Moebius Adventures

You are currently browsing articles tagged Moebius Adventures.

With all the recent activity on the blogosphere regarding 2010 results for small RPG publishers (Nevermet Press here, Stargazer Games here and Rite Designs here), I thought I’d throw mine out there too because I was curious.

When I first published the Moebius Adventures Core Rules book back in 2007, I gave away more than 1100 copies in a big promotion RPGNow was having that Thanksgiving. Since then I have sold 3 copies. Not a biggie, as like most independent writers/designers I honestly wasn’t planning on making a mint doing what I love. (By the way, if you’d like to purchase a copy for $3 off, click here.)

But the more interesting stats for me revolve around the freebie I put out about the same time. The Moebius Adventures Core Rules Sample Adventure amounts to one chapter in the Core Rules book that details a quick spin through roleplaying and combat in the system.

Again through RPGNow, I had 161 downloads in 2007, 113 in 2008, 65 in 2009, 56 in 2010, and 6 so far in 2011.

What does this show? It shows that people are looking at freebies at RPGNow, even really old ones like mine, and that could possibly lead to future sales down the line.

I’m not convinced that this will lead to sales of my next project, whenever I actually get it done. But it does convince me that I will be putting out a freebie PDF ahead of the project (probably a short PDF of NPCs & Creature stats) to try and gain a bit of traction.

Question: How are other small publishers using freebies to drive product interest? And is it working for you? Call me curious.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , ,

In my last post, I chatted about some of the difficulties I was having with Divine magic and how rituals fit into the mix.

Warrior, Rogue, & Mage has a few different parts to the magic system. You have Mana, which is the magical energy a caster can use to create a magical effect. You have a personal spellbook containing spells from the various Circles of magic. Each higher Circle basically provides a bit more gusto for your effects. Add to that the concept of Enhancements, which are basically Mana-fueled power-ups, and Rituals, which allows a single caster to cast higher level spells when in a group.

Pentagram with a circle around it
Image via Wikipedia

Seems pretty reasonable doesn’t it?

However, as per usual, I seem to have painted myself into a box and created artificial boundaries. I was so happy that I found WR&M that I used it to build a new set of walls around myself. The rules are great, but I found myself wondering how to shoehorn a few things in.

Today I was reminded by Corvus that you have to take a risk sometimes – or as he put it – “No guts, no glory.” :)

As a result of this FACEPALM moment, it came about that perhaps these aren’t walls at all, but doors instead. And maybe it’s time for a little remodeling. The upshot is that for Divine spells of the priesthood I’ll end up with three or four Circles of spells and a 5th Circle of ritual-only spells that can’t be cast by a single caster. I won’t know for sure that’s going to be the final approach I’ll take for Divine magic, but it’s a start. And with a little playtesting, I ought to see any kinks that show up.

Once I get Divine and Superstitious spells fleshed out a bit, I’ll need to do some serious playtesting anyway.

So that brings me to the second part of this ramble. Would anyone be interested in a WR&M campaign online in an IRC chat one night a week? I’m thinking with one session for a couple of hours a week, we could explore the port town of Rivergate and see how the rules work in the setting.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been looking at extending the already cool system for Warrior, Rogue, and Mage for my new project. I’m trying to incorporate a few of the concepts we developed for Moebius Adventures as well as some new skills and talents.

For example, at character creation time in the base W,R,&M book, you get 3 skills and a talent. I’d like to tweak that slightly so that players pick skills based on different broad age groupings. So if I’m playing a young character, I should pick 2 skills with an eye towards childhood and 1 with an eye towards adulthood. Or if I’m playing an older character, perhaps only direct 1 skill to childhood and the other 2 to maturity.

I’m not quite sure yet how that will play out. I suspect that most players with such a small set of skills would focus on the usable skills for the character as opposed to how their childhood went. Perhaps this will be an optional rule players can use to help them define the life of their characters up to the present. I definitely don’t want it to get in the way of what players want – just to propose it as an option.

Beyond that, some of the new skills I’m considering adding include:

  • Animals (Mage): The ability to train and control animals. This would mostly be for domesticated animals, but could be expanded to wild animals as well.
  • Art (Mage): The ability to create a visual, auditory, or other sensory work to evoke an emotion in an audience.
  • Food (Mage): The ability to cook, prepare, and preserve food for consumption or storage.
  • Games (Rogue): The ability to play various games and apply strategy.
  • Performance (Rogue): The ability to perform (via acting, dance, or some other skill) in front of a crowd.
  • Wilderness (Warrior): The ability to hunt, track, trap, and live off the land in the wilderness to survive.

In addition, there are thirteen different wizardry skills ranging from Alchemy to the Supernatural, each with a particular spell book and magical philosophy. The first book will only cover a couple of these more closely tied to the sea – Supernatural Magic (similar to Voodoo) and Divine Magic (prayers to deities or forces of nature to help with a particular aim). I figure sailors (in fiction at least) have always been a superstitious lot and can use all the help they can get when rough seas come around.

Talent-wise, I’ve only really come up with one so far:

  • Healing: The ability to heal oneself or others using Mana.

I’ve thought about a few other possible talents that may come out of the old Random Fates list from the Moebius Adventures books, but haven’t defined them so far. These would be relatively minor talents such as the ability to see ghosts, knowing what direction they are pointing in regardless of position, and so on.

The existing skill lists in the base W,R,&M book are perfectly open-ended, so I don’t want to add too much clutter to it. My goal is to define these additional options for the rules and focus on the world of Immortals’ Wake. Each subsequent book will further define additional magic and talents as well as flesh out additional areas.

What do you think?

(By the way, if you’re looking for more details about WR&M – check out the website here at Stargazer Games.)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For a couple of years now I’ve been whining and moaning about how I’m not a system guy. I’m not. I’ve accepted that. My attempts at system often end up muddled messes that don’t scale well. And that has stymied me a bit as far as Moebius stuff goes.

Well, today I ran across a blog post today from John Payne over at Nevermet Press about Old School gaming. And he mentioned a game called Warrior, Rogue, and Mage that’s evidently been getting quite a bit of press since it’s debut a few months ago. Evidently I’m oblivious, but that’s nothing new. :)

Warrior, Rogue, and Mage (or WR&M) is a light rules system for fantasy roleplaying that’s been released under Creative Commons by Michael Wolf (Stargazer from Stargazer’s World and Stargazer Games). But beyond the free aspects, it is damn straightforward. And it embraces many of the ideas I was trying to implement in the revamped Moebius system. However, unlike my failed attempt at rules-light, WR&M provides a simple combat system that just… works!

So I think that with a little massaging I can easily migrate the Immortals’ Wake and Age of Phaedrus fantasy settings to use Stargazer’s system. And Covert Directives, which is more of a near-future cyberpunk setting, might be able to take advantage of some of the work started a few months ago by Mark Meredith at Dice Monkey for Pointman, Hacker & Thief – a modern spy adaptation of WR&M.

That leaves me with a bit of a conundrum however regarding the Creative Commons (CC) license of WR&M. The main game guide is licensed under the Attribution (cc-by), Non-Commercial (cc-nc), and Share-Alike (cc-sa) conditions.

Though “cc-by” seems to allow me the freedom to create a commercial product based on WR&M, the “cc-nc” and “cc-sa” conditions would seem to override that and not allow me to create a commercial product. I’m good with CC’ing any system tweaks (i.e. a “Moebius”-themed set of races, skills, and talents), but would like to release products for a small fee on RPGNow.com or in other venues.

Can anybody clarify how that would work? I *love* the system and am happy to extend it and allow folks to use my extensions as long as they attribute the extensions to me and the base game back to Stargazer – but I don’t want to make my setting details completely free… Seems like a catch-22.

Anyway… Minor quibbles… Back to devouring WR&M to better understand the ins/outs of the system…

Enhanced by Zemanta
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just like the rest of life, sometimes it’s time for a do-over. Thus begins a new chapter in the life of Moebius Adventures (MARPG) games.

Dice for various games, especially for rolepla...
Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the scoop. We have a streamlined system. It needs to be tested seriously. So who better to take a look at some of the mechanics than… you! That’s right, it’s time YOU got into the act here.

First, I want to welcome you (back) into the fold. The next series of articles will focus on some core mechanics, character creation, and then how to apply those bits to various genres. After all, MARPG is a cross-genre, universal roleplaying game. Tough to tell that when all we’ve seen so far are examples for fantasy settings.

I WANT your feedback. If you think this sucks and is too difficult, let me know. I’m looking for frank opinions with suggestions on how to make things better. The goal here is to create a solid base mechanic for a variety of settings so gaming groups can pick up the system and play just as easily in a cyberpunk setting as they can in a low-magic fantasy setting. Or if they want to do epic space battles such as in Star Wars or Star Trek or make more intimate “cowboys in space” games like with Firefly, it moves quickly with them.

Like in all roleplaying games, your MARPG character is a set of properties – characteristic values (Mind, Body, Soul), derived characteristic values (Hit Points, Luck Points, Reality Check, and so on), and skills with ranks. All these values do is provide a framework for behaviors, abilities, and experience. They’re just numbers on a page. It’s up to the player and GM to bring the player (PC) and non-player characters (NPCs) represented by those numbers to life.

As a player or GM, in addition to a PC or NPC, you’ll need two d10s. We’re not talking huge sets of dice here.

The basic mechanic is the same for all skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat rolls. You have a target number you have to roll below with 2d10 and modifiers.

The target number comes from the character himself for most actions, with modifiers from the GM for things like weather, fatigue, item quality, etc. In the case of opposed actions, it becomes a battle between the quality of success or failure between opponents.

Bird tracks on a frozen lake
Image by Paul Williams (Iron Ammonite) via Flickr

For example, if a tracker is looking for animal signs and tracks in the woods, it’s a simple skill check. The GM may make the attempt more difficult or easier based on conditions such as how recent the tracks were made, if there was fresh snow, if snow or leaves covered the tracks, and so on.

Let’s say the Tracker has a Tracking skill of 3 ranks. Tracking relies on knowing what to look for and how perceptive the character is, so it’s a Mind-based skill. Let’s say the Tracker has a Mind of 7. By default, without any modifiers from the GM, the target number is 10.

To determine success or failure, you roll 2d10, add modifiers, and compare the total to the target.

In the case of the Tracker, let’s say he rolls a 13. He failed the attempt, so he’s unable to find his quarry.

Roll two 1′s and you have a critical success. Roll two 10′s and you have a critical failure. Compare the total to the target number to determine the Quality of Success (QoS) or Failure (QoF). If your total was above or below the target, your QoS (if below) or QoF (if above) is the difference between the target and the total. If your total is equal to the target, the GM can decide whether the act was directly opposed and it was a draw or if the act was unopposed and it was a success.

QoS = Target Number – Total Die Roll
QoF = Total Die Roll – Target Number

For the Tracker, his QoF was 3. He missed the target by 3 (Total Die Roll 12 – Target Number 10 = QoF 3).

Let’s say he rolled a 3 on 2d10. That would mean he succeeded in finding tracks. In that case, his QoS was 7. He made it by 7 (Target Number 10 – Total Die Roll 3 = QoS 7).

Now let’s say the Tracker is looking for someone deliberately trying to obscure signs of their passing. The Tracker’s opponent uses her Tracking skill at rank 4 and her Mind characteristic value of 5 for an unmodified Target Number of 9. The GM rolls 2d10 and gets a 5, for a QoS of 4. This makes the Tracker’s job harder.

The Tracker’s unmodified Target Number is 10. But since it’s opposed, the QoS becomes a modifier on the skill check making it more difficult. Now the Tracker’s Target Number is 6 (Target Number 10 – opponent QoS = 6). The Tracker would have to make a great roll to get a six or less.

* on the left: German Reitschwert, circa 1530,...
Image via Wikipedia

Let’s add another wrinkle. The Tracker finds the woman he’s been searching for in the woods and a battle begins. Each opponent has a sword and some ranks in the Swordsmanship skill.

The Tracker surprised his quarry and gets to attack first. His quarry can only Parry with her sword or Dodge to get out of the way. The Tracker’s Swords is at 4 ranks and his Body is a 5, for an unmodified Target of 9. His quarry has Swords at 6 ranks and a Body of 5 for an unmodified Target of 11. Both opponents roll 2d10.

The Tracker rolls a 5, for a QoS of 4 (Target Number 9 – Total Die Roll 5 = QoS 4). His quarry has a -4 modifier to her Target to make it a 7. The GM rolls a 9 for a QoF of 2 and the woman takes 2 points of damage…

This pattern of comparing QoS and QoF is repeated throughout the system now for skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat. One mechanic simplifies the rules greatly, while still providing the flexibility and uniqueness of character strengths and weaknesses to appear in sometimes unexpected ways.

In the next article, we’ll talk about character creation and the flexibility available for quickly creating PCs and NPCs for any campaign.

What do you think? Leave me comments here on the blog entry or send me e-mail directly at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’m looking for negative and positive feedback here – so let ‘er rip!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi all…

So after last week’s playtest, I decided to go back to the drawing board a bit to see how I could revamp the Moebius Adventures system mechanics to make them a) simpler and b) more consistent. I think I’ve hit upon a solution, but it seems to run counter-intuitive to how most other mechanics go (besides GURPS anyway).

BlueprintsTo make a long story short, part of the issues stemmed from having too many details and part came from a lack of clear explanation on my part. So I’ve stripped the system down to its core three statistics – Mind, Body, and Soul. Mind would wrap anything remotely mentally-challenging – so tasks like reading, arithmetic, arcane magic, and so on. Body is pretty self explanatory – but would enc0mpass strength, endurance, dexterity, and so on. And Soul represents wisdom, faith, life force, etc.

I need some help to see if I’m totally nuts or not. I spoke with a good friend of mine whose concern is that this system focuses on having a low number whereas most focus on having a higher one. I think this is an artificial difference, but that’s just me…

So rather than splitting those three into 12 different characteristics (plus the 4 for Random characteristics like Luck, Beauty, Wealth, and Family for a grand total of 16) I’ve boiled everything back to basics. At most, this means a skill would have one main characteristic. For example – Literacy would be Mind-based. Swordsmanship would be Body-based. Prayer would be Soul-based, and so on… (There are some skills like Healing, which the player would have to choose either Mind – for first-aid type healing using your brain – or Soul – for laying on hands kind of healing. Same for Writing, and several others.)

So a character would be very simply the core stats of Mind, Body, and Soul, some derivative/secondary stats like hit points, reality check, etc., and a list of skills – some from childhood, the rest from backgrounds.

(The design question is all the way at the end of this bloody long post, so my apologies. But I work through the basics, define some mechanics, provide an example, and THEN ask for input at the end. Please bear with me.)

So a fighter character that used 20 points to split among Mind, Body, and Soul might look something like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 5
Body: 10
Soul: 5

HP 40
Skills:
Swords (Body): 3 ranks
Shield (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 2 ranks
Running (Body): 2 ranks
Horsemanship (Soul): 1 ranks

——————————————————————————————

A thief character might look like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 6
Body: 8
Soul: 6

HP 32
Skills:
Swords (Body): 4 ranks
Acrobatics (Body): 3 ranks
Archery (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 3 ranks

——————————————————————————————

Pretty straightforward.

So let’s take the new mechanic for a spin…

To determine the base target for a skill, take the characteristic and add the # of ranks. You want to roll below that on 1d20 or 2d10. (1d20 is more “random” but 2d10 has a better bell curve for results.)

Everything revolves around the Quality of a roll.
If you roll under the target, you determine the Quality of Success (QoS) by taking the target # minus the the die roll.
If you roll over the target, you determine the Quality of Failure (QoF) by taking the die roll minus  the target #.
The GM can always modify the target # by other conditions. For example, snow would make tracking easier. Crossing a stream would make it more difficult.
If uncontested, a QoS of 1 or higher means success.

If contested, you compare the two Quality rolls and the highest QoS wins. For example…

  • For a Body (Strength) check, if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoF of 3, character A wins. But if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoS of 5, character B wins.
  • For a skill check, you may be comparing two different skills, but the principle still applies. If character A has Tracking (Mind) and a QoS of 4 and character B has Concealment (Mind) and a QoS of 6, character A is unable to find the tracks left behind by character B.
QoF comes more into play where Combat is concerned.

To resolve a combat action, take the offensive skill Quality and compare it to the defensive skill Quality. The difference determines the amount of damage done (up to the maximum of the weapon + any bonus for Body of 7 or better or penalty for Body of 3 or less).

Here’s a sample combat between the Fighter and Thief characters. The Fighter has a long sword, which does 8 points of damage as its potential maximum, but also gains +4 to damage for a Body of 10. The Thief has a short sword, which does 7 points of damage as its potential maximum, but he has a Body of 8, which gives him a +2 to damage as well.

———————————————————————————————-

Initiative:

  • Fighter – d20 (14) – target 7 – QoF = 7
  • Thief – d20 (17) – target 9 – QoF = 8
  • Fighter goes first w/lower QoF
Round 1
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 2 – target 13 – QoS = 11
  • Thief dodges with a roll. Rolls 4 – target 11 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter hits Thief for 4 points (QoS 11 – QoS 7 = difference of 4). Thief down to 28 HP.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 4 – target 12 – QoS = 8
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 20 – target 12 – QoF = 8 (rolled 1 or 2 is critical success/rolled 19 or 20 are critical failure – so the Fighter may have dropped his shield during this failed attempt)
  • Thief gets solid hit in. Difference between attack & defense is 16. Short sword does 9 max. Thief does 9 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 31 HP.
Round 2
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges with a cartwheel. Rolls 19 – target 11 – QoF = 8 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries (tie goes to parrier).
Round 3
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 16 – target 12 – QoF = 4
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 10 – target 12 – QoS = 2
  • Fighter parries.
Round 4
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 16 – target 13 – QoF = 3
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 14 – target 12 – QoF = 2
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 5
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 20 – target 11 – QoF = 9 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter gets solid hit in. Difference is 14. Longsword does 11 max. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 17 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 18 – target 12 – QoF = 6
  • Fighter parries with shield. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 6
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 13 – QoS = 8
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2.
  • Fighter gets another solid hit in. Difference is 10. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 6 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2
  • Thief hits. Difference is 3. Thief does 3 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 28.
Round 7
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 12 – target 11 – QoF = 1
  • Fighter hits. Difference is 6. Fighter does 6 damage. Thief falls.

———————————————————————————————-

So… Deep breaths. After seeing a couple of sample characters, describing the basic mechanic, and providing a combat example…

Does this make sense? Is it too hard? Is the Quality of Success vs. Quality of Failure thing too difficult a concept?

The potential problems that I’ve come up with are… With a characteristic and skill each maxed at rank 10, you have a target # of 20 before modifiers. If you roll a 20 on a d20 or two 10s on 2d10, it’s a critical failure. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. Even perfect people fail sometimes IMHO.

I’m curious to hear what people think about this.  If I’m barking up the wrong tree, I want to know early so I can change trees. :)

Thanks in advance.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Hey all…

RPG DiceThat’s right… We’re having a playtest in Colorado Springs at Gamer’s Haven tonight from 4pm to 8pm. There’s a bit more information here about this event. There’s a few folks signed up even, which is better than the last time I tried this. :)

Hopefully I’ll get a chance to write up how it goes later in the week!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , ,

So from the first three parts of this series (part 1, part 2, part 3), you hopefully have seen some of the thought that went into our slightly different take on alignment for Moebius Adventures. Again, this is totally portable and could be used with any system I think.

RPGBlogCarnivalLogocopyBut does it work? The jury’s still out. Ultimately, this may not be a usable alignment system. But it provides some interesting flexibility that the traditional good/evil scheme may not. If nothing else, perhaps it offers some methods for fleshing out characters in addition to a traditional good/evil alignment.

I think that new players should focus on the basic alignment grid of Good, Neutral, and Evil. But more advanced players may want a bit more play in how they approach decisions for their characters in a given world.

When conflicts arise between different levels of morality, it definitely gets interesting.

Let’s say that someone is trapped in a burning building and your character has enough time to safely extract the individual from harm. A character with a light moral alignment (+6 to +10) would save the individual, since Man is more important than Nature (in order of moral codes). A character with a gray moral alignment (-5 to +5) may or may not aid the trapped person. Is the person a friend? Would there be a possibility of a reward? These things may tip the scale one way or another. A character with a dark moral alignment (-6 to -10) might have started the fire or help the fire burn other nearby buildings. Maybe they consider cities dirty, unnatural structures and seek to, like Nature, clear the area for new growth.

Considering these qualities of Morality and Virtue provide some interesting insights into how our characters deal with the world around them and the people in it.

Hopefully I haven’t put anyone to sleep with this series. I think it’s philosophically interesting to approach roleplaying from more abstract ways than the old “good vs. evil” scheme.

Thanks for your time!
–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I said in Part 1, this series deals with Morality and Virtue as we define them for the Moebius Adventures games. But as with many things, I think it goes beyond the system of rules and provides more food for thought when looking at alignment.

yinyangSo let’s talk a bit about Morality. Every time I hear that word, I think of the Animaniacs and their “Wheel of Morality” – “Wheel of morality, turn, turn turn… Tell me the lessons that we should learn…” Yes, I am warped.

Anyway… Morality… As I said last time, Morality indicates roughly how a character views right and wrong. And morals are principles or standards relating to a system governing right and wrong behavior in the universe. Codes of morality provide frameworks that benefit an individual or group if used properly.

In terms of the rules for Moral Alignments, “Moral” is 10 to 6, “Gray” is the 5 to -5 range, and -6 to -10 is “Immoral.”

An individual’s morality may differ from that of society, and both may differ from the morality of higher beings.

There’s also a difference between the morality of a character and the player or GM as a person. As a player, you concentrate on what your character understands as right and wrong. For example, let’s take a character in the thieves’ guild. In the real world, the player would (probably) never steal from another person. However, the character has his own reasons for stealing and therefore a different morality from the player.

We found that there are some general, high-level categories of moral codes – Nature, Animals, Man, Society, Thought, and Time. The sum of these define the overall morality of the universe.

Nature’s moral code defines how the elements (fire, wind, earth, water), plant life, and geological events work in the universe. Nature’s moral code is structured to ensure its own continuity. It often does this by cycling through periods of creation and destruction – lightning starts a fire, burns dense forests, and thus provides room for new growth; floods redistribute rich new soil for growth higher along the flood plain.

RPGBlogCarnivalLogocopySurvival of the fittest” is a basically the moral code for Animals. Only the strongest and most able animals are able to perpetuate the species. Often, this moral code is in conflict with Nature. However, animals are more able to survive the effects of Nature because they can adapt.

Mankind’s moral code represents all individuals and genders and their struggle to survive in the world of Nature and Animals. At a basic level, the Human moral code is “might makes right.” To survive, one must live within Nature and control a portion of the Animal kingdom (through the domestication of animals) to improve their quality of life.

Society’s moral code represents groups of individuals brought together to ensure protection of all those in the group. Society requires the participation of its members to succeed. Where conflicts arise between the moral codes of Man and Society, Society should win more often than not. People typically recognize that they have better lives within properly functioning societies than without.

The moral code of Thought includes those individuals capable of reasoning what’s best for Society, Man, Animals, and Nature. The responsibility of Thought is to manage all the lower moral codes to they might all peacefully coexist. Intellectuals recognize that they must minimize conflict between moral codes to obtain a better life for all.

And Time has the highest moral code of all. Like Nature, Time continues marching on.

So what happens when there are conflicts between moral codes?

Let’s go back to the fire example with Nature. Fire cleanses the forest for a new cycle of life. But this may seem cruel to Man or Society to kill life. Nature knows it’s necessary to sacrifice some of the forest so the rest can thrive. Without it, life cannot exist.

However, when a fire threatens a city and its inhabitants, a conflict arises between moral codes. Which moral code should prevail? A character with a “Gray” level of morality at 1 would probably try to stop the fire to protect themselves and their family, thinking more of themselves than Society. Characters with a higher moral alignment, around a 4, would also try to save the city, but because their goal was to save everyone within it, not just themselves.

Examples of Moral Alignment:

  • Time = +10
  • Thought = +6
  • Society = +2
  • Man = -1
  • Animals = -6
  • Nature = -10

When a course of events favors two or more moral codes, no conflict arises. When events don’t favor all participants, conflicts arise. Following the morality of the universe, the right thing to do is to favor the higher moral code.

When two different moral codes conflict, you must weigh them. It is morally just to place Time over Thought, Thought over Society, Society over Man, Man over Animals, and Animals over Nature. A character with a moral alignment of -3 might side more with Animals and Nature than Society and Man. This might make him believe it’s morally right to kill poachers in the forest because they are upsetting the moral code when they kill healthy animals instead of the old or sick ones.

Obviously there’s more to discuss for Morality, but we’ll leave it there for now.

Next time we’ll discuss Virtue.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Kind of Magic…

Hi there…

No matter what form the magic takes – arcane, divine, or raw natural magic – it is a combination of concentration, ritual, and belief. Ritual components can be anything from gestures and words to actual physical or even spiritual elements. Physical components may even be tied to beliefs or holy symbols as opposed to simple material components like ash, gems, and so on.

Wizard with Staff (from Clipart.com)But all magic in Moebius Adventures boils down to three key bits – Intent, Components, and Concentration. As such, magic is VERY flexible.

Spell creation and research consists of having a conversation with your GM (or if you’re the GM, you can chat with your players or mutter quietly to yourself) about a few things:

  1. Does the spell come from an existing magical philosophy?
  2. What results are expected or what’s the intent of the spell?
  3. What are the specific components for the spell? Some of these may be dictated by the school of wizardry or magical philosophy chosen.
  4. And what level will the spell be? Not all realms of wizardry require levels, so this may be moot.

Let’s contemplate an example…

Example 1: “Flickum Bickus”

So let’s say that a wizard wants to create a simple spell to light a small fire when flint and tinder aren’t available. Think of Harry Dresden from The Dresden Files using his spell “Flickum Bickus” to light a candle.

This would fall pretty squarely into Lesser Wizardry. Lesser Wizardry deals with small magics and this would qualify as a small utility spell.

Just to verify that, we take a look at the description of Lesser Wizardry. Lesser Wizardry philosophy is as follows:

“The energy exists around us, but never use more than you need. Minimalist magic created to test the waters of magic without annoying any possible powers that be. That was the beginning – and now it’s the major tenet of Lesser Wizardry. Nobody ever dies from or gets hurt by a Lesser Wizardry spell. These are the mundane useful mini-spells created by wizards through the ages to help them get through their day – mark a page, clean a stain, and so on.”

The results are also pretty self explanatory. The wizard wants to light a small combustible material as if it had been lit in a usual physical manner. Simple enough.

And for the spell components, as for all Lesser Wizardry spells, all that’s needed are “mystic words.” In this case, the name of the spell “Flickum Bickus” can actually become the spell’s component as a verbal component.

As far as the spell “level”, this is a pretty simple spell with a very small focus. The GM would most likely slot this as a first level Lesser Wizardry spell.

And voila, the player has created a new handy spell for use in and out of the lab.

Example 2: “Make Me Rich!”

Now let’s do a more complicated spell. For instance, let’s say that a wizard is getting greedy and wants to make himself rich. This is pretty vague, so we clarify a bit to say that he wants to attract wealth like flies to honey. This is still pretty vague and could fall into a number of categories…

If the wizard is very literal minded, they might use Runic Magic to create a runic phrase “Attract Wealth.” Unfortunately “wealth” is a very subjective term. If there were a “money” rune, the wizard would be able to create a runic symbol that would work as a money magnet, attracting coins into the spell’s area of influence.

A better fit might be Superstitious Magic. At a high level, Superstitious Magic preys on people’s beliefs to create magical effects. This might be likened to voodoo or certain forms of witchcraft. If the wizard is superstitious, he or she might believe that the powers that be would grant them wealth if the spell was cast.

This spell would only affect the target. And Superstitious Magic spells require a physical component as a focus that is sometimes consumed by the spell and a mystic ritual, typically involving some verbal element.

In this case, the wizard might bind his own hair around a gold coin, grip it in his hand, stare into a candle and call upon his ancestors to grant himself wealth. “Great ancestors I invoke thee to grant me this, grant my wish and fill my purse, enough to do my deeds, grant my wish and I will remember thee…”

As a GM, I would take this as a vague wish to powers beyond the wizard’s real control, unlike using a bit of will to light a flame. These powers may hear the wizard’s plea, yet choose to fulfill their supposed “obligation” in unusual ways. Perhaps the wizard will suddenly have a group of chickens appear in his yard overnight. The wizard could sell the chickens or keep them and sell the eggs, thus filling his purse. Or perhaps it might be a literal translation and some passer-by might press a coin into his hands while walking city streets. Or perhaps there would be consequences to fulfilling the request – finding a full purse left behind by someone seems fortuitous until you are pointed at as the thief who stole the purse in the first place and abandoned it where someone else might take the fall…

Conclusions

As you can see, there’s a wide range of possibilities here. One of the things I hope to do with the Moebius Adventures magic rules is to allow enough flexibility that players and GMs can roll their own magic systems. You like the “colors” magic in Brandon Sanderson‘s Warbreaker novel? Go with that. You want to do some Robert Jordan Wheel of Time weaving? Go for it. The sky’s the limit.

Ultimately the GM will have the power to veto or control some of the spell effects, as I’ve described a bit in the second example. But the freedom is there for creative gamers to come up with VERY interesting systems of magic.

There are twelve… Yes, twelve… schools of magic I want to cover in a variety of supplements. And then there’s Divine magic and its offshoots for various faiths and belief systems.

I can hardly wait to see what else folks come up with.

What do YOU think? Let me know what types of wizardry you’d like to see and I’ll try and c0me up with some ways that you might define them for your own Moebius Adventures game.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,