Or History versus Mythology
DISCLAIMER: I am not a game designer. I'm a consumer and merely putting my opinion out there. I'm hoping others agree but not assuming it.
James Jacobs wrote: When it comes to prehistory and creation myths, we are deliberately contradictory in print. We don't want to say "This is how it happened" since that transforms creation myths into plain old history. By presenting multiple versions of creation, though, even when they're not all exactly in sync, we can have our cake and eat it too by detailing the myth but making it impossible for any of us to know which one is right... or indeed if ANY of them are right. I disagree with this. A lot. However, this goes to how I approach a game and what I want from my game world.
I see game worlds as having three "levels" of detail to them. The top level is the broad strokes of a world. It's a campaign setting book and it's a fine place to start. It's a map of the world and some general descriptions of those areas. However, everything listed in the book is important and plays a role in the world. I assume that more will be coming out but this level sets the groundwork of the world.
The second level, I see as getting down to a city-state or nation level. This is a source book on a city or nation. It covers all of the top people and what they are doing and talks about what an area has, such as this town having a baker, stables, smith, etc. It doesn't detail out every single person but does detail out the top people at that level, such as the mayor, council, or king/royalty. I think this is what many source books do. I'm also looking for what the designer sees as that person doing. There can be other people at this level not detailed out and left for the DM but I'm expecting to have an idea of what the designer intended for them if they are mentioned.
The third level would be detailing everything about a group or city-state. This completely spells out what the group or area is doing, their motivation, and their game stats. By the end of this type of book, I know everything there is to know about that group or city-state in regards to the game. I don't need or want every commoner detailed out. But with regards to the topic at hand, at this level, there are no secrets left about what anyone is doing.
So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan. I want them to know as much as they can about the world. I don't want a supplement to point an organization going in X direction and then a newer supplement comes out and completely changes the organization to going in direction O instead. (In my head, I'm thinking about two things, FR and the new BSG. FR had several line managers working on it through the years but no overall picture. They were allowed to do their own thing but it created inconsistencies as I described above. BSG . . . is for another thread.) I want them to have a "world Bible" that lists out the hard facts about the world. This can be a living document. It doesn't have to be completely done before hand. I merely want them to be consistent so that when we learn about something, it ties things together and it makes sense. What I'm looking for, then is something between level two and three by the end of the run of that game world.
For example, to tie this part to Golarion, the Aspis Consortium. We get a high level look at them in the ISWG. That's fine. I do expect to be told one major thing that is true about them at this level but if the rest is hints, I can accept that. When the sourcebook of various countries where the Aspis Consortium are located come out, I expect them to give me something from that countries perspective. Again, I expect one thing to be true but if there are only hints at other things, I can accept that. When the sourcebook on the Aspis Consortium itself comes out, though, I expect it to be a true record of the Aspis Consortium. I am expecting something between my second and third level, as I detailed out above. What I mean by that is that I would want the Aspis Consortium's true agenda and charter detailed. I want anything they do as a group laid out and all true. Then I want the true (if there is doubt) leaders revealed as the designers saw them. Finally, I want X number of parts of the Aspis Consortium completely detailed out as per level three. I want an example of what the designer(s) would do if this was their game. Maybe there are twelve leaders and they detail out three. In doing this, they show the alliances and rivalries between these three. They show how one has worked for another and against the third. They show how well these leaders plan something or how much they rely on someone else and in what capacity. Finally, they show how they saw all of the leaders alliances and rivalries and say to use what they have done as a template to use for the others.
I get that I can change things. What I want from a company is to give me their vision of something knowing that if I don't like it, I will change it. But at least I have a strong starting point and know what the designer intended. I don't want vague hints or mysteries in most aspects of their design. Their design should do a lot of the work for me in something that I can use a template for my own creation if that's what I choose to do. What I would then expect, then, is that any major things listed in the campaign setting would get that kind of treatment but any minor groups would not.
Again, going to Organizations from the ISWG, I would expect a sourcebook on the main groups of Golarion, namely Aspis Consortium, Eagle Knights, Hellknights, Pathfinder Society and Red Mantis but not Blackfire Adepts, Free Captains or other minor groups. As I listed above, there would be more than enough for me to pick it up, read it and use it without having to add anything else to it. I completely have that option if I want to do so. But I don't have to do so.
Again, to be specific, I'm thinking about the gods of Golarion. I am involved in another thread on that. One of my points about the gods was that, imo, you could remove the specific gods listed in the Gods chapter of the ISWG and put in any gods and it doesn't seem to change anything. The gods, at the campaign guide level, seem to be there because the game requires it but not the game world. That's not what I want. I want to know what role the gods play in the world and then what each god does to fulfill their role in the world. How do they direct their followers to help fulfill this role? How do they direct mortals, if it isn't obvious in their portfolios? (In the other thread, I am advocating for a list of fifty roles or things the gods do and each DM can pick as many as they want for their own version of the world.) Here, I would say the creators should tell us about the gods and what they are doing specifically to the DM. It is then up to the DM to make them mysterious to the characters. Whether the *players* know or not is up to how that group plays. But it allows the DM to be consistent with the gods and what the gods are doing. I really do think right now you could get rid of the chapter of the gods and replace it with "see another world" or "YES. Mystery." and you have the same thing. (I apologize if that's too harsh.)
So that is what I want to see in game design. By the end of its run, with many supplements, adventures and stories, I want to see the complete picture of the world. I want top level things known. I want to see how three different areas saw the Aspis Consortium differently and they were all correct but didn't have the full picture of the group but once it was revealed, it explained why they did things they did in those areas.
tl;dr I really like Paizo, its authors and its game world. But I want to know there is a plan that would come together with the very last source book they do, tying up loose ends and giving us history, not mythology. I'm a strong believe in Twain's quote "Of course Truth is stranger than Fiction. Fiction has to make sense." I want the game world to make sense as well.
Thanks for reading, whichever version!
Jon
I think I need another disclaimer.
I'm behind on my reading with regards to Golarion. And Pathfinder as a game system. Very behind. I know that there are some sourcebooks out there on the various areas. For the most part, I'm using Golarion as an example of what I would like to see from a designer.
If nothing else, I would love to understand why designers think they have to have a mystery? Why they don't think they can give us history?
Maybe I should have used FR up through DND 3E so that it's not current and not personal, as I do like what Paizo has done. I loved FR up until what they did with 4E. (But that's not about 4E or the changes they made.) They detailed out a lot of the world. And what it let me do was reset my campaign back to the first boxed set of and go forward with an idea of what the designers saw happening. I can start making hints about how the Red Wizards are turning to mercantile ventures as their long term plan to conquer other nations. I can hint at how Silverymoon is helping the areas around them before accepting they are the de facto leader of the area.
But even in my saying those things, I'm still picking out a possible thread at best that I found in all of the sourcebooks on FR. I'm not able to point to something written by a designer that shows this was a plan.
Part of this is coming out because I'm beta testing Realm Works and I end up with more questions than answers as I enter data between the sources I have read. It makes it muddled when, imo, it should be clear.
Again, this is just my opinion and what I would love to see happen.
Jon
I don't want that stuff. I want the game designers to keep stuff vague so we, the players, can flesh things out for our individual games. If Bobby wants the world to have been started by aliens, Suzie wants there to have been dinosaurs and earthquakes that shaped the world, and MC Cheeseface wants Don Knotts to be living at the core of the planet powering it with a little bicycle, then the game 'world' should be vague and hazy enough that all three can have their worlds for their games.
If Paizo were just like writing books and stuff I'd agree with you, but they're making games. And gameplay, to me, is more important than canon or accurate world building. Of course, for me, a good game is an incomplete one that you 'build yourself', so...
I'm with Vamptastic on this one. I like having game designers do a lot of work for me in coming up with interesting locations, but I also want them to leave some significant elements vague or undefined so that I can put my stamp on it as well without having to remember to retcon it everywhere.
Jon - I think I would agree with you if the topic is Aspis Consortium. That's a current organization, that, while not open to the public, isn't super secret. *Someone* knows the truth of things, probably many someones.
The creation of Golarion is something that no mortal is going to fully know, or be capable of fully knowing. Adding that Golarion's "creation" is still taking place as the world changes (e.g. Aroden's death and its results), and you end up with so many potential tales of creation that can all be correct 'from a certain point of view'.
If we're talking about the history of how a particular nation got founded or what happened during some battle or another, that's fine. But the history of how the universe came to be is not something I need to be able to comprehend in its totality.
Vamptastic: I get that my role playing group is creating something as we go but that's a story. The framework still needs to be there to tell that story. And there is no reason we can't have a defined framework. I think we are arguing where that framework should stop.
In case I wasn't clear, I do want the ability to do my own thing. As I said in my example of the source book on the Aspis Consortium, I only want a quarter of the leaders fully detailed out, letting me do with the rest of them what I want to do. I do want to put my stamp on it.
This is also why I want it in layers. If you only want the broad strokes of something, get the Campaign Setting and fill in all the gaps yourself. By knowing in advance that if you get the source book on an area of the world, or a particular group, the designers are going to explain their ideas for it, the consumer can choose to get it or not.
At any point, each DM can choose to use something or substitute their own. If I didn't have time to come up with something before a session, I know that I will have something to use. If I do come up with something, it's easy to ignore it and substitute my own.
But having something definite and consistent throughout the source books is better to me than having vague hints and clues about them scattered across a dozen books. By knowing what the Aspis Consortium was, how they got started and what they are trying to do, the designers can give us a consistent view that comes together very well in the end game.
For example, I want the designers' version of the Aspis Consortium and what its goals are. I think that is more evocative. It's better to read that the Aspis Consortium started because some bored nobles wanted to see if they could make money doing completely illegal things, like smuggling drugs, slaves and necromantic magic items. The nobles expected to be caught in less than six months but were bored and wanted to see how far they would get. Two years later, not only have they not been caught, but they found that they could make a lot more money on these illegal things. What started as a joke and to see how soon before they were caught became its own thing. However, noble A started having second thoughts about it. When he thought they were going to stop, he didn't mind dealing in drugs. But he didn't want to do this for years! He tries to stop the drug trade because he doesn't like that but doesn't care about the other two. Noble B didn't like slavery because she was worried how they would be treated. Yes, they had slaves but here in their area are laws that give slaves some protections. She let the others handle it but finally couldn't avoid seeing that they do sell slaves to countries where they are treated like chattel and she doesn't like that. However, like A, she doesn't care about the other two things and is only seeking to change what she doesn't like.
Maybe in an adventure, you have some Aspis guards who are trying to take slaves and others who release them. In the one encounter, they know they bring back slaves or they become them, so they fight hard. In the other, they run away letting the slaves be rescued. It's a mystery why those happened to the players and their characters at that time. However, sessions later, they find out about Noble B and suddenly those encounters make a lot more sense.
So, can I do this? Yes. But I don't always have the time to do so. And so being able to go back to something that is clearly spelled out like that, instead of having to read three different sourcebooks to understand Noble A and Noble B is much better to me. And, again, there could still be a dozen nobles in charge that I can define and use and put my stamp on it. Or I can use the fully fleshed out ones this time because I needed something quick.
It seems to be that we are arguing how much of a framework each of us wants. I want more than I have been given and at the very least want to know that there is a plan. However, that's me. I think it's better to be presented with something specific than a mystery.
(FR was supposed to detail only the heartlands, except Sembia, and leave Sembia and everything else up to what each DM wanted to do. But there was such a demand for more, that they ended up detailing more than they intended and that's when they started stepping on each other and forgetting or ignoring what other designers had done before them.)
Thanks for the replies!
Jon
Jon Goranson wrote: So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan. We do have a plan. And part of that plan is knowing more than we publish or reveal. We have answers for all the mysteries that folks are interested in, but aren't going to reveal them all.
Overall there are actually very few of those secrets we never plan to reveal answers to. Most of the other secrets we'll answer eventually, but not all at once, and not before the stars are right.
James Jacobs wrote: ... and not before the stars are right. I see what you did there.
I agree with Michael Gentry, vis a vis cosmology and mythology.
I mean, if it's a question that we can't even answer with all of today's modern technology, and even the major belief systems disagree on it... *shrug*
James Jacobs wrote: Jon Goranson wrote: So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan. We do have a plan. And part of that plan is knowing more than we publish or reveal. We have answers for all the mysteries that folks are interested in, but aren't going to reveal them all.
Overall there are actually very few of those secrets we never plan to reveal answers to. Most of the other secrets we'll answer eventually, but not all at once, and not before the stars are right. I want to see Caydean dead... maybe killed in one adventure path
The history of the forgotten realms wasn't created in one stroke, was it? It evolved over time?
They're revealing more about most of the more concrete aspects of golarion gradually with new products. You may never know how the planet was made or which of the gods' creation stories are absolute truth, but you'll probably get more information on the aspis consortium sooner or later.
The Golux wrote: The history of the forgotten realms wasn't created in one stroke, was it? It evolved over time?
They're revealing more about most of the more concrete aspects of golarion gradually with new products. You may never know how the planet was made or which of the gods' creation stories are absolute truth, but you'll probably get more information on the aspis consortium sooner or later.
i truly hope that paizo´s crew can get some of the ravenloft developers or something near it, and let him/her make some good stuffs for Ustalav!
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
i truly hope that paizo´s crew can get some of the ravenloft developers or something near it, and let him/her make some good stuffs for Ustalav!
Oh, I don't know whether we actually need the Ravenloft people. Wes Schneider does a very good job with Ustalav already. And too many cooks might ruin the pie in this case.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Jacobs wrote: Jon Goranson wrote: So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan. We do have a plan. And part of that plan is knowing more than we publish or reveal. We have answers for all the mysteries that folks are interested in, but aren't going to reveal them all.
Overall there are actually very few of those secrets we never plan to reveal answers to. Most of the other secrets we'll answer eventually, but not all at once, and not before the stars are right. Oh, okay. Thread's over.
James Jacobs wrote: Jon Goranson wrote: So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan. We do have a plan. And part of that plan is knowing more than we publish or reveal. We have answers for all the mysteries that folks are interested in, but aren't going to reveal them all.
Overall there are actually very few of those secrets we never plan to reveal answers to. Most of the other secrets we'll answer eventually, but not all at once, and not before the stars are right. I apologize for bringing this up again after I said it was closed. Thinking about it more led to some questions.
I think there are levels of information to reveal about a society or an area, all the way up to secrets. I think these correspond to my levels and what I was asking for. I think the problem is going to be that one person's mundane knowledge about an area is going to be another person's revealed secret.
For myself, the problem goes back to consistency but also to clues. I see the top level information about Thassilon, for example, as things like what sort of clothes they wore, what metals they used, what kind of technology they had, and what they used to build dungeons. As best as I can tell, from Lost Kingdoms and the ISWG, Thassilon was the only major kingdom in the Varisia/NW area? So, are all dungeons in their style? What do the dungeons look like? Did only the rune giants build their things? Were they the masters of building and Thassilonia used them? Do they still know how to build those things or did it come from Thassilon? Is there variation between the runelords in what they ask of their crafters? Or was the style the same to compete with their peers and they didn't have individual differences between Pride and Sloth? Did later kingdoms reuse dungeons or make their own? What would their style be? Does Thassionia only use magical traps such that if their magic has failed, there is nothing working? But also nothing to find, or very little if the magic is gone? If an area reuses dungeons, what style did they have as that would be the big clue to the group, when the styles change, that what they prepared for might not help them anymore!
I'm not saying I always get down to these details, although I personally enjoy reading about them. But I can't help but compare them to real world sites and a dungeon from Egypt is different from Mesopotamia which is different from Rome's labyrinths. That's the sort of thing I'm thinking about. If I describe a dungeon in X style with bronze, then the players can pick up on what is needed for that dungeon based on what they know and if that fails, then I can give them a roll for their characters. Same for a Y style with some starmetal or Z style with iron.
Did Thassilon use portals to transport good or rune giants? Did they have tractors or other mass food production tools? What were their tools? Were they subsistence? Was there a vast gulf between the haves and have nots? Did the people ever revolt or was magic used to quell any rebellion? Or did the people get left alone, unless they had magic and could be used, and so liked the rune lords? (I'm thinking about finding writings that extol the virtue of Ivan the Wonderful but the group is looking for Ivan the Terrible! But it's a different perspective.)
The tough part of this is magic. (And game terms, I understand.) There is this idea, via Inner Sea Magic, that Thassilonian magic is different. Yet if any of the statted rune lords, including Xin, cast a fireball, it's 10d6 fire, unless modified by feats. The actual game mechanic differences don't seem to reflect a society that could make the spell books as described in Shattered Star. Or Xin's ability in magic. RotRL also presented some magic as failing (rune wells) and other magic as fine (swords) but both are permanent? I get that it works for drama but does that mean that the monuments in Magnimar might fail and fall on the city? Or that people can start using them for building materials? Or anyplace else, such as the lighthouses, Sandpoint's being one example?
On another level, it's also tough for me to relate with Thassilon, and therefore describe it, when it existed over 10k years ago. Earth's written record is maybe six or eight! And they existed for several thousand years? More? Less? I think the best I have seen that is Thassilon is like our Atlantis but there are surviving works of Thassilon! I think Magnimar has runes of Thassilon inscribed in the monuments and they still can't be scratched or marred!
I guess what I'm saying is that if all of that is secrets, then okay, thread is over if you don't want to reveal the culture or life of the Lost Empires. If there are levels of it that are you willing to describe, though, that would be great!
I'm thinking of a campaign where the players get a sword but instead of casting identify, they use something like divination to reveal how the sword was used, what was used to forge it or who forged it, or something like post cognition / Read Object (psionic or spell like abilities). I like being able to give them details and then they have a little mystery to figure out, in terms of which empire used what they saw or which empires didn't use it to narrow it down!
I understand that not all of this can be detailed out and that I can make this up on my own. Indeed, getting to some level of "mundane" is not going to be practical, as you want to write things that can be used by groups in the present. These are minor details but I think some level of these minor details highlights the differences between areas. Again, my thought was merely that I was hoping these details/differences would eventually be revealed because I prefer history in my game worlds! And Sloth would be my rune as I would rather you guys did it and I read about it, rather than come up with it on my own! :)
Thanks!
Jon
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
Creative Director
