Scribblings for a new dark fantasy

Tigger and I have been knocking around the idea of writing a new dark fantasy LARP and I’m just using this forum as a scribbling pad for a few random ideas so far.
Not really trying to be terribly innovative and a fair bit may start out quite derivative.

Setting:
Conquered and occupied land. Formally the country had a long history of aggression and conducted a war of conquest. Neighbouring countries eventually beat back the armies and now garrison troops as forces of occupation.
Some colonisation has been attempted
Each of the neighbouring countries have there own objectives with regard to the conquered land. As do the subjegatd citizens.

Races:
Mostly human at this stage. Want to get away from the generic elf/dwarf/vampire thing.
Each of the countries has its own flavour of culture.
With regard to cost of equipment for starting characters items will be more or less expensive depending on the country.
For example one country has a severe shortage or workable iron so steel weapons and armour will cost more. Another country has an abundance of cattle so leather items cost less.
I’m thinking that this will help promote/keep a certain flavour of style between countries

Magic
still tinkering with this one. Have a range of basic spells. The mage must learn at least 5 apprentice spells before learning a journeyman spell. From then on for every 3 apprentice spells mage have up to 2 journeyman spells.(including the original 5 spells) Same progression for master.
Mages cannot wear iron, interferes with the conduit of magic.

[quote=“Scotty”]
…With regard to cost of equipment for starting characters items will be more or less expensive depending on the country.
For example one country has a severe shortage or workable iron so steel weapons and armour will cost more. Another country has an abundance of cattle so leather items cost less.
I’m thinking that this will help promote/keep a certain flavour of style between countries…[/quote]

I’m liking this idea. It means thats there can be definate seperation between the groups, however without having to go all generic elf and orc’s. The only thing I would be concerned about is that everyone one on each team would be the same, rather than a good mix. i.e. The X race who don’t have iron but have lots of leather all have leather armour and quarterstaves. What happens when they go against race Y who have full plate and sword/shield combo’s?
Actually, that would SO work…

[quote=“Scotty”]
Magic
still tinkering with this one. Have a range of basic spells. The mage must learn at least 5 apprentice spells before learning a journeyman spell. From then on for every 3 apprentice spells mage have up to 2 journeyman spells.(including the original 5 spells) Same progression for master.
Mages cannot wear iron, interferes with the conduit of magic.[/quote]

Thats alot of spells you are talking about. I think just keep the spells down nice and simple. What I’ve found with most LARPs that have magic is that I spend about 10 minutes reading over all the spells, and give up because I’m bored concluding to just avoid the confusion and not be a mage. But then I go against one in the game I’m screwed, I have no idea what they just cast on me! I’m thinking 10 spells would be the absolute max that anyone could remember well enough to recall the effects of them instantly in the heat of battle…

But these are just suggestions. I’m not sure if this is the kind of thing you were looking for or just a “I like this idea” kind of reply.
Either way, overall, I say:

It looks good. I like this idea.

Most excellent news. :smiley:

[quote=“Scotty”].

Races:
Mostly human at this stage. Want to get away from the generic elf/dwarf/vampire thing.
[/quote]

Personally I think this is a shame for two reasons.

  1. The mainly / only human culture idea is being used in no mans land
  2. I know of 2 people who are only interested in larping if they can be an elf, and it would be a shame to have a fantasy larp that didn’t cater for these very keen fans who like certern classical / generic aspects of fantasy.

I like this idea, there is so much skill out there, that a lot of players can create equipment and such to create a flavor for each area.

[quote=“Ian”][quote=“Scotty”]
…With regard to cost of equipment for starting characters items will be more or less expensive depending on the country.
For example one country has a severe shortage or workable iron so steel weapons and armour will cost more. Another country has an abundance of cattle so leather items cost less.
I’m thinking that this will help promote/keep a certain flavour of style between countries…[/quote]

I’m liking this idea. It means thats there can be definate seperation between the groups, however without having to go all generic elf and orc’s. The only thing I would be concerned about is that everyone one on each team would be the same, rather than a good mix. i.e. The X race who don’t have iron but have lots of leather all have leather armour and quarterstaves. What happens when they go against race Y who have full plate and sword/shield combo’s?
Actually, that would SO work…

[quote=“Scotty”]
Magic
still tinkering with this one. Have a range of basic spells. The mage must learn at least 5 apprentice spells before learning a journeyman spell. From then on for every 3 apprentice spells mage have up to 2 journeyman spells.(including the original 5 spells) Same progression for master.
Mages cannot wear iron, interferes with the conduit of magic.[/quote]

Thats alot of spells you are talking about. I think just keep the spells down nice and simple. What I’ve found with most LARPs that have magic is that I spend about 10 minutes reading over all the spells, and give up because I’m bored concluding to just avoid the confusion and not be a mage. But then I go against one in the game I’m screwed, I have no idea what they just cast on me! I’m thinking 10 spells would be the absolute max that anyone could remember well enough to recall the effects of them instantly in the heat of battle…

But these are just suggestions. I’m not sure if this is the kind of thing you were looking for or just a “I like this idea” kind of reply.
Either way, overall, I say:

It looks good. I like this idea.[/quote]

Ok, maybe 5 is too many. But also I’m not aiming to have lots of combat spells. Spells like Suggestion, lock/unlock, copy, conceal (names just reflect rough effects at this satge)

Most excellent news. :smiley:

[quote=“Scotty”].

Races:
Mostly human at this stage. Want to get away from the generic elf/dwarf/vampire thing.
[/quote]

Personally I think this is a shame for two reasons.

  1. The mainly / only human culture idea is being used in no mans land
  2. I know of 2 people who are only interested in larping if they can be an elf, and it would be a shame to have a fantasy larp that didn’t cater for these very keen fans who like certern classical / generic aspects of fantasy.
    [/quote]

I’m going to explore other races, its just they will not be the above generic type. I’m thinking of element spirits possibly (like woodland / swamp / earth etc) with some nifty special abilities but harsh restrictions.

Oh right, yeah, I forgot about spells like that. Spells like tortch (sp) for seeing at night are very useful too.

Well I know of 3 people who want to play in a LARP thats different from the generic fantasy elf/dwarf/vampire thing…

I think the 10 + spells are fine , especially if they are not combat based. Making characters and going thorugh spell options are fun.

There are plenty of people who will play, I saying that we don’t want to miss out those who like certain sterotypes.

But of course we don’t want to miss out on steriotypes in the nzLARPS connunity, thats why we have games like Southern Mordavia, No Man’s Land and Skirmish.

…but we are going off topic with this debate as to the merits of steriotypes in LARP, we need to leave it up to the organisers of the LARP to make these kind of base decisions, after all, nzLARPS is not there to tell people how to run their LARPs right?

Right. Me, I wonder if this should merge with No Man’s Land. Is there a big difference? Two epic dark fantasies is a lot more than one, and can we be sure they wouldn’t both suffer?

I think we may have space for two but it’s conditional on the success of Grand Battle.

I’m also working on a new dark fantasy larp. Details in the nzLARPS magazine that Anna and Nikki publishing soon. If there is sufficient overlap, maybe we could work together ?

I like your idea about magik, I wanted to employ levels rather than schools.

That’s at least three dark fantasy larp settings that people are working on now. When I found out about Stargate I looked into merging Nibelungen. Turned out they were very very different and I think anyone could see that. For those three groups working on a new dark fantasy I’d suggest at least checking out the options there.

Wicked, Scotty. I’m really happy that you and Tigger will be doing something with all that talent you’ve got.

I look forward to seeing all the new fantasy larp offerings fighting like bugs in a jar. Honestly, let the fittest survive. I’m sure that the different philosophies and social groups of the organisers will attract a different range of players, as well as the crossover you’d expect.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask people to merge superficially similar-seeming projects when creative vision is such a fragile and individualistic thing and differences are often in the execution, not the theory.

As for elves, I’d be more than happy if I never met another. Let someone who like elves make a larp with elves. Organisers should hold true to their vision and create a larp they’ll love.

[quote=“Exquire”]Right. Me, I wonder if this should merge with No Man’s Land. Is there a big difference? Two epic dark fantasies is a lot more than one, and can we be sure they wouldn’t both suffer?

I think we may have space for two but it’s conditional on the success of Grand Battle.[/quote]

I’m don’t think it’d be appropriate to call this one epic.
At least thats not what we’re aiming for, more like… pulp fantasy larp?

Hey, thanks for that. :slight_smile:

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask people to merge superficially similar-seeming projects when creative vision is such a fragile and individualistic thing and differences are often in the execution, not the theory. [/quote]

Thats pretty much what I was thinking and one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from discussing, or even reading about, the No Mans Land Project.
I don’t want to be borrowing ideas from that project as it derserves to stand on its own.
Same thing goes for yours Mike.
I think creating individually gives you a chance to comeup with something that could be very differant and possibly innovative. I see Mike and Marc as being very creative and want to see what there individual visions are rather than trying to force my ideas to fit theirs and v.v. because Story/LARP/Setting design by committee can become homogonised.
If, further down the track after play testing etc, we find that they’re really are superficial differences then its certainly worth looking at merging.

On the topic of differnet races I’ve always been intrigued by undead races. Somewhere between the Vampires and Ghouls from Mordavia. Something without all the baggage of the vampires but still has some interesting immunities and weakness’.

[quote=“Ian”]

…but we are going off topic with this debate as to the merits of steriotypes in LARP, we need to leave it up to the organisers of the LARP to make these kind of base decisions, after all, nzLARPS is not there to tell people how to run their LARPs right?[/quote]

Of course GM’s have full control, I assume this thread is for people to express their ideas.

With the races, I think existing Larper’s like new races, but for new people their idea is based on sterotypes.

[quote=“Scotty”]
Same thing goes for yours Mike.
I think creating individually gives you a chance to comeup with something that could be very differant and possibly innovative. I see Mike and Marc as being very creative and want to see what there individual visions are rather than trying to force my ideas to fit theirs and v.v. because Story/LARP/Setting design by committee can become homogonised.
If, further down the track after play testing etc, we find that they’re really are superficial differences then its certainly worth looking at merging.[/quote]
I agree. I have a very specific game concept in mind, but I’m openminded regarding the mechanics. Looking forward to seeing what you and Tigger come up with :slight_smile:

I’ll have to come forward and admit I’ve been working on what could probably called a dark fantasy setting. However, mine is not intended to become anything for a long, long time yet. However, if there’s anyway I can get involved in any upcoming fantasy LARP I’d be keen to help.

I have been snooping around on the net and looking at various Larp systems set in ‘Fantasy’. One of the things I noticed is the similarity between many of the rule systems. The differences arise in the execution of ideas and plots by the GMs, crews and players. My feelings are that when it comes down to it, many fantasy larps are going to be variations on a theme.
My satisfaction comes from exploring plots and ideas, implementing them and seeing where they go after 10 minutes with the players. This is why I’m looking forward to 3 (or more) fantasy settings.
I want to create something (Still without a name Scott - I’m thinking of calling it ‘Sinister Land with Odd People’, or SLOP) , crew in another and play in one.

Just as a side note, looking at no vampires, nobles or elves. Well, not as you know hem. We will be fooling around with some stereotypes.

he he he

Interesting…
I can certainly see the marketing possibilities…

but no. :stuck_out_tongue: