Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

[sbarron]

As I read through various fantasy novels, I am frequently struck by certain ideas that seem very cool but usually don't get done in fantasy gaming. So I decided to start a list of them in case I ever run a game again. Feel free to comment or add your own...

I'd really like starting PCs to not have much knowledge of the outside world.

Many people who create a fantasy setting start with the map of the world, and work their way down. Here are mountains, oceans, islands, volcanos, the elves, etc. And they also create various kindgoms, with information on the culture, leaders, customs, etc. And since they created this stuff, frequently the PCs have access to it. I think that can be a mistake.

It doesn't seem to me that in any but the highest of fantasy that your average PC would have much knowledge about the outside world. More likely, they may have heard rumors about the fabulous Kingdom of Blank, where the people are all lizards that ride on flying beasts, but they wouldn't "know" it. The distances between places and the lack of speedy tranportation, and the lack of fast and accurate communication in most fantasy settings makes it unlikely for most PCs to have travelled very far from the borders of their country, or the one next to it, or know much about them.

I think it would be a lot more fun to have rumors about the fantastic world outside of what the PCs are familiar with, rather than them having perfect knowledge of the campaign world. Stories get inflated in retelling. Things can be mis-interpreted. It will be exciting for the PCs to find these things out for themselves, rather than reading it from the GMs notes (campaign setting). And a character that spends the points on KS: Geography shoudln't have perfect knowledge either. He could know more than average, but it's not like ancient maps were usually all that accurate.

[sbarron]

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system

Nothing kills the feel of a magic system like the PCs having perfect knowledge of how it works. There is no sense of mystery, no danger, nothing. If magic is a science in your world, that's one thing. But most GMs draw up elaborate rules for how magic works in their world, and then pass them out for the PCs. If your PC is a mage, then having knowledge about how it works is ok, I guess. He should have an idea of what he is doing. But I think it's very cool if the only player who has any idea of how magic works is a character who uses magic. Fighter types, thieves, plus everyone else will have a much better time if the player doesn't understand how magic works anymore than their character does.

Also, I dont' think there is any reason that magic using PCs should have perfect understanding either. Look at how ancient cultures viewed solar bodies, the tides, gravity, etc. They had all kinds of crazy ideas about why these things worked the way they did, and I think magic would be the same way. Too frequently magic gets treated as a universal science that all cultures aproach the same way. I think it would be way cooler if different cultures had completley different ideas about the hows and whys of magic.

[projecktzero]

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system


That sounds like a great idea. It really adds mystery to magic. Much better than "oh, Gendulf casts a fireball".

As long as the other players don't suspect the GM bending the rules for the magic users, it'd probably work out well.

[arcady]

Magic has several factors to it in Fahla that lead it to being something no one ever fully understands:
http://home.pacbell.net/arcady0/fahla/Gaming/magic_Hero.html

As for world knowledge, the game I'm running takes place in the Lomyrian Empire - which is like Portugal in its heyday.

There is a printing press, and sailing rivals the 17th century. The roads in the empire proper are well maintained, and extend as such throughout the southern Papal states. Go off continent to Lengoli and then even have railways.

These issues vary by setting. That said, the knowledge level of the PCs should fit the setting, and it often doesn't in many gaming setups. That's something of a failing carried over from DnD - which has a large list of logical failures in its assumptions.

[Eosin]

The problem with "magic users" not having a knowledge of magic is that it bogs the game down. The mage/bard/cleric etc has to stop and ask the DM if they can do X? Hmmmmm, How bout Y? Usually, this occurs at the most inconvient of times (during combat) where keeping the flow running can be critical to an enjoyable game.

I played in a game once where the DM kept all the character sheets to himself and allocated all your stuff - the player never knew crap except for what he was carrying. The mage character knew that he could "make different kinds of fire - sometimes from his eyes, sometimes from his hands, and sometimes his whole body burst into flames (the player selected which) but other than some rudimentry understanding that "fire from the hands just burns one person and fire from the eyes explodes" he was in the dark.

That game ran well cause the DM did EVERYTHING. You never knew what you needed to hit, never knew how many hit points you or your opponent had, heck you did not even know what level you were. But that places a huge burden on the DM and occassionally serious complaints -

PLAYER - But I want to be a ranger type guy and I keep failing at woodsy stuff.

DM - You don't do much woodsy stuff so it is hard to justify me increasing those skills.

It was a very good game but beyond the skill of many DMs who don't want to sink 10 hours prepping for each game.

[arcady]

The problem with "magic users" not having a knowledge of magic is that it bogs the game down.You just have to know how to set up and run or play the format.

[Markdoc]

What I tend to do is produce two maps for every culture/area - an accurate map for me, and then a players' map which (depending on the sophistication of the culture producing it) can range from somewhat accurate to wildly inaccurate.

When the players interact with people from other cultures, their culture's "players' map" defines how much accurate useful information they can give.

As for the "magic is mysterious" thing, while I like the idea in practice I found it to be more of a nuisance than a help, so let the magic-using players have access to the mechanics - at least for the system they used.

cheers, Mark

[tkdguy]

Another thing you can do with maps is to leave out some details, so there's a big blank in that area. Of course, the characters will want to explore it.

Another thing you can do is give out at the beginning of the campaign a list of what the PCs "know" about foreign people and places. The information need not be accurate, instead being based on rumors and stereotypes. Also, it gives the GM some freedom in changing the details if he needs or wants to do so.

[PhilFleischmann]

I'm so glad someone said this. It corresponds exactly to my FH campaign, in which the world is based on two premises:

1) The farther you go from the central, civilized area of the world, the more bizarre things get. (people, customs, monsters, geography, weather, magic, etc.)
2) Every village, town, and city has its own native style of magic which its inhabitants may learn. This is a matter of common sense, not of law. If you live in Selask at the foot of the mountain range, there's no way you're going to learn about the magic used in the coastal fishing village of Holyat. Of course, an experienced wizard might travel to different cities and learn many types of magic, but that takes a long time. The type of magic each place uses is usually related to the lifestyle of the city itself. The desert city of Olo, for example teaches its citizens magic that help them to survive in the harsh climate.

I always run my campaign giving only very limited info about the world to the players. They don't know what styles of magic are practiced in other cities. They don't even know much about the gods, outside of their own patron diety, and the more well-known ones that everyone knows about.

And the players have full knowledge of what they personally can do (it's on their character sheets, after all), but they don't know what other magical effects are possible or used in other areas, nor do they have access to a complete list of all spells that exist. There is no index of all villages and their corresponding magic styles anywhere. Heck, even I, the GM don't have one. (I haven't made them all up yet, and have no need to until the players get there, or until a player wants his character to come from there.)

[Chiba Bob]

I would like to see the daily affairs/affaires and whims of the gods have a more profound influence on society akin to media stars do today. Muses (the paparotzi) in some way send these events to various artists (the media), who, depending on their various artistic forms, disclose the assorted activities of the gods to the general public.

These should rarely be worldshaking events but more interesting cultural backdrops that take place in the background of the fantasy world while the players pursue their adventures. For example, what happens culturally if the god of war and the goddess of peace have an affaire or how about the goddess of love and the god of torture wed. Likewise, what happens when the god of death takes a holiday, the god of wine joins AA or the goddess of sleep and dreams has insomnia.

I think that the activities of the gods and their respective portfolios could/should have amusing cultural influences to keep the players on their toes and make a fantsy world a more interesting place to adventure.



.

[Foxx!]

This is a great topic. I agree with you that in most fantasy worlds information travels slowly and changes quickly. Most people rarely or never leave their home village.

I’m most concerned with how much characters know of things in the outside world. It’s nice for players to encounter things that defy their expectations but they shouldn’t be just silly. As a player, I enjoy anything that breaks the standard routine of dealing with things.

As an example, in a recent campaign, we were looking for some famous magic books, but we couldn’t find them. Later, we realised that the ‘books’ were some gems we found. When you held a gem up to your eye, you could see one ‘page’ of writing. Another example is having a switch open a door far off in another room, not one nearby. I also like monsters that don’t meet expectations without becoming silly.

On the other hand, some players don’t want to bother with needing skills to deal and speak with other races. I can understand that.

Cheers!

[Blue Jogger]

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system

As a compromise, have built into the Skill Roll another table for minor modifications to the spell that occur due to incomplete knowledge.

One of my more memorable mages had a flaw in his magic that it always had a minor cosmetic flaw.

He created a horse (simular to a figurine of wonderous power) that had a black-and-white spotting that looked like a cow. It would, every so often, moo and then resume acting like a normal horse. My mage shrugged and said, "I guess that one's mine." All the others in the batch turned out fine, we think.

Another time, he cast Create Food and mixed the color, shapes, textures, and flavors of everything. Most of the food was amazingly good as long as you weren't alergic to anything. He kept the recipe for when guests come to town although he never can quite duplicate the results when he tries. Sometimes its almost as good, most times it is completely lousy and he has to throw the whole batch out.

[sbarron]

The problem with "magic users" not having a knowledge of magic is that it bogs the game down. The mage/bard/cleric etc has to stop and ask the DM if they can do X? Hmmmmm, How bout Y? Usually, this occurs at the most inconvient of times (during combat) where keeping the flow running can be critical to an enjoyable game. I'm not suggesting that magic users have no knowledge about magic or what it can do and they can do with it, just not perfect knowledge. Let's see if I can come up with some examples...

Campaign Setting Magic Rule: Magic is weaker over bodies of water. The deeper the water, the weaker the magic.

Why does magic work this way? In most games, the GM would explain exactly why magic was weaker over water to all the PCs. This information would be accurate, known and accepted throughout the campaign world. In other games, a GM might explain why this was so only to the magic users. The GM in both of these instances would be telling the players the real reason, in effect the factual scientific explanation, of why magic is weaker over water.

What I'm suggesting is to not tell any of the PCs exactly why it works this way. Have there be several explanations, none or all of which may be true. All of which have proponents and detractors.

Water Wizards think its because the god of the sea does not like to share his magic with mortals.

Fire Mages think it is because the water element is weak.

The College of Silver Sages think it is because the moon and the sea are bound together, and the moon is soaking up the seas magic.

The Guardian Blades adventuring group found an ancient tome in the sunken city of Arlitar that stated that magic is weak over water because the gem of power was lost at sea thousands of years ago, and the gem is sucking the magic out of all the waters of the world.

Do you see the difference? The truth is, most mages in this gaming world, even the most knowledgable, aren't sure why magic is weaker over water. Their own biases and knowledge shape their views, but none of the know the answer for sure, although they may think they do. I think that's cool.

This could go to all of magic. Mages may know how to make magic work, but they may not know why it works that way. And because they don't know why it works the way it does, unusual or fantastic results are possible, even likely, if you start doing things with magic that haven't been done before. And that is where the mystery is, in the unknown.

Plus, and maybe most importantly, you get to differentiate different cultures and schools by the way the view magic. The primitive tribals think all magic comes from their god of magic. The high minded College of Mages thinks magic is a natural force of nature, like gravity. A third group may think magic is left over energy from the times of creation. Who's right? I don't know. And I don't think it even really matters. I just think it's cool.

[bblackmoor]

Mystery is a vital element of any fantasy game, I think. After all, Magic without mystery is merely Science.

However, the players should know anything their characters would know, and then some. After all, the characters have lived in this world since the day they were born, and no matter how much the GM tells the players, they will never be able to have the wealth and depth of information about the world that their characters have. So the GM should definitely err on the side of giving players more information, rather than less, about what their character knows and senses.

This doesn't mean that the wizard character would automatically know why magic is weaker over water (which is a great example, I'll rep you for that in a minute), but they would certainly know it, and have a fair grasp of how it will affect them.

That's my take on it, anyway. Lots of people disagree with me on subjects like this one.

[Eosin]

I'm not suggesting that magic users have no knowledge about magic or what it can do and they can do with it, just not perfect knowledge. Let's see if I can come up with some examples...

Campaign Setting Magic Rule: Magic is weaker over bodies of water. The deeper the water, the weaker the magic.

ah, I was getting the idea that you meant something else.

I also have a "magic mystery" in my game - REC for Elan (magic endurance) comes at a varible rate - players never know if they REC Hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly until they actually go expend some Elan in that area.

Our last adventure they went to the Pit of Gorgaros and discovered that they REC per PHASE. Now they understand why only a single Muldegian Wizard is needed to secure the place but not why magic is so powerful at the Pit. They also discovered an area where Necromancers recovered per minute while they were REC per day. They have part of the answer to that one but the first example remains unknown to them.

[keithcurtis]

Players should be able to separate their culture and morality from the campaign's

PCs always seem to feel like modern people thrown into a quasi medieval world. They are against slavery, class distinction and privelege, unjust laws, and rarely have a truly pious fear and respect for their deities unless they're of the bolt-hurling stick-their-nose-in-your-business type.

If you are playing in an Ancient Rome analog, slavery and brutality are normal ways of life. You might try to personaly avoid being crucified on the Via Flaminia, but you're not going to start a revolt over it. It won't even occur to you.

If you are playing in a medieval England analog, you're going to realize that nobles have one justice and you've got another. Yeah, it's not equal, but people aren't equal. Life isn't fair.

I've tried to run a barbaric morality in my Savage Earth campaign, but the players constantly see injustice and wrong-headed social values where the NPCs see "the way things are".

Keith "I'd be more eloquent, but Im developing a splitting headache" Curtis

[tkdguy]

I do that a lot with my fantasy campaigns. I try to be as realistic as possible. The problem is that some of my players couldn't get into the Ancient/Medieval/Victorian (or what have you) mindset. Some didn't even try.

[sbarron]

Players should be able to separate their culture and morality from the campaign's Great one Keith! I completely agree. Players I've gamed with usually think that if they see some sort of "injustice," which could be racism, slavery, a harsh class system, whatever, that it is their moral duty to try to fix it. Which defeats the whole point of gaming in another time and place with different views.

[Savinien]

Players should be able to separate their culture and morality from the campaign's

PCs always seem to feel like modern people thrown into a quasi medieval world. They are against slavery, class distinction and privelege, unjust laws, and rarely have a truly pious fear and respect for their deities unless they're of the bolt-hurling stick-their-nose-in-your-business type.

If you are playing in an Ancient Rome analog, slavery and brutality are normal ways of life. You might try to personaly avoid being crucified on the Via Flaminia, but you're not going to start a revolt over it. It won't even occur to you.

If you are playing in a medieval England analog, you're going to realize that nobles have one justice and you've got another. Yeah, it's not equal, but people aren't equal. Life isn't fair.

I've tried to run a barbaric morality in my Savage Earth campaign, but the players constantly see injustice and wrong-headed social values where the NPCs see "the way things are".

Keith "I'd be more eloquent, but Im developing a splitting headache" Curtis


You're right, Keith. I know that I'm part of the problem in SE, too. I don't think you're being completely accurate, though. There would be those people that grew chafe under the yoke of prejudism and slavery. Otherwise, you wouldn't have evidence of revolts and efforts to make the status quo different...

Another problem as a player is seeing the GM's vision clearly. I have difficulty relating to someone who sees those things as okay. I consider myself an equitable RPer. But, without some relational knowledge, I don't know how to RP that disinclination towards injustices of the world.

I wish I could. It would be cool.

[Chris Goodwin]

Think about this. Magic will change any world. If wizards can teleport long distances, sooner or later someone will figure out how to make money from this, and quick, easy long distance travel will be no more (and probably a lot less) difficult than it is in the real world. Food preservation is civilization, and there is no doubt in my mind that someone, very early on in a society's history, will figure out how to do this much more reliably with magic. Medicine: if you have clerics or wizards who can brew healing potions, cast healing spells, and cure diseases, crippling injuries and plagues are a thing of the past. Magical telepathy or other long distance communication is effectively radio and the telephone all rolled into one.

These are four things that occurred to me just off the top of my head. If you don't want these effects, then think about this: if you're going to make them very rare in the setting and/or unavailable to PCs so that they don't screw with your setting, why bother to have them at all? Note also that they will revolutionize military life as well as civilian.

On the subject of slavery, why would anyone keep slaves when they could have an Invisible Servant, a flesh golem, an animated stone statue, or a zombie? Feeding and upkeep is minimal, they don't need medical care, and you don't have to worry about a zombie revolt.

Brutality was common in those medieval settings because human life was cheap because there was always more where it came from, and because life was expected to be nasty, brutish, and short. Your parents probably died young of disease, starvation, or overwork; everyone around you dies of that; at some point, you get the idea that you probably will too. With magic, life probably won't be nasty, brutish, and short.

If you want your players to play in medieval Europe or imperial Rome or wherever, run your game in medieval Europe or Imperial Rome. If you have magic in your game, expect it to alter the setting.

What I'd like to see in fantasy gaming is more exploration of the stuff I mentioned in my first paragraph above.

[Chris Goodwin]

Sorry for following up my own message...

Think about this. Magic will change any world. If wizards can teleport long distances, sooner or later someone will figure out how to make money from this, and quick, easy long distance travel will be no more (and probably a lot less) difficult than it is in the real world. Food preservation is civilization, and there is no doubt in my mind that someone, very early on in a society's history, will figure out how to do this much more reliably with magic. Medicine: if you have clerics or wizards who can brew healing potions, cast healing spells, and cure diseases, crippling injuries and plagues are a thing of the past. Magical telepathy or other long distance communication is effectively radio and the telephone all rolled into one.


If you've decided that all of these neat things will only belong to the nobility, then you've decided that, essentially, the nobility owns wizards. They won't do silly things like let their wizards go out and spread their secrets around or get themselves killed, and they also won't do silly things like let just anyone become a wizard. If you do all this then you've placed a huge limiting factor on magic, and your players will be wondering "If we can't have magic, and in this game world life is nasty, brutish, and short because of it, then why are we playing in this fantasy world at all and not medieval Europe or imperial Rome?"

[Eosin]

What I'd like to see in fantasy gaming is more exploration of the stuff I mentioned in my first paragraph above.


Ever read Forgotten Realms? :thumbup:

I like to trend the other way - what if all those myths and legends of people with supernatural abilities were more than just myth. What if the Greek Heroes were really as powerful as they were made out to be? It really does not "change the world" but it is to historical FRPGs what X-Files is to playing Force Recon.

What you have is legendary but rare supernatural creatures who provide big guns for the PCs to deal with. You have cabals of mystics who may or may not be welcome in any given society and may be persecuted by religious factions capable of crossing national boundries. You have sects of the church or goverments dedicated to "controlling" those with magic....after all, it is their god given right to command. At the same time they are trying to control, they are seeking ways to make magic available to their followers (or even themselves).

At this point Magic has gone from being pseudo-technology into something that drives countless plots, creates a distinct flavor for the game, and allows PCs cast "The Envoked Fate of Pompii" while in a low magic world.

The trick to me - is that most DMs try to counter the players magic with magic of their own. That leads to an escalation that destroys the premise of magic. Personally, I dislike the magic as pseudo-technology route - it breaks the mold of traditional fantasy and morphing it into something akin to the Modern fantasy stories of todays video games. That is not bad, it just is not what I want to play.

[sinanju]

Think about this. Magic will change any world. If wizards can teleport long distances, sooner or later someone will figure out how to make money from this, and quick, easy long distance travel will be no more (and probably a lot less) difficult than it is in the real world. Food preservation is civilization, and there is no doubt in my mind that someone, very early on in a society's history, will figure out how to do this much more reliably with magic....

What I'd like to see in fantasy gaming is more exploration of the stuff I mentioned in my first paragraph above.

If there's any kind of reliable mind-control magic, what I think you'll ultimately end up with is rule by an unbreakable guild of mages. Sooner or later they're going to wrap the kings and nobles around their little fingers; once the mages in charge start compelling obedience (truly binding oaths, for instance) from would-be mages as the price of joining the mana-ocracy, it becomes self-perpetuating.

This works best if magic requires extensive instruction. But even if new mages simply "pop up", the mage's guild will spend a lot of time chasing down potential mages and drafting them.

[Chris Goodwin]

At this point Magic has gone from being pseudo-technology into something that drives countless plots, creates a distinct flavor for the game, and allows PCs cast "The Envoked Fate of Pompii" while in a low magic world.

The trick to me - is that most DMs try to counter the players magic with magic of their own. That leads to an escalation that destroys the premise of magic. Personally, I dislike the magic as pseudo-technology route - it breaks the mold of traditional fantasy and morphing it into something akin to the Modern fantasy stories of todays video games. That is not bad, it just is not what I want to play.

The Hero System really isn't designed for the sort of plot driven magic that you're describing. It's designed more for the magic as technology type, where you know everything you can do down to the centimeter, gram, and milliliter. You know exactly how hard your blast hits, how far it will go, how likely it is to activate. Granted, much written fantasy more closely matches your vision than it does the Hero System.

[keithcurtis]

Archer, no arguments on how magic will change society. I have gone into great detail on how my "magic" system has shaped society in the Savage Earth campaign, for instance. In fact, my magic system was back-engineered from the society I wanted to portray.

But I think you're working form an assumption of universal, easily obtained and used High Magic. With all the flavor and utility of the D&D spells. Life can continue to be brutal and unjust, even with magic. Look at Hyborea or Lankhmar for instance. You can certainly play a game wherein you examine the ramifications of magic on society. In fact, it would probably be fun and indeed this is an excellent thread for discussing it. But it really seems to have little to do with the point I was trying to make. In that a tone set by the creator of the campaign will seem at odds with the players if a great number of them bring a different understanding to the table.

Savinien,
I wouldn't worry too much about how you and the beasts perceive the injustice of the world. You are portraying highly competent characters who would necessarily be at odds with a society which wants to deny them opportunity or respect. Just don't be surprised at the vast number of NPCs (such as Jareek) who are lockstep with the social paradigm at large.

Back to my topic, another example is the harshness of punishment. Although a pickpocket might have his hand removed for stealing a purse in a Middle Age or Ancient World society, don't try doing it to a PC. You'll start a war. :)

Keith "good topics" Curtis

[Titan59]

Intellectually I am with Archer on this one. Any sort of magic would really impact on society. I have long thought the most likely outcome of magic really existing would be a feudal system with mages instead of the traditional warrior nobility at the top. Robin Hobb's assassin trilogy is a really good depiction of how a very few, not very powerful (in High Fantasy terms at least) mages could dominate a whole society.

That said, emotionally I prefer worlds like Robert E Howard's Conan stories with big armies, lots of pseudo-medieval empires and a few nasty mages lurking in the corners.

[sbarron]

The Hero System really isn't designed for the sort of plot driven magic that you're describing. It's designed more for the magic as technology type, where you know everything you can do down to the centimeter, gram, and milliliter. You know exactly how hard your blast hits, how far it will go, how likely it is to activate. Granted, much written fantasy more closely matches your vision than it does the Hero System.I don't agree. While it's true that each PC will know exactly what his magic can or can't do (assuming a MP or spell-by-spell list is created), that doesn't mean that he understands all magic to this degree, or that the magic system in general is this precise and controlled.

So far Hero has yet to publish a magic system that isn't really precise and science like, but I don't think that means it can't. They just haven't done it yet.

[Houston GM]

I like this thread.

I've actually incorporated many of these into my Fantasy Hero campaign.

Geographical Knowledge
The main map of the civilized world actually says "Here there be dragons" along one edge and "Sea Monsters" along the opposite edge. Everyone knows that the map isn't completely accurate, but it's the most accurate map in circulation, so everyone uses it.

Common Folk
Over 90% of the population spends their entire lives within 10 miles of where they were born. Most humans living in rural areas have never seen an elf or dwarf, but they've heard stories about them, and maybe even seen an accurate picture.

And all commoners are superstitious. Of course, that might just be common sense in a fantasy world.

Prices
There are no standardized costs. An inexpensive meal costs a copper penny in a farm village. The same meal costs 1 or 2 silvers in a major city. Supply and demand is a major factor in all transactions.

News
Most news travels by rumors. The further the news travels, the less accurate it's likely to be. One of the PCs went into a tavern to listen to the rumors last game. Of the 8 rumors she heard, she was only willing to believe one of them might be completely true (it involved crop failures due to storms). Two rumors mentioned mercenaries heading south, but for completely different reasons. One rumor about a dragon attack was in direct contradiction to events the PCs had personally witnessed (there had been an attack and a fire, but no dragon was present).

"The Wheel of Time" series provides good examples of rumors in a fantasy setting (despite some of its flaws as a literary work).

Communication
Most long-distance communication occurs in the form of written letters, despite the lack of a postal service. The rich can afford to hire couriers to directly deliver their letters. The middle class finds a merchant heading to the appropriate city and pays them to deliver the letter when they get there. (About 80% of the letters actually reach their destination.) The poor don't send letters. They can't read; they can't write; they don't know anyone who lives that far away.

If you're going to write secrets in a letter, be certain that the recipient is actually literate. Otherwise it might get embarassing when they hire someone to read the letter to them.

Transients (like adventurers) have additional troubles in receiving letters. If someone wants to send a letter to a recipient that travels a lot, they'll usually send it to an inn in a city that the recipient is likely to visit soon. Innkeepers don't mind holding on to letters indefinitely, since people who come in to pick up their mail are likely to be paying customers (and the exceptions usually leave a tip).

Innkeepers don't have any way to check ID, though. If you address your letter to "Sir John", it will be given to the first Sir John that enters the inn (even if it's a very common name). Sir John might hand the letter back (after reading it), but that depends on how honest and honorable he is.

Innkeepers also seem to be reluctant to hold letters for "Walter the Cutthroat" or "Eric the Bloody-Handed".

Fantasy Beasts:
Zoology isn't exactly a common field of study. People have heard the stories and legends, but that's all they've heard. Everyone knows that dragons are big lizards with wings that breathe fire. So what happens when the PCs encounter a big lizard without wings that casts spells? Did they encounter a different kind of dragon, or is it a completely unrelated creature?

And what about some of the other strange looking creatures around? In Medieval Europe, a giraffe is going to seem more fantastical than a unicorn. People have heard of unicorns, but not a skinny cow with a neck like a snake.

Magic Knowledge
Mages and priests get taught how to work magic. There are theories why it works, (most of which I haven't bothered to explain) and players can choose (or make up) whichever explanation sounds the most credible.

All spellcasting PCs/NPCs (and some non-spellcasting ones) have KS: Magic. This might give them some understanding of what a spellcaster is doing (or can do) based on observation. "Well, it sounds like he's asking animal spirits to give him the strength of a bear."

I don't have any big magical mysteries in my campaign like sbarron or Eosin. I do have something similar....

Chaos
Chaos is seen as the ultimate evil in my world (based on the Warhammer fantasy setting). It's also greatly unknown. The PCs have already discovered that their knowledge of Chaos is incorrect. It's also a lot less than the knowledge they need for the circumstances they've found themselves in.

Culture & Morality
My campaign setting is similar to the early Rennaisance, so there are distinct inequalities. (It's okay for men to commit adultery, but not for women.) So far I haven't had too much trouble with PCs applying modern morality to the campaign.

I don't think you're being completely accurate, though. There would be those people that grew chafe under the yoke of prejudism and slavery. Otherwise, you wouldn't have evidence of revolts and efforts to make the status quo different...
That's not a discrepancy. Slave owners support the institution of slavery, but they're going to take strong exception with being slaves themselves.

Another problem as a player is seeing the GM's vision clearly. I have difficulty relating to someone who sees those things as okay. I consider myself an equitable RPer. But, without some relational knowledge, I don't know how to RP that disinclination towards injustices of the world.
First you have to ignore the notion that all sentient people are equal. If you're a dwarf, other dwarves are your equals. Elves and humans are inferior to dwarves, but you can do business with them ... if you can tolerate their company for that long. Goblins and orcs are animals, and they can be killed or enslaved just like livestock.

"Make sure you find and kill all the young ones, Snorggi. They grow up fast and breed like rabbits."

Does killing baby goblins seem heartless or unheroic? To a dwarf it seems absolutely necessary. Goblins have a reproductive rate that drastically exceeds dwarven capabilities. Furthermore, dwarves are already losing to the goblins and orcs. Mercy is a luxury they can't afford. Dwarves solve the moral dilemma by stating that orcs and goblins are dangerous vermin, not people.

In our society children don't have the same rights as adults (especially regarding wealth and property ownership). They're considered incapable of making those decisions for themselves until they reach a certain age. More benevolent slave owners might see their slaves in the same manner ... children who are incapable of surviving without their intervention.

Institutions of slavery can vary greatly from culture to culture. In old testament Israel it was common for people to sell themselves into slavery (usually to pay off debts). The slavery was for a limited period of time (up to 7 years). Slaves still had a number of rights under the law. While they may not have enjoyed being slaves, they generally accepted their circumstances.

In other cultures, prisoners of war became slaves. In some of these societies, the period was for a limited duration. In many of these societies, children of slaves were automatically adopted as full (and free) members of the society. In small, tribal societies, this practice was necessary to avoid inbreeding.

For non-modern morality, any member of another tribe (or culture) may be viewed as subhuman (or even as an animal).

[Chris Goodwin]

You're right, Keith. I know that I'm part of the problem in SE, too. I don't think you're being completely accurate, though. There would be those people that grew chafe under the yoke of prejudism and slavery. Otherwise, you wouldn't have evidence of revolts and efforts to make the status quo different...


You can't really say anything is "completely accurate" about a fantasy world. You can say that it doesn't match era XYZ, but what if the world's creator isn't going for an XYZ feel?

[Foxx!]

Players should be able to separate their culture and morality from the campaign's

PCs always seem to feel like modern people thrown into a quasi medieval world. They are against slavery, class distinction and privelege, unjust laws, and rarely have a truly pious fear and respect for their deities unless they're of the bolt-hurling stick-their-nose-in-your-business type.

If you are playing in an Ancient Rome analog, slavery and brutality are normal ways of life. You might try to personaly avoid being crucified on the Via Flaminia, but you're not going to start a revolt over it. It won't even occur to you.

If you are playing in a medieval England analog, you're going to realize that nobles have one justice and you've got another. Yeah, it's not equal, but people aren't equal. Life isn't fair.

I've tried to run a barbaric morality in my Savage Earth campaign, but the players constantly see injustice and wrong-headed social values where the NPCs see "the way things are".

Keith "I'd be more eloquent, but Im developing a splitting headache" Curtis
EXACTLY!

[PhilFleischmann]

There's no reason a mage would know that magic is weaker at sea unless he's actually done extensive spellcasting at sea or was taught magic by a master who had.

This is exactly the kind of knowledge I wouldn't give to my players, unless there was something specific in their background (or background skills) that allowed them to know it.

And magic need not alter the world in the radical ways that people have mentioned, in effect becoming a substitute for modern technology. Just don't allow that kind of magic to exist. The only reason certain fantasy games have spells for rapid long distance transportation, communication, etc., is because those games are written/run by poeple who live in the modern world where such abilities do exist. I don't see why someone living in a medieval-style world would think of those things. A fantasy mage in a quasi-historical setting isn't going to think of a spell that is the equivalent of a fast-food restaurant, instead he'll think of a spell to make it less likely for crops to fail.

What magical effects are actually used by magic-wielders in fantasy literature, mythology, fary tales? Other than the books based on RPG settings, I don't know of any wizards that are portrayed as walking artillery platforms, or magical charter jet pilots, or internet/telephone operators, or alchemical ATMs. The existance of magic in Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc., did not radically change society from its quasi-medieval basis, and it doesn't need to in your games either.

(Of course, in can if you *want* it to.)

[Chris Goodwin]

Part of my whole point was, if that kind of magic existed in a setting (and let's face it, the majority of fantasy RPG magic is), it should have those consequences, and I'd like to see more of the kind of fantasy gaming that explores those consequences (which is, after all, the point of the thread -- what would you like to see more of in fantasy gaming?). The other part of my point is that I'm tired of seeing that kind of thing dismissed because it's "not realistic" or doesn't match the nasty, brutish, shortness of the real world Middle Ages.

[JMcL63]

The Hero System really isn't designed for the sort of plot driven magic that you're describing. It's designed more for the magic as technology type, where you know everything you can do down to the centimeter, gram, and milliliter. You know exactly how hard your blast hits, how far it will go, how likely it is to activate. Granted, much written fantasy more closely matches your vision than it does the Hero System.Well, this is certainly what the spell design rules enable. But the Fantasy HERO magic chapter begins with how to design magic systems, not spells. So if you want sorcery, then you design your system in a certain way; if you want divine magic, you design a different system. The different spells in each system will reflect the different interests and objectives of the different kinds of spellcaster, and will put them in a different relationship with their society.

For example, a classic differentia specifica of sorcery and divine magic is that sorcery draws on some external source (eg. the winds of magic) that typically fluctuates beyond the sorcerors' control, and the exercise and mastery of the spells is essentially a private matter; while divine magic- due to its ritual nature- summons up a source the variance of which is open to a measure of control by the priesthood based on their own and their congregation's piety and so on, and the exercise and mastery of which- again because of its ritual nature- is to some extent a public matter. So classic divine magic will typically have to feature spells that serve the interests of the community in a way which sorcery simply need not do.

So, even without going into any detail about any magic system, let alone spells, I think you can see that the treatment of magic in Fantasy HERO has moved magic beyond simple superpowers by any other name in a simple list of spells, to designing magic systems that reflect the social structure and cultural background of your setting. This is something that you can dramatise in a way that you can't really do with bland spell lists because the actual practice of being a spellcaster has a social context which builds-in plothooks the way that, eg. disadvantages do. And the very same approach, coupled with the points-based build system plus the background skills system, give magical research a games-mechanical logic that allows you to introduce obstacles which can only be overcome by the development of new spells/enchanted items, which can be a major plot in itself.

This sort of thing obviously requires some preparatory work on the part of the GM, but everything you need to deal with is laid out in the chapter on magic in Fantasy HERO, so it shouldn't be that difficult IMO. ;)

[Eosin]

Part of my whole point was, if that kind of magic existed in a setting (and let's face it, the majority of fantasy RPG magic is), it should have those consequences, and I'd like to see more of the kind of fantasy gaming that explores those consequences (which is, after all, the point of the thread -- what would you like to see more of in fantasy gaming?).

On that I can agree - plus it is what you want to see :) I think Eberon and FR both work with your premise to some degree. Maybe not done to the length that you desire but they do "condier the impact of magic on the world."

The other part of my point is that I'm tired of seeing that kind of thing dismissed because it's "not realistic" or doesn't match the nasty, brutish, shortness of the real world Middle Ages

I also agree that dismissal is a poor answer but I disagree that such is the case in all RPG worlds. I would go into more length about how I have "logically" incorporated magic into the world but I am tired.


"logically" being subjective.

PS - Mages in my game world have END Batteries with the -1/2 Limit - REC rate adjusted on the Time Chart by DM based on location. Precise limitation but vague results (except to me).

[Houston GM]

Other than the books based on RPG settings, I don't know of any wizards that are portrayed as walking artillery platforms, or magical charter jet pilots, or internet/telephone operators, or alchemical ATMs.
In Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, magic wielders act precisely like artillery in battle. However, this is restricted to the ones who are sufficiently powerful, and who are not prevented by some form of Oath. In addition, Jordan's magic wielders do start shuttling (important) people around as soon as they relearn the secrets of magical travel.

Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" clearly specified that the palantirs were orignally intended to function as a communications network between the great cities.


The only reason certain fantasy games have spells for rapid long distance transportation, communication, etc., is because those games are written/run by poeple who live in the modern world where such abilities do exist. I don't see why someone living in a medieval-style world would think of those things.
Communication and travel are concepts that have been around since the beginning of civilization. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that it's more convenient to talk to someone directly than to write a message and send a courier who will take 2 weeks to reach his destination.

Similarly, it's not too difficult to imagine that magic might be able to find a faster and more comfortable solution to travel than getting footsore, saddlesore, or seasick.


The existance of magic in Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc., did not radically change society from its quasi-medieval basis,
How many wizards are there in Tolkien? Sauron, Sauraman the White, Gandalf the Grey, Radagast the Brown, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, several other elves, maybe Tom Bombadil, maybe several of Sauron's minions. And how much magic do they actually use on a daily basis? Gandalf wields a sword and regularly travels by horse.

The elves have the highest concentration of wizards, and there are hints that magic has influenced their society. (And their insular nature has prevented this influence from spilling over into any other societies.)


In order to keep magic from influencing society, you have to build your world so magic wouldn't have an impact on everyday life. Either there are too few wizards, or they have too little power, or magic generally takes more effort than creating the same effect non-magically.


There's no reason a mage would know that magic is weaker at sea unless he's actually done extensive spellcasting at sea or was taught magic by a master who had.
That seems like a rather harsh interpretation. Assuming sea travel is even moderately common, all it takes is for the wizard to cast one spell while one a ship. Unless he's oblivious, he's going to notice that it's weaker, shorter duration, etc. He immediately experiments with a few other spells and gets similar results. As soon as he gets to shore, he notices that his spells have returned to full strength. By the time he takes a second sea voyage (and notices the decrease in power), he's going to have an easy time making a connection.

And if wizards regularly communicate with each other, word is going to get around.

[bblackmoor]

That seems like a rather harsh interpretation. Assuming sea travel is even moderately common, all it takes is for the wizard to cast one spell while one a ship. ... And if wizards regularly communicate with each other, word is going to get around.

This kind of goes back to what I was saying about player knowledge vs. character knowledge. Some GMs are so ... I am trying to think of a neutral word for it... Ah! Some GMs are so concerned about players using "OOC knowledge" that they swing the pendulum too far in the other direction, depriving both the player and the character of information that, in all likelihood, the character probably takes for granted.

I'll give you an example. I was in a PBEM game recently, in which I was playing a wizard (the only one in the group). A supernatural creature appeared to the group of PCs and warned them of a demon lord who was looking for the Portal of Smackety-smack (or some such name). I figured it was a safe assumption that the aforementioned portal was a magical doorway of some kind, since one is not normally warned by supernatural creatures about demon lords opening ordinary doors. So my character said something about wondering where the magical doorway led to, and why a demon lord would want to go there.

The GM said I was using OOC knowledge and that there was no way my character could guess that. Personally, I think that GM was so concerned about "OOC knowledge" that she was crippling the ability of the characters to exercise ordinary levels of intelligence, much less that belonging to a wizard of exceptional cleverness, such as my character.

It bugged me enough to leave the game. I have a very low tolerance for that sort of thing.

Granted, this is an extreme example (and I've fudged some of the details to make it simpler -- my character was a "wu jen", for example, not a wizard), but the principle still holds: the characters have lived in this world their whole lives. There's simply no way to convey that much information to the player. Giving them the benefit of some technicial details that the character may not have access to goes a small distance toward balancing that disparity.

[badger3k]

I don't agree. While it's true that each PC will know exactly what his magic can or can't do (assuming a MP or spell-by-spell list is created), that doesn't mean that he understands all magic to this degree, or that the magic system in general is this precise and controlled.

So far Hero has yet to publish a magic system that isn't really precise and science like, but I don't think that means it can't. They just haven't done it yet.

I agree here - most of the mystery to my mind comes from the DM and the setup of the system (not the game mechanics). Hero hasn't published one, but it can be done.

One easy way could be to make up a VPP, but use spell lists. The key is - don't give the players the list. They can say "I'm casting Argavar's Armor of Force", then you can tell them how much of their pool is used, but you control the effects. They might be able to figure out the defense, or offense if you let them roll for such, but they won't know any modifiers, limitations, etc. Give them three different versions of fireball to learn - they can start out small and work up to larger. They won't know that it has half-effect in rain, or that their armor spell doesn't work against arrows (until it happens...). Another idea is enhanced powers - example, the armor spell also gives Flash defense, or be hardened twice, but since these might not come up that often, the characters wouldn't be aware of that (sort of like good side effects). The player would assume the power is greater than it is because of the active cost, but you know what happens when you assume.

I use the same sort of system for magic items (and in HD, no less). The players get one version, which tells them what they know. I have the real version on my copies, so I know the full story.

Another way is to give spells limitations that are unknown to the player (give each one a blank -1/2 perhaps). The DM can keep track of what it is, and the player would need to find out through experimentation.

Magic that is taught will generally have more known about the spells (at least in what can and cannot be done). Magic that is more instinctive or less structured will be less known. Naturally, newer magic or spells (or magic that is rediscovered) will have more unknowns to it.

Just a few thoughts.

[keithcurtis]

One thing I've used to limit player mechanics knowledge works very well for PBEM games. I run all the mechanics locally and just post the reults in natural language. Thus instead of saying, "you are hit by four to the abdomen, taking 4 body and 16 stun, 2 body of which is deflected by your armor," I say, "The brigand swings his rusty scimitar at you. The tip grazes your midsection, leaving a thin red line. The pain is minimal, but enough to make you really angry."
The players are left with the natural uncertainty of real folks in combat who don't have a health-o-meter strapped to their wrist flashing their vital statistics.

I just wish there was a way to use miniatures at the table in a way that doesn't give the players a tactical god's eye view of the battle.

Keith "florid prose" Curtis

[bblackmoor]

The players are left with the natural uncertainty of real folks in combat who don't have a health-o-meter strapped to their wrist flashing their vital statistics.

The characters have a wealth of information about their physical condition that a player simply can't know. Giving the players numbers to go by doesn't even come close to balancing this, but it helps. Giving the players even less information than the game system provides? That's a really, really bad idea. You may as well just blindfold them and tell them "warmer" and "colder".

Come to think of it, from your comment about miniatures, it seems you actually would prefer they be blindfolded (virtually speaking).

Why on earth would you want to cripple the players in this way? I really just don't get people, sometimes.

[Captain Obvious]

It depends on how much description is given. If all you ever say is "It hurts a little" or "It hurts a lot", the players know way less than the characters would, and therefore make their combat decisions in a near vacuum. If, on the other hand, you let them know about the warmth spreading down their thigh and the heaviness of their limbs and the dizziness and the tunnel vision, then they have a really good idea that they're not doing so hot. This has a much more visceral impact than saying, "Okay, now you're down to -3 BODY and 5 STUN." It might even encourage a borderline munchkin to step away from the mechanics a little more, too. It's easy to play the odds when it's a numbers game. It's not so easy (even if you happen to know the numbers) when the combat description is so detailed you can smell the blood.

[bblackmoor]

Sean: Dr. Vivisector's scalpel beam slices through Torsion Lad's midsection, cuting neatly through meat and bone! He feels warmth spreading down his thigh and a heaviness in his limbs, and he starts to feel a little dizzy.

Chris: And?

Sean: That's it. I am trying something new. I am just going to use description. So what does Torsion Boy do?

Chris: Oooookay... I focus my will and struggle to my feet. Staring at Dr. Vivisector, I let fly my rage! The forces of interia and torque rip at Dr. Vivisector!

Sean: And?

Chris: That's it.

Sean: The description is great, keep it up, but this isn't story-time: we're playing a game here. The whole point of using game mechanics is so that we, the players, can make intelligent decisions on behalf of the characters, and not have misunderstandings. I need to know the actual game effects, or we may as well just be taking turns writing bad fan-fic.

Chris: And?

(pause)

Sean: Oh, I get it. Good point. Okay, Dr. V's scalpel beam did... 17 Body and 50 Stun, Killing.

Chris: HOLY CRAP! Torsion's force field is still down: he's only got five points of resistant PD right now. His freaking internal organs are hanging out, man, why didn't you freaking say something?

Sean: I don't know what I was thinking: that was a stupid idea. So what does Torsion Boy do now?

Chris: What do you think he does? He holds his guts in with both hands and runs away until this damned Force Field drain wears off. Medic! Medic!

[Korvar]

I disagree. You don't need to know the game effects - your character doesn't know the game effects, right? You need to know there are game effects, but not necessarily what they are, in detail, in numbers.

I can't believe you can't roleplay given "He feels warmth spreading down his thigh and a heaviness in his limbs, and he starts to feel a little dizzy.", but need "17 Body and 50 Stun, Killing" before you can.

Plus your straw-man GM conveniently is unable to take "Staring at Dr. Vivisector, I let fly my rage! The forces of interia and torque rip at Dr. Vivisector!" and work out what your combat action is from there. Any descripty GM worth their salt would be able to do that easily enough.

Plus your straw-man GM is conveniently unable to convey the extent of Torsion Boy's predicament without recourse to numbers, which I find unlikely.

[keithcurtis]

bblackmoor,

You're defintiely within your rights wanting to play the game in whatever way makes you happy.

It works for us.

Keith "thick skinned" Curtis

[keithcurtis]

In a real fight there is chaos confusion and very little useful information. You don't have a HUD, and often opportunities are missed, the wrong (or even friendly ) people are hit, and people don't have time to assess their own injuries.

Obviously there is a difference between a minor wound and a life-threatening one. In the descriptive method of combat, I take great pains to convey useful information. "A thin red line" across the midesection "that makes you angry" is obviously a minor wound. If I were to tell a character that "the enemy swordsman plunges his rapier deep into your side. You feel something burst and feel the sickening sensation of blade against living bone as he withdraws, the blade releasing a surprising amount of blood. Your vision becomes hazy and there is a roaring in your ears through which you can barely hear his mocking laughter." would let you know you're in deep trouble.
Or I could say, "Critical hit! 12 Body and 36 Stun. That leaves you with 15 Stun, 0 Body and you are Stunned."
Some folks like the former, some like the latter. Running a PBEM game with 8 PC combatants and a similar number of NPC fighters pretty much necessitates me running all the combat locally, a few phases at a time. I then write up the results as a narrative and ask for more input and actions from the players. I have gotten no complaints (and many compliments) on this approach.

After combat is over, if anyone asks, I am glad to tell them their current condition. The healer is the only one who ever asks.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

[BlackSword]

I just wish there was a way to use miniatures at the table in a way that doesn't give the players a tactical god's eye view of the battle.

I agree to this. We play on a hex map, so there is often the, how much do I have to move to get to the next range increment. I can understand the people who say, "Well your character has been shooting (EB, gun, etc) for a long time so knows at what range they can hit better." However, it also makes the game turn into board game when you are plotting every move in such minute detail, just play chess. I did like the old WH 40K systems, where you declared what you are doing, then measured. If you came out short, the squad wasted its fire. And lord help you if were an inch too far away to make a full charge as you stare down the barrels of the opposing squad.

[bblackmoor]

In the descriptive method of combat, I take great pains to convey useful information. ... Or I could say, "Critical hit! 12 Body and 36 Stun..."

You say that as though it is an either-or proposition: it isn't (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/falsedilemma.htm).

Incidentally, I have the exact same objection to players who take the point of view opposite to yours: that saying "12 Body and 36 Stun" is a sufficient description of combat. This isn't "story-time", but it isn't "adventures in arithmetic", either. It's a role-playing game, which is something greater than both.

I just realized we've gotten pretty far afield of the nominal topic, though. I don't have anything else to add on this particular tangent, but if I'd realized the divergence sooner I'd have stopped sooner. Sorry about that. :stupid:

[JMcL63]

You say that as though it is an either-or proposition: it isn't (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/falsedilemma.htm).

Incidentally, I have the exact same objection to players who take the point of view opposite to yours: that saying "12 Body and 36 Stun" is a sufficient description of combat. This isn't "story-time", but it isn't "adventures in arithmetic", either. It's a role-playing game, which is something greater than both.Well I reckon you can't dramatise every moment in rpg combat. It would be too time-consuming, and would lend too much airtime to higher SPD characters, something that is open to abuse by egoistic players. So the raw numbers are sometimes all that is needed to keep the game moving on. You could think of the more detailed descriptions as 'establishing shots' so that when you just use the numbers, that represents the combatants settling down to get on with it. This has the added bonus that special moves or extreme results actually are dramatic when they happen, because their dramatisation breaks up the routine of combat. ;)

[sbarron]

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc

This has been a frequent "problem" in both games that I have run and been a player in, and it has always bothered me. Admittedly, this is largely on the GM for not setting the tone properly. I think a lot of the behavior I don't like from players concerning this stems from years of not having to take the in-game social heirarchy seriously, so it's not entirely their fault.

I'd like to see PCs do things like not make eye contact king, and at least go to one knee (if not prostrate themselves) in his presence, if they ever see him at all. I'd like for them to treat him like the powerful figure that he is. I'd like them to fear angering him, cheerish opportunities to make him happy, and generally treat him the way kings get treated in fantasy literature. I'd also like them to have to do similar things with Dukes, Barons, Lords, Chancellors, Regents, or whoever is in a station above that of the PCs.

I'm am completely willing to admit that this falls on the GM to enforce, and it probably wouldn't take to much forethought to make it happen. I just have had lots of experiences where it didn't, and I think it would have been way cooler if everyone would have acted a bit more like I think they should, which is to say like in the novels. I can only think of a few gamers I've ever played with that would have considered going down on their knees because the royal carriage was going by. And I'm pretty sure the ramifications for not doing so could be horrific. But if the GM doesn't make bad things happen, then the players have nothing to fear.

Does anyone know of any RPG books that cover things like this? Explain something like how a particular king likes to be addressed, or how his "subjects" are expected to act in his presence? I'm sure I could come up with some stuff if I bothered, but I have more money than time these days...:)

[keithcurtis]

This is very similar to my earlier point about not being able to separate modern attitudes from those of a fantasy culture. I have found some tricks to help in this particular case, though.

If you have someone the PCs already respect (a mentor or patron) act appropriately, they tend to automatically transfer that respect to the ruler. Setting the scene is also helpful. If the PCs are to be brought into the presence of the king, having a court official instruct them in the proper etiquette just before entering can give them that bit of push they need to feel comfortable with the terms of address and proper obeisances for the situation. It's also helpful if they need the King's help, rather than the other way around.

Keith "Yes, of course, your Majesty" Curtis

[keithcurtis]

You say that as though it is an either-or proposition: it isn't (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/falsedilemma.htm).

I'm sorry you took that as an either-or proposition. I was using two extremes to represent the ends of the spectrum of choices. Naturally since we are playing a game, there must be a balance.

Keith "sorry to others for the diversion" Curtis

[JMcL63]

Originally Posted by keithcurtis
In the descriptive method of combat, I take great pains to convey useful information. ... Or I could say, "Critical hit! 12 Body and 36 Stun..."

You say that as though it is an either-or proposition: it isn't (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/falsedilemma.htm).

Incidentally, I have the exact same objection to players who take the point of view opposite to yours: that saying "12 Body and 36 Stun" is a sufficient description of combat. This isn't "story-time", but it isn't "adventures in arithmetic", either. It's a role-playing game, which is something greater than both.

I just realized we've gotten pretty far afield of the nominal topic, though. I don't have anything else to add on this particular tangent, but if I'd realized the divergence sooner I'd have stopped sooner. Sorry about that. :stupid:
Magic-using characters will always have to have some kind of knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the magic system and of the forces it manipulates. This is not the same thing as what the general public might know about magic, its existence perhaps as well as much as how it works. This is pretty basic, because magic-use in HERO is typically delivered through skill use, which brings in KS and SCI as complementary skills. But of course, that knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be correct...! ;)

[Captain Obvious]

Chris:[/I] HOLY CRAP! Torsion's force field is still down: he's only got five points of resistant PD right now. His freaking internal organs are hanging out, man, why didn't you freaking say something?




If his internal organs are hanging out, or nearly so, the GM should include it in his description. If you're going to do away with overt game mechanics in combat, it is necessary that details like disembowelment not be overlooked. On the other hand, it is more likely in some cases that a character would fight on even though he's been seriously injured, given that he doesn't have a little counter telling him that one more hit will kill him.

The character shouldn't ever be in a position where his guts are hanging out unbeknownst to him, but at the same time, it is not necessary that he have a quantifiable level of injury.

EDIT: Catching up with the rest of the thread, yeah, I agree that this has turned into a minor derail. And as has been pointed out, this isn't really an either-or situation, although I would definitely tend toward the hidden mechanics side of things if it came to that.

[bblackmoor]

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc.

Something I have found useful to convey this is to give the PCs an example of the individual's behavior in action prior to the PCs having anything to do with them. For example, a servant who does well might be rewarded, a disrepectful ambassador might get tossed into prison, or a minor thief might get their arms and legs cut off. That kind of thing. It sets the tone for what the PCs can expect from the NPC, and how they ought to adjust their behavior to compensate.

It doesn't always work. PCs can be amazingly dense.

[Foxx!]

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc

This has been a frequent "problem" in both games that I have run and been a player in, and it has always bothered me. Admittedly, this is largely on the GM for not setting the tone properly. I think a lot of the behavior I don't like from players concerning this stems from years of not having to take the in-game social heirarchy seriously, so it's not entirely their fault.

I'd like to see PCs do things like not make eye contact king, and at least go to one knee (if not prostrate themselves) in his presence, if they ever see him at all. I'd like for them to treat him like the powerful figure that he is. I'd like them to fear angering him, cheerish opportunities to make him happy, and generally treat him the way kings get treated in fantasy literature. I'd also like them to have to do similar things with Dukes, Barons, Lords, Chancellors, Regents, or whoever is in a station above that of the PCs.

I'm am completely willing to admit that this falls on the GM to enforce, and it probably wouldn't take to much forethought to make it happen. I just have had lots of experiences where it didn't, and I think it would have been way cooler if everyone would have acted a bit more like I think they should, which is to say like in the novels. I can only think of a few gamers I've ever played with that would have considered going down on their knees because the royal carriage was going by. And I'm pretty sure the ramifications for not doing so could be horrific. But if the GM doesn't make bad things happen, then the players have nothing to fear.

Does anyone know of any RPG books that cover things like this? Explain something like how a particular king likes to be addressed, or how his "subjects" are expected to act in his presence? I'm sure I could come up with some stuff if I bothered, but I have more money than time these days...:)
The BBB had a small section in the back about dealing with superheroes who don't respect the law. I think you can modify that to a Fantasy world. However, be careful not to force a genre. Some players just won't care.

One way to deal with this is give nobles high PRE with extra PRE for being in THEIR court surrounded by THEIR subjects. When you are told to bow, you bow.

Another method is just to say that the players go down on one knee, and see if anyone refuses.

You can use punishment for bad manners, but rewarding good manners is also effective. Players who show proper respect can gain a Favour/Contact perk, a free stay at the castle, or even a gift.

Cheers!

[Lightray]

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system
I think this is a problem endemic with the trope of fantasy magic, as alluded to by many in this thread. The solution I've tried is to use more "realistic" magic systems.

By which I do *not* mean following scientific logic, nor mimicking physical laws.

I mean "realistic" in the sense that magic functions similarly to what people in historical eras apparently thought it did. Alchemists and their ilk were not interested in providing better communication, transportation, or health care. They were in it for personal advancement/enlightenment. Immortality, usually.

In fact, when alchemists had to seek patronage from nobles to fund their work, they considered turning their art toward making wealth to be a debasement of it. Spiritually dangerous as it were.

So if my fantasy world's metaphysics adhere to this principle, mass production of magic and everyday applications are not going to happen. If spiritual enlightenment in some form is required for your magic, by prostituting your magic you may actually remove your ability to use it at all (e.g., the planetary spirits no longer heed your commands after you again summon them up to turn base metals into gold).

"Go ahead, Rabbi Yosef, make an army of your golems of clay... if you think you won't be struck down for your hubris..."

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc
Now, see, this is when I start cheating. When we were playing L5R, my players weren't up on their Rokugani etiquette. So instead of saying "The Crane daimyo offers you a gift, what do you do?" I'd tell them "The Crane daimyo offers you a gift -- will you refuse it twice as is customary, or immediately accept it in order to shame him?"

All of the information on the world is being filtered through what you tell the players. If you tell them that their clan enslaves thralls, they might have that visceral 20th c reaction to slavery. If you tell them that their clan only enslaves the foul Orlevings who murdered their grandmothers, they'll take a different view.

Likewise with the law and the nobility. I don't just tell them that the law shows up -- I tell them they are relieved at the arrival of the Emerald Magistrates, because they will deal with the smelly ronin without the PCs having to soil their weapons and spend days purifing themselves in the nearest shrine.

If the PCs still charge in bull-headedly, well, then the campaign will be taking an unexpected turn from "honored samurai" to "hunted ronin dogs on the run".

[keithcurtis]

However, be careful not to force a genre. Some players just won't care.

--and that's a pity. I fail to understand why someone would play a genre-based rpg and not play within the genre. If I were going to run a Western, I wouldn't want someone trying to play an alien with a laser pistol.

Unless it was That Sort Of Game.

Keith "maybe I'm spoiled with my group of players" Curtis

[bblackmoor]

I don't just tell them that the law shows up -- I tell them they are relieved at the arrival of the Emerald Magistrates, because they will deal with the smelly ronin without the PCs having to soil their weapons and spend days purifing themselves in the nearest shrine.

That is an interesting technique. I am not sure I would be comfortable imposing so much onto other people's characters (it's probably over the line of what my game group would find acceptable), but it's an interesting way to convey setting information.

[bblackmoor]

I fail to understand why someone would play a genre-based rpg and not play within the genre.

Gaming is a social activity: people play games because their friends want to play. If they don't play within the expectations of the genre, it may not be intentional. Maybe they don't "get" the genre. Of the two most flamboyant failures I have had as a player (not GMing the game), one was while playing Paranoia and the other was while playing Morrow Project. In both cases I was trying to play along with the genre, but just didn't quite get the premise, so it went downhill fast.

I think I could give Morrow Project a shot again, someday; I think I get it a little better now than I did then. But I have no intention of ever trying Paranoia again. Maybe I "get" it, or maybe I don't, but I think that's a stupid, pointless game, and I didn't have any fun playing it whatsoever.

[Vondy]

I like either or prepositions...

[Lightray]

That is an interesting technique. I am not sure I would be comfortable imposing so much onto other people's characters (it's probably over the line of what my game group would find acceptable), but it's an interesting way to convey setting information.
The idea isn't to mandate what the PC does, but to supply the cultural information the character knows but the player does not. As the GM, I'm responsible for providing all the information the character has available -- both sensory details ("the Emerald Magistrates arrive") and cultural details ("you are samurai and respect The Emperor's Law").

For a game like L5R, it's merely a shorter method of conveying that information -- otherwise I'd have to digress on a 10-min. lecture everytime something new shows up. So it's either:

"You are confronted by an Ise Zumi, a Tattooed Man. His name is Togashi Saetsu. Ise Zumi are samurai monks of the Togashi family, who seek enlightenment through mystical tattooes they gain that give them unusual abilities. They are known for being enigmatic and strange, ... blahblahblahtattoocakes"

OR

"You are confronted by Togashi Saetsu, whose head is shaved like he is a monk, but who is carrying the katana of a Dragon Clan samurai... He is probably about to use one of his magical tattooes -- like the fiery dragon on his chest -- to do something weird, or may be about to speak a clever riddle or koan."

By giving them an idea of what their character would guess of the intent of people in their culture, they have more information to take action on -- and they've received it in character. And I'm a boring lecturer, anyway.

[Sword-dancer]

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc
:)

The possible solution for this Problem is
give this respect to PCs who are from this class.
Not a thing like that the regent disrupts the speech of a Baron in the Council of Nobility where every fiefholder has the right to speak, not even the empereor has the right to do it.
Don`t go over the rights, privileges and status of Nobility and upper class if the Noble gives a Oath of Character this means you must overcome his othworth.

Another
This has been a frequent "problem" in both games that I have run and been a player in, and it has always bothered me. Admittedly, this is largely on the GM for not setting the tone properly. I think a lot of the behavior I don't like from players concerning this stems from years of not having to take the in-game social heirarchy seriously, so it's not entirely their fault.

I'd like to see PCs do things like not make eye contact king, and at least go to one knee (if not prostrate themselves) in his presence, if they ever see him at all.
That depends definitely on the rules between Ruler and the PC.
1 My Amazon Priestess would bow to nearly No Man and definetely to No worldly Ruler, going to one knee is definetly out of question.
OTOH their worldly ruler of the Kingdom is their Queen who is considered a living Saint.
Next Point the last Empereor of the Empire is in her Eyes Nothing More than heretic Blasphemic Deathsinner, who had not only have the hybris to declare himself a god, order a Demon conjured, punish the mage for Not Controlling him which followed in an Ogre Invasion, one half of the Amazons of her Home castle died by fighting them off, hewas as unfit to rule as The next donkey.
He tried to take the fief of one of his loyalst and powerfulst dukes, btw the dukes vasalls had fought tooth and Nail at the dukes word, for one of his compadres.
He gives the margrave post of one his greatest Cities and the fief to a man for a good song.
Her Position to him is the following, backed up by church and mage law death.
-His son was a wellmeaning honorable man, not a welldoing ruler.
His wife is now regent.
Followed by, first she broke the laws of one of the imperial own fiefs, only a man could become King of this realm, woman would be Grandearls, she led her daughter accepts the law of the Land then crown them in an imperial fortress as Queen, the nobles naturally didn`t object to much under the pressureof imperial arms.
But now this fiefdom, the only imperial fiefdom which hadstood loyl to herm an and her during the ursuoation is naturally in unrest.
Folowed by for the war against the dark invaders she rasied and orederd nw taxes.
Nice thing, only nothing of these are legal, she has no right to do this, only the Council of the realm.
Her Grandmarschall first orders all fugitives of the lands taken by dark invaders should be refused, then burns regularly troops who get of his own stupid orders into trouble.

to get it short If the Person of the ruler deserves No respect, his crown will bring him none.

[Markdoc]

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law, nobility, upper class, etc

The answer, as you note, is simple: the GM must enforce such respect. I make it plain to the players when their characters should know they are going over the line (and I tend to surround powerful social figures with the appropriate hierachy anyway, so the players reaction to the emperor is moot - they get to meet with one of his minor official's secretaries instead). I don't do this to be mean - failure to enforce some sort of social structure leads to a very "PCs in video-game-land" feeling where actions don't have consequences.

I'd hate to bully the characters, but if they cannot or will not restrain themselves, they will eventually suffer the consequences. In one game I ran, set in medieval Japan, two players simply could not cope with the idea of a rigid social structure, that placed high social value on things like not starting fights in bars just for fun. Inflicting penalties on the characters simply made the players mad: the only solution I could find so as to preserve the game for the other 4 players was to talk it over out of game with the two offenders - they chose to leave the game, rather than conform.

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

I'd hate to bully the characters, but if they cannot or will not restrain themselves, they will eventually suffer the consequences. In one game I ran, set in medieval Japan, two players simply could not cope with the idea of a rigid social structure, that placed high social value on things like not starting fights in bars just for fun. Inflicting penalties on the characters simply made the players mad: the only solution I could find so as to preserve the game for the other 4 players was to talk it over out of game with the two offenders - they chose to leave the game, rather than conform.


Was that the game here, or elsewhere?

[Markdoc]

Was that the game here, or elsewhere?

that was here in Copenhagen. All you guys in Washington were more into the whole anime/chambara thing, so you naturally adapted your style of play appropriately. Interestingly, the player who had the hardest time adapting - although a good GM (I played in his recently finished RQ game for two years) - doesn't really like anime or chambara movies, so in hindsight, maybe I should have expected it.

But with you guys I only got partway through 11 of 20 adventures, so I still had half the story arc I wanted to run! Pity - I would have liked to see Nishi versus the Wu (actually I would have just liked to see your face when you realised it was a Wu! :)) or Yabu strutting his stuff at the big martial arts tournament...

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

But with you guys I only got partway through 11 of 20 adventures, so I still had half the story arc I wanted to run! Pity - I would have liked to see Nishi versus the Wu (actually I would have just liked to see your face when you realised it was a Wu! :)) or Yabu strutting his stuff at the big martial arts tournament...


Argh... I forgot... what's a Wu? Sorcerer?

Oh, and did you see that Nishi made it into NINJA HERO?

[Outsider]

In reference to Sword-Dancer's amazon :

Yes, there are characters who, perfectly within character, will not respect the social heirarchy. Unfortunately for such characters, it is also perfectly within character for the noble to whom they are discourteous to respond by doing some pretty bad things back. A 'peasant' class person who doesnt show proper respect might be killed out of hand. A free citizen might be severely whipped or imprisoned. Another noble within the same feudal system might get in trouble with his leige lord, and be challenged to a duel. (And in my game's dueling code, the higher ranking party can always choose to be represented by a champion) A foreign noble failing to follow the proper forms might sour relations between their kingdom and the one they have offended a noble of, or even spark a war, if the insult is grave enough. If the other 'noble' is not from a recognized and respected country, they might not even get treated as a noble at all. Uncouth barbarians!

If a player makes such a character, how does the GM handle it, is the question. I'd say that you impress on the player that it is a serious character disadvantage, and give them disad points appropriately. Let them know that the only time they will ever be able to meet with a nobleman is if the noble is 'incognito' or if he really, really, really needs their help with something. Any other time and their lack obeisance to the social/governmental order will likely get them beaten, whipped, or imprisoned, and resistance to those results will get them killed or outlawed. (outlawry = a nice fat hunted, gained in play, so no character points added to their sheet) If they still want to make the character with that disad, its on their head.

[keithcurtis]

In reference to Sword-Dancer's amazon :

A 'peasant' class person who doesnt show proper respect might be killed out of hand. A free citizen might be severely whipped or imprisoned. Another noble within the same feudal system might get in trouble with his leige lord, and be challenged to a duel. (And in my game's dueling code, the higher ranking party can always choose to be represented by a champion) A foreign noble failing to follow the proper forms might sour relations between their kingdom and the one they have offended a noble of, or even spark a war, if the insult is grave enough. ...
If a player makes such a character, how does the GM handle it, is the question. I'd say that you impress on the player that it is a serious character disadvantage, and give them disad points appropriately.
...
Any other time and their lack obeisance to the social/governmental order will likely get them beaten, whipped, or imprisoned, and resistance to those results will get them killed or outlawed.

And also impress upon them that in most cases, such penalties will be fully expected and supported by the general populace. Monarchies lasted a looong time.

Keith "o/` No more Kings o/`" Curtis

[Susano]

A foreign noble failing to follow the proper forms might sour relations between their kingdom and the one they have offended a noble of, or even spark a war, if the insult is grave enough. If the other 'noble' is not from a recognized and respected country, they might not even get treated as a noble at all. Uncouth barbarians!

It is reported that Vlad Tepes (a.k.a Vlad the Impaler, Vlad Dracula, a.k.a. Dracula), Prince of Wallachia and/or Trannsylvania nailed the hats of the visiting dignitaries to their heads when they refused to doff them in his presence.

[Sword-dancer]

In reference to Sword-Dancer's amazon :
.
1 My Character isn`t an Amazon but an Amazon Priestess, a priestess of great renown and proven worth to the goddess(The Marschall of the Pantheon, Goddess of HonorableWarriors, Knights and so on)
2 Even if she were an Amazon, she would be therefore a member of the sisterhood therefore a member of their own branch of church.
The last Highqueen is a saint the ruling high Queen considered the chosen Champion.
Even one of this reasons would be more than enough to not let her be subject to any other law then that of the sisterhood or any other court, with the possible exception of a court of the churches of the Pantheon.

3 As a Priest of one of the gods of the Pantheon, she is autiomaticaly a judge if needs calls, as a priestess of the sisterhood she is automatically a judge of the sisterhood.
Which means she is fully authoriced to hold court even over the highest nobility except an emperor, given by old imperial law.
This is practically not changeable

4 Any fighting able Person who would send a Champion against a priestess of the goddess in a duell of honor etc would mark himself a coward.
btw she would refuse a duell because named persons aren`t honorable and therfore not worthy of a duell, which would be an deadly blow to their reputation.

5 Priests in these Lands are considered proven by their gods and call therefore high respect even the lowlist priest from the highest ran(at least in theory) andnoPriest answers to worldly law or court.

[Markdoc]

Argh... I forgot... what's a Wu? Sorcerer?

Oh, and did you see that Nishi made it into NINJA HERO?

Yeps - I saw.

And a Wu... well, think the magical bodyguard in 3x3 eyes (actually, I think you have a Wu writeup on your webpages).

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Yeps - I saw.

And a Wu... well, think the magical bodyguard in 3x3 eyes (actually, I think you have a Wu writeup on your webpages).

cheers, Mark

:nonp:

Oh, right, I knew the name. Yup.

[Captain Obvious]

1 My Character isn`t an Amazon but an Amazon Priestess, a priestess of great renown and proven worth to the goddess(The Marschall of the Pantheon, Goddess of HonorableWarriors, Knights and so on)
2 Even if she were an Amazon, she would be therefore a member of the sisterhood therefore a member of their own branch of church.
The last Highqueen is a saint the ruling high Queen considered the chosen Champion.
Even one of this reasons would be more than enough to not let her be subject to any other law then that of the sisterhood or any other court, with the possible exception of a court of the churches of the Pantheon.

3 As a Priest of one of the gods of the Pantheon, she is autiomaticaly a judge if needs calls, as a priestess of the sisterhood she is automatically a judge of the sisterhood.
Which means she is fully authoriced to hold court even over the highest nobility except an emperor, given by old imperial law.
This is practically not changeable

4 Any fighting able Person who would send a Champion against a priestess of the goddess in a duell of honor etc would mark himself a coward.
btw she would refuse a duell because named persons aren`t honorable and therfore not worthy of a duell, which would be an deadly blow to their reputation.

5 Priests in these Lands are considered proven by their gods and call therefore high respect even the lowlist priest from the highest ran(at least in theory) andnoPriest answers to worldly law or court.

If all this is part of the campaign world, and the character has paid for the perks, then it would be appropriate for this character to stand or sit and speak to most nobles as an equal or superior. Any other characters with this Amazon character would most likely be considered part of her retinue, and would either not be admitted to the audience chamber, or would at least be expected to remain silent unless spoken to.

[Sword-dancer]

The perks of the character are automatically ingrained in the Backrground of the character/setting.
The rest of the group was normally an Priest of the standard branch of the same goddess or an warrior with a sword blessed by another goddess itself, an mage of the higher ranks of the high nobility, an elf who is completely removed from the social rank concept or an merc of the Nation the empire has invaded.

Equal or superior is a very tricky question:
1 Nobles rule and priests show the way of the gods and follow their orders but...
2 Divine rules break secular.
A Priest is acting on his duties if he critices an Noble for not following divine rules, or to act against him if he considers his act grave enough, something he must prove for the church.

OTOH even the noble PCs who are from imperial fiefs, have no respect for the old empereor or the regent.
The first is consiedered a blasphemic weakwilled fool, the second an oathbreaking tyrant, and with this they stood not alone.
That didn`t mean they wouldn`t follow the rules of etiquette and politeness.
The first they will called ill advised, the second let`s say they wouldn`t try to break records to rescue their live.

[Houston GM]

Sword-dancer, I hope your GM is reading this.


Even one of this reasons would be more than enough to not let her be subject to any other law then that of the sisterhood or any other court, with the possible exception of a court of the churches of the Pantheon.
Who cares? The emperor takes her to court in front of the Sisterhood or the Pantheon.

Is the leader of the Sisterhood willing to risk the Emperor's wrath just to protect a prideful priestess? Even if she is, the Emperor will just appeal to the Pantheon court.

What percentage of the Pantheonic court does the Emperor need to get his way? Half? Two thirds? How many of the church leaders would be willing to condemn your Amazon priestess to death (even if she was innocent) just to curry favor with the Emperor?


she is fully authoriced to hold court even over the highest nobility except an emperor, given by old imperial law.
This is practically not changeable
He's the Emperor. The deck is stacked in his favor. He will find a court that is authorized to judge you. The presiding priest will from a church that is a traditional rival (or enemy) of the Amazon Sisterhood. The presiding priest will be a personal enemy of your Amazon priestess, one with a long-standing grudge.

Rumors will start spreading around the Empire about all the dirty tricks your priestess is attempting, and how the upstanding Pantheonic court is foiling them all. (Who cares if it's patently false? The population is going to believe in the Emperor.)


Any fighting able Person who would send a Champion against a priestess of the goddess in a duell of honor etc would mark himself a coward.
Emperors aren't considered fighting persons. Amazon priestesses are. This ploy would backfire immediately.

The population won't understand the social intricacies that allow priestesses to avoid duels. They're just going to hear how an Amazon priestess was too cowardly to answer a duel, and they'll believe the rumors.


Priests in these Lands are considered proven by their gods and call therefore high respect even the lowlist priest from the highest ran(at least in theory) and no Priest answers to worldly law or court.
And no Emperor will care about that.

Emperors don't care that a law is "practically not changeable". By definition, that means that only the Emperor can change it ... at his whim.

Is your Amazon priestess the leader of the Amazon Sisterhood? So what. The Emperor will find an ambitious subordinate of yours that's looking to advance. He'll execute you (and your most loyal subordinates) and install the ambitious subordinate in your place. The subordinate will publicly denounce the "hubris" of her predecessors.

Is the entire Amazon Sisterhood fanatically (and personally) loyal to you? No problem. The Emperor will find some rival (i.e. patriarchal) churches who will publicly announce that the Amazon's are breaking the law, and the Emperor is simply enforcing divine mandate.

Read Chinese history. There are several accounts of churches acting in defiance of the Emperor. The outcome is formulaic. The Emperor summons the army, kills the priests, destroys the temples, and burns the books. The church only continues to exist in hiding or exile (where they no longer have influence in the Empire).

And many Emperors are the highest religious court, as defined by imperial and religious law.


Don't tell me what the Emperor can't do. He's the Emperor because he can do whatever he chooses.

Do you need further convincing? Henry VIII (a mere king) drove the Holy Roman Catholic Church (perhaps the most powerful ecclisiastical institution in history) out of England because they wouldn't give him a divorce.

Even if the Emperor is only a figuredhead (a puppet for the true powers), the powers behind the throne will not want to risk the status quo by allowing one Amazon priestess to expose the true state of affairs. That sort of thing could be a destabilizing influence in the Empire. They would not hesitate to kill one prideful priestess (under the guise of proper imperial authority) to keep you from disturbing their happy state of affairs.


OTOH even the noble PCs who are from imperial fiefs, have no respect for the old empereor or the regent.
The first is consiedered a blasphemic weakwilled fool, the second an oathbreaking tyrant, and with this they stood not alone.
In other words, you're in the unique position of having an extremely weak Emperor. If your campaign is realistic, he will be overthrown in the next year or two (because someone can). The new Emperor will be a strong Emperor, and he will be fully capable of doing everything I've described. In fact, he will not hesitate to make necessary examples as he consolidates the power of his throne.


let`s say they (the nobles) wouldn`t try to break records to rescue their (the Emperor and Regent's) lives.
The Emperor and Regent have commited the only Imperial sin: they've lost power.

According to Chinese history, as soon as the nobles stop assembling armies when the Emperor commands, one of the nobles assembles his army and overthrows the Emperor. There are at least two Chinese legends where the power-hungry noble plays a little political brinkmanship with the Emperor then says "We can't do it this year, but we'll check again next year." The first year that the nobles refuse to send their armies, the Imperial Throne changes hands.

Even a weak Emperor would probably execute a discourteous priestess (even in defiance of the law) in order to keep from looking weak (and ripe for overthrowing).

[Lightray]

Sword-dancer, I hope your GM is reading this.
If so, no need to limit him/herself to Chinese imperialism as a model for fantasy imperialism.

Egyptian pharoahs during several dynasties were heavily dominated by influential priesthoods. Powerful essentially had the pharoah as a figurehead, while they did what they wanted. That would seem to fit many of the details that have happened to the Amazon priestess.

Conversely, Roman imperialism seems more notable for how little influence religions had over imperial rule. The emperor was both emperor and chief priest of the empire (and occasionally, god) so the religions were part of his own rule - at least up until the Christian church became a political force in its own right. Of course, the later happened after the emperors' power had been considerably weakened.

Really, no matter how her GM has structured the politics of his/her campaign -- realistic or no -- this seems an excellent opportunity for the Emperor to cry out "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Amazon priestess!"

Of which the result can only be gaming fun. :)

[Sword-dancer]

Sword-dancer, I hope your GM is reading this.
Even a weak Emperor would probably execute a discourteous priestess (even in defiance of the law) in order to keep from looking weak (and ripe for overthrowing).

Is the leader of the Sisterhood willing to risk the Emperor's wrath just to protect a prideful priestess?
Wrong Question.
Is the High Queen of the Sisterhood willing to let the man slip from Justice, for which sins she was forced to led half a hundred sisters into death, not counted those who died because their los placed stress on them?
The sisterhood was grounded in a time of religous war, when one of the churches acted against the other churches, and wanted to force them under their sovereignity, the sisterhood was grounded as an independent kingdom for resistence against this.

Even if she is, the Emperor will just appeal to the Pantheon court.
Wherehe could be subject for his order to conjure Demons who killed people, a crime which is by divine law punished by burning at the stake and by magical law by death.
And the high priests had the authority to judge emperors.
Conjuring Demons is in the eyes of the churches a sin, by many punishable by death by burning.

The Church who was this wouldn`t be stupid without end, and the Priests of this church my Priestes had problem with, wouldn`t even dare to try to go to the public.

No thy won`t do it, my priestess had get an direct miracle of their goddess, heir honor is without stench, and speaking lies over Priests is a crime punished by the whip, and btw she isn`t the only in the churches and nobility who says this.
The Aftermath of the conjuration endet in an the destroyed capital of a duchess, an great part of the people of the duchess eaten by the ogres.

The population won't understand the social intricacies that allow priestesses to avoid duels. They're just going to hear how an Amazon priestess was too cowardly to answer a duel, and they'll believe the rumors.
No, it is a rule of the church not to duel with unworthy opponents.
Second there are mor than a few dozen 'Knights and nobles who could stand eyewitness of her fighting the command of the orcish armies and a demon guardian, in fact a greater Part of the imperial army and half of the imperial capital.

Emperors don't care that a law is "practically not changeable". By definition, that means that only the Emperor can change it ... at his whim.
No he can`t only the Council of the nobility could do that.

No she isn`t, and noSister would dare to stood a´gainst the chosen champion of the goddess, who hadn`t only rescued the imperial army, the Holy Banner of th church but fought and won against a greater Demon, one rank under one of the Lords of Hell.

Read Medival History or Egyptian, Canossa said yiu something, and this german emperoer was no Foll, but against this Emeperor Ethelred the illadvised would be wise.

The Amazon Sisterhood and church isn`t answerable to the other churches, they`ve no Authority over them.
The worldly rulers have No religious authority since the time the last High Priest Emporess was revolted against for demonconjuring and tyranny.

It`s about thousands years ago, but only now the law against female emperors had been lifted, after a civil war.
It`s highly doubtful even the imperial regulars would follow this order, half of the Vasalls wouldn`t definetly not do it, and then an attack against a church is a sin, who marks the offender with the sign of a sinner.

[Hugh Neilson]

Now it comes down to whether the Priestess paid sufficient point6s for the Priestess perk. If this perk effectively allows her to outrank the Emperor, it should not cost less than the "emperor" perk, should it?

Commonly, players want to RP the guy who would never bend the knee to anyone. "I'm role playing". Well and good. Here's how it goes down:

Player: Coric Bloodhands bows to no man!

GM: You're sure you don't want to bow to Emperor Anstasius? It's Imnperial Law.

Player: Yes!! Coric Bloodhands bows to no man! It's in his background - it's good role playing - you can't tell me how to play my character.

GM: OK. Everyone bows save Coric.

Player: That's more like it!

GM: Coric is seized by the Imperial Guards and beheaded on the spot.

Player: WQhat...but but

GM: [interrupting] The Imperial Guard is wholly intolerant of those who do not show the Emperor the respect they deem appropriate. It would be poor role playing for them to ignore this slight.

Player #2: Perhaps your new character should have a personality more consistent with ongoing survival in this campaign world.

[sbarron]

Look, just because Sword-Dancer has a character in his campaign world that doesn't have to bow to the Emperor doesn't change the point of my comment.

99.9% of all PCs have to show proper deference to the their Lord, King, Duke, Emperor, whatever. Not the High Queen of the Sisterhood, but everyone else.

This is turning into one of those, "oh yeah, I have a Character named (fill in blank), and he/she is sooooo bad ass. He could definitely (fill in blank)" discussions you hear about at conventions. ;)

[sbarron]

Commonly, players want to RP the guy who would never bend the knee to anyone. "I'm role playing". Well and good. Here's how it goes down:

I agree completely. I might give the PC one more "are you sure that's what you want to do," though. ;)

I am still amazed at how I can be playing with someone that's been gaming for 10+ years that are shocked when bad things happen after I ask that question and they don't change their mind. Absolutely amazing.

[Lightray]

Now it comes down to whether the Priestess paid sufficient point6s for the Priestess perk. If this perk effectively allows her to outrank the Emperor, it should not cost less than the "emperor" perk, should it?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Amazon priestess paid for her priestess Perk, and Emperor paid for his emperor Perk. They should both get the benefits of their Perks. One gets benefits in priestessy things, the other gets benefits in emperorish things.

If Fringe Benefit: Emperor costs more than Fringe Benefit: Amazon Priestess, well, then it must be applicable more often.

But that doesn't mean that Emperor always trumps Priestess.

Think about it this way: If I have the Duke Perk, I might get to use it to override someone's Local Law Enforcement Perk -- if they're giving me a parking ticket or something. But if they're after me for murder, my being a Duke isn't going to be more useful than that Law Enforcement Perk.

And even if I am a Duke, I should still treat Law Enforcement Guy with the respect implied in his Perk - I'll address him as "Officer". Just like Law Enforcement Guy addresses me with respect as "Your Grace".

Of course, to get to that point in your game, everyone has to know what is expected in the culture you're playing in. And as we've seen, people might have some wildly different ideas in that way.

[bblackmoor]

Player: Coric Bloodhands bows to no man!
GM: You're sure you don't want to bow to Emperor Anstasius? It's Imnperial Law.
Player: Yes!! Coric Bloodhands bows to no man!

At this point one of two things would happen, in my experience. If the other PCs like Coric, or at the very least find him a useful companion, they all jump on him and make him bow ("Bow, dumbass, or the guy in the fancy hat will have our heads on a pike!"), while the smoothest talker of the group explains to the head honcho that Coric suffered a head injury recently, and is not himself. If the other PCs do not like Coric, or find him more trouble than he's worth, they all take one step to the left, leaving a nice empty kill-zone around Coric.

[Hugh Neilson]

At this point one of two things would happen, in my experience. If the other PCs like Coric, or at the very least find him a useful companion, they all jump on him and make him bow ("Bow, dumbass, or the guy in the fancy hat will have our heads on a pike!"), while the smoothest talker of the group explains to the head honcho that Coric suffered a head injury recently, and is not himself. If the other PCs do not like Coric, or find him more trouble than he's worth, they all take one step to the left, leaving a nice empty kill-zone around Coric.

Actually, I was tempted to have "player 2", playing a fervently loyal patriot, strike Coric down. After all, HE'S got to role play HIS character too, right?

Tje bottom line is that, if there are no consequences for failure to use the proper protocols, players won't adhere to them. "Then the entire party is executed" isn't a great way to end a campaign, but it may flow logically from the game world. It comes down to how much "world realism" one is willing to trade off for "player happiness". If they won;t play natives of the world, are they really useful players?

[Lightray]

If they won't play natives of the world, are they really useful players?
Ouch. If someone has to start thinking along those lines, then there are more problems than Coric the Contrary being an ass about his PC's characterization.

[keithcurtis]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Amazon priestess paid for her priestess Perk, and Emperor paid for his emperor Perk. They should both get the benefits of their Perks. One gets benefits in priestessy things, the other gets benefits in emperorish things.

If Fringe Benefit: Emperor costs more than Fringe Benefit: Amazon Priestess, well, then it must be applicable more often.

But that doesn't mean that Emperor always trumps Priestess.

Think about it this way: If I have the Duke Perk, I might get to use it to override someone's Local Law Enforcement Perk -- if they're giving me a parking ticket or something. But if they're after me for murder, my being a Duke isn't going to be more useful than that Law Enforcement Perk.

And even if I am a Duke, I should still treat Law Enforcement Guy with the respect implied in his Perk - I'll address him as "Officer". Just like Law Enforcement Guy addresses me with respect as "Your Grace".

Of course, to get to that point in your game, everyone has to know what is expected in t