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).

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.

The Ingrained Nature of Attacks of Opportunity

In an effort to speed up combat, I was contemplating changing how AoO's work for our campaign - basically removing them except for a few actions. I was hoping that it would help speed up combat both in not having to worry about whether a particular action invoked an AoO as well as in allowing people to move without counting out a snaking path to avoid getting hit. Tactically sound, yes, but not particularly exciting. I'm also not a big fan of AoO's since it doesn't seem like they add as much to the game as they detract from it; in essence, what's the point of having something if people always do what they can to get around it? It's not really contributing anything other than bogging down a combat round with pieces are moved about as if on a chess board.

Initially I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. A lot of things that invoke AoO's are never done in our group anyway. For instance, unarmed attacks invoke an AoO, but no one ever attacks unarmed except for monks - and their attacks don't invoke an AoO. I've never seen the people in the handful of groups I play in try to disarm, sunder, or bullrush, either. Whether those tactics are not considered worth the effort or people just aren't used to trying them, I can't say.

In any case, I decided in the end to leave AoO's as-is, since they are fairly ingrained into other subsystems of 3.5 (feats, skills, etc.) as well as combat elements like reach. They're not so integral that I couldn't just drop them entirely, but I'm trying to stick to the RAW as much as possible. What might be easier would be to go in the other direction - make every action other than an attack open to an AoO (I read that Iron Heroes does this). But that seems a little excessive.

For now I'm going to put the actions that cause an AoO on cheat sheets or reference cards for our group and hopefully that'll help speed things along.

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.

DriveThruRPG; Binding PDFs

I've complained about the somewhat PITA DRM mechanism they started using, but now they are doing watermarks. We don't need to deal with registering or MS Passport or anything like that.

Doubtless it won't be perfect for preventing PDF piracy, but protection schemes rarely stop the determined pirates anyway. But according to DTRPG, they were trying to stop the "casual" pirating of passing a file onto someone's buddies. Watermarking still works against this but doesn't inconvenience the legitimate consumer, so credit to DTRPG.

As an aside, I took advantage of their 20% sale for "GM's Day" last weekend and bought Fields of Blood, the Eden book for realm management and mass combat (d20). I'd been thinking about it in the past and for $12 I couldn't pass it up. I also picked up a "personal binder" this weekend (the GBC CombBind 50) since I've been printing out a lot of PDFs and such lately. I think I may end up buying more stuff in PDF format (as opposed to print) and printing/binding it myself since that whole "lays flat" thing is very useful. Of course, my binder only handles up to 90 sheets (which equates to books up to 180 pages), so this won't be an option for, say, the next WotC hardcover I want. But for smaller stuff it'll be nice. I would have gotten a higher-capacity binder but those things aren't cheap - the one I bought was around $60 and they only go up from there.

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.

Rallying Against 3E and d20

From a letter to Dragon magazine:

...I’d like to comment on the evolution of D&D®...I was completely engrossed in the game. However, supplement after supplement started pouring forth, plus a whole new bunch of characters. Add to that several lines of playing “aids,” manuals, pre-printed character sheets, etc. and the result is a mess. Now I see dungeon expeditions where everyone consults their manuals to check on a monster’s or character’s ability, making sure their tenth level “idiot” can handle a god know’s what armed with a light sabre. Alas for the good old days when a bucket of money didn’t have to be spent to keep up with the game.

Yeah! Take that, WotC and the d20 publishers! The old days before 3E/d20 were better!

Of course, the above was from The Dragon #27, July 1979. Over 20 years before anyone had even heard of d20 or the OGL...

d20 Sourcebooks for $5

Fantasy Flight Games is selling their Legends & Lairs d20 sourcebooks for $5 a pop (something gives me a feeling they may be shifting out of d20 and focusing on their boardgames...). Anyway, it's a pretty good deal if you ask me; these books originally went for $25-$28. I only have one FFG book (Traps & Treachery); many of their books interested me, but I didn't feel there was enough to make it worth the money. The usual mix seemed to be about half interesting material and half d20 "crunch" (new feats, new spells, new...you get the idea). But at $5 per book, I can certainly justify the cost. And I don't have to worry about updating the stuff I'm interested in to 3.5.

They're selling their mini-adventures for $1 each; not sure what the quality of those are...

More Lack of Perspective

Ran across this, on another amateur d20 company's site:

Due to some recent policy changes with the d20 STL over at Wizards of the Coast, many industry figures are moving away from the use of the "d20 System" logo as a sign of rules compatibility. Many have pretty much settled on a single logo and license, termed "Prometheus", as an indicator of ONLY rules compatibility.

Define "many". Last I checked, any d20 company that had any significant presence in print or in PDF was still using the d20 logo. Only people on the fringe are using the "Prometheus" logo and most of them are theoretical publishers*. There's nothing wrong with that logo and the philosophies of its creator (the Free Gaming Assocation) are certainly commendable. But the simple fact of the matter is that companies that truly have a stake in the d20 market - companies like Mongoose, Necromancer, S&SS - are still using it. While some are moving away from d20 or diversifying their product lines, that has nothing to do with the last time WotC changed the license - it's driven by the market. And none of them are moving towards Prometheus.

Side note: Looks like a lot of the links at the FGA site above are broken (they weren't working for me, at least). I don't know if there's been much activity there in awhile, either (the front page still has a 2003 copyright, and we're rapidly approaching 2005...). It's unfortunate, but that's the way of things when dealing with volunteer projects on the 'Net... in PDF was still using the d20 logo.


*: What's a "theoretical publisher"? A term I made up, of course. I'm referring to people that discuss the ramifications of publishing with the d20 license or alternate licenses, but have yet to actually publish anything in any medium. They talk about what WotC could do with the license in the future or how game publishers operate without actual experience in the industry (for two examples). There's a big difference between someone who actually has put forth the effort - and more importantly, the cash - to publish their own gaming products and someone who talks about it but likely will never end up doing it. That's not to say that actual publishers aren't concerned about the same issues, but they tend to approach it from a far more pragmatic point-of-view rather than debate hypotheticals back-and-forth.

Maybe if You Use ALL of It...

From a discussion board:

D20 ... thanks to the OGL one of the most over-developed systems out there. It has even far surpassed Rolemaster 2nd Edition, which had a reputation for having rules for almost everything. D20 not only has rules for everything, but often has several variations of each rule, which in turn makes it much much more complex than Rolemaster ever was...

Why do some people think that just because everybody and their dog has their own d20 publishing venture, d20 is "over-developed"? Everything outside of the core rules is optional (and much of that is optional as well).

Maybe it's just a semantics issue, but to me the term "over-developed system" implies one in which the official or "standard" ruleset has an overabundance of rules. For d20, the standard ruleset is the d20 SRD - that's it. Everything else is gravy.

I suppose if you buy every d20 supplement you can get your hands on, and your DM allows you to use all that, you may think the system is "over-developed". Personally, I look at it as a host of options you can add to your game if you wish. If you don't want to use it - don't. There's a big difference between that and having far too many rules to play a game (as written, at least).

Speaking of which, now that Complete Arcane is out I need to figure out what to allow from it. Wild Mages, definitely :) The remainder will have to see.

BTW, Halo 2 is very cool. If you have an X-Box, get it. If you don't, wait for X-Box 2 so you can play Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. The previews I've seen for that game are amazing.

Monday Musings

A web posting (more of a press release) on a gameboard I frequent contained this statement in regards to the company posting:

"...a company dedicated to producing high quality RPG products"

Are there any companies that are dedicated to producing low quality products? That admit to it? I've seen this in a number of places - "We make high quality products!" Sure, Chester. I think I'll be the judge of that. You don't need to say that; the very fact that you are producing something implies that you think it's high quality. This sort of thing just seems like a typical, amateur marketing phrase that really means nothing.

Another one along those lines: "By gamers, for gamers." I may have said this before, but I'll say it again: This is a tired cliché that needs to be put to rest. Most RPG companies have products made "by gamers" - even the designers at the megalith WotC are gamers, though their business people might not be (but that's not their purpose). Even if the products aren't made by "gamers", if they're good - who cares? Though generally those companies don't last long, so it tends to be a moot point.

Turning to the site, I actually got Chronicle #6 published on time. I didn't think I would, given how little time I've had to spend on it in the past couple of weeks. But the weather this weekend was rather crummy around here (north of Chicago), so I was able to finish it up. And get a bunch of raking done. Raking is a pain; I'd rather vaccuum the leaves off the trees before they fall and save some time... Anyway, the revised Gazetteer is almost done; the history chapter is the only thing left, and that's mainly because how it ends depends on the current campaign.

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.