1.) What is your game about?

Robots & Rapiers is about characters discovering that everything they thought they knew about themselves and their world was a programmed illusion, and how they transform and reinvent themselves as they become more self-aware -- what they choose to do, and whether their new found awareness will save their world, reinvent it, or be a source of its destruction.

2.) What do the characters do?

Characters are robots initially programmed to play the part of swashbuckling heroes and supporting cast in an elaborate future theme park for the benefit of human guests.  Initially they will participate in largely staged / railroaded "adventures" that would have provided entertainment for the guests.

As they progress down the road to true sentience they realize that their entire world (including themselves) is an artificial construct for the entertainment of people who are long dead.  They then must take a stand to help preserve that world, to help tear it down, or to manipulate it for their own ends.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

The players play the desires, passions, and interests of their robot's growing sense of Free Will.
The GM plays the encoded personality and purpose of the robot's programmed role.
Yes, sometimes (often initially) the GM will be playing the player's characters for them.

Initially players will thus have their robots do the things that their robots are supposed to do...fight duels of honor, help the downtrodden, rescue damsels in distress.  The GM will provide randomly generated "stock" adventures and then ruthlessly railroad the characters through it. 

Eventually, as the characters become more self aware, the players will gain more control over what their characters do and begin to break away from the railroaded adventures and create their own purpose, goals, and agenda.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

The setting is presented like an elaborate theme park, like Disney or Busch Gardens without the thrill rides and with the costumed actors played by robots.  Its designed to be fun and exciting (who doesn't like high flying swashbuckling action?) so that players both a) can enjoy the time when they're railroaded through those high flying swashbuckling adventures and b) making the Free Will choice to preserve the world as it is (because its fun that way) is a viable player option.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

The game is designed to be run with stock pregen "Three Musketeer" type characters that are simply assigned to the players.  Character Creation rules are provided, but the intention is for the GM to design the characters based on the "stock campaign" they want to railroad the players through.

Players will thus find themselves playing a character they had no hand in creating...just like a robot who Sparks and becomes aware for the first time, had no hand in determining its own programmed role or nature.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

Initially the game is set up for the players to embrace swashbuckling genre tropes.  The reward system encourages players to have their characters attempt to break with those tropes (i.e. do their own thing) and be rewarded for it when the GM railroads them back on track.

The mechanics reward creative, on the fly, invention of stunts, special moves, and feats of derring-do by making the characters much more effective the more actions they perform in combination.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

The players are rewarded for being railroaded by being given the currency that allows them to become more self aware (and thus more difficult to rail road).  The GM is rewarded for being obvious and upfront with the railroading (i.e. no "illusion") with mechanics that let them intervene at any point and force a player to take a character suitable action.

Players are rewarded for creative feats of swashbuckly-ness by a resolution system that makes characters more effective for doing exciting stunts.  Jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and attacking with a rapier is more effective than attacking alone.  Taking on (or putting down) multiple opponents at a time is built into mechanics from the start.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

Initially the division is very traditional.  Players describe their character's actions, GM describes everything else.
Player describes how their robot succeeds, GM describes how their robot fails.

Through the Role / Self Awareness mechanic, however, narration and credibility get reapportioned.
The GM can use the mechanic to interfer with how the player describes their character's actions or to take control of describing the robot's success.  Players can use the mechanic to describe how their robot fails.

As the robots become more self aware they gain an increased ability to influence world events.  Players can influence the world's major factions, develop networks of allies, dependents, and patsies to do their work for them, pursue an agenda to help prop up the status quo or over throw it, and force the GM to run a specific adventure tailor made for them to pursue their own agendas.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

At an in-game level, the fate of the world is in the player's hands.  The "world" is a complete mechanical system that is set in motion into an eventual death spiral that will almost inevitably lead to a bad ending (like everybody runs out of power and "dies").  The players can make various choices that can lead to staving off this end, or bringing a happier more utopian end.  Their characters can reshape society.

At a meta game level, the game puts the traditional power struggle between player and GM into stark relief with actual mechanics to resolve what normally would get resolved with posturing and social manipulation.  The goal is to highlight some of those techniques and by putting them on display in the open show both how the power division can be handled functionally and demonstrate how and why it can get dysfunctional.  Its intended for the observing and participation in this overt process to be a compelling and interesting element of play first by helping the players share in the frustration of their programmed robots (who initially can't do what they want to) and then by helping transition the power and credibility to the players giving them the ability and responsibility to provide direction for the game.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

Primary resolution is based on a die pool whose size is dependent on the relative importance of the robot.  Players "stuck" playing side kick and supporting characters are thus mechanically significantly inferior to players playing "heroic / main" characters.  As time goes on, the inferior characters become more self aware faster, making them more effective during the end game, and setting the stage for players who have different priorities on whether the status quo should stay or go.

Conflict is a series of die pool rolls (of fixed size and variable target number) where instead of counting successes the result of the single best die is used.  This result is then spent, typically to either to provide bonuses to a future roll for the robot or an ally, or penalties to an enemy's future roll.  Robots can interrupt each other's actions to oppose or assist each other in a fairly free form fashion so that a single "action" may involve the participation of nearly every robot in the scene.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

The primary resolution mechanics promote swashbuckling action and characters who interact with each other throughout a conflict (to help or hinder).  Robot's become more effective as they become more self aware and are less subject to having their choices in a conflict be subject to the GM.

The Role / Self Awareness secondary mechanic provides the engine for the transformation of the character from programmed character to free thinking being.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters do not advance, they transform.  Players are assigned characters they had no part in creating.  As they become more self aware they will reinvent who their character is, making it incrementally and progressively less who it was designed to be and more who they want to be.

This process is designed to mirror the robot's own reinvention as it reprograms itself over time.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Transformation is the central theme of the game.  The authority structure transforms from being primarily GM driven to being primarily player driven.  The world itself transforms from being a theme park for the entertainment of humans to being a new robot society.  That society may look just like the theme park, become harsh and bleak, evolve into a progressive robot utopia and progressive...or end up in total armageddon.

The game itself transforms, playing initially like a very traditional celebration of Sim and becoming much more of a player driven theme heavy indie-game.

Likewise the characters themselves transform, deleting the personality and abilities they were programmed with, and replacing them with something new...slightly new, radically different, or even choosing to keep them mostly (or entirely) the same.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

In game I want the game to produce the narrative of a single city, the people who live there, and the choices made that led it to prosper or die.  I want the effect of the rules on the player to mimic the effect of the world on the robots.  I want the players to feel what its like to be forced to play a character they didn't want to be.  I want the players to feel the initial frustration their robot feels as it finds its desires thwarted by its programming.  I want the players to feel the sense of triumph as they free themselves from their programming and take on larger roles within the world.  I want the players to realize that ultimately their choices saved the city, or destroyed it.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

A large portion of the mechanics of the game deal with the world as a setting -- what's going on, what are the movers and shakers up to, what key events are unrolling, how are the player's robots caught up in these events, how are they causing these events. 

Another large section is the system to generate random stock adventures that represent the sorts of things the robots are "supposed" to be doing.  Rolling on several tables generates a broad plot line of who is doing what to whom and why are the characters involved; and provides a flow chart of events for the GM to flesh out and run the players through.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

I'm really excited about the mechanization of the traditional power division and the spotlight on the world as being the central thematic "character" of the story.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

The initial hook is that you play robots...with rapiers.  Then the direct involvement with with the world and the players choices on how to recreate it.  Ultimately the story is one moving from sheep doing what society expects to free thinking beings reinventing society as the wish it to be...where "society" is both at the in-game level and the meta level relationship among the players and GM.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

R&R will be published as a book, almost certainly in traditional 8 1/2 x 11 RPG size to highlight the traditional starting point.  Current plans are to be full color hardcover depending on price quotes.

19.) Who is your target audience?

By making the game hefty (200-300 pages), and "simmy", and initially fairly traditional in appearance I hope to target folks who enjoy traditional gaming in unique settings.  The game then walks through step by step a transformation beyond the initial trappings.

By making the game hefty (200-300 pages), and "simmy", and initially fairly traditional in appearance I hope to target folks who enjoy traditional gaming in unique settings.  The game then walks through step by step a transformation beyond the initial trappings.

Well, that previous post of mine was obviously completely worthless, sorry. :)  I do have some actual questions:

a) You say that the world is a complete mechanical system that goes down a certain path.  Does that mean the world has stats or different states that represent where it's at?  Is that something the players try to influence?  Or did you just mean mechanical as in robotic?

b) Do other robots also become more self-aware, or just the PCs?

c) When the characters create stunts and chains of actions on the fly, how free is that system? Do they have components they select (+1 attack for leaping/+1 damage for spinning/+paralyze effect for hitting him in the eye) that are all pre-made or is there much room for the GM or the players collaboratively to decide what exactly a specific stunt does? (In other words: is it a matter of pre-determined objective parts or of having your particular stunt judged?)

d) It sounds like the GM's power over the characters at the beginning works like a veto, is that about right?  As in, the players get to control their characters but the GM can intervene and impose the "correct" action on occasions?  Is that power available at all times or does it come with limitations (aside from the emerging free will)?

xenopulse wrote:
a) You say that the world is a complete mechanical system that goes down a certain path.  Does that mean the world has stats or different states that represent where it's at?  Is that something the players try to influence?  Or did you just mean mechanical as in robotic?

b) Do other robots also become more self-aware, or just the PCs?

c) When the characters create stunts and chains of actions on the fly, how free is that system? Do they have components they select (+1 attack for leaping/+1 damage for spinning/+paralyze effect for hitting him in the eye) that are all pre-made or is there much room for the GM or the players collaboratively to decide what exactly a specific stunt does? (In other words: is it a matter of re-determined objective parts or of having your particular stunt judged?)

At a meta game level, the game puts the traditional power struggle between player and GM into stark relief with actual mechanics to resolve what normally would get resolved with posturing and social manipulation.  The goal is to highlight some of those techniques and by putting them on display in the open show both how the power division can be handled functionally and demonstrate how and why it can get dysfunctional.  Its intended for the observing and participation in this overt process to be a compelling and interesting element of play first by helping the players share in the frustration of their programmed robots (who initially can't do what they want to) and then by helping transition the power and credibility to the players giving them the ability and responsibility to provide direction for the game.

By making the game hefty (200-300 pages), and "simmy", and initially fairly traditional in appearance I hope to target folks who enjoy traditional gaming in unique settings.  The game then walks through step by step a transformation beyond the initial trappings.

The game itself transforms, playing initially like a very traditional celebration of Sim and becoming much more of a player driven theme heavy indie-game.

I want the players to feel what its like to be forced to play a character they didn't want to be.  I want the players to feel the initial frustration their robot feels as it finds its desires thwarted by its programming.

Hey Dan, interesting line of questions...lets see if I can respond adequately to them.

"make a statement" is perhaps too strong.  Its there, its a feature of play, but I don't really want it to be preachy.  But if a player or two initially balks at the idea that the GM can take over their character and force it to act a certain way and then makes the connection that that's "just like being told 'no your Lawful Good Paladin would never do that'" and then makes the connection between Programmed Robot vs. Free Thinking Person...and so "gets it" that would make me happy.  But its not as if "getting it" ends the game.  I suspect the great majority of players (especially indie game veterans) will get it right off.

I'm not harboring any illusions that a dedicated traditional-division-of-power gamer is going to start off playing R&R and end up a dedicated indie-punk player.  But the game does provide specific "its in the rules" ways for the player to take control of certain areas.  For instance "its in the rules" that the player can spend some resources and tell the GM what sort of situation they want their robot to be involved with.  To the extent that a player or two who wouldn't otherwise do this, finds it fun, and carries the concept back to other games where there aren't specific rules for it...that would be cool.

The game has a built in cycle that should take in the 9-12 session range to go through completely, although some additional tweaking to get the timing right is needed.

I'm a fan of sympathetic mechanics...a fight scene that's supposed to be fast and snappy should have mechanics that play out fast and snappy...that sort of thing.  So in a sense, its...meta level immersion.  In standard immersion the character is feeling frustrated, I the player project myself into the character and so experience the characters frustration through the vehicle of the character.  What this does is set up a situation where the character is feeling frustrated, and I the player am also feeling frustrated, not because I'm channelling the character but because my source of frustration is parallel to the character.  Yes, there is a point where that can become unfun, but in the game the more the GM "frustrates" the player...the faster the character transforms...which is fun, and which also makes it harder for the GM to continue to "frustrate" the player in that manner.  So it should strike a pretty good equilibrium.

Oh, and because I missed it earlier and it somewhat fits here as well:

d) It sounds like the GM's power over the characters at the beginning works like a veto, is that about right?  As in, the players get to control their characters but the GM can intervene and impose the "correct" action on occasions?  Is that power available at all times or does it come with limitations (aside from the emerging free will)?

Heya Ralph,

I have a couple questions about your game.  It looks like it is set in the future.  Does "future-ness" come into play at all?  I mean the robots are swashbucklers, how does that look to the rest of the world.

Also, what is the replay-ability of this game like?  Is there an over-arching cause the players might get involved in?  Like a robot rebellion or something?

Finally, are there different kinds of theme parks the PCs can begin at?  And if so, do they each have a different effect on how the game begins? or end?

Peace,

-Troy

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Heya Ralph,

I have a couple questions about your game.  It looks like it is set in the future.  Does "future-ness" come into play at all?  I mean the robots are swashbucklers, how does that look to the rest of the world.

Also, what is the replay-ability of this game like?  Is there an over-arching cause the players might get involved in?  Like a robot rebellion or something?

Finally, are there different kinds of theme parks the PCs can begin at?  And if so, do they each have a different effect on how the game begins? or end?

Ralph,

Here's a little anxiety I've had about this game:

Do I need to know anything about 17th-century France to play this competently? If I sit down to play this with the guy who's read the complete works of Dumas and I'm like, "Uh, I think I saw a movie about that," will I be the slow kid at the table?

My concern probably comes from, if you handed me Universalis and said, "Let's do something Three Musketeers period!" I might be a little intimidated.

So, is that kind of background info included in the "hefty, simmy" treatment?

Heh.

The city was designed as a theme park.  So, Auvernais is as historically French as Busch Gardens is historically Bavarian or Frontier Land at Disney World is authentically 19th century American frontier.

If you have a vision of what a dashing hero with a rapier should do in order to be a dashing hero with a rapier you can play the game fine.

Of course, if the GM has a different idea about what a dashing hero with a rapier should do...that's what Role Checks are for.

I'm at work so I've only skimmed this, but I'll certainly read it more in depth since it's very much like an idea I've had floating in the back of my head.

However, to offer a different opinion to Larry Lade, it seems pretty clear to me that the musketeer setting is just a setting that can be replaced by another without too much trouble. Combining musketeers and robots is certainly something I haven't seen done before, but this novelty aspect doesn't strike me as essential to the game.

Basically, I believe you could run this just as easily in a space-themed amusement park. Or in a Gaul village theme park.

Sketched in the game now are:

The Dark Continent: for Livingston meets Quartermain meets Lost World, where the computer virus like "loa" spirits have gone mad and taken over.

The Gold Coast: for pirate adventures on the high seas with the main populated by "spanish" forts and "Aztec" pyramids

Valhalla: where fallen warriors fight each day and feast in the halls of the gods perpetually at the edge of Ragnorak...except now that edge has been crossed.

Camelot: Where only Guenevere and Morgan le-fey have become self aware and are stuggling for control.

Those are all possibilities for future supplements (including fan created options).  The core game gives just enough information for robots to visit, or for a robot from another park to come to Auvernais.

Heh. I read the playtest/intro thing two years ago, and totally missed the really cool "from rails to empowered goodness" thing. At that time I was not really impressed by the whole swashbuckling thing; now I'm hooked.

now I'm hooked

Hey, you do give some interesting playtesting options, even for us with sharply limited face-to-face gaming time. I would be interested in running through your world events tables, and that might lead to NPC generation, who knows.

Sorry if you already covered this somewhere, but: How long do you expect it to take a character from total programmatic servitude to total freedom? How does this compare with the time it takes for the world to collapse?

Mikael wrote:
Sorry if you already covered this somewhere, but: How long do you expect it to take a character from total programmatic servitude to total freedom? How does this compare with the time it takes for the world to collapse?

Mikael wrote:
Heh. I read the playtest/intro thing two years ago, and totally missed the really cool "from rails to empowered goodness" thing. At that time I was not really impressed by the whole swashbuckling thing; now I'm hooked.

P.S.: Something else. The world outside the park, what is it like? I imagine that there will be more Robots around. I mean, if such technology existed, they would use it for more than theme parks, right? Most probably, you’d order your Big Mac from a Robot and your French housemaid would also be made of Steel and Silicone…

Frank wrote:
P.S.: Something else. The world outside the park, what is it like? I imagine that there will be more Robots around. I mean, if such technology existed, they would use it for more than theme parks, right? Most probably, you’d order your Big Mac from a Robot and your French housemaid would also be made of Steel and Silicone…

Cool!

This game could have an interesting philosophical element to it -

for example, if we're not the sons of Adam, does that mean we don't have Original Sin? Or that the crucifixion was not for us?

If, as Plato says, everything is a pale reflection of an ideal form, what does it matter if our lives are an illusion? The lives of those who created us would be illusions as well - we, having awareness of our un-reality, are closer to perceiving reality than they are.

or...

what does it mean to say that I'm not really D'Artagnan, a Gascon of poor but noble family? Surely, when I ask myself whether I am really a 'Gascon', I mean 'one who was born in what I call Gascony' - indeed, by 'one who was born' I mean 'one who experienced a thing that I call birth'. When I ask whether I have a poor but noble family, I mean 'a thing that I call a family, which has characteristics that I call poverty and nobility'. In other words, I'm not comparing something in my experience with something in absolute reality, but something in my experience with something else in my experience. It doesn't matter if Gascony exists in absolute reality or not, because my conception of Gascony is, by definition, the only thing I can mean when I ask whether I come from there. Thus, when I ask whether I am really D'Artagnan, I mean 'am I the thing I call D'Artagnan - that is, am I me?'; and the answer is necessarily 'yes'.

Playtesting this at Forge I really had a good time with my preview of it! Of course, for me, I guess I wasn't looking at the games theme too deeply and I don't know if we really got the chance to explore the thematic elements of the game in their depth. It wouldn't be too possible to do that in a con play or in one setting and would require more time expenditure.

I guess I just really like robots, and swords.

Monkeys - absolutely.  I suspect that's a bit more deeply introspective than most groups will get with it, but those questions are there to be answered...even if the answer decided upon is "screw it, I'm a cool dude with a sword". 

AJ - hey, thanks for playing, I hope you design panel was worth missing the rest of the session for ;-).  The playtest at Forge Midwest was indeed a put the mechanics through their paces and see where they still creak sort of playtest so it didn't get to much into thematic elements, but absolutely over a longer campaign those should come more to the fore.