Post Apocalyptic Steampunk LARP (WRITER NEEDED)

I have a really cool idea for an LARP but i’m not a good writer or GM… I can help withe setting and characters (I make up characters when I’m bored)

The setting:

It is 1969 Queen Victoria’s 150th Birthday and her 131st year on the throne of what has now become the Great Empire of Earth. She has seized control of 95% of the countries of the world.

The world’s fashion and technology has halted as if it were still 1890.

There are two main groups The Queen’s Army who are fighting to secure that last 95% of the world and follow the orders of the Queen. The League of Liberationist fight around the world to not only insure the freedom of that last 5% but also to topple the Queens mighty empire and free the world.

How many players do you estimate this game would cater for?

Would it be a one-off or a campaign?

Which side of the war would the players be on?

I’m also a little curious about how it’s post apocalypse, since it isn’t stated in your post. (secrets?)

I was thinking maybe 20…

10 on each side of the war perhaps…

I was thinking just a one off campaign unless people really wanted more…

Oh the war’s that have led up to this war have ravaged the world because the Queen is focused on world domination the countries stay in a state of ruins and poverty… no money is being put back into the countries at all. Furthermore she’s running out of money… but even that won’t stop her

I’d be interested to hear how you imagine an event being arranged. Would you have characters from both “sides” coming together? Would they be in direct conflict, or perhaps meeting under some sort of truce?

I ask because a truce sounds unlikely given how aggressive the Empire sounds, but open conflict would quickly result in lots of dead PCs.

My idea for a compromise is that the campaign could consist of a series of clandestine meetings between the League and members of the Army who may have interests in common. For example, there could be a popular uprising happening against the Empire in the country where the game is set (NZ?), which is making some members of the Army worried that they’re about to be overthrown, and therefore potentially open to the idea of joining forces with the League so that they’re on the right side of history when the Empire bigwigs are put against the wall. However, they’re not completely convinced yet, and some of them may be informants for the Queen.

To give a historical analogue, this might be something like the Amercian Revolution. Some people in the country are loyal to the Empire, some are opposed to it, and some are trying to figure out how to come out on top when the dust settles. To follow that analogy, instead of secret meetings these could be official meetings between various movers and shakers in the colony, some of whom are loyal to the Queen, some are secretly members of the League, some are on the fence, some are loyalists pretending to be on the fence so they can uncover the plans of the League, etc. In the American Revolution meetings just like that changed from “how to rule the colony for the Empire” into “whether and how to declare independence”, with the loyalists naturally shouting about treachery against King George at this shift in the official agenda. This approach might work well for you, as it gives the game a strong structure based on the passage of declarations and laws via some official process, with secret meetings happening around the official ones, and plenty of pomp and ceremony which is appropriate for the Victoriana theme.

Either of the options I’ve outlined would probably work well with pregen PCs over a short campaign of events, each one being a meeting. You could probably do it in three events or so.

Unless perhaps you’re imagining less of a intrigue game, and more of a survivalist warfare type thing focused on the action in the ruined colony? In which case, it might be more like a series of linear adventures with your players taking turns playing NPCs for each other to kill, leading up to a final event where the PCs confront each other.

I was thinking it would start out as two concurrent campaigns that merge when they realize they have to work together to fight a common enemy meanwhile each team is still trying to destroy the other group… the campaign can only be won if both teams are willing to work together

Sounds like a lot of dead player characters if both groups are being played by players rather than one group of players and the other of NPCs.

It is possible to have opposed player factions and run this type of game. But it all comes down to the GM setting the game scene well enough.

If the setting IS open war and they’re actively trying to kill each other then yeah, players will die. Or is it that each side will be trying to capture agents from either side? And is surrender an option? Consequences will guide player actions. Also having 2 player groups helps build on the premise that the other side are real people too. Sometimes players are guilty of seeing NPC’s as gun fodder…

If both sides are in a standoff, and the consequences of fighting are deadly, then in theory each group will maintain a standoff until one can reach a superior position. And at that point the 3rd party becomes noticed… well it might work then.

What would the two campaigns consist of? Adventure and fighting? Intrigue and politicking?

If it’s intrigue, then each side might be lacking someone to intrigue against if you have them playing on their own.

If it’s adventure, then they’ll need mooks to defeat. In which case I’d suggest that you have each side play NPCs when the other side is playing their PCs. That could lead up to some sort of cross-overs between the two sides, which could be hostile or friendly or a mixture depending on what they’ve learned along the way. Instead of a “big bang” bringing the two sides together with no NPCs, you could have each side split into groups, and just some of these groups encounter groups from the other side, with everyone else playing NPCs. That would mitigate the risk of a big conflagration where everyone dies.

I think the key to a campaign like this is that the GMs have a really clear idea of what’s happening in the setting throughout the campaign, a geopolitical map of the unfolding events and their interactions, and what the “levers” are that the PCs can pull to change these things in the setting, and making up reasons for each event as you go while taking into account the players’ plans. The alternative of having more of a rollercoaster ride where events are preplanned and the players can’t really change what’s happening is less satisfying for some players.

Although … we’re talking steampunk, right?

So develop some ghastly, steam-powered, lightning-boosted, abomination of Science and simply

[size=150]Resurrect the Dead![/size]

Perhaps this is how old Queenie has conquered so much of the world … her soldiers can be easily reanimated.

Maybe this tech is so well developed after all these years of War, it can now be mounted on a (very heavy, granted) Steam Backup of Reanimatronic Doom!

Perhaps you have to completely disintegrate someone to kill them.

And perhaps the League has a bootleg version of the tech, which doesn’t quite work as well.

Might help to keep player death down if you pretty much have to catch a round of HE artillery to the chest to die properly. Although of course, the League might have developed a few other tricks to deal with such returning soldiers.

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
I think the key to a campaign like this is that the GMs have a really clear idea of what’s happening in the setting throughout the campaign, a geopolitical map of the unfolding events and their interactions, and what the “levers” are that the PCs can pull to change these things in the setting, and making up reasons for each event as you go while taking into account the players’ plans. The alternative of having more of a rollercoaster ride where events are preplanned and the players can’t really change what’s happening is less satisfying for some players.[/quote]

hmm as I said I’m not a GM or a writer I just have this vague idea… I guess maybe they wouldn’t be working alone then but starting off working against each other with a few NPC working in between and eventually realizing they have to work together to win, I’m crap at details but good at general ideas and characters and what not thus why i’m posting it here hoping someone else might be interested in working together to make an awesome campaign…

[Redundant post]

Is this a game about fighting, talking, investigating, or what? Any examples of games you’d like it to resemble? My suggestion is to play a couple of different types of larp and get a feel for them before running one. Larp is a bit different to other RPG, the available options for structuring many players interacting live are varied, there are a lot of proven structures to choose from while some other approaches usually fail.

As for resurrection: two groups fighting each other to the death repeatedly and being rezzed between each fight (or even during fights?) sounds a little wargamey to me. Shades of WoW or multiplayer Halo.

But wargamey might be the flavour of choice, I can’t tell yet.

One more thought.

There’s a lot of complexity involved in running a game with two parallel PC groups. What does it gain you, and can you achieve those advantages another way?

One alternative approach is that the PCs are officially an Empire special forces unit of some sort, who go off and do missions against dedicated crew playing NPCs. However, rather like the tabletop RPG “Paranoia”, some members of the unit are secretly working for the League, or for other interests. These secret League members might sometimes be sabotaging the missions, or meeting with NPC contacts from the League, etc. Some members of the unit might be on the fence, or happy to follow anyone’s orders so long as they’re kicking arse, or whatever. The unit might be receiving orders from multiple NPC commanders, some of whom are actually working for the League and sending them on League missions. In this way the League is less like a guerrilla resistance (like Star Wars) and more like an Enemy Within, a secret society operating within the Empire to defeat it.

That structure has the simplicity of a “single party” linear larp structure that’s well-proven as a fairly easy way to run a larp. However, it also allows you to bring out the complexity of your setting and the various alliances and the associated secrecy, espionage, and the fog of war.

it’s more talking/investigating/mystery trying to figure out who the 3rd enemy is and how to defeat them… almost quest like. not so much on the combat fighting… there may be personal fights between various members of the two groups… I’m thinking a bit sherlock holmes mixed with doctor who and maybe a smattering of lovecraft…

Cool. That could still work with the idea I outlined above. The PCs could be a unit of Empire special investigators (like an FBI unit) tasked with uncovering the League. Some of them could secretly be League members. While investigating (and foiling the investigation of) the League, they could uncover this third enemy, adding a further complexity. Having said that, I’d be inclined not to mention the existence of this third enemy here on a public forum, because that sort of thing is nice to discover during play.

Having just one group of PCs to deal with is exponentially easier than running separate scenarios for two groups, in terms of organisation and logistics.

Hi,

I think you should totally plan to run this. It’s a big step from kicking ideas around to actually running an event, but it’s a huge creative high as well, and as lead organiser you get a lot more say in the way things go. (Also, in my experience at least, it seems to be easier to get people involved by saying “I’m doing this! Would you like to help?” rather than “There’s this idea! Would you like to organise it?”)

[quote]but i’m not a good writer or GM… [/quote]I hate hearing people say stuff like this. You become a good writer/GM by writing and GMing. Yeah, it’s a good idea to attend events and see how other people do stuff, and find out what you like and don’t like about larps, but running your own thing will give you an enormous upskill just by paying attention to what went well and what didn’t. I do recommend talking to organisers of games and finding out what they do and why and how things are structured under the bonnet, as it were. It’ll also help to come to events in building up a network of contacts and knowing which people are a good fit for you to work with. You should totally go for it. (And hopefully I’ll see you at some games. :wink:)

Okay I should clarify as an actual writer I’m rather good but for LARPS I have no interest in GMing or writing I like playing… I’d be fine with organizing but not sure I want to GM or be the writer… so It’s not so much a I can’t as a I don’t want to…

If someone else is interested in working on this I’m totally cool with organizing it.

[quote=“grrrlshapedthing”]Okay I should clarify as an actual writer I’m rather good [/quote]That’s good to hear. So we’ll see you at some games, yes?