Blood in the Thickets

[Nathan Herrold]

well here goes,
I've been bouncing a possible game idea off of Jason Morningstar, and he has said to post some of my thoughts and i guess proposals here, to see what kind of feedback i get.  i'm not sure if i have any great questions to ask, just yet anyway.
this idea all started with me reading "the WInd in the Willows" not to long ago, and sort of thinking to myself "gee, they don't behave anything at all like animals".  they just acted like British men.  little hairy British men.  i then thought, pretty much right away, or as i was reading it "what if they ate each other?".  what if they behaved a bit more like i think animals in nature behave, which is probably desperate, bloody, and paranoid.   but, i kinda wanted to keep all the trappings from the novel that i liked like, tiny tweed jackets with pocket watches and little houses built into the inside of trees.
my more game related thoughts have been to assign each player one animal type(species).  that species, much like in the books, would also be his name...a hare would be called "Hare", a tortoise "Tortoise".   players could not be of the same species.  each character would also have a Predator and Prey.  some players would have other player's characters' as their Prey or Predator.  this could get sticky...it's supposed to.  much like the novel(the Wind in the Willows), i am hoping this game mirrors society(well, my view of it), but instead of mirroring Class though forest dwellers versus river dwellers, i would be showing Class through the Almighty Food Chain.  characters will have to eat, and "not be eaten".  i thought about possibly including jobs, if it's going to be social commentary, maybe it should detail society closer than say myth or fable does? i'm still a bit uncertain about that one. 
characters will have to form bonds with stronger characters, somehow proving their usefullness to them, so these stronger animals will become in debted to them, granting the smaller animals a degree of safety(from being eaten). 
i've also had some unclear thoughts about fear and it's uses by animals.  i like the idea of using fear as a positive resource, but i'm not sure, as of now, how it'd work out.
god, i hope i've posted this sort of thing right...it's not too clear.
should i keep the selection of species ones native to the Great Britain?  i sort of wanted to include raccoons, 'cause they look cool, but my British neighbors have told me that GB has no raccoons.
and i kinda wanted to include Man too...at the top of the food chain. 
hey thanks.
-Nathan Herrold

[Jason Morningstar]

I'm glad you posted here, Nathan!  You know I think this idea rocks. 

I could easily see keeping species choice wide open, so that you could play a brer rabbit game in contrast to a Wind in the Willows game - you'd just have to have flexible rules for the food chain.  Maybe have a few examples in the game but leave it open to individuals to fashion their own. 

Do you envision Man as a playable species?

[Nathan Herrold]

no sir i do not!
hmm...well, that's my gut reaction, whether that's the right one or not, who knows. 
see, i think alot of these games, have one theme...if it were to address another theme, instead of the whole classism stuff, i could see it working.  the playing people too.  but the animals are kind of representing people, so the people(Man) have to kind of take a bigger role and represent Fate, God, whatever...larger forces. 

[Jason Morningstar]

I'd agree.  I think I'd just leave them out of it entirely, personally.  I think having people around steals focus and provides a too-easy communal villain. 

[Nathan Herrold]

they're(Man) in in the Wind in the Willows...which is where it kinda get's fuzzy(for me).  I mean Toad gets thrown into  an, i'm assuming, human jail, and he's able to drive a car...which i haven't seen and actual toad be able to do...maybe a smallish car.
i see it much like a microcosm of society, but which a bit more cannibalism, just a bit.  just imagine if you suspected the neighbor of eating one of your children?  what would you do?   
yeah, i wouldn't want humans to be a reaccuring villian, cause their too grand.  their motives aren't simular to the animal peoples'.  they have weird laws about not eating people.  what gives?
also on the opposite end, if ya have talking animals are there non-talking animals?  i'm thinking no.  but maybe?  at what point would they stop talking.  do fleas talk?  how 'bout mites?  things like this only matter in story if story makes it matter.  if it's cool to have a talking cricket, dammit there should be one.

[Nathan Herrold]

gee, i wish i could edit all my shity-ass spelling errors.

[Jason Morningstar]

What if you had a sharply constrained food chain, and each animal, fish, and insect on it was a potential player character, and also the only playable representative of its species.  So it's a little like a fable - if you are Mr. Toad, you really are Mr. Toad, and other than Mrs. Toad and maybe Toad Junior, that's all the toads anyone will ever see.  If Mr. Toad gets eaten, there's either a hole inthe food chain (I like that) or a new Toad shows up.

[Nathan Herrold]

so, you're saying that the Food Chain would get smaller...meaning that now that Toad's gone, Badger will be forced to eat Mole, something smaller or larger than the eaten character/species.  i'm not sure about that, but about the players only being able to be of a different species, yeah, that is sort of how i saw it.  so, there couldn;t be two Toads or two Moles, or two Hares.  the other members of the species would have to be extras or supporting characters.  but, maybe that's a limited way of doing things.  maybe it's a bit too exclusive? 

[Valamir]

I'm seeing a really easy tie in to how In a Wicked Age does changeable characters within the same setting.  So one session its about Mr. Rabbit trying to get his carrots while escaping from Mrs. Fox, while in another its Mr. Mouse helping Mrs. Fox escape from a trap (I think you could safely ignore where the carrots and traps come from the same way as you ignore where the coats and pocket watches and cars come from).

What about families?  Its a lot more interesting if Mr Rabbit is trying to get carrots to feed his litter of young, where to Mrs Fox, nabbing Mr. Mouse to feed to her starving Kits after he frees her could be compelling.  Is the restriction on "only representative of the species" flexible enough to include family?  What about extended family (when city mouse comes out to the country to visit his cousin?)

[Nathan Herrold]

i'm thinking there is no "Mr" or "Mrs" just Otter, Tortoise, Frog, but that's my take on it.  family would only be used as supporting characters, or one member would be the sole species(character) being represented...no City Mouse, Country Mouse.  well, i haven't thought about that much, anyway.  maybe two or three of the same species is viable?  my gut says it's not as dynamic though.  i want cat and dog, or cat and sparrow as an example of player species dynamics.  Mole and Cricket could be more appropriate, or Mole and Fox...or Frog and Fox, Tortoise and Fox.  i think foxes eat anything?  which i gotta really look into. 
oh, and thanks for posting!

[Jason Morningstar]

Here's Art, Grace, and Guts/In A Wicked Age, for reference, Nathan.  I could easily see situation generation as part of this game.  I can also see distinct advantages to making available characters laser distinct, but also to allowing a variety of NPCs as Ralph suggests. 

[Michael Bethencourt]

Very imaginitive!
This sort of game could also be easily adapted to a Redwall-like setting, also.
I imagine it might be handy to have a food chain chart available, with descriptions of all the different animals during character creation.

I don't really have much more than that to add, I'm afraid, but I think it's an awesome idea. Good luck!

[Nathan Herrold]

Michael, how much is Morningstar paying you?
 

[Eric Provost]

Hiya Nathan,

It's a really nifty idea.  Lots of potential.  I hope to see you push forward with it.

On the subject of keeping the animals British;  I think that it would be awesome if you asked the players to bring animals they are familiar with to the table.  Because a player's familiarity with a species will give them fuel to work from.  For instance, I could fire up a character right now that's either a red squirrl or a black bear and instantly know who I wanted them to be.  But I'd be kinda thrashing about lost if I had to choose between a ring-tailed lemur or an osprey (for example).

Not only that, but I'd instantly be able to make judgements about the parallels between those species that I'm familiar with and their reflections amongst the people I know. 

I especially like the idea that it would be a game about social classes.  That part really sticks with me.  What I'm curious about is, do you imagine that this would be a game would allow a character to change class?  I mean, if I'm number #2 on the food chain in the park and I intentionally allow the #1 to be destroyed by man, now I'm exclusively a predator, and no longer prey to the rest of the animals.

Also, from a slightly different line of thinking, would it be possible to reverse classes during play?  Could Field Mouse become of a higher class than Owl?

Or would there be no changes in the social order?  Once it's set at the beginning of play, that's how it is.  And then we could see how characters' lives play out while struggling in a situation they have no control over.

I think they all sound like interesting options.  But I'm curious what you had in mind.

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

One thing I suggested privately was to have a sort of reverse food chain that afforded some sort fo increasing benefit the more tasty you are.  You know how Brer Rabbit is weak and delicious but can trick the guys who want to murder him into pretty much anything?  That sort of thing, maybe with intelligence or social influence or debts owed them or something.  So if you play a fox, you can kill dudes, but you're dumb as a post, perhaps.