Devils and Demons: the RPG of Divine Lunatics (longish)

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Gwen has a point. I assume that the idea is that the PCs stay together because they fear the government and feel that the PCs are the only ones they can trust. This can work for a while, the PCs going on "missions" (the challenges drawn from the hat), and relying on each other to get that done.

But at some point, somebody is going to betray the rest of the group for their own reasons. And at that point, since they are a self-selecting group, what's to keep them from splitting up?

Mike

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Gwen,

For a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.

What I have trouble understanding is what would make these lunatics work as a team?  My group has tried playing escaped mental patients using various systems.  I played a young girl who thought she was a Civil War general and other characters were just as crazy.

Originally that's not quite how I envisioned the game, it sort of just came out that way as I put it all into words.   Thought it sounded ok, in principle, but if you feel the basic premise needs adjusting shouldn't be too difficult.  But keep in mind, as presnented, Devil and Demons is meant to be played for fun, sort of like a Beer and Pretzels game.

So when we go out, everyone wants to accomplish their own goals.  I'm out to kill Confederate spies, other people are off robbing supermarkets of all their carrots and even others are stealing car tires for the nazi gold hidden inside.

When you put it that way the game does sound silly... and a lot more fun that I originally thought it could be!

Confederate spies, eh?

Interesting idea.

No one felt any desire to work together for a simple reason.  We're too crazy to care what anyone else wants.  My partners wanted to rob stores for carrots?  Fine.  I'll go over here and run counter-espionage for president Lincoln.  We're all insane, so discussing a plan of action is sort of right out the window.

I guess you could try to keep the characters together despite the realistic drive to accomplish your own goals, but then you'd be running the movie Dream Team and staying in the van all the time.

Good points.

My original write up wasn't so severe in locking the players into a singuler path oriented objective.  Nor ae the characters really "insane" per se, then again the idea of escaped lunatics isn't a bad premise to start from... maybe.  Then again maybe I should do a light re-edit, peel back the layers a bit, return to the premise stage and allow players to choose what the starting conditions are.

Perhaps provide story primers?

Perhaps provide a list that would look something like:

1. Escaped Lunatics
2. Conspiracy Theorists out to find "proof"
3. Religious Fanatics seeking ??
4. ??

Would that make a bit more sense, do you think, Gwen?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Mike,

Hopefully the wrinkles that have been pointed out can be ironed out so everyone here can have a playable set of rules.

Hmmm. Gwen has a point. I assume that the idea is that the PCs stay together because they fear the government and feel that the PCs are the only ones they can trust. This can work for a while, the PCs going on "missions" (the challenges drawn from the hat), and relying on each other to get that done.

But at some point, somebody is going to betray the rest of the group for their own reasons. And at that point, since they are a self-selecting group, what's to keep them from splitting up?

One of the potential uses of forcing 'Reality Checks' on other players would be to advance a players agenda, thus make the group try to follow it as the *current* game goal, at least for a little while.

That said the main thing that should keep the group together is the fact the premise has them grouped together as a group from the start of play, sort of like a Murder Mystery begins with a core of characters.

Also the mechanic *does* allows for the group to break up; viz. the rule about when "Vision" reaches"'0' the player is considered to have become 'Demon Possessed' or to be under 'Alien Influence'" when they are considered to be part of the out-group, namely "them".  Of course, to be honest, I didn't think about players wanting to *consciously* seperate from the group.

Perhaps a tweak to the mechanics which will allow for that possibility?

Of course it is assumed that the players are going to play together.  Just like they would when sitting down to play Clue, Monopoly, or Black Jack.  Since there really is no GM in Devils and Demons I thought it best to allow the players freedom to follow their own story arcs within the context of pusuing their personal Challenges and the current set game Goal.  

Too much player freedom?  Or just too vague?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Gwen]

If all you're doing is testing a mechanic and this isn't intended to be the whole game, then I think it's fine.  If the team splits up,  they split up.  You can always start over to test the mechanics again.

Otherwise, there are numerous ways to keep the team together.  You could say they escape from a mental prison where they put bombs in your head and everyone's on the buddy system.  If two people leave a 1 mile radius of eachother, for example, their heads explode.  OR, , maybe they just THINK they have bombs in their head.

There are several ways you could keep them together without necessarily having to retool the mechnics.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Sorry to but in on this thread, but you touch on a great way to keep the crazies together: Except for their own personal insanities, they have this insanity which they share which the players create together and which forms the "bond" of the characters.

Maybe like your example Gwen when they all think they have a bomb in their heads which will explode when they separate. Or maybe they are all hunted by the Dark Forces Of The Universe which will pick them off one by one unless they pool their Powers Of Light to fight it off (why do I start thinking about Marshall Law here?).

A (insane) variant of those mechanics (than bounced around here in various threads) for keeping characters together... hmm :)

[Mike Holmes]

For a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.

I think this is a problem. There is an oft cited principle here at The Forge which I will hypocritically recite (hypcritically because I don't adhere to it much). That is, a game's mechanics should be built to support the setting (includes situation, character, and color). As opposed to the other way 'round.

The point is, that, unless you are trying to come up with a "Generic" game (and that has problems all it's own), then trying to develop mechanics in a vacuum is unlikely to produce mechanics that are particularly good for anything. Worse, it makes it hard for people to comment because we can't see if the mechanics support the setting or not.

So, is this a serious "setting" that you want commentary on? Do you want commentary on how the rules do or do not support the setting? Or are they to be considered only separately?

Mike

[Gwen]

I'd be more interested in this idea for the game opposed to the mechanics.  I don't follow the mechanics so well,  but the idea of playing mentally-unbalanced characters would be fun.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Mike,

Some very good points to consider here.

For a game I put together ostensibly *just* to test a game mechanic the questions that have been posed thus far makes one pause and think.

I think this is a problem. There is an oft cited principle here at The Forge which I will hypocritically recite (hypcritically because I don't adhere to it much). That is, a game's mechanics should be built to support the setting (includes situation, character, and color). As opposed to the other way 'round.

Actually the entire game *is* built to support the mechanics as they have been presented.  However, as implemented, the mechanics are but on possible aspect of a meta-mechanic system I am toying with.  (Though sometimes I feel it is the other way around.)

The point is, that, unless you are trying to come up with a "Generic" game (and that has problems all it's own), then trying to develop mechanics in a vacuum is unlikely to produce mechanics that are particularly good for anything. Worse, it makes it hard for people to comment because we can't see if the mechanics support the setting or not.

So, is this a serious "setting" that you want commentary on? Do you want commentary on how the rules do or do not support the setting? Or are they to be considered only separately?

Since my original posting, and Pale Fire's first questions, I have been working with the system "off stage", as it were.  Have even added a "optional" rating to the rules so, yes, I suppose it is as serious a setting as a game of cracked humor can be.  (Was this a trick question?  It was wasn't it!  *smirk*)

Yes, I do want commentary on the rules.  Commentary on how well they support the setting, commentary on how well the basic mechanic works, and commentary how what people think of the game as a whole.

You are free to consider them seperately or together, though when commenting on the mechanics "under the hood" feel free to comment either way.

At the moment, since there seems to be some interest in the setting as opposed to the mechanic, feel free to also let me know how you'd like me to develop the game.   The sorts of things you would like to see in a future version of the rules.  ESPECIALLY let me know what you feel does *not* work so I can apply my Magic Mechanics Spackle™ to the problem!


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius