Need some critics over my new project

[xechnao]

I want to present you the setting I am creating and have you tell me what you think about it.
This setting is intended for playing games.Here is the deal:
The setting is focused on a planet's people -which planet is very similar with earth and life by the same way very similar too with on earth life.
The major thing that differs between that planet and earth is geography.But this is not unimportant for the development of the life species and the civilization activity that some of them may have.
There can be all the types of flora and fauna that there are on our planet but the geneollogy is definately not the same.The period I am going to describe most and will mostly occupy gaming's scenes is a period where mammals exist, as well as other animals and particularlly civilization as activity of some of them.
The species that are most interesting for their civilization activity are humans, humanoids and lizardmen although these may not be the dominant species over the planet's animal kingdom.
Civilization on this planet could not differ from ours except from the fact that  the planet's geography is different. The major differences with the biggest impact on the standards of civilization are two:
First, on the planet the conductive metal ore available to be mined is extremelly limited and second gunpowder is restricted as well, similarlly due to limited availability of its materials so technology is exotically alternate.
There are no firearms neither electrcal power, electronics, microcomputers and the like. But there are inventions based on the other materials of the world such as ceramics, polymers, combustives and gasses and even biotissues. So there are weapons such as swords and spears, plate-armour , flamers, gas-bombs, pressure-using devices, trains, cars, trucks, hellicopters, airplanes and submarines.
Well this was my try to very briefly include some elements that could describe or at least give some clues about the setting.
Any comments you have are the most appreciated.
I also mention that I am in need of assistance to develop the setting so any way that one could help is welcome at least.
Thank you for your time.

[Jasper]

Having read Jared Diamond's recent book about the formation of civilizations based on geography, I was initially very interested in your design.  Although I see you're focusing entirely on across-the-board tech availabilities, maybe you should consider going farther with it, in terms of agriculture, the spread of technology, etc.  There are plenty of books (notably Mr. Diamond's that discuss such things).

As far as the details you've provided go...I'm not quite sure it's consistent.  There are combustibles and cars (so presumably all kinds of mechanics) but no guns?  Why not just a super-powerful sling-shot/crossbow type device?  It basically seems to me like you want to take away guns and electricity.  I don't know what you're intent is, since you haven't discussed it.  If I were you, and depending on the style of the game, I would either try to come up with social/political rationale, or just say "that's the way it is" with but minimal (if any) justification.  

Were you in fact aiming for certain kinds of sociological results from these changes?  It seems, at least on the surface, like a sort of "knights, but in the modern world" kind of deal.

[xechnao]

What do you mean "across-the-board" tech availabilities?
I shouldn't consider in other terms because I already am doing so. Agriculture, herding and industries are all there making part of the setting's economic plots just to name one. I didn't mention so because I thought presenting just the clues of the most usual rpg elements.

About the second one you are correct in your guess no guns.
By guns or firearms I intend equipment that can be personal(handheld and easily transported with the wearer(for instance a Glock 17 pistol) and have the power to eliminate a group of humans before they could cover a distance and neutralize the bearer by hand to hand. Scope here is that the balistic threat or lethality potential may not match the one of the real modern situation for restricting the potential of the long range-distance factor and it's value on human conflicts or culture, thus emphasizing hand to hand and melee skills.
Crossbows and bows use mechanical-dynamic power and this I can welcome as I see its potential limit under human use over a group of hand to hand aggressors. Firegun equipment doesn't have a comparrison level with a hand-to-hand threat at least on clear field-terrain(it's far superior).So all the fantasy ballstic skills are going to be included and in adittion some more exotic to the fantasy such as flamers, air-pressure guns and some others.
What I want as I just said is to involve hand to hand-melee skills in a very considerable degree.
Hey, by this I also believe that I retain the threat effect beasts or "monsters" can assume in a fantasy gaming session.

The setting is not modern pendragon but an alternative world whith other valuable skills and challenges. It may resemble fantasy but all the supernatural is missing. However I hope to be able to cover the loss of it and of course without failling scientifically.

[Le Joueur]

Should I point out that gunpowder was merely the first explosive?  I remember an episode of The Secret Life of Machines where they demonstrated the 'kick' of gasoline by using equal amounts of it and gunpowder in a homemade mortar; with gunpowder, the soup can barely cleared the muzzle, with an equal volume of gasoline, it fired a few hundred yards.  Gunpowder's impact on medieval Europe was more a factor of it being imported technology rather than some inherent strength of the material.

And while we're on the topic, if you remove steel, you're gonna eliminate a lot more than just firearms.  Steam power, the precursor to internal combustion, becomes nigh impossible without steel.  Economical use of the air is highly dependant upon steel (if not for the wide-bodies, at least for the durable engines).

The fact of the matter is, steam power was presented to the Roman empire and turned down for fear of what that would do to the need for a slave class.  All technologies aren't adopted methodically; they are short cuts one party uses to profit more than another.  Wherein lies the problem; there are only a handful of technological advances that are a result of anything but 'improving' upon what was already being used.  (PM me with any examples, I'm pretty good with the history of technology, just not the names and dates.)

There's a common fallacy that the 'dark ages' were a time of technological stasis.  The only real factors at work presenting that 'feeling' are how the church affected common philosophy and it's relationship with commerce and science.  Moreover, the renaissance was more 'imported technology' this time largely from ancient Greek and Moorish hands.  (The sudden influx makes the previous pale by comparison, looking like stasis.)

The real situations involved were almost always driven by commerce.  Steam power vaulted to mainstream because of the effect it had on mining (if memory serves, I can double check).  Steam-powered travel would have never caught on except for the economies of where it could go that canals couldn't.  Similar forces brought us in turn trucking and highways.  If you effectively make iron a precious metal, I'm pretty sure the alternative technology versions of what you list won't possibly ever become commercially viable due to the economics.

I could go on, but I gotta go.

Suffice to say: "Why is it so important to use 'background elements' to justify taking out some crucial technologies?  Just take 'em out; science fiction authors have been doing it that way since the beginning."

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to The Forge, X,

OK, so you're getting your BS in line to explain the world you want to describe. Cool. That's important. And more nifty is that you can create an even more rich environment by extrapolating the effects of the particular technology.

But let's back up a second. In order to know what to focus on (let's face it you can't detail the entire world), it's important to consider the rest of the game. What's it about? What kind of characters do you play? What do they do?

All I can gather so far is that players will at least occasionally have to fight monsters. Why? For what purpose?

Mike

[xechnao]

Even flour in rights sircumstances can be an explosive. The question is however to be able to create a relativelly small(equpied by a person without encumbering it)  cartidge device of bullets that can be functinally fired by a small equipment device ie a pistol and the same time be stable enough and safe if transported in usual environmental conditions.
The two major types of our world's explosive compounds are: 1) black powder, which older cartridges used and is a physical mixture of charcoal, sulfur and saltpeter; and 2) smokeless powder, which is the principle type used in modern ammunition and is a nitrated chemical compound in granular form.
I think of limiting the amounts of some of these substances that can be collected around in a form that they can be usuable.
Fireguns will still exist but their potential will be limited in the conflict agenda.
Bulky cannons that may not be personal equipment are included in the setting which they will use exposives that nead certain and particular treatment in the field. Experiments and technologic studies over firearms will be a project of the setting's civilizations but they will lead to limited results as by one way or another amounts of materials needed for the mass production or construction procedure will be limited. Also calculate that also the experiment and study potentials are limited due to lack of electricity and further more many useful devices of the research campus.
Answering the steel problem is much more simpler. Ceramics and polymers and mixtures of them they excellentlly sostituate and even for better steell. From wwII and further more the most used material for guns, canons etch is bakelite which is much more resistant than steel. Thus by eliminating steel I don't face any limiting impact on the field of technology other than that of limiting conductive metals.
What you say about economics works well about my cause as I intend to use it as I mentioned above to restrict and limit the availability of materials for firearms.
Ending I want to clarify the impression of the steam power and the setting. Steam power technology is going to be usuably included but it will not be the only one. Petroil or combustion power will be a major service. Cars, airplanes and submarines are going to be there.

What the game is about? Well this I cannot answer at 100% yet. And this I am happy about as I want the possibilities open. Take for instance warhammer world. This serves as a basis for a strategy table top game, an rpg and some novels. Same about middle earth and star wars universe although they initially were created only through novels.
Entities will fight each other for the reasons that lie in the real world, for the reasons that they might fight each other in reality.

[richks]

So let me get this straight:

1) Electricity can't be utilised.
Why isn't important, it just can't be used for anything much.  Maybe the laws of physics prohibit it being generated in sufficient quantities to be useful, or maybe there's not much metal here or maybe metal doesn't conduct very well.

2) Man portable guns can't be built.
Again, maybe things don't burn very well here, or maybe the materials to build fast burining stable explosives are really scarce.  Again, doesn't matter why, they just aren't pratical.  A bit like lasers/shields in Dune.

3) High strength ceramics are easily mass produced.
Again, the old standby of "the laws of physics are slightly different here" works for this one: Ceramics are just easier to make in this world.  A good bit of BS might be that things burn faster here: these ceramics require very high temperatures, and that's easy to achieve.  But this also makes explosives very unstable.  As a result explosives can't be carried around safely and therefore personal guns aren't really gonna work.

I'm not trying to dwell on the "whys" here, just the implications.  I'm not a history buff, and I'm not gonna try 2nd guessing what a world like this might be like, I'm talking in game terms.

Without guns, players are going to want ranged weapons.  Bows and Ccrossbows will be the ranged weopons that are obvious, and with ceramic crossbow bolts they'll be fairly deadly I'd have thought.  Thinking of the history of English longbows VS French crossbows heralding the end of the mounted knight, I think this might be trouble.  Whatever you can make good armour from you can also make arrows from, and Steel crossbow bolts went straight through Steel armour, players are gonna wanna know why ceramic bolts won't go through ceramic armour.

Flamethrowers as you describe sound like the'd cause a similar problem:
Your troops charge mine.  I torch your troops.  They die.
Instead:
Your troops hang back and pick at mine with ceramic crossbows or longbows and saty out of flamethrower range.  Mine return fire.  We both stay at range and nobody gets close.

I think this probably won't encourage hand to hand combat in mass battles.  Of course, I'm concerning myself with RPG party situations, and if we assume that they're not carrying siege engines with them all the time this isn't likely to be SUCH a massive problem, but even so...

You say that there will be cars and therefore other ground vehicles.  This will mean Tanks, but without guns they would basically be usable for 2 things: troop transport and ramming stuff.  So maybe crossbows become less useful, because the opposing forces close their distange in armoured cars and then ram each other.  Er, then, um.  I don't really know what would follow that...

I'm not suggisting that this is a bad idea for a setting, but it's really easy to poke holes in setting that don't present at least a hint at their justification.  You've probably thought of a lot of this already though.  And the idea is to make you come up with new things and think of reasons why what I'm saying is wrong :)

[xechnao]

"I'm not suggisting that this is a bad idea for a setting, but it's really easy to poke holes in setting that don't present at least a hint at their justification"

That's why I want to explain them and justify things scientifically. So why electricity facilities and fireguns can't be that available but will be somehow limited and restricted is not totally unimportant in the setting. It has to be explained and justified scientifically so it shall also involve a part of gaming interest such as magical research or magic items making in other settings. For instance think of a "wizard" that practices not wire circuits but ones on nerve tissue.
High strength ceramics is not the only high durable and resistant material around. High strength polymers or plastics are also available and also mixtures between them and ceramics and sometimes other substances such as wood. Materials a lot more resistant and durable than steel can be made and there will be factors as heat conduction or not, and others to be taken into account for various special tasks or situations. Research and skill also will be important here such as the blacksmith, the armourer,  the miner in another setting.
Ranged combat is gonna be still an important factor but not the definitive one as in modern settings. A man in bow cannot dispatch easily 20 or 30 swordsmen that go for him but a man with a mini-gun well can blow bits of them. Flamethrowers are the sostitute of fireballs. They also have their limitations such as fuel and heavy encumberance as a heavy weapon and others as cons also for gaming purposes to maintain encounter balances.

Cars, chainsaws and crossbows will be there. But also airplanes. And also dinosaurs! Think of mad max and jurrasic park mixing together but not only. I can't name all the possible influences or likings the setting can have because they are far too many. Airplanes can drop people with parachutes or stones or nets or..., tanks could transport some treasure for protection, hellicopters with flamers could make for a dragon and the list goes on. Gadgets will sostitute things such as "stink cloud" or "cloud kill", "shocking grasp" and fireballs and magic armour or shield or magic sword (adding limited radiation devices for laser weapons or sabers or shields and armor protective fields-and also gas bombs and hey, traps or mines with heated gas pressure fragmentation explosives triggered by photocells to match for "skull trap" and ... :)). Gadgets in this exotic technology will make for them but always controlling the limits of their power or potential.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'd like to change the focus just for a minute - return to the physics/non-physics as you see fit, though.

My questions, xechnao, are:

Can you give me an idea of what a character might be like? Can you give me an idea of the problems he or she might face?

I'll be even more specific. Five people are sitting at a table, or around the seats in a living room. They have beverages, they are comfortable, they are all friends. One of them is the GM, the other four are players. They all know the rules of the game and are all familiar with and interested in the setting.

Why are they enjoying themselves while playing your game? Is it because the setting is so complete? Is it because the characters are especially interesting or have unique capabilities? Is it because the situations faced by the characters are very familiar, based on previous games or movies or stories? Or because they're unfamiliar, being different from most?

I'll accept, hands-down, that your setting will be very detailed and full of all kinds of things. What I'm not seeing is why - where's the payoff, in play, for this game as you currently see it?

Best,
Ron

[xechnao]

Ok, as I said above I can't give a complete answer to this.
You presume that the game is a role-playing game with a game master and players controlling characters but this is not the absolute way to be.
Certainly games will involve people over a table as you say it but I won't limit the gaming possibilities by saying people will play because of this and not because of that.
The initial end in the setting's development is when there will be enough information elements around for people and gamers to plot a story and experience a solid campaign. By solid I mean that if two gaming groups are going to play on the same era of the setting they will know what's going on around and this will be the same thing for each one.

I can say my personal preferences or non preferences about how I see it on gaming in this setting.
I make an example. In d&d rpg the score of the game is to rise the level of the character you control by "sacrificing" him to his role.
Well this approach I don't like.
Having a score of something I like it and want it (competition is deirable and motivates) but not this kind of score. Simply I don't see sense in my setting in persons or characters being a role that gets raised by levels. Maybe in the d&d world could make a bit more sense due to the divine supernature that describes and that may involve with game and score. But in my setting it's not the case.
There are other ways of playing games and score. Gamesworkshop games give plenty examples. Also computer games give lots of examples. Take for instance strategy games as command&conquer and dune or the adventure games as king's quest or hero quest.
Yes hero quest you could say it's a rpg where you raised the level of your character or his stats. True but this was not the score. The score was finishing the adventure and in the research process was included this challenge.
So making an adventure that gamers score can be a good approach for me. And even a strategy game could fit for me. And even better a mix of them. A game that can challenge you in a plot and in tactical braveur is really intimidating to me.
Hope this sort of answer clears up a bit.

[richks]

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but it sounds like you're saying that the main fun thing about this setting will be the player characters rising to the challenge and overcoming advesity.  "Scoring" as you put it, by gaining a sense of achievement.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why does your setting make it easier to run games where the players achieve great victories?  What makes this setting inherently better that one of the D&D ones you mention?  How does your game's setting work to encourage achievement and victory and discourage "leveling up"?

[xechnao]

You didn't get my point exactly.
First of all setting and game apart to an extent. Setting should be seen as a fantsy world that is at least developed to a point that "there will be enough information elements around for people and gamers to plot a story and experience a solid campaign."

So I didn't neither say that "the main fun thing about this setting will be the player characters rising to the challenge and overcoming advesity".


""Scoring" as you put it, by gaining a sense of achievement."

Scoring could have a sense of achievement but also more specially a sense of victory over competition.


"Don't take this the wrong way, but why does your setting make it easier to run games where the players achieve great victories? What makes this setting inherently better that one of the D&D ones you mention?"

I never said a thing like that.


"How does your game's setting work to encourage achievement and victory and discourage "leveling up"?"

I just said that levels or leveling don't sensibly fit, at least for me as concept in a setting with no Gods(in other words they make no sense to me at least literally speaking). How does my game's setting...? As I said it's the setting's games and not the game's setting, at least initially. After that each game can have its own rules and score rules. Hey middle earth has card games, strategy games, role playing games that run on. Each one with its own rules that depend on the games it self(card games for example lie there for a hundred different settings)

[Mike Holmes]

Double posted.

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, language barrier is making some of this difficult, but some is becoming clear. You only intend to make a setting which would serve as the backdrop for multiple games.

Question: who will be making all the games? Is that something you'll be getting to when you complete the setting? Or do you expect others to make the games.

Do you have any ideas for what any of the games are going to be like yet? Or is setting all you have? Why the emphasis on such a specific limit on technology in order to make combat more personal? How is this important to the setting?

Mike

[xechnao]

who will be making all the games?

people.:)

Is that something you'll be getting to when you complete the setting?

mostly yes. Complete to an initial extent that will allow telling stories that it could be recognized that take part in the setting without having to state so to make it clear.

Do you have any ideas for what any of the games are going to be like yet?

Well I have ideas, yes. You can also have a look at posts above to see what I say that it's not my preference.

Why the emphasis on such a specific limit on technology in order to make combat more personal?

This is the setting I like and feel attracted to. Personal combat and the tactics of it is what I like a lot. So I say that I need a setting where this could be possible and also important as a factor, condition or situation to be viable dealing with the skill in a campaign of the setting.