The original Dark Sun boxed set is awesome, one of the best things ever for AD&D.
And then the official novels/adventures/history screw it up! UGH!
It's like why Forgotten Realms went bad for many folk: being slotted into an "official" history/mapping etc that squelched their game vision.
The official stuff in Athas is a disaster for DMs:
-it kills off many of the sorceror kings (WTH, uber beings and major plot NPCS, and they are snuffed out, give me a break)
-It removes the idea that a DM can do what the heck he and his players want with a setting, there's too much rail-roading.
-The disjointed story arc sucks, sorry, but it does, plus it eliminates the dragon kings, messes with the game rules/cannon and doesn't make too much sense.
My own take on Athas is this, and it works far better:
-The illithids wanted to darken the Sun, to do so they required energy, thus they encouraged psionic use through varied efforts.
-Psionic increase in human population causes problems.
-Thanks to psionics, one wizard discovered how to use life energy to empower spells and became the first defiler.
-Illithids prod human population to unbridled psionic useage (since humans are more numerous and tend to be dumb), so they can siphon off the excess. Chaos and war break out.
-Resulting war added in with defiling magic starts to lay waste the planet.
-Illithids trigger their Sun project, but it goes wrong, the Sun starts to nova intead.
-The gods act to fix this as even most of the evil one see doom approaching thier worshippers, but it screws up, though they stop a nova, the massive stellar convulsions slay mots of the dieties, messes up the Astral and ethereal plane around Athas.
-Resulting devestation and final revenge of some dieties destroys most of the underdark, including nearly all mind flayers.
-Red giant sun and other effects turn Athas into what it is today, the water from seas partially evapourates, and much of it pours into the Underdark.
-The remaining conquering defilers become the sorceror-kings.
-Metal is scarce because so-uts were created to destroy towns and armies, doing so only too well.
There, simple, makes sense with D&D lore, allows lot more customization
DMs can similarly develop their own history and lore to fit their vision of Athas.
Honestly, I think Athas.org should DITCH the official history because it constrains and ruins DS, seriously. Stick to the FIRST BOXED set, that's all. Though many of the game aids like Dune Trader, monster manual are of course, wonderful and don't mess things up.
Hm?
Where on some level I can definitely agree that novelizing a world can sometimes ruin it (which I gather is your feeling on the Prism Pentad), I think Athas is still pretty good where it is. If you don't like what the Prism Pentad books did to Athas with the Dragon dying, Rajaat escaping, etc then just go by what the first box says. Or not, in your case. Obviously it's your game, your Athas.
Personally, and I definitely know that I am not alone, I think the current story of Athas is a good one and I think it's fine to keep playing in the timeline set by the novels. Definitely can show some heroic stuff. I'm currently playing in a timeline before Kalak died so basically I'm playing in the normal boxed set right now. Either way you look at it, I think the setting is fine. Personally, I'd prefer to play after Kalak and all that. Sucks that there is less in the way of Sorcerer Kings for neat plot, but awesome as it would make my party NOT consist primarily of evil and selfish characters and maybe inspire some heroics outta the jerks :P
-X
I can kind of agree with him, but only because I dont like the idea of the all powerful character behind everything that is,was and ever shall be.
1) - any novel after the Pentad. don't get me wrong, Rise and Fall was cool; but it created way too many incongruities for me to even want to deal with, i chucked it out the window as far as application to my campaign. same with pretty much all of the other novels. here and there were bits of story and info that i liked, like the crown of elves, and the new races and such; but it was few and far between. to me, the pentad is where the history ended and the adventure began, and i liked it that way.
2) - time travel always has a way of getting my gourde. i'm just not a big time-traveling fan (i think Star Trek burned me out on it for the rest of my life). time traveling avangions...well...you get the idea...
3) - the incongruities of the accepted timeline are bothersome. i've always gone with the timeline published in the revised boxed set because it was literally the most recent (at the time of publication) and just went from there. i still use it to this day; for it is still the last timeline published and most source material after fit it. the currently accepted timeline goes into great detail, and is a great addition, but in some ways too detailed. i like the inclusion of information on the Deadlands and how it came to be, i like the preserver jihad and the druid wars as ideas as well. but i can't say that i use or accept everything listed in this particular version.
in the end i believe that this community as a whole, both here and at athas.org, has done a fantastic job at keeping Athas alive and kicking, and really is probably the most active of all the "other worlds" boards as far as generating new material. i went in search of more information on this long-dead setting and i found a veritable endless treasure trove of hooks, cool ideas, debates and inspiration. i wouldn't completely disregard any ideas that have come up here and i certainly wouldn't throw out the current timeline (despite any disagreements i may have) for one that goes entirely against the themes and flavor of the setting as a whole. do as you will, but i like what's been done overall...that and there's just so much more of Athas left to see!!
You can incorporate almost all of of the new material (whether it is from the revised boxed set or from other supplements) with little to no problem. Releases from Athas.org require some tweaking, but for the most part the history of Athas is viable right up until the past few decades when the events in the PP happen.
The great thing about D&D is that you can alter, change and modify it as you please. While I am not too excited about the idea of taking a race that originally did not inhabit Athas (according to the boxed sets) and making them into the driving force behind the rise of psionics and the change in the Sun, you are free to make Athas however you want.
itf
I too like the "official" timeline.
It aint like living on Athas has just turned into a doddle.
No evils to combat, wrongs to right etc
Canon probelms aside.
I think the novels add to the flavour of the setting, they give it some exciting background.
Although i had the setting first, I have to say that there must have been loads of people drawn to the setting from the novels.
just my 2p.
But eventually I found myself getting used to and liking the changes brought on by the novels. It opens the world up for great new Athas-shaping plots, like the great things I see people talking about on these boards, like Thri-kreen invasions, to Daskinor regaining enough of his sanity to threaten the northern Tablelands to Dregoth's 'coming out' and ascension among others.
All of these things I find hard to imagine happening if all the SKs and the Dragon were still around to stop 'em.
I'd like to see more on how people see Illithid fitting into the DS setting as I don't see it too easily off the cuff and did they have a champion trying to eliminate their asses? and if yeah then what happened to him/her?
I think he was more talking about the timeline wrecking the great mystery that was the history of athas, unlike other campaign worlds darksun was a campaign full of great atmosphere, but was a blank slate for DM's to play with. There was no real records of anything, no books your players could read and then quote back to you to let you know you have some part of the campaign worlds story wrong. Those were all things you would see in dragon lance and forgotten realms, but not darksun.
I can kind of agree with him, but only because I dont like the idea of the all powerful character behind everything that is,was and ever shall be.
Ahh, well.... I personally like knowing the great mystery that is Athas' past. Of course, I don't just let my players know what really happened, to me, it makes no sense for them to know all the details. The Dragon is dead? Well, they don't know that for certain. What's a Rajaat? What's this "Green Age"? The SK's once slaughtered various races? (Ok, that last one's not too far-fetched for them.) Oh, and "there's more than one Dragon? Where!
See, as the DM, I have final authority on what lore is and isn't available to my players, Hell, I even rewrote the Wanderer's Journal, blending in elements of the Wanderer's Chronicle, giving details I felt my players should know, or their characters could know. I then piece together more of the history at a controlled rate through the campaign, when I feel it helps move the storyline forward for that campaign.
Oh, and I don't think Rajaat's 100% completely, and totally at fault for everything that has happened to Athas. Some is from the Brown Tide/Pristine Tower (that's right, the Rhulisti themselves, I think, helped lead the world to the waterless wonder it is now), and Rajaat can't be held responsible for the actions of the SK's after he's been locked up. 2,000 years is a long time for them to mess things up (like Borys' rampage, which I blame for the fact that the tablelands are sooo desolate).
"'Official' history & timeline ruins Athas, get rid of it folks"
Who are you to tell us what to do? Why should we accept your poorly developed timeline over a series of novels and source material released for setting by the creators of the setting? I fail to see how your timeline allows for more customization then the "offical" one. It seems to me that it requires much more customization because there's barely any information in it. Why do you feel restrained by the information in the later releases or think that other people would? If anything the contradictory nature of much of the information prods people to come up with their own interpretations and reminds them that nothing is set in stone.
Look you can do whatever you want with your campaign, if you don't like stuff don't use it. I know I don't follow cannon. I don't think anyone really does, its too stiffeling, like wearing a straight jacket. But frankly the prism pentad is on the whole considered cannon by the community. If the people at Athas.org are going to release new material and build on the setting they need to use what the largest number of DS fans consider cannon as their basis for developing.
Do you know how many people have posted their divergent ideas about athas. Preposing extra Champions and secret histories and alternate histories and blah blah blah.... They, like you, are all free to develop their own ideas, work together on them, and share them with the community at large.
There are a few people on the boards who just don't like the prism pentad or the new boxed set at all like yourself. And a lot of other people who don't like every part of it, but its part of what we have to work with and I don't see why we should discard it on your behalf.
If you don't like it fine don't use it, but don't come in here telling us that we shouldn't use it just because you don't like it. If you really want to get other people to work on an athas more to your liking, how about making them interested in it based on its own merit rather than attacking the shared vision presented by the people at Athas.org.
the problem is that the "official" events are being shoved down folk's throats ;)
I posted my take on Athas for my games..Athas could be a future Earth, or whatever..the original boxed set was superb, that should be what Athas is for everyone, then take their own path for history and events.
But the way the offical events from the novels etc are acted upon will ruin Athas for other gamers in the future, because it's highly likely it will be "set in stone as the official time line, and thus screw up the sorceror kings etc right of"
That is a major problem!
Lot of folk starting a DS cmpaign now will know to much, will see that Tyr is now a free city etc, which largely ruins what makes Dark Sun good.
Athas.org has doen a great job converting DS ot 3.5, thanks, apreciate it!
But if at osme time, DS is officially revived by some company, using the way it has changed will ruin the game.You have a strange, very odd world, very little history, wonderful setting. But if you then say "wel sorceror kings are mostly gone, more folk are free, this is what happened to Athas", you really cut the guts out of it!
Have a look at Ravenloft, the White Wolf stuff was good, but, by going with the official time line they had turned a eerie realm into...mish mash.
presenting DMs and players with a *Possible* hitroy and most importantly, one *possible* sequence of future events, is fine, hitting them with massive changes is BAD. It's a fate accompli, your new books/boxed set or whatever has drastically altered the pristine setting.
Ruhl,
the problem is that the "official" events are being shoved down folk's throats ;)
I posted my take on Athas for my games..Athas could be a future Earth, or whatever..the original boxed set was superb, that should be what Athas is for everyone, then take their own path for history and events.
But the way the offical events from the novels etc are acted upon will ruin Athas for other gamers in the future, because it's highly likely it will be "set in stone as the official time line, and thus screw up the sorceror kings etc right of"
That is a major problem!
Lot of folk starting a DS cmpaign now will know to much, will see that Tyr is now a free city etc, which largely ruins what makes Dark Sun good.
Athas.org has doen a great job converting DS ot 3.5, thanks, apreciate it!
You have a strange, very odd world, very little history, wonderful setting. But if you then say "wel sorceror kings are mostly gone, more folk are free, this is what happened to Athas", you really cut the guts out of it!
Have a look at Ravenloft, the White Wolf stuff was good, but, by going with the official time line they had turned a eerie realm into...mish mash.
presenting DMs and players with a *Possible* hitroy and most importantly, one *possible* sequence of future events, is fine, hitting them with massive changes is BAD. It's a fate accompli, your new books/boxed set or whatever has drastically altered the pristine setting.
Let's see. I think you are equating that because some of the Coty-States now are missing their Sorcerer-Kings, somehow life is good and everything becomes "the good life" in those cities. Tyr, the "Free City" is bogged down with politics at the very least, not to even begin to explain their significant weakness in defenses -- if you think that Sadira of Tyr is in any way going to be able to stand up to Hamanu, Lalai-Puy, or Nibenay if they really wanted to fight her, you got another thing coming. All three of them are aware of her single, must fundamental weakness -- night. Attack at night and Sadira is completely ineffectual. Attack at day, and she may have a chance (a chance) at offing one of them with their guard down.
Then there's Balic -- divided between three Merchant Houses, with three very different ideas as to what should be done in Balic. Then there's Raam....'nuff said. Then there's Draj -- but the people don't really know that Alzetuc (sp?) isn't a Sorcerer-King, now do they?
Oh, then there's the Kreen Nation to deal with coming up the Great Rift. There's the Deadlands to the south that could pose a significant threat. There's Rajaat himself, who really could be not truely trapped, but only biding his time until he is ready for his next assault. Or, there's even my little take on the "Space Halflings" where I use the Star Wars setting's Yuuzhon Vong and introduce them in small doses as the "returning Rhulisti". Or there's the situation in Dregoth Ascending as well to consider.
Yea... the official timeline has absolutely nothing that would make the setting worthwhile, difficult, or challenging to players. The problem here is you don't just want the setting like it was in the first boxed set. You are attempting to dictate to everyone that it is the only viable choice -- which is hardly the case. Everyone on this forum has a variation of Dark Sun in their minds. Each one of us has different viewpoints as to what all is going on. And you know which is the correct one? Well, each person's is the correct take on Dark Sun for their own campaigns. Stop trying to tell everyone else what they should think about the setting. Try just saying how you feel about the timeline without the inflammatory-like statements implying that people who think differently about it don't know what they are talking about.
however, i'd say that most who i've seen post here follow AT LEAST 60-90% of the actual published material as well as the material released by athas.org and even some of the community members. i think that is because everyone posits their ideas here and uses the other members as a sounding board for to help further refine them. despite any differences of opinion everyone still takes something away from the debate that enriches and inspires their own versions of Athas. that and most of the community tries hard to stay true to what was published in the original boxed sets, supplements and adventures as well as the novels, revised boxed set and further supplements. they do it because OVERALL they like what has been done and the few things they don't like they alter to fit their tastes and needs.
in the end it's like telling the faithful that what they've come to believe in (and even moreso what they've in many cases helped CREATE) is all hog-wash and should be tossed. you'll have a REAL tough time selling that one.
The official stuff in Athas is a disaster for DMs:
-it kills off many of the sorceror kings (WTH, uber beings and major plot NPCS, and they are snuffed out, give me a break)
-It removes the idea that a DM can do what the heck he and his players want with a setting, there's too much rail-roading.
-The disjointed story arc sucks, sorry, but it does, plus it eliminates the dragon kings, messes with the game rules/cannon and doesn't make too much sense.
I'll address each of your points:
- The official timeline (produced by the folks at TSR except for the events in Dregoth Ascending) does not preclude your game from using the sorcerer kings. You have dozens of kings ages prior to Kalak's death in which to set your campaign. Alternately, you could use the extended timeline from Dungeon Magazine #110 which sets the campaign ahead several kings ages and sets sorcerer kings back in every tableland city except Tyr (and the ruined city-states, obviously).
- An official timeline, regardless of what it details, does not railroad a play group nor remove a DM's option to DM. It is a DM's responsibility to tailor the play group's story to the strengths and weakness of each member. As such, the DM rules on campaign setting, rules, et cetera. Every game has its own unqiue story, and will vary from any base campaign setting in its own unqiue ways. However, having an official timeline gives folks using a shared campaign world a place of commonality from which to discuss where they differ. That can be especially handy in a forum such as this.
- Many people would agree with your final point. I'm of the opinion that inconsistancies are worthy of finding reasonable explanations for consistancy. Remember that most accessories use characters in the game world to explain the game world. As such, it is easy to explain several of the inconsistancies in the history of Athas as misunderstandings, purposeful misinformation, and information drift. I do the same when running SW:RPG campigns: the different movie versions (classic, special edition, and DVD edition) are different first person accounts and novels and comics are second person or beyond accounts, and thus circumspect in some sense.
I'll address each of your points:
- The official timeline (produced by the folks at TSR except for the events in Dregoth Ascending) does not preclude your game from using the sorcerer kings. You have dozens of kings ages prior to Kalak's death in which to set your campaign. Alternately, you could use the extended timeline from Dungeon Magazine #110 which sets the campaign ahead several kings ages and sets sorcerer kings back in every tableland city except Tyr (and the ruined city-states, obviously).
Actually, technically, Dregoth Ascending *was* produced by TSR, it just never got published, and needed some editing. What Athas.org did was migrate the material to 3.5e.
But I'm just nitpicking here.1) the remaining SK's have no clue what to do. The driving force of their existance has been taken away (maybe, depending on your view of the end of the PP). This has made them much less effective, because it's a strange thing for an evil being who has lived for thousands of years to discover that they can hope to one day be happy, or even good. without having to pay one thousand slaves a year, they have that threat removed and can do other things, their cities seem to have possiblities that they didn't have before. while almost all the SK's won't turn to the light (I have such high hopes for little Manu) that doesn't mean that they can't change.
2) Other areas outside the Tablelands can take advantage of this confusion an attack. undead who fight at night can kill tyr in a heartbeat, the kreen can run down all the elves of the tableland with their lack of a need to sleep. It's not looking good, even the Order is in disarray after the psionatrix debacle.
3) Dregoth, Dregoth, Dregoth. Boyrs had a purpose that was protecting athas, Dregoth's purpose is much more sinister.
There are many other things that happen, instablility leads in almost all settings (including the real one, our world called earth) to riots, violence, outrage, loss of rights, and war. With the hope of a better life, but the threat of a worse one, how do you think most athasians are going to act, given the tract record and their own history?
Finally, athas's history is their to show us what happened, and even that is not that in depth, no descriptions of the races cleansed, nor the methods in which they fought. It is a elementary school timeline, not a masters degree in depth thesis on the best methods to blight a pixie, although we have those here on the boards. Your opions of athas's development as a gaming world with the unfolding story strikes me as reminicint of a character within the history of Athas that you hate so much. Rajaat hated the history of Athas too, and we can see what happened when he acted on that... he destroyed the world he wanted to fix. I, for one, will not be using your changes, because I don't want "your fix."
I think either Athas, pre- or post-Prism Pentad, is equally deadly, dystopian, and rich with setting. But I hadn't yet had a chance to really get into the pre-PP Athas before everything was changed up, which I found disappointing.
I think either Athas, pre- or post-Prism Pentad, is equally deadly, dystopian, and rich with setting. But I hadn't yet had a chance to really get into the pre-PP Athas before everything was changed up, which I found disappointing.
They both have their few positives, and incredible number of negatives, I'll agree. As I said, I don't have a problem with Silverblade's views. It's when he's basically telling everyone who disagrees with his particular views that they are more or less morons for liking what he doesn't like, that's what I have an issue with.
fate accompli
That would be fait accompli ;)
They both have their few positives, and incredible number of negatives, I'll agree. As I said, I don't have a problem with Silverblade's views. It's when he's basically telling everyone who disagrees with his particular views that they are more or less morons for liking what he doesn't like, that's what I have an issue with.
Xlore,
Sorry if you feel slighted, my intent was a "verbal kick up the tedium", not a personal attack
I'm not bothered if folk run Athas anyway they want, it's that the way things are going, any new DS stuff *will* be post Prism pentad and it does make a right screw up of what had been designed as a great setting *to be used as folk see fit*, see what I mean?
You can't just put up the SKs and whack half of them out in a few books then force that into the setting.
It's like if a single, small FR novel series permanently wiped out Manshoon, Elminster and Khelben, and explained about their powers/history...worse, since the Sks are both a mystery and the rulers of their cities.
I adored the 1st ED Forgotten Realms boxed sets, same with DS and Ravenloft, but a lot of the stuff afterwards just chokes you with "official cannon". While non-time line accessories are often great (Dune Trader for example for the houses and trader class), when you start buckling in a published time line into a setting, it often ruins a lot of previous work, and throws conflict up with DMs and players.
DS is unusual since it hasn't been in print since the revised boxed set (which I didn't get).
When, hopefully, it gets re-published, it will probably be done to keep with the OFFICIAL history etc and thus you no longer have a "Mysterious setting", it's all down to some nutsoid halflings, Tyr no longer has slaves or the Arena, half the SKs are gone and large area is now mapped...urk!
A much better system, IMHO, would be to publish DS exactly as it was in 1st print. But, add a section for suggested alternate timelines and history, official and others, so no campaign feels like it's players/DMs are being blasted well rail roaded and allows a degree of uncertainty which is VITAL for the integrity of good roleplaying ! ;)
That's one of the things that dreadfully irks me about Ravenloft too. DS and Ravenloft should both be very weird, uncertain, scary, strange places for the *players*.
No I don't think you are a moron ;) I do think there is a degree of pig headedness caused by "wanting to go with the flow" and "trying to keep some degree of control over a very unusual cultural entertainment" plus vested time and money...which is a rather Human thing (which also applies to me ;) )
-People spent a lot of money buying DS products, which are no longer published, were often cherished things, and thus have a personal value above their $ worth *hugs his D&D collection tightly*
-People liked the books, I liked the first Prism Pentad novel EXCEPT for it killing off Kalak, which was unbearably dumb, after that...meh, they were a bit of a mess for my tastes. IMHO they were written as novels based OFF of Dark Sun lore, not novels sticking TO Dark Sun lore, if see what I mean? Problem is the books became canon.
-People have a lot of love and affection for their campaigns and fun in DS.
-So we get pig headed just like we do in other areas "Football! Rangers! Celtic! baseball! Rugby!" etc :D Pig headed in this sense, means overly strong desire to keep DS as an "offical time line" and not as a barbaric, strange fantasy setting (and admit some of the novels were just not that good or down right bad with plot mangling that affects the setting if applied as cannon)
Easy way to see this by going back and reading over the original Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft boxed sets, then go look at current material, and then look at how folk tend to play them *now*. There is far too much "straight jacketting". Because of the Prism Pentad, folka re much more likely to follow the offical time line than go: "Pfft, this is Earth 1 million years after Charlton Heston saw the Satue of Liberty!" or whatever else strikes their fancy. It's harder to do that inthe face of the inertia of a whackign great load of "offical" time line altering products.
As a DM, I get really racked off hugely, having spent time building up say, a city, with it's NPCs, maps etc, then an "offical" book is published and folk expect you to use the offical stuff instead...or worse, the official stuff throws a huge mess into major NPCs or game lore/mechanics.
It's not an easy thing I know, DMs often don't have time to make up enough things, so buy modules, us fans want novels, accessories etc. How many folk can honestly admit some of the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realm novels have been diabolic pap? Be really silly to let a novel alter a setting in such a case, though often AD&D/D&D/TST/WOTC has set a story or history arc, but some you really wish could be like one of those TV soap operas where everyone realizes it was just a bad dream and it never happened, hehe.
What makes Athas great?
-Mystery, barbaric, primitive, more like the Bronze age than early Renaissance.
-Campaigns are usually about survival rather than glory/heroics(or have that as a major theme)
-Brom's artwork set a gorgeous background imagery.
-Psionics
-Dark and dreadful power of the SKs.
-Slavery, struggle to survive in a harsh world.
-Dreaful terrors in the barren lands.
-Slavery and gladiatorial combat.
-Some really great monster races (belgoi are one of my all time fave D&D creatures).
Mess with any of those and you do the setting a grave injustice.
WHen you think about it, DS and Ravenloft have a similar vein (pardon the pun): they menace the characters, DS physically and Ravenloft morally/spiritually.
In most cmapaigns,the dangers are obvious and often the result of PCs actions. In DS and Ravenloft, being under threat is major part of the PCs lives.
On Athas, you'll get eaten,fried, die of thirst, sold out,enslaved, eaten, hunted down, betrayed and *lost*, very eaisly if you are unlucky and incautious.
Pennarin
Oh pfft, my brains are full of sand, I need a spelling imp! ;)
Xlore,
Sorry if you feel slighted, my intent was a "verbal kick up the tedium", not a personal attack
K. So in other words, poor choice in tone of the first message :D I've done that once or twice.
I'm not bothered if folk run Athas anyway they want, it's that the way things are going, any new DS stuff *will* be post Prism pentad and it does make a right screw up of what had been designed as a great setting *to be used as folk see fit*, see what I mean?
You can't just put up the SKs and whack half of them out in a few books then force that into the setting.
It's like if a single, small FR novel series permanently wiped out Manshoon, Elminster and Khelben, and explained about their powers/history...worse, since the Sks are both a mystery and the rulers of their cities.
How about a few Dragonlance novels that eliminate all of the gods, destroy magic, and leave the world devoid of many elements? Oh, wait... that was done. And curiously, about the same time as when Dark Sun was being published. Then turn around and have another relatively small set of books that bring back most of the gods (except 2, one dies in the series, the other becomes mortal), and then leaves the world in a semi-integrated state merging the "old" and the "new"? Of course, that was done as well. And honestly, I think that setting is all the better for those radical sweeping changes back and forth -- it provides ton of different ideas to spawn in a prospective DM's head.
The changes from the 2nd Box Set/Prism Pentad did the same kind of thing to Dark Sun -- it shook up the world, put the already bizarre world on it's proverbial ear, and took out much of the stability that had been around. Maybe it's not your cup of tea -- and that's fine. Me, I like that nothing is certain, everything is put into chaos, and now there is multiple paths for players to be able to take their characters above and beyond what was offered in the 1st Boxed Set, while also providing everything the original set had.
It's far easier to erase the events from the Prism Pentad/2nd Boxed Set than it is to create these things over and over again. Many people on these forums actually dislike the Revised setting and go from the Original, doing just that. There is nothing stopping you from doing that. However you claim it's unfair that new products are being made that rely on the Revised setting's changes to the setting? That I'm lost on. I mean, the Revised setting was published, it is official material for Dark Sun, and available just like the Original setting. Are you saying that it's better to go back a few steps and disregard the later material, in an official manner, just because you personally would rather see new products being released that only allows for the Original Setting's take on things? To me, this seems backwards. For example -- Dregoth Ascending, which was a book that TSR almost had out the door before it imploded, was set to use the Revised Box's material -- does it make any sense to completely rewrite it to ignore the Revised setting material and go from the Original setting? Hell, did Dregoth even exist at all in the Original setting?
If you don't like the Revised setting, fine. Don't use it. If you don't like the Revised fluff in the new products being released by Athas.org, then either ditch the products or strip out the Revised Setting references. That's the most efficient solution. You're even proposing something that's harder to swallow than out claim the Revised Setting is, as an "alternative". That's fine and everything, and if you want to develop your own take on Dark Sun, that's great -- more power to you, hell I have my own personal views on the setting myself I want to get written down. But from an official standpoint, for material coming from Athas.org, it's going to be the Revised setting that is used. Mind you, Athas.org tries its best to make products semi-modular, so people can tailor the products to their own view of Dark Sun, but in the end, things are set according to FY11, after the events of Prism Pentad. That's just how it is.
I personally love the history though, I just haven't adopted much of the events of the PP, my vision of dark sun needs Borys roaming around, it needs Ur Draxa - even if the players may never see it. I could live without a couple of the SK's, but maybe I'll get around to killing them eventually somehow.
I can somewhat agree with some of the points. Someone above me hit on my big beef which is that they introduce this whole setting with a handful of almost omnipotent beings, and then kill more than half of them off shortly thereafter. How long was Valley of Dust & Fire even in publication before it was rendered obsolete by the events of the PP?
I personally love the history though, I just haven't adopted much of the events of the PP, my vision of dark sun needs Borys roaming around, it needs Ur Draxa - even if the players may never see it. I could live without a couple of the SK's, but maybe I'll get around to killing them eventually somehow.
TSR was having some rather large difficulties during its death throes. So yea, there were some bizarre changes that were taking place, not only in Dark Sun, but other settings as well. Things that made no sense, were apparently only half-conceived, and I strongly believe were supposed to "shake things up" and make the settings "fresh and new" -- even their relatively new settings like Dark Sun. However, these events are in the setting now, they are what is the "official" timeline -- it is up to the individual DM to choose whether they want to include them or not. I include them -- of course, I also am really a pain in the butt to my Players because I'm rather miserly about details and information I feel the average Athasian would not know.
For instance, I play in a Forgotten Realms game. I know all about the rules of the setting and I know basic details of geography and what various countries are like. Plus, I know about the drow in detail from reading a lot of R. A. Salvator's books when I was younger. I haven't bothered to read any of the setting information in any of the books, besides those about my homeland which we are not playing in, because I'm not running the game. Even if I had read about that stuff I wouldn't expect my DM to use it, or use it exactly the way it was written if he did.
You are free to do anything you want to, as are all DMs. But, Athas.org is the official DS website. They have to follow cannon 90% of the time. And they can only release a limited number of products so they have to make decisions about what the official game is going to be like as it progresses. They can't take every road and create dozens of different alternates. And, I think we'd hear a lot more people complaining if they did.
I also am really a pain in the butt to my Players because I'm rather miserly about details and information I feel the average Athasian would not know.
That issue is one of the biggest challenges faced by DM's in any setting, it's worse in settings with tons of novels and sourcebooks that the players have access too.
They buy the books too, I can't as a DM say you can't buy or read something, but it's frustrating when they're "experts" on all the monsters, politics, geography, etc. of a world which their characters would know almost nothing beyond maybe a small village.
That issue is one of the biggest challenges faced by DM's in any setting, it's worse in settings with tons of novels and sourcebooks that the players have access too.
They buy the books too, I can't as a DM say you can't buy or read something, but it's frustrating when they're "experts" on all the monsters, politics, geography, etc. of a world which their characters would know almost nothing beyond maybe a small village.
Don't they know better than to metagame? Can't you change just enough details to always keep them on their toes and punish them for metagaming rather than paying attention to what their character would think and what their character knows?
One of my biggest beefs for years -- since the late 90's at least -- has been the idea of metaplot in gaming, and was also the main reason I stopped purchasing TSR/WotC material. In fact, it was the marketing of and campaign events in DarkSun and the Forgotten Realms that brought me to this.
I realized I do not want to nor should I waste my money or time on products that are telling me what to do with my campaign world.
Arguing "but they aren't telling you what to do", that "GMs can just ignore X" or "you can strip out the references easily" fall upon deaf ears. The idea that you are neither being told what to do or that you can simply rewrite the material to taste is one of the oft-repeated fictions of the gamer geek culture.
Yes, they DO in fact tell you what to do by virtue of being what they are and by establishing themselves as a baseline. It is a truth that unless the buyer follows the given timeline of events, at least loosely, future campaign products are of increasingly little use to them and require increasingly more work to bring in-line with individual campaigns.
Yet this is not the reason a gamer purchases gaming material: if I wanted to or had the time to (re)write material, I wouldn't bother purchasing pre-written material in the first place. I am buying a base to develop from or utilize as is, not a set of further alterations to keep apprised of.
I have been there and done that, and found such product schemes to be far more trouble than they are worth as a consumer, as they require me to rewrite or create whole cloth whole sections of material in order to make them useful to my game, when that is directly opposed to the reason for purchasing the material in the first place.
So, yes, because of this you are being told what story to tell, even though the oft-heard propaganda is that you really aren't.
The people developing this story are not at my table and have no clue what my group wants from this setting, and more importantly that such products become less-and-less useful to me as a GM as they diverge more and more from the (incomplete, supposedly fleshed out in the future through supplements) baseline product that I am using, this is a completely backwards method of publishing setting material for games.
The real problem is that I don't need fiction -- someone else's stories -- dressed up as gaming supplements. If I wanted fiction, I would read fiction. Unfortunately, a whole lot of gaming material is really nothing more than surrogate fiction for gamers. An especial lot of it is "Come listen to my story and play through it while pretending it is your own story! {wink, wink, nudge}"
The point is that you cannot have an encyclopedic overview AND have (historically progressive) fiction at the same time. If you are claiming to provide one while providing the other, you are failing miserably. Unfortunately, gaming has a long history of saying, "Yeah, lets detail the facts about THIS stuff" and then turning around and telling a story based on those facts instead.
The latter...is the point of play. Not the point of supplements.
Yes, it is true that stories can provide information about a setting, and that fiction can be used to describe/highlight the features of a setting, but they are not setting bibles, particularly not fiction which changes the setting. To understand this, note this is the same difference between a travelogue and a historical novel.
The setting bible is not the story, yet gamers regularly confuse these, and worse, defend the latter AS the former. No, the setting bible informs the story. Produce setting bibles, not novels, and quit passing off stories as setting bibles. Again, because this is a very important idea, facts about stuff is completely different from telling a story based on those facts.
In fact, the reader should note White Wolf wised up to all this after years of selling fiction disguised as game material, and finally ditched the idea of an on-going metaplot in their product lines. The same is true of all other major game companies today, and has always been true of the progressive independent labels that first recognized the problems with such designs.
Don't they know better than to metagame? Can't you change just enough details to always keep them on their toes and punish them for metagaming rather than paying attention to what their character would think and what their character knows?
It's not always that simple though. I guess I used bad examples because I didn't mean to make it sound like they were bad gamers. It's more about how do you create a really immersive experience as a DM? How can you make someone playing a character from a 10 hut village impressed about coming to a city of 1,000 people when their other character is ruler of a city of 50,000 and they live in Chicago in RL?
A lot of times it's unintentional, but they just "know" things and it affects their gameplay, the questions they ask NPC's etc. And on the other hand, do you punish the player for doing so? What if they're playing an intelligence 18 character, but you know the player tops out at 12 max? Sometimes I just have to cut some slack.
Anyway, it's completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
But then, like cnahumck, I discovered that the Revised setting actually makes for a better setting for the players. There are so many more possibilites, with the SKs being gone. The players can affect the world to a much larger degree. And like cnahumck pointed out, everything is very far from shiny-happy...In addition, the Revised set brings a bunch of extra info on areas outside the Tablelands. So while I'm not super-enthusiastic about advancing time lines in game settings, I think it worked out for the better in Dark Sun.
Besides, I think never advancing a campaign world in time might be a bit too conservative ...what if Dark Sun still had existed as a published game setting, and TSR/WotC never did anything but publish encyclopedic material and adventures? I think that would eventually grow boring. Not like game companies should advance their time line all the time, but being 100% opposed to it seems a bit orthodox to me.
I know people who have played D&D for years only using the information in the PHB, DMG, and MM. You could easily run DS without using any of the newer materials that you don't like and are I'm sure. But, if the original box set purists aren't willing to do the work of developing the setting in a way that satisfys them, then they can't complain when other people who are willing to work on the setting develop material that isn't to their liking. It's not as if anyone is getting payed for this anymore. So you've no right to demand a product that you would prefer to purchase. Your not purchasing anything.
How ungrateful is it to complain about a free product? In fact there is a old saying about that: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
As to those other game designers. They have some great products. I like a lot of other games. Most of them have metaplots. I'll list some off for you: Fading Suns, Tribe 8, Warhammer FR, Exalted (which is white wolf by the way), and In Nominae.
That issue is one of the biggest challenges faced by DM's in any setting, it's worse in settings with tons of novels and sourcebooks that the players have access too.
They buy the books too, I can't as a DM say you can't buy or read something, but it's frustrating when they're "experts" on all the monsters, politics, geography, etc. of a world which their characters would know almost nothing beyond maybe a small village.
Well, you see, I penalize people who confuse "player knowledge" with "character knowledge". Just like I award those who really roleplay as opposed to just metagame. The way I award experience points is really quite different from the standard. And people who don't like to play correctly find that their lives in my games get to be rather....challenging.
Well, you see, I penalize people who confuse "player knowledge" with "character knowledge". Just like I award those who really roleplay as opposed to just metagame. The way I award experience points is really quite different from the standard. And people who don't like to play correctly find that their lives in my games get to be rather....challenging.
Following the expirience award charts in the DMG is a complete waste of time IMO. :D
I agree, my feelings on the official timeline range from dislike to despite, depending on which portion of it we are talking about...and don't get me started on the novels.
...snip for brevity...
That's quite the post, Greyorm
. Suffice to say that, where my own games are concerned, I disagree with pretty much all of it. The issues that you raise simply aren't there for me. And that's not a result of Evil Game Company Propaganda. They're just not there to begin with.I am very much a toolkit DM, always have been - I use what I like, I don't use what I don't like. That goes for rules as much as it does for setting. Where one person might see a "constraining metaplot", I see a collection of ideas that I can rip to pieces and use, refuse or abuse as I see fit. That's not a fiction - that's the way I DM. Simple as that.
I figure that if my current campaign starts to stagnate and go nowhere, I can introduce PP events to jump-start everything, but that is a LONG ways off.
Right now, I am imagining how much it would suck to introduce a group of players totally new to Dark Sun to the updated timeline.
"You see every city was ruled by Sorceror Kings, and for generations everyone thought they were immortal, but then three of them died a couple years ago. There used to be only one Dragon and it was the biggest baddest thing on Athas ever, but it got killed by some mid-level gladiator a couple years ago, so there is no more Dragon. Also, one Sorceror King who was supposed to have died a long time ago came back to life and he is the new Dragon. Oh yeah, and Athas is a desert world, dry and barren for centuries, but suddenly rainstorms started happpening a few years ago."
itf
Right now, I am imagining how much it would suck to introduce a group of players totally new to Dark Sun to the updated timeline.
"You see every city was ruled by Sorceror Kings, and for generations everyone thought they were immortal, but then three of them died a couple years ago. There used to be only one Dragon and it was the biggest baddest thing on Athas ever, but it got killed by some mid-level gladiator a couple years ago, so there is no more Dragon. Also, one Sorceror King who was supposed to have died a long time ago came back to life and he is the new Dragon. Oh yeah, and Athas is a desert world, dry and barren for centuries, but suddenly rainstorms started happpening a few years ago."
That is a very very good point. I don't think that would workout very well at all. I would never start a group after the fall of Kalak if they hadn't played in the setting before or read the books. And I would strongly urge anyone planning on running a game for new players to start their game before the upheval begins.
Of course there are several other SKs that were killed in the "recent" history of Athas. The SQ of Yaramuke (the name escapes me), Kalid-ma, and Dregoth all died during the current age, some more recently than others. Speaking of which no one really seems to have anything to say about good ol' what's her name :D
So everyone's thinking, well that SK died, but my SK is really a god. So he must be undefeatable. Except for the people of Raam who aren't buying the c rap that ol' Re-Re is feeding them and are actually attempting to kill her fully believeing that its possible.
Of course there are several other SKs that were killed in the "recent" history of Athas. The SQ of Yaramuke (the name escapes me)
Sielba, and I plan on bringing her back using an old 2e adventure some DS fan created to do such a thing.
I like starting in before the timeline of the PPs and the Revisied Box set more, but it's more so the players have a chance to change the world if they want to and not play in the changed world just because T$R wanted us to.
"You see every city was ruled by Sorceror Kings, and for generations everyone thought they were immortal, but then three of them died a couple years ago. There used to be only one Dragon and it was the biggest baddest thing on Athas ever, but it got killed by some mid-level gladiator a couple years ago, so there is no more Dragon. Also, one Sorceror King who was supposed to have died a long time ago came back to life and he is the new Dragon. Oh yeah, and Athas is a desert world, dry and barren for centuries, but suddenly rainstorms started happpening a few years ago."
You have to ask yourself, "would new PCs even know any of this?"
[i]"You see every city was ruled by Sorceror Kings, and for generations everyone thought they were immortal, but then three of them died a couple years ago. There used to be only one Dragon and it was the biggest baddest thing on Athas ever, but it got killed by some mid-level gladiator a couple years ago, so there is no more Dragon. Also, one Sorceror King who was supposed to have died a long time ago came back to life and he is the new Dragon. Oh yeah, and Athas is a desert world, dry and barren for centuries, but suddenly rainstorms started happpening a few years ago."
Too much information.
"Athas is a desolate, barren world, where the only real centers of anything resembling civilization are within locations known as the city-states. Every city-state is ruled by its own Sorcerer-King -- an ungodly powerful, and totalitarian ruler of his or her city-state. Recently, a handful of these godlike beings disappeared, and several of the city-states have had vast political upheavals as a result of this power vacuum, one is now dominated by divergant Merchant Houses, another is struggling to figure out this thing called 'democracy' and finding it not quite working, another had it's Sorcerer-King's son step up to the throne to succeed his father, and the fourth has become all-out chaos and anarchy.
"There is a being known as 'The Dragon' -- spoken of fearfully in legends -- a being of such immense power it is believed to be able to suck the life right out of everything around it, leaving nothing but ash, clothing, and destruction in its' wake. Some recent rumors claim the Dragon to be dead, but those who believed in the legends of the Dragon in the first place, find this highly suspect and untrustworthy at best. The only way to really determine the truth of this would be if no new caravans or villages disappear in the wake of the Dragon..."
I'd not tell them about Dregoth (Dregoth is something to discover through gameplay, not through back-story to set up the setting). I'd not tell them the SK's are really dead (just disappeared), I'd not paint it in pretty pastels and other pleasant colors. Dark Sun is a rough, dangerous world.
Rhul-Than also makes a very persuasive point about the fact that Dregoth, Sielba, and Kalid-Ma all died "recently" as well.
One thing that sticks out in my mind, however, if how the Wanderer described the deaths of the SM's in his journal. Basically he said with the death of the SM's came the death of the City-State -evidence that Athas was truly dying.
I am wondering why none of the newly "SM-less" city-states aren't heading down the same path? Tyr seems to be stable, Raam will most likely be conquered by Draj or Dregoth, and Balic is being led by Dynastic Merchant Houses. Were Kalidney and Yaramuke exceptions because the Sorceror Kings / Queens razed them to the ground?
Also, why is Abalach-Re such a lame SM? Hammanu has Urik on lockdown, Gulgans love Lalali-Puy, Tectuktitlay is obeyed, but Abalach-Re is openly derided by her citizens. You'd think that someone that powerful would be able to exercise more control over her City-State...
itf
One thing that sticks out in my mind, however, if how the Wanderer described the deaths of the SM's in his journal. Basically he said with the death of the SM's came the death of the City-State -evidence that Athas was truly dying.
I am wondering why none of the newly "SM-less" city-states aren't heading down the same path? Tyr seems to be stable, Raam will most likely be conquered by Draj or Dregoth, and Balic is being led by Dynastic Merchant Houses. Were Kalidney and Yaramuke exceptions because the Sorceror Kings / Queens razed them to the ground?
Yah, that was the pattern that had been seen. The city-state wouldn't necessarily disappear with the death of its SK, but its certainly more likely. In the case of Yaramuke, Hammanu destroyed it when he invaded and killed Sielba. In the case of Kalidney the ruler himself destroyed his city right after/during his transformation. If Kalak had been successful Tyr probably would have been destroyed as well. How many people were in the arena after all? And that doesn't say anything about his possible rampage afterwards. Dregoth's city was destroyed when the other SKs killed him and the sea of silt has since swallowed up much of the city.
As to why the othe City States are still around. Rajaat was a lot more efficient at dealing with his champions then the champions were at killing eachother, so the sort of mass destruction that occured when Sielba and Dregoth were killed didn't happen to Raam, Balic, or Draj. Both Balic and Draj seem pretty stable and well organized so I'm guessing that they'll make it. Raam on the other hand does seem to be colapsing with the disappearance of its SQ and like you said will probably end up being conqured by some other power, which might or might not lead to the destruction of the city state. Either way I think we can expect the population of the most populous city-state to take a nose dive. Like I said above Tyr would have been destroyed if Kalak hadn't been stopped. Now the city has aquired some pretty powerful protectors, but it is by no means as secure as it was would be with an SK still in charge.
Also, why is Abalach-Re such a lame SM? Hammanu has Urik on lockdown, Gulgans love Lalali-Puy, Tectuktitlay is obeyed, but Abalach-Re is openly derided by her citizens. You'd think that someone that powerful would be able to exercise more control over her City-State...
:D , as far as game design goes; probably just to mix things up, make them more interesting. As far as story; she was always the champion with the weakest personality. She had a huge number of children which caused a lot of civil unrest in the city as they warred for power and influence. Bearing so many seemingly normal children would make one seem much more mortal as well. She had to hide behind a fictional God to rule her city, constructing a religion so hollow that no one believed it. See didn't even claim that she was a god, merely the high priestess. On top of that she ruled over the most populous city-state in the tablelands and let elves and veiled alliance run amok in her city because she couldn't properly enforce the law and administer to the needs of the populous. In short she really just didn't know how to run a city-state.
It also possible that agents of some of the merchant houses and or other SKs were attempting to undermine her.
If you really don't want to be constrained then just accept those 1st few releases that fleshout the setting and use your own imagination from there.
Right.
Let me recap what you seemed to have missed: why would I want to do that when I'm buying material so I don't have to write it myself? See, unlike you kids, most of us old married fogeys don't have the time to do all sorts of campaign setting work anymore, so we're looking to get that from published materials.
At the same time, what we don't want is someone else telling us what the story we're going to tell is and making choices about our chosen campaign setting for us. We're looking for base material we can create stories from. That's our job. If I wanted someone telling me a story, if I wanted to see what someone else was doing with a setting, I'd buy fiction, not gaming material, and just read that other person's stories -- but that's not gaming.
Thus, with your advice above, there is no longer ANY reason to buy a published setting. I may as well do all the work from the get-go and save myself the money and emotional investment/interest in someone else's setting as game material.
Also, these problems have nothing to do with "Evil Game Company Propaganda" or similar either. They only have to do with bad business choices, and a confusion of both priorities and the point of the hobby (to create stories, not follow someone else's stories -- again, the differing roles of fiction as opposed to gaming).
Or simply, there are too many fiction writers in gaming, trying to write surrogate fiction in writing game material.
It also has nothing to do with "the setting getting boring if you don't update its timeline". That sounds like the typical confusion between fiction and setting: fiction gets boring if it is the same-old, same-old. Setting, on the other hand, can't get boring unless you're confusing it for fiction, or someone publishes the same supplement over and over.
Does Middle-Earth get boring because its timeline isn't updated into the 4th Age and beyond with every new release? No.
I will also note that the original D&D world -- Mystara -- survived for a decade without an on-going timeline, with all its setting materials and modules set at a specific (and even originally unspecified!) time period, with some adventures forward or outside of that.
I note how quickly the setting died once the developers jumped on the metaplot trend and started sticking their fingers around in world/campaign events. I know I lost immediate interest, after having collected everything for it up to that point. I know I am not the only one to have done so, either.
You can't ask for someone else to do your work for you and then complain when they don't do it exactly the way you want them to.
I can if they're claiming they're producing one thing for me when they're actually producing something else. In such a case, I have every right to complain about it if they're supposed to be giving me setting material, and I'm getting stories about the setting instead, then I will complain and loudly.
Nor am I beholden to anyone to stay silent and uncritical just because they wrote something and distributed it for free. I do not have to pander to their ego and stay silent because I have no obligation to do so. Otherwise, you are trying to argue "you'll eat it and you'll like it", with all the attendant "and if you don't, then you won't eat". It's the same attitude behind "you'll do this job and you'll like it, or I'll fire you and you'll starve" used by sweatshop owners, which informs the reason we need labor unions protecting our workers.
It is a threat and it is nonsense. If you can't take criticism, you especially shouldn't be in any creative field.
How ungrateful is it to complain about a free product? In fact there is a old saying about that: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
That's the biggest load of horse poo I've ever read. The only reason you aren't supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth is because if it has bad teeth, you don't want to offend the giver and have him shove his sword through you because you found out he's a cheapskate.
The statement is about manners regarding being given a gift -- in that a recipient should not look for added value in a gift -- and it is also a lot of bad advice and nonsense based on ridiculous social mores, used mainly by people who are cheap to not feel guilty about being cheap. Getting an old nag as a gift is an insult, not a gift. Any Norseman would gladly stick his sword through you for daring to offend him with an unworthy and insulting "gift".
It's also incredibly foolish not to do so, as we all know what happened when the Trojans failed to look their gift horse in the mouth...
As to those other game designers. They have some great products. I like a lot of other games. Most of them have metaplots. I'll list some off for you: Fading Suns, Tribe 8, Warhammer FR, Exalted (which is white wolf by the way), and In Nominae.
You have not heard what I said.
Did anyone say anything about "good" or "bad" writing? No, they did not. I do recall saying something about confusing setting facts with stories based on those facts, and that the metaplots make good fiction, but bad game material.
Do not focus on the fact that I said "bad game material" -- do not wail and gnash your teeth about that horrible judgement because the material is so obviously good -- turn your attention to the fact that they are "good fiction" and you will see my point.
(And let's not even talk actual profitability for the companies you've mentioned regarding their metaplotted materials. Yes, even White Wolf, despite the successful image projected otherwise during the 90's.)
Oh, and a minor correction, Exalted has no metaplot. White Wolf explicitly wanted Exalted's design to stay away from metaplot; this was one of the cornerstones of the game's original design and the new WW philosophy that has thankfully bled over into their revamped World of Darkness lines.
Tangentially, I do find it fascinating how some players feel the need to defend the idea of metaplots. It is almost as though criticizing metaplots is somehow seen as an attack on the player; perhaps they are confusing their personal enjoyment of the metaplot (of the story) with the criticism of the idea of metaplots (someone else's stories) in gaming materials.
So, once more: I am criticizing the idea of fiction disguised as gaming material, not the fiction itself. Thus, "Oh, but I think the fiction is interesting" and "I like the fiction" falls on deaf ears, because that is irrelevant to the point.
Also, why is Abalach-Re such a lame SM? Hammanu has Urik on lockdown, Gulgans love Lalali-Puy, Tectuktitlay is obeyed, but Abalach-Re is openly derided by her citizens. You'd think that someone that powerful would be able to exercise more control over her City-State...
I think it mainly has to do with population. She has to operate and control a much larger city-state than her peers do -- check the numbers, if I remember, Raam had something like 50,000 people in it, while the others were half or less of that (some had only 1/10th or fewer people than Raam). That many people means it is more challenging to keep order. Then throw in that Ablach-Re has been portrayed as one of the weaker Sorcerer-Kings (personality-wise) like Ruhl-Than mentioned, and well.... she'd only barely able to keep things to a mild boil.
That being the case, Weis and Hickman should have just created a campaign setting for Dragonlance and we never should have gotten such awesome series as Chronicles, Legends, and War of Souls.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I can't believe someone would say that about a DnD setting.
Right.
...snip for brevity again...
Don't you think that it might be possible that some folks view fiction (or metaplot or whatever you want to call it) as a source of possible ideas to plunder for use in-game? I know that I have done just that with any number of novels that I have read, and I don't treat the stuff that I read in gaming books any differently. There are other alternative approaches besides the two extremes of slavish adherence to setting metaplot on the one hand, and outright rejection of the metaplot on the other.
Having the peculiarities of athas.org being the official DS source and the non-substantialness of WotC support, what would happen if a person would write a novel in the DS world? Would he be able to publish it as an official/canon work, after presumably seeking confirmation at.. athas.org? WotC? Whom would the person need to speak to?
As far as I understand the curent DS rules etc are covered by the OGL which (correct me if I'm wrong) allows people to change them for personal use et cetera but what of the story? Can it be further advanced through canon means?
Right.
Let me recap what you seemed to have missed: why would I want to do that when I'm buying material so I don't have to write it myself? See, unlike you kids, most of us old married fogeys don't have the time to do all sorts of campaign setting work anymore, so we're looking to get that from published materials.
Please don't take a patronizing tone with me. Age is often times a poor indicator of maturity.
At the same time, what we don't want is someone else telling us what the story we're going to tell is and making choices about our chosen campaign setting for us. We're looking for base material we can create stories from. That's our job. If I wanted someone telling me a story, if I wanted to see what someone else was doing with a setting, I'd buy fiction, not gaming material, and just read that other person's stories -- but that's not gaming.
Despite you assertions no one is telling you what story to tell. The base material is provided, if you aren't happy with it thats too bad. Don't demand that all releases are base material. Many people like stories, most don't use them as written, but alter them to suit them. Thats a very narrow definition of gaming, I'm afraid everyone isn't up to your exhalted level.
Thus, with your advice above, there is no longer ANY reason to buy a published setting. I may as well do all the work from the get-go and save myself the money and emotional investment/interest in someone else's setting as game material.
That's for you to decide. Maybe there isn't any reason for you, maybe there is. If you like to have the basic setting information fleshed out for you. Buy the books that contain that information.
Also, these problems have nothing to do with "Evil Game Company Propaganda" or similar either. They only have to do with bad business choices, and a confusion of both priorities and the point of the hobby (to create stories, not follow someone else's stories -- again, the differing roles of fiction as opposed to gaming).
Or simply, there are too many fiction writers in gaming, trying to write surrogate fiction in writing game material.
Thats your baggage. The thought of gamming corperations being evil never entered my mind. Whether the choices are bad ones or not are entirely up to the market to decide. Forgotten Realms has a huge following and advances a slowly evolving metaplot. I think the real problem comes when the metaplot is too quick and the changes too drastic. I can understand why many people would not like the changes that occured in many of the game settings at the end of TSR.
It also has nothing to do with "the setting getting boring if you don't update its timeline". That sounds like the typical confusion between fiction and setting: fiction gets boring if it is the same-old, same-old. Setting, on the other hand, can't get boring unless you're confusing it for fiction, or someone publishes the same supplement over and over.
Not everyone delinates things the same way that you do. These sorts of linguistic distinctions are entirely subjective and of human construction. I don't feel a need to seperate the two so clearly.
Does Middle-Earth get boring because its timeline isn't updated into the 4th Age and beyond with every new release? No.
:heehee I must disagree. Middle Earth is an inanely boring setting IMO. On top of that I will state the heretical and say that Tolkiens writting is horribly tedious. Though the actual story is quite good and iconic to fantasy.
I will also note that the original D&D world -- Mystara -- survived for a decade without an on-going timeline, with all its setting materials and modules set at a specific (and even originally unspecified!) time period, with some adventures forward or outside of that.
I'm glad you liked it. That setting seemed mentally deficient to me, but mabye it gets better if you read more of it.
I can if they're claiming they're producing one thing for me when they're actually producing something else. In such a case, I have every right to complain about it if they're supposed to be giving me setting material, and I'm getting stories about the setting instead, then I will complain and loudly.
Sure if they are lying to you about their intent and/or the contents of their products I welcome you to complain.
Nor am I beholden to anyone to stay silent and uncritical just because they wrote something and distributed it for free. I do not have to pander to their ego and stay silent because I have no obligation to do so. Otherwise, you are trying to argue "you'll eat it and you'll like it", with all the attendant "and if you don't, then you won't eat". It's the same attitude behind "you'll do this job and you'll like it, or I'll fire you and you'll starve" used by sweatshop owners, which informs the reason we need labor unions protecting our workers.
It is a threat and it is nonsense. If you can't take criticism, you especially shouldn't be in any creative field.
No, you aren't beholden to stay silent. Just don't expect it to get you anywhere when your criticisms are of the non-constructive variety and attack the very foundations of their work.
That's the biggest load of horse poo I've ever read. The only reason you aren't supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth is because if it has bad teeth, you don't want to offend the giver and have him shove his sword through you because you found out he's a cheapskate.
The statement is about manners regarding being given a gift -- in that a recipient should not look for added value in a gift -- and it is also a lot of bad advice and nonsense based on ridiculous social mores, used mainly by people who are cheap to not feel guilty about being cheap. Getting an old nag as a gift is an insult, not a gift. Any Norseman would gladly stick his sword through you for daring to offend him with an unworthy and insulting "gift".
It's also incredibly foolish not to do so, as we all know what happened when the Trojans failed to look their gift horse in the mouth...
Well if you don't mind getting stabbed in the gut, go for. I think you are taking me a little to literally. Some people appreciate what they are given, whether its exactly what they wanted or not. Others use imperfection as an excuse to complain, very quickly those in the later camp stop recieving gifts.
You have not heard what I said.
Your right, unfortunately I can only read what you write. Please try to communicate your ideas more clearly. Either that or have the patience to explain what you meant.
Did anyone say anything about "good" or "bad" writing? No, they did not. I do recall saying something about confusing setting facts with stories based on those facts, and that the metaplots make good fiction, but bad game material.
Do not focus on the fact that I said "bad game material" -- do not wail and gnash your teeth about that horrible judgement because the material is so obviously good -- turn your attention to the fact that they are "good fiction" and you will see my point.
I have no idea what your talking about here. I did not wail nor did I gnash my teeth, nor did I focus on the fact that you said bad game material. I don't see your point.
Oh, and a minor correction, Exalted has no metaplot. White Wolf explicitly wanted Exalted's design to stay away from metaplot; this was one of the cornerstones of the game's original design and the new WW philosophy that has thankfully bled over into their revamped World of Darkness lines.
I stand corrected.
Tangentially, I do find it fascinating how some players feel the need to defend the idea of metaplots. It is almost as though criticizing metaplots is somehow seen as an attack on the player; perhaps they are confusing their personal enjoyment of the metaplot (of the story) with the criticism of the idea of metaplots (someone else's stories) in gaming materials.
So, once more: I am criticizing the idea of fiction disguised as gaming material, not the fiction itself. Thus, "Oh, but I think the fiction is interesting" and "I like the fiction" falls on deaf ears, because that is irrelevant to the point.
It not an attack on the player (or DM) its an attack on something that they enjoy and would like to see continued in gaming materials.
Again I don't buy that its fiction disguised as gaming material I consider fiction to be as much a part of gaming material as anything else. I would not want to seperate the story from the setting entirely. Part of the flavor and character of a setting for me is the dynamic of it. How it evolves and grows. I don't feel constrained by the metaplot, I feel inspired.
Goahead and insult me if you want and call me uncreative, my personal view is that I'm not threatened by the ideas of others. And I would say that you are very independant in your creative process.
This probably difference probably spills over into our DM styles as well. When I run a game the players help me to create the story and I welcome their ideas about the setting and their interpretation of events. Just like I let the game materials help me to develop the plot of my games. I don't feel the need to control every aspect of the story or even have the game material tell me what this building is or how that group operates. But do not I let the game materials or the players have the final say either. There are ups and downs to my style of play as I am sure their are for yours as well. Everyone has diffent preferences.
Speaking of novels, plowing the world with them, etc, I have a question.
Having the peculiarities of athas.org being the official DS source and the non-substantialness of WotC support, what would happen if a person would write a novel in the DS world? Would he be able to publish it as an official/canon work, after presumably seeking confirmation at.. athas.org? WotC? Whom would the person need to speak to?
As far as I understand the curent DS rules etc are covered by the OGL which (correct me if I'm wrong) allows people to change them for personal use et cetera but what of the story? Can it be further advanced through canon means?
WotC hold the intellectual property rights to Dark Sun and so any DS novel would only be published through them. Given that they are not currently supporting the setting, it's pretty unlikely that they would green-light such an undertaking.
Some elements of athas.org's material are open content (marked as such in the individual releases) but the majority is not. As for the actual setting, our mandate from WotC prevents us from making sweeping changes to the established material.
WotC hold the intellectual property rights to Dark Sun and so any DS novel would only be published through them. Given that they are not currently supporting the setting, it's pretty unlikely that they would green-light such an undertaking.
Some elements of athas.org's material are open content (marked as such in the individual releases) but the majority is not. As for the actual setting, our mandate from WotC prevents us from making sweeping changes to the established material.
Thank you for the clarification though I do still have one question (which undoubtably has been asked thousands of times): As the current state of WotC (non)support over DS setting, are there any at all indications that in the future the setting would be brought back to activity (needless to say propaganda as well)?
Thank you for the clarification though I do still have one question (which undoubtably has been asked thousands of times): As the current state of WotC (non)support over DS setting, are there any at all indications that in the future the setting would be brought back to activity (needless to say propaganda as well)?
Not that I am aware of, although there are frequent calls for its return from fans of the setting. Most recently, as you may already be aware, there were a series of articles in Dragon (issues 315 and 319) and Dungeon (issues 110 and 111) magazines that presented an alternate 3e conversion of the DS setting (penned by Dave Noonan), and there was another article in Dragon issue 339 (this time by athas.org members), presenting a version of the dragon advanced being prestige class.
I'm afraid everyone isn't up to your exhalted level...etc.
Sage, I have explained myself a number of times clearly and politely, but if you wish to persist in your belief that I am advocating gaming fiction is somehow inferior and stupid, go right ahead, though I have repeatedly indicated that no value judgement of the sort was implied.
Further, as you wish to respond in such an immature and discourteous manner as you have chosen above, I will give no further attention to debate with you.
Sage, I have explained myself a number of times clearly and politely, but if you wish to persist in your belief that I am advocating gaming fiction is somehow inferior and stupid, go right ahead, though I have repeatedly indicated that no value judgement of the sort was implied.
Further, as you wish to respond in such an immature and discourteous manner as you have chosen above, I will give no further attention to debate with you.
I don't nor have I ever thought that you were advocating that gaming fiction is somehow inferior and stupid. You have made yourself very clear on that point to the point of redunancy. You keep on claiming on both this page and the other that I am not following your aurguments and that I don not understand.
That is a cop out.
I am sorry for not taking a more mature tone with you, but my difference in opinion is legitamate and you continue to insult my intelligence and character charadcterizing me as somehow beneath your level of discourse. I have tried to aviod the same tactic, but with enough baiting it can be hard to resist.
Just to be clear. I understand and can appreciate you opinion that gaming material should be completely seperate from story material 100% of the time. I am sure that that is what would be of the most benefit to you and your games. I disagree.
I think that there is already plenty of gaming material that is not tied to a metaplot and I enjoy the inclusion of a metaplot within the actual gaming products. A seperate fiction does not serve the same purpose for me. In fact I do not read ficticious novels anymore so gaming materials/movies are my only source fresh sources of ideas for story lines.
That's the great thing about being a DM -- I choose what I want in my campaigns or not. The books only provide suggestions that I can pick which ones I wish to have in my games or not. In the end, I'm usually making up a lot of material on my own, only using things that are published as guidelines, not hard-fast rules. I guess there's those who would like an easy "cop out" solution to things where they can just grab books and go without needing to make anything on their own (ok, a little exaggeration on my part there), but for me, that's never been Dark Sun -- everything is a little off, materials don't correlate well with each other, and in many ways it was rather hastily completed. It also was not a very mature setting when TSR died. Rather than getting upset at all of this, I try to work it all out myself, and come up with a solution I find appealing.
Exactly right- It is your game as a DM- you can do anything you want with it.Part of the reason that I like playing in DS is the fact that is does not have 500 books and resource manuals- like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance. Don't get me wrong, I love both of those setting, but I only read the books, I do not play there. Those setting are too concrete IMO, and all of the history and material only serve to tie you up.
Now with DS, you do have some history, but most of it is so far back that it only has an effect on the peripherals of the game, or has contradictions. I actually like that part, because I can either choose which version I like or use them both like a legend- both versions are somewhat true but have become distorted through time and lose of records during the Cleansing Wars.
Please don't take a patronizing tone with me. Age is often times a poor indicator of maturity.
So is whether or not someone is married...
As far as my two ceramic bits?
Greyorm needs to get off his indie RPG high horse and either deal, or don't use the material.
As for what I do? I choose to go through all of the material (once I have the time) and pick and choose what I want to use. Metaplots, NPCs, adventures, whatever, and then make up my own stuff to fill the gaps.
Generally I do follow the metaplot, but usually in a way to include the PCs. If I can't do that then I run it in the background while the PCs are doing their own little thing and make what they are doing just as important and try to link the two somehow.
Or I just throw it all out and use my own metaplot, just depends on my mood and what I am wanting to do and how much work I want to put into it.
Seems pretty simple to me, and I've been doing it since AD&D 2nd ed. ever since I started actually DMing, instead of just being a player.
I don't have the time to create as I once did. My biggest problem finding the right materials is the character levels necessary to create a challenge for my players. My group averages 16th level. I have seen very few adventures (even in Dungeon) which are created for over 15th level. When they are they seem silly.
The 3.5 rules can make it extremely tiring to create an epic or almost epic level group of NPC baddies to battle my PCs. The choices available are astounding and very complex. While I appreciate the variety, character building is an arduous process as compared to 10 years ago.
Recently, I created a 38th level character consisting of 18 levels of Ranger and 5 Assassin with 8 Arcane Archer and 7 levels of Defiler. The process took me 3 hours! No I don't create these characters every day so I am not near as efficient as some of you guys, but that is way too long.
A Rogues Gallery for Dark Sun would be cool. I don't need another long "world changing" adventure although, when the time is right, I will run Dregoth. :D
In fact, I'm probably the only fan of Dark Sun who likes the Ravenloft version of Kalidnay. I have never and probably never will run it in an actual Ravenloft campaign, but it certainly works well enough for me as an explanation for why Kalidnay lies in ruins.
This is a piece of Dark Sun history that actually was removed from the official history as the designers didn't like it themselves. For that matter, they didn't like the idea that Kalid-Ma was a female and changed her to a male. I certainly don't think TSR was taking a sexist stance on the issue, but it didn't work for them, however it works for me and a campaign I ran years back.
Everything else is canon enough for me.
If you're not happy with the canon established, then wipe the slate clean and start over with your own.
If you don't have the time to start over with your own stuff but don't like what's there, well, I'd say you're in a bit of a pickle. Sorry.
In fact, I'm probably the only fan of Dark Sun who likes the Ravenloft version of Kalidnay. I have never and probably never will run it in an actual Ravenloft campaign, but it certainly works well enough for me as an explanation for why Kalidnay lies in ruins.
This is a piece of Dark Sun history that actually was removed from the official history as the designers didn't like it themselves. For that matter, they didn't like the idea that Kalid-Ma was a female and changed her to a male. I certainly don't think TSR was taking a sexist stance on the issue, but it didn't work for them, however it works for me and a campaign I ran years back.
Everything else is canon enough for me.
If you're not happy with the canon established, then wipe the slate clean and start over with your own.
If you don't have the time to start over with your own stuff but don't like what's there, well, I'd say you're in a bit of a pickle. Sorry.
Actually, Kalid-Ma started male, and was incorrectly put in the Ravenloft setting as Female. However calling yourself the "only" fan who likes the Ravenloft Kalidnay is probably a gross exaggeration. I for one use Kalidnay as a link to Ravenloft, and I actually uphold the idea that both versions of Kalidnay actually happened -- with Kalidnay being sucked into the mists, and also with other SK's coming and slaying "Kalid-Ma" just before the transformation was complete. I claim that the Dark Powers basically make a "fake" version of Kalidnay to seamlessly replace the Kalidnay that went into the mists, and the other SK's were supposed to think they killed Kalid-Ma and sacked the city.
Actually, Kalid-Ma started male, and was incorrectly put in the Ravenloft setting as Female. However calling yourself the "only" fan who likes the Ravenloft Kalidnay is probably a gross exaggeration. I for one use Kalidnay as a link to Ravenloft, and I actually uphold the idea that both versions of Kalidnay actually happened -- with Kalidnay being sucked into the mists, and also with other SK's coming and slaying "Kalid-Ma" just before the transformation was complete. I claim that the Dark Powers basically make a "fake" version of Kalidnay to seamlessly replace the Kalidnay that went into the mists, and the other SK's were supposed to think they killed Kalid-Ma and sacked the city.
Yeah, pretty much in agreement here. You definately aren't the only DS fan that likes the Revenloft Kalidnay.
You will probably like Shei-nad's work on combining the two inconsistencies too.
Kali-ma/Ravenloft contradiction
(Yeah, I know. I need to get this up on my site as well.)
So is whether or not someone is married...
No one made a statement about either age or marriage having ANYTHING to do with maturity. Please read the statement I made: "...unlike you kids, most of us old married fogeys don't have the time to do all sorts of campaign setting work anymore..."
"Us older married guys don't have the time to put into the hobby you younger unmarried folk do." That seems pretty obvious. This "patronization" and "maturity" argument that keeps being brought up is a red herring based on a knee-jerk reactionary reading of what was actually said.
Just because someone mentions "marriage" or "age" does not mean they're saying how much more mature they are than you.
But such nonsense is exactly why I am not discussing this further with Sage. I have neither the time nor desire to deal with anyone who can not or will not read and make an attempt to charitably understand what is actually put in front of them.
Greyorm needs to get off his indie RPG high horse and either deal, or don't use the material.
Right. Try to convince me by threatening me -- telling me to just shut-up. "You'll eat it and you'll like it." No, no I won't. Sorry if that upsets you.
First off, have I judged anyone who wants to use or likes metaplots? Nope. Any judgement you feel in my points about why metaplots are problematic and should not exist in gaming material is entirely your own invention and your own problem -- so these anger-based, stick-it-to-you snipes as responses are emotionally misplaced.
You enjoy the fiction, the official plot. Great! Doesn't matter to the point I'm making, as if I liked the official plot, I wouldn't argue any differently than I am.
Second, I've been on this horse since years before I joined the Indie scene. Go back through the old Dark Sun list archive and you'll find a number of instances of me ranting about this very problem pre-2000. But nice attempt to discredit my point by trying to discredit me, anyways; attack one of my associations rather than arguing against the points made.
Well then, here's a guy who isn't with the Indie scene who makes the same points: Why I Hate Your Metaplot.
Of course, that doesn't mean I haven't always enjoyed Kirt's Standard Rant #1: Metaplots as a good overview of what makes metaplots bad ideas...and also talks about how to do them right.
Here's yet another of the Forge topics on the subject, where Independent publishers defend metaplot: Benefits and Uses for Metaplot.
There is also the hoary The Dread Metaplot with lots of great linkage to previous discussions, and which pretty much overturns any possible accusations of a "Indie" attitudes towards metaplots.
Here's a D&D gamer, again not an Indie, who points out why Dark Sun's metaplot is broken, for good reason: Metaplot and Core Story. (Yessir, that's bang-on from where I'm standing.)
You'll also note I'm not the only one here who thinks metaplots are troublesome: note the initiator of this very thread has feelings similar to mine. There are also many, many White Wolf fans who are also opponents of metaplot in gaming. Even White Wolf ditched metaplots, because they were bad for business: it was alienating their customers from their gaming products, because their customers were saying, "Why should I buy this when I'm just going to have to rewrite half or more of it anyways?"
So the idea that metaplots are problematic has nothing to do with being an Independent publisher or high horses at all, and is a pretty prevalent thought among all sectors of the hobby (prevalent enough that one of the two big publishers thinks it is worth listening to in their product line development).
But you think we should all just "deal", huh? Well, go right ahead and villify me for not toeing the line, threaten me, and attempt to marginalize me; just shout down all dissenting opinions. All very unconducive to what I would think we would be on these boards for: open, charitable discussion.
You cannot invalidate the opposition by distraction from the actual issues; next time I suggest responding to my argument instead of insulting me with ad hominems and tacitly dismissing my points with a strawman, Nathan.
Or I just throw it all out and use my own metaplot, just depends on my mood and what I am wanting to do and how much work I want to put into it.
That's fine for you, and I have no beef with your doing that. But as I stated, that is completely contrary to my reasons for buying/using developed material in the first place...so I don't have to do that work. Telling me to "just deal" is insulting, belitting, and does little to inspire me that you have any desire to concern yourself with the fans. Feel free to ignore and dismiss any valid problems raised by anyone who finds metaplots troublesome!
But before you do that, here's a prime example of why it is a problem: when things like "City-State of Tyr" come out, purportedly detailing the setting I purchased, they are mostly useless to me unless I have chosen to follow the metaplot, because they require work out of me that I purchased the product to avoid having to do. Why should I have to redevelop the information that should have been in there that was displaced by changes caused by what amounts to someone else's game?
I don't care that it isn't a problem for YOU, or random gamer X, because you're just happy rewriting whatever is needed, or that you are ok with putting down $25 for a book that has three pages of useful material; what YOU can or can not do doesn't concern me at all. Great! YOU can do it! Let's get rid of handicapped access ramps because YOU can climb stairs, or because the handicapped could just crawl up them. That is not an argument that is going to persuade me.
If your desire is to drive gamers away from the setting, then you would be doing a good job.
I have suggested solutions to this problem in the past, such as the production of seperate metaplot books for those who want to include changes to the setting developed by someone else. As an example, "The Scarlet Empress Returns" as a metaplot/story-development supplement for Exalted, detailing her return. But at the same time, leaving it as independently existing material, outside canon, for those who want to include such changes in their game's setting. Freeing those who don't from having to work around it (something that would invalidate a core part of the Exalted world: that the Empress is gone).
Exalted "Autochtonians" supplement has another good way to handle metaplot: they give suggestions of the various things that might happen, the various courses of history that could be followed, but none of those is canonized nor interefere with future or existing supplements.
There are many other suggestions elsewhere, in the various threads I've linked to above, regarding creating useful and functional (non-disruptive) metaplot material.
No one said anything about either age or marriage having ANYTHING to do with maturity. Please read the statement I made: "...unlike you kids, most of us old married fogeys don't have the time to do all sorts of campaign setting work anymore..."
"Us older married guys don't have the time to put into the hobby you younger unmarried folk do." That seems pretty obvious. This "patronization" and "maturity" argument that keeps being brought up is a red herring based on a knee-jerk reactionary reading of what was actually said.
Just because someone mentions "marriage" or "age" does not mean they're saying how much more mature they are than you.
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood you.
But such nonsense is exactly why I am not having anything further to do with Sage. I have neither the time nor desire to deal with anyone who can not or will not read and make an attempt to charitably understand what is actually put in front of them.
Please do not demean me or my intelligence further. I understand your frustration, but you cannot simply pawn it all off on me.
Right. Try to convince me by threatening me -- telling me to just shut-up. "You'll eat it and you'll like it." No, no I won't. Sorry if that upsets you.
You are correct in thinking that those tactics are not very good ones. Still you could be more considerate and patient yourself.
First off, have I judged anyone who wants to use or likes metaplots? Nope. Any judgement you feel in my points about why metaplots are problematic and should not exist in gaming material is entirely your own invention and your own problem. You enjoy the fiction, the official plot. Great! Doesn't matter to the point I'm making, as if I liked the official plot, I wouldn't argue any differently than I am.
Fair enough. That's nice to know.
Go right ahead and villify me for not toeing the line, threaten me, and attempt to marginalize me; just shout down all dissenting opinions. All very unconducive to what I would think we would be on these boards for: open, charitable discussion.
I don't think you are a bad person. Your opinions are welcome. I was overly passionate in my disagreement.
You'll also note I'm not the only one here who thinks metaplots are troublesome: note the initiator of this very thread has feelings similar to mine.
I think that is were the whole misunderstanding occured. I thought that you were aligning yourself with the sentiments of the 1st poster. That Athas.org should ditch the official timeline and return to the original box set, and initially transfering some of my outrage at his tone to you.
That's fine for you, and I have no beef with your doing that. But as I stated, that is completely contrary to my reasons for buying/using developed material in the first place...so I don't have to do that work. Telling me to "just deal" is insulting, belitting, and does little to inspire me that you have any desire to concern yourself with the fans. Feel free to ignore and dismiss any valid problems raised by anyone who finds metaplots troublesome.
We should all be more sympathic to the problems of others. Just because it does not effect us does not mean that it does not effect others. With effort I can look beyond your sarcasm and see that I behaved improperly. I do however think that you would be better served if you dispensed with your sarcasm.
But before you do that, here's a prime example of why it is a problem for me: when things like "City-State of Tyr" come out, purportedly detailing the setting I purchased, they are mostly useless to me unless I have chosen to follow the metaplot, because they require work out of me that I purchased the product to avoid having to do. Why should I have to redevelop the information that should have been in there that was displaced by changes caused by what amounts to someone else's game?
Good point. They forced that bit almost immediately. Personally I love it, but that's pretty bad railroading if you're wanting to take your story in another direction.
I don't care that it isn't a problem for YOU, or random gamer X, because you're just happy rewriting whatever is needed, or that you are ok with putting down $25 for a book that has three pages of useful material; what YOU can or can not do doesn't concern me at all. Great! YOU can do it! Let's get rid of handicapped access ramps because YOU can climb stairs, or because the handicapped could just crawl up them. That is not an argument that is going to persuade me.
I am thouroughly persaded on the pointlessness of that argument. Good example.
I've even suggested solutions to this problem in the past, such as the production of seperate metaplot books for those who want to include changes to the setting developed by someone else. As an example, "The Scarlet Empress Returns" as a story-development supplement for Exalted, detailing her return. But at the same time, leaving it as an independently existing supplement for those who want to include such changes in their game's setting, not as a given that invalidates a core part of the Exalted world: that the Empress is gone.
Exalted "Autochtonians" supplement has another good way to handle metaplot: they give suggestions of the various things that might happen, the various courses of history that could be followed, but none of those is canonized nor interefere with future or existing supplements.
Those are very good solutions. And would do much to amelorate my concerns with the removal of metaplot. I have to say that that solution would probably be satisfactory to most people, on both sides of the issue. Metaplot could be specifically contained within certain books so that people who were not interested would not be fooled into buying them. The other books would only contain suggestions as to how events could unfold.
No one made a statement about either age or marriage having ANYTHING to do with maturity. Please read the statement I made: "...unlike you kids, most of us old married fogeys don't have the time to do all sorts of campaign setting work anymore..."
The use of the word "kids" in the way that you used it is very patronizing, in fact that whole statement seems patronizing to me, hence my comments.
I wasn't taking anything personal up until that point, but I do agree with Sage, you do seem to be coming off a bit more sarcastic and uppity than you probably want to, especially if you are trying to persuade us to at least have sympathy for your side. Something that is very uncharacteristic of you usually.
"Us older married guys don't have the time to put into the hobby you younger unmarried folk do." That seems pretty obvious. This "patronization" and "maturity" argument that keeps being brought up is a red herring based on a knee-jerk reactionary reading of what was actually said.
It would be a red herring if it was not in the tone that it is and if I was the only one seeing an issue with how you stated things, since I'm not, and since the way you worded things is clearly taking a patrionizing tone, then it is in fact a legitimate thing to be concerned and even upset about.
Just because someone mentions "marriage" or "age" does not mean they're saying how much more mature they are than you.
It has nothing to do with the words themsevles, but how you used them in the sentence and the tone that was conveyed.
But such nonsense is exactly why I am not discussing this further with Sage. I have neither the time nor desire to deal with anyone who can not or will not read and make an attempt to charitably understand what is actually put in front of them.
And then you go and further patronize him saying he is beneath you because your assuming that he isn't understanding, when he is in most cases and in other it seems like a miscommunication thing. Which happens a lot online. It would help if you would drop the tone you seem to be carrying along with your posts in this thread and the other that broke out into a philosophy debate.
I know I for one was actually enjoying reading this thread up until you started feeling attacked personally because no one was agreeing with you after the initial few posts.
Right. Try to convince me by threatening me -- telling me to just shut-up. "You'll eat it and you'll like it." No, no I won't. Sorry if that upsets you.
It's not a threat unless I actually threaten you. I was more or less just telling you to shut up because I was tired of hearing your "uppity indie rpg" rhetoric. Now that I know that's not the case I can apologize for my statement and we can move on. But it would be nice if you would simmer the tone down some.
First off, have I judged anyone who wants to use or likes metaplots? Nope.
Actually, most of your posts do come off that way, and since I'm not the only one feeling this (Kam and Rhul see it too apparently, and a few others), that would mean that you probably need to watch the tone some.
Any judgement you feel in my points about why metaplots are problematic and should not exist in gaming material is entirely your own invention and your own problem -- so these anger-based, stick-it-to-you snipes as responses are emotionally misplaced.
Actually, they are your problem if you can't let the audience understand your argument. You are coming off as some sort of gaming snob that is just too damn cool to hang out with us "young" and unmarried types, and how dare we like metaplots.
Second, I've been on this horse since years before I joined the Indie scene. Go back through the old Dark Sun list archive and you'll find a number of instances of me ranting about this very problem pre-2000.
Ok good, I wasn't aware. Now I am, and I thank you for that tidbit of information.
But nice attempt to discredit my point by trying to discredit me, anyways; attack one of my associations rather than arguing against the points made.
I would if there was some actual merit to the argument, now that I see that you aren't trying to come off as some pretentious gamer I can realize that there is and then I can join in on the argument if I so choose.
Unfortunately, I could really give a damn. It was interesting to read and learn new information, even more so now that you have actually provided some links to back up your claim. Hell, I might even agree with you after I read said links, but I initially posted because I was tired of hearing your rhetoric and seeing this thread slowly turn into a flame war.
You'll also note I'm not the only one here who thinks metaplots are troublesome: note the initiator of this very thread has feelings similar to mine.
He was also attacking athas.org's as well as the original designer's work, and that post felt more like a rant attacking said things then it did to actually educate us metaplot lovers on the real issue. So I am going to have to agree with Sage again on this one. It seemed as though you were siding with him, an argument that was mostly of bad form because it came off once again, in the wrong tone.
But you think we should all just "deal", huh?
Nope, but don't come across as vilifying others because they do like metaplots. That's all I, and a few others are trying to get across.
You cannot invalidate the opposition by distraction from the actual issues; next time I suggest responding to my argument instead of insulting me with ad hominems and tacitly dismissing my points with a strawman, Nathan.
Your right that I made a poor post in opposition to your arguments Raven, and I'll apologize again for that. But I ask you, politely, to chill the tone a little, because you are not coming across as you are intending to.
Telling me to "just deal" is insulting, belitting, and does little to inspire me that you have any desire to concern yourself with the fans.
Now your insulting me. ;)
But I deserve that this time around.
If I didn't concern myself with the fans I wouldn't attack athas.org's work the way I do, or Paizo's, other's, or my own, as well as work to bring about more variety, like many others are doing, so that we can have much to choose from if one specific set of rules isn't liked by the community for whatever reason, or at least allow for the mixing of ideas if that is so desired.
I don't care that it isn't a problem for YOU, or random gamer X, because you're just happy rewriting whatever is needed, or that you are ok with putting down $25 for a book that has three pages of useful material; what YOU can or can not do doesn't concern me at all. Great! YOU can do it! Let's get rid of handicapped access ramps because YOU can climb stairs, or because the handicapped could just crawl up them. That is not an argument that is going to persuade me.
Now who is being a strawman?
Just because I thought you were being uppity and not making a very valid argument doesn't mean that suddenly I'm some selfish prick that only cares about myself. I think you know me better than that. It certainly shouldn't assume that just because I like metaplots and you don't that suddenly I don't care about your needs as well.
If this is just an emotional response in retaliation to my emotional response, fine, but don't be going around being a hypocrite about it.
If your desire is to drive gamers away from the setting, then you would be doing a good job.
Nope. I actually want to see more people come to the setting, no matter what sort of ruleset they use.
Exalted "Autochtonians" supplement has another good way to handle metaplot: they give suggestions of the various things that might happen, the various courses of history that could be followed, but none of those is canonized nor interefere with future or existing supplements.
And it would be great if we could do that. I would be up for doing it at least. But you are going to have to do a better job of convinving athas.org and others of that. I'm just a lowly guy in the monsters' bureau, I don't make the big decisions, which is probably a good thing.
There are many other suggestions elsewhere, in the various threads I've linked to above, regarding creating useful and functional (non-disruptive) metaplot material.
I will be sure to read them all since you do post very informative links most of the time, whether I agree with what is presented or not.
This topic was brought up ages ago but it should be kept in the minds of new comers ;)
The original Dark Sun boxed set is awesome, one of the best things ever for AD&D.
And then the official novels/adventures/history screw it up! UGH!
It's like why Forgotten Realms went bad for many folk: being slotted into an "official" history/mapping etc that squelched their game vision....
There, simple, makes sense with D&D lore, allows lot more customization
DMs can similarly develop their own history and lore to fit their vision of Athas.
Honestly, I think Athas.org should DITCH the official history because it constrains and ruins DS, seriously. Stick to the FIRST BOXED set, that's all. Though many of the game aids like Dune Trader, monster manual are of course, wonderful and don't mess things up.
Hm?
Hmmm
I'm in two minds about the official history of Athas and the mapping stuff I did ages ago.I like having reasons of why things are the way they are and the ancient history (early timeline) of Athas does a good job of that without too much detail.
Throughout all the book and adventures I found that the historical imagery was lacking i.e. when PCs see ruins, ancient roads, forms of armour or weaponry that survived from the Green Age I liked to keep some consistency in different areas (without hopefully falling back on earth based stereotypes). This is where some form of mapping or history makes the setting more interesting and gives a sense of the past.
When I worked on the world maps I could see populations, types of culture and the ruins they would leave behind, particularly after the Cleansing Wars when the Green Age had reached its psionic and ‘cultural’ peak. So whenever taking the PCs there or following their whims I had a set of ideas in place to keep thing different and interesting. This also goes somewhat with Pennarin’s comment in a different thread about making the ‘standard’ races different in some way. I too had ideas of orc, ogres and goblins etc. having a high culture (somewhere to the east of Ur Draxa). Similarly the various SKs, IMO, drew upon their cultures to construct the very different city-states that cluster around the vicinity of the Pristine Tower.
I found that the various groups I've DMed for got more out of play when able to begin sowing the past together.
I enjoyed the Pentad for the descriptions and depth it added, but also wasn’t happy with the metaplot particularly as the Pentad came out almost simultaneously with the box set and changed the setting so much. However, like many have commented you don’t have to use the books, you can change them, or can write adventures to fit within the story arc.
I guess when you are writing adventures for all, such as Athas.com, you have to stick to some form of consistency and unified vision so you don’t lose the plot… :D
I'd say they accomplished what they set out to do, and I was happy with the way it all turned out during it's 5-year run. I was really looking forward to seeing what further changes they had in store as long as there wasn't any kind of dramatic magical phenomenon that didn't turn the world green again overnight.
Essentially, since it was intended to be an ever-changing setting, we as the players could either roll with it, toss it or play something else.
If you're a devoted Dark Sun fan, then you obviously rolled with it, other wise you would have dropped it ages ago and there'd really be no point in posting otherwise here.
So to the original poster:
If you're unhappy with the changes, why did you stick with it?
Apology accepted, and I agree that I probably came off a little strong in voicing my arguments regarding the subject, particularly in my second post. However, I did not attempt to insult you at any time, and I'm sorry if you felt I was.
I think that is were the whole misunderstanding occured. I thought that you were aligning yourself with the sentiments of the 1st poster. That Athas.org should ditch the official timeline and return to the original box set, and initially transfering some of my outrage at his tone to you.
Well, that's the first problem, I think. Being "outraged" by it. Yeah, you can disagree...but outrage at a perfectly valid viewpoint, and regarding a game at that? Yes, even one we're all crazy about. That isn't beneficial to anyone, including you -- and just shuts down avenues of discourse with blind emotion.
Honestly, I thought your reponse to Silver was rude and way too harsh -- as you even state at the beginning of the post -- and I really don't see any of the vicious, terrible attacks against individuals in his statements that are being attributed to him by you and Nathan (I just went back and reread all of his posts on the subject).
So he doesn't think the PP is a good thing and believes a group shouldn't have some game company's view of "what happens" in the world shoved down their throats, that there should be a static base setting with suggested plotlines GMs can choose to follow or not. Well, er, yeah? That's exactly what I said, too!
Metaplot could be specifically contained within certain books so that people who were not interested would not be fooled into buying them. The other books would only contain suggestions as to how events could unfold.
This is exactly what I would like to see, and what I've advocated for in the past. I don't know the terms of Athas.org's agreement with WotC to know if they would be able to do any such thing, but if so, I think it would be a great step.
For those who believe that metapot adds diversity to a setting, just think how much more diversity can be added to a setting if one chose to produce multiple plot books? That is, numerous paths to choose from, that are not constrained by the canonicity of any of the others! Obviously there would be no restriction against linked plot products, either, so one could have story arcs over a series of materials, ie: "This book assumes the following series of events to have occurred/be true..."
Now who is being a strawman?
I am not attacking an argument you did not make; what you are calling a strawman here was a response to your stated argument that anyone who doesn't like metaplot should "either deal, or don't use the material" and the following argument that ends with "seems pretty simple to me", as well as to others who were putting forth similar "you can just pick-and-choose like we do because it isn't a big deal for us" arguments.
My response there, the analogy of handicapped access to buildings, was a direct refutation of the idea put forth -- "deal like everyone else" -- and how (and why) that suggestion fares poorly in most situations.
It's not a threat unless I actually threaten you
I would argue it is what is known as an implied threat; in telling someone to shut-up, there is an implicit "do it...or else." However, upon consideration, you are correct that was the wrong word to use; I should have stated instead that you were being hostile.
The use of the word "kids" in the way that you used it is very patronizing, in fact that whole statement seems patronizing to me, hence my comments...It would be a red herring if it was not in the tone that it is and if I was the only one seeing an issue with how you stated things, since I'm not, and since the way you worded things is clearly taking a patrionizing tone, then it is in fact a legitimate thing to be concerned and even upset about...It has nothing to do with the words themsevles, but how you used them in the sentence and the tone that was conveyed.
How I used them in the sentence...I used them to indicate my meaning.
To be patronizing means I would have been condescending. Please, show me how and in what way that statement, as it is written, condescends anyone for being a kid or unmarried? It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about being a kid or being unmarried being good or bad, or anything else.
Anything you added to that because it seems I was saying something between the lines, because you might think the use of the word "kids" to describe someone younger with more free time is patronizing, is your own addition to my statement. All bandwagon ("I'm not the only one") arguments not withstanding.
I can not control how you feel about a word and I do not accept any responsibility at all for a supposedly "patronizing" tone you argue I used, despite your belief (and claim) that it is "clearly" so.
Particularly given that the written medium is a medium with a highly subjective tone, any tone you feel was in those words was injected by you; and in doing so, I remind you something you should already know: more than one "tone" can be read into any written statement.
Hence my suggestion of the practice of charitable reading being followed. That is, assumption that the other guy isn't being a dink, even when it is "obvious" to you he is, because more than half the time a person will be wrong because they will be filtering it through their own personal feelings and reactions. And no, obviously I am not perfect in this respect, either.
But, no, I will not apologize or take responsibility for what you think I said, and I will definitely not apologize or take responsibility for how you feel about what you think I said.
You are coming off as some sort of gaming snob that is just too damn cool to hang out with us "young" and unmarried types, and how dare we like metaplots.
See, that's all you, pure personal interpretation, because I didn't say any of that! I'm chalking this up as a "You called a black man 'articulate', you racist bastard, how dare you!" event. That is, it is something more about your preconceived notions than it is about what I have said.
And then you go and further patronize him saying he is beneath you because your assuming that he isn't understanding, when he is in most cases and in other it seems like a miscommunication thing.
I'm not just assuming. Sage did fail to understand me, on a number of repeated points. There were a few places where it was obvious he was NOT reading what I was saying, and just reacting, such as where he argued: "...have the patience to explain what you meant." When, in the sentence immediately following the complaint that he was responding to, I had done just that and explained myself!
Snappily demanding I do something that I already actually did? That's a screaming, blinking, neon, "I haven't really read what you are writing, and am writing emotional/defensive knee-jerk responses" sign right there. However, as that was not the only instance of it and given his retreat to using ad hominems, I posted the statement that I would not continue the conversation with him on those basis.
You are trying to claim this response on my part was unreasonable and/or insulting to Sage. Should I have continued to discuss things with him while he was insulting me and provably not paying attention to things I was saying?
BTW, snarking about my "exhalted" position isn't patronizing at all? Very interesting and disappointing set of subjectively rose-colored glasses you are wearing today, Nathan.
I know I for one was actually enjoying reading this thread up until you started feeling attacked personally because no one was agreeing with you after the initial few posts.
This is a very interesting observation on your part, especially in light of the other following statements about the events of this thread:
now that I see that you aren't trying to come off as some pretentious gamer I can realize that there is and then I can join in on the argument if I so choose...It was interesting to read and learn new information, even more so now that you have actually provided some links to back up your claim. Hell, I might even agree with you after I read said links, but I initially posted because I was tired of hearing your rhetoric and seeing this thread slowly turn into a flame war.
Ok. Well, let's go through this:
I posted...twice (not "a few"), not including the third "done with this" post. I have never seen a flame-war erupt over the course of two posts, let alone slowly erupt in two posts. You will need to point out the flames in the first two posts; who am I flaming and how, because neither is apparent to me. Sage calling me "exhalted" is a flame, certainly, but I have a feeling you are trying to say I was flaming first and continuously(?).
Next, my third post ("not discussing this") had to do with one individual's repeated failure to understand me AND his use of ad hominem attacks...but had nothing to do with no one agreeing with me. Even if such had mattered, contrary to your statement someone DID agree with me -- Brian did. You are ascribing motivations to me that are your own creation, claiming this was some sort of tantrum instead.
I also find the "now that there is less rhetoric" claim irksome. I made the very same arguments in my very first post that I am making above in my last post, as a simple review of the thread reveals. I have not said anything different in that first post than I did in the last one above...yet for some reason they are suddenly not "rhetoric" now?
That simply makes no sense.
As well, you yourself say:
and that post felt more like a rant
Once again, it "felt" like a rant.
Reading through it I see: a group of supporting premises and their argument. Maybe not premises that anyone feels comfortable with, maybe even arguments or premises that are unpopular, but that doesn't mean it is a rant or that what is being argued is invalid or just rhetoric.
Nope, but don't come across as vilifying others because they do like metaplots. That's all I, and a few others are trying to get across.
Really? Because it amazes me you say that when one of the statements I made in my first post was that I wasn't saying that anyone who liked metaplots was a jerk. I even repeated myself in the second post, "So, once more: I am criticizing the idea of fiction disguised as gaming material, not the fiction itself." Sage even states he understood I wasn't saying that.
Why were you trying to convince me of something I had already said?
The most logical answer to that question seems to be: because you didn't read what I actually wrote, otherwise there would be no need for you to tell me something I already stated a number of times.
In conlcusion, this is a very interesting set of data regarding your reaction to and the contents of this thread. I'm going to bold this because this is the point of all this dissection: One of us has a badly skewed perception of how this conversation progressed and what was said during it.
Given that: you are claiming things about "a few" posts and flamage, ascribing motivations to me that are different than the obvious (and stated) ones, that only "rhetoric" existed in those posts when both contained the exact same arguments I just made (which aren't rhetoric now, for some reason), and that you are chiding me for doing something I was not doing, the only conclusion I can reach is that your perception of what has occured in this thread has been mistaken for some reason.
What is going on here is said best by yourself: you assumed I was trying to come off as a pretentious gamer. You assumed I was upset because no one was agreeing with me. You assumed I was villifying others for liking metaplot. YOU. ASSUMED.
I requote:
You are coming off as some sort of gaming snob that is just too damn cool to hang out with us "young" and unmarried types, and how dare we like metaplots.
As much as I normally like you, this here is all you, Nathan. You made some assumptions and let them negatively color your perceptions of my statements, and then went off on me, complaining how I was insulting black men by calling them 'articulate' (to again use that analogy) and demanding I stop being insulting.
But you have been annoyed at and attacking a figment of your own imagination rather than anything I have actually said. I can't apologize for how you feel about what you think I said, nor take responsibility for what you believe was said or implied, or how you feel about it.
In fact, you do this with Silverblade as well:
He was also attacking athas.org's as well as the original designer's work,
That's what I was thinking as well, but then I went back and reread all his posts just now. He wasn't doing any such thing. He said the Prism Pentad was awful because of what it does to the game world -- he makes the very same arguments I do about why that (forced setting progression/metaplot) is a bad thing. He's criticizing it. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it isn't an attack. The idea that he attacked the designers seems pretty obviously a production of your own invested feelings about the material being criticized, an overreaction to the criticism, because what you're stating is there just isn't. He isn't calling names and hurling insults.
He is saying, "The team should not use the PP metaplot material because it is troublesome", and it seems you are hearing, "The team should not use the PP metaplot material because it is troublesome (therefore, if they do, they suck)." ie: "He's very articulate" is not "He's very articulate, for a black man" -- and you can say "but the tone!" and "but the way you USED the word in the sentence" all you want, and that doesn't change what was said. It doesn't matter what you assume is being said.
In closing:
But it would be nice if you would simmer the tone down some.
It would also be nice if you would stop putting a tone in my mouth, because I can't do anything about any tone you are percieving me to have, nor any of the other things you have accused me of above that have provably not been the case here. I'm sorry there was an argument over all this, but I'll be damned if I take the blame because you made a bunch of assumptions about what I was saying and why: from my reason for ceasing discussion with Sage to a villification of those who enjoy using metaplot.
You show me some actual flaming and mudslinging next time, rather than "I feel you were mudslinging and villifying" and I'll apologize for it, but still NOT for what you feel is either because of the way you interpret a word or a tone you are reading into a statement.
Actually, most of your posts do come off that way, and since I'm not the only one feeling this (Kam and Rhul see it too apparently, and a few others), that would mean that you probably need to watch the tone some.
Or that you need to watch your own reactions better and strive for more charitable reading. I'm really sorry some of you guys were a tad too defensive about criticism of your favorite world or its publishing choices, and that it led to all sorts of bad feelings, but I can't do anything about that, even though you want me to be able to.
So to the original poster: If you're unhappy with the changes, why did you stick with it?
I'm not the original poster, but I sympathize with the idea that the changes were bad for the setting and needlessly intrusive, and I've stuck with the setting nonetheless.
Why? I think the reason should be pretty self-apparent: because the original setting caught the eye. The original setting, not the changed, altered, different-than-the-boxed-set setting. The stuff that came in that boxed set was cool, and that's what I liked and was looking for when I picked the setting up.
Where was Kalidnay detailed first, if Kalid-Ma was originally male? The earliest, more than passing, reference of it I've ever seen was Ravenloft's Dark Recesses, where Thakok-An was male and Kalid-Ma female. Also the next significant reference, the DS adventure "Merchant House of Amketch" Kalid-Ma is refered to as a sorcerer queen.
I always thought Kalid Ma was a "she" not a "he". :P
I always thought Kalid Ma was a "she" not a "he". :P
Well, it makes sense that Kalid-Ma would be female, if you give in to the Ravenloft continuity as I do, seeing as how it says that Thakok-An was a male templar who was in love with and obsessed with his queen that he put her in a slumber and hid her away in the city's ziggurat.
Now if you're going with the explanation that Kalid-Ma was a male, then the city may as well be renamed "Brokeback Kalidnay".
The PCs are actually very tight with Nibenay and they actually respect him! How I managed that is still a mystery.
The point is, I don't use metaplots unless I see it forwarding what I have in mind. I'm sure most DMs see it this way. The coolest part about pre-fabbed adventures is they require very little work (most of the time) so I can spend the extra time creating my own advenbtures.
I like Dark Sun *my* way. I'm the DM, I love the original setting, I do not like at all what was changed with it. It totally ruined the flavour. As said it's like someone suddenly whacking out half the important NPCs of the Relams..The Time of Troubles in the Realms was kinda of cool, but what occured in Athas, wasn't.
Dark Sun was mysterious, weird and interesting, blank slate, folk can do as they want, then WHAM!! "official" history etc SNAFU's it.
While game companies want to make more money by selling new products, they can really butcher a setting and upset folk who've got established campaigns. Go back to the 1st release of the Forgotten Realms, lovely product, well made..go on to hm, third? version, it was RUBBISH. Too much of the map filled in, the wonderful artwork in 1st edition changed to pathetic black and white scrawls...I could go on.
Campigns require mystery, if everything is mapped/detailed..bam, shoots that down. More products a setting has, more inertia a DM has to fight against. If the products detial things that don't majorly alter the game, that can be fine (Dune Traders), but whacking out several near-deities sucks, it also sucks as it smacked of forced/cheap.
Does Sherlock Holmes blow Moriarty's head off? Drizzt casually slay Artemis Entreri on their first encounter? *NO*! Why not? They are major, central plot characters.
*ONE* or maybe two SKs killed, or more like one weak one killed and one fakes/avoids death would be acceptable perhaps. Whacking out the Dragon, absolutely blasted well NOT ok. "Hi, your short lived campaign heroes or metaplot device wipes out the Tarrasque"...eh, no, and The Draogn was damn sight more important than Mr Tarrasque ;)
Dark Sun, up until the campign starts, seems for some time to have been in a decline, a dreamy, nasty slumber as it were in a broad sense...the heroes should be forces against that ennui if they so chose. Robbing them of that possibility and doing os quickly etc, ugh, ugh...
The over throw of one SK, or more likely, the founding of a secret village of free folk, should be a major campign goal/event.
I'm sorry I like Dark Sun because it's not for uber munchkins who reach lvl 20/20 and become dragon/monk/bard/flying ninja pirates of doom...sheesh! :D
In my first DS campaign, the characters didn't get a steel weapon to 7...but I also let them get a Ring of three wishes at lvl 10 because of a very rare dice roll and hey, it fit...folk simply didn't recognize it for what it was because Athas has become so backward...and the PCs ended up being hunted by Kalak and others. They were scared of the SKs minions never mind him!
Athas is best, IMHO, when it's about survival, skullduggery, dirty deeds doen dirt cheap, struggle to survive in the wilds, emphasizing it's barbarity and so on. Player's should get a buzz by defeating a problem with their skill not because they have a golf bag full of magical items, and the problem maybe as simple as finding water, never mind wiping out major NPCs who should crush them like bugs.
I did not attack Athas.org, I am saying that it is bad, foolish even, for Athas.org to stick to the metaplot, when a lot of folk don't like the way the novels influenced the setting: it ends up warping what DS was and thus prevents a new, fresh Dark Sun gamer from seeing DS in it's originial form and forming their own opinions, likes, dislikes, history etc for it.
A new DM/player iwll see Athas as having lost half it's Sks and Dragon, and the history laid out for them, insteadof them going "Hm, I'm gonna run Athas like a Planar realm close to the Abyss, but no one knows it, they are all dead spirits in Purgatory, like Lost"...or "Woo, gladiators in Tyr, that's for me", etc
I am not attacking an argument you did not make; what you are calling a strawman here was a response to your stated argument that anyone who doesn't like metaplot should "either deal, or don't use the material" and the following argument that ends with "seems pretty simple to me", as well as to others who were putting forth similar "you can just pick-and-choose like we do because it isn't a big deal for us" arguments.
My response there, the analogy of handicapped access to buildings, was a direct refutation of the idea put forth -- "deal like everyone else" -- and how (and why) that suggestion fares poorly in most situations.
I still think you are using a false analogy here.
Just because I don't care enough about your game, or your needs for gaming, doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly become this selfish prick that goes around stealing handicap ramps because I think people should only rely on their own devices.
It's also like saying that just because I don't care about something just as insignificant, that suddenly I'm not going to care about national health care, or helping the poor, ending world hunger, etc.
Another simpler analogy would be saying that I hate the troops involved with the Iraq War just because I oppose the Iraq War.
In short this type of argument is getting on the verge of foolishness pretty quickly. ;)
It's just a game to me, nothing more. Maybe I am getting too old or maybe I haven't had a gaming experience in awhile to make me keep some of the fire I had for it, but I just don't put forth the effort and care about it as much as you do these days.
That's pretty much what it all boils down to.
I did go back and re-read some of the posts you did, and while you are right in most areas, I still agree with Sage that you should show a bit more patience with this since most of us don't go into gaming this deeply as you do. You are for the most part being a bit more patient, so thanks for that.
I'll get to the rest when I have more time, because now I am interested despite the fact that I don't agree with everything said in the links you provided (yes, I read them all just like I promised).
However, I see and agree that there is an issue. It's just a matter of whether we can solve it at athas.org or at least eliminate it some. I'll definately keep it in mind when I start working on my homebrew world that's for sure.
I suggest grabing a beer, sitting tight, and reading this comprehensive thread about Kalid-Ma on your own time. If you want to discuss it further, it would be more appropriate to open a new thread for it.
Good reading! ;)
I can kind of agree with him, but only because I dont like the idea of the all powerful character behind everything that is,was and ever shall be.
What was raistlin? Fizban? Fistandantilus? (love how long that guys name is :D ) Perhaps it's better to Say Takhisis, Paladin, and Gilean? (did I get that last name right?)
Does being one dude rather than a pantheon make it bad somehow?
oh yeah, what about Ao for those forgotten realms fans?
(I think that's almost a good comparison ;) )While I'd never want to use Rajaat in my own campaigns (it'd be a headache! either the players would join him, die by him, or try to become like him.. it's too tempting to want to become pure power like he represents :P and once you get there, it's lost all the fun, Rajaat had to "create" people of sufficient power to provide him with something more difficult than an instant kill.. and even then he held back..) Rajaat does leave avenue open for some all powerful evil the PC's have to divert since they cannot destroy.. imagine him as a planar demon of immense power in FR with some kind of omen or prophecy the PC's follow in order to stop his return.. it's classic.. the fact he's already had a place in history is irrelevant to a modern day Athas.. if he's not arround, most peeps would simply ignore his existence and worry about their next meal, next fight, or next conquest
...I am saying that it is bad, foolish even, for Athas.org to stick to the metaplot, when a lot of folk don't like the way the novels influenced the setting...
Just to clarify this issue, athas.org's mandate from WotC prevents us from making large-scale changes to the campaign world, so you won't be seeing any abandonment of the metaplot. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
If introduced properly, metagame adventures can be a lot of fun (having participated in them as a player). The FR adventure Time of Troubles comes to mind.
As the Dm, your responsibility is to create a fun, live and balanced world for your players while, at the same time, having fun yourself.
Well- I do not know if this will aid you or not, but WolfHeart and myself are currently working on creating an NPC Guide- it will have NPC from the common to exotic in there and cover every race we can think of- or at least a majority of them. Now I do not think that we will be doing anythink like 38th lvl characters, but this kind of product should be a good start. Right now the process is kind of slow for me, as I am an auditor in public practice and this is our busy time of year, but it is my hope and dream to get this thing done and delivered by the end of the summer.
Yes, the NPC Guide is an excellent idea. Once a character is past 10-15th, the process is much easier. I thank you and Wolfheart in advance.
I realize that I am not perfect. It would be nice if you would do the same.
Intention isn't everything Greyorm. I didn't intend all of my statements to be taken the way you took them, but I take responsibilty for my statements and how I make them even if I didn't intend them to be harmful or inflamatory. I didn't feel like I was doing anything wrong, but the fact that I upset you so much made me realize that even if I didn't feel like I was doing anything wrong, that I should try to be more considerate and take your feeling more seriously.
I realize that I am not perfect. It would be nice if you would do the same.
Not to mention the golden rule of writing...
"A writer's most important job is to make your point *clear*. If you can't do that, it's your fault."
Blaming others because you do not make yourself clear is not the answer.
Not to mention the golden rule of writing...
"A writer's most important job is to make your point *clear*. If you can't do that, it's your fault."
Blaming others because you do not make yourself clear is not the answer.
Exactly you cannot put all the burden on the reader to properly interperet the meaning of your statements.
Just to clarify this issue, athas.org's mandate from WotC prevents us from making large-scale changes to the campaign world, so you won't be seeing any abandonment of the metaplot. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
I rather figured that was the case.
Out of curiousity, does "not making any large-scale changes" mean you cannot change the world from where it is now, either?
That is, the 'Kreen Invasion can't destroy Tyr? Tyr cannot become ruled by a Sorcerer-Monarch? Etc?
Unless...you guys have a document detailing the changes to the setting that were proposed or going to happen and are being allowed to pursue those?
Because in the latter instance, you aren't abandoning metaplot. In the former instance, you are -- because you can't make any changes, you thus have to avoid metaplot.
Blaming others because you do not make yourself clear is not the answer.
Exactly you cannot put all the burden on the reader to properly interperet the meaning of your statements.
I've said this before when teaching writing, "You can't write to psychosis. Sometimes, if the reader doesn't understand what you're saying, that's his own damn fault, not yours."
Yes, the initial burden belongs to the writer in being as clear as reasonably possible; but the writer cannot be held responsible if the reader misinterprets -- by addition, subtraction or alteration of a statement, brought on by haste, exhaustion, or emotional reaction -- clear writing. You simply can't write to every possible interpretation every possible reader might take -- you can only be clear.
So this has nothing to do with thinking I'm perfect; it does have to do with not taking responsibility for something I have no control over and can not be faulted for, even if it makes you feel better to think I can or should. I won't; it would be dishonest and unethical for me to do so.
Additionally, especially when we are talking about discussion groups, the reader, too, has a duty: to engage in charitable reading. Here's a link to Chris Lehrich's treatsie on the subject, which is honestly a manifesto to live by if a person is going to try and engage in any sort of productive communication with others. I believe every single discussion board and group on the internet and outside it could benefit from keeping the points raised in mind.
Misinterpretation -- uncharitable reading -- did happen here a number of times, and on both sides, I will admit that. Assumptions and reactions went in, and accusations came out.
However, I, as a writer, am not responsible for your assumptions. It has nothing to do with the clarity of my writing in these cases: the reader screwed up. If the reader wants to blame the writer for his own mistake, that's ego talking, that's trying to save face, that's "well, it's still not really our fault."
I was clear, but you made a choice to view my statements in a particular light, and then did so. As I pointed out in my response to Nyt, you (and I mean both Nathan and Sage here seperately and together) ignored certain points, reacted to bits rather than the whole, inserted motivations and even whole ideas into the statements you were reading. That is not my fault or my problem as a writer. If my writing is reasonably clear, as it provably was in this case, I have no control over that.
Otherwise, if you want to claim I made you or led you to interpret them that way, you show me where I directly inferred or stated your assumptions, and then I will take the heat for it for failing to have written clearly; but not just because you misread me.
I still think you are using a false analogy here.
Then let let me state the point without analogy: "Just because you can do something, and it is easy for you to do does not mean it is easy for everyone else to do that as well."
This applies whether we are talking about using what game material you want, ditching what you don't like and rewriting the rest, or the ability to use stairs to access a building.
It's also like saying that just because I don't care about something just as insignificant, that suddenly I'm not going to care about national health care, or helping the poor, ending world hunger, etc.
Of course, no one was saying you would. You know, analogies are analogies because they are not exact matches. Sometimes you can't speak analogy to people because they start arguing the analogy rather than the point of it; I think you're doing something simialr to that here.
The analogy had nothing to do with HOW you felt about the handicapped, or what kind of person you are, just the argument of "Well, why can't you just do X like everyone else?" Answering that question is the point of it, not decrying you as an evil, terrible, selfish person.
Not all of us have the time to both pull an existing setting apart to use what we want AND run a game -- like using stairs while handicapped -- so why is it that the writers keep making it harder for us to use the material we bought to avoid this difficulty? -- like making people use stairs rather than installing a handicap ramp.
I did go back and re-read some of the posts you did, and while you are right in most areas, I still agree with Sage that you should show a bit more patience with this since most of us don't go into gaming this deeply as you do. You are for the most part being a bit more patient, so thanks for that.
Bah! You lowly mortal peons should just count yourselves lucky I even deign to speak to you!
I rather figured that was the case.
Out of curiousity, does "not making any large-scale changes" mean you cannot change the world from where it is now, either?
That is, the 'Kreen Invasion can't destroy Tyr? Tyr cannot become ruled by a Sorcerer-Monarch? Etc?
That's about the size of it.
Unless...you guys have a document detailing the changes to the setting that were proposed or going to happen and are being allowed to pursue those?
Because in the latter instance, you aren't abandoning metaplot. In the former instance, you are -- because you can't make any changes, you thus have to avoid metaplot.
Don't you try your tricksy semiotics with me... :P
In the context of this thread and the OP's remarks regarding the published timeline and metaplot, we are adhering to what has already been established. While there are TSR legacy documents in athas.org's possession, I'm not aware of any that detail the kinds of progressive changes to the setting that we saw during the days of 2e, so it's pretty much a moot point.
Bah! You lowly mortal peons should just count yourselves lucky I even deign to speak to you!
Laughing...
Wouldn't be great if, when new worlds are brought out that things were thought through. Athas was passed around and it can't be easy to pick up someones imagination and run with it in a consistent way, does anybody know how much was planned past the Pentad and first boxed set?
Detail and consistency, often the product of a timeline are two edged. I've been buying the Iron Kingdoms stuff mainly out of interest and fascination with the sheer amount of detail, history and thought that's gone into the setting. While this volume of detail does place DMs within certain limits it does make for a very interactive consistent world, something I found lacking in many of the later Athasian products. Which really put me off buying or using certain adventures and source books.
Additionally, especially when we are talking about discussion groups, the reader, too, has a duty: to engage in charitable reading.
Just a short note here...while it's certainly true that the reader should try to be charitable, anyone who's participated in forum discussions to any degree know that the writer should try to be as diplomatic in his tone as possible, otherwise people will respond with emotion (especially on a subject near and dear to their hearts, which this thread is a perfect example of). You just can't equate writing in general with writing in forums, a different rule set applies.
Personally, I find the Dark Sun boards to be among the most tolerant and helpful forums I've been to. I definitely found your tone hostile as well, even though you didn't attack anyone directly. I have a feeling a lot of people agrees with that.
Just a short note here...while it's certainly true that the reader should try to be charitable, anyone who's participated in forum discussions to any degree know that the writer should try to be as diplomatic in his tone as possible, otherwise people will respond with emotion (especially on a subject near and dear to their hearts, which this thread is a perfect example of). You just can't equate writing in general with writing in forums, a different rule set applies.
Personally, I find the Dark Sun boards to be among the most tolerant and helpful forums I've been to. I definitely found your tone hostile as well, even though you didn't attack anyone directly. I have a feeling a lot of people agrees with that.
Then let let me state the point without analogy: "Just because you can do something, and it is easy for you to do does not mean it is easy for everyone else to do that as well."
That's a bit better.
This applies whether we are talking about using what game material you want, ditching what you don't like and rewriting the rest, or the ability to use stairs to access a building.
And yet again you are dwelving into False Analogy territory.
You are confusing irrelevant similarities with relevant similarities.
Of course, no one was saying you would. You know, analogies are analogies because they are not exact matches. Sometimes you can't speak analogy to people because they start arguing the analogy rather than the point of it; I think you're doing something simialr to that here.
Except I was doing that because I wasn't recognizing the relevant similarity since you were actually using an irrelevant similarity.
Not all of us have the time to both pull an existing setting apart to use what we want AND run a game [snipping the analogy because it isn't relevant] so why is it that the writers keep making it harder for us to use the material we bought to avoid this difficulty? [snipping the analogy again because it isn't relevant].
Well, like I said in my recent post on my site Hundred Schools of Thought I do sympathize. But unless you are the sole provider for the profits of companies like WotC that do use a lot of metaplots (mainly because the majority of the fan base doesn't have issue with them the way you and the rest of the minority do) then there isn't much you can do short of not using their product and finding other product out there that you can use, or convince them that there is a profitable market (probably more so than the one that is feeding them right now) in seperating or at least toning down the metaplot in gaming materials that is forcing you to do all the extra work that you don't have time for.
That's Capitalism in a nutshell. Don't like it, then join groups like I do that work to try and make it better, or deal, that's really your only options unfortunately.
That and making your own gaming works, but that requires even more time that you probably don't have.
You are confusing irrelevant similarities with relevant similarities.
Please point out where the analogy, in its context, is irrelevant? Are some people capable of tasks that other people are not? Yes? Is believing those people should be able to "just deal" a valid response to that problem? No? Then the analogy is relevant.
Understand that to be a False Analogy, you must show how the analogy itself is flawed, not just claim it is. So, from here:
"In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P."
To disprove the analogy you must "Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property."
(You should remember that I was in debate in high school and spent three years in college as a Philosophy major, with a focus on writing, so I am very well acquainted with the Logical Fallacies.)
As well, analogies are not simply or always "false" or "true", they are more often "strong" and "weak". Here are some other links that may help you understand how to correctly identify a false (or lazy) analogy: Logical Fallacy: Weak Analogy, False Analogy (from Wikipedia), False Analogy (at Changing Minds), Arguments from Analogy.
Of course, the problem is that we are now discussing the analogy rather than the point the analogy was used to make, described repeatedly above. From "Charitable Reading" (emphasis added): "Start by asking yourself whether you get what is meant by the analogy. If you do, and you think it a silly analogy, then forget the analogy and deal with the argument. If you don’t get it, then try to figure it out. Only respond to the analogy if you understand it and agree that it is a useful analogy. Otherwise we just end up with one of those long-winded arguments about cars and gear-shifts and other nonsense."
(mainly because the majority of the fan base doesn't have issue with them the way you and the rest of the minority do)
Do you have any actual figures to back up the majority/minority claims?
You have a point about sales and metaplots, given that a business producing a product is not required to sell to the lowest common denominator. The question this highlights is: would they be selling to the lowest common denominator? Would they hurt themselves by doing so? Or would NOT doing so hurt profits?
I have already pointed out that the number of fans who do have problems with metaplot are a large enough group that the big companies sat up and took notice of it. The fans are the reason White Wolf and even WotC changed their tactics with metaplot.
The former removed it entirely from their product line, the latter stated -- and regarding FR at that -- the new edition would remove the company's characters as the movers and shakers of the world (one of the big complaints about metaplot!) and leave the moving and shaking to the characters belonging to the players of the game.
The point being that if the companies in question believe metaplot impacts their bottom-line, there is obviously a large enough segement of the gaming population who dislike metaplot to make it a worthwhile thing to avoid from a business standpoint (as well as a design perspective).
You just can't equate writing in general with writing in forums, a different rule set applies.
Exactly. Hence the reason for the practice of "Charitable Reading". In discussion, there is less emphasis on the writer as the sole active participant of the process; there is far more equality in terms of duty between reader and writer in being understood and in understanding. Nonetheless, charitable reading is equally a good idea outside of discussions.
I definitely found your tone hostile as well, even though you didn't attack anyone directly. I have a feeling a lot of people agrees with that.
Well, I've been over the "tone" issue and touched on the "bandwagon" issue already, so I'm not going to restate that all again.
Now, please stop being so patronizing and hostile.
{he said with a clever grin}
Please point out where the analogy, in its context, is irrelevant? Are some people capable of tasks that other people are not? Yes? Is believing those people should be able to "just deal" a valid response to that problem? No? Then the analogy is relevant.
Ugh...
Understand that to be a False Analogy, you must show how the analogy itself is flawed, not just claim it is.
Welll then I will use one of my analogies as an example.
"Just because I am against the Iraq war doesn't mean I hate the troops of said war."
Me hating the troops is irrelevant to why I disagree with the Iraq war in the same light that me not caring about your gaming needs is irrelevant to me caring about handicapped people's needs.
One is more significant to the other when it comes to the latter analogy, and in its case the latter part is more significant than the former. If you disagree then I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities.
(You should remember that I was in debate in high school and spent three years in college as a Philosophy major, with a focus on writing, so I am very well acquainted with the Logical Fallacies.)
I'm not here for an ego contest, if I wanted your resume I would have asked for it. I'm merely at this point trying to make my argument understood and show why I'm right, nothing more.
As well, analogies are not simply or always "false" or "true", they are more often "strong" and "weak".
Fine, you used a weak analogy.
Next...
"Start by asking yourself whether you get what is meant by the analogy. If you do, and you think it a silly analogy, then forget the analogy and deal with the argument.
Except that the analogy is so silly it's irrelevant and its use is meant to discredit the other side of the debate. I'm certainly not going to let that stand and certainly do everything in my power to make sure my side is not discredited and made clear.
Do you have any actual figures to back up the majority/minority claims?
I would hope that mere sales alone would prove this, and the fact that what little competition is out there, isn't much comparitively.
The question this highlights is: would they be selling to the lowest common denominator?
Apparently they would or they would have appeased your side by now would they not?
Would they hurt themselves by doing so? Or would NOT doing so hurt profits?
This is pretty much part of the above. It's apparent they have made some changes that I was unaware of like you state later (I'm not a big FR fan these days, I bought the 3.0 core book and one or two other accessories and called it good), but if it was more profitable to them to change totally to what your side wants, don't you think they would have done that instead of just easing it up a little like they did with FR?
I have already pointed out that the number of fans who do have problems with metaplot are a large enough group that the big companies sat up and took notice of it. The fans are the reason White Wolf and even WotC changed their tactics with metaplot.
White Wolf isn't the leader in game material sales though, WotC is, so all that does is let those that are more on your side have other options and still stay with big, more recognizable companies.
As far as whether or not they are large enough? I would say that is still debatable and is still probably a minority, though probably a growing minority that may become the majority some day if it sticks to its guns and convinces enough people to join its side. The more I research about it, the more it seems to be definately on a larger scale then I thought it was or could ever be, but there is still plenty of room to grow if it ever wishes to become the majority and gets catered to more.
The former removed it entirely from their product line, the latter stated -- and regarding FR at that -- the new edition would remove the company's characters as the movers and shakers of the world (one of the big complaints about metaplot!) and leave the moving and shaking to the characters belonging to the players of the game.
That's pretty much my major issue with metaplot, but usually I just substituted the PCs and ran them through the existing metaplot and did my best not to railroad. If they wanted to diverge they could and that's where I start doing things on the fly and tends to be my better works from what I have heard in the past with some of my players.
Regardless, good to know that there is enough of a crowd to show WotC that they need to adjust in order to keep the profits they seek and that they were willing to adjust as well.
The point being that if the companies in question believe metaplot impacts their bottom-line, there is obviously a large enough segement of the gaming population who dislike metaplot to make it a worthwhile thing to avoid from a business standpoint (as well as a design perspective).
Like I've said, I've always agreed that there's an issue, but I've always been willing to do my own thing to resolve it. Some people can't or won't do that, so their options are limited till they can convince the supplier of the product to see their side and cater to it.
It looks like that that has been achieved on some level.
I'm not here for an ego contest, if I wanted your resume I would have asked for it. I'm merely at this point trying to make my argument understood and show why I'm right, nothing more.
Wasn't trying to dick-wave, just point out that I am intimately familiar with logical fallacies, though I can see why that statement would be taken the way you did. My bad.
Me hating the troops is irrelevant to why I disagree with the Iraq war in the same light that me not caring about your gaming needs is irrelevant to me caring about handicapped people's needs.
{sigh} Exactly. Again, the analogy had nothing to do with CARING about needs. I have stated a couple of times now that the analogy was about ABILITY to do something, not whether or not you cared about the individual in question.
Except that the analogy is so silly it's irrelevant and its use is meant to discredit the other side of the debate.
You are concerned with the analogy decrying the behavior as cruel or insensitive, with how the beahvior made the actor look as a person, which was never at issue.
IF I had said: "If you do that, then you do not care about how people feel. Just as if you did not install handicapped ramps for the handicapped," then it would be a false/weak analogy because the situations are very different in that respect.
In that case you would be correct that your level of concern towards those involved is irrelevant, but your concern or lack thereof wasn't at issue. The logic of the argument was: the "Why can't you just...?" question/assertion being made. "Here's why we can't just..." is what the analogy answers. It points out the flaw of the logic being used.
What was stated is that "Some people do not have the ability to do that. Just like some people cannot climb stairs and need a handicapped ramp." The analogy is thus meant to answer the question: "Can all people do this thing you are suggesting they do?" Not to discredit the other side by painting them out to be uncaring.
As should be clear now (I hope), P = ABILITY, P does not = CONCERN.
Your criticism arose because you failed to see which property (P) was being compared in the analogy, and how the two items being compared were similar in regards to P, but at least I understand now why you thought it was a bad analogy.
Tangentially, you have had a very bad habit of putting words and ideas into other people's mouths during this discussion, Nathan, and I hope you can see why my patience has been short given that and because I should not have to keep repeating my point (I should not have had to repeat it at all).
As far as whether or not they are large enough? I would say that is still debatable and is still probably a minority, though probably a growing minority that may become the majority some day if...
Nathan, you don't know whether or not it is the majority, so knock it off. Either provide hard evidence, or quit swinging around statistical claims you can't back up. Otherwise I'll just start arguing the same way: "No, WE'RE in the majority because..."
I would hope that mere sales alone would prove this, and the fact that what little competition is out there, isn't much comparitively.
Do you have sales figures? Sales figures that indicate metaplotted materials do better/worse than non-metaplotted materials produced by the same company? Do you have sales figures comparing Realms products to Exalted?
Apparently they would or they would have appeased your side by now would they not?
I note I just pointed out that they did. Metaplot impacted the market and on-going sales, so the two largest companies, and many smaller companies, moved away from its use. I would say they appeased my side.
if it was more profitable to them to change totally to what your side wants, don't you think they would have done that instead of just easing it up a little like they did with FR?
There are many reasons why WotC might have chosen not to completely ditch the idea. ONE of them COULD indicate that a majority of gamers don't mind metaplot, but given that other companies have changed their business practices because of the issues around metaplot, and even WotC has done so, chances are that something else is keeping them from adopting a complete and wholesale change of stance.
It is enough to note that a large enough segment of gamers consider it problematic to have made a business impact on the practice, regardless of whether they are in the majority or in the minority. Frex, a 30% faction is technically in the minority, but a 30% faction is (more than) large enough for a company to take notice.
Second, unit sales, especially in the case of an industry giant like WotC, are no indicator of quality. For the same reason that 90% of the computers on the market use Windows does not mean Windows is a superior OS with superior implementations of any/all tasks or even that users like it better.
Number of sales, percentage of market share, indicates the company in question has superior marketing and superior brand recognition...like WotC. Otherwise you are are arguing, "If Linux has better security than Windows, then how come more businesses don't use Linux?"
I know, the captialist pipe-dream is that the highest quality/best product rises to the top of the market. Unfortunately, numerous business and consumer-behavior realities keep that from actually happening, as can be shown with Microsoft and Windows.
White Wolf isn't the leader in game material sales though, WotC is, so all that does is let those that are more on your side have other options and still stay with big, more recognizable companies.
White Wolf is considered to be the #2 publisher in the industry, next to WotC. That's hardly worth a shrug of the shoulders and a "well, they aren't the TOP company." That's a "big, recognizable company". It certainly has as much hobby name recognition as WotC does; we aren't talking about "Bob's Publishing Imprint" down the street here.
...make it stop please make it stop please someone help just make it all stop...
Yeah, I'm done.
If Raven wants to continue being arrogant about all this and not recognizing some of his fault, that's fine with me.
Blame the readers all you want, but when you got 5 people saying your coming off rude and arrogant (4 on the boards, 1 off, and I can send responses from the one offline if you'd like) and no one besides yourself is defending you, then guess what, that is your fault, not the readers.
As far as the rest, I don't care enough to get into it anymore, all I will say is that is not how Capitalism works, and while I recognize that the minority you are in is big enough to listen to, it's not big enough to dramatically change selling strategies just to cater to your sides's needs as apparent with the gaming market overall despite the few changes that have catered to your needs.
oh, yeah about the timeline! fell asleep there for a second.
in my observations on various forums across the internets it seems that whenever threads devolve into this sort of back-and-forth over a moot point all parties involved are at "fault". it degrades the discussion no matter who is right or wrong, and in most instances i've found that no one is right or wrong. it's all opinions. people are entitled to those. by even RESPONDING you're playing into it more and continuing it. best tactics are to change the subject, return to the point at hand, and let it go. "argue with a madman, and you yourself look like a madman." not that anyone here is a madman or whatever...the point is some things are just totally not worth arguing about after a while.
that being said...i agree with both sides of this debate to a degree. i really enjoy the HISTORICAL source material of Dark Sun...the different Ages, the Cleansing Wars, etc. but find that a lot of the newer material i usually have to sift through and take/alter what i like and toss out what i don't like. this is time consuming, and for someone who doesn't have time, can end up being rather frustrating i'm certain. i'd definitely like to see more HISTORICAL material up to even just the first boxed sets time frame. what was the Green Age like? what were the races like? what was the Blue Age like? what were the cities and cultural centers of these long-last Ages? all of that can enrich the current campaign's of any DM because it happened BEFORE the campaign time. i like the idea of SOURCE material outside metaplot, and material that creates metaplot. it gives more freedom to pick and choose, and less trouble redifining what is printed and tailoring it to fit whatever campaign needs pop up. so i can definitely see both sides, and in many ways can agree with both sides. again, overall, i still like what has been done in terms of Dark Sun metaplot. to me a few SKs less in no way reduces the themes of the setting. as a personal aside, admittedly, i start my campaigns BEFORE the fall of Kalak and the PP novels. this allows me to involve the players in the world and history as it unfolds OR allows the players themselves to make history in a totally different way.
Contrary to Greyorm's opinion -- I know exactly what it means to not have much free time to do these things. With work & school, my time gets sucked away and I'm left with a few minutes here or there to get a little farther on my own projects, and have to sort of "triage" them -- figure which project gets the attention, prioritize if you will.
Now, from my own personal experience, it is far easier to take out (or erase) existing information, like the metaplot, from a setting than it is to have to go through the process of creating it all on your own. The majority (and I'm pretty certain that it is the majority) of DM's appreciate a metaplot out there, to help organize things against, and have much of that work more or less handed to them -- even if it takes a little tweaking here or there to do it. Those that don't, can simply skip over and bypass the metaplot elements in a work -- I've done it all the time, especially with much of White Wolf's older World of Darkness series. Having to create a massive plot like that, or develop some universal "bind everything together" concept for an entire campaign can be... well... daunting. As someone who's taken stabs at creating a fully-homemade campaign setting, developing some sort of structure and organization to the whole thing is a very difficult task.
So, then we get to the idea that for those who dislike the metaplot, they get the proverbial "short end of the stick", because much of the new material is not tailored for them. For these people, unfortunately it does mean a little extra effort needs to go into editing out what they don't want -- namely the metaplot elements. Those that are really experienced with it, can do it on the fly, where it has very little impact on their games, while others want to be more or less spoonfed non-metaplot materials, and would rather impose the same restrictions on everyone else -- because it makes their own personal lives a bit easier to develop their games.
Yeah, I'm done.
If Raven wants to continue being arrogant about all this and not recognizing some of his fault, that's fine with me.
Blame the readers all you want, but when you got 5 people saying your coming off rude and arrogant (4 on the boards, 1 off, and I can send responses from the one offline if you'd like) and no one besides yourself is defending you, then guess what, that is your fault, not the readers.
6. My wife has been begging to let her post.
But, yah I'm done too.
6. My wife has been begging to let her post.
Heh, at this point I think it will just be a continuing exercise in futility.
Heh, at this point I think it will just be a continuing exercise in futility.
Yah, your right. That's why I didn't let her. Oh well, bygones will be bygones (and other pithy statements :D )
I tried to drop out before it escalated to this, and I was slammed for it.
So I continued, and I am slammed for it!
Well, I've learned my lesson.
You two can go form a private club where you ***** and moan and mutually support one another's feelings of victimization, or just keep on posting jabs about how arrogant and rude I am long after everyone is already sick of the whole thing. Me. You. BOTH SIDES. Sheesh.
(And yes, I'm deeply aware of the irony of my pointing out how sick everyone is of it by posting more of what everyone is sick of.)
Back to what I should have stuck with in the first place: I'm done.
For me at least, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking the particular metaplot. As mentioned previously, if I liked the story, I would argue as strongly for its removal from the setting's game materials as if I did not.
Case in point, there are a couple of games whose metaplots (stories) I DO enjoy -- "Immortal: the Invisible War" being one of those -- but I still believe as strongly that particular element should not exist within the core setting materials, and have even argued for such on the core mailing list for that game.
(Especially as I watched more and more of our long-time core members become inactive or simply leave the list and stopped playing the game itself because of how the metaplot was being handled (not its content, but its effect upon product utility).)
Now, from my own personal experience, it is far easier to take out (or erase) existing information, like the metaplot, from a setting than it is to have to go through the process of creating it all on your own.
Obviously, my personal experiences have been the opposite. I find that when I'm already working through a plot-line -- or as I do these days, letting the players guide the story and keeping my ugly mitts off everything except supporting where they're taking the game -- then not only do I have to remove the metaplot, but I have to fill the gaps caused by removing its effects upon the setting that are left behind.
For these people, unfortunately it does mean a little extra effort needs to go into editing out what they don't want -- namely the metaplot elements.
Conversely, I've always found it is a LOT of extra work, especially as the metaplot progresses further and further along and the home campaign diverges more and more from the plot, creating greater and greater differences in the setting to account for, facts and back-story to fill in, and information to change. Sometimes, it isn't much work; other times, it is a whole lot of work.
As I mentioned, regarding City State of Tyr, if I am running a campaign where Kalak was not killed, I have a whole lot of information that I suddenly need to come up with regarding the city. Suddenly, that product is of much less value to me and I have serious reasons to not bother buying it. If I do, I end up purchasing only half a book, because I have to rewrite half of the material to make it compatible with my own campaign, which is quite probably not why I was buying the material in the first place.
I'm not even going to get into a discussion of majority/minority. I've said my piece there, and I think it is ridiculous for either of us to make the claim without any actual figures. After all, you can claim it is just a small group making restrictions for everyone else, and I disagree (in fact, I can easily claim the reverse, but without hard evidence we would both just be blowing hot air around about group sizes). I also don't think it is fair to try and characterize either group in that fashion: as needing to be spoon-fed material and creating unnecessary restrictions (again, those statements could be applied to either group).
Oh good, maybe our respective wives and assorted friends can get into it, then, because I'm sure that will definitely prove who is "right" here. One side just needs more signatures on the petition than the other...
:heehee Yah, I think we can both agree in the futility of that.
I tried to drop out before it escalated to this, and I was slammed for it.
So I continued, and I am slammed for it!
Well, I've learned my lesson.
That's Ok man. Don't sweat it. ;)
You two can go form a private club where you ***** and moan and mutually support one another's feelings of victimization, or just keep on posting jabs about how arrogant and rude I am long after everyone is already sick of the whole thing. Me. You. BOTH SIDES. Sheesh.
(And yes, I'm deeply aware of the irony of my pointing out how sick everyone is of it by posting more of what everyone is sick of.)
:D , I don't think you'll ever be able to upset me again. Not that I'm claiming you were trying to.
Back to what I should have stuck with in the first place: I'm done.
Good then we're all in agreement!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled subject:I'm not the original poster, but I sympathize with the idea that the changes were bad for the setting and needlessly intrusive, and I've stuck with the setting nonetheless.
Why? I think the reason should be pretty self-apparent: because the original setting caught the eye. The original setting, not the changed, altered, different-than-the-boxed-set setting. The stuff that came in that boxed set was cool, and that's what I liked and was looking for when I picked the setting up.
But that still doesn't answer my original question, which wasn't why did you get into it but rather why did you stick with it?
All the metaplots etc. occured 10 years ago when the setting was in full swing.
Cut to 10 years later, you're posting on these boards, which is an indication that you've stuck with it all this time, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here at all but rather bypassing the whole page and saying "Meh, Dark Sun".
For those of us that are posting here, it's because we've been loyal Dark Sun fans over the years. To come on here and say you don't like the storyline is like wearing the same pair of shoes for over a decade and then complaining that you started hating everything about them around 3 years after you got them...
But you're still wearing them rather than having thrown them away when you started to hate them and getting into something else.
But since we're talking about RPGs and not shoes, I know how you feel- I got disgusted with Rifts, but I didn't stick with it. If you're not happy with it anymore, punt it and get into something or stick with something you like.
Really it's that simple and shouldn't involve a lot of decision making. Now whether it's you, Greyorm or the original poster, the whole point of this thread is redundant and pointless.
Athas' timeline and history was done 10 years ago and it's been established. deal with and move on.
But that still doesn't answer my original question, which wasn't why did you get into it but rather why did you stick with it?
All the metaplots etc. occured 10 years ago when the setting was in full swing.
Cut to 10 years later, you're posting on these boards, which is an indication that you've stuck with it all this time, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here at all but rather bypassing the whole page and saying "Meh, Dark Sun".
If you're not happy with it anymore, punt it and get into something or stick with something you like.
Really it's that simple and shouldn't involve a lot of decision making. Now whether it's you, Greyorm or the original poster, the whole point of this thread is redundant and pointless.
Athas' timeline and history was done 10 years ago and it's been established. deal with and move on.
:heehee
God I love the smell of irony in the morning...
Cut to 10 years later, you're posting on these boards, which is an indication that you've stuck with it all this time, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here at all but rather bypassing the whole page and saying "Meh, Dark Sun".
For those of us that are posting here, it's because we've been loyal Dark Sun fans over the years. To come on here and say you don't like the storyline is like wearing the same pair of shoes for over a decade and then complaining that you started hating everything about them around 3 years after you got them...
It would be much more accurate to say that I purchased a pair of shoes and was a fan of the original style of that brand, not the new style released by that brand. After all, my shoes don't morph from one thing into another while I'm wearing them.
You also mention that I'm complaining ten years after the fact...hey, I've been complaining about this FOR ten years! Publically! Regularly! I didn't wait.
So, I'm a loyal fan of the original setting, not the revised setting, and there's no real contradiction there about my being here. Unless this board is only for fans of the revised setting..?
Or maybe we can start trashing anyone who likes the "horrible" changes Paizo made to the DarkSun setting! (oh wait, we already do that) In that case, I have the same advice to those who hate the Paizo changes to the setting: deal.
Indeed, the smell of irony...
Or maybe we can start trashing anyone who likes the "horrible" changes Paizo made to the DarkSun setting! (oh wait, we already do that) In that case, I have the same advice to those who hate the Paizo changes to the setting: deal.
Indeed, the smell of irony...
I dunno about everyone else, but I have been "dealing". If they are mentioned, I'll voice my opinion, and comment about the changes, but I don't turn and attack the people who like Paizo (or at least, I try to steer clear of it). Everyone is entitled to their own take on the setting. If you want to stick with the 1st Ed of the setting, great. The setting moved forwardc, advanced to the 2nd Boxed set. What you are asking for is not mutual cooperation, what you are asking for is to ditch the revised setting completely and only make materials based on the 1st Edition setting. Athas.org can't do that (we're kinda stuck with it), so either you can "deal" or you can gripe and keep griping. Or maybe you'd like to go back to attacking people personally who disagree with your take on the setting, which honestly, I would not have expected to see Raven stoop as low as you have in this thread.
Or maybe you'd like to go back to attacking people personally who disagree with your take on the setting, which honestly, I would not have expected to see Raven stoop as low as you have in this thread.
Well, whatever the case may be. What his intentions were, whether he acted inapropriately or not
. He did end up teaching me a valuable lesson, for which I am truely grateful.I still think he's an a-ss :P , but so are a lot of other people. I've been one myself for a really long time. Sometimes negative examples are better teachers then positive ones.
No offense, greyorm. Thanks for helping to make me a less angry and confrontational person.
Regardless of who the a-ss here was or is or yet may be, and who stooped how low, and who attacked who -- because the jury is definitely out on those items depending on which set of friends/relatives/small pets you're talking to -- I don't think it fair at all to characterize my point as: "Ditch 2nd Edition completely! Burn the witches!"
The point would better be understood as "Seperate the metaplot material from the setting material, so those who want to, can, and those who don't, don't have to."
I think that's an eminently fair solution for everyone, for any setting, and one I've been advocating for years (and will continue to do so). It doesn't even require massive changes to the way things are done, except for the "where" of what particular material is presented.
But yes, you are correct, we can't do anything about it at this point since the agreement with WotC forbids making any such changes to the setting. I wonder, though, does it forbid providing pre-Pentad setting material alongside post-Pentad setting material where the two conflict? Or is that a gray area?
I wonder, though, does it forbid providing pre-Pentad setting material alongside post-Pentad setting material where the two conflict? Or is that a gray area?
Rather than it being a grey area, the problem is more that it's too much work :D. Personally, I'd love to have something like this (as all of my games are set before or during the Prism Pentad and use the metalpot as inspirational source material) but, with our limited resources, it isn't really going to happen. There are a few places in ToA that note differences for pre-Prism Pentad games (such as in the write-up for the Shadow Giant) but that's about it.
That said (and I've been wanting to post this for a few days now but have held off until things got a little less ranty ;) ), I genuinely don't think that the developing metaplot affects anything but a small amount of DS source material. The vast majority of the DS products are metaplot neutral and, without wishing to be contentious, I feel that the problem has been exaggerated.
Yes, Freedom does remove Kalak from the game, but that was clearly intended to be the case from the word go - it is heavily foreshadowed in the first boxed set under the writeup for Tyr. Other than that change, it's all pretty metaplot free until the revised set a few years later. And, of the post-revised releases, none of them actually require you to use the metaplot either (unless you count the appearance of the Great Rift to allow access to kreen areas, but that's something that you can easily work around). Even CbtSS can be nudged back into the earlier era without too much trouble.
Athas.org's releases embrace the changes to a larger degree, but even there the actual material differences are pretty small. Tyrian Conspiracy can easily be set in the immediate post-Freedom era, for example. Even the references to Atzetuk in City State of Draj are relatively minimal, and the bulk of that product is metaplot-neutral. I use it with ease in my games. Whispers of the Storm and Dregoth Ascending are a different matter - they are very definitely post-Prism Pentad - but even so, we are still talking about a minority of product here.
Of the 32 TSR-era DS products that I count on my shelf, only 2 of those (the revised box and City State of Tyr) are tied to the metaplot (3 if you count the execrable Beyond the Prism Pentad), and even with the revised set you can plunder it for the expanded regions and refer to the first set for the Tablelands region.
Anyway, not looking to get in anyone's face with this. I agree that an overwhelming metaplot can be a real problem for some folks. I just don't see the DS metaplot as being that overwhelming - it rears its head in only a few places, once you look at the actual numbers. I think its impact has been overstated, probably largely due to the way it was presented in the novels, and it has the reputation of being far more problematic than I have actually found it to be.
It would be much more accurate to say that I purchased a pair of shoes and was a fan of the original style of that brand, not the new style released by that brand. After all, my shoes don't morph from one thing into another while I'm wearing them.
You also mention that I'm complaining ten years after the fact...hey, I've been complaining about this FOR ten years! Publically! Regularly! I didn't wait.
So, I'm a loyal fan of the original setting, not the revised setting, and there's no real contradiction there about my being here. Unless this board is only for fans of the revised setting..?
Or maybe we can start trashing anyone who likes the "horrible" changes Paizo made to the DarkSun setting! (oh wait, we already do that) In that case, I have the same advice to those who hate the Paizo changes to the setting: deal.
Indeed, the smell of irony...
So you've been complaining about the setting for ten years and yet still stuck with it? That actually reinforces the point I made.
And as for separating fans of the original setting and fans of the revised setting... I don't follow. The setting is the setting. It's like trying to separate fans of Fellowship of the Ring from fans of the Two Towers from fans of Return of the King, or a better example, fans of A New Hope from fans of Empire Strikes Back from fans of Return of the Jedi.
To me you're either a fan of it as a whole or you're not.
I get what you're saying, that you liked the boxed set when it came out, but were unhappy with the changes when it was revised and expanded. So did you actually stick with it or throw it out? Did you keep what you had and make changes to it to your own preference, or did you say "Ack, this is Damaged Goods! Even I as a DM can't fix what's been botched!"
Well, I do have a suggestion:
If you do indeed like Dark Sun as it was originally presented, but abhor the changes made, then just start running Dark Sun games from that point, ignoring the fact that the Revised and Expanded set even came out, and create your own history of how you feel events should have played out.
As a side note, I completely agree about Paizo's stuff- in some cases. I was really unhappy with the way the Defiler was presented in the one Campaign Classics issue. Trying to tack Defiler Points onto a character is really low and then saying that too many Defiler points will turn your character into a t'liz- an undead... But since your character has to progress to 20th level as a Defiler to become a Dragon, then you really can't become a dragon without becoming a Dracolich instead.
I'm sure this has been brought up many times on these boards, but I presented it to show you that I do agree with you on some issues.
Really, all I can say is that I'm sorry you're not happy with the way they advanced the setting. I think you should go back and look at it again with a fresh perspective. I wasn't happy with some of the changes myself but what I was dissatisfied with is quite minimal.
Oh...yeah, let's just keep this going...just get some more jabs in because that shows taking the high ground...not to mention proves how innocent one is of attacking others...plus it's definitely what everyone is looking for more of...
Regardless of who the a-ss here was or is or yet may be, and who stooped how low, and who attacked who -- because the jury is definitely out on those items depending on which set of friends/relatives/small pets you're talking to -- I don't think it fair at all to characterize my point as: "Ditch 2nd Edition completely! Burn the witches!"
The point would better be understood as "Seperate the metaplot material from the setting material, so those who want to, can, and those who don't, don't have to."
I think that's an eminently fair solution for everyone, for any setting, and one I've been advocating for years (and will continue to do so). It doesn't even require massive changes to the way things are done, except for the "where" of what particular material is presented.
But yes, you are correct, we can't do anything about it at this point since the agreement with WotC forbids making any such changes to the setting. I wonder, though, does it forbid providing pre-Pentad setting material alongside post-Pentad setting material where the two conflict? Or is that a gray area?
.........................................I fully agree with your point and was not trying to further antagonize you. I have a new found respect for you from this discussion (honestly). Though it may be hard for you to believe, it is true. I was trying to joke to lighten the mood, that may have been inapropriate of me, but it wasn't my inattention to further anger you or prove my innocence. I accept my responsiblilty for the situation.
Is there anything I can say to you, to make amends?
So you've been complaining about the setting for ten years and yet still stuck with it?
Correction: I've been complaining about the Pentad metaplot for ten years and have never used it. I've stuck with the original setting for ten years, and the various iterations that has produced for my various groups.
And as for separating fans of the original setting and fans of the revised setting... I don't follow.
Your examples confuse a story set in a particular world with a setting. Fellowship, etc, is a story, Middle-Earth is the setting. Thus, I can be a fan of ME without necessarily being a fan of the Fellowship story or of Tolkien's writing.
As another example: one can be a fan of Star Trek and the ST universe, without being a fan of Voyager or Enterprise. One can also be a fan of the original Star Wars triology without being a fan of the prequels (gods know I am).
To me you're either a fan of it as a whole or you're not.
You do not have to be a fan of the whole without complaint to be a fan. I'm a fan of freedom and equality, the whole America thing, but I think there are some serious problems with America as well. Likewise, I am a fan of the Dark Sun setting, but not of the Pentad metaplot -- a story within that setting, the changes it wrought to the setting, etc.
Otherwise, you are claiming that everyone on these boards who thinks all the stuff about the Last Sea region is bizzare and ridiculous (and as I recall, there are or were quite a few) is not a fan, because they aren't a fan the Last Sea material. I think they would strongly disagree.
You yourself state you aren't a fan of the Paizo material. Using your argument above, how can you be a Dark Sun fan if you are not a fan of the Paizo material? Obviously, one CAN be a fan of something without being a fan of the whole.
Besides, questioning someone's fandom? Come on.
I get what you're saying, that you liked the boxed set when it came out, but were unhappy with the changes when it was revised and expanded. So did you actually stick with it or throw it out? Did you keep what you had and make changes to it to your own preference, or did you say "Ack, this is Damaged Goods! Even I as a DM can't fix what's been botched!"
I simply stuck with the original boxed set, took what I could from the later stuff, and left behind/ignored the whole metaplot thing.
My complaint is not that one cannot do this, as you'll note if you go back through the text of my reponses, my complaint is that it makes things more difficult for me when you have such product, because that is extra work I shouldn't have had to do.
If you do indeed like Dark Sun as it was originally presented, but abhor the changes made, then just start running Dark Sun games from that point, ignoring the fact that the Revised and Expanded set even came out, and create your own history of how you feel events should have played out.
Obviously. That's what I do.
It seems to me you have some odd idea about where I'm coming from in regards to my complaint, and even what my specific complaint is. I've stated this a couple of times now already: yes, you CAN just keep what you want and ditch what you don't. There is no argument from me there.
What the above does not mean is that it is easy for those of us who don't like the metaplot to simply ditch the material, especially with products such as "City-state of Tyr" and similar where the differences between pre-plot material and post-plot material are fairly severe, and given that the whole reason to purchase the setting material is to avoid having to do that sort of work ourselves.
I fully agree with your point and was not trying to further antagonize you. I have a new found respect for you from this discussion (honestly). Though it may be hard for you to believe, it is true. I was trying to joke to lighten the mood, that may have been inapropriate of me, but it wasn't my inattention to further anger you or prove my innocence.
My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions, then, Sage (though that wasn't directed solely at you).
My nerves are worn raw from this whole thing and I am on edge, so I didn't take your statements as a joke. That is my fault. But, yes, I am hoping we can both take something positive away from this experience, and hopefully the boards are better for it (somehow), too.
Sorry for not responding sooner. I've been mostly asleep or completely crashed-out watching TV up until now (as I worked 16 out of the previous 24 hours).
My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions, then, Sage (though that wasn't directed solely at you).
My nerves are worn raw from this whole thing and I am on edge, so I didn't take your statements as a joke. That is my fault. But, yes, I am hoping we can both take something positive away from this experience, and hopefully the boards are better for it (somehow), too.
Yah, I understand. I'm not so sure about the boards benefiting though LOL. Thanks for understanding.
That said (and I've been wanting to post this for a few days now but have held off until things got a little less ranty ;) ), I genuinely don't think that the developing metaplot affects anything but a small amount of DS source material.
Hrm. Upon consideration, you are right. Most of the DS material isn't too heavily influenced by the metaplot. "City-state of Tyr" obviously is, as is any of the material on the various cities that came out after the Pentad, but other than that, you are correct that a good chunk of it is not.
I've been heavily influenced by my experiences with the White Wolf line, and Immortal: the Invisible War, both of which were metaplot intensive regarding their releases, and which kept changing the setting in each release without fully describing it in the first place. So much of my dislike of metaplot comes from those. Honestly, I don't want to see the same happen with Dark Sun, thus the passion behind the argument.
Hrm. Upon consideration, you are right. Most of the DS material isn't too heavily influenced by the metaplot. "City-state of Tyr" obviously is, as is any of the material on the various cities that came out after the Pentad, but other than that, you are correct that a good chunk of it is not.
I've been heavily influenced by my experiences with the White Wolf line, and Immortal: the Invisible War, both of which were metaplot intensive regarding their releases, and which kept changing the setting in each release without fully describing it in the first place. So much of my dislike of metaplot comes from those. Honestly, I don't want to see the same happen with Dark Sun, thus the passion behind the argument.
I'll take passion over indifference any day
The White Wolf metaplot was just insane in its level of integration with the rules material. I happen to quite like the way the Mage metaplot developed as I appear to have similar tastes in that regard to the developers, so it fitted with my own games quite smoothly.
The Vampire stuff was less palatable, though, mainly because it seemed to have such profound influences on the mechanics of the game. Add to that a couple of players in my group who have taken to buying and reading all of the Vampire material, it has become quite a pain in the neck, pardon the pun. Now I'm not even sure which bits I can use and which bits I have to ditch because they have read and memorised it all. Bah. Confounded players
...To me its a hidden Shangri-La and is begging for a high/epic level PCs to go there and remove/cure the mindlords. I thnk the concept of it is fine but maybe surfing hippie Druids and naked sunbathers is a bit off putting but it reflects how different from the rest of Athas they are.
The metaplot 10 years later is fine but I wonder how I would have thought at the time if I bought DS in 91 and in 93 the PP kills the Dragon. I didn't start playing until 95 with the original boxed set. Even Dragon Kings was a massive shock to me when I read it in 96 Likewise the revised boxed set when I read it in 96 as I didnt read the pentad until 97 or 98 maybe. Small town, limited access to gaming material and no internet message boards.
I'm gonna start scouting around second-hand product bins to see if I can't scare up a copy of Mindlords of the Last sea, Windriders of the Jagged Cliffs and Thri-Kreen of Athas... They're actually the only books I'm missing I think.
Mindlords of the Last Sea is currently available from Noble Knight for only $.400 or from Amazon for $6.00 and upwards.
Thri-Kreen of Athas is available for $27.72 from Barnes & Noble and $23.99 through Amazon. Barnes & Noble also have Windriders of the Jagged Cliffs for $15.75, but you can get it through Amazon for $5.00 and upwards.
Good luck
.You yourself state you aren't a fan of the Paizo material. Using your argument above, how can you be a Dark Sun fan if you are not a fan of the Paizo material? Obviously, one CAN be a fan of something without being a fan of the whole.
QUOTE]
Actually, what I was referring to here was not about the ever-changing storyline of Dark Sun, but of the poor 3.5 conversion they made to the Defiler class. I like the metaplot just fine.
What I dislike is Paizo's insistence to have to try and make all their articles user-friendly for other settings, when most elements of Dark Sun just cannot be converted.
I speak of the unique magic-using system of the setting, which is specific to Dark Sun- in fact the entire setting revolves around this particular element. In my previous post, I said I didn't like the idea of tacking Defiler points onto a Defiler character much like Dark Side points in D6 Star Wars, as this is obviously done to discourage players from running these types of characters- who wants to hand their character over to the DM after a few sessions? I sure don't. I'd stated that the addition of Defiler points stopped a Defiler character from progressing to Advanced Being stage, which is something we looked forward to eventually when playing during the setting's initial run. But hey, whatever. Remove the whole Defiler point rule and the character is more the way it used to be. Better for everyone right?
But I don't blame David Noonan for that, I honestly believe he's passionate about getting some official 3.5 support for Dark Sun. Some of the wierd changes in Dragon and Dungeon were, as I said, Paizo's mandate to make evrything from everything compatible... such as adding Paladins to Dark Sun.
Some things I did actually like added. Elans have a good valid reason for being included in the setting now, and so do Maenads. I prefer the way Thri-Kreen look in 3/3.5 now, and I hate the changes made to the Half-Giant.
But seeing as you hate the whole metaplot, how do you like the storyline for 3.5, how they advanced the setting 300 years and essentially put things back the way they were? I know a lot of people complained, saying all their characters' efforts ended up being for nothing. But you know what? I agree with you. The setting does need its Sorcerer-Kings and taking most of them out in PP was, I felt, a bit quick. But, in Paizo's defense, they try to please most of us most of the time, and I guess that's all we can really ask of them..
that being said...i agree with both sides of this debate to a degree. i really enjoy the HISTORICAL source material of Dark Sun...the different Ages, the Cleansing Wars, etc. but find that a lot of the newer material i usually have to sift through and take/alter what i like and toss out what i don't like. this is time consuming, and for someone who doesn't have time, can end up being rather frustrating i'm certain. i'd definitely like to see more HISTORICAL material up to even just the first boxed sets time frame. what was the Green Age like? what were the races like? what was the Blue Age like? what were the cities and cultural centers of these long-last Ages? all of that can enrich the current campaign's of any DM because it happened BEFORE the campaign time. i like the idea of SOURCE material outside metaplot, and material that creates metaplot. it gives more freedom to pick and choose, and less trouble redifining what is printed and tailoring it to fit whatever campaign needs pop up. so i can definitely see both sides, and in many ways can agree with both sides. again, overall, i still like what has been done in terms of Dark Sun metaplot. to me a few SKs less in no way reduces the themes of the setting. as a personal aside, admittedly, i start my campaigns BEFORE the fall of Kalak and the PP novels. this allows me to involve the players in the world and history as it unfolds OR allows the players themselves to make history in a totally different way.
The easiest way to handle the metaplot issue is to then make the metaplot all ancient history, as Paizo did with the DS3.5 Dragon & Dungeon Magazines articles. Any changes in metaplot just end up being ancient history you can chose to reveal or not reveal to your players.
As a side note, I completely agree about Paizo's stuff- in some cases. I was really unhappy with the way the Defiler was presented in the one Campaign Classics issue. Trying to tack Defiler Points onto a character is really low and then saying that too many Defiler points will turn your character into a t'liz- an undead... But since your character has to progress to 20th level as a Defiler to become a Dragon, then you really can't become a dragon without becoming a Dracolich instead.
I'm sure this has been brought up many times on these boards, but I presented it to show you that I do agree with you on some issues.
Actually, you're wrong. Only unassumed taint would turn a character into a t'liz. Assumed taint had no such effect, but affected how easy you were to detect by druids and the like.
I speak of the unique magic-using system of the setting, which is specific to Dark Sun- in fact the entire setting revolves around this particular element. In my previous post, I said I didn't like the idea of tacking Defiler points onto a Defiler character much like Dark Side points in D6 Star Wars, as this is obviously done to discourage players from running these types of characters- who wants to hand their character over to the DM after a few sessions? I sure don't. I'd stated that the addition of Defiler points stopped a Defiler character from progressing to Advanced Being stage, which is something we looked forward to eventually when playing during the setting's initial run. But hey, whatever. Remove the whole Defiler point rule and the character is more the way it used to be. Better for everyone right?
But I don't blame David Noonan for that, I honestly believe he's passionate about getting some official 3.5 support for Dark Sun.
Once again, reread the article. A would-be dragon wouldn't have to give up his character according to the Paizo rules anymore than in the athas.org rules.
But seeing as you hate the whole metaplot, how do you like the storyline for 3.5, how they advanced the setting 300 years and essentially put things back the way they were? I know a lot of people complained, saying all their characters' efforts ended up being for nothing. But you know what? I agree with you. The setting does need its Sorcerer-Kings and taking most of them out in PP was, I felt, a bit quick. But, in Paizo's defense, they try to please most of us most of the time, and I guess that's all we can really ask of them..
Hey, this question went unanswered!
Hey, this question went unanswered!
Er, I thought the answer was obvious from my (repeated) position statements on the thread.
But, once more, I guess: I dislike any sort of metaplot, period. As a story, the Paizo "future history" of Athas has some interesting elements -- as interesting as some of the various events written up on this board about other people's games -- but as metaplot, it is as undesirable as any other metaplot.
Er, I thought the answer would have been obvious given my (repeated) statements of my position on this thread.
But, once more, I guess: I dislike any sort of metaplot, period. As a story, the Paizo "future history" of Athas has some interesting elements -- as interesting as some of the various events written up on this board about other people's games -- but as metaplot, it is as undesirable as any other metaplot.
I would guess that Moscone (correct me if I'm wrong), like I, didn't see Paizo as having a metaplot. In all of the Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine articles about Dark Sun in 3.5e, they have not advanced any sort of progressive timeline. In fact, I would argue that the whole reason that they advanced the timeline 300 years ahead of the 2e, 2.5e, and Athas.org timeline was to offer a metaplot-free option for players. All 2e, 2.5e, and Athas.org content would be so far in the past and so few player characters would have Knowledge: History as a skill, so as to make the metaplot of non-Paizo product have minimal to no effect on the metaplot-less camapign that they set out.
Which is why I would guess that Moscone asked the question. Paizo seemed to have the same problem with the Dark Sun metaplot as you did and chose to rectify it as easily as possible.
i'd be really interested in seeing all of it.
The back issues of the Dragon and Dungeon magazines can be found on the Paizo website, with order forms and all.
So, do I have your permission?
eep! i didn't mean! oh no! not illegal! just what the reference was and such...i didn't know they were magazine articles. which issue numbers? do you remember? i'll order them!
:heehee it happens all the time. by that I mean someone asking for some material to be illegally sent to them. I just think its funny that the one time when someone doesn't realize that they are talking about copyrighted material, they get the harshest reprimand
Anyway those issues.... Dragon #319 and Dungeon #110
~B-)
I would guess that Moscone (correct me if I'm wrong), like I, didn't see Paizo as having a metaplot. In all of the Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine articles about Dark Sun in 3.5e, they have not advanced any sort of progressive timeline.
Firstly, let us make sure our definitions match here: it is true that the Paizo material basically resets the world to a state closer to that of the original boxed set and then says "Start here because we won't interfere beyond this."
However, it is metaplot because it establishes setting alterations beyond the scope of the setting described by the original product. The timeline has been advanced. "BTW, this stuff happens in the world": that's metaplot.
Metaplot does not mean "strict timeline of events", it means "alterations to the setting beyond the scope of the setting described by the original product." Note, though, (to prevent confusion) this does not mean EXPANSION of existing material, such as more fully describing places or people, or even adding new setting locations.
Yet there is still a fine line in this, because something can still end up being metaplot in that fashion. So, metaplot might best be summed up as the establishment of campaign material -- either events, people, locations, or other items -- that significantly alter the setting, or which either overtly or covertly control the course of the protagonists (ie: the player characters).
Definitions out of the way, here's the interesting bit about what Paizo brings to the table in the context of this subject, at least to me: as a product it exists in a sort of canonical limbo, being both official and unofficial at the same time. As such, it does exactly what I would be looking for any product that introduces metaplot: it presents an alternate view of the product, or addition to that product, without forcing those alterations/changes on everyone who uses the setting.
After all, could you imagine if Athas.org had been told by WotC: "You have to use the Paizo material as the basis for any new material put out by Athas.org." And I'm not even talking about the rules here, just the setting...
"I don't want Dregoth to rule Raam!" and "I don't want Andropinis to return from the Black with maenads in tow!" and "I don't want dwarves to worship the Sorcerer-Kings!" would be various cries heard here and there regarding the changes, but all the official material put out would thereafter have to use and apply those details.
As it stands, those who don't want to use them, don't have to, yet the material still exists for those who want to plunder it for details to add to the base setting -- while those who don't think the changes represent the Athas they first fell in love with, for whom such changes have nothing to do the Athas they purchased, don't even have to deal with them.
Firstly, let us make sure our definitions match here:.
OK, so then what you're looking for from Dark Sun is that when Troy Denning and the others first envisioned Dark Sun, that the box set offered Athas in one static place in time, and offered all of their envisioned metaplot as history which had already happened before the campaign world began.
While certainly a noble wish, obviously it never happened. And because the campaign world was envisioned with a metaplot in mind, I doubt that any future offerings would reset the product to the original boxed set.
Because there are people that use Athas at different parts of the timeline, perhaps instead of "'Official' history & timeline ruins Athas, get rid of it folks" you could have asked, "'Official' history & timeline ruins Athas, limit use of it folks". Encouraging future product to offer paragraphs that offer alternate information for people who stopped using the timeline past the original boxed set as well as those that stopped using the timeline after the Prism Pentad and second box set would seem to be a more constructive and community building way of starting the thread. Of course, nothing gets posts to a thread more than controversy. :D
Because there are people that use Athas at different parts of the timeline, perhaps instead of "'Official' history & timeline ruins Athas, get rid of it folks" you could have asked, "'Official' history & timeline ruins Athas, limit use of it folks".
FYI -- Raven/Greyorm didn't start this thread.
I will agree to your definition of metaplot, Raven. I do however, think it is important to make distinctions on the degree of disruption that various metaplots cause. The metaplot of Dark Sun was very disruptive. A lot happened in a short period of time and the changes continued to build off of eachother. This sort of metaplot is understandably very undesireable to many people. The metaplot of the Forgotten Realms in contrast, is of a plodding and less far reaching sort. Far less disruptive, and easily ignored by those who wish to interperate things differently. This sort of metaplot is almost a sort of brownian movement, and I find it hard to take issue with it.
Ideally IMO the majority of books released (perhaps 75%) for a setting would be almost completely deviod of metaplot. And a few books, adventures, etc. would be clearly labeled as metaplot material and develop/suggest plotlines for the setting. A few Small blocks of text might be included in other products with information relating to the metaplot(s) of the setting, but taking up no more than a page or two worth of space in total.
FYI -- Raven/Greyorm didn't start this thread.
Honestly, I think Athas.org should DITCH the official history because it constrains and ruins DS, seriously. Stick to the FIRST BOXED set, that's all. Though many of the game aids like Dune Trader, monster manual are of course, wonderful and don't mess things up.
Oh yeah, you're right. You have a much better memory than I, Xlorep. My apologies, Greyorm. Silverblade still could have gone for the less aggresive wording I suggested, so I stand by the essence of what I said.
Ideally IMO the majority of books released (perhaps 75%) for a setting would be almost completely deviod of metaplot. And a few books, adventures, etc. would be clearly labeled as metaplot material and develop/suggest plotlines for the setting. A few Small blocks of text might be included in other products with information relating to the metaplot(s) of the setting, but taking up no more than a page or two worth of space in total.
That seems like an excellent compromise, metaplot in only a few, clearly labled set of accessories and adventures.
I can't believe someone took the thread off PAUSE.
If you like the metaplot, use it. If you hate it, don't.
Simple.
Where can i find the boxed set that the first guy was talking about? anywhere near pevely missouri?
You can buy it online @ pazio.com
Where can i find the boxed set that the first guy was talking about? anywhere near pevely missouri?
RPGNow has the electronic versions of the old Dark Sun materials.
Otherwise, check eBay for auctions on paper versions.
If you like the metaplot, use it. If you hate it, don't.
Simple.
Except that it is not just that simple, for reasons repeatedly stated in this thread.
The metaplot of Dark Sun was very disruptive. A lot happened in a short period of time and the changes continued to build off of eachother. This sort of metaplot is understandably very undesireable to many people. The metaplot of the Forgotten Realms in contrast, is of a plodding and less far reaching sort. Far less disruptive, and easily ignored by those who wish to interperate things differently.
With the exception of the Time of Troubles in FR, I agree about the extent of the various disruptions in each setting. Other than that, I am in basic agreement with your statements.
Now, Figment,
Something I've stated before but perhaps which bears restating: if I buy a setting, I buy it specifically because I like what it is presenting to me at that moment, not the changes the designers might wreak upon it in the future.
Not knowing about those changes, I may or may not like them; consider, if those elements were a part of the original package, it is conceivable they would cause me to reshelve the product and NOT purchase it.
If I purchase the product with the expectation that the designers will continue to detail that product, not alter the product and detail the altered product, and they do the latter, I have (to some degree) wasted my investment.
So, it boils down to my paying for what I bought, not a substitution of it for "something else (WE think is better/equal)". "Something else" isn't what I paid money for, what I'm looking at right then is: that's what I like. I'm asking a company not to do a change-up on me after purchase.
It's like paying for a car, and then the company coming along and replacing it with a similar-but-not-quite model one night because they think it will work better for me, and my being able thereafter to purchase only accessories that work in for that new model.
Yet I bought the car because of specific features of the original model not found in the new "improved" model. Had I known the car was going to be replaced, that I would lose the specific features I purchased it for, I wouldn't have bought it.
Similarly, I would have bought a different car whose accessories would not require me to replace the original model I purchased for them to function. If the salesman says, "Upgrades to have passenger-side airbags" and I get it home, the passenger-side airbags accessory comes out, and I'm told I need to replace the car with a new model in order to get those airbags, but losing features of my purchased car!
Ivory Triangle? Works without the Metaplot, take it out, nothing happens.
City by the Silt Sea? Same thing, sure you have to adapt for Raam, but he hated Re-re anyway, so it's not like it's a stretch to have him attack a city that still has a SK.
Valley of Dust and Fire? Oops, pre-metaplot.
City State of Draj? Eh, that's a touch more as it focuses some on Tek's "son", but the city itself details fine, all you are lacking is detail on Tek's personality, and the PP covers this.
In the end, you are unhappy because the new material uses the metaplot and you feel that it makes it so the new material is not of use to you using the original box set.
This is simply untrue. The material works just fine and dandy with the original set (I know, I ran it like that for years).
If I purchase the product with the expectation that the designers will continue to detail that product, not alter the product and detail the altered product, and they do the latter, I have (to some degree) wasted my investment.
So, it boils down to my paying for what I bought, not a substitution of it for "something else (WE think is better/equal)". "Something else" isn't what I paid money for, what I'm looking at right then is: that's what I like. I'm asking a company not to do a change-up on me after purchase.
Except that what you bought was the original box set, *that* was the product. You then chose to buy or not buy *other* products, City State of Tyr, etc.
It's like paying for a car, and then the company coming along and replacing it with a similar-but-not-quite model one night because they think it will work better for me, and my being able thereafter to purchase only accessories that work in for that new model.
This horrible analogy is right up there with your other horrible analogy...
It's like me buying comics like Batman because of one certain story line and then complaining that I have some how been robbed of "my investment" when they change the story line. At that point I can either continue to buy Batman comics or not and wait until they have a storyline that I like again. comic publishers aren't obligated to fulfill every little request that I have, just like game publishers aren't required to fulfill every little request that I have either.
So the most you can do is either suck it up and deal like the rest of us do when we still want to buy some of the product but might not like everything it has to offer, or don't buy it period. It's your money, do with it what you will.
Don't like that? Then write to your representative and help open up the copyright laws some so WotC and other companies that abuse copyright law can't hold onto the license forever and actually allow someone else to produce material for the setting without having to have a fortune and a half to do so or having to wait several decades before it becomes public domain...
I'm not interested in rehashing things I have already assented to. I'm responding to a direct question here from someone who apparently wants to discuss the issue.
If you don't find that particular conversation useful, bypass it. (And frankly, things being off-topic is fairly common on this board; at least it was related to gaming in this instance.)
I also have no interest in critiques of my analogies, particularly ones that try to argue the details of the analogy rather than discuss the point they are being used in service to.
If, however, you want to discuss the point the analogy is being used to make, great!
But I will simply ignore "That's a horrible analogy" or "Here's my counter-analogy" kinds of critques because such responses do not produce nor indicate a path of productive discussion. Neither is a discussion of the point being made, either pro or con.
Thus, I stand by my feelings regarding the situation: of being sold something with certain implicit expectations and having that thing changed on me counter to those expectations.
By example, I am buying the first book in a set called "Germany in 1910" and then expecting the later volumes to expand upon Germany in 1910. What I don't expect is that volume 3 begin discussing Germany in 1915, or to detail WWII when I still don't know everything about the subject at hand: Germany in 1910.
This is how a setting differs from a comic book or series of novels, both of which one purchases with the expectation of story (such is implicit in the medium!).
When I purchase a setting, I am buying a specific presentation of a location at a given snapshot in time, not a story about how that setting changes. My expectation as a purchaser of setting material is that I am purchasing the basic snapshot of a setting that will be detailed and fleshed out in future products. Not changed in future products.
That is an entirely reasonable stance to take.
So I will not "suck it up" and shutup about it, because noting the problem and complaining about it, offering suggested methods of alleviation or alternative options IS doing something about it. It is also far more effective than writing to my representatives (since the company itself can hear my voice on the issue and the general public can discuss it in view of the company).
If anyone has a problem with that, they are free to simply ignore this subject when I speak about it.
That would be so VERY great if it was relevent. It's not. As has been stated repeatedly, the majority of the DS stuff works without the metaplot fine.
Ivory Triangle? Works without the Metaplot, take it out, nothing happens.
City by the Silt Sea? Same thing, sure you have to adapt for Raam, but he hated Re-re anyway, so it's not like it's a stretch to have him attack a city that still has a SK.
Valley of Dust and Fire? Oops, pre-metaplot.
City State of Draj? Eh, that's a touch more as it focuses some on Tek's "son", but the city itself details fine, all you are lacking is detail on Tek's personality, and the PP covers this.
In the end, you are unhappy because the new material uses the metaplot and you feel that it makes it so the new material is not of use to you using the original box set.
This is simply untrue. The material works just fine and dandy with the original set (I know, I ran it like that for years).