(no subject)

[jeregenest]

A staple premise of much of genre fantasy and SF is that only through the iron will of heroes can the world be saved - and those heroes are not regular people, they are extraordinary beings. An extreme extent of this viewpoint is that we should all just do as they say, because they know best. While this is strongest of stock genre fantasy/SF (and rightly made fun of) its pretty standard in genre TV (Buffy anyone?), comic books and yes, gaming.

I’m not interested in arguing about wish-fulfillment and political messages and the rest. It’s enough for this post to acknowledge that it exists and then to think of my recent roleplaying, specifically Age of Paranoia and Tantaene Animis Caelestibus Irae.

In Age of Paranoia we had highly skilled, thus extraordinary, individuals who were captured in the nets of institutions that ground them down. And grind them down it did. I don’t think any of our characters were all that nice by the end. Not in comic book ways, but just in a battered psyche kind of way. If anything this was an example of a group of extraordinary individuals that you absolutely didn’t want to be in charge. The game pretty much ended where it did because the players were being so drained by playing them. Which is success in a way.

Tantanea, on the other hand, is a game about extraordinary individuals who are striving to be in charge and the question is really do they make right decisions. That’s a big theme, are their decisions right. And I’ll be honest it’s a fun process. And it’s a process made possible because of the level of power they bring to bear. Allegory is alive and well here.

A lot of what we do when we roleplay is mythologize, and I think this requires to a large extent extraordinary individuals of one sort or another.

So back to tantanea I find myself going back through the past sessions and trying to define this narrative of power. It’s proving harder than I thought it would, so I think I’m missing something. Thought I’d share.

Comments

[bryant]

UnknownUSA was about extraordinary individuals, albeit not all extraordinary through their own efforts. Some of us simply found ourselves the center of extraordinary circumstances.

We failed to not be in charge, by the end. Maybe we succeeded in the unplayed aftergame. Not sure.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

We failed to not be in charge, by the end. Maybe we succeeded in the unplayed aftergame. Not sure.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You failed to be in charge? Or you were trying not to be in charge but failed to do so?

I'm not challenging you - I just love to talk Unknown USA of course. And how do you imagine the unplayed aftergame?

[head58.livejournal.com]

I think he's saying we failed to NOT be in charge. No matter how much we tried to say "we're not changing things here!" we ended up changing things. None of us wanted to be the starts of the movie; we wanted smarter and better people to do those things for us. But the smarter people were dicks and the better people, well, we never met them if such a thing should exist. So it fel to us no matter how much we fought.

[bryant]

What Chris said. Our grand plan to remove the King from America wound up failing, through some fault of our own. And, perhaps, historical destiny.

I don't know what happened to us afterwards, sitting down there in the Keys. Did we have enough vision to realize what we'd done, and where our mistakes were? It'd be a very talky game.

I think the... cyclical nature of the mythos? I bet that's part of why we wound up where we wound up; every edition of the League/Knights wound up screwing that one up.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Unknown USA is a interesting case. I think we all bought into an ending early on in the game the loveable loosers motif we had, for one) and ten worked collaboratively to make it happen. We all agered that these characters ouldn't have a happy ending and then everyone made sure they didn't.

Moral Authority

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

There was actually some talk about a related thing on the new(ish) Story Games forum: here (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=238), I think.

Besides the wish fulfillment aspect (and we know it's there, why fight it or get worked up about it), "extraordinary heroes with extraordinary powers who may or may not know best" is good for story telling because it offers a way of externalizing choices and making it crystal clear how and why the choices of the protagonists really matter. It doesn't just come from genre fantasy, it's the basic fairy tale / myth / legend thing, right? Chosen ones and true kings and great men. Was it the Greeks who believed you couldn't write drama about anyone but kings and gods because they were the only ones who made meaningful choices?

A thing that comes up in gaming is the PCs power and authority relevant to the encountered NPCs. We've all been in the game where ostensibly the PCs are bigtime movers and shakers but the only people they ever interact with are at least as powerful as them if not more. You only really get a sense of what power means when you give the PCs some unpowerful people to interact with.

I think Pantellos ground the characters down more than Age of Paranoia. But Age of Paranoia did disillusion us players in unexpected ways. The two games are hard to separate in my mind, actually. Not that I get the events of them confused, but one feels like an answer to the other.

Re: Moral Authority

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

They do bookmark my interest in secrecy and espionage quite nicely. But more importantly I think their treatment of the choices of individuals and the things they elad them to do is a fascinating one.

Re: Moral Authority

[head58.livejournal.com]

Was it the Greeks who believed you couldn't write drama about anyone but kings and gods because they were the only ones who made meaningful choices?

I believe the Phoenecians phrased it as "nobody wants to see a trilogy about Porkins, because he's not the one who blew up the Death Star."

Although sometimes I think it might be interesting to do a game where the PCs aren't the important people upon whom the story sets, btu are a bunch of folks who always seem to show up two steps behind them and have to deal with being in the wake of World Shaking Events.

Re: Moral Authority

[balthial.livejournal.com]

Totally my next UA campaign.

Re: Moral Authority

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

NOW I HAVE THIS KILLAR IDEA FOR A GAME ABOUT BLOWING UP THE PHOENECIAN DEATH STAR STOP

Re: Moral Authority

[head58.livejournal.com]

Not going far enough. The Phoenecianss have rolled out their massive new warship, the Sun of Death. A Greek princess has stolen the secret of Greek Fire from the Phoenicians but her ship got caught on the way back to Minoan Crete and she was captured. A rag-tag bunch of unlikely Cretans break her out and she brings her and the Fire recipe back, but not before all of Minoan civilization is utterly destroyed by the Sun of Death. From a small island, a group of Greeks launch an attack on the ship using wings built by Daedalus and one-shot pellets of Greek Fire in their slings, which if they can get JUST RIGHT into one of the oar holes in the ship will land in the armory and consume the whole thing. One brave lad, guided by Athena, makes the shot and the rest is history.

Empire is a little trickier, but if you substiute the deserts of Egypt for Hoth and the back-woods of Gaul for Dagobah you may have something there...

Re: Moral Authority

[peaseblossom.livejournal.com]

Wait... I can't decide if I want to play Leia or Starbuck in that one.

Re: Moral Authority

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Not Boomer?