Cityscape ToC

[Felon]

Indeed, if it differs from druids are already established to be, then that would be a good reason. But that is a world away from 'I just don't like the idea'.

Again, that smacks of a circular arguement, because you are the one who reduced my position to an arbitrary "I just don't like the idea" sentiment. I went into quite a bit more detail on my position.

In anycase, since this whole tangent started because of a misunderstanding that has since been sorted out, this will be my last post on the matter. You can have the last word if it is important to you.

9 times our of 10, that comittment doesn't stick. We'll see.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

I'd still like to hear how it compares to Cityworks...

 

[JustKim]

I'd still like to hear how it compares to Cityworks...

Hey, I can field that one. I'm a fan of FFG, but when you compare a 3 year old book to a new WotC book with high production values, WotC naturally has an edge. The respective authors, Mearls and Marmell, are both fan favorites around here so it's an interesting comparison I think.

Cityworks is more crunch, but not by terribly much. There are more base classes, PrCs and rules for resolving actions, but the feats and spells are about the same. Cityworks does not have new monsters. Both books have systems for planning the layout of a city, but they have a different approach. Cityscape is more top-down and modular, with more information on what something like a fisher's wharf might contain. Cityworks lets you generate layout randomly for a finer grained, but less detailed city. I prefer Cityscape's approach.

Cityworks has a larger section on adventuring in a city, and while I haven't read Cityscape's section yet it stands to reason that less space means less information. Cityworks covers guards very well, while Cityscape has a system for legal proceedings. Both have sections on urban events which cover some of the same things. Cityworks goes into more detail, but covers much fewer events. Cityscape goes into much more detail on power structures and organizations, while Cityworks has useful random tables, including several for random urban encounters ("A con artist tries to sell the characters his magical potions of love/knowledge/beauty/healing").

Overall I would say they're complementary.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

First off, when you get a chance, please let us know what "effetimate" means.

I actually meant "effeminate". Sorry about that - English isn't my native language.

Secondly, you may not have noticed this, but D&D and the fantasy genre in general are all about anachronistic, antiquated, romanticised notions about the world.

There is anachronistic, and there is anachronistic. Eberron, for example, has more in common with the mindset of the 1920s - including the idea of Progress with a capital "P" - than the same guys who obsess about shepherds. And then there is Iron Kingdoms, Scarred Lands, and doubtlessly a bunch of others that don't buy into the idea of a "romantic wilderness".

And the fantasy genre in general? That's an even wider field, with tendrils well stretching into modern times (White Wolf's "World of Darkness" being only the most prominent example in gaming).

If you're playing D&D, stay on the side with the poets.

I don't see why I should. Even one of the settings published by WotC - Eberron - has moved away from the poets by a fair amount.

 

[GreatLemur]

The difference being that waste material in the woods tends to get reclaimed by the earth, whereas in a city, it tends to accumulate (especially if it doesn't have a good sewer system). The design of cities tend to thwart the reclamation process (a good reason for druids to have a beef with them, actually).

"Reclaimed by the earth" is a flowery way of saying "eaten by scavengers or rotted into dirt". This happens in cities just as it does in the wilderness. The only difference is that that result (soil) seems unsightly in a city.

Now, if you want to bring modern waste materials into the equation--such as things which cannot be eaten, and do not rot--then that's a different story . . . but not one that really impacts the question of "Are rats and cockroaches part of nature?"

Secondly, you may not have noticed this, but D&D and the fantasy genre in general are all about anachronistic, antiquated, romanticised notions about the world. If you're playing D&D, stay on the side with the poets.

That's a rather campaign-dependant statement, I think. It might be the way you play, but it's far from universal.

 

[Felon]

"Reclaimed by the earth" is a flowery way of saying "eaten by scavengers or rotted into dirt". This happens in cities just as it does in the wilderness. The only difference is that that result (soil) seems unsightly in a city.

"Reclaimed by the earth" is a way of saying that waste matter tends to wind up back in the soil. And as you say, soil is considered unsightly. Bricks, pavement, or packed-down dirt is what covers most ground in an urban environ.

Now, if you want to bring modern waste materials into the equation--such as things which cannot be eaten, and do not rot--then that's a different story . . . but not one that really impacts the question of "Are rats and cockroaches part of nature?"

I've said this a bunch of times now, but it's not so much a question of whether rats and roaches are a part of nature so much as it is whether rats and roaches and refuse are sufficient to constitute a druid's haven.

That's a rather campaign-dependant statement, I think. It might be the way you play, but it's far from universal.

Well, certain romanticised elements are pretty darn near universal, and indeed romanticism is hard-coded into much of the system. Pretty much every paladin upholds a chivalric code, for instance, rather than portraying the harsh reality of the historical templar/crusader. As to Eberron, that's certainly the epitome of applying postmodern attitude to fantasy, intentionally trying to fly in the face of convention. I didn't say that unconventional perspectives exist or lack validity, I'm just estabishing that's what we're talking about here.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't think romantic pastoralism is built into D&D. Last I looked, druids turn into carnivores for the purpose of killing their enemies, whom they then loot afterwards.

I think that romanticism is built into a lot of Westerners' views of things, but that's it.

 

[Felon]

I don't think romantic pastoralism is built into D&D.

I was commenting on the notion of regarding romanticism as a purely campaign-dependent aspect of D&D. It's not some purely-optional, modular component like a vacum-cleaner attachment. As to the druid's "romantic pastoralism", it is more implicit than hard-wired, but there is a reason that there are urban druid variants that re-tool the class. Of course, everything in D&D is geared towards killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[GreatLemur]

"Reclaimed by the earth" is a way of saying that waste matter tends to wind up back in the soil. And as you say, soil is considered unsightly. Bricks, pavement, or packed-down dirt is what covers most ground in an urban environ.

Organic refuse is going to turn into soil whether or not there are bricks on the ground.

I've said this a bunch of times now, but it's not so much a question of whether rats and roaches are a part of nature so much as it is whether rats and roaches and refuse are sufficient to constitute a druid's haven.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you on that score. I'm just taking issue with your implied sentiment that the "filth-dwelling parasites" one can find in a city are somehow qualitatively--rather than quantitatively--different from the organisms one finds in the wilderness.

Well, certain romanticised elements are pretty darn near universal, and indeed romanticism is hard-coded into much of the system. Pretty much every paladin upholds a chivalric code, for instance, rather than portraying the harsh reality of the historical templar/crusader. As to Eberron, that's certainly the epitome of applying postmodern attitude to fantasy, intentionally trying to fly in the face of convention. I didn't say that unconventional perspectives exist or lack validity, I'm just estabishing that's what we're talking about here.

It could certainly be argued that things like the existence of "Good" and "Evil" as objective forces suggests the kind of romanticism you're talking about, but once again I'll point out that that's exactly the sort of thing that a lot of campaigns will scrap at the first opportunity, whether through actual houserules or story. I don't think these games--or the Eberron campaign setting--stop being D&D (or fantasy) when they make that decision.

I think what you're calling a "postmodern attitude," I would simply call a more realistic worldview.

 

[Felon]

I think what you're calling a "postmodern attitude", I would simply call a more realistic worldview.

The usage of the word "postmodern" is intentional because this discussion has all the earmarks of postmodern discourse by self-avowed intellectuals. Basically, start by deconstructing the status quo, and then proclaim a radical new paradigm, which generally just amounts to equivocating everything as being equal to everything else. And above all, remember that nothing's bad, it's merely different.

So, throw away that old dogma about cities displacing forests--what does Henry David Thoreau know? He's not as smart as us; he's just some effeminate poet. You're not only more manly than him, you're more enlightened too. Instead of a forest "displaced" or "destroyed", let's say that cities are a forest transformed, a new aspect of nature. Of course, all the big wild animals have been killed, all the big trees and rocks have been flattened or ripped out, and the remaining growing things have been pushed into little pockets where they often turn into cesspools, but when someone belabors that point, we'll regard it as hidebound hair-splitting. After all, druids, in their divine wisdom, realize that bubonic plague is just another part of nature, and should be cherished and nourished as much as any waterfall, ancient oak, or bunny rabbit.

Hey, Chrissie Hynde! Are you reading this? Don't feel bad about Ohio. A giant parking lot is every bit as much of an ecosystem as the woods that were clear-cut to build it.