The Campaign Builder's Guild

That is a BIG list! One nitpick: the 'Painting' group might be better named as 'Arts', seeing as it also covers mosaics and sculpture.

Quote from: GhostmanThat is a BIG list! One nitpick: the 'Painting' group might be better named as 'Arts', seeing as it also covers mosaics and sculpture.

Can't disagree with you there/

A) The list of an area that is played a lot keeps growing.Igbar was first used in 9185, and has been used a lot since then, but never more than the last 9 years of the Igabrian groups (Grey Legion and New Legion).    I feel like I want a lot of options for PCs and NPCs, so once I have a few lines scribbled, I like to make them an option.

b) Good point.  Might have to change that to Arts.

Tonight,  the wheels moving towards book 2 of the Igbarian Groups continue.

Rumors swirl about a landing of Argussian forces; the Breadbasket of Igbar, Igtiche, sends nervous warning of humanoid incursions, and the North Road to Recum is crowded with the influence of the Firehazer Tribe.
Meanwhile, the New Legion discovers that 2 seemingly random
murders actually were the #2 and #3 in the Eye of Igabr...and someone is targetting the leadership of the activist underworld Guild...

And Pharren has let Cesuat in on the awful truth he has been hiding from the New Legion, so that if he perishes, the fight will go on.  Can Cesuat bear the burden?
What is the New Legion to do?

Quote from: LordVreegTonight,  the wheels moving towards book 2 of the Igbarian Groups continue.

Rumors swirl about a landing of Argussian forces; the Breadbasket of Igbar, Igtiche, sends nervous warning of humanoid incursions, and the North Road to Recum is crowded with the influence of the Firehazer Tribe.
Meanwhile, the New Legion discovers that 2 seemingly random
murders actually were the #2 and #3 in the Eye of Igabr...and someone is targetting the leadership of the activist underworld Guild...

And Pharren has let Cesuat in on the awful truth he has been hiding from the New Legion, so that if he perishes, the fight will go on.  Can Cesuat bear the burden?
What is the New Legion to do?

Fantastic session last night.
Things were pretty peaceful from 02/29 (the destruction of the Mummy Og and his anginarian necromantic amplifier), until 2/40.
Pharren--Bard of the Frigid Song, one shriveled hand from an encounter with the Antroo Vampyre, the remaining member left from the Grey Legion
Priestess Kiko--Priestess of Lucky Isham and up-and coming star in the Karin Machination.  Sneaky.
Sirrah Grobach--Knight of the Armor of Trade, well armored and with an artificed FLail.  Prime Meat Shield
Priestess Igli--PLain little gnomic healer of the Church of the Hosting, heavily armored.
Journeyman Mage Ebeneezer--human mage of the Alternative School of Magic, in disgrace for allowing Cerial to perish.
GreenBow Pollina--Huge Human Female Bowyer of Ceminiar.  
Journeyman Mage Trey--Omwo~ mage of the Alternative School of Magic.
Cesuat--Human Wederlouse of the CHurch of the Straight Way.[note=Of Course] Fakil and Travelocity are from a generation of mercs that was averaging a few dead a day for the New Legion at one point.  The Kulranik Swords Guild was literally bonding 3-4 mercs every few days to the new Legion...total Cannon Fodder situation.  A Garden Gnome with a 11:00pm name like Travelocity was NOT expected to make it through 2 sessions, let alone the 10 or so he's been around for.[/note]
Travelocity--Garden Gnome bonded Merc, on contract.  Follows Sirrah Grobach blindly.  
Fakil--Klaxik Bonded merc, lighter armor and some dodgy skills.  
Kelli--Human Female ShellNeophye of the Blue Turtles.
Hajubin--Klaxik Female Shellnephyte of the Blue Turles.

Igbarians dealt with some politcail turbulence, and then the rumors came of the BBN (the Bardic Broadcasting Network, a network of connected menatist scrying pools) that the Argussians, after a few years of the war cooling, had landed a major force 40 miles south of Igbar on the coast, just west of Walker's Glory.
The Main Unicorn Forces are on the front lines to the south of that, below Wallingford.  So Igbar stripped the town guards, the Scarlet Pilums and adds some knights of the Blue Turtles and the White Paladin, and sends them south in a delaying action.
At the same times as this (2/41-2/42), there have [note=Kiko] Kiko is told By Varconavitch Von Zap that 2 of these murders were actually to the Hidden Eye and the Red Eye, the #2 and #3 in the Eye of Igbar.  There is more to this than meets the...Eye...[/note]been many high profile robberies/murders for some of the weathier mercantile residents of the Greensward, the Collar, and the Weaver's quarter.  So there is a little unrest, and on the night of the 42nd, a unicorn effigy was burned on one of the parks on the Undeen neighborhood.  On the morning of the 43rd, the remaining Pilums go to Corobar's Iron way and the Kulranik Swords and present a Unicorn Writ for the money to sign 90 caravan mercenaries into service of the Scarlet Pilums for the duration.  
At the Noon Hour on the 43rd, the New Legion also gets news that Igtiche, the center of the farmed plains to the east of Igbar, is dealing with more tribal activity than normal.  The Unicorn court sends it's blessings, but has no troops.  [note=rumors] Cesuat, Polly, and Pharren all get word that Germatican, a subsidized group of adventurers, does head out to Igtiche.[/note]  Though the pallor and fear of the undead plague has left the city, Igbar is right back into desperate straits.  Igbar is said to be , "On the Wheel of Jubilex".  To top it off, the Vissipee-backed caravan from Recum (with goods for over 12 trading guilds) is late.

The fan isn't empty, as late on the evening of the 44th, Kiko and Pharren get word that someone spotted smoke to the north, right along where the Recum Road should go, as the day came to a close.  It's 20 or so miles out, but that places it right where the Teque Guild of travelers rest haven would be.  The New Legion  spends the next morning (the 45th) supplying up and pulling in a favor to get a few new recruits from the Blue Turtles...unfortunately, since the guild barracks was stripped to fight down south, ther are only some oldsters (sirrah Kay, a 370 year old Omwo~), and a few youger trainees. The group take a human female named Kelli and a klaxik female name Hajubin.[note]3900 exp a piece raw.  Yikes[/note]  It's rainy and cold on the 45th, something around 40 degrees.

The group tears out of the North (Recum) gate around 3rd hour, by good old Sgt Essen, who waves them out while drilling some of the new impressed recruits.  They ride hard, but are not too fast not to notice a group of 8 Hobgoblin soldiers sitting around a fire around 5th hour (around 19 miles outside of town).  The tribals have no one on guard.  The group starts firing arrows and charging on foot quietly.  Within 9 seconds, the leader and another Hobgoblin are pinned to the ground dead, and the remaining Hobgobs are banging around trying to get their weapons.  A chromatic orb goes off injuring 4 of them (from Trey), and when the fighter's roll into them (including S. Gorbach's Critical for 72 hits that was ruled went through the head of one Trbal and into the chest of the next one), the one remaining Hobgoblin was quicky reduced to a burnt, begging prisoner.  Roj was his name.  I say, 'was', as while the knights were tying him up, his wounds turned black and he perished within 12 seconds as his wounds grew worse and he sufferend a very painful end.

Yummy.  

The New Legion notes the Firehazer tribal markings and insignias in the arms and armor of the gnolls, then Pharren's longsite (a skill leftover from when he had 2 hands and was a Bowman of considerable ability) can see, in the dying, red-hued daylight, a plume of smoke a few miles more to the north.  A band of Firehazers guarding the south road?  This bodes ill.  They ride quickly north, though with eyes out and Pollina and Kiko slightly ahead.

Around 7th hour, the come around a small stand of Vneersberry on a rise, to look down on a grim tableau.  The stockade of the Teque Guild is still intact, but there are heavy fires in the North and south.  There are bodies all round the west gate, and they are ringed by Firehazer forces.  Mainly clustered around the West Gate, but they see movement in the north, and Pharren sees clearly a dozen Hobgoblins,  [note=mass] mass combat?  this could take a session or so...[/note]10 or so Gnollics, a pair of ogres, and a reddish, near-naked spastic creature running around the battlefield.  There are also giant bonfires in the northeast and southwest corners of the enemy forces, ad a few huge arbelests trained on the west gate.

The New Legion draws a quick battle line with the mages and archer's behind near the top of the rise, and starts with the bowshots and some buffing spells.  A hobgoblin and gnoll fall quickly, as a gnoll in laquered chain armor with a slightly reddish glowing falchion turns some the troops around to the north, while a few more arros pelt down...then one of the arows from Pollina ZAPS out a red-purple charge, that injures a bunch of hobgolblins and gnolls over a few seconds, as the charges zip and zap...
then *CRACKABOOOM* , a gigantic lightningbolt is fired from Bard Pharren, train-wrecking down the hill and leaving a crater and smouldering pieces of armor and bone where the 2 eight foot tall, chain-mailled ogres had been standing [note](64/1)+8 damage..both missed their reflex rolls...[/note].  This gets the attention of all on the battlefield, and the southern Firehazer forces start toward the new legion ranks.  Arrows fall as the advance is on, then Cesuat casts the 'Strict Blessing' as the clashdraws nigh, and Pharren preps up S. Grobach's flail with a 'Source charge, Thunder' from a scroll.
The lines meet, and hobgoblins and gnolls fall from the start!

And we ended the fight there....the next session is going to be about tactics, battle, and attrition.  YARG!!!

Quote from: LordVreeg*CRACKABOOOM*

I'm curious... do you do these sound effects in-game?

*HISSBLURBLURB*

Yes, Vreeg does love his sound effects. I can only assume he does them for his live games too!

Quote from: Ghostman

Quote from: LordVreeg*CRACKABOOOM*

I'm curious... do you do these sound effects in-game?

Yes.
Especially by 10pm, when I need to wake up sleepy players.  I had to make it clear, also, how the whole battlefield was put on alert by the loud noise and the crater.

Risk and Reward, in terms of Game Design


Lethality is one of the most important decisions a GM has to make when creating a setting and deciding on a game style.

 

Risk and reward are part of the fabric of a Roleplaying game; and without one, the other is useless.  Early RPGs, with their easier rulesets that allowed character creation in 10 minutes, had no problem with PC death, especially in the beginning of the careers of the characters in question.  Killer megadungeons were stock in trade for many GMs then, and there was an accompanying thrill of achievement when a PC survived even to a moderate level.  Because it was not a given or even expected.  And that is one of the major differences from many of today's current game philosophies.   In most games, characters are expected to survive; and in many, the GM has done something wrong otherwise.  Even in more traditional groups, PC death is much less common than in earlier systems.


This is not a bad thing in all ways.  Some of this is an outgrowth of the whole campaign mentality; where these games went from dungeon crawls, with time spent outside the dungeon barely glossed over, to a place where many games treat the time outside adventure as a critical part of the game itself.  And in truth, the players are what makes the game happen, they are the enthusiasm and the lifeblood of it. So as the games become longer term, to some degree, the players need to be able to feel their affect in the game world.


Also, fairness and good play must be watchwords.  I disagree with GM's who feel that they are playing against the PCs.  I see the GM's roll as playing the rest of the world; responsible for all sense of reality and consequence; but still playing with the PCs.  

 
Part and parcel with the lethality level is the level of implied heroism in a ruleset and setting.  But it is still a seperate and deceptively important part of game design.  More and more games today are set to be ultraheroic, even mythic, whereas GuildSchool and Celtricia is set to be very human.  I will be quite honest and tell you that I am still scarred by seeing something called Master Rules and Immortals rules for D&D.  For characters above 36 level, it said[1].   I don't want to ever claim that there were no high level characters in my D&D games, but I grew past that very quickly.  Brian, one of our original players, will remember us watching a few kids playing a montyhaul version and scorning it back in 7th grade.

 
What's wrong with ultraheroic?  Depends on what dimension you are talking about.

 
From a pure gameplay viewpoint, I designed Guildschool to alow for long games.  I was brought into gaming with the ideal that the long campaign was the top level, and everything else was a step or so down.  I might have been wrong, but that was an early design decision.  This effects growth.  I know from my studies, and more from my gaming, that players love to grow, it's a constant drug.  I've always thought one of the secrets to the success of D&D was the clean level growth.  So one of the very early design decisions was to break down growth, into smaller amounts.  But still, when you plan for longer campaigns, in many systems, the characters get 'out of control; very quickly.

 
Ultraheroic also does not fit with the type of literature that influenced these games.  Sorry, but I am of the belief that as one matures, one enjoys the struggle, the humanity, of more gritty, dangerous play.  The literature that inspires Celtricia is Game of Thrones, the Black Company books, Elric, Hawkmoon, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, of course the Lord of the Rings[2]...all of these books had heroes, but none of them were tossing lightning bolts around or able to go head to head with a dragon or 2.  Gandalf was one of the three toughest good guys in middle earth...he didn't go screwing around with Smaug.  He needed to hitch a ride from an eagle to fly, which is a pretty simple spell in many systems.  

 
And it is that maturity mentioned above where I think the largest change in this lethality and power curve comes into play.  In Guildschool common folk all gain levels in what they are good at, and this means a player character who has been played for 10 sessions is not going to be able to take more damage than a sargeant in a local militia, because he is supposed to represent a professional.  

Most gamers, as maturation kicks in, change their interests from the uber powerful level grabbing games to more textured, relatable ones.  There is, after all, more achievement involved with a difficult undertaking.  And to hearken back to the openning paragraph, adults are more able to deal with the risk part of the 'risk and reward' equation.

 

Footnotes

1.Which, by a game time calculator that was used at the time would have taken a minimum of 270 normal sessions, if everything went perfectly. They were basically saying that people wanted to cheat, but that was fine. –²
2.I realize more and more how I was under dichotomous urges, consiously making sure I was avoiding too much Tolkien, whilst subconsiously searching for similar chords. The ages of the world ARE very, very similar. No way around it. –²

Quote from: LordVreeg the UnsleepingWhat's wrong with ultraheroic?

Most gamers, as maturation kicks in, change their interests from the uber powerful level grabbing games to more textured, relatable ones.  There is, after all, more achievement involved with a difficult undertaking.  And to hearken back to the openning paragraph, adults are more able to deal with the risk part of the 'risk and reward' equation.[/quote]
There are good and bad roleplayers in any play style. Like I said before, I agree with you about "level grabbing" games but I think that you should separate the base power level of the campaign and the scope of the adventures from any of that. Otherwise you're just bashing someone else's play style, and that is the least mature of all.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg the UnsleepingWhat's wrong with ultraheroic?

Most gamers, as maturation kicks in, change their interests from the uber powerful level grabbing games to more textured, relatable ones.  There is, after all, more achievement involved with a difficult undertaking.  And to hearken back to the openning paragraph, adults are more able to deal with the risk part of the 'risk and reward' equation.

Can I just tell you how happy I was that you posted on this?  Thank you, before anything else.

No game has to fall into such monty haul dimensions.  But there is the "what shall we use to threaten Superman with this week?  Kryptonite or Kryptonite?" issues.  I submit gladly that a very good GM and writer could create and run games that run at the uberpowered level, and maybe even keep them up for a while.  
I asked the question 'what is wrong with ultraheroic' Becasue I beleive it needs to be answered.  But not becasue I believe everything is wrong with it.  Heck, every edition of D&D that comes out is more and more powerful, especially at the lower level.  4E certainly agrees with you, for all of their audience and for who they aimed it at, that the old idea of a 1st level character is boring.  So the reason I ask the question and answer it is because I believe I am somewhat of a contrarian in the current modality of design; and that you are standing in a much more currently in vogue space.

I like having grand politcal and religeous oriented games as well, and I like doing it without having the characters having a lot to say about it, unless they earn it through socially intelligent play, not just by being more powerful than someone else.  I consider this part of the cop out of a lot of high power games.  It may take a character a long time to gain this influence, but many have.


Now as to changing the growth curve, You need to understand how it was changed.  I make the point that character growth is like  drug.  This can be the personal power level, growth through acquisition, or social growth.  But I did not want to remove growth, as I believe it is a valid motivator.  I just changed the incrementalization in a primary (amount of growth that happens at a time) secondary (one needs basic skills, then sub skills, then sub-sub skills) and a tertiary fashion (magic use at even median level depends on mastery of more than one area).  
And it seems to be working.  I have characters over a decade old that seem pleased and validated with their growth who are still scared of being hit with an arrow while they are out of their armor.

And perhaps I do come across as bashing. I apologize for that.  But I said nothing of good or bad roleplayers, that particular area you quoted was about risk vs reward.  And while you can create risks for any level of power, and while keeping the power level nearer to mortal in scope may bore some people, characters behave differently when there is a plausible risk to certain behaviors.  

As always, I love your stuff.  And I appreciate this dialogue.

Quote from: LordVreeg the UnsleepingRisk and reward are part of the fabric of a Roleplaying game; and without one, the other is useless.  Early RPGs, with their easier rulesets that allowed character creation in 10 minutes, had no problem with PC death, especially in the beginning of the careers of the characters in question.  Killer megadungeons were stock in trade for many GMs then, and there was an accompanying thrill of achievement when a PC survived even to a moderate level.  Because it was not a given or even expected.  And that is one of the major differences from many of today's current game philosophies.   In most games, characters are expected to survive; and in many, the GM has done something wrong otherwise.  Even in more traditional groups, PC death is much less common than in earlier systems.

In addition to lethality level and implied heroism (as defined by you), I would raise the role of violence as one of the important decisions affecting game style.

Violence is inherenty terrible. It is cruel, ugly and can result in immeasurable tragedy. Yet humanity is wont to glorify violence, to conceal it's repulsive character and paint it anew in the bright colours of comedy, romanticism, justice, etc. A fatal knife-fight in a bar becomes a lighthearted scene of rowdyness to be cheered or laughed at. A band of young men suffering the horrors of war becomes a tall tale of patriotic heroism.

RPGs are no different from any other form of fiction when it comes to portrayal of violence. They can easily glorify the hell out of it, or play it's brutality to the hilt for shock value (one could argue this is a different kind of glorification), or aim for objective realism, or anything between. They can promote violence as an acceptable and viable solution to problems in general (or even take this for granted), or they might make it an unadvisable course of action to be avoided.

What ever the chosen portrayal, it will surely have a major impact on the tone of the game. It will also have implications on risk vs reward. The more glorified and viable as a solution violence is, the less thoughts players will have about making their characters engage in it. It can become just a tool in their disposal, to be used to confront the risk and get to the rewards.

Quote from: sparkletwistI guess this issue is a bit close to me because my own recent project, Asura, is pretty much squarely in this "larger than life" category. The whole concept of a "level 1 character" kind of bores me, and I'd much rather dive into action and intrigue on a larger scale. Not for any munchkin-ish reasons (I'd hope) but simply because this is the style of game I've come to like-- I like having grand political machinations and scheming religious hierarchies, but I hate having these things just be NPC-dominated affairs, and giving the PC's a lot of power and influence means that they can make a splash. To me this is nothing but a big plus!

Personal power does not have to be the only way to wield political power in an RPG, although game mechanics can easily end up enforcing this to be so (what with magic-users growing to godlike power and warriors that can take on small armies on their own...) But in a decidedly gritty and down-to-earth kind of system, it can be perfectly viable for low-level PCs to wield great influence and engage in large scale action and intrigue. They just need to be ones in positions of power, much the same as the big name NPCs.

[blockquote=Ghostman][blockquote=LordVreeg the Unsleeping]
Risk and reward are part of the fabric of a Roleplaying game; and without one, the other is useless. Early RPGs, with their easier rulesets that allowed character creation in 10 minutes, had no problem with PC death, especially in the beginning of the careers of the characters in question. Killer megadungeons were stock in trade for many GMs then, and there was an accompanying thrill of achievement when a PC survived even to a moderate level. Because it was not a given or even expected. And that is one of the major differences from many of today's current game philosophies. In most games, characters are expected to survive; and in many, the GM has done something wrong otherwise. Even in more traditional groups, PC death is much less common than in earlier systems. [/blockquote]



In addition to lethality level and implied heroism (as defined by you), I would raise the role of violence as one of the important decisions affecting game style.

Violence is inherenty terrible. It is cruel, ugly and can result in immeasurable tragedy. Yet humanity is wont to glorify violence, to conceal it's repulsive character and paint it anew in the bright colours of comedy, romanticism, justice, etc. A fatal knife-fight in a bar becomes a lighthearted scene of rowdyness to be cheered or laughed at. A band of young men suffering the horrors of war becomes a tall tale of patriotic heroism.

RPGs are no different from any other form of fiction when it comes to portrayal of violence. They can easily glorify the hell out of it, or play it's brutality to the hilt for shock value (one could argue this is a different kind of glorification), or aim for objective realism, or anything between. They can promote violence as an acceptable and viable solution to problems in general (or even take this for granted), or they might make it an unadvisable course of action to be avoided.

What ever the chosen portrayal, it will surely have a major impact on the tone of the game. It will also have implications on risk vs reward. The more glorified and viable as a solution violence is, the less thoughts players will have about making their characters engage in it. It can become just a tool in their disposal, to be used to confront the risk and get to the rewards. [/blockquote]

You know, the violence part is a really interesting angle.  I have, a number of times, mentioned changing the morality of violence, at least to some degree, by working against racial archetypes.  Also, it was one of the reasons I got rid of alignment, so as to trash the whole, "Well, I detect evil, so I can kill the orc babies" school of thought.

Good stuff.  Good stuff.  

Quote from: LordVreeg the Unsleeping4E certainly agrees with you, for all of their audience and for who they aimed it at, that the old idea of a 1st level character is boring.  So the reason I ask the question and answer it is because I believe I am somewhat of a contrarian in the current modality of design; and that you are standing in a much more currently in vogue space.

players[/i]) feel invincible-- because the challenge will drain out of the game soon after and it won't be any fun for anyone.

Quote from: LordVreeg the UnsleepingAnd perhaps I do come across as bashing. I apologize for that.  But I said nothing of good or bad roleplayers, that particular area you quoted was about risk vs reward.

Personal power does not have to be the only way to wield political power in an RPG, although game mechanics can easily end up enforcing this to be so (what with magic-users growing to godlike power and warriors that can take on small armies on their own...) But in a decidedly gritty and down-to-earth kind of system, it can be perfectly viable for low-level PCs to wield great influence and engage in large scale action and intrigue. They just need to be ones in positions of power, much the same as the big name NPCs.
[/quote]and influence[/b]." To refer to your example, someone who has that knowledge and those connections, even if they aren't super strong or good at magic, is still powerful. They may be low level in their combat skills, but they have significant advantages in other areas. As an example, GURPS makes you pay character points for those titles of nobility, contacts, influences, favors owed, stockpiles of wealth, and other trappings of political power. A character with a lot of influence will end up costing the same amount of character points (i.e., be "high level") as one who is super strong and an ace with a sword-- because they're both powerful. So, while I agree with your basic point, I don't think any game where the PCs start off as high priests or nobles (or admirals of the space navy, or whatever) are really all that different from the kind of "high powered" stuff I'm talking about. :)

[blockquote=Sparkletwist]I was picking up on was not so much the risk-reward aspect but more the implication that it was more mature (and thus, better, I would think) to take a certain slower-growing, low-level, realistic approach. My own opinion is that, except for the obvious part about keeping the monty haul munchkins out of it, level of maturity has nothing to do with it. If I misunderstood please let me know.  [/blockquote]
I don't want to be denying the antecedent, so I need to state that I am aware (and want to make clear) that just because something exists in opposition it does not prove that opposite by it's existence.
However, please include in your thought process that younger, more immature games never have, "a certain slower-growing, low-level, realistic approach."  This is something one develops over time; a mature taste, if you will.

But I should not say that a taste one acquires in childhood is always grown out of, or bad.  Hell, I loved chocolate as a child, and as an adult, the taste has become more sophisticated, but I still love chocolate.
maybe you are just enjoying the more sophisticated, mature version of the chocolate game.

Bleah.
I need to break up the front page for Celtricia and the Worship page.
Just...too big and busy...