Marionettes: A Game about Puppetry

[Shreyas Sampat]

So, I've been thinking a lot about puppets lately.   Puppets are beautiful things.  It got me thinking - how could I make a game about puppetry?

Now, it's obvious to all of us, I hope, how roleplaying is like puppetry; players move around characters with certain images and properties, much like puppeteers move around puppets of different appearances.

But who moves the puppeteers?

So, there's my Premise.  Now, how do I make a game around that?

I see a kind of double-layered character system, where there are a number of Players manipulating Puppeteers, and the Puppeteers, who don't actually show their faces in play, manipulate a cast of Marionettes.  No Puppeteer is bound to a single Marionette; there may be unequal numbers of the two.  Beyond that, I don't know where this is going.  I think I see a kind of trick Director stance, where the pattern of play involves the Players making the Puppeteers Direct the actions of the Marionettes such that the Players Act in reference to the Puppeteers, and Direct in reference to the puppet play going on below that.

[Kester Pelagius]

So, I've been thinking a lot about puppets lately.   Puppets are beautiful things.  It got me thinking - how could I make a game about puppetry?

Do you literally mean a game *about* puppetry or a game whose premise is the characters are puppets under the control of the players?

I will assume the latter.  Very interesting that, since it is sort of what happens anyway, even if most players don't think of their PCs as pawns, that is essentially what they are.

But who moves the puppeteers?

How do you mean?

I see a kind of double-layered character system, where there are a number of Players manipulating Puppeteers, and the Puppeteers, who don't actually show their faces in play, manipulate a cast of Marionettes.

My first suggestion is in naming conventions.

A)  Either change "Players" to "Marionetters" (a Marionette is a "puppet moved by strings") or

B)  Keep "Puppeteers" as your original naming convention for the "Players" and use "Marionettes" for the Player Characters.

I suggest this only so that everyone will know exactly who are the puppets and who are the ones pulling their strings.  The actual namign convention, of course, is up to you.

No Puppeteer is bound to a single Marionette; there may be unequal numbers of the two.  Beyond that, I don't know where this is going.  I think I see a kind of trick Director stance, where the pattern of play involves the Players making the Puppeteers Direct the actions of the Marionettes such that the Players Act in reference to the Puppeteers, and Direct in reference to the puppet play going on below that.

If I'd been really astute I could have read this far and had a link for you here to point to a thread in which I sort of talk about a premise like this.  (Of course if "here" is light up in green then it means I came back and edited this post for you.)  Or at least a thread where I proposes a mechanic using "tricks" and "trumps" whereby the players get to manipulate a pool of (essentially) Non-Player Characters.  At least in my premise.

Alternatively I could just break down and give in to the obvious and distill Crypt Fiend into something postable for you (and anyone else interested) if you ask me nicely.  ;)

Howver I think the underlying mechanic as I outline it might be sort of what you are looking for, at least in part.


Kind Regards.


EDIT:  Deleted comments now moot since I found the thread.  It's amazingly vague, if I do say so myself, but if you scan down a bit to where I post about the rules there might be a idea in there.  Lurking in the shadows.  Somewhere.

Lot's of luck!

[Shreyas Sampat]

Let me try that again..

The characters are in fact the Puppeteers, but the Puppeteers are faceless.   The story is told through the actions of the Marionettes.

So, in a way this is like Jonathan's (We Regret to Inform You) The GM is Dead.  It's a meta-game.  The idea is that the Puppeteers have some goal for the story that the Marionettes are playing out; in a way this is simply saying that the players are standing above the puppets pulling strings, but at a slight remove.

Still, your comment about manipulating a pool of Non-Player Characters is valid; I'd love to see Crypt Fiend, and whatever link it is that you're holding up your sleeve.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings four willows weeping,

You may want to take a second look at my post above.  I add a link to the thread and tidied it up a bit.  (Just removed a few moot bits.)

Let me try that again..

The characters are in fact the Puppeteers, but the Puppeteers are faceless.   The story is told through the actions of the Marionettes.

So, in a way this is like Jonathan's (We Regret to Inform You) The GM is Dead.  It's a meta-game.  The idea is that the Puppeteers have some goal for the story that the Marionettes are playing out; in a way this is simply saying that the players are standing above the puppets pulling strings, but at a slight remove.

It must be the lack of caffein.  I apologize if I totally managed to misinterpret your precept.

Still, your comment about manipulating a pool of Non-Player Characters is valid; I'd love to see Crypt Fiend, and whatever link it is that you're holding up your sleeve.

An impromptu poll, if I may:  HTML or RTF?

I can do either or.  RTF would probably be better (PDF best, but I am no joy on finding a decent converter that wont mangle the images in file) so let me know.  Don't have an URL but, since it's reallya playtest version, I can send it as an attachment.

Hope it helps you.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Kester, a quick Moderator point: please, never edit posts in this fashion, once they've been replied to. Save such edits for misspelling or for fixing a mistyped BBC code, or similar things. The appropriate method for what you've done in this thread is to post a new post with the new information or phrasing.

'Willows, what we're dealing with, in this design, is what John Marron calls the "one step removed" definition/concept of player-characters.

A lot of overtly cinema-based games use this idea: It Came from the Late Late Late Show, Tales from the Crypt (Masterbook), Hong Kong Action Theater, and Extreme Vengeance. It was also utilized quite cleverly in a little-known game called Morpheus, in which the intermediate character was defined as a recreational VR-user; and in Amazing Engine, in which it was more of a metagame-concept with no in-game justification at all.

The point is that the player (real person) is playing a very abstract player-character (movie-star persona, usually) whose features are expressed across a variety of independent roles/names and situations. The intermediate "player-character" doesn't ever really do anything nor is ever expressed except through the specific-roles. The specific-roles, however, have no lasting power in literal terms - if Mel Gibson's character is killed at the end of movie A, it only powers up the oomph of his next character in movie B.

To answer your direct question, there's very little need to play the intermediate characters - they are only relevant insofar as they give continued thematic/procedural meaning to the specific-roles, as in the way that a Mel Gibson character rarely lacks the ability to scrap-fight or to "lose it" in an effective way. Oh yeah, they are also relevant in the way that events in one specific-role do add to the uber-oomph of the persona from story to story, insofar as after seeing Braveheart, we expect that the next role Mel plays will be willing (like the hero of Braveheart) to die for his beliefs.

A great deal of an actor's success depends on our willingness, as an audience, to make these utterly-unjustified, highly-metagame (in RPG terms) connections. In game terms, this is handled through the reward system, and I highly recommend considering this issue carefully.

Best,
Ron

Side note: 'willows, if it's OK with you, what's your given name? I like using those if their owners don't mind.

[Jonathan Walton]

To answer your direct question, there's very little need to play the intermediate characters - they are only relevant insofar as they give continued thematic/procedural meaning to the specific-roles.

I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying Ron.

I got the feeling that Willows was trying to invent a situation where you WOULD play the intermediate characters (the Puppeteers/Players), who moved between various characters while keeping similar goals.  I could imagine this sort of like Universalis, but where each player (or the group as a whole) had particular motives that they were trying to fulfill with the story.  It would also be more character-focused than Universalis, which often tends to focus on building setting in addition to characters.  It might also involve doing something like dramatizing actual Character/Player conflicts, where the character's personality might pull him/her in one direction while the desires of the player lead somewhere else.

Of maybe I'm just completely misunderstanding both of you...

Later.
Jonathan

[Mike Holmes]

Here's the designers key phrase answering a clarification to Ron on just that subject, Jonathan.

The characters are in fact the Puppeteers, but the Puppeteers are faceless. The story is told through the actions of the Marionettes.

Would be interesting, but not the model he's looking for.

BTW, Scott Knipe tried a multi-level game, called Human Wreckage. Even he couldn't get it to work out precisely right.

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

Here's the designers key phrase answering a clarification to Ron on just that subject, Jonathan.

The characters are in fact the Puppeteers, but the Puppeteers are faceless. The story is told through the actions of the Marionettes.

I saw that comment, but that still doesn't clarify things completely.  Knowing where the story is focused doesn't really clarify the distance between Character and Player.  To give an example:

Bob is a Player in this game.  His "Motivation" is determined to be: "Good should always triumph over evil," but he is not given any sort of special identity.  He is still faceless, despite his Motivation (or perhaps by "faceless," Willows meant there would be no metagame characteristics whatsoever, but I'll continue with my example nonetheless).

Bob's puppets are the characters Superman and Lex Luthor.  In support of his Movation, Superman should always (eventually) triumph over Lex Luthor, no matter how much Bob's player really wants Luthor to win or how much Luthor, according to the events of the game, SHOULD win.

I guess that's more of what I was imagining, but I may be completely wrong about what Willows intentions are.  In this way, the story is still told between the puppets, but there's still some interesting player/character tension going on.  Even if there are not metagame characteristics assigned to the various players, they will still have their own personalities and desires, that might go against what their characters were doing in the game.  I suppose I was just thinking that Willows was planning to play with that tension, but maybe not.

Later.
Jonathan

[Shreyas Sampat]

I think the idea is starting to unfold... I did want to play with the conflict somehow, but wasn't sure how to word that idea.

Thought:
The Marionettes have clearly defined goals.
The Puppeteers have their own clearly defined goals.
These come into conflict as the Marionettes try to act out their own goals, and the Puppeteers pull strings, foiling them or even forcing them to act otherwise than they wish to.

Terminology comment:
I use Marionette and Puppeteer so as not to imply that one is subordinate to the other.

Consequence of Thought:
The Puppeteers and Marionettes have some level of Effectiveness that they oppose whenever their goals come into conflict; this determines the final result of the action.  In a perfect world, each Goal conflict would be such that it would be possible to fulfill both goals, but at some cost of compromise that neither side wants to pay.

[Jonathan Walton]

Makes me want to go listen to "Master of Puppets" :)

In fact, I think I will...

Later.
Jonathan

"Master of puppets, pulling the striiiiiiings, yeah!"
"Twisting your mind, smashing your dreeeeeams!"
"Blinded by me, you can't see a thiiiiiing!"
etc.  etc.