This is the first of my two Secret Arneson Exchange Gifts. You can find the second one here.
I was asked for: "I d love for someone to write me some cool horrific scene. Though more the subtle and disturbing horror (think Ringu) than simply gore."
And I thought, cool! I also thought, why just write a scene? Why not give everyone some tips and tricks on how to build tension and scare the shit out of players?
There seem to be several methods of scaring, that I have read about and used throughout my career as a DM. I will try to describe 3 of them. Each will be illustrated with an in-game example, or a scene.
1. Level and Point technique.
This is a very simple and useful technique and is often used in movies. It's based on gradually introducing plot elements that raise the level of fear and tension in players.
One example of such method of building levels of fear would be locking the players in an dark chamber/house/mansion/dungeon. In the middle there is a single burning candle with a letter/note which reads:
"When the candle burns out you're all gonna die".
This is a sort of a fear perpetum mobile. At first the players will feel safe and explore the possibilities open to them, but as the candle gradually burns down their efforts will become more hectic and chaotic.
When the DM decides the level of fear is high enough, he can use the Point Technique by introducing a sudden event that will instantly and unexpectedly bring the fear level to the maximum. Ex (assuming the players are in a chamber):
DM: "Suddenly, the door's open. A gust of wind blows the candle out!... You are now in complete darkness."
Get it?
Here's a more narration based implementation of the Level/Point method.
Layer one (mild, should spread over several hours): The players watch morning news and hear about strange and brutal murders happening in town. Later one of them reads a cover-story in some local newspaper on the same topic. They see flayers about a missing person, etc.
Layer two (more on point, but still vague and long): Players leave a bar where some drunk guy told them a story of a strange wolf that killed his friend many years ago. He seems to have seen it again a year ago in the mountains.
Layer three (short, intense):
DM: " You are walking home and it's cold. You start to miss the warmth and cosines of the bar. Suddenly you, you feel a horrible smell... A smell of something... Animal... Inhuman....
Point (DM plays a cassette with a wolfs' howl): A howl comes from the ally you've just passed!
Please note: once you decide to introduce another layer and turn it up a notch, it's very difficult to keep up the tension. One method I recommend is using a second point. For example: After the players fight the werewolf or whatever it was in the previous illustration, the tension will naturally fall. Let the players feel victorious for a second, make them think it was the end. And than strike. In the above example, after the players defeated the monster, this should follow:
DM: "You are breathing heavily, looking from one to the other. You're alive, you won. it's all over... Suddenly you hear a howl, than another and another joining in... Whatever you killed, it wasn't alone!
2. DM Acting
If you really want to scare your players, it's important to learn to act well. And I don't mean acting out Torgo.
What I understand under the term, is using the words and voice together when narrating. It's not just about what you say, it's about how you say it.
Try to use your voice like an instrument, learn to use it's dynamics to your advantage. Whisper and make the players move closer to hear you and shout when something sudden happens. If you want to make the players feel the pressure speak fast and leave them little time to decide. Finally, use rhetorical questions and play with them.
For example, the players are escaping a horrible monster through some dungeon.
DM (fast): Suddenly the tunnel splits in two, right or left?
P1: Right!
P2: Left?
DM (rising his voice): The grunts behind your are getting louder! You turn back, and you can almost see the beast's shadow around the corner!
P1: Right!
P2: No, Left!
DM (shouting): It's there! It's right around the corner, you can see it's shadow and the outline of it's tentacled head!!!
P1 and P2: RIGHT! WE GO RIGHT!
DM (softly with an ominous smile): Are you sure?..
3. Breaking the 4th wall.
This is the method which is already present in the previous example. But really, this is just an augmentation of the two previous methods, since it doesn't work on it's own.
The point is, to do something unexpected. As you might have noticed, throughout this post I was talking about scaring the players, not their characters. This is because I believe that any true attempt at scaring and building horror, must appeal to the players themselves and not their characters.
Even the most basic type of fear present in RPGs - the fear of dying, is not really role playing the PC's emotions, it's the player's fear losing the character. So why not go further and simply scare the players themselves? That's what breaking the 4th wall is all about.
Here is a real life example from the game of Cthulhu, that I DMed a few year ago.
The players were investigating a strange murder case in the Cracow of the 20's. We played at night, with candles. In game they just broke into some apartment. Inside there was a single candle burning. With a note. As they read the note (exactly as in point 1), I put all the candles in the room out. Except for one.
The atmosphere got really creepy and I started speaking in a hushed voice. The candle flickered as they went through the room looking for clues. When I felt they were about to do something to release the tension, I screamed that the door opened and blew out the last candle.
In the silence that followed, whispering, I started to describe the horrible stench they felt coming into the room. When one of them was about to speak, I suddenly reached across the table and touched his cheek, shouting that something just moved next to him!
It was a rampage, the guy got up throwing the chair back, shouting about how he tries to get out of the room, the other one followed and freaked out when I grabbed his arm.
After that one scene, they had to stop and smoke a couple of cigarettes. We finished the game that night. With all lights on.
___________________________________________
Discalimer: The point and level examples aren't mine. I did use them in game as described, but they are taken from an article written by Michal Marszalik and published in Magia i Miecz, in 2000. It was the main inspiration behind this post.
Showing posts with label mechanics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mechanics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
The Transparency Question
Evaluating my playing style and the way I tend to DM has brought my attention to one topic, that was not covered in my last post.
Let's call it The Question (or Problem) of Transparency.
The issue is quite simple and I'm sure that many of you already suspect what I have in mind. It's the question of how transparent should the gaming system be to the players? In other words: should the GM conceal the game mechanics, or should he expose the game structure and exploit it?
Before I provide some examples, I'd just like to say that I am not concerned with the very old argument of "storytelling games" (like WoD and Cthulhu) vs. "rolling games" (D&D, WFRP). This quarrel has and still is taken too seriously in Poland and to me it is based around stereotypes and completely artificial divisions.
Ah, yes! So what I am concerned with is: how transparent (concealed) should the game mechanics be at a D&D table?
I must say this question came to my head only recently, mostly because of this post and due to some confusion at my own kitchen table.
Sow how do the two models actually differ?
1. An example for the concealed mechanics DMing would look like this:
DM: A troll walks out from the cave, it looks like this and...
Player: I HIT IT WITH MY AXE!
DM: Ok, ok, roll your dice.
P: 18
DM: You score a hit, roll damage.
2. This is how the same situation would look, if the DM decided to expose mechanics:
DM: A troll walks out from the cave, it looks like this and...
P: I HIT IT WITH MY AXE!
DM: He's AC is 17
P: WHAT?! In that case you all see Turg grab his axe and prepare to charge, but after a brief moment of hesitation lowers his weapon and pretends like nothing happened.
I must confess that I used to think that method one is better (perhaps because of my WFRP background, since there are no target numbers and all players roll against their % abilities). It might have been due to being constantly exposed to the more dice means less atmosphere rant?
Whatever the cause might be, I'm starting to think that it's all bull shit and that in fact (as is said in the Year of the Dungeon post linked earlier) the exposed mechanics approach is more fair to the players. Especially to less experienced ones, like mine.
I might describe a monster all day and they will be scared (at least afraid of loosing their PCs), but will still attack it. The exposure of the beasts AC (once the players decide to kill it) doesn't reduce the strength of my description. In fact, if anything, it might force the players to rethink their strategy, or (if the fight is inevitable) make them really fear for their favorite characters.
A good example of using this device to DM's convinience has been posted by Zak in the early days of his blog. Here.
However, I see one case in which the exposed mechanics don't really cut it (at leas for me).
It's the traps!
Somehow, I can't see this conversation taking place:
DM: bla bla bla (describing a trapped floor segment).
Player: I see. I'm trying to block the floor tile with a piece of wood so it can't be pressed... (and so on.). What are my chances of disarming it if I do all that?
DM: about 30 %.
P: Ok. forget it. Guys, we have to find another way.
Yeeeaaah... Not very believable is it? My intuitions are, that with some traps, you've can never be sure whether you disarmed it properly until you try and walk on that fucking rigged floor tile.
I think it forces thief wielding players to role play and describe disarming attempts more thoroughly (in order to get some positive modifiers) And to me, makes playing a thief more thrilling.
Summing up: Exposing is oldschool and good, but let's keep those sappers in uncertainty.
Let's call it The Question (or Problem) of Transparency.
The issue is quite simple and I'm sure that many of you already suspect what I have in mind. It's the question of how transparent should the gaming system be to the players? In other words: should the GM conceal the game mechanics, or should he expose the game structure and exploit it?
Before I provide some examples, I'd just like to say that I am not concerned with the very old argument of "storytelling games" (like WoD and Cthulhu) vs. "rolling games" (D&D, WFRP). This quarrel has and still is taken too seriously in Poland and to me it is based around stereotypes and completely artificial divisions.
Ah, yes! So what I am concerned with is: how transparent (concealed) should the game mechanics be at a D&D table?
I must say this question came to my head only recently, mostly because of this post and due to some confusion at my own kitchen table.
Sow how do the two models actually differ?
1. An example for the concealed mechanics DMing would look like this:
DM: A troll walks out from the cave, it looks like this and...
Player: I HIT IT WITH MY AXE!
DM: Ok, ok, roll your dice.
P: 18
DM: You score a hit, roll damage.
2. This is how the same situation would look, if the DM decided to expose mechanics:
DM: A troll walks out from the cave, it looks like this and...
P: I HIT IT WITH MY AXE!
DM: He's AC is 17
P: WHAT?! In that case you all see Turg grab his axe and prepare to charge, but after a brief moment of hesitation lowers his weapon and pretends like nothing happened.
I must confess that I used to think that method one is better (perhaps because of my WFRP background, since there are no target numbers and all players roll against their % abilities). It might have been due to being constantly exposed to the more dice means less atmosphere rant?
Whatever the cause might be, I'm starting to think that it's all bull shit and that in fact (as is said in the Year of the Dungeon post linked earlier) the exposed mechanics approach is more fair to the players. Especially to less experienced ones, like mine.
I might describe a monster all day and they will be scared (at least afraid of loosing their PCs), but will still attack it. The exposure of the beasts AC (once the players decide to kill it) doesn't reduce the strength of my description. In fact, if anything, it might force the players to rethink their strategy, or (if the fight is inevitable) make them really fear for their favorite characters.
A good example of using this device to DM's convinience has been posted by Zak in the early days of his blog. Here.
However, I see one case in which the exposed mechanics don't really cut it (at leas for me).
It's the traps!
Somehow, I can't see this conversation taking place:
DM: bla bla bla (describing a trapped floor segment).
Player: I see. I'm trying to block the floor tile with a piece of wood so it can't be pressed... (and so on.). What are my chances of disarming it if I do all that?
DM: about 30 %.
P: Ok. forget it. Guys, we have to find another way.
Yeeeaaah... Not very believable is it? My intuitions are, that with some traps, you've can never be sure whether you disarmed it properly until you try and walk on that fucking rigged floor tile.
I think it forces thief wielding players to role play and describe disarming attempts more thoroughly (in order to get some positive modifiers) And to me, makes playing a thief more thrilling.
Summing up: Exposing is oldschool and good, but let's keep those sappers in uncertainty.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Stories instead of Skills
In my last session recap I mentioned using a special table to establish characters pasts. The idea was partially inspired by Warhammer's professions table and partly by reading a similar thing here. However, unlike Akrasia, I decided not to add any specific descriptions and make the whole thing as open to interpretation as possible. The reason for this is very simple, I decided to use character past as a guideline for ruling what skills the PCs posses.
Instead of including another elaborate system of rolling for stuff, I decided that it's way better to just roll once and gain some character depth along with the information about the skills they acquired before becoming adventurers.
For example, in my game there is a cleric of Skaghe who used to be a jester on a court of some northern lord. Not only is this funny, but also grants her some knowledge and abilities other characters don't have.
Perhaps she's able to juggle extremely well, or perhaps when the need comes, she might remember something about the heraldry of northern noble families?
In other words, anytime the player of the jester cleric feels her background can aid her, she can try and play that to her advantage. I might ask for some kind of a story from the characters past (that the player will have to improvise) to justify such use of this rule, or I might just say no.
Finally, here's the aforementioned table:
Character Background Table:
1-2 Slave
3-4 Tax collector
5-6 Acolyte
7-8 Bandit
9-10 Farmer
11-12 Armorer
13-14 Whore
15-16 Circus artist
17-18 Healer
19-20 Squire
21-22 Fisherman
23-24 Gladiator
25-26 Messenger
27-28 Candle maker
29-30 Miner
31-32 Jester
33-34 Bartender
35-36 Medium
37-38 Gravedigger
39-40 Card Shark
41-42 Hunter
43-44 Bounty hunter
45-46 Artisan
47-48 Wagon Driver
49-50 Sailor
51-52 Rat catcher
53-54 Nun
55-56 Potter
57-58 Mercenary
59-60 Thief
61-62 Barbarian
63-64 Noble
65-66 Cultist
67-68 Scribe
69-70 Bodyguard
71-72 Forester
73-74 Servant
75-76 Scout
77-78 Minstrel
79-80 Guard
81-82 Grave robber
83-84 Ferry man
85-86 Tanner
87-88 Blacksmith
89-90 Beggar
91-92 Bastard
93-94 Smuggler
95-96 Torturer
97-98 Wizards apprentice
99-00 Roll twice
Instead of including another elaborate system of rolling for stuff, I decided that it's way better to just roll once and gain some character depth along with the information about the skills they acquired before becoming adventurers.
For example, in my game there is a cleric of Skaghe who used to be a jester on a court of some northern lord. Not only is this funny, but also grants her some knowledge and abilities other characters don't have.
Perhaps she's able to juggle extremely well, or perhaps when the need comes, she might remember something about the heraldry of northern noble families?
In other words, anytime the player of the jester cleric feels her background can aid her, she can try and play that to her advantage. I might ask for some kind of a story from the characters past (that the player will have to improvise) to justify such use of this rule, or I might just say no.
Finally, here's the aforementioned table:
Character Background Table:
1-2 Slave
3-4 Tax collector
5-6 Acolyte
7-8 Bandit
9-10 Farmer
11-12 Armorer
13-14 Whore
15-16 Circus artist
17-18 Healer
19-20 Squire
21-22 Fisherman
23-24 Gladiator
25-26 Messenger
27-28 Candle maker
29-30 Miner
31-32 Jester
33-34 Bartender
35-36 Medium
37-38 Gravedigger
39-40 Card Shark
41-42 Hunter
43-44 Bounty hunter
45-46 Artisan
47-48 Wagon Driver
49-50 Sailor
51-52 Rat catcher
53-54 Nun
55-56 Potter
57-58 Mercenary
59-60 Thief
61-62 Barbarian
63-64 Noble
65-66 Cultist
67-68 Scribe
69-70 Bodyguard
71-72 Forester
73-74 Servant
75-76 Scout
77-78 Minstrel
79-80 Guard
81-82 Grave robber
83-84 Ferry man
85-86 Tanner
87-88 Blacksmith
89-90 Beggar
91-92 Bastard
93-94 Smuggler
95-96 Torturer
97-98 Wizards apprentice
99-00 Roll twice
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Am I a Paladin or a Cultist?
Last week a D30 giveaway was held by Sniderman on his Mutant Future dedicated blog - The Savage Afterworld. Guess what! I won!Now I'm entitled to this:
If you haven't heard about The Order of D30, check this link.
If you haven't heard about The Order of D30, check this link.
Monday, January 11, 2010
I dunno about you, but my great axe deals d10 damage!
It seems like this post has stirred some discussion over the topic of weapon damage in D&D.
Here are some loose thoughts explaining why I like different types of dice for rolling weapon's damage (or why I oppose the idea of all weapons dealing d6 damage).
I believe that different damage dice are useful because, at least in my opinion, D&D has no other way of showing the advantage of wielding one weapon over another (somehow I never cared for weapon speed tables and etc.).
Let us imagine a fight in which one of the warriors is armed with a dagger and the other one with a long sword. The advantage of the second combatant is obvious and that's where different damage dice come handy. It's simple, one of them takes more damage since he's wielding an inferior weapon, which puts him into disadvantage. If they both were wielding daggers, the fight would have been even and they'd just slowly stab each other to death. In the first example, the dagger wielder dies faster because his opponent's weapon allows for better in combat performance, than his own weapon.
Some might say, the example with the sword vs. dagger works good, because it's obvious which one of them is inferior. But what about weapons that are completely different? Like say a sword vs. an axe?
It's true that the sword is a faster and a more useful weapon (in combat, not in every day life!). However in this case, the difference is simply in damage. An axe is a crude weapon that deals a lot of damage. A sword wielder might deliver several lighter slashes, but when the axe armored barbarian lands a blow - he hacks. It's much easier to hack some one's arm off with an axe than with a sword.
So this is my small rationalization of weapon damage. Even though I don't think my interpretation was the original reason for introducing varying weapon damage, it works fine for me.
Most of all it's fun!
I'd rather see those 10 and 8 sided polyhedrons roll as players hack their way through enemies, than count weapon speed and what not.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
How high is your Resistance to absurdity?
Some of you show interest in learning more about Krysztaly Czasu (Time Crystals).
I decided to quench your thirst and provide an overview of the game. Please note, that I tried to translate things as accurately (not literally!) as possible. However, if something seems weirdly formed, it's probably because I tried to keep the spirit (the difficult, pseudo-historical/scientific/poetic language) of the original.
The Setting
The name of the system comes from a myth within the game world. It is believed that somewhere within the game universe powerful objects (or even entities), known as the Time Crystals, exist. They are said to be more powerful than magic, gods, or the world itself (that's pretty fucking powerful, if you ask me). Those who will come into possession of the Time Crystals will have an almost unlimited control over reality.
The origins or the reason for the existence of Time Crystals remain unknown and many, often clashing theories circulate. Some say they are artifacts from a different universe/dimension, others claim they were made in "time before time", or that they are the remains of the first matter known as the Monolith. Finally some believe they are beings secretly plotting and controlling the world...
The world in which the game takes place is known as Orchia. It's inhabited by typical fantasy races: elves, dwarfs, hobbits [because the game was published in the early nineties, when polish law of intellectual property was liquid, Time Crystals often "borrow" from the fantasy classics] reptilians and orcs.
Orchia is probably bigger than Earth, but the game takes place only on a 4th. part of it's surface, where the Lands of 10 Archipelagos are located. There is 9 so called "close" archipelagos and one "scattered" among them... Some of the islands are very small, others are the size of whole countries or subcontinents. Each of the archipelagos is meant to have a different climate and culture.
It is said that long ago all known lands were parts of a huge super-continent, but due to some events, perhaps a divine intervention, it was scattered.
Adventures usually take place on Orchia's Central Archipelago, most ofte
n on it's biggest island - The Great Orcus. It's the homeland of orcs [duh!] and is believed to also be the cradle of all intelligent life.
The game takes place in the time when the orcish empire rules throughout most of the known lands. Though no country can match it's economical and military power, the empire's reign is becoming weaker and it's aristocracy (originally named Uruk'hai) grows more and more decadent.
I don't go into any other details, because there are no interesting ideas concerning culture or the different states. It's the usual, all over the place medieval-fantasy vibe.
Mechanics and Character Creation
The game is based on percentile tests made using a d100.
Each character has 10 primary attributes:
• to illusions
• to psychology (!!!)
• to curses
• to shock (meaning psychological shock)
• to unnatural effects (my personal favorite)
• to diseases
• to exhalations (or reek, in polish it's the same word)
• to temperature
• to electricity
• to polymorphism
As you can see, the authors were not resistant to stupidity.
Apart from those (20!) attributes, there are some additional ones, which are based on two or
more of the above attributes, each with equally fabulous names. Among them are: LifeEnergy,
Magical Potential, Spotting and (the best character attribute ever) Normality.
Of course there are also lists of skills, languages, weapon proficiencies, jobs, special abilities one might be born with, special abilities one might learn, etc...
Finally we come to character classes. They are divided into castes, but characteristically for this systems treatment of language, meaning of the word "caste" is reduced to "group". Of course additionally characters belong to different social classes and shit, but I won't go into it, since
there is nothing useful or amusing to be found.
Class castes:
Warriors Caste: fighter, ranger, guard,barbarian, mercenary
Knights Caste: knight, paladin, black knight
Rouges Caste: thief, assassin, merchant, bard
Priests Caste: priest, druid, astrologer, half-god
Wizards Caste: mage, warlock, illusionist, alchemist
So here you are! Now imagine many, many unofficial or semi-offcial supplements, articels, rules and stuff like that. When the company publishing Magia i Miecz (the magazine in which this game was first published) decided to make a book edition in 1998, no one knew what to take, what to change and what to throw out the window. The end product was very poor (not that there was much to start out with) and literally killed the system.
Now few crazy hermits still uphold the tradition and publish unofficial materials (so called 3 edition) on the internet. They are...
______________________________
art by Jarosław Musiał
I decided to quench your thirst and provide an overview of the game. Please note, that I tried to translate things as accurately (not literally!) as possible. However, if something seems weirdly formed, it's probably because I tried to keep the spirit (the difficult, pseudo-historical/scientific/poetic language) of the original.
The Setting
The name of the system comes from a myth within the game world. It is believed that somewhere within the game universe powerful objects (or even entities), known as the Time Crystals, exist. They are said to be more powerful than magic, gods, or the world itself (that's pretty fucking powerful, if you ask me). Those who will come into possession of the Time Crystals will have an almost unlimited control over reality.
The origins or the reason for the existence of Time Crystals remain unknown and many, often clashing theories circulate. Some say they are artifacts from a different universe/dimension, others claim they were made in "time before time", or that they are the remains of the first matter known as the Monolith. Finally some believe they are beings secretly plotting and controlling the world...
The world in which the game takes place is known as Orchia. It's inhabited by typical fantasy races: elves, dwarfs, hobbits [because the game was published in the early nineties, when polish law of intellectual property was liquid, Time Crystals often "borrow" from the fantasy classics] reptilians and orcs.
Orchia is probably bigger than Earth, but the game takes place only on a 4th. part of it's surface, where the Lands of 10 Archipelagos are located. There is 9 so called "close" archipelagos and one "scattered" among them... Some of the islands are very small, others are the size of whole countries or subcontinents. Each of the archipelagos is meant to have a different climate and culture.
It is said that long ago all known lands were parts of a huge super-continent, but due to some events, perhaps a divine intervention, it was scattered.
Adventures usually take place on Orchia's Central Archipelago, most ofte
n on it's biggest island - The Great Orcus. It's the homeland of orcs [duh!] and is believed to also be the cradle of all intelligent life.The game takes place in the time when the orcish empire rules throughout most of the known lands. Though no country can match it's economical and military power, the empire's reign is becoming weaker and it's aristocracy (originally named Uruk'hai) grows more and more decadent.
I don't go into any other details, because there are no interesting ideas concerning culture or the different states. It's the usual, all over the place medieval-fantasy vibe.
Mechanics and Character Creation
The game is based on percentile tests made using a d100.
Each character has 10 primary attributes:
- Liveliness
- Physical strength
- Dexterity
- Speed
- Intelligence
- Wisdom
- Magical Abilities
- Charisma
- Presence
- Faith
• to illusions
• to psychology (!!!)
• to curses
• to shock (meaning psychological shock)
• to unnatural effects (my personal favorite)
• to diseases
• to exhalations (or reek, in polish it's the same word)
• to temperature
• to electricity
• to polymorphism
As you can see, the authors were not resistant to stupidity.
Apart from those (20!) attributes, there are some additional ones, which are based on two or
more of the above attributes, each with equally fabulous names. Among them are: LifeEnergy,
Magical Potential, Spotting and (the best character attribute ever) Normality.
Of course there are also lists of skills, languages, weapon proficiencies, jobs, special abilities one might be born with, special abilities one might learn, etc...
Finally we come to character classes. They are divided into castes, but characteristically for this systems treatment of language, meaning of the word "caste" is reduced to "group". Of course additionally characters belong to different social classes and shit, but I won't go into it, since
there is nothing useful or amusing to be found.
Class castes:
Warriors Caste: fighter, ranger, guard,barbarian, mercenary
Knights Caste: knight, paladin, black knight
Rouges Caste: thief, assassin, merchant, bard
Priests Caste: priest, druid, astrologer, half-god
Wizards Caste: mage, warlock, illusionist, alchemist
So here you are! Now imagine many, many unofficial or semi-offcial supplements, articels, rules and stuff like that. When the company publishing Magia i Miecz (the magazine in which this game was first published) decided to make a book edition in 1998, no one knew what to take, what to change and what to throw out the window. The end product was very poor (not that there was much to start out with) and literally killed the system.
Now few crazy hermits still uphold the tradition and publish unofficial materials (so called 3 edition) on the internet. They are...
______________________________
art by Jarosław Musiał
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Going Solo, or why the polish gaming community sucks
Happy 2010 everybody!
I felt shitty after the Xmas and decided to take some time off in order not to cramp my style any further...
But now, I'm back! Hopefully with a vengeance!
During my week off, I was thinking about my main problem with this blog - the fact that after almost two months, I'm still not running an old-school DnD game! Why is it so?
The answer is (unluckily) simple: I can't form a gaming group. It's not that I haven't been trying. I think everyone here knows how difficult it is to get a group of nice people (who have lives and problems of their own) together and play but here in Polandland, it seems twice as difficult! At least for me!
The reason for this, is the fact that the gaming culture developed differently than in the west. Let me elaborate...
The hobby arrived in Poland in the second half of the eighties and bloomed in the early nineties. The late beginnings shouldn't be a surprise, only with the fall of so-called communism and the introduction of the free market was it possible for small publishing companies to emerge and game materials be printed and freely imported from the west.
The golden age of Polish gaming could be linked to the appearance of the first gaming magazine called Magia i Miecz (Sword & Sorcery) in 1993. The first issues were devoted solely to publishing the first* Polish RPG game called Krysztaly Czasu (Crystals of Time), which was an extremely rule heavy AD&D clone.
Over the course of time, the magazine became more and more popular, covering more systems and the subjects linked to gaming, fantasy and sf. In 1995 Warhammer Fantasy Role Play was published, becoming a default "entry" system for the next 10 years. Not long after, other popular systems followed - all the World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu, Earthdawn, Cyberpunk 2020 and finally even AD&D (which was in house print circulation for a long time, but was published quite late)...
This is where the going might get weird for all the dungeoneers - D&D never made it into the Polish public consciousness... And what I mean is that, in Poland, when people who have vaguely heard about the hobby want to address the subject, they will usually speak of "playing war hammers" or something like that. Of course, DnD is acknowledged by the gaming community as the ancestor, but is generally looked down upon (along with Warhammer) as simplistic and "not-serious", sometimes even addressed as "primitive"...
To be fair, this has changed a bit since in 2004 the Polish edition of 3.e, followed by the new Warhammer, were published. But that introduced a new generation of gamers, rather than changed the attitude of the "old' ones.
But back to the point!
This short outline is meant to give you some background on why I find it so difficult to explain why oldschool DnD is cool.
Because the tradition of playing DnD does not exist, few people understand what kind of atmosphere I want to invoke! And explaining isn't so easy! Usually when I get to the point of explaining how OSR postulates using rule light game and the flow of the story/adventure over loads of pseudo mimesis, people either look at me like I'm crazy**, or ask why not use "a better rule lite-system like FATE" (which, btw. I like a lot). Not many people see the old school elegance of the DnD rules and fall for their charm. In fact I'm close to explaining it by playing people this vid, which in my opinion really captures the spirit of OSR.
Finally there is a problem of the Polish Cult of Role-playing/acting. Somehow the presumption that good playing is synonymous with good acting is extremely strong. Few people here understand that good acting during the game doesn't stand in opposition to being silly, introducing Tables of What Happens When You Are Drunk and keeping in mind that what you are doing is playing an artificial construct of rules according to which you get Xp for gold just because it's cool.
So yeah, getting people to play is difficult... Especially that I have an adventure laying around for some time now and feel that both I and fishlemons are getting restless!
Maybe I'm just trying to make it too perfect! I really don't know now... Maybe I should run it gonzo-style like Zak does? But for that you still need a set of right people, or at least so it seems to me...
Recently I've even started thinking about running a solo introductory adventure for fishlemons (mainly because of this post). Still, it's gonna be her first time and I'm not sure if that's a good way of introducing her to the hobby, which after all is mainly a social activity.
NOW DISCUSS!!!
*the question of what system was really the first polish language one remains disputable. The first officially published game was entitled Oko Yrrhadesa (Yrrhade's Eye, this is how the 1995 book version looked like), it came out as an article in the 1990 issue of the magazine Fenix. However, there are legends about first drafts of Time Crystals and a home translation of AD&D Player's Handbook circulating as early as 1987.
**somehow "realistic"rules are extremely popular in Poland and the belief that mechanics should describe the game as accurately as possible is quite widespread. On the other hand all the oldschool random tables, which I find entertaining on the meta game level, are discarded as something primitive!
_______________________________________
all art by Jarosław Musiał
I felt shitty after the Xmas and decided to take some time off in order not to cramp my style any further...
But now, I'm back! Hopefully with a vengeance!
During my week off, I was thinking about my main problem with this blog - the fact that after almost two months, I'm still not running an old-school DnD game! Why is it so?
The answer is (unluckily) simple: I can't form a gaming group. It's not that I haven't been trying. I think everyone here knows how difficult it is to get a group of nice people (who have lives and problems of their own) together and play but here in Polandland, it seems twice as difficult! At least for me!
The reason for this, is the fact that the gaming culture developed differently than in the west. Let me elaborate...
The hobby arrived in Poland in the second half of the eighties and bloomed in the early nineties. The late beginnings shouldn't be a surprise, only with the fall of so-called communism and the introduction of the free market was it possible for small publishing companies to emerge and game materials be printed and freely imported from the west.
The golden age of Polish gaming could be linked to the appearance of the first gaming magazine called Magia i Miecz (Sword & Sorcery) in 1993. The first issues were devoted solely to publishing the first* Polish RPG game called Krysztaly Czasu (Crystals of Time), which was an extremely rule heavy AD&D clone.
Over the course of time, the magazine became more and more popular, covering more systems and the subjects linked to gaming, fantasy and sf. In 1995 Warhammer Fantasy Role Play was published, becoming a default "entry" system for the next 10 years. Not long after, other popular systems followed - all the World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu, Earthdawn, Cyberpunk 2020 and finally even AD&D (which was in house print circulation for a long time, but was published quite late)...
This is where the going might get weird for all the dungeoneers - D&D never made it into the Polish public consciousness... And what I mean is that, in Poland, when people who have vaguely heard about the hobby want to address the subject, they will usually speak of "playing war hammers" or something like that. Of course, DnD is acknowledged by the gaming community as the ancestor, but is generally looked down upon (along with Warhammer) as simplistic and "not-serious", sometimes even addressed as "primitive"...
To be fair, this has changed a bit since in 2004 the Polish edition of 3.e, followed by the new Warhammer, were published. But that introduced a new generation of gamers, rather than changed the attitude of the "old' ones.
But back to the point!
This short outline is meant to give you some background on why I find it so difficult to explain why oldschool DnD is cool.
Because the tradition of playing DnD does not exist, few people understand what kind of atmosphere I want to invoke! And explaining isn't so easy! Usually when I get to the point of explaining how OSR postulates using rule light game and the flow of the story/adventure over loads of pseudo mimesis, people either look at me like I'm crazy**, or ask why not use "a better rule lite-system like FATE" (which, btw. I like a lot). Not many people see the old school elegance of the DnD rules and fall for their charm. In fact I'm close to explaining it by playing people this vid, which in my opinion really captures the spirit of OSR.
Finally there is a problem of the Polish Cult of Role-playing/acting. Somehow the presumption that good playing is synonymous with good acting is extremely strong. Few people here understand that good acting during the game doesn't stand in opposition to being silly, introducing Tables of What Happens When You Are Drunk and keeping in mind that what you are doing is playing an artificial construct of rules according to which you get Xp for gold just because it's cool.
So yeah, getting people to play is difficult... Especially that I have an adventure laying around for some time now and feel that both I and fishlemons are getting restless!
Maybe I'm just trying to make it too perfect! I really don't know now... Maybe I should run it gonzo-style like Zak does? But for that you still need a set of right people, or at least so it seems to me...
Recently I've even started thinking about running a solo introductory adventure for fishlemons (mainly because of this post). Still, it's gonna be her first time and I'm not sure if that's a good way of introducing her to the hobby, which after all is mainly a social activity.
NOW DISCUSS!!!
*the question of what system was really the first polish language one remains disputable. The first officially published game was entitled Oko Yrrhadesa (Yrrhade's Eye, this is how the 1995 book version looked like), it came out as an article in the 1990 issue of the magazine Fenix. However, there are legends about first drafts of Time Crystals and a home translation of AD&D Player's Handbook circulating as early as 1987.
**somehow "realistic"rules are extremely popular in Poland and the belief that mechanics should describe the game as accurately as possible is quite widespread. On the other hand all the oldschool random tables, which I find entertaining on the meta game level, are discarded as something primitive!
_______________________________________
all art by Jarosław Musiał
Monday, December 14, 2009
Saves, not "safes"!!!
This is probably the last post on modifying S&W saving throws (here is the first and second entry on the subject).
Below is my proposition of two new save progressions. On the side there is the % chance of succeeding depending on the bonus from the ability linked to the save.
Save progression #1
Save progression #2
So as you see, the base save values are now a bit lower compared to the original ones, but thanks to the addition of the ability modifiers there is more variety.
The idea is to give each class one save throw based on progression #1 and two based on progression #2.
Let us see how it would look in the case of a level 2 cleric, with stats:
16 WIS (+2 mod)
11 DEX (no mod)
13 CON (+1 mod)
His "main" saving throw is Will:
Fortitude Save: 16 (+1 on the roll from CON)
Reflex Save: 16
Will Save: 15 (+2 on the roll from WIS)
He's chances for a successful saving throw would be: Fort: 30%, Ref: 25%, Will: 40%.
Additionally the original rules state that the cleric class has a special +2 bonus on saving throws against poison and paralyze (which would here belong to Fort save).
If you compare the saving throws of that 2 level cleric with the original save table for clerics, you will see, that altho his "secondary" saves are lower than they would be according to the original rules, his "primary" one is much higher.
The bottom line is , that even though I'm not completely convinced by my save house rules, they do seem to bring a bit more variety into the game. I'll try to go with them for now...
If you see a good reason why this post sucks, please inform me. I will greatly appreciate any input!
Below is my proposition of two new save progressions. On the side there is the % chance of succeeding depending on the bonus from the ability linked to the save.
Save progression #1
| Level | Save | Chance, no mod | Chance + 1 | Chance +2 |
| 1 | 16 | 25% | 30% | 35% |
| 2 | 15 | 30% | 35% | 40% |
| 3 | 14 | 35% | 40% | 45% |
| 4 | 13 | 40% | 45% | 50% |
| 5 | 12 | 45% | 50% | 55% |
| 6 | 11 | 50% | 55% | 60% |
| 7 | 10 | 55% | 60% | 65% |
| 8 | 9 | 60% | 65% | 70% |
| 9 | 8 | 65% | 70% | 75% |
| 10 | 7 | 70% | 75% | 80% |
| 11+ | 6 | 75% | 80% | 85% |
Save progression #2
| Level | Save | Chance, no mod | Chance + 1 | Chance +2 |
| 1 | 17 | 20% | 25% | 30% |
| 2 | 16 | 25% | 30% | 35% |
| 3 | 15 | 30% | 35% | 40% |
| 4 | 14 | 35% | 40% | 45% |
| 5 | 13 | 40% | 45% | 50% |
| 6 | 12 | 45% | 50% | 55% |
| 7 | 11 | 50% | 55% | 60% |
| 8 | 10 | 55% | 60% | 65% |
| 9 | 9 | 60% | 65% | 70% |
| 10 | 8 | 65% | 70% | 75% |
| 11+ | 7 | 70% | 75% | 80% |
So as you see, the base save values are now a bit lower compared to the original ones, but thanks to the addition of the ability modifiers there is more variety.
The idea is to give each class one save throw based on progression #1 and two based on progression #2.
Let us see how it would look in the case of a level 2 cleric, with stats:
16 WIS (+2 mod)
11 DEX (no mod)
13 CON (+1 mod)
His "main" saving throw is Will:
Fortitude Save: 16 (+1 on the roll from CON)
Reflex Save: 16
Will Save: 15 (+2 on the roll from WIS)
He's chances for a successful saving throw would be: Fort: 30%, Ref: 25%, Will: 40%.
Additionally the original rules state that the cleric class has a special +2 bonus on saving throws against poison and paralyze (which would here belong to Fort save).
If you compare the saving throws of that 2 level cleric with the original save table for clerics, you will see, that altho his "secondary" saves are lower than they would be according to the original rules, his "primary" one is much higher.
The bottom line is , that even though I'm not completely convinced by my save house rules, they do seem to bring a bit more variety into the game. I'll try to go with them for now...
If you see a good reason why this post sucks, please inform me. I will greatly appreciate any input!
Roll against html tabels! or How I spent the weekend
Disclaimer: today's post contains a lot of numbers and math, even some %. Read on your own responsibility or skip to the end.
I will continue my musings on the problem of saving throws in S&W. I've decided to at least try to transform the single saving throw into a triple saving throw system like in 3.x e.
But first let's look at the original saving throw of S&W. There are two advancement tables, the first one is used by fighters and dwarfs, the second - clerics and magic users:
In order to be saved from doom you have to roll a d20 and get a number even to, or higher than the save score. It means that at first level the chances of successful save check are respectively 35% and 30 %. On level 11, the chances are: 85% and 80%.
Now. What I want to do:
divide it in to three save categories called Endurance, Reflex and Will,
each based on an advancement table similar to the above, but additionally modified by the abilities - Con, Dex and Wis respectively.
Yes, so basically it was already done in 3 e. I know. Move on.
So, let's suppose that I count ability modifiers like this:
And let's suppose that I use the S&W save progression #2 for Will saves of a character whose Wis is 18. Here's how that character's chances of making a successful save would look like:
Ok. I wrote that shit down, because I'm a mathematical retard and this whole table clears things up.
As we can see, my idea is overpowering the players (duh) significantly. And as much as I like to awesome up players, making them invincible is a short path to boredom.
All this boring stuff leads us to one conclusion: in order to make this thing work, I to make need new save advancement tables...
The real question behind this conclusion is, is there any point?
Ok that was really boring!!!!!!!
This anecdote comes from fishlemons blog ( the other one):
" (...) so we ended up going to this lame party where some of our amusing friends were. yay. we smoked the joint walking up to the main door of the building and rang the door-communication-bell-thing, i take a drag as someone answers and squidman suddenly jumps up to it and says
- "Police!"
-*silence* *click*
i stare at him and he rings again quickly
-"no! its just me! Chri-!"
-*Click*
we look at each other, shrug and i give our friend who is at this party a call to tell her to let us in. (its freezing cold out there) This entire exchange has taken less than a minute... at the inner door we are met by some guy, who might have been the host or not, whatever. and only then does he realize that it really is only us. We walk into the middle of an eerily quiet party, because people are apparently HIDING. people managed to flush a substantial amount of weed down the toilet in that tiny amount of time.
god people are stupid.
turns out the entire party is a total of about 12 people, all but 4 of which are playing poker. with poker chips and a green felt table thingy and for money. .... seriously?
we found our friends (the 4 people not playing poker) in a room deeper in the apartment that was full of instruments like Mongolian violins, miniature banjos, lots of African drum things and guitars. Adam is cradling the banjo and plucking randomly to the beat of whatever strange electronic music is coming from the computer speakers.
there were some amusing moments when we lost 2 of our group to poker and just 4 of us played silly songs from J's ipod and we danced like strange, retarded, stoned and tipsy prehistoric birds. or something. (...)"
I will continue my musings on the problem of saving throws in S&W. I've decided to at least try to transform the single saving throw into a triple saving throw system like in 3.x e.
But first let's look at the original saving throw of S&W. There are two advancement tables, the first one is used by fighters and dwarfs, the second - clerics and magic users:
| Level | Save#1 | Save#2 |
| 1 | 14 | 15 |
| 2 | 13 | 14 |
| 3 | 12 | 13 |
| 4 | 11 | 12 |
| 5 | 10 | 11 |
| 6 | 9 | 10 |
| 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 8 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 6 | 7 |
| 10 | 5 | 6 |
| 11+ | 4 | 5 |
In order to be saved from doom you have to roll a d20 and get a number even to, or higher than the save score. It means that at first level the chances of successful save check are respectively 35% and 30 %. On level 11, the chances are: 85% and 80%.
Now. What I want to do:
divide it in to three save categories called Endurance, Reflex and Will,
each based on an advancement table similar to the above, but additionally modified by the abilities - Con, Dex and Wis respectively.
Yes, so basically it was already done in 3 e. I know. Move on.
So, let's suppose that I count ability modifiers like this:
| 3-4 | -2 |
| 5-8 | -1 |
| 9-12 | 0 |
| 13-15 | +1 |
| 16-18 | +2 |
And let's suppose that I use the S&W save progression #2 for Will saves of a character whose Wis is 18. Here's how that character's chances of making a successful save would look like:
| Level | Old Chance | New Chance |
| 1 | 30% | 40% |
| 2 | 35% | 45% |
| 3 | 40% | 50% |
| 4 | 45% | 55% |
| 5 | 50% | 60% |
| 6 | 55% | 65% |
| 7 | 60% | 70% |
| 8 | 65% | 75% |
| 9 | 70% | 80% |
| 10 | 75% | 85% |
| 11+ | 80% | 90% |
Ok. I wrote that shit down, because I'm a mathematical retard and this whole table clears things up.
As we can see, my idea is overpowering the players (duh) significantly. And as much as I like to awesome up players, making them invincible is a short path to boredom.
All this boring stuff leads us to one conclusion: in order to make this thing work, I to make need new save advancement tables...
The real question behind this conclusion is, is there any point?
Ok that was really boring!!!!!!!
This anecdote comes from fishlemons blog ( the other one):
" (...) so we ended up going to this lame party where some of our amusing friends were. yay. we smoked the joint walking up to the main door of the building and rang the door-communication-bell-thing, i take a drag as someone answers and squidman suddenly jumps up to it and says
- "Police!"
-*silence* *click*
i stare at him and he rings again quickly
-"no! its just me! Chri-!"
-*Click*
we look at each other, shrug and i give our friend who is at this party a call to tell her to let us in. (its freezing cold out there) This entire exchange has taken less than a minute... at the inner door we are met by some guy, who might have been the host or not, whatever. and only then does he realize that it really is only us. We walk into the middle of an eerily quiet party, because people are apparently HIDING. people managed to flush a substantial amount of weed down the toilet in that tiny amount of time.
god people are stupid.
turns out the entire party is a total of about 12 people, all but 4 of which are playing poker. with poker chips and a green felt table thingy and for money. .... seriously?
we found our friends (the 4 people not playing poker) in a room deeper in the apartment that was full of instruments like Mongolian violins, miniature banjos, lots of African drum things and guitars. Adam is cradling the banjo and plucking randomly to the beat of whatever strange electronic music is coming from the computer speakers.
there were some amusing moments when we lost 2 of our group to poker and just 4 of us played silly songs from J's ipod and we danced like strange, retarded, stoned and tipsy prehistoric birds. or something. (...)"
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Roll your save against the poisonous darts shooting from the holes in the wall!
So now I'm a bit stuck with the process of creating my pantheon...
The reasons are two fold:
1. Now that I have defined some of the gods, my field of movement got narrower. I still have vacancies like: The Death Diety or The God of Magic, but can't rush things since those are important aspects of the world and the way I handle the gods responsible for them will influence to feeling of the whole setting.
While employing some ideas to fill out those empty spaces, I need to put them into connection with the existing gods. How do the religions interact, what are the relations between the deities in the mythology?
2. I had a shitty day and writing comes as a kind of struggle.
All this is not bad though, since it allows me to write about some rules, a thing I was ment to do for some time now.
Saving Throws
To me it seems that there are three approaches to the problem of how to handle saving throws:
The first solution is most in touch with the flavor of the OD&D, yet strikes me as the least intuitive one, as well as being a bit rules heavy. I never understood why death rays and poison should fall into the same category, why staffs and wands should be two separate ones and what is the resistance to petrification dependent on?
The last solution is mechanically the polar opposite of the first one, yet it's equally in tune with the spirit of OSR and possesses some aesthetic allure. Still, I can't get completely convinced.
Perhaps, my uneasiness comes from the fact that I actually liked the 3e. saves. I think the division between the three categories is very clear, functional and most of all - logical. You avoid a fireball by dodging it, you are protected from poison by your body's endurance.
All that thinking that I've done, has led me to rethinking the single saving throw used by the S&W core rules. I think I'm gonna change it into 3 categories just like in 3.x e. D&D.
Still, I'm not exactly sure how to do it as I think there are two ways to introduce the triple saving throw mechanics to S&W:
1. Keep the original saving throw as a base value modified by an appropriate ability modifier like this:
END: Save + Con
REF: Save + Dex
WIL: Save + Wis
(of course the modifier is added to the d20 roll for save, not the save value itself)
2. Make a new save table for each class...
Now I'm really keen on the idea of keeping the original saves and just moding them with ability modifiers. Still I'm not sure, if it will work properly? Will it overpower the players?
And what about PCs with negative ability modifiers?
And finally, maybe I'm just a little bitch and should keep things as they are in the book?
The reasons are two fold:
1. Now that I have defined some of the gods, my field of movement got narrower. I still have vacancies like: The Death Diety or The God of Magic, but can't rush things since those are important aspects of the world and the way I handle the gods responsible for them will influence to feeling of the whole setting.
While employing some ideas to fill out those empty spaces, I need to put them into connection with the existing gods. How do the religions interact, what are the relations between the deities in the mythology?
2. I had a shitty day and writing comes as a kind of struggle.
All this is not bad though, since it allows me to write about some rules, a thing I was ment to do for some time now.
Saving Throws
To me it seems that there are three approaches to the problem of how to handle saving throws:
- The pre 3e. approach, which has been well analyzed by Jeff Rients on his blog.
- The 3.x e. approach, which employs three saving throws: Endurance, Reflex and Willpower, all are class and level dependent. Additionally each is modified by an Attribute, namely: Constitution, Dexterity and Wisdom.
- The Swords & Wizardry approach, here each class has one universal saving throw.
The first solution is most in touch with the flavor of the OD&D, yet strikes me as the least intuitive one, as well as being a bit rules heavy. I never understood why death rays and poison should fall into the same category, why staffs and wands should be two separate ones and what is the resistance to petrification dependent on?
The last solution is mechanically the polar opposite of the first one, yet it's equally in tune with the spirit of OSR and possesses some aesthetic allure. Still, I can't get completely convinced.
Perhaps, my uneasiness comes from the fact that I actually liked the 3e. saves. I think the division between the three categories is very clear, functional and most of all - logical. You avoid a fireball by dodging it, you are protected from poison by your body's endurance.
All that thinking that I've done, has led me to rethinking the single saving throw used by the S&W core rules. I think I'm gonna change it into 3 categories just like in 3.x e. D&D.
Still, I'm not exactly sure how to do it as I think there are two ways to introduce the triple saving throw mechanics to S&W:
1. Keep the original saving throw as a base value modified by an appropriate ability modifier like this:
END: Save + Con
REF: Save + Dex
WIL: Save + Wis
(of course the modifier is added to the d20 roll for save, not the save value itself)
2. Make a new save table for each class...
Now I'm really keen on the idea of keeping the original saves and just moding them with ability modifiers. Still I'm not sure, if it will work properly? Will it overpower the players?
And what about PCs with negative ability modifiers?
And finally, maybe I'm just a little bitch and should keep things as they are in the book?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Religion, magic and rules in D&D
I've got the race
thing out of my way! Yay! Now I'll move on to the next stage - religion.
I think there are two general ways most fantasy settings handle religion:
1. Gods are almighty beings that walk the earth, influence the course of history and can reevaluate the fundamentals of the world.
2. Gods don't influence the setting directly and even though other supernatural creatures do exist, the existence of gods is often disputed.
Forgotten Realms and Dragon Lance would represent the first category, while Conan stories would belong to the second one.
As I've said before, I'm not interested in "high fantasy(whatever that means)- we are saving the world cause we were chosen by gods" adventures. That's why I'm obviously leaning towards the second category. However this solution isn't completely compatible with the D&D class and magic rules. Let me elaborate.
I think most of you will agree that in the actual world (the one we physically live in) there is no such thing as magic, or to phrase it more precisely, the existence of such a force is highly questionable. The most obvious difference between our actual world and the fictional world of my game is the fact that in the latter one the existence of magic is undeniable. In our world the existence of magicians, wizards or sorcerers can be disputed unlike in my game world.
This leads us to the problem of D&D mechanics concerning the cleric class. According to the rules of D&D clerics are not only magic users but also their magic comes directly from the gods and thus is different from the "other", arcane magic.
The thing is, in our actual world religion is based on faith, not on empirical evidence. In the fantasy world governed by the rules of D&D it's the opposite case. Clerics can summon up staffs and hammers made of pure energy, heal broken bones by touch and bring people back from the dead. In the world following from the rules of D&D there can be no dispute over the existence of gods, since the clerics and their deeds give a living proof of their existence.
So it seems that the D&D rules are in serious inconsistency with my idea, of how I'd like my game to look. However the solution to this problem is very simple. Abandon the divine magic. By that I don't mean abandon the cleric class.
Since I assume magic simply is the undercurrent of my game world's reality, it seems quite useless to divide it into two "kinds" or "categories". This solution seems simply inelegant and aesthetically crude. It seems much simpler to say that there is one magic, but two different ways of learning and using it.
Wizards (magic user class) are learning magic intellectually, through studying books, learning formulas, discussing concepts and theories. I see them looking a bit like the first greek philosophers or first physicists, trying to describe the world and rules that govern it.
Whereas Clerics undergo a more mystical training, pass through religious rites and learn to use magic with the strength of faith rather than pure knowledge. They also use formulas, but see them as prayers rather than magic theorems.
Cool. So i have rules out of my way.
The other thing I find very important in making my world seem more pulpy fantasy is establishing the fact that gods don't have direct, obvious impact on the game's realia.
By that I mean, that clerics and religious organizations have impact on the game, however the gods won't ever step in and interact with the game world or worse - the PC's themselves. This seems to be an important premise in Howard's stories and I think I should keep it.
In the upcoming posts I will discuss my world's spiritual and religious background in more detail. Until then!
thing out of my way! Yay! Now I'll move on to the next stage - religion.I think there are two general ways most fantasy settings handle religion:
1. Gods are almighty beings that walk the earth, influence the course of history and can reevaluate the fundamentals of the world.
2. Gods don't influence the setting directly and even though other supernatural creatures do exist, the existence of gods is often disputed.
Forgotten Realms and Dragon Lance would represent the first category, while Conan stories would belong to the second one.
As I've said before, I'm not interested in "high fantasy(whatever that means)- we are saving the world cause we were chosen by gods" adventures. That's why I'm obviously leaning towards the second category. However this solution isn't completely compatible with the D&D class and magic rules. Let me elaborate.
I think most of you will agree that in the actual world (the one we physically live in) there is no such thing as magic, or to phrase it more precisely, the existence of such a force is highly questionable. The most obvious difference between our actual world and the fictional world of my game is the fact that in the latter one the existence of magic is undeniable. In our world the existence of magicians, wizards or sorcerers can be disputed unlike in my game world.
This leads us to the problem of D&D mechanics concerning the cleric class. According to the rules of D&D clerics are not only magic users but also their magic comes directly from the gods and thus is different from the "other", arcane magic.
The thing is, in our actual world religion is based on faith, not on empirical evidence. In the fantasy world governed by the rules of D&D it's the opposite case. Clerics can summon up staffs and hammers made of pure energy, heal broken bones by touch and bring people back from the dead. In the world following from the rules of D&D there can be no dispute over the existence of gods, since the clerics and their deeds give a living proof of their existence.
So it seems that the D&D rules are in serious inconsistency with my idea, of how I'd like my game to look. However the solution to this problem is very simple. Abandon the divine magic. By that I don't mean abandon the cleric class.
Since I assume magic simply is the undercurrent of my game world's reality, it seems quite useless to divide it into two "kinds" or "categories". This solution seems simply inelegant and aesthetically crude. It seems much simpler to say that there is one magic, but two different ways of learning and using it.
Wizards (magic user class) are learning magic intellectually, through studying books, learning formulas, discussing concepts and theories. I see them looking a bit like the first greek philosophers or first physicists, trying to describe the world and rules that govern it.
Whereas Clerics undergo a more mystical training, pass through religious rites and learn to use magic with the strength of faith rather than pure knowledge. They also use formulas, but see them as prayers rather than magic theorems.
Cool. So i have rules out of my way.
The other thing I find very important in making my world seem more pulpy fantasy is establishing the fact that gods don't have direct, obvious impact on the game's realia.
By that I mean, that clerics and religious organizations have impact on the game, however the gods won't ever step in and interact with the game world or worse - the PC's themselves. This seems to be an important premise in Howard's stories and I think I should keep it.
In the upcoming posts I will discuss my world's spiritual and religious background in more detail. Until then!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Those strange Elves
As you might know from my previous posts, I've assumed that in my development of a D&D setting, the themes of the setting itself will help me choose the rules I want to use. It seems that I was wrong. Since I last decided I'm leaning heavily towards OD&D, I've been doing some thinking about the race-as-a-class rule.
When I first came into possession of several D&D retro clones, the race-as-a-class idea was bothering me. I was always aware that it existed in the original game, but I guess just because I was used to not treating races as classes, the idea seemed simply unattractive and limiting.
Some time later, as I was reading some Grognardia, I found this article in which the author states:
"Aside from mechanical simplicity, what I really like about race-as-class, at least in the case of elves, is that it helps emphasize their differences from humanity."It is a point I totally agree with. This and an other very good post from the same blog got me on the track of thinking how to differentiate demi-humans from other races.
Today I came up with the solution. It's not a revolutionary one (at least for me, I can imagine there are people that would behead me for what I'm about to say), as I've first encountered it in the 2ed. of WFRP, where the only elven deity is a hermaphrodite. There, I've said it. My elves are hermaphrodites.
The true source of the idea is one of my all time favorites "Left Hand OF Darkness" by Ursula K. Le Guin. One of the themes investigated in the novel is the problem of how sexuality and gender influence culture and political life. One of many strengths of the book is a very interesting depiction of the hermaphroditic race. Here's a quote from wikipedia:
"The inhabitants of Gethen are sequentially hermaphroditic humans; for twenty-four days of each twenty-six day lunar cycle they are sexually latent androgynes, and for the remaining two days (kemmer) are male or female, as determined by pheromonal negotiation with an interested sexual partner. Thus each individual can both sire and bear children. It is hypothesised by the first representatives of the Ekumen to explore Gethen that their unique physiology arose from a genetic-modification experiment."
I think the idea to apply this description to elven race is a very good one, especially that I've already found a way in which it might serve my "prime" setting assumptions. Namely, the experiment mentioned in the above quote, will be performed on the race by itself. I can easily see my image of eternal elves conquering the world, just to decide that it's not enough for them and since they are already immortal, they will try to ascend into godhood. However the experiment went wrong in the end also depriving the race of it's close to immortal status.
So there. I know it might be too much for some of you. And I don't blame you. This solution brings many problems into my setting, but I always liked to put "difficult topics" into my games...
Oh. Btw. I'm still not decided about race-as-class!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Little misunderstanding
I thought some time will pass, before I can say anything constructive about mechanics and yet, here I am.
The reason for this post is my latest blog discovery, which addressed many game-play/mechanics issues I was troubled with.
The set of custom house-rules presented is simple and well constructed, augmenting the basic Sword & Wizardry, which to my taste, seemed a bit too bare and (dare I say)too primitive(in the best OD&D sense).
Even though I don't agree with all the custom house rules presented in that package, it made me realize that my previous statement about mechanics was too hasty.
So to be clear: (for anyone reading this blog and for myself) I am much closer to adopting old-school rules than I thought. As I am an opponent of feats and list based skills, my D&D might actually be much closer to OD&D than I previously supposed.
That's All Folks!
The reason for this post is my latest blog discovery, which addressed many game-play/mechanics issues I was troubled with.
The set of custom house-rules presented is simple and well constructed, augmenting the basic Sword & Wizardry, which to my taste, seemed a bit too bare and (dare I say)too primitive(in the best OD&D sense).
Even though I don't agree with all the custom house rules presented in that package, it made me realize that my previous statement about mechanics was too hasty.
So to be clear: (for anyone reading this blog and for myself) I am much closer to adopting old-school rules than I thought. As I am an opponent of feats and list based skills, my D&D might actually be much closer to OD&D than I previously supposed.
That's All Folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)