[The Order] Fear, Suprise and Endgames!

[Kirk Mitchell]

This thread will frequently reference the current draft and the other thread. See http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16456.0 for the mechanics, current draft and background information.

Essentially, I want to discuss the various endgames and the ways that they are achieved, also how they reflect the concept of the game "...an exploration of 'truth', organised religion, humanity and sacrifice..."

Here are some concepts that I'm looking at in regards to endgames:

* An endgame for each of the major stats: Authority, Zeal, Humanity. Each reflecting the dominance of one (and the consequences in the game world)
* I want the endgame for one player to have an impact on the rules themselves for the rest of the players. That way, one one player hits their endgame, they can leave their mark on the game itself.

Here's what I want to discuss:

* Each individual endgame and how it is dealt with/achieved
* The ways that endgames can have a mechanical impact on the world

Authority: And endgame that involves the rise through the ranks of the Order
Zeal: Becoming some sort of new messiah or religious figure
Humanity: Similar to 1984, you will get hunted down, Interrogated and killed

Thoughts, anyone?

Thanks,
Kirk

[Graham W]

I like that, that's nice.

I can imagine a situation where these endgames are tied together: for example, someone rises through the ranks of the Order and becomes a new Messiah. Or, more likely, someone becomes a new Messiah and is hunted down.

So it may be important to be flexible with these endgames: not to insist that there are three separate ones. And also, not to insist that the endgames are done in a particular order. (For example, someone could become hunted and killed and hence become the new Messiah; or someone could become the new Messiah and hence be hunted down and killed).

Oh...and, from what I remember of storytelling, the last scene should be the one that resolves the overarching plot of the story. This happens automatically in, say, My Life With Master, because the last scene (apart from the Epilogue) is the death of the Master, and that always resolves the overarching plot.

In your game, that won't happen automatically, and it might be important to choose which order to run the end games in, so as to end with the most important endgame.

Anyway, just some quick thoughts, and it's looking really good.

Graham

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

I find the concept of the game very appealing. Here are some thoughts:

* When a character with high Authority (how much exactly I'm not really sure - maybe twice or thrice its starting value? You decide) rises in the ranks of The Order, player's influence on the gameworld and the game itself should rely partially on the value of his/her character's other stats (similarly to what Graham proposed). For instance, if the PC managed to accumulate quite a lot of Zeal and thus not only rose to prominence within The Order, but also became a shining example of faith (a Zealot). Using his position in The Order he may partially change its doctrine (add new commandments, laws etc.), most probably making them more strict (that's what zealots do, usually). But in case the PC somehow managed to become an important figure in The Order and savored some Humanity, he may enforce certain restrictions on further interrogations (no tortures and such, thus becoming a Reformer).

* If Zeal is the main stat at the time of endgame, the character becomes a Messiah, and again, according to which of the other stats is higher, he may become an Orthodox Messiah or a Liberal Messiah (the term's not the best, I know) - one preaching the grandness of ye olde doctrine, and the other one more concerned with the welfare of his people. The Liberal Messiah might be considered heretic, thus adding more options for future Inquisitors when interrogating, while the other one could make  real heretics more scarce or could decide, similarly to the Zealot character, that his influence was great enough to influence the code of The Order slightly.

* As to Humanity... well, a PC with enough Authority could have caused his downfall by letting his humanity interfere with his work, and that is why other, more ambitious inquisitors decided to utilize this weakness and take his place. A PC with high Zeal becomes an outright Heretic - for trying to find a more humane side of The Order's doctrine. I'm not quite sure how could such endgames influence the game; maybe allowing the player to role-play this PC during his final interrogation compensate for this? Maybe the ideas presented by such a PC during the interrogation burn such a deep mark on others' personalities that they would, eventually, influence the game? Like I said, I'm not certain.

[Josh Roby]

Kirk, is it possible for a 'Mediocre' Endgame?  When your character has not accrued much of any of the three attributes?  If the other two players have tanked on Authority and Humanity, respectively, but I've failed to succeed on any metric, where does that leave me?  Or does the system of the game work in such a way to force all players to pick a path and head down it?

[Kirk Mitchell]

Firstly, I want to avoid a 'mediocre' endgame. If they try and balance everything, the players will just keep playing forever until someone triggers an endgame. The endgame, I must remind you, is an endgame for one, but allows them to leave their mark (that is the idea, at least). It is technically possible to play forever and balance the stats, but I think that the rules encourage people to make a choice, one way or another.

In terms of mixing and matching the endgames, its an interesting idea, but would be difficult to implement mechanically. Perhaps when a certain point is reached with one stat, if another stat is greater than half the predominant one, it may be encorporated into the end-game and its narration. Perhaps some rules on how to create the alterations after the endgame (sort of like The Riddle of Steel's magic making rules). So far everybody seems to get the different ways I want to go (messiah, big boss man and heretic), so what do you think?

Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

I want the endgame for one player to have an impact on the rules themselves for the rest of the players.

This is a really potent idea. So every time someone goes to Endgame because of Authority, that character is promoted out of play, but Authority becomes more powerful in all subsequent conflicts because of their influence from on high? And likewise someone going to Endgame because of Zeal makes Zeal more powerful, and -- this would be the sweetest part -- someone going to Endgame because of Humanity, even as they perish, would make Humanity a little more powerful for everyone else.

I'm not seeing where in your current mechanics there's room to implement this slowly (this isn't one of those games where you say, "Okay, everyone take a +10% to Zeal rolls from now on"), although you could have resources increase in value.

P.S. Your other thread has dropped off the front page, which I believe makes it Against the Law to post to it -- although it's also recommended to have just one active thread at any given time, anyway.

[Kirk Mitchell]

P.S. Your other thread has dropped off the front page, which I believe makes it Against the Law to post to it -- although it's also recommended to have just one active thread at any given time, anyway.

Fair enough. If we need to go back to it, I'll start a new thread.

This is a really potent idea. So every time someone goes to Endgame because of Authority, that character is promoted out of play, but Authority becomes more powerful in all subsequent conflicts because of their influence from on high? And likewise someone going to Endgame because of Zeal makes Zeal more powerful, and -- this would be the sweetest part -- someone going to Endgame because of Humanity, even as they perish, would make Humanity a little more powerful for everyone else.

That's awesome! I had no fixed idea of how the rules could be altered (although game-world alterations were running through my mind). Perhaps both could be used. Not only do the stats become more powerful for other people, but you can leave your mark in the game world too. So a Zeal based endgame could increase the power of Zeal, and also allow the player who is promoted out of play to create a new Law or Judgment or whatnot. Likewise, Authority makes Authority more powerful, and perhaps adds something about the structure of the Order.

But how to make the traits more powerful? The game doesn't really take "power" into account per se, in terms of traits. Perhaps making it easier to get the traits, and thus easier to effect the changes in that direction. What do you think?

Kirk

[Josh Roby]

But how to make the traits more powerful? The game doesn't really take "power" into account per se, in terms of traits. Perhaps making it easier to get the traits, and thus easier to effect the changes in that direction. What do you think?

Simple -- increase the initial costs of using Authority, Zeal, and Humanity -- that is, instead of costing a point to perform actions, it costs five points.  A character going to Endgame reduces that cost by one point (potentially to zero?).

Do you want a global Endgame as well?  If enough characters change the Order significantly enough to spell the Order's demise, total political ascendancy, or... I dunno, fanatical world war with some other religion?

[Kirk Mitchell]

Simple -- increase the initial costs of using Authority, Zeal, and Humanity -- that is, instead of costing a point to perform actions, it costs five points.  A character going to Endgame reduces that cost by one point (potentially to zero?).

That's fair enough. Perhaps make the initial cost variable, like the die type in the truth pool. The initial cost is equal to the number of players you have. It also gets people in a "vicious" circle that pushes the game in the direction they want it to go. The same thing could be achieved with making it easier to gain points in the traits. It starts off with gaining one, then two etc. What needs to be weighed up is which balances right. Thoughts?

I don't think I want a global end-game. The players can decide that themselves, but the spirit of the game doesn't really suit a global endgame. Or at least a positive one (1984 again)...

Kirk