The past is the future

Complaining about the costs of our hobby is common among us gamers, and always has been, as the letter below illustrates. What's interesting is that prices haven't changed all that much in the past 12 years (using his figures). RPGs and minis tend to be higher (though not by a whole lot, and you can still get some RPGs for $30), but supplements in the $15-$30 range are still common.

I am concerned with the ever-rising prices in the gaming industry. I understand that prices rise due to inflation and such, but some of the prices I’ve seen recently have driven me to write this letter. A little over a year ago, a pack of lead miniatures with four figures cost $4.00. Now, a pack of two or three miniatures made from lead-free metal costs anywhere from $6.95-$8.95 or higher. There also is a need for more common monsters and such to be produced in a wider variety of poses. Games also have been affected. The average price of an RPG now is close to $30.00! And supplements for them average from $15.00 to $30.00 also. I know that the companies making these products are in business to make money, but how can you get people involved in a hobby that keeps getting more and more expensive every day?

- Dragon #213, Jan 1995 (Forum letter)

Your wish came true, Dale

From Dragon #210 (October 1994), in response to a letter:

The MAGIC game also has exposed many new people to the gaming industry and the industry only can benefit from such an influx of new gamers in the long run. I wish WotC luck, and I hope to see new WotC products for a long time (especially since WotC picked up one of my favorite FRPGs, the ARS MAGICA* game).

- Dale Donovan, Dragon editor

Mythosa Design Notes III: Religion

The previous incarnation of Mythosa took a cue from White Wolf's Scarred Lands and had a religious system based on the nine alignments. At one time I liked this but I eventually found it somewhat limiting. As such, I wanted to open things up a bit. I was also reading Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories and thought that it might be cool to have a world dominated by dark powers (evil gods, demon lords, etc.), with very few, if any, good religions. Interesting but ultimately a little too dark for my tastes. On the other hand, I still liked the idea of a limited following for the "good" deities - it's a built-in plot device for clerics and paladins, giving them a reason to proselytize and crusade for their religion.

I also liked the idea (hardly original) of a dichotomy between the "primitive" nature religion ("Faith of the Old Mother") and the "civilized" religions (the "New Gods"). Often the nature god/goddess and druids are simply relegated to the "neutral" square of a campaign matrix. They have some unique traits but everything tends to fit together in a nice package. I liked the idea instead to have a genuine philosophical conflict between the two, particularly since it's not the standard "good versus evil". George R. R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice has something like this (RuneQuest comes to mind as well, though they take RPG religion to an entirely different level).

Mythosa Design Notes II: The Overall Theme

The primary theme of Mythosa is that the world is a dangerous, chaotic place, with small bastions of civilization scattered here and there. Travel is perilous and humanity clings to a handful of city-states and walled towns that dot the countryside. This, again, sounds like it was taken from 4E with its assumption of "points of light" campaigns. It is essentially the same concept, but I had the idea for this long before we learned about that part of 4E. Inspiration came from a variety of sources, including but not limited to:

• Robert E. Howard's Hyboria (the world of Conan)
• Fritz Leiber's Nehwon (Lankhmar, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser)
• Jack Vance's Dying Earth books
• Michael Moorcock's Young Kingdoms (Elric)
• Edgar Rice Burroughs's Mars books (John Carter)
• Bob Bledsaw's Wilderlands of High Fantasy (D&D campaign setting from Judges Guild)
• Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories
• Ancient Greece (Sparta, Athens, etc.)
• Renaissance Italy (Venice, Florence, Genoa, etc.)

In another sense, Mythosa is meant to be post-apocalyptic, in a fantasy sense. That doesn't mean that the world was once technological and has "reverted" to medieval fantasy after a global nuclear war, or even something along those lines (like Shannara or the world of Wheel of Time). Rather, it's more like Europe during the Dark Ages, after the collapse of the Roman Empire - if the collapse of the empire occurred over the course of five years or so.

In any case, the above settings and the overall theme that emerges from them make for a world that reasonably justifies the degree of violence in a typical D&D campaign. Not that there's not room for other elements (politics, trade, etc.), but it's nice to have a milieu where all the killing and looting are at least somwhat rationalized.

More Commentary on World Creation

This is a bit of a stream-of-consciousness rant, so I apologize in advance if it's not clear or rambles on...

I've been working on the Mythosa revision lately and I've come to a realization that I should have come to years ago. Ray Winninger [sp?] said it in Dragon years ago, and others have echoed it: Don't create more than you have to. I've always given lip service to that idea but I haven't followed it as much as I should have. The reason I say this is that as I've been working on the wiki entries for the new Mythosa I've been at time hard-pressed to describe the features of a particular mountain range, woodland, or other geographical feature. For the previous version and this one I've been using the common model you find in such examples as the old 3.0 D&D Gazetteer and the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands. But looking at the old Mythosa gazetteer, I've come to a simple conclusion: I wasted a heck of a lot of time on needless details.

Not that details are bad. But coming up with them when you don't need them or when they really don't matter is a bit of a waste. Not every river, for instance, needs to be named right away. Not every clump of trees needs some fabulous secret. Unless there's something particularly special about a geographical feature, it really doesn't need much description. Especially since what you write will be ignored if necessary in the course of running a campaign.

This may sound like a minimalist approach, but that's not entirely true. For instance, I've still created a map of the "known world" even though there are places where the PCs may never get to. But I do want a framework in place for consistency and to give me a starting point if something needs further development. The problem for me is that in the past I've tended to go overboard and come up with details that go beyond the framework but really are something that won't be used.

Another area where I usually overdo it is history. Let's face it - for the vast majority of players, they couldn't give a monkey's red butt about the intricate and detailed history you've woven for your homebrew. And, again, these are usually pretty boilerplate: elves were the first race to learn magic, dwarves have been on the decline due to orcs and their kind, the past had an ancient empire (or empires) that littered the countryside with ruins and treasure troves, at least one major cataclysm altered the world years ago, etc. We usually present it as a big "info dump" to our players and then wonder why they aren't as enraptured with our creation as we are. Personally, I'm much more of a "let's explore the world" type of player than a "gimme XP and phat l00t" one, but even I can't find myself really that interested in just poring over a GM's 75-page campaign world history.

In that regard, I've decided to limit the history of the new Mythosa to no more than a few printed pages. Part of the reason is that, as I said, players don't care, and part is to give myself enough leeway to make alterations without having to resort to retconning. Recent history will be relatively well-known, but past that the only things will be the major events (cataclysms, divine wars, etc.). The in-game justification for this is that the major cataclysm of Mythosa took place only a few decades prior to much history was lost.

However, there's another reason for this. Earlier I said that the players don't care. Except for the number cruncher/power fantasy folks that would probably be better served with an MMORPG, that's not exactly right. Players can appreciate your world's detail, history, etc., but it needs to be delivered in such a way that it's relevant to them. As the writers say, "Show, don't tell." Slapping a 200-page printout on the table and hoping your players read it and enjoy it is unrealistic. But involving the details of the world in your actual game - that's something else entirely. Get the players involved and they may start to appreciate what you've created. That's not to say that they should be creating parts of your world (though why not?), but the greater their stake, the more they'll care about this town or that forest or how navigable a particular river is.

How do you do this? That's an exercise I leave to the reader - mainly because I don't have too many good examples. Mini-info dumps during play ain't it (i.e.; a sage relates a full page of text to them). I'll try to post some examples as I think of them and/or use them in the future.

Some Disjointed Rambling about D&D Economics

The other day I ran across this post and this post, both concerning economics in fantasy RPGs. Realistic economics in a d20 fantasy setting is something I've struggled with for years. Some people would argue that it's not worth the effort due to the assumptions built into the game (and I can't say I completely disagree).

The Rampant Games blog article makes some valid points and basically says that the RAW don't account for scarcity, which Economics 101 tells us is the basis for economic systems to begin with. But he also points out that a detailed economic system is not something he'd appreciate or notice as a player, which I think is something that holds true for most players.

The intricate economic system that Scott describes at the Shrapnel Games post sounds great but ultimately, rather useless. His final solution is basically the same sort of thing that I do - use the existing system from the books but add some enhancements (though I'm actually not even doing that at the moment). I've found that with those sorts of details in regards to D&D that "good enough" is, well, good enough.

I've tried various things in the past. My most recent system, which was handled by an Excel spreadsheet, incorporated available quantities, rarity factors (i.e.; if you wanted X you couldn't find it for Y gp but it was available for 3*Y gp), timing, legality, etc. All that amounted to was a lot of extra work that bored the players in my old group. Granted, most of the people in that group had pretty much given up on tabletop after becoming hardcore WoW players, but even with the other players I have now and have had in the past, they wouldn't have cared much for it either. Heck, it's not something I'd enjoy as a player.

Elsewhere, S John Ross and others have said something that should be obvious but bears repeating. If you're going to add something to your game that involves more work or calculations or whatever, make sure it adds to the value (i.e.; fun) of the game. If it doesn't then you really need to ask yourself why you're putting it in. A complex economic system is definitely something that needs to be reviewed. Unless the game is centered around caravans and mercantilism, then what's really added by making sure that the price of axes reflects the shortage of wood in the neighboring duchy or forcing PCs to constantly visit the moneychanger when they visit a new city? Exceptions are one thing ("swords are now 10x the cost due to the orc raids on the iron mines to the west"), but they aren't a constant - they're there to enhance the gameplay experience and perhaps provide adventure hooks.

I would argue, though, that using the RAW system isn't that unrealistic. In the real world, the more rare something is, generally the more expensive it is, if there's demand for it. That's definitely an oversimplification (it ignores a multitude of other factors) but for most people, that's good enough. Another advantage is that the RAW really only requires one variable to be maintained: how much gold you put into the campaign. That's useful as I've found over the years that some players will do their utmost to exploit the subsystems of your game, whether built-in or tacked-on. The more variables you have in your system, the easier it is for them to find a way to break it to their advantage.

On World Creation

I was recently reading an article by Robin Laws that got me thinking and inspired this post. The question that came to mind - and actually something I've asked myself in the past - is this: Why have I created my own world rather than use an existing one?

If I were a publisher, put Mythosa in print, and was trying to sell it at Gen Con or some other convention, one of the questions I would likely get asked multiple times is: How is this world different from the other ones on the market? A perfectly legitimate question and one I would ask myself. Mythosa doesn't have a particular "hook" like Midnight's "Sauron won" or Ravenloft's "world of gothic horror". It's pretty much "bog standard" fantasy. In that category, some that come to mind that we already have include Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Hârn, the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Scarred Lands (though OOP), Aereth (Goodman Games DCC #35), and Kalamar. What does Mythosa have that these other settings lack? Besides the omission of halflings and gnomes, which isn't really a selling point for many (though maybe for some).

The answer to that question is, honestly, not much. My world (or the new version) probably falls between Greyhawk and the Wilderlands; it may also bear a resemblance to the 4E Realms, but not to the 3E incarnation. So, why am I spending my time re-inventing the wheel when countless others have fleshed out these other settings?

This is a question you could also pose to the various world-builders elsewhere on the 'Net. Sometimes you'll find something a little unusual, but generally the worlds are familiar enough that the average player would be home in any of them. So why the bother?

Some people undoubtedly feel they can do a better job than Bledsaw, Greenwood, Crossby, or whoever. More often than not, they simply regurgitate the same memes and themes that we've seen before, but no better (and often worse) than the aforementioned authors. However, I believe that for most of us, it's simply the desire to create. It doesn't matter that we're running games in a world that's like Middle-Earth or Oerth with the serial numbers filed off - the key is that we're running games in a world that's our's. More than once I've considered dumping Mythosa and running my campaigns in Greyhawk, the Wilderlands, Hârn, or even the Forgotten Realms. And I have used all of them (well, not Hârn, but I have a number of Hârn books) at least one time or another. But in general, I'm not "comfortable" running in someone else's creation - to truly be happy, I need to be both the manager of the world and its maker.

Certainly, there are advantages to running your own world. You don't need to worry as much about breaking continuity since the only canon is what you've created. Your players may get a greater sense of mystery since they can't buy the latest novel or sourcebook about your world. But those are just side benefits. It's that feeling of being the one to decide what goes where and why it's there in the first place that drives us.

Laws's article still has me thinking about what I can do to make my world unique. It has received its fair share of compliments (for which I am grateful), but it's still something I keep in the back of my mind, particularly as I work on the new version.

Magic Item Availability in D&D

I was reading this post at the "Tales of the Rampant Coyote" and it got me to thinking. Like the author and some of the commenters I also favor the more "magic rare" style of campaign where magic is special and not a medieval substitute for technology. You hear that a lot and yet the norm is magic as a commodity (and that was the case long before MMORPGs). So is this just something you hear from the DM/GM types? My guess is yes.

Though in the defense of players, often you end up in a game with a mediocre DM such that you need something to make the game more interesting, since the setting and storyline doesn't hold much promise for you. From a CRPG standpoint, I tend to equate this a comparison between Diablo and Ultima. The Diablo games were cool but ultimately they were just Nethack with better graphics and sound and awesome cutscenes. Ultima drew you into the world in such a way that combat wasn't the norm, it was more the exception. And there was enough to hold your interest that you didn't need to be distracted by shiny new magic items. I'm not saying Diablo wasn't fun, because it was, but we're talking two types of gaming experiences.

Dragon Magazine Commentary #3

Myriad tidbits this time:

Issue #152, "The Game Wizards"
Wow, Jim Ward really comes off as a prima donna douchebag in this column. That probably wasn't his intention, though from other things he's written it's obvious he has a rather large ego.

Ken Rolston's Reviews
I like a lot of what he's written, but he really comes off as a pompous elitist in the reviews he used to do for Dragon. Whether 18 years ago or today, the "my nerd activity is superior to your nerd activity" attitude is simply ridiculous.

The More Things Change...
In issue #185, Roger Moore (one of the best editors Dragon ever had, IMO) addresses someone who wrote in complaining that Second Edition was targeting too wide of an audience, claiming the game used to be for "smart people" and too many children were now playing. Besides the fact that more people (like children!) playing is a good thing, this smacks of many of the same complaints we heard about Third Edition, and what we're hearing about Fourth Edition.

..the More They Stay the Same
In a letter in issue #186 (October 1992), titled "Dying Breed", the writer complained: "When I first started reading DRAGON Magazine, it seemed to be tailored to folks like myself. Now I'm reduced to Dragonmirth. Listen, I know the gaming industry is changing, but how about remembering those players who have been with you for years and helped get the gaming industry where it is today?"

Warhammer Building Set Mini Review

I recently picked up Games Workshop's Warhammer Building Set. I hadn't planned on getting the big box, but I had store credit to burn and, as they say, I couldn't afford not to take advantage of the savings!

The full set (which may not be available anymore; I believe it was a limited release) contains one Watchtower, one Chapel, two Walls and Fences sets, and a Fortified Manor (which is really a Watchtower, Chapel, and Walls/Fences with some extra pieces to combine the tower and chapel and some extra walls for the manor's court).

I've been very slowly assembling the buildings and have primed all the walls and fences; a few of the latter have been painted. Once painted, they look pretty good, though I highly recommend following the picture on the box and covering the bases with static grass. The bases have little definition and look crappy otherwise.

The towers and chapels glue together fairly well. I was surprised, as I expected more flimsiness, but they fit nicely with few gaps. The gaps can be filled in with "green stuff" or some other filler. The instructions from GW are a little ambitious; they instruct you to glue together multiple parts of walls at the same time. I found it easier to do sections at a time (i.e.; the four bottom parts of the tower walls), let the glue dry sufficiently, and then do the next section (i.e.; the four upper parts of the tower walls, glued to the lower parts and each other).

There are tons of little extras to add: hanging ornaments, rifles for the tower battlements, statues, flagpoles, wooden supports, alternate windows, etc. They transform the buildings from simple affairs to the baroque structures you see in Warhammer pictures. There's also enough extras that you can apply them to other buildings you might make or buy.

I won't be painting the buildings until spring, but I plan on having the fences and walls done by the end of winter. Overall, I'm pleased with the set and recommend it if you're comfortable with assembling and painting the components yourself. Note (for whatever it's worth) that I'm going to be using mine for D&D since I don't play WFB.

Nerd Wars Revisited: WoW Players, Guess What - You're Dorks Too

I was perusing this thread on the WoW forums about the new WoW miniatures game, and a couple comments made me laugh:

That's a pretty expensive game of Dorks and Dragons you have there.

It looks like Geekfest 08. Count me out.

'Cuz, you know, countless hours playing WoW isn't a geek activity or somehow is "cooler" than people who play D&D.

I just love people with attitude "my nerd activity is less dorky than your's".

Please Retire this Anti-4E Cliche

WotC no longer considers me part of their target audience.

I think we've heard this one often enough to retire it.

And, really, no one cares.

KTHXBAI!

More Dragon Magazine Commentary #1

As I've mentioned before, I've been gradually working my way through the PDFs of Dragon from the old compilation CDs (the 5-disc set with issues 1-250). Here are some random comments to add to what has come before.

In light of the continuing drama between tabletop RPGs and games like Warcraft, the editorial in issue #146 (June 1989) is interesting. Titled R.I.P.: RPGs?, it talks about how computer RPGs are improving and what some of their advantages are compared to tabletop games. It's actually more positive or speculative rather than the usual defensive essay (you know, the ones that talk about how computers can never replace the tabletop experience and all that; the same thing people are saying 18 years later). I found the last paragraph amusing: "Will computer RPGs eventually replace paper RPGs? The future will tell. And DRAGON Magazine will be around to find out."

My opinion, as I've said before, is that there is a place in the future for both - it just depends on what you want out of the game. Though I think tabletop games will become more hybridized than they already are as portable "computing power" becomes more ubiquitous. I personally use a laptop to run my games like many GMs, and with more powerful PDAs and other portable devices coming along with lower prices, I think we'll see more of that.

4th Edition: The Only Opinion That Really Matters...

...is mine, of course!

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised so far. A small part of me suspected that the crowd that wants to see D&D tank (comprised mainly of certain competing publishers spreading FUD as well as old edition grognards) would be correct - 4E would be completely miniatures-based to push the DDM figs. Granted, the game will be presented as if you must have miniatures - specifically DDM - to play, but from the sounds of it it'll be no more miniature-centric than 3.5 (which, despite people's complaints, can play just fine without minis).

I'm also surprised to hear that the OGL/d20 license will continue. The crowd above as well as plenty of non-haters figured the license would be killed with 4E, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Not a big deal for the few commercial interests left doing d20 (Necromancer, Goodman, etc.), since they could have had a licensing deal with WotC for product. But it's still nice for the amateur PDF press. Sure, lots of their product is crap, but there's some good stuff out there as well. The PDF publishers also can fill in various niches quite nicely.

Will I switch sight-unseen? Of course not. But I'm optimistic so far. And gosh - my 3.5 books haven't burst into flame and been rendered completely useless! Am I happy about the fact that they're going to be out of date? No, but it's not an issue with 4E for me - the money I spent on most of them was wasted to begin with; 4E isn't at fault for that.

I've been amusing myself much of the day listening to the wailing about how terrible this is...just like when 3.5 came out and just like when 3.0 came out. Granted, it sucks if you just dropped $100+ a month ago on 3.5 books (and I do understand the ire towards WotC since they basically implied 6 months ago that 4.0 was at least a couple years away), but for the people that have been playing for awhile - if you don't want to buy 4.0, don't buy it. Keep playing 3.5. Just quite complaining about how that's what you're going to do. I really don't see what that's going to accomplish (it's too late for WotC to change their plans), and just as most people switched to 3.0, then 3.5, they'll switch to 4.0.

For the people that are really, really upset - lighten up: it's a fucking game. And yes, I understand how much time and energy you may have invested in it (a look at my website should make that obvious). But realize - this investment is in a private, commercial property. Having editions change is a risk you take with that investment, whether you realize it or not. Now, you minimize your risk if you stick with 3.5 (just as people have who stuck with 1E or 2E). But it tends to be easiest to attract people if you're playing the latest version. That may suck for you, but that's reality - accept it and deal with it. In my experience, it's not really that difficult to find players for any edition anyway.

Death in D&D

One of the arguments in yet another tired "old vs new edition" thread on ENWorld is that character death is a far more rare occurrence in 3E versus the old editions.

Bullocks.

It's all about the DM and the players. My current 3E campaign has had numerous deaths, probably on par with any of my old campaigns. I've had other campaigns, however, were death was a rare occurrence, mainly because it was easier to run things that way than to put up with the whining when the occasional death would occur.

The argument about "everything has to be balanced in 3E" is also a load of crap. People are confusing the concept of a guideline with a rule. Nothing says "every encounter the PCs have must match their CR". The system is there so as a DM you can get a rough idea of how tough something will be.

Ah, well. It's not like these sorts of arguments haven't been going on for...what, 30 years now?

Blogdump

Lots of little things, I'll just group them together today.

Mythosa Chronicle: The articles for the next issue are ready, I just need to get off my backside and get a map done and some art pieces. The main article for the issue after that is also written (thank god for the productivity of my daily train commute), so things should get moving again on that.

Mythosa Hex Map: A full hex map of Mythosa is done; I just need to decide on a coordinate system. This is mainly for my campaign, but I'll post it here when it's done.

TableSmith 5.1: A minor update is coming soon. Just a couple of minor features to finish.

Economics: People - it's not a "zero-sum" game. Please learn some of the basics.

Hmm...I thought I had more, but that's about it for now I guess. I'll have to do better in the future - the above seems rather "Twitter-esque" (I really don't get the appeal of that site). More later if need be.

The More Things Change... revisited

Lately, I've been going through the PDFs of Dragon from the old compiliation CD set (containing issues #1-#250). I've mentioned it before, but I still get amused by the similarities between "then" (primarily the 1980's) and now. Many people will argue how heavily different 3.x is compared to previous editions of D&D, but while mechanically the systems are different, attitudes, styles, and opinions really haven't changed in the past 20-25 years. People complain now how every player is trying to play a knock-off of Drizz't or Elminster; back then, people complained that players were ripping off Conan and Gandalf. Nowadays, people claim that the rules are too complicated (especially compared to the far simpler 1E!) and endorse Castles & Crusades or True20 as alternatives; 20 years ago, people were complaining that 1E was too complicated and endorsed playing the boxed D&D line. Today, people lament how there are too many new rules with d20 supplements and books from WotC; but back when Unearthed Arcana came out, there was an uproar among some about how there were now too many new rules and new options for 1E.

As the saying goes, the more things have changed the more they've stayed the same.

Here's another little snippet I found amusing (from Dave Cook talking about Second Edition AD&D around 1987): "Ultimately, there will be people out there who will be playing Version 1.0, Version 1.5, Version 2.0, and probably even Version 2.3 of the AD&D game. Perhaps we should figure out some type of numbering system like that used on computer programs!"

D&D (or WotC) Heading for the Auction Block?

By now, everyone's heard that WotC didn't renew Paizo's license for Dragon or Dungeon magazines. Now, we find out that the Dragonlance license isn't being renewed. Coincidence? Quite possibly, but who knows?

My theory (which is just as half-baked and lacking in evidence as any other floating around the 'Net) is that WotC is consolidating its D&D assets to sell off the property. Or Hasbro is preparing to sell off WotC.

The September issues of Dragon and Dungeon (out in August) will be the last. The Dragonlance movie is supposed to come out in September (according to IMDB). If successful, it could prove a boon to the property.

Is this a good thing? Given the hate so many fans have for Hasbro, it could be. It's certainly better than the alternative - 4th Edition released early and the d20 license killed.

Anyway, just a thought...the only people who know what's going on aren't telling.

Mini-Review: The Dungeoneer: The Adventuresome Compendium of Issues 1-6

I recently bought a pack of Dungeoneer magazines on eBay; The Dungeoneer was published by Judges Guild ages ago, during the Original D&D and AD&D 1st Edition days. I get a kick out of a lot of the old stuff so I pick up Judges Guild material from time to time.

Anyway, this is the first item in the pack that I read through. Wow...a complete waste. Not even worth scouring for ideas, given all the other RPG books and files (PDFs, etc.) that I have. Granted, this stuff was put together in the 70's, but that doesn't make it any more useful. There a few good ideas (such as an NPC Idiosyncracies article), but these have been done time and time again, and anything more recent is less likely to require much mechanical conversion. The overt sexism is quaint, too; a product of the times, I suppose.

Was this stuff good back in 1977? Quite possibly, except for some of the truly ridiculous elements like the DNA Monster or the Tin Foil Monster. But is it worth having today? Not at all. Only a diehard collector would want this (or someone who doesn't know better...like me!). I sold it at the local game store auction, so apparently someone wanted it.

No opened-ended game was addictive prior to Warcraft...

A recent blog post [Editor's Note: I wrote this piece and lost the original link unfortunately, but most of what I say here is still relevant] was rather amusing (though more amusing are the rationalizations in the comments there or other places it's being discussed, like Slashdot, from people who obviously have a problem but can't admit it yet). What I found most interesting is that a lot of the complaints about WoW are the same things people complained about with RPGs - well, pretty much just D&D - back in the early 80's. That whole "open-ended" thing really throws people.

That's not to say that addiction isn't a concern. Rather, it's just ridiculous that this is treated as something new. Before WoW you had this with EverQuest, and before that D&D, and parallel to that golf or whatever.

Anyway, this post isn't to discuss the mental state of WoW guild raiders, but rather some thoughts that occurred to me. On tabletop RPG forums it's not uncommon to find discussions debating tabletop gaming versus online gaming, and which one is "better" and what advantages each has. One advantage cited about MMORPGs is that you can play them whenever you want for as long as you want. With a tabletop RPG, you have to find a time for everyone to meet, and physical constraints limit the time you play (when people can arrive from work, or when they need to get to bed, how long it takes to drive to someone's house to play, the amount of prep time involved, etc.).

It occurred to me in reading a comment about the post on Slashdot that that in fact may be an advantage to tabletop games versus online games. Scheduling and travel can be a hassle, but the fact that a tabletop session is something you can't just do at a drop of a hat (generally) should make those sessions more meaningful. The physical constraints encourage a deeper game experience, and thus one could argue that a tabletop game represents "quality" to an MMORPG's "quantity" - i.e.; preventing too much of a "good thing".

Of course, that's complete crap if you have a Gamemaster who doesn't care to put enough effort into the game or if the players are just on a power fantasy trip and don't care if they ruin the experience for the rest of the group. Not to mention that you can have MMORPG sessions that are just as fun as a good tabletop session. Though one would expect a higher proportion that are boring (how many times can you run the same instance before the fun evaporates? And what's fun about farming?). Appropriate analogies could be listening to a band's CDs (MMORPG) versus seeing them in concert (tabletop), or watching a TV show (MMORPG) versus seeing a movie based on the show (tabletop).

Again, you have to have a good group of people. I can recall some AD&D sessions I played in not too long ago that really blew, such that I was thinking how I'd rather have been playing WoW at the time. It didn't help that the DM and half the players were of the "old school" mentality (which is a misnomer since that thinking is still prevelant in new, on-line games) that basically dictated pounds of tediousness for every ounce of fun.

Anyway, this is more of a stream-of-consciousness than anything. More to the point may be the idea that tabletop sessions should stress quality, since the quantity part of the equation is being addressed (and more efficiently than possible for a tabletop game).

Okay - the CRD is pretty cool

I had no plans on getting WotC's Colossal Red Dragon miniature. It didn't look all that great, and for $75? Too much. I did pick up the Gargantuan Black Dragon, since that was more reasonably priced ($30). That one didn't impress me with the pictures I saw either, but when I saw it in person it was pretty cool.

Then I saw a CRD in a local game store. Dammit...

$75 was still too much, so I went to Amazon, where (with shipping) it only came to $56. Still pricey, but closer to an acceptable price (I was hoping to get one for $50). Yes, I know you're supposed to support your FLGS, but as I said, at $75 I wasn't going to buy it anyway. And given everything else I buy at the local game stores (3.5 books, d20 stuff, Reaper figs, Flames of War stuff, scenery, paints, etc.), they're not hurting for my business.

Anyway, while I probably will never get the chance to use the dragon in my games (either one, actually), it's still very cool and worth having.

As the Young People say: "QFT"

From this thread on ENWorld:

Assuming that players will deliberately handicap themselves out of some sense of "narrativism" is one of the poorest examples of game design there is.

Do people do it? Sure. Should you assume they will? No (unless maybe you've designed some sort of ultra-niche indy-game that will have a maximum audience of about 15).

The thread is the typical "3.x sucks because it's all about combat/minis/builds/etc. and not about characters, story, etc." Really, really getting tired of those (the real ones, not the trolls). It's amazing how AD&D 1E has somehow become the Greatest Storytelling RPG of all time. And how guidelines are holy writ and one cannot deviate from them.

Play what you like, avoid what you don't, and have fun. But keep some friggin' perspective...

Great Mapping Tool for MasterMaze

If you use MasterMaze scenery from Dwarven Forge, you'll want to visit this site. It contains tiles for MasterMaze for a program called "Tile System" (originally created to make maps for FFG's Doom game). The "photos" sets work the best.

It's nice to find this kind of thing - it saves me from having to write it myself.

"I've been coddling you with those Arduin critical hit tables for too damn long."

I read this account of a D&D game a few years ago at RPG.Net. It's hilarious when it's not outrageously offensive.

The WotC "Delve Format"

Last month the WotC Design & Development column introduced the "Delve Format". I won't go into detail about it here since you can read about it at the link. Some people have lamented the idea because it suggests to them that 4th Edition is going to be a miniatures-based game and this is the evidence. I think that's a little premature since the article itself says that the actual published format will be different and the samples shown are from what they used at GenCon.

In any case, I think the idea is great and makes me wonder why this was never done sooner? Give the DM everything they need for a room/encounter right there. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Referring to this as a "user interface" probably has some people freaking out as well for whatever reason (as if some people on Web forums need a valid reason to freak out). Granted, it is a little wasteful paper-wise since you're reprinting material that you have elsewhere. But if you did this in, say, a PDF or with some sort of software, and the DM is using a computer at the gaming table, then it's perfect.

It's partially similar to how I prepare my homebrew adventures - I don't draw out the maps, I do the layout with MasterMaze pieces and then take pictures from overhead with my digital camera. The next natural step would be to do what WotC's doing.

There may be an issue with the room layout representing a "moment in time" rather than a "living, organic setting", but who cares? That's how a lot of the old Judges Guild stuff was made and people liked that. And, at least in the case of an old-fashioned dungeon crawl, why do you need more than that? Let's face it - each room or encounter has one purpose, and that's to engage the party at that moment in time. Once the encounter is over, it's over. So rather than waste time on an intricate rationale for a room with a backstory and whatnot, find a moment in time for the inhabitants of that room/area, freeze it, and present that during the game.

Not sure if that makes sense. And I'm not speaking out against depth - I'm simply stating what's practical in most situations.

Old Role-Aids Supplements On Sale - Cheap!

For those of you who haven't seen this yet, Mayfair is getting rid of a lot of their old Role-Aids stuff at very low prices. These are physical books, not PDFs.

"Back in the day", the Role-Aids books were generally considered to be pretty good. TSR was churning out mediocre material for AD&D while Mayfair was producing higher quality AD&D-compatible adventures and sourcebooks. I had a number of Role-Aids books (and still have a few of them), so I'd say this is worth checking out if you're a D&D/AD&D fan. Conversion is necessary if you want to use them with 3.5, but they're worth the ideas if nothing else.

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)

AD&D Action Figures

Remember these? I had a few when I was a kid, though I never realized there were as many as there are.

They're pretty crude, even by early 80's standards. Warduke still kicks ass though :)

Tabletop vs. MMO - An Important Point to Keep in Mind

From this post on ENWorld:

And there's a big gap between what can be done with tabletop and what is done. [Emphasis mine]

This is a big point that a lot of tabletop defenders tend to forget. While the possibilities are virtually endless for a tabletop game, how many GMs or groups take advantage of them? Some people like to point out that certain things can't be done in a computer game because it hasn't been programmed for it (you can't swim in Neverwinter Nights, rogues can't scale sheer surfaces in WoW, etc.). But many people don't take advantage of the flexibility that a tabletop game offers. Worse, many people (particularly players of "player power-favoring" systems like D&D/d20) assume that games cannot deviate from the existing rules in any way regardless of whether the deviation is on the part of the GM or the players - often assuming that if a rule doesn't exist to cover some action, it cannot be done in the game. Some examples I've read or personally experienced (quotes are not verbatim):

• "You can't have a DR over 15 - that breaks the game."
• "I can't try to hamstring that ogre; I don't have a feat for that."
• "If you want to mess around with the abilities/powers/whatever that lower-planar creatures have, you can only do it with demons. Devils must adhere to how they are written exactly in the Monster Manual since they're Lawful."
• "If a spell in the Player's Handbook can't lift that curse, then there's nothing that can be done about it."

With attitudes like that, going outside the rules (or what the game has pre-programmed for you) isn't even a consideration, so the advantage a tabletop game has is lost. (Note for the over-literal: Yes, the rules exist for a reason but that doesn't mean that you can't do or try to do something that's not covered if you have a good reason).

Is this Original D&D set worth $4000?

Someone bought this for over $4000!

Now, I like the old TSR, Judges Guild, etc. stuff as much as the next D&D geek, but that's pretty outrageous.

It's not even real wood...