http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=395908
Personally speaking I'd like at the very least a new Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardback.
I for one don't understand the predisposition against Greyhawk from inside WotC. I have seen it since 3.0 came out and it certainly still exists.
Eberron is, IMO, the flavor of the month. FR is still supported out of an abundance of caution - the concern that if Eberron does not have staying power Wotc will need something to fall back on.
FR has a good sales track record. One can argue why that is but it has a good track record, nonetheless. The concern with FR is, of course, whether fans will ever tire of seeing the particulars of the setting revisited time and time again. For example the forthcoming Waterdeep book will be the 5th or 6th time Waterdeep has had a product devoted exclusively to it. The Red Wizards have had 3 products that I can recall. The Shining South 2 products. The FR Underdark 2 products. Calimshan 2 products. Myth Drannor 2 products (arguably 3 products). The North (not counting Waterdeep) 5 products (arguably more if you count adventure/sourcebooks like Under Infarn (sp)). (The historic past of FR has even had the 2 Arcane Age products). And, of course, 3 general setting wide looks at the Realms. This is just off the top of my head. And then there are all of the novels to include entire series devoted to Elminster, Drizzt and several lesser known characters. FR has sold very well, in profusion, over time, but will FR fans ever get tired of it or overload on the "canon" to the extent that new FR players are scared away by "FR Talmudic Scholars" or the steep learning curve to become more than a casual fan - who can say?
If I were an FR fan, I'd be rather concerned that FR is always more of the same. With few exceptions, it keeps going over the same ground, over and over. As a GH fan, I worry when so many fans obsess over the Flanaess, rejecting any real consideration of actual change, to say nothing of the exploration of the remainder of Oerik or Oerth. If some are concerned that GH might become FR, I see that danger only to the extent that there might be a myopic focus on restating GH in terms of an unchanging Flanaess.
Wotc's Dragonlance license, I think, is explainable in one word - novels. The DL setting exists to support the sale of novels. In its own unique way, I think, DL is a highly successful setting; it just has little to do with actual gaming.
Not mentioned but more interesting, to me, is/was the Ravenloft licence to White Wolf (SSS). In its day, Ravenloft sold well, but it played out rapidly as the concept was forced and was never really developed to its full potential, IMO. Yet, a licence was let. Why? I'm wondering if it is not a happy confluence of an interested published (White Wolf does horror and wants into the d20 market without taking the WoD lines there) and a fan base that is relatively unified, reasonably polite, and produces/d fan material second only to Greyhawk and arguably on a slicker dedicated website (when that site was fully active). If so, Greyhawk fans have a possibile ray of hope but have their work cut out for them:
(1) Relatively unified GH fans?
Well, maybe unified in a narrow sense, directed toward a goal? Maybe? ;) (2) Reasonably polite?
Okay, if we don't talk about editions or canon or the relative merits of Living Greyhawk? ;) Maybe? ;) (3) Producing great fan created material? Got it covered on Canonfire.
(4) Showcasing fan created material on a slick website? I'm no web-guru so I'll leave it to other more knowledgeable persons to compare the technical merits of the Kargatane site (the previously full version) and Canonfire but I will note that the full Kargatine site organized its submissions perhaps more throughly than Canonfire (perhaps the Kargatane site was too organized? But still, something to ponder), which becomes/will become an issue as the volume of Canonfire submissions continues to increase. Search functions are cool but . . . not everyone knows what to search for. My layman's opinion.
(5) Coordinate interest from a third party publisher? None that I know of but I'm also not sure if any effort has been put toward developing such interest. There seems a willingness to leave matters to Mr. Mona, and to Paizo, but I'm not sure that is the only option or the best. To the extent that the CF honcho and Erik are good friends of long standing and that one sees the other frequently published in Paizo products, there may be no immediately focused interest in other than the status quo. OBLIGATORY NOTE - This is not an "attack" on either Mr. Mona or Gary Holian. It is notation of fact, that can be easily verified, with a _possible_ consequence noted.
Absent a 3rd party license, I think Greyhawk will eventually be revisited but it will likely be quite some time in coming - years after the LG is Ravensbluffed and after GH is no longer the default in a new edition of the game. I cannot fault Mr. Ryan for doing what makes business sense. I am disappointed, nonetheless, that there does not seem to be an appreciation for how Greyhawk could make business sense.
From the sales figures that I have seen Ebberon isn't doing all that well and with anything else generally speaking the newer a product is the better the sales, so the honeymoon should be coming to an end fairly quickly.
So where can one find these sales figures then?
S.H
Considering the questionable 'quality' of the schlock Wizards has been putting out of late I am more than happy to rely on Paizo and Canonfire! for any Greyhawk material that I myself don't come up with.
Ebberon and the Realms can get the publishing time, but I just don't see the quality necessary to win my respect.
Yes, its disappointing that Wizards is ignoring the campaign world that started it all, but its better than having them produce a bunch of garbage that would outrage us more.
Eberron is, IMO, the flavor of the month. FR is still supported out of an abundance of caution - the concern that if Eberron does not have staying power Wotc will need something to fall back on.
Eberron just doesn't spark my interest. I like FR, though honestly I see it more as a collection of a half-dozen different complete settings rather than a single setting.
If I were an FR fan, I'd be rather concerned that FR is always more of the same. With few exceptions, it keeps going over the same ground, over and over. As a GH fan, I worry when so many fans obsess over the Flanaess, rejecting any real consideration of actual change, to say nothing of the exploration of the remainder of Oerik or Oerth.
In a way, I think WotC is a bit afraid of GH, given the tattered state of its canon. Eberron gives them the chance to make a whole new world without that pesky canon.
In a way, I think WotC is a bit afraid of GH, given the tattered state of its canon. Eberron gives them the chance to make a whole new world without that pesky canon.
Not only that, it is a world created by and for WotC and their current 3.5 rules. Much like the canon, all the other major game worlds trace their roots back to previous editions, some of which are still used by players who eschew WotC to some degree.
I think they incorrectly assume that since FR is so close in flavor to Greyhawk that gamers won't buy both products. Certainly that is a possibility. But speaking from personal experience I don't think people who enjoy that type of campaign will simply buy FR products because Greyhawk isn't being produced.I hope this is wrong, but I bet it is not.
FR might be close, but it's too much. New players have been given only enough Greyhawk to think of it as a generic setting instead of one that's filled with richness.
So where can one find these sales figures then?
S.H
You can't. Those are trade secrets no publishing company would release.
I think they incorrectly assume that since FR is so close in flavor to Greyhawk that gamers won't buy both products.
If anything Eberron is closer to FR! Maybe not high in level but high magic indeed!
You can't. Those are trade secrets no publishing company would release.
So how come Lassiviren can talk about sales figures he has seen without giving out any details as I requested. Stinks a bit of 'Because I say so, it must be true' attitude.
S.H, Ahlissa (Naerie) webslave
You can't. Those are trade secrets no publishing company would release.
Actually almost every publisher has a number that you can call and enter an ISBN# that tells you sales figures per month and the past year. In some cases you can even get inventory numbers for their wharehouse. There are also websites that track sale figures for Amazon and other internet sites. It also isn't particularly difficult to get wholesale numbers for hobby retailers in the industry. Most industry people who track these things get a number from one of these sources and multiply it in order to gauge how a product is doing with relation to other similar products.
So how come Lassiviren can talk about sales figures he has seen without giving out any details as I requested. Stinks a bit of 'Because I say so, it must be true' attitude.
S.H, Ahlissa (Naerie) webslave
Why don't you go back to the LG website, troll?
Actually almost every publisher has a number that you can call and enter an ISBN# that tells you sales figures per month and the past year. In some cases you can even get inventory numbers for their wharehouse. There are also websites that track sale figures for Amazon and other internet sites. It also isn't particularly difficult to get wholesale numbers for hobby retailers in the industry. Most industry people who track these things get a number from one of these sources and multiply it in order to gauge how a product is doing with relation to other similar products.
We'd love to hear those statistics, or at least have that phone number.
According to Amazon, the best selling D&D books currently are the PHB, Complete Adventurer, DMG, Sandstorm, and the MM. Lost Empires of Faerun is the first campaign specific on the list. No other campaign books are in the top 100.
Why don't you go back to the LG website, troll?
Now, in fairness, I think he was just asking if there were any figures to back up your statement. When it appeared there wasn't, he questioned the validity of the statement. That's not being a troll, just a bit of healthy scepticism. I'd also be interested in seeing hard figures on Ebberon sales, rather than hearing that the figures are bad secondhand.
It'd also be interesting to see a ranking of WotC campaign book sales from Amazon, taking out the core and add-on rule books, which are always going to outsell setting material. That way we might have a clue as to the hard data that the WotC bean counters are using to plan their releases.
If Ebberon is bombing, then the sound of the explosion is being heard all over WotC.
P.
Posts in this thread on topic
Simpi: 0
Lassiviren: 3
I don't have to do research for you guys. I happen to have an interest in the subject and I also used to work in the market when I was going to college. If you compare the sales of the Eberron book to FR or any of the Complete books it isn't doing very well. Obviously if you are comparing it to the Davinci Code it's getting killed, if you compare it to most D20 products it is doing fairly well. D&D is a niche market, Eberron is a niche of a niche market. For Mr Ryan to say that taking people from other projects would lessen Eberron and FR and not increase their profits because its Greyhawk, is self serving and misleading at best, a slap in the face and insulting to us fans at worst.
For whatever reason they have turned their backs on the setting and I would be willing to bet a couple of paychecks that a Greyhawk hardback would outsell the Eberron CS book, easily to.
http://www.junglescan.com/
I don't have to do research for you guys.
Then you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you, either. Look, I don't want to take sides in this debate, and I don't much care how Eberron is selling. I just want to point out that, if you're going to make a statement like, "Eberron isn't selling well" (or "Greyhawk didn't sell well"), then you should be prepared to show what you're basing that statement on. People should never just blindly accept what they're told; a little skepticism is a healthy thing.
Well how about this:
Posts in this thread on topic
Simpi: 0
Lassiviren: 3
Excuse me for asking you to back up your statement. Obviously it seems to you that I should just join the choir and say "Wotc sucks because they don't do greyhawk!", therefore staying 'on topic'.
I quess I will take up on your offer and move into LG boards. People seem to be bit more civilised there.
S.H, Ahlissa (Naerie) webslave
According to Amazon, the best selling D&D books currently are the PHB, Complete Adventurer, DMG, Sandstorm, and the MM. Lost Empires of Faerun is the first campaign specific on the list. No other campaign books are in the top 100.
At least one person here is paying attention. Find the highest ranking that Eberron has ever had. See what WotC books have cracked the Bookscan list...etc etc.
Company's pay good money for this stuff, I personally couldn't get in trouble but a few friends of mine could. The fact of the matter is you can do some research for yourselves, and although it won't be as accurate, it will give you some idea of how this stuff sells.
Seeing how this entire thread has been hijacked, if someone wants to talk about the falseness of the assertion that Greyhawk is a dead campaign that can't make money someone can start a new thread elsewhere I guess.
Why don't you go back to the LG website, troll?
Polite and unified fanbase? Hmm.
Seeing how this entire thread has been hijacked, if someone wants to talk about the falseness of the assertion that Greyhawk is a dead campaign that can't make money someone can start a new thread elsewhere I guess.
I am big fan of GH, so this is rather difficult to say...
1. I have accepted that GH is dead. I don't like it, but it is true.
2. IF WoTc or any other company restarted the GH line, it wouldn't be the same-which is good, but it could also be something that continues to divide the fanbase.
3. Sure, if a new GH book were to come out; we would all buy it-but it wouldn't be exactly what each one of us hoped or wanted. I suppose I would like about 60% of it, if current WoTC products are proof as to what to expect. If it were a thirdparty publisher, that number might dramatically fall; as a lot of D20 stuff out there is 'mediocre' at best.
4. I will continue to use GH material, of old; in new ways and be happy with it. Sure, something 'new' and 'official' *could* be helpful. Though, I am not going to expect anything as any decision is based on sales' projections and the number of people who once used GH and would use it again are vastly different. The former is more numerous than the latter.
Even if Eberron was performing below expectations, that tells us nothing about whether a Greyhawk product would perform well.
Honestly, if Eberron is performing poorly, that doesn't bode well for any campaign related material.
Even if Eberron was performing below expectations, that tells us nothing about whether a Greyhawk product would perform well.
Actually, it does. Primarily because it tell us something about 'demand'. There may not be a demand for a D&D setting or there may not be a demand for Eberron. There may not be a demand for GH that would be 'profitable' enough to creat the supply.
Actually, it does. Primarily because it tell us something about 'demand'. There may not be a demand for a D&D setting or there may not be a demand for Eberron. There may not be a demand for GH that would be 'profitable' enough to creat the supply.
IMO, the whole selling model for games that Wotc is using is "broken." It reflects outdated thinking that was last current or relevant in 1995.
In short, Wotc releases a "setting" and then endeavors to "support" it. This creates numerous down-stream problems, not the least of which is the need to "restart" the sales model when the farthest downstream products begin to see fewer and fewer sales to a point of unsustainablity. I have seen this called "the treadmill" model. Edition 3.5 "restarted" the entire line, not just a setting, and only 3-4 years into 3rd Edition. Yikes!
While some d20 companies also suffer this problem, most are insulated from the worst ravages of the "treadmill" because they can't release enough product fast enough to really get the treadmill humming.
The way off the treadmill, IMO, is to avoid trying to "support" a setting in a "dedicated" manner. More settings should be lightly supported, and here's the kicker, with a significant amount of "generic" or "transferrable" content in that support so you are appealing to more than fans of just that setting. Under this model, a "big" setting like the Realms might get two products a year; a "middle ground" setting like Greyhawk might get one product a year; "small" settings like Al-Qadim would get a product every other year and "least" settings like Spelljammer would get a product every three years. YMMV. The key, again, is cross-sales outside the setting's core fans by the inclusion of "generic" content - spells, monsters, some PrCs, some races, some organizations, planes etc. that are clearly NOT just for the setting in question.
I know this runs contra to the "common wisdom" but so did the OGL and that worked out well to kick off 3E.
My opinion.
What new spells has Mordenkainen made? I'd like to know.
What new spells has Canon Hazen made? I'd like to know.
What is the latest hierarchy of the Thieves Guild of Greyhawk? I'd like to know.
Who are the new nobles of the Free City of Greyhawk? I'd like to know.
I am not talking GH Live or RPGA or Dragon Articles.
I am talking a new book to cover the latest developments of GH.
Though, it is not going to happen.
Only a handful of people would want to see what I would like to see. I am speaking metaphorically, of course. Though, the product would have to sell over a 100,000 copies to get the party started.
There is no guarantee of that.
Maybe they are quite happy with what Eberron has done, regardless we now know that they don't think Greyhawk is a solvent product because of its miniscule following of a few thousand gamers. (C. Ryans words not mine.)
Another litmus to this would be to look at Dungeons subscriber base from the last few years to see how much their subscriptions and circulation has increased since Greyhawk has become a larger part of the mag. My guess is that it is doing quite a bit better.
And yet the "wizards" of the coast decided the new AP shouldn't be primarily based in Greyhawk as the editors wanted and said it must be setting neutral. The whole thing smells fishy to me, there is more to this than marketing and business models.
You do realize that the Hackmaster version of Greyhawk, "Greyhack", is coming out in April (according to theory anyway)? Now, while it is HM and essentially a 1e/2e product thereby, it will be in print yet again.
Interesting to note that RL got licensed out, now WotC is allowing Kenzer to use GH in Hm, no?
Tony
And yet the "wizards" of the coast decided the new AP shouldn't be primarily based in Greyhawk as the editors wanted and said it must be setting neutral. The whole thing smells fishy to me, there is more to this than marketing and business models.
This is the part of the argument I always have trouble buying. That the decision makers are deliberately ignoring marketing data and good business sense because they have some beef with Greyhawk. I really don't think they care one way or the other about settings, they just want to make the most money possible.
This is the part of the argument I always have trouble buying. That the decision makers are deliberately ignoring marketing data and good business sense because they have some beef with Greyhawk. I really don't think they care one way or the other about settings, they just want to make the most money possible.
Remember, 30+ years is a long time. People come and go. People who worked in the game industry even 15 years ago, are no longer heard from today. Many of those people personally championed GH. Again, like any other business; people come and go.
Sure, some of the people are around-Erik Mona being one. Though, despite his valiant efforts; getting GH restarted would mean competing with the new employees of the company-many of whom are Forgotten Realms or Ebberron devotees.
And let's not forget the numerous other settings that have challenged the demand for GH.
Planescape: excellent! Now, Monte Cook has his own company.
Darksun: again, excellent; but also 'dead'.
Dragonlance; excellent. It was revived, but to not much fanfare.
It is the example of Dragonlance we should look at. I would say that fanbase is more numerous and recent, yet-it hasn't caught on it would seem.
Nostalgia is one thing, but it will always be overpowered by evolution. Sure, we may not the results; but math never lies.
Thanks.
Nostalgia is one thing, but it will always be overpowered by evolution.
[touched nerve] Evolution affects species, not games, and certainly not individuals. An individual cannot "evolve," contrary to every Star Trek episode I've ever watched (and that's a lot of Star Trek!). [/touched nerve]
I'm sorry, carry on.
Oh, and uh, I've always always always preferred Greyhawk over Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, and this new Eberron hasn't even tweaked a bit of interest on my part. (BirthRight was hecka kewl, though. ;) )
Evolution affects species, not games, and certainly not individuals. An individual cannot "evolve,"
Physically speaking, a species is supposed to evolve slowly by the mutation of just a few individuals at first.
Mentally speaking, individual evolution is the main motivator. Think racism, sexism and religion dogma... a lot of people still have it but, for the most part, there are less and less people believing that women and non-Caucasians are inferior in any way, or that raw beliefs are "fact".
I, for one, feel annoyed when people say that they don't believe in Astrology because I've been studying it for years and the people who speak ill of it clearly have not. Astrology is not something you "believe in". It's a science, which can be studied by anyone with a brain. "Mental Evolution" suggests that one day people will look at these people (the ones who don't "believe" in Astrology) and think of them as we think of those who once said the Earth was flat.
Huh... and sorry for hi-jacking the thread. You touched a nerve in me... :P
Now back to your regularly scheduled program *click*
Just by comparison:
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Sales Rank: #7,989 in Books
Eberron Campaign Setting Sales Rank: #12,395 in Books
And in the 'really never promoted or supported, so it doesn't
even compare' category:
Living Greyhawk Gazateer Sales Rank: #34,413 in Books
The FR CS has been out quite a long time, so I guess in all fairness,
we'd have to give Eberron some time to 'catch up'....but personally,
I have no interest in it, and the friends I have who currently play
D&D all bought Privateer's Iron Kingdoms Character and Campaign
books for 'something different' over Eberron. Yet all would happily
support Greyhawk.
Oh well you put a wish in one hand, and take a @#$% in the other,
you are still left with a handful of @#$%.
Eberron on the other hand is sucking wind. If you follow any of the Complete books they usually trend around 200 to 2,000 ranking dipping down to the 5,000 - 6,000 mark for the time EbCS has been out.
You can expect online sales to be driven for their first few months and then taper off because of pre-orders and early adopters.
What I find so humorous is that the rumor is that the D&D version of World of Warcraft is supposed to be based in Eberron. What a huge mistake that would be if its true.
Mentally speaking, individual evolution is the main motivator.
Nnnno! *slap!* Individuals change, individuals adapt, but individuals do not EVOLVE. Even the dang dictionary can't get this right!
...for the most part, there are less and less people believing that women and non-Caucasians are inferior in any way, or that raw beliefs are "fact".
Whoa! I think we live on different planets! ;)
Astrology is not something you "believe in". It's a science, which can be studied by anyone with a brain.
Ok, now I suspect/hope you must be kidding. :P Right? (Please tell me I'm right, or else I'll have to apologize for mocking your beliefs.
)Huh... and sorry for hi-jacking the thread. You touched a nerve in me... :P
Even when I'm on topic, I'm spamming.
Whoa! I think we live on different planets! ;)
Different countries, I believe. Different planets, no. But seriously, compare the sixties to the eighties and then to our "early XXI century" way of looking at prejudice. It has changed, and it seems to me it has been for the better.
Ok, now I suspect/hope you must be kidding. :P Right? (Please tell me I'm right, or else I'll have to apologize for mocking your beliefs.
I'm serious, but as I said, it's not a belief. If you talk about reincarnation or anything that I can't see with my own eyes, then yes, you can label it as "belief". Astrology doesn't belong under that label because anyone who studies the subject, and learns how to read a "chart", reaches the same basic conclusions, thus acknowleding its factual results.
The reason why some people have trouble accepting it is because there's no law controling who knows astrology and who's just making stuff up. In the end, for the layman, how to tell the difference between a true astrologer and a fake?
The funny thing is that Psychology was also "made fun of" a few decades ago. Now, it's commonly accepted. Astrology has very much in common with Psychology and, in fact, big names like Carl Jung were astrologers too.
Well... it's a matter of time. No point in rushing things.
What I find so humorous is that the rumor is that the D&D version of World of Warcraft is supposed to be based in Eberron. What a huge mistake that would be if its true.
R U Serious... Wow, what a piece of crap if that is true.
..............................................Omote
FPQ
http://www.ddo.com
I'm serious, but as I said, it's not a belief. If you talk about reincarnation or anything that I can't see with my own eyes, then yes, you can label it as 'belief'. Astrology doesn't belong under that label because anyone who studies the subject, and learns how to read a 'chart', reaches the same basic conclusions, thus acknowleding its factual results.
That's just silly. I could codify a system by which one could determine which popular television personalities are, in fact, reptoid aliens, then teach it to a bunch of people and as a long as the guidelines I invented were clear enough, they would all come to the "correct" conclusions, too.
But what the bloody hell does that prove? That you can pull kooky beliefs out of your behind all day long and as long as they're reasonably internally-consistant, they constitute new "sciences?"
Sorry, but that is idiotic.
Try here. PLEASE. I hate to see a good mind go to waste.
1) Regional feats. Oh yeah, I'm losing sleep about this one every night ... not!
2) Prestige class. Yeah, it might be cool in to drop in that "Wild pimp-slapper of Iuz" prestige class, but I still don't think I'm missing out.
3) Epic NPCs. Really, all this results in is the 1st level party wanting to drop by and kick back with Bigby. Pass!
For gods and spells, it's the core rule books. Frankly, I think I'm set.
Different countries, I believe....
... it's a matter of time. No point in rushing things.
Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. Glad I didn't push any of your buttons.
That's just silly....
...Try here. PLEASE....
I'm 50% interested in continuing this, but we'd just be spamming this poor thread even more; so we should unfortunately let this drop.
Dungeons & Dragons Online is certainly set in Eberron. Remember, WotC's purpose with Eberron is as a setting for licensed computer games and movies.
I'm 50% interested in continuing this, but we'd just be spamming this poor thread even more
Not really. I remember that in the 1983 Greyhawk setting (or was it the 1980 folio?) it says that the people in the Flanaess had interest in the movement of the stars.
It would be interesting, then, to think that Gary Gygax did in fact wanted to include some sort of Astrology mechanism in the game, but had little knowledge on the matter at the time, thus leaving it to the DM/GM to fill in the details.
Yamo, I did follow your link and searched for "Astrology". There was a huge list of entries, so I narrowed it down to TITLE. What I found didn't have anything that disproved Astrology but there was mention of an article written by someone named Franknoi which, curiously, was proved an idiot by many astrologers since then. You can read it here:
http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm
Anyway, "Batman", we can make a quick test. Give me your birth data (Date, Time and Place of birth). If you don't feel confortable posting it here, just send it by PM. I'm just a 2nd year Astrology student, but I may have some interesting thing to say nonetheless.
We can then discuss the possibility of releasing a Greyhawk fan-made book where a chapter on Astrology is a possibility. I mean, if fantasy roleplaying has sparked the interest of so many people in history and mythology, maybe that would broaden their horizons to fields like Astrology. Just a thought.
It would be interesting, then, to think that Gary Gygax did in fact wanted to include some sort of Astrology mechanism in the game, but had little knowledge on the matter at the time, thus leaving it to the DM/GM to fill in the details.
We can then discuss the possibility of releasing a Greyhawk fan-made book where a chapter on Astrology is a possibility. I mean, if fantasy roleplaying has sparked the interest of so many people in history and mythology, maybe that would broaden their horizons to fields like Astrology. Just a thought.
A recent Dragonshards article about Eberron's 12 moons inlcuded some concepts of Astrology into the Eberron CS.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050307a
A recent Dragonshards article about Eberron's 12 moons inlcuded some concepts of Astrology into the Eberron CS.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050307a
Interesting. I haven't followed Eberron and had no idea, but that's a good start. Thanks!
I know it's not the thread purpose, but it's hard for me to read that astrology is a science.
First, if you are speaking about the stars movement, it's astrophysics or astronomy, and surely not astrology. And astronomy is a science.
Second, psychology is still not a science, its status is not well established. It doesn' mean psychology is nonsense, but that it cannot be verified as scientic laws need to be verified to be accepted as scientific.
Third, yes ok, for astrology in RPG, no problem, also ok for magic, for dragons and for undead. BUt that's RPG.
First - Correct, the study of celestial body movement is Astronomy. The interpretation of their relative positioning is Astrology. It really makes me nervous when Astronomers comment on Astrology (or vice-versa) because they are obviously different fields.
Second - I can believe that. As I said, people made fun of Psychology, and not too long ago, but if you say "I'm a Psychologist" nowadays, you have some respect.
Third - Sure, but in order to give a gamer some suspence of disbelief, you must make some research on real life events. For instance, most people think of Conan when they hear "Barbarian", but if you study a bit about Barbarian cultures you'll realize that Barbarians were much more than the Sumerian archtype.
And, by experience i can swear that not a single law in astrology has ever been demonstrated.
Please, do share your experience. :P
Go in Africa and totems and shaman will be acccepted as science, and no one will dare to contest it, the same in all tribal cultures (and sometimes modern ones).
Elsewhere people will read future in the tree bark, in a dog stomach, in a river, in a woman menstruation, in coffee, you have for all taste.
And all of them will defend the credibilty and veracity of their method with the same aguments than you.
Ahh... but here is where you show how you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. You're confusing Astrology with "divination arts". Yes, the mass media puts them all under the same label, but it's wrong, and if you had any basic knowledge of it, whatsoever, I wouldn't have to be the one to tell you that. :D
And about chinese atrology? there is also another i don't even remember, i think i will create one...
I have no idea. Unlike some people, I don't speak of things I do not know about. From what I hear, the chinese simply have a different method to do things. As for you creating one, go right ahead, maybe you'll help us with an "Oerth Astrological System" (sounds awful... need help with names).
i have seen so much people in delicate situation abused by "astrology" that it's hard for me to close my mouth, sorry.
No. What you've seen are people who have no knowledge of Astrology taking advantage of other people's ignorance. I don't present myself as an Astrologer (I'm a Web Designer), because I don't want to spend my life reading other people's charts, but I encourage others to study it so they can benefit from that knowledge without being dependent on an Astrologer. Or, at the very least, stop saying nonsense about the subject.
Those wandering stars (outside the perimeter of the grinder) are Edill, Gnibile, Ginsel, the Spectre, and the Sisters. I may be mistaken, however.
Don't forget, there used to be six wandering stars until one apparently disappeared in a flash in 201 CY (during the Unhuman Wars when the planet Borka was destroyed by the elves).
I wrote up a "Constellations of Greyhawk" article complete with star chart for Dragon in 2002 but the final draft was rejected. I submitted it to Oerth Journal but it fell through the cracks though I have recently sent in the information again.
So please tell me what is astrology if not an "divinatory art"? what is its purpose but determining planets and stars influence on people and events????
Divination - The art or act of foretelling future events or revealing occult knowledge by means of augury or an alleged supernatural agency [from Dictionary.com]
In other words, if you ask "will I get a new job" (future) or "is this person cheating on me" (occult present) you want Divination. Astrology can't do anything to help here.
Astrology - A long-established method of exploring ourselves, our relationships and our place within the world.
In other words, it's like our "instruction manual".
And please don't tell me you don't believe in divinatory, you even asked somebody on this thread is birthdate for an astral theme.
I don't comment on Divinatory arts because I've little experience with them. They may work, or they may not. I asked for a birth date because that will tell me who the person is, but I won't be able to see that person future, or know his/her thoughts. Divination arts, supposedly, can. Not Astrology.
The other astrology you didn't remember, quite surprising, is the Aztec one, who was one of the most complete. (quite logical when you think of their culture).
If what I study is Western Astrology, why would I be arrogant to talk about that which I don't know? There's also Mayan astrology, Celtic astrology, Egyptian astrology, and probably many others... but I only heard of them, not studied them.
Quite strange also hen you asked batman his birthdate you didn't ask where was he born, beacuse the latitude is important for an effective astral theme.... but sorry you're "only" in second year.
Do you even know how to read? What do you think "Place of birth" means?
Sorry again, but, if you are, and i think you are, clever enough, change your field of study for something else, and keep astrology as a hobby for having fun with your friends the week end.
Or you re may be very deceived, if you want to stay honest, of course
Thank you for the compliment. I do intend to keep Astrology as a hobby because I already have a job and don't see myself being a full-fledged Astrologer. However, honesty forces to denounce charlatans (those who claim to be astrologers, but aren't) and idiots (those who are ignorant on the subject by choice).
Also, I apologise if I snipped most of your post but, as you wisely pointed out, this isn't an Astrology thread, and I don't want to embarass you or make you feel insulted. I will continue to post if it's somehow related to Greyhawk, or if it provides evidence of how Astrology works, for future Greyhawk material (inspiration). Discussing random assumptions and "hear-says" is counter-productive on both ends.
I wrote up a "Constellations of Greyhawk" article complete with star chart for Dragon in 2002 but the final draft was rejected. I submitted it to Oerth Journal but it fell through the cracks though I have recently sent in the information again.
That's great! If it gets published, link it to this forum. If not... well, is it too big to transcribe to a post here?
1. I think Gadodel is way off the mark calling Greyhawk 'dead' because it doesn't have a current product line (is Middle-earth dead?), or calling fashions in taste 'evolution'.
2. Dungeons & Dragons Online is certainly set in Eberron. Remember, WotC's purpose with Eberron is as a setting for licensed computer games and movies.
1. Comparing it to Middle Earth is foolhardy at best. Middle Earth has always been popular with a small number of people. The majority of whom are fans of the fantasy genre in general, the rest might be a few high school and college teachers. Middle Earth was made part of 'pop culture'-that is to say, quite popular with a lot of people; because of the movies.
No such move to make GH more popular is underway or will be underway any time soon. Again, it is an issue of Demographics and the demand for more. Middle Earth had no demand until people started see sneak peaks of what was being done.
2. There was a new setting search and Eberron won. It's purpose was for WoTC to market something new and in a new way. I am not sure where you got the idea for the movies part..
And by the way, You guys obviously have differences of opinion; you should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. To each his or her own.
It's common knowledge in the industry that Eberron is WotC's attempt to create a licensing property that doesn't have the legal and creative limitations of its existing worlds.
that is totally stupid and absolutely non scientific, but you may think the contrary, as many people.
"Stupid" is hearing about something and take what you hear for granted. People do that all the time. How many of you have actually opened a corpse to see how the human organs look like? How many have been to the Moon and know what it's like to jump in low gravity? Very few, if any, I bet. But because you saw pictures in a book or heard someone give you description, that's good enough for you and you blindly "believe" it.
With Astrology people tend to be more closed-minded. Why? It's a matter of credibility of the source. Nowadays. an article written by a PhD Astronomer has credibility. An article written by an Astrologer (wether he's certified or not) has none. But as I just proved in the link I provided before, the reality is that the PhD Astronomer is sometimes a complete idiot who made no research on the subject at hand.
The problem is that credibility is, above all, based on what's "socially acceptable". Centuries ago you wouldn't listen to a woman or a black man because they weren't even allowed to talk in certain situations. Now they can be part of the government if they want. Psychologists, as I pointed out, were laughed at when they began to study the human mind, but now are commonly accepted.
In short, for Astrology to be accepted by the idiotic minds (those who comment on subjects they know nothing about, and refuse to learn), it needs to raise it's credibility within society. When that happens, I suppose people like you will be "eating" anything an Astrologer says, but by then you'll be making fun and insulting something else. Human nature, I guess.
That clearly won't happen in an internet forum, let alone this one, so I'll make this my last post to you. I just want to make one thing perfectly clear: it wasn't my intention to convince you that Astrology works (that's your problem, not mine) but, please, don't lie and make up things on the spot just to make you sound "knowledgeable" because all your arguments either have no grounds, or are based on myths and legends that people have made up about the subject over the years (sheer ignorance).
About the place of birth, as you may have guessed, i am not english native, i meant the latitude and longitude on earth because people working in astrology told me about that, even the hour of birth. They even told me that without that it's nonsense (... funny, again another way to dismark from other, "my astrology is better than you" etc...).
English is not my first language either, but you seem fluent enough in it to insult other people, so reading a complete sentence where it clearly says "Date, Time and Place" shouldn't be too hard. Yes, it's important for higher accuracy, and some calculations simply cannot be done without Time and Place.
And true Astrologers aren't worried about being better than anyone else in their craft. Unless they want more customers. In which case, they're probably the charlatans I referred in my previous post who just want money and fame. Those people may know a thing or two about Astrology, which they probably learn from books they bought, but that doesn't make them professionals.
About other astrology (maya and aztec astrology are the same i believe), i just wrote about that to ask you why would the western( wich is coming from hindou, but you must know
I didn't say it was "better". It's the one I have access to, and has the most amount of support in terms of People, Research articles, and schools.
And the true origins of western Astrology aren't truly known. As you're probably aware, most written material of the early ages was destroyed by the church, but what has been gathered so far is that India, Egypt and Greece used a similar form of Astrology - which one was the "first" is not certain.
I remind you that you wrote that astrology is a science. For a science, an apple is under the gravity law in europe, in north pole, in africa and in USA. STILL. Or it won't be a science. For an astrologist, somebody born the x/x/xxxx may be powerful and arrogant here, discret and naive here, nervous and shy here etc etc...
In Psychology a woman who is raped here may distrust men in her future, in some areas of Africa she'll probably accept it as a common event. But that's probably "funny" and "ridiculous" to you too.
So Astrology and Psychology don't fit the current standards of science. Maybe science must broaden its scope, instead of ruling out thing its obtuse vision can't grasp.
About "hear-say" sorry, but i don't feel concerned. I don't know the world in english for "zetetic" but i spent years to study scientific laws and ways to prove them, and was often confronted to astrology. And, as a scientist, we used proven and established facts to make demonstration. Only. Not the position of mars or the andomede constellation.
Ahh... so the truth finally comes out. You're just as knowledgeable as Dr. Franknoi who is now the laughing stock even among his community. I hate to break it to you, but you're not a scientist... you're a robot. Not in the strict sense of the word, obviously, but you're a typical "society robot". You spent years reading on how things "work" and developed your mind and your life according to those laws which were "inputed" into you. Anything that escapes your "programming" simply doesn't compute.
I pity you. At first, I simply thought you were an ignorant person who refused to let go of his unfounded beliefs, but now I pity you, because people like you will never change. The "programming" is your life. If you suddenly began to see things outside of your rationalized "scientific" laws, you'd just fall apart, unsure of everything.
To come back to the World of greyhawk
Finally!
i would think that the Rhennee and some priests (Istus, Celestian and others) would be the most likely to have an astrology skill, or abilities.
A "Profession: Astrologer" skill is probably the best choice. If you're going for Cleric spells related to it, then any God associated with the Knowledge domain is a given.
But this skills must remains something releving on "folklore", it musn't be in compêtition with magic and the divination school, or only with the less powerfull spells.
No need to complicate things. I think the best approach is simply to think of it as a skill. There may be spells to aid or empower the skill, but that's as far as I'd go.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/articles/20030610vetha
I just want to congratulate everyone on a wonderful job of hijacking and derailing this thread to something completely off-topic. Why bother continuing an off-topic conversation via email or PM when you can take a good thread and destroy it with something completely irrelevant?
You're right Amaril, and I apologise for being part of the problem. Usually, I'd take it to email or PM, as you suggested, but there were lies being raised publicly and I'm clearly the only person here who could denounce them.
Anyway, I'm done with makoma. I suppose he'll want to have the last word, but I think I already proved that he's just making things up as he goes along, so I'll just let it sink and forget.
The point of making a fan-based Greyhawk book is still something I'd like to discuss, and is related to the thread, but if enough people think it should be taken to its own place, I have no problem with that. The problem then is this thread will die since there's nothing more to say about WotC stance on the Greyhawk Campaign Setting.
So... do we talk about it here, or not?
That's great! If it gets published, link it to this forum. If not... well, is it too big to transcribe to a post here?
I'll put in the link in a new topic if they publish it. If not, it's a little too long to put on a thread (over 6,000 words) and I have no way to scan the starchart but could email it to you and mail the a photocopy of the map.
Nuff said.
I find it somewhat disappointing that this thread which concerns a subject that should be of interest to anyone on the Greyhawk board has recently been hijacked for a completely off-topic discussion about Astrology!
In order for GH to have a chance of being released as a stand alone setting many things would have to change. I believe you can take what has been written before an alter it to a more favorable change. So stop hanging on to cannon because the only way consistency is maintained is when it is tracked excesively. Also there are many factions of GH fans which make any business man weak in the knees when determining which direction should be taken.
I see each incarnation of the setting as just that. Their are Die Hard Gygax fans who refuse to view anything written after his departure as heresy. Then their are people who believe that Sargent was actually a savior to the setting, I'm one of those people. Then you have the LG people who like the fan control of the setting. All of these GH have their highs and lows. However the reason I enjoy the Sargent era the most is because it seems he tried to change as much as possible to give GH a different feelwithout over stepping what was written before him.
This was a step in the right direction,however none of the incarnations of GH are to be discredited. Sure I can read about Zagyg the God catcher. However I view him as a Caligila type, he is insane and believes he is fighting the gods. Because of his power and leadership have made his people prosper he is seen as divine. With Boccob's blessing Zagyg is in fact elevated to a divine status but never did he hold the power to actually trap a god.
Think about it Iuz was involved with the Temple of Elemental Evil, so if he was truly trapped then how could he be involved with the temple. Simply it was Iuz himself which made Zagyg believe he was powerful enough to hold divine beings in captivity. Since the world believes Iuz to not be a threat at all since he is in captivity at Zagyg's castle. The temple was able to flourish for a long time without being noticed at a sooner time. Otherwise that temple surely would of meet it's end sooner then previously stated in cannon.
Just because a story was read or made doesn't mean that it's true at all. Remember at one time we thought the world was flat and you could fall off the end of it. However it was not true. We even believed the earth to be the center of the universe however we have learned differently since. Why can't this be true in a game world!
Until we as GH fans can agree that changes to what has been written before can occur without a flame war starting the setting will continue in it's current state. Besides I know alot of LG players that are fine with GH as it is. However I think it's safe to say that a good old setting specific book meant for the days of pencil and paper play would be a welcome sight. For know we take what we have and support those areas which support our setting. Even if it's not our take of the setting it still is GH.
P.
A scientist (and therefore perhaps robotic idiot, but a robotic idiot who uses reason rather than superstition).
The idea of Eberron as I understood it was to increase the reach of of AD&D, by providing a new kind of gaming experience - in this case a much more anime/swords & sorcery kind of genre, rather than the traditional fantasy of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure it actually does this, but I believe it was certainly worth a try.
I prefer GH to Eberron, but I suspect that Eberron would make a better massively multipalyer online world.
The idea of Eberron as I understood it was to increase the reach of of AD&D, by providing a new kind of gaming experience - in this case a much more anime/swords & sorcery kind of genre, rather than the traditional fantasy of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure it actually does this, but I believe it was certainly worth a try.
The problem with basing a marketing strategy on this is because people play D&D because it is FR and Greyhawk. It is what it is. If you want something different than this generally you play a different game... Exalted would be my suggestion. I don't know how many people who enjoy FR and Greyhawk purchase Eberron but my guess is that the people they are trying to reach don't actively purchase FR stuff, and from a personal standpoint, I don't purchase FR nor Eberron so I have a feeling that many people share my view, and so far their sales data supports that supposition.
If you want to read an excellent rebuttal of the pseudoscience of astrology, read Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
P.
A scientist (and therefore perhaps robotic idiot, but a robotic idiot who uses reason rather than superstition).
Carl Sagan was a great scientist, to the point he never closed his mind to the possibility that it works:
- That we can now think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong. - Carl Sagan
Owned
I'll put in the link in a new topic if they publish it. If not, it's a little too long to put on a thread (over 6,000 words) and I have no way to scan the starchart but could email it to you and mail the a photocopy of the map.
If, for some reason, you can't get it published, let me know by PM and I'll give you my email. Thanks!
...
In the meantime, I finally dug out my copy of Greyspace. I still hadn't the time to go through it in detail, but here's a list of the bodies that surround it:
Kule (closest Moon)
Raenei (farthest Moon)
Liga (the Sun)
The Grinder
Edill
Gnibile
Conatha
Ginsei
Borka
Greela
The Spectre
Small excerpt:
Oerth is the center of the Greyspace system, both geometrically and sociologically. As the primary, every other celestial body in the system orbits around it, including Liga, "the Sun"
This brings a little problem. Some people want to accept Aquaria as a "canonical" continent in Oerth because Gary Gygax himself said it agreed with it. However, Gary Gygax is against the idea that Greyspace is geocentric (as described above).
So... which is it? One of these theories has to be discarded.
This brings a little problem. Some people want to accept Aquaria as a "canonical" continent in Oerth because Gary Gygax himself said it agreed with it. However, Gary Gygax is against the idea that Greyspace is geocentric (as described above).
Unfortunately for him, Gygax WROTE the canon that makes Greyspace geocentric, so whatever he says now is irrelevant.
Every Greyhawk sourcebook pre-LGG (which IIRC declines to comment) states that greyspace is geocentric.
Gygax waffled on this when someone pointed out his bad science in the folio/box set (wandering stars?)
And a preemptive rebuttal.
Gygax is credited as the author of the Folio and Box set, so any arguments that "he didn't really write that" are pointless, moot, and futile. Save them for the fanboy watering holes.
Im not sure I want purple haired punk dwarves in my Greyhawk.
Unfortunately for him, Gygax WROTE the canon that makes Greyspace geocentric, so whatever he says now is irrelevant.
Every Greyhawk sourcebook pre-LGG (which IIRC declines to comment) states that greyspace is geocentric.
Gygax waffled on this when someone pointed out his bad science in the folio/box set (wandering stars?)
And a preemptive rebuttal.
Gygax is credited as the author of the Folio and Box set, so any arguments that "he didn't really write that" are pointless, moot, and futile. Save them for the fanboy watering holes.
I agree. But here's what I read in another site (I'm paraphrasing):
"Gygax claims that the Folio was written from the perspective of a citizen of the Flanaess, thus some of the information in the Folio is wrong"
And the author of the web page commented (again, paraphrasing): "bur if we can't trust the Folio, what can we trust?"
Of course, considering the Folio "wrong" has another advantage, as we can now disregard the measure of the planet which hinted that Oerik was but 14% of the whole Oerth (that would mean the planet is gigantic in comparison to our Earth).
...
@OleOneEye - I'll reply through PM so as to not annoy the people here. Give me a day or two because other people have PMed me and I have to juggle my time with all of this. What I can say is that Astrology in the Greyhawk setting can be approached two ways:
1 - The "commercial" version: which would work as a non-magical form of Divination. Probably by rolling "Profession: Astrology" Skill and using telescopes and/or charts for a +2 Bonus. Weather conditions would prevent use of the skill, or at least give a penalty to the result, and I'm thinking Gnomes might have a +2 Racial bonus in it.
2 - The "school-certified" version: which would work as a replacement for Alignment. I don't think people would want to use this version in-game because it messes with one of D&D "trademarks" (Alignment), but it could be presented as a Optional Rule for the gamers who despise Alignment in the RAW.
While I wouldnt mind a nice greyhawk book, sometimes I wonder, if they wouldnt be better off just reprinting old GH material, and leaving out the rules portions (which were always limited in any event)
Hypothetically speaking, if the Greyhawk fan-base make an updated book, and it becomes a popular download, don't you think WotC would take notice? Marketing is not my specialty but, assuming Charles Ryan isn't lying, the problem for WotC is that they don't think Greyhawk warrant the costs of production and I don't see how that can be proved (right or wrong) without fan-effort.
Im not sure I want purple haired punk dwarves in my Greyhawk.
I agree. But here's what I read in another site (I'm paraphrasing):
"Gygax claims that the Folio was written from the perspective of a citizen of the Flanaess, thus some of the information in the Folio is wrong"
And the author of the web page commented (again, paraphrasing): "bur if we can't trust the Folio, what can we trust?"
Of course, considering the Folio "wrong" has another advantage, as we can now disregard the measure of the planet which hinted that Oerik was but 14% of the whole Oerth (that would mean the planet is gigantic in comparison to our Earth).
The Glossography states outright that the Guide is written from the perspective of a citizen of the Flanaess, the Savant-Sage. Gary used this unreliable narration (which Ed Greenwood was also to use later) in part because he doesn't like the idea of a fixed, trustable 'canon'. He also assumed readers would know that planets were once called wandering stars and thus read between the lines slightly.
And what's wrong with Oerth being big?
As is obvious, the Oerik continent is the major center of the world, and the eastern portion, the Flanaess, is the center of enlightened humanity. Oerth has four great continents and countless islands, and four great oceans and countless seas which surround these bodies of land. Little is known about the lands of the western portion of Oerik, less still about the savage inhabitants of the other continents, but such knowledge is, of course, of little use anyway and of no importance to humanity.
The heavens are far more important and interesting. We must study the stars, those which wander and those which are fixed, to properly understand astrology. The sun travels around Oerth in 364 days, visiting the 12 lairs of the Zodiac in an appointed round which never varies. The Great Moon (Luna) waxes and wanes in fixed cycles of 28 days each, upon which our months are based; while the Handmaide (Celene, the small aquamarine satellite) follows a path which shows Her in full beauty but four times each year, thus showing us the time for our Festivals. When both Mistress and Handmaiden are full, things of great portent are likely to occur, depending on the position of the five wandering stars in the Lairs, naturally. For complete details of Astrology, we recommend the reader to such texts as Selvor the Elder's "Secrets of Ye Skye Revealed" or Yestro Bilnigd's "Astrology, Divinity and Mankind"
From A Guide to the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Setting, from the 1983 Greyhawk boxed set, by Gary Gygax, Page 4
Funny, I don't see any unsubtle hint that the information provided here is incorrect, do you?
As is natural and proper, all other worlds revolve around our own planet Oerth, from the least rock to the vast sun itself. Little is known of these worlds, though a set of magnifying lenses or magical cusps reveals their curious shapes and colors, and their motions across the sky are well charted. As any rational individual knows, these 'wandering stars' influence the lives of all beings on Oerth, and their positions against the vault of night give hints to learned astrologers about events yet to come, revealing secrets fearful and sublime.
From Greyhawk Player's Huide by Anne Brown, Page 3
It was established long ago, as everyone knows, that Oerth is a great rotating sphere floating in a void, around which its sun and moons revolve. Careful mathematical measurements and magical divinations reveal that the circumference of Oerth is 25,200 miles. Thus, the diameter of Oerth is about 8,021.5 miles, and the total surface area is about 202,139,540 square miles. Of this grand figure, we have sure knowledge of only a tiny fraction, and sketchy fragments of only a little more. Our mathematical reach exceeds our physical grasp.
From Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins by Roger Moore, Page 9
It's worth mentioning that directly preceeding this quote, TAB repeats the quotation cited from the Player's Guide.
The inclusion of the geocentricity statement in a paragraph containing hard mathematical facts about Oerth is yet another clue that the statement is fact, not a myth of the in character authors.
The sun travels once around Oerth in 364 days, visiting the 12 lairs of the Zodiac in an appointed round that never varies. The Great Moon, Luna, waxes and wanes in fixed cycles of 28 days (Luna's cycle governs lycanthropy). Each lunar cycle marks the passage or one month, which is further subdivided into four weeks of seven days each.
From Dungeons & Dragons Gazetteer by Holian, Mona, Reynolds and Weining, Page 2
If the paths of the underworld are hidden from view, the wise may still turn their attention to the heavens. All know that the sun travels once around Oerth every 364 days, visiting the Twelve Lairs of the Zodiac in an appointed round that never varies. The pale Great Moon, called Luna, waxes and wanes in fixed cycles of 28 days each, upon which the months are based. The aquamarine Lesser Moon, Celene, follows a path that reveals her full beauty but four times each year, thus showing the time for civilized festivals. Both Mistress and Handmaiden, as the greater and lesser moons of Oerth are also known, are held to be worlds in their own right, though few claim to have met any visitors from those lofty realms (or, for that matter, to have visited those alien worlds personally).
From Living Greyhawk Gazetteer by Holian, Mona, Reynolds, Weining, Page 2-3
I don't have From the Ashes or Greyspace handy, but review of them will reveal further support for geocentricity. The evidence is here, and it is plain as day. As written, Greyhawk canon clearly adopts geocentricity. If Gygax has since changed his mind on it for his home version of Greyhawk, fine, but with due respect to him, the setting as published does not reflect that.
The Glossography states outright that the Guide is written from the perspective of a citizen of the Flanaess, the Savant-Sage. Gary used this unreliable narration (which Ed Greenwood was also to use later) in part because he doesn't like the idea of a fixed, trustable 'canon'. He also assumed readers would know that planets were once called wandering stars and thus read between the lines slightly.
And what's wrong with Oerth being big?
BUT
The Glossography introduction, to which you refer, calls the Guide an "encyclopedia", and states that Pluffet Smedger, upon reviewing it centuries later in a more enlightened age, was "impressed by its freshness and thoroughness". No hint at innaccuracy is given. None.
The rest of your statement, about fixed canon and the "obviousness" of a wandering stars comment, are best regarded as retroactive justification for poor scientific design of the world. Well, so it doesn't make sense scientifically, so what? It's a fantasy world!
No published Greyhawk product presents any facts or even hints that the geocentricity that is mentioned in every guidebook to the setting is a fallacy. That, my friends, means it holds true from a canon standpoint. With due respect as usual, the musings of designers, even the creator of the setting, who are no longer involved in the development of the setting are little more than interesting trivia, they are not canon.
Gary didn't change his mind. The hints are in 'stars...those which wander' and 'such knowledge is, of course, of little use anyway and of no importance to humanity'. They apparently weren't obvious enough to the later writers, or perhaps they preferred a geocentric system, but it was obvious to me when I first read the 1983 set, and confirmed by Saga of Old City, whose reference the later writers missed or ignored. As you show, in the post-Gygax version of the setting, the sun orbits the Oerth.
The first couple Gord books have an interesting place in canon. They can generally be assumed to be solid, unless, IMO, they contradict actual game material, as in this case.
Later Gord books, especially the ultimate resolution of events in the series, show definitively that the Oerth Gord lived and adventured in is not the same Greyhawk that we game in. Nor is Gygax's home game, which as I understand also diverges from the published game setting in places, sometimes quite profoundly.
No one of these three Greyhawks is really any better than the others, but in the context of this thread, and most conversations on this forum, we're discussing the game version, and for that version, the statements of the Guide & Glossography, as supported by every subsequent setting guidebook, must be upheld as canon.
We know that your frame of reference is the canon of what's published by TSR and WotC. I think your arguments would be better received if they weren't so coloured by language like 'waffled' and 'futile', and you'd do better not to insinuate without proof that someone lied about the intent of their writing.
I have well documented my case in this thread, and I have been around Greyhawk circles long enough to know when a "that's not canon", "Gygax didn't really write that, someone else did under his name" or "Yeah, he wrote that, but he really meant..." rebuttal is likely to come. And come they did, in this very thread, did they not?
I am not attempting to slander or throw mud in the face of Mr. Gygax, as I do have great respect for him as the creator of Greyhawk and Co-creator of D&D, but this is not the only case of something being written about the setting, under his name that he now dismisses. That's fine, if I belly up to his table, I bow to his version of the setting, just as I expect my players to do at my table, but as far as the published setting goes, what is published must take precedence over what is hearsay.
FTR, another example of this retroactive correction of Greyhawk lore can be found in the AD&D1e Monster Manual 2, under the entry for Hordeling, where the relationship between the artifact called the Bringer of Doom and the Invoked Devastation is explained. That's since been dismissed by Mr. Gygax as well.
It's hard enough to puzzle out the contradictions and intricacies of what is written for Greyhawk, if we're also going to try and accomodate what former designers say in passing on discussion lists or vaguely remembered conversations at GenCons past, then we're really in for a long ride when we attempt to consolidate and codify canon.
And what's wrong with Oerth being big?
Nothing necessarily "wrong", but it does raise a few problems:
1 - Most Greyhawk maps, including the Dragon Annual which shows all of Oerik and part of the poles, would be wrong.
2 - The only way the planet could be that large, and still be consistent with the maps available, would be to consider that the polar continents cover most of their hemisphere. Picture our Earth with the North Pole extending all the way to Chicago, and the South Pole covering most of South America. That would seriously impact the weather in the rest of the planet if it was true, unless there was some sort of magic "warming" the central areas.
3 - The Moons of Oerth would have to move much faster than our Moon in order to make a full cycle around the planet in just 28 days. That amount of speed is sure to increase the gravitational pull on the planet, which would affect the weather, the tides, etc.
In other words, if Oerth really is that big, it couldn't possibly be so similar to real life Earth, unless there was some magical explanation for it.
That said, I'm inclined to do what has been suggested, and disregard some of the information written on the Greyhawk setting books. Saying that it was written by a citizen of the Flanaess may be a poor excuse, but it's reasonably logical.
Habronicus, when has the World of Greyhawk ever been considered to work like a real planet would? D&D is sword and sorcery, not hard science fiction.
What Monster Manual II says is "The only known method of drawing more than 1 hordling to the Prime Material Plane is the bringer of doom, a strange device created by arcane magic during the Invoked Devastation (see WORLD OF GREYHAWK set) and now lost." A few people read this as meaning the bringer of doom caused the Invoked Devastation, which the book clearly doesn't say, and Gary simply confirmed this is not what he meant. . . .
The clear implication is that the Invoked Devastation was the unleashing of a horde of Hordlings on the Baklunish with the conivance of the Bringer of Doom.
That there is reference under the Hordling entry to that event in WoG makes this conclusion nigh inescapable. The reference is otherwise superfluous - why would anyone care about the way to draw more than one and why would such methodology be linked to the Invoked Devastation, particularly when referencing WoG, as is suggested, reveals no greater, superceding or clarifying information, thus leaving one to conclude that one caused the other, given the juxtaposition in the text.
If EGG did not mean that the Bringer of Doom unleashed a horde of Hordlings that was the Invoked Devastation, the writing in this case was less than clear, inspecific and a meaningless aside bound to cause confusion. A more natural reading is that the Invoked Devastation was the unleashing of a horde of Hordlings on the Baklunish - the Invoked Devastion - that involved use of the Bringer of Doom. I will go with the natural reading as a standard rule of construction is not to read text as a nullity but to give it its most natural sense.
Chatdemon is, moreover, correct that what any author may say after the fact of publication is not canon and may not vary canon. Canon is published material alone, uninformed by oral commentary. Thus, the Invoked Devastation was brought about by the summoning of Hordlings through the use of the Bringer of Doom.
If Gary is not "changing his mind" but simply "clarifying" the meaning of the text because what was written gives the wrong impression because it inartfully expresses the thought, he is "a day late and a dollar short" and his "clarification" only serves to further muddy the waters. He can, of course, do whatever he wants to in his home campaign, which is not (never completely was) equivalent to published Greyhawk.
IMO
Anyway, what prompted me to post was this:
What Monster Manual II says is "The only known method of drawing more than 1 hordling to the Prime Material Plane is the bringer of doom, a strange device created by arcane magic during the Invoked Devastation (see WORLD OF GREYHAWK set) and now lost." A few people read this as meaning the bringer of doom caused the Invoked Devastation, which the book clearly doesn't say, and Gary simply confirmed this is not what he meant. . . .
The clear implication is that the Invoked Devastation was the unleashing of a horde of Hordlings on the Baklunish with the conivance of the Bringer of Doom.
That there is reference under the Hordling entry to that event in WoG makes this conclusion nigh inescapable. The reference is otherwise superfluous - why would anyone care about the way to draw more than one and why would such methodology be linked to the Invoked Devastation, particularly when referencing WoG, as is suggested, reveals no greater, superceding or clarifying information, thus leaving one to conclude that one caused the other, given the juxtaposition in the text.
If EGG did not mean that the Bringer of Doom unleashed a horde of Hordlings that was the Invoked Devastation, the writing in this case was less than clear, inspecific and a meaningless aside bound to cause confusion. A more natural reading is that the Invoked Devastation was the unleashing of a horde of Hordlings on the Baklunish - the Invoked Devastion - that involved use of the Bringer of Doom. I will go with the natural reading as a standard rule of construction is not to read text as a nullity but to give it its most natural sense.)
I don't agree that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the reference in the old Monster Manual II is that the Invoked Devastation involved the summoning of a horde of Hordlings using the Bringer of Doom (although that is certainly one reasonable inference). It might also be a simple reference to the time period during which the Bringer of Doom existed. Or that it was somehow created as a side-effect of the Invoked Devastation.
I do agree that Gary's later comments are not canonical. However, they are interesting.
As an aside, do you suppose that the Bringer of Doom is in any way related to the Scourge of Worlds from the interactive DVD of the same name?
Habronicus, when has the World of Greyhawk ever been considered to work like a real planet would? D&D is sword and sorcery, not hard science fiction.
Two things. The fact that Gary Gygax based Oerth on Earth (he just made slight name changes) and the fact that some GMs have very inquisitive players.
For newbie, or more casual, players that may not be an issue, but suspense of disbelief depends heavily on how realistic the world they play in feels like.
Whatever... :whatsthis
I don't agree that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the reference in the old Monster Manual II is that the Invoked Devastation involved the summoning of a horde of Hordlings using the Bringer of Doom (although that is certainly one reasonable inference).
It is not necessarily the only logical conclusion - just the most natural reading. ;) There is certainly ambiguity in the phrasing.
I think to say, however, that the Bringer of Doom or the Hordlings were not part and parcel of the Invoked Devastation (which I agree could be a time reference) by any measure stretches the plain text past the breaking point.
In the recent Canonfire postfest, Duicarthan draws a nice distinction between the Bringer of Doom itself (an item) and the spell or incantation that brought about the Invoked Devastation - the former amplifying the later. This reading would reconcil the ambiguous wording and is, I think, pretty clever. Check out the CF Postfest at canonfire.com; it is accessible from the home page (after the intro screen).
Two things. The fact that Gary Gygax based Oerth on Earth (he just made slight name changes) and the fact that some GMs have very inquisitive players.
For newbie, or more casual, players that may not be an issue, but suspense of disbelief depends heavily on how realistic the world they play in feels like.
Whatever... :whatsthis
One of most persistent myths out there...
For newbie, or more casual, players that may not be an issue, but suspense of disbelief depends heavily on how realistic the world they play in feels like.
..
I am quite agree, magic and fantasy needs some "reliable" roots to be realistic, if we go too far, players, or readers, feel lost, and they rarely enjoy it. Of course there are always limits where esthetism and fun prevails to reality, for example, we all know sounds can't be heard in space, or there's no gravity, but we enjoy to hear the laser in Star Wars battle, or to see a big spaceship fallin' like the titanic (the latter i don't really need but that's just an example).
Sometimes it's very hard (and impossible by logic) to explain magic in a " a bit rationnal" world, so we have to keep the balance (as dm or writers i speak). And this is not easy, as you can see in the recent posts about oerth cosmology. Personnaly I would vote for Oerth as a sphere, even if quite bigger than earth, i don(t think lot of people will bother about that, or they will have to bother about teleportation and the light speed limit, and so on, and this not the game purpose. And it leaves lot of space for players to discover on oerth (but flaness and Oerik are quite big enough for me!)
Two things. The fact that Gary Gygax based Oerth on Earth (he just made slight name changes) and the fact that some GMs have very inquisitive players.
For newbie, or more casual, players that may not be an issue, but suspense of disbelief depends heavily on how realistic the world they play in feels like.
Whatever... :whatsthis
For many years the people of Earth thought the Earth was flat. It wasn't, but it took a lot of persuading to make them realise that, and nowadays it seems obvious. IMO, all that matters is that the people of Oerth *think* the Sun revolves around the Oerth.
M
As you'll see from Charles Ryan's post in this thread it looks as if Greyhawkers will unfortunately remain reliant on Paizo through Dragon and Dungeon as their only source of new official Greyhawk material for the foreseeable future.
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=395908
Personally speaking I'd like at the very least a new Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardback.
Meanwhile, back on topic
IMHO the LGG is a perfect sourcebook for Greyhawk, and if in print would be an ideal starting point. I cannot remember who made the point (sorry) that a whole bunch of PrC's etc, according to current WOTC standard formats, would be pointless, but I agree,I would much rather energy be spent expanding on adventure ideas and hooks relevant to the Greyhawk setting, or adding depth to the setting with details of architecture, cultures etc. I disagree that the quality of WOTC releases have been poor, only that they run to a formula and have become 'safe'.
I am sure that as another submission pointed out, whatever is released for Greyhawk would disappoint most fans I am encouraged by the energy and imagination being poured into some projects by fans (see Nellesir's underdark thread on Canonfire for example). If only THIS framework were used for a released product I feel there would be something vibrant and interesting worth purchasing.
I am encouraged by the energy and imagination being poured into some projects by fans (see Nellesir's underdark thread on Canonfire for example). If only THIS framework were used for a released product I feel there would be something vibrant and interesting worth purchasing.
There is the difference between a publicly held company with quarterlies to hit for the stock analysts (even if filtered through Hasbro) and a hobbyist company, privately held, started and staffed by gamers out of a love of the game.
Put another way, its the difference between a hand painted picture and a velvet Elvis churned out in the thousands via assembly line.
Companies have to make a profit . . . yada, yada, yada. How best to do that? What sells the most that costs the least to make. Imagination, intelligence, energy? Okay, but only if that costs least and sells most.
Quality in terms of intelligent design, imaginative design and energetic design is important only up the point that a minimum level is met necessary to fuel max sales for least cost. After that, good enough is good enough.
Exceptions to the rule? Sure. But add up the exceptions and rule remains the rule.
I think this may be one reason Wotc shys away from Greyhawk. They see no easy way to crank out product that will sell out the doors. The emphasis is on "easy way" and "sell out the doors." Fortunately or unfortunately, to read what GH fans online write, the "craftsmanship" GH fans seem to want seems to say "does not cost least" to Wotc. They can sell more of other things with less effort.
That said, I still struggle to see why a reprint of the LGG is not a consideration, as this in itself is a low-risk enterprise (unless said product is considered a detraction from more profitable lines....) which should at least be marketable to the RPGA enthusiasts. The strategy of releasing different, quality products need not be expensive - 32 page pamphlets would more than whet the appetite if the material were of the right quality. The crux of the problem is twofold: 1) It is not about breaking even, or even making a profit that is important, but maximising profit. Greyhawk will never be a max. profit line IMHO due to the quality demands v existing fan base. This is fairly insurmountable; 2) If the line becomes truly popular, it does not cover sufficiently different ground from Forgotten Realms *ducks various thrown objects* to do anything other than divide a profitable product line audience without substantially increasing revenues, after all a growing Greyhawk fan base is likely to come from existing purchasers in larger numbers than from external fans. Again, not promising .
Overall, the only viable option I can see for Greyhawk in print, is for a smaller produced product line from a company selling to a niche market. Of course obtaining the license is one main stumbling block, and the business risk of losing your shirt on a poorly received product the other issue - it would take a big risk for small return. Perhaps we should be thankful for the fan base material going forward, as that is the only likely realistic outcome.
I think this may be one reason Wotc shys away from Greyhawk. They see no easy way to crank out product that will sell out the doors. The emphasis is on "easy way" and "sell out the doors." Fortunately or unfortunately, to read what GH fans online write, the "craftsmanship" GH fans seem to want seems to say "does not cost least" to Wotc. They can sell more of other things with less effort.
They also don't want to dilute their FR sales with Greyhawk products. And on top of that they feel if a newbie picks up the core books and sees Greyhawk is the default setting they will be inclined to buy the Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardback. Where buying the FRCS hardback would lead them to buy the ten other hardback setting books, buying the lone LGG or GHCS book would not. I understand their marketing stand point...except for Eberron, Eberron doesn't make marketing sense to me at all.
I also don't understand why they are putting the thumbscrews onto Paizo about reeling back on the Greyhawk content. I could understand this if the magazines were suffering from such treatment, but unless I am missing the boat here, since Maure Castle and the GH maps have been added the magazine is doing significantly better.
And let me be the first to say it, if the third Adventure Path is Eberron specific, I can guarantee my subscription to Dungeon will quickly lapse.
They also don't want to dilute their FR sales with Greyhawk products. And on top of that they feel if a newbie picks up the core books and sees Greyhawk is the default setting they will be inclined to buy the Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardback. Where buying the FRCS hardback would lead them to buy the ten other hardback setting books, buying the lone LGG or GHCS book would not. I understand their marketing stand point...except for Eberron, Eberron doesn't make marketing sense to me at all.
I also don't understand why they are putting the thumbscrews onto Paizo about reeling back on the Greyhawk content. I could understand this if the magazines were suffering from such treatment, but unless I am missing the boat here, since Maure Castle and the GH maps have been added the magazine is doing significantly better.
And let me be the first to say it, if the third Adventure Path is Eberron specific, I can guarantee my subscription to Dungeon will quickly lapse.
I agree with all of this but I want to put a exclamation point on the adventure path thing.
If Eberron ever dominates or even predominates in either Dungeon or Dragon, I will be moved to reconsider both publications and Paizo in a stark, white negative light.
I may not like FR as a matter of personal taste but it's materials are easily convertable and, if Greenwood can keep his ego and libido in check, he is not half bad as a designer. Eberron seems designed to be "quirky" and incompatable. I have no use for it. Boots to it, if Dragon and Dungeon become slaves to fashion.
I'm sure it is much simpler to coordinate a massive campaign set in a "dead" world than in one that is still being developed, and that's important considering that there are hundreds of adventure modules written for it each year by fans around the world.
Along the same lines, WotC can't publish any new products continuing the history of Greyhawk, because in a way, they have already licensed that ability out to (not quite) third party, the RPGA. They're deciding the future of Oerth now.
You gotta understand that the only thing that motivates Hasbro's management is profit and revenue.
The reason they don't/won't revive GH is not because there's some dark They-Hate-Gary conspiracy against it, but simply because they have no evidence to suggest it would be profitable. In fact, they have a fair bit of evidence from GH '98 and the sales of the LGG to the contrary.
The reason they don't sell it is because there's a lot of intellectual property wrapped up in it and as such is a valuable asset to hold, if not exploit.
Equally, they won't license it because they think it will damage the profitability of Eberron and more especially, FR. Both are probably on small margins as is and even if 3rd party GH wasn't profitable as an of itself, it might dilute the market to a point where the stuff they are investing in isn't worth investing in any more. GH's problem is that it doesn't have as distinct a look and feel from FR as Ravenloft, Dark Sun and to a lesser extent, Dragonlance (which has it's successful novel line to back it up*), do (and before the flames start, yes there are differences, but not so many as to set the two settings into different genres). It hurts to say it, but FR and GH are both flavours of vanilla fantasy - pseudomedieval europes with the standard races from Tolkien (luckily I like vanilla - especially the type with the real gritty vanilla pod flavour
). Why have GH and FR, when you can just have FR and it's successful pulp novel engine and computer came tie ins? So in short, GH is in limbo - not successful enough to be profitable; too valuable to sell; too close to a longstanding successful property to risk licencing.
The bad side of this is that there's no development of the setting. However, the good side is there's no development of the setting. Given TSRs/WotCs/Hasbro's past track record in setting evolution (the GH Wars, of course, excepted :P), it's probably a good thing the beancounters aren't getting their grubby paws all over it.
Well, that's my two euro worth anyway.
P.
*: Actually if you want a distal cause as to why GH isn't in print any more, blame Rose Estes for killing the GH novel line in the 80's (not that Gary's novels were up to the standard of the DL series anyway - but at least they sold). So yeah - it's all Rose's fault!
However, beyond that, it was likely never envisioned to be supported. TSR knew how well Forgotten Realms sold. Part of their faulty strategies were to expect that every setting would sell that well. WOTC knew as well, and knew that the market would soak up virtually any FR supplement. Hence that became the flagship, as it had TSR before.
TSR knew how well Forgotten Realms sold. Part of their faulty strategies were to expect that every setting would sell that well.
Excellent point. FR sells $100 million. Therefore, all settings must sell $100 million or be deemed "failures." But two $50 million failures equal one $100 million success with only slightly more overhead and expense. Four $25 million "failures?" Equal one $100 million success with some more overhead and expense.
Sure. Everyone wants to pick the low hanging fruit. But when that is gone, you stand on your toes and pick some of the higher up fruit or settle for what you got without as much effort.
Wotc appears to be willing to "settle" for FR. They will not "stretch" to have GH etc. that could potentially in total revenue, equal FR sales.
Okay. I wouldn't do business that but okay. Eberron then becomes puzzling, particularly after it gets off to a less than roaring start - the next FR? I don't think so. So, if Eberron is half as FR, let's say, GH could be the other half.
I fail to see how this is rocket science.
That said, I still struggle to see why a reprint of the LGG is not a consideration, as this in itself is a low-risk enterprise
I agree, and I wouldn't stop with the LGG. Why not reprint other classic Greyhawk material - how about a collection of classic modules, for instance? Other than possibly updating them to 3.5 (or adding a sidebar to assist DMs in performing the conversion), there would be little or no extra effort involved in producing them. If licensing issues could be resolved, it would also involve little or no additional effort to package and sell the best of the retired Living Greyhawk scenarios.
Overall, the only viable option I can see for Greyhawk in print, is for a smaller produced product line from a company selling to a niche market.
That's a point I tried to make in the D&D General thread. WotC could put out one or maybe two new Greyhawk products per year, and I don't see how such a limited number of products could really hurt their Eberron and FR sales. What it would do is appeal to gamers who like Greyhawk but don't particularly care for Eberron or FR. WotC could continue to differentiate FR from Greyhawk by leaving Greyhawk sparsely-detailed while providing rich and minute detail for FR.
I agree, and I wouldn't stop with the LGG. Why not reprint other classic Greyhawk material - how about a collection of classic modules, for instance? Other than possibly updating them to 3.5 (or adding a sidebar to assist DMs in performing the conversion), there would be little or no extra effort involved in producing them. If licensing issues could be resolved, it would also involve little or no additional effort to package and sell the best of the retired Living Greyhawk scenarios.
Because this certainly would be the end of WotC... With a fully fleshed out T1 to A1 to U1 to Q1 and the LG at hand, who would EVER again buy other products? 
The owner of my FNGS used to say that Greyhawk after all hadnot been cancelled because its lack of quality, but because once you tried that setting, you would become resistant to all other RPG settings...:fight!:
Greyhawk forever!
Not really. I remember that in the 1983 Greyhawk setting (or was it the 1980 folio?) it says that the people in the Flanaess had interest in the movement of the stars.
It would be interesting, then, to think that Gary Gygax did in fact wanted to include some sort of Astrology mechanism in the game, but had little knowledge on the matter at the time, thus leaving it to the DM/GM to fill in the details.
Yamo, I did follow your link and searched for "Astrology". There was a huge list of entries, so I narrowed it down to TITLE. What I found didn't have anything that disproved Astrology but there was mention of an article written by someone named Franknoi which, curiously, was proved an idiot by many astrologers since then. You can read it here:
http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm
Anyway, "Batman", we can make a quick test. Give me your birth data (Date, Time and Place of birth). If you don't feel confortable posting it here, just send it by PM. I'm just a 2nd year Astrology student, but I may have some interesting thing to say nonetheless.
We can then discuss the possibility of releasing a Greyhawk fan-made book where a chapter on Astrology is a possibility. I mean, if fantasy roleplaying has sparked the interest of so many people in history and mythology, maybe that would broaden their horizons to fields like Astrology. Just a thought.
This will help: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
I see a dungeon magazine that has as many or more Greyhawk modules in it than it does Eberron or Forgotten Realms in a year or so. I think that Maure Castle was testing the waters and the answer was they are warm, lets jump in boys.... Go Greyhawk......
in fact when Paizo bought Dungeon Magazine from WoTC that there was a deal made that WoTC would leave Greyhawk untouched and that Paizo could do whatever they wanted with it.
How about documenting that rather outlandish theory with our little friend fact. Please?
1, Mona is Editor of Dungeon
2, Dungeon has made a big investment in Greyhawk recently
3, WotC has to give copyright permission on almost all of that stuff
4, WoTC has subbed out game worlds before, ala ravenloft and Dragonlance
5, If you are dungeon why invest in Greyhawk if WoTC is going to come out a month later with something that competes with what you are putting out.
6, If you are dungeon you don't touch anything where WoTC is going to compete with you for a long long time, why not invest in making your own setting or just put the Temple of Demigorgon as a stand alone adventure.
7, Its good for both parties, Dungeon sells to the Greyhawk fans, and WoTC doesn't lose anything at all on the deal since Greyhawk is dead to it.
8, the area where Paizo is making the most profit is off resale of the old issues which is just like buying a module only you gotta order it online...
9, just wait until we get our first greyhawk locale detailed it'll be great.
10 didn't you just post about MaureCastle 2????????????
So the answer is that I am making an inference, but hey thats half of life, being able to read the playing field....
- Living Greyhawk Journal is gone from Dungeon
- Erik has talked about how articles with strong greyhawk content need to be avoided in favor of generic stuff
- The upcoming Adventure Path was supposed to be, and originally planned to be, blatantly tied to Greyhawk, but has been scaled back to use only core D&D material and be as welcome in Eberron and Forgotten Realms as it is in Greyhawk.
No, I don't think Greyhawk will completely disappear from Dungeon any time soon, but this wild theory about Paizo having free reign with the setting and complete control over what they publish for it is not supported by the evidence.
Here's a link to Erik's comments on the matter, if anyone is interested in the facts as opposed to wild theories.
10 didn't you just post about MaureCastle 2????????????
Chatdemon takes off the hat of diplomacy he was wearing when posting that other thread.
Yes, I did, but since we're in the blunt and direct mode here, let me add something I decided to leave out of that announcement.
Maure Castle, in its Dungeon incarnation, is not Greyhawk, it's Maure Castle. The author is so grossly disconnected from any idea of what modern Greyhawk is about that the articles might as well be Eberron or Forgotten Realms material with some "old skewl" Greyhawk names thrown in for nostalgia's sake.
I posted that announcement because I was bored and hadn't seen it mentioned here and know that a lot of people here disagree with me and will probably be interested in seeing the second installment. I have no love for Maure Castle, and no delusions about it meaning that Paizo has suddenly coerced free reign over Greyhawk out of WotC.
. . . . Maure Castle, in its Dungeon incarnation, is not Greyhawk, it's Maure Castle. The author is so grossly disconnected from any idea of what modern Greyhawk is about that the articles might as well be Eberron or Forgotten Realms material with some "old skewl" Greyhawk names thrown in for nostalgia's sake.
Your point is moot. Magazines like Dungeon are suppose to publish adventures that are relatively easy to adapt to other campaigns.
On the other hand, CT has some good points and I would think it was obvious to anyone who would like more published material with a Greyhawk flavor to it that the current Dungeon environment is much more pro-Greyhawk than situations past.
Sound to me like your just trying to espouse your view of what is or is not 2005 Greyhawk rather than objectively considering the question. Take Maure Castle for what its worth in your campaign and please let others do the same without trying to ruin it for them.
Your point is moot. Magazines like Dungeon are suppose to publish adventures that are relatively easy to adapt to other campaigns.
Um, we were discussing how or how not Dungeon is a Greyhawk magazine with some fantastic and unbelievable deal with WotC, right?
Right?
Read the conversation before you dismiss anyone moot, ok?
On the other hand, CT has some good points
He/She/It has nothing of the kind. He posted unsubstantiated and rather outlandish theories. There is a difference.
and I would think it was obvious to anyone who would like more published material with a Greyhawk flavor to it that the current Dungeon environment is much more pro-Greyhawk than situations past.
I'll just quote myself here to reply, since you obviously missed it the first time.
No, I don't think Greyhawk will completely disappear from Dungeon any time soon, but this wild theory about Paizo having free reign with the setting and complete control over what they publish for it is not supported by the evidence.
Sound to me like your just trying to espouse your view of what is or is not 2005 Greyhawk rather than objectively considering the question. Take Maure Castle for what its worth in your campaign and please let others do the same without trying to ruin it for them.
Go read the author's forum, in fact, dig around enough here and read his posts, you'll have to go a ways back, because he can't be bothered to post when folks aren't kissing his rear end over his latest product. Then tell me that his lack of knowledge of or love for modern Greyhawk is "my view". Please, I'd love to be corrected here, but I won't hold my breath.
Um, we were discussing how or how not Dungeon is a Greyhawk magazine with some fantastic and unbelievable deal with WotC, right?
Right?
Read the conversation before you dismiss anyone moot, ok?
I read the conversation, but you took a left turn down the slanderous trail. . .
Your point is moot when you discount something as not Greyhawk because you don't agree with the authors thoughts on the current state of the published campaign and his work ends up in print anyway, DUNGEON for that fact. Most people liked it.
He/She/It has nothing of the kind. He posted unsubstantiated and rather outlandish theories. There is a difference.
I agree in the lack of free reign and I won't support all of CT's statements, but you can't seriously argue that his first two points do not bode well for Greyhawk's exposure and development, can you.
I'll just quote myself here to reply, since you obviously missed it the first time.
So it won't go away, but wouldn't you agree that the situation is much better for new Greyhawk material than even a few years ago?
Go read the author's forum, in fact, dig around enough here and read his posts, you'll have to go a ways back, because he can't be bothered to post when folks aren't kissing his rear end over his latest product. Then tell me that his lack of knowledge of or love for modern Greyhawk is "my view". Please, I'd love to be corrected here, but I won't hold my breath.
What? This isn't about the author, but your insistence that Maure Castle isn't "Greyhawk" at all. Let me quote you again.
. . . . Maure Castle, in its Dungeon incarnation, is not Greyhawk, it's Maure Castle. The author is so grossly disconnected from any idea of what modern Greyhawk is about that the articles might as well be Eberron or Forgotten Realms material with some "old skewl" Greyhawk names thrown in for nostalgia's sake.
Now, maybe I have missed something here, but it seems to me that you make a judgement that Maure Castle is not Greyhawk simply because you don't believe that the author harbors the same affections for previously published products as you do. Or in other words, his "canon" is different from your "canon". I argue, SO WHAT. Let the rest of us enjoy it in peace.
I am not defending Maure Castle or its author. I don't know them and don't care to (but I have read the threads you are referring to). But to slam them (and others) for their efforts in contributing doesn't make much sense, when the whole topic of this thread is the lack of support that Greyhawk gets in general.
I am sure there would be a lot of sputtering and comments about the sales of the Maure Castle issue, hopefully they wouldn't try to say Paizo runs independently of WotC because we have seen that isn't true.
I am sure that if Dungeon devoted an entire issue to a single Eberron adventure 80% of its readership would be up in arms. I know that my subscription to Dungeon is pretty tenuous right now, I like the large turn around that it has done in content, but it seems to be skating on some thin production budget ice right now.
So what else do you want? Sourcebooks? Adventures? There are tons of these being published by WotC and others. Why would it make you feel better to have WotC stamp "Greyhawk" on it? It's not like the authors WotC would be using would have had any previous association with the setting. It's not like the new products would necessarily be exactly what you need for your game. Why do you need WotC's 'Greyhawk seal of approval' on it? It's not like Greyhawk Supplement by author X is going to be anything better than Generic Supplement by author Y.
I guess what it comes down to is, why are some begging to be customers to a company that has said quite plainly that they have no intention of producing the products you want to see? At least two of the previous creative forces behind Greyhawk (Gygax and Kuntz) are still out there making stuff that's quite compatable with Greyhawk, even if it doesn't have the offical 'Greyhawk' stamp from WotC. If you liked their previous stuff, pick it up. (I don't think Jim Ward, Sean Reynolds, Roger Moore, Carl Sargeant, et al. are still doing much in that vein, but if I'm wrong and you like their work, check them out, too.)
Many adventures from Necromancer, Goodman, etc. are just as generic as many of the officially Greyhawk adventures of the past. They just don't have the one sentence in them that tells you that 'this adventure takes place in the Bone March'.
And if this came of as provacative or offensive in any way, I apologize. Perhaps I'm just showing off the zeal of the recently converted. My first Greyhawk campaign ever, after 20+ odd years of playing, kicks off this Wednesday! I can't wait.
R.A.
(Well said.)
Shawn
Its pretty clear that Dungeon has somekind of a mandate to publish Greyhawk articles since it does so on a regular basis now which is a GOOD thing.
Secondly when was the last time you read mordenkainen's fantastic adventure, the new Maure Castle is very very very close to that adventure, what are you upset about that you don't have Mord and Yrag's stats in the back....
Besides which I am in fact right, WoTC owns all the Greyhawk material in total, so to publish anything in dungeon they have to approve, silly boy....Is that enough of a big old FACT for you....
I would suggest that the sorts of temper tantrums displayed here probably hurt the cause of Greyhawk more than anything else....
Also one more thing- Like someone said one of the things alot of us like is that Greyhawk is less structured than other product lines, it gives the DM alot more leeway
Secondly, I am not a talented writer or designer, and accept that there are authors out there who can raise the the standard of my game well beyond what my time allows. It may be nostalgia, but the best games I remember were the old Greyhawk setting - Temple of Elemental Evil et. al. I agree with your point that it does't need Greyhawk on it to to be well designed, and that some of the old creators are still producing work that will fit well. Unfortunately, unless WoTC give permission, nobody can directly develop the setting (and I do not consider a one line module placement to be development) to make it vibrant. There are only so many times that the core Greyhawk modules can be played and remain fresh IMO.
I certainly do not dismiss the dedicated fan material which exists in many forms, and on many sites, but this can lack cohesion and will take very different approaches to the setting. This does not advance the campaign world IMO albeit generating ideas and enthusiasm.
In summary, what do I want? A setting which is accesible to all new and current players which puts Greyhawk on the campaign setting map. I don't need Greyhawk branding, but would like products available which expand and develop the setting which can directly reference it without falling foul of intellectual property rights. I will settle for what I've got, continue to purchase products that reflect the style of campaign I like and utilise the best of the fan based offerings. But what I want - now that's different.
By the way, Welcome to Greyhawking. I hope you have as much gaming fun with it as I've had
*The Listening Public*
Word of advice...cool it please. Or this thread will get close.
*The Listening Public*
(edit) Actually, you're right. I don't need to impose this argument on everyone else, and I don't need to let one fool get me banned here. He knows where else to find me if he wants to come out from behind his mask and trade words like men.
Although you can argue whether Maure Castle is Greyhawk or not (Rob Kuntz was the original creator and certainly should be the foremost authority) if you asked Charlie Ryan why, if Greyhawk is truly dead, their magazine has devoted an entire issue to Maure Castle and is now expanding it by another level...
Playing the devil's advocate here - I wonder how many people bought that issue of Dungeon because it had an old skool module expansion by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz and how many people bought it because it was about Castle Maure in the Duchy of Urnst in the World of Greyhawk?
That's kind of the key point.
If it was more of the former than the latter, then printing a further expansion to Castle Maure is not inconsistant with limiting Greyhawk material in Dungeon (since the selling point isn't GH, but the cachet attached to the names of Gygax and Kuntz - which less face it, is going to pull more punters in than Greyhawk alone).
Or to put the point more broadly - how many players are into Greyhawk because it reminds them of the first time they played D&D and how many have an attachment to GH as a living breathing virtual world? I'm not saying one is any better than the other - but the proportion of each in the market is impaortant if anyone where planning new GH product. If there's more NostagiaHawkers than OerthBuilders - then any "Greyhawk 610 CY world expansion" ("Now with accurately moduled fantasy economies, trade routes and detailed spreads on the Noble Houses of the Flanaess and Beyond!") will down like a lead dirigible, if what the market wants is an old skool dungeon, complete with chessboard traps, kobold infested 10 x 10 rooms and minimum setting detail.
A further thought is that in a market notorious for its slim margins of profit (especially nowadays with the need for high production values to attract what is probably a shrinking, static or (at most) barely expanding target audience), the more generic any adventure or supplement is the better - because it can be plugged into any setting, published or homebrew. And IIRC from an old WotC seminar at a GenCon of yore, homebrew settings make up most D&D games. That's why Dungeon publishes adventures that can be flexibly slotted into any setting. That's why WotC concentrates most of it's effort on generic supplements like Liber Mortis, Frostburn and Sandstorm, rather than "Keoland - Kingdom of the Black Lion". These lines appeal to the the maximum possible segment of the market and stand the best chance of turning a hard-earned profit.
It's my opinion that without computer game tie ins, novel lines or other profit making waterwings, the roleplaying game setting as we know it just isn't commercially viable - or at least - more than one setting per system isn't. Just look at the travails and tribulations of Traveller, another classic (and brilliant) roleplaying setting from the '70s.
Even if this isn't true, I think that the people running Hasbro believe it to be so - which is why they have two fully supported settings rather than TSRs seven or so.
It's a sad fact that table-top roleplaying is a (fun, exciting but sadly) niche market, long overshadowed by computer gaming - which continues to grow as table-top gaming shrinks as its core market ages.
It's possible that the only place that GH might survive (aside from LG and a vast archipeligo of fan sites) is in some sort of computer incarnation - Living Greyhawk Online, if you will. Given the rich detail of the setting, if properly implemented and developed (meaning resisting the urge to dumb down or sink to the lowest common denominator and developing the kind of verisimilitide and internal consistancy that is the hallmark of a quality online setting - and also of the best parts of GH, coincidentily), it could even be a hit.
We can but hope.
Just a-thinking...
P.
Well, I still don't see what is wrong with Dungeon publishing the really groundbreakingly detailed Greyhawk stuff it has, or why that statement has ruffled feathers the way it has. I like Greyhawk alot and just want to see more of it, and am happy that Dungeon is taking it on in such depth. I still don't really understand why this is such a sore issue with some of the posters here, but hey no hard feelings and good luck with your gaming everybody.
I would not waste my time worrying about Greyhawk in Dungeon and Dragon one way of the other.
4E is coming. Three years (2008) tops. Maybe sooner. There will be no default Greyhawk in 4E and Dungeon and Dragon will have no way/reason to put in Greyhawk content. LGG will follow Ravensbluff. Game over for Greyhawkers. The total darkness of no support of any variety will descend upon the Flanaess. It will be the mid-90s all over again. Have you got your flashlight and extra batteries?
GVD
What I was trying to argue for earlier is that if Dungeon keeps publishing Greyhawk stuff, maybe it will be different/brandnamey enough to have those two sources keep pumping it out, since they will be the sole source of 'canon' greyhawk material. It makes sense for Dragon and Dungeon to come up with something original that only they offer that is not in the regular WoTC line, they could either write up their own world and introduce it in bits and pieces or they can go with Greyhawk, and I think that they are doing the latter.
I would not waste my time worrying about Greyhawk in Dungeon and Dragon one way of the other.
4E is coming. Three years (2008) tops. Maybe sooner. There will be no default Greyhawk in 4E and Dungeon and Dragon will have no way/reason to put in Greyhawk content. LGG will follow Ravensbluff. Game over for Greyhawkers. The total darkness of no support of any variety will descend upon the Flanaess. It will be the mid-90s all over again. Have you got your flashlight and extra batteries?
GVD
Run! Run while you still can! The sky is falling! Ignore the giant poster maps, the adventures, the living campaign, the Greyhawk specific miniatures! They are all a cruel tease, for the end is nigh! Jack booted thugs will kick in the doors of Greyhawkers everywhere, replacing their cherished game materials with 4e and Forgotten Eberron. The darkness of no support will decend upon the land, ushering in the second age of not-being-able-to-find-gamers-to-play-in-your-campaign-and-being-bitter-about-it-on-message-boards.
I just don't know what they would update, to 4.0, 3.5 is about as near perfect as I can imagine a game to be.
*coughs*
While I certainly disagree on the "perfect" part, there are two ways for a roleplaying game to stay financially sound.
A: Release lots of supplements
B: Release new editions.
At some point, A will inevitably run out.
As long as 3.5 isn't even released in all *important* D&D countries, especially hasn't reached the mass market of Western Europe, I strongly doubt that 4e will follow and so encourage the millions of 2e or 3.0 players to switch the setting... D&D isn't very popluar here, and if WotC cares about the international market, the company won't be so quick to release EVEN MORE BOOKS.
I say 2010 may introduce 4e, not earlier...
Whatever D&D may look like at that time...As for what they will change, obviously there is a lot for them to do. Aside from incorporating all of the errata to date, they will almost certainly revise the wording of certain rules to incorporate some of the more persistent FAQ answers. They will also shift various feats, spells, and prestige classes to the main books, along with miscellaneous rules. Finally they will do general tweaks and, hopefully, power level fixes to everything. I do doubt they will create an entirely new system. But that doesn't mean they won't do a general cleaning up of what they have.
Wizards is not going to support Greyhawk, right?
Dungeon Magazine is currently releasing some articles/material concerning Greyhawk, right?
So why don't we create an index of the best Dungeon articles concerning Greyhawk? It would be great as a guide, it would be great as an easy way to find good material, it would be great for noobies in Oerth and it would be the greatest for people like me, who lives in a country that doesn't import RPG magazines with an at least tolerable regularity!
::edit::
I´ve found it: http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/greyhawk/dragon_index.html
4E was originally planned for 2005. It was speeded up and released as 3.5 in 2003 because of all the "issues" with 3E. I would be well and truly shocked if 4E was not released in 2007, 2008 at the absolute latest.
As for what they will change, obviously there is a lot for them to do. Aside from incorporating all of the errata to date, they will almost certainly revise the wording of certain rules to incorporate some of the more persistent FAQ answers. They will also shift various feats, spells, and prestige classes to the main books, along with miscellaneous rules. Finally they will do general tweaks and, hopefully, power level fixes to everything. I do doubt they will create an entirely new system. But that doesn't mean they won't do a general cleaning up of what they have.
They better rethink that again... I certainly won't spend my precious money for 4e while I am still playing 2e (with some modifications)...;)
;)
To put it bluntly, if you stuck with 1e or 2e, or Classic D&D like I did, you aren't part of WotC's target market. 3e and 3.5e players, and, supposedly, new players are who a new edition would be aimed at.
Anyway, that won't bother me at my gaming desk...
:whatsthis
I already have nearly all the books I need...
Maybe you will get over Grayhawk after you have read it ;)
Maybe WotC should publish a new Greyhawk book, But there is no need to drag Eberron down in the dirt....
Why dont you head over to the Ask Keith Baker thread and ask if he could write up a 3,5 Grayhawk for you...
As for Eberron sales, ruomor on the ECS Board sayes it is going both ways...mostly up :D
Isran
Run! Run while you still can! The sky is falling! Ignore the giant poster maps, the adventures, the living campaign, the Greyhawk specific miniatures! They are all a cruel tease, for the end is nigh! Jack booted thugs will kick in the doors of Greyhawkers everywhere, replacing their cherished game materials with 4e and Forgotten Eberron. The darkness of no support will decend upon the land, ushering in the second age of not-being-able-to-find-gamers-to-play-in-your-campaign-and-being-bitter-about-it-on-message-boards.
LOL! Elendur, ladies and gentlemen! :D He's here all week! Only in the Greyhawk Room! ;)
Seriously, you mistake me, I think. I'm not "agin" it, I'm "fer" it! I can't wait for 4E. I can't wait for Greyhawk to dry-up in Dragon and Dungeon because there is no GH "default" in 4E. I can't wait for the last hurrah for Living Greyhawk and the darkness to descend.
Then, and only then, do I believe the real work of reviving Greyhawk as a fully supported setting (whatever that may mean at the time or ideally) can begin.
You are right. Everything you are seeing for GH is a tease for the real thing. Its a bone thrown by Wotc to Greyhawkers. I want the real thing - a new updated setting. Say, 625 CY? Maybe tackle some of the "nagging" issues that dog Greyhawk without really adding to the setting? Maybe give us some new villains to talk about?
I can't wait for the darkness to descend but then, I've never been afraid of the dark. And that is a bone, the one Wotc threw me. But I'm also happy to see you. ;)
I want the real thing - a new updated setting. Say, 625 CY? Maybe tackle some of the "nagging" issues that dog Greyhawk without really adding to the setting? Maybe give us some new villains to talk about?
625 CY, when Verbobonc and Veluna are under the rule of the Thrommelite vampire clan, when The Bank of Mist divides the old Aerdy and when Rary the Traitor has declared himself ruler of the Nyr Dyv as Vecna III...
:D
Don't say that there weren't a couple of possibilities to continue the setting... ;)
I just want to say this with all the Eberron bashing some of you have been doing here....Eberron is a great setting, have you even read it? Its a very deep and rich world with loads of new opportunitys!
Maybe you will get over Grayhawk after you have read it ;)
You do realize this is the GREYHAWK forum, right? Quit trolling.
Why dont you head over to the Ask Keith Baker thread and ask if he could write up a 3,5 Grayhawk for you...
Great, let some 3rd edition all star with no Greyhawk credentials write the next book, that'll do wonders for the setting.
I can't wait for 4E.
Ugh. Speak for yourself. I realize that WotC's other darling, Magic: the Gathering, has gone through several editions since the dawn of 3.0/3.5, but I'm hopeful that they'll realize that D&D is a different beast, and that the same thing would not work for D&D. And I wish people would stop talking about 4th edition.
Ugh. Speak for yourself. I realize that WotC's other darling, Magic: the Gathering, has gone through several editions since the dawn of 3.0/3.5, but I'm hopeful that they'll realize that D&D is a different beast, and that the same thing would not work for D&D. And I wish people would stop talking about 4th edition.
Why would think it is any different?
Most games go through regular edition changes. Call of Cthulu has its 6th edition rule book on the shelves now. GURPS is on its 4th. Champions is on its 5th. Traveller, which has had the most dramatic changes, is playtesting its 5th, not to mention having two "side" editions for GURPS and D20.
Why should D&D be any different? If anything, D&D is well behind the times given its age. Even counting original D&D (the little books) and the side edition of Basic+. we should be talking about 5th edition and not just 4th.
Now if you want to suggest that perhaps WotC should reconsider its product schedule, and dump a lot of the junk they keep padding it with to have a core product release every month for most of the lifespan of an edition, then I am in full agreement. They are winding up with poorly tested, edited, and balanced supplements, that have increasing amounts of padding and irrelevant background and play "instruction" to meet their page count requirements. That definitely needs to change.
but I'm hopeful that they'll realize that D&D is a different beast, and that the same thing would not work for D&D.
The problem is, it does work. As long as a majority of active buyers continue to buy a new edition whenever wotc sees fit to produce it, new editions of D&D will coming along, at a faster and faster rate.
Even counting original D&D (the little books) and the side edition of Basic+.
Side edition?
:headexplo
On the other hand, those of us who play the "side edition" won't have to buy a new set of books in a couple years.
It is part of a suspended product line. The main line of the game was developed through AD&D into 2nd ed and then D20 3E and 3.5. That makes Basic+ a "side edition".
Explode all you want, but that's how it goes.
And no, you won't have to buy new books, any more than people who keep playing 1st or 2nd ed will. But you also won't have any new material published in a format that you use. That's how it goes.
So,
back at you! :PD&D on the other hand has done quite splendid since it came out. (Don't want to argue about THAT.) I mean, from which other RPG do you have people pay ridiculous prizes for outdated and oop material?
Besides, I think the RULESET isn't important as long as the SETTING is interesting... And what we all here are claiming is that good old Greyhawk is still one of the most intriguing ones. ;)
What the hell is Basic+? -Sounds like a programming code... 
. . .I wish people would stop talking about 4th edition.
Hi Brom,
Sorry, but that is not possible after Edition 3.5. That "edition" was almost universally acknowledged outside Wotc as a pure money grab because Wotc was not making Hasbro sufficiently happy in terms of revenue. So. Editions no longer have a 1 to 1 relationship with the game. If and when Wotc needs money, we will see a new edition. While this was probably always a consideration, it wasn't so blatant. Now, it is stark naked avarice for all to see.
As a gamer, that makes one both curious and nervous.
When will the next seismic "Big Event" take place? Elbowing aside everything else at Gencon and in Dungeon and Dragon and on the web. And what will it look like? Can our input on what is might/should look like be heard or make a difference? Pure curiousity.
Will 4E be backwards compatible or have I wasted a whole heap of money? Will 4E require the use of minatures? Will 4E use a "point buy" system?" Will 4E be "open?" Will 3E be continued to be supported by 3rd party publishers? People get nervous.
Wotc brought this all down on their own heads. And it is not just Greyhawk fans pondering 4E. It is D&D fans much, much more generally.
So, no. There is no stopping talk of 4E.
What's more, as every trail sign points to 4E sooner than later, the speculation is only fueled.
The only way to calm the speculation is either a) for Wotc to release a "guarantee" that there will be no 4E for 6 more years etc. (not going to happen) or for them to release 4E (with a similar promise if they don't want speculation about 5E).
Speculation on the "next edition" is now part of the gaming culture. Get used to it.
Bring on 4e! :D
I mean, from which other RPG do you have people pay ridiculous prizes for outdated and oop material?
Runequest, MERP, CoC, to name a few. Check some of the listing prices on ebay; you'll be amazed (or maybe just amused).
(A)D&D products from ~'77 to '85 are actually quite reasonable in price compared to (A)D&D products from other eras and other games. The print runs during this time period are just staggering, millions in the cases of the core rules and some of the more popular adventures (B2 and S1, for example). Even the more 'obscure' items were printed in the 100,000's. Compare this to the later 2e print runs, or the print runs for almost any other game system, which were usually in the 10,000's at most. As a 1e/OD&D fan, this means almost anything I want to get is available and pretty cheap.
As for an eventual 4e. I have no doubt someone, someday will issue it. Whether it's anything that interests me, whether it will have anything to do with Greyhawk, or the past or current D&D editions doesn't particularly concern me. If WotC (or whomever) makes a game I like, they'll get my money. If not, my gaming dollars will continue to go other places. I am fairly certain, however, that making a game I want to buy will alienate more of their fans than gain them new ones. So, I'm not going to hold my breath.
R.A.
The Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal series that also featured the D&D Cyclopedia.
It was called "D&D" to differentiate it from "AD&D", but with the name change for 3E, it would be confusing to just call it that, or even "D&D Basic". The + is there so people know I am not forgetting the other sets in the series.
Runequest, MERP, CoC, to name a few. Check some of the listing prices on ebay; you'll be amazed (or maybe just amused).
While other settings may win one's purse, D&D eventually wins one's heart.;) Really? - Never thought that; AFAIK most other settings are far more homebrew than D&D and thus, not Too many Supplements are Required. :D
Thank you for the info!
The Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal series that also featured the D&D Cyclopedia.
It was called "D&D" to differentiate it from "AD&D", but with the name change for 3E, it would be confusing to just call it that, or even "D&D Basic". The + is there so people know I am not forgetting the other sets in the series.
Thank you too!
*Never had heard of it... And this Basic+ is more or less between D&D and 1e AD&D?
Really, this is getting complicated... ;)Thank you too!
*Never had heard of it... And this Basic+ is more or less between D&D and 1e AD&D?
The short version:
There are 4 broad versions of D&D
original D&D (often called oD&D). This was a 3 book boxed set, released way back, and the first roleplaying game ever published (though others may have existed before it, depending on who you ask). It was revised into the "white book" by professor Holmes.
When time came to really do a new edition, they went in two directions. Dungeons & Dragons, which was the rules light, easy system for those who liked to come up with their own things, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which was the extensive game with more races, classes and more thorough rules.
The two co-existed for a while, D&D being the "basic" or "classic" game, and released in some 3 editions. AD&D had 2 editions.
Its a common misconception that AD&D replaced the classic game, as that was never the intention.
However, TSR ceased supporting D&D, and focused solely on AD&D (which, together with the ill-planned 2nd edition of such, was a factor in their eventual collapse.
Then WOTC bought the whole shebang, threw out everything and started from scratch with D20.
Cheers
Thank you for that comprehensive history of my favourite game!Deserves to be put in some FAQ section!
I left out the 3.0 / 3.5 details since most people are aware of them, and there are others who can describe them better anyways
The very short version. :P
Adding a bit more:
The revision originally was driven by three considerations.
1. To correct flaws in the original rules. Not merely typos, but great gaping holes. The shift to AD&D was nearly as significant as the shift from 2nd ed to 3E.
2. To standardize the rules for tournament play. This was the origin of the legendary "Chess, Poker, and the AD&D Game System" essay by Gygax. What people failed to understand from that essay wasn't that he was trying to be a wanker and tell people how to play, but that he was explaining that AD&D was the "tournament standard" version of the rules that would serve for all conventions. Basically, he preceeded the RPGA rules declarations by about 10 years and a powerful enough campaign base (LC) to enforce them. It also served as the basis for 3E, which is very strongly geared towards tournament play. (The shift from random rolls to point buy as the default system of character generation being a key element here.)
3. To get Dave Arneson's name off the cover. That is a very unfortunate reason, and so I won't elaborate on it. It is something best forgotten, yet it is the essential reason there was an AD&D and a D&D.
At the same time as AD&D was being released, a small boxed set called D&D was put out. It was an introductory set with rules only for levels 1-3. It was supposed to be nothing more than an introductory set, and people would later buy AD&D or the D&D rules.
At some point it was realized that people really liked those D&D rules. Thus the Basic set was created, soon followed by the Expert set with rules for characters up to level 12. This was parallel to the development of AD&D. TSR essentially two significantly different versions of the same game at the same time. How is a good question, and might be related to why they are so strict with "denying" previous editions of the game now, but that is just a surmise.
In any event, as TSR progressed, 2nd edition was announced for AD&D, and D&D kept growing, adding Companion for up to 24th level, Masters for up to 36th level which was declared the "top" level possible, and finally Immortal for players to quasi-ascend. (And which was related to various "Angry Mom Syndrome" issues when TSR tried to "cleanse" the games of deities, demons, devils, and even the words "witch" and "wicca". Immortals were not deities, although many had the names of deities from myth, and they were the "patrons" of clerics.)
Eventually though keeping up two different systems proved impossible. TSR did bring out the D&D Rules Cyclopedia around the time of the Player's Option books, which might be considered "D&D 1.5" and "AD&D 2.5" (indeed the second term was used by some people), but the D&D rules were dropped, and the setting converted to 2nd ed as Mystara, and eventually dropped altogether.
And then came the bankruptcy and WotC and D20.
And there you have, a somewhat longer version of the development of the game.
I will also add that a large number of concepts that are now considered "standard" in 3.5 first appeared in the Basic+ editions. Everything from expanded levels of weapon proficiency above specialization to monster classes and more all got there start there. So while it was a side edition, it has contributed a lot to the current game system.
The 'war machine' rules from the expert set eventually mutated into the very first D&D minatures wargame, which didn't do very well, and quickly sank into obscurity during 2nd ed AD&D.
The 'war machine' rules from the expert set eventually mutated into the very first D&D minatures wargame, which didn't do very well, and quickly sank into obscurity during 2nd ed AD&D.
Swords & Spells was the first D&D miniatures game (if you discount Chainmail of course ;) )
1, 2ed to 3ed
2, basic to AD+D
3, AD+D to 2e
4, 3ed to 3.5ed
But also remember its not a secret that you can get all of the info in the 3.5ed books for free on the SRD. I only bought one 3.5 core book and that was the players handbook because it was hard to find stuff on the fly in the SRD. If I would have looked at the SRD more carefully before I bought it, I probably wouldn't have.
Honestly I will probably just use the SRD version of 4.0 and not buy anything but sourcebooks- And I ask you how cool is it we get the whole game for free. Granted a new player needs the rulebooks but if you are an old hand the SRD is fine.
Bring on 4e! :D
As soon as 4e comes out, the sooner I can retire my RPG hobby. That way I can pick up golf. After all, I don't need a new edition/version of golf clubs every 3 years.
Sorry, but I dont fart wads of Benjamins frequently every day like Donald Trump or you do. I'd be lucky to make into the lower middle class tax bracket before I'm 60.
The 'war machine' rules from the expert set eventually mutated into the very first D&D minatures wargame, which didn't do very well, and quickly sank into obscurity during 2nd ed AD&D.
The War machine is in the Companion Set, an has nothing in common with Battlesystem. War Machine is not miniatures rules.
But also remember its not a secret that you can get all of the info in the 3.5ed books for free on the SRD. I only bought one 3.5 core book and that was the players handbook because it was hard to find stuff on the fly in the SRD. If I would have looked at the SRD more carefully before I bought it, I probably wouldn't have.
SRD has most of the info needed. If you aren't an experienced player who can extrapolate them, things like Character Generation and Gaining Levels require a PHB. The fluffy how to play the game parts are missing as well, and require the PHB and/or DMG.
The Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal series that also featured the D&D Cyclopedia.
It was called "D&D" to differentiate it from "AD&D", but with the name change for 3E, it would be confusing to just call it that, or even "D&D Basic". The + is there so people know I am not forgetting the other sets in the series.
Most of us who play it call it "OD&D" or "Classic D&D", or even, more infrequently, D&D 0e :D
I took no exception to Sam's terminology though, and the + made sense to me, since I'm familiar with the edition he was referring to.
What a lot of info... I am overwhelmed!
So, the old modules set in the Known World where done for a slightly different ruleset than other material?
How big were the differences between the editions?
And, if one refers frequently to running a game in 1e, what does that really include?
Questions over questions...
Thank you in any case for helping me poor n00b out!
Sorry, but I dont fart wads of Benjamins frequently every day like Donald Trump or you do. I'd be lucky to make into the lower middle class tax bracket before I'm 60.
I used to boast than my RPG hobby was cheaper than the ones of others... What a bad joke!
;)
As soon as 4e comes out, the sooner I can retire my RPG hobby.
Exactly!
Although, I think you may not understand why I say that. I would have ignored 3E entirely if it had not been for the GH connection. I would have been quite happy playing 1E with a 2E chaser. But I do like to keep up with the Hawk, as it were. So, I bent over for 3E.
BUT
If 4E comes out with no Greyhawk, which I believe it will, then I can: (1) stop hemoraging money for 3E and (2) promptly ignore 4E unless and until Greyhawk is relaunched as Greyhawk (not as "Living" GH, not as a "default" etc.).
See? There is a method to my madness. :D
I want a divorce from Wotc and its 3E that abuses Greyhawk. And if Wotc happens to choke on 4E because they "rushed" it, how cool is THAT? :evillaugh
So.
Bring on 4E! 
Personally I wouldn't play 1ed just because there are so many holes in the rules, its what I would call an asymetric game because the spells don't work into any kind of systematic progression, whereas 3ed is symetric meaning the spells scale in a relatively straight way with level.
To my mind 1ed is full of special cases, and the spatiality of the game isn't as good. 2ed patched these problems but didn't solve them. The basic game or expert are just too simple to be useful, you will recognize some of the stuff in them but its really watered down, although in a sense 3ed and basic have more in common than either does with 1st or second edition.
As soon as 4e comes out, the sooner I can retire my RPG hobby. That way I can pick up golf. After all, I don't need a new edition/version of golf clubs every 3 years.
Firstly I sincerely hope what any one company does doesn't determine whether you roleplay or not. Secondly, I don't know about where you live, but here a round of golf can approach the cost of a new rpg book.
So, the old modules set in the Known World where done for a slightly different ruleset than other material?
How big were the differences between the editions?
And, if one refers frewuently to running a game in 1e, what does that really include?
The best place to have your questions answered might be:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/
To my mind 1ed is full of special cases, and the spatiality of the game isn't as good. 2ed patched these problems but didn't solve them. The basic game or expert are just too simple to be useful, you will recognize some of the stuff in them but its really watered down, although in a sense 3ed and basic have more in common than either does with 1st or second edition.
are you talking about AD&D 1st edition ? If so, Im not sure what holes you may be referring to. It pretty much has what 2nd edition did, without butchering half the character classes.
As for basic/expert being too simple. I kindly disagree, but thats a question of taste.
These are just examples of situations off the top of my head, I'd have to go and fish out my AD+D books (yes bought and used in the late 1970s) to give more detailed examples. As I said I thought 2ed wasn't much better, and both of these were reasons alot of gamers switched over to GURPS and lots of other game mechanics (Dragonquest anyone remember that one). 3ed fixed alot of holes and when I picked it up for the first time a couple of years ago I was just shocked at how really well thought out it was, to me it seemed like the Game D+D should have been 30 years ago when I first began plaing.
In that case, basic/expert D&D would put you in a coma ;) I think what you mention though, is exactly one of the main reasons why people who still play AD&D, prefer that. Exactly because much more is left to be decided or ruled upon.
Its more the DM's game, than WOTC's game, so to speak.
Both are quite valid, just different approaches.
- Those who want a very rules light, fast playing and somewhat light hearted game. That's Classic D&D as is.
- Those who have simply always used Classic D&D, made house rules where they saw fit, and are willing to "wing it" a lot as a DM
- Those who, like me, like experimenting with house rules and modifications quite a bit, and like a neat, tidy, not too complex foundation to work from. It's a lot easier to add things too, and remove things from, Classic D&D without needing to revamp the entire system, or major parts of it, than it is with 1e, 2e, and especially 3e (try removing only feats and watch class balance fly out the window).
Oh, and a fourth type:
- Those who bought 2, 3 maybe 4 boxed sets, or one Rules Cyclopedia (or even a really old boxed set and a couple supplement books) and don't/can't keep paying for new editions of a game they feel is pretty damn good as it is :P
The best place to have your questions answered might be:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/
;) Sooner or later my path will lead me there...
As I am of that *first kind* of players chatdemon described, I am currently plotting of launching a 1e campaign some time in the future... Very likely ToEE...
Also there were alot of things you as a PC couldn't do, that NPCs could and you could have 'secret' knowledge that no one else knew also, now its just a knowledge(arcana) roll.
;) Sooner or later my path will lead me there...
Joined as *Ivid*. :D
Also there were alot of things you as a PC couldn't do, that NPCs could and you could have 'secret' knowledge that no one else knew also, now its just a knowledge(arcana) roll.
I disagree. Stuff like this is based entrely on the DM and the players, and how the particular campaign is set up. Ultimately, since a DM can alter anything he wants in a home campaign, the rules are only as restrictive as the DM wishes them to be -- no more, no less.
Steve M
In one campaign, knowledge of magic and monsters is common, in another, its superstition and fairy tales. I'd rather not have neo-campaign material in the books if i can help it.
Somehow I fail to see how that is superior to 3.5 where you can have a 10th level character who knows a bunch about a bunch unless you modify an existing rule on an ad hoc basis.
And of course, there is actually a 3.5 rule that covers making such ad hoc adjustments, so it isn't really inflicing an excessive house rule on anything, just using the existing rules.
You don't need it, but you don't need the attack roll either.
The rules for knowledge checks don't define what is common, uncommon, and rare knowledge, so it scales to the campaign.
What the 3e rules do is give character hard choices. In 1e, you could say "My fighter is an expert in arcane knowledge." He'd basically be talking the DM into a free advantage. In 3e, the same fighter can say "I'm an expert in arcane knowledge", but he actually has to incur a cost, in the form of cross class skill points, skill focus, etc.
And so in 1st ed you could have a 20th level character that knew absolutely nothing about anything and couldn't discover anything about anything unless you went outside the rules to do it.
Somehow I fail to see how that is superior to 3.5 where you can have a 10th level character who knows a bunch about a bunch unless you modify an existing rule on an ad hoc basis.
And of course, there is actually a 3.5 rule that covers making such ad hoc adjustments, so it isn't really inflicing an excessive house rule on anything, just using the existing rules.
Give me the page reference where it states that your character doesnt know anything. I have the book with me here, so I can look it up, when you provide the page.
I dont personally like neo-campaign assumptions in what claims to be a generic game. I am old enough to figure out for myself how my campaign works, thank you very much.
If the players and DM are unable to make reasonable assumptions about things, without looking up a chart in the book, and rolling dice to see if they "really know", then its something they will learn with experience and play.
Give me the page reference where it states that your character doesnt know anything. I have the book with me here, so I can look it up, when you provide the page.
I dont personally like neo-campaign assumptions in what claims to be a generic game. I am old enough to figure out for myself how my campaign works, thank you very much.
If the players and DM are unable to make reasonable assumptions about things, without looking up a chart in the book, and rolling dice to see if they "really know", then its something they will learn with experience and play.
If you don't know the page reference for the secondary skills in the DMG1, then my giving it to you won't help.
As for an inability to work without a chart, the last I recall, the DMG1 had enough charts to choke a small dinosaur.
That a game includes a skill system in no way suggests that the players or DMs lack some element of experience in determining what is reasonable information for characters to possess. Rather it serves as a balancing mechanism between old and new players. Despite not having played AD&D for 5 years I still remember vast sections of the rules, particularly monster statistics, special abilities, and vulnerabilities. Even without blurting such information out, indeed particularly when keeping it to myself, I would have a massive advantage over a new player in many situations.
I personally don't like assumptions that new players must be forced through some esoteric "right of passage", failing over and over until they learn things the hard way. That hardly helps to attract newcomers to the game, or encourage them to stay.
But if you happen to have a page reference for that . . .
If you don't know the page reference for the secondary skills in the DMG1, then my giving it to you won't help.
The chart establishes the characters mundane profession. This has no impact on his ability to know facts about the game world.
As for an inability to work without a chart, the last I recall, the DMG1 had enough charts to choke a small dinosaur.
The only charts that require frequent use are the attack and saving throw values, when a character gains a level.
When was the last time you rolled for a parasitic disease in your game?
That a game includes a skill system in no way suggests that the players or DMs lack some element of experience in determining what is reasonable information for characters to possess. Rather it serves as a balancing mechanism between old and new players. Despite not having played AD&D for 5 years I still remember vast sections of the rules, particularly monster statistics, special abilities, and vulnerabilities. Even without blurting such information out, indeed particularly when keeping it to myself, I would have a massive advantage over a new player in many situations.
Skills are fine, though I disagree with their combination with Class based systems, but thats another discussion entirely.
If you want new players to have a chance, then give them information based on what seems logical. If Joe plays a ranger, he propably knows a bit about orcs and ogres. The groups cleric is likely to know something about the undead.
Asssigning a number as a way of saying "you know this much" is fine, but without defining exactly what each number gives, in actual knowledge, it is barely usefull.
You can always say "roll for it" but then you are throwing logic to the winds, unless you are very carefull
"no, you failed the roll to know what an orc is, but you succeeded in knowing what this one of a kind creature I just creature is. Thems the rules"
I personally don't like assumptions that new players must be forced through some esoteric "right of passage", failing over and over until they learn things the hard way. That hardly helps to attract newcomers to the game, or encourage them to stay.
A rite of passage is not required. If a character should conceivably know something, then I dont see why the rules should prevent him from doing so.
The chart establishes the characters mundane profession. This has no impact on his ability to know facts about the game world.
Neither does a player's ability to record what his character has encountered before, and remember what abilities those creatures possess.
The only charts that require frequent use are the attack and saving throw values, when a character gains a level.
When was the last time you rolled for a parasitic disease in your game?
And yet that is a standard rule of the game. Not using it means you are not merely adjusting a rule, but ignoring it outright. That is much worse than any suggestion to make the information gained by Knowledge checks less extensive, of the checks themselves more difficult.
Skills are fine, though I disagree with their combination with Class based systems, but thats another discussion entirely.
Obviously the game designers didn't. Having played both skill and class based systems, I find the combination quite good.
If you want new players to have a chance, then give them information based on what seems logical. If Joe plays a ranger, he propably knows a bit about orcs and ogres. The groups cleric is likely to know something about the undead.
Yet without a consistent basis for doing so, it subjects a large campaign to random whims. Suddenly the rules set is not consistent from game to game.
Asssigning a number as a way of saying "you know this much" is fine, but without defining exactly what each number gives, in actual knowledge, it is barely usefull.
Well actually, it does do that.
You can always say "roll for it" but then you are throwing logic to the winds, unless you are very carefull
"no, you failed the roll to know what an orc is, but you succeeded in knowing what this one of a kind creature I just creature is. Thems the rules"
Hence the concept of modifiers based on the situation.
It is important to use all of the rules in a game system, not just select ones.
A rite of passage is not required. If a character should conceivably know something, then I dont see why the rules should prevent him from doing so.
As I noted in my first response, they don't. I have met numerous people in the LG games I run that keep careful track of what they fight and what they know about them so they can freely use that knowledge in future encounters without resort to, or subjection to, a random die roll. They do it to enhance their enjoyment of the game, giving up the advantage of player knowledge, and accepting the limitations of character knowledge, in pursuit of playing their characters.
Oh, and you also seem to have confused something about Knowledge checks. They reflect what you can recall at the moment, not what you absolutely know. Just because you forget an Orc typically has 15 Strength right that moment, doesn't mean you don't have a clue what an Orc is.
The rulebooks are suggestions as to how you could run a D&D game. Nothing more.
Yet without a consistent basis for doing so, it subjects a large campaign to random whims. Suddenly the rules set is not consistent from game to game.
Why is this important ?
If one campaign is superhero Dragonlance, and the next is gritty, in your face Birthright, why should the same assumptions hold true ?
Theres nothing wrong with emphasizing character knowledge. I think everyone does that. But I dont see why a rules mechanic is so much better, than just using common sense in the situation.
If a character has fought orcs before, he'll know the basics of what orcs are like. He wont suddenly not remember, because he rolled badly.
Likewise, if noone on the continent has ever seen an owlbear before, no amount of dice rolling is going to tell you what it is.
I have no problems with ignoring a rule, if its not actively making the game more fun for everyone involved.
The rulebooks are suggestions as to how you could run a D&D game. Nothing more.
Actually, no. They are intended to be the standard set of rules for convention gaming. That is, RPGA gaming. They can also be used for home gaming if you like.
Why is this important ?
If one campaign is superhero Dragonlance, and the next is gritty, in your face Birthright, why should the same assumptions hold true ?
Because I'm not talking about the campaigns of individuals. I am talking about the various RPGA campaigns, particularly the Living Greyhawk campaign. And that most certainly needs the same assumptions to hold true at every table.
Theres nothing wrong with emphasizing character knowledge. I think everyone does that. But I dont see why a rules mechanic is so much better, than just using common sense in the situation.
Heck, why even have a rules set then? Just freeform everything and don't worry about rules.
If a character has fought orcs before, he'll know the basics of what orcs are like. He wont suddenly not remember, because he rolled badly.
Likewise, if noone on the continent has ever seen an owlbear before, no amount of dice rolling is going to tell you what it is.
If he remembers, he remembers. Does the player remember? If not, then the character must not remember. Pretty common sense there, eh? A Knowledge roll is for something your character might remember, presumably from a story he heard or a book he read or some training he might have undergone, or to refresh the player's memory about something his character might remember from a previous encounter.
As for a never before encountered creature, in a home campaign the DM can simply raise the base DC from 10+HD to 20, 30, or even 40+ HD. The mechanic still exists, the roll is just impossible for anyone below a level that your "mystery owlbears" wouldn't be a relevant challenge for. Or just say this particular creature is beyond such skill checks. It isn't that difficult a thing to do.
Actually, no. They are intended to be the standard set of rules for convention gaming. That is, RPGA gaming. They can also be used for home gaming if you like.
That makes them worthless to the general public, unless you actively intend to play in a RPGA game. Why would I conform my game to what some guy in minnesota or whatnot, wants ?
Because I'm not talking about the campaigns of individuals. I am talking about the various RPGA campaigns, particularly the Living Greyhawk campaign. And that most certainly needs the same assumptions to hold true at every table.
We're all individuals. I agree that for tournaments and RPGA, uniformity is a good thing.
Heck, why even have a rules set then? Just freeform everything and don't worry about rules.
Some things are best done freeform, some (like combat) are easier with rules
As for a never before encountered creature, in a home campaign the DM can simply raise the base DC from 10+HD to 20, 30, or even 40+ HD. The mechanic still exists, the roll is just impossible for anyone below a level that your "mystery owlbears" wouldn't be a relevant challenge for. Or just say this particular creature is beyond such skill checks. It isn't that difficult a thing to do.
Ah, so freeform again.
That makes them worthless to the general public, unless you actively intend to play in a RPGA game. Why would I conform my game to what some guy in minnesota or whatnot, wants ?
Because you want to play in D&D games at conventions.
If you don't, then indeed, go use another rules system.
We're all individuals. I agree that for tournaments and RPGA, uniformity is a good thing.
Thus the AD&D rules. Thus the D20 D&D rules.
This seems to be something I have to repeat periodically, but the D&D game is a product of a company. They sell it to make money to live on. The RPGA is now part of the marketing division of that company officially. (It was unofficially for several years.) The game system they publish is going to be suitable for the games offered by their marketing department. They aren't going to sell a game they can't market so directly. What else would you expect the rules to be geared towards?
Some things are best done freeform, some (like combat) are easier with rules
Not in an RPGA campaign.
And I will also add, not as a marketable product. You can't sell "freeform rules".
Ah, so freeform again.
Nope. Not at all. Working within an established, comprehensive, rules framework. Sometimes rules have rules for exceptions to the rules.
Because you want to play in D&D games at conventions.
If you don't, then indeed, go use another rules system.
There's a certain sense of deja vu, from when I was a 40K player. Once the focus became tournament play, the game deteriorated. Maybe its just the company realizing where money is to be made, which is of course a factor for them.
Thus the AD&D rules. Thus the D20 D&D rules.
This seems to be something I have to repeat periodically, but the D&D game is a product of a company. They sell it to make money to live on. The RPGA is now part of the marketing division of that company officially. (It was unofficially for several years.) The game system they publish is going to be suitable for the games offered by their marketing department. They aren't going to sell a game they can't market so directly. What else would you expect the rules to be geared towards?
Gamers ? AD&D was modular enough that everyone could play it their own way. Heck, Gygax himself doesnt even use half the stuff in the book.
I realize that the game has become and propably always has been, business. Thats an unfortunate requirement to provide books of so high production values (all colour, hardback etc), an area where D20 stands very strongly.
But why restrict your market purely to tournament gamers, with others being an afterthought. I dont know the statistics, but Im willing to bet that more people play outside of RPGA games, than play in them.
Not in an RPGA campaign.
One more reason why I dont enjoy that environment of play. Im sure plenty of people do, and Im glad they do.
And I will also add, not as a marketable product. You can't sell "freeform rules".
But you can sell a product that offers multiple solutions, or is easily varied. GURPS has done that for 20+ years
I understand that the intention was to take the DM out of the equation, and make the game run itself more or less, with the DM just directing the action and rolling the dice. PLenty of games in the late 70's did that too.
None of them survived that way.
I use 3e's skill system in my Classic D&D game.
It is true that the game doesn't need a skill system, but once you've used one for a while, it seems odd without it. I played 2e for long enough that I decided to use a skill/nwp system when switching back to Classic OD&D, but the Rules Cyclopedia skills system is quirky, as is the 2e NWP system.
Of the skill systems available for D&D, 3e's is the best, IMO. It's one of the very few redeeming features of the whole edition, in my eyes.
Rules are a good base, but I personally must say I never played of DMed in a group that took the rules letter by letter...
You can't?
What about all the companies that do?
What about all the freeform games you get at Conventions?
The basic problem is that people need to know what the rules are. For a time-limited situation like a Con, what you need are either
a) rules that everyone knows
b) Rules that are simple enough to pick up quickly, or as you play.
AD&D is an attempt at the first, classic an attempt at the second.
>>You can't sell "freeform rules".
You can't?
What about all the companies that do?
What about all the freeform games you get at Conventions?
Yeah, those are huge money makers aren't they? ;)
I can't even name a freeform rules set offhand, can you?
Yeah, those are huge money makers aren't they? ;)
I can't even name a freeform rules set offhand, can you?
Of course, but then I actually play freeform games. Of the top of my head - Rules to Live By, OPUS, Master of Blades, Camerilla, the X by Night series, Firstborn...
Then there are the LARP systems... The Gathering, SoCal, OxFLRP, etc.
Plus any number of game specific systems, Seige of Troy, Tombstone, Victorianna, Inferno, ex nihilo, Colony, Great Council, How the West was One, To Reign in Hensau, and many many others...
And then there are the ubiqitous 'Dinner Party'systems, and similar...
There are more - but I'd have to look up the names...
Many of these games feature at the same Conventions that also run RPGA games.
The idea that you can't run games conventions without a games system that everyone knows is simply false. What was originally said, of course, was that you can't run tournaments without a rules set that is consistent from tournament to tournament.
I would suspect that that's only true if you consider a 'tournament' to be a contest between players based at least in part on how well they can exploit their knowledge of the rules to fulfill in game objectives, rather than an attempt to encourage roleplaying of one's character and the making of an enjoyable game for all. Definitions of what a roleplaying tournament is or should be vary wildly, and the suitability of various systems for achieving it varies with it.
But certainly, I would maintain that some things are better done freeform, and have been done freeform, even in an RPGA campaign.
As for the money, yes, selling expansion books to rules munchkins is probably the most profitable course, at least in the short run. But because of that same tendancy, its not a particular rules system that keeps people coming back to roleplaying. It can't be, if the rules keep on changing with each new release.
There's a certain sense of deja vu, from when I was a 40K player. Once the focus became tournament play, the game deteriorated. Maybe its just the company realizing where money is to be made, which is of course a factor for them.
Nobody needs rules for home play.
Nobody needs adventures for home play.
Nobody needs campaign settings for home play.
If you are going to talk about the value of experience in using rules to play the game, you must be aware that the same also applies to creating your own play environment.
Once at that level, all that is left is the tournament environment, or at least a more formal environment, for play. And that means more rules.
Gamers ? AD&D was modular enough that everyone could play it their own way. Heck, Gygax himself doesnt even use half the stuff in the book.
I realize that the game has become and propably always has been, business. Thats an unfortunate requirement to provide books of so high production values (all colour, hardback etc), an area where D20 stands very strongly.
And yet Gygax still wrote Chess, Poker, and the AD&D Game System, wherein he set forth this very premise - namely that the AD&D rules were intended for formal play. And while he was widely denounced for it, the concept proved essential to the success of Living City.
But why restrict your market purely to tournament gamers, with others being an afterthought. I dont know the statistics, but Im willing to bet that more people play outside of RPGA games, than play in them.
They do. But they don't buy the accessories and supplements in the same numbers as RPGA players. They essentially form a captive market for each new release, as they struggle to stay on top of the evolving power curve.
Just like CCG players need the newest release to keep their decks competitive, RPG players now need the newest release to prepare for it being brought into the campaign so they can stay effective.
One more reason why I dont enjoy that environment of play. Im sure plenty of people do, and Im glad they do.
Yes they do. And that is the market base WotC is going after.
But you can sell a product that offers multiple solutions, or is easily varied. GURPS has done that for 20+ years
And how many rules does that constitute in GURPS?
And how many Living Gurps campaigns do they sponsor?
I understand that the intention was to take the DM out of the equation, and make the game run itself more or less, with the DM just directing the action and rolling the dice. PLenty of games in the late 70's did that too.
None of them survived that way.
The intention was to take DM whim out of the equation, and provide a more stable environment throughout the campaign.
The problems it has are not due to that factor.
You can't?
What about all the companies that do?
What about all the freeform games you get at Conventions?
The basic problem is that people need to know what the rules are. For a time-limited situation like a Con, what you need are either
a) rules that everyone knows
b) Rules that are simple enough to pick up quickly, or as you play.
AD&D is an attempt at the first, classic an attempt at the second.
No, you can't.
Because freeform means no rules. How do you sell nothing?
"The rules for this game are there are no rules. Go do stuff, and someone will decide what it means."
Well, I suppose someone will buy into that. You can always find someone willing to give up their money for no particular reason. But that hardly constitutes a marketable product.
As for those games you listed, they are all game systems. They have rules. Less than for D&D, but they still have rules. Resolution of critical tasks is no freeform. Even the range of acceptable actions is not completely open. To play a game, particularly at a convention, you must stay with the plot and theme of the scenario being offered.
Yes, you can call them freeform, presumably in pursuit of some sort of "style war". That is certainly useful in promoting the hobby as a whole. But it is really a false comparison. Boardgames are not miniatures games are not card games are not role-playing games are not LARPs are not computer games. Thinking they can all exist with the same standards and quantities of rules is a major error.
No, you can't.
Because freeform means no rules.
No, it doesn't. Are we talking at cross purposes, or are you building a strawman here? You know anyone who plays without any rules of any kind? What type of game are you describing when you call a game freeform?
Even the range of acceptable actions is not completely open. To play a game, particularly at a convention, you must stay with the plot and theme of the scenario being offered.
Only in a very broad sense, and even then it depends on the game. In many freeforms, plot is something generated by characters as well as GMs, which makes 'straying from the plot' functionally very difficult.
Yes, you can call them freeform, presumably in pursuit of some sort of "style war". That is certainly useful in promoting the hobby as a whole. But it is really a false comparison. Boardgames are not miniatures games are not card games are not role-playing games are not LARPs are not computer games. Thinking they can all exist with the same standards and quantities of rules is a major error.
Style war...? I don't understand what you're getting at. Does this mean you think freeform games are roleplaying, or that they aren't? You've certainly labelled LARP as not role-playing, which surprised me. I'm not sure what else to call it if it isn't role-playing.
At the last GenCon I went to, WOTC were doing a special promotion of 'minatures roleplaying' - a large demonstration of their minatures based combat rules. Presumably that was a major error, since what they were demonstrating was a wargame? Similarly, I noticed a few boxed sets of the AD&D boardgame with the splash 'fantasy adventure roleplaying for all ages'. We've all seen computer games labelled as RPGs. I myself ran a Eberron-based game as part of the RPGA Open Tournament. All the action took place on specially prepared battlemaps, with monsters appearing at set point as the partry got close enough. There was no social interaction, no descriptions of character beyond bare stats, and no points in the tournament for anything other than treasure, monsters or traps.
I would hestiate to call any of these role-playing, simply because there was nothing to any of them apart from moving around a prepared board and rolling dice. There are historical differences of course, but in practice what exactly is the distinction between the Eberron game I ran and the minatures wargaming going on the other table?
Taking the other side of the scale, I also ran several Living Greyhawk tables, which were mostly monster hunting and team tactics, although speaking and acting in character is both customary and fairly common. The battlemats used were rewritable, rather than fixed, and the minatures were really only used for combat scenes.
Moving on along the same scale, the 'Team Fun' event I ran was also AD&D, and saw several people playing characters inspried from the TV series MASH. There was no battlemat, no minatures, and despite the setting being an orc invasion, no combat, except for one roll in order to see if someone could catch a riderless horse.
And I also played in a freeform game, whose name escapes me at the moment, but concerned the orc invasion of a fantasy Island with several kingdoms, loosely modelled on the British Isles. No dice, a fair amount of combat, no minatures. Very few rules, and even those were basically a standardised set used by all that company's games.
Now which of these are you going to call roleplaying? Potentially we could include all of wargaming in roleplaying, and even some boardgames, but I suspect most people would draw the line somewhere within the Minature's Handbook.
Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to want to define roleplaying very narrowly, as AD&D and games like it. This makes the claim that rules must be comprehensive and regularised somewhat circular. It's true in so far as people who like playing with comprehensive and regularised rules require them in a tournament. But taking role-playing in general, it's not true at all.
I have played in a freeform tournament, and there didn't seem to be anything particularly difficult about it. I'm certainly having difficulty with the idea that 'tournament play' requried AD&D over classic, when there were, historically, tournaments using both systems.
No, it doesn't. Are we talking at cross purposes, or are you building a strawman here? You know anyone who plays without any rules of any kind? What type of game are you describing when you call a game freeform?
No, merely pointing out that technically, "freeform rules" are an oxymoron.
Only in a very broad sense, and even then it depends on the game. In many freeforms, plot is something generated by characters as well as GMs, which makes 'straying from the plot' functionally very difficult.
Which is a function of established rules.
Style war...? I don't understand what you're getting at. Does this mean you think freeform games are roleplaying, or that they aren't? You've certainly labelled LARP as not role-playing, which surprised me. I'm not sure what else to call it if it isn't role-playing.
No, it means I don't support trying to put one style of gaming over any other as being superior because of the alleged presence or lack of some putative essential element.
And there you go. A rather nice summary of a style war.
Play games in the style you like. You don't need to worry about how or what other people like. The D&D rules are for a particular form of the gaming hobby. If you don't like that form you should be playing another game.
As for a definition, yes D&D and games like it are RPGs. They define the form. Other types of games define other forms. Whether or not they are role-playing "enough" according to the standards of another form of gaming is not relevant to the category they are part of.
No, merely pointing out that technically, "freeform rules" are an oxymoron.
'Technically?' Where are you getting your definition of 'freeform' from?
Which is a function of established rules.
No it isn't. Can you quote the rules in question? I'm getting the strong impression that you have a whole set of assumption/ideas about freeforming that I'm not familiar with, but which you're assuming we share.
No, it means I don't support trying to put one style of gaming over any other as being superior because of the alleged presence or lack of some putative essential element.
And there you go. A rather nice summary of a style war..
Except for any suggestion of one style being superior to any other.
These are, after all, games I play or run myself. As it happens, I play freeforms, wargames, and everything in between. You know I play Living Greyhawk since we both post on the RPGA boards.
As for a definition, yes D&D and games like it are RPGs. They define the form. Other types of games define other forms. Whether or not they are role-playing "enough" according to the standards of another form of gaming is not relevant to the category they are part of.
So... the games you tend to play are roleplaying, and other games aren't? That sounds far more like a style war than anything I've said so far.
As far as I can tell, you've abitrarily decided that only AD&D and games like it really count as RPGs, that tournaments and conventions need comprehensive and regularised rules systems and that 'freeform' means 'no rules.'
But you've not supported any of these opinions with any kind of justifcation.
As far as Conventions go, I would have thought you are demonstrably wrong. Conventions can and do have tournaments and events without the comprehensive and regularised rules systems that you seem to be claiming are essential or necessary for tournament play.
So, what are Sam's opponents saying here, that the inclusion of knowledge skill checks pushes 3e from a "freeform" game to a "something-else-good" game (I don't know what to call it), and that squashes all the roleplaying out of it?
No, simply that his point about more formal and regularised rules being a move towards convention play isn't obviously true, because conventions themselves feature games that aren't as formal or regularised as modern AD&D, and they work perfectly well.
There is also a confusion about the term freeform, which Samwise appears to be using a term to refer to those sections of a game resolved by DM judgement rather than a rule set, but which also, as with my discussion with Chatdemon, refer to a type of game which uses GM and player judgement to resolve most if not all activites, rather than a comprehensive set of formal rules.
Side issues include whether or not the latter deserve to be called roleplaying, as they are so different from AD&D, and whether by using freeforms as an example of a game played at conventions without a comprehensive or formal ruleset, I'm pushing some kind of 'style war', which as far as I can tell from the description is some kind of secret agenda to promote freeforming as superior to tabletop RPGs.
There'll be maybe one or two games running an "established" system, such as GURPS or D&D.
Maybe its just different across the pond ?
As for requiring tournament play to be successfull, I dont buy it. Yes, it will sell more, because you do what Games Workshop did, establish that only printed material is good, and that you must pay to keep up.
However, companies like White Wolf and Steve Jackson Games have never required to do so.
There are no "living GURPS" games where you are required to play exactly by the rules and only the rules, because its detriment to the very nature of roleplaying.
If you want strict rules and competitive play, play Warhammer. It does that sort of thing better than a roleplaying game does.
This is really quite interesting. In the scandinavian convention scene, in my experience (though its been 3 years since I;ve last been able to attend), the games played are almost exclusively non-system or rules light games like Fudge or Fate.
There'll be maybe one or two games running an "established" system, such as GURPS or D&D.
At least in Ropecon (Finland) there seems to be bit more than two games ran with established systems, though GURPS, D&D & various WOD games seem to rule. In finnish RPG scene many advocates of 'freeform' sneer at users of established system (as if there was something wrong with it), usually by making themselves look silly.
For example one guy insisted giving me a lecture why melee combat in D&D is completely unrealistic (because HE had studied proper medieval swordfighting) but did not seem to have problem with game having rules for 10th level flying elf wizards throwing fireballs.
S.H, Ahlissa (Naerie) webslave
Personally I wouldn't expect my players to learn a whole new system so I can DM them and I wouldn't want to learn a new one to play either.
Sam started the use of the word "freeform" in this thread with this
Heck, why even have a rules set then? Just freeform everything and don't worry about rules.
Clearly he's using "freeform" to mean "without rules".
Weasel then responds
Some things are best done freeform, some (like combat) are easier with rules.
Clearly agreeing with the idea that "freeform" means "instead of rules".
Then Sam says
And I will also add, not as a marketable product. You can't sell "freeform rules".
The joke is clear, as we have already established that "freeform" and "rules" are opposite terms in this discussion. Putting the term in quotes should also be a clue.
Now Cardinal Teplin jumps in suddenly appearing to use a completely different definition, and starts talking about convention games and rules light rpgs.
Not that I expect we will get back on topic to the off topic discussion we were having before. Just pointing something out. My guess is Cardinal hadn't been reading the thread and was just reacting to the "You can't sell 'freeform rules' comment."
Elendur has stated my intent perfectly. There is nothing to be served by me reiterating it.
"What he said."
In regards to rules moving towards convention play:
That isn't what I said, as a general statement. It was a specific statement, referring solely and exclusively to the D&D game rules of the direct AD&D line. (That is, AD&D, 2nd ed, 3E, and 3.5, and not Basic + and Player's Option.)
Other games have increased comprehensiveness of their rules for other reasons.
In regards to "style wars":
It refers not merely to the putative "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" divide, but also the concepts of Monty Haul, Hack-n-Slash, Amateur Thespianism, Power Gamer, and other such "useful" tags thrown about. More, it refers to the way CRPGs and Console Games were sneered at by pretty much everyone when they began to seize market share, CCGers were sneered at by the RPGers when they were introduced, RPGs were sneered at by the miniature gamers when they were introduced, and yes, the way simulation games (miniature/tabletop) were sneered at by various staff officer groups when they were introduced! Despite the fact that each and every one effectively advanced the hobby (or military science) when they were introduced, saving it from oblivion or irrelevancy.
As for supporting such tournament play being mandatory:
Heh. THAT is the question. It might not seem like it is, but that is the key in so many ways. That tournament play is, as I noted, considered the essential expression of the marketing strategy of WotC. As such, it's results affect everything, including . . .
Whether or not Greyhawk gets another product!
That is why it is so important to understand the foundation of the WotC decisions, and not just rail against them.
Why does WotC market the way they do?
What does that marketing say about their decision making process in regards to both product type and rules content?
And how, once you understand that, can you change things?
As for supporting such tournament play being mandatory:
Heh. THAT is the question. It might not seem like it is, but that is the key in so many ways. That tournament play is, as I noted, considered the essential expression of the marketing strategy of WotC. As such, it's results affect everything, including . . .
Whether or not Greyhawk gets another product!
That is why it is so important to understand the foundation of the WotC decisions, and not just rail against them.
Why does WotC market the way they do?
What does that marketing say about their decision making process in regards to both product type and rules content?
And how, once you understand that, can you change things?
Wonderfully and succinctly said. For Greyhawk to see print in a meaningful way again (1) it must fit Wotc's "model" or (2) that "model" must change.
The only caveat I would make, this seems to be my "issue of the day" today, is that Wotc products have lately gotten alot "squishier" or "padded." The best/worst example being the "expanded Prestige Class" that fills pages with essentially worthless, generic rambling on about the PrC. What does this mean for how Wotc "sees" the game? Or is it just a sign of creative banckruptcy that hearlds 4E and the rapturous reinventing of the wheel?
All I know is that after Heroes of Battle (which has ZERO GH content,despite the OBVIOUS opportunities), I refuse to purchase more of this padded pap.
Sam started the use of the word "freeform" in this thread with this
"Heck, why even have a rules set then? Just freeform everything and don't worry about rules."
Weasel then responds
"Some things are best done freeform, some (like combat) are easier with rules.
"
Then Sam says
"And I will also add, not as a marketable product. You can't sell "freeform rules"."
The joke is clear, as we have already established that "freeform" and "rules" are opposite terms in this discussion. Putting the term in quotes should also be a clue.
Now Cardinal Teplin jumps in suddenly appearing to use a completely different definition, and starts talking about convention games and rules light rpgs.
Not that I expect we will get back on topic to the off topic discussion we were having before. Just pointing something out. My guess is Cardinal hadn't been reading the thread and was just reacting to the "You can't sell 'freeform rules' comment."
Not quite. What you've posted is a good summary of what was said before my first post, but you miss two things.
Firstly, while you saw 'freeform' being used as 'without any rules', I read it as being 'without many rules'. Since most games do use some rules or at least guidelines for play outside of combat, which was the context of Weasel's statement. With that understanding, my comment about minimalist rules sets being published makes more senses.
Secondly, you miss out everything after my first post, particularly my exchange with Chatdemon, which did refer specifically to freeform as a type of game.
The result was confusion all round. These things happen.
Samwise...
In regards to rules moving towards convention play:
I realise that you were talking specifically about the move from classic to AD&D, but I'm using different games as a comparion. If convention play is really what made the move so important, then why haven't other games played at conventions shown a similar trend. Or to put it another way, how can you say that tightening and formalising the rules was necessary for convention play when other games are played with rules far looser and less formal than classic was?
As regards style wars
I'm still not sure where 'style wars' came in from, or what relevence it has to anything we've discussed. I'm it refers to a great range of evils - but why is this a label you're pinning on me? Is it just a general personal attack? If not, could you please quote whatever it is I've said that upsets you?
As for why WOTC seems to be promoting tournament play
I'd agree that that is the critical question. My wild guess would be that it has something to do with making owning as full as set of books as possible seem like a requirement for being part of the RPG community. I'm open to other ideas though.
Certainly we seem to have reached the stage where getting every single sourcebook and being familiar with all published material is beyond the capability of not only individuals, but the community as a whole.
Samwise...
In regards to rules moving towards convention play:
I realise that you were talking specifically about the move from classic to AD&D, but I'm using different games as a comparion. If convention play is really what made the move so important, then why haven't other games played at conventions shown a similar trend. Or to put it another way, how can you say that tightening and formalising the rules was necessary for convention play when other games are played with rules far looser and less formal than classic was?
Because of the RPGA, both its existence and its size. No other company supports anything like it, never mind anything approaching it. While some LARPS might run for 10 hours for 50 people at a score of conventions, that barely touches what the RPGA covers at just one of the big 3 (Winter Fantasy, Origins, and Gen Con). Even if they double that, they are hardly a drop in the bucket. Also, the RPGA sanctions scenarios counted in the hundreds for the LG campaign. Again, no other game can even come close to touching that number.
That's why they have needed to move to increasingly formalized rules where other games can manage, and even thrive on their own small scale, without them.
As regards style wars
I'm still not sure where 'style wars' came in from, or what relevence it has to anything we've discussed. I'm it refers to a great range of evils - but why is this a label you're pinning on me? Is it just a general personal attack? If not, could you please quote whatever it is I've said that upsets you?[/QUOTE}
Your general comments regarding whether the miniature and battle focused games were really role-playing as opposed to the free form games you had participated in is the start of what leads to "style wars".
The games are effectively of different genres. They shouldn't be compared as directly any more.As for why WOTC seems to be promoting tournament play
I'd agree that that is the critical question. My wild guess would be that it has something to do with making owning as full as set of books as possible seem like a requirement for being part of the RPG community. I'm open to other ideas though.
Heh. I wondered if anyone would ask why.
Unless I'm missing my guess, the way is because they are trying to use a combination of the CCG and Console Game/CRPG marketing paradigms, and applying them to the RPG form. Specifically:
1) Constant recycling of editions and support material (the CCG paradigm)
2) Constant increase of the power level and other "crunchy bits" to keep people interested in new releases (the Console Game paradigm)
The first mandates the constant stream of releases. But it is the second that combines with the RPGA format to drive the need to own the books to stay on top of the power curve, as I've mentioned previously. Since each new release is has more potent "crunchy bits" than the last, you can't pass on them and have your character remain viable in the campaign.
(And just in case, "crunchy bits" is an industry inside slang term referring to things universally usable like feats, spells, prestige classes, and items, as opposed to things like setting specific background.)Certainly we seem to have reached the stage where getting every single sourcebook and being familiar with all published material is beyond the capability of not only individuals, but the community as a whole.
Worse. Even the Uber-Power Gamers are recognizing this, and beginning to suffer from overload, burnout, and boredom, with the game.
And still worse. The power balance of the game is destablizing at a lower level. When 3E was released it was bad enough collapsing at around 15th level. With 3.5 it dropped to around 14th. After the Complete books, the Races books, and the first 2 Environment books, it has dropped again to 13th. Even the LG campaign has had to acknowledge this, introducing retirement at 18th level, dropping to 16th level next year. And plans for high level special events and modules for retired characters keep getting pushed back.
And to reiterate something I've said before, I'll also reply to GVD's comment about recent product "padding".
I believe this is due to an accelerated production schedule to clear out products before 4th edition is announced. They know people will be irked at buying a 3.5 product 3 months before they release a new edition, or even 3 months before they announce a new edition. So they have accelerated as much as they can, and are dumping it as fast as they can, so they can take a break for a few months before announcing the new edition, then only wait a few more before they release it.
However, it is symptomatic of an attitude that has been growing since the release of 2nd ed, wherein it was decided that, apparently, people needed to be taught how to play pretend and us their imaginations. (That is to say, role-play.) Hopefully WotC will eventually decide to divest themselves of it, and go back to just writing straight background and including it where appropriate.
However, a game can only sustain so much, before it either becomes unwieldy (RIFTS anyone?) or the balance becomes dramatically different, as it seems may be happening now.
I think TSR's early (successfull) days had it right. Have the formal, comprehensive gameline, and the light, house-ruled gameline.
There are enough such games being popular of both kinds, that it is a sustainable market. Gaming companies that do not diversify, tends to fall under harsh waters eventually.
As for changing. I think the main way to promote change is with your wallet and your dice. Buy products you support, ignore the ones that you dont, and then play what you like.
Part of it is, i think, that people want it to be "official" or "sanctioned". They want to play the game /right/ as opposed to just playing the game. There's of course a good reasoning behind wanting to know why and how something works the way it does, but I think there is definate marketing ploys at work there.
Cheers!
Because of the RPGA, both its existence and its size. No other company supports anything like it, never mind anything approaching it. While some LARPS might run for 10 hours for 50 people at a score of conventions, that barely touches what the RPGA covers at just one of the big 3 (Winter Fantasy, Origins, and Gen Con). Even if they double that, they are hardly a drop in the bucket. Also, the RPGA sanctions scenarios counted in the hundreds for the LG campaign. Again, no other game can even come close to touching that number.
I think they can. Let's compare to, say, the Camerilla. Anyone know membership figures for the two? I'm fairly sure the Cam is bigger than, or at least comparable to, any of the RPGA campaigns.
They certainly run at one scenario every month, per city, plus at least two a year per two cities, plus events. Assuming 50 cities worldwide, that's 50x12+2x25=650 scenarios a year.
Your general comments regarding whether the miniature and battle focused games were really role-playing as opposed to the free form games you had participated in is the start of what leads to "style wars".
The games are effectively of different genres. They shouldn't be compared as directly any more.
Except that you raised style wars before that comparion. And even after that, I never suggested any style was better than any other. You seem to agree with that, carefully saying only that I had 'participated in the start of something that leads to' style wars.'
So... you've insulted me based on something that might possibly have followed from something I said later on after the insult, but not based on anything I actually said? That's... quite an unusual justifcation...
I'd rather let the matter drop, but as far as I can see, your narrow defintion of rolepalying in central to your point.
As far as I can tell, your position is that:
a) only AD&D and games similar to it can be considered roleplaying
b) any challenge to that position must be avoided, for fear of 'style war'
c) The move from classic to AD&D was necessary for convention play as evidenced by...
d) the fact that AD&D is the only big game at conventions that is 'roleplaying'.
The problem is that d) depends rather critically on a). There are plenty of large, several-hundred participant games out there that haven't felt the need to move towards standardised rules.
Maybe we could sidestep the whole issue of what sufficiently counts as a roleplaying game to be suitable comparator, and simply ask what it is about these other games, roleplaying or not, that means that they moved in the opposite direction?
Unless I'm missing my guess, the way is because they are trying to use a combination of the CCG and Console Game/CRPG marketing paradigms, and applying them to the RPG form. Specifically:
1) Constant recycling of editions and support material (the CCG paradigm)
2) Constant increase of the power level and other "crunchy bits" to keep people interested in new releases (the Console Game paradigm)
I'd go with that. Certainly the Hasbro company reports single out CCGs as the success story, and their acquisition of WOTC follows a failed foray into computer games.
From what I understand their motivation is simply that board games are declining in popularity, and they want to tap into emergent trends in the market. RPGs are, believe or not, sexy, at least in marketing terms.Worse. Even the Uber-Power Gamers are recognizing this, and beginning to suffer from overload, burnout, and boredom, with the game.
And still worse. The power balance of the game is destablizing at a lower level.
I've got a 12th level MOMFs in LG. That's darn pretty broken as far as I can tell.However, it is symptomatic of an attitude that has been growing since the release of 2nd ed, wherein it was decided that, apparently, people needed to be taught how to play pretend and us their imaginations. (That is to say, role-play.) Hopefully WotC will eventually decide to divest themselves of it, and go back to just writing straight background and including it where appropriate.
Hm.. Their mission is to expand the market, To do that, they need to teach people how to role-play. I'm not saying they're going about it the right way, but I do have some sympathy with them on this one.
Hm.. Their mission is to expand the market, To do that, they need to teach people how to role-play. I'm not saying they're going about it the right way, but I do have some sympathy with them on this one.
I respectfully disagree that there is a need to "teach people how to roleplay" that must manifest itself in "fluffy," "frohy" or "padded" text that dwells upon "roleplaying."
There is no similarly expressed need to teach people how to play chess, Monopoly, minis etc. You buy the game. You read the rules. You set to playing. Wotc does this. Recently, they have begun to beat a dead horse, above and beyond a simple explaination of the game, its rules and concepts that you find in the PHB. And therein lies the trick. If "teaching people to roleplay" is at all appropriate, it is appropriate in the PHB, and to a lesser extent the DMG. There is no reason to attempt to do so in ancillary products that require prior or simultaneous access to the PHB and DMG.
Thus, we have obvious padding in ancillary products, that becomes blatantly obvious when thinks on the need for the PHB and DMG, which explain the core concepts of the game - to include "roleplaying."
I think they can. Let's compare to, say, the Camerilla. Anyone know membership figures for the two? I'm fairly sure the Cam is bigger than, or at least comparable to, any of the RPGA campaigns.
They certainly run at one scenario every month, per city, plus at least two a year per two cities, plus events. Assuming 50 cities worldwide, that's 50x12+2x25=650 scenarios a year.
LG is over 10,000 players.
Each region puts out 8 modules per year. Checking just one of those, I see it was ordered for 145 events. Assuming it was played just once at each of those, that would be running 1240 scenarios for one region for year.
Multiply that by 19 for North American regions. Then add another 145 events x 19 regions x 20 modules to account for the Core modules. Then add in some more for 9 European regions and 1 more for Australia-New Zealand.
And that's IF each module was run only once at each of those registered events. I know at the venue I play at we typically run 4 tables of the featured module. So even accounting for home games and limited venues, I'd say double all of that.
Plus introductory modules.
Plus interactives.
No, I don't think any other organization can compare to that.
Except that you raised style wars before that comparion. And even after that, I never suggested any style was better than any other. You seem to agree with that, carefully saying only that I had 'participated in the start of something that leads to' style wars.'
So... you've insulted me based on something that might possibly have followed from something I said later on after the insult, but not based on anything I actually said? That's... quite an unusual justifcation...
I'd rather let the matter drop, but as far as I can see, your narrow defintion of rolepalying in central to your point.
Well, no. It was after your comments, and those comments do look to establish play style vs. play style conflict. I was trying to be nice and suggest avoiding it without being directly confrontational.
And no, I have no need to narrowly define role-playing. My definition includes those games that focus more on tactics and less on talking. It is your definition that is limited, and thus exclusionary to D&D that is the problem.
As far as I can tell, your position is that:
a) only AD&D and games similar to it can be considered roleplaying
b) any challenge to that position must be avoided, for fear of 'style war'
c) The move from classic to AD&D was necessary for convention play as evidenced by...
d) the fact that AD&D is the only big game at conventions that is 'roleplaying'.
The problem is that d) depends rather critically on a). There are plenty of large, several-hundred participant games out there that haven't felt the need to move towards standardised rules.
a) is incorrect. I said those are RPGs, as distinct from LARPs.
b) is incorrect. I said trying to create a contest as to whether RPGs or LARPs contain "more" or "better" role-playing is both damaging to the gaming hobby as a whole, as well as a waste of effort.
c) is incorrect. The need was not based on,
d) is incorrect. but rather based on the scale of the game at conventions.
Also, your analytical comment is flawed because I am not talking about several-hundred participant games, but a 10,000+ participant game. That is more than an order of magnitude greater.
Maybe we could sidestep the whole issue of what sufficiently counts as a roleplaying game to be suitable comparator, and simply ask what it is about these other games, roleplaying or not, that means that they moved in the opposite direction?
That's what I've been asking you to do.
And that's what I've been trying to explain.
But you seem to be having difficulty accepting the answer and the difference in scale.
500 person campaign vs. 10,000 person campaign.
And that 10K number might even be on the low side these days.
I'd go with that. Certainly the Hasbro company reports single out CCGs as the success story, and their acquisition of WOTC follows a failed foray into computer games.
From what I understand their motivation is simply that board games are declining in popularity, and they want to tap into emergent trends in the market. RPGs are, believe or not, sexy, at least in marketing terms.
Yes, I am aware of this. And a bit more.
I've got a 12th level MOMFs in LG. That's darn pretty broken as far as I can tell.
That is due to that prestige class being poorly designed.
I am talking on a larger scale. For those not aware, it comes down very simply to most combats at high APLs being "go first or die". If you win initative, you win, often with utterly neglible expenditure of resources. If you don't win initiative, you all too likely lose a party member, or scrape by with an extreme expenditure of resources, or just face a TPK.
Hm.. Their mission is to expand the market, To do that, they need to teach people how to role-play. I'm not saying they're going about it the right way, but I do have some sympathy with them on this one.
That is a conceit. People do not need to be "taught" how to use their imaginations. They may need to be taught the slang and the in-jokes and the finer points of style of the game (such as when to speak in-character and when not to, and how to indicate a shift between the two), but they don't need to be taught how to role-play. (For those who get it, see the recent comic in Polyhedron where the new player sneers that "hp" and "Hit Points" both have two syllables, so the only reason to use the first is to exclude new players who don't know the jargon.)
If some really needs to be taught how to play pretend they have significantly more important issues to deal with than learning an RPG.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder boys and girls.....
LG is over 10,000 players.
Cam is about 6-7000
Lorien Trust has 4000
I'm not seeing that these are so different as to be beyond comparison.
Well, no. It was after your comments,
Fer goodness sake! It was in post 199. My comments appear in post 200.
and those comments do look to establish play style vs. play style conflict.
"Look to establish?" So, I didn't actually say anything of the kind then?
I'm sorry if my comments sounded like a kind of arguement you've had in the past. I can appreciate whatever it was must have been important to you.
But I'm only responsible for stuff I've said. Please stop posting about words I haven't spoken, positions I haven't taken, and things I didn't say. Whatever it is you are reading into my posts, it is neither in the text, nor in my intentions.
It is your definition that is limited, and thus exclusionary to D&D that is the problem.
I haven't given a definition. At any point. Nor have I tried to define D&D as not roleplaying. Please don't make any more comments like these unless you can back them up with a quote from things I've actually said.
>a) only AD&D and games similar to it can be considered roleplaying
a) is incorrect. I said those are RPGs, as distinct from LARPs.
Ok, so, only AD&D and similar can be considered roleplaying games
b) is an issue better covered above
c) is incorrect. The need was not based on,
d) is incorrect. but rather based on the scale of the game at conventions.
Hm.. so the distinction is simply that AD&D is the only game of it's size at conventions? In other words, its the size of footprint at the games convention that is important? Presumably this would depend a great deal on which conventions you go to. Its fairly common to see 50-60 people at a time playing a non-AD&D game at a convention, and that's about the most you get at the RPGA tables at any one time. I was a volunteer for GenCon, running the LG tables and I didn't notice RPGA games eclipsing everything else with their sheer scale. They were a large group, but one of many...
Maybe we are used to different conventions?
Yes, I am aware of this. And a bit more.
Well if you're going to be rude about it, at least don't keep us in suspense. Spill the beans!
That is a conceit. People do not need to be "taught" how to use their imaginations. They may need to be taught the slang and the in-jokes and the finer points of style of the game (such as when to speak in-character and when not to, and how to indicate a shift between the two), but they don't need to be taught how to role-play.
Quite possibly. But look at it from WOTC point of view. There are considerable numbers of people who buy RPGs who then don't become roleplayers. Some of them probably didn't like it, but there are some who never really got the hang of it.
Also there are aspects to roleplaying that are far more than the 'finer points'. People who don't know what they can make up, and what needs to be decided by the GM. People who treat the whole exercise as an excercise in amateur dramatics, those who can't both stay in character and stay sitting down, those who can't exclude out-of character knowledge, those who can't use a battlemat for a fight, or can't talk to an NPC without one. Those with no useful experience of fiction(!), those who can't seperate in-character from out of character (-looks at the DM, "but.. but.. why are you sending monsters to kill me!"), and so on...
That said, I'll freely agree that most articles on role-playing are useless tripe. Then again, most of the articles on how to role-play written by myself or my friends are useless tripe. Yet people still want to read up this 'role-playing thing' before they'll actually commit to playing. I'm happy to agree that padding in obscure supplements is just that - padding. But there is a genuine need here, and I'm not sure how to solve it.
Would that be enough to explain WOTC's focus on conventions? The only way they know to increase the size of the hobby?
Look, don't you guys think this has become a little like arguing over what flavor ice cream is better,
Well, we all like the same flavour of ice-cream, so to speak. We all play AD&D set in Greyhawk, and many of us play LG really quite a lot. I'm still not sure why it was ever suggested otherwise.
The basic problem as I see it is that while more WOTC support would be nice, it's hard to know what it would look like. LG kinda has the present state of the game world wrapped up, the gazzetteer wasn't a best seller. Judging from some of the comments, another well padded hardback full of Greyhawk-specific rules, in the style of the Forgotten Realms supplements, wouldn't be well received either. We're fast approaching burnout for that sort of thing.
And yet we have had some support in Dragon and Dungeon, in the form of maps, the occasional adventure, and greyhawk regional feats, and more of that kind of thing might be well received. I suspect what people would actually welcome the most would be more of this level of thing.
I suspect what would be really useful would be some way of making low print runs cost less. Downloadable supplements to buy might be a possiblity, but they're easy to pirate, and probably wouldn't spread very far.
The basic problem as I see it is that while more WOTC support would be nice, it's hard to know what it would look like.
Woah, watch it there. We're veering dangerously on topic. Best to stick with point-by-point arguments about other posters argument styles.
What I'd be interested in seeing for Greyhawk is some more material on the themes and regions. We have the Suel Arcanmach prestige class, for example, which is fairly Greyahawk specific, and yet only a vague idea how they fit into organisations like the Scarlet Brotherhood.
I'd certainly be up for some Greyhawk regional material, a mix of fluff and crunch would make it more viable, incorporating adn expanding on some of the recent hardback material.
The focus would have to be either very wide - say a fifth to a quarter of the map, with details like trade routes, racial traditions and movements, ancient ruins, and balances of power, with crunch including things like regional equipment, feats, and maybe even prestige classes, and maybe the odd monster or two thrown in. A bit like those old Forgotten Realms regions books, or the Birthright supplements.
Alternatively make it very narrow. Basically, a non-modular sprawling adventure, including detail of the surrounding area, and how players and lot might interact with local notables, politics etc. Some of the old Greyhawk and Lankmar stuff did this really well.
The core problem, to my mind, is making the print run (ie breath of appeal) large enough to justify the cost.
Mind you, if they took out all those silly sample characters from the prestige classes in the various hardbacks they keep publishing, there would be space for a lot of themed Greyhawk and FR fluff that could be adaptable to any campaign. If it was kept consistent from book to book, it would a reason to actually try and collect them all. (not enough of a reason, but it's a start)
I realise that might not appeal to everyone, but it's surely better than boosting the page count with what they have.
Cam is about 6-7000
Lorien Trust has 4000
I'm not seeing that these are so different as to be beyond comparison.
I am.
And I'm seeing a difference in the number of events they run.
Fer goodness sake! It was in post 199. My comments appear in post 200.
No, they begin in post 197 with:
"I would suspect that that's only true if you consider a 'tournament' to be a contest between players based at least in part on how well they can exploit their knowledge of the rules to fulfill in game objectives, rather than an attempt to encourage roleplaying of one's character and the making of an enjoyable game for all. Definitions of what a roleplaying tournament is or should be vary wildly, and the suitability of various systems for achieving it varies with it.
But certainly, I would maintain that some things are better done freeform, and have been done freeform, even in an RPGA campaign.
As for the money, yes, selling expansion books to rules munchkins is probably the most profitable course, at least in the short run. But because of that same tendancy, its not a particular rules system that keeps people coming back to roleplaying. It can't be, if the rules keep on changing with each new release."
Since you insist on having it pointed out, the two critical issues are in the first paragraph where you establish a conflict between rules knowledge and some alleged role-playing ability, and the third paragraph where you use the term "rules munchkins".
[QUOTE}"Look to establish?" So, I didn't actually say anything of the kind then?
I'm sorry if my comments sounded like a kind of arguement you've had in the past. I can appreciate whatever it was must have been important to you.
But I'm only responsible for stuff I've said. Please stop posting about words I haven't spoken, positions I haven't taken, and things I didn't say. Whatever it is you are reading into my posts, it is neither in the text, nor in my intentions.{/QUOTE}
As I said, I was trying to be polite and not let this take over the discussion. But since you seem determined to have it out, there it is.
So you please stop posting denials of what you have said, or when you said it. What I am reading in your posts is their content.
I haven't given a definition. At any point. Nor have I tried to define D&D as not roleplaying. Please don't make any more comments like these unless you can back them up with a quote from things I've actually said.[/QUOTE}
You have. By defining the target market of the books as "rules munchkins". by asserting you have used "freeform" in RPGA events, by suggesting that some use "rules knowledge" as opposed to "roleplaying", you have done all that. You expand on that in post 200.
[QUOTE}Ok, so, only AD&D and similar can be considered roleplaying games
They define the genre, yes.
b) is an issue better covered above
Hm.. so the distinction is simply that AD&D is the only game of it's size at conventions? In other words, its the size of footprint at the games convention that is important? Presumably this would depend a great deal on which conventions you go to. Its fairly common to see 50-60 people at a time playing a non-AD&D game at a convention, and that's about the most you get at the RPGA tables at any one time. I was a volunteer for GenCon, running the LG tables and I didn't notice RPGA games eclipsing everything else with their sheer scale. They were a large group, but one of many...
Maybe we are used to different conventions?
That is possible. However if you haven't seen more than 10 RPGA tables running at once at Gen Con, then something has changed significantly. In 2000 and 2001 they had 40-50 running at one time.
Quite possibly. But look at it from WOTC point of view. There are considerable numbers of people who buy RPGs who then don't become roleplayers. Some of them probably didn't like it, but there are some who never really got the hang of it.
In general, there becoming role-players is irrelevant to the continuing bottom line. Remember, the market plan is not brand loyalty, but turnover and raw sales. If 10 people buy the PHB but only 1 buys the next 10 accessories, WotC counts it as a win. And if of 10 that buy those accessories, only 1 buys the next edition, it is irrelevant.
[QUOTE}Also there are aspects to roleplaying that are far more than the 'finer points'. People who don't know what they can make up, and what needs to be decided by the GM. People who treat the whole exercise as an excercise in amateur dramatics, those who can't both stay in character and stay sitting down, those who can't exclude out-of character knowledge, those who can't use a battlemat for a fight, or can't talk to an NPC without one. Those with no useful experience of fiction(!), those who can't seperate in-character from out of character (-looks at the DM, "but.. but.. why are you sending monsters to kill me!"), and so on...
But in the long run, those elements only matter to those who play a particular way. There are people who like to play that way. (Except for the last, which is more properly a mental disorder. And such a person will have issues playing any game, or in any activity.) For all the others, you either can't teach that stuff, or it is how people like to play.
That said, I'll freely agree that most articles on role-playing are useless tripe. Then again, most of the articles on how to role-play written by myself or my friends are useless tripe. Yet people still want to read up this 'role-playing thing' before they'll actually commit to playing. I'm happy to agree that padding in obscure supplements is just that - padding. But there is a genuine need here, and I'm not sure how to solve it.
Have you checked some of the recent supplements? When GVD refers to padding, he means it. It isn't generic advice, it is extended suggestions on how to play each indvidual prestige class. It is a major waste.
Would that be enough to explain WOTC's focus on conventions? The only way they know to increase the size of the hobby?
As shocking as it may seem, yes. Isn't corporate thought wonderful?
I am.
And I'm seeing a difference in the number of events they run.
It's a judgement call. I guess we disagree.
Ah.. you've finally posted what was actually bothering you! It does look like a misunderstanding...
I said:
"I would suspect that that's only true if you consider a 'tournament' to be a contest between players based at least in part on how well they can exploit their knowledge of the rules to fulfill in game objectives, rather than an attempt to encourage roleplaying of one's character and the making of an enjoyable game for all. Definitions of what a roleplaying tournament is or should be vary wildly, and the suitability of various systems for achieving it varies with it."
Indeed so. When scoring a tournament, you can go for in-game objectives acheived, which tends to rely on team tactics and rules knowledge, or 'entertainment' value, which tends to rely on roleplaying of individual personalities.
You original point was that tighter rules make for better tournament play, which is only true of tournaments scored in the first way, not the second.
I've seen AD&D tournaments scored in both ways, and more commonly still as a mix of the two.
Nothing in there about superiority of one over the other. Nothing about AD&D. Nothing about the ability to do one being exclusive of or in conflict with the other. The phrase 'in part' can only refer to a combination of the two.
As it happens, I've organsised and run both types of tournament myself. I tend to prefer a hybrid of the two approaches, but there's not much in it and they're all fun.
I said:
"But certainly, I would maintain that some things are better done freeform, and have been done freeform, even in an RPGA campaign. "
Indeed so. Talking encounters with NPCs, descriptions of monsters, weather, etc. All of these things had dice-based rules for them in 1st ed AD&D, and all of them are better handled in a more freeform manner, as they are generally done in RPGA games. I find it's much easier to simply decide, for story purposes, that it's raining, rather than roll on a table for it, and in LG at least that tends to be how it is done.
Nothing in there about superiority, or about AD&D.
I said:
"As for the money, yes, selling expansion books to rules munchkins is probably the most profitable course, at least in the short run. But because of that same tendancy, its not a particular rules system that keeps people coming back to roleplaying. It can't be, if the rules keep on changing with each new release."
Indeed so. We had recently agreed on the thread that WOTC were putting out so many supplements that even die-hard gamers couldn't purchase them all. Presumably there would be some people, WOTC's theoretical target market, who do by them all, and would buy more. Referring to such as 'rules munchkins' is possibly a little harsh, but I don't see that it's unreasonable.
Nothing in there about superiority, nothing in there about AD&D
As I said, I was trying to be polite and not let this take over the discussion.
By posting a reference to it every post, but refusing to explain what you were actually referring to? I realise that you probably were trying to be polite, but it really didn't work.
So you please stop posting denials of what you have said, or when you said it. What I am reading in your posts is their content.
You misunderstood what I was saying and assumed that I was out to insult you and AD&D. Nowhere, even in the posts you now quote, do I say anything about superiority of style, or make any reference to AD&D as a whole. This is why you kept on using phrases like looks to, leads to, and so on. Because what you were referring to wasn't there.
I realise this was probably an honest mistake, and that you genuinely thought I was out to get you, but it was still a mistake.
That is possible. However if you haven't seen more than 10 RPGA tables running at once at Gen Con, then something has changed significantly. In 2000 and 2001 they had 40-50 running at one time.
That's certainly a bigger con than I'm used to, but then I've not been to the largest conventions. I'd suggest that RPGA probably has a bigger presence in cons run or directly sponsored by WOTC. There is also probably a large regional variation.
In general, there becoming role-players is irrelevant to the continuing bottom line. Remember, the market plan is not brand loyalty, but turnover and raw sales. If 10 people buy the PHB but only 1 buys the next 10 accessories, WotC counts it as a win. And if of 10 that buy those accessories, only 1 buys the next edition, it is irrelevant.
I don't think so. WOTC isn't just out to make bucks, its out to build market share, and grap a peice of what Hasbro seems to think is its target for the future. From that point of view, drop out rate is more important.
But in the long run, those elements only matter to those who play a particular way.
Yeah, but in the short run conflicts in playing style can fracture a group. Getting everyone with a similar set of shared assumptions is a prerequisite for getting to the long term. That's why people end up writing all these 'how to roleplay articles' - there's a genuine need for people who want to join in to find out what works and what doesn't - and preferably not the hard way.
Ah.. you've finally posted what was actually bothering you! It does look like a misunderstanding...
. . .
Indeed so. When scoring a tournament, you can go for in-game objectives acheived, which tends to rely on team tactics and rules knowledge, or 'entertainment' value, which tends to rely on roleplaying of individual personalities.
No, I understood that.
And I disagree.
Those are not mutually exclusive goals. One can achieve objectives and engage in entertaining role-play at the same time. I include that as much as possible in all games that I run.
You original point was that tighter rules make for better tournament play, which is only true of tournaments scored in the first way, not the second.
Again I disagree.
You can not score something without defining it. Even if it is role-playing and entertainment value, you must have some scale on which to gauge it. If it is unwritten, then your game is subject to the whim and bias of the people running it.
I've seen AD&D tournaments scored in both ways, and more commonly still as a mix of the two.
Nothing in there about superiority of one over the other. Nothing about AD&D. Nothing about the ability to do one being exclusive of or in conflict with the other. The phrase 'in part' can only refer to a combination of the two.
And yet everything you just wrote shows you consider them to be exclusive and in conflict!
As I said, I understood your intent quite well, even without you taking the time to explain it and confirm it.
Indeed so. Talking encounters with NPCs, descriptions of monsters, weather, etc. All of these things had dice-based rules for them in 1st ed AD&D, and all of them are better handled in a more freeform manner, as they are generally done in RPGA games. I find it's much easier to simply decide, for story purposes, that it's raining, rather than roll on a table for it, and in LG at least that tends to be how it is done.
Why I am suddenly recalling those discussions on the RPGA list, and the request some (others, not you) were making for everything to decided purely by table and not die roll?
Anyway, that is not what I consider freeform.
Also, you are beginning to move from "freeform" in terms of rules to "freeform" in terms of story development. Although both can share the term, the effect is different in application for each. I run most of my home campaigns as extremely freeform story development. However I don't use freeform rules.
Indeed so. We had recently agreed on the thread that WOTC were putting out so many supplements that even die-hard gamers couldn't purchase them all. Presumably there would be some people, WOTC's theoretical target market, who do by them all, and would buy more. Referring to such as 'rules munchkins' is possibly a little harsh, but I don't see that it's unreasonable.
There we very much disagree.
First, die-hard gamers can purchase them all. They can't carry them all anymore, which is why the RPGA is now allowing photocopies of non-core rules material. But they can most certainly purchase them all.
Second, no matter how you slice it, "rules munchkins" is offensive. Some people like all those rules. They like the power up. They like the number crunching. And if they like it, that's their business. I don't tell them how to play, they don't tell me how to play, and we also don't sneer at each other's styles.
So again, I very much did understand your intent.
You misunderstood what I was saying and assumed that I was out to insult you and AD&D. Nowhere, even in the posts you now quote, do I say anything about superiority of style, or make any reference to AD&D as a whole. This is why you kept on using phrases like looks to, leads to, and so on. Because what you were referring to wasn't there.
No, not insult me or D&D.
Those are insults to people who play a particular way.
And I understood them most clearly, as you have confirmed. You don't like certain styles of play. That's all well and good. I don't like certain styles of play either. But I don't put them down. That isn't my place.
I don't think so. WOTC isn't just out to make bucks, its out to build market share, and grap a peice of what Hasbro seems to think is its target for the future. From that point of view, drop out rate is more important.
I do. Because that is what WotC representatives have said.
Note that again.
"Because that is what WotC representatives have said."
That is not my opinion. That is not my guess. That is not my analysis.
That is me repeating what WotC employees, marketing and design, have said, openly and publicly, on messages boards and other places. That is their corporate strategy.
Yeah, but in the short run conflicts in playing style can fracture a group. Getting everyone with a similar set of shared assumptions is a prerequisite for getting to the long term. That's why people end up writing all these 'how to roleplay articles' - there's a genuine need for people who want to join in to find out what works and what doesn't - and preferably not the hard way.
Then people find new groups. That happens. Not every person is good for every group. The solution to that isn't making everyone game one way.
Further, no matter how explicit an article is, it still doesn't really match the actual experience.
It's a nice idea, but I don't see it really helping anything.
Those are not mutually exclusive goals. One can achieve objectives and engage in entertaining role-play at the same time. I include that as much as possible in all games that I run.
Never said they were mutually excclusive. Hence the phrase 'in part' and my comment about most tournaments having both.
You can not score something without defining it. Even if it is role-playing and entertainment value, you must have some scale on which to gauge it. If it is unwritten, then your game is subject to the whim and bias of the people running it.
Of course you can. People do it all the time. And yes, many tournaments do have an element of bias and whim about them. For better or for worse that is exactly what happens.
First, die-hard gamers can purchase them all. They can't carry them all anymore, which is why the RPGA is now allowing photocopies of non-core rules material. But they can most certainly purchase them all.
Like I do, for example.
Second, no matter how you slice it, "rules munchkins" is offensive. Some people like all those rules. They like the power up. They like the number crunching.
I'm a rules muchkin. I often get called a rules munckin. I have a dressing gown with 'Born to Power Hack' on it, given to me by my girlfriend. I consider 'rules munchkin' and 'Uberpowergamer' (your phrase) to be basically the same.
Clearly you feel differently and I'm happy to apologise if my use of the term offended you. I'll try and avoid using it in replies to you in future.
And yet everything you just wrote shows you consider them to be exclusive and in conflict!
As I said, I understood your intent quite well, even without you taking the time to explain it and confirm it.
But I have taken the time, Samwise.
Let me make it easy for you.
I do not consider them to be exclusive or in conflict.
I do not consider one form of roleplaying to be superior to another.
Those are my opinions, categorically, and without ambiguity of any kind. If you disagree, you're calling me a liar. Please don't call me a liar.
What exactly is the point of disputing with me what my own opinion is?
I do. Because that is what WotC representatives have said.
Note that again.
"Because that is what WotC representatives have said."
That is not my opinion. That is not my guess. That is not my analysis.
That is me repeating what WotC employees, marketing and design, have said, openly and publicly, on messages boards and other places. That is their corporate strategy.
I respectfully bow to your inside knowledge of WOTC. I would ask that you do the same to my inside knowledge of my own opinions.
Then people find new groups. That happens. Not every person is good for every group. The solution to that isn't making everyone game one way.
But that isn't the situation when you're trying to get someone into the roleplaying. They don't find a new roleplaying group, they may just go and find a new hobby. Unless you can get them playing in a style that works with the group they have exposure to, they aren't going to get into it. From the point of view of the group trying to recruit a new member, they do have to get the new person playing their way, or at least some coimpatible way. Without that critical first sucessful game, they probably won't stay in the hobby
Further, no matter how explicit an article is, it still doesn't really match the actual experience.
It's a nice idea, but I don't see it really helping anything.
Well, it usually doesn't, I agree. But people keep on trying because the need is there. What can we do to replace it?
Thanks.
Love the setting, always have.
JK
Of course you can. People do it all the time. And yes, many tournaments do have an element of bias and whim about them. For better or for worse that is exactly what happens.
The RPGA has made the decision that this is "worse", and this the move to reduce DM to text reader and die roller.
I'm a rules muchkin.
And I'm an over the top power gamer.
And such admissions are fine. But I've found that too many people are quick to abuse them, particularly online. Hence my extreme distaste for any such labeling terms.
I do not consider them to be exclusive or in conflict.
I do not consider one form of roleplaying to be superior to another.
Great!
Those are my opinions, categorically, and without ambiguity of any kind. If you disagree, you're calling me a liar. Please don't call me a liar.
That is not my intent at all.
I have tried to focus my comments on addressing the actions, and the reasons for those actions, of WotC, in an attempt to explain why there is "no support in sight", and how to approach changing it.
I don't dispute your opinions of preference and experience. I might, and that is only a might, dispute an opinion of analysis of WotCs decision making process. I trust you see the distinction between the two. (Actually I'm rather sure you do given your other comments.)
And I shall follow your lead, and apologize for any of my comments that may have challenged or appeared to challenge your other opinions.
I respectfully bow to your inside knowledge of WOTC. I would ask that you do the same to my inside knowledge of my own opinions.
Oh I do. Though that is public knowledge that just needs to have been picked up through spending too much time reading message boards.
But that isn't the situation when you're trying to get someone into the roleplaying. They don't find a new roleplaying group, they may just go and find a new hobby. Unless you can get them playing in a style that works with the group they have exposure to, they aren't going to get into it. From the point of view of the group trying to recruit a new member, they do have to get the new person playing their way, or at least some coimpatible way. Without that critical first sucessful game, they probably won't stay in the hobby
Possibly. Although I've found "instructions" on how to role-play to be less than effective in managing such. That is something only experience can properly do.
What would be more useful is an instruction book on how to deal with new players, and accommadate their lack of knowledge of rules or style until they learn to fit in with a group.
Well, it usually doesn't, I agree. But people keep on trying because the need is there. What can we do to replace it?
See above. We need to educate the old-timers on how to bring new people in, not the newcomers on how to tolerate those old-timers and put up with the cliquish behavior and idiosyncrasies.
We need them more than they need us. So the need to be accommadating should be on us, not them. (Us and them being generic of course, not specific.)
You are right, we are coming from the same place, just different directions and experiences. Now that we've both established that, shall we just move on?
Alright, this thread has generated a few complaints in the "Flaming" department, let's try and stay as civil as possible, shall we?
Thanks.
"We" is an odd choice of words for someone who has posted maybe twice in this forum in the last 2 or 3 months...
:P
Maybe he was using the royal "we"?
I think the Greyhawk core of fans, if we want to have any chance of getting new supplements, need to be as united a possible. Let's face it. Being gamers, most of us have experienced exclusion in one form or another our entire lives. We certainly don't need to do it to one another. Oldies, Noobs, Unite for Greyhawk! :P
We Few, We Happy Few...
I think the Greyhawk core of fans, if we want to have any chance of getting new supplements, need to be as united a possible. Let's face it. Being gamers, most of us have experienced exclusion in one form or another our entire lives. We certainly don't need to do it to one another. Oldies, Noobs, Unite for Greyhawk! :P
Hear, hear!
Woah, watch it there. We're veering dangerously on topic. Best to stick with point-by-point arguments about other posters argument styles.