I like the idea of replacing Hope with something else. You need something like Hope (Drive, perhaps), but the word hope isn't quite right. Pain seems slightly wrong as well: Disillusionment, maybe?

Of the rest, I like Dissembly the most, except I think it should be much more of a rabble-rousing skill: it's the skill of getting a mob on your side.

Verbosity's cool but, with my pedant's hat on, it should be called Eloquence or something similar. (To be verbose is to use lots of words, not to speak well).

Authority I don't quite get. It seems a bit too close to Verbosity. Perhaps if it was Knowledge or something like that: the skill of making a reasoned argument?

Tenacity is the one I'm least excited about. It's partly that the other three are all verbal skills (more or less) and tenacity seems in a different class.

I'm glad you're making this into a separate game: I loved the concept but I didn't think it fitted with Contenders.

If I've got two wishes for Revolutionaries, it's a. that you can actually make the revolution happen and b. that I actually get to make the arguments in the game, perhaps in a Burning Wheel sort of way.

(I also sort of want the Monarchy still to be in place, so it's actually a revolution, not a counter-revolution. But this is probably the pedant thing again).

Hope some of that's useful. Good luck with it. Ghastport's great.

Graham

>If I've got two wishes for Revolutionaries, it's >a. that you can actually make the revolution >happen

You could make the endgame more pronounced, lengthier somehow. Maybe make it even more like MLWM than it already is, so it's not just an epilogue for your character but also a whole de facto revolution as the status quo comes tumbling down, where all the players have to scramble about to get themselves in the best possible positions of power.

> and b. that I actually get to make the >arguments in the game, perhaps in a Burning >Wheel sort of >way.

I know a lot of people don't like the Duel of Wits (my own group included, unfortunately), but I think something like it could work nicely in Revolutionaries.

I've been ruminating on Revolutionaries for a bit.

(I don't get to use the word "ruminating" nearly enough, you know)

My thoughts on the book as it stands are that it's a cracking setting, but that the mechanics seem somewhat disjointed or disconnected and the whole doesn't seem to gel quite right. I think you've identified that and it looks like you're thinking along similar lines anyway.

My thoughts on where I'd like to see you take it are vague I'm afraid. I'd like to see some quite specific endgame conditions. That is, if people end the game with certain score combinations then the revolution happens and is positive. Other combinations mean the revolution succeeds, but that the new regime is ultimately just as corrupt as the old one. Another combination means the factions are too concerned with infighting to really achieve anything. Yet another means the character is caught and executed. I think this boils down to having a really powerful epilogue dictated by the scores.

One thing that a friend pointed out: The endgame of Contenders starts with the players pairing off and fighting some kind of championship en-mass. Since a Player vs Player conflict in Revolutionaries is called a debate, does that mean the endgame starts with all the characters mass-debating together?

(I'm really sorry, I couldn't resist)

I'd also like to see some kind of personal conflict reflected in the mechanics to deal with the characters personal gain in terms of power, wealth and standing vs their idealism. So a the character who wants equal rights for women so that her daughter does not need to be raised as a second class citizen would need to choose between fighting for a slightly better life for women in general or accepting a much better life for her daughter.

That kind of struggle seems important to me and I'd like to see it reflected in the rules.

Ooh yes that's very juicy - personal beliefs/desires vs ideological beliefs and desires.

Sure, you believe in equal education for all, but would you really pass up the chance to give your son the best private tutors?

Thanks for all the feedback there guys, there's some very juicy morsels to chew on and digest.

Graham: I totally agree, the revolution itself should be a key part of the endgae. I think this is a stage that could become very competitive between players. Only one revolution can suceed in the endgame (as I see it), therefore one player will come out on top. However, I also see all of the participants really getting into the epilogue as well, telling the tales of what there revolutionaries did during the heady days of the Great Change!

Andy: I'm not familiar with the mechanics for the duel of wits in Burning Wheel, but I have Burning Empires at home, so I'll take a glance at that and see how they play out. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rich: Personal issues versus the larger political issues in wahtever setting the players choose will indeed be key. How to resolve this and bring it into play is slightly unclear at the moment.

A few general points: I've decided not to present Revolutionaries as a game set in Ghastport. However, I'm going to use Ghastport for all examples throughout the game, thereby giving a lot of the flavour and culture of the setting, without presenting huge blocks of text for people to wade through. So, most of what you see in the PDF at the moment will remain, it will simply be presented in a more broken down, accessible format.

Guidelines will be included for the creation of setting: what should be there, what is important to the game, etc. So, you can play out the October revolution in Russia if you wish. Or a change of regime in the dusty Mars Colony. But Ghastport will always be there as a touchstone for what can be done.

Last week Gregor gave me a good suggestion in the form of Momentum: How much political momentum has the caus eof the revolutionary gathered? How is this used in play? What does it do? I think this could be the replacement for hope. less momentume means less chance of achieving goals and therefore despair for the revolutionary.

I hope to have some more concrete thoughts on the mechanics when I get back from Warpcon early next week.

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

One thing that occurs to me is this:

Why not have the game run in such a way that as people advance through scenes, the overall climate of unrest changes? That is, have a stat called "momentum" or something. It starts at zero (or higher if you want a shorter game) and increases depending on how well the players raise the rabble. Once it hits 10 (for example) players can try to start an overt revolution. The higher it is above 10, the more likely the revolution is to succeed once it's underway. You could track this seperately for each player's faction, so if someone is at 14 when the revolution kicks off, but another player is at 12 when it starts, their faction is still able to influence the revolution and what form the emergent government takes. Maybe if the Momentum reaches a certain point (say, 16) then the faction revolts whether the character wants it or not?

I don't see that the revolution needs to be the end of the game either. I think there's plenty of room for play during and in the immediate aftermath of the revolution.

Anyway, that's some random thoughts I had.