The Iron Devils Quandary

[James V. West]

I'm writing a game based on the Sword and Sorcery sub-genre of fantasy. Its called Iron Devils and its primarily based on the style and atmosphere of stories written by Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Tanith Lee, and Michael Moorcock. The goal is to evoke that sense of brawn vs. black magic that I fell in love with in the pages of Marvel Comic's SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN.

The biggest issue I've struggled with so far is setting. There's a red devil on my left shoulder that keeps telling me "You don't want a setting! A setting will ruin the game!" and a cherubic angel on my right shoulder saying "Don't try to make this game generic! You have great setting ideas. Write a setting into it."

For the most part, I'm going with the devil. I want to get right at the heart of what makes S&S tick and if I lay it out with maps and place names I'm afraid that magic will be lost. Part of what made reading the Elric books so great for me was that I really didn't know much about the world as a whole. It didn't matter. All that mattered was what was happening right there, in the moment.

But I'm also very wary of the pitfall of making the game too open-ended. Its not a universal system, its a genre game. I'm writing the rules specifically for S&S.

I have an idea for setting and it is inspired by my reading of REH's Conan stories. In those tales you're often inundated with place names that aren't given any real weight or definition. But the names themselves are evocative and Howard often attaches *some* color to them as he does with his mention of the darkish sorcery of Stygia. I know he wrote an essay on his world and in it he describes the various peoples and the landscape. But the real magic happens when you don't know that stuff. I confess I owned a Conan collection for years and read every single story in it but I never read the entire essay on the world of Conan. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was sub-consciously avoiding the details because I didn't want the world to be spoiled. I wanted to see it only as Conan brought it to life, not as the author exposed it. Reading the details was boring. Reading the stories was exciting.

So my idea is pretty simple. The game talks about the various themes of S&S such as willpower and strength coming from within rather than from anyone else or anything else. Sorcery is more ancient and alien than anything else in the world, except the gods (who are inaccessible, ineffective, and cruel). Men who try to master strange powers become servants of it. It is a darkish environment. Players would create adventurers in this dark world and name their homelands as they chose. They could tag a real-world culture as a model for their character's culture and name the land in a similar fashion (much like Howard did in his Hyborea).

The game would be episodic and could happen out of sequence in most cases, skipping backwards in the characters' careers. The world *could* be laid out beforehand in any detail the group wanted, using some simple tools provided in the game if needed. The worlds of Conan or the Grey Mouser could  be used as the group chose, but mostly the setting would unfold as the game unfolds and would always have a certain vagueness to it (not unlike the shadowy world of Tanith Lee's Flat Earth). Also, I would create at least one setting, separate from the game, that could be used.

The setting wouldn't matter as much as the themes: savage tales of natural might and prowess against un-natural sorcery, nameless demons, and dead gods.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I being blind to something here? I'm really into the idea of making this a genre-based and not a setting-based game, I'd just like to hear some varying opinions.

[Uncle Dark]

James,

One way to introduce setting through the back door would be to create some major NPCs, of the sort you'd find in the middle of a relationship map.  This would allow you to define the nescesary backstory for them, which (naturally) establishes something of the setting.  Then give write-ups to the Players as "example characters."

The advantage this has over presenting a ready-made setting on its own is that  it demonstrates how setting elements are attatched to characters, and not the other way around.  It shows them what you mean when you say that they will be co-creating the setting through their characters.  It fulfills one function of a premade setting -- giving players common points of reference to attatch to -- without making the setting primary in their minds.

Lon

[James V. West]

On 2002-01-01 18:48, Uncle Dark wrote:

One way to introduce setting through the back door would be to create some major NPCs, of the sort you'd find in the middle of a relationship map.  This would allow you to define the nescesary backstory for them, which (naturally) establishes something of the setting.  Then give write-ups to the Players as "example characters."

The advantage this has over presenting a ready-made setting on its own is that  it demonstrates how setting elements are attatched to characters, and not the other way around.  It shows them what you mean when you say that they will be co-creating the setting through their characters.  It fulfills one function of a premade setting -- giving players common points of reference to attatch to -- without making the setting primary in their minds.

Lon

Yeah, this is a great idea, Lon. I had considered something like this but wasn't certain about it. Now that you mention it, it deserves more attention. The pulp stories that inspired me to do this game are really all about character so it makes sense to let the game's full thrust be on characters and not on places.

High Fantasy puts a big price tag on places. Everything is important because it connects to the whole of the land in some way. S&S really doesn't go that route at all. Elric tales really aren't about Melnibone or the Young Kingdoms, they're about Elric.

Thanks for sparking some thought.

[hardcoremoose]

Hey James,

We should talk.  Inspired by Ron's Sorcerer & Sword, and what little I've heard about Bloodlust, I've begun working on my own S&S project.  I don't want to curse myself by saying too much, but in short, the few constant elements of the setting are conveyed primarily through the personalities the PCs interact with.

I'm excited to see your take on the subject.  Now if only Jared's pulp sorcery plug-in for octaNe were available...

:smile:

- Moose  

[Paganini]

Hehe... great minds think alike. Or maybe just redundant ones. :smile: Cornerstone is supposed to be generic, but the setting I was planning on releasing with it was going to be hyperborean / hyborean in nature.

James, maybe you could give a little bit to both devils. :smile: Present your game as a genre system, and then present your setting as an example of how to draw together all of the elements and techniques you mention.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

The advantage this has over presenting a ready-made setting on its own is that  it demonstrates how setting elements are attatched to characters, and not the other way around.  It shows them what you mean when you say that they will be co-creating the setting through their characters.  It fulfills one function of a premade setting -- giving players common points of reference to attatch to -- without making the setting primary in their minds.

This approach worked for Champions.  Until the mid-90's (I believe), there was no "Champions Universe" to speak of.  Sure, there was one, by default, but only because many of their NPC's had criss-crossing backgrounds that tied them to one another.

So, while these characters co-existed in the same universe, that universe wasn't really set in stone.

Another way to handle this might be to create a specific world, but only give a certain amount of detail to it.  Maintain the mystery and wonder of the setting by only telling the readers about the stuff that truly defines what your theme is (in this case, "man versus magic").

This would allow you to easily cement the theme into the reader's mind without spoiling the previously mentioned wonder of the world.

Just my thoughts.

[Matt Snyder]

Lon, James & everyone

The advantage this has over presenting a ready-made setting on its own is that  it demonstrates how setting elements are attatched to characters, and not the other way around.  It shows them what you mean when you say that they will be co-creating the setting through their characters.  It fulfills one function of a premade setting -- giving players common points of reference to attatch to -- without making the setting primary in their minds.

This is EXACTLY the issue I've been exploring with my own players. I'm constantly tinkering w/ world building ideas, and I've come to the realization that the process needs contributions from my fellow players. When I suggested to them that we start anew to create a new world, new campaign, etc., they mostly said they didn't know where to begin or even how to create a setting. Then one (my brother, in fact) said he would start the only way he knew how -- by creating a character.

Of course, he was dead on. This is perhaps the best way they can contribute to world-building -- by creating compelling characters, then coloring the world details around that. I as GM, meanwhile, can create my own "characters" and generally act as the glue that binds their concepts together.

We're still pretty damned early in this process, but so far it's changed the way I approach building a setting. This is far less daunting, and more fun.

I believe James (perhaps someone else?) said that Elric stories arent about the Young Kingdoms, they're about Elric. EXACTLY the same conclusion I came to when starting my groups new world idea. I was looking at the Elric! rulebook to craft the system (trying a house version of BRP this time around), so Elric stories have been an influence in this process. Of course, since I'm an Elric nut anyway, this ain't so bad!

Anyway, James (and you, too, Moose!), I'd love to hear what you're up to for a S&S system. Sounds really cool, and right up my alley.

Matt
matt@chimera.info

[ This Message was edited by: chimera on 2002-01-02 11:56 ]

[Laurel]

** is the little red devil **

Go for the setting.  Take those elements of Conan et al that appealed to you in the first place and make a setting that helps refine the mechanics.  Leave the borders and the details vague so that there's plenty of options open for GMs to make their own towns and adventures, but give them something to work with- a canvas and jars of paint :smile:

[James V. West]

Everybody is giving me terrific food for thought and I appreciate it.

I think it was Cynthia who mentioned that there was no Champions Universe at first. This hits on the core idea of what I've been wanting to do for a long time.

In the old days (so to speak), there were tomes of monsters and gods and what not. I spent more nights flipping through the Legends and Lore ADnD book than I can remember. The magic of it was that there were characters and some of them tied together directly, and some didn't. But there was no map or concrete setting. They could play in your mind and you could tinker with them all you wanted without feeling bound to anything.

I believe this is an innocent effect. I don't think anyone actully planned it that way, but this is probably the most natural way of going about it.

So what I've been kicking around in my head is Iron Devils as a kind of "cookbook" for S&S roleplaying. Basically, it would consist of intro/expository material about the genre, the rules for chargen and play, and a big encyclopedia-style list of all the elements that might be called "setting". Characters, demons, gods, artifacts or items, ideas, specific places (not countries, but tombs or castles or whatever) all loosely connected by relationship strings of varying thickness (so to speak).

Players could just browse the book and use the things they like if and when the inspiration strikes--which is exactly what I did with virtually every rpg I ever owned.

Pretty simple and straighforward, really. The way I like it.

[hardcoremoose]

Heh.

What James describes is exactly the approach I'm taking with WYRD. After months of deliberating on how to present the setting, I decided a few weeks ago to take the simplest possible route.  That means encyclopedic entries for every significant person, place, and thing within the myths and epics, but without strict adherence to geography or chronology.  I mean, where the hell is Jotunheim in relation to Sweden or Denmark anyway?  Who exactly were the Geats?  You get the picture.

Anyway, I think it's a great idea.  

- Moose
 

[Uncle Dark]

Moose,

Jotuinheim was in the east.  Niflheim was north, Muspielhiem was south, Vanaheim was east.

The Geats were a Germanic tribe.

Next? :smile:

Lon

[Bankuei]

  I'm glad I hit this thread...I've been delving deep trying to put together background for my Persona system, but I think this idea of using elements or entries to as ingredients the players can mix as they see fit being a great idea...It seems so obvious now.  I guess sometimes we need to look at the old stuff(D&D) and see exactly what DID work, since it must have worked real well to get as popular as it did.

Chris

[Blake Hutchins]

To be even more precise, the Geats were a tribe located in what is now southern Sweden.  In Swedish, they're called Gotas, with an umlaut over the "o" denoting a soft "y" sound for the "g," such that you pronounce it "Yu-ta."  Again in Swedish, using the same umlaut-driven pronounciation, southern Sweden is called Gotaland, and the city of Gothenburg is called Goteborg.  The water Beowulf sailed across to get to Hrothgar's hall was the strait between Sweden and Denmark.

Interesting etymology there, I think.

Best,

Blake

[hardcoremoose]

Blake, Lon,

Not to make this a discussion about Beowulf and WYRD, but yeah, the exact nature of the Geats is pretty important when you consider the emotional content of the source material.  The Geats relationship with the Swedes is pretty important to the overall understanding of Beowulf, as is the relationship these people had to their leaders.  Come to think of it, it was probably a bad example to use in this thread, as the Geats and their story are very much rooted to a specific time and place.  My bad.

But Lon's comments about the mythological realms of Scandinavia work well for me.  Supposedly they were connected to the mortal realm of Midgard, but giving them vague associations with compass points leaves the interpretation wide open.

Now, can someone tell me where Yggsdrasil is located?

- Moose

[Uncle Dark]

Moose,

Yggdrasil was located in the middle of everything.  Picture the nine worlds as five disks on a pole, with Hel at the base, Svartalfheim next up, then Midgard, then Lojsalfheim, then Asgard.  Midgard includes Earth, Niflheim, Mussplheim, Jotunheim, and Vanaheim.  The central pole is Yggdrasil.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

Lon