Libertarian RPG

[GreedIsGod]

Alright, I've finally decided to make an RPG out of my political convictions (or rather, convictions against politics).  I'm interested in designing an RPG based on individual anarchism, libertarianism, egoism (as in Max Stirner) and anarcho-capitalism.  To me all those things are the same, but some people think different and I thought I'd enumerate them.  Is there anyone here with similar convictions who would like to give me a hand in setting design?

I have no theory on what, exactly, I want the setting to be.  Sci-Fi would seem to be the easiest and I had an idea about a quantum transmisison system that would make technology and people expensive to export long distances, leading to less and less tech and less and less government farther and farther out.  Sort of like Firefly, but with a technological issue that prevents a takeover of the distant places.  This is not, however, *the* setting and if anyone has modern/fantasy or alternate Sci-Fi ideas I'd be happy to hear them.
Another setting idea: Modern setting, with an anarcho-capitalist revolution overthrowing different regimes and setting up ones ranging from anarcho-socialism, anarcho-capitalism to liberal republicanism and the like.  Sort of like the 'past' portion of the novel Stone Canal, but worldwide.

Copyleft: Anything I write or create here is free for anyone else to use, copy etc.  I claim no ownership over the content, although I would appreciate an honorable mention if you use something I came up with.

[contracycle]

First, I find it ironic that you simultaneously expound Libertarianism and deny your own property rights.  This is, let us say unusual in the Libertarian camp.

Second, I think the exposition of your views may well be a suitable topic for a setting, but I'm not so sure it's enough out of which to make a game, as it were.  Is there some political theme you wish to represent via mechanics, and if so do you have an idea as to how to do so?

Third, as a general rule this sort of proposition is too vague for the forum, and the venue not really intended for informal collaboration.  There's not enough here to be a serious to-publishing venture yet.

footnote:
I had to look up the Stone Canal and see it is by Ken MacLeod, which is also interesting as he is thought to be one of several current Communist-informed SF writers, and was mentioned to me on that basis.  I have only read half of Cosmonaut Keep though, so its hard for me to say.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I suggest considering the reward system for your game. What do you think would keep a person or group playing it, over time? I'm talking about stuff like character improvement or increased privileges in making contributions, which are often found as part of a role-playing game's reward features. However, there are probably hundreds of other possibilities.

My concern is that although your setting may be chock-full of political content, goals like you're expressing require actual play processes which engage political interest.

Finally, this is not a good forum for finding "setting help," especially if you are looking for people with specific qualifications or outlooks. For that, I suggest the Connections forum. Here, I suggest providing a more structured or specific set of game features which may be addressed by a wider variety of persons.

Best,
Ron

[inky]

You might be interested in this recent Sorcerer setting which (to me, anyway) has a strongly libertarian flavor although the author never said so explicitly.

[ivan23]

You might be interested in this recent Sorcerer setting which (to me, anyway) has a strongly libertarian flavor although the author never said so explicitly.

Now that you mention it, from the little I know of libertarianism, it kinda does fit. Weird. Eerie ...

[GreedIsGod]

First, I find it ironic that you simultaneously expound Libertarianism and deny your own property rights. This is, let us say unusual in the Libertarian camp.

Actually a good portion of libertarians deny that there is or can be any such thing as 'intellectual' property.  While you certainly have no right to my house or food, just because I happen to think of or develop to process for the use of goods does not give me control over what others can do with their goods.

Is there some political theme you wish to represent via mechanics, and if so do you have an idea as to how to do so?

Mechanics is not very important at this point in time.  Mechanically I'd probably go with GURPS or something equally 'generic'.  Mechanics may be developed for specific instances, though.

as a general rule this sort of proposition is too vague for the forum, and the venue not really intended for informal collaboration.

Mayhap.  Can you suggest a better forum for this, then?

My concern is that although your setting may be chock-full of political content, goals like you're expressing require actual play processes which engage political interest.

While anarcho-capitalism would be the setting-theme, it wouldn't neccesarily be the play theme.  In fact D&D is fairly anarcho-capitalistic in it's play: Despite the fact that there are typically kings and constables of all sorts, how many regulations on smuggling or owning of arms do you see?  People wander about, completely oblivious of borders, smuggle constantly, are always heavily armed and do their best to find people who want to give them money to solve their problems.  So in terms of play it doesn't have to depart significantly, I am not trying to create a 'political' type game, merely a game with a definite political logic which would lead to certain scenario probabilities and character types - such as PCs opposing the magistrates on general principle.  I've also considered working in a classic/semi-classic alignment system, but doing a 180 on the typical standards: making 'minding your own business' a virtue and 'personal responsibility'.

[jerry]

Actually a good portion of libertarians deny that there is or can be any such thing as 'intellectual' property.

And many others feel that the unreasonable extension of the concept has been a tool for suppressing dissent, as well as for unnecessarily hindering the free market in ideas.

In fact D&D is fairly anarcho-capitalistic in it's play:

I find AD&D interesting from this perspective because it specifically set out a conflict between libertarianism and "statism", that is, anarchy and order, in the alignment system. But then it went and hobbled it with a horrible description of "Chaotic" and not much of a better one for "Lawful" that both led to the "Chaotic Stupid" and "Lawful Stupid" stereotypes (though the latter to a lesser degree than the former to my experience).

When I wrote up the moral codes for Gods & Monsters, I tried hard to make all four of the alignment ends be things that make sense for someone to want to be, and to want to justify.

It occurs to me that parody might be useful here; a system like Vampire, where individuals fight desperately to keep from falling into the abyss of acquiescing to a distant state control.

But really, I'd offer advice that I've heard elsewhere on these boards: don't imagine the system first, imagine what the players are going to do. Then make the system around it. From what you've described, I can't imagine wanting to play it, and I'm a far liberal libertarian who wouldn't mind seeing such a game.

Jerry

[Eero Tuovinen]

Mechanics is not very important at this point in time.  Mechanically I'd probably go with GURPS or something equally 'generic'.  Mechanics may be developed for specific instances, though.

Read that one by me again, will you?

No, seriously, it seems to me that you're designing a setting and not a game. That's not a problem, but it's also not something we can help with much, apart from giving literary advice - analyzing and outlining libertarian scenarios and how they're embedded into a setting, that kind of thing. But for that it's much better to talk with a good writer, I'd think.

As far as play experience goes, system is all. You're scratching at the surface as long as you insist on using only setting tools to achieve your goals. To say it simply: GURPS will be GURPS in any setting, the first priority of players will always be getting that killer combo of abilities, insofar as GURPS really supports anything at all.

Then again, not all roleplaying material is written for play, as weird as it is. Many, many game settings are realized mainly through reading, when the accompanying game again and again offers the same tools - and thus, the same game play we had with D&D. If you're thinking of writing that kind of "read-only" setting, then go to it.

Consider a simple example: if you had a system where characters each have an attribute called, say, "Independence", which goes up and down when the player makes decisions corresponding to libertarian or static ideas. And when Independence hits zero, the character joins the Grey - the mass of non-player characters enmeshed in the webs of the warlords and priests, with no volition of their own.

Compare to GURPS, and consider: which system is better for play focused on the philosophy of personal freedom? In GURPS, the play doesn't even touch this level - the players will have to consiciously articulate the situation in terms of "freedom vs. oppression" if they want to. While the example system with it's simple Independence statistic all but ensures that all play decisions are evaluated in libertarian terms: am I taking personal responsibility, is there any right to interfere, will I sacrifice my love for my principles, all questions can be simply evaluated through the system.

So my first suggestion is to consider what kind of play you really want, which is what others have said as well. If you really aren't interested in how the game setting is applied in play at all, then you really need not worry about the system. But if you have any aspirations at all about actual play, system is your first and best tool in getting there.

Not that setting cannot be applied too, of course, but that has to come only after you know what kind of play you're getting otherwise.

[Grex]

It seems to me that FATE, with its funky use of aspects, could cover just about any form of reward mechanic that may be needed -- you could just give a character the aspect of, say,  "anarcho-capitalist" and take it from there. (For more details, download and read FATE to see if my hunch is correct :^)

That would also free you from having to design a system and allow you to prioritize the setting, which would be quite important in a game of political philosophies.

If you see debating as an important part of the game milieu, you may also want to look into HQ for inspiration (extended contests, specifically).

[GreedIsGod]

In terms of play I am thinking of something along the lines of classic adventuring.  I certainly see no problem with hoarding and min/maxing, as these would be entirely rational goals for people.  In essence taking a D&D sort of play and getting rid of the 'chaotic stupid' aspect, where people aren't oblivious to logic and everything around them.

[DevP]

as a general rule this sort of proposition is too vague for the forum, and the venue not really intended for informal collaboration.

Mayhap.  Can you suggest a better forum for this, then?

I think that this thread was initially open-ended end not quite defined, that it might have better fit in RPG Theory. However, if this thread can resolve into some more substantial premises, then it will have been viable. I'll do what I can. <g>

I think Eero's comments - considering system as the most important means of engaging the setting - are very important. (There are also happen to be some interesting thoughts over on the Components of Setting thread.)


So let me see what I get of your gameplay goals:

[list=1][*]While anarcho-capitalism would be the setting-theme, it wouldn't neccesarily be the play theme.  In fact D&D is fairly anarcho-capitalistic in it's play
[*]no problem with hoarding and min/maxing, as these would be entirely rational goals for people
[*]such as PCs opposing the magistrates on general principle
[*]I've also considered working in a classic/semi-classic alignment system, but doing a 180 on the typical standards: making 'minding your own business' a virtue and 'personal responsibility'.[/list:o]

Looking at 1 and 2, something purist-for-system can work, because you don't want to political focus to play, you merely want a space where, in your view, these anarcho-capitalist principles aren't confounded by the setting or system. D&D self-interest / lack-of-law, without D&D mysticism.

Although you imply the players being personally competition-driven (the min-maxing and/or hoarding), I'm guessing you're actually going for them being driven by character/internal-cause (my character is rational, and would mix-max and/or hoard; my personal rationality as a player is incidentaly), simply being open-ended to your views. How do you feel that a character with different beliefs, or a player with a character of different beliefs, would work within the setting and system? For example: a religious zealot? A labor syndicalist? A nihilist? A communitarian? Are these characters "missing the point" of playing in this setting?

I find goals 3 and 4 very problematic, in contrast. 4 is talking about using the system to take a very clear moral stance, rather than being agnostic. If you want to make the system work on making some viewpoints "good" and others "bad", then there that is a different goal and a fine one, but you're no longer talking of using a pure system, and you need the system to actualize the moral questions (an alignment system is already going down this path). As for 3, meanwhile - are you taking a stance that it is just not possible for a PC to work for a magistrate? Certainly, my character may have reasons (or as a player I may have reasons) for working or not working for a magistrate, but I don't see you'd want to act upon this in terms of setting design.

About system: You'll have to modify or clarify much of your average GURPSlike system to remove aspects which would work against the desired playstyle. The Merits/Flaws are a good example, but consider also: if an NPC makes a empathy/bargaining roll against you and succeeds, do you accept and inferior offer? Is that working against your vision of rational characters? Simply, be aware that a "generic" might not give you the play you want.

So, about making this happen: You and I probably disagree on everything that matters in terms of ethics and politics, but I'm a leaner towards left-libertarianism and invididualism, and would enjoy taking part in a project that was about building a world that was "agnostically" pointed at creating a world with major decentralization/anarchic properties in the backdrop, promoting a gameplay that was "exploring" all that. If we share goals in common, we can discuss our "points of consensus" in the forward-going design. (If we don't, that's alright too.)

[Peregrine]

I had to look up the Stone Canal and see it is by Ken MacLeod, which is also interesting as he is thought to be one of several current Communist-informed SF writers, and was mentioned to me on that basis. I have only read half of Cosmonaut Keep though, so its hard for me to say.

I've chatted with Ken MacLeod over a few beers and I can assure you he is quite Libertarian - or at least he sees himself that way.

As for setting advice, well, I'm not going to get into this too deeply, let's just leave it a grey area as to what exactly I think of the whole Libertarian philosophy.

But, what you might consider is Dicken's take on London (or an alternative historical take on Dicken's take on London) in which you play up the Libertarian goings-on inside the square mile controlled by the Corporation of London. You could mix in steam punk or Vernesque technological anti-heroes struggling against the old institutions. It could be quite cool and maybe more accessable than a more pure SF setting.

Basically thought it comes down to the question: what do the characters do. Even if it is just kill dragons and take their stuff, characters have to have something to do in a setting. Start from that basic point and build outwards.

Chris

[contracycle]

I've chatted with Ken MacLeod over a few beers and I can assure you he is quite Libertarian - or at least he sees himself that way.

Thanks for the clarification.  He did come across as someone familiar with some communist party praxis, though, even in the little I read.

The remainder was rather like Alistair Reynolds setting, of which I have just read the first 3 books.  I mention this becuase there is a group known as 'Demarchists' which are never discussed in any detail, but over all I deduce this is meant to be a contraction of 'Democratic Anarchist'.  But equally it might just be dem + archy in the way that dem + ocracy is constructed.  Hard to say without any direct discussion.

Basically thought it comes down to the question: what do the characters do. Even if it is just kill dragons and take their stuff, characters have to have something to do in a setting. Start from that basic point and build outwards.

It was thinking about this that reminded me of the demarchists and the fact I don't actually know what they are supposed to be.  A simple expository work that lays out a setting for contemplation alone is not likely to engage anyone seriously.  Robert Tressel's the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists is sound for the most part, with an excellent exposition of "The Great Money Trick", but also a dull read IME.

So it would seem to me that an expository work of this nature might take a leaf out of Mages book and set the characters up as factions of the struggle without a clear analytical position, or with conflicting positions,  with the purpose of play being to work toward a synthesis of these positions.  Then the ideological argument becomes a subject of play, perhaps exhibiting in-character dialogues similar to those I have seen occur in Mage.

[Vaxalon]

In terms of play I am thinking of something along the lines of classic adventuring.  I certainly see no problem with hoarding and min/maxing, as these would be entirely rational goals for people.  In essence taking a D&D sort of play and getting rid of the 'chaotic stupid' aspect, where people aren't oblivious to logic and everything around them.

Seems to me that getting rid of PC's who are oblivious to logic and environment is less a matter of rules or setting and more a matter of the people who are playing.

[Chris Goodwin]

If I may -- saying "I want to design a game based in a libertarian setting" is kinda like saying "I want to design a game based in a nominally federal republic with strong fascist leanings."  If there's anything I've learned from hanging out around here, it's this: what are the characters "supposed" to do?  

I've been on-again, off-again working on a GURPS translation of L. Neil Smith's North American Confederacy novels, and have a list of basic plots and character types you might find there, which may or may not prove helpful.  E-mail me at archer (at) feather (dot) net if you want me to send it to you.