Shadows in the Fog -- new draft

[clehrich]

Hi,

An almost complete and somewhat more attractive draft of Shadows in the Fog is now available:

http://auroragames.com/pdf/Rules120.pdf" target="blank">Shadows In the Fog PDF

As you may recall, this is a Tarot-card based, somewhat hybrid game set in Jack the Ripper's twisted occult London.  The file is big, and laid out for printing on facing pages.

There is one small section, a couple of the stock character types, that hasn't been written yet (that's about 1 page).  The bibliography is also pretty much unrevised.  I just don't have time right now, and I won't for a couple months probably, but some folks have been asking what's happened to the game.  So here ya go.

Volume 2 is the current project (and finishing up Volume 1, of course).  I expect it to take a good 6 months or more to complete, because it's going to take a hell of a lot of research.

Please: go playtest this!  I'm anxious to hear what others think of it as a game.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Aarrgh. I'll check it tomorrow. Gotta go play Sorcerer. :-)

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Here's some notes on reading through. I know this isn't solicited, but I promised a review on it when this edition came out. As usual my technique is going to sound hugely critical of the game. But I've only put this much effort in because I think that there's a great game here. So take the criticism in that context.
----

Firstly, you have the game apparently split into sections for the players and GM. Personally I don't like this approach. I read through literally half the text writing comments on stuff that seemed to be missing only to discover the answers in the GM section. This is a style issue, but I can't strongly enough disagree with this presentation. I'd just throw the appropriate information all in the same sections.

For example the GM notes on the Group Generation session should all be in one place, IMO. The way you have it, the whole thing makes the GMs role seem very adversarial. GMs are admonished to "stomp on (or rather be gently discouraging of) gimmick characters", for example. Basically we're seeing classic anti-gamist creep rhetoric here. Don't let the Players power game! Don't let the Players ignore the setting! Don't let the Players play a character as two-dimensional or for laughs!

How about the GM encouraging players to make the appropriate characters instead? A lot of the section on Overruling indicates that the GM can somehow overcome problems with the Social Contract by using GM total power of Fiat. I'd say that's just not going to work.

That said, it's the best-written and least likely to fail version of this sort of section that I've ever seen. For what that's worth. I think something might be salvageable there.

Second, I was unaware of the extent to which this game is meant to be an exploration of Historical Victoriana. You make that abundantly clear in the text however, especially in the beginning. This is a tad odd because the other facet of play is that it's a game about the Occult. Is it just that you want to keep the dichotomy of these things in stark relief? Or are they two separate but concurrent goals?

Being fond of things military, I was sorta disappointed to see that you said that it was unimportant as to what Unit a character belonged to (and that only status of the unit was important). But there's a more important implication here. You're touching on exactly where you're drawing your line in terms of adherence to historical fact. That is, you intimate that if one were to indicate a unit that he was in that he should indicate a unit that actually existed. That's interesting. So, if I said that my character was from the Fourth Regiment of the Highland Scots Guards, having just made that up, would that be inappropriate?

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game? After all with enough research we can probably determine most or maybe even all of them. At the very least enough of them to never have to refer to a fictitious one. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. But I am saying that you're establishing this idea passively through inference. You might want to address this more openly. What is OK to make up? What's not? I mean, obviously the characters that are created didn't exist. And you don't even require them to indicate their salary (like many games of the era would: CoC Gaslight for example). So where's that line?

Most importantly, other than having an abiding interest in Victoriana, what's the player's motivation to do all this studying? I have to admit that I'd skip it. There's nothing mechanical that rewards any of this. Other than the text suggestions about it, the game seems to be all about the magic. If this is something you really want in the game, I'd consider some redesign.

And how does this all pertain to Jack the Ripper? It's like you had some concept about it at first, and then you threw it all overboard for something else (which I'm not seeing).

Segue into the third, and maybe most important point; all this seems to be "how to do it" but there's almost no "what to do". Mentioned in passing several times is the fact that the characters will be slipping into a knowledge of things more arcane. How does this happen?

For one thing, I'm certain that your excellent ideas on the Soap plot model should be included as standard. This at least gives a little bit of framework for "what to do". But I didn't read one thing about a Sorcerer, Magician, Mummy, Astrology, or anything that would give me even the slightest idea of what sort of strangeness that the PCs are supposed to encounter. And how do they encounter it? And why do they encounter it together?

That last is particularly troublesome. I mean, already we have characters that wear masks from each other living in a society where abnormalcy, even abnormalcy that's not a person's own fault is damning. So what character, upon discovery of something supernatural is going to share it with any other character? Or is it supposed to be a group discovery of some sort? I'm just not seeing what a game would look like in play past the opening tea party.

But that's all in volume two, right? Better be. :-)


On to more specific points:

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason? You seem to be going for characters who are associated in less strong ways. In fact, it seems like you are trying specifically to not allow characters that would be on the same Relationship Map as Ron defines it. Is that just co-incidental, or is there a specific reason?

We're told in the beginning section that one shouldn't make "Gimmick" characters. But then later in the "Internal" section we're told that we might play a character who's a cross-dresser, or, much worse, not entirely human. Then that's followed by the Gimmick caveat again. I think I can see how these might be reconciled, but perhaps some text to that effect would be appropriate. I mean, as it stands, it seems that the way that you are supposed to avoid the Gimmick problem is by taking more strange background ideas (so the character isn't a one-trick pony). But doesn't that make the character all the more odd instead of less? I mean, now, instead of being a cross-dresser, I'll be playing a Cross-dresser who once saw a demon summoned by a sorcerer who sacrificed children for the ritual. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Further, I'm fairly uncertain as to why you see a lower class character as more gimmicky than a not entirely human character. I mean, I can see the potential for Gimmicks at all social levels. Why pick on the lower classes? If it's because this makes it hard to explain PC inter-relation, or some other consideration, I'd by it (though I'd wonder at the aristo PCs then). But it just seems artificial as it stands.

Also, is it really appropriate for PCs to have had some experience with the supernatural to start? Doesn't that hurt the concept of the shift to that POV? I mean some players might think it's OK to say that, in fact, it's their character who's the Sorcerer (even if ineffective to start). Wouldn't that be problematic? OTOH, I see that every character starts with some experience with the Occult later under skills. Huh. Why doesn't that have it's own section discussing the ramifications to the character? (Can you see why I can't figure out what the characters do in the game?)

The sidebar on Women is interesting. You say that the game isn't about balance (even stating clearly that there are no 'points for disads' as it were), and then you say that playing a woman is a sacrifice. Looks all like good stuff to me. All grist for the mill of exploration. I'd change the tone to be something like "playing a woman has it's own specific and interesting issues".

The vices section doesn't seem to include the sorts of indications as to what to do with it that the other sections have. Should everyone pick a Vice? Or just consider each? What should they note about a vice if the character has one?

And I resent the implication about Watson and I. Oh, wait, you meant Sherlock Holmes...

You have to have GM approval to create GMCs for Contacts? Or do you mean that the GM has power of approval over any you create? I think you mean the latter, but it reads like the former.

All your references to mechanics in other games can just be deleted. For example,

You also get more cards at the end of a session, like experience points.

Reads as well if it's, "You get more cards at the end of a session for playing well." Even if you're expecting players to know other RPGs, putting in a term like Experience Points is likely to cause problems ("I looked for the part on Experience Points, but I couldn't find it"). And in what table do I find how many I get? Ah, the one on the next page.

You might be able to list the rule about using magic to save yourself better than you have. That is, the chart could be misinterpreted on that point. Also, if I had an Acting Character in two resolutions, do I get two or one cards? Going by the chart, I'd award one. By the later text I'd award two. And lastly, it says that you can get a card after an Action for being cool. This isn't described there, nor supported anywhere else.

In footnote 12, you say that a player can't buy equipment with cards. What would imply that he could? It seems confusing to say that you can't do something that nobody would think that one could. I mean it almost implies that you can do this, but only in some weird situation.


Side Observation: why is it that everyone either uses tying your shoes or crossing the street as examples of "automatic actions". Because they're used proverbially?

In your otherwise very nice Intent and Initiation section, you fail to mention who it is that determines if an action is automatic. It seems like it would be appropriate in the Initiation part where you state that the GM set's difficulty. It makes sense that it would be here that he would call it off if it seems trivial. Or does the part in Initiation where the character defines the difficulty mean that he's been given the unchallengeable authority there to declare that a resolution must occur? Or something else?

This is an oft forgotten part of this sort of section. The way it's written, it sounds like it's just obvious, or like it determines itself. This is some participant's duty and there needs to be a statement of how it's determined.

There's something missing.

If there was no bidding on the action at all, no Trumps were played, and you choose not to play a card, you
may take half the Concessions called for, after subtracting for skill. Thus if the GM played a 7, nobody bid
anything, and you are Good at the skill (7-1), you can take 3 Concessions if you don't play a card. Round halves
up: a 7 against Brilliant (7-2)/2 is 3.

This implies that there's some level associated with the skill ranks, but that's never explicitly stated anywhere. Also, this infers that if bidding occurs that this can't be used? Why not? Just curious.

It's implied, but not clear (even looking at the specific section on it) that Trumping by another player during the bid of an Unopposed action ends the resolution with the players interpretation. The player whose character is involved in the resolution can't trump back, for instance, right? Or can they like in Opposed resolution?

Side Note: the descriptions of the narrations in the example, of even mechanical things seem to be in character, but as asides in the technical meaning of the term. That is, Phil, when picking the lock introduces all the Concessions by speaking in character. But a character would never say those things. Do you intend for people to actually play like this? If so, how would you encourage it other than by the examples? Cause I wouldn't play that way if left to my own devices. Or is that all just for atmosphere?

The opposed action section needs a rewrite (same with Magical Action). But it's not incomprehensible. Your examples clear things up a lot. OTOH, you say that simple resolution is the norm, but indicate before the more complicated example that this is the "more usual" way things go.

There's some confusion in my mind as to when an action is Magical or not. The text indicates in some places that playing Trump is magical, but the section on Magical Action says that it's only when a Trump is played "always involved, from the beginning".  

I think it might make sense to say that if you would need more than 3 concessions that it's just a failure (maybe four at the outmost). That would solve a lot of problems, IMO. As far as Getting Hurt, can't you just have each concession be one described effect of the outcome? That is, if I get one concession I get a bullet to the torso. Two is bullet to the torso that's bleeding badly. Three is bullet to the torso, bleeding badly, and I'm unconscious. Or whatever. I'm really not seeing the need for a separate section on description of damage. As far as GMC, they should get damages or die when appropriate. Does the GMC fail to hang onto the cliff? He dies. Does he lose in combat with a player trying to knock him out? He's out.

You mention penalties assigned for failing. But I don't see rules for assigning them or applying them.

On PC death, you leave in the usual "Stupid Death" rule. Saying that if a player does something stupid, tactically speaking, that the character deserves to die. This seems very inappropriate to me. The game's not about tactics from what I can see, and it requires GM complicity to happen.

Now that we're done with Action Resolution, I can get to this:

The object of GM card play is, in short, to get those cards out of the players' hands without just outbidding them all the time.

There may be more to say about this, but I'll just ask if it might seem like the GM has conflicting goals here.


I like to point out that Champions had a cool system to simulate the sort of magic that you describe. But I'll not argue the point. I just think that there are a lot of other games that one could cite. In actuality, however, this is the classic comparison thing that we talk about. I'd just drop it entirely. It's becoming a cliché, but don't tell us what the game is not, just focus on what it is (didn't I say recently that everyone does this?). OTOH, you do seem to note that the whole section is a rant. I assume you intend to rewrite it then?

That all said, the magic stuff is obviously the strength of the system. No comments. All seems pretty good.


In the section under Player Goals, you talk about these in terms of Gamism. I think that's problematic. What if the player goal is a cool thematic story based on the players values? Isn't that then Narrativist?

Heh, Asserting Reality was a game called Universalis before it got out of hand.

Commenting seems very powerful and unlimited in any way. Do you plan to leave it so unlimited? Using Confessionals in InSpectres you get one per session. And they take up a lot of the session at that rate.


I liked the couple of "People of London" that I read. Good stuff. This isn't that second volume, is it?

Now, a biggie. Assumption. I'm still thinking that it ought to be a core mechanic. Why isn't it at the moment? Given that it's a player option in play already, why not include this as something that's always potentially available for when they feel they're ready? I really don't want to dig into it without knowing your perspective on this.



Well, that's it. Hope it helps.

Mike

[clehrich]

Yikes!  That's a lot of analysis, Mike.  Thanks!

I'm not going to respond to all of this; it would bore the pants off you.  But I do want to pick up some clarifications, for you and for other readers out there.

Firstly, you have the game apparently split into sections for the players and GM.

This was emphatically not intended to be "the GM's special secret section" or anything.  The point was simply to get at some stuff that I didn't think fit too well elsewhere.  I'll go through again and see whether more of it could be folded into other sections.

GMs are admonished to "stomp on (or rather be gently discouraging of) gimmick characters", for example. Basically we're seeing classic anti-gamist creep rhetoric here. Don't let the Players power game! Don't let the Players ignore the setting! Don't let the Players play a character as two-dimensional or for laughs!

Yes, this needs to be toned down.  It's just that every time I've tried to run a Victorian campaign (run-ups for this, actually), at least two players decide to run a gimmick character for laughs, because they don't want to think much.  I wanted to be explicit that GMs should (1) be ready for this when it happens, and (2) head it off at the pass, Tex.  But as you say, it's probably a bit too adversarial as it stands.

For what that's worth. I think something might be salvageable there.

For me, it's the part about begging rather than overruling.  There is an element of the players trying to beat the GM here, and I want that.  I just want it channeled in healthy directions, not "let's break the whole game!"

I was unaware of the extent to which this game is meant to be an exploration of Historical Victoriana. ... This is a tad odd because the other facet of play is that it's a game about the Occult.

The occult here is real.  That is, the effects are subtle (things that could mostly be ascribed to something else by outside observers), and the occult practices are based on real history.  This is exactly what I wanted to explore, if you will.

Being fond of things military, I was sorta disappointed to see that you said that it was unimportant as to what Unit a character belonged to (and that only status of the unit was important). But there's a more important implication here. You're touching on exactly where you're drawing your line in terms of adherence to historical fact.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast line here.  All I really meant was that I don't think you need to look up not only the name of the unit but also its longstanding reputation.  If you're into that, I say go for it.  "Oh, I was with Gordon at the Summer Palace in China, in the X Regiment, blah blah."  Sounds good.  This is like Faking It though: all you need is to sound plausible and appropriate.

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game?

Why bother?  I give a web link to period maps you can print out from the web.

There's nothing mechanical that rewards any of this [research]. Other than the text suggestions about it, the game seems to be all about the magic.

Yes.  And the magic is historical.  The business about doing all that research (which is mostly reading some Sherlock Holmes stories and stuff like that) is about Faking It well.  Look, there's a kind of player -- I know lots of them -- who likes to look things up.  You're in an Ars Magica campaign and this guy wants to investigate Avebury, or Glastonbury, or wherever.  In a Victorian London Occult game, he starts asking weird questions about whether the statues of Gog and Magog are actually at the Monument or not, and checking up on famous people.  You don't have to go nuts about this, but historical games can be a lot of fun.  The problem is when one player thinks, "Hell, I don't care, it's all magic anyway, I'll make it up."  But then to everyone else in the game, it feels cheap and silly and anachronistic.  My experience is that this sort of player is the one who thinks, "All I have to do is talk in a silly accent and I get to throw fireballs," or else thinks, "Hey, I know, I'll play a South American indian native who doesn't speak English and has a bone in his nose and goes Ugh all the time; that way I don't have to do any research, won't that be fun."  And that kills the whole history thing for everyone else.  This is what I'm trying to push against.

And how does this all pertain to Jack the Ripper? It's like you had some concept about it at first, and then you threw it all overboard for something else (which I'm not seeing).

Yes, what's missing here is adventure and campaign hooks.  Quite right.  Oops.  Those will appear soon.  And no, Jack the Ripper is not background: for me it's THE initial hook that drags everyone into the occult world in the first place.

all this seems to be "how to do it" but there's almost no "what to do". Mentioned in passing several times is the fact that the characters will be slipping into a knowledge of things more arcane. How does this happen?  ... I'm just not seeing what a game would look like in play past the opening tea party.

Weird shit happens, and they investigate.  And in the process, make up more weird shit.  Which happens.  And has to be investigated.

You're quite right, though; I need some adventure examples.

But that's all in volume two, right? Better be. :-)

Nope.  That's a missing piece of this volume.  Bugger.

Volume 2 is all historical background stuff so you don't have to do the research for yourself.

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason?

Yes.  It's because I'm an idiot.  :)

We're told in the beginning section that one shouldn't make "Gimmick" characters. But then later in the "Internal" section we're told that we might play a character who's a cross-dresser, or, much worse, not entirely human.

The idea is that if you're a cross-dresser, that's going to be hard to explore intelligently and deeply.  But cross-dressers exist -- George Eliot leaps to mind.  If you want to do this, think hard about what you're getting yourself into.  Same if there's something not quite human about you.  If you're doing it to be wacky, don't.  If you're doing it because you want a really difficult character-exploration challenge, go for it.

Further, I'm fairly uncertain as to why you see a lower class character as more gimmicky than a not entirely human character.

Not more gimmicky.  Just usually gimmicky.  This is an experience thing: what I see is people taking lower-class characters so they can go around saying "Wotcha, guv!" and paying no attention to anything, or taking servants whose brains apparently are owned by their employers.

Also, is it really appropriate for PCs to have had some experience with the supernatural to start?

Most don't.  Experience of the occult?  Sure, if they want it.  I would like people to think about what they want in this area, though, because otherwise they go from clueless to clueless.  If you want to get into astrology, it's no big deal to go from "clueless but somebody gave me this necklace" toward "I understand the forces of the stars."

The following are radically distinct: the occult (e.g. attending seances) and doing magic (i.e. it's for real).  Cf. the modern world, for non-believers like me.

The sidebar on Women is interesting. You say that the game isn't about balance (even stating clearly that there are no 'points for disads' as it were), and then you say that playing a woman is a sacrifice. Looks all like good stuff to me. All grist for the mill of exploration.

I agree.  My point is just that several players of my acquaintance have tried to parlay female characters into "but I should get something for my pains" or "they can't treat me this way."  You don't, and they can.  If you can't stand that, don't play a woman.

Should everyone pick a Vice? Or just consider each? What should they note about a vice if the character has one?

Just letting you know about vices, if you want one.  Write it down if you have one, and write down how serious it is.

if I had an Acting Character in two resolutions, do I get two or one cards? Going by the chart, I'd award one. By the later text I'd award two. And lastly, it says that you can get a card after an Action for being cool. This isn't described there, nor supported anywhere else.

You get the card immediately after the resolution, so the first question doesn't arise.  As to being cool, that is described: p.24 (one extra draw as a reward), and p.40, Special Prizes.

In footnote 12, you say that a player can't buy equipment with cards. What would imply that he could?

People do ask.  Again and again.  "Can't I trade in this card to get that?"  You'd be surprised.  That's why it's a footnote.

In your otherwise very nice Intent and Initiation section, you fail to mention who it is that determines if an action is automatic.

The GM.  If the group objects, it goes to resolution.

This implies that there's some level associated with the skill ranks, but that's never explicitly stated anywhere. Also, this infers that if bidding occurs that this can't be used? Why not? Just curious.

Oh hell.  Really?  I need to look, I thought I'd put this in.  As to why the latter, the point is that if bidding occurs, it's an important action, and you don't get a sort of "let's keep it quick" bonus from the group.

It's implied, but not clear (even looking at the specific section on it) that Trumping by another player during the bid of an Unopposed action ends the resolution with the players interpretation. The player whose character is involved in the resolution can't trump back, for instance, right? Or can they like in Opposed resolution?

Except for Gambling, the Acting Player always gets the last shot at Trumping.

There's some confusion in my mind as to when an action is Magical or not.

If a player wants to do something magical, i.e. cast the equivalent of a spell, then the first card he or she plays in a Trump.  But every time a Trump is played, in any circumstance, brings magical wackiness into play.  It's just that the characters are probably not aware of it directly.

I think it might make sense to say that if you would need more than 3 concessions that it's just a failure (maybe four at the outmost).

This was debated before, with the first draft.  The point of the system here is simply that you never have to fail if you're willing to pay through the nose for it.  If you like, that's part of the Premise, rather like Sorcerer: how much will you give up to succeed?  Part of the big analogy between player and character.

As far as Getting Hurt, can't you just have each concession be one described effect of the outcome?

This was very strongly objected to last draft, by lots of folks.  Until I see a proper playtest, I'm staying flexible on this.

You mention penalties assigned for failing. But I don't see rules for assigning them or applying them.

There aren't any.  The GM makes 'em up.  But we need some more detail, you're right.

Now that we're done with Action Resolution, I can get to this:

The object of GM card play is, in short, to get those cards out of the players' hands without just outbidding them all the time.

There may be more to say about this, but I'll just ask if it might seem like the GM has conflicting goals here.

Not at all.  This is part of what might be called the Gamist element.  Yes, the GM does indeed want to do this.  The players don't want her to.  Because if GM = universe and players = PCs in terms of the analogy, the fact that the PCs are trying to bend the universe is parallel to the players trying to twist the GM.  So the GM has to push back.

In actuality, however, this is the classic comparison thing that we talk about. I'd just drop it entirely. It's becoming a cliché, but don't tell us what the game is not, just focus on what it is (didn't I say recently that everyone does this?). OTOH, you do seem to note that the whole section is a rant. I assume you intend to rewrite it then?

Are you talking about the analogy?  I don't know of any such example.  What are you referring to?

I liked the couple of "People of London" that I read. Good stuff. This isn't that second volume, is it?

Hell, no.  Volume 2 is already 40 pages, and I've only done one section out of 12.

Now, a biggie. Assumption. I'm still thinking that it ought to be a core mechanic. Why isn't it at the moment? Given that it's a player option in play already, why not include this as something that's always potentially available for when they feel they're ready? I really don't want to dig into it without knowing your perspective on this.

Yes, this was brought up last time as well.  I don't think it's necessary.  I think that making it a basic part of the game implies that this is what the game is about, and it isn't.  Besides, Assumption is basically sick and warped, and I don't think it's necessary for the game to focus on that.  It's one of the ways I think SitF isn't like Unknown Armies.

Well, that's it. Hope it helps.

Are you kidding?  It helps a lot!  Thanks!

[Spooky Fanboy]

Now, a biggie. Assumption. I'm still thinking that it ought to be a core mechanic. Why isn't it at the moment? Given that it's a player option in play already, why not include this as something that's always potentially available for when they feel they're ready? I really don't want to dig into it without knowing your perspective on this.

Yes, this was brought up last time as well.  I don't think it's necessary.  I think that making it a basic part of the game implies that this is what the game is about, and it isn't.  Besides, Assumption is basically sick and warped, and I don't think it's necessary for the game to focus on that.  It's one of the ways I think SitF isn't like Unknown Armies.

While I can see why you don't want to make Assumption a central tenet of the game, and I support that, I think there needs to be a stronger character hook built into the characters at creation.

Call it "training wheels" if you want, but I believe for an occult game set in Victorian London, you are a priori dealing with extreme characters. It takes an extreme character to be willing to continue sorcery in the face of overwhelming societal pressure to conform. I'm thinking that, during character creation, a flaw or dark secret of some sort should be chosen by the character, similar to the Dark Secret of Kult or Over the Edge, or Kickers in Sorcerer, although fitted more in line with Victorian mores. This should be used as a hook to explain why the character initially gets involved with the Ripper murders.

For added fun, tie it to the Tarot deck. Find a specific card in the Tarot deck that best symbolizes the character's Dark Secret. Whenever the player (or any player?) plays the card, something happens that threatens to expose that Dark Secret. The character must then act soon to nip this in the bud.

The player may decide to get rid of this cloud hanging over their character's head by devoting a session or sessions to resolving it once and for all. If the group votes at the end that the situation is logically resolved once and for all, then the character loses that particular hook, and gains a reward of some sort. I'm thinking at least an extra card or something, like starting out with eight cards in her hand as default instead of seven. Less immediately rewarding than Assumption, but also much less of a price tag.

Ah, but the fun doesn't end there! No, no! The player must now choose a new Cloud hanging over them, complete with new "trigger-card" that initiates it. If she has a cool one, one with circumstances not covered in previous gameplay like a mysterious cousin who's returned to bedevil her family and apparently knows something of sorcery also, she should discuss it with the others.

The reason I suggest this is because of the way you have the game set up. The characters are by default between two worlds: an idealistic, quasi-Utopian society with rigid guidelines that may be ambivalent about the extremity of its mores, but knows deep down that its way is preferable to the savageness and filth of the past, and the world of magic, where Order is the plaything of Madness and Chaos is the secret name of God. And once you dabble in the Dark Arts, you can never again be completely free of their stain. There is something about you which will forever set you apart from your society. And while you may debate the stupidity of your society, the good will of the world around you is a wonderful thing. To put it another way, "once you step in the mystic shit, you can't ever get it off of your shoe. Don't track it on your loved one's carpets."

(In a way, characters in Zak's Deplorable have it easier than in Shadows in the Fog. In Deplorable, your character is so beyond the pale already that there's no good reason for anyone to hold your character to such exacting standards. In Shadows in the Fog, there's no reason for anyone to expect you to be different at all, so the standards apply.)

Anyway, I think it would help solidify the characters and galvanize the players somewhat, giving them something personal as a reason to explore London and its seamier side. It also gives the players three character options: throwing off Society for mastery of Magic (Assumption), using the newly discovered lore to protect and promote Society (guardian role), or to try and swing between these two extremes, lording it over the ignorant masses and having some illicit fun while not giving up Society altogether, and having some extra "firepower" around just in case things get too sticky. Seems narrow and confining, but the two extremes don't allow for much variation, and I think that fits the setting perfectly.

[Mike Holmes]

This was emphatically not intended to be "the GM's special secret section" or anything.  The point was simply to get at some stuff that I didn't think fit too well elsewhere.  I'll go through again and see whether more of it could be folded into other sections.

I think I see what you're saying. If you hit everyone with all the stuff about how to do the intro session, all at once, that would be a bit oppressive.

Here's an idea. Do the beginning of the book as an overview of the parts or play. To give a general idea of how it all works. Then have expanded sections on everything. You'd have to ensure that people understood the layout, but it could be pretty cool. The parts up front would just have to reference the expanded notes in the back. That way people could "drill down" into whatever area they wanted to.

I've noted that several things are mentioned in this sort of manner; basic introduction in one place, and expanded exposition elsewhere. Not just with the stuff in the GM section. Making a dual presentation for everthing in a consistent manner could be a neat way to handle all this.

Just a thought. Anyhow, I think that it all needs some sort of consistency in presentation. As it exists, I read part of how to do A in one section and then notes on how to "really" do it elsewhere. At the very least these sections have to refer to each other.

Yes, this needs to be toned down.  It's just that every time I've tried to run a Victorian campaign (run-ups for this, actually), at least two players decide to run a gimmick character for laughs, because they don't want to think much.  I wanted to be explicit that GMs should (1) be ready for this when it happens, and (2) head it off at the pass, Tex.  But as you say, it's probably a bit too adversarial as it stands.

The thing is, that no amount of text can prepare you to deal with such players. As a social contract issue what you can get them to do is to play the game. Then just make sure that the chargen does not allow for gimmicks. Not by saying, "you can't do this", but by saying, "you have these options" (none of which include the things you want to discourage). You'll find that if you provide a list of things that are acceptable, rather than leaving it open and making caveats against certain kinds of characters that have to be enforced by the GM, that you'll get what you want, and the GM will not have to force judgement on the players as to the suitablility of the characters.

For me, it's the part about begging rather than overruling.  There is an element of the players trying to beat the GM here, and I want that.  I just want it channeled in healthy directions, not "let's break the whole game!"

Yeah, but leave the GM with some dignity, willya? I mean, point out that it's a trasaction, sure, but then also point out that as long as the players and GM are on the same sheet of music, agreeing to what needs to be done, that these negotiations are usually quite amicable, and leave everyone with a sense of fair play. Even if someone does "lose".

The occult here is real.  That is, the effects are subtle (things that could mostly be ascribed to something else by outside observers), and the occult practices are based on real history.  This is exactly what I wanted to explore, if you will.

Occult with an exterior that is just like the real world, but with an interior that actually works (which may be some people's actual interperetation of the reality of the situation). That's it, right? I get that, I think. What I don't get is the preoccupation with all the other extents of the verisimilitude. That is, it seems that the further you get from investigation of the occult, the less important it is to worry about elements being true to Victoriana. It seems to me that the really important ones are the occult elements themselves, and the mores of the time. Because it's the stress the character experiences between these two things that seem to me to be the crux of the game.

I'm just suggesting that when pointing out what needs to be "realistic" in the text that this is what should be focused on. It is, in fact, but there are these occasional asides about things like actual military units and whatnot that don't seem really important to what the game is investigatine.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast line here.  All I really meant was that I don't think you need to look up not only the name of the unit but also its longstanding reputation.  If you're into that, I say go for it.  "Oh, I was with Gordon at the Summer Palace in China, in the X Regiment, blah blah."  Sounds good.  This is like Faking It though: all you need is to sound plausible and appropriate.

Holy double negatives! I'm not sure what you meant there. But suffice it to say that what I'm getting at is that I agree that Faking It is the primary principle. The game text suggests otherwise in sugesting that one look up a unit at all. In fact, a lot of the text seems incongous in that it demands Faking It for occult stuff, but requires fact for a lot of less central stuff.

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game?

Why bother?  I give a web link to period maps you can print out from the web.

For me it would be easier to make up a name. When I needed that sort of detail at all. This is how my game might go:

GM: She tells you to meet her at the Cafe Bizet.
Player: I get the address from her.
GM: OK, it's across town a bit, probably about a 15 minute cab ride.

I don't need streets. I'd only include them it play became about the streets somehow. And then I'd make them up unless I really wanted to include an immersionist moment. Places are more important for that, however. It's more important to describe Picadilly Circus to me than it is to describe the streets by which we arrive at that part of London.

The point is that, IMO, street names are so far removed from the central experience sought, namely the mores/occult dichotomy, that it seems to be ancillary.

Now, if the game is supposed to be more about "accurate" Victoriana in toto than that, that's cool, too. But the text seems to waffle. And further, there's no rules in the game for keeping things accurate. This means that player input becomes problematic. I'm talking about small scale Director Stance here. For example:

Player: I flag down a cab, get in, and tell the coachman to go to Whitehall.
GM: There are no cabs in this part of town at this time of night.

Now, if the player has no incentive to know this sort of fact, the game becomes largely the participant with the most knowledge of the period, and with the most desire to be accurate, correcting the players who care less. That is, other than the text suggesting that one be accurate, there's not much in the game that would make a player want to be accurate. There's a lot of stuff about exploring the occult, and that's cool. But if you want accurate Victoriana, you'll need to give that equal time, I think.

For example, what about a card reward for "best Victorian detail" that goes to the player who best supported the accurate exploration of the period? That would be a small start. The other ideas I have all revolve around how well society currently assesses the character.

The business about doing all that research (which is mostly reading some Sherlock Holmes stories and stuff like that) is about Faking It well.  Look, there's a kind of player -- I know lots of them -- who likes to look things up.  You're in an Ars Magica campaign and this guy wants to investigate Avebury, or Glastonbury, or wherever.  In a Victorian London Occult game, he starts asking weird questions about whether the statues of Gog and Magog are actually at the Monument or not, and checking up on famous people.  You don't have to go nuts about this, but historical games can be a lot of fun.  

I completely agree. I've been that historical nut on occasion. So, for those players, you'll get what you want. But they'll just annoy the other players who see the game mechanics suggesting that play isn't about all that.

The problem is when one player thinks, "Hell, I don't care, it's all magic anyway, I'll make it up."  But then to everyone else in the game, it feels cheap and silly and anachronistic.  My experience is that this sort of player is the one who thinks, "All I have to do is talk in a silly accent and I get to throw fireballs," or else thinks, "Hey, I know, I'll play a South American indian native who doesn't speak English and has a bone in his nose and goes Ugh all the time; that way I don't have to do any research, won't that be fun."  And that kills the whole history thing for everyone else.  This is what I'm trying to push against.

And all I'm trying to say is that the text encourages this unevenly, and the mechanics are really uneven on this. Make these match your goal.

Yes, what's missing here is adventure and campaign hooks.  Quite right.  Oops.  Those will appear soon.

Well, that's one way. And I'm not against it. In fact, that ought to be in there. But further, it would be cool if the mechanics suggested what play was about. This is why I like Assumption. Not that this is the only way to go, but what I like about those mechanics is that they definitely are evokative of what play would be about.

Actually, I'd really like to see some social mechanics to make play more about the social/occult push and pull.

And no, Jack the Ripper is not background: for me it's THE initial hook that drags everyone into the occult world in the first place.

Just sort like advertising, right? I getcha.

Weird shit happens, and they investigate.  And in the process, make up more weird shit.  Which happens.  And has to be investigated

That ought to be in the text somewhere. Maybe spruced up. But there's nothing to indicate that this is what play will be about. Adventures, yes, but put a hint in about this up front. Perhaps in making the "connections" in the set up session, players should be considering these facts in determining what makes an appropriate connection, for example.

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason?

Yes.  It's because I'm an idiot.  :)

Nope, gamer. Typically gamers avoid these close associations because they see them as something that the GM can use against them. Few games break these barriers.

You always hear about the really neat concept that someone had to make their characters "brothers". It amazes me that this isn't a default option (as opposed to the random "adventuing party").

But cross-dressers exist -- George Eliot leaps to mind.  If you want to do this, think hard about what you're getting yourself into.  Same if there's something not quite human about you.  If you're doing it to be wacky, don't.  If you're doing it because you want a really difficult character-exploration challenge, go for it.

I get your point. Again, however, my point is simply to have chargen exist such that you can't make a "gimicky" character. For example, if you had a social stat of some sort, then the player playing the cross-dresser automatically has to consider the character's quirky behavior in larger and more pertinent terms. Just on example of how to drive play in the direction that you want.

Don't list Cross-Dresser. If people want it, they can research it and take it, and that will assure that they're doing it for the right reasons. Only include on the list those examples which will automatically work the way you see it.

That all said, I see them all as about equally problematic, myself (same goes for lower class). As sson as you caveat against one kind of silly character, another will pop up. It's not that the character types lend themselves to silly play, it's that the players want to play silly in the first place. This is what you have to combat. I'd go with the mechanical method of reinforcement to ensure play doesn't become silly. But that's just me.

Most don't.  Experience of the occult?  Sure, if they want it.

The rules are confusing on this point, then. It's not clear how likely it should be for a character to have occulkt knowledge, and to what extent (much less real supernatural experience).

I would like people to think about what they want in this area, though, because otherwise they go from clueless to clueless.  If you want to get into astrology, it's no big deal to go from "clueless but somebody gave me this necklace" toward "I understand the forces of the stars."

Cool. That just needs to be more clear, IMO. Like I said, it seems to me that the whole concept would demand it's own section.

I agree.  My point is just that several players of my acquaintance have tried to parlay female characters into "but I should get something for my pains" or "they can't treat me this way."  You don't, and they can.  If you can't stand that, don't play a woman.

I think the other text in the sidebar about women's issues should be enough to inform players as to the problems. But the rest is just, "we don't give you recompense like other games do". Which goes into the comparison category as not worthwhile, IMO. In fact that could be replaced with, "If you want a really fun and interesting challenge, play a woman. Which entails the following issues:" If players don't think that's fun, then they won't.

In footnote 12, you say that a player can't buy equipment with cards. What would imply that he could?

People do ask.  Again and again.  "Can't I trade in this card to get that?"  You'd be surprised.  That's why it's a footnote.

How widely playtested is this?

If you really need a rule to prevent unauthorized uses (or inquiries into such use), then a "cards can only be used for the following purposes" sort of list would be good. You can't use cards to create NPCs (outside of, perhaps, Interperetation), but there might be some flakes around here who might assume you could. You can caveat aganst a million things. It's simpler to just say, "this is what you can do, and only these things" in clear terms than it is to try and predict what baggage people will bring to a game in terms of expectations.

The GM [decides whether something is unimporant in terms of getting a resolution].  If the group objects, it goes to resolution.

How does the "group object"? This sounds like a standard proceedure that needs to be outlined well. Is this a majority vote? Unanimous? Something else? The buck has to stop somewhere in case of disagreement, and that needs to be clear.

If a player wants to do something magical, i.e. cast the equivalent of a spell, then the first card he or she plays in a Trump.  But every time a Trump is played, in any circumstance, brings magical wackiness into play.  It's just that the characters are probably not aware of it directly.

Cool, that's what I thought. But it took a lot of infering to get to that point.

As far as Getting Hurt, can't you just have each concession be one described effect of the outcome?

This was very strongly objected to last draft, by lots of folks.  Until I see a proper playtest, I'm staying flexible on this.

What was the objection in particular? The usual objection is that it's either not tactical enough, or that players feel that their characters are subject to GM whim as far as being "deprotagonized". These aren't difficult to address.

I'm getting the feeling that the playtesters were "traditional gamers."

The GM makes [penalties] up.  But we need some more detail, you're right.

See, I see this as really neat. Characters get penalty descriptors based on what sort of conflict. So, in a fight? Get a -2 "gashed leg". In a battle of wits to convine a third party? Get a -1 "Untrusted by Bob" penalty. These go away when appropriate. This sort of general system seems really cool to me.

This is part of what might be called the Gamist element.  Yes, the GM does indeed want to do this.  The players don't want her to.  Because if GM = universe and players = PCs in terms of the analogy, the fact that the PCs are trying to bend the universe is parallel to the players trying to twist the GM.  So the GM has to push back.

Right, but the GM is warned not to push too much. Why not allow the GM to go all out, and just balance his resources so that he doesn't have an advantage. The conflict is giving the GM what he needs to win, telling him to compete, and then saying, "but don't win all the time".

In actuality, however, this is the classic comparison thing that we talk about. I'd just drop it entirely. It's becoming a cliché, but don't tell us what the game is not, just focus on what it is (didn't I say recently that everyone does this?). OTOH, you do seem to note that the whole section is a rant. I assume you intend to rewrite it then?

Are you talking about the analogy?  I don't know of any such example.  What are you referring to?

You're saying, "this game isn't like D&D and Champions, in that xyz." I'm suggesting not doing that at all. It makes you look like you're trying to say that you're "better" than D&D, when you are better, and don't need to say it.

Chris doth protest oermuch. It's become a standing principle that we try to encourage in Indie games that one ought not compare. Ralph and I learned the hard way, ourselves. Our games are not their games. They are what they are. The best way to get that across is to say what the game is, not what it's not. "Experienced" role-players can draw their own conclusions.

Hell, no.  Volume 2 is already 40 pages, and I've only done one section out of 12.

Cool, looking forward to checking that out.

Yes, this was brought up last time as well.  I don't think it's necessary.  I think that making it a basic part of the game implies that this is what the game is about, and it isn't.  Besides, Assumption is basically sick and warped, and I don't think it's necessary for the game to focus on that.  It's one of the ways I think SitF isn't like Unknown Armies.

That's cool. But if the game isn't about Assumption, then I think it would benefit from rules of a similar scale that would indicate what it is about. You've made a subset of the rules that could provide that missing drive, but decided that it's not central. Well, define that mechanic which is central.


Mike

[clehrich]

Mike,

Thanks a lot!  Now I really get what you're saying (I think), and I think these comments will greatly improve the game.  A few brief remarks; please note that I'm mostly remarking on things I disagree with or want clarification on, so the vast majority of your post (I the stuff I don't comment on is stuff I agree with and like):

Here's an idea. Do the beginning of the book as an overview of the parts or play. To give a general idea of how it all works. Then have expanded sections on everything. You'd have to ensure that people understood the layout, but it could be pretty cool. The parts up front would just have to reference the expanded notes in the back. That way people could "drill down" into whatever area they wanted to.

I like this a lot.  It makes much clearer not only why the book and the game materials are structured as they are, but also suggests the whole "digging into depth narrowly" phenomenon that is also supposed to be part of play.

[J]ust make sure that the chargen does not allow for gimmicks. Not by saying, "you can't do this", but by saying, "you have these options" (none of which include the things you want to discourage). You'll find that if you provide a list of things that are acceptable, rather than leaving it open and making caveats against certain kinds of characters that have to be enforced by the GM, that you'll get what you want, and the GM will not have to force judgement on the players as to the suitablility of the characters.

This is a good example of a lot of your comments, which seem to come down to this: rather than stomping on things I don't want, structure towards what I do want.  I think there is a way of doing both, but emphasizing your side rather than mine; that is, of encouraging the things that are cool and fun here, while noting very gently a few dangerous traps.  One way is to see them as traps: that is, rather than say "you're annoying if you do this," you say, "watch out, because it's really easy to slide into this, and you don't want that, trust me."  Clearly a major issue of emphasis.  I'll work on it!

For me, it's the part about begging rather than overruling.

Yeah, but leave the GM with some dignity, willya? I mean, point out that it's a trasaction, sure, but then also point out that as long as the players and GM are on the same sheet of music, agreeing to what needs to be done, that these negotiations are usually quite amicable, and leave everyone with a sense of fair play. Even if someone does "lose".

Have you ever seen a GM do this (beg, I mean)?  I have, and believe me, it's very amicable.  There's a lot of friendly laughter and happiness going on, and the GM gets to really ham it up.  Give it a shot, Mike -- you might be pleasantly surprised.  GM dignity?  What dignity?  Phooey!

What I don't get is the preoccupation with all the other extents of the verisimilitude. That is, it seems that the further you get from investigation of the occult, the less important it is to worry about elements being true to Victoriana. It seems to me that the really important ones are the occult elements themselves, and the mores of the time. Because it's the stress the character experiences between these two things that seem to me to be the crux of the game.

This and the thing about street names go together.  Again, what's needed is some examples and supporting material.  See, the thing is that the line between what's occult and what isn't is really fuzzy.  It's not like CoC, where you can tell by working out whether something makes you insane and smells like fish.  In one game I ran, a series of quite real churches turned out to be aligned on a figure of the Eye of Horus, inscribed in streets on London.  Real streets.  Which really do sort of look like that.  And smack in the middle of which (like in the pupil of the Eye) there were several Ripper murders.  [See Ian Sinclair, Lud Heat and Peter Ackroyd, Hawksmoor for my main sources here.]  This is what I'm trying to get at and really not expressing: you twist totally real events and places and people and stuff like that just ever so slightly, and it all turns out to be vast cosmic conspiracy without making up practically anything.  And when the lunatic history-buff player goes looking, and pops up with some bit of "Aha" trivia, it'll all work smoothly.  See?  I'm totally not explaining this -- I reread it today, cover to cover, and I'm shocked that this stuff just doesn't appear anywhere.  I've been saving for Volume 2, but the result is that Volume 1 doesn't actually have enough material to run an actual game intelligently.  Sigh.

I would like people to think about what they want in this area, though, because otherwise they go from clueless to clueless.  If you want to get into astrology, it's no big deal to go from "clueless but somebody gave me this necklace" toward "I understand the forces of the stars."

Cool. That just needs to be more clear, IMO. Like I said, it seems to me that the whole concept would demand it's own section.

Sorry - what whole concept needs a section?  I'm confused here.

How does the "group object"? This sounds like a standard proceedure that needs to be outlined well. Is this a majority vote? Unanimous? Something else? The buck has to stop somewhere in case of disagreement, and that needs to be clear.

Good point.  It's pretty obvious, actually -- what happens is that somebody objects, and then others either second this or roll their eyes.  If everyone is pretty aware of the group dynamic, this pretty much takes care of itself, but a mention to this effect would help.

I'm getting the feeling that the playtesters were "traditional gamers."

I dunno; it was here in the Indie Forum, if you want to check (about 2 months ago, I think).

The GM makes [penalties] up.

See, I see this as really neat. Characters get penalty descriptors based on what sort of conflict. So, in a fight? Get a -2 "gashed leg". In a battle of wits to convine a third party? Get a -1 "Untrusted by Bob" penalty. These go away when appropriate. This sort of general system seems really cool to me.

Yes, what's needed is more examples.  The idea is that actually the players usually say things like "gashed leg and I'm limping pretty bad," and the GM says, "Um, how about -2 to athletics."  Because of this same constant group participation thing, the group will pretty much determine its own preferences and enforce them.  As I say, more examples, and being a little more explicit about how I think this is going to work will help a lot.

Right, but the GM is warned not to push too much. Why not allow the GM to go all out, and just balance his resources so that he doesn't have an advantage. The conflict is giving the GM what he needs to win, telling him to compete, and then saying, "but don't win all the time".

Here I think I disagree with you, actually.  This is what I mean about the GM begging.  The GM really can lose; in theory, the GM can always win by what amounts to cheating (overruling), but he's got to abase himself if it comes to that.  As a rule, however, the GM can be beaten, because those Trumps are so damn powerful -- you can really do anything you want.  For example, you say "you can't create NPCs and" -- oh yes, you can.  Why not?  You can't create an NPC by magic, but it's sort of like Mage is supposed to work (but doesn't, IMO): your interpretation says that when you go around that corner, there's going to be this costermonger who's going to be very helpful.  Or alternatively, you can Trump and take over (and GM!) the damn scene, in which case you can make the costermonger buy all his flowers from a Kew distributor and consequently happen to know where John Dee used to live in Mortlake (near Kew).  If you can make it sound really plausible, what's the GM going to do about it?  Overrule, or suck it up.  But everything hinges on that "sound good" thing: if the group agrees "that rocks," then it rocks; if the group agrees "that sucks and is a weenie move," then it sucks and gets overruled or bent right quick -- because somebody else will Trump and overrule it, chances are.  That way Player 1 gets trounced by Player 2 (did I mention the Gamist element?  :>  ).

It's become a standing principle that we try to encourage in Indie games that one ought not compare.

Well, shit!  I put all this sort of thing in at least partly because I thought folks like you and Ron were all saying that RPGs really ought to make such comparisons, to refer to other RGPs overtly and not pretend to exist in a vacuum.  Now you're saying I shouldn't do this?  I mean, easy enough, but is it really so bad?  As I said in that section, the point is not that these other games stink, but that the magic is differently constructed and for X, Y, and Z reasons.  Magic in D&D is fun, so is magic in SitF, but it's totally different.  

How do others feel about this?


Thanks again, Mike.  Version 1 Alpha Prime will be much better because of your comments!

Chris

[Rob MacDougall]

What I don't get is the preoccupation with all the other extents of the verisimilitude. That is, it seems that the further you get from investigation of the occult, the less important it is to worry about elements being true to Victoriana. It seems to me that the really important ones are the occult elements themselves, and the mores of the time. Because it's the stress the character experiences between these two things that seem to me to be the crux of the game.

This and the thing about street names go together. Again, what's needed is some examples and supporting material. See, the thing is that the line between what's occult and what isn't is really fuzzy. It's not like CoC, where you can tell by working out whether something makes you insane and smells like fish. In one game I ran, a series of quite real churches turned out to be aligned on a figure of the Eye of Horus, inscribed in streets on London. Real streets. Which really do sort of look like that. And smack in the middle of which (like in the pupil of the Eye) there were several Ripper murders. [See Ian Sinclair, Lud Heat and Peter Ackroyd, Hawksmoor for my main sources here.] This is what I'm trying to get at and really not expressing: you twist totally real events and places and people and stuff like that just ever so slightly, and it all turns out to be vast cosmic conspiracy without making up practically anything. And when the lunatic history-buff player goes looking, and pops up with some bit of "Aha" trivia, it'll all work smoothly. See? I'm totally not explaining this -- I reread it today, cover to cover, and I'm shocked that this stuff just doesn't appear anywhere. I've been saving for Volume 2, but the result is that Volume 1 doesn't actually have enough material to run an actual game intelligently. Sigh.

Hi guys.

I hope its OK if I pipe up (at some length) in this discussion. Chris, I really like the looks of this game. (Are you running any games in Boston any time soon?) The more Unknown Armies I play, the more I like the magic system you've got here; I'm seriously considering using your Shadows rules for an 1890s flashback in my current UA campaign.

But I wanted to join in on this specific issue of Verisimilitude versus Faking It. I agree with Mike that the text as written seems to waffle a little on what it is OK to fake and what people should research. Sometimes you seem to be really pushing for people to do genuine heavy-lifting research while playing this game; other times you back off and say "it's really no big deal, just maybe read a couple of Sherlock Holmes stories."

(I was amused that, if I read the thread correctly, Chris, you felt looking up genuine street names was worth doing, but looking up the history of military units wasn't. My guess, which I think was confirmed by later posts, was that you had a scenario in mind where London street design would conceal some occult truth—but surely one could also concoct a scenario where the history or reputation of certain military units concealed some occult phenomenon.)

Anyway, on my first read through this thread, I was thinking that looking up either street names or military units seemed like a lot of unnecessary work and that surely faking it would do in almost every instance. But then, after reading Chris' defense of sticking to real events and places and people whenever possible, I started thinking about how much time I myself spend on Google and in the library looking up stuff for some of my games. I've been that history nut player looking up Avebury and Glastonbury too. Now, if faking it is good enough, why do I do that? Does all that time I spend Googling historical tidbits actually add to my enjoyment of the game?

Well, yes, I guess it does, in a way, especially if we consider prep time part of the game experience. There is, in fact, a certain aesthetic pleasure in sticking as close as possible to historical reality. Concocting conspiracies and occult truths out of the great tapestry of history is a fun activity for a certain type of person—and it seems to me that those people are the target audience for this game.

A lot of people play a lot of RPGs this way already. It's how my Unknown Armies game is running, it's how an Ars Magica game I was in and a Declare-inspired espionage game I'm playing in were run too. Speaking of Declare, it's also how Tim Powers writes: he says his rule in writing secret history is not to alter any confirmable facts. (The zen-like ease of researching weird topics with Google and the efforts of your buddy Ken Hite might have something to do with the popularity of this style, Chris, though of course it predates both Google and the Suppressed Transmission.) Anyone who has done it knows that, once you get going, it's alarmingly easy to "find" occult connections and conspiracies. And you can't beat that weird frisson when facts start popping up (as they always, always do) that seem to confirm the goofy theories you've concocted.

Now, in some games (like Ars Magica), there is some culture around the game encouraging efforts towards historical verisimilitude, but the desire to really stick to historical reality whenever possible is ultimately an aesthetic choice made by an individual GM or GM and player group in cohort. That is, I've never seen a game that explicitly made this kind of interaction with historical fact part of the point of play.

But what if you built that directly into your game?

What if, instead of sort of apologizing for making Shadows in the Fog players read a little Conan Doyle, you came right out and said that the goal of the game was to build conspiracies and occult secrets out of real Victorian history.

By really foregrounding the act of research, and describing, like you do in the paragraph I quoted at the start of this message, how one plays with history to concoct cool conspiracies and occult secrets, you could really make Shadows into a game about finding occult patterns in history. Indeed, it would be a way to play with history.

You could probably hardwire this into the director-stance mechanics, saying that the default is always historical reality; that players never have to use magic or skills to "assert" historically provable facts, only things that diverge from actual history. But mostly I think this could be done just with strong language in the game text.

Sure, it might sound to some readers like a demanding game ("I have to go to the library?!?"), more demanding than some might want, but it sounds to me like you don't really want the player who just wants to "make it all up and fling fireballs" anyway.

A game of Shadows in the Fog could be, in the end, not unlike the game played by the protagonists in Foucault's Pendulum, except that the very act of roleplaying would take the place of the connection-making computer Abulafia. Ultimately, the game would become a game one plays with history. The act of playing would mirror the actions of the players, which I believe was one of your design goals from the start, and a campaign would really say something to its players about history itself, about its complexity, about pattern recognition and apophenia and the making of connections—which is, after all, where any real exploration of the occult begins.

Whew! Does all that make sense? Sorry about the long, long post. My UA campaign and reading Pattern Recognition and rereading Foucault's Pendulum have got me thinking a lot about all this stuff and I took the opportunity to go off on a tear. But I know I'm not the only gamer who thinks about these sorts of things, and I think it would be really interesting if a game really took them on in a serious way.

once again, my compliments on the game,
Rob

[clehrich]

Rob,

You are clearly my kind of maniac.  :)

Let me think a bit about your questions and comments; I want to give a carefully thought-through response.  And as to Unknown Armies, I don't see why you can't use this system for the modern world as well.  I was just thinking that this evening, actually....  You might want to be a little more New Age-ey about the Tarot interpretations, of course.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Rob, thanks for saying what I was trying to say in a much better way. Basically pin down the level of setting exploration and realism, and make the game actually promote that, or at least have coherent tools for using more than one methodology in an informed manner. The potential problem is leaving it to interperetation. Which will tend towards drift and incoherence of all sorts of nasty flavors (like "you-didn't-say-it wasn't-ism").

I'm sure you'll nail that down, Chris.

As for using the game for present day, if that's the case, then you're saying that play isn't about the setting at all. That's fine, but then I'd de-emphasize it a lot. OTOH, I think that it's actually the right setting, and what you ought to do is reinforce that in the mechanics. But that's just my take.

This is a good example of a lot of your comments, which seem to come down to this: rather than stomping on things I don't want, structure towards what I do want.

Yeah, I probably went overboard on that. As long as it's in your mind while you write, I'm sure it'll work out right.

Have you ever seen a GM do this (beg, I mean)?  I have, and believe me, it's very amicable.  There's a lot of friendly laughter and happiness going on, and the GM gets to really ham it up.  Give it a shot, Mike -- you might be pleasantly surprised.  GM dignity?  What dignity?  Phooey!

Cool. As long as you have the appropriate tone to it, it should be fine. :-)

Sorry - what whole concept needs a section?  I'm confused here.

The character's initial experience with the occult. Pros and Cons of different starting levels of experience with it, and what impact it'll have on the character. It seems central to me, but it's handled as just another skill, or possible oddity of background.

It's pretty obvious, actually -- what happens is that somebody objects, and then others either second this or roll their eyes.  If everyone is pretty aware of the group dynamic, this pretty much takes care of itself, but a mention to this effect would help.

You know, Ron would actually approve, I think. But I've long been an advocate for rigor. That is, if there's no rule other than "social agreement", then I find that this is a potential sticking point in play. What I like to see is something like, "If the players come to a disagreement about this, the GM should conduct a vote with the majority of players ruling."

The reason that I like mechanics is that they give a dispassionate feel to the proceedings that people seem to be able to accept better than personal judgment (this is why I don't play freeform, personally).

That all said, you're version should work too.

Yes, what's needed is more examples.

Always, always. Part of the "work" of writing.

This is what I mean about the GM begging.  The GM really can lose; in theory, the GM can always win by what amounts to cheating (overruling), but he's got to abase himself if it comes to that.  As a rule, however, the GM can be beaten, because those Trumps are so damn powerful -- you can really do anything you want.  For example, you say "you can't create NPCs and" -- oh yes, you can.  Why not?  You can't create an NPC by magic, but it's sort of like Mage is supposed to work (but doesn't, IMO): your interpretation says that when you go around that corner, there's going to be this costermonger who's going to be very helpful.  Or alternatively, you can Trump and take over (and GM!) the damn scene, in which case you can make the costermonger buy all his flowers from a Kew distributor and consequently happen to know where John Dee used to live in Mortlake (near Kew).  If you can make it sound really plausible, what's the GM going to do about it?  Overrule, or suck it up.  But everything hinges on that "sound good" thing: if the group agrees "that rocks," then it rocks; if the group agrees "that sucks and is a weenie move," then it sucks and gets overruled or bent right quick -- because somebody else will Trump and overrule it, chances are.  That way Player 1 gets trounced by Player 2 (did I mention the Gamist element?  :>  ).

Several issues here.

First, it's your statement in the text that the GM can usually win against a player. I assumed that to mean with card play (he having more cards available). I wasn't refering to the metagame Trumps. The question becomes is the non-Trump play balanced between player and GM? If not, and the GM is out to win, there's a problem.

The over-ruling thing is a separate issue. And one that I'm not sure I want to discuss in this context. But it goes to the larger debate over player control vs. GM control. Basically, what would happen if the GM could only "over-rule" with Trump. Consider the implications.

Lastly, I have the irrational feeling that I'm unlucky in fortune elements (shoulda seen my Sorcerer character fail over and over last night). Anyhow, what if I never draw any trumps? The draw system does seem to have the potential of leaving some participants with a lot more power than others. There are quite a few balancing mechanisms that I could suggest. Interested?

Well, shit!  I put all this sort of thing in at least partly because I thought folks like you and Ron were all saying that RPGs really ought to make such comparisons, to refer to other RGPs overtly and not pretend to exist in a vacuum.  Now you're saying I shouldn't do this?  I mean, easy enough, but is it really so bad?  As I said in that section, the point is not that these other games stink, but that the magic is differently constructed and for X, Y, and Z reasons.  Magic in D&D is fun, so is magic in SitF, but it's totally different.  

How do others feel about this?

Well, interestingly, Ron's writing does refer a lot to other games in a comparative manner. So there is some potential debate on this subject, I suppose. Even dispassionate comparison seems problematic to me, however. Do you expect that the next version of D&D will compare itself to your game? Not going to happen. So aren't we creating an feeling that we're underdogs by making the comparison (note how marketers never ever do this; its always "Brand A" that's compared if anything)? Is being the underdog valuable? We ought to talk this one out in a new thread.

Mike

[scobie]

Ok, for my 5 cents worth...

Love the idea of the game, and the setting.  I agree that victorian games to tend to veer to easily into the farce/comedic and the idea of seriously playing a victorian occult game is quite appealing.

Some comments on the draft:

Overall, time to make the text more lean, be less didactic.  There is a lot of 'scaffolding' there, stuff that was important to you in the writing process but this can be pruned back now your vision is together.  An example – the discussion about gimmick characters.  I agree entirely but this can be left at a short note.  Let's face it, some of the readers already know, some don't care and will play however they like and some don't think they are playing gimmick characters, no matter how you try to convince them.  Short and snappy is better.

Likewise, the rules need editing for clarity.  Your examples are good and clear up confusion but the first statement of the rules need revisiting from scratch.   With any kind of technical writing it is often a good idea to get someone else to rewrite the concept/paragraph from scratch – it won't be exactly what you want of course, but it will bring what you do want into sharper focus...

Like the use of cards, wish there was some way to retain the suits as a game mechanic, seems to good to pass up.  Something that recognises resonances (eg wands with conflict, cups with mediation, swords with logic, pentacles with material solutions).  Could just give a bare bonus but that seems a bit boring...

Really really like the use of concessions.  Some of this stuff needs to be moved up front – what are the distinguishing features of this game:  card interpretive mechanics, concessions and so on...  I would try for more guidelines on concessions in certain contexts – fights, stealth, persuasion, etc...   Every group needs to find its own level of comfort with these, but some more guidance from experience would be useful.

Really don't like the 'oscars' approach to xp.  I never have liked the 'carrot/stick' social engineering approach to xp, especially in the gms hands (too many con games spent waiting to see which drama queen would squirt some tears first).  I don't think that transfering responsibility to the group makes it much better – cohesive players are likely to ignore the mechanic and insist on equal distribution and if your group has conflicts, this will likely entrench them. ("OK, John nominates Yoko for best player, what do the other three of your think?").  Anyway, this is just me, I don't like this approach and prefer to downplay xp wherever possible.  Likewise, not keen on spending cards instead of xp, can see lots of potential for pissing off other players.

Love the setting, more on this later...

Assumptions are interesting but I think need to be a central mechanic ala Unknown Armies or best ignored completely.

So great work.  It really needs some severe pruning, but that is a natural stage of writing.  Can't wait to see more.

scobie