How much would you want to know?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey Chris.

Agreed. I was actually going to make the points you make but somehow forgot it. Silly old me. When asking for a recipe for chicken, "Chicken Kiev is the best way to prepare chicken" is clearly a matter of personal preference. There will not be an answer for every game. I know some people are looking for this. I know I used to and sometimes still do.

Maybe it's too early yet for what I am picturing where someone can asks for a recipe for chicken and a flurry of recipies can be posted and no one is thinking anyone is posting, asking for  or otherwise looking at THE recipe for chicken. But instead see a bunch of recipies that invovle chicken that people like.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Chris,

In this case, you're talking about "Pirates in Space" which, while a cool concept, isn't popular enough to skirt by without some detailing of the kind of stuff that's possible.

Actually I am not, or rather that woudl be but one of numerous possible ways to use the background material.  One could just as easily create a game where the players are Merchants trading goods between planets or Military personell aboard a vessel patrolling the 'great beyond' outside of a Crystal Sphere.

For example, can people breath in space?  Or not freeze/burn/explode?  Can they "swim" in space?  These are important basics to the genre that need to be established. Do ships move by "solar winds" with trips between star systems taking a couple of days of sailing?  Can you row your way across space?

In answer to all these questions, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.  A Crystal Sphere would literally be a bubble universe, think of it as sort of a beach ball afloat upon the vast infinite pleromic realm.  If this were SF we could just as easily substitute terms like 'hyperspace' or 'Ort Cloud', but I rather like the concept of 'crystal shells' and 'celestial spheres'.

Of course there is a LOT of supplementary information that could be included.  For instance in Kabbalah there are 'sefirot', or 'spheres' which, to grossly understate, represent the celestial bodies in cabalistic cosmology.  Just as, in Gnostic cosmology, there exists the Pleroma (the region of radiant light, if memory serves) and Aeons. . .  None of which really have much of anything to do with Ptolemaic cosmology, then again some here might disagree.

As far as other information, a lot will depend again, on the focus of your game.  If you want to treat your game lightly(action adventure swashbuckling), simply give some basics and direct folks towards a list of movies, books and comics.  If there are unique or significantly "difficult" concepts to convey, then you need to go into detail.

Yes, but what what level of detail?

I pretty much figure that, using the example herein, that terms like 'heliocentric' and 'geocentric' are musts to include either within the body of the game text itself or as supplementary glossalia.  Yet not even I think the gnostic or cabalistic examples I have given are necessary, yet they are no less esoteric than are the old pre-Copernican cosmological models.

Of course Spelljammer just gave straight up fantasy explanations, and while I am sure most here would be able to tell which cosmological models, if any, they were rooted in the authors didn't really slap the reader in the face with a history lesson.  Yet it did, in a way.  There was too much information about things and not enough text illustrating how to apply the concepts as game mechanics, which is probably why things like Practical Planetology and the War Captain's Companion boxed set was published

Me, I think that it shouldn't really be necessary to waste that many pages, or that many boxed sets, on what is essentially background.  Then again, I wonder if maybe the majority of gamers really thought that sort of thing was precisely what was needed.

What about everyone else?



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Mike,

Is the material intended to further play in any way, or just to be educational

Both.

Why?

Because the illustrative examples would provide sample models of non-standard solar systems.  For instance, some models have a onion layer of crystal shells that seems more reminiscent of some Hollow Earth models than they do a solar system as most of use think of solar systems.

I think, to a degree, some background like that would be immensely useful.  Yet at the same time I think such models should be presented within their historical context, but how to do it without making the work seem like an extract from text book?

I'm sure we've all encountered supplements that have come across like that, and for most of us they were things we thumbed through, maybe read a paragraph here or there, but ended up gathering dust.  Course that could just be a matter of writing style so maybe I should ask, as a follow up question:  How would you prefer such information to be written into a game?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Fang,

Isn't it really a matter of balance?  Would the game seem 'right' if there were lots and lots of description of the economics of the realm and hardly any on mechanics of the ships?  Would it be 'right' to leave money out entirely?  That's a personal choice in terms of balance.

Perhaps.  But I also think that would depend upon the milieu involved.

We can't tell you what to do.  We can't tell you what's right or better or elegant or best.

No, but one could say whether they would like to know only about Ptolemaic and Medieval Cosmology, or whether a word or two about other concepts might be worthy of inclusion, using the example being discussed at present.

Each person has their own preferences.  I like a game that gives a little about everything and does an incredible job implying the rest.  Everything sort of 'unfolds' from what is printed, but I'm a thinker and I like to infer and consider.

So, would you rather have, say, a bibliography of texts/links to supplementary information so you can do the research yourself rather than have a game author include a few extra paragraphs?

Does that, if not answer, give framework to your question?

Not really.

Though it's helpful advice that everyone considering writing a game should probably save out to a text file and print.

(click start, programs->accessories-> word-whatever and save what Fang wrote.  Really, it's good advice people.)


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jack,

"Personal preference" is being said a lot lately its seems. While on the one hand I agree that many issues do boil down to personal preference, I personally feel like it's stymieing* discussion so we can say anything solid about what I think are key issues.

It's the same thing as saying: "it's a matter of opinion".

Not really a answer, per se, since it doesn't really say anything.  But what can you do?  People say that all the time when what they probably mean is: "just do it, get it done, finish what you've got and come back and show me something solid that I can put my hands on and give you a earnest comment about".

In Fang's defense, the question I ask is rather vague.  You'd almost have to have what I have worked on in front of you to say "Oh, I see what you mean.  You've got this section that mentioned a Ptolemaic solar system, even has a nice color graphic, but. . "

At some point we can take it as understood that personal preference is coloring everything, really.

And that is the crux of my question, I really do want to know what your personal prefernces are about levels of informtional detail that are not either A) directly related to game mechanics or B) part of the actual world background yet C) may- or may not, as we've established no two people are likely to have the same opinion- enchance the gamer's understanding of what the game is about/how it came to be.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Le Joueur]

Kester,

By constantly reiterating the questions, you imply that we're not giving you answers.  We need feedback; put the tip of your toe in the waters and suggest 'a direction' or we cannot get this discussion to go anywhere.

Yes, but what what level of detail?

Pick one!  (All of them can be made to work; only the one you like will work best.)

This constant, 'yes, but...' isn't getting us anywhere.  There is no right answer!  Everyone has either asked for clearer description of what you've got or what you want; if you can't answer either in detail, I have to assume you don't have a game 'ready,' but are just trying to sketch out 'a beginning.'

In a few places around the Forge, people have basically been stating that creating a game with the idea of 'satisfying others' will only result in an unfocused mess.  In order to create a game that has 'a chance,' you have to 'go with what you like.'  Your clarity of vision and how that is communicated is what will win an audience, not pandering to 'what people think' or 'how much people would want.'

You began this thread with the question, "How much would you want to know?"  Well, the real answer is "nothing" to be honest.  It's your excitement, your interest, your drive that rings true and attracts others to your game.  What you want is what 'we'll want' in the end.  This hesitancy, this trolling for 'the answer,' this "yes, but..." stuff don't wash.  We ain't gonna write yer game!  You've got to take the initiative and actually do it.

Only then can we comment and advise.

What about everyone else?

Doesn't matter.

Unless you can answer those questions first, we aren't going to be of much help.  No one knows what is right for your game.  Let me turn this around.  Suppose we give you some kind of concrete answer.  Suppose it didn't match what you have 'inside.'  Now, further, what if it really was far from what you found 'comfortable.'  Does it make sense to do it that way then?  Why would it make a difference if it were just 'close?'  I can't see how it would benefit you or your game to make it to someone else's specification.

Now before you chime in with a 'I don't know where to start,' you have to understand we can't tell you that either.  What is the solution?  Write down what you have exactly as you have it.  Are you afraid 'there won't be enough?'  Too bad, surprise us; many have and apparently we like it.  Once you get something on paper, written however badly it has to be, only then can any 'real' advice be posed.  You can 'look back' at it and give clear indications what you think is wrong (too much or too little).  Only then can we advise on what we think is 'enough;' without a point in common, we can't really communicate that at all well.  A written example of what you are talking about is much better than all this 'beating around the bush.'  Even if you have to completely rewrite it from scratch, at least then you'll have the answer that you seek (don't tell me you're afraid of the drafting process).

When you have that document, you can go 'would it be bad to make it more (or less) [blank]?'  Only then can we go 'sure, doing it [this way].'  Until there's some kind of position to work from, all is mostly empty speculation.  That's what I mean by 'bring your ideas to the discussion.'  Without them all we're doing to running around in circles regarding concepts we don't have any language for, looking for standards that don't exist, talking about the most unclear of vaporware.

So, let's see it.

Fang Langford

[Bankuei]

Hi Kester,

Actually I am not, or rather that woudl be but one of numerous possible ways to use the background material. One could just as easily create a game where the players are Merchants trading goods between planets or Military personell aboard a vessel patrolling the 'great beyond' outside of a Crystal Sphere.

Sorry I misread you there, but that doesn't really tell me "what your game is about".  Check out some of the issues with Zaon for a good example of a game that has trouble expressing that.  The problem is, we can't give you an idea of "how much detail is necessary" without more input on what your game is about.

Right now you've given us a general idea, so we can only give general suggestions.  

Right now, you're saying, "A space fantasy game where you can do(a lot of different things" and we're saying "You need as much detail as is necessary for the players to run with"  We can't give you more detailed or specific answers since the creative agenda of your game is unclear.

Chris

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

I seem to have confounded and confused some here so here's what I've done.  For those interested I have PDFed what I have.  It's still very much a work in progress but, for the most part, the character generation rules are in place and the basic direction of the rest is there to see.

If you would like to see what I have, and where I noted I paused (I have a few remarks in '{{}}' in the text here or there) then PM me or send me a E-mail with a valid address where I can send you the file.

Why would you want to bother with it?

Well, it would be good for a chuckle.  Looking at works in progress are always good for a chuckle.

The PDF is 500k and 18 pages, including title page and cover.  Yes, that's right, I have done a bit more than I've let on.  Probably not enough with the mechanics but, well, I'm still working on things.


What the PDF does *not* have:

My current work on the stock background setting.

(Sorry but, as you've all noted by now, I like to have things 'just right'.  As it stands it is just 3 to 5 pages of background and color with thumbnail overviews of possible worlds to adventure in.  And a map.)

Clicakble links.  (I'm having a devil of a time implementing those right.)

Sample Ships.  I have two prepared, a Bireme and Flowhorse Base, in seperate PDFs.  If you want everything sent to you as one archive let me know in your message and I'll send you the ZIP file.  (It is 1.09 MB.)



What would the ZIP file contain?

CS_preview.PDF
Flowhorse.PDF
Bireme01.PDF
Read_me.txt (a note from me)

I thank you all for your input, and apologize for any headaches I may have inadvertantly caused.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[M. J. Young]

Oh, I see what you mean.  You've got this section that mentioned a Ptolemaic solar system, even has a nice color graphic, but. . .

(Elipsis in original)

Click; a light comes on.  I think, anyway.

In Multiverser, we make a number of passing references to an Aristotelian universe and a Newtonian universe as places a character might adventure in which the actual operation of the universe was entirely within the rules of physics derived by these men. There's a brief comment about certain technologies that would not work in such a universe, but in the main we don't explain them--we presume that anyone with a working knowledge of those theories can run such a universe adequately, and that we can't provide such a working knowledge to those who don't, who thus probably will not run that kind of universe.

Are you asking whether a brief reference to a universe of a particular "kind" obliges you to define such a kind of universe in detail?

The answer becomes how important it is for the referee to understand the detail and be able to reproduce that kind of universe. If the referee can run the game without ever knowing what a Ptolemaic universe is, a passing reference is probably sufficient; a parenthetical (e.g., "(one in which the sun is the center of the universe, not the earth)") may be all the extra you need. If it's got to be more accurate or more specific, then you have to explain it.

Otherwise, anyone who wants to know more that isn't necessary to play can find it elsewhere.

Is that the question? Is this an adequate answer?

--M. J. Young

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M. J.,

Are you asking whether a brief reference to a universe of a particular "kind" obliges you to define such a kind of universe in detail?

More or less, yes, that would be a fair assesment of my original question
given the example I've provided.

The answer becomes how important it is for the referee to understand the detail and be able to reproduce that kind of universe.

. . .

Otherwise, anyone who wants to know more that isn't necessary to play can find it elsewhere.

Granted, but not everyone will be so inclined to do research on their own.  Too, there are other sorts of details beyond mere explanitory examples to passing references that one could include, but that is neither here nor there.  Or rather it's the stuff of glossaries and bibliographies.

Is that the question? Is this an adequate answer?

More or less, yes.  Quite adequate.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius