well here goes,
I've been bouncing a possible game idea off of Jason Morningstar, and he has said to post some of my thoughts and i guess proposals here, to see what kind of feedback i get.  i'm not sure if i have any great questions to ask, just yet anyway.
this idea all started with me reading "the WInd in the Willows" not to long ago, and sort of thinking to myself "gee, they don't behave anything at all like animals".  they just acted like British men.  little hairy British men.  i then thought, pretty much right away, or as i was reading it "what if they ate each other?".  what if they behaved a bit more like i think animals in nature behave, which is probably desperate, bloody, and paranoid.  but, i kinda wanted to keep all the trappings from the novel that i liked like, tiny tweed jackets with pocket watches and little houses built into the inside of trees.
my more game related thoughts have been to assign each player one animal type(species).  that species, much like in the books, would also be his name...a hare would be called "Hare", a tortoise "Tortoise".  players could not be of the same species.  each character would also have a Predator and Prey.  some players would have other player's characters' as their Prey or Predator.  this could get sticky...it's supposed to.  much like the novel(the Wind in the Willows), i am hoping this game mirrors society(well, my view of it), but instead of mirroring Class though forest dwellers versus river dwellers, i would be showing Class through the Almighty Food Chain.  characters will have to eat, and "not be eaten".  i thought about possibly including jobs, if it's going to be social commentary, maybe it should detail society closer than say myth or fable does? i'm still a bit uncertain about that one. 
characters will have to form bonds with stronger characters, somehow proving their usefullness to them, so these stronger animals will become in debted to them, granting the smaller animals a degree of safety(from being eaten). 
i've also had some unclear thoughts about fear and it's uses by animals.  i like the idea of using fear as a positive resource, but i'm not sure, as of now, how it'd work out.
god, i hope i've posted this sort of thing right...it's not too clear.
should i keep the selection of species ones native to the Great Britain?  i sort of wanted to include raccoons, 'cause they look cool, but my British neighbors have told me that GB has no raccoons.
and i kinda wanted to include Man too...at the top of the food chain. 
hey thanks.
-Nathan Herrold

I'm glad you posted here, Nathan!  You know I think this idea rocks. 

I could easily see keeping species choice wide open, so that you could play a brer rabbit game in contrast to a Wind in the Willows game - you'd just have to have flexible rules for the food chain.  Maybe have a few examples in the game but leave it open to individuals to fashion their own. 

Do you envision Man as a playable species?

no sir i do not!
hmm...well, that's my gut reaction, whether that's the right one or not, who knows. 
see, i think alot of these games, have one theme...if it were to address another theme, instead of the whole classism stuff, i could see it working.  the playing people too.  but the animals are kind of representing people, so the people(Man) have to kind of take a bigger role and represent Fate, God, whatever...larger forces. 

I'd agree.  I think I'd just leave them out of it entirely, personally.  I think having people around steals focus and provides a too-easy communal villain. 

they're(Man) in in the Wind in the Willows...which is where it kinda get's fuzzy(for me).  I mean Toad gets thrown into  an, i'm assuming, human jail, and he's able to drive a car...which i haven't seen and actual toad be able to do...maybe a smallish car.
i see it much like a microcosm of society, but which a bit more cannibalism, just a bit.  just imagine if you suspected the neighbor of eating one of your children?  what would you do? 
yeah, i wouldn't want humans to be a reaccuring villian, cause their too grand.  their motives aren't simular to the animal peoples'.  they have weird laws about not eating people.  what gives?
also on the opposite end, if ya have talking animals are there non-talking animals?  i'm thinking no.  but maybe?  at what point would they stop talking.  do fleas talk?  how 'bout mites?  things like this only matter in story if story makes it matter.  if it's cool to have a talking cricket, dammit there should be one.

gee, i wish i could edit all my shity-ass spelling errors.

What if you had a sharply constrained food chain, and each animal, fish, and insect on it was a potential player character, and also the only playable representative of its species.  So it's a little like a fable - if you are Mr. Toad, you really are Mr. Toad, and other than Mrs. Toad and maybe Toad Junior, that's all the toads anyone will ever see.  If Mr. Toad gets eaten, there's either a hole inthe food chain (I like that) or a new Toad shows up.

so, you're saying that the Food Chain would get smaller...meaning that now that Toad's gone, Badger will be forced to eat Mole, something smaller or larger than the eaten character/species.  i'm not sure about that, but about the players only being able to be of a different species, yeah, that is sort of how i saw it.  so, there couldn;t be two Toads or two Moles, or two Hares.  the other members of the species would have to be extras or supporting characters.  but, maybe that's a limited way of doing things.  maybe it's a bit too exclusive? 

I'm seeing a really easy tie in to how In a Wicked Age does changeable characters within the same setting.  So one session its about Mr. Rabbit trying to get his carrots while escaping from Mrs. Fox, while in another its Mr. Mouse helping Mrs. Fox escape from a trap (I think you could safely ignore where the carrots and traps come from the same way as you ignore where the coats and pocket watches and cars come from).

What about families?  Its a lot more interesting if Mr Rabbit is trying to get carrots to feed his litter of young, where to Mrs Fox, nabbing Mr. Mouse to feed to her starving Kits after he frees her could be compelling.  Is the restriction on "only representative of the species" flexible enough to include family?  What about extended family (when city mouse comes out to the country to visit his cousin?)

i'm thinking there is no "Mr" or "Mrs" just Otter, Tortoise, Frog, but that's my take on it.  family would only be used as supporting characters, or one member would be the sole species(character) being represented...no City Mouse, Country Mouse.  well, i haven't thought about that much, anyway.  maybe two or three of the same species is viable?  my gut says it's not as dynamic though.  i want cat and dog, or cat and sparrow as an example of player species dynamics.  Mole and Cricket could be more appropriate, or Mole and Fox...or Frog and Fox, Tortoise and Fox.  i think foxes eat anything?  which i gotta really look into. 
oh, and thanks for posting!

Here's Art, Grace, and Guts/In A Wicked Age, for reference, Nathan.  I could easily see situation generation as part of this game.  I can also see distinct advantages to making available characters laser distinct, but also to allowing a variety of NPCs as Ralph suggests. 

Very imaginitive!
This sort of game could also be easily adapted to a Redwall-like setting, also.
I imagine it might be handy to have a food chain chart available, with descriptions of all the different animals during character creation.

I don't really have much more than that to add, I'm afraid, but I think it's an awesome idea. Good luck!

Michael, how much is Morningstar paying you?
 

Hiya Nathan,

It's a really nifty idea.  Lots of potential.  I hope to see you push forward with it.

On the subject of keeping the animals British;  I think that it would be awesome if you asked the players to bring animals they are familiar with to the table.  Because a player's familiarity with a species will give them fuel to work from.  For instance, I could fire up a character right now that's either a red squirrl or a black bear and instantly know who I wanted them to be.  But I'd be kinda thrashing about lost if I had to choose between a ring-tailed lemur or an osprey (for example).

Not only that, but I'd instantly be able to make judgements about the parallels between those species that I'm familiar with and their reflections amongst the people I know. 

I especially like the idea that it would be a game about social classes.  That part really sticks with me.  What I'm curious about is, do you imagine that this would be a game would allow a character to change class?  I mean, if I'm number #2 on the food chain in the park and I intentionally allow the #1 to be destroyed by man, now I'm exclusively a predator, and no longer prey to the rest of the animals.

Also, from a slightly different line of thinking, would it be possible to reverse classes during play?  Could Field Mouse become of a higher class than Owl?

Or would there be no changes in the social order?  Once it's set at the beginning of play, that's how it is.  And then we could see how characters' lives play out while struggling in a situation they have no control over.

I think they all sound like interesting options.  But I'm curious what you had in mind.

-Eric

One thing I suggested privately was to have a sort of reverse food chain that afforded some sort fo increasing benefit the more tasty you are.  You know how Brer Rabbit is weak and delicious but can trick the guys who want to murder him into pretty much anything?  That sort of thing, maybe with intelligence or social influence or debts owed them or something.  So if you play a fox, you can kill dudes, but you're dumb as a post, perhaps.

Jason,

You mean something like a "wiley" factor?  So, Mr Field Mouse, representing the bottom of the food chain, starts the game off with the greatest of wiles while Mr Bear, representing the top o' the food chain, starts off with the least of wiles.  Therefore Mr Mouse will freqeuntly be able to outsmart Mr. Bear.  Thus balancing the obvous superiority of Bear in a who's-gonna-eat-who contest.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

But what I really wanna talk about is; should Mr Mouse ever dare dream of finding his way to the top of the social ladder?

Hey Eric!
yeah, i'm not real sure. 
my original thought was to give smaller animals more FEAR, and FEAR would be a good thing, a resource, but that's kinda went by the wayside.  killing another animal will not be an easy task, i mean these animals are a bit smarter than animals without pants.  they can pack "heat", or gang up on a larger creature., and heck, just generally "plan" better.
yeah, i'm not sure how much the Predator/Prey thing will be tied into further game mechanics.  i sort of see, as a last resort, an animal eating one of it's own species.  hey, ya gotta feed the kids somehow.   
it's gonna be a difficult balancing act to get the social commentary right, and to get the flavor for the source material right.  mirroring nature and mirroring story.  tough.
as of now, i'd say Mr. Mouse wil have a very hard time at that. 
this is my first game, so the thought process is a bit new and difficult. 
i'm thinking that if i want the threat of players eating other players, there should be an incentive to do so. 
i've got lots of ideas, i just hope a few of them are good ones.
Eric, i'd go with the lemur all the way. 

Jason wrote:
One thing I suggested privately was to have a sort of reverse food chain that afforded some sort fo increasing benefit the more tasty you are.  You know how Brer Rabbit is weak and delicious but can trick the guys who want to murder him into pretty much anything?  That sort of thing, maybe with intelligence or social influence or debts owed them or something.  So if you play a fox, you can kill dudes, but you're dumb as a post, perhaps.

it's funny, i'm repling to myself(much like most conversations go).  anyhoo...this week i had another sort of idea when i was walking home(or was it to?)work. 
i've been thinking about what makes a society, and more so what do I THINK makes a society.  basicly trying to sum up my philosophy on this whole "people" nonsense.  a song popped into my head and it goes alittle something like this..."what's society built on?  what's society built on?  it's built on bluff.  built on bluff.  built on trust." 
so, from that i started thinking about games that i liked that involved some bluffing.  "Master Builder" is a game i'm pretty good at.  it involves building a castle wall, but you have to, at times bluff what pieces you wanta bring out.  anyway, i like this game.  and ya know, there aren't really alot of role-playing games that do the whole "bluffing other players thing".  so i think i got a piece of something here. 
i also was thinking about Trust, and sort of how untrusting would be a positive if ya didn't wanta be eaten.  i guess the Mountain Witch has a Trust mechanic, but never playing it, i can only guess what it's like.  well, my idea is that players will have resources to kind of build other players Trust...like in order for me to one day or another eat you, i have to babysit your kids, or wash your car, or something like that, befriend myself to you. 
i so don't want this game to be about little furry serial killers...it's about my take on society, except with more cannibalism, and little tiny jackets.
so, once Trust is worn down, sorta like Hit Points, only then can ya go in for the kill?(OR maybe once TRUST is built up?)  and you'd wear down other players Trust(hmm...maybe it should be Distrust?)by using the resources you have, or somehow thru the game enviroment...which i don't know how yet.
but i'd love a role playing game that would involve bluffing other players.


 

oh, and i'm thinking that Species Name will be like a Proper Last Name...so you could maybe differentiate between Bill Badger and Bob Badger(for those that like alliteration...LIKE ME!).

It sounds like you're angling for a more competitive game.  I wonder if you've played Werewolf/Mafia?  That came to mind right away.  The way trust is distributed in The Mountain Witch is elegant and could easily be emulated.  It'd be interesting if there was a dual advantage/danger to increasing trust in a predatory species.  Maybe there's a threshold past which you become fair game.

I'm still not seeing any reason to play a particular species.  Why not just play the top of the food chain?

predators maybe have more Trust or less Distrust, depending on how the mechanic works out.  maybe it's tiered?  like between species or something.  um...say a Mouse who's next Predator in line is a Fox, is really distrusting of the Owl, who's two tiers above it?  i don't know Jason.
do you still like the smarter=smaller?  they are kinda smarter in a way...i guess.  distrusting is probable smart! 

I'd really like to see your vision for this in more detail, because I'm having a hard time understanding where you want to go with it. 

Social commentary on human society, with cannibalism and cute little jackets - got it.  That's solid gold right there.  Beyond that?  Maybe describe your dream session for me - write out a scene you'd love to see take place.

okay, well here's the first scene that popped into my head.
a father comes home(mr. mouse)to find out his son hasn't returned from school.  this is of course upsetting, so he goes on a search for him.  maybe he goes to the school first, maybe he goes first to a friend to get advice or help. 

How about a scene with some conflict?  What happens when the mouse finds out what happened to his son?  Describe that. 

with that as my inital set-up, it'd be cool if he'd, after getting a seach party of his closest friends together, he sort of narrows his possible location down to one house in particular.  apon bursting in, and loudly demanding to see the owner, he's hurriedly escorted by the bulter into the dining hall, where they're eating his son, as he's asking in his loudest, resounding voice "Where Is My Son!".  maybe he see's his little red cap on a seat, or a crumpled up pile of his clothing, near the fire.  maybe a couple school books, currently burning in the fire.

OK, that's all very flavorful.  Then what happens?  Pretend this is the best gaming story ever and it happened last night and you want to tell me every detail.  What happened?  Who did what to who?  How?  Did you roll dice or flip cards?  Was there a big fight?  Did he just turn around and leave? 

I hope it's okay me posting under this old topic, it's still the same game, and i'm still having thoughts, oddly not some of the same ones i've had previously.
So...how do i make rules for people, connect to rules for story?
Right now i have an idea that Prey and Predator will have the same attributes, only inverted.
Those two attributes are Fear and Hunger.  Prey will have less Fear more Hunger, Predators the opposite.  These numbers will be equal.  Like the Prey's Hunger will be equal to the Predator's Fear.  Players will be able to effect each other's attributes...i'm thinking thru the use of game-specific cards. 
I'm not sure how to tie in this mechanical idea with another idea i have, which is that by creating a story, a map of the town will be made.  It'll be a visual reminder of what's happened so far, and also when the game is over, you'll be able to see kinda, everything that happened. 
I also had idea for each player having a Duty and a Dream, again opposing each other.  Maybe each turn players must choose whether to work at thier Duty or their Dream.  This choice will effect other players, because players Dreams and Duties are tied together.  I'm not sure how the last bit'll work out.  I'm thinking it may be neat to have Dreams that are unattached, or maybe the nature of Dreams somehow detaches or takes away from other aspects of play. 
Both your Dreams and Dutie are needed for survival.
Also, do i need to give particular species inside each class(Prey, Predator)something special? 
Animals are really just a stand in for people.

...and also, what would make you not so upset at being eaten?
that's kind of a whole nother can of worms. 
how do i reward it enough that the fear of it is still quite possible, but punish players for abusing it?

I love this whole concept.

You know what it reminds me of more than anything else?  The Threepenny Opera by Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht, a dark socialist cabaret musical about class struggles and how they force people into horrible behavior.  The protagonist was a murderous thief named MacHeath, alias Mack the Knife.  At one point, he and his wife sing a song called (in English) "What Keeps Mankind Alive" that basically sums up the theme of the play.  Here's some pieces of it:

MacHeath:"You gentlemen who think you have a mission
To purge us of the Seven Deadly Sins
had better first sort out the basic food position,
then start your preaching; that's where it all begins.
...
"However much you twist, or whatever lies you tell,
food is the first thing; morals follow on."

(He is interrupted by a voice off stage that blurts out the question, "What keeps mankind alive?")

MacHeath:"What keeps mankind alive?
The fact that millions are daily tortured, stifled, punished, silenced, and oppressed!
Mankind can keep alive thanks to his brilliance
for keeping his humanity repressed."

Chorus:"So for once you must try to face the facts:
Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts!"

This whole thing is done to this weird cabaret/jazz music that's simultaneously cheery and unsettlingly off-kilter.

I bring this up because it looks like you're working with similar themes, and also an analogous way of presenting them--that is, voicing horrible things through a form (cheery music in the play, a children's tale in your game) that is, on the surface, innocuous, but turns out to be a bit of a Trojan horse (that was the driving concept in most of the Weill/Brecht collaborations).

-Marshall

shhh...Marshall,  you're giving it away. 
but, yes, you pretty much get where i'm headed.
there's a book out too that approaches somewhat simular themes.
it's called Wild Wood, and it's by Jan Needle.
i'll have to check out the Threepenny Opera...at some point.
i'm not sure if i'm really gonna get help here, and ya know maybe i don't need it. 
finding my own answers is sort of why people create anyway.
thank you so much for your nice post!