I haven't been getting a whole heck of a lot o feedback on my recent Land of Ice posts, and I don't know why. I'm not saying that it surprises me, I'm saying I literally don't know.
Not that I couldn't hazard a guess or two...but really it doesn't matter all that much (I wasn't complaining). Well, it matters that people find it interesting and useful (or inspiring for their own games) 'cause that's why I write this type of stuff (usually). But I'm having fun with it anyway, so I'm going to keep posting till I get to the end of the series.
HOWEVER, it occurs to me that perhaps I haven't been gonzo enough with the setting...I may have been modelling it too close to "real world" Vikes and the kind of human-human conflict (psychic or not) found in MZB's Darkover novels (a major inspiration, in case you couldn't guess). It may be that the stuff I've been putting out there just isn't "D&D enough"...in other words, not weird enough for use in your average (or below average) D&D game.
So I will be endeavoring to get some more weirdness "stuck in" to the mix. In reviewing my notes for a different B/X setting concept (one based on Dark Sun, of all things) I can see I had plenty of magic mixed in with the psychic weirdness and the monsters were certainly fit for the blasted post-magic-apoc setting. I probably need MORE weirdness in mine: talking polar bears and psychic snowflakes and such...otherwise what are characters supposed to DO in this setting.
[*sigh*]
Anyway, we haven't gotten to Chapter 6 yet, so there's still time for me to up the ante on the strange and bizarre. We'll see if I can find it in my heart to do so...
; )
Showing posts with label darkover. Show all posts
Showing posts with label darkover. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Thursday, October 7, 2010
What Marion Zimmer Bradley Taught Me (Part 2)
[continued from here. Please note that while the entire first half of this post was written while flying across the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the night, much of this half was written AFTER being back a couple days]
Hmm….okay, what else have I learned from MZB and the Darkover novels? I mean, in addition to the fact that Carcosa was the name of a Darkover domain long before it was used for what’s his name’s supplement? And that cultural differences based on gender can make for interesting campaign settings by themselves?
Well, let’s see: fantasy and science fiction (i.e. “futuristic fantasy”) can work just fine, in tandem, when done in the right scale…that’s something I think MZB got right (though, again, I really want to check out Sharra’s Exile and The World Wreckers to get the full scoop on the Terran-Darkovan relations).
Not to dwell too much on this particular issue, but from MZB’s own notes I gather she felt this was part of what made the Darkover setting fresh or different from other fantasy worlds: the juxtaposition of two disparate cultures (one high-tech/space-spanning and one “barbarian”/sword-wielding). While I’ve yet to read the earliest books/stories in the series, the subject matter appears to be similar to the “stranger in a strange land” fantasy recently discussed over at Grognardia…not surprising when you consider works like Star of Danger were being written in the early 1960s.
What else…well, I’ve also learned that the right cultural bias for a game/campaign can be used to justify a lot of house rules. For Example: why do Darkovans carry swords instead of firearms? Because of their cultural contract, The Compact, that makes it un-lawful to attack anyone at distance (as any person must face the same threat of dying as the person against whom they seek to do harm). See the Battle Tech Clans as an RPG example using the opposite tact.
I’ve learned new ways to use intrigue and political ramifications (as well as family ties and loyalties) to create discord, drama, and conflict. But that all’s just window dressing (I didn’t LEARN anything, per se, but there are plenty of ideas and plots that are totally ripe for plundering for my own games)…let’s get back to another “ah ha!” moment.
The campaign setting.
I’ve mentioned before that one of my new writing projects is, in fact, a campaign setting or “world setting” for the B/X game, a little thing I’m calling Land of Ash. In fact, it was research for this particular writing project (still in its earliest stages) that led me to the Darkover books in the first place (to get some fresh ideas on the use of psi powers).
Now, I could write a few dozen pages on how reading Darkover actually made me want to chuck the whole Land of Ash “desert setting” in favor of a Darkover knock-off “snow setting” (as with Spain, I find a LOT of campaign inspiration in MZB’s world of Darkover). But those “second-guessing” notions have been put to rest at this point…cool as it would be, I’ve already done a chunk of work on Land of Ash…not to mention I am totally Jonesin’ to see some sepia-toned artwork (*hope*hope*). Also, why flirt with potential lawsuits from the MZB estate (my understanding is they’ve already put the kybosh on Darkover fan fiction)?
No, I’m still talking about learning new stuff…and Bradley’s approach to her own setting material is plenty educational, specifically with regard to the multiple epochs of Darkover.
The Age of Founding
The Age of Chaos
The Age of the Hundred Kingdoms
The Age of the Seven Kingdoms
The Age of Terran Re-Contact
What you have in Dakrover is not one particular campaign setting but FIVE. All are set on the same distinct world, with the same specific geography, inhabitants, and climate (not to mention little things like a LACK OF METAL and PSYCHOTROPIC FLORA)…but each different Age/epoch determines what the base conflict of the time IS as well as the cities/political structure and the technologies (i.e. “equipment list”) available to the characters.
How sweet is that? If I was to set Keep of the Borderlands in a Darkover-like world (not a bad idea when you think of it), it would become centuries old fortress-monastery much like Nevarsin or Castle Alderan and the conflicts and drama would change simply depending on the epoch used.
And every time I succeeded at achieving a TPK with a particular party of adventurers, I could change the setting and give the new PCs legends from the old PCs’ actions/demise.
I dig on this and really find it an exciting possibility for a D&D campaign setting. After all, most “settings” presented by TSR-WotC assumes a kind of everyone’s-all-adventuring-around-the-same-year kind of thang. It’s not much different for other RPGs either…Middle Earth Role-Playing assumes you’re somewhere in the 3rd Age, Stormbringer that you’re adventuring sometime AFTER the decline of Melnibone (but before Elric blows up the world), Pendragon places you square during the reign of Arthur (not in the age of Uther or post-Morte).
I suppose the Star Wars RPG (beginning with WEG’s 2nd edition up through WotC’s Saga edition) provides the closest thing to a Darkover-like campaign setting. There are distinct “eras” one can play in (Knights of the Old Republic, Clone Wars, Empire, or New Republic to name the four main ones), all set in the same universe. However, while the villains may change somewhat from Era to Era, the technology (ships, sabers, blasters) stays pretty much the same.
Contrast that with Darkover: playing during the Age of Founding (shortly after Darkover Landfall) would mean access to nothing but the most primitive gear and the very beginning of psychic technology (pre-Tower). During the Age of Chaos, laran tech is at its height with air cars and super weapons. The Hundred Kingdoms is well-established feudal kingdoms (a la Pendragon with psionics) but very few holdover remains from the Age of Chaos...kind of a post-apocalypse setting, really. And by the time of the Seven Domains and the Compact (but pre-Terran contact) the use of laran at all is extremely limited (and its technological “wonders of the past” are safely locked away).
And when you get to the final Age with the Terran spacemen? All bets are off as high technology meets barbarian feudalism and ancient laran secrets being unearthed to compete with the Terrans on an equal footing!
One small geographic map, limiting the realms of exploration to certain accessible, non-polar ice cap mountains, valleys and cold desert plateaus. A couple-few types of native fauna and flora to lend consistency (not to mention “other-worldliness”). Psychic powers in varying (if limited) degrees of potency. And then a cross-section of choice on antagonists, political spectrums, CUSTOMS/TRADITIONS (an important part of Darkovan life and one that varies from Age to Age), and technology.
That’s a tasty setting. And one that could probably be mocked up in 64 pages or less.
; )
Okay, okay…ENOUGH! I’ve got other things to get to today (including prepping for yet another session at the Baranof after a two week lay-off…and I’ve got two new players showing up!). MZB is a great read, with plenty of food for thought. I’d strongly suggest checking out some of her work (I know she’s not in the Moldvay bibliography, but perhaps she’s in Appendix N?) for ideas and inspiration.
: )
Hmm….okay, what else have I learned from MZB and the Darkover novels? I mean, in addition to the fact that Carcosa was the name of a Darkover domain long before it was used for what’s his name’s supplement? And that cultural differences based on gender can make for interesting campaign settings by themselves?
Well, let’s see: fantasy and science fiction (i.e. “futuristic fantasy”) can work just fine, in tandem, when done in the right scale…that’s something I think MZB got right (though, again, I really want to check out Sharra’s Exile and The World Wreckers to get the full scoop on the Terran-Darkovan relations).
Not to dwell too much on this particular issue, but from MZB’s own notes I gather she felt this was part of what made the Darkover setting fresh or different from other fantasy worlds: the juxtaposition of two disparate cultures (one high-tech/space-spanning and one “barbarian”/sword-wielding). While I’ve yet to read the earliest books/stories in the series, the subject matter appears to be similar to the “stranger in a strange land” fantasy recently discussed over at Grognardia…not surprising when you consider works like Star of Danger were being written in the early 1960s.
What else…well, I’ve also learned that the right cultural bias for a game/campaign can be used to justify a lot of house rules. For Example: why do Darkovans carry swords instead of firearms? Because of their cultural contract, The Compact, that makes it un-lawful to attack anyone at distance (as any person must face the same threat of dying as the person against whom they seek to do harm). See the Battle Tech Clans as an RPG example using the opposite tact.
I’ve learned new ways to use intrigue and political ramifications (as well as family ties and loyalties) to create discord, drama, and conflict. But that all’s just window dressing (I didn’t LEARN anything, per se, but there are plenty of ideas and plots that are totally ripe for plundering for my own games)…let’s get back to another “ah ha!” moment.
The campaign setting.
I’ve mentioned before that one of my new writing projects is, in fact, a campaign setting or “world setting” for the B/X game, a little thing I’m calling Land of Ash. In fact, it was research for this particular writing project (still in its earliest stages) that led me to the Darkover books in the first place (to get some fresh ideas on the use of psi powers).
Now, I could write a few dozen pages on how reading Darkover actually made me want to chuck the whole Land of Ash “desert setting” in favor of a Darkover knock-off “snow setting” (as with Spain, I find a LOT of campaign inspiration in MZB’s world of Darkover). But those “second-guessing” notions have been put to rest at this point…cool as it would be, I’ve already done a chunk of work on Land of Ash…not to mention I am totally Jonesin’ to see some sepia-toned artwork (*hope*hope*). Also, why flirt with potential lawsuits from the MZB estate (my understanding is they’ve already put the kybosh on Darkover fan fiction)?
No, I’m still talking about learning new stuff…and Bradley’s approach to her own setting material is plenty educational, specifically with regard to the multiple epochs of Darkover.
The Age of Founding
The Age of Chaos
The Age of the Hundred Kingdoms
The Age of the Seven Kingdoms
The Age of Terran Re-Contact
What you have in Dakrover is not one particular campaign setting but FIVE. All are set on the same distinct world, with the same specific geography, inhabitants, and climate (not to mention little things like a LACK OF METAL and PSYCHOTROPIC FLORA)…but each different Age/epoch determines what the base conflict of the time IS as well as the cities/political structure and the technologies (i.e. “equipment list”) available to the characters.
How sweet is that? If I was to set Keep of the Borderlands in a Darkover-like world (not a bad idea when you think of it), it would become centuries old fortress-monastery much like Nevarsin or Castle Alderan and the conflicts and drama would change simply depending on the epoch used.
And every time I succeeded at achieving a TPK with a particular party of adventurers, I could change the setting and give the new PCs legends from the old PCs’ actions/demise.
I dig on this and really find it an exciting possibility for a D&D campaign setting. After all, most “settings” presented by TSR-WotC assumes a kind of everyone’s-all-adventuring-around-the-same-year kind of thang. It’s not much different for other RPGs either…Middle Earth Role-Playing assumes you’re somewhere in the 3rd Age, Stormbringer that you’re adventuring sometime AFTER the decline of Melnibone (but before Elric blows up the world), Pendragon places you square during the reign of Arthur (not in the age of Uther or post-Morte).
I suppose the Star Wars RPG (beginning with WEG’s 2nd edition up through WotC’s Saga edition) provides the closest thing to a Darkover-like campaign setting. There are distinct “eras” one can play in (Knights of the Old Republic, Clone Wars, Empire, or New Republic to name the four main ones), all set in the same universe. However, while the villains may change somewhat from Era to Era, the technology (ships, sabers, blasters) stays pretty much the same.
Contrast that with Darkover: playing during the Age of Founding (shortly after Darkover Landfall) would mean access to nothing but the most primitive gear and the very beginning of psychic technology (pre-Tower). During the Age of Chaos, laran tech is at its height with air cars and super weapons. The Hundred Kingdoms is well-established feudal kingdoms (a la Pendragon with psionics) but very few holdover remains from the Age of Chaos...kind of a post-apocalypse setting, really. And by the time of the Seven Domains and the Compact (but pre-Terran contact) the use of laran at all is extremely limited (and its technological “wonders of the past” are safely locked away).
And when you get to the final Age with the Terran spacemen? All bets are off as high technology meets barbarian feudalism and ancient laran secrets being unearthed to compete with the Terrans on an equal footing!
One small geographic map, limiting the realms of exploration to certain accessible, non-polar ice cap mountains, valleys and cold desert plateaus. A couple-few types of native fauna and flora to lend consistency (not to mention “other-worldliness”). Psychic powers in varying (if limited) degrees of potency. And then a cross-section of choice on antagonists, political spectrums, CUSTOMS/TRADITIONS (an important part of Darkovan life and one that varies from Age to Age), and technology.
That’s a tasty setting. And one that could probably be mocked up in 64 pages or less.
; )
Okay, okay…ENOUGH! I’ve got other things to get to today (including prepping for yet another session at the Baranof after a two week lay-off…and I’ve got two new players showing up!). MZB is a great read, with plenty of food for thought. I’d strongly suggest checking out some of her work (I know she’s not in the Moldvay bibliography, but perhaps she’s in Appendix N?) for ideas and inspiration.
: )
What Marion Zimmer Bradley Taught Me (Part 1)
I’ve been reading a lot of Marion Zimmer Bradley lately…which is to say I’ve been reading A LOT lately (or a lot for me, anyway…my days of reading a new novel weekly or even monthly are long in the past). However, I purposefully picked up a whole slew of MZB paperbacks from the used bookstore the other day as I was doing research into the literary tradition of psionics (or more accurately, “mental powers”) within fantasy, and I remembered Ms. Bradley using a lot of that in her writing. So I picked up half a dozen Darkover novels.
Wow.
Let me first say that I’ve long been an MZB fan, though I haven’t read all that many of her books. I think I first came across her in her Lythande character portrayed in the Aspirin's Thieves World books. Later, I read The Mists of Avalon (of course…absolutely required reading for any King Arthur buffs) and The Fall of Atlantis (because I’m an Atlantis buff, too).
[and, yes, I’m aware that the latter book is actually a republishing of two earlier stories that had different titles]
But Darkover was never a series I got into. For one thing, it’s not really a “series” so much as a SETTING for a bunch of novels and short stories. Similar to McAffery’s Pern, Darkover is a planet that has been colonized by humans of the future…humans that lose touch with their earth roots and develop their own culture and history over several hundred or thousand years.
As with Pern, the Darkover setting and extensive history provides fertile ground for a number of different tales that highlight the human experience without being set around any particular protagonist or set of characters. In fact, I’ve so far read four of the Darkover novels and each has been from a vastly different epoch of the world. For those familiar with the series, the books I’ve read so far are:
- Darkover Landfall
- Stormqueen
- Hawkmistress
- Heritage of Hastur
Right now I’m working on The Shattered Chain, and I really want to pick up The World Wreckers.
Okay, so, great JB. You like the books. You’re a fan. Now let’s get to the point of the post…exactly WHAT has Marion Zimmer Bradley taught you?
Lots.
In some ways, she’s RE-teaching me things I already knew but forgot. For example, fantasy/sci-fi adventure doesn’t have to include combat to be powerful, dangerous, dramatic, or life-and-death.
Really.
I remember reading a comment on someone’s blog (maybe even mine), that fantasy role-playing games require some sort of combat system because, for a game to BE a fantasy adventure RPG, COMBAT needs to be involved. I know this echoes a sentiment expressed by my brother in a discussion we had awhile back (when talking about RPG design) that people EXPECT some sort of combat/fighting action to take place in any role-playing game.
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Just because Dungeons and Dragons has a combat system and makes combat a part of the game does NOT mean combat is a requirement for any fantasy adventure game. ‘Fantasy adventure” is NOT defined by fighting or mortal conflict. It isn’t. The classic “hero’s journey” involves over-coming strife and proving one’s courage (and may involve mortal combat…I’ll have to check that on wikipedia), but it isn’t necessary for a fantasy story to be an “adventure.” I think I was two to three hundred pages into Hawkmistress before any sort of armed encounter occurred…a bird got shot by an arrow (and let me tell you, that was a deeply moving and emotional chapter!). Prior to THAT, the only “fight scene” in the book involved a girl kneeing a dude in the crotch to prevent attempted rape. Period. End of fight.
Was there adventure and danger and dramatic conflict present within those several hundred pages? Yes. Was there mortal peril for the protagonist and companions? Yes. Was their hardship and challenge, both physical and mental? Yes.
But combat? Melee? Armed conflict? Nope, none of it.
Darkover Landfall has no armed conflict at all. Yes, many people die. A guy does get killed by a “monster” (he is stung by a tiny scorpion ant) and some throats get slit in their sleep…but nothing that would require a combat “system.”
Heritage of Hastur talks a lot about the martial training of the Guard corps. It has a lot of talk about the breech of weapons compacts. There is much discussion on duels and challenges and several instances requiring/demanding revenge/justice. But the only “fights” involve one guy getting held (on two separate occasions) and being beaten unconscious.
Stormqueen! has some more siege stuff, but not a single fight involving any of the main characters.
All of these books are “adventures.” They have people traveling/going places, facing hardship, experiencing conflict, being “challenged” (physically, mentally, and emotionally)…and yet no one draws a sword and fights anyone. And on Darkover, most everyone carries a sword at some point. Darkover is nothing if not a sword culture for God’s sake!
Okay so that’s #1 that I’ve learned from MZB…you can have people going on adventures and not getting involved in “combat” per se. People being conflicted…hell, DYING…and no weapons being drawn. That’s Numero Uno.
Numero Dos: A party of adventurers can have multiple motivations and yet still be cooperative in the aid of a greater whole.
Not sub-plots (though motivations in novels/stories often lead to sub-plots and side treks), but MOTIVATIONS.
Now, I realize that novels and RPGs are NOT the same thing…just as novels and films aren’t (they both tell stories, but they do so in entirely different fashions). RPGs are GAMES and as such they are PLAYED. While you can have a story develop from an RPG session (and can even actively work towards that end with a game that facilitates a narratavist agenda…like, say, Sorcerer), any story that is created is a cooperative or JOINT venture between the players involved, and thus cannot readily be dictated by any one single author…not even a railroading DM…without some consent of the players involved.
[don’t believe me? I (as DM) say, “okay, you guys are here.” Player A says, “My character would never go there.” I (as DM) say, “tough, you are there” (or DM provides some complex justification for the use of force, it doesn’t matter). Player A says, “I kill myself.” End of story…literally!]
In general, when the desired outcome of an RPG session is to have SOME semblance of story (even just, “we all went to this place and did X, Y. and Z”), the easiest way to get that cooperation between players is for the DM/GM to get players motivated in the same direction. For example:
But characters CAN have major motivations…in fact, their whole raison d’etre…as THE THING that determines/inspires action, even though it seems a minor “plot” to the whole grand scheme of things.
For example, often in the Darkover books there’s some grand overarching plot that is DIRECTLY IMPACTED OR PERTAINING TO THE PROTAGONISTS (for example, the whole “realm” is in danger due to a war of succession…and the protagonist is the actual heir to the throne, not some side bystander/rube that gets drawn into the mess a la the Dragonlance heroes, for example), and yet the whole world shattering plot is a SECONDARY motivation to the character’s own likes/loves, hates/schemes, whatever. And having it as such does not prevent the characters (often, Ms. Bradley’s books present more than one protagonist or “main character”) from working as a team towards the main goal…but it enriches how they get there, the journey they are taking.
Again this is not something that’s especially new, just something I haven’t sat down and considered for a while. I may not be especially clear, so let me see if I can illustrate with an example:
Imagine a (D&D) adventuring party as a “special forces” type unit…a small group of proficient, heroic types designed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles and succeed at mission scenarios…you know, 4th edition style play.
I realize that this is the way Dungeons & Dragons has evolved through the last 2-3 iterations, but understand it bears NO semblance to the original literary traditions that inspired it. Instead it seems more inspired by The Dirty Dozen, The Seven Samurai, Mission Impossible or some other action film designed to spotlight a variety of special effects in different action sequences…the better to amuse and entertain the audience (in this case, the audience being the RPG players themselves).
Even The Lord of the Rings is somewhat guilty of this type of dross…especially the film version (which showcases the burly axe-swinging dwarf, versus the suave sword-swinging ranger, versus the acrobatic arrow-slinging elf). But Tolkien was telling an Epic story and the true protagonists are, of course, Frodo and Sam and their heroic struggles…NOT the actions of certain flamboyant characters.
[and by the way I DO enjoy the LotR films and have watched them multiple times]
Now, compare THAT type of “special forces for the sake of overcoming evil obstacle” group with a group of individuals, each with his or her own motivation (and not necessarily possessing aims in line with their fellows), that happen to be joined in common cause, but whose cause comes SECONDARY to their own personal (and sometime selfish desires)…you know, kind of like real life with real, independent thinking folks?
For a “cheesy example” let’s look at the protagonists of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Silly, right? But look at these misfits. They have great powers at their disposal (when they occasionally get their shit together) AND they have an over-riding goal (to find some way home), and yet their own motivations and desires often overwhelm practicality or actually sabotage and cause their own group trouble. Eric is an f’ing coward hiding behind his wealthy background, Diana is some sort of foolhardy adrenaline junkie, Presto and Bobby are constantly attempting to “prove themselves” to the others (Bobby that he’s old enough to hang with the big kids and Presto that he’s not some gigantic nerd with a “worthless gift”). Hank is the Boy Scout, always trying to “Do the Right Thing,” and Sheila secretly carries a torch for the blonde archer and hopes to impress him. I mean, all of them are teenagers with self-esteem issues, but they manifest those issues in different ways, making for an interesting mix (if not one that is incredibly efficient in overcoming obstacles/challenges). And cheesy or not, the cartoon wasn’t something I’d call a comedy.
In my old D&D campaigns, players DID have motivations for their characters, and any particular adventure dreamt up by the DM was totally secondary to the aims of the characters…Lucky was always looking for new magical writings to fatten his spell book, Sunstarr was always trying to impress the ladies, my character was always trying to amass power and show everyone else up (‘cause I was a big jerk)…whether or not we actually achieved any GOAL for an adventure was completely secondary to the story that we were telling about our characters and what they did and how they did it…in other words, by their actions, which were often in conflict with any actual objectives set forth by our GM.
In fact, this harkens back to what my brother was saying the other day about wanting more motivation, more background for his characters…that the random Hat and Relationship charts were a good start but not enough, and that the adventure background itself didn’t seem to be enough motivation. It’s one thing when players bring their own specific, concrete goals and motives to the table…but the Dungeons & Dragons itself doesn’t necessarily provide “meat enough” to build a character.
Wow.
Let me first say that I’ve long been an MZB fan, though I haven’t read all that many of her books. I think I first came across her in her Lythande character portrayed in the Aspirin's Thieves World books. Later, I read The Mists of Avalon (of course…absolutely required reading for any King Arthur buffs) and The Fall of Atlantis (because I’m an Atlantis buff, too).
[and, yes, I’m aware that the latter book is actually a republishing of two earlier stories that had different titles]
But Darkover was never a series I got into. For one thing, it’s not really a “series” so much as a SETTING for a bunch of novels and short stories. Similar to McAffery’s Pern, Darkover is a planet that has been colonized by humans of the future…humans that lose touch with their earth roots and develop their own culture and history over several hundred or thousand years.
As with Pern, the Darkover setting and extensive history provides fertile ground for a number of different tales that highlight the human experience without being set around any particular protagonist or set of characters. In fact, I’ve so far read four of the Darkover novels and each has been from a vastly different epoch of the world. For those familiar with the series, the books I’ve read so far are:
- Darkover Landfall
- Stormqueen
- Hawkmistress
- Heritage of Hastur
Right now I’m working on The Shattered Chain, and I really want to pick up The World Wreckers.
Okay, so, great JB. You like the books. You’re a fan. Now let’s get to the point of the post…exactly WHAT has Marion Zimmer Bradley taught you?
Lots.
In some ways, she’s RE-teaching me things I already knew but forgot. For example, fantasy/sci-fi adventure doesn’t have to include combat to be powerful, dangerous, dramatic, or life-and-death.
Really.
I remember reading a comment on someone’s blog (maybe even mine), that fantasy role-playing games require some sort of combat system because, for a game to BE a fantasy adventure RPG, COMBAT needs to be involved. I know this echoes a sentiment expressed by my brother in a discussion we had awhile back (when talking about RPG design) that people EXPECT some sort of combat/fighting action to take place in any role-playing game.
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Just because Dungeons and Dragons has a combat system and makes combat a part of the game does NOT mean combat is a requirement for any fantasy adventure game. ‘Fantasy adventure” is NOT defined by fighting or mortal conflict. It isn’t. The classic “hero’s journey” involves over-coming strife and proving one’s courage (and may involve mortal combat…I’ll have to check that on wikipedia), but it isn’t necessary for a fantasy story to be an “adventure.” I think I was two to three hundred pages into Hawkmistress before any sort of armed encounter occurred…a bird got shot by an arrow (and let me tell you, that was a deeply moving and emotional chapter!). Prior to THAT, the only “fight scene” in the book involved a girl kneeing a dude in the crotch to prevent attempted rape. Period. End of fight.Was there adventure and danger and dramatic conflict present within those several hundred pages? Yes. Was there mortal peril for the protagonist and companions? Yes. Was their hardship and challenge, both physical and mental? Yes.
But combat? Melee? Armed conflict? Nope, none of it.
Darkover Landfall has no armed conflict at all. Yes, many people die. A guy does get killed by a “monster” (he is stung by a tiny scorpion ant) and some throats get slit in their sleep…but nothing that would require a combat “system.”
Heritage of Hastur talks a lot about the martial training of the Guard corps. It has a lot of talk about the breech of weapons compacts. There is much discussion on duels and challenges and several instances requiring/demanding revenge/justice. But the only “fights” involve one guy getting held (on two separate occasions) and being beaten unconscious.
Stormqueen! has some more siege stuff, but not a single fight involving any of the main characters.
All of these books are “adventures.” They have people traveling/going places, facing hardship, experiencing conflict, being “challenged” (physically, mentally, and emotionally)…and yet no one draws a sword and fights anyone. And on Darkover, most everyone carries a sword at some point. Darkover is nothing if not a sword culture for God’s sake!
Okay so that’s #1 that I’ve learned from MZB…you can have people going on adventures and not getting involved in “combat” per se. People being conflicted…hell, DYING…and no weapons being drawn. That’s Numero Uno.
Numero Dos: A party of adventurers can have multiple motivations and yet still be cooperative in the aid of a greater whole.
Not sub-plots (though motivations in novels/stories often lead to sub-plots and side treks), but MOTIVATIONS.
Now, I realize that novels and RPGs are NOT the same thing…just as novels and films aren’t (they both tell stories, but they do so in entirely different fashions). RPGs are GAMES and as such they are PLAYED. While you can have a story develop from an RPG session (and can even actively work towards that end with a game that facilitates a narratavist agenda…like, say, Sorcerer), any story that is created is a cooperative or JOINT venture between the players involved, and thus cannot readily be dictated by any one single author…not even a railroading DM…without some consent of the players involved.
[don’t believe me? I (as DM) say, “okay, you guys are here.” Player A says, “My character would never go there.” I (as DM) say, “tough, you are there” (or DM provides some complex justification for the use of force, it doesn’t matter). Player A says, “I kill myself.” End of story…literally!]
In general, when the desired outcome of an RPG session is to have SOME semblance of story (even just, “we all went to this place and did X, Y. and Z”), the easiest way to get that cooperation between players is for the DM/GM to get players motivated in the same direction. For example:
“The Big Bad Guy threatens the kingdom. You have heard that the Amazing Artifact can put an end to his evil reign, if you only you can retrieve it from the Mysterious Dungeon.”
But characters CAN have major motivations…in fact, their whole raison d’etre…as THE THING that determines/inspires action, even though it seems a minor “plot” to the whole grand scheme of things.
For example, often in the Darkover books there’s some grand overarching plot that is DIRECTLY IMPACTED OR PERTAINING TO THE PROTAGONISTS (for example, the whole “realm” is in danger due to a war of succession…and the protagonist is the actual heir to the throne, not some side bystander/rube that gets drawn into the mess a la the Dragonlance heroes, for example), and yet the whole world shattering plot is a SECONDARY motivation to the character’s own likes/loves, hates/schemes, whatever. And having it as such does not prevent the characters (often, Ms. Bradley’s books present more than one protagonist or “main character”) from working as a team towards the main goal…but it enriches how they get there, the journey they are taking.
Again this is not something that’s especially new, just something I haven’t sat down and considered for a while. I may not be especially clear, so let me see if I can illustrate with an example:
Imagine a (D&D) adventuring party as a “special forces” type unit…a small group of proficient, heroic types designed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles and succeed at mission scenarios…you know, 4th edition style play.
I realize that this is the way Dungeons & Dragons has evolved through the last 2-3 iterations, but understand it bears NO semblance to the original literary traditions that inspired it. Instead it seems more inspired by The Dirty Dozen, The Seven Samurai, Mission Impossible or some other action film designed to spotlight a variety of special effects in different action sequences…the better to amuse and entertain the audience (in this case, the audience being the RPG players themselves).
Even The Lord of the Rings is somewhat guilty of this type of dross…especially the film version (which showcases the burly axe-swinging dwarf, versus the suave sword-swinging ranger, versus the acrobatic arrow-slinging elf). But Tolkien was telling an Epic story and the true protagonists are, of course, Frodo and Sam and their heroic struggles…NOT the actions of certain flamboyant characters.
[and by the way I DO enjoy the LotR films and have watched them multiple times]
Now, compare THAT type of “special forces for the sake of overcoming evil obstacle” group with a group of individuals, each with his or her own motivation (and not necessarily possessing aims in line with their fellows), that happen to be joined in common cause, but whose cause comes SECONDARY to their own personal (and sometime selfish desires)…you know, kind of like real life with real, independent thinking folks?
For a “cheesy example” let’s look at the protagonists of the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Silly, right? But look at these misfits. They have great powers at their disposal (when they occasionally get their shit together) AND they have an over-riding goal (to find some way home), and yet their own motivations and desires often overwhelm practicality or actually sabotage and cause their own group trouble. Eric is an f’ing coward hiding behind his wealthy background, Diana is some sort of foolhardy adrenaline junkie, Presto and Bobby are constantly attempting to “prove themselves” to the others (Bobby that he’s old enough to hang with the big kids and Presto that he’s not some gigantic nerd with a “worthless gift”). Hank is the Boy Scout, always trying to “Do the Right Thing,” and Sheila secretly carries a torch for the blonde archer and hopes to impress him. I mean, all of them are teenagers with self-esteem issues, but they manifest those issues in different ways, making for an interesting mix (if not one that is incredibly efficient in overcoming obstacles/challenges). And cheesy or not, the cartoon wasn’t something I’d call a comedy.
In my old D&D campaigns, players DID have motivations for their characters, and any particular adventure dreamt up by the DM was totally secondary to the aims of the characters…Lucky was always looking for new magical writings to fatten his spell book, Sunstarr was always trying to impress the ladies, my character was always trying to amass power and show everyone else up (‘cause I was a big jerk)…whether or not we actually achieved any GOAL for an adventure was completely secondary to the story that we were telling about our characters and what they did and how they did it…in other words, by their actions, which were often in conflict with any actual objectives set forth by our GM.
In fact, this harkens back to what my brother was saying the other day about wanting more motivation, more background for his characters…that the random Hat and Relationship charts were a good start but not enough, and that the adventure background itself didn’t seem to be enough motivation. It’s one thing when players bring their own specific, concrete goals and motives to the table…but the Dungeons & Dragons itself doesn’t necessarily provide “meat enough” to build a character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)