Orcus
First Post
Erik Mona of Dungeon/Polyhedron featured the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands in a two page article in the most recent Polyhedron section of Dungeon magazine.
Erik loves the setting and the product but (as an ex-WotC guy fully indoctrinated into the 3E concepts of strict balance, which he and I joked about) he doesnt always dig the "balance" issues with some of the races and classes. Nevertheless, he calls it a "really great setting."
Here are a few quotes:
"...manages to perfectly fit the spirit of the game's earliest days, providing a glimpse into a fantastic world of high adventure that's a little bit grittier while at the same time a lot more imaginative that many modern campaign settings."
"The book speaks seductively to those of us who like our fantasy in the vein of Robert Howard and Jack Vance, urging us to cast aside the glossy, full color setting books we've grown to love and engage in a torrid affair with one of the oldest settings known to gaming."
"The book itself is heavy on history but light on modern detail. It's probably most similar to WotC's Living Greyhawk Gazeteer, in that the focus is on story over rules, so a player of 1st Edition D&D might find the book every bit as useful as the greenest 3rd Edition newbie."
"Despite my carping on rules balance, I really like this product. The fact of the matter is that the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands is a campaign setting first and a rulebook second."
All from Erik Mona! I really think the world of Erik (Yes, I am admitting my bias up front). He called me and told me he intended to gripe about balance issues. We discussed philosophy on that issue and had a great exchange. He told me he loved the product and that certainly shows in his article.
I personally think that balance doesnt mean the math has to add up. I think, for example, you can have setting cultural issues considered in the balance equation. The "core" classes from the 3E rulebooks all have to be mathematically balanced on paper becuase they have to be usable in any campaign world. They have to be setting neutral. But the races in the Wilderlands arent setting neutral. They are designed for the Wilderlands. Cultural bias against Altanians, for example, is a "negative" that a person playing that race must deal with. As a result they get a bonus or to that "just doing the math" means they dont "balance." I dont think that is out of balance. Similarly, one race--Amazons--are amazing from a math standpoint. But one of the reasons is that to get the bonuses you have to be female. And, frankly, I thought it was cool that the best buttkicking race and class in the setting are scantily clad women warriors. That is a perfect foil for a male dominated warrior setting. To me, you can use those setting specific factors as part of balance. And here, IMHO, is the ultimate proof that they are balanced. Clearly, from a mathematical standpoint, the races of Altanians and Amazons are the most "out of balance" in the product. So why then in my many campaigns playtesting these rules and using them since publication have we had no more than a small handful of Altanian characters and to this point only 1 person play a female amazon (and a female gamer at that)? Why? Because they ARE balanced, when the other factors are considered. Additionally, I consider being a bit out of balance like bribery--I want to encourage people to play the unique races of the setting rather than bland generic "human" or "elf" races. It was a means to entice people to fully embrace the races of the setting. And that has worked great in playtesting. But I respect Erik and I fully understand his balance comments. He is right, they are there. But, like he said, this product is 90% setting detail, 10% rules. Even if you tossed the rules stuff you didnt like (and I guarantee you would like half the rules stuff anyway, even the most hardcore balance nut), the book is, in Erik's words, "a great setting."
So pick up Poly and check out the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands!
Clark
Erik loves the setting and the product but (as an ex-WotC guy fully indoctrinated into the 3E concepts of strict balance, which he and I joked about) he doesnt always dig the "balance" issues with some of the races and classes. Nevertheless, he calls it a "really great setting."
Here are a few quotes:
"...manages to perfectly fit the spirit of the game's earliest days, providing a glimpse into a fantastic world of high adventure that's a little bit grittier while at the same time a lot more imaginative that many modern campaign settings."
"The book speaks seductively to those of us who like our fantasy in the vein of Robert Howard and Jack Vance, urging us to cast aside the glossy, full color setting books we've grown to love and engage in a torrid affair with one of the oldest settings known to gaming."
"The book itself is heavy on history but light on modern detail. It's probably most similar to WotC's Living Greyhawk Gazeteer, in that the focus is on story over rules, so a player of 1st Edition D&D might find the book every bit as useful as the greenest 3rd Edition newbie."
"Despite my carping on rules balance, I really like this product. The fact of the matter is that the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands is a campaign setting first and a rulebook second."
All from Erik Mona! I really think the world of Erik (Yes, I am admitting my bias up front). He called me and told me he intended to gripe about balance issues. We discussed philosophy on that issue and had a great exchange. He told me he loved the product and that certainly shows in his article.
I personally think that balance doesnt mean the math has to add up. I think, for example, you can have setting cultural issues considered in the balance equation. The "core" classes from the 3E rulebooks all have to be mathematically balanced on paper becuase they have to be usable in any campaign world. They have to be setting neutral. But the races in the Wilderlands arent setting neutral. They are designed for the Wilderlands. Cultural bias against Altanians, for example, is a "negative" that a person playing that race must deal with. As a result they get a bonus or to that "just doing the math" means they dont "balance." I dont think that is out of balance. Similarly, one race--Amazons--are amazing from a math standpoint. But one of the reasons is that to get the bonuses you have to be female. And, frankly, I thought it was cool that the best buttkicking race and class in the setting are scantily clad women warriors. That is a perfect foil for a male dominated warrior setting. To me, you can use those setting specific factors as part of balance. And here, IMHO, is the ultimate proof that they are balanced. Clearly, from a mathematical standpoint, the races of Altanians and Amazons are the most "out of balance" in the product. So why then in my many campaigns playtesting these rules and using them since publication have we had no more than a small handful of Altanian characters and to this point only 1 person play a female amazon (and a female gamer at that)? Why? Because they ARE balanced, when the other factors are considered. Additionally, I consider being a bit out of balance like bribery--I want to encourage people to play the unique races of the setting rather than bland generic "human" or "elf" races. It was a means to entice people to fully embrace the races of the setting. And that has worked great in playtesting. But I respect Erik and I fully understand his balance comments. He is right, they are there. But, like he said, this product is 90% setting detail, 10% rules. Even if you tossed the rules stuff you didnt like (and I guarantee you would like half the rules stuff anyway, even the most hardcore balance nut), the book is, in Erik's words, "a great setting."
So pick up Poly and check out the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands!
Clark
Last edited:
