Realism vs. Fun
Elliot Wilen
something like:
>we play games to ESCAPE old complex reality. why remind yourself it's
>still here with little nitpicking things.
(--wayne wallace <lord...@ucrmath.ucr.edu>)
Something I think people often overlook is that realism can often help
play rather than hindering it. I am thinking of some of the most
elementary types of concerns which are often ignored or "streamlined"
because people think they're boring--things like fatigue and
encumbrance, healing, and eating. And the weather.
The difference between a typical scenario (in my experience, of
course) and a good movie or short story is striking. In fiction, the
"boring" concerns I mentioned in the previous paragraph serve as
interesting obstacles and plot complications:
The little band has escaped from a tribe of cannibals. One of
them has been wounded, however, and as they hack through the
jungle he becomes feverish. He can't keep up the pace. "You go
on," he says. "I'm not much use -- I'll just slow you down."
The others won't hear of it. Instead, they make a stretcher to
carry him, while he drifts periodically into delirium. One
character steals extra rations and is caught. A fight ensues;
the other members of the group manage to overpower the thief.
They keep him under guard henceforth. In a lucid moment, the
wounded man manages to get a hold of a gun and shoots himself.
They bury him as best they can. As the rations give out, people
begin to starve; some show signs of jungle fever...
In many games, the scenario would be:
The little band has escaped from a tribe of cannibals. One of
them has been wounded, however, and as they hack through the
jungle *he doesn't regain any hit points*. No one starves--the
GM said at the beginning of the scenario that everyone has
"enough rations" in their satchels and backpacks, which they
managed to recover. The group runs into a series of wild
animals, which they must fight...
Now, unless you use a "boring realistic" approach for healing, encumbrance,
and food, the first version of this story can only happen with direct GM
intervention. That is, the GM must say, "You're running out of
rations"--in effect, "Here is a Plot Complication. Deal with it"--
instead of allowing the players to notice on their own that they're
running out of food.
The same goes for infections and complications to wounds. I think
someone said recently that he didn't think having characters survive
a battle only to die of shock and infections is very heroic. I disagree:
it's the stuff good stories are made of, from the dying farewell of
Thorin Oakenshield to Dr. McCoy's insistence that "You're not going
anywhere until you're healed." And the only way (IMO) to produce these
scenes--short of arbitrary action on the part of the GM--is to use
"boring", "non-escapist", realistic rules.
--Elliot Wilen
Anthony Kapolka
>Something I think people often overlook is that realism can often help
>play rather than hindering it. I am thinking of some of the most
>elementary types of concerns which are often ignored or "streamlined"
>because people think they're boring--things like fatigue and
You've made a good case for the above, I think.
>Now, unless you use a "boring realistic" approach for healing, encumbrance,
>and food, the first version of this story can only happen with direct GM
>intervention. That is, the GM must say, "You're running out of
>rations"--in effect, "Here is a Plot Complication. Deal with it"--
>instead of allowing the players to notice on their own that they're
>running out of food.
The question is, that exciting plot realism is purchased at what price?
How much additional bookwork is required? I don't advocate a strict
approach to encumbrance- I mean, that can be really boring. Perhaps I
am too lax, in that I don't even check equipment lists too closely.
The method I believe in is the "reality check". Most things either
make sense to have, or do not- I mean, what kind of idiot is going to
travel in snow without some sort of tinderbox? The question of quantity
(such as food) really is an issue of reasonableness- how much food could
have been carried... how much time on the journey was spent hunting for
food... etc. In areas of uncertainty, I assign a percentage and let the
dice decide.
>The same goes for infections and complications to wounds. I think
Here is something that really isn't dealt with well under most rules.
How do you handle this? I would probably have rolled %tile dice when
the (serious) injury was attended to in the field, and judge success based
on that (giving some modifiers based on skills and situation). The person
doing the patching up might have some idea of how well things look, so
if a poor result was indicated, some warning would be given.
>anywhere until you're healed." And the only way (IMO) to produce these
>scenes--short of arbitrary action on the part of the GM--is to use
>"boring", "non-escapist", realistic rules.
I've always been willing to take arbitrary action when it is the life of an
NPC which is in question- often my players have as much (or more) interest
in the health of a NPC then in the welfare of other party members. To some
extent the job of a GM is to paint a backdrop and let the characters
interact with it, but inevitably the planned backdrop is inadequate. The
trick then becomes to make what is really arbitrary actions *seem* realistic.
Whether this is done via common sense or via established rules to me doesn't
matter. All that matters is what the players believe.
--
Anthony Kapolka ant...@cs.pitt.edu
"looks like tommorow is a'comin' on fast"
Nick Janow
> ant...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu writes:
>
> The question is, that exciting plot realism is purchased at what price? How
> much additional bookwork is required? I don't advocate a strict approach to
> encumbrance- I mean, that can be really boring. Perhaps I am too lax, in
> that I don't even check equipment lists too closely. The method I believe in
> is the "reality check". Most things either make sense to have, or do not- I
> mean, what kind of idiot is going to travel in snow without some sort of
> tinderbox?
There are gamers who like "heroic adventures" (mundane activities are ignored),
and there are those who prefer the adventures to be generated by the mundane
activities. I find that while "heroic adventures" can be fun, a steady diet of
them makes me sick. It's like eating candy: a nice treat, as long as it's not
too often.
Strict encumberance enforcement imposes limitations on what the characters can
do. It's those limitations that make what the characters _can_ do,
interesting. Overcoming limitations is what makes adventures interesting.
"Harrowing wilderness" doesn't apply when the characters can just say "we make
camp", and they are automatically granted a good meal and a comfortable rest
(except for random monster attacks).
> I mean, what kind of idiot is going to travel in snow without some sort of
> tinderbox?"
What if someone is chasing you and you lose your tinderbox or don't have time
to buy one? You can develop a whole adventure around the lack of a tinderbox.
Can you start a fire any other way? Maybe you'll have to build a shelter
instead. Perhaps one of your comrades is badly injured: without the warmth of
a fire he'll die. Out of desperation you decide to attack the armed party
which is chasing you. None of this would arise in the "we make camp" type of
game.
> How much additional bookwork is required?
It does require more bookwork, but it's not that much of a chore. You don't
have to recalculate the entire list everytime you buy something or eat a meal.
Again, it's the limitations that add interest. Your party finds a cache of
copper coins. You can't divide the weight up equally, since each character has
only a certain carrying capacity and already has a certain weight of personal
possesions. How does the group get this treasure back to civilization? :)
One greedy character wants to carry as much as possible. He rids himself of
everything with a lower cost/weight ratio than the copper. This might include
food, extra weapons, medical supplies etc. Also, he's giving up the option of
running.
Another character, more paranoid than greedy, decides to take only as much as
he could still run and fight with. What happens when these characters get
attacked by bandits? What if they reach town safely? Ah well, it's those
decisions about mundane matters--and the results of those decisions--that make
the game interesting for me.
Treasure laden characters in the forest, with night and a snowstorm coming:
"Didn't ANYONE keep their tinderbox???" :-)
climber
>In article <1990Jun4.0...@agate.berkeley.edu> ich...@codon7.berkeley.edu (Elliot Wilen) writes:
>
>>Something I think people often overlook is that realism can often help
>>play rather than hindering it. I am thinking of some of the most
>>elementary types of concerns which are often ignored or "streamlined"
>>because people think they're boring--things like fatigue and
>
>You've made a good case for the above, I think.
>
>>Now, unless you use a "boring realistic" approach for healing, encumbrance,
>>and food, the first version of this story can only happen with direct GM
>>intervention. That is, the GM must say, "You're running out of
[much stuff deleted]
My approach for my gaming is make it as realistic as possible as long as it
remains playable. My favorite response to players saying "that's not very
realistic, Craig" is "You want realism, go play the stockmarket" or "Look
out the window; now, how many dragons do you see?" Any game simulation of
real life is bound to be peppered with inconsistencies. But, hey, its
still gotta be fun and playable.
Oh, I usually don't worry very much about characters weight and
encumberances except I have this nasty habit of suddenly telling the
characters to do a complete encumberance and weight check right in the
middle of a chase scene (when the characters are being chased by some
really big, scary monster(s). I find that has 'trained' them to be
reasonable with their encumberances. It also has been the source of a
great many funny scenes (sorry dude, ya gotta drop those 5000gp if you
want to live).
Craig cli...@sol.UVic.ca
Robert Plamondon
Realism isn't a mechanism, it's an attitude. It doesn't really imply
bookwork at all. To give an example of the converse, CHAMPIONS isn't
even a slightly realistic system (Digression: maybe CHAMPIONS is a
realistic model of some comic books. Irrelevant, for those comic
books don't fit the category of realistic fiction. End of
digression). But that doesn't keep CHAMPIONS from having lots of
rules and bookkeeping. Ditto for AD&D, and for a lot of games.
To use the previous example of encumbrance: in a realistic campaign,
someone (if necessary, the GM, but preferably the player) would
notice that a character was carrying a LOT of junk, and would simply
role-play the consequences of it.
Realism involves, more than anything, a slavish adherence to the
principle of cause and effect. Asking the question, "What will
happen because of this?" -- and basing your answer on "campaign
reality" instead fo the rules -- is what makes the campaign realistic.
-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon
rob...@weitek.COM
"Why follow rules when you can THINK?"
Nick Janow
>
> Realism involves, more than anything, a slavish adherence to the
> principle of cause and effect. Asking the question, "What will
> happen because of this?" -- and basing your answer on "campaign
> reality" instead fo the rules -- is what makes the campaign realistic.
I agree with your distinction between realism and complex bookkeeping, but
there is a reason why games favouring realism tend to have more complex
bookkeeping: reality. :)
There has been some discussion about rpgs without any bookkeeping. To be
effective, this requires a certain type mindset from the players and GM. I
don't think I would enjoy such games.
I have trouble with vague systems. Do I have enough money to buy a sword or
don't I? There are three bandits left, and I've shot eleven arrows: how many
arrows do I have left?
I can see how these questions could be resolved without written records; the GM
would decide which outcome would best further the story. That works (I assume)
for some players, but not for me. I _hated_ games where I felt that I didn't
have control over my characters destiny!
Why bother trying to be clever, when things will turn out one way regardless.
The thrill of battle comes from not knowing the outcome. If the outcome is
decided by the GM, why bother being there? "Rathmar the Cleric will be brave,
considerate and deeply pious; let me know what happens to him. Bye." That's
the feeling I got during some campaigns.
I like having to decide whether to buy a spare tinderbox, or to save the money
for an emergency. I know that someday, that minor decision may may turn out to
have great importance. The ability to make mistakes--which are later
regretted, "I knew I should have bought that extra tinderbox!"--give the game
realism for me. Without detailed records, the ability to make informed
decisions and story-building successes and mistakes they generate, disappears.
When I think of my last game, what I remember most are the mistakes, the
bloopers and the missed opportunities...and the successes won by quick,
innovative use of some minor skill or resource.
Our Harn game broke up about a year ago, and I haven't played since then.
Yesterday, I saw a request for AD&D players for starting a new campaign. The
urge to have a character again, to experience the thrill of gaming, was still
strong. However, after realizing that AD&D doesn't support the level of detail
I became used to in Harn, I knew I couldn't go back to a detail-poor system.
Alas. :(
Carl Rigney
>
>Realism involves, more than anything, a slavish adherence to the
>principle of cause and effect. Asking the question, "What will
>happen because of this?" -- and basing your answer on "campaign
>reality" instead fo the rules -- is what makes the campaign realistic.
Good point, but
> "Why follow rules when you can THINK?"
OK, Aloysius comes to a 5 meter chasm. Can he jump it? Carrying
Yazid? What if it were 10 meters? A good system is a very useful
tool; its just important to avoid thinking of all situations as nails
for the hammer of your system.
Next example: Yazid is fighting Gaerloch for the crown of Avalon (inevitably)
but he's ill with the flu. Can he still win? More importantly, if the GM
just calls it, what are the players there for; just to hear him read
his novel to them? I like roleplaying, but if I want to read a novel I've
got hundreds sitting on my shelves waiting for me. And sometimes the dice
know better than the GM what should happen.
I will agree with you that combat for the sake of combat gets dull after
the first decade or so. But when there's something interesting at stake,
both combat and systems have their place in the roleplaying GM's toolchest.
--
Carl Rigney
c...@amdcad.AMD.COM
{ames decwrl pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle, Its much too confining.
-- Lilly Tomlin
Stephen Ardron
>bookwork at all. To give an example of the converse, CHAMPIONS isn't
>even a slightly realistic system (Digression: maybe CHAMPIONS is a
>realistic model of some comic books. Irrelevant, for those comic
>books don't fit the category of realistic fiction. End of
>digression). But that doesn't keep CHAMPIONS from having lots of
>rules and bookkeeping. Ditto for AD&D, and for a lot of games.
Realism is very imortant IMHO in a system, for one primary reason.
Predictability. The problem with a system that is in no way realistic
is that you have to know the rules to play. If I was playing AD&D
(the least realistic system that I know best), and I pushed a 10th
level fighter off a 7 story cliff, (and I didn't know the rules)
I would probably expect him to be dead, or at least in no shape to
fight. Imgine me surprise when he's up and about, acting as good as
new! He can run as fast as I can, and swing a sword just as well.
You can make MANY examples like that, in many systems. To me, realism
doesn't have to be precise. It's not that important that he be
EXACTLY hurt as much in the fall as he would be in reality, but the
*feel* has to be there to allow you to role-play a character. If the
rules of the universe are totally different, and the character has
lived under those rules his entire life, he should be played
differently.
Also, remember that rules are useful in case the player's concept of
reality differs from the GMs. It is nice if things are consistant. ie,
someone gave an example of jumping a cliff. The player may think "of
course James Bond can jump this 20' crevice" while the GM thinks "of
course no human could jump this crevice, he would be stupid to try"
rules avoid these "little misunderstandings", and the horrible
clunking return to real-time (as opposed to game time) when the
player says "but if I'd known that, I never would have jumped!"
Stephen Ardron
spar...@spurge.waterloo.edu
[formerly st...@philmtl.philips.ca] <- in case you care.
Robert Plamondon
> OK, Aloysius comes to a 5 meter chasm. Can he jump it? Carrying
> Yazid? What if it were 10 meters? A good system is a very useful
> tool; its just important to avoid thinking of all situations as nails
> for the hammer of your system.
True. But the topic on the floor was whether a realistic system
requires continual tedious bookkeeping. It doesn't, since most questions
can be answered trivially. No, Aloysius is not slowed down if he's
carrying a Snickers bar. Yes, he's slowed down if he's pulling a
wagon.
To follow the encumbrance example, what you NEED is for everyone to
know (and preferably write down) what junk their characters are
carrying, and a rules system for running, jumping, etc. The rules
system only needs to be invoked when it needs to be invoked;
not as a religious discipline. Adding five pounds to a pack doesn't
slow you down much, so forget it. Adding five pounds several times
is grounds to pull out calculators and figure it out.
You shouldn't ask the dice questions unless you're willing to wait
for (and live with) the answer. If it's obvious, or too trivial to
be worth the effort, or the answer is clearly going to be wrong (and
I mostly confine this to realistically wrong, not wrecks-the-plot or
out-of-genre wrong), don't ask. Do it yourself.
> Next example: Yazid is fighting Gaerloch for the crown of Avalon
> (inevitably) but he's got a sprained ankle from where his buddy
> Aloysius landed on him after jumping the chasm. Can he still win?
Of course he can. Yazid is sneaky. He will do something unexpected.
> More importantly, if the GM just calls it, what are the players there
> for; just to hear him read his novel to them?
> I like roleplaying, but
> if I want to read a novel I've got hundreds sitting on my shelves
> waiting for me. And sometimes the dice know better than the GM what
> should happen.
The GM can't just call it, because he doesn't know what the player
characters are going to do. Unless you have something like a
double-barreled shotgun duel, where the results are binary, the
individual actions in combat make all the difference, thus the player
have to call their actions for themselves.
As for the Game Master adjudicating the actions, the rules and the
dice are (nearly) indispensible tools, but they're only tools. They
should be used to answer specific questions when the answer isn't
obvious, that's all. Does the blow land? Does Aloysius make it
across the chasm? Does Muffy die in a pool of preppie blood?
> I will agree with you that combat for the sake of combat gets dull
> after the first decade or so. But when there's something interesting
> at stake, both combat and systems have their place in the roleplaying
> GM's toolchest.
Combat is not intrinsically interesting. What happens to sympathetic
characters is. Thus, putting a sympathetic character in deadly
danger (of any kind) is intrinsically interesting. If the danger is
tied to accomplishing something, it's doubly interesting. It has
nothing to do with combat qua combat.
Again, I'm not against systems per se. I'm against the idea that the
game system is the DOMINANT element in a campaign: dominant to the
point where you can't play reasonable characters that the designers
didn't think of. Dominant to the point that campaign reality is
twisted into a game-specific scenario pack. The system should be
subordinate. Character and situation should be the dominant
elements.
-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon
rob...@weitek.COM
Nick Janow
> Carl Rigney <c...@bach.amd.com> writes:
>
>> a6...@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes:
>>
>> Strict encumberance enforcement imposes limitations on what the characters
>> can do. It's those limitations that make what the characters _can_ do,
>> interesting. Overcoming limitations is what makes adventures interesting.
>
> for every character with weights to the gram.
To the tenth of a kg might be sufficient. However, it's more than just weight
that must be recorded. Do you have 10m of rope, or 15m? How many arrows are
you carrying? I don't find it that much work to keep track of this
information, but I do feel that it is worth the effort. After one AD&D fight,
I noticed that I had shot about 30 arrows from a quiver that held 12. :)
> I think the ultimate in that direction is the infamous Eastern Isles, where
> PCs have starved to death or died of thirst. This is fun?
Dying isn't fun. Surviving through your efforts (planning, creative thinking)
when you otherwise would have died, is fun. Surviving because the GM let you
survive anyways, is boring.
> But much of this is subsumed under Survival skill; knowing what to bring with
> you.
Do you mean that if you fail your Survival skill roll--rolled every time you
journey through wilderness--you die? That's your idea of fun? Having a
survival skill is meaningless unless you're allowed to fail.
> But they point out that in Lost Land type adventures, it doesn't matter how
> much the adventurers bring along because it invariably gets
> sunk/lost/dropped/eaten by dinosaurs, leaving the heroes to rely on their
> wits and a handful of cartridges, which are invariably fewer than they need
> to do things the easy way.
Your "Lost Land" example is the type of game where good planning is futile,
since you know the GM is going to remove most of your equipment. I personally
hate campaigns where the GM uses such heavy-handed tactics to negate a player's
creative thinking.
I prefer campaigns where the GM tells you "You'll be heading into sub-arctic
tundra region" and lets the characters prepare for that. Local NPCs can give
advice on necessary equipment/supplies. If the characters choose not to buy a
tent (too heavy/expensive), they have to deal with the consequences. The GM
should go by random weather generation; if he rolls a blizzard...
Carl Rigney
>
>> ant...@speedy.cs.pitt.edu writes:
>>
>Strict encumberance enforcement imposes limitations on what the characters can
>do. It's those limitations that make what the characters _can_ do,
>interesting. Overcoming limitations is what makes adventures interesting.
Agreed, but this doesn't necessarily mean you need the complete packing
list for every character with weights to the gram. I think the
ultimate in that direction is the infamous Eastern Isles, where PCs
have starved to death or died of thirst. This is fun?
Besides, you'll see a considerable difference in loads between players
who've hiked and those who haven't, and players with military experience
and those without. But much of this is subsumed under Survival skill;
knowing what to bring with you.
>"Harrowing wilderness" doesn't apply when the characters can just say "we make
>camp", and they are automatically granted a good meal and a comfortable rest
Agreed. Torg's _The Living Land_ is a good example of how to avoid the
"Winnebago" style of wilderness travel: A lost land with impenetrable
mist, savage dinosaurs, and strange natural laws. But they point out
that in Lost Land type adventures, it doesn't matter how much the
adventurers bring along because it invariably gets
sunk/lost/dropped/eaten by dinosaurs, leaving the heroes to rely on
their wits and a handful of cartridges, which are invariably fewer
than they need to do things the easy way.
>What if someone is chasing you and you lose your tinderbox or don't have time
>to buy one? You can develop a whole adventure around the lack of a tinderbox.
And in fact Jack London did just that, in an outstanding story about
a traveller in the north who makes the mistake of getting his matches wet.
I think the title was "To Build a Fire" but I could be wrong.
>One greedy character wants to carry as much as possible. He rids himself of
>everything with a lower cost/weight ratio than the copper. This might include
>food, extra weapons, medical supplies etc. Also, he's giving up the option of
>running.
This guy is dinosaur munchies. No doubt about it.
Its interesting to note that in Vietnam some soldiers did in fact
discard grenades, mortar shells, and other heavy items when the going
got hot. And sometimes intensely regretted it later. The more
experienced soldiers tended towards "There's no such thing as too much ammo."
> Treasure laden characters in the forest, with night and a snowstorm coming:
>"Didn't ANYONE keep their tinderbox???" :-)
"Start rubbin' those copper pieces REAL hard, jerk!" :-)
--
Carl Rigney
c...@amdcad.AMD.COM
{ames decwrl pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr
"Detail and diversion both add to the realism of the story. But the story
must not be lost in the detail of the telling."
Thanatos
>In article <20...@mindlink.UUCP> a6...@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes:
>>What if someone is chasing you and you lose your tinderbox or don't
>>have time to buy one? You can develop a whole adventure around the
>>lack of a tinderbox.
>And in fact Jack London did just that, in an outstanding story about
>a traveller in the north who makes the mistake of getting his matches wet.
>I think the title was "To Build a Fire" but I could be wrong.
The story is indeed titled ``To Build a Fire''. Check out collections
of Jack London stories at your local library. Others make for
wonderful ideas and imagination starters as well.
However, I didn't make this post just to confirm the story title.
I've also got a question for you netlanders out there. I've recently
seen mention of GURPS Magic having rules for rune magic in it. What
do you folks think of this system vs. real Nordic rune lore (of which
I know nothing)? Also, are there good sourcebooks, for rune lore and
rune magic, that any of you can point me to? I have access to a
monster occult bookstore and the Boston Public Library, among other
neat places.
Thanks!
Thanatos
--
Mail to: internet: mjb...@athena.mit.edu
bitnet: mjbauer%athena.mit.edu@MITVMA
uunet: uunet!bloom-beacon!mit-athena!mjbauer
Rev. J. B. Bell
#However, I didn't make this post just to confirm the story title.
#I've also got a question for you netlanders out there. I've recently
#seen mention of GURPS Magic having rules for rune magic in it. What
#do you folks think of this system vs. real Nordic rune lore (of which
#I know nothing)? Also, are there good sourcebooks, for rune lore and
#rune magic, that any of you can point me to? I have access to a
#monster occult bookstore and the Boston Public Library, among other
#neat places.
#
Yes, GURPS Magic does have rules for rune magic. I have played them
just a bit and found them to be fairly useable, with a flavor
altogether different from the usual magic. They take a LOT longer and
so are usually more well-suited to subtler effects.
As to authenticity, it should be noted that the source for definitions
is Ralph Blum's _New Book of Runes_, which in the opinion of most
runesters is a piece of crap. If you're interested in authenticity,
that is. I would personally recommend _At the Well of Wyrd_ by Edred
Thorsson for a pretty comprehensive system of runic divination &
interpretation. It can be a little difficult to read, but the
definitions of the runes themselves are pretty succinct.
Even more interesting though, I think, would be to go ahead and make
up different runes from the usual Viking set. All you have to do is
attribute the verbs & nouns of the GURPS improvised magic system to
some sigils, and wham!--you have a different set of runes, perhaps for
a different race, or even of some god. Have fun with it.
#Thanks!
#Thanatos
#--
#Mail to: internet: mjb...@athena.mit.edu
# bitnet: mjbauer%athena.mit.edu@MITVMA
# uunet: uunet!bloom-beacon!mit-athena!mjbauer
--Rev. J. B. Bell
Walter Milliken
>I've also got a question for you netlanders out there. I've recently
>seen mention of GURPS Magic having rules for rune magic in it. What
>do you folks think of this system vs. real Nordic rune lore (of which
>I know nothing)? Also, are there good sourcebooks, for rune lore and
>rune magic, that any of you can point me to? I have access to a
>monster occult bookstore and the Boston Public Library, among other
>neat places.
Well, the GURPS Magic rune magic rules were written by Brett Slocum,
who's usually around here somewhere on the net. I assume he could
tell you about his sources. During the discussion of the rules on
SJG-BBS, I got the impression that the runes themselves were derived
from historical sources.
---Walter
Brett Slocum
Well, here I am. In writing the Rune Magic section of GURPS Magic, I
first took Steffan O'Sullivan's Improvised Spell rules. Some discussions
on the SJG-BBS about improvised magic had originally sparked the idea
for Runes. I took the names of the runes of the Futhark from "The
Book of Runes" by Ralph Blum (as attributed on the sidebar on M81)
and fit them to the nouns and verbs of Improvised Spellcasting.
I did some brainstorming about the different ways to use runes based on
classical and fantasy literature. Some ideas were inspired by the
Cabbalist Mystic mode of magick in Chivalry and Sorcery.
I am particularly fond of my idea of having a bag full of runestones
(as are sold with "The Book of Runes") and grabbing out a few runes
and seeing what spell could be cast.
I actually know little about historical rune magic, except as a divination
tool. I was trying to come up with alternative ways of casting magic
that fit the GURPS Magic system.
If you are interested in Runes, read Blum's book, plus other books he has
written. Also, many other books have recently been published on Runes
(there seems to be something of a boom in that subject area). Check
out Books in Print. Also, for more about this type of magic, you might
try books on the Nordic religion, such as "The Rites of Odin" by Ed Fitch.
(Recently published. Apparently, B. Dalton's has trouble catagorizing
non-Christian religions. I found this book in the SF/Fantasy section.)
--
Brett Slocum <uunet!hi-csc!slocum> or <hi-csc!slo...@uunet.uu.net>
Sip. SPIT! "DAMN good coffee ... and Hot, too!" -Agent Dale Cooper, Twin Peaks.