Yggdrasil thoughts

[Christoffer Lernö]

I was thinking of waking up Yggdrasil again. I still don't have my original notes, so I'll work from what I remember. Maybe it's a good thing. After all I'd like to distil what I had and make something better.

If you want a quick but incomplete overview you can look at the quickstart rules.

Anyway, quick take is that Yggdrasil is a fantasy rpg. A few new things thrown in but the main thought is to leave a lot of the setting for the GM to write. The setting puts the characters as heroes battling monsters and things in a continent torn by war for over a hundred years. Check the Ygg page for a longer story.

Now as far as I can tell, I definitely want the old-fashioned "going from nobodies to heroes", which is kinda' built into the monster-hunting premise. I was long in the dark about my own inspirations, but I think it's a bit clearer to me now.

Basically it's about emulating comics. Not movies, not books, not video games... comics.

So what's the difference? In this case it might illuminating to explain what I'm thinking about.

Comics consists of stills, nice scenes spread out to evoke the atmosphere of the story being told. Anyone reading my other posts about "making good scenes" and being able to have adventures like those represented on rpg covers might have an
"Ah! That's where he's coming from!" feeling here :)

Unlike movies, action scenes are rarely very long [in comic books]. In the movies you can have a car chase going on for a long time just for the "entertainment value" of the car chase itself. Who would like to read a comic with 20 pages of a single car chase? To give an extreme example. Fights should be filled with colour and things happening, if I want to go the comics route. The eventless AD&D style combat or overly detailed Phoenix Command are extreme examples on things what would work horribly bad in a comic.

Comparing with books on the other hand - here you usually get a lot of room to fill out the events with your own imagination. It's something that adds to the plot, not more. In contrast, action scenes in comics are actually a way to define the character's uniqueness, something which just don't happen in books.

Over to something else: Movies usually have something like 2 hours to tell a whole story. Most comics (the ones I think about as inspiration for my game anyway) on the other hand are more like soaps.

The whole thing with experienced characters and younger characters is usually heavily emphasised in movies due to the much shorter span of the story with this imbalance helping to keep up the pace.
In the typical comic superhero group there is very little room for a character significantly more powerful than the others unless it's the mentor of the group as Prof X in X-men (interestingly, a lot of times most stories was either about Xavier being neutralized in some way or they had him removed completely from the storyline).

A powerful device in comics I want to mention before I go on is the retcon (short for retroactive continuity). A classical retcon is to revive a long dead villain saying he never really died when he fell into that vulcano, but only got stronger after being cocooned inside of it for 10 years. A more subtle retcon is to introduce a freshly created character and write in that this character has some common history with an already established character.

Basically the writers originally thought that A happened, but it's rewritten to be B, where B doesn't actually contradict what's earlier been established.


What does this mean for Yggdrasil?

Fighting scenes are should be colourful but short and also help characterizing characters. Another thing comic emulation infers is about "who wins" a fight. This is fairly clear from the outset. The characters have together a certain level of power (or what we want to call it). They won't be able to beat someone more powerful, nor get beaten by someone less powerful unless there's a legitimate plot device that allows this rule to be broken.

For example: Logan would have no problem beating Cameron Hodge one on one, but his healing factor has been removed (the plot device) so it's far from a sure thing.[/list:u]
In any case there is no room in comics for that lucky 00, 97, 98 arrow hit from the level 1 character that kills the Balrog on the spot.

Retcon and Illusionism are related in my book. Not necessarily, but they are similar beasts. Retcon obviously changes facts but can get away with looking like it was there all the time. Illusionism can use such techniques but is wider than retcon, spanning many many different techniques.
In any case, I want to keep this suspension of disbelief. The players can think that fighting scenes and other things are played out as they happen and never expect that there is something beneath that make stories play out like in the comics.

Now how to actually make sure the players can't lose to someone weaker than themselves while keeping the system looking like a traditional one? Well that's the tricky part... More about that later.

People have mentioned that I'm posting too long stuff so maybe this is a good place to break off. I'll discuss my plans on how to implement the things above later as well as bringing up things I'm stumped on.

I hope this posting provides at least a little insight in what I have in mind for Ygg.

/Christoffer

[greyorm]

Sounds cool, Christoffer. I'm looking forward to seeing how you implement the comics-style scene/task resolution in Yggdrasil. I'm hoping the mechanics support giving a comic-style feeling to the action and the end results (which are often the same thing in many comics); that is, I hope each die roll results in the action being imagined as a single panel in a comic book. "BAM" "POW" and all that.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Hmm.. I actually didn't think about framing the system firmly in scenes which happen at the same time, but it's an insteresting thought.

The important thing is that the players don't feel locked into a comic-emulating game, but at the same time letting them be delighted burst out: "cool, this is like it could be a scene in a comic book or something!"

Something else I wanted to elaborate on while I'm at it:

Cannon-fodder. Have you been in one of those games where you're  making a beginner character and the other players say (although a little less overt) "ok, so he can't fight but we want you to be in this fight anyway to absorb a few hits while the big hitters bang at the monster"?

Basically in AD&D you can do the equation (Total HP of Party x Average Total Damage Per Round Given By Party)=Actual Killing Potential Of Party. This is the reason for henchmen and the likes.

Now look at comics. Do we have henchmen? Yes, for the villains, but their use is only to protagonize the heroes. Do the heroes have henchmen? Do Batman sit back while his servants smack the bad guys? Not really.

What does that mean in terms of a roleplaying game? It means in such a game it shouldn't matter much if I have 20 level 1 henchmen with me or if I go at it alone when I'm facing the big bad boss. The big bad boss is what one could term as "immune" to the henchmen. They can distract him (and this is their common use for villains, distract the heroes so that the villain can finish his plans, or get away, or dastardly attack from behind) but that's all. They don't actually make a difference, unlike in AD&D where every HP counts.
This happens to be why area attacks are relatively uncommon and considered very powerful in most RPGs. Something that can take out the cannon-fodder quickly radically reduces the chances of having enough time to wear down the villain.

Obviously I can't allow Yggdrasil to work like that.

[Bob McNamee]

If you wanted to have the Heros with Henchmen. You could specify that their only use is to neutralize an Opponent's Henchmen, thus allowing you to cut directly to the Hero on Villain conflict, with the 'distractions' relegated to the background, and resolved as part of the primary conflict.

[Shreyas Sampat]

So, an elaboration of Bob's idea, as I interpret it:

Goons of whatever type aren't characters in their own right; they're a quality of the character that owns them.  It happens that goons are basically only useful in two ways: to neutralize other goons, or as sacrificial shock troops.  Either usage will put the goons (temporarily) out of commission immediately after their goal has been accomplished.

But the more interesting concern (to me) is that of emphasizing the uniqueness of characters through action scenes.  Chris, can you elaborate on how you plan to do this?

Edited to correct typo.

[Lugaru]

Actually another thing of having "henchmen" besides the "if I have 9 of them there's only a 10% chance I'll get shot at" is the individual importance of each of them. Will yours act as individuals or as an extension of the player? I mean the difference is clear... one thing is "my guy's start wildly shooting arrows so they can cover me while I move closer to the enemy". Another thing entirely is "Bruno holds the wizard down while Vinnie throws a net on his familiar... the rest try to help me fight the demon that the wizard summoned". Do any henchemen have a special skill? If not do they know they are cannon fodder?

In other words if 10 guy's help me out while I fight some bandits... will they count as a 10 die creature or as 10 +'s and -'s that I can distribute?

I mean the tragedy of the comic book goon is that they have no strategic purpose other than strenght in numbers... but maybe the heroes goons are above that. And I firmly believe a hero should have helpers every once in a while.

Edit: In my minds eye I see guy's throwing spears with ropes at a dragon trying to inmovilize it so mr. Hero can use his enchanted sword on it. Nobility should somehow rub off on heroes goons... the idea of them all being hired to die really turns you into a villain... twice as true in D&D where they die so you can kill and pillage more efficiently.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Before the henchman debate goes out of hand.. Note that Bob said "If you wanted to have heroes with henchmen...". This, I hope I stated clearly, is something I don't want. :)

Shreyas, you bring up a very interesting question: Can I really make combat emphasize the the uniqueness of the characters?

Going to comics and manga, what can one see? Well every character has a significantly different fighting styles (or abilites, or superpowers... whatever) and such, but style and actions are mostly a matter of color rather than actual efficiency (except for when a power is used as a plot devicel).

What I'm suggesting is very simple: Have rules that encourage colour and differentiation in looks and expression of powers but keep them all equally efficient.

To see the opposite, look at 2nd ed AD&D where having a weapon that fit your character's image rather than maxing out damage punishes the player. Doing unconventional moves like trying to knock out the foe etc gives penalties to hit etc etc.

Even games with very detailed fighting rules tend to have penalties for more advanced and interesting looking actions. Complicated or impressive actions usually entail a lot of punishment in terms of efficiency.

I think I've reached the understanding that colour should not only be a thing awarded at very high levels or if you make a lucky enough roll, instead it should be there from the beginning. You tell the story of what your character does, you have the right to make him/her look as cool or as fumbly as you want. You want cool fighting style? You have it!
You want him to fight with a weapon in each hand? Or you have this idea of a weird looking special weapon you saw in movie? You can have it! And you don't have to sacrifice anything for it.

By de-coupling efficiency from colour you can let players do what they want and you still don't need to worry that they unbalance things.

Ideally anyway. This is what I'm working towards. Look at the old quickstart rules for something working towards that goal.

In a sense it is not unlike the ideas in Torchbearer where combat is resolved very abstractly. In Ygg I think of having a round for round combat roll in a very traditional vein. However, the roll is free to be interpreted very concretely or very abstractly. You can treat it as: "you hit and do damage" or "you succeeded with your attack, now describe how it looked". -Which is very important for me as I try to dress it up as a conventional system.

Hope that clears up some questions.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Shout if you disagree, but I think that another important thing in comics is the concept of teamwork. In comics, a team is more valuable than it's parts.

Villains often fail because of their lack of teamwork. Heck the reasons many villains have henchmen is because they're too mean to have any friends to team up with. :)

This was something I highlighted in the recently resurrected thread "Bob made a Goblin". Rules must not only make cooperation easy but also useful.

But doesn't this clash with what I said about hero henchmen and the like? Let me explain why it doesn't:

I think this is best illustrated with an imaginary system where characters are rated with "power ratings". Let's say for this example that a person's power rating is the sum of his fighting abilities and powers. And as soon as a person's power rating is above that of another he/she will definately defeat it. (Same would be 50-50 chance)

Let's put the common comic-book setup as the villain is at power 8 with power-1 goons fighting power-7 heroes.

Let's say 3 power-1 characters equal 1 power-2 character.

So for the villain to have any boost from his henchmen he has to have at least 4000 power-1 henchmen to help him. He himself is about as powerful as 2000 of his own henchmen.

On the other hand, 3 power-7 heroes equals 1 power-8 hero, so a team of a gang of approximately equally skilled heroes quickly increase their combined ability.

Of course if the team decides to fight without teamwork they count as single power-7 characters and as such they are easily vanquished by the villain's power of 8. It's only when they cooperate that they can increase their ability.

Rules with practical results in line with the above would explain why villains don't get more powerful just because they have henchmen, but why heroes teaming up is a good idea while hero henchmen isn't.

Or am I forcing things?

[Christoffer Lernö]

Going a little further on the subject of teamwork and such. People might remember me having rules for it even in an early test-play. I want to try to make it a whole lot more straight forward as well as covering more situations, but first I think I need to establish some ground on how it should look like, and I hope I can get some feedback here.

I want to emulate comics, so keeping that in mind I can think of three different types of teamwork.

First the one where two or more equally skilled fighters together attack a single opponent. This could be something as simple as "I hit high, you go low". Basically cooperating taking someone down. I consider this the most simple situation to handle.

The second one is when two or more person with differing skills together attack an opponent. We have the example as in Bob made a Goblin where actually play had Bob's character throwing clothes at some Ratlings to distract them as his fighter friend finished them off.

The third one is one of combining powers. It might be Ghostbusters combining their beams into one to defeat Gozer the Gozerian or Colossus and Wolverine doing a "Fastball special" in X-men. Basically they have a new power or ability as a team.

What I want to know is if there is something I have left out. Have I covered all bases? Is there some situation in comics I've overlooked here?

(edited for a more polite tone. I agree with you Fang - it sounded very bad and it wasn't meant that way at all)

[Christoffer Lernö]

And while I'm at it I just wanted to say that, Lugaru, you're comments on that Goblin thread was very nice, and I'll pick up a little of that once I have established this thing about what the rules regarding cooperation (ideally) should be able to cover.

Maybe then I can create rules in which such specialized actions as you describe, flows naturally from the actions allowed without need for explicit "skill picks" and the like. I agree very much with your statement about "the need for interaction".

[Le Joueur]

...Two or more equally skilled fighters together attack a single opponent.

...Two or more person with differing skills together attack an opponent.

...One of combining powers

What I want to know is if there is something I have left out. I guess you're still tired of Ygg posts, but I hope someone could at least let me know if they think I've covered all bases. Is there some situation in comics I've overlooked here?

Squad o' Goons....  Like all those yellow-suited guys Modok was always sending into battle; they work like a single entity and quickly swamp the superhero.

When Squad o' Goons is fought by single superpowered opponent.  I remember the Thing was always throwing off those A.I.M. goons in what looked like an explosion ("It's Clobberin' Time!" don't forget special tactics for 'the opposition').

And let's drop the "guess you're still tired..." line, it isn't true and it sounds passive aggressive.

Fang Langford

[Christoffer Lernö]

Yes (smacks my forehead for forgetting about it), you're right although it could be argued that this would fall into the first category about several fighters with similar skill. However it's good that you bring it up. I've been thinking about this as well.

Aside from the obvious that they should be able to work together, it would be neat (I think) if it's possible to treat them as a single entity as far as the combat system is concerned. I'd like to do that without getting introducing any special "mook rules".

[Maybe I should clarify that stance... I don't like to have different rules for characters singled out to be mooks, I'd like the system appear to work the same for both sides. I think Grant has a nice idea with that sliding scale for the new Slayer of Dragons with it's "Star Power" where mooks simply start with 0 and heroes and important villains have numbers higher than that. Although mooks and unimportant NPCs are easily identified, they aren't treated as exceptions by the system.]

But there's another example you bring to the discussion Fang, and that is the one of heroes taking out mooks easily.

I believe this too is an important comic book convention. If they're just unimportant characters, a hero can easily overcome a bunch in a single attack. And consider the scene with the big villain who assaulted by the hero team defeat them all with an bored gesture of his hand. This is not strictly about teaming but it's important to make it possible to fight against teams as well as the other way around.

[talysman]

But there's another example you bring to the discussion Fang, and that is the one of heroes taking out mooks easily.

I believe this too is an important comic book convention. If they're just unimportant characters, a hero can easily overcome a bunch in a single attack. And consider the scene with the big villain who assaulted by the hero team defeat them all with an bored gesture of his hand. This is not strictly about teaming but it's important to make it possible to fight against teams as well as the other way around.

well, technically, do you have to treat mooks as actual people at all? or just nameless masses? like a different kind of long-distance attack. comics have all sorts of "villain triggers traps/casts a long-distance spell" scenes... heroes approach the villain's hideout when suddenly they are entangled by strangling vines or blasted with a series of lightning bolts from above. these are special effects for pretty generic "attack from a distance to grapple" and "attack from a distance to kill or innjure" abilities. there should be no problem with calling mooks another special effect of those same attacks.

attempts to pursuade mooks not to obey their master could, of course, create stand-alone characters of lesser stature than the heroes/villains, who would be statted out exactly the same way as other characters.

[Christoffer Lernö]

I think I see what you're hinting at John. What I want to see is some kind of "two-way conversion" being possible. I both want to be able to do the "mook -> named character" and "named character -> mook" conversions.

I've talked about something like this before when I was discussing how to make things work "effect first". In those cases I was mainly discussing how to first decide on an effect ("a ghostly hand comes out of the lake trying to pull you out of the boat") and then maybe later working from established effects have easy rules what the stats could be. In this case creating mooks or creating powers should be treated on equal footing.

The reverse is also very useful, for example quickly being able to calculate a difficulty or efficiency when casting a spell against multiple opponents (usually mooks) by treating a group as a single entity.

However, I'm unwilling to treat mooks with special rules. I'd like them to look like characters, or at least being smoothly (on the fly) have the possibility to be turned into conventional characters without their properties changing in the process. For example the "ghost hand" (not a mook but what the heck) should have the same behaviour and strength if the actions are simply narrated as when the ghost hand is given full stats and has success/failure run through the system. Look at old RM for an extreme example of the opposite: as soon as you have to roll for something, you chances of failure go up dramatically. If you'd have to roll for breathing in RM you'd have a good chance of randomly suffocating to death in your early years no matter how high your skill bonus would. In this case narrated, "common sense" rulings is in sharp contrasts to in-system decisions. I don't want any such disparity between system and possible narration.

[I guess this means that the system needs to be loose enough to allow such conversions. You couldn't do it with any system where the system models the details of the events. Incidentally I'd like to mention I believe Andrew Martin has made a lot of progress in this field with some of his games.]

The reason I'm reluctant to have separate mook rules is that feel that moving from mook->character would be a discontinous transition which would, within the constraints of my game, challange the suspension of disbelief.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoffer,

Is there any chance at all that the name "Yggdrasil" can be flushed away, forever, and a new name chosen?

This is my inner child post of the day, I think.

Best,
Ron