DShomshak Posted October 22, 2019 Report Share Posted October 22, 2019 I must also give Ed Greenwood some credit for helping me learn the worldbuilding craft. Before the Forgotten Realms was a whole published setting, he used it to give background for spells and books of magic in his "Pages from the Mages" series in Dragon. These were good examples for my teenage self to learn from. Next exposure was the Forgotten Realms Gazetteer, for either 3rd or 4th edition, I'm not sure which. It seemed very checklisty and blah. Even the "local color," such as the Faerun-specific musical instruments, became boring when baldly presented in a list. It did not inspire me to look further. 5th Edition D&D is trying to take a different approach, developing background in more detail for small bits. More slowly building a mosaic than a large-scale but colorless sketch. I won't comment on individual bits of background, but I do prefer the approach. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted October 22, 2019 Report Share Posted October 22, 2019 On 10/9/2019 at 11:41 PM, Ninja-Bear said: Another thing I’ve noticed on other gaming boards dealing with D&D is tailoring settings to taste. Now I’m not sure if it’s always been like this. Now though people are encouraged to take monsters and Reston them if need be. Also take modules and cut and paste if desired to to fit into your world. This is an important thing. I think one should draw the distinction between kitchen sink and toolkit. The former just throws everything into the setting haphazardly to have it there. The latter throw everything in the setting in the expectation you will pick and choose the parts you need to create the campaign you want -- and tells you so. I haven't read any Golarion material, so I can't venture an opinion on how and why Paizo chose to publish Golarion as they have. But But elves, androids and kaiju in the same world might make sense -- from a publishing POV -- as a set of resources from which you pick and choose, without expectation that you actually use all of it in a single game. From this POV there isn't really a Golarion that contains all these disparate elements: It's a "sum over histories" for the many possible Golarions you might construct. It's an approach I'm taking with my new "Magozoic" D&D campaign, set in an Earth of 250 million years in the future that's gone magical, a la Dying Earth or Zothique. (Though I can't make it as lushly fantastical as Vance or C. A. Smith.) It's also going to emphasize social and political conflict in a multispecies society. Most monsters just aren't going to appear, even if people are vaguely aware they're out there. (Well, I also threw out the D&D cosmology because I'm me,and the official cosmology made statements about the world that run counter to the themes I want.) Dean Shomshak assault and Ninja-Bear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted October 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2019 15 hours ago, DShomshak said: Historical correction: Aboleths appeared in the AD&D Monster Manual 2, published 1983, and have been in every D&D edition since, including the 5th ed Monster Manual. They are thus very much part of the WotC IP. Dean Shomshak Certainly, Aboleth are DnD originals. But somehow (and I've never looked into the details of how and why) they are acceptable for third party use under the d20 OGL; whereas some creatures, e.g. Mindflayers and Githyanki, are not. So to my layman's eye Aboleth seem to be open source rather than IP. But I bow to your better knowledge of the area, both of what constitutes IP and what WotC actively claim as their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted October 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2019 My main exposure to Forgotten Realms was the grey box set (for 2nd ed. IIRC). That and some of the novels. It's my perception as informed by these that my above rant is based on. I also prefer a "mosaic" style world building. Certainly it is much less work to detail what I need in the moment and not have to worry about vast swathes of map that will never be used. Then, because I actually enjoy world building as a hobby distinct in itself, I get carried away and detail those unnecessary areas anyway. I am a silly person. As for what Paizo was intending when they designed Golarion; I believe that it was with the intention of allowing as many different campaigns as possible in one world. I would hazard a guess that they wished to enable an organised play meta-game (the Pathfinder Society stuff) that allowed for characters to be used across any adventures with a minimum of in story fuss required to to justify it. And that's cool with me. I get it. It's perfectly good reason to do what they did. But I feel that the end product, when taken as a thing in itself, suffers for it. I prefer a tighter, more focused world. It's an aesthetic preference. I see a game setting as a macro-story. When I read the setting I want its story to be cohesive and to make sense. I believe that this will in turn lead to more focused stories in game. But I also prefer more tightly focused worlds as things in themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, drunkonduty said: Certainly, Aboleth are DnD originals. But somehow (and I've never looked into the details of how and why) they are acceptable for third party use under the d20 OGL; whereas some creatures, e.g. Mindflayers and Githyanki, are not. So to my layman's eye Aboleth seem to be open source rather than IP. But I bow to your better knowledge of the area, both of what constitutes IP and what WotC actively claim as their own. I find that very confusing, particularly since TSR didn't even come with the Githyanki: they borrowed / stole (I don't know which) it from Games Workshop (one of my favorite game creators way back-- I mean _way back_-- when ) who published them in that monster-of-the-month column (I don't remember the name of the column; it's been a _long_, _long_ time) in White Dwarf magazine. Even then, the name and rough outlines of the nature of the Githyanki were stolen from GRR Martin's sci-fi novel (where the name proved so cumbersome they were more often called "soul suckers" or something like that). The idea WOTC can make claim of this as their intellectual property is just crap on a crutch. (and this, children, is why you should always sue as soon as you find out someone is playing with your toys. Disney is not being the giant asshat you think it is; it is merely ensuring that it still has its own toys when it's ready for them again). So customize the idea for your setting, tweak it as you need to, and change the name. You might consider something along the lines of Githyanki = Soul Killer, or perhaps "Devourelves." Find something you like. Bummed out because you like Mind Flayers? No problem. You can still make a tentacle-faced monster that gives you nightmares and terrifies you to your soul. As you can see, you're golden: Mindflayers = C'thulhoids A solid case can be made that Aboleth are little more than someone who thought Lovecraft was way cooler than he actually was (sure: he was cool, but the idea of multi-thousand pound monsters should stop _there_. Cities full of them just don't work from a simple resources point of view). The very description of them reads like taking a bit from each monster HP ever detailed and mashing into some sort of fish abomination. Hell, their entire pantheon (such as it is, them being generally atheistic and all) is ripped whole cloth from Lovecraft. So run with that: Aboleth = Abomination. Or Abominannelid (you know: segmented, slimy, wormy bodies) And of course, Beholder = Looktater, because of reasons. Honestly, of the whole mess of them, the Mindflayer (oddly, the least unique of them) is the only one with anything resembling a solid claim at being a unique intellectual property wholly created by anything having anything to do with D&D. And those of you who don't trust my solid legal advice, well that's a very good move. drunkonduty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said: Bummed out because you like Mind Flayers? No problem. You can still make a tentacle-faced monster that gives you nightmares and terrifies you to your soul. As you can see, you're golden: Mindflayers = C'thulhoids Heck, Hero Games did exactly that with the Thane (see Champions Beyond). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) Perhaps in the future. I've got other things to catch up on first (I'd like to finish my collection of Ultimates books, and there are a couple of genre books I haven't picked up yet; etc). Setting books (other than Fantasy) and NPC books of any stripe tend to be my lowest priority when it comes to money spending. But I _will_ make a note to check it out when the opportunity presents itself; thank you, Sir. [EDIT: We made it to almost four pages before I noticed the typo in the thread title. ] Edited October 23, 2019 by Duke Bushido Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said: I find that very confusing, particularly since TSR didn't even come with the Githyanki: they borrowed / stole (I don't know which) it from Games Workshop (one of my favorite game creators way back-- I mean _way back_-- when ) who published them in that monster-of-the-month column (I don't remember the name of the column; it's been a _long_, _long_ time) in White Dwarf magazine. Even then, the name and rough outlines of the nature of the Githyanki were stolen from GRR Martin's sci-fi novel (where the name proved so cumbersome they were more often called "soul suckers" or something like that). That was the SF author Charles Stross. I'm reasonably certain that at the time, Games Workshop was a TSR licensee, and that White Dwarf was at least in part considered the house organ for TSR in the UK. I think the githyanki submission was to a column in the magazine called Fiend Folio, from which TSR compiled the monster book of the same name. It was for sure Stross, and it was for sure from GRR Martin's work; Martin was apparently unaware of this use of his material, but apparently the Stross version bears no more than a passing resemblance to Martin's creature. The Wikipedia article on Githyanki has a bit more information. drunkonduty and Duke Bushido 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said: The Wikipedia article on Githyanki has a bit more information. The internet has made decades of study and learning-- and knowing anything at all-- pretty much redundant. I have become a suppository of information...... Thanks, Chris. Chris Goodwin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 I disagree with your first point, Duke. The Internet is full of data, but that isn't knowledge. True knowledge includes the ability to weigh data from divergent or conflicting sources, to draw parallels and connections, to appreciate its implications and extrapolate new conclusions. That only comes with study and experience. As to your second point, I lack the medical or pharmaceutical expertise to form an opinion. 😛 Lawnmower Boy, Chris Goodwin, drunkonduty and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted October 23, 2019 Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 18 hours ago, drunkonduty said: Certainly, Aboleth are DnD originals. But somehow (and I've never looked into the details of how and why) they are acceptable for third party use under the d20 OGL; whereas some creatures, e.g. Mindflayers and Githyanki, are not. So to my layman's eye Aboleth seem to be open source rather than IP. But I bow to your better knowledge of the area, both of what constitutes IP and what WotC actively claim as their own. Well, I hadn't known that mind flayers weren't in Pathfinder. (WTH? So many other critters from D&D are.) As I mentioned, I haven't looked at Pathfinder much. I merely commented on what seemed to be a belief that aboleths were a Paizo creation. Sorry for the miscommunication! Incidentally, I did recently pick up the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 for less than half price at my FLGS (going out of business sale, 😭), and it included adaptations of actual HPL creations such as the Great Race of Yith. So go figure. Dean Shomshak drunkonduty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted October 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 5 hours ago, DShomshak said: Well, I hadn't known that mind flayers weren't in Pathfinder. (WTH? So many other critters from D&D are.) As I mentioned, I haven't looked at Pathfinder much. I merely commented on what seemed to be a belief that aboleths were a Paizo creation. Sorry for the miscommunication! Incidentally, I did recently pick up the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 for less than half price at my FLGS (going out of business sale, 😭), and it included adaptations of actual HPL creations such as the Great Race of Yith. So go figure. Dean Shomshak Yeah it's weird. IIRC, some IP is specifically excluded from third party use by the OGL. Most was not. (Incidentally, interesting to hear about Githyanki being a homage from someone else's IP. Wonder if anyone would ever bother bringing that test case.) Lovecraft's stuff is another total mess of IP rights. I looked into this a few years ago, so apologies for the vagueness of what follows. Firstly Lovecraft's estate was a total mess; who owned what was very difficult to establish, and in fact I don't believe it has ever been finally settled. Lovecraft's works straddle the cut off date for works entering the public domain, so some critters are public domain, some are not. Also, sometimes (about once a decade I believe) that cut off date for the public domain wiggles around a bit, or is in danger of wiggling about a bit, before settling back at more or less the same point. The long and short of it is that you can probably use any Lovecraft IP you want. The chances of anyone being in a position to sue you are low. This would seem to be Paizo's position. But of course, as in all things legal, they who have the most cash will win that debate. Also, nothing I say constitutes legal advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted October 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 9:25 AM, Ninja-Bear said: Another question is “Are you a tailor or a simulist?” How beholden are you to certain tropes? For example though I like dwarves and elves, but I can’t seem to envision them in a sword and sorcery game. One that is closer to a Conan story. Though now if I picture elves in such a setting, they seem to be the the Children of the Forest from Game of Thrones. Sorry I've taken so long to get around to responding to this. I'll start by saying I'm not sure I get what you mean by simulist. But I'll take a punt that you mean simulating a given genre or story/movie/book. For me I'd say I tailor a game to world to enable certain types of story telling. Those certain types of story are, more often than not, an attempt to emulate a given genre/movie/book. So I'd build a specific world for sword and sorcery game. A different one for a gritty low fantasy, or for an epic high fantasy. Is this what you were asking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja-Bear Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 17 hours ago, drunkonduty said: Sorry I've taken so long to get around to responding to this. I'll start by saying I'm not sure I get what you mean by simulist. But I'll take a punt that you mean simulating a given genre or story/movie/book. For me I'd say I tailor a game to world to enable certain types of story telling. Those certain types of story are, more often than not, an attempt to emulate a given genre/movie/book. So I'd build a specific world for sword and sorcery game. A different one for a gritty low fantasy, or for an epic high fantasy. Is this what you were asking about? Well by simulist (and I think I’m spelling it wrong) I mean not just sword and sorcery but Conan’s S&S. Or ERB’s Men of Mars. Or even Tolkien’s High Fantasy. I’m talking about adhering to the source material so much that sometimes it isn’t worth it to do to either mechanically in game., I.e. Radium guns hit what lever they kill one shot. Or thematically, to play in Middle Earth, you can’t go by the books exactly if you want adventures yourself. drunkonduty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted October 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 So simulating a specific work. Check. I don't do that much. I have done the Middle Earth thing as a Fantasy HERO game. In this case I didn't do a lot of world building. Famously Tolkien had done most of that. I did write up a few monsters but most of the basic bad guys were already covered by the HERO bestiary. It worked pretty well. We set the game in the First Age and the heroes had a fair bit of leeway regards changing canon. In fact I wouldn't have complained if they'd gotten their hands on a silmaril, saved Fingon in the Dagor Bragollach, or some other canon-breaking thing. tkdguy and Amorkca 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 I love tailored settings. So much so, that I am building (they never seem to get done) about a half-dozen of them for the fantasy genre alone. Then my problem becomes that I want to run/play all of them so I end up trying to figure how to throw them all together. I usually end up with the kitchen sink setting. 😕 assault, DShomshak and drunkonduty 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.