[Rustbelt] Changing setting
DWeird:
Split off from this thread here, as requested: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26919.0
Quote from: Marshall Burns on November 03, 2008, 10:34:35 AM
Quote from: DWeird on November 01, 2008, 08:47:00 AM
(though I *am* having some troubles with the complete lack of tidbits of "wild west" culture in my game.
I would really really really like it if you could find a way to elaborate on that, dissect it a bit, and so on (perhaps in another thread, here in the BtW forum). Because I have a sense of this game as being distinctly American somehow, although I have yet to be able to put it into any sort of words how or why.
Okay, so. I'm feeling like I'm groping around in my mind without any clear idea of what I'm doing, so expect this to be messy and treat it as such.
To put it as simply as I can manage - if Rustbelt games are usually ones in which "life is nasty, brutish, and short", mines are ones in which it should be possible for life to be nasty, brutish, and long. Characters could get to live, and live as long as any 'normal' person would, but they would have to do some nasty things to achieve that. Or they would have to not do some things they think are decent... Or something. Keeping hush about things you know. Talking with a group of friends and thinking about which one of them would out you if you say the wrong couple of words. Or not thinking that, 'cause you're actually that guy... Etcetera. Life is a slow, painful grind, and it gets a bit less painful if you're the one doing the grinding.
...but that's still within Rustbelt's regular turf, I guess. The actual problem, I think, is that, to achieve the sort of background I'm looking for, I'd have to rob the player's characters of a significant degree of autonomy. It's not that the characters wouldn't be able to make choices - it's that most of the more interesting ones would result in instant death. "Okay, they're torturing you... You want to escape - fine, roll? You gonna Push? Okay then... Some Sweat. Oh, you took two steps and they caught you! <More sweat, some tears, some blood...> Mm-hhmm... So I guess your guy's done. New char?"
Why am I even thinking of running a game like this? Well... I have a certain feel of the game I want to run - with millions of tiny tiny dirty eyes watching you. Always. Every step recorded, every step possibly the last. I want to use stuff that people around the table (and I myself) recognise as life in the bin, and the stuff I described involves that. I don't want to fit my prospective players into any sort of plot flowchart, but, getting the general feel right means that the guys it's my job to play will always, always have a crushing mechanical advantage over the players. Push all you want, you'll still be a corpse in minutes if you don't damned well fall in line... And smile doing it!
In a wild-west-ish world, a person could always try to shoot his troubles away. Or run away to the next town - sure, it'd still be dirty, the people would still be horrid, and life would still be shit, but at least one could make a choice, even if it's just "screw this, I'm outta here!". You could also make the choice to stay whereever it is you are now - for your own reasons... But in my setting, running away to a place that'd be equally crappy, but at least different, is just not there. If you try to move... You don't get worn down in large bleeding chunks, as it seems to be the case in many Rustbelt games - you get crushed instantly. You don't even get to go from the frying pan into the fire, you just fry.
...I don't feel quite like I've described my initial problem properly, but hopefully this is enough for someone to go on. Everything'll snap into place sooner or later, I'm sure.
Marshall Burns:
I'm grasping at straws myself, just as much, trying to figure out what it is about the game that feels so American to me.
I hadn't really thought about how much the "flee to the Territories" idea actually applied to the Rustbelt. That could be a part of it. Self-determinism. Defiance, out loud and proud. Rugged Individualism.
Hm. Maybe that could be it.
The oppressive atmosphere you're cooking up sounds kinda neat. In my games, the Rust is always around, but it doesn't often take direct action -- just here and there, occasionally, for no reason other than to fuck with people. My Rust is very patient. It waits for the right moment to corrupt the right part that makes the engine break down in the worst possible situation.
My Rust waits for people to choose corruption. Yours sounds like it's ramming it down people's throats. The neat thing is that it's a different kind of corruption, from what I can tell.
DWeird:
Not sure about ruggedness - you could probably play a wimp and have a great time doing it - but individualism is definitelly one of the core bits of Rustbelt as I see it. It's there at chargen, with it's "make what you will", it's supported by the Push/Give resolution mechanics (which do give any character a certain bit of "ruggedness", always! I was wrong. :D). That bit of setting (this is part of setting, right?) isn't color, it's in the rules (as far as I can tell).
Which brings me to my actual problem: Can Rustbelt be played enjoyably in the sort of setting I envisioned? The way I see it, a good part of the fun in the game is tied in with those moments of defiance, going all "screw you, fate! Things're gonna go MY way!" (or not - Kit's antivenom scene, teehee). I mean, Rustbelt GM's are supposed to put pressure on their players' characters, but what if at a certain point that pressure becomes actually making the player's choices unviable ("do as you're told or die", as a setting expectation - something that the GM, not a character in the game says - seems to be such a point, to me. A single event of defiance is not worth losing a character completelly, in my mind. Not that early, at least.)?
Would the rules work as-is for this? Should I change them somehow (maybe having Woe outbursts be treated as bonus for whatever action they want to do? You have Woe at 25. It gets triggered, character bursts out, takes tears, takes sweat, and then takes all the blood and sweat he has left over and pours it into one action... That's 25+15?+20?=somewhere from 40 to 60... Enough to do something awesome. People would go down eventually, but they would go down in flames)? Or am I looking at the problem from a wrong angle - i.e., I have some false ideas on how the game is run or supposed to be run or how I'm supposed to prepare for it?
[Now, I guess it'd be simplest to take "Can Rustbelt be played enjoyably in the sort of setting I envisioned?" to the (play)test and find out there, but as I said in another thread, this'd likely be the first game both to me as GM and to any prospective players. Which means I essentially have one chance to get them hooked. Could turn out they don't like the hobby, or don't like this particular version of it, but I'd rather not lose them because of my own messup. So yes. Must go without a hitch!]
Marshall Burns:
I didn't really mean "rugged," per se, but "Rugged Individualism." It's the name of a particular creed, a major imprint on American culture.
There's already support for going down in a blaze: the Last Push rule.
I do think that you can enjoy the sort of game you're talking about with the Rustbelt rules. I think it'll be okay to let them have small victories, because the costs build up, and, over a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero -- the Rust is patient, I don't see why the roaches couldn't be.
Due to the mechanics, there will be times when a guy is being tortured, and he will snap the restraints and strangle his tormentors to death with them. Remember that you can Push for extra damage, and that if two people are attacking each other at the same time, the winner of the roll gets his hit in for free, but the loser need only Push to get his in as well. Also remember that the effects of each hit will be persistent for at least the duration of the conflict, and quite possibly longer. "Injury" in particular is a death-spiral. It's all about bargaining, threat, pressure.
By the way, did you see this blog post of mine?
Marshall Burns:
Er, what I mean is, due to the system, the players will be able to utterly destroy threats if they try hard enough. And you should let this happen. But you can keep the oppressiveness you're after; I can imagine that, as one man falls, there's already another there to take his place. Just like roaches.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page