frogspawner

Anyone from the UK want to comment on this? Or do you lack the synergy?

Hi, y'all! Over here in cute lil' En-ger-land (well Yorkshire actually), I don't object to having (geographical, physical) islands. I'm just worried that if people are "given" an island to develop (or in fact, any other specifed area) they may slip into insular thinking. Shared islands would be fine. There are plenty of factions over here: the UK isn't as United as outsiders may think (it's only been a 'Union' for a few hundred years - a historical lunch-break - and may only be a temporary 'blip'...). (That's a thought - how long should history be, American cousins?)

For SharedWorld it'd be better, initially, to get a number of ideas (like Rurik's Asherayne/Portal), whack them on some sort of map, and then together we can work out how they'd interact (and their histories).

Nice one! I think it's great, and Portal/Asherayne well deserves a place on SharedWorld.

The western ruins are a perfect adventuring site, as are the tombs of the Akershule, for those who don't mind a longer trek. The city might be a melting-pot of semi-civilized barbarians, inheritors of ill-understood alien wonders, riven by loyalties to outer tribes/odd cults - very good scope for interesting local characters. And if any characters did 'seep through' from other worlds, anything could happen to them - and probably straight away! Hailed as gods, feared as sorcerors, robbed for their alien wonders, attacked as demons... Marvellous. I can hardly wait!

... The one good thing about these adventures that keeps them from being the worst of linear is that they both allow the plot to advance with different repercussions on the PCs actions, but don't stall out waiting for the PCs to do X, and only X (ie. pixel bitching).

You must've dozed off before the end...

I don't understand license stuff, but does it accommodate this concept...?

Authors control their own 'World', including anything contributed to that world, but other people are free to copy and extend/modify it (within the project) without the original Author's permission, so long as they mark it as "a version of XXX's World". (I think I've seen software licensed like that (GNU?))

I believe we have decided to do both a Shared World and a Gated Worlds 'network' (though of course ShareWorld can be just one of the GateWorlds).

For the GateWorlds, democracy is irrelevant because each world's author is GOD for their own world/universe. (A benefit of GateWorlds is that Authors can just get on and publish whatever they develop, or have developed already, without this sort of admin overhead).

For ShareWorld, the SciFi/Fantasy/Mixed question is relevant - but since SciFi settings usually need more than one planet, it seems like we're already heading towards the Fantasy option... I'm sure there will be other questions, though! But I reckon they are best tackled when we meet them - we could debate them endlessly and never get started, if we try to decide them all now.

A standard write-up format would be a nice-to-have, but can be decided later (when we've seen what formats people use, we can choose the best and conform to that standard).

Yes, islands are not ideal at all. If contributors are allocated particular islands (or whatever areas) then their ideas will be cut off from each others. They may well get into the mind-set of "this is mine - you can't touch it!" (and others may not like to, for fear of 'trespassing'). Integration/interaction won't be as good as it needs to be. What we should do is put everyone's ideas together and mix 'em up good an' proper!

I reckon, everyone should give a list of a few geographical features they want on the world (including wacky ones, hopefully), then get a rough map (perhaps randomly generated, if someone has some software) - and bung the listed features on it, semi-randomly. Then we can discuss modifying/rationalizing it as necessary.

Rinse and repeat for cultures, religions, races, technologies...

I'm not as big on all islands, each with its' own author for a couple of reasons, first that it kind of defeats the purpose of shared world generation...

Yes, first and foremost. If "every man's an island" then SingleWorld would suffer from lack of integration (pehaps even more so than the GateWorlds).

For the single world, how should we create the goegraphy? I can see three ways: ...

Use all three. Use every idea you can get - never discard an idea.

Use software to generate a random template (#1), take existing islands/countries people want to 'donate' (#3) and slap them onto the map somewhere, anywhere. I'd also suggest everyone who's interested should contribute 2 or 3 ideas (at least one of which should be wacky) about geography/nations they'd like to see on it - and slap them on it too. Then re-draw it a bit (#2) to fit together as well as you can. No matter how hard you try, I expect there will be quite a few absurdities about it. Good - then the creative bit of explaining how it came to be that way can begin...

...if we had a Gate we could move between BRP Shared World and Mongoose Shared World.

Sure. Don't bother bringing back any Runes, though...

Hang on, Magic v Sci-Fi wars might be fun! Which leads me to the thought...

If BRP is going to have Magic, Modern/Future Tech, Mutations and Supers, shouldn't we try to accommodate all of them?

Am I the only one to miss the Defense ability from RQ2?

No, I do too (or rather, I don't because I still use a variation of it). But I think the RQ2 version was badly flawed: it starts getting silly at about 30% and competent opponents can't hit you; and the higher the skill, the higher the chance of an increase - so it accelerates away badly.

Well, Gwenthia could just be a world accessible via a Gate, so it could be part of the Shared World but separate.

As could any other BRP/RQ-compatible Shared World. So, you could go from BRPWorld to Gwenthia to The Young Kingdoms to Berlin61 to Glorantha in some mad, meaningless campaign. There's not much point going to Slaine or Newhon, though, as not a lot happens there.

Yes - madness, meaning and the point of a campaign are supplied by the GM. GMs control use of the gates - so they could say 'never!' (and probably should say 'almost never'). The important part of the 'gates' idea is Authors collaboration on each others settings.

If we publish some settings, hopefully one or a few will be interesting enough for other people to add contributions to them - and they will grow, faster than a lone author could make them.

I for making the single world concept Fantasy.

Sci-Fi would be best served with multiple worlds/star systems.

I agree. Though I guess it could it have SF elements, like Blackmoor, Tekumel (and others of equal pedigree, I expect).

Otherwise I think the spaceships will overwhelm the magic. High tech weapon has a much greater range that magic.

There not too much a mage can do when the 16" naval guns open up while the Battleship is still 20 miles away. Even less if the "Battleship" opens up from is 500 miles away, while in orbit.

Er, I don't agree. "Alburziel, I release thee to destroy that belligerent behemoth/star!" "Yess, Masster..." What happens when a demon teleports in to the bridge, or amongst the ammo? It could go either way (and I'd probably put my money on the magic).

2) A shared universe, with several worlds/settings. These settings can be connected by gates or FTL travel if the individual GMs would like so. The settings would mainly be developed by individual members. The setting developed in project 1 would form just one world among the many in the shared universe.

How to you view it?

My view is people could publish their already-developed worlds/universes*, and others can contribute to them if inspired to do so. It would be up to the Author of that world/universe to accept any particular contribution or not. I'm hoping that some settings will get popular and they won't have to be developed just by the one individual author - although he/she would retain editorial control.

* Yes, this might lead to some settings having to be in separate universes (for example, if their Authors have defined all galaxies or said their world is Earth, or said it's a cube floating in an infinite sea of chaos...). But 'gates' (of whatever form, and I think it should be up to individual Authors to decide) cross that barrier just as easily!

Although my own setting is just continent-sized and fairly bog-standard fantasy, it probably wouldn't fit too well with anything else in the same universe: Future-Earth, following a mystical coalescence of many alternate Earths; All histories are true; Many pantheons of gods from the astral plane and native star-sized planet-consuming Cthulhoids fight it out - via mortal pawns, of course. History will be chosen by the victors. For added drama, I might like to define it as the last living planet remaining (although I haven't, yet).

Would the proposed framework accommodate that?

I voted for publishing my own world (although it is rather 'cookie-cutter fantasy') but will have to re-do loads of derivative stuff first. In addition, I hope to be inspired to do bits for the Shared World - as well as submitting stuff to other world-authors for them to add to their own creations, if they wish...

What do people think about Gates between worlds or between parts of a world?

Well I think it's a great idea!

If you have gates that connect worlds, what's to stop people invading one world from another?

Only whatever the two Authors (or the GM using their worlds) says there is to stop them. Possibly nothing.

Are gates magical/technologically difficult/controlled by a superior force? Is it difficult to use gates? Are they only suitable for small numbers of people to use? Do you see the gates as something like Stargate, something like the magical pools that connect Narnia with other worlds, the magical portals of the Slipstrasse (sp?) or something entirely different?

Whatever the Author of the world it's in says (or the GM, if he wants to change what the Author wrote). For my world I'd say magical/difficult/small (probably spells as well as some physical objects, usually not fixed geographically).

Although gates are a staple of many Fantasy/SciFi/SciFantasy stories, I'm not sure how much use they would be if they were easy to use and common.

Well, they're purely a device to allow Authors authority* over their entire world/universe - but still allow GMs to have characters move between settings. (*No-one disputes they should have that, I trust? )

We have Smoking Mirrors in Gwenthia to allow vast travel by players and also cros cultural contact. These almost definitely go between worlds. This is a very sensible option for a shared world, mixed culture project. Everway used it well, and so did Shadow World for Rolemaster.

That's nice to hear. Most people seemed quite down on the gates idea.

There is one Gate ("Transmitter") on Pharos IV. It is in a flooded cavern in a

deep sea trench, it is damaged and prone to malfunctions, it leads to another

water world - and the players have not yet discovered it.

Flooded? That's nasty.

Gates are an interesting plot device, but I think they should be used sparing-

ly: Difficult to find, dangerous to use, no routine affair at all.

Absolutely. Every time the players used one, it'd be an act of faith in their GM. That could make their use pretty rare!

The gates idea is a teensy bit of a cop-out; it'll be far more satisfying if you get some framework together and work to it to produce a coherent, but original, world.

I'd rather call it an opt-out - out of all the rules/restrictions/difficulties you mention.

Anyway, is there any reason we can't do both and see which is best?

...interacting with damage directly is just strange for a dodge.

I look upon it as 'riding the blow' to a certain degree. Most blows only have damage as a property, so what else? Altering the attackers skill would bring it back into the realms of opposed rolling (and I was mentioning it as an example of not using them).

Yes, for a while now I've been using a similar system for Dodge:

Success: -10 damage

Special: -20 damage

Critical: No damage

But I can see that would break down if people typically got into the range of gross damages that have been mentioned hereabouts sometimes, so this very day I thought: "Hmmm, maybe success should halve damage...". Uncanny!

There's nothing wrong with the "gates" approach, but doesn't create much of a cooperative world, unless there's something to bind it all together. Then everyone would just work on their own projects, as we do now.

Ah, but we haven't published our own projects, and given other people permission to develop parts if they feel inspired (or have we?). I believe we would be inspired to add to other people's worlds, and I hope authors would be generally willing to accept such contributions. Then - Bingo! Co-operative worlds.

6. Wacky races.

Great list, Rurik. (Surely Dick Dastardly and Muttley would require a license, though? ) Seriously, I might add characters - like Rurik himself.

I'm not into gates per se, I agree if you want gates you can just put them in ANY worls to link to ANY OTHER world.

They'd be under GM control of course. No need to make 'em fixed gates: maybe spells or similar (like Corum?).

I'm going with the basic premise that anyone who receives worship, gains power from that, so an emperor who receives worship from his subjects really does gain power in the world, and conversely can dispense that power to his worshippers how he sees fit. This is a two way street, so that if a minor god loses his worshippers he loses real power and potentially his divinity and can return to being mortal. Anyhow, I'm going off topic here, but if anyone has ideas on some reasonable way to model this I'd love to hear it.

OK. My take on this, to avoid the problem of having to have an exact current worshipper-count, is that souls who have become attuned to gods through worshipping them go to their version of heaven/hell when they die - where they act as a power-source for that god (until exhausted/reincarnated/whatever). Like Drohem's avatar! (An interesting side-effect of this might be, if a pogrom were carried out against a god's worshippers that god would actually become more powerful for a while - and so have more divine wrath available to exact retribution...

I like having different species, it adds flavour and a certain amount of exoticism...

I'm for human centric. I think you get better cultures that way.

Uh, oh - trouble already...

1. Each Author gets a good sized island...

2. Players can share landmassess...

3. Any big freaking powers need to be approved...

4. ...

...

Uh, oh - lots of rules already...

Who'd administer? Who'd arbitrate? Take it from someone who knows...

I'd say one thing: embarking and a shared world is fun, but its heaps more work than you probably bank on.

That's why I say 'Gated Worlds': Authors do as they please, having final authority over any contributions; and GMs can easily avoid worlds they don't want to use. We'd avoid a lot of unnecessary work, and could get on with the real job... world creation.

RQ originally had Elves and Dwarves and Trolls and whatnot, and those were accessible to people coming over from other games. In fact the races evolved into Aldryami, Mostali, and Uz and became quite different from the norm. However, being able to say to someone new 'this is an elf' makes them accessible to a new player...

So I really don't mind elves, dwarves, and trolls - it is just important to set them apart from the standard to give them their own flavor. Even Orcs are OK by me - just not Hobbits or Halflings - screw them.

I agree. Someone on another thread was just saying how the wacky names in Tekumel made it unplayable for them!

How to make 'em different, though? I liked the Harn idea of insectoid Orcs spawned by a huge larva-like queen; Elves - should be soulless, dangerous child-stealers (but why? and how to role-play them?); Dwarves - selfish, sociopathic, more like trolls really; Trolls - like Norse giants (or Greek titans/legendary monsters, or Grendel?). And no Ducks.

Parry influences the meaning of an attack roll just as much.

A rolls his attack, B rolls his dodge or parry, A rolls his damage (or not, if there's no point).

Isn't that the way it usually goes?

Well, this is all irrelevant to the real point of your thread, but since you ask...

As a matter of semantics, 'opposed roll' usually means you are comparing the actual rolls (numbers rolled) against eachother.

Although I (and others, it seems) find the number-comparison part of the usual opposed roll mechanisms the really objectionable bit, I think it is the inter-dependence between attack and parry rolls that makes them 'opposed' (and I don't like that part, either!).

In RQ2/3 the amount of damage rolled is determined only by the attack roll and the amount of damage parried is determined by the parry roll.

Exactly. Independent rolls, no linkage - nice and clean. Good system design.

I'd say it's based on levels of success, but then I'm not familiar with the old opposed rules, just the new mrq & brp ones.

Well, you've got a matrix for results: until the other guy does his roll, you don't know what your roll means. For me, that's 'Opposed Rolls'.

But I absolutely hate the religions. They are silly and dull. They are no different probably from what you'd find in many other games, but I just think they clash with the medieval quasi-real feeling of the rest of the setting. ... I really want to like Harnworld, but can't.

When I used Cities of Harn, I had to swap-out the religions for ones from my world, just saying "X = Y". So if you have some "medieval quasi-real" religions in mind, why not try that to reignite your ardour?

Bizarrely enough, Traveller.

I've played it loads, love the background to death, but really, I mean REALLY, have a problem with the fact that Traveller space is FLAT.

Not bizarre at all, I never liked Traveller. (Something about (1) getting shanghaied to a tin-can where all escape plans failed because the plot required us to find a ship disguised as an asteroid (who could rely on that happening?) and (2) joining the game with a scoutship(!) but being unable to join in the adventure because, when the party came by chased by the baddies, the laws of physics prevented me accelerating enough to catch them before they were out of detection range. :ohwell:)

Then again, if it helps you accept the Flat Space idea, I did once encounter some disturbing tentacled entities that the GM said were from "outside the normal plane of exploration". Maybe the parsec-wide accessible space is just a demilitarized zone between Northern and Southern factions of gross Cthulhoid type horrors. The various governments of known space, who can't bring themselves to admit the situation is hopeless, just put limiters on all the nav-systems ever made, and refuse to talk about it... :eek:

"Meh". I agree that Dodging should be more important in combat, and have my own houserule for it. But your rule is based on the old 'Opposed Roll' concept, which I don't like, so I'd better not comment further - it'd only be negative.

Someone (maybe Triff?) could serve as an editor/moderator just to have prevent any clashes that could arise from multiple authors. We could limit everyone to the same technological level, or maybe allow for some leeway in certain areas. ...

We'd probably need to get people to talk about what sort of world they want, how advanced, how large, how isolated, who much war, how much trading, etc.

Thanks, that's pretty standard but seems a bit limiting and trickier to administer than necessary. Mr T mentioned Questworld and the idea of gates between worlds (though going on to say he didn't like 'em). It seems to me that 'Gated Worlds' would' put no limits on author creativity, need no edit/moderating, and allow existing worlds to be plugged in (even commercial ones). I've mentioned this before in another thread but raised little interest.

What would be wrong with the 'gates' approach?