A Question on Terminology

[Agamemnon]

The following is from the Introduction chapter of the Beta test. The concept is installed, and the book is set up accordingly, but we've yet to come up with a good term for the actual things. We thought we'd turn it over to you guys.

How to Use This Book
Band of Bastards is based around an idea we can credit Vincent Baker for: Concentric Game Design. The game is divided into four Books within itself of escalating levels of complexity.

Book I contains everything you need to play the absolute core of the game, including task resolution and character creation.
Book II escalates this, including the rules for Full Contests, as well as Melee and Ranged combat sequences.
Book III includes all of the additional optional rules for fighting giant beasts, customizing weapons, and other topics.
Book IV is the province of the Game Master, and includes the rules for generating NPCs and running games in the ‘Bastards style player-driven narrative.

You don’t need to learn or use all of the rules at once, especially if you’re playing with a more experienced group. start with Book I and get used to the basics. It’s even possible to play the game using only the rules from Book I. You’re missing out on a lot, but it can be done. Many groups will be entirely comfortable just using Books I & II for most of their game-play, and certainly for the first few sessions or campaign. When you’ve got a handle on everything else, then you can expand into Book III, or not. Use everything, or just what you want, it’s in your hands.

I'm perfectly fine with calling them Book I-IV, but I thought you guys might have a better idea. Let us know!

[EinBein]

"Book" seems to be the most obvious take. "Circle" might also be good, referring to the circles of enlightenment in some cults

[Marras]

Maybe just add descriptors like

Book I - Basic Rules
Book II - Advanced Rules
Book III - Optional Rules
Book IV - GM's Guide

[hector]

I'd agree with Marras there - sometimes it's best to keep things simple. Fancier names would have made sense for something like Ars Magicka, that focuses specifically on the arcane or the mystical, but yeah, for something like this, I feel that simpler is better.

[Agamemnon]

Maybe just add descriptors like

Book I - Basic Rules
Book II - Advanced Rules
Book III - Optional Rules
Book IV - GM's Guide

That would be in the actual section headings themselves, likely regardless of what we wound up actually calling them.

Book" seems to be the most obvious take. "Circle" might also be good, referring to the circles of enlightenment in some cults

I also considered something like "Initiate, Acolyte, Devotee, and Master." But it seemed a bit pretentious.

"Core, Basic, Advanced, and Master." Is utilitarian, but doesn't seem to be any more flavorful or evocative than Book I-IV. Of course, the potential to spin off might make it worth it. "Basic Bastards" ... "Advanced Blades & Bastards." Higgins will cringe so hard that I'll be able to feel it forty-five thousand miles away.

[Arrow Odd]

Of course, the potential to spin off might make it worth it. "Basic Bastards" ... "Advanced Blades & Bastards." Higgins will cringe so hard that I'll be able to feel it forty-five thousand miles away.

Book III : The Compleat Bastard.




No, I've nothing constructive to add at the moment.

[hector]

Alternatively, it could be structured like the textbook for a guild of thieves - lesson the first, lesson the second and so on.

[Agamemnon]

Alternatively, it could be structured like the textbook for a guild of thieves - lesson the first, lesson the second and so on.

What was the morrowind thieves guild ranks? Toad, Wet Ear, Footpad, Black Cap, Operative, Bandit, Captain, Ringleader and..Mastermind? ha. "I think that's in the footpad book.."

[higgins]

Of course, the potential to spin off might make it worth it. "Basic Bastards" ... "Advanced Blades & Bastards." Higgins will cringe so hard that I'll be able to feel it forty-five thousand miles away.

I was also thinking in the Initiate, Disciple, Scholar, Master lines as well (especially as Master aligns with Game Master so well), but... yeah. Apparently I'm pretentious, then

[Mozusuke]

1.Foundations
2.Confrontations
3.Elaborations (or Refinements, or Extensions)
and... errm....
4.Running the Game? Wisdom of the Cognoscenti?

[Agamemnon]

1.Foundations
2.Confrontations
3.Elaborations (or Refinements, or Extensions)
and... errm....
4.Running the Game? Wisdom of the Cognoscenti?

Foundations, Confrontations, Elaborations, and.. Administrations? ha

That's one to think on.

[Daeruin]

I would think in practical terms of the contexts in which the chapter titles will be used and how natural it will feel to use the various terms.

Example:

"Which rules are you using for your game of Bastards?"

"Basic and Advanced."

[higgins]

"Basic and Advanced."

That's the thing though:
a) even if we disregard GM section, we still have three tiers of rules
b) we already have Basic and Advanced maneuvers

[Marras]

For some reason I liked the Bastard scheme suggested earlier. My take on that is

I - Bastard
II - Big Bastard
III - Total Bastard
IV - Scheming Bastard

Another take would come from the level of players like this

I - Henchman
II - Lieutenant
III - Operator
IV - Schemer

[Daeruin]

I wasn't arguing for those terms per se, just suggesting that practicality should rule the day, and it might help you to decide if you think through actual scenarios in which people will be using the chapter titles. Some names, while creative, can hurt the product if they are too annoying to use.