Yeah, That is Better

It looks like D&D (and, actually, RPGs in general) are moving away from using the term 'race' to describe non-human characters. Which is fair enough - it's enough of a pain point that an alternative is preferable. Unfortunately, the two alternatives that had previously been mooted don't really work terribly well - 'species' has rather too much of the veneer of science to it to fit well, though it is ideal for sci-fi, while 'ancestry' just sucks.

Fortunately, it looks like D&D is moving towards using 'people' as the chosen term, which fits really well. 'Folk' would also have been a good choice - as in "Durin's folk".

So, yeah, I applaud that change. I also, mostly, applaud the steps they're taking towards showing a more nuanced culture for some of the intelligent humanoids. I don't think that's a requirement for all, or even for all 'humanoid' creatures - I think it is valid to suggest that at least some humanoids are indeed monsters. To quote "Babylon 5", "while we may sometimes look like you, we are not you." Just because a gnoll walks on two legs doesn't mean that its thought processes should in any way resemble those of a human; conversely, just because its thought processes don't in any way resemble those of a human doesn't mean it shouldn't be 'humanoid'.

But, all in all, this is a very positive step.

One more thing: there is an argument that the uses of different races, peoples, or whatever is itself problematic. The argument hinges on the fact that that means they are being 'othered'. And there is a lot of validity to that, as an awful lot of hate a pain has been spawned by the categorisation of various groups as being less than human.

I can't really fault that argument, though I don't entirely agree with it. But if it is accepted, then the consequence of that, I'm afraid, is that the non-human peoples would really need to be removed from the settings entirely. Which would be a shame... but may yet prove necessary. (And, of course, those non-human peoples may be desirable, but they're not necessary. At least, not in fantasy games - sci-fi may be a different issue.)

Another Thing Removed From Headspace

I had a notion about starting a second online campaign, following my positive experience with remote gaming in the lockdown, and following on from some hints of interest received elsewhere. However, it turns out that that interest was notional rather than actual, which means that it's actually not happening. Which is fine - I'm probably better off without the extra commitment anyway.

The upshot of that is that "The Quest for Memory" campaign is now being back-burnered for the foreseeable future. I may keep working on it in my spare time (of which I of course have huge amounts), but it will definitely be a side-project strictly for my own edification, rather than being something intended for actual use. So there's very little chance of much progress any time soon.

(That said, I'm increasingly minded to think the thing I need to get practiced with is map making. And since the practice might as well be for something, I guess it might as well be for "The Quest for Memory" - and I see little reason not to post at least some of them here.)

A Matter of Style

Over on my main blog I've recently posted about a revelation concerned with "Style" in writing. This revelation has made me think about stylistic issues with RPG writing, and especially adventure writing.

The truth is, RPGs have actually lost something of style over the years. When D&D was first published, and especially in AD&D 1st Edition, one of the hallmarks was Gary Gygax's very idiosyncratic writing style. He had both an extremely extensive vocabulary and a penchant for obscurity over elucidation. He liked a big word.

Similarly, the early RPG "Warhammer Fantasy Battles" took many of the same tropes, respun them with a distinctly British madness, and produced an extremely stylish game. And then "Vampire: the Masquerade" took things in yet another direction, being infused with a style all their own.

But VtM and the other "World of Darkness" games are the last 'stylish' games that spring to my mind. And as time went on, both D&D and WFRP (and others) gradually lost a lot of the initial style that made them stand out. This was largely a conscious decision - the focus was shifted to creating RPGs that were approachable and easily understandable.

This was almost certainly the right decision. High Gygaxian is certainly interesting, but the price of favouring obscurity over elucidation is that, well, you lose out on elucidation. There are sections in the AD&D DMG that you can read carefully and repeatedly, and still end up none the wiser. Far better for rulebooks to be well structured, well organised, and to explain the rules in clear, unambiguous language. They're effectively technical manuals, and should be presented as such.

That latter does not apply to settings or adventures, however. Here, maintaining a strong and distinctive style has a very distinct benefit. "Planescape" certainly wasn't for everyone, but the distinct flavour of the setting is what made it what it was. Likewise "Dark Sun", "Spelljammer", and "Ravenloft". That's also why having "Forgotten Realms" and "Birthright" and "Dragonlance" is redundant - they're just too similar.

I rather suspect there's little hope of seeing nicely stylistic adventures in published works in future - Wizards of the Coast and Paizo both have a style that mitigates against it, and the various authors on the DM's Guild will inevitably follow WotC's lead to a very large extent.

What this does give rise to, though, is yet another consideration for the Ultimates version of Terafa, and also "The Quest for Memory" campaign. Rather than just following the lead and aping what's there, and therefore suffering the inevitable redundancy that follows, I now find myself questioning whether I need to focus on building up a different style.

Though that remains tricky - the overwhelming bulk of the writing I do is aimed at a technical audience, which means needing to be able to context switch between two mindsets. Still, it's a fairly fascinating line of thought...

Passing on the Lore

The 5e adventure "Storm King's Thunder" has a genuinely great concept. Firstly in the simplicity of the statement "Shakespearean Giants", and also in the detail (spoiler: King Hekaton's court is largely lifted from "King Lear"). Unfortunately, it falls down badly in the execution, because for the vast bulk of the campaign the PCs spend their time wandering around the Savage Frontier having adventures, gaining XP... and although they do deal with a lot of giants who are kicking off in various ways, it's seldom clear exactly why.

It is only later that the PCs run into a giant who explains all this - and who is essentially the Font of Exposition for the campaign.

The fundamental problem there is that there's a whole lot of lore behind the scenes, but it needs to get into the hands of the PCs. And the reason for this post is that "Storm King's Thunder" is far from being the only adventure or campaign to have this problem. Indeed, getting the lore to the players is a fairly inevitable challenge - there's bound to be something that it would be better that they knew, so how to tell them?

Some thoughts:

• One option is simply to inform the PCs, either in the role as DM or through an NPC simply providing exposition. That works, and has the advantage that there's no ambiguity there. The downside is that it's a blunt instrument - "show, don't tell" is considered good advice for a reason!
• One thing I've used to good effect in the past is the "Five things you know about..." post. I really should re-institute the use of this device. That's not much better than just telling the PCs (indeed, in many ways it's exactly like that), but it can at least be use for incidental lore, rather than tying directly into the matter at hand.
• I'm very much of the opinion that PCs should be rewarded for choosing relevant proficiencies. Therefore if a PC has relevant skills (be it a 'knowledge' proficiency, their background, or whatever), they should be fed an abundance of information... that may or may not be relevant.
• The best way of all is to provide lots of clues, and let the players build up the picture. This needs a lot of care, and will take loads of time. (Remember the Three Clue Rule!) And it's best to avoid false information. But it does have the big advantage that it gives the players the opportunity to go off exploring the various details that get dropped in, rather than just being guided by all the answers.

The Sweet Spot Paradox

Most editions of the game have a very distinct "sweet-spot". This is the point where the PCs aren't too fragile, but they're also not loaded down with huge amounts of complexity. This is also the level range at which most of the best monsters are to be found, enabling the greatest range of adventures. For 1st and 2nd level, that tends to run from about 3rd level up to the low teens, while for 3e it tends to run from a little lower to the same sort of upper limit. For 5e it seems to start around 3rd level, but doesn't really get going until 5th. I'm yet to find the upper limit, as I've not yet run a campaign that has made it to double figures. (4e, as is so often the case, is something of an exception - it seems to run equally badly at all levels I've seen.)

However, it is also the case that characters are always at their most satisfying when run from 1st level. While starting at higher level does work, it never works as well as going through the apprenticeship.

This creates an unfortunate consequence: in order to enjoy the game at its best, you have to put in some early work first. Which is a shame.

(To its credit, 5e does make those first two levels really quick, which is good. It's just a shame that it slows down at 3rd and 4th level, when it is at 5th level that it really starts to shine. But there's an easy enough fix for that, I guess...)

Gnomes and Goblins

A while back (probably several years), I saw a random blog post notning very great similarities between the Gnome and Goblin entries in the first edition "Monster Manual", with the conclusion of the post being that these two 'races' were in fact two sides of the same coin; that is, that goblins were gnomes. Ever since then, I've been looking for a way to build that into my setting. But I've kept coming up against the problem that D&D goblins are part of a wider family - alongside hobgoblins and bugbears they are the goblinoid races, and I wasn't too keen to break that connection. How, then, could they also be gnomes?

The answer is actually obvious, and comes about by turning it on its head - it's not that goblins are gnomes, but rather than gnomes are goblins. That is, gnomes are a goblinoid race same as the others, with all that that entails.

And there's a lot there that fits really well - gnomes have always been the trickster race, which fits very well with the manic deviousness (and madness) that is associated with goblins in the latest iteration of my thinking (largely thanks to Pathfinder).

So, that's that.

Of course, one of the other things I've been positing is that goblins are an extremely mutable race, hence the existence of spider-eye goblins, poison dusk goblins, and all the other variants. In which case, mights gnomes also be very mutable? Or is their mere existence a mutation of the basic goblin stock?

(One more thing: having watched "The Dark Crystal" recently, I'm reasonably inclined to suggest that the gelflings in that series are closer to my conception of gnomes than they are to halflings. There's an argument for both, of course, but since my halflings are reasonably strictly nomadic creatures, while the gelfling are both more prone to putting down roots and also more inclined to magic, that would seem to make gnomes the better fit.)

And that's one more thing needing written up 'properly' for the Terafa "Ultimates Edition"...