[GroupDesign] - Mix Your Own Metaplot

[Sydney Freedberg]

Preamble:
This thread is a sister thread to GroupDesign: Advanced Archivism, dedicated to figuring out how to play an entire campaign in the setting and situation thrashed out in the earlier Groupdesign threads Setting & System Brainstorm, Clusters 2 & 3, Core vs. Optional, and -- probably the best starting point for newcomers, as it lays out the latest and most evolved set of concepts -- Nailing Mechanics. People who've not been following the GroupDesign discussion might feel a bit lost until they've skimmed those old threads, but anyone and everyone who finds this work-in-progress interesting should feel free, indeed encouraged, to contribute.

On the one hand, our as-yet-nameless game has very little metaplot in the traditional sense -- established major NPCs, factions, official timelines, pre-destined major events -- because we want to give each gaming group considerable freedom and multiple options to customize its setting. On the other hand, we appear to have come to hold one constant across all alternatives: The protagonists, the Archivists, must posssess mortal human Hosts in order to forestall the Nemesis -- some kind of urgently looming disaster, its exact nature to be chosen by each gaming group, that threatens humanity. Further, the thread Time Travel Party showed some consensus that as a recommended, if not mandatory, aspect of the game, the Archivists should combat the Nemesis by travelling through time in order to alter history and prevent the disaster.

Now, it's entirely possible to handle these inter-related Big Issues -- forestalling the Nemesis (a mandatory element), and changing history (an optional consideration) -- using the traditional techniques of an RPG campaign, in the GM either has an overarching plot in mind already, or evaluates the effects of the PC's actions on the setting in a purely subjective manner. But those traditional RPGs tend to be about individual characters growing in power and do have very explicit mechanics for character development across sessions and adventures. I would argue that the focus of our game is not on individual development but on the overall struggle against the Nemesis -- the cause in whose name the PCs are making all sorts of terrible sacrifices and hard choices, after all -- and that this focus would benefit from explicit mechanics that track that struggle across sessions and adventures.

The only model that comes to mind is My Life With Master, where the setting itself has traits (Fear and Reason) that come into play just like the characters', and where certain mechanical values (Love) accumulate over time until they trigger a specific Endgame. I'm not proposing this as an exact template, of course. I have a few vague ideas of my own instead to kickstart discussion:

(1) One possibility is Sorcerer-style currency on a large scale, where your margin of success in one conflict can be applied as a positive modifier on another, and where you can meld together successes from multiple conflicts into one big, whopping bonus on a huge conflict you otherwise could never hope to win. (Inspirations in TonyLB's Capes , currently being thrashed out on the Forge, work somewhat like this). Thus at the start of the campaign the PCs would have no hope of succeeding in a "Forestall the Nemesis" conflict, but by accumulating successes on smaller sub-problems throughout the campaign they can ultimately prevail.

(2) Another possibility is to have each successful Archivist "mission" produce, in essence, "victory points" in the form of "Truth," namely greater understanding about the true causes of the Nemesis. Truth  should be both something stated about the game-world and a mechanical value. When the protagonists have accumulated enough points of Truth, they understand what caused the Nemesis, and thus how to forestall it.

(3) Especially in the case of time travel, we could scale up the concepts of Traits, Humanity, Fade, and Burn as they apply to individual human characters and apply them to entire societies, and perhaps to all of humanity. Then the players' actions to manipulate history can be reflected by changing the "character sheet" for the entire civilization whose history they're changing -- for good or ill.

Further, any of these methods of portraying meta-scale change could be reflected in the fates of individual NPCs whom the players care about, as discussed in the "Helping Chen" part of the Time Travel Party thread.

Then again there is probably some completely different method for tracking success and failure over the course of the entire campaign which I've not yet thought of. And to really understand how to model the struggle against the Nemesis on such a large scale, we probably need to refine our concepts of what the Nemesis can and cannot be.

[Andrew Morris]

I like the idea of successes carrying over from session to session, even though I don't like it on the smaller scale, as shown in Sorcerer. Is this the thread to post ideas for mechanics on that, or just toss ideas back and forth?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Is this the thread to post ideas for mechanics on that, or just toss ideas back and forth?

Yes, both. Feel free to propose elaborate mechanics, or take exception to the entire idea that we need mechanics and a defined endstate, or just to riff on "so what should a campaign look like anyway, given that each gaming group essentially invents for itself and then modifies through play what in a traditional campaign would be metaplot-level factors?"

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, I see this carrying-over of success/failure as manifesting as something real and accepted in the game world. Call it factional momentum, non-temporal causality waves, or just plain winning the war. Two ways to do that pop into mind:

First, successes in the "past" of the mainstream timeline makes success more likely in the "future" of the timeline.

Second, come up with some theory that shows that there is some sort of trend that Archivists set in motion, which follows them along in their journeys across space and time, making success more or less likely based on past success/failure.

Just an idea tossed out to spark some discussion.

[contracycle]

Did anyone see my post on Tensions?  I posit that it should be possivle to track a game by coordinating moments of play with the escalation of a tension that exists within the game world.

That sort of explicit structure could be used here, especially with the Archivists paranormal sensibilities.  It may not be apparent that a particualr issue in the setting is about to reach boiling point, but explicitly or implicitly, the archivists know, and seek to intervene.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Did anyone see my post on Tensions?

Could you post a link for us here? My search-fu is poor....

[Andrew Morris]

Here it is, Sydney.

[contracycle]

Yeah, umm, sorry I was a bit busy.  Just tracked it down myself.

[Sydney Freedberg]

(popping back online from a $10 a day [ugh!] broadband connection in my hotel room, typing in total darkness while the baby sleeps 15 feet away in a rental crib)

Contracycle's idea is an intriguing one, and may actually fit this game better than more traditional ones. The downside is it seems like it would be very easy to get rigid with it -- "Okay, next thing on the chart is a 'peace vs. justice' scene, let's go."

Perhaps we can combine Tensions with some of the ideas thrown out earlier. For example: Is there some way to build on Tensions that instead of mapping a sequence out in advance, instead creates perhaps a "race track" where the players (not just the GM) can watch Tensions build up (acquire points, move ahead on the track, whatever) and decide which they want to address next?

This allows trade-offs, now that I think of it: Do you want to address "Freedom vs. Stability" in the next Archivist "mission," or do you want to let it fester, and become harder to deal with later, in order to smack down "War and Peace" while it's still small? (I'm partially inspired by TonyLB's Capes here, where players are forced to make constant tradeoffs among different aspects of the same struggle).

[Andrew Morris]

Interesting...

What does everyone see as the mechanical effect of Tensions? Personally, I'm thinking of something along the lines of a pool of...well, something or other...that builds up the longer a particular theme isn't addressed. Here's how I'm picturing it going:

Player 1: "Okay, I'm going to sacrifice my host for the greater good. It sucks, I know, but it's the only way we can suceed here."

GM: "Good, that addresses the "personal good vs. greater good" Tension, which is currently at 14. How many points do you want to take?"

Player 1: "Hmm... Okay, I'll take three of those points."

GM: "No, you have to take at least a quarter of the available points, rounded up."

Player 1: "Oh, right...I'll take four, then."

Player 2: "Wait a minute, I have to try and put a stop to that, because it's against our traditions. I'll take points from "orothodoxy vs. individual accountability" for it, too."

GM: "Oh, okay. That one's up to 10, how many points do you take from it?"

Player 2: "All 10 points."

GM: "Whaaaa? Oh, boy, this is gonna be interesting."

The two players make their rolls (or whatever) as normal, but once the results are figured, the degree of their success or failure is adjusted by the number of points they took from the Tension. Let's a assume that Player 1 succeeds in his action. With his 4-point degree modifier, it's a pretty big success -- the host is sacrificed in a dramatic fashion that hammers home the theme of the Tension. Player 2 fails his roll, and since he took a 10-point degree modifier, it's a disastrous failure, probably complicating things for the players significantly and highlighting the inability of orthodoxy to cover all situations, or something like that.

Another way to handle it would be to have each instance where the players address (or fail to address, though that seems to encourage avoiding issues) the theme of a Tension increase the pool of "plot points" for the group. Essentially, these plot points could be used as similar devices in other games, allowing the players to change elements of the game, etc.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Now that's interesting. Andrew is talking about gambling -- a game mechanic that in general I've found very interesting of late (see this thread). And darn it, it's another thing that's big in Capes.

It's also especially cool to have gambling when your mechanics are not Fortune-based.

[contracycle]

One of the difficulties I encounter with the present setup is that the only real component of system we have is burn/fade, which tackles only a single topic, the relationship between host and archivist.

Perhaps the key to designing your own metaplot and/or game in this case is to establish another mechanical system that in some sense contradicts or operates at cross purposes from this burn/fade relationship.  Some other aspect of the game world would have to bve posited as lying athwart the burn/fade axis and systemitised.

A second thought.  In line with recent discussion on conservatism et al in RPG , it strikes me that this presently existing model sort of shows this tendency in action.  That is, the fundamental conflict so far established is to PREVENT the status quo from changing, or to reverse changes that have been made in the status quo.  This ius fundamentally the dynamic between arhivists and notional ant-archivists.

I hasten to add this is not necessarily a problem in any sense.  But I have trouble with it because it means the archivists are essentially reacting to some other groups initiative; they are trailing after this group cleaning up the impact they have on reality/whathaveyou. And accordingly, I have very little ability to develop an idea of motiviation or direction for the archivists themselves.  Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Again in recent discussions a though on the role of villains cropped up.  It has been suggested in stories of this nature, of which there are many - star wars is one - the story itself is really about the villain, precisely because the villain is acting and the heroes reacting.  I find myself in a similar bind regarding the archivists - really, it is their opposition whose story is being told in this world.

But seeing as the anti-archivists have been deferred from the initial conceptual design, we have no idea whob they are or what they do - we have been hoping, I guess, that multiple theories of archivism will produce multiple enemies.   But for the reasons mentioned above, I think this hindering rather than helping at this point.

[Tobias]

contracycle - interesting points. I've been trying to write a core myself, and this point is something I've come across - to capture the burn/fade/hostawareness as mechanic effects that have meaning in relation to the 'what are you trying to achieve' during each session (and in the longer run), which is basically trying to achieve the Archivists agenda.

It is indeed reactionary, as stated. While that may not be a bad thing, the point about it being a story about the bad guys' agenda (and overcoming it, at the end) is true. If introducing the Anti-Archivists, or having a focused archivist agenda outside the 'prevention' will make the game more interesting to you, by all means, add it.

In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?). Not 'core' to the game, I guess, but little quirks like that should have their place in the grand scheme of archivist society as well.

Plenty of 'abuse' of archivist status possible - maybe that can be something for your anti-archivists?

[Andrew Morris]

Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Maybe they do. Initially, I wanted the Archvists to be...well...not evil, but certainly without human morals or scruples. So, going back to that, how about the idea that countering the Nemesis is just a part of the overall Archivist agenda? Perhaps the Archivists are trying to write the Nemesis out of existance, by "fixing" the event in the past that lead to the creation of the Nemesis. Maybe they just want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why the Nemesis fights the Archvists, which is why the Archivists want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why...and so on.

In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?).

Maybe, maybe not. First, this idea assumes there is some sort of process that can be done to a person to make them into an Archivist, which, frankly isn't at all how I was viewing Archivism. I was seeing it as something that comes from within the potential Archivist, not some external process. Second, even if this is possible, why would an Archivist want to create another Archivist? Perhaps each Archivist represents a burden on their society, or something. Third, maybe new Archivists can't be made. If Archivists exist outside of time and space, then every Archivist that ever was or will be came into existence at the same non-time. That number can't be added to or subtracted from.

[Tobias]

Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Maybe they do. Initially, I wanted the Archvists to be...well...not evil, but certainly without human morals or scruples. So, going back to that, how about the idea that countering the Nemesis is just a part of the overall Archivist agenda? Perhaps the Archivists are trying to write the Nemesis out of existance, by "fixing" the event in the past that lead to the creation of the Nemesis. Maybe they just want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why the Nemesis fights the Archvists, which is why the Archivists want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why...and so on.

(on the loop) Interesting, but that suffers from an origin problem.

(on the moral-lessness) Good you mentioned this - I had almost forgotten about this aspect.

In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?).

Maybe, maybe not. First, this idea assumes there is some sort of process that can be done to a person to make them into an Archivist, which, frankly isn't at all how I was viewing Archivism. I was seeing it as something that comes from within the potential Archivist, not some external process. Second, even if this is possible, why would an Archivist want to create another Archivist? Perhaps each Archivist represents a burden on their society, or something. Third, maybe new Archivists can't be made. If Archivists exist outside of time and space, then every Archivist that ever was or will be came into existence at the same non-time. That number can't be added to or subtracted from.[/quote]

I was thinking that the subject would have to WANT to become archivist - or would otherwise die when forced into the process. Helping someone become Archivist may be as simple as telling them about the ritual (no force involved).

Sure, there could be plenty of drawbacks to the archivist state, or having more archivists. It's not been defined yet. Heck, this could mean the players are ALL the currently existing archivists - no society of NPC archivists out there.

If they're out of space and time, and have always existed - doesn't that deny a human origin?

(I might be derailing the thread here, this may be a matter for Advanced Archivism instead of Mix your own Metaplot).