Black Powder is the idea for a setting I've been sitting on for a quite some time that I've finally decided to actually publish as a game. Although I've been actively working on it for a while now, I realized I hadn't sat down and written out a 'design document', so to speak, touching on all the areas highlighted in Ron's "GNS And Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" essay. The rough draft can be found on [URL=http://ispaces.blogspot.com/]my blog[/URL] . Please excuse the length and longwinded-ness. :)

I'm not much to comment on mechanics but the world sounds interesting!

What do characters do? They try to balance Freedom and Law but, for example, how? Could you summarize some adventures or campaigns that you see running?

Thanks. The point you bring up is the main one that I'm somewhat struggling with at the moment. One of the solutions I'm looking is writting the setting material from the perspective of one of the main archetypes that will feature prominently in the setting, that of the 'black powder men'.

Far from being an organized group, black powder men are equal parts gunslinger, machinist and alchemist. Many were former soldiers or riflemen who, intrigued by the mystique and power of firearms, delved into the study of mechanics, ballistics and alchemy to the point that they have became experts in the construction and modification of firearms, as well as the creation of black powder. Of course others have come from a myriad of different backgrounds: frontiersmen, industrialist, those taught by other wandering powder-men, etc.

A powder-man's expertise, and particular talents puts him in a unique position. While he can make a living for himself in the Frontier selling powder and fabricating pieces for customers in the boom towns he happens, there are also many industrialist in the larget cities and Metropoli who seek out such skilled individuals. Not just for their technical knowledge of firearms but also in their skilled application, as 'consultants', troubleshooters or simply well trained thugs.

So apart from taking specific hired assignments from industrialists, I could imagine characters traveling from boomtown to boomtown hiring out their skill and encountering the usual genre-appropriate situations (outlaw gangs, crooked sheriffs, cattle rustlers, claim-jumpers, etc.) Plust there's always the greater supernatural unknown of the Badlands to spice things up. I think the inherent independence of the archetype - as well as the sub-setting of the Frontier - gives much room to explore the Freedom/Rule of Law theme of the game.

My only worry is such an approach would be far to focused on one archetype, and would sideline much of the othe aspects of the settings such as the civil unrest of the Metropoli; as well the the conflicts between the various other groups and factions featured int he setting.

That sounds interesting. It does sound a lot like King's Gunslingers (or what I know of them, then again, you do list that as a reference). Not that that's bad.

What other archetypes do you imagine? The travelling gunman seems ready to go but what are some of the other options?

Well, settings and systems don't have to be a "be-all-to-end-all".
From the sounds/looks of things, you have a well defined archetype that fits well within a world these kinds of characters prosper. Why not go gung-ho all the way, build your system around the Black Powder Men and how they interact with their world?

I hope you don't mind if I jump in, Karasu. (I've been collaborating on the project for a few weeks.)

The other archetypes we're working on include the specialists in each field that the Black Powder Men touch (Alchemists, Mechanists), the folks they work for/against (Industrialists, Unionists, Aristocrats), and a few assorted others (Arcanists, Preachers, Sawbones, Mountain Men). Each is written with enough ambiguity to accomodate their use as PCs or antagonists.

I should also mention that we're using Wushu Open, so the character templates are pretty flexible. You can easily twist them around with different skills and personality traits. They're rough examples, not hard-and-fast character classes.

L8r, --Dan

Well Dan pretty much took the words out of my mouth. :)

As he said we've been working together on this project for some time now and he's been a tremendous help as a sounding board for concepts, as well as adding excellent ideas with his own particular twist. Here's a few more tidbits on the archetypes he listed, as well as liitle more detail on one of the more promiant organizations in the setting. Of course this is by no means a comprehenisve list we are working on several others.

- Sawbone: Down and dirty frontier doctor.
- Archanist: Two-fisted scholar and explorer, with a bit of journalist mixed in for good measure.
- Mountain Man: Frontier scout/survivalist or reclusive hermit; some have 'gone feral' due to the chaotic effects of the Badlands.
- Aristocrat:Typical foppish, Old World blueblood, or a noble if somewhat condecending member elite.
- Industrialist: A member of the newly emerging, capitalist middle class.
- Unionist: Working class laborer with strong political and organizational leanings.
- Machinist: Part engineer, part Tesla-esque, steampunk tinkerer.
- Preacher: Wandering evangelist. Usually affiliated with the 'Torchbearer' religious movement.
- Alchemist: Part scholar, part chemist, part hermeticist.

The Society of the Enlightened

The Society is a long-standing masonic, organization that can be best described as a "scholarly fraternity of visionary gentlemen." Existing in one form or another for more than 200 years the Society has had a unique impact on the history of the Old and New worlds. Primarily, their goal is that of the betterment of civilzation and wellbeing mankind in general; and secondarily, the research and advancement of the sciences - chiefly alchemical theory.

Towards the first objective they have many humanitarian programs in place throughout the New World; the most common being their modestly accommodated orphanages in nearly every major metropolis. As far as the second, the Society functions as a lodge of sorts for the recuitment of alchemists and maintains the only academies and universities for their exclusive education.

In order to be inducted into the Society and become a 'Luminary', as they are officially known, among other qualifications, one must be backed by a sponsor who is a current Luminary in good standing and who agrees to take responsibilty for the pledge's conduct and for the cost of his tutelage. From there sponsor becomes a mentor of sorts to the pledge as he undergoes many rigorous years of education in a wide variety of subjects ranging from philosophy, to history, to language, to the sciences, to perhaps most importantly, alchemy. All of these tailored to mold him into an astute, leaned and multifacited gentleman, capable of changing the world around him for the better. Even though their goals may seem lofty and idealistic, the Society recognizes that even a gentleman must use force to defend himself, his ideals, and the innocent around him. In this light many Luminaries have at least a basic familiarity with boxing or a variety of forms of melee combat. As a matter of fact, members of the Society are known for their capable fencing and cane-fighting abilities; particularly since the Soceity has a historic aversion to firearms and other forms of black powder weaponry.

As much as the Society would prefer the afore mentioned method of inducting new members occasionally the must take in an amatuer who has half-trained by former Luminary or even perhaps one of the mysterious Wild God cults that become more and more prevalent in recent years. In addition to the fact that unlicensed alchemy has been outlawed by the industrialists, the Society just doesn't feel comfortable with unwitting individuals with such potent talents wandering the streets and posing a danger to themselves as well as all those around them.

Ultimately, they would rather see such persons taken into the fold and educated at their own cost rather than eating the bullet of a hired industrialist thug in some dark alley. Fortunately the industrialst and what little goes in the way of formal government grudgingly recognize the conciderable influence and popularity the Society wields, especially concidering the fact that many of the higher lodge members have aristocratic patrons or are members of elite themselves. Concequently, pledges inducted in this manner eventually find themselves free from any external manipulation or other harrassment.

I noticed you referenced King's The Gunslinger.

Have you read the complete series or just that first book?

Wizard and Glass (Book 4 I think) would be an incredible source book for you if you haven't read it yet.

It features almost all of your archetypes, including what happens when a "Unionist" get his hands on "Machinist" tech to take on the "Aristocrats"

Just the first book. My roomate at university gave me a bunch of books he didn't feel like lugging on the plane when he went back home about a year ago and because I've never been much of a King fan I only recently got around to reading it. Now I'm hooked. I'd planned on getting the rest of series after I finish reading Gene Wolf's 'Book of the New Sun', but perhaps I should move the Dark Tower series up my reading list because all that stuff you mentioned definitely sounds facinating.

The thing that caught me about the book was the it's mythic overtones superimposed on the almost mundane, traditional western - which is perhapse my favorite genre besides traditional fantasy. 'The Gunslinger' was a direct inspiration for the Badlands in general and the Black Powder Man archetype in particular.

Originally I was planning on presently the mythic and supernatural elements more prominently in the setting, even to the point of basing the game around the hunting of Savages (our colloquial term for anything supernatural, not for Native Americans), and 'myth tripping' in general. However I thought that might alienate those who might want to play a more 'traditional' western. Which is the reason all the spooky stuff has been moved out to the Badlands beyond the Frontier, with the ocassional (and becoming more frequent) incursion of the Savages into the rural areas. We're also including the existance of 'Wild God' cults (more on the setting's cosmology later) that allow for supernatural 'From Hell' type scenarios in the more Victorian atmosphere of the metropoli. But who knows, the focus on the supernatrual elements of the game might change between now and when it's published.

Karasu wrote: My only worry is such an approach would be far to focused on one archetype, and would sideline much of the othe aspects of the settings such as the civil unrest of the Metropoli; as well the the conflicts between the various other groups and factions featured int he setting.

Dev wrote: Concurring with Nate: I wouldn't worry, and in fact would size upon your love for these Black Powder Men to make the mainstay in your stories. The civil unrest in the Metropoli and still be a source of conflict. (A renegade from the city hides out in town, and a big city lawman is tracking him down, while frontier folk are caught in the middle. Oh no!) Plus, there's always the Black-Powder-Men-in-the-Big-City angle.

Dev wrote: As for trying to go for much of a trad western instead of scoping out into the real supernatural - well, you don't want to simply come off as another traditional western either, right? Just keep wrihting, and see which aspects of the world are vivid enough to keep you writing.

<whine> But "Savage" is the _perfect_ name for them! It's vague, it's violent, and it has a "v" in it. Everyone knows words with "v" are evil! </whine>

Seriously, I understand the risk of miscommunication, but I think we'll be hard pressed to find a better term. It's even in-genre!

--Dan

After some disscussion, Dan and I have come up with a revised version of the Freedom/Law Trait and it's associated mechanics:

Every character has a 'two-sided' Trait, rated 1-5 that rates their current position on the Freedom/Law continuum. At chargen Player's choose their raiting in both Freedom and Law in any combination they wish as long as the total of the two Trait Numbers adds up to 6:

* Freedom 1/Law 5: Principled; goes to great lengths to stay well within society's institutions, and seeks to make sure other do as well; paragon of the Super-Ego. Very likely to have an occupation related to law enforcement or works for the established authority in some fashion;
* Freedom 2/Law 4: Scrupulous; Has an clear internalization of the accepted social and legal limitations and attemps to live up to them.
* Freedom 3/Law 3: Situationist; does whatever seems best at the time. Likely to act outside the law if anonymity can be assured.
* Freedom 4/Law 2: ????; Acts in accordace with societies expectations, when it's convinent. Otherwise...
* Freedom 5/Law 1: Anarchist; acts almost completely on impulse regardlest of societal expectations. The Id reigns supreme. Very likely seeking actively working against the established authority in some fashion.

In social interaction, the Law rating functions as a generic "Social Skills" Trait, representing your standing in civilized society as well as your ability to draw on it's resources (ie. summon police assistance, secure a loan, order people around, etc). Conversely, the Freedom would represent your ability to stand against the oppressive forces of society (resisting the commands of authority figures and/or being self-reliant in a frontiersman kinda way). People wanting to pressure you into doing something through their authority alone, or coerce you through society's expectations would have to get more successes than your Freedom rating. To put it another way, each point of Freedom negates one Social success.

Shifts in the Trait Numbers may occur when dramatically appropriate, since your standing in civilized society is a direct result of your social status and cooperation with authorities, as well as other citizens. Submitting to authority, putting other's wishes before your own, 'playing nice', so to speak, would indicate a shift from Freedom to Law. Criminal activity, acts of defiance, or purely selfish behaviour would do the opposite.

----

If possible could I get any comments or suggestions on:

* The Freedom/Law scale.
* The social mechanics of the Trait.
* Suggestion for a term for the 'Freedom 4/Law 2' split.

Any other feedback would also be greatly appreciated.

Names: Situationist is actually the name of a somewhat odd anarchic group and I won't go into definitions, but I don't think it's what you want. How about pragmatist? I can see 4/2 defined as Opportunist, or better yet Independent. (Also, I'm not sure if the superego/id stuff will fit into the theme when you're writing the final text, but there could be spiritual/psychological backings I missed the first time around, so keep it in if you're digging it.)

As for the general Freedom/Law mechanic: so is this primarily the catch-all social skill? Or is this mechanically another trait, where you may pick your Freedom 4 over your Gunfighting 3 or such? I'd also be curious to see if you have other guidelines in mind for how the Freedom/Law moves around - perhaps control of moving that around is something that is, itself, wagered?

I think it can work, especially if you put enough emphasis on the potential for social combats / challenges where applying either side of said social skill is of importance. (How about suggesting that, for each "boss battle"-like scene in a session, have at least one fight that's more like social combat, where players use their ideals, as best as they can, to "win".

Dev wrote: Names: Situationist is actually the name of a somewhat odd anarchic group and I won't go into definitions, but I don't think it's what you want. How about pragmatist? I can see 4/2 defined as Opportunist, or better yet Independent. (Also, I'm not sure if the superego/id stuff will fit into the theme when you're writing the final text, but there could be spiritual/psychological backings I missed the first time around, so keep it in if you're digging it.)

As for the general Freedom/Law mechanic: so is this primarily the catch-all social skill? Or is this mechanically another trait, where you may pick your Freedom 4 over your Gunfighting 3 or such? I'd also be curious to see if you have other guidelines in mind for how the Freedom/Law moves around - perhaps control of moving that around is something that is, itself, wagered?

Dev wrote: I think it can work, especially if you put enough emphasis on the potential for social combats / challenges where applying either side of said social skill is of importance. (How about suggesting that, for each "boss battle"-like scene in a session, have at least one fight that's more like social combat, where players use their ideals, as best as they can, to "win".

Um...

*shameless bump*

:P

Karasu,

To be totally clear, "bumps" sans content are not kosher at most Forge forums, so you should make sure not to do that again. The general protocol if you want to continue a quieted thread would be (a) PM'ing specific people whose feedback you wanted (but do this sparingly), (b) added a threat to clarify or extend the remaining question, in case the original wasn't set to spark enough discussion, or (c) let it go quietly, which isn't a bad thing.

I don't mean to come across as very retentive; I'm just trying to communicate the rules around here. I'll respond to your earlier post shortly.

The F/L boundary sounds mostly good, although I'd recommend that although the GM can permit/suggest a shift after a dramatically appropriate moment, that it should not be mandatory on the player's part to accept this. If a player chooses to play their character out-of-sync with their F/L rating, they will suffer mechanical consequences. So, if their F/L is 2/4, but if they're using their Freedom trait more often, they'll find themselves rolling worse on average, which sounds good: you're rewarding them to the moral profile they have on paper, and forcing them to be cognizant of where they want to stand therein. The main challenge will be setting up appropriate social conflicts played out via the Wushu mechanics in an interesting fashion.

Actually, perhaps we should pool some Social Combats advice on the Wushu Wiki, since it's a subject many would want guidance with. For your game, players could certainly use some help with suggested Details about how to translate "stunts" into social combat phrasing.

Dev wrote: The F/L boundary sounds mostly good, although I'd recommend that although the GM can permit/suggest a shift after a dramatically appropriate moment, that it should not be mandatory on the player's part to accept this. If a player chooses to play their character out-of-sync with their F/L rating, they will suffer mechanical consequences. So, if their F/L is 2/4, but if they're using their Freedom trait more often, they'll find themselves rolling worse on average, which sounds good: you're rewarding them to the moral profile they have on paper, and forcing them to be cognizant of where they want to stand therein. The main challenge will be setting up appropriate social conflicts played out via the Wushu mechanics in an interesting fashion.

Actually, perhaps we should pool some Social Combats advice on the Wushu Wiki, since it's a subject many would want guidance with. For your game, players could certainly use some help with suggested Details about how to translate "stunts" into social combat phrasing.

I was mainly arguing to circumvent the idea of a GM that was invoking unwated moral shifts on the players, or perhaps putting more of that affect in her hands rather than the player's. In the case of the high Law character continually breaking the Law - I would argue you could still have recourse, i.e. create a situation dealing with the fallout of the action and possibly conflict with lawmen - possibly requiring a Law vs. Freedom check. They will struggle with this check unless they accept a shift.

Now that I think of it, letting the GM decide when a shift can occur isn't really problematic. Sorcerer does just fine with having the GM decide what kinds of actions will require a Humanity check, *although* part of Sorcerer's game prep is a pregame discussion amongst the players of what "Humanity" means. That discussion, and the consensus among the players, is a key part of it working for Sorcerer, and such a discussion should be part of your game rules.

The above example also remind me that you could allow for some randomness, as in a Freedom v. Law roll to see if the shift happens (again, like in Sorcerer, although you may want it to be tied to some in-game conflict rather than being like a saving throw).

It isn't so much that the situations like the one you suggested above would require a Law vs. Freedom 'check. I'm not trying to design the Freedom/Law Trait as a something a GM can hold over the heads of his players as a threat. Instead, instances of morality shifts would be due to the scenarios arranged by the GM and the choices the players make.

For example, let's look at the case of a high Law character faced with the choice to side with the sherif against his teenage son who has killed a man unintentionally. Now it's obvious the GM took steps to arrange the situation to explore the PC's concept of Law. However, he can't force a shift in the character's Freedom/Law Trait as any shifts are dependant on the PCs actions. If the player decides to allow the sheriff to take his son away, there'd be no shift. There probably shouldn't be a shift even if he tries to stop the sherrif by explaining the situation was an accident. However, if the high Law PC was to destract the sheriff so his son could skip town, that would definitely warrant a shift towards Freedom.

Ideally, the PC should be made completely aware of situations in which his actions might warrant a Freedom/Law shift, possibly with a short GM-Player or group discussion before proceeding, though this would by no means mandatory. I do however like the idea of the group coming to a concensus on their own definition of "Freedom" and "Law", as well as the conditions of a Shift, although of course guidelines on all of these will be included in the rulebook. Furthermore, these group definitions might be refered back to in the case of any disputes over Trait Shifts.

Re: the case above, where my character chose to distract the sheriff. I'm breaking the law only spirit, and not directly. (I've done nothing but talk to him about my horses and this new guitar and stuff; if I'd attacked him, that would indeed be more clear.) This kind of issue - breaking in spirit but not in name - may or may not run counter to what you want, and you that should be explicitly mentioned as part of the pre-game talk. I can already imagine the problems between a lawful character helping others to break the law without doing it themselves, and their players not agreeing that such an action is anti-Law.

More complicated version of the above: the *player*. using her knowledge, has her character take actions towards an anti-Law end, with her character naively not "intending" any anti-Law result. In this case, the player would say that the naive character just couldn't help but strike up a conversation, and the character herself is greatly distraught that the lawbreaking son got away. Is this a problem?

A second question: let's assume the character does let the son get away and incurs a shift as above. What happens if the character does this kind of thing again (and again)? Is a character always liable to a shift if they go against the Law (until they're an outright anarchist) or at some point is it in a character's nature (perhaps the F/L 4/2) to always do that ?

The first two problems are just corner cases, although the third one might be more common.

Have you thought about passing your development journal to 20by20room? (Or do you want to limit exposure to your works-in-progress?)

Answer to First Question:
The breaking of the "Spirit" vs. the "Letter of the Law" is definitey a point that should be addressed pre-game and defined by the group. I can certainly see the point your making, and it's a good one. However, I would make the suggestion anytime a character *knowingly* contributes to an unlawful action, even if it's through inaction, they are eligible for a Shift.

The situation where the Player and Character have different levels of knowledge is much stickier to adjucate. In the case of the pc unintentionally allowing her son to escape the law I could see myself accepting that (without suggesting a Freedom Shift) if the player seemed sincere.

... Second Question:
However it the player then proceeded to continuously roleplay in such a fashion, that would warrant the GM taking a group concensus on whether a Shift should take place. As a a matter of fact it might a good idea to make a group concensus more integral part of moral Shifts.

... Third Question:
Although I hadn't explicitly stated it as of yet, I was thinking that the qualfiers for a Shift might be relative depending how close to either extreme the character is. So a F/L 1/5 character wouldn't be eligible for a Shift every time he jaywalked or told a white lie, but he definitely would be if he assaulted someone or stole from a neighbor. Similarly *not* kicking a puppy wouldn't turn an bloodthirsty outlaw into a saint; but saving someone's child from an abandoned mine might herald the turning of a page in his life story. Perhaps a three or four tiered list of Significance levels might be in order as a guideline for F/L Shifts.

Hmm, I didn't know that 20x20 took such submissions. I'd definitely be interested in the comments and suggestions of the individuals that frequent that blog. How would I go about doing such a thing?

Hmm, I didn't know that 20x20 took such submissions. I'd definitely be interested in the comments and suggestions of the individuals that frequent that blog. How would I go about doing such a thing?