another fantasy RPG - destined for failure?

[Jake Norwood]

It's definitely an interesting topic. I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion of Rich/Sketchy Character and Rich/Sketchy Setting combinations on Gaming Outpost in late 2000, I think. But their search engine seems to be broken, so I can't point you at the exact threads.

Paul

Sorry about this continued tanget-thing, but I found a way to fix this problem on Gaming Outpost. From the search page (which is full of all kinds of error information) click on the "list of operators" link and try your search normally from there. It's worked every time for me.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread...

[Valamir]

Um, Ralph, Bailey's point about setting/character is a re-statement of one of mine, almost verbatim. It's been around since my early days on GO and has been repeated on dozens of threads.

No doubt long before I had any idea what you were talking about ;-)

[Ron Edwards]

ks13,

Again, I deeply apologize for the fact that we seem unable to focus on your game, although everyone is being great about this side-point.

To apply the point that Bailey made:

Which seems to work best for you?

1) Start with deep/defined character and develop the setting as play is prepped and carried out?

2) Start with deep/defined setting and develop the characters (from basic/sketchy start) as play is prepped and carried out?

[Please note that in the two options above, I am not talking about how powerful the characters start or become. I'm talking about how individualized and intense they are. Same for setting - I'm not talking about how good or interesting the setting is, but whether it's chock-full of stuff to do that's already laid down in writing.]

3) Start with both characters and setting as intensely developed before play as possible?

4) Start with both characters and setting in a fairly sketchy or quickly-defined state?

So, 1-4: which do ya think, for this game, this time?

Best,
Ron

[ks13]

A few things to address:

Why am seeking input? I have an opportunity (and desire) to reexamine the system and make revisions. The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant. More consistency in mechanics to avoid "this rule covers situation A, and this one handles B". The biggest problem was that some rules got too convoluted over time, and during play it was difficult to keep track of everything. I don't want charts and constant referencing, but neither am I going for a rules-light thing.

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....). One method am finding simply too vague with no direction or purpose, the other might become a bit too restrictive. Right now, I think the problem is that I'm trying to use a concept (good vs evil) thats not presented in a solid form. I need to either make it more sublime (games can be run in the setting without it ever coming up), or bring it to the front (you will always be involved in this struggle).

Onto the tangent, which is actually very helpful since at first didn't clearly see what Baily was driving at. If I got this right, the suggestion is that if the setting is so detailed as to be restrictive to the type of character concepts possible, then a detailed character creation can result in characters that don't fit. Isn't this a matter of simply limiting your concept during character creation to make sure that it doesn't clash with the setting? Isn't this what templates and classes had done all along?

As far my game is concerned, and to answer Valamir, the situation would be:

1) using your developed character creation system (which is perfectly fine dinosaur or no...it certainly isn't "bad") would players create pirate characters, you'd find a piece of the world that is open to pirate characters, and then much of the setting of that piece would be developed in reaction to the players choices.

As it stands, I know where and why in my setting pirates operate. There is no huge sourcebook on pirates, their secret stong holds, etc. This would evolve during game play. The setting is detailed not in a sense that it covers every minute aspect in depth, but that there is an extensive background/myth that explains why the world is the way it is. The major political, social, economic, mystical etc. aspects are covered, but the fine detail grows along with the game. The players know enough about the setting to allow their characters to act in a consistent manner (for example, you just don't go around screamin the names of the old gods) and I look to them to help create some details. For example, if they arrive at the home city of one the characters, who then proclaims he know of a place serving the finest steak this side of the ocean, then it doesn't mean this place doesn't exist just because I don't have it written down (I would of course expect the player at this point to continue, help supply a suitable name, name of the owner, etc. I would work with him to make sure it fits the aspects of the game that I have prepared such as the location. So instead of the exact location, the player says "its not in the best part of town, but don't let that fool you", I know where to place this newly created inn. - this was also one of those "cool" things I referred to earlier). So provided that players respect certain aspects of the game world, the exact details of their character concept can be maintained.

So maybe I'm using a different, or incorrect definition of detailed setting. Maybe go with "a setting with a detailed and rich background/history."

The reason I chose to go with detailed character creation (other than the fact that it a mechanicaly detailed system), is that I (and my players) found it very easy to start to develop some personality and character traits. These certainly developed during play as well, but even in the early sessions the players have some feel for their character. They also know how they fit into the world. Is their character fairly average, or will he be seen as some sort of freak. It was aslo easier in the early doing to decide how a character felt about a given situation, and what the most likely response be.

[Bankuei]

I have an opportunity (and desire) to reexamine the system and make revisions. The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant.

I suggest that you have a thread dedicated towards your mechanics, and either use this one or a new one for that "premise/hook" you're looking for.   One thing that will help you with the rules is to identify a primary(if not singular) resolution mechanic.  That is, one rule to rule them all.  D20 got hip to it after everyone else in the industry had picked it up.  Since you have several rules, you might want to list your favorites, or ones that work particularly well in serving your needs, they might be able to be converted into a single catch-all rule.  

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....). One method am finding simply too vague with no direction or purpose, the other might become a bit too restrictive. Right now, I think the problem is that I'm trying to use a concept (good vs evil) thats not presented in a solid form.

As all games, it comes down to,"What do you do?"(in this game)  with an answer you can give in one or two sentences.  That's the basis of your game.  If you're trying to play good and evil into it, put it there, it can be stated that "evil is subtle" but it still has to be there.  

Chris

[Valamir]

The players know enough about the setting to allow their characters to act in a consistent manner (for example, you just don't go around screamin the names of the old gods) and I look to them to help create some details. For example, if they arrive at the home city of one the characters, who then proclaims he know of a place serving the finest steak this side of the ocean, then it doesn't mean this place doesn't exist just because I don't have it written down (I would of course expect the player at this point to continue, help supply a suitable name, name of the owner, etc. I would work with him to make sure it fits the aspects of the game that I have prepared such as the location. So instead of the exact location, the player says "its not in the best part of town, but don't let that fool you", I know where to place this newly created inn. - this was also one of those "cool" things I referred to earlier). So provided that players respect certain aspects of the game world, the exact details of their character concept can be maintained.

Thats great.  One thing that's become more common place especially in Forge-influenced games, is to include as part of the game system itself mechanics that specifically give players this kind of directoral power (thats what Forge jargon would call the above).  In other words, instead of leaving it up to an individual GM to give or not give the players this ability, this ability is explicitly spelled out in the rules.

Certainly not required, but if you're looking to revise some of the mechanics, something you may want to consider; especially if you're looking to streamline a lot of special case rules.  A mechanic that gives players an amount of game direction authority can be structured in such away to tie into those cases and provide a means for special effects without a lot of individual rules.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

... The game worked well enough in its previous form, but from mechanics side of things I still want it to be more streamlined and elegant. ... I don't want charts and constant referencing, but neither am I going for a rules-light thing.

OK, we're wrestling with buzzwords hee a little, I think.

You want your system to be "streamlined" but you do not want to go "rules-lite." You see what I'm saying? These are just words that are often used but as often as not don't really mean what you want to say.

So forget them. Let's focus on what you're really dealing with here.

Some parts of your game you would like to see work better. "Better" is a subjective term, so what we really mean is better for you. SO it's identifying what problems you perceive and seeing if we can help you find a a better way to do it. This is nitty-gritty mechanics tinkering.

The other aspect is my dilema of a general world with a wide range of gaming opportunities, or a specific hook (so that you know when you play this game you will do.....).

Personally, I think this is a non-issue for you in your situation. Unless you're trying to recruit new players for your group, you will not need to fiddle with having a specific hook as when a hook occurs to you, you cn use it.

Try not to think of it as your game as too vague with no direction or purpose but formless, like water and so it can assume all forms. This is actually not a very desirable trait for a commercial RPG (I don't care what GURPS says), but for an amateur RPG this is find, desirable, even.

Onto the tangent,...If I got this right, the suggestion is that if the setting is so detailed as to be restrictive to the type of character concepts possible, then a detailed character creation can result in characters that don't fit.

Actually, the point of the tangent is, if I get it correctly is that a game has rules for what it supports and a game will either support exploring character or exploring setting.

Vampire is a game for exploring character. There is precious little setting given but that's OK because it's about the internal struggle.

A game like, say, Traveler (actually, I'm not sure if this is accurate for Traveler, but stay with me) has a detailed setting but the character isn't very well defined. Not as a person. That's because the character is an avatar for the player. The player is able to see and interact with this strange world through the character.

To attempt to explore both would overcomplicate things so that neither would be adequately explored.

I've never completely agreed with this idea and it may not apply to your situation, but heck, try and and see if it helps you at all. Who am I, anyway?

[ks13]

Thats great.  One thing that's become more common place especially in Forge-influenced games, is to include as part of the game system itself mechanics that specifically give players this kind of directoral power (thats what Forge jargon would call the above).  In other words, instead of leaving it up to an individual GM to give or not give the players this ability, this ability is explicitly spelled out in the rules.

While this happened, it never occured to me to expand it by incorporating it into the rules structure. It's just a way my old group played. But introducing it in a more explicit way sound interesting. Even now I'm thinking of some possibilities. Though going from just a paragraph in the rules stating that such a playing style is encouraged, to incorporating it into the mechanics is not so obvious.

OK, for clarification: "streamlined" -> for me this involves cutting out all those bits that started out as modifiers but formed into their own rules, and are now in the way. Clear out the clutter or if its important enough, fit it into the core mechanic. I also want the rules to flow from one mechanic to the other. Magic might not be exactly the same as combat, but it should be obviously part of the same system.

As Bankuei suggested, I'll probably take this to another thread so the gory details of the mechanics can be discussed there.

In regards to the character exploration vs setting exploration, I'm not sure on this one. It certainly isn't character exploration in the same degree as Vampire. It feels more like the characters are being incorporated and tightly integrated into the setting and their surroundings. Imagine a painting of a nature scene, and you proceed to paint a figure into the setting. At first it pretty obvious that the figure doesn't belong (or fit in very well). But if you are careful and skillful enough, alter the scene a little and realize how best to represent the figure, it might appear that the figure was always there. It seems that both setting and character need to be present. Of course I only now realize that if I don't let the players have some influence to shape (or reshape) the setting, this can never happen. Then again, maybe this doesn't require and significant character exploration, and its simply adaptation to the setting. Maybe I'm just rambling and non of this makes any sense, so I'll leave it at that.

[Mike Holmes]

I know exactly what you are talking about regarding streamlined elegance. Excellent goal, IMO. And I can understand you ceoncern about general versus specific goals as well. We can help with this stuff.

The only problem is that we can't get to specifics unless we know something about the system. I would suggest full disclosure. At the very least we need some basics. Is chargen point based, level and classes, carreer path? Is resolution class based, skill + attribute, dice pools (including where those exceptions pop up)? Do you have any metagame stuff like Karma Points? What's the reward system like, what does it reward, and how does it reward it? Rules for continued character development (sometimes different from reward systems)? Anything else that seems pertinent.

Without this stuff, it's hard to comment.

As Ron said, I wouldn't worry about the jargon yet; character exploration and setting exploration can be looked at later. But we can sertainly address what seems to be your major concern if you just give us some details.

Good versus Evil is a great topic for play, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I like your slant so far, and what you 've said sounds promising as a goal. Let us see what you have and we can give hints on how to get better results toward that goal.

Mike