I've been lurking around the Forge archives for about a month now, and have a game concept I'd like to float. The only other personal info I think might be relevant: I've recently completed an undergraduate degree in creative writing and philosophy. The relevance of that is...

Freud! The Role-Playing Game!

The basic premise is the players are a bunch of Viennese psychoanalysts in an upmarket coffee house. It's a parlour game with an emphasis on characterisation (not sure where it fits on the GNS schema but that's probably not important just yet) which should take about 30 minutes to play. I cannot stress how important it is that everybody maintains an outrageous Germanic accent at all times.

Players take a minute to get into character; they are old academic chums and/or bitter rivals. Either way, everybody is up to their eyeballs in the Freudian world view. Once the basic atmosphere is established, one of the players mentions a patient they've been having some trouble with.

Example: "You know, zere is zis one frau, she came into my office in such tears. Crying and all of zat. It is not a lie, my assistant handed out morphine like marzipankartoffein and still such tears!"

The other players listen intently. They pay extremely close attention because in front of everyone is a list of 100 common signs of psychological distress (Freudian slips - dropped words, mistaken names, unusual gestures). There is also a rough guide to what each "slip" could mean.

Example: 34. Incorrect gender pronoun, possibly indicates separation anxiety.

The list is of course just a guide. Whenever a player exhibits any of these slips, any other player can interrupt, asking the good doctor about it.

Example: "Dr Karloff, please, forgive me, but you zeem to be tapping. Ja, you tap at the table. What is zat, exactly? Something with a horse?"

Here we get to the heart of the game. The doctor in question has essentially been accused of insanity. It's a comedy of manners cum witch hunt. The accused responds, attempting to make the offence seem as trifling as possible.

Example: "Oh? Ja, there was one horse. Very normal, very, very sane. Very small, too, more like a pony. I rode him and gave him strohhalm. It is so good to have a horse. Totally normal."

If the answer fails to placate the table, or the accused commits another Freudian slip, they will again be accused. This time, the accused must also be careful not to contradict their earlier statements. At every  opportunity, the accused player will naturally attempt to shift the focus onto another player. This will usually be through an explicit statement...

Example: "But come, Dr Vittgen, tell us about your new Parisian apartment."

The assigned player becomes the new focus of the witch hunt. They talk for a while about (say) their new Parisian apartment, but will inevitably commit a Freudian slip of some sort. They will then be accused, and the cycle continues.

That's pretty much the game. Mechanically, I am thinking of a tactile scoring system. Perhaps every player has a cup of coffee in front of them. Whenever they have no reasonable response to the accusers, they must take a drink. When a player runs out of coffee, they have lost the game and cannot become the focus player - although they can still accuse others.

My questions

Firstly, although it's very vague, do you have any personal interest in playing a game like this?

Secondly, and more fruitfully, have there been any RPGs with an explicit Freudian theme? What about influential thinkers more generally?

I ask because, hopefully, Freud! The Role-Playing Game! will be one in a series of games loosely based on influential thinkers. Nietzsche, Derrida, Plato, and B. F. Skinner - The Role-Playing Game. Each will be 30 minute parlour games. I am thus interested in any previous RPGs explicitly based on philosophical/theological/psychological theorists.

Thanks in advance for any and all feedback - except regarding my terrible Google informed German. Foreign languages have always been mein kampf.

I think it's clever and funny; it reminds me of The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen in its competitive one-upsmanship. I would play it with the right group of people: exuberant, smart-alecky, sharp, and willing to pull me up to their level ;-)

+1 Mein Kampf reference ^_^ heh.

Happysmellyfish...
Have you read the comic book series "Action Philosophers"? It could be a fun way to think more comically about your subject matter.

Overall, I am intrigued and amused by your idea, and I sincerely hope you continue working on it, and on a series of such games. Any idea at this point what, say, the Nietzsche game might look like?
It'd be easy enough to get an accusatory theme going with these games, given that they're philosophers and thus extremely intellectually competitive and exacting. But it'd be cooler if each such game had a "parlor" feel to it, as you mentioned, but with its own distinctive style and slant on the material.
A Nietzsche game might focus on a gang of cafe-haunting bibliophiles that harass each other for displaying provincialism, for having moments of lapsing into VIctorian mores, and of course for being anti-Semitic. Nietzsche said he 'uz gonna KILL them anti-Semites! Hm, this idea sounds kind of like A Clockwork Orange with the violence-dial turned all the way down.

God, I can't even wrap my head around Derrida, let alone imagine what a game about his ideas would be like..

It's a good idea, to be sure but, I wonder .. how doez it make you feel about your muhzher??

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I would play this game.

The Freudian theme is new to me, as such, but I'm not too familiar with games that don't involve violence at some level or another. I would, however, suggest that you look at Aye, Dark Overlord (Si, Oscuro Signore) if you haven't already. That game has the players as goblins trying to explain to their master why they failed their mission and is all about blame shifting and excuses.

A fun idea might be that players have to carry out what they've been accused of. That is, if I spill some coffee and lick my finger a little too long, somebody says I have an oral fixation and now I -MUST- have something in my mouth at all times. It can make things really fun in a group that doesn't mind dirty humor or humiliating themselves in a variety of ways. :-)

Thanks for the kind words.

What I'm getting from this is...

1 - The idea sounds fun.
2 - The idea of RPGs based on famous thinkers is new.

I like that!

Bill...
Sadly, I have never actually played Baron. However, one-upmanship is definitely a design goal.

Abkajud...
Nietzsche is the philosopher who actually got me thinking about the project. I'll start another thread on that, to keep things neat here.

Sortable...
One of the core ideas with my series of games is "X was right." In this case, Freud was right. The subconscious exists, it informs our personality, and it can be read by trained professionals. In that sense, yeah, the players cannot simply deny the reality of their accusers. If they tap, and tapping means they have a bad history with horses, then they have a bad history with horses. The reality of that neurosis can only be mitigated, never entirely nullified.

I'm still keen for more general feedback, and any examples of games inspired by Freud, Plato, Socrates, Mill, Confucius -- heck, even Ayn Rand.

If none come out of the woodwork, I think I'm going to assume the idea is relatively novel. Zounds!

Oh, reading back on this, I just thought of a mechanic.

I want players who are accused of having (say) an oral fixation to act out that fixation. However, there is currently no mechanical incentive for that. In fact, they can potentially be accused again, thus providing a dis-incentive to continue with their established neurosis.

So, two rules.

1 - Once a player has been accused of something because of their compulsive behaviour, that behaviour cannot be used to justify another accusation.
2 - However, once a player has been accused of something via a particular compulsive behaviour, failing to act out that compulsion is grounds for another accusation - this time of repression.

The idea is crystal clear in my head, but I'm very new to writing rules. Here's an example...

Dr Karlos stutters over a particular word, and is quite rightly accused of having a difficult relationship with his mother.

"Aah," responds Dr Karlos. "It is a r-r-rare man without a complicated childhood. And anyway, wh-wh-wh-wh-what is a nude sauna or two between family?"

The other players can never again use Dr Karlos' stutter as fuel for a fresh accusation. However, several minutes later, Dr Karlos has lost his stutter.

"Please, Dr Karlos," accuses another player. "What is this? Just a moment is gone, and already the stutter is repressed? Please, you are amongst colleagues. Tell us about your mother. The truth this time, if you will."

Failing to enact a previously established neurosis is grounds for further accusations. Specifically, the accusation is of repression, sparking demands that the original issue be returned to and justified all over again.

Does that make sense?

happysmellyfish wrote:
Oh, reading back on this, I just thought of a mechanic.

I want players who are accused of having (say) an oral fixation to act out that fixation. However, there is currently no mechanical incentive for that. In fact, they can potentially be accused again, thus providing a dis-incentive to continue with their established neurosis.

So, two rules.

1 - Once a player has been accused of something because of their compulsive behaviour, that behaviour cannot be used to justify another accusation.
2 - However, once a player has been accused of something via a particular compulsive behaviour, failing to act out that compulsion is grounds for another accusation - this time of repression.

Does that make sense?

I can't think of a solid way to enforce the rule, but it can almost be like a jinx to schoolyard chums. If a player stops their symptoms, they get called out on it and at least chastised for it.

"Oh, hey, why haven't you been stuttering lately?"

"Crap. I'm s-s-s-sorry g-g-g-guys."

I think that a successful construction of game content would require an advanced knowledge of Freudian diagnostic techniques. Since Freud's theories have been largely dismissed by the psychological community, this may prove difficult. The books he wrote weren't exactly manuals of practice. That being said, I can go ahead and assume that some more abstract neuroses cannot be included. The classic Oedipal/Lolita complex simply wouldn't work unless some of the gathered doctors were significantly older than others to approximate the age difference between parents and children.

I'm just about to post a link to what I'm calling "Freud! Version 0.1" on the play test forum.

Sorry to keep hitting this forum, but the first version of Freud! can be found at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=30715.0.

happysmellyfish wrote:
The basic premise is the players are a bunch of Viennese psychoanalysts in an upmarket coffee house. It's a parlour game with an emphasis on characterisation (not sure where it fits on the GNS schema but that's probably not important just yet) which should take about 30 minutes to play. I cannot stress how important it is that everybody maintains an outrageous Germanic accent at all times.

happysmellyfish wrote:
...one of the players mentions a patient they've been having some trouble with.

The other players listen intently. They pay extremely close attention because in front of everyone is a list of 100 common signs of psychological distress.

The list is of course just a guide. Whenever a player exhibits any of these slips, any other player can interrupt, asking the good doctor about it.

happysmellyfish wrote:
Here we get to the heart of the game. The doctor in question has essentially been accused of insanity.

happysmellyfish wrote:
If the answer fails to placate the table, or the accused commits another Freudian slip, they will again be accused. This time, the accused must also be careful not to contradict their earlier statements. At every  opportunity, the accused player will naturally attempt to shift the focus onto another player.

happysmellyfish wrote:
Firstly, although it's very vague, do you have any personal interest in playing a game like this?

happysmellyfish wrote:
Derrida - The Role-Playing Game

happysmellyfish wrote: B. F. Skinner - The Role-Playing Game.

happysmellyfish wrote:
"What is this? Just a moment is gone, and already the stutter is repressed? Please, you are amongst colleagues. Tell us about your mother. The truth this time, if you will."

SortableBadger wrote: I think that a successful construction of game content would require an advanced knowledge of Freudian diagnostic techniques.

SortableBadger wrote: I can go ahead and assume that some more abstract neuroses cannot be included.

Have you checked out Jeepform games?

'm not sure how this could be regulated through actual play.  Could the accused just say, "Ach, nein.  Zis iz not zee case because..." and then go onto make a counter-accusation.  I imagine really good players could carry this on all evening, counter-accusation following counter-accusation.

If you can I suggest you read more about free association and interpretation. I must out myself somewhat - I do work as a psychotherapist and encounter Freudian ideas of a near daily basis.

I would focus on defence mechanisms, interpretation and free association in the game.  I think if you get into Freud's theories around infantile sexuality and developmental stages you will make the game needlessly complex.

happysmellyfish wrote:
I definitely need to read some more. At the moment, I have Freud's Psychopathology of Everyday Life waiting on my hard drive. I'm not sure if it will be helpful, but might be good for some quotes. 

happysmellyfish wrote:
Ultimately, the version of Freud I'm dealing with is a stripped down, deliberately exaggerated sketch. I want to find half a dozen key moving parts, rip them out of the clinic, and turn them into a fun 30 minutes. The game is about Freud in the same way that more traditional role playing is about life in the Middle Ages.

I really love this idea!  I think there's a lot of ways you can go about a game like this, and the subtext of intellectual gamesmanship among analysts at the dawn of psychology is really entertaining.

If you want to go to a serious place, you could take The Magus's suggestion about how untethered interpretation speaks to an abuse of power by the analyst.

I'd suggest you either play Baron Munchausen or take a serious look at its rules.  The system penalizes you for simply saying, "No, that's not true," and rewards you for incorporating edits from other players.  But then again, the penalty simply means less of an ability to vote for the best story at the end of the game.

The idea of an extremely restricted turn (five minutes, a la Munchausen) or a mechanic that enables constant turn changing (like Once Upon A Time) might be something you want to adapt.