Making a Game About Survival?

[contracycle]

I think what you're talking about is only important if you're playing from a simultionist perspective.  I think you can easily imagine gamist or narrativist wilderness survival games.

Oh sure; I fully agree with that.  But I defaulted to sim on the basis that the topic is games ABOUT survival, rather than games ABOUT human relations that merely happen to be set in a survival context.  I'm not against Narr-style designs in this area, I just think it has not been well served by Sim designs yet either.

[jdagna]

The goals here for the tribe;  survive, gather or hunt food, mate and propagate, agriculture, animal husbandry, inter and intra-tribal relations, avoid invaders (bandits, Goths, or something…), confront mountain creatures, and adapt to the elements.  Possibly could include some crafts and trading in there.

It should definitely include crafts and trading, and with that list I think it pretty well sums up the kind of resources and activities the tribe would be doing during its tribal-level time.

I would suggest in-game play on two levels; a tribal-level and an individual-level.  I like the idea of year-long goals and seasonal events.  I like the fate mechanic you have come up with that allows the players to sacrifice results to reach a target number and take modifiers and apply them.  I think this should be a unifying mechanic across the game regardless at what level you are playing.  Giving the players narrative control of results is also a nifty technique.  I think the players should have narrative control of results when you are at individual-level and the GM has narrative control of results at the tribal-level.  I think the players should always control both the tribe and the individuals (as far as direction).

You know, I'd almost tend to the other way of narrative rights - the GM narrates the results at the individual level, and the players at the tribal level.  It's going to be at the tribal level that the most difficult decisions have to be made - things like who lives and dies and whether the tribe will sacrifice its reputation to stay alive.  Those are things the players need control over.  In a smaller scale, I think you'll have tests more like what you see in usual games - jumping over chasms, killing the bad guys, negotiating, etc.  At that level, the character's primarily at stake and I don't think decisions carry as much weight individually.

But... just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say narrative control, do you mean just describing the outcome, or the number-shuffling or both?

Tribal creation:
... snip ...
A tribe could be an entity in the game with resources listed numerically that function as game characteristics.  The individual tribal members are playable entities as well.  The players could collaborate on the tribe’s goals and overall actions.  Then as conflicts happen, the players can elect to resolve the conflict tribally or as a group of selected PCs.  Rewards are in resources which are awarded to the tribe or the individual for each respective level of play.  Individuals should be able to donate or impact tribal resources.  

I mostly agree.  I think it needs to be specified that the GM counts as a player for tribe/PC design purposes.

Also, in addition to having tribal resources, I think tribes ought to have their own skills, just like an individual.  Perhaps it's represented as a bonus or just as a general number that could be used to avoid needing 60 character sheets.  Leaders would have a large impact on the values, as would individual members to a much lesser degree.

As I've been seeing it, tribal-level successes would play directly into tribal resources.  In the individual level, perhaps the GM comes up with numbers based on the results (for example, raiding another tribe to steal food would increase the food resource by the amount stolen).

To ease the transition between levels of play you have actual in-game techniques required to shift play.  The default play would be at the tribal level.  You set up events from this level and it acts as a sort of brain storming group collaboration play.  When any player decides to pursue a scene as an individual, he narrates the beginning of the scene that must include the current location, situation, and the name of the individual picked.  He simply starts narrating at the individual level and this is the queue to go that level of play.  I guess you could also have the GM initiate a scene by handing a character to a player and then narrating a scene and having them play it (or do both).  After the situation is set, the remaining players select an individual and set the scene for what their character is doing in support of the initiating player’s character.  The GM then provides setting and catalysts to further the scene until it reaches some conclusion (the conclusion part could get difficult, not sure how to adjudicate that).

I'll have to keep thinking more on this one, but I tend to see the GM being more active in creating scenes, though players should be able to request their own to resolve key issues.  Maybe it's more than the GM will be introducing the key scenes - the ones that establish the primary conflict for a season or year.  Also, I think the scene-initiator should pick the characters involved (or at least get veto power) so that he can do scenes that rely on certain other PCs not being there (like, if you're going to seduce another PC's wife, that PC probably shouldn't be in the scene).

I do think the GM should have control over some of the tribe members.  In fact, given rules for reversing narration rights, the GM could even run these characters as PCs during intratribal conflicts.  In my experience, giving the GM key characters becomes increasingly important as players get more narrative rights.  If he did nothing but play extratribal elements, whole games might go by with almost no input from the GM.  It isn't bad in game terms, but he's going to be one bored GM.

I really like the resolution mechanic idea.  I think this could inspire creative narration.  I think you should tie the modifiers/results into the currency and reward system of the game.  Perhaps even allowing individuals or tribes to sacrifice permanent ratings as a resource.  I like the idea of earned rewards being applied as ratings.  I think all the characteristics should function like this.  It could be fun to have an exchange rate for certain resources.  Gathered and hunted resources convert to a percentage of food that is less than what was gathered/hunted (waste, etc.) and for tribes with the skills can also convert to skins, bones for weapons, etc.  The better skilled and diverse your tribe the better net resources received.

The game really needs to focus around these resources to give it the feel of survival.  Perhaps a rating that reflects required resources consumed in say a week.  These can be totaled up for the whole tribe for tribal level play.  Less resources means starvations, or health issues, or death.

I think I'm one step ahead here... as far as I'm concerned, the dice mechanic IS the resource system.  A +3 on hunting translates directly into +3 food (so the waste is factored in... though the process of drying or preserving food would reduce the food value).  Or, the players might say a +3 in hunting gives a +1 bone, +1 food and +1 leather, for use in other areas.  (I don't know if it needs to get so specific as to dinstinguish each of those... but if the mechanic is the resource, players could define their level of specificity).

The only extras necessary for resource stuff would be rules for how much food and water are consumed every day and how resources get converted into things like tools, clothes and tents.

Starvation would be factored in by taking a shortage (a negative resource) and applying it to individuals.  So, if the tribe is short 1 unit of food, everyone suffers a -1 (to health, skill or something)... or some members of the tribe could go without food, taking a -2 or -3 so that others don't have to take a penalty.

At what point do you want to start a new thread in game design and start hitting specifics?  :-D  Like characteristics, currency, rewards, etc.  Is that even needed?  Can we do that here?

Well, like I said before, it's probably going to be post-GenCon before I have a lot of time to think about this in more concrete terms... but we may be getting to the points of talking specifics.

[trechriron]

 But... just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say narrative control, do you mean just describing the outcome, or the number-shuffling or both?

I was thinking narration of outcome.  The players control the direction of the tribe and the individuals but certain circumstances change narrative control of outcome.  I also agree that the GM needs to have some input into scene initiation, and with a decent number of individuals, I doubt any group would object to the GM initiating a scene with one.  So really the responsibilities should be fairly evenly delineated between the GM and players.  I still like the traditional GM role, but giving the players some of those responsibilities and then transferring some of the traditional playing actions to the GM could help lend to the tribal feel of things.

I think it needs to be specified that the GM counts as a player for tribe/PC design purposes.

I concur.

Also, in addition to having tribal resources, I think tribes ought to have their own skills…

That is a cool idea.  I really like the idea of the tribe existing as a collaborative playable entity.

 … but I tend to see the GM being more active in creating scenes … If he did nothing but play extratribal elements, whole games might go by with almost no input from the GM.  It isn't bad in game terms, but he's going to be one bored GM.

I was specifically talking of a required technique to ease transitions between the two levels of play.  In the broad sense, we are on the same page here.  I think the players are going to naturally lean towards certain individuals as they initiate scenes or situations.  I theorize this will happen for one or two reasons.  1)  Players are accustomed to playing one character in a RPG, and 2)  certain individuals will appeal to someone addressing a particular premise.  But I imagine some play-testing will be in order before I could prove that theory.  Basically I was saying;  the players initiate with their choice of characters as to what is important to them for the scene, the GM plays everything else required in the scene, up to and including any other individuals the GM wishes to bring in to “stir the pot” as it were.  I am not a proponent of reducing the GM authority in a scene but promoting the players authority in the game overall.

 I think I'm one step ahead here... as far as I'm concerned, the dice mechanic IS the resource system.  A +3 on hunting translates directly into +3 food (so the waste is factored in... though the process of drying or preserving food would reduce the food value).

Ah ha!  Got it, that is very cool.  A fate mechanic where results are turned into a resource.  I guess resources are rewards?  Are these resources used to build or change a character?

I had another quick thought here.  If you have some sort of spiritual attributes or something like reputation, perhaps the reward system could give points to those for good playing, collaboration, etc which in turn has a direct in game impact for the character and/or the tribe (thereby increasing the chance for resources/rewards).  Maybe not a spend-able resource per se but simply makes things easier or better.  A good reputation elevates the status of the individual or tribe, a greater intuition gives bonuses to task resolution, etc.  I am looking specifically at how to reward players for desired behaviors outside of the resource management.  The obvious answer -  if the players don’t cooperate, their chances of survival get dim.  What about encouraging good character interaction, drama, scene input, narration, etc?  Is that a concern or desire for game play?

[M. J. Young]

I was turning this over in my mind, particularly as The New Ice Age (in Multiverser: The Second Book of Worlds) is a survival scenario, but designed to focus on individual survival. I think there are some aspects in its design that would be relevant, even at this point in the thread.

In the survival aspects of play, there are two factors that have to be presented. One is a clear notion of what must be done to survive. In our case, that meant recognizing the basic needs for water, food, fire, shelter, and warm feet. Some way of determining how much is enough, and how much is gained by success, must be in place.

The other factor is an identification of resources along with the inherent problems in acquiring each. What does it take to kill a mammoth, and if you succeed what do you gain from the effort? Where is water usually found, what kinds of food are available in what quanitities, what materials are available for building and for burning?

The player aspect of the scenario then involves finding creative strategies to convert available resources into basic needs fulfillment. The complication for the referee at that point is sorting out good strategies from bad ones. The resolution system certainly helps in this regard; but the referee has to be able to recognize that "I'm going to dig down to the rocks and scrape lichens into a pot" is not much more useful in solving the need for food than "I'll eat snow".

Part of how we addressed that was to give some information regarding survival strategies that have proved successful for those who live in comparable conditions (e.g., Eskimoes have strategies related to ocean hunting). Recognizing the advantages and complications of these strategies in the text gives referees a handle on assessing similar approaches proposed by the players.

You have the additional complication that the characters are presumed to have knowledge of which the players might be unaware. Whether you want a player's guide section that pointed them to the essential information such a character would know or want to establish that on successful roles the referee will describe the success in a way that conveys this ("Since your character knows X, you manage to do Y") is a question of how much prep time you expect players to do.

Just some thoughts; I hope they're useful.

--M. J. Young

[keithn]

I just noticed this thread and have read it in one big chunk so may not have taken everything in. However, the set up and some of the suggestions are very similar to a pbem game that I ran last year for a while. The game was set in Glorantha, with the hunter tribe being Balazarings (neolithic hunters), the players taking the role of clan elders and my initial vision for the game being a distinctly gamist approach where resources and different strategies were used to avoid starvation and death.

In theory I was planning to model the whole thing on King Of Dragon Pass except with the players coming up with the advice from the clan ring, and discussing in character what to do. I admit that the whole gamist side of things quickly deteriorated into some excellent story-making by the players, encouraged by me. If you are interested in some of the details of that game it was run over a Yahoogroup ("Votankiland") so if you're interested pop over.

Keith Nellist

[Doug Ruff]

I've just read this too, and I love the idea - Justin, I'd really like to work on this with you, if you're interested.

Trentin: I think having the tribe as a 'character' is an excellent mechanic and one that should be incorporated.

Anyway, some thoughts:

1) The focus of this game is 'survival'. Therefore the PCs have to play an essential part in ensuring the tribe survives. The hunter/explorer role appears to be key here.

2) Have the players create the tribe as a 'character' with its own skills, eg fishing, leatherworking, farming.

3) Each of these skills is linked to one or more NPCs, eg the tribes 'master tanner'. If this character dies, the tribe goes down in skill rating.

4) Have special 'leader skills' such as diplomacy, (military) leadership, organisation (more efficient use of resources). The leader may die or be replaced by a new leader, changing the skill focus.

5) The tribe also has attributes such as population, fertility etc. (this needs more work.)

6) have each 'adventure' (or series of adventures) constitute a year in the life of a tribe. Depending on how well the PCs do, the tribe is struggling, breaking even, or has a surplus of resources.

7) If the tribe is struggling (as in 1), every member of the tribe must play a vital part (gathering food, defending the tribe, making babies) so if there is a 'famine' there will be tough choices - let the players decide which attributes or skills will take a hit through NPC death.

8) Conversely, if there is a surplus of food, this gives the tribe more time to develop - perhaps even 'levelling up' and gaining a wider range of skills (art, technlogy) - I'm thinking of Sid Meier's 'Civilization' here.

9) There are other tribes to trade/fight/socialise with. If the players are short of a resource (for example, because their 'master tanner' just died) they will need to trade (or steal) this resource from another tribe.

Just some initial ideas, anyway.  This may appear a bit mechanics heavy, but I think there are a lot of elements here that can fuel a good story. Maybe the tribe is dying out and becomes absorbed by another more successful tribe; one of the PCs may wish to become the leader of the tribe; The PCs need to seek out a vital new resource (eg metal) which the tribe needs to 'advance'.

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? If so, let me know - and if not, do you mind if I work on my own version?

Regards,

Doug

[Doug Ruff]

Sorry, posting twice, but I don't want to lose this idea:

If you accept the idea of tribe as 'character', it needs to be more than a bunch of stats.  It needs its own personality.

One way of bringing this into the mechanics would be to have a set of Codes or Taboos which help to define the tribe's ethics or philosophy.

An example, with Hook:

'Children are sacred, anyone who allows a child to come to harm must be punished. Anyone who commits an act of violence against a child must not be allowed to live.'

The character is alone on the outskirts of the tribe, except for a small child nearby climbing a tree. The child sees you and waves, but loses his balance and falls to the ground. He does not get up.

The codes would evolve over time, in in response to in-game dilemmas.

Heck, a tribe could have it's own Spiritual Attributes, too.

I'm still fired up about this project...

Doug

[Mandacaru]

I was in Keith Nellist's game (see above). Tetsuki's list of thoughts on tribe as character are actually very similar to what we had. However, we had leaders from within a clan, each of whom had a band composed of  hearths. The leaders had some of those skills mentioned, relating to hunting, gathering, rituals, magic bits and bobs, contacts, doghandling, talking to the spirits, fighting, leadership and so on. The bands would often be split up due to thin-lying resources and would get into scrapes, almost starve, need to rescue another band, get attacked by the neighbouring clan, sing to the bees and all sorts.

So, each band did indeed have a character, personified by the leader (the PC), but might well be pretty unhappy with the leadership at the moment.

So, that way of doing it does work, and is fun. I recommend it.

Sam.

[Doug Ruff]

That certainly sounds workable and fun, Mandacaru.

However, my personal preference would still be to have the whole tribe as a 'character sheet' in addition to the individual player characters.

This is mainly because I want the players to care a great deal about the tribe and I think that having them build the tribe, just like a standard character (except that it is a group activity) is a great way to do that.

Also, it allows the GM to reward player actions by advancing the tribe's abilities, even if the PC suffers in some way (for example, an heroic sacrifice.)

(Of course, it's not the only way, and I don't mean for a minute that the campaign you were in was any less good for not doing this! I just think it's a neat design mechanic.)

Doug

[Bill_White]

I, too, like the idea of the "tribe" as an important component in a game that's oriented toward "survival," since worrying about the tribe makes for nice complications in the game in a way that purely individual survival can't.

On that note, let me mention Ganakagok, my Iron Game Chef honorable mention.  Featuring quasi-Inuit hunters on a gigantic iceberg beneath a midnight sky who must face the coming of dawn and the possible destruction of their entire way of life, it employs some of the ideas you've talked about here, including a more-or-less explicit "village character" sheet (actually just a social network and a list of resources) that must be managed in addition to dealing with the actions and interactions of individual characters.

Here's the URL:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/w/j/wjw11/Ganakagok.pdf

I'm hoping to expand and revise these rules once I get some playtest feedback.  But hopefully they are of some interest in their current form.

Bill

[Doug Ruff]

Bill,

Thanks for the link, just read through the game, like it a lot.

I particularly like the 'coming of the dawn' theme, and the hunting mechanics (which are simple to execute but with several choices of what to hunt for.)

The Risk mechanics are pretty neat too, especially for a survival game.

For this project, I'd like to see more latitude as to where the tribe lives - for example, mountains/plains/jungle/arctic etc - each climate has its own challenges to overcome. Exceptionally, the tribe could migrate to a new environment (which is one of the options touched on in Ganakagok.)

But I'm conscious that this is still Justin's baby. Justin, how was the Con? And are you still looking for input?

Doug
(Formerly Tetsuki - now using real name!)

[Mithras]

Hi,

I've written a game that sort of angles toward this, a game called TOTEM. It is a fantasy game that I wrote especially to use in school, where childrens have few modern day distractions and can focus on survival, problem-solving and on good old wilderness tales.

http://www.geocities.com/zozergames/totem1.html

I think it was Ian Young who said that 'survival itself does not make a viable game' and I included large amounts of spirit magic into the game. I have players selecting clans within the tribe, taking on aspects of those clans and sticking up for them. The usual XP/Gold reward from scenarios is replaced with 'free time' and since every Ice Age hunter can craft most  objects, free time means time to work on building things (a new cloak, a bow, an axehead, etc).

Just thought I'd throw it in at this point. Its not the game being sought after, but it might have some useful aspects ...

[Doug Ruff]

Hi Mithras,

Thanks for the link, I've skimmed the document and will read it more carefully later.

The 'free time' mechanic is excellent - combined with the inevitable restriction on player resources (it's a struggle, right?) having a few days to craft items is a significant reward in itself.

Will get back to you once I've read it more carefully.

Regards,

Doug