Never being one to shy away from a challenge, I have come up with a concept.

I don't know if it's been done before, but I haven't encountered it on the level I envision. I've attempted lesser versions of it in the past but this version is hopefully going to be a magnificent success or a glorious trainwreck.

At it's simple level, I'm going to be running a pair of games at this year's GenCon Oz.

Game one is a diplomacy style board game for 20-40 players, based on a city wide map that will be 3m x 3m (10ft x 10ft for those who don't use metric). Players will take turns every 4 hours or so, four times per day (vaguely 9am, 1pm, 5pm, 9pm), hopefully if the timing is right those turns will space nicely between the sessions of other games that are being run.

Game two is a regular tabletop game being run in the same game world as the larger board game. 9 sessions, each with 4-6 players, engaging in missions that will inevitably cause disruptions to the grand plans occurring around them.

The events in the big game will make macroscopic changes to the dynamic of the tabletop game, while the tabeltop game will make microscopic, precise and locally dramatic changes to the big board game on the following turn.

I've been trying to scour the game for board games where more than a dozen players can sit down and strategically plot a course of events that resolves itself in around 10 to 15 turns, but the closest I've managed to find so far is numerous links to Diplomacy with a couple of variants that can handle 9 or 10 players, and most games of diplomacy that I've played tend to last 20 rounds or longer.

I'm wondering if anyone has encountered a huge multi-player game of the type I envision, something that I can look to for potential issues I might encounter.

If there's anyone out there who might have seen such an experiment attempted in the past, and who has advice for a similar experiment, it would be much appreciated as well.

If anyone's interested I'll start posting some more details.

V

I've never seen this on such a grand scale before, but I've often heard the "wouldn't it be cool to do two campaigns that affected each other!"

You should let me know how it goes. 

One bite...but plenty of people looking.

I'll offer a bit more about the ideas that I'm compiling for the experiment.

For a start, the game is based in a twisted reflection of my home; Sydney, Australia. In the real world it's a place where dozens of cultures live side by side often under a tension of religious rivalry and cultural warfare. In the twisted reflection, each culture has supernatural protectors who have followed their mortal cultures around the world. These supernatural beings literally fight one another in a reflection of the cultural and ideological warfare of the city. They have been doing this for the whole of human history, and it is a case that either conflicts in the mortal world stem from the supernatural conflicts, or the mortal conflicts have forced the hands of the supernatural world (leading them into conflicts). The game doesn't claim that all events in mortal history are the direct result of supernatural intervention, but the two worlds do reflect one another.

It's not revolutionary or ground-breaking stuff, but I think a lot of the games that have already trodden this path in the past have had flaws in their handling of the scenario.

Now for some meta-mechanical discussion.

One of the things I liked about ongoing live roleplaying campaigns was the ability for players to concoct plans behind the scenes, sometimes these plans would manifest in the monthly play sessions. Sometimes they'd go hideously wrong, and sometimes they'd produce spectacular twists to the storyline for other players to confront; but the fun for many lot of players was in the planning, others enjoyed the execution, still others enjoyed the ability to thwart plans and induce chaos. There was a level of intrigue in the game beyond the physical boffer combat and the interpersonal social abilities (which often rely on a player's conversational abilities and social skills more than the numbers on the page).

The problem with several of the systems I've encountered for this sort of thing is that they can tend to be really abstract (and therefore relying a lot on GM fiat), while many of those that provide a more structured mechanism for background manipulation tend to be overly restrictive (therefore not allowing players to develop creative freedom in their plans).

I'm trying to develop something that allows freedom of ideas while really giving some solid mechanical grounding. If I had to use loaded Forge terminology, I'd probably say that this side of the game is a blend of simulationist and gamist. It aims to give players a feel for strategic thinking in a supernatural environment, to give the player an experience for what it might be like as an immortal being verging on godhood, struggling against dozens of other similar creatures through the manipulation of heroes and their followers. So it aims to have Simulationist aspects in the reflection and recreation of this milieu, while it has Gamist aspects because the players are literally competing with one another using the powers and followers at their command.

The second half of the game would be more of a narrativist/simulationist fusion. It retains the simulationist angles of immersing the players in a world that is superficially identical to our own; but instead of the gamist competition between the players, this level of the game is more about telling stories within the setting. Players here are trying to make sense of their supernatural powers in the context of mortal society, while trying to survive the mysterious and machiavellian grander game being played by their elders, the game has a strong flavour of traditional ideologies and beliefs versus pop-culture and reality television. But perhaps the stories of this second half could simply be the tales of regular mortals who have become caught up in events beyond their control, making this level of the game very "film-noir"-ish (maybe suitably for historical games in the milieu)...

It would be very easy to run these games as completely separate, but only maintain thematic elements between them, but I'd like to maintain a level of mechanical similarity between the two halves of the game.

At this stage I'm working off a simple dice pool mechanic, roll a number of d6s and any that score more than 4 count as a success. Skills and special abilities aren't reflected by rolling more dice, but instead give the players an automatic success before they roll their pool. The two halves of the game diverge from here.

I'll throw up a general idea of the mechanisms in a new thread shortly.

But once again, if anyone has any fresh ideas to throw my way (or queries about where I'm heading), I'm certainly open...

V

Seen REIGN?  It's about the leverage points where a small group can affect the course of national events.

-G.

Greg,

From what I've managed to gather about "Reign" so far, it's got some ideas that could really be useful. It looks like you've covered a decent amount of the ground I'm interested in exploring.

Especially for the macroscopic version of the game.

At that level I'm essentially looking at the way cultures interact (in a method that is generalised and simplified to fit with the medium of enjoyable play, rather than a highly complex series of simulation calculations). I definitely like the way you've included a notion where the actions of key individuals can shape the destiny of larger groups. Certainly the kind of thing I'm aiming for. This verges between the two sides of the game I envision.

To use similarity to Reign, the microscopic half of the game would be a tale about a single company within the world. One session might relate the adventures of a pirate vessel smuggling items into a port for their master, the next session might tell the tale of a cult of priests trying to gain the favour of their god. Character generation in these microscopic tales should be quick and dirty, but should still allow enough depth that a company can be returned to in a later tale for more epic stories. The macroscopic game gives an overall feeling of the world, the microscopic game really focuses on a key event or turning point.

Reading through the ReignWiki has certainly added fuel to my mind.

Thanks...

V

Although you've probably already thought of it, you could always go with the classic game of "Risk". It's not particularly suited for anything besides combat, but it wouldn't be that hard to add on some other stuff if you wanted, and it can be completed in 10-15 turns if no one hides in Australia  (although i guess if you used a map of Australia that would be the default, but if you've ever played risk you know what I mean). Anyways, it could handle a lot of player and everything, so that might be an option.

Good luck!

I'd completely forgotten about Risk, it's been a long time since I've played it.

The number of turns is a lot closer to what I've been after and the die rolling involved is closer to the ideas I have for this game. I might even have a look at Axis and Allies (and it's derivatives) since they include a pseudo-story element in the development of technologies.

Time to load up google again.

V

Michael, you're harking back to the historical origins of role-playing. Well before D&D was published in 1974, people were developing the techniques in very much the context you're describing. In many cases, it was wargaming - people were doing the fantasy-world wargame thing, and sooner or later they wanted to run "little adventures" with one-person units instead of twenty-person units in skirmishes or thousand-person units in wars. So they'd keep wargaming, creating the contexts and situations for zooming-in to play out the personal stories or events.

Way back when, when we older gamers were little mumps, we'd say that D&D originated as a single-combat modification for the skirmish wargame Chainmail, but there's too much documentary evidence now that many people were already playing these personal-level scenes and adventures in the context of many other wargames. The most famous are White Bear & Red Moon, the Blackmoor campaign, and M.A.R. Barker's Petal Throne. That last is a little different, actually, because instead of a wargame it was spoken novel or series of novels, but again, people in the group would then play out (and create) smaller-personal events in the larger saga Barker was presenting.

Best, Ron

I guess my current patterns of thought are more about game archaeology rather than game innovation.

On the positive side, that means there are more perspectives and more system concepts that I can use as paths of research.

But unlike a lot of the stuff that I've seen produced so far, what I'm really after here isn't just a scalable system where players can use the same mechanisms to simulate a fist-fight, a gang war or an interplanetary battle.

Instead, I'm after a coherent pair of systems, macro and micro; each of which reflects on the other. Dramatic effects that occur in the development of the personal-level roleplaying narrative affect the strategic-level wargaming layout.

The optimum solution would be to play alternate games of each, one as the macro down-time, one as the micro drama. In a convention situation, there would be turns of the macro game between sessions of the micro game; in a home situation, a single turn of the macro game could precede a micro session (or conclude a micro game).

As I write this I've just realised that the order of playing the micro and macro games can give very different thematic filters to the setting.

If you play the macro game first, then choose a dramatic part of the game to represent in the micro game, then there will be a sense of the inevitable. A group going for a heroic and light adventure style could always play the micro game to weave the story of a winning team in a notable conflict of the macro game. A group going for a dark and sinister game could always choose to play the losing side in one of the notable conflicts (the players will know that they end up failing horribly, and simply have to work out how to make the best of it, or enjoy the descent "Reservoir Dogs" style). The end of the micro story may be known, but the challenge of the storytelling is in finding out the minutiae of the events. Where was the turning point (for better or for worse)? Who made sacrifices for the team? Who was removed from the macro game because they were killed, who left because they were scared and fled (never to be seen again)? In such a game, characters in the micro would be generated quickly because they are inherently expendable. The aim would be to give them enough meat to last a single session, because the next session will probably revolve around a new character group entirely. It's the events of the macro game that give the campaign it's ongoing thread.

If you play the micro game first, then the future is less determined.

In a specific instance, I see the macro game book-ending the micro game. Working back on the premise of a modern world supernatural scenario, the macro game is about supernatural beings locked in an immortal ideological war, drawing on the myths of humanity to gain their powers. The micro game is then about a specific group of hunters who take out the most troublesome of the supernatural entities (little realising that they are in fact only puppets of the supernatural themselves).

Everyone puts forward their orders at the strategic level, one of the order types allows players to bid for control over the hunters. The player winning control over the hunters might have their character take the lead on this mission, while the victim of the attack would take on the role of the GM (after all, they know what types of defenses the victim would have access to).

The remainder of the strategic orders are rolled out as necessary, anything impacting the micro story being dealt with as it is encountered. Any rolls associated with the hunters are played through, developing the story. Anything that isn't encountered along the way is then resolved once the hunters have finished telling their story.

In this context, it becomes like a lot of other games with specific downtime rituals, but the idea is that the two games are fully capable of standing alone. A group could simply choose to play through a dozen sessions of the macro game as a strategic wargame without needing the roleplaying element; and another group could play the roleplaying game without needing to worry about the global implications of the wider game.

I'm sure I probably sound like I'm repeating myself here, so thanks for the references Ron. I know I've read a bit about the Blackmoor campaign in the past, it's probably been a part of my mind's fermentation process in this endeavour.

V

In my head I'm trying to square sociological dynamics and supernatural armies, it's looking weird!

Firstly, how cutting do you want to go? Strategy games are classic for mild slander "chinese troops are really rubbish but it's ok because they are worth less". If the factions actually personify elements of the cultures, then you could have units based on stereotypical qualities, that you send to different places, causing a build up of [this], which simultaneously causes these kinds of supernatural happenings.

I pulled back on the [this] because my goodness, this could be offensive. Apart from the elegance of using the inherent differentiation of stereotypes as a basis for "unit design", you would actually have to role-play more or less stereotypical communities.

The reason I suggest the unit build-up idea is that as a positioning mechanic, it allows you to signal and bluff, it forces you to show that your setting "something" up, but if the mechanics are differentiated enough it can still keep people guessing. One reason I like that kind of thing is it allows you to have ebb and flow strategy that is more about controlling than killing, with strikes and occasional all out battles occurring here and there, say if someone gets married.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but it smells of petrol to me! But back to the strategic side, one thing that makes these maps more unusual is if they are non-planar, so you can get from one place to another via some kind of sympathetic link. That would stop people always claiming "that one place near the middle", because the middle might actually be the edge on paper. An example of this is the risk board, which admittedly focuses on europe, but wraps round to create a cylinder, so people can ignore the middle for ages if they want to.

I reckon if you really want this to sing, then it should composite the spiritual and the cultural in a slightly strategicly differentiated way so ancestor spirits stay with population but make old practices stick, strengthening the area to cultural attacks etc, and use some kind of "hidden resource card" system that allows spirit players to set traps for each other, but also act as prizes for the human players! I reckon that it might even be an idea for players to be able to create their own resource cards, under certain rules, based on cultural events in the physical world, and so giving everyone else a tip-off as to what it might be, but not exactly sure.

Just make sure there's a lot of love about when your setting out the sides!

JoyWriter wrote:
Firstly, how cutting do you want to go? Strategy games are classic for mild slander "chinese troops are really rubbish but it's ok because they are worth less". If the factions actually personify elements of the cultures, then you could have units based on stereotypical qualities, that you send to different places, causing a build up of [this], which simultaneously causes these kinds of supernatural happenings.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but it smells of petrol to me! But back to the strategic side, one thing that makes these maps more unusual is if they are non-planar, so you can get from one place to another via some kind of sympathetic link. That would stop people always claiming "that one place near the middle", because the middle might actually be the edge on paper. An example of this is the risk board, which admittedly focuses on europe, but wraps round to create a cylinder, so people can ignore the middle for ages if they want to.

Just make sure there's a lot of love about when your setting out the sides!