Basically, i wanted to fulfill your requests, i wrote that post here on my blog but i asked on G+ as well (here).
To sum it up i got:
Swordbearer 2 votes, but it's already covered here)
High fantasy 4 votes, but it's already covered here).
Empire of the petal throne 1 vote
Dragonquest 2 votes
Wizard's realm 1 vote
knights and magic 1 vote
Phantasy conclave 1 vote
Adventures in Fantasy (2 votes, but it's already covered here).
Arduin Adventure 1 vote
Darkus Thel 1 vote
Melanda 2 votes
Element masters 1 vote
Kabal 1 vote
Challenges Game System 1 vote (already covered on Grognardia website)
Lords of Creation 1 vote
Dangerous Journeys 1 vote
----------------
So, not taking into account those games that have already been covered elsewhere,
Dragonquest and Melanda got more votes among all the others.
So i chose Melanda for the simple fact that it is far more obscure than Dragonquest.
At this point i managed to have a long review with one of the men behind this old fantasy rpg, namely Lee McCormick who agreed to give me a LONG interview about Melanda, and he was so kind and willing to answer all of my questions.
#1
- how the idea of Melanda developed? did you have any influences or
inspirations which lead you to the writing of the game? Was it just a
burst of creativity on your part? Or were you dissatisfied with the
games available at the time? Did it stem from a particular circumstance?
In
1978-79 when I first got into RPGs and met the co-author for Melanda,
John Corradin, there were a number of systems available and they were
coming out fast and furious. No one it seems was totally happy with any
game mechanic and gamesmasters were constantly making 'house rules' for
their campaign (different initiative systems, different hit point
systems, etc.) Most of the new systems grew out of either
disatisfaction with an existing mechanic or a desire to bring a new
genre to life as an RPG (Star Trek, Star Wars, Runequest, etc.). Many
of the game designers, like the early RPGs themselves, came from
wargames and therefore wanted their RPG to be as rule specific as their
wargame was. Many actually had difficulty with any kind of free-form
system that encouraged more freedom from binding rules.
My
background was in Theater and improv and John was a teacher of
learning-challenged children, so we both naturally tended toward simpler
mechanics and less number crunching while gaming. In the ideal
roleplaying environment, the players and the GM (gamesmaster) are not
opposed, but are co-authoring an adventure story. In our hearts of
hearts, we want to recreate the emotional impact felt when reading a
great adventure scene in a book or seeing it unfold on a movie screen.
No one in a movie ever said "I rolled a 20! Critical hit!" So we
wanted less number chatter. We
also wanted more 'in character' play and felt we needed a mechanic that
made it easier for players to portray their role vocally and in
their decisions around the table. These concerns (not necessary
dislikes - we both played MANY hours of D&D, Star Trek, etc.) led to
the creation of Melanda.
As
to influences or inspirations - every quality fantasy/sci-fi adventure
story or movie inspired us to want to capture and recapture those
magical moments that made those art forms successful. The limit to the
book/movie is that every time you revisited, the characters made the
same choices
and caused the same results. RPGs gave gamers a chance to create a
story that doesn't necessarily have an ending, isn't pre-determined to
always have to go the same way, etc. To accomplish this three things
were required: mature (in terms of self-awareness) risk-taking players
and GM, an understanding that the story was the goal (not any specific
characters long-life and/or success), and a mechanic that allowed the
flexibility necessary to 'adjust' the rules or abandon them completely
occasionally for brief periods to make your story the one you truly
wanted to be a part of!
#2 - did you have specific aims whilst writing Melanda? I mean, were you trying to achieve something specific, maybe in terms of rule mechanics or overall flavour?
As
mentioned above the primary aims in creating a new game world/system
were simplify the rules, make the mechanic flexible enough to be
manipulated by both players and GMs during play to add to the dramatic
feel of each scene, and ways to encourage 'in character' play. I've
used the term 'in character' a few times now and should make sure you
understand what we mean by it. Both John and I have done a number of
gaming seminars
regarding types of play, maximizing the player and GM experience, etc.
and finally identified three basic play forms common to all RPGs. This
labeling system is not a brand of value placed on any particular form
(John and I have had thousands of hours of pleasure playing in all
three, but ultimately, our preference in most instances was for 'in
character' play.).
'Out
of character' - most common form of play: players sit about the table
kidding and cutting up with one another, discussing real world subjects
and referring even in the game to real world comparisons For instance:
"We tore those orcs up - like the Patriots did to the Eagles (two
American football teams) this Sunday!" Success is determined primarily
by victory
over the obstacles created by the GM and character 'leveling'.
Socialization throughout the game session is a big part of the reason
for getting together. Lots of rules and number crunching can work here
readily and players are not required to make themselves vulnerable
emotionally by trying to act out or through a scene. Distractions are
part of the socialization and encouraged.
'At
character' - 2d most common form of play: players focus more on the
scenario story and the mood that the GM is trying to create by
minimizing 'out-of-game banter' and real world references. However,
they remain removed from their characters always speaking of the
adventurer they have inserted into this particular campaign as 'he/she'
or 'my character does this or that'. For example, the GM tells the
players, "You've been down here in the dark and dank passages of this
underground complex for so long it has become difficult. Claudia, your
scout hears a scuffle up ahead and possibly a muffled female voice.
What do you do?"
NOTE:
the GM is trying to create some suspense and focus on an important
interaction coming up. If someone tells a joke about McDonald's or some
other real world reference, they risk breaking the mood. Claudia
responds: "My thief will motion for the group to halt and stealthily
creep up to the corner ahead and peek around it." It's a subtle thing,
but notice that even Claudia has distanced herself from her character
making him/her that character up there on the screen while
she's here in Bill's living room.
'In
character' - least common form of play in the late 70s - early 80s.
(Even today, many RPGs still cater to one of the above forms of play.)
The difference between in character and at character play is that the
player tries to truly identify with the character, to become the
character in his mind as much as is possible. No costume is required,
all players/GM are still sitting around a table in a dining room or in a
living room in the real world, but to a large extent, during the scene.
Using the above example of the GM and Claudia, if this were
in-character play, Claudia would say: "My half-elven eyes have adjusted
reasonably well to the dark, although my nose still resents the
damp odors. I raise my hand, the signal for the group to hold
position. Then I begin creeping up to the corner to peek around."
Notice, that Claudia has 'become' the sneaking thief.
I
will continue to use this example in my answer to the next question
which is about how we tried to address the roleplaying form and steer it
toward the type of play that John and I preferred.
If
the mood holds, the players can get caught up in the situation and the
scene and try
to make one of those 'movie-moments' happen, it gets tough if the GM's
reply to Claudia's plan is "Roll a d20 and tell me what you got." There
is no d20 in the movie! Any number she responds is a distraction from
the mood.
Your questions: - in terms of
mechanics (combat, magic, character creation), do you feel Melanda
differentiated from other fantasy rpgs of the same era? To be
specific, I read an interesting statement on your part once in which
you said: "The more married we became to Melanda, the less
compatible pieces were (to D&D) because of the tremendous
differences in gaming mechanics and philosophy." I
think this statement is particularly interesting for our readers,
since my blog is focused on old fantasy games other than D&D. So,
which were these tremendous differences?
Since they are related, I'm combining
the question above with one of the next questions you posed: In
"Heroic worlds" book, (which is often considered the bible
of rpgs colectors) Melanda is described as a "fantasy system
that was several years ahead of its time". And elsewhere it
says: "the combat system is likewise quite original". Again,
on this old web page (still reachable here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414195256/http://www.io.com/~sos/bc/favorites.html#rpg) it
reads: "[many years ahead of its time in its magic and character
creation systems]"
Response: John
and I, working with the Wilmark Gamers (a group of local roleplayers
that began as simply folk from Delaware mostly from Wilmington
to Newark but
grew to include players from many states who traveled great distances
to play in our Melanda weekend conventions for a good many years
throughout the '80s - 90s) finally decided that Melanda would target
the following mechanics that in other RPGs seemed to get into the way
of our preferred in-character style play:
[NOTE: This
was not to say the other games were not good games. We, in fact
spent many years playing in or running campaigns based on AD&D,
Fasa's Star Trek, West End's Star Wars, etc. and I eventually ran
tournament scenarios and mini-campaigns based in DC Heroes, Dr. Who,
Twilight 2000, etc.]
- Saving throws and challenge dice-rolling systems that put too much emphasis on numbers. As explained in part one of this interview, we were trying to minimize ‘number talk’ during in-character role-playing sessions because of it’s distraction from players thinking/speaking/reacting like the character would be.
- Character Creation systems which were randomly rolled or had statistics/characteristics assigned in order to obtain maximum benefit (this would be called meta-gaming today and is a favorite of power gamers).
- Combat that came down to a die roll which resulted in either “you hit” or “you missed”. The rigidity of such systems (still common in many games today) doesn’t give the GM the flexibility to reward good character play or strategy that simply added color to the story all at the table were trying to tell! This system also addresses: Hit points/death/etc. mechanics which have been problematic, but are still part of nearly every RPG since the first D&D game up to and including the most modern of RPG systems, computerized or tabletop.
- Encounters that enabled players to read a monster manual and know ‘out of character’ what every creature’s strengths and weaknesses were prior to having ever encountered such a being or monster.
- Magic Systems which boiled down to spells which were rigidly described (very helpful, even necessary for certain styles of game play from the early days of dungeoning through complex computer mechanics in rpgs and battlegames of present times). Again, please note that our desire to create a game that varied from this type of spell-system or spell list did not mean it was bad, only that it interfered with the flexibility needed in the style game we were trying to encourage.
What Melanda attempted:
First and foremost it is important to
recall that Melanda violated the prime directive in most early
role-playing: “Rules are Rules”. In Melanda, it says repeatedly
that all rules are guidelines meant to get the GM and players
thinking in right directions, but intended to be set aside,
stretched, or altered for the sake of the story!
#1 – To represent challenges other
than just combat (running thru woods with underbrush trying not to
trip and slow the party down, opening ancient heavy doors that were
locked or simply sealed shut with age, lifting heavy objects under
which characters - players or non-players - were trapped, surviving
poison from bites or barbs or weapons or clouds, etc.), every game
has some system of saving throw or “roll this number to conquer
this challenge” mechanic. In the early days of gaming nearly every
game had a die roll one had to make to achieve the stated goal - more
number crunching and talking numbers around the table. Later games,
allowed for automatic survival of certain situations or
accomplishment of certain tasks based upon the skill levels
characters possessed (Fasa’s Star Trek had one of the best systems
for this) without even rolling or declaring any specific numbers and
allowing the game to move on.
Melanda was one of the first to assign
character statistics a ‘descriptor’ as well as a number. These
word descriptors were used around the table during role playing to
avoid numbers in situations like this:
Remember Claudia’s half-elven
character from the first interview response (character’s name is
Ransel Goldenhair) who was about to scout ahead of the party in the
dark dungeon and peek around a corner to investigate some noise? The
GM understands that Ransel is attempting to be stealthy approaching
the corner. In most games, he/she would have to make some sort of
stealth role, dexterity check, etc. against a difficulty determined
by the GM.
GM: make a Dexterity roll.
Claudia: 10 and my Dex is a 16
GM (Who set the difficulty of making
the stealth roll here a 15, acknowledges Claudia’s 10 and adds a
bonus of +2 for the high Dex to total 12, oops! Not quite enough):
You kick something metallic lying unseen on the dark floor before
reaching the corner and it goes clanging out into the hall.
The character has a high statistic and
may have stealth training as one of the best in the land – hence
her being chosen the group’s scout, but a lousy roll of the die and
the story takes a very different turn than it might have. Enough
lousy rolls in one session and the group may stop trusting Ransel to
be stealthy for very ‘out of character’ reasons. (Han Solo is a
great pilot whose skill at handling the Millenium Falcon should not
be minimized to some player’s bad day of dice rolling.)
In Melanda, Claudia’s stealthy rogue
type character has an Agility of 14 which is described as
Exceptional. The interaction in most cases would go like this
instead (note the absence of die rolls and number chat):
GM: OK, Ransel, how agile are you?
Ransel/Claudia: I’m
“exceptionally” agile.
GM: (who set the difficulty of making a
stealthy walk thru this section of hallway in the dark dungeon as
exceptionally difficult, meaning one needed to be Exceptionally agile
or better to achieve stealth): You make it to the corner and peek
around to see… (to be continued)
This system leads to automatic success
or failure for most challenges and eliminates lots of die
rolling and keeps the story rolling. It also allows for ease when
the GM is designing scenarios in that he only needs to address
specific challenges by assigning a word descriptor to the difficulty
of the challenge. (e.g. GM puts a heavy, old door which is stuck due
to age and the humidity in a dungeon design that is meant to slow the
players and possibly force them to make some noise alerting folk up
ahead to their presence. He says it would take Remarkable Physical
Power to open the door and then goes on with his design. When the
party encounters the door, he knows that they need a character with
Remarkable or better Physical Power (or that they need to get two
characters of Exceptional or better) or need to affect the door with
the equivalent of Remarkable Physical Power (spell casting perhaps?)
to muscle the door open, etc. The party may figure a way to (thru
magic possibly) shrink the door enough that it is easy to open or
remove (which might be quieter than muscle options and not alert folk
up ahead based upon the story needs)…who knows? Every GM has had
players outsmart him/her at some time or another or do something
clever that he/she was not expecting, but that should work.
In a heavy system-balance mechanic, this could be problematic. In
Melanda, it is one of the ways that good character play adds to the
story everyone is co-authoring and challenges the GM!
Occasionally, die rolls will be
necessary and Melanda has a number as well as a descriptor for
each statistic and success or failure can be determined in that way.
More often than not, however, good GMs will keep the difficulty
secret and after considering the players plan, capabilities, AND the
quality of their role-playing can simply decide that they succeed or
fail in order to reward or punish or further challenge the players in
this part of the story. This is why I said early on that Melanda is
not for everyone and requires a certain maturity level in order to
run and/or play responsibly. The goal was to minimize rolling and
number chat and this does that.
#2 – Character creation in most games
boiled down to rolling dice to determine a character’s statistics
(Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, etc.) and then determining a
character type or class, before rolling dice for beginning $$ and
equipment or special talents or spells. AD&D, Runequest, early
Warhammer RPG, etc. all followed some form of this system except that
most games tried even early on to rid themselves of the Character
Class concept used by Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (then, and
still today). This concept came naturally out of the
wargame/boardgame background which spawned D&D since everything
in those types of games were based on rigid, balanceable mechanics.
Often a player rolled dice for ‘stats’ only to find that he could
only play a fighter or thief because he didn’t have the
pre-requisites needed to be the spell-caster or paladin or whatever
he truly wanted to play. This works for a purely ‘out of
character’ tabletop experience, but can inhibit ‘in character’
style gaming (although I have seen great examples of players who were
talented enough to live with the die rolls and throw themselves into
‘character-izing’ the poor fighter with the great strength and
condition to pound and slash things all day long, but lacked the
intellect to determine who were the good guys and who the bad, or who
lacked the dexterity to keep from tripping when charging the enemy).
One game, Space Opera (a fun game to play that was very rule heavy,
but extremely well designed otherwise), went step by step through a
character’s history – determined by die roll from chart after
chart and after 20-30 minutes of fleshing out an interesting hero,
you could roll that the character died on one of his missions
and now you have to go back and start all over!
Today, in many computer games like
Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc., players are required to choose a base
‘class’ from warriors to stealthy types (scouts and rogues) to
arcane power wielders. Many other computer RPGs (such as Kingdom of
Amalur or Fable) allow characters to specialize in one of these types
of skill/power character paths or to choose powers and skills from
any of these types to create a more well-rounded character who will
never be the best Mage or Rogue in the game, but may have enough
varied skills to have something to try in almost any situation.
Melanda asked that the player, with his
GM (who knew where the base storyline was being set and the type of
game he/she was hoping to run), chose the character’s race.
(Perhaps there were no forests in the campaign world and therefore
the GM was disallowing any kind of forest-dwelling race for this
particular story.) Those races were identified by non-traditional
names in Melanda (Wandel – sea coastal dwellers, Lyradel – forest
dwellers, Gisadel – jungle dwellers, Baladel – mountain dwellers,
Omenwedur - the last born race during world creation in the Melanda
history, and Uridos – little people). Although these races had
some characteristics in common with elves, dwarves, men and Halflings
appearing in most fantasy games, we redefined/named them because we
didn’t want players bringing their pre-conceived notions about
‘what a dwarf can do’ or ‘what an elf looks like’ based upon
other games with them. This creates flexibility in descriptions,
clothing styles, skin colors, etc. that can add to storytelling.
Determining the race also defined the
character’s basic statistic numbers (Physical Power, Physical
Condition, Agility, Manual Dexterity, Learning & Recall, and
Mental Prowess). Then the player chose skills/talents for his
character from a list designed to suit that race (there weren’t too
many sea elves who were studying iron mongering skills). These
skills reflected time spent during the character’s youth developing
into a young adult about to go adventuring. Time spent this way
would also naturally be reflected in the character’s physical and
mental development. Ergo, the skills chosen raised basic statistic
numbers (lots of agility skills meant that this character is probably
more agile than some of his/her race). There are no random factors
in any of this character development process unless the GM chooses to
add something (such as granting a special item or achievement during
this process that may enhance statistics further). This is creating
a character that the player had in mind that he/she wanted to play
and ending up with a few gaming numbers.
[NOTE: Characters were not rigidly held
to a class with rules as to what they could not do purely because of
game-balance necessity. D&D players, remember your 1st
level mage character with only 3 hit points? Once you use your spell
of the day, you might as well hang a sign around your neck “Weak
Porter for Hire” since you couldn’t fight or defend yourself,
dodge very successfully, etc. for the next 24 hours! You were
forbidden to wield a sword or carry a shield or wear armor of any
kind because of game-balance. I believe were I in that situation
(and in-character play demands that I imagine myself in the situation
of my character) I sure would have picked up a shield and hid behind
it hoping for some sort of protection or put on that armor the
dead gnoll was no longer using even if I wasn’t skilled in its use
– it had to be better than nothing between me and enemy arrows or
daggers! I could always take it off later when I got my spell back
and needed to be unarmored to cast it to help the party.]
Naming your character
(with the guidance of the GM so that the name fit the world your
character grew up in) became part of this history you were fleshing
out for your character as was deciding what armor/clothing colors and
types of gear you chose or chose not to give your character to
adventure. This also eliminated names that are funny and great for
‘out of character’ play like Redshirt, the Expendable, DF
(short for dragon fodder) #1, or HotBabe, etc. Again, it
is easier to remain ‘in character’ and think like the character
if the name, equipment, history, etc. all fit the world in which you
are gaming. The more history one created, the less the player would
have to hesitate when deciding what would his/her character do or say
in this situation and then doing or saying it! (See “Character
Cards” Below)
#3 – Combat. It was
almost impossible to remove rolling dice in combat and we knew this
going in. However, just as in #1 above regarding saving throws and
challenges, combat could be seen as simply another challenge and word
descriptors could be assigned to the difficulty of successfully
damaging monsters/opponents and combat could be (and has been when I
GM, especially when an experienced hero was simply ‘wading through’
mindless minions) sometimes handled simply with describing the action
until a specifically challenging opponent or situation was
encountered.
For instance, let’s
continue our example from above. Claudia’s rogue Ransel peeks
around the corner and sees two orcs leaving a cell door in the hall
beyond dragging what looks like a Baladel (mountain dweller,
pseudo-dwarf) between them who is struggling.
GM: What do you do?
Ransel/Claudia: Moving
as quickly as I can while still trying to be somewhat stealthy, I try
to catch up to the trio and backstab one of the orcs.
GM: Exceptional
agility, eh? (decides that because she’s moving more quickly
he would normally assign a penalty difficulty moving it to Remarkable
which means she either fails automatically or must make a roll to
remain stealthy. However, he realizes that the Baladel struggling
and the orcs grumbling makes it harder for them to notice her
creeping up behind lowering the difficulty once again to
Exceptional). The goblins are using their darkness vision and no
torches so the corridor is still very dark and the three of them are
making some noise, so you reach them in short order.
Ransel/Claudia: I
stab the goblin to the right of the Baladel and twist my longknife as
soon as it penetrates its back going for max damage.
GM: (the goblins are
normally only an Average defensively and Ransel has major bonuses
with her stealth, training in the longknife -Remarkable strike rating
- so he decides to allow her initial attack, knowing she will need to
follow initiative and roll for combating the remaining goblin – and
to avoid a stupid one-time lousy die roll from spoiling a great scene
in the adventure) Ransel is surprised at how easily his longknife
penetrates the goblin’s soft hide armor, he drops the Baladel and
tries to reach behind himself with both of his ugly, filthy hands to
get at whatever is impaling him. As you twist he arches and gurgles
loudly as blood rolls from his mouth and his eyes roll back into his
head and he drops. The Baladel rolls to not be under the dead goblin
as it falls forward. How Physically Powerful are you?
Ransel/Claudia: I
only possess Average Physical Power.
GM: Your longknife
is lodged in his back and will take some work to retrieve it. The
other goblin sees his comrade fall and finally sees you. He sputters
“Killer of Gnish Gnak.” As he draws an dark metal scimitar.
Let’s determine initiative.
Now die rolling will
commence. Since we had to resort to dice to determine what happens
next, both John and I decided we wanted our “to hit” system to
address a problem we had with D&D-like game mechanics. Say you
ended up needing a 13 to hit a particular opponent. Whether you
rolled and added your bonuses for training or magical weapon, etc. to
total 13 or a 28 your attack did the exact same damage. Most ‘house
rules’ I experienced in early D&D campaigns and many games that
came later all added some sort of critical or bonus damage for great
rolls.
In Melanda, each
character has a strike rating with a weapon or weapon type. This
takes into account basic combat coordination, combat experience,
skill with that type of weapon (e.g. dagger, hand axe, etc.), and any
bonuses given for the specific weapon one is using (e.g. quality
dagger, magical hand axe, etc.). This is what the character needs to
equal or best in a die roll to successfully damage an opponent with a
defense rating of “0”. Defense rating includes basic combat
coordination, experience with combat, dodge or parry capability
(greater if defending only), armor penalties/bonuses the opponent may
have (miscellaneous adjustments - magical or size or special
resistance to daggers, whatever).
This defensive rating
may also be raised or lowered based upon the situation. For
instance, a mother beast defending her cubs may get a bonus to strike
rating or defensive rating at the GMs prerogative. Brave warriors
who outnumber the player characters may be extra cocky which might
make them sloppy for a penalty to strike or defense ratings or it
could boost their morale giving them a bonus. Later in the same
fight when the five heroes have dwindled their foes in number from 20
to four, they may not be so inspired losing the bonus or receive a
penalty as they consider surrender or running away.
Once the defense rating
is determined by the GM, he tells the players and they subtract it to
their strike rating to determine their true target number to damage
the opponent. The player rolls the d20 and declares either “I did
not hit effectively” (or some such words - “a glancing blow that
dealt no damage”, etc. meaning the roll was less than the adjusted
strike rating or the strike rating affected by defense rating), “I
believe I damaged the beast” (I rolled exactly what I needed to
hit), or “I scored a great hit” (followed by “Hit plus…”,
see example).
How it sounds in game:
GM: Defense rating
for the other goblin presently is 4. You are attacking
simultaneously.
Ransel (would
have had the initiative advantage, but had to change weapons since
forced to temporarily abandoning the longknife and has drawn her
longsword which has a strike rating of 12 with the sword with all
adjustments, subtracts 4 to represent the defense of the goblin, so
she needs an 8 or better to damage her opponent, she notices the
angry Baladel shaking off rolling into the corridor wall when dodging
Gnish Gnak’s corpse and sees he intends to attack the goblin as
soon as he can. She chooses to attack in order to keep the goblin’s
attention on her.
Claudia/Ransel rolls a
19 and declares: “I sliced into my opponent – hit plus 11”
(yes she had to say a number, but a hit plus 11 is more damage than
just a hit would have been so Claudia is happy).
GM: (Goblin has a
strike rating of 14 also with his scimitar. Ransel is defense rating
5, so he needs a 9 to hit normally but Gnish Gnak was his brother so
there is hatred behind every blow so the GM assigns a bonus of +2 to
his strike rating meaning he only needs a 7 as long as his rage
carries him. GM rolls a 10) “The goblin and you traded a flurry
of blows this round and you were surprised how well this smelly,
grunting creature wields his scimitar. After two parries between
you, you tricked him with your intended target and he missed his
parry, but did manage to knick you with a hit plus 3.” (We
like that a higher roll means something since it is instinctive when
rolling dice to hope for high rolls!)
At this point, the
weapon damage table is consulted by weapon type – both attackers
are using Type III weapons and the “hit plus so many in each case
determines damage to their opponents”. This damage is in PEPs
(Personal Energy Points) and don’t represent hit points in the
traditional game sense, but blows that weaken an opponent. This
continues until one opponent surrenders, flees, or collapses and can
no longer defend him or herself…unless there is a critical hit!
Most hits are
considered to be the knicks and dings associated in combat with
‘almost misses’ except the effort of keeping those slices and
bashes from being more serious drains the combatant of energy (PEPs).
We’ve seen above that armor can be a penalty in combat because one
has to overcome its weight and awkward joint cover, etc. in order to
defend oneself. It is, however, a big bonus once it’s been
determined that you’ve been hit. The amount of damage done gets
adjusted by the amount of armor protection to determine if the hit
simply ‘hurt’ or scratched, or if it caused serious critical
damage.
GM: [Orc above has
armor equivalent of 2 points of protection. Ransel’s ‘hit plus
11’ did 15 points of damage resulting in a critical hit. Ransel
wears 4 points of armor protection and the Orc did 6 points of damage
resulting in a critical hit as well. These critical hits can be
described (based upon weapon being used and how much damage was done
over the armor protection) in colorful – scene/story enhancing
ways. Since Ransel took only 2 points over protection it can be seen
as a ‘lesser critical’, but the orc took 13 points over
protection meaning lots more is going on here than mere PEP drain.]
Ransel takes a strike from the orc to her off arm which opens a
wound. Your defense rating goes up one and you will sustain extra
bleeding damage each round until tended. Ransel’s mighty slash
with the longsword ripped thru the hide armor all across the chest of
the orc drenching both combatants in blood. The creature stumbles
backward dropping its weapon and clutching at the gash trying to stop
the bleeding. He waivers and falls to his knees. his eyes losing
focus. Before Ransel can advance, the Baladel comes up behind the
orc and brings the chains joining his wrists viciously down across
the back of its head! The orc dies before hitting the floor of the
tunnel!
The specific nature and
location of the critical hits were chosen by the GM for color and
story purposes but could have been hits to the head or gut, etc.
They could also have been determined using the location hit chart
provided as an optional tool to be used in the game. If the die roll
to determine location of the orc hit had been rolled, it could have
resulted in a hit to Ransel’s head which may not have any armor and
therefore could have been much more costly to the adventurer.
The party members have
a chance to catch up, help Ransel with the wound, and encounter the
Baladel to keep the story moving forward (perhaps there is valuable
info or something to be gained in chatting with the Baladel – who
may become an ally – or in searching the holding cell he was
removed from)…
We like the personal
energy point system because PEPs can also be taken from characters
for exertions (fleeing from enemies…uphill…cross rivers in heavy
armor or while carrying burdens or from casting spells as you will
see in the Magic system comments below.) It is possible in Melanda
for characters to surrender because they are too weak to fight (or
even stand), or their PEPs can limit their choices of things they can
do in a certain situation, or player/characters can choose to use
their Mental Prowess (similar to Will, but more) to get off a spell
of desperation or a final attack (or heroic effort) when their
strength is nearly gone to help/save the party knowing they will have
fried themselves and they will be lying helpless, unconscious on the
ground after this deed – imagine what those scenes add to your
story!
Location hitting, as
mentioned above, is an option and Melanda comes with a % die roll to
determine a random spot struck by a critical wound. This can be used
and the description of the battle takes on more specifics (some of
which may affect combat – e.g. a critical hit to a leg might remove
any agility bonuses to defensive rating, to an arm might reduce
strike rating, etc.). Like all rules in Melanda, the location chart
may be used merely to suggest to a GM a possible scenario twist (a
hit to the head of the group’s mage rendering him/her unconscious,
temporarily blind, with strange memories or no memories at all could
all be exciting adds to a good adventure tale) but if used strictly
as designed can sometimes lead to silly number crunching stuff that
interferes with the story – for instance, how boring or unlikely is
a fight where both opponents only ever hit their foe in the foot!
[NOTE: Critical hits
lead more quickly to kills than extended combat which usually results
in one opponent killing his prone enemy or taking advantage of the
break in fighting to flee and/or heal him or herself.]
The noises of the
charging party members and the sounds of combat may summon more
goblins (which in this case was pretty short). All of these choices
are story choices, not game mechanic choices. Yay!!
A last note on combat:
The GM may have a reason to keep the defensive rating secret from the
players, at least in the beginning of a fight. Perhaps he doesn’t
want them to realize that their opponents are being helped magically
by a priest or sorcerer hidden somewhere near by or far away, having
enhanced their fight capabilities. In this case he simply tells the
players some number lower than the real defensive rating and then
adjusts the character’s ‘successes’ by the difference. In his
description of the battle, Ransel may declare a hit plus seven
leading to the GM to state: “What looked like an incredible shot
to the shoulder of the beast at the last instant merely grazed him
and he is now grinning hideously at your surprise.” This will
raise character suspicion and they will eventually figure out that
there is something special going on here that they may need to deal
with.
#4 - NPCs/Creatures &
Beasts/etc. In Melanda, we provided 16 pages of pre-designed
creatures and creature types to be used for quick-start games without
the GM having to create his own. More importantly however, to avoid
the creation of a definitive ‘Monster Manual’ that anyone can
read, we provided a system for creating variations on the beasties
provided and/or creating totally new creatures on your own. It’s a
quick and easy system for generating monsters that are either generic
to this GM’s game world and could appear anywhere, or specific
monsters that are scenario/campaign specific and may exist no where
else! We include examples of standard beasts (eagles, bats, etc.)
and whole classes of non-standard monsters with samples of history or
colorful stories about their origins/behavior/etc. This means that
only the GM knows how these creatures attack/defend, what their
strengths/weaknesses are, etc. and can keep the players on their
toes! We could always release further supplements with new creatures
that have been created by us or by other Melanda GMs in the future,
but the basic tenet is “GM, build your world – its geography, its
history, its flora and fauna, and the legends hidden within!”
#5 – Like with
creatures, Melanda’s take on magic, magical effects, magic schools
or systems, etc. was to encourage the GM to create his/her own
systems. I myself created schools of magic and magical items and
special magical spells/effects nearly every time I designed a
scenario for my players. It’s so easy with the PEP system to
simply define the effect, prescribe what it cost for that particular
spell (or group of spells) to cast or what it cost to maintain that
effect or even to overcome it! After more than a decade of play, you
can imagine how many different ways to be a magic caster or how many
different items which possessed/cast magic I had created. The
newness and/or unpredictability of magic throughout Melanda became
one of the most attractive facets of the game, I believe.
We did include some
pre-designed magical systems with the basic game and could have
released more in the future but we never intended to provide every
mystical mechanic and item in Melanda because that would defeat the
purpose of the open-ended design. Magic and Science have often been
‘confused’ throughout our real-world’s history and so we
intentionally ‘confused’ them in Melanda. Our science of alchemy
or herb lore allowed players to collect and combine ingredients to
cause/cure a myriad of effects/ailments. In the hands of a
prestigious Herb Lorist from a recognized college of Herbology, these
functions were ascribed to the results of a studied science.
Practiced by a local, gnarled aged woman or man in some rustic
village, the same functions might be viewed as magic – witchcraft
or even evidence of demonic influence!
The ability to summon
and/or at least converse with spirits could prove valuable in many
adventure scenarios, so why not have a Science/Magic based upon just
such skills? Melanda does. The most popular (in our experience)
science/magic system provided as an example useable as is in games or
as a starting point for expanding/adapting for any GM’s game world,
was Rune Science. The basic concept involves the ability to inscribe
runes (mystic symbols) in an order toward some specific purpose and
then to imbue those runes with power and activate the ‘spell’.
Runes represented
varied nouns, verbs, and modifiers and were put into spell phrases
such as “Bind Enemy”. These were scratched into the earth or
written upon an object or being. Then the Runist put power into them
and when ready, commanded the power to work! Of course, this could
be a powerful spell if it worked as intended and tied up or
immobilized some enemy! However, there were many things that could
go wrong which is why magic is so dangerous and why Runists have to
study and to apply all they’ve learned every time they use their
skills.
Criteria such as the
time invested making the runes, the specific intention the caster has
in mind at the time of casting, whether or not the runes have been
‘linked’ to the subject in any way, etc. are all critical in
successful rune magic. Therefore there are stages of rune casting,
each of which can strengthen the spell if performed correctly, but
can cause problems if not:
Intention: It is
important that the Runist have a clear intention in his/her mind when
inscribing the runes. The enemy in question may be a ferocious rogue
bear that seems to ignore normal weapons. The caster should have the
bear in his mind when etching the ‘Enemy’ rune or the power that
goes thru the rune may attach itself to some prior enemy of the
‘mage’. Is the mage hoping for some nearby rope to suddenly
wrap around the bear, or vines from a nearby tree, or the appearance
of totally magical bindings of some kind. The clearer the intention,
the better chance of chosen result.
Inscription: If the
Runist has lots of time to prepare each rune using quality materials
and tools, to make sure every loop and squiggle is exactly right,
this can increase the control he/she has over the casting. If,
however, the ‘mage’ has to scratch them suddenly in the dirt,
during the raging bear’s assault on fellow party members… well
accuracy could suffer and one or both of the runes could be wrong.
This could result in no visible result (once power goes into the
symbols and is activated – something happens somewhere), or in an
unintended result. [e.g. assume ‘Bind’ is correct but ‘Enemy’
isn’t – a party member could be bound (possibly ‘to the bear’!)
or some random binding could occur nearby, etc. Or suppose ‘Enemy’
is the rune which is correct but imagine that the Bind rune turns out
to be closer to ‘Hasten’ or ‘Alter’… now the spell is
Hasten Enemy or Alter Enemy. Now one could be lucky and accidently
‘Ignite’ the bear or ‘Diminish’ the bear, but who wants to
risk that.
One could try to be
more specific if the caster actually had the rune for ‘Bear’ or
added modifiers such as ‘Black’ if the bear was black or
‘Strong’. The spell could now be Bind Strong Black Bear. This
is more descriptive, may help the caster’s focus. However, the
more runes used the more that could be inscribed wrong if the spell
is done in a hurry. Once an effort to ‘Summon Horse(s)’ seemed
to have failed when an exhausted, wounded party was trying
desperately to reach food and shelter in a town still some three days
distant. Had it gone horribly wrong, they might have summoned a herd
of horses that ran them down, so they were relieved. However, part
way through the second day, the party encountered a group of equally
exhausted, sweaty, pissed ladies of the evening who had been trying
for some inexplicable reason to find the heroes ever since they’d
been ‘summoned’ magically from their house of ill repute. It was
an extremely comical result imagined by a GM who figured out that the
second rune was only mostly right and allowed that ‘Summon
Whores’ was pretty close.
Power Up phase: Caster
ties the spell to his current PEPs to feed the magic. Perhaps the
spell is so powerful (altering time/space/10,000
enemies/etc.) that it exhausts the mage, but the cost will be
determined by the power of the ultimate spell cast.
Activate: Cast the
spell. Not much can go wrong with this phase unless the caster is
injured just before or during it, or if the spell is not properly
prepared and random magical power is released, or… (hmmm, guess a
number of things can go wrong).
There are other ways to
make the spell more specific to a particular target which can add to
the chance of spell success. If you were trying to affect a specific
door in a dungeon and can inscribe the runes on the door in question
that eliminates some ambiguity. If you wish to affect an ally who is
not present, but you have something of theirs to tie the spell to,
this can help. You can see the benefits of cleverness in the hands
of a rune scientist (and the possible chaos that can result from
hastily cast attempts to affect an immediate encounter/danger).
In summary, a spell
like ‘Locate’’Ally(s)’’Now’, with the intention of
finding the rest of your party as soon as possible could be a very
handy magical casting. If the caster takes his/her time with each
rune for accuracy, is well rested with plenty of personal energy for
the casting (PEPs), and casts the spell with no interruptions or
distractions, this should be very effective. If you can inscribe the
rune Ally(s) with some of the blood of each party member…
“a unique attempt to create structure and flexibility for roleplaying games.”
#2 - So, our readers are surely curious and eager to know: in what this originality consists of, in your opinion? Where did it stem from?
John and I came from totally different backgrounds (his was education of learning-
disabled youth and mine was acting/entertaining) and when we first started role-
playing, enjoyed it as it could be rather than as it was designed to be. It took us a while to discover that we were playing these games differently than many others were. I remember after reading the AD&D Players Handbook for the first time (I’d never seen, much less played a game.). I created a character and came back anxious to do this ‘role-playing thing’. I’d created a 1st level elven mage, gone out and bought a small notebook into which I put my 1st level spells (including casting notes on all the mechanics such as range, area of effect, etc. and original rhymes to use during the casting process). When I joined my first game, I took lots of notes (so I could understand the ‘setting’ of this drama we were creating as well as remember all the characters with whom I might come to interact), spoke with an accent to try to sound like what I felt a highly educated elf might, and engaged my co-players and all the NPCs we encountered in in-character dialogue only. (You can imagine the funny looks I got from those who had no grasp of what I was doing, but others soon ‘played along’ as it added to their fun and ability to imagine the scenes we were part of more like a movie.) I never referred to the handbook since I didn’t think my character would have had one. I tried to not use any info I wouldn’t have in-character while decision making. When I was called on to cast a spell, I stood and moved my hands while reciting the little rhymes I’d created before pointing to the grid sheet to show the target ‘hex/square’ for my spell effect. (The looks increased greatly, some folk even mocking me aloud. But since I felt I was getting more out of their game than they were, and was encouraged by the attempts of others to play ‘my game-style’, I never hesitated. I’d been on stage enough that being heckled was nothing new.
John stressed creating maps, NPCs, and storylines that emulated the feelings inspired by his favorite fantasy books/movies. He ran his games trying to NEVER let the system get in the way of a good story. He played his characters with acting quirks/hooks that made his ‘x-level fighter’, or whatever, seem different from any other similar character in this group or that the players might have experienced. He was always seeking unique, creative solutions to the challenges GMs placed before us – stretching the game and challenging the players around him to do the same. And, he was always a generous player helping anyone in the game who seemed to be making an effort at ‘in-character’ play or unique decision making even at the expense sometimes of his own character.
#3 - Which were the major differences between the 1st and the 2nd edition of Melanda? - The cover art of the 1st edition of Melanda is somewhat "faery-like" with that image of the unicorn and the colours used. Did you try to convey a specific atmosphere with these illustrations?
Game expansion, more explanation, and higher production standards. We literally printed the first edition ourselves with the help of our wives and hand collated and bound all the copies. The second, though it still needed some editing and prep work, we sent out to be professionally printed and bound.
As to the artwork, the cover on Melanda 1 was actually based upon the very special creature that was the subject of the first published adventure In Search of Starfax, the magnificent horse pictured upon the cover, who was a very mystical steed. The second book is more world-focused hence the focus on the cover on a ‘wondrous’ place somewhere on this mysterious world. The artwork throughout the inside of the book was primarily by a young lad from John’s school.
#4 - Can you tell us something about your background in the rpg field and hobby at the time of Melanda writing? Which rpgs were you used to playing before embarking on your project as an rpg designer? Did any of these other rpgs exerted an influence over you in particular?
I discovered Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in the Fall of 1978. Although I played in a number of games run by others, primarily, my first love was GM-ing. In 1979 I started a campaign based upon my imagined version of the Fourth Age in Middle Earth (beginning a few decades after the death of Aragorn and Arwen in Tolkien’s books). It (the campaign) ran for four years during which I often sacrificed class time for gaming time as I managed to keep track of 72 player characters, most of whom ran with one other or in very small groups.
During those first few years (Melanda came out in 1980 & 1981), I played D&D, AD&D, RuneQuest, Boot Hill, Bunnies & Burrows, Tunnels & Trolls, Gamma World, Villains and Vigilantes, Traveller, Rolemaster, Space Opera, Top Secret, Champions and Call of Cthulhu. At conventions, John and I sold out many seminars and demonstrations on Role Playing, In-Character Play, GMing (not just DM-ing which was controlling a map of rooms and the monsters and treasures within, but Mastering one’s Gameworld and using that mastery to encourage players to write great stories in your setting), etc.
After the release of Melanda, we still continued to play in some of the older games and avidly took to many of the newer titles as they flooded the market. In 1981, I opened a gamestore with a budget of $7,000 and struggled for a year to make it viable. John took over management of the store (I then worked for him for the next 18 years) and turned it into the success it is today (still going strong through all the changes in role-playing, collectible card games, the strong growth of European board games, etc.!).
John and I both still play table top role playing and some live-action role playing (larp) as well. We have both written and run tournaments, weekend-long gaming stories for both table-top and ‘larping’. John is very active in the production of two gaming conventions annually and plays in a number of others across the country besides running any number of board/card tournaments through the game store (The Days of Knights). I have written so many environments, created stories on fictitious maps, etc. that I was finally convinced to publish my first fantasy adventure novel (From the Ruins, available so far only electronically through Smashwords.com)
As to influences, many games inspired us to create Melanda, but mostly by having too much mechanic or being inflexible enough to get in the way of good in-character play at one time or another. The commercialism of many game producers also ‘inspired’ us to NOT be concerned with how much we could make off of future additions, revisions, etc. to our game and to make it pretty much self-contained from the get-go. To be fair, however, our desire to role-play was fed by all the efforts of the games I’ve listed above and all the great players we encountered while playing them.
#5 - How was gaming in those years? Do you feel the playing style has changed over the years? Many of the original players were wargamers who were following the trend to still participate through carefully prescribed game mechanics the re-enactment of battles or combat challenges, but on a small scale. That truly is how Dungeons & Dragons came into being. So many of those gamers wanted, even needed, all the rules. They spent hours and hours scouring the books, seeking out some advantage based upon the knowledge of each system mechanic and every spell definition, etc.
These number-crunching, rule-craving gamers were joined by people seeking something else – something more flexible and less mechanic-intense through which they could re-live some of the feelings they got from movie or book scenes. A lot of good role-players were driven off by the early games and their system-competition. Still a lot of new ones were attracted by the wide variety and massive amount of growth in the gaming industry.
Today, we still have some of both schools of gaming mentioned above still playing. In many ways, you can tell who is who based upon which game systems they are playing or by listening to a session and seeing how much out-of-character/in-character play is happening. But things have definitely changed. There are far more females involved in role-playing today…especially in live-action gaming because of the costumes and characterization without any strict emphasis on complex mechanics. This is not a reflection of intellect, but rather one purely of interest on the part of these female gamers.
#6 - What do you think about the OSR? (old school renaissance) and the re-surfacing of
old fantasy rpgs of the past to a wide audience?
I always enjoy anything ‘old’ being revived to expose a wider audience, but often
find that the reception ‘old’ books, movies, games, etc. get is a reflection of the
times during which the revival occurs. It is truly difficult to manage the attitudes
necessary to see these games (or other entertainment forms) as they were seen
when they first emerged. This is reflected in the failure of so many genre films
for instance that only a few can truly appreciate. Specifically, games were created
often due to dissatisfaction with the games existing at the time and the belief that
“I can do that, but better.” Many of today’s games are more flexible and
encourage/allow for more storytelling in a more open-minded and mature way.
This means that it will be difficult to imagine why someone should change their
current game in for something that was only an ‘improvement’ in its own time.
#7 - Are you going to republish Melanda in some way? maybe a PDF version?
John and I have discussed re-doing Melanda. There are too many editorial
changes and mechanic improvements to make to simply produce a PDF version of
the old game and put it out there. (And, besides, John still has copies of the
original printing yet available for sale.) However, if John and I could find the
time (no small feat nowadays) to actually re-write, re-think, and re-do Melanda, I
would not be adverse to such an effort.
P.S. I noted that I forgot to mention the character cards in my part 2 response as I promised within that material. This was one of our most novel concepts and one of which we were very proud. The concept was to create a character sheet that was two sided. On one side was a worksheet of all the choices made during character creation that literally determined one’s abilities and capabilities. Then the other side was two half sections so that the card could be folded between them and stand on the table in front of the player. On the side facing away from the player was all the descriptive info that the other players around the table would know and some game mechanics. In this way, anyone in the game could look over and be reminded of your character’s name or apparent gear eliminating the need for ‘out of character’ questions “What’s your guy’s name again?” “Are you the one with the two-handed sword?” etc. On the side facing the player was more private info such as adventure skills, spells, wealth, etc. Things that the other players might not know but that could become important for the player to know during play without too much research. These worked great!
