Game Idea concerning immortal characters

[Henry Fitch]

Uh oh. When I first posted, I was rather hoping for somebody to say "Ooh! Here's how to do it!" and be exactly right. Now that I'm actually talking about it, I definitely want to continue working on this, but I'm a little short on inspiration at the moment. Well, let's see..

First things first, I'm Henry. Henry Fitch, of Chevy Chase, MD. I keep meaning to change all my namethings to my actual name, but inertia gets in my way. After all, I use the same handle for a lot of things.

Second, Ron's got it on the head. Dueling elders are well and good, but I want this to be personal. When I meant they should live in a disguised void, I really meant it; regular humans and such are props at most, likely less. They shouldn't really matter; they aren't the point. If two characters want to compete to dominate the advertising business or something, fine, but it's a small point, likely to be acheived and lost before the next actual roleplay time. Those things are only relevant insofar as they change the emotional ties between the characters concerned. A system for that may be important, but it might work just as well for the GM (or panel of players?) to loosely consider which character is more commited, who's personality is more suited, and the atmosphere of the times, and just decide. Also, this may vary, but I'd really rather see a centuries-long grudge form over a romantic squabble, cutting remark, or a slap in the face than over the manipulation of the mortal hordes. Those things should be more like "'I'm pissed off at Harold, so I'm fixing the world series against his guys.' 'Okay, smartass, then I'll start Prohibition to screw over your liquor store chain." Like I said, the world outside their little klatches and personal motives is meant to be insignificant -- using it against one another should feel like kicking sand.

Incidentally, in my experience, the way to get a good premise for a game is to first come very close to posting about 5 other ideas before you realize they have no premise at all.

edit: added the sand-kicking bit.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Henry!

You wrote,
"A system for that may be important, but it might work just as well for the GM (or panel of players?) to loosely consider which character is more commited, who's personality is more suited, and the atmosphere of the times, and just decide."

Opinions about this concept differ greatly. Speaking only for myself, and not as any sort of Forge Rep, I am highly skeptical about such play. It's been my experience that such dialogue-driven resolution works very nicely in small doses, and when the events of play are off-beat in some way ("Describe the legends created by your character's death") - but that as an ongoing resolution method for general play, it's a disaster.

As I say, opinions differ. Some consider anything but consensual chit-chat to be unnecessary wargaming holdovers.

Since this is the Indie Design forum, and since it's not a serve-up-a-system cafeteria but rather a workshop ... this is me, asking you, "Is that it?" In other words, are you happy with the consensual method? We'll get together, agree upon the various characters, and then continue to agree about everything that arises, how everyone responds, and what happens because of it? As I say, some folks find this to be ideal role-playing; I don't (which should not in any way influence your own preferences).

If you are happy with that method, then this thread is essentially done, although I'd like to see something like a "one-sheet" that explains to everyone just what we would be doing. (In other words, even such play demands a "system.")

If not, then I suggest looking at Ferry Bazelman's game Soap, with some care. It's light and funny, but the mechanics offer some of the most deadly important RPG insights you can find, and many of those, in my opinion, are relevant to implementing your idea.

Best,
Ron

[Henry Fitch]

Okay, I've been pretty busy with school in the last few days and I haven't had a lot of time to think about this (or take another look at Soap, sadly, although I have seen it before) but I have a pretty basic idea for resolving conflicts. I'd like to say that everyone can just discuss what happens, but I get the feeling that could turn character conflicts into player conflicts pretty quickly. Not to mention breaking the flow of the game even more than dice-rolling or value-comparing would.

Therefore, I offer you these: Convictions and Bonds. A Conviction is a belief or philosophy that really affects how you live. Something like a religion, or "the important thing is to be the strongest," or "everyone should just work together." Bonds are emotional relationships with other player characters. I'd say that each character starts with one or two Convictions and no bonds, but that's tweakable. These should be written down on a "character sheet."

After a meeting between the characters, everybody gets a chance to say whether some of their Convictions or Bonds have gone away and whether they have formed any new ones. These changes should not happen during the time between meetings, with the possible exception of momentous historical events that could change Convictions. A character might, for instance, begin to feel that his hatred of another is futile between meetings, but the actual Bond shouldn't change until it is resolved in a meeting. Incidentally, if someone wants to change a Conviction or Bond secretly, he should just write it down without telling anyone, and let the GM know later. No making them up on the fly and saying you decided before.

Now the actual mechanics. It's pretty simple: when two players come into conflict and neither is willing to step down, they decide which Bonds and Convictions apply to the conflict. If one of them can apply something and the other's got nothing, the first one can win. If they can both apply Bonds or Convictions but not the other, it's a standstill. If one can apply some of each and the other only has one kind, the one with both wins. Finally, if both have both, it's a standstill again. Those standstills generally mean it's a good time to call a meeting. (Or is it a Meeting?)

In case somebody's wondering, there aren't any rules for conflicts where neither person can apply any Conviction or Relationship. If that's the case, why is the conflict happening?

This can also apply (maybe) to conflicts during meetings that can't be properly acted out. Combat is the only real example I can think of, except maybe arm-wrestling.

So, will this work at all?

(edited for spelling)

[Henry Fitch]

Some other points:

1. If established history dictates that one character should succeed over another, history always wins.

2. Practical considerations like skill, resources, etc. shouldn't be taken into account. After all, there's plenty of time for the underdog do develop those things.

3. The system as written doesn't really take into account how many Bonds/Convictions can be applied to the situation. This is what seemed natural to me, but I'm not sure why.

4. Since the system basically compares people on a 0-2 scale, ties will be really common. I like this. For one thing, a tie wouldn't mean nothing happens, just that there's no decisive advantage over however many years. More importantly, I think "Okay, my guys owned your guys in the war" is much less interesting than "This war isn't going anywhere, we'd better have a duel." Wait, there's a problem there, the duel would probably have the same result. Is that a problem? Hmm.