Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Lisa Padol, September 20, 2005, 12:49:18 PM
Quote from: Lisa Padol on October 03, 2005, 10:39:48 PMI like. Thank you.
Quote from: jburneko on October 04, 2005, 04:26:02 AMI suddenly realized I've partially lied. I have seen the film based on The Name of the Rose and at one point had read about the first 100 pages of the book but found the author was a little TOO good at mimicing the writing of a 14th Century monk. I'll give it another go some day.
QuoteAs for sexuality issues, you don't have to build them into the Sorcery concept. You can build them into the setting (such as the issues of women at the university as you've already stated) or into the situation (via your R-Map) or players can build them into their characters and you can choose to emphasize them in your bang choice. I don't really see a need to include them directly into your one-sheet from the get go.
QuoteAnother issue I've seen you repeat is the fear of Sorcery being viewed as "good." I wouldn't worry about that either. Sorcery isn't necessarily good or bad, it's unnatural. I used to have a real problem with "likeable" demons. Occasionally, a demon in one of my games would become "loveable" in that kind of cartoony way and you'd feel bad for the guy when his master Punished him. Turns out this OKAY.
QuoteI think you have more than you think you have. Hmmm... Just for fun, I'm goind to construct a character from my understanding of your setting. In the absense of customized descripters I'll just pick things I think are appropriate.<snipping out description>Would you consider this character appropriate for you concept?
Quote from: Lisa Padol on October 02, 2005, 03:15:41 PMThe Inner Animal Thing: (Gaa. I need a better term for that.)
Quote from: Nev the Deranged on October 05, 2005, 06:10:53 PMAnd the first half of this thread had some really useful bits I'm stealing for yet another revision of my quick-reference, so thank you ^_^
Quote from: avram on October 05, 2005, 02:26:43 PMQuote from: Lisa Padol on October 02, 2005, 03:15:41 PMThe Inner Animal Thing: (Gaa. I need a better term for that.)It sounds similar to Pullman's daemon, from an old Greek word for an in-dwelling spirit, so why not use that? Or you can use the Latin anima (an animating soul or spirit), which has the advantage of sounding like "animal". Your setting predates Jung by centuries, so you don't have to limit yourself to the meaning he invented.
Quote from: Lisa Padol[Do I need to figure out the rest of the types of demons, or can that be left to develop as play proceeds? I still think human Passers should be rare and spooky.]
QuoteRituals: Involve animalistic behavior.Humanity: Got two possibilities.
QuoteDescriptors:[How many of these should I have? I am finding these the most challenging because this is inventing the more crunchy bits.]
QuoteCover / Past[Which term makes most sense in the context of the setting?]
Quote from: Ron Edwards on October 06, 2005, 09:40:46 AMWhat you need to do now is STOP and let the rest get worked out through the players and yourself in character creation.
QuoteYou'll discover three things there:1. People who will try to shoehorn whatever you present into familiar territory. This is like the guy who listened patiently to Judd's description of the complex and beautiful Marr'd setting, then made up a wandering samurai to add to "the party."
QuoteIt'll work out fine. You're right on track, including the uncertainties. Don't put in more. Take out all the hesitant stuff; for instance, just step up and say "No human-type Passers." If you say, "I think they should be rare," you are guaranteeing that at least two, perhaps all of the players will use them.Right, like all of the other rare stuff in every rpg ever written. Okay, so R-map goes off to the side until there are characters, and then gets revisited, and probably thoroughly rewritten. Either way, I don't have to worry about it now.-Lisa
Quote from: joshua neff on October 06, 2005, 07:34:36 PMI can't think of a single RPG out there that I would run without having all the players make characters together. If you've got time to get together to play, you've got time to get together to make characters. And you know how Ron and the others talked about the players contributing to the setting? That comes from character creation as well as playing those characters. Musically speaking, this is everyone getting together and laying the foundation for the upcoming jam sessions.
QuoteNow, I don't want to dismiss creating characters through asynchronous communication like email. My own experiences haven't been very good with that, because not everyone in the play group would check and respond to emails as quickly as others, but if you read the Art Deco Melodrama threads, the character creation there works very well. As long as everyone is getting a voice and feels they can throw out ideas freely, to the GM and to other players, however you create characters should be fine.