LRP: Imperial Principles

[misterdaniel]

So, if we get three-score-years-and-ten, then I am probably about due a mid-life crisis. I think I may get introspective in my next LJ entry but, for now, a bit more about Empire, and developing religion concepts for a LRP game.

As part of providing a stream of updates about the game's development, I wrote a blog article on design principles. It

Comments

[knightclubber]

From my perspective, I'm quite looking forward to seeing how this works out. With serendipitous timing, I'm currently enjoying one of David Cornwell's novels set in Anglo Saxon Britain. A common theme of those novels (and also his Excalibur series) is having religion as a force which people place great store in, but which he very carefully writes such that priests could either be miracle workers or charlatans (his own bias appears to be the latter, with an emphasis on the reasons why people reach for faith in dark times).

One of the massive questions about Empire which this brings more to the forefront is what you do about people with uptime strength deciding to fight against the setting. If people decide to go against the decrees of the church or the rule of law, it could be hard to bring them to heel if they have a lot of players willing to stand together on it. Ultimately it might come down to the effectiveness or Imperial law keepers to be able to impose their will on large power blocks of players- especially if other players are not willing to back them up.

[misterdaniel]

Aye, the challenge of "buy-in" is not just in terms of religion, but with the whole Empire set-up.

For there to be legitimate game levers to pull that are not just "kill people or do rituals" there needs to be a framework that supports it. In Odyssey, this is the Gods and the Fates. In Empire, this is the Imperial Bureaucracy.

If players tear down the Imperial Bureaucracy, their game will be the poorer for it whatever fleeting sense of achievement they get from doing so.

Still, there can be sanctions. In Odyssey, the gods can lay about them with divine smiting. In Empire, the equivalent would likely be the trains stop running, the power goes down, and no one is making any money.

Ultimately though, people who fight the setting they are playing in should question why they are playing that game? Its like choosing to play Insurrection as a pro-Commonwealth loyalist; its anathema to the whole game design. A huge mob of loyalists elects to crush whatever the rebels are calling themselves this week and its not the promised game.

Its a gamble, it really is, and someone will someday push the boundaries. I believe they will find they get push back.

[slappersire]

From listening to the chatter from a lot of people, there is enough buy in that anyone who pushes will get pushed back, and hard.

To be honest I like the idea of a character or small group who try and push against the system, as long as from the get go they know how likely they are to succeed and what the penalties might be. It encourages those who are with the system to really play that system, and also to be able to judge people who don't agree with them.

Or it should, anyway.

[misterdaniel]

I think there can be good pushing and bad pushing.

Looking to change the nature of the Empire through use of the Senate and Synod = Good

Killing the Senate and Synod and then complaining about mob rule = Bad

I suspect I could come up with examples from Mael, Ody and Insurrection with more brane

[slappersire]

Absolutely.

I am hoping for large scale blackmail, bribery and threats towards Synod and Senate members.