[Gods] The Myth Cycle

[R. Jason Boss]

Bret,

All I meant by ETA was some version that would be available for not-just-playtest.  Like, I wouldn't ask about a book because my question is more protean than that - I don't even know what your intended eventual format is.

Thanks,
Jason

[Bret Gillan]

Hey Jason,

I have absolutely no ETA right now for anything. After Tony's earlier threat of printing and selling Gods against my will, I'm definitely considering Gods as a product somewhere down the road. That somewhere, though, is at least a year of playtesting away. Once upon a time I could have been playtesting it three nights a week, but now with a full-time job, friends with full-time jobs, and a general lack of enthusiasm about playtesting my game in my local group, the amount of time I'll need to make sure this package does what I want it to do will be given a generous estimate. But who knows, maybe they'll say, "Screw Burning Wheel, we want Gods and we want it now!" :) But then there would be writing up the final copy, editing, layout, art, etc. etc. and I've never done anything like that before so...

My answer is: I have no idea. ;)

[R. Jason Boss]

::chuckles::  Thanks!  That's a perfectly good answer as far as I'm concerned.  I do now recall that earlier thread since you mention/link it.

Jason

[Threlicus]

One option you could consider is to allow some secondary options for branching, which are only available if someone invests Debt and splits off a third side in these conflicts. That way the tapestry has some richer possibilities, but you can still lay out the main paths through your tree.  Some examples that occur to me: The Great War could also plausibly lead to Wasteland or Disaster; Rise of an Empire could also lead to Golden Age, Birth of the Enemy, or Dark Age; Wasteland could even lead all the way back to the Untamed Wild, the Great Beasts, or possibly Age of Heroes.

I most particularly would be interested in allowing branching off the tight loop in The Great War and Rise of an Empire, since the other option is End Times; the choices seem a little constrained there.

[TonyLB]

One option you could consider is to allow some secondary options for branching, which are only available if someone invests Debt and splits off a third side in these conflicts.

Ooooooooh.  "Yeah, we can go that way, but only if somebody thinks it's cool enough to put themselves on the line for."

[Bret Gillan]

Threlicus, that's a great idea. I think I might even allow it so that you can stake Debt and split off a third side, allowing you to choose any Age if you do so. I think that resolves some of the qualms I had about the current path structure.

[Threlicus]

Threlicus, that's a great idea. I think I might even allow it so that you can stake Debt and split off a third side, allowing you to choose any Age if you do so. I think that resolves some of the qualms I had about the current path structure.

Well, if you're going to do that, you may as well let the player write up a whole new Age definition if they want to! The caveat is they have to fully specify it when they split off the side, including its 'free' leads (which must be from the pre-specified list or have been written up for prior Age conflicts), so the other players know what they're fighting about...

The Magic Returns
Magicians cannot be rulers
Magic must be small but potent

Leads: Disaster, The Golden Age

(or The Enemy is Born, or The Great War, or... geesh. This is all amazing stuff to work with. I so want to play a game of this.)

(Okay, the Code elements aren't great compared to your original post, but I'm sure players in real life with a story happening behind them can find better ones as they go...)

[TonyLB]

The freedom is (as Threlicus points out) really cool.

There's something a bit undermined, however ... In the existing setup (with only the prestructured branches allowed), Disaster, The Great War, Rise of an Empire and Wasteland are the serious ages.  They're the ones that could conceivably transition into the End Times.  You're one step away from disaster, and so the efforts you make during that Age are earning you resources that can mean the difference between the game ending and continuing.

Once anyone can jump to the End Times at any time, you're always potentially on the edge of the Apocalypse.  It makes the positioning within the sequence of eras into somewhat less of a big deal.

[Bret Gillan]

I think there's a lot of different ways you could go with the Myth Cycle - the free-for-all route, the rigid path structure route, the various areas in between. I'll probably stick with the more rigid Myth Cycle for convention play and initial playtesting, but the other possibilities will definitely be elaborated on in the text. I'm not sure if that seems screwy to present the Myth Cycle and then half a dozen different ways you can actually employ it.

[Hans]

Some questions/comments regarding the text:

Under the section "The Creation Myth", it seems to imply that there is one "character" called Creation in the middle of the table, that people add traits to.  Later on, you talk about Creations, being a kind of pared-down NPC for players to use.  May I suggest that this overlap of terminology is confusing?  Perhaps rename Creation to "The Cosmos", "The World" or similar, or let the players come up with a name appropriate to the type of myths they are making up?

The comics code for End Times in the list of myth cycles is different from that described in the section "On through the Ages".

My assumption is that the Creation Myth section comes to an end when all the empty boxes on Creation are filled?  I think this section needs some expanding, because I'm not exactly certain what purpose scenes serve here; is there some reason why players won't just keep laying conflicts to create the traits until they are all filled in one drawn out scene?  is there an advantage or disadvantage to doing it one way or the other I am missing?  Also, I think it should probably be Creation Myth Cycle, not Creation Myth.  There could be a number of myths associated with creation, as each part gets put in its place. 

[Bret Gillan]

Under the section "The Creation Myth", it seems to imply that there is one "character" called Creation in the middle of the table, that people add traits to.  Later on, you talk about Creations, being a kind of pared-down NPC for players to use.  May I suggest that this overlap of terminology is confusing?  Perhaps rename Creation to "The Cosmos", "The World" or similar, or let the players come up with a name appropriate to the type of myths they are making up?

Good catch. That definitely needs to be changed.

The comics code for End Times in the list of myth cycles is different from that described in the section "On through the Ages".

Yeah, the On through the Ages section was written before the Myth Cycle and I forgot to go back and change the On through the Ages.

My assumption is that the Creation Myth section comes to an end when all the empty boxes on Creation are filled?

You are correct.

I think this section needs some expanding, because I'm not exactly certain what purpose scenes serve here; is there some reason why players won't just keep laying conflicts to create the traits until they are all filled in one drawn out scene?  is there an advantage or disadvantage to doing it one way or the other I am missing?

You could do it in one drawn-out Scene or you could do it in multiple Scenes. It's just that it's entirely possible that all Conflicts could be cleared from the table before Creation (or rather what was formerly known as Creation) was filled, making more Scenes necessary. It's not a strategy thing.

Also, I think it should probably be Creation Myth Cycle, not Creation Myth.  There could be a number of myths associated with creation, as each part gets put in its place.

Well, all of those could be considered a part of the larger Creation Myth. The reason I used Creation Myth was simply the phrase that is typically used to describe stories across cultures that explain how the world was created, and it sounds cool. :) I suppose I could call it "Creation Myths."

[Hans]

I think this section needs some expanding, because I'm not exactly certain what purpose scenes serve here; is there some reason why players won't just keep laying conflicts to create the traits until they are all filled in one drawn out scene?  is there an advantage or disadvantage to doing it one way or the other I am missing?

You could do it in one drawn-out Scene or you could do it in multiple Scenes. It's just that it's entirely possible that all Conflicts could be cleared from the table before Creation (or rather what was formerly known as Creation) was filled, making more Scenes necessary. It's not a strategy thing.

The creation of Creation (or whatever its called) is very important, since that thing will be sitting on the table until the End Times, however long that will be.  Perhaps there COULD be some strategy involved?  Perhaps the god that wins the conflict gets some kind of preferential treatment on that element.  Perhaps veto power when someone else tries to use it as a check off.  Just an idea.  Also, can the elements of Creation be changed in the same way the elements on creations are, through meddling?

Some more questions/comments/suggestions:
Was it your intent, in expressly stating that, unlike Capes, the sides to a conflict represent specific outcomes, to preclude schisming to new sides in the "Goal: Create X" conflicts during the Creation Myth?

You may want to formalize the veto rules in the first paragraph under Omnipotence.  In the popcorn thread, I used the terms assertion and proposition; an assertion is a narration that no one can challenge by the rules, and can only challenge through popcorn (i.e. social feedback), a proposition is a narration that can be changed through the rules of the game.  I think that it needs to be clearly defined when a person can make assertions, and when they have to make propositions.  Capes has this; everything you say is an assertion.  You are stepping away from this, and should probably provide some rules to support the change.  Matt Wilson has an interesting rule in his new Galactic game called the Rule of Objection - if two people veto, then the person has to change what they said.  This makes all narration in Galactic a proposition, not an assertion, and gives a clear rule as to when it becomes part of the fiction (one or fewer people challenge it).

Do creations (not Creation) require a conflict to create them, or are they just drawn up like extra characters in Capes?  You give an example of someone having an Inspiration from "the God-Emperor of Korehl's 'Goal: Father an heir'" goal.  If the God-Emperor of Korehl was a creation, is it just pay a story token, write it up, or is it "Goal: Create God-Emperor". 

I am assuming that creation does not mean literal out of thin air creation and includes the results of meddling, so that, for example, Jason could be considered a "creation" of Apollo, because he was tutored by Chiron, Apollo's lackey.  Was this your intention?

My assumption is that Creation's traits only refresh at the beginning of a new Myth Cycle (although I can't find this in the rules at the moment).  I suggest that at the end of every scene, one Creation box is checked off if none were checked off during that scene, starting with the lowest number to the right?  In this way, you are always heading to the end of the current Myth Cycle, even if people aren't using Creation.  This provides at least some "push" to get through the current myth cycle; it has, at most, 5+4+3+1 (final) scene in it (13 scenes, a lot).  This rule may be unecessary in actual play, as those check offs are pretty tempting, but my concern is that near the end of an Myth Cycle the remaining Creation traits may just not seem very appropriate to what is going on, and difficult to narrate into the action.

[Bret Gillan]

Boy, fella. You're full of questions!

The creation of Creation (or whatever its called) is very important, since that thing will be sitting on the table until the End Times, however long that will be.  Perhaps there COULD be some strategy involved?  Perhaps the god that wins the conflict gets some kind of preferential treatment on that element.  Perhaps veto power when someone else tries to use it as a check off.  Just an idea.

I don't want to stack the rules too high, if you know what I mean. I'm adding some new elements to the Capes rules, but I don't want to run away with making it complex, and I worry that something like that may add an unnecessary level of complexity. I want to stay as close to the original Capes rules as I can.

Also, can the elements of Creation be changed in the same way the elements on creations are, through meddling?

The Cosmos (we'll call it that for now) can be changed through meddling, yes.

Was it your intent, in expressly stating that, unlike Capes, the sides to a conflict represent specific outcomes, to preclude schisming to new sides in the "Goal: Create X" conflicts during the Creation Myth?

Well, in Creation Conflicts and New Age Conflicts it was important that the outcomes be binary - either you add a new Trait to the Cosmos or you don't. Either you take one branch of the Myth Cycle or you take the other one. The goal was to make these Conflicts definitively resolve these issues one way or another, and making schisming unnecessary was a side-effect.

You may want to formalize the veto rules in the first paragraph under Omnipotence.  In the popcorn thread, I used the terms assertion and proposition; an assertion is a narration that no one can challenge by the rules, and can only challenge through popcorn (i.e. social feedback), a proposition is a narration that can be changed through the rules of the game.  I think that it needs to be clearly defined when a person can make assertions, and when they have to make propositions.  Capes has this; everything you say is an assertion.  You are stepping away from this, and should probably provide some rules to support the change.

I'm not clear on how I'm stepping away from the way Capes does this, because it sure isn't my intention to. Could you clarify?

Do creations (not Creation) require a conflict to create them, or are they just drawn up like extra characters in Capes?  You give an example of someone having an Inspiration from "the God-Emperor of Korehl's 'Goal: Father an heir'" goal.  If the God-Emperor of Korehl was a creation, is it just pay a story token, write it up, or is it "Goal: Create God-Emperor". 

Creations are created as characters and can be introduced at the beginning of a Scene. They do not require a Conflict to create.

I am assuming that creation does not mean literal out of thin air creation and includes the results of meddling, so that, for example, Jason could be considered a "creation" of Apollo, because he was tutored by Chiron, Apollo's lackey.  Was this your intention?

Yep. It's intended to be flexible. A Creation could be something the God created out of thin air, a child of the God, a chosen individual who the God is interested in, etc.

My assumption is that Creation's traits only refresh at the beginning of a new Myth Cycle (although I can't find this in the rules at the moment).  I suggest that at the end of every scene, one Creation box is checked off if none were checked off during that scene, starting with the lowest number to the right?  In this way, you are always heading to the end of the current Myth Cycle, even if people aren't using Creation.  This provides at least some "push" to get through the current myth cycle; it has, at most, 5+4+3+1 (final) scene in it (13 scenes, a lot).  This rule may be unecessary in actual play, as those check offs are pretty tempting, but my concern is that near the end of an Myth Cycle the remaining Creation traits may just not seem very appropriate to what is going on, and difficult to narrate into the action.

Yes, the traits of the Cosmos (formerly known as Creation) refresh at the beginning of a new Age.

And in response to your automatic check-off suggestion, tt this point, I'm going to opt not to make one Trait checked off at the end of a Scene so that a player group could stave off advancing to the next Age by all choosing not to use those check-offs. I'm not really sure what the good would be in "forcing" an Age advance.

Thanks again for all your thoughts, Hans!

[Bret Gillan]

Hans, maybe we should take this to e-mail, unless this conversation is particularly fascinating to anyone out there.

[oreso]

i totally need you to do this game. A prime occupation of many would-be roleplayers is world building, and i have some people i could sell this to for its weight in gold pressed latinum.

I'm thinking the any age leads to any thing else is good, but i liked the structure of the tree thing to ease the newbies in.
I'd go for something like: http://www.geocities.com/maxkill666/Gods.pdf if the players are going by the "default scenario". That way you could pretend its like a tech tree in age of empires or something. :D

Assuming the entire thing could be played through in a session or two, the default scenario as a whole is then the 'extended creation myth' for the campaign proper because by then you should have enough material to guide things to custom ages better. The end results are not really the end, just the beginning.

eg: Divine Paradise: Polaris style catastrophe. Schism on how to run things. Human nature exerts itself.
Transcend: The transcendant beings are competing with each other using their own creations. The Transcendant beings become jealous of the Gods, or the lesser beings jealous of the transcendant ones.
etc.