|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jul 13, 2008 21:03:47 GMT -6
I would like to try the following:
PCs start in a ship for a long voyage
A storm makes the ship wrecked.
The awake at a the shores of a never before seen land they no nothing about.
In this way you need no background information. Everything will be new and discovery in game.
When a PC dies, and new PC can be a native since the player knows the background of the campaign because he is the same person that controlled the previews character.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 14, 2008 9:24:08 GMT -6
I would like to try the following:PCs start in a ship for a long voyage A storm makes the ship wrecked. The awake at a the shores of a never before seen land they no nothing about. In this way you need no background information. Everything will be new and discovery in game. When a PC dies, and new PC can be a native since the player knows the background of the campaign because he is the same person that controlled the previews character. I think I'm starting to get what Badger was saying, i.e.; that I've been thinking like a player and not a DM. In this case, You, the DM, would still need to know what was going on -- who lives on the island, where it's located, etc. There has to be some background, even if the players don't initially know it. I'm a little ashamed to say that I didn't arrive at this realization through thinking deep thoughts about D&D, nor even because the people on this forum made such excellent arguments. No, I came to this realization because I was starting to put together an old-school 3-book Traveller game. And I needed a background. I honestly don't know why I think differently when it comes to D&D than any other rpg, but I do. Despite the great examples of Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and the Judges Guild Wilderlands, I still seem to think that D&D is "immune" to needing a specific background. Once again, I have to state how much I love this forum, which actually challenges me to THINK about this game that I love so much! |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 14, 2008 10:47:00 GMT -6
I would like to try the following:When a PC dies, and new PC can be a native since the player knows the background of the campaign because he is the same person that controlled the previews character. That's great! ...and here are some obvious questions: - So what are the natives like?
- Who rules them?
- Do they have a religion?
- What do they use for barter and trade?
- Do they look like the shipwrecked characters?
- What language do they speak?
See, I'm not asking this stuff to be difficult. I'm bringing it up because as a referee you will need to have thought about it ahead of time - even if the answer is, "just like the shipwrecked characters' people." Because the players will want to know. |
|
oldgeezer
Level 3 Conjurer
Original Blackmoor Participant
Posts: 70 
|
Post by oldgeezer on Jul 14, 2008 11:25:12 GMT -6
I would like to try the following:PCs start in a ship for a long voyage A storm makes the ship wrecked. The awake at a the shores of a never before seen land they no nothing about. In this way you need no background information. Everything will be new and discovery in game. When a PC dies, and new PC can be a native since the player knows the background of the campaign because he is the same person that controlled the previews character. Sounds like Tekumel. |
|
oldgeezer
Level 3 Conjurer
Original Blackmoor Participant
Posts: 70
|
Post by oldgeezer on Jul 14, 2008 11:29:28 GMT -6
I've been all over the place on this.
In my LATEST phase, I feel that character background should be 25 words or less, and the GM's world background should be 500 words or less. The GM may have more information, but all the PLAYERS get is 500 words or less.
After all, George Lucas only needed 83 words to introduce players to HIS universe.
93 words if you include
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 15, 2008 6:28:35 GMT -6
I think I'm trending toward that phase myself. As I get older, I realize that deep backstories and rich setting details are almost always unnecessary, unless that's the goal of what you're playing. That's why I continue to argue that old school gaming and most contemporary gaming are in fact two different activities rather than a common one. Sure, they use a lot of the same tools, in the form of dice and certain mechanical conventions. They even use some of the same technical vocabulary. But they're not the same. Modern gaming is much, much more about world building as an activity unto itself than old school gaming. As I've said before, old school gaming is inspired by literature, while modern gaming is about creating literature. There's nothing wrong with either activity, but they have about as much in common as poker and bridge, even if both are called "card games." I can't help but think we'd all be a lot happier if we realized that the descendants of OD&D are doing something quite different than what OD&D was intended to do. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 15, 2008 6:38:38 GMT -6
That is a bit too terse IMO. Granted George Lucas intro is a classic but can a player make a meaningful decision based off of it.
In the words of Hans Solo "That the real trick..." ;avoiding the total info dump but still conveying enough information to allow for informed choices by the players.
My experience this has been about 1500 words, 2 pages worth. One page for the campaign and another for the character background/knowledge. A third page is allowed if it is just a map.
Much more then you are going into info dump territory. Less then that you go into "O by the way" territory.
Of course this is the average. Some campaign can get by with 25/500 words and other need much more. But for your standard fantasy setting one page each.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 15, 2008 6:46:47 GMT -6
As I've said before, old school gaming is inspired by literature, while modern gaming is about creating literature. I often wondered about my style which isn't about being inspired by literature or creating literature. Rather it about presenting a living breathing world for my players to wander in. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 15, 2008 6:55:53 GMT -6
I often wondered about my style which isn't about being inspired by literature or creating literature. Rather it about presenting a living breathing world for my players to wander in. I think it would depend greatly both on how you present that world and what you, as the referee, do with with it. My categories above aren't exhaustive at any rate. My point wasn't that old school campaigns can't have deep backgrounds or rich settings, but rather that such things weren't the point of old school campaigns. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 15, 2008 9:17:10 GMT -6
"What's the point" is good to remember. For instance, in Traveller one could "design" a vehicle in great detail using Striker or Fire, Fusion and Steel. But what's the point of the vehicle in the role-playing session? Is all that work going to be justified?
Now, the exercise on its own may be a kind of solitaire game for a "gear-head" GM. That doesn't mean the players need to get a full write-up. It doesn't mean you need to go through a time-consuming mechanical process in play if someone shoots at the thing -- or if the players want to know (say) what audio discs are in the glove compartment.
There's a literary analogy. Some people like to read Tom Clancy's jargon-laden passages about weapon system x; others (like me) would rather just see what it does and get on with the action.
A handful of flavorful details may be better than reams of dry data. Little things may imply much that is not explicit.
Again, I think a good rule of thumb is "how would R.E. Howard set the scene?"
Long write-ups are probably counter-productive for first-level characters in D&D. P'yar-Naas the Profound might get whacked in the first session of play; his chance of surviving to second level is probably 50% or less.
The game is not set up to be about his childhood; the biography that really matters is what happens in play.
For that matter, I think it fine to "discover" background in play. Go ahead and establish off the bat that P'yar-Naas is an orphan. If he attains second level, maybe it's worthwhile to reveal that the reason he's an orphan is a reaver with a strange sigil branded on his face. At third level, it might be found that the villain is now Lord of the Brown Tower -- and that our boy's long-lost sister actually lives, as an adopted daughter of the Blue Face Tribe.
How does that "story" end? That depends on the player's choices and the ever-present element of chance. It's not incumbent on him to seek revenge, much less to succeed in that enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 15, 2008 16:09:17 GMT -6
"What's the point" is good to remember. For instance, in Traveller one could "design" a vehicle in great detail using Striker or Fire, Fusion and Steel. But what's the point of the vehicle in the role-playing session? Is all that work going to be justified? Now, the exercise on its own may be a kind of solitaire game for a "gear-head" GM. That doesn't mean the players need to get a full write-up. It doesn't mean you need to go through a time-consuming mechanical process in play if someone shoots at the thing -- or if the players want to know (say) what audio discs are in the glove compartment. There's a literary analogy. Some people like to read Tom Clancy's jargon-laden passages about weapon system x; others (like me) would rather just see what it does and get on with the action. A handful of flavorful details may be better than reams of dry data. Little things may imply much that is not explicit. Again, I think a good rule of thumb is "how would R.E. Howard set the scene?" Long write-ups are probably counter-productive for first-level characters in D&D. P'yar-Naas the Profound might get whacked in the first session of play; his chance of surviving to second level is probably 50% or less. The game is not set up to be about his childhood; the biography that really matters is what happens in play. For that matter, I think it fine to "discover" background in play. Go ahead and establish off the bat that P'yar-Naas is an orphan. If he attains second level, maybe it's worthwhile to reveal that the reason he's an orphan is a reaver with a strange sigil branded on his face. At third level, it might be found that the villain is now Lord of the Brown Tower -- and that our boy's long-lost sister actually lives, as an adopted daughter of the Blue Face Tribe. How does that "story" end? That depends on the player's choices and the ever-present element of chance. It's not incumbent on him to seek revenge, much less to succeed in that enterprise. Great comments. I agree that, especially in D&D, 1st level characters should probably be played and then if they survive deal with getting into their history. A backstory may even suggest itself based on what happens during the game. I also agree that while story elements (quest for revenge, etc.) can be interesting and add to the game, the outcome should never be a given. Personally, I find games that follow the exact structure of fiction to be boring, as you know how these types of plots tend to go, and can predict most everything the DM is planning to reveal, at least in general. I think there are many DMs and players who need to learn that a character's ultimate failure can be a "story", too! |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 16, 2008 2:10:39 GMT -6
My character during my brief flirtation with 3E was a Human Barbarian with a remarkably "low" (like 12 or 13) score in Strength and a remarkably high one in Charisma. I offered the concept of a teenaged girl with a backstory redolent of Norse sagas.
I was not going for comedy with her two-weapon "storm of steel" attacks; I worked out the statistical spread as rigorously as the fellows who traded XP for magic items. The technique was in the long run "really bad" often enough to earn respect.
A bit of familiarity with actual tactics -- the sort of stuff that bites your ass in old-school games -- paid off.
Around third level, I noticed that I was the only one without spells. It's not so easy to stand out as a badass slayer of men next to a Blazing Sphere that rolls over them like a tank. Prior events made it reasonable to take a god as patron, and Cleric as a second class. Kudos to the GM for letting creativity in concocting an exorcism short-circuit what would otherwise have been a combat slog.
That combat slog is really what convinced me that I would not want to DM 3E. That the campaign was interesting to me for so long must be chalked up to the DM's "grace under pressure."
The bottom line for me is that I would rather read so many pages of "setting info" for Empire of the Petal Throne or Over the Edge than so much about dice and numbers in WotC D&D.
Show me your game of The Mote in God's Eye or The Integral Trees, or even of the "Titan" trilogy or the "Gateway" series -- then we can talk about your highfalutin theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 16, 2008 8:38:10 GMT -6
Some good points. I actually see three broad groupings of games. There is the old school style with little background, then there is a the 90s and on style with volumes of background information, meta-plots, detailed character histories and all, and then there's the newfangled "indie" "narativism" model which in one sense actually looks back to old school for it's brevity of campaign background, but taking a different angle on what is important about play (but both old school and "indie" being about what happens to the PCs and where do the players push things).
The 90s model also promoted mechanical complexity, partially in attempt to make all this background stuff meaningful. Of course the whole 90s model is about consumerism, more more more...
When I look back at my play in the 1979-1982 or so range, my campaign had almost no background. I did draw up a campaign map, and had smatterings of detail, but mostly it was a module slog fest. I did play a bit in Glen Blacow's Edwyr campaign, and a couple times in his Traveller campaign. Both definitely were more about a developed campaign setting, but he never did an information dump, and you could do just fine without it. Three of my sessions (1 Edwyr, 2 Traveller) were convention runs, and there was perhaps a few pages of general background plus a page or so for each character. I also played in Edwyr once or twice out of convention, where I brought along a PC (actually an NPC) that wasn't an Edwyr native. If you actually wanted to create a PC, I think the way it was handled is you gave Glen your character concept, and then he would suggest how you fit into the campaign, probably making room for you if your PC didn't quite fit right (just as Prof. Barker did with the medieval knight and the hobbit in EPT - though those are more extreme examples of fitting in [but also from quite adamant players]).
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 16, 2008 10:37:02 GMT -6
This has been a really productive discussion unlike the similar one on Knights'n'Knaves. Some things I have gotten out of this: - Too much pre-developed background can become a problem - this is true for both referees and players. If the referee has got everything planned out, there's not that much room for the players' characters to grow and develop, except within the framework the referee has provided (and if that's what you want, that can also work, but it's a somewhat different thing). Finding: at the beginning, leave room for later creativity.
- Part of the gaming fun for the referee is designing the setting for adventure, whether that's just a dungeon, or a more developed world. In particular, a referee will need to develop a fair bit of material before the campaign starts. As gaming progresses, the referee might develop background material that the players might not ever encounter, e.g. the vehicle design mentioned earlier. Traveller recognizes this much more clearly than OD&D; my thoughts in the Wilderness Architect are another step in that direction. For the referee, background design is more than just what the player-characters see.
- What referees need to develop for themselves and what they share with the players at the beginning of game play are two different things. Any sort of introduction, however, will be limp unless it provides some hooks for the imagination of the players - and the more info presented at the beginning, the more likely it will not be immediately useful. (This may be why Traveller developed the "library data" idea - you get some at the beginning of an adventure, but you can add to it over time.) Avoid infodump!
- Something of a corollary for the previous finding is that referees can always add in information later, during game play, particularly as players find things out. Whether it's discovering that a certain culture prefers saunas to baths, or interpreting the ancient language on a found scroll, carefully linking things together can enhance the game. This requires a bit more thought on the part of the referee beyond just placing stuff in dungeons and waiting for the player-characters to arrive. Foreshadowing done right is cool.
- From a more philosophical perspective, there's a real difference between having possible adventures for the players to embark on, and having a story arc already planned out. The former creates context for adventure, the latter is more of a railroad. This doesn't mean a referee can't have events unfolding and things changing, but their effect on the game needs to be watched and managed carefully. If the backstory runs the game more than the players' choices, you have a problem.
It seems to me now that the beginning of game play, not unlike first impressions, can be crucial. A casual game might have no background info at all, whereas a more intentional world design might have something carefully thought out by the referee. But the creative tension is between the players and the referee, and there has to be room for both to add to the game (or so it seems to me). What do you all think? |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 16, 2008 10:47:51 GMT -6
I think that sums it all up nicely. Have an exalt for that! |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 16, 2008 10:53:05 GMT -6
But the creative tension is between the players and the referee, and there has to be room for both to add to the game (or so it seems to me). I totally agree with this. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 16, 2008 16:30:12 GMT -6
If the backstory runs the game I agree strongly with this, so long as it applies equally to the backstories of the PCs as well as the setting's backstory. I strongly disagree with the received wisdom of contemporary games that, if Player A puts Element B into his character's backstory that Referee C is under an obligation to ensure that Element B appears at some point. I think it's important to give some consideration to a player's interests and preferences, but that's a given. What is not a given for me is the notion that such interests/preferences must be indulged, especially to the point of forcing the referee's hand in crafting adventures or designing his setting. That kind of stuff just isn't old school. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 16, 2008 23:15:38 GMT -6
Yeah, I did not expect that my character's backstory in that 3E game would mean that "plot elements" got tossed my way. As I found out how the game was played, though, that came to seem a more likely possibility.
The game (3E D&D) seemed akin to Champions in terms of the mechanics-handling burden, especially when it came to fights. The prep time alone for encounters looked like enough to make some "railroading" desirable. From what I've seen, scenarios for the game tend to be at least as linear as old-time tournament modules.
That "game system" factor accentuated a trend that had been around at least in some quarters from nearly the beginning. I always had the impression that the original Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns (and such other well-known examples as the Wilderlands, Forgotten Realms and Arduin) were set up to allow a large pool of players and characters to "drop in" as convenient. Referees ran very frequent sessions, the campaign often being moderated by more than one. Thursday might feature an installment of Jim's and Ernie's exploits, Saturday another group's.
That was (at least in my circle) an ideal to which we aspired. The world was expected in a sense to be "there even when you're not looking at it." (Consider the attention given passage of time in OD&D, C&S, AD&D and other early rule sets.)
The ideal assumes resources that are not always available: time, energy, and number of participants. The last of those could (back in the day) be found locally at a games club that met weekends in rooms at the community college. Still, by the early '80s I saw "campaigns" that amounted to little more than a series of published scenarios run for a small and fairly constant party of characters.
In the latter context, it may make sense to "front-load" more background information. One reason to do so is to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what the game is "about." The whole setup becomes more intimate. Kathy's character is not one of dozens on potentially unrelated courses, but rather a member of a long-term team of perhaps half a dozen. The expectation is that she (and every other player) will take part in every session, and that each session will advance the "plot" that takes the place of events driven by players interacting with each other with the game master as referee.
That was explicitly the arrangement for which the Dragonlance series of AD&D modules was devised. Someone rounded up a group for that, but we did not get very far. That had tended also to be the case with the G and D series, which were most often adapted to more piecemeal use.
By the late '80s, I saw people using the expanded Forgotten Realms line in a Dragonlance-ish way. It seemed common to keep up with the ongoing "official" history (as opposed to campaigns diverging from a common chronological starting point). Being conversant with a lot of background detail seemed to come easily to people who had been steeped in it for years. The "entry barrier" may have increased along the way, but so had the interest in such details among new players. Indeed, the very brevity of the basic Greyhawk set seemed to them a flaw.
I gather that many DMs find it easier to absorb "canned" background than to create their own. Likewise, players moving from one campaign to another may appreciate the familiarity.
The role of players in shaping the setting in the old style seems to me pretty significant. If I've got 20 or so pursuing their own schemes (often in competition), then there are many plots afoot (and legends in the making) prior to any work on my part as world-designer. Moreover, players naturally educate each other about the milieu. Without that "labor saving device," packaged material can be a valuable substitute.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 16, 2008 23:48:30 GMT -6
Definite agreement. If you've got a bunch of different characters doing different things, there's a lot of background material being generated as a result. One of the things that is clear from early fanzines (e.g. John van de Graaf's Ryth Chronicle) is that referees would use the adventures of one group to provide background and rumor for other groups, depending on their success or failure. Jeff Rients also talks about this, in his blog, here: jrients.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-campaign.html |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 17, 2008 0:16:39 GMT -6
Good observations about the more modern games being so complex as to make some railroading preferable for the DM. I have noticed this as well, but it's still a development from the designers not fully understanding that the more random or non-story mode of play existed (or misunderstanding it as flat-out "bad" rather than a valid approach.)
|
|
|
|
Post by driver on Jul 17, 2008 6:12:00 GMT -6
My PBP campaign currently has two separate groups of players running separate parties in the City State of the Invincible Overlord and the Wilderlands. The background content I generate in response to each group's actions and inquiries is already proving useful for the other group, and depending on their choices, they may very well be impinging on each other's sphere of influence, or at the very least hearing of the other's exploits.
One of the groups has vocally (and correctly) concluded that the early bird gets the worm in regard to many of the setting's adventure locales, and I believe the presence of multiple groups not only leads me to generate plenty of setting information in response to their needs, but also fosters a healthy sense of competition between the groups and drives them to get off their rumps and go do something before someone else grabs the treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 17, 2008 6:19:21 GMT -6
Good observations about the more modern games being so complex as to make some railroading preferable for the DM. I would say more of it is a function of scope rather than background complexity. I seen Greyhawk DMs railroad just as bad as Forgotten Realms DMs both because of the howling emptiness of the 30 mile hex. However give them Keep on the Borderlands then the game takes on a different light. I haven't much experience with Mystara (the BECMI world) My impression that the BECMI DMs were more apt to let their character wander around freely because of the scope of the maps. Of course then there is the Wilderlands. If you hand a DM a map of that is 2000 miles by 1000 mile with two dozen points of interest and another DM a map that 200 miles by 100 miles with two dozen points of interest; they are going to run it about the same. Use the listed encounters, a couple random encounters and handful of their own. But the feel of the larger scale will feel much more like a railroad than the smaller scale map. I know I am biased with being a fan, and writer of the Wilderlands along with my Points of Light coming out. But I believe that I successfully sold Points of Light because this is a problem with the setting out there. They are too grand, too broad to really connect on a human scale and this causes the DM to railroad. |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 17, 2008 10:03:48 GMT -6
Dwayanu, lots of good thoughts.
The complexity of combat in a game system has a huge effect on how the games play out. Back in the early days, there were lots of insignificant encounters, because we could blow through most encounters in 5 minutes or less, perhaps as much as 30 minutes for a really big encounter. Newer systems with 30-60+ minute encounter times mean that every encounter has to be significant. Then add in 4 hour as opposed to 8 hour sessions, and suddenly, 100 room dungeons that allow lots of flexibility to the players to choose their path become impossible. Shrink the dungeon down to 20-30 rooms or so, and now it's going to feel pretty linear.
The scale of settings is definitely an issue. I wonder how people use all the setting material? I'm sure 99% of it never really comes into play. And of course with an overwhelming setting, it's easy to just follow the path of the adventures provided for the setting.
Modules became the bread and butter of campaigns. The early modules were examples. Sure, lots of people ran them, but they also wrote their own adventures. But slowly people ran more and more modules. And the GMs who didn't use modules were concocting their grand stories (to showcase all the setting detail they were creating of course).
I think also the desire to have the world seem living and breathing is the source for a lot of the published campaign supplements. The problem is that the supplements story becomes paramount. In the old days, where the living and breathing was mostly caused by other players, it would naturally react to player actions, and there was no risk of making future supplements useless by allowing players to disrupt something.
Now what can one do with today's model of a single set of PCs? Don't overdevelop your setting ahead of time. Develop it in reaction to the players actions. Do they kill a lord in game session 3? Decide how the world reacts. Invent things as you need them. Also create multiple possible things for the players to go after. Set up a bunch of corrupt kingdoms. Don't set them up in such a way that all must be defeated. That way, the players can pick and choose. And if they defeat one too easily, well, there are several more. And they are going to start reacting to the PCs. Now you don't have to worry about the BBEG being killed by luck (and skill) in session 1. Instead of one BBEG, there are a bunch of NQSBBEG (Not Quite So Big Bad Evil Guys).
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 17, 2008 10:23:52 GMT -6
I think also the desire to have the world seem living and breathing is the source for a lot of the published campaign supplements. The problem is that the supplements story becomes paramount. In the old days, where the living and breathing was mostly caused by other players, it would naturally react to player actions, and there was no risk of making future supplements useless by allowing players to disrupt something. Frank Exactly. This is one of the main reasons I don't like "canned" settings. If I create my own, the player group(s) can have an impact on the world -- and they can see that impact. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 17, 2008 10:29:57 GMT -6
A factor in modern commercial settings is the degree to which players tend to "explore" them outside the context of face-to-face role-playing. They may come to the table already informed by game supplements, novels, comic books, computer games, and other media.
There may be some self-selection at work. Those of us not interested in much "front loading" of background probably gravitated away from Forgotten Realms and 2E AD&D settings. The "railroading" that was a big part of my group's difficulty with Dragonlance probably kept others from pursuing it. As the expectations associated with the settings became well known -- and they were at least implicitly advertised as features -- they naturally attracted players who liked them.
What one can do with "today's model," often dictated by practical considerations, seems a very productive question to explore.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 18, 2008 0:24:47 GMT -6
Good observations about the more modern games being so complex as to make some railroading preferable for the DM. I would say more of it is a function of scope rather than background complexity. I seen Greyhawk DMs railroad just as bad as Forgotten Realms DMs both because of the howling emptiness of the 30 mile hex. However give them Keep on the Borderlands then the game takes on a different light. I haven't much experience with Mystara (the BECMI world) My impression that the BECMI DMs were more apt to let their character wander around freely because of the scope of the maps. Of course then there is the Wilderlands. If you hand a DM a map of that is 2000 miles by 1000 mile with two dozen points of interest and another DM a map that 200 miles by 100 miles with two dozen points of interest; they are going to run it about the same. Use the listed encounters, a couple random encounters and handful of their own. But the feel of the larger scale will feel much more like a railroad than the smaller scale map. I know I am biased with being a fan, and writer of the Wilderlands along with my Points of Light coming out. But I believe that I successfully sold Points of Light because this is a problem with the setting out there. They are too grand, too broad to really connect on a human scale and this causes the DM to railroad. I was thinking more about the game rules and DM prep time, but your observations are valid. Although WotC seems to have realized this and are drastically downsizing the amount of campaign world material they will produce under the current rules. The scope of the world is certainly a barrier to many (and a draw to some.) |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 18, 2008 9:13:29 GMT -6
... my Points of Light coming out. Say, do you have a release date on this yet? I was at my Friendly (not-so) Local Game Store last night and my guy there checked and said that he couldn't get it yet. I'm really looking forward to this. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 18, 2008 14:01:11 GMT -6
... my Points of Light coming out. Say, do you have a release date on this yet? I was at my Friendly (not-so) Local Game Store last night and my guy there checked and said that he couldn't get it yet. I'm really looking forward to this. mid August is all I know. It been laid out and I presume at the printers. Based on my experience with the three Judges Guild Books it will return on a slow boat from China sometime in August. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 18, 2008 15:49:11 GMT -6
mid August is all I know. It been laid out and I presume at the printers. Based on my experience with the three Judges Guild Books it will return on a slow boat from China sometime in August. So, I wait... |
|
