Whatever the case, Earthdawn failed to capture a large enough audience and the game, even though still produced today, is more an oddity than a functional system. ~Art of the Genre Blog, July 24 2013.
I do not think that it is controversial to say that the above quote is consistent with how folks feel about Earthdawn. An intriguing premise and fantastic art certainly drew me in, with its explicit connection to Shadowrun an added bonus. After a couple abortive attempts at play and situation creation, I shelved the game, waiting for a new day to maybe take another look at it.
Earthdawn is one of few 90’s games, the others being Shatterzone and TRINITY, that hooked me on premise alone. I guess you could add Wraith to that list. But premise is no promise of content, of something you could build a situation out of that felt satisfying.
Recently there was some talk about Earthdawn in the context of tools (Karma) and designers of other games. And while I went through a period of “this system is terrible” one thing I have learned over time with discussions here at Adept Play, is that any given system might deserve a second glance. The tools I have as a game runner and player now, I think allow for a better examination of a given text.
Challenges
I do not think the rules as described in the text are terrible or unplayable. I do think it is badly over designed or maybe badly overpublished. The text is disorganized and spread out with some items that should be together, well not. And while the setting / backdrop fiction (superior to any WW game’s fiction) is great, the text has too many pages.
It is often a real Where’s Waldo when looking up a table or text needed for a particular process.
Creating a satisfying situation out of what is presented should not have been difficult, but I learned early that some slice of life content (gangs, criminal activity, some politics) did not work as well with either player preferences or the abilities imbedded in the Disciplines. Cosmic horror and delving into the detritus of past seems to work better for all involved. Especially with input from the players providing ideas and contacts. Something I want to circle back to at the end.
Not an explicit challenge, but it should be noted that LP or Legend Points (experience) are awarded for the completion of session and Adventure goals. Mapped to situations, I think this provides a concrete experience system that rewards engaging with the content.
PLAY
I started with these two statements:
The Horrors Linger Still
Mortals are easy to corrupt
Play began in the city of Kratas, the city of thieves, with the characters taking some work proffered by a local small gang. What began as a wellness check on a smuggler’s transit house turned into a confrontation with the corruption that is ever-present in the world post-Horrors.
After some not that interesting, in play, other work for the gang, the characters provided some impetus for other goals. This lead to some exploration and interaction with Aestles’ (Rod’s character) family and Rapshider (Robbie’s character) finding a trainer and taking the Training Pledge.
The latest adventures have seen the duo and an NPC guide exploring the accursed (all abandoned Kaers are accursed to be fair) Kaer Windrush. Encounters with an ogre and its lizard pet and then three npcs who seem to worship the Mad Passions lead the group to a semi-permanent outpost of nomads and vagabonds.
Authorities (Background)
Just a quick thought on background authority as authority been in conversation of late. Many systems say to ask players for background details, but do they mean it? Its not what I would call a rule, although a system like Shadowrun has contacts as part of character creation. Earthdawn does not, so I added that. And it has worked well in this context. But I wonder if this casual authority might work better if the system were designed to integrate it in a more formal way? Just a thought.
3 responses to “Not Content”
I haven’t played Earthdawn, so I’ll say what I think I’m reading in your post: that naturalistic play hasn’t been particularly compelling in your game, and “confront the Wumpus” is more so. Here’s where that point connects for me.
One of the creators talked with me about the game a while ago, in the early 2000s. According to them, it was sort of supposed to be the fantasy precursor to Shadowrun, but they (plural) decided that going with the D&D model seemed circular, as Shadowrun was modern-day D&D. So they reached over to RuneQuest/Glorantha in two ways: the Passions, which are sort of a cross between the Form Runes in RQ and the Passions in Pendragon; and the hard focus on “pockets of horrific Chaos infecting things,” which (as a minor point) seems also to be the way that Warhammer goes. They phrased it in the mindset of “we have to give players something to do,” which was the contemporary way to say “situation.”
Did they succeed? I think with the second more than the first, based on your summary. In a way, maybe they managed the back-to-D&D circle successfully after all. Obviously, I have my own fondness for Wumpus fights, and I don’t think focusing on that diminishes play, but historically, some sort of knot got tied about that. For Earthdawn, I’ve been generally unable to connect the Wumpus in Earthdawn with the implied cultural richness, the implied resonance of the Passions, and the focus on naturalistic arts-and-crafts in character creation, whereas eventually I did find my way to it with RuneQuest and/or Glorantha.
I share your experience of not managing to get the text into play; e.g., I have turned such things as the Cara Fahd supplement over and over many times, and it seems to inspire me … until I start to put it to use and it does not. It’s useful to contrast it with the Sazdorf clan material in The Haunted Ruins, which is the opposite: characters with strong personalities, under tensions of relatedness and immediate history, who might do this or that or any number of other things depending upon what happens in play, but who will definitely do something.
I’m thinking too about Jorune and Ars Magica, or at least their texts, in which scenarios are hard-core GM-controlled railroads, and all the culture and sense of “important emotional business” is mature-acting dress-up for some left-right turning and fighting the thing, whether it’s underground or here in the village. And too, about my recent and too-brief play of Dangerous Journeys and Harnmaster, in which all the cultural and naturalistic stuff ignited and boomed big even in that short time; and the very long-running Empire of the Petal Throne game, in which all the participants took some effort to reconcile and amplify the cultural stuff with the catacombs-fight-y stuff.
Here’s the thing, though: as I said above, I don’t think the dichotomy is real or necessary. Any of these work, nor do I think any of them is difficult:
Mutual and synergistic naturalistic depth/effort with fighting terrible things in the dark
The naturalism as such by itself, with its own problems and play-topics, without need for “going out or down there” to fight tooth-y things
Fighting things in the dark by itself without need for dressing it up as serious cultural content
Perhaps it’s merely a matter of admitting what you’re doing. I call attention, too, for the latter two, to the fact that fun Wumpus-hunting can well lead to rich characterizations and ultimately settings, and that fun characterizations and context can well lead to violent, consequential conflicts. So it’s not as if mainly doing the one now precludes the other in time.
Legend Points
Legend points are the experience currency of Earthdawn. These are awarded when a character knocks off a monster and for achieving both Session and Adventure goals. If the overall adventure is to explore Kaer Windrush for its theoretical treasures and actual horrors, there is recognition that such a feat might take more than one session. Breaking it down into small chunks provides a method of rewarding actual accomplishments as opposed to vague waypoints on the road to the next Circle (Level). I will talk a little more about Adventures in a moment.
Legend Points can be spent on:
Karma Rituals – Daily Rituals to regain lost Karma.
Talent & Skill Progression – aimed at improving the character. This leads to being in position to raise one’s Circle after some training*.
*We learned last session that training a new skill can take months. There is a time interval here: you don’t become the next Circle after a good night’s rest. This is a place I suspect Runequest has some influence.
One gains LP from finishing Adventures as well. I spoke to the players last session as they had fallen back on Three Rapids (we often call it Three River, Pittsburgh PA folks) to lick wounds and train. I explicitly asked “Is this adventure concluded?” Not this instance of playing Earthdawn, but this particular Situation. We agreed it was and I awarded an amount of LP based on what they had accomplished.
The next adventure was spawned by this one. I am not sure all the situational arrows are pointing in the right direction, but they are aligned, if that makes sense.
We also experienced failure, or rather a lack of success. It was not fatal, though it came closer than perhaps we expected. Still as a group we had to punt on 4th down and now the characters are off on something different, though Kaer Windrush and the Horror Silvertongue are still out there.
Sean, with respect, this reads like a book report. I have the text myself and so do a lot of other people, or anyone who wants to. I don’t need you to read it out loud for me.
So what? Are Legend Points of any enjoyable interest, or are they in there to no real effect, probably “because you have to have XP?”
If increasing in Circles is what’s going on, then why not just do that every so often and not bother fiddling the tiny points? Further, is increasing in Circles even worth doing, aside from the disturbing promise that somehow play will be great if you do it, which implies that it isn’t so great right now (yet).
Earthdawn is patently, obviously trapped between somewhat idealistic designers who want rich, exciting fantasy adventure but who also think a role-playing game must have X, Y, and Z, under a story-shepherd’s control. It’s pumped full of money so it looks pretty … but again, so what?
Maybe the answer is positive. It’s surprisingly positive for a lot of the similarly-stuck games played and discussed here, especially the heartbreakers. What’s positive about playing Earthdawn?