Okay, I'm looking at Terra Australis, and it weirdly adds the features I was missing (but wanted, in some form) from Chthonian: Evidence and Resources.

During the Chthonian playtests, the biggest conceptual hurdles for me were to allow for a shared mythos creation, and get the player's (not just the characters) emotionally involved. I didn't have these things in the rules, and I wasn't sure about how to get them in.

With Terra Australis, that's the entire system. How do you combine shared mythos creation & emotional involvement. Hence the reduction of the entire system to a single roll (which creates evidence, resolves conflict, and stresses resources). After reading and considering Ron Edwards' Trollbabe, I simplified Terra Australis even further, reducing a character to a set of resources (no scores, no nothing, just the name of the resource).

Then I realized that I have two games with the same design goal: Fight monsters, create a shared mythos, stress resources (resources being people, mostly). So why not combine the two systems? Now I have Chthonian, with a Terra Australis supplement. Chthonian characters have:


• Skills (Role, Investigate, Aware, Fight, Attitude), each with descriptors (that can be used as a resource).
• Safety, in-game "health", spent as a resource or damaged during conflict.
• A list of resources: PCs, NPCs and items (maybe history and destiny will come into play, too) that are used.



The last one is key. All other PCs are a resource. NPCs are a potential resource. if you use these resources (gain bonus dice), there is a chance to damage the resource, or even remove it. Chthonian's design very much stresses decisions based on survival, wrapped around the gambling of a resource in order to succeed. With the addition of PCs & NPCS as resources, I hope to get the emotional player investment.

Now, two questions.

1. With the design supporting play based on gambling resources for survival, am I risking rules that encouarge incoherent play? I may have some players pushing for biggest reward, and spending resources at a purely metagame level. Other players will approach the issue of spending PC/NPC resources, and ask the question: "Is it worth sacrificing the well-being of others for my own gain?" Do these two options complement each other? Contradict each other?

2. How do I encourage the shared creation of Evidence/Mythos? My current thinking is that new facts become another resource, usable by the entire group. Any other suggestions?

I just wanted to say: YEEEHAW!

I somehow mised this post from last week. As Zak knows, I'm a big fan of Terra Australis, and it does seem to be a perfect fit for Cthonian.

Now, some answers:

1. I think you have to build the game assuming that a player will always go for the biggest reward with the smallest risk, given several options. The reason Sorcerer works both as a thematic engine as well as a tight mechanical reward system is that it does not allow multiple paths to (say) demon summoning. You always have to match your Will - Humanity vs. the Demon's power, and risk Humanity loss as a result. There's no other way to do it. If you want more power at a metagame level you have to address the thematic element of the game (Humanity).

As long as the most-sensible risk/reward method at a metagame level corresponds to the thematic element, you're good to go.

2. I like the idea of new facts becoming a group-resource. I don't have any other bright ideas at the moment, but I'll mull it over.

John Harper wrote: 1. I think you have to build the game assuming that a player will always go for the biggest reward with the smallest risk, given several options.