Hi,

I tried to set up a campaign based in the Lunar Empire but it fizzled.  I came up with some very elaborate setting-creation plans under the inspiration of Vincent Baker's Ars Magica Knockoff and the setting creation/endgame mechanics of Galactic.

I wanted the war between the factions to be a backdrop to the characters pursuit of their Goals, and to be the source of resources and challenges to those characters.

I would like input as to whether the suggested session-management mechanics are too burdensome, clunky, or antithetical to the spirit of Heroquest.  They are the result of discussions I have had with the few people who were interested in the campaign.

http://roleplayers.meetup.com/261/boards/view/viewthread?thread=2085692

[hr]

I have been thinking about how to run an intrigue or political game that would be Narrativist (focus on exploration of players' interest in character and theme) and not Simulationist ("THIS is how Rome was run" or "THIS is how Glamour survived Glorantha's Hero Wars") and not Gamist ("I am now Dictator -- I keep your guys' heads as trophies ... in my bathroom!).

This is simply an add-on to the HeroQuest system to facilitate group setting creation AND to provide direction to the competion of a campaign.

I am posting it here because my Heroquest campaign idea fizzled but I am still interested in the possibilities of setting up a structure for politics and intrigue in RPGS.

SETTING CREATION PLANS

* The imperial capital is coming into crisis. We don't play to find out if or how it survives. We play the game to see if the protagonsits and their circle can survive AND define the future of the city.
* I want the characters to surf the conflicting tides of political currents but I did not want to make them the heads or bosses of these currents.
* If you want to play a modest slave scheming for freedom in the midst of a civil war, you shouldn't be forced to run the civil war itself.
* So protagonists are in danger BUT players will have a say in what the danger is. I also wanted to open the possibility for intrigue and competing agendas that did not encourage Players to deprotagonize other Players' PCs by killing, enslaving, or intimidating them.

Long-story short:

* Players will create their PCs as per standard rules.
* PCs will have 1 to 3 Goals and working on these Goals leads to character improvement
* The aim of play will be to accomplish these Goals
* These Goals will be carried out against a backdrop of political intrigue
* Each player will create 2 Factions that are attempting to reshape the political situation. These factions are simply powerful NPCs. Imagine that these Factions are powerful demons that players and summon but not command: the player can bring these "demons" into play through role-play and game mechanics, or simply by fiat. But once these demons are loosed, they tend to follow their own agendas.
* At the end of each session, the Faction that has suffered the most at the hands of other actions, or the activities of the PCs, will no longer act as an independent entity.
* Once the Factions have been grouped into 2 power blocs, there will be a wild fight for domination in which every PC, NPC, and institution will be involved.
* Players may create factions that are OPPOSED to their PCs' interests: If you are a thief and want to face lots of challenges, create "Vigilante Mobs" and "Criminal Syndicate" as 2 Factions. They'll hate each other but -- more importantly, they will hate YOU.
* Players may opt to take on Factions on their own.

The GM's task will be to provide an initial stimulus from the wider setting, knit together player decisions, manage the approach of the showdown.

TYPICAL PLAY SESSION

Opening Sequence

* Players Pursue Goals

o Frame scenes with all players addressing one of their goals
o Cut at the end of free role play and just before rolling for resolution

* "Meanwhile"

o GM sets two of the factions into Simple Conflict with each other
o Players may affect the outcome by spending Hero Points, or involving any of their Followers in this Conflict.
o The results of this "Meanwhile" scene will be felt in all of the Goal scenes

* Resolve Pursuit of Goals
(the order of these two phases may be varied to avoid predictability)

Free Scene Framing

o As in Sorcerer, we procede by Framing scenes in which the players' PCs or the NPCs could become involved
o Players who use one of the Goals as a main ability in the scene will be given a Character Improvement Option at the end of any conflict in that scene.
o Players procede as normal, interacting with PCs and NPCs to obtain resources, influence actions, accomplish goals
o A player who has created a faction may Veto its involvement in any Scene being framed, including those framed by the GM (this not the case in the "Meanwhile" scene.
o Players may call for a Scene involving 2 Factions in Conflict during a scene.

- Players may choose any Faction to be involved in the scene
-If another player has created that Faction, that player may Veto its involvement in the scene.
- The Faction Conflict may be background to the scene, or the player may choose to have the player involved as a partisan in that Conflict, or to have a Faction serve as a support to some aim of that PC. The other Faction will then support those resisting the PC's aim. If it is not immediately clear why/how the Faction is providing the PC with support, then we follow standard rules: the PC will employ any relevant abilities to persuade the Faction to assist in the conflict at hand (no real difference from the standard rules).
- The scenes are played out, with characters given the chance to become involved in each others' scenes.

End of the Session

o The most weakened Faction will not be present in the next game. We will role play its defeat or subjection at the hands of another Faction
o If players have not chosen to involve Factions in their characters' scenes, the Faction most diminished during the "Meanwhile" or establishing scene of the session will be out. So 1 Faction is guaranteed to go down every session.
o The superior faction in that conflict will get a new ability that relates to the circumstances through which it expanded its power ("Reputation for Ruthlessness," "Stocks of Free Grain," "Relationship: The Upstart Knights," "Band of Corrupted Senators," etc.)
o The creator of that faction is compensated by being given a Character Improvement Option.
o Experience is given out:

    + 3 improvement points for an ability used during the session
    + 3 points to an ability a character would like to use in the next sessions
    + 3 points to an ability of ANOTHER PLAYER's CHARACTER that was helpful to you, interesting to see used, whatever
    + 3 Hero Points to be saved or spent as wished.
    + You may wish to improve Abilities of any Factions, Anchors, Sancturaries that you have created

Inspirations
* Vincent Baker's Ars Magica Knock-Off (the visual representation of factions, bridges, anchors is a direct ripoff of his Pressures, Touchstones, and Mirrors).
    This was the phrase that set me off on a conspiracy and politics game set in an imperial capital:
          "Specifically present: - The [wizards'] sanctuary coming into crisis. We play the game to find out whether it survives."
* Galactic and its collaborative setting creation AND its ideas for creating climactic endgames.
* Sorcerer and its advice about scene framing, bangs, weaving, opening, crosses, etc.

The Setting Creation Session

I see it happening like this

PC Circle Creation
- PC creation
- the PCs and their Followers are placed on a Relationship Map in the centre of a circle. The Circle represents the status quo in which the PCs are living before the upheaval strikes the Capital city.

Faction Creation
- GM lays down 3 Factions at the perimeter of the city
- Each player then Creates a Faction
- The players then have 1 more round where they may create 1 more Faction or not
- That gives us 7 to 11 factions

Anchor Creation
- an Anchor is place that is important to the Circle
(a temple, a meeting hall, a street corner, the local bar, the piazza where the citizens congregate, a palace, etc.)
- it is, like the Factions, and NPC that can become involved in the aims of the PCs
- each player creates 2 Anchors (done in two rounds)
- these Anchors may be one of the institutions listed on your character sheet, but putting it on the sheet means you are opening up that place to be used and abused by other Players

Sanctuary Creation
- this is the place where you can run for safety when things get rough
(a country villa, a friend in the barbarian lands, a monastery, nunnery, mom's hovel in the shantytown, etc.)
- no other player may call for a scene there
- no Faction can affect it
- you may choose to run here during the final showdown, if your character's long term survival is more important than dealing with a political
- if you chose to get involved in a conflict while located at your Sanctuary, there can be fallout.
Frex: If you cast spells as a support to another PC's action (or write letters or send bribes, etc.) the agents of the enemy might send a counter-curse that affects the Sanctuary and any NPCs there.

Creating NPCs
- once you have created Factions, Anchors, and Sanctuaries, you create the NPCs associated with them

* 1 NPC for the Sancturary ("Friend," "Reliable Priest," "Mom")
* 1 NPC for the Anchor ("Porter at the College," "High Priest," "Gladiator Trainer," "Old Senator")
* 2 NPCs for each Faction.
- a Boss (Moonson: Emperor, Blak Colzas: Chief of Criminal Band)
- a Contact (Childeros: Imperial Chamberlain, Fast Felix: junior street tough)
The Contact is an NPC you can interact with concerning the Faction.
All characters will make a note about how they know each of the Factions' Contacts. (Saw him in a bar, He gives me info, dated my sister, etc.)

We proceed in rounds where each Player has a chance to define one NPC out of all the NPCs that need generating.
We are talking 36 to 40 NPCs but each NPC is defined by a Name and 1 ability, so it shouldn't take long.

You could put down the names of NPCs on your character sheet, which means that you would have a NUMERICALLY DEFINED relationship with that NPC, rather than a simply descriptive one.

These NPCs may never come into play as anything other than augments to the Abilities employed by an Anchor, Faction, or Sanctuary. Or they may become personalized later in the course of play.

Defining NPCs, Factions, Anchors and Sanctuaries

*NPCs
- Each NPC consists of a name and 1 Keyword (19)

*Factions
-1 Keyword -- ideally, encapsulated in the faction's name ("Criminal Monopoly") (3W3)
-1 magic ability ("Curse Traitors," "Rat Spirits," "Idol of Bountiful Joy") (3W)
-1 mundane ability ("Street Toughs," "Frenzied Mobs", "Wise Teachers") (3w)
-1 flaw ("Lazy," "Disorganized," "Violent") (3W) -- it should be a trait that makes interaction with normal citizens difficult

*Anchors
- a name and a Keyword (13W)
- if it is an institution that came into being during character creation, any relevant NPCs will be placed on the sheet with it
- Ex: if you are at the Lunar College of magic and you put the College on your sheet, your "Relationship to Teacher" will have to be there as well.

* Sancturaries
- name, description, and a Keyword (3W)

I think it's fascinating. But then, I would. Did you come up with this concept with the other players? Or did you come up with it alone and make it the only game in town?

I think the question of whether or not this is in the "spirit of HQ" or something is irellevant. It would work for HQ with the right group. Did you turn out not to have the right group?

It's like Paul's Apprentice game. I horned my way in because I thought it was a cool idea. I didn't have a narrator telling me that this was what we were going to play. Just like with allowing players to create their own characters, I think it's often important to have the players in on what the centralizing concept of play is going to be. I mean, for all I know, your players are dyed-in-the-wool Lunar-haters and want desperately to play the Orlanthi bringing down the Lunars.

In addition, while it's fun to do everything collaboratively, sometimes it simply works better to be the "GM" and come up with things like the relationship map yourself. Especially if that's what the players are used to.

How quickly did it fizzle? How far on your checklist did you get? Who were you playing with (not names, but how do you know them)? Did you ask them why it wasn't interesting?

It's a neat idea. So what you should do with it is to have it out there as an idea for a game, and talk about it. When you find players who are as interested in it as you are, then you should run it.

Mike

3 players expressed interest in a Lunar setting
a handful of other like the concept but were turned off by Glorantha

When it actually came time for the meeting, only one stalwart -- my co-founder of Indie RPG Toronto -- actually showed up. 

The whole idea for the Lunar setting grew out of his desire to play a cultivated character with a sleeve dog!  So ancient China or chinese-style settings came to mind.  Then I thought of a Gloranthan setting that would have a lot of courtly scenes and intrigue and Glamour came to mind.

So maybe you're right: pitch it as a game of intrigue and politics with the setting to be built to player taste.

And the seed of my idea was lost in my presentation -- I want to build a setting around interesting characters.
There are intrigues swirling around them.  The world is a colorful backdrop to the characters and their struggles.

I'm interested on the social front...did anybody commit to come who did not? That is, did you get a committment to play from a bunch of people and then they backed down? Did any of them have legitimate issues as to why they couldn't come to play? Emergencies or the like? Any explanations at all?

Or did you just put out some general call to play after hearing about some interest, and only one person came? I'm assuming that these rules went out to the people first? Besides you two, how many people are part of "IndieRPGs Toronto"? How well do you all know each other? What other games do you play with this group? Are they organized by the same method you used?

See, if you're using a "shotgun" approach, and just pitching a game to a crowd, then I'm not surprised that you got what you got. Do you think that now that you've had a meeting and nobody came, that it's going to be hard to get anyone to come to more meetings later? Building interest in a game is a tricky thing. Consider sort of starting over, and getting people to commit to working up a concept with you - and here's the key - in person.

I'd personally go with the "handful of others like the concept" people and skip Glorantha, personally (I think that the people who expressed an interest in the "Lunar" setting would probably be OK with something that was just like Glamour, which shouldn't be hard to put together). But you could also go with the people who expressed interest in the Lunar setting. Talk to them individually, and tell them that you're just having a session to go over what play will be like and possibly chargen. Get them to commit to coming individually. Then, once you're there, put your ideas out as potential ways to put the game together. But, if the players aren't interested, I think that you're easily a good enough GM to get all of this stuff into play without the extra mechanics, and still allow players to play concepts that wouldn't otherwise fit the rules you put together (foreigners, for instance).

Mike

Thanks for the input

I will go with this concept as is, but with one change.

The sanctuary WILL be involved in the final upheaval or cataclysm - perhaps the PCs will have to have a few contests to run there for safety.

But the rest is as is.