Topic: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Started by: FetusCommander
Started on: 7/24/2010
Board: First Thoughts
On 7/24/2010 at 8:36am, FetusCommander wrote:
[Cooperative Logic] initial idea
I've had an idea for a setting that I've been trying to incorporate into a game. Well, actually that's not exactly true. I have incorporated the setting into various games that I've run, but I want to drill down focus onto one very particular part of it because in most of the games I've run, it really gets pushed to the side due to the focus being on other things.
Picture a world where the laws of physical reality are held in place by the labors of very tired, overworked angels instead of the real-life particles, interactions, etc. So every time you flick a light switch on, there's some guy (or, more likely, a whole team) that's in charge of filling the room with light. Every so often, something goes wrong with this, usually as a result of "human error" within the system.
Maybe somebody's having a bad day. Maybe an angel is asleep at the switch, quite literally. Maybe someone's trying to make a statement.
When this kind of thing happens, you don't get your light. Or maybe you don't get as much light as you should. Or maybe you get the wrong color light.
Now let's add another variable to this. The angelic workers in question are currently without a God directing them, watching over them, and correcting their mistakes, due to a kind of cosmic accident that's happened. So when stuff goes wrong, it's up to them to try to fix it themselves. Because of the lack of divine help, Heaven has tapped human governments for aid in cleaning up their affairs.
The game I'd like to design would put players into the center of all this.
Players play people from the "Department of Cooperative Logic," a government agency assisting the angels in locating, cataloging, and eventually fixing fuck ups like the above.
But the governments responsible for this aren't always honest. Sometimes, slip ups are in their best interest. One of the conflicts I want to exist in play is one of, "who do you work for, first and foremost?" Is your duty holding the world in some kind of consistent state, skewing it towards the state your government wants it in, or molding it into the way you want it for personal reasons?
I'd like it if this conflict spilled over into active conflict between player characters, as players make different choices about their ultimate goals.
I want the game to be structured around investigation. Players should spend their time dealing with people and things in the areas where strange activity is reported, and eventually unlock the cause of it. I want the process of the investigation to humanize the angels that are responsible for the problem, as much as, or even more so than the NPCs encountered along the way.
Do you think that this is a compelling premise? I have some ideas on mechanics, but I'll hold off posting them until I get some feedback on my initial thoughts.
On 7/24/2010 at 11:13am, flossy wrote:
Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
I like the basic premise.
I'm picturing investigating areas where angels are demanding particular ritualistic behaviour forming cults based around what ever has motivated the particular angels.
So that would be a yes to the basic premise :-)
On 7/24/2010 at 11:13am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Hi,
I'm not fond of setting, but then it hit a strong note of personal responsiblity (or the lack thereof, decided).
I'd like it if this conflict spilled over into active conflict between player characters, as players make different choices about their ultimate goals.
It's not really players making goals, right? I mean, players are basically authors - they might play out their character and go 'Shit, my character would feel X is is ultimate goal', but it's not like the players are really doing some strategic goal, right? Or am I wrong?
I want the game to be structured around investigation. Players should spend their time dealing with people and things in the areas where strange activity is reported, and eventually unlock the cause of it. I want the process of the investigation to humanize the angels that are responsible for the problem, as much as, or even more so than the NPCs encountered along the way.
It's not really about investigation, right? I mean, about as much as 3:16 is about combat? Investigation is sort of contact with emotional situations that engage the question, relative to the character, of "who do you work for, first and foremost?"? The investigation isn't actually important, except in how it slaps characters in the face with morally charged situations?
I want the process of the investigation to humanize the angels that are responsible for the problem, as much as, or even more so than the NPCs encountered along the way.
Or maybe I don't understand the focus - it's a bit more subtle than I'm getting? Are the players playing angels? Or are they percieving the GM playing angels, in a new light (that's a fairly sublime way of adding to characters - a bit more subtle than I'd expect of roleplay games at this point in history?)
Do you think that this is a compelling premise?
I think it could be done with a mundane premise. So yes, because of that I find it compelling - the whole angels things makes it more fun/adds suger! :)
On 7/24/2010 at 3:40pm, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
First off, thanks for the responses guys.
I'm not fond of setting, but then it hit a strong note of personal responsiblity (or the lack thereof, decided).
Are you not fond of this setting, or just not fond of setting in general? What specifically turns you off?
It's not really players making goals, right? I mean, players are basically authors - they might play out their character and go 'Shit, my character would feel X is is ultimate goal', but it's not like the players are really doing some strategic goal, right? Or am I wrong?
Here I think you’re right. I may have misused the term “goal.” There’s no long term, set-in-stone mission laid out that players are working towards strategically.
Or are they percieving the GM playing angels, in a new light
I think you’re understanding it here, but I’ll try to clarify. The players are perceiving the personal struggles (and maybe even parts of personalities or histories) of the angels through investigating the phenomena that’s being produced in the area. By the time you’ve “solved” (or not solved) the mystery of the phenomena, I want it to feel like you sort of know the angels responsible, even if you aren’t directly communicating with them by talking.
The angels in question are really just everyday dudes with problems and insecurities. The idea is that those are spilling over into their job, and you're noticing it.
I think it could be done with a mundane premise.
Can you explain what you mean by a “mundane premise?”
On 7/24/2010 at 3:58pm, dugfromthearth wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
let me see if I understand
there are people who live in a world that depend on angels to make everything happen
there are angels who make everything happen but sometimes screw up
the players are a different "race" responsible for making sure the angels do things right and fixing it if they don't
and we don't know who the players are responsible to and why
it sounds boring if there is not a higher purpose and interesting if there is. I mean if it is just "a lightswitch did not work in sector 7, find out why" that's dull.
if it is "the light in sector 7 is getting brighter, we suspect the seraphim are behind it. Incidence of harp playing is up 13%, we suspect the cherubim are behind out. Find out who is doing this and why. The humans are getting unsettled and worship has fallen 3% and tending toward unitarianism" that is intriguing
On 7/24/2010 at 4:22pm, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
dugfromthearth wrote:
let me see if I understand
there are people who live in a world that depend on angels to make everything happen
there are angels who make everything happen but sometimes screw up
the players are a different "race" responsible for making sure the angels do things right and fixing it if they don't
All of that is right except for the players being a different "race." Players could potentially belong to any "race" they wanted; the thing uniting them is they belong to the organization and have to tools/training to analyze this activity.
and we don't know who the players are responsible to and why
Part of the hook is that players are supposed to be choosing who they're responsible to and why.
it sounds boring if there is not a higher purpose and interesting if there is. I mean if it is just "a lightswitch did not work in sector 7, find out why" that's dull.
if it is "the light in sector 7 is getting brighter, we suspect the seraphim are behind it. Incidence of harp playing is up 13%, we suspect the cherubim are behind out. Find out who is doing this and why. The humans are getting unsettled and worship has fallen 3% and tending toward unitarianism" that is intriguing
The light switch was just an example, although I disagree that it would be dull. I think you could actually have a pretty involved game surrounding a non-functional light switch if the reasons for it being non-functional are interesting enough. Like, maybe you're dealing with a room that only illuminates certain people, and leaves the rest in shadow. The government might suspect some grand conspiracy or look at it as some type of divine symbolism, but it might turn out that the angels responsible for that room just have something against a certain group of people, and that's spilling over into their work. I want finding that out, and what it means to the player characters, and what it conveys about the angels themselves to be interesting.
Though I don't see why you couldn't do something more involved, like an actual plot divine plot. That would be just as fun.
On 7/25/2010 at 1:03am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Are you not fond of this setting, or just not fond of setting in general? What specifically turns you off?
Setting in general. It seems to be fetishised in RP gamer culture when if were actually playing, what actually matters is the results that occur when player characters comming into contact with setting. What matters is the result when you throw fire into the powderkeg, not the powderkeg/setting itself.
I think you’re understanding it here, but I’ll try to clarify. The players are perceiving the personal struggles (and maybe even parts of personalities or histories) of the angels through investigating the phenomena that’s being produced in the area. By the time you’ve “solved” (or not solved) the mystery of the phenomena, I want it to feel like you sort of know the angels responsible, even if you aren’t directly communicating with them by talking.
The angels in question are really just everyday dudes with problems and insecurities. The idea is that those are spilling over into their job, and you're noticing it.
Here's how this is coming off to me - just how it's coming off to me, which doesn't mean it is automatically what it appears to me as being. Okay, this strikes me as just prima donna GM territory - look at my beautiful angel characters, everybody, I'm the GM and I play them out! Oh, do you get to play out characters? No, you just investigate and discover my wonderful characters!
That's how it strikes me.
That's why I asked whether the investigation doesn't really matter - whether the investigation is just a way of framing the player characters into situations where you can observe them and find out they are regular dudes with insecurities, or whatever sorts of dudes they are. And it's quite functional for the GM to play out some characters of his own characters along with the players character portrayals. But the way you say it, it sounds like the players job is to be a bunch of clue finders and that's it.
Can you tell what I mean by having an investigation, yet it doesn't really matter to anyone at the table except as a means of propelling characters into new dire situations? And yeah, you could also use the investigtion thing to show up angel traits as well as this. But only if the players job is to also to play out a character rather than just clue collecting. Otherwise it turns into GM prima donna plays out characters and the 'players' are audience, with some clue collecting busy work to keep their hands occupied.
Let me put it this way - what is the players job in the game? What tasks is he supposed to do at the gaming table? For example, if he played out his character in such a way that ignored the investigation entirely, would he get glares from the GM and other players, because he's not doing his job? Or would people be interested in why his character is defying his superiors and what's he gunna do next?
Even if I'm wrong and you want the players to play our characters too, your problem is as GM you've painted yourself into a corner. If the only way to show the angels problems and insecurities is if they investigate, and if the way they play out characters is to ignore investigation, your boned in terms of portraying the angels. So I'd really not rely on investigation except in terms of the agency heads being another moral issue to deal with.
I've rambled and probably sound harsh - I think only CoC can do 'players are cluebots' and get away with it, and even then it's kind of farcical.
Can you explain what you mean by a “mundane premise?”
There are plenty of government officials in real life who control the light in your house right now. And they are just dudes with problems and insecurities. Your scenario IS.
It's like if you can portray an employee arguing with a boss with a knight arguing with his king - makes it sound cooler and more epic. But it's essentially the same thing, just more fun.
Or maybe you feel a sense of detachment from your scenario because of the angels, and you need that detachment to think on it and I'm spoiling that. If so, sorry - it's how I think.
On 7/25/2010 at 1:13am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
dugfromthearth,
I'd suggest tonight, turning all your lights off at around 7 or 8pm. No TV either. No electronic distractions. For an hour or two.
Realise how much it effects your life and imagine you had no choice on the matter, someone was messing your life around. Because they have issues.
Rebuild your sense of personal vulnerability that being in first worlder culture has eroded (fairly erroneously), and these things will matter more.
On 7/25/2010 at 3:15am, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
First, thanks for the thoughtful response. Your latest reply has been very helpful and raised some issues I’ve considered, and some I haven’t as well.
Here's how this is coming off to me - just how it's coming off to me, which doesn't mean it is automatically what it appears to me as being. Okay, this strikes me as just prima donna GM territory - look at my beautiful angel characters, everybody, I'm the GM and I play them out! Oh, do you get to play out characters? No, you just investigate and discover my wonderful characters!
This is a solution I had thought of to deal with the prima donna GM issue, let me know if it makes any sense and/or has merit.
First off, my idea was to have clues dropped randomly (determined by rolling statistical outliers on 2d6 dice). The clues come up in the form of strange phenomena that happen while the players are doing normal activities in the affected area.
This means that it’s very possible to go through a bit of the session before any clues even come up. My hope is that this will encourage the players to explore other facets of conflict, primary among them being issues within the Department (”except in terms of the agency heads being another moral issue to deal with”).
To put it into an example of play: you could be hitting the office copier trying to get it to work, roll a 2 or a 12 on your check, then find that your hand passes through the machine.
Second, immediately after a clue gets dropped, I was considering calling for a scene from the offending angel’s “mortal” past to be framed. The GM decides what it involves (time, place, what the person’s age is, what the situation is, etc), but the players get to choose the characters they bring into it. The idea is that this gives them a chance to sort of extort information from the GM about the mystery (the “mystery” being what personality ill or hardship is causing the angel to fuck up). It also allows them to interact with and influence the character more directly, as opposed to it being just GM wank time.
I don’t know if this is viable or not. I might actually be better off just dropping the whole investigation thing, and reengineering it into something more collaborative (there’s an indie game about serial killers and victims... I think it’s called Serial, that I believe does some form of collabo investigative trick).
Sorry if that doesn’t make much sense, I’m thinking out loud here.
Let me put it this way - what is the players job in the game? What tasks is he supposed to do at the gaming table? For example, if he played out his character in such a way that ignored the investigation entirely, would he get glares from the GM and other players, because he's not doing his job? Or would people be interested in why his character is defying his superiors and what's he gunna do next?
These are good questions.
My intention is to leave things like defiance possible, although the nature of the phenomena and how they occur within the mechanics I had imagined (ie randomly) would make it difficult to 100% ignore them.
It would be possible to ignore the investigation entirely, and I would want people to be interested in the case of someone doing that. Ignoring the mystery element, someone might choose to simply exploit the phenomenon for their personal gain. That sort of goes back to the “who do you work for first and foremost” deal. You can choose to shun your duty, and although that should have some logical consequences, I want them to be interesting.
One thing though: characters might be motivated in solving the mystery to find out more subtle ways that they can do the above.
For example, if you find out what insecurities the angel has, in detail, you might exploit them in the future, assuming you choose not to report (or choose to misreport) your findings to the Department. Of course, you might have characters who don’t want to shirk their duty, and that could become a source of player character conflict. I very much welcome play like that, and that’s actually sort of what I was getting at in my first post with “I'd like it if this conflict spilled over into active conflict between player characters, as players make different choices about their ultimate goals.”
There are plenty of government officials in real life who control the light in your house right now. And they are just dudes with problems and insecurities. Your scenario IS.
It's like if you can portray an employee arguing with a boss with a knight arguing with his king - makes it sound cooler and more epic. But it's essentially the same thing, just more fun.
Ahh, now I better understand what you mean by ‘suger’. That makes sense, and though I find it sweeter with the angels, I wouldn’t mind playing a game like that.
On 7/25/2010 at 4:15am, dugfromthearth wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Callan wrote:
dugfromthearth,
I'd suggest tonight, turning all your lights off at around 7 or 8pm. No TV either. No electronic distractions. For an hour or two.
Realise how much it effects your life and imagine you had no choice on the matter, someone was messing your life around. Because they have issues.
Rebuild your sense of personal vulnerability that being in first worlder culture has eroded (fairly erroneously), and these things will matter more.
but the setting isn't the people whose lives are being messed with. It is someone else investigating it.
I turned my light switch and the light didn't go on - how much do you care?
On 7/25/2010 at 10:03am, flossy wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
I'm still liking the idea but can take aboard the idea that the players are obviously very important for play.
I do pick up the idea that small details can be representative of a bigger situation.
As far as who the characters are being important, I find it interesting to picture why god went away and why the department continues functioning. Why do the angels rebel and not follow the previously set rules? Are they understandable reasons which the players may be tempted to sympathise with? Are the players blindly following the dictates of a previous era or do they see the need for change?
On 7/25/2010 at 12:29pm, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
flossy wrote:
I'm still liking the idea but can take aboard the idea that the players are obviously very important for play.
I do pick up the idea that small details can be representative of a bigger situation.
As far as who the characters are being important, I find it interesting to picture why god went away and why the department continues functioning. Why do the angels rebel and not follow the previously set rules? Are they understandable reasons which the players may be tempted to sympathise with? Are the players blindly following the dictates of a previous era or do they see the need for change?
This is mostly what I’m interested in portraying here myself. Other than the typical job burnout (which raises a set of ethical questions for Department members by itself), there are probably a whole host of reasons why angels fall down on the job. You might even have people who are frustrated with reality “as written” and want to try their hand at making subtle changes, sort of playing God.
Since the players’ characters are in the business of monitoring reality, I want them to have to make decisions about what stays in and what gets thrown out via their interactions with angels who may also have that agenda. That’s supposed to be a big part of the game- characters struggling to impose their beliefs about reality and what it should mean on their environment. I feel that this is just as important, maybe even more important, than the whole “who do you work for and why?” question, although I think it sort of ties into it.
On 7/25/2010 at 6:49pm, dugfromthearth wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
what if you made it like Black and White?
the game is about the humans living their lives. The players want them to achieve certain goals - be happy, worship a god, achieve enlightenment, or whatever.
the lives and behaviors of the humans are influenced by the "laws of nature". So when angels have things act differently, humans change their behavior.
god had a plan and set the rules accordingly. But he's gone and things are not going according to the plan.
The players can choose if they want to just try to follow the rules (which may have bad results - if the command is to drive straight, that becomes a bad command if the car is turned into incoming traffic), do they try to correct the earlier changes to return the results to the plan, or do they try to change the results to something else.
The players choose what is important to them, but it gives a cosmic significance to their actions
On 7/25/2010 at 7:23pm, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
dugfromthearth wrote:
The players can choose if they want to just try to follow the rules (which may have bad results - if the command is to drive straight, that becomes a bad command if the car is turned into incoming traffic), do they try to correct the earlier changes to return the results to the plan, or do they try to change the results to something else.
The players choose what is important to them, but it gives a cosmic significance to their actions
This is very much something I'd like to try to integrate (except in a less direct way than angels giving commands to drive a car into traffic). I definitely want players to be actively choosing what parts of reality stay and what parts go.
What you've proposed sounds very similar to another game I was working on where humans were wrestling directly with angels for control over their lives.
On 7/25/2010 at 11:15pm, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
This premise sounds a bit like 'Paranoia' .
substitue the Angels for various > infrareds
substitute the PCs for troubleshooters
substitute God for the computer.
ah , what a fun game that was.
On 7/25/2010 at 11:30pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
This is a solution I had thought of to deal with the prima donna GM issue, let me know if it makes any sense and/or has merit.
First off, my idea was to have clues dropped randomly (determined by rolling statistical outliers on 2d6 dice). The clues come up in the form of strange phenomena that happen while the players are doing normal activities in the affected area.
This means that it’s very possible to go through a bit of the session before any clues even come up. My hope is that this will encourage the players to explore other facets of conflict, primary among them being issues within the Department (”except in terms of the agency heads being another moral issue to deal with”).
To put it into an example of play: you could be hitting the office copier trying to get it to work, roll a 2 or a 12 on your check, then find that your hand passes through the machine.
Second, immediately after a clue gets dropped, I was considering calling for a scene from the offending angel’s “mortal” past to be framed. The GM decides what it involves (time, place, what the person’s age is, what the situation is, etc), but the players get to choose the characters they bring into it. The idea is that this gives them a chance to sort of extort information from the GM about the mystery (the “mystery” being what personality ill or hardship is causing the angel to fuck up). It also allows them to interact with and influence the character more directly, as opposed to it being just GM wank time.
I think you want to definately ensure play focuses on characters by examining them, which I think is good. But it's all focused on the angels.
What if we simply take your idea and make it include player characters as well? On a 2d6 outlier roll, you get a clue about the player characters past - lipstick on the collar, or something similar?
Equally follow your idea and a frame is sened for that PC's past, in regards to the lipstick.
See what I mean by including the player characters on this thing, not just the angels?
"But where does this past come from for the PC's? Do the players make it up? My players just want to turn up and play, they don't want to like take on a partial GM duty and prep before a game to any degree"
If this is the case ("if" - hopefully it isn't) - well, it doesn't invalidate the idea, it just shows it doesn't work for your group. There are people it'd work for.
Also the irony there is I bet the players wouldn't just want a focus on the angels, yet they wouldn't want to do prep that would create focus on their characters. They'd be self defeating.
As said, hopefully not the case.
For example, if you find out what insecurities the angel has, in detail, you might exploit them in the future, assuming you choose not to report (or choose to misreport) your findings to the Department. Of course, you might have characters who don’t want to shirk their duty, and that could become a source of player character conflict. I very much welcome play like that, and that’s actually sort of what I was getting at in my first post with “I'd like it if this conflict spilled over into active conflict between player characters, as players make different choices about their ultimate goals.”
Okay, your confusing me with 'you' and 'character' being intermingled.
It's not me that that might exploit an angels insecurities, it might be my character, if they are so inclined to do that when I go to portray their responce.
If it's really me trying to exploit them, as a player myself, then I've gone into some sort of gamist play to win and am exploiting them myself to try and achieve some sort of accomplishment. Not an accomplishment in terms of the fiction, but like crossing the finish line first in a real life running race first. Either that or there's no point to me as a person trying to exploit a fictional character and I'm really being rather silly.
My intention is to leave things like defiance possible, although the nature of the phenomena and how they occur within the mechanics I had imagined (ie randomly) would make it difficult to 100% ignore them.
It would be possible to ignore the investigation entirely, and I would want people to be interested in the case of someone doing that. Ignoring the mystery element, someone might choose to simply exploit the phenomenon for their personal gain. That sort of goes back to the “who do you work for first and foremost” deal. You can choose to shun your duty, and although that should have some logical consequences, I want them to be interesting.
I'm talking about whether it's 100% okay for the player to intend and as far as his fictional capacity to act, act to defy his superiors, in terms of what the real life people think.
I'm not saying if his character intends to do something, then he just gets to do it - fictional obstacles can be added in his way. It's just that if his character intends to go help this woman he felt a moment for as he went to the investigation, and he, the character, is prepared to ignore the investigation entirely, is that doing his part in the roleplay game your making correctly, or is he not doing his job and people at the table will glare at him? Also, this would need to be in the text, so people know which way to go on this.
Ahh, now I better understand what you mean by ‘suger’. That makes sense, and though I find it sweeter with the angels, I wouldn’t mind playing a game like that.
Angels are cool - I didn't intend a substitute, just giving an equal, parralel example.
dugfromthearth,
but the setting isn't the people whose lives are being messed with. It is someone else investigating it.
? So if your the investigator you don't give a damn about what happened to the person in the investigation?
Oh wait, there's a bunch of crime 'drama's on TV where it seems the investigators seem to compete for who can come up with the most dry whit around the corpse who suffered horribly then went to eternal death (or so it seems from my breif glances of these programs). So I guess there's alot of precedent for that in fictional media.
I'll say for me, these investigators strike me as inhuman. Also from your actual play, it seems your interested in using a range of manouvers in combat - the question of "Is it right for me to combat these guys? Should I be hurting them?' didn't seem to be of interest to you. As far as I can tell these are the questions you have to be interested in for the game in this thread, or otherwise your just not equipped to play the game. It's like if you aren't interested in eating spicy food, your not equipped to eat spicy food.
I turned my light switch and the light didn't go on - how much do you care?
As said, if the game requires me to care about a character in that situation and I don't, I'm just not equipped to play. Check out nicotine girls as an example - kinda redneck girls from a lowerclass background? Who gives a shit? Well, if you don't, you don't have the equipment to play it. You can try, like you can force spicy food down your throat, but it's not really eating/playing.
I could find it within myself to care about a character left in the dark.
On 7/26/2010 at 2:37am, dugfromthearth wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
there are investigative shows on tv - they are almost all about murder. If the crime isn't murder people just don't care enough
You don't see detective shows about robberies, etc. The investigation might be just as interesting but the stakes are not as high.
You can make as niche a game as you want, and you can blame others for not wanting to play your game because it does not interest them. Or you can tweak it so that it does interest them.
On 7/26/2010 at 3:44am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Well, alot of people eat crap food and are headed toward morbid obesity. Doesn't mean all food are best tweaked to extra greasyness. Same for RPG's - lot of ego feeding out there.
In terms of blaming anyone for not liking it, I'm not sure any target market has been discussed yet. Let alone anyone owing it to the author to like it, somehow.
Also I'm enjoying the second series of Doc Martin, where I can't remember anyone dying, let alone being murdered...
On 8/3/2010 at 11:25am, flossy wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
When I've been thinking about this game, the thing I keep wondering about is that the Department for Cooperative Logic is connected to human government. I suspect that may be similar to the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter. I'm unsure exactly how this would work out in an rpg, but I'm open to suggestions! What's coming to mind instead is a form of celestial bureaucracy. This could be similar to how the sidereal in exalted work in organising how the world works, only with a more western and Catholicism feel. Hope that helps.
On 8/4/2010 at 4:57am, FetusCommander wrote:
RE: Re: [Cooperative Logic] initial idea
Thanks for all the suggestions guys. Callan- I've started down the path to making the game more player character oriented (as well as focusing more on the "real world" aspect, instead of just the snapshots of the angel's lives). Some of your points made me radically reconsider what I'd been making. Hopefully I'll have some Actual Play to show you guys soon.
flossy wrote:
When I've been thinking about this game, the thing I keep wondering about is that the Department for Cooperative Logic is connected to human government. I suspect that may be similar to the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter. I'm unsure exactly how this would work out in an rpg, but I'm open to suggestions! What's coming to mind instead is a form of celestial bureaucracy. This could be similar to how the sidereal in exalted work in organising how the world works, only with a more western and Catholicism feel. Hope that helps.
Actually, a celestial bureaucracy is exactly what it is! I don't know much about the Ministry of Magic, but I think they are similar.