tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post6826811308721573003..comments2024-03-29T07:58:31.156-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: REVIEW: Adventure Games Journal, Issue #1James Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-71089111958424711912009-09-30T19:45:15.251-04:002009-09-30T19:45:15.251-04:00This is even better thread necromancy! I just boug...This is even better thread necromancy! I just bought AGJ 1, and was curious to read reviews. I've just breezed through it, read this review, and the author's response. I find the product interesting to read, and I may use some of it. But I have mixed feelings about it, and that's due to the "canon" issue. While I've changed material myself, and pretty much make changes to anything I use, I think (and have experienced as a player myself) that some players go into a campaign wanting to experience the canon setting, or canon famous module, or whatever. Certainly a game master can do what they want, but you're dealing with a "customer base" and its expectations. That having been said, I look at the Wilderlands campaign as a whole. Various other JG products weren't connected to it, for instance, Frontier Forts of Kelnore. I have no desire to stick Kelnore into the campaign, and don't feel compelled to, since it wasn't presented that way. Now as a player and DM of JG products since the late 70's, I confess that I get a little bent when I see some things that have been subsequently "assigned" to the Wilderlands campaign. For instance, the incorporation of Kelnore as "canon" in the d20 products, or the Mayfair rewrite of CSIO back in the day. Thus my mixed feelings on skimming through AGJ 1. For instance, in an old issue of Pegasus (which I also consider sort of "new,") the three moons are identified as the Sky King, Vanis and Howla. I adopted that, but don't appreciate seeing another take on it in this product. Also, in my old copies of CSIO, there's no name given for the Overlord, but in the old Wilderlands book, the ruler is stated to be Balarnega. Now I see mention of Balarnega as someone else, a prime minister or something, and a different name given for the Overlord. You see where I'm going. Yes, GM's can always do what they want, but there are expectations, and I dislike having to ignore things that others may expect to find. OTOH, I'm a huge fan of CT and its universe, and wanted to read all the canon I could come upon. Right up until the release of Megatraveller and the destruction of the Imperium I loved so well. Funny, right? But what I came to realize is that I want a baseline setting that I can grow. I don't want publishers' metaplots to wreck havoc, I want a continuous stream of product to support that original baseline. I'll advance history myself. And I get bent, somewhat, by changes made to my beloved settings by subsequent, unrelated authors and publishers. I don't want to see the original canon modified, by whomever it is. I don't have any problem, generally speaking, with huge amounts of canon to absorb. But I'd like it to be modular, so a poor GM doesn't have to memorize volumes of data to run a localized campaign. OK, I think I've rambled enough now. Thanks for listening!Baron Greystonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16636292202674906870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46302836089315028782008-08-01T15:21:00.000-04:002008-08-01T15:21:00.000-04:00Apologies for thread necromancy, but as a long tim...Apologies for thread necromancy, but as a long time <I>Traveller</I> fanboy, I'm very curious if your distaste for the development of the <I>Traveller</I> canon is directed at the accumulation of minutia via Library Data, the adventures, and JTAS, or you are referring to the disastrous venture into meta-plot circa <I>MegaTraveller</I>. (Or both?)Rafialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07077298546098373938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-83540253563447301572008-05-14T14:26:00.000-04:002008-05-14T14:26:00.000-04:00(o_O)But I am someone who played Traveller. I look...(o_O)<BR/><BR/>But I <I>am</I> someone who played <I>Traveller</I>. <BR/><BR/>I look forward to your future post on this topic.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-71853654345055738892008-05-14T12:06:00.000-04:002008-05-14T12:06:00.000-04:00Alas, the lure of canon isn't confined to horror s...Alas, the lure of canon isn't confined to horror stories on the net, as anyone who's ever played <I>Traveller</I> can attest. That game is an object lesson in how <I>not</I> to build up an official setting and I would hate to see the Wilderlands go down that road even a little.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67083662199190963752008-05-13T16:26:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:26:00.000-04:00Great review, thanks!Great review, thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-25354061958293889272008-05-13T14:29:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:29:00.000-04:00Interesting. I find the huge range of classic Trav...Interesting. I find the huge range of classic <I>Traveller</I> material that each referee can pick-and-choose from or completely ignore to be a great idea.<BR/><BR/>But then, I’ve never gamed with anyone who took the concept of “canon” seriously beyond rhetorical purposes. In my group, even when we play a Marvel or Star Wars or Middle-earth game, it’s a given that the GM may ignore or contradict any notion of canon.<BR/><BR/>I’ve also voiced my opinion that game companies ought to avoid any serious idea of “canon” as well. It makes no sense to worry about a publication jiving with canon when individual GMs are still going to have to mod it to fit in their own living—and thus divergent from canon—campaigns.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, like I said, I’ve only glimpsed this “siren song” having any effect via claims on the net. No one I’ve actually gamed with has found that call seductive no matter how much minutiae gets published.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-35259211807834702202008-05-13T14:13:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:13:00.000-04:00I dislike minutiae because I see them as the first...I dislike minutiae because I see them as the first steps on the road to perdition. When I get around to writing "Why <I>Traveller</I> Ruined Everything," I'll elaborate on this some more, but my basic principle is that, once a setting starts accumulating too many little details through official articles and products, the temptation to treat these details as canon, even if the creators of the game explicitly state otherwise, is too great. No game setting I'm aware of has resisted the siren song of canon once articles about the wives of a major NPC -- complete with stats! -- becomes a staple of its support. <BR/><BR/>The Wilderlands is far from there and I don't think one or two articles in the first issue of a magazine intended to support the setting necessarily mean anything in the final analysis. That said, I would urge Mr Mishler to focus on less fiddly, more "generic" topics in the future, because I would hate to see a setting that defines old school, sandbox-style play turn into another Forgotten Realms or post-Gygax Greyhawk.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41466926019650885212008-05-13T13:55:00.000-04:002008-05-13T13:55:00.000-04:00“However, I would hate to see too many artic...“However, I would hate to see too many articles with that level of depth in the future, since what makes the Wilderlands so attractive is its ‘sketchiness.’”<BR/><BR/>I tend to prefer big-picture sketchiness to deep minutiae as well, but I don’t understand why you would be against such supplemental articles being published in a magazine. Having them as separate articles that you can swap in or out as you choose seems quite appropriate.<BR/><BR/>Those who want to remain with the sketchy version ignore them. Those who want more detail use them. The rest of us keep the overall sketchiness whilst cherry-picking the details we like. Seems like a win-win-win to me.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.com