The Forge Archives

Somehow I came across this thought while pondering Rons breakdown of classes - there is a link here somewhere with how character presage, bring about, their own actions as it were, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Can we do MacBeth in RPG?

I think of this as something of a challenge. Shakespears plays have been ported to just about every medium known; can RPG do it too?  Discussing whether or not, or even trying to establish a method of play that would work, might be an interesting exercise.  The plays that are likely best candidates are MacBeth, Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet and possibly Othello.  I hope that by exploring these works from an RPG perspective we might develop some insight into character definitions that "call out" to be resolved.

Firstly, what would be the experience of approaching such a well known work?  Right there the IC/OOC issue has to be tackled, the very conception of how the game is played will need to incorporate that element.  OTOH it pretty much resolves our premise issue, I think.

Second, the hackneyed old adventuring party is clearly innapropriate; something more relationship-oriented, probably with characters operating individually and opposed, would probably be better suited.  Characters would have to be people of dramatic import - can this be abstracted to "role", or do we have to mandate actual PC's?  What about numbers of characters/players?

Third, the issue of "railroading" seen from a new perspective. By comparison to the "wandering psychopath" mode, such a game would probably not be railroaded so much as bound and gagged.  OTOH, if that is a component of our Premise, or at least our shared undertaking, and everybody understands that we are here to DO MacBeth, that should not be too big a deal.  The question then becomes how to structure the game such that a sequence of events roughly equivalent to that of the play unfolds at the actual table.

This is a game that needs no objective stats, and may not even need much of a resolution system.  It may be that such a game is not an RPG in the conventional sense of being a place and a method to play, but more like a murder mystery weekend in which the system is written around the specifics rather than the generics of the game.  Specific conditions can be directly addressed; Thibault and Mercutio do not need "combat stats"; they only need to know which dramatically significant character "trumps" another should they enter conflict.

Perhaps characters are constructed, instead, as kinda precripted events; the fight between Mercutio and Thibault (IIRC) is "written on the stars" and manifest as a kinda short-term TROS-style Destiny.  Possibly a mechanical method would be to in some way "count down" such a destiny, or a reward system established to prompt players to "realise" plot events through their actions.  

Soliloquy would still be important; the non-speaking players are audience, and need OOC insight into the other characters state of mind (or more accurately in context, visibility of signposts indicative of the characters state of mind, which may well be mandated and/or event driven outside of the player).

I guess that you could say that my interest now is to see whether the deconstruction of class, in combination of what else we know about resolution methods, how and why system matters, allows us to reverse engineer a play into a a playable game.  It may not be possible;p but it might be an interesting attempt.

I tmight interest you to know that I have been using Shakespeare a lot lately for relationship maps. And it works fabulously well. Take Romeo and Juliet (which I did not use as it's too obvious to everyone playing, but will work for an example). You have the two families, the Duke, etc, all put at odds by the love of two kids. Very powerful potential.

As a relationship map, players can run into this situation, become involved with some of the more important characters, perhaps help the lovers, perhaps thwart them, whatever. It's even more powerful as a storymap, ala Alyria, however where the players are part of the map from the start. Which is closer to what you're describing. In this case, you'll end up with something very Shakespearean, I'd think.

Will either methods give you Romeo & Juliet? Probably not. But then, I'm not sure that reproducing the play, even if just structurally, is a laudable goal. That's why we have the Stage, TV, Movies, etc. RPGs are about the improvisation. As such, it's possible to author your own story using similar characters, with similar conflicts. Which is very cool. Is it Shakespeare? No. But I think he'd approve. ;-)

Mike

Oh, BTW, Gareth:

Macbeth!

(now he has to do a series of silly chants and gestures to avoid bad luck; this is why it's referred to as the Scotish Play, at least according to Blackadder the Third)

Mike

Quote from: contracycleSomehow I came across this thought while pondering Ron's breakdown of classes - there is a link here somewhere with how character presage, bring about, their own actions as it were, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Can we do MacBeth in RPG?

Hmm.  Do you mean where people take the roles of the characters in the Scottish Play?  Probably not.  Do you mean where players take on roles like the main characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, playing 'around' the central action of the play?  Possibly, but I doubt the broad appeal.

On the other hand, I think we could very easily do a 'Shakespearean Tragedy' role-playing game (The Tragedian hereafter).

Quote from: contracycleFirstly, what would be the experience of approaching such a well-known work?  Right there the IC/OOC issue has to be tackled, the very conception of how the game is played will need to incorporate that element.  OTOH it pretty much resolves our premise issue, I think.

Considering this, I'd say the first thing you need to do is prioritize what you'd think is the most important elements of this game.  Some potential priorities spring to mind immediately, performance, thematic message, competition, spotlight time, as well as many others, some not familiar to traditional role-playing games.

In The Tragedian, I might look for thematic message being most important with perhaps an accent on competition.  This shades on high-Premise play, except the game doesn't pose a specific question, rather offering a 'stage' on which players can author their own questions and answers.  Furthermore, I'd suggest that the character themes would be a matter of competition; rather than a die roll winner gaining control of the speaking role or the spotlight, their thematic statement gains 'center stage.'

Quote from: contracycleSecond, the hackneyed old adventuring party is clearly inappropriate; something more relationship-oriented, probably with characters operating individually and opposed, would probably be better suited.  Characters would have to be people of dramatic import - can this be abstracted to "role", or do we have to mandate actual PC's?  What about numbers of characters/players?

That's "designer's choice;" do it Scooby Doo/Gilligan's Island style with prescribed characters or offer positions within an abstract tragedy structure(s).  Does this mean you aren't expecting people to play the title role of the Scottish Play RPG?

And I agree; the 'group works together' format isn't that appropriate to The Tragedian.  I would probably suggest a number of potential abstract structures that characters can be tailored to.  But then that was the purpose of incorporating Genre Expectations into Scattershot.  Using a 'Shakespearean Tragedy' Genre Expectation of Relationships offers exactly this kind of abstract starting point (if the players don't already have their own).

Quote from: contracycleThird, the issue of "railroading" seen from a new perspective. By comparison to the "wandering psychopath" mode, such a game would probably not be railroaded so much as bound and gagged.

I disagree.  If you're going to have players not playing the listed roles in the source material, short of going the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead route, you can't really expect to use the original storylines either.  No railroading then.

For The Tragedian, I suggest the most crucial difference from traditional role-playing games would be that the gamemaster is not the director.  In fact, due to the 'competition for thematic statement' I am suggesting, the gamemaster would be relegated to only two roles, grip and extras.  They'd frame certain scenes (the ones not called for by the players but almost vital to a 'Shakespearean Tragedy Genre Expectation' in terms of the Sequences - or plot fragments - given) and then just play the characters presented by the needs of the play and of the players.  The competition itself would 'direct' the play.

Quote from: contracycleOTOH, if that is a component of our Premise, or at least our shared undertaking, and everybody understands that we are here to DO MacBeth, [then] that should not be too big a deal.  The question then becomes how to structure the game such that a sequence of events roughly equivalent to that of the play unfolds at the actual table.

Like I said, I can't imagine the broad appeal of rehearsing that Scottish Play through role-playing gaming unless you prioritize performance.  Really, if you strangle it with the railroading you're suggesting, would it be a role-playing game in any stretch of the imagination?  (Okay, it won't be Shakespeare, but all that really changes is who wrote the lines.)  Even using the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead model leaves you fighting the feeling that was the thematic statement of that play; 'we are powerless to change our destiny' (because we're just tertiary characters in a play).

In The Tragedian, competing to 'finish' your thematic statement first becomes something of a game in itself creating both intrigue and engagement.  Being able to 'fall back' on the plot fragments inherent in the Genre Expectation and use them to your benefit keeps the game from being railroaded, but still recognizably Shakespearean.

Quote from: contracycleThis is a game that needs no objective stats, and may not even need much of a resolution system.  It may be that such a game is not an RPG in the conventional sense of being a place and a method to play, but more like a murder mystery weekend in which the system is written around the specifics rather than the generics of the game.  Specific conditions can be directly addressed; Thibault and Mercutio do not need "combat stats"; they only need to know which dramatically significant character "trumps" another should they enter conflict.

'Standard conflicts' would absolutely have to be resolved using a Drama mechanic, but if you offer competition over thematic statements, there would need to be some other kind of resolution system, wouldn't there?

Quote from: contracyclePerhaps characters are constructed, instead, as kinda pre-scripted events; the fight between Mercutio and Thibault (IIRC) is "written on the stars" and manifest as a kinda short-term TROS-style Destiny.  Possibly a mechanical method would be to in some way "count down" such a destiny, or a reward system established to prompt players to "realize" plot events through their actions.

This "count down" was very much what I had in mind when I began working out personal Genre Expectations (AKA destinies) for Scattershot.  Players are rewarded for 'advancing the counter' and can use those rewards for anything else they want.  (Likewise in the general Genre Expectations, players are rewarded for 'playing into the Expectation' with which they can do anything else they want.)

Quote from: contracycleSoliloquy would still be important;

In The Tragedian, it would be the principal guiding motif (the way I wrote up motifs for Scattershot) that drives the whole game forward.  Forget this motif and be forced to do it over.  Perhaps rewards for well-played lines are also in order.

Quote from: contracycleI guess that you could say that my interest now is to see whether the deconstruction of class, in combination of what else we know about resolution methods, how and why system matters, allows us to reverse engineer a play into a playable game.  It may not be possible, but it might be an interesting attempt.

Well, if you take classes in place of the roles in an abstracted 'Shakespearean tragedy' structure like I described above, create a system that empowers the players to do more than just improvise replacement lines for Shakespeare's, and come up with a goal (as in 'why play this'), I actually think you could clearly create such a game.

If you pick the goal of competing to foster your character's thematic message (and personal Premise) over everyone else's (using a drama In-Game; fortune Out-of-Game resolution system), then I think The Tragedian fills the bill.

(Although, should we hand out experience points equal to the final body count?)

Fang Langford

Hehe - that actors tradition is for real, my mother lived by it and I have to think about it every time.  Break a leg ;)

Quote
Like I said, I can't imagine the broad appeal of rehearsing that Scottish Play through role-playing gaming unless you prioritize performance.

Exactly so.  Nobody goes to see Shakespeare to be surprised by the plot, unless you're a child being introduced.  Even people who have never seen a production of Romeo & Juliet know the outline of the story.  Sometimes, it even becomes a vignette in other works like say Pinky & The Brain.

So I'm not talking about a tragedy-themed or shakepespeare-themed RPG: I'm talking about doing Macbeth for yourself at the dinner table as a form of performance art for its own sake.  This would not mean learning the lines and repeating them; more like uber method acting.

Tghis was also partly inspired by the recent discussion of why con games frequently turn into a mutually inflicted bloodbath.  I think the answer to this is very much in line with Rons argument to premise: that a personal motivation for a conflict is more entertaining than an abstracted, mission-based motivation.  Hence, the selection of inter-"party" conflict over party problem solving.

Hamlet immediately sprung to mind.  If preservation of character is not important, and bodies strewn about are OK as long as everyone is satisifed that they said their piece and did their best, then a play which famously exterminates most of the cast is not as problematic as it might at first appear.  All we have to do is a find a form of actual play that enables this competition-by-proxy to be the main form of play rather than an emergent property.

So a quick web search reveals this set of major events in the beginning of the story: 1) a token and scene-setting skirmish between the houses and interventions from the prince. 2) Romeos self-pity over Rosaline and the agreement to gate-crash the ball 3) the ball itself

So one play model might be that in the first of these three, the only major characters are Benvolio and Thibault, the rest are essentially men-at-arms (but, ones which may well be recurrent).  This is basically a fight scene with the GM using NPC's to clue in the players and do scene setting.  Benvoilio and Thibault are NOT allowed to kill each other; that would be eplxicit.  However, actually conducting the scene is left to the players.  

Say we had 4 players - this gives us 1 major character (above) plus one henchman for each house.  Play starts - the GM sketches the scene for 1 player (Montague retainer) as the market square, what have you, and conducts 5 mins of play bantering between this character and another retainer.  The GM is "covertly" filling the square with Capulet retainers in mid-conversation asides.  Eventually the GM gives the "enter stage left" signal to Thibault and Benvolio as the conflict escalates.  The players play out the conflict.  As it escalates, the Prince arrives - this may be another player, or a speaking part for the GM.

99% of play should be between players, rather than between the GM and players.  The only time that would become important is when the GM is actually running a speaking part.  The GM's function is to maintain continuity, momentum and scene changes.

The next scene is Romeo, Benvolio and others discussing the skirmish and R. pining for Rosaline.  To get him out of his funk, they all decide to crash the Capulets do.  So again: GM sets scene, nominates players for excess characters or whatever (the player who ran Thibault would need something to do) and they can have fun discussing how to break in (abstracted in the play).  They agree, decide, scene ends.

What I'd hope for from this is that, by the end of it, you have "done R+J", more or less for real.  It really will have been R+J even if its not verbatim (a bit like West Side Story).  Theres plenty of room for expression and performance joy.  Whats different is that the characters are not persistant, scene framing is extremely vigorous, and discovery of how it all pans out will not be a driver.  But, I'd think it would still be entertaining to have had a try at seeing R+J from the inside, as it were.

addendum: and if if CANNOT be done, then that might tell us something about the use of the dramatic model as it applies to non-linear media.

Quite the opposite of what you're talking about I think, but someone published several Shakespeare conversions in DUNGEON Adventures Magazine awhile back for AD&D 2E.  I know they were a nice read but I can't say how well they played out (never tried).  I do remember thinking there was some railroading at the beginning of each scenario, but certainly not enough to cry about.  I wish I could remember the titles of the adventures.   Does The Oracle at Sumbar ring a bell with anyone?

Pete

As I started reading this thread, Sorcerer immediately came to mind. Then when Alyria was mentioned, I recognized that it, too, would be an excellent engine for this.

But then I think someone dubbed our imagined game The Tragedian, and my ancient education in dramatic literature came back to me. I think that something on this order would work quite well.

The key to Shakespeare's tragedies, we are told, is the Fatal Flaw in the central character. Hamlet, Othello, Romeo, and The Scot are all strong characters, but each has a fatal flaw. It is that flaw which ultimately forces the climax of the story. (IIRC, Othello's is jealousy mixed with inferiority--he cannot truly believe that Desdemona (?) loves him when Iago starts inventing lies about her; MacBeth's is his ambition, which, prompted by his wife's ambition, gets him to kill the King to obtain the throne and his friend Banquo to attempt to keep it.)

What interests me here is what would be necessary to build a game in which such a fatal flaw is a core part of the character, such that by acting on it he drives the story forward? I am less interested in whether we could role play the entire story of any of these plays by agreeing to do so; that's a simple task, really, as it's just improvisational acting around an agreed plot line with some resolution mechanics that should be geared to stay out of the way as much as possible. I am more interested in whether we could begin with a character designed as a traditional Tragic Hero and use that concept as the base for narrativist tension and resolution.

Thoughts?

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungBut then I think someone dubbed our imagined game The Tragedian, and my ancient education in dramatic literature came back to me. I think that something on this order would work quite well.

The key to Shakespeare's tragedies, we are told, is the Fatal Flaw in the central character....

What interests me here is what would be necessary to build a game in which such a fatal flaw is a core part of the character, such that by acting on it he drives the story forward?

...I am more interested in whether we could begin with a character designed as a traditional Tragic Hero and use that concept as the base for narrativist tension and resolution.

Thoughts?

Sure.

Fatal Flaw taken as a Sine Qua Non during character generation (by definition a "core part of the character").  Tragic ending taken as a Personal Genre Expectation, like all Genre Expectations, it renders instant rewards every time the player works towards them; those rewards are attractive enough to drive the story without specifying the ending.

It doesn't have to be Narrativist, but it can make tragedy the clear goal.  What makes it interesting is doing it this way allows play to maintain the Mystiques and Intrigue that make the ending always a source of curiosity.  Separate the 'fate' of the character from the mystery of 'how it will end' and I think it becomes highly interesting.  (Romeo chooses to go out 'in a blaze of glory.'  Hamlet goes to his fate in England or joins Ophelia.  Any number of tragic demises are open.  The more tragic, the better the Genre Expectations rewards, the 'bigger fish' to go for.)

The Tragedian was exactly the kind of potential supplements I intended Scattershot to be able to handle.  I just wish I was able to work faster developing it.

Fang Langford

I will note, in passing, that Sheapspeare-oriented LARPS, where people play characters from various plays, have been a staple in ILF circles for quite some time now. Usually they take several similar plays (several of the comedies, perhaps) and set them together in the same place, and let the players go.

I'll always remember the simple mechanic they had for some of the mistaken identity stuff that goes on in a lot of the comedies: If you see someone wearing a particular color sash (blue, for example) and you later see someone else with the same blue sash on, act as if they're the same person.

I've been digesting some of the comments here, and am very intrigued by such LARP's; the more I thought about it the more LAP-like it became.  I really like the idea of doing several of the comedies simultanesouly.

Anyway, thinking about vigorous scene setting with known characters, I had a thought about characters sheets and so forth, which are something of an obsession of mine.  Now an actor doing this sort of thing might have cue-cards or similar which would jog their memory of the lines.  There would be no need to have ALL the lines of course, only the ones for this scene.  So how about treating character sheets in a similar manner.  Instead of seeking to define the character universally and objectively, the character has several definitions, one in each scene, releative and relevant to that scene.  Frex, Mark Anthony may have kickass combat skills, but they are not relevant during his Ceasar speech.  What is relevant are perhaps relationships ala hero-wars, oratic and social/cultural expertise, that sort of thing.  When a scene is a combat scene, a character has a combat sheet; when the scene is social, only social abilitites are represented.

Applying this more generally, even existing characters and games could be structured on such a scene format.  The GM selects a subset of all the characters abilities/whathaveyou which are relevant to specific scenes, and the player works from a card bearing that subset for the scene.

Therre are overlaps here with the Arenas of Conflict idea; we are selecting abilities for relevance to an arena; another fairly radical approach might be to do character creation for each scene.  This is amore conventional RPG style of play than the pseudo-LARP discusses in the Shakespearean context; the characters "go to see the king" as a scene, and from some pool of points or dice they purchase abilities relevant to that scene.  Their might be continuity issues here, but a system should be able to work around those.  This sort of pattern would allow for a player to "purchase", in different scenes, different expressions of a central concept.  Frex, if the characters relationship with their father, is rocky, then at different times, the character may purchase different versions of the relationship trait to reflect the dynamic.

In all cases, I should point out that I amn considering attributes and whatnot as things which "commission later action" more or less rather than a governing or limiting system of balance.  But the centrality od the idea is: not all of a characters abiolities are relevant in any given scene, and by zooming to the scene we comple focus ont hose characteristics which ARE relevant.

Edited thought: characters could and hopefully would spend points on clothing if we zoom in from the objective perspective.  Because that kind of interpersonal matter would be centre stage in social contexts.  Describing clothing becomes a constructive act rather than an incidental one.

Firstly, Ever since I first got into it, I have always thought of Amber as being a very shakespearian style game/environment. I think Robert Zelazny almost certainly had shakespearian influences infiltrating his brain while writing the first five books at least. IMHO it's an ideal game through which to explore shakespearian plot lines. MacBeth/Hamlet style throne war games are a staple of Amber DRPG game plotting. Romeo & Juliet relationships between offspring of the courts of Amber and Chaos aren't unknown, etc.

Secondly, one big problem with running a game based on a single play is that, for many of the participants in the plot, the events of the play are (initialy at least) only a small part of their life. The plays follow a particular few trains of events, while other events of importance to major characters occur offstage, yet thir effects on those characters still indirectly influence the main plot line.

This is why LARPS generaly take a number of different plot lines from similar sources and mash them together. Partly it's to explore alternative and perhaps cross-polinated plot lines, but it's also largely so that individual stories don't take place in an awkward vacuum. This would be hard to avoid in a typical RPG format.


Simon Hibbs

MacBeth can be done as roleplaying.

There are probably several ways, here are two.

1) The GM constructs the game as scenes. In each scene, the players are given goals for their characters. The scene carries on until characters reach their goals. This would be perhaps in the form of mini-larps or maybe by some form of token exchange where players get token for acting in role as opposed to deviating. If you help someone achieve their goal you get a token. The one with the most tokens wins the scene. Pantheon is a bit like this, it even has conflict resolution.

2) Improv theatre. The players 'workshop' their characters then join together to unfold the scene in what they hope is a natural way. The rules concern how far you can use another character in your piece of the exposé and whether you can say 'no' to what somebody proposes.

Cheers,
Steve

Quote from: GB SteveMacBeth can be done as roleplaying.

There are probably several ways, here are two.

1) The GM constructs the game as scenes. In each scene, the players are given goals for their characters. ...

2) Improv theatre. The players 'workshop' their characters then join together to unfold the scene in what they hope is a natural way. ...

I'd forgotten about Pantheon, but yes it's very good at recreating genre fiction though gaming. The difference is that in pantheon the players would produce a drama 'in the style of' a shakespear play, rather than recreating events or characters from particular plays.

Roleplaying is necesserily dynamic and unpredictable, at least from the perspective of the players, and for me it's at it's best when it's not entirely predictable by the referee either.


Simon Hibbs