“You’re Green, You’re Ugly and the Gods Hate You.”

The Great Ork Gods is (yet another?) game based on the twist of playing the Orks for a change. It’s intended to be light hearted in tone, and to offer a few sessions of fun rather than a long term campaign. Example games might be: Burn and Pillage! Recruited by the Evil Overlord! Catch those Hobbits! Hunted!

Basic Mechanics

You have no stats, feats, skills or attributes. Instead you have a measure of how much each different Ork God hates you. Each will be a number in about the 1 to 5 range. Whenever you attempt an action it is decided which God opposes your action (for example, combat would be determined by the God of War, while lifting a rock would be determined by the God of Strength). Now, in addition to playing an Ork, each player controls one or more Gods, whenever an action is opposed by one of the Gods you control you get to decide what the difficulty factor is for the action (from 0 to 9) – this should be your fair, balanced assessment of how hard it should be (heh).

The player then rolls a number of dice equal to the Gods hate, if ANY of the dice comes up less than or equal to the difficulty factor the action fails.

If a player’s actions would be opposed by one of ‘his’ Gods, the GM rules on the difficulty factor. Also Orks CANNOT perform magic. They can try all sorts of outrageous stuff, but they can’t do outright magical effects; e.g. no creating fireballs, teleporting, turning invisible or walking through walls.

The Gods

I’m not yet sure of what Gods there will be, or quite how to assign them, so I’m looking for help/advice on this part of it. Here’s my list of Gods so far:

God of Physics – The God of Physics is special – he hates everyone, like really a lot. Orks always have a Hate of 4 or more in this God.
God of Death – When an Ork should, or could, die, he must face the wrath of the God of Death or perish. But hey, there’s always more Orks.
God of War – Controls combat.
God of the Gab – In the unlikely event they try to talk to anyone.
God of Stealth – Orks can be sneaky too.
God of Artefacts – If you want to make something, work doors, light fires, etc.
God of Movement – If you want to run along a tight-rope, leap over a stream, etc.
God of Strength – Pretty obvious?

I’ve considered always assigning the Gods of Physics and Death to the GM, but I’m not sure it’s really necessary.

Any comments on the idea, mechanics, or God List welcome. I’d also be interested in knowing about any other games that employ a similar principle (assuming there are some).

Ork! by Green Ronin has a very similar principle. It uses only one god, but he definitely hates you, and resistance to tasks is determined by how much he hates and and doesn't want you to succeed.

Don't let that discourage you - you're on to a good idea here, and Ork! was, too. (I'm proud to say I own the fifth copy taken out of the first box off the print run.)

Seen Raven's Orx? Just thought I'd mention it - has little relation to this, really.

How about there are potentially infinite gods. When a player wants to do something, he invents the god on the spot, and the level of hate is generated at that point (I'm thinking randomly). Anyhow, the GM is free to go to the character sheet at any time to force a roll against any already generated god. Outside of that, it's always the player's choice to appeal to an old god (with GM approval), or create one with a new slant. Thus if the God of Strength particularly hates me, then if I want to lift a rock, maybe I'll appeal to the god of stone.

I'm also thinking that the gods hate to be bothered. So each roll against a particular god increases his hate of the character by one. Keeps players searching for new gods. Also, perhaps the god can be ameliorated somehow.

Just a thought. More importantly, however, what do Orcs in this game do? What sort of action happens in adventures? And why no magic for orcs? I wanna be the shaman!

Mike

I suggest some sort of additional tactical balancing mechanism for player-Gods in regards to the difficulty of tasks. Otherwise, you can just say, "Nine! Nine! Nine!" all the time, and get beaten up by your friends after the game.

Something where the higher the difficulty set is, the greater number of penalty tokens of some sort the player accrues? Of course, there would have to be something beneficial for occasionally assigning higher difficulties, and avoiding too low difficulties, so that doesn't really work.

Perhaps the gamemaster guesses a difficulty, and the closer the player is to assigning that difficulty, the better -- the further off they are, the worse?

Another item which comes to mind is a web of deific relationships which affect the players of those Gods? The God of War and the God of Love don't like each other much, so when one makes something difficult for someone, the other tries to make sure they give the guy an easier time -- sort of a slap in the face to their rival.

Also feel free to mine my Before the Flood game for ideas.

-Vincent

Thank you for your comments, I'll reply in turn:

Clinton wrote: Ork! by Green Ronin has a very similar principle. It uses only one god, but he definitely hates you, and resistance to tasks is determined by how much he hates and and doesn't want you to succeed.

Mike Holmes wrote: How about there are potentially infinite gods. When a player wants to do something, he invents the god on the spot, and the level of hate is generated at that point (I'm thinking randomly).

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm also thinking that the gods hate to be bothered. So each roll against a particular god increases his hate of the character by one. Keeps players searching for new gods. Also, perhaps the god can be ameliorated somehow.

Mike Holmes wrote: Just a thought. More importantly, however, what do Orcs in this game do? What sort of action happens in adventures?

Mike Holmes wrote: And why no magic for orcs? I wanna be the shaman!

Greyorm wrote: suggest some sort of additional tactical balancing mechanism for player-Gods in regards to the difficulty of tasks. Otherwise, you can just say, "Nine! Nine! Nine!" all the time, and get beaten up by your friends after the game.

A mechanic for increasing/decreasing hate came to me while reading this thread (btw, I DIG this game idea).

How about if every time an Orc fails against a certain god, he gets a +/- the amount he suceeded/failed to his next hate roll with that god. So if an Orc is on a roll, he stays on a roll.. and if the gods really hate him, they keep hating him. The Orc Gods love a winner and really hate a loser.

And, since I like the possibility of inter-player rivalry (seems pretty Orcish to me!) how about if an Orc offs a rival that is a big loser or winner, he gets the absolute value of the rivals largest hate modifier. Let's face it, the Orc gods love to see a loser go down, but they also love to see a winner put in his place (basically, the Orc gods are a bunch of total ***holes). Making char-gen really simple and no real penalty for death would keep this rivalry fun and light-hearted.

Some mechanic for rewarding looting, pillaging, etc might be in order (and would explain a lot of Orc behavior). Although my inner Orc tells me "pillaging is it's own reward". ;)

You know, perhaps the "shaman" is the only one who's able to decrease hate values.

How? I don't know. But it seems an appropriate place for a shaman to be.

Hi Loki,

So if an Orc is on a roll, he stays on a roll.. and if the gods really hate him, they keep hating him. The Orc Gods love a winner and really hate a loser.

Mr Jack wrote:

So if an Orc is on a roll, he stays on a roll.. and if the gods really hate him, they keep hating him. The Orc Gods love a winner and really hate a loser.

I don't know. I get the feeling that this kind of system would be really annoying in actual play. I've always found that dice tend to produce such runs anyway (clumping is a natural property of truly random systems).

I like the base idea here, and this is just a random thought on a slightly different mechanic (numbers below for the sake of example):

Difficulty is fixed (2)
Base dice rolled are fixed (2d6)
Task resolution is the same as the original concept.

At the beginning of the session each player is given N hate-dice per god they control. When an orc-player is making a task roll versus an area a god-player thinks they have influence, the god-player explains their influence and adds one or more of the god's hate-dice to the orc-player's roll. More than one god can influence a task, but perhaps only one god per god-player. The task is resolved using the base dice plus any hate-dice added by other players. After the roll the orc-player adds any god-dice assigned to the hate-dice pools of any of their own gods.

This places something of a limit on the difficulting picking -- you can only assign dice you have. It also provides for revenge -- the player receiving hate-dice gets to spend them later.

Just a random thought.

Very cool idea. I *really* like that spending your hate puts hate in the hands of your (new) enemy.

Does that mean that there is a finite amount of hate floating around the game?

Hiya,

Mark, that's a good idea - and Jack, if you want to go with something like that, I urge you to check out Orkworld (Wicked Press), in which the mechanic Trouble plays a central role in exactly this way.

Best,
Ron

Loki wrote: Very cool idea. I *really* like that spending your hate puts hate in the hands of your (new) enemy.

Does that mean that there is a finite amount of hate floating around the game?

If you wanted Ork-like combat in your game, you could also have a Combat XP system that works as follows:

An Ork gains one Respect for every (100/200/whatever you decide) Combat XP he earns. For every combat-capable creature the Ork deals a killing blow to, he gains 10 Combat XP. (He gets 1 XP for every noncombatant creature or person at least the size of a squirrel he kills but cannot get more than 10 XP for a single action that kills a lot of noncombatants, or otherwise you get the "pour burning oil on an ant hill for XP" trick that doesn't work well for Ork culture generally.) You might want to award different amounts based on the toughness of the foe. Anyway, the Ork only gets the XP if he strikes the killing blow.

In a D&D 3e game I ran once, an amusing situation happened where PC A was fighting a goblin, PC B finishes he goblin and runs up to hit PC A's goblin, and kills it, possibly saving PC A from taking any more damage. PC A yells at PC B and hits him for taking his kill. The two decide to have a duel. PC A is a twinked-out munchkin character, PC B is rather average. PC B manages to win the initiative, gets incredibly lucky, and nearly kills PC A with a critical hit; he gets a shocked look on his face for a moment, then gasps and drops his sword and quickly patches PC A's wounds. PC C, who thinks the whole thing was stupid, angrily charges at PC B and tries to punch him, but rolls a 1 and punches his target's shield instead, falling to the ground holding his hand and yelping in pain. NPC D tries to yell at all of them but instead falls to the ground laughing. (Note: in case you don't know, you get the same XP from a hostile encounter you overcome regardless of whether or not your party kills the enemies, and you get the same XP whether or not you actually struck any blows in the combat.)

Now, imagine the chaos that would erupt if there actually was a benefit to striking the killing blow, and you only got combat XP for killing enemies. I imagine players would see a 100 XP knight and try to figure out ways to convince their friends to wound the knight so that they could sneak in and deal the finishing blow.

Just a thought.

Cool thread; I have arrived a little late to comment upon everything, but I will hit a few points that you might find useful.

First, let me present a resolution mechanic that may work to balance use of hate by players and simplify character creation (such as it is).

Resolution Mechanic
1) Every difficulty is 7.
2) An orc gets, by default, 2d10 to try to equal or exceed that 7.
3) If the orc has a Specialty ("Knack", in game terms), the orc may add a d10 to their pool. If another orc is helping, the player may add another d10. If another orc is helping with a Knack, the player may add 2d10. If more than one orc is helping, the player may add another d10, up to a maximum of 5d10 for any single roll. NOTE: If the action is opposed by another entity, and that entity has a Knack that counters the orc's, then the orc player loses their d10 bonus for their Knack.
4) The player who controls the god for the action's domain may take a d10 from the pool. Doing so put the god-player's character "down a die" on all future rolls, until someone takes a die from him or her.
ex) I take a die from GROG. My orc, TUG, is now at a default 1d10 on rolls until another god-player takes a d10 from me, at which point I am back to 2d10 (after the roll during which I am hated). Obviously, if a god takes a d10 when I am down a die to do something with no Knack and no help, I am rolling "0d10" and will automatically fail.
5) The Rule of Three: If the TOTAL of any roll equals exactly 3, something good happens. If down a die for using hate, the orc's player is no longer down a die, regardless of god involvement in the current roll. If not down a die, the orc gets a Critical Success--rare, and worthy of future hate. I include the Rule of Three because orcs can't count higher than three, and are thus quite pleased when all the pips add up to The Big Number.
6) One success (roll of 7+) = Success, Two successes = GREAT Success (double damage, whatever), Three or more successes = Critical Failure!!! The gods don't like uppity orcs....

God Names - Take inspiration from HOL (Human Occupied Landfill) and come up with some god names that reflect Orcish sensabilities. "God of Physics"?! My Orc says, "Fizz chicks, whassat?"

To do this, start by coming up with an exhaustive list of "domains" for your game system, which represent core types of conflict or fundamental game elements. There is one god per domain, and no player may control more than one god (the GM handles the rest). Then, don't make names that sound like someone gagging on a mouthful of marbles, but instead choose names more along the lines of Native American names. For example, God of Physics would become "The All-Hater" [B no player should be able to control a god whose domain is "all actions"]; God of Artefacts would become "He Who Makes Stuff Confusing"; God of Strength would become "Crushing Hand, Stomping Foot".

Character Abilities & Stats - I haven't yet noticed anything having to do with character abilities, i.e. stuff on a character sheet.

For Character Abilities, all I would do, were I you, is include specialties ("Knacks," in my mechanic above) that correlate to god domains and represent another "axis" of game elements. You can get a LOT of rule content out of a list of twenty or so Knacks under ten or so domains.

For example, my orc has the Knack "Bully The Puny" which is in the domain of the god of war, who is known as "The Pounding In Our Heads That Won't Stop". In contests against smaller or weaker opponents (using my White Wolf-esque mechanics above), my orc gets an additional die to roll (3d10, if I am not down a die for hating, 2d10 if I am).

Character Stats are not relevant in my mechanic above. I favor this because, like HOL and Fight Club, no orc is a "unique and special butterfly". If you MUST have a third axis of elements, define Stats that are "supersets" of the god domains, and give orcs a 1, 2, or 3 in them, representing the default number of d10s for rolls in the domains of that Stat.

Thus, an orc could roll 1, 2, or 3 dice based on the applicable Stat, then add one more for an applicable Knack, and add one or more for help (up to the absolute limit of 5d10).

Loot - Special items, wealth, etc are not for orcs, though they dream of them (poor bastards). Thus, Loot is an abstract in the system that represents a way to, perhaps, get back a die lost for hating or use a Specialty that isn't on the character's sheet. The "Shiny Sword That Tells Me What To Do" would not grant +2 to hit or anything mundane like that, but would instead be a 1d10 bonus to dice pool when the player & GM thinks the situation is appropriate. Note: the gods loath seeing such Loot in the hands of an orc (as do most NPC enemies... and other PCs, for that matter); Loot is more akin to a hot-potato than a boon.

Experience - I am disinclined to favor a quantifiable Experience system, simply because that makes character creation also quantifiable... and no orc is a unique and special butterfly.

Instead, I would write guidelines for the GM for granting new Knacks to orcs, based on in-game success. Each Game Goal could confer a particular Knack to the orc most instrumental to accomplishing it. Defeating victims--er, enemies--could be tracked by the GM in some quantifiable way but, at the end of the session, be reduced to a single Knack award to the most aggressive or effective (or both, with two Knack Awards).

Shamen - I want them, too. Perhaps they would be one of the "classes" of orcs, if you introduce classes as a way to limit which Knacks an orc may have at game start:
Skinny - Wily, smaller orcs, whose list of Knacks reflect avoiding combat, getting into places, and being harder to hit.
Ugly - Hulking, brutish orcs, whose list of Knacks reflect combat dominance, stamina, toughness, and bullying others.
Crazy - Clever, manipulative orcs, whose list of Knacks reflect unusual abilities (magic-esque), influencing others, and shifting blame.

In particular, there needs to be some kind of "wannabe-leader-type" that will incur the gods' wrath for attempting to do things that would qualify as "good ideas". Shamen would try to figure a way past the human village guards other than sneak up to kill them or charge head on. Often, this is the "best" choice (for surviving) but it is very un-orc-like. Thus, the god of going places, "He Who Sneaks Through Shadow While Bellowing", would likely heap hate upon the shamen.

Furthermore, orcs misusing magic is one of the best sources of humor in the game; don't let it slip by the wayside. If you can't stomach orcs casting fireballs and such, that's fine. But let them get the Knacks of "Sniff-Out Weak Prey" (detect spell) or "Speak With Menace" (command spell) or "Vivid Imagery of Demise" (fear spell).

And I'm spent....
HTH;
Czar Fnord

So I was thinking about this game a bit more and my suggestion to have hate dice that god-players can force on orc-players to increase the difficulty of their tasks. I've also been thinking about applying this as a means of positive support in other settings (i.e. players can pass on luck dice to others). After thinking about this for a bit I realized there needs to be some way to limit the dice passing or you end up with dice being passed for every task roll, especially in the beneficial case. A couple ideas came to mind for limiting dice passing:

GM fiat - the player must justify their dice passing and the GM rules.
Group vote - players vote on the applicability of the dice.
Limited dice - dice passed are discarded.
Limited reuse - dice passed cannot be reused until some event occurs (scene change for example).

The more I think about it the more I like this general concept, but I'm not happy with these mechanisms for limiting dice passing. Anyone see a better way to limit dice passing?

Mark Thomas wrote: Anyone see a better way to limit dice passing?

Czar Fnord wrote: What think you of the Rule of Three, God Name issue, character elements, and reward issues I brought up?

I'd be curious to hear from the original poster and his current thoughts.

Mark Thomas wrote: I think I would stick with the 'don't screw up' dice rolling mechanic rather than counting successes. Somehow it seems a better fit to the ork mindset. I think it would be pretty easy to reverse your proposed mechanic however, so that's a quibble.

I like the rule of three -- but an ork that has a Knack and that's being helped by an ork with a Knack can't roll a three can they? Maybe that falls under the gods don't like uppity ork category?

Loot -- I think orks need loot! I mean they're supposed to be pillaging and looting. What's the point without stuff to get? I'd probably make it more concrete but not permanent. I don't have any good idea about this right now, so I'll shut up now.

As for the character development stuff, to me it seems a bit overkill. I'd be inclined to keep the game much simpler and free form, almost beer-n-pretzels level of play. Orks seem to go with beer anyhow...

Mr. Jack wrote: So I saw the Gods as being simply a different mechanic for task resolution.

I've come up with an idea I prefer: taking my inspiration from Gurgli, I'm considering names such as The God of Slashing and Slayings, or The God of Heavings and Hoings.

Dice Passing: While mechanically I think this is sound. It establishes a causal link between a player's God(s) and their Ork, i.e. bad things happening to the Ork affects the God. I don't want this kind of link if I can avoid it.

I was originally aiming to have an Ork descibed entirely by his Name, and how much the Gods hate him. This all goes into (as you most excellently put it) No Ork Is a Unique And Special Butterfly. I really like the idea that Orks would be a wonderful success if the Gods would just stop kicking them.

I'm thinking that rewards should be entirely game useless. I have any idea that Orks are simply trying to gather 'Oog' - a kind of respect. Orks would gain Oog as per the Respect mechanic I discussed earlier, but it would have no in-game effects. I rather like the idea that Orks are driven by the acquisition of something that does them no good what-so-ever.

Czar,

I think you misunderstand me, either that or I simply don't get your answer. Mark's suggestion means that passing hate to an Ork, gives hate to a God. That, to me, is a causal link between God & Ork. I see the players playing an Ork, and having a God (or Gods), not playing an Ork-with-a-God-thing. I don't see the Ork as having any in-world link to the God(s) controlled by the same player.

It's your baby. I would encourage you not to use the static "The God of _____" because it becomes stale, and all the readers will see, in time, is the stuff after the "of". Mix it up, much like orcs would--do you think a damned orc is CONSISTENT? Are you sure you're qualified to design this thing? ;-)

So a "orc-character" is just a name and a number, at best?

UGH. Bookkeeping with no reason. you're going from rules-light to rules-contemptuous.

Don't think I am trying to rant or be mean; I just don't know what your goal is, anymore. It was shaping up into a nifty game--in mechanics and (some) setting elements--and now it seems to be having the "punch" stripped out of it. Perhaps One Page Press would like it, though....

Jack,

You must be doing something right here. When I first read the thread title, I’ll have to admit: I was a bit skeptical. Of course, I’ve always been pretty attached to the D&D “how to play orks” rules in the Orcs of Thar Gazetteer, and after reading Orkworld, I thought the Orcs had done been done.

But there’s something interesting about this game. People are finding something in it that they’re getting emotionally invested in. Czar Fnord’s rather strong response is, I think, a good sign in that respect. I would like to say, Czar, you gotta relax here. Just because Jack hasn’t taken every piece of advice doesn’t mean he’s not listening. It’s still his game, man. I know how you feel. I’ve been there myself—I’ve given advice that folks have chosen not to take, and it made me think, “Hey, what’s going on. My advice was so good!” But you gotta let the game be Jack’s game.

If I've overstated your reaction in your post, sorry, by the way. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way.

Now here’s my take on some things. First, I like these spiteful gods, in particular. Honestly, my instinct was still to say, “please, please make it about something other than orks! Please, make it be about, um, I don’t know… Goblins (although this has been done as well, of course), or Kobolds, or Ogres, or Trolls, or… anything but Orks!” That was, of course, until I read your post about it being first and foremost about Orks. So you’ll probably want to ignore that little bit of advice. I do think it is revealing that people are showing more interesting in the Ork Gods part than in the Ork Gods part. It seems that perhaps it’s the Ork Gods part that is the hook that is getting people interested in the project. One thing that differentiates it a bit from Orkworld, for example, is that these Ork gods are a bit more personalized than "Trouble." It’s like these Ork gods are so petty and vindictive that they actually have it in for specific Orks. Man, they must be busy if the Ork populations in this game are anything like the ones in most game worlds. And so what if they are busy. They hate a lot of Orks. Is that so wrong? Oh, and whatever you decide on naming the Gods… please don’t have a god of physics. The Ork god of physics? Ugh. Too science-y for Orks, IMO. Regardless of what you name him.

I’m torn on your recent idea about “Oog.” I think, on the one hand, that the idea of a stat that doesn’t do anything is interesting as a sort of game designer’s comment. But is this really game effective? I mean, you want to encourage certain behaviors on the parts of the players, right? Having a stat that doesn’t do anything is more just a comment than it is a game mechanic.

But on the other hand, I’m not sure that it’s true that “Oog” doesn’t do anything, in actual play. You’ve pointed out yourself that it’s a score. I think that could make it pretty important, actually. I mean, it certainly would do something for me. If I were playing this game, I’d gather up all kinds of “Oog.” Then I’d taunt my fellow Ork players. I have more points than you. Lots of games outside roleplaying have you gather points to win. One could argue that those points don’t “do anything” in most of these games, by the same logic that "Oog" doesn't do anything. But in fact, those games are all about getting those points. So I suspect with “Oog,” even a mechanic that you think doesn’t do anything is actually going to do something. It might even become a central aspect of play.

Final thought—I say don’t fall to the overwhelming pressure to add shamans. I’ve seen enough ork shamans. Where are all these ork shamans coming from, anyway? I like my orks simple.

Just my two cents,

Rich

I can see where you are coming from re: a link between God and Orc being a bad thing. I am the Wargod, and your Orc is trying something War-related... but my Orc is going to have to appeal to your God next turn, so I don't want you to have too much hate lying around. Therefore, I don't pass hate to your Orc in anticipation of seeing it come back at my Orc shortly.

So here's a thought: make the amount of hate accumulated by a God dependent on the number of times he's thwarted in his plans to ruin some poor Orc's day. Every time some sucker successfully beats a God's difficulty number, that God gets a hate die to add to his pool. It's a nice mechanic because it means that most Gods will bide their time, allowing those little monkeys to be successful just so they can really screw them when something important comes up. So you have lots of successes and a few major show-downs. It also means that by making it easy to spend hate (you can spend as much as you want on a single roll) but slow to build up hate, you have a theoretically infinite pool of hate, but most of the time hate will be flying around in small, manageable amounts.

It also feels Orcish: every time your Orc doesn't screw up, he just pisses off God a little bit more. Dammit! Nothing chaps my immortal soul like an uppity Orc who thinks he's better than me! Just you wait, little monkey!

Plus it disconnects God behavior from Orc behavior. Gods can be malicious and awful, but their doing so doesn't set up the same player's Orc for a royal screwing shortly thereafter.

There's one thing about this game that I haven't quite been able to figure out yet... how will the game actually play? It sounds like you are hoping to run a party-based, attack the "dungeon" type game. But I'm wondering if it will play out that way, with the Gods all working at cross-purposes to cooperative play.

In fact, it seems to me that what has captured everyone's imagination is this God v Orc, player v player dynamic. That seems to be the core of this game to me. There are games like that out there, where the "opponents" are both the other players, and some random element... it sounds more like a card game to me. The cards provide some randomly chosen obstacles, the players compete to beat the obstacles (using dice) and acheive some winning condition. That's not to say it can't work as a rpg, just that it would have to be structured differently than the players v GM model.

Great thread, and a great game idea...

Mr Jack wrote:
I think you misunderstand me, either that or I simply don't get your answer. Mark's suggestion means that passing hate to an Ork, gives hate to a God. That, to me, is a causal link between God & Ork. I see the players playing an Ork, and having a God (or Gods), not playing an Ork-with-a-God-thing. I don't see the Ork as having any in-world link to the God(s) controlled by the same player.

For me, the thing that needs to be examined/resolved is the contradiction in the gameplay: on the one hand, you've got Orc PCs running around as a gang beating up on the rest of the world (team play). On the other hand, you've got Gods beating up on the other Orc PCs (adversarial play).

I think in order to stick with the "party of PCs v the world" traditional game play, something needs to be done to disconnect/distance the Gods from the PCs. One way to do this would be to make it unimportant if an Orc PC was killed/disadvantaged by a God. Or even to make it enjoyable or offer a tradeoff to being an object of hate. That way the players can get into their roles as God without having the gameplay discourage it.

It's true that with players that are into the spirit of the game, this can be avoided, but if it's actually part of the game it'll be more satisfying.

One possibility might be that spent hate can be used by players to make their next character--so if there's been a lot of hateful Gods, the next generation of Orc PCs is more powerful, and so on (tough love, so to speak). Hate contributing to advancement... (loot + hate == more chargen points?)

That way the players can screw each other over locally, while making each other happier globally.

Yes, this was just a glorified BUMP! I want to play this game!

Heya Jack,

I'm still liking what I'm seeing. You (and others) are hitting on alot of the same ideas I did for ORX, but in different ways.

I think the idea of gathering loot -- which is utterly useless to the orc -- is great. Loot actually has a use in my game, but you can fight with your fellow players over it, steal it, lose it, and so forth (and there are various nasty consequences to things like that occuring).

I like the Respect idea: I call it "Nasty" in ORX, and it is an actual attribute that doesn't really go up in an experience-point sort of way. Anyways, "Nasty" might work for you in this context -- after all, orcs don't really respect one another, it's more of a fearful hatred (ie: the chieftan's the leader because he's the worst, and you don't want to get on his bad side).

Man, this is generating a lot of interest!

I'm glad you all like the idea, and I want to thank you all for your suggestions, comments and enthusiasm. It's at a stage now where I want to go off and cogitate on all the feedback and develop the ideas into something concrete and, perhaps more importantly, try it out in actual play with my gaming group.

Hopefully I'll have it written up for playtesting in the new year. When I do I'll post a link and start up a new thread.

Thank you all,

Jack.

Rockin' Jack, my inner Orc can't wait to see the results.

However, my inner Orc God is pissed at having to wait. Give yourself extra difficulty in getting this together!!!!!!

jk, best of luck and keep us posted.

Loki