Quote from: AkrasiaThis is incorrect.  They're not identical.

The PG has information on gods, races, cultures, etc. that cannot be found in the box set.  Moreover, the PG has 'recent history' which (strangely) wasn't included in the box set (the history in the box set stops at a certain point, and instructs the reader to go to the history in the PG).

Sorry. I was referring specifically to the Gazeteer portion, with descriptions of the major landscapes and cities.

You're right that the history portions are separate, and that the boxed set has no info on gods, races & so on.

(The gods portion is another part that kinda bugs me.  I really wish even a little overview like "The chief gods of Viridistan and its environs are...." for each major locale.  Again, that's just me.

-O

Quote from: estarThe big problem of the project was that it was so huge that I think that work of multiple authors wasn't really integrated. So you will that the southern edge of Map 5 have adventures in common with Map 8 because I wrote them.  But you will see that Map 4 and Map 7 don't reference anything on Map 5 and Map 8. Map 4 and Map 7 were written by other authors.

....

The limitations of the printed page. This type of project is born for  a wiki, or a html help or even just a search able PDF. Of course a Index could be made but it would be a monster. The only solution is to convince Necromancer and Bob Bledsaw to make a wiki out of the Boxed Set.

First you are absolutely right summaries would be useful nearly vital in fact. Real-world limitation prevented that. This project had a ton of real world limitations because of it huge size. It cost a lot to print and a ton of time to edit. I don't like resort to "You should be glad it was printed in the form it was." but that is really the case.

Oh, I gotcha.  I completely understand the limitations & the fact that it was written by multiple folks.  (I wish I could say I had more familiarity with your sections - right now the party is around Viridistan and have been for a while.  That may change soon, though.)

I'm just airing the pleasures and pains that I've run into with the box set.  There are parts that are a breeze to run and integrate, and parts which simply aren't due to the nature of the product.  Most of my issues are structural, not content.

I agree 100% that this is a project that's born to be a wiki.

Quotevillagers should know.  Sometimes this is done well, sometimes it's not.

Yep, that's what I found, too.  For example, I started in Smale.  It says right off the bat what's going on up the road.  Head up the road, and it lets you know a little about Yakin Ley and the relations there.

QuoteIn my mind the ultimate goal of the original product was to save the GM prep time in creating a campaign world. As a consequence of its format it allowed for a very free exploration style of play. If the boxed set does the same for you and other newer players then we done our job.


Enjoy
Rob Conley

That it does.  And you & the folks who worked on it should be commended.  As I mentioned, I whole-heartedly recommend it.  It's just that it's got some warts, due to the structure and the limitations inherent in its format.

I think really my only complaint with content rather than structure was that the Valley of the Ancients (Map 3) seems kinda ... I dunno ... mundane, I guess.  With the kickass ancient history, I expected lots of destroyed citadels, ancient bunkers, and lost civilizations.  I was sad when it was pretty much just kinda ... there.  Not a single abandoned markrab citadel to be found on the key.  I mean, on the plus side, I can always add that kind of stuff.  On the downside, I like it when a setting at least starts the process for me so I can wing it with more flair.

-O

Quote from: estarMy major initial contribution was to show how something like the Wilderlands boxed set could be done. I made the Rorystone Road Preview that is on the Necromancers and showed it everyone. Clark liked the format and decided that the boxed set was feasible after all. Because of my writing I was assigned to do the central maps (5, 8, north 12)

The rest of us had the basics of the Player's Guild when we started writing our sections of the Wilderlands. I can't speak for the other authors but for myself I looked at the original data and wrote all new material. Some of my own Majestic Wilderlands is in there as long as some easter eggs based on my decade long work with the Nero LARP. But it is all new stuff.

My specific technique is what I call a spreading inkblot. I pick X to be some interesting location and plot. Then when I write a nearby community I integrate X into that description as well. The further the community was from X the less chance X would play a part in it. When I was done I felt I had a mosaic of plots that a group could experience as they travel through the map. These plots were kept very local except for a handful that were part of the player's guild and history (City-State, Viridstan, etc).

Rob Conley

Like Rob, I can only speak for myself (there were a lot of us writing for the big box!), but my work was much less methodical. Although I inserted a degree of coherence into the regions as well as individual citadel/town entries, these are usually very subtle hints many readers may not even pick up. I believe this is so because I wasn't running a coherent Wilderlands campaign like Rob has done for so long, but a very chaotic one based on a lot of improvisation, where action is driven by individual "this is cool! Let's do it!" decisions and any explanation comes afterwards. It is a different design philosophy. Of course, I also worked more on ruins, lairs and geographical entries than human settlements (I did edit/add to Rob's Altanis writeups, though).

And all of it is "up to the Judge", anyway. Although I don't oppose a Wiki or other project, nor threads about society, moons, what have you, but I don't wish to participate in them either: they are outside my sphere of interests, that is all.

Quote from: obrynI think really my only complaint with content rather than structure was that the Valley of the Ancients (Map 3) seems kinda ... I dunno ... mundane, I guess.  With the kickass ancient history, I expected lots of destroyed citadels, ancient bunkers, and lost civilizations.  I was sad when it was pretty much just kinda ... there.  Not a single abandoned markrab citadel to be found on the key.  I mean, on the plus side, I can always add that kind of stuff.  On the downside, I like it when a setting at least starts the process for me so I can wing it with more flair.

Yes. But here is one thing: gamers today don't really want that. You may like this development or you may dislike it, but most gamers don't like unexpected stuff in their fantasy; they want it to be identifiable, familiar, even for "old school" games whose originals were very freewheeling... So you get freewheeling, but not really freewheeling, because you are working to emulate someone else's freewheeling games from 1970. This is a tough nut to crack, and one of the dilemmas that has been haunting me about the Wilderlands, or running "old school" D&D type games in general.

Back on topic, if gamers see elves and dragons, they don't want lasers, flying saucers, balrogs in power armour or giant colourful blobs prowling the countryside and devouring everything mixed into it. So the lasers stayed in the background; I think the designer in charge of the majority of the text for Valley of the Ancients, Greg Geilman, didn't like them too much. I am not sure Clark Peterson does either. Different people, different strokes. My opinions are well known, and can be seen in full glory in Systema Tartarobasis if anyone is interested.

QuoteSo you get freewheeling, but not really freewheeling, because you are working to emulate someone else's freewheeling games from 1970.

This is also the reason why I´m not totally happy with the "old school" praise around here.

My MT campaign for example, used every modern source I wanted. And the Tech and mood was not 70ies retro image of golden age sci-fi.

These days are over, and now is my time, not Old Geezers (drop in any retro Guru you like), nor someone elses.

I´m pretty fed up with all those "only these old books [brown books, RC, LBB1-3, Moldvay/Cook etc. ad nauseam], nothing more" so popular with some people.

Add to that my suspicion,that these "only-these-books" fundamentalists aren´t actually having a lots of ongoing campaigns with their setups.

I embrace the now & the future and live in it, as I see fit.

Quote from: MelanBack on topic, if gamers see elves and dragons, they don't want lasers, flying saucers, balrogs in power armour or giant colourful blobs prowling the countryside and devouring everything mixed into it. So the lasers stayed in the background; I think the designer in charge of the majority of the text for Valley of the Ancients, Greg Geilman, didn't like them too much. I am not sure Clark Peterson does either. Different people, different strokes. My opinions are well known, and can be seen in full glory in Systema Tartarobasis if anyone is interested.

That's all well and good - and I know that a lot of folks nowadays aren't huge fans of science fantasy.  However, Wilderlands dipped its toe in with the long & detailed science-fantasy prehistory, and if a billion and one skin colors aren't kind of wacky, nothing is.

I guess what I'm saying is that, starting in on Wilderlands, I was skeptical of the whole sci-fi link.  However, the history in the box set really sold me on it.  Sure, it was crazy, but it did bring me back a little to the days when I could read about Blackmoor and whatnot and think, "Wow, that's kinda cool!"

It was just kind of a tease, you know?  "Oooh, the Valley of the Ancients is where a lot of ancient citadels are!  It's the site of the oldest habitations on the planet!"  And then, there aren't any ancient citadels to be found anywhere.

-O

Quote from: SettembriniThis is also the reason why I´m not totally happy with the "old school" praise around here.

My MT campaign for example, used every modern source I wanted. And the Tech and mood was not 70ies retro image of golden age sci-fi.

Old School isn't just about 70's fantasy or sci-fi. It also about attitude toward the game. I would say the attitude more than the genre trappings are more important. For me old school attitude are summed in sayings like "The rules are the rules and bind both GM and players." "Both GM and players accept the result of the dice." etc.

Quote from: SettembriniThese days are over, and now is my time, not Old Geezers (drop in any retro Guru you like), nor someone elses.

I´m pretty fed up with all those "only these old books [brown books, RC, LBB1-3, Moldvay/Cook etc. ad nauseam], nothing more" so popular with some people.

Frankly for me I like GURPS, Heroes and other well designed rules-heavy RPGs. I respect the spirit of Original D&D but as an actual game it is pretty damn boring to me. "You turn, roll a 20, hit (or miss), roll damage."

However with that being said, it really depends on the quality of the GM. Doesn't matter how heavy or light a rule set, how poor or good it is. The GM makes or breaks the game. Some GMs I been with made simplistic ruleset really fun other well not so fun.

Quote from: SettembriniAdd to that my suspicion,that these "only-these-books" fundamentalists aren´t actually having a lots of ongoing campaigns with their setups.

I embrace the now & the future and live in it, as I see fit.

The fallacy that somehow it is important that OD&D is not the future. The only RPG that is the "future" is the one the big boy, TSR/WoTC/Hasbro, is pushing. (A corollary to the point that Pundit keeps trying to make). And that only because of market share and really of importance to people involved the RPG business. (because their company and/or livelhood can be wrecked with the wrong choices).

Unlike a computer game a RPG Book isn't obsoleted when a new game comes out. It is as playable as the day it came out. (or unplayable as the case may be). So there are many groups that continued to play X even when Y was released. I ran into a AD&D game that was running back in 2002 when 3rd edition was in the midst of the boom.

However the big problem with old games that you new players can't buy the books. Now with the internet that no longer true. People playing old games can now not only find each other but have the newer players buy the rules to play the game.

The only limitation now is the general limitation of the internet. Not everyone is using it yet and there a large population still unconnected.

I write old school stuff because a) It was the opportunity I was given b) It is what I will get paid for and c) I respect what it means to its players and thus it seems they find my stuff fun to use and play.

Oh, estar, you don´t have to convince me of the merits of old school stuff.

But there´s a difference between cherishing older design paradigms and fetishizing them.
I´m only speaking against the latter.

Quote from: SettembriniBut there´s a difference between cherishing older design paradigms and fetishizing them.
I´m only speaking against the latter.

Ok I understand now. I don't like extreme behavior myself. We play games, they have merits and downsides and just play something that is fun.