A Gygaxian Legacy: The Secret Fire?

[Deleted]

This game (link below) claims to be based on Gary's notes for OD&D, if I'm reading it correctly. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it is available now. If anyone has knowledge of the it, I would love to read a serious review.

thesecretfire.presskitpublicity.com/news-release/

[Falconer]

It's already available. Click on the links to Lulu at top and check out the preview. 12 pages of pure gold! Sure, those 12 pages don't actually show any gameable material, but it DID explain to me that this RPG will change my life and show me how to make D&D 'what it could be, what it once was'. Honestly, I was waiting for DCC to show me how to make roleplaying fun and immersive again, to save me from modern sensibilities while retaining modern mechanics, and reveal what Gary REALLY intended, but I can now say that the wait is over!

[Aplus]

I am tempted to get a copy, but it has a couple of things working against it in my book.

1. There is no free version

2. The character sheet looks an awful lot like 4E. I played 4E and didn't like it, so even looking a little bit like 4E kind of scares me.

3. The hype kind of put me off. The whole "biggest thing in RPGs since 1974" claim is somewhat bothersome to me. I also have mixed feelings about the Gail Gygax endorsement.

But enough of that nonsense, you didn't ask for my thoughts, especially since I haven't even read the rules!

It looks like Tenkar is writing some stuff about it:

www.tenkarstavern.com/

[Deleted]

I like what I've read so far, but I jump around something awful. My blog posts do not cover the sections in order, so if you want to read along from home it's going to be painful

The hype turned me off to the Kickstarter project that supported the funding, but I've been very pleasantly surprised by the finished project. There is alot to like about it.

I'm sure I'll have more posts on The Secret Fire this weekend.

[Deleted]

Actually, I'd love to hear your thoughts, and anyone else's, because I'm not sure what to think. If the claims by the author are true, this project has some real potential. If not, well ...

So, opine away!

[Deleted]

Oh ... and apparently there is a 'blog. I'm amazed this project slipped by me until now. Has it been flying under the radar or did everyone else know about this?

legendsandlabyrinths.com/

[Finarvyn]

Aug 12, 2011 13:38:24 GMT -6 Aplus said:

3. The hype kind of put me off. The whole "biggest thing in RPGs since 1974" claim is somewhat bothersome to me. I also have mixed feelings about the Gail Gygax endorsement.

I guess I would be more excited about this if it was being launched by someone that I associated with the old days. If Rob Kuntz, for example, was promoting a product like this I would really pay attention.

I know that there are two versions of Legends & Labyrinths. One was supposed to be a 1E-4E bridge (which sounded cool) and the other its own game (which did not).

I guess I'll wait for someone else to risk the money, then see what they have to say about it.

[kesher]

I have to leave work momentarily, but I'll come back to this thread.

My group and I actually ran a playtest session for the beta rules that you can read about here. That started a lengthy correspondence between me and George Strayton and his design team, which eventually led to me suggesting some changes to the rules, and eventually contributing some original material (my "Devil's in the Details" articles from Fight On! 1-3, plus one extra). So a caveat: I'm now listed as a developer, and plan to continue writing for the game.

That said, (and Falconer, do I sense sarcasm? , the game is definitely NOT 4e--it's its own thing. It started as George's homebrewed changes to 4e, and was originally planned to conform to the OGL, but that was abandoned as the game developed.

I agree there's been a lot of hype. George is a screenwriter, and approached the marketing of this from that viewpoint. And, to be fair, he's pretty passionate about the product. He definitely has had access to notes of Gary's that no one else has ever seen, and is working on a film bio of Gary's gaming life. The endorsement by Gail Gygax is sincere.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of the game's defining factors.

I'll also say this: there's a HUGE amount of game packed into 300 digest-sized pages. Though there's already a modest schedule for supplementary material, it's good to go as is, without a doubt.

I'm happy to answer any other questions, and perhaps George will pop up (he is a member here.)

Oh, which reminds me: Here's a long thread on this topic as well. To avoid confusion, just keep in mind that that thread was started before the shift to a non-OGL system, and that the game was originally referred to as Legends & Labyrinyths as opposed to The Secret Fire.

And, here's a slightly longer rules-preview than on lulu.

[Finarvyn]

Well, I looked at the 15-page preview and my socks weren't knocked off. I don't know what to think about it, but of course the preview lacked pretty much anything mechanics-based so we don't know much about how the game actually works. All I know is that nothing in the 15-pages screamed "OD&D" at me.

I also looked at some of the L&L blog pages.

EXAMPLE 1 (WITH ATTACKER SPENDING ENERGY POINTS): Dave shouts out, “Using my muscular strength, I slash at the Goblin with my longsword Garm’s Tooth, landing a serious blow for 10 points of damage! I finish the attack by slamming my shoulder into the Goblin’s chest, knocking it to the ground!”

I'm not sure I could play this with a straight face.

Ironic that Gary spent so many years claiming that OD&D was not inspired by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, then a game that claims to carry the torch dropped by Gary is called "The Secret Fire."

[Deleted]

Thanks for that info, Kesher. I'd heard of L&L but not under the name-change to TSF. It seemed like this project had come out of nowhere, now I know why!

[coffee]

Aug 12, 2011 14:54:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I'm not sure I could play this with a straight face.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I thought when Kesher ran his playtest.

There were a lot of things in the game that seemed sort of "tacked on" to inspire roleplaying. They struck me as a little silly. But I stuck with it and the system itself seemed to work (what little of it I saw).

From what Kesher has said to me, and from what I can see of this preview, a lot of the ideas that were not fully formed have gelled. It seems to rely more on the MC taking responsibility for his world and not getting bogged down in statistics -- and that's truly Gygaxian, if you ask me.

Haven't seen the whole thing, but I'd try it again.

[Falconer]

I could be wrong, but it seems that Justin Alexander’s Legends & Labyrinths is a totally different project from George Strayton’s Legends & Labyrinths (=The Secret Fire).

It’s all the more confusing because they both seem to be 3e at their core.

[kesher]

Aug 12, 2011 15:59:57 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I could be wrong, but it seems that Justin Alexander’s Legends & Labyrinths is a totally different project from George Strayton’s Legends & Labyrinths (=The Secret Fire).

It’s all the more confusing because they both seem to be 3e at their core.

You're right on the first part, F.---they're completely separate projects. My understanding of JA's project t is that it is indeed a stripped down version of 3e, utilizing the OGL. The Secret Fire is its own game.

And coffee: not suprisingly, you'll get another chance to play...

[jasmith]

Aug 12, 2011 14:54:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Well, I looked at the 15-page preview and my socks weren't knocked off. I don't know what to think about it, but of course the preview lacked pretty much anything mechanics-based so we don't know much about how the game actually works. All I know is that nothing in the 15-pages screamed "OD&D" at me.

I also looked at some of the L&L blog pages.

EXAMPLE 1 (WITH ATTACKER SPENDING ENERGY POINTS): Dave shouts out, “Using my muscular strength, I slash at the Goblin with my longsword Garm’s Tooth, landing a serious blow for 10 points of damage! I finish the attack by slamming my shoulder into the Goblin’s chest, knocking it to the ground!”

I'm not sure I could play this with a straight face.

Ironic that Gary spent so many years claiming that OD&D was not inspired by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, then a game that claims to carry the torch dropped by Gary is called "The Secret Fire."

Yeah, from the example of play, I have no interest in this game at all.

[tavis]

George plays in my OD&D White Sandbox (he's Martain of Thracia), and I've often played in his 4E games during the early development of what would later become The Secret Fire. He is truly passionate about D&D and its history, and I've enjoyed his approach as a DM and house-ruler.

[Deleted]

Tavis, it's nice to see the link in the 2 OSR games I am most excited about now

[aldarron]

Aug 12, 2011 15:59:57 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I could be wrong, but it seems that Justin Alexander’s Legends & Labyrinths is a totally different project from George Strayton’s Legends & Labyrinths (=The Secret Fire).

It’s all the more confusing because they both seem to be 3e at their core.

I was confused by that too, not realizing these were seperate projects and only knowing of Justin Alexanders untill today.

[aldarron]

Aug 12, 2011 16:42:35 GMT -6 jasmith said:

Aug 12, 2011 14:54:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Well, I looked at the 15-page preview and my socks weren't knocked off. I don't know what to think about it, but of course the preview lacked pretty much anything mechanics-based so we don't know much about how the game actually works. All I know is that nothing in the 15-pages screamed "OD&D" at me.

I also looked at some of the L&L blog pages.I'm not sure I could play this with a straight face.

Ironic that Gary spent so many years claiming that OD&D was not inspired by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, then a game that claims to carry the torch dropped by Gary is called "The Secret Fire."

Yeah, from the example of play, I have no interest in this game at all.

In keeping with the first impressionsion being expressed, at this point I'm only beginning to get some picture of what the game is about but my impression is that it does seem to want to draw together the ideas of the indy story games and of group improv acting exercises as part of the play experience. If so that will work better for/be more appealing to some folks than others.

The bit about going out into the community and doing good based on principles of the game is a bit hard to grok. LARP of sorts? Reminds me of some of the goals of christian RPGs back in the '80's. Curious to know more about that.

I don't (yet) see anything that hints of old Gygax notes or OD&Dishness. I'm guessing that's just an "in spirit" claim. Maybe though, there are some similarities to Lejendary Adventures.

<shrug>

[Deleted]

aldarron, I was getting a LA feel too, but my books are packed away and I never actually played a game of LA, so it's just a feeling for me so far.

[pessimisthalfling]

Aug 12, 2011 14:46:41 GMT -6 kesher said:

I have to leave work momentarily, but I'll come back to this thread.

My group and I actually ran a playtest session for the beta rules that you can read about here. That started a lengthy correspondence between me and George Strayton and his design team, which eventually led to me suggesting some changes to the rules, and eventually contributing some original material (my "Devil's in the Details" articles from Fight On! 1-3, plus one extra). So a caveat: I'm now listed as a developer, and plan to continue writing for the game.

That said, (and Falconer, do I sense sarcasm? , the game is definitely NOT 4e--it's its own thing. It started as George's homebrewed changes to 4e, and was originally planned to conform to the OGL, but that was abandoned as the game developed.

I agree there's been a lot of hype. George is a screenwriter, and approached the marketing of this from that viewpoint. And, to be fair, he's pretty passionate about the product. He definitely has had access to notes of Gary's that no one else has ever seen, and is working on a film bio of Gary's gaming life. The endorsement by Gail Gygax is sincere.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of the game's defining factors.

I'll also say this: there's a HUGE amount of game packed into 300 digest-sized pages. Though there's already a modest schedule for supplementary material, it's good to go as is, without a doubt.

I'm happy to answer any other questions, and perhaps George will pop up (he is a member here.)

Oh, which reminds me: Here's a long thread on this topic as well. To avoid confusion, just keep in mind that that thread was started before the shift to a non-OGL system, and that the game was originally referred to as Legends & Labyrinyths as opposed to The Secret Fire.

And, here's a slightly longer rules-preview than on lulu.

Hello everybody,
I'm the game's 2nd Lead Developer. There is little I can add beyond what Kesher discussed earlier, so I'll just tell you how the game plays:

A Secret Fire session has that survival horror vibe one gets from Holmes Basic. (At least that's the way Holmes feels to me.) The mechanics that encourage role playing serve two purposes. First they help flesh out the character beyond the collection of numbers with a weird name that 0e characters can be. Second, they offer players tangible rewards for role playing. I'll elaborate on this a little more:
In the Secret Fire when you role play you are rewarded with Energy Points. These energy points are used to activate "special maneuvers" that assist during combat, exploration, and spell casting.
Combat in The Secret Fire is deadly. The monsters are designed to kill PCs, not to make them look good or heroic. So, energy points are the one thing that can give a character a bit of control during the chaos of combat. It's not a guarantee that they'll save you, but they level the playing field a bit. Other games that use a similar concept (Fate and Savage Worlds) are different in the sense that their systems emulate the actions of exceptional persons; the heroes of the story so to speak. The Secret Fire RPG doesn't do that. In the Secret Fire, EPs are a tool for survival, not something to use to "look cool."

Parleying, evasion, and retreat are emphasized in the combat chapter. They are viable options to overcome encounters because we wanted to create a game in which players needed to think things through.

The game as written doesn't reward recklessness.

We tried to create a game that rewards role playing but doesn't do so by building a protective wall of "story"around the characters. And I think that we succeeded.

I can go into a lot more detail, but I don't want to bore anybody. So Feel free to ask me any questions. And don't feel like you need to hold back, I don't take any criticisms personally.

[Deleted]

I'd like to know more. After all, that is why I started thread! :-)

Please feel free to pass along, one gamer to another, anything you think might be of interest.

[Deleted]

Sorry, I've always thought that lurid and cheezy descriptions during combat were as lame as a horse with all four legs shorter than the other.

My idea of combat description is "I'm trying to kill him."

Or perhaps "I hit him so hard on top of the head that his nadgers fall off."

And I have always, always, ALWAYS thought "rules for roleplaying" and "rewarding roleplaying" were strange ideas. We roleplayed a LOT back in the 1972-1975 era. We didn't have any rules or rewards for it... we just did it.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 13, 2011 17:19:22 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I have always, always, ALWAYS thought "rules for roleplaying" and "rewarding roleplaying" were strange ideas. We roleplayed a LOT back in the 1972-1975 era. We didn't have any rules or rewards for it... we just did it.

Michael, you deserve an EXALT for this. I think too many modern players scoff at the old timers, saying that we didn't role-play back in the day. We did, but we did it with more creativity. We didn't need skill lists, we just tried things. A referee didn't need rules encyclopedias, he just winged it.

I'm still waiting to hear what makes this game "Gygaxian."

[jasmith]

Aug 14, 2011 6:04:25 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Aug 13, 2011 17:19:22 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I have always, always, ALWAYS thought "rules for roleplaying" and "rewarding roleplaying" were strange ideas. We roleplayed a LOT back in the 1972-1975 era. We didn't have any rules or rewards for it... we just did it.

Michael, you deserve an EXALT for this. I think too many modern players scoff at the old timers, saying that we didn't role-play back in the day. We did, but we did it with more creativity. We didn't need skill lists, we just tried things. A referee didn't need rules encyclopedias, he just winged it.

I'm still waiting to hear what makes this game "Gygaxian."

I so agree! I hate "carrot & stick" methods to "encourage role-playing." When I DM I'm something of a ham, but my player's are always free to role-play to whatever their comfort level.

And as to their actions in game, it's up to them to determine how they want to play their character. I'm not directing a freakin' play. As long as no one is being disruptive and everyone's having fun, rp however you want. Issues of inexperience, will be solved by just that: playing experience. No need to force things.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2011 19:58:06 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I don't (yet) see anything that hints of old Gygax notes or OD&Dishness. I'm guessing that's just an "in spirit" claim. Maybe though, there are some similarities to Lejendary Adventures.

This.

If you think about it the right way, pretty much all "modern" role playing has its roots in Gary & Dave's creation, so unless there really are "secret notes" this game doesn't seem to be any more "Gygaxian" than many others out there. In fact, maybe less so since some of the simulacrum games (like Fin's White Box or Goblinoid's LL) have tried to stick to a philosophy much like the old books.

This one doesn't even look like it does that.

[pessimisthalfling]

While the rules that "encourage roleplaying" are prominent in the game, the game master is by no means forced to use them. In fact, they can just be taken out all together without breaking the game. Their absence would just make exploration and combat harder to survive.
A Secret Fire session without EPs would kind of play like Call Of Cthulhu: You could have the PCs explore a trap filled crypt that houses a single monster. It would be a bleak game, but that may not be a bad thing.

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone from just saying " I hit the orc! I scored 10 points of damage." The end result is exactly the same: you hit the orc, and score 10 points of damage. We thought it would be interesting to hide the numbers with some narration. The quoted example posted earlier is just a suggestion. You can come up with your own or just ignore the idea.

The game was not designed to be balanced. You can tweak the rules to your heart's desire without the anxiety of making the game unplayable. If you like the Secret Fire, but detest the idea of mechanically rewarding roleplaying, then don't award Energy Points for roleplaying. If after an extensive revision the game starts to resemble The Holmes Basic Set, then just play the Blue Book.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2011 9:32:53 GMT -6 pessimisthalfling said:

there's nothing stopping anyone from just saying " I hit the orc! I scored 10 points of damage." The end result is exactly the same: you hit the orc, and score 10 points of damage. We thought it would be interesting to hide the numbers with some narration. The quoted example posted earlier is just a suggestion. You can come up with your own or just ignore the idea.

I'm not trying to be a pain. I just want to understand what makes this game different from other choices out there. If I buy a game and then throw out the part that makes it unique, I've probably made a poor choice.

Other than the "hide the numbers with some narration" thing, what makes this game better/different from a dozen others out there? What makes it "Gygaxian"?

[James Maliszewski]

Aug 14, 2011 10:20:25 GMT -6 @keltset said:

Other than the "hide the numbers with some narration" thing, what makes this game better/different from a dozen others out there? What makes it "Gygaxian"?

I'd like an answer to that question too, since, as others have pointed out, the definition of "Gygaxian" being used seems to be so broad that almost any RPG could be called such.

[giantbat]

What we've got here is failure to drink the kool-aid.

[kesher]

Aug 16, 2011 23:37:11 GMT -6 @giantbat said:

What we've got here is failure to drink the kool-aid.

Hey now, that comment seems to me just shy of sniping. No one's asking anyone for blind faith.

I'll address the two questions above, and then probably stop, since I'm beginning to feel like an apologist, which is not a role I want to play. Quickstart rules are also being compiled right now, so that may hopefully give those who're so inclined the chance to run a session or two before deciding to invest further time and money.

Gygaxian: I actually think it's explained pretty clearly on pages 10-12 of the preview document, ending with the following:

1. RULINGS ALWAYS TRUMP RULES
2. COMMON SENSE ALWAYS TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE
3. DURING THE GAME, THE MC [DM] IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY

Here's the thing--a lot of us around here already play this way. Many of us have ALWAYS played this way; the text is directed mostly at a crowd who never has, or once did, but drifted away. He's really just explaining what other documents like the Old School Primer are trying to explain--an approach to the game that was prevalent at its beginning.

As for the what sets the mechanics apart, again, there's a comprehensive explanation on pages 18-22 of the preview document, but here's the thing that I personally find most exciting:

George found a simple, elegant way to provide immediate, in-game resources for actually role-playing your character, which you then are experientially almost required to expend, and then gain back through more role-playing. This resource is called Energy Points. You start with a certain pool every day, and then can easily gain far beyond that initial total during the course of play. This happens in two major and one minor way:

Ability scores. Each one has a descriptor depending on its score. A high strength is Mighty, a low strength is Feeble, etc. Playing your character in accordance with the descriptors of your actual scores will earn you EPs. E.g., if you have a score of 4-5 in Wisdom, the descriptor is Reckless. Now, at least in my experience, most characters with a low Wisdom score are never really affected by it, positively or negatively. However, here, if you then follow the (roll straight 3d6 for abilities) suggestion, and role-play your character AS Reckless, you gain EPs. Now, you might get yourself or your party into some trouble, but you'll also be building up the resources to get yourself out in an interesting, memorable way at the same time. EPs let you add in all sorts of special effects to conflict resolution, whether combat or otherwise. There's a list of common effects and costs, but each group is encouraged to expand that list.

Alignment: Again, in my experience, one of the most largely ignored "stats" in the game. In TSF, you initially choose one of three alignments: Good, Neutral or Evil, and one of three levels of stability: Lawful (rarely deviates), Neutral (50/50), and Chaotic (often deviates). Then you choose from or roll on a large list of personality traits for each alignment. On the character sheet, alignment is laid out on a scale with Good and Evil on either end, Neutral in the middle, and several tick marks between each. Your personality traits are then written under the relevant alignments.

During play, when you act according to those traits, you gain EPs. Each time you act on a trait that isn't your predominant alignment trait, your alignment ticks one step to the left or right. It can, of course, tick back later. Acting on any trait gains you EPs, but the further away from your predominant traits you act, the MORE EPs you get (you're charging yourself up with emotions and actions you don't commonly experience). In our playtest, we wrote these personality traits, along with the ability descriptors on table tents and referred to them constantly.

One thing I think is cool, and reminds me in some ways of indie games I've played, is that as the MC (Master Creator), you can tempt players (though never force them) to act on particular traits. E.g., say a Warrior character of Good alignment has the Evil trait of Fights Dirty. During a tough fight, an opportunity arises and the MC says "Hey, I'll give you 8 EPs if you fight dirty and stab this guy in the back." The player waffles, because the fight is hard, one character's down and bleeding already, and he could really use the EPs to put their foes down quickly. However, he says "No, Sir Paladin would never stab a foe in the back, not even to save a friend's life." Sir Paladin is also Lawful, which means he rarely deviates from his Good trait of Honorable (not actually on the current list, but of course you can add whatever you want). The MC responds "Are you sure? I'll give you 10 points...) The player makes his decision, and Sir Paladin runs his foe through from behind, instantly ticking one step toward Evil, creating a memorable encounter and echoing out into further opportunities for role-playing. (I, for one, would be inspired to have him haunted by the spectre of this foe at inopportune times...)

And, of course, the book contains all my Devil's in the Details columns from Fight on! for detailing races, plus one more for humans, so you'll have fascinating characters right out of the gate!

I hope that helps.