Elthos History: Reducing Complexity

One of the original thoughts I had about D&D v1.0 (the original three volumes by Gygax and Arneson) was that it was too complicated. Haha. That's funny because soon after they came out with (from my point of view) the Insanely Complicated D&D v2.0. Oh LORD, I thought. That's the opposite direction from where I went with the game. I wanted simplicity and I wanted it in spades. I wanted to have a game system that did not require me to buy new books to keep up with. I wanted a system that provided me with a story telling framework without killing me in the process with the Death of a Thousand Charts. And I did not want to be constrained in the game with a rules system that required me to either A) memorize volume 39 subsection 398.B-3.2 in order to figure out what the chance to hit was, or B) make me look it up, which was far worse. No, no - not where I wanted to go. So very early on in 1978 I was inventing my own system that took all that I considered Great about D&D and threw the rest AWAY. Bye.

What I wound up with was a modular system that let me run the game in its entirety using one General Resolution Matrix. From my Gamesmaster's point of view this was ideal. My Players also liked the fact that the game was fast and smooth and easily understandible at the rules level. There were about 10 or so charts related to character creation (Requisite Bonus Chart, Skills List Chart, etc) but those only needed to be looked at once in a blue moon. Fine. All was well in the land of Elthos.

On the other hand I added a few things. One was that I made new requisites. Mine are:

Strength       - Damage Point Bonus
Constitution   - Life Points Bonus
Endurance      - Fatigue Point Bonus (New)

Intelligence   - Mana Point Bonus
Wisdom         - Grace Point Bonus

Dexterity      - Attack Level Bonus
Agility        - Armor Class Bonus (New)

Appearance     - Sex Appeal Bonus  (New)
Voice          - Invocation Bonus  (New)
Charisma       - Leadership Bonus

Well these Requisites made sense to me, and they in combination handled all of the attributes I found important in the game, though, to be honest, I have rarely ever used the Appearance requisite except on two occasions where Knights were seeking their True Loves (and WHY is that SO uncommon, I ask you!? Harumph!). That said, the other Requisites have been useful. The Voice requisite was a little confusing at first, but helps with magic and clericy and is used as a bonus for spells and invocations, and is required to be higher than average for all magic and clerical classes. The system was a little complicated with the additions, but I liked them and so they stuck. My players seemed to like them too for the most part as it added to the overall definition of the character and that was a good thing generally. Players like to create their characters I've found, so long as it isn't TOO complicated and doesn't take TOO long.

I has worked out a few additional things such as an Alignment System which over the years I tooled around with until I got it into a workable state. A few other special items in the engine of the game but nothing too complicated. Overall it worked well as a Story Telling Framework and I've played a LOT of Elthos stories with it over the years. It has been fun.

Then in 1996 I started programming my rules into a computerized system for myself as a Gamesmaster's Toolbox. It's called, unambiguously enough, The Elthos Gamesmasters Toolbox. I spent quite a few years working on it and its now, only now, nearly finished. Ok, well it's nice. It handles everything in the game that I need as a Gamesmaster, including combat, magic, movement, etc. It has monsters and races and powers and spells and clerical invocations and gods and the whole nine worlds. Great. I like it.

While I was doing this the world continued to spin, but I took little notice and less care. Then came the flood of RPGs. The FLOOD of RPGs. Ok, that's fine. I didn't publish mine. I worked on it and fine tuned it. I refused to look at other games least I wind up stealing ideas from others. Fine. Or not so fine. But whatever. That was my approach. Now it's pretty much finished, but needs some optimizing in the code and some minor finishes. Superior.

The only problem is, and I *knew* this would happen: What do I do with it now?!

In the meantime I condensed my Elthos Prime System (the one that is computerized) into a very small subset of the essential rules of Elthos. This system I call the Elthos "One Die System". It's the tightest little RPG system I've ever seen. Hah. I laugh because I've seen so miserably few. But still, it uses only one six sided die to run the entire system, so I seriously doubt it can get smaller and still have die rolling as an essential element of the game. So maybe it's a little claim to fame. The purpose of the ODS is to make the Elthos RPG as simple to run as possible as a non-computerized picnic table game. It has one central chart, a few ancillary charts for character building, two blank maps (hex and grid) and movement rules, and some advice about how to run the system and Gamesmaster with it. As mentioned I created the Elthos ODS for the Literary Role Playing Game Society of Westchester so we could play unobtrusively in the Cobblstone Pub when we meet to try out ideas. We never did use it because we usually got way to involved with the escoteira of World Weaving discussions, all of which were fabulous and instructive. And so the ODS exists, but I'm again at the point where I must decide: What will I do with it?

LOL. I'm not into competing for King of the Hill with my games. I don't care to promote my game as the "Best Thing Evar!!". It's a system. Some people will like it, some people will hate it. Some people may even absolutely adore it. I know I do. :)

Anyway, just some chatter about my game and its history for those who may someday wonder where the Elthos ODS came from. It was me. Sorry. :P

Dungeons: Tricks and Traps

Well, over the past day or so I've been considering tricks and traps in terms of dungeon design. My thinking is that a dungeon should be built according to a coherent plan by someone. On the LRPGSW site we have a couple of posts on Dungeon Design. The first was a series of Purposes for dungeons along with brief descriptions of what their natures are and what they generally are like. An example is "A Sapper's Tunnel". While not normally considered a Dungeon per se, it still fit into our general idea of "Places underground that can hold adventures". The description reveals it to be something like a short tunnel that goes under a castle wall. It may have corpses (who could be the basis for ghosts or undead perhaps) and perhaps tidbits of treasure and probably armor and weapons. It is probably hastily constructed, dangers, with no irrigation for water (fetid pools), and be populated by insects, rats, serpents, etc. Maybe a kobold lair. Etc. That's one example.

I then went on to discuss in a later (most recent) post some thoughts on tricks and traps in terms of dungeon designs. Now I'm considering fusing the two together to get a comprehensive Dungeon Builder's Guide of some sort. It's been interesting to contemplate. In support of the goal I am reading about ancient and medieval war, along with a very good book on ancient techniques of biological and chemical warfare titled, "Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Fire Bombs" by Adrienne Mayor. An excellent read and a great resource for this sort of thing.

On Shamanism and Character Identification

I posted a couple of interesting thoughts on the LRPGSW this weekend. The first is a paper, "On Shamanism and Magical Systems" which is a World Weavers tinkerings with ideas about magic. Looking at the history of Norse Shamanism and comparing that Necromancy and Witchcraft I surmise that magic systems should have the ability to overlap Spells/Powers, as there is commonality between the various magical groups.

The Paper can be found in the LRPGSW > Files > Essays section.

The second is a post I sent in this morning in response to the ineffable Jarod.

Interesting. Notice how intensely I identify with the Character? My phraseology goes from, "He found..." to "I absorbed..." ... interesting. I think this little verbal twist is extremely telling. But what does it say about Player-Character identification? In some sense, I'm going out on a limb here, I believe it shows that I consider my Characters in some way to be actual extensions of myself. The myths that are created with them become internal mythos of my own soul and I "believe" in them at some deep level, to the same degree, or perhaps more, than I "believe" (not literally, figuratively, if I must say so) in myths such as the Norse Myths i'm reading about lately. In other words, somehow, I think of my Characters adventures as events that have actuality for me and so when I think of the Character I literally do think in terms of "I did ...", not "He did..." though I usually try to be careful not to phrase it as "I did..." because it would, and does, sound strange. Nevertheless, that's the truth of the matter. So I now speculate that perhaps Role Playing, at some level, can in some way, at some level, be thought of as a sort of astral projection, or shamanistic event where "real" things, at some level, are Actually happening, and not just games, but something a little bit more? Or are all games this way and the imagination links everything we imagine up this way, at some level? Yet, even if that is true, I'm thinking that Role Playing Games form deeper and more profound impressions on our minds, and have a deeper and more lasting effect on our psyches. If so, then what responsibility does that imply for World Weaving?

That last question, I suppose, is a doosey, but worth considering. :)

On Gamesmastering and World Weaving

There is a distinction I would like to make between Gamesmastering and World Weaving. How one would Gamesmaster a scene happens to be based on a set of skills that are completely different than what it takes to World Weave one. I am thinking that this distinction has not been discussed yet and so I’d like to take a moment to bring the topic to light. I will start with World Weaving.

First, a clear definition of World Weaving would be the right place to start, so here it goes. World Weaving is the act of creating the background material for an RPG World, and it is very much like authoring a fictional story. It can, and usually does, incorporate historical backdrop, sociology, economics, politics and principal characters of the story and how they relate to one another and what their position in the World is. What skills go into World Weaving? Well, principally the same ones that go into story writing. An understanding of the above topics is a good place to start. It also requires creativity and probably good writing skills. I’m not sure what else, but that’s a good summary of the basics.

Gamesmastering, on the other hand, is a different thing all together and has to do with all of the activities that go toward running an RPG. A Gamesmaster need not be a World Weaver as he can use someone else’s World, such as the modules put out by TSR which comprised someone else’s World Weaving. But Gamesmastering is certainly an art unto itself. What skills are required? Well again, creativity is required, but of a different sort. In this case improvisational acting and a sense of plot development are good skills to have. A thorough understanding of the rules and the ability to manage a group of people with potentially conflicting interests, objectives, desires and personalities through the game experience. That can be more challenging than it sounds. Keeping a RPG going over a period of time is in and of itself a major achievement that many people do not manage to achieve. The ability to adjudicate is also a required skill of Gamesmastering that is not one required for World Weaving.

In other words, Gamesmastering and World Weaving are two separate things, requiring different sets of Skills, and it is possible, and not uncommon, that a person can be quite good at one, but not so good at the other. The LRPGSW is focused on World Weaving. RPG-Create, I sense, is focused more on Gamesmastering. Where the recognition of this distinction leads, I’m not entirely sure, but I thought I would mention it in case it gives anyone further food for thought in their endeavors, or helps to bring any issues or conundrums into a better light.

On The Virgin Spring

I went to see "The Virgin Spring" (1960) directed by Ingmar Bergman last night as an exercise for the Literary RPG Society of Westcheter. The objective was to look at the film from the point of view of Gamesmasters and World Weavers and see what I could make of it.

I enjoyed the film and believe I got some useful thoughts from it, though I must say, it was rather horrible to watch the rape scene. It was very realistic, and then the evil brothers killed the girl. So that was hard to watch, actually. But anyway, besides that scene it was a great film. A redemption story ultimately, though modern American audiences will probably find it a distasteful message.

In any event I posted my observations about the film on the LRPGSW here:

LRPGSW: On The Virgin Spring

Music, Art and Accuracy

This was a reply to a post on http://clehrich.livejournal.com

http://clehrich.livejournal.com/4200.html?view=47976#t47976

"and that the arts are in some sense "obviously" a possibly interesting but nonessential secondary dimension of culture"

As it happens I was just reading Plato's "The Laws" in reference to another discussion on RPG-Create (Yahoo Group) where he talks about the topic of the importance of music. It is not only important, but, Plato argues that from art and music the Civilization either ascends to the heights of virtue, or the depths of depravity. So I thought that was interesting. It's a bit of a bear to read but if you're interested you can read about it here:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.2.ii.html

As for the question of "accuracy", I'm not so sure that "accuracy" is as important as "effectiveness". Some designers I think want to have accuracy in their games because they feel it will lend realism. To some degree they would be right if they could but do it. The problem is that reality is too difficult to model into a form that can be played by humans easily, and so in lue of that we fudge things, which creates simulations. The simulations we create are never really accurate, only roughly so. To attempt "accuracy" or claim it is not exactly what I think of as useful because it can not be truly achieved, and if it were achieved in some sort of game rules it would be in all likelihood unplayable because the calculations would be odious in the extreme. And that's for physical things. When you come to the question of art and religion the problem is compounded infinitely because these things can not really be measured, nor has history been sufficiently recorded (which would be impossible) to get "accuracy". Instead we get opinions and impressions and thoughts and feelings. But not accuracy. So to call what we fathom about religion in terms of historical views accurate is, well, inaccurate. At best we can say, This is my impression, or This is what I believe. That, in my opinion, however, is perfectly acceptable for game design, and in fact desirable. I would not wish to create an "accurate" game as it would take far too long and be a failure in the end at the goal. I prefer to create games that are Effective, which is different. By Effective I mean simply that it achieves the goal of my game, which is to cause the players to feel immersed in the World I am weaving for them, and for them to have fun in the process. That goal can be achieved, but not via an effort toward accuracy. It is achieved in the same way that Tolkien achieved it, or Homer, or any of the great film makers or story tellers. Not accuracy, but effectiveness. That's my take on it, for what its worth. Thanks for the question! Interesting.

Level of Detail

A discussion arose recently in RPG-Create regarding how to deal with a particular event wherein a character has used his Safe Cracking Skill only to find that the safe did not hold the treasure map (or whatever) he was hoping for. The discussion revolved around some issues related to that event and how one might Gamesmaster it. The discussion engendered the following thought...

Maybe this is a question of Level Of Detail. You could, if you arranged your Skills in Sets of hierarchical groups change the level of detail as you go. So Ransack can be a high level Skill Categoryin which Safe Cracking is a specific Skill within the set. Lets say that the characters are on a world spanning hunt for the lost treasure of Mumbu and they think there is a map in the apartment. The adventure, the GM knows, will take days if they do everything at the detail level, so he and the players decide to run this part as a specific Scene, "Then they ransacked the apartment" and so the character goes in, and does a Ransack roll. That roll is done by some generalized accounting of his overall skill level, perhaps the average of all of his Ransack Skills. The roll is made and he either wins or loses. OR, conversely, the group can decide its worth the time to be specific. They check everything in the room in detail, in which case the character rolls a Safe Crack, which perhaps is a higher level roll than his Ransack because he actually knows that one better. With this you could have a kind of sliding Skills Usage rule that lets you focus in or not depending on the level of detail people want to go to. On the question of the meta game, I'm not too fond of the notion that the map can slide around depending on the roll, because I think it should be prepped by the GM where it is, if it's important. He should know who has the map and where they put it. On the other hand for minor items where the story doesn't hinge on it, sure, why not cut to the chase and put the thing in or out of the scene based on a roll. Either way works, but I lean towards prep because it indicates that the GM has really thought about what's going on and knows the scene well.