nevvur
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 13
Currently Running: D&D 5e
|
Post by nevvur on May 13, 2018 9:03:45 GMT -8
More religion, oh my!
Faith and its myriad expressions have been such a huge influence through human history that I think GMs who skirt around it are doing a disservice to their players. Except maybe in sci-fi settings, but even there it can add much to the story.
In discussions about world building, you'll often hear/read about the merits and flaws of starting small vs. starting big. That is, do you start with the little village/region where the players start and build out from there, or start on the world-scale and build down? I think either approach is perfectly fine... as a second step!
The first step, IMO, should be establishing the cosmology. Both the village and world need something to exist in, a substrate in which to grow. That's the cosmology. Creating a village (or a world) before you create a cosmology is like watering your seeds before you've found suitable earth to plant them. It's about having internal consistency, a set of metaphysics that can answer the questions arising from the existence of magic.
One need not create an especially complex cosmology to create this consistency. For one of my homebrew worlds, a quick and dirty generic setting, I just dropped the D&D 4e generic pantheon and creation mythos into the world and called it good enough. For a much bigger project, I spent countless hours establishing an entirely new cosmology, and not just gods, but a set of metaphysics to support them (or rather, the uncertainty of their existence), along with the various approaches to spellcasting that had developed over the years. For instance, there's an in-world explanation for why each class uses its particular spellcasting ability score, Int/Wis/Cha, what spell slots represent narratively, and so on.
The link below will take you to the google drive folder containing my setting documents. The cosmology, religion, and magic theory documents are germane to this conversation. They're a bit long, but anyone looking for ideas about non-standard D&D cosmologies may find them interesting.
I will say this: I don't expect any of my players to read these documents. I communicate the most important information verbally, and if they're curious enough to learn more, the rest is available to peruse at their leisure. So far only one of the players in my current campaign has shown much interest in them, and that's perfectly fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 14, 2018 5:48:14 GMT -8
Listening to the opening email I kept thinking "What if you ran Clerics and Paladins like Jedi?" Normal people who started showing gifts given to them from gods, snatched up by that religion and trained to harness that power to do even cooler things. Then it's less about book learnin' and more about who has the touch. Then you have that whole rivalry between deity driven magic and wizards who tap into other forces the church would find...unnatural.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 14, 2018 7:24:32 GMT -8
Medieval people know that magic was real, thay know that trolls and dragons existed. There's even a medieval law in Sweden that that forbids women from serving fish that has been inserted in a particular sexual area (some kind of love spell iirc). Another story is from a priest where he said he had a magic duel with a sami shaman and won. Belief is strong and in a medieval setting common people will believe lots of strange things even if the is no proof. Ps. If you want a realistic religion for your game use the Sami religion: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_shamanismNo non-nordic (nor most nordic) people will have any knowledge of this. And they have the coolest magic drums:
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on May 14, 2018 7:32:08 GMT -8
Listening to the opening email I kept thinking "What if you ran Clerics and Paladins like Jedi?" Normal people who started showing gifts given to them from gods, snatched up by that religion and trained to harness that power to do even cooler things. Then it's less about book learnin' and more about who has the touch. Then you have that whole rivalry between deity driven magic and wizards who tap into other forces the church would find...unnatural. Welcome to Thedas, the setting for Dragon Age. This is exactly what they do with children who develop the ability for magic.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 14, 2018 7:42:55 GMT -8
For Magic or for religion?
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on May 14, 2018 8:27:05 GMT -8
For Magic or for religion? Children who show ability with magic are taken away by Templars to be taught magic in special mage towers. These towers are under the control of the Chantry, which is the main religion in Thedas. It is rather a lot like the Jedi, except religious in nature and they're always under Templar supervision. The Templars are warriors trained in anti-magic techniques. In Dragon Age there's no distinction between divine and arcane magic, though. Magic is magic.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 14, 2018 9:03:47 GMT -8
Right, if I remember it's more to keep magic I check because of the possibility of corruption so it's like quarantine. Apostates are frowned upon and usually hunted.
|
|
|
Post by Linus on May 16, 2018 7:22:41 GMT -8
Regarding puzzle props: I propose that there's a "recent" trend in game design (apart from the OSR) that utilize players interacting with the game as themselves rather than through their character: games that encourage the player to interact with the narrative, often to the detriment of their characters. This is tied to a thorough revision of the "victory conditions" of tabletop roleplaying games.
I propose that the games that truly embrace Roleplaying A Character are the simulationist games whose conflict resolutions only deal with resolving the result of the characters interaction with the world. Whenever you lift your gaze from their point-of-view, you are essentially enacting a meta-game, where you as a player interact directly with it. Tabletop rpgs have been increasingly better at developing mechanics that support (switching between and) playing at that level.
My opinion is that all levels of play are perfectly fine in themselves, but that the levels should not be mismatched. Therefore: the player should not be expected to solve a puzzle that the character encounter, just as a character should not act on information the player possess. A puzzle for the player to interact with is all fine and well, but the reward of solving it should be limited to the level that the player operates on; from "bennies", to the option to introduce new elements into the narrative, to merely the entertainment of possessing knowledge that compliments the character point-of-view in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by uselesstriviaman on May 16, 2018 12:49:11 GMT -8
So much love for tappy this episode - I bought my own copy of Mansions of Madness just a couple of weeks ago, and that board game is the fuckin' SHIT. It's just about as close as a board game is gonna get to an RPG, and there's a (required) free app that actually manages the bad guys and the rest of the game. Very much awesomeness. Also, I'm a big fan of puzzle props. I've used 'em more than once in my games; my favorite was a one-shot where the PCs had to first find, then use a set of tangram blocks as a "key" to unlock the final dungeon level. I agree that it's definitely more of a challenge for players rather than for characters, but I'm okay with blurring that line. Especially in the name of fun.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 16, 2018 14:24:45 GMT -8
I agree that it's definitely more of a challenge for players rather than for characters, but I'm okay with blurring that line. Especially in the name of fun. Depends on who's having the fun.... If the whole table is having fun, then everything is great. If "you" are having fun, and some/all of your players are considering bringing back lynching for a limited engagement..... Little less so. For instance.... I HATE riddles. There is something about my brain that just can not resolve them, and as such they are incredibly frustrating to me. I know the answers to a couple of them, not because I figured them out, but because I've heard them so many times in popular media. So, yeah... When a GM insists on adding riddles to a game, it not only stops being fun, but immediately turns to a negative experience. Now... This is not an admonition to play any specific way. Rather, it's a reminder to learn your table, and respect them. If you know a player HATES riddles, don't ask them to solve one. If you weren't aware of that, and slap a riddle down, and you notice that they're clearly not happy about it..... Figure something else out.
|
|
nevvur
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 13
Currently Running: D&D 5e
|
Post by nevvur on May 16, 2018 18:28:55 GMT -8
Regarding puzzle props: I propose that there's a "recent" trend in game design (apart from the OSR) that utilize players interacting with the game as themselves rather than through their character: games that encourage the player to interact with the narrative, often to the detriment of their characters. This is tied to a thorough revision of the "victory conditions" of tabletop roleplaying games. I propose that the games that truly embrace Roleplaying A Character are the simulationist games whose conflict resolutions only deal with resolving the result of the characters interaction with the world. Whenever you lift your gaze from their point-of-view, you are essentially enacting a meta-game, where you as a player interact directly with it. Tabletop rpgs have been increasingly better at developing mechanics that support (switching between and) playing at that level. My opinion is that all levels of play are perfectly fine in themselves, but that the levels should not be mismatched. Therefore: the player should not be expected to solve a puzzle that the character encounter, just as a character should not act on information the player possess. A puzzle for the player to interact with is all fine and well, but the reward of solving it should be limited to the level that the player operates on; from "bennies", to the option to introduce new elements into the narrative, to merely the entertainment of possessing knowledge that compliments the character point-of-view in one way or another.
One thing I see many GMs/groups get hung up on when it comes to puzzles is the notion the PC who solves the puzzle must belong to the player who solves the puzzle. I'm pretty good with puzzles, but I also like playing meatheads. I have on multiple occasions suggested to the table something like, "I was right? Sweet! But Choppa DaKlunk here probably wouldn't have been able to figure that out, so let's say Wizbang came up with the solution?"
It's helped keep the story/characters consistent, but it does require a group storytelling mentality you won't find at every table. Not only does the player who solves the puzzle need to pass along the credit in character, the other player has to be okay with accepting it. I haven't had an issue with the latter, but I can easily see a player objecting to it - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with such an objection.
It can go the other way, though, and that can be wrong. By that, I mean a player who did not solve the puzzle (or the GM) suggesting my character doesn't get narrative credit because he isn't the smart one, or something to that effect. I'm happy to give credit, but I would be displeased to have it taken away.
|
|
|
Post by uselesstriviaman on May 18, 2018 6:24:07 GMT -8
I agree that it's definitely more of a challenge for players rather than for characters, but I'm okay with blurring that line. Especially in the name of fun. Depends on who's having the fun.... If the whole table is having fun, then everything is great. If "you" are having fun, and some/all of your players are considering bringing back lynching for a limited engagement..... Little less so. For instance.... I HATE riddles. There is something about my brain that just can not resolve them, and as such they are incredibly frustrating to me. I know the answers to a couple of them, not because I figured them out, but because I've heard them so many times in popular media. So, yeah... When a GM insists on adding riddles to a game, it not only stops being fun, but immediately turns to a negative experience. Now... This is not an admonition to play any specific way. Rather, it's a reminder to learn your table, and respect them. If you know a player HATES riddles, don't ask them to solve one. If you weren't aware of that, and slap a riddle down, and you notice that they're clearly not happy about it..... Figure something else out. I absolutely agree. When I ran that one-shot, it was specifically listed in the description that this event would feature lots of puzzles. I've also had a player that hated puzzles so badly that he threatened to quit the game if I tried to make him figure out a puzzle. Lesson learned.
|
|
Ed from Minnesota
Apprentice Douchebag
Professional Gaming Slut
Posts: 56
Preferred Game Systems: See status.
Currently Playing: What is... "playing?"
Currently Running: Shadowrun, D&D 5th, Torg via Savage Worlds, HERO, Gurps One-Shots, CoC One-Shots
Favorite Species of Monkey: Monkey See. No wait... Monkey Do. Doo?
|
Post by Ed from Minnesota on May 23, 2018 16:30:04 GMT -8
So I am not sure this point came across in the email or not, but the key to religion in gaming is that the PC's are the source of the magic, not the religion. The religion is how the character focuses the magic inherent in them. This is what makes it interesting, in my opinion. So if a person becomes a priest of 'Bob, the miraculous tentacled Jellyfish', he has the same power level of anyone else whom is a priest of the same level. This allows Irian, the Illusiory Sorcerer, to convince Pious Paula to worship him as a Demi-God of the god of magic. She becomes a powerful priest, one day passing Irian by in level. She finds out that Irian isn't the Demi-God she thought. Her powers don't fade, but she does become disillusioned. What will she do now?
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on May 25, 2018 16:59:44 GMT -8
The puzzle dilemma is a matter of balance. The author of the email stated that they weren't into it, and tried to get the GM to allow for some character skill to influence the completion of the puzzle, which was shut down by the GM. OK, so no "Yes, and…" there, but maybe it was a puzzle where a hint or advantage wasn't inherently possible?
The tone of the email seemed like the other players and the GM were having fun, but the emailer was not. That's sad.
THAT BEING SAID, am I also remembering correctly that the other players were entreating the emailer to help them out, put things aside and just grit their teeth and do the puzzle? That's pretty lame, if their tone was cajoling.
If they thought the emailer would "have fun if they just tried," great… but there are parts of any game where some player is less engaged than the others. That's natural. But when a player is obviously not enjoying themselves, and that portion of the game will be lengthy (HEY-OHHHH), the GM should have an alternate means for that player to stay engaged.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 26, 2018 2:41:47 GMT -8
About out of character puzzles, one of the RPPR AP's they had a puzzle with a 1 minute time limit.
They beat it in less than 5 seconds.
It's very hit-or-miss regarding difficulty so it's a risk that the point of the puzzle is lost.
|
|