Figuring out my setting (call it Yggdrasil or something)

[Valamir]

After reading over the description of Death Lanterns vs "Light Spell", I think I understand what PF is about.

I think he's looking for imagery, style, and yeah Scott, I agree Color.

In fact, I think he's thrashing about in the exact same pool I am.  Where as I want to capture the imagery and cinematic flair of westerns in an RPG, he's looking for the same thing in standard fantasy.

I started a thread on rewarding color, and while it drew some interesting comments it didn't draw out the discussion I was looking for.  I think Pale Fire is having trouble kick starting the discussion he's looking for, for exactly the same reason.  Imagery is just hard to articulate.

How do you capture a sense of wonder in an RPG?  Sure we've all seen elves and dwarves before, but have we felt them.  Has a dwarf ever been anything more than a short surly human?  They feel alien, and wondrous in fairy tales...never in an RPG.  Is it even possible to design an RPG that captures this?

What I gather from Pale Fire's comments is he isn't interest in revolutionizing mechanics, or setting.  He's happy with basic fast play resolution and standard fantasy fare.  What he's interested in is capturing the sense of wonder and awe and magic in his standard fantasy game that's missing from most standard fantasy games.

Thats what the Death Lantern example says to me.  Even with a description as rough and non poetic as what he wrote above, I immediately FELT the Death Lantern spell, in a way one could never feel a Continual Light spell.  There was wonder there, and if the text was polished up and accompanied by a great piece of art of some wizard in a blowing wind with dancing fire sprites around his head it would be a fantastic fantasy image.

Problem is PF, I don't know how you go from that freeze framed image and translate it across an entire roleplaying game.  But I'm tending to think that standard mechanics and system isn't going to get you there because it will cause people to think in terms of dice and stats, which is anathema to wonder and awe.


Thats how I sees it anyway.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Here is my problem with the stated task at hand. It's why I anticipated that PF's answer would be unsatisfying, even to PF, at least at first pass.

As it stands, we are looking at an RPG with all the standard elements of an 80s fantasy game. Now "fix" every detail: races, combat maneuvers, weapon types, each and every spell, creatures, probably geography, cultures ... everything. By "fix," I mean imbue it with the kind of imagery that PF has described - turn every aspect of the game into a Hildebrandt painting.

[So, uh, how big is this game? I am imagining 800 pages of hefty textbook. But that's logistics, and never mind that. Let's talk actual play.]

This means that the primary job of the GM is to read and internalize all this material, as well as to channel it to the players instance by instance, detail by detail, image by image. That means that the players' job is to accept and be awed by this material, in a passive sense, throughout the process. "This game is so cool!" they say ... but they are referring to the imagery, and that requires a continual flow of imagery to them and a continual willingness to be "on the nipple" as the primary act of role-playing. How long do you think they will actually do this, performing same-old mechanics and relying on what the Neat Paragraph Says, as channeled by the GM, for their entertainment?

Bluntly - I do not think this is an attractive design goal, not only for me as an individual, but as a role-playing endeavor in the first place. At best, it could be a coffee-table book of Kewl Stuff, for which - oddly - the only analogue I can really think of is Earthdawn, which is exactly what PF criticizes in his other thread. Or perhaps the Dangerous Journeys books, the GW game by Gary Gygax - color, color, color, all the way through, to the point of exhaustion.

We are talking about a 1969 car - dress up its fins, buff the chrome, cover the seats with leather, and it's still just a big metal rectangle that can't handle, can't accelerate, and guzzles gas so fast that it's cost-ineffective actually to go anywhere. Yes, it's fun for a while to pass one's hands over the finish or to admire the model perched on the hood in the commercial. To own? To drive? Ultimately, all you'll catch are people who (1) are into retro stuff and/or (2) will seize the next pretty, hyped object that comes along just as swiftly as they seized yours (and the one before that).

Pale Fire, I suggest looking into the financial history of games that fit this profile. You might be shocked to learn that D&D, at the height of its "popularity" and its emphasis on Kewl Settings,  was losing money hand over fist. You'll note FASA went bankrupt during its tenure with Earthdawn and other Kewl-Setting games. You'll see that not one, single Fantasy Heartbreaker from my essay has been anything but a discount-bin disposable.

I'm not sure what else to say. Unless your second pass with the task that you yourself posed ("radically different emphasis on the details") is more successful, I can only say, System Does Matter and move on.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I think perhaps your analysis is a bit extreme, Ron.  Remember Pale Fire also started the thread on designing a Fantasy World that DIDN'T try to define all of this stuff in advance.  It doesn't sound to me like what he wants to wind up with is an 800 page world book.

I suspect, that what the issue is, is "how does one convey the imagery of fantasy art in a fantasy RPG".

I think that is the "radically different emphasis" he's going for.  

I'd agree that right now that "radically different emphasis" exists only in his head and is not part of the game as he's described it so far.

[Christoffer Lernö]

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.

Yes, quite so. Well it's not that I want to do D&D, but I want to do rather mainstream fantasy and D&D is smack in the middle of mainstream. I can't really avoid 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?

1. Yeah, pretty much.

2. Well, there's a lot of stuff I'm uncertain about. I have about 20% of the setting nailed down. These 20% are ideas I feel pretty sure are superior to the usual stuff you get when you play a fantasy RPG. These 20% contains the things I miss the most in when I play fantasy RPGs.

But that's only 20%. If I'm really sure about the 20% then I'm similarly really NOT sure what to do with the remaining 80%. Some of it will be borrowed from mainstream fantasy, and some will be new stuff.

I don't have a problem with coming up with a remaining 80% with totally new stuff, but then you'd only be certain of originality, not quality :)

What I really want to know is when I'm crossing the line from mainstream fantasy into something.. well, different.

I don't want an RPG where concepts need to be explained to players familiar with mainstream fantasy. They will see familiar things, with similar names but exectuted differently. Valamir nailed it down neatly.

But why don't I give examples and maybe you can help me along.

(I hope people don't mind that I change the subject slightly halfway though this posting)

Races
I pretty much decided on elves, trolls, dwarves, humans and giants (remember Ygg is supposed to have a light touch of norse mythology).

Giants won't be a PC race, but they're important.

Beyond that I'm uncertain. I made some races for the outskirts of the world: A race of triclops and another race of kentaur-like creatures with lion bodies.

These later two races would be a little too off the mainstream fantasy so I had to put them more like exotica rather than player races (I'm also pondering a four-armed humanoid race somewhere remote)

There are the intelligent apes worshiped in the southern jungles but they too are put far away from the adventure region to prevent it from interfering with the fantasy flavour.

What I was thinking of actually putting into the adventure regions would first be a race of ugly dwarf sized creatures which I for convenience called goblins. They would be rather bad at fighting and actually a PC race and not NPCs only. Their great strength would lie in languages. They can learn languages extremely quickly. Other than that they tend to be pretty greedy. Think skinny, ugly dwarves.

Then there would be another goblin race, related to the goblins above but rather more hostile. They look like the goblins above on steroids with dispropornate limbs, even uglier faces and really sharp teeth. They're bad business and would work like the standard fare of bad guys, much like orcs does in other games.

I'm a little unsure if these two would be ok. The question is: "Is it still enough mainstream fantasy for people to classify the world as such if I add these races?"

But only evil goblins on steroids makes for a poor sortiment of resistance to give the players.

Of course there is THE DARK, or whatever I should call it - a force which is creating undead creatures here and there. It shouldn't be a dominating story factor though. Maybe 5%-10% of all adventures should involve the undead caused by THE DARK.

So anyway, I need other things. I thought of another race, lets call them "ogres". Not that they look anything like the AD&D ogres though. They're more like a cross between elves, giants and trolls. They usually have special abilites and can shapeshift in some manner. Since they are strong but not as strong as giants with an endless number of specific powers they are the ultimate category of bad guys. Because they are each very unique the race would seem more like a type of beings rather than a specific race.

It would work well for adventures, but again - would it still be mainstream?

I realize these questions might seem a little odd to most people here, but you should be as qualified to answer them as anyone, right?

(This is just something to get started, I have a lot of other ponderings as well, but one thing at a time)

[Ron Edwards]

(Weeping)

PF, man, everything you've described is so mainstream it squeaks. I don't care if they're triclops or quadriclops ... they're still cyclops. You've described D&D goblins - call them skinny ugly dwarves, and they're still goblins; you've described D&D orcs to a T, and even if you call them goblins-on-steroids, that's what they are.

Ralph, this thread is completely distinctive from PF's other thread. I grok that thread entirely, as you know, and I totally support his points there. It is a source of consternation to me that the same person could have posted the topic of this thread (and its parent thread). That's why I am so focused on nailing down this one's point, and not letting it go. By definition, PF stated that this thread's purpose was completely unrelated, and he is definitely not employing the open-ended approach he describes in the other one's.

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Now "fix" every detail: races, combat maneuvers, weapon types, each and every spell, creatures, probably geography, cultures ... everything. By "fix," I mean imbue it with the kind of imagery that PF has described - turn every aspect of the game into a Hildebrandt painting.
[So, uh, how big is this game? I am imagining 800 pages of hefty textbook. But that's logistics, and never mind that. Let's talk actual play.]

I'm lazy. I don't want to write 800 pages of setting, hell even 10 pages is a strain. So how do I put the feeling there? Well, just an idea off the top of my head: what about not removing it in the first place?

Fantasy games are always about disillusionment for me. You have a nice cover, a good image, you want to play characters like that, experience situations like that. But once you start wading through the rules you discover that you can't actually play those characters. Or have those particular situations. In fact most things that happen in your imagination, or in books (pre AD&D) and movies CAN'T HAPPEN, because of the rules.

I don't have the same problem with other genres. Call of Cthulhu stories, for example, could happen just like the books (but usually they were even BETTER).

Why does it work with CoC for me but not in fantasy? Because CoC has a better rule system? Hardly. Why then? Well because the rules are not interfering with the flow of the setting. Who cares in CoC how good you are at fighting or how the fighting system works. You usually either a) go insane or b) run away before it get's anywhere close to combat.
The rest of the system is the same. The point is that it doesn't stop the players from having stories the once they could imagine from seeing pictures and reading books.

In fact I think this is mainly a problem with fantasy.

So, I'm not gonna do anything that hasn't been achieved before (which you're implying with the "800 pages of textbook" comment).

It's not about pushing my particular idea of fantasy onto others, it's showing there's a way to do any type fantasy you like. That you can play that fantasy movie you liked, if you like to.

You'll note FASA went bankrupt during its tenure with Earthdawn and other Kewl-Setting games.

My game is not about "kewl" it's about being able to capture the sense of wonder, just like Valamir says. Ultimately my setting is disposable, but if I make it right, people should have gotten more than one hint on how you can do standard fantasy in other ways than AD&D (and similar games).
What I'm trying to say is that I'm modelling the system around the setting. That's nothing new. What's new is sacrificing artificial (system built in) game balance to make sure no part of the setting is amputated in the process.

For the magic, which is the most imbalanced thing in my world, I've tried to provide consistent, fun and hopefully atmosphere-enhanching ways contering that imbalance to make it reasonable that magic still had little impact on world history.

This is a trend in general in my game, no attempt to balance things in the game system but render the system as faithful as possible to the setting, and find ways for the setting to balance itself.

[Nathan]

Pale Fire,

Your ideas are great ideas -- but like Ron says, they are not unique. I think what you are striving for is a feeling of awe -- unfortunately, I don't think you can package that in a game. A game cannot provide that out of the box. I've felt awe in roleplaying games at the most oddest times -- usually, when I am not trying to. If I try, my half-assed efforts at being poetic and glorious descriptive just hit the dirt HARD. On the other hand, if I focus on enjoying myself and engaging my players, I can find a few of those awe moments when everyone goes "oohhh".

I think you have some material there that would work with a D&D game. Ultimately, any game system will become routine and mechanical at some point -- at some point, every magic system will become hohum and an exercise in tactis (at some level). Therefore, your best bet is not to try to create something new that captures awe -- which is nigh impossible.

A ton of threads here on Indie RPGs have discouraged me lately, because people are not designing games. They are redesigning things or just sharing ill-fated ideas. If this can really become a game Pale Fire, then write it up right now. Have the rough draft ready by tomorrow - or the next day -- but have it ready, then come back and post.

I don't mean that as a slight to you or anyone on Indie RPGs, but sitting here and talking about what you vaguely want will never help. Write it. Then we can look at it and analyze.

Thanks,
Nathan Hill
nathan@mysticages.com

[Christoffer Lernö]

(Weeping)
PF, man, everything you've described is so mainstream it squeaks. I don't care if they're triclops or quadriclops ... they're still cyclops.

Err, ok, by that comment I'm assuming you never read the 3x3 eyes manga :) It's way off the mark but that might not be relevant to the point you're trying to make.

You've described D&D goblins - call them skinny ugly dwarves, and they're still goblins; you've described D&D orcs to a T, and even if you call them goblins-on-steroids, that's what they are.

Ok, you may weep but I'm really, really serious about this. Is it mainstream enough to be identified as such, then that's a relief for me.

By definition, PF stated that this thread's purpose was completely unrelated, and he is definitely not employing the open-ended approach he describes in the other one's.

Ok, Ron I don't follow you. How would I make it "open-ended"?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I just want to agree with Nathan, and then drop this sub-thread: people aren't designing games on here anymore. It was OK for a week or two, but games need to start being created now.

[Christoffer Lernö]

If this can really become a game Pale Fire, then write it up right now. Have the rough draft ready by tomorrow - or the next day -- but have it ready, then come back and post.

Actually I got most of the system already (that means 90+%). I'm a little undecided about some things in regards to the character creation but those are minor points. I've revised it many many times, but now I find less and less I can simplify or which I need to change. Which seems to indicate it's actually closing in on being finished.

The thing is the world, which is what I PERSONALLY am interested in. I have a world but it's not completed, it's going back and forth and I can't decide on many things because to me they're pretty much equal. That's what I REALLY wanted to mail about, but ehem, the question of whether I should bother or not kind of got in the way.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey PF,

"How would I make it "open-ended"?"

You can't. Nor did I suggest that you should.

Your proposal on a previous thread, and continuing onto this one, is to begin with a totally standard fantasy RPG and inject a different emphasis via the details. So far, I'm afraid, I don't see any such thing, I see standard fantasy in RPG terms. Let me repeat: I see only standard fantasy in RPG terms, which was not what you said that you wanted to do.

Your other thread presented a totally different proposition, regarding creating a setting through actual play. (Why am I explaining this? It was your thread ...) We can discuss it there, but I did not suggest, and do not now suggest, that Yggdrasil be "made" to conform with that topic.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Ouch, Pale Fire...you were on to something I think...you really were.  The Death Lanterns thing was just shimmering.

But this last post.  Man, like a bucket of cold water.  I'm going to ask Ron to pass me some of his tissues.

Mainstream?  You're way beyond keeping it mainstream and smack dab in carbon copy town.  Your goblins and ueber goblins are so basic D&D-esque that I can't fathom how you can then question whether they're mainstream enough.  

I really think your idea of mainstream has the stream WAY too narrow.  

I think you're selling yourself short by worrying about all this mainstream stuff.  You have some cool visions in your head.  Go with those.  Ditch these preconcieved notions of what fantasy is and isn't supposed to have in it.  If you want to capture the imagery of fantasy art, than go look at some fantasy art.  The artists aren't concerned with whether the creature is a goblin or an orc, or what color the dragon is.

If you think you'll attract a larger audience to your game by making it "like mainstream fantasy, just different in the details" you won't.  That road is littered with the corpses of games already.  Ron calls 'em Fantasy Heartbreakers, and that's where the above post has you screaming full steam towards.

If you just have to get all of this stuff down and make a game out of, I wish you the best of luck.  As has been noted, most of us here designed our first game exactly like what you're embarking on.  In the end it was good experience, but nothing more than "home brew".

The Forge isn't really geared towards providing support for "home brew".  Everyone and their brother's got six or seven of those.  The Forge is geared towards indie-publishing.  

I'd love to see your work developed here, because parts of it really have me intrigued.  But for my part "Just another game with dwarves" doesn't sound all that appealing.  I've got a half dozen of those of my own.



My advice, and I mean this sincerely.  Start over.  Focus on that one inspirational image, that one source of wonderment that set you on the game design path to begin with.  Take that image, that inspiration and make your game about THAT.

Don't start with what you didn't like about other games, don't start with what you found disatisfying...that is the road to the mundane.  Start with what you think is just extraordinary fantasy, and go from there.

You don't need to populate a world with a dozen races, been done.  The only thing you can do differently is draw a different shaped map.  Take a page from your other thread about designing a fantasy world.

I don't know, start with a short story.  Write the coolest fantasy story you can imagine and fill it full of fantastic images like Death Lanterns and other things I'm sure you have in your head.  Then write the game that lets you play that story.  It doesn't matter if the whole story occurs in just a tiny corner of the world...thats all you need.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Your other thread presented a totally different proposition, regarding creating a setting through actual play. (Why am I explaining this? It was your thread ...) We can discuss it there, but I did not suggest, and do not now suggest, that Yggdrasil be "made" to conform with that topic.

Ok, now I'm following you. Well since you suggested it would need 800 pages of text to convey the setting I understand what you're coming from.

What I want to provide with Ygg beyond the mechanics of the system is:

* A set of PC races

* A set of monsters

* A loose mythology

* A background which allows the GM to expand the world pretty much as he feels fit.

* A magic with fits with mythology and background (built into the system more or less)

* An adventure - mainly there to show how you could build stuff for the world (it will provide a city, a little wilderness, a village and a ruin for inexperienced GMs to use as templates) and how the pieces of the setting described above fits together
[/list:u]

The background, monsters and PC races should not deviate much from mainstream fantasy, but there is no such constriction on magic, mythology (but that one isn't too likely to be too innovative anyway, old myths of earth are more imaginative than anything I could put in) and adventure.

Am I still at odds with what I said in the other thread?

[Ron Edwards]

Pale Fire,

I think you need to do a careful review of everything posted to you on this thread. Your responses are becoming more and more disconnected from the points of our posts.

For instance, the size of your game is irrelevant to the main point at hand. I mentioned it as an aside, to emphasize that for a GM to internalize all the Color would be a lot of work. I identified it as an aside, which is to say, please pay attention to the more relevant portions of the post.

Another side-topic seems to be the relation of this thread to the thread about setting-creation through play. That was brought up by Ralph; I responded to Ralph, and the issue is resolved. Again, it's not germaine to the point at hand.

The point at hand is best expressed most recently by Ralph. If you want to invoke a sense of wonder, just as you describe regarding fantasy artwork, then do so, and have that be the foundation.

I am now going to lay down a Moderator Decree. At this time, it is clear that you do not, actually, have a game design in hand. Until you focus your points better, and until you can provide more meat for discussion in terms of an actual playable game, further attention from ourselves regarding your Yggdrasil setting is a waste of time. I suggest not posting about it again until you can present something of substance. I also am closing this thread unless such a thing is immediately forthcoming.

If you want to discuss game elements or design at a more theoretical level, then take the topic to RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Mainstream?  You're way beyond keeping it mainstream and smack dab in carbon copy town.  Your goblins and ueber goblins are so basic D&D-esque that I can't fathom how you can then question whether they're mainstream enough.

Oh for * sake ;) Don't get a hang up on the names. Please. But then again I know I do too, which was why I never called elves "elves" in my game but the "witchpeople" (which would be the name humans gave them since they had all those freaky powers like shape shifting).

The goblin isn't an D&D goblin just because it is called "goblin" (well not in my game anyway). Unless you think Yoda is a typical example of a D&D goblin don't say it's a typical D&D goblin please.

And their hunchbacked evil cusins doesn't look like any orc in a roleplaying game I ever saw.

But I can't convey that. It could fit being a folklore style goblin, which is why I used that name. Same with the trolls. You're probably thinking either Tolkien, AD&D or Earthdawn style things here while they're neither.

The trolls have more in common with the mystics of Dark Crystal than any of the above mentioned settings. And female trolls don't look ugly at all, in fact they look totally human, except for the tail and tufts on their ears.

But of course you're not gonna see that because I haven't explained those things yet. I guess when I said details where different you didn't really think I meant it that way.

Ron saw cyclopses in my race of three eyed humanoids which looks almost identical to humans except for their third eye (nothing really new mind you, (three eyed humanoids I mean) but it illustrates the difficulty I have in conveying my ideas without any pictures.