White Raven Onslaught Revision

[Wulf Ratbane]

Otherwise, I could take a baby name book, put a dragon on the cover, and all it a hot new campaign world.

"Egads, it's the Dread Lord Heather!"

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I use baby name books for Game Prep.

 

[Lizard]

I use baby name books for Game Prep.

I use Gary Gygax's Extraordinary Book of Names. Also for minor characters in my novel.

 

[Hussar]

TwinB - I've overstated my case, as usual.

I don't think world building is bad. I think it's bad for me, but, in and of itself it's fine. If you want to do that, go right ahead, knock your socks off.

But, don't force me to do it.

I want the core rules to have enough of a setting that I can sit down and start writing adventures set within that setting from day one. That means I need a cosmology, a rough outline of the lands, demographics (maybe) and some history. There, that's all I need. Gimme a town to start in too? Fantastic.

Take 3e for a second. 3e had an implied setting - Greyhawk (I think we can all agree on that). But, it stripped out all of the Greyhawk flavor and pretty much only left a few proper nouns. So, it was left to us to create pretty much everything needed to run a game - history, politics, etc.

But, on the mechanics side of the fence, the world of 3e was extremely well detailed. Everything followed - the CR system was based on Wealth by Level. Wealth by Level assumed standard demographics. The demographics assumed a certain type of setting (namely Eurocentric), etc. etc. So, when I did finally want to start a campaign, I ran into this wall of mechanics that constrained what kind of setting I was going to create.

Well, if they're going to go that far and give me the complete mechanical breakdown of the setting, howzabout they go the three steps further and give me the flavour too? Instead of forcing me to come up with all of that on my own and then having to double check it against the mechanics, just give me the damn setting already.

For those of you who want to create your own, more power to you. Great, fantastic. But, and no one seems to be able to answer this, why do you have to do less work so I have to do more? Stripping out the flavour text is something you're going to do anyway to fit whatever element into your campaign, so, give me the flavour that fits with the mechanics and we're both happy.

It's like Lizard claiming that the Great Wheel isn't a Greyhawk convention, but a D&D one just because he's ported it into his homebrew. Sorry, doesn't work. The Great Wheel cosmology was created FOR GREYHAWK and then became the standard for D&D. That you or anyone else ported it into your homebrew doesn't change that fact.

Again, I would never stand in the way of anyone who wants to create their own setting. But, why should I then be forced to do it as well, when I don't want to, just so the world builders can have an easier time of it? The existence of a core setting didn't stop people from homebrewing the hell out of 1e or Basic D&D, so I'm failing to see why it would stop you now.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm astonished that anyone can consider 1e had a 'setting'. It clearly expected you to draw your own maps, place your own cities, create everything yourself. Sure take some of the names and make them part of your own setting (although it was obvious that many of the artifact names were thinly-designed references to people behind D&D (ring of Gax? Invulnerable coat of Arn?))

One of the many things that we found refreshing about RQ2 when we switched from AD&D to RQ2 was the map of Dragon Pass with evocative names and all the stuff which was clearly tied into that world, including the capsule history. Now *that* was a setting There were places you could go, names on a map which stirred campaigns... None of that was there in the 1e PHB and DMG. Lots of details but nothing to hang them on. No actual setting.

 

[Lizard]

I want the core rules to have enough of a setting that I can sit down and start writing adventures set within that setting from day one. That means I need a cosmology, a rough outline of the lands, demographics (maybe) and some history. There, that's all I need. Gimme a town to start in too? Fantastic.

You think this was in the 1e DMG?

Take 3e for a second. 3e had an implied setting - Greyhawk (I think we can all agree on that). But, it stripped out all of the Greyhawk flavor and pretty much only left a few proper nouns.

You mean, just like 1e.

It's like Lizard claiming that the Great Wheel isn't a Greyhawk convention, but a D&D one just because he's ported it into his homebrew. Sorry, doesn't work. The Great Wheel cosmology was created FOR GREYHAWK and then became the standard for D&D. That you or anyone else ported it into your homebrew doesn't change that fact.

My PHB doesn't say "These are the planes for my, Gary Gygax's, campaign of Greyhawk". It just says "This is how the unvierse is laid out". The original Dragon article which originated the "Great Wheel" was just titled something like "Cosmology in D&D" -- not "Cosmology in my campaign".

Here's the exact text:
"There exists an infinite number of parallel universes and places of existence in the fantastic "multiverse" of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All these "worlds" co-exist, but how "real" each is depends upon the development of each by the game referee. The chart and explanations which follow show only the various planes tied to that of normal existence. The parallel universes are not shown, and their existence might or night not be actual."

Where do you get 'Greyhawk' from this? Note: "The multiverse of *Advanced Dungeons & Dragons*", not "The multiverse of the Greyhawk campaign."

3e had more Greyhawk detail in it than 1e did.

You seem to be confusing the fact that later settings created their own cosmology, or that 2e very explicitly moved material to Greyhawk, with the idea it was originally setting specific.

 

[Hussar]

Lizard - pretty much anything with Gary Gygax's name on it from 1e was created for his Greyhawk campaign first and then ported into the 1e PHB.

Pretty much every piece of flavor text in 1e was based on Greyhawk.

Let's not forget something here. 1e had no concept of core books. EVERYTHING that was published for AD&D that was not specific to another setting (such as Dragonlance) was core. That included the Greyhawk boxed set and the modules, many of which would later influence books like the Monster Manual II.

You seem to be confusing the fact that Core is a 3e concept. It simply did not exist previously. There were Official AD&D products and all of them were core.

 

[Korgoth]

Some names are descriptive, and some are not. "The King of France Cafe" is just a name, and maybe evocative of a theme, but it doesn't imply that there is a place called France, or that France is a monarchy, or that the thing named is actually a man who is the monarch of that place. Whereas calling somebody "the King of France" does imply all those things.

"The Hand of Vecna" is both evocative and descriptive. It is descriptive in that you know it is a hand. It is evocative in that it makes you wonder about who this Vecna was, and what a bad dude he must have been.

"Power Attack" and "Improved Trip" (much as I hate feats) are descriptive but not evocative. Which is fine, because they are techniques. The names tell you what to expect from the powers: while I may have to learn some rules about how each works, I can tell right off the bat that one involves making your attack more powerful and the other involves doing a better job of tripping people. These are heuristic devices that cut down on the amount of extraneous crap I have to fill my brain with at a given time. When Bork the SemiOrk's player declares that he is going to Power Attack the Ogre, I know that he is going to try to lay the smack. I don't need to know the rules specifics... if he hits, I can expect that the Ogre will take serious damage. As the wizard, that helps me make a decision about what spell to use, etc. But if Bork's player announces that he will "Purple Monkey Hazmat PotatoChip" the Ogre, I have no idea what the heck he is talking about. Even though that may be the opportunity for somebody to launch into a tiresome explanation that "Purple" connotes royalty, which means it's a really good monkey, and "Monkey" connotes throwing feces so this is a ranged attack, and "Hazmat" means that the attack will be poison-based, and "PotatoChip" connotes carbohydrates which means that the power adversely affects constitution, blah blah blah... none of that helps because those terms could mean anything.

Further, you give a name to a magical artifact or a person or a single malt scotch whisky because it is something special. You don't give a name to a technique, especially a fairly pedestrian one, because it merely a way of accomplishing a mechanical task. When you open a container of aspirin, you don't call out "Orange Groundsloth Mountebank Hackysack!" You just push down while turning the cap and it opens.

The latter point applies even more to techniques that involve your companions. When the warlord shouts "White Raven Onslaught!" does everybody else in the party look at each other and go "White Raven hooooooo!" I'd imagine they'd stand around looking at each other going "What the heck is he talking abou... oooh. We better go help him."

Or perhaps there's a pre-battle pep talk:
Warlord: "OK, guys. I've got this cool idea for a move we all do."

Party: ...

Warlord: "You know, a move in combat."

Fighter: "You mean like attacking with our weapons?"

Warlord: "No. I mean like I do an attack and you guys all think it is so cool that you move
faster than usual and we totally gang up on the bad guy."

Ranger: "Is that really going to happen that way?"

Warlord: "Yeah, totally. Trust me: when you see this attack, you'll be so totally blown away that you're going to move really fast. The coolness of it will literally suck you toward the bad guy that I'm wailing on."

Party: "OK, fine."

Warlord: "Now, we're going to call this move 'White Raven Onslaught'."

Rogue: "Excuse me?"

Warlord: "We're going to call it 'White Raven Onslaught'."

Fighter: "Why don't we just call it 'Onslaught'?"

Warlord: "Because Ravens are like cool and stuff. And white is good for some reason."

Wizard: "Is there like a 'Gray Raven Onslaught' that's somehow inferior?"

Warlord: "No, there's just 'White Raven Onslaught'. That's the only onslaught."

Rogue: "For once I agree with the fighter. Let's just call it 'Onslaught'."

Warlord: "No, we can't call it 'Onslaught'; it isn't an onslaught it's a White Raven Onslaught."

Wizard: "But you just said it was the only onslaught."

Warlord: "Right."

Ranger: "So why confuse everybody? If there's only one onslaught then let's just call it onslaught. If there really is a better onslaught that you figure out how to do later, let's just call it Improved Onslaught."

Warlord: "Gang, we're calling it 'White Raven Onslaught' and that's final."

Fighter: "Hey. This is a group power. Why are you in charge of naming it?"

Warlord: "Because it's my power and I'm the Warlord."

Rogue: "Yeah. Remind us again of which war you're actually lord of."

 

[Plane Sailing]

Lizard - pretty much anything with Gary Gygax's name on it from 1e was created for his Greyhawk campaign first and then ported into the 1e PHB.

However, and this is the key bit, that doesn't mean that the 1e PHB or DMG had Greyhawk as a usable setting.

I can't remember whether you've said that you started with 1e or not, but neither I nor anyone that I know used 1e to play in "Greyhawk" - until the greyhawk gazetteers were produced I don't see how anyone could. They just plunked modules down in their own campaigns. I came across literally dozens of campaigns being run by people all over the world in the late 70's (via APA's such as Alarums & Excursions, Wild Hunt and Trollcrusher) and none of them used Greyhawk as their setting.

If you gave someone the 1e PHB and DMG and tell them to design a campaign set in Greyhawk I don't believe they would be able to come up with anything recognisable as the Greyhawk campaign setting

 

[Hussar]

However, and this is the key bit, that doesn't mean that the 1e PHB or DMG had Greyhawk as a usable setting.

I can't remember whether you've said that you started with 1e or not, but neither I nor anyone that I know used 1e to play in "Greyhawk" - until the greyhawk gazetteers were produced I don't see how anyone could. They just plunked modules down in their own campaigns. I came across literally dozens of campaigns being run by people all over the world in the late 70's (via APA's such as Alarums & Excursions, Wild Hunt and Trollcrusher) and none of them used Greyhawk as their setting.

If you gave someone the 1e PHB and DMG and tell them to design a campaign set in Greyhawk I don't believe they would be able to come up with anything recognisable as the Greyhawk campaign setting

You're right of course.

But, what you would come up with is a whole pile of homebrews that use Greyhawk elements all over the place - races, magic, proper nouns, cosmology, monsters, monster cultures (after all, who was the demon lord of gnolls? drow?) etc.

Yes, it's not a complete campaign setting. But, then again, it's a long ways there. You could have a setting that uses many of these elements, which the players already are familiar with because they've read the Player's Handbook, and half the work is done for you.

Sure, you still have to make your adventures, of course. I'm certainly not suggesting that the DMG should limit that. But, now when I come up with a setting for my campaign of "Hunting Dragons" all I have to do is focus on that campaign. I don't have to piss about trying to figure out where halflings came from, or who is the god of dwarves. I have a shared history, that I can use with my campaign and any player who is familiar with 4e will be familiar with my setting.

The same way that any Basic/Expert player would be familiar with Mystara or 1e player would be familiar with Greyhawk.

Really, the only thing missing from 1e is the map. Pretty much everything else is there. I played 1e back in the day. Played most of those modules too, just like, I think, a very large number of 1e players. Verbobonc, Homlet, Orlane, the Duchy of Geoff, were all common names around our table, even before we bought the Greyhawk boxed set.

I fail to see how a shared setting is a bad thing for D&D. Why are players so insistent that everyone who plays must be forced to create their own world, or go out and buy more books?