a pair of fantastic ideas

[ADGConscience]

Hi S,

Welcome to the Forge!

I especially liked the idea of the Martian Book of the Dead. I'd love to see it made available in a "here's the setting, here's the rules" kind of format.

I think Ron was trying to nudge you in a positive direction. We can discuss ideas, but really, ideas are the easy part. What we often end up discussing is what rules are suited to what you do in the game. You can adapt an existing system or create an entirely new system, but that step--that marriage of system to setting--is crucial in producing a "game."

And I guess that's what the Forge is about for me: creating games, whether with a garage-band do-it-yourself ethic, or with the intention of becoming the next WotC. Discussing ideas is great, as long as it has that spin: "Here's an idea for a setting; what mechanics would you be curious about within that setting?", that sort of thing.

I'd like you to stay on the Forge. All I'd ask is that you start to ask yourself the tough questions about how this will eventually look in the hands of a "player" you've never met, and how it will get to them.

Best,

Dave Panchyk

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Dave said it really well. Setting's nice, OK, you have some setting.

Now what?

Best,
Ron

[signoftheserpent]

i dont think you can do anything until you have all the setting. mechanics are trhe easy part, creating a consistent and exciting world without soudnding cheesy, derivative or just plain poorly written is the hard part. for me a few paragraphs isnt enough for a setting. mechanics i think come last.

a

[Gordon C. Landis]

Alright, let me take a stab at this - fine, never mind the mechanics.  Not eveyone's going to agreee with your assesment there, but let's not get into it.  I'll simply say - you have ENOUGH setting to get some people interested.  Seems to me what you need isn't more of that (setting), but a wider description of what this project is as an RPG.

Let me ask some of the Forge standard/classic questions - what do the PCs do[/i] in this setting?  Why do the player's care about it?  Or another approach - what's your setting for?  What are you going to do to support that - provide "classes"?  Write lot's of descriptive text?  Either might not be seen as a great solution by some folks here, but if they're your planned method(s), let us know and those who think it's a bad idea will tell you why.  

Knowing bits like that, folks can comment about aspects of the setting that are well-suited to your concerns, parts that might not be, areas that need more details, areas where details won't matter, and etc.

For example, in your setting 1 "implausible, fun horror with wierd science and b movie/steampunk sensibilities" sounds like you aren't very concerned with "realism", so I wouln't think you need a plausabile scientific rationale for much in your setting.  I'd encourage you to look at Jared Sorensen's OctaNe for a game with some of this feel - and if you like the fit, I could easily see your setting as an OctaNe add-on.

But maybe you disagree - maybe you wanted a consistent scientific system for this world.  Or you know OctaNe, and think the rules are "too light" for what you're going for.  These are the kind of issues we can get up on the table and discuss - places where other people can contribute to your game creation effort.  Without something like this, I'm not sure what we can say.

Another example - your description implies the PCs are all Earth-based - London, in specific.  Why?  If the Red Empire is where all the action is, why aren't we there?

I'm trying to find more ways to "hook" the info out of you  - let us know where you want to take this thing, and you'll probably find some folks around here eager to help.

And I hope THIS post helped,

Gordon

[signoftheserpent]

>Alright, let me take a stab at this - fine, never mind the mechanics.  Not eveyone's going to agreee with your assesment there, but let's not get into it.  

im not saying that mechanics arent important at all, just that the setting has to be set down before you design mechanics.

>I'll simply say - you have ENOUGH setting to get some people interested.  Seems to me what you need isn't more of that (setting), but a wider description of what this project is as an RPG.

what do you mean? its just an idea for a game, nothing more nothing less.

>Let me ask some of the Forge standard/classic questions - what do the PCs do[/i] in this setting?  

they investigate paranormal phenomena against a nineteenth century pulp backdrop. the deeper storyline revolving around the deopsed king of the lands of the dead gives motive to their actions and the lands themselves are just a contrivance for strange science and high adventure in an alien bckdrop.

>Why do the player's care about it?  

i dont understand this question. plkayers like whatever they like, there is nothing inherent in this setting that makes more people like it than perhaos they might. if the ideaas appeal to people then they will like it.

>Or another approach - what's your setting for?  

these questions just seem strange to me, i dont understand how they relate to this as they dont seem to make any sense. its not 'for' anything other than a game setting.

>For example, in your setting 1 "implausible, fun horror with wierd science and b movie/steampunk sensibilities" sounds like you aren't very concerned with "realism", so I wouln't think you need a plausabile scientific rationale for much in your setting.  

it isnt meant to eb realistic in an objecxtive sense, just enough to suspend disbelief. howver it shoudl be internally consistent and accurate.

>Another example - your description implies the PCs are all Earth-based - London, in specific.  Why?  If the Red Empire is where all the action is, why aren't we there?

it isnt where all the action is, however the pcs are likely to be human (ie not dead) as a default since they privde the focus for the setting and make the strange stuff seem strange by contrast.

>I'm trying to find more ways to "hook" the info out of you  - let us know where you want to take this thing, and you'll probably find some folks around here eager to help.

what exactly are you asking me?

martin

[Bankuei]

Hi Martin,

Your setting ideas are fine, but as simply setting, they are not playable.  If you were to give further information, such as, "I'm going to use GURPS/D20/my own system/etc.", your settings would actually be able to garner some useful criticism as opposed to simply, "I like/don't like it" opinions.  

Right now, you might take a look around this Forum, and you'll find very few posts with "kewl ideas" because ideas alone don't make good games.   Cool ideas are great, as sources of inspiration and goals, but not as actual finished anythings.  No one can give useful feedback to what amounts to vaporware, or product that does not yet exist.

As far as cool ideas go, there's a mountain of books, movies, myths, comics, tv shows, and videogames to be mined for ideas.  There are very few systems or mechanics in existance(by comparison) to translate a cool idea into a good game.  

what do you mean? its just an idea for a game, nothing more nothing less.

And herein lies the problem.  A good idea("World Peace" "Be Nice" "Don't trip, be cool") is just an idea without a means of making it reality.  What people are asking you boils down to two questions:

1) Are you going to do anything more with these ideas, such as create mechanics to go with them?  If not, this forum really isn't going to help you out much.  This is a game design forum, not a place to spew random thoughts.

2)What mechanics would you use for these games?  An existing system, or one of your own making?  How do we take your ideas, and implement them in the fashion that you see fit?  You can play Feng Shui, Exalted, Ninjas & Superspies, and GURPS China/Japan, and get a million different styles of play, the big difference is the mechanics more than the setting.  What mechanics would you use for your settings?

Chris

[signoftheserpent]

>Your setting ideas are fine, but as simply setting, they are not playable.  

at the moment no, and im not saying they are playable yet. they are just some ideas i wanted to get some feedback on.

>If you were to give further information, such as, "I'm going to use GURPS/D20/my own system/etc.", your settings would actually be able to garner some useful criticism as opposed to simply, "I like/don't like it" opinions.  

does the setting need mechanics in order to garner discussion? surely the setting can be judged on its own merits. mechancis can come later, there is no rush. im working at my own pace.

>Right now, you might take a look around this Forum, and you'll find very few posts with "kewl ideas" because ideas alone don't make good games.  

perhaps there has been a misunderstanding; i am aware of this fact and as i say i dont claim these ideas are complete as games at the moment.

>Cool ideas are great, as sources of inspiration and goals, but not as actual finished anythings.  No one can give useful feedback to what amounts to vaporware, or product that does not yet exist.

no but you can comment on ideas so far, or works in porogress. i dont think you need mechancis to be able to judge a setting, and im not asking you to judge this as a complete game.

>And herein lies the problem.  

im not usre there really is a problem, it is after all just a discussion and i havent made any claims to be a professional working on a load of hot air. its just a private project that - who knows -may go somewhere and make a few bucks. then again it might not. at this stage none of that is relevant, and thats my point.

>A good idea("World Peace" "Be Nice" "Don't trip, be cool") is just an idea without a means of making it reality.  What people are asking you boils down to two questions:

thats a little harsh, i hvent said i have no intention of producing mechanics, or 'making it reality'.

>1) Are you going to do anything more with these ideas, such as create mechanics to go with them?  If not, this forum really isn't going to help you out much.  This is a game design forum, not a place to spew random thoughts.

what i do with the ideas depends on two things 1) whether i think the setting ideas are compelte enough to warrant mechanic ideas (ie whether they are playable and workable and not just vague impressions), and b) the rest of my life - im not actualy doing this for a living. at least not yet! therefore there is no immediate rush to fill in the blanks, and i dont feel its a competition.

>2)What mechanics would you use for these games?  An existing system, or one of your own making?  

i would prorbably use my own ideas which would be simple and probably along the lines of games liek feng shui (although sans the kung fu), tri stat and other minimal systems. maybe a fe gimmicks for added effect, possible some conversion notess. i think unique ideas are best because a) they dont infirnge on copyright, and b) they can be tailored to the setting better). using feng shui as an example, that style of customisable archetypoes is a good idea because it makes character creation quicker, focuses the players more, and is a good compromise between predesigned characters and total player freedom. the game would have basic stats and skills most likely, along with associated rules for 'wierd science', the supernatural/clairvoyance/mediumship (or magic, if you like), maybe some fear rules, although turning pcs into mental jelly isnt treally the focus. the system would probaly be designed to accomadate derring do action as well as clever thinking, although not outright stunts and crazy fighting styles (as with FS).

however i dont want to address this until i think the ideas are ready simply because i dont think its the right way to design a game. what i need to know is how much setting is required. do people _need_ hundred of pages of discourse on life n the age of steam, theories on mysticsm and science as well as a compelte tour, maps, history and social study of the lands of the dead, all beautifully illustrated by the Artis OF The Moment.

or not?

>How do we take your ideas, and implement them in the fashion that you see fit?  

at the moment, you dont. however if this isnt a disucssion place for setting ideas, then thats fine. i dont see any need to rush anything as im not working to anyones deadline - and im not getting paid.

>You can play Feng Shui, Exalted, Ninjas & Superspies, and GURPS China/Japan, and get a million different styles of play, the big difference is the mechanics more than the setting.  What mechanics would you use for your settings?

you woudl get a million different styls of play for any game, mechanics or otherwise.

s

[Roy]

OK, I'm going to jump in here and give it a shot.

There's really not much I can comment on beyond whether I like the basis for your setting or not.  Here's what I think of each potential setting:

"Olympus' Shadow"

Nothing about this potential setting strikes me as interesting or fun, so there's really not much feedback I can give you on this.  It's just not my cup of tea.  

"Martian Book of the Dead"

This potential setting has some real possibility for further development, but I must admit the "Mars being the Land of the Dead" element really turns me off.  

I think it would work much better if you just keep "The Land of the Dead" as an unspecified location, like the Otherworld is in old Celtic fairy tales.  Perhaps you can get to it from where "The Veil Between The Worlds" is the thinnest, such as at "Places of Great Suffering" or some such thing.
 

in the 19th century members of the Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena dsicover a means to travel to the lands of the dead, known locally as the Red Empire of the Scarab

I like this part because it really narrows down the beginning focus of the game for me.  The player characters are all associated with the Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena and "Fight The Good Fight Against The Ancient Evil That Seeks To Corrupt The World!"

That's a really good starting point and I believe it will give your players the solid footing they need to emotionally invest themselves in your game.

I would rather see the Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena as a secret organization within a more mundane umbrella organization, such as the Royal Society of Explorers.  The player characters can then earn their way into "The Knights of the Golden Rose" (or something else appropriately pompous) where they're initiated into the occult mysteries.  Sorry, but I really love my secret societies.

Speaking of secret societies, this potential setting just begs for some great secret societies.  I can see everything from Arabic sorcerers to Egyptian priests to a secret sect of black-magic wielding Nazi necromancers seeking a way into "The Land of the Dead".  

Through their investigation into the Red Empire the society members discover that something bad is brwwing in the underworld as the evil former ruler of the Empire seeks to overthrow his grandson in a quest for conquest that thretens the earth.

As a GM and/or potential player, I don't want you as the designer to decide what the central focus of my game is.  I hate metaplot.  I want options, lots of options.  

In your game, you can have "something bad brewing in the Underworld as the evil former ruler of the Empire seeks to overthrow his grandson in a quest for conquest that threatens the earth" (whew!), but in my game it's really the Nazi necromancers causing all of the problems.  See what I'm getting at here?  Come up with lots of potential sources of conflict that can each be the central focus for a session of your game.

the idea is ghostbusters meets cthulhu meets buffy (in terms of pulpy style) meets the mummy meets falkenstein. its implausible, fun horror with wierd science and b movie/steampunk sensibilities.

I don't mind steam age technology (as long as it's not overdone), but I wouldn't include any weird science (e.g. lightning pistols or steam-powered space ships).  I think it would kill the feel of the game.  

For this potential setting, I see "big steam-powered machines that suck and store the life-energy of unsuspecting victims which will be used to further The Order of Reason's diabolical plans".  (Just FYI, don't use "The Order of Reason" ... I stole it from White Wolf)  

Here are some suggestions if you want to turn this setting into a fully-realized game:  

1)  Ask yourself what your goals are for this game.  It's not necessary to know every goal in exacting detail before you begin, but it does help you decide if you're going down the right path while you develop the game.

For instance, you'll probably make entirely different choices during the game's development based on whether you want to publish the game commercially or if you just want to post it up on a website for free.  

2)  Sit down and imagine an actual session of your game being played.  As you're imagining it, write it down on paper so you can refer back to it as you're developing your game.

Here's a link that describes a method I use in more detail.  

3)  Find a group of people to playtest your idea with.  Use an existing system that's close to the feel of the genre, such as White Wolf's Adventure! system for the pulp genre.  This will really help you discover where your potential setting's strengths and weaknesses are.

4)  After you've played a few sessions with a local group, you might want to join the indie-netgaming Yahoo group and play a couple of sessions online with some of the other Forgies.  They're a great group of people and they'll give you a lot of good feedback based on your actual play session.  Let me know if you decide to do this as I would love a chance to play in a game of it.  

I hope this is the type of feedback you wanted and I hope it helps.  Let me know if there's anything else you need feedback on or if you'd like me to clarify anything.

Roy

[Roy]

the game would have basic stats and skills most likely, along with associated rules for 'wierd science', the supernatural/clairvoyance/mediumship (or magic, if you like), maybe some fear rules, although turning pcs into mental jelly isnt treally the focus.

You definitely want full-fledged magic.  How else can I have my hero mow down an army of zombies created by the Nazi necromancers with a flamethrower? :-)

I would NOT include any kind of fear rules.  Fear is for those panzy investigators from that OTHER game. :-)

I would definitely play up the pulp influence.  Think Indiana Jones and The Mummy.  

the system would probaly be designed to accomadate derring do action as well as clever thinking, although not outright stunts and crazy fighting styles (as with FS).

Definitely play up the derring-do, but don't rule out stunts.  Don't design the game to prevent player creativity.  Give your players the power to tell the story they want to tell.  

what i need to know is how much setting is required. do people _need_ hundred of pages of discourse on life n the age of steam, theories on mysticsm and science as well as a compelte tour, maps, history and social study of the lands of the dead, all beautifully illustrated by the Artis OF The Moment.

No, you don't need that much setting.  In fact, I believe that much info can be counter-productive to people who actually play your game.

Using Sorcerer as an example:  Ron Edwards used a very strong concept (you are a sorcerer and you can summon demons) and combined it with a very strong premise (what will you do to get what you want?).  The rest of the book goes into helping you tailor that concept and premise to your own setting and explaining the rules.  I think it was a very novel way to approach a game and it worked perfectly for Sorcerer.  

Is that the only way to design a game?  Of course not.  Is it the best way to design your game?  I don't know.  Game design is an art, not a science.  

My current thinking on roleplaying games goes something like this:  the more setting you as the designer create, the more that I as a GM have to tinker with, throw away, or change.  Give me a toolkit (concept, rules, suggested starting point, possible alternatives, etc.) and let me and my group build the setting we really want to play through actual play.

you woudl get a million different styls of play for any game, mechanics or otherwise.

Not necessarily.  For example, Dungeons & Dragons (pick an edition) is a "kill the monster, get the reward game".  No matter what setting I use, no matter what I encourage as a GM, I get the same basic behavior ("killed the monster, where's my reward?") from the player because the system is set up to reward that behavior.  

I would suggest you read Ron's excellent article on the subject, System Does Matter.  It's great and I know it really made me rethink my position on the subject.

Roy

[signoftheserpent]

>There's really not much I can comment on beyond whether I like the basis for your setting or not.  Here's what I think of each potential setting:

at shis stage feedback is all i want, perhaps practical suggestions. you may or may not like the ideas.

>This potential setting has some real possibility for further development, but I must admit the "Mars being the Land of the Dead" element really turns me off.  

its meant to be a location  in the way that John Carter's mars is (not literally, its a different place). somewhere that an be travelled to where adventure can be had. its connection to earth just makes it seem more sinister and strange - that it is the land of the dead.

>I think it would work much better if you just keep "The Land of the Dead" as an unspecified location, like the Otherworld is in old Celtic fairy tales.  Perhaps you can get to it from where "The Veil Between The Worlds" is the thinnest, such as at "Places of Great Suffering" or some such thing.

while there needs to be more connection between the two worlds, that sort of thing i find a bit cheesy. im not keen on treading the boards with the usual horror ideas (its meant to be more wierd than horror - as if it were filmed in the 50's by ed wood).
 
>

snipped

I like this part because it really narrows down the beginning focus of the game for me.  The player characters are all associated with the Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena and "Fight The Good Fight Against The Ancient Evil That Seeks To Corrupt The World!"

good enad evil are more black and white than perhaps is realistic. Edward Darklite is the human face of the evil 'spirit' (or god) imhotep and serves as his lieutenant when dealing with earth.

>I would rather see the Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena as a secret organization within a more mundane umbrella organization, such as the Royal Society of Explorers.  

the group is a private organisation set up by well to do savants within the british empire. they work with more elightened and open attitudes to what might be called the fringes of science. they are a cross between the ghostbusters and the leauge of extraordinary gentlemen except without the superheroics or famous names.

>The player characters can then earn their way into "The Knights of the Golden Rose" (or something else appropriately pompous) where they're initiated into the occult mysteries.  Sorry, but I really love my secret societies.

the group are functionally fundamentally different o secret societies like the rosicrucians or the fremans or whatever; it is against their principles. their 'secrecy' is really more privacy.

>Speaking of secret societies, this potential setting just begs for some great secret societies.  I can see everything from Arabic sorcerers to Egyptian priests to a secret sect of black-magic wielding Nazi necromancers seeking a way into "The Land of the Dead".  

well thats why the setting isnt compelted. these soerts of elements - connections between the two worlds - need to be resolved first before mechanics and more mundane factors are introduced.

the setting has to be different - every 'product' (whether amatuer or otherwise) i think needs that edge to make it stand out feom the crowd.

>As a GM and/or potential player, I don't want you as the designer to decide what the central focus of my game is.  I hate metaplot.  I want options, lots of options.  

its not a metaplot, its a reason why supernatural things are happening (at least in greater number). its ot good having the pcs invest one or 2 vague hauntings once a year. its supposed to be the same overall reason that Gozer and the apartment building served in ghostbusters.

darklite and imhotep are m,ajor npc villains but they dont restrict the gm, they are just liteal examples that cna be used to show how the setting works and what sort of villains are needed.

at the endo fthe day, all games should have enough freedom for the gm to do what he wants, but there has to be some structure - thats all this is. the threat of the deposed scarab king and his new human lackey is just an element of the background to give it impetus and a sense of menace. its the same as the phrase 'the stars are right' in CoC - the ever unfulfilled promise of cthulhu (and co) rising again to consume humanity. its the same as the mekon in dan dare always wanting to defeat humanity, ultimately he never succeeds, but thats where the adventure comes from.

>In your game, you can have "something bad brewing in the Underworld as the evil former ruler of the Empire seeks to overthrow his grandson in a quest for conquest that threatens the earth" (whew!), but in my game it's really the Nazi necromancers causing all of the problems.  See what I'm getting at here?  Come up with lots of potential sources of conflict that can each be the central focus for a session of your game.

the lanbds of the dead need to have their own sense of impetus otherwise it becomes just another place, particularly one with no reason to have anything to do with our world.

>I don't mind steam age technology (as long as it's not overdone), but I wouldn't include any weird science (e.g. lightning pistols or steam-powered space ships).  I think it would kill the feel of the game.  

thats just degrees of technology - all of which are left to the discretion of the gm who may want to have nazi necromancers as well as lots of steampunk wierd science.

the wierd science is an important poart dfo the setting - its what the Socety is all about and its how the pcs can enter the lands of th dead (sns magic). its not about overdoing anything. science and technology is all the group really has.

>For this potential setting, I see "big steam-powered machines that suck and store the life-energy of unsuspecting victims which will be used to further The Order of Reason's diabolical plans".  (Just FYI, don't use "The Order of Reason" ... I stole it from White Wolf)  

thats not right at all. the lands of the dead by and large dont use technology; darklite has introudced an unstable element to the scarab society which can be used as a weapon for evil, but its not about building massive steam powered weapons of destruction or soul sucking.

>1)  Ask yourself what your goals are for this game.  It's not necessary to know every goal in exacting detail before you begin, but it does help you decide if you're going down the right path while you develop the game.

how does an rpg have a goal?

>2)  Sit down and imagine an actual session of your game being played.  As you're imagining it, write it down on paper so you can refer back to it as you're developing your game.

a typical adventure might include:

*investigating a haunting in foggy old london town and picking up clues to a lrager threat from the scarab empire as imhoteps allies attempt o gain more corporeal poewr
*following up the clues by travelling to the pyramids of giza, overcoming cultists and cliffhangers all the way in order to enter the pyramids and locate some artifact mentioned in the Book of the Dead.
*strappoing on the groups' new improved 'ethersuit' (a suitably atmoshpheric contraption allowing ease of movement as well as travel to the scarab empire) and crossing into the lands of the dead from within a poretal in the pyramid.
*travelling throught e bazaars of the capiral of the empire to a showdown with one of imhotep's grand viziers while finding assiostance from forces loyal to imhotep's banished son, anekh.

or something.

>I hope this is the type of feedback you wanted and I hope it helps.  Let me know if there's anything else you need feedback on or if you'd like me to clarify anything.
cheers

s

[signoftheserpent]

>You definitely want full-fledged magic.  How else can I have my hero mow down an army of zombies created by the Nazi necromancers with a flamethrower? :-)

problem with magic is that it has been done and done and done. if magic was used, it would be of the kind used in castle falkenstein, and more akin to the 'mandrake the magician - stage conjuro ar hetype (at least in appearance!). this means the introduction of secret societies, however i do not want to get bogged down int eh havy duty politics and realim' of real world secret societies because i think the game would suffer. gms can use them and pay lip service to them if they want, but i dont hink the game would benefit from having such things codified.

whats wrong with just using a flamethrowe, or gunpwoeder or whatever?

>I would NOT include any kind of fear rules.  Fear is for those panzy investigators from that OTHER game. :-)

true enough, but it can be used as a weapon by powerful evil entities and gods and spirits which is somethign i dont think should be overlooked. fear mechanics if done right can serve a useful purpose which is to strike fear into the hearts of players when they know their characters are facing real stress.

>I would definitely play up the pulp influence.  Think Indiana Jones and The Mummy.  

tom strong's phantom autogyro, the league of extraordinary gentlemen, hohn carter, dr strange, even the nevermen comic book, lovecrafdt/lumley amongst others. but yes i think about the mummy quite a lot as it was a very good example of the genre.

>Definitely play up the derring-do, but don't rule out stunts.  Don't design the game to prevent player creativity.  Give your players the power to tell the story they want to tell.  

by stunts i meant in terms of fengshui, such as dancing on bullets or gliding brefoot acorss cable car wires.

>No, you don't need that much setting.  In fact, I believe that much info can be counter-productive to people who actually play your game.

maybe but if i wanted to someday pu t the game on the market, i wonder if that amount of information woudl be enough.

>Using Sorcerer as an example:  Ron Edwards used a very strong concept (you are a sorcerer and you can summon demons) and combined it with a very strong premise (what will you do to get what you want?).  The rest of the book goes into helping you tailor that concept and premise to your own setting and explaining the rules.  I think it was a very novel way to approach a game and it worked perfectly for Sorcerer.  

well ive necver read that, but does it have a setting that might require more description than usual (if its not set in the modern world with very few changes).

s

[Drew Stevens]

*pokes at his eyes*

Sign, please.  Quite apart from any discussion on game mechanics or setting or concept or theme... please... take five seconds to open up Word (or the spelling and grammer checker of your choice), type your post into it, spell and grammer check it, then copy/paste it over to here.  As is, your typing is an impediment to understanding.

Sidenote- Profuse apologies in advance is english isn't your first language.

[Drew Stevens]

First, a thought on 'I need a complete setting before I can contemplate rules'.  I study linguistics as a hobby.  As a consequence, many games I run- especially high fantasy sorts -feature highly detailed naming schemes and alternate languages.  However, I don't try and create a completely unified grammer before using a conlang.   Does that stop me from using the skeleton of what I've created to help enhance the world?  Hell no!  The language frequently devolps side by side with the rest of the world.

(For the unitiated, is the entire phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, lexicon, and other bits I don't remember goes into a grammer- and how these parts relate to one another.  In the entire field of linguistics, there are no complete real language grammers- they are a holy grail of the field, akin to the UFT.  Anywho. :)

Likewise, no one has ever written a 'complete' setting, which perfectly integrates every historical, sociological, social psychological, and whatever other fields of science you want to use-ological aspeect into a wholly imaginary reality.  No complete setting has ever been written.  'Waiting' for a complete setting before moving on is akin to waiting for a no legged horse to finish the race.  It might happen, eventually.  Maybe.  But it's seems like stalling.

On the question of originality- nothing's going to be completely original any more.  Nor is it a good goal to try, as far as I'm concerned.  Neither of your ideas are /original/ (hence why we can easily trace their origins), but that doesn't make them more or less good.

---

Now, on to more setting specific stuff!

*Magic as the Tool of the Devil: You said you wanted magic to mostly fall in the domain of secret societies, but didn't want to define those secret societies so as to avoid getting bogged down in the politics.  Fair enough.  But if you're going to have Evil Spirits and Eviler Gods, then having Magic becomes simplier- it's just an imitation of those powers, at lesser (or, for an amusing twist, greater) scale.

*Fear: Heroes should be Deathly Afraid of something dirt common.  Hoardes of zombi?  No problem!  Rampaging Persian Demon?  Feh.  But keep those damn mice away from me!  IMO, that fits the pulpy genre nicely, and could providee some amusing comic relief/story potential.  

*The Cheese Factor: You're talking about making Mars the Land of the Dead, the Red Egyptian Empire, which hath Imohtep and legions of zombies as an integral part of the setting.  You're using the Mummy and Indiana Jones as source material.  Embrace the Cheese.  As is, this could not be a deadly seriously played game- the echoes of 1920's pulp are entirely too strong.

And if you take out the elements which make it cheesy, what you're left with is, essentially, Cult of Cthulu by Gaslight.  Which is fun, but I don't think what you want.

*White Hats and Black Headgear: There's nothing wrong with clearly defined good and evil.  Unless one of the themes you intend to explore is 'What is morality?', then clearly and simply defining Who's Right and Who's Evil won't hurt the game, it'll help it be providing a clearer focus.

*Secret Societies are Bad!: You seem to have an inherent bias against secret societies which puzzles me. In particular, your note of 'Their secrets are more like privacy', when contrasting with the Masons or he Rosy Cross.  First, are you refering to the /actual/ Masons, or more the Pulpy version of them (IE, more akin to Umberto Eco's Mason's, or the Illumanati, etc- while I realize that UE isn't terribly pulpy in and of himself, the secret societies of Focault's Pendulum are a good model for pulpy SS IMO).

In RL, bastard that it is, most secret societies... aren't.  Terribly secret, that is.  People tend to either know or be able to learn /of/ them fairly easily, and to learn what they're doing and why they're doing it (at least in vauge terms) with little more difficulty.  But they are still /secret/, beecause some aspects of the society act to maintain their privacy from the outside world.

Hell, most large businesses are as much secret societies as RL secret societies.  They have trade secrets and jargon and are selective with membership... Hm.  Note to self, make a game exploiting this similarity. :)

Of course, if you're talking about the more pulpy sorts of secret societies, that's something else.  But ever so terribly in genre, and so rich with potential stories.  What if someone (man or beast?  Infiltrator or traitor?) steals some Valuable Artifact from the Secret Vault?  Or what if you go to do the same to a rival?  What if a plucky reporter threatens to expose you to the World, only to need rescuing for Supernatural Muckitymucks?

*This before That: Specifically, 'I can't design secret societies exploiting the connection between the world until I design those connections'.  After which, you'll make magic and SS that conform to those connections.  Why not go the other way?  What sort of magic and SS would make for a good story?  What sort of connection to Mars do they require?  Alright, that connection (or something similiar) is what exists.  You don't have to draw the fault lines before deciding where land will be- you don't have to concieve of the reality of the situation before deciding how humans react to that reality.  Let humans react in an amusing way, and figure out what they're reacting to.

*Metaplot: What you describeed was metaplot.  Justifying all the Strange Supernatural Events down to a small set of actions is metaplot.  Why not get rid of it and have 'We don't /know/ why Strange Supernatural Events are happening'- leave it undefined in the core setting.  Then, adventures can be based around discovering that very thing- and possibly shutting it off or leaving it on or even making it bigger.

For your game, that's Imhotep.  For mine, it's the King in Yellow.  Or whatever. :) It's bad form (IMO) to write setting that you expect DMs to casually chunk.  It leads to things like Nobilie-Mage, one of my more awful crossbred bastard children that plas far better than it has a right to. :)

Agh.  I'd write more, but breakfast calls... bagels...

[signoftheserpent]

>Does that stop me from using the skeleton of what I've created to help enhance the world?  Hell no!  The language frequently develops side by side with the rest of the world.

Well that’s great if it works for you. However, I would feel better designing this if I knew the setting was complete enough, before getting into mechanics. I happen to think that's a more systematic way of working. It may work differently for other genres or types of setting.

>Likewise, no one has ever written a 'complete' setting, which perfectly integrates every historical, sociological, social psychological, and whatever other fields of science you want to use-ological aspect into a wholly imaginary reality.  

Well there is complete and there is obsessively complete.

>On the question of originality- nothing's going to be completely original any more.  Nor is it a good goal to try, as far as I'm concerned.  Neither of your ideas are /original/ (hence why we can easily trace their origins), but that doesn't make them more or less good.

Indeed, but I think you should strive to be original because in that process you will perhaps produce better ideas. They may ultimately not be original per se, but they will be better for it.

>*Magic as the Tool of the Devil: You said you wanted magic to mostly fall in the domain of secret societies, but didn't want to define those secret societies so as to avoid getting bogged down in the politics.  

Only in the sense of the example I used, Castle Falkenstein, which has a magic system and ethos that suits the setting very well.

>Fair enough.  But if you're going to have Evil Spirits and Eviler Gods, then having Magic becomes simpler- it's just an imitation of those powers, at lesser (or, for an amusing twist, greater) scale.

There would invariably be the aspect of magical power within this setting (were magic to be used) that would incorporate the ambitious adept; the seeker after power that craves and covets the power of the lands of the dead and its greater denizens.

>*Fear: Heroes should be Deathly Afraid of something dirt common.  Hoardes of zombi?  No problem!  Rampaging Persian Demon?  Feh.  But keep those damn mice away from me!  IMO, that fits the pulpy genre nicely, and could provide some amusing comic relief/story potential.  

That, I think, is a player choice. I don’t think you can make rules that would work that way because you would then have an army of characters who, while able to look scaly death in the face, run screaming from a creaking door. I would not like to encourage that with rules because it seems counter intuitive.

I suspect that all you would really need is a Fear effect for certain creatures, which can be used for powerful npc's. This can force a player to make a roll to avoid being cowed or terrified by the source thereof. The lotr RPG has good fear rules.

>*The Cheese Factor: You're talking about making Mars the Land of the Dead, the Red Egyptian Empire, which hath Imohtep

It’s Egyptian in eel because the near east has plenty of mysticism and suitable atmosphere and is suitably non-western. The name imhotep may very well change as I couldn’t think of anything else, but there is no need as yet to tie it into any persons real or imagined ;)

>and legions of zombies as an integral part of the setting.  

They may be, I haven’t given any thought to actual monsters yet.

>You're using the Mummy and Indiana Jones as source material.  Embrace the Cheese.  As is, this could not be a deadly seriously played game- the echoes of 1920's pulp are entirely too strong.

Yes but there is cheese and thee is _cheese_.

>And if you take out the elements that make it cheesy, what you're left with is, essentially, Cult of Cthulu by Gaslight.  Which is fun, but I don't think what you want.

Its not quite cthulhu, I think that world is a different beast. I use Lovecraft as an influence only in his more sci-fi leanings (which is why I mention lumley).

>*Secret Societies are Bad!: You seem to have an inherent bias against secret societies which puzzles me.

No bias, I just don’t want to get into writing up real world secret societies because they are so complex. If people want to use them, that's fine, but I don’t want the setting to be bogged down by trying to tie all aspects into real world history or cosmology or events that have happened.

>In particular, your note of 'Their secrets are more like privacy', when contrasting with the Masons or he Rosy Cross.  First, are you referring to the /actual/ Masons, or more the Pulpy version of them (IE, more akin to Umberto Eco's Mason's, or the Illumanati, etc- while I realize that UE isn't terribly pulpy in and of himself, the secret societies of Focault's Pendulum are a good model for pulpy SS IMO).

What that statement means is that the Society itself is really just a science club for grown up boys. It’s not especially secret, nor is it really a society (and it certainly doesn't have bizarre rituals or beliefs - as such). Thus they work in private - not in secret; they work for their own benefit ultimately as a sort of professional hobby, or extension of their professional careers as most of them are academics and intellectuals anyway.

>In RL, bastard that it is, most secret societies... aren't.  Terribly secret, that is.  People tend to either know or be able to learn /of/ them fairly easily, and to learn what they're doing and why they're doing it (at least in vague terms) with little more difficulty.  But they are still /secret/, because some aspects of the society act to maintain their privacy from the outside world.

All this discussion is partly why I don’t want to incorporate real world secret societies at any great length. Groups such a those used by the writers of Indiana Jones or the mummy are ok, but I regard them more as cultists as those characters fulfil those sorts of roles by and large.

>*Metaplot: What you describeed was metaplot.  Justifying all the Strange Supernatural Events down to a small set of actions is metaplot.  Why not get rid of it and have 'we don't /know/ why Strange Supernatural Events are happening'- leave it undefined in the core setting.  Then, adventures can be based around discovering that very thing- and possibly shutting it off or leaving it on or even making it bigger.

I like to have a rationale for the elements of the setting otherwise it becomes vague and pointless. It isn’t a metaplot because there is not ongoing storyline decided by me alone. There are just setting elements. If we take away everything but the strange supernatural happenings then the setting becomes redundant and the point of designing this game is lost for me. I think there is a difference between a metaplot, which is an ongoing thing that restricts the flow of information to the gm, and a structured setting. To me its no different than the backstory of Castle Falkenstein which says Second Compact - the default pc group - was set up to combat the unhealthy influence of the Unseelie on scientific and social progress. I don’t call that a metaplot.

>For your game, that's Imhotep.  For mine, it's the King in Yellow.  Or whatever. :) It's bad form (IMO) to write setting that you expect DMs to casually chunk.  It leads to things like Nobilie-Mage, one of my more awful crossbred bastard children that plas far better than it has a right to. :)

I don’t expect players to ditch anything, you misinterpret me. However gm's invariably edit games and ideas for their own use and I have no problem with that, nor do I feel that I should worry about it. You cant please everyone. You cannot design a certain typ of game for people who are not really into that sort of thing just so they can have an easier time rewriting your ideas. You can bear them in mind, but that's it.

S

[Ron Edwards]

Hi S,

Perhaps some examples would help. Can you give me at least one example, preferably more, of the following? That is, role-playing game titles?

Very incomplete setting

Almost-complete setting

Just right: complete setting, not too much, not too little

Obsessively complete setting

Best,
Ron