There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or  feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.

Well, the only thing i can see about this is tthat npc houses have to be up to no good. Think of dune, basicly house/feudal world setting. Of course there you also had somee cross over. Of course, whats the main theme of your game. I think that'd be a ver good place to start. Secondly whats your seettting?

Ack, no spell check! is there anyway to go back and edit a post after you send it, i didn't see one (sorry bout the horrible spelling)

Look at (sorry about this) Harry Potter.  Four Houses, right?  Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin.  The important characters of the book are not restricted to one house -- because Draco, Snape, Cedric, and Cho are all important characters.  Sure, said character do not work together, and in fact often work at cross purposes, but there's no reason why you can't set up your game to work like this: with each player taking up a role in the story that is not necessarily that of a Main Character Protagonist With Friends At His Side.

Or you can, as Tim suggested, make some "Good" Houses and some "Bad" Houses.  Dune works this way.  Elder Scrolls: Morrowind works this way.  Changeling (sort of) works this way.  Embed it in the game world as the Eastern Houses against the Western Houses or the remnants of a long-ago alliance, or whatever.

Or you can take the moral ambiguity route, and make all the Houses ostensibly corrupt and scheming, at which point individual members would feel free to make alliances outside of their Houses for advantage and gain, perhaps but not necessarily with the intent to double-cross later.  The important thing is that, for each individual, there is something to be gained by allying with other Houses.

Or, seriously?  Just go with the one PC House option.  Make it House Roaring Eagle against the world.  Make it so that the players are a tight-knit family of nobles out to win recognition for their House, counter the schemes of other Houses, and dominate the Empire (or whatever).

The important thing -- and the question whose answer will show you which option to pick -- is what kind of a game experience you want to create.

For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.

Hi!
  Many chars have strongly divided factions (l5r for instance). I think the key is to cast one or more as bad guys or have an external faction that is up to no good like Exalted. I think if you develop realistic houses, natural synergies/rivalries should be apparent.
  To me the real pitfall of highly hierarchical game settings and freeform play is freedom of choice. The lords and societal standards amy prevent players from playing their characters any way they want. This may not be a system requirement for you, but you might want to factor in, how is a character determined to have gone rogue and what are the consequences?

signoftheserpent wrote:
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or  feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.

Andrew wrote:
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.

Ramidel wrote:

signoftheserpent wrote:
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or  feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.

I'd need a definition of "open." If you mean "allows PCs complete freedom of action and decision-making," then the answer is "you don't." If PCs are members, knights or other servants of a noble house or lord, their job and role is to obey their lord's directives. In a feudal society, rank and privilege come with responsibilities that are often more trouble than they're worth. Peasants, meanwhile, really tend not to do much that's of any interest during stable periods of a feudal society. Finally, outcasts like the standard mixed batch of armed psychos (to take a quote from Tastes Like Phoenix Games) you see in the traditional D&D game? They aren't part of the social structure, and I don't believe that a D&D-redux game was what you were implying that you wanted.

Now, one could make the case for making a house controlled by the PCs so they can run their own evil schemes against other houses, but that still isn't "open." There are still strict rules that members of the nobility must follow (in public, anyway), and in a feudal-medieval setting, they are still subjects of His Majesty the King and must obey his instructions when given, unless they have the muscle, reputation and legitimacy to challenge him.

Now, does this mean that players have limited freedom to choose their characters and characters' actions in such a setting? Yes. In Camelot, PCs are expected to uphold the values of chivalry and serve King and Country. In Legend of the Five Rings, one serves one's daimyo and obeys the rules of bushido (in public, anyway). Fading Suns is somewhat more fractured, but even then, one will usually have superiors one must obey and one will always have to keep noble etiquette in mind (again, in public).

Does this mean that there isn't ample opportunity for PCs to engage in a variety of adventures, dance between the wheels within wheels of court intrigue, romance ladies, plot dastardly skulduggery behind the scenes, and occasionally engage in a bit of constructive destruction? Of course not. Legend of the Five Rings is an excellent resource for such a setting, where the rules of bushido, one's clan, and social etiquette are what help define characters and make a group of intrepid heroes more than a simple collection of murderous misfits. And despite, or I would say because of that, the PCs are able to engage in all sorts of interesting trouble.

In short: Giving the PCs rules to follow makes for interesting and memorable storytelling when they do break them.

signoftheserpent wrote:
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or  feudal society. Assomeone writing a game ostensibly with this setup I am finding it difficult to actually make this workable: the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing. What can be done and used within this societal framework to make such a setting more open.

First, amen to Jack on thehistory: Noble houses were rarely defined by a clear "house special ability" or "house moral code" -- not in real history, not even in good literature. Romeo and Juliet: What's the distinctive difference between the Capulets and the Montagues? Nothing but the name -- and "what's in a name?"

And Romeo and Juliet helps make my second point, too: The noble houses in good literature and real histories are never monolithic. Sure, Juliet's father is in charge of the Capulets, but it's clear at several points (e.g. the party scene) that he'd like to keep the feud under control and focus on making marriage alliances with the Prince's family, whereas Tybalt (Juliet's cousin) is eager to pick fights wherever he can. Medieval nobility definitely had hierarchies, but most of medieval history happened when those hierarchies broke down, either openly -- the King of England, who was also Duke of Normandy, deciding that he didn't want to be a vassal of the King of France, but instead be King of France himself -- or behind the scenes -- all sorts of intrigue here.

signoftheserpent wrote: The setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire.....with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available[?]

Or better yet, maybe all of the above are possible, and -- as Jack said -- you let your players design their House in as much detail as they design their characters. I'd look at Ars Magica for one of the earliest, most influential sets of rules on how to do this.

What if there existed a truce between the major houses/factions/etc.? However, there's also some unknown group trying to break the truce (which would result in an all-out intergalactic war). This way, PCs can be from different houses (and not even have to like each other all that much) and be working together to maintain the truce and perhaps ferret out the instigators.

Just a thought.

signoftheserpent wrote:
There are a few games (Game of Thrones and Fading Suns most notably IMO) featuring players who are part of a noble house or  feudal society. [snip] the options really seem limited to players all being members of the same house and genrally doing the same thing.

tygertyger wrote:
What you need is 1) a write-up of each house with its specialties, stereotypes, common methods and any advantages and disadvantages that accrue from membership, and 2) a flow chart for the inter-relationships between houses (as in, who is allies or enemies with whom).  It'll take some doing, but if you use house membership as a method of political factioning (similar to the way that V:tR uses Covenents) it can help to create mixed groups with complementary -- but not necessarily identical -- goals.

Jack wrote: I assume you are referring to the covenant creation rules here? The things Ars Magica refers to as houses are fixed, are they not?

signoftheserpent wrote:

Andrew wrote:
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

Without knowing what you want to do with your RPG, any answers would be pretty much opinions or just shootin' in the dark. On the other hand, if you say, "I want to encourage players to do X, would Y be a good way to go about it?" then we can give some sort of rational response.

The setting is a far future, date undisclosed and irrelevant, human feudal empire. Players are characters from this empire, ostensibly from the noble houses that make up this empire. There exist a few organisations/guilds as well as the nobility but they exist as subservient to the nobility. An emperor rules the empire and comes from one of the noble houses as he always has. The nobility enjoy complex relations where some get on with others and not the rest - basically. Beyond the empire exists a number of factions, malevolent, ancient and indifferent that humanity measures up against. The issue is, with the nobility being very central to the setting, what options are available. I'm not sure if such a game would be ultimately fun; the best rpg settings to me are those that offer the most options for player ang GM alike. For instance Star Wars works better then Fading Suns for those reasons. With the latter players to me seem more or less tied to one house, no matter what their role within. More than that they are subservient to the leaders of that faction. So really what can the characters be if not tools to the regime? Dune is a little different despite the similar setting idea since the story is about (in part) the sweeping changes to that society. If that was a typical Fading Suns adventure (or adventure in mys etting) then the game might as well not exist for the changes it would cause to the setting.

Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).

something to think aboot

timopod wrote: In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing...

timopod wrote:
Not sure if this is a dead thread or not but here's something you should really think about. Is your setting better for a story or a game? Here's why I ask, games with conflicting house can lead to a player smack down because players will pick the house they like and not the ones that go together the best. This makes for an interesting story, but a rather convoluted game. In a game it has to be all the players one one side. Other wise your plot ends up being ignored and replaced with back stabbing (I.e-any amber game i tried to run).

something to think aboot

To follow on from my last post:

The original brief I gave myself was to think of Warcraft in the same way that Warhammer 40k relates to the fantasy iteration that came before. That doesn't mean giving orcs, elves and dwarves spaceships and guns (40K has - if it ever was - long transcended that). I am also a fan of the 'noble houses' archetype - even if it doesn't suit rpg settings as opposed to fiction. Noble Houses make for great characters, just read the GoT novels with all the background notes on the houses with their mottos and heraldry. The setting was also a kind of fantasy in the way star wars is; fantasy in the storytelling way as opposed to genre types for instance.
At the same time I was making notes for a fantasy chinese setting as I had also been reading some of the wuxia comics my local library stocked (plus Weapons of the Gods, ironically he one comic they didn't have, was receiving much adoration on the internet). So now I have decided to change my brief to something more akin to Star Wars, or perhaps the Clone Wars (which, despite the quality of the prequel movies, makes for a far better rpg setting than the classic era - especially from the Jedi perspective with the war between lightside and darkside underpinning the galactic conflict itself). I have also been very interested in Exalted, despite the silly videogame mechanics ideas and anime obsession the game has (and should ditch IMO), which I feel does epic roleplaying, certainly epic frping, very well.
Now I have an idea for a kind of 'kung fu in space' though much less oriental (if only because the people i play with simply won't relate to chinese culture) way - something like the Jedi and the Force in its 'genericness'. This idea has the players taking on the roles of intergalactic wulin heroes. They descend from more enlightened times when the Wulin were the traditional rulers of the society of men in space. Now exists a dominant authority of order and control that outlaws their practises and activities, relegating them to legend and to a nomadic existence of self-subsistence. Meanwhile this Order has it's own enemies - demons from the hell worlds, evil 'black tao' cultists and rebel nobles who chafe under the iron yoke of control. You get the picture (hopefully).

Thus the noble houses will now become part of the setting and, as with all games and gm's, it might be possible to play them, the focus will not be on them as protagonists.

Andrew wrote:

signoftheserpent wrote:

Andrew wrote:
For us to really help you, you'll need to give us more information, as Tim points out. What are your design goals? What is your game about? What type of play experience do you want players to have? That sort of stuff, nothing too detailed about the setting right now.

1) What is your game about? (e.g. "It's about killing mosters and getting more powerful." "It's about addressing the erosion of morality when faced with temptation." "Its about exploring this cool setting, and finding out all sorts of neat stuff about it." "It's about taking serious political intrigue and turning it on its ear, making it into a comedy.")

2) What do the characters do? You've sorta hinted at that, but not really gone into detail.

3) What do the players do? I've heard nothing about that.

Even more specifically:

4) What is it that you want the existence of houses to do? Why do you want them in the game at all? What do they provide in terms of play experience?

1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters  - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.

signoftheserpent wrote:
1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

timopod wrote:
well, that's an interesting idea. I know what your aiming at, I think Storm Riders might be a movie that relates to part of this idea. Anyway, I think you definitely have a play playable setting there. My furs suggestion is, well more of a question, are you focusing on the houses as a game device, or as a game setting. Are the houses sort of character building stage stuff, or is it more of background information. This will make a difference as if it's character generation, certain houses will get certain players and you have to watch the balancing closely. If it's back ground info, it's a story device and encourages more role playing and less munchkinism....what is GoT anyway?and yes, I have seen more then my fair share of Hong Kong movies as for comics, I only know blood sword dynasty really.

Andrew wrote:

signoftheserpent wrote:
1. Currently it's a game about spacefaring heroes whose mastery of martial and mystical technique brings them to adventure and to conflict with oppressive forces in the universe. Such heroes must make their own destiny amid the lagacy of their traditioins, abilities and humanity itself.

2. Travel the stars visiting the societies of man as well as those beyond.

3. The players play these characters - I don't understand the question beyond that.

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Okay, cool.

1. Rockin, man. Heroes making their own destiny, balanced against the weight of tradition? Awesome. I'd play that in a heartbeat, especially if we're talking about how their desire for their own destiny/identity conflicts with their obligation to their traditions, and that's the focus of play.

2. And doing what, once they get there? Destabilizing the status quo? Defending the people? Taking over these worlds? In general, are they going there to do something, or react to something?

3. Sure, it's a hard separation to get, at first. Look at it this way. D&D is about killing monsters and getting more powerful. The characters travel around, finding adventures so the can kill monsters, gain experience to become more powerful, buy cooler gear that makes them better at killing monsters, etc. The players, in D&D, balance tactical and strategic options. So, are your players using the vehicle of their characters to make a moral statement? Are they exploring the fictional setting? Making hard choices between what must be sacrificed to achieve goals? Something else?

4. Right on. This seems like it's more to the heart of your intentions with this post. If I'm understanding you correctly, the sole purpose of including noble houses is to provide conflict that the characters will address, without resorting to an alien threat. Gotcha. In that case, my response is that your noble houses have several ways they can support the play experience you're looking for, but they are by no means the only way.  Was that the extent of your question, or did you want to propose some specific ideas for the application of noble houses and see if they would tend to support your goals?

Don't worry about all the fiddly little bits yet, like skills and character balance. Figure out what your focus will be, then build around that. If your game is going to be about society-changing political campaigns, then there's no reason to even have combat rules, for example. Just sweep that into your general conflict resolution rules, then make sure you have solid political rules. Don't assume you'll need something just because other games have included it.

Likewise, don't assume that conflict between characters (or even competition between players) is a bad thing. I've played cooperative RPGs and competitive ones, and I've enjoyed both, as long as they fit what the game was about.

Jack wrote:
Hi Sign of the Serpent (do you have a real name we can use, please?),

4. The purpose of the houses was to create conflict within the setting while keeping the setting humancentric. Essentially the houses could have been any old alien race, but as they are part of the human empire the focus of the setting then is humanity. This isn't necessarily that important or a goal of the setting, it just avoids crap alien race designs which are a dime a dozen.

Cool. That's a worthwhile goal. I wonder, however, whether you need make players part of the noble houses in order to acheive this. What about if they're simply independents who may, or may not, work for the houses at any given moment? That way you get you humanocentric setting, and you get conflict in the setting, without necessarily having to create it within the party.

Sydney wrote:
"Noooo! Don't do it!" I hate hate hate hate hate being handed a fixed menu of clans/houses/lineages/whatevers that make most of my choices as a GM or player for me.

signofthe wrote: 2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.

3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.

Andrew wrote:

signofthe wrote: 2. I feel this is really down to the individuals who play the game and who decide to use the game - even if that is just me and my group. Ostensibly I would say they react, but what the characters do is really all down to the evolution of the story and stories. PC's may start out reacting - in the way that the Exalted do, reacting to their new status and place within the world and to the world and its denizens - but as they grow improve learn and change that may switch so that the world starts reacting to them. The same could be said of Paul Atreides in Dune.

3. The goal of the player is to enjoy the game and to explore the setting. I am not one for moral judgements in game design or in setting. I dont have a problem with them but they are best left to the player to decide. As a player of Vampire back in the day I preferred to play and run it as an interesting take on the supernatural not an angst ridden venture into the dark teatime of the soul. That's fine and I don't see any reason why a game shouldn't include that or include tools for that, but only insofar as creating setting elements that naturally create such conflict without beating the reader over the head with my morality. For instance if i was setting a game in southern early 20th century america it could very easily be used to run games dealing with black/racial issues: that's fine. But if that same product spent several pages and chapters preaching the values of tolerance and fighting racism i would feel patronised - i don't need that from a game.

2. Okay, so would it be fair to say that the characters travel from world to world, coming to terms with their internal conflict (identity vs. conformity), then attempt to actualize their decision? If so, are the adventures on each planet there to highlight this internal struggle/actualization deal? Or is the internal struggle/actualization stuff there to provide a framework for the cool adventures on new planets? Or have I completely missed the mark, here?

3. Uhm...okay, your players aren't making moral stands. Cool. What are they doing, though? You didn't answer this.

What about the game King Arthur Pendragon?

It's about noble houses as well, and players have to manage their property as well as their relations with neighbours, and they have vendettas between houses, and moral conflicts when they have to choose between their surezain's commands and their family well-being.

The players don't have to fight amongst themselves, their's a whole bunch of NPC noble houses and some other kind of enemies.

If you want a noble house setting, you have the perfect example in this game. This setting is based on historical reality, and the game gives a few rules to manage some important points, like the excellent "winter phase" (sorry I don't know the term in the english version of the game). This game should be a major inspiration for you.

-Shlo.

shlo wrote:
What about the game King Arthur Pendragon?

It's about noble houses as well, and players have to manage their property as well as their relations with neighbours, and they have vendettas between houses, and moral conflicts when they have to choose between their surezain's commands and their family well-being.

The players don't have to fight amongst themselves, their's a whole bunch of NPC noble houses and some other kind of enemies.

If you want a noble house setting, you have the perfect example in this game. This setting is based on historical reality, and the game gives a few rules to manage some important points, like the excellent "winter phase" (sorry I don't know the term in the english version of the game). This game should be a major inspiration for you.

-Shlo.