|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 3:35:11 GMT -5
So. Hello chaps. My name's Von and I'm making a world. I'm also really bad at naming things. The idea is to create something which will work equally well for fiction and various forms of D&D, and which actually maintains a sense of fantasy. Impressions are important - the things which make me think "I want to use that", looked at in terms of what about them makes me want to use them and how to bring that to the forefront. That includes the D&D rules as well as the various bits of photography/cartography/architecture/literature that I'm cadging wholesale drawing on for inspiration. Here's a couple of pages from my notebook; the manifesto of sorts. Anyway. I'm starting to explore this world through writing short stories set there, each focusing on an example character from one of the D&D classes. 'Exploring' is important - this place isn't being built or engineered so much as discovered, associations emerging as I think my way along the chain from impression to application. The short stories should keep my frustrated-novelist tendencies well under control, and stimulate me to have some ideas about the world in place, ready for the inevitable questions from players. It would be nice to always say "well how do you think it works?" but I frequently play with newbies or refugees from other DMs who are still finding their feet with this whole 'agency in roleplaying' business. This post is just going to be an index for stuff I'll think about as I'm going along. In no particular order: - Impressions & Inspirations - Appendix N and pretty pictures
- Maps 1 - World Architecture, Cosmology
- Religions and Alignment
- Magic 1 - the Pernicious Legacy of Jack Vance
- Character Generation
- Classes
- Combat (inc. Weapons)
- Magic 2 - Spells
- Maps 2 - Adventuring
- Monsters and Such
- Economy and Domains
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 3:56:49 GMT -5
Impressions and Inspirations
I have a Pinterest board of images which create that immediate visceral/sensual "yes". Once this has been thought through - why do I want this, what's cool about it, where does it fit, is that a lazy association or the great clomping foot of nerdism descending - it's added to the world in some capacity. There are a lot of images like these, covering urban and natural spaces. Common trends: the creeping mists and rich colours, which I like for the sense of obscurity and evanescence that they lend to the scenes. Nothing is quite what it seems and none of the lies last until morning. There is a potential to get lost and then find oneself in a bright new place on the other side. I imagine people straying into the mists and emerging in other places, and other times. One earlier draft I had for a fantasy world featured the idea of planar shifts through landscape features - you'd dive into a strangely coloured lake and emerge in the sky of the plane below, or you'd climb a tall-beyond-reason tree and then discover the foggy canopy to be the swampy ground of the plane above. There was a mountain at the centre of things - the Worlds' End - with demons imprisoned at the bottom and the core, and gods dwelling at the top. I like that image of the central mountain - it has a powerful mythic sense, the world aligned around a single pole leading up into infinity - and I think I'll keep it, which presumably gives us a disc-shaped world, or at least a shape that radiates out from a central point. As I was thinking about this, the cardinal points aligned themselves subtly; north becomes 'Endward', i.e. toward the Worlds' End, south becomes 'Edgeward', either for a literal edge to the world or the metaphorical limits of the inhabitants' understanding and capacity to travel. East and west are 'dawnward' and 'duskward' - perhaps the sun and moon traverse the world in long elliptical orbits above? I like the geocentric model for fantasy worlds - the heliocentric model connotes the Age of Reason to me, the beginning of the scientific urge to taxonomise everything under the sun - or rather everything around it. I have a bunch of photographs of cities, and a deep taste for urban fantasy - I cut my teeth as a Vampire 'Storyteller' and WFRP GM, and in both contexts rapidly learned that I favour the complex shifting of societies and politics over... well, what D&D is traditionally 'about'. However, I see the value in micro-dungeons - a few levels of catacomb, sewer, or underground city like Kaymakli in Cappadocia (the 'organic architecture' pictures on the board, which always feel like termite or wasp nests - that or birds, nesting on cliffs and the edges of valleys) - and I'd like to bung in a megadungeon because I do appreciate them as part of the D&D experience and it's that experience that I'm trying to explore. I do have some methods for creating a factionised dungeon with implicit narratives waiting to be triggered (or rather redirected and rewritten) according to player intervention, so I might draw on those at some stage. Appendix N
A few things that I've read and that I'd like to draw upon for my own fiction/dungeoneering within the confines of this project. After the dash you'll find the justification - why am I using this, what's it bringing to me? Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Susanna Clarke - the high-level magic user as agent of the state The Empire of Death, Paul Koudonaris - visual aesthetics of charnel houses, the worship of mortality The Warhound and the World's Pain and The City in the Autumn Stars, Michael Moorcock - adventuring in a world of moral absolutes, overlapping 'realities' in a location The City and the City, China Mieville - overlapping architecture, shifts in planes and perceptions, the same space seen differently, marginalised citizens in imagined worlds The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley - matriarchal, highly political culture America: a Prophecy, The Book of Urizen, Vala, The Four Zoas, William Blake - cosmology, binary extremes of 'alignment', mythopoeic style, writerly approach (i.e. integration of words and images, self-contained system of references) The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer - Chaucer himself is my archetype of the historical 'adventurer'; also his practice of illustrating a world through characters and the stories they tell is influential on my desired style. The Complete Zimiamvia, E. R. Eddison - I'm currently reading Eddison's greater trilogy for the first time and I'm pretty sure it'll have a trickle-down effect on my conceit of the fantasy adventurer, the movement between worlds and the perception of other worlds, and also on the style of description - but I'm not there yet.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 3:57:30 GMT -5
Maps and CartographyAll right, so this is Titan. Not the Fighting Fantasy world, the moon of Saturn. I found this while trawling Tumblr one day and couldn't help but treat it as plunder. Y'know, booty. Gameables. The points which share the name 'Facula' or 'Macula' suggest some sort of common ground is shared between them, and I immediately turned to religion. I have this... thing... for necromancy, ancestor worship, intercession and charnel house architecture (cf. Koudonaris, The Empire of Death and my proper-career research in necromancy and Christian heresies and also being a massive goth) and I'd like to characterise a major religious power through my thoughts on the topic. If the map gives you 'Veles' and your game has 'Elves' it seems discourteous not to do something with that - but I'll need to meddle with the Vel or Velesians or whatever to avoid the lazy assumption. I have some ideas about this and I also have a player who has Strong Feelings About Elves. Her devious and highly active mind will be harnessed to great effect here. In terms of whether or not this place is the 'real' Titan I am... keeping an open mind. I am far more concerned with things making mythopoeic sense than I am in the accurate scientific postulation of life in a nitrogen/methane atmosphere and at staggeringly low temperatures - but I do think that "it's perishing cold below the clouds and habitable above them" is essentially a pleasing idea. It lends itself to visions of cities on mountaintops and airships travelling between them, and the idea of Xanadu as a sub-zero network of rocks and long-frozen rivers - a glacier-floored crawl environment. Using a planet in the solar system but completely ignoring the science of it unless I think it's fun also makes me feel a bit like E. R. Eddison. Ho hee.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 4:09:06 GMT -5
Religions and Alignment
The Faculae and Maculae share a common religion - the Church of Ancestors - which is characterised by a major schism.
Members of the Orthodox Church (majority in the Faculae) worship their ancestors and their spellcasting clerics pray to their ancestors to intercede on their behalf via spells; 'necromancy' to them means 'indirect communion with the dead through symbolic visions or spells'. Ghosts should be laid to rest properly and customarily bestow knowledge in return. The raising of corporeal undead bodies without souls, the forcible compelling of souls, and the direct transition into undeath (i.e. being a lich or vampire) are major taboos and listed in order of seriousness. Paladins occur rarely and spontaneously - they are reincarnated ancestor-souls.
Members of the Schismatic Church (majority in the Maculae) seek more direct guidance and assistance from their ancestors. Their spellcasting clerics summon, manipulate and compel ancestral souls; 'necromancy' to them means the manufacture of suitable vessels for these souls, temporary or otherwise. Naturally occurring undead (hauntings) are an opportunity to extend knowledge via bargaining and bartering with the deceased. To become undead without dying is a high honour and many high-ranking members of the Church are liches or vampires with access to divine spells. The raising of undead is standard military practice - it is a tenet of the Schismatic Church that no living soul should die in battle while the dead have the power to protect them. Ghouls are considered an abomination as well as a practical nuisance. There are no paladins, probably because ancestor souls are coerced/forced/encouraged into reanimation rather than allowed to reincarnate by chance.
Alongside this formalised code of ancestor worship exists the animistic religion of the Druids and Rangers, centred around totem animals (so a given believer will be a Druid of the Raven or a Ranger of the Toad). Belief in reincarnation or afterlife is absent - when you're gone you're gone and the undead are for shooting - hence there is some tension between the Druids/Rangers and Clerics of the Church.
One non-Church culture structures its faith around a series of trinities, male/female/hermaphrodite, durégar/durégie/durévil in their language: the King, the Warrior and the Wizard; the Queen, the Huntress and the Witch; the Outcast, the Wanderer and the Tyrant. The society has rigid caste and gender structures based on its religious operations. The latter trinity is technically a three-in-one, a figure that changes, transgresses the conventions of the society, and will one day return. If I had dwarves in the setting I would play off 'duregar' and have this as their religious perspective.
Another non-Church culture: the Urizenian Heresy, which posits a single tyrannical demiurge overseeing the world from atop the World's End. This figure of supramundane law and order is behind all oppression and restriction and censorship in the world, and is opposed by the primal rebellious chaos-force called Orc. Seldom espoused as a religious belief detached from all others, the Heresy finds adherents from almost every culture and race; everyone who's looking for someone to blame and someone to save them. It's an attractive philosophy and, worryingly, seems to have some basis in truth; some human babies are born with a brutal temperament that delights in chaos and destruction, and a visage that offends the symmetry and proportion beloved of artists and anatomists alike. These half-Orcs are by turns scorned, feared and ridiculed - but they find a home in the Assassin Households, often being adopted into them to keep the bloodlines fresh. It might even be true that the majority of the Assassin Households, even the founders thereof, are half-Orcs - it would certainly explain a lot about the Assassins, of whom more later.
Another non-Church culture are militant atheists and high magi; the Vel. It is said that the Vel killed their gods and stand on the shoulders of their ancestors; their culture is turned not to the past but to a future that their long lives mean they'll live to see. If there is an association between the Vel and the natural environment it's because they, more than most, are going to be around when the chickens come home to roost; they have much more to lose from the ravaging of a forest or the strip-mining of a mountain simply because they'll have to put up with it for longer. They have a connection with the natural world, but unlike druids they refuse to deify it or make up stories about it. (These may or may have not been devised with a particular player in mind.)
Goblins are polytheists whose huge squabbling family of deities includes a petty god for almost everything. Life as a goblin involves an awful lot of genealogy, spiritual and practical, and a certain amount of placation and ritual. Although minor their gods are highly interventionist and meddle in the affairs of their disciples on a constant basis.
There is also the small matter of Externalism. The Host External are extra-dimensional entities (the 'demons' of the setting) with an interest in the acquisition of human souls for purposes unknown; it is believed by their followers that the Host wages a transmundane war against some other power, possibly the Ancestors given the antipathy between their followers. Sorcerers and Assassins are the devotees of the Host External - the intellectual disciples who bargain with the Host for powers outside the hierarchy of conventional spellcasting, and the sacred murderers who commend their victims into the Host's clutches.
Ask me if you want to see the workings-out for any of this. It's easier to present as a fait accompli and model the effects through house rules for race and class.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 5:07:19 GMT -5
Magic and the Pernicious Legacy of Jack VanceA problematic one, this. Players have expressed several issues with the Vancian system - one player (c.ingham) has been particularly eloquent in their denouncing of the mechanic, citing: - "The impossibility of prediction: with most Vancian casting, you have to cherry pick what spells you think will be relevant during any particular session, which can be darn right impossible depending on the DM and number of spells - never mind that a mistaken pick equals a dead spell slot."
- "It makes your caster look like a complete dimwit with a memory that a goldfish would be embarrassed of: even spells that are used often are completely forgotten the next morning. This is unrealistic as academics don't forget details of their knowledge and entire skills overnight - and what are magic users if not academics?
- "The spell slot mechanic itself seems forced and a resource/fatigue based casting mechanism would be more appropriate; the existing system artificially limits how long the caster can be useful for (again, more guessing and a general unwillingness to use an ability because you're anticipating an even worse scenario) and relies on the same goldfish-embarrassment of a memory to prevent them from casting once more."
From within the old-school D&D framework there exist of course counter-arguments. a) is a question of player skill (although I do think that particular spells have greater or lesser worth depending on the DM's priorities and style, and what's abstracted and what isn't, which can lead to integration-based problems for magic-user players not yet used to a given game). b) is based on the supposition that a Magic User's knowledge is limited to their spells, when of course We know that magic users know more languages than everyone else, are better equipped to use and identify items, and can in a given campaign be given a social prestige that makes them a vital component in non-combat play. c) however... well, the argument that waiting until the right moment to use your spells is part of the skill of playing a magic-user, that's relevant here, but I do have sympathy here. A Fighter may Fight and a Thief may Thieve until they drop, a Cleric can at least Turn Undead once out of spells, but at some point a Magic User will no longer be Using Magic and thus not spend much time doing the thing that characterises their class. Part of this is an issue of adventure structure and expectations. I realise that in Vance's works a magician impresses spells on their mind for the duration of an adventure. It therefore follows that the adventures of low-level magic users should not in fact be of the continuous and epic type that demands many castings of spells - or indeed much swinging of swords by their cohorts. Low-level characters should have encounters, not adventures. Many of the 'problems' with Vancian magic are features, not bugs, and detected as problems by people who haven't read Vance and are forcing square pegs into round holes. I have a few ideas for ways to resolve this without removing the Vancian system altogether, which I do conceive of as being essential to the practice of D&D. First option: the Sorcerer as a 'prestige' class, perhaps with the same relationship as Paladin/Ranger to Fighter, Assassin to Thief, Druid to Cleric. The Sorcerer would replace the Illusionist and be derived from McKinney's Carcosa, with psionic powers known replacing spells and increasing in potency by duration or dice per level (think of Khemsa in Conan the Adventurer) and rituals on scrolls. Their power would be derived from sources External and use a lot of d10s (the d10, being not a Platonic Solid nor pleasing to look upon, will ideally be reserved for Assassins, Sorcerers and External entities - I want my players to shiver with anticipation when a handful of them are scooped up). Ergo, players who are disinclined to suck up the Vancian limitations can accept a bargain with the Host and play a Sorcerer. I have a d10 chart written up with which to demonstrate the consequences of taking the easy path. Second option: the restriction of Magic Use to elves, who are... not pure Magic-Users but something else. The idea is that the elf's practical capacity to cast spells is finite but that their insight into magic remains a constant - and the player does not feel disenfranchised because their character is not solely defined as 'Magic User'. Third option: the careful adjustment of expectations. Lowbies have encounters, not adventures. One spell, timed adequately, should be enough to change the course of an encounter. The idea is to avoid the "well, we've had one fight, now we have to stop the adventure for eight hours so the wizard can have a nap" effect. Dungeoneering becomes a mid-level pursuit, and involves the accumulation of magic items which are used by magic users, ergo allowing the class to operate within its named field of expertise past the exhaustion of spell slots per diem. I am also inclined to say that once impressed upon the mind (i.e. brought to the forefront of perception by re-reading, which is an act of revising what's remembered rather than remembering what's forgotten) a spell can be cast repeatedly at a cost in hit points, which is a compromise I'm willing to brook. You have to be smart and think about what's likely to happen and what you might need, but you can keep doing it until you pass out. ADDITIONAL: a demonstration mini-campaign of OSRIC (I ran two of my housemates, one of whom is my most regular player, through Ravenloft using that rules set) revealed a more widespread distaste for Vancian affairs than I had anticipated. With three of my closest friends and allies opposed to Vancianism in some degrees it may be time to revise from the ground up. I am not wedded to Vance in and of himself and I would rather have something that my players want to play than something which is authentic D&D (whatever that means). We need something which has space for the repeated casting of rote spells with fatigue as a cost (C's preferred choice), something which doesn't involve second-guessing the DM and scenario (C and E's choice) and which doesn't baffle the brain with options taking up half the book (R's choice and my eternal concern). I shall also be returning to the source literature in search of exempla and inspiration. I am very fond of how Strange and Norrell manage to counterbalance book learning and improvisation; I think with something else in there to represent intercession of the kind practiced by the Cleric class we should be well on the way. This can sit on the back burner until I have a simple foundation of core mechanics upon which to base it, but I am going to have to deal with it sooner or later...
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 11, 2015 8:13:46 GMT -5
Interesting setting, Von! You've got some original and fresh ideas there to separate it from more generic fantasy settings. I'm looking forward to read more about it!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 11, 2015 13:05:06 GMT -5
Von, so glad you are here and already a prolific poster! Man this is good stuff. Very thought provoking. I love the impressionistic photos. I love the map of Titan. Perhaps that is the name of your campaign world! Not a bad one. (Just saying.) The religion stuff was very interesting. I am okay with a modified Vancian magic. I have MUs have to purchase elements, like 1e, but they are 'abstract," its just 10gp per lvl 1 spell, etc. It is a way to limit and force some use of lower level spells even as MUs lvl up. With elves, I have them "purchase" knowledge of a spell, rather than a scroll or spell book, with XP. So players have to choose to "spend" XP on leveling up, or gaining a new spell. Elves don't have to use gp to cast, but they "expend" 1d6 HP per spell lvl.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 11, 2015 18:12:27 GMT -5
Oh Hell YES! I am very interested in seeing more of this setting. I dig the approach you are taking with this.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 12, 2015 2:47:35 GMT -5
Well, thank you chaps. The code is likely to get on my nerves if I try to quote each of you in turn so I hope you'll forgive this structure: @semi-retired gamer - This is the sum of my top-down thinking on the setting to date and I'm hoping that having that much down in black and white will free up brain cells for the next bit (modifying classes, tinkering with spell lists, and getting a few stylish monsters down for low-level play in one of the Faculae or Maculae). tetramorph - the only issue with 'Titan' is that it's been done by those rascally Fighting Fantasy blokes and I prefer not to invite confusion into my own mind. I'm generally OK with Vancian magic but I accept that it's a tricky pill to swallow for people with stronger feelings about how things 'should' work. Your idea about tracking spell costs as an abstracted expenditure in gold is a good one and if run parallel with gold-as-XP it would create a meaningful tension for the Magic User (although I suspect my players would kvetch and moan that the Fighter doesn't lose gold/XP every time they swing their sword, etc. etc.). I've shown that post to the player in question and they like the cut of option three's jib - spellcasting as revision from the manual rather than forgetting/re-learning, and spells castable at a cost in hit points once memorised. Ironically enough it's very Fighting Fantasy... Necromancer - thanks especially to you. That's the goal - that we have a 'generic' fantasy setting is a great indictment against the genre and its inhabitants and I like to think I'm doing my bit to amend that in some small way.
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 12, 2015 4:42:47 GMT -5
Necromancer - thanks especially to you. That's the goal - that we have a 'generic' fantasy setting is a great indictment against the genre and its inhabitants and I like to think I'm doing my bit to amend that in some small way. Thanks, Von! I certainly see your point. Personally, I think generic material still can be used in a manner that is interesting, depending on how it is applied, tweaked, combined or presented. But a whole setting that is overly generic in all its aspects doesn't strike me as very interesting. I don't think it takes that much, really, to make such a setting more personal and original though. Applying an unusual theme for the campaign, tweaking the features of classic races, messing around with geography and natural phenomena, adjusting the tech level etc. I've tried to move away from more generic territories as well working on my own setting, but I'd find it hard to claim any originality - all I have done is simply change the sources of inspiration a bit! The most original part would be it is my own personal presentation of the combined sources of inspiration. I certainly like what you've done with your setting - reading your post has been most interesting and inspirational. Your personal "Appendix N", the use of the moon of Saturn, your thoughts on religion, the sample pics you've posted - it all adds up to something cool and original, and I will most certainly continue to follow your upcoming posts here!
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 12, 2015 20:30:10 GMT -5
NecromancerI agree that if you do something interesting with your elves or your dwarves or your hobbits, you're not falling into the trap. The trap is feeling that you have to have elves AND dwarves AND hobbits just because they're there and it's not fantasy without them. While I'm familiar with the 'same cards, different order' paradigm of 'originality', I find that a lot of fantasists - dungeon masters, authors, artists, whatever - don't bother to shuffle the cards at all, and they always use the same worn-out deck they've had since they were kids. Careful selection of sources and aspects to include or eliminate is, by comparison, like buying a new deck and giving it a good hard shuffle before you even start dealing. Glad you're enjoying yourself. Thoughts on weapons, a megadungeon and languages are currently percolating - getting this stuff set down on the page has definitely freed up a few brain cells.
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 13, 2015 5:45:09 GMT -5
NecromancerI agree that if you do something interesting with your elves or your dwarves or your hobbits, you're not falling into the trap. The trap is feeling that you have to have elves AND dwarves AND hobbits just because they're there and it's not fantasy without them. While I'm familiar with the 'same cards, different order' paradigm of 'originality', I find that a lot of fantasists - dungeon masters, authors, artists, whatever - don't bother to shuffle the cards at all, and they always use the same worn-out deck they've had since they were kids. Careful selection of sources and aspects to include or eliminate is, by comparison, like buying a new deck and giving it a good hard shuffle before you even start dealing. Glad you're enjoying yourself. Thoughts on weapons, a megadungeon and languages are currently percolating - getting this stuff set down on the page has definitely freed up a few brain cells. This. Spot on, Von. I couldn't have put it better myself. I'll certainly enjoy reading what you'll come up with for that setting of yours!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Feb 13, 2015 16:39:51 GMT -5
Nice Von. We're getting some really good stuff. I can't wait to see how we cross-pollinate.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 15, 2015 15:39:38 GMT -5
I am not a fan of "generic" fantasy settings. But I am a fan of the base, shared, archetypal western legendaria. I am like a kid in that regard. I never find it boring. The interest comes in the new encounters, intrigues and plots that develop with each new interaction of referee and players. But I can run in a game that has all the "tropes," or, as I prefer to call them "archetypes," for ever! That said, I certainly appreciate the variations on theme that imaginative folks bring! Thanks for sharing y'all's, Von and Necromancer.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Feb 15, 2015 21:18:09 GMT -5
I am not a fan of "generic" fantasy settings. But I am a fan of the base, shared, archetypal western legendaria. I am like a kid in that regard. I never find it boring. The interest comes in the new encounters, intrigues and plots that develop with each new interaction of referee and players. This is the utility of "vanilla fantasy". You can use a generic adventure in a small town - and then you can go anywhere with it. That sheltered village of Hommlet might be in Hyboria or in spaaaace. And whenever the players catch a glimmer that things aren't just the plain old fantasy world they thought they knew, it really freaks them out.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 15, 2015 21:25:40 GMT -5
That sheltered village of Hommlet might be in Hyboria or in spaaaace. And whenever the players catch a glimmer that things aren't just the plain old fantasy world they thought they knew, it really freaks them out. Space . . . space . . . space . . . ace . . . ce . . .I can here the echo across time! Awesome, The Red Baron, I love it.
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 17, 2015 4:19:58 GMT -5
I am not a fan of "generic" fantasy settings. But I am a fan of the base, shared, archetypal western legendaria. I am like a kid in that regard. I never find it boring. The interest comes in the new encounters, intrigues and plots that develop with each new interaction of referee and players. But I can run in a game that has all the "tropes," or, as I prefer to call them "archetypes," for ever! That said, I certainly appreciate the variations on theme that imaginative folks bring! Thanks for sharing y'all's, Von and Necromancer. Oh, I too can find those tropes and archetypes enjoyable, tetramorph! One doesn't necessarily rule the other out - and fantasy can (and should) be so many things!
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 24, 2015 0:49:35 GMT -5
A quick note on the process of development before I go any further with this.
This thread is very much for thinking aloud (and in public, so people can butt in and tell me I've made a boo-boo somewhere). Once the skeleton of something has been thrashed out here I'll make the required edits to a Swords and Wizardry .doc so that there's a semi-consistent rulebook available, at least something which plugs into other games and indicates the kind of modifications that should be made. Once THAT'S done I think I'll be ready for a campaign forum in which particular ways of interacting with World-That-Still-Needs-A-Name-That's-Not-Titan are perpetrated upon and reported and particular micro-issues of mechanicry discussed in depth.
Right, now that I have a method... character generation and classes. *cracks knuckles*
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 24, 2015 12:34:01 GMT -5
Great to hear an update, Von. Good luck with your work, I'm looking forward to read more about this setting of yours!
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 24, 2015 13:59:04 GMT -5
Classes and Character GenerationI feel it's necessary to talk about both of these things together. I’m hoping to focus all of my ideas down to the point where they can be expressed implicitly but entirely through the options available to players. It starts with expressing them as the encyclopaedia entries that emerge from my thinking but this exists under the hood and there it will remain. This has the benefit of encouraging me to think about where players can engage with the world through asking questions and making choices rather than wading through required reading, and it’s becoming obvious to me that the place to start is character creation. That is, after all, where players first begin to encounter and explore the world, the first exertion of their agency within it, and so every choice made or random factor incorporated should be significant – both in shaping the player’s character and in illustrating the broader world in which that character is embedded. There is also the key factor of scalability; I want it to be possible for a character to transition fairly seamlessly from grubby underworld tavern trawling in Backsword and Buckler to weird fantasy epics in Lamentations of the Flame Princess to classical dungeoneering in OD&D with a minimum of fuss, and for the journeys of such characters to be apparent. It would be irresponsible of me to base an entire campaign's methods of interaction on the availability of Tony Di Terlizzi's marvellous and efficient character sheets, but there's an element of that in the design too. With all this in mind I think it’s time to essay forth a demonstration. What – if anything – can we tell about the following world from its character options? Assume a baseline of Original D&D in which level 8 clerics and level 9 fighters may establish a domain. Any one of these routes might be the starting point depending on the priorities of a particular game or player. ROLL STATS Three dice, six times, arrange to taste. CHOOSE RACE If all stats are 9 or less, automatically Goblin. Otherwise, choice of Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Half-Orc. CHOOSE CLASS – Humans have the option of Fighter, Cleric or Thief and may not advance beyond level 10. – Elves are Fighter/Wizards. At each level they choose whether to advance as a Fighter or a Wizard and swap experience charts accordingly. They may not level beyond 6 in Fighter or 8 in Wizard (for a total of 14). – Half-Elves exist but effectively choose whether they want to operate as Human or Elf in mechanical terms. Their halfbreed status is dealt with through roleplay. – Half-Orcs have the same character options as Humans but may not advance beyond level 8 in any class except Assassin. – Goblins default to Thief and may not advance beyond level 6. (Goblins also receive further advantages derived from 'Red and Pleasant Land' or even Pathfinder as compensation for their innate rubbishness.) PRESTIGE CLASSES These exist and are earned through a combination of roleplaying and assignation of stats. A Fighter, Cleric or Thief with a 17+ score in Int, Wis or Cha may begin play as or at some point dual-class into Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer or Assassin, assuming that they have displayed an interest in the campaign's conception of these classes and cosmology - these classes are not just a set of mechanical differences. Players whose characters lack that 17+ may approach the Host External and form a bargain – a chart has been prepared for the side-effects of such. Either way – this class change will necessitate a shift in the priorities of play and should not be done lightly.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 24, 2015 18:33:18 GMT -5
Goblin as PC is interesting.
I'm not sure about prestige classes myself. But I would play in your game!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 24, 2015 18:49:22 GMT -5
Goblin as PC is interesting. I'm not sure about prestige classes myself. But I would play in your game! I think it sounds really intriguing and I would like to see it in action.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 25, 2015 1:44:37 GMT -5
I've always liked the idea of classes which have a greater prestige in the world and which represent 1-2% of the world's population, something quite strange. The concept is tainted by association with third edition D&D to a great extent, but consider the early Bard, which could only be achieved through a process of multi/dual classing. Consider also the requirements for prerequisite stats in early editions, implying that some classes are more rare than others. There is a precedent for this sort of thing. I wonder - if I hadn't said 'prestige classes' would it have flown under the radar? I love Goblins. As I think I said before, they're the only thing Pathfinder did 100% right (or as close as you can get when you're starting with Pathfinder, ho hee).
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 25, 2015 4:52:25 GMT -5
You know what, Von? I've found myself returning to this thread several times, reading the new entries and re-reading the older ones. I am, quite frankly, impressed by your creation. As I've mentioned before, it feels fresh and original. The aspect of originality (or rather, the sense thereof) is partially because of your choice of inspirational sources. I'm familiar with some of them, others not, but in either case they differ from the usual suspects (i.e. J.R.R. Tolkien, R.E Howard etc). But those inspirational sources don't make up for the originality alone - it's rather the choice of them and how you have combined them and filtered them through your own mind with its other references and preferences. Basically it comes down to us all here being our own separate individuals - we might share a common interest for RPG's and fantasy, but when we put our creativity to work the end result might turn out very differently. This setting of yours is something that I personally couldn't come up with, and that is part of my fascination for it (much like when I discovered the Carcosa setting). I'm most impressed. Have an Exalt! (Oh, and attributing goblins as "innate rubbishness" put a big smile on my face. I've always loved those critters!)
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 25, 2015 8:23:06 GMT -5
I've always liked the idea of classes which have a greater prestige in the world and which represent 1-2% of the world's population, something quite strange. The concept is tainted by association with third edition D&D to a great extent, but consider the early Bard, which could only be achieved through a process of multi/dual classing. Consider also the requirements for prerequisite stats in early editions, implying that some classes are more rare than others. There is a precedent for this sort of thing. I wonder - if I hadn't said 'prestige classes' would it have flown under the radar? I love Goblins. As I think I said before, they're the only thing Pathfinder did 100% right (or as close as you can get when you're starting with Pathfinder, ho hee). Have an Exalt! yeah I don't like the name "prestige classes" but I am not holding that against you. I understand what you mean. Also the original bard started as a bard and most people say it was over powered. You should take a look if you can.
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 4, 2015 4:02:35 GMT -5
I have quite a lot on my work plate this month and so development work has slowed slightly in favour of regular gaming in other people's worlds and system testing with the in-house group. However, I have had further thoughts on magic and religion and the previous posts have been amended to incorporate these.
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Mar 4, 2015 6:45:51 GMT -5
Great to see an update of this thread, Von, even if it was a minor one. Real life commitments certainly have a tendency to slow things down... Nevertheless, I always enjoy reading about this creation of yours! I'm looking forward to read more when you have the time to elaborate further.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 4, 2015 12:49:46 GMT -5
Great to see an update of this thread, Von, even if it was a minor one. Real life commitments certainly have a tendency to slow things down... Nevertheless, I always enjoy reading about this creation of yours! I'm looking forward to read more when you have the time to elaborate further. I second those thoughts and comments!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 29, 2015 16:21:34 GMT -5
Glad to see you have your own folder now, Von! Looking forward to watching this develop. And I hope to do my part!
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Apr 5, 2015 14:52:09 GMT -5
Blues for the red sun - I like that name, Von. I've been reading your now locked Using the actual moon of Saturn thread, and as usual you present a lot of interesting and thought-provoking stuff. And I think it's great that you finally settled for a name for I Guess You Actually Could Call It Titan!
|
|