Earlier today I had this idea. It just sort of came to me today and so I would like to nail it down a bit and suss out the edges. If you want to understand the basics of what I am trying to create you should check out the following posts:
1. The Initial idea
2. Some Further Extrapolation
3. A short breakdown on many core ideas of the setting
4. A further explanation of how magic works in the world
5. A breakdown of the magical skills, I am going to stick with this list for now
There is a lot more to all of this, but those four posts should get you in the ball park if you are completely unfamiliar with this particular project. It has been a while since I last dug into this setting and so I think I am coming at this with the weight of experience on my side. We will see.
Setting Creation & The Node Map
What are the basic setting Premises?
Look outside your window. That is the world. That is the world as we know it and as it has always been, this cycle at least. You see the past can be changed, the present can be changed, and the future can be changed. Everything is malleable, and yet certain things remain constant, even in this solipsistic mess. No matter how hard they try even the most power magus cannot deny the whole of reality. So while the details may change, their are certain things that remain from cycle to cycle.
Terra Mundus - physical realm, the realm of cause and effect. This is the physical stuff of the world, whatever form it may take. This is the realm that seems of prime importance and a great deal of effort is made to control the Physical Nodes of the world. Currently the Rationalists hold a majority of nodes in the world. This doesn't just encompass the earth, but all the celestial spheres and the whole of the observable cosmos as well. Most of the conflicts revolve around the earth as that is where the most people are, so who can say what is out beyond the known?
The Other World - The spirit realm, a place of gods and ghosts, of abstract ideas given personas and form. It often mirrors Terra Mundus in shape, though the further in you go the stranger it becomes. It is home to many echoes of bygone cycles as well as refugees who lost the various wars of the Magi seeking to gather influence and power in order to take back what is theirs.
The Dreamlands - Realm of the mind and imagination. Everything here is eerily familiar and yet disturbingly alien. The connections between things here is very difficult to follow rationally and all things are connected by only the slimmest of strands. While this is the least concrete of the realms of existence, it is the hardest to change on any meaningful level for any length of time. Beware the Flamingos. For they know the weigh.
Pocket Realms - These are areas segregated from the other three(though connected to them) where the rules work differently than the prevailing paradigm. These are often created by powerful Magi or gods and can be of some danger for the unprepared.
What Are Nodes?
They are places. They are also ideas, concepts, ideal, and spiritual realities. they are fundamental building blocks of reality. They are a city block, and that dream where you go to school naked, and they are Camelot, and green beans. Basically they are Important Things. Things that people believe in. They give the world stability. They are important in their normalcy. So Magi are connected to nodes, yes. However what separates them from the Shadows is their disconnect from their nodes. They see the illusion for what it is.
A node can look like anything, or nothing. It is a notional fixed point in fluid reality. In that it is hard to describe. The important locations in a city could be nodes. As could archetypes within the collective unconscious. Or it could be a pocket dimension, or a series of alternate time lines. wherever there are enough people believing in an idea or enough energy flowing through an area, there will be a node. Nodes are connected to each other, unless they have been cut off through artificial means. The more you control the more control of reality you have, but unless you are in the zone it grants no additional power.
As you can plainly see, I am still less than fully clear on a proper definition of nodes, so if you have any thoughts please let me know in the comments below.
Mapping Nodes
node mapping as the first step of world building/character creation. To do it you will need a big sheet of paper, or a white board, or something where everyone can see and work on it together. Assign at least one node to each player to create. I would like to do nodes a bit like cluster creation in Diaspora. That does mean that I will need to come up with some tables for creating the basics of magical paradigms and the like. I am still noodling around with this, so it is very rough and unfinished, but it needs to be mentioned at the least so that I have it in mind for the rest of the post.
Stationary Nodes - These are the most solid of nodes, they have existed for a long time and are constant.
Transitory Nodes - these are nodes that are new ideas, new places, or ideas and places that have not really had any impact on the setting as yet.
Mobile Nodes - These are very rare and powerful nodes, for they can be moved, and often move in and of themselves. I am not sure what that look like just yet
Forging Connections - You start out at the beginning of the campaign creating connections as they are created in Diaspora. What the connections mean, though is up to the group. Each node is connected to the other nodes through some sort of relationship or ley line. Ley lines are the easiest, as they are simply magical rivers that flow from node to node. However these ley lines are present in the subconscious of the people in the world. This means that they will over time come to associate the connected nodes as related in some way. This connection could be physical or metaphorical. Physical connections are just that, these buildings are connected in some way, perhaps they are on the same road or river, or perhaps they share some mystic resonance. Metaphorical connections are when similar things happen in both nodes, or similar emotions are evoked, or something. As I said I am not quite sure how this works just yet, but I know I am getting closer. I would love any thoughts on how this might better work.
Breaking Connections - During play it is possible, even likely, that the players or their antagonists will break the connections between nodes, or create new ones to new nodes. This is a big deal and represents a serious shift in the nature of local reality. Again I am still playing around with how best to do this.
Taking Over a Node - this is the big one. Taking over a node should take a lot of work as it represents changing a fundamental truth about an Important Thing and remaking the world in your image, however small the node may be. It could be the focus of a whole campaign to take over a node.
What is a cycle?
Because there are very few constants in reality, the Magi do not measure things by time or location. Time is fluid, it exists or it doesn't, the Magi remember things by Cycles. A cycle is when the world changes significantly, like the eight dimensional construct cycle, or the cycle of the inverted stair. When a majority of the nodes are converted to a certain worldview, then that becomes the new cycle. In some campaigns the previous or future cycles might be used fairly heavily, some players may with to play refugees from a future or previous cycle trying to retake the world from those who usurped them, or came before them. Man, time travel makes things a little funny when it comes to causality. If this is going to be a theme, talk it over with your players and help them build the world that was or will be.
Magical Paradigm Creation
Your paradigm/worldview/magical belief structure is treated as a character of its own with a couple of aspects, a few skill ratings(of the magical skills), maybe a stunt or two, and a stress track(no consequences). If the paradigm takes stress anyone playing a character following that paradigm may choose to take consequences instead, as the paradigm has no consequences naturally. This paradigm is created by the group(most of the time, unless you are playing a pvp game then it gets weird as everyone has competing paradigms. But lets not get into pvp just yet, yeah?
A magical paradigm has as many starting aspects as there are players following it(we will assume that is all the players for now). These aspects are called tenets. Each is a statement that explains the nature of reality or the methodologies that people use to alter reality. As I have not tested this(it just came to me today) I cannot say how well this will work, and the nature of these aspects will probably change a couple of times as I continue to build this hack. Bear with me.
The players then get to assign priority to the magical skills of the Magical paradigm(man I need to come up with a better name for this, it just sounds so stiff and formal when you say it over and over again). The group gets one skill at +4(Great), one at +3(Good), one at +2(fair), and one at +1(Average). The rest of the seven skills are at zero.
At this point the players may select to sacrifice one or more of their character's personal stunts for magical stunts that attach to the magical paradigm. Also at this time record your paradigm's stress which starts at 4, though I am working on ways to alter that.
Example Magical Paradigm
Technocrats of Quard
Tenet: The Universe Is Objective
Tenet: Everything Is Explicable
Tenet: Technology Is A Force For Change
Skills: Matter +4, Forces +3, Elan Vital +2, Psyche +1
Stress: [] [] [] []
Character Creation
Character Creation then follows, though it is a bit different from your standard Fate Core character creation. Your character is three aspects, three skills(rated from one to three, or something)(entropy, stasis, creation), two stunts, and some consequences. Nothing else.
First you pick your characters Inciting Incident, this aspect is all about what set you on your current path. For a new magus just awakened to the world of magic and all this might be the event that led you to take up magic. For those magi who are further along the path of enlightenment it could be any event, so long as it led your character to this area and this current goal. Speaking of goals, your next aspect will be your Current Desire. This is the current short term goal you have set for yourself. When you attain this goal you will trigger(at the very least) a minor milestone. Try and set this aspect as something that will be relevant in the next session or two, that way you will always be moving forward and changing and growing. Finally choose your Hubris. This is the aspect that gets in your way. The part of you that sabotages your path, and yet you can never quite seem to get rid of it.
Following the aspect creation you must choose your magical strength in each of the mystic pillars, Entropy, Creation, and Stasis. You get one at +3(Good), one at +2(Fair), and one at +1(Average). when you are in a magical situation you will roll the fate dice and add in the relevant pillar from your character and the relevant skill from your magical paradigm. I may adjust the numbers as I go along if the current method leads to odd results, I will need to look into it as this goes forward.
You also should record your stress(which is two) and your consequences. There are two types of consequences, normal and discord consequences. When you are in a tight spot and need to really bring the magical major to the party you may choose to forgo the normal trappings of your magic and just cut loose. In a an area influenced by a sympathetic node(one that works with your magical paradigm, you may add the stress taken as a bonus(the stress that the consequence would have absorbed) to a given magical roll. If you are in an area dominated by an antagonistic paradigm(this will be pretty common in early game) you do not gain the bonus, but you can choose to automatically succeed at an overt magical action without having to roll(or after a roll if you failed).
This leads me into an idea I have only the vaguest inkling of. Basically in nodes dominated by your paradigm you will have one set of difficulties, one one friendly to your paradigm you will have another, and in ones antagonistic to it you will have another set all together. These numbers will be affected by how much ritual and prep you do as well as some other things, I am sure. Like I said this is just the bare bones of the idea, in the very lightest of terms as I am still trying to work out how all of that stuff will work.
Milestones
When you reach significant or major milestones you can choose to upgrade your magus or your magical paradigm's influence. You can only get those milestones when you break a node connection, forge a new connection, or take a node(which would definitely be a Major Milestone, good job).
Also I think that certain things are very hard to change. Physical nodes are easy to take and control as they are believed in in a very simple and poorly defined way, anyone can own or hold a specific territory, that is understood. It when you get into the odd stuff that you need to do really strange things. Breaking the boundaries between the mind realms and the physical realms or the barrier between the spirit and the physical, or tearing apart the notion of causality is a very different sort of thing. As I have said before, right now how some of the node stuff works, in detail, is up in the air a little bit. I am still working on how some of this works. If you have questions please ask, sometimes I don't even have something nailed down until I need to explain it to someone else. Please let me know what you think.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Friday, August 16, 2013
Jake's Rules Of GMing
So I ended getting into a couple of debates(ish) about GMing and it made me realize that I have never really set down my views on this topic in writing. I then took it upon myself to write out how I design a session of play. I do not do this to tell you how to run your games. Your games probably run fine the way you run them, Nor is my way the only way, or even the best way. It is the best way for me, though.
So first a bit of back story. The first game I ever played was WEG Star Wars. This was also the first game I ever ran. Those events happened simultaneously. I ran the game before ever playing it. Al of my friends had played the game before, but they made me run it. it would be two years before I ever got a chance to play in a game. So my first two years of gaming were reading game books and running games. Of course I was thirteen in Montana, so the games were not frequent. In total, over the course of 19 years of gaming, I have played less games than i have fingers. On the other hand, all of my characters were awesome. Its true, ask around. I'll wait.
Great, your back! Now, where was I? Oh right, my gaming style. Here goes, a primer for how Jake runs his games.
The adventure must be clear
By this I mean that there must be a clear reason spelled out to the players as to why they should get involved. as a GM it is often very tempting to add layers of mystery and complexity to a session. It is fun, it scratches that creative itch that GMs tend to feel when they are all alone designing the adventure. For me, when the urge strikes, I ignore it. nine times out of ten, the more complex and mysterious you make something, the less sense it will make to the characters. Give them a clear goal, give them a strong reason to attain that goal.
Plan the Beginning tightly, plan the Middle loosely, Keep a few ideas as to how it might End
This is less a hard and fast rule and more a suggestion. Most of the time I follow this. Occasionally I dabble with trying it another way. I stick with this so that I never get target focus. Target focus is when you focus on your goal so much that you crash right into it. When you are planning an adventure do most of your work on the hook and initial couple of scenes. Then have a few solid ideas where those scenes will lead. Then come up with the major NPCs and a bunch of minion stats ahead of time. All you need for the end is a couple of idea on what would constitute the end of the scenario. What things, when accomplished, would mean that the current arc is over? Then those are the endings. that is it. Let how it ends and when it ends come up through play.
Each step the players take should bring them obviously closer or obviously further from there goal
Never let the players feel like you are giving them the run around. I cannot stress this enough. When the players come up with a plan. When they set that plan into motion. The success or failure of that plan should be of direct consequence to their overall goals. Incremental increase is the same as no movement at all. When you have the plan only have a minor effect it feels like no effect. Also letting it have a big effect lets the players in on the story creation. They are in charge of that part. When you make it not matter all that much it feels like you are saying no.
Try not to say no
Ok this is another wibbly-wobbly one. I treat it like a hard and fast rule, though. I do this so that I do not have no in my heart. Often this advice is said as, "Say yes or roll the dice." Now when I first got this advice it blew my gourd. It changed everything. However, I kinda did that thing people do. You know where you go way too far with it. Sometimes you have to say no. Sometimes saying yes will make the game worse. Not often, but every now and again. So I tell my self to try to not say no. It is less absolute, yes. That makes it a weaker statement. But this post is about what helps me with my games. I don't need absolutes. I need things I can remember that will make the game better.
Allow for closure
This is just sort of an adjunct to the previous. This is to remind myself that there is a time for the GM to shut up and let the players have their moment. When they have earned their victory, let them enjoy it. Don't drop in with an, "actually..." or some such. In a crime novel this would be called the Denouement. I love me a good denouement, almost as much as I love a good montage, but that is neither here nor there. Let the players beet the bad guy. Don't make it easy or anything, but in the end let them take him down. If you are doing your job right, then they have earned it.
Let them get the bad guy
Again related to the previous rule. I often will come up with an awesome bad guy. I mean, Doctor Doom level awesome. When that happens you have this idea in your head that you will get to use this villain over and over again. That he is going to escape and be a pain in the neck for years to come. Then the players come in, shoot him, chop off his head, roll him up in a carpet, and set him on fire. Then they salt the earth. So the next villain you give a bunch of escape hatches and stuff. That doesn't work. If you make your villain right, they will walk through fire and broken glass to kill that bastard. So you start to cheat a little. He's a super genius after all, so he has contingencies and all that. Then he just gets away. This is a bad way to game. You are now trying to force conventions from another media onto a game. Games are different from books, movies, or any traditional storytelling method. They create a different narrative. Games let you win. The mechanics are impartial(mostly). Once you start cheating to let the bad guy get away, you are telling the players that this game is really about the bad guy and not the PCs. This sets up a versus mentality. They will now start to derail your plot. in small ways at first, testing the waters. Then it becomes a viscous circle. Don't let this happen. When they come for the villain, make it a fair fight. don't let the guy escape unless it makes sense in the narrative.
This is a game, play by the rules if you don't the players will get upset
Now what I mean by rules is a little larger than you might be thinking. the rules are those written in the book yes. They also include any house rules that have been agreed upon by the table. Rules also include any sort of agreement as to how the game is going to play out. When you start breaking any of the rules, this is when you get mismatched expectation. The players expected one thing from you, and you are now delivering another thing. It doesn't matter why you are doing it. It doesn't matter that you are really making the narrative stronger. It does not matter why at all. You are now cheating. The players can no longer trust the rules because you are doing something that makes no sense in the game. Everything is up for grabs. I know it doesn't seem that way when you are doing it. I know that you can get away with it. I know that the players will never know. Except it is that way, you can't get away with it, the players will know, and it is a terrible habit to get into. Don't break the rules. They are the only thing everyone at the table agrees on.
Villains do not plan for failure
You know what separates the villains from the rest? Winning. They are winners. they plan to win. They break rules to win. Everything they do is toward a goal they are trying to achieve. They do not take the time to plan what if scenarios. They do not contemplate the thought they might fail. They look at their plan. they see all the obvious flaws. They expect to win. When things go south villains are making it up as they go. So when you are putting together the villains plan don't bother to think to hard on what they will do when the PCs start to ruin their plan. The villain did not consider losing. Why should you.
Make them suffer
Killing a PC causes the plot to stop. it is boring. There absolutely nothing interesting about it, unless the player initiates a glorious last stand moment. And that only happens once or twice a year. Do not kill your characters. Make them suffer. Cause them pain. Make them care about things they do not want to care about. Make them paranoid. Play with their minds. HURT THEM. A player character who is hurt has motivation and fear. With those to things I could run campaigns till the cows come home. Don't kill them, hurt them.
They win, whatever that means
At the end of the day, the PCs win. Whatever win means in a given setting, they will succeed at their goals to some extent. I know you want to hurt them, but the pain is only their to make the victory that much sweeter. Oddly enough the smaller the victory, the greater the pain you should inflict. Think of victory as making up for all the misery. It is not about equaling zero, it is about increasing teh distance from the lowest point to the highest point. If you highest point is pretty low, then you need to go into the negatives to make a difference big enough to notice. That is what is known as catharsis(well not really, but I never get use that word enough).
So there is my basic guidelines for how I create and run games. There is a bit of detail work and balancing issues that come up for specific games and the like. However, this is how I play. Let me know what you think.
So first a bit of back story. The first game I ever played was WEG Star Wars. This was also the first game I ever ran. Those events happened simultaneously. I ran the game before ever playing it. Al of my friends had played the game before, but they made me run it. it would be two years before I ever got a chance to play in a game. So my first two years of gaming were reading game books and running games. Of course I was thirteen in Montana, so the games were not frequent. In total, over the course of 19 years of gaming, I have played less games than i have fingers. On the other hand, all of my characters were awesome. Its true, ask around. I'll wait.
Great, your back! Now, where was I? Oh right, my gaming style. Here goes, a primer for how Jake runs his games.
The adventure must be clear
By this I mean that there must be a clear reason spelled out to the players as to why they should get involved. as a GM it is often very tempting to add layers of mystery and complexity to a session. It is fun, it scratches that creative itch that GMs tend to feel when they are all alone designing the adventure. For me, when the urge strikes, I ignore it. nine times out of ten, the more complex and mysterious you make something, the less sense it will make to the characters. Give them a clear goal, give them a strong reason to attain that goal.
Plan the Beginning tightly, plan the Middle loosely, Keep a few ideas as to how it might End
This is less a hard and fast rule and more a suggestion. Most of the time I follow this. Occasionally I dabble with trying it another way. I stick with this so that I never get target focus. Target focus is when you focus on your goal so much that you crash right into it. When you are planning an adventure do most of your work on the hook and initial couple of scenes. Then have a few solid ideas where those scenes will lead. Then come up with the major NPCs and a bunch of minion stats ahead of time. All you need for the end is a couple of idea on what would constitute the end of the scenario. What things, when accomplished, would mean that the current arc is over? Then those are the endings. that is it. Let how it ends and when it ends come up through play.
Each step the players take should bring them obviously closer or obviously further from there goal
Never let the players feel like you are giving them the run around. I cannot stress this enough. When the players come up with a plan. When they set that plan into motion. The success or failure of that plan should be of direct consequence to their overall goals. Incremental increase is the same as no movement at all. When you have the plan only have a minor effect it feels like no effect. Also letting it have a big effect lets the players in on the story creation. They are in charge of that part. When you make it not matter all that much it feels like you are saying no.
Try not to say no
Ok this is another wibbly-wobbly one. I treat it like a hard and fast rule, though. I do this so that I do not have no in my heart. Often this advice is said as, "Say yes or roll the dice." Now when I first got this advice it blew my gourd. It changed everything. However, I kinda did that thing people do. You know where you go way too far with it. Sometimes you have to say no. Sometimes saying yes will make the game worse. Not often, but every now and again. So I tell my self to try to not say no. It is less absolute, yes. That makes it a weaker statement. But this post is about what helps me with my games. I don't need absolutes. I need things I can remember that will make the game better.
Allow for closure
This is just sort of an adjunct to the previous. This is to remind myself that there is a time for the GM to shut up and let the players have their moment. When they have earned their victory, let them enjoy it. Don't drop in with an, "actually..." or some such. In a crime novel this would be called the Denouement. I love me a good denouement, almost as much as I love a good montage, but that is neither here nor there. Let the players beet the bad guy. Don't make it easy or anything, but in the end let them take him down. If you are doing your job right, then they have earned it.
Let them get the bad guy
Again related to the previous rule. I often will come up with an awesome bad guy. I mean, Doctor Doom level awesome. When that happens you have this idea in your head that you will get to use this villain over and over again. That he is going to escape and be a pain in the neck for years to come. Then the players come in, shoot him, chop off his head, roll him up in a carpet, and set him on fire. Then they salt the earth. So the next villain you give a bunch of escape hatches and stuff. That doesn't work. If you make your villain right, they will walk through fire and broken glass to kill that bastard. So you start to cheat a little. He's a super genius after all, so he has contingencies and all that. Then he just gets away. This is a bad way to game. You are now trying to force conventions from another media onto a game. Games are different from books, movies, or any traditional storytelling method. They create a different narrative. Games let you win. The mechanics are impartial(mostly). Once you start cheating to let the bad guy get away, you are telling the players that this game is really about the bad guy and not the PCs. This sets up a versus mentality. They will now start to derail your plot. in small ways at first, testing the waters. Then it becomes a viscous circle. Don't let this happen. When they come for the villain, make it a fair fight. don't let the guy escape unless it makes sense in the narrative.
This is a game, play by the rules if you don't the players will get upset
Now what I mean by rules is a little larger than you might be thinking. the rules are those written in the book yes. They also include any house rules that have been agreed upon by the table. Rules also include any sort of agreement as to how the game is going to play out. When you start breaking any of the rules, this is when you get mismatched expectation. The players expected one thing from you, and you are now delivering another thing. It doesn't matter why you are doing it. It doesn't matter that you are really making the narrative stronger. It does not matter why at all. You are now cheating. The players can no longer trust the rules because you are doing something that makes no sense in the game. Everything is up for grabs. I know it doesn't seem that way when you are doing it. I know that you can get away with it. I know that the players will never know. Except it is that way, you can't get away with it, the players will know, and it is a terrible habit to get into. Don't break the rules. They are the only thing everyone at the table agrees on.
Villains do not plan for failure
You know what separates the villains from the rest? Winning. They are winners. they plan to win. They break rules to win. Everything they do is toward a goal they are trying to achieve. They do not take the time to plan what if scenarios. They do not contemplate the thought they might fail. They look at their plan. they see all the obvious flaws. They expect to win. When things go south villains are making it up as they go. So when you are putting together the villains plan don't bother to think to hard on what they will do when the PCs start to ruin their plan. The villain did not consider losing. Why should you.
Make them suffer
Killing a PC causes the plot to stop. it is boring. There absolutely nothing interesting about it, unless the player initiates a glorious last stand moment. And that only happens once or twice a year. Do not kill your characters. Make them suffer. Cause them pain. Make them care about things they do not want to care about. Make them paranoid. Play with their minds. HURT THEM. A player character who is hurt has motivation and fear. With those to things I could run campaigns till the cows come home. Don't kill them, hurt them.
They win, whatever that means
At the end of the day, the PCs win. Whatever win means in a given setting, they will succeed at their goals to some extent. I know you want to hurt them, but the pain is only their to make the victory that much sweeter. Oddly enough the smaller the victory, the greater the pain you should inflict. Think of victory as making up for all the misery. It is not about equaling zero, it is about increasing teh distance from the lowest point to the highest point. If you highest point is pretty low, then you need to go into the negatives to make a difference big enough to notice. That is what is known as catharsis(well not really, but I never get use that word enough).
So there is my basic guidelines for how I create and run games. There is a bit of detail work and balancing issues that come up for specific games and the like. However, this is how I play. Let me know what you think.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Setting and Tone pt 1
First I think I should define my terms. These definitions are a bit rough. Through the course of this series I hope to narrow my focus and really start to analyze the things I believe about gaming and setting.
Setting: Where and When the story takes place. The background, backdrop, and mood of the piece. In gaming terms it is often seen as all the stuff that players interact with.
Tone: In gaming, the players attitude toward the game. How the game makes them feel. What style of language do they use when interacting with the setting.
Mechanics: The rules of the game. generally focused around conflict resolution and interacting with the fiction in meaningful ways. This is not to be confused with(but can be part of) social etiquette and rules of behavior.
Fluff: The parts of the game book that are not tied to rules. generally this is setting material, in game fiction, and illustrations.
So I get into this argument a bit. The idea is simple, but I think that people are using a slightly different definition or definitions than I do. The idea is that setting is everything without the mechanics. In general I tend to agree with this statement, but I think that the fluff, to use the vernacular, is merely the Explicit setting, within the rules there is an implicit setting. Where a lot of games go wrong then to me is when the Implicit Setting is at odds with the Explicit Setting. Also certain things can be done with the Mechanics and fluff to affect the tone of play. Tone is a funny beast, because it is most effected by things outside of the book. This is, I think why it is often mentioned but rarely commented on in discussions about setting. If you have a poor GM or a bad day gaming, or one of those players, it will effect the tone of the game more than the rules, for the most part. I would like to point out Dread here as its mechanics are all about tone and tone is its primary set piece. Maschine Zeit and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying also focus more on tone and genre over setting.
Dungeons & Dragons is a nearly perfect example of implicit setting. The core rule book has very little fluff(explicit setting) and yet the rules tend to encourage a singular game type. The mechanics of D&D have certain setting assumptions built into them, some of which are less than obvious. From character creation to alignment, D&D is telling you about how the game setting works. Much of my discussions on the subject have to do with people who have not(or will not) seen that setting. Oddly enough the worst games of D&D I have ever played were when the GM did not see the setting within the rules and began changing things on a whim.
When Making a character is when you first run into the implicit setting. you are told to pick a race. This tells you that there is more than humanity in the world, that elves, dwarves, halflings, and more exist. Suddenly the world is starting to take shape. Just by picking a race. The race and class entries are where much of the explicit setting is divulged in the main books of D&D. During character creation you also get a series of randomly determined attributes. These add a more subtle bit of implicit setting. It adds a bit of realism to the game. You know that physical and mental reality are represented and you can see how you compare to average in certain defined inborn traits(Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). This gives you a sense of grounding in the world. Yes there are wizards and elves and such roaming around, but they must follow the natural laws just like everyone else(mostly). Having those attributes places a limit on the world. That limit states that for the most part it operates like earth, until something fantastic changes that.
When you get to alignment, it seems pretty straightforward. Just describe how you view the world. But it is far more than that. I have already discussed Alignment at some length so suffice it to say, Alignment is a big setting piece disguised as a mild mechanics piece. Also the choice of which god or gods you follow seems pretty small, but has huge ramifications. In D&D the gods are real. This is not some philosophical musing about ones place in the universe. The gods are real in a very visceral sense. Certain followers of the gods get special powers because of the choice to follow the gods, you can meet the gods if you can find them, and most importantly(in my mind) if you piss them off they can smite you. Being an atheist in D&D is madness. It is denying the earth is round, it is crazy like you read about in books. And the cleric and paladin are the right and left fists of god/gods. They have faith in their god the way a physicist has faith that gravity works. This is hidden within the rules for spell selection but this is crucial. In D&D there is very little doubt that the gods exist. They are real and have a measurable effect on the world around them.
Speaking of spell and class selection, when one looks at the mechanics of those it tells a very specific story about a very specific type of world. Magic exists in the D&D setting. Not only that, but magic exists in one very specific form. Magic in the D&D setting is Vancian, by and large. Vancian magic is named after Jack Vance, author of the Dying Earth series(among others). It involves the spell caster memorizing a set number of spells(based on level). When the spell caster casts said spell he instantly forgets it and must memorize it again in order to cast it. Now the ranger, paladin, and druid also have a couple other kinds of magic(wild shape and lay on hands in particular), but by and large magic in D&D is Vancian. This is for mechanical reasons, however it is a part of the D&D setting.
There are many other setting piece implicit within the rules of D&D. More than I care to list really. My goal in this article was simply to show what I mean when I tell someone that D&D has an implicit setting. I will continue this in a series of posts about various games and how their implicit and explicit settings are arranged. Mostly I am doing this as a thought exercise. So that I may better understand what I am saying, and games in general.
Setting: Where and When the story takes place. The background, backdrop, and mood of the piece. In gaming terms it is often seen as all the stuff that players interact with.
Tone: In gaming, the players attitude toward the game. How the game makes them feel. What style of language do they use when interacting with the setting.
Mechanics: The rules of the game. generally focused around conflict resolution and interacting with the fiction in meaningful ways. This is not to be confused with(but can be part of) social etiquette and rules of behavior.
Fluff: The parts of the game book that are not tied to rules. generally this is setting material, in game fiction, and illustrations.
So I get into this argument a bit. The idea is simple, but I think that people are using a slightly different definition or definitions than I do. The idea is that setting is everything without the mechanics. In general I tend to agree with this statement, but I think that the fluff, to use the vernacular, is merely the Explicit setting, within the rules there is an implicit setting. Where a lot of games go wrong then to me is when the Implicit Setting is at odds with the Explicit Setting. Also certain things can be done with the Mechanics and fluff to affect the tone of play. Tone is a funny beast, because it is most effected by things outside of the book. This is, I think why it is often mentioned but rarely commented on in discussions about setting. If you have a poor GM or a bad day gaming, or one of those players, it will effect the tone of the game more than the rules, for the most part. I would like to point out Dread here as its mechanics are all about tone and tone is its primary set piece. Maschine Zeit and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying also focus more on tone and genre over setting.
 |
| http://aspiringlich.blogspot.com/2012/04/baroque-character-sheet-ad-version.html |
When you get to alignment, it seems pretty straightforward. Just describe how you view the world. But it is far more than that. I have already discussed Alignment at some length so suffice it to say, Alignment is a big setting piece disguised as a mild mechanics piece. Also the choice of which god or gods you follow seems pretty small, but has huge ramifications. In D&D the gods are real. This is not some philosophical musing about ones place in the universe. The gods are real in a very visceral sense. Certain followers of the gods get special powers because of the choice to follow the gods, you can meet the gods if you can find them, and most importantly(in my mind) if you piss them off they can smite you. Being an atheist in D&D is madness. It is denying the earth is round, it is crazy like you read about in books. And the cleric and paladin are the right and left fists of god/gods. They have faith in their god the way a physicist has faith that gravity works. This is hidden within the rules for spell selection but this is crucial. In D&D there is very little doubt that the gods exist. They are real and have a measurable effect on the world around them.
Speaking of spell and class selection, when one looks at the mechanics of those it tells a very specific story about a very specific type of world. Magic exists in the D&D setting. Not only that, but magic exists in one very specific form. Magic in the D&D setting is Vancian, by and large. Vancian magic is named after Jack Vance, author of the Dying Earth series(among others). It involves the spell caster memorizing a set number of spells(based on level). When the spell caster casts said spell he instantly forgets it and must memorize it again in order to cast it. Now the ranger, paladin, and druid also have a couple other kinds of magic(wild shape and lay on hands in particular), but by and large magic in D&D is Vancian. This is for mechanical reasons, however it is a part of the D&D setting.
There are many other setting piece implicit within the rules of D&D. More than I care to list really. My goal in this article was simply to show what I mean when I tell someone that D&D has an implicit setting. I will continue this in a series of posts about various games and how their implicit and explicit settings are arranged. Mostly I am doing this as a thought exercise. So that I may better understand what I am saying, and games in general.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Star Trek Transporters vs The Human Soul
Transporters are a vastly interesting concept on many levels. In this post I would like to look at a few weird things I have noticed about them over the years. Now this will mostly be dealing with ST:TNG for the purposes of this discussion. I use that because it is, to my mind, the best version of Star Trek from a narrative perspective. Throughout this post I will be referencing "Rascals" and "Second Chances" as they revolve around the core of the conundrum that is the transporter.
How Do They Work?
Transporters work by converting the matter of an object or being into energy and transmitting that energy through subspace to the destination where the matter is reconstructed from that energy. This has some interesting ramifications and raises some odd questions as to the nature of the mind/soul within the Star Trek universe.
The Mind in Star Trek
Star Trek would seem to follow some of the ideals of Secular Humanism and Philosophical Naturalism. Primarily they have held in many episodes that the mind, or soul, is the product of the brain. That is, the mind is a physical/material thing. This is the standard view of the mind on Trek. However, what muddies the waters is the psychic powers of various alien races. this is usually given the trappings of science though, so it is implied on some level these powers are just some matter energy process. So it is possible that the mind is something other than matter or energy. Transporters muddy that water even more.
See transporters work on the idea that the mind is teh brain. they break down the body and transport it. If the mind were separate from it then the body would arrive but would have no mind, or perhaps the mind is only attached to the body loosely so when the body is transported the mind just zooms over to the new body. In "Rascals" we see the latter idea. The crew is transported, but they are accidentally de-aged to children. They do have their adult minds though, so this seems to indicate that their minds are separate from the body. In second chances, though, we see the opposite is also true. When Ryker is doubled the the double has all the personality and memories of Ryker at the time of transport. This seems to indicate that minds(or Ryker's mind at the very least) are physical constructs.
I could go on and on about this and, as my friends could tell you, I do on many occasions. However, all I would be doing is reiterating the previous paragraphs. The main points is that either everyone in Star Trek is a clone/duplicate, or the mind has some kind of connection to the idea of the body and not a connection to the body they were born in. So, let the discussion commence.
How Do They Work?
Transporters work by converting the matter of an object or being into energy and transmitting that energy through subspace to the destination where the matter is reconstructed from that energy. This has some interesting ramifications and raises some odd questions as to the nature of the mind/soul within the Star Trek universe.
The Mind in Star Trek
Star Trek would seem to follow some of the ideals of Secular Humanism and Philosophical Naturalism. Primarily they have held in many episodes that the mind, or soul, is the product of the brain. That is, the mind is a physical/material thing. This is the standard view of the mind on Trek. However, what muddies the waters is the psychic powers of various alien races. this is usually given the trappings of science though, so it is implied on some level these powers are just some matter energy process. So it is possible that the mind is something other than matter or energy. Transporters muddy that water even more.
See transporters work on the idea that the mind is teh brain. they break down the body and transport it. If the mind were separate from it then the body would arrive but would have no mind, or perhaps the mind is only attached to the body loosely so when the body is transported the mind just zooms over to the new body. In "Rascals" we see the latter idea. The crew is transported, but they are accidentally de-aged to children. They do have their adult minds though, so this seems to indicate that their minds are separate from the body. In second chances, though, we see the opposite is also true. When Ryker is doubled the the double has all the personality and memories of Ryker at the time of transport. This seems to indicate that minds(or Ryker's mind at the very least) are physical constructs.
I could go on and on about this and, as my friends could tell you, I do on many occasions. However, all I would be doing is reiterating the previous paragraphs. The main points is that either everyone in Star Trek is a clone/duplicate, or the mind has some kind of connection to the idea of the body and not a connection to the body they were born in. So, let the discussion commence.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Dungeons and Dragons vs Alignment
I was going to write an adventure for Space Opera today. then I read this blog post by +Cody Connelly and I decided to write about a subject that has interested me for quite some time. The implications of alignment within the D&D cosmology. So tomorrow will be the adventure, today alignment.
Alignment, it's a simple concept really. Two axes, four directions the combinations of which give a simple description of your morality and worldview. It is far different from most ethical thought, though. For those who live within the D&D universe alignment is a testable observable law or force. It acts upon the world external to all agents within the laws of the D&D universe. Everyone in that universe must follow the tenets of one of the alignments.
There are actions that cause you to move from one alignment to another. In older games this change actually had serious physical repercussions. You would lose levels and the like. It was bad news. Also there are spells, devices, skills, and abilities that interact with alignment of beings in interesting ways. It can be detected, it can be blocked(wards and such), it is a tangible thing.
Even the gods must bow to alignment. You would think that a god would not view itself as evil. Yet within the cosmology they inhabit they can do nothing but admit the alignment that they inhabit. Alignment is about choice,but not in the normal sense of moral choice. This is closer to locational choice than to any internal struggle. Good is no better than Evil, which is no better than Chaos or Order. these are merely places to stand on a plain of existence. Like height, breadth, length and time, alignment is merely a way f locating an object on a specified plain. To me that is strange.
It gets stranger when you start to dig into the planar cosmology. You step outside the normal universe and the alignments system exists. No, not merely exists, it thrives. There are whole plains(universes really) devoted to specific alignments or groupings of alignments. The higher up you go the more locked into the alignment law/plain/force.
Now what could this mean? It seems to imply that the gods of D&D are not in control the universe, not even their little corner of it really. They are bound by forces larger than, and outside of, themselves. This itself has odd implications. If the gods do not dictate morality then it is inflicted on them by some outside force or law, or it is inflicted upon them by some outside intelligence. I could see this developing into an interesting campaign, provided all the players were into it. A sort of D&D ID debate, if you will;p.
Also the ability to know for certain if someone is good/evil with certain spells/abilities is very interesting. What kind of world would occur if D&D paladins exist? They are all lawful good(in non 4th ed games that is) and can detect evil. that means if you can prove you are a paladin in good standing with your god(say by healing someone) you are known to have to tell the truth, and you can detect evil. How the hell do evil people exist? I mean, think about it for a second, it would not do to simply act good, you would need to BE good. Be good or face the mighty smite. And it would be a lawful good thing to do. No one would question you. You may not be able to read minds, but you can smell evil.
And I think that is where I will leave it. I would like to leave more questions than answers in this post. I would love to hear that you all played this to with your groups and you all got different answers to these questions.
There are actions that cause you to move from one alignment to another. In older games this change actually had serious physical repercussions. You would lose levels and the like. It was bad news. Also there are spells, devices, skills, and abilities that interact with alignment of beings in interesting ways. It can be detected, it can be blocked(wards and such), it is a tangible thing.
Even the gods must bow to alignment. You would think that a god would not view itself as evil. Yet within the cosmology they inhabit they can do nothing but admit the alignment that they inhabit. Alignment is about choice,but not in the normal sense of moral choice. This is closer to locational choice than to any internal struggle. Good is no better than Evil, which is no better than Chaos or Order. these are merely places to stand on a plain of existence. Like height, breadth, length and time, alignment is merely a way f locating an object on a specified plain. To me that is strange.
It gets stranger when you start to dig into the planar cosmology. You step outside the normal universe and the alignments system exists. No, not merely exists, it thrives. There are whole plains(universes really) devoted to specific alignments or groupings of alignments. The higher up you go the more locked into the alignment law/plain/force.
Now what could this mean? It seems to imply that the gods of D&D are not in control the universe, not even their little corner of it really. They are bound by forces larger than, and outside of, themselves. This itself has odd implications. If the gods do not dictate morality then it is inflicted on them by some outside force or law, or it is inflicted upon them by some outside intelligence. I could see this developing into an interesting campaign, provided all the players were into it. A sort of D&D ID debate, if you will;p.
Also the ability to know for certain if someone is good/evil with certain spells/abilities is very interesting. What kind of world would occur if D&D paladins exist? They are all lawful good(in non 4th ed games that is) and can detect evil. that means if you can prove you are a paladin in good standing with your god(say by healing someone) you are known to have to tell the truth, and you can detect evil. How the hell do evil people exist? I mean, think about it for a second, it would not do to simply act good, you would need to BE good. Be good or face the mighty smite. And it would be a lawful good thing to do. No one would question you. You may not be able to read minds, but you can smell evil.
And I think that is where I will leave it. I would like to leave more questions than answers in this post. I would love to hear that you all played this to with your groups and you all got different answers to these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)