Ironsworn Odyssey OOC

[Delorphin]

8 hours ago, Vladim said:

If you want, I can also put my +3 into wits, and you can keep yours in heart. That way everyone has a +3 in a unique stat.

That's alright, I was wondering mainly for tying the mechanics to the character more closely rather than the mechanical spread of the characters being distinct.

3 hours ago, Wizard of the Coat said:

However, I thought our character concepts were built upon the premise that we found each other in the aftermath, rather than that we were all in close proximity at the moment of the incident/cataclysm.

I was under the same impression as well.

Should we begin to determine the exact nature of the cataclysm so that we can figure out both the inciting incident as well as how closely are to to it temporally?

[Wizard of the Coat]

4 hours ago, Delorphin said:

Should we begin to determine the exact nature of the cataclysm so that we can figure out both the inciting incident as well as how closely are to to it temporally?

Sounds good to me.

We'd thrown out some ideas previously and I thought there was general agreement (unless I overestimated the agreement). Specifically, we'd talked about spirits being released from the underworld and the land mass/continent being broken up, so that the path home is not completely "known"

[Vladim]

12 minutes ago, Wizard of the Coat said:

Sounds good to me.

We'd thrown out some ideas previously and I thought there was general agreement (unless I overestimated the agreement). Specifically, we'd talked about spirits being released from the underworld and the land mass/continent being broken up, so that the path home is not completely "known"

Ah yeah, I remember that! I am still not sure how it is all connected to the war and the aftermath and all the specifics-it's a bit vague to me, but honestly, I don't mind leaving the lore vague and developing it in-game as necessary.

The only wish I have for the inciting incident / starting quest is for the situation to be dangerous and high-stakes. I feel like I'd prefer something high-action to force us to push our characters a bit to (a) their limits and (b) forge bonds. Something with a ticking clock and/or lots of danger and even the possibility of death. The specific details of it don't matter hugely to me, I think. But the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe would work well, I think.

[Wizard of the Coat]

OK, I've got back and reread our discussion about the setting--across both threads. Here's a summary of what I think were the points for which there was general agreement, presented in no particular order.

1. The story will involve a lengthy sea voyage home after a great war--the concept borrowed from Homer's Odyssey although in no way connected to ancient Greek culture or high fantasy elements such as Gods taken an interest in the affairs of men.

2. The setting will be similar to the Iron Lands in tone--gritty, low-fantasy, low-magic--but will consist of the Iron Isles, with the Old World mostly ruined by a Great War.

3. The Great War involves the clash of two expanding empires, each led by a world-class military genius/conqueror who carved out his own empire on the path to world domination. So the war was ultimately motivated by the hubris of two great men, and the desire for conquest.

4. The war spanned generations (although we never decided if that was two generations or several).

5. Additional factions developed over the course of the war. Specifically, rebel groups arose in one or both empires. The Iron Isles may or may not have been involved in these rebellions.

6. The Great War ended in a cataclysmic event that changed the world.

• At least part of that event was a breaking of the seal or veil between this world and the underworld (world of spirits, afterlife...). A great diaspora of spirits were expelled--or perhaps they escaped--into the world of the living.
• We talked about the idea that land of the Old World was "sundered" or broken up into smaller landmasses or islands via great upheaval during the cataclysmic event (and possibly, the entire known world is now a huge archipelago), although I'm not sure there was general agreement on this.

7. The characters are all tied to the Iron Isles in some way and desire for their own motivations to return to a particular island (or specific village on the particular island.

8. The Iron Islanders' unit was part of a larger unit lead by a Warlord named Kuno. Kuno died before the cataclysmic event and the Iron Islanders' unit suffered heavy losses under the new leadership.

9. After the cataclysmic event, the surviving soldiers on both sides of the conflict just went their separate ways, returning to their homelands to see what and who survived.

Did I miss anything? Or get anything wrong?

[Vladim]

That sounds about right to me! I am still unsure about the exact details of the end of the war / cataclysmic event and the opening premise. Would there be anything pressing to push us towards returning home, or would there not be any strong external pressure?

[TheObsoleteMan]

I personally like the idea that the cataclysm was so terrible and wide-reaching that--in the back of all our minds--we're not really sure there even is a home to go back to. I imagine that's at least part of the impetus, to discover what happened to the rest of the world.

Which may (but I don't think necessarily has to) imply a certain amount of time passing between the cataclysm and our journey. Depending on the exact time frame we want to go with, it would make sense that either A) we're all desperate to escape "ground zero" as it were, and discover the full extent of the cataclysm over time, or B) we come to realize in the aftermath that the world has changed and decide that we want to set out to discover the fate of our respective homes (and complete our vows as stated).

But those are only two possible directions, of course! I also sort of forgot about the whole "rebel factions" element. Is that something that anyone feels their character might have been involved in? Do we think our unit might have broken away when Kuno died, and tried to stop the war (or at least protect the innocent bystanders)?

Lastly, re: the nature of the cataclysm, I personally don't need to nail down any specifics. I'm fine just knowing that both sides were complicit in what happened, and that the elements we've mentioned (the spirits and the sundered/warped landscape) are a result of it. But that's just me!

Edited March 22 by TheObsoleteMan (see edit history)

[Delorphin]

45 minutes ago, Vladim said:

Would there be anything pressing to push us towards returning home, or would there not be any strong external pressure?

Following option B) as proposed by TOM we could start in media res, already travelling home. Maybe we've been travelling across an island that is not in the Iron Lands just yet, trying to help each other, whether they be former allies or former enemies, figuring out which direction even is home. This could be difficult due to the vastly different geography of the entire world. Maybe harsh waters and lack of resources had prevented any initial escapes, prompting people to band together and prepare? The island we're on could have an ever increasing amount of spirits warping the landscape and the inhabitants, or the island itself could be sinking, which is where the story begins. Following something like that, there would have been enough time after the cataclysm such that the world is completely different and in the aftermath of the event while still giving pressure to escape.

[Wizard of the Coat]

I've been developing the bullets of my backstory into a more detailed narrative. I'd hoped to have it completed by tonight. It's mostly finished, but still needs to cover Ari's time with the Iron Isles unit during the war.

In case any of you are interested in reading it.

52 minutes ago, TheObsoleteMan said:

A) we're all desperate to escape "ground zero" as it were, and discover the full extent of the cataclysm over time, or B) we come to realize in the aftermath that the world has changed and decide that we want to set out to discover the fate of our respective homes (and complete our vows as stated).

For me, the key difference between option A and option B is the degree to which we want the setting to have stabilized in the wake of the cataclysm. To me, option B doesn't imply that thing have stabilized, but that they are less batshit crazy.

34 minutes ago, Delorphin said:

Following option B) as proposed by TOM we could start in media res, already travelling home. Maybe we've been travelling across an island that is not in the Iron Lands just yet, trying to help each other, whether they be former allies or former enemies, figuring out which direction even is home. This could be difficult due to the vastly different geography of the entire world. Maybe harsh waters and lack of resources had prevented any initial escapes, prompting people to band together and prepare? The island we're on could have an ever increasing amount of spirits warping the landscape and the inhabitants, or the island itself could be sinking, which is where the story begins.

I agree with Delorphin's suggestion that either option can start with a high-stakes in media res excitement.

Each of TOM's options have their unique advantages--and I'm not sure I fully appreciate these unique advantages. I like the idea that we found each other immediately and started cooperating due to external pressures; and I like the idea or role playing that starting point. But I also like the idea of a more stable setting where some new homeostasis is at least visible on the horizon.

I suppose I'm on the fence at the moment (though leaning slightly toward Option A), interested in hearing more opinions regarding the pros and cons of Option A and Option B. Would one be easier to do as a cooperative story telling experience? Would one provide more interesting narrative options? Would one be more fun?

One thought I'd like to add. We have a Mystic with us. Could we use her powers as part of the set up for our starting point? In other words, no dice rolls, just us agreeing that she "knows stuff" and shares it with us so that we come to understand before others that the Cataclysm was a worldwide event, giving us a slight head start on the "concern for home" motivation and subsequent journey away from Ground Zero.

[Vladim]

I'm all for batshit crazy if others are too. I've already played a bit of solo and co-op Ironsworn in well-defined settings with deep & pre-established lore, and while I am enjoying those, I think the more collaborative, "play to find out" attitude actually synergizes best with a blank canvas -style setting. So I'd like to try it.

The other interesting thing for me is more on the player side-namely the mechanisms and strategies we will come up with (or fail to come up with) for resolving contradictions and giving everyone an equal voice. On some level, this is even more interesting to me than the actual game.

With regards to Melia... I purposefully made her wrong in her prophesies and so on, to incite a personal crisis of sorts, and to not give her too much narrative power (e.g., she's been almost thoroughly discredited after Kuno's death). So I'm good with her being as clueless as the other PCs-in fact I prefer it, as I want to learn alongside everyone what is actually going on, and how she'll react when she finds out about it!

[Wizard of the Coat]

4 hours ago, Vladim said:

I'm all for batshit crazy if others are too. I've already played a bit of solo and co-op Ironsworn in well-defined settings with deep & pre-established lore, and while I am enjoying those, I think the more collaborative, "play to find out" attitude actually synergizes best with a blank canvas -style setting. So I'd like to try it.

Unless anyone else chimes in with strong preferences and/or reasons for the other option, I'm liking the batshit crazy option as you've described it.

 

4 hours ago, Vladim said:

With regards to Melia... I purposefully made her wrong in her prophesies and so on, to incite a personal crisis of sorts, and to not give her too much narrative power (e.g., she's been almost thoroughly discredited after Kuno's death). So I'm good with her being as clueless as the other PCs-in fact I prefer it, as I want to learn alongside everyone what is actually going on, and how she'll react when she finds out about it!

Very cool! I was not aware of this development. I've not read her background carefully, I suppose.

[TheObsoleteMan]

Sounds good to me! Discovery and understanding (or realizing that we can't understand) the world we now live in seems like a big part of what will make this game interesting. So I'm all for it.

[Vladim]

Alright, so looking at the character threads, it seems to me that we are very close to finishing them. So we can hopefully start soon!

I think we are also close to deciding the opening scene but I am happy to discuss the details.

How does everyone want to proceed? I feel like there should be a scene-setting post at the start of the scene, but we should take turns at defining scenes since the game is GM-less. One idea I had is to roll 1d4 to decide who does it, and then rotate the remaining players for scene-setting the next (rolling 1d3 and then 1d2 for the next scenes). That way, everyone can get to define scenes and wear the GM "hat".

I think scene-setting does not have to be done with exhaustive descriptions so that more details can be inserted (by any player) as we play through them.

Also, if a given player would be really keen to define a specific scene, perhaps we could forego the rolling and just give it to them.

What do you think? I am just spitballing here :)

[Wizard of the Coat]

I like it! First, I like taking turns randomly as opposed to spending the time necessary to create new scenes collaboratively. Second, I like the idea of an exception to that process in which we forego the die roll if a particular player has an interest in defining a specific scene.

That said, I can see reasons why we might want to define some (not all) key parameters for this first scene--a review of elements we've already agreed upon, rather than additional details that could be left to the lucky winner of the die roll. I'm not advocating for this, just opening up the possibility.

---

On a totally unrelated note....

I think we should start a brief "locked" thread in which we place some of these procedures: not a place to discuss procedures, but an easy-to-use archive of decisions we've made about how this game will work.

We might also consider another "locked" thread in which we place the "world lore" we develop.

I get that we all have access to lock and unlock threads. The "locked" reference is meant to signal that these are not active discussion threads but compendiums of key information about our procedures and the setting. It will make our lives easier and might help others who set up games here at Vaults and Vows.

I'm happy to manage the archives. I think it could be done in a way that allows all of us to contribute to whatever degree we desire. I'm envisioning a thread in which the opening post is an index of all subsequent posts in the thread: with links taking you to the specific posts in the thread. The opening post would be organized conceptually, while the actual posts in the thread would not--they would just occur in the order in which we develop procedures and world lore. For example, the opening post for the World Lore thread might have links organized by categories such as Pre-Cataclysm History, NPCs, Arcana, Geography & Settlements, Religions.... Posts would be added to the thread as we develop world lore, and each post would be added to the Opening Post as an appropriately titled link placed under a relevant category. The manager of the archive would be responsible for updating the organization and links in the OP, but anyone could add posts to the threads. And I suppose the manager would be the "backup" to make sure that key world lore introduced in the game threads gets added to the World Lore thread.

[Delorphin]

18 minutes ago, Wizard of the Coat said:

Second, I like the idea of an exception to that process in which we forego the die roll if a particular player has an interest in defining a specific scene.

From my experiences of playing other story games, although I don't know how it will translate here, one way to do this is to have the GM or whoever is facilitating the current scene proactively asks the player who might have an interest to explore the scene. For example, after I describe a town with a strange happening, I'd ask Vlad what spirit resides in this place and the nature of it. This would give an opportunity for them to explore it and especially do so in relation to Melia. Same could go for Wizard, asking about what her father did to help this village and the impact of it. Or asking TOM how Vigo's mercenary company failed to help this village any of his soldiers were from here. Of course this does not need to happen all the time so everyone can have a go describing a variety of situations, but it helps extend a scenario by having a basic procedure of how to hand off the narration in a diegetic way and help tie the characters more closely to the world and story. This can also nudge people to explore their own characters in a different way based on the prompting of others.

3 hours ago, Vladim said:

How does everyone want to proceed? I feel like there should be a scene-setting post at the start of the scene, but we should take turns at defining scenes since the game is GM-less. One idea I had is to roll 1d4 to decide who does it, and then rotate the remaining players for scene-setting the next (rolling 1d3 and then 1d2 for the next scenes). That way, everyone can get to define scenes and wear the GM "hat".

Pulling from Wanderhome an additional thing we can do here is when we reach a new destination or leave the one we are currently at we can take a step back as well to set things up / reflect. In the case of arrival, we can do a brief discussion of the kind place we are visiting and some characters we might find there. This will keep us all vaguely on the same page as we keep pushing the narrative forward. We can even do it as if in the eyes of the memories of the pre-cataclysm to keep some level of surprise. Whoever is in charge of describing the scene when we arrive there might alter the characters or place based on the aftermath of the cataclysm. When we are departing from a location, we can focus inwards and either just summarise or discuss our characters and how their arcs are shaping up after the last location, how they are changing and where you would like to see their progression head to.

In regards to the archive, I think that's a great idea. I can also add resources for more tables / aides to facilitate the procedures we use in play if you would all like.

[Wizard of the Coat]

1 hour ago, Delorphin said:

From my experiences of playing other story games, although I don't know how it will translate here, one way to do this is to have the GM or whoever is facilitating the current scene proactively asks the player who might have an interest to explore the scene. For example, after I describe a town with a strange happening, I'd ask Vlad what spirit resides in this place and the nature of it.

OK, borrowing from other games. This is very helpful! Thanks, Del! You've expanded my thinking about how this game might work. I was envisioning a lot of deliberation in an OOC thread that outpaces the IC thread--which I wasn't looking forward to. But I've GM'd (and played) Dungeon World, which uses this same pattern: the GM asking the players questions rather than providing (all) the world lore and setting. I know we're calling this a GM-less game, but the idea of having us take turns facilitating each scene--setting up the scene in an opening post and asking questions to advance the scene--sounds like it would work and would feel collaborative. It seem to me that it would require only minimal additional effort when taking a turn as scene facilitator.

Does this rotating "scene facilitator" role match our shared expectations for a GM-less game?

I for one see it as a solid option. But I've never played a GM-less game, so my expectations are poorly informed.