noble houses

[Andrew Morris]

For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.

The setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire. Players are characters from this empire, ostensibly from the noble houses that make up this empire. There exist a few organisations/guilds as well as the nobility but they exist as subservient to the nobility. An emperor rules the empire and comes from one of the noble houses as he always has. The nobility enjoy complex relations where some get on with others and not the rest - basically. Beyond the empire exists a number of factions, malevolent, ancient and indifferent that humanity measures up against. The issue is, with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available. I'm not sure if such a game would be ultimately fun; the best rpg settings to me are those that offer the most options for player ang GM alike. For instance Star Wars works better then Fading Suns for those reasons. With the latter players to me seem more or less tied to one house, no matter what their role within. More than that they are subservient to the leaders of that faction. So really what can the characters be if not tools to the regime? Dune is a little different despite the similar setting idea since the story is about (in part) the sweeping changes to that society. If that was a typical Fading Suns adventure (or adventure in mys etting) then the game might as well not exist for the changes it would cause to the setting.

Hey, SotS, I still don't know what you're looking for, here. You didn't really address the questions I posed to you. Try and answer the following questions (short and simple is good):

1) What is your game about? (e.g. "It's about killing mosters and getting more powerful." "It's about addressing the erosion of morality when faced with temptation." "Its about exploring this cool setting, and finding out all sorts of neat stuff about it." "It's about taking serious political intrigue and turning it on its ear, making it into a comedy.")

2) What do the characters do? You've sorta hinted at that, but not really gone into detail.

3) What do the players do? I've heard nothing about that.

Even more specifically:

4) What is it that you want the existence of houses to do? Why do you want them in the game at all? What do they provide in terms of play experience?

[timopod]

Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).

something to think aboot

[Sydney Freedberg]

In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing...

"Nooo! Don't do it!" (reprise). I've played in, and GM'd, several very fun games where the players were competing with each other, their characters were in conflict, and it worked just fine. The secret of success is to realize that in this kind of game, "your plot" is the backstabbing.

And in general, any GM who talks about "my plot" is a GM in whose game I'm not playing. If you're GMing and we're the players, then our characters are the heroes of the story, so it's our plot: The GM's job is to keep the pressure on, not to decide what happens!

But I'm evangelizing instead of addressing "SotS"'s questions. So let me second Andrew's questions: What do the real live players around the table do that's fun for them? What do their characters do that's going to be fun to play? What is a typical "adventure" or play session going to consist of -- the old "get mission, find clues, wander around, fight bad guy, repeat" or "pass notes and backstab each other" or "come up with cool plot, then execute it against NPC opponents" or something totally different?

[signoftheserpent]

Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).

something to think aboot

This is precisely what prevents me from buying the GoT rpg (that and the system). Ultimately the players would have to pick the same house for things to really work long term.

I have decided to take a different approach with the setting anyway. I have had the ideas for a long time in terms of noble houses and other things that share their universe. I am thinking this nobility may be relegated to npc status perhaps as antagonists and that the players will be something else entirely. Thanks for the replies.

[signoftheserpent]

To follow on from my last post:

The original brief I gave myself was to think of Warcraft in the same way that Warhammer 40k relates to the fantasy iteration that came before. That doesn't mean giving orcs, elves and dwarves spaceships and guns (40K has - if it ever was - long transcended that). I am also a fan of the 'noble houses' archetype - even if it doesn't suit rpg settings as opposed to fiction. Noble Houses make for great characters, just read the GoT novels with all the background notes on the houses with their mottos and heraldry. The setting was also a kind of fantasy in the way star wars is; fantasy in the storytelling way as opposed to genre types for instance.
At the same time I was making notes for a fantasy chinese setting as I had also been reading some of the wuxia comics my local library stocked (plus Weapons of the Gods, ironically he one comic they didn't have, was receiving much adoration on the internet). So now I have decided to change my brief to something more akin to Star Wars, or perhaps the Clone Wars (which, despite the quality of the prequel movies, makes for a far better rpg setting than the classic era - especially from the Jedi perspective with the war between lightside and darkside underpinning the galactic conflict itself). I have also been very interested in Exalted, despite the silly videogame mechanics ideas and anime obsession the game has (and should ditch IMO), which I feel does epic roleplaying, certainly epic frping, very well.
Now I have an idea for a kind of 'kung fu in space' though much less oriental (if only because the people i play with simply won't relate to chinese culture) way - something like the Jedi and the Force in its 'genericness'. This idea has the players taking on the roles of intergalactic wulin heroes. They descend from more enlightened times when the Wulin were the traditional rulers of the society of men in space. Now exists a dominant authority of order and control that outlaws their practises and activities, relegating them to legend and to a nomadic existence of self-subsistence. Meanwhile this Order has it's own enemies - demons from the hell worlds, evil 'black tao' cultists and rebel nobles who chafe under the iron yoke of control. You get the picture (hopefully).

Thus the noble houses will now become part of the setting and, as with all games and gm's, it might be possible to play them, the focus will not be on them as protagonists.

For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

1) What is your game about? (e.g. "It's about killing mosters and getting more powerful." "It's about addressing the erosion of morality when faced with temptation." "Its about exploring this cool setting, and finding out all sorts of neat stuff about it." "It's about taking serious political intrigue and turning it on its ear, making it into a comedy.")

2) What do the characters do? You've sorta hinted at that, but not really gone into detail.

3) What do the players do? I've heard nothing about that.

Even more specifically:

4) What is it that you want the existence of houses to do? Why do you want them in the game at all? What do they provide in terms of play experience?

1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters  - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

[timopod]

well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.

[Andrew Morris]

1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Okay, cool.

1. Rockin, man. Heroes making their own destiny, balanced against the weight of tradition? Awesome. I'd play that in a heartbeat, especially if we're talking about how their desire for their own destiny/identity conflicts with their obligation to their traditions, and that's the focus of play.

2. And doing what, once they get there? Destabilizing the status quo? Defending the people? Taking over these worlds? In general, are they going there to do something, or react to something?

3. Sure, it's a hard separation to get, at first. Look at it this way. D&D is about killing monsters and getting more powerful. The characters travel around, finding adventures so the can kill monsters, gain experience to become more powerful, buy cooler gear that makes them better at killing monsters, etc. The players, in D&D, balance tactical and strategic options. So, are your players using the vehicle of their characters to make a moral statement? Are they exploring the fictional setting? Making hard choices between what must be sacrificed to achieve goals? Something else?

4. Right on. This seems like it's more to the heart of your intentions with this post. If I'm understanding you correctly, the sole purpose of including noble houses is to provide conflict that the characters will address, without resorting to an alien threat. Gotcha. In that case, my response is that your noble houses have several ways they can support the play experience you're looking for, but they are by no means the only way.  Was that the extent of your question, or did you want to propose some specific ideas for the application of noble houses and see if they would tend to support your goals?

Don't worry about all the fiddly little bits yet, like skills and character balance. Figure out what your focus will be, then build around that. If your game is going to be about society-changing political campaigns, then there's no reason to even have combat rules, for example. Just sweep that into your general conflict resolution rules, then make sure you have solid political rules. Don't assume you'll need something just because other games have included it.

Likewise, don't assume that conflict between characters (or even competition between players) is a bad thing. I've played cooperative RPGs and competitive ones, and I've enjoyed both, as long as they fit what the game was about.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Cool. That's a worthwhile goal. I wonder, however, whether you need make players part of the noble houses in order to acheive this. What about if they're simply independents who may, or may not, work for the houses at any given moment? That way you get you humanocentric setting, and you get conflict in the setting, without necessarily having to create it within the party.

[signoftheserpent]

well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.

I haven't seen the movie but Storm Riders is adapted from the comic of the same name; same sort of thing as Weapons of the Gods - similar art style and setting. Really these comics are primarily about martial arts clans/families and their rivalries (one of these comics, possible Storm Riders although i think it's actually Story of the Tao, features a sword made of babies!?!).

The houses are not really the prime function (since I have taken the focus away from them as options for player characters). Their function really is to create conflict. While it might seem two dimensional and obvious to have each house specialise in certain areas (house X are evil, House Y are good, House A have all the swords and House B have all the secrets, etc), having them creates a nonlinear (ie not blacn and white) setting where confliict becomes more three dimensional as each house will likley have it's own agenda and houses together can form unique factions even kingdoms, like clans. It's just a tool for creating conflict and depth rather than anything else with unique identities from those houses (plus i like coming up with names, something I can do well).

GoT= Game of Thrones, as in the rpg based on the books by Goerge RR Martin. Cuthroat medieval style fantasy; noble houses at war.

[signoftheserpent]

1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Okay, cool.

1. Rockin, man. Heroes making their own destiny, balanced against the weight of tradition? Awesome. I'd play that in a heartbeat, especially if we're talking about how their desire for their own destiny/identity conflicts with their obligation to their traditions, and that's the focus of play.

2. And doing what, once they get there? Destabilizing the status quo? Defending the people? Taking over these worlds? In general, are they going there to do something, or react to something?

3. Sure, it's a hard separation to get, at first. Look at it this way. D&D is about killing monsters and getting more powerful. The characters travel around, finding adventures so the can kill monsters, gain experience to become more powerful, buy cooler gear that makes them better at killing monsters, etc. The players, in D&D, balance tactical and strategic options. So, are your players using the vehicle of their characters to make a moral statement? Are they exploring the fictional setting? Making hard choices between what must be sacrificed to achieve goals? Something else?

4. Right on. This seems like it's more to the heart of your intentions with this post. If I'm understanding you correctly, the sole purpose of including noble houses is to provide conflict that the characters will address, without resorting to an alien threat. Gotcha. In that case, my response is that your noble houses have several ways they can support the play experience you're looking for, but they are by no means the only way.  Was that the extent of your question, or did you want to propose some specific ideas for the application of noble houses and see if they would tend to support your goals?

Don't worry about all the fiddly little bits yet, like skills and character balance. Figure out what your focus will be, then build around that. If your game is going to be about society-changing political campaigns, then there's no reason to even have combat rules, for example. Just sweep that into your general conflict resolution rules, then make sure you have solid political rules. Don't assume you'll need something just because other games have included it.

Likewise, don't assume that conflict between characters (or even competition between players) is a bad thing. I've played cooperative RPGs and competitive ones, and I've enjoyed both, as long as they fit what the game was about.

In order to keep the blood flowing I will answer these questions now though the answers are not cast in stone (as if anythign in game design ever is).

1. Thanks.

2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.

3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.

4. Aliens may well appear but only if I am satisfied they are interesting and useful since roleplaying cannot use the same visual tools as movies. Star Wars works very well for instance, with all its cg and alien makeup and wierld planetary environments because it's presented in a visual medium. RPG's really aren't. Aliens may well take the role of demons and spirit forces one might find in traditional chinese/wuxi fantasy or anything that is ineffably 'other'.

[signoftheserpent]

Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Cool. That's a worthwhile goal. I wonder, however, whether you need make players part of the noble houses in order to acheive this. What about if they're simply independents who may, or may not, work for the houses at any given moment? That way you get you humanocentric setting, and you get conflict in the setting, without necessarily having to create it within the party.

You can call me Martin, a name I cannot use online since I would have to add a whole bunch of numbers afterward which I dislike doing.

The players won't necessarily be from the nobility within the setting. They will be or at least become something apart from it. I have decided, as I say, to make some changes.

[tygertyger]

"Noooo! Don't do it!" I hate hate hate hate hate being handed a fixed menu of clans/houses/lineages/whatevers that make most of my choices as a GM or player for me.

Limiting choices is a necessary step if one is going to have a chargen system that creates characters that are true to the setting.  That said, it's not like the House write-ups can't have any flex in them.

A) You will note my mention of stereotypes.  That's about what people tend to expect of members of the House, not what they'll actually get.

B) Even with such write-ups there's always room for variations.  Each House can easily have local factions, and probably will in a starfaring setting.  It's unlikely that the members of House Radix (frex) will have the exact same agenda on Alpha Centauri colony that they have on Tau Ceti colony.  Add to this the possibility of factions within factions -- and perhaps of PCs starting their own factions -- and it can get pretty wild.  Just because House Radix is against alliance with the Traezons (again, frex) doesn't mean that all of them will express their dissent the same way.  The Centauri Radix might do so with political maneuvering while the Ceti Radix covertly support terrorist actions.  That can get dicey if you have a Centauri Radix and a Ceti Radix in the same PC group.

C) The "splatbook" approach, as much as some people hate it, is a good way to introduce an unfamiliar game world (there's a reason that WW has such a large share of the gaming market, folks -- the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't work).  But even with choices limited in that way, there can still be room for GM and player creativity.  Check out Vampire: the Requiem; the current rules include guidelines for creating Bloodlines and Disciplines that are balanced and consistent with the game world.  How hard would it be to include something like that with a House write-up (as in, guidelines for creating factions)?

[Andrew Morris]

2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.

3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.

2. Okay, so would it be fair to say that the characters travel from world to world, coming to terms with their internal conflict (identity vs. conformity), then attempt to actualize their decision? If so, are the adventures on each planet there to highlight this internal struggle/actualization deal? Or is the internal struggle/actualization stuff there to provide a framework for the cool adventures on new planets? Or have I completely missed the mark, here?

3. Uhm...okay, your players aren't making moral stands. Cool. What are they doing, though? You didn't answer this.

[signoftheserpent]

2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.

3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.

2. Okay, so would it be fair to say that the characters travel from world to world, coming to terms with their internal conflict (identity vs. conformity), then attempt to actualize their decision? If so, are the adventures on each planet there to highlight this internal struggle/actualization deal? Or is the internal struggle/actualization stuff there to provide a framework for the cool adventures on new planets? Or have I completely missed the mark, here?

3. Uhm...okay, your players aren't making moral stands. Cool. What are they doing, though? You didn't answer this.

The characters will most likely travel around since the wandering nature of the kung fu hero is a staple of the genre. Besides the universe is a big place.

The players will get out of the game whatever they put in; they will choose to play the game because they like the setting and because it gives them ideas for characters just as it does for the GM. Really they can play from whatever perspective they wish. If they want to indulge in morality plays then they can. The players are going to be characters who adventure in this setting. That's it. It's as simple as that.

[shlo]

What about the game King Arthur Pendragon?

It's about noble houses as well, and players have to manage their property as well as their relations with neighbours, and they have vendettas between houses, and moral conflicts when they have to choose between their surezain's commands and their family well-being.

The players don't have to fight amongst themselves, their's a whole bunch of NPC noble houses and some other kind of enemies.

If you want a noble house setting, you have the perfect example in this game. This setting is based on historical reality, and the game gives a few rules to manage some important points, like the excellent "winter phase" (sorry I don't know the term in the english version of the game). This game should be a major inspiration for you.

-Shlo.