Creating Phantasia - A game that helps you do the world building.

[jp_miller]

Hi all,

I've had an idea for an RPG in the pipelines for some time now and am seriously contemplating publishing it. Before I dedicate time and energy into this project though I am posting here for some preliminary research – to find out if it is worth it.

This RPG is about high exploration, that sense of wonder, of the unknown that comes from travelling into mysterious lands – a staple theme in fantasy fiction – and one I hoped I would experience in D&D after reading The Lord of the Rings as a child. It's about the possibility of going to exotic places, doing 'anything' amazing, and allowing you to tell a ripping yarn about it – as opposed to strict rules that somehow can't cope with sneaking up on a sleeping dragon and stabbing it in the eye.

So firstly, it's a "generic RPG". Yeah, yeah, plenty of them around, been done before, I hear you say. So what makes mine so (possibly) different? Well here we go...

There are two parts to this game; system and setting. Firstly, the system is not ground breakingly new; in fact it's based on a reverse version of The Pool (that's James V. West's RPG). The Pool system was chosen because it fits very well with the rules for creating the 'setting'.

What is unique (I think) is the setting. The setting is created by the players – in a very similar fashion to character creation. If you can imagine the tools and rules that go into character generation and apply similar ones to world building. Now as your character advances, so does the world in which they explore. In fact the world is like a character in itself.

The characters are intrepid explorers (or adventurers if you will) and for one reason or another must venture out into dangerous and exotic lands and make a map of their explorations.

Each player takes it in turns creating a small domain on a large map and narrating the story that occurs in that area. I'm imagining short, pulp like fantasy scenarios. Once the story has come to a conclusion, the characters continue exploring and a new player creates the next domain, maps it out and hosts the story, (obviously while his own character takes a backseat in the story).

Of course I have some very elaborate rules and ideas on how the players can world build that I won't go into here but I hope you get the gist.

Of course, this idea sets itself up for your over-the-top grand adventure tales; Baron Munchausen, The Princess Bride, The Fall, Pirates of the Caribbean etc. But it could also just be played as your typical fantasy faire.

So my questions are:

What do you think?

Has this, or something similar, been done before?

- Julian Phillip Miller.

[chronoplasm]

It's not really new for players to create their own settings though... I do it all the time for D&D; all I have to do is disregard the setting fluff from the books and fill in my own ideas.
Jus' sayin'.

Originality isn't that neccessary though as long as you can create something that's polished and works well.
If somebody has done it before already? Do it again, but better!

Try not to get too elaborate with your rules though; a lot of times that can actually stifle creativity. Just something to be mindful of.

I hope that helps.

[jp_miller]

It's not really new for players to create their own settings though

Of course, we've all been doing it for years. But what I mean is that this 'creating of the setting' is actually part of the rules, and there are rules and tools to help you do it.

For example, the map. This is an A4 (or whatever size it may be) divided into a grid. Each player has a part of this grid (say several sqaures) that they must map out and narrate - whenever the party of characters traverses this part of the map the player who controls it does the game mastering. The player draws prominent landmarks where scenarios take place, they also add to the exploration journal - a kind of character sheet for your world - writing a brief description of the scenario that is about unfold.

There will be rules on world building - how to develop realistic geography, climates etc. How to address genre expectations e.g. this part of the world is horror, and over here we have romantic fantasy etc. There are also rules on how much of the map you control, who controls it when, and when control of the size of areas governs regions, countries, even empires etc.

Thus at the end of your gaming sessions you will have a large map/s, with a list of short scenarios that happened in different places. And so, not only will each player have contributed to making the unique world, but you will also have documents - the map, and the explorers journal - that recorded your entire play sessions.

I've never quite had that playing RPG's before.

[Luke]

Two things spring to mind.

Group setting creation does not facilitate exploration. Exploration is the revelation of the unknown. Stories of exploration involve the clash of what is known with these revelations. Exploration can happen under your kitch sink or in exotic lands, but it can't happen in a place that is known.

I think that special GM knowledge of the setting is vital to a game concept like this. The setting is a secret written down by the GM, the players use clues discovered in their journey to unlock that secret.

Group setting creation is great for certain types of games. I use it, but my games aren't about exploration. My games are about fighting for what you believe. Therefore, having a setting open and known to all allows the players to pick aspects that they care about and fight over them.

Which leads me to my next point. Your comment here:

The characters are intrepid explorers (or adventurers if you will) and for one reason or another must venture out into dangerous and exotic lands and make a map of their explorations.

Were you being glib or is there a motivational mechanic for the players? Without a motivational mechanic, the players will rapidly split apart as they stake their claim over the setting elements they created or enjoy more than others.

-L

[whiteknife]

I'd like to offer a counterpoint to Luke and say that group setting creation can actually be great for making a sense of exploration.

Sure, exploration is all about the unknown, well there are still unknowns with group creation, in fact there are more unknowns because rather than just one person making the setting, it's everyone. Since you don't play as a PC in your own setting, the players will still be exploring a place they don't know, but this way since the 'host' rotates, everyone will get a chance at exploration. Not to mention that since you're continually going to new areas, you'll get even more exploration crammed in there.

Personally, I think it's a superb idea (I've been toying with a similar idea myself for a while), and that you should go for it!

Also, as far as I know there aren't any games that do this sort of thing explicitly (I've heard about, but not played or read, some games that sound somewhat similar, but I'm not sure which they are. I think maybe universalis? Never played it, so I can't be sure). That said, people have been making their own worlds since roleplaying was born, but as far as I know it's been setting unsupported.

Good luck man! Interested in seeing where you go with it.

[MacLeod]

I wouldn't mind playing such a game. Sounds like a new, interesting approach to an old idea to me. =)

[jp_miller]

Hey thanks for the input, great food for thought.

Luke, if I can make things a little clearer:

Let me re-address the premise: the players play characters at the dawn of an age of exploration. When Marco polo set off across the world the average person did not venture far from their coast because they believed a great Leviathan would eat their boat. So the motivation is the exploration itself – think Jules Verne or Baron Munchausen – it's all about tall tales and truth. I think the mechanic of the Pool treats this well, it's like Zak Arneston's Shadows – is their really a leviathan out there or is it bullshit? If so what heroic, hilarious, ridiculous, adventurous things do the characters do to deal with it.

Having different players control a different area of the map and create the scenario adds to the unknown. And I don't mean players GM a lengthy campaign – I'm talking about out of the frying pan into the fire situations – short, punchy, pulpy, fantasy adventures – like a TV miniseries. Players should GM only a few sessions before resolving the very immediate conflict in their scenario and then move on to then next player (GM).

Perhaps they must go by commission of the King, that's the characters motivation, but for the players the real point is "Ripping Yarns".

To give you an example of play:

It's John's turn to GM. He looks at the map and picks 10 squares that adjoin the previous scenario. He draws a mountain range and the symbol for a city in the middle of it. He writes Angkmar next to it. Now he makes his entry in the Expedition Journal. Just like character creation (in the Pool) he only has a limited amount of words (say 90) to write his scenario:

"We have been captured by trolls whilst passing through the White Mountains. We are currently being held in the dungeons of their most remarkable stone citadel. Apparently we are to be taken into the court of their great king where I suppose we must proposition our case for trespassing. Whilst they seem hostile I only hope they may be appeased by civilized debate."

Now all the players read the scenario and play begins. John does the GMing and his character simply takes a back seat, he cannot be involved significantly in the story, he's unimportant in this show, just lurking in the shadows.

After a few sessions the situation is resolved and another player (not decided on the mechanics of who gets to GM when yet) takes the reins.

As you know with the pool, players also add to their character sheet with a word limit description and traits after a few sessions. So now we have the player's character sheets, which could be called their Explorers Journals, and a map with scenario's, which could be called the Expedition Journal. The world is expanding like a character.

Another thing, a bit more advanced. Perhaps as the map gets fleshed out and players control numerous domains, they could add larger elements into play; the game could scale up, into situations that span countries or empires, moving the scenarios into more epic themes.

Whiteknife and Macleod, thanks for your input, it's very inspiring.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

[Vulpinoid]

I'll have to admit that my first thoughts when reading this thread yesterday were something like...

"I've seen all this before, sometimes it works, usually it doesn't...you need the right group to pull it off..."

...then I started thinking of things like Universalis, which basically covers these notions but in an even more encompassing degree...

...but I think you might have some good ideas.

One of the things I did on the Eighth Sea, was like a reduced form of this concept and it worked pretty well.

Everyone was able to introduce elements into a storyline through a meta-game currency. No one, not even the Captain/GM, had a perfect idea of where the game would head during each session because the story was developed through the communal interaction of the group. The Captain/GM had twice as many tokens to play with as everyone else, so this player has a stronger ability to control the destiny of the crew and the flow of the narrative, but a collective of players could easily lead the group in their own direction.

You could consider the same sort of thing.

While one player is the "expedition leader", they take on the role of a quasi-GM. Basically the opposite of what you're already thinking in some respects. The "expedition leader" reveals their leads and their intentions to the rest of the team, but the scenes they encounter along the way are produced by a mix of randomised events (based on the terrain traversed), player input (based on some kind of meta-currency), and story specific sequences narrated by the "expedition leader".

If player's don't like the type of adventure being produced by a certain "expedition leader", they can just follow someone else next time...someone who'll lead them in a new direction and reveal a different part of the map.

Just an idea...

V

[jp_miller]

Vulpinoid, that's interesting. Though this game is not really about 'narrative power'. And I don't want any complex rules governing such things.

It's your typical game really - only taking it in turns GMing. Just imagine playing the Pool, or any other traditional game, straight, as is, only taking it turns being the GM.

While one player is the "expedition leader", they take on the role of a quasi-GM. Basically the opposite of what you're already thinking in some respects. The "expedition leader" reveals their leads and their intentions to the rest of the team, but the scenes they encounter along the way are produced by a mix of randomised events (based on the terrain traversed), player input (based on some kind of meta-currency), and story specific sequences narrated by the "expedition leader".

I do like that Idea, but I may have to ditch it for simplicity sakes. I think playing a reverse Pool is enough for the players, add the cartography and switching Gm's and you already have a complex enough game in my opinion.

I think a lot of the fun in RPing comes from character advancement, so in this game you also have the fun of world advancement. I think it would be cool, after say a year of playing, that the group could look at this big map they have created, re-read the scenarios, and have this visual record of their gaming journey.

What I like about it all:

1.   Short, sharp, focused scenarios. Sure, a lot of gamers probably play like this already, but many of the games I've been in have consisted of long   rambling, no scene framing, wandering about aimlessly type 'adventures'.
2.   Taking it in turns GMing. Well, anyone can do this, and many do at their gaming table, but here you get to control a 'domain' a small area of a map that only you can create and narrate. Characters can go in and out of this geographic domain – governing whether you are narrating or not.
3.   Cartography. Collaborative map making and world building. I like maps. Now the group can make their own!
4.   The same rules that govern creating and playing your own character also apply to creating and playing the setting.
5.   The hell-of-a-fun reverse Pool.
Etc.

[MacLeod]

I'm not sure how you intend to structure the Expedition Journal and all of that... but I think you might get better results by focusing the scope on a particular broad genre, like Fantasy... then perhaps move on to something far more varied and massive like like Science Fiction.

[jp_miller]

I'm not sure how you intend to structure the Expedition Journal and all of that

Well you have the map. Then you have a blank book (like the ones you had at school). The journal entries are simply written one after the other using this system:

First you have the 'Scenario' name, in the aformentioned example this might be "In the Citadel of the Troll King". Then you have the 'Location', which in this case in Angkmar. Then you have the GM's name, John. Then you have the Scenario description. So it would look like this:

Scenario In the Citadel of the Troll King
Location Angkmar (White Mountains)
Explorer John/explorer name
Entry We have been captured by trolls whilst passing through the White Mountains. We are currently being held in the dungeons of their most remarkable stone citadel. Apparently we are to be taken into the court of their great king where I suppose we must proposition our case for trespassing. Whilst they seem hostile I only hope they may be appeased by civilized debate.

That's it.

And yes, this is strictly fantasy - medieval, dawn of exploration fantasy.

[MacLeod]

Makes sense.
It seems to me that some people love those randomization charts. Including such a thing for name, climate, natives, terrain, etc. as an optional resource would be kind of fun.
You mentioned before about a specific number of words for the scenario. Do you think breaking these up into specific sections and distributing points across them might work? These points would determine the importance/effectiveness of each section of the scenario's description.
This might be waaay off base for how you plan on making the actual game mechanics run... but it would be neat to have the challenge levels of each step presented. Perhaps having a little mechanic for adding new sections during play.

[jp_miller]

I never thought about randomization but it might be something to consider as an optional extra.

You mentioned before about a specific number of words for the scenario. Do you think breaking these up into specific sections and distributing points across them might work? These points would determine the importance/effectiveness of each section of the scenario's description.

Yes, you could glean traits from the description but as the Pool does not have players roll against anything, it's pretty pointless, unless you want to add another layer of rules, and that's not what I want to do.

I'm basically applying the method the Pool uses for chargen and game play to world building. So, just as in the Pool you have a limited number of words to describe your character, so too with your scenario. Also, just as in the Pool, you are not allowed to infringe on other players characters during a MOV, so too you can not alter other players domains they have created etc.

I want to keep it simple and rely on the reverse pool as the sole system really. One idea I had was that at the end of a scenario all the players would roll (including as many die from their pool) to narrate. Whoever has the most 1's loses their entire die (remember this is reverse Pool) and gets to narrate. Having no dice signifies that their character has no power in the story. At the end of their GMing they return to the game with a full spread of die and continue playing as a character.

Try not to get too carried away with the idea of 'narration power', like I said this is your typical game, just add cartography - a grid with a map on it - with areas that each player can control, taking turns in GMing.

This might be waaay off base for how you plan on making the actual game mechanics run... but it would be neat to have the challenge levels of each step presented. Perhaps having a little mechanic for adding new sections during play.

I was imagining the scenarios to be short and sharp - like only one major challenge per scenario. This way players only GM for a few sessions before the scenario is played out (I'm thinking TV miniseries stuff). Thus there is a high rotation of GMing.

I think what would be interesting is what happens after several scenarios - when an entire map is fleshed out. Do some players control large adjoining domains? Could they start retelling their stories on a larger scale - making their previously unrelated civilizations clash with each other? Could one civ throw half the continent into war and build an empire?

And how cool would it be for other players to use (use, not change) these ideas to affect their own creations?

In the beginning, our protagonists deal with little issues, basic survival mode, saving the village from the ghost etc. By the end of the map gameplay can move into epic scale storytelling, the characters are dealing with issues that effect the continent or even world...

[MacLeod]

Is this the game you are referencing with the Pool mechanic?
http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games/shadows/shadows.html
I'm not sure how much you are borrowing from that, but the token-to-roll portion doesn't seem like it would fit. Then again, neither does the 'Shadow' Die. It seems a lot like... opposed rolls only the player makes both rolls while dictating the exact outcome of failure.
I would probably need something a bit more meaty to make things interesting. You would either need stronger task resolution mechanics or the scenario/map building would need some inherent depth.

You could still use that idea... only the GM would get to roll the opposing die. Based on the difference of dice, either the GM or the player narrates success/failure. Descriptions would still work... you would just number them, and if they relate to the situation... that is your pool of dice (roll and add up, of course).

Have you seen this?
http://www.lumpley.com/archive/148.html
I've been itching to apply this to a game. Pretty simple yet it creates neat little tactical choices. Number descriptions in this system could either dictate a number of special re-rolls for related activities or dice rolled (drop the lowest), obviously 3 would be the average die amount.

I think the duration of an actual scenario could very widely... some people are so use to weaving long tales that one GM may take his turn for too long. In any event, if the players are having loads of fun in a particular session... or ends prematurely, having a system for additional descriptors would be neat. Then again, if you are going to stick with the basic version of the Shadows mechanics, it really wouldn't be necessary.

In reference to scale... I think it would be neat to start out really small, like a country fishing town... expand around that, then escalate to more countryside... The cycle would continue until you have reached world size. Well, if the campaign lasts that long.
Which reminds me... the progression of world is a great idea. Most definitely. But, given my previous views on what little I know of your intentions towards mechanics... it sounds like characters wouldn't progress at all. Do you have an idea set for this, or was that the plan all along?

[jp_miller]

I won't be using Shadows. I will be using a reverse version of The Pool. I mentioned them together because they have similar mechanics.

it sounds like characters wouldn't progress at all. Do you have an idea set for this, or was that the plan all along?

Characters in The Pool definitely progress. And the game world would progress in a similar fashion - adding a word limited description. Check it out if you haven't already:

http://www.randomordercreations.com/rpg.html

Yeah, Lumpley's game looks interesting but I'm committed to the Reverse Pool, it fits really well with the world building.