The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've been doing this Celtricia thing for a while.  Quite a while.
Also, I've been posting here for a while on said setting.And after a pretty short time, I started receiving those, "Like the idea, don't know where to start' responses.  
So I don't expect miracles, but have just plugged along.  Also, I've been aided by the fact that I am still transfering hundreds of pages of handwritten notes onto the wiki.

I've tried a few times to do an overview, as well as rebooting once already.  And I end up with the same issues.  Besides, what am I looking for for feedback?

So A new experiment, with a new, 'Meta' twist.  I'm going to post on pretty precise topics, about why I did the things I did in my setting design, and ask for opinions and how people answered the same question themselves.

First up...
I'll post on magic, on makeing a system match the fluff you want your world to have, as well as matching the type of game you want to run.  I'll try to post theat in the next few days,  I have the Mistonians tomorrow night.

I`m not sure if it was isomage or fourwillows, but someone mentioned a one-page approach to setting writing. You could try doing that as an intro thing maybe - it`s something I plan on doing soon. For every element of your setting you could devote a typed page to it - themes, politics, geography, magic, races, etc. Your system would obviously require much more than a page to do anything other than just give examples about... but it'd be a very good intro to the setting. I wonder if maybe everyone should be doing them...

I whole-heartedly support this thread and everything that comes with it.

Vreeg's First rule of Setting Design.
"Make sure the system you choose matches the game you want to play, or else the game will eventually match the system".

This rule relates to the magic systems more than most. Part of what makes a Fantasy Role playing game is the magic.  Whether it be the One Ring, Stormbringer, Memory, Sorrow, or Thorn, magic permeates our settings and our inspirations.  How many countless gaming threads have been wasted trying to figure out Gandalf's Level, when Tolkien's 'System' was really the issue?  

The 2 main questions you really have to answer when you create/abuse/houserule-the-shit-out-of/Adopt a magic system are:
1) what does it do to the setting?
2) what does it do to the game played at the table?

In terms of the first question, without getting too technical, there is a 2 dimensional frequency distribution that needs to be looked at that, which asks 2 questions.  How common is magic, and how common at what power level?  Tolkien has little magic, but those that can wield are powerful.  Same with Eddings Belgeriad.  Moorcock's Elric series involved lots of casters, as did Lieber's Lankhmar, and many had powerful magic.  
All of these examples are really, in a big picture,  different frequency ditributions.  Which is why certain game systems that try to engulf literary sources end up looking stupid.
Do you want to have all magic be rare and unusual?  Or do you want magic stores where PC's can actually buy and sell magic items?  [note=Power level]  Understand, that this frequency is tied to balance, in terms of game play.  This is how this part applies to the game as it is played.  I run a Low Hp game with high damage, so I don't want PC's just chucking mega damage all over the place.  This also applies to the whole power-growth thing.  How fast do you want your PC's to gain power?[/note]These 2 things are mutually incompatable.  So one cannot use the same system to create both types of setting.  I wanted to make magic somewhat common, especially plebian magic, as it was growing in use since the elder eras where it had been guarded.  But I needed powerful, or even middling magic, to be rare.  
ANd you can create a system to do this.  You just have to work at it.


Secondly, Powersources need to make sense in terms of the setting, as do spells.  This is still more fluff relatd, though the spells effect the gameplay heavily.

AS a GM, the source of magical power is important to the whole Genesis/cosmology/Creation Myth of the setting.  Again, our Tolkien example had almost all magic use tied to Valinor and any connection there.  Brust has Witchcraft and other mental/self-sourced stuff/Empire magic/and Pre-Empire Chaos stuff.  Big-picture,  it is all just a different system.  Elric's Elemental and Alignment pacts?  Very different.  And again, a different system.
And contrast all of the above with divine magic vs other types. Understand that Divine magic and power sources are the same conversation.  Not placing any judgement here, just trying to place this common vehicle where it belongs in this discussion.

So Once again, 2 questions come from this that need to be answered for any setting.
1) What is the source(s) of magical power, and how is the power accessed?
2) And what type of spells would LOGICALLY be powered by this/these sources.

I'll be a little honest here.  I have a disdain for GM's who just chuck a spell list at a game.  This guy is a wizard, so he can choose Magic Missle, Light, Write magic, comprehend languages...without even explaing why the source of this new wizard's magic would cover all this wildly disparate effects.  One reason I like and commented heavily on LC's Hen_gan and other magics was that after a few conversations, he was changing and shaping the different discipline's spells and effects to the source and discipline.  Other GM's looked at it and loved it, but the underlying reason was the deep logic behind the spells and the power sources.  
I really wanted.  Fire mages, Bards with mentalist magic, Artificers, Necromancers...and this was the system I wrote, complete with Creation story, spell teachings, and spells to go with it.  Your spells and effects define your casters, the organic vessels of the magic in your game.  Short-change them, short-change the game.  I Magic Missle the darkness and the DM.

Thirdly, How does magic power return?  
This is a little more important for the game play at the table, though it affects the behavior pattern of NPCs.
Soime folk take a simple view, some take a harder one.  But if and how people have to husband their abilities is critical for the game.  CAn the PC's get their power back in a day?  Or does it take longer the more they use?  Do devices help?  And why does it come back/  What is the vehicle for this power return?



I'm sure I am forgetting a few things, in my wine-besotted mind.  But this gives an overview of questions that I really need to be addressed when you create a system to go with your setting, magic-wise.  It also is why I I look a little askance at some of the conversation that I read about other settings, honestly.  'I'm not sure what system we are going to use yet', is a statement to mean that says that a writer hasn't asked these questions yet,[note=CBG]Campaign Builders Guild, Y'know?  Not Fluffy writers guild  [/note] that their beautiful, evocative setting is actually a novel setting, not an Campaign setting.  Creating fluff is a talent, and some people are incredibly skilled at it.  But creating Fluff with a Playable, balanced system that could survive Roleplayers and gaming?  
Only then is it a real campaign setting. Only then is it really worth calling a Campaign Setting.  I love a lot of what I read, and I try to comment and enjoy and be as helpful as I can be.  But a Setting that can't survive playing, that is not internally consistent and balanced, is like a car made of lingerie and feathers.  It may look nice, but it won't take you anywhere.


PleasE feel free to respond with thoughts, opinons, comments, and hate mail.   I choose to spend most of my posting energy here due to the talent and sincerity I find ensconced with these metaphoric walls. As I said on the chatsite to other enlightened folk, it's a viewpoint I think should be heard and might change some perspectives, but it is not a commandment.

Quote from: VreegCampaign Builders Guild, Y'know? Not Fluffy writers guild

Speak for yourself sir! :p

I've said it before, I do not table-top. I never have. So I most definetly fall into the Fluffy writers guild category. That being said, these are some interesting questions here.

Usually I work out how magic will work, why certain spells can be cast, what spells can be cast and all that jazz. Something I have never really done is wondered, how does magic come back? I will have to apply this question to current settings (Div 2.0, Hen Mut, the Bronze setting and the newest egg).

All this being said, where would you classify a setting that was made for a Wargame (like SDragon is doing), or for a computer game? or a board game? card game?

I think that as long as it works, and is internally consistent, and the author/creator/writer/conworlder can answer the questions you ask, then even if is never played, it's a campaign setting :P

[blockquote=Lluminous]I think that as long as it works, and is internally consistent, and the author/creator/writer/conworlder can answer the questions you ask, then even if is never played, it's a campaign setting [/blockquote]
If it can be played, if it could, hypothetically survive those nasty players, I SUPPOSE we'll let it slide.  (JK)

I'm going to go ahead and agree wholeheartedly. Magic has to be clear and reasonable from a certain standpoint... it is hard to justify it just being there to serve whatever purpose someone would desire. Even if someone doesn't take the time to write out the explanation for magic's function in their setting, what is given should be detailed in such a way as to hint at a method. And the system, well, that's a given complication in any case where a GM and players try to put one side of gaming with the other. I seem to repeat myself a lot on this, but there are systems like the Star Wars Saga Edition one that are very mutable and agile gaming-wise, while there are others that must be used for specific fluff (or be built for a setting).

The biggest problem I find is people (including myself) have a hard time letting go of certain magical effects that they don't really need but want to include anyway, just in case someone who plays in the setting wants to use that effect, even if it completely breaks the image that's being aspired to for the setting. Examples could be flashy magic, or magic that involves any sort of teleportation... There is also a fine line that arises when cutting out various effects, where on one side you'd be seen as actually creating a specific, tailored set of magical powers, and on the other side you could just be seen as afraid of giving players any powerful abilities.

In Haveneast, I've never put a lot of work into the roots of magic... but I know it has strong ties to the existence of life/unlife (and those states' ties to The Nightmare). When the world was young and populations were small, magic in Haveneast was weak (although in The Nightmare, there were huge populations of mythic creatures that wielded powerful magic), but as they grew, so did the potential of magic. There are subtle differences in the way magic affects and acts from beings whether they're living or dead - living beings tend to use their own bodies as recharging batteries both to cast spells and to take a beating from magic, taking time to heal their wounds in the same way they might whether pricked by a needle, scratched by a cat, or gutted by a sword. Undead beings also regenerate magic strength over time, but where they're not living their power pool actually comes from the living - which could have minor effects along the lines of chaos theory across the world when it comes to the emergence of plagues and the like. Pacts with dark powers that grant unholy magic function as an inverse of the norm, but they only really exist with living beings; so all of a sudden you've got living casters who are dealing damage to themselves and the world for power (and sold their souls more often than not, too). This is pretty easy to translate to a system.

I think I can both agree and disagree.  I agree that magic should be thought-out prior to picking a system.  I disagree that means having to explain all the in-world rules for it.  I find that many things are much more interesting if you don't explain them, not because they're inexplicable, but because it mimics the "common knowledge" of the setting so you can understand it better.

Trollish Horse, I think of Haveneast as a duality (with a few pieces sticking out), and on the two far ends of the continuum I see Logic/Sanity/Life and Madness/Chaos/Death, with the mirror between the Nightmare and Haveneast in the center, the zero point in the line.
On the two ends are where power comes from.  But that's just the feeling I get.  

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipTrollish Horse, I think of Haveneast as a duality (with a few pieces sticking out), and on the two far ends of the continuum I see Logic/Sanity/Life and Madness/Chaos/Death, with the mirror between the Nightmare and Haveneast in the center, the zero point in the line.
On the two ends are where power comes from.  But that's just the feeling I get.  

That's pretty much it, yeah. I'm a big fan of dualities.

I think the least a DM should do, if they're just going to toss a spell list at players, as you said, is toss a narrowed list that fits a theme. Doesn't matter if it's all fire spells and necromancy or it's spells that fit that old Bugs Bunny cartoon's witch - polymorph, divination in liquids and potions, maybe some flight/invisibility - it definitely needs to make sense, as has been said.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think I can both agree and disagree.  I agree that magic should be thought-out prior to picking a system.  I disagree that means having to explain all the in-world rules for it.  I find that many things are much more interesting if you don't explain them, not because they're inexplicable, but because it mimics the "common knowledge" of the setting so you can understand it better.

When we create a setting, do we draw a false map or one with holes all over it, based on mimicing PC/Common Knowledge, or do we create a GM map and a seperate PC map?
When we ascribe characteristics to an adversary, do we specify the hit points or damage that can be taken or special abbilities, or do we leave it blank, because it 'mimics common knowledge'?

SCMP, we all do things differntly.  And I am totally on the page that says the fluff defines the crunch you need, so the fluff has to come first.  But until you have the fluff and crunch worked out, it is still a hypothetical Setting, not a 'Campaign Setting'.  If you don't explain or haven't thought out the underpinnings of the Ssytem, especially the magic system, you don't HAVE a Campaign setting yet, you have a Hypothesis.

One of the things I am bringing forward here is not just the idea of creating a magic system that can be lpayed, or even the critical function of creating/finding/houseruling a magic system that matches the seting (as opposed to just slapping some generic system on it).  It is that we are building campaign settings, ultimately.  AS LLum and I talked about above, this does NOT mean people have to ever play in it to Validate it.  It does mean that it Can be played in.  

That's one of the reasons I started with the Magic system.  There are important parameters one needs to designate to make it work.

Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip'I'm not sure what system we are going to use yet', is a statement to mean that says that a writer hasn't asked these questions yet,[note=CBG]Campaign Builders Guild, Y'know?  Not Fluffy writers guild  [/note] that their beautiful, evocative setting is actually a novel setting, not an Campaign setting.  Creating fluff is a talent, and some people are incredibly skilled at it.  But creating Fluff with a Playable, balanced system that could survive Roleplayers and gaming?  
Only then is it a real campaign setting. Only then is it really worth calling a Campaign Setting.  I love a lot of what I read, and I try to comment and enjoy and be as helpful as I can be.  But a Setting that can't survive playing, that is not internally consistent and balanced, is like a car made of lingerie and feathers.  It may look nice, but it won't take you anywhere.

But you also say:

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipVreeg's First rule of Setting Design.
"Make sure the system you choose matches the game you want to play, or else the game will eventually match the system".

So shouldn't a setting designer create as much of their setting's internal workings as possible before deciding which mechanics will fit them best?  By your statement one should either be starting with both mechanics and setting during design or should never post until they have completed both aspects for one part.  The former has the danger of breaking your rule by letting what already exists in mechanics twist the ideas rather than the other way around.  The latter means that there is much of the setting design process that must be done alone, not a method some people want to go through.

God, I love threads like this. I feel like I am attending a setting design masterclass. I am reading and rereading the long post about guidelines on designing a magic system, and there is really a huge amount of information to think about here.

Here's a quick thought.

Quote from: TrollohazardThe biggest problem I find is people (including myself) have a hard time letting go of certain magical effects that they don't really need but want to include anyway, just in case someone who plays in the setting wants to use that effect, even if it completely breaks the image that's being aspired to for the setting. Examples could be flashy magic, or magic that involves any sort of teleportation... There is also a fine line that arises when cutting out various effects, where on one side you'd be seen as actually creating a specific, tailored set of magical powers, and on the other side you could just be seen as afraid of giving players any powerful abilities.

no caster[/i] can teleport, throw fireballs (or similar damage spells, etc.), conjure things from nothing, go invisible, turn you into a newt (or whatever), fly... the list goes on. These are staple abilities for magic-users in a lot of systems, and if I'd started with one of those systems and cut all this out, it'd feel butchered. Since I'm building additively from scratch, though, it just feels like I chose to go in different directions.

More later...I am at work...
but this....

[blockquote=LC]One watershed moment I discovered was when I made the switch from designing "subtractively" (i.e., taking an existing system and pruning/adjusting it into shape) to designing "additively" (starting from nothing and building up.)[/blockquote]

Me too,
and
Fuck yes!!!!!!

(Sorry, but this was a huge memoment for me as well.  It was over 2 decades ago that it occurred, but I remember the flash of light when I realized that my Houseruling combat, magic, skills, creation, interaction, monsters, and every class was the wrong way to go.)

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipWhen we create a setting, do we draw a false map or one with holes all over it, based on mimicing PC/Common Knowledge, or do we create a GM map and a seperate PC map?

Third option: don't draw a map.  Just make it up.

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipSCMP, we all do things differntly.  And I am totally on the page that says the fluff defines the crunch you need, so the fluff has to come first.  But until you have the fluff and crunch worked out, it is still a hypothetical Setting, not a 'Campaign Setting'.  If you don't explain or haven't thought out the underpinnings of the Ssytem, especially the magic system, you don't HAVE a Campaign setting yet, you have a Hypothesis.

It's really more of a personal thing myself, I should have said that.  I try to do what you suggest, and all the energy goes out.  If something's explained fully I feel like there's no reason to go on.  I'm an explorer: it's not about the end but the journey.  So my personal style and philosophy is that I'd rather have holes now and see what's in them later.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipVreeg's First rule of Setting Design.
"Make sure the system you choose matches the game you want to play, or else the game will eventually match the system".

So shouldn't a setting designer create as much of their setting's internal workings as possible before deciding which mechanics will fit them best?  By your statement one should either be starting with both mechanics and setting during design or should never post until they have completed both aspects for one part.  The former has the danger of breaking your rule by letting what already exists in mechanics twist the ideas rather than the other way around.  The latter means that there is much of the setting design process that must be done alone, not a method some people want to go through.

SCMP, I could write a whole friggin' book on the creative process.  And maybe that will be part of of another post.  But yes, a GM needs to keep at least some ideas of both Fluff and Crunch in their head during the creative process.  Nor do I want to pretend to be the authority on this.  But I need to point this out.  The creative process normally starts with a fluff idea, or a fluff goal, or a feel...but at some point, early on, as LC and I both found out, you have to try to match up crunch with it.  Now, both fluff and crunch may change with time.  But this is part of the process.  
And in terms of creativity, we all work somewhat differently.  Your way is as valid as any.

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipAnd in terms of creativity, we all work somewhat differently.  Your way is as valid as any.

Well it's an attempt to play a form of Devil's Advocate, giving advice contrary just in case someone works better my way but thinks they're alone.

EDIT: I mean for one thing what if you don't know enough systems or are good enough at understanding mechanics to pick out or modify so that it/they fit?

Quote from: Luminous CrayonGod, I love threads like this. I feel like I am attending a setting design masterclass. I am reading and rereading the long post about guidelines on designing a magic system, and there is really a huge amount of information to think about here.

Here's a quick thought.

Quote from: From the Celtrian RulebookRules For Spell Point Reclamation
Spell points also take a while to return to the caster. The caster's Spell point reclamation skill determines this. That skill is a 50% auto dropdown from the spell points, so until the caster grows in power, the spell point reclamation skill is normally ½ the casters actual skill in that type of spell points. This translates into the caster reclaiming at .05* their reclamation skill per hour while active, and .15* their reclamation skill per hour while sleeping.
                Also, a caster can reclaim up to 3 different types of spell points back in a given hour while awake, but up to 5 different types per hour while sleeping.
                So this means a character with 20 spirit points has probably a 10 Spirit reclamation skill. He will reclaim .5 points an hour awake, and 1.5 an hour while sleeping.
The Alternate rule I have been working with is a little more complicated, but I like the affect more.  The top half of a PC's spell points come back at 10% of the SPell reclamation ability per hour.  The last 50% come back at .2 of the reclamation skill.  It adds some tougher decisions for casters, as they can cast some of their points easily, but after they get down to half, they came back more slowly.  And the caster has to get the hard ones back first...[/ic]

So for me, recharge and recharge time is vital.  And this also changed with playtesting, BTW.

I think it all has to do with what power level magic is compared to other effects.  There are other means to limit this, casting time, context-specific, rarity of reagents.  But if you do not use these, or recharge, then you have to dramatically weaken the effects of magic to match up with more mundane or skill-based abilities, or risk a massive in-game imbalance.  DOes that make sense?

I have some questions for you regarding your question and what they mean or how they should be used.

Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip1) what does it do to the setting?

What do you mean "do"?  What function does it serve for people?  What story role does it play?

Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip2) what does it do to the game played at the table?

Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip1) What is the source(s) of magical power, and how is the power accessed?

About how exacting should this knowledge possibly be (irregardless of whether the hypothetical subject doing the knowing is the GM or an in-world person)?

Quote from: Vreeg's Coachwhip2) And what type of spells would LOGICALLY be powered by this/these sources.

"Logically" as in "everything other than the plain impossible" or "what fits without a lot of convoluted explanation"?

Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipThirdly, How does magic power return?

Is "it never goes away" an acceptable answer?

When all else fails, return to Wrede:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding4.htm

That whole article -- not just the magic part -- is pure 100% gold for this sort of thing (the CBG sort of thing, I mean).

[blockquote=Luminous Crayon]One watershed moment I discovered was when I made the switch from designing "subtractively" (i.e., taking an existing system and pruning/adjusting it into shape) to designing "additively" (starting from nothing and building up.)

I started out by modifying D&D-- I had no ambitions for my work besides having a custom-tailored D&D world. But start adjusting D&D spell lists and players are going to feel a lack, even if you add new things to compensate for what you are taking away. (D&D 3.X is a particularly strong example here, because the whole concept of casters revolves around the idea of their unlimited versatility, and players are used to a succession of additional sourcebooks that present additional options without removing previous options. They're not used to having their options curtailed.)

Starting from scratch and building up is a lot easier in terms of building themed magics without players feeling constrained. I've got this world where no caster can teleport, throw fireballs (or similar damage spells, etc.), conjure things from nothing, go invisible, turn you into a newt (or whatever), fly... the list goes on. These are staple abilities for magic-users in a lot of systems, and if I'd started with one of those systems and cut all this out, it'd feel butchered. Since I'm building additively from scratch, though, it just feels like I chose to go in different directions.[/blockquote]

Yeah, additive construction is definitely the more intuitive way to go. This is mostly the approach of Haveneast, which I recently posted a thread for to get people to list magical effects for me to find out exactly what I did and didn't want to do. It started out as just a bunch of images of sorcerers who had signature sets of abilities, but eventually I got to the point in my head where I was like "okay, what other things haven't I mentioned in the core list of users that can be done?" It leaves your world a lot more personal, and I believe you were actually around in the chat to see some of the most notable elements of the magic system come to be (the specific foci, the limited methods by which elemental magic can be wielded, etc.)

That is not to say, however, that the other method isn't ineffective in designing a system. At the bare minimum, taking a magic system like D&D's and tearing it into bits, throwing the ones you want into one pile and the ones you don't into another can be a good way to find new setting themes to try. My favorite one to speak of is actually something that I believe the 3e Manual of the Planes suggests: create a world that is completely lacking a certain school, or all schools but one. Then all you have to do from here is redefine what the schools are and you've potentially got the workings of a new magic system. I've toyed with concepts for a few different settings that only possess one kind of magic: necromancy, divination, and rune magic ala Glyph of Warding and Symbol are examples of that. The trick in going this route is to not actually use that particular system after you've torn it down - it's just there for ideas.

Quote from: AcrimoneWhen all else fails, return to Wrede:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding4.htm

That whole article -- not just the magic part -- is pure 100% gold for this sort of thing (the CBG sort of thing, I mean).

It's a great checklist, and I felt, after looking at it, that it was saying the exact same things, but in a query format.  Acrimone, great link.

Quote from: Llum

Quote from: VreegCampaign Builders Guild, Y'know? Not Fluffy writers guild

Ok.  What about the frequency ditribution, and the powerr growth curve found therein?  What about synergies bewtween systems, and formats of casting (Quickfire, ritual, etc)?  I've looked at HExx, Hen Mut and the Bronze setting, and I'm still trying to figure out any of these.

Quote from: Llum

Quote from: VreegCampaign Builders Guild, Y'know? Not Fluffy writers guild

Ok.  What about the frequency ditribution, and the powerr growth curve found therein?  What about synergies between systems, and formats of casting (Quickfire, ritual, etc)?  I've looked at HExx, Hen Mut and the Bronze setting, and I'm still trying to figure out any of these.

1. Hen Mut is not on the forums yet (just the map on the wiki), perhaps your thinking of something else, Corcadia? (I know, I have too many settings and junk but :P)

2. What do you mean by synergies between systems? Do you mean like potential "gaming system?", because I would custom build a system from scratch for each of them, at need. (It's something I enjoy, it's also something I do with my friend a lot, we discuss game design fairly often. Usually for computer games but concepts can be transfered.)

That being said, for me, magic is usually one of the less important things once I decided if it exists or not. How exactly it recharges and other minutae aren't something I usually think about. However

Frequency:
-Bronze Setting:  Varies from population to population, fairly common. One per 100 to one per 1000
-Hexx: Actual straight up learned magic is rare. Racial magic is very common (everyone has it to some extent)
-Div 2.0: Varies, everyone does in the Second Divergence, while only 1 per million or so in the Third Divergece. (4th and 1st have no magic). On Loftsphere it varies by culture, depending on their preferred method of warfare.

Power growth curve:
-Bronze Setting: Barring involvement from Gods (beings of sentient magic), not too much. Nothing special, mostly just more destructive power (in the form of beams)
-Hexx: Not too sure, mostly true "power" is artifact dependent.
-Div 2.0: Can become very strong, but it's all relative. Eventually a normal human/uplifted animal/augment will seem like nothing. But then you'll run into champions, Star Children, Reptoids. Humans are originally extremely low on the badass scale. And there will always be something that can squash you like a bug (Powers, Elder Powers)

Formats of casting:
-Bronze Setting: Quickfire is about three quarters of what magic is. Ritual casting is in its infancy (people have only been playing around with magic for a little while) and not very developped. Mostly it's about attracting animals (to hunt), helping crops, junk like that.
-Hexx: Depends on the race, usually Quickfire but more powerfull stuff being Ritual (think Dresden Files kinda format, if not in how it works)
-Corcadia: Pretty even distribution. Ritual casting is much more advance and flexible. Quickfire is prevalent (cause it's helpful) but Rituals can do all kinds of junk.

I was wondering, if you come up with a great magic system, only it is so complex that it is difficult to implement game-wise, would you "ruin" the great magic system to make it more playable? Hypothetically.

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowI was wondering, if you come up with a great magic system, only it is so complex that it is difficult to implement game-wise, would you "ruin" the great magic system to make it more playable? Hypothetically.

I'm going to assume this is directed at me.

Normally, this question comes in another guise, the 'realism vs playability' combat system question.  And, in answering that, as I was discussing with Llum last night, There are advanced Guildschool combat rules that I don't use, dealing with reach, Aoo, fient, parry, hit location, slash/mash/pierce, etc.  I've used them before, but they bogged down an already roll-heavy system.[note=automate!]  These rules are projected to return whenever my boys get off their asses and build the combat assist module...[/note]

And in the same way, I do have a few advanced rules for spell reclamation that I don't bother with normally.  The fluff and the gameplay would be better served having spell points that are under half of the caster's maximum come back [note=feel]this further serves the 'feel' of magic, in that lots of little lesser spells are used somewhat regularly, but no one wants to spend too many spell points [/note]quickly, but once the caster digs deeper into the well, they come back at 1/4 that rate.  So a single dimensional example (and remember, most spells use multiple sources of power), lets say a caster has 20 spirit points.  This normally means, without any help from a skill, that they recover .5 spirit points an hour while awake.  SO if they cast a spell that uses 5 spirit points, in 10 hours, they will be back to their full 20.  However, if they cast a spell costing 11 of their 20, the first point takes (.5 per hour/4=.125 per hour) takes 8 hours to get back, and the remailing 10 points take 20 hours to return.  

You can see where this would change spell casting behavior.  You can also see where it would drive all my PC's and myself insane, requiring a spellpoint whiteboard or tracking system.

yes, CC, I have already removed some complexity from the system, complaexity that better represented the Fluff and that fit the game I wanted to play.  But I ran into that 'playability' issue.

Now, you use the term 'ruin'.

This is a different discussion, in that I have been kind of working on the need to match up crunch and fluff without taking the generic way out.  But any system can be taken too far. I'm over 500 spells in the book, and realizing there is a long way still to go.  

I didn't 'ruin Guildschool to make it more playable, but I did have to compromise slightly to create a basic version and the advanced version that will be used when I have a cumperter assist or players willing to do a litle more bookkeeping.  But You are right to point out that the more 'perfect and representative' the system, the more convoluted it could get, and there is a pushback you might run into in playtesting.

I was also thinking in the way that you could come up with a fluff magical system which you might have used in some fiction and when thinking about your game. But when you tried to implement it game-wise you realized it was nearly impossible.  What would you do in this situation?

In IRC I mentioned having an independent magic system for Wake long before I ever ran games for it using the d20 system.  I built a combat system around the magic system, but my players never bought in.  Here are the "schools" of magic.  These loosely correlated with the Houses, too, which lost a lot of meaning (and were hard to develop as a result) in the system migration.

I think system very much dictates setting and vice versa.  Unfortunately, assuming you are playing tabletop, the system decision is not yours alone.

Portals

You have glimpsed the fractured web of the Tangle and understand in part the hidden connections between all things.  Logical and emotional relationships govern proximity in the Shattered Universe and by tugging these invisible strings you can move objects through physical space.  With training you can summon creatures, and with mastery tie two Spheres together with a Gate.  Summon a sword into your hand, save a friend from a fall off a treacherous ledge or skip the crowd in Lumin's Gate District with command of Portals.

Dreams

You walk now upon worlds conjured from the memories of gods, whose Shattered infallibility left cracks in a once pristine facade; subtle imperfections that allow you to influence existence in much the same way.  Your will bends the experiences of those around you: that gnome, he can fly; that arrow, it veers and finds its mark with ease; that lamp, it burns without oil.  Each Sphere is a book and, while you may not be the author, no one will mind if you scribble your Dreams in the margins.

Mists

What lies in the gaps between Spheres?  Were these events so mundane that the gods merely chose not to recall them from oblivion?  The fog of time shrouds the bright points of our memory and leaves most of life a mystery.  You have learned to forget -- or maybe revel in the mystery -- and can will the Shattered Universe to do the same.  By cloaking in memories in Mist you can remove events and objects from existence: heal a wound just taken by negating the attack; hide a sock or key as payback for a slight; destroy a Gate between two Spheres.  Be warned, strong memories can be difficult to forget and wondering about whether or not you truly exist can be a danger if the answer is 'no'.

Wards

The Tangle exists by the grace of the gods, however, like the legs of a newborn colt, its foundations still tremble.  The memories of traumatized deities sometimes fade or warp by the actions of others, but you can bend your will to help keep the Shattered Universe stable.  You reverse the meddling of others: send that summoned creature back whence it came; return the flying gnome to the ground; hold the Mists at bay.  The Wards you wield maintain order and provided the gods precious time with which to mend reality.

Quote from: EladrisIn IRC I mentioned having an independent magic system for Wake long before I ever ran games for it using the d20 system.  I built a combat system around the magic system, but my players never bought in.  Here are the "schools" of magic.  These loosely correlated with the Houses, too, which lost a lot of meaning (and were hard to develop as a result) in the system migration.

I think system very much dictates setting and vice versa.  Unfortunately, assuming you are playing tabletop, the system decision is not yours alone.

Boy, that says an absolute ton, doesn't it?  We've spoken about this from all sorts of direction, Eladris post speaks volumes.  

OK.  
So I got some good action on that particular one.
Now, the next on this thread is going to stick with magic, but deal with spells.
vague effect vs specific spells.
A few handwaves and the spell is created on the fly based on a some rule guidelines, or very specific flavor driven spell lists?
Or do you cheat and just transcribe the spells someone else wrote for their campaign?   More on this later, but I figured the last subject was toporous, and it was time for some more stomach-roiling looks at our artworks.

AS specified in the OP...

[blockquote=Me.]So A new experiment, with a new, 'Meta' twist. I'm going to post on pretty precise topics, about why I did the things I did in my setting design, and ask for opinions and how people answered the same question themselves.[/blockquote]

Up for discussion...Power levels, mortality, the narrative...and my opionins.  I will sort of apologize in advance, as I have some long-standing opinions about this.

 beyond l30 in 4e (http://www.critical-hits.com/2009/08/07/4th-edition-dd-beyond-level-30/)

we'll start with this link that talks about the challenge levels of orcus (nocaps needed, D&D has made fighing gods common) and scuh, and the blithe idiocy of the conversation of how cool it is that the 'cap' of 30 levels is a soft one.  

Nifty.

I am trying to be as fair and even handed as possible, using all the historical and legendary backgrounds that mythologize the taking down of gods by mortals, which gives a great precedent, to Beren and Luthien's battles with the Valar Melkor.  

But I have to say personally I created my own rulesets becasue of my perception (back in the AD&D days) that the system created wild power inequities far to quickly.  I will be more forthcoming and say that when  was much younger, I was invited to observe a group where they wanted me to GM sometimes, in Nashua, where all the PCs were playing 9th-15th level chaarcters that they had been playing for 3 months.  I made no friends after we got in an argument of how ridiculous this was, becoming that powerful after playing 10-12 sessions.  I had already started the basics for guildschool, but that experience totally reinfiorced trying to create a game that made a sword stroke from a beginning character something of a threat to a pc played for a year or so.  

And now I find the most distributed game system on the planet babling about epic destinies for every character.  I am not going to win any freinds, but are they no aiming for the under 10 crowd as their primary audience?

This touches (unfortunately) onto that 'gritty' conversation we have had a few times before. I will add to this later, but what are your thoughts on epic power, abotu fighting gods, about the growth curve for pcs, and where do you see a PC group after 10 sessions, or after 20?

If my memory serves me correctly, 4th ed. says somewhere that it takes about 8-10 encounters to advance a level. How many encounters can you get to a session? I usually played three to four hour sessions and rarely got my pcs to more than three encounters. I think it averaged out to about two or three sessions to level. So one session a week. Roughly a month to reach a new level.

As an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

Quote from: SarisaAs an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

3e and prior assumed you started out just like everyone else, and reached hero status around 5th-6th level for 3e, 7th-9th for 1e and 2e.

Quote from: SarisaIf my memory serves me correctly, 4th ed. says somewhere that it takes about 8-10 encounters to advance a level. How many encounters can you get to a session? I usually played three to four hour sessions and rarely got my pcs to more than three encounters. I think it averaged out to about two or three sessions to level. So one session a week. Roughly a month to reach a new level.

As an afterthought: 4th ed. plainly states that the PCs are heros even at level one. I'm no expert but I believe 3.5 did not have the same premise. I don't know if that matters but there you are.

Ah.  Heroes.  Good term.
So a month per level was how it worked out.  What was a threat to the pc's at the beginning?  How about after a few months?  WHat level did they get to?

I'm not being facetious at all.  I just am curious how different GMs and players view this.  George (a pc) was killed last night during play, taking 42 hits of damage, 38 after armor protection.  He had 29 HP, the most in the Igbarian group, and he'd been played about 2 years.  He started with 18 HP.  Now true, that group plays once every three weeks, so we are probably at 24-25 sessions of George.  At 29 hp, and with armor, he was pretty much anytrhing but a pretty wel rolled weapon shot, though even simple magic could have made up the difference.  A war hammer does 3d6+20 damage, divided by a d4.  So a war hamemr, even unmoded can still do up to 38 hits of damage.

But that's my take, my ogres have axes that do (3d6+28/d4)+5, and stone giant halbard will do (2d12+32/d3)+9.  Big creatures have the advantage of physics, in Guildschool.  
I think some of this comes down to threat level, as well as the story we want to tell.  Sarisa, what was the relationship with your players and the local toans and cities?  Were your pc's well known, or did they become that way?

QuoteAh. Heroes. Good term.
So a month per level was how it worked out. What was a threat to the pc's at the beginning? How about after a few months? WHat level did they get to?

The deal about D&D4 and "players being heroes, right from level 1" is in reaction to the severe fragility of low-level characters in 3rd Ed. and earlier. For example, in 3rd Ed., there were some pretty well-known "theorycrafting" examples of Average 1st Level Wizard vs. Average Housecat where things tended to go hilariously, shamefully bad for the poor wizard. There was a strong sentiment that even at low levels, you shouldn't be dying to housecats. That's the underpinnings of the "heroes even at level 1" idea in 4E.

It should be noted that "heroes" in this instance seems to imply basic competence, not fame.

There's a lot to be said here about power curves, and I want to go in that direction (partly to bring Celtricia back to rightful prominence in this conversation.) I tend to like power curves that are "flatter," whether they're high and flat or low and flat. That is to say, even as characters learn and practice and progress, they never become so powerful that they're able to completely shrug off things that were once threats.

Celtricia/Guildschool seems to enjoy using a power curve that is, in my newly-coined parlance, low and flat. Beginning characters can easily be killed by an unlucky strike from one weapon. Older and much more powerful characters have that same risk, and must still be cautious in combat. There's never (as far as I can tell) any point where anybody can just waltz, carefree and smiling, through a raging battlefield, no matter how awesome they are.

Because of those deliberate design decisions (and importantly, because of the way the Guildschool mechanics support them), Celtricia has a certain, defining feel to it. Among other things, it's known for being an unforgiving and deadly sort of world. It's got reputation, which more than anything else, is the coin we trade in around here.

Calendars and Versimilitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Todays topic comes from a little exchange between myself and two other stalwarts of this site...in other words, this expiditious expounding is all based on the good guys.  Nastiness belongs elswhere.

At question is the utility and use of setting specific calendars vs. the utility and lack of clutter that goes with sticking close to what people already use on a consious and subconsious basis.  

And I freely admit that most of us GM games, so there is no right answer.  There is merely the right answer for you to GM and what you want to get out of it.

However, this is a Celtrician thread.  And in my long experience in running this setting, it comes down to this.  The more in depth and 'realized' the written setting, the more likely it is to have it's own timekeeping specific to the cultures involved.  It actually breaks the feeling of reality if this alien world with alien cultures with unique deities and carefully thought out cultures has a calendar based on the Julian and Gregorian ones of our earth.  Might as well have Emperor Bob Jones.  How alien and exotic.  
My players, all of them, work with the 6 month (with bridge days in between), 8 weekday calendar created in Vicoria in the Age of Heroes.  We have a current calendar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/The+Calendars) page, one that allows the pc's to be up on the day and upcomijng holidays/holydays.  The Steel Island group is on Lawsak, in Tokush, 895RON (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Reckoning-of-Nebler).

So, I don't mind being in the minority here, but I view this as a simple litmus test.  Are you creating a full literary-worthy, realized setting, or not?  AS I said upon entry, there is no right answer.  This is MY answer.  But how do others feel about it?

However, as a quick aside...I have NEVER had a problem in this.  My players, everyone, has taken to this luck a duck to water.  The terminlogy, the 8 day week, the names, the years, it has never caused a problem and has only helped the immersion process for my players.  For those who have not had this experience, understand it has been nothing but a joy for me.  My opinion comes from a definitive positive experience.

Good Day, friends and neighbors.

A few months ago, LC and I were bandying about some delectable data about play in the Jade Stage, about what kind of games would be run in that philosophically deep and old demnesne of ancient ork and Cold-Spring Drinkers.
Steerpike regaled us with the 'Goblin' adventure, taking a small and unusual protagonist through the twists and turns of his version of the underworld.
I then started an online game wherein new players learned how to created GuildSchool characters, and did so for more of a traditional Dungeon crawl (most GS games seem to have combat every other or 2-5 sessions).
And finally, Steeprike again brought up a thinking point in his 'Brandybuck' thread, one that brought a smile to many of our faces.  It also suggested a different type of game, one based on gaining comfort and sociability, as well as a reduced level of combat and threat.

Here is a somewhat self-congratulatory excerpt from the Guildschool Character Creation  (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Character-Creation)page.  [note=sometimes I get an atitude in my head like I am going to sell this turkey or that someday, this page might be read by dozens of people chossing between different games.  Perhaps it is a result of my misspent youth...[/note]AS this particular thread is about illustrating game design issues and usingf GS as a springboard, I will print a snippet.

[ic=Starting EXP]
Starting EXP guidelines
Guildschool offers tremendous flexibility in the type of campaign or game a GM wants to run.  Both in terms of stating a game or adding a player into an existing game.  And obviously, this holds true for creation.
A GM should look at 2 things when decdiding how close to the normal model to cleave.  The aggragate amount of experperience they want to start a character with, and if they want to set up any restrictions.

A traditional GS game starts PC's with 5000 real EXP+any gotten from social charts.  No less than 5% of the total real exp amount can be put into a skill[1], so no more than 20 skills can be chosen in the beginning (and no one should every do that anyways.)  Also, a beginning character may only choose commonality 1 (basic) skills, not sub skills and dropdowns.  Those are advanced, 'graduate' level skills.

A GM has to think of starting exp as how much time and exposure the character has had put into their skills.  A young character might have less, an older character, more.

Now, in an old Miston Game, Brian wanted to push the system a bit and create a real commoner.  So we decided that since he was young, he'd have only 4k starting exp, no magic skills, no more than level 1 in any combat skill, and no esoterics.  Basically, he ended up creating Drono Biddlebee the hobyt Commoner, a simple peasant of the Turniper's Commune (which is was and is a playable school).  We let him do L2 HP (I think it was 10 he ended up with), L1 basic Spear (he used a pitchfork, literally), l1 Bow, l1 basic defence.  The rest (about 2200exp) went into Farming, Cooking (he was hired by the Miston group as a porter and cook), basic Outdoor (tracking was useful), etc.

We also had Cassius, an escaped Omwo~ slave from the Argussian Empire, only 29 years old (very young for Omwo~).  Similarly, he was allowed 3700 starting EXP, no magic, and very basic weapon trainging, but allowed l2 HP as he had been toughened up by the slave life.  He asked if he could take basic ettiquite, saying he had served in a wealthy house, I allowed him a will save +20%, which he succeeded in.  But almost all the skills were menial and artisan, though I will say he played that basic ettiquite to the hilt...

Characters that come into a group later can be given similar bonbuses to starting exp, to account for the group going out and finding a peer or at least someone more useful to them.
[/ic]

So, my question/issue at hand is...

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?  
3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both?  What changes might you make?

Some topics get responses, some do not.
That's OK.

Today's Topic...
"Have you explained why it/they are there?"

You've written a setting.  You've written some adventures.  The players have run into a prototypical monster or item...let's say it's a fantasy world, and they run into an Owlbear.

and then a PC asks 'why in heck there are Owlbears in the world...'?

This could be said for many races or technologies or items.  But especially with the ecology of a setting, this is one of those places that could build versimilitude and player buy-in, or it's one of those awkward GM fumbling moments.  I had it happen early on with Armor, since Celtricia has some armors and some variations that are not actually real-world perfect, but are things that certain races used heavily, like the Igboniat and Marcher early Plate-lamellar combos, also used later by the Venolvians.  It's not traditional pure lamellar, it's got some heavy plates and uses overlapping metal plates in the flexible areas.  Chain leather (hard leather with Chain mail attached onto the choulders and chest) is also a creation of the Celtrician world, which came out of Silverwood.  
Once the PCs (my SCA guys, especially) that Celtricia had an internal logic and history that was not totally derived from real earth, they had a greater buy-in to Celtricia.

So this post is, I guess, about setting-internal cconsistency, especially with things the PCs have dseen in other games.  I love turning things on their head and giving my own spin.  So my owlbears are creations of the mad Artificer Korang Jerupizer, from Venolvia (who also made horned bears, in case my players were wondering).  But instead of their existence making Celtricia just another vanilla setting, having setting-consistent reasoning for their existence elevates the setting beyond vanilla, as well as turning the familiar into a logical part of your world.

That is my take.  I'd love to get some feedback on what other creators do with making things familiar to a genre your own, or if this is something you are in the process of doing.

I like this thread. It's a great design philosophy resource.

Gonna browse through and look at some of the topics here and find some to reply to. (I think I'm actually going to start with the penultimate one, now that today's bump has brought it to my attention.)

Quote from: VreegSo, my question/issue at hand is...

1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?
3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

prepared[/i] to handle, rather than what it is currently running.

Quote1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?

2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not? [/quote]actual, literal[/i] backstabbing, that's okay too, but not requisite.) Could do political games in the Cardan Vine Council or just about anywhere in Ithyria (for extra cutthroat-ness), mob-style crime/government games with the power players in Yolek-Ja, cranial craftiness games in academic institutions like the Arcane Academy or the Royal Chreotechnic Order (ain't no drama like collegiate faculty drama, cause collegiate faculty drama gots tenure), and so on.

There's a lot of room for young sorcerors to have heartfelt coming-of-age stories of friendship and self-discovery while they study for next week's arcane theory test, sneak chapters from Tomes of Forbidden Knowledge, battle unnatural monsters and/or acne, and try to catch the eye of that cute girl from class. It's a silly and lighthearted take on the Jade Stage, but I think it'd work-- I just haven't explored it at all, yet.

Quote3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

almost[/i] anything I could throw at it, but I haven't yet explored all of my options. My upcoming revisions should add a little more polish and shine, and make it even better-equipped to run the Jade Stage.

I think I might keep these questions around.  They do work well.

[blockquote=LC]1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
Right now, the richest soil seems to be physical conflict, on a small scale right up to a very large one. There's war going on currently, more war incipient, rebellion being plotted in Imperial colonies, weakened kingdoms fighting off marauding barbarians-- all that nice 'n good stuff. If you don't like mixing combat with politics, you can mix it with exploration instead, and get annual troll-hunting expeditions every autumn, hideous monsters from the Wilding Fen, and potentially very scare things Underneath the world. [/blockquote]
Sounds like you have a few ideas here.  Have you written down background notes on a sample advnture or small early story arc?

[blockquote=LC]2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?
I feel like it would be a lot of fun to play a mostly social game, without much combat "built in". There are plenty of places where a nation or guild provides ample places for political maneuvering, with backstabbing nobles/courtiers/organizers and some serious Jane Austen style shit, yo. (If it degenerates into actual, literal backstabbing, that's okay too, but not requisite.) Could do political games in the Cardan Vine Council or just about anywhere in Ithyria (for extra cutthroat-ness), mob-style crime/government games with the power players in Yolek-Ja, cranial craftiness games in academic institutions like the Arcane Academy or the Royal Chreotechnic Order (ain't no drama like collegiate faculty drama, cause collegiate faculty drama gots tenure), and so on.

There's a lot of room for young sorcerors to have heartfelt coming-of-age stories of friendship and self-discovery while they study for next week's arcane theory test, sneak chapters from Tomes of Forbidden Knowledge, battle unnatural monsters and/or acne, and try to catch the eye of that cute girl from class. It's a silly and lighthearted take on the Jade Stage, but I think it'd work-- I just haven't explored it at all, yet.[/blockquote]
I tend to see my adventures and story arcs from a literary standpoint.
I also notice that the PCs in SI are the kind I like, because they seem to be adventuring as a means.  Hamish moving up in his guilds was a big deal, as was Chorbit taking the group moreseriously after they got back.  Social roleplaying is never going to replace adventuring; but it does place adventuring (as I noted) as a means, not an end.
Lov the coming-of-age idea.  Just love it.  I think you, if anyone could pull it off.


[blockquote'LC]3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?
I think so!

I'm currently grappling with a lot of possible changes I might make, after seeing how FATE System is used for the Dresden Files RPG (it feels so different from FATE in Spirit of the Century-- a testament to the versatility of the system).

Some of these changes are pretty minor and peripheral (I might add/change a few stunts, etc.) while others are more sweeping and profound (possibly reorganizing/recombining skills, character generation/aspect changes, possibly adding a third stress track, changing the way consequences work for added lethality, weapons and armor, etc.)

So, long-story-short, I think the system is currently pretty good and can handle almost anything I could throw at it, but I haven't yet explored all of my options. My upcoming revisions should add a little more polish and shine, and make it even better-equipped to run the Jade Stage.[/blockquote]
I am looking forward to seeing this.  I really want to too if the amount of mechanic in social situations is as much as combat, and how PC progress is tracked through a lengthy campaign.

Quote from: LC1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?
Right now, the richest soil seems to be physical conflict, on a small scale right up to a very large one. There's war going on currently, more war incipient, rebellion being plotted in Imperial colonies, weakened kingdoms fighting off marauding barbarians-- all that nice 'n good stuff. If you don't like mixing combat with politics, you can mix it with exploration instead, and get annual troll-hunting expeditions every autumn, hideous monsters from the Wilding Fen, and potentially very scare things Underneath the world. [/blockquote]
Sounds like you have a few ideas here.  Have you written down background notes on a sample advnture or small early story arc?

wiki page with some sample adventure ideas[/url] put down in general terms, as an inspiration to potential Jade Stage dabblers.

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conflicts_%28Jade_FATE%29Conflict[/url], just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.

Quote from: VreegSo, my question/issue at hand is...

Quote1>What kind of game is your setting set up for that you are playing?

sense[/i] for things to vanish and appear overnight, though I never make it on such grand a scale. Now, and island will appear overnight, not a continent or country. Cities won't disappear, but small towns might appear somewhere across the map. Because of all this, I think Avernus lends itself quite well to exploration; allow me to explain. To keep the sheer wonderlandishness of my world from collapsing due to its own instability, I created Watchers, people who remember the land and oversee it night and day from high towers spread across the wilderness. The land only shifts when there's no one around to see it. I based it off of my own personal experiences in dreams: when I look at something, it never changes, but I might look behind me and find that my living room wall has turned into a giant jungle. In this sense, players who wish to explore might reclaim abandoned watch towers and guide the Watchers to it. They might set up one of their own from scratch, or they may simply wander into the unknown with the risk of never finding their way back. Because the land requires so much maintenance, most of it hasn't been explored, let alone mapped (and good luck mapping something that moves!).

Whew! That took longer than I thought to explain, but Avernus isn't ONLY made for exploration, so I'll try and shorten up the others. I'm a man who likes challenges, so I've always been fond of the more "difficult" types of campaigns to run, particularly mystery, political intrigue, and horror, to name a few. Horror works exceptionally well in Avernus because its easy to fit a nightmarish landscape into a dreamworld. It's not so much about the "pop-out" scary stuff, but more about the freaky, bizarre, and disturbing things. Political intrigue is always interesting because I enjoy the challenge of thinking how humans and other civilized races would try and colonize a world so erratic and bizarre. This includes the political machinations and repercussions for establishing a colony in places that might not exist the next day, dealing with new and unique resources like crystallized memories, and simply deciphering the motives of the strange allies and enemies they'll come across. Mystery is something I haven't gotten to do yet, but I think it would provide a unique medium in Avernus such that it would truly interest your standard "Sherlock" character, what with all the crazy stuff that goes on here.

Forgive me if I've made Avernus to sound like a truly crazy-bizarro world... its actually a lot more stable than I describe it to be, and part of the challenge of making a setting is balancing what your players want and what you, the GM, wants. As a result, I still have the classic staple races of fantasy, but they all have some unique schticks, such as Dwarves mining for memories rather than gold or silver. Some might find that limiting, but I enjoy the challenge. That said...

Quote2>What kind of games would you like to play that you are not?

love[/i] GMing.

ANYWAYS... I'd love to play in your standard, classic fantasy game. You heard me. Give me the princess to save from the dragon, or the Merlin character to teach me wizardry. I want to play the cliches because I've never gotten to. Give me the standard setting, let me kill all the orcs, and  go to the next room in the dungeon, dammit. I want my +1 Greataxe.

But that might get old fast. I love roleplaying, so any setting that gives me a chance to look at things from a new perspective makes me happy. When it turns out the orcs I've been killing are actually trying to prevent me from awakening some terrible demon, then I have the fun chance at questioning my characters morals and interacting with what the party should do. I feel like I can shape the decision of the campaign and determine its outcome. It's the "T" of the campaign, when you've been going down a linear path to hit the one that lets you choose which way to go. I like that! In that sense, it isn't really the campaign or setting that concerns me, but the skill of the GM. THATS the game I wanna be in.

Quote3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

I'm[/i] capable of. I must embarrassingly admit that I tried running a pirate themed campaign twice now, and "failed" both times (as in, my players didn't find it piratey enough, so we switched gears). I guess I need to go watch some more pirate films. I can proudly say I've done a very successful horror campaign amidst an insane asylum, a four-year spanning evil campaign (one of my best to date; I have my players to thank for that one for keeping it civil and mature), and I'm going on to finally do a real exploration campaign with some political intrigue thrown into the mix. Should be fun!

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conflicts_%28Jade_FATE%29Conflict[/url], just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.

You had me at "hello." Seriously, that sounds awesome! You'll have to forgive me, I'm heavily inexperienced for anything outside of, well, basic D&D. I'd love to get my hands on this and try it out, though.

[blockquote=Mighty LC][blockquote=Vreeg the Bloody]I am looking forward to seeing this. I really want to too if the amount of mechanic in social situations is as much as combat, and how PC progress is tracked through a lengthy campaign.[/blockquote]
One of the nice things about FATE is that it's pretty much got one game mechanic, total, that just happens to be really flexible. A fistfight and a social conflict use exactly the same system, just with different skills being used, and different kinds of aspects/consequences.

So if you wanted to run, for example, an argument between two scheming nobles who are both trying to sway the same council, you run it as a Conflict, just like you'd run a swordfight. Only real difference is you're using social attacks and defenses (with Rapport, Intimidation, Deceit, Resolve, etc.) instead of physical ones, and that the results of those efforts are aspects and consequences of a social nature (like Bewildered, Out-of-Favor, Inelegant, A Known Schemer, etc.) rather than exhaustion, physical injuries, and other combat-appropriate drawbacks.[/blockquote]
So does the PC progress in ability as they go on?  What is the curve of improvement?  What is the gradiation you have planned?

Quote from: The_Weave05

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?70258.0here [/url], especially since we have temporarily lost Limetom.  
Though in my book, 1/2 of the skill of the GM is creating the setting and campaign.

Quote

Quote3>Is the system you currently use flexible enough to handle both? What changes might you make?

I'm[/i] capable of. I must embarrassingly admit that I tried running a pirate themed campaign twice now, and "failed" both times (as in, my players didn't find it piratey enough, so we switched gears). I guess I need to go watch some more pirate films. I can proudly say I've done a very successful horror campaign amidst an insane asylum, a four-year spanning evil campaign (one of my best to date; I have my players to thank for that one for keeping it civil and mature), and I'm going on to finally do a real exploration campaign with some political intrigue thrown into the mix. Should be fun!

Vreeg's first rule of setting design is, "Make sure the system you choose for your game matches the game and setting you want to play and create, or the game and setting WILL eventually match the ruleset."

I don't have doubts about your setting, though I worry about the ability to create focus.  We'll see if Pathfinder works for you.  Make all the changes you need to the rules, though, becasue I really believe that the more individual the setting, the less some generic set of rules will actually reflect the feel GM wants.

Nothing wrong with some failures; it happens to all of us.  That is what much of the learning process is about.  If fear of failure had stopped you from trying, you'd have never learned some of what was not working.  I'd love to hear about the evil campaign, since I believe these can be fun as well as psychologically rewarding.  

Make sure the dream stunting is rare and high level.  What powers all of this, anyway?  

Quote from: LordVreegVreeg's first rule of setting design is, "Make sure the system you choose for your game matches the game and setting you want to play and create, or the game and setting WILL eventually match the ruleset."

I don't have doubts about your setting, though I worry about the ability to create focus.  We'll see if Pathfinder works for you.  Make all the changes you need to the rules, though, becasue I really believe that the more individual the setting, the less some generic set of rules will actually reflect the feel GM wants.

Nothing wrong with some failures; it happens to all of us.  That is what much of the learning process is about.  If fear of failure had stopped you from trying, you'd have never learned some of what was not working.  I'd love to hear about the evil campaign, since I believe these can be fun as well as psychologically rewarding.  

Make sure the dream stunting is rare and high level.  What powers all of this, anyway?  

I understand your worry... its something I always worry about myself, and have for years. You know, to start fresh would be something I think I would enjoy. On the outside, I'm incredibly hesitant, but deep down I think its what I want to do. It's sort of a terrifying realization though, since my players would be heartbroken to realize I had taken away something they're so used to. In turn I ask, LordVreeg, what do you have to say in matters of player vs GM taste? How do you balance between the two, or have these never been a problem for you?

Before I explain my evil campaign, my definition of evil might vary from yours. In fact, I could accept someone arguing against me; its just how I see it.

Regarding my evil campaign, I won't lie; it had its hardships, and was sometimes mentally taxing on me. I think the key to success for the campaign was that the players didn't think they were evil until about three fourths of the way through. And I don't mean I pulled some curtain aside and said "Aha! You've been working for the wrong guys!" That was never the case. It was just that their "evilness," if you will, sort of sank into them later. They were out for a good cause: to stop a group of religious xenophobics hellbent on their own goals (to avoid a lengthy explanation, we'll leave it at that). The characters started 'good' and innocent, being level 1 characters, but soon their own drive to stop their enemy took hold of them, causing them to act rashly and literally descend into paranoia as the campaign went on. Good was sacrificed for the Greater Good, those who got in the way were killed. Though they worked alongside "good" people, there was no "I smite you because you're EVIIIIIL" type play, it just never came up. My players weren't out to kill women and children for the sake of evilness, they were dedicated to their cause to the point where they almost became the enemy themselves. They still performed heroic deeds of saving towns and people, but they also endangered towns and people to get that much closer to their enemies. In the end, yes, they were heroes, but the means to which they brought such an end was far from "good."

And finally, what powers all of this? Lucidity. Because the world is a dream, there are things that can be done here that can't normally be done. People who understand that can begin to train themselves in this sort of "un-belief," and cast spells, for lack of a better term. Anyone can become Lucid, but it takes extensive training to do anything that a magician could do (As a lucid dreamer myself, I once found it extremely difficult to do minor things in my dreams, like breathing while plugging your nose or sticking my finger through my hand. I was too tied to reality). Bending the rules of reality is an exhaustive process, so it takes a practiced mind to routinely do it each day. There's also a cost to Lucidity: insanity. Few magicians remain sane the later in their years they get, since the line between dream and reality blur to the point where they cannot discern what is real and isn't real. Or is any of it real? Are they even real? Sometimes, a rampant thought from a powerful magician could cease their existence. It's a dangerous practice, but nonetheless fascinating to most.

Quote from: The_Weave05

Quote from: LordVreegVreeg's first rule of setting design is, "Make sure the system you choose for your game matches the game and setting you want to play and create, or the game and setting WILL eventually match the ruleset."

I don't have doubts about your setting, though I worry about the ability to create focus.  We'll see if Pathfinder works for you.  Make all the changes you need to the rules, though, becasue I really believe that the more individual the setting, the less some generic set of rules will actually reflect the feel GM wants.

Nothing wrong with some failures; it happens to all of us.  That is what much of the learning process is about.  If fear of failure had stopped you from trying, you'd have never learned some of what was not working.  I'd love to hear about the evil campaign, since I believe these can be fun as well as psychologically rewarding.  

Make sure the dream stunting is rare and high level.  What powers all of this, anyway?  

I understand your worry... its something I always worry about myself, and have for years. You know, to start fresh would be something I think I would enjoy. On the outside, I'm incredibly hesitant, but deep down I think its what I want to do. It's sort of a terrifying realization though, since my players would be heartbroken to realize I had taken away something they're so used to. In turn I ask, LordVreeg, what do you have to say in matters of player vs GM taste? How do you balance between the two, or have these never been a problem for you?

Before I explain my evil campaign, my definition of evil might vary from yours. In fact, I could accept someone arguing against me; its just how I see it.

Regarding my evil campaign, I won't lie; it had its hardships, and was sometimes mentally taxing on me. I think the key to success for the campaign was that the players didn't think they were evil until about three fourths of the way through. And I don't mean I pulled some curtain aside and said "Aha! You've been working for the wrong guys!" That was never the case. It was just that their "evilness," if you will, sort of sank into them later. They were out for a good cause: to stop a group of religious xenophobics hellbent on their own goals (to avoid a lengthy explanation, we'll leave it at that). The characters started 'good' and innocent, being level 1 characters, but soon their own drive to stop their enemy took hold of them, causing them to act rashly and literally descend into paranoia as the campaign went on. Good was sacrificed for the Greater Good, those who got in the way were killed. Though they worked alongside "good" people, there was no "I smite you because you're EVIIIIIL" type play, it just never came up. My players weren't out to kill women and children for the sake of evilness, they were dedicated to their cause to the point where they almost became the enemy themselves. They still performed heroic deeds of saving towns and people, but they also endangered towns and people to get that much closer to their enemies. In the end, yes, they were heroes, but the means to which they brought such an end was far from "good."

And finally, what powers all of this? Lucidity. Because the world is a dream, there are things that can be done here that can't normally be done. People who understand that can begin to train themselves in this sort of "un-belief," and cast spells, for lack of a better term. Anyone can become Lucid, but it takes extensive training to do anything that a magician could do (As a lucid dreamer myself, I once found it extremely difficult to do minor things in my dreams, like breathing while plugging your nose or sticking my finger through my hand. I was too tied to reality). Bending the rules of reality is an exhaustive process, so it takes a practiced mind to routinely do it each day. There's also a cost to Lucidity: insanity. Few magicians remain sane the later in their years they get, since the line between dream and reality blur to the point where they cannot discern what is real and isn't real. Or is any of it real? Are they even real? Sometimes, a rampant thought from a powerful magician could cease their existence. It's a dangerous practice, but nonetheless fascinating to most.

When the time is right, you'll start fresh.  it is that simple.  I had 4-5 campaigns that lasted a few months to 3 years before i settled down.  I learned a lot from each, what was too wacky, what my PCs wanted, what thy needed, and what i needed to do.

Gm's need to feel excited about the games they are running, or else it sucks.  And the GM puts a lot more time and effort into the setting.  I have to believe you'll run a better game if you are excited about it.  And games do mature and develop as GMs do.  Sorry if it sounds like I am shafting the players, but it is in their best interest to be in a game that the GM cares about and wants to grow.

Generally, how I deal with any issuea is to hash it out.  My days of running an outocratic GM-fiefdom are long over.  My PCs are contributors to the game.  I want their input and learn from it.  But as to the eternal Clash question (Should I stay or Should I go?), no matter how invested they are, they want a good game.

Your evil is a lot like mine.  Tybalt used to remark on the 'moral ambiguity' of my faction-based setting.  I have had a few real bad guys run, and a few real knights in shining armor, but 90% of the PCs have been in between.  I do remember some 'scortched-earth' games, but on the other hand, I have PCs who are freindly with some of the unacultiurated humanoid tribes outside of Igbar.  Races are rarely totally alignment based for me.

What type of game who you want to create, given your druthers?  

Quote from: LordVreegWhat type of game who you want to create, given your druthers?  

I think that I've found the setting I want. I've always had an interest in dreams and what I like to call "fairy tales for grown-ups" (like Big Fish or Pan's Labyrinth). I'm also a sophomore in college majoring in Psychology, specifically Art Therapy. I'm fascinated with the unconscious mind and what its capable of, and I have a penchant for art. I wanted my setting to embody those interests in a unique way, and I think I've accomplished that.

Regarding the game, I'm honestly not sure. I've kind of avoided thinking too much about it, but now that you mention it... I would probably want to make magic a little more, hmm, mystical. I'm not sure how, but I would like to think of magic as mysterious and strange, less able to be broken up into particular spells and more like forms. I would probably try to make mundane combat a little more flashy, at later levels incorporating stunts not humanly possible. I guess I'm not too sure what I'm looking for... I can see it in my head, but its another thing to put it all out on paper. Part of the problem is that I've never branched out into different systems, so I don't know what's out there. I'm always shocked to see all you guys whipping out these new systems; I couldn't even begin to fathom where I'd start.

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jade_FATEall up on the wiki[/url] for your perusal. It's not 100% complete (I'm still shifting some things around) but it's in playable condition, so you should be able to get a pretty good notion of how stuff works. As always, I'll answer specific questions, too.

If you want to see sort of where I'm going with all this, the talk page (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Jade_FATE) is a big jumble of notes and to-do lists about things that are upcoming.

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Character_advancementan advancement scheme[/url] planned out and on the wiki, but the one in Dresden Files is really nice as well, and I'm trying to decide now whether or not I want to adopt elements of it.

The current "classic" model treats your skill pyramid as more-or-less innate potential which doesn't change; characters accumulate new aspects and stunts over time. Stunts do the most to make a character more powerful, and aspects do the most to make a character more interesting.

Accumulating new aspects after an adventure gives some opportunity to show how that adventure's changed you-- if you have a run-in with some organization, you might take an aspect like "Sworn Enemy of the Order of the Red Chain", or if you get badly hurt in an explosion, you might take "Fear of Fire", or if you spend a lot of time living off the wilderness, you might take "One With the Land". Aspects can be advantageous or disadvantageous, but many of the best are potentially both-- "Sworn Enemy of the Order of the Red Chain" might be invoked (used favorably) to fight their minions with extra zeal or to know their methods and procedures, or it might be compelled (used against the character by the Narrator) when the Order is scheming against that character, or to persuade the character to do something foolish because of his enmity. Characters want disadvantageous aspects because aspect compels are the only way to get fate points back (and because they're typically the most interesting).

Dresden Files RPG has a more complicated advancement system, with various magnitudes of milestones-- a minor milestone lets you improve this, a major milestone lets you improve that, etc., and there's a lot more flexibility about what kinds of traits you improve and what kinds of powers you can select.

Quote from: LordVreegSome topics get responses, some do not.
That's OK.

Today's Topic...
"Have you explained why it/they are there?"

You've written a setting.  You've written some adventures.  The players have run into a prototypical monster or item...let's say it's a fantasy world, and they run into an Owlbear.

and then a PC asks 'why in heck there are Owlbears in the world...'?

This could be said for many races or technologies or items.  But especially with the ecology of a setting, this is one of those places that could build versimilitude and player buy-in, or it's one of those awkward GM fumbling moments.  I had it happen early on with Armor, since Celtricia has some armors and some variations that are not actually real-world perfect, but are things that certain races used heavily, like the Igboniat and Marcher early Plate-lamellar combos, also used later by the Venolvians.  It's not traditional pure lamellar, it's got some heavy plates and uses overlapping metal plates in the flexible areas.  Chain leather (hard leather with Chain mail attached onto the choulders and chest) is also a creation of the Celtrician world, which came out of Silverwood.  
Once the PCs (my SCA guys, especially) that Celtricia had an internal logic and history that was not totally derived from real earth, they had a greater buy-in to Celtricia.

So this post is, I guess, about setting-internal cconsistency, especially with things the PCs have dseen in other games.  I love turning things on their head and giving my own spin.  So my owlbears are creations of the mad Artificer Korang Jerupizer, from Venolvia (who also made horned bears, in case my players were wondering).  But instead of their existence making Celtricia just another vanilla setting, having setting-consistent reasoning for their existence elevates the setting beyond vanilla, as well as turning the familiar into a logical part of your world.

That is my take.  I'd love to get some feedback on what other creators do with making things familiar to a genre your own, or if this is something you are in the process of doing.

Well, primarily I think tha--

Quotethe mad Artificer Korang Jerupizer, from Venolvia (who also made horned bears, in case my players were wondering)

that guy[/i]

Yes, erm, where was I? I have a tendency to write much too much about things, which often turns out to provide useful background/origin information like this. I also like to be as self-contradictory as possible in these matters, especially when they reach back beyond the dawn of recorded history.

So, fast-burning flashpowder was brought with the umani from their Indrist homeland, where such alchemy was common knowledge, but only when combined with Mareban dwarven ingenuity was it weaponized as a propellant for firearms. "Magic weapons" are the ork steel armaments created by the now-extinct Or Kutaal, via the terrifying lost art of shamanistic Fire-Taming. Okay, fine and good.

Where do trolls come from, though? The Song of Roots describes them as an eighth dwarven tribe, whose progenitors were thoroughly corrupted by the goddess Renán, twisted away from their purpose and made into monsters. Various simoc tales (some syncretized with the above story when simoc tribes adopted the Cardan faith, some not) describe trollification as a choice-- trolls were once simocs who chose brutish savagery over self-control and honor, their warped forms becoming an outward representation of an inner warped ideology. Boru folklore describes the trolls as the offspring of their progenitress mystic Kuda, after she was raped by Yco, a hoary and venerable old sycamore tree she had unwisely breathed the breath of life into.

What's the true account? Beats me, and I don't think it's important.

LC, you are the Master of Myth and Mythology.  MOre later, but I just wanted to say that.

I really ought to start writing some of this down.

Quote from: LordVreegToday's Topic...
"Have you explained why it/they are there?"

You've written a setting.  You've written some adventures.  The players have run into a prototypical monster or item...let's say it's a fantasy world, and they run into an Owlbear.

and then a PC asks 'why in heck there are Owlbears in the world...'?

This could be said for many races or technologies or items.  But especially with the ecology of a setting, this is one of those places that could build versimilitude and player buy-in, or it's one of those awkward GM fumbling moments.  I had it happen early on with Armor, since Celtricia has some armors and some variations that are not actually real-world perfect, but are things that certain races used heavily, like the Igboniat and Marcher early Plate-lamellar combos, also used later by the Venolvians.  It's not traditional pure lamellar, it's got some heavy plates and uses overlapping metal plates in the flexible areas.  Chain leather (hard leather with Chain mail attached onto the choulders and chest) is also a creation of the Celtrician world, which came out of Silverwood.  
Once the PCs (my SCA guys, especially) that Celtricia had an internal logic and history that was not totally derived from real earth, they had a greater buy-in to Celtricia.

So this post is, I guess, about setting-internal cconsistency, especially with things the PCs have dseen in other games.  I love turning things on their head and giving my own spin.  So my owlbears are creations of the mad Artificer Korang Jerupizer, from Venolvia (who also made horned bears, in case my players were wondering).  But instead of their existence making Celtricia just another vanilla setting, having setting-consistent reasoning for their existence elevates the setting beyond vanilla, as well as turning the familiar into a logical part of your world.

That is my take.  I'd love to get some feedback on what other creators do with making things familiar to a genre your own, or if this is something you are in the process of doing.

I have a question for y'all: Let's say I reply by saying "Owlbears exist due to erratic and unusual thoughts that materialized through popular belief." As in, enough people believed in Owlbears (for whatever reason) and thus they exist. That could be said for a lot of things in my world. Now, because that can be used to explain a fair amount of creatures and things, does this seem like a cop-out to you, or something interesting? I'm curious because I'm leaning towards it being a cop-out where more creativity could be expressed; it's almost too easy to chalk it up to random belief in things.

That aside, here's my answer: some (but not all) creatures exist because of collective thought. If any of you ever stopped by and read my first thread on my "Universal Law," then you might remember what I'm talking about. If not, here's a quick run-down: if enough people believe in a certain thing, that thing becomes real, or true, or whatever. It takes a lot of collective thought to do this and it doesn't happen overnight; the process isn slow and takes years, depending on the amount of people and the passion of those believers. Very few know this law exists, but it basically coincides with the magic of the setting: people will their spells into being. It's a work in progress, but thats the basic premise.

For instance, when the Humans crawled up for the sprawling subterranean Labyrinth, the Halflings fled in fear from these "giant-folk," giving them nightmares of grossly oversized humanoids that terrorized them. Exaggerating their size, these nightmarish giants became such powerful thoughts that they became a real, physical threat. Thats where giants come from... the nightmares of Halflings. As such, Giants are big, deformed, brackish creatures that lurch around on oversized legs with unsymmetrical body parts and oversized mouths to eat their Halfling prey.

Though their relationship with Humans is now peaceful, the giants remain. This is because the Halflings had no idea their own willpower brought them into being, and to "un-believe" something is remarkably difficult and extremely rare, if not unheard of, given the scale of the belief.

QuoteI have a question for y'all: Let's say I reply by saying "Owlbears exist due to erratic and unusual thoughts that materialized through popular belief." As in, enough people believed in Owlbears (for whatever reason) and thus they exist. That could be said for a lot of things in my world. Now, because that can be used to explain a fair amount of creatures and things, does this seem like a cop-out to you, or something interesting? I'm curious because I'm leaning towards it being a cop-out where more creativity could be expressed; it's almost too easy to chalk it up to random belief in things.

I think whether or not it's a cop-out depends a lot on what you're using it to justify.

"Things exist because people believe they exist" is an idea that's been used before to powerful (and sometimes rather nightmarish) effect. I feel like the more you use this idea to support new, wild creations, the better it works, and the more you use it (for example) to handwave away the existence of whatever's in the pages of your D&D Monster Manual (or whatever), the more it becomes a cop-out.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

QuoteI have a question for y'all: Let's say I reply by saying "Owlbears exist due to erratic and unusual thoughts that materialized through popular belief." As in, enough people believed in Owlbears (for whatever reason) and thus they exist. That could be said for a lot of things in my world. Now, because that can be used to explain a fair amount of creatures and things, does this seem like a cop-out to you, or something interesting? I'm curious because I'm leaning towards it being a cop-out where more creativity could be expressed; it's almost too easy to chalk it up to random belief in things.

Like any campaign physics, as longs as it is consistent throughout the setting, it works.  But there would have to be a reason people started believeing in Owlbears, for example.  So the term, "for whatever reason' becomes very critical.  I have trouble seeing a setting where most inhabitants have some level of understanding about the power of belief not being extremely consious of the affects of said possibilities.

(Can things be unbelieved?)

Quote from: LordVreeg(Can things be unbelieved?)

Seems so (technically, perhaps?)

Quote from: weaveand to "un-believe" something is remarkably difficult and extremely rare, if not unheard of, given the scale of the belief.

I think if proper manipulation was involved, then yes, something could be unbelieved. I was trying to think on a humanistic level whether or not people could unbelieve certain things in real life. I think it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, if it gets much larger than a handful of people.

Essentially, that's how counter-magic works: disbelief that the spell actually exists and/or does what it's intended to do.

Right now I'm working on a class that revolves around the creation and bondage of an imaginary friend. Not sure if it'll go anywhere, but we'll see when I have more free time (finals are killer). Maybe I'll even have a group for the liberation of 'imagined peoples'.

I'd also like to thank you guys for the words of wisdom so far. It's great to finally reach someone who truly works on a similar level (well, I would peg you guys several levels above me, personally, but you know what I mean). Please continue!