IGC Results Discussion: At the Dawn

[greyorm]

First off, I hate the name.
I mean "At the Dawn"? How shallow and cheesy is that and completely uninventive is that? Seriously, "The Two Trees" would have been a better idea, or some elvish sounding name like Anuninlavalaein.

Second, yes, complete Tolkien rip-off. I'm safe only insofar as I haven't used copyrightable materials (ideas, rather than names).

On that note, I find thinking less of something because it is a homage or attempts to emulate a very specific pre-existant item of literature or film is a huge mistake. Thus, no offense to Mike and his judging, but I do not find that a thing needs originality in order to be worthwhile, that originality has all that much to do with quality, or that more originality somehow means "better."

Even so, and my rant aside, the Tolkien estate is pretty powerful and could probably squash it (and thus me) like a bug if they wished, so Mike is correct about the publishability of the game being questionable (though only from a "who could throw more money around" standpoint, not necessarily a legal one, where I am on firm ground).

So, why'd I do it? Why not change it a little more?
Simple: it's a Tolkien homage. Make no mistake, that's its whole purpose.
The Silmarillion is one of those long, beautiful epics that just screams to be made into a game -- especially given that it centers around REAL TOLKIENSINEN ELVES, not these crap modern fantasy rip-offs.

Elves are really Christian angels dressed up in fantasy's myths: immortal, powerful, wise, inspiring, full of magic and grace. They're the exact equivalent of the beautiful, powerful angels of Tolkien's religious beliefs: the paragons of good and the servants of God.

The superior, haughty elf is another foul modern archetype that disgraces the original conception by utterly failing to even remotely understand or emulate it. Its like a base orcish depiction of elves: what demons and their worshippers would make the elves out to be.

So, as I made it in homage to Tolkien's elves -- first-born and perfect, inacapable of failure at any task they set out to do because they hear the song of the world, the divine plan speaking directly to them -- that's what the mechanics thus had to emulate.

That said, "incapable of failure" makes for a pretty boring game, and even Tolkien's elves faced failure. I noted, however, that it often seemed to be a failure of the spirit, that it wasn't they couldn't do something, but that they decided NOT to.

I had begun my planning by thinking of making a game about playing the Gods of the Norse myths, with mechanics centered around the Nine Noble Virtues of the heathen. I used them as the centerpiece of this game as well because it seemed to fit.

However, even with that, the mechanics weren't working quite right -- just rolling Virtue didn't seem to do enough mechanically, and it felt rather empty. So I fought with myself over the creation of attributes, given that they might make it seem as though success and failure would hinge on something other than Virtue.

I also wanted Color in the game, specifically reinforced and used by the players. I wanted to avoid "good/bad writer" syndrome in this, where players are rewarded for being more prosaic and creative than other players, where the whole reward system is based on your skills as a player. As such, I wanted to detail clearly what sorts of statements (and the context to draw them from) would earn points of Virtue.

I hope I succeeded, and I'm curious what others think of that mechanic? I want to know if it avoids the usual "cool statement bonus" pitfalls of, say, Exalted or even Sorcerer? Or if I not clear enough in how it works?

One of the interesting developments in the mechanics occurred as a by-product of writing them: the way one conflict can lead into another, what Mike referred to as the roll-over mechanics.

I hadn't conceived any such possibility until I was right there writing it and saying to myself "Wow! That's an awesome idea!" even as the words spilled themselves out onto the page. Frankly, I consider that the best part of the design, besides paying homage -- possibly because it was just such a stunningly good idea, rife with possibility for play.

Now, Mike feels there's just not enough in the mechanics for players to DO. I'm afraid I'm not certain what he means, even while I agree with him.

Along these lines, I'm not sure I gained any insights, per se, into development or theory in writing my submission, though I "discovered" I suck at coming up with decent mechanics in anything under a year of development. Perhaps this is showing through in my writing and that's what Mike is reacting to?

Unlike mechanics, Color is something I can do on short notice. Unfortunately, as it is the former and not the latter that makes a game, I'm sort of out in the cold feeling like I ought to just stick to writing supplements for d20 and other people's games.

So, yes, the game is too short to really do much with right now, but I don't know what else to do with the mechanics, or if there is anything more that should be done with them. If I were to exapnd it, there would be alot more setting info (from where the Color would be drawn), and specific places, people and current events/future plans.

At least it pushed me to get some writing done under a deadline, and that part was fun (writing under a deadline is fun!? Unh, yeah, I think so, at least).

[Mike Holmes]

First, I didn't say that originality is a requirement, or that the deductions were for being unoriginal. In fact I complimented the choice of source material - I am certainly a fan. But just as I'm a fan, I've played a lot in Middle Earth. And, believe me when I say that there are some problems with doing so. The  weight of the original setting is potentially crushing to the imagination of the potential players.

Now, that said, you actually only closely emulated Middle Earth. Closer than Midnight does, but not quite perfectly. So I think there's plenty of room to make the game it's own thing. And your mechanics are a good start.

On the issue of incompleteness, what I see is a game where either the players (and GM) will have read the Silmarillion, and therefore have some idea of what sort of action is supposed to take place, or they'll have to totally guess (meaning in practice that play won't happen). The monsters would help only slightly lending to a more D&D approach. What you need is a sample adventure, or something in the mechanics that drives the players to figure out what they want to do with their characters. Or some structure - make it mandatory to eventually face the Morgoth cognate.

Something to give a vision of how to play. You probably have one, but it needs to be in the text for people to read.

And yeah, of course it's the shortness of the deadline that caused it - same as causes the problems in everyone else's game. You'll note that the winner of the contest actually had precisely the same criticism of his game as yours did in terms of completeness. It would take a miracle of design for anyone to completely satisfy me in that category in under a week.

You're only human after all. The game is good. Work out some of the bugs and publish it.

Mike

[Sydney Freedberg]

...the Morgoth cognate.

I have no substantive comment. I just wanted to say that's the coolest three-word phrase I've heard in months.

Plus the original game is a beautiful concept. It's amazing that Tolkein wrote four published novels plus volumes of backstory and then, historically, RPG play fixated on reenacting the Mines of Moria sequence a bazillion times.

[greyorm]

Mike,

My bad, I completely misunderstood your meaning in your criticism. The above makes much more sense to me, and helps me guide development of the design.

The  weight of the original setting is potentially crushing to the imagination of the potential players.

Yes, definitely. I'm hoping there's enough divorce of the game's material from the source material that players would feel comfortable ignoring what they "know" to be the history of Middle-Earth (since it isn't actually Middle-Earth).

What you need is a sample adventure, or something in the mechanics that drives the players to figure out what they want to do with their characters.

Both good suggestions, but the latter moreso than the former, in my opinion. I'll have to mull that over. A question arises about that, however: would that be so substantial an alteration/addition to the mechanics that it would not really qualify for the IGC:F publication you and Dav will be editing and putting out?

Or some structure - make it mandatory to eventually face the Morgoth cognate.

One of my first ideas, actually, that I abandoned for lack of time to develop decently: play occurred in "acts" of Dawn, Noon, Evening, and Nightfall. Each detailed various events that would occur within that Act -- the events the elves would have to deal with and react to. Each Act also had only certain Virtues that could be utilized within it, without penalty. Unfortunately, the supporting mechanics were a mess and more a headache than an innovation, so I scrapped the idea.

Something to give a vision of how to play. You probably have one, but it needs to be in the text for people to read.

Agreed, completely. As you can tell, I originally did have a vision of play, but removed it because the mechanics simply weren't supporting it all that well, though the color text referencing various events remained to a degree.

[Mike Holmes]

My bad, I completely misunderstood your meaning in your criticism. The above makes much more sense to me, and helps me guide development of the design.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I think that writing 35 reviews made each of them suffer considerably. Glad we've got it straight now.

The  weight of the original setting is potentially crushing to the imagination of the potential players.

Yes, definitely. I'm hoping there's enough divorce of the game's material from the source material that players would feel comfortable ignoring what they "know" to be the history of Middle-Earth (since it isn't actually Middle-Earth).

I think that it becomes problematic when a potential player like myself can recognize individual character names (even if distorted slightly in some cases), and see most things having one-for-one parallels. That's the point at which it starts saying to me that it's just the original setting with the serial numbers filed off. I think that it would be good to have a number of places where your version veered away from the canon in a very noticabable and undeniable way. Saying to the players that it's fine to do whatever they want with the canon.

Both good suggestions, but the latter moreso than the former, in my opinion. I'll have to mull that over. A question arises about that, however: would that be so substantial an alteration/addition to the mechanics that it would not really qualify for the IGC:F publication you and Dav will be editing and putting out?

Not at all. These suggestions would be entirely within what we're planning to see. Basically (and I'm going to be saying this a lot coming up) whatever modifications that you make to improve the game are fine.

One of my first ideas, actually, that I abandoned for lack of time to develop decently: play occurred in "acts" of Dawn, Noon, Evening, and Nightfall. Each detailed various events that would occur within that Act -- the events the elves would have to deal with and react to. Each Act also had only certain Virtues that could be utilized within it, without penalty. Unfortunately, the supporting mechanics were a mess and more a headache than an innovation, so I scrapped the idea.

Hmmm. You may really have something there. I'd encourage you to work through it.

Agreed, completely. As you can tell, I originally did have a vision of play, but removed it because the mechanics simply weren't supporting it all that well, though the color text referencing various events remained to a degree.

Yep. If you can get some of that vision back into the text, I think it'd be good.

Mike

[Sydney Freedberg]

....I think that it would be good to have a number of places where your version veered away from the canon in a very noticabable and undeniable way. Saying to the players that it's fine to do whatever they want with the canon.

As cool as the Silmarillion is, I'd have to agree -- it, even more that the Rings trilogy/quadrilogy, is a very locked-down plot -- the Elves sin against the Valar in their original self-exile and are morally & practically doomed to fail, as reflected in story after story within the Silm.

That said, on reflection, I suspect the theme for this game has to be how to deal with inevitable failure -- do you try to survive at all costs at the price of destroying all you cared for? Or go down valiantly before the Dark? Or try to pass on something of value to someone who can preserve it in part, however different they may be from you and however feebly they may be able to express what you handed down -- i.e. the end of the Elves and the rise of Men which permeates Tolkein's work: Evil does not prevail, and Good endures, but all is changed and much is lost.

Question: Do you need a Valinor-equivalent AT ALL? Can you just make this about the Dawn, Noonday, and Nightfall decline of Faerie without such specific Tolkein references as twin trees and giant spiders -- capturing not the letter but the spirit, as it were?

[greyorm]

Honestly, I really should read the Silmarillion again before I develop this any more. Last time I read it, and LotR, is creeping up on two decades ago.

Hence, I'm actually surprised that my memory appears to have been so sharp regarding the actual events of the tales. I was certain I had completely mangled the stories and they bore only a passing, though marked, resemblance to the originals.

As to the theme, it wasn't about inevitable failure at all. Quite the opposite, really...it's about the sacrifices and triumphs of virtue.

The goal is to return to the West, having secured the light of the Two Trees from the Enemy. The elf must gain Virtue in order to succeed...this begs the question: how?

I think that's where I'm looking to go with development of the "what do elves do" mechanics. Tying Virtue into defeating the Enemy, securing the Light, and, ultimately, a return to the West -- symbolizing a severing of earthly ties for the elf, and abandonment of the enchantment of a Creation not meant to be theirs.

Like fallen angels pulling away from the earthly world they became enamored of, in order to return to a purer, less sensually exciting but more fulfilling heaven.

More later, when it isn't 2am.

[greyorm]

Alright, more thoughts and some design changes to At the Dawn. Which still needs a new name.

I'm thinking, honestly, that the best sorts of names for the game would be a combination of Finnish with Gaelic. It would be appropriately imitative of Tolkien's elvish, which had the same roots. I'll have to pull out my language creation tools and throw some word-lists together quick for download off a website, and to drop some names into the document itself.

I've tried to expand the details of Color and its use, and link it to another idea: that the goal of the elf is to overcome the temptation of Creation and return across the sea to the West. I'm thinking this means that a certain amount of Virtue is necessary for an elf to return; that he must pass at least one test of each of all nine Virtues.

I'm wondering if the idea of using only one Quality to resolve a conflict with someone or something makes any sense. Mechanically, it works, but I can see wanting to switch tactics in the middle of an Exchange -- perhaps bringing Skill to bear instead of Might when battling an enemy (described as tricking them somehow).

Perhaps total Virtue should be involved instead? I don't know how much I like that, however, as it more or less removes Quality from the equasion (it wouldn't be used for anything anymore).

I've added an "Equipment and Companions" section, which give bonuses to your Qualities (ie: a sword gives a bonus to your Might score when used to attack an enemy, etc). Companions, like a pack of wolves, or an eagle, or a force of men-at-arms, would also provide various bonuses.

Also, I've changed "Kindness" to "Hospitality" to prevent confusion that could arise between applicability of the various Virtues. This is perhaps my greatest concern regarding the game's mechanics: that the Virtues are not clearly defined enough that it is obvious which should be used when. Any insights into this would be appreciated.

[Mike Holmes]

I thought that the virtues seemed pretty straightforward (thought I was looking at the boyscout motto for a moment).

I like where you're going with the testing virtues idea. How about allowing the player to switch up what virtue he's using for tactical reasons, but then having a roll at the end of the test where it's seen if he learned anything (possible development mechanic here), based on how many rolls they made using the virtue in question. Or something along that rout?

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I've trawled all over the place for a link to the game writeup, but  only found a very cursory post about it in the IGC thread. What have I missed?

Simon Hibbs

[greyorm]

Heya Simon,

The whole thing is in the IGC thread. The second post about the game, mind you, not the first. Here's the link. As for now, that's all there is.

[greyorm]

(thought I was looking at the boyscout motto for a moment).

Heh...actually, you're looking at the Nine Noble Virtues of Asatru.

I like where you're going with the testing virtues idea. How about allowing the player to switch up what virtue he's using for tactical reasons, but then having a roll at the end of the test where it's seen if he learned anything (possible development mechanic here), based on how many rolls they made using the virtue in question. Or something along that rout?

Hrm, yes, something like that might work. Perhaps making actions either responsive or aggressive: that is, who says which Virtue is being used. Normally, it is the Virute opposed by the opposition, but the elf can choose a different Virtue under some circumstances (winning the previous roll?).

That's going to require some thought.
Obviously, some Virtues wouldn't work under certain circumstances: I mean, exactly what would it mean if you were battling a werewolf and your Hospitality Virtue was tested? Or your Industry?

Ack...then again, you gain Virtue by using appropriate Color for the Setting. That's the development mechanic. If it "means" anything, it's in-line with Tolkien's idea of the Song of Arda sung by the Valar, and how the elves could hear it; and how Morgoth attempted to sing his own song, apart from the song of Arda.

[Mike Holmes]

I think there could be an "appropriateness" modifier or something. Indeed, I don't think that every virtue works as well on every test. I think that's interesting itself. The player should have to explain how the virtue in question is applicable, and the GM can penalize if it's too much of a stretch.

For the werewolf, I might narrate hospitality as, "I back off, produce some meat from my pack, and offer it to the savage beast, to show I'm not an enemy." Then you as GM decide if you buy it or not.

Mike

[greyorm]

I'm not sure how much I like that. Too much Fiat for my tastes. I hate Fiat. Fiat gives me a headache.

Anyways, I would think this to be a serious system-change, and thus not for this edition. I'd rather keep the changes simple enough that I can write them without feeling despondent and worried that it will be crap in play.

Any advice on fleshing out what I already have? Specific examples, please? (you need more advice on running the game isn't very helpful...because, well, I know I do. What, though?)

Anyone should feel free to answer.

[Mike Holmes]

Anyways, I would think this to be a serious system-change, and thus not for this edition.

Good point.

Any advice on fleshing out what I already have? Specific examples, please?

I'm not getting much inspiration right now, but how about some sample challenges? Show us what a good Hospitality challenge looks like?

And some notes on the "in between" stuff. Do we just go from challenge to challenge, or is there buildup before each? If so, what sort of action is appropriate? Should it forshadow the upcoming events, or should there be sub-plots going on?

Mike