Erm, Hi. And what I'm working on.

[The Gentleman]

Hi, I'm the Gentleman. Say no more. At the mo, I'm working on a fantasy game With Consequences, in the manner of Unknown Armies, though a wee bit less occulty. So, this is what I've got so far to stop everything turning into a hack 'n' slash game, besides the normal methods of not giving the PC's much to fight, setting the police on their heads, and so forth.

First, the Consequence of Murder
Every mortal being has a soul, and to take a soul is to take upon a burden. Each death a weapon creates adds a Voice to the weapon, whispering to the user, until the weapon is burdened with the Voices of its victims and sends the user mad. To ignore the Voices of a weapon is to harden your mind against compassion, until you become a cold, heartless thing, unable to show mercy, a creature reviled by all, hated by his friends, mistrusted even by those the wielder must now operate in. Yet the souls of the dead impart their strength upon the weapon, and the temptation of power that the most blood-soaked weapons imbue upon their owner is hard to resist. Violence begets violence. To live by the sword is to die by the sword. It is important to remember this, or you will swiftly succumb to evil and be little better than the people you investigate.

Secondly, using magic puts a burden on your soul, as well as your sanity. So magic is not an easy way out of notching up a soul on your best weapon.

Thirdly, even the goblins (no orcs, I'm afraid, just stuff based on Nordic and Teutonic myth, e.g. Duergars, Alfar, Giants, trolls, and Celtic/British fey folk myths e.g knockers, red caps, pooka, and so forth) have their own societies and cultures, which often include hunting down aggressors, setting up blood-oaths, and so forth.

Finally, the Soul is vital, with the ability to heal simply by being in the presence of a pure person, whilst it is hard to even endure the company of an evil man.

The actual culture of the setting is 18th Century, with Empires being established. PC's play investigators and enforcers, hunting down these supernatural beasties and driving them out of human cities. So a bit of fighting, but mainly diplomacy, trying to work out why these creatures are here, and how they can get over their grievances and move out. Think a supernatural League of Extraordinary Gentlemen mixed in with Call of Cthulhu investigators.

Comments? Suggestions? Cold, harsh criticism?

Yours,
The Gentleman.

[Shreyas Sampat]

First of all, welcome to the Forge.

I like your idea of weapons eating their victims' souls; you could do a good deal with that.  I think.  It's an excellent idea.

The way you're approaching the issue, though, tells me that you specifically don't want to create a particular experience.  I don't think you need to worry about that so much; your game's ideas, extended to apply to everything, would create a vastly different game.  Even unextended, they have a different texture than the hack'n'slash you want to avoid.

[Mike Holmes]

Shreyas is getting at an important point. It's really not hard at all to avoid "Hack n' Slash". All you have to do is create a system that avoids rewarding it. Which is simplicity itself. As he points out, all you'd have to do is just keep going the direction that you seem to have started describing.

The question is, do you want the sort of game that does not reward Hack n' Slash, or do you want to have a game that does reward it, but has balancing penalties. I suspect that what you are looking at may be the latter. Else why would you need to penalize Hack n'Slash behavior. If so, then you have to be very careful in your design.

I guess what I'm saying is that we are going to need more context to determine if how you are going to handle it will work. For example, if you were to attach the system you describe to something very like D&D, you'd probably get lots of play revolvong about how to find loopholes. If you were to attach such rules to something that looked like Hero Wars, it would seem somewhat ancillary (though might serve as a focusser), and might quash action.

So, can you give us more details? Also, have you lurked here much? Or are you brand new to the theory preesented here?

Mike

[The Gentleman]

I've used the place as a starting point for learning about different gaming models, but no heavy duty lurking- mostly I'm on rpg.net.

The game should reward peaceful solutions a lot more than hitting people, though a well-placed hit has its place. I see it as being a culture in which violence does brood on the edges of polite society, and more so in the slums of the cities, but mainly through organised violence- think the Three Musketeers, a century or two later, with a librarian and a scientist heavily involved. Or one of the more genteel episodes of Buffy, where there's lots of research, sneaking around, and then a small fight at the end. The action mainly takes place in the cities, but there are lots of castles and estates around the countryside, home to both normal nobles and more esoteric creatures- think Beauty and the Beast, Quasimodo, Doctor Frankenstein...

The Fey run across their paths and tracks throughout the countryside, demanding placation or the farmers cows will give sour milk. Witches lurk in the villages, cursing those they dislike- they are wicked, though not totally evil. The Old, immortal, incorporeal creatures, play out wars with each other and their pawns, fearful of discovery lest the mortals cast them out of the world. Werewolves lurk in the forests. Bloodsucking Wamphyri lurk in graveyards. Basically all the terrors an 18th century peasant thinks are real.

At the moment I don't have a system. I don't roleplay much, my knowledge is restricted to Nobilis (unsuitable for the genre, methinks), Storyteller (Still not really what I want, and I would like to make this available to the world someday), D&D (along the right kind of lines, but I haven't the rules to convert it, and I'd have a lot of rewriting to do) and WFRP, which might be the best, but I wouldn't mind writing a new system customised towards this game.

By Theories presented here, I guess you mean the Karma/Fortune/Drama models and G/N/S model. In that case, the system would be Fortune based. I don't know why, but Drama and Karma seems to suit modern-times superhuman (not superhero, but Vampires, Nobilis, that kinda thing) better. The main two things I wanted to avoid are people wading through hordes of kobolds, or whatever, and killing small farmyard animals for experience... a MUD/CPRG thing, I guess, but I want these people to be a bit experienced- 25-30ish - but not invincible sword masters, or whatever.

I myself am mainly a Gamist player, with Narrativist tendencies- but I prefer the background and the rules to create the atmosphere, and then be able to play games within it. It's good to win. It's also good to have a good story. The rules should provide boundaries for this to happen, and if the mood shifts, then the rules need revision.

Yours, The Gentleman

[Andrew Martin]

First, the Consequence of Murder
Every mortal being has a soul, and to take a soul is to take upon a burden. Each death a weapon creates adds a Voice to the weapon, whispering to the user, until the weapon is burdened with the Voices of its victims and sends the user mad.

What stops the PC from simply throwing away the weapon used and getting another weapon? :)

[The Gentleman]

The fact that each soul imparts its strength on the weapon. It's a more interesting variant on the "steeped in the blood of a thousand giants and forged in the breath of a dragon... that'll be +5 then" weapons. Yes, you can throw your weapon away. But then you don't get the bonuses, and you have to pay for a new one. Which is fine if your weapon of choice is a knife, but not so good if you like claymores or fine-crafted battle-axes.

Of course, it's not just your weapon that notches up souls, but your morality as well, which actually manifests itself in useful/ not so useful ways. So good people can heal others simply by being in the same room. Truly evil people shrivel the earth on which they stand. So simply having a belt of knives and going on a killing spree is going to have long-term effects. There will be a set standard of morality, rather than losing points for not facing up to your alignment. The whole setting is an 18th century England from the average peasants view, so a sliding set of morals/ situational ethics would seem rather too modern.

Missile weapons simply give Voices to the weapon, not the ammunition, before somebody mentions that one.

Yours,
The Gentleman

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Are you familiar at all with Ron's game, Sorcerer? It's got some interesting similarities. Especially Scott Knipe's supplement, Charnel Gods.

The thing is that, far from stopping characters from killing, mechanics of this sort sorta encourage the player to get into killing. What you're setting up is a situation in which there is a question, "Is the power that can be gotten from killing worth the price you pay." A player can answer "no", to the question, but that's a very limited answer. There are a jillion other answers ranging from "only in X circumstances" to "always", which are just as valid dramatically. As such, I think I see the game actually promoting violence as a solution. Some players will think that it's cool that they can shrivel plants around them.

Now, back to the theory issues. Let's look first at your statement about it being a Fortune game. Most games are a combination of DFK. For example, if you have a rule that says that X strength can lift Y weight, that's Karma. Most games have some rules like this. So, what I'm going to guess you mean is that the resolution system involves a Fortune step. Correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, DFK is pretty much a preference thing, and as such it really doesn't impact the question of whether or not the mechaqnic in question will work.

More importantly you talk about your preferences. First, by stating your preferences, I assume that you want the design of your game to fit your preferences? Given that, then I think we have the problem I stated above in spades. That is, if you focus mostly on Gamism, then the bonuses for killing things will seem to outweigh the negative aspects of "evil" acts. At least from what you've said so far. Sure there are repercussions to being evil. But the conflicts that get set up bu such will just be what the player will see as the Gamist challenge to overcome. The game will become, "Can I be so evil that I can take out the world?" Which, as I've said, is very Charnel Gods. ;-)

Anyhow, what you're missing is that players want conflict, and you are handing it to them ready made by going one direction. While they avoid the conflict by going the other. So, either you get a game which is hack and slash, or you get a game where only the GM authors the story. Or, worse, both. That is, if you get some PCs that go evil, and some that stay good, then you are going to have dead PCs, almost certainly. And likely they'll be the good ones.

This all said, if these are the sorts of issues that you want to investigate in the game, then by all means, go for it. I'm just sensing that they're not. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

The overall point is that "Punishment" mechanics rarely work. Alignment in D&D is something that players look to find loopholes in, and circumvent (note how there is no bonus for doing something lawful and/or good in D&D if you are Lawful Good; just penalties for acting outside of the Lawful Good description). It tells them what they can't do, and that just doesn't sit well wit players. They want to know what they should do.

What they really want is rewards. As such, if you want to stop Hack n' Slash, simply don't reward it. It's that simple. Just don't give out EXP or any other sort of reward for killing. This is realistic (people learn to kill not by killing, but by training to kill), and it supports your ideals. What you'll find is that if players have no incentive to hack n' slash that they'll start to act more "realistically" resorting to violence only when very appropriate.

If you really want players to stay away from Hack n' Slash then reward not fighting. Every time they have a chance to fight, and do not, they should get a karma point or something. Do this, and I garuntee that players will be looking for the peaceful solution to every conflict.

But perhaps that's putting the focus on something that's not central to the game. Perhaps you don't want to particularly incentivize "good" behavior, and leave it to the players. Then don't reward either good or bad. But instead figure out what the focus of the game should be, and base your ewards around that. As you do that, focus will come of the whole Combat/Non-Combat issue, and you'll find whatever hacking occurs to be non-objectionable. As it will relate to the focus you've chosen.

What do you see as the focus of the game? What sort of action do you envision? What sort of conflicts? What might an adventure look like? How do you see players making decisions about the conflicts that come up in game?

Mike

[The Gentleman]

Well, the setting involves members of the Royal Investigatory Society, which is an institution that investigates mysterious goings on in the name of the King. Kind of an 18th Century X-files. As vassals of the king, being evil is likely to run you out of a job very quickly. In addition, you run the risk of being excommunicated, or going mad from the Voices in your weapon.

In addition, the (meagre) power you gain is hardly worth the risk of losing both Compassion and Morality (which in turn affect your game stats, particularly the social ones, in nasty ways). Becoming an insane, fanged monstrosity that turns reactions immediately against you is not a good way to complete an assignment. Yes, players might think it's cool to shrivel plants, but when nobody can heal them, they can't touch holy relics, they can't cross running water, see themselves in mirrors, have *really* bad breath, can't go out in bright sunlight, are isolated from the rest of the party... well, maybe a few dead roses aren't all that appealing any more.

Madness is just a quick path to an asylum. Asylums are treated as a pit-stop for new cadavers for scientific advancement, and as prisons for social deviants. So, getting sent to an asylum is pretty much the end of the character. Killing creates Voices, Voices turn you slowly mad. Thus, killing people is killing yourself. It might not work in a one-off game, but in a campaign the fall and redemption of a character might become a focal point.

Again, your points regarding experience for training, not killing, make perfect sense. In the same vein, advancements will come readily for solutions using the social skills.

As for the theories: I'm not totally up with them, but I have a vague understanding. You're right in saying that resolution has Fortune mechanics. I guess I didn't make that too clear. I stand corrected.

By Gamist, I suggest Group Gamist- that the group as a whole wins. I must admit that the worry of the group splitting between good and evil is present. I also confused Narrativist stance with Drama mechanics, which I wanted to avoid. I guess I mean a game where the characters are attempting to win, and the player wants to both create a story and to win the game. Is there a specific term for this?

A typical game might involve reports of a supernatural incursion on a manor in North Yorkshire. The group travels there by horse and carriage, meeting the parson who has just been visiting his sister in London, and is now returning to the village below the Manor. A highwayman attacks the coach, demanding their money or their life. The group persuades him that to attack them is to incur the wrath of their master, the King, and the Highwayman backs off. He mutters under his breath as he gallops back into the woods. Reaching the village, they take their leave of the parson, who in return for saving his money offers them the use of holy water from the font the next Sunday, as the lord of the manor's new baby is to be baptised.

They arrive at the manor, and meet the Lord, the Lady, the new, unbelievably hairy baby, the man-servant Garret, and the extended family. The Lord explains that the house seems to have been cursed ever since a swarthy fellow had been turned away from the manor after asking after Lady Elizabeth, the Lord's great-grandmother, who has been dead for many decades. From his description, Lady St James (a PC) recognises him as the highwayman. And so forth. The scenario as a whole works out as the child being a changeling, swapped by the swarthy highwayman. Mysterious figures are seen on the lawn- these are the Fey, monitoring the child. As the date of the baptism draws closer, the baby becomes more and more bad-tempered. The parson is found dead, but a new, suspicious looking priest arrives on the Saturday. As the characters and much of the village arrive at the church, having failed to solve the hauntings, the highwayman appears, snatches the baby, and escapes by horse. The characters give chase, one of them snatching a cup of blessed water from the startled priest (a red herring), and they gallop along the high-way, before flinging the water at the highwayman, who burns, as does the child, and both disappear, leaving a bewildered horse and a bawling, pefectly ordinary child behind. Result: a win.

Obviously the actions at various stages (and that was only an outline, there would be more incidents around) can be solved in a variety of ways. Intimidation, charming, arresting everybody in sight... but each action would have a consequence fore the players both in the Society and in the nation as a whole.

Hope this clarifies/ provokes discussion.

Yours,
The Gentleman

[Mike Holmes]

Hope this clarifies/ provokes discussion.

I think so. Very clearly stated.

Well, the setting involves members of the Royal Investigatory Society, which is an institution that investigates mysterious goings on in the name of the King. Kind of an 18th Century X-files.

OK, that's key. You are describing a "mission" oriented game. The main focus of play is accomplishing various missions. Cool, that's easy to work with.

As vassals of the king, being evil is likely to run you out of a job very quickly. In addition, you run the risk of being excommunicated, or going mad from the Voices in your weapon.

In addition, ...

(snip various nast badnesses that are caused by killing)

Do they get atheletes foot, and explode if they kill too many? You are working too hard to convince me that you have ensured that the punishments are harsh. You miss the point. What you are doing here is ancillarly to the focus of your game, and, at the risk of alienating you despite that not being my intent, seeming to be railing against a style of play that I don't think you need to worry about. That is, to me you seem to be over-reacting.

What I mean to say is that there are lots of games that exist that do not promote hack n slash, but do not penalize it at all. It's my opinion, and that of many here, that the phenomenon of hack n' slash is solely the result of mechanics that reward it. Namely that in a game like D&D where you get points for killing things, that players will kill things. All you have to do to stop this behavior is just not give them points for doing this. Really.

Now, I could be seriously misreading you here. The whole voices mechanic is really kinda neat. If you want this all to be an important part of play, then great. But what I see is you trying to balance these things out. The follwoing seems to be your reasoning.

1. I want less hack n slash
2. so I'll penalize it harshly
3. but my mechanic requires that the character hold on to the same weapons
4. so I'll have to give some incentive for them to hold on to those weapons.

Well, one of two things will happen in play. Either the incentive to use the weapon will be enough (I have no idea what a +5 does in your system) to keep players interested in accumulating bonuses, and killing. Or it will not, and players will just discard any weapon that they've killed someone with to avoid the voices.

Again, this could itself be an interesting focus of play. And if that's your intent, that the game be about "When does it make sense to kill?" or the like, that's great. But if in fact the existence of the mechanic is just to prevent players from ill considered killing, there is an easier way.

Just don't have any rules about it at all.  Simply by ignoring this part of things, and focusing on the missions, the players will be informed that the game is not all about the killin'.

Now, wait, you say, won't players have their characters just kill everything that they come across in play if they aren't disincentivized? Well, perhaps. But that all depends on what you do with the rest of the game. If it's really all about the missions, then perhaps the king does not like his agents randomly killing people. As such, those "negative repercussions" will come in all by themselves. That is, if you portray the characters sorta "realistically" as agents of the king who only have "License To Kill" in the case of self defense, then players will not kill at random. Why would they? What incentive would they have? Survivial? Well, they'll just have to figure out another way so that they don't end up in the King's own prison.

If you really want to be proactive about it, have the King's Chancellor (or whoever oversees the operation), assess the performance of the PCs on each mission. If they do well (and this includes not killing the wrong people in a big way), they are given time off to train, and money to buy new equipment. If they don't do well, they are sent out right away again, with nothing more than they had last time. Tough luck. As long as the players are clear about what their mandate is, they will work hard to act within it. Garunteed.

It might not work in a one-off game, but in a campaign the fall and redemption of a character might become a focal point.

Again, if this is really something that you want to investigate, then cool, include it. Personally, however, to make it more compelling, then, I'd make it so that the voices haunted the character, and not the weapon. And have there be no upside to it (no weapon bonus). As such, the only reasons to kill will be personal to the character. Then ensure that in play there are plenty of bad bastards that they PCs would like to kill. And have them do things to really piss off the PCs. Such that they will have every incentive from a character based view to kill the bad guys. Then it becomes an internal conflict to see if it's worthwhile to kill someone.

(Did I mention Charnel Gods?)

By Gamist, I suggest Group Gamist- that the group as a whole wins.

All for one...

Yes, that's the idea. Gamism does not have to mean competition between the players playing the characters. Just that the players compete against something. In this case, the mission? Makes sense to me.

I must admit that the worry of the group splitting between good and evil is present.

Now that I see the mission focus, I worry less. And, again, if you want to explore that problem it makes sense. Also see the game Paladin by Clinton (site moderator) for an example of how this sort of exploration can work.

I also confused Narrativist stance with Drama mechanics, which I wanted to avoid.

Classic mistake. Don't feel bad.

I guess I mean a game where the characters are attempting to win, and the player wants to both create a story and to win the game. Is there a specific term for this?

Impossible?

OK, that's too harsh. One of the points about GNS is that trying to play more than one style at a time can be dangerous, or even dysfunctional. Not absolutely neccessarily so. But very likely. Can you identify one as being more important than the other.

For example, given your druthers would you rather see a player, when his chevalier character is confronted by the ghost of his dead wife:

A. figure out a way to dispatch it back to hell, and do so
B. Embrace the ghost, and die doing so.

The point is that at some point the decision to take to win, and the decision to take to make a good story are incompatible. Given that, players who prefer the one method of decision making will probably be disturbed by players using the other method. Creating a game that intends to support both modes of play will probably make this problem come to a head for most players. And, for those that don't, you'll find that they will tend to just play to one side or the other. So why do you need both sides.

I'd advocate that you at least give some consideration to the idea of just going with winning or story. That said, If I had to guess about you again, I'd say that you probably come down on the side of Story. That is to say, when you say that the players try to "win" that you mean that they do so as the result of the attempt to make a good story. That the themes of the game you want to make are all about herosim and whatnot. That's often what an aversion to hack n' slash indicates (again, I apollogize if I'm off the mark). Anyhow, as such, I'd go a step further and suggest that you consider going Narrativist.

No, it's not as bad as it sounds. :-)

By which I mean to say that most people confound Narrativism with a lot of things that it shouldn't be associated with. Narrativist does not mean Rules Lite", for example. In any case, check it out.

A typical game might involve reports of a supernatural incursion on a manor in North Yorkshire. ...

Very cool example, and well thought out (lots of people muff this on their first attempt). It's the example that leads me to a lot of my assumptions. That said, I hope that some of my guesses are on target, and that this is of some help.

Mike

[The Gentleman]

Do they get atheletes foot, and explode if they kill too many? You are working too hard to convince me that you have ensured that the punishments are harsh. You miss the point. What you are doing here is ancillarly to the focus of your game, and, at the risk of alienating you despite that not being my intent, seeming to be railing against a style of play that I don't think you need to worry about. That is, to me you seem to be over-reacting.

Okay, that's likely (me over-reacting). I have most of the game pretty much in my head, but it was the more quirky ideas that would only have made up a small amount of the rules and focus that I wanted to test out here. Which they have been, and for which I am grateful.

To clarify how nasty badness is received:
Basically, there are three different counters, Inhumanity, Despair, and Insanity, each with a number of levels (around 5-10). Each time you go up a level, you roll on a table, adding the level to the score, and look up the result on a table. Some results cannot be reached at a low level, so you won't start growing fangs at a low level, or going completely, off-the-wall insane too quickly. I imagine 20 entries, and a D10 roll each time so Level 10 Insanity would get an entry between 11 and 20. A Level of 1 would get a result of 1-10. 20 is complete Insanity, 1 would be a stammer when nervous, say.

As for the relation between Voices, Inhumanity, and bonuses for weapons:
Killing makes you lose a point of Inhumanity. You can regain humanity by performing an act of Contrition, as described below.

In addition, killing a mortal adds a Voice to the weapon. With enough souls, the weapon becomes a tad more powerful (if a weapon starts off as "deadly+1" on a scale of 20, every other soul would add +1)- but every time you return to the site, or are reminded of the murder, the souls will speak to you and force a test against the Will statistic- if you pass, then you *gain* a level of Inhumanity- as you are able to push the guilt away. If you *fail*, then the guilt gets to you, and you take a level of Insanity, unless you perform an Act of Contrition- e.g. giving money to the deceased relatives, praying for several days, seeking absolution- these can be done later, obviously, and then you can regain your humanity. Sanity can be regained by particular medications, spending time away from the nasty stuff, spending time in the company of good men... all that kind of thing.

So, if you kill, you start becoming inhumane and hardened against the rest of the world, and you run the risk of being haunted through the weapon you used. I imagine lots of people will rather fight dirty, with brawling and so forth. Which is sneaky enough to fit in.

If you really want to be proactive about it, have the King's Chancellor (or whoever oversees the operation), assess the performance of the PCs on each mission. If they do well (and this includes not killing the wrong people in a big way), they are given time off to train, and money to buy new equipment. If they don't do well, they are sent out right away again, with nothing more than they had last time. Tough luck. As long as the players are clear about what their mandate is, they will work hard to act within it. Garunteed.

That is brilliant, Mike. Truly so. I'll definitely have to use this in the game.

As for your comments on narrativism, I've read a bit more and get what you're driving at. Narrativism is definately what I want to do, but with the mission as the drive behind the story.

Very cool example, and well thought out (lots of people muff this on their first attempt). It's the example that leads me to a lot of my assumptions. That said, I hope that some of my guesses are on target, and that this is of some help.

Glad you liked it. It'll form the basis of one of the starting adventures I'll put in. As for your guesswork, yes, it's pretty much up to scratch!

Yours gratefully,
The Gentleman[/quote]

[Jamie]

A slight tangent... how does your C18th supernatural setting accommodate the forces of ‘Reason’ and ‘Enlightenment’. Is this presented as a conflict to add interest? For example, some characters could be the sceptics (in the mould of ‘Scully’, to follow the X-Files analogy), constantly seeking to rationalise the supernatural forces uncovered.
Alternatively, if you’re looking for an epoch with more of a supernatural influence in popular culture, consider jumping back a century to the 17th. That’s full of witches, witch finders, fanatical puritans and restless dead cavaliers. You’re more likely to have had an organisation like the Royal Investigatory Society set up by the Stuarts (or the Republican Commonwealth, but scratch the ‘Royal’ tag).

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Jamie, welcome to The Forge.

Good question. Actually, I meant to ask: you describe this as historical; is this an "Alternate Earth" sort of setting like Ars Magica? Or are you using Earth references just for shorthand?

Mike

[The Gentleman]

Alternate England, where the Young Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie, won as half the government troops deserted upon their return from Austria, due to lack of pay. The government became almost bankrupt as the stock market collapsed completely, brought on by panic as the Jacobites reached Derby. The Young Pretender proceeded to take the throne, becoming Charles III. As a Catholic and a Stuart, he was keenly interested in the unseen threats to his subjects and his kingdom, and his Tory Prime Minister,  was ordered to establish an extra wing to the Royal Societies, The Royal Investigatory Society.

The Age of Reason is quite exaggerated- religion was incredibly dominant, and superstition rife. Learned men were still in to the supernatural as a way to explain life. Basically, imagine that what they imagined was true, and that what we believe to be true now did not apply then. Almost like the games in which the science of the 1950's as imagined by the scientists of the 1920's is true. Faeries exist. So do ghosts, and demons, and other creatures. Of course, the Age of Reason has its influence- and so a relatively systematic, "logical" approach is taken, as opposed to the "it's a witch" vigilante mode of the 17th and 16th centuries.

Hope that clears all that up!

Yours,
The Gentleman

[Jamie]

Like the setting idea and agree with your comments. Perhaps 'Enlightenment' or 'Reason' could act like sanity, protecting the characters from the mental strain of their discoveries ("This can't be happening..." "There must be some logical explanation...")

[The Gentleman]

What categories of enemies should their be?
So far, I have the Fey, ghosts, magic users (witches and black magic), demons (Hellfire Club anybody?) and shapeshifters. None of them will be described in great detail, as I want to keep an air of mystery about it all, for the GM to do as he likes with it. Are there any others I should include?

Yours,
The Gentleman