DeepWood Realms

[John Burdick]

My Exalted game is on hold while we wait for one of the players to read the book. In the meantime, we're playing another game.

The DeepWood Realms
A Light Magic System
XING

The GM and game author is Ranger One. The players are Jeff, Al, and me. We just did our third session. We're all having fun, and I'm particularly pleased with specific aspects. I'm going to contrast some points with things that were problems at times in the past year and a half. It shouldn't be inferred that they all happened at the same time or recently.

Ranger One pregenerated four characters. Because I read the concept summary before game night, I was able to give my preferences. I wanted a White Mage and a leader. The other three characters were offered as choices to anyone else that showed to play. The first session Jeff showed and picked a Fire Dwarf with possessed ax who wants to find dwarven artifacts. Mages happen to have information about his artifacts. The second and third session included Al who picked the Sky Elf archer who is seeking vengence against a fallen mage that unleased a dragon on his people. It turns out that the same mage is our enemy in play.

All the characters have Drama(game jargon) elements bringing them together and into the story. I know exactly why my character takes risks. The reason a single upper level mage and a handful of heros are left to deal with the scary menace is dissension within the ranks of mages over shifts in power. Without a clear purpose, I'm prone to "my guy stays home."

Previously, Ranger One has had some difficulties building appropriate challenges. Sometimes he has downgraded PC powers to avoid a walkover, while other times he makes an opponent that should beat us all but pulls his attacks. He has also pulled a NPC out of a box (really out of a box) to save us. This time he is doing very well at making dangerous opponents that fight in earnest, but can be defeated through combined effort.

The characters we play have dissimilar strengths. In particular, my mage is rated as being the highest level. The nature of magic within focused domains and the lack of blaster spells causes the mage to depend on the others. I can do routine utility spells (prevent a falling person from being injured by the fall) and do grand magic within my areas. The ability to spend XP on actions makes my infrequent attacks count very well.

On our way to meet some allies, we had to cross a barren desert. Ranger One announced we had run out of food and water. My spoken reaction was something like "wow, that's aggressive scene framing." Al tried to reason away the complication. After a couple minutes of Ranger One explaining that this route is almost completely untraveled and such why the supply requirement wouldn't be known, it occured to me that I needed to embrace the framing. I announced as party leader that the judgement call had been mine and that I was still confident; we would press on. Al accepted that everything was okay, and set to coping with the setback. I'm pleased that I smoothed that part of the game by adding my own credibility. I also like that the GM force was in the open.

Ranger One is consistently using failed rolls and improvident choices as added challenge rather than as bad things. In some of the previous games, he called for checks that if failed would ruin everything.

Most of the really fun games before were one-shot. The one recent extended game was too unique to easily compare. I can distinctly tell that this current game is better for me than the first few games I played with Ranger One. I try to give him specific, thoughtful criticism and direction. I also try to understand my part. I'm convinced it's working.

John

[Mike Holmes]

Would you say that the system is accounting for the direction of play? Or is play proceeding well despite it? Or neutral?

Mike

[John Burdick]

Would you say that the system is accounting for the direction of play? Or is play proceeding well despite it? Or neutral?

Mike

I think the reason the game is going well is that the system (in the dynamic sense) is mutually understood and agreed upon. The GM wants to walk us through his story and isn't pretending otherwise. I can play that if I know what he wants from me.

"While crossing the desert, you run out of food and supplies." doesn't bring the ego issues that being tricked or manipulated into allowing the same result. When Al was afraid that running out of food and water in the middle of a barren desert was a bad thing, I could reassure him that everything was okay. I could do that because I understood where the GM was taking us.

Coherence.

John

[John Burdick]

Mike,

One of Ranger One's areas of experimentation in the past year has been rewarding Exploration.

His current system gives XP for exercising drama elements. For example, Jeff's character the dwarf is honorable, has a quest and is possessed. I have Ambition: Become Prime Mage. If I had my character sheet I would give the rest of mine. This doesn't prevent the player from doing what he wants, but if he demonstrates the drama element he gains currency. XP is used to enhance a character in the usual way, but its primary use is to boost actions. XP is also rewarded for overcoming challenges, but he is going to reduce the weighting of challenge for the next session.

One of his previous systems called Unity used a seperate currency for advantages and disadvantages. Activating an advantage cost a point and added to an action. The only way to gain the special currency was to activate a disadvantage. This is essentially color.

Drama in his more recent systems are broader than the advantage / disadvantage concept. They encompass character and situation as well as color.

None of his experiments support buying powers by loading up on flaws. He doesn't want the minmax behaviour.

John

[Mike Holmes]

Nice analysis.

What, for you, is the greatest draw to play of this sort?

Mike

[John Burdick]

Mike,

I'm afraid I'm only prepared to speak in negative terms right now.

When we first started playing I was uncomfortable with the perception of railroading. After reading about the Impossible Thing, I decided to relax and try to enjoy the illusion. Since I recognize and accept the use of GM force to form a story, why be sneaky or indirect about it?

The notion of drama elements is capable of expressing passions or spiritual attributes in a vanilla way. It also represents agreement about the more mundane aspects of the character. If I have Relationship: wife, evertime I bring the wife into play I'm rewarded by the system.

I hate when I am expected to do certain things because that's what a PC would do. Example:

I'm a soldier scouting the landing site of a scientific expedition. Our two soldiers find an exotic monument. I make a note to tell the scientists and leave. Savage animals prevent me from leaving; I am forced into the monument to take shelter. I find a pair of door leading to unknown places. I wait for rescue. The other PC goes through a door and has an adventure. After waiting for a while I rest. I'm rescued and the other PC returns. Game over.

In a different game, I played an imitation of Daniel Jackson from Stargate SG1. He would have been all over the monument. Having an explicit, functional agreement on how I fit into the story would've saved that game.

I also hate in-character dialog and describing the appearance of a character. I was in a D&D3 game once where a GM told me to describe my character to the group. I described his gear and his behaviour. He gave me a big lecture about describing people; I gave him a passive-aggressive blank look. (I tried one more session with that GM. Rule disputes drove me away.) The emphasis on defining character through drama rather than incidentals helps me.

I think I would like Universalis. I've talked about the game without much response. If anyone else was interested, I would get it.

John