Dungeons & Demons

[greyorm]

Mike gets the "Bingo" award.

And I do think such a game will have a didactic element (in terms of implied "lessons" for the players) that a game which ties Humanity only to "in-game" choices wouldn't have.

Yep, Rob, it will, and I'm fine with that; it's part of the intent, as I've noted above.

But enough theory and "pretentious garbage" already...how does this thing play?

For starters, I'll discuss the slightly different territory described by Cover, which provides a good deal of the Color for the game.

Cover is "class" archetype: warrior, priest, wizard, rogue, paladin, bard, assassin, etc. as well as all the other sorts that don't really fit a standard class from D&D. So other than just the above, you could use descriptions like blacksmith, court poet, arcane archer, king.

Race and/or culture is thrown in here as well; so elven bladedancer, dwarven miner, barbarian shaman or peasant farmer are equally acceptable Covers.

Covers, and what sorts of knowledge and skills a given Cover entail, are defined by culture: Cover is all the standard color text about peoples, societies and cultures that exist in every manual and supplement attached to any traditional fantasy RPG. And just as in standard Sorcerer, Cover is about what defines your skills, abilities and background -- unlike standard Sorcerer, it isn't a definition of your "day job," but it is what you DO (and thus what you know), so it is a little more than it is in standard Sorcerer.

In using this, there is also a specific problem I want to avoid being carried over, which I call the "King Or Wizard Problem." By example, in D&D-like games there are certain classes of figures whose power is either overstated or understated by the level-structure of the game.

The problem is more apparent when you consider a powerful wizard must have many levels as a wizard, whereas a powerful king can have no levels, or again, should have many (ie: the old D&D-style political structure was based on your level; characters only gained land at higher levels, hence all kings logically should have been of very high level).

Cover should not take such things into account: the problem of equating your skillset or your social level with your abstract power level must be avoided, as these are two seperate items.

Thus, one can easily face non-sorcerous "Necromancer Lords" and "High Priests" whose ability as such have nothing to do with the number of levels (ie: number/Power of demons) they happen to have. As well, certain oft-times traditionally "restricted" classes or roles such as "Dragonrider" or similar (frex, the Prestige Classes of D&D 3E) are available as Covers without any traditionally necessary pre-requisites.

Hopefully the logic for this being so is clear. Sorcerer isn't about such things, even this type. One's role in society and one's skills have nothing to do with the idea of sorcerous power -- clearly ability is something seperate from sorcery as defined herein. This is a deliberate and meaningful distinction.

Along with this, magic and wizardry are something related to your Cover, not to your Lore or to sorcery. Hence, wizards and priests (and other spellcasters) are not automatically or necessarily sorcerers with demons. Casting/using magic has nothing to do with being a sorcerer or summoning & binding demons.

To create even more confusion (perhaps) one could have a Cover of demonologist, sorcerer, or similar and not be a Sorcerer-brand sorcerer or deal with Sorcerer-style demons.

So, to summarize, we have Cover, which allows you to do or be pretty much anything you wish, with the number of dice alloted to it describing your ability and knowledge within the chosen role/class/etc.

Demons thus provide power above-and-beyond that held by regular folks -- even scary-powerful wizards -- like big, dark pools of bonus dice to various actions.

Everyone with me so far?

[greyorm]

On to demons.

Demons can only be Parasites, Possessors, or Objects.

Parasites are "experience points and levels," gained via the successful completion of tasks (ie: adventures (ie: killing and looting)), and their Abilities are the benefits of gaining the same, precisely as extra HPs, skill points, "class tricks" and so on are the benefits of experience points in most games.

Parasites are Contacted via the usual methods of finding adventure; they are Summoned by the taking on of said venture; and Bound via completion of the task for better or worse (ie: personal survival -- failure or success in the task is irrelevant if the adventure was undertaken and survived).

Possessors are abilities that either control you or give you control of others. An example of the former is the oft-copied berserking ability which drives your character into a mad frenzy of battle-lust against anything (friend or foe) within range; an example of the latter are the henchmen, hirelings and social contacts that accumulate for many characters.

Right now I am thinking these can be Contacted/Summoned/Bound in the same way that Parasites are, or rather in lieu of them (similar to the automatic gain of friendly contacts as you complete adventures, and henchmen as you gain levels).

Another possibility is to allow them to be C/S/B'd prior to the undertaking of any adventure. That is, the undertaking of the venture serves as the C/S/B for these types (similar to the hiring of such prior to adventures and the meeting of plot-device contacts).

Objects are magic items -- however, not all magic items are objects. Magic items only become Object demons when used by an adventurer.

Contacting magic items entails finding them in the first place and desiring to have them...rather Elfs-ish or Donjon-ish in actual utilization. Summoning would be the actual use of the item, while Binding might be optional: that is, a Bound item is permanent (or something magical -- like scrolls or potions the character happens to usually have) while an unBound one can be viewed as a magic item with "charges" slowly losing the possibility of usefulness until gone completely.

I know that's quick and dirty, but it is 3am here, and I'm a little tired!
Comments?

[Mike Holmes]

What about Passers for stuff like horses or "pets" like subdued dragons?

Mike

[greyorm]

Good question, I hadn't considered it...given the paradigm I've established, I think those would fall under "Possessor" as established.

Though upon rereading the text for each, I am considering perhaps ditching use of the Possessor category and going with Passers instead.

However, I like the subtext that goes along with Possessors: the destruction of the independent will of the being by the demon. This mimics the usual "canon-fodder hireling" or (more accurately) the attitude of possession many players have in regards to "their" contacts, henchmen, familiars and such (ie: such beings are not so much seperate entities as extensions of the character itself, providing support abilities, skills, adventure opportunities, and etc).

[Mike Holmes]

OK, that definitely puts your subdued dragon back into the category of possessor. But for horses, and such that don't seem to have a will in the first place, I'd call em Passers.

Mike

[greyorm]

I honestly don't want more than one of these types precisely because it could go either way, and that's bad IMO, because it creates confusion rather than cohesion.

Perhaps if we examine the issue not so much as "does the thing have a will of its own?" but as "does the player own/use the creature?" Because keep in mind this whole experiment isn't about what things are in the game world at all, but what they mean to the players -- hence, you can't examine the properties of the item itself (ex: whether or not the horse or dragon has its own will, or whether or not it is subdued), only the properties of its use.

Keep in mind that NPCs the characters have regular contact with will often be Possessors: the blacksmith, the burgomeister, the king, the captain of the guard, the ancient red dragon. None of these are subdued or subservient to the character, but they are still the character's (or rather, the player's) demons.

Perhaps this is somewhat like ownership of a created item in Universalis. In D&D, the GM is considered to be the "owner" of everything that is not-a-player, but I've noticed that when a character attaches to what are considered NPCs, the player tends to treat he/she/it as "theirs" -- "I'm going to go see Frederick, the blacksmith, and ask him X" or "Can the scroungy dog following me around attack?" so forth. Other players mostly ignore other character's henchmen, and almost never think about them or their place in the scheme of things, as well, GMs are more apt to allow.

I don't know if I'm being clear enough with the above, but having played D&D for almost two decades, it's something I've noticed about players and their behaviors towards in-game objects.

Hrm, perhaps Passers might be good for certain NPC people or items that are not centralized to the character? Such as the nameless horses the characters find/steal to get somewhere fast, and thereafter sell or release.

But I'm seeing less and less a place for Passers, because those one-shot NPC boosts aren't really demons (they don't stay with the character). The minute the character decides to use the item (in this case, a person or animal/creature) to their advantage, a sort of unspoken ownership is created.

So my question to you, Mike, is if you still believe Passers and Possessors should both exist, what is the rationale for each? How does each tie into the theme as set forth already? That is, what is so horrible about a Passer horse?

Remember, the horse is a horse, not a demon, even though it is a horse as a horse as a demon. How does that tie into the theme of power and game-based priorities, and the given broad definitions of Humanity and sorcery?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm looking at it mechanically. Posessors take over some person to make that person yours. Passers just are what they are. Thus, the "possession" in an NPCs case seems to me to be the point at which they go from being an "unowned" NPC, to the point where they become "owned". There is a change in the NPC that's represented mechanically by the binding.

A horse doesn't know what's going on. It just is what it is. As such, you summon it to you by finding a seller, and the binding is buying it, or whatever. It doesn't change.

Interesting to consider the ramifications of the power Hop as it pertains to posessor NPCs.

Mike

[greyorm]

Keep in mind that a demon isn't a demon prior to the character's player interacting with the element.

Passers aren't just what they are because they have nothing to just be prior to the interaction, other than themselves (and this applies to intelligent NPCs as well).

Likewise, NPCs don't know what's going on: does Frederick the Blacksmith realize he's "owned" by a player at any point any more than a horse or familiar realizes it is "owned" by a player?

So I really don't see the distinction you're making between a horse you buy and an NPC you interact with in regards to "change." Both are "unowned" prior to interaction, and neither "knows what's going on."

Given your input, if anything, I'd make horses and hirelings Passers, and other NPCs Possessors...hrm, or maybe vice versa. That would make the most sense to me.

(Lots of things to think about, thanks for bringing this up!)

[Mike Holmes]

You keep saying that, and you have to realize that I do get it.

NPCs change in terms of their attitude. You meet them, they are "just people". Then you hire them, and they become your people. Or you cajole them into coming along. In any case, their attitude goes from "I don't know you" to "I'm your man". That's the change. This seems best simulated by the NPC suddenly being possessed by the "urge" to do what you want them to do. How that happens is the ritual.

Horses don't know their being bought. They have the same attitude before or after. It's the same as objects. They have no idea that you're using them, you just do. As such, there's no change in these things prior to you owning them or afterwards. Which is mechanically how passers work.

Not only do I think this makes more sense, I'm not getting at all how you're rationalizing your choices.

Mike

[greyorm]

Mike! You loveable bastard! I thought you WERE getting it!

NPCs change in terms of their attitude. You meet them, they are "just people". Then you hire them, and they become your people. Or you cajole them into coming along.  In any case, their attitude goes from "I don't know you" to "I'm your man". That's the change.

Now I realize you actually aren't, and I'm a little surprised. The aspects of the object itself as an object in the game world are unimportant, as stated previously; hence the attitude or change thereof of the NPC individual involved has nothing to do with their state as demon or non-demon, because demonship has nothing to do with the sorcerer character's control. Just the player, man, just the player.

Example: NPCs who DON'T go along, who AREN'T the character's "men" are still Possessors. This is Johann the sury thief, Mairé the princess of Golap, and Jakkob the character's father: none of whom actually go adventuring with the character, but whom the player considers part of his story/stuff along with their own character, as resources to be utilized.

Not only do I think this makes more sense, I'm not getting at all how you're rationalizing your choices.

Because you're looking at it from the inside out: how do these people/things react to the character/world, rather than looking at it as "what is this to the player?"

It isn't Ulf the Mighty's Power Sword object demon, it's Bob the player's...and it is only a demon because it is Bob's. Ulf...Ulf doesn't matter, he's a pawn, Bob's pawn.

In fact, characters are not even aware they have demons. The player is aware of it, but not the character.

Mike, does that clear it up for you?
Is anyone having trouble distinguishing this?

(I'm wondering, Mike, could this difficulty in my communicating the idea be caused by the differences in our style preferences? You state, "This seems best simulated by..." -- and you are right, it would be, if I were trying to simulate the game-world relationship of objects to other objects in the game world. But I'm not trying to simulate any actual detail of the game world with the state of demonship.)

[Valamir]

I have to admitt I'd prefer Mikes hierarchy, but this post did clear up what you're doing so it does make sense to me on that level.

Can you go into some of your design motivation for defining demonic relationship based on their relation to the player rather than to the character?

[greyorm]

Ralph, I think (or hope) the reasons for my design decisions can be found in this reply to Dan Root previously in this thread, and in the text of things before that and after it.

Specifically this, somewhat paraphrased: The moral decisions in this game are taking place not on a character-level, but on the level of the player. The character, as is true in D&D, is unaware of levels and experience points, and is assumed to be engaged in the activity for some personal, motivating reason.

It is the player who is taking the moral authority, and it is his choices and feelings about the question that are actually highlighted by play: that question being, what is the cost of protecting my creative investment, and when does the cost of protecting the investment destroy the creation through that protection?

Such a game ends up being about the player, and their relationship to their character, rather than the characters and their relationships to other characters.

I see it as possibly being an examination of how the wrong priorities in mechanics can foul-up play by hindering play through misdirection, taking away the focus from the meaning of thematic character decision as centrally important to events and their results.

So I'm designing to this groove, and I have to thank Dan for helping me clarifiy the motivation with his questions about play priorities.

Does that make sense, Ralph?
And hey, with this game being about the player specifically, does it make you shudder? That's what I'm hoping for -- cutting close to the bone because it crosses the comfort line for people, nominally those bothered or offended by or worried or scared about self-examination as a player: suddenly everyone is looking at you, not your character.

I know...it's wicked, it's cruel, it's Sorcerer.

At the same time, since it is Sorcerer, everyone at the table is under the same light, no one gets singled out, no one gets jumped by the idea suddenly mid-game.

[Mike Holmes]

No, I still get it. I may have chosen words poorly. But mechanically, I can't see the point to how you're doing it.

The point of possessors is that they exist outside of other in-game elements, and then, they move into those in-game elements in their summoning. This change is key in moral content to the identity of Possessor demons. What is it that the possessors are possessing (and like I said, what would Hop represent*)?

If that's not occuring in any way, then they all ought to be Passers. Even moreso possibly because they then get Covers automatically.

But it seems more thematically relevant to have the people of the world exist in a "normal" way, and have them attracted to the player via possession as a way of making the statement about the morality of player ownership of the characters in-game. That seems to support your theme better than what you've described.

Owning a horse is just less of a moral issue, so I'd put it in a lesser category.

BTW, your kneejerk reaction to the term simulate is comical (your characterization of me as a hard-core simulationist is inaccurate; I'm GNS indiscriminate). The rules emulate something in-game, that is related to in metagame terms. That's all I'm getting at. The rules should simply do so in a way that the players are left with some intuitive sense of the rationale behind their particular design. I'm just proposing that the rules for possessors seem to relate the in-game concept better. IMO.

*In my version Hop would represent the idea from D&D of having a limit on number of henchmen. That is, you would control X NPCs in game, one for each that had been summoned as a possessor. Then, if you wanted, you could "fire" one NPC, and "Hire" another, represented by the Hop ability.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Raven,

Gimme a PC example, OK? Without all this weird-ass Possessor noise, just a plain ol' dungeoneer whose belt pouch includes iron rations.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Gimme a PC example, OK?..just a plain ol' dungeoneer whose belt pouch includes iron rations.

Name: Os-kar
Cover: 4 (Kubori Tribal Warrior)

The Kubori are a primitive, nomadic people who eke out a survival in the northern tundra and boreal forests; hunting, war (raiding), and honor are ways of life to them under the rule of their bloody gods and the witches who speak for them.

Stamina: 4    Savage-raised
Will: 3      Zest for Life (ale, women, and "fun")
Lore: 3      ~need to detail new descriptors~
Humanity: 4
Price: dull-witted (-1 to any check involving recalling facts or critical thinking)

Telltale: Mercenary (will do anything for the right price)
Kicker: Recently dishonored defending his sister, he was banished from his homeland and now wanders as a sell-sword, looking for and finding trouble. This trouble currently involves a nasty magic sword he pulled from the body of a not-quite-dead-elf who now wants him dead...and his sword back. Fat chance! The unique weapon is worth cassssh, especially to the elven peoples.

Os-kar fights with a big axe (Edged Weapon), wears smelly hides and thick furs (-2 temporary damage from Fists/Bludgeon), and sometimes uses a primitive bow and arrow (Ranged (4 + successes) Edged Weapon).

Demon: Parasite (experience)
Stamina: 2
Will: 3
Lore: 2
Power: 3
Abilities: Cover (Convincing Braggart, confers to master), Vitality (confers to master)

Binding: +1 demon's favor (occured by slaying a small, dangerous goblin band)
Telltale: A necklace of goblin's ears cut from slain victims
Need: Goblin Ears
Desire: Overestimation ("I killed fifteen of them with my bare hands alone!")

This demon was gained during Os-kar's wanderings, just before he found the troublesome magic sword. A band of goblins attacked him in the wood; he slew them, and he kept at it even after they fled, chasing every last one down.

The reason the magic sword mentioned at the begining isn't a demon is because Os-kar doesn't use it. His axe is better-suited for him: "a real man's weapon" (ie: the character could not roll Cover when using the sword).

BTW, this is a conversion of my favorite D&D character, whose goals in life are: money, money, ale and women. He's good at killing stuff, and that's about it, so he does it for money.

I have a couple more half-typed up, including the requested "plain old dungeoneer with iron rations," but as it is getting really late, I'm off to bed. Feel free to comment on this one, and I'll post the other tomorrow night.