Guess who's crowdfunding a new game?
See for yourself. (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847190685/circle-of-hands)
The setting actually sounds intriguing. No idea about the system, though, other than it's got a GM and uses 2d6 for resolution. Sorcerer was trad enough, so who knows?
You know, I'd never even heard of the guy before I came to this board, and this (the Kickstarter page linked) is the first thing of his that I've read. Bravo to the man for being able to completely turn me off with the first paragraph! What a pretentious clown.
One thing about the Pundit and the Great Beast, Ron Edwards - they both do actually make stuff. Stuff that isn't just a cut & paste of the d20 SRD. I expect this crowdfunder will actually get made. Edwards is pretty horrible and I expect it will be a pretty horrible game, but most of his customers will probably be happy.
Edit: I liked the Trigger Warning at the end, presumably the result of his interrogation by the Go Make Me a Sandwich woman. Another pretty horrible person - saying so ('not a nice person') just got me a threadban/warning on RPGnet yesterday. Of course I'm sure if if I had said that some sexist jerk working for Mongoose Publishing was 'not a nice person' I would have been treated just the same. :D
I kickstarted. I'll be interested in seeing what the final product looks like. As it stands, even if I don't choose to run it, there's some interesting conceptual ideas in the adventure design section, although I'll almost certainly run it at least once.
Let's see.
He says Iron Age, which varies a bit by location, but in its entirely falls roughly between 1250 BC and AD 600. But then he says "and no one knows the first thing about hygiene, long-term agriculture, geography beyond the immediate area, or history besides vague legends."
Well, that's ridiculously full of fail.
Hygiene - They didn't have germ theory yet, but between ritual and recreational bathing, both of which were extremely common throughout the Macedonian(Greek) and Roman Empires, most peoples were really quite clean by modern standards. The "unwashed masses" weren't really a thing until after the Black Death, which didn't happen until centuries after the Iron Age.
Long-term agriculture - They didn't understand the chemistry, sure, but they had such practices as irrigation, crop rotation, and fertilization . . . all of which actually predate the Iron Age.
Geography - This really depends. Travel was extremely rare for most people throughout most of history, so yes, the average person wouldn't have much geographical knowledge or any reason to gain it. But the information was available to the people who actually did have need of it, such as nation and community leaders. It wasn't quite as extensive as the info we'd have today -- most of the information had to do with trade and certain other important travel routes -- but they were by no means in the dark about how to get from A to B.
History -- First off, writing did exist during the Iron Age. It was extremely expensive, and therefore nowhere near as extensive as in the post-printing press era, but it was available. We actually have a number of historical writings from this period, many of which are far more than "vague legends." And even if this wasn't the case, this statement simply discounts the pervasiveness, important, and faithfulness of oral tradition. It's ignorance, or cultural bigotry, or both.
So much fail.
It's not meant to be any specific real-world historical period. It's "Iron Age" in the sense that the people of the Crescent have developed iron smelting enough where it's common, with the odd individual able to make very simple steel. It's clearly meant to mimic dirty fantasy along the lines of a lot of '70s and '80s grim fantasy, or early Warhammer novels such as Drachenfels, where people die in horrible ways and the world is terrible.
He occasionally makes reference to "10th and 11th century Europe" as an example of what he's going for, but outside of certain very specific moments like the Harrowing of the North of England, it doesn't really map to any of that, and ideally he'll strip the manuscript of those references before publishing it, because they cause more confusion than help.
Once you understand that despite the occasional nod, he's describing a fantasy setting rather than anything based in history, it's easier to understand what he's going for. His intentions are pretty well-mapped in the course of the introduction and in other places, so it's easy to figure it out from the manuscript.
The problematic bits -- that is, the parts everybody are singling out about rape and sexism -- are there, but not in the way people are talking about. It's kind of a blinkered very late 20th century view of rape and sexism that is ahistorical and that most cable drama and pop-culture falls into -- life-is-tough according to Sons of Anarchy or Game of Thrones, if you will. I can't blame Edwards for it when everybody else but a handful in mass media make the same errors. A few of the people in the thread on RPG.net make some pretty good points about where it runs aground. It's not trying to be real or historical, it's trying to be grim and dark and gritty. It's possible he'll look at some of the more astute criticism and make changes without softening it over much -- I'll be interested in seeing if that happens.
Again, though, haven't played it yet, but it's on the rotation for as soon as I can get to it. Maybe if I can set up a couple Hangouts sessions if I can find people on G+.
Backed
I . . . don't give a shit.
Looking through the playtest documents, the game itself seems rather... confining. Which seems odd for a rules lightish game.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;739606Let's see.
He says Iron Age, which varies a bit by location, but in its entirely falls roughly between 1250 BC and AD 600. But then he says "and no one knows the first thing about hygiene, long-term agriculture, geography beyond the immediate area, or history besides vague legends."
Well, that's ridiculously full of fail.
Hygiene - They didn't have germ theory yet, but between ritual and recreational bathing, both of which were extremely common throughout the Macedonian(Greek) and Roman Empires, most peoples were really quite clean by modern standards. The "unwashed masses" weren't really a thing until after the Black Death, which didn't happen until centuries after the Iron Age.
Long-term agriculture - They didn't understand the chemistry, sure, but they had such practices as irrigation, crop rotation, and fertilization . . . all of which actually predate the Iron Age.
Geography - This really depends. Travel was extremely rare for most people throughout most of history, so yes, the average person wouldn't have much geographical knowledge or any reason to gain it. But the information was available to the people who actually did have need of it, such as nation and community leaders. It wasn't quite as extensive as the info we'd have today -- most of the information had to do with trade and certain other important travel routes -- but they were by no means in the dark about how to get from A to B.
History -- First off, writing did exist during the Iron Age. It was extremely expensive, and therefore nowhere near as extensive as in the post-printing press era, but it was available. We actually have a number of historical writings from this period, many of which are far more than "vague legends." And even if this wasn't the case, this statement simply discounts the pervasiveness, important, and faithfulness of oral tradition. It's ignorance, or cultural bigotry, or both.
So much fail.
Trying to think of somewhere - I guess parts of sub-Saharan Africa during the Bantu Expansion might have been a bit like that... :D there was iron smelting, not sure about hygiene - but due to diseases like malaria there were mostly low population densities and no big cities; agriculture small scale 'garden' style; no literacy, so geographic and historical knowledge fairly limited. I guess parts of Siberia might have been similar, iron smelting but agriculture impractical so again low population densities.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;739614The problematic bits -- that is, the parts everybody are singling out about rape and sexism -- are there, but not in the way people are talking about. It's kind of a blinkered very late 20th century view of rape and sexism that is ahistorical and that most cable drama and pop-culture falls into -- life-is-tough according to Sons of Anarchy or Game of Thrones, if you will. I can't blame Edwards for it when everybody else but a handful in mass media make the same errors. A few of the people in the thread on RPG.net make some pretty good points about where it runs aground. It's not trying to be real or historical, it's trying to be grim and dark and gritty. It's possible he'll look at some of the more astute criticism and make changes without softening it over much -- I'll be interested in seeing if that happens.
Well, so was FATAL. That kept reminding readers about every other page that rape was common.
So basically this is a rules light, pretentious version of that?
Quote from: Future Villain Band;739614The problematic bits -- that is, the parts everybody are singling out about rape and sexism -- are there, but not in the way people are talking about. It's kind of a blinkered very late 20th century view of rape and sexism that is ahistorical and that most cable drama and pop-culture falls into -- life-is-tough according to Sons of Anarchy or Game of Thrones, if you will. I can't blame Edwards for it when everybody else but a handful in mass media make the same errors. A few of the people in the thread on RPG.net make some pretty good points about where it runs aground. It's not trying to be real or historical, it's trying to be grim and dark and gritty.
Yeah, typical 'crapsack world' stuff.
Quote from: K Peterson;739641Looking through the playtest documents, the game itself seems rather... confining. Which seems odd for a rules lightish game.
That's Forgist design for you.
It's interesting to see Ron's paragraph of explanation of the darker aspects of the setting and making a point of saying that there are no mechanical links to that stuff.
He's blown off half of Baker's games with that statement.
About time someone at the Forge did so.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;739614(...) problematic bits (...)
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2381608/so-sleepy-so-tired-o.gif)
Quote from: Benoist;739624I . . . don't give a shit.
I concur.
Quote from: JeremyR;739667Well, so was FATAL. That kept reminding readers about every other page that rape was common.
So basically this is a rules light, pretentious version of that?
Not at all. Much like Monte Cook's Niberians, this is a minor element of the game that's been focused on to the exclusion of a lot of the larger elements. Rape and torture are background elements of the game along the lines of coercive martial force as a political tool and mob action as a persistent threat. This isn't FATAL or even, really, Cthulhutech. (Admittedly, I've read a rough draft and not the final product.)
The Forest for the "rape" Tree in this instance is, this is Edwards' "Fantasy Heartbreaker." There's a big discussion about it on the Kickstarter, talk of starting a new writing effort among multiple writers, etc. From the Kickstarter page:
QuoteIn my weird little mind, Circle of Hands is part of a larger Heartbreaker Redemption effort. I coined the term "fantasy heartbreaker" in 2002.They used to be really common: games bursting at the seams with naive ambition and vision, but hamstrung by limited assumptions. To read more about that, check out my two essays here. Circle of Hands is itself re-imagined and re-designed from my early 90s manuscript called Gray Magick. I dug it up, played it again, discovered what I was excited about, embraced it, and re-designed it to make that happen. I've changed everything, but somehow, only brought that much more of Gray Magick into the spotlight. You'll see this yourself because the original manuscript is scanned into the book, and some of the best stuff was already in there.
Other game designers have embarked on their own redemptive projects, perhaps to be published someday as well. I'm offering a friendly, non-binding imprint we're all using, with the only requirement being to include the original work.
Paul Czege's In a Dimension Syncopatic with Ours
Nathan Paoletta's Kildarrin: Role-playing in a Doomed City
Aaron Kesher's Mansion
Matt Snyder's Numina
Ralph Mazza's Gemini
and the original Gray Magick
That, to me, is the interesting thing. My impression is that the book will actually include both of Edwards' Fantasy Heartbreaker essays. I have my own opinions on what it's trying to do
vis a vis the OSR and the like, and will probably keep them quiet unless an interesting discussion breaks out. But that to me is the thing that's worthy of discussion more than the darkness of the world, which is pretty bog-standard (positively mainstream, if we accept that ASOIAF is a television show on a major cable network and has inspired a half-dozen big budget imitators) unless the end-treatment is going to be remarkable in some way.
Quote from: S'mon;739668Yeah, typical 'crapsack world' stuff.
Yeah. At this point, Martin's gritty fantasy has replaced or at least stood up alongside Tolkien's high-fantasy, and this is nothing exceptional from that perspective, if not for the combination of crap-sack world and dualistic magic.
Where the game is remarkable (in the sense of worthy of discussion) is the larger goals and the mechanical approach. Setting-wise, the only thing that I find really worth poring over and exploring is how you have this explicitly crappy world caught between two explicitly dualistic and moral powers. But I don't know if the thing worthy of discussion is whether the resultant adventuring possibilities are interesting, or whether that creates a fatal flaw in the setting. I dunno.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;739687Where the game is remarkable (in the sense of worthy of discussion) is the larger goals and the mechanical approach. Setting-wise, the only thing that I find really worth poring over and exploring is how you have this explicitly crappy world caught between two explicitly dualistic and moral powers. But I don't know if the thing worthy of discussion is whether the resultant adventuring possibilities are interesting, or whether that creates a fatal flaw in the setting. I dunno.
Yeah, I'm curious to see where he's taking the setting. Some things, such as a human culture that uses both "black" and "white" magic, suggest that there's more to it than endless war in Crapsackia.
System-wise I probably won't care much for the design. Sorcerer was OK, though.
Looks kinda interesting to me. Standard sword and sorcery stuff, which I like... though nothing is really screaming out to me that I need to back the thing.
I read through the playtest version, because I feel like his Sorcerer supplement, Sorcerer and Sword had some pretty interesting things to say about running Swords & Sorcery games.
The rules side of things aren't especially innovative, as far as I can see. It's rules-light, it looks playable. There are a couple of interesting things about how to set up a scenario so it's not railroady. The mechanics for gaining, basically, Light Side and Dark Side points, or Law/Chaos points in the various iterations of Stormbringer are also comparable, are fine, but again, nothing earth-shattering. I suppose the one interesting tweak there is that BOTH the angelic and the demonic hosts are inhumanly extreme, and that the PCs are assumed to use magic from both sides.
It strikes me more like someone's fairly cool homebrew campaign. Not even gameworld really, because there's a specific assumed set-up with the characters being Circle Knights. One other slightly interesting thing there is the sort of "troupe" play that's baked into it, a little like Ars Magica, with assumed back-up crew of torchbearers, guides, and servants, and that each player (and the GM) makes two characters to start, but then you rotate play of them between players. I'm actually not quite sure what this adds to the game. It might be a fun experiment.
Oh, and the rape thing? There are about three lines in there that say Rape is Something That Happens, in this Grim Grim World. Honestly, I believe that there's no real need to specify this in a somewhat portentous manner, as he does. Surely if you set up a violent and grotty world, one might assume that that's one of the bad things people do to each other, and whether or not it ever is mentioned in play would be purely up to individual groups? It seems like baiting people to react (as the Sandwich Lady did) with outrage, only for Edwards to get the chance to say "No, I'm a huge feminist, and it's done in a very mature and empowering way" or something. Seems like trolling, to be honest.
Quote from: markfitz;739708I read through the playtest version, because I feel like his Sorcerer supplement, Sorcerer and Sword had some pretty interesting things to say about running Swords & Sorcery games.
The rules side of things aren't especially innovative, as far as I can see. It's rules-light, it looks playable. There are a couple of interesting things about how to set up a scenario so it's not railroady. The mechanics for gaining, basically, Light Side and Dark Side points, or Law/Chaos points in the various iterations of Stormbringer are also comparable, are fine, but again, nothing earth-shattering. I suppose the one interesting tweak there is that BOTH the angelic and the demonic hosts are inhumanly extreme, and that the PCs are assumed to use magic from both sides.
It strikes me more like someone's fairly cool homebrew campaign. Not even gameworld really, because there's a specific assumed set-up with the characters being Circle Knights. One other slightly interesting thing there is the sort of "troupe" play that's baked into it, a little like Ars Magica, with assumed back-up crew of torchbearers, guides, and servants, and that each player (and the GM) makes two characters to start, but then you rotate play of them between players. I'm actually not quite sure what this adds to the game. It might be a fun experiment.
Oh, and the rape thing? There are about three lines in there that say Rape is Something That Happens, in this Grim Grim World. Honestly, I believe that there's no real need to specify this in a somewhat portentous manner, as he does. Surely if you set up a violent and grotty world, one might assume that that's one of the bad things people do to each other, and whether or not it ever is mentioned in play would be purely up to individual groups? It seems like baiting people to react (as the Sandwich Lady did) with outrage, only for Edwards to get the chance to say "No, I'm a huge feminist, and it's done in a very mature and empowering way" or something. Seems like trolling, to be honest.
You sum up my impressions very well. Nothing earth-shattering, some interesting ideas. I am not backing it because I have too many games pending testing and too many campaigns pending runnin', so I am not getting new games at the moment.. This Friday I got Eternal Lies fo Trail of Cthulhu and I am busy having my mind blown by the sheer awesomeness of it.
Quote from: markfitz;739708(...) It seems like baiting people to react (as the Sandwich Lady did) with outrage, only for Edwards to get the chance to say "No, I'm a huge feminist, and it's done in a very mature and empowering way" or something. Seems like trolling, to be honest.
A perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate his obvious superior artistic integrity...
Quote from: markfitz;739708Oh, and the rape thing? There are about three lines in there that say Rape is Something That Happens, in this Grim Grim World. Honestly, I believe that there's no real need to specify this in a somewhat portentous manner, as he does. Surely if you set up a violent and grotty world, one might assume that that's one of the bad things people do to each other, and whether or not it ever is mentioned in play would be purely up to individual groups? It seems like baiting people to react (as the Sandwich Lady did) with outrage, only for Edwards to get the chance to say "No, I'm a huge feminist, and it's done in a very mature and empowering way" or something. Seems like trolling, to be honest.
Maybe it's a publicity-seeking tactic. Yank the Usual Suspects' chain enough to attract some attention and trigger a TBP lynch-thread, then placate everyone. In the meantime, a few more hundred people have become aware of the Kickstarter than would have otherwise.
I'm sure the people who play the game will enjoy themselves with it. I took a gander at the playtest document and it seemed fine enough. I think the only issue I have with it is that it doesn't offer a menu of options to players and GMs. The PCs are these people who opt out of this larger conflict and use power from both sides and that's that. That's fine and all, but I'm becoming more and more appreciative of games that present lots of options and allow the participants to grab onto elements that interest them.
Not going to participate in the KS as it takes something truly special to get me to buy it in preorder. I'm loving my RQ/BRP based games right now and can't see a reason why I'd spend session time with this instead.
I'm all about the RQ at the moment too. Reading through Circle of Hands, it occurred to me that it would actually be quite cool as a RuneQuest campaign. He mentions RuneQuest at the end, along with a few other games, and I think you can see a little bit of influence (everyone has experience from a previous realistic profession, social class is important, everyone has some minor magic ...).
Along with Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest is pretty much one of the original "my D&D" type product that Edwards calls a "fantasy heartbreaker" (though I believe he reserves that term for later works than those published in the late 70s or early 80s). So perhaps this game has some elements of being Ron Edward's tribute to Runequest.
Yeah, but I think that, without going into his whole "fantasy heartbreaker" thing too deeply, the ones that he considers heartbreakers are the ones that failed to demarcate themselves from the D&D that they so clearly wanted to emulate/fix. You could argue that this doesn't apply to RQ because it actually DID manage to demarcate itself from the original, and carve out a niche for itself, though obviously a fairly small one. That said, back in the early 80s, it was one of the big games that all other fantasy games defined themselves against, and it has remained a perpetual choice of those who wanted more detail in cults and cultures and more gritty, realistic combat than default D&D provided ... That, along with all characters more or less participating in a magic ecology of a fully-formed world, makes me agree with you, that this game has elements of tribute to a RQ style of play.
Quote from: markfitz;739786Yeah, but I think that, without going into his whole "fantasy heartbreaker" thing too deeply, the ones that he considers heartbreakers are the ones that failed to demarcate themselves from the D&D that they so clearly wanted to emulate/fix. You could argue that this doesn't apply to RQ because it actually DID manage to demarcate itself from the original, and carve out a niche for itself, though obviously a fairly small one.
That is a very good point. And in a lot of discussions about why RQ didn't do better, a lot of people can only come up with "it wasn't first to market" although I think the Gygaxian strangeness had also already set the norm for expectations and Runequest was full of Staffordite wierdness instead.
QuoteThat said, back in the early 80s, it was one of the big games that all other fantasy games defined themselves against, and it has remained a perpetual choice of those who wanted more detail in cults and cultures and more gritty, realistic combat than default D&D provided ... That, along with all characters more or less participating in a magic ecology of a fully-formed world, makes me agree with you, that this game has elements of tribute to a RQ style of play.
I'm taking a closer look at the playtest document and while I'm seeing some RQish elements, it's missing probably the most distinct feature of RQ. A skill system.
The combat system has some RQish elements in that you hit, determine damage and reduce it by armour, but instead of HP, you damage stats. And you cannot just kill someone. You can only ever render them helpless and then intentionally kill them. So the best possible attack with a big two handed great axe is to render someone helpless*. Not very RQ at all!
Another strange mechanic is having a direct confrontation or statement of intent is less likely to succeed than if you integrate some sort of action appropriate to social rank or indisputably effective first.
There's also a strange waving away of sneak attacks or attacking from stealth. All it does is give you advantage in a clash. So again, you'll hit the limit of just being able to render someone helpless*. And it creates a retroactive moment of description. Whether or not you even snuck up on them won't be established as a fact in play until after you know how successful you were at attacking and then it's a result of interpreting the attack roll and effect rather than any stealth, perception or surprise check related stuff.
*Unless of course the person playing that character decides to narrate their character dying to the attack. If a character is reduced to 0 in both of their fighty stats, they can declare their character dead rather than just helpless. I guess that's useful for GM's shortening combat against unimportant characters, but it's definitely a big departure to a "let the rules adjudicate the situation" approach of early D&D and especially RQ.
Characters are super focused as well. They are Circle knights. And the central idea of Ron's old heart breaker Grey magick is mandatory. You're the guys who use both white and black magic to have grey magic. And as such you're part of this order. And not just part of it, but veterans committed to the cause. Any other character concept is not appropriate and completely unsupported. The game is about being a committed veteran circle knight who uses grey magic in the context of a larger struggle between white and black magic.
There's also a shared pool of characters. Not just shared, but you can't play the same character twice in a row. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it's not necessarily what people are looking for in a game. People like playing the character they made and not having swapping characters being mandatory.
Adventures don't end based on success, defeating a villain or finishing exploring an area, but on other factors that would be incomplete in a traditional game. Once there's a sufficiently tense conflict and sufficient characterization, the GM is supposed to go into a wrap up process.
What are my overall impressions of this game?
It is a heartbreaker that wouldn't have gotten funded without the author's name being attached to it and his small following on the internet. If the game was to be judged on it's own merits relative to other offerings, I don't think it would even beat out free options. If this exact game was attached to a forum thread where some unknown person was talking about their pet RPG, you'd get a few dowloads, a few questions and a "that's neat" post here and there.
I like people making their "my-D&D" or "my-RQ" and putting it on the net, but I'm not sure Ron Edwards has produced anything of note here. If you're interested in checking it out, I think the free playtest PDF is the way to go.
That aspect of swapping characters is kind of an interesting experiment... playing the group rather than an individual... but I can't see it surviving for more than a session or two before being ditched for more standard Player to PC relations.
I think Noumenon had some similar blending of the PCs... but in that game they're giant insects wandering a surreal dreamscape, so it was an in-game fact that the PCs weren't entirely discreet from one another.
Regarding this game, it's another fantasy game that I'm not interested in; there are many others.
Quote from: NathanIW;739785Along with Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest is pretty much one of the original "my D&D" type product that Edwards calls a "fantasy heartbreaker" (though I believe he reserves that term for later works than those published in the late 70s or early 80s). So perhaps this game has some elements of being Ron Edward's tribute to Runequest.
RuneQuest wouldn't be a heartbreaker, though; as per his original essay, heartbreakers define themselves by how they're different to D&D ("It's not like D&D, because..."), but end up just doing all the same things because the authors didn't know better. RuneQuest tries to do something different, and does it. Tunnels and Trolls may have been created because the author wanted to play a fantasy game but didn't have any D&D books, but it does enough things differently to be recognisable as it's own thing.
(OSR games aren't heartbreakers, because they're not trying to define themselves by how they're different to D&D; they're "It's like D&D, but if...".)
Quote from: NathanIW;739838The combat system has some RQish elements in that you hit, determine damage and reduce it by armour, but instead of HP, you damage stats. And you cannot just kill someone. You can only ever render them helpless and then intentionally kill them. So the best possible attack with a big two handed great axe is to render someone helpless*. Not very RQ at all!
I think that the "rendering helpless and then going on to kill" only applies to non-lethal (at first) unarmed damage, and I think it's an interesting way to handle it.
Other than that, I agree with what you state as the differences, Nathan, but the professonal backgrounds do strike me as a little RuneQuesty, except that instead of skills, the background and the social class are used as skill-umbrellas, much like HeroQuest or the skill system from 13th Age. Not a bad rules light way to go, in my opinion.
Also, the narrow Circle Knight set-up is why it strikes me as a homebrew campaign and not a whole game-world. It's too narrowly focused to be a whole world; but I'm not sure it would break either if you allowed people to play characters who weren't Circle Knights.
As for whether it's worth picking up or backing, I'd say that the playtest document is worth reading, to see how someone put together a quite flavourful campaign idea that feeds into some fairly interesting mechanics decisions, but I'm not sure myself I'd consider paying for it.
Quote from: markfitz;739877Also, the narrow Circle Knight set-up is why it strikes me as a homebrew campaign and not a whole game-world. It's too narrowly focused to be a whole world; but I'm not sure it would break either if you allowed people to play characters who weren't Circle Knights.
Yeah. I'm sure you could make it work. But good insight on the homebrew campaign idea. I suppose in a way 1974 D&D was the same sort of game. It assumed you were dungeon delvers looking for loot and that was that. You had classes to differentiate things a bit, but it wasn't until people started paying more attention to the adventurer's lives outside of the dungeons than did more variety really open up. I think this is even more narrow than 0D&D though as it doesn't leave the particulars undefined.
QuoteAs for whether it's worth picking up or backing, I'd say that the playtest document is worth reading, to see how someone put together a quite flavourful campaign idea that feeds into some fairly interesting mechanics decisions, but I'm not sure myself I'd consider paying for it.
I'm probably going to borrow and modify the situation generating process as I think it has merit.
One thing I like about all these KS projects is that it shows you just how small you can be and still get an RPG published and in the hands of those who want it. For example, here's River of Heaven, a sci-fi game based off of OpenQuest2:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/645319106/river-of-heaven-sf-rpg
A few hundred people, the printing and shipping costs are covered and the designer gets to be partially compensated for the design work that was going to get done anyway as it's for the designer's use in play and sharing it is a bonus.
This game is going to outdo River of Heaven in the KS as Ron has a larger internet fan base than Newt does and the story-game crowd is currently finding games with older sensibilities to be fashionable again. It's going to be a nice small print run paid for by the KS and that'll be fine.
This game is an RPG in the traditional sense and will probably work great for people who like it's narrow focus. I find the narrow focus to be a bit too much like a cliched elevator movie pitch. "Imagine a world where the forces of black magic and the forces of white magic are at war. And then there are these people who refuse to pick a side in the war and they use both! Imagine grey magick!"
So yeah, totally not for me.
I looks like a giant blob of "meh" to me, frankly. A pretty generic pitch, with a bunch of hyperbolic text about why it's awesome, and nothing to back that up.
I may plunk down $12 just to see how his theory actually plays out after all these years in terms of real design.
Quote from: robiswrong;739933I looks like a giant blob of "meh" to me, frankly. A pretty generic pitch, with a bunch of hyperbolic text about why it's awesome, and nothing to back that up.
I may plunk down $12 just to see how his theory actually plays out after all these years in terms of real design.
Why bother? The playtest version is free as a PDF:
http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/Circle-Playtest-Draft.pdf
Quote from: Dodger;739760Maybe it's a publicity-seeking tactic. Yank the Usual Suspects' chain enough to attract some attention and trigger a TBP lynch-thread, then placate everyone. In the meantime, a few more hundred people have become aware of the Kickstarter than would have otherwise.
So it's getting some attention on the larger feminist blogosphere, so you might be on to something.
Here's what Ron Edwards had to say in an email exchange with such a blogger:
Quote from: Ron EdwardsBriefly, the setting is not offering the “way I think it ought to be.” This is an illustration of the problem: that social justice does not exist and that the setting doesn’t feature solutions. Frankly, I think modern life isn’t much better, and my fantasy setting calls that shit out. Or it should, in its final form.
:rolleyes: Oh good. A game that's about calling out the lack of social justice in real life. That sounds like so much fun. I was just thinking I'd add the matter-of-fact issue of child slavery on cocoa bean plantations to my campaign. Calling that shit out in a game will make everything better right? And it'll help my game be more accepted by certain bloggers.:rolleyes:
Ugh.
And the concluding thoughts by the feminist blogger:
Quote from: Anna KreiderDo I agree with everything that Ron is saying? No. And I’m still not likely to ever play Circle of Hands. But it’s nice to know that my concerns were heard and taken seriously, and I can be hopeful that the final version will be something that is ultimately not harmful. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
emphasis mine
Thank you, Anna Kreider, for stepping in and making sure your concerns were heard and taken seriously for a game that you have
no intention of actually playing! :rolleyes:
From here:
http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-conversation-with-ron-edwards-about-circle-of-hands-and-rape-long/
The real joke lost so far is that the man who first coined the term "heartbreaker" as a semi - insult is now trying to reform it's meaning and is riding his own nostalgia craze as he constructs an RQ/Warhammer heartbreaker.
Quote from: markfitz;739877Also, the narrow Circle Knight set-up is why it strikes me as a homebrew campaign and not a whole game-world. It's too narrowly focused to be a whole world; but I'm not sure it would break either if you allowed people to play characters who weren't Circle Knights.
To be fair - it's not the first time. L5R somewhat expects you'll be playing a nobleman, same for basic Pendragon with it's assumption of being a knight/courier for Uther and then Arthur's court. That's off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more examples.
Quote from: NathanIW;740360So it's getting some attention on the larger feminist blogosphere, so you might be on to something.
Here's what Ron Edwards had to say in an email exchange with such a blogger:
:rolleyes: Oh good. A game that's about calling out the lack of social justice in real life. That sounds like so much fun. I was just thinking I'd add the matter-of-fact issue of child slavery on cocoa bean plantations to my campaign. Calling that shit out in a game will make everything better right? And it'll help my game be more accepted by certain bloggers.:rolleyes:
Ugh.
And the concluding thoughts by the feminist blogger:
emphasis mine
Thank you, Anna Kreider, for stepping in and making sure your concerns were heard and taken seriously for a game that you have no intention of actually playing! :rolleyes:
From here:
http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-conversation-with-ron-edwards-about-circle-of-hands-and-rape-long/
Power Word: Rape in action.
Also, "Frankly, I think modern life isn’t much better." If you're reading this, Ron - stop thinking. You just don't have the brain for it, I'm afraid.
I really, really, really hate this comparative shit. "Yeah, women who try to go to school in Pakistan or Afghanistan are having acid thrown in their faces, but over here women get cat - called, so who are we to judge?"
Quote from: Rincewind1;740388Power Word: Rape
It's an amazing feat of propaganda. The technique of attaching of "rape culture" to everything so that if someone questions anything these people are saying, that person is just doing so as a hapless misogynist product of "rape culture."
QuoteAlso, "Frankly, I think modern life isn't much better." If you're reading this, Ron - stop thinking. You just don't have the brain for it, I'm afraid.
A gander at infant mortality rates since the advent of modern medicine and germ theory would be a place he could start.
What's the point of this game?
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn 1990, I wanted fantasy role-playing and it just was not happening.
I wanted monsters and cosmic magic, certainly, but I really wanted human evil and human pain. I wanted combat that felt like fighting, with fear and desperation just ahead of effective tactics. I wanted damage not merely to tick down a fuel tank, or even just to penalize, but to hurt. I wanted a knife to be a deadly weapon, as dangerous as a great-axe in the right time and place. I wanted a reason to fight which made sense to me. I wanted wizards to be physically tough. I wanted scary, raw, scarring spells that visibly sprayed and spattered. I wanted shocking powerful magic that wasn't limited in multiple stifling directions. I wanted characters to be vivid at the start, but also to be unfinished, to have somewhere to go. I wanted all of us playing to care about the characters. I wanted to get to know the party, experience the events that would become its collective memories, see its members develop and the whole membership change. I wanted to see things happen in adventures, not because "the GM says if you get the silver widget, the realm is secure," but because some player decided to do something and made it happen. I wanted players to decide for themselves whom they wanted to kill. I wanted awesome cosmic forces in opposition, but characters who were not pawns. I wanted stuff to happen in our very first session, and never to let up. I wanted to look back on a game with grim pride, remembering moments of breaking-points, fury, tragedy, and shared joy at the table.
Sounds good. I think he should shoulder the blame of why he didn't get any of that out of the 80's or 90's, because I sure did, but I'll accept him at his word, that no existing game was doing it for him.
So what do we have?
- Pretentious Chapter Titles ripped off from Burning Wheel...
- Narrow Theme - Being gray in a world that is black and white...
- Narrow Focus - You are a member of the circle...
- Weird Ass Social Crap forcing non-Traditional IC-POV - Everyone makes up two characters, you play any of the characters each time, even other people's and you never play the same ones twice...
- Framing the social structure of the world to force character moral conflict - Rape is Real!, You can beat someone to death by wearing them down after they are already helpless. It's the Dark Ages, the world is covered in shit! There's absolute Good and absolute Evil but you aren't allied with either one.
Does the game system governing actual actions by the characters meet the expectations of that opening paragraph? Who knows? I don't know if I can struggle through all the typical Forge player-focused bullshit to actually see what the characters do.
Cue all the "100% traditional old-school play" comments.
Quote from: CRKrueger;740406Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn 1990, I wanted fantasy role-playing and it just was not happening.
I wanted monsters and cosmic magic, certainly, but I really wanted human evil and human pain. I wanted combat that felt like fighting, with fear and desperation just ahead of effective tactics. I wanted damage not merely to tick down a fuel tank, or even just to penalize, but to hurt. I wanted a knife to be a deadly weapon, as dangerous as a great-axe in the right time and place. I wanted a reason to fight which made sense to me. I wanted wizards to be physically tough. I wanted scary, raw, scarring spells that visibly sprayed and spattered. I wanted shocking powerful magic that wasn't limited in multiple stifling directions. I wanted characters to be vivid at the start, but also to be unfinished, to have somewhere to go. I wanted all of us playing to care about the characters. I wanted to get to know the party, experience the events that would become its collective memories, see its members develop and the whole membership change. I wanted to see things happen in adventures, not because "the GM says if you get the silver widget, the realm is secure," but because some player decided to do something and made it happen. I wanted players to decide for themselves whom they wanted to kill. I wanted awesome cosmic forces in opposition, but characters who were not pawns. I wanted stuff to happen in our very first session, and never to let up. I wanted to look back on a game with grim pride, remembering moments of breaking-points, fury, tragedy, and shared joy at the table.
Dude should've just bought Runequest and saved himself a world of trouble. :D
Well, this is in the wrong area, clearly.
Quote from: The Butcher;740453Dude should've just bought Runequest and saved himself a world of trouble. :D
Pretty much.