I want to say I really appreciate the feeback I get here. All posts are really interesting to read. After all the confusion with Mage Blade and my game I thought that maybe it would be better to start a new thread altogether.

And to avoid confusion, let's call it something so it's not confused with Mage Blade. I would call it "Saga" but there's already a game with that name, so what about "Yggdrasil", not that it has a world tree (yet anyway, I always thought the idea was neat though). Just to differentiate it from Mage Blade. Ok?

Let's start it out with some stuff from something I mailed Bankuei, and I hope we can start from there rather than from AD&D :)


"Once upon a time the world was much different. The wilderness was a dangerous place where monsters lived; goblins, giants, dragons and forces even darker and more sinister.

And there were the dwarves, master artisans making enchanted things of great beauty. There were trolls who lived in the depth of the forests with rumbling voices and the elves: fair, beautiful and dangerous.

It was a time of warlocks and witches, because the secret of their dark and horrible magic had not yet been lost.

For generations humans had ruled the world to their liking in unity, but greed is ever in the hearts of men, and so kingdom came to fight kingdom all while the glory of the old realm faded into memory.

Although this was a time of much sorrow, it was also a time of great bravery and valor. We know because we remember those daring souls who would face the dangers of the wild in search for fame and fortune forever in our legends."

I am actually a narrativist at heart, but while I'm very comfortable with running pure narrativist games in most genres I don't like it in fantasy.

I want to create a gamist/narrativist fantasy hybrid which could easily be played in either mode. Setting-wise I'm very disappointed in most worlds because the transition from book/cinema/concept to rpg has been especially troublesome in the fantasy genre (in my opinion). Magic is generally that which has suffered the most. I want to avoid that. I want to bring the most fantastic fantasy (old school, not the AD&D infected stuff) into an RPG keeping everything intact instead of slaughtering it to be able to fit it in a pure gamist engine.

So I want a RPG where the difference between story and game is very thin. You'll never feel that the premise was forced into a system, instead the system was created to fit the premise. This would usually make for a very complex and bulky system (or a virtually rule-free one), but I'm trying to walk the line here and have a gamist system formed around a setting without corrupting it with mechanics and balance.

Am I making sense?

Pale Fire wrote: I want to create a gamist/narrativist fantasy hybrid which could easily be played in either mode. Setting-wise I'm very disappointed in most worlds because the transition from book/cinema/concept to rpg has been especially troublesome in the fantasy genre (in my opinion). Magic is generally that which has suffered the most. I want to avoid that. I want to bring the most fantastic fantasy (old school, not the AD&D infected stuff) into an RPG keeping everything intact instead of slaughtering it to be able to fit it in a pure gamist engine.

So I want a RPG where the difference between story and game is very thin. You'll never feel that the premise was forced into a system, instead the system was created to fit the premise. This would usually make for a very complex and bulky system (or a virtually rule-free one), but I'm trying to walk the line here and have a gamist system formed around a setting without corrupting it with mechanics and balance.

Am I making sense?

Hello,

Let's stay away from system issues just for the moment, because, if I'm not mistaken, the whole point of this thread is a fantasy role-playing setting with a radically different emphasis. That emphasis is supposed to arise from the details of the setting.

Where is the radically different emphasis?

Best,
Ron

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
Ok. What I see here is the exact same sort of game I and a lot of other people tried to design for our first game - a game that would appeal to a lot of people where the system was "transparent" and "wouldn't get in the way of the story."

Ron Edwards wrote: the whole point of this thread is a fantasy role-playing setting with a radically different emphasis.

Where is the radically different emphasis?

Hey PF,

From your post in the "not good enough I guess" thread, April 5, 23:44:
Still doesn't sound like anything but D&D I guess.

But it's only in the details I want to be different. In EVERY detail, but still the details.

Stories are more like taken from Inu-Yasha than from Diablo 2 if that makes any sense to you.

And from your post in the same thread, April 8, 06:25:
Everyone's concerned that I'm going too AD&D, but to be honest - do I make it more successful just by making it very different from standard fantasy?

I don't think so.

Because if I'm doing a derivative with a radically different emphasis I'm basically letting my ideas run wild to make my own special brand of fantasy.

I am indeed hounding you on this point (aarrrrooooo!) because this is, to date, the single thing you are offering that merits our attention in Indie Game Design. Setting? Standard. System? Standard, with improvements for ease of use. Your "radically different emphasis" seems to me to be the crux of both the previous thread and this one. You have mentioned that it applies to "EVERY detail," and I would be happy with an even two.

I do see your point about the role of art and inspiration, and I acknowledge your point that fantasy role-playing can get to the "payoff" scenes much better than the traditional games manage to accomplish. But I don't think showing me pictures would help. I want words - convince me. Describe a scene that you think would be a cool, easily possible, pay-off scene in role-playing this game. Paint that word-picture (like those covers you mention) and explain what settings-details actually make it happen.

Why am I hounding you about this? Because if you can't quickly and easily convince someone of precisely what you think is the game's strongest point, then it's time to quit right now.

Best,
Ron

Pale Fire,

I know how you feel. I'm a very image-driven person. I've been known to design whole games around a single image, attempting to make possible in play something that I thought looked "cool".

In terms of game design, there are a bunch of things to consider.

The biggest, I think, is system. We've been asked to refrain from discussion of system, and unless I misread you, you seem to believe your system will accomodate your needs. I think a thread about your system might be cool though, and if you aren't familiar with the concepts of Fortune in the Middle and Author Stance, you should look into them - they are far and away the easiest, best ways to create compelling, player-driven imagery within a game.

Part and parcel with system is setting, which we've been dancing around for three threads now. While I do think the system will be the tool that allows you to create the imagery you seek, the setting is going to provide the raw materials for you and the players to work with. You won't be able to create imagery that isn't supported, or at least suggested, by the setting. So exactly what elements do you want to be present in the game? We know you want elves and dwarves and the like, and that there's magic and ruins and stuff. But what is present in those paintings you reference that is not present in the games you hope to improve upon?

Or are we not talking about setting here, but rather color. I'm thinking that what interests you about those paintings isn't so much their specific content - the Shadowrun cover paintings feature cybered elves and trolls and the like, all of which is actually present within the game - but rather the dramatic poses, the "feeling" you get when you look at them that these characters aren't just gumps, but rather protagonists in their own right. I'd say that takes us back to system.

I really want to look at your system. A new thread, maybe? All other things being equal, I have to say that's where your innovation may be coming from.

- Scott

Scott,

Actually, the previous descriptions from the 56-odd posts that Pale Fire has prompted so far all say the same thing: the setting's details are distinctive enough to carry the game, in the venue that he's after.

Until I get some confirmation on this, I'm not really interested in the system material. Yes, it's Ron saying this, and I haven't been replaced by an alien. I'm willing to take PF's description of his system at face value, and he says it's nothing too off-beat. So it comes down to the aforementioned setting details.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

the setting's details are distinctive enough to carry the game....Until I get some confirmation on this, I'm not really interested in the system material...

I'm totally with you on this. I think it's been demonstrated a number of times, most notably by White Wolf with games like first edition Vampire, that a distinctive setting can carry a fairly clunky system.

Paul

Ron, Paul...

God knows I don't want to debate the two of you.

And I completely agree with what you're saying. Setting can carry a game. Historically, I believe we've seen that to be true time and time again.

And yes, I'd like to see some confirmation from PF that his setting is indeed distinctive enough to to do so. But I'm wondering if we haven't already received that confirmation, and that perhaps the communication is being hindered by an imperfect understanding of the jargon being used by the individual parties.

PF is saying "setting", but his post above sounds like the Forge definition of "color", at least it does to me. He's saying he wants a game that captures the essence of the old D&D and Shadowrun covers. He claims those games don't do their cover paintings justice, but since the games do in fact contain the actual content depicted in those illustrations, I assume he means that his game will also invoke the same emotional response he feels when he looks at them, something which the actual games they're attached to perhaps don't succeed at. And, of course, I assume this means he wants a game that will not only allow, but actually encourage, the creation of scenes, or "moments" within gameplay, that carry the same emotional impact.

If that's the case, I think three things need to exist:

1. The setting has to be there, with the proper components in place to allow cool scenes to be constructed.

2. The system has to free up the players enough to allow those scenes to actually occur.

3. The game's actual Color needs to properly inspire the players to want to create similar scenes.

Of course, I could be way off base in regards to P. Fire's actual goals. Either way, I definitely do want to hear what his setting has to offer.

- Scott

Hey Scott,

I think what it comes down to is goals. A designer can create sales and a fan culture for a game through distinctive setting. My personal opinion is that the payoff for a game from design attention devoted to mechanics is greater in terms of how often it actually gets played than it is for design attention devoted to setting, but it's an unscientific opinion.

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote: Because if I'm doing a derivative with a radically different emphasis I'm basically letting my ideas run wild to make my own special brand of fantasy.

I am indeed hounding you on this point (aarrrrooooo!) because this is, to date, the single thing you are offering that merits our attention in Indie Game Design.

Your "radically different emphasis" seems to me to be the crux of both the previous thread and this one. You have mentioned that it applies
to "EVERY detail," and I would be happy with an even two.

Describe a scene that you think would be a cool, easily possible, pay-off scene in role-playing this game

hardcoremoose wrote: PF is saying "setting", but his post above sounds like the Forge definition of "color", at least it does to me.

And, of course, I assume this means he wants a game that will not only allow, but actually encourage, the creation of scenes, or "moments" within gameplay, that carry the same emotional impact.

If that's the case, I think three things need to exist:

1. The setting has to be there, with the proper components in place to allow cool scenes to be constructed.

2. The system has to free up the players enough to allow those scenes to actually occur.

3. The game's actual Color needs to properly inspire the players to want to create similar scenes.

Pale Fire wrote:
Ok, ok, enough already. I'll make an attempt.

pfire:

I think there's a clash in goals here.

Forgites are used to going a little crazy with game design (I remember a thread about multiple characters interacting in the head of a single body...). So everyone (myself included!) keeps offering you Great Advice to make Ygg. a little more distinctive, a little more out there, a little more unique.

Laurel puts this well:

In order to be successful beyond personal use ... any other new fantasy system is going to have to break the envelope and offer something that d20 can't. I don't mean just a new way to serve eggs aka a different way to cast spells or manipulate points on a character sheet. Its going to need to be unique at the core, not just the surface and the best way to start that is to offer a novel Premise. But even that isn't going to be enough, because if you look at the list Ron offered a couple posts up, even really well crafted fantasy games with novel and inspiring Premises have had a tough time competing in the market.

After reading over the description of Death Lanterns vs "Light Spell", I think I understand what PF is about.

I think he's looking for imagery, style, and yeah Scott, I agree Color.

In fact, I think he's thrashing about in the exact same pool I am. Where as I want to capture the imagery and cinematic flair of westerns in an RPG, he's looking for the same thing in standard fantasy.

I started a thread on rewarding color, and while it drew some interesting comments it didn't draw out the discussion I was looking for. I think Pale Fire is having trouble kick starting the discussion he's looking for, for exactly the same reason. Imagery is just hard to articulate.

How do you capture a sense of wonder in an RPG? Sure we've all seen elves and dwarves before, but have we felt them. Has a dwarf ever been anything more than a short surly human? They feel alien, and wondrous in fairy tales...never in an RPG. Is it even possible to design an RPG that captures this?

What I gather from Pale Fire's comments is he isn't interest in revolutionizing mechanics, or setting. He's happy with basic fast play resolution and standard fantasy fare. What he's interested in is capturing the sense of wonder and awe and magic in his standard fantasy game that's missing from most standard fantasy games.

Thats what the Death Lantern example says to me. Even with a description as rough and non poetic as what he wrote above, I immediately FELT the Death Lantern spell, in a way one could never feel a Continual Light spell. There was wonder there, and if the text was polished up and accompanied by a great piece of art of some wizard in a blowing wind with dancing fire sprites around his head it would be a fantastic fantasy image.

Problem is PF, I don't know how you go from that freeze framed image and translate it across an entire roleplaying game. But I'm tending to think that standard mechanics and system isn't going to get you there because it will cause people to think in terms of dice and stats, which is anathema to wonder and awe.


Thats how I sees it anyway.

Hello,

Here is my problem with the stated task at hand. It's why I anticipated that PF's answer would be unsatisfying, even to PF, at least at first pass.

As it stands, we are looking at an RPG with all the standard elements of an 80s fantasy game. Now "fix" every detail: races, combat maneuvers, weapon types, each and every spell, creatures, probably geography, cultures ... everything. By "fix," I mean imbue it with the kind of imagery that PF has described - turn every aspect of the game into a Hildebrandt painting.

[So, uh, how big is this game? I am imagining 800 pages of hefty textbook. But that's logistics, and never mind that. Let's talk actual play.]

This means that the primary job of the GM is to read and internalize all this material, as well as to channel it to the players instance by instance, detail by detail, image by image. That means that the players' job is to accept and be awed by this material, in a passive sense, throughout the process. "This game is so cool!" they say ... but they are referring to the imagery, and that requires a continual flow of imagery to them and a continual willingness to be "on the nipple" as the primary act of role-playing. How long do you think they will actually do this, performing same-old mechanics and relying on what the Neat Paragraph Says, as channeled by the GM, for their entertainment?

Bluntly - I do not think this is an attractive design goal, not only for me as an individual, but as a role-playing endeavor in the first place. At best, it could be a coffee-table book of Kewl Stuff, for which - oddly - the only analogue I can really think of is Earthdawn, which is exactly what PF criticizes in his other thread. Or perhaps the Dangerous Journeys books, the GW game by Gary Gygax - color, color, color, all the way through, to the point of exhaustion.

We are talking about a 1969 car - dress up its fins, buff the chrome, cover the seats with leather, and it's still just a big metal rectangle that can't handle, can't accelerate, and guzzles gas so fast that it's cost-ineffective actually to go anywhere. Yes, it's fun for a while to pass one's hands over the finish or to admire the model perched on the hood in the commercial. To own? To drive? Ultimately, all you'll catch are people who (1) are into retro stuff and/or (2) will seize the next pretty, hyped object that comes along just as swiftly as they seized yours (and the one before that).

Pale Fire, I suggest looking into the financial history of games that fit this profile. You might be shocked to learn that D&D, at the height of its "popularity" and its emphasis on Kewl Settings, was losing money hand over fist. You'll note FASA went bankrupt during its tenure with Earthdawn and other Kewl-Setting games. You'll see that not one, single Fantasy Heartbreaker from my essay has been anything but a discount-bin disposable.

I'm not sure what else to say. Unless your second pass with the task that you yourself posed ("radically different emphasis on the details") is more successful, I can only say, System Does Matter and move on.

Best,
Ron

I think perhaps your analysis is a bit extreme, Ron. Remember Pale Fire also started the thread on designing a Fantasy World that DIDN'T try to define all of this stuff in advance. It doesn't sound to me like what he wants to wind up with is an 800 page world book.

I suspect, that what the issue is, is "how does one convey the imagery of fantasy art in a fantasy RPG".

I think that is the "radically different emphasis" he's going for.

I'd agree that right now that "radically different emphasis" exists only in his head and is not part of the game as he's described it so far.

Garbanzo wrote: But from what you've said, you Very Definitely want to stay true to the roots of fantasy roleplay, namely DnD; you've said you want the overall picture to be so close that Ygg. goes on the same shelf as Palladium, Rifts, and all that.

There's a tension running through your threads where the collective voice of the Forge kees saying "Show me how you're game is breaking new ground - that will measure its value." And you keep saying "I'm not interested in breaking new ground; value will come from covering the old ground better."
Question 1:
Does this feel like an accurate summation to you?
Question 2:
Given that you seem to feel solid with your setting and mechanics, what input are you looking for? What questions are still looking for answers?

(Weeping)

PF, man, everything you've described is so mainstream it squeaks. I don't care if they're triclops or quadriclops ... they're still cyclops. You've described D&D goblins - call them skinny ugly dwarves, and they're still goblins; you've described D&D orcs to a T, and even if you call them goblins-on-steroids, that's what they are.

Ralph, this thread is completely distinctive from PF's other thread. I grok that thread entirely, as you know, and I totally support his points there. It is a source of consternation to me that the same person could have posted the topic of this thread (and its parent thread). That's why I am so focused on nailing down this one's point, and not letting it go. By definition, PF stated that this thread's purpose was completely unrelated, and he is definitely not employing the open-ended approach he describes in the other one's.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Now "fix" every detail: races, combat maneuvers, weapon types, each and every spell, creatures, probably geography, cultures ... everything. By "fix," I mean imbue it with the kind of imagery that PF has described - turn every aspect of the game into a Hildebrandt painting.
[So, uh, how big is this game? I am imagining 800 pages of hefty textbook. But that's logistics, and never mind that. Let's talk actual play.]

You'll note FASA went bankrupt during its tenure with Earthdawn and other Kewl-Setting games.

Pale Fire,

Your ideas are great ideas -- but like Ron says, they are not unique. I think what you are striving for is a feeling of awe -- unfortunately, I don't think you can package that in a game. A game cannot provide that out of the box. I've felt awe in roleplaying games at the most oddest times -- usually, when I am not trying to. If I try, my half-assed efforts at being poetic and glorious descriptive just hit the dirt HARD. On the other hand, if I focus on enjoying myself and engaging my players, I can find a few of those awe moments when everyone goes "oohhh".

I think you have some material there that would work with a D&D game. Ultimately, any game system will become routine and mechanical at some point -- at some point, every magic system will become hohum and an exercise in tactis (at some level). Therefore, your best bet is not to try to create something new that captures awe -- which is nigh impossible.

A ton of threads here on Indie RPGs have discouraged me lately, because people are not designing games. They are redesigning things or just sharing ill-fated ideas. If this can really become a game Pale Fire, then write it up right now. Have the rough draft ready by tomorrow - or the next day -- but have it ready, then come back and post.

I don't mean that as a slight to you or anyone on Indie RPGs, but sitting here and talking about what you vaguely want will never help. Write it. Then we can look at it and analyze.

Thanks,
Nathan Hill
nathan@mysticages.com

Ron Edwards wrote: (Weeping)
PF, man, everything you've described is so mainstream it squeaks. I don't care if they're triclops or quadriclops ... they're still cyclops.

You've described D&D goblins - call them skinny ugly dwarves, and they're still goblins; you've described D&D orcs to a T, and even if you call them goblins-on-steroids, that's what they are.

By definition, PF stated that this thread's purpose was completely unrelated, and he is definitely not employing the open-ended approach he describes in the other one's.

I just want to agree with Nathan, and then drop this sub-thread: people aren't designing games on here anymore. It was OK for a week or two, but games need to start being created now.

Nathan wrote: If this can really become a game Pale Fire, then write it up right now. Have the rough draft ready by tomorrow - or the next day -- but have it ready, then come back and post.

Hey PF,

"How would I make it "open-ended"?"

You can't. Nor did I suggest that you should.

Your proposal on a previous thread, and continuing onto this one, is to begin with a totally standard fantasy RPG and inject a different emphasis via the details. So far, I'm afraid, I don't see any such thing, I see standard fantasy in RPG terms. Let me repeat: I see only standard fantasy in RPG terms, which was not what you said that you wanted to do.

Your other thread presented a totally different proposition, regarding creating a setting through actual play. (Why am I explaining this? It was your thread ...) We can discuss it there, but I did not suggest, and do not now suggest, that Yggdrasil be "made" to conform with that topic.

Best,
Ron

Ouch, Pale Fire...you were on to something I think...you really were. The Death Lanterns thing was just shimmering.

But this last post. Man, like a bucket of cold water. I'm going to ask Ron to pass me some of his tissues.

Mainstream? You're way beyond keeping it mainstream and smack dab in carbon copy town. Your goblins and ueber goblins are so basic D&D-esque that I can't fathom how you can then question whether they're mainstream enough.

I really think your idea of mainstream has the stream WAY too narrow.

I think you're selling yourself short by worrying about all this mainstream stuff. You have some cool visions in your head. Go with those. Ditch these preconcieved notions of what fantasy is and isn't supposed to have in it. If you want to capture the imagery of fantasy art, than go look at some fantasy art. The artists aren't concerned with whether the creature is a goblin or an orc, or what color the dragon is.

If you think you'll attract a larger audience to your game by making it "like mainstream fantasy, just different in the details" you won't. That road is littered with the corpses of games already. Ron calls 'em Fantasy Heartbreakers, and that's where the above post has you screaming full steam towards.

If you just have to get all of this stuff down and make a game out of, I wish you the best of luck. As has been noted, most of us here designed our first game exactly like what you're embarking on. In the end it was good experience, but nothing more than "home brew".

The Forge isn't really geared towards providing support for "home brew". Everyone and their brother's got six or seven of those. The Forge is geared towards indie-publishing.

I'd love to see your work developed here, because parts of it really have me intrigued. But for my part "Just another game with dwarves" doesn't sound all that appealing. I've got a half dozen of those of my own.



My advice, and I mean this sincerely. Start over. Focus on that one inspirational image, that one source of wonderment that set you on the game design path to begin with. Take that image, that inspiration and make your game about THAT.

Don't start with what you didn't like about other games, don't start with what you found disatisfying...that is the road to the mundane. Start with what you think is just extraordinary fantasy, and go from there.

You don't need to populate a world with a dozen races, been done. The only thing you can do differently is draw a different shaped map. Take a page from your other thread about designing a fantasy world.

I don't know, start with a short story. Write the coolest fantasy story you can imagine and fill it full of fantastic images like Death Lanterns and other things I'm sure you have in your head. Then write the game that lets you play that story. It doesn't matter if the whole story occurs in just a tiny corner of the world...thats all you need.

Ron Edwards wrote: Your other thread presented a totally different proposition, regarding creating a setting through actual play. (Why am I explaining this? It was your thread ...) We can discuss it there, but I did not suggest, and do not now suggest, that Yggdrasil be "made" to conform with that topic.

Pale Fire,

I think you need to do a careful review of everything posted to you on this thread. Your responses are becoming more and more disconnected from the points of our posts.

For instance, the size of your game is irrelevant to the main point at hand. I mentioned it as an aside, to emphasize that for a GM to internalize all the Color would be a lot of work. I identified it as an aside, which is to say, please pay attention to the more relevant portions of the post.

Another side-topic seems to be the relation of this thread to the thread about setting-creation through play. That was brought up by Ralph; I responded to Ralph, and the issue is resolved. Again, it's not germaine to the point at hand.

The point at hand is best expressed most recently by Ralph. If you want to invoke a sense of wonder, just as you describe regarding fantasy artwork, then do so, and have that be the foundation.

I am now going to lay down a Moderator Decree. At this time, it is clear that you do not, actually, have a game design in hand. Until you focus your points better, and until you can provide more meat for discussion in terms of an actual playable game, further attention from ourselves regarding your Yggdrasil setting is a waste of time. I suggest not posting about it again until you can present something of substance. I also am closing this thread unless such a thing is immediately forthcoming.

If you want to discuss game elements or design at a more theoretical level, then take the topic to RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Mainstream? You're way beyond keeping it mainstream and smack dab in carbon copy town. Your goblins and ueber goblins are so basic D&D-esque that I can't fathom how you can then question whether they're mainstream enough.

I'll not weep.

I'm going to totally change tactics here. Bring on the setting stuff you have, and ask questions about it. I want to see some of the other stuff. You want feedback on mainstream suitability, and color? I can do that. Others might participate as well.

To start off with, the goblins. Is what you described all you have for color, or is there more coming for them? They need a bit more detail, obviously, before we can even judge them.

Ron's point about triclopses is that they are gaming kitch. Even if there is an awesome manga about them. Designers often do things like splitting off an idea to make it more interesting. This usually fails. Like your lion-centaurs. Players will look at that and say, well that's just a centaur with a lion's body instead of a horse's. And nobody will be impressed. Even if you were to detail them to the nth degree and really interestingly, people will still fixate on the weak way in which you came up with the idea. They will visualize like I do, you sitting there going, "OK, now what would be really Kewl is if I had centaurs, but with bodies that were lions instead of horses. Oh, and instead of cyclopses we'll have a race with three eyes called triclopses!"

Frankly such stuff seems lame. Better to not be creative at all than to just create simple amalgams. And as for including something from a comic, that will seem lamer if reognized. Especially if you change them just enough to prevent you from getting sued by the creators. If you cahnge them more significantly, then why have any resemblance at all. What is three eyes other than Kewl?

If your goal is mainstream, then why have the Ogres you mention? That will be outside of the mainstram recognition, certainly.

Your ghost light spell. Colorful. The best thing we've seen so far. The only problem is that you have just created a very high bar to leap. How many spells do you think it'll take to complete the setting? A problem with such a spell is that it begs for more light spells. How about one that seems like a glowing rainbow over the character's head that makes everyone feel comfortable when bathed in it's light. And another that makes the caster's head glow and gives bonuses to his ability to impress people. I can go on all day. If you only have a few spells that are this well detailed, the list may well seem incomplete.

Why can't PCs be giants? Because they can't in other RPGs?

You mention a mythology. Details? If this is Standard Fantasy, then I assume that players can play preists? Do they get special abilities?

Mike

Pale Fire wrote:
The trolls have more in common with the mystics of Dark Crystal than any of the above mentioned settings. And female trolls don't look ugly at all, in fact they look totally human, except for the tail and tufts on their ears.

But of course you're not gonna see that because I haven't explained those things yet. I guess when I said details where different you didn't really think I meant it that way.

At Ron's request I'll try to change my tactics a little.

I was originally going to post some stuff from my design notes which detailed my goals for the game but I'm getting a little worried, because they are MY design notes with a lot of implicit things carried within them. If I say "troll" there's a lot of associations to that word, most of which probably aren't shared by most of the list members (esp since the word "troll" is in swedish and aside from describing all kinds of supernatural creatures from goblins to ogres (they could all be translated to the Swedish word "troll") it is also in words like trolldom (="magic"), fortrollad (="spellbound") and trollkarl (="mage")). Association both helps and hinders, because sometimes an association might ruin appreciation of an otherwise great idea... and sometimes it inspires something beyond the mere description.

That said, I'll still post them, but please keep these things in mind when you read it ok? I gonna keep them short and can elaborate on the details if you don't understand how I mean or think it might be a bad idea.

Design goals/ideas:

System
* Fast, non-obstructive combat system with reasonable results.
* Task resolution should let the players rely on the character's abilities to be consistent.

Setting
* Loosely inspired by norse mythology, both actual mythology and interpretations in comics (like "New Mutants in Asgard") and manga ("Oh my goddess)
* Magic that could rival the power of Gods
* Stupid (and sometimes ugly) giants as nice monsters for the characters to fight
* Demonic magic which corrupts the user
* An asian touch - borrowing inspiration from fantasy as interpreted in Japanese manga (for example "Dragonquest")
* Unarmed fighting just as good as armed fighting (in special cases)
* Very graphic, visual magic (the levitation spell makes you glow, firebolts sparkle like fireworks, the magical prison wall which can absorb magic hold on to their prisoner with a multitude of demonic arms growing out of it and so on)
* Goddess worshiping elder races
* Borrowing names from authentic mythologies to inspire the right feeling of things
* Magical tattooes, runes and bodypainting
* Elder races (dwarves, witchpeople, trolls and so on) all have magical abilities.
* The elf-like race, the witch people take inspiration from native american indians (during the wild west days) and gypsies.
* The magical (elder) races borrow from norse mythology rather than tolkien.

That was a little more than I had written on the paper I have in front of me, but I have it a little spread out. Some things are basic enough to only exist in the first drafts and I don't have those papers here.

Of course here you're not getting the full GNS analysis of the game because I don't need to state the obvious to myself (so it's not in the design stuff). I enjoy a certain type of rpg playing style and my game's gonna reflect that. Since I've played and enjoyed playing with people with very different RPG priorities than myself I want to make it playable from more than one angle, although one will always be more favoured than the other, naturally.
If you want that analysis I can do it. Let me know.

And also let me know what you want to see next. I could let you know how I met my design goals by presenting examples or completed stuff. Or something else. You decide.

PF,

I have one question for ya' , and it relates to system...

When you resolve an action, who describes the results?

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier posts, twenty or so posts earlier in this thread.

In the example of play you provided much earlier, you describe a wizard doing some wizardly stuff by drawing sigils in ash, or some such thing. Is the ritual he uses to be specified by the textual presentation of your setting, or is your game going to suggest these things but leave the actual description of what happens to the players?

Because the latter will, in my opinion, do more to help you achieve your goal (that goal being to convey an emotional response, as if you were looking at a cool picture of a wizard) than the former. And you can do a lot less work too, by leaving much of the descriptive work up to the players as it becomes necessary during actual play.

This is Authorial Stance. I honestly don't know how familiar you are with The Forge's terms, but that's what it is. It's sometimes considered at odds with Simulationist play, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. I can say more, but I'm interested in hearing your answer first.

- Scott

In the interest of promoting Mike's plan to examine some setting details and provide feedback on mainstream suitability and color, let me suggest a detail to focus on.

Dragons. You can't get more mainstream than dragons, they're present in norse mythology, they're ubiquitous in the type of fantasy art that the games never seen to quite live up to, and I for one have never been very impressed with the way dragons have been represented in play in any commercial RPG, even (heck, especially) in those that feature "dragon" prominently in their titles.

Pale, does your setting include dragons? If so, are they just part of the "80%" or do you have something special in mind for them? What aspect of their appearance, behavior, powers, or effects their presence has on the world would you emphasize to help your setting capture more of a sense of wonder?

- Walt

Mike Holmes wrote: To start off with, the goblins. Is what you described all you have for color, or is there more coming for them? They need a bit more detail, obviously, before we can even judge them.

Ron's point about triclopses is that they are gaming kitch. Even if there is an awesome manga about them. Designers often do things like splitting off an idea to make it more interesting.

Even if you were to detail them to the nth degree and really interestingly, people will still fixate on the weak way in which you came up with the idea. They will visualize like I do, you sitting there going, "OK, now what would be really Kewl is if I had centaurs, but with bodies that were lions instead of horses.

Frankly such stuff seems lame.

And as for including something from a comic, that will seem lamer if reognized.

If your goal is mainstream, then why have the Ogres you mention? That will be outside of the mainstram recognition, certainly.

Your ghost light spell. Colorful. The best thing we've seen so far. The only problem is that you have just created a very high bar to leap. How many spells do you think it'll take to complete the setting? A problem with such a spell is that it begs for more light spells.

Why can't PCs be giants? Because they can't in other RPGs?

You mention a mythology. Details? If this is Standard Fantasy, then I assume that players can play preists? Do they get special abilities?

wfreitag wrote: Pale, does your setting include dragons? If so, are they just part of the "80%" or do you have something special in mind for them? What aspect of their appearance, behavior, powers, or effects their presence has on the world would you emphasize to help your setting capture more of a sense of wonder?

hardcoremoose wrote: In the example of play you provided much earlier, you describe a wizard doing some wizardly stuff by drawing sigils in ash, or some such thing. Is the ritual he uses to be specified by the textual presentation of your setting, or is your game going to suggest these things but leave the actual description of what happens to the players?

Pale Fire, what precisely is the purpose of your posts?

You have expressed concerns about the coherency of your world, but you appear to reject every suggestion raised.

You request assistance as to what you should do next in terms of filling in the detail, but you also seem dead set on a particular and quite narrow sub-genre of fantasy which you call standard.

You have been asked to demonstrate your system, as this board is of the ostentatious opinion that it is among the most significent issues. You have so far declined to do so.

Several people have pointed out the potential or actual flaws you are facing, including an article covering this concept in the broad by Ron. This has not deterred you either.

I have the following suggestion: lets talk about this game again after you have 100 pages of body text to show off. Frankly, in my first outing in RPG games making, I totally underestimated how hard this would be to do and how long it would take - the fact that a world is in your head means nothing. Produce 100 pages of body text, or a reasonably complete mechanical system in less, and we then have something to talk about constructively.

I have to agree with Gareth now.

Your definition of Standard Fantasy, especially has become such a moving target that we cannot continue this discussion until we understand what it means. As an example, you say that standard fantasy should include elves and dwarves because people expect them. Then you throw around terms like Kentaur. Whatinthehellis a Kentaur? In a quarter century of dedicated role-playing and devotion to fantasy and such, I've never heard of a Kentaur. Is that just some alternate spelling for centaur (I honestly thought it was a typo originally). Probably something from AD&D2E which I avoided like the plague.

Let me be a bit more rigorous. You say that standard fantasy is what most mainstream gamers want. More people play D&D than any other RPG, especially if you narrow it to fantasy RPGs. Therefore this sort of fantasy must be the standard. That world is based (loosely) on the Tolkien view of fantasy. You say your game will be based on the Norse version of these things same things. Then how can it then be standard fantasy. To be more precise, you point out that your trolls will have a certain Norse feel to them that is not like the D&D version. How will the mainstream crowd be able to latch on to that?

To make it very simple, you want something that is the same as D&D, but different than D&D. You have to get past this contradiction. Either it will emulate D&D and thus have the (dubious) advanatage of being accessible to many players, or it will be original and improve on standard fantasy.

Which is it?

You say that you are having trouble getting your vision of these races across. This is a huge problem. If you don't have the writing skills to convery your ideas, then how are you going to write a game that conveys your vision to the reader? Art can give a visual description, but you can't convey something like a race's social conventions in art. You must be able to get this across to your audience.

The alternative is to fall back on the known. But if these races were really known to us, or fit our perception of standard fantasy, then we wouldn't have any trouble understanding. Which prooves that you aren't using standard fantasy.

Mike

I don't think I'll cover much new ground by telling what I have for the dragons as of yet. Other than that you're not gonna see heroes attack them in hand-to-hand combat like you would in say AD&D.

Please keep in mind that I feel close to crying after losing my 2 1/2 hour post in another thread. If this comes out a little weird.

Mike Holmes wrote: I have to agree with Gareth now.
Your definition of Standard Fantasy, especially has become such a moving target that we cannot continue this discussion until we understand what it means. As an example, you say that standard fantasy should include elves and dwarves because people expect them.

Pale Fire wrote:
Hmm... that's not strictly true. You can have standard fantasy without elves and dwarves no problem. If it's moving around it's because I'm mixing three different concepts here. Sorry bout that.

gaaah, and here the message got cut short I spent 20 minutes with. I am really lucky today. :'( :'(

Tolkien != AD&D but both are standard fantasy. So you can make standard fantasy which is neither tolkien nor AD&D and still come out fine.

Because it's subjective I wanted to hear what YOU felt was standard fantasy so I could throw out things that didn't comply.

*enormously deep sigh*

contracycle wrote:

Pale Fire wrote:
Hmm... that's not strictly true. You can have standard fantasy without elves and dwarves no problem. If it's moving around it's because I'm mixing three different concepts here. Sorry bout that.

OK: in bullet points, what are these three concepts? Pitch it to me.

gaaah, and here the message got cut short I spent 20 minutes with. I am really lucky today. :'( :'(

To be on the safe side, put your text in the clipboard. Or, sometimes if you go Back in the browser a few steps, the text will still be in the browser. Then youy can copy and paste into a new post.

Tolkien != AD&D but both are standard fantasy. So you can make standard fantasy which is neither tolkien nor AD&D and still come out fine.

I disagree - D&D is certainly and IMO obviously Tolkienist. I think it would be fair to say that that is roughly the consensus of this board and many people beyond it, for a variety of historical and literary reasons.

OK - I feel that standard fantasy is AD&D - orces 'n elves.
I do not think that this board will be able to provide you with any assistance as regards Standard Fantasy; I would expect that almost everyone here would rather saw off their own leg with a rusty spoon than ever touch Standard Fantasy again (well, that goes for me anyway).

However - we think you have some good ideas. What we COULD do is try to help you re-conceptualise your own personal vision into a game that will fly. It is unclear to me whether your interest in Standard Fantasy is a choice because YOU like it or because you think that OTHER people will like it. Ignore that: go only with what YOU like.

Pale Fire wrote:
* Standard fantasy as in "not in a sub-genre such as Dark Fantasy, Techno-fantasy or other (PREFIX) Fantasy"

* Standard fantasy as in "you won't say, 'now I want to play some fantasy like AD&D' because you already feel like you're playing fantasy".

* Standard fantasy as in "the basic characteristics of fantasy common to most (but definately not all) settings

contracycle wrote:

Pale Fire wrote:
* Standard fantasy as in ...
* Standard fantasy as in ...
* Standard fantasy as in ...

Problem - you are telling me what it IS NOT. What do you intend the game to ACTUALLY BE in order to meet your goals?

Pale Fire wrote:
Is it because of the AD&D taint, or what's the problem? It seems the fantasy genre is the only one evoking such strong feelings. Not that it would suprise me if AD&D is to blame mind you ;)

Pale Fire wrote:
Oh, but the above wasn't about my game, was it? Only about my definitions. But you're right, I did talk about my game being standard fantasy.