Write this game for adults

[Orius]

I think the most evocative RPG books I've ever read were Planescape. Holy crap, did those inspire me and fire my imagination.

Yeah, the Planescape books had some great writing. The tone of the books and boxed sets went a long way towards conveying the feel of the setting. The MC appendices (especially the later ones) had some truely wonderful descriptions of the monsters. Even the little quotes that would be peppered around in the pages of the various books were fun. But it also kind of reflects the point I made earlier in the thread on crunch vs. flavor; the Planescape books tended to be pretty heavy on the flavor.

 

[pemerton]

I think the most evocative RPG books I've ever read were Planescape. Holy crap, did those inspire me and fire my imagination.

I think there are (at least) two different ways in which an RPG book can inspire.

It can present compelling fiction. Planescape pesonally doesn't do much for me, but I know it does something for some. For D&D(-ish) material that I find inspiring as fiction, I would put forward Dark Sun and Arcana Unearthed. These are settings and story elements the I can enjoy thinking about and imagining playing in.

The other way that an RPG book can be inspiring, I think, is to make me want to play, by giving me a good feel for the sorts of compelling episodes it might produce in play. The 4e books had this effect on me. So do the Burning Wheel books. 3E doesn't do this for me. B/X and AD&D did, but personally I found a bit of a mismatch between what they promised and what the delivered. Oriental Adventures (the AD&D version) did deliver for me: a promise of compelling play that it delivered on.

These two ways of being evocative can interrelate, because part of what can make an episode compelling in play is the story elements it involves. This is part of the explanation for why Oriental Adventures both inspired me and delivered for me. But there is much more to compelling episodes of play than just the story elements. Oriental Adventures, for example, didn't just say "family and honour matters". Nor did it just present compelling fiction in which family and honour were shown to matter. It put family and honour into the core of the PC build mechanics. (These days I'd do it a bit differently - and it's not a patch on Pendragon - but back then I was young and impressionable.)

Part of what makes 4e books evocative, for me, is that they promise compelling episodes of play, and the actual play experience then delivers.

For those for whom the mechanics are less important - whose ideal would be for the mechanics to "fade away" - then my distinction might not hold, though. Because if mechanics don't matter to you, then it may be that nothing but story elements determines whether or not an episode of play is compelling for you.

I've never actually seen any evidence that any RPG books were ever evocative to start off with.

In my experience it depends heaavily on the book. But I would agree that the fiction in RPG books - and especially D&D books - is in general not very well written.

The quality of evocation of any bit of writing I think really depends on how you go into the situation.

<snip>

If you expect DDN to be a dictionary, no matter how flavorful it is, you will likely see all the dictionary aspects and consider it quite encyclopedic instead of evocative.

If you expect DDN to be colorful, evocative, and flavorful, you will likely see all the color, flavor, and evocation, regardless of any attempts of it to be rulesy and encyclopedic.

I think this elides the differences between different D&D books.

Part of why the Planescape that I have read tends to do little for me (and I'm thinking here especially Dead Gods, Infinite Staircase and the 3E Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) is because when I read it, I don't feel that a compelling play experience is being offered. The outcomes seem highly predetermined (though Infinite Staircase is perhaps not quite as egregious in this respect), and the action resolution mechanics a poor match for the situations that the players are expected to engage via their PCs.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Part of why the Planescape that I have read tends to do little for me (and I'm thinking here especially Dead Gods, Infinite Staircase and the 3E Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) is because when I read it, I don't feel that a compelling play experience is being offered. The outcomes seem highly predetermined (though Infinite Staircase is perhaps not quite as egregious in this respect), and the action resolution mechanics a poor match for the situations that the players are expected to engage via their PCs.

If you haven't checked out the original 2nd Ed Planescape boxed set, I highly recommend it, there are no predetermined outcomes and the action resolution mechanics are standard D&D rules.

 

[pemerton]

the action resolution mechanics are standard D&D rules.

That's part of my problem. The 2nd ed AD&D rules don't promise evocative situations dealing with moral choice, allegiance, divinity etc - at least, not to me.

 

[Steely_Dan]

That's part of my problem. The 2nd ed AD&D rules don't promise evocative situations dealing with moral choice, allegiance, divinity etc - at least, not to me.

Fair enough, what rules-set (action resolution mechanic) do you feel provides this?

You could always use that system to run Planescape.

 

[pemerton]

Fair enough, what rules-set (action resolution mechanic) do you feel provides this?

You could always use that system to run Planescape.

If I wanted to run Planescape (which personally I don't, so my opinion is probably irrelevant!), I'd look at HeroWars/Quest. Good mecanics for relationships and augments. PC build is in terms of descriptors, some of which can be broad and some narrow (so can include keywords like Primer, Sensate, etc as well as more narrow and literal descriptors like "Clueless Berk", "Worships Odin", etc). The flexibility in scene framing and in the relationship between mechanical play detail and in-fiction detail seems like it would suit a plane-hopping, planar-exploration/courier sort of game (which is at least part of the impression I get from Planescape).

A gritty Sigil game might be able to be run using Burning Wheel (some new Lifepaths might be needed). Maybe even plane hopping could be included without too much mechanical tweaking.

I personally find that 4e D&D is better than earlier versions of D&D for a certain sort of belief/allegiance oriented game, because it has a more conflict-riven cosmology more tightly integrated into a range of PC build elements and monsters/NPCs on the GM side. But I have doubts that it would do Planescape that well - at least as I understand it, Planescape is more about the planes and powers as backdrop then as antagonists/protagonists. (But maybe I'm wrong about that.)

 

[Steely_Dan]

I personally find that 4e D&D is better than earlier versions of D&D for a certain sort of belief/allegiance oriented game, because it has a more conflict-riven cosmology more tightly integrated into a range of PC build elements and monsters/NPCs on the GM side.

Interesting, why do you feel it's a more conflict driven cosmology, and why do you think it's more tightly integrated into PC build elements and monsters/NPCs than previous editions?

 

[pemerton]

Interesting, why do you feel it's a more conflict driven cosmology

A few things. The gods, demons etc seem to me to be set up more overtly in conflict: Raven Queen vs Orcus vs Vecna vs Kas; Bane vs Gruumsh (whereas in classic D&D this is Maglubiyet and Gruumsh, both of whom are typically going to be off to the side as far as PCs are concerned); Bahamut and Dragonborn vs Asmodeus/devils and Tieflings; etc.

why do you think it's more tightly integrated into PC build elements and monsters/NPCs than previous editions?

The last example above shows one answer to this question. Dragonborn and Bahamut; Tieflings and devils; Dwarves and Moradin; Elves and Corellon - part of what makes this significant is that the older demi-human gods are not brought into the cosmological mainstream. The history of fallen empires also creates an overlay on this: the default setting is in fallen Nerath, which has an ambivalent relationship to the previous empires of Dragonborn and Tieflings, not to mention other humanoids like hobgoblins (once had an empire) and gnolls (who killed the king of Nerath).

Other features that bring in these conflicts are warlocks (with their pacts), sorcerers (with their power sources), many paragon paths and epic destinies, and even clerics and paladins - these have obviously always brought in divine allegiances, but at least I've found in 4e do this more because (i) the mechanical style of multi-classing makes it more likely that you might have a divine PC or two in the party, and (ii) with fewer gods more broadly embedded into the story elements, any given cleric is more likely to be in some sort of relationship to any given monster/NPC.

Turning to monsters and NPCs, very many are defined in relationship to gods, or primordials, or demonlords, or the Dawn War - most of the classic humanoids, for example. Sphinxes, Naga and some of the other classic "magical guardians" are retconned in this way. Dragons of course keep their links to Bahamut and Tiamat, but this is again retconned to fit into a key aspect of the Dawn War. Elementals and Giants also take on a new cosmological signficance, because of the relationship between Elemental Chaos and the order that the gods have created.

And this in turn fits into the way that the planes and cosmology are set up as objects of player protagonism, rather than backdrops to it. I'm thinking here especially some of the ideas in Worlds and Monsters, in Underdark, in the Plane Above and in Demonomicon - this feature comes through less, I think, in Manua of the Planes or The Plane Below. The Plane Above, for example, even talks about old-style Rune/Hero-Quest "Heroquesting" (under the name "Journeying into Deep Myth") - travelling into the past of the Dawn War and before to reaffirm, or perhaps transform, some feature of the cosmic order.

I wouldn't expect everyone to read 4e in this way. It's something I hadn't anticipated about the game from the pre-release info until I read both Worlds and Monsters and the first Monster Manual, and then all these ideas for a cosmologically-based campaign (which is my preferred D&D style in any event), and the way the PC build rules seemed so strongly to support it, leapt out at me.

It's not everywhere in the game, either. A party of halfling rangers who worship Avandra and Melora don't really suggest to me cosmologicall-imbued conflict. Nor do ankhegs or giant ants as encouter elements. But even though it's a matter of degree, I have found that the difference of degree between 4e and earlier editions is fairly striking.

The only other comparable D&D experience I can think of is when Oriental Adventures first came out (1986, I think, in Australia) and it had all this stuff in it - about gods, and spirits, and clans, and honour, and PC build rules that integrated all that stuff and linked the PCs (and therefore the players into it). But (partly because 4e has volumes rather than pages!) I've found 4e richer - I'm not sure there's enough in OA to sustain years and years of play, whereas I've got 3 years out of the 4e default setting and its still going very strong. And 4e has other mechanical features, emphasising greater player protagonism and less GM force over the story, than classic AD&D OA.

Anway, just one poster's reflections!

 

[Steely_Dan]

A few things. The gods, demons etc seem to me to be set up more overtly in conflict: Raven Queen vs Orcus vs Vecna vs Kas; Bane vs Gruumsh (whereas in classic D&D this is Maglubiyet and Gruumsh, both of whom are typically going to be off to the side as far as PCs are concerned); Bahamut and Dragonborn vs Asmodeus/devils and Tieflings; etc.

The last example above shows one answer to this question. Dragonborn and Bahamut; Tieflings and devils; Dwarves and Moradin; Elves and Corellon - part of what makes this significant is that the older demi-human gods are not brought into the cosmological mainstream. The history of fallen empires also creates an overlay on this: the default setting is in fallen Nerath, which has an ambivalent relationship to the previous empires of Dragonborn and Tieflings, not to mention other humanoids like hobgoblins (once had an empire) and gnolls (who killed the king of Nerath).

Other features that bring in these conflicts are warlocks (with their pacts), sorcerers (with their power sources), many paragon paths and epic destinies, and even clerics and paladins - these have obviously always brought in divine allegiances, but at least I've found in 4e do this more because (i) the mechanical style of multi-classing makes it more likely that you might have a divine PC or two in the party, and (ii) with fewer gods more broadly embedded into the story elements, any given cleric is more likely to be in some sort of relationship to any given monster/NPC.

Turning to monsters and NPCs, very many are defined in relationship to gods, or primordials, or demonlords, or the Dawn War - most of the classic humanoids, for example. Sphinxes, Naga and some of the other classic "magical guardians" are retconned in this way. Dragons of course keep their links to Bahamut and Tiamat, but this is again retconned to fit into a key aspect of the Dawn War. Elementals and Giants also take on a new cosmological signficance, because of the relationship between Elemental Chaos and the order that the gods have created.

And this in turn fits into the way that the planes and cosmology are set up as objects of player protagonism, rather than backdrops to it. I'm thinking here especially some of the ideas in Worlds and Monsters, in Underdark, in the Plane Above and in Demonomicon - this feature comes through less, I think, in Manua of the Planes or The Plane Below. The Plane Above, for example, even talks about old-style Rune/Hero-Quest "Heroquesting" (under the name "Journeying into Deep Myth") - travelling into the past of the Dawn War and before to reaffirm, or perhaps transform, some feature of the cosmic order.

I wouldn't expect everyone to read 4e in this way. It's something I hadn't anticipated about the game from the pre-release info until I read both Worlds and Monsters and the first Monster Manual, and then all these ideas for a cosmologically-based campaign (which is my preferred D&D style in any event), and the way the PC build rules seemed so strongly to support it, leapt out at me.

It's not everywhere in the game, either. A party of halfling rangers who worship Avandra and Melora don't really suggest to me cosmologicall-imbued conflict. Nor do ankhegs or giant ants as encouter elements. But even though it's a matter of degree, I have found that the difference of degree between 4e and earlier editions is fairly striking.

The only other comparable D&D experience I can think of is when Oriental Adventures first came out (1986, I think, in Australia) and it had all this stuff in it - about gods, and spirits, and clans, and honour, and PC build rules that integrated all that stuff and linked the PCs (and therefore the players into it). But (partly because 4e has volumes rather than pages!) I've found 4e richer - I'm not sure there's enough in OA to sustain years and years of play, whereas I've got 3 years out of the 4e default setting and its still going very strong. And 4e has other mechanical features, emphasising greater player protagonism and less GM force over the story, than classic AD&D OA.

Anway, just one poster's reflections!

Cool, I can dig it, and thanks for posting your reflections without any passive-aggressive, anti-pre-4th Ed cosmology bashing.

I think both the Great Wheel/Planescape and World Axis cosmology are great, but as I am currently running a Planescape campaign, I have used the World Axis cosmology to add to/enrich my Planescape campaign.

I very much like the dwarf/giant, and formorian/gnome deal. The Shadowfell enhances the Plane of Shadow/Ravenloft. Feywild has good ideas for The Plane of Faerie/Seelie Court/Tir Na Nog. I also love Torog.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[pemerton]

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Sounds like good stuff.

I've been running bits and pieces of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth over the course of my 4e campaign. That is set in old minotaur ruins. And one thing I've introduced, beginning more-or-less spontaneously in an early session but then building on it over time, is that the dwarves, after they freed themselves from the giants, were "pupils" of the minotaurs - so the dwarf PC sees echoes of dwarven style and architecture in the ancient minotaur hauls, minotaur weapons, etc.

Besides putting a bit of an ambivalent sheen on that PC's culture - which I like in itself, because it gives the players some more material to work with than just loving beer and hating goblins and giants - it also makes the subsequent fall of the minotaurs, and their turning to Baphomet and Orcus and other dark forces, a bit more poignant. Maybe the same thing could happen to the dwarves!

As far as the Great Wheel goes, I've never really run it as written. In old Rolemaster games (but very heavily D&D influenced in everything but mechanics) I have used the inner/outer planes distinction (although with a fused ethereal/astral plane). For me it has a different vibe from what I'm doing with 4e, but I like the feel of astral/ethereal travel, and especially like charonadaemons. I've got a lot of good mileage out of them in two high level RM campaigns, and out of astral/ethereal travel more generally. I like the idea that your thoughts/desires are what influences your travel. Particularly in a high level Oriental campaign with strong Buddhist/Taoist "take control of your mind to pierce the veils of illusion" tropes, the astral/ethereal plane and travelling on it under the direction of thought figured fairly prominently.