Lords and Ladies Game Design
-
I didn’t want to derail the other thread, but I thought there was a lot of good discussion going on regarding the Lords and Ladies games so I thought I’d create a thread just for that.
The points I found most interesting included:
- Running a more personal game
- Having a system in place for political plots and intrigue
- Ensuring there are interesting consequences for “losing” in intrigues.
- Creating some sort of a roster or temporary character pool for things like intrigue and other plots.
-
Honestly everything interesting I have to say about design of consequences comes straight from @Pyrephox’s mouth. They have a great brain for this sort of design.
-
I am curious how people define Lord’s & Ladies games.
For me, a critical aspect of a L&L game is the pageantry and the scale, which ties into the pageantry. You could have intrigue and politics in a game about a few tribes living on an island or something, but the conflicts will be small scale (we don’t have enough food for our dozens of tribe members for the coming winter season, so we must go raid the tribe next door). The same can be said of a game that focuses on gangs in a city. Sure you have the conflict, politicking, and intrigue, but you don’t have the balls, the dresses, and the, dare I say, romance, both in the passion meaning and the nostalgic romanticism meaning.
I just want there to be actual politicking and intrigue. The set dressing, while enjoyable, becomes just meaningless decoration otherwise and the game stops holding my interest. Then again, I would also be down to play a bunch of tribes on an island fighting each other over the best hunting grounds. I just don’t think many others would be.
-
For me, I think a L&L game should have some/most of the following:
-
Setting: To me it should be in a historical or fantasy versions of aristocratic societies inspired by European nobility structures from medieval to Victorian eras.
-
Focus on social dynamics: I think the game should emphasize social interaction, political maneuvering, romantic entanglements, and status competition.
-
Hierarchical character structure: Players typically take on roles within a clearly defined social hierarchy, from monarchs and high nobility down to lesser gentry.
-
Intrigue mechanics: Mechanics for reputation, scandal, alliances, marriages, and social influence rather than traditional combat stats.
-
Events and gatherings: Social events like balls, garden parties, hunts, and court sessions serve as central settings for roleplaying interactions.
-
Character development: Character growth typically revolves around gaining titles, wealth, alliances, and social standing rather than combat abilities.
-
-
To me, the core of a Lords & Ladies game is that characters are grouped by families or groups that are competing for influence and prestige within a larger feudal or semi-feudal structure – and that the characters are influential people within the setting.
Now, this could be:
- wayfinders who lead family canoes between Polynesian islands, competing for pride of place
- competing cyberpunk megacorps all under a Corporate Court – so long as the PCs were high-level executives at the corps, rather than disposable espionage operatives
- knights and barons and viscountesses living in fantasy castles
- mafia families under a capo di tutti capi
- technoknights and starship captains in a semi-feudal, multi-system space empire
- daimyo and geisha in the Shogunate (or a fantasy version thereof)
- minor landed gentry in Victorian England (or a fantasy version thereof)
I don’t think that pseudo-European matters, but I agree that combat is usually going to be a means to gather influence or prestige rather than the point in and of itself.
I would actually love to see a Lords & Ladies game using FS3 autocombat for attacks on reputation – leave any physical combat to just straight rolls, because it’s just not as important as the social maneuvering.
-
Yeah, I don’t think it needs to be psuedo-European or period. You could probably do Summering In The Hamptons as an L&L game.
I think Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs both count as L&L and those include the servants as major characters, though their influence is on a different level. But that’s more an extra.
I don’t think the characters in Pride and Prejudice are nobility, but I think L&L does imply serious social inequality and a lack of social mobility outside one’s class.
Ridiculously, I think it needs pretty costumes and the right flavour of pagentry. Does Master-Blaster run Bartertown, or does Tina Turner? Not L&L.
I think handling intrigue with dice-mechanics is kind of a problem. Maybe not a big one, depending on your player base. But you know how you always get that one person who keeps going, “My character has a 20 charisma, love me!” while behaving in very uncharismatic ways. There’s also somebody out there who will go, “Make my dumbass scheme work as if I’m the genius my sheet says I am!” It can be a heck of a lot of work to translate dice-throws of this nature into narrative.
"This is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard!"
– A. Bertram Chandler -
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I don’t think the characters in Pride and Prejudice are nobility
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I think handling intrigue with dice-mechanics is kind of a problem. Maybe not a big one, depending on your player base. But you know how you always get that one person who keeps going, “My character has a 20 charisma, love me!” while behaving in very uncharismatic ways. There’s also somebody out there who will go, “Make my dumbass scheme work as if I’m the genius my sheet says I am!” It can be a heck of a lot of work to translate dice-throws of this nature into narrative.
This is exactly why I prefer dice mechanics for intrigue when possible. Without them, you risk telling players “Sorry, you can’t play a charismatic character because you’re not charismatic in real life” or “Your character can’t pull off that brilliant scheme because you’re not smart enough to devise it.” Even worse is hitting that wall of “That would never work on my character” with nothing backing it up except “Because I say so.”
I’m all about cooperative storytelling, and ultimately “because I say so” is valid in many contexts. But dice add that perfect element of uncertainty that keeps things interesting and levels the playing field. And when a certain amount of hand waving needs to enter the equation to make things happen—if it creates an overall better story—then I’m absolutely all for it. The mechanics should serve the narrative, not strangle it. When these systems are in place, you definitely need zero tolerance for BS and shenanigans. That said, anyone trying to game these systems at the expense of other players’ fun probably isn’t someone you want on your game anyway. The goal is always a compelling story where everyone feels their character can meaningfully participate, regardless of the player’s real-world skills.
Also, with games like this, it’s easy to forget that the shows we’re basing them on have a writers’ room full of people who spend weeks or months crafting these stories, plots, and dialogue. When we RP them, we’re coming up with stuff off the cuff. I think a certain amount of leeway should be expected and happily given. It’s a lot to expect the average gamer to come up with a professional writers’ room worth of quality material on the fly in the few minutes they have to craft a pose. Dice mechanics can bridge that gap between our improvised efforts and the polished narratives we’re trying to emulate.
-
@Raistlin said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
Without them, you risk telling players “Sorry, you can’t play a charismatic character because you’re not charismatic in real life” or “Your character can’t pull off that brilliant scheme because you’re not smart enough to devise it.”
Unpopular take maybe, but personally? I don’t have a problem with that, to a point. Yes, we’re all playing characters that are not ourselves, but MU*s to me are more of a writing game than a puzzle-solving game. Writers have to do at least some modest amount of research into the characters/settings/themes they’re writing. You don’t need to be an expert, of course, but you at least need to be able to fake it to a level that isn’t jarring.
So if you can’t come up with a scheme for your character to break into the vault to steal the MacGuffin, or a way to convince the King to give you troops, it’s not my job to come up with one for you just because you made a few good rolls. I don’t want a game where the poses are like: “Faraday gives a rousing speech.”
Dice can be used as an adjunct to the story, but they should never BE the story.
-
@Faraday Well, I don’t think I said that dice rolls should be the narrative. I don’t think I ever even implied it. I said “The mechanics should serve the narrative, not strangle it.”
I think it’s similar to saying, “You want to play a strong character? Show proof you’re that strong in real life.” These games are fantasy, not reality. We’re playing characters that are often better than ourselves in many ways.
While I don’t think it’s anyone’s “job” to do anything except have fun, I don’t see an issue with collaborating on plot development when it creates enjoyable stories. If someone wants their character to break into my character’s vault, I’m happy to brainstorm ideas with them if the story sounds fun. I agree the concept should come before the rolls - dice should serve the story, not create it from nothing.
I also don’t disagree about expecting a certain level of competency and knowledge of the theme and setting. If someone is consistently playing against theme, tone, and setting, there are definitely larger issues than whether they succeed at Intelligence or Charisma rolls.
That said, dice mechanics can enhance and drive RP in various ways. Maybe two players aren’t interested in RPing out the entire heist but want to explore the aftermath - they could resolve the execution with a roll or two to determine how smoothly things went. Or they might choose to RP it without any rolls at all. The important thing is having fun and telling good stories together.
Obviously, these are just my thoughts and opinions. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to questions like these. Personally, I just like using dice mechanics to help bridge the gap between what we’re capable of and what our characters are capable of - not to replace storytelling, but to enhance it.
-
@Raistlin said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I think it’s similar to saying, “You want to play a strong character? Show proof you’re that strong in real life.”
Your own physical strength is not reflected in the words you write, though. Nor is your ability to throw a punch or fly a spaceship. I’m not saying you need to actually possess these skills, just be able to write it. Nor is there anything wrong with collaborative brainstorming.
I don’t think we’re that far off in practice, really, I’ve just literally seen too many cases through the years where people will do something like RP the worst line imaginable and think that a +roll Con or +roll Seduction should somehow make that work. For me, it doesn’t. If you can’t even get in the ballpark of portraying a convincing con artist, maybe that’s just not the right role for you.
-
@Faraday I think I get what you’re saying and I agree with that perspective. Rolls should not be a crutch to make up for not being able to play a concept properly. They can help drive RP and perhaps point you in directions you hadn’t considered, but they definitely can’t make fundamentally poor roleplay enjoyable.
And yes, someone shouldn’t be able to play a character poorly but then fall back on “But my +roll says yes” as if that overrides everything else. There’s definitely some murky water where playing poorly because someone doesn’t care (and isn’t even trying) crosses over with someone who is genuinely doing their best to play the concept well but might need some mechanical support.
I think the ideal is when dice mechanics enhance good-faith roleplay efforts rather than replacing them. A player genuinely trying to portray a brilliant tactician might benefit from dice mechanics that help bridge the gap, while someone just going through the motions and expecting the dice to do all the heavy lifting is missing the point of collaborative storytelling.
-
@Raistlin said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
A player genuinely trying to portray a brilliant tactician might benefit from dice mechanics that help bridge the gap, while someone just going through the motions and expecting the dice to do all the heavy lifting is missing the point of collaborative storytelling.
The counterargument is the equally bad-faith ‘oops, you wrote one wrong word in your pose, which you may or may not have OOCly known would destroy the whole thing, so we’re going to pretend the character rolled a botch instead of looking at how many successes are on the dice’
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I think handling intrigue with dice-mechanics is kind of a problem.
This is always going to be one of the biggest debates in MU*ing. I have many thoughts about it, but I think there’s a way to avoid that entirely:
Have dice determine affects on reputation (which I would use like health in an L&L game), but not interpersonal RP. So there’s no “convince another PC to support your cause by throwing dice at them” and there’s no “fantastic RPer with crap dice wrecks everyone around them despite having the stats of a mostly-dead tortoise.”
Have social dice work on Society, but not on PCs. So even if Lord Cantwrite blathers on about “toxic ruffle syndrome,” in his pose, if he’s got the dice (and presumably the background) to back it up, he can cause people to look in askance at Lord Rufflelover, at least for a while. This might be because Lord Cantwrite’s mommy is a Duchess, or it could be because he’s well-known to have influence at Court… whatever the case, Lord Rufflelover can still stand up to Lord Cantwrite’s bullying, but Society is going to notice Lord Cantwrite’s disapproval, and Lord Rufflelover’s suit for Lady Biginheritance’s hand might suffer until he can do some damage control.
-
I am not going to live up to @Roz 's praise of me, but I do have thoughts. So many thoughts. I will not share them all.
But I will say that I absolutely agree with what was up above - you need to distinguish what matters to you about a L&L game. I want a political game, and my biases are towards systems that promote and perpetuate a political game. The degree to which lords, ladies, fancy balls, or fashion are involved is very irrelevant to me. In fact, one of my never-gonna-happen “would love” MU* games is a political game centered around a free city with power split between elected citizens, powerful merchants often from outside the city, crafting guilds, and the mercenary forces the city needs to keep from getting eaten by outside powers. Balls and parties would probably still be involved, but they’re not the draw to me, even though I know that they are the primary draw to a lot of other folk. The Prince/ss fantasy is real and valid!
That said, my other bias is systemic - I absolutely think you need a mechanized system for political play so that people can risk actual (in game) resources on their goals, and gain or lose those resources. But if you’re looking to make a sustainable system, it also has to be cyclical and avoid either the death spiral where a character can lose everything and have no way of getting it back, or the dominance spiral where someone can amass enough power that they effectively will never be able to lose enough power to fall off the top spot. Players are going to naturally try to accumulate all the power and influence they can in a game, and while some folk absolutely do play “for the story” and will set themselves up for major losses or reversals, those folk are not a large enough segment of the population to keep a power structure from stagnating.
There are a lot of different ways to build a system - dice are easy, but it doesn’t HAVE to involve dice. But my three principles for it are:
- There has to be meaningful in game stakes involved that PCs have influence over. (Maybe not sole influence, but PCs need agency.)
- There has to be scarcity in resources so that no one PC or group of PCs can be self-contained.
- There has to be mechanics to resolve meaningful conflicts and the loss/gain of resources.
- There should be mechanics built into the system that make it hard to maintain dominance or be stuck in perpetual failure. Floating somewhere in the middle should be relatively easy for those players who really want to just play fantasy rich people and hang out.
The specifics of what those things LOOK like? There’s five million ways to do it, you just have to think about what conflicts you want to promote and what resources you want players to focus on.
-
@Pyrephox said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I am not going to live up to @Roz 's praise of me, but I do have thoughts.
Joke’s on you, you always live up to my praise
-
@Faraday said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I’ve just literally seen too many cases through the years where people will do something like RP the worst line imaginable and think that a +roll Con or +roll Seduction should somehow make that work. For me, it doesn’t. If you can’t even get in the ballpark of portraying a convincing con artist, maybe that’s just not the right role for you.
Exactly.
In tabletop it’s pretty ordinary for a GM to say, “Woah, hold on, roll intelligence,” and then inform the player (on success) that their scheme is flawed and why, and help them come up with a good one. It’s harder to do that on a MU, where play continues without the GM watching.
I’ve had this experience where some PC was supposed to be incredibly observant and cunning. The player, however, wasn’t, or wasn’t paying attention. So the PC did dumb shit. Then the GM fudged things so they worked out. Sounds kinda fair, and it’s not even PvP. But like Faraday says, it’s jarring. And hard to RP around. The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
