I got into a deep funk tonight and really wanted to pull through it. Somehow, a game came out of it. I just wrote it then made a webpage for it. It seems to make sense. If anyone actually plays this game, I really want to know how it goes.

The Insects of God

Please, share your thoughts on the game.

The Insects of God is a mature game for very mature players. There's boobies on the webpage. If you just giggled, then you probably shouldn't go to it. Of course, that just means you will.

That is some sick, morbid shit, man...

I know a couple people I'd love to play it with.


Unfortunately, those people and myself are scattered across the country. Ah well. It's very much a game of angst and futility, though, and would find some popularity among the goth crowd, methinks.

Cool, this is something I must play, ASAP.

The basic idea really generates a lot of creativity. Wouldn't be hard to get people playing.

I haven't thought it over that much but it feels like there could be a little more system though. Maybe more ways to earn tokens. I had an idea a long time ago for a system where players acts out the personalities of a single person and try to push him in one direction. Maybe tokens could be rewarded for bigger goals.. Well, thats my first impression.

Petter

Hi Jason,

You need to play it yourself. It's been shown over and over again that if the game author doesn't play a game, then playtesting is nearly worthless.

As soon as Dav gets a functional version of Violence Future into print, you need a copy.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: You need to play it yourself. It's been shown over and over again that if the game author doesn't play a game, then playtesting is nearly worthless.

Hi Jason,

Wait ... you are interested in people playing it and telling you how it goes, but not in people playtesting it ...?

OK, I am confused, and I'm not sure what your goals are in posting the link. Here is my constructive suggestion. If you do want actual-play feedback, then let's play it at GenCon. Plenty of opportunties there.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I posted the link to advertise a new game I had written. Yes, I'm interested in having people play it and I would like for them to let me know how it goes. But I didn't post it expressly to have people playtest it. There is a difference between playing a game and playtesting it.

The "...and telling [me] how it goes" part is secondary.

However I have a feeling that your post was meant to tell me I posted it in the wrong forum. If that is the case, I'll move it to the Little Fears forum.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Here is my constructive suggestion. If you do want actual-play feedback, then let's play it at GenCon. Plenty of opportunties there.

Hi Jason,

Insects is a great game as written. It kind of reminds me of a dark, twisted and evil version of the old television series "Herman's Head". :)

I do have a suggestion though. Is there any way to incorporate one of the players as the actual Insect about to die? Wolfen mentioned the game would appeal to the angsty goth crowd and I agree, but I think it might be more interesting to play someone who was trying to redeem himself and/or keep from being overwhelmed when all of these negative things start happening.

Of course, IC the player would still have to act like he did not know his character was going to die. But, when the story/other players start to draw him towards one of the negative traits, he could attempt to exert some self control by doing something different and less self-destructive. If he succeeds he gains a token. When he gains enough tokens, he still dies, but now in a manner of his or her own choosing, perhaps by rescuing a child from a burning building or taking a bullet for someone he cares about.

For conflicts, this would probably eliminate the Majority Rule mechanic and relegate the game to die rolls which may completely wreck what you had in mind. For the same reason, I don't even know if this would work, mechanics-wise because it would essentially be 1 players vs. the rest. On the other hand this would vastly increase the personal investment---trying to outdo your friends is nice, but trying to outdo them so you can kill one of them (do I need to include an IC disclaimer here?) is much better.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind the suggestions. Oh yeah, can I put in a little blurb about loving Little Fears since I don't think I have addressed you directly in the past? :)

Pete

Demonspahn,

Hmm... you could make one of the players the "Insect*" but you would have an entirely different game. I've actually been working on a variety of games that deal with redemption and sin and guilt in all its variety. I think "Insects" latched on to that.

I thought of the movie "Suicide Kings" while reading your post. I think the mechanics as you roughed them out are a very good starting point for a game such as that. "Redemption" and "guilt" are some of my favorite themes.

However, "Insects" as it stands is not about giving the person a chance at redemption. Conversely, it is about pushing them down cliffs of your own devising and actually trying to get them to die because of your influence.

Your idea is a good one, though.


*In actuality, those who play the game are the true "Insects of God" as those who would willingly lead anyone toward death on the worst night of their life could hardly be considered an angel... but I digress.

RE: Little Fears
Yes, you may. ;)

Hmm... you could make one of the players the "Insect*" but you would have an entirely different
game.

Hi, Jason. Yeah, I figured it might change the game too much. Redemption is just what stood out to me as I was reading it---perhaps because as you said, you have been working closely with that subject lately. I think it (doesn't?) comes through in the text.


However, "Insects" as it stands is not about giving the person a chance at redemption.
Conversely, it is about pushing them down cliffs of your own devising and actually trying to get
them to die because of your influence.

I understand. Not sure about other groups but I know when mine takes a break from our campaigns to play a relatively shorter game as a changeup, we're looking for bragging rights, more often than not. Not the most lofty goal, but it's fun nevertheless. Insects with one of the players as the. . . Doomed(?), just seemed to heighten the possibility for tension even more. Again though, I understand that was probably not what you were looking for.

Your idea is a good one, though.

Thank you.


*In actuality, those who play the game are the true "Insects of God" as those---

Ahh...makes sense. My mistake.

RE: Little Fears
Yes, you may. ;)

:)

Pete

Hi Jason,

After waking up several times last night with it on my mind, I decided to say, "Listen, forget all about the play/playtesting issue. I shouldn't have brought it up, at least not at this stage."

So I want to start over with responses of the sort that will be most helpful.

1) The film reference that works best for me is American Beauty. For better or for worse, when people know that a character is "going to die," he or she gets instant protagonist-status, or at least a willingness on their part to consider it. There's no sensible reason to think that a person's final living day is "more important" than any other, but we tend to react as if it were. So setting up a story/role-playing experience on that basis makes sense.

2) The real-time element is one of the things I'd be most attentive to in play. I'm not sure it's a functional element of game design; whenever I've played a game that's supposed to work like this, people tend to throw out that rule as soon as "wait" comes into the picture. If the guy is waiting at a bus stop, then the rules imply that we all have to wait for ten minutes with him ... or maybe I'm not seeing something about how you want this rule to work.

3) In playing the Insects, I understand that the goal is to provide the character with maximal adversity. I'm not getting or seeing something though ... what sort of possible outcome exists such that the character's death and/or final interactions are (for lack of a better word) redemptive?

This is a different question from actually playing the "soon to be dead guy" as a character. I'm staying with the rules you describe, in which everyone plays an insect.

Without such a possibility for the main character, the game seems like an exercise in imaginary sadism. That's why I brought up Violence Future, which is the best example I know of a game which forces my question in the above paragraph into play. VF is not an exercise in imaginary sadism; it's an over-the-top morality play.

In reading "Insects," and especially given your latest post - "it is about pushing them down cliffs of your own devising and actually trying to get them to die because of your influence" - I'm seeing kind of a player vs. character connection that's confusing me.

In other words, yes, playing the "insect" does entail doing what you describe. But - and this is strictly from the standpoint of the person playing the insect - why? No possible redemption for that main character? No point? That seems unlikely to be attractive to play; the player's role appears solely to exercise cruelty.

Help me out a bit - what's the draw?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

The overall goal is to win. It is to be the person's downfall. The draw is good old fashioned narrative competition. I don't consider sadism to be the main draw. You're not inflicting yourself on the person without cause or consent. You're a trait they already have. Chances are, the person is not going to be a very sympathetic character but... they may be. After all, the specifics of the character are up to the group.

The game is player vs. character. However, it is also player vs. player. The narrative may be (for the most part) cooperative, but the goal is still to win. The incentive to draw the game on is to collect more tokens and have a better chance of winning.

Let me quote you. You said "the player's role appears solely to exercise cruelty." I have to disagree with this--in part. The person is going to die independent of anything any of the players do. It benefits the players to keep the person alive for as long as possible. That's hardly inherently cruel.

But, to be blunt, the true draw, and the true premise, of the game is: Are you an insect or an angel?

The game is designed to be played by, and to be about, the insects of God. The angels wouldn't play the game.

I still think it would be a fun game. But I have no illusions about my insecty-ness. ;)

I've been thinking about the real-time element. I think I will change that. I'll simply make the rule: the person will die within five hours of game time. If you waste that game time, the person doesn't get that time back.

Hmm... but I also don't want people fast-forwarding and, essentially, getting as much time as they want. Let's face it, you could sum up the person's entire existence within that five hours if you skip enough.

Perhaps a rule that for every half-hour of the person's life you skip, the game must end a half-hour earlier?

Too wonky?

Perhaps a rule that for every half-hour of the person's life you skip, the game must end a
half-hour earlier?

Too wonky?

I don't think so. In fact I think it kind of fits the overall premise of the game. The Insects would not want their prey just hanging around doing dishes and watching Buffy reruns all night. They would want to push him as far into their traits as possible, and soon, because they _know_ he is going to die.

Not to be beating and beating and beating and beating a dead horse about the whole redemption thing, but couldn't it be understated that there are perhaps unseen angels out there, trying to outdo each other _and_ the insects and vice versa. They _would_ want the guy to hang out and waste time or gravitate toward their own positive traits. This could explain the 1/2 hour time shave because the angels also know he is going to die and are hoping he redeems himself.

Shit, this just got me thinking of a mixed group of players playing angels and insects against each other in the same game. I will stop here---one because I am not sure if I am even making sense, and two because I am butchering what I think is already an excellent premise for a game. Sorry Jason. :)

Oh, maybe one last thing, I suppose if you wanted a really fast game with an emphasis on storytelling _and_ winning, you could always shorten the overall time to say an hour (or maybe two) before the person dies. Yes, you could probably still sum up his entire existence in that period but not in a very creative/competitive manner.

Pete

Jason L Blair wrote: I've been thinking about the real-time element. I think I will change that. I'll simply make the rule: the person will die within five hours of game time. If you waste that game time, the person doesn't get that time back.

Hmm... but I also don't want people fast-forwarding and, essentially, getting as much time as they want. Let's face it, you could sum up the person's entire existence within that five hours if you skip enough.

Perhaps a rule that for every half-hour of the person's life you skip, the game must end a half-hour earlier?

Too wonky?