|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:05 AM
Posts: 623,
Visits: 2,511
|
|
Alastair (5/1/2007)
I'd say the main consideration would be getting the right players.
I agree with this, but:
Alastair (5/1/2007)
If you have people whose interest was the game and experience, rather than personal power or winning, it wouldn't even be an issue.
I disagree with this. There's nothing inherently wrong with games where the PCs are screwed over by forces outside of their control. However, there are several reasons why some people don't enjoy that type of game. Not all of these reasons boil down to them being munchkins or powergamers.
Alastair (5/1/2007)
I'd consider offering IC consolation options or opportunities to those losing powers - perhaps some NPC groups are forming in reaction to the situation, offering alternative abilities and roleplaying options. Maybe players who lost their elemental magics will find demons approaching them and offering a slightly more dubious route to power? Do they take it, or remain true and wane with honour?
I think that having an alternate source of power is a good idea, especially if it's riskier or more ethically dubious than the previous source of power. However, I don't think this should be presented as IC 'consolation'- that term sounds a bit patronising, as if the players need 'consoling' over their loss of magic or else they'll lose heart. If you're going to offer demonology as an alternative to magic, then I think the best thing to do would be to have the demons in the campaign and trying to tempt people right from the start. Obviously, most PCs won't see them as a very attractive option while they still have their magic, but I think having them there from the start would increase the feeling of continuity and prevent them from seeming like an inferior bonus prize from an OC perspective.
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
balor (5/1/2007)
One question: Do you think it is any different to allowing in game actions to significantly change the political system in a game?
It depends how the political system has been sold to players. If the 'political system' is sold as homogeneous whole with the rules system, then I think it might not be any different.
Generally, however, the rules system is distinct from the political system, even if they are rules which relate to political advantages, those rules generally point at what you get "You are a Kottar of King Wenrich, Kottars get to speak at councils, but don't get to call councils or bring matters to the council" - which is distinct from "You have status 4, the King will listen to you". In the first instance, you're aware that if King Wenrich dies - or the status of Kottars is undermined - then this no longer applies. In the second instance, you might reasonably complain if a year into the campaign you find out that the king doesn't listen to you anymore - the lack of decoupling between the rules and the political system is reasonable grounds to assume that this is system 'back-end', below the abstraction level, which isn't really going to be touched (no system can do everything).
So long as your 'metaphysics' is reasonably decoupled from the 'rules' all you need is vague disclaimers to ward off people who aren't interested in that sort of game.
Marios
P.S. Mixing OOC rules changes and IC system changes is generally either a necessary evil or an awful mistake. I don't think there's actually much point in putting an IC gloss over and OOC rules change - what's the point of making it an IC event when you won't be able respond or effect as you would any other IC event? 'Draklar did a thing which changed the nature of magic? I am ... strangely disinclined to try to an undo this thing. Somehow I feel it would be impossible to undo - unlike those other very similar things which we undid.'. Not good if you want your players inculcated in pro-activity - we don't make monuments out of things we don't want to focus on, we brush them under the rug.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Posts: 1,141,
Visits: 3,626
|
|
| Unfortunately, political systems often need a rules root if only to allow players to start the game with a particular status/political position without blatant munchkinism. A rules element stops people saying 'Oh, I'm the king by the way'. If they have to spend points on it to start with that status then they are more likely to pick a more beleivable status. I am, however, perfectly happy for status to change in game based on how you play. If someone starts out advisor to the king and they get all the snackies from that but then start giving really bad advise or side with the wrong side in a coup then they should lose their status. I use a basic 'player snitching' method of status control - players report actions of a player, whether good or bad, to their IC superiors who then take action - sometimes reducing or increasing the status. Works in systems where often the only insight NPCs have into what goes on at an event is based on what the players tell them and so makes the players reasonably proactive in building their own social structure. It is even easier in games like Vampire where the people who determine the status (Harpies, Herald, Prince) are often player themselves who have gained that position through playing the status game so generally you leave the players to it. Having said that, in several freeforms I have been to the status is open and dependent only on the background you write, what you tell people and how they treat you. Sometimes this needs ref moderation to prevent really stupid backgrounds but generally this is not much of a problem. Also, without a blatant rules based status system you can get away with more subterfuge - claiming status IC you do not have, for example - because in some status rules systems there is a direct 'numbers based' challenge system which removes the benefit of good roleplaying in your claim. I don't like these sort of systems but they do exist. But that is all besides the point... my opinion of political and social change is that all players should consider political status bought at character creation as temporary - their own actions or those of others can destroy or build it. If the king dies you lose it (or maybe get considered next in line?) so it is your job to make sure that the status quo remains by stopping the death of the king (or making sure he dies and one of your enemies gets the blame). I agree about using IC explanations to cover OOC rules changes... but only in a situation where this is done in a hodge podge way as often happens in some linear club LRP. Oh look , the amulet of flange has been activated, this means all Paladins now only have one heal per day instead of two. Reminds me of the first Order of the Stick comic - 'Oh, we've changed to the second edition rules set! I get extra powers!'  There are some cases where this is even acceptable - mainly where the rules change and IC explanation mesh logically. In Riftworld recently, an entire culture got badly bombed from orbit. They lost all their weapons stocks which meant that this culture, which used to have really cheap access to weapons, now has to pay the same price as everyone else. However, the point of this discussion is about planned IC changes to the game world which happen to impact on the rules rather than rules changes which require IC explanation. It is a subtle difference but an important one. For some reason the universe changes and things (mainly magic being the point of this discussion) don't work like they used to. So, to summarise the points made as I see them: - Change before the first event will prevent complaints but potentially lack drama. - Change during a game needs to be either: decently foreshadowed both in and out of character before a game starts and as it continues (disclaimers, signs and portents etc) or set up in a way which the players may be able to influence in some way - either to make worse (memories of the last Omega here...) or better and preferably both. - Replacing lost skills with something like physical skills is a bad idea. Though I would add to the last point the possibility that a wizard who loses power only loses power, he does not forget his spells. He is capable of advising someone with power to cast spells he knows and may be able to source power from other sources - which can be discovered in game, possibly channeling it through the bodies of someone who has power but no skill, maybe sacrificing them in some way. This way you still have the skill you bought - you still know 'magical theory' - it is just that the emphasis of how it is used changes. One nice situation is to put the players in the position where they have to enact the change themselves - make that critical decision between two evils: losing magic or whatever is threatening the world - and have them live with the consequences including all the pissed off ex wizards who 'want to have words with them'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God... Ruins of Empire 1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:05 AM
Posts: 623,
Visits: 2,511
|
|
balor (5/2/2007)
Unfortunately, political systems often need a rules root if only to allow players to start the game with a particular status/political position without blatant munchkinism. A rules element stops people saying 'Oh, I'm the king by the way'. To be pedantic, there are lots of systems where there would be no problem in PCs saying "I'm king, by the way" IC- post-apocalyptic ones in particular. balor (5/2/2007)
If they have to spend points on it to start with that status then they are more likely to pick a more beleivable status. Personally, I that if you're going to have a status mechanic at the start of the game, it's best to base it on retinue size. Anyone can spend points on something, but you need at least basic leadership skills before people will pledge allegiance to you. You can supplement this with a system where you also need to spend character points on status- in general, I'm not sure that's strictly necessary. Potentially it can also lead to situations where the Archmage knows less magic than his apprentices do, because he had to spent his points on status. The only issue with retinue size is that once a small-to-medium sized system gets going, few new characters are going to be able to recruit much of a retinue (it's one thing to persuade people to join you at the start of a system when everyone is choosing their first character, it's another thing halfway through a campaign when virtually everyone already has a character they're happy with). If you want a system with a relatively stable political structure (feudalism, say), this isn't necessarily a problem. balor (5/2/2007)
I am, however, perfectly happy for status to change in game based on how you play. If someone starts out advisor to the king and they get all the snackies from that but then start giving really bad advise or side with the wrong side in a coup then they should lose their status. I think that's fine, so long as everyone starts playing aware that this is the case. balor (5/2/2007)
So, to summarise the points made as I see them: Yup, that sounds about right
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Posts: 1,141,
Visits: 3,626
|
|
| True, there are some systems where you can claim any status. However, these are generally backgrounds where the players generally police their own status. This status is usually not enforced by any organisation external to the game itself. The situation I am talking about is where there is a complex hierarchy outside the limited worldview of the events themselves. The players are therefore elements of this hierarchy, they are not setting up their own hierarchy within the game. In these cases you need to make sure that all the players involved in that system have the same comparable levels of status. As for the retinue thing: yes, in fest systems this is ideal. If you have a group you can have group status and require that the various ranked members of that group have in game status based on thier retinue. In smaller games, however, sometimes the players are actually part of someone else's retinue (an NPC) sent to do something on their behalf and their in game status reflects this. The requirement for OOC skills is still valid, though. Group leaders need the skills to organise a large number of people, emmissaries need the diplomatic skills to pull of the missions they are sent to perform. Either way, you can lose the status if you mess up in some way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God... Ruins of Empire 1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester
|
|
|
|