a pair of fantastic ideas

[Bankuei]

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.

Now you have a useful thrust of this thread.  Do we need more to play on?Yes.  Do you need 100's of pages of detail?  Probably not.  The tricky part of setting is how much information/genre details are available to the general public.  

If you say, "Let's play Indiana Jones!", then anyone who's seen the movies gets the idea right away.  If you say, "Let's play the Indian Myth-Epic Mahabharata in Space!", less people will get it, and require a lot more background info to run on.

Some games, like Dust Devils, have a library of movies, books, comics, and tv shows to draw on as source material, and as such, don't require tons of setting info.  Others, such as Tribe 8, create a world with very little in common with our own, and require a lot of work to communicate the setting and color of the world to the players.

Chris

[signoftheserpent]

as an aside i was tempted to base the culture of the lands of the dead on oriental culture and not 'faux-arabian'. its still a possibility, but with the stuff written for wraith, it kinda feels derivative; but it might work for a 'chinese sorcery' angle/fu manchu vibe. certainly i think chinese magic is very evocative.

s

[Roy]

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

Glad to hear it.  It looks like we're on the same page here, at least.

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).

The genres you mentioned are cheesy.  Mars being the Land of the Dead is cheesy.  The Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena is cheesy.  As Drew so eloquently put it, it's time to "Embrace the Cheese".  (That needs to be on a t-shirt, Drew!)

You can downplay the pulp elements of your idea, but then I don't see any difference between your game and "Call of Cthulu" ... other than CoC is based on H.P. Lovecraft's well-written tales of otherworldly horror.  That's a very strong point in it's favor.  

good enad evil are more black and white than perhaps is realistic.

Do you mean that good and evil are more black and white in your game than in real life, or that the examples I gave showed good and evil as more black and white than you'd prefer in your game?

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.

So what's the edge for your game?

I think a game can benefit from a good hook, but your specific implementation of that hook is what will really set your game apart.

Ron's Sorcerer has a great hook that can be condensed to a single paragraph:  "You're a sorcerer.  You can summon and command demons.  What are you willing to do to get what you want?"  That's a great hook that he really followed through on.

If you find yourself struggling to condense your hook down to a single paragraph, it may be too complex of a hook.  

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.

I consider that a metaplot because you are saying this is the official answer to why the supernatural things are happening and it will stay the official answer throughout all of my products.  

I would rather see you offer several interesting situations that get a group's creative juices flowing so they can take your game concept and make it their own through actual play.

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.

If this is the case, then I'd suggest spending some time explaining what sort of villains work with your setting and how GMs can create their own villains using Edward Darklite and Imhotep as examples.  

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.

This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to give any worthwhile feedback on your posts.  You've obviously decided how much of each element you want in the game based on this comment, but you didn't communicate this in your original post.

Roy wrote:
Ask yourself what your goals are for this game.

signoftheserpent wrote:
how does an rpg have a goal?

Re-read my post again.  I didn't ask what goal the RPG has, but instead what your goals are for your RPG.  Those are two different things.

And RPGs themselves can have goals.  For example, Sorcerer's goal is the exploration of the premise "what will you do to get what you want?"

And it does seem your RPG has a goal ... to stop the plans of whatever evil thing(s) lives in the Land of the Dead.

problem with magic is that it has been done and done and done.

So has science fiction.  So has horror.  That is no reason not to include it if it makes your game interesting.

Have you ever considered why magic has been done to death?  Could it be because it's popular and people enjoy it?

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.

You don't have to include real-world secret societies in order to use secret societies in your game.  And you certainly don't have to delve into heavy politics in order to use them.

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.

I also didn't say anything about codifying the secret societies.  Sometimes a few paragraphs describing them in general terms is all it takes to set off creative sparks within a GM's overworked brain.

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

Nothing.  In fact, I believe I mentioned a flamethrower in my second post.  

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 have been gaming a long time and I've never seen a GM or mechanics be able to strike fear into the hearts of players.  I have seen a player respond with a genuine emotional response through the GM's use of effective storytelling techniques, but never with fear.  I personally don't feel it's possible to induce fear in a player without using some underhanded psychological techniques aimed at the player himself and not his character.

I would rather see you describe fear effects in another way.  For example, if you want the effect of an antagonist's fear ability to take the form of freezing the affected character in place, then just describe it as a Hold ability instead.  You get the same basic result, but you let the player control his character's emotional reaction to the effect instead of forcing his character to be afraid.  The character's emotional reaction is for the player to decide, not the GM.

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).

Sorcerer doesn't have a setting per se.  It has a premise that can be tailored to fit any setting you want.  I personally have played it in several settings, ranging from fantasy to modern day.  I know others have even used it in a sci-fi setting and post-apocalyptic fantasy.

In closing, I really get the feeling that you've already decided what the setting is and you just want us to confirm it's fine as it is.  I'm sorry if this isn't the case, but I can't help get that feeling from your posts.  

Roy

[Drew Stevens]

Just a quick note Roy- I, as a DM, have gotten fear from my PCs.  It was their first experience with Call of Cthulu- a one shot, not lights, one candle per player.  When they were rendered dead or insane, the candle was snuffed out.

The last player had a nightmare that night.  Of a four armed, eight foot tall raven beaked god that /just wouldn't die/.  The others were dead or mad by that point.

My job here is done. ;)

[signoftheserpent]

>The genres you mentioned are cheesy.  Mars being the Land of the Dead is cheesy.  The Royal Society for Extraordinary Phenomena is cheesy.  As Drew so eloquently put it, it's time to "Embrace the Cheese".  (That needs to be on a t-shirt, Drew!)

Yes they are cheesy, i'm not denying this, However I think there is a way of doing 'cheese' that doesn’t involve ruining the game by just pandering to really really hackneyed stereotypes. Most every game, for instance, has magic and monsters; the trick is to make it seem relevant, interesting and overall dynamic and exciting.

>You can downplay the pulp elements of your idea, but then I don't see any difference between your game and "Call of Cthulu" ... other than CoC is based on H.P. Lovecraft's well-written tales of otherworldly horror.  That's a very strong point in its favor.  

Well this setting has an entirely different cosmology (not least of all because anything done that even vaguely resembles lovecraft's ideas seems like a total rip-off).

It’s not really a question of downplaying pulp elements, rather than not using every pulp element just because I can unless it benefits the game.

>Do you mean that good and evil are more black and white in your game than in real life, or that the examples I gave showed good and evil as more black and white than you'd prefer in your game?

I mean the former, ultimately. Of course indidvuals can interpret the morality of the setting as they see fit, but I prefer the protagonists to have a default morality setting of clearly heroic. They are the good guys. I personally have had enough of angsty roleplaying. However the morality of the setting isn’t something that will be discussed a lot other than it will be defined by the setting being painted in broad, pulpy strokes and cut from a very dramatic cloth.

>So what's the edge for your game?

I couldn’t say right now, i’m still trying to cut the diamond from the rough. That said, it should have one, ultimately because otherwise it won’t really interest me that much. The games I like I like for a reason, that reason is their edge - at least as I see it; that edge appeals to me and its what satisfies me when I write ideas.

>If you find yourself struggling to condense your hook down to a single paragraph, it may be too complex of a hook.  

Indeed.

>I consider that a metaplot because you are saying this is the official answer to why the supernatural things are happening and it will stay the official answer throughout all of my products.  

It’s no different than saying that the hellmouth is the reason for all the weirdness in sunnydale in btvs. It’s not really any different than using a recurring villain, and even then individual gms aren’t going to have too tough a time changing things. It isn’t a metaplot because there is no ongoing story, at least defined by me. I haven’t planned on anything like that happening.

>I would rather see you offer several interesting situations that get a group's creative juices flowing so they can take your game concept and make it their own through actual play.

What you are looking for a is a generic horror game, like a gurps book or something. That’s not what this game is about or intended to be.

Its no different than the occult underground and the invisible clergy in unknown armies, 99% of which is predefined in the books - you work for Alex abel in he new inquisition, or, these are the major players in the occult world, and these are the members of the invisible clergy. However at the same time the game allows the gm to change any of this by not tying the players to a story or ongoing plot. That’s the difference.

I like games to have interesting npc's, especially as villains because not least of all it serves as a very practical template.

>If this is the case, then I'd suggest spending some time explaining what sort of villains work with your setting and how GMs can create their own villains using Edward Darklite and Imhotep as examples.  

I like the idea of using such examples because it makes the player feel that they are reading something more than just an instruction manual, almost as if they were reading a story (in the sense that that’s what they will ultimately be doing with the book).

Darklite and imhotep (or whoever he becomes) are no different than perhaps cthulhu or nyarlothotep in the CoC setting, or the characters from the 'story' of Castle Falkenstein.

>This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to give any worthwhile feedback on your posts.  You've obviously decided how much of each element you want in the game based on this comment, but you didn't communicate this in your original post.

Well maybe, but its nice to hear what other people thin, even if what they say is rejected. I like to hear different interpretations and ideas, even though I reserve the right to do what I want with my ideas. It’s not being ungrateful, and it’s not pointless to post ideas. All feedback is appreciated, no matter where it leads. I like discussion to be unrestricted so that ideas can be fully explored.

>Re-read my post again.  I didn't ask what goal the RPG has, but instead what your goals are for your RPG.  Those are two different things.

I don’t see the difference.

>And RPGs themselves can have goals.  For example, Sorcerer's goal is the exploration of the premise "what will you do to get what you want?"

Is that a goal, or a theme? I.e., has the game failed, then, if players fully enjoy the game but don’t take it to that level and don’t explore those ideas? Is it less of a product in that case?

>And it does seem your RPG has a goal ... to stop the plans of whatever evil thing(s) lives in the Land of the Dead.

Well that’s what I would call a players goal - ultimately to battle the forces of evil.

>So has science fiction.  So has horror.  That is no reason not to include it if it makes your game interesting.

Yes but you have to start somewhere. This game doesn’t have to include magic as such, not to say that there is anything wrong with including, just that to do so would have to be done appropriately.

>Have you ever considered why magic has been done to death?  Could it be because it's popular and people enjoy it?

Of course.

>You don't have to include real-world secret societies in order to use secret societies in your game.  And you certainly don't have to delve into heavy politics in order to use them.

I’m just not sure that using lots of real world occultism is the right thing or this game; its not nephilim.

>Nothing.  In fact, I believe I mentioned a flamethrower in my second post.  

Your example seemed to suggest that you wanted more than a flamethrower - i.e. magic.

>I have been gaming a long time and I've never seen a GM or mechanics be able to strike fear into the hearts of players.  

What i’m saying is that fear mechanics can be used to take control of potentially stupid situations. Every coc gm has, at some time, met some player who felt their character could waltz into the cultists lair, stare down cthulhu and be the last man standing. The sanity mechanics prevent that from happening and for a very good reason - in character, such a person would go nuts instantly (if he wasn’t killed first). Stupid players aside, this helps the player rationalise the game world by understanding that if he acts unrealistically, he will pay the price. It also helps enforce that reality.

>I have seen a player respond with a genuine emotional response through the GM's use of effective storytelling techniques, but never with fear.  I personally don't feel it's possible to induce fear in a player without using some underhanded psychological techniques aimed at the player himself and not his character.

I am not interested in freaking out players or making people uncomfortable. But to treat the supernatural as something mundane is foolish. Using mechanics helps avoid that.

>I would rather see you describe fear effects in another way.  For example, if you want the effect of an antagonist's fear ability to take the form of freezing the affected character in place, then just describe it as a Hold ability instead.  You get the same basic result, but you let the player control his character's emotional reaction to the effect instead of forcing his character to be afraid.  The character's emotional reaction is for the player to decide, not the GM.

Evocative description is down to the individual gm.

>Sorcerer doesn't have a setting per se.  It has a premise that can be tailored to fit any setting you want.  I personally have played it in several settings, ranging from fantasy to modern day.  I know others have even used it in a sci-fi setting and post-apocalyptic fantasy.

Which is fine, but that isn’t the approach I want to take here.

S

[Roy]

Drew wrote:
My job here is done. ;)

Think you got me, don't ya? :-)  Mwahaha!

Drew wrote:
Just a quick note Roy- I, as a DM, have gotten fear from my PCs. It was their first experience with Call of Cthulu- a one shot, not lights, one candle per player. When they were rendered dead or insane, the candle was snuffed out.

The last player had a nightmare that night.

I don't doubt he had a nightmare, but was it from the game content or your use of underhanded psychological techniques aimed at the player himself?  :-)  If you re-read the relevant part of my post, I specifically qualified that.

Touché.  And, oh, my job here is done. :-)  (I hope you realize I'm just kidding around with you in good spirit, Drew.)

Roy

[Roy]

However I think there is a way of doing 'cheese' that doesn’t involve ruining the game by just pandering to really really hackneyed stereotypes.

Certain stereotypes are ingrained in each of the genres you mentioned that you were using for inspiration.  The stereotypes are the first thing that spring to mind when you ask someone about that particular genre and they can certainly be a very useful tool.  

If you constantly deviate from every sterotype of the genre, you will end up removing the player's frame of reference.  If you're not careful, you could end up with a setting full of genre contradictions that make it difficult for new players to learn and enjoy.    

I would recommend you actually concentrate on putting a new spin on the important elements of your setting and using stereotypes for the minor elements.

Well this setting has an entirely different cosmology (not least of all because anything done that even vaguely resembles lovecraft's ideas seems like a total rip-off).

That is not going to be enough to get someone to play your game instead of CoC.  If you feel the "edge" is that important to a good game, why not start there and ask yourself why anyone would choose your game over CoC, Unknown Armies, etc?

It’s not really a question of downplaying pulp elements, rather than not using every pulp element just because I can unless it benefits the game.

I think that's a good point to focus on.

but I prefer the protagonists to have a default morality setting of clearly heroic. They are the good guys. I personally have had enough of angsty roleplaying.

If that's the type of protagonist your game calls for, please make sure you specify that in the game.  Communicate that to the players so they know what's expected of them when they begin creating their characters.  

What I don't understand is why you want protagonists that are "clearly heroic", but then you want to put in rules to hinder their ability to act (e.g. fear effects).  

Let's look at The Mummy since you mentioned that as one of your inspirations (and it seems to be the main source for the villain in your metaplot).  When the Medjai (the desert protectors) ride down upon the Foreign Legion in Hamunaptra, Benny freezes in fear and eventually runs away, but Rick O'Connell jumps into the fray.  I'm sure Rick is scared (as communicated by his facial expressions), but it doesn't stop him from acting.  In fact, the fear gives him more incentive to act.  (Hmm, there's an interesting concept ... adrenalin dice or bonuses.  When you face The Ultimate Evil, you kick yourself into high gear.)

Later, Rick O'Connell encounters Imhotep face to face in the ruins of Hamunaptra.  Rick doesn't just freeze and cringe in terror.  Instead, he kicks into high gear and begins acting heroically despite being faced with an otherworldly monstrosity.  

If you want your players to act the part of heroic protagonists, don't saddle them with rules or concepts that encourage just the opposite.

I couldn’t say right now, i’m still trying to cut the diamond from the rough. That said, it should have one, ultimately because otherwise it won’t really interest me that much.

Maybe you should start with your edge then and work outward from there.  Your edge should be at the very heart of your game and should influence every single part of it's design.  Try to boil it down into one paragraph that really makes people want to play your game.

What you are looking for a is a generic horror game, like a gurps book or something. That’s not what this game is about or intended to be.

No, it's not.  I want nuggets that really kickstart my creative juices and get me excited about playing your game.  I want you to give me a toolkit that me and my players can use to build our own unique version of the "Martian Book of the Dead" game experience.

It really comes down to your goals for your game.  Do you want people to buy your game, read it, say "that's cool", then put it on their shelf?  Or do you want them to buy it, read it, get their group excited to play it, and keep playing it?  

If you really want to encourage actual play then the individual group needs a way of making the setting their own through actual play.  If you make that difficult through your design of the game, then why should they bother with your game?

All feedback is appreciated, no matter where it leads. I like discussion to be unrestricted so that ideas can be fully explored.

All too often an unqualified thread leads to nowhere with everyone wasting their time and energy.  If you actually want to accomplish something, try qualifying your threads more.  Give us something specific to focus on and you'll get plenty of useful feedback.

Well that’s what I would call a players goal - ultimately to battle the forces of evil.

How can that be a players' goal when you designed it into the setting from the beginning?  You didn't give the players the option of that goal ... it's the focus of your entire game.  And I think that's a good thing.

An example of a player-defined goal might be a character trying to find his long-lost father.  
 

if players fully enjoy the game but don’t take it to that level and don’t explore those ideas?

Everything in Sorcerer is designed to facilitate that goal.  It is impossible to not address that premise during play if you have an honest and interested group of players.  

No matter what setting we play Sorcerer in, no matter how we define demons, no matter how we define Humanity, we can tell we are playing Sorcerer.  I consider that one of Sorcerer's strengths.  

This game doesn’t have to include magic as such, not to say that there is anything wrong with including, just that to do so would have to be done appropriately.

If you include weird science, you're just including magic using a different name.  

Magic, weird science, and science are just special effects in a game.  The difference is that you offer rational explanations for science while you don't need such explanations for magic and weird science.  When you explain how magic and weird science actually functions, you relegate it to the realm of science.  Magic and weird science are just Black Boxes (input something here, something we don't need to understand makes it work under the hood, output something here).

Your example seemed to suggest that you wanted more than a flamethrower - i.e. magic.

I certainly do want magic.  If you don't include magic, you've destroyed my suspension of disbelief when you mention a Martian Land of the Dead.

What i’m saying is that fear mechanics can be used to take control of potentially stupid situations. Every coc gm has, at some time, met some player who felt their character could waltz into the cultists lair, stare down cthulhu and be the last man standing.

Why must you as the designer prevent a player from taking an action he feels is appropriate for his character?  That's something that should be addressed in the group's own social contract.  

I think you'd be better off spending your time building a game that rewarded appropriate actions than penalizing inappropriate actions.  

And we're not playing CoC, we're playing your game here.  If I were to play a game based on The Mummy, you'd better believe my character was going to waltz into the cultists' lair, stare down The Ultimate Evil, pop off a suitably heroic quip, and open up my can of pulp ass kickin'.  In fact, I believe that is one of the scenes from The Mummy Returns.

The sanity mechanics prevent that from happening and for a very good reason - in character, such a person would go nuts instantly (if he wasn’t killed first).

In CoC, such a person would go nuts instantly ... why does it have to be that way in your game?  If you want it to work that way, why not just write up an alternate setting for CoC and be done with it?

Stupid players aside, this helps the player rationalise the game world by understanding that if he acts unrealistically, he will pay the price.

What's realistic about the Martian Land of the Dead?  Or weird science?  Or Buffy?  Or The Mummy?  To quote James Brown:  "Absolutely nothin'!  Say it again!"

Evocative description is down to the individual gm.

When you design an antagonist's ability as Fear instead of Hold, that is not leaving an evocative description to the GM.  You are clearly stating the cause of the effect and describing it to the GM.  

Which is fine, but that isn’t the approach I want to take here.

That's fine.  What approach do you want to take here?  I haven't seen that discussed yet.

Now that we've discussed this topic for a while, what do you see as your next step?  What are you going to do to get you one step closer to a finished game?

Roy

[signoftheserpent]

i think, ultimately, that this idea is best suited to a campaign or scenario for an existing game. the idea may well prove too restrictive for a stand alone game, and would lose out from the removal of ideas such oas the main protagonists.

still, its always nice to discuss these ideas.

martin

[Roy]

When you play it out, post it in the Actual Play forum.  I'd like to see where it goes.

Roy