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.

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.

Now that's a cool hex map.

Here. It's the country of Bretonnia, from the Warhammer world.

(From this site).

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...

The New Dwarven Forge Set

I guess the "mystery set" DF has been hinting about is what's advertised in the back of the latest issue of Dungeon: A Medieval Building Set. Basically looks like the dungeon room set, but with wooden floors and walls with exposed timbers and white cracked plaster. There are walls with windows, a few doors, and a bookcase/secret door piece.

Cool idea, but it doesn't quite look right to me; I think there are too many timbers when you put the pieces together. But since I'm a MasterMaze lemming, I'll still probably get it. I believe I suggested something like this years ago, so I probably have a royalty check coming anyway...

What I'd really like to see are pieces to add to the dungeon sets so they can be used to make castles - like walls with gothic-arched windows in them, or wall pieces with battlements.

Freelancing MMORPG adventure writing?

I would have to disagree with Ryan Dancey about this. Jared's response seems to be more on target.

From other things I've read, Dancey seems to have pretty much closed the book on non-electronic RPGs, assuming they're dead in light of MMORPGs. So his perspective seems to be that the only future for RPGs is on-line. Not that he's entirely off-base, but I think he's giving the on-line games more credit than they deserve.

Now, it might be nice to have better adventure content in MMORPGs, but it's not going to happen. Why? Most players don't care. He states: "Literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of such adventures are needed for the average MMORPG." They'll only be needed if people want them. And who's going to test these adventures and supervise/review their development? It's an interesting idea, but the 6 million plus players of WoW suggest that this isn't something people want. Add to that the fact that in most MMORPGs, regardless of what you do you don't have a permanent effect on the world. Ergo, your actions in the grand scheme of things are useless. The only permanent effect you have is on your character - what their skills are, what their gear is (especially what their gear is), etc.

The players that would want - or appreciate - such content are small enough that I don't believe companies like Blizzard would find it worth their time to do this. Most people who play MMORPGs...or, rather, WoW, which is really the only one that counts at present, are casual players who don't play long enough to cap out, so the existing content is more than enough. New content is primarily added to keep the hardcore raiders paying their monthly fee. And these are people that spend hour upon hour doing the same thing over and over again to get a piece of armor for themselves or a guildmate. They couldn't give two craps about "adventure content".

Oblivion: The Wait is Over (for me...)

Xbox 360 + Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion + HD TV = Holy Cow.

My Xbox just arrived today so I've finally been able to play Oblivion. I've only played it for a couple hours so far but it is very cool. I can't wait to see the graphics when I actually get outside...

Morrowind was my favorite computer game thus far, but I strongly suspect it will soon occupy the number two spot.

MMORPGs: The Future of RPGs?

They may not be the future of RPGs, but they'll certainly going to be a big part of it - if not the majority. I think we expected that. Interesting discussion here on Mike Mearls blog.

Do I think WoW is the death of traditional RPGs? No, but it - and the games that follow it - will certainly influence the future of tabletop games. I've got a lot more to say about that in the future when I get some time to write down and organize my thoughts on the subject.

I think the big key is what a particular player wants out of a game. If a game is fun and meets their needs, they'll play it whether it's tabletop or on-line. Otherwise, they'll seek alternatives.

Actually, let me change that - if the game meets their needs, they'll play it. I honestly don't think "fun" necessarily enters into the equation in many cases. Some people tend to have either an addictive or obsessive personality such that they will play a game to achieve some end regardless of whether they're having fun or not. I've seen it in tabletop RPGs, in LARPing, and I feel that's the case with many MMORPG players as well. I know I've put in plenty of time in WoW doing some quest simply because I was in a convenient place in the world, not because I really wanted to. Not to mention the fact that people will often spend hours at a shot in an instance and really regret having wasted the time afterwards.

Of course, that's not to say that WoW is never fun. I'm probably just jaded since I've played it so much (though not nearly as much as some people...). There are a lot of things we can take from the game, however, that can help make our tabletop games better...again, more on that in the future.

It's interesting - wargamers complained about tabletop RPGs, tabletop RPGers complained about CCGs, and tabletop RPGers are again complaining about MMORPGs. And yet we still have wargames...and tabletop RPGs...and CCGs.

WFRP Derivative of D&D? Vice-Versa? The Answer is:

Who gives a sh*t?

I'm referring to this thread over on ENWorld. Another great example of the amount of time gamers waste on ridiculousness.

For the record, I enjoy both games (which should be obvious from previous posts here), and I'm really itching to play some of the new edition of WFRP. And I was reminded a lot of d20 when I was reading the WFRP rulebook. A number of mechanics seemed similar but with d100 rather than d20. And, yes, a number of mechanics are different.

But hey, few - if any - of the mechanics in either game are completely original. Who cares? Both are good. Play what you like.

An Overdue Review of the New Warhammer

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has always been one of my favorite RPGs (WFRP, D&D, and C&C are probably my top three). My wife got me the first three releases for my birthday last month - the main rulebook, the Plundered Vaults adventure anthology, and the Character Pack (the latter isn't really all that useful). A couple weeks ago I bought the monster book - the Old World Bestiary. All four books are very well-done, as you'd expect from WFRP.

I have yet to play the new version but overall it looks good - they kept the good features of the original game and changed or dropped the not-so-good. The magic system in particular looks intriguing. I also like how the Bestiary has an "in-game" section in the front and then the standard stat blocks in the back.

OK, this is a pretty crappy review; more of a fanboy gush. But, I don't care; I don't feel like writing an in-depth review. If you're interested in the game, check out the real reviews you can find elsewhere on the Web. Personally, I think it looks like a great choice for your main game or as an alternate to your standard campaign.

RPGs: Good Observation by Mearls

From a forum discussion a little while back:

The staggering majority of d20 books aren't bad, or horribly written, they're just pointless. There are literally hundreds of titles out there that don't offer any real, compelling reason to buy them.
- Mike Mearls

Of course, if you want to bog down your game with more and more optional rules, I guess that would be a reason...

In any case, this reflects my views - and many others - on a lot of material that was produced for d20: What's the point? I mean, the combo of the DMG, PHB, and MM is really plenty to keep you going for years, assuming you have some imagination to help you along. Everything else, even books that have a point like Complete Arcane and Lords of Madness is just icing. Though I suppose you could throw a fourth book in if you need a setting, like the FRCS or Eberron book; the core books don't really give you a ready-made setting, despite the Greyhawk references.

On the other hand, that is a nice aspect of the PDF publishers. They can produce something that 90% of buyers would have no use for, but which is perfect for that other 10%. Very little overhead, which is appropriate for niche products. Of course, even then you have to determine if the potential audience is big enough.

Hex Maps

For my current campaign I wanted to put together some regional maps for overland travel. That wasn't much of an issue in my last campaign; I generally just hand-waved that sort of thing, and at high levels teleportation handled the lion's share of travel. I've also become enamored of the old Judges Guild maps, with the 5-mile hexes where each hex always has something in it: a mysterious (or mundane) village, a monster lair, some weird ruin or crumbling statue, etc. The question then came down to "what to use" for the maps.

The first obvious choice is CC-Pro since, well, I own it and I should get my money's worth. I also found a JG-style hex template for CCPro on the web, complete with numbers in each hex. The problem with going this route is that it's not particularly fast. It's not bad, but I wanted something quick. To that end, I decided to use a mapping tool that was specifically designed for creating hex maps. I looked for how to do this in CCPro (other than just throwing a hex grid over a regular map), but didn't find anything. So, I looked for other software designed for hex maps. I found four: Grid, AKS Hexmapper, Hex - World Creator, and Atlantean Enquirer. Oddly enough, these programs are all pretty old; as far as I can tell they haven't been updated past the 20th century. I suspect part of the reason is that hex maps have gone out of style; TSR used to use them all the time. Some people seem to think they're only really for old wargames. Others believe that every map must be an artistic masterpiece with utility being a quaint afterthought. There are even a few who are so immersed in their own egos that they can't fathom the value of a hex map and think that they're only for people who can't read a "real" map. In any case, I believe hex maps do have value and are quite useful in a tabletop game setting. Anyway...

I remember Grid from years ago. It's a very complex mapper, but it's a DOS program, so I pretty much set it to the side. I realize I can run DOS apps in a command window in XP, but I'd rather deal with something written with Windows 3.1 in mind at least. Hex - World Creator has a lot of potential (as well as some extra features I don't need), but the biggest problem with it is that it's very unstable. Given it's repeated crashes, I rejected it pretty quickly. From what I've seen elsewhere, others have had the same problem as well. Atlantean Enquirer was just...weird. I filed it away for ideas but I'm not using it. I ended up selecting AKS Hexmapper. Like the others, it appears to be unsupported, though it does have a small community of followers on Yahoo, mainly for trading tilesets. I was actually pretty impressed by Hexmapper. The program is small and fairly simple, but it has a clean, fairly intuitive interface and works well. One nice feature about it is that it can load any BMP file so you could convert existing maps into hex maps if you so desire.

There are some features that are lacking ("undo", for instance), so I'll likely do some post-work in Paint Shop Pro. But for something that's easy to use and gives pretty decent results, I'd recommend the program. It's everything my own Wilderness Mapper should have been but wasn't.

Once I finish the maps, I'm hoping to put together some JG-style tables to generate interesting features that can crop up in each hex...

Interesting Blurb from Dragon #41

In an article from the September 1980 issue, Tom Wham predicts:

"The microcomputer will take the garbage out of gaming, and leave the fun to us humans. Instead of a DM’s screen, the chic Dungeonmaster of the future will sit behind a computer, do a better job of monitoring the players and non-players, and enjoy the game more.
...
And the poor gamer who just can’t seem to find anyone to play with will be blessed with a 24-hour opponent. One who never wants to quit, doesn’t break for meals, never goes home to a spouse, and who knows the rules to every game the two of them play."

The second forecast has been with us for quite some time (since about when the article was written); it's taken a little while for the first. But laptops aren't so uncommon at the gaming table any longer.

The problem these days isn't having a computer to use, it's actually having software that makes a DM's job easier. Granted, there are a number of programs out there that are supposed to do that, but in my experience the more they try to do the more they get in the way. There are exceptions (DM's Familiar and TableSmith come to mind, of course), but they're precisely exceptions because they don't try to be the do-all and end-all of gaming software.

Of course, that's a discussion for another time...

Myriad Tidbits

Of course, "myriad tidbits" is rather redundant, isn't it?

Mythosa Chronicle #10 is now available. I'm still pretty much on the "monthly" schedule, but I don't want to be beholden to that. I'm a little surprised I've kept up with it for almost a year. Seems to be a good style for me - publishing a few articles on various topics about once a month. I would like to do something more...standard, as in a sourcebook on Mythosa's kingdoms, or a "big book of magic" or whatever. Unfortunately, doing that entails a lot of work I may not want to do at a particular time. For instance, while I find Amaristan interesting (wouldn't be there if I didn't), at the moment I don't feel like fleshing it out to the degree that I'm going to be soon for Ralynia. If I tried doing that, it would turn from fun to work and would take longer than it should and would ultimately be disappointing. If this was something I got paid for that might be different, but even then there's the question of whether it would be as good as it could be - if you want to do something, it's a lot easier to make it good versus doing it because of a financial or professional obligation.

That does lead me to wonder if I should have built up my campaign in a different manner. Rather than "top-down" if I should have gone "bottom-up". I think what I've done is a combination of both - "top-down" for the general details of the world, so there's a general coherency to the whole thing, and "bottom-up" for the specifics of campaigning. If that makes any sense (I think I'm rambling now...).

I still need to re-do the front page of the site. I'm cool with the general layout with the menu, title, and background. But the change log, search area (does anyone actually use that? I may pull it), web counter, etc. seem kind of thrown together. I may get rid of the web counter, too. I originally put it there for my own use, but any value it has is superceded by the web stats I have with my host. Come to think of it, I haven't used that counter in months. Not to mention the fact that posting your visits seems to be as useful these days as showing all the "kewl" awards you've won - no one cares any more.

Well, gotta stop writing and get some painting done. I've been doing much better in the past couple of weeks - doing any painting is more than I've done in a few months. Even finished a figure in less than an hour (an otyugh from WotC's defunct Chainmail line). It's not going to win any awards but it's good enough for the tabletop.

Something to Think About

A good quote from one of the gaming lists I subscribe to:

"Nearly all net communities come not only to overestimate their importance but to lose an awareness of their field's history and also an understanding of what potential rivals are actually up to."

Certainly not all, but many "on-line" gamers fit into that description. Probably holds true for other "communities" as well.

(Yep, another reprint. See below...).

Adventure Maps

How much do adventure publishers spend on maps? I don't have a lot of third-party d20 adventures, so maybe what I'm saying doesn't apply. But in a lot of the ones I've seen, both from WotC and some of the smaller publishers, the cartography is presented as 3D-rendered, photorealistic works of computer art. Looks nice - but has very little utility. I don't care if a bed is fully rendered to look all fluffy with a patchwork quilt, or if the hardwood floor really has a grained texture to it. I want something I can use:

• Make it monochrome (B&W is good) so I can photocopy it for easy mark-up.
• Give me a square grid so I can easily and quickly draw it out on a battlemat or use it with MasterMaze pieces during the game.
• Use standard map symbols so I can tell what things are at a glance.
• If you don't need to, don't make rooms, corridors, etc. odd lengths. Does that room really have to be 22' long by 13' wide? 20x15 or 20x10 or whatever works out much easier on a grid system, which d20 encourages, and if it has no impact on the adventure or "realism", the players aren't going to care.

I prefer 3E (3.5) to 1E, but the maps in 1E were much easier to work with. This isn't nostalgia talking - it's practicality.

(Yes, this is a repeat from my "Articles" page; I posted it here since it seems more appropriate to be in a blog).

Finally Updated the Mythosa Gazetteer

OK, it's finally done. The religion book has been updated for a little while to match the changes to Mythosa and the map, and now that the current campaign has more-or-less finished up (about 4 AM last Saturday), I can post the updated gazetteer (fortunately, the finale also finished as I hoped it would, so I didn't have to re-write that last part of the updated history). Though in the actual game the PCs fought a severely-weakened Orcus (a full-strength Orcus would have beat their asses to a pulp - they're around level 17). I used the Zoroastrian name for Asmodeus in the gazetteer for the demon for copyright reasons. And, yes, I realize that in D&D "Asmodeus" is a devil while "Orcus" is a demon. Deal with it.

After a brief hiatus to the the real world as well as one of the other guys running an adventure I'll be DMing the new campaign. I'm looking forward to it, as I've discovered I'm not really a fan of high-level campaigns (this is not just because of my regular group but due to some other high-level adventures I've played in in the recent past). High-level stuff can be fun, don't get me wrong. But week after week of it I don't enjoy. Primarily for two reasons: the first is that the combats take forever. Everybody either has a bazillion actions to run through or too many options to quickly decide what is tactically most advantageous at that given moment. The other reason is that it seems like at high-level characters are defined not by their backgrounds or personalities, but by the rules they have at their disposal - it's all about the feats, or the magic items, or the spells...not about the characters.

Mike Mearls sums up my feelings pretty well in the Darkness & Dread d20 book (from FFG) when he describes the appeal of "dark horror gaming":

The key to a horror game is that you must use your own planning, inventiveness, and quick thinking to survive. You cannot simply rely on an optimal selection of feats or magic items to pull through an adventure. Roleplay becomes much more important, while good tactics trump class abilities and spells.

Granted, he's taking about horror gaming and not "heroic fantasy" or whatever you want to label a typical D&D campaign, but the point is the same. And I wouldn't say this is just a 3.0/3.5 issue; it would apply to high level in any edition.

Actually, there's a third point as well: As a DM, there's a buttload of stuff you have to keep track of when it comes to running high-level stuff. The abilities of monsters and NPCs for one. Each player has one character to keep track of and optimize; the DM has numerous creatures and characters to handle, and it's difficult to recall exactly everything each opponent can do much less what each of those things mean. Not to mention preparation is a pain since you have so much more to consider if you actually want an adventure to be a challenge. You don't want to negate or circumvent your players' characters' abilities - that's a cop-out. You should be able to use all your nifty abilities and swag once you hit higher levels. But at the same time as a DM you need to put something together that will still interesting. It's not hard for an entire adventure to come to a quick conclusion because you didn't account for a particular spell or item one of the PCs had.

A PSA for D&D-centric Gamers!

Attention!

Not all RPGs should be defined in terms of D&D. Even if a game has a "d20" logo on it, it does not necessarily mean it is D&D in a different form!

The "D&D Style" is not the be-all and end-all of RPGs. Those of you who think it is need to use some of that vaunted "imagination" you claim to have so much of.

For those of you who are aware of this, you may forget what you just read since it didn't apply to you.

Adobe DRM Hassles? Naw...

From DriveThruRPG's website:

The DRM features of Acrobat 7 have not been implemented by Adobe.
If you upgrade to 7, you will be unable to access your e-books. Please wait
until Adobe posts a corrected version. We will announce it here.

I recall seeing in webforum discussions that various concerns people had were essentially dismissed by DriveThruRPG when they first announced they were using DRM. One in particular was the longevity of the PDFs - that is, how long would people be able to open the PDFs into the future. Despite the fact that one of the DRM apologists claimed that most of the gaming books he's owned he's tossed after a few years or so, this is a very valid concern (for instance, I - like many others - still crack open my 1st Edition DMG from time-to-time, and that book is over 25 years old).

Now, I'm not sure what the deal is above since I just tried opening some of the PDFs I've gotten from DTRPG in Acrobat 7 and it worked just fine - though it did require me to re-register Acrobat through Adobe again, which was a big of a pain. This isn't a major issue, but it does turn on a brighter warning light, in my opinion.

Another interesting issue concerning this: it sounds like Microsoft is going to be giving up on its "Passport" system. This is the same system you use to register Acrobat with Adobe for DRM. Now, I'm sure something else will replace it, but it will no doubt involve more hassles for people who simply want to use PDFs they have legitimately purchased and downloaded. I'm all for protecting the rights of producers and artists, but at some point these guys have to realize that all they're doing is making life harder for the people that are their true audience, since the thieves and pirates are always going to find a way around their "protection" schemes.

Seems to me the best use of DTRPG is to get material you couldn't otherwise get in print (whether due to shipping issues or for things that are out-of-print, etc.), and then print it off so you know you at least will always have something to show for the cash you shelled out.

Welcome to the RPG Hobby

From the aforementioned thread about the Book of Vile Darkness:

From what I’ve read about this book it seems to me to be suited for weak DMs that aren’t imaginative enough to bring an element of horror and evil to the game themselves.

You can use that argument for virtually any RPG book:

Monster Book: ...this book seems suited for weak DMs that aren't imaginative enough to come up with their own monsters themselves.

Magic Item Book: ...this book seems suited for weak DMs that aren't imaginative enough to come up with their own magic items themselves.

Campaign Setting Book: ...this book seems suited for weak DMs that aren't imaginative enough to come up with their own campaign world themselves.

Any RPG Rule Book: ...this book seems suited for weak DMs that aren't imaginative enough to come up with their own rules systems themselves.

Though it seems to go without saying, some gamers seem to be ignorant of this "industry secret": You don't need any of this stuff. You don't need Complete Arcane, or the new World of Darkness books, or GURPS 4th Edition, or Eberron or anything else. All you need is imagination, inspiration, and time.

Naturally, the last two items - and primarily the very last one - are the reasons most people buy any RPG book (most gamers have an abundance of imagination - whether they exercise it or not is another story). I'm always amused by people who claim that "X" is for people who aren't smart enough or imaginative enough or strong enough to come up with "X" on their own. The implication (sometimes unspoken, but usually not) is they are superior to the people who would purchase such a thing, since they don't need it themselves. I chalk it up to just another element of fanboy posturing.

Usenet vs. Web Forums

This is more of a post on technology rather than gaming, but hey... And, more of a stream-of-consciousness than a post... ;)

I was reading a discussion on Usenet in rec.games.frp.misc about where people were hanging out these days, since Usenet groups seem to be growing more quiet. Most people talk on Web forums, which is something some of the posters couldn't understand. In their words, how much harder is it to set up a newsreader versus registering for a Web forum? The answer is, it isn't (for the most part), but I'm afraid they're completely missing the point. The question shouldn't be "how hard is it to set up a newsreader", but rather, "how many people even know Usenet exists"? The obvious follow-up question is then: "Why should they care?"

"Back in the day", most Internet users knew about Usenet because they were technically-minded people and in one manner or another knew about all the major technologies that dominated the network. These days, most people on the Internet aren't technical people, any more than TV watchers are knowledgable about the broadcasting industry or car drivers are mechanics. To most people, the Internet is two things: the Web and e-mail (and for those who use web-based e-mail, they might even consider the Internet to be just the Web). Instant messaging is a close second, as well as peer-to-peer stuff like Kazaa and bittorrent (RSS readers may be up there as well in some circles). But ask the typical Internet user today - on AOL or otherwise - what FTP client they use or what they like best for telnet. They won't know what you're talking about.

This, then, begs the question: does Usenet serve a purpose any longer? Before the advent of the Web, or at least forums on the Web, Usenet was the place to go if you wanted to discussions - everything from sociology to gaming to software to politics. Well, Usenet and mailing lists. But now you have more people aware of and using web forums, what point does Usenet serve? It's an extra hassle to set up on your computer when you've already got a browser installed which most everyone already knows how to use. You also don't have to worry about interruptions in the newsfeed. Of course, Web servers being down or overzealous moderators removing or editting posts is a potential danger in the forums.

One of the benefits cited in the discussion was that Usenet provided a "central" location to discuss particular topics whereas the Web forums are scattered all over the place. But really, is that such an issue - or even a good thing? If you want to discuss D&D, for instance, there are forums all over, from company sites to personal pages, but the bulk of the discussion takes place at two sites: wizards.com and enworld.org. Without much effort I'm sure I could find 100 more web forums where D&D is discussed, but the majority of your fans are going to be at one or both of those sites (if not exclusively, in addition to the smaller venues). And that's a good thing - you have a choice of where to go. Someone who wants to keep up on D&D as a whole will visit WotC and/or ENWorld, but if they're a 1E enthusiast, they're likely to hang out at Dragonsfoot as well or Necromancer Games, if they're of the "3E rules/1E flavor" mindset...if they're enamoured of Arcana Unearthed, they're over at Monte Cook's site...and you get the idea.

Not to mention the volume of posts. Whether mailing list, web forum, or newsgroup, only a fraction of those who subscribe or visit actually post. This is often for the best, since otherwise the sheer number of posts would be overwhelming. Now, imagine that everyone who discusses D&D on the various web sites all congregated to rec.games.frp.dnd. Relatively speaking, the ratio of posts to members would probably be the same as it is now. But in absolute numbers? That's the reason I unsubscribed from Wizards' "DND-L" - too much to read. There's also the fact that so much of what's discussed there - and elsewhere - deals either with mechanical minutiae I don't care about or the same tired discussions (alignment, "realism", etc.) that were old 15 years ago.

Another complaint from the discussion is that ISPs aren't informing people of the existence of Usenet. So? They don't inform people of FTP or Telnet, either. Why is that a problem? Most people have no use for either of those utilities, and Usenet isn't any more useful than web forums - or weblogs, for that matter. If people knew about Usenet, I don't think that many of them would be clamoring to use it. You have to look past the technology and look at what it's used for - Usenet is a big unmoderated web forum. People aren't going to care if they already have places on the Web they already hang out, and most prefer moderation to the "wilds" that Usenet groups are known to be.

I should also note that I wouldn't even be reading Usenet if it wasn't for Google, since I access it through "Google Groups" using, naturally, a web browser. I poke my head out there once in awhile to see if there's any interesting discussion. I don't go to the effort of posting, and I don't feel like setting up a newsreader. Usenet offers me nothing that any of the sites I mentioned above can't give me. It served its purpose admirably in years past, but since it offers nothing more than most Web forums and actually requires more work (or tolerance) to use, most people who learn about it will avoid it.

Sometimes People Have the Same Idea

I was just reading a forum for a vanity press company that's claiming another game company stole the name of one of its products. The thread is filled with fanboys calling for blood, amazed at how "evil" the "thief" company is.

I'm amazed at how clueless these people are. Taking two common words and putting them together does not make you original or a genius. You may get a cool phrase out of it, but you aren't particularly original. To borrow some thoughts from the OGL mailing list, if I produce a monster called a "Frost Ape" and then a year later see a product with a different creature called a "Frost Ape", that doesn't mean they "stole" my idea.

Reminds me somewhat of someone I used to work with (though he was only guilty of ignorance rather than the ridiculousness I saw above). He enjoyed RPGs, but didn't really have any experience with tabletop games. He regularly would mention an idea he had and would be amazed when I mentioned that someone had already done that in such-and-such a game, usually 10 or 15 years earlier. Granted, Google wasn't as big a deal back when we talked about that sort of thing, but he never considered that someone else could possibly have come up with the same sort of thing he had. Personally, whenever I come up with something "original", I assume that someone else may have thought of it and try to verify if that was the case. Whether that makes a difference or not in what I do with it is another story...

(I'm not going to mention the companies in question simply because I don't want to give any publicity to the "victimized" company, who I've had a negative opinion of since they first appeared - and it's only gotten worse).

City-State of the Unedittable Overlord

Another post today - I'm on a roll! This should hold me until, what - Groundhog's Day?

Anyway, I picked up the new City-State of the Invincible Overlord (Necromancer Games) the other day. I do like it (the maps are especially nice); there's something about the Judges Guild stuff, old and "re-imagined" that really appeals to me, despite the weirdness in many of the original products. But I have to say, the editing really leaves a lot to be desired. Granted, it's a large tome, but I'm only about 50 pages into it and I think there must be an editing error or two on every page so far. Some are minor and excusable, but others are really bad. I don't think this is normal - I don't recall running into this in many other gaming books.

Still, a nifty book so far.

d20 Mini-Reviews

Complete Monster Cards from The Other Game Company
A PDF containing almost all* the monsters from the revised d20 SRD (3.5E). The PDF pages are meant to be printed out double-sided and cut into trading card-sized pieces. Contains standard monsters, all the pyro/cryo/headed hydra combinations, fleshed-out dragons of each color and size, monsters from the summon... spells, etc. Overall great idea and very useful. Major flaw: The text is very small; for creatures with lots of abilities (solars, for example), the text is smaller than what is standard elsewhere on the cards, making it difficult to read. I would have preferred if they'd gone for cards that came out to 3x5 in size. Still, I recommend this for DMs.

Available from RPGNow.

*: I say "almost" since I didn't find the greater stone golem.


Dungeon Crawl Classics #9: Dungeon Geomorphs from Goodman Games
Not a module, but 30 pages of geomorphs: quarter-page map segments you can join together randomly to create dungeon maps. Unfortunately, I bought this without browsing through it - a mistake on my part. There are segments for caves, castles, castle ruins, hallways/corridors, lairs, "Underdeep", mazes, dungeons, "old-style" dungeons, and temples. Some of the cave and "Underdeep" segments may be useful, but I found many to be just plain weird or uninspired. I should have left this on the shelf, but it is a book of geomorphs, so I should have expected what I got. Anyway, not recommended.

Spontaneous Metamagic and Other Variants

Another rule from UA I pulled, though not due to finding flaws with it in practice (as was the case with Armor as Damage Reduction). I liked the idea initially, but I was thinking about it recently and realized that it really takes away from the versatility of the spontaneous casters, primarily sorcerers (and bards to a degree, I suppose). The big advantage sorcerers have compared to wizards is their versatility. They have limited spell choices, but the fact that they can cast "on the fly" is what makes them unique. They can already use metamagic spontaneously, but by giving that ability to other casters, it really takes away from the class. It also seriously devalues metamagic rods. Granted, you do have to burn up other spells to use spontaneous metamagic, but depending on how many battles a party gets into in a given day, the other spells being used could very likely have been ones that weren't going to be cast anyway.

On top of that, by implementing the rules for domain wizards, wizards received even more while sorcerers remained the same resulting in more of an imbalance. I don't have any plans to withdraw the domain wizard rules (or my changes to the metamagic feats, for that matter), but I feel that spontaneity really belongs to the sorcerer and bard classes. I also need to add something for sorcerers to even things out compared to wizards given what they get for domain wizardry...

I'll also be re-examining a couple of other things too, particularly in light of how I handle raise dead and resurrection. The moon/"thread of life" thing isn't going away, but I need to look at some of my other house rules in terms of how they affect long-term character consequences. I've made the all-too-common mistake of adding too many variants too quickly without taking the time to examine the ramifications of how they affect the system as a whole. As others have pointed out, one of the nice things about D&D3.x/d20 is how coherent the system is. Unfortunately, they've also observed that its subsystems are so intertwined that it is difficult to make modifications without causing major problems (potentially) elsewhere in the system.

Dungeon Looking Good...

The cover of the latest issue of Dungeon is a welcome departure from the standard style it and Dragon have been following over the past few years. Instead of the posed shot of a single "in-your-face" creature or character, it's actually an action scene, with a backdrop. And the text is positioned at the top and bottom, rather than haphazardly all over the artwork. A nice change! (And the internal quality is pretty good, too). It'll be interesting to see if Dragon follows the same path. I'd rather see covers like this or this (albeit less blurry), rather than this and this.

Magical Commerce

For those of you keeping score, I updated the World Guide article titled "The Economy of Magic". Basically, I changed some things in regards to how the Alchemists Guild will buy and sell magical items.

The first change was primarily for simplicity. For buying, instead of rolling a d20 and referencing a lookup table, I simply streamlined the process and made the percentage of the purchase price equal to 3d4 x 100%. Roughly the same result, slightly lower average, but what you would expect. These guys have overhead to deal with, you see...

The other change was more complicated. While I understand how ubiquitous magic tends to be in a standard campaign, I've always tried to keep it as something more mysterious and exotic than, say, high-tech gadgetry in a sci-fi setting. At the same time I wanted to accomodate the players in my game who would, at least, want to be able to sell the magic items they came across that were of no use to them. But then I realized that in the process of how I set that system up (via the Alchemists Guild), it simply commoditized magic, and made it as mundane as trading cattle or grain. Plenty of computer games are set up that way (Diablo comes to mind), but that's not what I wanted for Mythosa.

The compromise I came up with was to allow the Alchemists Guild to still pretty much buy anything (they want to monopolize magic as much as they can), but be picky about what they would let out. Thus, the change to the "buying factor" table that I came up with. On the one hand, it does recognize that some things are pretty common - rings of protection +1 or cloaks of resistance +1 come to mind. For that reason, they're more inclined to sell those, either out of "stock" or by creating them. But they really aren't comfortable about letting out the more powerful items that can be created. They can make them - but they aren't going to without good reason, and money isn't a good enough one (odd as that may sound to some people).

The other reason for this is that, in my opinion, items of great power shouldn't be available at the drop of a few (tens of thousands of) gold pieces. To take this to an extreme, if a PC wanted, they could go to a "magic shop" and buy the equivalent of Excalibur, Stormbringer, or Mjolnir. Not really the stuff of legend, doing that...

Part of this, of course, is an artifact of the original design of D&D from 30 years back. There are a number of things that work perfectly well with a small group of people plundering a dungeon, but they sort of break down when extrapolated to a world at large. They require additional rationales or mechanical limits to explain why, say, caravans and fleets are still used in light of teleportation magic, or assassinations aren't as big of a deal for the rich with resurrection magic handy. That's not to say those examples (and others) cannot be explained away with proper thought - they can and are regularly. I'm just bothered when they aren't.

Note that despite the 30K gp limit, this still means that it's possible to get armor or shields up to +4, a weapon with a bonus of up to +3, the majority of rods and rings, every potion, almost all the wands, and all minor and medium wondrous items. That's quite a bit. But if you want something of true power, you're going to have to figure out a different way to get it.

The next question is "OK, so how do I find the powerful magic I want?" My response: "Use your imagination." We're talking about a fantasy game set in a world filled with magic, monsters, lost cities, ruined wizard towers, oracles, bards, sages, etc. If you can't figure out how to track something down you want without it available at your local "Magi-Mart", you might want to crack open some of the old classics of fantasy and mythology and see how it was done in the past.

DRM, PDF, DTRPG, and other acronyms...

The current debate sparked by the emergence of DriveThruRPG.com concerning the security on the PDFs they sell is interesting to follow. On the one end of the spectrum are gamers who are screaming about their "rights" being "violated". At the other end of the spectrum are publishers who, quite frankly, are being complete asses in their responses (I understand how frustrating dealing with people at the other end can be, but please - aren't you guys supposed to be the "professionals" in this industry? Try to act like it). In between - fortunately - are rational arguments by both "sides" about the pro's and con's of what's being done.

My take on this (for anyone that cares) is that I don't like it. The "copy/paste 10 times every 10 days" thing isn't that restrictive, it's a combination of two things - lack of portability and cost. From what I understand, it sounds like it's a major inconvenience to use one of these PDFs on more than one machine. So if I plunk down $30 for one, I need to re-register it on my laptop it I want to use it there as well as if I want to copy it to my USB drive and read it at work during lunch. Note that I'm talking about legitimate uses of something I legally bought - I'm not advocating piracy. I wouldn't be posting an opinion about this if I did - I'd just shrug and grab the files off of Kazaa or one of the other file-sharing networks. I need to look into this more, though, as I'm not entirely sure this is an issue as some are describing it.

Now, if I'm buying a PDF, I expect it to cost less than the print version of the book. If part of the cost of a print book is due to costs for paper, ink, warehousing, etc., and those costs are eliminated with a PDF, I expect that savings to be passed on to me. Particularly since if I decide to print out the PDF, it's going to cost me additional money to do so. And if the PDF is in color, I need to print it somewhere other than my desktop (my laser printer is B&W)...which leads back to the inconvenience I mention above. Now, if the PDF is being released at the same time as the print version, I can understand charging the same price - you don't want to cannibalize your sales of the print book by charging less for the PDF. But I would expect the PDF price to decrease, then, after the initial front-log time of 90 days (or whatever they call it) is done.

There's also format issues. Again, many publishers are dismissing that as a concern, but my 1st Edition DMG still works - and it's over 20 years old. So do the Original D&D and Travellers books I have - with the former being almost older than me. Adobe stands to be around for a good while - but for how long? What if their format for DRM'ed PDFs change in the next 3-5 years? How easy is it to "convert" a DRM'ed PDF to a new version? Format obsolence is a bigger deal than most people think, in my opinion. And the world and computer industry do change rapidly; how many people are still using VisiCalc or dBase, or TurboPascal? Extreme examples, to be sure, but this is still an issue. Track down a copy of "Dark Ages II: When the Digital Data Die" and read it (informative, though a little dry) if you don't think so.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think this is still a great way to get old, OOP stuff and it's certainly nice for the people who can't get the print version of books easily or cheaply. But for me, the way the DRM is being done adds no value, and actually reduces the value of products where the option is an eBook or a printed version in almost all cases. If I want cut-and-paste ease, the value may increase over-and-above how much it's decreased by DRM, but in general, all the DRM does is make it less likely I would buy the eBook over the printed product.

Again, I'm not claiming my "rights" are being "violated", and I'm not trying to tell any of the publishers how they "need" to run their businesses. I'm simply expressing my opinion as a consumer. I may be one of the 4-5 insignificant geeks that the publishers don't care about, and if that's the case, then so be it...though I find it odd how they keep reminding us how small the industry is, but then dismiss out-of-hand those people who disagree with them - which right now isn't really that small a number (I'm extrapolating a bit, but remember that it's people on-line who buy PDFs, so using the people who are debating the issue right now as a sample isn't too outlandish); but hey, who are we to question them? Our purpose is to buy their books regardless of quality so the Stackpole's of the world don't have to get real jobs!

Hmm...I wonder how much traffic I would get if I posted some specious, trollish argument about D&D (or Vampire or GURPS...those two would be even better since I have virtually no experience with either ;) and posted a link to my site on ENWorld so people would come and read it?

I suppose I could post about the commercial d20 book I was looking through (published some time ago) that obviously used TableSmith to generate a bunch of its material but doesn't actually give any mention about the program. Not that there's any "legal" requirement to do so, but it would be a nice courtesy, particularly given how that sort of thing is supposed to be "common" in the industry. I guess that only applies to publishers and not to the inferior drones whose only purpose in their eyes is to purchase without question the phenomenal material churned out by their prima donna warrior-poets who call themselves "game designers".

No, I'm not talking about all publishers or writers. Yes, I'm in a spiteful mood. It will pass.

The More Things Change...

I've been re-reading the Dragons from the CD-ROM compilation and ran across this letter and response in issue #3 (October 1976 - published over 27 years ago). In light of the current issues with MP3s, software piracy, etc., I thought it was rather interesting:

"Dear Sirs,
A couple of weeks ago I wrote to you asking for permission to xerox some of your tables. I had taken them and cut them out, laid them out differently to provide a compact set of all important tables for GMs. I wanted to sell them to a few friends at cost (no profit). I received a short, curt reply, stating: “Dear Sir: In response to your question, no, you may not reprint anything.

...[skipped]...

I therefore find it hard to swallow or understand your attitude. Not only would I not be competing with an extant TSR product, I would not even be seeking or making a profit. I would only be trying to make the like of people who already bought all your products
easier. And, although I’m not a lawyer, I have some doubts of the legality of your preventing photocopying of your material in a different form for non-profit purposes. I believe Congress has, or is in the process of, modifying the copyright laws to take into account the “Xerox revolution.” I would not try to sell my tables over your objections on such grounds, however, since — despite my dissatisfaction with this stance — I still have great respect for your company.

Everyone is grateful to TSR for providing us with such a useful, flexible, and fascinating fantasy game. But, for God’s sake, youíre not providing effective products for enthusiasts of your game; it seems you are doing a disservice to your loyal customers by preventing others from providing these products as long as they’re not trying to make a profit."

The response:
"Sorry to distress you, Scott, but the NO still stands, and will do so until we have a few matters resolved. Right now, we have denied permission to everyone not licensed by us because it was the only way to sort out just what is going on.

I agree that fandom is a good thing, and would do nothing to stifle it, but we had to draw a line, and now are faced with sorting out the mess. At such time that we have accomplished this, then we will be able to give permission where appropriate. At this time our policy is NO EXCEPTIONS, draconian as that may seem.

I don’t know where you got your information regarding copyright law, but you have it just backwards; if we (publishers and printers) have our way, the new laws you speak of will clamp down on the “rip-off revolution, ” as it should be properly known.
..."

I'm not advocating piracy of any kind (though I don't support the methods the RIAA, MPAA, and others are following, either). I just thought it was an interesting parallel to the present day.

(Yes, I realize that there are bigger issues today - the potential for mass distribution is far higher with the Internet, electronic goods can be duplicated exactly as opposed to how photocopies generally turned out, etc.)

Saturday Gaming Goodness

Finished another Palm util last night - the "Character Manager". Well, sort of. I'll be expanding it more over time, but for now I needed a nexus-point of sorts to ge