What are our chances of having Mystara brought back?
None, if "brought back" means new books or modules.
OTOH, most of Mystara is out there as ESDs.
In general we can expect some new material from Dragon Magazine, though obviously not much of it (i.e., a VotPA article or the like at major anniversaries...).
None, if "brought back" means new books or modules.
OTOH, most of Mystara is out there as ESDs.
In general we can expect some new material from Dragon Magazine, though obviously not much of it (i.e., a VotPA article or the like at major anniversaries...).
As of right now, yes our chances of a new official Mystara line seem slim. In 10 years, who knows?
However, I am more optimistic about seeing more stuff in Dragon, Dungeon etc that are either written for Mystara specifically, or with Mystara in mind so that they can easily be brought into our setting.
There has been talk of a VotPA Hardcover release which I still havent given up hoping for...
Havard
I mean, there's about 50 regular posters or so in here, dunno how many at the MML and then there are all of the visitors and readers. But what does that add up to?
Being an excentric millionaire, buying Mystara copyrights for good and re-releasing Mystara in all her glory is hardly fun if there's less people who will enjoy it than there are seats in a modern airliner...
:-) Jesper
Of course, one thing to always keep in mind is that, as over here, only a fraction of the members actually posted - about 10% or so by my "guesstimate". The other thing to consider is that a number of Mystara fans post on other message boards, too (e.g., Dragonsfoot), some of whom may not be counted if we did an informal census of the MML and MMB.
Shawn - is there any way of knowing how many people regularly visit the Mystara Board?
Geoff
This range would include all DMs and players who participate in a Mystara campaign, either regularly or infrequently.
Then again, I could be entirely wrong.
Geoff
It may not be the number of players out there that is important, but their love of the game. I have noticed on e-bay that old 1st and 2nd edition Ad&d book are cheap and plentiful. But when a Gaz come up it easily goes for more than 50$. I see lots of bidding on them and other Mystara Products. We who still play are a very loyal group.
This has as much to do with print runs as with popularity. Everything TSR put out from 1977 to 1983 went through multiple printings, usually hitting the hundreds of thousands of total units printed, sometimes in the millions. After 1983, when the volume of individual products went up, the print run for each of those products went down. By 1987, when the GAZ's were first being printed, modules often were only printed in the tens of thousands, often less. You'll note that many of the most expensive O(A)D&D products - the GAZ's, the super modules, the H series, etc. - were printed in the late 80's, when print runs were at their lowest.
R.A.
I could be wrong, but I always had a gut feeling that, if one were to add up all the people on the MML, MMB, and other fora, and then multiply that figure by four (average small gaming group size - I am assuming most people on these fora are DMs), one would probably arrive at a figure of about 1,600 or so, worldwide. The figure could be over 2,000 if enough of those gaming groups have more than four players.
This range would include all DMs and players who participate in a Mystara campaign, either regularly or infrequently.
Then again, I could be entirely wrong.
I did some similar calculations as you earlier on Geoff, and I think you may be close. Ofcourse, many others out there might also pick up a Mystara product even if they don't care enough about the setting to devote themselves to it. Obviously a new Mystara product would also have to be directed towards attracting new fans, which IMO is what would be the greatest benefit of such a product in the first place.
Ofcourse, there are days when it seems like even those who actually love Mystara wouldn't care to buy the stuff that is actually made for us...
On a less depressing note, what is it we Mystara fans have the most use for? Are there other things than an actual relaunch of the setting that could be useful to this community?
Havard
But really - I suspect there are a number of people who come to look at these boards who would be interested in new Mystara stuff - my only personal sadness would be that it would probably need to be 3.5e
That's a major strike against Mystara, because its fans are scattered all over the various incarnations of D&D. I, and a few select others, prefer AD&D 2e, but many Mystara fans like only the OD&D incarnation and will support only that. Still others want it in 3.5e. And since there has never been released a single, unifying book about Mystara that defines the core (the OD&D Rules Cyclopedia probably comes closest, but focuses more on OD&D rules than on Mystara itself - it says nothing about the Merchant subclass of Darokin, the hin masters of the Five Shires, the level 20 elves of Alfheim, or the rakes of Thyatis for example). It is bitterly ironic that TSR's only Hollow World is also the only one that has no definining core, which leaves us with several problems that have never been definied and probably never will be. For example, which spells do work and which ones don't or are just unknown in the Hollow World? We have a basic outline of these in the HW book, but WotI changed the rules, and other spells have since worked. And given the limited number of spells in OD&D, then which 2e or 3e spells would work or not? Not to mention those other spells that are specific to Mystara, but which are not taken into acount in the HW book...
I don't see any way to unify the Mystara-fans. And therefore I think any attempt to revive the setting officially is doomed. Because even if someone invested the time and money in it, I would never support it under 3.5e rules, and I'm not the only one...
I don't see any way to unify the Mystara-fans. And therefore I think any attempt to revive the setting officially is doomed. Because even if someone invested the time and money in it, I would never support it under 3.5e rules, and I'm not the only one...
Yes, that's also true, since the first thing that would come out of a revival attempt would be some sort of core book, that is a mix of well known setting info (you could not put anything new in a 200 pages book) and useless (for me at least) 3e rules stuff.
If the 2000 fans estimate is accurate, then the potential market for such a book would be very small -- since the 2000 counts also players, which wouldn't need to buy it (and it may also be an overestimate, since e.g. I don't have a group at all, except for pbems, mostly with other listmembers). So the potential market could be some 500 people, assuming that those like me and Stalker who aren't interested in 3e Mystara could be offset by 3e players who would buy it even though they're not specifically Mystaran fans (I don't agree with Havard that there would be many of them).
These hardly seem figure that could warrant a new edition, much less in ten years.
However, there are plenty of Mystara things that are not rules specific - for example an atlas of Mystara in 8 mile hex (anyone notice a theme developing) with some information on those countries - and links to where other information can be gleaned.
I also came across this website the other day - www.lulu.com - which will of small print runs of books - so maybe producing 500-1000 of something is not an impossibility.
Would printing something make it canon?
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. How about a Mystara cartoon? Not a kids cartoon with lots of lame jokes like the D&D cartoon, but a more teen/adult oriented cartoon with plenty of action and Mystara themes? Surely WoC can see that Mystara is a treasure chest just wasting away.
It would certainly be interesting. Too bad we can only expect a kids cartoon with lots of lame jokes, if we take into account past experiences (i.e., the D&D movie).
Would printing something make it canon?
Well, what is canon is mostly matter of personal tastes -- and they can range quite a lot.
It would certainly be interesting. Too bad we can only expect a kids cartoon with lots of lame jokes, if we take into account past experiences (i.e., the D&D movie).
Yeah, the D&D movie was really disappointing. Especially with the hype before the movie saying that the guy making it was a real lover of D&D... basically, he took it and trashed it.
I'm not sure I even want new Mystara stuff, since it would now almost certainly be for 3.5e, which I hate and find to be about the worst RPG system around.
This is too bad. You just haven't played under the right DM. 35e is the closest version to ODnD, IMO. It has the same problem as 1e and 2e though.....over using/abusing rules can kill any game. It's the DM's fault if that gets out-of-control.
As for Mystara, anything new would be published for the current version of the game at the time of publication. Publishing for older editions is a sure way to not have a profit. Old fashioned capitalism will answer that question every time.
What we need is a 35e corebook for the core countries of the Known World. Only the ones that were listed in X1, Isle of Dread with a hint and nod to the IoD. We can "build" the rest with everything that is available out on the 'net. I would be happy if Wizards just started us off and with the talent here on these boards I know we can do the rest.
--Ray.
This is too bad. You just haven't played under the right DM. 35e is the closest version to ODnD, IMO. It has the same problem as 1e and 2e though.....over using/abusing rules can kill any game. It's the DM's fault if that gets out-of-control.
Note that Stalker's (and mine as well) preferred D&D is AD&D2e, so being close to OD&D would not bea bonus per se.
However, the claim is actually false: to prove it, consider how long are the conversion guidelines for AD&D to OD&D and vice versa (1 page). Try think how long would they be for 3e...
Another proof: most OD&D stats (for monsters, e.g.) can be used as they are in AD&D2e. Not so for 3e -- which is basically a different game, while AD&D and OD&D are just variants of the same ruleset.
What we need is a 35e corebook for the core countries of the Known World.
Why do we need it? As I pointed out before, it would be much less detailed than the original material, which happens to be available...
Think K:KoA, for example. Even though I prefer AD&D2e to OD&D, I don't feel the need for K:KoA -- the fact that the rules part is bland doesn't help, of course, but the point is that it doesn't take much to use GAZ1 with AD&D2e.
If 3e is so close to OD&D, you shouldn't have problems as well.
This is too bad. You just haven't played under the right DM.
On the contrary. I'm a GM myself (with my current 2e Mystara campaign running more than a decade), and I've even written 3e adventures - I wrote the bulk of "Where Brothers War" for the MA 1018 Adventures book, and I co-wrote phase I of the "Corruption of the Swords" series of adventures. It's not as if I have no 3e experience. I just happen think it's a very bad system, in no small part because of my work on those adventures. 3e had its chance, but the more I learned about it, the less I liked it...
As for Mystara, anything new would be published for the current version of the game at the time of publication. Publishing for older editions is a sure way to not have a profit. Old fashioned capitalism will answer that question every time.
True, but people like myself would then not support it... And I don't see Mystara reviving if the core fans won't back the efforts. Sorry, but there it is.
What we need is a 35e corebook for the core countries of the Known World. Only the ones that were listed in X1, Isle of Dread with a hint and nod to the IoD. We can "build" the rest with everything that is available out on the 'net. I would be happy if Wizards just started us off and with the talent here on these boards I know we can do the rest.
Sorry, but that's just the sort of idea I would dislike the most. With the current state of Mystara, the Almanac team is able to continue to develop the setting as they like, and the individual GM can use whatever material he likes under whatever rules he prefers. Some will embrace 3e, some stick with OD&D, and fewer still - like me - will continue to use 2e. But as things are now, we can at least do rules-light stuff together, whereas an official publication putting Mystara firmly inside 3e/d20 would split the Mystara community and divide us further than we are now. I just don't see that being worth the effort.
Note that Stalker's (and mine as well) preferred D&D is AD&D2e, so being close to OD&D would not bea bonus per se.
However, the claim is actually false: to prove it, consider how long are the conversion guidelines for AD&D to OD&D and vice versa (1 page). Try think how long would they be for 3e...
Another proof: most OD&D stats (for monsters, e.g.) can be used as they are in AD&D2e. Not so for 3e -- which is basically a different game, while AD&D and OD&D are just variants of the same ruleset.
I agree. OD&D and 2e are much closer to each other than either is to 3e. Whether one likes 3e or not, you would have to acknowledge that 3e is a very different system than previous editions of the game. I have players IMC who love 3e and disagree strongly with me on its quality (or lack thereof to me), but they agree that is a totally different game to the earlier editions of the game even so. Many principles have changed in 3e. That's a bad thing per se, mind you. I definitely think the 3e multiclass system is much better than in 2e, but it's still very different from what came before (and since it made it impossible for me to convert certain characters IMC to 3e while doing them any sort of justice in the new system, I knew upfront I could never switch to the system while those characters were IMC).
Why do we need it? As I pointed out before, it would be much less detailed than the original material, which happens to be available...
Think K:KoA, for example. Even though I prefer AD&D2e to OD&D, I don't feel the need for K:KoA -- the fact that the rules part is bland doesn't help, of course, but the point is that it doesn't take much to use GAZ1 with AD&D2e.
If 3e is so close to OD&D, you shouldn't have problems as well.
Yeah, the AD&D Mystara books were not good enough... K:KoA had nice pictures and so, but not all the material was updated correctly (and the level-conversions were just horrible), and G:KoM was just terrible. I won't even consider those ghastly Survival Kits...
Yeah, the AD&D Mystara books were not good enough... K:KoA had nice pictures and so, but not all the material was updated correctly (and the level-conversions were just horrible), and G:KoM was just terrible. I won't even consider those ghastly Survival Kits...
I've never seen G:KoM -- I'd be curious to have a look at the conversion of the Secret Crafts, though. K:KoA has a few horrible conversions (Halav, Petra and Zirchev as the Immortal patrons of the Church of _Karameikos_...), but it's otherwise bland -- the opportunities given by the system are not considered at all -- and most of all it's not that useful if you already have GAZ1 (which included, IMO, 80% of its target).
I've never seen G:KoM -- I'd be curious to have a look at the conversion of the Secret Crafts, though. K:KoA has a few horrible conversions (Halav, Petra and Zirchev as the Immortal patrons of the Church of _Karameikos_...), but it's otherwise bland -- the opportunities given by the system are not considered at all -- and most of all it's not that useful if you already have GAZ1 (which included, IMO, 80% of its target).
2e Mystara
The main problem with both of the 2E boxed sets was that they didnt contain too much new or interesting material for those who already had the gazetteers. Furthermore, aspects of the products (maps ie) was definately not better than what came before. It wasnt that the products themselves were so bad, it was just that everyone expected them to be better or at least as good as the gazetteers. Many hoped for something on par with the FR box. The Savage Coast material for 2E however was really good. I guess they had learned by then.
New Edition
The attitude that many express that they will not buy new Mystara material if its released for a different edition is a challenge. Ofcourse, such statements themselves may in fact be harmful if the guys at WotC bother to read them. Could it be possible to make a 3.5 Mystara sourcebook that would be of use to OE and 2E fans? I think so. My preferred new Mystara sourcebook would be very rules light and focus instead on the setting. Agathokles is right it might still be hard to fit too much new stuff into a core book, but obviously good sales of a core book would in fact allow for more supplements.
Havard
True, but people like myself would then not support it... And I don't see Mystara reviving if the core fans won't back the efforts. Sorry, but there it is.
Stalker, a new sourcebook really isn't about the core fans. Core fans already have most, if not all, of the material related to the setting. Core fans are very comfortable with whatever ruleset the choose to use. Core fans have spent countless hours at the Vaults and message boards fleshing out the canon materials. For Mystara to revive, it needs new fans. In my experience, most people new to D&D would love to play in Mystara, but they only want to use 3.5e. Since our group started converting to 3.5e, we have seen the interest in our campaign explode, and even have another DM who would like to start a Mystara campaign once the conversion is done (he has never played in Mystara before).
Our group held out for a long time playing OD&D. When 3e came out my first reaction was to hate the system. But I came around after becoming more familiar with it. 3.5e has flaws, as did every system before it. A good DM can minimize these flaws, and a solid gaming group can avoid much of the abuse of the system that is posssible. I have found the 3.5e is more flexible and coherant than any of the prior systems and many things that were clumsy or not well developed in OD&D work far better in 3.5e (or at the very least the framework is in the rules to make it work right).
In short, any new material has to and should be 3.5e/d20. It has to be able to draw in people who do not currently play Mystara and while a "rules light" product may be of greater use to Mystara fans who don't use 3.5e/d20, it won't draw many non-Mystarans in.
my
anyway 
For Mystara to revive, it needs new fans.
Applause!
In short, any new material has to and should be 3.5e/d20. It has to be able to draw in people who do not currently play Mystara...
Working on it... stand by.
Roger
EDIT: I do expect, after I finish the first part of my project, for y'all to use it and critique it to the bone--be as brutal as possible. If I can impress y'all, especially the OD&D holdouts, the I know that I will have done a good job. And as a side thought, I'm no businessman... but if a fan did the work for me, I'd pick it up and run with it. Maybe, just maybe if my project is done with enough quality, I wouldn't be opposed to WotC tweaking one of my books and releasing it in print form...
The attitude that many express that they will not buy new Mystara material if its released for a different edition is a challenge. Ofcourse, such statements themselves may in fact be harmful if the guys at WotC bother to read them.
Seriously, do you think my or Stalker's opinion do matter that much?
We happen to be a minority within a minority...
Agathokles is right it might still be hard to fit too much new stuff into a core book, but obviously good sales of a core book would in fact allow for more supplements.
Actually, I don't think there would be anything new at all, even in early supplements. There's simply so much existing material that there would be no reason not to simply republish it -- especially if people do buy this kind of products.
BTW, I'd be curious to see how much new content there is in, say, FR 3e books, beyond rules stuff...
Seriously, do you think my or Stalker's opinion do matter that much?
We happen to be a minority within a minority...
To say the least. Heck, since I run 2e Mystara, I use Spelljammer and Planescape cosmology... [runs from angry OD&D-fans with pitchforks...] ;)
Actually, I don't think there would be anything new at all, even in early supplements. There's simply so much existing material that there would be no reason not to simply republish it -- especially if people do buy this kind of products.
BTW, I'd be curious to see how much new content there is in, say, FR 3e books, beyond rules stuff...
A d20 Mystara would have to allow for epic levels that deal with the standard classes above level 20, since those lead to the paths of immortality, which is definite Mystaran flavour. If that's abandoned for the sake of fitting standard 3.5e rules, then what's the point? There would also need to be that extensive list of which spells do or don't or are unknown in the Hollow World, as well as the relevant domains for all of Mystara's Immortals. That's an awful lot of work. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. And then comes the differences between drow, shadow elves, and schattenalfen, not to mention the various orcs in the Broken Lands, etc... Oh, and the conversion of Mystara-specific spells from both OD&D (the wizard's Heal or Create Monsters, or spells such as Haldemar's Travel or The Thothian Enchantment - no Princess Ark without that...) and AD&D Mystara (from G:KoM - those were some of the only good things in that book)...
Seriously, do you think my or Stalker's opinion do matter that much?
We happen to be a minority within a minority...
Not as individuals, but I keep hearing people saying this. And if that affects the general impression the corporate guys are getting, it might actually work against ever seeing more Mystara material.
However, I realize my previous comments might have come across as wishing some sort of thought police. That is not the case ofcourse, I respect opinions other than my own.
Actually, I don't think there would be anything new at all, even in early supplements. There's simply so much existing material that there would be no reason not to simply republish it -- especially if people do buy this kind of products.
I dont think there should be much new as such, but some things left vague might be expanded upon, as may some things that were fairly detailed in previous material may be left in the background now. When the gazetteers were published, the gaming industry was much more experimental in its structure and content. Sometimes this was successful, sometimes not so much. There is no reason to repeat what is now considered to be the mistakes from the original line.
BTW, I'd be curious to see how much new content there is in, say, FR 3e books, beyond rules stuff...
Not sure, but I actually heard that FR3E underwent some serious revisions from its previous forms. Plus, the books look really nice. I would have loved seeing something like this for Mystara.
But Traianus makes a good point in saying that the main advantage of having new material in print would the chance of attracting more fans.
Havard
A d20 Mystara would have to allow for epic levels that deal with the standard classes above level 20, since those lead to the paths of immortality, which is definite Mystaran flavour. If that's abandoned for the sake of fitting standard 3.5e rules, then what's the point? There would also need to be that extensive list of which spells do or don't or are unknown in the Hollow World, as well as the relevant domains for all of Mystara's Immortals. That's an awful lot of work. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. And then comes the differences between drow, shadow elves, and schattenalfen, not to mention the various orcs in the Broken Lands, etc... Oh, and the conversion of Mystara-specific spells from both OD&D (the wizard's Heal or Create Monsters, or spells such as Haldemar's Travel or The Thothian Enchantment - no Princess Ark without that...) and AD&D Mystara (from G:KoM - those were some of the only good things in that book)...
There are many ways to get around these problems. If I was in charge of such a project, I would probably leave most of these issues out of the core book. It might be interesting, as you suggest to focus the campaign around questing for Immortality. Epic levels are already adressed in the 3.5 DMG, so thats not really a problem, but the paths to immortality could have been given some space. Ofcourse, it might be interesting enough to have an entire 200+ page hardcover book dealing with that ;)
For a core book, I would probably not include DMs complete list of Immortals. Around 20 or so of the most important ones would be given good descriptions/rules. Same thing with races. For sub races, I would probably prefer non crunchy descriptions rather than having 2000 races...
Havard
Not as individuals, but I keep hearing people saying this. And if that affects the general impression the corporate guys are getting, it might actually work against ever seeing more Mystara material.
Considering what would come from more official Mystaran material (except the occasional Bruce article) I can't say I care that much...
However, I realize my previous comments might have come across as wishing some sort of thought police. That is not the case ofcourse, I respect opinions other than my own.No offense taken -- I'm generally much less tolerant :DI dont think there should be much new as such,
That's the point.There is no reason to repeat what is now considered to be the mistakes from the original line.
Such as? The Gazetteer were quite good -- actually, I've yet to see something better than the Glantri or Karameikos GAZ.
In general, what is now considered to be mistakes are often the strongest points of a line (most clearly seen with Planescape or Birthright).Not sure, but I actually heard that FR3E underwent some serious revisions from its previous forms.
I mean "new content" as in "additions" rather than "how do we insert a group of dwarven multiclass sorcerer/paladin/monks when the original setting had at least four different basic and widely known reasons that made this impossible" sort of things.Plus, the books look really nice. I would have loved seeing something like this for Mystara.
Well, I wish they'd done the AD&D port with the same quality and style of Birthright
As for new fans recruiting, I suppose we should devise some better scheme than wait for WotC to publish new stuff. Mystara is chocked full of puns and references to "old" pop culture (from Ierendi's abundance of TV show references to Savage Coast's stuff, ranging from John Wayne to Asterix).
All of these would be lost on younger players now, let alone in 10 years, so WotC would always go for either ongoing flagships or totally new stuff.
GP
No offense taken -- I'm generally much less tolerant :D
Yeah, I figured you would be okay.
But since its the internet and other people are reading this too I just wanted to make it clear. Such as? The Gazetteer were quite good -- actually, I've yet to see something better than the Glantri or Karameikos GAZ.
In general, what is now considered to be mistakes are often the strongest points of a line (most clearly seen with Planescape or Birthright).
I agree, the gazetteers are very good, even excellent considering when they were written. I like those gazes you mention and also Gaz5 is one of my favorites. I think the main improvement that could have been made is organization. I would have liked to see a better defined players section for each gaz, with info on each class for instance. Same thing with the GM's section. Also, some gazes are way more interesting than others. There is always room for improvement.
I mean "new content" as in "additions" rather than "how do we insert a group of dwarven multiclass sorcerer/paladin/monks when the original setting had at least four different basic and widely known reasons that made this impossible" sort of things.
Well, I'm out of my league here. I dont really know much about the OOP FR material. But I did buy the 3E one just because it looked so nice. I would very nice to see a book like that for Mystara.
Well, I wish they'd done the AD&D port with the same quality and style of Birthright
Yes. In fact I wish they had used Mystara for Birthright, expanding on the dominion/war machine rules and used Mystara instead of making a new setting.
As for new fans recruiting, I suppose we should devise some better scheme than wait for WotC to publish new stuff. Mystara is chocked full of puns and references to "old" pop culture (from Ierendi's abundance of TV show references to Savage Coast's stuff, ranging from John Wayne to Asterix).
All of these would be lost on younger players now, let alone in 10 years, so WotC would always go for either ongoing flagships or totally new stuff.
Well, Im hoping for paizo to do the VotPa thing. It could attract more people to the setting. The puns are references are fun enough, but I dont really think they are needed to enjoy the setting.
Havard
I mean "new content" as in "additions" rather than "how do we insert a group of dwarven multiclass sorcerer/paladin/monks when the original setting had at least four different basic and widely known reasons that made this impossible" sort of things.
Well, that IS a big problem right there, actually... A lot of Mystara's background is founded on the basic idea that such things are impossible, so the choice becomes whether you'll enforce the style of the campaign and outlaw those options to maintain the internal integrity of the campaign world itself or whether you'll throw that to the winds for the sake of wide playability. My real fear is that WotC will choose the latter, because that's what 3e/3.5e has looked like to me so far... But in Mystara's case, that would mean that the foundation of the world is flawed and corrupted from the very inception of the d20 version...
Well, I wish they'd done the AD&D port with the same quality and style of Birthright
Yes, I agree... The real problem with AD&D Mystara was that they looked at it and thought, "gee, this is D&D - a simplified AD&D - so what could be better than to pitch it as a beginner's campaign?" That line of thought was, of course, totally flawed, because they completely forgot that the gazetteers had already imposed rules that made Mystara more complex rules-wise than AD&D itself. Not to mention the darker mood and atmosphere of the setting itself, not least the characters - no all goody-goody Elminster or all nasty-nasty Zhentarim here. The AD&D port was simply done from a EXCEEDINGLY narrow vision of just what sort of hobgoblin Mystara really was. It may have said D&D on the cover without the 'A' in front, but the characteristics of the setting itself were far more complex and grey than FR or DL will ever be...
As for new fans recruiting, I suppose we should devise some better scheme than wait for WotC to publish new stuff. Mystara is chocked full of puns and references to "old" pop culture (from Ierendi's abundance of TV show references to Savage Coast's stuff, ranging from John Wayne to Asterix).
All of these would be lost on younger players now, let alone in 10 years, so WotC would always go for either ongoing flagships or totally new stuff
I don't see WOTC backing a Mystara effort either, and even if they did, I don't think it would be more than a half-hearted effort, because they already have two Tolkienesque D&D settings (Greyhawk and FR)...
No, someone else would have to come and revive Mystara for the purpose of making it compete against GH and FR like White Wolf did with Ravenloft. Otherwise there would be little point, because Mystara will never be flagship of WOTC.
Well, that IS a big problem right there, actually... A lot of Mystara's background is founded on the basic idea that such things are impossible, so the choice becomes whether you'll enforce the style of the campaign and outlaw those options to maintain the internal integrity of the campaign world itself or whether you'll throw that to the winds for the sake of wide playability.
"A lot" seems to me to be overstating the situation somewhat, especially given later additions/alterations/amendments to the basic rules system. Really, the only thing I can think of offhand that is a major change rules wise that could have an impact on the setting is in the area of Glantri, as far as dwarves and halflings and their non-magical (in OD&D) natures and the wizards' attitudes towards them. Even that, it seems to me, need not be overwhelmingly affected by suddenly allowing for the possibility of having dwarves and halflings able to take wizardly classes. Just as the wizardly attitude towards clerics was a descriptive elements, so too could the wizardly attitude towards dwarves/halflings. While the fundamental design was originally that their sort of "antimagical" nature made them anathema to wizards, there is enough history there (the plagues that came along with dwarven migration, chiefly) to cover the still anti-dwarf attitudes of the nation's leaders.
Also, the changing view on races/classes as the world of Mystara progressed (from race and class being separate to allowing things such as dwarven clerics, elven clerics, and eventually rakasta and lupins being able to select "human" classes) reflected a campaign world that was changing to accomodate new and varying conditions, and was growing beyond the bounds of a rules set that it had originally sprung from.
I just can't think of anything from the original Mystara campaign that would be broken by the more "anything goes" sort of attitude of 3.5, especially when that anything goes attitude, it seems to me, was pretty indigenous to the growing campaign world in the first place. (As an example, Mystara allowed for monstrous classes before AD&D did in many ways, and the current Savage Species sort of monster class progression in 3.5 seems almost a direct ancestor of the Gaz10 rules.)
Also, the changing view on races/classes as the world of Mystara progressed (from race and class being separate to allowing things such as dwarven clerics, elven clerics, and eventually rakasta and lupins being able to select "human" classes) reflected a campaign world that was changing to accomodate new and varying conditions, and was growing beyond the bounds of a rules set that it had originally sprung from.
I don't think it's quite that clear, though. There were dwarven clerics in the Rockhome gaz, and the elven treekeepers are very close to clerics (just look at some of their spells...). As for rakasta and lupins, I don't recall whether they were made playable as PCs in the VotPA series, or whether it didn't happen until the actual Red Steel campaign, which was born under AD&D 2e, but it did not happen before VotPA at least, by which time Mystara had already expanded rather a lot beyond the more basic OD&D rules, so I must admit that I don't feel particularly swayed by those examples.
Besides, the dwarves always seemed to dislike wizards as a consequence of their hatred for Glantri, and when that disgust extends to wizards from other nations (like Darokin, Karameikos, or wherever), then it enriches the campaign world with characteristics. You can throw that you, of course, but then you are throwing something out that says a lot about the dwarves and helps to define them. It also seems odd to me that a dwarf or halfling can suddenly be a wizard, when much of the Glantrian interest in them as "specimen" is precisely because they are more resistant to magic than most other races. How can they be resistant to magic and yet learn wizardry just as well as any human or elf? One of the things that annoys me about 3e is that it refuses to answer questions like that and instead just postulates that it's not a problem. Well, it seems annoyingly implausible to me, begging an explanation, which is just ignored. And that hurts the game's credibility and the ability to suspend disbelief.
I don't think it's quite that clear, though. There were dwarven clerics in the Rockhome gaz, and the elven treekeepers are very close to clerics (just look at some of their spells...). As for rakasta and lupins, I don't recall whether they were made playable as PCs in the VotPA series, or whether it didn't happen until the actual Red Steel campaign, which was born under AD&D 2e, but it did not happen before VotPA at least, by which time Mystara had already expanded rather a lot beyond the more basic OD&D rules, so I must admit that I don't feel particularly swayed by those examples.
Rakasta and Lupins were made available as PCs in OD&D during VotPA, as were Elven Clerics and Paladins, Bards, and Half-Elves. Pseudo-thieves of all races were also available at some point.
However, I think there's quite a difference between, say, adding Halfling clerics (which were not available except as Hin Masters in OD&D) and adding (rockborn) dwarf wizards, since in one case there's simply no previous example (but no specific reason why there couldn't be one), in the other there is a clear and explicitly stated impossibility (i.e., dwarves were modified to be magic resistant, which makes them unable to wield wizardly magic; dwarven "hostility" towards magic users has no part in explaining why there aren't dwarf wizards).
There is always room for improvement.
Yes, but it's quite small. OTOH, there's plenty of space for bad conversions (see K:KoA).
Well, I'm out of my league here. I dont really know much about the OOP FR material. But I did buy the 3E one just because it looked so nice. I would very nice to see a book like that for Mystara.
Neither I do, but you can have a look at old FR stuff in the classics downloads area -- note that most FR setting books have little rules contents, so really there wasn't much need to release new versions of it.
Yes. In fact I wish they had used Mystara for Birthright, expanding on the dominion/war machine rules and used Mystara instead of making a new setting.
Birthright is a nice setting, actually, and the premises for dominion rule are too weird to be used elsewhere.
The puns are references are fun enough, but I dont really think they are needed to enjoy the setting.
Maybe they aren't, but I can still see why WotC would rather develop a new setting with a different feel.
However, I think there's quite a difference between, say, adding Halfling clerics (which were not available except as Hin Masters in OD&D) and adding (rockborn) dwarf wizards, since in one case there's simply no previous example (but no specific reason why there couldn't be one), in the other there is a clear and explicitly stated impossibility (i.e., dwarves were modified to be magic resistant, which makes them unable to wield wizardly magic; dwarven "hostility" towards magic users has no part in explaining why there aren't dwarf wizards).
every time you change the rulesets, the setting will be a little bit different. I have played Mystara with Classic D&D, AD&D, 3E, GURPS and MasterBook. They were all somewhat different in flavour, but they were all true to the spirit of Mystara IMHO.
I think people are making the Dwarf/Halfling/Wizard issue a much bigger part of the setting than it really is, but there is really many ways around this issue that could satisfy everyone. For instance this could be presented as an optional rule for Mystara for the GMs who felt this way. Obviously there is really no reason to introduce a bunch of Dwarven Wizard NPCs either. I actually think the social/cultural attitude towards these things has much more interesting roleplaying potential than making it part of the rules though.
Another thing that struck me is that people who do not generally like 3E tend to be the ones arguing for bringing in more rules modifications. This seems rather counterproductive as I think these are the ones who would be more satisfied if a Mystara book was less rules oriented.
Havard
Yes, but it's quite small. OTOH, there's plenty of space for bad conversions (see K:KoA).
I think anything published for Mystara would be interesting regardless of quality. Obviously, I am not hoping for something bad, but I think any sourcebook for Mystara would be an interesting addition to this community as something we could discuss, take out the parts we like, criticise what we don't like etc. Heck, we are discussing it now and it hasnt even been made yet, has it?
Maybe they aren't, but I can still see why WotC would rather develop a new setting with a different feel.
Yes ofcourse, but thats not our job to convince them of doing that is it? ;)
Havard
I think anything published for Mystara would be interesting regardless of quality.
It can be matter of discussion, but not necessarily interesting.
And since we can discuss without anything at all, I don't feel the need to have this bad conversion around ;)
Yes ofcourse, but thats not our job to convince them of doing that is it? ;)
Not mine, definitely. If I had to go for impossible tasks, I'd rather go for the truly impossible (i.e., ditch 3e and relaunch AD&D2e with Mystara as the main setting and Planescape as the default cosmology) :D
I think people are making the Dwarf/Halfling/Wizard issue a much bigger part of the setting than it really is, but there is really many ways around this issue that could satisfy everyone.
I think this is going in the wrong direction. It's not that the dwarf wizard problem per se that can't be solved (actually, it would be very simple even in 3e, just say: "dwarves can't cast wizard spells in this setting"), but the fact that all problems of this kind would be solved the wrong way (i.e., with any other possible solution, and probably with something on the lines "you never knew, but there were hundreds of dwarven wizards in Rockhome").
You might say that this is not even a problem of rules (since there is no actual mechanical difficulty in any rules set to ban dwarven wizards), but rather a problem of attitude towards the setting.
Another thing that struck me is that people who do not generally like 3E tend to be the ones arguing for bringing in more rules modifications. This seems rather counterproductive as I think these are the ones who would be more satisfied if a Mystara book was less rules oriented.
If you make it less rules oriented by adding dwarf wizards (and/or anything else on those lines, including e.g. paladins, wizards with crossbows, sorcerers, no low-level specialty priests) everywhere, then it's worse than adding two lines of rules stuff to say what doesn't belong to the setting.
Anyway, obviously if I don't like 3e I'd rather see a lot of modifications to the rules set. And of course this is not counterproductive, since there is no book coming.
What I'd like to see, really, is something on the lines of the last VotPA installment: no 3e weirdness, no significant rules sections.
I think this is going in the wrong direction. It's not that the dwarf wizard problem per se that can't be solved (actually, it would be very simple even in 3e, just say: "dwarves can't cast wizard spells in this setting"), but the fact that all problems of this kind would be solved the wrong way (i.e., with any other possible solution, and probably with something on the lines "you never knew, but there were hundreds of dwarven wizards in Rockhome").
I dont think anyone would want to see a situation like this. The question is whether it should be included in the rules as such or merely in the description. "Dwarven wizards are practically unheard of on Mystara" for instance would be preferable to: "cannot cast arcane spells".
You might say that this is not even a problem of rules (since there is no actual mechanical difficulty in any rules set to ban dwarven wizards), but rather a problem of attitude towards the setting.
Yes, but who is having this attitude? I agree that we could see something like this in the 2E version where the goal seemed to be to make Mystara conform to the 2E cosmology, but I dont think there is any such tendency in the 3E settings.
If you make it less rules oriented by adding dwarf wizards (and/or anything else on those lines, including e.g. paladins, wizards with crossbows, sorcerers, no low-level specialty priests) everywhere, then it's worse than adding two lines of rules stuff to say what doesn't belong to the setting.
I think this to a great extent is much more a question of rulesets than setting though. Would really a wizard armed with a crossbow be considered a major alteration of the setting? Or a 1st level paladin?
Ofcourse, if your argument is that to include a bunch of characters like this into the sourcebooks just for the sake of proving that these can exist in the setting I understand. We dont need that.
Anyway, obviously if I don't like 3e I'd rather see a lot of modifications to the rules set. And of course this is not counterproductive, since there is no book coming.
Well, I don't know. I sort of like this discussion
What I'd like to see, really, is something on the lines of the last VotPA installment: no 3e weirdness, no significant rules sections.
Well, this isn't too far from what I was suggesting. If a 3E Mystara book is kept rules light (ie, 3E players would play it more or less according to the 3E core rules), most of the book could be devoted to the setting.
The actual crunchy bits included should preferably IMO focus on the most interesting points of Mystara:
* The Radience
* Demi-Human Relics/Keepers
* Secret Crafts
* New races: shadowelf, Rakasta, Lupin (moulder dwarf?)
* The Red Curse (if going beyond the KW)
* Flying Ships(?)
Some setting elements that could be expanded upon in a new book:
* Immortals, as seen by Mortals (Religion, Churches etc)
* Races and Nationalities (each given their own 3e-style writeup)
* Organizations
* Interraction between the countries
Havard
Yes, but who is having this attitude? I agree that we could see something like this in the 2E version where the goal seemed to be to make Mystara conform to the 2E cosmology, but I dont think there is any such tendency in the 3E settings.
Bah, conforming to the cosmology is a simple matter of points of view, nothing that affects directly the setting. OTOH, saying "there may be dwarven wizards", no matter how uncommon, would make a major difference, because originally there was no way for a dwarf to be a wizard, and there was an explanation for this linked to the history of the world, as well as a series of effects on other parts of the setting (e.g., dwarves and Glantri, human wizards hired in Rockhome, special procedures that allow dwarf fighters to create magical items, etc.) that would be ruined by the possibility of dwarven wizards (and by the need to conform, in general, to a fixed model).
The same tendency is prevalent in 3e, just look here:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/20001018
I think this to a great extent is much more a question of rulesets than setting though. Would really a wizard armed with a crossbow be considered a major alteration of the setting? Or a 1st level paladin?
Yes. It's not just "hey, crossbow or sling, what's the difference", it's that, when only few wizards (or none at all, or only those belonging to specific cultures) were able to use crossbows, and suddenly everyone does, one begins to wonder why, for example, wizard army units should not be crossbowmen (changing their effectiveness on the battlefield) rather than being armed with daggers.
On Paladins, it's not that they should not exist at first level, but rather that on Mystara, Paladins/Avengers exist for all alignments, and are simply warriors in service of a Church, not Galahad-like figures with saintly powers.
That means that the AD&D or 3e Paladin is unsuitable in Mystara. Of course, the solutions are readily available in both rulesets, but there is this odd resistance towards disallowing anything that is a sign of inflexibility in the mindset of 3e -- in AD&D at least, we can claim it's just a bad conversion, since other settings ditched the Paladin class when it was unsuitable (Ravenloft and Dark Sun) or modified it to suit the setting (Birthright).
Well, this isn't too far from what I was suggesting. If a 3E Mystara book is kept rules light (ie, 3E players would play it more or less according to the 3E core rules), most of the book could be devoted to the setting.
It is different in an important point: I don't care for a core book, describing the well known stuff (Known World).
But, for example, an article on Alphatia would be welcome.
However, I think there's quite a difference between, say, adding Halfling clerics (which were not available except as Hin Masters in OD&D) and adding (rockborn) dwarf wizards, since in one case there's simply no previous example (but no specific reason why there couldn't be one), in the other there is a clear and explicitly stated impossibility (i.e., dwarves were modified to be magic resistant, which makes them unable to wield wizardly magic; dwarven "hostility" towards magic users has no part in explaining why there aren't dwarf wizards).
To be technical, according to Gaz6, Dwarves were modified to be "radiation" resistant, with magic resistance being a side-effect of that modification. Even the "magic resistance" wasn't really magic resistance per se (in the sense of "anti-magic"), but just better saving throws and the high level 1/2 or 1/4 damage ability (and the high saves weren't even as good as human high level saves).
To be technical, according to Gaz6, Dwarves were modified to be "radiation" resistant, with magic resistance being a side-effect of that modification. Even the "magic resistance" wasn't really magic resistance per se (in the sense of "anti-magic"), but just better saving throws and the high level 1/2 or 1/4 damage ability (and the high saves weren't even as good as human high level saves).
Dwarves are magic resistant, even though not in the technical sense of the word. Their ability to automatically reduce magical damage is magic resistance enough, and their saves are much better than those of humans of same level, and comparable to those of humans of much higher level.
However, that's not the main issue -- which is that, regardless of the effect of this magic resistance, it prevents dwarves from using wizardly magic. Even if dwarven magic resistance was only cosmetic, it would not weaken the rest of the argument.
Therefore, the point still holds: dwarves do not become wizards because they are physiologically unable to do so, not for any specific aversion towards wizards, which in any case would be limited to Glantrian wizards -- since Alphatian dwarves don't seem to have any particular problem with Alphatian wizards, for example.
And this, BTW, is also another change that allowing dwarven wizards brings to the campaign: since dwarves can now be wizards, there must be another reason why there aren't actually dwarven wizards around -- which apparently most people see in the (basically non-existent) cultural prejudice against wizards, which enlarged from the understandable suspicion towards people wielding powers beyond the understanding and ability of the dwarves to an irrational hatred of wizards of any kind. Where, in the original setting, a dwarven wizard (e.g., a Kogolor that was able to reach the outer world) would be considered an asset, here he becomes a dangerous heretic.
As can be seen, even apparently minor changes can have major effects, especially when they're taken for the mere purpose of satisfying a rules constraint.
However, that's not the main issue -- which is that, regardless of the effect of this magic resistance, it prevents dwarves from using wizardly magic. Even if dwarven magic resistance was only cosmetic, it would not weaken the rest of the argument.
Has it ever been explicitly stated, though, that dwarves can't use wizard magic? I mean, the assumption has always been there, yes (due to the dwarf being a class/race and not having other class options for them), but I can't recall anything from the OD&D rules or Mystara campaign expansions saying they cannot use wizard magic at all. I may be missing something, and it may be there somewhere, but it seems to me that it is just an underlying assumption that is made, due to the rules restrictions.
And as those rules restrictions lessened (or were expanded), all kinds of other possibilities that hadn't been previously possible now were possible, so unless there is something explicitly stated that this was not possible, why can't it be so now?
Therefore, the point still holds: dwarves do not become wizards because they are physiologically unable to do so, not for any specific aversion towards wizards, which in any case would be limited to Glantrian wizards -- since Alphatian dwarves don't seem to have any particular problem with Alphatian wizards, for example.
Again, I don't think it has ever been explicitly stated that there is some sort of mechanism- physiological, psychological, social, emotional, or otherwise- that this was not a possibility. I think it is just an assumption we have all made based on the initial rules, and (to a certain extent) the AD&D rules (and the way, way, waaaay back original rules from Arneson/Gygax) where wizard wasn't a class option for dwarves. None of which really are connected to the actual Mystara campaign as it developed on its own, as I see things.
And this, BTW, is also another change that allowing dwarven wizards brings to the campaign: since dwarves can now be wizards, there must be another reason why there aren't actually dwarven wizards around -- which apparently most people see in the (basically non-existent) cultural prejudice against wizards
I don't know that it really does need to be explained, myself. The fact is that Player Characters are supposed to be- by their very nature- exceptional individuals in the world. These are more than just the "commoners," they defy the rules and are the people about whom stories are written. Simply allowing for a dwarven PC to adopt a wizard class doesn't need to suddenly and completely change the entire history of the dwarven race. Who is to say that there weren't dwarven wizards before, simply because they haven't ever been mentioned? There are all kinds of gaps in Mystaran history where the developers didn't fill things in (heck, if there weren't, the fan base wouldn't have as much luxury to do many of the things we have done with the world). Maybe dwarven wizards have had so little impact on dwarven history and society that they've simply never been mentioned.
I suspect this is an issue that is always going to be a polarizing one, and I regret if the discussion seems to anyone to be an attack or dismissive or anything (no one has said so yet, so I hope that isn't the case), but like Havard, I do find it to be an interesting discussion, even if nobody changes their minds.
I do find it highly ironic that the discussion here is between AD&D Mystara players and 3rd Edition Mystara players. Most of the OD&D people (like myself) have so far stayed out of things, but there are definitely some points to be made. The most basic is that both rulesets involve a conversion, and whichever one you choose it is guaranteed to introduce new things that some Mystara fans don't like, as well as change other areas - often in subtle ways, as Agathokles said.
It seems to me that this is just as true with AD&D as it is with 3rd Edition. Perhaps the only real difference is that those using AD&D seem to be willing to adapt the system to the world, while 3rd Edition supporters often seem to view things the opposite way round, changing the world to fit the system.
The only other thing I have to say on this right now is that even when dealing purely with OD&D we wouldn't necessarily all agree. Let's face it, the Gazetteers, Creature Crucibles and Hollow World series all positively encourage people to adapt and add to the system as they like, and the direction they seemed to be leading in was much closer to a freer AD&D or 3rd Edition class/race system than the original OD&D class system. But even while these products were all still new, fans of Mystara already were clashing over their usefulness, their implementation, etc.
In the end, I think the only thing to do is to accept what we are given, then adapt it for our own use. This is certainly my intention with Roger's 3rd Edition project, and indeed with any other conversions that I might use in the future.
I do find it highly ironic that the discussion here is between AD&D Mystara players and 3rd Edition Mystara players. Most of the OD&D people (like myself) have so far stayed out of things, but there are definitely some points to be made.
Really? I was under the impression that it was mostly OD&Ders and 3rd Editioners.
It seems to me that this is just as true with AD&D as it is with 3rd Edition. Perhaps the only real difference is that those using AD&D seem to be willing to adapt the system to the world, while 3rd Edition supporters often seem to view things the opposite way round, changing the world to fit the system.
See that's the thing- I don't see it as changing the world to fit 3rd Edition at all, but rather that 3rd Edition actually encompasses most of what the Mystara campaign world already had (monster classes- Savage Species; class/race combos rather than separate- VotPA Lupins and Rakastas, etc.)
At the same time, those things that the rules set don't encompass are not explicitly barred from the campaign setting as it developed (dwarven wizards, the chief topic of discussion, which I still find nothing explicitly saying they couldn't develop).
I don't really see anything that was a part of the world of Mystara that would have to be changed to make it usable in the 3rd edition rules.
In the interests of equity, though, I will say that having played 3rd edition and OD&D there are elements of both systems that I really like- balance and freedom of choice/adaptability in 3rd edition are great, but it is a bit too technical and not as free flowing as OD&D.
Really? I was under the impression that it was mostly OD&Ders and 3rd Editioners.
Nope. Agathokles (Giampaolo) and The Stalker have both professed their AD&D allegiance, while most other posters are 3rd Edition supporters. As far as I can see I am the first OD&D person to speak in this thread.
Regarding your other comments Andrew, I agree that it probably doesn't say anywhere that, for example, dwarven wizards are impossible. However, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making out to separate system and setting. Why would the Gazetteer state something that everyone at that time already took for granted? Indeed, GAZ6 in particular introduces a number of concepts that heavily imply the absence of dwarven wizards.
The system clearly had a huge influence on the development of the setting. And it seems to me that changing system will inevitably upset a lot of things. Whether this is important or not depends on your perspective, as well as how it's done, and what you think is important about the world.
3rd Edition allows many things that Mystara never had; it is a very inclusive system, after all. Does this mean that they should be added to the setting? Again, the answer is left up to individual DMs and players. On some issues (notably psionics) most of the community seems to agree that these parts should be kept away from Mystara, but on others (dwarven wizards, elves without magic, etc.) the community seems to be sharply divided.
And yet nothing was ever said about psionics being incompatible with Mystara. What does this mean? As I said, it's all a matter of perspective and individual tastes. We all have our own interpretations of Mystara, which include not just the explicitly stated things about the world, but also the implicit deductions and extrapolations.
Extreme View A) The oD&D rules are just a simpler incarnation of AD&D1e, 2e, SAGA, 3e, and 3.5e, and have no special significance in modeling the setting of Mystara. Nearly all of oD&D rules features have an echo in later rules sets, for example, the free Martial Weapon Proficiencies and the Wizard being the favored class of elves in 3.5e could be looked at as the atrophied descendant of, and equivalent to, how all oD&D elves are essentially Fighter/Magic-users. According to this view, the other D&D settings (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape, and so on) could each have an oD&D incarnation, just as they've had official incarnations in the various other rules sets. I imagine what an oD&D translation of these settings would look like, such as if somehow someone got a license to write official oD&D stats for the characters, monsters, and other features of these settings and publish them in ODDITIES magazine. For instance, using the Rules Cyclopedia as the equivalent of the 3.5e PHB/DMG/MM, what would oD&D Krynn be like? How would oD&D deal with the White-Red-Black alignment inherent to that setting, and so forth? Someone could gather up all the various official conversion articles produced by TSR and WotC and make a giant 0e/1e/2e/SAGA/3e/3.5e conversion guide for every D&D world. According to this view, I imagine a Mystara setting that uses the 3.5e rules entirely as is, except for the Greyhawk intellectual property (e.g. the names of the Core gods). The slogan would be: "If it's in D&D3.5, it's in Mystara", which is pretty much what is done for 3.5e Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron - the world-specific material for the settings generally adds options, instead of restricting options.
Extreme View B) The oD&D rules are integral to the Mystara setting. Every aspect of the setting that has a palpable in-game affect should be retained in any new incarnation of Mystara. I imagine what it would be like if the only features that are changed in a 3.5e/d20 translation are pure statistical-type mechanics, such as using the 3.5e AC system and other combat rules instead of oD&D's THAC0-based combat rules, the integrated 3.5e XP chart instead of the class-specific oD&D XP progessions, and other uncontroversial things, such as the 3.5e Fighter class being nearly equivalent to the oD&D Fighter class. The mechanics would be bent in whatever way was necessary to keep any in-game elements, unless it violated the core tenets of the 3.5e/d20 system (violations include having to "roll low" to succeed, or using a d100 for a modifyable roll). Alignment languages would be kept since they have an impact on the setting, most elves would be something like Duskblades, dwarves would only be Fighters or Clerics (but I could go even further, and make d20 racial classes by mixing the 3.5e elf race and the Duskblade class to make a 36-level Elf racial class, and mix the 3.5 Fighter and Cleric classes and the 3.5 dwarf race and call them 3.5e Dwarf and Dwarf-Cleric classes). This would essentially be an OGL version of oD&D Mystara, and would almost be a different game than D&D3.5, and more like a stand-alone OGL game such as Mutants & Masterminds, Conan RPG, or True20.
Once I have these extremes mapped out, then I'm more clearly able to pick and choose which features along this continuum really model the flavor of Mystara. This is, in my opinion, more an art than a science.
Has it ever been explicitly stated, though, that dwarves can't use wizard magic? I mean, the assumption has always been there, yes (due to the dwarf being a class/race and not having other class options for them), but I can't recall anything from the OD&D rules or Mystara campaign expansions saying they cannot use wizard magic at all. I may be missing something, and it may be there somewhere, but it seems to me that it is just an underlying assumption that is made, due to the rules restrictions.
Yes, it's said in the section for Dwarf-Cleric: Kagyar made a special effort to make the dwarves magic resistant, but, at the same time, able to wield clerical magic.
However, he wasn't able to give them any other magical ability (in particular, dwarf clerics cannot turn undead). If he wasn't able to give them the power to turn undead, then there no reason to believe that the magic resistance left the dwarves able to use other forms of magic (moreover, since the dwarves have no specific aversion towards magic and need it, see Irina Piotrev's entry, if they were able at all to use it, dwarven wizards would be both common and well paid).
Also, rules restrictions here matter little: the D&D game per se doesn't have Dwarf Clerics, still they were added in the GAZ. There are no Dwarven Thieves, but that's more because Thieves in OD&D have few powers that are easily duplicated by means of Skills (as was done in Morur's case, he has a "Shadowing Victims" skill which basically duplicates Move Silently and Hide in Shadows; a Climbing skill is also provided).
Rules-wise, addind Wizards (or at least Wicca) to Dwarves would cost nothing (indeed, in Mystara, Dwarves and Halfling are the _only_ humanoids totally unable to use wizardly magic), so that's not a reason.
Who is to say that there weren't dwarven wizards before, simply because they haven't ever been mentioned?
Of course there is a reason: they wouldn't employ human wizards if there were dwarven wizards! I think that the NPC Irina Piotrev has only meaning if dwarves are physiologically unable to be wizards.
As to the Modrigswerg -- they're not Rockborn dwarves, so they do not comply with the usual restrictions for the Dwarven race (same goes for the Kogolor).
In those case, wizards of course would be allowed (though they would be quite rare among the Kogolor due to the well known problems of wizards in the HW).
It seems to me that this is just as true with AD&D as it is with 3rd Edition. Perhaps the only real difference is that those using AD&D seem to be willing to adapt the system to the world, while 3rd Edition supporters often seem to view things the opposite way round, changing the world to fit the system.
That's mostly because (1) AD&D is already very flexible and (2) it was already adapted for so many different settings, with a lot of variant classes.
The 3e problem (beyond the technicalities, e.g. the skill system) is that it is bound to its own version of "flexibility" -- i.e., it enforces the meta-setting (or at least strongly recommend its use) over the setting.
In a sense, 3e inflexibility is in its enforcing flexibility...
And yet nothing was ever said about psionics being incompatible with Mystara. What does this mean? As I said, it's all a matter of perspective and individual tastes. We all have our own interpretations of Mystara, which include not just the explicitly stated things about the world, but also the implicit deductions and extrapolations.
Actually, I think that psionics are much less of a problem than dwarven wizards. That's because (1) the presence of psionicists doesn't really go against any other element of the setting (there aren't cases in which another element of the setting would be ruined by the existance of a psionicist, and it is believable that there would be few psionicists anyway -- while in the case of dwarven wizards, with plenty of magical knowledge around, there's no way dwarves wouldn't have developed a significant number of wizards, if they could do so at all); and (2) there is a campaign-based reason why psionicists are few (they are able to easily detect Mujina, who therefore hunt them down).
Myself, I do use psionics to describe the Seer powers of the Yavi, and the Mujina and the "rogue seer" problem to keep them from becoming commonplace.
Yes, it's said in the section for Dwarf-Cleric: Kagyar made a special effort to make the dwarves magic resistant, but, at the same time, able to wield clerical magic.
However, he wasn't able to give them any other magical ability (in particular, dwarf clerics cannot turn undead). If he wasn't able to give them the power to turn undead, then there no reason to believe that the magic resistance left the dwarves able to use other forms of magic
It is a valid interpretation of whats written in the gaz, but since the statements do not mention wizardly magic at all, it does not directly rule out the possibility that dwarves could learn wizard magic were they inclined to do so.
(moreover, since the dwarves have no specific aversion towards magic and need it, see Irina Piotrev's entry, if they were able at all to use it, dwarven wizards would be both common and well paid).
This is interesting, but the dwarves might still feel aversion towards employing magic themselves, preferring humans to do such dirty work?
Of course there is a reason: they wouldn't employ human wizards if there were dwarven wizards! I think that the NPC Irina Piotrev has only meaning if dwarves are physiologically unable to be wizards.
Becoming a wizard requires much more than the physical ability to wield such powers. Dwarves have no tradition or cultural knowledge of wizardry. This could easily explain this situation. In our modern world it is also common that countries will hire forreign expertise on matters they themselves are lacking.
The above are just interpretations of the statements you were referring to, but IMO they are just as likely interpretations as yours.
I think Cthulhudrew's discovery that there are no statements saying that wizards cannot wield magic is an interesting one. Also, I think this shows one of the ways how discussions like this about the nature of the setting in comparison to various rule systems can allow us to learn more about the setting (regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions or not, obviously
)I would not have been surprised of Bruce Heard back in those days had written a VotPA episode where the Princess Ark had been transported underground to the lands of the morigswerg. In this article he could have introduced the 'Dwarf Wizard' class for OD&D saying that this class could also be taken by Rockhome Dwarves, though they would be considered outcasts. Would not this discussion have been quite different if he had done so?
Ofcourse, Thorf is right that any GM should be able to pick and chose what he wants for the Mystara he wants to run, and that this has been true a long time before 3E. I also think that this discussion shows that those who prefer 3E are those who did not like the restrictions of the older systems. In my 3E campaigns I still wont have hordes of dwarven wizards or even crossbow wielding mages. But if a PC wants to play one I will allow it, simply saying that this is rare or unheard of in Mystara and that there may be social consequences for playing such odd types.
Speculating on the possibility of an actual 3E sourcebook, I also think it would have been a mistake from a commercial point of view and from the point of view of simple enjoyment to several pages on a layer of rules turning 3E into OD&D. Keeping such elements to a minimum would allow more pages to focus on the actual setting (Fluff), which could be useful for all fans regardless of preferred system/edition. There will always be people who will be critical of such things, as we have seen with the various Dragon articles recently, but it gives us a starting point for discussions of how to change it and make it into what we want for our individual campaigns. And it would have been nice to see something out there that would attract more fans to our wonderful community even if they insisted on throwing in a dwarven wizard here and there ;)
All IMHO
Havard
It is a valid interpretation of whats written in the gaz, but since the statements do not mention wizardly magic at all, it does not directly rule out the possibility that dwarves could learn wizard magic were they inclined to do so.
It would be mere sophistry, showing how much 3e people are willing to bend the spirit of the setting.
Indeed, a simple proof of this is that, in your "interpretation", dwarves are far more versed in wizardry than in clerical magic (since nothing prevents them from becoming full-featured wizards, while they definitely cannot turn undead).
Becoming a wizard requires much more than the physical ability to wield such powers. Dwarves have no tradition or cultural knowledge of wizardry.
After a thousand years among magic wielding humans and elves? And what about Alphatian dwarves, who are no more magical than their Rockhome counterparts, yet live in a nation where wizardly magic is the most important skill -- surely the would have studied this art, and since magic-users are aristocrats in Alphatia, they would certainly be quite important. Once more, assuming that dwarves can be wizards alters the setting without concern for the consequences.
The above are just interpretations of the statements you were referring to, but IMO they are just as likely interpretations as yours.
IMNSHO, they are just bending what is clearly written out to go against the spirit of the setting.
It would not be different than saying that there are drow and psionicist everywhere in Mystara -- you just didn't see it until yesterday.
I would not have been surprised of Bruce Heard back in those days had written a VotPA episode where the Princess Ark had been transported underground to the lands of the morigswerg. In this article he could have introduced the 'Dwarf Wizard' class for OD&D saying that this class could also be taken by Rockhome Dwarves, though they would be considered outcasts. Would not this discussion have been quite different if he had done so?
Except that, luckily, he didn't
And for a good reason -- the Modrigswerg are a different race.
Of course, he could have introduced psionics or drow or anything else...
I think Cthulhudrew's discovery that there are no statements saying that wizards cannot wield magic is an interesting one.
Well, apparently your statement was correct after all -- I'm just not entirely convinced it says what you actually wanted to say... :P
BC 1,800: The dwarvish race on the Known World is slowly, inevitably dying out. The Immortal called Kagyar the Artisan takes all remaining dwarves in the Known World. Half he transplants to the Hollow World, and half he reshapes into a new dwarven race. Now there are no remnants of the original dwarven race on the outer world. Some of the “new dwarves” are returned to the Northern Reaches, where the largest dwarf colonies had been, and eventually become the Modriswerg clans; others are planted in the Rockhome region. Both groups are given false memories and believe that the Modriswerg dwarves also originally lived in the Rockhome lands.
Considering that Gaz 7 describes multiple examples of (arcane?) magic use by the modriswerg, and the above statement... It seems to me that there's no reason why, physically, denwarf dwarves can't use arcane magic--however the cultures (and immortal patrons) are drastically different, which may be the cause of the (apparent) denwarf anti-arcane psychology.
In my project I'm leaving both sides open. I'll provide regional feats and descriptions which "suggest" a lack of arcane dwarves, but neither will I prohibit it. (That's pretty much the take I'm taking on the whole thing--leavfe all options open, but suggest which options might be more appropriate.)
Roger
Nope. Agathokles (Giampaolo) and The Stalker have both professed their AD&D allegiance, while most other posters are 3rd Edition supporters. As far as I can see I am the first OD&D person to speak in this thread.
Oh- you're right. For some reason I thought that the Stalker was in favor of OD&D, but I see right in his first post that he prefers AD&D 2E. Guess I should have read back through the thread. :p
Regarding your other comments Andrew, I agree that it probably doesn't say anywhere that, for example, dwarven wizards are impossible. However, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making out to separate system and setting. Why would the Gazetteer state something that everyone at that time already took for granted?
For the same reason that other campaign supplements took pains to point out new things that were also taken for granted up until they were mentioned. For instance, until VotPA made it possible, it was always assumed there could be no elven clerics, but Bruce Heard's article made it possible to have them. Until Gaz6, it was assumed there could be no dwarven clerics, but Aaron Allston provided us rules for them. Until those new rules came out, all previous accessories/supplements also took it for granted that these were not possibilities. It was, as you say, taken for granted that they didn't exist, and so they weren't mentioned. Did the creation of dwarven clerics in Gaz6 make any fundamental changes to previous accessories with its sudden inclusion, despite that they had never mentioned anything about it before?
Indeed, GAZ6 in particular introduces a number of concepts that heavily imply the absence of dwarven wizards.
Not too many that I can tell from another read-through last night. They are already known to be able to create magical items using dwarven craftmagic, and while the craftmagic section does mention that they will need a magic-user to help put effects other than "pluses" into items, it also mentions at least once that it needs to be a human magic-user (why couldn't an elf help?), but as you say, at the time there were no rules for dwarven magic-users so of course they would have had to get outside assistance.
I think (forgot to check) that the section on achieving Immortality might talk a bit about the dwarves lack of magical aptitude, but I'm not sure. Other than that, though, I can't really see anything in the Gaz that implies an absence of dwarven wizards.
The system clearly had a huge influence on the development of the setting.
Certainly, and I'm not disputing that in any way. However, clearly, from the additional rules and options and changes that crept into the world as it developed, the Mystara campaign setting became much more than the sum of its initial rules system, and in fact had a cross-pollination effect inasmuch as it expanded, clarified, and changed the original rules system that it originated from.
And it seems to me that changing system will inevitably upset a lot of things. Whether this is important or not depends on your perspective, as well as how it's done, and what you think is important about the world.
Again, I am in agreement with you, but I nevertheless feel that 3rd Edition is broad enough and encompassing enough that it will not damage Mystara nearly as much as some people seem to think it will.
But I certainly agree that some changes will occur- for instance, in OD&D, demihumans would die if infected with lycanthropy; humans were the only carriers/infected. In 3rd Edition, this isn't the case (nor was it the case in AD&D). The effect of lycanthropy on demihumans is an established part of the history of Mystara- the whole Night of the Long Knives in Minrothad, the quest of Ruaidhri Hawkbane, were based on the fact that lycanthropy killed elves who were infected. Thus the OD&D rule was worked into the campaign background. Would allowing demihumans to become lycanthropes rather than die of infection affect the background? Almost certainly.
(In fact, I'd put that question to the AD&D folk- how have you dealt with the fact that lycanthropy in AD&D can be contracted and inherited by demihumans? How has this changed or not changed your Mystara campaign world? Is it more or less of a problem than adding dwarf wizards, since the lycanthropy is a well-documented part of Mystara, while dwarf wizards are not?)
At the same time, even as far back as some of the later OD&D rules supplements (gnomish were-tiger in PC2, sidebar about options for lycanthrope demihumans in PC4), the notion of changing or expanding upon the demihuman lycanthropy situation were being put forth.
On some issues (notably psionics) most of the community seems to agree that these parts should be kept away from Mystara, but on others (dwarven wizards, elves without magic, etc.) the community seems to be sharply divided.
Even in 3E and AD&D, though, Psionics is and was largely an optional part of the setting. Not many settings make use of them explicitly, and they are not part of the "core" rules in any case (only through rules supplements).
And yet nothing was ever said about psionics being incompatible with Mystara. What does this mean? As I said, it's all a matter of perspective and individual tastes. We all have our own interpretations of Mystara, which include not just the explicitly stated things about the world, but also the implicit deductions and extrapolations.
Which is, certainly, what will be the ultimate arbiter of how we individually pick and choose what we want to use, to be sure.
I guess what I am really interested in discussing (and should perhaps create a different thread for the purpose, since we've gone pretty far off the original topic), is getting an idea of exactly what people think would be changes/additions allowed under the new rules, and how and why they would have such a dramatic and sweeping change to the Mystara campaign. (The lycanthropy issue, for example).
Since I think we can all agree that we have our individual tastes and opinions, is it possible for us to come together in a more objective way and list things that we feel are fundamental parts of the campaign world (based on what has been laid out in the campaign supplements and/or rules) and why and how changing or altering them would have an impact?
Yes, it's said in the section for Dwarf-Cleric: Kagyar made a special effort to make the dwarves magic resistant, but, at the same time, able to wield clerical magic.
Actually, what it says is that he found it difficult to give a magic-resistant race the ability to wield clerical magic. Which could certainly be interpreted to mean that they can't wield arcane magic, but it could also be interpreted to mean that they could be given the ability to wield arcane magic as well. After all, Kagyar was able to finally find a way to make dwarf-clerics.
However, he wasn't able to give them any other magical ability (in particular, dwarf clerics cannot turn undead). If he wasn't able to give them the power to turn undead, then there no reason to believe that the magic resistance left the dwarves able to use other forms of magic (moreover, since the dwarves have no specific aversion towards magic and need it, see Irina Piotrev's entry, if they were able at all to use it, dwarven wizards would be both common and well paid).
Again, that is certainly one way to read things, but it isn't the only way.
Also, rules restrictions here matter little: the D&D game per se doesn't have Dwarf Clerics, still they were added in the GAZ. There are no Dwarven Thieves, but that's more because Thieves in OD&D have few powers that are easily duplicated by means of Skills (as was done in Morur's case, he has a "Shadowing Victims" skill which basically duplicates Move Silently and Hide in Shadows; a Climbing skill is also provided).
I don't follow this logic. You and I both agree that dwarf-clerics were not in the OD&D rules, but that a later rules supplement (Gaz6) added them, so now they were possible. From there, my reasoning goes on to say that providing rules for dwarf wizards now would make them possible, but you don't agree with that. If a theoretical Gaz23: The Dwarves of Denwarf-Hurgon gaz came out for Alphatia, and it introduced dwarf wizards, what would your thoughts have been on that? An official Mystara supplement, with rules for dwarf wizards.
Rules-wise, addind Wizards (or at least Wicca) to Dwarves would cost nothing (indeed, in Mystara, Dwarves and Halfling are the _only_ humanoids totally unable to use wizardly magic), so that's not a reason.
Again, though- can you point me to a source that states explicitly that dwarves and halflings are unable to use wizardly magic? Or is it just, as Thorf points out, a matter of our assumptions and preconceptions?
Of course there is a reason: they wouldn't employ human wizards if there were dwarven wizards! I think that the NPC Irina Piotrev has only meaning if dwarves are physiologically unable to be wizards.
That's certainly a valid interpretation, but again, not necessarily the only one.
That's mostly because (1) AD&D is already very flexible and (2) it was already adapted for so many different settings, with a lot of variant classes.
How is that any different from 3E?
The 3e problem (beyond the technicalities, e.g. the skill system)
I'm curious what technical problems you see with the skill system. (And with that question, we really have gone beyond the realms of the original topic. ;) )
I haven't ever really heard this criticism before, so I'm just wondering.
is that it is bound to its own version of "flexibility" -- i.e., it enforces the meta-setting (or at least strongly recommend its use) over the setting.
In a sense, 3e inflexibility is in its enforcing flexibility...
Again, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. What meta-setting do you refer to? The Great Wheel cosmology? The "core default" of Greyhawk (with the gods it mentions in the PHB)? Or something else?
while in the case of dwarven wizards, with plenty of magical knowledge around, there's no way dwarves wouldn't have developed a significant number of wizards, if they could do so at all);
Would the dwarves have developed wizards any more than, say, the Karameikans have? Or the Ylari? Or the Northmen? Or the Ethengar? Or the Atruaghin? Those are all settings that, being human cultures, allow for the possibility of wizards, but for various cultural reasons, haven't developed large quantities of wizards. The Atruaghin and Ethengar haven't largely due to lack of developed schools and such; the Northmen and Ylari both for lack of schools as well as ingrained cultural superstition; the Karameikans due to superstition and widespread and small communities. The only nations where wizards have made any significant impact in the Known World are among the Elves, in Glantri, and in Thyatis. Even in Darokin, where there is probably less cultural superstition against them, and more facility for their training and education than other nations, wizards aren't a major part of the setting.
Why would having dwarf wizards in Rockhome be any more of an impact than wizards in any of those other nations?
"Dwarf and halfling wizards are rare because their societies don't encourage the study of magic." p.56
Thus, according to this view (which I am presently neither for nor against), this statement sufficiently covers the status of dwarves in the Mystara setting.
According to "View B" (which I am presently neither for nor against), there would be no Rockhome Dwarf Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, or other arcane spellcasters in 3.5e. A Dwarven Craftmage prestige class could be made which required the use of an arcane caster helper to make their wares.
Considering that Gaz 7 describes multiple examples of (arcane?) magic use by the modriswerg, and the above statement...
It's not arcane, since it is defined as derived from the Lord of Entropy.
It would be mere sophistry, showing how much 3e people are willing to bend the spirit of the setting.
3E people?
I think that this notion of the "spirit of the setting" is what is really at the root of things here, though. In your mind, the spirit of the setting has as one of its tenets the core idea that dwarves *cannot* be wizards. Despite that this doesn't seem to have ever been spelled out, it certainly was one of the underlying assumptions based on the rules, and the rules that OD&D had been based on (the original Gygax rules); perhaps as far back as the Tolkienesque influence that was such a strong influence on the D&D games development in the first place.
However, it seems to me that your interpretation of the spirit of the setting is just that- your interpretation. One that, certainly, seems to be shared by a large portion of the fanbase, but one that, IMO, doesn't seem to be necessarily ingrained in the campaign world itself. Is your view of what you see as the spirit of the setting any more valid than mine? Is Thorf's view of the spirit of the setting (from an OD&D point of view, where there are different rules and concepts than in AD&D 2E) any more or less valid than either of ours?
Spirit of the Setting seems to be a loaded term.
Indeed, a simple proof of this is that, in your "interpretation", dwarves are far more versed in wizardry than in clerical magic (since nothing prevents them from becoming full-featured wizards, while they definitely cannot turn undead).
I don't know that your proof holds up, simply because there was never a dwarf-wizard class developed. Had there been, perhaps there would have been some concession to account for this. A moot point, perhaps, because such rules were not created before the line came to an end, but the issue was more to the effect that the statement in Gaz6 was open to interpretation rather than being definitive anyway.
By the way, I'm curious, how do you handle dwarf clerics in AD&D Mystara? There are no rules against them turning undead in that system, do you maintain that as part of the campaign spirit, or do you just treat dwarf clerics as normal?
After a thousand years among magic wielding humans and elves?
And yet the Atruaghin humans, after thousands of years living among magic wielding humans and elves, have similarly developed very little ability and interest in the arcane arts. Same with the Ethengars. Is this somehow more believable than the dwarves having done the same?
And what about Alphatian dwarves, who are no more magical than their Rockhome counterparts, yet live in a nation where wizardly magic is the most important skill -- surely the would have studied this art, and since magic-users are aristocrats in Alphatia, they would certainly be quite important.
Considering how little room and development was given to Alphatia (particularly Denwarf-Hurgon), we can't really judge too well. Based on what we do know, they don't seem to have studied that arts, true- again, though it is as much due to there not being any established means of having dwarves, and on assumptions behind dwarves and magic, rather than there being any thorough examinations of the campaign reasons behind why it didn't occur.
As far as their status in Alphatia, the dwarves of Denwarf-Hurgon seem to live in more or less a situation of semi-autonomy; they have their own ruler and are so isolated in those mountains that they probably don't pay much attention to the ruling classes of Alphatia; certainly Alphatia is indicated to have given them some concessions to get them to come to their land anyway. Again, though- this is all largely assumptions based on the limited information we have on them.
Once more, assuming that dwarves can be wizards alters the setting without concern for the consequences.
I don't think anyone here is not having any concern for the possible consequences, but that we are just not in agreement over the extent of what those consequences may be.
It would not be different than saying that there are drow and psionicist everywhere in Mystara -- you just didn't see it until yesterday.
I, at least, am not suggesting that dwarf wizards are "everywhere in Mystara" all of a sudden. I don't however, think that allowing for the possibility that they exist and assuming that they do in some small quantity- would have the drastic impact on the setting that you seem to think it will.
Absolutely, saying that drow and psionicists and dwarf wizards are everywhere suddenly would have an impact. You yourself, though, say that you use psionicists in Yavdlom, and that it hasn't drastically affected the rest of your Mystara campaign. Would putting in a previously unknown and lone drow colony underneath the Northern Reaches (for example) suddenly change the face of the Known World?
For instance, until VotPA made it possible, it was always assumed there could be no elven clerics, but Bruce Heard's article made it possible to have them. Until Gaz6, it was assumed there could be no dwarven clerics, but Aaron Allston provided us rules for them. Until those new rules came out, all previous accessories/supplements also took it for granted that these were not possibilities. It was, as you say, taken for granted that they didn't exist, and so they weren't mentioned. Did the creation of dwarven clerics in Gaz6 make any fundamental changes to previous accessories with its sudden inclusion, despite that they had never mentioned anything about it before?
The answer is no, it didn't really, because before GAZ6 there was practically no information on Rockhome anyway. GAZ6 defined the country, so dwarf-clerics were just one of many new additions.
Not too many that I can tell from another read-through last night. They are already known to be able to create magical items using dwarven craftmagic, and while the craftmagic section does mention that they will need a magic-user to help put effects other than "pluses" into items, it also mentions at least once that it needs to be a human magic-user (why couldn't an elf help?), but as you say, at the time there were no rules for dwarven magic-users so of course they would have had to get outside assistance.
Looking through the orginal (non-rulebook) materials for explicit evidence is likely to be a fruitless search, for the reason I already stated: the underlying OD&D rules were assumed. There would have been no reason to waste space duplicating things that were already explained in the rules. The question therefore is not what is explicitly stated, but rather what is implicitly stated, and of course how much attention you want to give to the original rules.
The implicitations of GAZ6 on dwarven wizardry, at least in my opinion, are that dwarves are incapable of being wizards. This general feeling is derived from the original rules, plus the fact that dwarf-clerics were introduced and yet dwarven wizards were not; and also from the provided rules for dwarves making magical items, and generally hiring human magic-users when they need access to magic.
In any case it's a moot point, because we all know already that there are no wizards in Rockhome, and no one is proposing that there should be, right? All that is being proposed is that there could be dwarven wizards elsewhere, or that a player could choose to be a dwarven wizard. Since we don't necessarily know all of the in-campaign reasons for the lack of dwarven wizards (mostly because such reasons were never needed in OD&D), it's not going to be easy to find a way to do this that pleases everyone.
I think (forgot to check) that the section on achieving Immortality might talk a bit about the dwarves lack of magical aptitude, but I'm not sure. Other than that, though, I can't really see anything in the Gaz that implies an absence of dwarven wizards.
Except perhaps the context of the Gazetteer in the OD&D rules, and the whole Gazetteer taken as a whole within that context. Surely what you should have said is that you can't see anything explicitly stating an absence of dwarven wizards; the implications are clearly already there, or we would not be having this conversation at all.
However, clearly, from the additional rules and options and changes that crept into the world as it developed, the Mystara campaign setting became much more than the sum of its initial rules system, and in fact had a cross-pollination effect inasmuch as it expanded, clarified, and changed the original rules system that it originated from.
I don't think you can use this to conveniently explain lots of new classes throughout the world. Well, you can, but it is unlikely to convince anyone except those who already agree with you.
Also, looking at things another way, dwarves and halflings both had new classes given to them, and yet both were passed over for wizard classes (sort of; the hin masters did have their own form of magic). Moreover, the dwarves were given clerics. If dwarves were supposed to have wizards, why didn't Aaron Allston put in a dwarven-wizard class too? You could argue that there was only space for one new class, I suppose, but it would certainly have been possible if he had wanted to, right? But he chose not to.
Again, I am in agreement with you, but I nevertheless feel that 3rd Edition is broad enough and encompassing enough that it will not damage Mystara nearly as much as some people seem to think it will.
The broadness of 3rd Edition, as Giampaolo said, is the very thing that some people see as dangerous. I certainly agree that it can encompass the whole of Mystara, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that; rather the conflict arises with the extreme reluctance people seem to have with restricting the 3rd Edition rules. This creates a situation where it seems to those of us looking on that Mystara is being bent to fit the rules, rather than bending the rules to fit Mystara.
Also, it's not that the rules will damage Mystara, but rather that they will change it. (Though of course change is not necessarily bad.) Obviously a certain amount of change is inevitable, but presumably it would be best to limit change while maintaining the rules as much as possible.
(In fact, I'd put that question to the AD&D folk- how have you dealt with the fact that lycanthropy in AD&D can be contracted and inherited by demihumans? How has this changed or not changed your Mystara campaign world? Is it more or less of a problem than adding dwarf wizards, since the lycanthropy is a well-documented part of Mystara, while dwarf wizards are not?)
I suspect that the answer will be simple: in most people's AD&D conversions lycanthropy will continue to kill demihumans, because AD&D players are less worried about changing the system than 3rd Edition players. I may be wrong, though.
Is it really such a big thing to change this rule in 3rd Edition, though? Lycanthropes killing demihumans is, as you said, pretty well worked into the history of the world in more than one sourcebook.
Incidentally, this is a prime example of how OD&D rules and Mystara overlap, because up until now I was not aware that this factor of lycanthropy was unique to Mystara, nor even that it originally came from the OD&D rules. For me this reinforces the idea that by and large the rules should be taken as a significant part of the setting.
3E people?
It's just a badge, Andrew. Wear it with pride! :D
(I have my own one sitting right underneath my OD&D one at the moment. ;) If I ever had an AD&D one, it was unceremoniously thrown out with the rest of the rubbish years ago. :P )
Spirit of the Setting seems to be a loaded term.
It is indeed, and highly subjective. Still, I think it is an interesting one if we keep that fact in mind. Lawyers often speak of the Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law.
For Mystara appearing under any other system than Classic D&D it would be almost impossible to stay true to the letter of Mystara as it were. Although in theory a 50 page document of additional rules could make 3.5 quite similar to Classic D&D, I dont see why anyone would want to do that.
I still believe that it is possible to convert Mystara to other rulesets and keep true to the Core Concepts of the setting within the new system, whether it is 2E, 3.5E GURPS or anything else. Ofcourse, what is considered Core Concepts will probably vary greatly from GM to GM.
I, at least, am not suggesting that dwarf wizards are "everywhere in Mystara" all of a sudden. I don't however, think that allowing for the possibility that they exist and assuming that they do in some small quantity- would have the drastic impact on the setting that you seem to think it will.
Yes, what we are discussing is not whether there should be dwarf wizards everywhere. We are discussing whether there in theory could exist one single Rockhome Dwarf able to cast wizard spells.
Havard
Looking through the orginal (non-rulebook) materials for explicit evidence is likely to be a fruitless search, for the reason I already stated: the underlying OD&D rules were assumed. There would have been no reason to waste space duplicating things that were already explained in the rules. The question therefore is not what is explicitly stated, but rather what is implicitly stated, and of course how much attention you want to give to the original rules.
This is ofcourse true. The Mentzer Classic D&D rules were very well integrated with the setting, since Mystara grew out from these boxed sets. But does that mean that the setting cannot be converted to other game systems and still be Mystara? There is a line that needs to be drawn between what is a legacy of the system only and what has truly become integral parts of the setting. That is what we are discussing I think
The implicitations of GAZ6 on dwarven wizardry, at least in my opinion, are that dwarves are incapable of being wizards. This general feeling is derived from the original rules, plus the fact that dwarf-clerics were introduced and yet dwarven wizards were not; and also from the provided rules for dwarves making magical items, and generally hiring human magic-users when they need access to magic.
I agree. Dwarves could not be magic-users. But the rules do not specifically say why then cant be magic-users. Neither do the supplements. Is it because their culture discourages it, or is it something in their genetic makeup that makes them incapable of this? Since there is no true answer to this, is it really neccessary to alter the system to conform to this Classic D&D legacy?
In any case it's a moot point, because we all know already that there are no wizards in Rockhome, and no one is proposing that there should be, right? All that is being proposed is that there could be dwarven wizards elsewhere, or that a player could choose to be a dwarven wizard. Since we don't necessarily know all of the in-campaign reasons for the lack of dwarven wizards (mostly because such reasons were never needed in OD&D), it's not going to be easy to find a way to do this that pleases everyone.
The inclusion of the Dwarven Cleric (and not the Dwarven Wizard, Dwarven Thief or Dwarven Druid) is interesting because it underlines the importance of Clerics in Rockhome. But beyond that it doesn't really tell us that much.
The broadness of 3rd Edition, as Giampaolo said, is the very thing that some people see as dangerous. I certainly agree that it can encompass the whole of Mystara, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that; rather the conflict arises with the extreme reluctance people seem to have with restricting the 3rd Edition rules. This creates a situation where it seems to those of us looking on that Mystara is being bent to fit the rules, rather than bending the rules to fit Mystara.
If you had been around when the M3E Yahoo group was active, I dont think you would be saying this. There were people there who were seriously working on what would have become a 200 page booklet modifying 3E so much that in effect it would have become a cluncky version of Classic D&D. We were back to 3 alignments, Prestige Paladins, and all the races revised to conform perfectly to their Classic counterparts. Problem was ofcourse, if you're going to add that much, it would be better to just play Classic.
3.5 is my preferred edition of D&D at the moment, in spite of its flaws, because it doesn't say "no, you cant do that", but rather "okay, but its going to cost you". The flexibility is what makes some of us want to play Mystara with 3.5 instead of the previous systems. At the same time, we want to keep true to the "spirit of Mystara". The disagreement is merely whether more class/race combo possibilities neccesarily must be a violition of that spirit.
Also, it's not that the rules will damage Mystara, but rather that they will change it. (Though of course change is not necessarily bad.) Obviously a certain amount of change is inevitable, but presumably it would be best to limit change while maintaining the rules as much as possible.
Yes. Change between rulesets or editions will always mean change. Modifying the rules to support the settings premises works to some extent, but cannot be taken as far as to dramatically alter the system itself. Besides, there are other ways to preserve the spirit of the setting than through the rules.
I agree wth Shane that the racial description from the PHB stating that "Dwarf and halfling wizards are rare because their societies don't encourage the study of magic." should be enough to prevent dramatically changing the Known World.
Havard
Looking through the orginal (non-rulebook) materials for explicit evidence is likely to be a fruitless search, for the reason I already stated: the underlying OD&D rules were assumed. There would have been no reason to waste space duplicating things that were already explained in the rules.
Again, though, it wasn't explained even in the rulebooks, but as you say, it was assumed (due to the race/class format of the dwarf class). Beyond that, there wasn't much that we were given to see why or how dwarves seemed to be incapable of using magic.
By the same token, though, there were no rules initially that would have allowed, for example, a human to become a mystic/monk. That didn't even become an option until the Masters set came out (and the Mystara campaign world had begun to gestate by that point), and wasn't included as a "core" option until the Rules Cyclopedia came out (at which point Mystara was already a well developed world- through Gazes and other materials). Did the inclusion of Mystic as a "core" class then change the nature of the Mystara campaign setting? Why wasn't this option suddenly a drastic problem requiring a rewrite of all the previous Gazetteers that didn't mention mystics? Why wasn't there a sudden influx of mystics in Karameikos now that this was an option?
None of which is to say, frankly that the mystic isn't/wasn't a problem (there have been several threads about "where are mystics in the Known World" here as well as the MML), but it didn't seem to be a problem from the designers standpoint when they made the decision. Just to say that the designers weren't afraid of breaking away from assumptions based on the existing rules when it seemed like they might be able to do something different and interesting.
The question therefore is not what is explicitly stated, but rather what is implicitly stated, and of course how much attention you want to give to the original rules.
Was it implicitly stated, though, or implicitly assumed? And from where did that assumption come from? Again, from what I can tell (and recall) it didn't come from the source material itself- nothing in the rules that were the basis of the world came right out and said "this isn't possible"- but was instead something that we all (myself included) sort of took for granted because of a) the fact that the rules didn't give that option, and b) we knew from other (similar) systems, such as AD&D, that it wasn't a class option there.
The subsequent design of the game world, with the underlying assumption of those (non-explicit) ideas, may have proceeded with them in mind, but the real question is, if we remove those assumptions, is the campaign setting truly impacted? What is the extent of that impact? How can that impact be explained, or, if we agree that it is a major and possibly severe change, should we make the change?
Again, though, I think we need to look at why we have made these assumptions, and whether they are really implicit and fundamental elements of the setting, and I'm not sure we're there yet.
In any case it's a moot point, because we all know already that there are no wizards in Rockhome, and no one is proposing that there should be, right?
Not a moot point. While I have always previously assumed there were no dwarven wizards in Rockhome either, it was because I always assumed there were no dwarven wizards, period, and that there were never any rules for such. Now that the idea of dwarven wizards has been broached (with the advent of 3E), I don't see why there couldn't be dwarf wizards in Rockhome. I don't see that it would have to make a dramatic impact on Rockhome culture, or invalidate any parts of the Gazetteer if such a possibility existed.
Since we don't necessarily know all of the in-campaign reasons for the lack of dwarven wizards (mostly because such reasons were never needed in OD&D), it's not going to be easy to find a way to do this that pleases everyone.
This is abundantly clear.
Except perhaps the context of the Gazetteer in the OD&D rules, and the whole Gazetteer taken as a whole within that context. Surely what you should have said is that you can't see anything explicitly stating an absence of dwarven wizards; the implications are clearly already there, or we would not be having this conversation at all.
Yes, there are implications, but let me ask you this- if the notion of dwarf wizards had existed, and had been included, do you see that the setting and the Gaz (in particular) would have been changed? How? Greatly or minimally? Why?
I don't think you can use this to conveniently explain lots of new classes throughout the world. Well, you can, but it is unlikely to convince anyone except those who already agree with you.
I'm not trying to conveniently explain them- they already exist. They were introduced throughout the course of the development of the world, and (with the conversion to AD&D) became even more pronounced (with the race/class issue). The question is, how do they impact things and if they do, will they do so in such a way as to change what we know of the setting. If so, then by all means it is something that should be drawn attention to and accounted for (whether by eliminating the option or otherwise changing things).
Also, looking at things another way, dwarves and halflings both had new classes given to them, and yet both were passed over for wizard classes (sort of; the hin masters did have their own form of magic). Moreover, the dwarves were given clerics. If dwarves were supposed to have wizards, why didn't Aaron Allston put in a dwarven-wizard class too? You could argue that there was only space for one new class, I suppose, but it would certainly have been possible if he had wanted to, right? But he chose not to.
Sure, and there could have been any number of reasons why. Presumably, at the core, he (like pretty much all of us) assumed that there could not be such a thing. Was that something that had been explicitly spelled out? No, as we are discussing, it was more a matter of an inherent assumption with the rules.
At the same time, though, he was willing to make a choice to alter that inherent assumption within the rules to allow and provide for dwarf clerics. Possibly this had to do with the presence of dwarf clerics in another, similar system (AD&D), or other reasons.
I don't know that saying, because they didn't give them the option when they came out with the supplement means that they aren't possible is any more compelling than saying that they don't exist because they hadn't been conceived yet.
Again, there really isn't any other way to illustrate this but by other examples. Bruce Heard originally used the monster class rules for the rakasta in his VotPA articles (he provided some general guidelines for it); later, in the D&D miniatures set, there were additional rules for a rakasta "class". Even later, Bruce amended his rakasta idea to allow for a race/class combo- now rakasta could choose any human class. If rakasta were supposed to work this way, why didn't he initially allow for the option? Why weren't rakasta statted up this way in their original presentations (X1, Creature Crucibles, etc.). The only real explanation is that the view on how they could operate changed, and rules were amended or created to satisfy that changing view. Had he not given those class options, then would the AD&D or 3E idea of rakasta with a separate class and race be invalid?
For that matter, to the AD&D/3E folk, dwarves can be thieves as well as fighters and clerics. Does that go against the spirit of the setting as derived from the OD&D rules and Gaz6? (I know, Agathokles points out the skill system as an option for trying to approximate dwarf-thieves in OD&D, but it is pointed out in several different places, most notably the Rules Cyclopedia, which is supposed to be the definitive "source" for the skill rules, that the skills are not supposed to take the place of or be as useful as the thieves' abilities.)
The broadness of 3rd Edition, as Giampaolo said, is the very thing that some people see as dangerous. I certainly agree that it can encompass the whole of Mystara, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that; rather the conflict arises with the extreme reluctance people seem to have with restricting the 3rd Edition rules. This creates a situation where it seems to those of us looking on that Mystara is being bent to fit the rules, rather than bending the rules to fit Mystara.
I understand, but this goes back to assumptions, I think. I don't have any great reluctance to restrict 3E rules when it seems justified by the campaign setting. Perhaps the larger issue here, then, is that we are all making assumptions about where everyone else is coming from on the issue, and that we should have a dialogue between us all (like this one) to clarify our viewpoints?
Also, it's not that the rules will damage Mystara, but rather that they will change it. (Though of course change is not necessarily bad.) Obviously a certain amount of change is inevitable, but presumably it would be best to limit change while maintaining the rules as much as possible.
Whose rules? What changes? That is what I (in my rambling, meandering, and possibly confusing but hopefully not offensive way) am trying to get at. What are the "core" tenets of the world that need to remain, regardless of the system, why are they there, and how would any changes impact things if made?
I suspect that the answer will be simple: in most people's AD&D conversions lycanthropy will continue to kill demihumans, because AD&D players are less worried about changing the system than 3rd Edition players. I may be wrong, though.
I'm not sure where the impression comes that 3rd Edition players are worried about changing the system; if that's the impression I've given off, I certainly don't intend to. That's the reason I pointed out the lycanthrope issue- that's a situation where I think the rules need to change to fit the campaign.
On the other hand, I am not convinced yet of the need to incorporate rules change in other areas (notably the dwarf wizard situation at the fundamental heart of this dialogue).
Incidentally, this is a prime example of how OD&D rules and Mystara overlap, because up until now I was not aware that this factor of lycanthropy was unique to Mystara, nor even that it originally came from the OD&D rules. For me this reinforces the idea that by and large the rules should be taken as a significant part of the setting.
I would agree, insofar as those rules that have impacted the design of the setting. Again, the lycanthropy issue is one that has steered the course of written Mystara history, and has been made a big deal out of. In contrast, dwarf wizards have not- sure, because it was assumed they did not exist, but on the one hand we are dealing with something that is outright incorporated, and on the other we are dealing with something that hasn't been mentioned.
There is a line that needs to be drawn between what is a legacy of the system only and what has truly become integral parts of the setting. That is what we are discussing I think
I think this is absolutely key to our discussion, and indeed the source of most of our disagreements. Clearly as an OD&D-only person I have always seen the system and the setting as almost one and the same - although I have also never let the system restrict what my players or I wanted to do with the setting.
However, in this particular case, I actually don't think that it's the OD&D rules that are at the source of the matter, but rather the fantasy sources upon which they were based - Tolkien et al. (Although note that Gary Gygax has repeatedly denied any heavy Tolkien influence...
) In a lot of fantasy literature, dwarves seem to be portrayed as being anything but magical, and I think that the Mystara situation is more a reflection of that than of the original rules.Why do I say this? Because in all my work expanding the OD&D system into full class options for each race, it simply never occurred to me to make a dwarven wizard class. Despite the fact that I thought about all the classes for all the other races.
Moreover, it explains why there is such opposition to the very idea of dwarven wizards.
You could say that Andrew, Havard, and our other 3rd Edition converts have had their eyes opened to this stereotype, and are now asking, "Yes, but why not?" This is an admirable thing, because when it comes down to it the only reason I can think of is, "Because it's always been like that."
However, the fact remains that a lot of people will be against the idea due to tradition, and the addition of dwarven wizards to the setting will inevitably have some effect. (Again, whether that effect is significant or not is purely subjective.)
Anyway, all this discussion has brought me to a topic I have been thinking about a lot lately - something which has been irritating me ever since I joined this community about ten years ago.
Basically, what we are talking about is the development of Mystara, which is something that we are all working on in one way or another. One of the problems is that each of us has our own idea of Mystara, but in fact I think our perspectives are in general rather similar, and there is a larger problem beyond that: we are not developers, we are just fans.
What this means is that whatever we do for the world that steps outside the boundaries of officialdom is not, will not be, and indeed cannot ever be truly "Mystara". We don't have the liberty of making sweeping changes, nor even of making relatively minor changes, without immediately alienating large parts of the community. Only the official developers had this ability, and though they still ran the risk of irritating people, there was never any question of whether their work was Mystaran or not.
Now it seems to me that I am perhaps one of the worst-afflicted by this, as I find it very difficult to throw off a lingering feeling of "wrongness" when reading otherwise great works by other fans. Some others in our community seem to have thrown off this feeling, or perhaps never suffered from it at all - I don't know.
This is why I have always tended to stick close to official sources, and why unfortunately I find myself unable to fully appreciate all that our community has to offer Mystara.
And I think this also has a large part in our conversation now. Yes, developers in the past have changed the rules and added many new features. But, for me at least, that will never be a reason for us to do the same. I do acknowledge that there are two kinds of new features: those which were never implemented, though always theoretically available, and those which have only recently been invented/discovered, and can be slotted in without changing their surroundings (much). The latter type are easy for us to accept, while the former are hard to swallow.
In the end, this, for me at least, is the reason why a Mystara 3rd Edition conversion should tread so carefully; introducing too many things that weren't there before, especially those that jar with my image of Mystara in subtle ways, will just leave me irritated.
Oh dear I'm losing my train of thought, and I need to get to bed.
However, in this particular case, I actually don't think that it's the OD&D rules that are at the source of the matter, but rather the fantasy sources upon which they were based - Tolkien et al. (Although note that Gary Gygax has repeatedly denied any heavy Tolkien influence...
I was actually going to point this out as well- it seems to me that, from a mythological perspective, dwarves have always been more of a magical race- the smiths from Norse myth, etc.
Somewhere along the way, they became stolidly antimagical- at least in D&D. (I'm not sure this is a Tolkien thing, since there really weren't all that many wizards in Tolkien, but it's been a while since I've read those books.)
As for the rest of your post- I certainly see your viewpoint, and agree and disagree with aspects of it. The fact is, right now, we, the fans, are Mystara, and so any development of the world that goes on will only go on through us. I share in the sentiment that some changes are too sweeping, or not in keeping with my idea of Mystara, and even on some of those, I have eventually come around or otherwise adapted to fit, and some I don't know that I ever will. I know that is one reason why Shawn opted not to make use of the TSR approval to make certain things "canon," and I think our community has grown and been stronger because of that. At the same time, the lack of an overall communal vision, or even partial communal vision, may have caused Mystara to be overlooked in some sense- certainly Ravenloft's tight community and their directive I think contributed to why that world was picked up for further development in 3E (which, again, has its champions and detractors).
It's definitely a sticky wicket, that's for sure.
Again, though, it wasn't explained even in the rulebooks, but as you say, it was assumed (due to the race/class format of the dwarf class). Beyond that, there wasn't much that we were given to see why or how dwarves seemed to be incapable of using magic.
Well, it's said explicitly in 2e rules that dwarves cannot learn wizardly magic, but I'm not going to bother pointing where (unless someone actually asks me to), because people will just dismiss it as irrelevant given that it's neither 3.5e or OD&D... Heck, if we're going to mention non-Mystara material, I clearly remember an FR story in the AD&D comic book, where the whole point was about a dwarf who were angry at the gods because they had denied the dwarves the ability to cast wizardly spells. Since FR is now 3.5e, I guess that story is just overruled by the system, because it was indeed a specific requirement in that story that dwarves could not be wizards. But again, it's 2e and FR, so I doubt it matters to anyone here...
However, I think the whole discussion about the dwarven wizards is on a wrong track. For one thing, you cannot expect OD&D rules to address a problem or question that won't come up until several decades after those rules were written. But let me as the 3.5e people this: If OD&D/gazetteers HAD specifically said that dwarves could not do wizardly magic, would you just accept that now? I mean, if I can find a reference that says that in a gazetteer or one of the rulebooks or adventures, will people just roll over and abandon all thoughts of having dwarven wizards in Mystara? Personally, I doubt they will. Because if you want dwarven wizards in your campaign, then they're going to be there.... Heck, even playing 2e (which specifically does say that it's impossible), I would still allow them if I really wanted them! Well, maybe not dwarven wizards, but I have allowed half-dragon wizards and elven bards in my 2e Mystara campaign before.
So I think we have to distinguish between GM prerogative and general rules for a campaign setting, because those are definitely not the same hobgoblins. I may allow elven bards and half-dragon wizards as a GM, but only on a case-by-case basis - I certainly do not allow it generally! When the half-dragon died, the player wanted to make a new half-dragon, and I vetoed it - we'd tried it once, which was fair, but I was not going to populate Mystara with half-dragons.
Conversely, I have disallowed options in the book. One player wanted to play a ranger/mage after learning this was a multi-class option to the voadkin giant-kin in the 2e Book of Humanoids. I couldn't prohibit it fast enough. The option is far more appropriate to elves, yet they can't do it, so a very odd giant-kin should be able to? I didn't think so, and I didn't change my mind either...
But even if I might consider unusual race/class-combinations at times, some things in 3/3.5e (like dwarven paladin/wizards or evil gnoll ranger/bards) are special cases. Not because previous rules prohibited them (although they indeed did), but because they run contrary to the very archetypes of fantasy itself. Dwarves are generally seen as short and hard warriors like Gimli in LOTR. Is that image going to change if we allow a few restricted clerics among them? Probably not, because they still wear heavy armor and carry large axes... A wizard is an entirely different breed, however. Now the dwarf cannot wear armor or wield an axe! And he's terrible in combat. That doesn't fit the archetype. Neither does the dwarven paladin. Dwarves tend to be fair but grumpy and slightly greedy warriors, not noble and saintly knights of holy orders. It's just not who they are. Sure, you could have one as a unique example to the contrary, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're not discussing whether a single dwarven paladin or wizard will change the world, because we know he won't. No, we're talking about what it will mean if ANY dwarf suddenly has that option.
And there are other things that I think people haven't considered. Both in OD&D and 2e, demihumans had level limits. There were very specific limits to how far those races could advance. Now, do I follow them myself? No, certainly not for my players - their characters are unique by virtue of being adventurers, and so they usual rules do not apply to them. But I do impose the limits for all the other members of the demihuman races. For example, we're playing Rockhome's clan-war right now IMC, and none of the dwarven fighters from Rockhome are allowed to be higher than level 15 (since we use 2e rules) unless they are adventurers. You could say that's silly, but 2e rules actually does explain it all, because given that dwarves and certainly elves live far longer than humans, the world would be ruled by those races if there were no such restrictions in place.
And before you dismiss that argument as pure 2e nonsense, just remember that it applies in OD&D as well, where dwarves could go only to level 12 and elves to level 10 (or 20 for magic use in Alfheim), and we even have a explicit reasons for that in Mystara. Because if the elves have wizard as their favored class and live for close to 1000 years, then how could Moorkroft drive the elves from the Sylvan Realm? The explanation has always been because as a human he was more experienced (higher level) than the elves, and the elves of the Feadiel clan have even been suspicious of humans since because of this fact (you can check the description of the Feadiel in the Alfheim gaz on page 36, if you don't believe me).
So if elves can now be whatever level they want to as wizards, then how is the fall of the Sylvan Realm even possible? Without such a restriction, elves would be far better wizards than any human can ever hope to be, and given how many elven archmages would then have been in the Sylvan Realm, they should have wiped the floor (or forest ground, as the case may be...) with that poor upstart of Moorkroft... If we change the rules, then Mystara's history begins to unravel. We actually NEED that restriction!
Sure, and there could have been any number of reasons why. Presumably, at the core, he (like pretty much all of us) assumed that there could not be such a thing. Was that something that had been explicitly spelled out? No, as we are discussing, it was more a matter of an inherent assumption with the rules.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. You're basically saying that because it's not specifically said to be forbidden, then it might be allowed, but it seems to me that you're basically looking at OD&D rules through 3.5e glasses, where things that are not forbidden are allowed. But while that may be true for 3.5e, it never was for OD&D, which had specifically restricted classes (and no races - dwarf was a character class, and dwarf-cleric was a another character class)! In OD&D you could take the classes described, and that was that. There were no other options. This is what there is and nothing else. If you want something else, look in another game and another campaign world, because you won't find it here. Because it doesn't exist and it never happen. These are not the droids you're looking for, so please move along...
This may not be the case of most RPGs today, not even 3.5e, even though I still accuse of it of being horribly outdated next to other modern RPG systems, but it was the case in the times of OD&D and 1e. Does it say that dwarven wizards were not allowed? No, because there was no need to - if it doesn't say it's allowed, then it's forbidden. Period. It may not be like that today, but it was back then. And we even liked it too! ;)
Whose rules? What changes? That is what I (in my rambling, meandering, and possibly confusing but hopefully not offensive way) am trying to get at. What are the "core" tenets of the world that need to remain, regardless of the system, why are they there, and how would any changes impact things if made?
Even deeper than that. Mystara is - just like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance - "just" another Tolkienesque setting and plays by the same basic rules (or should...). This means that certain things are there, while others aren't. You just don't have a desert world with half-dwarf gladiators ruled by all-powerful sorceror-kings like Dark Sun or ships carrying their air-bubbles with them as they travel the crystal spheres of the Phlogiston as in Spelljammer. But you do have mountainous dwarven kingdoms that hate the orcs and distrust the elves, while the humans multiply and cause concerns among the elves, as they hide in their huge forests. You do have powerful nations of wizards who threaten other lands and benevolent rulers who try to do good and save their peoples from invasions by all sorts of evil. And there are established conventions - even if they are unspoken - that apply to such worlds. One of them is that humans and elves can do magic, while dwarves do not. Sure, you could argue that all the wizards of LOTR are humans (or at least have that form), but you need go no further than Galadriel or even Elrond to find elven magic, whereas the dwarves demonstrate none.
Well, it's said explicitly in 2e rules that dwarves cannot learn wizardly magic, but I'm not going to bother pointing where (unless someone actually asks me to), because people will just dismiss it as irrelevant given that it's neither 3.5e or OD&D.
Let me point to where it is. It's on pages 20-21 of the 2e PHB....."They are ill disposed toward magic and have little talent for it" and "By nature, dwarves are non-magical and never use magical spells."
BTW, I have a request of everyone on this thread (myself included). Let's avoid an edition war. One of the great things about the Mystara board is that we have been pretty good at avoiding them.
--Ray.
I just read over the Dwarven Craftmagic section just to refresh my memory and have a couple of thoughts. (These are not trying to be definitive in any way; only thought provoking to both sides).
When a dwarf creates a magical weapon or armour, is the enchantment considered to be arcane or divine (i.e. clerical or not)?
At first, I thought that maybe they were just using this mechanic to simulate the superior quality of these items and they were not truely 'magical' in nature. However, the fact that they expend experience, and places "some of himself into every magical item he creates" seems to suggest otherwise.
I find it odd that a race such as the dwarves, who "tend to be resistant to magic", are capable of what seems to be a sorceror-like ability when races like the humans and elves are unable to.
The other thing that I find odd is that I can't find anywhere that suggests a dwarf-cleric can create miscellaneous magic items - even if at level nine. You'd think they'd say something like "... they need the help of a magic-user or cleric."
Now for my personal opinion and veiws (you knew it was coming right? ;) ) along with my rational.
This much is clear, "You have only the choice of dwarf or dwarf-cleric for character classes: there are no magic-users...". This is a quote from the gazetteer, page 78 under Dwarven Monotony.
Of course though, it doesn't end there. It continues with "or thieves (or even druids) to add color to the proceedings.". However, I know for a fact that while they are uncommon, there are indeed (in concept) dwarven thieves; "Some dwarves steal. Others like to hide in shadows and beat the living daylights out of passersby. ...This isn't a Thieves' Guild, but it's as close as the dwarves have...". Page 23 under The Underside.
Not the same as the magic-user case? It is to me (*personal opinion disclaimer here*) to a degree. The dwarves can gain magic spells from any Immortal, not just Kagyar. They also have no limitation to which spells may be gained (other than Kagyar's clerics due to philosophical reasons). I think that the statement in the gaz about having only two classes to choose from demonstrates that these other professions are unavailable only because of the rules thus far in place.
Now then, with that all said, I have never had a dwarven magic-user IMC. It was asked,
if the notion of dwarf wizards had existed, and had been included, do you see that the setting and the Gaz (in particular) would have been changed? How? Greatly or minimally? Why?
I think the notion was present, but not accommodated for. A dwarven magic-user would be seen much like these 'thieves' I mentioned - numbered among the "mad" dwarves. Culturally, it is stated that dwarves are "usually suspicious of magic-users". Having a tendency to resistance to magic provides for the possibility that one-in-a-very-large-number may not be; leaving the door open to exploring the arcane arts while shutting the door to acceptance within dwarven society.
How would the gaz have changed? It would have been larger, for one :P . But I believe that because of the social and cultural challenges a dwarven magic-user would have to face, the class would have such limited usefullness in most campaigns. To spend the space on a class considered "suspicious" and "mad", not to mention very rare, would simply not be worth it. Just as the dwarven thief was considered less useful than the cleric.
I mean, really, a dwarf that dislikes armour and doesn't know how to wield an axe!!! I don't trust him as far as I can throw him!!!
There it is - my feelings on the matter.
I'm curious what technical problems you see with the skill system. (And with that question, we really have gone beyond the realms of the original topic. ;) )
IIRC, I've discussed this with someone (Havard?) here or on the MML. Anyway, the major problems I see with the skill system are:
1) It leads to focus on few, extremely high skills, so that a high level fighter might be a master rider and be able to scare off giants, but totally inept at everything else. In general, there's the same cost to improve a skill from a very high to an heroic level than to improve from zero to basic proficiency.
2) Too many skills have direct combat application (Bluff, Sense Motive, Concentration, Tumble, Intimidation, Ride), or are directly required for one or more class to function properly (Perform, Survival, the thieving skills). This reduces the space for character customization to basically none (IIRC, I was discussing the case of the sorcerer, who basically has no options at all.
3) Literacy and languages are handled poorly, with a multiverse-wide list of 20 or so languages, and an even smaller list of alphabets. Moreover, getting to know six or seven languages as more or less the same cost than learning a generic profession (which is obviously not so realistic, especially when knowledge comes only in one level of proficiency).
4) To compensate for the focus on few skills, many skills have several not so related applications, with odd effects -- e.g., a Fighter won't be especially good at making or avoiding feints in combat, because the skills used for that purpose are typical roguish skills.
In my book, the 3e skill system rates as one of the worst, second only to the "secondary skills" of AD&D (which at least was only a secondary option, since almost everyone used the NWP system).
Again, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. What meta-setting do you refer to? The Great Wheel cosmology? The "core default" of Greyhawk (with the gods it mentions in the PHB)? Or something else?
Nope, "meta-setting" in the sense of assumptions such as "every race is able to wield wizardly magic" or the presence of certain classes or races.
Would the dwarves have developed wizards any more than, say, the Karameikans have? Or the Ylari? Or the Northmen? Or the Ethengar? Or the Atruaghin? Those are all settings that, being human cultures, allow for the possibility of wizards, but for various cultural reasons, haven't developed large quantities of wizards. The Atruaghin and Ethengar haven't largely due to lack of developed schools and such; the Northmen and Ylari both for lack of schools as well as ingrained cultural superstition; the Karameikans due to superstition and widespread and small communities. The only nations where wizards have made any significant impact in the Known World are among the Elves, in Glantri, and in Thyatis. Even in Darokin, where there is probably less cultural superstition against them, and more facility for their training and education than other nations, wizards aren't a major part of the setting.
Why would having dwarf wizards in Rockhome be any more of an impact than wizards in any of those other nations?
Certainly, the dwarves, contrary to those people you mention, are one of the most advanced nation in the KW -- actually, their technology is much more advanced than those of the Northmen or the Ethengar, and so is their civilization (Rockhome is the longest lasting nation in the KW, and one of the few almost democratic countries). Dwarves are not superstitious, are long lived, and have a larger middle class than most nations, all traits that would help wizards.
Finally, they've a long history of exploration and trade with the major magical powers of the KW, including Thyatis and Alphatia.
Yet, even Vestland (with all its background of superstition and illiteracy) has its school of magic, and native magical traditions exist in every other nation (the Hakomon, but even Atruaghin has its wizards).
As to which impact the wizards have on Karameikos, I suppose I should point out that 2 of the most important villains are indeed Traladaran or Karameikan wizards (Morphail and Bargle!). And Karameikos even exports wizards (Irina Piotrev, but also Bargle Jr. and Claransa). It would be unreasonable if Rockhome didn't have prominent wizards, if even a magic poor country such as Karameikos can have so many wizards successfully working outside the country.
Well, it's said explicitly in 2e rules that dwarves cannot learn wizardly magic, but I'm not going to bother pointing where (unless someone actually asks me to), because people will just dismiss it as irrelevant given that it's neither 3.5e or OD&D... Heck, if we're going to mention non-Mystara material, I clearly remember an FR story in the AD&D comic book, where the whole point was about a dwarf who were angry at the gods because they had denied the dwarves the ability to cast wizardly spells. Since FR is now 3.5e, I guess that story is just overruled by the system, because it was indeed a specific requirement in that story that dwarves could not be wizards. But again, it's 2e and FR, so I doubt it matters to anyone here...
Yep, you are right. The 2E reference bears no relevance for Mystara, although it might explain where the notion of physical inhibition of dwarves being able to cast spells.
However, I think the whole discussion about the dwarven wizards is on a wrong track. For one thing, you cannot expect OD&D rules to address a problem or question that won't come up until several decades after those rules were written. But let me as the 3.5e people this: If OD&D/gazetteers HAD specifically said that dwarves could not do wizardly magic, would you just accept that now? I mean, if I can find a reference that says that in a gazetteer or one of the rulebooks or adventures, will people just roll over and abandon all thoughts of having dwarven wizards in Mystara? Personally, I doubt they will. Because if you want dwarven wizards in your campaign, then they're going to be there.... Heck, even playing 2e (which specifically does say that it's impossible), I would still allow them if I really wanted them! Well, maybe not dwarven wizards, but I have allowed half-dragon wizards and elven bards in my 2e Mystara campaign before.
Again, the question is not whether dwarves can do wizardly magic, but whether they are physically capable of it. Perhaps you are right, if someone wants dwarven wizards in their campaign, they will have them and vice versa. But it was suggested that such a modification would be a major change of the setting, which is something I dont agree with, assuming we are talking about a few individuals, not hordes of dwarven mages.
So I think we have to distinguish between GM prerogative and general rules for a campaign setting, because those are definitely not the same hobgoblins. I may allow elven bards and half-dragon wizards as a GM, but only on a case-by-case basis - I certainly do not allow it generally! When the half-dragon died, the player wanted to make a new half-dragon, and I vetoed it - we'd tried it once, which was fair, but I was not going to populate Mystara with half-dragons.
Which is why I think this can be handled by a simple descriptory restriction: "Dwarf Wizards are virtually non-existant in the Known World" or something to that effect, rather than putting it into the crunchy part saying "Dwarves cannot cast arcane spells".
But even if I might consider unusual race/class-combinations at times, some things in 3/3.5e (like dwarven paladin/wizards or evil gnoll ranger/bards) are special cases. Not because previous rules prohibited them (although they indeed did), but because they run contrary to the very archetypes of fantasy itself. Dwarves are generally seen as short and hard warriors like Gimli in LOTR. Is that image going to change if we allow a few restricted clerics among them? Probably not, because they still wear heavy armor and carry large axes... A wizard is an entirely different breed, however. Now the dwarf cannot wear armor or wield an axe! And he's terrible in combat. That doesn't fit the archetype. Neither does the dwarven paladin. Dwarves tend to be fair but grumpy and slightly greedy warriors, not noble and saintly knights of holy orders. It's just not who they are. Sure, you could have one as a unique example to the contrary, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're not discussing whether a single dwarven paladin or wizard will change the world, because we know he won't. No, we're talking about what it will mean if ANY dwarf suddenly has that option.
Archtypes were a core concept of OD&D. Over at the Dragonsfoot forums, many people criticize Mentzer's rules and the RC for including things like Weapon Mastery and General Skills because it breaks with the idea of Archtypes. This is where 3E breaks away from previous editions in its philosophy. Archtypes are still encouraged in various ways, through the Favored Class system for instance (where a Dwarf's favored class is Fighter), but makes it possible to create useful characters who are nothing like the archtype.
Allowing Dwarves the possibility of being wizards does not mean that ANY dwarf will have this option. First of all, the wizard is a PC class, whereas most Dwarf NPCs will be of an NPC class (usually Warrior or Expert). Secondly, part of the idea behind 3E (though also IMO to some extent previous editions), is that PCs are a unique bunch. Allowing a Dwarven PC to be a Wizard does not neccessarily have great consequences for the general population. Noone here wants such consequences, and this should be explicitly stated in the racial description that such cases should be reserved for unique individuals.
And there are other things that I think people haven't considered. Both in OD&D and 2e, demihumans had level limits. There were very specific limits to how far those races could advance. Now, do I follow them myself? No, certainly not for my players - their characters are unique by virtue of being adventurers, and so they usual rules do not apply to them. But I do impose the limits for all the other members of the demihuman races. For example, we're playing Rockhome's clan-war right now IMC, and none of the dwarven fighters from Rockhome are allowed to be higher than level 15 (since we use 2e rules) unless they are adventurers. You could say that's silly, but 2e rules actually does explain it all, because given that dwarves and certainly elves live far longer than humans, the world would be ruled by those races if there were no such restrictions in place.
This is an interesting point, but should not have great consequences IMO since high level characters are extremely rare in the first place. I see your point about longer lifespans, but there is that thing about the candle that burns twice as bright etc which is also supported in 3E through the skill/feat bonuses given to humans.
And before you dismiss that argument as pure 2e nonsense, just remember that it applies in OD&D as well, where dwarves could go only to level 12 and elves to level 10 (or 20 for magic use in Alfheim), and we even have a explicit reasons for that in Mystara. Because if the elves have wizard as their favored class and live for close to 1000 years, then how could Moorkroft drive the elves from the Sylvan Realm? The explanation has always been because as a human he was more experienced (higher level) than the elves, and the elves of the Feadiel clan have even been suspicious of humans since because of this fact (you can check the description of the Feadiel in the Alfheim gaz on page 36, if you don't believe me).
Again, I have no problem with a realm of elves having no wizard of a level higher than 12th. In 3E they are very rare individuals regardless of race. Long lives and training might make you into a powerful wizard, but D&D is a heroic game and true greatness is only achievable by heroic individuals (ie adventurers). Moorkroft is clearly such an individual, the fact that he managed to defeat an elven nation makes him a truly interesting character, on par with Raistlin of Dragonlance.
If we change the rules, then Mystara's history begins to unravel. We actually NEED that restriction!
Restriction does not neccesarily come through crunchy rules. They can be preserved through the description of the setting IMO.
Even deeper than that. Mystara is - just like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance - "just" another Tolkienesque setting and plays by the same basic rules (or should...). This means that certain things are there, while others aren't. You just don't have a desert world with half-dwarf gladiators ruled by all-powerful sorceror-kings like Dark Sun or ships carrying their air-bubbles with them as they travel the crystal spheres of the Phlogiston as in Spelljammer.
You dont. But I dont think the occational desert land, a half dwarf gladiator or a space ship should be contrary to the setting. In fact most of them are there already. Even a canibalistic halfling could be allowed for, though as you will agree we dont want so many of those that Mystara begins looking like Dark Sun.
This is why I have much more a problem with the idea of Drow in Mystara than Dwarf Wizards. Drow are strongly associated with the Forgotten Realms and to some extent Greyhawk. Bringing them into Mystara would make this setting less unique, as would brining Orcs to Dragonlance. But the occational Dwarf Wizard does not pose this problem at least.
But you do have mountainous dwarven kingdoms that hate the orcs and distrust the elves, while the humans multiply and cause concerns among the elves, as they hide in their huge forests. You do have powerful nations of wizards who threaten other lands and benevolent rulers who try to do good and save their peoples from invasions by all sorts of evil. And there are established conventions - even if they are unspoken - that apply to such worlds. One of them is that humans and elves can do magic, while dwarves do not. Sure, you could argue that all the wizards of LOTR are humans (or at least have that form), but you need go no further than Galadriel or even Elrond to find elven magic, whereas the dwarves demonstrate none.
It depends how you see it. Tolkiens magic does not appear in the form of fireballs and lightningbolts. It is subtle and rarely seen. Elves (a superior race in most ways) have magic allowing impressive feats of craftsmanship and control over nature (Elrond's river, Galadriels Woods etc) as well as other powers. Likewise, dwarven crafts could be seen as magic.
But this is besides the point. We all agree that making dwarven wizards commonplace would be contrary to the spirit of Mystara. What we disagree on is whether allowing the possibility of one dwarven wizard constitute the same thing.
I have to agree with Hugin that it is wonderful to see how this discussion is remaining civil. However I am not surprised when I am looking at the names appearing in this discussion: All people I have the outmost respect for regardless of differences in opinion. This is really true for the Mystara community in general as well. There are few forums where such controversial topics do not quickly degenerate to flame wars.
Havard
I just read over the Dwarven Craftmagic section just to refresh my memory and have a couple of thoughts. (These are not trying to be definitive in any way; only thought provoking to both sides).
Craftmagic is neither arcane nor (strictly speaking) divine. The dwarf infuses his own soul (experience) into the item, but cannot obtain effects different from those that are specific to his race -- they are likely part of the improved metalworking skills.
The fact that creating magical items is specific of the wizard class is actually a limitation of the rules set, but it should not affect a setting-specific ability.
This much is clear, "You have only the choice of dwarf or dwarf-cleric for character classes: there are no magic-users...". This is a quote from the gazetteer, page 78 under Dwarven Monotony.
Thanks, another overlooked quote. I suppose this closes the argument
By the way, I'm curious, how do you handle dwarf clerics in AD&D Mystara? There are no rules against them turning undead in that system, do you maintain that as part of the campaign spirit, or do you just treat dwarf clerics as normal?
Specialist priests, of course (that's where AD&D is definitely more flexible than 3e). They can use any weapon, but not turn undead, as per the dwarf-cleric.
Absolutely, saying that drow and psionicists and dwarf wizards are everywhere suddenly would have an impact. You yourself, though, say that you use psionicists in Yavdlom, and that it hasn't drastically affected the rest of your Mystara campaign. Would putting in a previously unknown and lone drow colony underneath the Northern Reaches (for example) suddenly change the face of the Known World?
Difference: the impact on the rest of the setting. I've given plenty of examples of changes that would be needed if dwarves had the possibility to become wizards (no foreign wizards needed, no problems with magical items creation, need to have at least a magic school, given the organized life of dwarves, need to have more wizards in Rockhome than in more primitive nations such as Ethengar or Karameikos). OTOH, my example of use of psionics is not an addition, but simply a rules explanation for an existing phenomenon.
The main point is that, given the setting, allowing dwarven wizards (as a general case) would make very hard to support the statement that there are no (or few) dwarven wizards in the KW.
This is an interesting point, but should not have great consequences IMO since high level characters are extremely rare in the first place. I see your point about longer lifespans, but there is that thing about the candle that burns twice as bright etc which is also supported in 3E through the skill/feat bonuses given to humans.
Considering the 1000+ 36th level wizards of Alphatia, and the 250+ 36th level wizards of Thyatis, I suppose that high level characters could be considered "uncommon", at best -- "extremely rare" would be way too much ;)
Considering the 1000+ 36th level wizards of Alphatia, and the 250+ 36th level wizards of Thyatis, I suppose that high level characters could be considered "uncommon", at best -- "extremely rare" would be way too much ;)
Now that you mention it, I'm actually curious how the 3e crowd will put those into their game, given that after level 20, 3e seems to dictate Epic rules rather than actual levels...
Now that you mention it, I'm actually curious how the 3e crowd will put those into their game, given that after level 20, 3e seems to dictate Epic rules rather than actual levels...
This is actually one of the points I am most interested in with 3rd Edition conversions, but I have yet to be convinced by any of the current proposed systems.
On the other hand, whatever is done it is likely to endear me more than the official AD&D conversions, which in my opinion could not have been done worse.
Which is why I think this can be handled by a simple descriptory restriction: "Dwarf Wizards are virtually non-existant in the Known World" or something to that effect, rather than putting it into the crunchy part saying "Dwarves cannot cast arcane spells".
But then you run into a split world, where it looks like one thing to the players and like something else to everyone else. I may bend the rules a little for the PCs, but that's not the same as a double standard, where the players play by a different set of rules from everybody else. One thing I've always liked in 2e is that the characters are not given special status - they have the same potential as everybody else does. If you remove that, then you run the chance of having the players look on your general population as subhumans who are of a lower class than they are. I wouldn't want that in my campaign.
Besides, even if I were to allow a dwarven wizard, a rule saying there are none would still not be a problem for me. I'm the GM, and I can overrule the rules whenever I bloody well feel like it. The players will always seek for the extremes, however, and insist they can do something if the rules do not explicitly forbid it. It's simply much easier for me to keep the reins tight and then loosening them a little than doing it the other way around.
Archtypes were a core concept of OD&D. Over at the Dragonsfoot forums, many people criticize Mentzer's rules and the RC for including things like Weapon Mastery and General Skills because it breaks with the idea of Archtypes. This is where 3E breaks away from previous editions in its philosophy. Archtypes are still encouraged in various ways, through the Favored Class system for instance (where a Dwarf's favored class is Fighter), but makes it possible to create useful characters who are nothing like the archtype.
How exactly is the dwarf discouraged from playing a paladin or a wizard in 3e? Favored classes only have significance if you play multi-classed characters, so I don't see anything in those rules that discourage a dwarven wizard in any way. Same goes for gnoll rangers and kobold paladins.
Allowing Dwarves the possibility of being wizards does not mean that ANY dwarf will have this option.
If ANY player choosing to play a dwarf has the option, then it amounts to the same thing. You may argue as a GM that there are few dwarven wizards, but what difference does that make the players if they have the option every time? You're basically giving them one perspective of their world while claiming another one at the same time. For me that would not amount to particularly good campaign consistency or storytelling...
This is an interesting point, but should not have great consequences IMO since high level characters are extremely rare in the first place. I see your point about longer lifespans, but there is that thing about the candle that burns twice as bright etc which is also supported in 3E through the skill/feat bonuses given to humans.
The problem with that argument is that it applies just as much to high-leved humans as it does to high-leveled elves or dwarves or whatever race. And I see nothing in 3e that begins to penalize demihumans once they begin reaching high levels, especially not if they avoid multi-class options.
Again, I have no problem with a realm of elves having no wizard of a level higher than 12th. In 3E they are very rare individuals regardless of race. Long lives and training might make you into a powerful wizard, but D&D is a heroic game and true greatness is only achievable by heroic individuals (ie adventurers). Moorkroft is clearly such an individual, the fact that he managed to defeat an elven nation makes him a truly interesting character, on par with Raistlin of Dragonlance.
You have plenty of high-leveled wizards in both Alphatia and Thyatis, so if we consider level alone, Moorkroft does not seem particularly special...
Restriction does not neccesarily come through crunchy rules. They can be preserved through the description of the setting IMO.
Players read the description once or maybe twice, but they read the hard rules all the time. So which of the two are they going to get their impression from?
But the occational Dwarf Wizard does not pose this problem at least.
The OCCASIONAL dwarf wizard may not, but once you establish that possibility, what's to stop a player from creating one every time he makes a new character? In that sense alone, you can very quickly change the perspective that dwarven wizards are rare, because you've now given that option away to the player, and players are supposed to become powerful and influential heroes that people look up to. What if the dwarven wizard goes to Rockhome, does something truly heroic that impresses all the dwarves and then develops a following? Then you WILL and SHOULD have dwarven wizards, because the PC has established them. Are you willing as a GM to tell the player that his character cannot do heroic deeds or become famous and respected because your world demands it?
It depends how you see it. Tolkiens magic does not appear in the form of fireballs and lightningbolts. It is subtle and rarely seen.
Actually, they manage to do both fireballs and lightning bolts during the course of The Hobbit and LOTR...
Elves (a superior race in most ways) have magic allowing impressive feats of craftsmanship and control over nature (Elrond's river, Galadriels Woods etc) as well as other powers. Likewise, dwarven crafts could be seen as magic.
I see dwarven crafts differently. To me they are a testament to the dwarven SKILL at crafts. The dwarves are so good at crafting these things, that they can even bring out the magic in them. You could say that their very magically resistant nature makes them good at HANDLING magic in its raw form, even as they cannot wield or create it themselves.
I have to agree with Hugin that it is wonderful to see how this discussion is remaining civil. However I am not surprised when I am looking at the names appearing in this discussion: All people I have the outmost respect for regardless of differences in opinion. This is really true for the Mystara community in general as well. There are few forums where such controversial topics do not quickly degenerate to flame wars.
Well, that what topics like "Which is better: Thyatis or Alphatia?" is for ;)
Now that you mention it, I'm actually curious how the 3e crowd will put those into their game, given that after level 20, 3e seems to dictate Epic rules rather than actual levels...
Epic Rules are in reality levels after your first twenty. They open up new feats, and truly epic spells. In fact, I would suggest that a 25th level epic wizard would fit quite nicely on the Council.
I have followed this discussion with interest, and I am very pleased by the civility of it all. I would stress again, that no-one is trying to make Rockhome Alphatia, a land dominated by magic and wizardry. What we are advocating is that a unique dwarven individual, may (and I stress may) decide to pursue the arcane arts. We are not talking about dwarven magic schools or a legion of dwarven mages hunting down orcs and goblins. It is about one PC or NPC turning his back on his culture and whatever consequences that may bring. Does this change the setting as a whole? Not really, virtually every dwarf will still be a LOTR-cloned Gimli, dwarves will still dislike arcane magic and be suspicious of wizards.
Personally, I dislike dwarves... a lot. I have no desire to play one, much less to play a dwarven wizard. But, this is about whether or not to enforce a racial cultural characteristic as a hard rule, or describe it through the fluff and have the DM define the way he wants it to work in his campaign. In most cases, the later is always preferable.
I would stress again, that no-one is trying to make Rockhome Alphatia, a land dominated by magic and wizardry. What we are advocating is that a unique dwarven individual, may (and I stress may) decide to pursue the arcane arts. We are not talking about dwarven magic schools or a legion of dwarven mages hunting down orcs and goblins. It is about one PC or NPC turning his back on his culture and whatever consequences that may bring.
And I will stress again that the logical consequence of this is that there would be legions of dwarven mages, since there is no specific cultural problem with this -- and even for those cultures that have such problems (e.g., the Northern Reaches) wizards are common enough.
Note that I don't care about the individual dwarven wizard, as I don't care about Usamigaras having been a Hin wizard -- as long as becoming a wizard is generally impossible (not just unlikely) for these races.
Reversing your argument, I'd rather have a strict constraint with exceptions (through truly exceptional means) as needed, than no constraint at all.
GP
Considering the 1000+ 36th level wizards of Alphatia, and the 250+ 36th level wizards of Thyatis, I suppose that high level characters could be considered "uncommon", at best -- "extremely rare" would be way too much ;)
Do people actually take these statements as facts for your campaigns? I have always ignored them in mine...
Havard
But then you run into a split world, where it looks like one thing to the players and like something else to everyone else. I may bend the rules a little for the PCs, but that's not the same as a double standard, where the players play by a different set of rules from everybody else. One thing I've always liked in 2e is that the characters are not given special status - they have the same potential as everybody else does. If you remove that, then you run the chance of having the players look on your general population as subhumans who are of a lower class than they are. I wouldn't want that in my campaign.
I agree that this is a risk. But I actually like the split world concept because it makes a stament about the PCs. They are unique individuals who can affect the world in ways most individuals cant. This helps create a heroic atmosphere. I can understand that this is not for everyone. It is however an integrated part of the 3E philosophy. However, probably not that hard to change around for those who dont like it.
Besides, even if I were to allow a dwarven wizard, a rule saying there are none would still not be a problem for me. I'm the GM, and I can overrule the rules whenever I bloody well feel like it. The players will always seek for the extremes, however, and insist they can do something if the rules do not explicitly forbid it. It's simply much easier for me to keep the reins tight and then loosening them a little than doing it the other way around.
No argument there
How exactly is the dwarf discouraged from playing a paladin or a wizard in 3e? Favored classes only have significance if you play multi-classed characters, so I don't see anything in those rules that discourage a dwarven wizard in any way. Same goes for gnoll rangers and kobold paladins.
A paladin is more problematic than a wizard actually. Since dwarves suffer -2 to charisma, they are less likely to achieve all Paladin abilities, thus making that a less desirable class. Even worse for Sorcerors. But you are right, Dwarves wont make such bad wizards...
If ANY player choosing to play a dwarf has the option, then it amounts to the same thing. You may argue as a GM that there are few dwarven wizards, but what difference does that make the players if they have the option every time? You're basically giving them one perspective of their world while claiming another one at the same time. For me that would not amount to particularly good campaign consistency or storytelling...
I see your point, but it is again based on the fact that PCs are no different than NPCs. Which is not true under the 3E paradigma. If you go away from that aspect while keeping the 3E rules, I would probably agree that allowing Dwarf wizards would not be such a good idea. But they we are already talking about a modified 3E.
The problem with that argument is that it applies just as much to high-leved humans as it does to high-leveled elves or dwarves or whatever race. And I see nothing in 3e that begins to penalize demihumans once they begin reaching high levels, especially not if they avoid multi-class options.
The point was that humans make up for their shorter lifespans by being more active, more likely to be adventurers, and thus at least just as likely as demi-humans to be of high levels. Assuming that there are also more humans around than demi-humans, the number of high level humans in the world will be larger, even though this is not reflected on the average character. It still applies when talking about countries and the setting in general, which was the point.
You have plenty of high-leveled wizards in both Alphatia and Thyatis, so if we consider level alone, Moorkroft does not seem particularly special...
Although personally I consivery this a flaw in DotE, which is better ignored, you could argue that these are two huge empires, the largest and most advanced in the whole setting in fact, which could explain why such an unusual amount of high level NPCs are found there.
Players read the description once or maybe twice, but they read the hard rules all the time. So which of the two are they going to get their impression from?
I would just tell them: You can make a dwarf wizard (again) if you want, but he will be very different from other dwarves, likely also an outcast from his society. And I would have the player explain how his character came into knowledge of such rare abilities. But yes, if the player keeps coming up with the same concept over and over, I will tell him to come up with something else, regardless of what he's making.
The OCCASIONAL dwarf wizard may not, but once you establish that possibility, what's to stop a player from creating one every time he makes a new character? In that sense alone, you can very quickly change the perspective that dwarven wizards are rare, because you've now given that option away to the player, and players are supposed to become powerful and influential heroes that people look up to. What if the dwarven wizard goes to Rockhome, does something truly heroic that impresses all the dwarves and then develops a following? Then you WILL and SHOULD have dwarven wizards, because the PC has established them. Are you willing as a GM to tell the player that his character cannot do heroic deeds or become famous and respected because your world demands it?
Although it is sometimes hard, PCs should be able to change the setting if they can. Changing the mentality of an entire culture probably requires a quest for Immortality or something like that, but still.
Actually, they manage to do both fireballs and lightning bolts during the course of The Hobbit and LOTR...
Really?
I see dwarven crafts differently. To me they are a testament to the dwarven SKILL at crafts. The dwarves are so good at crafting these things, that they can even bring out the magic in them. You could say that their very magically resistant nature makes them good at HANDLING magic in its raw form, even as they cannot wield or create it themselves.
I like this interpretation.
Well, that what topics like "Which is better: Thyatis or Alphatia?" is for ;)
Yeah, I've missed that one! ;)
Havard
And I will stress again that the logical consequence of this is that there would be legions of dwarven mages, since there is no specific cultural problem with this -- and even for those cultures that have such problems (e.g., the Northern Reaches) wizards are common enough.
Note that I don't care about the individual dwarven wizard, as I don't care about Usamigaras having been a Hin wizard -- as long as becoming a wizard is generally impossible (not just unlikely) for these races.
Reversing your argument, I'd rather have a strict constraint with exceptions (through truly exceptional means) as needed, than no constraint at all.
GP
PCs are the exception- PCs are above and beyond the norms for their race (and villians should be as well). If being exceptional includes defying your cultural conventions and beliefs, it means the PC is going to have to deal with this choice and the DM should make it painfully obvious the PC's choice is an anathema to one's culture.
One dwarven wizard does not mean their will be legions of them- dwarves still would have cultural problem/issues them and dwarven culture will not change its views on wizards and arcane magic because of one dwarven wizard (dwarves are nothing if not set in their ways.) It is far easier for them to exile or kill the offender than change the entire race's cultural beliefs. One dwarven wizard doe not invalidate the statements "Dwarf Wizards are virtually non-existant in the Known World" or "Dwarf and halfling wizards are rare because their societies don't encourage the study of magic."
And from a meta-game standpoint, the players ultimately can't populate the world with dwarven wizards- why? Because the DM controls things, and no Mystaran DM is going to allow that knowing the setting. But the DM may want to leave open the possiblity for one player or one villain to be a dwarven wizard, and it would likely be the only one in the campaign.
This is a fluff issue, not crunch. Let the DM decide if it is a possiblity or not (which is the DM's job). If you interpret the statement as no, never, ever dwarven wizards, then you the DM rule that. If you interpret to mean it is possible, but a 1 in 10 million thing, then you rule that way.
Do people actually take these statements as facts for your campaigns? I have always ignored them in mine...
Some people do. It depends on the average level of the campaign -- I'm currently playing in Francesco Defferrari's PbeM, where 3rd-4th level characters are considered little more than raw recruits, and important NPCs are all in the Companion range. This kind of campaign can certainly handle the 1000 36th level wizards (or something in that range, anyway).
My own campaigns, OTOH, are usually scaled according to the AD&D power levels.
But that's just me ;)
PCs are the exception- PCs are above and beyond the norms for their race (and villians should be as well).
I don't think this is necessary -- PCs, expecially 1st level ones, are just commoners, not superheroes.
Moreover, exceptions exist if there is a rule -- no rule, no exception.
If there's no rule against dwarven wizards, one can't rely on NPC dwarves to refuse to become wizards just to keep the setting's feel.
Of course, the DM could always rule that no dwarf is currently a wizard even though they theoretically could do so, more or less as he could rule any other highly unlikely event, at the cost of some loss of credibility.
I don't think this is necessary -- PCs, expecially 1st level ones, are just commoners, not superheroes.
This is where 3.5 is a little different from previous editions. PCs are always exceptional, not so much through having levels, but through having levels in PC classes. A commoner can easily be say a 5th level expert, but still remain a commoner.
Of course, the DM could always rule that no dwarf is currently a wizard even though they theoretically could do so, more or less as he could rule any other highly unlikely event, at the cost of some loss of credibility.
Interestingly, I have no problem with the credibility of this ruling, nor its likeliness. Humans are capable of becoming nuclear scientists, yet there arent that many of them on Mystara ( except for Rafiel ofcourse...).
Alright, I'm beginning to feel that this dwarf wizard sidetrack is becoming discussed to death. As far as I have seen there is no evidence that Dwarves specifically cannot become Wizards even though this is clearly not something anyone would want in a massive scale on Mystara.
There are several ways one can get around this should a 3.5 book ever be published. Attempting to appease both sides in this disagreement, one could perhaps in addition to the description indicating how Dwarf and Halfling societies feel about arcane magic include a sidebar on how many DM's might want to ban this class entirely from these races.
Going back to Olote's original question:
What are the chances of seeing Mystara published in the future?
* As a fully fledged 3.5 sourcebook or product line any time soon: close to none
* Mystara appearing in the form of Dragon/Dungeon articles, or even something like a hard cover VotPA collection: Likely to not unlikely.
Cthuludrew also raised an interesting question earlier on:
Besides Dwarf/Halfling Wizards/Sorcerers, are there other things people feel strongly about that will likely be different in a 3E game than in Classic/2E?
Havard
I don't think this is necessary -- PCs, expecially 1st level ones, are just commoners, not superheroes.
I'm not suggesting they are superheroes at any level, but they are different than the average joe. Adventuring is lucretive, if anyone could do, it why wouldn't they? It is certainly more lucretive than farming. Whether its through their natural abilities, drive and ambition, or simply circumstances, adventurers regardless of level do stand out from their non-adventuring peers. This is really a gaming preferance though, our group takes the view of heroic adventurers, and a local friend's group plays it more as the everyman adventurer.
3.5e does tend to push the former view- Common NPCs have different classes that relate to the PC classes, but are usually weaker. Stat-wise PCs will usually have better ability scores than common NPCs. Important NPCs then become more-like the PCs (better scores, they use PC classes) as they also represent people beyond the norm. While it does favor the heroic approach, it can be scaled to suit the campaign's feel.
I agree that this is a risk. But I actually like the split world concept because it makes a stament about the PCs. They are unique individuals who can affect the world in ways most individuals cant. This helps create a heroic atmosphere. I can understand that this is not for everyone. It is however an integrated part of the 3E philosophy. However, probably not that hard to change around for those who dont like it.
This is one area where I take exception with 3e, because it takes on an almost racist tendency of putting the PCs in a higher caste than everybody else simply by virtue of their abilities, which seems like an arrogant and "might is right" attitude to me. Yes, the PCs are are unique individuals, but not because of the abilities they were born with IMHO. No, they are heroic and special because of the CHOICES they make. Anyone can pick up a sword and become a fighter or make a commitment to their religion and become a cleric, and that is how it should be, as I see it. I don't want the PCs to have greatness thrust upon them by the system - they should reach for it and claim it for themselves in spite of their own flaws rather than have it thrown at them because of abilities that nobody else is allowed to have.
I would just tell them: You can make a dwarf wizard (again) if you want, but he will be very different from other dwarves, likely also an outcast from his society. And I would have the player explain how his character came into knowledge of such rare abilities. But yes, if the player keeps coming up with the same concept over and over, I will tell him to come up with something else, regardless of what he's making.
In that case, what's the problem with saying generall "there are no dwarven wizards", and then saying to the specific player in the specific situation, "okay, you can make a dwarf wizard THIS TIME"?
Although it is sometimes hard, PCs should be able to change the setting if they can. Changing the mentality of an entire culture probably requires a quest for Immortality or something like that, but still.
High leveled wizards are supposed to attract apprentices when they build their towers. What if a powerful dwarven wizard builds his tower in Rockhome after doing very heroic deeds there? Any chance dwarves will come to learn from the respected master? I think so...
I like this interpretation.
Thanks
This is one area where I take exception with 3e, because it takes on an almost racist tendency of putting the PCs in a higher caste than everybody else simply by virtue of their abilities, which seems like an arrogant and "might is right" attitude to me. Yes, the PCs are are unique individuals, but not because of the abilities they were born with IMHO. No, they are heroic and special because of the CHOICES they make. Anyone can pick up a sword and become a fighter or make a commitment to their religion and become a cleric, and that is how it should be, as I see it. I don't want the PCs to have greatness thrust upon them by the system - they should reach for it and claim it for themselves in spite of their own flaws rather than have it thrown at them because of abilities that nobody else is allowed to have.
That is one way of looking at it. I prefer thinking of it as a movie. Ofcourse Arnold is going to be the one killing the bad guy, getting the babe and saving the day. The random guy with no name just isn't cut for the job.
But I agree that PCs are not neccesarily unique because of how they were born. But at the point where the 3E game starts, they have already taken a step in that direction. OD&D has a bit of the same thing. What happens if a 0-level human decides to become a Thief or magic-user? Does he lose his D8 HP and gain a D4? No, he has already been chosen for greatness, or the potential thereof.
But I have also been playing RuneQuest 3, By the Book, where die rolls determined that I was a mediocre human Herder, not too bad at collecting my sheep, but pretty terrible at anything else. After one year of real time gaming, and wonderful adventures, I was still not much more than a mediocre herder. I'm not going back there. It has been cinematic gaming ever since.
In that case, what's the problem with saying generall "there are no dwarven wizards", and then saying to the specific player in the specific situation, "okay, you can make a dwarf wizard THIS TIME"?
I think this a difference of style between 3E and 2E/OD&D. It is not that the games are all that different, but that they are written in a slightly different manner. Older editions said "No, you cant do that" to all kinds of situations. In 3E they prefer to suggest that you should do things one way, but allow it if you want something different. In both games the DM will have the final word, but the manner of writing is suggestive rather that absolutist. This is one of the things I really like about 3E actually.
High leveled wizards are supposed to attract apprentices when they build their towers. What if a powerful dwarven wizard builds his tower in Rockhome after doing very heroic deeds there? Any chance dwarves will come to learn from the respected master? I think so...
I have no problem with that. I'll probably make it hard for him, having anti-wizardly feelings cause all sorts of problems for him and those who follow him. But if he plays his character well and overcomes the obstacles, I will reward him for it. Still, the situation will now be that before there were no Dwarf Wizards in Rockhome, now there are 5. No big deal is it?
If a PC becomes immortal and creates Drow which he places on Mystara I would allow that too. (Even though I really don't want them there).
Havard
High leveled wizards are supposed to attract apprentices when they build their towers. What if a powerful dwarven wizard builds his tower in Rockhome after doing very heroic deeds there? Any chance dwarves will come to learn from the respected master? I think so...
No actually there isn't.
In the scenario we're talking about, dwarves on the whole still haven't changed their views on wizards and arcane magic. It is one of the most static, traditional and stubborn cultures in the Known World and not one, or even a few wizards will change that. A tower would never be built in Rockhome because the dwarves would never accept a dwarven wizard as one of their own. He would be an object of scorn and betrayal- he has turned his back on his clan and culture. No for a dwarf to learn the arcane arts, he has to turn his back on everything dwarven and learn it from humans or worse...elves. If he buids a tower its going to be in human lands with non-dwarf apprentices.
No actually there isn't.
In the scenario we're talking about, dwarves on the whole still haven't changed their views on wizards and arcane magic. It is one of the most static, traditional and stubborn cultures in the Known World and not one, or even a few wizards will change that. A tower would never be built in Rockhome because the dwarves would never accept a dwarven wizard as one of their own. He would be an object of scorn and betrayal- he has turned his back on his clan and culture. No for a dwarf to learn the arcane arts, he has to turn his back on everything dwarven and learn it from humans or worse...elves. If he buids a tower its going to be in human lands with non-dwarf apprentices.
First of all, this hypothetical dwarf has already done something heroic in Rockhome. I don't see the Rockhome dwarves as so hateful that they would dismiss one of their own who did something great just because he didn't do so by following their typical conventions. If he did heroic stuff, then he would be treated accordingly. And as Agatholes has pointed out, human mages are indeed accepted in Rockhome to some degree - it's when it's powerful and particularly GLANTRIAN mages that they have a real problem. I think they fear the wizard's power, but as long as the mages are not too powerful, they feel confident they can control them, which is why a Karameikan mage can be tolerated in Dengar.
Dwarves may be taciturn and grumpy, but I don't seem them as vindictive or really intolerant. They're nice enough, they just hide it really well... ;)
The benefit of doing it this way is that instead of picking at one issue at a time (lycanthropy, dwarven wizards, etc.), it all would come together as a whole. In the process of writing the entire book, many solutions of conversion problems would present themselves that wouldn't become apparent through piecemeal investigation, and the scope would be shaped by having limited page space. I myself cannot do it because I am starting grad school and don't have my Mystara library anymore.
If Blackmoor, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance can have successful relaunches, then Mystara could too. Earlier in the thread it was asked how many Mystara fans there are. Well, if one counted all the gamers who feel nostalgia for the Red Box and other proto-Mystaran products, then there'd be several thousands. There are many gamers who cut their teeth on early Known World locales (such as Bargle's Dungeon, Castle Mistamere, Threshold, and the Isle of Dread) before "graduating" to AD&D1e and Greyhawk...hence the popularity of DUNGEON magazine's return to the Isle of Dread. I suspect that many of these gamers would buy a Mystara worldbook if it looked like the Red Box of yore, which is why in another thread, I suggested just that. Mystara is the only setting that can rightfully use the "Red Book look" (though Goodman Games made a shrewd move in borrowing it for their Known Realms). I think the "Red Box look" alone would result in thousands more sales.
This is where 3.5 is a little different from previous editions. PCs are always exceptional, not so much through having levels, but through having levels in PC classes. A commoner can easily be say a 5th level expert, but still remain a commoner.
Not so different from 0-level characters, really. And many NPCs still have PC classes.
Interestingly, I have no problem with the credibility of this ruling, nor its likeliness. Humans are capable of becoming nuclear scientists, yet there arent that many of them on Mystara ( except for Rafiel ofcourse...).
That's because they aren't exposed to large quantities of nuclear science books -- when they had the opportunity, they did learn such lore, and indeed Blackmoor developed advanced technology.
Since the dwarves have been exposed to large amounts of magical lore since they were created (no need to devise it themselves), it would be hard to believe that they purposefully ignored it.
Going back to Olote's original question:
What are the chances of seeing Mystara published in the future?
* As a fully fledged 3.5 sourcebook or product line any time soon: close to none
* Mystara appearing in the form of Dragon/Dungeon articles, or even something like a hard cover VotPA collection: Likely to not unlikely.
Given my preference for "hard" rulings, I'd say "none at all" in the first case :P
Cthuludrew also raised an interesting question earlier on:
Besides Dwarf/Halfling Wizards/Sorcerers, are there other things people feel strongly about that will likely be different in a 3E game than in Classic/2E?
Paladins, Sorcerers (mostly the abuse of that class), an unjustified amount of half-orcs, missing specialty priests (they existed already in OD&D!), draconic Kobolds, familiars for wizards (while the option was available both in OD&D and AD&D, it was much less useful, and therefore it was not so common to see a wizard with a familiar, while in 3e familiars seem to be much more common).
There may be more, but I don't know much about 3e.
No actually there isn't.
In the scenario we're talking about, dwarves on the whole still haven't changed their views on wizards and arcane magic. It is one of the most static, traditional and stubborn cultures in the Known World and not one, or even a few wizards will change that. A tower would never be built in Rockhome because the dwarves would never accept a dwarven wizard as one of their own.
Why? It seems to me that you are taking a lot of stuff from the metasetting (things written in the "core books" of whatever edition you want) and applying them out of context.
Actually, Mystaran Dwarves do not have an especially static culture, nor do they have any particular hatred of magic -- at most, they may be somewhat traditionalists and suspicious of foreigners with odd powers, but they've had exposure to powerful magic-users for at least a millennium, and find it useful to employ them -- something they would not do if they had such big hatred of wizardry.
They do hate _glantrian_ wizards, but that's a completely different matter.
On the other hand, Dwarves are fairly friendly with Ylaruam, Thyatis, Karameikos, Ethengar and Alphatia, all of which can provided enough magical training.
Same goes for for "having to turn his back on everything dwarven". There's nothing specifically dwarven that forbids dwarves from learning from humans or elves. Actually, the GAZ mentions the fact that dwarves love music, but are not good at composing it, so they "eagerly record" music from other folks (and I doubt it refers to others than humans and elves, since dwarves don't get along well with goblinoids and halflings).
Finally, I'll point out that the leaders of one of the largest dwarven political factions, the Wyrwarf, are elf-friends (and Gilia is actually an elf-trained bard) -- yet all other clans are not specifically hostile towards the Wyrwarf, with the exception of the militaristic Torkrest, who are hostile for other reasons than being elf-haters.
Overall, the "conservative" factions of Rockhome only number around 30%, while 27% more are "moderate" Burohdar and Everast. The remaining 43% are dwarves who definitely appreciate innovation (Skarrad), trade (Syrklist) and contact with other cultures (Syrklist, Wyrwarf).
So, if to justify dwarven wizards one has to say that dwarves don't learn wizardry because they refuse innovation and hate all magic-users and elves, then this amounts to me to a major change in the setting.
Not so different from 0-level characters, really. And many NPCs still have PC classes.
I agree that this is a development from the "0-level" concept, but 3E takes it further. Which is why most NPCs will not posess the PC classes, again making a class that is rare among PCs almost unheard of among NPCs, unless they are unique NPCs like the major villain of a movie or novel.
That's because they aren't exposed to large quantities of nuclear science books -- when they had the opportunity, they did learn such lore, and indeed Blackmoor developed advanced technology.
Since the dwarves have been exposed to large amounts of magical lore since they were created (no need to devise it themselves), it would be hard to believe that they purposefully ignored it.
Unless their culture strongly discourages dwarves from the pursuit of magic. Even though Elves and Human Wizards are accepted by parts of the dwarven community and even found useful, it is quite possible that the concept of actually practicing magic for a dwarf is viewed with contempt. Think about how dwarves view farming. Magic is even worse, it would make them associated with the Morigswerg.
The above should be a suitable explaination for why Dwarves do not practice magic. It does not as far as I can tell cause any more alterations of the setting than the stament that "dwarves are physically incapable of becoming wizards", which also has no support in canon.
Given my preference for "hard" rulings, I'd say "none at all" in the first case :P
Yes, since I specified any time soon, I'd have to agree
However, this is all dependant on WotC policy, which does change from time to time. We will see.Paladins, Sorcerers (mostly the abuse of that class), an unjustified amount of half-orcs, missing specialty priests (they existed already in OD&D!), draconic Kobolds, familiars for wizards (while the option was available both in OD&D and AD&D, it was much less useful, and therefore it was not so common to see a wizard with a familiar, while in 3e familiars seem to be much more common).
There may be more, but I don't know much about 3e.
Its a good list. Obviously some things will change with a new system, and if one ignores all the new possibilities that a new system offers that would be a shame too. I still do not believe that playing 3E more or less as is goes against the spirit of Mystara though.
Havard
Unless their culture strongly discourages dwarves from the pursuit of magic. Even though Elves and Human Wizards are accepted by parts of the dwarven community and even found useful, it is quite possible that the concept of actually practicing magic for a dwarf is viewed with contempt. Think about how dwarves view farming. Magic is even worse, it would make them associated with the Morigswerg.
If it was so bad to be associated with magic, than they would not hire wizards.
And while farmers may have a low social status, they're still there -- and quite common. Not only, but dwarven farmers are much better at their task than human farmers: dwarves can support themselves without international trade (e.g., during WotI), yet no more than 20% or so of the population is composed of farmers.
Note that: (1) nowhere are the Modrigswerg associated with wizardly magic -- they just create special items through Craftmagic (a dwarf-specific task) and Soul binding (probably an entropic clerical ability); (2) dwarves do learn abilities typical of the elves and humans, and, as said above, several of their political figures even flaunt these elven lore and friendship.
So, considering that magic is not specifically elven (or, at least, there are types of magic that are definitely not elven) and has nothing to do with Modrigswerg per se (they were supposedly banned for demon-worshipping, not for magic use), there's still no evidence that there would be such a strong cultural taboo against magic.
Its a good list. Obviously some things will change with a new system, and if one ignores all the new possibilities that a new system offers that would be a shame too.
Well, you could still make use of some "new possibilities" (BTW, dwarf wizards would not really be that new, since nothing mechanically prevented dwarf wizards in AD&D, except conformance to a setting/meta-setting rule -- and indeed there were wizard kits allowed for dwarves in Al Qadim, for example).
For example, druids and wizards can be allowed for the Kogolor dwarves in the HW or in the Blackmoor era.
I still do not believe that playing 3E more or less as is goes against the spirit of Mystara though.
Not necessarily, since most things can be simply avoided. Still, playing our paramount dwarf monk/sorcerer/paladin in the KW does in my book count as going against the spirit of Mystara while still playing 3e as is.
The one thing that, IMO, would be most helpful would be for someone to go ahead and write a professional-quality 3.5e worldbook, acting as if it were going to be published by WotC.
Shane, I'm working on it. See the "Mystara d20 PDF Project" thread and the older "A Call to Arms (M3E II)" thread, both on this forum.
I've also gotten help from Thorf, vgeisz, TDA, old dawg, Marco, and others... It's taking a while due to my schedule, but it's getting done.
Roger
If it was so bad to be associated with magic, than they would not hire wizards.
And while farmers may have a low social status, they're still there -- and quite common. Not only, but dwarven farmers are much better at their task than human farmers: dwarves can support themselves without international trade (e.g., during WotI), yet no more than 20% or so of the population is composed of farmers.
You misunderstand. My theory is that dwarves do not hate magic is such, but they consider practicing magic really dirty work. Worse than farming. But at the same time, they see its usefulness. So in order to have magic around, they prefer using humans for such tasks, so they dont have to get their hands dirty with such pursuits.
The above is not neccesarily supported by canon, but neither does it go against canon. Its simply a possible explaination for why dwarves do not practice magic. And I would say that this theory is just as valid as your explaination of the same phenomenon.
All we know is that there are no dwarven magic user in Rockhome. The explaination for this could be cultural just as easily as it could be physiological.
Note that: (1) nowhere are the Modrigswerg associated with wizardly magic -- they just create special items through Craftmagic (a dwarf-specific task) and Soul binding (probably an entropic clerical ability); (2) dwarves do learn abilities typical of the elves and humans, and, as said above, several of their political figures even flaunt these elven lore and friendship.
So, considering that magic is not specifically elven (or, at least, there are types of magic that are definitely not elven) and has nothing to do with Modrigswerg per se (they were supposedly banned for demon-worshipping, not for magic use), there's still no evidence that there would be such a strong cultural taboo against magic.
The information about the Morigswerg is so brief that it can be made into either of these IMO. It was merely an extrapolation of my theory above, combined ofcourse with the term Dark Elf Rituals which do suggest m-u spells being involved.
By the way, one thing I really like about this discussion is that we are really getting into the finer points of dwarven soiciety here. Who said nothing useful was coming out of this?
Havard
Not necessarily, since most things can be simply avoided. Still, playing our paramount dwarf monk/sorcerer/paladin in the KW does in my book count as going against the spirit of Mystara while still playing 3e as is.
I think this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that allowing players to create the occational unusual character says much about the spirit of the setting. It is the DM who has the greatest influence on this through his NPCs.
Havard
You misunderstand. My theory is that dwarves do not hate magic is such, but they consider practicing magic really dirty work. Worse than farming. But at the same time, they see its usefulness. So in order to have magic around, they prefer using humans for such tasks, so they dont have to get their hands dirty with such pursuits.
But that would be very unlikely. Dwarves have no reason to consider magic below farming -- actually, there are many dwarven clerics. Moreover, dwarves dislike farming, but don't rely on humans for it, because they're bright enough to understand that it would be a weakness; on the contrary, they required agricultural techniques to be taught to them in exchange for their mining expertise!
Surely dwarves understand the strategic relevance of magic -- especially given their conflict with Glantri -- and would approach it in a similar way, devoting a smaller number of highly trained, though little respected people to the task. Paradoxically, if dwarves had such as bad consideration of wizardry, most dwarven wizards would be of extremely high level (dwarven farmers are sort-of "epic commoners", since a single dwarven farmer produces as much as 6 humans!), in order to avoid other dwarves the distateful task of learning wizardry.
However, the problem is that your reasoning is based on the idea the, since dwarves have an irrational dislike for agriculture, they can well have a similar dislike for magic. But the dwarven dislike for agriculture is not at all irrational! It is simply a consequence of their dislike for all those activities that do not leave a long lasting legacy. But magical research, like music, leaves a legacy, because spells can be cast multiple times, and of course the creation of magical items leaves the longest lasting legacy, since magical items are especially difficult to destroy (if they existed, dwarven wizards would focus on permanent items rather than potions or charged items, for example).
I think this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that allowing players to create the occational unusual character says much about the spirit of the setting. It is the DM who has the greatest influence on this through his NPCs.
I've nothing against unusual characters (e.g., dwarven thieves).
OTOH, I prefer that the characters, PCs and NPCs alike, be coherent with the setting.
I think this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I do not believe that allowing players to create the occational unusual character says much about the spirit of the setting. It is the DM who has the greatest influence on this through his NPCs.
The real problem is how often you can make this option available to players before they really do get the impression that anything goes. Personally, I'd say that I'm allowed to make a dwarven paladin/monk/wizard, then I really don't see the GM denying anything, and the class/race-combinations are an open free-for-all for the players do to whatever they please with. So as a GM, even if I might allow a dwarven paladin as a unique individual, I'd still prefer that the rules say that it's not possible. I hate it when players argue that something should be possible because the rules do not forbid it - I demand that the rules support my authority as GM, not the other way around!
So as a GM, even if I might allow a dwarven paladin as a unique individual, I'd still prefer that the rules say that it's not possible. I hate it when players argue that something should be possible because the rules do not forbid it - I demand that the rules support my authority as GM, not the other way around!
Yes, that's also true. Unfortunately, 3e is based on the assumption that the players, not the DMs, are the main buyers, so it supports this kind of "everything goes" attitude.
Yes, that's also true. Unfortunately, 3e is based on the assumption that the players, not the DMs, are the main buyers, so it supports this kind of "everything goes" attitude.
And that's a major reason for my dislike of the game right there, which seems to support a unflattering "munchkin"-flavour combined with shameless monster-slashing/hack 'n slash and dungeon-crawl, which runs contrary to any attempt by the GM to build a cohesive campaign based on good storytelling.
Yes, it'll always be the GM's responsibility to make the campaign work, but why actually make it harder for him?!?
But that would be very unlikely. Dwarves have no reason to consider magic below farming -- actually, there are many dwarven clerics. Moreover, dwarves dislike farming, but don't rely on humans for it, because they're bright enough to understand that it would be a weakness; on the contrary, they required agricultural techniques to be taught to them in exchange for their mining expertise!
Obviously, I was referring to arcane magic, not divine. Perhaps this could also be part of the reason though, dwarves believe that they should devote themselves only to the magic given to them by Kagyar.
Surely dwarves understand the strategic relevance of magic -- especially given their conflict with Glantri -- and would approach it in a similar way, devoting a smaller number of highly trained, though little respected people to the task. Paradoxically, if dwarves had such as bad consideration of wizardry, most dwarven wizards would be of extremely high level (dwarven farmers are sort-of "epic commoners", since a single dwarven farmer produces as much as 6 humans!), in order to avoid other dwarves the distateful task of learning wizardry.
Dwarves are extremely hard workers. That doesnt mean that they would automatically have a knack for magic if they should decide to break with cultural norms and devote themselves to that art. Although I am sure Dwarves understand the importance and usefulness of magic, it is not as vital as farming however.
However, the problem is that your reasoning is based on the idea the, since dwarves have an irrational dislike for agriculture, they can well have a similar dislike for magic. But the dwarven dislike for agriculture is not at all irrational! It is simply a consequence of their dislike for all those activities that do not leave a long lasting legacy. But magical research, like music, leaves a legacy, because spells can be cast multiple times, and of course the creation of magical items leaves the longest lasting legacy, since magical items are especially difficult to destroy (if they existed, dwarven wizards would focus on permanent items rather than potions or charged items, for example).
Farming was simply brought in as an example of something else that the dwarve had a strong dislike towards. Their reason for not liking to practice magic would be different though. Although your example about dislike for things not leaving a legacy could explain a dislike for spellcasting, while still enjoying the creation of magical items, which is in fact the case in Rockhome.
I've nothing against unusual characters (e.g., dwarven thieves).
OTOH, I prefer that the characters, PCs and NPCs alike, be coherent with the setting.
But there is still no proof that a dwarf wizard is incoherent with the setting. All we know is that there are no Dwarf wizards (as per AC 1000) residing within Rockhome.
A newly created PC would not be in violation of that.
Havard
The real problem is how often you can make this option available to players before they really do get the impression that anything goes. Personally, I'd say that I'm allowed to make a dwarven paladin/monk/wizard, then I really don't see the GM denying anything, and the class/race-combinations are an open free-for-all for the players do to whatever they please with. So as a GM, even if I might allow a dwarven paladin as a unique individual, I'd still prefer that the rules say that it's not possible. I hate it when players argue that something should be possible because the rules do not forbid it - I demand that the rules support my authority as GM, not the other way around!
This is a question of campaign style rather that setting. In my current Freeport/Mystara campaign I disallowed:
Paladins and Monks (unsuitable for pirate environment)
Gnomes and Halflings (My players fail to take them seriously)
Such characters still exist in the setting however, but they wouldnt fit as PCs with the style of my campaign.
Often however, I really like the anthing goes approach. I think many really interesting characters and roleplaying situations can come out of this.
Let me assure you that my campaigns are nothing like munchkinism or hack-n-slash dungeon crawling. I dont give XP for killing monsters, and dungeons are extremely rare. I like weird characters though, with unusual backgrounds. I think disallowing such combinations/options should be dealt with on campaign basis rather than on setting basis.
Havard
But there is still no proof that a dwarf wizard is incoherent with the setting.
We'll, it would be more correct to say that some people don't see it as incoherent. I, OTOH, do ;)
I think disallowing such combinations/options should be dealt with on campaign basis rather than on setting basis.
I see no grounds for such reasoning. Apart from our specific concern with Mystara, I think the setting has all rights to impose restrictions -- e.g., in a setting without clerical magic, it is perfectly justified to restrict the availability of a clerical class. In a setting where orcs do not exist, it is reasonable that half-orcs should not be allowed.
BTW, these kind of restrictions is already present, since the meta setting provides them (i.e., anything that is not in the rules books).
This much is clear, "You have only the choice of dwarf or dwarf-cleric for character classes: there are no magic-users...". This is a quote from the gazetteer, page 78 under Dwarven Monotony.
Thanks, another overlooked quote. I suppose this closes the argument
Of course though, it doesn't end there. It continues with "or thieves (or even druids) to add color to the proceedings.".
I've nothing against unusual characters (e.g., dwarven thieves).
Just to point out that the 'setting' (i.e. the gaz) also prohibits dwarven thieves; "there are no magic-users, thieves (or even druids)...".
I've always been under the idea that not everyone that wishes or even has access to magical learning would be capable of it. This notion came after I purchased the DotE set. In the Alphatia players book it says, "At that time [adolescence], noble children are tested by wizards to see if they bear the trait that will allow them to learn magic.". It goes on to say that those that fail may still learn clerical magic however.
I think this can be used to explain the dwarven wizard situation; very, very few are even capable of learning wizardly magic, though any may learn clerical magic. Of course, even discovering a dwarf's aptitude towards wizardry is rare. I'd say it likely that a dwarf capable of such magic would lack the normal resistance to it; i.e. "they tend to be resistance" but sometimes one of them lacks it, the perverbial one-in-a-million.
In these cases, it is easy to see how dwarves view other dwarves that can wield wizardly magic as 'not a real and whole' dwarf since they lack such a fundamental dwarven trait. Even should these views be changed and every dwarf dream to be a magic-user, the vast majority of them are just not capable of it.
(P.S. I've been learning quite a bit following this discussion, thanks everybody)
Still, playing our paramount dwarf monk/sorcerer/paladin in the KW does in my book count as going against the spirit of Mystara while still playing 3e as is.
This dwarf was rescued by a Sindi yogic order after a caravan of dwarven traders was ambushed by bandits on their way through Sind - the dwarven baby girl was the only survivor. She was trained in the way of the yogis. During puberty, she showed signs of having rudimentary strange powers, though she had no way of understanding, practicing, or improving them. She had strikingly good looks (for a dwarf). Upon reaching adulthood, the dwarf went to uncover her roots in Rockhome, and was able to track down her home clan. In her excitement at being surrounded by others of her kind for the first time she heard an inner voice calling her to become a fighting exemplar of Kagyar. She accepted her destiny, and spent years of pursuing good, upholding law, and defeating evil in the name of Kagyar. As old age approached, her physical prowess lessened, until she ended up in an "old dwarves' home" in Dengar. She spent her days making and mending clothes for war-orphan wards of the temple of Kagyar. One day as she was stitching the holes of the umpteenth sock, she felt the same surge of soul energy that she'd felt as a teen, but had long forgotten. The sock wondrously repaired itself (that is, she cast the "mend" 0-level sorcerer spell). During her retirement years she was able to apply these powers to more and more uses, though, being a dwarf, these were mostly of a practical nature. As word spread of her abilities, some dwarves whispered that she must have fairy blood, though others said she had demon blood. When asked, she would just smile and say "I guess I must have dragon blood."
In the oD&D Mystara reality, this character would be different. She would simply be of the Dwarf class or perhaps Dwarf-Cleric (since in the 3e reality, she wields divine magic as a paladin). She would have similar oD&D skills as her 3e Mystara counterpart's skills. Her 0e biography would be as close as possible to her 3e counterpart's while sticking to the official 0e rules. In the 0e reality, she could've still been raised by Sindi yogis, become a crusader for Kagyar, and mended socks for dwarven orphans, but stat-wise, she'd be a plain ol' oD&D Dwarf or Dwarf-Cleric.
Even 3.5e agrees that this would be a very unusual character. Not only are dwarven monks, paladins, and sorcerers rare (see my PHB quotes in the "Dwarf Wizard Problem" thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=670020), but the monk and paladin classes are also special in that they are restricted in regards to multiclassing:
"Like a member of any other class, a monk many be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities." p42
"Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raiser her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities. The path of a paladin requires a constant heart. If a character adopts this class she must pursue it to the exclusion of all other careers. Once she has turned off the path, she may never return." p45
In any case, I imagine that any publisher of 3e Mystara wouldn't go out of their way to foist this kind of eccentricity onto Mystara by showcasing this as an NPC in an official product, but in my opinion, it could be acceptable to have a Mystaran PC like this.
Shane
I think this can be used to explain the dwarven wizard situation; very, very few are even capable of learning wizardly magic, though any may learn clerical magic. Of course, even discovering a dwarf's aptitude towards wizardry is rare. I'd say it likely that a dwarf capable of such magic would lack the normal resistance to it; i.e. "they tend to be resistance" but sometimes one of them lacks it, the perverbial one-in-a-million.
Still, this character would be so rare than it would be better represented by an exception to the rule than by including him in the rule. Even more so, since you're taking as the rule the fact that dwarves are normally unable, due to some physiological problem, to use wizardly magic -- your dwarf wizard is basically a mutant who breaks the rule -- but the rule is there.
Still, this character would be so rare than it would be better represented by an exception to the rule than by including him in the rule. Even more so, since you're taking as the rule the fact that dwarves are normally unable, due to some physiological problem, to use wizardly magic -- your dwarf wizard is basically a mutant who breaks the rule -- but the rule is there.
I suppose it depends on whether people think of the rules as laws or conventions. Laws may not be broken, but conventions are there only until someone challenges them. A new or inexperienced GM will tend to see the rules as laws and depend on them, while an experienced GM will see the rules only as conventions that he can bend or break or overrule whenever he pleases (and I know I do the latter ;) ).
What I don't understand is why people support the 3.5e approach where anything goes, because if you want to allow something that the rules forbid, then you can just overrule the rules, whereas you're basically leaving the new GM out to dry, because he tends to follow the rules to the letter even if they lead him over a cliff, in which case it's pretty low to just say that he can outlaw dwarven wizards, if he doesn't like them. Now, I personally have no problem saying it and sticking to my guns no matter how much the players may object and cringe over it, but the new GM is far more likely to cave to their insistence that the rules allow this and so they should be able to make dwarven paladin/wizards. The rules are simply not useful in that sense.
For what its worth, my take is that dwarves get benefits to resisting magic, but this built-in resilience makes them unable to cast any. The Rockhome gazeteer describes how their immortal had to make sacrifices just to enable them to be clerics.
Why not just leave it up to the GM ?
Well, because it's part of the setting. Why not leaving up to the GM whether Karameikos borders the sea or not?
I mean, any setting element could be conceivably left to the GM, from geography to allowed classes and races.
And, of course, the GM can always house rule anything -- if an individual DM doesn't want Karameikos to border the sea, he will take some appropriate action to modify the setting in his campaign.
But, IMO, this doesn't mean that the Karameikos GAZ should say "Karameikos may or may not border the sea, though it usually does".
It should definitely say how things are in the standard campaign.
A class/race combination is just a setting element, not at all different from a town name, an NPC, a magical item or any other facet of a campaign.
It is also quite an important element -- it has a major impact on the setting, since it can well change the nature of a society (see my previous examples regarding how the impossibility to have dwarven wizards affects the dwarven society).
So, it is not something that could be left unsaid -- as would be the name of a minor village or NPC.
D20 D&D is written with the assumptions that anyone can do anything, and that the player is entitled to pick any option he sees in a book. Releasing a book that goes against these assumptions would likely not sell well.
A sidebar stating "we recommend the following limitations as far as classes go, but you can ignore these if you wish. Here are some of the consequences that may occur, by doing so" would suffice
But I have also been playing RuneQuest 3, By the Book, where die rolls determined that I was a mediocre human Herder, not too bad at collecting my sheep, but pretty terrible at anything else. After one year of real time gaming, and wonderful adventures, I was still not much more than a mediocre herder. I'm not going back there. It has been cinematic gaming ever since.
[offtopic]
In that year, you should propably have trained up usefull skills, pursued spells and other interesting stuff.
Of course. RQ by the book also has a character creation system that lets you allocate skills as you wish. Its not fault of the game that the GM decided to use the "harsh" method.
There is a significant difference in changing the layout of the world, as opposed to stating whether or not a particular dwarf PC in a particular game can do something or not.
D20 D&D is written with the assumptions that anyone can do anything, and that the player is entitled to pick any option he sees in a book. Releasing a book that goes against these assumptions would likely not sell well.
A sidebar stating "we recommend the following limitations as far as classes go, but you can ignore these if you wish. Here are some of the consequences that may occur, by doing so" would suffice
In which case it would no longer be Mystara, methinks. Sure the flood-gates can be thrown open to allow anything, allowing dwarven paladin/monk/wizards and gnoll ranger/assassin/clerics. Anything can be rewritten that way. But in that case why bother at all?
It's easier to just take a few cues from Mystara and then do an entirely new setting, where you don't get all these annoying conflicts with old editions of the game. It's easier to make the new setting of the Manchara, where the dwarven nation of Stonerealm has dwarven wizards than it is to suddenly have to explain the presence of dwarven wizards in Rockhome.
Or how about all those single-classed characters all over the place. All the classic NPCs of Mystara have only one class, and many of them seem silly under 3.5e. I mean, why is Corwyn Mauntea, chancellor of Darokin, a thief, when it makes for more sense for him to be an expert focusing on mercantile skills (or whatever NPC class)? And why isn't Gilia Songsmith a bard instead of a dwarf-cleric (fighter/cleric) or Morur Blackheart a thief instead of a standard (fighter) dwarf, when it suits their descriptions much better?
Of course, that can all be rewritten, but not without pulling the rug from under the feet of those GMs who already based their campaigns on what previous canon actually said about those characters and the setting in general. They will oppose it, because they have no choice, and they will feel betrayed by the publisher. And they will voice their disapproval on boards like this one and give the relaunch bad publicity, since - after all - what else are they left with? If you want dwarven paladin/monk/wizards, then fine - both FR and Greyhawk are still available at the shop where you buy the other standard 3.5e stuff. Personally I would hate the see Mystara material published that I will have no choice but to criticize, since my campaign is based on the foundation that is already established.
Sure, I have changed some things around (Everast XV is a fighter/thief IMC, and Morur is a plain thief), but I did that on the basis of what the book already says, and it was my choice as the GM. And if I buy new material or find stuff other people have done online (far more likely), I will know where it differs from my own changes. Changing the foundation, however, is pulling the rug from under my feet, and not something I'm likely to appreciate.
[offtopic]
In that year, you should propably have trained up usefull skills, pursued spells and other interesting stuff.
Of course. RQ by the book also has a character creation system that lets you allocate skills as you wish. Its not fault of the game that the GM decided to use the "harsh" method.
Yes. We were going through a phase where we though using as many rules from the books as possible would make for the best game. We did the same thing with D&D too. No idea why. Yes, RQ really doesnt have to suck, but playing it in this very harsh way really made me realize how much I prefer heroic games.
Ok, back to topic
Havard
Well, because it's part of the setting. Why not leaving up to the GM whether Karameikos borders the sea or not?
I mean, any setting element could be conceivably left to the GM, from geography to allowed classes and races.
And, of course, the GM can always house rule anything -- if an individual DM doesn't want Karameikos to border the sea, he will take some appropriate action to modify the setting in his campaign.
But, IMO, this doesn't mean that the Karameikos GAZ should say "Karameikos may or may not border the sea, though it usually does".
It should definitely say how things are in the standard campaign.
You are still basing your argumentation on the assumption that allowing PCs to create unusual class/race combinations equals making such characters commonplace. Noone is suggesting that dwarf wizards should be commonplace or even exist in Rockhome.
Again: Nowhere in the Mystara supplements does it say that dwarves cannot be wizards. The only statement quoted was the one where it said rockhome had no dwarven magic users, thieves etc. This is not the same thing.
The only place where it says that dwarves cannot be wizards is in 2E. So I'd say that you are applying things from the 2E Metasetting. Nothing wrong with that, but it should bear no consequences for the conversion to 3E.
Havard
In which case it would no longer be Mystara, methinks. Sure the flood-gates can be thrown open to allow anything, allowing dwarven paladin/monk/wizards and gnoll ranger/assassin/clerics. Anything can be rewritten that way. But in that case why bother at all?
Because one prefers one edition of D&D over another? Because WotC will never publish anything for the OOP systems?
It's easier to just take a few cues from Mystara and then do an entirely new setting, where you don't get all these annoying conflicts with old editions of the game. It's easier to make the new setting of the Manchara, where the dwarven nation of Stonerealm has dwarven wizards than it is to suddenly have to explain the presence of dwarven wizards in Rockhome.
But we want to play Mystara. And we dont want dwarven wizards in Rockhome. Merely the theoretical possiblity of a rockhome dwarf learning arcane magic at one point in the future.
Or how about all those single-classed characters all over the place. All the classic NPCs of Mystara have only one class, and many of them seem silly under 3.5e. I mean, why is Corwyn Mauntea, chancellor of Darokin, a thief, when it makes for more sense for him to be an expert focusing on mercantile skills (or whatever NPC class)? And why isn't Gilia Songsmith a bard instead of a dwarf-cleric (fighter/cleric) or Morur Blackheart a thief instead of a standard (fighter) dwarf, when it suits their descriptions much better?
Yes. When you convert to a different system these things should be changed around. When I was playing GURPS Mystara all NPCs lost their levels and classes and gained skills they didnt have before.
Of course, that can all be rewritten, but not without pulling the rug from under the feet of those GMs who already based their campaigns on what previous canon actually said about those characters and the setting in general. They will oppose it, because they have no choice, and they will feel betrayed by the publisher. And they will voice their disapproval on boards like this one and give the relaunch bad publicity, since - after all - what else are they left with? If you want dwarven paladin/monk/wizards, then fine - both FR and Greyhawk are still available at the shop where you buy the other standard 3.5e stuff. Personally I would hate the see Mystara material published that I will have no choice but to criticize, since my campaign is based on the foundation that is already established.
I really dont understand your point of view here. If a 3E book was published for Mystara, those who prefer OOP rulesets would simply have to convert things back, if there was anything in the new rulesets that they actually wanted to make use of. I used the 2E Mystara stuf for Classic D&D for quite some time. You bet my elves werent fighter/mages.
Sure, I have changed some things around (Everast XV is a fighter/thief IMC, and Morur is a plain thief), but I did that on the basis of what the book already says, and it was my choice as the GM. And if I buy new material or find stuff other people have done online (far more likely), I will know where it differs from my own changes. Changing the foundation, however, is pulling the rug from under my feet, and not something I'm likely to appreciate.
When a setting is converted to a new ruleset, things will be different. In Classic demihumans could not be wizards, thieves, clerics, fighters, etc. In AD&D 2E they could. In 3E they are given some further options. This changes things a little. If it didnt I would still be playing Classic.
But I think the Core Concepts of Mystara could be preserved under 3E rules, perhaps even better than under the official 2E conversions. The core of Mystara is not classes and crunchy statistics, it has to do with history, interesting cultures, strange creatures and unusual magic.
Havard
When a setting is converted to a new ruleset, things will be different.
Not necessarily. Indeed, I would say that need only happen if:
1) The rules are simply poor and rigid rules.
2) The publisher insists on promoting the ruleset over the definition of the setting itself.
In 3.5e both of these seem to be present, because it didn't matter to WOTC that dwarves could never be wizards in FR before, let alone that sorcerors didn't even exist, and they had no problem bulldozering all over known characters to make them fit their new-fangled rules instead of making rules that fit the characters. It was simply "this is how it is now, so deal with it or there's the door!" When TSR did 2e, they still allowed the "grandfather clause" that allowed a far better transition from 1e AD&D. Not so in 3e, which isn't just a new edition, but an entirely different game altogether. But what really irked me was how WOTC went out of their way to outlaw old 2e stuff in their own publications (Dragon and Dungeon) because suddenly it was all 3e and all the old editions were suddenly declared illegal and heretical writings - it was year zero, and you had better conform or be treated as a cleric unmasked in Glantri (before the war)...
But I think the Core Concepts of Mystara could be preserved under 3E rules, perhaps even better than under the official 2E conversions. The core of Mystara is not classes and crunchy statistics, it has to do with history, interesting cultures, strange creatures and unusual magic.
And history will beg an explanation for why Rockhome, a civilized nation older than Thyatis, has never produced wizards or sorcerers, but now they suddenly begin popping up here and there. Not to mention gnoll rangers, elven paladins, human bard/thief/clerics and orcish wizard/druid/monks... You cannot separate the classes of the system from Mystara's history, because that history was made by heroic characters that belonged to that class-system, however narrow it might have been (and frankly, I don't see 3e being much better...).
Second: (Where did this thread spin off topic? But anyways, here goes.)
Dwarves (and Hin?!?!) using arcane magic on Mystara? This option is only here (really) because of the new generation, 3E & 3,5E, of the D&D rules. Where there are more options for the players to explore. Which is fine.
But as I see it, it is an/a ethnic/cultural question! Would the Rockhome dwarves have need of a dwarven wizard, and therefore create the place in their society for them? No, I don't think so, I would asume that the problems solved by wizards in non-dwarven societies, would be solved by other means in the dwarven society. Thereby eliminating the need for a dwarven-wizard/sorcerer-on-each-corner.
Therefore npc's, in my opinion, is, more or less, excluded from having a role that there isn't a basis for in the society from which the npc originates. But this does not bar the option of there being a player (and read again: PLAYER) dwarven wizard/sorcerer. Player characters are per definition extraordinare, they can be more than the norm of the society of which they originate. Yet they should, at the same time, also try to mirror their homeland culture.
A balance that should always be discussed between the player and the DM, when the character is created.
And last, how many players have you met, that actually wanted to play a Rockhome-dwarven wizard?
(I for one, have yet to meet one.) 
My 2 cent
You cannot separate the classes of the system from Mystara's history, because that history was made by heroic characters that belonged to that class-system, however narrow it might have been (and frankly, I don't see 3e being much better...).
As someone who has successfully run Mystara campaigns in several classless/level-less systems, I will just have to disagree with you there.
Besides, the same thing happened when Mystara was converted to 2E. Suddenly all elves became Elven Fighter Mages. And to be fair. Sorceror is the only new class to be introduced to Mystara that didnt exist in either of the previous systems. And even sorcerors may be seen as a just as likely continuation of the OD&D Magic-user as the Wizard.
OTOH, I understand the disliking of these new concepts becoming commonplace, as they have become in FR. However, FR is a showcase setting for 3E. Which made it especially important for WotC to show the new possibilities of the 3E game in that setting. There would be no such need with Mystara.
I'm not going to comment on the other parts of your email as I fear that will surely lead to a less healthy debate.
Havard
In which case it would no longer be Mystara, methinks. Sure the flood-gates can be thrown open to allow anything, allowing dwarven paladin/monk/wizards and gnoll ranger/assassin/clerics. Anything can be rewritten that way. But in that case why bother at all?
Oh, dont get me wrong, I would stick with how it was in Mystara, rather than all the weirdness (but then, I'd run it with BECM rather than D20.
Just saying that if it was to be realistically marketed, its propably something that would need to happen
Oh, dont get me wrong, I would stick with how it was in Mystara, rather than all the weirdness (but then, I'd run it with BECM rather than D20.
BECM?
BECM?
BECM= Basic Expert Companion Master rules D&D.
Havard
As someone who has successfully run Mystara campaigns in several classless/level-less systems, I will just have to disagree with you there.
I've run Mystara with several systems too, but some things are just very hard to get rid of. Sure, you can make a class/level-less system, but you still need to recreate most of the NPCs, historical or otherwise, to suit their backgrounds with whatever system you choose to use. Eriadna may not need to be a 36th-level magic user, but she must be a powerful wizard (and a pure wizard at that) whatever rules you present her under. Something similar is true for most other significant NPCs.
Besides, the same thing happened when Mystara was converted to 2E. Suddenly all elves became Elven Fighter Mages.
They were always fighter/mages - they were just called something else in OD&D. Just as the OD&D dwarves and halflings were all fighters (at least before the gazetteers).
And to be fair. Sorceror is the only new class to be introduced to Mystara that didnt exist in either of the previous systems. And even sorcerors may be seen as a just as likely continuation of the OD&D Magic-user as the Wizard.
Magic-users that don't use spellbooks and cannot learn new (or at least very few) spells? Pretty different to the OD&D magic-user... For example, what use have they for the Great School of Magic in Glantri or the University of Air Magics in Sundsvall, where study is clearly an academic undertaking? None that I can see, since sorcerers do not base their arcane power of scholarly studies... And those institutions are described as some of the more advanced sources of powerful magic-users in Mystara. Personally, on Mystara I would allow the sorcerer class only for dragons, since it runs contrary to the setting to allow it for any of the usually playable races.
Just saying that if it was to be realistically marketed, its propably something that would need to happen
Realistically marketed yes. Written in a way that would make the book at all appealing, yes. Who would want to spend money on a book where half of the pages were rules that practically altered the rules to a different system than the one you wanted to use? I think this wouldnt do neither 3E fans nor OOP D&D fans any good.
I'd see a 3e Mystara book handling things like this:
*Race Name
*Race Description
*This race is played as per page ? in the PHB
Thus keepining the crunch to a minimum. Most of the book would indeed be history, countries, race etc information written in a non crunchy form based on earlier material. This would be the best way to give it an appeal to both old and new fans.
The things that should be given rules treatment would be things like:
The Secret Crafts
The Radience
The Demi-human Relics
etc.
These are the things people would want to see rules for, things that make Mystara different from other standard fantasy settings.
Havard
You are still basing your argumentation on the assumption that allowing PCs to create unusual class/race combinations equals making such characters commonplace. Noone is suggesting that dwarf wizards should be commonplace or even exist in Rockhome.
Again: Nowhere in the Mystara supplements does it say that dwarves cannot be wizards. The only statement quoted was the one where it said rockhome had no dwarven magic users, thieves etc. This is not the same thing.
The only place where it says that dwarves cannot be wizards is in 2E. So I'd say that you are applying things from the 2E Metasetting. Nothing wrong with that, but it should bear no consequences for the conversion to 3E.
I think all of these statements have already been addressed in previous posts, except the last, which is easily refutable, since the OD&D metasetting has the same constraints on dwarf wizards as the AD&D one (no dwarven wizards or even wicca), not only in Rockhome.
The only thing I can add is that your argumentum ex silentio is extremely weak -- indeed, the gazetteer doesn't tell that dwarves can't fly or even that dwarves don't have wings -- as a matter of fact, you only have proof that some dwarves portrayed in the GAZ don't have wings, but, by your argument, you have no grounds to say that any other dwarf should not have wings.
The point is, the GAZ obviously doesn't feel the need to specify that dwarven wizards don't exist any more than it feels the need to specify the fact that dwarves don't have wings, and can't fly. That's because it takes for granted that dwarves are alreay limited by the rules given in the OD&D rules set (and can't do anything that isn't specified there, including spellcasting and flying).
Any exception (dwarven clerics, almost-thieving skills for the dwarves) is specified by the GAZ (and the gaz doesn't specify that wizards are possible, of course).
First of all: I think that the only way for us to get something new for our favorite world, is to hope for somebody else than WotC to publish something.
Though even this is unlikely to happen -- past licensed settings didn't fare well.
But as I see it, it is an/a ethnic/cultural question! Would the Rockhome dwarves have need of a dwarven wizard, and therefore create the place in their society for them? No, I don't think so, I would asume that the problems solved by wizards in non-dwarven societies, would be solved by other means in the dwarven society. Thereby eliminating the need for a dwarven-wizard/sorcerer-on-each-corner.
The GAZ, though, says that dwarves happen to have need of wizardly magic, and hire human wizards (quite obviously, because they haven't any dwarven wizard).
So, of course one might alter the setting by saying that dwarves don't need wizardly magic and have other solutions (which means also that dwarves would need even more advanced technology, because replacing fireball or fly spells is not going to be easy), but it would be a significant alteration to the setting (contrary to what would happen for the addition of dwarven thieves, for example).
And last, how many players have you met, that actually wanted to play a Rockhome-dwarven wizard?
In that case, why do we need to make the dwarven wizard available, if no one wants him as a PC, and there are no such NPCs?
Who would want to spend money on a book where half of the pages were rules that practically altered the rules to a different system than the one you wanted to use?
This is another issue of limited relevance, for who says that you need large mechanical discussions? Since something on the lines of "dwarf wizards are extremely rare" would anyway be there, it would just need to be changed to "dwarves cannot be wizards" -- and note that the word count is lower this way.
I think all of these statements have already been addressed in previous posts, except the last, which is easily refutable, since the OD&D metasetting has the same constraints on dwarf wizards as the AD&D one (no dwarven wizards or even wicca), not only in Rockhome.
AD&D specifies that dwarves cannot be wizards because of their resistance to magic. In OD&D, the reason why dwarves cannot be wizards quite another. It is because it is a simple game, based around Gary Gygaxes archetypes. A dwarf wizard in OD&D would be a violation of that principle. So that has nothing to do with the metasetting, it is simply a question of important principles of the rules system. In fact many OD&D fans dislike the gazetteer/VotPA rules additions like the dwarven cleric for this reason.
The only thing I can add is that your argumentum ex silentio is extremely weak -- indeed, the gazetteer doesn't tell that dwarves can't fly or even that dwarves don't have wings -- as a matter of fact, you only have proof that some dwarves portrayed in the GAZ don't have wings, but, by your argument, you have no grounds to say that any other dwarf should not have wings.
The point is, the GAZ obviously doesn't feel the need to specify that dwarven wizards don't exist any more than it feels the need to specify the fact that dwarves don't have wings, and can't fly. That's because it takes for granted that dwarves are alreay limited by the rules given in the OD&D rules set (and can't do anything that isn't specified there, including spellcasting and flying).
Any exception (dwarven clerics, almost-thieving skills for the dwarves) is specified by the GAZ (and the gaz doesn't specify that wizards are possible, of course).
The problem with your argumentation is that you make the statements "are not" and "cannot be" equal, which they clearly are not. Following this logic there could be no Halfling Clerics, Halfling Rogues, Elf Clerics, Elf Rogues, Dwarf Rogues, Elf Druids etc either, since these options were not available in OD&D. These are simply changes that will happen when you change system from OD&D to AD&D or to 3E or to GURPS.
In my GURPS Mystara campaign, Wizards could easily learn and use longswords. That did not mean that longsword wielding wizards were commonplace in Glantri or anywhere else. Simply changes occurring when one changes rulesets.
And look at the FR, Dragonlance, Blackmoor or Ravenloft. Have those changes really ruined the settings by introducing such PC options?
Havard
AD&D specifies that dwarves cannot be wizards because of their resistance to magic. In OD&D, the reason why dwarves cannot be wizards quite another.
It's exactly the same reason, except that AD&D makes it more explicit. The lack of Dwarf Wizard classes in the GAZ cannot be attributed to the fact that there was no mechanical way to have dwarf wizards -- which is definitely not true.
The problem with your argumentation is that you make the statements "are not" and "cannot be" equal, which they clearly are not.
Not in the general case. In this specific case, they happen to coincide.
Your "clearly" here is not so clear, because it's simply bending the setting to fit with the rules -- no matter how this is stated (implicitly or explicitly), dwarven wizards do not exist and cannot exist.
Following this logic there could be no Halfling Clerics, Halfling Rogues, Elf Clerics, Elf Rogues, Dwarf Rogues, Elf Druids etc either, since these options were not available in OD&D.
False. Elf Clerics are available in VotPA. Druids in OD&D are simply a variant of clerics. Halfling Clerics exist, and are called Hin Masters. Non-human rogues exist for all races, since any non-human character can access the special Thieving skills introduced in the SE gaz. All of these options are available, more or less explicitly, in OD&D. Same for Bards, Half-elves, and wizards and priests of all non-human races, with the only exception of dwarven and halfling wizards.
And look at the FR, Dragonlance, Blackmoor or Ravenloft. Have those changes really ruined the settings by introducing such PC options?
I've no idea on Blackmoor -- but certainly they didn't help in making it more compatible with Mystara
. FR can't really be ruined -- it's already as bad as you could get it (and then, it underwent a "reality change", so things that didn't exist weren't backpatched into the setting).
The addition of pseudo-half-orcs to Ravenloft certainly didn't improve the setting, and native paladins, druids and bards were explicitly disallowed in that setting in AD&D (something which, apparently, didn't hinder its popularity).
Finally, I don't know what happened to Dragonlance, but if there was one campaign that was based around unusual limitations to PCs, that was Dragonlance -- playing DL "as per PHB" (of any edition) would definitely ruin the setting.
My own 2-kopecs as an ODDer with good feelings towards 2AD&D:
The issue isn't really one of either fluff or crunch - its something in between. Let's call it the "goo" that holds it all together. Any game can be viewed as a set of layered information
1) The basic mechanics (how to hit, damage, powers, etc)
2) Particular modifications or restrictions
3) Cultural description
The decision to include or exclude dwarven wizards belongs in the middle layer. The mechanics of such an individual are derivable easily enough. In this regard, 3.*E has some nice theoretical properties about making race and class fully orthogonal. Writings about, say, dwarven attitudes towards magic or specific groups of magic-users are abundantly available. But the very existence of such individuals is a separate matter, distinct from either of the previous two concerns.
The particular restrictions imposed on the game, for PC and NPC alike, define the heart of the game.
Imagine a campaign described thus: "It is a world foresaken by the gods - every would-be preacher a charlatan or a fool." [Not unlike DL before the War of the Lance] simply by saying "sorry no clerics" we've created the foundations of a *unique* gameworld.
Or how about: "We were enlightened and had long put away the tools of war. This proved our greatest undoing when the Charter was signed and our freedoms denied." - for a high society world under authoritarian control: experts, monks, clerics, wizards (non-offensive spells) and thieves only.
For Mystara, prestige paladins and no dwarven wizards are long part of the goo that holds it together. I'm not opposed to the idea of dwarven wizards or first level paladins in general (both have very good story potential in fact), they are just incongruous with the long-established setting of Mystara. And history and tradition do have value that should be preserved unless good cause can be found to revoke them.
I find it interesting that this dichotomy of opinions has centered almost entirely upon dwarven wizards (and to a small extent halfling wizards - which I don't have a problem with) but what about
Paladin - prestige or first level?
Avenger/Blackguard - an original choice (1st or 9th) or a fallen paladin?
Druid - prestige or first level?
Demihuman thieves - possible or approximated only through "skill" choices?
Wizards - all spells need speech and hands but no components, or a combination variety of speech, hands, components?
Half-elves and Half-orcs - distinct racial options or just humans with pointy ears and pig snouts?
-OldDawg
The particular restrictions imposed on the game, for PC and NPC alike, define the heart of the game.
I have no problem with this in principle. Nor do I think it is a problem for 3E as such to make restrictions on class/race combinations.
Imagine a campaign described thus: "It is a world foresaken by the gods - every would-be preacher a charlatan or a fool." [Not unlike DL before the War of the Lance] simply by saying "sorry no clerics" we've created the foundations of a *unique* gameworld.
I would have no problems with this. Or I could say, sure go ahead and make a cleric, but you cant access spells or other divine powers in this age.
Or how about: "We were enlightened and had long put away the tools of war. This proved our greatest undoing when the Charter was signed and our freedoms denied." - for a high society world under authoritarian control: experts, monks, clerics, wizards (non-offensive spells) and thieves only.
I think I would have more of a problem with this one. Not for a campaign, ofcourse, but for a setting in general. Still, it is a possibility.
For Mystara, prestige paladins and no dwarven wizards are long part of the goo that holds it together. I'm not opposed to the idea of dwarven wizards or first level paladins in general (both have very good story potential in fact), they are just incongruous with the long-established setting of Mystara. And history and tradition do have value that should be preserved unless good cause can be found to revoke them.
This is where I disagree. I understand some of the arguments against dwarven wizards, but this argumentation blocks for many other things as well. Keep in mind that Mystara is a big world, where only a small part of it has been explored. And it is a world, first and foremost recognized IMO by the fact that so many bizarre things exist there.
Again, we are all in agreement that Dwarf wizards and other hitherto unknown things should be restricted, but I dont agree that they should be banned altogether.
I find it interesting that this dichotomy of opinions has centered almost entirely upon dwarven wizards (and to a small extent halfling wizards - which I don't have a problem with) but what about
The dwarf wizard issue is actually the one I have the greatest understanding of people having a problem with.
Paladin - prestige or first level?
Avenger/Blackguard - an original choice (1st or 9th) or a fallen paladin?
Druid - prestige or first level?
Demihuman thieves - possible or approximated only through "skill" choices?
Wizards - all spells need speech and hands but no components, or a combination variety of speech, hands, components?
Half-elves and Half-orcs - distinct racial options or just humans with pointy ears and pig snouts?
I am glad you bring this up. For my own campaigns, I would rather just use 3E as is. I guess we are discussing alot of different things at the same time here.
There is no reason why 3E cant be modified in ways to avoid all of these, but it would make for a poor product IMO. Mainly because it brings alot of attention to what I consider minor details of the setting. And the number of pages spent on these things will be pages that could have been spent on detailing cultures, countries, races, history etc. Which is what I think is the core essence of Mystara.
But I am always interested in hearing what other people think of this.
Havard
There is a new product for the d20? rules that is made for medieval europe. I forget the name but I think its actually called medieval europe or medieval campaign. This product merges magic use with a medieval reality based world and has become a very hot seller, as well as being hailed as one of the most realistic/accurate campaign tools/addendums.
Point is, this thing is not based on any specific campaign world, and it just gives some rules for managing culture and society. What if the new Mystara, with all its pegataurs, gremlins, trolls, and Gruuklia elves as player characters, simply offered the same thing? Mystara is the richest campaign produced by far, in my humble opinion, and its history and cultures span thousands of years in very good detail. The Vaults have documented this, and further enriched this world. Why not simply publish Mystara as a cultural suppliment? It will obviously come out as 3.5, to my chagrin, but it could specifically be made with as little emphasis on rules as possible. We kept at this thing for so long because of the SETTING, and the BACKGROUND STORIES that we could use as scenery for our personal campaigns while we adventured through it. This is Mystara's strength. For Example:
In PC3, the Sea People, my character played through the last adventure and recovered several Taymora art objects. Discovering they were worth FIVE TIMES what he originally thought, he (and I) became obsesed with the Taymora civilization. It was only through the Vaults that I found that they existed in 2000 BC, or what their society was like. Granted, it was not located in published canon, only alluded to. However, how many settings would interconnect such disperate themes to make a whole, or encourage its fans to do so on such an epic scale (Taymora was even expanded to explain the corruption of the Nithians and the creation of the Vampires from the Nosferatu, and the creation of strains of Lycanthropy! How many campaigns do THAT!)
Please, forget the rules for a moment and focus on the setting itself. THAT is how Mystara will get published again. It's one of the first, and its still one of the best campaigns to exist (Only Greyhawk is older, and not by much).
If the book were made without any rules crunch at all (see the recent Arduin setting book, World of Khaas as an example) I'd probably buy it.
If the book were made for a system that was reasonably easy to convert to B/X D&D (such as C&C) I'd probably buy it.
If the book were made with minimal d20 rules crunch (see the recent Wilderness settings books from Judges Guild as an example) I'd probably not buy.
If the book were thouroughly stuffed with d20 rules crunch (see the recent Blackmoor setting books) there's no way in heck I'd buy it.
The whole discussion is fairly moot, because there is no way in heck Wizards would ever license the project.
R.A.
Since we're dealing with unlikely possiblities here, if Wizards did a Mystara Sourcebook (ala Forgotten Realms) that picked up the Mystara timeline at AC1013 and contained tons of new fluff, as well as a small section on a 3.5E/d20 conversion, would you buy it? If not, why not and how do you then convince someone other than fans to publish new material?
The purpose of this question is not to create an edition war, but rather to see if a middle ground could ever be reached (one that balances new fluff and content with the newer system conversion).
Although I have a feeling this question could be a mistake....
Since we're dealing with unlikely possiblities here, if Wizards did a Mystara Sourcebook (ala Forgotten Realms) that picked up the Mystara timeline at AC1013 and contained tons of new fluff, as well as a small section on a 3.5E/d20 conversion, would you buy it? If not, why not and how do you then convince someone other than fans to publish new material?
The purpose of this question is not to create an edition war, but rather to see if a middle ground could ever be reached (one that balances new fluff and content with the newer system conversion).
My own expectation is that if Wizards did a world book, most of it would be stuff from the gazeteers, rather than new setting material, since the priority would be to establish the baseline for the setting. As the priority for a book like they do would have to be to make it useful for people who have never played Mystara before. And it could be pretty much guaranteed to be 3.5 based in its crunch.
Any new Mystara material that comes in actual solid book form would have to be aimed at new people.
The best hope for new Mystara material that goes beyond the already published stuff in any direction without a new worldbook to hang it off would be a series of PDF monographs like the Call of Cthulhu monograph line. As that vastly reduced the overhead for wizards and would make new stuff more reasonable for them to produce.
Since we're dealing with unlikely possiblities here, if Wizards did a Mystara Sourcebook (ala Forgotten Realms) that picked up the Mystara timeline at AC1013 and contained tons of new fluff, as well as a small section on a 3.5E/d20 conversion, would you buy it? If not, why not and how do you then convince someone other than fans to publish new material?
I would buy it, regardless. Even if it totally sucked I would buy it.
There will always be those who refuse to buy it if it has anything to do with 3.5/d20. But I think most active members would buy it when they see it. Or at least when it becomes the main topic on this board.
And I actually think that it would be really good. Looking at the books WotC makes for FR these days makes it difficult to imagine them putting out something for a new world that would not be better than the 2E line, and in terms of layout/illustrations probably better than the gazetteers as well.
I think that even if the campaign was set around Ac1000 we would still see new material for the setting. Just take a look at any D20 setting book and you will see that the way it is structured just calls for information that the gazetteers never provided.
Håvard
If its a thinly disguised book of "essential mystara prestige classes and feats" with some setting, then no thanks
Forgive my ignorance, but does 3.5 have an official paper & pencil WarMachine equivilant? If not, then maybe that could be the crunch in a Mystara suppliment?
The closest that I've seen are a couple of mass combat systems from Mongoose Games and one other publisher (who I can't recall offhand). I've only seen the basics of the Mongoose system (a smaller version for large mobs that was introduced in one of their pirate/seafaring books)- I'm not sure what the fuller system looks like.
heck, you could almost use it, as is. I've used the Warmachine as my default war resolution for almost any fantasy game I've run where dice got involved in the warfare
I had thought about doing a "conversion" of it myself, but as I looked through it, I came to pretty much the same conclusions. It is really functional as is- there are some minor tweaks I would make here and there, and you could certainly fold the Feat system into things (by adding some Mass Combat/Leadership types of feats). In fact, some of the information in the Miniatures Handbook from Wizards of the Coast would probably be useful in fleshing out the War Machine for 3.5, without needing to make major changes to the basics of the system (percentiles, etc.)
I would also love to see some expansion of the tactics portion of things, such as we saw in Gaz12 with the special Ethengarian Horde tactics.
As for Traianus' question, I would definitely buy a book like that. Aside from the fact that (like others), I am a completist, I would just be interested in gleaning any new information in such a book, regardless of the rules system used. I was ready to buy the Hackwurld of Mystaros book (in fact had preordered it... still need to see if it's possible to get my money back on that one)- both because it was Mystara and because James Mishler was the author, despite my lack of enthusiasm for the Hackmaster rules.
The closest that I've seen are a couple of mass combat systems from Mongoose Games and one other publisher (who I can't recall offhand). I've only seen the basics of the Mongoose system (a smaller version for large mobs that was introduced in one of their pirate/seafaring books)- I'm not sure what the fuller system looks like.
There is a mass combat system for 3.5 very similar to the one from Classic D&D in Green Ronin's Black Company Sourcebook. It appeared previously in some of their 3.0 products.
I agree that something like this could be included in a Mystara sourcebook however.
I had thought about doing a "conversion" of it myself, but as I looked through it, I came to pretty much the same conclusions. It is really functional as is- there are some minor tweaks I would make here and there, and you could certainly fold the Feat system into things (by adding some Mass Combat/Leadership types of feats). In fact, some of the information in the Miniatures Handbook from Wizards of the Coast would probably be useful in fleshing out the War Machine for 3.5, without needing to make major changes to the basics of the system (percentiles, etc.)
I would also love to see some expansion of the tactics portion of things, such as we saw in Gaz12 with the special Ethengarian Horde tactics.
Indeed!
As for Traianus' question, I would definitely buy a book like that. Aside from the fact that (like others), I am a completist, I would just be interested in gleaning any new information in such a book, regardless of the rules system used. I was ready to buy the Hackwurld of Mystaros book (in fact had preordered it... still need to see if it's possible to get my money back on that one)- both because it was Mystara and because James Mishler was the author, despite my lack of enthusiasm for the Hackmaster rules.
Yes, its a shame that the Hackmaster thing was cancelled. I would have loved seeing what James could have come up with, though I probably would not have actually run it with Hackmaster.
I think the main benefit of anything new coming out for Mystara is attracting newcomers or reminding those who have left our setting of the wonders they once may have experienced there.
Also, it would no doubt spawn new fruitful discussions on these boards.
Havard
[EDIT] P.S. Skip's Cry Havoc! system is also used in Green Ronin's Advanced Players Manual and in White Wolf's World of Warcraft Alliance & Horde Compendium. According to Monte Cook, author of the 3e DMG, the Cry Havoc! system would've been used in the DMG had WotC allowed the designers to include a mass combat system in it, instead of being made to wait for the Chainmail game (which flopped, and anyway was changed in conception into a smaller-scale skirmish game).
heck, you could almost use it, as is. I've used the Warmachine as my default war resolution for almost any fantasy game I've run where dice got involved in the warfare
Amen to that. I've used warmachine IMC, and I even play 2e AD&D, which tends to favor the Battlesystem rules. But War Machine is easy to pick up and lends itself well to large battles. My players liked it too, especially when we included the optional strategy rules, though six options are admittedly too few...
All you need for War Machine are the levels of the army-leaders, the average level of the troops, and the leader's stats for Int, Wis, and Cha (though I replace that bonus with one based on the Military Tactics and Leadership skills, which I've introduced into my 2e campaign as profiencies). Those principles are so basic, they should fit right into 3.5e without trouble.
Amen to that. I've used warmachine IMC, and I even play 2e AD&D, which tends to favor the Battlesystem rules. But War Machine is easy to pick up and lends itself well to large battles. My players liked it too, especially when we included the optional strategy rules, though six options are admittedly too few...
All you need for War Machine are the levels of the army-leaders, the average level of the troops, and the leader's stats for Int, Wis, and Cha (though I replace that bonus with one based on the Military Tactics and Leadership skills, which I've introduced into my 2e campaign as profiencies). Those principles are so basic, they should fit right into 3.5e without trouble.
I've on and off tinkered with converting War Machine to 3.5E and by and large only a few adjustments are needed (and several of mine are tied to our campaign's heavy use of it). The OD&D Military Tactics becomes part of Knowledge (War). Leadership, Epic Leadership and Legendary Commander confer a bonus to the BFR. I added in some optional tactics such as targeting specific troop types or the mounts of the cavalry. The one thing that I'm still testing is whether or not NPC-classed troops are as effective as PC-classed troops, since under the 3.5 rules hiring a warrior is cheaper than hiring an equal level fighter.
Some other good d20 systems for mass combat are Fields of Blood (Eden Studios)and Feast of Crows (Postmortem Studios)
I've on and off tinkered with converting War Machine to 3.5E and by and large only a few adjustments are needed (and several of mine are tied to our campaign's heavy use of it). The OD&D Military Tactics becomes part of Knowledge (War). Leadership, Epic Leadership and Legendary Commander confer a bonus to the BFR. I added in some optional tactics such as targeting specific troop types or the mounts of the cavalry. The one thing that I'm still testing is whether or not NPC-classed troops are as effective as PC-classed troops, since under the 3.5 rules hiring a warrior is cheaper than hiring an equal level fighter.
Interesting! I liked how the GRR system made heavy use of the Diplomacy skill. This was particularly interesting when combined with the Allegiance rules which provide bonuses to diplomacy towards those sharing an allegiance. If both troops and commanders have allegiance to Blackmoor rather than being mercenaries, that will give them an edge
Håvard
I've on and off tinkered with converting War Machine to 3.5E and by and large only a few adjustments are needed (and several of mine are tied to our campaign's heavy use of it). The OD&D Military Tactics becomes part of Knowledge (War). Leadership, Epic Leadership and Legendary Commander confer a bonus to the BFR. I added in some optional tactics such as targeting specific troop types or the mounts of the cavalry. The one thing that I'm still testing is whether or not NPC-classed troops are as effective as PC-classed troops, since under the 3.5 rules hiring a warrior is cheaper than hiring an equal level fighter.
Some other good d20 systems for mass combat are Fields of Blood (Eden Studios)and Feast of Crows (Postmortem Studios)
You might also want to take a look at the MyMics rules: http://pandius.com/mymics.html
It's a revision of the War Machine rules. I don't use them myself, except for one thing - I replace the Wis/Int/Cha bonuses in War Machine rules with the Military Tactics and Leadership skills as described in the MyMics rules, because I think that makes more sense - the two skills are added together and then divided by four. Since AD&D proficiencies can never have more than 16 in 2e player option rules (which is what I use IMC), the bonus can never be highter than 8 (16+16=32, 32/4=8), whereas in OD&D, it could be 9 if you had 18s in both Int, Wis, and Cha (yeah, that'll happen...), so it's pretty good. Besides, I don't think a character should be a good warlord just because he happens to have good stats, nor be destined to have it denied to him just because he doesn't. By basing it on proficiencies (which are optional to increase at the player's discretion), the question of the character's ability to lead troops becomes a question of choice rather than chance (of good stats), which suits me much better.
Besides, I don't think a character should be a good warlord just because he happens to have good stats, nor be destined to have it denied to him just because he doesn't.
I do agree with you on this, which is why in my adjustments the Leadership feat tree gives a substantial bonus. You could, in theory, throw in experience level with the stats- a 20th level fighter does not necessarily know the first thing about warfare on a large scale, while a 6th level fighter that has a +13 Knowledge (War) skill and the Leadership feat should be a formidable warlord to face.