Lineage

[Tim C Koppang]

Over a year ago I began to work on a game that I was calling Influence:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1709
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1719

That was back in '01, and now I'm finally getting back into it.  I was hoping that while I work on the text that I could get some opinions on a certain mechanic new to the game (well actually the game is almost nothing like was the original text was except for the basic premise listed in the second link).

Basically everyone plays a series of heroes (yes a series because death as you will see plays an important role in the game) who struggle to choose where their loyalties will lie.  I'm calling the game Lineage, but only in the loosest sense because where a character ultimately comes from depends on the choices he makes and not on genetic links:

"Loyalty above all defines who a person is, what they represent, and in most cases what they will become.  Loyalty defines the society that your character lives in, but like all loyalties, they may be broken and reforged anew.  Possibly the most crucial form of loyalty that your character will have to face is the question of loyalty to himself.  Generally speaking, the masses do not value self-indulgence and your character is expected to serve a cause other than his own."

So players will be faced with battles between different forces all vying for their allegiance—one such force being the character's own agenda.

That said I'd like to frame the entire game with a sort of meta-character.  What I mean is this . . . .  Players upon agreeing to play Lineage will make two characters.  One character will be the man or woman descendant who lives in present time and the second will be the man or woman from which the other has descended.    In other words, you know where the meta-character's lineage will end up, to a certain extent, but not how he got there.

In game terms, the meta-character (descendent) is telling the story of his ancestry.  During each session, players will roleplay though the story of one link in the chain.  The decisions that the player makes for that character will in some sense be predefined by the meta-character, and in other ways help to fill in the blanks about that same character.  In other words, the choices are still important.

And at the end of each session (a session is a group-defined length of time, but I'm leaning towards making it literally one session) the current character must die.  The next session begins with the next character in the meta-character's line, but stronger.  You see, each successive character inherits traits and allegiances from his predecessor.  Ultimately this goes on until present day arrives, and the players all engage in a final session wherein they take up their meta-characters and play them out unto their heroic demise.

Ok.

That's the basic gist.

Does this make sense first of all?

Next, what I really want to know is 1) does this sound like it could work and 2) without knowing much else about the game can you see a strong premise being enforced and or explored?

[ThreeGee]

Hey Tim,

That's cool!

On further thought, though, I do have some questions. Are the first and the last of the line essentially the same character? If so, do the decendents start weak beginning with the progenitor's son and progressively become more powerful, until finally the last son is the progenitor? Also, does the player choose the method of his character's demise, and would it be the same (style of) death each time?

What would tie the decendents together as a party? The only answer I can really think of is, 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.' Would the times change from generation to generation? That would be really cool because it would highlight different aspects of the character's personality.

I am sure I can think of more, but I would rather hear about your ideas.

Later,
Grant

[Tim C Koppang]

Grant,

Thanks for the comments.  To answer:

The first character that you actually play is the original progenitor.  Successive characters will not necessarily be tied together through bloodlines however, but rather through loyalty.  There's a mechanic called memories, which I'm still working on, but basically when one character dies the next one chooses a cause to take up in the dead ancestor's name.  This is called a memory and will serve at least two purposes.  One, it will add yet another complication to the new character's life because he will have to not only deal with his own agenda and those of influential people in his life, but he will also, two, have the nagging reminder of his predecessor's memory in his mind.  Sometimes these goals will all work together, but things get really interesting when conflicts arise—forcing the character to choose a path in life.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first and last characters being the same.  All I can think to say is "no."  Maybe I didn't explain the meta-character level of play well enough.  The player first creates the eventual descendent of the first character in actual play.  What you are really roleplaying up until the point in time when story catches up to present day, is telling the tale of your ancestors (remember not necessarily bloodline ancestry) through the filter of the descendent character.  Here's an example of what I mean:

Player = Tim

Tim creates Sir Sigfried Macknir (the descendent or meta-character).  Tim also creates Alexander Narmsis (he lived five generations ago from Macknir).  When play starts, Tim will be roleplaying Macknir telling the tale of Narmsis.  When Narmsis dies, Tim creates a new character, Lady May Ivanack ... and so on until the line catches up with Macknir himself.  At that point, Tim roleplays the final adventure of Macknir—now empowered by his ancestor's memories.

On to some of your other questions:

The manner of death for each character can differ, but yes it would usually be up to the controlling player to decide.

I'm not sure how much time will change from one generation from the next in terms of technology and the like, but relationship dynamics, allies and foes, will definitely play a large role from one generation to the next.  The rest I would leave up to the GM.  Ultimately this is a game about personal life path choices and what or who can influence those choices.

[wyrdlyng]

I don't know if you're familiar with it or not but the Grendel comics by Matt Wagner are an excellent example of this type of "descendent" play.

Here's the short and sweet: the first Grendel was Hunter Rose (in our time). After his death the next to take the name was his "granddaughter" (the daughter of his adopted ward). After her death it was a man who was in love with her. Skip a few centuries and the next Grendel is a rebel striking against a corrupt church. After his death, the next is Orion Assante who is inspired by the previous one and creates  a warrior clan system to hunt vampires (originally). Many years later the next major Grendel is a cyborg out to defend Orion's male heir. Many generations, many centuries, many Grendels.

Side note: Tying things in a temporal knot, the last Grendel goes back in time to steal the skull of the original Grendel and runs afoul of Batman in a very good crossover sequel (the first crossover was Batman and the original Grendel).

If you're interested, Dark Horse put out a small graphic novel (the Grendel Cycle) which summarized the entire Grendel comic series. Dark Horse also started putting out the eearly issues of the comic in TPB form. (The first being the story of his "grandddaughter", Christine Spar.)

Being a Grendel-phile I highly recommend it. (It's where my last name came from. :)

Oh, there was also a good Batman Elseworlds trade with a similar premise following 3 scattered generations of "Bat-"folk.

[Tim C Koppang]

Alex,

Hmm, sounds like a pretty interesting comic.  I'll have to check it out.

It also seems like each individual Grendel has a personal cause that he takes up (hunting vampires, whatever), and that previous Gendels influence who the future ones become—but are these causes just cool plot elements?  Obviously the Grendel cares about killing all of the vampires—to use your example.  That's not what I'm getting at.  What I'd like to try to create with Lineage is a sense of impending choice.  So all of the major stories, and roleplaying scenes therefore, would take place before the Grendel decides to create the warrior clan system.  Sure the previous Grendel influences him, but who else holds sway over the guy?  And maybe those influences are in opposition.  Now which path does the Grendel choose and why?  Because the player will know ahead of time that the line will eventually end up with the present day character, the choices that each ancestor character makes can necessarily alter the personality of that eventual present day character.  It's all about personal choice and the aftermath of those choices on other people.

[wyrdlyng]

It also seems like each individual Grendel has a personal cause that he takes up (hunting vampires, whatever), and that previous Gendels influence who the future ones become—but are these causes just cool plot elements?

Each Grendel had different motivations. The first, Hunter Rose, became Grendel out of boredom. Christine Spar, his "granddaughter," took up the identity to find her missing son and later avenge his death. Brian took up the mask to strike against the police that he felt was harassing him and which he also felt was tied into Christine's death. These are good examples of the previous influencing the next.

Later on, Eppy took the role of Grendel (which had grown into a mythical figure akin to the devil) to oppose a corrupted church. Orion Assante took the role of Grendel Khan and continued (sort of) what had begun earlier.

The last major Grendel was a member of the Grendel warrior caste but his "self-appointed" cause was saving the Grendel Khan's heir. Later his cause was trying to contact the soul of Hunter Rose.

What I'd like to try to create with Lineage is a sense of impending choice.

The Grendel series has choices in spades. Let me elaborate a bit further.

Hunter Rose became a killer and crime lord known as Grendel out of boredom. He died at the hands of his nemesis, a wolf-like being known as Argent.

Christine spar took the role after he son was kidnapped. She chose to take the role to avenge him knowing that Argent and the police would come after her for doing so. The persona of Grendel drove her mother (Hunter Rose's adopted ward who was also responsible for his death) mad. The Grendel name in her time had grown into a legendary criminal and killer. She knowingly chose to adopt this persona and continued with it even after confronting her son's killer who turned out to be a vampiric being. Eventually her choice led to her death at the hands of Argent.

Brian was Christine's lover and learned of her choice when he tried to help her get her son's killer. He was harassed and beaten by police as they threatened Christine. It was this harassment which led Christine to kill a cop and ultimately moved her towards her final destiny. Brian took the role because he felt that the police were still harassing him and he also wanted to avenge Christine's "murder."

Sure the previous Grendel influences him, but who else holds sway over the guy? And maybe those influences are in opposition. Now which path does the Grendel choose and why?

All those after Hunter Rose knew better than to tap into that persona. Hunter Rose was akin to Al Capone and Gengis Khan in one. He ruled the criminal element up and down the Eastern seaboard and killed anyone who got in his way without hesitation.

Each person who took the role after him knew that what they were doing was wrong but they drew a kind of strength from the persona which allowed them to do what they felt needed to be done.

Friends, common sense, the Law, all of these were opposing influences. Christine especially knew better because she wrote a book documenting Hunter Rose's life. She saw what it had done to her mother. As I said, even after confronting her son's killer she had a hard time giving it up. She could've stopped but she chose to continue "righting wrongs" (most caused by her taking up the role) instead. She also knew that it would lead her to a confrontation with the beast that killed the original Grendel. Both Christine and Brian made a willing decision.

Because the player will know ahead of time that the line will eventually end up with the present day character, the choices that each ancestor character makes can necessarily alter the personality of that eventual present day character. It's all about personal choice and the aftermath of those choices on other people.

Very true and over time the role does change. Hunter Rose is motivated by boredom. Christine by grief. Brian by paranoia. Eppy by justice. Orion by a desire to destroy man's oppressors. Grendel Prime by duty to the Khan.

The full Grendel universe is vast and there are a lot of tales. Aside from the main comic which followed the Grendel name through the centuries there were numerous Grendel Tales miniseries. These took place in the time after Grendel Prime saved the heir and each involved members of the by then degenerated Grendel warrior clans. Almost each tale is about a person forced to make some harsh decisions and the impact they have on those closest to them. I highly recommend them as well.


Btw, here's some useful links.

The Continuity Pages: Grendel
The Long and Twisted History of Grendel
The Grendel FAQ

Sorry if this is really long but I think that it's a great example of what you're aiming for.