I've had this game idea kicking about in the back of my head for quite some time now (the core concept is actually salvaged from my very first design attempt four years ago. My how time flies...) and recently its been making quite a racket, so I figure its time to have a chat about it.

The original game was about the end of the world, where the dreams and nightmares of humanity broke into the real world, and people had to band together to survive. The question the game asked was "how far would you go for the people you care about", but the rules promoted...different behaviour. Characters had various triggers that would force them to behave in certain ways (usually out of fear, anger or desperation). The game was set up so that each character would trigger another. Every time a character was triggered, they'd head one step further down the spiral into desperation, madness and despair. For those of you who know me or are familiar with other games I've proposed, this should already be sounding quite familiar (Hell, I'm the one behind Infinity).  Stripped of all lasersharking, this volatile group dynamic was more focussed on abusing the other characters than helping them. It was Pathological Narcissism: The RPG!

So now I've decided to finally revisit the concept and see if I can resurrect it. I know, I know, I've already got Infinity, The Rat-God's Girlfriend and The Inquisition on standby, as well as The Cardboard People which really, really needs to be playtested and released, but this is my first game and I think it makes sense that I finish it first.

The question that I need to ask is what relationship mechanics currently exist, how do the good ones work and how do the bad ones not? This seems to be the perfect time to bring this game back out of its dusty tomb; all of  a sudden these sorts of games seem to be getting very popular with designers! So any insights, recommendations and suggestions would be fantastic!

Thanks,
Kirk

I heartily recommend checking out Paul Czege's My Life With Master if you're not familiar with it. It's essentially about examining the abusive/dysfunctional relationships between a cruel/inhuman/heartless Master and the characters, his Minions. It's very focused and I've heard nothing but good things about it. I've read it but not played it, but I'm sure a search on the Actual Play forum will yield AP reports galore.

I hope that helps.

I am also a proud owner of My Life With Master, and also haven't yet had a chance to playtest the game (or play much of anything at all recently, to my disgrace). To be honest, it didn't even occur to me at all. The concepts seem so different to my mind, because I envisage the abuse being more evenly distributed in my game. Perhaps its time to take another look again and start prodding my friends (all of whom are non-gamers).

Thanks for the suggestion,
Kirk

Hi Kirk!

I think your idea is somehow related to my October Ronnies entry: Disaster! The characters face a terrible disaster and they are the only possible protectors of their significant persons (even those to whom nasty relationships are established). You can read about it in the thread: [Disaster!] Ronnies feedback.

For me the trick was not to push the characters in any direction, and let them decide about their feelings and their reactions about the people in the community-map. I used simple mechanics to tie them to the people (NPCs). Thus, I really didn't need to push the characters mechanically to behave in a specific way. Anger and desperation arise naturally because the mechanics lead them to desperate situations and complicate personal conflicts (if the community-map relationships are chosen appropriately).
If you are interested we are now playtesting a new version with Ron's comments addressed. It needs to be polished but I can send it to you.

Kirk, it is a pity we are not hearing more about The Inquisition. I really liked the idea.

Arturo

Relationship mechanics...interesting question...

In Chainmail, as it was originally played, the players formed teams that fought one another in miniatures battles. Relationship per se was not considered since it was assumed everyone on a team would work for the common good (and who cared if some toy soldiers died anyway?)

D+D picked up on this team idea but changed the name to party, and again ignored relationships. Players ran hearty bands of adventurers just like in the Lord of the Rings. But wait, didn't they turn on one another? Yes they did... so D+D missed simulating a vital part of that pastiche.

En Garde (an obscure GDW RPG from the mid 70's) had players run characters in 17th Century France. The characters were not formed into a party and often acted individually. The goal was to raise your social status. Some times like minded players would team up but it was their choice rather than any necessity of the rules. These rules reappeared in the Traveller character creation system.

Champions (and games like it... GURPS) did talk about relationships. You could buy a dependent NPC as a weakness. You could also buy contacts as an advantage. So wife and kids were a a sign of weakness but a golf partner in the CIA, now that was worth having! Needless to say the relationships didn't mean much in play unless someone kidnapped you wife.

Paranoia is the perfect example of rules that encouraged players to turn on one another. The party was just an excuse to people close enough together to shoot one another. In a way this hearkened back to Chainmail miniatures combat free for alls.

Cyberpunk and games like it used the party but added in a lot of angst. As I recall they chucked my corporate character (who had a rock bottom humanity score by choice) out the door of the helicopter before te end of the first game. Thus player violence enforced playing fair. (I really should have shot that player's character in the back of the head like I thought to do...) This brings us back to the party.

To get away from the "Party" ideal without falling into cage match fights the players have to separated themselves from their characters. My Life with Master is a good example of this. Sure, you want your guy to escape the master, but if you end up dying, but have a good time doing it, then it doesn't matter.

Engle Matrix Games have players start with one character to champion but the character is really just a vehicle to tell the story. EMGs assume that the world is described by a matrix of information made up of the characters, maps, scenarios, and what people know about a given genre etc. (BTW Matrix Games developed this in the late 80's, it's not from the movies.) Players decide what they want to do in the game and make it happen by describing an action/argument. The referee decides how Strong it is and the player rolls. One thing often argued for is the control of characters. Players describe the relationshing that is started. The player then gets to move that character along with their first character. People build up teams in this way, they also filch characters from one another. This is especially important in spy games. Relationships are not described by numbers, instead a word is used. So I recruit Beautifulmaiden as my wife. This has no numerical meaning until someone makes an argument that says Beautifulmaiden cheats on me. The referee looks at the relationship, the character's past actions and the argument and decides how likely it is. Hopefully she will be true to me...

It sounds like Narcissism the RPG lead to a Paranoia like free for all.

So I ask you, what kind of relationships do you want to replicate in the game? You've got the psychotic fight down already.

Chris Engle