UK, Have you ever seen the Primal Order Books from WOTC?

[Grover Cleaveland]

I don't necessarily see why.

Because, in The Primal Order, divine ranks are much more loosely defined than they are in Deities & Demigods or the Immortals boxed set. A lesser god can possibly have more primal base or flux than a greater god, and in that game that's all that matters.

In The Primal Order, a greater deity is any god who controls at least five planes of existence. It's not a direct measure of power, then - although a greater deity gains 10,000 points of primal base just by being a greater deity (why five is a magic number in the cosmos is unclear - I suspect Eris' work), a lesser deity might gain much more base than that from a fewer number of holdings, or simply be being older than the greater deity - lesser gods automatically gain 100 base every year, so any lesser god more than a century older than a greater god will have a 10,000 base advantage. You can also calculate it as 1% of the existing primal base, which might give our lesser god even more.

A lesser god who shares a large number of planes but only controls one may also get a lot more base than a greater god who rules five planes but doesn't share control of any.

The rank of Supreme Deity is also fairly arbitrary. The Olympian Twelve recognize Zeus as their Supreme Deity. If they were to recognize Athena instead, she would gain 25,000 base and Zeus would lose 25,000 base, but Zeus would still likely be more powerful than Athena (unless he had so much base invested in various projects that he was reduced into the negative numbers, in which case he would be dead and many of his planes might cannibalize one another in order to regain their balance).

Zeus could also, theoretically, simply give all of his primal base to a lesser deity, and with that amount of influx the lesser god might well be more powerful than even some supreme deities - for example, Kurtulmak probably isn't that powerful, but he's technically a supreme deity because he's a greater deity recognized as the head of a pantheon.

Insert obligatory Zero Wing joke here (I actually thought of The Primal Order when I first heard of Zero Wing - All Your Base Are Belong To Us).

Anyway, your chart is fine as a crude estimate, but it's going to be wrong in some cases. A greater deity in TPO might well be more powerful than an Eternal or a Supernal if it's old enough and rules enough planes. A greater or supreme deity might be weaker than one of your lesser deities. The systems are just really different from one another.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GC!

I'll respond to your post directly a little later.

However I am curious to hear your thoughts on TPO as a whole, given our general differences of opinion on similar sort of topics...and the fact that I am writing a similar treatise is purely coincidental.

I just wouldn't have pegged you as someone interested in what are essentially rules for gods.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

I started out with the D&D red box and moved, at an early age, all the way to the gold box, and I spent quite a while happily exploring the D&D Immortals cosmology. Several years later I wrote my own (much, much simpler) divine-level rules as part of an idea I had for an epic campaign where Apollo was systematically exterminating all the other gods in the multiverse. I discovered The Primal Order after that and was pretty intrigued by it, although I never played it. The main problem with it is that it depends, on a fundamental level, with converting followers to your faith, and there doesn't seem to be any fair way to adjudicate that.

It seems like the only way to run a campaign based on TPO is to either have your gods exploring and claiming entirely new planes where there's no competition, to share planes but split them up completely evenly, or to settle all disputes over territory with combat or some other contest of skill rather than appealing to the mortals directly. There just aren't any rules for determing how many characters your clerics covert in a day - and it'd probably be too much bookkeeping if there were, unless you write a program to automate the process. There are suggestions, of course, but there isn't a way to do it objectively, especially if multiple PCs are competing over the same world.

I came up with a few possibilities. One was to play Risk, or some other war game, to determine who conquers a given world and how much of it. That could be fun, but it seems like there should be non-military means of spreading a faith.

I was also intrigued by the game Aria, where players play nations as well as people (a little like Birthright, but the focus is on collaboratively building fantasy worlds from the dawn of history onward). It seemed to me that this game was tailor-made to be run with The Primal Order - you spend a few sessions developing worlds, and the fates of your PC deities change accordingly. Then maybe there's a few sessions focusing on divine intrigue or epic quests, then spend some time advancing the worlds in history again.

I haven't actually tried this - I looked through the rules and pretty much gave up. But it's on my list of possible things to one day do. I think TPO looks like it'd work better with Aria than D&D.

I suppose you could judge a religion's popularity purely on the charisma of the god in question, so in cases where a nation isn't forced to convert under fear of fire and torture the god with the most points in charisma will win most contests, with bonuses and penalties for various factors, but that seems rather simplistic.

And I know you're going to inform me what your amazing solution to this was - or, more likely, tell me that you have an amazing solution but I have to buy your book to find out what it is - but I'd rather you didn't. I seem to dislike most of your ideas; not because I'm dogmatically opposed to divine or epic-level games, but just because they're bad ideas.

However, I must say that I think your Hit points to divine rank chart is outrageously fun to play with. It doesn't make any rational sense, but it allows me to go through all the 1st edition stuff I have and assign arbitrary divine ranks to things. For example, Mad Monkey is a lesser deity, Dragon Claw is a supported demigod, and Black Leopard is a demigod. Neat! And the three goblin deities in Dark Folk are two supported demigods and a demigod. And the dwarven pantheon in Mayfair's Dwarves book are all either supreme or greater (that is, greater or intermediate) deities. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's really fun to do. It's like astrology or numerology!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GC!

I started out with the D&D red box and moved, at an early age, all the way to the gold box, and I spent quite a while happily exploring the D&D Immortals cosmology. Several years later I wrote my own (much, much simpler) divine-level rules as part of an idea I had for an epic campaign where Apollo was systematically exterminating all the other gods in the multiverse. I discovered The Primal Order after that and was pretty intrigued by it, although I never played it.

Me neither.

The main problem with it is that it depends, on a fundamental level, with converting followers to your faith, and there doesn't seem to be any fair way to adjudicate that.

There is, I developed one, its in the Immortals Handbook.

It seems like the only way to run a campaign based on TPO is to either have your gods exploring and claiming entirely new planes where there's no competition, to share planes but split them up completely evenly, or to settle all disputes over territory with combat or some other contest of skill rather than appealing to the mortals directly.

If you can divorce TPO from the whole plane based criteria I think it would work better with D&D.

There just aren't any rules for determing how many characters your clerics covert in a day - and it'd probably be too much bookkeeping if there were, unless you write a program to automate the process.

Actually its pretty easy, you can either resolve things on an individual basis (wherein you roleplayed the clergy) or automate it over a given period of time.

There are suggestions, of course, but there isn't a way to do it objectively, especially if multiple PCs are competing over the same world.

I came up with a few possibilities. One was to play Risk, or some other war game, to determine who conquers a given world and how much of it. That could be fun, but it seems like there should be non-military means of spreading a faith.

Absolutely.

The Risk idea was an interesting one.

I was also intrigued by the game Aria, where players play nations as well as people (a little like Birthright, but the focus is on collaboratively building fantasy worlds from the dawn of history onward). It seemed to me that this game was tailor-made to be run with The Primal Order - you spend a few sessions developing worlds, and the fates of your PC deities change accordingly. Then maybe there's a few sessions focusing on divine intrigue or epic quests, then spend some time advancing the worlds in history again.

I haven't actually tried this - I looked through the rules and pretty much gave up. But it's on my list of possible things to one day do. I think TPO looks like it'd work better with Aria than D&D.

I suppose that approach depends how much you want to deviate from roleplaying and toy about with resource management. Some players might enjoy that type of game, but likely not all.

I suppose you could judge a religion's popularity purely on the charisma of the god in question, so in cases where a nation isn't forced to convert under fear of fire and torture the god with the most points in charisma will win most contests, with bonuses and penalties for various factors, but that seems rather simplistic.

Indeed.

And I know you're going to inform me what your amazing solution to this was - or, more likely, tell me that you have an amazing solution but I have to buy your book to find out what it is

You know me well enough by now.

I can't go spilling the beans to that here. But I am sure once the books out someone will inform you of the basic ideas without requiring you to hand over the cash.

- but I'd rather you didn't.

DOH!

I seem to dislike most of your ideas; not because I'm dogmatically opposed to divine or epic-level games, but just because they're bad ideas.

We do seem to argue a lot.

From my perspective it seems as though I try to argue my case objectively for the purpose of demystifying something so that its practical enough to use in-game, whereas you argue subjectively to shroud an issue in illogic so as to better preserve its esoteric charm.

I suppose both views have their merits, but i just see my own as more appropriate for those who wish to play an epic or immortal campiagn. As opposed to someone who merely wants to read about such things.

However, I must say that I think your Hit points to divine rank chart is outrageously fun to play with. It doesn't make any rational sense, but it allows me to go through all the 1st edition stuff I have and assign arbitrary divine ranks to things. For example, Mad Monkey is a lesser deity, Dragon Claw is a supported demigod, and Black Leopard is a demigod. Neat! And the three goblin deities in Dark Folk are two supported demigods and a demigod. And the dwarven pantheon in Mayfair's Dwarves book are all either supreme or greater (that is, greater or intermediate) deities. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's really fun to do. It's like astrology or numerology!

Glad you like it.

It was initially developed to convert the Demon Lords from 1st Edition. But everyone seems to have their own interpretation of such characters.

eg. WotC have Demogorgon as a Quasi-deity, Dicefreaks have him as a Virtual Greater Deity, I prefer him as a Lesser Deity (as per 1st Edition D&D).

So the conversion process gives you the ability to convert these characters as you see fit while still retaining balance within your own cosmology.

 

[Grover Cleaveland]

I can't go spilling the beans to that here.

I think that's a poor business strategy, actually. I think you'd have better results putting all the basic mechanics on your website and then charging for the book and its supplements. I'm not likely to care about things that I can't sample. It's the same with music - I'm more likely to be interested in a band I've heard .mp3s of than one I've merely read about.

I say this not because I'm greedy and want your mechanics for free - I'm biased to think they're terrible, so I'm not particularly interested. The only way to convince me otherwise is to actually show them to me.

But, I mean, it's your call.

From my perspective it seems as though I try to argue my case objectively for the purpose of demystifying something so that its practical enough to use in-game, whereas you argue subjectively to shroud an issue in illogic so as to better preserve its esoteric charm.

Your argumentative style is no more objective than mine, except in the sense that you're slightly less willing to acknowledge alternate viewpoints. Your grasp of logic is also very poor, your arguments peppered with numerous nonsequiturs.

I do generally prefer mysteries to rigid facts, but I don't think that hurts gameplay at all - in fact, it can be seen to improve it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GC!

I think that's a poor business strategy, actually. I think you'd have better results putting all the basic mechanics on your website and then charging for the book and its supplements.

I'm not entirely convinced, most online previews give examples, not mechanics central to the book.

I'm not likely to care about things that I can't sample.

Well I'll probably have examples leading up to the release of that part of the work (the Bestiary is due first).

It's the same with music - I'm more likely to be interested in a band I've heard .mp3s of than one I've merely read about.

Indeed. But I do have a number of previews on the website, so I have somewhat got that covered.

I say this not because I'm greedy and want your mechanics for free - I'm biased to think they're terrible, so I'm not particularly interested.

I appreciate your candour, of course the primary design concern is in developing rules for roleplaying immortals in a physical capacity, so its not like you are one of the target audience (given what I know about your opinions on the matter). Although there is quite a bit of religion construction and deconstruction that could be useful to any roleplaying game, but the main focus on the book is with the immortals themselves.

The only way to convince me otherwise is to actually show them to me. But, I mean, it's your call.

Well, by your own admission you are biased to think I am terrible anyway, but I would enjoy the challenge to convert you, so we'll see.

Your argumentative style is no more objective than mine, except in the sense that you're slightly less willing to acknowledge alternate viewpoints.

I like anything thats going to improve someones game. What I don't like are negative viewpoints that diminish someones games.

Your grasp of logic is also very poor, your arguments peppered with numerous nonsequiturs.

Well I'd certainly be happy to address any of those issues for you.

I do generally prefer mysteries to rigid facts, but I don't think that hurts gameplay at all - in fact, it can be seen to improve it.

So does that mean you think a book such as The Primal Order would actually be better served mystifying everything to do with divinity rather than explaining it?

 

[Mark CMG]

Hiya Krustalah!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Krustalah!

Howdy Mark!

Hope you have been keeping well? I know we haven't chatted in a while (I guess we have both been busy), but I still recall our miniatures painting chat night with fondness, and eveytime I see a miniature I wonder to myself how is me old mate Mark doing and have his brush skills improved under my admittedly brief and slipshod tutelage...if you could even call it that.

I saw some recent specular lighting and NMM (non-metalic metal) painted miniatures and just thought to myself, has progress moved on so much since I have been 'out of it'.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/37085

http://www.coolminiornot.com/64201

http://www.coolminiornot.com/88060

 

[Ripzerai]

I'm not entirely convinced, most online previews give examples, not mechanics central to the book.

Perhaps I've been reading Boing Boing and download mp3s too much, but I've become a huge open-content/file sharing advocate. I really think it's good publicity for anyone.

I like anything thats going to improve someones game. What I don't like are negative viewpoints that diminish someones games.

We agree there. I think that's why I find you so frustrating - your extreme negativity toward the way I like to play. I've never criticized epic or divine-level play, but you get hugely excited whenever I talk about preserving some elements of mystery in the planes and start ranting about how I'm oppressing you.

A proper game product should have dozens of story hooks which are nothing but mysteries for the DM to develop. Revealing everything you introduce is hugely destructive. Roleplaying is by its nature a do-it-yourself enterprise, and most DMs love reading alluring little tidbits that spark their imaginations. If a company develops everything themselves, what is there for a DM to do? The more detail the better, but for every mystery that's explained at least two more should be added - look at James Jacobs' Demonicon articles. Every time he fleshes out some old reference from Planescape or 1st edition, he adds more references. That's good design.

That's why elements like the Lady of Pain - enigmatic figures that remain fresh because they're never detailed by anyone - are so useful. Some things should have no purpose other than to be mysteries. Some things (like the Lady) should even stay mysteries - it makes the game world seem bigger and more magical if not everything can be explained. In a divine-level campaign, which is all about revealing things that were previously mysterious, this is more important than ever, or else the gods and religion become nothing more than a mortal adventuring party - less than that, since things at least feel magical to adventurers. Nothing more than a party of merchants and bureaucrats who have had all joy sucked from their lives.

So does that mean you think a book such as The Primal Order would actually be better served mystifying everything to do with divinity rather than explaining it?

Of course not. Mystifying some things, definitely.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Several years later I wrote my own (much, much simpler) divine-level rules as part of an idea I had for an epic campaign where Apollo was systematically exterminating all the other gods in the multiverse.

Have you read Fred Saberhagen's Books of Swords?