Building Ruritania: 1844 - Any Advice?

[Levi Kornelsen]

I'm currently in the midst of writing a game set in 1844, in the state of Ruritania (a fictional state first found in the novel Prisoner of Zenda).  A "stolen magic as a tool of revolution" theme is built-in in addition to the general demi-historical setup (the history research is coming along very well, but Ruritania itself never actually existed).

Here's a blurb:

It is 1844, in Europe.

The Holy Empire of Germania has long since shattered into some forty or more independent states. These states maintain a loose federation of mutual defense. Though their populations move towards a unified Germany, most states of the country are ruled by authorian Monarchs. These Monarchs retain their power by the force of their militaries, their secret police, their censorship, and by the structures of those select few taken into their inner councils. King R______ the second of Ruritania is such a King.

The king's regime is both opposed and supported, at turns, by the factions of his own kingdom. His own guard regiments maintain proud traditions leading them to disparate acts - some sadistic and brutal, some harboring those he himself would see hunted and destroyed. The nobles of the court speak forth for the king's policies, but among their ranks, among the eldest and most true of the lineages, there hide those who channel the bleak authority and hideous majesty of the first founders of the land itself. The church searches itself for heretics, whose works abound, but whose faces are hidden. The skilled workers, who benefit from the regime's economy, are host to those who bind the remnants of souls into gadgetry of their devising. The common peasants sit beneath the notice of all, and their elders spin stories that teach powerful skills to those who would listen.

Somewhere in the night, bribes have been passed from noble hands to cruel ones. Prostitutes gather around a single door, through which hunted fugitives pass, grateful of the falsity. Illicit tomes, banned on pain of death, are carried down a winding stair. Sacramental wine is passed from the hands of heretic to necromancer to wise woman. Stolen candles are lit, faces revealed; eyes that speak of knowledge learned at too high a price, of depths both painful and pleasurable.

Thoughts are spoken in the dark, murmured over. Talk of desperate skirmishes, of flights of rapture, of revolution and negotiation. Bombs and guns, arrests and tortures, are listed; there are bitter recriminations, naming artifacts and speaking of the getting and keeping of blasphemous works.

Two words are used most often. Freedom. Sorcery.

Now, I'm looking for advice.  But I'm not sure what to ask, precisely; the difficulty being that I'm not sure where I'm short of "coming along nicely", if anywhere.  If anyone is interested in being critical of it so far, I'd love that.  For the moment, I've set up an eight-page preview on a new Yahoogroup that I'll be using for development: 

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ruritania1844/

Though I expect to move the preview to a just-click-download location shortly, as well.

Any thoughts?

[Alan]

Hi Levi,

I don't think you've posted in a long time.  Welcome!

What kind of game do you want to come out of playing this material?  Is this material for any game system or do you have one in mind?  How does the game system relate to or express this material? 

What do players (including GM) do with it?

You might want to read the sticky at the head of this Forum called Structured Game Design ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1896.0 )

- Alan

[Levi Kornelsen]

I've actually only been back online for about two weeks, after something resembling a six-year gap (though I was on for about two months in the middle of that gap).  I was busy becoming an actual adult.

So, to answer:

The kind of game I imagine coming out of this material is relatively action-based, lightly cinematic.  Dramatist values are treated as greater that Simulationist ones, but Gamist views can be taken or not, as desired...    Of course, I'm not sure that the threefold terminology I picked up "back then" still sees use, so I may be speaking greek here.

The system this is being built for is a variant on Active Exploits, from Politically Incorrect Games, with whom I have a working agreement.  This system was chosen expressly for it's values - blind resource management and drama over randomness - and because it can be played live-action, which is a venue I'll be testing it in.

The system expresses the material by reinforcing terminology, and backing up key world concepts.  An example of this is Dementia, the mental "health pool" for the game - mental stress will be inherently connected to magic under these rules, which has it's place in the setting.

Players and GMs use it...   well, it should "float" thematically a fair distance, but played straight, they would use it to create romantic (as per the philosophy, not necessarily the activity) adventures of dangerous, often violent intrigue either within or in revolution against a brutal regime in pre-unification Germany.

[Alan]

Hi Levi,

Well, welcome back then!

RE: terminology.  Yes, it has changed in six years.  The GDS triple does _not_ map to Ron's current Big Model terminology.  In fact, I think there's been a fundimental shift in his theory -- to include more things.  You could get an introduction by reading the introductory essay of the Provisional Glossary in the Articles section.  ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/27/ ).  Then we can all speak the same language.

It's generally accepted that an rpg runs best with a single CA (G,N, or S) dominant, so choosing one is a good design choice.  So-called hybrids work by using one (usually S) to support another.

I'm not familiar with Action Exploits, but it sounds like you do have a mechanic for connecting background to play.  Do you want game conflicts to grow from your background?  Of do you just want players to live in Ruritania? 

I kind of feel that maybe you should do a little reading in the Glossary and then maybe you'll have a better idea what questions to ask. 

- Alan

[Levi Kornelsen]

Okay.  A little reading.  No truly new theories, though they weren't all in one place, nor codified, nor in Mr.Edwards' hands, when last I saw them.  Nice conglomerate; and yes, much larger.

Forgive me if my terms are going to be a touch spotty for a bit, they meant smaller and slightly different things before.

The game's actual flow is intended to be narrative with gamist support, though it would likely depart from the strict model and wander into very basic "narrative-supported gamist" territory as often as not, and I don't mind that.  Using it in simulationist-like ways would be tricky simply because the system is both intentionally oversimpilfied and very, very strongly rules-bound - a necessity in any live game larger than, say, twenty players with differing styles.

Conflict is, as often as not, motivated by the background, in the form of political upheaval which characters will be inherently "hooked" into.

In truth, players will be living in a fused, fairly darkly themed scenario of German-Austrian politics and magic.  Because of the perfect physical placement of The Prisoner of Zenda for this, and because some of the themes of the book match those of the game, I set that scenario there.

[Alan]

Hi Levi,

Sounds like you'll want to focus on character creation, making sure the character's created tie into the milieux.  Many recent games use a whole game session for character creation, where the group discusses and coordinates their characters with each other and with the setting.  Also, there's the Heroquest approach, where packages of traits tie directly in to the setting.

Also, another important element of narrativist play, is providing means for the player's interests to drive play.  This means completely eschewing the GM-as-plot-maker paradigm and giving the players a way to put the important conflicts into the game, or to clearly indicate what they want to GM.  Again, I don't know how Active Exploits might support that.  FREX, The Riddle of Steel lets players create Spiritual Attributes, which then drive character improvement and Burning Wheel has players create Beliefs, which function pretty much the same way.  On the other hand,

(Incidentally, there's a current discussion about strategizing and other techniques being separate from gamism.  They can support narrativist play, and don't make it gamist.  The key is that techniques don't make a CA.)

(Incidentally again: your thread caught my eye because I developed a Ruritania-like nation for my Riddle of Steel game a while back.  I focused on giving player's different places to hook into the various things going on in the duchy.)

- Alan

[Levi Kornelsen]

Character creation input, advice, backgrounding, and the like were already something I expected to spend a fair bit of work trying to write carefully.   Given your basic advice here, I'm glad to see I'm on the right track.

I do wonder whether it would be more effective to write the pieces of the world's scenario as a series of small bits for the players to assimilate into their characters as needed, or as something that resembles the information the actual characters would possess and access - propaganda, pamphlets, and the like.