Anyone playing this setting? It looks like a pretty generic fantasy setting, but somehow it appeals to me. I don't know exactly why.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733110Anyone playing this setting? It looks like a pretty generic fantasy setting, but somehow it appeals to me. I don't know exactly why.
While Hellfrost is a "generic" epic fantasy setting, the game does everything right. The game manipulates the Savage Worlds setting into something different that is full of flavor but does not attempt to describe every setting element in detail. The inclusion of rune bennies, resource management, cattle theft, glory rewards and non-PP based spell casting makes the game stand out as the best of Savage Worlds.
The game doesn't attempt to explain the big mysteries of the world. Why is the Hellfrost growing and the gods of Fire and Sun missing? Will the Lich King ever rise from his tomb? It's up to the DM to decide.
My biggest compliant is against the stock generic fantasy PLAYABLE races. The two elf races and dwarves are stock standard, unchanged from the core concepts of traditional roleplaying only with Ice trappings. Thankfully, the halfling race, frostborn and the human cultures make up for the lack of creativity.
Not currently, but one of the best games I ever played in was set in Hellfrost. The GM billed it as an all-Vikings game, and asked us to make characters from the same village, friends or kin.
I'm not sure how you're defining "generic fantasy." Its deliberately dark ages rather than medieval. There are rules options for cattle raids, for using rune stones as bennies, and telling the tales of your adventures to gain Glory (and Glory can benefit you when it gets high enough). And the coming ice age of the Hellfrost is a step beyond what I get from typical D&D settings.
As I recall the human races are analogues for Vikings, Celts and Romans. So its a setting that can reward drilling down into one of those with some extra-curricular reading for inspiration.
On the other hand, I can see how if you throw open the book and allow every character option, you could end up with the typical party of elf-dwarf-human, fighter-mage-thief. Which doesn't strike me as the best use of it, but may be how people are using it, as a base for D&D via Savage Worlds.
Quote from: Saladman;733137As I recall the human races are analogues for Vikings, Celts and Romans. So its a setting that can reward drilling down into one of those with some extra-curricular reading for inspiration.
Close,
Anari = Normans/Romans
Saxa = Saxons/Vikings
Tuomi= Lapps
Finnar= Celts
I meant generic as in stock fantasy races: tundra and taiga elves, frost dwarves. Don't get me wrong. I like this setting a lot. I just never played it and I am curious what you think the strong points of this game are. I like all the factions. Most of them are interesting and make for an interesting playing field of rival organisations. I also like the worldbuilding in this game and it seems like there are a lot of region books elaborating on the setting. It seems there are a lot of campaign books as well.
I have a copy and while I'm not a fan of SW rules, the setting is great. I think it's the dark ages thing that does it for me. The only reason I'm not currently running a game in it is that I rediscovered Glorantha recently. I think Hellfrost might be better in terms of being a functional game setting you can dive right into.
You mean Dark Ages as in Early Middle Ages?
I haven't really read Hellfrost, but I've been following Jack Shear's AP reports on his blog with some interest. It seems stereotypical, but rich in its stereotypeness (stereotypy?). It's got the whole looming long winter (the titular Hellfrost) that feels like Sauron and GoT's White Walkers and WoW:WotLK all rolled up into one, and all of course refering to the archetypal Fimbulvetr/Ragnarok.
Quote from: NathanIW;733187I have a copy and while I'm not a fan of SW rules, the setting is great. I think it's the dark ages thing that does it for me. The only reason I'm not currently running a game in it is that I rediscovered Glorantha recently. I think Hellfrost might be better in terms of being a functional game setting you can dive right into.
Glorantha's difficulty is much overrated. You don't have to dump it all on the players from session one. Pick a relatively small area with a manageable number of factions, detail the local stuff, and get players involved with it. Orlanth are Celtic/Germanic barbarians, Lunars are Persian/Roman conquerors, Loskalm is Western Europe Middle Agesland, etc.
The metaphysics take some getting used to but really, as an introductory explanation, it takes no more than "your barbarian characters believe in an overworld called the God Plane with rules of its own, and it's all Campbell monomyth shit up there. Super badass cult members can physically travel to it, duke it out with the gods and rewrite both myth and reality." Followed by actual in-game uses by NPCs.
But Hellfrost is good too, I guess. :)
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733227You mean Dark Ages as in Early Middle Ages?
Part of the Early Middle Ages and part of Late Antiquity. In Europe. It's a term well understood by people not wanting to be pedantic. I get that the term has been supplanted in modern scholarship and the reasons why, but it still very accurately describes the state of Europe that includes part of Late Antiquity and part of the Early Middle Ages. Check this graph of manuscript production:
Spoiler
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/European_Output_of_Manuscripts_500%E2%80%931500.png)
I will continue to use the term "dark ages" to describe Europe from the reign of Odoacer to the calling of the first crusade even if current historians don't like the term because it only talks about Europe. Europe is all I'm talking about when I use the term, so I've never seen that as a problem.
Quote from: The Butcher;733230Glorantha's difficulty is much overrated. You don't have to dump it all on the players from session one. Pick a relatively small area with a manageable number of factions, detail the local stuff, and get players involved with it. Orlanth are Celtic/Germanic barbarians, Lunars are Persian/Roman conquerors, Loskalm is Western Europe Middle Agesland, etc.
No, it's not that difficult. But it's also presented in publications that year after year became less and less practical for gaming purposes. Fortunately I have stuff published around 1980. If someone wanted to game in Glorantha today, I'd recommend the Gloranthan Classics which are edited collations and reprints of those older materials.
I still think Hellfrost is more accessible to GMs new to the setting. I did end up choosing Glorantha over it. I really dig dark ages type settings and Hellfrost has a bit more of a traditional fantasy genre going for it, which means it's also more accessible in terms of what people expect. And the ice monsters vs humans makes for a very easy diving in point. Even if I like the culture vs culture approach of Glorantha better.
I see. A lot of people use Dark Ages and Middle Ages for the same thing. But would you count Warhammer fantasy RPG as Dark Ages or just Dark Fantasy?
Whenever I see this question, my response is the same: Hellfrost makes you remember why vanilla is a really great flavor. One of my favorite fantasy settings, and *definitely* my favorite "vanilla" settings. Great plot hooks all over - and I mean *all* over. It captures the right balance of providing tons of information without having a metaplot or straight-jacketing a GM. Plus it is entwined well with Savage Worlds (it has my favorite magic system). The only downside is that it lacks the great maps it deserves. The main map is nifty, but needs about 10x the detail for my likes.
Basically, if you like fantasy, buy it, you won't be disappointed.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733282I see. A lot of people use Dark Ages and Middle Ages for the same thing. But would you count Warhammer fantasy RPG as Dark Ages or just Dark Fantasy?
Warhammer is Fantasy Renaissance. Or at the very least late Medieval period.
Right, now I remember WFRPG had firearms as well. It is about 15 years ago since I played that one. It was the first edition.
Well, Hellfrost seems to be more rules-light than D&D. I think that's why it appeals to me as well.
I've read it and found it very interesting. I've got it on my list of games to run with the kids.
Triple Ace also has a desert game set in the same world as Hellfrost called Land of Fire, with the same production values and writing. (Of course, it's all Wiggy doing the writing.)
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733282I see. A lot of people use Dark Ages and Middle Ages for the same thing. But would you count Warhammer fantasy RPG as Dark Ages or just Dark Fantasy?
It's Dark Fantasy as it's set in an analogue to the Holy Roman Empire and has Landsknechts and gunpowder and the like.
(http://www.landsknechts.com/gallery/var/resizes/Daniel-Hopfer/Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg)
So probably around the year 1500-1550 or so.
Unless people are making a statement about pre-scientific Europe, they're likely not going to include anything but the early middle ages when they say dark ages.
Dark age warriors would be more like this:
(http://www3.villanova.edu/anthro/skeleton/warrior.jpg)
(http://www.essentialnormanconquest.com/images/osehncimages/osehnc00101.JPG)
(http://www.colinhowardartwork.com/images/Childrens/historical_children/1b.%20Viking%20Warrior.jpg)
Quote from: flyerfan1991;733332I've read it and found it very interesting. I've got it on my list of games to run with the kids.
Triple Ace also has a desert game set in the same world as Hellfrost called Land of Fire, with the same production values and writing. (Of course, it's all Wiggy doing the writing.)
Great, it seems Savage Worlds has a lot of settings I like. Deadlands, HellFrost, Day after Ragnarok. It's written in a very clear to the point style and the rules aren't too heavy and not too light either.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733490Great, it seems Savage Worlds has a lot of settings I like. Deadlands, HellFrost, Day after Ragnarok. It's written in a very clear to the point style and the rules aren't too heavy and not too light either.
Triple Ace does have a Musketeer setting for Savage Worlds too, but I've not played it.
It's definitely on my to - get list, if only to mind it for ideas. I'd not exactly call it vanilla fantasy - the accentuation on the Dark Ages (as in early medieval period style culture) itself takes it away from the faux - Age of Chivalry take most vanilla settings have.
Looks like the gazateer is the book to get whether or not you are using SW rules:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-0LwEjcUM
A video more about the player's guide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUd5jNoHbU
A video about region guides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLVKN4blHKo
I like this setting, because it has 30 something different organisations and a lot of regions. I like this, because you can single out one area or one organisation. You don't have to use every region. You might choose to play a campaign in a knight order without ever running into one of the other factions. It's a bit like Fading Suns in that aspect.
Is this what people call a kitchen sink setting? It is different from WoD settings. In those settings the relationship between the factions is a key component of the game. You can't play a changeling game and only use two out four seasonal courts. That doesn't make any sense.
Kurt always pronounces everything wrong. Very funny considering he is a chemistry professor at some university.