Let's start with something very, very simple: a first draft of the setting's political map. The many white spaces are unclaimed or disputed land or sheer wilderness.
As you can see, I cannot draw. But I can build a map out of the equivalent to lego bricks.
Submitted by robosnake on Sat, 05/22/2010 - 22:02.
Another option I've been thinking about is just to get rid of divine magic altogether - at least that of clerics, leaving druidic magic, which doesn't depend on the assumption that there are powerful deities who grant spells. That is, some people wield arcane magic for religious purposes, or they use their arcane power to found a religion perhaps, but there aren't necessarily authentic personal deities that grant spells to believers.
This leaves the door open for the occasional miracle, but not for the run-of-the-mill ho-hum cure spells that are there in every D&D setting but just aren't very exciting.
So the Druid or the powerful Ranger draw on natural energies to do things like heal, speeding up the body's power to knit itself back together. Arcane magic doesn't heal because it is not rooted in the natural world but rather in the supernal or the infernal, or the planes, or whatever. Arcane magic is then a bit more like science - medicine can fascilitate healing, but it remains up to the body to actually repair any damage.
This could even make things like Paladins and Monks even more interesting. The Paladin is a paragon of virtue, and is able to achieve feats and even miracles (lay on hands) through sheer will - as long as the Paladin holds to the path. The Monk does something similar, but is tapping into powers and capacities of the mind and body rather than any moral power.
Basically, we're talking "gritty", and one way to guarantee "grit" is to make magical healing rare. Now, suddenly wounds actually matter, and if you don't have a Bard or a Druid on hand (and those tend to be rare in most settings), you're going to have to rely on the Heal skill and time.
It's just hard to have "gritty" when things like the Heal spell exist, or even Cure Moderate Wounds.
I think it's certainly a possibility. I've got a group starting up for the setting to flesh out areas as well as to playtest various magic playtest ideas. I'll bounce this one off them and see what they think.
Submitted by robosnake on Wed, 05/26/2010 - 21:15.
As I think about this, I like that Druids would have some healing magic, which can be attributed to a naturalistic power sort of parallel to arcane power - and we can have some of the pagan-style deities that people have mentioned.
This leaves the issue of Bards - though having healing magic might be something that, in the setting, help balance them out compared to other classes.
Druids might also become outright too powerful, with the rareness of magical healing combined with what is already an incredibly powerful class.
I'll be curious to see what ideas come from an actual game, which will probably be the source of the best stuff.
So I think what I've settled on for playtesting is back to your original concept. Since the gods do not grant power directly, clerics receive their power by the strength of their faith in the god they worship. This makes it possible for nearly infinite number of deities that vary in followers numbering one to thousands. I'm also thinking about forcing one of the domains to be one of the four alignment domains. By focusing a religion around the alignment domains, it provides some basic guidelines for the GM and the player.
Submitted by robosnake on Fri, 06/11/2010 - 12:45.
I like the idea of requiring one alignment domain for Clerics, that makes a lot of sense to me, and helps to link each Cleric to an ideal given the multiplicity of local gods they'll encounter. "Oh, you're the local deity of Law. Gotcha."
Submitted by robosnake on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 14:52.
Semantics:
I don't have strong feelings here - I think "A" and "The" both have merits. I kind of prefer Dark Golden Age without A or The because you can then describe it using either one without having to worry about what to capitalize, etc.
Grit vs. Cinematics:
Grit with grit-sauce. Neither Pathfinder, the 3E rep, nor 4E is very much about grit. It's hard to care about characters who are never threatened by the trouble they get into, and it's hard to identify with heroes who are totally transcendent.
Granularity:
I prefer freedom in the background, with a lot implied but not much defined. I want to to this partly because it is a huge amount of work to create an entire world in detail. I also like encouraging as much player participation as possible. I want gaming groups running Dark Golden Age games to participate in creating the setting.
Honestly, DMs will do this no matter what. I don't know many DMs who run any setting straight from the 'canon', myself included. I think if we err on the side of freedom, we not only make a lot less niggling work for us, but also can use it as an invitation to players in the setting to make it their own. We can even then steal the best ideas and make them "canon", adding to the investment players will have in the setting, since their own ideas might get adopted as 'official'.
Religion and Faith:
I like the idea of impersonal deities. I think that 99% of deities in D20 are throw-away anyway, and it seems like this setting doesn't support the usual pantheon.
I also personally, as I implied, hate most D20 pantheons, so that's influencing what I'm saying here. But I would like to play out the idea implied in D&D 3.x that Clerics and Paladins can serve impersonal forces.
I think this works for the Druidic faith, which could worship natural forces, or nature in general - a kind of radical neutrality perhaps. I prefer this to filing the serial numbers off of Norse/Celtic deities - that's been done too many times before IMO.
This also works for atheism - you can just refuse to serve a transcendent ideal and there you go.
Potential problems:
I think that if this setting offends a few people, that's almost a benefit. It might help put the game on the map, and it is a way to get attention :)
I like the idea of this setting being adult but not raunchy, which will be a tough line to walk. I am just picturing topless amazons beheading dragons or something, with guys in full armor looking on.
What I'm saying is - if we're going nudity, it should be equal-opportunity, and done in an artful way where possible, or else I think the game ends up looking kind of adolescent.
I don't think we need to go that far with the game art, but I think you have the right sentiment. I see elements of slavery, oppression and other subjects getting a treatment in the Dark Golden Age. While there is "traditional" dungeon delving, it could be for very different motivations and very different reasons for existing than in other fantasy settings.
Submitted by robosnake on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 12:47.
There is still a sort of fad/rennaissance of Conan-style gaming, with the D20 adaptation a few years ago and now with games like Age of Conan (the MMO) and In A Wicked Age. Part of the resurgence of "pulp" and all that. A Dark Golden Age isn't necessarily Robert E. Howard-esque, but it seems set up to involve protagonists whose motivations are as gritty as their means.
While we are searching for the right setting, it's probably time to start with a more detailed debate about the setting as well, searching for input, ideas and criticism. There are some flavor and atmosphere decisions.
Questions and Issues
For the further development of the setting, I would like to discuss in which direction we should develop the setting. I am open for all suggestions and I'd like to debate with you about several ideas, and inspirations for the setting.
Semantics:
The Name... A Dark Golden Age, The Dark Golden Age, just Dark Golden Age, perhaps something completely different... Please, make your suggestions.
The Sliding scale of Grittiness and Cinematics
This is a major question for the overall atmosphere and feeling of the game; I intended to create a gritty yet heroic game, with colorful locations, people and a good reason for all those monsters, and places to loot.
With this gritty heroism I mean something like extraordinary characters with sometimes extraordinary abilities but who are still limited by the normal human range and the human condition.
The player characters are supposed to stand out, being the Wallensteins, Rolands, Cincinatuses and Sparrtacuses of their world, but that doesn't mean that they are immortal, or it couldn't happen that this one outstanding hulking warrior is not suddenly killed by a smirking shephard boy with a sling.
Granularity, or freedom vs. background
This is the question about the depth of the background, the details of the description and their accuracy. Would you prefer a detailed description of the setting, with few white spaces and a very solid description (Example: “This is the hamlet Houndsgrave. Its burgomaster Darrion is an old soldier who lost his leg in a battle, which has made him a bitter man who drinks too much. The two wealthiest farmers in the village can't stand each other, as do their expanded families. These two families , the Montalets and Capugues have divided the hamlet by two and only the burgomaster can try to keep the peace.”) or would you prefer to create a more freeform framework which sets up the setting's corner stones and offer a few explanations but leave the exact details and most personnel to the people who are actually playing the game (“There are several hamlets and villages in the area. Example names include Houndsgrave, Bluestone, Jadeberg, and Gernotshaven”).
I think that both approaches have their advantages, so this is something I'd like to discuss.
Religion and Faith
There is one point which I am very undecided about, and that's the existence of gods or similar divine beings. Should there be active, benevolent or punishing deities, or not. Should there be true, existing deities?
The simplest answer I can come up with, is that deities are in fact very powerful daimons, but are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, with some who take part in the usual life, some who don't and some who might not even exist.
The other aspects in this regard are the forms of faith (e.g. polytheistic or monotheistic), religious organisations and hierarchies (e.g. strictly local cults, networks, theocratic structures), forms of liturgy (pulp sword and sorcery demands snake demons and human sacrifices, for example) and numbers of different religions and/or pantheons.
I'd like to see two things, namely a druidic faith based on classic Celtic and Norse Paganism in Rhyrgia, and something like
Oh, and there is something like an Atheist strain in the setting. Dependently on the actual power of gods, this might be a valid choice or an example of good old magocratic hybris.
Potentially Problematic Issues
This means aspects in the game which could have the potential to offend, or are at least partial controversial. This includes things like nudity in the artwork, but also issues like slavery, recreational drugs, gender relations and roles, social structure, religion, warfare and war crimes, levels and depictions of violence or sex, sexuality as a whole, criminal activities, torture, and probably many more I don't want to think of.
Some, if not most or even all of these elements have their place in the Dark Golden Age, for better or worse.
So, what's your opinion on potentially risky issues and topics?
I for my part have no problems to include edgier subjects, and try to target the whole system on a supposedly more mature audience but I would also avoid to create something like a game that encourages players to create asshole characters.
Semantics: A Dark Golden Age sounds a bit like A Song of Ice and Fire, and this naming convetion has become much more common in the advent of that series. I would prefer The Dark Golden Age because of that.
The Sliding scale of Grittiness and Cinematics: Why not trying and go for a grim, more realistic game?I don't mean the overtly extreme levels of GRIMDARK as in Warhammer, but something that a bit more substantial: no pure black and white conflicts, innoents who get between the frontlines, a feeling that everybody could die, something like this.
Granularity, or freedom vs. background: I like detailed backgrounds which create a feeling of familiarity and depth. If the descriptions do not become ridiculously extreme, there are likely still enough free niches for own inventions of the GM.
Religion and Faith: Several different approaches, with many, many different cults and practices, but with little magical power. When it comes to the specific characteristics, everything that is not a clear copy of a living real life religion is fair play.
Potentially Problematic Issues: I would go with all of the listed issues and try to make a game that is distinctively more "adult" than the usual fantasy games and include some controversal material. Because there aren't so many others who do this.
Submitted by cptbeefalo on Tue, 03/09/2010 - 00:50.
I agree with Fenris for the most part. Part of what I liked about the setting proposal was the chance to play a more gritty, realistic game with lessened focus on traditional fantasy and less magic than most fantasy settings, so I'd like to try and make that game if we can get the swarm to agree. That said, one thing I thought would be good to add:
Religion & Faith - I like the idea of a lot of different cults and splinter practices with little magic power, but I have concerns about making it too fanciful, as in times of duress many people cling harder to that which they know, and if some of these humans did come from the Crusades or other various religious groups, there should be some strong central faiths as well which are well represented. We should make sure these don't get lost in the splinter group rush.
I see no reason why there couldn't be both. Some more or less common religions/pantheons and cults with some power, especially on the community and political level, and a vast number of fringe cults and small sects, that only exist on a local level and have very limited influence outside of their communities, and sometimes very weird customs and rituals.
How about no clerical magic at all? More grit guaranteed
Another option I've been thinking about is just to get rid of divine magic altogether - at least that of clerics, leaving druidic magic, which doesn't depend on the assumption that there are powerful deities who grant spells. That is, some people wield arcane magic for religious purposes, or they use their arcane power to found a religion perhaps, but there aren't necessarily authentic personal deities that grant spells to believers.
This leaves the door open for the occasional miracle, but not for the run-of-the-mill ho-hum cure spells that are there in every D&D setting but just aren't very exciting.
So the Druid or the powerful Ranger draw on natural energies to do things like heal, speeding up the body's power to knit itself back together. Arcane magic doesn't heal because it is not rooted in the natural world but rather in the supernal or the infernal, or the planes, or whatever. Arcane magic is then a bit more like science - medicine can fascilitate healing, but it remains up to the body to actually repair any damage.
This could even make things like Paladins and Monks even more interesting. The Paladin is a paragon of virtue, and is able to achieve feats and even miracles (lay on hands) through sheer will - as long as the Paladin holds to the path. The Monk does something similar, but is tapping into powers and capacities of the mind and body rather than any moral power.
Basically, we're talking "gritty", and one way to guarantee "grit" is to make magical healing rare. Now, suddenly wounds actually matter, and if you don't have a Bard or a Druid on hand (and those tend to be rare in most settings), you're going to have to rely on the Heal skill and time.
It's just hard to have "gritty" when things like the Heal spell exist, or even Cure Moderate Wounds.
No divine magic
I think it's certainly a possibility. I've got a group starting up for the setting to flesh out areas as well as to playtest various magic playtest ideas. I'll bounce this one off them and see what they think.
Thinking further about no Clerical magic...
As I think about this, I like that Druids would have some healing magic, which can be attributed to a naturalistic power sort of parallel to arcane power - and we can have some of the pagan-style deities that people have mentioned.
This leaves the issue of Bards - though having healing magic might be something that, in the setting, help balance them out compared to other classes.
Druids might also become outright too powerful, with the rareness of magical healing combined with what is already an incredibly powerful class.
I'll be curious to see what ideas come from an actual game, which will probably be the source of the best stuff.
For playtesting
So I think what I've settled on for playtesting is back to your original concept. Since the gods do not grant power directly, clerics receive their power by the strength of their faith in the god they worship. This makes it possible for nearly infinite number of deities that vary in followers numbering one to thousands. I'm also thinking about forcing one of the domains to be one of the four alignment domains. By focusing a religion around the alignment domains, it provides some basic guidelines for the GM and the player.
I like the idea of requiring
I like the idea of requiring one alignment domain for Clerics, that makes a lot of sense to me, and helps to link each Cleric to an ideal given the multiplicity of local gods they'll encounter. "Oh, you're the local deity of Law. Gotcha."
Finally jumping in here
Semantics:
I don't have strong feelings here - I think "A" and "The" both have merits. I kind of prefer Dark Golden Age without A or The because you can then describe it using either one without having to worry about what to capitalize, etc.
Grit vs. Cinematics:
Grit with grit-sauce. Neither Pathfinder, the 3E rep, nor 4E is very much about grit. It's hard to care about characters who are never threatened by the trouble they get into, and it's hard to identify with heroes who are totally transcendent.
Granularity:
I prefer freedom in the background, with a lot implied but not much defined. I want to to this partly because it is a huge amount of work to create an entire world in detail. I also like encouraging as much player participation as possible. I want gaming groups running Dark Golden Age games to participate in creating the setting.
Honestly, DMs will do this no matter what. I don't know many DMs who run any setting straight from the 'canon', myself included. I think if we err on the side of freedom, we not only make a lot less niggling work for us, but also can use it as an invitation to players in the setting to make it their own. We can even then steal the best ideas and make them "canon", adding to the investment players will have in the setting, since their own ideas might get adopted as 'official'.
Religion and Faith:
I like the idea of impersonal deities. I think that 99% of deities in D20 are throw-away anyway, and it seems like this setting doesn't support the usual pantheon.
I also personally, as I implied, hate most D20 pantheons, so that's influencing what I'm saying here. But I would like to play out the idea implied in D&D 3.x that Clerics and Paladins can serve impersonal forces.
I think this works for the Druidic faith, which could worship natural forces, or nature in general - a kind of radical neutrality perhaps. I prefer this to filing the serial numbers off of Norse/Celtic deities - that's been done too many times before IMO.
This also works for atheism - you can just refuse to serve a transcendent ideal and there you go.
Potential problems:
I think that if this setting offends a few people, that's almost a benefit. It might help put the game on the map, and it is a way to get attention :)
I like the idea of this setting being adult but not raunchy, which will be a tough line to walk. I am just picturing topless amazons beheading dragons or something, with guys in full armor looking on.
What I'm saying is - if we're going nudity, it should be equal-opportunity, and done in an artful way where possible, or else I think the game ends up looking kind of adolescent.
Game art
I don't think we need to go that far with the game art, but I think you have the right sentiment. I see elements of slavery, oppression and other subjects getting a treatment in the Dark Golden Age. While there is "traditional" dungeon delving, it could be for very different motivations and very different reasons for existing than in other fantasy settings.
There is still a sort of
There is still a sort of fad/rennaissance of Conan-style gaming, with the D20 adaptation a few years ago and now with games like Age of Conan (the MMO) and In A Wicked Age. Part of the resurgence of "pulp" and all that. A Dark Golden Age isn't necessarily Robert E. Howard-esque, but it seems set up to involve protagonists whose motivations are as gritty as their means.
Brainstorming
While we are searching for the right setting, it's probably time to start with a more detailed debate about the setting as well, searching for input, ideas and criticism. There are some flavor and atmosphere decisions.
Questions and Issues
For the further development of the setting, I would like to discuss in which direction we should develop the setting. I am open for all suggestions and I'd like to debate with you about several ideas, and inspirations for the setting.
Semantics:
The Name... A Dark Golden Age, The Dark Golden Age, just Dark Golden Age, perhaps something completely different... Please, make your suggestions.
The Sliding scale of Grittiness and Cinematics
This is a major question for the overall atmosphere and feeling of the game; I intended to create a gritty yet heroic game, with colorful locations, people and a good reason for all those monsters, and places to loot.
With this gritty heroism I mean something like extraordinary characters with sometimes extraordinary abilities but who are still limited by the normal human range and the human condition.
The player characters are supposed to stand out, being the Wallensteins, Rolands, Cincinatuses and Sparrtacuses of their world, but that doesn't mean that they are immortal, or it couldn't happen that this one outstanding hulking warrior is not suddenly killed by a smirking shephard boy with a sling.
Granularity, or freedom vs. background
This is the question about the depth of the background, the details of the description and their accuracy. Would you prefer a detailed description of the setting, with few white spaces and a very solid description (Example: “This is the hamlet Houndsgrave. Its burgomaster Darrion is an old soldier who lost his leg in a battle, which has made him a bitter man who drinks too much. The two wealthiest farmers in the village can't stand each other, as do their expanded families. These two families , the Montalets and Capugues have divided the hamlet by two and only the burgomaster can try to keep the peace.”) or would you prefer to create a more freeform framework which sets up the setting's corner stones and offer a few explanations but leave the exact details and most personnel to the people who are actually playing the game (“There are several hamlets and villages in the area. Example names include Houndsgrave, Bluestone, Jadeberg, and Gernotshaven”).
I think that both approaches have their advantages, so this is something I'd like to discuss.
Religion and Faith
There is one point which I am very undecided about, and that's the existence of gods or similar divine beings. Should there be active, benevolent or punishing deities, or not. Should there be true, existing deities?
The simplest answer I can come up with, is that deities are in fact very powerful daimons, but are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, with some who take part in the usual life, some who don't and some who might not even exist.
The other aspects in this regard are the forms of faith (e.g. polytheistic or monotheistic), religious organisations and hierarchies (e.g. strictly local cults, networks, theocratic structures), forms of liturgy (pulp sword and sorcery demands snake demons and human sacrifices, for example) and numbers of different religions and/or pantheons.
I'd like to see two things, namely a druidic faith based on classic Celtic and Norse Paganism in Rhyrgia, and something like
Oh, and there is something like an Atheist strain in the setting. Dependently on the actual power of gods, this might be a valid choice or an example of good old magocratic hybris.
Potentially Problematic Issues
This means aspects in the game which could have the potential to offend, or are at least partial controversial. This includes things like nudity in the artwork, but also issues like slavery, recreational drugs, gender relations and roles, social structure, religion, warfare and war crimes, levels and depictions of violence or sex, sexuality as a whole, criminal activities, torture, and probably many more I don't want to think of.
Some, if not most or even all of these elements have their place in the Dark Golden Age, for better or worse.
So, what's your opinion on potentially risky issues and topics?
I for my part have no problems to include edgier subjects, and try to target the whole system on a supposedly more mature audience but I would also avoid to create something like a game that encourages players to create asshole characters.
A few answers
Semantics: A Dark Golden Age sounds a bit like A Song of Ice and Fire, and this naming convetion has become much more common in the advent of that series. I would prefer The Dark Golden Age because of that.
The Sliding scale of Grittiness and Cinematics: Why not trying and go for a grim, more realistic game?I don't mean the overtly extreme levels of GRIMDARK as in Warhammer, but something that a bit more substantial: no pure black and white conflicts, innoents who get between the frontlines, a feeling that everybody could die, something like this.
Granularity, or freedom vs. background: I like detailed backgrounds which create a feeling of familiarity and depth. If the descriptions do not become ridiculously extreme, there are likely still enough free niches for own inventions of the GM.
Religion and Faith: Several different approaches, with many, many different cults and practices, but with little magical power. When it comes to the specific characteristics, everything that is not a clear copy of a living real life religion is fair play.
Potentially Problematic Issues: I would go with all of the listed issues and try to make a game that is distinctively more "adult" than the usual fantasy games and include some controversal material. Because there aren't so many others who do this.
agreed thus far...
I agree with Fenris for the most part. Part of what I liked about the setting proposal was the chance to play a more gritty, realistic game with lessened focus on traditional fantasy and less magic than most fantasy settings, so I'd like to try and make that game if we can get the swarm to agree. That said, one thing I thought would be good to add:
Religion & Faith - I like the idea of a lot of different cults and splinter practices with little magic power, but I have concerns about making it too fanciful, as in times of duress many people cling harder to that which they know, and if some of these humans did come from the Crusades or other various religious groups, there should be some strong central faiths as well which are well represented. We should make sure these don't get lost in the splinter group rush.
I see no reason why there
I see no reason why there couldn't be both. Some more or less common religions/pantheons and cults with some power, especially on the community and political level, and a vast number of fringe cults and small sects, that only exist on a local level and have very limited influence outside of their communities, and sometimes very weird customs and rituals.