Isles of the Saharan Sea: Common Creatures...

Good Afternoon, All:

In looking at the World Within, and specifically the inhabitants of the Isles of the Saharan Sea, a number of general thoughts come to mind in regards to potential wilderness encounters.

Prehistoric Creatures
The concept of the World Within is inspired by Edgar Rice Burroughs' Pellucidar series. To pay homage to that, I want to make sure I include creatures from those novels. Because of its timeless nature, and vast surface, myriad creatures from all the ages of the Earth’s prehistory swarm throughout the primeval land of Pellucidar, as well as a few fanciful ones.

Ant Bear (Giant anteater-like ursoid)
Antelope
Archeopteryx
Auroch
Cotylosaur (Captorhinida)
Dinotherium
Diplodocus
Dire Wolf
Giant Ants
Giant Cave Bear
Giant Cave Hyena
Giant Cave Lion
Giant Octopus
Hyenadon
Ichthyosaurus
Labyrinthodon
Mastodon
Megatherium (Giant Ground Sloth)
Phororhacos (Axe beak)
Plesiosaur
Pteradon
Pterosaur
Saber-toothed Tiger (Smilodon)
Snakes
Stegosaurus
Tracodon
Triceratops
Tylosaurus
Tyrannosaur
Woolly Mammoth
Woolly Rhinoceros (Coelodonta)

Humanoids
No fantasy campaign setting seems complete without a list of unusual humanoids to potentially interact with, and the Isles of the Saharan Sea is no different. I've already listed a few previously, and there are some others that I can include from the inspirational material, plus one or two more for good character race choices. I don't want too many, but I think the following should make for a good start.

Denjani (Gnome-like scholar race)
Human
Kelshani (Devil-men or tiefling-esque)
Minotaur (Bovine-men)
Tarthani (Four-armed men)
Vanaran (Monkey-men)
Zegoth (Gorilla-men)

Exotic Creatures
In a world where dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures still exist side by side, there is little need for many of the common supernatural or magical creatures found in the usual campaign settings. There are a few notes to remember:

1. Aberrations: For a very Pulp-oriented feel, I could include those aberrations that bear a strong Cthulhu feel. Since I used them somewhat as a focus in my last campaign, I may skip that, but one or two are sure to make an appearance, just because.


2. Dragons: Dragons in the World Within are not intelligent creatures. Instead, they are feral hoarders with a magpie-like attraction to shiny things. I haven't decided if they have breath weapons. If so, I'm inclined to make them acid breathers.


3. Elementals: Elementals will likely appear only in conjunction with the work of conjurers, or trapped within some of the many dungeons scattered throughout the Isles of the Saharan Sea.


4. Fey: Fey were a big part of my last campaign, so I will likely not include them in this one.


5. Giants: Giants will likely be isolated creatures inhabited the mountains of remote islands.


6. Intelligent Reptiles: One of the premises behind the setting concept is that all intelligent reptiles have vanished suddenly and without reason (well, it's because of the actions of the players in the current campaign, but within the setting, no one will know.) That's why there are no kobolds, serpentfolk, lizardfolk, intelligent dragons, etc. This is a hard and fast rule. No exceptions!


7. Magical Beasts: Beasts of myth and legend aren't as likely to appear in the World Within. Those that do should be few and far between. I want a more pulpy flavor here, not a recycled pseudo-European fantasy feel to the setting.


8. Oozes: A well-placed ooze goes a long way toward setting a creepy tone in an ancient ruin. They're definitely in.


9. Outsiders: Like elementals, outsiders will likely only in conjunction with the work of conjurers and diabolists, or trapped in a dungeon or abandoned tower.


10. Plants: Plant creatures make for awesome encounters in a jungle setting, and so I feel confident I'll be using them a lot.


11. Undead: Undead, particularly zombies and other corporeal unliving creatures, have a strong Pulp feel, and so will have a place in the setting.


12. Vermin: Like plants, giant vermin are also common to pulpy jungle stories. In particular, I'm sure I'll use giant scorpions and giant dragonflies frequently.

These are my thoughts, but I'm open to other suggestions. What do you think of these elements?

With Regards,
Flynn

Thought Exercise: A Psionic Fantasy World...

Good Morning, All:

For those that know me, you are likely aware that I feel that psionics does not have a place in my fantasy games. (As an example of how much I feel psionics does not belong in my campaign worlds, the goddess of dreams and the mind is the one that dies to form the Madlands, as opposed to the Shieldmatron in the Hammersong's Legacy campaign setting I published last year.) My position on the subject is that, for me, psionics is much better as a source of special abilities in sci-fi games, while magic fills the same role in fantasy campaigns. However, I can think of one possible situation in which I'd be okay with the concept: what if psionics were the only source of special abilities in the campaign? Any cleric with "divine gifts" is simply a psion working for a religious organizations. Any mage with "arcane powers" is simply a psion with a ritualistic approach to tapping into his own mental abilities. Such a setting would work well using the Traveller rules, the D20 System rules (such as the Third Dawn Campaign Setting by Dreamscarred Press), or my gaming group's current favorite rules system, Savage Worlds.

With the possibly that, like the less powerful wish spell, the wording of the Rite of Worldly Transformation could potentially be perverted, the fact that it could result in a psionic fantasy world came to mind. In order to prepare for that possibility, I thought I would engage in a thought exercise exploring the concept, and since I'm blogging today, you guys get to come along for the ride.

Character concepts are always a big consideration for me when crafting a new setting, and this would be no different. Since we won't have the traditional roles from a D&D-esque game, my thought is to fall back on the three generic class concept first introduced in 3E Unearthed Arcana: warrior, expert and adept. (This is the same concept that was picked up and expanded by the True 20 system by Green Ronin.

The role of warriors in such a setting would not change dramatically. You'd still have knights, soldiers, gladiators, swashbucklers, woodsman, etc., none of which would be impacted by the lack of magic or the presence of psionics. Class concepts that touched on magic (such as the fighting man/magic-user concept behind the sorcerer or the fighting man/cleric concept behind the crusader in Hammersong's Legacy) would have to be changed in light of the presence of psionics (perhaps a warrior/adept concept inspired by the Jedi of Star Wars fame, or the more mystical monk class from 1E and 3E).

Experts would also be unchanged, such as rogues, sages, assassins, and aristocrats, as they are largely uninvolved with magic. Again, multi-class concepts such as seekers (a rogue/cleric) or dungeoneers (the rogue/magic-user class from Hammersong's Legacy) would have to be modified or redesigned, replacing magical power with psionics (and I don't have any examples of this, so I'd likely spend some time coming up with ideas here.)

Adepts, or psions, would be what gives such a setting its more unique flavors. Looking at the classic types of psionic powers defined in roleplaying games, we can see a number of potential roles emerge. Those talented in clairsentience would like fill the same roles as diviners and oracles within the culture of our psionic world. The psychokinetic or telekinetic types serve in much the same manner as force mages, and with some cultural emphasis, I'd probably make them my go-to specialization for a warmage role, as they replace the damage capacity of evokers. Psions specializing in psychoportation or teleportation would probably create a cultural role that promotes high speed movement and transportation. Psychoportive cat burglars are also a good concept for mystical rogue types (hmmm, sounds like my first volunteer for an expert/adept multi-class concept). Telepathic psions would replace enchanters and interrogators in the world. Empathic healers would provide healing and some of the basics previously given by clerics. I'm sure that, depending on the system and the list of powers I made available to psions, I could come up with other specializations, and that's without even considering 3E core classes and prestige classes for additional concepts for potential addition.

The monsters of the setting would lose any obviously magical abilities that did not duplicate psionics, unless a psionic equivalent could be found. (For example, creatures that turn a foe to stone may instead simply paralyze them or stun them into unconsciousness.) This would lend itself well to a subtle shift in flavor that would make for distinctive gaming experiences, and emphasize the new setting. That's always a big plus in my book.

Races would not need to change as much. If they did, I'd be more for limiting them to human and possibly a few psionic races instead of keeping the wide plethora of races available that would be found in a magical fantasy world. Then again, you could always just get rid of the more magical races and replace them with a psionic equivalent.

Okay, by running through this basic thought exercise, I can now envision a fantasy game using psionics instead of magic, and I think I could be happy with that. It has enough diversity to let me players find enjoyment with it, and yet there's enough similarities to previous gaming experiences that the concepts aren't alien to them. That promotes connections and provides springboards for expanding on the gaming experience of the players. I wouldn't have to worry about the typically unbalanced nature of psionics versus magic found under most rules systems, and it's something I could port over into a science fiction campaign if I wanted to use it later.

Yes, This Has Potential,
Flynn

Lessons Learned: The Hyborian Age...

Good Afternoon, All:

For Christmas, my grandmother gave me two audiobooks from Tantor Media, being the second and third books of Robert E. Howard's Conan novels. I have a forty-minute to an hour's commute each way to work, and I find that the audiobooks really help entertain me during that time. I also get a lot of inspiration from the Conan stories, from world-building to specific adventure ideas.

One of the elements of Howard's stories that intrigues me the most as a GM is the concept behind his Hyborian Age setting. Essentially, for those that may not know, Howard loved writing historical fiction, but back in the early 30's, researching for historical accuracy was extremely time-consuming. This was during the Great Depression, and survival was more important that doing what he loved, so Howard found himself in a situation where he needed money in order to pay for his living expenses. Since historic fiction didn't sell as well and it took so long to research and write, he created a setting called the Hyborian Age, which he filled with parallels to Earth cultures, and ran with it. Since they were ostensibly fictional creations, historical accuracy wasn't required, yet there was enough of a historical feel to the setting that he could write about the things he loved, changing a few details here and there, and actually make money at it. Obviously, he was quite successful in his efforts, since the Conan stories have been reprinted in many different languages and sold in many countries around the world.

Many fantasy campaign settings published over the years have taken advantage of the same conceit that Howard used with his Hyborian Age. Mystara and the Known World is perhaps the most blatant about using fantasy analogs of historic time periods on Earth, but each of the major settings published for D&D prior to 2nd Edition took advantage of this concept. The Forgotten Realms have a number of locations that owe their conception to a corresponding Earth culture, as does Greyhawk. Kara Tur, Maztica and Al'Qadim are all based on specific Earth cultures. Obviously, Dark Sun and Planescape are more exceptions than the rule here. Paizo's Golarion follows this same concept in a number of their world's kingdoms, as do the lands of Goodman Game's Aereth (aka the Known Realms).

Obviously, the fact that these settings sell so well encourages other publishers to create their own, often in the image of "that which came before." Whether you use a published setting or create your own, using historic culture correspondences can be a Good Thing™. The benefits of such include:

• It's easier for your players to imagine and conceptualize the desired flavor of a given region without providing an excessive amount of detail, which may well be ignored by players anyway if they don't want to absorb all that before they begin gaming in your world.
• You can draw inspiration from the mythology, history and culture of the corresponding Earth culture, and simply change the names to fit your world.
• In preparing documentation on your world, you can cut and paste online articles, again changing the names to fit your world, and thus save yourself in prep time.
• Naming standards are much simpler to communicate, and a great number of baby naming sites provide example names and their meanings for both PCs and NPCs.
• Because it's a fantasy analog, you don't have to slavishly devote yourself to replicating that Earth culture in your world (unless, of course, your campaign is set in a given historic time period on Earth). No one should give you a hard time because the Keshites don't hold cats in the same sacred regard as their corresponding Egyptian culture. It's a lot easier to note the differences between your world's region and your source of inspiration than it is to try and capture each kingdom as a unique entity standing alone.
• You can take advantage of the mythology of the inspiring Earth culture to add great flavor to your own pantheon, or even use the Earth culture's pantheon outright, whether you change the names or not.
• It worked for Robert E. Howard, and you're building on his tradition, paying homage to the masters that gave us the genre we now game in.
• Even if someone says that they don't like using Earth analogs and want to see something original, they'll play in a setting with Earth analogs. People who prefer Earth analogs prefer to simply game and don't like having to absorb a bunch of setting material just to play a game, and aren't likely to play in a totally unique and unusual setting. I personally recommend making the choice that gets you more gamers to choose from. Even if only one of the regions of your world is based on an Earth analog (such as medieval England and/or northern Europe, as fantasy settings tend to be), you have a place for those people that just want to game without having to pass a test first.

If you're looking for inspiration for a campaign world you're developing, the wikipedia entry on the Hyborian Age is a great place to start. There, you can find a list of the different cultures that Howard thought made for interesting adventure locales. You definitely don't have to use all of them, and you may find other cultures not on the list that are fascinating to you. However, you really can't go wrong by looking the list over and picking and choosing the ones that sound good to you. After all, if you like them, chances are that someone else will enjoy gaming in those cultures as well.

And that's my Lesson Learned for today.

Enjoy,
Flynn

The Concept of the Elusive "Perfect Milieu"...

Good Evening, All:

Have there ever been times where you just wanted to start all over with a new campaign setting, hoping that this time around, it captures everything you've been looking for in a game world? I find that I'm always suffering from that nagging quest for the elusive "perfect milieu", that one setting that will hold me over for the rest of my gaming days, the ultimate expression of my GMing mastery and creative outlets. I am constantly amazed that other gamers on the net have such a world, one to which they are devoted, and which reflects the totality of their creative efforts. I can't ever seem to capture my thoughts adequately without need to make changes, and yet I see that there are those that either got it right the first time, or have no qualms with making changes in midstream, so to speak.

I suppose that some of this stems from shifting creative foci on my part as well, my gamer’s "ADD", if you will. Most of the time, I tend to run a straight Vanilla Fantasy setting, and strive to make my campaign backgrounds distinctive, flavorful and involving. The secret to presenting such a setting lies in the details, of course. However, as the campaign progresses onward, I almost always find something lacking in the worlds I've created. Maybe it's details about the pantheons, or perhaps the relationship of polities to one another. Sometimes the geography just doesn't excite me after a while, and sometimes I feel like I've painted myself into a corner with a particular campaign plot arc, leaving me with nowhere to go (that I would enjoy running, at least with the gamers I have at the time) after the arc has run its course.

I’m also torn between the kind of world I’d like to design compared to the kind of world that will attract other gamers. I love worlds that tap into the same flavor as the Sword & Sorcery or Sword & Planet literary genres, a world of pulpy high adventure. However, I find that it’s often hard to find gamers that are interested in playing in such a world. Most gamers appear to want the High Magic worlds currently popularized by Wizards of the Coast and other such publishers, and so tend to dislike the "low magic, high action" feel of the worlds I would really enjoy designing and running. I suppose that I probably should stop calling my games fantasy games, and instead call them adventure/pulp games set in a fantasy world. I wonder if that would get me more players that would enjoy the same experiences. Obviously, the tensions of balancing a milieu my players would enjoy with a campaign setting I personally would find most rewarding form a part of that sense of dissatisfaction and elusiveness.

That’s one of the reasons I’m always working on other campaign ideas, such as the World Within. If this is going to be a world I design for myself and that’s all, then I’m going to make it as "low magic, high action" as I can. If I never get to play in the setting because it’s just too different for most casual gamers, so be it. I can always continue to run a "high magic" setting for the players to keep them happy, and shift my work over from one to the other as I find the ideas useful.

Do any of you have similar issues with your campaign world designs over time? Do you have a single world you run your campaigns in, or does each campaign also require a new campaign world? What do you like in your campaigns, either as a GM or as a player?

With Regards,
Flynn

GM Mentoring: Stealing Your Campaign World, One Element At A Time...

Good Evening:

Today, I received the Blackmoor bundle from Tanga.com, which included two 3E books and a 4E book, all focused on this ancient realm of adventure and nostalgia. I've never played in Blackmoor, and were it not for the OSR, I wouldn't even have any interest in learning about it. Now that I have the books, though, I look forward to seeing what I can pick up about the setting itself.

I like to collect settings. I have probably ten different fantasy campaign settings, if not more, on my gaming shelves, including many of the popular and common ones: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Kingdom of Kalamar, Dawnforge, Scarred Lands, Krynn, Athas, Majestic Wilderlands, World of Onn, the Diamond Throne, the Role-Aids' Demons Campaign Setting and so on. I don't have Eberron, but that's because I didn't find anything in the announcements of it that pulled at my interests. Blackmoor now joins the list.

As a tinkerer and a Game Master, I have no qualms about stealing ideas and inspiration from multiple sources. Given that the core gaming experience of Old School adventuring is the dungeon that didn't always have to make sense, with disparate neighbors next door to one another sometimes without rhyme or reason, there's no shame in doing the same with your own campaign world. You can be particular bold in stealing the ideas you like best, and use the names as they appear in the original setting. Alternately, you can be somewhat slick about it, change the names to protect the innocent, and put them in your game world. Even if it doesn't start off making sense, over time, you or your players will come up with reasons for these elements to come together. You will explore that interaction over the course of numerous adventures, and when all is said and done, the end result will blend together in a most unusual and personal manner. In essence, you will synthesize this amalgam of ideas and inspiration into a unique and distinctive whole, particularly if you are okay with changing the details from the original source to meet your own needs as your campaign evolves.

For example, perhaps you like the concept of half-giants from Dark Sun's Athas, so you take the overall concept, tailor the game mechanics to reflect your setting, and make a place for them inside your game. Perhaps the concept of the Red Wizards of Thay intrigues you. If so, you could tailor them to your setting, calling the the Emerald Magelords of Arn, and create embassies in various surrounding regions as the Magelords attempt to spread their influence. Maybe you like the Moathouse from the T1 module, and so you bring it over almost whole cloth from Greyhawk into your own world. You might build a pantheon for your world from the deities of four or five different and disparate campaigns, simply because you like the flavor of each priesthood. The possibilities are endless.

Whatever you come up with, so long as it is fun for you and for your players, is perfectly okay. In fact, even if your entire campaign is stolen piecemeal from multiple other settings, the end result becomes yours, and takes on a life all its own. For the working GM operating under a time crunch, there's absolutely no shame at all in pulling together this kind of world. It can help with addressing Gamer ADD, since you can explore the exciting elements of new game worlds within your own campaign framework, and add to your creation with other ideas and other settings as the players explore and expand their adventuring possibilities.

So, how many of you have done this? Or barring that, how many have played in campaign worlds like this? What was your experience like?

With Regards,
Flynn