[The Valley] Concept Notes

[flammifer]

How about this disease: very contagious; when you catch it either you quickly die a horribly painful death, or you recover after a moment with no side-effects. You don't have the "getting sicker and sicker" side of things, but you can have a faction who thinks they may as well infect the whole of mankind, like that in a generation it'd be over with, the survivors wouldn't have to worry any more. Or at least, those in the valley would resent being discriminated against (not to mention being shot on sight), since they don't consider themselves really 'sick" anymore.

Another twist: the outside doesn't know the valley is infected. The people in the valley try to keep it a secret, even if that means making people "disappear". (This can work for a couple sessions, then switch to the quarantine-and-flamethrowers version).

[jknevitt]

How about this disease: very contagious; when you catch it either you quickly die a horribly painful death, or you recover after a moment with no side-effects. You don't have the "getting sicker and sicker" side of things, but you can have a faction who thinks they may as well infect the whole of mankind, like that in a generation it'd be over with, the survivors wouldn't have to worry any more. Or at least, those in the valley would resent being discriminated against (not to mention being shot on sight), since they don't consider themselves really 'sick" anymore.

Part of the integral "feel" of The Valley would be that everyone is sick; no-one is simply "fine" or healthy.

Another twist: the outside doesn't know the valley is infected. The people in the valley try to keep it a secret, even if that means making people "disappear". (This can work for a couple sessions, then switch to the quarantine-and-flamethrowers version).

The idea of having the Valley "quarantined" is a way of containing the setting to one area. It provides setting and gameplay boundaries that make for a more interesting game (in my opinion) because you have a limited "space" to play with.

All very interesting ideas, though. Something to think over at least.

[sean2099]

Hi everyone,

There seems to be enough variations, in my opinion, to list all of them as options or perhaps it could even be changed to the Valleys or the Islands.  If the latter, then perhaps there is more than one place with outbreaks of similar disease.  The rate of viral mutation could justify having different variations of the same disease.

Just my 2 cents,

Sean

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Having watched this thread for a while, I wonder if you would consider something more "open."

You basically have:

• Contained Space - Valley, Island... Prison? WWI Trenches?
• Cause of Containment - Jackbooted Thugs in Biohazard Suits, the ocean's expanse... Guards? Officers?
• Attrition of Occupants - Outsiders, Disease... Drug Addiction/Gangwars? Battles?
• Spur to Action - ???, ???... ???, ???

(Note: The last one is another point I am going to make.)

Given the somewhat "high concept" nature of your inspiration, why not go all out and make choosing the Space, Containers, and Attrition Source something that each group of players decides?
On the other hand, you don't seem to have a Spur yet, other than Attrition. Sure, "eliminating the Attrition Source" may be the default Spur; but that doesn't work that well for, say, disease (without deus ex machina) or for prison guards or for officers with pistols loaded for deserters. I guess my second question basically asks is: "What's the point? Why don't we (as characters) just lay down and die, already?"

HTH;
David

[Thunder_God]

Because that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.

Picking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.

[sean2099]

Because that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.

Picking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.

I agree.  I think, in a sense, that they are more liberated.  I mean, they know that they only have so long to live...therefore, they try to live as much as possible for as long as possible.  As PC's, they could have goals that they want to accomplish before they die.

On a different note, I just asked myself a "what-if".  What if there were two islands (as an example) and they were just far enough away to make rafting impractical but they had short ranges radios?  Then, what if they each had a variation of the "disease", one where they became like mindless zombies and one where they achieved mental clarity but became bed-ridden.  I just I could see two planes crashing...

Anyway, your game concept is fine.  I just find asking what-ifs helps, even if they stray from the original idea.

Sean

[flammifer]

Additional twist idea: The people in the valley are sick, but are convced that *they* are the only healthy ones left, and that the people around them are just a band of degenerates who want to get rid of them. Or, the other way around - the rest of the world is diseased, and wants the valley to *join* them.

The "we're not sick, they are" thing can also be just the opinion of a minority faction in the valley.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Because that is not human nature?
Just look at the Holocaust to see what I mean.

Bad analogy. Folks who suffered under the Holocaust (a) had at least some reason for hope (the Allies were fighting) (b) were not perfectly contained (it was at least possible to escape) and (c) could at least attempt an appeal to their captors (not all were faceless, heartless jackbooted thugs).

All these Island and Valley and disease ideas are expressly designed to deny each of those avenues of hope. The game is, it seems to me, defined by its abject, incontrovertible hopelessness. And that's what made me ask for some notions of Spurs.

Picking one option may limit you, but then again, it lets you have everything fit it like a glove, which may not be as tight-fitting if you want to let in more options.

Well, that is certainly a popular opinion, here on The Forge. I happen to disagree, both with the overarching theory that informs this opinion, and this particular application of it as an objection.

Yes, it can be harder to make a tight system when it has a lot of options; no, it is not impossible; no, it is not mandatory that every system serve one and only one situation and setting.

Further, I didn't exactly propose options much beyond Color, so take it or leave it: Once I have a copy of The Valley, I am sure I can easily "port" its single-situation, single-setting Valley rules (should they be such) to whatever location, containment, and source of attrition I can image.

And others can, too. Which is why I suggest writing that into the basic rules in the first place: easier prep for more players, broader marketability (leverage many genres), and a clear indication that the game is focused on the emotions and explorations of rising above dispair, not some highly contrived Valley. And further, consider replayability: how many full run games of The Sealed Valley of Disease will folks play, before the setting itself becomes uninteresting and, as such, a barrier to investment into the SIS? Two, maybe? Three? And if what the game is trying to "get at" is this ideal of enlightenment through entrapment, then what difference does it make if the whole situation is abstracted... and, therefore, why not make that crystal clear by having a options mechanic that, while facilitating fast prep, also demonstrates its core irrelevance?

I agree.  I think, in a sense, that they are more liberated.  I mean, they know that they only have so long to live...therefore, they try to live as much as possible for as long as possible.  As PC's, they could have goals that they want to accomplish before they die.

Ah-ha! A Spur! ;-)

Seriously, though, that's exactly what I am asking about. "Goals they want to accomplish" is Spur. Player-defined, situation-defined, no matter. They are Spurs. And I have come to believe that Situation Matters: you may leave it to the GM or players to determine their own Spurs, but wouldn't it be a tighter-fitting product if there were a system in place for preparing/determining Spurs?

Just tryin' to help!
David

P.S. Am I the first one to think this game could be about Hell?
Location: Rings of Hell
Container: The Almighty God and various appointees
Attrition: Insanity, catatonia, or the mindlessness of total agony
Spur: ... (I am still not sure what motivates a doomed but enlightened person--I am only half of one, so far... as are we all, if you think about it on a slightly large scale than a Valley!)

[jknevitt]

All these Island and Valley and disease ideas are expressly designed to deny each of those avenues of hope. The game is, it seems to me, defined by its abject, incontrovertible hopelessness. And that's what made me ask for some notions of Spurs.

Exactly right. It's about what people do when in the most terrible of situations. I could call it "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook" but I'm pretty sure that's taken. ;)

Which is why I suggest writing that into the basic rules in the first place: easier prep for more players, broader marketability (leverage many genres), and a clear indication that the game is focused on the emotions and explorations of rising above despair, not some highly contrived Valley.

This one speaks the truth! I shall learn from his wisdom.

Seriously, though, that's exactly what I am asking about. "Goals they want to accomplish" is Spur. Player-defined, situation-defined, no matter. They are Spurs. And I have come to believe that Situation Matters: you may leave it to the GM or players to determine their own Spurs, but wouldn't it be a tighter-fitting product if there were a system in place for preparing/determining Spurs?

I imagine that given the aforementioned "terrible situation" would be an ample source of Spurs. When you drop a terrible, awful situation in a player's lap and say "what do you do?" they tend to think of instinctual things, things that are really gut reactions. That's what this project is about -- capturing those gut reactions, for good or ill.

Also: Hell is an excellent example. I may steal it for a sample Situation.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Glad I could be of help so far....

When you drop a terrible, awful situation in a player's lap and say "what do you do?" they tend to think of instinctual things, things that are really gut reactions. That's what this project is about -- capturing those gut reactions, for good or ill.

Could I, perhaps, get you to share your imaginings of what would happen at a typical game start and throughout typical play?

My concern is that it might run something like this:GM: [Just finished describing the "vanilla" Valley Location, Enforcers (replacing "Container" as a term, as it was ambiguous), and Attrition] ...So what do you do first?

Player 1: [Looking appropriately abject and going with his gut] So wait, these hazmat guys won't let us out of here? Screw that! I go to the edge of the Valley and try to signal them.

GM: They won't approach you. They are aiming their guns at you.

P1: What? They're gonna shoot me?!

GM: It's a terrible disease; it would wipe out most of humanity; you're a carrier, now. Yep. One shot is all it'll take, judging by where he's aiming.

P1: Don't we have a radio or something?

Player 2: Yeah! I go look for a radio in town.

GM: You find one in the sheriff's office, spend an hour transmitting on it, with no reply. The sheriff watches you impassively, then finally says, "They never answer, now. I guess they's too guilty or sumfin. Can't face us doomed folks."

P1 and P2: [pondering, muttering, thinking]

P1: OK, I am going to try to sneak out, then. There's GOTTA be a way out of here at night, with no moon, on a rainy night. I wait for such a night and prepare... [laundry list]

...

GM: ...and you've been shot in the back. IR scope, you figure, as the black night gets blacker.

P1: Look, is there ANYTHING we can DO?

GM: Nope, you're doomed, and your guy is dead. Player 2, what do you do now?

P2: I contemplate my navel and hope for enlightenment.Am I being fairly clear? There is a balancing act you need to work out: trap and doom the characters v. engage and stimulate the players. Repeatedly. And I just wonder how the players will feel and react, after Plans B, C, D, E, etc. are met with failure.

Perhaps it's an endgame issue: your game is currently mostly situation, and it is being setup so that attempts at solution will not succeed. Thus, I am finding it hard to see an endgame, something towards which to play, yea, a very reason to play.

I will make an argument via a parallel: My buddies and I spent many hours years ago working out wild, weird, fiendish traps and bombs. If you ever saw the MacGyver episode with the ornate bomb on the cruise ship, you saw our inspiration. Now, these bombs and traps could be anything, but they were often timer-based, misleading, with multiple triggers and such. The whole idea was to present enough info for the other guy(s) to be able to work out what sequence of actions would circumvent the bomb/trap. Many times, they failed at first try... and second, third, etc--this was a sort of game with multiple resets, as the bombs could take a long time to design, only to be "blown up" by the first blunder.

How does this relate to The Valley? Well, the KEY to our traps/bombs was that there was a single, bright hope: a way to defuse or bypass them. SOME way. Not always obvious, not always plausible (groaning was a common GM-feedback system), but a way through. An endgame.

What is The Valley's endgame?

Hope this is still helping;
David

[jknevitt]

What is The Valley's endgame?

Still workin' on that part. :D

Really, though, what's the desired endgame in, say, Lord of the Flies? One could say that the endgame is to survive. That's pretty bleak, and Im' sure nobody would enjoy playing in a game where situationally, the game is rigged against you.

The premise of Containment in this scenario assumes that the characters recognize and accept the Containment as a potentially impassable barrier. In your example, the players had a "just dropped in here by parachute" approach, and so felt they could overcome Containment, which to me isn't really the point of the game.

What is the point? Survival. Doing good things in bad situations. Think of one of those old movies where you see a bunch of people trapped somewhere/sick/etc, and only one person can escape/be cured/etc, so it comes down to making the decision as to who that lucky person is.

That's where I'm going with this. The goal isn't "escape". It's "survival", which are two very different things.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

That's where I'm going with this. The goal isn't "escape". It's "survival", which are two very different things.

You recognize, however, that saying "the goal is survival" is moving the bar, right? Without defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."

True, my example of play begged the question about escape... but you prompted that with your "go from gut" point. I was going from my gut, as a player just learning about this game. So, OK, maybe the GM simply stipulates, "Do not attempt to escape or communicate with the Containment," and the players bypass all of my current examples of failure. They move on to... what?

That's all I am trying to get you to talk about. You still have to have some kind of Spur. Surviving is not a Spur; it's a requirement without which you don't have a protagonist. Now, surviving in an inimical environment could be a Spur: the characters must find water, food, and shelter (in that order) within some period of time or die. In such a case, the endgame is "We got it all!" and you are done playing such a Spur. It could even be a thematically interesting Spur, if there is not enough food for all characters to eat indefinitely: now you have a new Spur: determine who is allowed to die. And maybe the guy voted off the island decides he can just reduce the number of competitors the old fashioned way, and you've got ANOTHER Spur: defend against this wacko you sentenced to death (v. knock off a few of those assholes who've doomed you, so that they have enough food to share with you). Now you've got a competitive (PvP) element to your Spur. So the wacko gets killed (or kills) and that is resolved; now you've got still more Spur: (if the game has such mechanics) can the killer deal with the guilt of their crime of pragmatism, or will they become the next loony on the island? Succeed: game over. Fail: go back to the PvP Spur and repeat ad nauseum.

What you have now--as interesting and compelling and succinct as it is--is just a system hanging in space. (Abstracted space, even, if you go with my earlier notions about making the game colorless by default and letting players define Location, Containment, and Attrition.) To use a parallel from one of your inspirations, what would the story of The Village be about, if there was simply no way out? Townie in-fighting over mating rights, I suppose. Better farming practices to increase crop yields. Population control to make sure the logical results of those mating rights don't overwhelm the improved yields. Probably a lot of cookouts and sports.

Where is the game in that mere survival, that maintenance? Why would a player play? What does a player do?

(Aside: I guess Spur is Big Model Situation, technically. Without Situation, you got no game, you have a setting and system. I had to have that hammered into me recently, myself.)

Not trying to knock you, just wanting to see the third leg of the S Triangle;
David

[joepub]

You recognize, however, that saying "the goal is survival" is moving the bar, right? Without defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."

Jknevitt, David has sort of expressed this a few times in different words, but maybe not elaborated enough.

For clarity, just if it is required:
In a typical zombie movie, the goal is to not get eaten. only physical survival matters.

Because you are dying, and are diseased, "physical survival" doesn't seem like it can be the sole proponent driving you forward.

I have a situation for you:
Old Man Peters was in terminal condition a month ago.
He was in the final stages, and the disease was overcoming him.
His son went missing, and he mysteriously began climbing back to health.
You ask him, "dude, what restored you to health?" He confesses, "I ate my son."
He tells you that eating someone's soul allowed you to gain their health.

Now, maybe you don't want to see this example come up in-game. Personally, I do.
I think that'd make a wicked story arc.
Think of the angles!

Anyways...
Is Old Man Peters surviving in this case?
Physically surviving, yes....

But I think The Valley has the ability to address survival of the soul, survival of sanity, etc, etc.
Maybe in The Valley, "surviving" means "staying you".

When David says:

Without defining exactly what is being survived and how that is modelled in the game, you might as well say, "The goal is to forgenborgen."

...I think that's what he's addressing.

What exactly is surviving? The body? (surely not, because the game isn't about navigating physical dangers.)
the soul? the mind? the heart? humanity? kindness?
the ability to do good? the ability to be selfish?