The Campaign Builder's Guild

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 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!