Figuring out my setting (call it Yggdrasil or something)

[Christoffer Lernö]

I want to say I really appreciate the feeback I get here. All posts are really interesting to read. After all the confusion with Mage Blade and my game I thought that maybe it would be better to start a new thread altogether.

And to avoid confusion, let's call it something so it's not confused with Mage Blade. I would call it "Saga" but there's already a game with that name, so what about "Yggdrasil", not that it has a world tree (yet anyway, I always thought the idea was neat though). Just to differentiate it from Mage Blade. Ok?

Let's start it out with some stuff from something I mailed Bankuei, and I hope we can start from there rather than from AD&D :)


"Once upon a time the world was much different. The wilderness was a dangerous place where monsters lived; goblins, giants, dragons and forces even darker and more sinister.

And there were the dwarves, master artisans making enchanted things of great beauty. There were trolls who lived in the depth of the forests with rumbling voices and the elves: fair, beautiful and dangerous.

It was a time of warlocks and witches, because the secret of their dark and horrible magic had not yet been lost.

For generations humans had ruled the world to their liking in unity, but greed is ever in the hearts of men, and so kingdom came to fight kingdom all while the glory of the old realm faded into memory.

Although this was a time of much sorrow, it was also a time of great bravery and valor. We know because we remember those daring souls who would face the dangers of the wild in search for fame and fortune forever in our legends."

I am actually a narrativist at heart, but while I'm very comfortable with running pure narrativist games in most genres I don't like it in fantasy.

I want to create a gamist/narrativist fantasy hybrid which could easily be played in either mode. Setting-wise I'm very disappointed in most worlds because the transition from book/cinema/concept to rpg has been especially troublesome in the fantasy genre (in my opinion). Magic is generally that which has suffered the most. I want to avoid that. I want to bring the most fantastic fantasy (old school, not the AD&D infected stuff) into an RPG keeping everything intact instead of slaughtering it to be able to fit it in a pure gamist engine.

So I want a RPG where the difference between story and game is very thin. You'll never feel that the premise was forced into a system, instead the system was created to fit the premise. This would usually make for a very complex and bulky system (or a virtually rule-free one), but I'm trying to walk the line here and have a gamist system formed around a setting without corrupting it with mechanics and balance.

Am I making sense?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I want to create a gamist/narrativist fantasy hybrid which could easily be played in either mode. Setting-wise I'm very disappointed in most worlds because the transition from book/cinema/concept to rpg has been especially troublesome in the fantasy genre (in my opinion). Magic is generally that which has suffered the most. I want to avoid that. I want to bring the most fantastic fantasy (old school, not the AD&D infected stuff) into an RPG keeping everything intact instead of slaughtering it to be able to fit it in a pure gamist engine.

So I want a RPG where the difference between story and game is very thin. You'll never feel that the premise was forced into a system, instead the system was created to fit the premise. This would usually make for a very complex and bulky system (or a virtually rule-free one), but I'm trying to walk the line here and have a gamist system formed around a setting without corrupting it with mechanics and balance.

Am I making sense?

PF,

You are making sense. That said - hmm. I swear this isn't meant to be patronizing.

Ok. What I see here is the exact same sort of game I and a lot of other people tried to design for our first game - a game that would appeal to a lot of people where the system was "transparent" and "wouldn't get in the way of the story." (That bit about how the system would either have to be bulky or rule-free could have fallen off of my tongue no more than 18 months ago.)

My bits of advice, which may or may not be of use:

- The reason translation from books or movies to RPGs has been bothersome is that it's never going to work perfectly.  Books and movies are a totally different creature than RPGs - in books and movies, characters, plotlines, equipment, magic, and everything else has been carefully crafted as to tell one story. In an RPG, the authors have no idea what the end of the story will be beforehand, and can't do this.

- Don't think that mechanics and balance "corrupt" a game - they're the lifeblood of a game. You've stated yourself in this game that mechanics reinforce a story - make well balanced ones that do.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Let's stay away from system issues just for the moment, because, if I'm not mistaken, the whole point of this thread is a fantasy role-playing setting with a radically different emphasis. That emphasis is supposed to arise from the details of the setting.

Where is the radically different emphasis?

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok. What I see here is the exact same sort of game I and a lot of other people tried to design for our first game - a game that would appeal to a lot of people where the system was "transparent" and "wouldn't get in the way of the story."

Haha, that's why I don't invent. I tried for like 8 years or so to figure out how to do the combat system right. And then I stumbled over AHQ :) I have no doubts that works transparent enough as I've already played it to that effect (of course my tweaks might foul it up, but then the simple answer is simply to remove my tweaks until it works again ;) )

For the rest of the system (skills, character generation, magic) I hardly have any rules so it's gonna be hard to go too wrong there. I apologize for my good confidence in the rules, I really should be more humble. But... I'm not really taking any credit for the good stuff am I ;)

Of course I can still mess up the skill, char gen and magic bit. But so far it's looking good.

(which reminds me of the "so far so... oops!" slogan :) )

[Christoffer Lernö]

the whole point of this thread is a fantasy role-playing setting with a radically different emphasis.

Aaah, now I'm conviced you are evil ;) You keep hounding me with that quote, where did I say that? :)

Where is the radically different emphasis?

Oh, I wish I could pull it out to show it to you, I really do, but I guess I'm unable to. It certainly seems that way. :)

Everyone has their visions of what fantasy is, mine will be different from yours. I wish I had pictures to show you, because that's the essence of what I want to make different.

I remember a lot of inspiring AD&D front covers (and neat SR covers as well) with very cool magic effects. Only problem was that those things could never really happen in the game unless we were talking about one or two super powerful beings in the world.

It looked really cool, but you couldn't play it. It's like those early 80's computer game posters. Really eye-catching stuff, but in reality the games were little more than colored squares moving around on the screen.

I just think it's possible to get a lot closer to those visions of fantasy than what has been done up until now.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey PF,

From your post in the "not good enough I guess" thread, April 5, 23:44:
Still doesn't sound like anything but D&D I guess.

But it's only in the details I want to be different. In EVERY detail, but still the details.

Stories are more like taken from Inu-Yasha than from Diablo 2 if that makes any sense to you.

And from your post in the same thread, April 8, 06:25:
Everyone's concerned that I'm going too AD&D, but to be honest - do I make it more successful just by making it very different from standard fantasy?

I don't think so.

Because if I'm doing a derivative with a radically different emphasis I'm basically letting my ideas run wild to make my own special brand of fantasy.

I am indeed hounding you on this point (aarrrrooooo!) because this is, to date, the single thing you are offering that merits our attention in Indie Game Design. Setting? Standard. System? Standard, with improvements for ease of use. Your "radically different emphasis" seems to me to be the crux of both the previous thread and this one. You have mentioned that it applies to "EVERY detail," and I would be happy with an even two.

I do see your point about the role of art and inspiration, and I acknowledge your point that fantasy role-playing can get to the "payoff" scenes much better than the traditional games manage to accomplish. But I don't think showing me pictures would help. I want words - convince me. Describe a scene that you think would be a cool, easily possible, pay-off scene in role-playing this game. Paint that word-picture (like those covers you mention) and explain what settings-details actually make it happen.

Why am I hounding you about this? Because if you can't quickly and easily convince someone of precisely what you think is the game's strongest point, then it's time to quit right now.

Best,
Ron

[hardcoremoose]

Pale Fire,

I know how you feel.  I'm a very image-driven person.  I've been known to design whole games around a single image, attempting to make possible in play something that I thought looked "cool".

In terms of game design, there are a bunch of things to consider.

The biggest, I think, is system.  We've been asked to refrain from discussion of system, and unless I misread you, you seem to believe your system will accomodate your needs.  I think a thread about your system might be cool though, and if you aren't familiar with the concepts of Fortune in the Middle and Author Stance, you should look into them - they are far and away the easiest, best ways to create compelling, player-driven imagery within a game.

Part and parcel with system is setting, which we've been dancing around for three threads now.  While I do think the system will be the tool that allows you to create the imagery you seek, the setting is going to provide the raw materials for you and the players to work with.  You won't be able to create imagery that isn't supported, or at least suggested, by the setting.  So exactly what elements do you want to be present in the game?  We know you want elves and dwarves and the like, and that there's magic and ruins and stuff.  But what is present in those paintings you reference that is not present in the games you hope to improve upon?  

Or are we not talking about setting here, but rather color.  I'm thinking that what interests you about those paintings isn't so much their specific content - the Shadowrun cover paintings feature cybered elves and trolls and the like, all of which is actually present within the game - but rather the dramatic poses, the "feeling" you get when you look at them that these characters aren't just gumps, but rather protagonists in their own right.  I'd say that takes us back to system.

I really want to look at your system.  A new thread, maybe?  All other things being equal, I have to say that's where your innovation may be coming from.

- Scott

[Ron Edwards]

Scott,

Actually, the previous descriptions from the 56-odd posts that Pale Fire has prompted so far all say the same thing: the setting's details are distinctive enough to carry the game, in the venue that he's after.

Until I get some confirmation on this, I'm not really interested in the system material. Yes, it's Ron saying this, and I haven't been replaced by an alien. I'm willing to take PF's description of his system at face value, and he says it's nothing too off-beat. So it comes down to the aforementioned setting details.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ron,

the setting's details are distinctive enough to carry the game....Until I get some confirmation on this, I'm not really interested in the system material...

I'm totally with you on this. I think it's been demonstrated a number of times, most notably by White Wolf with games like first edition Vampire, that a distinctive setting can carry a fairly clunky system.

Paul

[hardcoremoose]

Ron, Paul...

God knows I don't want to debate the two of you.

And I completely agree with what you're saying.  Setting can carry a game.  Historically, I believe we've seen that to be true time and time again.

And yes, I'd like to see some confirmation from PF that his setting is indeed distinctive enough to to do so.  But I'm wondering if we haven't already received that confirmation, and that perhaps the communication is being hindered by an imperfect understanding of the jargon being used by the individual parties.

PF is saying "setting", but his post above sounds like the Forge definition of "color", at least it does to me.  He's saying he wants a game that captures the essence of the old D&D and Shadowrun covers.  He claims those games don't do their cover paintings justice, but since the games do in fact contain the actual content depicted in those illustrations, I assume he means that his game will also invoke the same emotional response he feels when he looks at them, something which the actual games they're attached to perhaps don't succeed at.  And, of course, I assume this means he wants a game that will not only allow, but actually encourage, the creation of scenes, or "moments" within gameplay, that carry the same emotional impact.

If that's the case, I think three things need to exist:

1. The setting has to be there, with the proper components in place to allow cool scenes to be constructed.

2. The system has to free up the players enough to allow those scenes to actually occur.

3. The game's actual Color needs to properly inspire the players to want to create similar scenes.

Of course, I could be way off base in regards to P. Fire's actual goals.  Either way, I definitely do want to hear what his setting has to offer.

- Scott

[Paul Czege]

Hey Scott,

I think what it comes down to is goals. A designer can create sales and a fan culture for a game through distinctive setting. My personal opinion is that the payoff for a game from design attention devoted to mechanics is greater in terms of how often it actually gets played than it is for design attention devoted to setting, but it's an unscientific opinion.

Paul

[Christoffer Lernö]

Because if I'm doing a derivative with a radically different emphasis I'm basically letting my ideas run wild to make my own special brand of fantasy. [/i]

I am indeed hounding you on this point (aarrrrooooo!) because this is, to date, the single thing you are offering that merits our attention in Indie Game Design.

Ok, it's an AD&D derivative in terms of surface looks. Someone who wants to play "standard fantasy" will not be put off by my game (or that's my intent anyway).

There are a number of sub-genres to standard fantasy, like Dark Fantasy, Oriental Fantasy and so on.

If I want to play fantasy I wouldn't play Dark Fantasy or Oriental Fantasy. I'd play standard fantasy. If I'd like to play something different, I'd play Dark Fantasy or Oriental Fantasy or some other sub-genre of some other type of games.

What I want is for my game to be an alternative to the crowd looking for standard Fantasy. You know the same people who checked out Palladium RPG, Rolemaster, Runequest and the rest in search for other systems than AD&D to play fantasy in.

Your "radically different emphasis" seems to me to be the crux of both the previous thread and this one. You have mentioned that it applies
to "EVERY detail," and I would be happy with an even two.

One of the most lowly magic spells I made up was the "death lanterns". The spell is essentially a "light" spell, but it's different because what it does and how it works actually means you could put it to other uses. To pull the description from elsewhere:

"Death lanterns are actually made out of these ghostly looking fire demons that circle around the mage. If they happen to touch anything they immediately disappear in a burst of light. However, they will usually not move anything on their own. If someone would run through the circle towards the mage, there be a real burst of fire, but not enough to burn the person unless they are naked humans. When one of these fire demons is destroyed (they actually die) they don't make more of a burn than say a cigarette would. Creative players might be able to figure out that you can actually use this spell to light candles and the like, or if you spray someone with oil and have them run though that circle it's gonna be pretty messy... "

So first off, the magic has a way it works you can really exploit that any way you like.

Compare it to the AD&D "light" spell:

This spell creates a luminous glow, equal to torchlight, within a fixed radius of the spell's center. Objects in darkness beyond this sphere can be seen, at best, as vague and shadowy shapes. The spell is centered on a point selected by the caster, and he must have a line of sight and unobstructed path for the spell when it is cast. Light can spring from air, rock, metal, wood, or almost any similar substance.
The effect is immobile unless it is specifically centered on a moveable object or mobile creature. If this spell is cast upon a creature, the applicable magic resistance and saving throw rolls must be made. Successful resistance negates the spell, while a successful saving throw indicates that the spell is centered immediately behind the creature, rather than upon the creature itself. Light taken into an area of magical darkness does not function, but if cast directly against magical darkness negates it (but only for the duration of the light spell, if the darkness effect is continual).
Light centered on the visual organs of a creature blinds it, reducing its attack rolls and saving throws by 4 and worsening its Armor Class by 4. The caster can end the spell at any time by uttering a single word.

Can you see the differences in approach? I'm trying to let that permeate the setting.

Describe a scene that you think would be a cool, easily possible, pay-off scene in role-playing this game

Ok, ok, enough already. I'll make an attempt.

After being hired by a villager to help protecting an isolated village from goblin raids, they discover that the goblins are actually afraid of something else which is why they settled near the village.
That something else turns out to be a spirit servant of the "Dark" that likes to feed on goblin flesh as well as the human variety. After defeating his zombie-servants they move into the temple where the spirit is sitting gnawing on human bones.

One of the more foolish of the adventurers decide to take him out where he stands and charges in with his spear but the Spirit simply turns and gazes at him. There is a faint "pop" sound as the rest of the group sees how the Spirit off-handedly sucks the soul out of his body. Terrified the adventurers grab the body of their friend and haul their collective asses out of there before the lazy spirit (they attacked him during the day) decides to follow them.

In safety they realize there is no way to revive their friend. To figure out what to do, the wisest of them turns to his tomes. Meanwhile the others are out in the wilderness hunting for a special herb which will protect their fallen compatriot's body safe until they can kill the Spirit and recover his soul.

The follow night, one of them, she who is wise in the old ways, sits guarding the body of the soul stolen one to keep the possessing spirits at bay. The herb is put in the mouth of their friend, and also some is burned creating a strange, musty scent. The others can only try to sleep the best they can as the mystic chants ancient verses of protection.

The next time they are tired and edgy, but they have to face brave the danger. From the ashes of the burned herb the wise one mixes a paint which is used to draw witch-seals of protection.

Again they encounter the foul servants of the corrupted Spirit but they shy away from the mystic seals.

They find the Spirit carefully observing them this time, aware of the danger it is in. His powers negated by the seals he summons his magical trident which comes floating into his clawed hand. Although his shape is vaguely human, his shark-like smile definately isn't.

One of the adventurers step forward to challenge the beast with his sword and the Spirit answers by thrusting his trident into action. But before it can hit, the old trapper let's an arrow fly.
It lodges just above the eye and the Spirit howls as the bold swordman only narrowly escapes the attack of the death trident.

(ok, this is getting too long, but basically the spirit will get his ass wiped a little, then pretend he's losing the fight but in fact starting to control the adventurer who had his soul sucked out. This give the spirit a chance to escape, but they follow him where they are attacked by more of his minions. Eventually though, they get close enough to cut his outer guise into pieces. The Spirit then tries to flee into the soul realms, but one of the adventurers have a Soul Bottle in which they trap the spirit. Their friend is restored to his old self and they seal up the bottle and leave it at a temple where they possess the knowledge on how to safely keep it imprisoned or something like that)

[Christoffer Lernö]

PF is saying "setting", but his post above sounds like the Forge definition of "color", at least it does to me.

Maybe I am. Because for me, the most important stuff is not in the main setting. Throw in a race, add a war here... those things really doesn't matter. There are a number of ways to capture what I want, so a lot of the details could actually be removed or put in without any problem while still conforming to the essence of my idea.

There are some things that are essential and some which are helpful but not truly essential, while for the most part stuff is replaceable without altering the essence.

And, of course, I assume this means he wants a game that will not only allow, but actually encourage, the creation of scenes, or "moments" within gameplay, that carry the same emotional impact.

Yes, something like that.

If that's the case, I think three things need to exist:

1. The setting has to be there, with the proper components in place to allow cool scenes to be constructed.

2. The system has to free up the players enough to allow those scenes to actually occur.

3. The game's actual Color needs to properly inspire the players to want to create similar scenes.

I agree.

1. This is what I'm labouring with the most. Although I have the essentials in place (the proper components), I need to provide more material to actually give a complete setting. Now this is my chance to add some personal flavour, but I also have to be careful so that I don't impair the chances to create the scenes I'm looking for. What I think is neat might totally destroy the feeling for someone else. That's why I try to keep to standard fantasy as much as possible.

2. Usually combat is the big problem here, so I try to do away with that problem (by using fast mechanics I know to be fairly easy to visualize). Other tweaks I'm doing is allowing players to actually rely on their abilities. It's not gonna be another of those games where it's like: "oh, you are a master of swimming so you have a 90% chance of surviving swimming across the lake, but that also means you have a 10% chance of drowning just like a person not knowing how to swim in the first place". Having degrees of success is a step in the right direction, but randomness still is a big problem (the problem is that the GM needs randomness, while players want to be able to rely on the ability of their characters).
I have a way to solve that though (a simple method really, the difficulty is determined by the GM making a roll, which eliminates the need for heavy randomness in the skill roll - I can elaborate on it if it's interesting)

3. Yeah, again it's important that I bring out the essence of what makes people think "WOW! If that would happen it would be sooo cool!"

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok, ok, enough already. I'll make an attempt.

Which, at second glance, thoroughly sucked.

[Garbanzo]

pfire:

I think there's a clash in goals here.  

Forgites are used to going a little crazy with game design (I remember a thread about multiple characters interacting in the head of a single body...).  So everyone (myself included!) keeps offering you Great Advice to make Ygg. a little more distinctive, a little more out there, a little more unique.

Laurel puts this well:

In order to be successful beyond personal use ... any other new fantasy system is going to have to break the envelope and offer something that d20 can't. I don't mean just a new way to serve eggs aka a different way to cast spells or manipulate points on a character sheet. Its going to need to be unique at the core, not just the surface and the best way to start that is to offer a novel Premise. But even that isn't going to be enough, because if you look at the list Ron offered a couple posts up, even really well crafted fantasy games with novel and inspiring Premises have had a tough time competing in the market.

But from what you've said, you Very Definitely want to stay true to the roots of fantasy roleplay, namely DnD; you've said you want the overall picture to be so close that Ygg. goes on the same shelf as Palladium, Rifts, and all that.

There's a tension running through your threads where the collective voice of the Forge kees saying "Show me how you're game is breaking new ground - that will measure its value."  And you keep saying "I'm not interested in breaking new ground; value will come from covering the old ground better."

Question 1:
Does this feel like an accurate summation to you?

Question 2:
Given that you seem to feel solid with your setting and mechanics, what input are you looking for?  What questions are still looking for answers?

-Matt