anyway: Chris Moore - Game Chef Idea

2005-05-25 : Chris Moore - Game Chef Idea

Chris Moore:

My core idea is inspired by the French Revolution: how an ideal (justice,freedom) can be corrupted and twisted into something quite unlike what was originally intended.

The three ingredients I'm using are Invincible, Accuser,and Companion. I've made them into roles that the PLAYERS take on. They can bring a main character or characters into play within the bounds of these roles, which are originally distributed randomly.

Invincible: "YES!" You get to establish ideas/outcomes/etc. that are "invincible"; they cannot be counteracted by other player statements. These statements become the focus of the game session.
example: "The revolution will succeed!"

Accuser: "YES, BUT..." You get to throw conflicts/barriers/delays/twists at the invincible thing, without directly blocking it.
example: "Okay, the revolution succeeds, but the revolutionaries become as ugly and oppressive as the former aristocracy."

Companion: "YES, AND..." You get to add statements that support either side, without blocking anything previously established.
example: (supporting the Accuser) "Yes, many nobles are beheaded at the guillotine to the roaring applause of the crowd."

So, let's start.
1) The three players agree on a setting, and announce the characters they will play (they can conjure them up later, too). (I need lots more here...situation?)
2) Three scraps of paper, with the three roles written on them, are distributed randomly among the three players.
3) The order goes like this. Roll one six-sided die:
1-2 Invincible, Accuser, Companion
3-4 Companion, Invincible, Accuser
(can the companion ever go first?!)
5-6 Accuser, Companion, Invincible

We roll 2. So the Invincible gets to make one contribution to the scene, then the Accuser gets to, then the Companion gets to support the statements of either one (his/her choice.)

After that, scene ends? roll again, do another scene... I'm getting sketchy at this point.

thanks so much for looking at this...

The way to get situation is to make there be a reliable source of conflict. So: What do the characters do, and then, what keeps them from just doing it?

Is "the revolution will succeed... but the revolutionaries become as ugly and oppressive as the former aristocracy... many nobles are beheaded at the guillotine to the roaring applause of the crowd" the introduction to a scene or its resolution?

1. On 2005-05-26, chris moore said:

Maybe the roles of Accuser, Invincible, and Companion are the possible ways to describe an outcome from a die roll.

rough example: 1-2 Invincible: You narrate outcome the way you want. 3-4 Accuser: You get your outcome, but someone else in the group must add an "accusing" twist - they add that your character has to cross some kind of moral line to get the desired outcome. 5-6 Companion: Someone else in the group must narrate a "companion" outcome - something other than the intended outcome happens, good or bad.

direct link
marginalia

2. On 2005-05-26, Emily Care said:

Coolness!

If the three things are roles for players, certain orders make more sense than others to me. Having the order go Invincible, then either of the others makes sense to me: it's making a statement, then making a response to it. But the other ways I'm not so sure of.

Having the three be possible outcomes to a separate statement makes more sense to me. Then the question becomes, who makes each statement? How do they tie in to the next? Does the response from one become next statement?

direct link
marginalia

3. On 2005-05-26, chris moore said:

Emily, thanks for the feedback. I like the outcomes option better, too. Now, to answer your questions:

1) Who makes each statement? Well, the players would make these statements after announcing some type of conflict..."I get the information out of the safe" kinds of statements.
2) How do they tie in to the next? Does the response from one become the next statement?
I don't know that they have to if the A-I-C ideas are not roles taken on by the players, but ways of restricting the resolution.
How 'bout this for a situation catalyst? Group agrees on setting. Then, they have to fill out this sentence: "(Someone or group) has been so __________ 'ed by (someone or group) that they can't take it anymore and plan to ___________." Players make characters based on that setting and situation. I hope I'm making sense...

direct link
marginalia

4. On 2005-05-26, chris said:

I'm hitting a wall, but I'm gonna try and turn something in. I've gotta get ONE game done!!

direct link
marginalia

5. On 2005-05-27, Emily Care said:

Keep going, Chris! Remember this need not be the final form of the game. You can do it!

direct link
marginalia

6. On 2005-05-27, chris moore said:

I think things are falling into place now that I made it a two-player game. Thanks for the encouragement!

direct link
marginalia

7. On 2005-05-31, chris moore said:

I submitted a game!!! This is a big achievement for me. Hopefully the catalyst for bigger and better...