For the last month, I've been working on a new game entitled The Shadow of Yesterday. I detailed a bit about the setting in this earlier post, but wanted to start a little log to keep people updated here.

For the first post, I'm going to talk about inspirations and forthcomingness.

My favorite thing about the creator-owned RPG community isn't the quality of the games - which are great - but the common practice of letting people know your influences and turning them on to other great games. (In another observation, the idea of doing this, and using peer pressure to get others to do this is Ron's biggest contribution to the community, in my opinion.) I've tried to do this in each game so far, and am definitely doing it in Shadow, as it rips off a ton of games.

Here's my influence sheet so far:


• The Riddle of Steel by Jake Norwood and Sorcerer by Ron Edwards: This game gave me the idea of advancement based off player-set character wants and desires (Key Secrets). Seeing as these are the big two games I play, they've probably crept elsewhere into the game.

• Over the Edge by Jonathan Tweet with Robin Laws: The bonus/penalty die mechanic.

• Fudge by Steffan O'Sullivan: The idea of naming the level of success with descriptive words.

• Buffy the Vampire Slayer by C. J. Carella (Eden Studios): The basic die mechanic, albeit modified, as well as a variation on Success Levels.

• Rolemaster by hell if I know these days: Too damn much - mainly the skill priority system. I played the bejeezus out of this game as a kid and certain things - including the Vulfen, a race from one of their cornucopia of supplements - have stuck around.

• D&D 3rd edition by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams (WoTC): Expertise Secrets are a direct descendant of Feats from D&D.

• Dying Earth by Robin Laws (Pelgrane Press): Attributes as resource pools, refreshed by in-game actions.

• Schism by Jared Sorensen: The idea of character "transcendence."

• The Nutcracker Prince by Peter Seckler and, well, me: The dwarves and their strange parentage.



Not a bad parentage to have, really. As far as other media goes, I was inspired by a few things:


• Robert E. Howard - especially the stories "Beyond the Black River" (which created the country of Khale in my mind) and "Red Nails" (which created the idea of huge enclosed empty cities as great adventuring grounds.)
• Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson brought up all the crazy language stuff that's in the game.
• An article in the Feb 2003 Discover magazine, "Where Did the Moon Come From?" Discover's my secret game design resource, as they mesh science with interesting stuff each month. In that same issue is a great article on peyote which is getting shoved into the game, too.



----

The other topic for the first bit of log is that I did playtest Shadow this week, and it went quite well. The system had some major changes after the playtest - my huge load of skills hurt the game and combat was befuggered. These problems seem relatively fixed now, which means I can focus on writing all the color and setting that goes into this game.

Next time, I deconstruct the system.

I am slowly coming to realize what's happening: it seems that, ever since I started posting on the Forge and encouraging (alright, pestering) people to develop their game ideas and game fragments and game blurbs, only faster, a sinister conspiracy has formed against me. It's terrifying in it's stealthy reach and dire consequences; people indeed have been pushing out their blurbs, and making them so seductive in the process, that just by reading a few posts, I become sold on the game, and eager for more information.

Oh, it's not so bad now, but I know, I KNOW!, that soon these games will become available for sale...and I will blow my wallet out so thoroughly I won't have time to actually play them before I declare bankruptcy.

CURSE YOU! CURSE YOU ALL!! IS THERE NO END TO YOUR TEACHERY AND SUBTLE MALICE?!!

Oh, and Clinton? When's the next article on this game coming out? I kinda interested in seeing how this develops...

Spooky,

I'm not going to post these on any sort of schedule, just as I get time. Still, you should see one a week, minimum.

System Deconstruction

In this post, I'm going to deconstruct how the Shadow of Yesterday system works, and why I've made the choices I have so far.

In the game, all tests of ability (called Skill Checks) are done the same way. A skill, ranking from 0 to 10, is added to a roll of 2d6 and compared to the following chart

[code]
8 or below Failure
9-11 Success Level 1 (Mediocre)
12-13 Success Level 2 (Good)
14-15 Success Level 3 (Great)
16-17 Success Level 4 (Amazing)
18-19 Success Level 5 (Legendary)
20-21 Success Level 6 (Ultimate)
22+ Transcendent Success
[/code]

For now, ignore the Transcendent Success level, except to note it can only be achieved with a skill of 10 and a roll of 12. As you can see, an untrained person still has a chance of success in this system - a 28% chance, to be exact. Someone with a moderate degree of skill (+3) has a 72% chance of success, with a 28% chance of a Good success, and an 8% chance of a Great Success.

Alone, this system is a bit boring and not flexible. However, the idea of bonus and penalty dice spices it up a bit. (This idea, as mentioned earlier, is stolen from Over the Edge.) A bonus die is added to the two dice rolled, and the top two are summed. With a penalty die, three dice are rolled, with the lowest two being summed. Each skill has an attribute associated with it (the six attributes are Vigor, Force, Grace, Wits, Grit, and Charm.) A spent point of the associated attribute can grant a bonus die or cancel a penalty die, changing the statistics dramatically.

With no bonus or penalty dice, the chances are:
Untrained person getting SL 1 - 27%
Untrained person getting SL 2 - 3%
Moderately trained person getting SL 1 - 72%
Moderately trained person getting SL 2 - 27%

With one bonus die, the chances are:
Untrained person getting SL 1 - 52%
Untrained person getting SL 2 - 7%
Moderately trained person getting SL 1 - 89%
Moderately trained person getting SL 2 - 52%

With one penalty die, the chances are:
Untrained person getting SL 1 - 11%
Untrained person getting SL 2 - 0.5%
Moderately trained person getting SL 1 - 48%
Moderately trained person getting SL 2 - 11%

This gets even more dramatic with multiple bonus or penalty dice - a moderately trained person has a 96% chance of SL 1, a 69% chance of SL 2, and a 32% chance of SL 3 with two bonus dice. While the normal amount of enhancement is one bonus die, Secrets, special weapons, magic, or one skill being used to assist another can result in multiple bonus dice. Likewise, damage, cursed items, magic, or other forces can result in multiple penalty dice.

So, what does all this mean?

I wanted this system to make characters who had two things: a range of ability, and a level of consistency. With this system, the range of ability is always fixed. A well-experienced character (7 or above in a skill) has no chance of failure, actually. An untrained person never has a chance to do better than Good in a task. Without bonus or penalty dice, though, the character has low consistency. While results may hover around one number (there's a 17% chance of rolling 7 on the dice, the most common result), results are still quite spread out, and uncertainty comes into every action. Even one bonus die skews this, though, with the most common dice result being 9, and the die result much more certainly being higher.

Hey, everyone:

I've been super-busy these last few weeks, and I know I haven't updated. I've got an article planned to put up soon, but until then:

FREE STUFF

Seriously. After quite a bit of thought, I've decided to make The Shadow of Yesterday a free game, with a commercial hard-copy release. I've put up the game so far at http://www.anvilwerks.com/rpg/tsoy/. I've still got a lot to do, but it's actually playable at this point. Feel free to start a new thread with any comments or questions.

I'm going to make a statement right now that seems completely bizarre:

The biggest innovation in a role-playing game in the next 2 years will be with that role-playing game's economy.

I know. It sounds crazy. Let's look for a second at what we have out there:
- A grainy economic system, with characters that have X amount of gold pieces, or dinars, or dollars, or whatever, and a long list of items and their costs. What's wrong with this? Some people find it too much detail, while others say it's not enough. Your list can never be complete (leading to entire supplements filled with new economic data, a la Cyberpunk and Shadowrun's equipment 'catalogs'), regional differences are not taken into account, and fixed costs are just plain unrealistic - and isn't realism (or Simulationism) what these systems are going for?
- Abstracted economics, a la all White Wolf games and Donjon. What's wrong with this? To tell the truth, not a lot. Economic fluctation is prevented, though: no Vampire character loses dots from his Resources regularly. (Ok, Donjon builds in economic fluctation, but it's so cartoony that the idea of a Donjon character going broke is ludicrous.)
- No economic system, a la tons of games. In many of these, it's pretty easy to make your own. Take Sorcerer (set in the modern day) for instance. You could have Cover rolls to see if a character can afford something; subscribe to a couple of catalogs and use a count of character dollars; or just assume characters can buy anything reasonable. (Unknown Armies is another good example here.) What's wrong with this? Works great for modern day, but poorly for fantasy.

I don't think The Shadow of Yesterday is going to be the innovative economic game, but I am excited about economics in it. When trying to decide how to build the in-game economy, I got very torn between my own preferences and the focus of the game. In my preference, the economy would be very abstracted or dropped - I personally dread writing that stuff. The game is meant to be focused towards what the players want, though, by them buying Secrets for their characters, and if I'm going to have the "Secret of Glittering Gold," I better support it.

At this point, I pretty much made the hard decision to go the "price list and X dinar" route, which is scary. Not only does it feel antiquitated, but it seems hard to write. Looking at this more, though, I thought, "How will one price list fit every region in Near? What about Qek, where metal is scarce? What about the bamboo armor of Ammeni? What about Maldorian beer versus Oranian beer?" I then had a mild aneursym, but I'm ok now.

---

Ok. So at this point, I want an economic system that:

- supports a wide range of goods
- is very granular
- supports regional economic differences
- is barter-based for the most part
- supports rising antique costs. (Seriously. A large part of this game is a yearning for the past. Pre-Shadow items are worth much more than items made yesterday.)

Here's what I ended up with, which is still a frightening eight-armed beast, but one that I think can be tamed.

- One standard price list, which focuses on services as much as goods. One day's work from a blacksmith can be ported to many items, while separate prices for a sword, a halberd, a plow, and a suit of armor cannot. Many items will be listed, but just as many services will be. This price list will be liberally stolen from other games I respect (i.e. The Riddle of Steel. If Jake is reading this, apologies.)
- An age-based multiplier effect. Post-Shadow items will be cheap, with pre-Shadow items being at least three times the cost, and pre-Unification items being at least ten times the cost.
- Regional multipliers. Let's take Qek, which has little metal, but immense amounts of jewels and amazing food. It might look like:
* Metal: 5x cost
* Jewels: 1/3x cost
* Food: 3x export / 1/3x import

Metal prices rise high in Qek, which means it's good to take metal items to trade there. Jewels are cheap, as they're so plentiful and the Qek rarely use them. The food of Qek is part of their religion and culture, and they guard it. Even though it's plentiful, it costs much. However, outside food is unwelcomed, and they are loathe to buy it.

Other countries will be done the same way. Ammeni, for example, has shitloads of bamboo, which it uses for everything. If you can figure out what +1 hard armor costs in Maldor, you can figure out how much Ammeni bamboo armor costs.

---

Lastly, I know this seems like a huge Simulationist thorn shoved right up in the craw of a game that's supposed to be unabashedly Narrativist. That thought's been on my mind a lot as I wrote this. Here's the deal: Simulationist and Gamist underpinnings can drive a Narrativist game, I believe. In this instance, the economies can make stories in and of themselves. Let's say a group of Khalean freedom fighters gets up the idea to steal a cache of Ammeni metal weapons and take them to Qek to sale to finance their fight. That can become a story of epic proportions.

In these days of troubled economic times, the economic story is one that shouldn't be overlooked. I hope The Shadow of Yesterday provides ample tools to tell that story.

You know, this might be food for thought: economics are what historically has driven a lot of warfare. That sort of thing might detract from a more black-and-white "epic" feel in the game, but it'd provide a lot of story fodder. If Qek has an abundance of jewels, neighboring countries will want tight alliances with them, or they might try to demonize the people of Qek to garner support for an invasion.

Matt Wilson wrote: You know, this might be food for thought: economics are what historically has driven a lot of warfare. That sort of thing might detract from a more black-and-white "epic" feel in the game, but it'd provide a lot of story fodder. If Qek has an abundance of jewels, neighboring countries will want tight alliances with them, or they might try to demonize the people of Qek to garner support for an invasion.

Clinton,

You might take a look at The Tribe 8 Companion, in which DP9 lays out a granular but easy and inspirational economic system based on barter, but with each tribe having supply and demand goods and a value assigned to each from that tribe's perspective. It is, in my opinion, the best in-game economic system out there right now.

Best,

Blake

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
- Regional multipliers. Let's take Qek, which has little metal, but immense amounts of jewels and amazing food. It might look like:
* Metal: 5x cost
* Jewels: 1/3x cost
* Food: 3x export / 1/3x import

Metal prices rise high in Qek, which means it's good to take metal items to trade there. Jewels are cheap, as they're so plentiful and the Qek rarely use them. The food of Qek is part of their religion and culture, and they guard it. Even though it's plentiful, it costs much. However, outside food is unwelcomed, and they are loathe to buy it.

Other countries will be done the same way. Ammeni, for example, has shitloads of bamboo, which it uses for everything. If you can figure out what +1 hard armor costs in Maldor, you can figure out how much Ammeni bamboo armor costs.

Jared,

That is such a rad idea that I can't quit reeling from it. I'm totally using it.

And, just for color info, the primary economic "coin" will be one meal. Thinking about this, though, one chicken might be a great term to use:

A longsword
1 Metal (@ 5 chickens)
2 Blacksmith (@ 3 chickens) =
11 chickens

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Jared,

That is such a rad idea that I can't quit reeling from it. I'm totally using it.

And, just for color info, the primary economic "coin" will be one meal. Thinking about this, though, one chicken might be a great term to use:

A longsword
1 Metal (@ 5 chickens)
2 Blacksmith (@ 3 chickens) =
11 chickens

Jared,

Unfortunately, weapons don't work that way. You can read the game - it's free! - and find out how they do work, but I'll tell ya right here:

Much like Donjon, weapons are rated by size and sharpness, as well as other attributes. They do a flat bonus to damage.

A longsword: +2 sharp (+1 against soft armor) weapon
A huge club: +3 blunt (+1 against hard armor) weapon
A bamboo quarterstaff: +2 blunt brittle (penalty die to snap) weapon

That's about it. How that can work with trade units is pretty easy, though: 1 Unit per weapon size unit.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I'm going to make a statement right now that seems completely bizarre:

The biggest innovation in a role-playing game in the next 2 years will be with that role-playing game's economy.

This thread got me thinking about economics for my game... which needs to have a vaguely-centralized, but rarely recognized coinage. This makes things tricky.

(taken from my LJ) My general thought is to go the grainy, price-list route with a bit of vagueness thrown in. Maybe a FUDGE-like scale of costs (Trivial - Inexpensive - Moderate - Expensive - Extravagant - etc.), each of which represents a range of prices that can be fixed on the spot. Different currencies would have a range associated with each point on the scale. If the market for something is particularly different in one place than another, that item could be shifted up or down a level on the scale. If someone uses an appropriate Quality (i.e., a trait like "Great Wealth"), they need not worry about the cost of anything below a certain level. This system also supports barter well enough, I think. Things can generally be traded for other things in their category.

Oddly, the biggest influence on this schema is probably restaraunt ratings...

Stuart

Today, big announcement: the first four chapters of The Shadow of Yesterday are re-written, re-focused, and, in my opinion, much better than before, both in terms of mechanics and writing. In addition, there's a new map of the World of Near for you to check out. Expect to see the rest of the game re-written very soon (by the end of the week), and a new full log entry soon entitled The Origin of Species.

I have a thematic question for you; in your writing thus far, you seem to have sex and love as being interchangable. Why have you made this choice?

By the way, the game looks really good, and I'd love a chance to playtest it.

JL

JL,

I'd be interested to know what brought you to your above conclusion. I don't doubt that the text might convey that, as I'm a bit of a romantic, but I didn't mean for it to.

Right now, I'm setting up a chain of species that represent different stages of love and sex, with goblins having only sex and no love (and giving up sex for love, effectively); humans striking the balance with both love and sex, not necessarily together; and elves only having only the most generalized sort of love (non-erotic) and no sex.

Most of the references you make to 'love' in the text seem to refer to eros, or the love that occurs between two, er, lovers; however, there are other kinds of love, such as agappe, which can best be described as the love between a mother and child. These two aren't the only kinds of love, either. The example that stands out the most is the following quote from the introduction:

You'll notice there's quite a few rules in here that have to do with love and sex, more than in the average role-playing game. I mentioned earlier that this is the game I'd have wanted as a teenager: as one, and even now, I love love and sex.

Ok - I totally get where you're getting this now. That makes perfect sense.

Here's my excuses and explanations:

The system supports other sorts of love, in that the Secret of Love can be applied to any loving relationship, whether friendly, familial, or erotic.

That said, the text does concentrate on erotic love. Why? For starters, I understand that sort of love better - it's much more familiar to me as an author. Second, I think - and this is getting into uncomfortable territory - erotic love is a popular fantasy among gamers.

Lastly, I think it's much more interesting to investigate. Again, this is the author's preferences shining through. Familial love makes sense, and is nearly instinctual. Friendly love kind of happens when you're not looking, and tends to be non-fluctating once it happens. Erotic love is a thunderstorm over a choppy sea, and shifts and changes constantly. I've had women I've fallen in love with while buying a slice of pizza from them, and other women I couldn't stand that I fell in love with nine months later. I've had women I pledged my all to with which love died within a year, and others that I thought were a short-term thing that everyday became more sweet and wonderful.

I should probably make sure to emphasize other forms of love in the game - I do want it to support them. Erotic love'll always come first, though - as the author, I'll make a better game about that than about other forms.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: ...I think - and this is getting into uncomfortable territory - erotic love is a popular fantasy among gamers.

Okay, that's cool, I know understand where you're coming from.

On a somewhat related note: your writing suggests that 'love' is one of the main things that seperates human, goblins, and elves (or, perhaps, is the main CAUSE of the differences); this is seen in the mechanics as the Key Secrets for elves and goblins where the buy-off is becoming a human (both are in some way connected with notions of love). I am wondering, are there going to be Key Secrets for humans that are also like these, with the buyoffs being becoming a goblin or elf?

JL

April 9, 2003 Log: On the Origin of (Near) Species

The species (called races in most fantasy RPGs) of The Shadow of Yesterday came to me in much the same way as every other RPG idea I've had: randomly, using while walking down the street. Because of the unstructured nature of my design, I had to spend some time later with my notes weeding out the chaff. Overall, I've been pretty happy - while my original ideas were meant only to subvert normal FRPG tropes, my end design has some unusual aspects that I think will drive interesting stories in the game.

So, here's a quick breakdown of the species:

Old Species - Species that have existed and been known on Near since before the Coming of the Shadow
Humans: Humans are the most populous species of sentient people on Near, and are found anywhere in the world one might look. Their power has waned significantly, though, since the time of Shadow. They are infinitely adaptable, and pick up new things easier than any other species.

Goblins: Goblins live wherever others have deemed too hot, too cold, or too foul. Infinitely adaptable beings, the small wiry things manage to resemble demons, dogs, and men at the same time. Their curiosity drives them into all the forgotten places of the earth, and makes them decent apprentices for just about any job: they catch on quickly, but tend to cause as many accidents as they do help. Their bodies have an ability to evolve to match their environment, and their offspring carry these same characteristic. Left alone, their societies resemble anarchy to any outsider. Most of them do not understand the concept of love: they are poly-sexual, and any mating between them, whether male-male, male-female, or female-female, can generate offspring with only a month-long gestation period. A few goblins have been observed in a bizarre state that resembles love, known only as "the Affliction" in their rough language. These goblins leave their tribe and travel, their only goals to prove their love or die. A goblin has never been observed in love with another goblin, however; they always choose a member of another species as their object of affection.

Elves: No one except elves really understand what they are, or where they're from. To hear them explain it, they are native to another world spiritual above Near but travel from world to world. They exist solely as magical beings that create their own bodies, with an immortal spirit that returns to their home upon their death. Like goblins, they do not generally love, but do not have sexual relations: they view love as a want that debases their personality, as they view all wants. Elves spend most of their time wandering from place to place, rarely settling down for more than a few months. Elves usually take on the appearance of perfect human specimens, but cannot avoid the residual glow that always comes off of their skin from their inherent magic. They can be found nearly anywhere on Near, but are most common in places where humans are concentrated.

New Species - Species that have only existed or been known since the Coming of the Shadow
Ratkin: Ratkin resemble nutria, an enormous rodent, standing on their hind legs with prehensile thumbs. About three to four feet tall, they have pointed button noses, whiskers, and are covered in either grey, brown, or black fur, with the occasional albino all-white ratkin. They are generally untrusted by all other species except goblins, and known as dirty thieves. They live primarily in cities, and apparently only gained sentience during the Time of Shadow.

Vulfen: The Vulfen are a southern race, used to thick forests, deep snow, bitter cold, and wild beasts. They resemble half-men, half-wolves, with thick brown and grey body hair, long snouts, sharp teeth and claws, and sharp ears on top of their head. They are known for their prowess in the wilderness and in battle, and have a reputation of being fiery, vigorous lovers. They do, however, have some problems getting along with other species, as they view others as weak and destructive. They claim to have existed before the Coming of the Shadow, but were not known on Near before then - only when the Southern Sea froze over during the Time of Shadow were they able to travel to the mainland from their frozen continent, Vulfland.

I'm going to concentrate on the Old Species first. I like the fact they do change what you normally think of when you think of goblins and elves, but what thematic meaning do they have?

Well, if you look closely, you see the beginnings of not only a way to change a character's species, but an alignment system. (I can't believe I just said 'alignment system.') Goblins represent social chaos, a society of constant gratification, but no long-term goal or love (which I bring into the game as the major goal.) Elves, their opposite, represent stasis, beings that do not change, do not age, do not die, and do not love. To goblins, love represents something that entraps them and takes them away from chaos, while to elves, love represents something that would break down their order.

Now, later in the game, you find out both goblins and elves can become humans, each through accepting love. Humans represent the great balance - a species with want and pain and misery and, most of all, love, which makes them what they are. Looking at this, you see that goblins are merely unevolved (in the loosest sense of the word 'evolved') humans that have not discovered love, and elves are humans who have become spiritually focused and transcended want and love - which might not be a good thing.

So, what's the theme, then? I have to admit that I can't put it into the normal Premise-question form. It's not "Does love make us human?" because that's pretty much answered in the game. To put it into a sentence, "Love does make us human."

Now, to the New Species. I'll admit these aren't as thematically interesting. I did think for a while about trying to portray Vulfen as a very pack-based species and Ratkin as extreme loners, adding a new axis of social structure to the species-alignment metaphor. ("I'm a lawful alpha male!") I might still do this, but feel some reservation, as rats really are social creatures, and I go against that by making them into loners, which I know will turn some people off. It does create the nice visual effect of making being an "elf" into more of a state of mind than a species, as there would be vulfen and ratkin elves as well.

What I do like about the New Species, and why they're there, is that they're very colorful and fun. Wolf-people and rat-people are two ideas not terribly well done in FRPGs, and I'd like to try my hand at them. (You'll note two early games of mine, ImPound and Vermin, started to explore this territory.)

Anyway, that's the sentient species of The Shadow of Yesterday. Feel free to ask questions or make comments.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Now, to the New Species. I'll admit these aren't as thematically interesting. I did think for a while about trying to portray Vulfen as a very pack-based species and Ratkin as extreme loners, adding a new axis of social structure to the species-alignment metaphor. ("I'm a lawful alpha male!") I might still do this, but feel some reservation, as rats really are social creatures, and I go against that by making them into loners, which I know will turn some people off. It does create the nice visual effect of making being an "elf" into more of a state of mind than a species, as there would be vulfen and ratkin elves as well.

Jared,

How do you stay full of good ideas, man? It's amazing.

Anyway, that's some great thoughts, with Vulfen having an extremely caste-like hierachy, and Ratkin taking some notes from GURPS Goblins and being surly, every-man-for-himself beasts which manage to cooperate as a group, but usually only when they have a common enemy. And writing up the Vulfen hierachy could be a lot of fun.

Pretty funny, I was just about to post something along those lines, when I read farther down and discovered Jared beat me to it. The only thing left from my post that he didn't already cover better than I, is that you would probably want to to tone down the "looks like anarchy to an outsider" part of goblin culture, to more clearly emphasize the anarchy of the ratkin.

Related to that, I think goblin culture would be thematically stronger if you shifted the emphasis a bit. Right now I'm not seeing a clear difference between Goblin and Elf. The both seem pretty oblivious to love, just the elfs engage in abstinence while the Goblins are fornicators.

Maybe I'm off the rail a little here, but it would be stronger for me if they were more clearly opposites. Elves being "above" love (in which case the story of an elvish character becomeing human, sort of parallels Spock). Goblins then, in my view, should love everything. They sort of do now, but from your text it seems more casual. I'm seeing it as being more of a universal emotional bond.

I'm not sure that's making sense...let me try this.

Love for a human is about feeling that special powerful unifying bond with another individual. For Goblins...this is totally alien...how can you have a bond like that with just a specific individual...goblin relationships are more communal. For Elves it is alien because they don't have a bond like that at all.

So the difference becomes Elves love no one....humans have a "soul mate"...goblin love is communal.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Jared,

How do you stay full of good ideas, man? It's amazing.

Anyway, that's some great thoughts, with Vulfen having an extremely caste-like hierachy, and Ratkin taking some notes from GURPS Goblins and being surly, every-man-for-himself beasts which manage to cooperate as a group, but usually only when they have a common enemy. And writing up the Vulfen hierachy could be a lot of fun.

Three questions, one I asked before but got missed;

1. Will humans have key secrets that have a buyoff of becoming either a goblin or an elf, ie if they can find balance, can a human find imbalance?

2. Do you intend to explore the reasons why ratkin gained sentience after the Shadow? Is the there a specific and important secret behind this, or is it is simply something 'that happened'?

3. Will the vulfen and ratkin be portrayed as seperate from in their emotional/philisophical makeup? After all, both races are anthropomorphic animals; in their heart and soul, are they more man, or more beast?

Humans will have a way to become elves, to be certain, which will be handled with a Key Secret. Given the discussion with Jared and Ralph, I think ratkin and vulfen may, as well.

Becoming a goblin - well, I'm torn on this one. I actually can't think of a good way for it to happen.

Re: Ratkin and sentience

I probably won't explore this in great detail. Here's the quick reason they did, though: with the population of humanity shrinking to 1/10th of what it was, cities were emptied. 300 years later, huge walled cities make great areas for characters to explore. And if they're going to explore it, someone should be there, so - voila! Ratkin. They exist because it's a cool thing to have in the game, and no real other reason.

Re: anthromorphic makeup

With the recent discussion this morning, I do plan to discuss both vulfen and ratkin's makeup quite a bit more. In the end, though, they'll be mostly human in outlook, if extreme examples of humanity.

Okay, since I plan on running a game of this soon (soon=when school ends, which is the end of May for myself), I've been thinking about certain aspects of the game, and there's one in particular that bothers me: Can vulfen and ratkin experience love in the same way that humans can, and if so, what sets humans apart from them, thematically speaking?

I think one of the strengths of your material is the way that love defines humanity and sets it apart from elves and goblins; I further think that for vulfen and ratkin to be alike with humans in this way takes away the human's fire, and needlessly so. After all, the vulfen and the ratkin are cool in their own right; I don't think they need to be on the same emotional level as humans.

Think about it; both the races are anthropomorphic animals; why not have their emotional make-up be derived from that, rather than just have them be furry and eccentric humans? I mean, you've got predators known for intelligence (wolves), and scavengers known for intelligence (rats) as the basis. Both species have well-documented, complex social structures which are also very different from each other. The sociology you've developed for them already are extrapolated from this. Simply use it to define them. You can make them just as sophisticated, intelligent, and complex as humans, both individually and as a group; however, I think you should make sure to keep them distinct from humans, with a focus on making sure that what makes humans unique when compared to the old races keeps them distinct from the new.

That's my two-cents worth.

JL

Was just wondering how the design work was going with SoY. I apologize if I'm being annoying; I just think this game looks really, really cool, and I want to play it a lot (and will, once the spring semester ends). Anyway, sorry if I offend; take my attention as a compliment to a cool setting and system.

No problem at all. The design work's going a little slow right now: I have some home life things that are taking up a lot of time.

Still, I've written several new sections, outlined the whole thing, and expect it to be finished relatively soon. A new design idea has struck me which may change the system a bit: I'm toying with the idea that anything can damage the character, making combat into an "expanded resolution system", a la Hero Wars.

You know, I can never find the anvilwerks page for tsoy. Is there a link to it from anywhere on the anvilwerks site?

I'm the demographic that developers make bonehead page navigation for.

There's one in the news, but here's a link:

http://www.anvilwerks.com/rpg/tsoy/

For everyone else: lots of working on the game equals less logging on the game. The game's changing a lot, but is getting a thorough working on.

Just wondering if you've still been working on this. The ideas in it appeal to me a lot, and was wondering if there was any kind of update.

I've been working too much to update.

You can see what I have online at http://www.anvilwerks.com/TheShadowOfYesterday/TheShadowOfYesterday. There's more to come, and I'm pretty happy with it, even if it smacks heavily of HeroQuest.

Thank you for the update. Looks great; I look forward to its completion.

(I know that this is a many-months old topic, but...)

I know that the Merchant's Supplement for Dark Sun (Dune Traders or some such) had rules for fluctuating area-based economies, although mostly in goods rather than services. I, sadly, can't comment overmuch on them, because I only experience them from the player end, but they might be worth checking out if you're interesting in economic systems. Most likely available as a $5 PDF from WotC.

yrs--
--Ben

The link to TSOY (above) seems to be broken.

Apologies - the link should have been:
http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/TheShadowOfYesterday/TheShadowOfYesterday/

Citizens, be aware! I've been working my ass off on this game, and a stable form of the rule-set is now up at the TSOY site. Next up is "The World Of Near," my setting book. The chapter on the Old Species is about three-fourths of the way written, and I'll be posting it soon.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: System Deconstruction

In this post, I'm going to deconstruct how the Shadow of Yesterday system works, and why I've made the choices I have so far.

In the game, all tests of ability (called Skill Checks) are done the same way. A skill, ranking from 0 to 10, is added to a roll of 2d6 and compared to the following chart

[code]
8 or below Failure
9-11 Success Level 1 (Mediocre)
12-13 Success Level 2 (Good)
14-15 Success Level 3 (Great)
16-17 Success Level 4 (Amazing)
18-19 Success Level 5 (Legendary)
20-21 Success Level 6 (Ultimate)
22+ Transcendent Success
[/code]

Dude. That link is wonky for some reason.

This link should do the trick.

Damn wonky links - fixed now.

For those following the heated progress, I've begun "The World of Near," my setting book, and have posted the beginnings of it online, including my section on elves which I think will prove odd, at a minimum.

I was just looking at the newest set of rules for the game, and was unable to find the Magic rules. Have you decided to remove them? Have you just not posted them? Are they there, and I'm just a fool who doesn't know how to navigate the web?

The magic rules are currently under revision ... if I understand the idea correctly, each culture will now have its own flavor of magic. If you check out what's available so far in The World of Near you'll find rules for the magic of the Zaru under their entry.