This sub-genre is exemplified by the many 90s heartbreakers and recent indie titles like Monsterhearts, Urban Shadows and Feed.

A while back I heard some posters talking about how they would produce their own games in this vein. I don't consider it worthwhile to invent rules from scratch as opposed to adopting an existing system unless it is cleverly constructed to support a particular style. I do think that setting is something neglected by recent titles whereas the 90s heartbreakers went to great lengths to explore.

If you were producing such a setting, how would you go about it?

I'd make sure you have:
1) A reason not to kill an opponent right off.  Soap operas are about the ebb and flow of social warfare and trickery, so you shouldn't be able to just murder somebody, you need to take them down a peg, then they strike back, and so on.

2) Everybody should have a weakness.  Players typically don't want their characters to be vulnerable, so you need some system where they have a weakness for the enemies to strike at them through, and the enemies in turn should have weaknesses the characters can strike at.

3) Something to keep the pot bubbling.  Why hasn't this dance settled into a predictable routine?  Why is the water churning?  What keeps people moving and squabbling rather than settling into detente or some kind of status quo?

Vampire made all three of these things work.  I'd look to that as the sine qua non.

In a fantasy setting Id base it around political intrigue. You cant just openly off someone, and even covertly offing someone oft isnt an option. Council of Wyrms was like that. Lots of jockying and backstabbing but alot less direct combat between dragons. Their proxies on the other hand arent so fortunate.

A magic school is another option and that idea is older than Harry Potter.

And from an odd angle theres the "Cockfighing" sort of settings where theres potentially lots of rivalry. but little direct conflict that isnt about the PCs pets beating eachother up.

In general have a reason why the conflicts are overall low level between the PCs and NPCs and reasons why everyone isnt trying to off eachother. Such as law enforcement being good enough and strict enough that the chances of getting away with it are slim and/or not worth the risk.

I think that one source of inspiration for this could be some of the superhero shows on TV because they are superhuman even if not supernatural. Smallville lasted for 10 seasons. Arrow is on its 4th or 5th. Flash is on its 3rd. All of these shows have folks with powers dealing with other folks with powers, but also with regular humans who can offer their own abilities like intelligence to the mix.

* Keeping secrets seems to be a common theme.

* Protecting others from creatures of power is a common theme.

* Basic morals like not killing are important.

I would argue that this has been done successfully already, by Ars Magica. Certainly, every campaign we ever played turned into back stabbing and sniping! The setup, where mages are in conflict for resources but there is a structure in place to stop overt conflict was very effective at keeping things simmering without them getting 'stabby'. You would get naturally forming cliques and alliances as mages within the covenant banded together in votes to push the agenda their way and often just block rivals out of spite.

If I wanted to do this in a more modern rule set then Cortex+ would definitely be my go-to. The Smallville RPG was designed to simulate conflict of this kind, you would just need to change the special effects. And Cortex+ Drama from the Hacker's Guide gives you a lot of tools and good advice on how to build something like this. I think there may even be an example hack based on Ars Magica.

Lords of Olympus is a kind of Supernatural Soap Opera.

Go back to the seminal work...

Dallas: The RPG

Monsterhearts and HGMO are both well constructed storygames on this premise. I actually would like to read the Dallas RPG to see how they approached it. Apparently the Smallville RPG also has an interesting approach.

The Smallville RPG (and others, by the way) start off with a "relationship map" which ties folks together, much the way everyone seems related in some of the TV series. They don't have to be blood or marriage relationships, but instead could be relationships of circumstance (witnessed a horrific event, attended university together, etc) so that some tie that makes folks care about one another. The villain can be brought into the web, and various NPCs as well. This provides some context where characters don't just start killing each other off.

Pundit mentioned HoO (which is derivative of Zelazny's Amber; an excellent example of a family relationship map) and that certainly is a good example. Another odd source of inspiration could be the Fiasco tabletop storytelling game, where each "playset" gives a series of common locations and players provide some relationship context so that each person is tied to two others in the game. The Sorcerer RPG uses something like this as well, citing examples from swords & sorcery fiction as well as pulp detective tales. All of these are good reads if you want to delve into how to make relationship campaigns function well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;954939Go back to the seminal work...

Dallas: The RPG

I read the OP and was just about to suggest that. I like the Dallas system. Its simple but elegant. I think it could be expanded a bit by bringing in elements from Diplomacy as well.

Quote from: finarvyn;955322TAll of these are good reads if you want to delve into how to make relationship campaigns function well.

I'd also recommend the character books from Beyond the Wall which does a great job of creating relationships between the characters and their enemies during chargen. I think it may have been influenced by Fiasco or some storygames in its methods.

The issue is less the game, more the players. They need to agree with the premise.  That is how Vampire and Werewolf worked, despite the lack of mechanics.

That could be said about any game. Good mechanics facilitate play.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;955457The issue is less the game, more the players. They need to agree with the premise.  That is how Vampire and Werewolf worked, despite the lack of mechanics.

Agreed, but I also think that there are certain things that a DM can do in advance to set the stage and nudge the players into the correct actions. Having some sort of system where characters are related to other characters (PC or NPC) is a good start, giving them ties to the local setting is another. Even establishing that the local laws are stiff (and that there are consequences for actions) makes players think twice about random violence without purpose. Anything where the player says "well, my character wouldn't kill with no reason..."

Quote from: Voros;955684That could be said about any game. Good mechanics facilitate play.

Yes, but some games have a wide open style, for example, although D&D is meant for dungeon crawling, it can be opened up for wilderness, city adventuring, hobnobbing with politics, with very little change or work.  It gives you a barebones framework and let's you free.  But if you pick up Ars Magica, or something more recent, Wick's House of the Blooded storygame, you get something much more focused and little wiggle room to think outside it's little box.  It promotes it's way of 'theme'.

However, if you're players aren't being into being a member of a noble House, then you're in for a lot of work as a GM, or you'll just say 'screw it', and go to another game idea that your players will be more into.

Quote from: finarvyn;955693Agreed, but I also think that there are certain things that a DM can do in advance to set the stage and nudge the players into the correct actions. Having some sort of system where characters are related to other characters (PC or NPC) is a good start, giving them ties to the local setting is another. Even establishing that the local laws are stiff (and that there are consequences for actions) makes players think twice about random violence without purpose. Anything where the player says "well, my character wouldn't kill with no reason..."

Again, it works better if the players have a buy into the setting/game first.  Especially something that tends to be mechanically light, social interaction and drama.