Carl was supposed to post a message this, but he's deathly ill (okay, it's a little sinus infection) (yeah, I'm callous, *I* haven't gotten it yet), so I wrote it up, and put it in a web page instead. http://www.phoenyx.net/reinvent.html Everyone should go read it. So why are you still here? Go read it. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 4 Nov 2002, at 23:23, Karen Cravens wrote: > Everyone should go read it. Neat idea. As soon as I can get my games and personal life in order, I hope to be able to contribute. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Glitter and the Glamour Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 4 Nov 2002 at 23:23, Karen Cravens wrote: > Everyone should go read it. This is an interesting idea but I'm not sure how exactly it could work. It's my impression that there are quite a few different game systems (not just worlds) in use on the Phoenyx which aren't really compatible. Even within the same game system (e.g. 3rd ed. D&D), differences between each GM' approach to the "power level" of her/his group and you're liable to have difficulty with interaction between different games. That said, I'm willing to help out. I'm decent with Campaign Cartographer (just got the Pro update which is *supposed* to be easier to use) and I actually have a "generic" world already in the works that could be tapped for ideas or maps... MJ Realms DM -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): MJ Harnish Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
> > >>Everyone should go read it. >> >> > >This is an interesting idea but I'm not sure how exactly it could work. >It's my impression that there are quite a few different game systems >(not just worlds) in use on the Phoenyx which aren't really compatible. >Even within the same game system (e.g. 3rd ed. D&D), differences >between each GM' approach to the "power level" of her/his group and >you're liable to have difficulty with interaction between different games. > >That said, I'm willing to help out. I'm decent with Campaign >Cartographer (just got the Pro update which is *supposed* to be easier >to use) and I actually have a "generic" world already in the works that >could be tapped for ideas or maps... > >MJ >Realms DM > > > Sounds like an intriguing project. The current games being grandfathered as default, solves most of the possible problems. One doesn't have to enter this big world. I have a Pendragon world, so unless there was an island somewhere in that world, it would be difficult to integrate, as it is very specific: Arthuriana. But, it seems intriguing. About different rulesets, that could be tweaked. One group uses one set of rules, the other uses the other ones. It is then the GMs job, if the two groups interact, to act as a buffer. Bruce, Forge of Legends -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 2:09, MJ Harnish wrote: > This is an interesting idea but I'm not sure how exactly it could work. > It's my impression that there are quite a few different game systems > (not just worlds) in use on the Phoenyx which aren't really compatible. > Even within the same game system (e.g. 3rd ed. D&D), differences > between each GM' approach to the "power level" of her/his group and > you're liable to have difficulty with interaction between different games. That's one thing I didn't actually address on the page: whether gamemasters would be required to run the same game RULES. We're currently thinking no, that the worlds will be defined using something fairly generic and gamemasters who want to make a conversion can. And as far as differing power levels and whatnot, we're not *requiring* that gamemasters run cooperative games. Non-interference (i.e., don't assassinate the king without discussing it with the other GM's) is the minimum, that's all. Actual interaction between more than one game will require extra coordination, keeping the timelines straight and whatnot, and will probably be an exception rather than the rule. The gamemasters will have their own "backstage" group in which to discuss that sort of thing. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 8:49, Karen Cravens wrote: > That's one thing I didn't actually address on the page: whether gamemasters > would be required to run the same game RULES. We're currently thinking > no, that the worlds will be defined using something fairly generic and > gamemasters who want to make a conversion can. I think requiring the use of uniform rules would pretty much kill the idea for most people; I know I run a non-standard 3rd ed. campaign and would never get involved in anything where I was forced to play using a particular set of rules even if they were just the "core" 3rd Ed. rules." That said, the D20 system is pretty flexible and with the open license you can do quite a bit with it. Still, trying to shoe horn everyone's ideas and interpretations of various rules would be a nightmare. I can't imagine how you'd squeeze "Arthurian" influenced games into the same world as "LotR" kind of fantasy. Not to mention the just the difference between high and low magic worlds. I suppose you could have different regions and such but isolating all the various games into particular, self- contained regions sort of defeats the purpose of the whole idea in my mind. > gamemasters run cooperative games. Non-interference (i.e., don't > assassinate the king without discussing it with the other GM's) is the > minimum, that's all. Your example is actually one of the reasons I wouldn't want to actually run a game in such an environment (and I think a lot of GM's *might* agree with me). My own game sort of evolves as time goes on and sometimes takes some odd turns: Not being able to kill off a significant NPC or start a massive war on a whim would really put a significant damper on my creative freedom. What would happen if the "council of GMs" said "No, you can't do that."? I would do it anyways and my world would suddenly diverge from the others... Hmmmm, this is starting to sound like a plot to a Star Trek show. :O) Think of the danger we'd be putting the universe in! ;Op I also think it also would be a fairly enormous task to try and keep things updated with how various campaigns modify the world (i.e., political developments, etc.). My own campaign is pretty small-scale (I've grown tired of running grand "epics") but people do die (and then come back from the dead ;O) and entire villages are occassionally put to the blade for dramatic reasons. Perhaps the first step would be to just create the world: Geography, political & social boundries, history, etc. without burdening it with actual game rules. From that history, let various GMs utilize the world as they see fit; they themselves can decide if perhaps they want to cross-over into each other's worlds or work together to form a collective campaign (separate but parallel). In this way you have a bunch of GMs familiar with a world and its history, etc. but you're not homogenizing the whole thing into one enormous MUDD. I like the idea of having an "official" Phoenyx campaign world and would be willing to use it for future games (transporting my current game would be impossible unless we put a big chunk of the Forgotten Realms somewhere). However, I wouldn't want to run a game in an environment where I wouldn't be free to do whatever I want to do. It's one of the few perks of being a GM: The ability to be god-like. :O) Also: While I think the idea of trying to establish "continuity" is a noble cause, I'm just not sure how that would ever work: In most cases a GM imparts a certain "feel" to the game, which long-time players like, and that's the big change when a GM leaves. Finding another GM to pick up where the other left off is problematic b/c nobody wants to run another person's game (just like few players want to "adopt" someone else's character) and even if they're willing to do it, most of the time they just can't recreate the original GM's game no matter how they try. MJ Realms DM -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): MJ Harnish Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 09:23 PM 11/4/2002, you wrote: >Carl was supposed to post a message this, but he's deathly ill (okay, it's a >little sinus infection) (yeah, I'm callous, *I* haven't gotten it yet), so >I wrote it >up, and put it in a web page instead. Yes, quite the interesting idea. I have only two questions: 1) Space games? Sure, this could be one "world" of those, but is it in the Federation? The Solamni Rim? etc. 2) Cosmology? Somebody mentioned "power level" and I think this fits in with that. Assuming each "campaign" gets their own normal set of "gods", perhaps a good solution is to create a few uber-gods whose sole concern is *this* world. (I think the best solution would be to invent a complete cosmology and let GM's fit it into their own campaigns, but that might be too much for some) Those questions being asked, I'd like to throw my hat in on this project as well. As many of you know, I don't have a Phoenyx game running at the moment, so this might be just the thing for me. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 10:43 AM 11/5/2002, Thom wrote: >At 09:23 PM 11/4/2002, you wrote: > >Carl was supposed to post a message this, but he's deathly ill (okay, it's a > >little sinus infection) (yeah, I'm callous, *I* haven't gotten it yet), so > >I wrote it > >up, and put it in a web page instead. > >Yes, quite the interesting idea. I have only two questions: > >1) Space games? Sure, this could be one "world" of those, >but is it in the Federation? The Solamni Rim? etc. Clearly, those of us running SF games already will not be affected. Future SF games might use a still-to-be-determined SF universe. >2) Cosmology? Somebody mentioned "power level" and I >think this fits in with that. Assuming each "campaign" gets >their own normal set of "gods", perhaps a good solution is >to create a few uber-gods whose sole concern is *this* >world. >(I think the best solution would be to invent a complete >cosmology and let GM's fit it into their own campaigns, >but that might be too much for some) The idea is to have GMs fit their campaigns to the world, not vice-versa. >Those questions being asked, I'd like to throw my hat in on >this project as well. As many of you know, I don't have a >Phoenyx game running at the moment, so this might be >just the thing for me. I'll help out as well, just (re)registered on the forums. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 16:41, Michael J. Feldhusen wrote: > The idea is to have GMs fit their campaigns to the world, not vice-versa. Actually, the ultimate idea is to have GMs come from the ranks of people who've played in the world, so they're not coming in here and saying "Gee, I dunno if I can fit my style into this idea." They're people who already know and like the gameworld. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 10:02 PM 11/5/2002, Karen Cravens wrote: >On 5 Nov 2002 at 16:41, Michael J. Feldhusen wrote: > > > The idea is to have GMs fit their campaigns to the world, not vice-versa. > >Actually, the ultimate idea is to have GMs come from the ranks of people >who've played in the world, so they're not coming in here and saying "Gee, I >dunno if I can fit my style into this idea." They're people who already know >and like the gameworld. Same thing in the end. :) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 17:21, Tim Hall wrote: > I think there are going to be pitfalls. Seems to me that no game can > make *any* permanent change to the world, because it could derail > other games. I think some GMs may find this overly restrictive. Some compromise will be necessary, but except for a really, really creative player/group, the GM should see any Big-Picture changes on the horizon well before they come to pass, and can discuss it with the other GMs. I want the GM culture to foster a reaction of "Wow, that's really going to make some changes... how can I use it to further *my* plots?" rather than "Aaah! That'd mess up all my plans, you can't do it!" We'll take some lessons from improv theater on "blocking" (or *not* blocking, actually) and the like. > We're not just talking about someone assassinating the king - > potentially the same applies to any 'shared' NPC, right down to some > tavern innkeeper. Depending on how closely related games are in location, yes. I'd expect for gamemasters who are running games in the same towns to be, basically, running a larger multi-GM game. Gamemasters who don't want to coordinate that closely can run things in other locations, close enough to share culture, far enough to not step on toes. > I've seen two large multi-GM games on Compu$erve (STS and URC) go > badly pear-shaped because of disagreement between GMs over direction. > Admittedly there were other issues as well; such as the founder of one > game disappearing for six months, during which other GMs developed the > game in other directions, only to reappear and want everything put > back like it was before. We may end up with an uber-GM whose job is just to coordinate other gamemasters' ideas, arbitrate disputes, and so on. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Karen Cravens wrote: >We may end up with an uber-GM whose job is just to coordinate other >gamemasters' ideas, arbitrate disputes, and so on. In STS, one of the games I'd mentioned, the workload of the Uber-GM was very high, and caused several burnouts. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Karen Cravens wrote: > Non-interference (i.e., don't >assassinate the king without discussing it with the other GM's) is the >minimum, that's all. Actual interaction between more than one game will >require extra coordination, keeping the timelines straight and whatnot, and >will probably be an exception rather than the rule. The gamemasters will have >their own "backstage" group in which to discuss that sort of thing. I think there are going to be pitfalls. Seems to me that no game can make *any* permanent change to the world, because it could derail other games. I think some GMs may find this overly restrictive. We're not just talking about someone assassinating the king - potentially the same applies to any 'shared' NPC, right down to some tavern innkeeper. I've seen two large multi-GM games on Compu$erve (STS and URC) go badly pear-shaped because of disagreement between GMs over direction. Admittedly there were other issues as well; such as the founder of one game disappearing for six months, during which other GMs developed the game in other directions, only to reappear and want everything put back like it was before. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 06:21 PM 11/5/2002, Tim Hall wrote: >Karen Cravens wrote: > > > Non-interference (i.e., don't > >assassinate the king without discussing it with the other GM's) is the > >minimum, that's all. Actual interaction between more than one game will > >require extra coordination, keeping the timelines straight and whatnot, and > >will probably be an exception rather than the rule. The gamemasters > will >have their own "backstage" group in which to discuss that sort of thing. > >I think there are going to be pitfalls. Seems to me that no game can >make *any* permanent change to the world, because it could derail >other games. I think some GMs may find this overly restrictive. > >We're not just talking about someone assassinating the king - >potentially the same applies to any 'shared' NPC, right down to some >tavern innkeeper. Yes, this is very true. The MMORPGs do it is to prevent anyone that is not part of the development team from making these changes. This means that NPCs are *very* static, changing little if at all from time to time. *That* is one of the true draw-backs to MMORPGs. You *can't* change anything for anyone but yourself. You may discover that a person is a traitor and reveal this to the King, but he's still there the next day so *everyone else* can find out he's a traitor and reveal him to the King. And usually there's no *explanation* of why he's still there and he acts just like before. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 20:33, Michael J. Feldhusen wrote: > Yes, this is very true. The MMORPGs do it is to prevent anyone that is not > part of the development team from making these changes. This means that > NPCs are *very* static, changing little if at all from time to time. That's the fun part about *not* having a graphical interface thingy, and using a Wiki for world creation/presentation/development. Once a Phoenyx game's in motion, the gamemasters will *become* the development team. > *That* is one of the true draw-backs to MMORPGs. You *can't* change > anything for anyone but yourself. You may discover that a person is a > traitor and reveal this to the King, but he's still there the next day so > *everyone else* can find out he's a traitor and reveal him to the > King. And usually there's no *explanation* of why he's still there and he > acts just like before. Hence the trend toward human-moderated stuff, I'm told... LARPing online, basically... (I guess my acronym should really be MMPBEMRPG.) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Will this exclude non-standard FRPs or not? Does everyone have to fit in, or can you possibly house this Corporate Roleplaying Project side by side with experimental streetcart vendors whose campaigns are not designed to be huge? Perhaps I missed the point completely. I haven't even started my game yet, but I fear that my fantasy campaign is quite non-standard in that it has neither elves nor halflings, and only degenerate dwarfs. A unified RPG is a cool idea, though, but perhaps not for everyone. Best Wishes, Magnus B, soon-to-be moderator of Cragbain 1463 -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 5 Nov 2002 at 9:43, Thom wrote: > 1) Space games? Sure, this could be one "world" of those, > but is it in the Federation? The Solamni Rim? etc. That's a good question. Fantasy has a more well-defined set of tropes (I more than half-seriously said we'd use the Tough Guide To Fantasyland to define the world...) where science fiction is a little more varied. We will probably have more than one space universe, at least (one space opera, one hard sf, for instance). Star Trek is the hard one. Multi-GM Trek sims *are* doing what we're talking about, so it seems natural to have a Trek universe, but that's Somebody Else's Sandbox, so it's sort of odd man out if all the other worlds belong to us. > 2) Cosmology? Somebody mentioned "power level" and I > think this fits in with that. Assuming each "campaign" gets > their own normal set of "gods", perhaps a good solution is > to create a few uber-gods whose sole concern is *this* > world. > (I think the best solution would be to invent a complete > cosmology and let GM's fit it into their own campaigns, > but that might be too much for some) The latter is what we're looking at doing. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Karen Cravens wrote: >That's a good question. Fantasy has a more well-defined set of tropes (I >more than half-seriously said we'd use the Tough Guide To Fantasyland to >define the world...) Ugh! Probably indicates that my own tastes are too far from the mainstream; I prefer distinctive settings with their own unique races and creatures, rather than the typical 'generic fantasy' Forgotten Realms clones with the standard fantasy elves 'n dwarves. But that's just me. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tim Hall wrote: > Probably indicates that my own tastes are too far from the mainstream; > I prefer distinctive settings with their own unique races and > creatures, rather than the typical 'generic fantasy' Forgotten Realms > clones with the standard fantasy elves 'n dwarves. But that's just > me. There's room for a "something different" world, but it has to be a "something different" that a large enough crowd will find appealing. I kind of like something different myself, but I've found that it doesn't attract players like the "generic fantasy" does... many players like the familiar, not the different. And I believe it has a lot to do with familiarity making it easier to get into the game and into character. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Fudge, Worldmaking, Fantasy Co-Editor, Phoenyx Co-Owner Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tim Hall wrote: > >> Probably indicates that my own tastes are too far from the mainstream; >> I prefer distinctive settings with their own unique races and >> creatures, rather than the typical 'generic fantasy' Forgotten Realms >> clones with the standard fantasy elves 'n dwarves. But that's just >> me. > > There's room for a "something different" world, but it has to be a > "something different" that a large enough crowd will find appealing. > > I kind of like something different myself, but I've found that it doesn't > attract players like the "generic fantasy" does... many players like the > familiar, not the different. > > And I believe it has a lot to do with familiarity making it easier to get > into the game and into character. One of the reasons that Everquest was always been more successful than Asheron's call is that Everquest used more familiar creatures and such even though Asheron's call had many things about it that were more logical and worked better. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
>One of the reasons that Everquest was always been more successful than
>Asheron's call is that Everquest used more familiar creatures and such even
>though Asheron's call had many things about it that were more logical and
>worked better.
I guess a solution would be to have no indigenous non-human
population. All Elves, Centaurs, Minotaurs, Guitars, etc. come
from "another place".
Carl, Karen, seems like you need a committee to come up with
the standard baselines for this world -- cooperation requires
common information.
After that, cartography, theology (and world origin?) are probably
the best directions. I think simple games (hack the orcs!) could
be up and running without those, however.
As Karen pointed out, you can tell 99% of the same stories in a
generic world. But it should at least be an interesting one!
--Thom
(no "Game(s): " yet...)
-- --------------------------------------------------------------
Game(s):
Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Shared world idea - "Riverworld"
(to those who haven't read Philip Jose Farmer,
this is a place where a subset of everybody goes
after they die. All are "equal" in that all are "born"
on the same day with no possessions. Things
break down quickly after that, though...)
Don't know if there is a MUD out there for this, but
the concept is interesting. And could encompass
MANY game systems -- the only requirement is
that your PC's have died!
--Thom
PS I guess I see this "reinvention" as pretty similar to a
MUD of sorts -- but from the other direction. Most MUDs
are created for a story (Tolkien, etc.) but we are creating
the story after the MUD. If that makes sense...
-- --------------------------------------------------------------
Game(s):
Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Troy Johnson wrote: >One of the reasons that Everquest was always been more successful than >Asheron's call is that Everquest used more familiar creatures and such even >though Asheron's call had many things about it that were more logical and >worked better. I'm told that the extremely funny spoof 'MMORPG' Progress Quest was very much a parody of Asheron's call. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Thom wrote: > Carl, Karen, seems like you need a committee to come up with > the standard baselines for this world -- cooperation requires > common information. Karen and I will be driving this first project... we wanted to get some initial feedback on the general idea before we dove into the details of laying the foundations of the world. Our next step is to start laying the foundations. > After that, cartography, theology (and world origin?) are probably > the best directions. I think simple games (hack the orcs!) could > be up and running without those, however. We have to develop a philosophy of magic pretty early as well. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Fudge, Worldmaking, Fantasy Co-Editor, Phoenyx Co-Owner Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Carl D Cravens wrote: >We have to develop a philosophy of magic pretty early as well. You'll want a cosmology as well (one god with various sects arguing over how she should be worshipped? A fixed limited number of gods? very many gods with research theologans finding new ones all the time? No gods at all? Different faiths believing in all of these?) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 10:28 AM 11/7/2002, Tim Hall wrote: >Carl D Cravens wrote: > > >We have to develop a philosophy of magic pretty early as well. > >You'll want a cosmology as well (one god with various sects arguing >over how she should be worshipped? A fixed limited number of gods? >very many gods with research theologans finding new ones all the time? >No gods at all? Different faiths believing in all of these?) I had that in the list with Theology, of course. As far as "different faiths" sure, there's a whole interpretation level. We (the world makers) decide what is real, then each GM decides how that is interpreted. "Holy Wars" are yet another conflict (following the theory of conflict = story) "No gods at all" throws out "clerical magic" (unless that's covered in the "philosophy" somehow). But I think we're on the right track... -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Tim Hall wrote: > You'll want a cosmology as well (one god with various sects arguing > over how she should be worshipped? A fixed limited number of gods? > very many gods with research theologans finding new ones all the time? > No gods at all? Different faiths believing in all of these?) For more things to go through, go see http://www.hut.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html especially the World building methodologies section. As for magic systems, there's http://www.hut.fi/~vesanto/MagicHtmls/magic.html juuso -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Godfather/list maintainer of Celandra Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 6 Nov 2002 at 15:51, Tim Hall wrote: > Probably indicates that my own tastes are too far from the mainstream; > I prefer distinctive settings with their own unique races and > creatures, rather than the typical 'generic fantasy' Forgotten Realms > clones with the standard fantasy elves 'n dwarves. But that's just > me. For the sake of worldbuilding, m3 t00. But for the sake of games... when it comes down to it, you can tell 99% of the same stories in a generic world. The hard part will be building a generic world that *isn't* boring. Among other things, I think we'll need artists. That's going to be hard. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Karen Cravens wrote: >For the sake of worldbuilding, m3 t00. But for the sake of games... when it >comes down to it, you can tell 99% of the same stories in a generic world. OK, I probably came over a bit harsh - having gamed for more years than some people I've gamed with have been *alive* (that's scary!), the generic fantasy elves 'n dwarves doesn't give me any sort of the sense of wonder any more. >The hard part will be building a generic world that *isn't* boring. If I can throw a few suggestions * Make the gameworld an alternate-history-where-magic-works (along the lines of Castle Falkenstein or Mage:Sorcerer's crusade) - then you could mix fantasy tropes with fun bits of real-world history. Just avoid something as lame as Seventh Sea.(John Wick doesn't read this list, does he?) * Have at least one totally original player-character race (and possibly additional NPC-only race(s). Of course, I did read the bit about existing games being grandfathered-in. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 12:35 PM 11/7/2002, Tim Hall wrote: >Karen Cravens wrote: > > >For the sake of worldbuilding, m3 t00. But for the sake of games... > when it > >comes down to it, you can tell 99% of the same stories in a generic world. > >OK, I probably came over a bit harsh - having gamed for more years >than some people I've gamed with have been *alive* (that's scary!), >the generic fantasy elves 'n dwarves doesn't give me any sort of the >sense of wonder any more. > > >The hard part will be building a generic world that *isn't* boring. > >If I can throw a few suggestions > >* Make the gameworld an alternate-history-where-magic-works (along the >lines of Castle Falkenstein or Mage:Sorcerer's crusade) - then you >could mix fantasy tropes with fun bits of real-world history. Just >avoid something as lame as Seventh Sea.(John Wick doesn't read this >list, does he?) I hope not! 7th Sea was one of those games that had a *really neat idea* behind it but where the execution was so *lame* that I just couldn't believe it. How "secret" are any of the "Secret Societies"? I couldn't see any of them managing to *remain* secret, given they way they were described. That said, I have a lot of 7th Sea stuff which I use and abuse in various ways, but I could never run a game in that setting. For example, it's quite likely that players in a game of mine will encounter some version of one or two of them (never all of them, that also made no sense), some public, some actually secret. >* Have at least one totally original player-character race (and >possibly additional NPC-only race(s). How "totally" original do you think we can be? I'm sure that just about everything has been done before. But if you mean a "non-mainstream" race, that's possible to do. How about a race of proud, noble shape-shifters, dedicated to preserving the balance of nature? Nope, been done before. OK, a race of sneaky and conniving rat-men that are dedicated to bringing about the downfall of civilization? Nope, that's been done before too. Ferocious and honorable feline tribesmen? Ditto. A highly advanced and decadent lizard people. Damn, they've been done before as well. Hmmm, how about a race of philosophical powerful psionic oozes? I don't *think* that's been done, but I could be wrong. :) And yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic here. I'm not trying to take a shot at you, Tim, just pointing out that being totally original is *hard*. Yes, it would be nice to have something that's unique, but a good, or even decent GM, can do great things with a "standard" setting, so I think the emphasis should be on creating a *good* setting, one that lives and breathes and has some depth. >Of course, I did read the bit about existing games being >grandfathered-in. I'm grateful for that as well. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Michael J. Feldhusen wrote: > Hmmm, >how about a race of philosophical powerful psionic oozes? I don't *think* >that's been done, but I could be wrong. :) I've done powerful psionic oozes - we've got them in Kalyr :) >And yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic here. I'm not trying to take a shot at >you, Tim, just pointing out that being totally original is *hard*. I take your point. What I probably mean was something beyond the core DnD races. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Kalyr Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:21:29PM -0600, Tim Hall wrote: > Michael J. Feldhusen wrote: > > > Hmmm, > >how about a race of philosophical powerful psionic oozes? I don't *think* > >that's been done, but I could be wrong. :) > > I've done powerful psionic oozes - we've got them in Kalyr :) There's going to be some (philosophical ones, even) in GURPS Shapeshifters, too. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Alien Light Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
>> * Have at least one totally original player-character race (and >> possibly additional NPC-only race(s). > > How "totally" original do you think we can be? I'm sure that just about > everything has been done before. But if you mean a "non-mainstream" race, > that's possible to do. How about a race of proud, noble shape-shifters, > dedicated to preserving the balance of nature? Nope, been done > before. OK, a race of sneaky and conniving rat-men that are dedicated to > bringing about the downfall of civilization? Nope, that's been done before > too. Ferocious and honorable feline tribesmen? Ditto. A highly advanced > and decadent lizard people. Damn, they've been done before as well. Hmmm, > how about a race of philosophical powerful psionic oozes? I don't *think* > that's been done, but I could be wrong. :) > > And yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic here. I'm not trying to take a shot at > you, Tim, just pointing out that being totally original is *hard*. > > Yes, it would be nice to have something that's unique, but a good, or even > decent GM, can do great things with a "standard" setting, so I think the > emphasis should be on creating a *good* setting, one that lives and > breathes and has some depth. I agree. I think the big reason that the "standard" fantasy races feel so uninteresting is that in the context of role playing they have been turned into different sized humans with various ear shapes. They don't seem very magical if you run into them at the grocery store buying TP. I cringe at the forgotten lands materials for that very reason and I think they have made wonderful races and character seem very mediocre. I wonder if that is why when we put out calls for new characters so many half minotar/half drow dragon-spawn ninja mages apply. Being an elf just doesn't seem interesting in the current "everyone is the same except for their ears" state of role playing. If all the standard races are given as compelling a histories and backgrounds as a non-standard race would be given, then they are suddenly much more interesting. I run a very human centric campaign for that very reason, so that when another race is encountered it is a big deal and the player characters who play races other than human have political and cultural agendas that are both interesting in their own right, and not perfectly in sync with those of the humans. If placed in the campaign for a reason, rather than just stuck in because they are expected, standard races are every bit as interesting as Philosophical oozes... ;-) > >> Of course, I did read the bit about existing games being >> grandfathered-in. > > I'm grateful for that as well. Me too. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On 7 Nov 2002 at 12:40, Troy Johnson wrote: > in the current "everyone is the same except for their ears" state of role > playing. Ooh, ooh, I know, I know: instead of ears, we'll do *foreheads*. *That's* original! -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): The Whole Phoenyx Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Karen Cravens wrote: > Ooh, ooh, I know, I know: instead of ears, we'll do *foreheads*. > *That's* original! So long as you don't do eyes... _I_ already did that one. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Fudge, Worldmaking, Fantasy Co-Editor, Phoenyx Co-Owner Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
Why is it that every time I try to delete a message from this list, Netscape crashes? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Roger Gorman Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, David Johnston wrote: > Why is it that every time I try to delete a message from this list, > Netscape crashes? This is because Netscape knows how important it is for you to keep all the email from this list and is punishing you for your transgression. In other words, no idea. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
At 12:22 PM 11/8/2002, Carl D Cravens wrote: >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Karen Cravens wrote: > > > Ooh, ooh, I know, I know: instead of ears, we'll do *foreheads*. > > *That's* original! > >So long as you don't do eyes... _I_ already did that one. How about feet and hands? Elves will have only two fingers and a thumb, Dwarves will have three fingers and a thumb. Both will have solid feet with no toes. Should make the art that much simpler. :) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Game(s): Rumors of War / Science Fiction Category Editor Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners/
