Well, after much deliberation, I've decided to make this one available to the Forgerites.
My apologies in advance to any one I might have stolen ideas from; I know for sure that James V., Ron, Paul, and Jared contributed to its design through their own game designs. Paul, James V., Scott Heyden, and Mithras contributed to its evolution through their friendly and honest correspondence. Check it out if you get a chance at:

http://hardcoreroleplaying.homestead.com/brotherhood.html

The writing is fairly sophmoric, and does not always convey exactly what I want, but it's not too bad for a piecemeal version of my first draft. It's not done yet (as if you couldn't tell by the hacked up, chunky writing) so any suggestions or criticisms will be met with gratitude.

Take care,
Scott

Wow, Scott, you've done it again. Great ideas. I particularly like the idea of the Hero beong the only character that necessarily remains constant from Ordeal to Ordeal. That's a really unique mechanic.

One thing that did occur to me is that you have included a method for development for the Hero. Personally, I think that your games have gotten beyond the need for this sort of reward mechanics. The Hero should be suficient to the task to begin with and remain unchanging in his steadfastness. I do like that the Hero is revealed little by little, though. This is all very movie or novel based, it seems to me. Successive Ordeals are like sequels then. Zorro is the same essentially from movie to movie (although secrets of his past may be revealed). What changes are the villains and oppressed townspeople.

You're game matches that ideal well, especially in that it is possibly the first to adress the problem with there being too many heroes in RPGs when you assign one to each player; the RPG norm. This is why I've started to play RPGs with fewer and fewer players (I've been advocating two for a while). Now I can see ways in which I can perhaps have more players again, but fewer heroes. Nifty.

I've been trying to think recently of reward mechanics that have nothing to do with character improvement (wwhich would be less satisfying in this game anyhow as the character is shared). So for a game like this perhaps you could have a session between ordeals that was a party for the players that essentially represents the festival held by the commoners to celebrate the end of the Ordeal or something. At the festival it would be mandatory to toast the Hero, badmouth the fallen villain, and possibly at the end hint at the next Ordeal. Otherwise, it's just a social break from play.

Just a silly idea, but you see where I'm going? Actually reward the players somehow. I've really gotten tired of mechanics that improve characters. They no longer seem very relevant to me, and never seemed to fit in most types of games (of course in gamist games they are great).

Mike

Ditto. Real life does not feature a one-way escalator of improvement. I'm quite happy bestowing in-game social stuff as "rewards", but I'm not sure why we are giving rewards anyway. Reaching XX level is not the point of gaming anymore, if it ever was.

Thanks for the response guys. I was actually thinking of you Mike while I was writing this, knowing how much you dislike playing villainous protagonists. This game represents my best attempt at letting the good guys be truly good.

And it's a breath of fresh air to hear you two downplay the need for a reward system. Since Paul and I formed our Monday night club, we've deliberately taken the "closed story arc" approach to roleplaying - we play four or five sessions of one game and then move on to another - which completely eliminates the need for long term characcter development and any of the mechanics that go along with it. Games that offer quick boosts to character effectiveness - The Pool, Sorcerer, etc. - are more in line with our needs.

On top of that, I have a real practical concern in regards to the heroic Trademarks, as I wrote them. Essentially, they increase the Hero's effectiveness, allowing Hero Dice to go further, and making it easier for him to earn more Hero Dice by rolling matches. That's all well and good, but after a few sessions, players might end up playing the Hero for extended periods of time, and ignoring their "Commoner" (I really need to find a better name for the norms). The Hero is not supposed to be onstage the entire time, and my reward mechanic messes up that balance.

Nonetheless, I do like the idea of defining the Hero as play goes on - perhaps not in a way that involves improving his effectivenesss, but in some fashion that makes him somewhat less ephemeral. But maybe that's in opposition to his role as a mythic symbol of hope. Any thoughts?

One last question for you guys: What do you think the setting should be? I chose 16th Century France because I was totally enamored of the idea behind the film Brotherhood of the Wolf (I haven't seen the film yet, so I couldn't be enamored of it), but as the game developed, I could see it in other settings. It would be particularly good as a superhero game, as it does away with the idea of "teams". If I do it as a supers game, I'm going to do it like Swamp Thing or Sandman - stories where the humans are at least a important as the heroes.

Thanks,
Moose

On 2001-09-24 12:36, hardcoremoose wrote:
Thanks for the response guys. I was actually thinking of you Mike while I was writing this, knowing how much you dislike playing villainous protagonists. This game represents my best attempt at letting the good guys be truly good.

And it's a breath of fresh air to hear you two downplay the need for a reward system. Since Paul and I formed our Monday night club, we've deliberately taken the "closed story arc" approach to roleplaying - we play four or five sessions of one game and then move on to another - which completely eliminates the need for long term characcter development and any of the mechanics that go along with it. Games that offer quick boosts to character effectiveness - The Pool, Sorcerer, etc. - are more in line with our needs.

On top of that, I have a real practical concern in regards to the heroic Trademarks, as I wrote them. Essentially, they increase the Hero's effectiveness, allowing Hero Dice to go further, and making it easier for him to earn more Hero Dice by rolling matches. That's all well and good, but after a few sessions, players might end up playing the Hero for extended periods of time, and ignoring their "Commoner" (I really need to find a better name for the norms). The Hero is not supposed to be onstage the entire time, and my reward mechanic messes up that balance.

Nonetheless, I do like the idea of defining the Hero as play goes on - perhaps not in a way that involves improving his effectivenesss, but in some fashion that makes him somewhat less ephemeral. But maybe that's in opposition to his role as a mythic symbol of hope. Any thoughts?

One last question for you guys: What do you think the setting should be? I chose 16th Century France because I was totally enamored of the idea behind the film Brotherhood of the Wolf (I haven't seen the film yet, so I couldn't be enamored of it), but as the game developed, I could see it in other settings. It would be particularly good as a superhero game, as it does away with the idea of "teams". If I do it as a supers game, I'm going to do it like Swamp Thing or Sandman - stories where the humans are at least a important as the heroes.

What about heros who are just heros because they "are".

Is this game primarily / solely focused on the "champion of the people" model of hero. Greek mythology, to just take one example, is rife with heroes who don't fit that model (in fact most classical heroes are). They are heroes simply because 1) they have abilities / status beyond those of normal men and 2) Plato identified them as heroes.

King Arthur is perhaps one of the first classical heroes to be portrayed as a champion of the people ("might FOR right" and all that) although originally even his legends had more to do with his military prowess as a war leader.

What sort of hero are you targeting?

Ralph,

It's the "champion of the people" model. But I'm kind of taking a weird, metagame approach to it, in that I believe all heroes are really heroes of the people. Whether they explicitly fight for the people (Zorro), or fight for some other cause (classical Greek heroes), it's still the people - in their roles as authors - that create and define the "hero". In this game, I'm casting the players as ordinary people who, through their own actions, earn the right to "author" the hero.

Could the hero's motivation be something other than championing the people's cause? Sure. Does he ever need to appear in a scene with any of the other player characters? Nope. Can all of this change from moment to moment, when one player decides to make the hero a brooding loner and the next wants him to be a public servant? Yep. The Hero's story can be kept separate, or it can be intimately connected to the PCs' tales...I've tried to leave it as wide open as possible.

Of course the proof is in the pudding and playtesting will bear out any flaws in the design, but if any one can see any obvious problems in my model or the way it's structured in the game, let me know.

Thanks,
Scott

Okay guys, game design queries to follow:

I love the idea of the character being revelaed slowly. At first, the players should have no idea who the Hero is, other than "The Masked Avenger" (TM). As play progresses the Hero's identity can become known, including the reason why the Hero hates the villain or is so opposed to the Ordeal. Later when we get to know the Hero, possibly in later Ordeals, we can learn secret background stuff that even the Hero himself might not be aware of: "Luke, I am your father!" You might even want to have cards or a set progression that details what a player can reveal. Or leave it freeform.

It seems to me that the game might do other sorts of heroes less perfectly, yes. But I think the game fills a gap. How does the Zorro RPG handle this? I haven't seen it, but if it's at all traditional I'd imagine that you're going to have five Zorro's (one for each player) running around. Which just ain't right. There is only one champion of the people, possibly with sidekick. The Lone Ranger, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Robbin Hood, Zorro, each of these characters is the unequaled hero, though they all have assistants.

Hmmm. That's another thing that should be revealed through the course of play, the butler, or whoever runs the base while the Hero is away. Ooo! There's another. The Hero often has a secret base of operations. Yep, this works realy well for Batman. And Robin (Tonto, Little John) can be a special effect brought in to save the Hero when it looks like he's down for the count. Hmmm. Lots of fun stuff. Maybe you buy a sidekick as a Trademark. Most have special horses, usually trained to near-human levels of performance. These need to be purchased too. Hmmm.

Mike

On 2001-09-24 14:43, hardcoremoose wrote:

Paul and I have been discussing using vocabularly as a form of currency (a Petter Sandelin idea from over at GO) to denote the shifting and elusive nature of the Hero. I'm not completely sold on the idea, nor have I discounted it yet. If Paul wants to chime in on the side of that, I'd be interested in what others have to say.

In regards to Trademarks, this idea just hit me. What if the Trademark is a special thing that the player controlling the Hero can choose to perform, and if he does it well, all those who are witness to it get some kind of bonus?

Also, since we're talking about villains, what do you guys think of a mechanic that allows the GM to contest the players rolls, possibly cancelling out some of their better Results?

Finally, any one out there got any ideas for a better name?

Moose sayeth:
"Nonetheless, I do like the idea of defining the Hero as play goes on - perhaps not in a way that involves improving his effectivenesss, but in some fashion that makes him somewhat less ephemeral. But maybe that's in opposition to his role as a mythic symbol of hope. Any thoughts?"

How about letting the Hero become more and more defined as the game continues, just as you say. Trademarks will help define him more and more clearly until he ceases to be a mystery. At this point he can engage in his most perilous and important Ordeal...then the Hero gets retired. End of game. Make a new Hero.

James V. West
http://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/index.html

Sounds pretty good, Scott. Though I have trouble visualizing Achilles (one of your examples) as championing anything other than the needs of his ego, being the spoiled mama's boy that he is :smile:

I think you might want to have a variety of Trademark effects. Some might function like distinctions, some might function like the "provide bonus to others" idea above, some might simply grant access to resources (like sidekicks or a trusty steed).

One suggestion. Why not allow the villain to be a group character just like the Hero. Often times they are shadowy figures revealed only slowly through play. Imagine when players discover that the man pulling the Sheriff's strings is none other than the King's own treacherous brother :smile: That can certainly be as compelling as revealing the hero's identity.

Universalis sets up other players as temporary antagonists to PCs through its Complication mechanic and its great fun to step into the role of the villain plotting and planning and comeing up with nasty obstacles and challenges.

One thing you'd need to do is come up with a meta game motivation for why a player might want to take control of a Villain instead of the hero (or perhaps you MUST use as many Hero Dice on the Villain as you last used on the Hero before you can run the Hero again). In Universalis being the Originator of a Complication is a primary way of earning additional story power. In other words "run the villain earn more Hero Dice".

What James said.

That's exactally as I see it. The game is essentially the slow revelation of the Hero's saga...wait...that's Wyrd. Isn't that weird?

)Reboot(

But seriously folks, it makes total sense to me. I'm envisioning some sort of system whereby you accumulate points with which you buy stuff for the Hero. But you can't just buy anything off the list. Some things must be bought before others can be. Like the first thing on the list would be the Hero's name which the commoners would bandy about. The next thing that you might buy would be the Hero's appearance or a sidekick or something. Anyhow, there would be any numberof things available at a given time but some would have prerequisites. Like before buying the Hero's True Identity, you'd have to know his Alias, his costumed appearance, secret base, any action sidekicks (sidekicks are not necessary, but once the True ID is known then no more sidekicks can be bought), etc. Once True ID is known you can buy Support Sidekicks (Alfred).

Anyhow, points to buy these would all hinge on immersing your commoner in trouble or something. So players would compete to make the best story to get points to allow them a hand in defining the Hero. Anyhow, after everything perfunctory has been bought up, the retirement option becomes available, which when selected by a player ends that Hero's career. There is one thing that can be taken after the retirement is selected, however. Successor! When the Hero lays down his sword it may be picked up by another Champion of the People who can don the same mask. This gives others a say in whether or not the game really ends there.

Just some ideas,

Mike

Hey Guys,

Here are some more thoughts and design ideas to bounce around:

The aforementioned mechanic that allows villains to contest rolls made by players is called Woe (or at least that's what I'm calling it right now). It has similarities to (other than being a synonym for) Orkworld's Trouble, in that it is a pool of dice that the GM can use to make bad things happen to the PCs. Villains can be rated for Woe, and players can gain it in other ways too (how I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is incurred when the Hero screws things up). The way it works is this: The GM can roll any number of Woe dice (up to the amnount he has available to him) at any time that a player chooses to make a roll; he may then cancel a player's dice on a 1 for 1 basis (a '6' cancels a '6', etc.). The GM does not have to use all of the dice he rolled - he can be selective in which dice of the player's he cancels out. In this way he limits the number of Hero Dice the player can earn, or force the player towards a specific (usually less favorable) Result. Like Trouble, Woe could also be used in an uncontested fashion, just to shake things up a bit for the players. All-in-all, I'd like to keep Woe very limited; most Villains wouldn't be rated in Woe, and shouldn't be too easy to earn. Once spent, Woe owuld be gone, so rolling Woe is a risk with no guaranteed results, just like Hero Dice.

I like some of the ideas regarding buying Trademarks, especially things like Steed (one of the Heroes I wrote up as an example, which I didn't use in my text, had a pet wolf that helped him). I may try to figure out how this would work, although I want to keep the game fairly loose. Lists of traits and qualities isn't really my thing. Ultimately, Trademarks should just be things about the character that you - the player -are interested in seeing become part of the recurring story. And I do want to keep the game from becoming solely about the Hero...this isn't supposed to be WYRD.

I briefly considered allowing players to play villains. One of the things Paul told me he liked most about Theatrix, and that he thought would be cool about this game, is that it opens the door for players to assume the role sof NPCs within other players' scenes. That comment essentially gave rise to the idea of playing the Hero as a shared creation - he's an NPC that players get to control once in a while. Because PCs are not necessarily involved in each others' scenes and Ordeals, players could be face with a lot of downtime. The Hero helps with that to some degree, but I could also see the players having opportunities to create NPCs on the fly and play them during other players' face time. To that end, I could see them making minor villains, but I odubt I would let them play or help create the primary villain. I want the GM to have something to do in this game, and as avant garde as the idea may be, I would like it to somewhat resemble a traditional rpg. Besides, I already did the shared villain thing with Human Wreckage. :smile:

And finally, a few more queries:

I don't like the term Commoner. Anyone got a better term?

Woe sounds too much like Trouble. Yeah, I know I stole it from Orkworld, but I'd like to a little less obvious about it. Anything better out there?

I had considered Champion of the Poeple at one time, but the word Champion sticks in craw for some reason. I guess it's because of the game of that name. I was thinking Paragon, but that sounds a little too much like a "typical" rpg title. Any thoughts?

That's it for now. I really appreciate the feedback...it makes feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Take care,
Scott

On 2001-09-25 00:55, hardcoremoose wrote:
The aforementioned mechanic that allows villains to contest rolls made by players is called Woe... Villains can be rated for Woe, and players can gain it in other ways too (how I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is incurred when the Hero screws things up).

Lists of traits and qualities isn't really my thing. Ultimately, Trademarks should just be things about the character that you - the player -are interested in seeing become part of the recurring story.

I briefly considered allowing players to play villains.

I don't like the term Commoner. Anyone got a better term?

I had considered Champion of the Poeple at one time, but the word Champion sticks in craw for some reason. I guess it's because of the game of that name. I was thinking Paragon, but that sounds a little too much like a "typical" rpg title.

Maybe someone has mentioned this already, but I thought it was an interesting idea. The assumption would be that the hero is in fact one person, but what if it was a group? A nation under the thumb of a trannical dictator opposed by a small group of freedom fighters who live in the shadowy jungle. No one knows where they came from or who they are.

Just a thought.

As far as names go, HERO! is pretty cool.

James V. West

Cool game. I think I might try to incorporate the idea of a jointly played hero into a game I'm about to run, except he'll be a *tragic* hero and the players will be playing him towards ultimate tragedy (thanks Mike!.
One other thing, though. Perhaps "The Keeper" isn'the best choice of terms, seeing as how that phrase is already in use by the little rubber cup that's being used to replace tampons and whatnot...
-Tor

Tor,

I'm glad you like the game and I'd be honored to see an idea of mine at work on the academic level. And since you're talking tragedy, have you taken a look at WYRD? If not, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about it (there's an ongoing discussion about it down in the WICKed PRess forum).

As far as the term "Keeper" goes...errr, well, ummmm...I had never quite made that connection. :smile:

Take care,
Scott