Worlds Yet To Conquer...

In which I display some setting ideas that I really want to run with and develop at some point but at the moment have neither the time nor the motivation (due to working on my RQ world) to do so:

I want to run an RPG, though I've yet to decide on the system, set on Oddworld. Dystopian high-tech world? Check. Tribal magic-based cultures? Check. Huge conflict between Industrial greed and naturist tree-hugging? Check. This is essentially Pandora but 15 years earlier and is such a developed world with a fantastic backdrop for adventuring and freedom-fighting/terrorising that it would be remiss not to run something here at some point. Unfortunately as it's a (very strictly) licenced world, I'd have to do all conversions and everything to a system myself which would be a drag. Not insurmountable but it's certainly delayed for now.

A long time ago there was Prince Of Persia, now there is Garshasp: The Monster-Slayer (A game I highly recommend playing by the way). Between them they sparked an interest in Persian mythology that has been brewing steadily of late. While Greco-roman and to a certain extent Arabian mythology (Al-Qadim anyone?) have been well covered in RPG canons of various flavours, Persian mythology seems to have gone somewhat unloved. Whether this is just due to a lower level of proliferation in Western culture or just the fact that their myths and fabulous creatures are less well-known I don't know but I'd like an authentically Persian feeling setting for one of my games. Similarly, classical Meso-American civilisations (Aztecs, Mayans) seem to have generally been relegated to being the calling cards of various Lizardman cultures (c.f. WHFB) and hopefully at some point an entirely jungle-based setting inspired by these cultures shall also be realised.

More shall probably be forthcoming but these two/three (primarily video-game inspired I notice) arethe ones I have been mulling over recently.

Maid: Impressions

So, as mentioned previously, Maid was played yesterday. It was... not nearly as bad as I expected. Both mechanically and thematically it flowed reasonably well and did what it's supposed to do.

As you may have noticed, the post when  I commented on the core mechanic was at 3:30 in the morning and so I am reserving the right to retract what I said about it due to not thinking it through properly. What the multiplication mechanic does to set itself apart from most mechanics to my mind is twofold. Firstly and most importantly it means there is a real difference between a skill 2 and skill 3. Whereas a + modifier would be the norm in *many* systems, the multiplication does make a difference. That is, a roll +2 is not significantly different to a roll +3, at least not when compared to a roll x2 and a rollx3. This didn't really occur to me when I was reading the rules before play, hence dismissing it as inflating the numbers. The reality is it allows a larger range of target numbers for challenges.

Secondly, the multiplication means that anyone with a skill of 0 cannot use that skill for anything. This was quite poignant coming from what might be regarded as a 'casual' game. Many games allow bases chances for success, even if it is just the roll of a dice. It was refreshing to note that as the skills are randomly generated it was possible you were going to have to work with a character that (like mine did) had 0 in a crucial skill (Athletics in my case). This is mitigated by the fact that whenever you perform an action you describe it in such a manner as to decide which attribute you roll on. If you emphasise the physical parts of an activity then you roll Athletics, if you emphasise precision and technique then you roll Skill etc. This is the main engine that drives the roleplaying aspect of the game and it works well as you have to work out how to proceed in the way that best emphasises your 'talents'.

As to the actual game: it was fun but a little disjointed and hectic. It specifically says in the rules that it could be used as a long-term game but I can't see it working that way for any group I've played with. It's fun as a distraction between other things but unless you're really into the theme (you know who you are) the ruleset is not really tight enough to facilitate campaign play and the kooky characters (lolita assassain ninja?) and plots would probably wear thin after a while. They certainly would for me anyway. But as always, YMMV and I know a few people who could probably get a kick out of it for a good long while.

The Things I Get Dragged Into...

Interesting happenstance: I have been roped into playing a game of Maid (no that is not a bad link, this is just somewhat out of character for me...).

I've been reading the rules and so far they seem pretty intuitive and actually fairly interesting. That said, I despise the core mechanic: I just don't see the point of the multiplications of dice-rolls, it only serves to inflate the values seen in gameplay. THis seems to just add unnecessary maths for no real benefit. Though I'm sure there is a reason and my amateur eye hasn't caught up to it yet. Otherwise though it actually seems to be a legit, if rules-light (which I like anyway) system. The GM is replaced by 'The Master' with the players representing his obedient maids and hilarity ensues as the world can be as mundane or as wacky as The Master desires.

Character gen is almost entirely random. You roll on what are essentially tables of fetishes to decide essentially what kink your maid will be fulfilling for your master. Examples include: lolita, leather, werewolves, cat-girls, hermaphrodites and vampires. Plus about 5 dozen others, some more obscure some less so. There is a perversion chart for Demogorgon's sake. It's all done with tongue firmly in cheek (not like that, you dirty sod) though and it takes refuge in audacity fairly well. You get the feeling this game is played by people who take their slightly fetishised games seriously but not so seriously that they can't laugh at themselves while doing it. The best kind of people in other words ;)

In the english translation there is something like 17 scenarios included though the nature of the game means they are basically just frameworks for you to do whatever the hell you want to do.

Needless to say, all the pontificating in the world is pretty useless without having played the game so I shall delay proper judgement till it's done. But I'm fairly certain it's going to depend entirely on meshing well with the GM (who is a first-timer as far as I'm aware) and especially the other players, most of whom I know but there are a couple of surprise players too.

Should be entertaining... I think...

Always Believe In Yourself...

This thread on YSDC got me thinking a little about how to portray Real-World religions within the context of Lovecraftian nihilism. Partly because this intrigues me anyway - as I may have mentioned before, I'm a psychologist in training - and also because my current character in my role-reversal sessions of CoC is a Catholic exorcist. Now, my Keeper has specifically stated that religious rituals etc. will have no discernible effect on the world except for psychological effects. That's fine, and especially as he's only running a short game I completely understand the lack of ambiguity. That said, I think there's some wiggle-room for my own game to play with and I'd like to explore some options.

Obviously, some people will take it upon themselves to view this post as some sort of flame-bait. I do not intend to tread on any toes and these are not reflective of my RL views (which are entirely irrelevant to the issue) but my stance on portraying religion in a fictional universe, albeit one much like our own. If you are offended, please feel free to shut the tab and navigate away. Fair warning, I'll simply delete antagonistic posts.

I am working from the standpoint that no major world deities exist as independent deities. This is for two reasons. Firstly it gets very idealogically charged very quickly as you decide which ones are left out or left in, even things like meshing all the Abrahamic conceptions together can cause problems. Secondly, there are too many anyway, from major religions down to Egyptian beings. Incidentally, when there are exceptions to this rule, it is invariably Egyptian gods that actually exist in my game as I have a soft spot for the whole pantheon.

Option 1: The Facade.
This is an approach that is very popular among many writers of CoC scenarios as it is malleable to individual scenarios and situations. It involves treating the deity in question as an avatar or facet of an established Mythos entity (I hesitate to call them deities as they aren't technically in my game). This is typically Nyarlathothep (Baron Samedi in Burning Stars, for example) but could be Y'golonac, Yig or even Yog-Sothoth itself. I understand why it's become such a trope and have indeed invoked it myself, but I do have reservations about this. Firstly it disagrees with my conception of many of the mythos beings. Nyarlathothep especially suffers from this, probably largely due to a certain well-liked published campaign that is based around the concept, and it means he has basically turned into Loki. Who is far, far too human for my tastes. Mischevious and trickster deity is all well and good, but I don't like it when he's too heavily involved. It just smacks too much of anthrocentrism. With the exception of Y'golonac of course who is a deified version of everything that is wrong with humanity born from our basest desires. So fair enough. He doesn't usually use avatars though, preferring followers who join his debased ways anyway.

In this instance, religious folks who appeal to their deity of choice are in fact attracting the attention of a Mythos being. While this can never be a good thing, it may achieve short-term goals. There are likely to be conditions or, more likely, consequences of these appeals though and as the person's faith is likely to grow stronger if she has prayers that are answered the final revalation is likely to be that much more sanity-shattering.

Option 2: The Derleth.
This is a very unpopular approach among many purists in particular. It involves factionalising the various beings into 'good' and 'evil' sets that are at war in the cosmos. The general divide is that the GOOs are fighting for the destruction of the Earth, while the Elder Gods are attempting to suppress their efforts. Thus, again the native gods of earth religions are likely to be avatars and masks of the Elder Gods. The differences are chiefly that these deities are much more likely to be sympathetic. Again though, they are unlikely to wear repeated pestering and smiting shall be visited upon an uppity follower. Under this section would also come the 'actual' deities, such as Bast and Hypnos in the game's canon. These tend to exist as benevolent deities and also work with Nodens if he is around. Similarly, it could be that all benevolent gods are facets of Nodens. While I'm a pulpy gamer, I'm a Lovecraftian purist so I don't like touchy-feely deities like Nodens wandering about in my game world.

Option 3: The Lovecraft.
No being that isn't mathematically summoned using the correct ritual can be interacted with. Prayers and the like go completely unanswered and many will lose their faith in the face of the unholy truths they encounter. Most powerful entities are mere aliens and natural forces rather than actual deities.


I tend towards option 1 when these issues come up. But it varies and as I have said before, I am constantly meddling with my world's canon as much as the rules of my game.

Now, I reckon that there should be psychological implications of religion for characters. These can be both positive and negative of course. To start with at least, the promise of an overarching plan and a guardian would make a seriously religious character fairly hard to shake. Similarly, courage of one's convictions can lead to a persuasive personality and a master of argument. Of course if and when their faith is challenged and found wanting, there is a massive downward spiral from there.

Orc Traitor-Beasts

So, as there has been little activity here and I have little in the way of properly prepared material due to me being up to my ears in exams at the moment, I'll just throw out an interesting creature idea I've been tossing around in my head. I like the idea of undead being specifically formed by the method of their dispatch and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of Orcish undead around so here goes. I play RQ and as such would use either the ghoul or orc profiles from the Monster Colliseum, but beyond that I'm not doing stats or anything just fluff.

Orcish Traitor Beasts.
These are physical entities, born when Orc traitors are caught and sealed into purpose-built chambers. Being a culture that is entirely absorbed in blood and honour, betrayal is one of the highest of Orc sins. Death is seen as an honourable end that allows a joining with the great Orc spirit army that marches across the lower planes of the ethereal realms for all eternity and as such being cursed in undeath and perpetuity is a great disgrace and a denial of eternal honour. Seeing as those subjected to this punishment have often also shown a knack for survival the Curse-sealers who place the undeath upon the traitors take great amusement from their fate. The orcs are flayed and have spiked chains wound around them. The ritual of entombing them takes 3 hours of chanting and laying curses upon the doomed Orc. After 73 days of incarceration the transition to un-dead is fully complete. The chains are healed into the flesh of the beast, who is driven mad through despair, shame and rage. The Orc's flesh, already a greyish shade turns almost chalky white and their blood and other bodily fluids run crystal clear from their wounds.

Their voices are high-pitched and chittering, the creatures chuckling to themselves as they contemplate their fate in their sealed chambers. Communication with their own kind or other undead creatures is achieved through complex gestures and rattling of their chains, however they can spea whatever languages the Orc could in life, in a chittering high pitched mockery of the Orc's guttural accent. Ironically, pronounciation of human and similar languages is arguably improved as the traitor orcs usually have their tusks shattered during the imprisonment ritual.

When they deign to speak to mortals at all it is in twisted riddles and metaphors. They swing around on and use their trailing chains to attack intruders. Due to the knowledge they have been denied eternal honour, they have no qualms about any tactics and are often highly effective trap-setters. They favour hiding and ambushes and are naturally cowardly and deceptive. By far the most common tactic is to sneak up on targets (a difficult task given the amount of chains many are burdened with) and throttle them untill they pass out. They can then be bound (often to the Orc by his spiked chains) and then tormented at will. If they escape their sealing chambers they make their homes at the tops of mountains in as isolated a location as possible.

The traitor-beasts are usually lone deserters or small groups of plotters that are caught, but there have been known cases of entire regiments being ritually interred together after being suspected guilty of treasonous activity so any number could be found together.

Making It Interesting

This is the 'reactions' table for my wandering monsters in my sandbox campaign . My actual random encounters are generated by rolling 2d8 and then using the corresponding table, for a total of 56 different encounters (the combination of numbers is what's important, rather than the sum total of the dice). As there are different tables for each environment, it would be a tedious process to reproduce them all here. Besides, I find this to be the more defining characteristic of an encounter. The encounter roll shows you what you've found, this shows how you can go about dealing with it.

Then 2d6 (rolling for sum-total this time) determines the situation that the creature is encountered in:

2:   Overtly Hostile
3:   Defensive
4:   Patrolling/Guarding
5:   Dead
6:   Engaged
7:   Ambivalence
8:   At home
9:   Celebrating
10: Caravan
11: Vulnerable
12: Overtly Friendly.

As can be seen, I have attempted to use the bias of using 2 dice to try and lead to most encounters being what the players make them. Only the rarest results have pretty much foregone conclusions, and even then they can be manipulated by suitably skillful players. In particular, I want to give more options than fight or flight.

Each category is purposefully vague and obviously will apply to different creatures differently, for example:
Caravan: For many of the more sentient races this could very easily be a simple trading caravan or a platoon of Troll explorers riding a train of Karrg Beetles. Slightly more abstractly this could a be a migrating group of young dragons. Or a herd of wildebeast stampeding across the plains.
Engaged: This was specifically meant as a catch-all for other situations not covered elsewhere. Could be feeding, could be hunting, could be crafting, there is pretty much an infinite list of things this could be.

Incidently, I like the idea of rolling an encounter with an ambivalent Amphisboena, purely because such a sequipedalian serpent will be a pain to pronounce.

But, But, What If He Wrecks Everything?!

I made a rather rash decision yesterday. At the moment I have a lot of work going on as the end of term rushes inexorably closer and I have to complete deadlines and prepare work for my dissertation so to protect next monday's session from cancellation I am handing the reins over to one of my players.

This will be somewhat of an interesting experience to say the least. As gaming compatriots we go right back to both of our first games and in fact I've only ever run one session in which he didn't participate. So I've no fear of his credentials with cthulhoid gaming. However he's never actually GM'd anything before and it's a while since I've been a player so this'll be a learning experience for us both I think.

My main problem is that this has made me reflect on my own progress as a GM over the last year or so. Don't get me wrong, I've improved I think. Certainly I'm more confident and no longer sweat my own body-weight before a session. But he asked for advice on GMing and I came up completely blank. I know what I do in preparation and my own tips but I have a hard time separating what's my own little rituals and what's generally useful practice. I wonder if this is a normal thing or does it just take time to formulate your definitive ideas about gaming style and practice?

Regardless I think I'll try and formulate a list of 'tips' for new GMs based on my own noobish credentials. Should it become substantial enough I'll probably post it over the weekend.

My Style On Show

A while ago, Strange Magic published these little indicators so one can indicate stylistic preferences in GMing.

Click to make it appear roughly the same size...

The selection here shows my choices. The link above shows the full meanings of each symbol but in order from left to right, top to bottom:
- Story-based game
- Rule 0 is in full effect: GM ruling is final
- Characters can and, most likely, will die
- The emphasis is not on combat
- However PvP combat is allowed
- Mystery and Exploration play a large part
- There may well be disturbing content
- You will have to flee some things
- There may be wacky and silly happenings
- There is a predefined map and probably some scripted events
- There is an emphasis on character and drama
- I like tinkering with rules and so on. Sometimes from session to session.

...And Then They Went Home Again.

So last night marked the ending of my Dreamlands Campaign. Not the dissolution of the group or even the end of those characters as we are continuing, though on a much less contiguous basis.

I am proud though, it's the first continuous narrative campaign I've run from start to finish and it was fairly epic in scope, spanning three continents across two planets. It was a heavily modified version of Chaosium's published campaign The Dreaming Stone. Modified because I like the plot and such of the original, but I don't like much of the execution which is very 'fighty'. In fact my players got around 3 or 4 sessions into the eponymous Dreamlands before any combat at all was encountered. I count this as a success because all the players still enjoyed it and I was not at all convinced that they would necessarily go for it as at least one of the players is a MMORPG beat-em-up player. 

One thing I liked about this campaign (particularly as I didn't push the time constraints too much so they could explore a bit, as this is what the Dreamlands are best for imho) was how the PCs integrated with the setting. While there was the overarching story they were following along and various investigations cropped up along the way, they also carved out their own little niches. They all obtained temporary jobs in a Dreamlands city, learnt a little of the cultures and (I can't stress this enough) they had fun without killing everyone. I'm so pleased that it turned out this way. Obviously there were bumps along the way and I can recall at least 2 out of the dozen or so sessions it took that went 'not as well as planned'. But 1 in 6 is not bad, especially for a beginner, so I'll keep my pride at least.

One of the characters played an actor who impressed King Kuranes himself and subsequently led a band of sailors against a Moonbeast force. One player had 3 characters die (two heroically, and all three spectacularly) while everyone else brought a single character through alive. Another had himself pinned to a camel's arse with a javelin and developed a telepathic connection with his cat. Yet another had a net loss of 0 SAN (I'm not happy about that...) despite direct contact with a minor deity. The final character learnt Summon/Bind Nightguant and appears to be too scared to use it. Things like this are a joy to recount and really make a campaign worthwhile. More to the point, none of these were written into the story. However, none of them could have happened without the story arc either, so I'm fairly happy with my middle-of-the-road approach as always.

The only problem is, I don't know where to go now. Time-constraints mean that another drawn-out campaign is out of the question, but after the epic scale of the Dream-crawl (which I'm coining as a game type by the way) I'm afraid that the players will be less than impressed by one-shots and small scenarios. I suppose it'll work out in the end though. Watch this space.

I think this also links back to what I said in yesterdays post, as long as you're having fun it's all good!

On Predilections and Predications

Normally I don't like to get involved in OSR vs Story Gaming as it invariably leads to nothing good. However this post by C at Hack & Slash. interested me enough to throw my own tuppence at the faceless masses of the internet. (I know the context is set against different ways of playing D&D specifically, but it got me thining about gaming in general).
 
Now I will preface this by nailing my 'Story-Gamer' colours firmly to the mast. (Ironically I do this largely via the medium of one the oldest and least changed games in the industry.) I'm not above messing around with dice-rolls and fixed encounters to facilitate interesting circumstances (the proverbial quantum Ogre). I am upfront about this with my players though and make sure they're fine with it before we start playing. I have only been roleplaying for about 18 months seriously, but I have learned that 99% of problems come from a dischord between expectations. Usually dischord between GMs and Players.

That said, I have only been playing for a short while and the prevalence of the OSR in the blog-o-sphere (is that even a term anymore?) has piqued my interest in that style of gaming too. I like to think (erroneously I suspect) that I am open-minded enough to try some different types of gaming. I have played almost exclusively investigative type games up until this point*, so as clichéd as they might be to everyone else, dungeon crawling is not something I'm particularly familiar with. Now, I can't see much appeal in the genre from a purely mechanistic point of view: kill-monsters-get-treasure-get-power-to-kill-more-monsters. Up until today I thought, 'Why not just play a video game?'. But what I saw from C's post is that so much of this game is determined by the player attitudes. What I had been taking as preachy from a lot of gamers was more honestly just 'Here's why I like what I like'. Unfortunately a rather vocal (primarily forum-based I find) minority are determined to knock all other play-styles.

So, what are my aims in a game?
1) Enjoyment

That's it. It sounds trite but I play not to experience a particular thing or even play a particular thing but to enjoy what I'm doing. Rather more accurately, the specifics of what I'm looking for vary from game to game and even session to session occasionally. Sometimes I want a nice monster-of-the-week game that ends with a shoot-out, and sometimes I want complex and intriguing investigation that culminates in foiling a plot without ever raising a weapon. It all comes down to what the person C was discussing with says:

"...in the OSR having your dude be a meeple isn't a bad thing..."

Both camps have a tendency to take the core characteristics of the other and then use them as insults, when actually they aren't. It's just a matter of disparate opinions. WHICH IS OK. And nobody should need to justify it (though it's probably helpful to be able to of course) it's just how you like to play.

This is why I don't think I'll ever be able to get on with public gaming or con gaming, because I judge a lot by knowing my players and what they may or may not enjoy in the current mood and what I feel like running this week.

Moreover, both my recent revelations and C's above post have shown me that game-selection both in tone and (though I suspect to a lesser extent) system need to be informed choices. Not because any is inherently better than any other (sorry D&D players ;) ) but because they are each focussed differently. It's why I need to play some different games and as I said before, the best way to improve a game is to ensure that every decision is a conscious decision and not a default decision even if that means nothing changes. The game will be better purely for you knowing why you are doing everything you are doing.

Thus, this shall be my mid-year's resolution: I resolve to play a greater variety of games so I can at least learn about why other people like them in practice. I've no doubt there will be at least one game I walk away from and never go back to, but that's ok too. The aim isn't to like everything, it's just not to dislike everything on principle.

Wow, this had a much more positive outcome than I was expecting when I started. I admit I was expecting to sort of dissolve into a dribbling polemic against the internet.

*Incidentally, I would be interested to now how often this sort of game crops up outside of games that are specifically geared towards it (CoC, GUMSHOE et al.). That being detectivery, rather than just investigation in the sense of exploration.

In-Character Ingenuity, Out Of Character... Outgenuity?

In my post on death I said that players need to work within the limits of their characters to create a memorable character that will be looked upon kindly by reminiscences. This post is about the polar opposite, how out of character actions can create memorable situations. By this I am not referring to the inevitable joes that constitute 99.99% of table chatter. Its more about the issues I alluded to when I was talking about rollplaying vs. roleplaying and that have come up repeatedly in this thread. Namely where the balance point between using character abilities and player ingenuity is.

As I mentioned in the linked post on roll vs role I am a strong advocate of using player ingenuity to solve problems. The INT or equivalent stat in my eyes should not limit the ways in which a character can act because of a low score, anymore than a high score would lead to me giving answers to every puzzle that the character comes across. The classic example is rolling perception (or Spot Hidden for those of a Lovecraftian bent) checks. I usually handle these by using the checks as a sort of 'you notice something is off' trigger, if they make the roll then they are rewarded with the information, if not then the players get (usually two) guesses to try and work out where the thing they have noticed might be. Of course if they are percieving an ambush, they are unlikely to get additional attempts and if they're searching a room then they might get a few more as they narrow down locations. Season to taste, the point is that this is a nice compromise to my mind for two reasons:

Firstly, and this is important, it doesn't eliminate the usefulness of the character skills. I have heard of many GMs (for CoC in particular, though it is a common thing among 'story-gamers' I think) that ignore many checks, especially if the 'story' demands it. This seems to be pointless and cheats those players who have spent days agonising over their point placement (I'm not talking power gamers, just committed players).

Secondly, this is a game after-all. This means the players can actually get involved and influence their fates without being at the complete mercy of the Dice Gods.

Another way that is suggested to utilise player ingenuity is by including puzzles that can be solved by the players. This is the kind of thing that can lead to those afore-mentioned memorable situations, be it the players working out the correct sequence of levers in a Mastermind-esque minigame or the tactical planning of a dungeon assault. These things exercise the player's creativity and (provided they are not too time-consuming or difficult) can be good liittle intermissions and give oppurtunities for character advancement. If you can combine the two, so the player has to work out the correct way to use the character's skills, then this is truly the holy grail of gaming puzzles.

One of the best ways (in my humble opinion of course) is through investigative gaming. Call Of Cthulhu is focused on this of course, but I'm intent on building this into my RQ game too. Simply put this is where a scenario of some description requires the characters to collect clues of some description, but the players have to put them together to gain any sort of use from them. This can be solving murders as in many detective styled games, or merely collecting information that reveals the way to open that Dwarven carved lock. This is of course how the sandbox investigation will be implemented. The players will encounter various locked or otherwise blocked locations, and will discover information that will enable them to open it. Not that it will tell them that of course. The best structure for these things is most definitely to make them optional so the players know they will get interesting rewards if they do choose to follow up, but they won't be hindered if they don't wish to mess around with it.

A quick google search can bring plenty of tips on putting puzzles into your games and places like Gnome Stew have decent articles too so I won't bother linking any particulars here. Specific examples will be revealed once I have constructed a few for my RQ map.

Sentience Vs Intelligence Vs Instinct

In the course of my designs on society, I have been musing on how to portray various species' societies.

Obviously at a settlement level, the differences between intelligences can be shown by clumping into technological groups can be made explicitly clear. The wild creatures live in rough family groups and make their homes in natural formations such as caves. At a primitive level, when intelligence becomes apparent, the groups consist of multiple families who make their own habitat. This can be fashioning nests to building rudimentary structures. Once classified as a sentient species, an appreciation of aesthetics develops and so more ornate architecture or art or mythology is present around usually (though by no means exclusively) permanant structures of some kind. Communication is also probably more concrete at this point between individuals rather than just signals to a group.

However, what I have been struggling with is how to make the players aware of whether they are dealing with animal cunning or intelligent planning when they encounter members of other species. While I appreciate that it may be beneficial to keep the players unaware as to whether the lizard-man they've just encountered is a slavering animal or a plotting genius, from a roleplaying perspective it would be helpful to have something to go on. Though I could go the traditional route and just give all the evil genius lizard-men English accents...

Behaviourally, I think the key is scale. While wild creatures may make posturing roars and swipes, a more calculated and subtle approach is a strong sign of not acting on the first instinctual impulse. Speech is not necessary, though some attempt at communication is probably another good indication of self-awareness and intelligence. Unless there has been some background event or provocation, a sentient creature is unlikely to strike out for no reason. Though if the adventurers are being actively threatening then the base reaction from most things is going to be to retaliate purely for self-preservation. As such it is also important to note that higher intelligence is not a sign that they have no impulses, even the most collected human can strike out like a snake if they are scared or annoyed.

If anyone has any tips on representing intelligence in non-humans I'd be very glad to hear them.

The Transcendent Beauty Of Esoteric Miscellany

I am a rather pretentious person. Who isn't if we're really honest? But in relation to RPGs, I am of the opinion that the GM should be allowed to have fun as well as the players, and perhaps at their expense.

In particular this manifests as a sort of literary ADD on my part. I pride myself on being a fountain of cultural references (it's one of my few useful qualities), and so I enjoy slipping these things into my games. Call of Cthulhu and Kerberos Club are both marvellous settings for this sort of play. For example having Byron Humphrey from The Dreaming Stone campaign enthusiastically rambling about the fantastic research of Dr Cavor, or the detective abilities of Chevalier Dupin is a gleeful opportunity for me. Even such obvious things as having a pub named 'The Winchester', a cult known as the 'Esoteric Order Of The Golden Dawn' or the 'Knights In White Satin' in my RQ games are much more amusing to me than they perhaps should be.

I have no idea what it is that causes things like Alan Moore's famous 'League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen' to have such a profound effect on me, but even if I don't immediately get the reference I'll spend time looking it up and then savour the moment when the penny drops. I've lost count of the times I've lost whole afternoons to the minutiae of these things, giggling to myself hysterically as all sorts of ideas for connections come to me.

It also offers a genuinely connecting moment with a player if they understand the reference, especially if only one of them does. That glint in the eye as you see they understand is an excellent moment and one that should be encouraged often, but not often enough to exclude others of course. I've found this to be a good litmus test for how well I'm going to get on with a player, if they get around a quarter or more of the references and grin when they do, we'll get on fine. Those who are so uninterested in the backstory as to ignore even the references they do get are unlikely to stay a full campaign, either by my instigation or theirs. It's not a hundred percent proof though, so  I try not to make snap judgements on it. This can probably also be taken as 100% proof that I am a story-gamer at heart and will keep coming back to it even in my dungeon crawls....
I guess the point of this post (albeit in a roundabout and unnecessary way) is that one of the best ways to achieve player investment is to have players that are on the same wavelength as you, who have similar humour and interests. And who don't mind you mocking them (good-naturedly) for missing a joke.

"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own!"

In which I discourse on the remainder of the available races and, perhaps more importantly, show my working as to why some more traditional choices have been shunned from my world.

Trolls: The descendents of the mountains themselves, born from the great rocks struck from the cliffs by magic in time gone by. I have a soft-spot for Trolls (ironically, as they have literally no soft-spots. This stuff writes itself.). As mentioned previously, they have no spirits and are essentialy immune to spirit magic and cannot interact with the spirit plane at all. By this I mean things such as disease spirits cannot possess them or directly interact with them, but ice spirits (for exampe) can still affect them indirectly with their icy spells. A nice little touch I think, that should make them interesting to play. Obviously, strength is a plus, but dexterity suffers as they have a lack of fine motor skills. Lack of a spirit also means POW is a bit below average too, so expecting these to be fighters mainly with the odd priest of the Trollgod thrown in. That said, camoflage abilities in natural/stone-based environs might make highwayman or thief a viable option?

Pixie: Having thoroughly examined the stats from as many angles as possible, this is one race that I want to include as it brings a completely different perspective to the playing field. However, it is going to be pretty much limited to magical classes due to small size and thus low strength, and crucially tiny weapons. So she's going to get a load of extra points to buy common magic with and probably get a free starting sorcery/divine/spirit skill too. Still can be specialised to either out and out combat (although not a front-line character, with an average of 2hp per hit location...) or infiltration and espionage fun.

 Myrmidon: Ant men (but not from Mars)! Minor telepathic abilities? At least something akin to aura sensing or similar will feature in this race as a unique ability to represent the hive mind. Otherwise, they're essentially centaurs but with mobility and armour instead of strength and speed. The myth behind the name is excellent too: they were a group of Greeks who were (reputedly) descended from a princess who was seduced by Zeus in one of his lesser known forms, an ant. It must be true because you couldn't make this shit up. Cannot exist in chaotic society for too long, needs the security of a daily grind once every six months or so. Patroling guard is an ideal occupation for these guys. Can only interact with lawful spirits and deities.

Which brings the total to 8, including humans. I think that's enough to be going on with for now.

Now the rejects:
Elves, Dwarves, Halflings. I just can't justify them being there. Dwarves still exist in my world but are vicious and bestial in their pursuit of shinies. Only just tipping the scale to 'sentient'. Halflings are just depowered dwarves and I don't see any advantages to that. Elves are boring. Actually that applies to all these in their Tolkienesque forms, they've just been so overdone that they're pretty much just caricatures now. And the associations with a single class are too great as well. Elves are just really old people anyway. All the traditional bonuses to magic and archery are cultural rather than innate. Strip them of their high-and-mighty attitude and they don't really have any interesting or unique quirks of their own. Play an albino human with pinned ears if you must, but there'll be no elves in my land...

Grotaron. I really wanted these to be playable. I really did. But I can't do it. They're just too big and too good at what they do. And frankly I couldn't stop laughing long enough to write stats for them. They worship a Wooly Mammoth for goodness sake. So no, they're not going in I'm afraid. I doubt there'll even be any in the world to be honest.

Yes, those are eyes. Delicate sensory organs on your grappling limbs, what could possibly go wrong?

Slarge: Glorantha's Lizardmen. A nice, if a little overpowered, race by all accounts. But it seems redundant with the Dragonewts. Especially as the Dragonewts are a bit more variable rather than wanting to smash everything. Oh and Slarges are hated by every other race because they have a reputation as backstabbers so it'd be more trouble than it's worth. Especially as the town must be safe.

Satyrs, Goblins, Orcs, Assorted humanoid generic evils. Boring and more to the point, wouldn't be accepted in most societies so pointless anyway. I did try statting out some gargoyles but they were just insane. At base they have 5d6 strength. Even massive compensations didn't change how broken that was when combined with natural claws...

That concludes the selection of playable races. Any good suggestions will be noted and possibly added. Probably take a break from this world for a while as I work on the map for the PCs area.

Picture (C) Mongoose Publishing, No challenge on it's ownership is intended. Any problems with my use of it and give me an email or a message, I'll take it down.

Just To Clarify

Just a quick note to say: A couple of people have been a little confused as to why I started my worldbuilding with defining the player races, rather than by making a map or plotting a history.

I've decided I'm going to do it by first defining the societies that will have a major impact on the players, followed by the map to show the terrain that could support harmonius living between them. This will help concrete in my mind how I want the societies to interact which will lead naturally to determining what monsters are likely to be around, and snowballing to give ideas about quests and dungeons to be located on the map as well. But it starts by defining the home base, which needs people and people I am providing. History will be provoked, I suspect by features that crop up on the landscape as time goes by...

I could have started with any aspect really I guess, but it just made sense this way.

You Want To Play As A What...?!

The title being my reaction when one of my players decided he wanted to play as a pixie. Granted it was in response to my questions from yesterday's post, but even so...

A few of my issues about balance and such I have worked out now. This link gave me a good insight into what my problem was. I was trying to work this as 'Combat as Sport', where any one individual can take on any one other individual. In the real world (and as this will be a sandbox, it is attempting to emulate at least vaguely the real world in this respect) Combat is War. Thus it is all about strategising and logistical maneuvering. Your pixie mage might get flattened in a mano e mano with an ogre, but level the playing field with a varied support group (the party) for the pixie, and the group of ogres that all have the same specialties are screwed. Ergo, as long as your character is useful, it doesn't have to epitomise one particular aspect of anything. Also, doesn't even have to be a fighter at all. In many cases the party may be first contact with another species; diplomacy is a useful skill too. Combat's just easier to write quick examples for.

These are the first species I have decided to include in my world as playable. Part 2 will conclude tomorrow:

Human: Duh. Balanced, doesn't suck at anything in particular but has no hugely different skills either, save a slightly higher affinity for common magic than most (10%) and possibly some sort of innate ability if i can think of one that doesn't suck... EDIT: I think I've got it! Humans can be the most technologically advanced PC culture (absence of dwarfs make this pretty much a given anyway) and thus they shall have bonuses to that sort of thing.

Broo: 'Chaos' influenced beastmen. I'll be rewriting the history on these a little for my world as it sounds too much like a GW ripoff at the moment (as seaofstarsrpg points out below, RQ chaos was around much before GW, but the association is still too strong for my liking). Suffice to say, these are tolerated in most societies only as long as they are useful. They smell bad and look evil but have a nice affinity for spirit magics. Can't settle in any lawful society for too long though or they go a bit nuts. Combined with natural weapons (horns) makes them perfect for adventuring and mercenary work. Innate traits are 1d2 Chaotic Traits rolled on the table in the RQ monsters book, 50/50 good and bad. (Word to the wise: Don't image search 'Runequest Broo' at work. With safe search on strict, the 7th image was NSFW).

Centaurs: I have a great love for all things 'tauric. I think I shall include Wemic under this general heading (possibly the barbarian/primitive race for centaurs? Same species, but different races have different hind quarters? Evil Counterparts too). Normal centaurs obviously can't climb as well as many bipedal creatures and that's actually quite a big detriment. Though they are fast and sure-footed over even rocky terrain, so I think that balances itself really. Big obviously. Somewhat stronger than humans probably but easier to hit. May give them a free nature spell or similar as an innate ability though they're fairly well balanced as is.

Dragonewt: Technically Glorantha specific, but I'm stealing them. I really like how their primary culture can basically be implemented as a cult, with them getting bigger and more powerful as they gain status rather than just through gradual improvment like everyone else. Start off a bit tragic, but a minor breath-weapon and the ability to grow wings and other nice abilities makes them eminently playable anyway. Also, access to their own magic Lores and common magic spells is a nice bonus even to non-mage players.

Birdmen: I refuse to call them Ducks. No really, they are not even based on ducks dammit. In my world, they're closer to the Aarakocra anyway. They can fly, though low starting strength means they won't be hauling their friends around at all. Calm Animal (Birds) as an innate ability that can also incite flocks of birds to follow them around.

On The Frustrations Of Diversity In FRPGs

(Apologies to anyone who started looking at this for CoC content, I'm on a bit of an RQ binge at the moment, the indescribable horror will return eventually, honestly...) Little thing first: I'm always amazed at just how often posts like this are actually needed by the community. Surely it's common sense that you should ask your players what they're comfortable with and not push those limits. I mean really? I'm not mocking the author by any means and he makes good points, it just seems like it should be something we know by now...

*Ahem* Anyway, now I've got that off my chest onto the meat of the post:

Non-human PCs. Can these actually work?
I really like the idea of being involved in a game (on either side of the screen) where you can play as non-human species (they're not races, it's a stupid use of the term etc. etc.). This needn't be limited to the usual elf/dwarf/halfling set and similar 'human but with a single defining characteristic' crowds (I'm looking at you, planetouched). More like trolls and pixies. I'm not talking necessarily even bipedal characters e.g. centaurs etc.

As part of my worldbuilding for RQ, I'm looking to provide a decent - around a dozen probably - set of playable races for my players, each with unique builds and traits, rather than just reskins of the same template. I also want to make it so that different races can also do different things, otherwise it just becomes an unofficial class system i.e. all elves are mages and similarly playing any other race as a mage is pointless. I have however run into a few potholes with this, both mechanically and in-universe.

The term balance gets thrown around a lot both positively and negatively, and I am resigned to the fact there are going to be optimum builds no matter how I work it out. However, I am determined to not make each race only useful in one role. The difficulty lies in making this feasible and still having interesting and significant differences betweeen them. Thus I can think of two options here:
A) Specifically reverse this, instead of building the species to fit a role, build them to NOT fit a particular role, with compensatory bonuses to relatively general areas. For example, Trolls in my game are pretty much descended from boulders and thus have no spirits. No spirit magic for Trolls then, but to compensate they gain some physical bonuses that emphasise the very material flavour of these beasts, don't prohibit anything. So you can still play a Troll priest, Troll scout/thief or a Troll tank fighter. Flavourful and not too restrictive.
B) Pretty much balance the rollable characteristics equally but give each species interesting and flexible racial abilities that give them unique abilities that are preferably not tied to a specific style of play. Though this is easier in some cases than others.
Pour exemple, Humans have all their normal stats +30% in common magic representing their diversity and power over the natural world. Trolls have the same stats, but have natural armour at AP1 on all locations because of their trollhide. Elves have the same stats but have Charm Animal as a free ability etc.

Both of these break down when you have more variation. For example B) doesn't work with species that are substantially smaller (halflings/dwarfs/pixies) or bigger (Centaurs/Trolls if they're to be interesting/Myrmidon). A) still pigeonholes players. I think this is inevitable really though, and I'm just going to have to accept that species is basically class by a different name. Besides if they're all the same it's boring isn't it? I like the idea of a tiny pixie magus, who would be flattened by anything that hit but can flit around so fast and fire spells off so she's not in anymore danger than the trollkin barbarian with her greataxe and the Centaur wielding his recurve bow or the human thief who is swiftly fleeing with all the loot while they are distracted.

I think that overall, I'm going to deal in a sort of one-up-one-down, advantage/disadvantage system to prevent things that are huge and magically inclined as then there is no real reason to play any other race. If something comes out as being a rubbish version of another race or a broken version, it'll get binned. That said, some species are built for specific roles. Using a centaur as a moutain climber is not going to work, so he'll get some counterbalancing to compensate.

Some more fluffy restrictions that I'm also using to pare down the list of available creatures to play:
The species must be capable of integrating with general (human) society. They don't have to get on well with humans, and in the case of groups like the Dragonewts, will possibly have been exiled from their own communities. Having the groups pet minotaur having to be shackled by the gate of every town is not going to fun for the player and is a pain in the ass for me to administrate.
Similarly, the race must not be overtly evil, stupid or undead. This rules out things like Satyrs who are openly malevolent towards humans and cave trolls who are too stupid to understand any quests given to them. Again, for everyone's convenience and I've never heard of a campaign with evil PCs going well.

When I have finalised my list, I'll post them here. Meanwhile I welcome any suggestions that might arise both for cool races and

An Open Relationship With The Story? (and other quirky questions)

As I'm trying to settle into the routine of posting regularly, my post topics have been all over the place. I'm trying to aim for quality over quantity of course but I think what I need is a project to focus on. By no means will this be the sole focus of the blog but just to warn you that I'm going to start preparing a sandbox world for an MRQII game that will materialise at some unknown time in the future and as such there will be an incoming stream of posts about this, along with the OPD competition entry...

Anyway, here's several meta-questions that are more attitude than mechanic-centric to counter-balance yesterdays post. This was mainly inspired by people bandying about questions about attitudes to gaming on the blogroll, forums and in the Real World^tm, so this gives me some general answers I can direct them too. If it inspires you to think about your style as well then so much the better!

1. Do you fudge dice rolls? The GM in me says occasionally it's ok, the Player says no. In general I don't because it seems to defeat the point of rolling.

2. Do you play with a GM screen? I never have for purely practical (i.e. space-related) reasons but I've never felt like I'm missing out. I'd like to try it though as it's an iconic sort of image...

3.Improvisation or Strict adherence to prepared material? Obviously improvisation has to be a huge part of any game (to avoid plot-train syndrome) but I like to follow prepared material as I am very much still amateurish in my attempts to riff off my players. That said, I like to think I'm improving and that's a large part of what the sandbox project is going to be about. That and my passion for worldbuilding...

4. Roleplaying or Rollplaying to solve problems? This is an age-old question which I think addresses quite a large flaw in mechanics such as searching for traps (in D&D) or Spot Hidden rolls (in CoC). If theplayer specifically states they look where the trap (or clue, item, enemy etc.) is, but fails their roll, do they find the thing? In my book, yes they do. I'm very much about promoting player (as opposed to character) ingenuity as much as possible in my games, so yes they do.

5. Story gamer or dungeon crawler? While this is pretty much a false dichotomy, I tend to do both. Having cut my teeth on Call Of Cthulhu's heavily plot-driven scenarios I have a soft-spot for a good storyline, but I have also been the victim of GMs who enforce their storyline to the hilt, and thats no fun. So I have overarching, background machinations but mostly for me, the players don't need to be restricted. I had this driven home for me, last weekend in fact, when one of the players who was used to a different CoC GM kept asking if the things he was about to do would 'break' the scenario because he'd done them in another guy's game and the GM had flat out said if he did that they may as well go home, the adventure is over. That seems wierd to me...

6. How much random/procedurally generated content do you use? I guess this ties into the previous question, but at the moment not a lot. Many of the blogs I read wax lyrical on the wonders of random encounter tables though so I'm very tempted to implement in a game somewhere. I have an interesting idea for a procedurally generated game bouncing around in my mind, but I'm sort of stuck on how to implement it without it becoming boring after the novelty wears off.

7. Do you actually ENJOY GMing? This is a weird one. I've heard so many people say "I only GM because no one else wants to" that it's become almost my standard assumption, but I find it hard to believe that the people who spend hours preppig for a session are doing so just for the sake of their fellows. I enjoy GMing Call Of Cthulhu very much so, and I don't think being a player in that game is ever going to hold appeal for more than one or two sessions because I've seen too much behind the curtain and I'd miss the little bits of knowledge that make everything hang together behind-the-scenes. That said, there is a particularly sad kind of heartbreak that comes of having players stomping through your meticulously prepared world...

8. How detailed do you want characters? Again, this varies between GM and Player me. GM Malik wants specific details that he can use as plot-hooks and similar devices. Anything else is nice because it gets the player invested, but superfluous for my own purposes. Player Malik isn't particularly bothered about the character history. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against those who devise whole family trees and so on, but it's not for me. What I like is the personality of a character, the quirks, the hooks, the habits, something that really influences what he does so that other people will be able to almost predict what he's going to do based on his personality not mine and they'll remember him and his actions. That said, these tend to be minor traits as hugely quirky characters tend to clash with the party and the GM. This probably stems from my psychological background I admit. If players want to write up long backstories I'm good with that and it definitely helps player investment, and some people like reasons for their behaviour.  As I'm writing this, Wrath Of A Zombie has written an interesting piece on this exact subject here. An alternative point of view is covered here.

9. Do you use props in gaming? This varies humungously, based on the game. In CoC I do, a lot, because handouts are cool and tangible clues are the best in a invetigative game. Also decipering them shuts the players up for a while. In other games I suspect I won't as much, though the occasional visual puzzle will inevitably pop up here and there.

I've covered worldbuilding before and so suffice to say that I enjoy it immensly but feel it often goes to waste as players ignore half of it anyway. That said, if it makes the world more believable and helps you with your roleplaying NPCs (it does for me) I think it's an excellent idea. (BTW, I know that post and my current sandbox idea are a little at odds, but that was referring to maps in the context of campaigns where there is a specific objective, because I'm a largely new-school story-gamer as noted above, hence why I'm trying to broaden my horizons).

Anything else you want to know about, please ask!

Oh, Hell Everyone Else Is Doing It...

While I'm not a member of the Old School Rebellion cos I don't play D&D enough to have joined the edition wars, this has been everywhere enough to have gotten me on board:

1.Ability scores generation method? 3d6, lowest score can be re-rolled, assign as you like.
2.How are death and dying handled? Unconscious at 0, dead at -2
3.What about raising the dead? Yes, but it'll cost you.
4.How are replacement PCs handled? They are written in in a fashion that links the backstories
5.Initiative: individual, group, or something else? Individual, every single time.
6.Are there critical hits and fumbles? How do they work? Yeah I like them, fumbles usually lead to dropping a weapon or similar, critical hits do max damage by default
7.Do I get any benefits for wearing a helmet? Yeah, it provides armour on your head. What sort of question is this?
8.Can I hurt my friends if I fire into melee or do something similarly silly? Very much so. Idiots must be punished!
9.Will we need to run from some encounters, or will we be able to kill everything? Depends how Lovecraftian I'm feeling...
10.Level-draining monsters: yes or no? Sure, why not?
11.Are there going to be cases where a failed save results in PC death? As 9.
12.How strictly are encumbrance & resources tracked? Encumbrance pretty strictly, resources depends on how ridiculous the players are being.
13.What's required when my PC gains a level? Training? Do I get new spells automatically? Can it happen in the middle of an adventure, or do I have to wait for down time? Down time mostly.
14.What do I get experience for? Defeating enemies, finding treasure, solving puzzles. Ad hoc bonuses for excellence
15.How are traps located? Description, dice rolling, or some combination? Description can find anything rolling misses.
16.How do I identify magic items? Through use probably unless you're high-level or know someone who is.
17.Can I buy magic items? Oh, come on: how about just potions? Not cheaply...
18.Can I create magic items? When and how? By learning how to do it, over a long period of time. And you must be prepared for back-firing...
19.What about splitting the party? Go Ahead. Make my day!

Character Concept: Mikal

A nice little concept for a shamanic character that came to me when I was reading through the Runequest II rulebook. Feel free to steal and/or disassemble as its only a skeleton profile.

 

Mikal is a Shaman who is obsessed with ascending to join the ranks of the anscestor spirits. His shamanic trainer instructed him that while the ancestors are perfectly happy to teach and instruct, the aspiring shaman should aim to remain rooted in the material plane so as to further teach humanity the virtues that are necessary to progress its relationship to nature and the spiritual world. To symbolise this bond, his exclusive weapon is a ball and chain which he wields to great effect. His spirit animal is a gazelle, which represents the freedom he has spent his entire existence craving. His eventual goal is to become inviolate to all earthly harm so he can spend his time nurturing his connections with the spirit plane and passing this knowledge on.

 

Due to his nature,he refuses to partake in any practices involving reincarnation of himself or others, viewing death as a sort of spiritual promotion. His Ball and Chain is shackled to his wrist and has a guardian spirit bound to it who aids him when he is attacked and can calm some wild animals when they are enraged.