My scan and shred efforts have now reached a point where I'm spending a lot of time with old character sheets from ancient campaigns - some from school, some from univeristy, and some that are more recent (though those last are mostly done now). One of the things that changed when I went to university is that, following a recommendation in the "Vampire: the Masquerade" rulebook, I started naming campaigns - "Rivers of Time", "Imperial Fist", and so on. Prior to that point, I was just running a game with no particular name attached.
One of the things that is very interesting from that is that for almost all of the campaigns that have names I have at least some recollection of what happened in the campaign, what the themes and purpose was, and so on. Conversely, most of the campaigns that don't have names are largely forgotten. There is one exception to this (there are also a couple of cases where I remember some of what a particular character did, but nothing about the wider campaign).
(There are two key exceptions, where I have named campaigns but no associated memories. Oddly, some of the same characters appear in both. I think what happened is that I was noodling around a few ideas but then never got around to actually running either of these campaigns. But I can't be sure - I don't seem to have anything other than a bunch of character sheets for either. Sheets with none of the tell-tale signs of actually ever being used.)
There's no revelatory conclusion to this, except that it serves to remind me that the advice given was indeed good: some time early in the development of a campaign the GM should probably come up with a name for it. Obviously an evocative name is better than a dull one, but even a dull name can serve a useful function in providing a useful shorthand for the events of that campaign.
(Oh, and it reminds me also that a GM should always have good recycling facilities - the PCs might skip plot point A in a given campaign, and that's fine... it just means you get to transplant that plot point to some later campaign further down the line. And in extreme cases, given that you are likely to have different groups over the years, you can even choose to reuse plots, characters and ideas that your previous group did encounter.)
Friday, 25 January 2019
Friday, 18 January 2019
Gaming in 2019
It looks like it's going to be another quiet year for gaming. I fully expect my game at work to continue, with us probably reaching the end of "Storm King's Thunder" towards the end of the year (and then...?). Other than that, I don't foresee running or even playing in any other games, largely due to the lack of a group.
Which is a shame. But then, it's something that I could probably change if I really wanted to, and was willing to put the effort in, and the truth is that I'm not bothered enough to actually do anything about it.
This year also looks to be one where I reduce my RPG purchases even further. With the move of Pathfinder to 2nd edition, the time will finally come for me to end my subscription to their Adventure Path product. By my count there are seven issues still to come, including the one that has just been shipped.
I don't expect any other purchases for any RPG other than D&D. That might, just possibly, change - I might be tempted to buy the core rules for the Star Trek RPG while it remains available - but I think that's unlikely. For D&D, I'm currently reading through the "Creature Codex" from Kobold Press (I had intended to skip this, as I don't need more monsters, but got a really good Black Friday deal), and I think it's possible I'll buy one (or even two) of WotC's offerings this year - I'll take a look at any rules supplement they issue, and as before I'll buy an Eberron, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer book if they produce one. But I'm no longer interested in their other adventures, in more monsters, or in getting supplements just for the sake of it. They have to offer me something I want, and that's looking doubtful.
So that's 2019: little gaming, the end of one set of purchases, and a likely absence of others.
Which is a shame. But then, it's something that I could probably change if I really wanted to, and was willing to put the effort in, and the truth is that I'm not bothered enough to actually do anything about it.
This year also looks to be one where I reduce my RPG purchases even further. With the move of Pathfinder to 2nd edition, the time will finally come for me to end my subscription to their Adventure Path product. By my count there are seven issues still to come, including the one that has just been shipped.
I don't expect any other purchases for any RPG other than D&D. That might, just possibly, change - I might be tempted to buy the core rules for the Star Trek RPG while it remains available - but I think that's unlikely. For D&D, I'm currently reading through the "Creature Codex" from Kobold Press (I had intended to skip this, as I don't need more monsters, but got a really good Black Friday deal), and I think it's possible I'll buy one (or even two) of WotC's offerings this year - I'll take a look at any rules supplement they issue, and as before I'll buy an Eberron, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer book if they produce one. But I'm no longer interested in their other adventures, in more monsters, or in getting supplements just for the sake of it. They have to offer me something I want, and that's looking doubtful.
So that's 2019: little gaming, the end of one set of purchases, and a likely absence of others.
Thursday, 17 January 2019
A Thought on Half-Orcs
I'm not a fan of half- races in general. However, I can see a certain amount of value in allowing half-orcs in particular - if you don't want to allow the use of orcs themselves as PCs (because they're a monster race), but do want to include a race that fills a similar niche but without that tag, then allowing half-orcs makes for a reasonable compromise.
However, WotC were not entirely wrong when they noted that the default origin of half-orcs (that is: rape) was rather problematic. I can readily understand both why they wanted to move away from that aspect of the race, and also why they found it extremely hard to do so. The current default origin, that human and orcish communities often exist in close proximity to one another and that this leads to a lot of inter-marriage, doesn't really ring true.
But how about this:
For one reason or another, humans may spend significant amounts of time in orcish communities. Or, conversely and equally, orcs may spend significant time in human communities. (The reasons for this are left undefined. I'm sure you can see at least a few possible reasons!) If they do indeed spend several years in the 'other' community, and especially if they undergo puberty while in that environment, they frequently find themselves permanently altered by the experience. They are no longer humans, or orcs, but instead are half-orcs. (Also, half-orcs breed true - that is, the children of two half-orcs are themselves half-orcs in turn.)
This has the advantage that it eliminates that problematic default origin story. Indeed, it actually means that "half-orcs" aren't actually half orcish at all. Plus, it's probably likely to give rise to a wider population group than either of the published origin stories.
(There's an argument for doing exactly the same with half-elves. If for no other reason than that this whole post was actually inspired by a story about elves. Though, ideally, I'd rather just drop half-elves entirely as being unnecessary for the game. All that said, though, I'm inclined instead to leave half-elves as-is, with the caveat that it's more that they're "elf blooded" - that is, being a half-elf implies you had both humans and elves somewhere in your ancestry, and it happens to have thrown you up. This means that a half-elf's parents may in fact be any combination of elf, half-elf, and human.)
However, WotC were not entirely wrong when they noted that the default origin of half-orcs (that is: rape) was rather problematic. I can readily understand both why they wanted to move away from that aspect of the race, and also why they found it extremely hard to do so. The current default origin, that human and orcish communities often exist in close proximity to one another and that this leads to a lot of inter-marriage, doesn't really ring true.
But how about this:
For one reason or another, humans may spend significant amounts of time in orcish communities. Or, conversely and equally, orcs may spend significant time in human communities. (The reasons for this are left undefined. I'm sure you can see at least a few possible reasons!) If they do indeed spend several years in the 'other' community, and especially if they undergo puberty while in that environment, they frequently find themselves permanently altered by the experience. They are no longer humans, or orcs, but instead are half-orcs. (Also, half-orcs breed true - that is, the children of two half-orcs are themselves half-orcs in turn.)
This has the advantage that it eliminates that problematic default origin story. Indeed, it actually means that "half-orcs" aren't actually half orcish at all. Plus, it's probably likely to give rise to a wider population group than either of the published origin stories.
(There's an argument for doing exactly the same with half-elves. If for no other reason than that this whole post was actually inspired by a story about elves. Though, ideally, I'd rather just drop half-elves entirely as being unnecessary for the game. All that said, though, I'm inclined instead to leave half-elves as-is, with the caveat that it's more that they're "elf blooded" - that is, being a half-elf implies you had both humans and elves somewhere in your ancestry, and it happens to have thrown you up. This means that a half-elf's parents may in fact be any combination of elf, half-elf, and human.)
Thursday, 10 January 2019
Dark Sun Campaign Setting (4th Edition)
AD&D 2nd edition is largely a forgotten edition - the rules were sufficiently similar to 1st edition that lots of people never bothered to convert over, and there's no great groundswell of nostalgia associated with that edition. However, where 2nd edition did excel is in the provision of interesting campaign settings: Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright, Planescape. One of my favourites, although it was one that absolutely bombed with my players at that time, was Dark Sun.
However, the 2nd edition version of Dark Sun suffered from the terrible disease known as metaplot - TSR produced the first boxed set and then published a quintet of novels (the "Prism Pentad") that immediately hit the world with massive changes, and mostly not for the better. Later products then assumed that these changes were canon, which meant that the DM was fighting a losing battle against incorporating them. It all became a big mess, and wasn't helped when TSR issued a revised boxed set that expanded the world... but which just wasn't as good as the original version.
With 4e, WotC had a notion that they would produce a setting a year, and that each setting would be covered with three books (one of which was an adventure). This strategy lasted for three years before being changed, giving us FR (which I skipped), Eberron, and Dark Sun. I've talked about the Eberron books previously - I found the adventure largely forgettable and the Player's book to be poor, but found the DM's book to the exceptionally good, possibly the best one-book summary of the setting then in existence.
Not being a fan of 4e, I skipped the Dark Sun books, but recently picked them up in PDF from the DM's Guild.
I must say, the 4e take on Dark Sun is interesting, and indeed has impressed me significantly - they've rebooted the setting back to the status quo as at the end of the first novel. This has the big advantage that it throws quite a lot of chaos into the world (in a good way), and leaves a precarious "free city" for PCs to intrigue around, while ignoring the bulk of the metaplot and the fundamental changes to the nature of the setting that those implied. The result is probably the truest expression of the setting since the very first boxed set.
The 4e "Dark Sun Campaign Setting" was a 224-page hardback book containing a double-sided poster map. The version I have is, of course, a PDF. The book is roughly 40% mechanics (which are of limited use - I'm no fan of 4e) and about 60% setting materials (which are very good indeed). As with the 4e Eberron book, it is a great one-book summary of the setting - giving enough detail to run the setting while also giving plenty of space for the DM to make it his own.
All in all, I'm very impressed, and would recommend this book to someone looking to get into the setting... with one caveat: at present, 5e is lacking in key bits of mechanical support for Dark Sun, which would make running the setting exceptionally difficult (notably psionics, but that's not the only thing). I would therefore be inclined to hold off until such time as that support was added - at which point it is entirely possible that a 5e "Wanderer's Guide to Athas" may make this book redundant. (Of course, if you're looking to use the setting for 4e, or just don't care about 5e, that caveat doesn't apply!)
However, the 2nd edition version of Dark Sun suffered from the terrible disease known as metaplot - TSR produced the first boxed set and then published a quintet of novels (the "Prism Pentad") that immediately hit the world with massive changes, and mostly not for the better. Later products then assumed that these changes were canon, which meant that the DM was fighting a losing battle against incorporating them. It all became a big mess, and wasn't helped when TSR issued a revised boxed set that expanded the world... but which just wasn't as good as the original version.
With 4e, WotC had a notion that they would produce a setting a year, and that each setting would be covered with three books (one of which was an adventure). This strategy lasted for three years before being changed, giving us FR (which I skipped), Eberron, and Dark Sun. I've talked about the Eberron books previously - I found the adventure largely forgettable and the Player's book to be poor, but found the DM's book to the exceptionally good, possibly the best one-book summary of the setting then in existence.
Not being a fan of 4e, I skipped the Dark Sun books, but recently picked them up in PDF from the DM's Guild.
I must say, the 4e take on Dark Sun is interesting, and indeed has impressed me significantly - they've rebooted the setting back to the status quo as at the end of the first novel. This has the big advantage that it throws quite a lot of chaos into the world (in a good way), and leaves a precarious "free city" for PCs to intrigue around, while ignoring the bulk of the metaplot and the fundamental changes to the nature of the setting that those implied. The result is probably the truest expression of the setting since the very first boxed set.
The 4e "Dark Sun Campaign Setting" was a 224-page hardback book containing a double-sided poster map. The version I have is, of course, a PDF. The book is roughly 40% mechanics (which are of limited use - I'm no fan of 4e) and about 60% setting materials (which are very good indeed). As with the 4e Eberron book, it is a great one-book summary of the setting - giving enough detail to run the setting while also giving plenty of space for the DM to make it his own.
All in all, I'm very impressed, and would recommend this book to someone looking to get into the setting... with one caveat: at present, 5e is lacking in key bits of mechanical support for Dark Sun, which would make running the setting exceptionally difficult (notably psionics, but that's not the only thing). I would therefore be inclined to hold off until such time as that support was added - at which point it is entirely possible that a 5e "Wanderer's Guide to Athas" may make this book redundant. (Of course, if you're looking to use the setting for 4e, or just don't care about 5e, that caveat doesn't apply!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)