One example I would like to mention is the treatment of Immortals. Most information about the Immortals is written from the perspective of the Immortals themselves or the DM. Very little attention is given to what people know/believe of the immortals, religions, how churches are organized etc.
Are there other things that people would have liked to see handled differently?
Havard
Now, I know people will say that this is just due to the terrible AD&D port, but let me hasten to admit that I began playing Mystara under AD&D in the late 80s, precisely because skill-rules and various classes were handled terribly in the gazetteers with no established core to secure game balance.
Plotwise Mystara hangs together well, though. The cultural differences among the nations form the basis of a very exciting campaign. It's not without its problems, however. It's definitely a problem that you have Ylaruam placed just south of the Northern Reaches - it really shouldn't be in that part of the world at all. People have come up with all sorts of reasons why there is a desert kingdom in the Known World (and some of them have been very good), but let's face - it's all a way to rationalize something that really shouldn't be there in the first place.
Personally I find the imperial struggle between Thyatis and Alphatia to be particularly well done, as can be witnessed by the dedication it has inspired in the supporters of either side.
People often comment that they've played Karameikos to death, but I actually think that's a statement of admiration, since it means Karameikos is an interesting place to campaign. The struggle among the merchant houses of Darokin also has potential. What really works for Mystara is that you remove the D&D rules and still have the campaign work perfectly well - you just need to establish rules for wizards and priests, since you need them in there.
Mystara's strength lies in its characterization of the various nations and powerfully written NPCs. King Stefan is fair and just, but rather gullible at times. Emperor Thincol is calculating, but patriotic. Eriadna is sly, but not entirely heartless. The Golden Khan is ruthless, but far from stupid. They all have their conflicts both domestically and internationally, while few or no nations are entirely good (in the paladin sense) or entirely evil (in the complete villain sense). This makes for a campaign, where the player has to evaluate the political situation rather than just cast the various nations and rulers as good or evil and then act on that knowledge. Stefan may be good, yes, but he will still stab Thyatis in the back, when the situation demands it.
Obviously we all love this setting, but I'd like to hear if there are parts of the Mystara setting that people felt was dealt with insufficiently in the existing materials.
IMO, Hule and Alphatia, two large empires that have only limited descriptions, compared to their size (and, in Alphatia's case, given the limited RW parallels).
Also, there are odd imbalances in the power levels of different nations:
1) Glantri, supposed to be the leading magical nation of the KW, has no 36th level wizards, while Alphatia and Thyatis have hundreds
2) Darokin and Karameikos are so weak militarily that the Five Shires (of all nations) could conquer both.
3) Ierendi has so many people in the army or in prison that one wonders where they find workforces to grow food...
IMO, Hule and Alphatia, two large empires that have only limited descriptions, compared to their size (and, in Alphatia's case, given the limited RW parallels).
You mean they're weaknesses of Mystara in their inception or in their lack of description?
Also, there are odd imbalances in the power levels of different nations:
1) Glantri, supposed to be the leading magical nation of the KW, has no 36th level wizards, while Alphatia and Thyatis have hundreds
2) Darokin and Karameikos are so weak militarily that the Five Shires (of all nations) could conquer both.
3) Ierendi has so many people in the army or in prison that one wonders where they find workforces to grow food...
1) Glantri is still a relatively young nations that has only supported wizardry with dedication for a little over a century (the Great School of Magic hasn't even existed for 150 years, for example), whereas Alphatia has built its power on many generations of powerful archmages, while Thyatis has been growing powerful for over a millennium after learning from the silly Alphatians were silly enough to teach them magic... Besides, with the Radiance, Glantri is far more powerful than it might seem. And they do have one wizard who is far superior to any in Alphatia or Thyatis, if we count Etienne...
2) Darokin's army is powerful to say the least, if you look at the War Machine stats in the Darokin gaz. Karameikos is comparatively weak, yes, but then it's a far younger nation than Glantri.
3) True. I never use Ierendi except as a side-attraction, and I get the impression that most other GMs do the same too.
I guess it makes sense for some of these nations, but others really should be a lot bigger for teh culture contained in them to make sense.
1) Glantri is still a relatively young nations that has only supported wizardry with dedication for a little over a century (the Great School of Magic hasn't even existed for 150 years, for example), whereas Alphatia has built its power on many generations of powerful archmages, while Thyatis has been growing powerful for over a millennium after learning from the silly Alphatians were silly enough to teach them magic... Besides, with the Radiance, Glantri is far more powerful than it might seem. And they do have one wizard who is far superior to any in Alphatia or Thyatis, if we count Etienne...
Glantri is not as young as it may seem -- the Flaems at least were magic users since the times of Old Alphatia, and others that have reached Glantri later are supposed to have been among the most powerful spellcasters of their lands, since they were drawn by the Radiance -- which BTW doesn't give all this power. Glantri's power is mostly dependent on a direct Immortal intervention (and in mortal form, Etienne is just another 36th level wizard -- even if we ignore that the gazetteer, IIRC, sets him at 35th level).
If you want an even more striking comparison, consider that Glantri's most powerful wizards are only marginally superior to, say, Ethengar's.
2) Darokin's army is powerful to say the least, if you look at the War Machine stats in the Darokin gaz. Karameikos is comparatively weak, yes, but then it's a far younger nation than Glantri.
Darokin has a large but quite ineffective army: 2000 elite troops, and 23000 not so good troops (on average, they don't seem to have that big an advantage on the Broken Lands hordes) -- weaker than even the weakest Five Shire militia.
BTW, it's quite hard to understand why Darokin has developed pikes, when no neighbouring enemy has significant cavalry forces -- actually, the main opponents of Darokin are orcs, who fight as skirmishers or heavy infantry, exactly the types of units pikemen would find harder to counter.
3) True. I never use Ierendi except as a side-attraction, and I get the impression that most other GMs do the same too.
I like the setting per se, and have played part of a campaign there. It's just that some figures are plainly wrong.
Ethengar - Steppe nomads - in a tiny country.
Ylaruam - for all the reasons already mentioned.
I like both places - particularly Ylaruam - but they just need more space!
Have often wondered what I'd put their instead - and where I'd put Ylaruam and Ethengar.
Perhaps the Ethengai should be an ominous presence to the NW of Everything - then they could still irritate Glantri occassionally, and IIRC, they don't have significant relations with anybody else except Heldann -and they'll fight anybody.
And instead - could expand the broken lands and orc infested areas of Darokin - bring the freeholds down a bit- and / or stick a few more mountains there. Or perhaps just make the a settled grassland / hills area with weaker government and exposed to exploitation from the surrounding areas.
As for Ylarium - maybe I'll keep that as a curiosity
Two places that I've contemplated 'moving' -
Ethengar - Steppe nomads - in a tiny country.
Ylaruam - for all the reasons already mentioned.
I like both places - particularly Ylaruam - but they just need more space!
Have often wondered what I'd put their instead - and where I'd put Ylaruam and Ethengar.
Perhaps the Ethengai should be an ominous presence to the NW of Everything - then they could still irritate Glantri occassionally, and IIRC, they don't have significant relations with anybody else except Heldann -and they'll fight anybody.
And instead - could expand the broken lands and orc infested areas of Darokin - bring the freeholds down a bit- and / or stick a few more mountains there. Or perhaps just make the a settled grassland / hills area with weaker government and exposed to exploitation from the surrounding areas.
Your ideas are similar to mine. Although instead of changing the setting right away, I have decided to build the changes into the timeline. The Ethengars are driven out of their lands by the Heldanners and resettle to the NW as you suggest. The Ylari are occupied by Thyatis just as the Desert Garden project is becoming a reality. Some Ylari emigrate to the Sind Desert in search of a new realm of sand to make their souls pure, while others stay and become corrupted and decandent through the comfortable life brought by the Desert Garden.
I guess I was actually rather going for weaknesses of the actual products more than the setting itself in my initial question, but I guess they are sort of hard to separate
Havard
But it is also impossible to adjust this mistake: maps are there, and we can do nothing about that!
Countrieas are very small, but also countries in Italy in middle age were so small. Florence, Vatican Church State, Neaples, Turin, Mantua... all were indipendent countries, very very small. I feel it is historically acceptable.
What I feel strange is that Alphatia is a 1000s years old magocracy and Glantry has Secret Crafts while Alphatia has none. Alphatia has no true stronger magic, since flying islands, strongholds, ships and towns are not so unique. Every mage could learn a "fabricate" spell or any other typical Alphatian spell.
Once upon a time I used AD&D specialist wizards as only Alphatian magic schools. Only Alphatians could be illusionists, invokers, enchanters, necromancers, wild mages and the like.
But, how is it possible tu use a necromancer class and keep it away from Nithians (both ancient and hollow world ones).
I enjoy so much the "there is no evil guy country" politic. Also Herath and Oenkmar are not totally evil kingdoms. There is not an evil point of view, only a diferent one.
I miss religion informations too: about pantheons, monastic orders (in the Christian monotheistic religion there are lots of monastic orders, why not in a fantasy roleplay religion?).
Back In Nithian days, it was a desert garden. Then between the immortals blasting it and the Alfheim magics taking away teh rain, the local ecology pretty much collapsed. Significantly, it has mountains on all sides to capture the rain. The immortal magic blasting the area also created a heat zone that has only slowly been dispersing. For a long time Soderfjord was also warmner than usual, and Thyatis hot too (and kinda comfy for the Hinterlanders who would emigrate to become the modern Thyatians).
Since then, the immortals haven't been maintaining their devastation, Alfheim's magic has just been ended, and al Qadim has been working on it for the last 200 years. Between all that and natural recovery, it has now reached a state where it is gnerally arid but habitable in the interior, and almost lush in areas where the original river Nithia used to flow and the coastal strip. Basically, a lusher version of the Arabian knights.
This change keeps much of the history intact in a way that makes the then-desert believable, while making the present day situation more reasonable for weather patterns.
Ethengar, I'd just make that an extension of the broken lands, with teh northern third or so being an extension of the Heldannic Freeholds (now knights). Replace the surface with 'nomad' orcs, add tunnels below, and it works better than before. The tunnels explains how they survive in the area where basic Ethengari wouldn't. naturally they are even more divisive than the Ethengari, and the under-steppes provide a fertile food source to allow them the numbers to launch raids.
Perhaps relocate the original Ethengar culture northwest of Glantri, and this time give them the space they need. Those Ylari that really want open desert might well desert to emigrate en masse at some point, which woudl make a nice campaign storyplot. Another interesting plot twist woudl be to have Freeholder rebels make an alliance of convenience with their former foes in the steppes against the knights.
Acanda pointed out that middle age countries were small, and in Europe at least that was true. But European countries also had a huge deal in common with each other. If you compare teh amount of cultural change you'll witness when travelling a set distance in Europe vs in Mystara, Mystara is just crazy in how rapidly cultures change with distance.
otoh, the single biggest plus to me about the setting is that there is no nationa that can be described as 'good' or 'evil'. Just like the real world, it's all shades of grey and people holding grudges for past slights.
For Ylaruam, I think the best way would be to boost the hospitality of the region a bit.
Back In Nithian days, it was a desert garden. Then between the immortals blasting it and the Alfheim magics taking away teh rain, the local ecology pretty much collapsed. Significantly, it has mountains on all sides to capture the rain. The immortal magic blasting the area also created a heat zone that has only slowly been dispersing.
Since I played 2e with player option rules, I added another reason that came straight out of the Player Option: Spells & Magic book, where they describe several systems of how magic works for wizards and priests. One of these is a preserver/defiler system similar to that of the Dark Sun campaign, though obviously there are no defilers on Mystara. But why not? Maybe one reason for the corruption of the Nithians was that Thanatos and Ranivorus taught them to use defiling magic and thereby destroyed nature around them, and to prevent that knowledge from spreading, thereby turning Mystara into a desolate planet, the Immortals destroyed the Nithian culture totally, which would leave Ylaruam desolate and arid. The Immortals kept it that way in order to keep the corrupted knowledge hidden, and Alfheim then "stole" the groundwater, so that nothing new could grow in Ylaruam.
What I feel strange is that Alphatia is a 1000s years old magocracy and Glantry has Secret Crafts while Alphatia has none. Alphatia has no true stronger magic, since flying islands, strongholds, ships and towns are not so unique. Every mage could learn a "fabricate" spell or any other typical Alphatian spell.
Once upon a time I used AD&D specialist wizards as only Alphatian magic schools. Only Alphatians could be illusionists, invokers, enchanters, necromancers, wild mages and the like.
You're right about the secret crafts, and other people have thought so before too. The simple truth is that Alphatia has never been an adequate description that would reveal the deeper points of their magical prowess. IIRC, Allston also intended for Alphatian wizards to be able to wield rapiers and other fencing weapons and introduce dueling rules for their use, only it never made it into the DotE gaz set.
But for the crafts, several people have done specific secret circles that may be found on the Vaults of Pandius. Personally I've long considered making all the Glantrian circles available to the Alphatians IMC and even adding a few on top of those, since it didn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to me. I mean, what makes the known crafts nesessarily restricted to Glantri? Not much that I can see... And I thought about adding other crafts, one would be an artificer, in addition to those already described for Glantri. Still, I never quite got around to it, because it was never relevant enough for my campaign.
You're right about the secret crafts, and other people have thought so before too. The simple truth is that Alphatia has never been an adequate description that would reveal the deeper points of their magical prowess. IIRC, Allston also intended for Alphatian wizards to be able to wield rapiers and other fencing weapons and introduce dueling rules for their use, only it never made it into the DotE gaz set.
Really? I had never heard of this. Does it really seem appropriate for Alphatians to be the fencer types though? I would have thought such rules would have fit better for Darokin or the Belcadiz of Glantri?
But for the crafts, several people have done specific secret circles that may be found on the Vaults of Pandius. Personally I've long considered making all the Glantrian circles available to the Alphatians IMC and even adding a few on top of those, since it didn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to me. I mean, what makes the known crafts nesessarily restricted to Glantri? Not much that I can see... And I thought about adding other crafts, one would be an artificer, in addition to those already described for Glantri. Still, I never quite got around to it, because it was never relevant enough for my campaign.
This makes sense, though it does make Glantri a little less unique.
Havard
Really? I had never heard of this. Does it really seem appropriate for Alphatians to be the fencer types though? I would have thought such rules would have fit better for Darokin or the Belcadiz of Glantri?
Havard
I had never heard that, but it does oddly fit with how I have occassionally envisioned Alphatia. For some reason I always pictured Alphatia as the Mystara equivalent to France under Louis XIVth, which would have had the musketeers (we even used a plan of Versailles for the Eriadne's palace). It would have made an interesting counterbalance to the Glantrian crafts, not to mention put a big wrinkle in what magic-users should be allowed to do.
But, the Savage Coast setting is a spanish one, with smokepowder and firearms. It seems appropriate...
Smokepowder? Firearms?
I never liked to adjust secret crafts to Alphatia, as they are somehow Radinace-linked, evolved becouse of the power of the Nucleus. So they are inappropriate to outside Glantri (in my Mystara, of course!).
But... maybe Alphatians developed smokepowder... that's interesting! A magical recipie, of course. But... wow, very strong!
I must develop this idea in my campaign.
And no sword wielding mages, but musketeering wizards... that's a nice idea!
But... maybe Alphatians developed smokepowder... that's interesting! A magical recipie, of course. But... wow, very strong!
I must develop this idea in my campaign.
And no sword wielding mages, but musketeering wizards... that's a nice idea!
I think it would be more appropriate for Alphatian Musketeers to vield magic missile wands rather than muskets. Still, its a cool image.
OTOH, Alphatia as presented in the gaz seems much more like ancient babylonians dont they?
Havard
OTOH, Alphatia as presented in the gaz seems much more like ancient babylonians dont they?
Havard
It's been a long time since I've read the Alphatian parts of DotE, so it's possible. However, most Mystaran links to real-world cultures tend to hit you over the head and I think if they were based on the Babylonians I'd remember that. The spells in the book don't seem to specifically tie into the idea of Babylonia, while at least one, Sleep-Curse, is a direct link to the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty. One thing to keep in mind to is the size of Alphatia- so many kingdoms, it would be possible to flavor them differently and Bellisaria may be very different culturally than some of the others.
It's been a long time since I've read the Alphatian parts of DotE, so it's possible. However, most Mystaran links to real-world cultures tend to hit you over the head and I think if they were based on the Babylonians I'd remember that. The spells in the book don't seem to specifically tie into the idea of Babylonia, while at least one, Sleep-Curse, is a direct link to the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty. One thing to keep in mind to is the size of Alphatia- so many kingdoms, it would be possible to flavor them differently and Bellisaria may be very different culturally than some of the others.
Not really sure if I can point out any specific things that cave me that impression. But since it is so vague there certainly is room for more inspirations. And you are right, it is a huge empire. I would have liked to see each part with a more distinct flavour. Too bad there wasnt room or money enough for that.
Havard
My criticisms are:
Gaz1: no master level adventure suggestions (really, really small complaint)
Gaz2: no NPC write up for anyone outside of the village of Kirkuk. Just who are the Sultan and his emirs? [I know - this was to make the gaz playable in three different time lines, but still
) No listing of military unitsGaz3: no example of cultural names (really, really small complaint), no explanation for the origins of the Belcadiz elves, no explanation for why Jherek's people were run out of Ethengar. Which ethnic group was responsible for the no clerics rule? (I always felt the Averoignians were the most appropriate candidates - not wanting new witch hunts, and yes I know GKoM later talked about this)
Gaz4: did not take itself sufficiently serious. Several adventure seeds, but no overall campaign concept (lots of potential was there: pirates, Fire Queen (makai legend) and the Fire Wizards, lizardmen, Followers of Al-Kalim), undetailed map (see Trail Map1)
Gaz5: XP progression for Treekeeper should have gone to level 26, drow on the cover, lack of overall campaign concept,
Gaz6: no progressions beyond 12th, adventure deficiencies
Gaz7: wise woman rules (good) but no berserker/barbarian/reaver class. History of Ostland development completely independent of its closest neighbor - the Isle of Dawn, the godar specialty priests started a trend of just giving bonuses on top of the cleric class (2ndADD had perhaps the best rules for balancing this out), lack of accounting for racial migrations/creation (the hill gnolls)
Gaz8: hin master and denial too powerful, aside from the Black Eagle not much adventuring opportunity - the start of places to be from but not go to
Gaz9: No breakdown of cultural names and clans/families. Nithian/not-Nithian confusion on the history of humans in the region. Did not provide a cause for why the Alphatian newcomers joined the native elves rather than proclaiming the islands as part of the Alphatian Empire (Treaty of Edairo is a good cop-out). No clear adventuring opportunities within the islands. Undetailed map (see Trail Map 1-2)
Gaz10: too humerous at times. Did a bad thing in forcing humanoid PCs to start or go through "Normal Monster" before gaining a class level. This should have been handled as with humans/demihumans: NPC's are "0-level" but PC's start at 1st (or a youth stage for the big guys).
Gaz 11: a jumbled history (producing gads of fan-based explanations and conjectures), no reason why Selenica would join the rest (seems like a good candidate for city-state), no reason for Darokin's claim to the orclands, complete omission of why Darokin and Hule might one day come into conflict (X4-5 predating the Gaz's), minimal adventuring opportunities, no description of the scope and range of the DDC's activities
Gaz 12: didn't include the Ghost of Lion Castle in its development (micro complaint), did not give a place of origin for the proto-Ethengar stock (again, fan-theories galore), large missing chunk of history between the second war of succession and the rise of the current Golden Khan. (Text mentions many great khans and succession wars - attempts to take Heldann, Darokin and Glantri perhaps?), no explanation for the hatred of the Glantrians [I rate this gaz among my personal top 4]
Gaz 13: PC names list would have been nice; timeline mixups with information from Gaz5/10 which cascade throughout the HW line [One of my top 4, beautiful cover art]; I can't blame Gaz13 for the HW introduction since the product line was already on its way.
Gaz 14: worst of the worst: ill placed tribes (pacific NW inspired tribes on a mediteranean sea coast), lack of RW grounding of Tiger clan; gross misuse of repeated graphic elements to hide a lack of text material, some of the worst Immortal elevations ever (Atruaghin's drinking buddy, his girlfriend); no names listings, no cultural tie in with Sind or Darokin; no use of the DDC throwaway line about a conflict with Glantri (fans again fill in possibilities), stealing the halfling revolutionary thunder by claiming the hin were inspired by the Atruaghins; NO adventures - not one; dearth of NPC's. The zenith (or nadir depending on you point of view) of places to be from but not go to.
Dawn of the Emperors: too large a scope to be handled properly. Thyatis was mostly done okay, but for the improved rake, names, and armies you have to get the DDA1-2 modules. 250 MU36 living in dotage on an island to "balance" Thyatian might with Alphatia (so why don't they take over Thyatis? or at least ask for a bigger pension?) No explanation for why Thyatis took so long to go after Traladaran lands when they had no problems trying to hold the islands (I favor a Vyalia elf treaty myself).
Alphatian culture completely untouched on aside from "if you can't cast you're nobody." Alphatian expansion completely glossed over (you can get a picture of gradual expansion by reading some of the kingdom write-ups), not all Alphatian kingdoms are written up. Why are there massive walls between certain kingdoms? There was little that made Alphatian magic unique - you get a series of *-form spells and some shared rules about flying vessels/combat. What does one get at the various places of higher learning? The 1000 MU36 council (with many more in the waiting wings) - true this is from CM1, but it still is a large number (i prefer the suggestion that its 1000 indivs able to cast 9th level - and if clerics can be kings, can they sit on the council?)
Bellisaria was completely devoid of concept - who wants a sleepy continent? And britons and picts in an equatorial jungle -
The return of Thanatos: The big Th was first mentioned in Gaz2 as having fallen and been destroyed with Nithia. Gaz6 tells us that part of dwarven lore is that Kagyar built them in preparation for the day that Thanatos ever returned. But DoE just throws him in the Thyatian pantheon (as a bad guy) and doesn't blink an eye. This marked the beginning of the random marble bags of Immortals approach to faiths. And why would Thyatians outlaw the worship of Alphaks? Sure we (players, DMs) know he's an Entropic, but someone dedicated to the destruction of Alphatia could very easily see Alphaks in a "good" light for this purpose. After all, Farbautides (Loki) is legal.
Were I heading up the product line I would have done Gaz 13 All Roads Lead to Thyatis, Gaz 14 The Majesty of Alphatia with Isle of Dawn its own boxed set. Ochalea, Pearl Islands, the Alatians, and Bellisaria et al as later supplements.
The Hollow World: I am fully in the camp that says the HW is what led to the eventual demise of Mystara.
The cardinal sins, as I see it, are that 1) it tore away attention from the surface world which still had continents left to explore, 2) created a world that has horrific physics-ecology (gravity like electricity has zero potential inside a hollow sphere; all local gravity is centrifugal or a "push" from the polar openings), (continuous noon sun light would drive animals and humans crazy, prevent the creation of seasons or even latitudinal climate changes), 3) violated the central tenet that the Immortals were off doing their own thing and not concerning themselves with mortal matters, 4) simultaneously had too many and too few Immortals (that's a neat trick) leading to Immortals being patrons to groups they either had no connection to or would have been hostile to (Why would the Traladaran Three ever be affiliated with the Milenians? The latter never knew of the former save as rabble rousers prior to leaving for the south, the former would have thought the latter the progeny of cowards and traitors who abandoned their home during its greatest need.), 5) turned the Immortals into a bunch of mama's boys who freaked anytime a village faced a fight, 6) Violated its own internal logic (The Spell of Preservation) so as to make Azcans worship Atzanteotl (just because the use of sacrifice is already present doesn't mean a new patron can just appear in the pantheon). and 7) Nithia was returned from the dead. If they did something so bad as to warrant the eradication of not just their existence but the memory of their existence, then you are not going to take a chance by relocating THE CAPITAL CITY to the preserve. Also the sin of Nithia began to be dumbed down towards simply "not properly honoring the Immortals".
There are several other lesser ills with the product: 1) naming conventions were atomized to "choose X syllables from this list", 2) cultural biases/special abilities were not fully balanced out, 3) more elves than you can shake a stick at, 4) lands of control far out of proportion to what was achievable on the outside world, and 5) a not fully cohesive meta-history.
Again were I product manager, HW would never have seen the light of the Red Sun. I would have taken the cultures and used them on Davania, Skothar or the far wilds of Brun with better cultural development. The only true remnant of Nithia would be Thothia.
HWR1 Azcans: use of a 40mph scale map, history hiccups, but otherwise a decent product, my dislike of HW not withstanding. Would have been fine on the Jungle Coast
HWR2 Nithia: The first "Oriental Adventures"-like revisioning of all the core classes as a whole to fit the mileu was pretty good. The history gave little info on Nithia before the fall. Pyramid magic was far too common and accessible, turning the empire into AC11 writ-large. Specialty priests becoming too powerful relative to standard clerics.
HWR3 Milenia: Failed to address the most important question: how does a sea-borne RW Greek culture inspire a land-locked ocean-fearing empire? Vanya's go as Matera (?) is another violation of the Spell of Preservation [the appropriate fix is that she started doing this before the OW fall]
HWQ1 Milenian Scepter: once again, violation of the Spell of Preservation to introduce a new disguised Immortal
PC1: limited number of adventures; not clearly thought out about race balance (treant in particular), this problem propogates down the line with rediculous XP requirements for even first level or Whelp to Youth.
PC2: humourous elements were too plentiful. XP progression balances (nagpa and sphinx in particular), again limited adventuring concepts. Historical timing of Serraine creates issues regarding the gnomish extermination and the fact that nobody seems to notice a flying city for a millenium. [My personal fix is that the city took off on its own and led the residents to the far west for a few centuries until they could control it enough to come home to the KW]
PC3: again XP progression problems and limited adventuring concepts, although a larger campaign concept is hinted at (devilfish invasion). Map was done without regard to the map in X7 War Rafts of Kron, and the maps inside the booklet at odds with the 8mph map.
PC4: despite humorous drawings, a fairly serious Gaz quality product. Contained an outline for future events (some WOTI related) and campaign concept. XP balance better, but still problems with the no HD level - the holdover from Gaz10. Some game balance problems when man-wolf (et al) forms become available, allowing best of both stats. Best of the PCs and probably 5th in the whole Gaz/HWR/PC line
WOTI: The injunctions about Immortal non-interference are completely shattered, as the Immortals take center stage. From this product onward, all gameworld developments seem to be directly initiated by the Immortals. Mortal characters are an afterthought. This product also deviated greatly from its predecessor in handling the outerplanes, dimensions, other creatures, etc. [Omitted was perhaps the most unique game creature ever written - the tonal] Thought provocation replaced by high/low society intrigue among the Immortals. Restoration of Thanatos as just one of the boys (textbook case on how to completely neuter a game's ULTIMATE EVIL - with the preceding HWA1-3 the true lowpoint by having low level mortals outwit, outlast, and outsurvive the big Th). The Special Abilities mechanic was the right idea, but the boosts came too few between, were of limited choices, and those choices were of mediocre value. Like its predecessor, it fails to develop anything "Time" related (how can an artifact send candidates through time, when the only time-spells on record for mortal and Immortal alike are haste/slow and timestop?) Like all other worlds that evolve (DL, FR, Battletech), forcing in a world-altering series of events produced ripples among fans and their campaign worlds.
HWA1: Once more, the Broken Lands are the secret nexus to all points in time and space
Thanatos manages to trick the entire population of Immortals into going back in time.HWA2: can't remember the specifics of this part of the trilogy aside from taking part in Nithia.
HWA3: in the history of Shadjapur, we see the perfection of Immortal scaredy-cat-ness by relocating HALF of the nation of Sind when shapechangers start flexing their muscle. Also low to middling mortals beat Thanatos.
PWA AC1010: as an encyclopedia, it was decent, but it continued WOTI's problem of overly-controlling the course of history in the world.
PWA AC1011: A different map and one or two entries are all that make this book any different than AC1010. Another year of events.
PWA AC1012: Same as AC1011 but now with the poor 2nd Edition-translation confusion.
JA (AC1013): as an encyclopedia, JA failed to provide much information, truncated the world to just the KW, had an annoying correspondent-presentation style (I may be in the minority on this point), the map artwork was of questionable quality, the layout was weak and probably used as in Gaz14 to hide a lack of content.
Voyage of the Princess Ark (dare I go here
): The one thing that sticks out in my memory was the timeline for Varellya didn't jive with PC2's appearance of nagpas. I wish in later episodes, that hex-maps for areas of Davania had been made available. If races could be statted 1-2 issues later why not maps? Some of the pantheons at the end were debatable [There that wasn't so bad was it]Known World Grimoire: I missed most of these, originally figuring them to be Q&A columns and moving on to other pursuits. I've always wanted to read about the articles on the Arm of the Immortals and the original Minean information.
CoM: The log book was unnecessary if you had the original VOPA issues, and the specific entries had nothing to do with the countries included in the box. The "how to build your game world" booklet was nice but not very ... Mystara. The rules on flight and building were mostly redundant from other sources. The gazetteer entries were satisfactory if not dazzling. There were no new classes or character rules additions like we had come to expect (no Yavi seer or Sindhi thugee). [Okay gnolls acting like elves] Campaign issues included why the northern grasslands and the serpent peninsula were the "Outer Reaches" of Yavdlom rather than unclaimed wilderness. Also, given the massive hunger in Sind, why did the nation never say "there's food in the southern Atruaghin forest and in Darokin and we badly need it." and then march to war?
Red Steel: I rather liked the 2nd edition version of the Curse, but was not keen on the AC 1010 start date. The move away from hex-maps was disappointing, but that's the way the "big-boys"
did their maps at the time. Missing was a strong campaign arc but it did have a solid campaign goal (removal of the Curse). I think Red Steel was the best representation of how the kit system was meant to work. Oltec history could have been better fleshed out.Savage Baronies: The benefits of this supplement is debatable. The nations are covered a little more in depth, but not greatly so. Improved information on the goblinoids is a plus. The idea of Oltec idol artifacts were promising but more was needed.
Savage Coast Online PDF and Orc's Head Supplement: its free, and its everything in the above two products minus the music CDs plus some other stuff. Bad: the chameleon men lost their chameleon women
and their hair.Hhmm. did I miss any products aside from KKoA and GKoM?
OldDawg
"It's AC1000, and the Hollow World doesn't exist"
On the Alphatia balance - I've always though they were much more powerful than Thyatis - 1000 MU36 - but that they were basically Wizard's from another world/ dimension - and therefore expandned only as problems presented themeselves - uniting against a perceived threat, and other than that doing Wizard stuff - like building floating continents, and walls that exist for no discernable reason.
So what would happen if 'we' said:
"It's AC1000, and the Hollow World doesn't exist"
On the Alphatia balance - I've always though they were much more powerful than Thyatis - 1000 MU36 - but that they were basically Wizard's from another world/ dimension - and therefore expandned only as problems presented themeselves - uniting against a perceived threat, and other than that doing Wizard stuff - like building floating continents, and walls that exist for no discernable reason.
Well, the Hollow World can be thrown in the garbage without affecting the AC 1000 status quo at all.
I rather like the idea of the Alphatian council being 1000 people who can cast 9th level spells, as the given population levels of Alphatia seem too low to me for there to be 1000 actual 36th level wizards in Alphatia.
I rather like the idea of the Alphatian council being 1000 people who can cast 9th level spells, as the given population levels of Alphatia seem too low to me for there to be 1000 actual 36th level wizards in Alphatia.
The problem with that is that it changes the setting, since canon sources says precisely that is a council of 1000 magic-users of level 36. Besides, although that may seem fairly high given the population, keep in mind that Alphatia is based on wizardry and actually go out of their way to train anyone who has the potential to be a wizard, meaning that the wizards per population ratio is likely to be higher than in other nations (except Glantri perhaps). DotE even says that the Alphatians struggle with the fact that only about 1 in 5 Alphatians has the potential to be wizard, which suggests to me that at least 20% of the population will be wizards.
since canon sources says precisely that is a council of 1000 magic-users of level 36.
I'm probably mis-remembering but I thought that DotE stated that there were at least 1000 magic-users of 36th level (or around level 23 in 3e). Of curse, that just makes the problem worst. ;)
Regards
Gary
I'm probably mis-remembering but I thought that DotE stated that there were at least 1000 magic-users of 36th level (or around level 23 in 3e). Of curse, that just makes the problem worst. ;)
Regards
Gary
It says that there are probably more than 1000 wizards of level 36 in Alphatia (in fact, we know that since Eriadna is also level 36 and cannot be on the council, being the empress), but only a thousand members may be on the council. So it's not as if being wizard 36 guarantees you a seat, it merely makes you eligible to pursue one. And we know that Tylion was eligible for years without being offered a seat, because the council still blamed him for his failed war with Thyatis in AC 959 (the relevant passage may be found on p. 6 of DotE's book 3)
EDIT: Why would OD&D level 36 correspond to level 23 in 3e? You need far more xp to advance in levels in OD&D than you do in 3e... I mean, an OD&D magic-user needs 1,950,000 xp to reach level 20, whereas the 3.x wizard needs a mere 190,000 to take the same level...
It says that there are probably more than 1000 wizards of level 36 in Alphatia (in fact, we know that since Eriadna is also level 36 and cannot be on the council, being the empress), but only a thousand members may be on the council. So it's not as if being wizard 36 guarantees you a seat, it merely makes you eligible to pursue one. And we know that Tylion was eligible for years without being offered a seat, because the council still blamed him for his failed war with Thyatis in AC 959 (the relevant passage may be found on p. 6 of DotE's book 3)
Cheers, I thought there was something about over 1000 magic-users, thanks for the reference.
EDIT: Why would OD&D level 36 correspond to level 23 in 3e? You need far more xp to advance in levels in OD&D than you do in 3e... I mean, an OD&D magic-user needs 1,950,000 xp to reach level 20, whereas the 3.x wizard needs a mere 190,000 to take the same level...
There are a number of ways to convert from OD&D to 3e (or 2e) around. I think Cthulhudrew has one. They are all based on converting levels not XP. For example, IIRC one method is to have a 1:1 level conversion to level 14 and then a 3:1 after that. So a 12th level OD&D fighter would remain a 12th level 3e fighter, but a 23rd level OD&D fighter would become a 17th (14 + (23 - 14) / 3) level 3e fighter.
If you did a conversion based directly on XP, I would hate to see what level 1,950,000 XP would convert to in 3e.
OK I've been a little sad and worked it out (or rather Excel did) 1,950,000 XP would leave you 3,000 XP short of 63rd level.
Regards
Gary
EDIT: Why would OD&D level 36 correspond to level 23 in 3e? You need far more xp to advance in levels in OD&D than you do in 3e... I mean, an OD&D magic-user needs 1,950,000 xp to reach level 20, whereas the 3.x wizard needs a mere 190,000 to take the same level...
But what gives you XP has also changed. In previous systems, a creature gave a set amount of XP, regardless of its strength in relation to you. In 3.5E, XP gained is based on relative strength- if your a 15th level character and kill a 5 HD cat you get a whopping 1 XP, but you will get a significant amount from killing a 30HD dragon. A 5th level character killing a 5 HD cat will receive a decent amount of XP for the effort. You also do not gain any XP from treasure in 3.5. Magic Item creation and some spells require you to sacrifice XP in addition to materials and costs. Comparing XP requirements between the systems is worse than comparing apples to oranges
The second option is using the same formula from the 0e-2e conversion (IIRC) 1:1 up to 14th, then 3:1 after that. Which would lead to very few Epics (you'd have to be 34-36 would equal 21st level).
There are tons of other suggestions available, but one I've been seriously considering is a 2:3 ratio up till Master level, when it becomes 1:1.
It has the advantage of giving converted characters (and NPCs) a boost in level to keep them competitive in with similar NPCs of other settings. 6th level would equate to Name level--being the level where the character may take the Leadership feat. And paladins, who get their spells at 4th level, would have a reasonably pomparable spell ability to classic "PrC" style paladins from a 1:1 conversion.
Also, this ratio will speed up level progression for characters who are used to getting XP for each GP they earn.
And lastly, when characters finally get to Master/Epic level, their progression slows down as they meet the cosmic challenges that face them in their quests for immortality (because, let's face it, ALL pc's want to be gods
!)Thoughts?
Roger
The second option is using the same formula from the 0e-2e conversion (IIRC) 1:1 up to 14th, then 3:1 after that. Which would lead to very few Epics (you'd have to be 34-36 would equal 21st level).
Which is about as pathetic as the OD&D-to-2e conversion we saw in the AD&D Mystara, where all the 36th level wizards of Alphatia were reduced to level 20, while Jaggar von Drachenfels (previously level 30 in both Gaz 30 and PWA1) suddenly became Invoker 24 in G:KoM. Nothing ever prevented levels above 20 in AD&D (and indeed, FR already had those, as did the Complete Wizard's Handbook up to level 35, and subsequently up to level 30 in DM Option: High Level Campaigns). Pretty unfair. And it still would be in 3e, where Elminster's stats in the FR book amounts to Fighter1/Rogue2/Cleric3/Wizard20/Archmage5/Epic4, a total of 35 levels. What, the members of the grand council are to be less powerful just because they're from Mystara? It's this sort of conversion thing (which I'm certain someone would embrace if they ever converted Mystara to 3.Xe) that makes me reject any idea of updated Mystara stats.
I may play AD&D myself, but I do ignore the official conversions 2e Mystara stats and convert them myself like this: I keep levels the same up to 24, and the 1:2 per level after that, which turns a level 36 character into a level 30 character, which is the maximum level under the DM Option: High Level Campaigns rules). For 3.Xe, I'd be inclined to keep the levels as is, however, and just assign levels of archmage, loremaster, epic, and whatever else might be relevant beyond wizard 20 (assuming I'd play 3.Xe, which is unlikely now).
But what gives you XP has also changed. In previous systems, a creature gave a set amount of XP, regardless of its strength in relation to you. In 3.5E, XP gained is based on relative strength- if your a 15th level character and kill a 5 HD cat you get a whopping 1 XP, but you will get a significant amount from killing a 30HD dragon. A 5th level character killing a 5 HD cat will receive a decent amount of XP for the effort. You also do not gain any XP from treasure in 3.5. Magic Item creation and some spells require you to sacrifice XP in addition to materials and costs. Comparing XP requirements between the systems is worse than comparing apples to oranges
So what? 2e rules actually state that if there is no real challenge (such as a 15th level fighter fighting a regular orc), then there is no xp, though I'll admit that many GMs forget this. Even so, with the amount of xp you need for higher levels in both OD&D and AD&D, the measely xp you can get for killing even 10 orcs is going to be so astronomically small that you can basically ignore it. The 3e way of scaling it just sounds like a way to make things unnecessarily complex for the GM for little or no reason at all...
Anyway, even if you think it matters a lot, you cannot ignore that OD&D level 36 is the ultimate level - you cannot go higher no matter how many xp you get. The only way to progress after that is to become Immortal. And characters like Tylion, Thincol, Mylertendal or Demetrion have been at level 36 for decades, so it's not as if they just haven't progressed any further.
So what? 2e rules actually state that if there is no real challenge (such as a 15th level fighter fighting a regular orc), then there is no xp, though I'll admit that many GMs forget this. Even so, with the amount of xp you need for higher levels in both OD&D and AD&D, the measely xp you can get for killing even 10 orcs is going to be so astronomically small that you can basically ignore it. The 3e way of scaling it just sounds like a way to make things unnecessarily complex for the GM for little or no reason at all...
Anyway, even if you think it matters a lot, you cannot ignore that OD&D level 36 is the ultimate level - you cannot go higher no matter how many xp you get. The only way to progress after that is to become Immortal. And characters like Tylion, Thincol, Mylertendal or Demetrion have been at level 36 for decades, so it's not as if they just haven't progressed any further.
Sure those ten orcs alone don't give you a ton of XP related to your level. But they do give you treasure, which gives you XP. And that adds up. It takes our characters about the same amount of game time to level in 3.5E as it did under OD&D. If anything it is slightly slower.
It obvious you think AD&D 2e is the best thing since sliced bread, and have no interest in a 3.5e conversion. I'm fine with that. I happen to think AD&D 2e was an abomination and can't stand it at all. I played under OD&D rules until recently. I find that 3.5e works well for our group and campaign, and most importantly, its fun to play. I'm more than happy to help people understand how things work in 3.5e who are interested, but I'm not interested in debating which system is best and I have no interest in converting anyone to 3.5e. Level conversions to 3.5e really don't affect you (since you are diehard AD&D 2e), so I'm not sure why it seems to matter to you.
Sure those ten orcs alone don't give you a ton of XP related to your level. But they do give you treasure, which gives you XP. And that adds up. It takes our characters about the same amount of game time to level in 3.5E as it did under OD&D. If anything it is slightly slower.
The only decent treasure you get from orc encounters are lair treasures, which means a rather larger number of orcs than 10 random orcs, from which you can get only money and possibly a few measely potions, none of which amounts to a lot of xp. Of course, that's standard 2e, which I don't follow - as a GM I've never given xp for treasure (long before anyone ever heard of 3e), since - what? - getting the treasure isn't reward enough?
It obvious you think AD&D 2e is the best thing since sliced bread, and have no interest in a 3.5e conversion.
Actually no, 2e is a pretty crummy RPG too, and I've never said it was particularly good. I have said in the past that I looked forward to 3e, but it was never enough of an improvement to ever warrant purchase. But naturally that still doesn't mean that 2e isn't still a very bad system - I'm just more familiar with it and see no reason to invest in 3e, particularly not when WOTC keeps rewriting the rules every few years (meaning there is no lasting consistency, whereas 2e remained pretty firm for over a decade). In fact, I told my players the other day that while I'm not tired of Mystara at all, I am very tired of (A)D&D and want to stop playing it. GURPS or WW's storyteller systems are both far better and more elegant RPGs. I've stuck with AD&D only for nostalgia and familiarity, but it's definitely not a good or elegant RPG system. 3.Xe may be marginally better, but given that it's about a decade and a half younger than 2e, its level of quality was pretty disappointing.
Thats only mostly true. Just as OD&D elfs, dwarfs, and Halflings could gain any more "levels", your charater could still get better even after level 36. There was some rule for every x amount of exp over your max level were you still got skills and levels of weapon mastery. That should be considered if your converteing to 3e. Granted, it has a massive amount, but you still gained. And your exp would determain how strong you were if you gained immortality. At least be the set 5 rules.
Actually no, 2e is a pretty crummy RPG too, and I've never said it was particularly good. I have said in the past that I looked forward to 3e, but it was never enough of an improvement to ever warrant purchase. But naturally that still doesn't mean that 2e isn't still a very bad system - I'm just more familiar with it and see no reason to invest in 3e, particularly not when WOTC keeps rewriting the rules every few years (meaning there is no lasting consistency, whereas 2e remained pretty firm for over a decade). In fact, I told my players the other day that while I'm not tired of Mystara at all, I am very tired of (A)D&D and want to stop playing it. GURPS or WW's storyteller systems are both far better and more elegant RPGs. I've stuck with AD&D only for nostalgia and familiarity, but it's definitely not a good or elegant RPG system. 3.Xe may be marginally better, but given that it's about a decade and a half younger than 2e, its level of quality was pretty disappointing.
My advice is, if you are happy with the rules system you are playing with, then dont change. If you want a break from level/classed-based systems, GURPS or Storyteller (especuially the new WoD version) are good alternatives. Although they do not do the heroic adventure very well IMO. This is my reason for abandoning GURPS after a while. That and the fact that it is extremely rules heavy. Whatever you decide, experimenting with different systems with Mystara really made me think about what were the fundamentals of the setting and which things I would just throw away as I changed systems. It was a really interesting experience, well recommended, even if I am now back with D&D (3E)
Sorry about the side track off topic.
Havard
Anyway, even if you think it matters a lot, you cannot ignore that OD&D level 36 is the ultimate level - you cannot go higher no matter how many xp you get. The only way to progress after that is to become Immortal. And characters like Tylion, Thincol, Mylertendal or Demetrion have been at level 36 for decades, so it's not as if they just haven't progressed any further.
Thats only mostly true. Just as OD&D elfs, dwarfs, and Halflings could gain any more "levels", your charater could still get better even after level 36. There was some rule for every x amount of exp over your max level were you still got skills and levels of weapon mastery. That should be considered if your converteing to 3e. Granted, it has a massive amount, but you still gained. And your exp would determain how strong you were if you gained immortality. At least be the set 5 rules.
That's not a relevant comparison, given that demihumans have level limits in OD&D (elves at 10, halflings at 8, dwarves at 12). Those "above the max level" awards are there only to compensate demihumans for their low level limits, and they do not apply to humans at all - a human can earn as many xp as they want upon reaching level 36, it will never yield any bonus except as part of the quest for immortality.
Gaz4: did not take itself sufficiently serious. Several adventure seeds, but no overall campaign concept (lots of potential was there: pirates, Fire Queen (makai legend) and the Fire Wizards, lizardmen, Followers of Al-Kalim), undetailed map (see Trail Map1)
I think the overall concept was the vacation thing. Which was the problem. If the pirate theme or any of the other parts had been given more of a focus I would have liked this one much better.
Gaz5: XP progression for Treekeeper should have gone to level 26, drow on the cover, lack of overall campaign concept,
This is possibly my favorite gaz, but I will agree with these points of criticism. Level 26?
Gaz7: wise woman rules (good) but no berserker/barbarian/reaver class. History of Ostland development completely independent of its closest neighbor - the Isle of Dawn, the godar specialty priests started a trend of just giving bonuses on top of the cleric class (2ndADD had perhaps the best rules for balancing this out), lack of accounting for racial migrations/creation (the hill gnolls)
I know, it is really strange that there is no berserker class.
Dawn of the Emperors:
The return of Thanatos: The big Th was first mentioned in Gaz2 as having fallen and been destroyed with Nithia. Gaz6 tells us that part of dwarven lore is that Kagyar built them in preparation for the day that Thanatos ever returned. But DoE just throws him in the Thyatian pantheon (as a bad guy) and doesn't blink an eye.
I had never noticed this part. I wish they had done something more out of this plotline, since it is so fascinating. Maybe Thanatos was simply driven away when Nithia was destroyed, while his accomplice Arik was imprisoned. I am still unsure exactly what they did that drove the Nithians to such an Entropic worshipping place that they would have to be detroyed, but it seems clear that they must have overstepped their bounds somehow. Perhaps the return of Thanatos could be the storyline from the HWA trilogy, which again ends with his escape. I agree with your criticism of that trilogy though, but this could be part of a fix...
This marked the beginning of the random marble bags of Immortals approach to faiths. And why would Thyatians outlaw the worship of Alphaks? Sure we (players, DMs) know he's an Entropic, but someone dedicated to the destruction of Alphatia could very easily see Alphaks in a "good" light for this purpose. After all, Farbautides (Loki) is legal.
Were I heading up the product line I would have done Gaz 13 All Roads Lead to Thyatis, Gaz 14 The Majesty of Alphatia with Isle of Dawn its own boxed set. Ochalea, Pearl Islands, the Alatians, and Bellisaria et al as later supplements.
Still not too late for you to do those gaz'es is it? ;)
I liked James Mishlers idea of Alphaks being worshipped as Arik in Thyatis as a sort of sub cult to the Vanya cult, bringing out the darker sides of the Hattians...
Hhmm. did I miss any products aside from KKoA and GKoM?
What about the Player's and GM's Kits? Hmmmm... nevermind :P
Havard
My advice is, if you are happy with the rules system you are playing with, then dont change.
The problem is that I'm not happy with the system, and I'm fed up trying to patch it together. It's just easier to throw D&D out completely and embrace something else that is better designed at the core.
If you want a break from level/classed-based systems, GURPS or Storyteller (especuially the new WoD version) are good alternatives. Although they do not do the heroic adventure very well IMO.
The "heroic" element is a big part of the problem for me. Oh, it's that the PCs want to be daring and heroic, but it's just ludicrous how a level 17 fighter can slash his way through hundreds of orcs by himself without breaking a sweat, and this is actually worse than ever in 3e. I honestly once had a fighter down to about 10 hp or so, who decided to take on 25+ goblins alone (at a time when it wasn't at all necessary for him), simply because he had good AC and knew goblins have terrible attack rolls. He died from his presumptions, of course, but only because I bent the rules in the goblins' favor. Call it cheating if you like, but I refuse to reward basic stupidity and arrogance as a GM, and D&D tends to do so. Situations like that kill the fun, and several of my players feel the same way about it... The real problem will be doing Mystara's magic, which is very closely tied to D&D, but then I hate that system anyway - there are just way, way too many spells, particularly in AD&D. I have both the Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendii, but, I mean, seriously...
I honestly once had a fighter down to about 10 hp or so, who decided to take on 25+ goblins alone (at a time when it wasn't at all necessary for him), simply because he had good AC and knew goblins have terrible attack rolls. He died from his presumptions, of course, but only because I bent the rules in the goblins' favor. Call it cheating if you like, but I refuse to reward basic stupidity and arrogance as a GM, and D&D tends to do so.
Not that I disagree with what you did, because I don't, but you don't need to cheat at all; just use the rules that are there.
My players think twice about doing something like this IMCs. The reason for this is because I always create groups of mixed levels when dealing with any of the humanoids. They still regard goblins as game pieces for 'goblin hucking' in their talk, but they still respect the fact that any one of them may turn out to be more than their match in a fight (though like I said, they'd never admit that in-character ;) ).
*back on topic*
I think one of the biggest weaknesses in the line was something I've seen written here many times when referring to various products' authors, "Didn't he read the previous product?". The most resent example was talking about the author of the Atruaghin Gaz and did he read the Ethengar Gaz's Hakomon and Spirit World concept before developing his Shaman class.
The other one for me personally is the lack of detail of religious organizations. I thought Gaz 1 did a fair job in this area but the rest of the Gazes really lacked this element. It comes down to the question of how do all these Immortals relate to the beings on Mystara.
I've added Alfheim to my list of cultures I like, but which is in the worng place. I don't think an elven kingdom makes sense - would prefer to distibute all the clans around the place, and have the elves as parts of other kingdoms. Just a personal view.
Not that I disagree with what you did, because I don't, but you don't need to cheat at all; just use the rules that are there.
The problem is that the rules would have allowed him to not only get away with it but eventually kill all the goblins as well, since they would be able to hit him only on a natural 20 and then do only very little damage...
I think one of the biggest weaknesses in the line was something I've seen written here many times when referring to various products' authors, "Didn't he read the previous product?". The most resent example was talking about the author of the Atruaghin Gaz and did he read the Ethengar Gaz's Hakomon and Spirit World concept before developing his Shaman class.
Yes, this is what I call "having no established core" for the game. Additions are okay, but EVERY single Gazetteer broke the rules with descriptions like "normally this isn't possible, but here you can... [insert fundamental rule violation here]". It was very annoying, particularly when the relevant attribute for a skill changed several times for pretty much the same skill (though it got a new name, but did the same thing), simply because the nation in question was more likely to have a Dexterity or whatever score. This happened many times to the skill that cured wounds, for example.
The other one for me personally is the lack of detail of religious organizations. I thought Gaz 1 did a fair job in this area but the rest of the Gazes really lacked this element. It comes down to the question of how do all these Immortals relate to the beings on Mystara.
The religions/Immortals of Mystara have always been a very haphazard affair, yes. By the time I began playing AD&D player option, I'd given up and just let the players design their own priests with whatever spheres and granted abilities under pretty much whatever Immortal they wanted. It only worked because the rules were a mess anyway, so nobody could tell the difference...
The problem is that I'm not happy with the system, and I'm fed up trying to patch it together. It's just easier to throw D&D out completely and embrace something else that is better designed at the core.
Been there. Sounds like time for a change.
The "heroic" element is a big part of the problem for me. Oh, it's that the PCs want to be daring and heroic, but it's just ludicrous how a level 17 fighter can slash his way through hundreds of orcs by himself without breaking a sweat, and this is actually worse than ever in 3e. I honestly once had a fighter down to about 10 hp or so, who decided to take on 25+ goblins alone (at a time when it wasn't at all necessary for him), simply because he had good AC and knew goblins have terrible attack rolls. He died from his presumptions, of course, but only because I bent the rules in the goblins' favor. Call it cheating if you like, but I refuse to reward basic stupidity and arrogance as a GM, and D&D tends to do so. Situations like that kill the fun, and several of my players feel the same way about it... The real problem will be doing Mystara's magic, which is very closely tied to D&D, but then I hate that system anyway - there are just way, way too many spells, particularly in AD&D. I have both the Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendii, but, I mean, seriously...
Problem for me was going from heroic to incompetent and useless or very competent and even more indestructable. In the goblin situation, there would be nothing wrong with throwing in a few goblins with some more HD and better hit rolls (BAB). 3E actually encourages this, but it could also be done with OOP D&D.
Magic is the worst problem when using other systems with Mystara. I dont like Fire and Forget either, but there are very few systems that even remotely resemble D&Ds outside D&D.
Havard
First, there's the problem of the geography. The Isle of Dread is to blame for the start of the problems, since they drew the first map of the regions outside Karameikos. Another problem is that the flat-map versions of the entire world tended to make it appear there was a lot more land area than there really is. Ideally, the "known world" area should be larger and cover more of Brun, like, 20-25% of it. That would make the nations larger, and help explain a lot of the inconsistencies away.
Second, the design itself. Since the campaign settting was designed very slowly, introduced in the box sets as a "starter" area and expanded upon in later publishings, the result is that an overall homogenous design is absent. I generally found the original modules far better in quality of design, as the gazateers and later material were aimed for a younger age set.
Third, the cultural elements tied directly to the rules. This causes a LOT of problems with playing in 3rd Edition D&D. I don't subscribe to attempting to force these cultural elements ("No dwarf wizards") onto players, because it destroys one of the inherent paradigms of 3rd edition. Namely, that you can play any race/class/ability score combo you want, it's just some are better than others. Ironically, the best modern game system for restrictive play would be HackMaster.
Fourth, the campaign's focus on the world itself, rather than the players. This, to me, is actually the worst problem. I dislike the Forgotten Realms because of the numerous uber-level NPC's introduced by the various writers. It diminishes the value of the player-characters, and can also put the DM in a very bad position when an NPC he's running shows up the party, or makes them feel belittled. People play RPG's because they want to escape from a world where, typically, they're outranked, outskilled, and outnumbered.
This thread has the potential to get really depressing... or nasty. We should start one with the positive elements of Mystara, to balance it out.
Fourth, the campaign's focus on the world itself, rather than the players. This, to me, is actually the worst problem. I dislike the Forgotten Realms because of the numerous uber-level NPC's introduced by the various writers. It diminishes the value of the player-characters, and can also put the DM in a very bad position when an NPC he's running shows up the party, or makes them feel belittled. People play RPG's because they want to escape from a world where, typically, they're outranked, outskilled, and outnumbered.
I'm not sure if I misunderstand you here, because Mystara precisely avoids the big problem of FR, which - as you say - is the plethora of powerful "chosen of the gods" NPCs that upstage the PCs left and right. Mystara doesn't do that. There are plenty of powerful NPCs, but we rarely hear of them taking a hands-on approach to solving the problems threatening the various countries of Mystara. On the contrary, the NPCs of Mystara often tend to be helpless and badly in need of help from the PCs (like Tenitar in X13: Crown of Ancient Glory), which always seemed vastly better to me than the way FR does it. I don't see this is a weakness. On the contrary.
I'm not sure if I misunderstand you here, because Mystara precisely avoids the big problem of FR, which - as you say - is the plethora of powerful "chosen of the gods" NPCs that upstage the PCs left and right. Mystara doesn't do that. There are plenty of powerful NPCs, but we rarely hear of them taking a hands-on approach to solving the problems threatening the various countries of Mystara. On the contrary, the NPCs of Mystara often tend to be helpless and badly in need of help from the PCs (like Tenitar in X13: Crown of Ancient Glory), which always seemed vastly better to me than the way FR does it. I don't see this is a weakness. On the contrary.
Well, in particular, what I'm thinking of is the one thousand high-level wizards who rule Alphatia. This ties into the idea that class level = profession. High-level wizards are the princes of Glantri. The emperor of Thyatis is a high-level fighter. And so on and so forth...
The problem with this paradigm is that it diminishes the value of player characters. The classes are SUPPOSED to be for heroes, not everybody in the world! In addition, the absurd figures given in the original materials tend to create massive escalation, to the point where players become irrelevant in terms of power awash in a sea of NPC's.
What I do with NPC's is use the NPC classes from the DMG almost exclusively, and keep the majority of NPC's to levels 1-3. City guards are almost exclusively warriors, officiers are either higher-level warriors or low-level fighters, who had some more martial training somewhere. The number of NPC's who are level 15 or higher should be very low... I'd probably put Stefan Karameikos at around 10th level, with a mix of aristocrat and fighter. A wizard-prince of Glantri is probably a multiclass aristocrat/wizard, he would need a lot of boring mundane skills to manage a principality properly. Thincol, a former gladiator, could be a fighter, but he probably has several levels of expert or rogue for added skills. And let's be honest... Thincol isn't the best of administrators.
In case you haven't picked up on it, I'm playing 3rd edition, so a lot of my thought process is towards retailoring the setting for those rules, not playing them "as presented".
The problem is that the rules would have allowed him to not only get away with it but eventually kill all the goblins as well, since they would be able to hit him only on a natural 20 and then do only very little damage...
Sorry. I didn't explain myself very clearly. What I meant by using the rules was to give the goblins some character levels (such as fighter) to simulate the more veteran warriors or even some spell-casters.
Regarding the Alphatian Council of a Thousand Wizards, I prefer to see the '1000' as meaning 'alot' and not being literal, despite what DotE says. Perhaps they just like to think they have that many masters of magic to spite Glantri ;) .
Well, in particular, what I'm thinking of is the one thousand high-level wizards who rule Alphatia. This ties into the idea that class level = profession. High-level wizards are the princes of Glantri. The emperor of Thyatis is a high-level fighter. And so on and so forth...
The problem with this paradigm is that it diminishes the value of player characters. The classes are SUPPOSED to be for heroes, not everybody in the world! In addition, the absurd figures given in the original materials tend to create massive escalation, to the point where players become irrelevant in terms of power awash in a sea of NPC's.
All those NPCs are tied to important positions. They may be powerful, but they are not about to go out and adventure for themselves. The powerful wizards of Alphatia and Glantri are just a natural consequence of both places being powerful magocracies. Thincol is powerful because he was a former gladiator and could claim the throne because of his skill. It's not across the board, however. Corwyn Mauntea, the chancellor of Darokin, is merely a 6th-level thief, and Everast XV, the dwarf-king of Rockhome, is only a 7th-level dwarf (fighter).
What I do with NPC's is use the NPC classes from the DMG almost exclusively, and keep the majority of NPC's to levels 1-3. City guards are almost exclusively warriors, officiers are either higher-level warriors or low-level fighters, who had some more martial training somewhere. The number of NPC's who are level 15 or higher should be very low... I'd probably put Stefan Karameikos at around 10th level, with a mix of aristocrat and fighter. A wizard-prince of Glantri is probably a multiclass aristocrat/wizard, he would need a lot of boring mundane skills to manage a principality properly. Thincol, a former gladiator, could be a fighter, but he probably has several levels of expert or rogue for added skills. And let's be honest... Thincol isn't the best of administrators.
Actually, Thincol did remarkably well as an emperor, and Thyatis generally prospered under his rule (until WOTI at least), though he is a ruthlessly harsh man IMHO. Still, you seem to have strayed into a tangent of 3e lore here that I have no knowledge or interest in. Suffice it to say that I don't think it relevant to criticize Mystara for not conforming to a gaming system written more than a decade after the publication of the defining books of the setting. The gazetteers described the world and the characters on their own basis first and to fit any game rules second. I'll take that as a GM any day. The rules must always be made to fit the setting and not the other way around. I mean, nobody in their right mind would rewrite characters or nations in LOTR to fit with the 3e system (or whatever system), nor should they.
All those NPCs are tied to important positions. They may be powerful, but they are not about to go out and adventure for themselves.
The point, though, is you get powerful by adventuring in this game. While there are no rules for degredation of skill in any of the D&D systems, it is completely realistic that a wizard who has been ruling a province for several decades is no longer the equal of an adventuring wizard. And my general experience has been that players enjoy a game more when they stand above the locals, not equal or below them.
Still, you seem to have strayed into a tangent of 3e lore here that I have no knowledge or interest in. Suffice it to say that I don't think it relevant to criticize Mystara for not conforming to a gaming system written more than a decade after the publication of the defining books of the setting. The gazetteers described the world and the characters on their own basis first and to fit any game rules second. I'll take that as a GM any day. The rules must always be made to fit the setting and not the other way around. I mean, nobody in their right mind would rewrite characters or nations in LOTR to fit with the 3e system (or whatever system), nor should they.
Which is why I consider it a weakness. If you refuse to make the campaign available to people who are playing the current supported game system, you are severely limiting your audience. You don't like 3E, that's fine, but like it or not, most D&D players are playing it.
As for the rules fitting the setting... Mystara was designed to fit the OD&D rules, not vice-versa. Having no dwarven arcane spellcasters was a class restriction that they invented an explanation for in-game. Since rewriting the campaign setting to match current rules would blow away a lot of the rules that formed the setting, this causes some trouble with the lore.
The point, though, is you get powerful by adventuring in this game. While there are no rules for degredation of skill in any of the D&D systems, it is completely realistic that a wizard who has been ruling a province for several decades is no longer the equal of an adventuring wizard. And my general experience has been that players enjoy a game more when they stand above the locals, not equal or below them.
One powerful ruler makes the locals more powerful than the PCs?
Besides, quite frequently a GM needs this to not have the PCs go completely "Knights of the Dinner Table" and slash their way through villages and towns left and right... Yes, that's stupid, I know, but there are people out there who do play D&D that way... sadly.
Which is why I consider it a weakness. If you refuse to make the campaign available to people who are playing the current supported game system, you are severely limiting your audience. You don't like 3E, that's fine, but like it or not, most D&D players are playing it.
So you're fine with rewriting decades of established history in a campaign just to fit a new flashy system that is likely to see revision again in just a few years? (After all, that happened to FR, where sorcerers and dwarf wizards suddenly seem to have hopped out of holes in the ground in complete violation of previously established history of the Realms...). Sorry, but I happen to like Mystara more than D&D, if you don't mind...
As for the rules fitting the setting... Mystara was designed to fit the OD&D rules, not vice-versa.
No, that's not entirely correct. Mystara was written with the OD&D as a base, but it did not hesitate to stray from that base when the writers felt the need to. Most of the gazetteers actually violate the OD&D rules and push at the limits of what can be done. OD&D has only one dwarf class, but the Rockhome gaz adds the dwarf-cleric. OD&D allows only elves to combine the best of the fighter and magic-user classes and forbids it for everyone else, including humans, yet in DOTE we suddenly have Foresters. And elves were forced to be a fighter/magic-user combination. By the HW set, we suddenly had elf fighters.
Having no dwarven arcane spellcasters was a class restriction that they invented an explanation for in-game.
I tend to disagree with that, but suffice it to say that the question of whether the ban on dwarf wizards is game-related or has basis in the setting is still open to interpretation.
Since rewriting the campaign setting to match current rules would blow away a lot of the rules that formed the setting, this causes some trouble with the lore.
And the setting is founded on that lore. It's a carefully woven mosaic now, and if you begin pulling at bits of it, then you unravel the entire setting. To me that's far more damaging than saying "you cannot play a dwarf wizard in this setting".
Besides, quite frequently a GM needs this to not have the PCs go completely "Knights of the Dinner Table" and slash their way through villages and towns left and right... Yes, that's stupid, I know, but there are people out there who do play D&D that way... sadly.
Yes, I've met a few, although I generally find the ones that attack each other are far worse... campaigns of months can end in minutes that way. But, the question to ask is, why are they attacking your NPC's? Are they just jerks, or perhaps they're bored, frustrated or angry with how the game is going? It's a symptom of a greater problem, and making NPC's powerful is not a good solution.
So you're fine with rewriting decades of established history in a campaign just to fit a new flashy system that is likely to see revision again in just a few years? (After all, that happened to FR, where sorcerers and dwarf wizards suddenly seem to have hopped out of holes in the ground in complete violation of previously established history of the Realms...). Sorry, but I happen to like Mystara more than D&D, if you don't mind...
When the rules system is better, and more fun to play in, and I'd like to see a campaign setting I have a lot of fond nostalgic memories for prosper... yes, I would rewrite it.
No, that's not entirely correct. Mystara was written with the OD&D as a base, but it did not hesitate to stray from that base when the writers felt the need to. Most of the gazetteers actually violate the OD&D rules and push at the limits of what can be done. OD&D has only one dwarf class, but the Rockhome gaz adds the dwarf-cleric. OD&D allows only elves to combine the best of the fighter and magic-user classes and forbids it for everyone else, including humans, yet in DOTE we suddenly have Foresters. And elves were forced to be a fighter/magic-user combination. By the HW set, we suddenly had elf fighters.
Certainly, but most of the additions were to give it the flexibility that AD&D offered, because they realized that by 1987 that they either had to discontinue the line, or do something to revitalize it. Bruce Heard remarked once on this. Old elements of the OD&D rules were kept, though, they just added on top, a common practice with both AD&D and OD&D. (Hackmaster, by extension, could somewhat be viewed as AD&D 3rd edition, since it just adds even more on top.)
And the setting is founded on that lore. It's a carefully woven mosaic now, and if you begin pulling at bits of it, then you unravel the entire setting. To me that's far more damaging than saying "you cannot play a dwarf wizard in this setting".
Yes, a true 3E conversion would cause lore changes. But in the end, I consider my players and their needs above the needs of the campaign setting.
Dwarves are mechanically allowed to be wizards, in 3E. They have always had some potential to be wizards, in a Mystara game run under 3E rules. This doesn't mean that dwarf wizards are commonplace. As far as the dwarves of Rockhome IMC are concerned, practicing arcane magic is about as honorable and respectable as farming for a living. And so they're absolutely willing to hire skilled human wizards from Karameikos, Darokin, Thyatis and farther afield.
PCs can still be dwarf wizards, as long as they're willing to take the RP lumps - in the same way that a Pearl Islander can be a thief rather than a rake, or a Glantrian play a cleric. And there may be a few NPC wizards lurking here and there in Rockhome - most using their art surreptitiously to improve their crafting abilities, one or two maybe even working openly. But for the most part, a 3E Rockhome hardly has any more wizards than 0E Rockhome does.
Not really sure if I can point out any specific things that cave me that impression. But since it is so vague there certainly is room for more inspirations. And you are right, it is a huge empire. I would have liked to see each part with a more distinct flavour. Too bad there wasnt room or money enough for that.
Havard
I was inspired by Alphatians/Babilonians too. Maybe it's the Babilonian sphinx in the Alphatia player's booklet...
I was inspired by Alphatians/Babilonians too. Maybe it's the Babilonian sphinx in the Alphatia player's booklet...
Same here, and for the same reason
But, AFAIK, I guess that's the only babilonic reference...
Because of that (and other reasons, like a greekish name and a island-continet in the middle of the ocean, between "america" and "eurasia" that indeed sunk), I prefer thinking the alphatians are equivalent to the atlanteans. Of course, even if they existed, we have no clue how their culture looked like, but I guess something ancient (just like the babilonians) would work nicely
The Hollow World: I am fully in the camp that says the HW is what led to the eventual demise of Mystara.
This would seem logical if not for the fact that Mystara was doing very well untill the end of OD&D. What killed Mystara was the conversion to AD&D2E and ultimately TSR decisions.
The cardinal sins, as I see it, are that 1) it tore away attention from the surface world which still had continents left to explore, 2) created a world that has horrific physics-ecology (gravity like electricity has zero potential inside a hollow sphere; all local gravity is centrifugal or a "push" from the polar openings), (continuous noon sun light would drive animals and humans crazy, prevent the creation of seasons or even latitudinal climate changes), 3) violated the central tenet that the Immortals were off doing their own thing and not concerning themselves with mortal matters, 4) simultaneously had too many and too few Immortals (that's a neat trick) leading to Immortals being patrons to groups they either had no connection to or would have been hostile to (Why would the Traladaran Three ever be affiliated with the Milenians? The latter never knew of the former save as rabble rousers prior to leaving for the south, the former would have thought the latter the progeny of cowards and traitors who abandoned their home during its greatest need.), 5) turned the Immortals into a bunch of mama's boys who freaked anytime a village faced a fight, 6) Violated its own internal logic (The Spell of Preservation) so as to make Azcans worship Atzanteotl (just because the use of sacrifice is already present doesn't mean a new patron can just appear in the pantheon). and 7) Nithia was returned from the dead. If they did something so bad as to warrant the eradication of not just their existence but the memory of their existence, then you are not going to take a chance by relocating THE CAPITAL CITY to the preserve. Also the sin of Nithia began to be dumbed down towards simply "not properly honoring the Immortals".
I agree with some of this criticism, though some of the problems can be avoided. The Spell of Preservation is easily interpreted as you do, and indeed I did the same thing when I ran my first campaign there. However, I have found that it makes more sense to have the Spell of Preservation be much more flexible when it comes to preservation of cultures; it will allow for making some changes within the culture as long as the main features are preserved. This way immortals honored for instance can be altered to some degree (such as Athruagin or Ixion reclaiming the Azcans), though the existing patrons will never truly be forgotten.
The Immortals is another interesting feature. I had the same problems as you describe, but lately I have been thinking that this idea of the Immortals in fact being a group of (occationally well-meaning) conspirators ala the govt guys in X-files could be interesting. This could be a good way of making the PCs want to achieve Immortality for themselves (to stay away from this bullying) and would indeed give them good reason to ally with Benekander. I'm still torn on this issue though.
Again were I product manager, HW would never have seen the light of the Red Sun. I would have taken the cultures and used them on Davania, Skothar or the far wilds of Brun with better cultural development. The only true remnant of Nithia would be Thothia.
I dont mind the HW set, but it would have been cool if they had made boxed sets for Davania, Skothar and the rest of Brun too. If Thyatis had been given a separate gazetteer and the same for the IoD, a boxed set covering Alphatia on its own could have been cool
HWR3 Milenia: Failed to address the most important question: how does a sea-borne RW Greek culture inspire a land-locked ocean-fearing empire? Vanya's go as Matera (?) is another violation of the Spell of Preservation [the appropriate fix is that she started doing this before the OW fall]
Perhaps Macedonia is a more relevant parallell than Greece? The Milennians are probably no more Greek than Thyatis is the Roman Empire. I think I would replace the Traladaran Three here with the Tarsian Twelve as written out by Mystaros, though perhaps I could give the Traladaran Three a minor cult.
Havard
I notice alot of people didnt like the concept of the Alphatian 1000 lv 36 wizards. The awsome might of Alphatian!! Well there are a few things to remember. Getting that many massive egos to argre on an issue, let alone work together would be a epic acomplishment. Also keep in mind that there were many ways for a wizard to gain exp in OD&D besides killing monsters and gaining treasure. Wizards GAINED exp for making magic items and doing spell research. It was completly feasable that a powerful wizard could get that way with minimal adventuring. One of the suggestions for name magic-users (lv9+), was to build his own dungeon near his tower, so the lazy fart wouldn't have to go so far to get stuff he need for making items. Many of these wiazrds provable went to a university, studied and researched, built a tower, bought books by the ton and studied and researched more. If a wizard enjoys finding new magic his whole life, reaching the top of his craft wouldn't stop him from wanting to learning more. Many of these wizards would be deep in their own affairs to do little more than show up to vote accasionaly. I can see vast amounts of these very powerful wizards having very little worldly adventuring experiance. Which is also why so many wizards are 100+ years old too. It would also be easy to see how these wizards could distrust and fear each other. Glantrian history is much smaller that Alphatian's. Yet look at how the nobel houses form webs of hate and distrust. Now take that and triple the timeline and add vastly more players. What the real wounder here is how Alphatia didn't ripe itself to pieces long ago.
True. And note the reference in DOTE about dueling among wizards. There are specific rules, and the text says that while few wizards like to duel, most have to at some point during their lives, which says a lot about the infighting. Seems more than reasonable to assume that many wizards have died in such duels over the centuries in Alphatia... The wars were kept down as a result of "Alphaks' folly" and the destruction of Old Alphatia (which is also the reason for the formation of the grand council), but that doesn't mean disputes went away - they were just handled by political intrigue and dueling instead...
The only real problem with the grand council is that it's just a number thrown in there with no real substance. 1000 level 36 wizards begins to sound like some uber-munchkin fanboy's wet dream of power, when there is no actual basis for why it has to be that way.
And the council is so uninteresting that we don't even get to know any of its members except Tylion, who is described in DOTE for other reasons. In short, the council had zero game impact. It may be that this in part due to severe lack of description for Alphatia in DOTE - they tried to do both the major empires in two 32-page player's books and one 128-page DM's book. Thyatis at least got to mention the major points (most of the duchies/provinces/protectorates/whatever were covered with references to the major NPCs), but not Alphatia - we knew virtually nothing of which towns existed on Bellissaria or in Esterhold (a page each...) or who lived there in DOTE, and even much of central Alphatia is woefully lacking in description (Frisland or Foresthome anyone?), while the NPC descriptions are cut down the bare minimum of Eriadna's family. A lot of blanks that left little to play with. A good GM can fill in those blanks, of course, but Alphatia never quite made it out of that limbo, where the mood of the setting and its possibilities begin to take shape, but never quite reach a point, where you truly see the adventuring potential.
This hurt Alphatia, and the council being mostly forgotten, it was hurt more than most things. And naturally WOTI couldn't wait to kill them off. They should have said 100 level 36 wizards - that I would have believed (and it still wouldn't have prevented whatever number of level 36 wizards). Or there should have been descriptions of the political factions of the council and their internal power struggles, so that the number of 1000 began to mean something. Instead the potential was mostly wasted...
In any case, I agree that it is something that should be changed (definitely something I would change). Aside from the fact that any spellcaster (not just wizards) is considered an aristocrat in Alphatia with the advent of DotE, I think that the actual 36th level bit is not a necessary element of the atmosphere.
I'm still wondering what happened to my list of Grand Council wizards I posted a couple of weeks ago- it disappeared along with the "new" boards.
Didn't they back of off the 36th level clarification in later products, though? I am pretty sure that is the way it was presented in the first mention of Alphatia (in CM1: Test of Warlords), but I'm almost positive that by the time they got to DotE they had dropped the "36th level" part, and just referred to it as the Council of 1,000 Wizards. I might be wrong, though (now that I think of it, I think the DM's guide points out that they are supposed to all be 36th level).
I'm afraid you are indeed mistaken. DOTE book III (Player's Guide to Alphatia), p. 6: "The Grand Council is the other ruling body. Every user of magic who achieves ultimate mastery (36th level)can be on the Council - though not every one is, because the number of Counselors is limited to 1,000."
In any case, I agree that it is something that should be changed (definitely something I would change). Aside from the fact that any spellcaster (not just wizards) is considered an aristocrat in Alphatia with the advent of DotE, I think that the actual 36th level bit is not a necessary element of the atmosphere.
That would be a very different council than the one I read about in DOTE and other sources... Yes, any spell-caster is an aristocrat, but it doesn't seem to follow from that they may therefore be on the council just be reaching level 36. That's what "every user of magic" means to me: Magic-user. Meaning wizards only.
The problem is that the rules would have allowed him to not only get away with it but eventually kill all the goblins as well, since they would be able to hit him only on a natural 20 and then do only very little damage...
When my players would attempt this in 2E, I could casually open to the wrestling rules, and have 10 goblins pin down the 17th level fighter. "What? No girdle of giant strength? You'd better hope your wizard friend doesn't fry you with his only offensive spell, Fireball, when he tries to free you."
When my players would attempt this in 2E, I could casually open to the wrestling rules, and have 10 goblins pin down the 17th level fighter. "What? No girdle of giant strength? You'd better hope your wizard friend doesn't fry you with his only offensive spell, Fireball, when he tries to free you."
The trouble is that you need to resort to rules like overbearing/wrestling to get the PCs to think twice about assaulting large forces. I don't mind that the heroic fighter can take on two or even three orcs with little trouble - it's supposed to be a heroic game, after all - but there are simply too few combat penalties in the usual combat situation if the fighter is completely surrounded. Once he is facing more than two opponents, his defense should fall apart at an alarming rate. And if he's totally surrounded, then it will be impossible to prevent someone from hitting him in the back, since he cannot cover all the angles.
The trouble is that you need to resort to rules like overbearing/wrestling to get the PCs to think twice about assaulting large forces. I don't mind that the heroic fighter can take on two or even three orcs with little trouble - it's supposed to be a heroic game, after all - but there are simply too few combat penalties in the usual combat situation if the fighter is completely surrounded. Once he is facing more than two opponents, his defense should fall apart at an alarming rate. And if he's totally surrounded, then it will be impossible to prevent someone from hitting him in the back, since he cannot cover all the angles.
There are several things to consider here:
*The rules allow you to assign combat modifications as you see fit. If the character is surrounded, it would also be reasonable that he would lose his dex and shield bonuses against some of the attackers, even if this is 2E and not 3E. You could also give them further bonuses, though I would not overdo it.
*17th level characters are super heroes. They should be able to fend off against a large number of opponents even when surrounded and outnumbered. This is the stuff legends are made of. Think of Beowulf, Conan, Slaine or any movie with Arnold. Wimpy 1HD orcs and the like should be no opposition to such heroes.
*1HD Orcs may be a threat to low level PCs, but lets face it, they are not the most competent of adversaries. When facing high level PCs, they should flee or hide behind bigger and stronger allies with more HDs.
The issues you raise clearly suggest that D&D is not the game for you right now. You are clearly looking for a less heroic game. Having thought about it some more, I would recommend that you check out the new version of Warhammer FRP. It is greatly improved from the previous version and has the realism and grittiness that you may be interested in. The game also has all the monsters converted and a magic system. Saves you alot of work compared to using other RPGs I have mentioned.
Havard
Didn't they back of off the 36th level clarification in later products, though? I am pretty sure that is the way it was presented in the first mention of Alphatia (in CM1: Test of Warlords), but I'm almost positive that by the time they got to DotE they had dropped the "36th level" part, and just referred to it as the Council of 1,000 Wizards. I might be wrong, though (now that I think of it, I think the DM's guide points out that they are supposed to all be 36th level).
They may have done so in WotI. Bruce Heard definately did so in the latest VotPA installment which makes alot of sense to me.
In any case, I agree that it is something that should be changed (definitely something I would change). Aside from the fact that any spellcaster (not just wizards) is considered an aristocrat in Alphatia with the advent of DotE, I think that the actual 36th level bit is not a necessary element of the atmosphere.
It is simply ridiculous. How could they check what level a character is anyway? This is not something people have tatooed on their forehead, at least not IMC. I think most people are ignoring this. IMC I think I would also allow the possibility for non wizard spellcasters on the council. Although wizards (magic users) have some preferred status in Alphatia compared to others, I think portraying Alphatia as a land of spellcasters is a good way to distinguish it from Glantri, which is a land of magic users (wizards).
I'm still wondering what happened to my list of Grand Council wizards I posted a couple of weeks ago- it disappeared along with the "new" boards.
You posted that??? I was really interested in seeing something like that *groan*
Havard
I'm still wondering what happened to my list of Grand Council wizards I posted a couple of weeks ago- it disappeared along with the "new" boards.
I missed it too, and assuming I get everything together for an update on the Vaults tomorrow, it won't turn up there.
How could they check what level a character is anyway?
Under 0E rules? Have the prospective Grand Council wizard get a good night's sleep, show up the next morning with nothing magic at all on his person, and promptly cast nine 9th-level spells. Anyone who can find a way to pull that off without being a 36th-level magic-user gets grandfathered in anyway. ;)
(This ain't a defense of whether the Alphatian Grand Council setup is reasonable - just a note that it is possible, from a game mechanics standpoint.)
*17th level characters are super heroes. They should be able to fend off against a large number of opponents even when surrounded and outnumbered. This is the stuff legends are made of. Think of Beowulf, Conan, Slaine or any movie with Arnold. Wimpy 1HD orcs and the like should be no opposition to such heroes.
*1HD Orcs may be a threat to low level PCs, but lets face it, they are not the most competent of adversaries. When facing high level PCs, they should flee or hide behind bigger and stronger allies with more HDs.
I know what you mean, but even great heroes can be brought down by lowly orcs. Heck, Boromir was killed by just three arrows in the movie (though not in the books). Being shot with an arrow through the chest is actually dangerous. Even great Achilles was killed by a single arrow in his heel.
The real problem is that the mere possibility of this is completely absent in D&D - there is no way an orc can kill a 17th-level fighter, not even if you use the critical hit rules from Player Option: Combat & Tactics, since he could never hit the armor class with a high enough margin to score a critical hit, and even if he could, the severity of the blow would never be high enough.
Conan may be tough, but when he takes on fifteen armed warriors, he is a hero because he survives in spite of the danger, not because he is impervious to the threat they represent. If he were, what would be the point in the encounter? We may know that he wins because he's tough (and the hero), but we do not expect him to win because his enemies are so pathetic that they can't even hurt him. Conan wins because he's the bravest and toughest warrior around, not because his opponents are three-year-olds waving their rattles at him.
But we do have that in D&D. The common orc has no possibility of success against a 17th-level warrior. None. EVER! I've had such warriors not even care about the thief sneaking up on him, because he knew that even if the thief hit - which was unlikely - and had quadruple damage from his backstab, it would still be only 4d6 points of damage, which presents no danger to the fighter's 132 hit points. In 2e you can even have the 17th-level fighter climbing a mountain in full plate mail, then falling 2 miles onto sharp rocks, and he still would have no problem, because he could never take enough damage to die from the fall. Logically he should be both impaled on the rocks and flat as a pancake, but the rules just don't allow it. That's not heroic, because heroic means taking a risk in spite of the danger you face, and in spite of the fear the character may experience. That just isn't present in the game at those power levels. It's not heroic - it's just retarded.
Of course a great warrior should be able to take on a few common orcs. He should have the skill for it, but they should still pose at least a potential threat against his life, or where is the challenge? I mean, IMC the PCs are all around level 16 now, and if they randomly encounter a warband of 10 orcs, I just refuse to play the encounter, because what would be the point of going through that dice-rolling exercise? The orcs have no chance of even inflicting any real damage, so why bother at all? I just say, "you are attacked by 10 orcs and kill them or chase them off, before you move on". End of story. But it does hurt the credibility of the game, which doesn't exactly suspend disbelief.
It is simply ridiculous. How could they check what level a character is anyway? This is not something people have tatooed on their forehead, at least not IMC. I think most people are ignoring this.
I'm not most people then... ;)
Okay, I did rescale the levels so that level 36 becomes level 30 (the maximum level under 2e's DM Option: High Level Campaigns), but otherwise yes - you would have to be a level 30 wizard to be on the council. And when I mention to my players that the great Alphatian wizard so-and-so is a member of the council of wizard, then they know its serious, because it means that person is a 30th level wizard every time.
IMC I think I would also allow the possibility for non wizard spellcasters on the council. Although wizards (magic users) have some preferred status in Alphatia compared to others, I think portraying Alphatia as a land of spellcasters is a good way to distinguish it from Glantri, which is a land of magic users (wizards).
Obviously you can do whatever you like in your campaign, but it sounds rather far from Alphatia as I perceive it. The odd thing about Alphatia is that while being a cleric grants you the rank of being a aristocrat, few seem to make that choice for some reason, as if being a cleric is somehow wrong. Like "yeah, it's magic, but it's not REAL magic...".
That's my own interpretation, obviously, but I find it difficult to reach another one, when I consider some of the passages of DOTE. Take this one, for instance:
"In noble families, those unlucky ones born without the magical trait turn to clerical magic. Some do, anyway; the Alphatian indifference to Immortals is such that few of them do actually become clerics, even though to be a cleric is to be equal in status to a magic-user." (Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.14)
Or take this one:
"You've doubtless gathered that the Alphatians are disinterested in most matters of the Immortals. That's true. There are few clerics in Alphatia; not a large proportion of the lower classes attend temple services. However, because clerics wield magic, they are sitll equal in social status with magic-users." (Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.15)
It's as if though being a cleric means casting spells and so means being an aristocrat, it is still not considered "proper" enough to be considered entirely by the same standard as a true wizard. And as I have stated before, DOTE does mention that only a level 36 magic-user can be a member of the council. Why not clerics, if they are considered to have the same status?
To me, Alphatia is very much like Glantri, except where the Immortals are concerned, because while Glantri takes the whole Immortal worship very seriously, in Alphatia they just don't care. In Alphatia clerics are not hunted down (or merely hated after WOTI), because the wizards just can't be bothered - the clerics (or their Immortals) just aren't important enough to consider for them.
I also think clerics are thought of a bit like "semi-servants". In Alphatia those without spells are destined to serve in some way. Clerics do have spells, but they also serve an Immortal, so basically they've just traded service to the empire for service to an Immortal, and doesn't that mean that they've abandoned the chaotic and individualistic traits of the Alphatians that they wizard pride themselves on? After all, they must serve their Immortal, or else their magic could disappear rather quickly...
The trouble is that you need to resort to rules like overbearing/wrestling to get the PCs to think twice about assaulting large forces. I don't mind that the heroic fighter can take on two or even three orcs with little trouble - it's supposed to be a heroic game, after all - but there are simply too few combat penalties in the usual combat situation if the fighter is completely surrounded. Once he is facing more than two opponents, his defense should fall apart at an alarming rate. And if he's totally surrounded, then it will be impossible to prevent someone from hitting him in the back, since he cannot cover all the angles.
That's were d20 Conan has a nice idea - The Outnumbering rule. basically the first opponent is on +0 to hit, the second opponent is on +1 to hit, the third +2, and so on. So if you were completely surrounded by 8 opponents, the eighth opponent to attack would have a +7 bonus to his attack (plus any flanking bonus).
Regards
Gary
I know what you mean, but even great heroes can be brought down by lowly orcs. Heck, Boromir was killed by just three arrows in the movie (though not in the books). Being shot with an arrow through the chest is actually dangerous. Even great Achilles was killed by a single arrow in his heel.
Boromir was killed by a few arrows but a lot of orcs. Put together 100 orcs firing an arrow every round, and that is 5 auto-hits per round on average. And that is death in the long run.
Achilles was killed by a single deity-guided arrow. Why not go on about Baldur being killed by an arrow made of mistletoe?
Oh, and perhaps you missed the line that after Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Aragorn, Eomer, and Imrahil all rode off the battlefield without a single wound, although they were the only ones who managed such a feat.
The real problem is that the mere possibility of this is completely absent in D&D - there is no way an orc can kill a 17th-level fighter, not even if you use the critical hit rules from Player Option: Combat & Tactics, since he could never hit the armor class with a high enough margin to score a critical hit, and even if he could, the severity of the blow would never be high enough.
The problem to you. Some people like games with that kind of high end power.
It's not heroic - it's just retarded
It is quite heroic. And quite fun. And necessary if other opponents are to be relevant threats at various levels. Where is the rationale for a hero being able to stand against a dragon but being able to be taken down by the average grunt orc? Where is the heroism in defeating a mighty demon lord only be punked on the way out by some two-bit orc?
But it does hurt the credibility of the game, which doesn't exactly suspend disbelief.
I see it as the only thing establishing the credibility of the game, and allowing the suspension of disbelief needed when the serious damage and magical power starts getting thrown around.
What hurts the credibility of the game, and destroys the suspension of disbelief, is when people go overboard trying to "prove" they can slaughter the players with the wimpiest monster in existence. The "Tucker's Kobolds" Syndrome - throw tons of traps around, set the terrain to be nearly impossible, and casually suspend and break rules left and right, just so you can prove that whenever you want you can "win." That is fun?
How about this: with 50 1st level PCs, 5 ft x ft passages, unlimited traps, and special rules prohibiting adding Str bonuses to damage (or halving damage in editions that didn't give monsters such bonuses to damage), I can destroy any souped up party of 10 fire giants that come around to cause trouble. Yeah, I can send them running in total fear, and I bet they won't even do any damage! And I want full xp for doing it!
And the same applies if a 1st level PC wants to suddenly off some 30th level council member or the equivalent in a campaign.
Not everyone finds that enjoyable. People like to think that achieving high level in a game means their character isn't subject to being casually gacked by Tom Justrolledup, "Richard" Firstadventure, and Harry Orc.
I'm not most people then... ;)
Okay, I did rescale the levels so that level 36 becomes level 30 (the maximum level under 2e's DM Option: High Level Campaigns), but otherwise yes - you would have to be a level 30 wizard to be on the council. And when I mention to my players that the great Alphatian wizard so-and-so is a member of the council of wizard, then they know its serious, because it means that person is a 30th level wizard every time.
Fair enough. The council members are obviously extremely powerful wizards. I havent really made any decisions beyond that yet. How many people live in the Empire? How does that compare to how many 36th level characters there "should" be per inhabitant? Obviously one might want to allow for more high level wizards in Alphatia than say fighters.
Obviously you can do whatever you like in your campaign, but it sounds rather far from Alphatia as I perceive it. The odd thing about Alphatia is that while being a cleric grants you the rank of being a aristocrat, few seem to make that choice for some reason, as if being a cleric is somehow wrong. Like "yeah, it's magic, but it's not REAL magic...".
I agree that there is some difference between the status of wizard and cleric magic, but my take on it has this difference being of less importance than in your version. The attitude you describe still exists among many magic users, but it has little impact on the actual status of the clerics.
That's my own interpretation, obviously, but I find it difficult to reach another one, when I consider some of the passages of DOTE. Take this one, for instance:
"In noble families, those unlucky ones born without the magical trait turn to clerical magic. Some do, anyway; the Alphatian indifference to Immortals is such that few of them do actually become clerics, even though to be a cleric is to be equal in status to a magic-user." (Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.14)
Indeed! Here it is actually stated that m-us and clerics have the same status, yet because not everyone is suited for wizardly magic, the path of the cleric becomes a sort of second best option. IMC Alphatians have a very pragmatic view of clerics: it is a way of obtaining power more than a way of serving a greater power.
Or take this one:
"You've doubtless gathered that the Alphatians are disinterested in most matters of the Immortals. That's true. There are few clerics in Alphatia; not a large proportion of the lower classes attend temple services. However, because clerics wield magic, they are sitll equal in social status with magic-users." (Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.15)
This also fits my vision above. Since most alphatian clerics join these ranks to gain spellcasting ability, the lower classes have become alienated from the temples. Sounds like alot of potential for PC Clerics who would like to change this attitude.
It's as if though being a cleric means casting spells and so means being an aristocrat, it is still not considered "proper" enough to be considered entirely by the same standard as a true wizard. And as I have stated before, DOTE does mention that only a level 36 magic-user can be a member of the council. Why not clerics, if they are considered to have the same status?
It seems like Aalston couldnt really make up his mind when writing this, since he is obviously contradiciting himself on this issue. Perhaps he couldnt quite decide whether Alphatia should be a nation of Wizards or a nation of spellcasters.
One interpretation to this is that *in theory* Clerics could become members of the council, though because of this arrogant attitude among wizards towards clerics they have been able to block cleric membership on the council? So, according to the laws and regulations, clerics do indeed have the same status as wizards, but in actuality wizards have a slightly higher status.
To me, Alphatia is very much like Glantri, except where the Immortals are concerned, because while Glantri takes the whole Immortal worship very seriously, in Alphatia they just don't care. In Alphatia clerics are not hunted down (or merely hated after WOTI), because the wizards just can't be bothered - the clerics (or their Immortals) just aren't important enough to consider for them.
Well, I wanted to make this distinction more clear. Which is why the Glantrian acceptance towards clerics was only temporary IMC. Alphatians accept those who can manipulate reality through magic regardless of its source, while looking down on others.
I also think clerics are thought of a bit like "semi-servants". In Alphatia those without spells are destined to serve in some way. Clerics do have spells, but they also serve an Immortal, so basically they've just traded service to the empire for service to an Immortal, and doesn't that mean that they've abandoned the chaotic and individualistic traits of the Alphatians that they wizard pride themselves on? After all, they must serve their Immortal, or else their magic could disappear rather quickly...
I think this theory has merit. In fact it is how I have explained the Glantrian attitude towards clerics. Glantrians believe that clerics are people who have "sold their soul" to have the power of magic, rather than achieving it through studies. Also, this makes clerics suspicious since they will have another agenda than their own.
Alphatians in some way share this attitude, except that, being chaotic, they see nothing wrong with selling ones soul. Hey, if thats what you have to do to wield the power, then go ahead.
Having this distinction means that Alphatia and Glantri become very different nations on many levels. Which is cooler than having two nations of wizards where the only reason seems to be that one is a huge empire and the other is a small country.
Havard
Obviously one might want to allow for more high level wizards in Alphatia than say fighters.
True. Given that Alphatia is dedicated to educating people to be wizards, if possible, it naturally follows that the percentage of wizards is probably higher than in the rest of the world... and the other classes comparatively lower. Except perhaps for Stonewall, where fighters and thieves are not disrespected, and which therefore draws such people there (thus further lowering the percentage of such people in the rest of Alphatia).
"In noble families, those unlucky ones born without the magical trait turn to clerical magic. Some do, anyway; the Alphatian indifference to Immortals is such that few of them do actually become clerics, even though to be a cleric is to be equal in status to a magic-user." (Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.14)
Indeed! Here it is actually stated that m-us and clerics have the same status, yet because not everyone is suited for wizardly magic, the path of the cleric becomes a sort of second best option. IMC Alphatians have a very pragmatic view of clerics: it is a way of obtaining power more than a way of serving a greater power.
Precisely, but then that begs the question of why they don't go for it? I mean, they can be aristocrats by becoming clerics, but it seems few of them do. Why is that?
One interpretation to this is that *in theory* Clerics could become members of the council, though because of this arrogant attitude among wizards towards clerics they have been able to block cleric membership on the council? So, according to the laws and regulations, clerics do indeed have the same status as wizards, but in actuality wizards have a slightly higher status.
That's my take as well. Clerics (or other spellcasting classes, such as rangers or paladins or even bards, if you allow them) can be aristocrats, lords, and even kings or queens, but they cannot be at the top of the imperial hierarchy (the council or the trone of the emperor/empress), because that seems to be only for wizards.
I think this theory has merit. In fact it is how I have explained the Glantrian attitude towards clerics. Glantrians believe that clerics are people who have "sold their soul" to have the power of magic, rather than achieving it through studies. Also, this makes clerics suspicious since they will have another agenda than their own.
Alphatians in some way share this attitude, except that, being chaotic, they see nothing wrong with selling ones soul. Hey, if thats what you have to do to wield the power, then go ahead.
I don't really see the Glantrians being any less chaotic than the Alphatians. The real problem may be that the two nations perhaps must be similar in some ways, since both were founded by people who originated from the same world (Old Alphatia). What I'm not certain about is whether clerics were hated in Glantri before the persecuted wizards from LaTerre arrived. If that is the case, then it would be their significant impact on the Glantrian society, though not because clerics "sold their souls" so much (though that may indeed be the argument officially) as because clerics tend to hunt down wizards during an inquistion.
Having this distinction means that Alphatia and Glantri become very different nations on many levels. Which is cooler than having two nations of wizards where the only reason seems to be that one is a huge empire and the other is a small country.
They can't be the same, but they can't be too dissimilar either, since both were founded by people who originated from Old Alphatia. Glantri has been subjected to a good deal of influence from other cultures since its foundation, of course, but not so much that the Flaems have felt the need to go elsewhere.
It is quite heroic. And quite fun. And necessary if other opponents are to be relevant threats at various levels. Where is the rationale for a hero being able to stand against a dragon but being able to be taken down by the average grunt orc? Where is the heroism in defeating a mighty demon lord only be punked on the way out by some two-bit orc?
Maybe not fun, but even that lowly orc is supposed to represent some potential danger, when he swings a sharp object in your general direction.
And you've completely managed to miss my argument about drama. If Aragorn can walk away from the field of Pelennor without a scratch, then where is the achievement in that if there never was any possibility of him being harmed in the first place? That's actually what you're arguing in favor of.
Of course the average orc should be less powerful - I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that it is retarded that he has no possibility of harming the level 17 fighter in any meaningful way. Why does the orc even bother to fight? He should be running like his life depended on, since indeed it does. This is even more true in 3e, where you can tell the level of a character simply the number of attacks he can make during a single round - "Whoa, he just made four attacks in six seconds?!? I'm out of here!!"
No, the heroic element comes about when the fighter faces danger and walks away the victor and possibly even unharmed IN SPITE of the danger to his life. It is no achievement that Conan can defeat 10 enemies at once, if they never posed a threat to him in the first place - the D&D equivalent is just a pointless dice-rolling exercise and nothing more. No matter how low the chance is, the possibility of death or severe injury should be there every time someone strikes a sword, stabs a knife, or shoots an arrow against a warrior of whatever level, even if that chance is astronomically low. In D&D it is simply non-existant. Besides, critical hits can be fun. And they work in the PCs favor, too, of course - they can walk away from a fight they are destined to lose, if they make one truly lucky strike. But it just cannot happen in D&D, and so combat, which should be random and chaotic, is reduced to a simple and predictable demographic of the numbers, which will always end up with the strongest as the uncontested winner.
What hurts the credibility of the game, and destroys the suspension of disbelief, is when people go overboard trying to "prove" they can slaughter the players with the wimpiest monster in existence. The "Tucker's Kobolds" Syndrome - throw tons of traps around, set the terrain to be nearly impossible, and casually suspend and break rules left and right, just so you can prove that whenever you want you can "win." That is fun?
It is the for GM ;) And really, if the PCs go into "we're invincible"-mode, where they think they can rush into any dungeon of goblins regardless of whatever traps, then it really is what they deserve for their arrogance. Like it or not, if you let the enemy decide the battleground, then you will and should see your chances for victory drop - or rather plummet - at an alarming rate. Arrogance and stupidity should always be punished, and preferably in a humilating way. Best if the heroes can be defeated without being killed, and so have to endure the humiliation of knowing they failed against a significantly inferior foe, simply due to their own inflated opinion of themselves and their subsequent decision to throw any and all caution to the winds. As a GM I'd give them more than usual xp for this, though - you learn best from your failures.
How about this: with 50 1st level PCs, 5 ft x ft passages, unlimited traps, and special rules prohibiting adding Str bonuses to damage (or halving damage in editions that didn't give monsters such bonuses to damage), I can destroy any souped up party of 10 fire giants that come around to cause trouble. Yeah, I can send them running in total fear, and I bet they won't even do any damage! And I want full xp for doing it!
If you can make the plan and execute it flawlessly, then why should that not happen? You make it sound as if that sort of thing should always fail, which actually runs contrary to your point about heroic PCs defeating a dragon. By this logic, the dragon should always win the fight...
And the same applies if a 1st level PC wants to suddenly off some 30th level council member or the equivalent in a campaign.
Not everyone finds that enjoyable. People like to think that achieving high level in a game means their character isn't subject to being casually gacked by Tom Justrolledup, "Richard" Firstadventure, and Harry Orc.
Even the most powerful archmage can be killed by poisoning his food, stabbing him in the back with a knife, or murdering him in his sleep. The rules should take that into account. Indeed, Mystara has something similar to that, or how else would you rationalize Lucinius killing all those Alphatian archmages when Thyatis claimed its independence? Yes, Lucinius was just as powerful as those Alphatians, and perhaps more so, but he won every single time?!? No, Lucinius was sly and cunning, and he used the Alphatians' arrogance against them. And so they got what they deserved. If you insist on reducing it to a simple mathetical equation with Lucinius and Zendrolion on one side and all the Alphatian archmages on the other, then Lucinius shouldn't have a prayer. But Lucinius was victorious and killed them all. And then he was killed by Zendrolion, because Zendrolion used the same tactic against him. Lucinius was clearly more powerful, so Zendrolion should have had no possibility of winning that fight. But he did and became the first emperor of Thyatis.
True. Given that Alphatia is dedicated to educating people to be wizards, if possible, it naturally follows that the percentage of wizards is probably higher than in the rest of the world... and the other classes comparatively lower. Except perhaps for Stonewall, where fighters and thieves are not disrespected, and which therefore draws such people there (thus further lowering the percentage of such people in the rest of Alphatia).
Makes sense. I also think countries like Alphatia and Glantri draw wizards from other nations as well, thus making it even more likely to encounter a high level wizard in those countries than anywhere else.
Precisely, but then that begs the question of why they don't go for it? I mean, they can be aristocrats by becoming clerics, but it seems few of them do. Why is that?
Perhaps due to limited resources? Since commoners are disinterested in the churches (compared to other countries), the temples will have fewer resources to educate new Clerics properly. Also, ofcourse, there could be many who try to become Clerics, but are unable to fulfill the requirements of such a vestige.
That's my take as well. Clerics (or other spellcasting classes, such as rangers or paladins or even bards, if you allow them) can be aristocrats, lords, and even kings or queens, but they cannot be at the top of the imperial hierarchy (the council or the trone of the emperor/empress), because that seems to be only for wizards.
I dont see Rangers, Paladins, Bards etc as potential candidates for the council, since they are mere dabblers in magic. Clerics however are on the level of wizards when it comes to achieving ultimate mastery of magic.
I don't really see the Glantrians being any less chaotic than the Alphatians. The real problem may be that the two nations perhaps must be similar in some ways, since both were founded by people who originated from the same world (Old Alphatia). What I'm not certain about is whether clerics were hated in Glantri before the persecuted wizards from LaTerre arrived. If that is the case, then it would be their significant impact on the Glantrian society, though not because clerics "sold their souls" so much (though that may indeed be the argument officially) as because clerics tend to hunt down wizards during an inquistion.
Not more chaotic perhaps, but there are other forces influencing the Glantrian attitude. I agree that much of the scepticism towards Clerics was introduced by immigrants from LaTerre.
They can't be the same, but they can't be too dissimilar either, since both were founded by people who originated from Old Alphatia. Glantri has been subjected to a good deal of influence from other cultures since its foundation, of course, but not so much that the Flaems have felt the need to go elsewhere.
But the Flaems were a particular group of Alphatians, probably different from the majority of the natives of that world. And as Glantri has developed and become influenced by newcomers, so have perhaps also the Flaems?
Havard
Maybe not fun, but even that lowly orc is supposed to represent some potential danger, when he swings a sharp object in your general direction.
So you want to play a game that isn't fun? Ummm . . .
And the orc does represent some potential danger. The DM can still roll a 20, and still do damage. Worse, the orc can trip you as you try running past him to get to something more dangerous.
And you've completely managed to miss my argument about drama. If Aragorn can walk away from the field of Pelennor without a scratch, then where is the achievement in that if there never was any possibility of him being harmed in the first place? That's actually what you're arguing in favor of.
No, I got your argument completely. And I reject it completely as being against the spirit of the genre.
And who said there was no possibility of harm? The books says their skill was so great that they avoided injury, not that they were immune to injury. That is actually what I am arguing in favor of, not playing a game and not having fun which you seem to feel is a good idea.
Of course the average orc should be less powerful - I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that it is retarded that he has no possibility of harming the level 17 fighter in any meaningful way. Why does the orc even bother to fight? He should be running like his life depended on, since indeed it does. This is even more true in 3e, where you can tell the level of a character simply the number of attacks he can make during a single round - "Whoa, he just made four attacks in six seconds?!? I'm out of here!!"
Why exactly is an orc fighting a 17th level fighter? Why would any DM feel the need to present an average orc in an adventure with 17th level characters? That is lousy DMing, not lousy game design.
But, as it happens, a very similar situation can be found in Red Hand of Doom, which has tactics for the various goblinoid grunts that are encountered. At first, 5th level PCs, they just rush in to fight and die. Later, 6th-7th level PCs, they realize things aren't that easy, and gang up and support each other. Finally, 8th+ level PCs, they just start running away.
No, the heroic element comes about when the fighter faces danger and walks away the victor and possibly even unharmed IN SPITE of the danger to his life.
. . .
But it just cannot happen in D&D, and so combat, which should be random and chaotic, is reduced to a simple and predictable demographic of the numbers, which will always end up with the strongest as the uncontested winner.
It happens in D&D all the time - when the DM uses monsters that are appropriate challenges for a particular level. Again, you are talking about a DM failure, not a game system failure.
It is the for GM ;)
Only one too petty and caught up in his own ego to remember that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone playing, not just himself.
Any DM can kill any PC at any time. You can throw a great wyrm red dragon at 1st level PCs to "teach them who's boss," but I fail to see how that can ever be vaguely considered as fun.
And really, if the PCs go into "we're invincible"-mode, where they think they can rush into any dungeon of goblins regardless of whatever traps, then it really is what they deserve for their arrogance.
Then do it with encounters appropriate to their level. Trying to pretend that 15th level traps in the hands of 1st level creatures is "reasonable" because it will "teach them a lesson" is anything but fun. Just use a 50-ton block and move on to the next slaughter.
If you can make the plan and execute it flawlessly, then why should that not happen? You make it sound as if that sort of thing should always fail, which actually runs contrary to your point about heroic PCs defeating a dragon. By this logic, the dragon should always win the fight...
Because it proves nothing, and is hardly heroic.
And no, the dragon should not always win the fight. Take a moment and look at the encounter guidelines in the DMG. Despite the flaws of the system, they are set so that the PCs should always win. The differences are how much resourses they are expected to expend.
Even the most powerful archmage can be killed by poisoning his food, stabbing him in the back with a knife, or murdering him in his sleep. The rules should take that into account.
And so they do!
Poisons can do Con damage. And, since once you miss that first save you have a lower save for the follow-up, they can easily kill people.
A good backstab can do enough damage to force a massive damage save.
A sleeping person is helpless, and thus subject to a coup de grace, which has an even harder save to make than a simple massive damage save.
Indeed, Mystara has something similar to that, or how else would you rationalize Lucinius killing all those Alphatian archmages when Thyatis claimed its independence?
Background and literature versus game mechanics.
That's why adventure fiction has such a low reputation. What makes for a good book and what makes for good game mechanics are not the same, and do not translate well across the genres.
No good writer or designer ever lets rules get in the way of writing a good backstory. And good DMs and players recognize the difference between the two, and play the game rather than trying to recreate a story literally.
I dont see Rangers, Paladins, Bards etc as potential candidates for the council, since they are mere dabblers in magic. Clerics however are on the level of wizards when it comes to achieving ultimate mastery of magic.
Well, that's not how DOTE puts it...
"The Grand Council is the other ruling body. Every user of magic who achieves ultimate mastery (36th level) can be on the Council..." (DOTE, Player's Guide to Alphatia, p.6)
Since DOTE was written for OD&D rules, it is pretty clear to me that "every user of magic" means a magic-user, which translates as a wizard in 2e or 3e terms. It very obviously says neither "spellcaster" nor "aristocrat", which DOTE seems to in most of the other instances, where magic-user or cleric is equally valid.
But the Flaems were a particular group of Alphatians, probably different from the majority of the natives of that world. And as Glantri has developed and become influenced by newcomers, so have perhaps also the Flaems?
Yes and no... While it has been almost 2000 years since the conflict between the followers of fire (the ancestors of the Flaems) and the followers of air (the ancestors of the Alphatians) on Old Alphatia, it does seem that they neither have changed to a particularly great degree since. The Alphatians introduced the council to check the emperor's power, but otherwise little changed beyond a more civilized way to resolve scholarly disputes. And the Flaems clearly are very aware of the Alphatian presence on Mystara - they certainly have not forgotten. So while they may have advanced on some points, there are definitely lingering sentiments.
Just think about how this looks to a potential new gamer unfamiliar to the setting... lots of intellectual discussion concerning materials he has no access to, unless he goes out of his way to obtain them on eBay. No talk of how players fit into the setting, just endless talk of NPC's, historical events, and so forth. It sounds like a history academic's meeting; no room for anyone else.
Anyway, as for the 1000-man council of Alphatia... aside from the absurdity and devaluation of high-level magic-users, having a thousand people for decision making is just ridiculous, especially since it appears to be the only ruling body beyond the royal family.
In a redesign, I'd have a council of 100 "high" level wizards... when I say high, I don't mean "can cast 9th level spells", I mean "A respected and accomplished magic-casting member of society with a perchance for politics." So he could only be a level 3 wizard with several levels of aristocrat or expert. (Sorry, bit of 3E there...) If the idea of 1,000 is too good to pass up, just have an inner and outer council... the outer council represents the population of the empire (hence the large numbers) and the inner council represents the individual provinces. Just like how the U.S. Congress is arranged.
No, I got your argument completely. And I reject it completely as being against the spirit of the genre.
And who said there was no possibility of harm? The books says their skill was so great that they avoided injury, not that they were immune to injury.
Precisely. Aragorn was in danger. That's why it work in LOTR. He was able to put that skill to use and avoid harm. Boromir did not. That distinction is not present in D&D, however, where a level 17+ fighter is virtually immortal against common orcs, no matter how many. Even in the extremely unlikely case of a natural 20, the injury is a very, very minor wound, which can never possible do an amount of damage that will even begin to be more than a scratch to a figther of that level, even if you double or triple the damage. And given the amount of magical equipment common for level 17 fighters, it really won't matter.
Why exactly is an orc fighting a 17th level fighter? Why would any DM feel the need to present an average orc in an adventure with 17th level characters? That is lousy DMing, not lousy game design.
Ah, so the fact that the player reached this level suddenly means that the orcish population suddenly dropped sharply, that they no longer prey on merchants, who need adventurers to save their skins, that there are no longer random encounters in the game...
Besides, I didn't see all those goblins and orcs in Moria running from Aragorn or Boromir. By your logic, they should have...
No. Sorry, but it's just lousy game design if the world magically changes to fit whatever power level the PCs happen to be at. I can hear it now:
Player: "Hoody Hoo! With that xp, I just reached level 10!"
GM: "You reached level 10? Hmm..."
*Poof*
GM: "Well, I'm afraid you can't hunt down those goblins anymore..."
Player: "What? Why not?"
GM: "Well, you're too experienced for them now. So it's not reasonable anymore."
Player: "Huh?!? But that's crazy! You established the goblin raids on those villages as part of the campaign background. Whatever levels we reach should be immaterial..."
GM: "No, that's bad Game Mastering, so we'll just remove kobolds and goblins from the game from now on!"
Player: "You can't be serious! I did my characters background on the basis of avenging my parents' deaths at the hands of those goblin tribes..."
GM: "Look, do you want to play the game or not? There are no goblins anymore. They don't exist. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along!!!!"
Player:
You're right - that does sound like a fun game session... Though in in a way I'd care to bring to my players
Only one too petty and caught up in his own ego to remember that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone playing, not just himself.
I see trolls are not beyond the particular 17th level fighter of our example...
Then do it with encounters appropriate to their level.
Have you ever tried doing an appropriate challenge like that to a group of all 17th-level PCs? With the magic and whatnot at their disposal, it is really difficult to stage something that does not completely throw campaign credibilty out the window or which does not become a dice-rolling nightmare of many, many hours or both. Besides, what if the PCs decide to assault the castle of a hated enemy at that level. What? The enemy's guards and soldier all get a magical +10 level boost? Looking at the internal demographics of D&D, that is preposterous - if they're all level 10+, then they should not be serving as common soldiers, in which case the GM gets to choose between arranging a believable plot with what he has or else to drop any and all pretenses at having any sort of consistency or credibility in his campaign.
Because it proves nothing, and is hardly heroic.
And no, the dragon should not always win the fight. Take a moment and look at the encounter guidelines in the DMG. Despite the flaws of the system, they are set so that the PCs should always win. The differences are how much resourses they are expected to expend.
So basically you're admitting that the game presents one set of rules for the PCs and another for everyone else, and yet insist that this is both logical and carries enough challenge to threaten the PCs, even though the PCs are to fight only battles that are always in their favor. This is not horrible game design?!? I beg to differ...
And so they do!
Poisons can do Con damage. And, since once you miss that first save you have a lower save for the follow-up, they can easily kill people.
Ah, but what if that archmage is your PC, and the assassin is the GM's NPC villain. Is it fair then? Because if it is, then you're not sticking to your position that the game should always favor the PCs.
A good backstab can do enough damage to force a massive damage save.
The damage will never kill a level 17 fighter, and even with massive damage, that save is very, very easy to make. So the chances are still astronomically in the warrior's favor, even though someone just plunged a knife through his back, which tends to actually be a rather efficient way to dispose off people in the real world.
A sleeping person is helpless, and thus subject to a coup de grace, which has an even harder save to make than a simple massive damage save.
Yes, but again, would you let a level 1 assassin do it against the level 20 PC fighter?
Background and literature versus game mechanics.
That's why adventure fiction has such a low reputation. What makes for a good book and what makes for good game mechanics are not the same, and do not translate well across the genres.
Not necessarily. D&D just fails to capture the essence of good plots and lends itself far better to mindless dungeon crawls and hack'n slash. You really should check out games like Call of Cthulhu, which certainly manages to blend drama, plot and gaming well together without turning all the PCs into superheroes (though I will admit that Call of Cthulhu can be very unpleasant to play with players who only ever played D&D and therefore stick firmly to the D&D approach of "solving" things...
). Just because D&D fails miserably to do so does not mean that the same is true for all other games around.No good writer or designer ever lets rules get in the way of writing a good backstory. And good DMs and players recognize the difference between the two, and play the game rather than trying to recreate a story literally.
I disagree completely. I've run both types of games IMC, and there is no question that the players enjoyed those with good plots more than those which just had huge fights. You have a right to your opinion, of course, but my 15+ years of experience as a GM suggest otherwise...
an council of Alphatia... aside from the absurdity and devaluation of high-level magic-users, having a thousand people for decision making is just ridiculous, especially since it appears to be the only ruling body beyond the royal family.
First of all, the royal family (which is actually more an imperial family) is just that - it's the empress' family and nothing more - they have no official power at all beyond their influence with the empress.
Second, if you don't like a council of 1000 level 36 wizards, then there is a simple solution - just play after WOTI, and they will all have died (or close enough anyway)... Even in Alphatia in the HW, there is no reason to assume they live, for they are never mentioned again in a published product. The net almanacs have a council, but it is not established that these are anywhere as powerful or as numerous as the council from before the war.
Changing the council during the gazetteer era does carry some pitfalls with it, though, because the relevant passages of Mystara's history are established on the basis that the members of the council are exceedingly powerful archmages. For example, at the end of WOTI, they all teleport to Glantri and attack the capital, so they cannot be of a class or level that would not give them access to that spell, or else you have a contradiction with established canonic events.
Just think about how this looks to a potential new gamer unfamiliar to the setting... lots of intellectual discussion concerning materials he has no access to, unless he goes out of his way to obtain them on eBay. No talk of how players fit into the setting, just endless talk of NPC's, historical events, and so forth. It sounds like a history academic's meeting; no room for anyone else.
Well, it's still interesting!
My only real experience with D&D was a few sessions at a friend's house back in the late 1980s. His brother made me a few photocopies (gasp!) so that I could play at home with my brother. We ended up playing without a DM and just using our imaginations, and suffice to say our characters grew rather wealthy. But we picked up a few accessories over the years (CM1, gold Immortals box set, TM1+2, and PWA1+2) which kept my interest in Mystara alive. Unfortunately my dad ended up throwing out most of those while doing some housekeeping a few years back.
But it's discussions like this that keep the setting alive, and keep random would-be-gamers (like me) interested in the setting. I've thoroughly devoured everything on the Vaults, and really enjoyed Thorf's maps. And as a result of the random discussions like this that kept me reading these forums, I found a PBEM game that has finally got me back into D&D and Mystara!
So please, keep your "academic meetings" going!
Anyway, as for the 1000-man council of Alphatia... aside from the absurdity and devaluation of high-level magic-users, having a thousand people for decision making is just ridiculous, especially since it appears to be the only ruling body beyond the royal family.
I think that's the point, though. It is absurdly unwieldy. I don't recall offhand whether the initial council (the one designed to check the Emperor's power) was 1,000 members or not, but at this point, it is so ridiculously inflated by these 1,000 wizards- with all of their various agendas and interests, many of which, I'd imagine, don't really have anything to do with the ruling of the nation- that Alphatia is an utterly ineffectual imperial power. Hence why they haven't expanded beyond their (admittedly large) nation and quashed people like the Thyatians (who, while they have their own problems of administration, at least have minimal checks on the Emperor's power). The Empress' moves will likely be countered by the Council to the point where she has little ability to affect nationwide legislation, and must resort to subterfuge (like in the recent Princess Ark), while the various wizards plot and scheme and ignore one another. In the end, the local rulers would be the ones with the most influence, I'd imagine, with the off-continental imperial territories (IoD, Bellisaria, etc.) being left largely to their own devices as well.
I don't actually mind this sort of thing myself, just the- as you put it- devaluing of high level spellcasters by the metagame requirement that they all be 36th level.
I think that's the point, though. It is absurdly unwieldy. I don't recall offhand whether the initial council (the one designed to check the Emperor's power) was 1,000 members or not, but at this point, it is so ridiculously inflated by these 1,000 wizards- with all of their various agendas and interests, many of which, I'd imagine, don't really have anything to do with the ruling of the nation- that Alphatia is an utterly ineffectual imperial power. Hence why they haven't expanded beyond their (admittedly large) nation and quashed people like the Thyatians (who, while they have their own problems of administration, at least have minimal checks on the Emperor's power). The Empress' moves will likely be countered by the Council to the point where she has little ability to affect nationwide legislation, and must resort to subterfuge (like in the recent Princess Ark), while the various wizards plot and scheme and ignore one another. In the end, the local rulers would be the ones with the most influence, I'd imagine, with the off-continental imperial territories (IoD, Bellisaria, etc.) being left largely to their own devices as well.
I think DOTE supports your position. Alphatians don't like non-spellcasters in positions of power, but they seem to have no problem with Eriadna's son Ericall - who is woefully unmagical - taking the position as king of Norwold (officially anyway). Yes, I know that the requirement for rulers to be spellcasters only applies on the Alphatian continent, but doesn't that tell us something too? Besides, given the size of Norwold, it seems strange that nobody protests this. Apparently the reason is that while Alphatia is a huge empire geographically, the wizards seem to care only about who does what on the Alphatian continent itself - they don't care too much about "colonies" like Isle of Dawn (except when the Thyatians try to exert power there, of course...), Bellissaria, Esterhold, or Norwold. Whether that is due to the anti-imperial philosophies of archmages like Mylertendal can only be speculated on. In any event, the grand council seems to care only about their own internal politics, and just can't be bothered with the everyday chores of ruling a kingdom, so we ironically see that many of the kings and queens are nowhere near level 36, suggesting that it is of secondary importance or interest, even if the most power is therefore wielded locally.
Precisely. Aragorn was in danger. That's why it work in LOTR. He was able to put that skill to use and avoid harm. Boromir did not. That distinction is not present in D&D, however, where a level 17+ fighter is virtually immortal against common orcs, no matter how many. Even in the extremely unlikely case of a natural 20, the injury is a very, very minor wound, which can never possible do an amount of damage that will even begin to be more than a scratch to a figther of that level, even if you double or triple the damage. And given the amount of magical equipment common for level 17 fighters, it really won't matter.
Really? Let's see . . .
100 orcs score 5 auto-hits.
With their MM standard weapon, they do 9 damage per hit.
That is 45 damage per 100 orc/attacks.
A 17th level fighter has 10 + 16 x 5.5 + 17 x Con bonus hit points. Being nice, we'll give him a 20 Con. That is 183 hit points.
He can take about 420 attacks.
With Great Cleave (which is normally considered a useless feat for a high level fighter, but we'll give it to him anyway), he can likely kill 11 orcs per round, or 27 if he has a spiked chain. It will take him a minimum of 26 rounds to kill all those orcs, at best. So we can probably expect it will only take 200 or so orcs to get off those 420 attack rolls.
Hmmm . . . it seems like how many there are sure as heck matters to me!
Ah, so the fact that the player reached this level suddenly means that the orcish population suddenly dropped sharply, that they no longer prey on merchants, who need adventurers to save their skins, that there are no longer random encounters in the game...
No, it means that players of that level have to wander off an stop the rampaging old red dragons, leaving the orcs to all the 1st level adventurers who need a job.
Besides, I didn't see all those goblins and orcs in Moria running from Aragorn or Boromir. By your logic, they should have...
That is because there were more than 200 of them. And they had missile weapons. Which means with some average die-rolling, they would get off their 420 attacks needed to kill the average 17th level fighter in only a few rounds. And that is why Aragorn and Boromir ran from them.
Of course by your logic, Aragorn and Boromir should never have been allowed to enter Moria, and if they did, they should have automatically been slaughtered by the orcs to teach them a lesson and entertain the DM.
No. Sorry, but it's just lousy game design if the world magically changes to fit whatever power level the PCs happen to be at. I can hear it now:
Yes, I can hear it too:
DM: Well, the campaign is based on defeating the goblin hordes, but everyone is now 10th level. What should I do? Oh! That's right! I can give the goblins class levels! That will work. In fact, let me write an adventure about that, and call it Red Hand of Doom. But even goblins are getting a bit boring now, so let me add some others with the draconic template. Yeah, that will work!
Have you ever tried doing an appropriate challenge like that to a group of all 17th-level PCs?
Well yes. I have.
It wasn't easy, and it has taken time, and lots of play at lower levels to be able to increase challenges for a group, but it is not impossible.
Well, at least not for me.
So basically you're admitting that the game presents one set of rules for the PCs and another for everyone else, and yet insist that this is both logical and carries enough challenge to threaten the PCs, even though the PCs are to fight only battles that are always in their favor. This is not horrible game design?!? I beg to differ...
Not at all. The game presents a set of rules for the players. There is no "everyone else." The NPCs don't have independent existences, bewailing their future fate as xp for the players when the DM mystically summons them to the table.
What a notion!
But what exactly do you propose as the alternative? A game where the DM is in active competition with the players to kill more. A game where every combat is determined by nothing more than a simple linear probability. That is the height of game design to you?
Ah, but what if that archmage is your PC, and the assassin is the GM's NPC villain. Is it fair then? Because if it is, then you're not sticking to your position that the game should always favor the PCs.
And yet it does because the PC still gets to have three friends hanging around.
The damage will never kill a level 17 fighter, and even with massive damage, that save is very, very easy to make. So the chances are still astronomically in the warrior's favor, even though someone just plunged a knife through his back, which tends to actually be a rather efficient way to dispose off people in the real world.
You obsess about this 17th level fighter.
Well, an orc doing a coup de grace with a falchion will do an average of 18 damage. That is a DC 28 Fort save. With his 20 Con, the fighter has a +15 Fort save bonus, or a 60% of dying.
Astronomically in his favor?
But right, you want to focus only on that single backstab.
Not necessarily. D&D just fails to capture the essence of good plots and lends itself far better to mindless dungeon crawls and hack'n slash. You really should check out games like Call of Cthulhu, which certainly manages to blend drama, plot and gaming well together without turning all the PCs into superheroes (though I will admit that Call of Cthulhu can be very unpleasant to play with players who only ever played D&D and therefore stick firmly to the D&D approach of "solving" things...
Very necessarily.
Just because you never learned how to run D&D as anything but a mindless dungeon crawl doesn't mean that others haven't managed to do more with the system.
And I've played many games, including Call of Cthulu. If I want to have a PC whose lifespan is measured in scenes of a session rather than years of play, I will happily play it again. Of course, that isn't really fair to Call of Cthulu, as the thing you keep missing is -
It is a different genre!
But then, you seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make all along.
I disagree completely. I've run both types of games IMC, and there is no question that the players enjoyed those with good plots more than those which just had huge fights. You have a right to your opinion, of course, but my 15+ years of experience as a GM suggest otherwise...
Wow! 15+ years?
I've been playing and DMing for over 25 years. (January 1979 to be precise.)
And my experience overwhelmingly tells me that different people like different things, and the only thing you can say that is absolutely "wrong" is telling others they are playing their game "wrong."
No, it means that players of that level have to wander off an stop the rampaging old red dragons, leaving the orcs to all the 1st level adventurers who need a job.
That's the very reason that makes me dislike Forgotten Realms, making adventures as common as merchants, farmers, etc...
That's the very reason that makes me dislike Forgotten Realms, making adventures as common as merchants, farmers, etc...
Who said they were?
I just said that if there were 17th level adventurers running around, there must be some 1st level adventurers running around too. Otherwise we would be left with the theory that until the PCs reach high level no such adventurers exist, and therefore no challenges appropriate for such exist, or that they restrain themselves until they feel someone who can defeat them shows up.
Suddenly appearing great threats or mysteriously quiescent threats vs. a general range of adventurers taking care of them off-camera as needed. Hmmm . . .
Also, doesn't that (the endless stream of orcs as a threat) come with the requirement that monsters are even more common than merchants, farmers, etc? I would consider that even more detestable as a core design concept than the "monsters in stasis" paradigm.
Who said they were?
I just said that if there were 17th level adventurers running around, there must be some 1st level adventurers running around too.
I agree. Since the champions of the Generic Realm left for fighting the foul Ketchup Dragon, someone will have to take their place when the Lame Orcs tribe raids the village of Middle-of-Nowhere... possibly a young member of the local milicia? ;)
As long as there isn't an adventure party in each village/town (and 3d6 parties for the cities), that seems to be logical
Otherwise we would be left with the theory that until the PCs reach high level no such adventurers exist, and therefore no challenges appropriate for such exist, or that they restrain themselves until they feel someone who can defeat them shows up.
Suddenly appearing great threats or mysteriously quiescent threats vs. a general range of adventurers taking care of them off-camera as needed. Hmmm . . .
Also, doesn't that (the endless stream of orcs as a threat) come with the requirement that monsters are even more common than merchants, farmers, etc? I would consider that even more detestable as a core design concept than the "monsters in stasis" paradigm.
Indeed, both are something that one would expect not to happen in the real world (if we had monsters in our would ;) ). But the FR way for solving this looks more of a problem than a solution...
That's why when I'm DMing, the campign is a very low-level one, with lvl 10 characters being already epic ones. This way I'm sure the already famous heroes (but still lvl 4) will think twice when they meet an orc army... And solve the "Ressurect-the-King" dilemma when dealing with kingdons and its dinasties.
I give you: Joe Orc.
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/gamespyarchive/gspynod272.html
Really? Let's see . . .
100 orcs score 5 auto-hits.
With their MM standard weapon, they do 9 damage per hit.
That is 45 damage per 100 orc/attacks.
A 17th level fighter has 10 + 16 x 5.5 + 17 x Con bonus hit points. Being nice, we'll give him a 20 Con. That is 183 hit points.
He can take about 420 attacks.
With Great Cleave (which is normally considered a useless feat for a high level fighter, but we'll give it to him anyway), he can likely kill 11 orcs per round, or 27 if he has a spiked chain. It will take him a minimum of 26 rounds to kill all those orcs, at best. So we can probably expect it will only take 200 or so orcs to get off those 420 attack rolls.
Hmmm . . . it seems like how many there are sure as heck matters to me!
You're quite severely either overlooking or ignoring some rather deciding factors here. Luckily I can point out two things off the top of my head that you absolutely need to bring into your equation.
First, adventurers of the levels we speak of here tend to have all sorts of helpful spells active, magical items or whatnot to help them. A rather obvious one would be potions of healing or simply a ring of regeneration. How likely is it for a level 17 character to possess such things? I dare say the chances are astronomically AGAINST him not having them...
Second - and this the big one - you've completely missed the question of just how many orcs can attack the fighter in our example at the same time. Since they are all the same size, no more than eight orcs can attack him at once, which means - according to your calculation - that he can kill them all and three more. Okay, so it's a question of timing then? Well, in 3e, that high-leveled character is likely to have increased his Dexterity if it isn't already high, and he probably has the Improved Initiative feat as well, which means that he has a very good chance of making his attacks before the orcs get to make their's every time. Thus, a lot of the orcs in your example won't even get to make their attacks in the first place.
But even if we ignore all those rather telling factors, it still speaks volumes that you see no problem with a level 17 character statistically winning a fight against 100 or even 150 orcs every time... The only other time outside D&D when we see that is in extremely bad movies or books, which is rather revealing in itself. I would not have been so quick to admit this fact if I were you, but then I'm glad you at least acknowledge the truth of this. Personally I find it absurd in the extreme, which - as I said before - is why we don't see it in merely decent films or books... or games.
No, it means that players of that level have to wander off an stop the rampaging old red dragons, leaving the orcs to all the 1st level adventurers who need a job.
GM: "You're wandering down the road to the dragon's cave, when you hear the unmistakable noise of battle. As you rush forward, you see a caravan attacked by fifteen wolf-riding goblins. Several of the people are already dead, and the survivors fight valiantly against hopeless odds, as they try to protect the women and children."
Player: "We rush forward."
GM: "A man screams to you, 'Please noble adventurers - save us from these murdering goblins."
Player: "I yell to him, 'Sorry, but we can't do that - it's beneath our power level'. Then we move on..."
Nice...
That is because there were more than 200 of them. And they had missile weapons. Which means with some average die-rolling, they would get off their 420 attacks needed to kill the average 17th level fighter in only a few rounds. And that is why Aragorn and Boromir ran from them.
No, they only shot arrows at Boromir in the opening of the fight, and when the Fellowship was escaping them. They did not fire a single shot while they moved to surround them. Besides, by your calculation above, it should not have been a problem, since both Boromir, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are all mean warriors, so it should have taken at least 800 orcs to finish them off. And that's not counting Gandalf, who wields a rather mean sword as well...
Of course by your logic, Aragorn and Boromir should never have been allowed to enter Moria, and if they did, they should have automatically been slaughtered by the orcs to teach them a lesson and entertain the DM.
I've never said that, and you know it quite well. What I said is that if players do something that is obviously stupid, then they should reap the results of their arrogance. And then I said that I'd like for the game to actually present *some* form of danger whenever someone tries to run the characters through with a sword or whatever harmful object. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I assure I'm quite capable of doing so myself without your help, thank you very much.
Yes, I can hear it too:
DM: Well, the campaign is based on defeating the goblin hordes, but everyone is now 10th level. What should I do? Oh! That's right! I can give the goblins class levels! That will work. In fact, let me write an adventure about that, and call it Red Hand of Doom. But even goblins are getting a bit boring now, so let me add some others with the draconic template. Yeah, that will work!
Well, there goes the principle that classes and their levels are reserved for adventurers, I guess... I assume you have no problem with 1000 level 36 wizards on Alphatia's Grand Council then?
Besides, this goes right back to the example of an enemy fortress guarded by all level 10+ soldiers that I mentioned in my last post and which you seem to have conveniently overlooked in this reply. How did all those goblins suddenly acquire such experience? Because my players *WILL* ask and question the credibility of my campaign if goblins are suddenly all level 10 or higher. And rightly so. Sure, a standard goblin is no challenge, but then it's not my fault if the game is badly designed...
Well yes. I have.
It wasn't easy, and it has taken time, and lots of play at lower levels to be able to increase challenges for a group, but it is not impossible.
Well, at least not for me.
Well, I've done it every time for the last few years, but you can do it only so often before it begins to look staged and manipulated. OD&D War Machine battallions are frequently around 250 men for an army, yet you say that it's no problem that a single fighter can kill them all by himself... And of course, if you have an adventuring party with a few fighters and a mage, possibly a cleric as well, then killing ratio rises dramatically. They could probably take out 2000 men easy, just the four of them. Sure makes you wonder what Gandalf, Aragorn and co. needed all those armies for...
But what exactly do you propose as the alternative? A game where the DM is in active competition with the players to kill more. A game where every combat is determined by nothing more than a simple linear probability. That is the height of game design to you?
It is quite plain that I have failed completely to impress upon you the sort of thing I would prefer in spite of my best efforts to describe it. Repeatedly.
However, I shall perservere and take another (back)stab at it...
First of all, I can think of no game which is closer to "a game where every combat is determined by nothing more than a simple linear probability" than D&D. None. I say that because no other game seems to reduce combat more to a dice rolling exercise, where the opponents take turns to swing at each other until one of them goes down. There is no strategy in D&D combat - you just take turns at hitting each other.
When I told my players recently that while I'm not tired of Mystara, I am tired of D&D, this is the first thing they mentioned, when they voiced support of some other system.
There is a desperate need for strategic options in fantasy combat beyond "I swing my sword at the enemy". It needs to be much more descriptive, and the various forms of making an attack need to affect the chance of doing damage and how much depending on what sort of defense the opponent can meet the attack with. I once heard Nick Gillard, who "wrote" the lightsaber battles for the new Star Wars films (yes, I know, but bear with me for a moment) say that compared to the original films, he felt the battles should be much more gritty. He said he needed combat to be "like a game of chess played at a thousand moves a second". Now, that's the sort of thing I want! Combat needs to be strategic. It needs to depend on the way a warrior chooses to attack his opponent - a deadly dance jabs and feints, as both sides test the opponent's defense and tries to find an opening, a weakness in the defense.
Now, a common orc is still not going to be a major challenge for a truly experienced warrior, but it will depend on the defense the warrior can meet the orc's attack with. The warrior probably has no problem forming a solid defense against a single orc or even two. But once there are three or four orcs, it begins to become far more difficult, because he has to defend against all of them at the same time.
None of this is present in D&D, however, because it's all sacrificed for the higher goal of simplistic rules. Note, for example, how heavy armors just increase your AC, when they really should lower it. Heavy armor is heavy. Therefore it makes you less agile and easier to hit. You don't use it to avoid being hit. No, you use it because it absorbs damage, and that is much better than risking severe injury while wearing armor that does not restrict your agility.
The problem with D&D is that it still clings to some concepts that go all the way back to the infancy of the game. They are horribly antiquated and outdated today, yet the game stands by them not because they're any better than the alternatives, but simply out of pure nostalgia. Hey, it's D&D, so you MUST have armor classes, hit points, and rigid characters classes. D&D is flawed today because it still refuses to grow beyond the 80s or even the 70s. Most of the alternative games are far more elegant than D&D (though I don't claim that they don't have their own particular flaws).
And yet it does because the PC still gets to have three friends hanging around.
I must have missed the rule that says the PCs must always sleep together...
You obsess about this 17th level fighter.
Well, an orc doing a coup de grace with a falchion will do an average of 18 damage. That is a DC 28 Fort save. With his 20 Con, the fighter has a +15 Fort save bonus, or a 60% of dying.
Astronomically in his favor?
But right, you want to focus only on that single backstab.
I've never talked about a coup de grace. I don't know where you got that from. And in any event, it is not relevant in an open combat situation, since we're talking about a helpless opponent. Well, I wasn't, anyway...
Very necessarily.
Just because you never learned how to run D&D as anything but a mindless dungeon crawl doesn't mean that others haven't managed to do more with the system.
I must remember to mention you said that to my players. I'm fairly certain they will laugh very long and hard. I can't even remember the last time I had a dungeon map on my gaming table. I just hate them too much. And the fights tend to be very few, but fierce, because it can otherwise take ages to get through them. No, I have definitely run adventures where the players never visited a single dungeon (which is rare at my table in any event) or where they didn't fight at all. To me a good campaign is always driven by the plot and the characters, never by combat or dungeons. Ever. I'm just saying that this is what D&D is good for, which is why I find it to be a flawed system.
And I've played many games, including Call of Cthulu. If I want to have a PC whose lifespan is measured in scenes of a session rather than years of play, I will happily play it again.
Actually, my major Call of Cthulhu character lived for several years (about 1920 to 1930, I think). Heck, he didn't even die, the campaign did... That said, he did develop a few, ahem, unfortunate "conditions" along the way...
Wow! 15+ years?
I've been playing and DMing for over 25 years. (January 1979 to be precise.)
And my experience overwhelmingly tells me that different people like different things, and the only thing you can say that is absolutely "wrong" is telling others they are playing their game "wrong."
No, I've said why *I* think D&D is a badly designed game, and why 3e has not made that situation any better. Whether someone agrees with me or not is for that person to decide for him/herself. If you're going to suggest that I've told people how to play the game or what to think of it, then please point out where I have said that. Criticizing D&D for the flaws I see in its design cannot be construed to mean that I'm telling you or anyone else how you should see or play the game. Just because I don't like something (ice cream, D&D, or whatever) and argue why does not mean that you have to agree with me. It can and does mean only how I perceive it and its flaws. If you try to question my observations by proving me wrong, then it is quite reasonable that I defend my interpretation with the experience I have made over the years. And I will not hesitate to voice my disapproval or the flaws I see just because you or anyone else like the game. If you don't like what I write because my observations or opinion of the game annoy you, then you have the option of ignoring my posts on the subject.
this little link has nothing, whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread or the question of the number of 17th level adventureres that populate Mystara. But it will enlighten us on the life of those unfortunate orcs, that meet said 17th level adventureres... :D
I give you: Joe Orc.
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/gamespyarchive/gspynod272.html
Sweet :D
And a prime example of how D&D logic is a fantasy world all to itself ;)
I agree. Since the champions of the Generic Realm left for fighting the foul Ketchup Dragon, someone will have to take their place when the Lame Orcs tribe raids the village of Middle-of-Nowhere... possibly a young member of the local milicia? ;)
As long as there isn't an adventure party in each village/town (and 3d6 parties for the cities), that seems to be logical
I agree.
That is precisely my intent.
Indeed, both are something that one would expect not to happen in the real world (if we had monsters in our would ;) ). But the FR way for solving this looks more of a problem than a solution...
Again, I agree. I consider it a prime example of a campaign out of control, where no one could come up with a way to control 10th level characters playing power trip games on the helpless villagers.
(Here's a hint: When your reputation is that bad nobody will hire you to do anything or share any rumors with you, it makes it a lot harder to find the next adventure location.)
That's why when I'm DMing, the campign is a very low-level one, with lvl 10 characters being already epic ones. This way I'm sure the already famous heroes (but still lvl 4) will think twice when they meet an orc army... And solve the "Ressurect-the-King" dilemma when dealing with kingdons and its dinasties.
That works.
I've actually been taking my time with 3.5. My first campaign soared to 15th+ level, but had balance issues. My next one was planned to stop around 13th, and had fewer. My current ones will go to 15th, but my experience has kept it stable up to 12th, and I expect that to continue to the end of it. And with all that experience, I expect my next campaign to go over 20th level and be stable.
In late 2nd ed though, most of my campaigns were at the level you describe, topping out around 10th for the reasons you cite.
No, I've said why *I* think D&D is a badly designed game, and why 3e has not made that situation any better. Whether someone agrees with me or not is for that person to decide for him/herself. If you're going to suggest that I've told people how to play the game or what to think of it, then please point out where I have said that.
Message #48
"Besides, quite frequently a GM needs this to not have the PCs go completely "Knights of the Dinner Table" and slash their way through villages and towns left and right... Yes, that's stupid, I know, but there are people out there who do play D&D that way... sadly."
No, that is not stupid if that is what is fun for those people. They should play however they like, and enjoy themselves doing it.
Again, I agree. I consider it a prime example of a campaign out of control, where no one could come up with a way to control 10th level characters playing power trip games on the helpless villagers.
(Here's a hint: When your reputation is that bad nobody will hire you to do anything or share any rumors with you, it makes it a lot harder to find the next adventure location.)
Unfortunately, sometimes that's not enough... I guess that's the main reason for me DMing this low-level camaigns. By the way, that's something that makes me wonder, if Aragorn, Legolas etc were indeed high level characters or if that is only a book written by a very imaginative hobbit :D
If a lvl 10 party of 2d4 characters might (and sometimes, surely will) be a problem, what about 1000 36th lvl wizards... :D
In late 2nd ed though, most of my campaigns were at the level you describe, topping out around 10th for the reasons you cite.
By the way, that's something I aways wanted to ask:
832 AC: Rajadhiraja Balin ul Nervi drowns in the Asanda's flood waters while trying to rescue a child caught in the churning river. His eighteen-year-old daughter (and only heir) Nitara ul Nervi claims the throne of Sind and the title of Ranidhiraja. After a rocky start - plagued with assassinations and failed coups - her rule stabilizes into fifty years of peace and prosperity.
Why no one ressurected him? If Stefan Karameikos dies in a heroic battle (like Halav, that was raised, by the way) or by accident, would a cleric raise him, or Valen or any other of his children become the new king/queen? If there is high level clerics (just like our 1000 wizards), why a king would stay dead?
Unfortunately, sometimes that's not enough... I guess that's the main reason for me DMing this low-level camaigns. By the way, that's something that makes me wonder, if Aragorn, Legolas etc were indeed high level characters or if that is only a book written by a very imaginative hobbit :D
If a lvl 10 party of 2d4 characters might (and sometimes, surely will) be a problem, what about 1000 36th lvl wizards... :D
Again:
Books are books.
Games are games.
What is good in one does not always work in the other.
I sometimes wonder if the line about 1000 36th level wizards was just written as background flavor and never meant to be taken seriously and then made serious because everyone expected it.
Why no one ressurected him? If Stefan Karameikos dies in a heroic battle (like Halav, that was raised, by the way) or by accident, would a cleric raise him, or Valen or any other of his children become the new king/queen? If there is high level clerics (just like our 1000 wizards), why a king would stay dead?
See above.
Also, I expect that is why they changed the rules for returning people to life. The person to be returned must agree to come back. I expect they did try to raise him, but he simply decided to stay dead.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's not enough... I guess that's the main reason for me DMing this low-level camaigns. By the way, that's something that makes me wonder, if Aragorn, Legolas etc were indeed high level characters or if that is only a book written by a very imaginative hobbit :D
Actually, it's pretty clear if you read the full body of Tolkein's work that the average protagonist drops in level as history progresses. Aragorn and Legolas and all are not very powerful compared to, say Isildur in the second age (defeats Sauron in single combat), or Hurin in the first age (kills 70 trolls in a row, finally is buried under the bodies and the stench knocks him out)
Why no one ressurected him? If Stefan Karameikos dies in a heroic battle (like Halav, that was raised, by the way) or by accident, would a cleric raise him, or Valen or any other of his children become the new king/queen? If there is high level clerics (just like our 1000 wizards), why a king would stay dead?
In many editions of D&D, Raise Dead, which is common, is not always survived--IE, it can fail. Resurrection is less common (I'm not sure if it even exists in OD&D).
Also, if an Immortal doesn't like you, he might instruct his cleric to NOT RAISE YOU.
Depending on how the king drowned in the Sind case, his body, needed for Raise Dead, may not have been found.
In many editions of D&D, Raise Dead, which is common, is not always survived--IE, it can fail. Resurrection is less common (I'm not sure if it even exists in OD&D).
In 0D&D Raise Dead didn't have a percentage chance of failure, but it only worked if the corpse had been dead for no more than four days plus four days/level after 8th, making it 112 days for a 36th level cleric. While there was no Resurrection, there was what the Companion Set called Raise Dead Fully, which worked in months rather than days, so a 36th level cleric could raise someone dead up to 76 months ago.
So the body had to be present, and it had to have died within the last six years or so (and only the most powerful kings are going to have access to 36th level clerics, so the time limit is going to be substantially less in the majority of cases). Wish wasn't able to duplicate 7th level cleric spells.
Again:
Books are books.
Games are games.
What is good in one does not always work in the other.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that hobbits don't exagerate sometimes ;)
I sometimes wonder if the line about 1000 36th level wizards was just written as background flavor and never meant to be taken seriously and then made serious because everyone expected it.
Very likely, I guess
That's something that I simply ignore, anyway
Also, I expect that is why they changed the rules for returning people to life. The person to be returned must agree to come back. I expect they did try to raise him, but he simply decided to stay dead.
The problem is that the premature death of a king, that would led into a sucession war, would be easily avoided simply if our king wanted to come back (which is likely, since he probably don't want to see his sons fighting each other and his kingdom fragmented)
Actually, it's pretty clear if you read the full body of Tolkein's work that the average protagonist drops in level as history progresses. Aragorn and Legolas and all are not very powerful compared to, say Isildur in the second age (defeats Sauron in single combat), or Hurin in the first age (kills 70 trolls in a row, finally is buried under the bodies and the stench knocks him out)
Indeed, that's truly epic characters
Or pehaps some legends exagetare more that hobbits sometimes, hehe :D
In many editions of D&D, Raise Dead, which is common, is not always survived--IE, it can fail. Resurrection is less common (I'm not sure if it even exists in OD&D).
If one empire can have 1000 36th lvl wizards, why smaller nations can't have 1-10 36th lvl clerics? ;)
Also, if an Immortal doesn't like you, he might instruct his cleric to NOT RAISE YOU.
That's something that could help our problem, especially in a "monotheistic" nation, like the HeldannicKnights and, more or less, Narvaez. But that's not impossible to find another high-level cleric of another Immortal, i guess ;)
Depending on how the king drowned in the Sind case, his body, needed for Raise Dead, may not have been found.
Then we have another example here:
812 AC: Rajadhiraja Ramanan ul Nervi dies after eating a bowl of figs. His eldest son, Kulpakh, assumes the throne, claiming his father's death is the result of Immortal justice. Within a week, Kulpakh begins issuing bizarre proclamations - exhorting the Jadugeryas to find a way to make it snow in the Great Waste, proclaiming all Rishiyas to be vampires feeding on the people of Sind, and insisting all animals be set free of their bondage and not asked to do man's work. Within a month, Kulpakh dies when a ceremonial elephant freed to wander the streets runs amok and tramples him. Kulpakh's brother Balin, barely in his twenties, takes the throne.
this little link has nothing, whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread or the question of the number of 17th level adventureres that populate Mystara. But it will enlighten us on the life of those unfortunate orcs, that meet said 17th level adventureres...
I give you: Joe Orc.
Also on a lighter note, I give you the goblins.
Regards
Gary
Message #48
"Besides, quite frequently a GM needs this to not have the PCs go completely "Knights of the Dinner Table" and slash their way through villages and towns left and right... Yes, that's stupid, I know, but there are people out there who do play D&D that way... sadly."
No, that is not stupid if that is what is fun for those people. They should play however they like, and enjoy themselves doing it.
And my statement makes it quite clear that I think it's stupid. That's not telling people they can't do it, it's just saying this is what I think of it. But I shall submit to your higher judgment, since it is obvious from your statements here that I apparently do not have that right to have an opinion on the matter
And my statement makes it quite clear that I think it's stupid. That's not telling people they can't do it, it's just saying this is what I think of it. But I shall submit to your higher judgment, since it is obvious from your statements here that I apparently do not have that right to have an opinion on the matter
But you did presume to pass judgement on how people should play.
And all I did was provide my views in opposition to yours. Or do you feel I do not have the right to do that?
But you did presume to pass judgement on how people should play.
And all I did was provide my views in opposition to yours. Or do you feel I do not have the right to do that?
You have every right to disagree with me. But it's pretty low to infer that I'm telling people how to think and play, when all I've done is state my opinions and experiences on the matter. There is nothing wrong with saying that I do not like or enjoy a dungeon-crawl. If people like that, good for them, but if I think it's mindless and not fun at all, then I can say so too. After all, it's not as if people need my seal of approval to play D&D if they want to, and I doubt they'll stop playing dungeon-crawls if they like them just because I don't.
NOTE: And given that you expressed interest in what I would prefer as an alternative, I find it very interesting that you chose not to respond to that, when I began to describe it. Fascinating...
But I will refrain from trolling by speculating about your motives, even if I feel uncertain that you gave me the same courtesy...
You have every right to disagree with me. But it's pretty low to infer that I'm telling people how to think and play, when all I've done is state my opinions and experiences on the matter.
It is pretty low to call people's style of play and hobby "stupid."
It is quite easy to express your preferences for play without slamming every other style or mode of play. Not that such is uncommon. It was there when wargaming was created. It was there when role-playing split from wargaming. It was there when LARPs, CCGs, and CRPGs split from role-playing.. And all it has ever done was make people feel they weren't welcome. It is destructive to the hobby, and I don't like it.
But I will refrain from trolling by speculating about your motives, even if I feel uncertain that you gave me the same courtesy...
I already stated my motives. And quite clearly. If you didn't get it:
I don't like seeing any mode or style of gaming put down, and I speak out against it.
As for trolling, expressing something like that, even if it is just an "opinion," is trolling.
It is pretty low to call people's style of play and hobby "stupid."
It is quite easy to express your preferences for play without slamming every other style or mode of play.
It's also less honest. If I think something is stupid, I prefer to say so. It may not be politically correct, but I prefer to speak clearly, even it means stepping on someone's toes, since that can never be avoided anyway - whatever your opinion, someone always takes exception and claims that you're being disrespectful if you dare to have a different opinion than they do. You may take offense, but you know where I stand.
Not that such is uncommon. It was there when wargaming was created. It was there when role-playing split from wargaming. It was there when LARPs, CCGs, and CRPGs split from role-playing.. And all it has ever done was make people feel they weren't welcome. It is destructive to the hobby, and I don't like it.
So you advice silence over dialogue about these things? I fear I'll have to disagree strongly on that point too.
I already stated my motives. And quite clearly. If you didn't get it:
I don't like seeing any mode or style of gaming put down, and I speak out against it.
As for trolling, expressing something like that, even if it is just an "opinion," is trolling.
No, it's not trolling if I say that I don't like ice-cream. It's only trolling if I say that people who like ice-cream are stupid. Free speech is the right to state your opinion, even if it offends other people (and in fact, especially if people take offense).
Also, I've been talking about RPGs exclusively. I have not talked about wargaming or LRPGs or CCGs at all. What you seem to be suggesting is that we cannot have these sorts of discussions at all, since we might offend people. Well, I'm not quite willing to give up on dialogue just yet. If you don't feel that way, then feel free to stop participating in the discussion.
Finally, if you begin to speculate about me having ulterior motives for speaking my mind here, then it's trolling, because it does not relate to the topic. It is also a personal attack, since you're discussing me and my motives instead of the topic.
It's also less honest. If I think something is stupid, I prefer to say so. It may not be politically correct.....
It really has nothing to do with it. You could have said everything you had to say without attacking others. We're all here because of our interest in the Mystara campaign setting. If one DM plays the setting in another system, it isn't wrong. It's just different. That's why I didn't reply when you attacked my opinion earlier in the thread.
No, it's not trolling if I say that I don't like ice-cream. It's only trolling if I say that people who like ice-cream are stupid. Free speech is the right to state your opinion, even if it offends other people (and in fact, especially if people take offense).
Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequence of the speech. Thus, you were called on Trolling. Saying that someone's opinion is stupid is equal to attacking them. The way you tried to prove your points were simply discourteous to others. Please change that for me and the others on the board.
Thanks,
--Ray.
1. It is not dishonest to avoid putting people down for their hobbies. Every hobby is silly to an utterly stupid waste of time and money to everyone who doesn't share it, and the only sane way to spend your free time to those who do it. It is not PC to be able to express the pleasure you derive from your hobby without putting anyone else's down.
2. I embrace constructive dialogue about all forms of gaming. While I spent much time and effort despising CCGs and LARPs when they first appeared, and expressed low of opinions CRPGs, both personal and online, I eventually realized one simple fact:
They are all still games, and they all increase the number of gamers, and thus build the hobby.
Every store that makes its monthly rent by selling CCGs is another store that is open to sell D&D books. And every store that thrives by hosting CCG tournaments is another store that can put space aside for LG events. Every person that "realizes" how cool fantasy games are by playing a MMORPG is another person who might want to try them face to face and discover how much fun our form of the hobby is.
And every gamer that starts reading a forum and sees their style of play put down, or their preferred mode of gaming if tabletop RPGing isn't, is a gamer that both wonders if they should bother sticking with it, and a gamer that is encouraged to go off and badmouth tabletop gaming in general or D&D in particular.
I play tabletop RPGs, especially D&D 3.5, a CMG, old style wargames when I can find players, and CRPGs and strategy games when I'm home alone. Those are my preferred forms of the hobby. I don't like or want to try the others, but I am glad they are there so there are more gamers out there to keep the hobby going, give it strength when attacked by supporters of censorship, and to provide a pool of possible crossover recruits. I have no reason to put them down, and every reason to stand up for them.
It really has nothing to do with it. You could have said everything you had to say without attacking others.
It's an attack to say that *I* think it's stupid when RPGs deteriorate into a hackfest, where the PCs kill the villagers just to prove how tough they are?
No, it's an opinion. Nothing more.
We're all here because of our interest in the Mystara campaign setting. If one DM plays the setting in another system, it isn't wrong. It's just different. That's why I didn't reply when you attacked my opinion earlier in the thread.
Again, no. I have not said people can't run their campaigns however they want to. I have just stated what I like and don't like and why. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I won't apologize for articulating my opinion.
Also, it is quite evident that your claims of an attack on my part earlier in this thread is untrue. I've actually checked the entire topic to see what you were referring to, but this is the first reply you've made in this thread. So now who is caught trolling? I can't very well be accused of attacking your opinion (which is actually not against the rules and not trolling) when you have said nothing.
Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequence of the speech. Thus, you were called on Trolling.
Quite wrong. I don't run from the consequences of my speech. I'm quite willing to accept that people might disagree with me, and I support my position by describing the experiences that formed my opinion on the matter in the first place. I can speak my opinion as long as I don't go out of my way to insult people, and I have yet to do so, unless people insist on taking offense, which is their problem and not mine. I can say, for example, that I really dislike some movie, and then people say I offend them because they like it and therefore I'm behaving in an offensive manner. That's bad logic, especially if I support my opinion with arguments. That's precisely what I've done here - I've criticized D&D, which is fair enough. If you take offense at that because you like D&D, then that's your problem, not mine. Otherwise any post here could be accused of trolling, since I or anyone else here could claim that it was offensive to them in some way.
Saying that someone's opinion is stupid is equal to attacking them.
No, it's not. You have a right to disagree with other people. Saying that people are stupid, however, is trolling and a personal attack. And actually, I have done neither. The only case where I said something was stupid was in the example I mentioned above, and there is nothing wrong with saying that I think it's silly, if the PCs kill all the villagers for xp and ego.
The way you tried to prove your points were simply discourteous to others. Please change that for me and the others on the board.
If you insist on taking offense, then it's really out of my hands. After all, you could claim I'm offensive and discourteous just for saying "I don't like ice cream" or just for being here. Would I be a troll in those cases too? I am not responsible for how you choose to read my posts.
What you're doing now is saying that speaking ill of the game is the same as speaking ill of you or others who happen to like the game. However, that is false logic, and I will not neither say it nor be held responsible for it.
maddog/Ray covered most everything I would say in response. I will simply add:
1. It is not dishonest to avoid putting people down for their hobbies. Every hobby is silly to an utterly stupid waste of time and money to everyone who doesn't share it, and the only sane way to spend your free time to those who do it. It is not PC to be able to express the pleasure you derive from your hobby without putting anyone else's down.
If I were to take maddog's logic to heart, I would now say that you are trolling and disrespectful, because you say that my hobby is a waste of time.
And I have not put others down. I have criticized D&D. There is a rather clear and significant distinction between the two, although you don't seem to acknowledge it, which might have something to do with the probability that it does not serve to support your position of trolling on my part.
If people don't like my opinion of D&D, then it's a shame, but I don't feel that I violate any rules just because I don't express endless praise for D&D. Others have discussed this openly even though they didn't feel the way I do, but have now dropped the discussion, because they don't want to be dragged into the flame war this might become if people insist on taking offense at what other people say. I'm not the one here who has turned the discussion from being about D&D into a discussion of who respects whom.
2. I embrace constructive dialogue about all forms of gaming.
So that means negative observations or discussions are outlawed? Sometimes those can end up being constructive, if they are not dismissed out of hand, you know.
While I spent much time and effort despising CCGs and LARPs when they first appeared, and expressed low of opinions CRPGs, both personal and online, I eventually realized one simple fact:
They are all still games, and they all increase the number of gamers, and thus build the hobby.
Every store that makes its monthly rent by selling CCGs is another store that is open to sell D&D books. And every store that thrives by hosting CCG tournaments is another store that can put space aside for LG events. Every person that "realizes" how cool fantasy games are by playing a MMORPG is another person who might want to try them face to face and discover how much fun our form of the hobby is.
And every gamer that starts reading a forum and sees their style of play put down, or their preferred mode of gaming if tabletop RPGing isn't, is a gamer that both wonders if they should bother sticking with it, and a gamer that is encouraged to go off and badmouth tabletop gaming in general or D&D in particular.
So I take it that the implication is that I'm responsible for people stopping to play RPGs because I point out the flaws in D&D? Sorry, but I'm not about to write propaganda for the game or be silent on what I perceive to be its flaws. And I certainly do not have the power to make people not play the game (except perhaps my players, but the core group has stayed at my gaming table for more than 11 years now, so I think not...)
I play tabletop RPGs, especially D&D 3.5, a CMG, old style wargames when I can find players, and CRPGs and strategy games when I'm home alone. Those are my preferred forms of the hobby. I don't like or want to try the others, but I am glad they are there so there are more gamers out there to keep the hobby going, give it strength when attacked by supporters of censorship, and to provide a pool of possible crossover recruits. I have no reason to put them down, and every reason to stand up for them.
Oh, I'll stand up for the gaming community any chance I get on boards such as this one (pointless though it may seem, given that none of us would be here if we didn't enjoy Mystara...).
This does not mean, however, that we cannot have our differences and disagreements internally on what good gaming is all about.
Stating an opinion:
I dislike hack and slash games and would not base a campaign on that.
I dislike AD&D 2e and do not want to use it.
Insulting opinion (trolling):
People who run hack and slash games are stupid.
Anyone who chooses to use AD&D 2e is an idiot.
See the difference? The RPG universe is very big in terms of how and what people play- it is far more important to encourage people to have fun and play how they want rather than be negative and discouraging because they play differently.
If I were to take maddog's logic to heart, I would now say that you are trolling and disrespectful, because you say that my hobby is a waste of time.
Only if you deliberately confuse an obviously cynical definition used as an extreme example for my actual viewpoint, deliberately ignoring the rest of what I said.
And I have not put others down. I have criticized D&D. There is a rather clear and significant distinction between the two, although you don't seem to acknowledge it, which might have something to do with the probability that it does not serve to support your position of trolling on my part.
You have. I even cited you doing it. Just because you don't feel it is putting people down to call them stupid doesn't change that it is.
If people don't like my opinion of D&D, then it's a shame, but I don't feel that I violate any rules just because I don't express endless praise for D&D.
Criticism of D&D, in whole or in part, is fine. I have made several very extensive criticisms of the system. Indeed, there are several specific forums just for critical analysis and discussion of the system.
Coming to a D&D board, which this is, and mocking the system and people who play it is nothing but blatant trolling.
So I take it that the implication is that I'm responsible for people stopping to play RPGs because I point out the flaws in D&D?
You specifically and directly in regards to a particular person?
I can't say. I don't know everyone you have ever derided hack and slash gaming and D&D to.
People who spend more time and effort attacking other gamers than talking about the good of the system?
For that I can say. Yes. I have seen people quit playing because their style of play was mocked by others who thought they knew the One True Way To Roleplay (TM), that all others must follow or be mocked mercilessly until they change or run away crying, never to defile the One True Way again by playing a game in any other fashion.
Stalker, the point maddog and Samwise are trying to make you see is that there is a difference in what you mean to say and how you say it. It is very easy to say what you mean and be completely honest in your opinion without resorting to insulting others who may disagree:
Stating an opinion:
I dislike hack and slash games and would not base a campaign on that.
I dislike AD&D 2e and do not want to use it.
Insulting opinion (trolling):
People who run hack and slash games are stupid.
Anyone who chooses to use AD&D 2e is an idiot.
See the difference? The RPG universe is very big in terms of how and what people play- it is far more important to encourage people to have fun and play how they want rather than be negative and discouraging because they play differently.
I got that part all along. And yes, the latter examples you cite are trolling. I have not resorted to doing so, however, because I have not called anyone an idiot or said they were stupid. The only instance where I have said something was stupid, was a SITUATION when PCs kill villagers just for xp and fun. That's not the same as saying that the people playing it are stupid. I've certainly played situations myself that would qualify as stupid, and I can certainly think of many situations where I or probably anyone else would say that it was a stupid thing to do without thinking that I'm a stupid person in general as a result. All I have said is that I don't like D&D, and 3e particularly, and why. I have not once said that the people playing it are stupid, and I have not used the word "idiot" before in this topic. Also, it is not trolling to say that D&D rules are retarded, since it says nothing about the people playing. It only says what I think of the rules.
Only if you deliberately confuse an obviously cynical definition used as an extreme example for my actual viewpoint, deliberately ignoring the rest of what I said.
Precisely. So why you won't permit me the same discretion is a mystery to me.
You have. I even cited you doing it. Just because you don't feel it is putting people down to call them stupid doesn't change that it is.
No. I just said it's a stupid scenario. I did not say the people playing it were stupid. Your attempts to infer that are, ahem, "truthfully challenged".
Criticism of D&D, in whole or in part, is fine. I have made several very extensive criticisms of the system. Indeed, there are several specific forums just for critical analysis and discussion of the system.
Coming to a D&D board, which this is, and mocking the system and people who play it is nothing but blatant trolling.
You may think so, but that's still just your opinion. And how is it mocking the systems to cite examples that illustrate my point? Basically that means I'm entitled to my opinion only so long as I don't support it with arguments and observations that are difficult to dismiss.
You specifically and directly in regards to a particular person?
I can't say. I don't know everyone you have ever derided hack and slash gaming and D&D to.
People who spend more time and effort attacking other gamers than talking about the good of the system?
For that I can say. Yes. I have seen people quit playing because their style of play was mocked by others who thought they knew the One True Way To Roleplay (TM), that all others must follow or be mocked mercilessly until they change or run away crying, never to defile the One True Way again by playing a game in any other fashion.
Don't apply that to me then.
If I overstep the rules, then the moderator will tell me so. Since that has not happened, I will assume I'm still in the clear. Just because you think otherwise does not make it so.
And in any event, I find it this question of my motives and respect or lack thereof to be off-topic and trolling, since they are about me and not about the issue at hand. I have said my piece on this matter, so please get back to the topic. I tried with examples of what I deem to be a better alternative to D&D, but since you ignored that, I feel that topic is lost. Therefore I will not discuss it further, since I do not believe it will prove anything meaningful or worthwhile.
If Stefan Karameikos dies in a heroic battle (like Halav, that was raised, by the way) or by accident, would a cleric raise him, or Valen or any other of his children become the new king/queen? If there is high level clerics (just like our 1000 wizards), why a king would stay dead?
It's a plot thing. There is no particular rule against raising NPCs, but it rarely happens anyway. I know the net-almanacs have a policy of not bringing dead characters back to life once they've been killed, because it's anti-climactic. I tend to agree, since it adds to the drama - let the dead lie and introduce new characters to take their place instead. There is no drama in Stefan being killed, if he's just resurrected. There is drama in King Everast XV dying during the dwarven Clan War of Rockhome, because the Combat of Kings forbids resurrection of those killed in the battle. I think that's why we rarely see it in the plot. Halav is a different matter, however, because it's all background and not currnt, evolving plot.
The question of raising dead isn't one unique to Mystara, or even D&D. I wouldn't consider it a weakness, as it's an element of a game that's dependent upon the personal preferences of the DM and his players.
As for the demographics of adventurers in a given area, this is another factor of the setting, especially since the Almanacs, that could be either a weakness or a strength. Some DM's enjoy having a lot of information like that on hand. The 3E rules even have support for it, with the presence of classes and their levels generated with cities and towns.
However, it can also make the world very static, and be considered an extension of the rules. When a player starts telling you off that there's "no way" that class/race can be here because "the stats in the book don't say that" then you have a problem. Or, a DM may use the statistics to plot-hammer the players into only making characters that fit the area he wants to play in. "What do you mean I can't play a monk?"
Also, it is quite evident that your claims of an attack on my part earlier in this thread is untrue. I've actually checked the entire topic to see what you were referring to, but this is the first reply you've made in this thread.
Whoops! You're right. I was thinking of the "Mystara - what are our chances?" where I said that I thought that 35e and Classic were the closest two versions. I didn't reply to explain because I thought the thread would degenerate as this one has.
Both this and that thread are quite long and I got them confused. Enough said. I apologize for the error on my part.
--Ray.
The question of raising dead isn't one unique to Mystara, or even D&D. I wouldn't consider it a weakness, as it's an element of a game that's dependent upon the personal preferences of the DM and his players.
Indeed, that's not a problem with Mystara itself (or only with Mystara), but I guess it's related to it anyway. I feel hard to describe Mystara being a low-mid or high level setting, since parts of it look one way (much of the Known World, Savage Coast) or the other (mainly Alphatia). I guess things were written this way so PCs of all levels would have quest to be done and enemies to be defeated, but it's hard to imagine how there is still independent lands so close to two overpower, expansionist empires... I guess we could think in some reasons why this happen (balance of power?), but there is another problems as well, like the one about resurrection
For example, in a low-mid lvl setting, if a king dies, unless the PCs are high level ones, he probably will stay dead. But if 36th lvl characters are common enough, inportant characters will die only when they are too old...
I guess 1000 36th lvl wizards are not necessary for giving some challenge (or limits) for high lvl PCs, since that's why we have the high lvl villians (Pyre, Master of Hule, Synn)... so many too powerful npcs also makes these villians "just one more" instead of unique characters... or that's the way I feel it ;)
I know the net-almanacs have a policy of not bringing dead characters back to life once they've been killed, because it's anti-climactic.
And I agree as well. I only want to kwon if there's a official anwser for this problem
Indeed, that's not a problem with Mystara itself (or only with Mystara), but I guess it's related to it anyway. I feel hard to describe Mystara being a low-mid or high level setting, since parts of it look one way (much of the Known World, Savage Coast) or the other (mainly Alphatia). I guess things were written this way so PCs of all levels would have quest to be done and enemies to be defeated, but it's hard to imagine how there is still independent lands so close to two overpower, expansionist empires... I guess we could think in some reasons why this happen (balance of power?), but there is another problems as well, like the one about resurrection
For example, in a low-mid lvl setting, if a king dies, unless the PCs are high level ones, he probably will stay dead. But if 36th lvl characters are common enough, inportant characters will die only when they are too old...
I guess 1000 36th lvl wizards are not necessary for giving some challenge (or limits) for high lvl PCs, since that's why we have the high lvl villians (Pyre, Master of Hule, Synn)... so many too powerful npcs also makes these villians "just one more" instead of unique characters... or that's the way I feel it ;)
Yeah. Mystara's character is unique because the original setting was constructed in the module series, from Basic to Master. (And Immortal, to an extent.) As a result, Karameikos is a low-level area, then exploration of the surrounding nations and territories becomes Expert. At Companion players are building dominions in Norwold or getting involved in Thyatian/Alphatian politics. By Master, they're dominating politics, and travelling to other planes. My personal sentiment is to chuck a lot of old material out, use it as inspiration, and recraft it in a less problematic way.
One element of 3rd Edition I liked was the removal of age as an affectable factor. No powers or effects from official sources can raise or lower player age, and there are no magical potions or spells to extend lifespan. (With the exception of the rather weak and costly epic feat.) Mystara's history would require a lot of refit to adjust to this, but it's somewhat absurd how families like the Ambers essentially NEVER die.
Of course, the deus-ex-machina of raise dead/resurrection is "Oh, it didn't work on the NPC King/whatever... his spirit's at rest."
And I agree as well. I only want to kwon if there's a official anwser for this problem
Not sure, but I don't think so. I suppose it's one of those things that the rules perfer to leave in the hands of the individual GM, because somehow you really don't want dead NPCs to come back to life (it really would make the world a very different place, wouldn't it?), but at the same time, you also want the PCs to have a chance of coming back if they met with an unfortunate end. It's one of those double-edged swords that you don't want to play around with too much, because the implications could be really disastrous.
What has always puzzled me is that the forced basis on experience levels in D&D, why the rules don't use that as a factor. Few adventurers below level 5 are ever raised or resurrected - at least not in my experience - since the parties can't cast the spell the spell themselves and frequently cannot pay another cleric to it for them. That would limit revivification to adventurers or other people above the usual level of experience right there, which serves the goal of limiting the spell's effects (it would still work on Stefan, though, since he's pretty high-leveled. The less said about Thincol, Eriadna or the notorious council of wizards the better...).
As a result, Karameikos is a low-level area, then exploration of the surrounding nations and territories becomes Expert. At Companion players are building dominions in Norwold or getting involved in Thyatian/Alphatian politics. By Master, they're dominating politics, and travelling to other planes. My personal sentiment is to chuck a lot of old material out, use it as inspiration, and recraft it in a less problematic way.
Yes, I recall someone once making the rather apt comment that Norwold/Ericall was the high-level version of Karameikos/Stefan, because you could gain dominions there easily, while not in Karameikos (small and already filled with baronies), and yet Ericall seemed like a younger version of Stefan (and just a little more gullible at times).
I don't think we should chuck out, though, just not limit stuff to the various levels. Of course no wizard (or priest) will make his own demiplane until he's high leveled, because he doesn't the magic for it until then. And obviously Norwold DOES have more unsettled land to award to would-be rulers than most other places. Not that I follow this myself. Indeed, one player is establishing himself as a landed lord in Karameikos IMC, while another just became the new baron of Halag after the Black Eagle's fall...
One element of 3rd Edition I liked was the removal of age as an affectable factor. No powers or effects from official sources can raise or lower player age, and there are no magical potions or spells to extend lifespan. (With the exception of the rather weak and costly epic feat.) Mystara's history would require a lot of refit to adjust to this,
To say the least. Some of the Alphatian wizards are ancient despite being human. Tylion is a mere 120 in DOTE, but Mylertendal (from Haven) is actually 315 (DOTE, DM's sourcebook, p.46)!!! And I'm not even sure she's one of the oldest...
but it's somewhat absurd how families like the Ambers essentially NEVER die.
Yes, well, it does help to have an IMMORTAL in the family, I guess ;)
I mean, at least there's a very good reason for it. How many times have Henry died by the last count? :D
To say the least. Some of the Alphatian wizards are ancient despite being human. Tylion is a mere 120 in DOTE, but Mylertendal (from Haven) is actually 315 (DOTE, DM's sourcebook, p.46)!!! And I'm not even sure she's one of the oldest...
My personal idea for that is to make the humans from Alphatia (their original homeworld) a subrace of humans. They'd have sorcerer as their favored class, and a longer lifespan. They'd also sacrifice some of the flexibility humans normally enjoy (bonus feat, skill bonus) for bonuses with magical ability.
Yes, well, it does help to have an IMMORTAL in the family, I guess ;)
I mean, at least there's a very good reason for it. How many times have Henry died by the last count? :D
Well, the original module, X2, Stephen Amber (the angelized version of "Etienne") was a 25th level magic-user, NOT an immortal or anything out of the ordinary. Of course, at the time, Companion Rules hadn't been published yet, so the idea was he was a REALLY high level magic-user, beyond what the players had ever met.
The idea of long-lived magic-users isn't a new idea, and probably Tolkien's Gandalf had a direct influence on it. The reason 3E removed age from consideration was, for the most part, it's irrelevant. 90-95% of the games I've played in, the relative lifespan of the races was immaterial.
From a background perspective, having rulers who never age and die is bad... The fact that Bruce Heard decided Thincol had to go is proof enough that rulers shouldn't stick around unchanging forever. (I notice Stefan seems to be hanging in there, though, with nary a gray hair...)
My personal idea for that is to make the humans from Alphatia (their original homeworld) a subrace of humans. They'd have sorcerer as their favored class, and a longer lifespan. They'd also sacrifice some of the flexibility humans normally enjoy (bonus feat, skill bonus) for bonuses with magical ability.
While I don't like that idea myself, I nonetheless advice that you then consider the Flaems of Glantri in that equation, since they have the same origin (Old Alphatia). Whatever you apply to the Alphatian as a basis for race would apply to the Flaems as well for the same reason - they're from the same racial stock (and the Alphatians have been on Mystara far longer than the Flaems, too).
Also, if the Alphatians are sorcerors, why did they have huge universities and schools of magic? Being a sorceror is not an academic pursuit, which seems to be the focus of Alphatia as I know it. And it has campaign implications, since Terari was the head-master of the University of Air Magics in Sundsvall, Alphatia's imperial capital, and later went to Karameikos after Alphatia's destruction in WOTI to establish the Karameikan School of Magecraft, where they teach wizards...
From a background perspective, having rulers who never age and die is bad... The fact that Bruce Heard decided Thincol had to go is proof enough that rulers shouldn't stick around unchanging forever. (I notice Stefan seems to be hanging in there, though, with nary a gray hair...)
Actually, I think that was Allston's decision (being the author of both DOTE, WOTI and PWA1), and I should hasten to add that Thincol died because he was cursed by an immortal.
While I don't like that idea myself, I nonetheless advice that you then consider the Flaems of Glantri in that equation, since they have the same origin (Old Alphatia). Whatever you apply to the Alphatian as a basis for race would apply to the Flaems as well for the same reason - they're from the same racial stock (and the Alphatians have been on Mystara far longer than the Flaems, too).
Which is why I said "humans from the WORLD of Alphatia", which would include the Flaems by default.
Also, if the Alphatians are sorcerors, why did they have huge universities and schools of magic? Being a sorceror is not an academic pursuit, which seems to be the focus of Alphatia as I know it. And it has campaign implications, since Terari was the head-master of the University of Air Magics in Sundsvall, Alphatia's imperial capital, and later went to Karameikos after Alphatia's destruction in WOTI to establish the Karameikan School of Magecraft, where they teach wizards...
Well, first off, my approach is to completely disregard all prior material, and focus on making something more dynamic and interesting. I'm not interested in replicating what Mystara was, but to refashion it into something that could conceivably be published in Dragon or Dungeon.
If you have a human race from another world, who used magic for literally everything, don't you think it would be more likely that magical power would be innate, rather than taught? That's not to say they wouldn't have wizards, plenty of them.
Besides, it then makes Glantri more interesting. Obviously the Flaems are also sorcery-based, and as a result, they lost control of the Highlands against the elves and settlers, who, using more wizardry, were more flexible and able to adapt. Sorcerers and wizards both can be princes, but the Flaemish families would have a thinly-veiled contempt for those who aren't "born" to magic like they are. This would also explain why Glantri's School of Magic could be nearly equal to Alphatia in educational quality, despite the disparate size of them.
The point is, here, that I can and would find plenty of ways to use the original materials to create a dynamic and interesting setting that borrows a lot from the older works, but does not adhere to them literally.
One element of 3rd Edition I liked was the removal of age as an affectable factor. No powers or effects from official sources can raise or lower player age, and there are no magical potions or spells to extend lifespan. (With the exception of the rather weak and costly epic feat.)
I agree with this sentiment, although I am not sure they went quite far enough. Specifically, I think the ability score bonuses/penalties should probably be removed altogether. Aside from the fact that they rarely come into play (in my experience) and when they do Humans are the only ones likely to actually be affected by natural aging over the course of a campaign. And if you re-introduce aging effects, they are incredibly discriminate in their targets- suddenly the lower-level races are those most likely to be affected- with the result that you either shove all the elves to the front of the party when tracking down that pesky ghost, or else your party retires from the campaign prematurely. Not to mention how do you apply the penalties/bonuses in the situation of aging retarding effects (which was never quite explained in previous editions of AD&D either)- if you drink a potion of longevity at age 50, do you lose the physical ability score penalties, but keep the mental bonuses? Hardly seems fair.
That being said, I think it would be very easy and not terribly unbalancing to reintroduce potions of longevity and vitality into the game. In terms of Mystara's campaign setting, it almost seems necessary in some instances, for good or ill I'm not sure.
Mystara's history would require a lot of refit to adjust to this, but it's somewhat absurd how families like the Ambers essentially NEVER die.
Absolutely. Even taking into account the strange effects of time in the Land of Grey Mists (which may or may not be Ravenloft, as you please), and knocking off almost 100 years of natural aging that would otherwise have affected them during their "imprisonment", and taking into account the possibility that Etienne may have resurrected them at younger ages after they die at the end of X2, it still doesn't account for the fact that most of them were near to 200 years old at the start of that module, by the official timeline.
Myself, I've been inclined to take the "original" canon source of X2 as the gospel- the one that has Etienne as the 7th prince in the d'Ambreville line, which would put the d'Ambrevilles ages at a more reasonable estimate. Plays a bit of hob with the timeline that began to come into play with Gaz3, unfortunately, which is why I've never quite gone all the way with it.
Another d'Ambreville mystery would be why with such old members of the 1st and 2nd generation, and with how fertile the 1st generation was (Camille with 5 children, Magdalene with 2), that subsequent generations have only a few d'Ambrevilles to show for it- Jean-Louis and Claude, up until very very recently (with the additions of Monique and the two other kids in Mark of Amber). My fix is that there are many other d'Ambrevilles out there, many of them illegitimate, and we just haven't met them all.
My personal idea for that is to make the humans from Alphatia (their original homeworld) a subrace of humans. They'd have sorcerer as their favored class, and a longer lifespan. They'd also sacrifice some of the flexibility humans normally enjoy (bonus feat, skill bonus) for bonuses with magical ability.
I have toyed with doing something similar for the d'Ambrevilles, actually. I was going to play off of the Cthulhu-esque feel of the original Averoigne stories, as well as X2's mentions of the d'Ambrevilles as having consorted with dark powers in their homeworld, and have the "pure" d'Ambrevilles be the product of some strange breeding experiment conducted by Zothaqqua (Tsathoggua) back on Laterre/Earth.
Besides, it then makes Glantri more interesting. Obviously the Flaems are also sorcery-based, and as a result, they lost control of the Highlands against the elves and settlers, who, using more wizardry, were more flexible and able to adapt. Sorcerers and wizards both can be princes, but the Flaemish families would have a thinly-veiled contempt for those who aren't "born" to magic like they are. This would also explain why Glantri's School of Magic could be nearly equal to Alphatia in educational quality, despite the disparate size of them.
Though sorcery does seem to be a more natural and innate talent than wizardry, I don't see that having sorcerers would necessarily preclude having schools of magic. I would see such a thing as, while wizards codify magic, break it down into a science, and teach it that way- formulaically- sorcerers schools would be more esoteric. They would discuss the feelings associated with magic, the relationship of magic to the world, etc. Rather than teach hard facts and figures, they would have a more philosophical approach. Such an approach might even border on the religious- which I would think might be the case with the Flaems (at least early Flaems, who by their description on page 4 of Gaz3 seemed to practice a form of ritual sacrifice to the "Great Flame"- which might possibly be term for the force of magic that they tap into; kind of their Tao).
In fact, now that I think of this theory, I kind of like how it might make a difference between Glantri and Alphatia- Glantri is the stolid, scholastic nation of magic, while Alphatia is the decadent, abstract empire of magic.
Well, first off, my approach is to completely disregard all prior material, and focus on making something more dynamic and interesting. I'm not interested in replicating what Mystara was, but to refashion it into something that could conceivably be published in Dragon or Dungeon.
In that case I find it highly questionable that you're openly willing to disregard published canon. What you do in your campaign is your business, but if you mean for this idea to see general publication, then I think it's definitely a problem that you will willingly contradict material from published Mystara products. Simply going by the published works, it seems that the Alphatians know far more different spells than most wizards, as they indeed would need to in order to have wizards that enchant their skyships, wizards that teach magic in the schools, wizards that serve in the imperial fleet, etc. Heck, just looking at Terari, K:KoA says that it will list only the spells he usually has memorized, because the DM should assume him to know every single spell in the (2e) PHB and any other spell the DM prefers him to have. That certainly doesn't sound much like a sorceror to me.
If you have a human race from another world, who used magic for literally everything, don't you think it would be more likely that magical power would be innate, rather than taught? That's not to say they wouldn't have wizards, plenty of them.
The real problem is that it doesn't fit with the story. As the sorceror-potential dropped, the Alphatians should have realised that they could take the wizard's road instead, but that's not what happened - instead they had to pursue the other classes, because their potential for being arcane spellcasters dropped over the years.
And the major problem, as I see it, is that Mystaran history *NEEDS* a scholarly, academic dispute between the Followers of Air (or, as DOTE calls it, "The Most Righteous College of Aerial Splendor") and the Followers of Fire ("The Universal Truth of Fiery Dominion") to spark the war that led to Old Alphatia's destruction and left both sides to eventually emigrate to Mystara sooner or later. Without that, you have neither Alphatians nor Flaems on Mystara.
Also, if the Alphatians are sorcerors, where does that leave their interaction with other races of Mystara? Thothia was absorbed directly into the empire, because they were already wizards of comparable levels to the Alphatians. Had they not been, the Alphatians should have just conquered and enslaved them, as they did most human cultures at the time. And how did the Alphatians teach others their magic, if they were sorcerors and it's just a racial thing? How did they teach Lucinius and the other Thyatians who then used that power against them? How is Terari able to teach Asteriela and Galatia magic, when they are both of Thyatian stock? How can Haldemar enchant the Princess Ark with an ancient Thothian spell or Eriadna do magical research into the preservation of Alphatia, as we recently saw her do in Bruce Heard's new Princess Ark story? There are no good answers to questions like that, and just ignoring them means introducing contradictory elements into Mystara's history that would ruin the balance and logic of the setting to the careful observer. The Alphatian have taught magic to pretty much all the "savage" cultures they conquered. If their arcane abilities were purely a racial thing, that would not have been possible, and since it has historical impact, it would mean unraveling Mystara's established history.
Besides, it then makes Glantri more interesting. Obviously the Flaems are also sorcery-based, and as a result, they lost control of the Highlands against the elves and settlers, who, using more wizardry, were more flexible and able to adapt.
Except that's not really what happened. Those elves and settlers (humans from Traladara and Thyatis) were unsuccessful in defeating the Flaems, and these wars raged for years and years until a new force arrived to help them, which was Halzumthram, an Alphatian. By your logic, he and his Alphatian followers should have been as limited in their magical expertise as you assume the Flaems were. Yet Halzumthram's arrival decided that war, while the presence of the elves and other human settlers did not. Nice as the theory might be, it simply has no support in the established events of Mystara's history and again introduces contradictions.
Sorcerers and wizards both can be princes, but the Flaemish families would have a thinly-veiled contempt for those who aren't "born" to magic like they are. This would also explain why Glantri's School of Magic could be nearly equal to Alphatia in educational quality, despite the disparate size of them.
The School of Magic is powerful because many different wizards from many different backgrounds with highly diverse skills teach there. Quite simple. And Glantri can centralize their scholarly pursuits for wizards in one place, whereas Alphatia has to spread it out more, since they need many such academies in their huge empire.
Not sure, but I don't think so. I suppose it's one of those things that the rules perfer to leave in the hands of the individual GM, because somehow you really don't want dead NPCs to come back to life (it really would make the world a very different place, wouldn't it?), but at the same time, you also want the PCs to have a chance of coming back if they met with an unfortunate end. It's one of those double-edged swords that you don't want to play around with too much, because the implications could be really disastrous.
Indeed, but, OTOH, Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5 states that a regular d&d world have a lot of magic and would be a mistake think otherwise (unless the DM changes things a little, like making for both PCs and NPCs very hard to get enough xp for being a high-lvl character...). The way it's said, looks like raising dead is a common place...
What has always puzzled me is that the forced basis on experience levels in D&D, why the rules don't use that as a factor. Few adventurers below level 5 are ever raised or resurrected - at least not in my experience - since the parties can't cast the spell the spell themselves and frequently cannot pay another cleric to it for them. That would limit revivification to adventurers or other people above the usual level of experience right there, which serves the goal of limiting the spell's effects (it would still work on Stefan, though, since he's pretty high-leveled. The less said about Thincol, Eriadna or the notorious council of wizards the better...).
In a very magic world, one solution could be cheaper spells (but that's something I REALLY wouldn't ever considering in my campaigns; this aproach is too MMORPG for my taste), or have the PCs starting at a higher level.
Of course, the deus-ex-machina of raise dead/resurrection is "Oh, it didn't work on the NPC King/whatever... his spirit's at rest."
Hmmm... or the spell could "unlock the door back to life", but the soul still have to get there... this could be an interesting solo-adventure, especially if he wasn't a very nice person and his soul is now n a not-very-nice outer plane... :D
In that case I find it highly questionable that you're openly willing to disregard published canon. What you do in your campaign is your business, but if you mean for this idea to see general publication, then I think it's definitely a problem that you will willingly contradict material from published Mystara products.
The real problem is that it doesn't fit with the story.
Except that's not really what happened.
Hm, I think we have some communication misalignments... so I'll see if I can clarify myself a bit. (Be prepared for a bit of a spiel...)
Role-playing games are, to me, a highly interactive medium. The reason paper-and-pencil gaming continues to be popular, despite the rise of CRPG's, is that CRPG's lack the one fundamental element of interactivity.
When I say "interactivity", I do not refer to the tree-structure quest crap in various CRPG's, which is essentially a maze with cheese and a mallet. There's no interactivity there, other than you pointing and clicking and the computer responding. There are a finite number of solutions, all of them pre-programmed in. This is as expected, because computers can only really handle a finite number of solutions. This is one reason that multi-player games and massive online CRPG's, such as World of Warcraft, do so well. Game designers realized a long time ago that a human opponent/ally is far more dynamic and interesting than anything they could program... yet, anyway.
The difference beween CRPG's and RPG's is that instead of being told a story, the players and DM are, in some ways, writing a story together. Everyone is an equal participant. As the players adjust their actions to the DM's, The DM is also changing his actions. At least, that's the ideal. The worst case is when a DM forces the players to behave as if they're actors in a script; the term "railroading" comes to mind here.
Modules, and later game settings, were created because not every DM is a super-creative individual, and they find use having pre-designed encounters, places, people, and even whole worlds useful. The Greyhawk campaign setting was born out of the games that Gygax ran, it's certainly no coincidence that the Circle of Eight is comprised of former player characters from his games.
The problem I see, though, is when the game materials become more important to the DM than the game itself. Sometimes DM's start to lose themselves into the NPC's they've created or are using, to the point that they won't let them be killed or otherwise affected by the players. Other times, when the player asks what the weather's like, the DM spends several minutes flipping through books, instead of improvising and saying "Looks like rain." The setting can become both a crutch and a hammer.
And if you're not even running games... er, ok, did you miss the point somewhere? It's a game setting. Not a narrative, atlas or encyclopedia. The materials are to be used for gaming. And if the materials start to get in the way, leading to bored, frustrated, or angry players, then you may want to consider not following things to the letter.
I do not think Mystara is beyond recovery, but I do think that bringing the full weight of every module, gazateer, and early printed material to the table and saying "everything applies" is a bad idea. In particular, as I've mentioned before, since the setting grew out of the old rules system, trying to run it in the newer rules system causes too many problems. Yes, any rewrite will result in a lot of older material being invalidated. But it's happened before.
Consider this. When Bruce Heard started the Voyage of the Princess Ark, did he follow all the prior module's materials literally, to the letter? No, he did not. Instead, he took the map from the Master's book interior and stated "this is wrong." I enjoy his work because he isn't afraid to rewrite or change things. I've noticed, for example, nobody's complaining that X9's material conflicts with Bruce Heard's interpretation of the Savage Coast. Of course, Mr. Heard's voice and opinions carry far greater weight than mine, so if he said he was rewriting the setting, perhaps people would be less inclined to argue.
Obviously, we have different opinions on rules sets, setting integrity, and probably a lot more, Stalker. In this case, we'll have to agree to disagree on these points. But I will not relinquish my opinion that the focus on old published materials is a weakness of the setting that prevents it from growing and re-entering the D&D mainstream.
The problem I see, though, is when the game materials become more important to the DM than the game itself. Sometimes DM's start to lose themselves into the NPC's they've created or are using, to the point that they won't let them be killed or otherwise affected by the players. Other times, when the player asks what the weather's like, the DM spends several minutes flipping through books, instead of improvising and saying "Looks like rain." The setting can become both a crutch and a hammer.
Fine, but then we have no basis of reference, because when you're talking Mystara, you're seeing a world with dwarven wizards and an Alphatia full of sorcerors, while I have no dwarven wizards and no sorcerors at all in mine. Is your vision more valid than mine? If so, according to who? The only frame of reference we have is established canon, which should make sense and be consistent internally. I don't follow all the details strictly in my own campaign, as I have said before, but I don't argue those changes (generally at least) on boards like this one for the same reason - it's not canon, and so I cannot expect other people to support the suppositions I've made in my own campaign. It would be unfair, since they would have based things in their campaigns on details in canon that I've changed, and so anything I write under another presumption will be useless for them as a gaming aid. That doesn't help any of us, and all we get to do is sit behind our keyboards and tell each other what our individual vision of Mystara looks like. I mean, what if I wanted to kill Haldemar during his trip to the Hollow World and then have Talasar take over as captain because I thought it was more dramatic, and I then wanted to publish it? It would be a problem because people who follow the Princess Ark series see that it contradicts the story, which they may have founded campaigns on. My material would be useless, because they would have to reject it.
And if you're not even running games... er, ok, did you miss the point somewhere? It's a game setting. Not a narrative, atlas or encyclopedia. The materials are to be used for gaming. And if the materials start to get in the way, leading to bored, frustrated, or angry players, then you may want to consider not following things to the letter.
What I do in my campaign is not the same as what I do in a more public forum. I can make whatever change or twist I please IMC, because my players will never know the difference. I can't do that do that when I write plots for the net almanacs, however, because I have to take canon and other people's tastes for Mystara into consideration. What I write for my campaign is for my use (and my players') alone. What I write elsewhere is for other people to use, and will be less useful, if it obviously contradicts canon.
For instance, I like most of what Bruce Heard writes for Mystara, but I will never use any of his World in Flames stuff (http://pandius.com/worldflm.html), because it is an alternative to WOTI which willfully contradicts canon, and since all published material since then (including the net almanacs) are written on the basis that things have taken place as described in WOTI, it will make all other material useless to me. I mean, World in Flames is done by Bruce Heard, yet have you ever heard (!) us talk about it on this forum before? If not, then what conclusion can we draw from that?
Of course, write your alternate Mystara stuff. But do what Bruce did, and put it on the net instead of trying to put it in Dragon or Dungeon, because otherwise you'll just give people an impression of Mystara that is not Mystara.
I do not think Mystara is beyond recovery, but I do think that bringing the full weight of every module, gazateer, and early printed material to the table and saying "everything applies" is a bad idea. In particular, as I've mentioned before, since the setting grew out of the old rules system, trying to run it in the newer rules system causes too many problems.
Not really. Just ban dwarven and halfling wizards and outlaw sorcerors entirely, and most of the problems are gone right there. See? Very quick fix. You can do the rest of the stuff without too much trouble.
Yes, any rewrite will result in a lot of older material being invalidated. But it's happened before.
Consider this. When Bruce Heard started the Voyage of the Princess Ark, did he follow all the prior module's materials literally, to the letter? No, he did not. Instead, he took the map from the Master's book interior and stated "this is wrong." I enjoy his work because he isn't afraid to rewrite or change things. I've noticed, for example, nobody's complaining that X9's material conflicts with Bruce Heard's interpretation of the Savage Coast. Of course, Mr. Heard's voice and opinions carry far greater weight than mine, so if he said he was rewriting the setting, perhaps people would be less inclined to argue.
People certainly have complained about those changes. Why, I even remember angry or at least miffed letters in Dragon that told him off for writing that the map in the Master Rules book was, as he put it, "wrong, wrong wrong". Those places were never even described (beyond what people imagined the "empire of King Dorfin IV" to be, or whatever that guy's name was on the map), and yet people were still moaning about Bruce contradicting published stuff. There have even been huge discussions over how illogical it was to just put Alphatia in the HW after WOTI, because all the coastal cities are then placed at the rim of the floating continent for no apparent reason, and yet the common people of Alphatia (who knew nothing of their origin in the outside world) happily accepted it. I even remember criticism about fishermen who suddenly had no livehood, which prompted Bruce to make a comment about flying fish that did not go down well with everybody, if memory serves that is (which is by no means a certainty in this case). So no, not even Bruce Heard gets to contradict canon and walk away unscathed.
Obviously, we have different opinions on rules sets, setting integrity, and probably a lot more, Stalker. In this case, we'll have to agree to disagree on these points. But I will not relinquish my opinion that the focus on old published materials is a weakness of the setting that prevents it from growing and re-entering the D&D mainstream.
Mystara *IS* that "old material" that you are so quick to dismiss. Why you want to save Mystara by killing its core is beyond me. And at what point does it stop being Mystara and begin being something else instead? I mean, if Alphatia is all sorcerors, then how did they teach that to the Thyatians? After all, that way it's purely in the blood - a racial thing - which cannot be taught to others, right? Okay, so Thyatis is still just an Alphatian colony, I guess. Okay, but that being the case, how can they conquer Traladara and so have it become Karameikos? Okay, so I guess there is no Karameikos either, just a dying Traladara. And if there is no conflict between the empires, then how can Ylaruam kick them both out as they fight each other. Okay, so Ylaruam is an Alphatian colony too. Is it still Mystara at this point?
Mystara is great as it is now. There are things that are weak - like Ylaruam being placed where it is - but we've learned to live with the flaws and love Mystara for it nonetheless. Mystara is already a great campaign setting. If other people don't realise it, then that's their problem, and they will not see it differently if Mystara is just rewritten into a pseudo-FR or GH.
If it ain't broken, then don't fix it. Or as Gandalf would say, "he that breaks a thing to find out what is has left the path of wisdom..."
(Be prepared for a bit of a spiel...)
And a good spiel it was! :D
Fine, but then we have no basis of reference...
Using hyperbole? This is the same as saying that an OD&D player using strickly core rules and another OD&D player using optional and house rules have no basis of reference.
Now I certainly see what you are saying, but I'd bet that nearly everybody's Mystara on this forum is different is some way or another; even in how we see 'core' Mystara. How many times has the statement "Interesting, I've always envisioned [insert element here] as being [insert interpretation here]".
A re-born Mystara, to be true to Mystara, will evolve and change things. This is the pattern set by the "old material". Build on what has come before but change that which will form a better setting; even Mystara itself was not always Mystara. Canon is full of contraditions as it is - a lot of the fun we've had here on the MMB is attempting to reconcile these conflicting tid-bits.
Not really. Just ban dwarven and halfling wizards and outlaw sorcerors entirely...
...and dwarven theives and druids. These are specifically noted as not existing in Mystara by the Gaz. ;)
And at what point does it stop being Mystara and begin being something else instead? I mean, if Alphatia is all sorcerors, then how did they teach that to the Thyatians?
Why are they ALL sorcerors? I see no reason why many display an aptitude to a more technical learning of the arcane arts and therefore pursue wizardry, perhaps lured by a preference to the possibilities wizardry presents. It would have then fallen to these Alphatian wizards to teach the backwards Thyatians.
Mystara is great as it is now. There are things that are weak - like Ylaruam being placed where it is - but we've learned to live with the flaws and love Mystara for it nonetheless. Mystara is already a great campaign setting. If other people don't realise it, then that's their problem...
This reminds me of the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' episode where Ray tries to have his father listen to CDs of his old LP records. The CDs were the same music, even cleaned up and improved in quality, yet the father had no interest in them, refused to listen to them, and Ray could not understand why.
One last thing, if 'Mystara is great as it is now', why do you change some things in your own campaigns? I would imagine it is the same reason why most everybody does this - they see things which can be improved upon - not to alter it 'to the core', but to polish it up so that it shines.
People certainly have complained about those changes. Why, I even remember angry or at least miffed letters in Dragon that told him off for writing that the map in the Master Rules book was, as he put it, "wrong, wrong wrong".
When it first happened of course. People generally dislike change. However, in the past several years of being involved with the Mystara net-community, I have never heard of such a complaint. Now it is considered canon, a part of the spirit of Mystara, and people will defend it as such. Whenever Mystara is alive it will grow and evolve, as it has always done.
Using hyperbole? This is the same as saying that an OD&D player using strickly core rules and another OD&D player using optional and house rules have no basis of reference.
That's not really the same thing, though. Since I use 2e player option rules (modified heavily by my own house rules), Thincol will be different IMC, because the rules are different from the OD&D rules his stats were made for, and it's only fair to modify his stats to reflect that. IMC he will have more hit points (d10 or even d12 for hit points in 2e player option rules instead of d8 in OD&D) and he will probably have style specialization and shield proficiency as well as 2e grand mastery, which is quite different from what it is in OD&D. But that doesn't change Thincol's personality at all. He's still Thincol and readily recognizable as such, even if his stats have been changed a little. Playing Mystara by different rules does not mean we don't have a common frame of reference with regards to the characters. This happens all the time.
Now I certainly see what you are saying, but I'd bet that nearly everybody's Mystara on this forum is different is some way or another; even in how we see 'core' Mystara. How many times has the statement "Interesting, I've always envisioned [insert element here] as being [insert interpretation here]".
Sure, but in those cases, we still tend to agree that canon is the ultimate arbiter. We don't just throw out canon because we thought of something we thought was better. We might in our own campaings (and do), but not in the net community.
A re-born Mystara, to be true to Mystara, will evolve and change things. This is the pattern set by the "old material". Build on what has come before but change that which will form a better setting; even Mystara itself was not always Mystara. Canon is full of contraditions as it is - a lot of the fun we've had here on the MMB is attempting to reconcile these conflicting tid-bits.
I know, but I just don't see why the core of the setting must be rewritten for the sake of potential players who haven't even shown any interest in the setting, while alienating those fans who are already here. What, because I already like Mystara my opinion suddenly doesn't matter? It's not as if I'll stick with Mystara if it's rewritten into something urecognizable. Even new 3.5e material I might consider as reference despite hating the system, but if the core is rewritten to cater to 3.5e alone, the it will be apocrypha for me, and it won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. No, a thirty-foot pole... controlled via Telekinesis ;)
...and dwarven theives and druids. These are specifically noted as not existing in Mystara by the Gaz. ;)
Yeah, but the question there is how much impact it will have if you allow them. I'm inclined to disallow dwarven druids because it just doesn't seem appropriate to me, but dwarven thieves isn't much of a problem. Morur Blackheart would already seem to be a prime example.
Why are they ALL sorcerors? I see no reason why many display an aptitude to a more technical learning of the arcane arts and therefore pursue wizardry, perhaps lured by a preference to the possibilities wizardry presents. It would have then fallen to these Alphatian wizards to teach the backwards Thyatians.
The idea that was put forth, as I understand it, was that the Alphatians were inherently magical due to racial make-up, which suggest sorcerors. If you want to change that, then we get into the problem of whether wizards are considered "real magic-users" in the same sense, and it causes problems with the Alphatian disappointment that fewer and fewer of them could embrace "the old ways" (see "Races" on p. 13 of DOTE's player's guide to Alphatia).
And that's just assuming the pure sorceror-aspect of it without going into the question of how the Alphatians conduct spell research, magical item creation (essential for the creation of skyships) and so forth...
This reminds me of the 'Everybody Loves Raymond' episode where Ray tries to have his father listen to CDs of his old LP records. The CDs were the same music, even cleaned up and improved in quality, yet the father had no interest in them, refused to listen to them, and Ray could not understand why.
I really find it low to compare this to some grumpy old guy, just because I see problems with this. In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a complaint about Mystara under 3.5e rules, but about rewriting the setting in ways that will alter it fundamentally. Are you claiming those two are the same?
One last thing, if 'Mystara is great as it is now', why do you change some things in your own campaigns? I would imagine it is the same reason why most everybody does this - they see things which can be improved upon - not to alter it 'to the core', but to polish it up so that it shines.
In part, but there is also the question of campaign style. Every GM does things a little differently or focuses on different aspects. No matter how much you rewrite the rules, that will always take place. I never do things exactly as they are in the book, but that's not necessarily because the book is flawed or needs improvement, but rather so that it fits my style and tastes.
When it first happened of course. People generally dislike change. However, in the past several years of being involved with the Mystara net-community, I have never heard of such a complaint. Now it is considered canon, a part of the spirit of Mystara, and people will defend it as such. Whenever Mystara is alive it will grow and evolve, as it has always done.
Yes, so why must we rewrite what we all know?