[Anarchy] First thoughts (Long!)

[Geoff Hall]

Okay, I should probably preface this with the fact that this is not only my first post to these forums (well, discounting a mention of Burning Empires to Primordia a couple of days ago) but also my first attempt at game design.  What follows has mostly been posted up, in one form or another, on my Live Journal (http://nuclear-powered.livejournal.com/) in the recent past but there's only one games designer who reads that and he only does so because he happens to be a friend!  So I thought that I'd try to bring it here and get some professional advice on how best to move forwards, any issues or problems that you can see, etc.  Once I've had a little feedback I plan to do a Power 19 for the game and post it here but I thought that I'd throw out what I have thus far (along with any musings that hit me as I'm making this post.)

The game is, as you have probably gathered from the thread title, called Anarchy.  The basic premise springs from a few sources, the biggest influences so far having been a general liking for distopian settings, V for Vendetta (the comic rather than the movie), Children of Men (the movie rather than the book) and Spooks (a BBC TV series set around MI5.)  Essentially (and I apologise for the following Spooks spoilers, if you haven't seen Series 5 skip what follows) I want to speculate as to what would happen if the coup planned by Michael Collinwood et al at the start of Season 5 wasn't thwarted by MI5? I mean, I knew it would be come episode 2's end and I was right (although they cut it ridiculously fine in traditional Spook's style) but what if?

So my current take on Anarchy is as follows:

The year is 2026, 20 years after the coup occurred.  Britain is a totalitarian state ruled by an unelected committee maintaining a false veneer of respectability and legitimacy by acting in the shadows behind a puppet Prime Minister who they have ensconced in Whitehall.  In reality they have virtually eradicated civil liberties and control the vast majority of the population with an iron fist.  The then-PM (back in 2006) legislated almost all civil protections and rights away in response to terror attacks orchestrated by the committee to allow their coup to occur and most of the British people sat back and allowed it to happen.  Fear and corruption are rampant, Orwellian levels of surveillance saturate the British Isles (except for Northern Ireland, which has broken away and merged with Ireland to form the New Irish Republic) and pernicious lies and misinformation are spread by the ruling elite and run rampant through the population at large, laying the seeds of mistrust and doubt that they require to keep the people in line.  The media pumps out subliminal messages all across the country, trying to make the people more docile, more easily manipulated and cowed and, for the most part, it works.  It is a harsh time to be alive; a cruel, degrading and depressing existence.  Yet the status quo is maintained and the majority of people are drearily content, if not actually happy.  The government have taken on a fortress Britain mentality, closing all borders and banning all immigration.  Illegal immigrants (and the definition of that term has been broadened alarmingly over the past 2 decades to include anyone of foreign ancestry that the government takes a disliking to) are rounded up and transported to camps.  From there they are eventually either deported or killed, reports on which vary although it seems likely that both occur.  The royal family are simply figureheads, locked in their stately homes and paraded for the crowds when the committee deems it appropriate. Prince William is dead, an 'accident' in 2008 after he had dared to speak up to the British people about the oppression. His younger brother, Prince Harry, has been in hiding ever since; he is thought to be a prominent member of the Anarchist Movement.

And that is where YOU (the players) come in!

You play one of the few who can truly see what is going on and who has the courage to stand against the tide of terror and fascism. The subliminal messages no longer affect you, you have gone underground, joined the Anarchist Movement, the only free group left in Britain. The idea would be that you would, essentially, play a terrorist cell within this distopian Britain, trying to bring the government down. Maybe you'd still have a normal job and, apparently, normal life but maybe you'd be truly underground, living in safe houses, wanted by the state, the secret services after you. Whatever the case you would be working with like minded individuals to bring to fruition plots and ploys intended to hurt the government and liberate Britain. Freedom fighters or terrorists? I guess it depends on your point of view...

I want the game to be rules light and gritty.  You're playing a terrorist cell so there needs to be a lot of tension, fear of getting caught by the state, etc.  There should also be idealism.  You're freedom fighters trying to bring down a corrupt government the tacitly supports the wholesale murder of anyone that steps out of line.  Is that not a worthy cause?  I want to foster an atmosphere of camaraderie with a healthy undercurrent of suspicion.  There should be the potential for people to swerve away from their initial ideals and to become true terrorists, bombing civilian targets, etc., or to be corrupted by the power of their unique position and turn it into a personal war, or to be seduced by the state and the ease of the status quo such that they sell out their companions.  There should also be the potential for people to stick with their ideals, fighting the good fight, sticking to military/police/government targets, bringing chaos to disrupt and undermine the incumbent system.  However the possibility of actually 'winning' the war should be remote, at best.  Winning individual battles?  Sure!  But this is a dark and distopian setting and the chances of actually bringing down the government and affecting real change without everything descending into a chaos worse than the ultra-control of the present are incredibly slim.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I then put together the following 'IC' piece just to give a bit more flavour and as a way of introducing what's going on and explaining what happened at the time of the coup:

"'The year is 1991, it seems that freedom's dead and gone. The power of the rich held by the few. Keep the young ones paralised, educated by your lies. Keep the old ones happy with the news...'

The Levellers,a folk-rock group, said that, sang it really, back in 1991. That was years ago now of course, and they were wrong anyway. The year that freedom truly died in Britain was 2006; when the PM signed 'special legislative measures' to combat terrorism and, in doing so, signed away control of the country to a powerful, unelected group who kept him on as a legitimising puppet. No, the year is 2026 my friends and freedom is an outdated relic, swiftly forgotten by the teeming multitudes and a disturbingly alien concept to the youngest generation, those who have never experienced its thrill. Orwellian is the word, or it would be if the population were better read, fear is the weapon, apathy and capitulation the enemy, the state of mind that the leadership manipulates so effectively. But it doesn't have to be this way, it shouldn't be this way! This is Britain for fucks sake! This nation of ours was a guardian of freedom, individual rights and liberty for generations. Men and women fought and died for those ideals and we allowed the government to sign them away like so much redundant chaff. I'd almost say that the British public deserves what it gets. Almost.

The thing is there were marches, protests, riots, the works. Sure, most people have forgotten about them now and those that dare mention them are usually shouted down. The government won't acknowledge that there was a resistance and the people refuse to believe. Back then though? Back in 2006 when it was all going down? Back then it really felt like we, the general public, could make a difference, stop the juggernaut of change before it crushed us all underfoot. We marched on London, peacefully at first, desperate to make the government understand that what they were doing was wrong, to make them see how totally un-British it all was. Then the explosions began. There were suicide bombers in the crowd. Disillusioned, young Muslims, manipulated and used by the men behind the coup; their zeal and fanaticism twisted to the ends of the would-be dictators. Ironic really, in a terrible way, if you can bear to think about it. Of course the police followed orders, they used deadly force. The thing is with the smoke bombs and tear gas swirling through the streets they couldn't tell who was a bomber and who was just a scared, frightened protester. They just opened fire on anyone who came close to them. The slaughter was horrible and, understandably, the crowd responded in kind. It was the biggest, bloodiest riot that London has ever seen. What else could we do? We had to defend ourselves. I should know, I was there and, to this day, I don't know how I got out alive. People all around me were being felled by police gunfire, explosions ripped through the crowd, bringing down buildings, lamp posts, flinging spike-topped, iron railings through the air. It was carnage. I just remember waking up on the floor of a friend's the next morning, partially deaf and covered in cuts and bruises. And blood; only it wasn't mine, not most of it. I never did see my friend again, I can only assume that she died in the riots, just like the thousands of other innocents and police who died that day.

No, it's all gone wrong and it just keeps getting worse. Those in power are tightening their grip. Already arabs, blacks, eastern Europeans, anyone who isn't white, is openly rounded up and shipped off to our own version of Auschwitz. How long before the 'minorities' are wiped out completely from this isle? How long before they turn on the gays?  The Catholics?  Anyone who seems even remotely 'different?' The beginnings of rebellion was brutally put down in 2006, all orchestrated to perfection in a viscous and ruthless coup so that most of the public never even realised what was going on. That was 20 years ago now, 20 years!  It's time that we took the fight to the state again. The government did this to us; they are corrupt, unaccountable, controlling and manipulative. They cannot be allowed to remain in power, it's that simple. We have to bring them down, bring it all down and start again. Are you with me?"

~Speech by given by Rowan, Anarchist leader, before his arrest 2 weeks ago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since then I've been taking a stab at some mechanics, although I'm definitely not all of the way there just yet.  Nonetheless I'll detail what I have so far and some of my thoughts and ideas for refining or expanding on them.

3 stats:

Mind - intellectual pursuits, memory, research, etc.
Body - How strong, tough, fast, dexterous, etc. you are
Soul - How strong willed, charismatic, confident, etc. you are

10 points to distribute between them, minimum 1 point in each, maximum of 5. This sets your target for a roll under on a D6.

2 additional dice pools: Anarchy and Order. Anarchy dice can be spent in certain circumstances to give you more dice to try and roll a success. Each time you spend an Anarchy die you gain an Order die. Order dice can be spent on set effects by the GM. Anarchy dice can be gained for doing various things (tie in to a reward scheme to reinforce the sort of game I'm aiming to produce.) Probably start with 5 Anarchy dice and 1 Order die (1 Order representing the basic level of surveillence/effort put towards you by the state, more representing a greater focus on you, due to your involvement in the Anarchy movement.)  Additional thoughts:  Maybe alter the starting Anarchy/Order numbers?  Perhaps have different coloured D6's for each pool so that you know, when you're rolling, which dice are Anarchy dice and which one is your standard die?  Maybe have a 1 on an Anarchy die give you an extra Anarchy die in your pool and a 6 generate a 2nd Order die (in addition to the one that you gain from spending the Anarchy die in the first place)? Maybe you could spend Anarchy dice to 'invest' equipment, etc. so that it has an in-game, mechanical effect (such as bonus dice) when you use it?  If so the investment would be permanent and the item would cease to just be colour.  You would gain Order dice in your pool as standard when doing this.  Finally, I've since considered that the GM should be able to spend his Order dice in the same way as a player can spend their Anarchy dice, but only on an NPC directly involved in a scene with the relevant character.  How does that sound?

Traits:

You would start with 6 player defined traits, 3 narrow traits each applicable to a narrowly defined circumstance but granting 3 additional dice (e.g. expert at fixing a certain make and model of car), 2 broad traits more broadly applicable but still focussed in a specific area of a field granting 2 additional dice (e.g. expert at fixing cars in general) and 1 wide skill granting a single additional die but applying to a wide variety of circumstances (good at fixing machinery in general, i.e. anything from a toaster to a TV, a clock to a car.) In addition to this the advancement system would be tied to traits and you would gain both positive and negative traits (negative ones being used by the GM or penalising you in some way, not sure yet) following the resolution of certain conflicts...  Additional thoughts: This area really need some work as it's very fuzzy in my mind right now.  Plus I've since thought that the narrow traits might be too abuseable, especially when combined with 'investing' equipment using Anarchy dice (e.g. a narrow trait in using a [insert specific gun here] plus invest, say, 2 Anarchy dice into your gun and, blam, that's 6 dice to roll when using that particular gun (4 if you're using the same type of gun but not your specific one) to try and roll a single success.)  I want to use traits as a way of mechanically differentiating between characters past the basic 3 stats and the fluctuating number of Anarchy/Order dice in the 2 pools and to allow characters to be a bit more competent in their areas of expertise, without breaking the system.  I dunno, maybe I'll have to make it clear that they ARE abuseable and note that the players/GM will need to discuss traits, etc. before the game to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?

Conflict resolution:

I'm envisaging a simple D6, get equal to or under the relevant stat, to succeed. Simple as that. However, the stakes in conflicts would be very clearly defined before the dice were rolled. Character death would be possible as a stake if a) the player agrees to it AND b) the player has more Order dice in his pool than he does Anarchy dice, indicating that the state are closing in on him and the Anarchist network is no longer able to protect him, his activities having become too conspicuous. I need to think more on this aspect of the game, obviously, especially concerning how it relates to the number of points given out to your stats.  Additional thoughts: Okay, that seems potentially fair enough for unopposed conflicts, but what about opposed ones?  Or does there need to be such a thing?  If there does how do I take into account the opponents skill in an area vs. yours without making things too complicated?  I was thinking about flipping the check into a 'roll over' (rather than a roll under) on a D6 and using the opponents stat as the target but I don't think that this would really work as it only takes into account the opponents abilities, not your own.

'Trust:'

I like tMW's Trust mechanic and, whilst I don't wish to rip it off wholesale, I do wish to include a way for the players to aid or screw each other in the system. Why? You would be working as a close knit cell of revolutionaries, living underground in a fascist state. Working together is the only way to survive but, equally, can you really trust anyone else? These people are terrorists after all! Sure, you're in it for your ideals, your beliefs, but what about them? Who says that they don't just get off on destruction and chaos? Or maybe they're an agent planted by the government? Hell, maybe they're a loose cannon and it will be better for the Movement if they're removed, all quiet-like, or simply allowed to be captured.

I want to tie it in to the existing Anarchy/Order pools so what I'm thinking is, as long as your character is in a scene with a character involved in a conflict you can transfer some of your Anarchy dice to them for a length of time (permanently? scene length? some other time interval?) and they can spend them as they would their own. It is up to the player spending those extra Anarchy dice as to who has to take the hit in Order dice, themselves or the player that granted the Anarchy dice. This could well tie in with negative traits gained during character advancement, representing corruption, disillusionment, internal power plays, etc.  Once again I require more thought on the matter!

Anyway, that represents what I have so far on the game.  I recognise that it's quite a long post with rather a lot to mull over all at once.  Still, any help or guidance would be appreciated greatly.

Regards,
Geoff

[andrew_kenrick]

Hey Geoff - good to see you posting here! Hopefully you'll get some more feedback than just me commenting on your livejournal!

Now that's quite a lot of information to digest all in one go, but I'll ask this before someone else does - do you have any specific questions you want feedback on? I've found that asking questions or raising points is usually a better way of getting constructive feedback than just asking "what do you think."

Now, on with being constructive - I definitely like the use of Anarchy and Order as opposite forces acting on a character (your description of Order sounds similar to how I'm handling Surveillance points in Yesterday's Tomorrow, btw, but that's no bad thing!). Having them as pools that can be rolled is a nice touch, and I definitely think using different coloured dice to keep them distinctive is a good thing. Are you going to always have a fixed pool of these dice, acting somewhat like a seesaw, so as you gain one sort you lose some of the other sort?

Have you read Don't Rest Your Head? Because this could be worked like Madness.Perhaps you could roll BOTH Anarchy and Order in addition to your regular dice and whichever rolls highest/more successes or what have you flavours/determines the nature of the outcome? So, for example, you might succeed at your attempt to break in to a house, but because you rolled more successes on your Order dice the police show up midway through, or something similar.

As far as a trust mechanic, I like using the Anarchy/Order pools AS your trust mechanic in some way. In addition to helping friends with Anarchy dice, maybe you should be able to dump Order dice on them by betraying them.

I've focused rather heavily on the Anarchy/Order mechanics in my answers/feedback and maybe ignored some of your other points, but I get the impression that those are very much central to the game as you see it?

[Geoff Hall]

Hey Geoff - good to see you posting here! Hopefully you'll get some more feedback than just me commenting on your livejournal!

Now that's quite a lot of information to digest all in one go, but I'll ask this before someone else does - do you have any specific questions you want feedback on? I've found that asking questions or raising points is usually a better way of getting constructive feedback than just asking "what do you think."

Specific questions (that you've not at least partially addressed below)?  Okay, the resolution mechanic.  I'm really uncertain on just how I can handle opposed checks right now.  Perhaps a roll-off of some variety?  I'd prefer to keep it to a single roll per conflict however.  I'm inexperienced in this whole game mechanics malarky ;) .

Now, on with being constructive - I definitely like the use of Anarchy and Order as opposite forces acting on a character (your description of Order sounds similar to how I'm handling Surveillance points in Yesterday's Tomorrow, btw, but that's no bad thing!). Having them as pools that can be rolled is a nice touch, and I definitely think using different coloured dice to keep them distinctive is a good thing. Are you going to always have a fixed pool of these dice, acting somewhat like a seesaw, so as you gain one sort you lose some of the other sort?

That isn't the intention, no.  The idea is that use of Anarchy dice generates Order dice (potentially more than 1, depending on how you roll), which are spent at the GM's discretion.  Although I think that something similar to the Tension Points in DoN where there's prior discussion on what the GM can and can't spend them on might well be useful, even required, for a coherent gaming session.  Anarchy dice will be earned by, erm, some method involving rewarding tha players... (Note the hand-waviness, I'm not quite certain as to what to reward yet.  It will need tying in with the themes of the game and the sort of atmosphere that I'm attempting to invoke however.)

Have you read Don't Rest Your Head? Because this could be worked like Madness.Perhaps you could roll BOTH Anarchy and Order in addition to your regular dice and whichever rolls highest/more successes or what have you flavours/determines the nature of the outcome? So, for example, you might succeed at your attempt to break in to a house, but because you rolled more successes on your Order dice the police show up midway through, or something similar.

No, I haven't.  I'd love to get hold of a copy as it looks really intersting, however being terminally poor at the moment makes that rather unlikely; at least until after Christmas.  Interesting idea though.  It would alter the way that the pools work to an extent (and would certainly require a reworking of the resolution mechanic) but it could be doable.  How would you suggest gaining Order dice under such a system?  Perhaps when Order comes up with the most successes you gain an Order die?  If it were the same for both pools that could well lead to a run-away effect where failing a roll was basically impossible and it was instead all about the flavour.  That might not be a bad thing mind but I would like to have the potential for the charaters to fail in their endeavours!  I shall have to muse upon that one...

As far as a trust mechanic, I like using the Anarchy/Order pools AS your trust mechanic in some way. In addition to helping friends with Anarchy dice, maybe you should be able to dump Order dice on them by betraying them.

That's not a bad idea actually.  Perhaps you could include IC AND meta game stakes in a conflict such that a successful betrayal of another players transfers soe of your Order dice to their pool.  Of course the disinsentive to that is that they can turn around and do it right back to you and areen't likely to help you out with Anarchy dice in the future.  Again something for me to think on although I'm not certain that I like the idea of freely giving the bad dice that you've built-up through your actions to other players.  I think that there needs to either be a price or it to be, as I see my current plan, a taking of trust and twisting it around into betrayal.

I've focused rather heavily on the Anarchy/Order mechanics in my answers/feedback and maybe ignored some of your other points, but I get the impression that those are very much central to the game as you see it?

You would be right ;) .  The Anarchy/Order mechanic is utterly central to the game but apart from the basic conflict resolution system.  What I need to figure out is how both parts work and how they mesh together.  I think that my current plans for Order and Anarchy are reasonably well formed, although you've given me some interesting points to consider, but the conflict resolution system is still pretty bare bones.

Finally I'd like some help with traits.  First off do you think that they are necessary?  I mean, they'll certainly add something to the game but is it likely to be something productive or useful?  Are 3 dice adder tyraits too much?  It feels like they might be if abused but that, if not, they'll be so narrowly useful (hence the term 'narrow trait') that it wont break the system.  Also, an advancement system.  Maybe the game will be better suited to one shots but I quite like the idea of playing a reasonably lengthy campaign in the setting.  As I've said above I'd like to tie advancement into aquiring new traits ( in the vain of DitV) but want the traits to be able to be both positive and negative (however I don't think that removal of dice for the negative ones is feasible) to map the growth of the character, which will have both good and bad sides to it.  I'm really not sur how to proceed with this part though.

[andrew_kenrick]

Okay, the resolution mechanic.  I'm really uncertain on just how I can handle opposed checks right now.  Perhaps a roll-off of some variety?  I'd prefer to keep it to a single roll per conflict however.

Dice mechanics are my weakest area so I don't think I'll be much use. I usually design all the other bits and pieces and then plug a basic dice mechanic in at the end - hence most of my games involving dice + stat vs a target number, and a whole bunch of quirkiness built around the edge!

With your mechanic, could you have it so that in opposing tests the opposing stat modifies your own stat or dice pool in some way, either reducing it or increasing it?

The idea is that use of Anarchy dice generates Order dice (potentially more than 1, depending on how you roll), which are spent at the GM's discretion.  Although I think that something similar to the Tension Points in DoN where there's prior discussion on what the GM can and can't spend them on might well be useful, even required, for a coherent gaming session.  Anarchy dice will be earned by, erm, some method involving rewarding tha players... (Note the hand-waviness, I'm not quite certain as to what to reward yet.  It will need tying in with the themes of the game and the sort of atmosphere that I'm attempting to invoke however.)

Ok, that sounds cool, although I'm going to step very carefully as I'm trying to avoid cross-pollination with YT and I don't want to steal any of your cool ideas accidentally! So Anarchy dice would be your reward mechanic, so you could hand them out via GM fiat for cool things during play, or you could give them out as a way to encourage playing in a certain style, or for doing certain things. I think hand-waving at this stage is perfectly acceptable - far better to decide what you want them (both the players and the Anarchy dice) to do, rather than what you want to reward them for.

It would alter the way that the pools work to an extent (and would certainly require a reworking of the resolution mechanic) but it could be doable.  How would you suggest gaining Order dice under such a system?  Perhaps when Order comes up with the most successes you gain an Order die?  If it were the same for both pools that could well lead to a run-away effect where failing a roll was basically impossible and it was instead all about the flavour.  That might not be a bad thing mind but I would like to have the potential for the charaters to fail in their endeavours!  I shall have to muse upon that one...

You could still have Order dice gained when you spend Anarchy dice, or maybe when Order dominates or something like that. You're right though, you'd have to find someway to mitigate "dice pool creep" to stop them getting too large. Hence why I mentioned the "see-saw" idea before, so you have a finite pool in size. Something to chew on at least.

That's not a bad idea actually.  Perhaps you could include IC AND meta game stakes in a conflict such that a successful betrayal of another players transfers soe of your Order dice to their pool.  Of course the disinsentive to that is that they can turn around and do it right back to you and areen't likely to help you out with Anarchy dice in the future.  Again something for me to think on although I'm not certain that I like the idea of freely giving the bad dice that you've built-up through your actions to other players.  I think that there needs to either be a price or it to be, as I see my current plan, a taking of trust and twisting it around into betrayal.

Sure, why not include both IC and OOC stakes. Seems perfectly sensible to me. I guess you might want a more subtler, easier to use method too so that you could do it regularly without necessarily screwing everybody. Maybe the occasional swap or trade or whatever. And of course an equally big incentive to use the trust mechanic, rather than the betrayal mechanic!

The Anarchy/Order mechanic is utterly central to the game but apart from the basic conflict resolution system.  What I need to figure out is how both parts work and how they mesh together.  I think that my current plans for Order and Anarchy are reasonably well formed, although you've given me some interesting points to consider, but the conflict resolution system is still pretty bare bones.

Of course you could go all out and make the interplay between order and anarchy as the conflict resolution system, although that could get a little crazy and/or hippy. But regardless of that, you're quite right, this mechanic is right at the heart of your game, and you'd do well to build everything else ontop of it in someway.

[andrew_kenrick]

Seeing as my last post was getting way too long, I thought I'd address traits in a separate post.

Finally I'd like some help with traits.  First off do you think that they are necessary?  I mean, they'll certainly add something to the game but is it likely to be something productive or useful?  Are 3 dice adder traits too much?  It feels like they might be if abused but that, if not, they'll be so narrowly useful (hence the term 'narrow trait') that it wont break the system. 

Are they necessary? No, of course not. No more so than skills or stats, in fact. But they are useful for differentiating characters or acting as descriptors in some way, which I'm assumign is what you mean by a trait. Adding 3 dice to a pool of 1-6 sounds quite a lot, but maybe not if players have to seriously work at it in some way. Maybe a powerful trait can only be "triggered" under strict circumstances? Having said that, many smaller traits might be a better way to go. Maybe that's more of a question for playtesting though?

Also, an advancement system.  Maybe the game will be better suited to one shots but I quite like the idea of playing a reasonably lengthy campaign in the setting.  As I've said above I'd like to tie advancement into aquiring new traits ( in the vain of DitV) but want the traits to be able to be both positive and negative (however I don't think that removal of dice for the negative ones is feasible) to map the growth of the character, which will have both good and bad sides to it.  I'm really not sur how to proceed with this part though.

Oh I'd have thought this game would be ripe for long term campaign play! But maybe that's just my interpretation of it. As for an advancement system - you might be getting a bit ahead of yourself, but that's your call. Do you want new traits to be gained organically, as they arise in play? Or perhaps more mechanically, with players able to turn rewards (in the form of Order dice?) into new traits after a session?

One thing you might not have considered - are you writing this as the game you want to run or play? Because I know of your hatred for GMing, so I'm just wondering whether you're going to be building mechanisms into the game to make it easier on you?