Incarnadine: Shakespearean RPG: 1st look (long)

[Michael S. Miller]

Okay, I’m working on a new game (who isn’t) and I’d love some feedback. The game is called Incarnadine: Role-Playing in a Shakespearean Style and, as you might gather, is intended to emulate stories like Shakespeare’s plays (I figure, if you’re going to emulate something, you might as well emulate genius). Here’s an overview of what I have so far on how the game will play:

First, the players will decide on the Type of Play they’re going to make: Comedy, History, or Tragedy. Then, a Thematic Question (what we’d call a Premise) is decided on. Next, the group decides on the play’s Staging: Full Elizabethan (no post-1611 anachronisms of any kind), Semi-Elizabethan (the setting can be anything or anywhere, as can technology, but social relationships must remain Shakespearean) or Non-Elizabethan (anything goes). Finally, the players decide on a setting. All the above is done mainly by consensus, with a slight edge going to players with high Reputation (see below)

Each Player then creates a Main Part, and whatever Lesser Parts they desire (Lesser Parts may also be defined during play). Main Parts have a Thematic Statement (their “answer” to the Thematic Question), points to distribute among Passions (their feelings on certain issues, Passions are Player-defined), and at least 1 relationship to another Main Part. Relationships need not exist before the play begins, although they are defined before play begins.

There are also 2 stats that are attributed to Players, not Parts. These stats are Reputation and Improv (I need a new name for this). I’m not sure how they are generated, but they will change based on the performance of each play

The next step is called Crafting Act V. Since everyone know how a Shakespeare play is going to end before they enter the theater, the end of the game is sketched out before play begins. First, each Player sets Goals for his Main Part. They basically bid on what they want their Part’s Passions to be by the end of the Play. Then, they set their Main Part’s Anchors (plot points that must occur). In a comedy, this means they decide when during the play their Part will marry/get engaged, and to whom. In a tragedy, they decide when their Part will die and by whose hand. In a History, the decide which historical facts will be preserved (like Shakespeare, we can throw the rest of them out the window).

Which brings us the the actual play of the game. Basic Mechanics are: Two dice pools rolled against each other. Each die has a 50% chance of success (odd numbers are triumphs). The highest number of successes is victorious. There are only three types of rolls that can be made in the game: Scene Rolls, Passion Rolls, and Plot Rolls.

Scene Rolls: Each game of Incarnadine will be broken up into five Acts, and each Act will be broken up into a variable number of Scenes. When it is time to start a new scene, each Player will roll his Reputation, with the following modifiers: -1 for each scene in this Act that the Main Part has already appeared in; +1 for each Lesser Part portrayed already in this Act; +1 per Discretionary Point spent to applaud another Player this Act; The victor of the scene roll wins the right to to “lay the scene.” He may declare where the scene takes place and which Parts will participate in the scene. His own Main Part and any Lesser Parts are free. It costs him 1 die from his Margin of Success to entice another Main Part into the scene. Lesser Parts are distributed to Players whose Main Parts are not involved in the scene.

Each Main Part may make 1 Passion Roll and 1 Plot Roll in any single scene. A scene is over when each Main Part has made these rolls, or opted not to. When every Main Part has appeared in at least one scene, the Act ends and the next scene begins the new Act.

The Rule of Speech: Everything your Parts do in the game must be accompanied by speech of some kind, whether dialogue or monologue. It is not enough to have your Part stab herself, she must say something along the lines of “O happy dagger, this is thy sheath.”

Passion Rolls: Decide which Passions you’re affecting: your own or another Part’s. The dice pool is Influencing Passion vs. Target Passion.
Next, Decide your desired outcomes of the rolls. Will success increase the Passion or decrease it? Failure will change the Passion in the opposite direction. You should base this decision on what your Part would consider advantageous .

Then, you decide where modifiers will apply. Will they apply to your Influencing Passion, to make success more likely, or to the Target Passion, to increase the chance of failure? You should base this decision on your (the Player’s) Goals as determined before the beginning of the play.

Next, make the speech and apply modifiers. Engage in a speech as your Part. You gain modifiers for the following: +1 for using a simile or metaphor; +1 for using hyperbole; +1 for extending a simile or metaphor to discourse upon 3 aspects of itself (minimum of three sentences); +1 for alluding to your Part’s Anchor; +1 if the Target Passion belongs to a Lesser Part; +1 if the Parts are in a Relationship; +1 for using a word in a novel or inventive manner; +1 for each Discretionary Point another Player spends to applaud your speech; -1 for each Discretionary Point another Player spends to boo your speech; Act modifiers make it easier to change Passions in Act V of a Comedy or Act I of a Tragedy.

Roll the dice, as described in Basic Mechanics. The Margin of Success indicates how much the Passions will change.

Plot Rolls: These work a lot like Passion Rolls. The roll is the Player’s Improv vs. an Opposition based on the table below. First determine what facts your Part wants to add the plot, Then choose which side the modifiers will apply to, based on your (the Player’s) desires for the Play. Make the speech and apply modifiers (same modifiers for Passion Rolls). Roll the dice, as described in Basic Mechanics. The base Opposition is high at the start of a Comedy and decreases. And it is low at the start of a Tragedy and increases each Act. If your Improv dice are the victor, each triumph in the Margin of Success indicates that one of your Facts is true. If the Opposition dice are the victor, each triumph in the Margin of Success indicates that one of your Facts is incorrect. The reason for the incorrectness is up to you. Your Part could have been misinformed, or he could be lying, or the prop in question could simply prove unreliable when someone attempts to use it. However, you must remember that your Part still believes it to be true, unless you choose that your Part is intentionally lying.

When Act V ends, the Players tally up their Main Part’s change in Passions. Whichever Player’s Part has met his Goals and exhibited the greatest change, wins the right to Title the Play. The amount by which each Player’s Part has exceeded his Goals is the amount added to that Player’s Reputation for the next game.

That’s the overview. My main concern is: Does this sound fun, or a too-involved intellectual exercise? I set out to capture pathos, charm, wit and beauty; am I but a poor huntsman, whose trap mangles his prey, making it unfit for his master’s table?

Also, how much Shakespearean background would be appropriate? I mean, Dust Devils can just say “gritty Westerns” and everyone knows what Matt means. I tend to assume that people know more Shakespeare than they do. Should I synopsize plays, focus on more analysis and overarching themes, break down one of Shakespeare’s plays as it might have been created by this game or write a fictional play of my own as a sample of play? Do I need detailed definitions of Tragedy, Comedy and History? If you were interested in this game, what would you expect to see?

As always, any other comments or questions are welcome.

[Mark Johnson]

Michael,

Your project definitely looks promising.  But my main questions is this:

Does this really need to be diced?  What design purpose does the fortune element add to this game?  Maybe simply having all the other players in the troupe "applaud/boo" would be enough to provide the number of successes/failures based on the number of modifers.

Other random points:

Try to make the game terminology as "Shakespearean" as possible.  Obviously you are aware of the problem since you asked for a replacement term for "improv."  

The more analysis of Shakespeare, his plays and his themes that you include, the better...  Include it as an appendix to the main text so that people who know how they want to play the game can ignore it except as possible inspiration.

I would include Full Elizabethan as the default mode of play and maybe mention the other possibilities in passing.  Most people are at least aware of Shakespearean productions in non-traditional settings.  I figure that most of the people who would play this game would simply want to play Shakespeare.  

I LOVE the Rule of Speech.  Other games have played with similar ideas, but it is especially apropos here.

Good luck,
Mark

P.S.  If you ever come out with a LARP version of this; it would be great fun as well!

[Paul Czege]

Hey Michael,

Improv (I need a new name for this).

Upstage

Paul

[Shreyas Sampat]

I wondered the same thing about the Fortune; it doesn't seem to represent anything.

Now, if you were to use the dice explicitly as a representation of, say, the audience, and have rolls represent applause/boos, then it'd feel, IMO, more incorporated into the game, and you could do some interesting things with it, like for example guages of 'audience mood' or their interest in various things.

Discretionary Points seem to be sort of unexplained, as well.  Where do they come from?  Where do they go?

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, LordX. If no one’s said so, Welcome to the Forge.

Why dice? ‘Cause I, like Romeo, am Fortune’s fool, of course!  8-)

My experience with Fortuneless games has not been tremendously positive. Many, like Theatrix lacks suspense and player engagement, the players’ enjoyment is based mainly on whether the GM’s having a good time or not.

Amber is driven by the mystery of what ranks the other characters are. It fits well into the strong personal rivalry, backstabbing and treachery in the source material, but Shakespeare has cooperative as well as competitive elements.

Nobilis might be a good model … spending points to reach the necessary level of achievement. I’ll ponder ‘pon it.

Universalis is … copyrighted. 8-) Actually, it’s a bit too wide open, although I’m sure I could turn Incarnadine into a Universalis plug-in (but then, couldn’t darn-near anything be a Universalis plug-in?)

‘course I might be skipping some good ones. If so, please let me know.

I was particularly pleased with the rule of Speech myself. I want the game to be about language—while not becoming just a word game.

Hey, Paul. Thanks for the word.

Hi, Shreyas.

I like the idea of the dice representing something concrete. In the case of Passion Rolls, it mostly represents the Player’s (i.e. the fictional role that is playing the even-more-fictional role, not the player-with-a-small-p which is the actual flesh-and-blood person playing Incarnadine) acting ability, the talent to enrapture audiences and lift dead words to living art.

However, I need to do some more thinking on Scene Rolls and Plot Rolls. Both are basically ways to distribute what would normally be “GM jobs” around the table. Perhaps they represent influence with the Playwright?

Discretionary Points are going to be refreshed before each Act. When spent, they are gone. Just typing that out for the first time sounds incredibly lame. They’re going in the shop for an overhaul.

Thanks for the commentary. Any more is always welcome. I hope to run a playtest before the New Year and will be back for more, I’m sure.

[Mark Johnson]

Michael,

Thanks for the welcome!  I have been a long time Forge lurker, but I am still new at this posting thing.

Anyway, it sounds like you are on the right track for a Forge audience in having fortune represent an interaction between the actor and the audience.  It might be a bit too "meta" for the general gamer, but you probably can't be sure of this until it hits actual play.

Of course, if you truly want to remain true to the source, just get some props, dress up and grab yourself an audience and have them "applaud/boo."  It would probably cease to be a role playing game at that point, but it does interest me since I come to RPGs as much from a "structured improv/interactive fiction" POV than as a game.

As for the fortuneless examples you gave, all but Theatrix could be appropriate models, but each would end up in radically different styles of play.  Seems to me, that there might be room for several games in this genre.

I'll give this fortune vs karma vs drama element some thought and get back to you.

Talk later,
Mark

[Mark Johnson]

Michael,

I have thought about this a little.  I definitely like the idea of the dice representing the audience.  Though doing that does put yet an additional level of metaconcept into the game that may make it hard for some to grasp.  

One possible use for applause/boos... instead of adding/subtracting dice, maybe it could be used retroactively to change or reroll the results of a single die.  That would make the game a little more drama oriented, but it still does not mean that anything has a sure chance of success.

Possible other ways to earn additional dice:

Speaking one's speech in iambic pentameter...  It would offer gamists a true test of skill.

Let every player choose three quotes from Shakespeare.  If they can use a quote convincingly and creatively in a scene, they gain an extra die (with applause).  If it is unconvincing (boos), they lose an extra die.

Thanks,
Mark

[Andrew Martin]

Let every player choose three quotes from Shakespeare.  If they can use a quote convincingly and creatively in a scene, they gain an extra die (with applause).  If it is unconvincing (boos), they lose an extra die.

From the munchkin point of view, it's better to reward the convincing quote with something like +6 dice, the unconvincing quote with +2 dice, and doing neither with -2 .. -6 dice. That way the players will always be coming up with quotes.

[Mark Johnson]

Michael,

After a couple of days of consideration, I think I see where you were coming from originally a bit better.  I just thought that the boos/applause thing was so cool from a design perspective that I let that dominate my thinking when you were really going for something different.

The focus of this game, as I see it, is passion.  Maybe represent what you are now using plot rolls for with karma, but allow passion to augment it.  In other words, the plot is predetermined unless ones passion is high enough.

Thanks,
Mark

A suggested bit of coolness:
Instead of even/odds determing resolution paint three sides of the dice green and three sides red.  More red, more passion.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Mark.

I think you're right and that Passions are the most central feature. I came up with them first, actually. The plot roll / scene roll thing came about after I realized that a GM wouldn't have a lot to do, and had to break up GM-duties among the players to make it GMless. Thanks for pointing back to the roots of the idea.

I like the color-coded dice thing, but I'll limit it to a suggestion in the game. I don't want to design another game with "funny dice" just yet. 8-)