Vampires - a postmodern roleplaying game

[xiombarg]

I have to admit I could totally see where you were going even before I read the essay.

I would certainly make it less blatant. Instead of vampires having to be male and the victims female, I say open up the gender gap. They can still be thematically male and thematically female, without obviously being so, i.e. a female vampire can be just as "male" in an intimate relationship with a man, so long as the same manipulative techniques are used to echo "male power".

This makes the covert agenda of the game less obvious.

[Jason Mical]

Possible spoilers below.

Its certainly an interesting game. The only limitation I see is that its replayability is pretty slim, because once the cat is out of the bag, it would be difficult to run again with the same players.

But somehow, I don't think that was your goal. I'm guessing you're more looking for a moment of existential shock where the players are forced to deal with the cycle of violence, and the intention behind that seems to be an application to real-world exploitation.

Certainly a noble goal, and this is a good way to achieve it. However, with that as a goal (stated or not), I'm not sure your game necessarily falls into the PoMo category.

Honestly, I could indeed see myself running a game like this, but if you want my honest opinion (and this is not intended to be mean-spirited or a personal attack), its a game I would run at a sensitivity training seminar before I would run it with my gaming group.

If I misunderstood what seems to be your goal with the game, I apologize.[/url]

[The_Tim]

I've given the game and the project a lot of thought.  I've read the thread and seen points similar to the ones I wanted to make.  I'm not particularly interested in the specific message of the game.  I don't think that it is relevant to the flaws or strengths of the game.  What I'm interested in is games without fun, built in meta-games, and messages in RPGs.

Before I get started I want to say that I enjoyed reading the game because it didn't involve white washing the topic or the means of conveying the point.  This game admits that if you are playing an unpleasant you ought to play an unpleasant monster.  It is a refreshing change from "Monsters are cool, let's play them.  Also they can mean stuff!"  The fact that in this case it actually is meant to mean something and manages to mean something is good.  Now onto the main point.

First off I agree that some groups might like playing a game that is not fun in a tradition sense.  It has to have value and it might not be entertainment value.  The trouble is that an RPG that is not fun has to have a clear reason to play it.  There is no clear reason to play Vampires without knowing the secret goal.  You play a monstrous creature with no redeeming value.  The game's content is split between abusing helpless victims to get power and exerting that power on your fellow filth.  There is, on the surface, no point to playing.  The mechanics are not catchy enough to lure people in.  There is no setting to engross people.  In short the game is not only not fun but not rewarding in anyway.  Who do you imagine would GM this without knowing the secret?  Who would look at it and not rebel before the game started?  As it stands the game might attract individuals who like trying strange things for the sake of trying them but I bet boredom will come before rebellion and that rebellion will have a split between purposeful disfunction, spite rebellion, and actual rebellion.

This moves me on to the next part.  The game has built into it an expectation for exterior social events that influence the game.  It is designed not just to be change by them but to change them.  That's a cool goal.  I also think that if things manage to run smoothly it might even manage to work as desired.  I don't think the people who would actually play this game would use the scoring system correctly, but I do think that the scoring system is good.  On the other hand I think that it exacerbates the problem of there being no reason to play it.  There are more interesting ways to freak your friends and yourself out with what you can come up with.  In addition the system points in an obvious way towards the goal of rebellion.  By drawing attention to discomfort and making it the means towards character power you don't just give a clue to the "fuck the rules" aspect you all but give it away.

Finally the idea of messages in RPGs.  There are two ways to put a message in an RPG.  The first is to state outright what it is and if players like it to invite them to explore the message, its implications, its foundations, and so on.  The second is to trick it out in actual play.  I think the second is harder and leads to far more trouble than it can be worth.  It also requires a lot of material to help give guidelines for how to run the game without actually giving things away.  As it stands I don't think a willing group that wasn't in on it would have much of a clue what to do with the game.

It was interesting to read Vampires.  I think that anyone thinking about the relationship of the text to play and of imagined events to group dynamics should read the game.  I'd even suggest it as a game to play for those who are thinking about the issues.  I also think that you might have some luck finding a group and asking them to play test the game for you.  Tell them you don't want to be involved because you made it and you might fix problems based on the game in your mind as opposed to on paper.  I'd be interested to see if a group would play it and what would result from the sessions.

[pete_darby]

My problem with it is simply that it invites players in by saying "Hey, come and play a vicious fucked up bastard!", and then the switch is to shake your head sorrowfully and say "Look at what you played, you vicious fucked up bastard you."

Sure, it's a little more sophisticated than that. But the only reactions I could see to the switch are either. "Hey, you invited me to play it!" or "Why yes. Yes I am."

[Eve]

I was talking about it with a friend some days ago. I suddenly realised that the switch wouldn't bring me a great feeling, but rather upset me: the game has tantalised you for quite some time, slowly raising your anger (and probably I'd try to suppress my frustrations and discomfort to keep playing) - and than it turns out it was all meant to be. I think this last thing can be very frustrating / disappointing.