Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Mythmere wrote:I haven't read the Petal Throne one, and I bet it's more along the lines of what I'd like to see. Don't care about stats, but I'm ALL ready to read about cool rituals, magic items associated with worshippers, etc. Give me stuff to use as ideas.

I own that one, entitled Mitlanyal. As with all of Barker's Tekumelani stuff, it takes things to a whole other level.

With 231 pages, Mitlanyal gives an overview of the Empire of the Petal Throne (the empire, not the game) as well as detailing the cults of the 20 deities worshipped by the Tsolyani (i. e., the inhabitants of the Empire of the Petal Throne). Let's touch on the section on Dlamelish, the Obsidian Princess of Lubricious Delights. All (and more) of the following are described:

nature of the goddess

the outer doctrines of the cult, including color, symbol, astrology, numerology, costume, rituals, ritual items, The Doctrine of Endless Pleasure, the undead, sacrifice, death rituals, the afterlife, history, and legend

the inner (esoteric) doctrines of the cult, including the soul and rituals

temple layout

secular activities of the cult, including businesses, public works and services

cities of broad influence

politics, including factions within the cult, temple alliances, relations with those outside the cult

military legions of the cult

clans devoted to the cult

notable persons devoted to the cult

holidays

details on 20 of Dlamelish's 101 aspects (i. e., Choya: The Goddess of Lascivious Music and Drinking; Viosena of the Pleasures of Fragrance, etc.)

demons devoted to Dlamelish

magic of the cult

a short (one page) piece of fiction illustrating the cult

All of the above about Dlamelish is contained in 12 double-column pages of dense text. Each of the 20 gods is similarly treated, all without a gaming stat anywhere.

I use a divine structure taken from classic Runequest/Glorantha. The gods derive their power from the worship of their followers. The more worshippers, the more power and influence the god has. Gods without worshippers eventually fade away, forgotten. On the other hand, an evil cult can revive a "dead" god through human sacrifice (the most efficient way of delivering power to a god). Because the importance of a god is related to it's human worshippers, it puts the focus on the Prime as there is a direct effect of two god-cults going to war with each other, instead of gods and their woshippers existing independently of one another.

As to the Dieties & Demigods book, I don't see how a book that is so easily ignored can possibly be a net negative. It is way less intrusive on a DM than the drawing of the "Great Wheel" cosmology which is stuck in the freakin' Players Handbook.

hedgehobbit wrote:I use a divine structure taken from classic Runequest/Glorantha. The gods derive their power from the worship of their followers. The more worshippers, the more power and influence the god has. Gods without worshippers eventually fade away, forgotten. On the other hand, an evil cult can revive a "dead" god through human sacrifice (the most efficient way of delivering power to a god). Because the importance of a god is related to it's human worshippers, it puts the focus on the Prime as there is a direct effect of two god-cults going to war with each other, instead of gods and their woshippers existing independently of one another.

I really really really like this. I may have to adopt

- Wheggi

Hedgehobbit wrote:<snip>...As to the Dieties & Demigods book, I don't see how a book that is so easily ignored can possibly be a net negative. It is way less intrusive on a DM than the drawing of the "Great Wheel" cosmology which is stuck in the freakin' Players Handbook.

Agreed.
If I was introducing a new player to 1e, I would give them a copy of the PHB with the appendices
ripped out!

Ragnorakk wrote:

Hedgehobbit wrote:<snip>...As to the Dieties & Demigods book, I don't see how a book that is so easily ignored can possibly be a net negative. It is way less intrusive on a DM than the drawing of the "Great Wheel" cosmology which is stuck in the freakin' Players Handbook.

Agreed.
If I was introducing a new player to 1e, I would give them a copy of the PHB with the appendices
ripped out!

The wheel is part of the rules system, it relates directly to every magic casting class (whats the source of power etc.). It also relates to a good number of the monsters, where DMs might have PCs travel to etc. Its very basic and no detail is provided as to what those places are like or who occupies them in any detail. It isn't a deal breaker to ignore it, but it does help the DM if he wants it. DDGs damage was one of pollution. It polluted the minds of the players who then said to their DM happy doing his own thing "how does this god relate to me or these orc or what have you. It made the DM who had his own ideas of cosmology, maybe even a few gods made up, question their own creation, maybe even shelve them (we did). It put cosmology front and center where it wasn't a blip before. It tended to shift the focus for the player, who wanted to relate to it. Problem was the game isn't about "whats out there" its about whats in front of you, the wall with spiderwebs obscuring that door, and the faint smell sour smell of vomit coming from the other side.

The Great Wheel and Co. should have been an Appendix to the DMG, not the PHB, along with advice on how to modify its core assumptions and the effect it would have on various aspects of the game, such as spell casting and effects.

I agree that it's important to the game, and that interested players should have ways to find out what's going on with the planes - it's the inclusion in the player's book that ended up getting under my skin. It's just not the kind of thing I want 1st level fighters to even have a vague clue about (the true structure and nature of reality?) Maybe not a complete absence of information regarding the planes, but something less comprehensive.

Say the prime, far planets and stars, alternate primes, elemental, positive and negative, this is about as far as I'd want to stretch for "common knowledge". The distinction between the Astral and Ethereal planes is the kind of thing I'd rather not be known to players until their characters learn the differences themselves, talk to sages, demons, etc. The gods I'm working on these days are mostly in prime material planes so far, or very 'near',

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand its clearly DM territory. On the other I like players being able to grasp that this is really a big f..ing place. Not only is their your own world but many many others. It makes the average player say "wow one day I want to travel to the astral plane" or what have you. Its a benchmark for players to aim for. It provides a purpose to keep playing the game. It tells the player "stick in there with D&D and you'll eventually see places you couldn't even dream of". That circle is the beginning of the yellow brick road (of the imagination), so to speak.

AxeMental wrote:
The wheel is part of the rules system, it relates directly to every magic casting class (whats the source of power etc.). It also relates to a good number of the monsters, where DMs might have PCs travel to etc. Its very basic and no detail is provided as to what those places are like or who occupies them in any detail. It isn't a deal breaker to ignore it, but it does help the DM if he wants it. DDGs damage was one of pollution. It polluted the minds of the players who then said to their DM happy doing his own thing "how does this god relate to me or these orc or what have you. It made the DM who had his own ideas of cosmology, maybe even a few gods made up, question their own creation, maybe even shelve them (we did). It put cosmology front and center where it wasn't a blip before. It tended to shift the focus for the player, who wanted to relate to it. Problem was the game isn't about "whats out there" its about whats in front of you, the wall with spiderwebs obscuring that door, and the faint smell sour smell of vomit coming from the other side.

That's total BS, Axe. The wheel is just as much pollution as the DDG, for the same reasons you describe -- it's just that the DDG is more so. Why not just a heaven and hell? Why not a stack of planes like in the Reluctant Demon (or whatever that L. Sprague DeCamp novel was)? Why not a whirling set of bubble-dimensions like in Trampier's illustration from Wormy? The wheel is certainly usable, but it restricts the cosmology just as much as the DDG.

You're saying that the thing in the rules was perceived as optional, but that the thing in the supplement was perceived as dogma. No way. You're really reaching to find a criticism there.

The problem wasn't that the DDG was restrictive. The problem was that the DDG sucked. It's fine to include a fairly well-written, evocative, original, and SHORT cosmology in the rules (the Wheel). But the DDG failed (except on Melnibone, Lovecraft, and Leiber) on all counts. Not well-written, not evocative, not original.

Mythmere wrote:It's fine to include a fairly well-written, evocative, original, and SHORT cosmology in the rules (the Wheel). But the DDG failed (except on Melnibone, Lovecraft, and Leiber) on all counts. Not well-written, not evocative, not original.

And why shouldn't such a volume include deities & pantheons familiar to its users from their mythology classes (and from other books they had read)?

Why not giver them something they didn't have to learn... something they already knew the basics of, but which was diverse enough to allow lots of options & variations for players & DMs to experiment with?

Why give them only something completely unfamiliar, then even the DMs have to learn about & figure out how to use?


The whole purpose of the D&DG was integral to the purpose of AD&D... to provide a unified structure for both convention tournaments and the growing number of players that (like those of us in the military or at college) expected to change gaming groups frequently, and who needed a structure that allowed them to move from gaming group to gaming group without having to learn a whole new set of house-rules, deities, etc.

D&DG provided deities you didn't need to learn "from scratch".

Well, I agree the Cosmology Circle (or whatever you want to call it in the PH) limits (at the same time as it opens up a wider existance). But then again its a glue that makes it "one game" and delivers a sense of unity between tables (one of the goals of AD&D vs OD&D). AD&D isn't meant to be that adaptable. Unlike 0E it has its limits in that way. Also, keep in mind the circle is skeletal waiting for the DM to give it flesh and palor. Frankly its anyones guess as to what the hell any of these places look like (at least at the time of the three core books). The circle also suggests what Gygax had in mind for his multiplanar structure used at his own table, another goal of "Advanced" (I realize not all of you guys can handle adult D&D...thats OK you can watch. ).

And I still hold to this point: when you start reading monster descriptions and you see "this thing comes from the plane of x or that creature gains its powers from y -the circle is helpful to see in a very basic layout to make sense of it all. And, as I stated previously, in the PH it gives the players goals to reach. When they get sick of treasure and killing in a traditional way they can put down their picks and cave lamps, pack their bags and head out into the void -"dream weavers" journeying in that trippy 70s Gary Wright kinda way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hdx9Jjz ... xt_from=ML

-Fly me high through the starry skies
Maybe to an astral plane
Cross the highways of fantasy
Help me to forget today's pain-


You know Myth, I don't see it any more limiting then any other rule in the game. Look at the alignment layout for instance, its just one specific way picked at random to define behavior and character. Is the AD&D alignment system imiting to the DM? Sure, but it made the game more specific, it gave unity and definition....and boundaries, are after all, what define a thing..we are playing a specific game that stays consistant, not Royal Fizzbin, and not 0E.

I sense your closer tie to the 0E system, a desire to flex your creative muscle to a greater degree then what 1E supports? Thats why there are different games, to accomidate different players. But good luck going from table to table in OE expecting the same experiance (having similar planar structure is something one should expect in 1E (and its important when you have mid to high level PCs routinely exploring these places), I mean one table with only heaven and hell vs something as complex as the wheel.....come the freak'n hell on.....

DM-"ohhhh, no you can't go to the elemental plane of water, it doesn't exist, see its just heaven and hell"!
Player: "but wait, our last DM had us leave off where we are in the elemental plane of water". DM: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" -no thank you. I prefer 1E for a reason. Its not only a better rules system then 0E IMO, its a cool broadly layed out, setting. Gygax had good enough sense to realize unity was needed, and good enough taste to supply a world more interesting then most of us could come up with on our own....that was one of his gifts. 1E supplies more complexity and nails things down a bit, and if that means giving up some creativity, so be it. Plus you can always whimp out and home brew it.

I agree with you though, the DDG was more destructive because it was porely done, not that the general idea was bad. If done with care (like a monster manual of the bizzare) it could be a great asset.

AxeMental wrote:DM-"ohhhh, no you can't go to the elemental plane of water, it doesn't exist, see its just heaven and hell"!
Player: "but wait, our last DM had us leave off where we are in the elemental plane of water". DM: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

How is this any different from:

Player: My cleric worships Thor.
DM:There is no Thor in my game world.
Player: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


The fact is that any statement you can make about the unifying aspects of the Great Wheel can be made just as easily about D&DG.

BlackBat242 wrote:

Mythmere wrote:It's fine to include a fairly well-written, evocative, original, and SHORT cosmology in the rules (the Wheel). But the DDG failed (except on Melnibone, Lovecraft, and Leiber) on all counts. Not well-written, not evocative, not original.

And why shouldn't such a volume include deities & pantheons familiar to its users from their mythology classes (and from other books they had read)?

Why not giver them something they didn't have to learn... something they already knew the basics of, but which was diverse enough to allow lots of options & variations for players & DMs to experiment with?

Why give them only something completely unfamiliar, then even the DMs have to learn about & figure out how to use?


The whole purpose of the D&DG was integral to the purpose of AD&D... to provide a unified structure for both convention tournaments and the growing number of players that (like those of us in the military or at college) expected to change gaming groups frequently, and who needed a structure that allowed them to move from gaming group to gaming group without having to learn a whole new set of house-rules, deities, etc.

D&DG provided deities you didn't need to learn "from scratch".

Umm ... valid point, you're right. Although the presentation - with this as the goal - wasn't very good.

Hedgehobbit wrote:

AxeMental wrote:DM-"ohhhh, no you can't go to the elemental plane of water, it doesn't exist, see its just heaven and hell"!
Player: "but wait, our last DM had us leave off where we are in the elemental plane of water". DM: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

How is this any different from:

Player: My cleric worships Thor.
DM:There is no Thor in my game world.
Player: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


The fact is that any statement you can make about the unifying aspects of the Great Wheel can be made just as easily about D&DG.

Its not. But remember ones a set of physical (or real) places you can go to and adventure in (some modules have PCs doing just that) and per the rules such travel is allowable. Its a game element.

If Gygax had thought it important enough to have Thor as part of his "glue" or game definition he would have included it. Like any rule you can choose to ignore it or add to it (look at the variety of ways to play checkers for instance). But we all know the rules that define what traditional checkers is (and the same is true for "traditional 1E").

But hey, if the DMs world isn't a duplicate of the circle, its not like anyone at the table would likely ever know or care. And a little variation between DMs is refreshing. But we have to agree there is an objective written down base we move away from. I for one don't think much about the circle (it just doesn't come up much or interest me a great deal), I couldn't even draw it out from memory at the moment. But its there, like WSF if I want it or need it I know where to find it. Plus it tells me if nothing else, "hey in this game theres supposed to be more then just heaven and hell". It helps to set the stage.

Wheggi wrote:

hedgehobbit wrote:I use a divine structure taken from classic Runequest/Glorantha. The gods derive their power from the worship of their followers. The more worshippers, the more power and influence the god has. Gods without worshippers eventually fade away, forgotten. On the other hand, an evil cult can revive a "dead" god through human sacrifice (the most efficient way of delivering power to a god). Because the importance of a god is related to it's human worshippers, it puts the focus on the Prime as there is a direct effect of two god-cults going to war with each other, instead of gods and their woshippers existing independently of one another.

I really really really like this. I may have to adopt

- Wheggi

Uh-oh - Wheggi's talking about adopting a system that was a core principal of 2E forgotten realms.

(ducks and waits for the world to end)