Greetings All,
What follows is a short little game designed to test a mechanic principle which I have outlined in a post at RPGnet which can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=37d818568159aca1cd99e9b49d6c1cb5&threadid=19419) and as related to a potential system called Code Name: Pleroma (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4002&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=34286253c2d625c6b17d235fd26a42a1) which I have posted a little bit about already.
The idea basically is to have two linked but opposed Traits which, when used, create direct effects within the game for the characters involved. That said... Devils and Demons: The Role-Playing Game of Divine Lunatics follows this message.
I just put the finishing touches on it. It looks good on paper, so to speak, but it might need fleshing out. (Probably lots.)
Kind Regards.
Devils and Demons
The Role-Playing Game of Divine Lunatics
Copyright © 2002 C. Demetrius Morgan
Setting up for Play
You will need a minimum of two ten-sided dice, preferably of different colors to distinguish one die from another, in order to play Devils and Demons. These dice will be used as percentile (%ile) dice, meaning one die will be designated as the "tens" so that when rolled the numbers can be joined together to form a score from (01) 1-100 (00). Their should only be one primary set of dice. These dice to be held in common to all the players as a group entity.
At the start of the game each player will need to decide whether their character is more Rowdy, Crazed, Manic, or Lunatic. This should be written out as a description of their character. Note where the character best falls within these four Attitudes as it will be important later.
A note to veteran gamers: Determining initial Paranoia points should depend upon what sort of game the players as a group want to play. This should be determined prior to play in group discussion. However this does not mean that every player's character must, or even should, have the same starting points. Rather that the character's Attitude should be relative to the setting and environment . These points are ultimately determined by the Attitude of the player character as explained below. Once a Attitude is chosen that is how that character should be played, at least until their score changes.
Challenge
A challenge should be set from the beginning of play. A challenge can be a goal or in-game event which the players have collectively agreed upon to attempt to bring about. Such as "getting air time on the local news" or "proving that there are mind control chemicals in the tap water". The game will revolve around the "how" the players go about confronting this challenge and their efforts to achieve it.
It might be a good idea if every player were to write down a few possible challenges on a index card or slip of paper prior to play while characters are being created and the soda and chips placed within easy reach. Once done these challenged can be put into a bowl, hat, or just piled together so one can be drawn at random. In this way the players can consider the game a series of challenges which the characters must face, thus the game can continue until all challenges have been met and either overcome or abandoned as their "Vision" of reality changes.
The Players
According to the government you are a group of crazed lunatics who has lost whatever tenuous grip you may of once had upon reality. At least that is what their "propaganda ministers" say. You have been branded as members of a "fanatical religious fringe" organization whom, the government disinformation machine claims, even televangelists call loony. Of course you know that it is everyone else who is ignorant of the truth because your group of "enlightened" souls have the "true revelation". Yes, you are members of the "aware". It is so clear. The writing is on the wall.
Why can't anyone else see what is so plainly written in black and white!
Satan? Perhaps. After all who else could be behind the rise in "New World Order" brainwashing and the sudden spread in technological "marvels" than the Evil One.
It is your job to "spread the word" so that others can "come into the fold" and be "saved" from those dastardly Devils and Demons plotting to overthrow the government and unite the world's nation sunder the Satanic banner of the New World Order. Why does no one else see? Plainly your group alone has the Vision to combat this dire evil.
Vision
Every player begins the game with a single set score called "Vision"; this is both a measure of "revealed truth" and "enlightened belief" in the veracity of your groups cause. So long as this score remains at "100" the player's basic grip upon the tenets and essential assumptions of the group "reality" remain strong and unwavering. Vision is affected by Reality Checks. When Vision falls below "50" characters are considered "Lapsed" and require rehabilitation. Should Vision ever reach "0" the player is considered to have become "Demon Possessed" or to be under "Alien Influence" and must be exorcised, hypnotically regressed, undergo basic re-education, etcetera.
Players will determine their character's starting Vision score as follows: For every 5 points of starting Paranoia subtract 1 Vision point. Further more during character generation, and only during character generation, players may purchase Paranoia points at the rate of 1 for every 2 Vision traded. Player are free to set limitations on this trade off, the basic cap is suggested to be set at 10-20 Vision.
Reality Checks
Reality is a balance between Vision and Paranoia. For every point of Vision lost a character gains that exact same number of Paranoia points, and vice versa. There may be certain exceptions to this process, but on the whole that is the "mechanics" of the process in Devils and Demons.
Every so often players may be required by circumstances, or forced by another player, to roll a "reality check" on behalf of their character. Reality Checks can be as simple as reinforcing the belief in the current plot line or applied as a dynamic plot altering device to force the character to reinterpret a basic premise or tenet of their belief.
For instance whatever may be considered defined as "the occult" or related to the "grand deception" may be called into question. Thus what "actually is" the current tenet of shared belief, such as "Tarot cards are the Devil's picture book" may be expanded to encompass a belief that "Collectible Card Games are the tools of the Devil" and thus the characters may feel motivated to attempt to eradicate them as a danger. Of course this is just an example, a far fetched one at that, but during play a player may have their character suggest that "chemical additives to water are evil and a danger to our precious bodily fluids" thus forcing a Reality Check on the group as a whole. If failed the group may thus feel that the local city water supply is under Satanic influence by the evil machiavellian owners of water processing plants. Which, of course, would be the local city government in most cases.
Here's the mechanics of it: Every time a player fails a reality check they lose one (1) Vision point. Remember for every point of Vision lost the characters risks gaining a minimum of one (1) Paranoia point.
Paranoia
It's a strange and scary world out there. Of course not everyone realizes this, thus they aren't "aware" that people really are out to get them. They go about the daily grind of their 9 to 5 lives with nary a care beyond getting the kids to school and back, preferably without killing their bosses in the between time. Luckily the characters in Devils and Demons are "aware" and thus they maintain a healthy level of paranoia.
At the beginning of the game characters will begin with a set Paranoia score, to be determined by the players prior to play. Currently there are four Attitudes of play, each Attitude corresponds to a Paranoia quotient. These Attitudes of play are: Rowdy (15), Manic (25), Crazed (45), Lunatic (70).
###
For bumping this thread back to the top but I have to ask:
Was the basic premise used to present the test mechanic really that bad?
Or was it just woefully uninteresting?
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
I wouldn't mind a little more info on the setting itself.
Sylus
This thread and those on TMW are difficult to reply to for opposite reasons; Rob's TMW posts are full overflowing crazy go nuts with stuff. This is, boiled down, an idea for a game about crazy people.
Regardless of the difficulty replying, I have some things to ask you:
Besides the reality check business, what purpose do Vision/Paranoia serve? Why not just define them as a continuum where the sum of your Vision and Paranoia are always equal to some quantity, rather than having two seemingly unrelated scores that fluctuate in concert?
Reality checks seem to be problematic: Why would logically extending the tenets of your fanaticism cause your faith to weaken?
Finally, I'm always a little leery about games where the characters are fundamentally incomprehensible - aliens, plants, abstract embodiments of concepts, crazy people, etc. Anything that I wouldn't write about is something I couldn't play a game as, and sufficiently nutty religious fanatics - like these - certainly fall under the umbrella of fundamentally incomprehensible, especially if they start exhibiting pathological behaviors as their faith weakens.
Greetings Sylus,
Quote from: Sylus ThaneI wouldn't mind a little more info on the setting itself.
Essentially "Devils and Demons" is a mini game meant for fun in which the particulars of background setting itself is established by the players prior to play. With play centering around determining what is, and isn't, really real.
Devils and Demons is (or rather was meant to be) a bit of tongue-n-cheek built up around the idea that conspiracy theories and certain modern day belief systems are just plain convoluted. So convoluted that, by comparison, a attempt to test unusual mechanics-- in this case my idea about "Perfect vs. Imperfect" understanding-- would seem simple by comparison. Ok, maybe not all that simple, then when have you ever read a conspiracy theory that was straightforward?
I wont even mention UFO conspiracy theories, many of which are a mix of mythology, religion, and abject paranoia. Unless aliens really do exist...
What was that noise? (jk)
Greetings four willows weeping,
Quote from: four willows weepingThis thread and those on TMW are difficult to reply to for opposite reasons; Rob's TMW posts are full overflowing crazy go nuts with stuff. This is, boiled down, an idea for a game about crazy people.
Not precisely. Devils adn Demons is more a game about the
nature of reality, in relation to belief; or rather how real a belief is
percieved to be from the characters view point.
Quote from: four willows weepingRegardless of the difficulty replying, I have some things to ask you:
Besides the reality check business, what purpose do Vision/Paranoia serve? Why not just define them as a continuum where the sum of your Vision and Paranoia are always equal to some quantity, rather than having two seemingly unrelated scores that fluctuate in concert?
Very good questions.
The simple answer is because I am testing a potential game mechanic which ties/links two attributes together to create a "in-game" result when used.
The long answer is that the interpla of the two attributes used in
Devils and Demons is a attempt to simulate the complex real life dichotomy which often exists between two aspects of a greater whole; such as "truth and untruth" or "right and wrong"; and see how, if at all, that subtle interaction can be applied to a *role-playing game* in a effort to create a viable game mechanic.
Quote from: four willows weepingReality checks seem to be problematic: Why would logically extending the tenets of your fanaticism cause your faith to weaken?
Finally, I'm always a little leery about games where the characters are fundamentally incomprehensible - aliens, plants, abstract embodiments of concepts, crazy people, etc. Anything that I wouldn't write about is something I couldn't play a game as, and sufficiently nutty religious fanatics - like these - certainly fall under the umbrella of fundamentally incomprehensible, especially if they start exhibiting pathological behaviors as their faith weakens.
In all honesty I used "Reality Checks" because that was a sort of joke we used [edit: my old gaming group] to have whenever something strange or out of the oridinary used to happen. We'd say "time for a reality check" and laugh.
While writing up Devils and Demons I started to think about that, thought it might be interesting to turn into a actual mechanic. I wish I could say that Devils and Demons was designed as a tongue-n-cheek exploration of the human psyche, it certainly could be used as such, but I as I typed it up I was really thinking more about the weirdness of conspiracy theories and UFO related folklore, and their impact upon belief and perceptiosn of reality and how the belief or disbelief in such ideas can impact how reality is percieved.
It seemed like a potentially fun and entertaining premise at the time.
So, you really thought that the characters as written up "are fundamentally incomprehensible" an that Reality Checks made matters worse?
The setup seems clear enough: You are crazy and so are your friends, and you try to stay crazy.
However hmm.. the mechanics doesn't seem to fill any specific role. Maybe it's me or the text is a little unclear or both.
What I wonder is: "Why do you have these mechanics (at all)?". My understanding is that one usually one has mechanics to regulate/limit/judge important situations and actions and/or to drive the game towards certain goals.
The game is about lunatics and their theories, but what is the advantage of having a numerical value that says who's the craziest and when you're getting to normal? Is this driving the game somehow? Or is it a limitation on how crazy you could get?
If these were somehow used to influence in-game events, like the amount of derangement fuels success at attempting actions and so on then I would understand. But here I'm a little mystified. It feels like these mechanics are supposed to connect to some other part which you haven't presented yet...
I see a lot of ways you could go with the game, including kind of a bragging game where each person takes turns making a conspiracy and then everyone votes who has the most believable vision and that person gets to direct the events in a scene. :)
But back to the subject: How is this supposed to be played? An example of play maybe?
Greetings Pale Fire,
I hear things are progressing well with Ygg. Hope you've brought some of that special magic
clarity dust with you.
Quote from: Pale FireThe setup seems clear enough: You are crazy and so are your friends, and you try to stay crazy.
A interesting view.
Quote from: Pale FireHowever hmm.. the mechanics doesn't seem to fill any specific role. Maybe it's me or the text is a little unclear or both.
What I wonder is: "Why do you have these mechanics (at all)?". My understanding is that one usually one has mechanics to regulate/limit/judge important situations and actions and/or to drive the game towards certain goals.
The game is about lunatics and their theories, but what is the advantage of having a numerical value that says who's the craziest and when you're getting to normal? Is this driving the game somehow? Or is it a limitation on how crazy you could get?
The mechanic does not set out, nor attempt to define, who is crazy or who is normal. They merely are a means to gauge between clarity of
Vision and disruptive influence of
Paranoia and how this manifests in outward actions based upon a
Reality Check.
Quote from: Pale FireIf these were somehow used to influence in-game events, like the amount of derangement fuels success at attempting actions and so on then I would understand. But here I'm a little mystified. It feels like these mechanics are supposed to connect to some other part which you haven't presented yet...
Really?
Well the point of it all is that players keep track of their Vision (which defines their outlook/course of action) in relation to Paranoia (which essentially diverts them to other paths) and Reality Checks. Well, that's just how you determine if the current plan of action remains valid.
Quote from: Pale FireI see a lot of ways you could go with the game, including kind of a bragging game where each person takes turns making a conspiracy and then everyone votes who has the most believable vision and that person gets to direct the events in a scene. :)
Well I did sort of envision Devils and Demons as a social game played just for the heck of it where players try to be as outlandish as possible while steering the game towards hilarity or seriousness, as they prefer.
Quote from: Pale FireBut back to the subject: How is this supposed to be played? An example of play maybe?
Well maybe an intro about a possible beginning...
No clarity dust here Kester. I'm as confused as ever.
QuoteThe mechanic does not set out, nor attempt to define, who is crazy or who is normal. They merely are a means to gauge between clarity of Vision and disruptive influence of Paranoia and how this manifests in outward actions based upon a Reality Check.
[...]
Well the point of it all is that players keep track of their Vision (which defines their outlook/course of action) in relation to Paranoia (which essentially diverts them to other paths) and Reality Checks. Well, that's just how you determine if the current plan of action remains valid.
Yes yes, but how do you
PLAY it? I'm not getting it. On the other hand I didn't get Robs game until he mentioned the GI Joe analogy.
Lead me through things here (if you have the patience). Let me try to get things in order:
1. I make Mac Jones who is Manic (25)
2. Have a goal which is to "prove that toasters are fitted with small transmittors sending our thoughts to Aliens from a system near Regulus"
3. I start with 100 Vision. From this I subtract 5 points because of my Paranoia 25/5=5
4. I buy an additional 5 points of Paranoia for 10 vision.
5. My vision is now 85 and my paranoia is 30.
6. Ok my character sheet now looks like this:
Name: Mac Jones
Vision: 85
Paranoia: 30
Goal: "Prove that toasters are fitted with small transmittors sending our thoughts to Aliens from a system near Regulus"
So how do I play the game?
Greetings Pale Fire,
I really just popped in to Troll a bit but, well, your post has moved me to log in. Drat, it's your over powering mojo!
Quote from: Pale FireNo clarity dust here Kester. I'm as confused as ever.
QuoteThe mechanic does not set out, nor attempt to define, who is crazy or who is normal. They merely are a means to gauge between clarity of Vision and disruptive influence of Paranoia and how this manifests in outward actions based upon a Reality Check.
[...]
Well the point of it all is that players keep track of their Vision (which defines their outlook/course of action) in relation to Paranoia (which essentially diverts them to other paths) and Reality Checks. Well, that's just how you determine if the current plan of action remains valid.
Yes yes, but how do you PLAY it? I'm not getting it. On the other hand I didn't get Robs game until he mentioned the GI Joe analogy.
Lead me through things here (if you have the patience). Let me try to get things in order:
1. I make Mac Jones who is Manic (25)
2. Have a goal which is to "prove that toasters are fitted with small transmittors sending our thoughts to Aliens from a system near Regulus"
3. I start with 100 Vision. From this I subtract 5 points because of my Paranoia 25/5=5
4. I buy an additional 5 points of Paranoia for 10 vision.
5. My vision is now 85 and my paranoia is 30.
6. Ok my character sheet now looks like this:
Name: Mac Jones
Vision: 85
Paranoia: 30
Goal: "Prove that toasters are fitted with small transmittors sending our thoughts to Aliens from a system near Regulus"
So how do I play the game?
Amazingly, you almost have it. You're so close that I can only imagine my initial write up must be to blame so, without further adieu, I will post what I have... mind you it probably could benefit from a quick spell check so it may take a minute or two...
(Sound of foot steps trailing off into the distance as Kester begins to rumage around the dungeon of his hard drive for the next post.)
Greetings All,
Since Pale Fire requested I post something to clarify how to set up a actual game of Devils and Demons I am posting the following, hope it helps.
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
Devils and Demons: Introductory Sample of Play
Background Thumbnail
Devils and Demons is presented as a minimalist mini-game to test a potential dynamic role-playing mechanic involving two linked Traits. Thus only the stats being tested are currently presented. This has been done in an effort to 1) test the mechanic principle on its own, and; 2) avoid confusing the players with extraneous mechanics.
The rules of Devils and Demons assumes the players have a basic working knowledge of role-playing games and will be able to fill in any perceived gaps based upon their own game knowledge and personal role-playing preferences.
How to Play?
There is no right or wrong way to play Devils and Demons. The game centers upon a very simple premise, which hinges upon the underlying game mechanic. Thus the game is open ended, to an extent. Think of Devils and Demons as a cross between Storyteller systems and Murder Mysteries. As presented the game is to be played in a social environment amongst friends and with fellow gamers who enjoy a more active level of "in-game" directorial participation.
Beginning Play
Creating characters is rather simple, though the mechanics involved may appear complex at a glance. Thus the example provided below begins with character generation.
i. The player should agree upon what sort of game setting they want to play in. Create a player (ii) then move on to step iii.
ii. Following the rules as presented in Devils and Demons each player should create a player and flesh them out in accordance with the planned background.
iii. Determine a Challenge(s) and begin play.
Sample Characters
For this example the background chosen is a Modern setting. Here are the sample characters:
Character #1
Roger Palefeather (American Indian)
Attitude: Rowdy (15)
Vision: 85
Paranoia: 15
Character # 2
Jed Neteru (Egyptian Coptic)
Attitude: Manic (25)
Vision: 75
Paranoia: 25
The "Attitude" descriptor is used to determine beginning Paranoia, and thus offsets Vision by exactly that numerical value.
In other words, during character generation, Paranoia and Vision should both equal 100 when Paranoia is initially determined. There are/will be modifiers to this, so be sure that the base scores are determined first. Then, and only then, should modifiers be applied.
{{}}
Errata
Reality Checks: These are made using %ile dice and can be rolled against either Vision or Paranoia. The idea being to roll under the current value of the Trait rolled against.
{{}}
That's all I've written for posting so far.
However Pale Fire, in his last post above, has sussed the game out rather well.
Aaaaa... Mommy make the bad man go away!
:) :) :)
Seriously Kester, a game example please. What would a playing session look like? Except for the snacks, I get that part.
Greetings Pale Fire,
So much for what was meant to be a simple test game for a mechanic, eh?
Quote from: Pale FireSeriously Kester, a game example please. What would a playing session look like? Except for the snacks, I get that part
#
I've been playing with the mechanics of Devils and Demons a bit. Now, besides being a "test" game for a mechanic, consider it to also be one large meta-game scenario. Thus it can be grafted onto any standard RPG, just add the new stats to your player character's existing character sheet.
For instance combining "Devils and Demons" (no modifiers applied) with "Codename: Pleroma" (using 2d10 for stats) a "full game" might look something like this:
Character #1
Roger Palefeather (American Indian)
Body: 9
Mind: 12
Spirit: 15
Essence: 12
Attitude: Rowdy (15)
Vision: 85
Paranoia: 15 Character #2
Jed Neteru (Egyptian Coptic)
Body: 15
Mind: 15
Spirit: 6
Essence: 12
Attitude: Manic (25)
Vision: 75
Paranoia: 25 Character #3
Bleach Bunny (Anti-Blond Capitalist)
Body: 5
Mind: 10
Spirit: 10
Essence: 14
Attitude: Crazed (45)
Vision: 55
Paranoia: 45 Character #4
Phil Grates (Evil Inside!)
Body: 9
Mind: 9
Spirit: 8
Essence: 10
Attitude: Lunatic (70)
Vision: 30
Paranoia: 70 Prior to play the player may write someting like the following on index cards:
Goal: "Prove the government is trying to force citizens to be implanted with subdermal transmittors"
Goal: "Prove that Micro Slush makes the best slushies, and have Phil Grates declared Evil Overlord"
Goal: "Prove that Bill Clinton is really an brain sucking alien."
Goal: "Try to escape from this insane asylum called Planet Earth."
Goal: "Find the nearest retail store and destroy all the mind control scanning devices in sight!"
NOTE: Goals should *always* fit into the game setting. Thus if you are applying this to AD&D maybe it's a Conspiracy of Gnolls or Invasion of Shapeshifting Mini-Dragons from the Demi-Plane of Dread that the players are trying to uncover!?
Shuffle the index cards and have a player (chosen randomly) pick a card. Let's say the first card drawn is:
"Prove the government is trying to force citizens to be implanted with subdermal transmittors" Let's say the player with the Roger character was randomly chosen to pick the card.
Roger: (declaring goal as the player reads it from the card)
The player will keep this card, marking the card to indicate when the challenge/goal has been completed. Otherwise, each player should always have one card in their possession at all times to represent their current "Vision", even if the group isn't actively pursuing the challenge at the moment.
That said, Roger's player can now state a course of action or allow the other players to determine what they feel they want to do. Remember players should choose an "Attitude" descriptor which they feel comfortable playing for the duration of the game since that is also how they should role-play their characters. Lunatics will be rather looney. Rowdy players will be, you guessed, a bit rowdy.
The idea is to have fun exploring possible (cracked and slightly humorous) story arcs.
Don't like a story arc? That's what the 'Reality Check' is for. When a player rolls a reality check they are actively challenging the current goal. If they do not have, let's call it a "Vision Card", a Vision Card in their possession then they must draw one from the pile.
This now becomes their current central Vision/Goal.
Since Vision/Goals can be written by any player some may be better than others. If a player should, at any time, wish to discard their current Vision Card then they must roll a reality check vs their vision. They subtract the difference between their current score and the die roll from their current Vision score, unless they roll OVER, then they merely subtract 10 points.
(In other words the idea here is to roll high. This is a balancing mechanic intended to keep players from just redrawing, willy nilly, from the Vision deck whenever they pick a Goal they don't like.)
#
With this revision to the basic rules it is hope that it iwll be possible to integrate the basic scenario/system into an existing game, thus allowing players to use the idea on familiar ground.
Assuming you haven't given up on this altogether, what do you think?
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
What I have trouble understanding is what would make these lunatics work as a team? My group has tried playing escaped mental patients using various systems. I played a young girl who thought she was a Civil War general and other characters were just as crazy.
So when we go out, everyone wants to accomplish their own goals. I'm out to kill Confederate spies, other people are off robbing supermarkets of all their carrots and even others are stealing car tires for the nazi gold hidden inside.
No one felt any desire to work together for a simple reason. We're too crazy to care what anyone else wants. My partners wanted to rob stores for carrots? Fine. I'll go over here and run counter-espionage for president Lincoln. We're all insane, so discussing a plan of action is sort of right out the window.
I guess you could try to keep the characters together despite the realistic drive to accomplish your own goals, but then you'd be running the movie Dream Team and staying in the van all the time.
Hmmm. Gwen has a point. I assume that the idea is that the PCs stay together because they fear the government and feel that the PCs are the only ones they can trust. This can work for a while, the PCs going on "missions" (the challenges drawn from the hat), and relying on each other to get that done.
But at some point, somebody is going to betray the rest of the group for their own reasons. And at that point, since they are a self-selecting group, what's to keep them from splitting up?
Mike
Greetings Gwen,
For a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.
Quote from: GwenWhat I have trouble understanding is what would make these lunatics work as a team? My group has tried playing escaped mental patients using various systems. I played a young girl who thought she was a Civil War general and other characters were just as crazy.
Originally that's not quite how I envisioned the game, it sort of just came out that way as I put it all into words. Thought it sounded ok, in principle, but if you feel the basic premise needs adjusting shouldn't be too difficult. But keep in mind, as presnented, Devil and Demons is meant to be played for fun, sort of like a Beer and Pretzels game.
Quote from: GwenSo when we go out, everyone wants to accomplish their own goals. I'm out to kill Confederate spies, other people are off robbing supermarkets of all their carrots and even others are stealing car tires for the nazi gold hidden inside.
When you put it that way the game does sound silly... and a lot more fun that I originally thought it could be!
Confederate spies, eh?
Interesting idea.
Quote from: GwenNo one felt any desire to work together for a simple reason. We're too crazy to care what anyone else wants. My partners wanted to rob stores for carrots? Fine. I'll go over here and run counter-espionage for president Lincoln. We're all insane, so discussing a plan of action is sort of right out the window.
I guess you could try to keep the characters together despite the realistic drive to accomplish your own goals, but then you'd be running the movie Dream Team and staying in the van all the time.
Good points.
My original write up wasn't so severe in locking the players into a singuler path oriented objective. Nor ae the characters really "insane" per se, then again the idea of escaped lunatics isn't a bad premise to start from... maybe. Then again maybe I should do a light re-edit, peel back the layers a bit, return to the premise stage and allow players to choose what the starting conditions are.
Perhaps provide story primers?
Perhaps provide a list that would look something like:
1. Escaped Lunatics
2. Conspiracy Theorists out to find "proof"
3. Religious Fanatics seeking ??
4. ??
Would that make a bit more sense, do you think, Gwen?
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
Greetings Mike,
Hopefully the wrinkles that have been pointed out can be ironed out so everyone here can have a playable set of rules.
Quote from: Mike HolmesHmmm. Gwen has a point. I assume that the idea is that the PCs stay together because they fear the government and feel that the PCs are the only ones they can trust. This can work for a while, the PCs going on "missions" (the challenges drawn from the hat), and relying on each other to get that done.
But at some point, somebody is going to betray the rest of the group for their own reasons. And at that point, since they are a self-selecting group, what's to keep them from splitting up?
One of the potential uses of forcing 'Reality Checks' on other players would be to advance a players agenda, thus make the group try to follow it as the *current* game goal, at least for a little while.
That said the main thing that should keep the group together is the fact the premise has them grouped together as a group from the start of play, sort of like a Murder Mystery begins with a core of characters.
Also the mechanic *does* allows for the group to break up; viz. the rule about when "Vision" reaches"'0' the player is considered to have become 'Demon Possessed' or to be under 'Alien Influence'" when they are considered to be part of the out-group, namely "them". Of course, to be honest, I didn't think about players wanting to *consciously* seperate from the group.
Perhaps a tweak to the mechanics which will allow for that possibility?
Of course it is assumed that the players are going to play together. Just like they would when sitting down to play Clue, Monopoly, or Black Jack. Since there really is no GM in Devils and Demons I thought it best to allow the players freedom to follow their own story arcs within the context of pusuing their personal Challenges and the current set game Goal.
Too much player freedom? Or just too vague?
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
If all you're doing is testing a mechanic and this isn't intended to be the whole game, then I think it's fine. If the team splits up, they split up. You can always start over to test the mechanics again.
Otherwise, there are numerous ways to keep the team together. You could say they escape from a mental prison where they put bombs in your head and everyone's on the buddy system. If two people leave a 1 mile radius of eachother, for example, their heads explode. OR, , maybe they just THINK they have bombs in their head.
There are several ways you could keep them together without necessarily having to retool the mechnics.
Sorry to but in on this thread, but you touch on a great way to keep the crazies together: Except for their own personal insanities, they have this insanity which they share which the players create together and which forms the "bond" of the characters.
Maybe like your example Gwen when they all think they have a bomb in their heads which will explode when they separate. Or maybe they are all hunted by the Dark Forces Of The Universe which will pick them off one by one unless they pool their Powers Of Light to fight it off (why do I start thinking about Marshall Law here?).
A (insane) variant of those mechanics (than bounced around here in various threads) for keeping characters together... hmm :)
Quote from: Kester PelagiusFor a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.
I think this is a problem. There is an oft cited principle here at The Forge which I will hypocritically recite (hypcritically because I don't adhere to it much). That is, a game's mechanics should be built to support the setting (includes situation, character, and color). As opposed to the other way 'round.
The point is, that, unless you are trying to come up with a "Generic" game (and that has problems all it's own), then trying to develop mechanics in a vacuum is unlikely to produce mechanics that are particularly good for anything. Worse, it makes it hard for people to comment because we can't see if the mechanics support the setting or not.
So, is this a serious "setting" that you want commentary on? Do you want commentary on how the rules do or do not support the setting? Or are they to be considered only separately?
Mike
I'd be more interested in this idea for the game opposed to the mechanics. I don't follow the mechanics so well, but the idea of playing mentally-unbalanced characters would be fun.
Greetings Mike,
Some very good points to consider here.
Quote from: Mike HolmesQuote from: Kester PelagiusFor a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.
I think this is a problem. There is an oft cited principle here at The Forge which I will hypocritically recite (hypcritically because I don't adhere to it much). That is, a game's mechanics should be built to support the setting (includes situation, character, and color). As opposed to the other way 'round.
Actually the entire game *is* built to support the mechanics as they have been presented. However, as implemented, the mechanics are but on possible aspect of a meta-mechanic system I am toying with. (Though sometimes I feel it is the other way around.)
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe point is, that, unless you are trying to come up with a "Generic" game (and that has problems all it's own), then trying to develop mechanics in a vacuum is unlikely to produce mechanics that are particularly good for anything. Worse, it makes it hard for people to comment because we can't see if the mechanics support the setting or not.
So, is this a serious "setting" that you want commentary on? Do you want commentary on how the rules do or do not support the setting? Or are they to be considered only separately?
Since my original posting, and Pale Fire's first questions, I have been working with the system "off stage", as it were. Have even added a "optional" rating to the rules so, yes, I suppose it is as serious a setting as a game of cracked humor can be. (Was this a trick question? It was wasn't it! *smirk*)
Yes, I do want commentary on the rules. Commentary on how well they support the setting, commentary on how well the basic mechanic works, and commentary how what people think of the game as a whole.
You are free to consider them seperately or together, though when commenting on the mechanics "under the hood" feel free to comment either way.
At the moment, since there seems to be some interest in the setting as opposed to the mechanic, feel free to also let me know how you'd like me to develop the game. The sorts of things you would like to see in a future version of the rules. ESPECIALLY let me know what you feel does *not* work so I can apply my Magic Mechanics Spackle™ to the problem!
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius