Not enough "fantasy" in my fantasy world

[Egonblaidd]

I originally came here to ask a simple question, but the more I think about my RPG, the more I question it's foundation.  Maybe there's nothing wrong with it and these feelings of doubt will pass, but I don't know.

As I compare my RPG's goals, namely, to immerse the players in a rich fantasy world where they can go on adventures and perform great deeds, to what my world offers players, I seem to be hitting far from the mark.  My world is dull; you have twelve different kinds of humans to play, every major nation's biggest problems are economic or political in some way, any major evils are far removed from civilization and not really interested in world domination.  I feel like I need to draw a line down my map and say, "the guys on this side are now all orcs," or something.  Right now it feels like the players might as well don cloaks, go and camp in the woods for two days, and then walk to a town and ask for work.  It seems like the most dramatic thing in my world is on par with today's economic troubles.  My world is too close to the real thing.

I think that the problem is that my world is incomplete.  I can only see the details that I've come up with myself.  When I try and add descriptions of the world to my rule set, I think I'll be forced to come up with more details that will make the world more interesting.

What are some things I can do to enrich the fantasy setting without seriously altering my world?

[Egonblaidd]

I think I may have started off on the wrong foot when I began this project.  My best bet seems to start over and rewrite the whole thing after considering a number of things about what my goals are and how I can accomplish them.  And of course I can recycle anything that fits the new design.

As for this point in particular, my best bet may be to start with a generic Tolkienesque world and mold it into a more detailed shape as I go.  Or to create the world in a similar method as the game itself, by starting off with questions of the world's purpose within the game and how to accomplish that.

[Callan S.]

Hi Egonblaidd,

How would you define a 'great deed' in your own words? Perhaps writing that out will help you figure what the game world needs...or perhaps already has?

[whiteknife]

Nothing is stopping you from having rifts to the spaces beyond time and space open, devastating the world and warping what's left as hordes of demons and worse beasts swarm over the land, only able to be opposed by a small group of heroes who have received great power from the cataclysm in an epic showdown for all the ages.

Seriously though, if things are boring just inject all sorts of crazy shit until things are interesting enough. Maybe everyone on one side of a line actually does become an orc. Maybe the players were on that side of the line? What caused it? Are things going to get worse? Just because you're an orc are you evil now? Are you going to be hunted by the humans, who are now using you as a convenient scapegoat for their economic issues?

[Simons]

(Before I start, I should mention that I've always had a bias to be intrigued by realistic fantasy, especially the morally ambiguous variety, where even though you think your side is good, if you had started on their side, you might think they were good)

Stupid question, but what do you define as a "great evil"?  Hitler was born of massive political and economic problems.  So was Napoleon (or at least political).  So was communism.  So were the crusades.  And many have argued that so is the war on terrorism.  There have always been wars and dictators (not to mention plagues).  Can this not be made epic enough (I mean, how many comparisons have been made between LotR and WWII)?  

And if you're looking for more, what about people who want to colonize the wide-open spaces with the big evils?  Why are people not going out there?  Can your world have its own Lewis and Clark's?

And if this really is not enough, I say take whiteknife's advice, and add crazy shit.  One way to think about it: science fiction authors take our current world (which is roughly functional) inject targeted bits of craziness, or even just hyperbole, into it, and take it to it's logical(?) conclusion.  Can you do that with your world (it might almost be easier if you can add in "oh, and there are wizards that do this")?  It might add a neat feel to it.

Just a thought.

Simon

"The only difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be credible." – Mark Twain

[Egonblaidd]

Hmm, it took me so long to type this that there have been three replies since I started.  So this post might not respond to some of yours.

I did some reading up, mostly on Troy's blog, Socratic Design, and thought a lot about the Big Three and what my game was really going to be about.  I followed his advice and just wrote what I thought a session, adventure, and campaign would look like, then looked at what I had.  From that I got these answers to the Big Three:

1. What is the game about?

Morality versus Ambition.  What is important to the characters?  What are they willing to do to accomplish their goals?

2. What do the characters do?

The characters make choices that lead to the completion of some final goal.  These choices can be difficult and war with different aspects of a character's personality, or with that character's desire to accomplish his or her goals and that character's beliefs or morals.  Every choice has consequences; is a character willing to pay the price to achieve his or her goals?

3. What do the players do?

The players experience the moral ambiguity of the world through their characters, wading through everyday gritty greyness when suddenly faced with opportunity, with a price.  And yet, through it all, there is always a right choice, even if the player just can't find it.

For some reason, I started off by saying a session was trying to accomplish some goal, and things just took off from there.  It seems that what at least this initial concept is about is morality vs. ambition; are you willing to compromise for an easy success?  Not everyone will be a paladin, but every character should have things that are important to that character, preferably that relate somehow to that character's goal.  What might start as a quest to avenge a fallen family member might turn into a mad rush for power if a character compromises his or her morals in order to achieve his or her goal.  One point I want to get across is that none of the choices may appear to be the right one, but a right choice always does exist, even if you never find it.

I must say that this was not what I had in mind at all a few minutes ago, so the old system that I had been working on may or may not work with this concept, in which case I can either make a new system or make a new concept.  Just looking at those goals, it looks like the system should be "rules lite", and for some reason I find it much more interesting to design "rules heavy" systems.  I revel in complexity.  I should probably try my hand at a Gamist type, though I'm leaning more toward doing a Narrative type, because I don't want to make a game about "killing monsters and taking their stuff."  The above concept is interesting, but I'm not sure it's what I want to pursue in a game design.

In any case, I'm still early on in my design, so it's definitely not too late to start over no matter what I decide to do.  Creating a world is not that easy though, the one I was going to use had been outlined a while back.  I suppose it would be alright if you wanted to do a campaign where a bunch of the nations go to war with each other for one reason or another, and one or more groups of characters are running around resolving certain issues having to do with disinherited princesses or evil despots and whatnot.  You know, the kind of thing that would make a good book, but isn't really good for roleplay (I mean, if the players botch it up, thing are bad).  "High" fantasy seems to me to be another way of saying, "here's the script, I'll let you know if you guys start deviating from it."  If high fantasy types of settings where actually played out as some of the darker RPGs were, then nine times out of ten the world would burn, that is if the players didn't join the bad guys or even usurp the arch villain's position.  Not that I mind the high fantasy setting, I just think "the world" is too high a stake to put on the shoulders of a bunch of roleplayers.  Well, if you want to have more adventures in the same world, that is.  You could always start over, I suppose, but it would be interesting to play in a world suffering the consequences of the characters' actions.  You just need to have a world left to play in.  But maybe I'm just babbling at this point, which wouldn't surprise me since it's 2am here right now.  I should probably go to bed or something.

[Abkajud]

The "Devices and Desires" series, by KJ Parker, is definitely fantasy. Except, well, it's more like the "fantasy" is that the setting is an alternate but fairly plausible world, rather than one with magic, monsters, etc. The series definitely has its moments, and it has some great storyline stuff, even if it's a bit boring and drags at times... my point is, I wish I could give a better-quality example of a "realistic fantasy" series, but it can be done.

Egon, is it possible that you're not doing enough to put people in the middle of the conflicts you already have worked out? Crazy, fantastical stuff is fun and all, but it has a purpose - either it's fluff and color, or it serves as allegory for the "real" subject matter, or both. Do you need that to talk about what you want to talk about?

It can even be "ancient world" style and still be plenty interesting without phantasmal elements - what about the Renaissance, or the Christianization of Northern Europe, or the dying days of Rome? I guess what you should ask yourself is, "Do I want to play this game?" If you don't, that's a problem. But if you do think it's pretty cool as-is, then there's probably other people who like it too.

I'm play-testing my design for Mask of the Emperor right now, and supernatural stuff plays a moderate, not large, role. There are sorcerers, and there are mildly-gifted psychics, but it's not "high fantasy" by any stretch of the imagination. What matters are relationships between people; I think the magic exists almost entirely to explore those relationships from another angle, as opposed to being there Just Because.

"Fantasy" means a lot of things, namely that it's not real/istic, but in what way is up to you. Personally, an alternate world that's a bit less riddled with supernormal goings-on could be refreshing, I think. I'm intrigued by this definition of "high" versus "low" fantasy, meaning, to you, that the stakes are high or low, rather than the amount of magic. Hadn't looked at it that way, myself.

- Abby

[otspiii]

To me the big strength of fantasy is that it takes a single step back from reality and lets you cut away setting that detracts from your message and exaggerate setting that enhances your message.  The big weakness of fantasy is when it becomes about exploring itself for its own sake, when it stops being about reality and starts being about how cool elves are.  It sounds like you have a firm message worked out in your mind with the whole ambition vs. morality thing, so that should really be the centerpiece of your game.  If you build a fantasy world specifically to represent the various nuances and challenges involved in the struggle between ambition and morality an interesting, dynamic, creative setting should almost write itself.  Don't make a nation orcs because you feel like you need an alternative to humans.  Make a nation orcs because they offer a different outlook on the ambition/morality struggle than any of the other nations.  Even then be careful not to ask yourself "Well, what would an orc *really* think like?" when designing them, which is a sort of a weird idea since they don't actually exist.  Design your world from the ground up, always keeping in mind your core concept, and make sure you use other fantasy settings as inspirations rather than guidelines.

[Egonblaidd]

I'm not sure yet that I want to do the Morality vs. Ambition thing, I think what I had in mind when I first started was that canned response, "my players go on adventures and have fun," and strangely enough, I still want to do that.  But that phrase is so vague, the phrase on the front of the WFRP rulebook gives you a much better idea of what Warhammer is about, it's "a grim world of perilous adventure."  I think I'd rather tend more toward high fantasy than dark or low fantasy, so less "grim" but I still want it to be "perilous".  But I suppose that making a game about Morality vs. Ambition could range from giving the players a couple options and asking them to make a choice, then rolling to see if they succeed and telling them the consequences of their actions (i.e. a "session" in five minutes), to a full blown RPG experience where they're trying to decide what gear to buy or skills to learn or whether they can escape from those bandits or what will happen if they get caught breaking into this noble's house, with the conflict of Morality vs. Ambition buried subtly under a host of distractions meant to pull you off guard when the real choice comes.

I think I'm going to try and come up with a second set of answers to the Big Three and see if they suit what I'm going for better, though I don't doubt an interesting game could be made from the Morality vs. Ambition concept.  Making an RPG is a lot of work, so I want to be sure about what I'm doing before I start something.

[Egonblaidd]

Hmm, that didn't take long.  How about this?

1. What is the game about?

Using your resources to accomplish your goal.  Finding alternatives when you lack the proper abilities.

2. What do the characters do?

The characters use their abilities to accomplish their goals, and learn new abilities when necessary.

3. What do the players do?

The players decide what abilities are important to them during character creation, then decide how best to utilize their characters' abilities to accomplish their goal.

I can see this as being "tactical" in a sense.  I have certain skills, you have certain skills, here's what we want to do, now how are we going to do it?  In the system I was designing skills advance through practice, with failures advancing faster than successes.  Therefore, a new skill could be picked up in a short amount of time, but the difference in proficiency between that new skill and the ones that character used all the time would be huge.  Also, based on how attributes are rolled up, different characters will be inherently better at certain skills, even if some of those skills aren't ones that they've trained.  This seems to match up much better to what I had been working on, actually.  But what will a world that revolves around this look like?

[Paul Czege]

Hey Egon,

I'm not seeing a disconnect between your world where "every major nation's biggest problems are economic or political in some way" and "major evils are far removed from civilization and not really interested in world domination" and your goal of "morality versus ambition," with players experiencing the "moral ambiguity of the world through their characters, wading through everyday gritty greyness" and opportunities that come "with a price." It seems to me you get the exact moral ambiguity you want from your twelve races of humans and a lack of fantastical, black-and-white malevolent (and benevolent) forces.

That all seems entirely artistically coherent.

So, what's behind the "rich fantasy world where they can go on adventures and perform great deeds" goal? It seems a desire that's out of left field relative to all of the setting and game design that you've actually put work into. In my experience, resolving these kinds of inconsistencies between artistic desires and how an artist is actually expending his creative energy requires some self reflection.

Is your shades of grey world perhaps something you desire to run (as gamemaster), and a rich fantasy world with adventures the kind of thing you want to play (as player)? Or vice versa? Or perhaps, does your goal of a rich fantasy world come from doubt that anyone would want to play in your grey world, a belief that what players want is fantasy and heroism?

Dig into your psychology a bit. What's behind having put so much creative energy into the grey world? And what's motivating your anxieties about the lacking of fantastical elements?

Paul

[otspiii]

1. What is the game about?

Using your resources to accomplish your goal.  Finding alternatives when you lack the proper abilities.

2. What do the characters do?

The characters use their abilities to accomplish their goals, and learn new abilities when necessary.

3. What do the players do?

The players decide what abilities are important to them during character creation, then decide how best to utilize their characters' abilities to accomplish their goal.

This is a little. . .vague.  As in, there aren't many RPGs that this design description wouldn't encompass.  What kind of goals do you expect the characters to have?  Even fairly setting-generic games like D&D usually have a slightly more focused core activity at mind, like dungeon crawling.  The ambition/morality thing sounded fine, although it really doesn't lend itself to epic battles and high power levels.  The more specific the goal you take the more naturally the setting will build itself and the more focused the gameplay will be.  That said, if the scope of focus is too specific it might lower the replay value a little, but with wide-sweeping goal like "Ambition & Morality" that's really not an issue at all.

[Egonblaidd]

Hmm, I think I see what you guys mean.  I'll have to think about things and see how I can bring together the Morality vs. Ambition thing with my system and world.  I guess my initial concern with my world was that I didn't have the faintest idea what sort of adventures a gaming group would be running, but I think as long as I created a detailed enough and yet vague and open ended enough world, they will find something to do.  Actually, I'm starting to get ideas myself.  The more I think about it, the more the world seems suited to this idea of Morality vs. Ambition.  I initially designed the (not for an RPG, but still) so that every nation had problems, the sort that might lead to a war that nobody wants (almost nobody anyway) but that they feel they must win to survive.

For example, one northern kingdom can't feed its population because the bad winters have killed the majority of their crops every year, and yet the kingdom they trade with is having the same problem, they only have enough to feed themselves.  Nobody wants to fight, just survive.  There may always be a right choice, there may be a way to resolve the problem without conflict, but while you're trying to think of what that right choice is, people are dying.  To a highly moral character the issue of Morality vs. Ambition is compounded when you hold the lives of others in your hand.  Do you compromise your own morals to save others, or do you stick to your beliefs and let the people die?  I suppose that the PCs don't necessarily have to be the ones that make these decisions, they could encounter NPCs that are the ones making these decisions.  They might be hired by someone faced with one of these choices, or be sent to stop someone making these choices.  Even if the players aren't the ones being faced with the decisions, they can still see the effects such difficult choices have.  And when possible, the players can face those choices themselves.

The more I turn it over in my mind, the more I like it.

[everloss]

huzzah! my first post!

from your very brief description, i don't see anything wrong with your game world.  it seems more like you are just burnt out. so here are my suggestions...

keep your world "boring" and keep it in line with realism as far as politics and economics are concerned.  Then throw something at the players out of left field.  someone else said rifts through space and time.  that is certainly an option.  make the players think that their world is mundane and just when they are about to lose interest, throw in a demon invasion. and not just something small like a cult trying to bring over a demon or three, but a full-fledged worldwide demon invasion involving every nation, every territory all at the same time. turn the whole planet on its ear.

or, ask someone else to use your rules and mechanics and come up with a supplement.  although this is easier said than done.  most people will gladly say that they will help, and then do nothing.  that's my experience anyway.

[Egonblaidd]

I'm looking at the Power 19 and know that I can't answer all of the questions yet, but I'll do the ones I can and come back and post them here with questions.  It's interesting to see how some of the design elements I had already implemented actually support my design goal.

One thing I'm struggling with is how to portray magic in my world.  I read some articles on John Kim's site about how to make magic less scientific and more magical, and that's something that seems like a great idea to do.  The question is, how can I make magic fit the design goal?  Should a PC cower as an enemy is getting ready to strike the finishing blow, only to watch as lightning leaps unbidden from the PC's hands and blasts the foe?  Or should there be actual wizard characters that can use magic whenever they want?  It seems like the best thing might be to cut out magic altogether, but that makes the world more of an "alternate" world than a fantasy world.  Besides, the brief details I have on my world do include magic, and wizards of some kind.  I think the key is to make magic weak and/or spontaneous enough that you can't do anything with magic that you couldn't do some other way, and yet powerful and focused enough that it can pose a serious threat in the hands of the enemy.  I like the idea of spontaneous, uncontrollable, mysterious magic.  My current system has the GM rolling up the magic stat for the characters and keeping it hidden from the players.  They might not even be able to recognize when their power manifests, except when explicitly trying to cast a spell.  In fact, it could be kind of neat to keep all the character's stats hidden from the player, but I don't know how many players OR GMs that would appeal to.  I can explain my current ideas for magic if people want to evaluate them.