Lords and Ladies Game Design
-
@Ominous said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
@Jumpscare I get a Coup (the card game) vibe from this.
Halfway through writing it, I thought, “This is coming together a lot like Coup. But with more emphasis on roleplay.”
-
I love Coup!
-
This is part of why I prefer no dice for my personal rp, because I fine the conversational interplay fun! But if I have to use social dice for RP, my personal preferred order of operations is
- OOC note of a social roll being needed and some discussion of what they’re attempting
- Base roll
- Socially savvy characters can use a buff to bump up their number
- RP out the results. If it’s a failure, the player gets to decide how they fail. Maybe they offhandedly mention ties to someone the other character/npc hates, maybe they talked a bit too long when the other character prefers brevity, maybe they leaned a bit too hard on Intimidation and figured they could back it up when they couldn’t. That way you avoid the thing of “player makes speech but dice say no” thing, or the failure becoming out of character.
Then again I’m one of those people who enjoys playing out failure because I think how and why a character fails and how they react to it is absolutely fascinating
-
@spiriferida I prefer no dice when I play with people I know well. Otherwise, I prefer the dice because generally I don’t trust other people I don’t know to play in a way that keeps it fun for everyone.
-
I feel like if there’s a system to allow a character to affect the world with dice, they’re great. If there’s an attempt to allow a character to affect another PC with dice… I’d prefer not to.
-
Another random thought:
PCs should not be at the highest levels of power. There are a few reasons for this, mostly related to the nature of players.
- The people who most want to be “in charge” of other PCs are generally not the people you actually want to have that power. And often, they want it as an achievement…and once they get it, they disappear.
- If your game relies on themes (like, say, conflict between factions or internal societal tensions) then you should not rely on PCs to enforce those as leaders. Most players won’t enforce theme, and the ones who do often end up burning out and miserable because they’re thrust in a position of “fun police” that isn’t actually very fun (ask me how I know).
- “Good” leadership is actually not great for the game part of the game. Leaders who try to make friends, decrease tensions, and set up long-term successes push things towards stagnation. PC leaders who lean into creating thematically-appropriate conflict often catch whole loads of shit from other players. NPC leaders only have to make decisions that are aimed at making the game fun/exciting/tense for everyone - PC leaders often make decisions based on what they feel will make other players like them, or just get off their back.
- Likewise, absent or rapidly rotating leadership makes it hard for players to have continuity of play, and PC leadership positions usually exist in a state of either functionally absent or flipping through PC leaders like a rolodex as new people show up, burn out, leave.
-
@Pyrephox said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
- If your game relies on themes (like, say, conflict between factions or internal societal tensions) then you should not rely on PCs to enforce those as leaders. Most players won’t enforce theme, and the ones who do often end up burning out and miserable because they’re thrust in a position of “fun police” that isn’t actually very fun (ask me how I know).
On top of it not being fun, it’s also how a lot of theme drift happens, or how an environment can grow OOCly toxic. When you off-load theme enforcement to players, the people who are Loud and Around end up doing it. Sometimes those are people who are actually helpful, a lot of times they’re not.
-
@Pyrephox said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
“Good” leadership is actually not great for the game part of the game. Leaders who try to make friends, decrease tensions, and set up long-term successes push things towards stagnation. PC leaders who lean into creating thematically-appropriate conflict often catch whole loads of shit from other players. NPC leaders only have to make decisions that are aimed at making the game fun/exciting/tense for everyone - PC leaders often make decisions based on what they feel will make other players like them, or just get off their back.
This is a much more eloquent way of expressing what’s been in my gut for a while.
NPC leaders can make the seemingly irrational decisions that are sometimes necessary on a MUSH and make stories fun. They can demote someone for apparently no reason (they’re idle <.<) or fall for the enemy’s (omg so obvious) ploy when it heightens the danger in a plot.
-
I see PCs at the highest levels of power working under certain circumstances:
- The power is temporary.
- The power comes with constraints.
For the first, I point again to Republic of Rome and John Company board games and the themes that they have. Rather than having position be mostly inherited, it is mostly appointed. You want to be one of the two proconsuls over the entire Republic? Sure! But the term is only for two years, you can’t have consecutive terms, and you can always be brought to trial by the Censors for fucking around. You want to be the general of the armies in Bengal? Sure! Better bring in spoils and not lose too many men, or we’re kicking your ass to the curb. No one gets to just be a position because their mommy or daddy had the position, and there are expectations of performance.
For the second, I had thought of game centered around the politics of the fey/divine beings. One attains more power and Prestige by the titles that they posses, such as The Red Count, Lord of the Dead, The Frosted One, The Dweller at the Threshold, etc. When one bests the current possessor of the title, they get it. While each title gives powers and more Prestige, it also comes with taboos. The Red Count can’t touch iron. The Frosted One can’t be in the sun. So on and so forth. Break a taboo and you are greatly weakened, making it easier for someone to steal the title from you.
EDIT: But I will agree that, in general, the top echelons of power should be NPCs who give tasks to the PC underlings.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
Political systems this, intrigue systems that. Honestly I liked that Arx had some basic House development stuff. I would have liked to have seen it expanded and would like any L&L game to have something similar.
Anyway, someone let me know if a new game comes out! I am feeling some fantasy vibes as evidenced by these High Elf minis I’ve been slowly working on
-
@Rucket Could you elaborate on what you mean by “basic House development”?
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
Oh yeah. Also a Wheel of Time game.
Weird no one mentioned it in all this L&L talk. Seems like a freebie.
-
The version of WoT I want isn’t an L&L game but idk what other people would want.
-
@KarmaBum said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
Oh yeah. Also a Wheel of Time game.
Weird no one mentioned it in all this L&L talk. Seems like a freebie.
@Third-Eye said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
The version of WoT I want isn’t an L&L game but idk what other people would want.
I thought I mentioned it. May have been another thread. 4th age, Dragon’s Peace politics.
-
@Ominous said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
in general, the top echelons of power should be NPCs who give tasks to the PC underlings.
When a plot is delivered to the IC-world via a ‘power gives tasks to underlings’ route, it doesn’t matter if the top PC power is the Galactic Emperor or the Assistant Manager.
GM, to King: There are reports of zombie coyotes around the villages west of the city.
King, to Lord Mayor: There are reports of zombie coyotes around the villages west of the city. Get somebody to deal with it.
Lord Mayor, to City Watch Commander: There are reports of zombie coyotes around the villages west of the city. Go deal with it.
City Watch Commander, to Abelard, Bridget and Camille: There are reports of zombie coyotes around the villages west of the city. Let’s all go deal with it.
Okay, but how about:
GM, to Squire Manfred and Lady Ophelia: You’re riding past the villages west of the city, singing ‘The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin’ and practicing the lute, when you spot some zombie coyotes.
Well shit. What will Manfred and Ophelia do? Tell the watch? Tell the mayor? Tell the king? Try to take out the coyotes themselves? If they tell the watch but not the mayor, does that reduce the mayor’s standing and power? If they tell the mayor and he deals with it without consulting the king, does that undermine the king’s power?
When plot-stuff flows both ways, PC power is constrained by the powerful PC’s need for IC support from the less powerful. If it always flows top-down, well, not so much. Not at all if you let the mighty get away with taking no action/ineffective action/action only involving off-camera NPC minions.
-
In my experience the PC with the most power, or the first player to hear about it handles it using their NPC minions. It ends up as:
GM, to King: There are reports of zombie coyotes around the villages west of the city.
King, to GM: I move my personal army to go take care of it, and my best friend Danielle can go bless the land.
Abelard, Bridget, and Camille: How can we get involved?
King: Fuck off, it’s handled.
Later, some political rival: Why didn’t the City Watch Commander do anything about those zombie coyotes? They’re inactive and lazy!
This is why I’m a fan of the bottom-up version where Squire Manfred and Lady Ophelia get looped in. The scenario is more immediate and if they end up needing backup they can kick it up the chain of command. But the best way is for the GM to directly loop in as many people as possible because if you’re relying on players to involve other players… they fucking won’t.
-
@Juniper said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
In my experience the PC with the most power, or the first player to hear about it handles it using their NPC minions.
Is there some way to have the typical Lords and Ladies experience people desire whilst also removing the reliance on/availability of NPCs?
NPCs are for doing the boring stuff, like paying taxes and being poor, not the exciting stuff like fighting and feasting.
-
@Pavel said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
Is there some way to have the typical Lords and Ladies experience people desire whilst also removing the reliance on/availability of NPCs?
I guess it depends on the scope of your game and what kinds of characters are included. Like you said, NPCs are for the boring bits. If every character is nobility I think it’s probably fine to send your lackeys. If your L&L game has a population of commoners and lower nobility, people really need to think about who’s missing out when they delegate to NPCs.
-
@Juniper said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
If your L&L game has a population of commoners and lower nobility, people really need to think about who’s missing out when they delegate to NPCs.
Agreed. I think, like in @Ominous’ original point, people like the King, the Duke of Westmorland, or the Grandpoobah de Doink should be NPCs, with the PCs being the lackeys. Either lower nobility or commoners.
In a WWII game, for instance, one would presumably want to be a Ranger or a Tanker or a Spitfire pilot, not King George VI or General Eisenhower.
-
I agree with the idea that NPCs should just be for boring bits, or set dressing at the most. Plot stuff should be handled 100% by the PCs.
