America vs. insurgents: RPG campaign allegory

[Roy Batty]

I'm looking to get back into gaming after a long hiatus.  The idea that's itching my noodle so bad that I have to run it:  explore the moral difficulties in both sides of a terrorist/insurgent conflict in a game setting, by placing the characters between an expanding empire and a small unconventional army.  As the terrorists escalate, so too does the empire, in a quagmire inducing spiral.  The characters could be running from the empire, and thus sympathetic to the resistance at first, at least until the terrorists really stop pulling the punches.  I figure it could make for great gaming if some characters are sympathetic to each side-- each seeing the other as demonic, and therefore justified to use any response.
   
I've got a lot of ideas for possible settings and systems, but I'm stuck, and I've got players itching for this thing to get rolling.  I'd certainly see the game as primarily story centered, so a minimum of "real-world simulation" crunch would be best.  I've looked through a ton of systems to run this badboy, but so far nothing has clicked.  Possibilities: Dogs, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Paladin, Weapons of the Gods, or Qin.

One thought I had would be to combine wuxia with Don't Rest Your Head: have Open Palm vs. Closed Fist (ala Jade Empire) schools of kung fu tempting players on both sides.  Each school has merit, each becomes monstrous when taken to extremes (and thus each school has adherents that are respectable and monstrous).  Open Palm is Spock-like rationality and detachment, "the good of the many outweigh the good of the one" in moderation, and the French Revolution at the extreme.  Closed Fist is individuality and passion in moderation, and bloody might-makes-right in the extreme.
   
The story in this incarnation might revolve around kung fu vs. the incoming imperialist armies.  It might combine quite well with a wuxia reincarnation of Star Wars. 
   
Please send me thoughts, criticism, and suggestions!

[joepub]

Welcome to the forge, Roy!

You have some really cool ideas. I just want to hone in on a few things:

1.) Why would Sorcerer be a good pick? What would demons represent? I don't get this one.

2.) Are you looking for "find the right side and rise against the evil one"?
Star Wars had a definite set of good guys, and an definite set of bad guys, in its terrorists vs. imperials story.

3.) Are the players going to lead one side to victory, or are they pawns stranded?
What is their role in the clash? (I realize they will be jumping between sides potentially, I'm more asking about their significance and power)


4.) Are we focusing on the battlefront? individual duels that take place far away from the front lines, but have all the power to change the war? Are we in political chambers, arguing over maps and tactics?


Once you answer those questions, some possible  ideas to run with a bit:

-You are journalists, employed by FOX NEWS to cover the story of the evil insurgents.
But... along the way, you realize they are human too.
Something like "carry. a game about war" could work for this.

-You are mercenaries, ammunition suppliers and trade route supervisors.
What will you allow? How much does money matter?

-You are there to judge people - to figure out who is right and who is corrupted by hate and animosity.
Dogs in the Vineyard, but the cities are battlegrounds.

-You are a couple lost souls, caught in a shifting landscape of shells, war and secret organizations rallying for war.
Who are the true evils? What must a good person  bring themselves to do in the name of good?
Who are these masked men roaming around a blocked-off, secret part of the city?
And why the hell have you found your way into it?
(Don't Rest your Head, 100%)

-Like you said, wuxia meets DRYH. I think it could work really well, and might be hella cool.
Also... for some reason, I can't help but think of The Last Samurai here.

[mikefernandez]

I think america is in episode 2 right now so says the prophet george lucas.

[Roy Batty]

Thanks for the response and all the thoughts, Joepub! 

If you don't mind, I'll quote through and answer your questions one-by-one:

1.) Why would Sorcerer be a good pick? What would demons represent? I don't get this one.

I thought Sorcerer might work as the tension and stakes in the conflict rise, each side is contacted by demons looking to feed off of the conflict itself.  The fundamental question in the campaign then might become,    do the characters succumb to the base urges of violence as the situation descends into anarchy, or do they overcome their literal demons?

2.) Are you looking for "find the right side and rise against the evil one"?
Star Wars had a definite set of good guys, and an definite set of bad guys, in its terrorists vs. imperials story.

I think I'm leaning towards making the resistance the side of right, at least at the end of the story, but both the empire and the insurgents each have their share of saints and sinners.  Perhaps it would be best to leave the question of which side to be settled in game, as the players decide?

3.) Are the players going to lead one side to victory, or are they pawns stranded?
What is their role in the clash? (I realize they will be jumping between sides potentially, I'm more asking about their significance and power)

My thought was to make the campaign epic in scale, with the players low on the totem pole at first, but rising to prominence as the war continues.

4.) Are we focusing on the battlefront? individual duels that take place far away from the front lines, but have all the power to change the war? Are we in political chambers, arguing over maps and tactics?

I'd like for the game to include combat, but to not focus entirely on it.  My thought was to have skirmishes and politicking as tension is building, building, as an apocalyptic final conflict looms.  Who wins this conflict, and at what cost, or whether it can be avoided entirely, would be a central question at the end of the campaign, as I envision it.

I like your campaign ideas...especially the DRYH and the Dogs in the Vineyard.  Perhaps the characters could be a sort of inquisitorial/internal affairs group, either part of the empire or the resistance (with one as a secret agent for the other side?), and they could be hunting out traitors and "corrupted."  Hmmm...neato!

[Anders Larsen]

It seems to me that you don't have found a focus for this game yet, and without a focus it can be very hard to decide on a system. So I have some questions:

What is the central moral dilemma the characters faces?

What is the exact situation the characters find them self in in this game?

What will a typical conflict in this game be about?

You have answered some of these question to some degree, but try to be more specific.

- Anders

[Roy Batty]

Thanks for the response Anders!

What is the central moral dilemma the characters faces?

The central theme I'd like to focus on is, "How much violence is reasonable as a response to violence?  Is there a way out of the cycle of retribution?  How can two sides who demonize one another be brought back to the table to work out their differences?  (i.e. is it possible to deprogram someone after indoctrination?)"

What is the exact situation the characters find them self in in this game?

The characters will initially be fleeing the empire, very aware of its abuses, and therefore initially sympathetic to the resistance.  But as the carnage escalates and they meet more sympathetic voices from the empire, and see more demonic characters in the resistance, their loyalty may shift.

What will a typical conflict in this game be about?

One approach that might work would be to have the characters sent on missions for the resistance, some of which they can agree with, while others they do not.  Perhaps philisophically opposed, feuding resistance commanders send them on very dissimilar sorts of missions.  Thus a question could become, to whom do they pledge their loyalty?

Another thought: Dune might provide another good setting for this type of idea: to have the characters be Fremen fighting the Emperor on Arrakis.

Hope this helps! 

(All of my answers are open to adaption if anyone has better ideas!)

[Anders Larsen]

Good answers!

Here are some things I would look for in a system for this:

* The conflict between the two fractions should mirror the journey of the characters. 

* The characters risk to be dragged into the conflict, especially when they use violence.

* It should be very tempting for the characters to use violence - it will always be the easy way out.

* Loyalty is important. You can not be neutral; you are ether with us or against us!

* The initial goal of the characters is: They want to do the right thing.

Some ideas for mechanics:

Character should have passions - things they feel very strongly about. It can be something they desire or something they hate or some strong principles they have. These passions can drive them forth, but they can also blind them, and drag them down into the conflicts.

"Want to do the right thing" should be the strongest passion, but every time the characters do something that results in violence, this passion will be "reduced".

The more loyal the characters are to one of the fractions the stronger they are. But this loyalty will also bind them, by binding their passions (their desires will be toward the current fraction, their hatreds will be against the other fraction). The character will only have this extra strength as long as they obey the fraction.

The fraction should try to get the characters to do thing that results in violence (this is the GM's responsibility).

The more passions that have bounded the characters the stronger will the conflict be between the two fractions. 


You should note that this is only some random thoughts. I have no idea if it can make a complete system. But I hope it can give you some inspiration.

- Anders

[Roy Batty]

Thanks much for the input Anders!

To me, your suggestions would seem to point towards Dogs in the Vineyard, especially regarding the easy but dangerous temptation to use violence to solve problems. 

"Want to do the right thing" should be the strongest passion, but every time the characters do something that results in violence, this passion will be "reduced".

This is a cool idea; I'm trying to decide whether this would be best modeled as an explicit mechanic, ala Sorcerer or Don't Rest Your Head, or whether the judgement and consequences should be left more abstract, as in Dogs. 

The more loyal the characters are to one of the factions the stronger they are. But this loyalty will also bind them, by binding their passions (their desires will be toward the current faction, their hatreds will be against the other faction). The character will only have this extra strength as long as they obey the faction.

The faction should try to get the characters to do thing that results in violence (this is the GM's responsibility).

These excellent ideas make me think of Star Wars, and the temptation of the dark side.

Perhaps, then, the Banthas in the Vineyard adaptions might make for a good setting for this campaign.  Hmmmm....

Excellent food for thought! 

[aaronil]

Roy,
A fascinating and timely concept for a game. I have a question about the role of the Narrator (assuming there is one). Is the Narrator's main role to tempt the players, create moral dilemmas, and encourage debate? Or do all players have the power to tempt one another or question something asserted as fact (e.g. challenging a phrase like: "Speaking against your government is a form of treason during war time.") If not, what is the Narrator's role?

Do you mean the game to be educational? If so, I suggest you check out A Force More Powerful. The website talks about non-violence theory and various types of non-violent action that have been successful. You also might check out the Albert Einstein Institute and the Center for Nonviolent Communication.

[joepub]

I'm going to respond to aaronil's question with my own answer.


I think that whatever side the characters side with (if they do...) should be the "good" and "holy" side in their eyes.
But in the end, as per what the WORLD thinks - there are no good guys.

It should (in my opinion) be "pick sides in a world of violence. Who is at fault here? Who, in a world of mutual aggression, do you believe in?"

I'm going to reccomend you watch a movie.
A really, really crappy movie overall: Silent Hill.
Why this movie?

There is this evil demon, in the form of a small, fragile child.
And there is this this crazy cult, in the form of a dedicated, puritan faith.

At one point, the main character decides "this side is the good side."

And from that point on, the church are the bad guys. Their actions are evil things carried out against the "good guys"
And from that point on, the demon is one of the good guys. Her actions are evil things carried out against the "bad guys" - and are thus okay.

Crappy movie, but great for that single point.

[lollerkeet]

Setting issues:

1. Why are the Imperials there?
'They are good people following bad orders' won't work; it's not grey enough. The villains in Rifts were a fascist dictatorship, but justified because they were the only thing between humanity and Hell.
But that won't cut it in your case: if the Imperials are needed, it isn't a dilemma.

2. Where are the characters' loyalties?
Mixed loyalties are actually pretty simple. Consider a South Vietnamese soldier; fighting for a brutal tyrant who was a puppet of a foriegn capitalist democracy against a communist democracy of your own people who had invaded your country to remove your leader and who would probably see you as a traitor to Vietnam.

I've been looking at my first point for five minutes and really have no suggestions. Having the PCs as Imperials may work; a Nazi would concievably dessert, but go over to the Resistance and join attacks on his old comrades?

[Roy Batty]

Aaronil, joepub, and lollerkeet, thanks for the comments!

Is the Narrator's main role to tempt the players, create moral dilemmas, and encourage debate? Or do all players have the power to tempt one another or question something asserted as fact (e.g. challenging a phrase like: "Speaking against your government is a form of treason during war time.") If not, what is the Narrator's role?

I conceive of the game as being structured along fairly conventional RPG lines...i.e. a Game Master providing story elements to push the players to explore their characters philosophical boundaries. 

Do you mean the game to be educational?

I don't intend the game to be educational in terms of me instructing the players.  Certainly I would like for some intense intellectual exploration to occur, but I'm hoping that will be achieved naturally during the course of play.

I think that whatever side the characters side with (if they do...) should be the "good" and "holy" side in their eyes.
But in the end, as per what the WORLD thinks - there are no good guys.

Absolutely.  Both sides will find it necessary as the campaign intensifies to ally their cause with all that is fine and good, and to demonize their opponents.

It should (in my opinion) be "pick sides in a world of violence. Who is at fault here? Who, in a world of mutual aggression, do you believe in?"

Perhaps a good way to go about the story here would be to follow the model of Fahrenheit 451, where the protagonist starts very sympathetic to the empire, hearing only one side of the argument, but as he learns more about the truth of the situation, becomes sympathetic to the opposition.  The campaign thus could include revelations about methods being used by the empire, and the lack of credibility about some of their propaganda.  Though I'd like to have some characters end up on each side, or at least have to struggle with the issue, rather than having them walk through my story about why empires are bad.  I guess this is where I'm not sure how to proceed.

Lollerkeet: I guess I'm not quite clear on your point.  From my point of view, the more valid the empire's reason for "intervening," the more grey the conflict becomes. 

What I am thinking for a story setup: an empire invades under false pretences, actually merely engaging in a power grab.  As the characters learn that not everything they were told about the demonic terrorists or the righteous empire is true, they also find out that the resistance is being led by an old opponent of the empire, who's gone totally off the deep end in his crusade to push back the invasion.

Looming questions:

How to keep the characters from merely washing their hands of the entire conflict?

How to keep this game from being a total GM railroad?  How do I provide the players with real choice about the story?

The comments so far are much appreciated...please keep them coming!

[NN]

An idea about the Setting.

Although there may be nominally two sides, in reality there should be lots of different factions, of different morality, some with the possibility to switch sides. The players can affect the big picture by helping or fighting the different factions on both sides.

[joepub]

I totally agree with NN.

There is an imperium.
It should have multiple inner organizations that function differently.
and inside those organizations there should be dissenters, disagreements, etc.

And there will be more than one group of rebels.
Maybe a peaceful group that wants to tone down violence, but keep the imperium.
And another peaceful group that wants to see decentralized leadership.
And a violent group that wants religious control of state.

And... sometimes they are on uneasy truce against a mutual enemy, but sometimes they are at each others' throats, too.

[Roy Batty]

Ehhhhxcellent.  Thank you NN and joepub. 

My interest in the topic of terrorism/unconventional warfare started as study of the IRA, and factionalism is of huge import in that theatre.  For instance, circa 1969-70, when members of the movement felt that the leadership was going to soft, i.e. not engaging in enough military action and recognizing and negotiating with the government, they split off and eventually pulled most of the organization with them, while delegitimizing the original leadership.

So how would you model this in an RPG?  I can easily come up with a kick ass, complex unconvential army with all sorts of factions and personalities, and an invading empire to match, but how would you bring the PC's in, without railroading and fiating them from point to point?  Would you start by drawing out a relationship map?  (Something I've never really done...any resources that might be useful?)

I recently purchased but have yet to run Dogs in the Vineyard...would its self-judging morality translate well into this type of story?  While I can easily see the conflict resolution in play, I'm not sure what would be the proxy for the towns.