Making sure things stay twisted....?

[cognis]

Hi there!

I've been away from roleplaying for a while, but just got back (enthusiastic friends willing to force-feed you sugar beverages and strap you to a pen and character sheet are a beautiful thing). I've been revising my TAYDS system, and have begun the real work on Godtown, a slightly unusual fantasy setting of hidden magics, political power plays and the Black Hat mage-hunters.

What I am worried about is living up to my sworn goal, and at this point, I think the people in here can be of immense help. I wrote TAYDS to provide a base for more immersive and, to be honest, twisted roleplaying. Not so much as to scare away mainstreamers, but enough to push them towards new ideas. A lot of my inspiration came from GNS discussion, and theoretical discussions elsewhere, but I tried presenting it in more simple ways, to ensure newcomer understanding.

My problem is, I am worried that Godtown is maybe beginning to be a bit too mainstream. I still believe the idea for the setting to be outside entirely conventional fantasy, and the playtests have shown that even hardened fantasy gamers act differently in Godtown than other settings; they grow cautious and inquisitive, and to some extent more mature in their approach to the game, and tend to focus more on narrative than arbitrary 'point' gains. But I am not sure that I am succesfully transfering this to my writings.

Anyone who wishes would be very welcome to just glance over the introduction chapter (pretty layout pending) of Godtown, available as PDF here (no, it's not a sales pitch, its just a (free) draft), and suggest how I can avoid my writing and setting design becoming too mainstream. You are free to do it with GNS or other such philosophies of gaming in mind, as long as you let me know that you do, to avoid confusion.

TAYDS itself will not be available as free PDF anymore soon, but people willing to help me out in this pickle can get a free version here.

[Seth M. Drebitko]

Ok I am starting to read through the system document and on thing that strikes me is layout (as you stated) and have run across some problems. At first glance where one section begins and another ends eludes me without having to search through...not gonna fly with most customers.

It appears by looking over the table of contents that the basic philosophy of the section encompasses around 30 pages, which to that average customer again is not something they are going to care to flip through when purchasing a game. I would trim this and include a very small section of it in your game, with the rest as an article online.

I am about to skim through it but if you could please give a post advising the following:

Pages x-x include introduction/philosophy

pages x-x include information on characters and character creation

pages x-x include information on rules for game play

Any other sections I have not taken into consideration if you could provide page number ranges for would assist in better maneuvering the sizable document.

As to your concerns on originality...why? What is so wrong about creating an awesome version of something else, in the end it's still awesome.  I have not as I stated fully looked over everything but from what I see setting wise things don't look to shabby. One thing that would help us out is possibly a filled out power 19, or the big three (which I prefer), as well as some more serious concerns for us to zero in on. Until we know a little more on exactly what you need the only thing right now I can generally offer is your delivery seems a bit daunting.

Regards, Seth
Sorry if it was short to the point with little actual guidance and I look forward to jumping into this stuff with you as it looks like you have put allot of work into it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Seth's points make a lot of sense to me.

I also found myself confused by your term "twisted," because when you went on and clarified, it somehow turned into "original." That leads me to two questions.

1. What do you mean by "twisted?" Unfamiliar to the people playing the game? Or disturbing in content? Or something else?

2. Is the value of play to be found in (a) learning a new way to play, or (b) in playing this way because it's fun on its own?

I may be over-reading into your post, but I'm getting the idea that you're designing as a way to convince others of something, along the lines of hey, these weird new games are too fun. If I'm right, then I suggest that you revise this goal. There is no way to design a game for people who are disinclined to play in the fashion you'd like them too.

The best you can do is design very well relative to a given aesthetic and experiential goal, and those folks who inclined to like it already (whether they know it or not) will be your audience.

Best, Ron

[cognis]

@ Seth: Are you sure you are reading the Godtown introduction? It is only 15 pages, you mentioned a 30 page introduction. The 272 page monster is the TAYDS OC (Original Concepts), a kind of 'behind the concepts of the system' book. I would not dare ask anyone to go through that whole thing without proper compensation

By 'twisted' I mainly mean that I do not want my first publically available setting to look too much like standard fantasy. I am re-reading some of my year-old notes from last I frequented The Forge, on player agendas, and tha tis helping focus me. Other concepts for enhancing the visibility of game world concepts designed to make the world seem distinct while keeping a basic tie to Fantasy are welcome. But I think I am very getting rusty; I don't even remember what a 'power 19' or the 'big three' are. Is there still a summary of concepts in here as there used to be? Maybe by brushing up on my 'Forgeology' I can answer my own questions

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Well, there's always the Provisional Glossary in the Articles section (see link at the top right of the webpage). Its first page is actually a seven-term model with a diagram; all the other terms are modifications of that basic framework. So all you really need are those seven terms and the picture.

"Big 3" and "Power 19" are sets of questions which other people have proposed at one time or another. You can find the relevant links in the sticky post that heads this forum.

So, by "twisted," all you mean is not standard fantasy? Geez, that's, well, not very twisted. There's already a hell of a lot out there that isn't standard fantasy. That's why it surprises me, in reading your PDF, to see dragons, elves, and archmages. I'm also seeing lots of dungeon-crawling outside the city.

Now, I do think that the basic idea of the city which always offers a new horizon, with new goals and yet new opportunities to over-reach oneself, is really cool. It reminds me of Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar and P.C. Hodgell's Tai-tastigon. What would you think of trashing the elves, the archmages, the dragons, and the dungeons completely? If the city is about deeper and deeper intrigue, higher and higher magic, and more and more risk and reward with every step, then why not let it be about the city and about the guilds, period?

Best, Ron

[cognis]

I found the glossary, that was the one I meant. I remember reading it almost religiously a year or so back for inspiration. And you've added to it since, I can see But what looks like it should be links don't seem to work, is that normal?

And you are right, it's not a Revolutionary Idea that I'm looking for, just a few nudges and a bit of added inspiration. I like the idea of twisting elves and dragons into something very different from their typical roles (elves->shady conspirators ruthlessly using humans to further their own race, dragons-> a slain race waiting to rise again). I think you you hit something on the archmages and dungeon references; archmages are still too vanilla, and the whole dungeon thing was a 'dont worry guys, still room for D&D-nuts' message that might have gone a bit too far. I'll trash the dungeons 99% (a small box somewhere saying "it's possible, but not the point"), tune up the elf and dragon twists, and see about reinventing the archmages. And the guilds will get a greater seat yet.

I still like to keep some fantasy elements, but for the purpose of going straight against expectations :-) Contrasts are the spice of stories!

[Ron Edwards]

Cool - as I said, the idea has a great Lankhmar vibe, so if you haven' t read the four classic collections of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, you have a treat in store. (Swords and Deviltry, Swords Against Death, Swords in the Mist, Swords Against Wizardry; there are others, but these are the ones I recommend.)

Notes on the glossary: no, I haven't added anything since the original posting. Also, the links were in fact intended to be links but they was never formatted properly, and since then, the linking code at the Forge has changed anyway. So it's a mess that needs fixing one day.

Since you've read the glossary, or more importantly the first page and the diagram, then I suggest working through your idea in terms of the Big Model. What you'll find is that one or another level speaks most strongly to you as a starting point - given what you've stated so far, I suspect it's the Situation component of the Exploration/SIS level. The idea is that situations resolve, but they always open the door to new situations of a deeper complexity.

So with that in mind, you can expand laterally to see how that idea relates to the other four components. What would characters look like, how might they be represented, that's Character; how they do things and how they change, that's System. The five components are all interrelated, so just enjoy seeing how they interact. One's easy in your case: Setting's a no-brainer, you have that down already.

But that's just one level. If you go upwards/outwards to the Social Contract level, you'll be thinking about how people will most effectively get together and interact in terms of play, and what actually is fun that brings them back to play again. If you go downwards/inwards into the Techniques level, you'll be thinking about the details of System, specifically resolution and reward mechanics ... but also, if I'm not mistaken, literally how these opened-doors of deeper complexity can be expressed as a feature of play.

If you can see why anyone would imagine this stuff, in the social circumstances that you're talking about, using the methods that you're coming up with, then you've hit upon Creative Agenda.

Try it and see!

Best, Ron

[cognis]

I have heard about Lankhmar before, and will keep an eye out for it. I am trying my hand at Terry Pratchet at the moment, though :-)

You really should consider making a reformated introduction to the terms in the glossary, IMHO. There is a lot of juicy stuff there, but it is written in a very 'academic' and hard to decipher way. I paid extreme attention to it when doing the Basic Philosophies chapter of TAYDS (you'd probably spot half the ideas from just looking at the TOC ), I am just trying to turn them in a direction that I can build a larger game upon. Much of it is made as highly excluding choices, which is great (strike that, it's essential) for stand-alone games. I am doing a less set thing, so I need to figure out how to make it more a matter of options than specific directions for the game. If I am making any sense, let me know, lol!

My primary thought here might actually be that I think much of the thought behind the glossary terms and related discussions is what is needed for a new breed of games (I am disliking the term 'game', and it's your fault; it feels 'gamist' to me now. Argh!), but it is still presented in a very 'raw', unprocessed fashion. It either takes the form of the raw theory, or of specific game examples. I am looking to make TAYDS take a spot somewhere in between, allowing less theoretically minded people direct access to these important concepts. I am not yet succeeding, but I am moving in the right direstion, I think.

(In that relation, I may or may not have a new term for your glossary: Eat Cake. The belief and intent that a set of Techniques can be used to combine two or all of Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist gaming behavior into the same rules, and even a single Social Contract).

[Seth M. Drebitko]

Seth: Are you sure you are reading the Godtown introduction? It is only 15 pages, you mentioned a 30 page introduction. The 272 page monster is the TAYDS OC (Original Concepts), a kind of 'behind the concepts of the system' book. I would not dare ask anyone to go through that whole thing without proper compensation

...the 272 page deal was the one I was reading. I had also given a glance over the Godtown though and it looks pretty sweet.
I would have to say though that what has currently been stated I agree with. I look to see what comes of this and will pay attention to provide any more insight I can think of.
Regards, Seth

[hix]

Ron, obviously GenCon's going to delay a response to this, but I've been having a whole bunch of insights after reading the following ...

I suggest working through your idea in terms of the Big Model. What you'll find is that one or another level speaks most strongly to you as a starting point

<snip ...>

If you go upwards/outwards to the Social Contract level, you'll be thinking about how people will most effectively get together and interact in terms of play, and what actually is fun that brings them back to play again. If you go downwards/inwards into the Techniques level, you'll be thinking about the details of System, specifically resolution and reward mechanics ... but also, if I'm not mistaken, literally how these opened-doors of deeper complexity can be expressed as a feature of play.

Apologies if this is thread-jacking Cognis, but I'm trying to clarify something.

It seems like the Big Model's main usefulness is in design. It encourages writing game texts that explain (or at least take into account) how the game uses all of the Big Model's layers (Social Contract, Exploration, Techniques, and Ephemera). It also encourages the game text to be upfront about what sort of Creative Agenda would best fit the Techniques and Ephemera the game text suggests you use.

(That paragraph may seem a little formal, but I'm trying to make sure I express myself clearly here.)

A secondary use of the Big Model is to figure out how particular play groups are using a particular game text, and whether that fits with their creative goals. Is that right - that this use of the Big Model is secondary to the goal of improving design? I'm not even sure that matters, but I'm trying to get it clear in my head.

This is all stuff I've probably read in other Forge threads over the last 5 years, but (for some reason) it's lifting the roof off my skull right now. Seeing it this way, the Big Model is a design tool about as useful as the Power 19.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

The Big Model is about role-playing, the activity. Therefore, if one is designing with actual play in mind (as opposed to textual imitation or to stay within distributors' comfort zone), then it should be applicable to that design process. That's the connection that you're seeing.

Best, Ron

[hix]

Thanks, Ron.