A Game About Revenge

[thefruitfulvoid]

So.  I've been toying around in my head with a game centering around revenge.  Specifically, the choice to persue vengeance or not when faced with the knowledge that the object of your hatred is just as much a legitimate human being, with feelings and goals and hopes and dreams, as you yourself are.  The working title I'm laboring under at the moment is Katakiuchi, which means "revenge killing," referring to the practice among samurai families in feudal Japan of upholding family honor by killing those who transgressed against the family (and occasionally their relatives, as well).

In many ways, it is the Blade of the Immortal roleplaying game - that is definitely my single biggest influence.  As far as the game is concerned, though, I am not so much enamoured with the specifics of the BotI characters and setting, as I am interested in developing a game that allows you to consistently produce stories in a similar vein to the manga.  I guess it's sort of along the lines of Burning Empires in that way.

What I'm looking for is mostly mechanical advice.  I tend to get too caught up in my admiration for other games, and try to make my mechanics "work like them" in ways that aren't necessarily the best for my game.  (I'm particularly bad about this with Dogs in the Vineyard.  It's just... too good.)  Of course, I'm also interested in any and all feedback.  I'm also thinking of posting my answers to the "Power 19" in another thread.

Each character is built around a tragedy in his or her past, the thing that pushes them towards revenge.  I've been tossing around a lot of formal names for this, but haven't found one I really liked yet.  Each character also has a Nemesis, the person responsible for their past tragedy, and the person they are seeking vengeance against.  At this step in the design, I'm thinking that the Nemesis must be an actual person, not an organization or whatever, and that the Nemesis creation rules will have to ensure that he/she is an empathetic character, someone who's reasoning and motivations are understandable.  The final choice will lose a lot of its punch if the Nemesis isn't someone that everyone at the table can empathize with.

The central mechanical conceit that I've come up with so far, and one that will almost certainly survive in one form or another in the end product (assuming I eventually get that far), is a meter upon which each character will fall at different points over the course of the game, with "Rage" at one end and "Peace" at the other.  (Keep in mind that all names are working titles - I'm very willing to change them if something better comes along.)  The basic idea is that, during any conflict, the player can choose to have his character take a step closer to one end of the spectrum or the other, moving one increment along the meter towards either Rage or Peace.  Doing so gives a mechanical benefit (possibly bonus dice to a pool).  The bonus for taking a step towards Rage can be used on any action or conflict that is violent, either emotionally or physically.  The bonus for moving towards Peace can be used for anything else.

Position on the Rage vs. Peace meter is also tied into the structure of the game, and the eventual endgame.  What I'm thinking at the moment is that the game is broken up into Acts, and the beginning situation of each Act for each character is dependent on their position on the meter.  I'm not sure whether I want this to be a binary affair - closer to Rage means general situation type A, closer to Peace means general situation type B - or to have shades, depending on how close to the extreme the character's position is on the meter.  For example, at the beginning of an Act, if a character's closer to Rage, a further tragedy befalls the character, whereas if they're closer to Peace, they are put in a position to observe the "softer side" of their Nemesis for a time, perhaps even witness his/her weakness.

In a general thematic sense, I want the situations at the beginning of the Act that are tied to Rage reflect a deepening vicious cycle, a hardening of hearts, and further pain, while those tied to Peace will reflect a dawning understanding of the Nemesis and his/her essential humanity.  In the final Act, the actual decision is formally decided by the character's position on the meter; if it's closer to Rage, the character does exact his revenge.  If Peace, he does not.  Obviously, players can choose to either push their character towards the result they desire, by "metagaming" their position on the meter, or approach it from an in-character stance, moving along the meter when it seems appropriate for the character and letting the chips fall where they may.

What sort of system would you suggest for this game?  I'm partial to trait-based systems like Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures, and also partial to dice pool systems, like Dogs or Sorcerer.  But part of my intent in posting this is to get past my own personal preferences and see what might actually work best for the game.

A few specific questions to go along with that more general one:

1) Should the character's past tragedy be a trait, or have some kind of mechanical effect?

2) I'm thinking of including some sort of relationship mechanics, based on Trust in The Mountain Witch.  Good idea, or would it make things too cluttered?

3) I'm sorry to say I have very little idea of what sort of reward mechanic I should put in here, other than the narrative reward of seeing the endgame resolve in a way that reinforces the theme you choose, whether that's a bloody tale of revenge, or a softer tale of eventual forgiveness (or at least understanding).

4) What do you think about the Rage vs. Peace meter, and a character's position on it being tied to the contents of the Acts.  I'm pretty partial to it myself, but that closeness may be causing me to miss an essential flaw or something.  Clue me in on what's wrong with it!  Or pat me on the back, if you prefer. ;)  As I said earlier, I'm also open to any and all feedback anyone wants to throw my way.

[Anders Larsen]

Hi

Your core mechanic with the Rage-Peace meter seems very promising. When I read your post I began thinking about The Mountain Witch; I think it could give the same focused and intense experience. How long do you imagine a normal campaign will be in this game? If it is shorter campaigns I think you should go in the same direction as The Mountain Witch, with a strong focus on the core mechanic and then add a simple resolution mechanic to glue it together. On the other hand, if you want longer campaigns you should properly go for something more complex, and here I do not see any problem if you borrow from Dog in the Vineyard.

Your questions:

1) I don't know about this one.

2) Is relationship important for this game? In TMW trust is important because the game is about trust and betrayal. Relationship can also be important if the character should be motivated to protect the people he has relations to. Is any of this what your game is about?

3) Again, how long is a game? If it is a short running game (1 to 3 sessions) I do not think a reward mechanic is absolutely necessary.

4) I think it is a good idea.

- Anders

[knicknevin]

1) I think the past tragedy should add something to the game, maybe as a pool of dice you can draw on in situations where it's relevant (yeah, I think DitV is great too...) It should certainly be something that can be reflected on and featured during the game, e.g. if the tragedy involved the loss of family, then how does the PC feel about other families? What if a family he knew was threatened; would he put aside a chance to advance his agenda of revenge to save them? Or take his revenge and be responsible for their loss too?

2) I'm not sure what you mean here; are you talking about relationships netween PCs or relationships as traits/resources? I haven't played TMW so I'm not sure what the Trust mechanic is in that game.

3) Also in relation to Ander's reply to this question, how many players are there in a game? If there are a group who are all seeking different forms of revenge against different targets in different places... managing all that in a narratively satisfying manner might be enough work without worrying about a reward mechanic too!

4) I'd like to see some more concrete examples of how you envisage the Rage/Peace meter working; it seems to me that it pretty much changes if the player wants it to, going towards Rage when they are taking aggressive action and towards Peace for everything else. In other words, the player doesn't have to make a real choice about the consequences of their actions; if they're in a fight, their choice is 'Do I take the Rage for the bonus dice... or not?'. Could there be some situations where the player could choose Rage or Peace, with different outcomes? What if I put down my sword in the middle of a fight? What if lose my temper with the obstructive official and draw my sword? Then I would feel like my Rage/Peace meter should make a difference to the feel of the act, rather than being a consequence of my decision to get some bonus dice on my actions.

[metaltoad]

First of this sounds neat.  I really like the concept.

I agree with kicknevin that keeping the game together could big issue if you have more than one person playing.  Maybe one of the ways you could award experience would be when one character helps get another one to his final scene of revenge.  If the characters are bound by honor, they would end up indebted to the other characters and have a reason for continuing play after they reach their goal.  Alternatively, tragedies that cause people to seek revenge generally affect more than one person, so you could allow people to share a Nemesis.

Another issue is how you supply the filler.  You probably don't want the character to walk over to their neighbor and shoot them in the head in the first game.  After all, it took the Bride from Kill Bill two whole movies to reach her Nemesis!  If your goal is to have a Nemesis by a normal person, it wouldn't be very hard to find them and kill them.  As part of the character creation process you might have the character define some of the obstacles that are in between him and his Nemesis.   For example: I don't know where he is, he is a political figure, I don't want to get caught, etc.  Bringing in authorities, especially after a few of the characters have dirtied their hands might help make things exciting.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

My first thought was that each step a character takes, mechanically, towards fulfilling his/her revenge should necessarily involve revealing another humanizing trait of their Nemesis. You seem to be going towards this a little with Peace ratings resulting in a scene where the Nemesis has some humanity revealed, but my feeling is it should happen no matter what.

For example, let's say every character's revenge has seven steps. When the game begins, the Nemesis is an inhuman cipher -- all we know about him is what he did to the PC. Let's say he killed the PC's daughter and drove his wife to suicide.

After step 1, we learn that the Nemesis has a daughter.
After step 2, we learn that the Nemesis only performed the deed due to an order from a higher authority.
After step 3, we learn that the Nemesis tried to avoid the deed, but the higher authority threatened to kill his daughter if he disobeyed.
etc.
etc.

The idea of a set number of steps is not necessary, I just tossed it in there to make for a clearer example. But I think tying each character scene that moves towards revenge with some sort of revelation about the target (or the original deed) will make for a strong sense of rising action. Even if the details learned are not humanizing -- on the contrary, they could simply be even more horrific details about the event itself -- this will create a narrative build towards the final act of revenge.

The basic idea is that the Nemesis starts out defined entirely by whatever evil he performed, and by the time the character comes face to face with him he is as fully human (perhaps more) as the PC.

Tangential other thoughts:

Every player could be assigned to play someone else's Nemesis -- their job is to argue as convincingly as possible that the Nemesis should be spared, without obviating his ultimate responsibility for whatever evil deed he performed.

I'm not a big fan of a meter deciding for me at the end whether or not my character follows through with the revenge.

[James Holloway]

Another issue is how you supply the filler.  You probably don't want the character to walk over to their neighbor and shoot them in the head in the first game.  After all, it took the Bride from Kill Bill two whole movies to reach her Nemesis!  If your goal is to have a Nemesis by a normal person, it wouldn't be very hard to find them and kill them.  As part of the character creation process you might have the character define some of the obstacles that are in between him and his Nemesis.   For example: I don't know where he is, he is a political figure, I don't want to get caught, etc.  Bringing in authorities, especially after a few of the characters have dirtied their hands might help make things exciting.

Well, perhaps the Nemesis is too powerful (or well-hidden, or famous, or whatever) for a character to get to directly. Characters will need to accumulate something along the way which will make it possible to defeat the Nemesis. It seems to me that that has to be the core of both the reward mechanic and the campaign structure, right? You travel this path of revenge, whether it's wandering the earth looking for the man who killed your father or setting up an elaborate confidence scheme to disgrace the man who ruined your good name, and as that path progresses, you learn new tricks, gain new allies and resources. Which sounds like a typical experience-buff mechanic, really. I think it should be tied in specifically to how powerful the Nemesis is, too.

There has to be, I think, a real option for the character to choose not to do this stuff, and for his or her intentions to change. But revenge may be a driving force of its own, as other people get caught up in the web.

Interesting stuff; I'm looking forward to seeing more.

[brainwipe]

Sounds like a great idea. Here's your questions answered:

1) Should the character's past tragedy be a trait, or have some kind of mechanical effect?
Definitely have a mechanical effect. The past tragedy might be connected with the Rage/Peace meter. For example, a ferocious character might think that the best way of vanquishing the Nemesis is through violence, then bonuses might be applied when the character takes a step towards rage. The opposite is also true, if the Nemesis is best dealt with through peaceful means, then a step towards peace will have a good effect on the character. If you make the Nemesis something that defines the character then you might have trouble creating a mechanic that can deal with all possible types of Nemesis.

2) I'm thinking of including some sort of relationship mechanics, based on Trust in The Mountain Witch.  Good idea, or would it make things too cluttered?
Simplicity is always better. If it doesn't add a lot of flavour to the game, leave it out to start with.

3) I'm sorry to say I have very little idea of what sort of reward mechanic I should put in here, other than the narrative reward of seeing the endgame resolve in a way that reinforces the theme you choose, whether that's a bloody tale of revenge, or a softer tale of eventual forgiveness (or at least understanding).
Given that hunting the nemesis is a big quest, this might be made from a number of smaller quests. You could use these quests to give some kind of in-game reward that the player can use in the next small quest or save for the main event of meeting the Nemesis.

4) What do you think about the Rage vs. Peace meter, and a character's position on it being tied to the contents of the Acts.
Excellent, love it. Definitely a good core to the game.