Relics of Power

[jim pinto]

Our playtest of Relics of Power did not go well. Because of the open-ended nature of the game, the PCs took the DAGGER OF POWER and used it to their own aims. Well. One PC anyway. At present their doesn't seem to be a smart enough system for getting the PCs to share the relic. And once someone has the relic, he/she bulldozes over the other players.

I originally wanted to create a GM-less game about PCs tempted and corrupted by absolute power... but gamers aren't easily disuaded... and I think the desire to drop the hammer on the kingdom with their very own BOOMSTICK is too difficult to pass up.

What am I missing?

Playtesters: Aaron, Josh, jim

[Eero Tuovinen]

There's too many projects here to keep track of. Do you have a link to earlier discussion of the game? The problem seems familiar, but I can't say anything without knowing a bit more about what you're doing.

Love the terse reporting style, though. Should have more of that here.

[jim pinto]

This is my first playtest, so my previous post would be on the first thoughts page.

BASIC PREMISE: The PCs have the RELIC, the thing that can shake mountains. And while my original idea was to create the story of how that corrupts them while RETURNING it to Mt. Doom, few people liked being FORCED to return it.

But, that essentially was the game.

Now it's a little different. And leaving the option open to do whatever you want with that power is blowing up in my face. So I'm trying to find that balance between moralizing the game and leaving it so open that it devolves into onamism.

[Eric Borzello]

I've looked around but don't see any rules posted for this game online, so I'll just ask you directly. What reason do the players have in the current version of the rules to give up the relic? Is there any feature of the rules which discourages just grabbing the relic and beating down the other players?

[Callan S.]

Now it's a little different. And leaving the option open to do whatever you want with that power is blowing up in my face. So I'm trying to find that balance between moralizing the game and leaving it so open that it devolves into onamism.

Devolves amongst the players or the characters?

Because I think what your trying to get to is interesting in how it's unpleasant - but if you bring that to the people at the table as well as the characters, that's just an unpleasant session.