Worlds of Note: Fantasy worlds worth looking at

Note: This is a repost of an article I posted on my Web site over three years ago. In the process of re-doing the site I felt it was more appropriate as a weblog essay rather than a webpage. I should revisit this, too, to add the Old World of Warhammer FRP and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy.

One of this things I focus on with this Web site is my fantasy campaign world of Mythosa (which should be obvious; I mean, look at the URL!). I have to admit that there have been times in the past, mainly since I graduated from college and entered The Real World™, that I considered switching over to a published setting. I've used them in the past, and I've been tempted to go back to them, mainly to save time. But I can never bring myself to do that; there's just something about creating your own world, mapping it out, populating it with interesting NPCs, monsters, and deities, etc. that keeps me from going with a commercial setting. Other "world builders" can understand where I'm coming from, I'm sure.

There are, however, a number of worlds available that I've always had a liking for, which provide me with ideas, inspiration, or just simple entertainment. These are the worlds that I would consider for my RPGs if I didn't have Mythosa (listed in no particular order):

---

Birthright
link
The Birthright setting is an old TSR setting from AD&D 2nd Edition. There were a lot of elements to it that I found interesting, particularly the "bloodline" concept: in a great, ancient battle, the old gods were killed and their essence entered some of the mortals that were fighting with them. This bestowed upon them and their descendents special powers, which they use as the heroes and rulers of the campaign. "Blooded" characters could even use special means to kill and steal another blooded characters powers (reminds me of Highlander). This, plus rules for "realm magic" and a focus on rulership and politics made Cerilia - the Birthright world - very cool.

---

Forgotten Realms
link
Some time ago, I used to refer to Ed's world as the "Better Left Forgotten Realms". I also used to lack the maturity I (sort of) have now... In any case, for most of the life of the Realms, I didn't care for it - too much magic, too many high-level NPCs running around, etc. The criticisms of the Realms are plentiful on Web forums and mailing lists; no need for me to reiterate what plenty of others have said. I did like Faerûn when it first came out, though. Mainly because it was new, but also because I think Ed did a good job on creating an interesting setting; his articles in Dragon that spoke of people and places in the Realms were happily intriguing. Over time, however, as the TSR editorial and design team took over, I lost a lot of interest in the setting, and I still care little for the old 2E material. But the 3E campaign book for the Realms - now, that, I liked. I know there are some 2E "purists" (for want of a better term) that bemoan the changes in the 3E version, but having a dislike for the 2E books, I have no historical attachment to them. For some of the problems WotC has had in supplemental material for D&D3 (such as virtually leaving out all the details of an entire prestige class in Tome and Blood), I think they did an excellent job with the Forgotten Realms setting book. I was actually tempted to switch to Faerûn...but, of course, I didn't.

---

Hârn
link
My enjoyment of Hârn stems from a time awhile back when I was very much against a high-magic/high-fantasy type of game and wanted something gritty and "realistic" (I'm using quotes since that's a very loaded - and geekily controversial - word when it comes to fantasy gaming). Though my tastes have swung back to more of a high-fantasy preference, Hârn is still one of the coolest worlds out there. The level of detail coupled with great internal consistency as well as some well-done supplements (such as Castles of Hârn) make this an excellent choice for a campaign setting. The only real gripe I have is with Hârn's author, when he gets on his prima donna pedastal harping about how Hârn is so superior to every other world out there due to its "realism". Whatever. Internal consistency is the key to a good world, not how well it parallels medieval Earth.

---

Greyhawk
link
While I have a number of disagreements to the way Gary Gygax did (and does) things, I have to say that his original design of Oerth (Greyhawk) was pretty good. Greyhawk was the first AD&D world I used, and I DM'ed in it for some time. The old "World of Greyhawk" boxed set got a lot of use in my campaigns. There's nothing really different or unique in Greyhawk nowadays, but overall it works as a usable setting.

---

Scarred Lands
link
This d20 setting doesn't break new ground for uniqueness in terms of the fantasy genre, but the way it's put together, the way the various elements are conjoined, is very cool. I think S&SS did a good job in presenting an interesting world that more than justifies the continuous stream of combat and violence that typifies a D&D campaign. There's also a lot of "little" things that I like, such as the city of Mithril. One gripe I have is with some of the terminology (from what I've read in the Ghelspad gazetteer). Terms like "United Provinces of XXX" or "Sovereign Nation of XXX" just seem too "modern" for a quasi-medieval setting. Granted, I realize it's a fantasy world - and just a moment ago I said how "realism" shouldn't be a concern - but I still don't like the modernisms.

---

Talislanta
link
Talislanta is a fantasy world among fantasy worlds. It's very different from the standard D&D-style world (they used to have the slogan "No elves"), and has a lot of interesting races and creatures. It's a little too fantastic for my tastes, but it's nicely different in a meaningful way - not just a bunch of typical fantasy elements with different names.

---

Tékumel
link
Tékumel is one of the oldest game worlds out there - TSR used to publish it as part of the "Empire of the Petal Throne" RPG back in the 70's, right after original D&D came out. Like Talislanta, it's very different from the typical quasi-European, pseudo-medieval, ecto-D&D world. Professor M.A.R. Barker, Tékumel's creator, is a linguist, and it shows - he's created languages, both complete and partial, for this setting (Tolkien is the only other world creator I know of who's done this to the same or greater degree). Tékumel is derived from the mythologies and imagery of Central America, the Middle East, and the Far East, and also includes a lot of strange and unusual creatures that bear little resemblance to the standard fare of most worlds. The rules systems attached to Tékumel over the years have generally been forgettable, but the mystique of the world still persists.

Note: I do have the latest RPG set in this world but I haven't read it yet so I can't comment on how good the rules are yet.

Thoughts about Dragon Magazine: A minor rant about the D&D periodical

Note: This is a repost of an article I posted on my Web site over three years ago (has it been that long? Jeez...). In the process of re-doing the site I felt it was more appropriate as a weblog essay rather than a webpage. I should also note that since I originally wrote this, I feel that Dragon Magazine has improved a fair amount, at least in terms of content. For the most part I still feel the way I did when I originally wrote this - especially in relation to the Dragon covers - but it has gotten better and hopefully that will continue. I do have to say I've gone from reconsidering my subscription a year or two again to looking forward to the new issues, so that's saying something.

I'm a long-time reader of Dragon Magazine, having picked it up every month since issue #98 (which was published over 20 years ago - yes, I feel old). I haven't been overly fond of the magazine for awhile now, but I still get it and read it since it's the flagship D&D magazine. It's not that I don't like the magazine, it's just that it doesn't hold the same appeal that it used to. Part of the reason is that is often more of the same - more prestige classes, more spells, more monsters, more magic items, etc. That gets old after awhile, and it doesn't help that that's what most of the d20 products cover as well - which is why I don't buy too many of them. But the other reason is the presentation, part of which I didn't realize until reading a recent issue.

I've not liked the internal presentation of Dragon for quite some time. It's too busy, too inconsistent, too "hip", I suppose. Granted, lots of magazines are like that; I imagine Paizo is simply keeping up with the other publishers. But I prefer the simplicity the layout had around the time I started reading it: bold article headers, a good serif typeface, the well-done B&W line art from names like Easley and Elmore...it was more a feeling of "here's some good information for your campaign" rather than "lookatthiscoolstuffwowyou'llloveit!" (I think there were more articles that weren't just more "crunchy bits" in the past, too, but I could be wrong). But a reader's letter in issue #302 pointed out something I didn't think much about before: the covers.

Basically, the reader was complaining that Dragon used to have better covers, and after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion. Dragon used to have great covers - wonderful pieces of art. There were titles on the covers, but they were relegated to the top, succintly-written and in a tasteful size and typeface. And they were often scenes of something - an entire picture filled with background, detail, interaction, or sometimes mere contemplation. Now, we generally have a single character (often looking like a cheap comic book extract more than anything), usually posing and looking like some sort of bad-ass, with no background, nothing interesting going, and surrounded by huge titles of all the "kewl" things the reader can expect to find in the issue. Instead of a beautiful piece of art and some hints of the contents inviting you in, Dragon covers are now more like some loud, obnoxious punk rocker jumping in your face and screaming about why you need to rip open the magazine and rock out with all the kick-ass crunch inside. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit here (got on a bit of a roll), but you get the idea.

Granted, Dragon hasn't always followed the "ideal" I put forth above (looking through my CD archive reminds me of that). And the editors are far more professional than when the magazine first came out. Regardless, the visual appeal of the magazine hasn't been there for years. And the more I think about it, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing to buy each month as it is...

On a side note, I would like to say that I have very little to complain about concerning Dragon's sister publication, Dungeon Magazine. I don't read it cover-to-cover, but I do get it to build up a collection of adventures; most of the ones I've run from Dungeon have been pretty good. And Dungeon has a nice, consistent layout...though it suffers from some of Dragon's problems when it comes to covers, though not quite as badly.

Another note: I also like how Dungeon has the "DM articles" in it as well. I don't use half of them, but I still like the idea. It's almost enough to balance out the dislike I have for the "Downer" comic.

Nahal was a Woman?

Huh...

(courtesy ENWorld)

If You Use IE, Upgrade to Version 7 When it Comes Out

It'll make my life a hell of a lot easier since that version is supposed to support alpha transparency for PNGs.

I'm currently re-vamping my website and a number of my graphics are PNGs with an alpha channel. It really makes it easy to blend something in that has, say, a modest drop shadow if the browser will just render it for you on whatever background you have. Firefox supports this, Opera supports it, and a whole bunch of browsers for Macs do as well. Guess which major browser doesn't support transparency with PNGs? Big hint: If you're a PC user, you're probably using it right now (if so, I really recommend switching to Firefox, but that's a discussion for another time).

Now, I can use transparent PNGs with IE, but it's a bigger pain-in-the-ass than it should be. All the other browsers just support the functionality so you just drop your graphics in with the standard img tag. Redmond's browser of choice, however, requires a convoluted process which will also give you a warning about running "unsafe content". Using the exact coding that Microsoft describes on their website. Every day I think more and more about switching to Linux or even one of them shiny Macs...

Fortunately, IE 7 is supposed to support transparent PNGs, so I should be able to use one codebase for my pages rather than having to check what browser someone is using and then write the appropriate HTML then (Note: IE will display PNGs, but it won't handle their alpha channels, if they have any).

The Muppet Matrix

In case you haven't seen this yet: The Muppet Matrix.

I liked it. It also reminded me of what a masterpiece the original Matrix was, and what god-awful pieces of crap the sequels were.

Print Media Industry: Inconveniencing People is not a Viable Business Model

This isn't really gaming related but it's something that annoys me. Warning - there will naughty language.

I stopped at Best Buy this afternoon to pick up a new wireless mouse. When I'm checking out, the kid at the register asks me which of the three free magazines I want a subscription to. I don't want any; I read very few print magazines these days, and I have no interest in Time, Entertainment Weekly, or Sport Illustrated. He says that you get eight months for free but at the end it's up to you to opt-in to continue getting the magazine. I'm not interested in taking any longer than I have to so I just say sure. But when I'm running my debit card through the machine, there's a notice that I'm giving Best Buy or the publisher or whoever permission to charge my card automatically (wow, how convenient!) at the end of the "free" trial. That doesn't jive with what the kid told me, and I tell him to get rid of the magazine crap entirely. I guess he figures that sending in a card to opt-out is no different from not sending in a card to opt-in. There's a big difference, because while it's not that much effort, why the fuck should I have to make the effort to tell someone to not bill me or send me something I didn't want in the first place?

The other problem with this is that it often doesn't work. Case in point: the local newspapers often tie some sort of charity crap with high schools or programs to get people to donate money. It's one of those things where you give a donation to a youth center or a high school program and you get a "free" subscription to the paper for a limited time. Then, they start billing you. In the past we used to contribute and we'd get the paper (which went promptly into the recycle bin (despite the uselessness of recycling, but that's a discussion for another time); we get our news from TV and the Internet), then we'd have to say tell them to cancel, but the fuckers (the paper, not the original people asking for contributions) would keep sending it. It was a pain in the ass to finally get them to stop. We've even told the people in the past that we were fine with donating money but we didn't want the paper. And still we'd get it. Whether the person messed up or whether the paper ignored our request, I don't know (I highly suspect the latter).

It's obvious that the popularity of many print magazines and newspapers - especially newspapers - is in decline; if it wasn't, they wouldn't have to pull shit like that. But this sort of thing really, really annoys me. All it's doing is driving people away faster. Pissing people off or making it a hassle for them to deal with you is not a viable business model for long-term success.

OK, rant over :)

Funny Hoax Thread on ENWorld

Even before I read this, it was obvious that the OP was trolling in this thread. I mean, c'mon. I can't point to anything specific, perhaps just the tone of the poster. Or maybe I've just seen too much of that on Usenet :)

I was reading the original ENWorld thread and it boggled my mind that people were getting suckered in by it. When I read the other thread I just had to laugh.

Yeah, a bunch of people are all pissed off about it now. I don't care; lighten up, ignore it, or do something else. I thought it was funny, and that's all that matters.

It kind of reminds me of the article I read awhile back about the members of alt.tasteless "invading" rec.pets.cats. Now that was classic. And, no, I don't hate cats (we wouldn't own three of the furballs if I did...though technically it was only supposed to be two).