War Room - a strategic, competive RPG for large groups

[Michael Bethencourt]

Hey,

Background
Not only am I quite new here at The Forge, but I would also consider myself not extremely experienced in RPG's in general. Sure, I have role-playing sessions with my friends--sometimes with my GMing--but nothing very frequent. That being said, I still hope you'll take a quick look at this game that me and my friends often play, which I've dubbed "War Room". It is not very much like other RPGs (although I'd still call it an RPG because it does involve a good deal of role playing), but we've had a lot of fun with it, and I imagine you might too.

Overview
It's a rather unusual RPG. For one, it is best played with at least about 13 or so people: 3 game masters and two teams of 5 players each, although it could reasonably be expanded to as many as 50 participants and numerous teams, with 6-10 being game masters. The goal is to as accurately as possible simulate a medieval war room for the players. This not only includes the obvious medieval war game elements, but also includes player-vs-player political interactions, such as assassinating rival teammates or sneaking revealing messages to the enemy team to gain favor. Also, the game is competitive: the two teams are commanding forces, engaged in a struggle against each other.

Game flow
The game requires three rooms: one room for each team and one room for the game masters. In each war room is a table on which lies an identical map. The maps we've been using have a roughly four centimeters to one league (2 miles) scale, and thus are fairly localized, or "zoomed-in", so to speak.

Two of the game masters are "Messenger Game Masters" (MGM), and one game master is the "Arbiter Game Master" (AGM). The Arbiter Game Master stays in the Game Master's War Room during the course of a game, while the Messenger Game Masters ferry messages back and forth between the Game Master's War Room and each team's war room. Each messenger is assigned a team, from which he or she will get orders and for which he or she will deliver reports back from the AGM.

The center war room, or the Game Master's War Room, contains the "real map". On the map lie markers denoting where the various armies actually are (usually using scraps of paper or tokens). How the player's keep track of things in their war rooms, however, is totally up to them. Their maps consist really only of guesses of both where their troops are and where the enemy troops are. The players construct these guesses from the reports sent back from the Game Master's War Room by the Messenger Game Masters. In other words, what the players have marked on their maps is only for their convenience in planning, and has no real affect on the game. The only thing that matters is the orders they give for their troops to their messenger.

The orders are just like real orders from a medieval war room:
1. "Command Lord Juss to send his twelve-thousand swords three leagues northward, and fortify Blackwood Marsh."
2. "Tell Lord Spitfire's troupe to prepare to conduct a siege, and construct out of the forest nearby two mangonels and one trebuchet."
3. "Ask Lady Mevrian the quantity and skill of the enemy's army that she reports to be camped south of her army. If she does not already know these things, tell her to send twelve trusted scouts in at midnight."

Reports also are also in a similar manner. Reports are given in the assumed role of a messenger. The players assume the role of generals or nobility in a court. In that way, the Messenger Game Master sets the tone by very humbly delivering his messages:
1. "Mi'lords, Lord Juss reports that he has moved his swordsmen northward, and is currently resting his men. One of his scouts has  discovered the the fresh remains of an enemy camp about a league eastward. The scout suspects that the enemy might be traveling in an south-easterly direction. Juss recommends sending horsemen to investigate."
2. "Mi'lieges, Lord Spitfire reports that the catapult construction is underway, but warns that the soldiers are growing restless, and there is even murmurings of treachery within his ranks. 'They need battle to bring out their courage,' he said, 'or they will no longer obey me.' If you'll pardon my audacity, mi'lieges, but I think he may have point."
3. "Mi'lieges, Lady Mevrian reports that the scouts have returned, reporting as many as five thousand swordsmen and an equal number of spears. Although she thinks them yet untested in battle, she warns that her men are still tired from last night's march, and are in no shape to engage the enemy in a full-scale battle."

The game is played in scaled real time--for example, every 2 real-time minutes could equal 1 game-hour. The AGM will have a clock or timer which will represent the official game time. There are no turns, and the game does not pause or wait for the players to make decisions. The Arbiter Game Master is constantly furthering the game, even if he is receiving no useful orders from the players. In other words, a team may waste valuable time by bickering over whether or not to retreat--in the mean time their soldiers are being slaughtered in the field.

Every time a MGM enters the GM's War Room, he or she relays the orders given by his or her assigned team. Then, the AGM makes decisions as necessary, writing notes to remind himself of events that will happen in the future. Finally, the AGM will give the MGM the information to be reported back, and the MGM will return to the player's war room.
The AGM's notes might contain things such as:
1. "@24 game hrs, Lord Juss" (placed on the map on Lord Juss' destination)
2. "@26 hrs, Spitfire makes 2 catapults"
3. "@30 hrs, Mevrian scouts return, say foe is ~4000 swords & ~4000 spears"

The winning condition for a team--along with the entire scenario (starting locations of troupes of both sides, back-story, etc)--is conceived by the AGM, and related to the players in a pre-game briefing. The players are usually not told the starting conditions of enemy troupes. The MGM's may also help with getting the scenario prepared.

Player interaction
The element that makes War Room really enjoyable is the interaction between players. Since each player could be thought of as a sort of a Lord or Lady and thus a person of some means, it would also be fairly logical to say that each player no doubt has a small host of servants and person loyal to him or her in whatever castle or structure in which the war room is situated. Thus, if a player can manage to physically sneak messages to their teams MGM without being caught, that player may engage in various treasonous activities by giving orders to those loyal followers. These orders could include sending revealing messages to the enemy, sending orders to pay off men to sabotage defenses, or even paying off an assassin to poison a suspecting teammate. The Arbiter Game Master, after receiving the traitorous note from the MGM, will decide (either arbitrarily or using some predefined mechanics) the success of the endevour. If a player succeeds in killing a teammate, then the AGM can assume the role of an assassin, and sneak into the War Room to ceremoneously assassinate the teammate. However, the AGM may determine that the player is not successful, in which case the player may die in the process, or may be found out. In the latter case, the MGM will deliver the team a message reporting their teammates treachery.

Role playing aspects
Although at first glance War Room seems more of a strategy game than a role-playing game, it has many role-playing elements. One interesting feature is that never do any of the players or game masters have to act out-of-character or even assume the role of another character. In this way, the role-playing "effect" is never ruined. Since it would seem unlikely that the same messenger would be delivering all of the reports, a more plausible explanation to explain the Messenger Game Master is that the MGM is really just courtly servant, who often makes trips back and forth between the stables and the noble's chambers.

Also, the players do not need very much role-playing experience to play. In fact, role-playing isn't even fully necessary to the enjoyment of the game, although it does add a great deal. As long as one or two experienced players are on each team, and the messengers are good  actors, even people who have never role-played before will naturally begin playing along, or so I find.

The mechanics
Although I won't bore you with any details, I've created some mechanics for the Arbiter to use to resolve battles and the various tactics that the players originate. Generally, however, there is a huge focus on the Arbiter Game Master just making it up as he or she goes, since usually the AGM is pretty swamped with reports and decisions, and actually full all out battles occur a lot less frequently than one might imagine.

Game experiences
I first came up with the idea about eight months ago, and played the first game of it last December. Since then, my group of friends and I have been meeting roughly once a month to play, each game lasting from 3 to 6 hours, and each being very fun and rewarding.

Quite a few ingenious tactics have been used. For example, last game, the team that I was on poisoned a river upstream of a walled town that we intended to siege. The game master had previously handed out cards containing various information about each player, which the players were to keep secret. I was handed a card containing the information that I was in fact a traitor to our side and was a mole for the enemy team. I managed to secretly hand the messenger a message saying that I wished to spend 10 pieces of my personal gold to pay a messenger to warn the town of the poison and suggest an antidote. After this had transpired, all the other members of my team were very confident that they had thoroughly exterminated the vile inhabitants of the enemy town, and I managed to convince them to make several severe tactical blunders because of this misinformation. Of course, if I was discovered at any time, my teammates would most assuredly have had me hung.

Another time, when I was a messenger game master, one team payed off a whole bunch of farmers to enter an enemy's castle claiming to be seeking refuge from the war, but really secretly be sabotaging the fortress in preparation for an invasion.

I've play tested it a fair number of times for such a difficult game to organize (that is, just getting enough people together who would be interested in playing an experimental game), and so far it's held up quite well.

The big question that has been nagging me
Has this been done before? It's really fun, feels very different from any other game I've played, and has a such huge amount of room for expansion... so I'm rather hesitant to say that it's actually an original style of game.

___________________________

Thanks for reading all of this. Any ideas or comments would be nice. I'd very much recommend for the creative game master to try this out with a group of his own. I hope I've been clear.

Right now, I writing up full game book for the various roles to be released under a Creative Commons license. I've already written several reference guides, but they still need some pollishing up before they are post worthy. To this end, I am currently assembling a team of writers and artists. If anybody is interested in helping out, please let me know.

Tell me what you think!
-- Michael B

[C.W.Richeson]

Welcome to the Forge, michaelb!

I'm not aware of an RPG like that, it sounds like a lot of fun - all the fun of Diplomacy mixed in with more personal roleplay.

I'd like to hear more about the mechanics.  Leaving it up to the Arbiter, for me, removes some of the game elements that I would be looking for in a tactical strategy / RPG mix.

[Callan S.]

Yes, welcome to the forge, Michael!

Facinating! Never heard of anything exactly like it - but there's one thing I want to ask about. Awhile ago I posted an idea for a central game mechanic here where players would tell each other what they wanted to achieve, but the GM didn't know - he'd only hear the actions they said. For old hands here at the forge, it might be said to be the opposite of conflict resolution - intent is utterly ignored.

Your set up seems to similarly cut off the AGM from knowing the intent of players. This really cuts him off from simply exerting his will upon the players - if you know their intent, you can control (even without intending to) the whole game as GM by how you rule it. When you don't know their intent, there's a wonderful zone of non control because you don't know what your ruling will do. You can't manipulate what you don't know exists (even GM's who try not to manipulate often are doing so - but I wont get into that just yet).

Those messgenger GM's - yes, just a great insulator! Absoutely don't have the spare players for it, but damn, great insulator!

Mostly just a "Yay! Excited!" post so far! Hope it helps!

[Michael Bethencourt]

Thanks both for the welcome, guys! This board looks like a great place to hang out!

I'd like to hear more about the mechanics.  Leaving it up to the Arbiter, for me, removes some of the game elements that I would be looking for in a tactical strategy / RPG mix.

Well, in general, I've always liked pretty lax rules for RPGs. However, there are some mechanics that the arbiter can use, which are especially useful in those pivotal situations in which it is vital that the arbiter is not the least bit biased. Specifically, battles are resolved as follows:
1. The total number of soldiers are counted up in each army.
2. "Battle Advantages" are determined for each side. Every tactical decision gives some integer value Battle Advantage. For example, an army of swordsmen littering the battle-field with horse traps when is about to engage an army composed mostly of horsemen might earn a Battle Advantage of +30. However, if the swordsmen are particularly tired from a long march, they might have a -10 Battle Advantage. Now, if the enemy cavalry were ordered to form a pincer formation, which the Arbiter deems to be advantageous against the swordsmen, they might earn a +5 Battle Advantage.
3. The total Battle Sway is determined by adding up all of the Battle Advantages. In the above example, the total Battle Sway would be +15 towards the army of swordsmen.
4. The Battle Sway is matched up with a chart to get two casualty ratios.
5. Each total soldier count is multiplied by its corresponding casualty ratio in order to get the casualty rate.
6. Every game-hour, a number of soldiers equal to their foe's casualty rate die.

Some other points are that armies move at 1 league per hour, except if instructed to move at a more rapid pace, or if the army is composed entirely of mounted soldiers. Leagues are purposefully left vaguely defined; however, they are about 2 miles long. Since I am in the process of making the rulebook right now, I hope to iron out a lot of these mechanics, and hopefully come up with some good mechanics for player-to-player interactions (such as hiring assassins to kill other teammates) that tend to be a bit more difficult to arbitrate.

I forgot to mention: when a player dies, he or she usually goes to hang out in the Game Master's room, and usually has fun witnessing all of the absurd mistakes his teammates are making. If the player is deemed particularly responsible, the AGM might even put him or her to work as another MGM, as long as the player will show no favoritism.

Also, I usually supply each War Room with a "Book of War", which is a printed out booklet I made (it actually turned out quite nice), with a variety of descriptions of various tactics, infantry, and siege-weapons. This way, the players will be able to know the difference, for example, between a great crossbow and an espringal, and can plan accordingly. Also, it helps prompt them to think creatively--perhaps suggesting that they have their soldiers fasten skulls and bones of their vanquished foes upon their armor so as to frighten the enemy, and similarly creative tactics. Unfortunately, the Book of War currently has copyrighted images illustrating it, so I cannot post a PDF just yet (once I find either an artist or a source for free images, I'll be sure to post). Additionally, I think it would be cool to supply each War Room with a copy of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", or even Machiavelli's "The Prince" or Musashi Miyamoto's "The Book of the Five Rings". Better yet, it might be best to simply supply a booklet containing noteworthy excerpts from all of these classics on war and politics. I imagine this would be even better if the particular scenario was based on a real historical battle.

Another point that I failed to mention is the fact that the NPC generals leading the armies are themselves to an extent autonomous. In other words, a general might even disobey extreme orders, or might be able to be paid off by the enemy if that general is particularly disloyal. Each general, thus, is given before hand a personality by the AGM when designing the scenario, and the wise player will spend some time investigating the history of his minions.

Your set up seems to similarly cut off the AGM from knowing the intent of players. This really cuts him off from simply exerting his will upon the players - if you know their intent, you can control (even without intending to) the whole game as GM by how you rule it. When you don't know their intent, there's a wonderful zone of non control because you don't know what your ruling will do. You can't manipulate what you don't know exists (even GM's who try not to manipulate often are doing so - but I wont get into that just yet).

Good point! I actually was using the MGM's mostly just out of necessity, as the AGM really has his hands full orchestrating the game--but you are right, it does make it more difficult for the AGM to manipulate the players.

Absoutely don't have the spare players for it, but damn, great insulator!

Yeah, the main issue with War Room is the number of players it requires. I suppose one could probably play a game with 8 people: two GMs (an AGM who occasionally messages and a dedicated MGM), and two teams of three players each... but I don't think it would be nearly as enjoyable as a larger game. Although I've never had enough players (the most I've played this with I think was about 18: three game masters and a team of eight and a team of seven), I imagine it would become necessary also to create a new GM role, the Coordinator Game Master for those games with three or more teams. This GM would help direct the MGMs to idle Arbiters, provide a final voice on disputes between GMs, and, when he isn't doing any of his other two tasks, act simply as a AGM. But that's all conjectural.





Thank you both for the feedback!
______

PS: If some kind-hearted mod could fix my typo in the title, it would be great, 'cause it's giving me a head-ache.

[Noclue]

This sounds like it would be a blast to play! Very strategic, lots of tension.

One thought was that you might be able to up the Roleplaying (if you wanted to) by providing character backgrounds and relationships to other characters, including the Lords on the field. Characters would have complicated familial relationships, ancient feuds, allegiances, desire for power or land or money. The history could get very byzantine and would provide everyone with motivations for their loyalty and betrayals and could result in some heated roleplay inside the war rooms.

In addition, each of the PCs could be in command of the armies in the field. Lord Juss in your example might be a loyal vassal of one of the Dukes in the room. When they order Lord Juss to advance his horse it would actually be his liege lord who issues the command (or some very different command) to the MGM.

Heck, it would basically be a parlor LARP, without the costumes.

Of course, you may want to keep it strategy focussed and RP light.

[komradebob]

Michael:

Have you seen this before? There are a few styles of game in that which remind me of your game.

This looks like it would be a lot of fun to play- I'm looking forward to further developments.

[FLEB]

With all the proxying that goes on, and the natural (or at least believable) delays of the battlefield, this could make a really good play-by-post or play-by-email game. (Especially, given that it requires a larger group. Also, there's more latitude to make it more "realistic", IMO, by post.)

Another advantage is the concept looks as if it could be easily repurposed to support any number of settings.

I don't have much to say to the topic at hand, "Has it been done?", but I will say that it's certainly an interesting idea nonetheless.

[Michael Bethencourt]

Noclue:
We've actually tried some things similar to that. In one scenario, each person was handed out a card at the beginning of the game which specified their title (e.g. "Duke of Lorynsheer"). The setting for the scenario was that the goodly king of Gailstory passed away, and two people have equal claim to the throne of Gailstory--the grounds for a civil war. Thus, each team had one person who was handed the Heir to the Throne card. Also, to make things hairier, each team had one person who was handed a "Next in Line to the Throne" card, which essentially meant that person had a fairly good claim on the throne if that person could only quietly dispose of the Heir to the Throne on his or her team.

We've also tried assigning NPC generals' loyalty to specific PCs--but nothing very much came out of that, surprisingly. Could have just been that particular game, as it seems like a good idea.

And yes, it is actually very much like a LARP--although in War Room, time is to warped to make the game more exciting (battles, otherwise, would take days, and would be very boring).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

komradebob:

Thanks for the link! Some of the rule-sets and definitions do have some similarities to War Room--especially those that involve an "Umpire" and fog-of-war.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

FLEB:
Yes, I imagine it could be played as a play-by-post game... although to be perfectly honest, I don't think I could ever have the patience for those. However, you are right--a play-by-email version of War Room could be played in perfect real-time, making it even more realistic.

The scenario could certainly be set in a variety of time-periods and universes. Historical battles could be reenacted, and players could even role-play real historical figures (e.g. Charlemagne, Napoleon). For anything beyond WWI, I imagine it might be best to pretend the messengers are in fact communications officers who are taking the orders to be telegraphed to the battle-front. Or, each team could have a walkie-talkie which links up with a MGM in the GM's War Room (or even directly to the AGM), through which they give orders and receive reports, "directly to the front-line". I could even imagine a version of this game set in space, where armies are replaced by fleets of missile cruisers, and towns are replaced by planets in a star system, and forests by nebulae and asteroid belts. Of course, then one would need a holographic projection of a star system to replace the map in order to make the game totally realistic, which might be hard to come by!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Incidentally, I have bought a domain name and set up a very temporary website:
http://warroomrpg.com/

[Paul T]

This sounds like an extremely ambitious, fun game! I doubt I would ever be able to get that many people together, but I'm impressed that you have done so, and on a regular basis.

My first question is: how many different people have been the "AGM" for your games? If there were more than one, how did that change the feel of the game?

Second, a comment. This bit right here made me a little worried:

or even paying off an assassin to poison a suspecting teammate. The Arbiter Game Master, after receiving the traitorous note from the MGM, will decide (either arbitrarily or using some predefined mechanics) the success of the endevour. If a player succeeds in killing a teammate, then the AGM can assume the role of an assassin, and sneak into the War Room to ceremoneously assassinate the teammate. However, the AGM may determine that the player is not successful, in which case the player may die in the process, or may be found out. In the latter case, the MGM will deliver the team a message reporting their teammates treachery.

The idea that I, as a player, could attempt to assassinate another player, but my success or failure is solely up to the AGM's judgement would make me feel very uncomfortable. On one hand, the total lack of knowledge about your chances of success is "realistic" and nerve-wracking, which is great. On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever feel fully comfortable with the idea that I could die in this game, and simply due to the decision of one person.

In fact, I think leaving all the details of the war to the AGM (without explicit mechanics) might be just fine (especially since the players don't have a clear idea of what's going on, only discovering information through reports), but the whole treachery and assassination thing might feel more "fair" and exciting if it were handled through some mechanics, even if those mechanics were handled by the AGM and invisible to the players.

Also, how do the MGM's decide what to report on, how accurately, and in how much detail? Is it up to them? Up to the AGM? Or is it governed by some sort of mechanics? Can they deliver inaccurate reports?

Thanks for the write-up!


Paul T.

[Michael Bethencourt]

My first question is: how many different people have been the "AGM" for your games? If there were more than one, how did that change the feel of the game?

So far, two people have been exclusively AGM for the game: myself and one other. Two other people have tried out AGM'ing for a period (switching from messengering mid-game), although that was mostly just an experiment. Although less difficult than one might imagine, it's still messy trying to switch AGM mid-game.

The scenarios and back-stories certainly had different flavors. Since I've never played with myself AGM'ing (of course), I can't really give more first-hand feedback than that.

The idea that I, as a player, could attempt to assassinate another player, but my success or failure is solely up to the AGM's judgment would make me feel very uncomfortable. On one hand, the total lack of knowledge about your chances of success is "realistic" and nerve-wracking, which is great. On the other hand, I don't know if I could ever feel fully comfortable with the idea that I could die in this game, and simply due to the decision of one person.

Ah yes, you are right: that would seem very unfair. However, I think my original paragraph was misleading: never is an assassination entirely arbitrarily chosen. My only point was that I have not yet come up with a generalized, tried-and-true mechanic for assassination and other similar player interactions. Nonetheless, the AGM is expected to use some sort of mechanic in almost all decision-makings in order to keep the game fair. So, for example, I've used the following simple mechanic before for deciding the success of assassinations.
I roll a six-sided die:
1: Failure, player attempting assassination is found out in process, and a message is delivered to the war room with the disloyal player's name
2: Failure, the fact that an assassination was attempted is found out, but the disloyal player is not discovered
3-4: Failure, the assassination fails, but nobody discovers the attempt
5-6: Success, the player kills the target

Of course, this is only for a "Try to assassinate Joe Bloggs" sort of assassination attempt -- most player interactions are much more specific and involved ("Try to assassinate Joe Bloggs in the sauna by hiring a skilled assassin for twenty pieces of gold from my personal treasury, and make it seem as if Alice Smith was really responsible" or even "Plant evidence making it seem as if Alice Smith tried to assassinate Joe Bloggs and failed"). Also, there's the risk that your note will be discovered as you hand it to the messenger. Some healthily-paranoid players will try to personally screen all messages going in and out of the war room, and be careful not to let the messenger ever be alone with another player. If you ever are physically "caught red-handed", then you most assuredly will be hung by your teammates. Thus, the difficulty in assassinating players is as much chance as it is skill in sneaking messages to the MGM.

Dieing isn't too terrible -- it's still quite a lot of fun to see "the big picture" in the war room, especially after you've been playing with such a limited perspective until then. Also, assassinations are not attempted as frequently as might be imagined, as there are usually much more effective ways of proving your loyalty to the opposing team, although perhaps none as dramatic.

Also, how do the MGM's decide what to report on, how accurately, and in how much detail? Is it up to them? Up to the AGM? Or is it governed by some sort of mechanics? Can they deliver inaccurate reports?

The AGM usually has the most say in how the report should be delivered. However, the roles are fairly flexible: the MGM is free to make suggestions, and the AGM is free to ask second opinions on how decisions should be made. The detail is generally as you might expect: if the battle-field is particularly foggy, then they probably would not be able to give a very accurate estimate of the number of enemy soldiers camped across the river. Similarly, if the NPC Lord who is giving the report is known for exaggerations, then the value might be inflated, and might come with an appropriate warning ("Mi'lieges, Lord Corsus reports twelve-thousand swords and an equal or greater number of spears, and six thousand horsemen of great caliber, and fifteen thousand crossbowmen, and a sturdy troupe of one thousand longbowmen, and five vicious looking mangonels. Of course, mi'liege, it must be understood that Lord Corsus has been known for his exaggerations, especially when he's been into the ale, which he often is, mi'liege--although I mean no disrespect.")

Reports generally should be totally accurate, except where it would make sense that no accurate report be delivered (e.g., if part of the foe's strategy is sending troupes of skilled horsemen to slay messengers, thereby isolating the army and possibly creating an uncomfortable silence for the players). Also, it is part of the MGM's responsibility for setting the tone of the role-play by embellishing the report with extraneous details: "Mi'lord, I am exceedingly pleased to inform you that Lord Bluzco reports that the midnight raid on the enemy's camp was very successful. The raiding party managed to slay an entire banner of crossbowmen, and set loose many of their steeds before they were forced to retreat. There was much rejoicing, and Lord Bluzco ordered double rations be given to the men involved, as they were exaulted as heroes. Mi'lord, this has been a good day indeed, and it is only time before we crush the vile Westlanders, and grind their bones unto ash, to be trodden upon as dust! Forever your name shall be feared, mi'lord!"

I hope that clears things up!

-- Michael B

[Noclue]

The setting for the scenario was that the goodly king of Gailstory passed away, and two people have equal claim to the throne of Gailstory--the grounds for a civil war. Thus, each team had one person who was handed the Heir to the Throne card. Also, to make things hairier, each team had one person who was handed a "Next in Line to the Throne" card, which essentially meant that person had a fairly good claim on the throne if that person could only quietly dispose of the Heir to the Throne on his or her team.

That sounds like what I was aiming at. However, you could also add additional layers of complexity like inter-team relations, lords on one team could be related by blood and/or marriage with lords on the other team. You might have situations where a lord has to choose between conflicting allegiances, where they have signed two conflicting treaties, or where following their liege means reneging on a pact with a neighboring house that has been in place for generations and is critical to their house's future. You could mix things up with having one of the claimants to the throne being known for weakness or cruelty, etc. You could make the heir with the best claim to the throne the one with the least power, or make them an infant with a regent that is feared or disliked or...Thus it becomes not only about who is in line for the throne, but making choices between conflicting loyalties, personal morals and political/economic advantage. It depends on how Machiavellian you wnat things to get.

[quote author=Michael Bethencourt link=topic=23907.msg234385#msg234385 date=1179500844
We've also tried assigning NPC generals' loyalty to specific PCs--but nothing very much came out of that, surprisingly. Could have just been that particular game, as it seems like a good idea.
[/quote]

This could be because there wasn't a strong motivation to use these loyalties in that session or because the mechanics make it difficult (like the leader can look at all your messages before they go out, so it's hard to effect a betrayal). If you went into a separate room to pass notes to MGMs (like the voting on the Survivor TV show), players might feel more free to push things. One thought I had was to allow notes to pass through the AGM to the other team, which could up the social maneuvering and plotting and betrayals.

[Michael Bethencourt]

I'm right now planning out the next game, which will be quite a bit different, as it's set in a science fiction setting.

I am, however, discovering a special sort of flaw with using a unique futuristic setting: people are generally more familiar with techniques of medieval warfare than they ever can be with the space battles set in some science fiction universe in the game master's head. For example, they may know that a small company of soldiers can appear to be a large army by setting up a disproportionate quantity of tents and camp-fires, and thereby serve as a decoy to divert the enemy's attention from the real army, which is hiding in some other location. They don't need to know very much about the setting of that particular battle or, if the battle is set in a fantasy universe, very much about the magic system in the universe to know that setting up extra tents can create such an illusion. However, even players well versed in science-fiction universes cannot, without making possibly invalid assumptions regarding the universe imagined by the game master, know that, for example, ships jumping to hyperspace may create a ghost image of the ship on targeting sensors, provided that the hyperdrive's tachyon dampening shields are reduced to 30 gigawatts.

I can think of three solutions to this issue: set the game in a pre-established universe (such as Star Wars) already familiar to the players, allow the players a degree of freedom in assuming properties about the universe and its technology, or express the universe as specifically as possible so as to provide the players such that the players have enough information to create clever tactics.

The first solution has two main problems: it denies the AGM some freedom in creating the scenario as he or she is confined to preconceived, and it's more difficult to find enough players who are equally (and thoroughly) knowledgeable about these invented worlds. However, if the AGM can pull it off, I'm sure it would work quite well.

The second solution will work if the AGM can trust the players enough to play fairly and intelligently. At least in my group, a game of war room can get pretty competitive, so allowing the players this sort of freedom can have only limited success.

The only issue with the third solution is the logistics and effort of supplying enough information on the futuristic universe. Generally, the basic idea would be to write a small booklet or several printed sheets for each war room, detailing the technology, and maybe even hinting on some specific valid tactics. To use the example presented in the second paragraph of this post, an intelligence report detailing the hyperdrive on star ships could perhaps contain the following lines: "The tachyon dampening shield of the hyperdrive help reduce potentially disruptive tachyon emissions. It is not recommended that these shields be reduced to any level below 50GW, as tachyon emissions may create ghost images in targeting sensors when the hyperdrive is engaged. Also, personal exposure to tachyon radiation can cause a variety of diseases and disorders, including Montague's phenomenon. The hyperdrive's tachyon shield as we know it today was first introduced in..."


For the scenario I am currently designing, I decided to use a blending of the three, with a special emphasis on the last. The universe will be fairly similar to Star Trek or Babylon 5, and I will allow some creative assumptions on the part of the players, as long as based on a basic understanding of physics or it's not too extreme. Also, I think I may have one extra game master, a sort of Consultant Game Master, who will act as a "technology expert" for the teams. The Consultant GM will be available to explain various points of technology. If the Consultant doesn't know an answer, he or she will make something up, and then report the decision to the AGM so that the GM's can stay consistent. In this way, all the questions regarding the science fiction universe can stay in character, as one of my goals in an game of War Room is never acting out of character. I'll be sure to post on how this works out.


Any comments on the the problem and my proposed solutions or any other ideas or solutions would be appreciated.


______________________

If you went into a separate room to pass notes to MGMs (like the voting on the Survivor TV show), players might feel more free to push things.

Perhaps. However, I like the physical difficult of sneaking messages to the MGM. As a player, the process is very nerve-wracking, as if you ever are caught holding a compromising note, you probably are going to be hanged by those teammates whom you betrayed, unless you can explain it away (which usually is very difficult, unless you are particularly clever or your teammates particularly naive).

One thought I had was to allow notes to pass through the AGM to the other team, which could up the social maneuvering and plotting and betrayals.

That's already allowed. It's been used quite a bit for a few things, and sometimes to great effect. In the games I played, sending as a diversion spurious notes containing supposedly treacherous information seems to occur more frequently than the real ones. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing, as sometimes the other team falls for it (or at least is divided over it) nonetheless.

[Aaron Blain]

Hooray for Prussian Kriegspiel! You are, in fact, going back to the root of all gaming. Three rooms, three maps, three umpires. You are doing almost exactly what was done in Frederick's time. Although there was (is) a version with an insanely detailed ruleset, there was also a version called "Free Kriegspiel" in which the players give orders and an experienced soldier decides what the result will be.

To address your concern:

Think in terms not of the "Game Master", or an "objective reality" but of the collective understanding of the setting.

I think all gamers need to wiki these two concepts: materialism and idealism. Whatever you feel about the workings of the universe, games operate on the LATTER principle. Don't think like Asimov. Think like Borges.

Look at this scenario:

Player : I've never heard of Frank Herbert, but I want to play!
GM : Sure! You're in command of the army. What are your orders?
Player : Are those laser guns of some sort? Fire them! Destroy the enemy's shields!
GM : Your whole army is annihilated in a nuclear explosion! You see, when a continuous wave-laser projector interacts with a Holtzman field . . .
Player : Fuck you and fuck this! I'm leaving!

I suggest that you decide which facts matter most, and make those the only facts in the universe, and simply explain them at the beginning of the game. Save Montague's phenomenon for the second or third session and don't retroactively enforce rules. "All your veterans from the first battle are dropping dead." This means accepting some incongruities in your game, which is preferable by far to abusing your players.

I also suggest that your ruleset be a paradigm for the interpretation and resolution of events, rather than a supposedly-authoritative valuation of "real-world" facts. Let each group craft their own vision of the workings of warfare. I know it's hard for us history buffs to swallow, but as we've seen the public at large doesn't even think phalanxes are cool. I use a slightly expanded version of the principle in Engle Matrix games, which I would be happy to discuss, but I think this post is sitting at a pretty good length.

Look at that list of polearms in the ADnD rule book and tell me it's not the stupidest thing you've ever seen in your life.

Good luck, and I look forward to playing this. Don't get discouraged!

[Callan S.]

Hi Michael,

Basically with your example of the army setting up more tents and camp fires to appear bigger, it's a feint with a cost - it costs extra time but creates something that the other side knows can be done, but can't immediately be sure is happening.

With the warp drive, you can just tell them the feint explictely, and tell them the rough costs of doing so. Both sides know it exists, but can't be sure when it's used.

I highly recommend that the cost applies to the game here and now - not some genetic desease showing up several games from now. Doing so simply reduces focus on the current game - it's like saying "Hey, something is going to happen in some latter game - so this one isn't really the one to pay attention to"

[Noclue]

I'll just agree with Aaron Blair. I can't find anything constructive to add, except to be careful with the technology that you introduce because it can change everything and players are good at exploiting those kinds of things. The reference to Dune shields is a good example of world changing technology.