Fringe Reviews

Reviews from the fringes of Role-Playing Games

N.B.: Any post marked as a “Legacy Fringe Review” is an old blog entry moved to this one and lightly edited for format, with some minor errors corrected (and undoubtedly new ones added for balance!).

Continuing my little experiment in reviewing little-known RPGs, past and present, I'd like to go in a direction directly opposite of my last review. In that I introduced a game that was in all ways completely different from most RPGs that people in the hobby are familiar with. Instead it is, as I put it in a comment, “RPG meets collaborative fiction with a dash of improv”.

Today's game is nothing of the sort. It is three perfectly ordinary things:

  1. It is a free game and almost militantly so.
  2. It is a joke game, or, at least, it started that way.
  3. It is a so-called “Old School Renaissance” game (and arguably the first actual such!).

So why am I reviewing a game so ordinary? Because, naturally, it is in no way ordinary!

The game (and indeed, to a degree, entire game line) that I am reviewing today is the game Mazes & Minotaurs (M&M) written by Olivier Legrande. If you've compulsively followed the link provided you got a taste of the rabbit's warren that is the secret world of M&M. If you didn't, let me give you a quick history so you can understand the joyful, wonderful madness you're about to face.

History

In 2002, game author and columnist Paul Elliot wrote an article in which he postulates an alternative history where Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create a game based on Greek miniatures wargaming instead of medieval. This inspired French game author Olivier Legrande to conceive of actually making the game hinted at in that article. In the process of collaboration, the pair, with Legrande doing the bulk of the work, created not only the game Mazes & Minotaurs but also the complicated (and very funny!) joke history around it.

And the joke history is that the game was created by Paul Elliot in 1972 (two years before the publication of Dungeons & Dragons). Assorted supplements that vaguely mirrored the original D&D supplements were created and assigned product release dates two years before their approximate D&D equivalents. Then, in “1987” (two years before the release of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons), Revised Mazes & Minotaurs (RM&M) was released with its mirroring books and from there the game exploded.

As of this writing there are a lot of supplements for M&M. Just go take a look! There's a lot there for what started as a joke game. All of it free.

Production

The game books are written in a breezy style (without the gratuitously grandiloquent vocabulary of the real source materials, thankfully!) and, as part of their affectation of being “reprints” of old editions, have little sidebars expounding on some of the faux-history of the game and its community. Much of it is self-deprecating and a lot of it shines a light on real RPG history in the guise of the fake.

The typesetting of all of it is very basic. A simple decorative frieze-like border surrounds two columns of text and several pieces of clip art that are vaguely thematic. (Well, OK, to be fair, it's more than vague. Legrande has a decent eye for matching such artworks to the text most times.) Font selection is basic as well, although thankfully consistent across the line. Covers range from laughable to decent, though it's unclear how much of this is homage and how much is just the fact it is a free game.

In general, the bottom line is that the game is not made for looks. It's made for play. (And what more do you want from a game that is absolutely, 100% free!?)

Play

And that segues nicely into the most important part of the review: how does this joke game actually play? To review this, I will have to pick an edition, so I will. I will pick the RM&M game, reviewing the rules of that system. (Much of the game is unchanged in the Revised edition anyway, so there's no point in covering both.)

The RM&M rules are in two core rulebooks of 50 pages each, one optional rulebook, also 50 pages, and a 127-page monster book. The first core rulebook, the Players Manual (PM) covers character generation, combat, magic, and adventuring rules.

Character Creation

Character creation is a simple process: for all characters: select a class; roll basic attributes; pick a name and gender, determine age; determine combat scores; determine other scores; determine starting wealth and equipment, purchase extra equipment; flesh out the character.

Character classes are divided into five warrior classes (Amazons, Barbarians, Centaurs, Nobles, Spearmen), five magician classes (Elementalists, Lyrists, Nymphs, Priests, Sorcerers), and two specialist classes (hunters, thieves). All characters start at level 1 and can go to level 6. (It should be noted that the optional Companion adds two extra warrior classes, the Cavalryman and the Archer, as well as a far less sexist Amazon variant.)

There are six attributes: Might, Skill, Wits, Luck, Will, and Grace. These reflect the usual old school game concerns with a slight Greek flavour. 2d6+6 are rolled six times and assigned to attributes. There are some rules around these to keep characters competent. Each class has two primary attributes (e.g. Lyrists have Grace and Luck) and the two highest final values must be allocated to these two attributes. Each attribute comes with a paired modifier by value.

It should be noted that for number-crunchers, Luck is probably the most important of the attributes.

Names are freely decided, and gender is freely decided except for those classes which have pre-decided genders. (Nymphs are always female, for example.) Starting age is 2d6+15 for warriors and specialists, 2d6+20 or magicians. The only exception here is Nymphs, who are ageless.

Combat scores are, as the name would indicate, numbers used in combat and are calculated from attribute modifiers, sometimes with base values added. All but Hits Total incorporate the Luck modifier in addition to other ones, so Luck is an important stat for all-round combatants.

There are four saving rolls: Athletic Prowess, Danger Evasion, Mystic Fortitude, and Physical Vigour. Each character also has a Personal Charisma modifier reflecting interpersonal qualities. There is also an encumbrance total calculated based on a base number plus carried equipment; the impact of this total depends on the Might score directly (not the modifier).

Specialists have talents: Hunting for Hunters, and Thievery for Thieves. Magicians of all kinds have Mystic Strength, Power Points, and a special talent score (like for specialists) which varies by class.

All characters start with reasonable equipment for their class, some basics, and starting money that can be used to buy other things, the amount again depending on their class. In true old school fashion, the equipment list is very basic with mostly representative items and will require extrapolation for items not on it.

Once the mechanical bits are done, players are encouraged to breath life into their characters by supplying a background and personality.

Although an actual, (very!) playable game, the author couldn't resist throwing in some jokes at old school tropes. Every class, for example, has special abilities and some of those are ... ah ... scalpel-sharp parodies of the way things worked in the earlier days. Amazons, for example, use Skill and Grace as their primary attributes and have an ability called “Battle Grace” which adds their Grace modifier to their Defence Class. But this only applies if they're not wearing a breastplate... Yes, you read that right: Amazons get a bonus to their defence based on how good they look, but only if they don't cover up. I'd be offended if I weren't laughing so loudly. This is a wonderful stab at old-school game sexism! Even outside of the interspersed faux-retrospectives the game is loaded with little jokes like that (which is grist for the mill of more jokes in the Companion!).

Combat

Combat is straightforward. Combat is broken into ~6 second battle rounds, each off which has four phases: Decision, Missile, Movement, and Melee. The decision phase has characters announcing their actions in ascending initiative order. Missile attacks are then resolved in descending initiative order. Movement is presumed to occur simultaneously. Finally melee attacks are resolved again in descending order. Surprise takes surprised parties out of the sequence for one entire round and modifies defence values for defences that require awareness (like shield use).

Attacks are rolled on 1d20, adding appropriate modifiers and if equalling or exceeding the opponent's modified defence class, the attack has succeeded and the opponent takes 1d6 of damage. All standard weapons cause 1d6 damage. Some special weapons or spells may use different dice, but a spear and a dagger both do 1d6. Where weapons differ is chiefly in style (role-playing). Characters reduced to 0 hits or less are incapacitated and in danger of dying. Certain kinds of injuries can result in permanent effects. Healing is slow by nature, fast by magic.

There are a variety of special tactics usable by some or all classes: charging into battle, holding back, shield walls, subterfuge, twin-weapons, parrying, close quarters, mounted combat, sneak attacks, etc. This is the other dimension where weapons will differ; it behooves people to know the rules to know the weapons they should carry. There's also a section on unarmed combat—pugilism and wrestling—which the “retrospective” notes claim that very few players took interest in. (A stab at AD&D's convoluted unarmed combat rules, no doubt!)

An interesting mechanism is that warriors and specialists pick a “weapon of choice” (one of daggers, swords, spears, and barbarian weapons) and have “advantage” when using them. “Advantage” involves rolling the d20 twice and choosing the highest value, making use of weapons of choice a valuable thing.

Magic

Magic works in a strange combination of original D&D and AD&D. There are five Realms (Divine, Elemental, Nature, Poetic, Sorcery), each giving access to six magical powers of increasing power. Each power is ranked by “magnitude level” which represents not what character level is needed to wield, but rather how many power points they must spend. All magicians have access to all powers in their Realm if they have the power points to apply. Each realm has a matching magical talent (Priests, for example have Spiritual Aura) which is essentially a casting modifier for using powers. Magicians also hvae mystic strength which drives how effective the impact of a power will be.

Magicians don't get a lot. There are six magic powers in each realm, and a very powerful magician might get 20 power points: enough to use the most powerful abilities three times. That being said, the powers they do command can be very strong and, as such, magicians can form a very powerful “heavy weapons” component in a party. Entering a maze without a magician would be folly. Magicians working alone would be an equal folly.

Adventuring

This part contains the usual rules for travel, movement, environmental perils, and other general adventuring things like stealth or such. One running gag that started in the original edition and has carried on through everything until a whole supplement was dedicated to it is that the sailing rules are terrible. (I can't possibly imagine which game they're making fun of here...) Additionally the rules for NPC reactions, followers, and character advancement are found in this section. Of note is that character advancement is more Chivalry & Sorcery than Dungeons & Dragons: different types of characters collect adventure points differently. Warriors gather Glory for vanquishing foes and accomplishing heroic deeds. Magicians get Wisdom from vanquishing mystical foes and exploring the unknown. That sort of thing. Collect enough of these and characters go up in level, gaining new powers, new abilities, better modifiers and all the other, usual old-school concerns.

Other Books

The bulk of the actual rules of the game fall in the PM. The rest of the books are more about the setting and advice on running the game. The Maze Masters Guide (MMG), the second core rule book, for example, covers Mythic Lore (geography, cosmogony, history, etc.), Creatures (how they're rated, special rules in combat, how to build them, etc.), Game Mastering (how to create adventures, right down to an extensive suite of rather good random generators for that purpose!), and finally Mythic Items (magic loot!).

For jokes, some of the faux-history points out what motivated key design changes (references to killer mice) and there's a beautiful take-down of the infamous Dark Dungeons tract from Chick Publications called Maleficious Mazes which tells the same story with a ... darker bent.

None of what's in the MMG is ground-breaking, but it is good quality material. It is clear that actual thought went into the design of this game; it was intended to be played as well as the source of a large number of good jokes.

The third core book is the Creature Compendium (CC) and is, as the name would suggest, a collection of pre-fabbed monsters. As with the books being imitated, the quality of the monsters ranges from the sublime (Atlanteans are chilling opposition!) to the ludicrous (Tragic Floating Head — no, really!). There's 230 or so creatures in here and most of them are quite usable. Some of the jokes include a quote from an old “letters column” that derides the “flying eye” as a monster nobody could ever take seriously...

The final core book is entirely optional, containing rules that are not necessarily going to be adopted into every campaign. There are character options, including background talents (yay!) and alternate/extra classes—most notably a far less sexist Amazon. (Which, of course, had to be joked about.) The possibility of characters being Divine Agents is floated, and a large number of combat options are added. (Too many for my tastes, hence “optional” thankfully, although chariot rules are nice to have.) Magic adds the Beastmaster class, as well as optional “elements” of Light and Dark. Religion is expanded upon in a large way (but again, too complicated for my tastes, ... but I've never really had a lot of time for religion when playing RPGs so that's likely just a bias on my part).

One thing added in the CC that is surprisingly good is a set of rules for warfare. The rules are really quite nice, existing somewhere between a full-blown miniatures system (like in the Chivalry & Sorcery Companion) and a simplistic pen and paper system (like in the Chivalry & Sorcery Companion 2). For me these rules hit a sweet spot permitting characters to get involved in (and influence) on the large scale while still being a role-playing game, not a strategic board game in disguise.

Observations

M&M is clearly a joke. Indeed it is a very good joke. But it is more than that. It is a game that reimagines the history of role-playing games and supplies a world that might have been. It is also a game that supplies the charm of old school gaming (rather missing in a lot of modern games) while looking back on almost 25 years of design experience, giving a game that feels like the old-school D&D without the ugly, convoluted, broken bits.

And it did this before “OSR” was a thing.

Honestly, I love this game. I would reach for it over almost any other for quick pick-up games with players of “normal” RPGs. It has that essence that the older games had that were lost by a lot of joyless mid- and latter-generation games, but it has that essence without being screamingly incoherent. This game has a special place in my heart and I encourage anybody reading this review to go grab a copy (did I mention it's free enough?) and give it a try. The worst thing that can happen is you wasted a fraction of a cent on the download, after all.


#FringeReviews #TTRPG #RPG #Review #LegacyReview

@zdl@gamerplus.org

Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) is second only to Rolemaster for how long I've owned and played it. Despite it embodying, to those who know my tastes, literally everything I claim I dislike in role-playing games I have nonetheless stuck by it for four full editions, beginning with its second, and owned everything I could find for it back to its first edition.

To summarize why I shouldn't like it these days:

  • It is a very complicated game. (I'm a dullard and prefer simple ones.)
  • It tries to have a rule for everything. (I prefer simple and flexible core mechanisms that can be altered at need.)
  • It is very strongly stuck in a very specific genre: medieval European fantasy¹. (I prefer systems that are more oriented toward kit-bashing.)

But, despite all this, I like it anyway. I have many fond memories of playing its second edition, remember some disappointment at its third, and exulted at most of that disappointment being fixed in its fourth.

This review is an attempt to explain why.

The convoluted history

While this review is for the fifth edition of the game, C&S is actually one of the oldest RPG lines still in active publication. Indeed I can only think of D&D as an older line in active publication, and even here C&S trumped AD&D in that it was published in 1977, the same year the Monster Manual for AD&D was published, but AD&D could not be called a complete game until the publication of the Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979 (or, if you're a real stickler, until the release of Deities and Demigods in 1980).

This is a white-hair game, is what I'm trying to get across.

Legend has it that C&S began its life as a “fixed-up” D&D game called Chevalier first made in 1976. It was, according to its own creators, Wilf Backhaus and Edward E. Simbalist, a copy of D&D fixed up to be more realistic and they were intent on selling it to TSR at the 1977 Gencon.

Wilf Backhaus and I went to GenCon in 1977 with our Chevalier RPG – admittedly a D&D clone in some respects but also containing all of the seeds that would soon spring forth as Chivalry & Sorcery, which I regard as a dramatic departure from the slash and hack approach to RPG that existed in those early days. Wilf and I were going to approach TSR to see if we could sell them Chevalier, but we had very bad vibes when we witnessed E. Gary Gygax chewing out some poor teen-aged convention volunteer who had managed to goof something up. So we just enjoyed the Con. Then we met Scott. He pointed out his Hyborean Age miniatures rules as something he'd written, and Wilf reached into his ubiquitous briefcase, remarking, “Well, we've written something, too.” Scott was no dummy and saw the potential of Chevalier. He wrote out a letter of intent on the spot, and Chivalry & Sorcery was the result. —Edward E. Simbalist in interview

Between the “bad vibes” given off by E. Gary Gygax and Scott Bizar's business savvy, Chivalry & Sorcery, a far cry from being a D&D clone, was published by Fantasy Games Unlimited in 1977 in a single, very thick for the time book. And even the thickness of the book was challenged by the sheer volume of the content. The book had the usual fantasy RPG rules for character generation, combat, and magic, of course, but it also had a full-fledged miniatures wargame for doing mass combat. Focused as it was on mostly the 12th century of France in style it also had rules for courtly love, tournaments and jousting, fiefs, heraldry, and, as an absolute first (to my knowledge at least), a full system for social influence: characters weren't murder-hobos practically divorced from the setting, using it as a colourful backdrop. They were part of a society and had to navigate it as much as they had to navigate wildernesses and cave complexes.

This wasn't a dungeon-crawling game. This was a fantastical medieval simulation game.

And this all in one book, a feat that was accomplished by taking the hand-typewritten rules and photoreducing them to fit four typed pages per published page. A magnifying glass was almost mandatory for reading these rules and their organization, by virtue of a total lack of electronic editing facilities of the time, was slipshod.

Still, it found its community of ardent supporters and on the strength of that its second edition was published in 1983 as a boxed set with some simplified rules, some reorganizations, some clarifications, and a few more improvements (including broadening the period of history covered). Further the miniatures-based mass combat system was removed and relegated to a supplement (the Chivalry & Sorcery Companion) and a simpler, pencil-and-paper-based system was added in yet another supplement (the Chivalry & Sorcery Companion 2).

Somewhere in between the year of the last C&S2 supplement being published (1984) and 1996 there was a falling-out between FGU and the designing pair of Backhaus and Simbalist. Backhaus being a lawyer, however, was not caught out by the standard FGU contract that transferred ownership of 100% of the game IP—trademarks, rules, content, art, etc.—in perpetuity. Thus it was that a publisher called Highlander Games was selected to publish a third edition of the rules in that year. Highlander, a purpose-made publisher, put out the rules in 1996 and a sizable number of supplements in 1997 before realizing that it had perhaps made two mistakes:

  1. It misjudged how popular a very crunchy, old-school style game would be in the '90s.
  2. It stripped C&S's chief claim to fame: its historicity. C&S3 was very much a generic fantasy game in feel and in execution both.

That being said, the new game design was far more streamlined, using a single skills system (given the rather twee name of Skillskape™—yes, with the trademark notice littering every reference to it anywhere in the books!) for everything except social manoeuvring, which still used the old influence system modified slightly by factoring in skills using Skillskape™. While its presentation wasn't particularly nice, especially with the littering of trademark symbols all over, the system itself was passable, it had just stripped that which made C&S beloved by its fans without making something that appealed to a broader audience. Highlander Games died in 1999 and was purchased by Brittania Games, who themselves put out the next edition.

Chivalry & Sorcery: The Rebirth, as this next (fourth) edition was named, continued in 2000 the work begun with Highlander Games, keeping the Skillskape (this time dropping the omnipresent trademark notices except in the frontispiece) resolution system, but streamlining both it and its explanation, restoring the historical simulation aspects that had gone missing, and publishing it in a more eye-pleasing layout. They followed this up with more supplements (“Companions”) that added various races, as well as publishing setting material and adventures. After nearly 20 years of publication at a good enough rate to stay alive, Brittania Games launched a Kickstarter campaign to publish a newer, more comprehensive edition, (the fifth for those still counting).

And this fifth edition, written by Stephen Turner, Francis Tiffany, Andy Staples, Colin D. Speirs, A.R.Cowley, and David Blewitt, published finally in 2020, is the topic of this review.

And at long last: the actual review!

Chivalry & Sorcery Fifth Edition is a behemoth of a book and as a necessity I will be glossing over details in favour of getting the flavour of the book across. In a review that's already too long just trying to get the history of the game across, being fully-detailed about this game is not something that can be accomplished without rivalling the book itself for size. For those who know the game, please forgive the necessary eliding.

Components

The book comes in two formats: a huge PDF file and a roughly 600 page hardcover rulebook. The PDF version tries (and often succeeds) to use the features of the PDF format instead of being merely a copy of the physical text. Where these features appear I will make note of them.

The book (hardcopy and PDF both) I am working from is labelled with a copyright date of 2019 and is also indicated as a first printing. The PDF weighs in at roughly 67MB while the book weighs in at about 10kg. (OK, so maybe it isn't that heavy, but wow this thing is a beast!) Every page is full-colour page with a background meant to seemingly evoke an ancient manuscript on vellum or parchment or the like. The layout is clean, the text stands out sufficiently from the background, even on pages that have sizable illustrations with text overlaying part of it. (Such images are faded out as they approach text so text can be printed over it.) The physical book uses good quality, glossy paper. The PDF has a set of tabs in the PDF labelled things like “Introduction” or “Combat” or “Medieval World” which when clicked on take you to that section of the book. This is very good because the book's organization leaves something to be desired (q.v. below) and being able to click around at need is vital. Sadly there is no equivalent in the physical book, so players will have to become familiar with the quirky organization.

The bookmarks in the PDF give us a taste of what's to come. The chapters are: Introduction, The Medieval World, Core Game Mechanics, Character Generation, Vocations, Skills, The Marketplace, Movement & Time, Combat, Magick (sic), Spells, Religion, Being A Gamemaster (sic), The Campaign World, Non-player Characters, The Bestiary, Glossary of Terms. Then follows a list of tables. Almost 320 of them. Get used to tables. You're going to see a lot of them.

Now while I may have a bit of a critical tone here with the tables comment, I can absolutely not fault their accessibility. Sure, C&S5 may even rival Powers & Perils for sheer insanity of tables, but the tables are well-placed in the text (generally right next to rules that use them) and there's no need to buy a separate product that gives you a list of tables. They're right in the document bookmarks. (Further, many of the tables are for specific skills and are basically structured identically, unlike the horrendously heterogenic tables of P&P.)

And one thing I can sing the praises of in this PDF is that the ToC and the Index—yes, this book has an index: seven pages of index, in fact, in very small type—are both linkable from the bottom of each page: ToC on even pages, Index on odd. And while it has a few questionable entries (“ALDRIC – Town City Guard”: a sample character), the index is actually a pretty useful one. This is a rare PDF where I'll take a crack at the index before using Ctrl+F.

Background information

C&S was the second published game (to my knowledge) with a detailed society implied (the first being the Tékumel books) and the first published game to have detailed rules about how one interacts in that society. This is a tradition that, outside of the short stumble in C&S3 (which cost the company its existence), has been carried on in this edition.

After the weirdly apologetic Introduction (“At first glance C&S may seem very complex, but this is not so – there is actually really only one system mechanic, this is called Skillskape, all the reams of detail are merely that– added detail that can be simply ignored if desired.“), the chapter on The Medieval World begins on page 10 and ends on page 31. That's 22 pages of information on how the medieval world was structured, how societies viewed different matters, and the various roles of various organizations and social classes. It's very densely-written and a bit of a slog to read, but invaluable to inculcate in players the sheer alienness of thought of the times. (It also has a few ... let's be polite and call them “debatable” ... claims about finer points in history, but these are minor and fine for a fantasy pretendy-fun-time game.)

The information provided covers the entire feudal era, but because this is a vast period of time it's divided into four categories: Early Feudal, High Chivalric, Late Feudal, and Waning Feudal. Some tables already show up in the text here (Town Structure, Guild Presence in Town) and the specific era acts as a modifier in one of them. And this segues neatly into a problem I have with the book.

The organization and editing both are pretty bad. The two tables in this section are rules, not setting information. This would seem to be more accurately placed in the “Being A Gamemaster” or “The Campaign World” section of the book, not stuck in an isolated little island in the middle of the setting. Thankfully there's bookmarks in the PDF, but I'm sure the physical book will be very annoying to deal with. I will likely be making very frequent use of sticky flags.

Of note in this section is a few pages devoted to “Medieval Europe & Sub-Saharan Africa”. I can already hear the screams of “WOKE!!!” from the usual crowd of plug-ignorants scared at the notion that medieval Europe wasn't lily-white all the way. They provide pointers to documented history and make the unequivocal statment:

It is firm belief of everyone involved in Chivalry & Sorcery that Sub-Saharan Africans were present and belong even in the strictest historical campaigns.

It then goes on to point out that the existence of black people (and even black knights!) in medieval Europe does not say that the medieval era was tolerant. Indeed the closing page of the section ends on a downbeat note about the persecutions that were rife in this time frame against Jews, against women, against infidels, etc.

Game mechanics

This is one of the organizational problems of the game. I understand, I think, the reasoning that likely underlies the way they structured things, given that the authors seem to be academics rather than communicators. They are trying to define their terms, in effect, before using them. What this means in practice is that they do 13 pages of explanation of every little nitty-gritty detail of the Skillskape system followed by two pages of the experience system, followed by four pages of the influence system. That's 19 pages of context-free rules, written in a style that would put even an ardent reader of Heidegger to sleep.

At issue is that all of the forward references. For example the bulk of the rules (for Skillskape) frequently reference things like Attribute Bonus. But attributes haven't been described yet, so you're left with this mental blank spot that you just have to remember exists but don't really have any grounding for.

Only after all this is described are you finally given the information that lets you put it to good use: Character Generation. So that's where I'm going to start, describing skills after the bare minimum grounding is provided.

Character creation

Character creation in C&S5 is, as has always historically been the case, a complicated and detailed affair. Thankfully on page 51 there's a checklist of sorts that lets you know of the 19 steps coming up and gives you a good feel for how far along you are. Did I say detailed? Let's give a taste of how detailed with some examples:

  • (3) Birth omens and initial PC points
  • (5) PC background including social class, social status, and intragroup status
  • (6) Sibling rank
  • (12) Size
  • (15) Lifting & carrying capacity

And so on and so on and so on.

There are three approaches to making character: Points Based, Random, and Lion Heart. In the first character points (with campaigns selected as “Historic”, “Heroic”, or “Mythical” for varying numbers available) are used to buy features with several points offering a choice to buy at a cost or roll on a table for free. In the second, all background tables are rolled on and all attributes are generated by rolling 3D10 and ignorning the lowest. +2 is added for Heroic and +5 for Mythical characters on each attribute. The final option is the same as random, but with 2d10 used and the same modifiers applied for campaign type.

Unique of the games of the era, C&S, in all editions, had birth omens as part of character generation, usually, given the European-based milieu, based on horoscopes. Your birth sign and your birth omens give bonuses to skills and attributes, give bonuses to experience (!), and can even limit choices of profession (not to mention modify subsequent background table rolls). Harping on the organization issues, the terms “Well Aspected”, etc., part of the birth omens, are defined after they're used in tables. Gender and race are selectable, but the default campaign is all-human PCs. There's a section on the position of women in the game that amounts to “it's up to you how much you want to emulate the role of women in feudal society” with some guidelines for what this could entail.

Have you noticed what's missing yet?

That's right! We're at step 4 (of 19) of character generation, we've done bizarre things like “birth omens”, we know how to roll or buy attributes ... but we don't know what they ARE yet! Organization!

You don't know, in fact, except by osmosis through reading about what bonuses and penalties go on some attributes according to birth aspects, social class, father's profession, etc. until you reach step 11 (of *19!) that there are 12 attributes divided into four groups: Physical (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity), Intellectual (Intellect, Wisdom, Discipline), Communal (Bardic Voice, Appearance, Spirit), and Derived (Agility, Ferocity, Charisma).

It is the first nine of these which are purchased or rolled according to the method selected way back in step 1. The final three are calculated as averages of three of the attributes with an additional “innate aptitude” rolled on a d10 or purchased by PC Points. The final attributes give you an Attribute Roll (like a saving throw for times when the character lacks a skill) and ...

Let's forego further talk about these rolls until I get back to the actual game system I skipped over earlier.

At any rate, I think the point is getting across. It's a long and very detailed process, making a character, and this is rendered a bit worse by poor organization of the text. (On the plus side, there are examples at key points that clarify the often-confusing text.) Personally I wouldn't organize character generation this way, but what's here is serviceable, especially if a knowledgable GM helps players through it.

Vocations

But step 19 isn't the end. That just generates your character's background. You still have to select vocations (sort of like classes but not really) and skills. Characters get background skills from their social class and father's vocation. They get vocational (also “primary”) skills from their selected vocation. They can also get secondary skills from their vocation, but aren't as highly trained in them. In addition non-vocational “tertiary” skills can be taken to level 0 based on mental stats. Some vocational skills may be selected as mastered skills. Each of these skill classifications decides your starting level in them, and optionally provides bonuses. It's all very complicated, not particularly well-explained, but at least only happens once, at character generation.

Vocations are sometimes grouped into a larger group (like “Warrior”) and sometimes standalone. They're all very evocative of the setting, giving you vocations like “Serviens & Livered Horsemen” (sic), or “Foresters”, or “Beggars”, or “Herald”, etc. Then the mage section hits and it's even more convoluted and complicated as it interleaves some rules of magick (sic) with the information you need to generate characters. There are a lot of choices, which is good, but badly organized and explained, which is bad. The necessary information is all there, but it's ... ugh. A chore to read. (Were I not a fan of the game since 1983 I probably would have given up by now.)

And now we're about ready to talk about the core system the book dragged us through without context.

Skillscape

Skillscape is the first piece. And I'm going to introduce it backwards. Because at its core, in actual play, C&S is actually quite simple to play. The complexity is shoved into the liminal spaces between game play sessions: character generation, between-session downtime, etc. At its core, though, the game system is simple:

  1. Look up the “TSC” (Total Success Chance) of your skill. (We'll get into how this is generated later.)
  2. Apply any situational modifiers.
  3. Roll a d% paired with a single D10 (the latter being called the “Crit Die”).
  4. If the d% is less than or equal to the modified TSC from step 2, the character has succeeded. Otherwise the character has failed.
  5. The crit die shows the scale of success or failure: 1 reflects bare success/failure and 10 reflects overwhelming success/failure. Numbers in between are scaled accordingly.

The crit die takes some getting used to, but in the end works pretty much identically to assorted mechanisms like BRP's three levels of success (5% of target, 20% of target, and the rest) and two levels of failure (5% of target and the rest). Furthermore it does so without requiring special calculations on the fly (something that always bugged me in BRP's system). The d% is a straight binary choice: success or failure. The crit die says how much of a success or failure it is.

In the core game mechanics there is a generic crit die table provided that is used for most cases. But there are often cases where special crit die tables are provided for more focused and concrete results. Many skills, for example, provide a crit table. Agricultural skills, for example, have a system where the harvest results for a region are determined by the GM, but the crit die on the skill use can move an individual farmer's results up or down on the harvest table. These specific crit die tables don't need to be used, but they do add a lot of flavour.

So ... how does one get that aforementioned TSC? We're back to convolution.

Every skill has a “difficulty factor” (DF) ranging from 1 to 10, very simple to impossible. There is a “base chance of success” (BCS) for that skill when used without training (“unskilled BCS”). A DF 1 skill, for example, has an unskilled BCS of 50%; a DF 10, 0%. Getting some training in a skill (level 0) boosts you to the “skilled BCS” which ranges from 60% to 1% from DF 1 to DF 10. Innate talent also modifies in the form of attribute modifiers: bonuses or penalties based on levels of the attributes that govern the skills. Finally each level of skill past 0 adds (typically) 3%. So your “personal skill factor” (PSF%) comes from the attribute bonuses/penalties + skill level bonuses. This PSF% is added to the relevant BCS to come up with your TSC. Easy peasy!

Of course that TSC, as mentioned above is adjusted by situation, but here an added wrinkle comes in. Each skill DF has a “MIN” and “MAX” rating. These are the lowest and highest respectively that your TSC can be adjusted to. So if you have a TSC of 72% in a DF 6 (“difficult”) skill, and you get a bonus of 20%, the resulting 92% is adjusted downward to 90%, the upper limit for a difficult skill. If, on the other hand, you got reduced to anything under 2%, you still have a 2% chance to succeed.

This sounds complicated (and is), but as mentioned before you only calculate this in the RP liminal spaces. In play you only look at your TSC, the MIN, and the MAX, and go to town. The rest of the nonsense is used only during character generation or character advancement between sessions. (And you just know that the skill difficulty factor makes harder skills more expensive in experience points...)

There are a few smaller wrinkles I've glossed over here, and I'm not going to get into the two methods (“quick play” vs. “detailed play”) of doing resisted skill rolls. None of this is hard in actual play; it's just hard to understand the explanation because of all the BSCs getting up into the face of the PSF%s and the DFs and ... it's just so badly explained, taking so many pages to explain a skill system that's actually pretty simple and elegant.

Experience

The experience system, on the other hand, is not so simple. (It's still not bad elegance-wise.) Despite vocations not being classes in the D&D-ish sense (nor even really in the Rolemaster-ish sense), characters have levels and gather experience points. At the core there are three numbers related to experience characters need to track: Total experience, accumulated experience, and experience level. As experience is awarded (and C&S was the first game to my knowledge that specifically awarded experience to characters for doing things that a given character type would do, instead of for being murder hobos), it is added to total experience and accumulated experience. Total experience determines your experience level which puts caps on skill levels before you start to pay inflated prices for skills. Skills are newly-purchased or improved with experience points and are taken from the accumulated experience total. (Think of the accumulated experience as the bank account from which you take points to pay for character advancement.) Learning skills can be done in a variety of ways which can cost money, time, or both and is generally done in “downtime”.

Influence

And this brings us to the third major game mechanism of C&S (and the one it is most famous for): influence. It is hard to get across how revolutionary C&S was in its day. Where D&D and the sheer number of knock-offs being made at the time were all about murder hobos delving through tunnels (though Empire of the Petal Throne gave interesting reasons for this), C&S was all about society. Any kind of society has a social structure, and the influence mechanisms of C&S deal with this.

It sounds a little quirky to have game rules for society, since you could have a society without game rules governing things. (This was, indeed, quite often used as a criticism of the game practically from its inception.) But… Can you? Really?

Raise your hands here those who are experts in medieval social structures and behaviour? One of the many problems that occasionally make me cringe HARD in fantasy literature, games, etc. is the way people blithely assume that modern thought is the way people always thought. That modern behaviour is universal (when it's not even universal in modern times!). The influence rules are used to help cement just how the alien world of medieval times actually worked (within the limits of what can be represented in a game played by modern people at least).

Influence is used specifically in the case of PCs trying to get NPCs to do things, and it involves three steps:

  1. Figure out who to approach and what you specifically wish them to do.
  2. Find out if you can even approach the person in question.
  3. Decide if the approached person will grant the request.

Step #2 actually has potential to lead to a fun sub-game of its own. Unless you happen to run into the person you're trying to influence, setting up an audience for said person to make a decision is a chore in and of itself and may require chains of influence as you try to even get an audience. A peasant, after all, is unlikely to just happen to run into a king and ask for an audience. The peasant may have to influence a village head who knows an influential guild head who has the ear of the king's vizier who … you get the drift. Can all this be played out without rules? Yes. Does it in most games? Not in my experience.

The root stat for influence is the Base Influence Factor (BIF). BIF is composed of the character's charisma paired with their social status and a fraction of their honour. Gifts can be used to positively influence the BIF (with gifts matching the target's tastes getting increased effect) and situational modifiers apply. The resulting Effective Influence is then compared to the target's BIF to come up with a modifier to a skill roll. The skill usually used is Diplomacy, but by circumstance it could be other skills. If the persuasion attempt fails, multiple tries can be made, but at a mounting penalty to each attempt. The crit die determines how much is granted in cases of success, or how badly the target reacts in cases of failure.

The system is not rigidly mechanical. If a request is reasonable and/or doesn't really cost the target anything it may, at GM's discretion, automatically succeed without a die roll. Similarly if the request brings distinct advantage to the target it could also automatically succeed. Obviously unreasonable requests may also flat-out fail without a die roll.

There's a bit more to the system than this, but it's all minor variations on the theme.

Magick

And now we come to the thing that is probably the secret sauce explaining why C&S is sufficiently beloved of its fans that it keeps getting published: the magick (sic) system. C&S has always had a complicated magick system that pushes the limits of playability. The first edition was a massive exercise in die rolling. The second edition elevated the “simplified” system used to make higher-level NPCs into the system used by PCs in general. The third and onward systems use Skillskape, but in ways that are a bit brain-twisting to work out. What follows here is a summary overview that is not going to be 100% accurate and glosses over, of necessity, many of the details.

The first thing that a magick-wielding character must select is their “Mode” (which is a skill). This is effectively their “profession” and informs the way they approach magic. Modes include things like “Divination” or “Enchantment” or “Thaumaturgy” or the like. (There are also mage/priest modes like “Druid” or “Witch”.) Each mode describes the main approach used by the mage in effecting magick, provides a table of modifiers for various “Methods” (for which q.v. below), and gives details on the “focus” they use to channel their magick.

The next piece of the magick-using puzzle is the “Method” of magick (again a skill). These are things like “Basic Magick – Air” or “Command” or “Transcendental”. Spells are categorized into these methods such that “Scorpion's Strike” falls under “Basic Magick – Earth” while “Cloak of Shadows” falls under “Arcane”.

The third piece of the magick-using puzzle is the “Personal Magick Factor” (PMF), which is calculated from the PSF% and the “aspect bonus” (from character generation) which is then used to figure out the “Magick Level” (ML).

And then things get difficult.

Spells are not skills. They are things you either know or you don't. They can be learned from a master, researched from books, or creating it from scratch. (New spells not in the book can be made using this latter approach.) A quirk of the game, however, has always been that learning spells uses the same mechanism as enchanting of materials: each spell has, just like materials, a “Magick Resistance” (MR)—in this case explained as learning the nuances and meter of the spell, and the physical patterns which must be flawlessly executed—that must be reduced to zero before the spell is learned.

Back in the C&S2 days this was done for every spell, including starting spells, and led to people generating huge amounts of paperwork when they wound up with an 11th level starting character whose spells had to be worked out. Thankfully in this edition they have simplified the issue of starting spells into counting a number of “spell points” which are expended in a 1 spell point for 1 spell MR basis. 10 spell points can be expended to have a simple focus (which is STRONGLY recommended!).

Using learned spells is a matter of:

  1. Casting it (automatic if fully learned).
  2. Paying Fatigue costs (which may be modified by extras that the mage wishes to employ).
  3. Targeting the spell to ensure it manifests on the desired target in the desired way.
  4. Overcoming any defences (including attempts to resist) the target may have.

In a theme that you have heard already many times, the systems are complicated when calculating everything, but in actual play it's actually quite simple. The complexity is pushed off into character generation and other forms of game down time. The actual play-time mechanisms boil down to a roll against the Method of magic for the spell. Despite the reputation, the game is fully playable. It's just presented in a way that makes it seem overwhelmingly complex and fiddly in play, to its detriment.

Enchantment

All magick-users in every edition of C&S are able to make “Magickal Items of Power”. These are classified for simplicity into simple devices (1 spell, limited charges), lesser devices (multiple spells, limited charges), greater devices (multiple spells, self-charging), as well as simple/lesser/greater focuses (aid in spell-casting with greater aid as the focus style advances). To make a device, required materials (specified for each kind of device) are enchanted to an MR of 0 before being assembled into the item (which may require the assistance of a master craftsman). The desired spells are then inserted into the item with rolls of the relevant Method. The crit die in this case can result in extra charges on success or rather bad outcomes on failure. (It is suggested that the GM roll the crit die separately and make note of the results without the player's knowledge.)

That's the mechanical side. On the RP side, the creation of greater devices and focuses in particular can lead to adventures in their own right. Consider this quote from the creation of a lesser focus, for example:

The 7 base materials relate to the structure of the Focus, the remaining 6 materials must have been obtained by the Mage and not simply purchased.

Given some of the things which are required as materials, any GM worth their salt could come up with whole adventures around just having a magick-user gathering the materials for their enchantments.

Religion

C&S1 had “Alignment” as a stat. (No, really!) C&S2 had “Piety” (though in some sloppily-edited later supplements it referenced “Alignment” instead). This edition has “Spirit”.

Where magick in C&S is about coaxing or commanding the spirits and magickal essences of the world into doing what the mage desires, religious workers (outside of the Mage/Priest modes) work “Miracles”.

Miracles are what happens when one's Spirit in one's faith (mixed with some Willpower) causes a deity to effect some form of change. The Faith skill is the conduit of such miracle mongering. (It is treated as a skill mechanically, but the in-character view is that this is a “gift” which can be cultivated. Daoists would approve.) Faith is a core “skill” that all characters have, but ordained priests of a game's faith get bonuses in using it (specifically can select it for “mastery” giving in effect a 20% bonus) while having access to some acts of faith that laity don't get access to.

In a parallel to the PMF of mages, there is a PFF (Personal Faith Factor) based on the character's Spirit and Faith. This PFF determines what level of effect can be accomplished as an act of faith.

Acts of Faith are … a bit of a mess really, and unlike the skill rules or magick rules, these impact actual play. Some are core skills. Some are skills that are part of the vocation of a priest (or monastic order or fighting order). Some require Faith or Spirit rolls. Some don't. Some cost fatigue. Others don't. Some impact everybody. Some only impact fellow believers. Some employ the crit die. Some don't. Some use it, but in entirely different ways than is normal. This is all a bit of a mess that is hand-waved away by a designer's note but I don't find this persuasive. Playing any kind of a priest (as opposed to a Mage/Priest) in this game would be a bit of a pain.

Which is, if you think about it, pretty much on point for religion.

One weakness of the religious system is that it is very much focused on a medieval Christian worldview. Indeed there's a whole section added on the relationship of Jews to the Christian world (complete with lists of pogroms and forced conversions and the like) and rules for Jewish characters as well as a similar section for Muslims. There is also not a lot of guidance given to how to modify these things for other religions (real-world or fantasy). That it can be done is obvious¹ given the existence of Land of the Rising Sun, but having a section on Judaism/Islam that explicitly follows through from its relationship to Christianity is not really good guidance. (This is doubly so when you consider that some acts of faith can only be done by ordained priests, but Muslims don't have ordained clergy.) When combined with the hodge-podge nature of many of the acts of faith you get a section of the rules that are pretty weak in my opinion.

Movement & Combat

This being an old-school design (of the oldest school conceivable) C&S has detailed rules for movement and combat. The movement rules cover downtime, journey time, and combat mode. Rules exist for sea travel, flight, forced marches, terrain, etc. and are all pretty much standard fare for this genre of game.

Combat is based on 15-second rounds and uses an action point system. Unusually the action points are based on a base score (calculated in character generation) and then modified by a 1d10 roll. Armour worn adjusts action points and also provides fatigue costs for heavier armours. Actions are performed in order of highest action point pool remaining to lowest with action point costs being paid and the action determined. (There is an option that declares from lowest to highest then resolves from highest to lowest.) Many actions will take more than one round to complete (e.g. lighting a fire with flint and steel); action points can be carried forward one round to the next to effect these.

Combat actions cost action points based on how skilled the character is at the relevant skill. Attack rolls are skill rolls but there are two ways to deal with defence. In the basic mode half the target's PSF% is subtracted from the attacker's if active or a quarter of it if passive. In the advanced system there are separate attack and defence rolls and the interaction of these can be a little hairy.

There are rules for multiple weapons, switching weapons, ranged combat, mounted combat, bashing of various sorts, parrying, desperate defence, critical hits, etc. etc. etc., many of which are optional. Armour absorbs damage.

It's all in all pretty much a stock old-school game in this way.

Except.

Those who played the original versions of C&S have an alternative system that would feel more comfortable based on “blows”. This uses a 30-second combat round and one expends “blows” to effect actions. This may seem like a thin papering-over of an action point system (because it is) but some of the old version die-hards prefer the language of blows over the language of action points it seems.

But what about mass combat?

One of the unique features of the original edition was that it contained a mass combat system (a miniatures wargame) in the core rules. The second edition relegated that to a “Sourcebook” and added a pencil-and-paper mass combat resolution system into a second such sourcebook. For some reason, despite wars being a nigh-constant in medieval times, this was not carried forward into later editions. This sadly includes this edition as well. Despite its hefty weight of rules and information, this doesn't extend to warfare.

Gamemaster Advice

Older editions of C&S did not have a lot of advice for GMing in the rules proper. You usually had to go to outside sources to figure out how to run C&S properly, which in pre-Internet days was difficult. This edition corrects that with 17 pages of advice on GMing that covers different styles of GMing, how best to approach learning the rules (in parallel with making a game world), how to award experience, etc. Experience is particularly interesting because, again, C&S was the first game to my knowledge that awarded experience for characters doing things that they should be doing in-character instead of being murder hobos.

The advice continues with detailed rules for building a feudal kingdom, with good coverage of how feudal European society was structured, how various elements interacted, and even provides a list of modes of address for various ranks of various professions or social orders. This is all very interesting reading and doesn't involve any actual rules except some minor things about incomes and inheritance.

The real gem of this section, however, lies in the “Generating a Feudal Kingdom” portion in which tools are provided to create the land holdings of various levels of nobility complete with subinfeudation and the nature of their castles. In five simple pages (two simple tables) everything you need to quickly build up any kind of feudal holding is given, complete with descriptions of the castles or manors involved. This is then put together with a real world example of the Baron of Dudley in Worcestershire to show how it can be put together usefully in a game.

Personally I think this part of the book alone is worth the purchase price even if you never use any other part of it.

And the rest

Again as is standard for this variety of game there are detailed pages (oh so many pages!) of items to buy and beasts to encounter. There's also a section on making NPCs (essentially a shortcut through character generation so that you don't have to spend multiple hours between each session to introduce a single NPC).

Personally I find the section on NPCs a bit hard to follow. Every time I crack open that section I find myself confused until I carefully re-read the opening page to it. Non-human races are covered in this section, but rules are provided for PCs of that type as well should the GM desire it in their games. This is an interesting approach that I quite like. It means that by default games are based on human PCs only unless the GM otherwise assents. This reduces the rules-lawyer arguments of players who think that because elves are given rules in the character generation section that it's appropriate for them to play an elf, no matter what the actual setting.

(It should be noted that this section also references presumably-upcoming supplements for more detailed handling.)

There is also a useful glossary of the game's TLAs and FLAWs² that you'll likely want to keep on speed-dial while learning the rules. It's not as bad as, say, Powers & Perils but it's still pretty bad; you'll want to use this.

Conclusion

And this, despite the huge gaping holes in coverage (because this is one beast of a book!) marks the end of the review. I think I've given enough information to get the flavour of the game across and expressed an opinion or two about the contents here or there. This is where I now return to my usual three Goethe-inspired questions:

  1. What was this game trying to accomplish?
  2. Did it accomplish this aim?
  3. Was this aim worth accomplishing?

What was this game trying to accomplish?

C&S has always been, minus the mis-step of the third edition, a game that was about faithfully recreating a society in a role-playing game, not merely dungeon-crawling and wilderness-exploring. While it can easily be used for these, that is not what it is intended for and would likely be overkill. Historically it has also tried to be a game that provides such recreation in a single set of rules or in readily-available supplements.

An additional aim, implied more than outright stated, is that it intends to accomplish this with a handful of relatively simple and consistent mechanisms.

Did it accomplish this aim?

It stumbles a bit in this. One oversight in particular is the absence of any way of resolving large scale conflicts. No Magyar invasions of the marches. No grudge battles between ancient rivals. No upstart dukes. No version of the game after the second edition supports this in any form, wargame or quick resolution, and this is to its detriment.

There are, however, other oversights that bug me, especially as it relates to religions. Many real world religions cannot be modelled using the rules provided and there is little to no guidance given.

As for having a set of simple and consistent mechanisms, it actually mostly manages to accomplish this with the exception of acts of faith. A person playing some kind of priestly character will have a lot of work to do keeping track of their abilities and their status, while a GM running a game involving them will have that on top of the usual GMing burden.

Was this aim worth accomplishing?

This is a harder one that usual for me to answer. As late as the mid-1990s I would have said it was an unequivocal “yes”. Even more than a decade after being introduced to C&S I still loved the game and played it when I had the chance.

Today I'm of two minds, as the opening of this review should hint at.

If you're interested in a (mostly) well-executed old school, crunchy game design Chivalry & Sorcery 5th Edition is well worth checking out. Even if you don't use it as a game, there is lots of valuable information in it for running games in realistic feudal social environments (and the five pages on generating a feudal kingdom are worth the purchase price all by themselves!). The influence rules could be adapted to many other games with varying degrees of effort as well.

If, on the other hand, you, like me, tend to prefer simpler systems and making your own Frankensteined worlds from a pastiche of other cultural and fictitious influences, or you don't need rule guidance for making plausible non-modern societies, and unlike me you're not laden with reminiscence, you probably would want to give Chivalry & Sorcery a pass.


#FringeReviews #TTRPG #RPG #Review

@zdl@gamerplus.org

¹ But c.f. Land of the Rising Sun for a counter-argument. ² Three Letter Acronyms and Four Letter Acronymic Words respectively.

N.B.: Any post marked as a “Legacy Fringe Review” is an old blog entry moved to this one and lightly edited for format, with some minor errors corrected (and undoubtedly new ones added for balance!).

This is an experiment. I'd like to start reviewing little-known RPGs, past and present, as a way of introducing concepts and ideas that are not known at all in the mainstream of our hobby and are often barely known even among the more … shall we say “obsessive”? … elements.

(Yes, I include myself among the obsessives.)

The first game I'd like to review is a came by a small-press Canadian publisher called Spark.

Spark is a decidedly non-traditional role-playing game. Because of this I cannot work from assumptions that most would share. Instead I will be using a form of critique I first saw in Goethe's writings when critiquing theatre. In brief, I will be answering three questions:

  1. What was Jason Pitre, the author of Spark, trying to accomplish?
  2. How well does he accomplish this?
  3. Was this a goal worth accomplishing?

What is Spark about?

Taking a look at the back blurb we see three things in bold:

  • Challenge your beliefs
  • Make choices that matter
  • Build and discover worlds

Inside, in the introduction, we get some more interesting insights into the intent of the designer:

  • ...most important characters in a fictional world.
  • Explore the themes and issues that matter to you.
  • Make meaningful choices...

There is a consistent theme in all of this: meaning and choice. And note that second item where you explore themes/issues that matter to you.

How does Spark do this?

Spark is almost unique in how it approaches everything. From the setting to the characters to the actual game play, Spark is a very different game and those differences are focused on the actual goals in the design.

Setting

To enable this challenging voyage of discovery, the game involves, chiefly, the joint creation of a fictional world. Although the game comes with three sample settings (NeoNihon, Quiet Revolution, and Elemental Kingdom), the game is really intended to be played by people who've made their own settings jointly. The idea here is that having a custom-made setting makes the game context evocative and meaningful to the players, thus making exploration of its themes more personally satisfying.

Settings are created by cooperatively listing favourite media; gathering inspirations; describing some kind of genre from this (NeoNihon, for example, is “Shogonate Science Fiction”); establishing “Facts” (concrete, evocative places, peoples, etc. based on inpirations); providing a title; establishing the setting's “Beliefs” to help guide the themes and thoughts the group wants to explore; establish the GM's attributes (the GM attributes are used in playing the setting out): Body, Heart, Mind, and Spark; creating the setting's chief “Factions” and their mandates; creating the “Faces” (the most important NPCs story-wise for each faction), and create the ties between the factions. Once all this is completed, agendas are set—short term goals aimed at realizing faction mandates. Players are given “influence” at this point and the setting creation is complete.

This sounds like it's difficult, but the system is very regulated, very clearly explained and has very thorough examples to inspect to see how it all fits together. As a result even on a first run-through setting creation will take up 2-3 hours of your first session. Not bad at all for creating a whole world, is it?

Character

Once you've made the setting, the players and GM then cooperatively (yes, everybody gets involved) create their “Protagonist Characters” (PCs). The process here, as with the setting above, follows a simple, cooperative procedure. You start with a concept based on an agenda, and give the character a name. You then work on individual beliefs (which may or may not support or contradict or supplement the setting beliefs). You set attribute levels (same as the GM attributes above). You name talents (skills and abilities). You then answer personal history questions to help establish relationships among PCs and to factions. Each answered question gets an influence marker (which is the currency of the game play). Finally you narrate a prelude for your character.

Game play

To be honest, your first session of Spark will likely be just creating the setting and the characters. Once this is complete however, you start play. As with setting and character creation above, this is very formulaic and procedural. And this is where the game takes a hard swerve into unfamiliar territory for most role-playing gamers.

Overall a game session has three steps: Advancing, Scening, Reflecting. Advancing is the phase where the factions move forward on agendas and goals. Players work together to decide which factions complete their agendas, how the world changes as a result, and any new agendas that come out as a result. Play then advances into a series of scenes. When there is no more scening to be done, the players reflect on the events and use this opportunity to inspire each other, to confirm or change beliefs, or other such things.

Scening itself is similarly structured. Each scene begins with framing, proceeds into multiple series of collaboration or conflict events, and then ends with closing. Collaboration is cooperative in nature where players make “bold statements” to progress the scene. If all players agree with said bold statement, it is writ and becomes the truth. If, however, any player disagrees with the statement, conflict occurs, dice are pulled out, alternative statements are provided, sides are drawn, and dice are rolled to see which statement becomes the truth.

This will be the part where most traditional role-players balk. I've seen people recoil from this with a loud “that's stupid!” because, unlike most RPGs, Spark does not descend from competitive wargaming in its routes. It seems to descend more from improvisational theatre. The goal in Spark is not to compete against the world, against the GM, or against fellow players. The goal in Spark is to work together to tell a good, challenging story. Conflict happens when people have different visions for where the story should go, and resolution of it shifts that direction. It is not for everyone, but those for whom it is will find it compelling. (Like me.)

In the closing of a scene, the usual stuff like healing, etc. occurs, but too, influence points are awarded for people challenging their beliefs in the scene. Since influence points are how you win conflicts (partially) there is benefit to tackling the very themes you chose for setting and character both head-on in play.

There is a whole lot more to the game (obviously) than what I've outlined above, but what you get above gives you the flavour: you create characters who are important at a fundamental level to the setting. In the process of telling the story of that setting, you challenge beliefs collaboratively or in conflict. When enough beliefs change, so does the setting: changed characters change the world (so to speak). This is a very different notion of role-playing and it is one that needs to be tried — even if in the end it is not to your taste, it broadens horizons and it gives you, perhaps, ideas you can use in other games.

But is it any good?

Here's where we get to question 2: how well does Spark accomplish what it sets out to do? And the truth is that while it is my favourite game currently, it is flawed. The author thinks one of the flaws is that he didn't provide a setting so the game had no appeal. To this I say “poppycock!”. The fact that you make a bespoke setting tailored to your group is part of what makes the game so compelling in my view. Having a default setting would make this just another role-playing game with oddball mechanics.

Where the game does fall down, in my opinion, is where it pays homage to more normal role-playing games. Look above at how settings and characters are defined: Body, Heart, Mind, Spark. Characters are further defined with talents. We're not that far from the bog-standard “attributes and skills” model, and this model is not what Spark should be about, IMO.

Apparently the author agrees.

A setting published for this game—SIG: The City Between—makes several changes to the rules for that setting, but recommends that three of them be retrofitted into all Spark games. The first of these is the condensing of the attributes into “Spark” and “Smoke”: the first being your ability to impact the setting, and the second to govern how the setting reacts to you. This is a far simpler model than the one in Spark proper, and to me it reflects better on the core concepts of the game. (Other changes modify the procedures for game play slightly, but do not make as major a change as this core one.)

So, in terms of whether the game accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish, the answer is an unqualified “yes ... but”. It is not perfect, and the author himself recognizes these weaknesses. He also does a good job of refocusing on the actual goal in a supplement. That being said, “perfect” is the enemy of “good enough” and even straight out of the package Spark is more than “good enough”. It is superb and it accomplishes its main goal—telling challenging stories about conflicting beliefs—very well.

But is it worth doing?

That is, naturally, completely a subjective call. I've made no secret of my admiration for this game and thus the answer for me is “well, duh!” So the more interesting question for this review is “is this game worth you trying?”

And to this I also give a “yes ... but”.

Anybody who is tired of the wargaming roots of role-playing games who wants to try something different on for size, just to broaden horizons, should give Spark a try.

Anybody who has a friend or SO who is actively turned off by the wargames-informed nature of most RPGs might want to give this game a try with them to show them the joys of RP.

Anybody who likes the idea of a game focused on real-world beliefs being explored in a safe, bespoke way will probably do well with this game.

If, however, you're perfectly satisfied with normal role-playing games—and I stress that there is nothing wrong with this!—and especially if you don't understand why someone might even look for something else, you will probably not enjoy Spark and I would give it a miss in your shoes.

(But you'll be missing something sublime!)

Good News Update

Jason Pitre has, since this review was first written, released Spark as a “Spark System Reference Guide” under CC0 terms, making it freely available for use in other people's RPG designs.

#FringeReviews #TTRPG #RPG #Review #LegacyReview

A while ago I started a series of reviews on a game-focused web site. The intent was (and remains) to introduce games, both newer and older, that exist on the fringe of the role-playing hobby. Several things happened, however, that slowed me down and eventually ground the reviews to a halt:

  1. The game site I was using had pretty bad tools for its blogging. It was always a chore to get things done. I was willing to do it, but it was friction.
  2. COVID-19 happened and I spiralled into a bit of a dark space.
  3. My personal life got very busy and made spending the effort of in-depth reviewing not worth the friction of the web site's tooling.

Gamer+ is now a Mastodon instance (where I'm still active for gaming-related interaction) which leaves my old reviews in archives and makes it impossible for me to continue them—just as I get the motivation to write new ones.

So this is where my Fringe Reviews go to now. I will be interlacing re-publications of my old reviews here with new reviews of games, both old and new, that I think are of interest for some reason or another.

#FringeReviews #TTRPG #RPG #Reviews #Introduction