Having raised the spectre of MI:666 with someone (like my aging brain can remember specifics like conversations!) at Conpulsion, I was trying to figure out how to get the game to work.
The premise, for those new to my ramblings, is that Christian Hell exists, exactly as it is told, and the only people that are aware of this are the deepest, darkest parts of the British government. MI:666 are the department of the security services that are tasked with stopping the world's greatest secret from being discovered, lest the planet devolve into an apocalyptic holy war.
Initially, it was powered by a system I dreamt up to mimic action films and the entire action film genre. It was fine but I'm now definitely of the opinion that something a lot more personal needs to be attached to the idea.
So, in the shower (the best ideas happen in the silliest places) I came upon the idea that maybe instead of a traditional 'party' of MI:666 agents, they could be deployed into the field in pairs. One is a believer, the other is a non-believer. Only believers can effect the devils but they are detached and increasingly insane. Eventually a believer will go mad, commit suicide or be turned to the side of Hell. The non-believer is there to shepherd the believer in their task, deal with the normal side of things and kill the believer if they become a danger to The Secret. Moreover, as a non-believer is exposed to The Secret, they move slowly towards becoming a believer. And yes, that means that over a series of sessions, the role of believer and non-believer would swap as believers were taken out of the game and non-believers become believers.
There is another track to this idea, and that is the conversation that Ian, Joe, Matt and I were having about expanding the hobby and barriers to entry. One of those that we talked about was the problem of getting, say, six adults together regularly. Larger group games are harder to timetable than smaller group games and the smallest group that I think you go to is two players and a GM (One on one is a different matter, in my opinion). So this is a set-up for a small group.
However, the painfully obvious hitch with the entire concept is that it has no flexibility whatsoever. Two players, One GM, no variations. I'm not sure you could get the same intensity of situation with two believers and two non-believers.
So, the question is - on this basis, are games that are limited like this ... well, you know, gonads?
Neil
Well...
Submitted by Graham W on Mon, 24/03/2008 - 18:33.
There's nothing essentially wrong with it, but you ensure that, in practice, I'll never play it. (I'll keep meaning to, but never will).
For the sake of comparison: I keep meaning to play Jason Morningstar's 3-player game, Business Solutions. But it's not suitable for our regular group, because we can't predict who'll turn up. In fact, it never seems to be suitable for any time.
I'd suggest that aiming for a 3-player game will limit your audience and playtesting potential. So not a great idea. I think.
Graham
I've written two
Submitted by Joe Murphy on Mon, 24/03/2008 - 19:47.
I've written two three-player games recently (Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic and Slip), and I'd love to see more. Those have no GMs, but two players+GM is good too. At Conpulsion, Lacuna ran successfully with three people. Trollbabe works very well with two players and GM. And I ran Mouse Guard recently for two players. All good.
It's not much of a step down from Polaris or Pooka's The Hammer Falls, both designed for four players and no GM. Shock suits four too.
I think it's a dynamic worth investigating. A huge swathe of fiction deals with two people thrown together, cf every cop movie ever made.
Specifically, the believer/non-believer setup made me LOL, so that has to be a good thing. That's a great setup for a game, though I'd maybe focus on play structure for con games and one-offs. So less about the second session, and more about characters changing a lot in a single session.
Interesting Twist
Submitted by Destriarch on Mon, 24/03/2008 - 20:57.
So the guy who really believes in hell and all that is the one who is pretty much guaranteed to end up going there? Suidices end up in purgatory at the very least, I think, and murderers... deary me! Interesting.
*EDIT* I must be tired. Suidice? Like, dice that commit suicide?
Ash
Hahah
Submitted by Ian ORourke on Tue, 25/03/2008 - 16:25.
So, you have Mulder, who believes in demons, hell and whatnot, and you have Scully who doesn't.
Ultimately, as Mulder becomes more and more embroiled he will go insane and eventually succumb to it all, be devoured or whatever.
By this point, Scully is a believer, due to her investigations with Mulder.
At which point, she is assigned the non-believer Dogget (or whatever his name was).
The journey repeats. Seems fine to me, the main problem will be the Scully character, as she will essentially move to believing possibly faster than Mulder will move into being 'taken out'.
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net - Pop Culture Phenomena and Fandom
Why does the non-believer
Submitted by Ben Clapperton on Tue, 25/03/2008 - 17:30.
Why does the non-believer not believe when it's all true and s/he knows its all true? I'd shed my atheism quick smart when presented with incontrovertable proof of the divine.
That's the other Scully
Submitted by Ian ORourke on Tue, 25/03/2008 - 20:25.
That's the other Scully problem, making the *slow* adoption of being a believer err...believable.
You either have to make everything very subtle or make alternative explanations possible (which the X Files did well in most cases apart from the UFO ones).
Failing that the non-believer gets hit on the head and knocked out for the demon showning money shot - I jest :)
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net - Pop Culture Phenomena and Fandom
But it's the official belief
Submitted by Ben Clapperton on Tue, 25/03/2008 - 21:57.
But it's the official belief of the government and MI:666 that it's all real. Scully works in the role of the non-believer as her skepticism is both the societal norm and the official position of the government and the FBI. If the FBI believed that the supernatural existed and it interacted with it as the primary part of their role then for Scully to deny it's existence is stubbon at best, madness at worst. For a full half of it's workforce (for that is the figure Neil's premise would be suggest) to disbelieve is somthing that creates a suspension of disbelief problem for me.
That aside, I think limiting the game to a set three people is an unnecessary restriction. The potential audience for a self-published indie rpg is small enough as it is without reducing it even further with this artificial restriction. I can't see why something similar couldn't be achieved without it.
Three players doesn't have
Submitted by Joe Murphy on Tue, 25/03/2008 - 22:09.
Three players doesn't have to be a restriction - it's a selling point.
Ach, it's worth a try. Especially if it's a small game stuck online. I'll pimp it. :)
In which case you and I have
Submitted by Ben Clapperton on Wed, 26/03/2008 - 06:44.
In which case you and I have got very different ideas as to what constitutes a selling point.
There's a danger of running into "in my opinion" in this thread
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 26/03/2008 - 10:09.
So let's not.
What a specifically three player game gives you:
- Something unique and memorable (really useful)
- A smaller footprint for play requirements (pickup potential)
- Easy to demo at cons/booths
What is doesn't give you:
- It doesn't fit in with gamer expectations (hard sell to some people)
- It doesn't fit in with regular group sizes (which may be an advantage for people with non-standard groups)
As an anecdotal datapoint, games that have done really well with limited or specific play numbers: Polaris (4) and Breaking the Ice (2).
-Matt
Realms Publishing
Nicely done, Matt.
Submitted by Joe Murphy on Wed, 26/03/2008 - 12:08.
Nicely done, Matt.
It Was A Mutual Decision specifically needs a group composed of guys and girls. Business Solutions, released soon by Jason Morningstar, is for three. But Polaris and Breaking The Ice are the big successes here.
As an AP example, I found Adam Kelly offering Lacuna for two players at Conpulsion. We had seven players available in the slot. And with the range of games some of us knew, that meant we could run GM-led or GM-free games for 2-6 players. We had a lot of _options_ and we could respond to people who wanted to get into a loud, competitive games, an intense and focused game, or anything in between, for small, medium, or large groups. Choice was obviously, _good_.
A lot of games actually have
Submitted by David Donachie on Thu, 27/03/2008 - 10:13.
A lot of games actually have very distinct group sizes where they work, they just don't like to say so. I can easily run GURPS for 5 people, but I was relieved to only have three for Solipsist at Conpulsion, despite having put 3-4 on the signup sheet. In fact even 3 was maybe one too many, and it works great as a 2 or even 1 player game (1 + GM that is).
I wouldn't be put off by a game that had a fixed group size, especially a small one. I struggle to get 4 people in a room each week as well, and often end up with 3 instead, which would be just right for this.
My only caveat is that if you are aiming for that small-group market you'd game better be 0-little prep, since it is likely to get used when a regular player in a larger group doesn't arrive.
http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/