[Wasteland] A modernist RPG

[ed_keer]

I love option C. very cool. I like it because it stays away from the more meta approach. It puts the abstract into the details. If that makes any sense.

[Eric Provost]

I love option C.

Really?  Because I thought that C was the weakest one of the bunch.  I mean, if I'm playing a single character, even a very cool one, then how do I keep my focus on destroying the protagonist via Consumerism?

If we were playing via option A, then each of the GM/antagonist players could totally be swapping NPCs back and forth between themselves to fuck with the PC.  One minute Mona, girl at coffee shop, is giving the protagonist shit about wearing old clothes (no matter what condition they're in!) by way of the Consumerism player.  The next Mona's telling the PC that he should be working more overtime at that job he hates so that he can buy those new clothes, all by way of the Crushing Mindless Job player.

You'd still have your abstract in the details, and each player would have a clear and obvious goal in mind every minute of play.

In fact, I think it'd be awesome if the GM/antagonist players were in some kind of competition to see who gets to be the one who destroys the protagonist.  I mean, the Mindless Job player and the Consumerism player may seem to have similar goals (get the character to work hard to buy more stuff!), but really they have their own little piece of his soul to claim, don't they?  In the end we could know if it was Joe's new shoes or his new cubicle that really crushed him once and for all.

[joepub]

I like option C the most too.
Keep in mind these aren't cut-and-dried options either. Maybe two work well together?

Because I thought that C was the weakest one of the bunch.  I mean, if I'm playing a single character, even a very cool one, then how do I keep my focus on destroying the protagonist via Consumerism?

No. Eric, the idea was that you weren't trying to destroy the protagonist via Consumerism.
Note how "Consumerism" was mentioned in the other two examples but not this one.

You are solely trying to destroy the protagonist via your character.

Ex. Thomas is our protagonist. He's 35, rides the bus to work because it's better on the environment (But at the same time he doesn't particularly care for the outdoors.) He lives alone, in the cheap part of town (saving money for god knows what.)
There's this man who gets on and off at the same stops he does.
This man sings on the bus - melancholy, heartbreaking songs. He sings beautifully, even though he looks like a sewer rat.
This man never talks to anyone, even if they talk to him. He just sings.

Somehow, this man will affect Thomas. His actions will expose things about Thomas, during narrative.
Thomas will get angered by this man, or fall in love with him, or eventually follow him off the bus or something.
Maybe this man will break habit and talk to Thomas. Maybe this will be shocking.

This man is played by a player.

Thomas's mother hates him for not getting married.
She thinks he's pathetic, and he doesn't even own a goddam car.
He's wasting his life, and he should have gone to college.

Somehow, this mother will expose to us things about Thomas.

This mother is played by a player.


The "players take on roles like Consumerism" idea was sorta tossed out the window for "players take on roles like The Man on the Bus".

[Eric Provost]

You are solely trying to destroy the protagonist via your character.

Well, I can only say that I really just don't get the modernism thing then. 

The "players take on roles like Consumerism" idea was sorta tossed out the window for "players take on roles like The Man on the Bus".

Yeah.  I get that.  I'm just dissapointed with it.  Because I think you can do both with option A.  Play Consumerism and the Man on the Bus.

But this is still Ed's design.  And I'd like to hear about how each player having a specific character will support the modernism thing.  I'm not saying it won't, I just don't understand how.

[ed_keer]

Here's where I run up against my ignorance. Both options could be interesting, but lead to different types of games.
But I'd much rather have the ideas of modernism infused into the game rather than directed by the game. So I like the idea of players playing specific characters instead of playing modern forces. Then perhaps you incorporate modernism by the type of conflicts or choices players get to make with their characters.

[Eric Provost]

That's cool.  Go with what you're excited about.

So, ok, how would you infuse modernism into the game via the characters?  What will seperate the foils from the protagonist?  And how will that seperation potentially destroy the protagonist in a modernist way?

-Eric

[joepub]

What will seperate the foils from the protagonist?

This question is ESSENTIAL.
The protagonist needs to have something on the sheet/in the rules that makes him/her mechanically different than the foils. Something which makes the story oriented around him/her.

But the foils also need to have something that the Protagonist doesn't. A resource, or another element on their sheet, or something.

Because if the protagonist is the only one with kewl stuff on the sheet, no one will want to play the foils.

[TroyLovesRPG]

The posts have me thinking about some of the modernist characteristics (I've observed) and how they could direct the game.
No hero
Multiple protagonists
Stream of consciousness
Variable time
Metaphor
Personification
Identity vs conformity
Truth vs bliss
Emotion vs function
Life vs security

The characters are struggling to balance their lives while making sense of the world in which they live. They want to function blissfully, conforming to the standards adopted by the populace. On the other hand they want to live, embrace emotion, truth and discover their unique identities . Each cannot achieve this on their own. They must interact with the others and hopefully gain insight.

The goal is to increase Identity, Truth, Emotion and Life without losing all conformity, bliss, function and security.

In turn, each character becomes the focus of the group. Conversations revolve around issues the character wants to resolve. The other players must determine which aspect needs to be increased or which one needs to be reduced. To increase Truth the player must reduce conformity, function or security; to increase Emotion the player must reduce conformity, bliss or security; and so on. The focus may or may not want the others to guess correctly and there are drawbacks to deception. Also, the others may not want to give in to the conversation. So, there are multiple outcomes to the conversation, affecting the focus and another player, beneficially or poorly.

The mechanics should be simple enough to create. Its possible to use hidden answers and reveal them at once or just wait for the first player who guesses correctly. Incorrect guesses should be penalized in some way.

I'm sleepy.