obstacle was that this will be my first time gaming in a long time, and this'll also be this group's first time together. So while I want to have some heavy intellectual exploration going on, I need somehow to lighten it up a bit, just to get people out of their shells. So I think I may have found a decent way to make the campaign accessible, while retaining the ability to discuss big, relevant social issues. Prepare for the (hopefully intentional) cheese.
(Begin crawl)
The Republic and the Jedi Order are smashed. The Empire rises, spreading terror and crushing all those who oppose them. Hope dims as the Empire's rule through fear spreads like a plague.
But among the ashes of the Republic, hidden embers burn yet. Here and there are Jedi who survived Order 66. And while these Jedi masters must live as hunted animals in the face of the mighty Empire ascendant, they also prepare to strike back, to burst a light into the growing darkness.
Seeing his brotherhood annihilated one Jedi master fears that the time for balancing the Force is gone. Through Vader's treachery, the balance has been destroyed. The Empire must be stopped, no matter the cost. The ends shall justify the means.
And so amidst the ruins of the Republic, a rebellion against the Empire stirs. Realizing that desperate times call for desperate measures, the Unknown Master begins to train a guerilla army. To bind their will in the face of such desperate odds, this Jedi christens himself the godhead of the Uprising, and his Jedi are both this guerilla army's lieutenants and spiritual bishops.
Can this desperate bid succeed? Or will this fledgling rebellion merely be crushed under the Empire's heel? To what ends will this insurgent army go to achieve their vital intent? As the Unknown Master and his clerics realize their power, will they hold to their ideals, or will they become just as evil as the Empire they strive to unseat?
(End crawl)
(see 40k and the Emperor, also Dune, the Fremen, and Paul as their prophet)
The characters could be students of this master, sent on missions, such as:
Classic attacking the empire with guerilla hit and run tactics
Bringing new recruits/civilians into the fold
(And possibly dealing ruthlessly with those who do not obey)
Functioning as inquisitors among the guerillas, rooting out dissent and heresy among the faithful (see Michael Collins)
As the characters are brought further into the organization, the severity of their missions increases (ala LA Confidential...like Bud, only slowly gleaning the true nature of their masters)
The characters could also be sent by the remnants of the Jedi Council to seek out and make contact with/destroy this rogue Jedi Master as a threat to the emergence of the true Alliance
Could start as an attempt at pulling him and his forces in as allies, unless their methods become irreconcilable
Could become a hunt to seek and destroy the master (ala Apocalypse Now)
Could have the PC's sent under deep cover to infiltrate the organization
The characters could have considerable autonomy, given the chaotic state of the Jedi Council
So that's where I'm at. I think that'll give me the ability to hit the heavy themes I want, without making the game dark to the point of being unfun. Now I need to spitball this with the players a bit. But also to figure out what system would work best? Any thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?
Interesting thread.
What it made me think of was "What are the costs to people engaged in war?"
You've assumed that your characters are going to be rebels. If that is the case and they feel a self righteous zeal for their cause they might be able to quite comfortably carry out all manner of evil in the name of a just cause. I'm certain the average Wehrmacht soldier felt they were on a holy crusade against communism. But no mater how just a cause is, actually committing violence takes something out of people. If could be Call of Cthulhu sanity or Cyberpunk humanity but they get used up.
I played in a WWII spy RPG years ago in which our characters started to develop mental illness symptoms due to leading double lives.
I did a game back in the mid 80's in which players drew out a "cognitive pyramid" of what was on their minds. People came up with phrases like "Fuck it drive on" and "They're all hunks of meat" as well as "Sensitive to nature" "Acute hearing." The burn outs were able to do the job without much remorse while I told nature boy that something hit him in the face when the smell of the nasty thing they encountered hit his nose.
I know soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan also feel alienated and pretty pissed off because people back here don't understand what they've gone through. It happens in wars. Soldiers end up having more in common with their enemy soldiers than they do with the folks back home. I think you'll find this game to be a powerful psychodrama. Good luck!
Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games
Quote from: Roy BattySo that's where I'm at. I think that'll give me the ability to hit the heavy themes I want, without making the game dark to the point of being unfun.
Roy, I think that's an important decision to keep the game from getting too dark. In a game like this (well, in all games actually, but this kind of morally ambiguous game especially) it's important to establish a social contract before playing about what players are comfortable with. It might be good to work that into the rules from the get-go.
I think a somewhat detailed example of the kind of morally grey situations you are evoking is important because it needs to present both sides sympathetically to create that real tug of war. I think you're trying to do this for the players, rather than a player looking at their character sheet and saying, "Oh, I have a belief of liberty +19, so I'm definitely with the rebels."
I'll add one caveat that I saw occur at Gen Con. I got to sit in on an introductory Living Arcanis D&D game (run by Paradigm Concepts) where one of the player characters was a military officer with oaths to serve her fellows in arms, and her emperor. When another military officer is accused of treason, the player characters are sent to determine his innocence or guilt - thing is the "treasonous" military officer was very sympathetically depicted by the GM. The player of the military officer felt she was in a real pickle and couldn't make up her mind what to do and her fun diminished greatly.
Don't give the players an easy out, but definitely give them some way to resolve the situation that doesn't mean bloody murder on one side or the other. Or else don't have them officially associated with either the rebellion or the empire, thus avoiding this sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario...though heightening the risk the players just walk away from the conflict altogether.
Hope something in there is helpful.
Quote from: MatrixGamerWhat it made me think of was "What are the costs to people engaged in war?"
You've assumed that your characters are going to be rebels. If that is the case and they feel a self righteous zeal for their cause they might be able to quite comfortably carry out all manner of evil in the name of a just cause. I'm certain the average Wehrmacht soldier felt they were on a holy crusade against communism. But no mater how just a cause is, actually committing violence takes something out of people. If could be Call of Cthulhu sanity or Cyberpunk humanity but they get used up.
I'm with Chris. The cost of violence is not just more violence, it has a fall out on people's families, communities, and psyches. Also, it might be interesting for players to take the role of imperial officers (instead of rebels) to see the other side of the coin.
Quote from: MatrixGamer on August 28, 2006, 03:46:18 PM
I know soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan also feel alienated and pretty pissed off because people back here don't understand what they've gone through. It happens in wars. Soldiers end up having more in common with their enemy soldiers than they do with the folks back home. I think you'll find this game to be a powerful psychodrama. Good luck!
Chris, I understand what you're getting at, but I think that statement is misleadingly vague.
For example, there's a myth that was propagated by the US government after Vietnam that soldiers returning home were spat at by civilian protestors as they got of their planes at the San Francisco airport. This antipathy towards soldiers (and their antipathy in return) is a creation. First of all, there's no way soldiers are returning home at a civilian airstrip, and there's no way protestors are on the military base. The movie "Sir, No Sir!" explores that misconception in depth, with parallels to the war in Iraq.
As for Iraqi Veterans, many of them are against the war and are joining forces to with anti-war activists under the banner of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first serviceman to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq on the basis that it is an illegal and immoral war. It's the American citizens who aren't questioning the war in Iraq that Iraqi veterans seem to have the most problem with.
Not trying to criticize you, but I think that's an important distinction that could be lost on the OP.
Thanks for the comments Matrixgamer and Aaron.
Quote from: MatrixGamer on August 28, 2006, 03:46:18 PM
What it made me think of was "What are the costs to people engaged in war?"
But no mater how just a cause is, actually committing violence takes something out of people.
That's certainly one of the themes I'd like to address. I'm not sure exactly what would be a good mechanic to simulate it. Dogs in the Vineyard might work...
Quote from: MatrixGamer on August 28, 2006, 03:46:18 PM
I played in a WWII spy RPG years ago in which our characters started to develop mental illness symptoms due to leading double lives.
Awesome idea. As one of my potential "takes" on the setting involves the characters under deep cover, I may have to yoink this. :)
Quote from: aaronil on August 28, 2006, 07:44:34 PM
In a game like this (well, in all games actually, but this kind of morally ambiguous game especially) it's important to establish a social contract before playing about what players are comfortable with. It might be good to work that into the rules from the get-go.
I think a somewhat detailed example of the kind of morally grey situations you are evoking is important because it needs to present both sides sympathetically to create that real tug of war.
Absolutely. Our first session will actually be playing a board game, shooting the bull, and going over these kinds of issues.
Quote from: aaronil on August 28, 2006, 07:44:34 PM
When another military officer is accused of treason, the player characters are sent to determine his innocence or guilt - thing is the "treasonous" military officer was very sympathetically depicted by the GM. The player of the military officer felt she was in a real pickle and couldn't make up her mind what to do and her fun diminished greatly.
Don't give the players an easy out, but definitely give them some way to resolve the situation that doesn't mean bloody murder on one side or the other. Or else don't have them officially associated with either the rebellion or the empire, thus avoiding this sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario...though heightening the risk the players just walk away from the conflict altogether.
The story is definitely helpful, though I'm not quite sure how to work around it. I've never played with bangs, kickers, and flags, so I guess I'm hoping that the players themselves will help lead me to the sorts of moral quandries that they're interested in and comfortable with. Is this expectation reasonable?
Today I had a classic exchange with one of the players: when I mentioned that I still hadn't settled on a mechanic, he said, "I don't think the system matters. All that matters is the person running it." I might have agreed before I came to the loving bosom of the Forge. :)
So the major question remains: what system would work best for this campaign?
I think that Sorcerer with ideologies as Demons with violent needs might be a good fit.
Using Dogs you have a lot of work facing you; character creation and system are mostly fine but the system is pushing you towards judging others from a position of moral and temporal authority. In Dogs the responsibility of the characters is set out for you but that doesn't really fit your vision for the setting. Without the focus on sorting the good from the bad the system will push you to blow the hell out of everything that moves as surely as D&D does. If you do want the players to have that kind of clear responsibility, then you need to both keep them away from just shooting bad guys with big guns and give them a hierarchy of sins so they know what the local standards are.
The immediate idea I had when thinking about an insurgency / morality Dogs setting was Israeli Army MPs investigating accusations of soldiers abuses, which might be tremendously interesting. But it should would rip the lid off any moral/political divergences in the group, and god help you if there is any latent racism in the group. Which is my way of saying it's a bad idea for my group!
And you can't talk about morally tricky rebellions in RPGs without giving Burning Sands: Jihad a shout out. It's a free supplement for Burning Wheel pretty heavily based on Dune. The general idea is that it after the events of the first Dune book and the Fremen are spreading out over the galaxy taking over the Noble planets on by one as guerrillas. The players decide as a whole which side they'll take - the GM takes the opposition and the whole thing works out from there as a sprawling guerrilla war for an entire planet.
It's a little different from your setup, but not SO different, and there is a lot of great stuff in the free pdf (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/images/0/08/Jihad.pdf). That said, the crunch of Burning Wheel doesn't appeal to large segments of my play group, so I don't know how well it would work for you as a system.
It, being the forge, would be cool to make up a system.
I find it helpful to have something to base a system on. When it comes to the psychological effects of war I always like the US Army movie "Shades of Gray". It was made right after WWII and describes the army's experience with battle fatigue during the war. They were working on a stress model - the more stress one is put under the "darker" one becomes. With enough stress everyone develops symptoms (usually anxiety, depression, addiction, and some hysterical blindness and paralysis). Remove them from the stress and they get better. If they start off dark gray (say a person has psychotic symptoms when en-ducted) they fall apart quicker in battle (best not to send them there at all.)
Lt Col Grossman's book "On Killing" is pretty good at fleshing out Shades of Gray - but does get preachy about video games.
As to the antipathy of soldiers to civilians I wasn't thinking about the Vietnam thing. I was thinking about accounts I've read of Civil War soldiers on the Union and Confederate side thinking they should march north to show the people complaining back home what war was really like, and how WWI soldiers were unable to explain what they had gone through when they got home, and how WWII soldiers didn't even try. It's not so much what the people back home do - there will always be assholes - it has to do with the system shift between what one does in combat and what one does in civilian life. A soldier has to return fire and live with the image in their mind. We safely back home don't, so we never have to ask ourselves the deep existential questions killing raises. I've heard soldiers be angry about being judged by people. We civilians don't need to do much at all to trigger such feelings. just ask about what happened over there (and look like you want a war story) or look at a soldier funny.
I used to be fascinated by this stuff years ago (when I was young and draftable). Then war got boring for me because I realized it just uses people up (whither you win or lose). One side charges, the other defends and they either hold the line or run. Repeat till exhausted.
One option for system for running the game might be to use some Matrix Game ideas. If people had to keep a running log that briefly summarizes what they've done, the GM could reflect on it in picking out what conflict arises next. It is kind of an internal relationship map. My relationship with myself.
Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games