Tag: Daniel Fowler

I think you can add a lot of flavor to your game and setting when you spend a little time describing your magical spells. To this end I think it is interesting to consider some common laws and mechanics of magic described in fantasy (and some how-to) books. I have recently started re-listening to L. Sprague deCamp’s “The Compleat Enchanter” anthology where a modern psychologist transports himself to various fantasy settings where he observes and masters these rules in a professional manner. Other great books include “The Kingkiller Chronicle” books by Patrick James Rothfuss and anything in “the magic goes away” series by Larry Niven. It should be stated that I am not claiming these ideas as uniquely mine, complete, or the only way to do things. This is just a long rant and a bit of fluff to add to your game.

Let us start with the concept of connection which can be specified into (at least) two laws called Similarity and Contagion. Similarity means that two things that share similar traits can be treated as the same thing. This is most commonly referenced in the concept of a voodoo doll. I make a doll that looks like you and when I prick it, you suffer the same effect. Contagion means that after two things have been meaningfully connected, they are always connected. This is often referenced when witches (voodoo or otherwise) require a bit of hair or prize possession of the person they are cursing. These concepts describe how you target or transfer the effects of your spell. The more your ritual resembles the target, the more effectively it will apply to them. In fiction you should always look for items or substances that you might use to gain a hold on your target. Maybe you found some of the murderer’s blood at the scene of the crime. You might use it with a compass or pendant to track him across town or throw it into a fire to cause him to identify himself by yelling out.

The second concept is power which can be specified into two laws called Talent and Pacts. Talent sums up the natural magical ability or aptitude of spell casters and fantasy creatures. Most fantasy systems do not allow just anyone to cast magic. Often it involves a bloodline or an inherited position or item. The source of your talent may imply the appearance and behavior of your magic. Maybe fire spells are particularly effective for you because your ancestors interbred with a line of dragons. Pacts encompass any interaction where you get power from an outside source. These sources can be magical beings or even forces of nature. Furthermore these pacts could be made willingly, under duress or through sacrifice. The most common example of this is the traditional “Deal with the Devil”, where you give up your soul to gain some sort of reward or improvement. Often in fiction a powerful being will give you a means to call them for aid in return for some service you provided them. The genie in the lamp is another good example. You agree to release him in exchange for three wishes. Pacts are particularly interesting because they provide a means for people without natural talent access to powerful magical effects. In fiction you should pay attention to the names of powerful beings or gods and appeal to them for aid. Look for ways you can assist these entities and gain boons or subjugate them in order to extract promises. Don’t be afraid to offer something important to seal the deal. Work with the GM to flesh out the details but they should be overjoyed to see you engaging the setting this deeply.

The final concept I want to talk about is Lore which includes all knowledge that is not well understood by common people. This includes magical writings but also the true nature behind strange effects. Common people may have learned to keep out scraps of food next to an old pair of shoes in exchange for repairs. You know the secrets and language of the wee-folk and can call them for assistance. No one knows why the town is becoming sick but you can tell that a bog spirit has taken up residence in the public well. Possibly you know a few words in the language of fire and can call or tame it. Lore about the natural world may give a mundane character the appearance of magical abilities. A talented character may have knowledge of other worlds and call in even stranger creatures or effects.

Sorry that became way too long but hopefully it encourages some wizards to go a little beyond “I cast fireball.”

Lets begin today’s rant by saying this is all just opinion and however you chose to run your game is fine. I can totally understand why you may not want to focus on ugly realities in a made up fantasy land. The way I chose to run things is in no way more “realistic” or “correct” than anyone else. That being said, I find it interesting that I and my players often start off with very different assumptions about human nature for the NPCs in my settings. Maybe I am just a weirdo.

When I run a game, I generally set it in a medieval type low magic setting. Most of the NPCs in a village are probably uneducated, superstitious peasants. The people in power are generally just the jerks who managed to beat everyone else into submission. I am not saying all my NPCs are evil, they are just… human. And every once in awhile you will find a nice person in there but he might be nice because he wants something from you.

Think about life in ye-olde times (not that long ago really) where most people never traveled farther than the next village and had less than a middle school education. Worked all day to barely survive. Were under constant threat of raiding, plague and taxation. These people knew less than a hundred other people, and probably didn’t get along with all of those.

Now a player party walks into town. Some of them are dressed strangely or are obviously from foreign lands and other races. Most of them are heavily armed. A few might openly consort with otherworldly forces. They generally cause trouble or come before or after some big calamity. Why would you, as a villager, look favorably on these strangers? If you are the guy in charge, why would you tolerate their presence?

Here is a couple common examples:

1. The players have just killed a dragon-like creature and carry its loot horde into the nearest village. They expect to be treated like kings and resupply. But there already is a king. He wants to know where they got that treasure. Was it on his lands? Have they paid taxes? As far as he is concerned it is up to him whether or not they have any right to it. I’m not trying to be a jerk or sabotage their victory. I think the players just gave me a golden opportunity by flashing wealth and I am interested to see how they deal with the problem. One of the best solutions was a player pretending to be a foreign noble from the elven kingdom. He made the king (a local baron really) feel important and put himself on equal terms.

2. The players break an NPC out of prison during the night. For story reasons they can’t just run off so they stash her away and plan to plead innocence in the morning. The guards have no proof that they are involved right? But do they need proof? This is not a modern American court system and those dirty strangers look mighty suspicious. There is no concept of “innocent until proven guilty” and if they turn out to be wrong who will punish them for hanging a bunch of murder-hobos. Not to mention they will get to confiscate any equipment or loot. And they did arrive right before the incident… This normally ends in violence, but once went to a court-like scene.

3. A tribe of natives shows up and kills the people attacking the party. They then tie up and lead the players to their village. The enemy of my enemy is my friend right? We just need to explain the situation right? Why are they boiling that big cauldron of water over there? Maybe you can sweet talk these people but I think it is a mistake to assume that they are the “good guys” because they attacked some other “bad guys”. Maybe they don’t think you are evil, they just think you are different. You are not “the people” so you are free game.

It might be that players assume the natural setting for people is “good” or even “lawful good”. They expect to be given a mission from the good king to defeat the evil dragon. But in my settings (and the books they are based on) the people’s alignment is “human”, maybe “ignorant human”. That good king is just a local dictator who hired a bunch of mercenaries to exterminate a pest. This is probably where things like the tone discussion or CATS document should shine and they certainly help. I try to explain this to my players but I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding that can arise when players and GM approach their fantasy world from different directions and start with different assumptions. What do yall think? Do you have similar issues? Or am I just being difficult or a downer? Also, there is no real advice here so it may not fit well in the “how to suck less” section but I think this is something to consider when trying to make compelling settings.

Is he just talking to himself?

Some of the most interesting moves in Dungeon World and other traditional fantasy games are those that allow you to converse with weird things. Dungeons are not generally populated with helpful and informed NPCs to explain what is going on or give secret information. They are populated with rocks, animals, dead bodies and possibly other things that most people do not normally interrogate. Giving your character the ability to converse with other things opens a new dimension to almost any environment. It’s always interesting and almost always useful. Its also something that a GM just can’t be prepared for.

What I want to know is how you prefer to act these rolls? The dead should probably act like people but the others are a little harder. Is that mouse a tiny vermin that might communicate in impressions weighted on a scale of fear and plunder? Or is it a tiny furry human with a culture and language just as expressive as the character’s? Can that stone point you in the right direction or does it only understand concepts like falling, rolling, weight, age, hardness, breaking and shaping. A person-like entity is probably easier to role play but a limited/alien intelligence is probably less game breaking. It’s hard to say which is more interesting as it can be fun to see how an inanimate object or animal views the world and it can also be fun to glimpse its secret culture.

What do you guys think? Have any good examples? What does it generally look like on screen? If you like the non-human approach do you also make the dead strange? And how?

I just made a post about stepping back, here is one about encouraging others to step forward. Unfortunately no funny poster this time. Sometimes when I listen to APs for other RPGs I hear the GM ask questions like “who has the highest perception?” or “who speaks goblinoid?” and I like to do something similar in my DW games. This is especially useful with new characters when I don’t want to dictate aspects of their character but I want one of them to volunteer for something. It also might reduce any hurt feelings for singling out someone. Here are some questions you can ask the party to see who steps up to engage the fiction.

Who here is…

…from the local area?

…from a distant land and possibly unaware of local customs?

…on the run and why?

…a member of a local cult?

…the oldest?

…bound by a promise or code?

…literate?

…not able to speak the local language?

…the slowest runner

…the most at home in this environment?

Who here has…

…a drinking problem?

…a gambling problem?

…a pet?

…a nickname?

…a past relationship with the locals?

…the quickest reflexes?

…the sharpest eyes?

…the sharpest ears?

…the most mass?

…an irrational fear of heights/spiders/snakes?

If I was an NPC/monster which of you would I assume…

…is the leader?

…is the most gullible?

…I could bully?

…has the most wealth?

…is most dangerous?

This certainly is not the worst thing in the universe but I’m board and want to rant…

I have been listening to some people talk about their RPG party and I noticed a big difference between how they played and what I remember happening in the Houston group. Say they found an encounter like a shrine where they could pray to a deity, each and every player would take a turn trying their luck at the alter. When someone tried some sort of test like lifting something heavy, the entire party tried to pitch in and help to reduce the load.

While this sounds very nice and friendly it seemed to me that it diminished the appeal of each event. I think it is much more interesting when one (or maybe two) character owns the scene. They succeed or fail and we move on. It may be a facet of +Jason Cordova’s GGG player that you “Give” the scene to the most appropriate or invested character. My guy is not that interested but this shrine is to your god isn’t it? This guy killed your family, maybe you should be the one to take him down? If you couldn’t lift that gate then no one could. On the other hand this can be part of good GMing in that you specifically give the scene to the most appropriate character. If another player wants to but in you can ask them why, how, wouldn’t you rather…

What do you think? Am I wrong or right? Is this only an issue with a big party? Have yall ever encountered this? How do you deal with it?