Shohmyoh

Tower of the Thin Line

Thank you, feedback is always appreciated. The more I think about it, the more appealing a small group seems. And I agree that unpredictability needs to be taken into account (contradictory as that might sound). That's kinda my biggest concern right now: designing exercises that are open-ended enough to give players some freedom and encourage strategic thinking, but not so much so that things drag on too long or people get deadlocked.

I've been considering adopting a point system for trials that don't end in character death, where characters who accomplish their goal or are more successful or efficient in their attempt are rewarded a higher number of points than those who fared worse. Characters with higher point totals could be given small advantages in later trials. It'd be another way to encourage allying with or siding against other characters, to either team up with the current leader or conspire against them. But that idea is still on the drawing table.

Tower of the Thin Line

Glad to hear it. After receiving some feedback in another thread I'm thinking it might be a good idea to start with a lower number of players than I'd originally planned. Maybe 4 or 5. This is an idea that can run for multiple rounds if there's enough interest, so perhaps starting small would be a good way to go. Roster size isn't set in stone yet, though.

I'm also currently reevaluating the ideas I'd come up with for trials. I've got plenty, but after running through some of them on paper they may need to be tweaked. A few of them ended up being too close to logic puzzles without a lot of room for cooperation or subterfuge. The main goal is to keep as much of the outcome of trials in the players' hands as possible.

Idea involving mandatory character death, could it work?

Thank you for weighing in on the matter.

There will certainly need to be a disconnect between player and character for the idea to work as intended. Since camaraderie, trickery and attempting to endear oneself to others are big parts of the idea, characters would need to be as separated from their creators as possible. Otherwise it might facilitate players just playing favorites with one another rather than doing in IC. One idea I've been mulling over that might aid that would be to have a two-part character screening process.

The first part would be for a player to publicly post the more obvious attributes of their character, namely what one would notice about them at first glance, or how they would be viewed by someone who didn't know them. For the second part, the player would PM me the more in-depth facets of the character's personality and backstory. I was thinking that keeping the nuances and more complex components of the characters hidden from the OOC thread would force the players to organically reveal and discover them as the RP progresses. This would hopefully help the characters come into their own and keep them divorced from their creators, make them feel more like real people that you learn more and more about rather than a pre-made mannequin that the player is acting through. Ultimately though, some good faith and good sportsmanship will probably be required. As GM I'd be as impartial as I can, but I can't guarantee the same for anyone else involved.

Honestly I'm reluctant to allow players to create more than one character if they'd be running at the same time. The reason I got interested in the idea to begin with was figuring out a way to maximize the consequences of character death, and I think allowing a player only one character, emphasizing interaction and growth, and stacking the odds against their survival would cultivate a sense of loss if they fail. Making a character's death feel like a punch in the gut is what I'm going for, frankly. I'm not completely unreceptive to your suggestion, though. Allowing multiple characters might keep people engaged and help protect against any one player being ganged up on just for the hell of it. It might be necessary if the support for my current idea isn't there.

EDIT: Forgot to explain why I picked the 'only one survivor' rule: I was afraid that if more than one character is given the chance to live to the end that it'd compel people to buddy up for the whole length of the RP without fear of betrayal, or at least there'd be much less of a chance that alliances could change. If two people pair up when there'll only be one survivor, they both know that one of them won't make it, keeping some tension between even the strongest friendships that might've been able to go unchallenged in a different format.

I'm aware of Dangan Ronpa though I've only seen parts of it, and kinda forgot it existed until you brought it up. I'll give it another whirl when I get the chance.

Tower of the Thin Line

I should note that certain details such as group size or the frequency of character deaths are currently subject to change. I would certainly appreciate any feedback I can get in regards to these details. Ultimately they may be altered with regards to how many people are willing to participate.

Idea involving mandatory character death, could it work?

Reducing group size is definitely an option. In my head the ideal size of the group would be 6 people, but perhaps limiting it to 4 or 5 would be a better idea.

An RP like this could have more than one 'round' of play if enough people show interest. Perhaps doing an initial run with a smaller group of people while increasing the amount of trials would be sound. It'd help everyone get into the groove of things and give me a chance to work out any kinks.

Of course that all depends on whether or not the idea catches on, so that's a wait-and-see kinda thing.

Idea involving mandatory character death, could it work?

I appreciate your feedback.

I agree that it would be a precarious balancing act to keep things tense without scaring off too many potential players. I did have the idea of introducing 'lesser trials' that would not result in character death. The idea was that players would not always know whether or not a trial will result in character death, and hopefully this would both lengthen the amount of time that players get to remain in the RP and encourage them to take care in how their character attempts to help or trick other characters. I would imagine that if 'A' betrays 'B' in an effort to save himself only to find out that the trial didn't cause 'B' to die that it could create problems for him in the future. Thought it might add a layer of strategy and encourage caution in how characters and players interact.

If a player drops out in the middle of the RP, the only course of action I've thought of so far would be to write them out and (hopefully) replace them with another willing player. Though this would bring its own set of problems: it's unlikely that the new character would fare as well as the established ones that have been there from the beginning. Players probably wouldn't feel nearly as attached to new blood as they would characters that they've worked with (or against) from the start, and it would be kind of shitty if they were introduced just to be quickly killed off. It's an issue I'll have to think about further.

It's definitely not an idea that everyone would enjoy or be interested in, but I'm very curious to see if it can bear fruit.

Tower of the Thin Line

"The sleeping agent is wearing off now, so you will be able to hear my voice. Familiarize yourself with the layout of your holding cell: 33 inches long, 90 inches tall, 30 inches deep, made of obsidian black steel. We recommend that you do not attempt to escape, as extreme precautionary measures have been taken to prevent such an act. The claustrophobic nature of the room, coupled with the common anxiety response of not knowing where one is has commonly caused hysterical fits in previous subjects. Therefore we will wait for your adrenaline rush to wane before continuing."

...

"Now continuing. You are one of many random samples of the general population that we have chosen to participate in an experiment. The experiment will consist of several trials of varying nature that you will undertake with a small group of other test subjects. The purpose of this experiment may or may not be revealed to you in time, but suffice to say that we seek to ascertain your definition of the word 'human'.

"You will notice a slim steel band on your left wrist. The origin of its composite metals, though most assuredly foreign to you, is irrelevant. It is impossible to remove in your current state, so we recommend that you conserve your energy. The other subjects that you will soon meet have the same band. Your test group must relinquish one of its collective bands at certain intervals to continue the experiment. The band can only be removed from your body upon death. Therefore one of the subjects that comprise your test group will be required to die before the remainder can move forward.

"Be warned: it is expressly forbidden for any subject to directly kill another subject. Doing so will result in the immediate termination of this experiment as well as all subjects involved. Every trial within this experiment will contain a failure state. These failure states will determine which subject will be terminated.

"Despite your lack of control over the proceedings so far, do not think that your desires are irrelevant. In fact, they are the crux of the experiment. How you interact with your fellow test subjects will assist in determining who among you will survive, and may also influence the nature of certain trials to come. Whether you attempt to befriend, beguile or ignore the other test subjects is your decision. We are confident that your actions will provide us with adequate data regardless.

"The door of your cell will be opened momentarily. You will then enter the connecting room and meet the other test subjects that will participate in the experiment. From there your group will be given further instructions.

"Enjoy yourself."

---

This RP would consist of characters (normal human beings that one could meet in real life) striving to survive the experiment alluded to above. The trials comprising the experiment will require characters to either work with or trick one another to succeed and continue onward. Some of them may require certain details to be withheld from particular players, so private messages would be utilized in order for the GM to pass along secret information. Therefore, a certain amount of good faith may be required to preserve the integrity of the idea; though precautions will be taken whenever possible, any players involved may have to trust one another that secret information is kept secret.

Character death is mandatory. Which characters live and die will ultimately be decided by the players' actions. It then follows that character development, friendship and suspicion will be essential components of the RP. If a player's character dies, then that player's involvement with the RP will end there. I considered having some sort of second chance clause or allowing such players to create a second character, but I think doing that would undermine the consequences of character death and greatly reduce the desire to keep one's character alive.

This RP would require some amount of commitment from every player for the idea to succeed. I realize that real life always comes first, and that extenuating circumstances may keep someone from being able to contribute for a length of time. Regrettably, it would be very difficult to write around a character's absence if their creator isn't able to post for a long period of time, at least in the middle of a major trial. Therefore I would ask that one not apply unless they are reasonably sure that they would be able to keep up with the topic on a regular basis. Not necessarily every day, but at least often. However, I will definitely look into methods of structuring the RP that would minimize the impact of a missing player.

It should go without saying, but at the end of the day it's just a game. There will be absolutely no quarter given to anyone who gets angry or petulant at another player or myself because their character died. No character is spared the possibility of death, and if another player or players managed to beat your character in a trial that resulted in him/her dying, well, that's just the nature of the beast.

If this RP gets made it will essentially consist of two experiments: the one involving the characters, and another involving the players and myself. I want to see if this idea can work and be sustained by people who are more or less strangers. If you are interested and willing to abide by its (perhaps unorthodox) rules, I would be glad to have you.

Feel absolutely free to ask any questions you have.

Idea involving mandatory character death, could it work?

I think it would be necessary for a player whose character has died to no longer participate in the RP. I'd thought about having some sort of second chance clause, like letting them create another character, but I think doing that would be counterproductive. If there's no penalty for dying, then there would be no real impetus to keep themself alive, other than a sense of attachment to their character I guess.

The way I had it in my head is that the RP would be almost completely based on character development and interaction. Would a player want to try to form bonds and create allies, be a loner, or an opportunist who would throw another character under the bus to live through the round? Trust, guile and suspicion would all be equally important.

Idea involving mandatory character death, could it work?

I had an idea for an RP that I'm unsure as to whether or not it would work in practice, and I'm hoping that people more experienced than myself could give their opinion on it. I'm very willing to bet that I'm not the first to have this idea, but i flipped through many of the RPs on this site and haven't found one like it yet.

The gist of it is having a handful of characters locked in some sort of dungeon with multiple levels, and the only way to progress to the next level is for one of the characters to die. Choosing which character gets the axe would be determined through a game or trial, specifically designed to encourage players to try and outwit one another. I thought that utilizing PMs would be a core mechanic, similar to mystery RPs that I've seen.

For example, one trial could involve the GM sending a private message with a certain word to each player. The goal for every player involved would be to get one of the other characters to say that specific word, and the first one to say one of those words would be marked for death. Doing things this way would of course require the cooperation of everyone involved, and would hinge on a good faith clause that the players don't simply PM each other to spoil things. Which could be a pitfall.

Smaller non-lethal trials could be interspersed to give the characters room to develop and interact with each other, hopefully endearing themselves to some of the other players, and maybe to keep the players guessing which trials can result in death and which ones can't.

Trickery and forming alliances would be a big part of the RP, and I'd be a bit worried that it could result in people getting pissed at each other, which is the last thing I would want. But other than making it ABUNDANTLY clear in the OP that no character is safe from death, I'm not sure how else one could try to prevent that kind of thing. I'd be leery of letting a player create another character if their first one died, because that would trivialize the danger of character death and undercut the whole idea.

Anyway, if anyone has an opinion I'd greatly appreciate it. I just wanted some feedback on the general idea before even considering doing an interest check.

Heros of Davenport (Hero/villian RP) (always recruiting!)

@RavenTLark

I don't think getting people to ignore it would work. It would just get angry and attack them and then feed off their pain. However, getting potential victims away from it or luring it away from them could be effective. The longer The Collective goes without feeding, the more difficult it is to hold its body together and heal its wounds.

I'm not trying to be indignant, I just think that would jive better with how I've designed The Collective.