Narrativist Vampires

[Bailywolf]

Understand.

But disagree.  My favorite games are the ones which don't presume to tell me how I want to play.  Ron's Sorcerer is a perfect example.  He sets up a very simple but solid scheme for characters, powers, and motivations... but leaves setting aside.  The default setting is almost a guideline (again, how I like it).  I never intended the initial splash to be anythng but a possible outline; I've been making up the detailed stuff when challanged to justify it (thanks, by the way, this kind of sparring is the only way I figure things out).  

I prefer toolkit games which include mix-n-match setting components.  There are some notable exceptions.  I love the setting for Over the Edge and for Unknown Armies.  Both are wide open, though, with full designer caveat to go crazy.  Both are settings with plenty of room for the knees.

Basicly, I like games who's designers invite me into the sandbox to play with their Tonka trucks.

Give me an hour, and I'll give you a more solid setting.

[Mike Holmes]

Revolution

...The young vampires rise up, slaughter the elders, and swear blood-oaths never to become like them.  Oaths they almost always break.

There, that's a Narrativist premise if I ever heard one. "Can you abide by your Oaths or is the temptation of power too great?" It, of course, is completely allegorical to the generation gap. It was Churchill I believe who said something like, only a heartless person is not a liberal when young, and only the mindless are not conservative when old. Speaks to the idealism of youth.

Anyhow, I see a character being composed of his oaths, and possibly a temptation statistic that increases randomly as one uses their vampiric abilities. As the temptation stat increases, the player has to break oaths in order to reduce it. If the stat gets too high, the character renounces the revolution, and goes over to the "dark side".

Anyhow, this keeps the characters in constant flux. At first there are things they won't do having taken oaths not to (killing humans, killing vampires, going bestial, etc.). But as they progress, they either have to eschew using their vampiric abilities, or change. Those who break their oaths would suffer negative repercussions from the members of the revolution if detected. This leads to deciet amongst characters which is always good for driving conflict.

I sugest in this circumstance that a character who goes over to the dark side should be retired, to give incentive to fight against it.

Anyhow, this is an example of a Narrativist mechanic. Something that really drives the premise of the game, not just allows it to be explored. See the difference?

As always for a Narrativist game, mechanics that drive these sorts of things should be played out. In fact you can develop mechanics to force that as well. I would never suggest that these mechanics should replace interpersonal play. Just remember fortune in the middle. If, say, I break an oath and it is discovered, and a negative reaction occurs, it should be up to the GM and player after the fact to determine the exact nature of the problem by playing it out as the dice dictate.

And for the vapires as resources thing, what I envision is not, "I send four points of disposable vampires at my enemy Vlad". But instead,as you call up minor characters for duty, having to create them on the spot (possibly GM, possibly player), and role-play the mission briefing, etc. the GM playing the part of the underling.

I wouldn't want to take away character interaction.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Note, however, that the Setting supplements for Sorcerer all have important effects on how the game plays. Sure, they all have the same general premise, but the setting focuses it in certain ways. You had to come up with the "Revolution" setting to highlight how your general premise might be applied. Sorcerer never says anything like, "the origins of Demons are a mystery," but on the contrary points out that you must specify where demons come from. It leaves it tailorable in an open way, while still recognizing the critical importance of it.

You don't have to be encyclopedic, but just don't be evasive. Like I said it's those, "It's a mystery!" comments that really disturb me. If you don't mention it then maybe it's not really important and I'll ignore it. The mystery thing makes me feel like it might be important, but you've left it out for no good reason. It's almost like saying, "Well, this is really important, but we couldn't some up with anything good, so you do it."

If you really want to go the Sorcerer option state that the origin of vampires is very important and in coming up with a setting you must decide on what that origin is.

Mike

[Bailywolf]

You know what?  I just reread an old private message, and if I ever run a narativeist vampire game I'm going to do with Chris Chinn(AKA Bankuei) Persona system.  This is a perfect perfect perfect match for vampire stuff.  Here is a thread detailing it:

http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=983

He hooked me up with a preliminary version of the system, and I've actualy played with it.  It would excell at a vamp game.  Seriously, get in touch with him and check it out.  I withdraw all my system asertions... his mechanic is the way to run it.

[Mike Holmes]

Cop out.

Not that Persona is a bad system, but I thought we were having fun hashing out a premise specific narrativist system here. Persona is generic, and, as such, will be less than optimum for any Premise, IMO. Note I say that having devloped a generic system of my own. What generic systems are best for is running a game that you don't have a system for already.

Which is what I thought we were doing here. Come back, I still wanna play!

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

The worst example of this is statements like, "The origins of vampirism are lost in the mists of time."

Would you be satisfied with the presentation of multiple origin myths, and let the GM pick one or use the provided myths as inspiration for her own, if she likes? As a designer, I would probably be more comfortable with this method than saying, "Here's the absolute truth."

Like in Sorcerer. Ron presents a functional setting, complete with different Sorcerer types and everything. But he continues to provide ideas for different settings (some completely different than the default setting, like giant robots).

Of course, if the Premise of the Vampire game was, "Explore the themes of Betrayal, Damnation and Eternal Life which resulted from Cain's crime and his resulting vampirism," then yes, you should probably have a definite origin.

[contracycle]

Would you be satisfied with the presentation of multiple origin myths, and let the GM pick one or use the provided myths as inspiration for her own, if she likes? As a designer, I would probably be more comfortable with this method than saying, "Here's the absolute truth."

Hmm.  I'd go along with that, inasmuch the felxibility is useful, but again I have to say: if I wanted to write it myself I would write it myself.  I mean here wew are with a general consensus that the one thing all modes of RPG have in common is exploration, and yet we are simultaneously declining to provide things to explore.

Probably the grand-daddy of counterpoints to this idea is Conspiracy X.  I LOVE Con X dearly because of its incredibly involved, thought-provoking, deep, well thought out setting.  There are endless rocks to turn over and endless nasty critters to find under them.  In fact you probably don't get the full effect without re-reading all the sourcebooks at least twice.  This is GLORIOUS.  Under these circumstances, where there IS a solid understanding of The Truth on the part of the GM, you can play the whole ambiguity of origins much more effectively, IMO, because there IS an actual enigma rather than a nominal one.

I could certainly go for a model of RPG which divorced system and setting, constructed generalist system like Sorcerer and non-mechanical worlds.  What I don't understand is this hesitancy to be specific, to lay out your ideas - in short, to express yourself and your vision.  In this rergard I could see how systems could be constructed with ambiguous backstories, but certainbly not settings.  And the problem here is that if the setting is *implicitly* the real world, you do need, IMO, to explain all the funky stuff.

So essentially, when I find designers who have chickened out on telling me the skinny on the basis that they don't want to impinge in my "freedom", I feel as I've just been suckered.

[Bailywolf]

[gets up off couch, groans, streches]

Ok ok... er...


Ok, use my quick and dirty resolution mechanics.

Characters begin immediatly after a Revolution; still covered in the back ichor or their creator.  With the characters' stats laid down (divide 10 points among attributes, and among aspects say), the Coven goes round one by one any swears an Oath.  One Oath per points of Resolve.

The more Resolute the vampire, the stronger his social position in the new pack.  So the more Oaths he swears, the higher his position.  

Oaths can be things like "I will never betray my coven" or "I will rid the world of that bastard Flavius" or as you say "I will only feed when starving" or "Only kill when Angry".  

Break and Oath with Coven witnesses, you loose both both the oath, the point of Resolve, and some status.  It might be possible to recover Resolve, sweare new oaths, and recapture the esteme of your pack, but this should fairly difficult.

Break the Oath in private, and blow a certain kind of roll (such as "I Will Never Glut Again" is broken when the vampire smokes some mad weed and gets the munchies; he gorges himself at a bus station [and if he blows his Awareness vs Domination check, he looses the resolve and the respect.].  If the bus station glutton manages to beat his own Domination, he gets away with it... but should have some kind of mark against that Oath... get enough of them, and someone is bound to find out.


How about this for convergence?

[Bailywolf]

I could certainly go for a model of RPG which divorced system and setting, constructed generalist system like Sorcerer and non-mechanical worlds.  What I don't understand is this hesitancy to be specific, to lay out your ideas - in short, to express yourself and your vision.  In this rergard I could see how systems could be constructed with ambiguous backstories, but certainbly not settings.  And the problem here is that if the setting is *implicitly* the real world, you do need, IMO, to explain all the funky stuff.

So essentially, when I find designers who have chickened out on telling me the skinny on the basis that they don't want to impinge in my "freedom", I feel as I've just been suckered.

Ah... confession time.

I'm a systems monkey.  I love mucking about with mechanics.  I'm less concerned with fitting mechanics to a personal 'vision' (in this case, a vision I burped out after three minutes of thought) and banging out some neat and fun to play stuff.  I've had enough of railroading, metaplotting, hint dropping, and such.  

And even "There is no answer; no one knows" works for me.  Godlike uses thie angle, and the conflict and uncertainity created by a lack of clear origin/explanation makes for good story fuel.  Where did vampires come from?  No one has any idea.  No idea.  None.  How will you deal with this?

"Master, I understand my body's new powers, I can sway mortal wills with a thought, the beasts and birds obey my call, and I can soar with wings of mental force... but I must know, where do our kind come from?"

"Ah, my protege... this is a difficult question... and comeing to terms with the answer has taken me three hundred years.  Simply, no one knows."

"No!  There has to be a reason!  When I was among the breathing, I played this role playing game... it said we are all descendant from cain..."

"Oh yes!  I played that too.  What clan did you like best?"

"Master?"

"Answer fool or I'll have your blood for supper!"

[Mike Holmes]

How about this for convergence?

Excellent, now were really getting somewhere. I like the permenant "covered in the ichor of the creator" kicker. "The King is dead, Hail the New King, Long live the King!" Instantly play is launched into the Oaths wherin players essentially get to do a little character creation in character. Way cool.

I also like that mark against the Oath idea. I would have it count as a penatly die to resist the same temptation the next time as well. Nifty little slippery slope. Eventually the character will be found out to be slipping back to the bus station for snacks every night.

I'd also codify the social status thing, ala Hero wars, where you need to roll well against it to get the pack NPCs to cooperate. Perhaps just use the Resolve stat. As a bonus, perhaps the "King" vampire, the character with the highest Resolve, would always get his way. When a player passes the another to become highest, role-play the power struggle for that new player to become the new king. If the old king can fend off the newcommer somehow, he gets points of Resolve from the challenger, thus restoring the proper pecking order.

I would include mechanics for long gaps in time during the game. When no player has a dclared activity 1d6 years pass, or something like that. That way, when the eventuality of the breakdown occurs in just one session or two it does not seem that the revolution cycle is ridiculously short.

Another cool idea would be to have the character's resolve potentially slip lower every time he made a new vampire, the rationale being that his blood was becoming more diffuse. So, while making more vampires is a powerful tool, eventually it leads to the new Revolution as the elders lose control and their children have to take over from them. This then balances the power of  "lesser" vampires from the King. They may have lots of retainers, while the King is forced to have few if he wants to maintain his position.

Lots of ways to counterbalance things here. Bailey, write this sucker up in more detail and post it, please. I have an urge to play vampires for the first time in ages!

Mike[/quote]

[Mike Holmes]

And even "There is no answer; no one knows" works for me.  

Hey, me too, if that's part of the premise. If so, then we need to see an existential mechanic to handle pushing it. :-)  Note that this would change the current premise to something like, "Can you maintain your principles in the face of meaninglessness?" Which is cool. Lets see, so we need a Nausea pool that accumulates to counter Resolve...  ;-)

Mike

[Bailywolf]

Or how about a very deliberate, structured game as an optional (sort of like how most Whisperning Vault episodes are specific hunts).

Each character has a "pass" which will jump the game forward in time X number of years.  This pass can be played at any time, and X represents the number of other players who agree to throw their pass into the pile.

1 pass- 1-6 years (+1 to a single Aspect)
2 passes- 10-60 years (+1 to all Aspects)
3 passes- 100-600 years (+3 to all Aspects)

Each Pass played means the current crisis / situation is delt with in retrospect through narated dialogue-  Basicly, a new kicker emerges as palyers go around the table and play "remember when".  Players must abide any narative declarations made by other players.  This can turn into a session of back-biting and betrayal or serious camradrie building.

If the group dynamic between players is bad (as is almost always the case if group dynamic among the characters is bad) then you will get some serious f-yous here:

"I can't believe you ran from that werwolf.  You know how fast those bastards are!  You deserve those facial scars."
or

"Shame you lost that talisman.  The immunity it granted to sunlight was great..."


but if things are good, it can turn into a bit or rip-roaring ingame character building.  

"Holy shit, dude, I still can't believe we got away with all these diamonds..."






I was also thinking about some kind of 'redeclaration' where by elders who manage to successfuly get off their asses and break a revolution recover Resolve and can then lead the pack of defeated revolutionaries... for a time...

Or in the same vien, if one pack destroys another and takes it's territory (whether it actualy be real land, a buisness empire, a drug cartel, a movie studio, or whatever), they can Rededicate, swearing new oaths (to keep things fresh) and recovering some Resolve.



As for the vampire creation/depletion... How about a simple investemnt of Resolve?  If you want a willing vampire servent who will not betray you, you must invest him with a portion of your will PERMENATLY.  You burn a point of Resolve and get a powerful alley.  

Packs can avoid this by creating new members communaly, and putting them through a ritualized version of their Oath Swearing rights; so new vampires are welcomed into the pack with revelry and declaration of Oaths... but this can be dangerous, as new members might easily have the vitality and Resolve to overpower the current Alpha's popularity... so many new vampire prospects would be put through the psychological wringer pre-transformation to ensure they fall somewhere in the center of the dynamic.

[Mike Holmes]

Or how about a very deliberate, structured game as an optional (sort of like how most Whisperning Vault episodes are specific hunts).

Are you refering to some plot structure (like InSpectres) or just the idea below?

Each character has a "pass" which will jump the game forward in time X number of years.  This pass can be played at any time, and X represents the number of other players who agree to throw their pass into the pile.

1 pass- 1-6 years (+1 to a single Aspect)
2 passes- 10-60 years (+1 to all Aspects)
3 passes- 100-600 years (+3 to all Aspects)

Each Pass played means the current crisis / situation is delt with in retrospect through narated dialogue-  Basicly, a new kicker emerges as palyers go around the table and play "remember when".  Players must abide any narative declarations made by other players.  This can turn into a session of back-biting and betrayal or serious camradrie building.

Swoot! Extra cool, IMO. I like all of it. Provides a regualr method of getting the Narrative forward in time, which does not happen in other vampire games. How to deal with history, though? Do you start at some time in the past and move to present? Or present to the future? Perhaps history serves as a limiter of Narration. You cannot Narrater anything that would void historical facts (not minutia, obviously, but say anything you might find in a history text). History would provide a great backdrop for the game.

BTW, a player who misses a session, could be off in South America on an automatic Pass. Neato.

I was also thinking about some kind of 'redeclaration' where by elders who manage to successfuly get off their asses and break a revolution recover Resolve and can then lead the pack of defeated revolutionaries... for a time...

Barbarians at the gates; excellent. Solves the long term problem of eroding Resolve in a Narrative fashion.

Or in the same vien, if one pack destroys another and takes it's territory (whether it actualy be real land, a buisness empire, a drug cartel, a movie studio, or whatever), they can Rededicate, swearing new oaths (to keep things fresh) and recovering some Resolve.

Hmmm. Not sure I'm so enthusiastic about this one. What's the rationale?

As for the vampire creation/depletion... How about a simple investemnt of Resolve?  If you want a willing vampire servent who will not betray you, you must invest him with a portion of your will PERMENATLY.  You burn a point of Resolve and get a powerful alley.  

Packs can avoid this by creating new members communaly, and putting them through a ritualized version of their Oath Swearing rights; so new vampires are welcomed into the pack with revelry and declaration of Oaths... but this can be dangerous, as new members might easily have the vitality and Resolve to overpower the current Alpha's popularity... so many new vampire prospects would be put through the psychological wringer pre-transformation to ensure they fall somewhere in the center of the dynamic.

That's tremendously cool. It explains a lot of weird vampire behavior about making new vampires (like why they just don't make a lot). Now all those weird seventies vampire movies with all the rituals to make new vampires make sense! Desire for the group to create vampires is of course balanced by the threat of discovery due to higher feeding requirements, etc. So they only include new vampires for special reasons or occasions, like the Alpha falls in love with a mortal.

If I make a vampire using one Resolve, does the new vampire have only one resolve? Or does it aagain depend on his psychology? If the latter, again, the pack may not like the individual method to be used, as it might be risky. They'll want to all be in on the decision making process, the Alpha in particular.

Mike

[Bailywolf]

I figure vamps created by individuals are basicly 'property' unless adopted by the pack.  They have no Oaths (and thus, no Staus in the pack), they can expect nothing from other pack members... and this can lead to some intresting internal problems if the Alpha's uppity slave starts mouthing off to lesser pack members...

I've been reading a lot of Roman history recently, and the place in society a roman slave held was intresting.  They bore a certain unoficial status based on who their owner was, and they understood the pecking order.  They couldn't exactly be out-in-out hostile to citizens of lesser rank then their master... but could make life difficult in all kinds of subtle ways (I'm sorry, you don't seem to have an apointment...).  This was sort of how I imagined these subordinate vamps to be.  Right hand men, favorite pets, private lovers etc.  

Actualy, the oportunities for internal discord make my mouth water as a GM...

"Master, we must speak with you about Demetri!"

"Not now, I'm almost to the final stage.  This Metal Gear Solid rocks!"

"But master!  He's been killing clergy again!  The Order of St. Muerto is after us."

"Damn you fools!  I'm sick of you blaming your incompetence on my Demetri!  He's more loyal than the lot of you!"

"grumble grumble grumble"

"What was that!"

"Nothing... master....grumble..."




I can see the player's pack, just off a successful Coup against their territory's elders encounter what seems to be another, very tight-knit pack... but something doesn't seem right aobut them... they all seem... too focused on the master, with not enough internal dynamic...

They soon discover the Master is in fact an Elder who has created half a dozen servents instead of founding a new, healthy pack.  A sick perversion on the vampire social ideal.  Such a creature must pay.







As for neighboring packs fighting it out... I though it would be cool to provide a useful mechanic to explain why vamps always seem to be trying to kill each other off- it strengthens their will to live.

And it provides some nice campaign structures (waring vampire cartels/corporations/tv studions etc).  

A bit of a lark, really.

[Mike Holmes]

"Master, we must speak with you about Demetri!"

"Not now, I'm almost to the final stage.  This Metal Gear Solid rocks!"

"But master!  He's been killing clergy again!  The Order of St. Muerto is after us."

"Damn you fools!  I'm sick of you blaming your incompetence on my Demetri!  He's more loyal than the lot of you!"

"grumble grumble grumble"

"What was that!"

"Nothing... master....grumble..."

LOL! Cheese and rice, yer gonna get me fired!

OK, that's awesome.

As for neighboring packs fighting it out... I though it would be cool to provide a useful mechanic to explain why vamps always seem to be trying to kill each other off- it strengthens their will to live.

And it provides some nice campaign structures (waring vampire cartels/corporations/tv studions etc).  

Well, I can see lots of reasons to fight. The WOD herd concept, for example. What I was really wondering is why that would give them the right to rededicate. That's the part I didn't get. Perhaps it's just the blood of the slain? For each Resolve you eat, get one more resove for yourself (or some depleting ratio: e.g. 2:1)? Gives a monsterous incentive to kill other vamps. Vamps in a pack don't kill each other because of the Social Dynamic. They need each other to defend against other packs. But then there's always disputes.

I like that, makes the vampire blood a limited universal resource. Might need some serious tweaking.

Mike