I love you, daddy dragon

[Callan S.]

I got this idea because I own a gargantuan D&D black dragon mini and a young black dragon mini. I had them sitting near each other, but my seven year old son kept putting the young dragon right at the feet of the larger dragon, nestled between its legs, even when I moved it back.

The basic idea is that all but one player plays the dragon hatchling. That one other player plays the hatchlings father. This role might be rotated around the group in the end, but for now I'll talk about it as if just one player does it the whole time. The hatchling follows the dragon daddy through a day or days of carnage. This is slightly tricky, because although the player of the father should be playing out his character, I want the rules to say the father is not just chaotic - he has some structure to his tyranny - perhaps more like doctor doom only far more savage. On the other hand, there is no story of redemption here - he's not a killer tyrant cause really he's just scared inside, its because it serves his purposes and it's pleasurable.

As said, the dragon hatchling follows the father through the day, but he isn't to participate in any of the carnage as I don't want the question to be about what the hatchling would do. However, the father may punish or praise the child for being slow to keep up or squeemish. Punishments can include slaps and even beatings - yes, we can have this, I'm sure their being dragons adds enough perspective and distance. In play such violence is just said to happen by the player of the father - the hatchling players aren't supposed to respond, just observe. The rules will inform the player of the father he's saying something not for reaction, but for silent judgement.

So what is the question? What are they judging? Bascially I imagine it as a thirty minute game, timed with a stopwatch. In the last five minutes, unless one of the hatchling players can bring themselves to say in character "I love you, daddy dragon", the father dies. Those exact words - no conditions thrown on by players. There is no in game causal connection for the death - its purely there for the consideration of players sympathy. That sympathy, whatever amount, combined with a childs adoring perspective of his father. That's how they judge.

The actual question - or more a hypothesis - is that love is morally empty. Is 'amoral' the right word for that? Anyway, play is a stab at looking at that hypothesis and players can come up with any conclusion.

I terms of rules I think some scene creation rules where the whole group influences the next scene of carnage, would be good. Other than that this is my rough outline, because I'm probably missing some bit that players would need to know - and since I know it already, I'm kind of blind to what it might be, heh.

[Simon_Pettersson]

I ... don't get it. What do the hatchlings do? The father roams around and burns castles and whatnot, but not the hatchlings. So what do they do? Comment? Follow around silently?

[Filip Luszczyk]

Callan,

The "observe under a time limit and decide if you want to stand up" model reminds me about The Parasite Project, my Compact RPG Challenge entry. I could even see some ways of dealing with the situation using TPP rules (I've been considering using TPP for different scenarios, e.g. players in the role of psycho's conscience or the like). The game can be found here. Still, it's basically a slightly refined 24h design and it remains untested up to this day.

[Simon C]

This is a pretty interesting idea, but I think maybe it needs some work to turn it into a playable game.  I can see a couple of problems:

There's little way for the events in the game to influence the players' decision about whether they can love daddy dragon.  The players know from the outset that daddy's gonna do some pretty brutal stuff, so the specifics of what happens when you play it out seem a bit irrelevant.  The players basically decide "we're evil creatures, so anything we do is ok", or they decide "being evil doesn't let us off the hook, I can't forgive that." It seems like the Daddy player, whatever the dragon does, isn't gonna really influence what the players decide. 

Also, the fact that one player can decide how the outcome of the game goes, even over the objections of other players, is kind of deprotagonizing.  This might be a feature rather than a bug though, I'm not sure.

Overally, it's an interesting idea.  The themes are definitely powerful ones to play with, and I think it's the kernal of a great game, but I'm not sure if I could play it the way you describe it here.  I'd be interested in what direction you take it, if any.

[Callan S.]

The central question is 'Is love amoral?'. As a player, upon hearing the text/Me suggest that, you determine your stance on that issue - yes it is, no it isn't, it kind of is but X, Y, Z, whatever your stance is (but you DO need a stance) - then you play and see how you feel on the issue afterward. It's okay if you feel the same. In fact its a result!

The whole reason you'd play is because you want to see if your moved to some new position on the subject. That's it - if your not interested in that sort of question, its missplaced to play (like using a wrench to bang in a nail is missplaced).

If you are not moved, that's fine - it's a result! Why you would decide to play this is to see if you are or are not moved. Your not playing expecting to be moved for some entertainments sake.

The players basically decide "we're evil creatures, so anything we do is ok", or they decide "being evil doesn't let us off the hook, I can't forgive that." It seems like the Daddy player, whatever the dragon does, isn't gonna really influence what the players decide.

This seems to be determining stance, but simply for expediencies sake, like one might decide in order to expediently play D&D, that good alignments killing hordes of evil alignments. You decide it's to happen without question.

Rather than adopting a stance so as to stomach play (like mindlessly killing evil in D&D), the only feature you'd decide to play this game for is to see if you can stomach you stance. Particularly during those last five minutes.

I myself have been 'morally flexible' for a variety of roleplay games, simply as an expedient, otherwise play would grind to a halt 'should kobolds really die?'. For this game, it's only fun if I'm morally inflexible. Or to be exact, to see if I will be morally inflexible or if I will be moved. If I dare to find that out.

Also, the fact that one player can decide how the outcome of the game goes, even over the objections of other players, is kind of deprotagonizing.  This might be a feature rather than a bug though, I'm not sure.

The dragon living or dieing is basically meaningless in terms of outcomes. It's like I have you behind bullet proof glass and from the otherside I swing a sledgehammer at your head. The outcome isn't whether you get hit, it's how you react. Here it isn't whether the daddy dragon lives or dies, it's how you feel about it.

As I see it, it isn't one player deciding. All the players are screaming at the end, even if they are silent - if they had their way they would condemn him - their silence shows that. That is more important that whether he actually dies or not, because were talking real people here.

The other players wont be objecting - they know what their silence means and know their statement is more important than imaginary dragons lives. If they are objecting, it's likely they are grasping at some other imagined point of play.

Of course, all of this - I'm not going to have the luxury of a internet forum to explain it in a back and forth. So while I'm arguing it here, I'd like help on how to phrase it (primarily so players will know if this is the game for them or to turn away - I don't want text that converts people, I just want to give informed consent).



Hi Filip,

Could you tell me more about the structure of your game - I've had a read but I've never been good at absorbing anything but gamist designs. Sorry, I know I'm lame to ask

[Filip Luszczyk]

Well, the big problem of TPP is that I didn't include explicit and clear "driving instructions".

The idea was that the characters lose control over themselves, dominated by a murderous parasite.  Players decide on a number of things the characters care for. The GM-figure controls the parasites, and presents the group with what the characters are forced to do. He "attacks" whatever was chosen as Concerns, gradually threatening them more and more (the need for gradually escalating threatening and harming is probably something I should have stressed in the text, but didn't). Also, he provides the players with Objectives, leading to discovering the nature of the parasites and ways of getting rid of them (again, something I should have provided clear examples of). Players sit and observe and can do nothing until they start their stopwatches to take over the narration. But there is only so much time they can use. During the session, various triggers  move Hope tokens between players and GM, and if someone accumulates enough, he can save himself or some other character (it's quite impossible for everyone to be saved).

In theory, it should produce difficult choices, like do you stop your infected friend from harming your sister, or do you follow the government car, or are you unmoved and save up your precious time? But as I said, I didn't had a chance to playtest it yet - and the game itself I've written as an experiment rather than with playing it extensively myself in mind.

Now, if I were to squeeze the dragon and hatchling situation into the rules, I'd probably make it possible for everyone, including the GM, to control the dragon, and for the players to also control the hatchling. Or maybe every player would have his individual hatchling. Depending on the actions of the dragon and the reactions of the hatchling, Hope would change. E.g. if the hatchling needs dragon's help, and the dragon refuses, one Hope token is transferred to the GM; if the dragon punishes the hatchling, each player would have an option of giving one token to the GM or taking one token from him; and the like. If one of the players managed to accumulate enough Hope, he could decide to say "I love you daddy" or maybe to leave the dragon and become independent or the like. If the time would pass before enough Hope tokens were gathered by someone, the dragon would simply die.

[Callan S.]

In terms of what the players do, I think that's supporting another issue. This game is like being on a jury - adding the ability to do things or need help with stuff or leave the daddy dragon is leading to doing something else. The buy in for this game, the big thing that comes foremost to mind, is that you get to play a jury. If it's not coming foremost to mind, then it's just like a food you don't favour.

On a large side note for all in the thread: From my own observations of others and my own history, alot of that play is actually about 'finding' the largest reward cycle. To quickly define that, the largest reward cycle in chess is marked by the checkmate rules. However in roleplay, it's often 'found' by a group - usually because the book doesn't define it. Usually players 'find' it by 'doing' stuff - they need to be able to do stuff so as to indicate 'this is important, this is part of the final reward cycle' (whether agreement occurs at any level is another matter). In fact that seems almost the feature of roleplay for many people is defining the largest reward cycle. It also seems to be the cause of some of the biggest upsets, personal hurt and friendship busting.

Anyway, rambling a bit - this game doesn't let you 'do stuff'. The final reward cycle is preset by the author.

I say all this, because I thought it would be shocking to ask "Is love amoral?". I thought it'd be a real issue people bite into. But no ones mentioned it at all - so far weve looked at 'what can you do?'. I can't help but think that if you A: walk past a big issue yet B: still want to do something, you most likely want to do some other issue than the one set by the author.

[cydmab]

I say all this, because I thought it would be shocking to ask "Is love amoral?". I thought it'd be a real issue people bite into.

My reaction to the question "Is love amoral" is "of course it is!" rendering it a boring question to me

More seriously, I wonder if this is better suited as a short story format rather than a game. You can do the jury thing by just reading. Write it from the baby dragon's perspective, but don't have the baby dragon say anything.

[BigElvis]

Hi Callan,
The complexity of love and other emotions and morality is definitely an interesting theme for a game. The problems are, as I see them:

30 minutes is actually quite a long time to listen to somebody desribing his evil doing. 5 minutes seems too long. What players do is extremely important and being a jury just isn't enough. I would rather just have an discussion on ethics with my friends. This is connected with the fact that I agree with cydmab: the answer to your question simply does seem to be "yes".

Your game actually doesn't adress the question in a fair way. All we get is the fathers evil doing and even punishment of the dragon. The players have to imagine themselves the bonds that exist between the hatchling and the father like "he does feed me", "save me from knights and mages" and maybe even "he does love me"

It is still an interesting question that might be suited for a game, but it does have to be more of a game somehow.

Lars

[Leviathan]

The idea itself could be fun for a short game. I have to concur with the others that the moral questions posed seem fairly straitforward in the answer, so I am not sure that that alone would make for a grand draw for this sort of game. When I picture this, I get an idea of something you pull out at a party where a number of your gamer friends are at as well as a few people who are less inclined to RPGs as a general rule. In my mind, I see different situations arising based on different sorts of dragons as well. Do the players know the full story or do they only know what they see from the moment of their hatching? The knight who comes to kill them, is he seeking fame, vengance, or is it merely an irrational fear based on knowing dragons are dangerous that makes him seek out this family? The hatchlings can only go by what they see evidenced. If there were some sort of instictive traits added into the mix, then the players could be battling between instinct and logic without any deeper knowledge to go by. That could make for an intriguing moral quandry I suspect. It goes from being a question of the morality of love into one of "Is the act we see justified." It makes the whole session one of finding your way in a world you don't know anything about and trying to understand situations that go beyond your present understandings.

Will the player walk away with some greater understanding of life in general? Maybe... but will they have fun finding their way to whatever conclusion they make? That I think is also important. Will there be conversations with the parent before any interaction with the outside world (pep talks, hate propeganda, etc..) or are the players simply to listen as a chaotic scene of destruction unfolds and then deal with the aftermath in a manner that they feel impotent to affect due to the weakness of being so young...I am not sure how coherent my thoughts are coming across, but these were some of the things I have been pondering when I think of this game idea. I expect this could be a very enjoyable game, but as a player, I would need to feel secure in the idea that I would be able to enjoy myself without it feeling too much like a moral soapbox type gameing experience. I hope my thoughts prove helpful to you in this process.

[Callan S.]

I've thought about this for awhile now.

Basically I doubt it's that it's as straight forward as 'love is amoral'. I think it'll break into something less simple than that, for players in play. And to begin with, whenever a concept seems cut and dried, that's when it generates doubt for me. The more 'oh things are just that way' the more doubt it generates for me.

In terms of times, instead of turning this into a five minute thing or even less, I've thought of a pacing mechanic. The first one I thought of involved 'stones'. You could 'cast' them and it reduces the decision timer down by X minutes. In addition to that, a random table of tortures for the daddy dragon is rolled on. The more stones that have been cast, the easier it is to get the worst results from the table. These tortures will include all sorts of nasty things. Basically if you've already decided he should die, you have to torture him further to just get it over with quickly.

But then I thought of you cats who have already decided he should live. Same thing, some sort of token (whats the reverse of being stoned to death? Use that for the name), but in this case it gives the dragon even more wickid opportunities that he of course takes. So bascially if you've already he should live, you have to give him even more opportunities to show how he should die, if you want to get it over with quickly.

Also in either case the fact that it isn't the GM trying to manipulate you but a direct result of your own choices, makes the situation a genuine one. Also tortures and wickid opportunities don't cancel each other out, but both do make the deciding time come rapidly closer.

And everyone loves tables of torture, aka the critical charts from warhammer and rolemaster!

I guess I'm just sounding this out, which isn't much of a question to ask.