Passing Ideas (p2)
So... venting a little more in the way of ideas and analyzing them. Were I actually to run this as a campaign, I might put forth something like this to the players:
You were a part of the assault on the beachhead at Port Nadir. It was the last, desperate gasp of the Republic. With the Emperor himself present, success could lead to a negotiated cease fire with the Imperial generals. If the attack failed, there would not be enough of an organized resistance to slow the Vastyrian armies anywhere.
Progress was hard-won, but you survived were countless others did not. At the doorstep of the Emperor's mobile palace, you met up with General Farius himself, leader of one of the few combat-tested Republic military units. True to his reputation, the general rallied stragglers from what units had made it and he led the final charge himself. Alongside his knights, you saw the line held against waves of fanatical foreigners dying by the dozens on spear and blade. As costly as it was, the free people of the Republic stemmed the tide long enough to Farius and High Priest Azalain to enter the Emperor's chamber.
While you did not witness the details within, the slaying of the Emperor caused his forces to crumble. A new wave preparing to assault simply feel apart before your eyes. Instead of weariness from the battle, you felt invigorated by the victory. It was days before the magnitude of the undreamed-of success sank in. Everywhere, the Imperial machines stopped dead. Units broke. Leaders were so stricken by the death of their Emperor that most killed themselves rather than fight on. Though it would take weeks before the scattered soldiers were fully contained, the war was over.
And in its wake, you and the other survivors of the Battle of Nadir became instant celebrities. The lowest of soldiers were made Knight-Captains under General Farius, and soon the entire Republic knew the names of everyone who was a part of that final push. Those names would grow to be spoken with reverence of true heroes. Fame came, greater than shown even the most prestigious of Senators.
Blessed by the gods you were. And in the months following the battle, that became even more apparent as you and the other Heroes of Nadir came to display abilities beyond the norm. Unusual strength or speed, bit of magic without use of invocation or prayer - everyone grew some sign of favor.
And as the Republic rebuilds, all eyes are on its greatest heroes for guidance.
So... is this railroading?
In my mind, it may be, but not to a bad degree. It sets the scene. It does define things the PCs have done/participated in, but it paints those things in broad strokes. Yes, the characters participated in specific battle. But exactly what they did and why is hazy. Did they dive eagerly into combat? Did they fight out of reluctance or desperation? Did they freeze, unable to kill anyone, and just get lost in the shuffle of the fight? Were they professional soldiers or militia scraped together in the nation's darkest hour? The character is famous and known, but how have they responded to that celebrity?
There's still a lot of room for defining character and personality types by answering questions like that. The specifics of what the characters did, and their reasons for them, make all the difference.
And as far as the game itself, there is a truth to what happened and what is happening. The players don't have any input into that. I, as GM, would present that truth through the course of play. Exactly how it's discovered depends on how things play out - so the players have some say in that. How the PCs deal with it, however, is entirely up to the players.
I think most of the people I play with would tend toward seeking a morally "right" answer. It's unlikely they'd draft up character who would simply revel in the power handed to them. As such, I can predict the game going a certain way. That prediction may or may not be accurate, but it seems likely given what I know about my players. Given this assumption, I can plan little hints through incidents of moral quandry. I can craft a story about discovering the truth and seeking redemption, using other major figures as parallels or foils as necessary.
If I were pitching this to strangers, I would have no earthly idea how things might go - and I'd have to prepare for that. I wouldn't be able to plan things as concretely. I'd have to be ready to keep things interesting in some way even if they completely disregard the themes in my above paragraph. That's certainly harder, and less interesting to me in this case.
But... that's a glimpse at how my mind works as a (mostly-retired) GM. I try to find a balance between story and player freedom by designing a story that is likely to fit the characters. It is about knowing your audience, though your audience in such a situation is also your cast.
You were a part of the assault on the beachhead at Port Nadir. It was the last, desperate gasp of the Republic. With the Emperor himself present, success could lead to a negotiated cease fire with the Imperial generals. If the attack failed, there would not be enough of an organized resistance to slow the Vastyrian armies anywhere.
Progress was hard-won, but you survived were countless others did not. At the doorstep of the Emperor's mobile palace, you met up with General Farius himself, leader of one of the few combat-tested Republic military units. True to his reputation, the general rallied stragglers from what units had made it and he led the final charge himself. Alongside his knights, you saw the line held against waves of fanatical foreigners dying by the dozens on spear and blade. As costly as it was, the free people of the Republic stemmed the tide long enough to Farius and High Priest Azalain to enter the Emperor's chamber.
While you did not witness the details within, the slaying of the Emperor caused his forces to crumble. A new wave preparing to assault simply feel apart before your eyes. Instead of weariness from the battle, you felt invigorated by the victory. It was days before the magnitude of the undreamed-of success sank in. Everywhere, the Imperial machines stopped dead. Units broke. Leaders were so stricken by the death of their Emperor that most killed themselves rather than fight on. Though it would take weeks before the scattered soldiers were fully contained, the war was over.
And in its wake, you and the other survivors of the Battle of Nadir became instant celebrities. The lowest of soldiers were made Knight-Captains under General Farius, and soon the entire Republic knew the names of everyone who was a part of that final push. Those names would grow to be spoken with reverence of true heroes. Fame came, greater than shown even the most prestigious of Senators.
Blessed by the gods you were. And in the months following the battle, that became even more apparent as you and the other Heroes of Nadir came to display abilities beyond the norm. Unusual strength or speed, bit of magic without use of invocation or prayer - everyone grew some sign of favor.
And as the Republic rebuilds, all eyes are on its greatest heroes for guidance.
So... is this railroading?
In my mind, it may be, but not to a bad degree. It sets the scene. It does define things the PCs have done/participated in, but it paints those things in broad strokes. Yes, the characters participated in specific battle. But exactly what they did and why is hazy. Did they dive eagerly into combat? Did they fight out of reluctance or desperation? Did they freeze, unable to kill anyone, and just get lost in the shuffle of the fight? Were they professional soldiers or militia scraped together in the nation's darkest hour? The character is famous and known, but how have they responded to that celebrity?
There's still a lot of room for defining character and personality types by answering questions like that. The specifics of what the characters did, and their reasons for them, make all the difference.
And as far as the game itself, there is a truth to what happened and what is happening. The players don't have any input into that. I, as GM, would present that truth through the course of play. Exactly how it's discovered depends on how things play out - so the players have some say in that. How the PCs deal with it, however, is entirely up to the players.
I think most of the people I play with would tend toward seeking a morally "right" answer. It's unlikely they'd draft up character who would simply revel in the power handed to them. As such, I can predict the game going a certain way. That prediction may or may not be accurate, but it seems likely given what I know about my players. Given this assumption, I can plan little hints through incidents of moral quandry. I can craft a story about discovering the truth and seeking redemption, using other major figures as parallels or foils as necessary.
If I were pitching this to strangers, I would have no earthly idea how things might go - and I'd have to prepare for that. I wouldn't be able to plan things as concretely. I'd have to be ready to keep things interesting in some way even if they completely disregard the themes in my above paragraph. That's certainly harder, and less interesting to me in this case.
But... that's a glimpse at how my mind works as a (mostly-retired) GM. I try to find a balance between story and player freedom by designing a story that is likely to fit the characters. It is about knowing your audience, though your audience in such a situation is also your cast.
Railroading? Not really. Lots of games say, "Here's a setting make a character, create your own backstory." this is providing the crux of the backstory for the player, "You're a war hero." and letting all other details remain in player's hands. It's like playing a super-hero game and the event is there was a solar eclipse and now there's folk with powers. I'm reminded to a degree of Spirit of the Century too, character creation includes a, "You fought in World War 1. What did you do there that made you famous?" part. Very interesting premise. I'd like to know more about the Republic, the Empire and how both came into being.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I have to agree, this is called 'backstory', and tells the players what kind of characters you want them to make. That's fine. When I ran Shadowrun and told everyone 'make a character in prison', that wasn't railroading, and they didn't even really blink.
ReplyDeleteHeh. Typical. You always want more information that doesn't exist. ;) I'd probably only come up with a rough outline of Republic history. I envision a nation that is "human" (in the sense of being imperfect), but basically good. Unity of states, each with slightly different cultures/flavors, for common benefit. No great wars in the past, as the core concept involves a military that is largely untested. Freedom and justice would be highly valued, but there would be shades of corruption here and there. And with the very real threat of invasion and destruction halted, the heroes (PC and NPC) would be very influential in the present/future of the nation. The Empire... would start as something of a mystery, just as portrayed. Its historic rise to power across the sea would be closely tied to the present "threat" in the game. That being the case, investigating one might lead to the other. PCs might talk to a former Imperial soldier and learn something of their history, or they might travel across the sea themselves to see how the Empire has fallen and search out the origins of its technology/influence.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of people eschew backstory like this or leave it up to the players. In the latter case, you get characters that are... scattered. Some people like the freedom... I like a little more framework. "Start in town X, all your character know each other" covers a couple things, but I find that it leads to characters created in a vaccuum. They tend to have different goals and different backgrounds in mind that get cobbled together clumsily - unless players actually sit down and talk it all out together, but I rarely see that happen. *shrugs* Matter of preference, I suppose - and this is pretty much what I prefer to see. There's leeway for individuality, but characters are invested not just in the setting, but in the plotline of the campaign. Perhaps that's more the difference. I like having a (flexible) plotline. If a GM opts for a improvised/sandbox game, they really can't give the players guidance like this.
ReplyDeleteOkay, well. One reason I ask is because as I develop characters for RPGs, I am starting to think more about the 'whole' character. I can roll up the stats for a D&D fighter, but to actually -play- this guy what was his childhood like? Does he have friends (outside the other PCs)? Does he have a favored weapon and why? Psychology of a character that stems from history and immersion in setting. You've hinted at magic and technology, the Republic having the magic and the Empire having war machines. Is the magic also tied into faith and religion? Can anyone be a mage or is it hereditary? Fun little additional things that you may not have thought of (especially if this is just a few paragraphs and a few hours of musing) that will become important to not just me, but other characters in the game as well.
ReplyDeleteWell, as for what happened in the 'battle' that defines these characters' fame, that kind of needs to be decided by the choices made by the characters in their own creation. They are, in some way, the crux around which the battle was fought. Or were they? You've left them the ability to take that role if they so choose and how they deal with that choice will define the battle and history. That's a lot of power to hand someone. Good thing it's just a game. ;)
ReplyDeleteRight, and the questions are important - but only if you're actually making a character to play in the game. As long as the game is hypothetical, answers don't matter. That said, the answers (as far as the concept has gone) would be: - The Republic has magic in the form of taught wizards and clerics (of a small pantheon). Both are relatively rare, but not artificially restricted. - The Empire made use of steampunk/Eberron-ish machines/golems. That technology as well as its clerics and sorcerer-like mages derived their power from their Emperor, so the "present" Empire doesn't have any of that. - In turn, this sets up gods as implied to be real, but not actively involved save through priests. - Conceptually, the masses are low-powered. An experienced soldier/mage might be about third level. Anyone over fifth level is going to be some legendary figure of note (like the mentioned general and high-priest). This fits the leveling of the PCs in with the very idea that they are "blessed," and gaining abilities that are essentially superhuman. There's a GM-side difficulty in this, though. Early combat-threats can come from regular folk with some numbers. After gaining a few levels, though, the PCs are only really going to be threatened by things outside that "normal" range of power - monstrous external things or beings who are similarly gifted. Over-using such things would trivialize what the PCs have and make players ask "how did one of these things not cut a swath through the entire nation already?" There should be a good answer, whatever it is. - Related to that, I might be tempted to play with the experience system a little and make gaining a level involve something more than just *ding*.
ReplyDeleteA hypothetical game at that. ;) This is a campaign concept that I really would not take to a con or run for a group of strangers. It loses something, in my mind, if not played a certain way.
ReplyDeleteProvided one uses a system that uses things like 'level' or 'experience points'. you say it yourself, if there's this uber badness that always existed, why hasn't it crushed us already? Or if there's this upper limit of skill, why aren't there people at that range already? (theoretically yon Emperor was a level 10Clr/10Ftr and Farius a 18Ftr and High Priest Azalain 16Clr but trhat sort of begrudes the point.
ReplyDeleteI might be tempted toward another system, but none that come to mind fit better. Most point-based systems I can think of would require a good deal of finesse and ultimately have similar problems. Where I truly intending to run this, I'd research a little deeper for options. Still thinking D&D 3E, I'd actually peg Farius and Azalain (at the time of the battle) at closer to 6th level. One of the best ways to control power creep in a game like this, though, might simply be pacing of the campaign. There's a story to be built here, and stories have endings. If the PCs level every few sessions, and there's not necessarily a lot of combat every session, it seems theoretically possible to end the campaign with the PCs reaching level ten or the low teens without introducing a lot of credibility-straining opponents. I just said it was a difficulty to consider, not that it wasn't doable. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhee this is getting long. I might make a case of arguing that D&D is about power advancement by way of a level and experience system. It is poor vehicle for telling a story, which feels to me what you would wish to do with this. Certainly the mechanics for performing attacks and skill checks are easy enough, but it boils down to whatever gives the most plusses at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteWell, ideally, I would want a system that models the setting/concept. That's what we want for all our games, neh? 3E is generic (and familiar) enough for me to mesh the two with minimal difficulty. I could scribble up a whole rule system for it, but that generally feels like too much work. So, for this game, I would want a system that covers: - Combat/task resolution. That's usually a given. - Advancement of personal abilities and power. The Heroes are supposed to be gifted in the wake of the war. They're also supposed to gain further power as time goes on. - A degree of seperation between the Heroes and "normal" people. - Magic (of at least one flavor, preferably two or three) that is good, effective, and still reasonably balanced with non-magical options. - The potential loss of power. Of those, I'm satisfied with 3E on everything but the last point (level loss always struck me as sort of tacked-on), and that one could be handled with a little tweaking. What are some other options? Unisystem: Most of my RL gaming friends accept, favor, or outright adore this system. In this case, I find it to be lacking in balanced and varied magic. Also, it gets... wonky when attribute + skill totals get high enough. Exalted: Great match for the larger than life essence I want to instill in the PCs, but that's about all that's going for it. Its maneuver-based system is unwieldy and rapidly gets even more over the top than I'd want. GURPS: The ultimate in point-based genericness. I imagine this could be made to work, but... ugh. Point-based systems make increases/decreases in power a rather scattered affair. Freeform!: Well... simple collaborative storytelling is good for telling a story, but I want more structure than that. I want a game. There are plenty of other options out there. Many I'm not familiar enough with to judge, many I've discarded out of hand or simply not remembered. And I don't find D&D and storytelling mutually exclusive.
ReplyDelete