Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by AsenRG

It will be interesting to hear what Gronan has to say. I'm reading him to mean that both Dave and Gary had a pre-existing setting, so there was a there there. It just paid as little attention to "can it exist on its own" question as Hollywood does.

Actually, just the opposite. Once they both had a bit of space to play in the game started, and they scrambled madly to keep up with the players. For a while when we needed healing we'd go to "the lawful temple." I was the one who coined "First Church of Crom, Scientist" and "Mitra's Witnesses." These were soon joined by "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel" and "Church of Latter Day Great Old Ones."

This is a huge contrast to Phil's fully developed world and twenty temples.

Here's an article by Gary that talks more about him making it up madly.

http://gygaxslegendarium.blogspot.co...greyhawks.html

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Actually, just the opposite. Once they both had a bit of space to play in the game started, and they scrambled madly to keep up with the players. For a while when we needed healing we'd go to "the lawful temple." I was the one who coined "First Church of Crom, Scientist" and "Mitra's Witnesses." These were soon joined by "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel" and "Church of Latter Day Great Old Ones."

This is a huge contrast to Phil's fully developed world and twenty temples.

Here's an article by Gary that talks more about him making it up madly.

http://gygaxslegendarium.blogspot.co...greyhawks.html

Yep. This was also Dave's approach; I don;t know if there's anything like this essay up on the web anywhere, but this is pretty much the same kind of thing that Dave had said to me and others about the way he had to create Blackmoor - always trying to stay one step ahead of the players.

Phil, on the other hand, had This Thing pretty well developed from the first times out in 1973-4. From comments by Gary and Dave, over the years, they were floored when they first encountered Tekumel and played in it. (Yes, they both played in the pre-production campaign; I have copies of Phil's 'attendance sheets'.) Dave was the primary 'game influence' on Phil, with Gary somewhat less so, and I think it's safe to say that he was an influence on them from the 'world-building' side of the house.

For us, as players, the difference in the campaigns was very marked; in the 'D&D' campaigns, there was always a certain sense of making it up as you went along. In Phil's, we very early moved / evolved from 'playing EPT' to 'playing Tekumel'; we swam in a sea of already-developed cultural and social information, and we learned to adapt to that world and how it worked very early on.

And Blackmoor and Greyhawk were very much influenced by the Conanesque mindset... we were there to "tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath our sandaled feet." It took a while to realize that the thrust of Phil's Tekumel was becoming part of the society, not conquering it. There is no EPT equivalent of the D&D trope of going out into the wilderness, clearing an area of monsters, building a castle, and becoming the Lord of Swamp Castle ("Some day, son, all this will be yours!")

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

And Blackmoor and Greyhawk were very much influenced by the Conanesque mindset... we were there to "tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath our sandaled feet." It took a while to realize that the thrust of Phil's Tekumel was becoming part of the society, not conquering it. There is no EPT equivalent of the D&D trope of going out into the wilderness, clearing an area of monsters, building a castle, and becoming the Lord of Swamp Castle ("Some day, son, all this will be yours!")

"What? The curtains?"

Very much so. The 'domain game' in Phil's Tekumel was being given one of the small two-hex fiefs, like Craig Smith in Tu'umnra or Gary Rudolph in Ferenara, and trying to run it. Gary's ended badly, with a very nasty slave revolt, and Craig's with him getting into too much Imperial politics. The idea was, as you say, a part of society and not outside of it.

It took a decade before Phil tried again, with Vrisa in the Nyemesel Isles and Chirine in Hekellu.

(Archival footnote: I have a copy of Craig's original map of his fief, from 1975.)

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Actually, just the opposite. Once they both had a bit of space to play in the game started, and they scrambled madly to keep up with the players. For a while when we needed healing we'd go to "the lawful temple." I was the one who coined "First Church of Crom, Scientist" and "Mitra's Witnesses." These were soon joined by "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel" and "Church of Latter Day Great Old Ones."

This is a huge contrast to Phil's fully developed world and twenty temples.

Here's an article by Gary that talks more about him making it up madly.

http://gygaxslegendarium.blogspot.co...greyhawks.html

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Yep. This was also Dave's approach; I don;t know if there's anything like this essay up on the web anywhere, but this is pretty much the same kind of thing that Dave had said to me and others about the way he had to create Blackmoor - always trying to stay one step ahead of the players.

Phil, on the other hand, had This Thing pretty well developed from the first times out in 1973-4. From comments by Gary and Dave, over the years, they were floored when they first encountered Tekumel and played in it. (Yes, they both played in the pre-production campaign; I have copies of Phil's 'attendance sheets'.) Dave was the primary 'game influence' on Phil, with Gary somewhat less so, and I think it's safe to say that he was an influence on them from the 'world-building' side of the house.

For us, as players, the difference in the campaigns was very marked; in the 'D&D' campaigns, there was always a certain sense of making it up as you went along. In Phil's, we very early moved / evolved from 'playing EPT' to 'playing Tekumel'; we swam in a sea of already-developed cultural and social information, and we learned to adapt to that world and how it worked very early on.

Okay, I obviously wasn't clear, if you both misunderstood me. But the link Gronan posted basically says what I meant.

My point was, Gary and Dave (from what I've been told, mostly by you two...so I might be missing something), had a detailed map of the dungeon, a sketch of the city, and...well, the word "setting here" (or "here there be stuff") written around the city. It was there, them two just didn't bother detailing it.
The Lawful temple was still Lawful even after it became the Lawful temple of "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel", too. It didn't change, you just got more details on it. And sometimes, those details on different temples would make sense, when you examined them with anthropology, economics and other instruments in mind - sometimes not.
Phil's world had most important details pre-written, though. And his details would make sense when combined, too - which was his greatest strength.
The difference would be like the difference between a heavy preparation GM and an improvisational GM, I suspect.

Still, no matter whether they had a pre-written setting, or the outlines of one and some means for adding details on the fly - they weren't changing stuff behind the scenes. These would be a third kind of GMs, which from what I gather wouldn't be popular in the "early scene".

Again, that's purely my conclusions based on what Gronan and Chirine had mentioned. I might well be wrong. Such is life.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

And Blackmoor and Greyhawk were very much influenced by the Conanesque mindset... we were there to "tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath our sandaled feet." It took a while to realize that the thrust of Phil's Tekumel was becoming part of the society, not conquering it. There is no EPT equivalent of the D&D trope of going out into the wilderness, clearing an area of monsters, building a castle, and becoming the Lord of Swamp Castle ("Some day, son, all this will be yours!")

I pitched once "classical fantasy game" to some players, meaning "swords and sorcery in a magical steampunk world". To me, that's the classical feel. (After all, REH lived before LotR was written).

You're right that the trick in some games is to act as a conqueror, and in others, the trick is becoming part of things. But curiously, even in the early sources both kinds are represented. I mean, John Carter is trying to become part of Barsoom's society, while Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are acting as conquerors, and Conan arguably changes his mode of action at some point!

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

"What? The curtains?"

Very much so. The 'domain game' in Phil's Tekumel was being given one of the small two-hex fiefs, like Craig Smith in Tu'umnra or Gary Rudolph in Ferenara, and trying to run it. Gary's ended badly, with a very nasty slave revolt, and Craig's with him getting into too much Imperial politics. The idea was, as you say, a part of society and not outside of it.

It took a decade before Phil tried again, with Vrisa in the Nyemesel Isles and Chirine in Hekellu.

(Archival footnote: I have a copy of Craig's original map of his fief, from 1975.)

What? Gary Gygax? That slave revolt?

Originally Posted by Greentongue

What is WRONG with taking the bones of the setting and adding your own meat?

Nothing.

But it will piss off some subset of the people who either don't like the new you added, who do like some old that you left out, just generally can't deal with change or the unexpected, or really don't like the world that you created and that it has the same name as some other world they liked better.

You see the same sort of thing in any RPG setting based on an existent canon (e.g. Star Wars, LotR, Star Trek) or with any movie adaptation of a beloved book.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

This may be IT.
Where the feeling that you have to have a masters degree in Tekumel to play it, or at least run it.
This giving the sense of "making it up as you went along" being antithetical to the play style.

There is some call to "make it your own" which implies that you would "make things up" in your own version of your game.
How do you reconcile this?

What is WRONG with taking the bones of the setting and adding your own meat?
=

Nothing. What Chirine and I are doing is attempting to report as best we can how Phil's actual Tekumel felt different from Blackmoor and Greyhawk.

It is not possible for anybody but Phil to run "Phil's actual Tekumel," because even if you had 100% of Phil's information and knowledge, you still wouldn't be Phil. So don't try! Run YOUR Tekumel.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Okay, I obviously wasn't clear, if you both misunderstood me. But the link Gronan posted basically says what I meant.

My point was, Gary and Dave (from what I've been told, mostly by you two...so I might be missing something), had a detailed map of the dungeon, a sketch of the city, and...well, the word "setting here" (or "here there be stuff") written around the city. It was there, them two just didn't bother detailing it.
The Lawful temple was still Lawful even after it became the Lawful temple of "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel", too. It didn't change, you just got more details on it. And sometimes, those details on different temples would make sense, when you examined them with anthropology, economics and other instruments in mind - sometimes not.
Phil's world had most important details pre-written, though. And his details would make sense when combined, too - which was his greatest strength.
The difference would be like the difference between a heavy preparation GM and an improvisational GM, I suspect.

Still, no matter whether they had a pre-written setting, or the outlines of one and some means for adding details on the fly - they weren't changing stuff behind the scenes. These would be a third kind of GMs, which from what I gather wouldn't be popular in the "early scene".

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that's pretty accurate. "Here there be stuff" indeed, where "stuff" is a soup of everything from every book and movie Dave and or Gary ever liked. And frankly I laughed out loud at Gary talking about how he eventually closed the slide to China because bringing people back was such a pain. I've run into a lot of that myself as referee... "Crom dammit, this seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Sending the players to China or Barsoom (or Bazoom, the planet of busty horny Amazons) sounds great as a scribbled note while you're keying the dungeon. And then one day "no shit, there we were."

As somebody said to Beowulf, "now is the time to make good on your boast."

Okay, I obviously wasn't clear, if you both misunderstood me. But the link Gronan posted basically says what I meant.

Understood. I think we're all on the same page, as it were.

My point was, Gary and Dave (from what I've been told, mostly by you two...so I might be missing something), had a detailed map of the dungeon, a sketch of the city, and...well, the word "setting here" (or "here there be stuff") written around the city. It was there, them two just didn't bother detailing it.
The Lawful temple was still Lawful even after it became the Lawful temple of "St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel", too. It didn't change, you just got more details on it. And sometimes, those details on different temples would make sense, when you examined them with anthropology, economics and other instruments in mind - sometimes not.
Phil's world had most important details pre-written, though. And his details would make sense when combined, too - which was his greatest strength.
The difference would be like the difference between a heavy preparation GM and an improvisational GM, I suspect.

I'd agree with this.

Still, no matter whether they had a pre-written setting, or the outlines of one and some means for adding details on the fly - they weren't changing stuff behind the scenes. These would be a third kind of GMs, which from what I gather wouldn't be popular in the "early scene".

True. Doing it 'on the fly' wasn't something we did, to the bast if my experience. It seemed a little dishonest, for some reason. It was also a lot more work, as you have to take a lot more notes.

Again, that's purely my conclusions based on what Gronan and Chirine had mentioned. I might well be wrong. Such is life.

No, I think you're right on target, here.

I pitched once "classical fantasy game" to some players, meaning "swords and sorcery in a magical steampunk world". To me, that's the classical feel. (After all, REH lived before LotR was written).

Sounds cool!!!

You're right that the trick in some games is to act as a conqueror, and in others, the trick is becoming part of things. But curiously, even in the early sources both kinds are represented. I mean, John Carter is trying to become part of Barsoom's society, while Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are acting as conquerors, and Conan arguably changes his mode of action at some point!

Very much so, and this was the source material not only for the games being written, but for the style of play.

What? Gary Gygax? That slave revolt?