Quote from: The Good Assyrian;248597Let's just put it this way:  I was cheerfully preparing to run a campaign with the rules and I never even noticed this "feature" of the default setting, which I ignored.  As Warthur says, the game system is not explicitly tied to the setting,  although as I recall the magic systems provided in the book were pretty setting-specific which was annoying.  Stolze may have provided a more generic version of the magic rules, but I haven't checked in on that for a while.

I don't think he has, but I actually really like the logic behind the magic rules: so long as you are happy with a) a setup where each magical tradition is rooted in a specific culture and b) the possibility that magicians who are devoted to a particular magical practice are going to develop pronounced physical features that reflect that, I think it can be dragged and dropped into a whole swathe of sword-and-sorcery settings. (Heck, even a) is optional).

Greg Stolze is kind of odd in that he writes really slick rules and very weird settings.  Often RPGs come packaged with a slick setting and convoluted ruleset as if the writers concieved a really safe setting and then went overboard trying to create innovative rules.

Greg has the knack for creating simple yet innovative rules and then goes gonzo on his settings which I personally enjoy but I definitely wouldn't expect everyone to feel the same way.

Reign is great IMO and I've got it tucked away for a rainy day.

I'm firmly in the "impressed with system" and "setting -- MAN WHAT?" camp.

The setting is just wonky overall, although it has some interesting bits in regards to culture and magic.

I really don't see how Reign's setting is that gonzo; the fact the two continents are shaped like sleeping people or the use of gravity seems to be a really good way of emphasising that its a fantasy world without that fact being too intrusive on gameplay, unless I suppose you are running a naval game.

Quote from: NiallS;249264I really don't see how Reign's setting is that gonzo; the fact the two continents are shaped like sleeping people or the use of gravity seems to be a really good way of emphasising that its a fantasy world without that fact being too intrusive on gameplay, unless I suppose you are running a naval game.

...Or spend a day at the beach skipping stones.

I'm internally divided when I read about the setting.  For the most part, I read the setting portions and think this or that is cool, and I just plain forget about the gravity business.  I mean, living on the bodies of two sleeping gods is great stuff!  But the business of the lands in perpetual shadow under the one god's arm, or the abrupt angular shift in most places where land meets sea...that I find highly intrusive to my conception of the world.  I think it's a bit like really getting into creating a character for a game that you're really excited to play, then well into the action the GM informs you, "Oh, did I mention that you're all intelligent cockroaches?"

Also, for the record, I really, really like the mechanics of the game.

!i!

Mechanics are solid and fit well across the whole system, there are very few rules that feel out of place or broken.  The trick to the ORE engine though is to really just call for rolls when it's important as opposed to every time you aren't sure.

If your character is a skilled artist - he shouldn't have to make a roll to paint a good picture.  However if he's commissioned to paint a brilliant work of art for the God King and his penalty for failure is a merciless death - then it's appropriate to call for a roll because of the stressful nature and risk inherent in the situation.

If you are running from guards and you want to climb a tree to get away, there's no real need to call for a roll, unless there is something odd about the tree (really high, devoid of hand holds etc).  However if there is a guard hanging off your leg and trying to pull you down, then a roll may be warranted.

It's the fine line in when to call for a roll in the ORE system that put a bad taste in the mouth of some GM's and players.  Especially if you come from a roll for everything mindset (most new players fall into this trap).  Under that kind of load you will likely fail more often then not and in dumb situations because of the nature of the mechanics.  Reign is really based around the concept that if you are of average ability you should be able to succeed at an average task under normal situations without the need to roll.  You can tie your shoe lace, a painter can paint, a cook can cook, a navigator can find his way etc....  It's really about rolling dice when there is a dramatic reason or risk to failing at something you can normally accomplish.

As for the fluff of the game the cultural backgrounds are well handled I thought, certainly better flushed out then say Riddle of Steel.  The setting world is also ok, not great, not poor just normal.  But I like most just ignore the wonky gravity bits.

The Aylse Sourcebook that I mentioned upthread for TORG had a similar situation. The world was a dohnut with a hole in the middle through which the sun rose and fell and gravity was the same on both sides, pulling you to the ground. Its probably worth checking out as IIRC they talked a bit more about the effects of having a sun that only warmed half-ish of the world. They went one further and suggested different ecologies existed within the different areas of shadow and light, living side by side but apart.

Mostly I like the idea because it immediately gave me lots of possibilities. One thing that struck me about the angular shift is that this implies coasts would be very sheer in most places - they might not have the tapering off of the landmass under sea level that you have on Earth.  This suggest to me that the wave formation would in many places not occur until right at the edge of the land where it would occur as very powerful, surging waves as the ground abruptly rose up. A related implication would be that most people fear the sea as extremely dangerous, that ports would be very rare indeed save perhaps near the hair of the gods.

The other idea for a kind of Reign+, is that the gods aren't lying on a surface at all but are floating on an even larger sea and that there is another world under the sea. Although thats a bit more pulpy.

Quote from: NiallS;249264I really don't see how Reign's setting is that gonzo; the fact the two continents are shaped like sleeping people or the use of gravity seems to be a really good way of emphasising that its a fantasy world without that fact being too intrusive on gameplay, unless I suppose you are running a naval game.

Except not; the sun and the moon are stationary in the sky (so there's places where it's always day, and places where it's always night) and if you look in one direction the sky is ALL OCEAN.

Heluso and Milonda's cosmology is sufficiently weird that if it isn't constantly intruding on the game you're kind of doing it wrong; as presented in the core book, it can't help but be obtrusive.

Quote from: Warthur;249375Except not; the sun and the moon are stationary in the sky (so there's places where it's always day, and places where it's always night) and if you look in one direction the sky is ALL OCEAN.

Heluso and Milonda's cosmology is sufficiently weird that if it isn't constantly intruding on the game you're kind of doing it wrong; as presented in the core book, it can't help but be obtrusive.

I disagree, if you find it intrusive and he is ignoring the parts that he is not having fun with, then you are doing it wrong, and he is doing it right.

Quote from: Saphim;249598I disagree, if you find it intrusive and he is ignoring the parts that he is not having fun with, then you are doing it wrong, and he is doing it right.

Well I don't quite agree with that approach as there's no point in discussing it. Rather I'm interested in what makes it 'too' intrusive to some people.

With regards the direction of gravity and the sea I see this as minimally intrusive at least as far as presented in the book. Yes, when you are at the coast and look up you see the sea as a wall in-front of you and the sky at right angles behind you and ships appear falling towards you. But this is the usual state of things. As a GM I would make it a description or two and if needed present some challenge for orientation for characters who had never seen the sea before. Perhaps a roll to practise stepping from land to sea to avoid being embarrassed in front of the local sailors, but it is clear that the transition between the two is relatively a day to day occurence and unless the GM or player had some particular reason to keep describing it (coastal battles etc), then I think it would slip into the background. Even in real life the most bizarre things become normal after constant exposure.

The sun and moon I agree are more intrusive and its a shame Stolze didn't invest more time describing the effects this has on the world but perhaps because of this reason, the more he fixes it as reality the more people will find it harder to use it? So I agree with Warthur that if it isn't constantly obtrusive you are probably doing it 'wrong' but that every group has to find its own level of balance. A example is non-humans in fantasy - many of them should be continually intrusive to the game given what is known about them but inevtiably many get 'humanised'. The same would I suspect happen to the sun and moon - the group chooses its own level of wierdness/normality from always having the sun and moon impact to ignoring it to the point they may as well rise and set. Interestingly the book tends to the latter view.

For me I would want to pick 2-3 effects of the fixed position of the two bodies that could be integrated into the game and run with it. For example

• Is it harder to spot things on the dark side of mountains
• Are valley's uninhabitable or occupied only by strange things
• Does the moon give off more light than ours does? This would be one way of normallising the setting?
• Are their strict rules about wall building given it casts your neighbours land into shadow?
• Do you have different ecologies in the light and dark?
• Does architecture tend to the low and sprawling with lots of court yards?

As I write that, I realise its possibly this is the same as giving all non-human races 2-3 characteristics (dwarves=short, bearded, grumpy, avaricious etc) that define them which is one way of addressing the problem I mentioned above.

That said I'm still more interested in including the sun and moon than I am in leaving them out because I think it can make the world more interesting - more so than names with lots of Z's and X's in them (although Reign does have that as well I suppose).

For people who do think its too much I'm interested if they would feel the same about a sci-fi setting inside a colony ship or dyson sphere where the world falls upwards and if they could accept that, why not this?