I've been bouncing around an idea for a game and I thought I'd post it here to see if y'all can poke some holes in it.
Here are the basics:
Playstyle: Paranoia meets D&D. I like the treachery and backstabbing in Paranoia, but have always been a little frustrated by the limits imposed by the setting. So, this game is basically a stab at taking the inter-player conflicts of Paranoia into a game that allows progressive gains in power a la D&D.
Game Session: The typical game session progresses a bit like Paranoia. The characters are called together by the powers that be and are given an assignment. Once they complete that assignment, they are rewarded for their efforts (or punished for their incompetence). The powers that be are capricious and can change their demands at any time. Many of them actively seek to undermine the characters out of sense of spite or boredom.
During a game session, the players have to deal with situations on two levels. On one level, there's the problems the characters face some in-game obstacle, such as an ogre guarding a castle gate. On the other level, the players try to outdo one another in order to make their characters look good. The characters all seek to progress up the ranks, yet gaining glory and renown on a mission or quest is a zero sum game. If someone gains renown, someone else has to lose it.
The System: d20. It's balanced between characters, rewards player ingenuity, and has a fire and forget magic system that forces players to either use their spells in a clever way to get the most out of them or risk burning through the resource too quickly. You'll see why that's important when I discuss the setting:
The Setting: The game takes place in a dwindling, decadent empire ruled by a powerful lich archmage. The day to day labor of the city is carried out by mindless undead creatures driven by living overseers. The characters are eunuch wizards bound to the ruling council and charged with completing quests, special missions, and other sensitive tasks by the lich or his overseers. At one point, these were all very important missions to advance the empire's rule. Now that the lich rules the world, he's bored.
Very bored.
So he sends his servants out on bizarre, nonsensical, and sometimes suicidal missions. His favorite ploy is to dispatch multiple teams to complete some task. The first team to finish wins. The member of the team that played the best game, in the lich's opinion, is the only one who wins the competition's prize.
The eunuchs are all bound to the the lich. When they die, he can simply reincarnate them in new bodies. The only way a eunuch can gain more magical power is if the lich transfers energy to him. Thus, only eunuchs who please the lich can ever increase in power.
Most of the time, the eunuchs have one day to complete their task. Thus, choosing and using spells is a big part of the game. Furthermore, players can choose any spells available at their character's level. On one hand, it pays to work together as a team to choose a good spread of spells. On the other, it pays to have a few aces up your sleeve to surprise the other players.
Thoughts?
Hi Mike,
Hilarious. I love it already.
I guess what I don't get, right off anyway, is where the present inquiry lies. I mean, it's just about ready to fluff & serve, right? What elements of design remain that aren't pretty much just color?
Different types of wizards, different spells to choose from, that's easy.
Perhaps the player-group gets to make up certain aspects of the lich master? Much as in Nobilis, when the players make up their Imperator (who, similar to the Computer in Paranoia and to the Lich Lord in this game, really oughta get punched in the nose but never does).
Oh, here's one thing. I'm seeing two levels of "looking good" to worry about: against one another within a single team, which seems like fun to me; and against other teams entirely, which seems like less fun to me. Personal call ... or maybe it's worth considering why both levels are there.
Hmmm ... I guess I like the idea of the mission being nonsensical to the characters but at least making some sort of sense (if perhaps a bit off) to the players. Much as a Recon mission to Outside works in Paranoia.
Anyway, that's all that comes to mind at the moment. But if you wanna try it out at GenCon, let me know. When I'm not being all Narrativist, I live for this sort of thing.
Best,
Ron
If this were a commercial d20 supp, I'd buy it immediately. Ron's right, you're pretty much done already. At least, the 10% inspiration part. Now you just package it up.
Mike,
I have to echo Ron's sentiments, in that the idea of competing teams doesn't do much for me. There's already enough tension present in that the PCs have to make themselves look good and successfully finish the objective...anything more would be a distraction.
I'd buy this game in a heartbeat, and I know a few folks who'd love to play it with me.
- Scott
Mike,
The idea rocks.
One question: how did you plan on quantifying who is the most impressive during a trial? Would it be GM-fiat (unlikely, in IMO, boring) or some sort of d20-graft-on system?
In addition, I'm guessing that characters can lose power as well as gain it, everything being zero-sum. It might be funny to start all characters at, say, 5th level, and then stand back and laugh as one goes to 7th, and another drops to 3rd.
(Wow - a setting in which levels make real sense. Double rock.)
One more for the echoes. Some of my favorite gaming sessions in college were Paranoia games. Love it. But the mechanics can be a bit iffy. Doing a bizarre & outre d20 D&D-meets-Paranoia is brillaint, & it sounds like wicked fun. (& I also am less enthused by competing with another party than competing with other Players. Unless the other party is also a group of PCs--say, 8 people play, broken into 2 parties of 4 PCs. That would be hilarious.)
Quote from: Ron Edwards
I guess what I don't get, right off anyway, is where the present inquiry lies. I mean, it's just about ready to fluff & serve, right? What elements of design remain that aren't pretty much just color?
Actually, you answer that one yourself with your questions that follow. Basically, I feel the basic concept is sound but it needs a good thrashing from someone's POV aside from my own. I came up with the idea today while working on a d20 book, it stuck with me through lunch, I gave it a good think while doing laundry, and was curious to see if there were any design considerations I missed. I'm throwing it out here to get some reactions to the concept.
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Perhaps the player-group gets to make up certain aspects of the lich master? Much as in Nobilis, when the players make up their Imperator (who, similar to the Computer in Paranoia and to the Lich Lord in this game, really oughta get punched in the nose but never does).
Interesting idea. One of the issues in the design lies in determining who looks good in the lich's eyes. Perhaps each player can secretly assign one or two traits to the lich. The in-game explanation is that their characters heard rumors about what the lich is amused by at the moment. For instance, the lich might want to see a eunuch burn to death since that hasn't happened in a while. On one level, the player knows to load up on fire spells. On a second level, the players know to watch out how others act in order to pick up clues to seize the stage. Obviously, whoever figures out the most sort of things the lich wants to see has a huge advantage.
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Oh, here's one thing. I'm seeing two levels of "looking good" to worry about: against one another within a single team, which seems like fun to me; and against other teams entirely, which seems like less fun to me. Personal call ... or maybe it's worth considering why both levels are there.
This is something I thought about for a bit. On one hand, I want the action to be very inter-player, but I think the two levels of competition play into one another in two facets.
First, the presence of other teams gives the players a reason to work together. Otherwise, the game could degenerate into a brawl between the characters. The presence of the other teams keeps the focus on winning the event. Without that step, there's no point in trying to impress the lich. Fine, your clever plan slaughtered the rest of the team, but now you can't catch up to that other group of eunuchs.
Second, it builds right into the basic scenario a lot of complications the GM can throw at the characters. The presence of the other team (or teams) is a handy excuse to throw non-PC driven traps, ambushes, and other encounters at the characters.
Quote from: Clinton R NixonOne question: how did you plan on quantifying who is the most impressive during a trial? Would it be GM-fiat (unlikely, in IMO, boring) or some sort of d20-graft-on system?
Ron just helped me flesh that one out. Agreed that GM-fiat would be dull, so I'm thinking of a system where each player knows one or two events the lich really wants to see happen. If you make those come to pass, you gain points. There would also be things built into the scenario. For instance, as in RUNE the character who delivers the final blow to a monster gets the credit for defeating it.
Quote from: Clinton R NixonIn addition, I'm guessing that characters can lose power as well as gain it, everything being zero-sum. It might be funny to start all characters at, say, 5th level, and then stand back and laugh as one goes to 7th, and another drops to 3rd.
(Wow - a setting in which levels make real sense. Double rock.)
I'd like to have that in the game, but the problem lies in keeping this balanced if people want to use the same characters again. Otherwise, there's no point in messing around with levels up or down if the game is used exclusively for one shots. I'm thinking of building in a system of banes and boons that essentially give characters free feats or penalties based on their performance. But yes, only the winning character gains a level. Everyone else gets stuck with banes and boons.
Quote from: joshua neffOne more for the echoes. Some of my favorite gaming sessions in college were Paranoia games. Love it. But the mechanics can be a bit iffy. Doing a bizarre & outre d20 D&D-meets-Paranoia is brillaint, & it sounds like wicked fun. (& I also am less enthused by competing with another party than competing with other Players. Unless the other party is also a group of PCs--say, 8 people play, broken into 2 parties of 4 PCs. That would be hilarious.)
That's a pretty good idea, though I'm not sure if it's going to be a safe bet to assume a group can round up 8 players and 2 GMs. This could work very well as a con scenario, though. I definitely want to keep the other teams more as a tool to keep the PCs focussed on the goal and give them reasons to sometimes cooperate.
Quote from: mearlsQuote from: Clinton R NixonIn addition, I'm guessing that characters can lose power as well as gain it, everything being zero-sum. It might be funny to start all characters at, say, 5th level, and then stand back and laugh as one goes to 7th, and another drops to 3rd.
I'd like to have that in the game, but the problem lies in keeping this balanced if people want to use the same characters again. Otherwise, there's no point in messing around with levels up or down if the game is used exclusively for one shots. I'm thinking of building in a system of banes and boons that essentially give characters free feats or penalties based on their performance. But yes, only the winning character gains a level. Everyone else gets stuck with banes and boons.
I don't think the shifting levels thing would be a huge balance problem - it just means PC's have to be craftier - a 2nd level guy down on his luck could easily set the 12th level guy on fire (or push him down a hole) or whatever if he's sneaky. But, with your current plan, here's an idea:
- Banes and boons are given within the party.
- Levels are given (and taken away) within party vs. party conflicts.
That way, you have two different sort of rewards and punishments, one for player vs. player conflict, and another for players vs other party conflict. (This might make sense in the game world, too - each overseer gets more or less powerful as his team wins or fails.)
Lich rumors...
Why don't you take a page from SOAP and Bedlam: Have everyone write down two or three "rumors" they have heard about the Lich on slips of paper. Then they put them in a hat, mix them around, and then choose one or two. If they happen to pull it off (and survive I'd bet) they would get Lich kudos.
-Shane
Addendum: Maybe you should also (as GM) draw out one or two "public" rumors - so that they can have another way to get kudos from the lich, but its not secret so people will have to be en garde...
Shane: Interesting idea for player generated rumors. I'd have to playtest it, but it could work well. Another twist to it would be to count the rumors that don't get dealt out as things that anger the lich or bore him.
Clinton: I've been thinking over idea of breaking up the rewards... it makes sense, and gives people a good reason to work together. It'll be important to balance that with the rewards for coming in first within the group to make sure the players are at each other's throats. The alternative is to give out a base XP reward for winning the event, then extra awards and boons/banes for the order of finishing within the group.
I had an idea sort of like Shane's. Each Player would write down one thing about the lich on a slip of paper--"He wants to see a priest burn" or "He wants a bronze cauldron filled with unicorn blood" or whatever. The slips of paper are all turned in to the GM. Now each Player knows one way to curry favor with the lich & has to figure out what the other ways are & scheme to curry more favor than the other PCs.
And I agree, the 2 teams competing would really only work at a convention (or similar large gathering of gamers).
Not to say any idea is better, but one of the built in bonuses of the suggestion that I made was that the player already knew a possible way to get kudos (because he wrote 2 or 3) in addition to the one he picked, so to get kudos he could:
A) Go for the one he picked
B) Go for one of the ones he wrote
C) Try and figure out some other way
D) Go with one of the "public" ones...
Just some thoughts...
-Shane
If I could make one change, perhaps I wouldn't have the PCs be eunuchs- sex and the potential of having it is a classic motivator for characters doing stupid things. This doesn't have to be a major element ("The lich says for you to steal the crown jewels from Castle Anthrax!") but just having that possibility for more... mature groups can add possibilities.
Oh, just to chime on the Eunuch/Not-Eunuch element. If you don't require them to be Eunuch's, then the lich can still have them castrated if they screw up or otherwise displease him. And I guess the party might all end up as Eunuchs if played for a few sessions. Also, since you said you are doing D20, are Eunuch's going to be immune to be stunned by Groin Shots? :)
Hmm, I am suddenly seeing the reverse of your game premise, all of the players are servants of the lich. However, if they incur his disfavor, then they end up one of his Eunuch Sorcerers hehe. Hmm, maybe the Lich even uses the balls to maintain his immortality, or just keeps them in a jar or something:) (A whole different take on Magic Jar hehe:) )
And it still leaves for the History Of the World style Eunuch testing scenes or something.:)
I imagine it as some kind of extreme take on Rune's competitiveness, see who can hold onto their balls the longest:) It could be like a fight-club thing, the winners feel all macho, while the loser stand around hugging each other and crying, repeating the mantra "We're Still Men"
Anyway, just some spurious idea tangents.
Definitely Would make an amusing one-shot game.
Rob
Hey,
I like the eunuch part. It has a definite "not in Kansas any more" quality to me, it emphasizes that these guys have nothing better to do than please the lich, and it opens the door to some rather offensive, but nonetheless attractive role-playing opportunities.
Best,
Ron
I think the Eunuch idea adds tremendous colour, with very little loss. Ok, romantic subplots are kind of out, but they're pretty tangential to what this game is about anyway.
Also, if characters start with balls and lose them in play I'd bet few players would be happy to continue playing that character. If they start without them, most won't worry about it.
Great idea BTW.
Finally, I like the competing team idea. It means as GM if the game bogs down for any reason I have a rival group I can use to spice things up again. "Ok, you've all been bickering for an hour or so, then you notice in the distance 6 horses bearing riders heading for the castle. They look some way ahead of you by now..."
Yeah, keep the eunuchs. I think it is one of the most striking conceptual elements.
Edit: that said, I do like the balls-inna-jar, too. Do both.
You don't need more than one group to have pressure to succeed. That already exists. Just say that the lich only gives out rewards for success, and will discorporate any group that really fails him. So the PCs will have to balance working together to accomplish the goal with infighting to ge credit.
OTOH, if you do have more than one team with players, who is to say that a team can't be composed of just one or two guys? Or that the lich will even start the groups out evenly? He might send one group of three to go and accomplish the mission, and send another PC behind to spy and report on their success. The lich isn't concerned with balance, is he?
And, remember, it's not who actually kills the monster who gets the points, but the person that the lich believes actually killed the monster from what he learns at the "mission debriefing", right? Except the lich isn't all that paranoid, and not a computer. He can probably detect lies better than most. So you can try to lie, but you may not be successful which would loose you points. Perhaps better to appeal to his ego. Debriefings become huge toadying sessions.
One of the nifty things about Paranioa that drives the conflicts is that the character gets a a political afilliation, a secret society, and mutation, which case conflicts. Do you plan to have some parallel for the eunuchs? Perhaps there are factions that squabble pettily over various palace rights and positions.
Positions sound like fun. Allow the character who's in charge of the kitchens to call in other characters for KP. Or the librarian, who can control what spells are available to learn. The most coveted positions are the Palace Seneschal who orders all daily activity from the top, and the Major Domo who translates all of the liches demands to the other palace staff. Stuff like that.
As an alternative to Paranioa, such politicking could lead to shifting alliances between players. Which is even better than every man for himself, which is what you get in Paranioa. Betrayal is so much better after a willing commitment has been made. The lich would probably always be playing the characters off against each other intentionally so that they never ganged up on him. Not that it'd do any good for them to do so, likely, but it's probably a hassle for him to have to recreate and train an entire staff.
Great idea, Mike.
Mike
Quote from: BalbinusOk, romantic subplots are kind of out, but they're pretty tangential to what this game is about anyway.
Actually, that's not even true. Seem weird? Eunuchs often were involved with people romantically and even sexually. A lot of this may have been due to them being placed in positions of temptation, which the procedure was meant to make less tempting. But in any case, such plots are not eliminated. Simply made weirder, and less common.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesQuote from: BalbinusOk, romantic subplots are kind of out, but they're pretty tangential to what this game is about anyway.
Actually, that's not even true. Seem weird? Eunuchs often were involved with people romantically and even sexually. A lot of this may have been due to them being placed in positions of temptation, which the procedure was meant to make less tempting. But in any case, such plots are not eliminated. Simply made weirder, and less common.
Mike
I sit corrected. Still, that makes Eunuchs even cooler, no?
Quote from: BalbinusI sit corrected. Still, that makes Eunuchs even cooler, no?
Well, I think so. This is a really great concept, overall.
I was thinking, with the lich's necromancy, he could probably reattach such lost appendages... Talk about incentives. Instead of the threat of loss during play there is the possibility of gain!
Mike
Okay, I see why you're sticking with the eunuch idea.
An interesting reference for this might be the common wuxia stereotype of the "evil eunuch"- the idea that in historical China eunuchs were given positions of power because the elimination of their sexuality made them more moral or something. Instead they simply sublimated their sexual drive into lust for power, aggression, etc., making them more corrupt. So perhaps the fact that the PCs are eunuchs could give you a system where each one is profoundly mentally screwed up in some way as a result of the process, thus giving them that inherent "treason factor" that secret societies and mutant powers provide in PARANOIA.
To me, nothing says henchman-style bickering and sycophancy like eunuchs. Like Eric says, it's the entire sublimated sexuality thing.
What I am concerned about is the idea that the lich is definitely out to get them - it strikes me as funnier if it's merely massively self-absorbed and petty. Sort of like the character of Queen Elizabeth in Blackadder II or Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns kinda veers between actively hurting his workers and using them to further his own ends. Elizabeth in BLACKADDER is more along the lines of being completely ignorant and self-centered (I love her response to the ransom demand for Blackadder's life- "I have decided to throw a big party")- I'm not sure that works so much for a lich, but it could be an interesting twist.
Quote from: Evan WatersMr. Burns kinda veers between actively hurting his workers and using them to further his own ends. Elizabeth in BLACKADDER is more along the lines of being completely ignorant and self-centered (I love her response to the ransom demand for Blackadder's life- "I have decided to throw a big party")- I'm not sure that works so much for a lich, but it could be an interesting twist.
How about just making the Lich's motivations entirely random? Literally - have a big old "What Does A Bored Lich Do For Kicks Anyway" table, which the GM rolls on.
1 - Decorating! Go find something new and cute for the Lich to put on the wall of the crypt.
2 - Certain Death. The Lich tires of these henchmen, and sends them off to do the impossible.
3 - Pay-per-view: The Lich is scrying the party the whole time. Bonus points for showy deaths and creative maimings.
4 - Brain rot: the Lich forgot to finish the command he gave to the party. When he said "climb the Mountain of Fleshsucking Killer Goats and return", he forgot to add "with the magical flower that grows from the peak".
Thinking about it, this would probably best be split into three or four tables. A quest table, a difficulties table, a Lich feeling table...
I think I'm also legally required to mention FRUP at this point.
QuoteSort of like the character of Queen Elizabeth in Blackadder II or Mr. Burns.
This doesn't sound like a very difficult balance to strike in actual play. Obviously there's no way to tell at the start of a mission whether its intended purpose is serious or trivial, harmless or malign, doomed to failure or not. Therefore there's no need to decide so in advance either. I'd leave it as a degree of freedom to be exploited in either Intuitive Continuity gamemastering, or director stance play.
Man, how come I never noticed this before... Mr. Burns
is a Lich, isn't he? The weekly treatments he undergoes to "cheat death" (as seen in the X-Files episode) certainly make more sense in that light.
- Walt
Howdy all,
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for being so enthusiastic about this idea. It really helped get the ball rolling for me. As an aside, much of the game's basic idea was inspired by my days as a sysadmin and computer programmer.
Mytholder: You already have much of how I envision the lich down pat. He's somewhat like Mr. Burns in that he's as dangerous as he is erratic and difficult to deal with. The entire "Oh, I forgot to mention the part about returning with the Dragon Flower? Well, looks like you need to go back" bit is right up his alley.
FWIW, it looks like I have a publisher set up, and I'll be in a position where I own the copyright to the game. I expect to start working on it in earnest in 6 months or so.
Thanks for all the feedback and support.
Hi Mike,
I reviewed this thread today, and I wanted to toss in a vote of support for Clinton's idea of having levels go down as well as up. I think that feats and so forth can be a function of that process (yes, that means possibly losing feats, spells, etc), and not have any secondary stuff-list that also goes up and down (which is how I'm reading the Banes/Boons thing, rightly or wrongly).
I think that levels exist specifically as quanta for character power (all together now: "Duh!"), and as such they are uniquely suited for an up-down seesawing based on performance and the aggravating whims of the lich. Using levels as unidirectional (up only) and having some other grab-bag of stuff to seesaw seems inelegant to me, and introduces all manner of Currency hassles.
I realize that D20 play, based on its D&D roots, is predicated on the idea that as long as the character lives, he or she is improving, but I also think that such assumptions are made to be broken. Your idea looks to me like a fantastic and wonderful justification for showing that D20 is customizable, not by adding wads of "new stuff on top" (the usual way), but rather by using the mechanics that already exist in new ways.
Best,
Ron
QuoteI was thinking, with the lich's necromancy, he could probably reattach such lost appendages... Talk about incentives. Instead of the threat of loss during play there is the possibility of gain!
*shiver* Imagine the warehouse where he keeps them... all in jars, name labels on them... shelf upon shelf... no, wait, don't imagine that. Don't.