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.

Mythosa Design Notes I: Introduction

The new Mythosa wiki (ready to be uploaded after the proofreading is finished) contains the latest incarnation of my world. Some people like to create new worlds; I tend to remake the same one, carrying on the best elements of the previous version. Fortunately, the time between recreations has been lengthening as time goes on; this may be the last, final version. But...we'll see.

So, what spurred the change this time? Well, the previous version had gone in a direction I wasn't particularly happy with. I have a tendency to create for creation's sake without considering whether what I'm doing is necessary (or just cool enough it needs to be added). Much of the old Mythosa was like that. In the end, a lot of that detail was wasted. The other impetus was actually 4th Edition. I didn't change Mythosa for 4E. But I'd been thinking about doing it for quite some time. When 4E and its release date were announced, it seemed as good a reason as any to do something I'd been thinking about doing in the first place. It would have happened regardless of the 4E announcement, probably just at a later date.

In any case, I've decided to post design notes about the world. I've never included them in the past but I thought it might be useful to help convey a better feel for what Mythosa is supposed to be like. I try to refrain from real world comparisons within the content as much as possible but here I'll be listing inspirations and models that I used in the new design (though some are no doubt obvious).

My notes, in no particular order, will follow.

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.

Paint.NET vs. GIMP

For years I was a fan of Paint Shop Pro. However, after version 9 or so I decided to look for another graphics program. I like to keep current with my software, but I found that as time when on I really didn't need what was being added to PSP, and I didn't feel like spending the money to stay current. I turned to GIMP as a replacement.

I like GIMP (or "the GIMP", however the hippies say it), but the UI is rather atrocious. I started to get used to it, though the multiple windows thing never did it for me. As I mentioned before, I tried GIMPShop, but I could never use it since it would always crash on startup. I had briefly looked at Paint.NET but it didn't really seem to be that great. However, based on a recommendation from a blog I frequent, I gave it another try.

And I discovered I liked it! The UI is far more standard, at least where Windows is concerned (I'm thinking about shortcut keys in particular). The layout is simpler and overall it packs a far amount of power in a small package. Now, it lacks much of the GIMP's functionality, but for the majority of graphics work I do, Paint.NET is sufficient and the UI doesn't get into the way (I still keep GIMP around if I need to do something Paint.NET can't).

So, if you're looking for a small, fairly intuitive painting/graphics program, give it a shot.