Even though it seems that most people want to play the super-heroes or heroes in an RPG, there's a small sub-set of games, whose setting at least, are dark and grim. You're in a world of toil and/or pain. Your victories are fleeting and the spectre of defeat is never far away. I guess that Midnight is the most extreme mainstream example.
I've heard a lot of people say that they don't want to play in that kind of setting. I admit, it must get a bit frustrating in a long campaign, but there must be redeeming features to this kind of play. What are they in you opinion?
That's only one part of the post. These things already exist. I'm going to take the Midnight example and take it further (using Lord of the Rings imagery). If the world is truly in the grip of a 'Dark Lord' and using the LotR type of history of the decline of the Elves over the centuries. What if the game went the whole hog and said that not only are you in a grim and unpleasant world, but that your powers were waning. Even in the current dark world type games, your power increases with experience. What if the grip of the dark Lord was so great or the world changing so much that you were declining in power the longer you played? To take a d&d example, you start the game at say 15th level. The Dark Lord has held sway long enough that he is sucking the life from everything. Not only do you try to thwart his foul plans and gain a short respite from tyranny, but you are holding on desperately to your own personal powers. A desperate quest to the wastelands to sup from an unspoiled fountain may halt the slide for a few sessions. Then boom! You lose a level.
It's a campaign in reverse. This is grim and unremitting. Perhaps too much so considering the feelings of some in playing the 'lighter' version. So my question here is - Would this type of play have any redeeming features at all? What kind of pleasure could be gained from this style? What are the rewards? Would it be fun?
an interesting concept. don't think you could really do an extended campaign with it, tho. something shorter, perhaps, with an end result or form of "win".
or it could degenerate into a race to the bottom. depends on the group, i guess.
as far as fun, sure. but to remain enjoyable for the long haul, you'd need a different mindset. like in CoC, maybe? that's the closest i can think of.
Well, I've toyed with a setting I call Flash Days from time to time.
An attempt to repair the ozone / stop global warming has destroyed earth's atmosphere and there's less breathable air with every passing day.
It's a setting that starts out with the wild end of the world parties, total collapse of civil society, and no holds barred street racing and ends with the survivors gasping for air and crawling seeking lower ground and pockets of air.
But in the end everybody dies.
I think Unhelig's null set game was essentally the same thing but set at the heat death of the universe plus, he was gonna have mecha.
I run games like that.
The start of the game is a honeymoon, the players can explore the world and see how things work. Then when Sauron (to continue your example) sends his armies in, the Characters have to battle to get from town to town. Finaly, the last bits of the campaign are spent fighting inch by inch against overwhelming odds.
I don't explicitly say "you guys are gonna lose XP" (if I do players just replace the old characters) but I do make sure that the group gets weaker as the game goes on. The trick is to keep the power of a starting character constant, but fatten up characters in the begining of the game. So if Frodo's player wants to create a new character, he won't get Bilbo's coat and sword or the easy XP for defeating the Ballrog. And put equipment guidelines on later characters. (Obviously it's a big mistake to allow a new character to appear in Mordor with a backpack 'o lembas wafers.)
So my question here is - Would this type of play have any redeeming features at all? What kind of pleasure could be gained from this style? What are the rewards? Would it be fun?
It strikes me as a very Catholic story (just like LotR :) )-- you have to be heroic with your last ounce of courage, not just when you're the uberdog.
Quote from: One Horse TownSo my question here is - Would this type of play have any redeeming features at all? What kind of pleasure could be gained from this style? What are the rewards? Would it be fun?
To use your example, the reward could be that the players have their destiny in their own hands. If they succeed in stopping the Dark Lords plan they are good. Until his next attempt. But if they cannot foil his plans, they will have to live with the consequences and lose a level.
Perhaps you could give them the opportunity to win the level back, turning it into a back and forth struggle.
Interestingly, I have Midnight, and for all that the bad guy/Dark Lord has won, there is still a veritable truckload of hope in it. The PC's have 'super powers' of a sort, and there are still several strong groups of resistance fighters going on, including the elves in their half continent sized forest and roving bands of rebels.
The way I read it, its perfectly possible to run it as a 'underdogs come up from behind for a WIN!', even easy. Of course, its also possible to run it as 'you are chumps from a chump village, oooh and here is a feckload of orcs ready to kill your ass. 20:1 odds you die in game one, every time'... but you can do that in out of the box champions (or anything, really) if you are a dick GM.
Back on topic: I'm am not a fan of no-hope gaming. I like to 'build stuff' and plan long term setting altering goals for characters, and the sort of grim and gritty no hope shit you talk about is anathema.
Are we not men?
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceAre we not men?
-clash
We are Devo!
Quote from: SpikeWe are Devo!
And the little yellow furball cruises in for the win!
:D
-clash
Quote from: One Horse TownEven though it seems that most people want to play the super-heroes or heroes in an RPG, there's a small sub-set of games, whose setting at least, are dark and grim. You're in a world of toil and/or pain. Your victories are fleeting and the spectre of defeat is never far away. I guess that Midnight is the most extreme mainstream example.
I've heard a lot of people say that they don't want to play in that kind of setting. I admit, it must get a bit frustrating in a long campaign, but there must be redeeming features to this kind of play. What are they in you opinion?
That's only one part of the post. These things already exist. I'm going to take the Midnight example and take it further (using Lord of the Rings imagery). If the world is truly in the grip of a 'Dark Lord' and using the LotR type of history of the decline of the Elves over the centuries. What if the game went the whole hog and said that not only are you in a grim and unpleasant world, but that your powers were waning. Even in the current dark world type games, your power increases with experience. What if the grip of the dark Lord was so great or the world changing so much that you were declining in power the longer you played? To take a d&d example, you start the game at say 15th level. The Dark Lord has held sway long enough that he is sucking the life from everything. Not only do you try to thwart his foul plans and gain a short respite from tyranny, but you are holding on desperately to your own personal powers. A desperate quest to the wastelands to sup from an unspoiled fountain may halt the slide for a few sessions. Then boom! You lose a level.
It's a campaign in reverse. This is grim and unremitting. Perhaps too much so considering the feelings of some in playing the 'lighter' version. So my question here is - Would this type of play have any redeeming features at all? What kind of pleasure could be gained from this style? What are the rewards? Would it be fun?
Most post-apocalyptic games battle with this theme. AFMBE comes immediately to mind. I think one of the coolest things about a post-apoc game is that the players expect everything to be bad, so they take a lot more pleasure in the small victories. The zombies can never be defeated. The best one can hope for is to dig in, maybe help other survivors, and try to eke out a living despite the darkness. Bring back fuel for the generator or medical supplies often becomes a HUGE accomplishment.
What you're essentially talking about is post-apoc fantasy, so a lot of those themes apply. The key will be getting the players to understand the situation before the game starts. Ravenloft did a good job of this. The players knew they were screwed right off the bat, that they would probably never be able to defeat one of the dark lords, and they would never be able to leave the demiplane, so they were content to be thorns in the side, waylaying minions, helping those in need, thwarting dark plans, etc.
As a side note, one thing I've noticed in post-apoc zombies games is that players will fall all over themselves to help children (as opposed to adults). I've been toying with the idea of working with that as symbolism, but haven't had a chance to nail it down yet. I wonder if the same would apply in post-apoc fantasy?
Pete
(sorry to continue the threadjack)
Quote from: SpikeWe are Devo!
thank you, you've put a smile on my face and songs in my head! ("freedom of choice" right now.) i's needin' both today.
(end threadjack)
Quote from: SpikeBack on topic: I'm am not a fan of no-hope gaming. I like to 'build stuff' and plan long term setting altering goals for characters, and the sort of grim and gritty no hope shit you talk about is anathema.
No answers to the questions then?
Quote from: One Horse TownIt's a campaign in reverse. This is grim and unremitting. Perhaps too much so considering the feelings of some in playing the 'lighter' version. So my question here is - Would this type of play have any redeeming features at all? What kind of pleasure could be gained from this style? What are the rewards? Would it be fun?
What a great, crazy idea! I think this would require a very rare type of player and clear upfront communication that everyone was into it. But it could really be fun. There could be great lessons in creativity. You slowly lose your capabilities and special powers and have to learn to deal with the problems without them. Could make for some great roleplaying, too.
I think that system would play a big role in how well it worked. I mean if you followed the 3.5 dogma all the way, you would have to scale down the CR's as the characters levels went down, so in the end it would be a zero-sum game:haw:. I think that would be pretty boring. It makes me think that the GM needs to be really creative with the challenges. They need to be tough enough to have messed with the party when they were at their apex, but their needs to be other avenues of success and escape for the PCs as they lose their power. Also, imagine the revenge scenarios as the opponents they beat come back to face them again.
Quote from: walkerpWhat a great, crazy idea! I think this would require a very rare type of player and clear upfront communication that everyone was into it. But it could really be fun. There could be great lessons in creativity. You slowly lose your capabilities and special powers and have to learn to deal with the problems without them. Could make for some great roleplaying, too.
I think that system would play a big role in how well it worked. I mean if you followed the 3.5 dogma all the way, you would have to scale down the CR's as the characters levels went down, so in the end it would be a zero-sum game:haw:. I think that would be pretty boring.
I don't know, there were a lot of energy drain creatures that permanently took away levels back in the day. You had PCs willing to slay dragons, but screaming and running like schoolgirls from a 2 HD wight. :)
I guess there would have to be a cutoff point. You couldn't go back to being 1st level, otherwise nothing would separate you from the norms. Maybe stop at 5th. So you would always be regarded as that legendary hero, and you are still someone to be reckoned with, but are just unable to replicate your once-heroic deeds. Villagers would constantly be asking you for help based on your past deeds, and every quest might be your last until one day you say "I just can't do it," and they all turn their backs on you.
Again, like I said, the focus would shift more to small victories. You might not be able to fight off the orc horde attacking the village, but you can lead as many villagers as you can to safety. You might not be able to slay the vampire lord living in the castle, but you might be able to keep his minions from preying on townsfolk.
I like it. I'd love to see it written up as a setting, but it might be cooler (and more profitable) to see it written up as a toolkit with guidelines, tips, and suggestions that can be applied to almost any system/setting/genre.
Pete
as it turns out I've done something abit like this, and it was fun. The devolution was the fault of a particular villian (and the negligence of one particular unaffected PC) and the player who was the most impacted had such a hard on for revenge that it drove the rest of the campaign. The worse things got (and part of the problem was bodily decay- his teeth would fall out, and fingers kept dropping of his hands) the more motivated the group became. It all eneded inthe destruction of the entire world- but that was pretty fitting.
Quote from: walkerpWhat a great, crazy idea! I think this would require a very rare type of player and clear upfront communication that everyone was into it. But it could really be fun. There could be great lessons in creativity. You slowly lose your capabilities and special powers and have to learn to deal with the problems without them. Could make for some great roleplaying, too.
I think that system would play a big role in how well it worked. I mean if you followed the 3.5 dogma all the way, you would have to scale down the CR's as the characters levels went down, so in the end it would be a zero-sum game:haw:. I think that would be pretty boring. It makes me think that the GM needs to be really creative with the challenges. They need to be tough enough to have messed with the party when they were at their apex, but their needs to be other avenues of success and escape for the PCs as they lose their power. Also, imagine the revenge scenarios as the opponents they beat come back to face them again.
Yeah. That would be a big problem. Start off fighting nasty demons and stuff and then struggle against goblins! Pspahn is probably spot on in saying that 5th level would be the lowest. In fact, you could just barely get away with it if the characters retained their hit points, but nothing else. They have the experience, just not the 'legendary' powers of old. So, a 5th level Fighter wandering around with 120 hit points, but a BAB of +5 (and all his equipment). This should result in a smaller decrease in the CR of foes that you can tackle, along with the ingenuity aspect that Pete was talking about.
Quote from: One Horse TownYeah. That would be a big problem. Start off fighting nasty demons and stuff and then struggle against goblins!
To make it less grim and desperate for the players, you could limit the loss of levels to a certain area of your world. One that is under the direct influence of the Dark Force. Outside of that area, your PCs would regain their levels and could have more "normal" adventures and feel more "heroic".
But the closer to the heart of evil they get, the more levels they lose. It would be a really terrifying and oppressing experience for them having to enter that foul region. And of course they should be very interested in keeping the area of influence of the Dark Force from growing.
Or they could start in the heart of this dark region at level 1, knowing that once they have been great heroes, and regain their levels by slowly struggling their way back to "civilization" or re-losing them by taking a wrong turn, making a wrong decision, losing a battle, .... But, come to think of it, that would actually be the opposite of what you want. Oh well ...
Just to be clear, i'm not advocating this style of play. The idea just popped into my head yesterday and i thought it could be an interesting area for discussion. :)
Taking the opening premise at face value, i'm still left wondering what the hell players could get out of it. It could certainly be an interesting spin, but to get the full usage out of it, it would have to be a long running campaign. I think it would be pretty difficult for players to motivate themselves whilst they are diminishing in power. Is there something else that could compensate for this in some measure without reversing the central 'loss of power' premise?
Quote from: SpikeI'm am not a fan of no-hope gaming. I like to 'build stuff' and plan long term setting altering goals for characters, and the sort of grim and gritty no hope shit you talk about is anathema.
I'm on the same bus as Spike.
In the past, when I've done campaigns like this, as soon as the players get that there is no ultimate hope for survival then the players that don't leave the table outright tend to become destructive nihilists with their characters and have tried to see how ignoble they could be. If the game starts out grim and just keeps getting grimmer, then the players will do something oddball to keep themselves entertained in what is a deliberate downer of a game.
Twilight: 2000, a game which had one of the most severe "You're Fucked" beginnings for a game, still allowed for some hope. If the characters couldn't return to their home country, then they could at least become warlords or reconstructionists.
Quote from: jeff37923I'm on the same bus as Spike.
In the past, when I've done campaigns like this, as soon as the players get that there is no ultimate hope for survival then the players that don't leave the table outright tend to become destructive nihilists with their characters and have tried to see how ignoble they could be. If the game starts out grim and just keeps getting grimmer, then the players will do something oddball to keep themselves entertained in what is a deliberate downer of a game.
From his post, it didn't seem to me like he was suggesting a nihilistic game where there was no hope at all for survival or success.
I think the major difference between this premise and other post-apoc settings is that in a traditional RPG your characters get better mechanically as they go. In this one, they get mechanically worse. I don't see that the same as characters losing all hope, though.
I think the real question to ask is what does that do to gameplay? I think it might place more of an emphasis on things like tactics and NPC interaction (since you'll have to rely more on NPC allies).
I'm picturing a world like Middle Earth that is overrun with orcs. You'd have little pinpricks of light (like Rivendell) scattered throughout the land that maybe aren't strong enough to turn back the darkness, but they do what they can to hold out, ease suffering, and maybe stick their thumb in the dark lord's eye every now and then. For that matter, it probably wouldn't hurt to include an endgame. It doesn't even have to be something the characters can achieve, but it should be something they can strive for.
QuoteIs there something else that could compensate for this in some measure without reversing the central 'loss of power' premise?
With game mechanics, probably not. If you exchange one bennie for another, it kind of defeats the purpose of what you're trying to do. There are lots of in-game rewards you can give out, though, based on character actions, even moreso than in a traditional fantasy game--instead of just being Joe adventurer, you'd become a sort of Robin Hood who people know by your deeds and want to help you because you're fighting the good fight.
It's a very interesting idea. Not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's got a lot of potential for something different.
Pete
Hmm, interesting points. I'm thinking that a level-based system may not be the best way to go. The abilities you get as you level up are the players' mechanisms to interact with the game world. You start to take those away in large chunks and they may feel they have fewer and fewer ways to "do" stuff. A more granular point-buy system would be about bringing down their powers and skills more gradually, so that powers aren't just turned off, but become weaker and weaker, which would allow for more roleplaying. And when powers are gone, there are still skills they can fall back on.
On another note, you could have it so that as the world loses power in general, society begins to adjust culturally. People with any excessive power are feared and shunned. The elites are particularly powerless. Having any skills or capabilities is seen as boorish. Could make for interesting social dynamics. The characters could rise in popularity as their powers wane? I don't know. Just a thought.
Using an idea upthread, i guess you could introduce a mechanic to scale loss of power by. Exposure. You gain Exposure by travelling the deadlands/wastelands, encountering the dark lords minions, and being really mean, just by living. Every pre-set time period gives a flat increase to your exposure rating. Then, you could get one or two reprieves by hiding away and lessening your score a bit. Pretty much CoC Sanity dressed up in different clothing. In fact, maybe the BRP system could handle it better. People know what they're getting with CoC, so the shock wouldn't be so great.
And in order to make change to the world (destroy the evil or whatever), generally you have to expose yourself. So characters who are losing their power are doing so because they have sacrificed it for the better good of the world. That could work.
This would explain why Gandalf was only a 5th level Magic-User! :D
Quote from: One Horse TownNo answers to the questions then?
I thought I answered pretty well.
I don't find anything redeeming about that style of play. I don't find any rewards in it. There is no real pleasure, and no real fun. Only if I, as the player/PC can break the 'style' of the game by making long lasting changes (improvements from my persepective), which invalidates the concept you are pushing, is there any enjoyment.
Is that clearer?:raise:
Anathema.
I don't game to suck, and that's what this is in practice- forced sucking. Never have I done this, and never shall I do this; it is utterly anathema to why this hobby exists.
The true test of faith is whether if you knew doing the right thing would get you sent to hell rather than heaven, would you do it anyway?
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceThe true test of faith is whether if you knew doing the right thing would get you sent to hell rather than heaven, would you do it anyway?
-clash
I would have called that a true test of character. I may be biased, however.
Also, one would be inclined to state that if you 'knew', with certainty implied, that Heaven and/or Hell were very real states and your soul would be going to either place, that no faith would be involved, only belief.
In Spikes Russia, Pedant is Me:D
What the fuck are you all on about? :p
Yep, anathema seems to be the order of the day. No one has yet come up with anything that i would consider a good motivating factor to undertake such a campaign or why they would consider playing in one. Me? I've already struggled to come up with anything myself. Still, worth the exercise. Maybe.
Quote from: One Horse TownStill, worth the exercise. QuoteThat's essentially what it would be, which is not a bad thing. I don't see how this qualifies as "gaming to suck." I've played a lot of characters with debilitating flaws or low stats and had a good time. I game mostly because I enjoy socializing with friends and I like to try new things every now and then at the table. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's not. I think this is a cool enough concept that if someone in my group came to me with it, I'd give it a shot. Everyone has their own tastes, though.
Pete
Quote from: pspahnI've played a lot of characters with debilitating flaws or low stats and had a good time. I game mostly because I enjoy socializing with friends and I like to try new things every now and then at the table. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's not.
Pete
There is a serious difference between having a character with a flaw, flaws, or even 'seriously fucking gimped' an playing a character who is just going to get worse as time goes on.
Shadowrun illustrates this accidentally: You can make a character that is stupidly capable in one limited area at the cost of being pathetic everywhere else. Of course, you can then spend your expirence points to improve what you are already stupidly good at, or for peanuts you can get 'less gimped' over time. D&D, in almost any incarnation is the same. Got a fighter with an 8 strength? By 15th level he is still a pretty damn good fighter, even if he is a scrawny wimp.
By contrast, you could play the guy who is stupidly good in his schtick and gimped elsewhere... then slowly loose his stupidly goodness, and maybe pick up additional gimpiness along the way. That's what the OP suggests. The 15th level, strength 8 fighter who, session after session, regresses to 1st level, where his gimpy stat is magnified.
Not even worth the exercise for me, and for those of us who have barely started to feel the effects of creeping 'old age' it clashs horribly with our knowledge of how the world works... one gets better with time and practice. For those who are intimately familiar with the aging process, I suggest they wouldn't like the reminder of their own mortality and increacing infirmness... and at least THEY can still sit back and say 'I may be weaker than I was twenty years ago, but I am smarter/know more than you will be for another twenty years...." so it STILL clashes with a fundamental 'this is how things work' idea.
Quote from: SpikeBy contrast, you could play the guy who is stupidly good in his schtick and gimped elsewhere... then slowly loose his stupidly goodness, and maybe pick up additional gimpiness along the way. That's what the OP suggests. The 15th level, strength 8 fighter who, session after session, regresses to 1st level, where his gimpy stat is magnified.
Well, it sounded to me like he had the germ of an idea and was tossing it out to help develop it. I think it's a cool enough concept, but the execution of it is what would make or break it. I think the mechanics would be secondary in a game like he's proposing. What would be important is an endgame, something you could strive towards, like making the world a better place, etc. Waning power takes the emphasis away from character builds and bonuses and makes it more goal-oriented IMO. In this case, my character doesn't have to become more powerful, but he has to accomplish what he sets out to do (for the most part) in order for the game to have any meaning.
I've played enough Cthulu games that I knew were doomed from the start, so I have no problem with the bleakness and increasing gimpiness--most of my characters finished a lot worse off than they started. :)
Pete
Quote from: SpikeBy contrast, you could play the guy who is stupidly good in his schtick and gimped elsewhere... then slowly loose his stupidly goodness, and maybe pick up additional gimpiness along the way. That's what the OP suggests. The 15th level, strength 8 fighter who, session after session, regresses to 1st level, where his gimpy stat is magnified.
Also, that's not the way I was interpreting it. I was picturing legendary heroes, with great stats, bonuses, etc. who gradually lost those bonuses over time (but not going all the way down to 1st level).
Pete
How about a hyper-accelerated devolution game? A race against the clock one-shot, where your powers go down every 20 minutes or something. You have to complete the adventure and defeat the badguy before you turn into a commoner!
Quote from: pspahnAlso, that's not the way I was interpreting it. I was picturing legendary heroes, with great stats, bonuses, etc. who gradually lost those bonuses over time (but not going all the way down to 1st level).
Pete
I just reread the OP to make sure I hadn't missed anything. I hadn't.
True, while saying 'down to first level' is simply my illustrative example, it would be the end result of the play style he suggested, yes. Provided the housecats didn't kill you first. Ok, kobolds, to take from a further post on the subject.
In call of Cthulu, provided it is the chaosium rules I am familiar with from iterations of Runequest (and Elfquest, me first chaosium game... sigh....), then you DO get better as you play. More insane? Sure, but better at 'stuff'. And doomed? Sure, but that can be interpreted through the long lens of 'we are all doomed eventually, woe is us, we are meaningless in the face of existance' that Lovecraft actually wrote, so you don't necessarily have to be 'doomed to die within three game sessions'. Thus the characters can improve and survive and even 'win' within the span of the game and still be canon 'Cthulu'... so long as the Old Ones can still eventually rise and consume all life at some nebulous future date.
Then again, I hate the whole 'woe is us, we are meaningless' line anyway. That puts me no where near the right demographic. I'd probably try to pervert a CoC game into one where my character set up a rum running gang and used the illegal empire to seek out and destroy cultists while making money hand over fist from moonshine... or something.
Quote from: SpikeI just reread the OP to make sure I hadn't missed anything. I hadn't.
I read the post as: "I have an idea for what might make for a neat change of pace game - how can I make it work?"
I might be completely off the mark, though.
Quote from: SpikeIn call of Cthulu, provided it is the chaosium rules I am familiar with from iterations of Runequest (and Elfquest, me first chaosium game... sigh....), then you DO get better as you play. More insane? Sure, but better at 'stuff'.
I don't know, man. In CoC, the more you learn about what it is you're up against, the worse off you are. It sounds like you downplayed the sanity rules quite a bit. In most of the games I've been involved in, dealing with phobias and other mental disorders played a _huge_ role in the course of the game, short and long term. If the character was some type of sorcerer, things got even uglier.
The CoC setting is about as bleak and nihilistic as they come. Sure, you can learn how to drive or track better, but you know that in the end whatever you do is all for nothing. So, the emphasis (for me anyway) was in winning the little battles. That's the same way I see it for the setting proposed by the OP. The fact that my character's powers are waning is what makes it more interesting and challenging--"rising Dark Lord that must be overcome" has been done plenty of times, but "rising Dark Lord that must be overcome while your own powers wane" seems like a neat twist.
Obviously, if you're not into it, you're just not into it. I still think it's something worth pursuing. On a related note, wasn't there a game where people played mythic gods whose powers relied on belief? I can't recall if it was just a topic or an actual game, but it seems like the waning power theme would be similar.
Pete
PS - Elfquest. :) Those were simpler times.
Quote from: flyingmiceAre we not men?
-clash
[decloak]
Guess I'm just a spudboy
[recloak]
TGA
Quote from: pspahnI read the post as: "I have an idea for what might make for a neat change of pace game - how can I make it work?"
Not even that really Pete. It was just something that bolted into my brain from no-where and i wondered how the hell something like that could attract players (given how most people play to be heros and have fun). Me and my group wouldn't consider playing it. I just put it up here as a conversation point and the possibility that someone had a brilliant idea as to how to make it work a bit more traditionally without the 'woe is me' schtick and wanting to slash your wrists.
Walkerp's idea for a one-shot would make most sense. That makes it more of a fun exercise. Something that could be played over a few hours for a laugh as opposed to the horrible grind the original idea would be.
Quote from: One Horse TownIt was just something that bolted into my brain from no-where and i wondered how the hell something like that could attract players (given how most people play to be heros and have fun).
That's cool. I still think it's a good idea, but it all comes down to the execution. I think you could still be a hero and have fun in a setting like this; heroism just wouldn't be defined by individual uber badassedness.
In any case, since you're not keen on the idea, I'm shelving it for future use. :)
Pete