<section id="games">
<h1>Games</h1>
<ul>
+ <li>2023: <a href="/richburlew">Rich Burlew</a>'s DMing and worldbuilding articles</li>
<li>2022: <a href="/archive/lexicon1">LexiconOne</a>, a game of Lexicon we played on a wiki</li>
<li>2022: <a href="/games/lexicon">Lexicon</a>, a fun game i have archived here</li>
<li>2021: <a href="/aldenmarsh/">Aldenmarsh</a>, i run a dungeons and dragons campaign with its own small website</li>
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > emotional responses
+
+### Damn it, Spock!
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Last time, I talked about how adding detail to your description can enhance the believability of your game world. Now I'll focus on a very specific type of detail: emotional responses.
+
+If you've played a lot of D&D;, you know that most of the time, the solution to a problem is based in logic. Whether it is the best way to fight a monster or the answer to a riddle, the answers will often fit into a fairly understandable pattern. Even the process of creating and advancing a character is a sort of logic problem: How can I make these rules reflect what I want to play? This deeply-rooted foundation of logic is a good thing, but it can lead to one unfortunate tendency: the assumption that the people players meet within the game world operate on a similarly logical level. But in the real world, people often act illogically, driven more by their emotions than any understanding of "how the game works." The goal of this article is to show how you can introduce seemingly pointless emotional responses in your NPC that can nonetheless be predicted and incorporated into the play experience as a form of texture.
+
+Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."
+
+"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.
+
+So, how does one create realistic emotional responses? First, remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket. Not even for NPCs. Evil characters can love, good characters can hate. This alone will help you add some emotional interest; think of an NPC in your game and name three things he or she loves enough to die for (or hates enough to kill for). How about three rules they will never break, or three laws they feel aren't that important?
+
+Next, realize that NPCs can't read the rulebooks. They don't know what manner of fighting is more efficient (except maybe in the broadest of strokes). They don't know that fighting monsters will gain them XP, which will make them more powerful. They don't know what CR a monster has. They only know their immediate visceral reaction to something: Combat is deadly. Magic is strange. Monsters are scary. Things that feel good are good, things that feel bad are bad. Ninety-nine percent of the people hope to live their life comfortably enough to pass something on to their children.
+
+As a corollary, do not assume that NPCs with PC classes are necessarily different. In the real world, people with extensive combat training generally hope they never have to put it to use. In fact, it's not that much of a stretch to say that to the average 1st level fighter, the experience and skill that might be gained from battle is not worth the very real possibility of dying. Remember, the PCs and certain NPC adventurers are the exceptions precisely because they seek out this kind of thing.
+
+Consider a character's level of comfort. People are far less likely to do something that goes beyond their comfort zone. This doesn't necessarily mean that every character is going to balk at getting dirty, for example; for a barbarian, dirt is well within his comfort zone. Public speaking, however, may not be. When creating an NPC, you should decide in advance what sorts of things are outside of his comfort zone, and stick to it during play. Don't allow Diplomacy checks or charm spells to push someone outside of their zone; the proper result would be to have the person be very polite and friendly while declining. Intimidate checks or suggestion magic may do the trick, but usually carries a penalty to the check involved, and the character in question will resist as much as he is able.
+
+Also, keep in mind that a character's comfort zone may not make sense to anyone else. A wizard may be uncomfortable summoning creatures from other planes, despite the fact that he is in no more danger from summon monster I than he is from any of his other spells. Be careful, though, because players can perceive this sort of thing as a hamfisted attempt at railroading them, even when it isn't. If the players meet said wizard, they may well shift into metagame thinking and decide that the DM must not want them to summon a monster. Like last lesson's quill example, the players may make an assumption based on the fact that texture exists in a vacuum.
+
+In order to realistically portray such a comfort zone, then, try creating a reason why the character has whatever emotional response you are giving him. The single best way to do this is through childhood experience. Following through on the example, if the wizard's father, also a powerful wizard, once lost control of a demon that trashed half their home, it makes perfect sense that the character is queasy when dealing with fiends. Of course, he has inflated this event into a moratorium on all summoning spells, but in real life we often go the route of "better safe than sorry" when dealing with our fears.
+
+OK, list time. I'm going to try to end each article with a list of point-by-point ideas. I think people can digest and use information more easily in that format. Now I'll discuss specific emotions and how to add them into your game:
+
+1. **Laziness:** For players, it takes just as much energy to say, "I sleep for 8 hours," as it does to say, "I climb to the top of the hill." For NPCs, this isn't the case. While truly lazy characters are a possibility, keep in mind that most people are going to be interested in minimizing the amount of energy expended. A villain, particularly a small-time crook, might abandon the most efficient plan as being too labor-intensive. Instead, he cuts corners; perhaps this laziness is the only factor that allows the PCs to learn of his plot. And this isn't alignment-specific; a knight may not be lazy by any stretch, but he may still balk at the resources and time required to enact whatever elaborate plan is on the table. Just because there are no rules on getting tired doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
+2. **Overconfidence:** This is a big one with the villains, and in many cases is key to the concept of a long-term uberpowerful baddie. Think about it; if the villain is 25th level, and the players screw up his minor plan at 3rd level, why not just squash them, then and there? The reason is often a combination of laziness (above) and overconfidence. The villain believes that the PCs are incapable of stopping him, so why expend the effort? Again, remember that the bad guy can't read the rules, doesn't know that the good guys are necessarily gaining XP and getting stronger with every fight, and doesn't know that the villains always lose in the end.
+3. **Family Relations:** Consider how your NPC feels about their parents, siblings, spouses, and children. They may feel a bond of love that supercedes their alignment, or they may have utter contempt for them. Any emotional response tends to multiplied by factor of 100 when dealing with family. Perhaps a villain wants to destroy the world, but needs to find a way to save his family first. Maybe a good fighter is being manipulated into doing evil because his children are being threatened. A villain's entire evil plan may be the result of nothing more than a burning need to disappoint his parents!
+4. **Spontaneous:** Players can always think about their actions; even in the middle of combat, they have the entire time it takes to get back their initiative to decide what the best thing to do is. NPCs don't have that luxury; play them as if they were being run by a player who doesn't get to say, "Wait, no, I do this instead." Their first decision is usually going to be what thy stick with, even if it is foolish or inefficient. This should never be more obvious than when a character is in a rage. No, I'm not talking about the barbarian class ability, I'm referring to a level of anger where we lash out without thinking. If you've ever punched a wall, you know what I'm talking about.
+5. **Irrational Likes/Fears:** This is much like the comfort zone issue (above), but I'm expanding it here to include personal quirks that can become interesting traits for even minor characters. A shopkeeper who collects swords might pay more for a unique blade than a orc double-axe, even though the axe has the higher book value. A fighter who is afraid of spiders is going to run away from a monstrous one, even if he could kill it in one round. Remember, fear knows no Challenge Rating. Likewise, characters may enjoy a particular activity even if they know it is dangerous or unhealthy; I don't think anyone in this nation is under the impression that smoking isn't bad for you, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.
+6. **Stupidity:** Sometimes, it's just this simple. People with low Intelligence scores are incapable of coming up with efficient plans, and people with low Wisdom scores are incapable of determining whether a plan is efficient or not. When players are trying to puzzle out a villain's plan, they will often overthink things, discarding the bad guy's actual plot as being too stupid to be the truth.
+
+Hopefully, this has helped you think about giving your NPCs reactions that are independent of their function in the campaign. These people are supposed to be living, breathing characters with an internal life that the players can't know about, and your world will be more vibrant if they act as if they do.
+
+Next time: I'll put some of these tips to use in a step-by-step tutorial on making a three-dimensional villain for your game.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > rich burlew's articles
+
+The following is an archived version of Rich Burlew's worldbuilding and GMing guide. This used to be up on his site, [giantitp.com](http://www.giantitp.com/Gaming.html) [wayback](https://web.archive.org/web/20200216152147/http://www.giantitp.com/Gaming.html). I've archived it because it's currently down, and has been since 2020.
+
+Rich, if you see this and would like me to take it down, I'd be happy to, just get in touch. I just think these are really great articles and would like them to stay available in one form or another.
+
+## Play Theory
+
+- [Emotional Responses](emotional.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [Making Tough Decisions](tough.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [Villain Workshop](villain.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [What is Texture](texture.md) by Rich Burlew
+
+## The World
+
+- [The New World, Part 1: Purpose and Style](part1.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 2: Class Decisions](part2.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 3: Race Decisions](part3.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 4: The Right Tool for the Right Job](part4.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 5a: Politics](part5a.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 5b: Politics (Continued)](part5b.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 6: Geography](part6.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 7: Names and Cultures](part7.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 8: Gnomes](part8.md) by Rich Burlew
+- [The New World, Part 9: Barbarians](part9.md) by Rich Burlew
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 1: purpose and style
+
+### The New World, Part 1: Purpose and Style
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+This is the start of a new project to create a campaign setting, from scratch, in full view of you, my loyal readers. The idea is not only to craft a complete setting that can be used by others but to also show the decisions and processes that go into a final product. This will essentially be a sort of "design diary" of my thoughts and choices, written in a sort of semi-stream-of-consciousness format; you will get to see me consider and discard each idea, and I will talk about my reasoning as we go.
+
+So, where to start when building a world? That's a big question, one that I can think be answered by looking at what my goals are. As I see it, there are two main reasons to create a new fantasy RPG world: either to use with your local gaming group, or to publish (however limited that publication ends up being). They are not mutually exclusive; publishing a product does not in any way keep you from running it for your group, for example. But they do tend to suggest different approaches to the problem.
+
+If you are focused primarily on running a good campaign with your actual players, you will be more concerned with the small scale than the large. It will be more important to have one city or nation well defined than it will be to have an overriding theme to the world. Local rumors, individual characters, and adventure hooks will take precedence over other considerations, You can also use a build-as-you-go method, developing a region only as your players move into it.
+
+Building a world for publication, on the other hand, is a whole different thing. You need to look at the large-scale issues early on, because they will define the nature of the world and how it differs from other products. Cosmology, geography, and history are important facets of a published world, even if the players who actually adventure in that world are only going to be tangentially aware of them. You will need to also consider how much you can borrow from other worlds, as well as how close your world is to those already published by companies with a lot more resources than to which you have access. Creating a world defined by the struggle between good and evil dragons is fine for your local group, but a stranger may look at it and think, "Oh, it's a knock-off of Dragonlance."
+
+For my purposes, I'm going to assume this world will be for publication, even if that eventually only means a PDF you can download from my site. Basically, I'm going to start from the top and move down from there. This is how I generally prefer to work anyway, because I have always found that once you have made the big decisions, the small decisions trickle into place themselves. I imagine the information to be like a tree, where the twigs need to grow from the larger branches, the branches need to grow from the boughs, and the boughs need to grow from the trunk of the tree. If you have a solid concept at the outset, you can make sure that all your details flow organically from that original idea, rather than trying to shoehorn odd ideas in at a later point.
+
+The question is, what is that core concept? There are a couple old standbys, chief among them the idea of the "Overriding Story;" in other words, an ongoing conflict that sets the tone and defines the entire world. There is one Big Evil out there that is the source of all the problems. Personally, I don't care for this method for an RPG setting. Invariably, you end up with a situation where the players either achieve victory and thus alter the entire setting, or can never achieve victory and thus are superfluous. I believe that in order to be a compelling setting for an ongoing game, the setting has to support multiple villains with varied goals and unrelated plots. If you create a setting with one villain, you are really making a campaign, not a campaign setting. As a corollary, there aren't going to be any novels set in this world, so I do not need to create any iconic adventurers that might serve to accidentally eclipse the player characters-this would be the "Elminster Problem," which I hope to nip in the bud right now.
+
+Having rejected the Overarching Story, I still need a general sort of plan to proceed. Looking at some of the other successful campaign settings in existence, it's easy to see that those without a strong plotline usually have a compellingly different style. They have significantly altered the core fantasy roleplaying experience in some manner to differentiate themselves from the same old, same old. Some have wildly different climates, levels of technology, magic systems, cosmologies, etc. Without such a stylistic difference, a setting is just different for the sake of being different. If you are working on the theory that a setting is going to be published, you have to accept that attempting to break into the market with "Established Setting X, Only Better" is a sucker's bet. Just adding a few idiosyncratic preferences will not move your world, because any DM could do the same thing. A medieval high-magic fantasy setting with active gods and all of the default races and classes is a sure path to obscurity, because it is the same thing as Forgotten Realms. Make your world a different choice; make sure that no one who flips through it will ever mistake it for another setting.
+
+So I'm looking for style now. And don't confuse "style" with "gimmick." Making your world "Greyhawk, but on a giant tree" is kind of silly. Better to consider what sort of world might really evolve on a giant tree.
+
+Sorry, got sidetracked. Style. Well, I know I don't want to increase the basic technology level; I'm a little tired of steampunk. Not only has Iron Kingdoms done it so well, but Wizard's new Eberron setting has a Renaissance-level of technology anyway. For that matter, so does Illumination, my existing home campaign setting. In fact, I may want to regress the technology a bit-go with Dark Ages instead of high medieval. Cut out the full plate armor and crossbows in favor of chain mail and bows. It's a thought, but not enough to hang the world on. I'll come back to it later.
+
+How about the physical nature of the world? This one is a bit of a trap, because it may lead to the gimmick I mentioned above. When I created my world of Illumination way back, it was a cube. I thought that was unbelievably clever when I was 15. Now, I look at it and wonder how I could confuse a cheap flashy quirk for real substance. So while it may end up that the physical world is not a standard planet, I think I'll let that flow from the core concept later, if necessary.
+
+There's climate, but there have been multiple desert-worlds published already. I already have a world I created, called Steel Dreams, that takes place during an Ice Age, so I don't want to duplicate that work. I've seen at least one third party world (or was it just a website?) detailing a world that was one giant forest. I could do an all-underwater world; it would be unique, but I think ultimately too constraining. Both as a writer and as a DM; committing to 30+ games underwater for a full campaign does not seem like that much fun. Frankly, those are the only climate-based ideas I can come up with, so I guess I'll discard climate.
+
+How about a setting that breaks some of the underlying assumptions of the D&D; system? This is another tricky idea because it potentially creates some problems with the players themselves. If you eliminate too many of the things players expect to see when they sit down to play the game, you make the learning curve for your setting much higher. Still, there are so many assumptions made in D&D; that it is probably safe to trash a few of them. I'll make a list of, say, 10 assumptions that are usually true if you follow the core rules.
+
+1. Humans dominate the world.
+2. Gods are real and active.
+3. Magic is real and can be used by anyone who learns it.
+4. Opposite alignments fight each other.
+5. Arcane and divine magic are inherently separate.
+6. The wilderness is separate enough from the cities to justify 3 wilderness-oriented classes.
+7. There are hundreds of intelligent species of creatures, but 99% of them are considered "monsters".
+8. Arcane magic is impersonal and requires no "deal" with a supernatural being.
+9. Beings from other planes of existence try to influence the mortal world, usually on behalf of gods/alignments.
+10. Magic items are assumed to be available, and game balance proceeds from that assumption.
+11. Magic is consequence-free.
+
+OK, looks like I got 11; hey, it's an experimental process. Looking at these, I like some right away, while others are less certain. I think most players need humans as a baseline from which to proceed when creating characters, even nonhuman ones. I'll keep humans as the dominant (or a dominant) race. The wilderness issue has always bugged me, but I'm not about to cut the barbarian, ranger, and druid from the lineup without compelling reason. Unless I'm creating "Cityworld," where the entire universe is one big urban sprawl, there's not much reason to drop those classes.
+
+Looking at my list, I notice that #5, #8, and #11 are really similar, or at least related. As I think about it, I realize that wizards making dark deals with a supernatural force is a deeply-ingrained part of real-world mythology, but exists nowhere in the D&D; game. That might be in order to deflect claims of devil-worshipping by certain fundamentalist groups, but there's no reason to limit arcane deal-making to evil demons. Perhaps in this world, all magic must come from an external source, and it always comes with strings attached. I like that, it certainly is a departure from the "magic as technology" feel that is prevalent in certain worlds.
+
+I also like the idea of removing the Good vs. Evil aspect of the game, or at least blurring the lines. What if there was still a philosophical clash, but the sides were not so clear cut? What if instead of Good vs. Evil, or Law vs. Chaos, the world has Blue vs. Red? A conflict that is not inherently determined by morality, where either side could be right? It might not even be a violent conflict, just one where the two sides are mutually exclusive and players support either one or the other.
+
+This has my creative juices flowing. I have always like the idea of Zoroasterism, the ancient Persian religion that defined reality as a dualistic struggle between a god of Good and one of Evil. It is a type of religion that really doesn't exist anymore, because their version of Evil was an equal to Good; neither was the creator or chief of the other. Their eternal struggle gave rise to everything, according to Zoroaster. Now, I don't want to base things around Good vs. Evil, but the idea of a dualistic religion is appealing. Further, I don't want either side to be "right." I don't want one god to be the Good Guy and the other to be the Bad Guy; I want there to logically be people of both good and evil alignments following each of the two deities. So I am going to list ideas that are polar opposites without either one being morally superior. (Yes, I like to make lists; it helps me organize my thoughts.)
+
+1. Male and Female
+2. Light and Darkness
+3. Fire and Ice
+4. Life and Death
+5. Left and Right
+6. Land and Sea
+7. Sword and Sorcery
+8. Truth and Deception
+9. Yin and Yang
+10. Active and Passive
+11. Mental and Physical
+12. Offense and Defense
+13. Sun and Moon
+
+I'm starting to get a good idea here: two gods, the Sun and the Moon. The Sun is aggressive, formal, and slightly lawful; the Moon is defensive, more chaotic, less straightforward. The Sun God is all about being direct and open, while the Moon God is about guile and trickery. The entire world knows and acknowledges these two gods; they are the only choices in town. They are also apparently uncaring; there is no divine interventions or steering the course of mortal events. As a result, the followers of each side are not in some great clash of ideologies; there is no holy war between the Sun and the Moon, they both just *are*.
+
+In fact, the dualistic nature could apply to the entire setting. Everything falls under the influence of the Sun or the Moon; for players, it is as much astrology as religion. Everyone born during the day is a Sun, everyone born at night is a Moon. The player gets to choose which, of course, but it is as defining a characteristic as race or class. Of course, neither one can be inherently more powerful than the other; we can't have, for example, Sun clerics channeling positive energy and Moon clerics channeling negative energy, because positive energy is a superior choice for a player character.
+
+Stereotypes would dictate that the "passive" Moon God be female and the aggressive Sun God be male. Which is as good a reason as any for that to NOT be the case; I think my Sun Goddess will be a strong valkyrie-type, while my Moon God will be a sneaky trickster. Think Athena vs. Hermes instead of Ares vs. Aphrodite.
+
+That seems like a good start for a world. The dualistic aspect can be played up as much as I want, and the lower technology and potential nature of arcane magic are already giving it a very true-medieval feeling. In fact, the dualistic religion is only a short hop from monotheism, so this world is shaping up to hew closer to real-world history than most others. Whether that will stay true as I proceed remains to be seen.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 2: class decisions
+
+### The New World, Part 2: Class Decisions
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+I left off last time after coming up with some of the major themes I want to inject into the world. To recap, so far I have a world with a dualistic religion that influences all aspects of the world, based on a Sun Goddess and a Moon God. I have some ideas about arcane magic not being so different from divine magic as well.
+
+Looking at the last article again, I think clearly the "supernatural agent" I discussed as a source for arcane powers needs to stay tied in to the Sun/Moon theme. Perhaps all magic of any kind flows from the Sun or Moon, though that turns wizards and sorcerers into clerics, thematically. Unless, as I suggested, the Sun and Moon are indifferent to their worshippers; they simply exist as a source of power, to be tapped in whatever way the caster can. If every mortal is born under the sign of one of the two, the power of arcane magic may flow as much from the caster as the Sun or Moon. But then, that slips back into arcane magic being impersonal.
+
+OK, let's look at this from a game point of view. There are three types of casters: Intelligence-based preparatory, Wisdom-based preparatory, and Charisma-based spontaneous. Traditionally, Wisdom-based preparatory is the only type of spellcasting that requires an in-game relationship with a god. One type allows armor to be worn, the other two do not. Now, I'm thinking of eliminating the concepts of arcane and divine magic; the obvious replacement would be Sun Magic and Moon Magic. That sounds nice, but it already doesn't fit exactly; divine magic allows armor, and there are two primary arcane caster methods (Intelligence and Charisma) but only one divine caster method (Wisdom). Plus, it severely hampers the creativity of players. Not everyone who plays a cleric is going to want to be Sun, for example, if each deity has the kind of connotations that I briefly touched on earlier.
+
+So rather than having Sun Magic be a cipher for divine and Moon a cipher for arcane, what if both Sun and Moon Magic contained casters of all three kinds: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma-based? That starts to sound better; that would give us six possible primary spellcaster types. It also begins to suggest some ideas for altering classes; removing wizard specialists in favor of Sun Wizards and Moon Wizards, for starters. But I am still hung up on how to differentiate, in-game, between Sun Clerics and Sun Wizards. If the power all flows from the same source, why can one class wear armor and one can't? Why can one class heal and the other can't?
+
+One solution would be to alter the classes so significantly that you have wizards who can heal and clerics who can cast fireball, but I don't think that's a good idea here. This is a setting, not a new RPG, and the more fundamentally I change the classes, the less usable material from other sources will be in a campaign run in this world. So I want to keep the classes similar to their existing nature, but just tweak the story behind their powers.
+
+I'm thinking now of the wizardry being more of a secret cult rather than a science. Wizardry involves the summoning and binding of spirits associated with the Sun and Moon, and then using words of power to extract magic. It's not as harsh as it first sounds, though, because the Sun and Moon ultimately created the spirits for that purpose. The wizards may worship their benefactor, but ultimately their spellcasting is essentially a craft, not a religious experience. In fact, what if the familiar was replaced with a Sun or Moon spirit made flesh, that was a literal sign of the wizard's bargain? I kind of like that, it has an old medieval feel to it. Since most citizens of the world worship the Sun or Moon, the idea of binding their servants is unpalatable, resulting in a need for secrecy about the wizards' means and identities. Wizardry might even be a capital offense in some nations, depending on local customs.
+
+That leaves us with divine magic as more or less unchanged from the standard model: servants of a god that draw magic from their worship. Sun Clerics and Moon Clerics can basically divide up all the existing domains, and the idea of Sun Druids and Moon Druids is a very cool one. Moon Druids might only take on nocturnal animal companions, for example, and be more into shapeshifting. Heck, that might lead to a whole variant druid class for the Sun Druid.
+
+Now what about the sorcerer? I don't want to leave him as the wizard's poor cousin; I think he needs a major overhaul, conceptually. Forget dragon heritage, or the idea that the sorcerers just have a "knack" for arcane casting; I want their magic to have a unique power source. Let's look at this logically: wizards take their power from the gods, clerics ask for their power from the gods. What does that leave for the sorcerer? How about they are given their powers by the gods-without being asked first? A sorcerer is someone who has been "blessed" with magic that they cannot necessarily control. As the gods do not reveal their intention, the sorcerer is left to figure out what purpose he is expected to fulfill. They are always respected, even revered, by the populace as holy men, but they don't really know how to react. I like this idea because it is an about-face from the "sorcerers are hated and feared" stance of the standard rules.
+
+Ultimately, this take on the sorcerer may require a complete redesign of the class. I wouldn't mind giving them their own spell lists, with a mixture of arcane and divine spells, to emphasize the dissolution of the old division.
+
+What about the rest of the classes? Well, fighter and rogue are so generic I can't imagine altering them significantly. I imagine there will be barbarians and monks as well; I like that there may be Sun Monks and Moon Monks, too, so maybe I will look into adding a bit of customization to that class. Rangers are a bit tricky, but if there are Sun and Moon Druids, I can apply the same logic to rangers. Maybe I can use the Combat Style as a dividing point between the two.
+
+Then there is the paladin and the bard. As I have defined it, the paladin is soooo Sun and the bard is completely Moon. Maybe that's OK; make both classes only available to followers of the appropriate deity. Then toss the alignment restrictions on both; turn them each into ideals of their particular deity, a kind of personification of that god's priorities. If I do that, though, I'll tweak each class a bit. Probably give them a very specific place in the cultures of each nation.
+
+Well, the class choices for players are shaping up pretty well, as is the definition of magic in this world: magic is the way you access and use the power of the Sun and Moon. There can be no magic without the Sun or the Moon, which makes the choice of which to serve very important. Players will not be able to multiclass between Sun and Moon classes, so if you are a Moon Wizard, and want to multiclass to cleric, you must be a Moon Cleric too. Of course, while the two camps are mutually exclusive, they are not violently opposed. An adventuring party might include a Moon Wizard, a Sun Cleric, a Sun Monk, a fighter without any strong affiliation, and a rogue/Moon Bard.
+
+Looking back at this, I realize I am making some strong changes to the class system that goes a bit beyond the level of mere campaign setting. But if I'm careful, I won't completely invalidate existing material while creating a class system where there is a lot of room for customization.
+
+Also, notice how I used the needs of the game experience to help me define the fictional reality of the world. This is an important concept that I can't stress enough when creating a world: don't fall into the trap of making a decision for your world that hampers actual gameplay. First and foremost, your world needs to be usable in a real game with real players, all of whom want different characters and have different ideas about what they like about D&D.; Every time you change a rule to conform to your setting, you run the risk of alienating a player, so carefully consider each alteration.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 3: race decisions
+
+### The New World, Part 3: Race Decisions
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Let's look at what races might inhabit this new world I am creating. As always, I'll start from the point of view of the player and look at the choices for player characters. I've already decided that humans aren't going anywhere, so I'll skip them for now and examine the remainder of the PC races.
+
+First up, elves. Immediately, I think of how sick I am of elves. Every world has their different elven subraces so that you can play exactly the type of elf you want. Even my own campaign world, Illumination, has five varieties. Considering that I am really happy with what I did with elves in Illumination, I think I am just about "elved out". I'm crossing them off the list. No elves, and thus no half-elves.
+
+What about dwarves? Well, they are not quite as cliché as elves, and there are fewer varieties in other worlds, leaving me more room to create a unique dwarf culture. On the other hand, they kind of seem out of place in a world dominated by what's going on in the skies. I'll set them aside for now.
+
+Halflings don't thrill me either. I mean, I like playing halflings, but they are so closely associated with Tolkien that I think they may have to be scratched too. I want to break the bonds of stereotyped fantasy, here. Let's put them aside for now too.
+
+Gnomes. Hmm. I do not think I have ever seen gnomes as a major player in a setting. In fact, in almost every setting they are an afterthought; an add-on, often for comic relief. They never have major nations, or political influence, or any kind of meaningful history. Yeah, I think gnomes are going to be important in this world. As the only completely non-Tolkien player race, emphasizing them would immediately bring a different tone to the setting. And since I axed elves, the role of the ancient and magically-talented race is open and available. I'll tweak out their talent with illusions and make them simply the world's most powerful wizards; I'll switch favored class to wizard (either Sun or Moon). And let's lose the technology aspect; this is a Dark Ages setting, the gnomes aren't crazy inventors, they are secretive masters of lost knowledge, keepers of secrets best not discovered. That is perfect, I love it, gnomes are in.
+
+Which means I think dwarves and halflings are out. Each one steps on the toes of the gnome in some way; halflings are the same size, dwarves have the whole underground thing. And without a compelling reason for keeping them, I'd rather ditch them and replace them with another race.
+
+Half-orcs? Well, I've never been fond of a half-breed as a main race, but I've already struck out four PC races. I think I'll keep half-orcs, unless I come up with another race that really fits the same role.
+
+Now, what to replace them with? I've cut out a wizard-race, a fighter-race, and a rogue-race, and shifted the gnome up to be the new wizard race. That means I need, at the very least, a race that makes decent rogues, since the half-orcs are as good at being fighters as they are barbarians. I'll look through the existing Open Content monsters and see if I want to promote any of them to a main race.
+
+Goblins and hobgoblins are interesting choices, but I already use these races to major effect in my Illumination setting. Centaurs are interesting, but they aren't available as 1st level characters; I'll put them on my list to develop as an alternate choice. Gnolls have a lot of potential too. I'm tired of kobolds; they get too much play these days, in my opinion. The planetouched are interesting, not so much for what they are as for what they suggest: races of humans with some influence of the Sun or Moon on their bloodlines. The idea of having Sun-touched or Moon-touched characters mixed into human society is very appealing, and since I will have to create them myself, they can remain balanced with the core races. Of course, they will essentially be human-variants, so I still need to provide more nonhuman races for players who like to play something a little more oddball.
+
+I briefly consider some kind of anthropomorphic animal race, but reject the idea. Not only is that a little sillier than I want this setting to be, but Arcana Unearthed had a few animal people if I'm not mistaken. At any rate, the last thing I want is to add yet another cat-person race to the world.
+
+The more I think about it, the more I want sentience to be limited to a small number of creatures, rather than there being hundreds of races. I want civilization to be the purview of humans and gnomes primarily, with maybe a few barbaric races that are not thought of as being intelligent. What I don't want is orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and bugbears and kobolds and whatever other races that are really all redundant. Once you get beyond civilization, you are mostly going to encounter nearly-mindless beasts, not little camps of creatures that are just as smart as humans but are arbitrarily less advanced. This may require me to lower the Int score of a lot of creatures in the monster books, but I like the flavor. It helps the medieval feel, I think, for monsters to be Monsters-creatures that are unknowable and frightening.
+
+I have an idea for a winged race. The image of an angelic-looking species fits my Dark Ages theme, and I can just as easily picture them existing side-by-side with a human civilization. It might be tricky to make them balanced with a core race, because flight is a huge advantage. Still, at this point, image is more important than rules, so I'll put an as-yet-uncreated winged human race down.
+
+That brings us to 6 definite races: humans, gnomes, half-orcs, Moontouched, Suntouched, and winged people. Right now that feels a bit thin. I'm thinking right now that these races will live in a region where there are political nations that cross racial boundaries; in other words, nations will be based on political distinctions rather than race. This region will be the focus of the setting, I think, which gives me an idea for a seventh race: a race of seafaring humanoids, extremely exotic and unusual to the people of the core region, who travel from a far-off homeland to trade. My idea is they should be to the people of the main continent what the Chinese were to medieval Europeans; mysterious and very different in culture without being a military threat (due to their homeland being so far away). I could adapt an existing race to this function, but I think they will be more exotic if I create them for exactly this purpose. I'm picturing a tall thin humanoid with blue or green skin, possibly with aquatic traits. For now, we'll call them the Traders.
+
+Half-orcs are starting to feel wrong now. The existence of half-orcs implies the existence of orc tribes somewhere, and I think I am on the verge of shelving that particular concept. Instead, I think perhaps I'll have a race of half-orc-like humanoids that are basically second-class citizens under human rule, maybe even slaves in some nations. This is an idea I've used in Illumination, but there I use half-ogres; this race will not be a halfbreed of any sort. I could use the orcs to serve this purpose, but again, I think it helps the setting to divorce it from preconceived notions about certain races. I just considered adding dwarves back in under this very different kind of burden, until I remember that in Dark Sun, dwarves and half-dwarven Muls were regularly enslaved. Looks like I am creating another new race.
+
+Looking at my races, I think the Traders will be natural rogues, while the winged people (let's call them Flyers for now) will be fighters. I'll make the Suntouched's favored class paladin and the Moontouched's favored class bard, to reinforce the special roles I've set up for those classes. That covers a good mix of PC options, including all the major favored classes represented in the core races. I still like the idea of gnolls, but not for a PC race now. I'm thinking that they may in fact become one of the threats in this world; an organized, brutal gnoll civilization outside the reach of "civilization" will make fodder for adventuring.
+
+Now that I've established what races will be dominant, the next step will be forming these races into nations and other organizations. Note that I've left the details of the race's stats for a later point; their sociological status, however, should emerge as the political landscape takes form.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 4: the right tool for the right job
+
+### The Right Tool for the Right Job
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+So this will be interesting.
+
+I've been mulling over my campaign world since I wrote the last two articles. It's kind of tricky, because the original point of these articles was to do the thinking as I was writing them, but I can't help it. I do my best thinking when I can't sleep, when I am waking up, in the shower, on the subway, anywhere I don't have anything more pressing to occupy my mind. Anyway, the point is, I've been thinking and coming up with what I really wanted from this world, and to tell the truth, some of the choices I made in the last two article are starting to bug me.
+
+I loved the Sun/Moon dualistic religion, and I really loved the Dark Ages setting, but I was starting to feel like some of my other ideas were not going to work. I had wanted to cut away the differences between arcane and divine magic, but didn't because I was worried about players balking at such a major change.
+
+I have also been thinking about eliminating magic items from the setting. The reasoning there is that magic items tend to increase the interest in loot and quick rewards, as well as serving the role of technology. If I am going to set a world in the Dark Ages, I want life to be more of a struggle. Plus, the economy of that period does not support the Magic Shop Model; people in that age acquired objects through barter, traded favors, and force. They did not go buy things at a store, much less mystical objects. I want to capture that feeling of a non-commercial economy, and the wealth-by-level rules and the costs of magic items seemed to contradict that.
+
+Plus, there were clearly balance issues. I took the topic to the fine folks at the Nifty Message Board and asked what they thought would need to be done to balance the game if I stripped out all magic items. Their opinions confirmed my suspicions: spellcasters would be dominating if the fighters and rogues of the world were forced to live without items that magically increased their armor, saves, and ability scores. So I began thinking of all the ways I could either rebalance spellcasters, or boost fighters, and it started to feel like this project was turning into a new game system. That is not what I wanted.
+
+Further, I was starting to see issues with party-composition. In a Dark Ages setting, I imagined the prototypical group of heroes being a cadre of knights serving a single lord. Sort of like the Knights of the Round Table; sure, they were all knights, but each had their own schtick. But in D&D;, characters tend to be wildly different, partly because of the system. A party of 6 fighters may have some variety, but not enough to support the interests of the players or the mechanics of the system. I imagined wizards and clerics being rare, but then considered that every adventuring party would probably have one of each, ruining the verisimilitude of the setting: "Sure, spellcasters are rare, except, uh, you know, in every group of adventurers." Considering there was the possibility they would end up being the most powerful classes if I couldn't figure out a way to balance them, there may even be an abundance of player wizards!
+
+In the end, I had a stroke of inspiration: what I needed was a low-magic, no-magic-item system that inherently limited spellcasters while supporting fighting- and skill-based characters. What I needed already existed, I just hadn't thought of it because it was…well, kind of out there. D20 Modern. Think about it: d20 Modern already is balanced for low-magic, and the core rules are put together on the assumption of no magic items and limited equipment (meaning that there is not a steady progression of equipment upgrades as your character advances). Spellcasters are all advanced classes, meaning that they wouldn't even find their way into the game until 5th level or higher. It seemed like it might be a good (if strange) fit, so I started to look a little closer at the ruleset.
+
+The profession rules might seem strange, until you think that they could be used to simulate social class and birthrights; you would be able to pick either a noble or common "profession" that would grant certain bonuses and wealth levels. It will also let me separate being a priest from being someone who can cast spells. Priest will be a profession, which won't necessarily mean you need to learn the spellcasting class that goes with it. And the Wealth system is perfect, because it allows players to acquire items with an abstract system. Sure, the mechanic was set up to represent modern checking accounts and credit systems, but it could just as easily represent influence and the ultimate ownership lords have over everything on their land. You won't buy equipment in this new setting, after all; you'll ask your lord to grant it to you. The Wealth system works great for that.
+
+So, I am pretty set that this will be a Dark Ages fantasy setting for the d20 Modern ruleset, so let's look back at some of the decisions I had made in the last two article. The class decisions will clearly need to be replaced with series of appropriate advanced classes, but that's OK. I like designing that sort of thing, and I think it's better to create new material than to put out a book that consists of rewrites of existing classes. Inevitably, some poor DM will be playing at a table with a player who likes the standard versions of the class he picked better and won't ever stop complaining about it. "What do you mean my wizard can't cast *teleport*? This game sucks!" All-new material is easier to swallow. Plus, I can leave the base classes of d20 Modern untouched, and just work on the advanced/prestige classes.
+
+Back to the point at hand, I think I will stick with my original idea to have all magic be of the same type. No division between arcane and divine in this world, magic will simply be *magic*. That's easier with these rules because I get to craft a mage class from the ground up, including both cleric and wizard spells on the same list. And then, as mentioned, the decision whether you want to be a priest or not is one of roleplaying, not mechanics. The Sun and Moon will provide magic to anyone who masters the technique. While many priests will choose to learn magic as a way of honoring their gods, plenty won't. Likewise, not everyone who masters magic is going to be particularly interested in praise and worship. I think I will keep the idea that the church frowns on non-worshipping magicians, though; the idea of secretive wizards hiding their powers appeals to me. But that will be a political aspect of the world, primarily.
+
+The bard and paladin concept can be kept, but transformed into a pair of advance classes that really do what I want them to do. Like priest, druid will be a profession, not a class, while ranger will probably be a Dex-based advance class.
+
+Now on to the races. I have to say, after writing that article, I was not so sure of my choices. I had images of a party with one of each of the races I had proposed, and realized that it would completely squash my image of a realistic Dark Age adventure. The fact is, I think this world needs to be either all-human, or close to it. I still have a soft spot for the gnomes, though, and they are visually close enough to humans that I think they can stay-although they will need new d20 Modern stats. The Suntouched and Moontouched can stay, because they are essentially humans born under extraordinary auspices. But the flying race and the generic half-orc replacement race are now officially gone. For that matter, while I still like the feel of the Traders, I am hereby relegating them to NPC-only status. The fact is, someone playing a character of a mysterious race instantly makes that race less mysterious.
+
+Oddly, the name "the Traders" is starting to grow on me; it implies mystery even about who they are and where they come from, as if all humans know about them is that they trade. Perhaps neither race can understand the others' language, so they are forced to simply barter with simple signs. I like that a lot, actually. (Note to self: make sure the mage class does not have a Comprehend Languages spell!)
+
+Well, there you have it: I've switched systems! Some of you may be thinking, "But I don't run d20 Modern! These articles just became useless." Not so. First, I don't plan on dwelling on the specifics of my mechanical changes in this column. I need to save some surprises for the finished product, after all. But more importantly, these articles will continue to talk about the procedures I take when making decisions, which should be adaptable to anyone creating any world, for any system.
+
+I hope you'll join me next time, when I'll probably reverse everything I just wrote.
+
+
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 5: Politics
+
+### The New World, Part 5a: Politics
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Time to start thinking about the historical and political distinctions of this new world. Since I have already decided on a Dark Ages style, I'll start by trying to nail down exactly what that means.
+
+What I'm thinking about is setting the world in a Carolingian time period, drawing more from the time of Charlemagne than later feudalistic states like England and France. I did a little reading on Charlemagne, and I learned that he pretty much held his empire together with constant warfare. And I'm not talking about the threat of warfare; I mean the component barbarian groups were almost always in some level of revolt, requiring him to bring his armies in every few years to quell dissension.
+
+I'm not sure I quite want that level of social upheaval in this world; it needs to be able to support independent adventuring, after all. That means that the civilization needs to be stable enough for the player characters to travel from town to town without getting pressed into someone's army or caught in the middle of an armed revolt. Looking a little deeper into the history book, I see that Charlemagne's empire was split up by his son and left to his three grandsons.
+
+I'm starting to get an idea: a generation or two ago, there was a Charlemagne-esque leader who conquered much of the civilized world. During that time, there were indeed constant revolts, but eventually there was a form of stability forced on the world. His reign and the reign of his son cemented a sort of peace on the region, but a few years before the campaign setting's "starting point", the son died, splitting up his empire on his deathbed into three kingdoms. Those three kingdoms are fairly new and tensions are high; each of the three sons would like nothing more than to control the land of his two siblings. The nations themselves are varied based on what group were inhabiting the land before the empire was formed, and as a result has little loyalty to their king beyond what force of arms provides him. Nobles maintain their own armies, and scheme to seize lands away from the Three Kings.
+
+However, due to the years under the rule of the empire, these lands share many common cultural traits. While they may squabble with each other, they are likely to come together when threatened by outside forces, like barbarian raiders or gnolls. It cuts both ways, though, as nobles from one kingdom may feel comfortable allying with those from another in plots against their king.
+
+Each kingdom is human, with a large gnomish population. Gnomes have basically been absorbed into human civilization from ancient times; the two races are basically inseparable politically. Gnomes brought knowledge of magic to humans, while humans brought security and strength to the gnomes. Today, gnomes are almost like the priest class of Carolingian times; at once separate from human hereditary politics and yet undeniably involved with it. Gnomes are neither noble nor common, they are just…gnomes.
+
+Obviously, social class is going to be a huge factor in this setting, which I think is cool. There is really no middle class for this time period; you are either a noble or a commoner, and commoners do not have much in the way of rights. Being a noble will be pretty easy and available to PCs, though. Still, this more authentic (and earlier) ideal will change the game in a lot of interesting ways. It will be more likely to that player characters will need a patron to support their efforts, whether that be a lord, a king, the church, or another organization.
+
+Then of course I need to add in the Sun and Moon churches into the political landscape. Because they are equal and opposite, neither one should have the kind of dominant political power of the Catholic church in Carolingian times, but both are still major forces to be reckoned with. Each of the Three Kings has a bishop from each church as advisor, for example. The churches are more or less unified across the kingdoms as well, so the church can subtly keep the nations at peace through their influence. The churches will provide lots of the resources for certain characters, particularly those with clerical powers.
+
+OK, so let's look at the major political units we have: three remnant kingdoms of the empire, the barely-controlled nobles that make up the baronies and counties of those kingdoms, a few odd states that managed to break away from the empire, two equal and opposed churches with various schemes to gain power for themselves, several human barbarian nations that were never conquered by the empire, a gnoll nation that would love to overrun them all, and a collection of unknown Trader ships that have no political affiliation. Sounds like we're starting to get a decent social system with lots of factions to struggle against one another.
+
+But heck, let's add some more. The setting could definitely use some Viking influence; sure, the time frame isn't exactly right, but it is a fantasy. But we'll paint these Vikings not as heroic warriors, but as the Europeans saw them: murdering thieves who snuck into towns at night and pillaged. How about a group of islands in the north that was thus isolated from (and never conquered by) the empire? This makes them a nice unique culture with some evil tendencies and no central power structure or defined base of operations-perfect for adventurers to fight! I guess this sort of falls under the category of "barbarians," but I like the specific flavor thinking of them as Vikings affords me.
+
+By the way, in case you haven't noticed, one of my favorite techniques is taking real-world material and twisting it before inserting it into my world. The fact is, aspects of the setting that are reminiscent of history ring more truly than anything made up out of whole cloth. After a few thousand years of human history, it's hard for an imaginary world to compete with the level of complexity of the real thing-so why not steal a little of that density of information? In particular, I find that looking to the real world helps me avoid accidentally writing the world's history to be too logical and organized. What I mean is, from a dispassionate point of view, splitting your nation up among your sons is a recipe for political disaster, but it happened. Studying the real world helps put me into the shoes of the men and women who shape my imaginary world and think about how they won't always (or even usually) make the best decisions.
+
+On to our three kingdoms. If you've ever read *King Lear*, you know that Lear divided his kingdom up based on how much his daughters kissed his ass. (Maybe not the summary my high school English teacher would have gone with, but still.) I'm picturing a similar scene in this world; the old king, son of a much stronger man who conquered the whole continent, is dying. He calls his three sons-actually, make it two sons and a daughter-together to his bedroom, where he has the finest chart of the land that gnomes can draw. He asks them each to choose one of the empire's cities, which will be the new capital of their kindom.
+
+The oldest son picks first; he's a greedy man, and so he picks a city near the mineral-rich mountains. He dreams of mining gold for his coffers and iron for his armies. The middle child, the daughter, chooses the largest port city, where The Traders bring their goods to sell. She schemes to gain political power over the others eventually, and thinks the large number of subjects and resources will aid her in that goal. The youngest child picks a small farming town, one so small that it's barely on the map. The other two children laugh at him, and the father scowls and questions such an odd choice. The youngest son replies that the town is at the heart of the richest farmland in the world, and will thereby ensure those he rules will have the best harvests. The dying king grants their requests, and the three kingdoms are formed.
+
+Now, this story has a few purposes in my plan for the setting. It helps me define the natures of the three kingdoms, and easily telegraphs those to players reading about the setting for the first time. The youngest king is clearly the Lawful Good king, concerned with his subjects and interested in peace. The oldest king is the most belligerent, but rules rocky and difficult countryside. The daughter is most prone to intrigue; spies and assassins and manipulation are her tools. It also starts to suggest appropriate geography, as well as being an important part of the history. Other ideas will flow from this core story of the founding of the kingdoms; for example, I can now see that the youngest king's castle is still unfinished, as it is being built in a rural area. That's kind of an intriguing image, and very appropriate, as Dark Ages castles took years (if not decades) to finish.
+
+OK, enough for now; there will be more decisions to be made on the subject of politics next installment.
+
+
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 5b: politics (continued)
+
+### The New World, Part 5b: Politics (Continued)
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+(My discussion on politics continued...)
+
+Then I need what I could call the "fourth kingdom": a nation that broke away during the current monarchs' father's rule. The second emperor was not as strong as his father (the one who built the empire), so an outlying region was able to fight back and gain independence. I think this nation should be on the other side of a difficult geographic region, such as mountains; this would explain how a small region defended against the large empire's army. This nation was heavily influenced by the empire, and thus has many related cultural traits, but since leaving they have reinstated some of the older traditions of their barbarian roots. Rather than a king, they have a Council of Elders for the entire nation, though in practice they are little more than shared dictators. Still, they are relatively benevolent.
+
+Now, the nations of the two oldest children of the old emperor (let's call them Kingdoms A and B) would both love to conquer the fourth kingdom (Kingdom D). However, doing so would expend enough resources to possibly weaken them against attack from the other. Further, Kingdom D just recently established a very public alliance with the youngest son's lands (Kingdom C), and it is unlikely that A or B alone could defeat both lands if it came to all-out war. Of course, if A and B had an alliance and fought together, they would win, but neither ruler trusts the other sibling enough. Thus, there is a delicate balance of power between the 4 kingdoms, where any shift could lead to war.
+
+How about the barbarians? In the interest of symmetry, let's have there be three main barbarian nations that were never conquered by the empire. Though unlike the civilized nations, they are based strictly on ethnic ties rather than geography or law. These three nations would fight each other frequently before the empire came, but now they have something of a truce. They often have to deal with groups of knights riding out from the kingdoms, looking for resources or conquest, and they have to deal with gnoll attacks from the far north as well. Every year they lose more people than are born. Their druid religion is hated by the formal church, who encourages its priests to convert druids to the formal worship of the Sun and Moon. Basically, their way of life is dying and they are just too stubborn to go quietly.
+
+It's important when making a campaign world to be certain that any potential character concept can actually be played successfully. For example, I just established that barbarians are essentially in a state of aggression with the civilized kingdoms. But what if the DM is running a campaign revolving around a particular lord's estate and one player wants to play a barbarian? I don't want to make it difficult for that character to move around the nation, and I don't want him to be attacked on sight or anything. Thus I need to put an "out" into the setting; a way in which barbarians can travel through civilized nations without always being hassled.
+
+My thoughts are stuck on this for a while, but I think I've come up with something. The civilization that exists has only been around for three generations; not that long in the grand scheme of things. Many of the people living in the kingdoms might still maintain certain "barbaric" styles, making it less certain as to who might be an outsider. Plus, the barbarians are not going to be fantasy stereotypes with bearskin cloaks and oiled muscles. A barbarian is going to be more like the Celts or the Goths, someone who follows a different culture but is just as advanced (or perhaps a touch less so, since they will not have cities and such). So even being able to pick out a barbarian from a commoner will be difficult.
+
+In fact, let's ditch the word "barbarian". With no D&D; class of the same name to support, I can call those nations whatever I want. I'll think on that and get back to it later.
+
+I'll put in one last piece of the puzzle: When the dying emperor split up the kingdom, he couldn't let the seat of the two churches, Sun and Moon, lie in any of the three newly created nations. To do so would give that heir a distinct advantage in terms of public support. So he created two independent states, each one just the size of a city, each one controlled by one church. They are more or less defenseless-just a small corps of dedicated defenders-but each kingdom knows that any hostility towards either church-state would result in a large-scale revolt of their populace. Of course, the churches don't reciprocate, and constantly poke their noses into the politics of the other kingdoms.
+
+I think I have a firm grasp on the way these nations relate to one another. Next, maybe I'll start considering geography.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 6: geography
+
+### The New World, Part 6: Geography
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Time to finally talk a little about what the world actually looks like. Keep in mind that much of what I'm about to say is a gross oversimplification of real earth science, but it's good enough for our purposes.
+
+To start, I know a few things about how I want games set in this world to feel. I want there to be a lot of overland travel, rather than travel by boat, because I want the feel that places you need to sail to are distant and exotic. I also want the possibility of major land wars, complete with cavalry and such. All of the major factions need to be able to try to invade one another without crossing any major body of water. Plus, many of the world's nations were once part of a continuous empire, one that was held together for at least two generations.
+
+These all lead to the same conclusion: one large continent upon which all of the nations exist. Rather than being centered around a sea or ocean, the civilizations will cover one large land mass, and contact with other land masses will be scarce. In fact, I'm not even going to draw other continents on my map; let them be the purview of individual DMs, should they ever wish to expand the world. So I draw the following basic shape:
+
+
+
+You'll notice I am already using a basic guideline for drawing realistic land masses: peninsulas usually lead to islands. In fact, that is really just a corollary of a bigger guideline, which I'll call "Elevation determines everything." What does that mean? It means that every aspect of natural geography can be derived from the height above or below sea level. Actually, elevation itself is partly determined by the movement and position of tectonic plates, so it should be called "Tectonic plates determine everything," but frankly, the players will never encounter tectonic plates. Thus I just cheat that part and start with elevation.
+
+So, how do I determine geography using elevation? First, try to think of the planet not as land and water, but as simply land, like a big bumpy patch of ground. If you then pour water onto that bumpy ground, parts of it will immediately be submerged, while other parts will stay dry; the water will flow down to seek the lowest regions. Those regions will be the seas and oceans, and the paths the water takes to get from the highland to the lowland are the rivers. If you think about it carefully, you'll realize that there are places where the water flows in and covers much of the region but not the highest points, creating islands.
+
+Mountains usually form when two plates (the giant masses that form the planet's crust) crash against one another. They thus tend to form in lines, representing the borders between two plates. This is important, because mountains in vaguely linear shapes are a lot more believable when you look at them; think of the Appalachians, or the Andes for examples. Another important point is that these linear forms will tend to be parallel to coastlines. After all, a coastline is nothing more than the point where the elevation becomes high enough to break the water's surface.
+
+Mountains can't be parallel to ALL coastlines, though, so what happens when they meet the ocean? Usually peninsulas, and thereafter, islands. The mountains become lower and lower until water starts to flood between each peak. By this point, they are hardly recognizable as "mountains" per se, but they are still elevated land, at least compared to the ocean floor.
+
+But remember, I'm partly working backwards. I know, for example, that Kingdom D needs to be separated by mountains, and I know that Kingdom A needs a lot of hills and mountains for mining. I know that I want nearby islands with shallow water for my faux-Vikings. So I'll draw in to my maps "peak lines," representing the paths of the highest elevations. (They are the lines in magenta.) After seeing them, I see that they converge in the northeast, so logic says there should be some more islands over there. I add them, and my map now looks like this:
+
+
+
+This is working out well: I have a huge flat open area to serve as the seat of civilization. I'm starting to picture South America, with a ring of mountains and an extensive river system, only with a more temperate climate. Let's add rivers next, then, because they make the best borders and are virtually a prerequisite for city placement. Rivers, as mentioned, flow from the highest peak to the sea, always seeking the lowest land along the way. Smaller rivers will flow into larger rivers; rivers only "split" if you are traveling upstream. I draw rivers in to the map, concentrating on the major ones; I assume there are more tiny streams and rivers than I would even be able to map.
+
+I added a few lakes, too, because lakes are great settings that are underused in fantasy gaming, in my opinion. Lakes are important in tales of Arthur (Lady of the Lake, anyone?) and kind of have a European connotation that I like. There aren't many lakes in other settings that I've seen, either, so sure, what the hell; this world has a lot of lakes.
+
+
+
+Time to sketch in our kingdoms. First, I'll shade in the area that was controlled by the old empire at the height of its power (yellow shading). This area was held with naked force, though, and the edges of it represent how far the armies ever conquered. During the reign of the first emperor's son, the empire contracted to those regions they could safely and securely defend (orange shading). This is a crucial point, because it explains how there can be people of "barbarian" nature within the kingdoms. So the history map looks like this:
+
+
+
+Now we divide up the old empire into kingdoms. Reviewing our story from Part 5, we know that the eldest son chose a mountainous and mineral-rich area; that looks like the southeast part of the empire. The middle child, the daughter, went with the trading ports; clearly, those would be on the main rivers, giving her the western coastline. The area in the northeast of the empire has lots of rivers and lakes, so that would be prefect for the youngest son's rich farmlands. Kingdom D, the breakaway, goes far into the southeast, on that peninsula, separated from A & B by the mountains. Interestingly, this means that it shares no borders with its ally, Kingdom C, which strikes me as great fodder for adventuring as couriers from C to D must pass through enemy territory to deliver messages. I like it a lot.
+
+How about the nations that were never part of the empire? As they are organized by blood ties rather than geography, we'll draw them with very irregular borders. One will hug the coastline (F), while another only inhabits river valleys (G). One (E) will butt right up against Kingdom C; that's the most peace-loving kingdom, after all, and we can't have them all peaches and cream. Let them fend off the barbarians at the big lake. And the faux-Vikings end up on the islands (H). Oh, and the gnolls (J) need a good chunk of territory at the very northernmost reaches; I like the idea of them being arctic and barbaric.
+
+Finally, I'll draw in the church-states (K). Their location is now obvious: the point where all three major Kingdoms touch, at the fork in the river. I'll block in roughly the capital cities for each kingdom; the "free" tribes don't really have central seats of authority.
+
+
+
+For now, that's good enough. I still need to define the exact terrain types for each region (forests, mountains, hills, plains) but that can come later, when I am ready to make a final map. This is enough for me to continue to flesh out the setting without tying me down to tightly to a specific geography.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 7: names and cultures
+
+### The New World, Part 7: Names and Cultures of the Civilized Nations
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+I’m going to kill two birds with one stone here, discussing both the cultures of the world as well as its naming conventions. This is partly because they are tightly intertwined in my mind, and partly because I haven’t done one of these articles in a few weeks and need to do a double-sized one to get myself back on track.
+
+First, culture. As seems to be the case in a lot of these articles, I should define what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a mixture of ethnicity (as opposed to the way “race” is used in D&D;) and defining lifestyle. And that lifestyle includes art, clothing, weapons and other equipment, traditions, and personal religious beliefs. To relate it to the real world, think of everything that separates the Aztecs from the British, both of which had monarchies; that’s what I mean by “culture.”
+
+I’ve already gotten a jumpstart on this by deciding on a Dark Ages time period and level of technology. But I am definitely not going to limit myself to the kinds of cultures that existed in Europe at the time of the Dark Ages. My idea is to fuse that time with cultures from other times and locations to create civilizations that feel realistic but are unique to the world. Some will be close knock-offs of real world European groups, but I hope to give them some twists too.
+
+But what does this have to do with naming things? Everything, really. One of the biggest flaws I see in fantasy settings and even fantasy novels is to create names for people, places, and things in a vacuum, without regard for the cultures that coined those names. If the nation is called Eagleclaw, the capital should not be called X’ithcal, and the river upon whose shore it sits should not be named the Chijcothu’ru River. Names of related places should relate linguistically, generally speaking. If they don’t, it should be on purpose, as a way of indicating that the region was named by another civilization or species. This is why the United States has such a hodge-podge of names, given as they were by settlers from many nations or swiped from what the indigenous people used. Thus, you can have Manhattan island (an Iroquois name) in the Hudson River (a Dutch name), which is part of New York City (an English name), and looks out onto the Atlantic Ocean (a Latin name). But if you look at other nations, all of their names come from their own language and culture.
+
+For our world, we want a little of each. The Three Kingdoms were organized and conquered by one group, but consist of the ancestral lands of several different nations. Thus, there will be clumps of related names, interspersed with places more recently named in the tongue of the empire. The wild lands, though, will be named solely by the tribes that live there, to further separate them.
+
+When choosing names, remember that people play roleplaying games by speaking out loud. Names that look good on paper are no good if the players or DM cannot pronounce them. *Xzymrotchit* might strike you as a cool name for the elven capital, but I can guarantee you in an actual session, the people sitting around the table will call it, “that big elf city.” And that takes them out of the mood for that fraction of a second every time they say it.
+
+And here’s a pet peeve: I don’t use apostrophes in the middle of words. It drives me nuts, and yet it’s all over fantasy literature and gems as the poor man’s method to make something sound exotic. Well, forget it, no apostrophes.
+
+
+
+The first group we need to consider are the conquerors themselves. These are the people who, under the leadership of the first emperor, went out and seized control of other lands and nations. Since we know that we want the world’s general civilization to reflect the Carolingian period of the Dark Ages, it’s clear that these people need to personify that ideal. Before the formation of the empire, they already had a culture very much like what we see now: nobles, castles, chainmail, etc. In fact, when choosing names for the people and places they founded, I’ve decided I’m going to use plain English (or a very slight corruption thereof) to emphasize their central place in the culture. When they name a town, it will be something like “Blackriver” rather than an invented word. People will have real-life (if medieval) names: Charles, Leon, William, etc. However, rather than having surnames, people will have titles, such as “the Great” or “the Hammer” or even “the Bald.”
+
+**The People:** Like the Franks that gave rise to Charlemagne, I need a name for the culture that birthed the empire. It needs to be simple and to the point, as well as able to be easily turned into adjective form easily. In this case, it doesn’t need to have a meaning, as long as it sounds vaguely Anglo-Saxon. I have two ideas: The Carns (adj: Carnish) or the Thrans (adj: Thrannish). Upon further reflection, Carn can be too easily misused as “carnal” (as in carnal knowledge) or “cornish” (as in Cornish game hens). I think I’ll go with **the Thrans**. This would make the now-defunct empire the Thrannish Empire.
+
+**The Conquering Emperor:** This name has to be important, as his tales will be the backdrop for the entire civilization. Obviously, Charles is out, as is William; too close to the real thing. I also want to make sure that the name, while having a real European origin, is not one that modern readers will associate as wimpy. I was strongly considering Edward the Conqueror, but decided it would probably not be taken seriously. Instead, I think I’m going with **Garrick the Forger**, or simply King Garrick. It kind of feels medieval, and as an extra bonus, Garrick means “powerful with a spear.” Which reminds me; when looking for names for peoples, don’t underestimate the value of a book of baby names. I used [this baby name website](https://www.babycenter.com/babyname) (dead) when looking for names, for example.
+
+**The Second Emperor:** Now this guy needs a wimpy name. After all, we already know that he let Kingdom D break away and was foolish enough to divide his kingdom up on his deathbed rather than maintain the empire. I come up with **Royce the Quiet**, which also implies the kind of guy who never stood up to his more powerful father.
+
+**The Rulers of the Three Kingdoms:** How about Royce’s progeny? (Wow, it’s so refreshing to finally be able to refer to someone by name.) First, we have the young and idealistic son, the noble and fair king who thinks of his people first. How about **Alden the Dark**? So named because he has dark hair, but it would also serve as an ironic comment, as fantasy books tend to make the word *dark* synonymous with evil (and Alden is anything but).
+
+The eldest son, on the other hand, is greedy and self-involved. He demands a more sinister name; I first want to go back to Edward, but now that is too close to Alden phonetically. I decide on the spot that this guy has to not be the warrior-type, despite having the blood of the mighty Garrick in his veins. So what would cause the eldest son of the emperor to never master the art of war? A permanent injury of some kind; he was born with a clubfoot. While not really that crippling, it is noticeable enough to give the character a distinct visual appearance. I think **Bryce the Game** will work as a name. Game is an obscure synonym for *lame*, as in having a crippled leg, and Bryce echoes his father’s name, Royce. And, like Alden’s title, *game* has a second meaning that speaks to his personality.
+
+Let’s hold off on the daughter for now; I have an idea percolating that will come up later in the article.
+
+**The Three Kingdoms:** We have to name the nations themselves, of course. Knowing that Alden’s kingdom is based around its rich and fertile farmland, I’ve decided to name it **Vertland** (*vert* is a synonym for green, particularly a forest green). Bryce’s nation is rocky and rich in metals, but also militarily aggressive (possibly to compensate for Bryce’s shortcomings). I decide to name it after a weapon of some kind, but I don’t want to make it one of the weapons still part of the core game. I settle on **Fauchard**, a type of hooked spear.
+
+While I haven’t named its ruler yet, the daughter’s kingdom needs a name as well. It is a land of major rivers, with a long shoreline; it also relies on commerce with the enigmatic Traders from across the sea. I think a water-based name might be appropriate. In fact, Aquitaine was the name of a portion of Charlemagne’s empire; I come this close to directly ripping that off, but in the end decide on **Redwater**. As soon as I come up with the name, I decide that there should be some kind of red clay deposits along regions of the shoreline to explain the name. Conveniently, I now know one of the nation’s primary export goods: pottery.
+
+Playing on these names and identities, it’s easy to come up with names for the three seats of government. Redwater’s capital, the largest center of trade from oversea, will be named **Riversend** (literally at the end of the river). Fauchard’s heavily defended mountain castle will be called **Greycliff**. Finally, Vertland’s capital is still under construction if you remember, so we’ll call it **Latecastle**.
+
+
+
+But wait! We’ve only discussed the names and culture of the dominant civilization. Even within the Three Kingdoms, though, there are still connections to the nations that existed before the Thranish conquest. These groups need some for form cultural separate from that of the Thrans, so I’ll brainstorm some ideas.
+
+First, I think a pseudo-Celtic tribe would be interesting. They’ll be a group that is definitely only half-assimilated into the Thran’s culture of nobles and kings while still having a Dark Ages feel. But they won’t be an exact replica of real Celtic culture; in fact, I think they will have dark skin and be almost a Celtic-African fusion culture. One of my other personal issues is that I think it’s important for anyone who picks up the book to be able to relate to the people in the world, and thus there should be a variety of skin tones in the characters depicted.
+
+I need a name for these people, naturally, and I want to immediately convey their “celtic-ness.” That means y’s, g’s, double n’s, and hard k’s, among other sounds. And I want to drop the reliance on English words with identifiable meanings. How about **Kylnnet** (pronounced KILN-et)? It sounds Celtic but is utterly made up. They will have lived in the western part of the empire, in forests and plains that are now northern Redwater and western Vertland. (Man, I can’t tell you how much more convenient it is to finally have names!)
+
+Now, here’s why I held off on naming the queen of Redwater: in my mind, I’ve determined that I needed a way to explain why certain groups have not revolted against the Thrannish monarchs. As I picture them, the Kylnnet would be the most likely to lead such a revolt, so why hasn’t it happened? Easy: Royce the Quiet married a Kylnnic princess as his second wife, thus binding them into the empire. In fact, all the Kylnnet who were related to this princess instantly became landed nobles within the empire, and have subsequently passed those holdings to their children. Redwater’s queen, therefore, is half-Thrannish, half-Kylnnic, and I want her to have a Kylnnic name (that is, a Celtic name) to reflect this. Persuing a list of Celtic and Gaelic names, I pick **Katrionna**; I don’t think I need to give her an official title.
+
+As a side note, I think I just determined that Royce had at least three successive wives, one for each of his offspring. That works fine, as it makes it more likely that they have no familial emotional ties to one another.
+
+Now, I have a large mountainous region, mostly within the kingdom of Fauchard’s borders, that would have been inhabited by non-centralized tribes of miners and such. Since this world has no dwarves to steal this niche, we have a place for a culture of hardy mountain men. I’m thinking heavily Germanic for the names; Wilhelm, Reichard, that kind of thing. I’ll call them the **Stahlmen**; they didn’t have enough of a unified culture to survive the assimilation by the Thrans, but they still have traditions and language connections that survive.
+
+Let’s end there temporarily; I still have the culture of the gnomes and the various “barbaric” nations to deal with, as well as any additional cultural groups subsumed by the Thrans. But this article is long enough, and I’d like the decisions I made here to simmer in the back of my mind for a bit before going forward.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 8: names and cultures of the gnomes
+
+### The New World, Part 8: Names and Cultures of the Gnomes
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Let’s talk about gnomes.
+
+I’ve already determined that gnomes are going to be the only major nonhuman race, which means they are going to be a focal point of the setting. The gnomes therefore need to have a compelling culture that can withstand close examination. It also needs to jettison most of the sillier aspects that have hung around the gnomes’ necks like a big honking albatross. No tinkers, no pranksters, no long unpronounceable names or fast speech. These gnomes are going to be serious—maybe even a bit sinister?
+
+I want to focus on their role as the loremasters of the Thrannish Empire and the Three Kingdoms. They are the masters of magic and the keeper of secrets. With no elves, they can easily settle into the role of the most magically-skilled race. But let’s not underestimate the difference in connotation between “knowledge” and “secret”. I see the gnomes as being hoarders of lore, only parceling out to the humans what is necessary to accomplish their aims.
+
+**History:** How did the gnomes come to be intertwined with the Thrans (and thus, humans in general)? Good question. I can picture a time, long before Garrick lead the Thrans to conquest, when the gnomes lived on their own. Interested even then in the knowledge of cultures long dead, they lived in and around the ruins of older ancient cultures—the equivalent of the Greeks and Egyptians, in our world. Of course, their delving into the lore of these dead people yielded magical secrets and great knowledge, but they were not able to defend themselves against barbarians who sought to loot the ruins for treasures of the ancients.
+
+The gnomes chose to make an alliance with one of these tribes, the Thrans, and share a small portion of their knowledge in exchange for protection. Even the least of their secrets allowed the Thrans to overwhelm their foes, and the alliance was solidified through a period of years. The gnomes, however, chose to hold back the bulk of their magical secrets, instituting the rituals of the Church of the Sun and the Church of the Moon as a means of keeping their magical lore out of the hands of all but those humans most sympathetic to the gnomes. As time passed, even the knowledge of this aspect of the Churches’ purposes faded from the gnome’s memory, as it was never recorded in the histories. Thus, contemporary gnomes are not aware that the Churches began their existence as a means of keeping control of the Thrans.
+
+An aside: this does not mean that the Sun and the Moon are not really gods. It’s just that in this world, they are largely impersonal and uninvolved gods. They don’t care about the rituals that pervade the Churches, and one does not need to follow the Churches’ dogma in order to draw on their magic. Of course, the Churches try to suppress the knowledge of this fact, which is why magic-wielders outside the religious hierarchy are persecuted. In a way, this ties back to the Churches’ origin as a means of control.
+
+Getting back to the gnomes, though, we can see that as the combined Thran-gnome culture grew, it became more powerful both militarily and culturally. While the gnomes kept separate from the Thran rulers, they were in many ways the power behind the throne (such as it was). The unifying teachings of the Churches also helped form the Thrans into a nation rather than a loose collection of ethnically-similar tribes. At some point, two gnomish high priests of the Sun and Moon crowned the first true Thrannish king, and several generations later, this crown fell to Garrick, who turned his eyes to the rest of the continent.
+
+**Culture:** The gnomes are not inherently magical beings, but the study of magic is integral to their identity. Almost all gnomes have some minor magical tricks they can perform, though only those who study at the Churches (or strike out to do research on their own) truly master the art.
+
+Visually, I picture the gnomes as having a slightly ancient style, as they admire the dead cultures of the past. Loose robes and such, circlets, lots of jewelry, and sandals. At least, that’s how the priests and scholars in the cities will dress; adventurer gnomes are more likely to adopt more protective clothing like the humans around them. I also see them as being more colorful, literally, than the humans. Their clothes will have reds, golds, and purples, while the humans wear brown, brown, and more brown.
+
+The gnomes will have their own language, which will be a complete secret. They are utterly forbidden by centuries of tradition from teaching their tongue to humans. Were the knowledge slip into the human population, they would be able to read the texts of ancient gnomes and learn some not-so-pleasant truths about the early gnome-human relationship.
+
+**Politics:** The gnomes exist oddly separate from the human concepts of nobles and commoners, despite living in the same nations. Humans treat them as essentially their own class, with many of the privileges of nobility though none of the wealth or clout. Within their own groups, however, status is directly related to age and magical knowledge. Gnomish laborers and craftsmen, while respected, do not have the same opportunities allowed to a scholar.
+
+Gnomes can theoretically serve any role in the unified civilization, but they rarely take on the most menial or unskilled tasks. Even a simple artisan is likely to have great freedom to move and determine his own fate compared to a human commoner skilled in the same craft. Gnomes also have greater opportunity for social advancement; a gnome silversmith who decides to study the lore of the Moon could easily join the Church and rise through the ranks, while a human would need to be raised from early childhood before being initiated into the priesthood.
+
+The division of the Thrannish Empire into three competing kingdoms is of some concern to the gnomish leaders. During the reigns of Garrick and Royce, gnomes spread beyond Thran, serving Churches or studying magic in all corners of the empire. The death of Royce, however suddenly broke the empire into three groups, but the gnomes had no real loyalty to this new order. To deny the sovereignty of the local ruler, however, was a sure path to suspicion and ultimately destruction. Thus, the gnomes have taken to paying homage to the regional authority while often maintaining true loyalty to the race of gnomes as a whole (and to a lesser degree, to the two Churches and the high priests thereof). A gnome from Redwater and a gnome from Fachard are likely to see each other as brothers and allies, even though the nations they live in have strained relations.
+
+The biggest seats of gnomish power are the twin cities that hold the respective temples of the Sun and the Moon. I just realized I need names for these cities, and now is as good a time as any. I’m not going to get too fancy here: the **Sun Citadel** and the **Moon Tower**. This will actually be the name of the city as well as the actual temple; one might be a merchant in Moontower without having any relation to the Church of the Moon per se.
+
+
+
+Ok, cool, I have a pretty good idea for now of how they fit in. I’ll move on to other topics for now.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > the new world, part 9: names and cultures of the barbarians
+
+### The New World, Part 9: Names and Cultures of the Barbarians
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Time to try and get this Names and Cultures thing finished up.
+
+First and foremost of the nations yet to be defined is Kingdom D. Let’s review and expand upon what I’ve already decided about this place.
+
+Kingdom D is geographically isolated by mountains from the rest of the continent. This is going to be crucial, I think, in that whatever culture exists is going to have been completely different from the pseudo-European Thrans. Further, I think this means that they must have been slightly less advanced in the ways of war, because they were conquered by Garrick the Forger fairly easily—especially when you consider that I just established that Garrick’s troops had to get through “impassable” mountains to attack them. Thus, in the present day, we know that while Kingdom D’s culture will be very different from the Thrans, they will have adopted their military techniques and equipment over the last 50 years.
+
+Kingdom D revolted from Royce’s rule at some point. Further, I think it was more a war of intimidation than full-scale assaults. I don’t want there to have been a 20 year war of independence here. I picture that the Kingdom D’ers managed to pull off a few very devastating strikes against their neighbors on the other side of the mountains, the Stahlmen. Now that I think of it, this dovetails nicely with Fauchard’s hostility towards Kingdom D; these battles might well have been slaughters, and the Stahlmen and Thrans of Fauchard still remember these assaults.
+
+Here’s what I am thinking of, then, as a cultural basis for Kingdom D: India. I’m picturing Kingdom D as a fusion between ancient India and the Dark Ages of Europe. Their knights wear chain mail armor with colored silk; their government is a mix of feudalism and a strict caste system. Basically, they were different enough to never truly fit in to Garrick’s empire, but absorbed enough that they are now technologically equal with the other three kingdoms.
+
+I think there’s a lot of potential there for a unique visual look, which is something I find really important. I want someone to be able to understand the differences between the different nations by looking at a warrior from each.
+
+Now, I need a name for them. I’ve grown so attached to “Kingdom D” as a name, though, that I want to keep the name starting with D. So, and Indian-sounding word that begins with “d”. How about **Dharta**? It’s pure invention on my part, but the “dh” spelling feels right.
+
+My new nation of Dharta doesn’t have a king or queen, though. That is part of what is going to separate them from the other nations, and part of why they revolted in the first place. Dharta will be essentially an oligarchy, ruled by the highest caste. It won’t be entirely benevolent, but because they are Dhartan in nature and not foreign conquerors they have the complete support of their people—for now. But if Fauchard and its allies were ever permanently dealt with, this upper caste might face the fact that those below them are now far better armed and armored than ever before in their land’s history.
+
+
+
+Let’s move on to the proto-Viking culture in the northwest islands. These are going to be an analog of the Vikings, but not the Vikings of stories today. These are thieves, bandits, raiders, and generally unpleasant people, not noble warriors. They are going to have more in common with rogues than barbarians. Their boating skills will be superb, naturally, allowing them to scour most of Redwater with raiding parties. They have no horsemanship skills, but this serves them well as they live in lands ill-suited for cavalry tactics. This, more than anything, is why Redwater knights have so much trouble ending their threat. They can kill a raiding party, but they can’t wipe out the source.
+
+This will also not be a unified nation in any sense of the word. Each set of villages will be ruled by a warlord with only casual relations to the others. This frustrates Queen Katirionna’s efforts to sue for peace; she appeases one warlord with chests of gold, only to find the armies of three others knocking on her kingdom’s doors. In a sense, though, this is their weakness as well. If the various warlords ever banded together, they could sack Riversend itself.
+
+They still need a name though; Vikingish, but not too obvious. How about Ordnings? Hmmm, kind of awkward to say. Wait, what about **Westlings**? It’s kind of a play on the Vikings being called “Norsemen,” or Northmen. These raiders come from the westernmost islands and peninsulas on the continent, and they don’t have enough of a unified nation to have picked a name for themselves, so they are called by the name other tribes have always referred to them.
+
+
+
+That takes care of the “H Barbarians” (harkening back to our map), let’s look at the F Barbarians. These are the most northern human settlements, brushing right up against the arctic gnolls. When thinking of northern, arctic cultures, fantasy worlds seem to always go in the same direction: big burly blonde guys with horned helmets. Blech. Cliché, and plus I already have a culture leeching off the Vikings. I want a new arctic culture that I’ve never seen used.
+
+How about Eskimos? Not literally; no igloos, for example. But an arctic oriental culture, kind of a mix of Inuit and the northern reaches of Asia. This immediately sounds interesting to me, because I’ve been wrestling internally with whether to include a “typically” Asian nation. My fear was that once you have samurai and such, you lose the Dark Ages feel. But this would be something new and interesting; villages of hearty spear fishermen living on the northeastern bay. They’re simply too far north to have been conquered by the Thrans, but they might have goods worth trading, resulting in the occasional traveler. In fact, I think they might be the only “barbarian” collective on good terms with the civilized nations. They’ve got too much to deal with from the gnolls to fight with the other humans.
+
+Let’s give these people a name. Pulling from the Eskimo/Inuit thing, I’m actually going to give them TWO names: one they call themselves, and one others call them. For their common name, I’ll go with something descriptive: **Icemen**. Simple, direct, to-the-point, and probably loathed by the people themselves. They refer to themselves, however, as the **Ayoo Tun’I**. Which explains why the southerners can’t be bothered to remember it.
+
+
+
+E Barbarians next. These people are right up against Vertland, but are not part of it. They were, however, under Garrick’s direct military rule for at least a decade, before Royce retreated from their lands. I imagine they would have to be pretty hostile to avoid being assimilated. So it occurs to me that it would be interesting to give them a guiding cultural belief that actually prevented them from being absorbed permanently. In fact, I am going to give them a very strict druidic religion that will have a very different take on the Sun and the Moon than the Churches’ doctrines. I don’t know what it is yet, but I think it will include the belief that the gnomes are demons. Little, stubby demons out to corrupt the souls of tall, strong men. Bam! Instant ideological conflict with both the nations, the Churches, and the gnomes themselves. I like it.
+
+As far as culture, I think I’ve defined them enough with the religion, so we’ll keep them basic Dark Age villages, with no fancy real-world analog. But I suspect they will have shades of latter-day concepts like witch trials and inquisitors in their tiny villages. And since it looks like their lands cover the best trading routes between the Icemen and Vertland, there’s plenty of opportunity to run afoul of them during a campaign.
+
+Finally, their name. I’ve been looking for something a bit on the poetic side; I think they refer to themselves as the **Children of the Twelve**. Frankly, I have no idea who or what the Twelve are at this point, though I imagine it ties into their radical religion. We’ll worry about that later, for now, I like the sound of it.
+
+
+
+We’re on the home stretch. G Barbarians next. OK, let’s look at where I drew them: in unconnected river valleys in the north. While all the “barbarian” lands are not unified, what if these valleys were actually completely isolated from one another? Just getting there is a huge ordeal. And what would be the logical consequence of isolation? A backwards undeveloped society. These guys are still in the Iron Age up there, with no idea about what’s going on in the rest of the world.
+
+They’ve got their own little set of mini-kingdoms, each different from the next but all way behind the rest of the continent. I like the idea, not only because it’s fun to have people who are awed by the sights of the cities, but because it’s good setting-building to include an area where a DM can create his own independent kingdom. Sometimes plots just demand you to be able to kill a king without disrupting the status quo of the setting. So collectively, we’ll call these the **Valley Kingdoms**. We’ll name a few if it comes up as important.
+
+
+
+Hey, I think I finally finished naming everything major. Only took me like 3 months. Next time, I finally move on to something that will have some seriously helpful tips for any campaign setting: Organizations and their roles.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > what is texture?
+
+### What is Texture?
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Welcome to the first in a series of articles about improving your roleplaying experience by adding texture to your game. What do I mean when I use the term "texture"? I'm talking about all of the little details that add up to create a complete description. Texture is the color of a sword's hilt, the sound of distant thunder, or the smell of baked pies as one passes through a village. It's knowing the reason why the villain is so villainous, and hinting at secrets that are never revealed. Everything that makes the world feel like a place where people live, rather than just an exercise in problem-solving.
+
+Chances are you already have some texture in your game. If you are running a pre-published adventure or world, there are almost certainly many little details that you normally don't see in your self-generated adventures. And that is really the point of these articles: to allow you to add enough texture into your game so that your players won't notice the difference between a store-bought adventure and a homebrew.
+
+I use the word "texture" for these details because for me, they are the difference between a flat, predictable description and one that is alive and vibrant. When adding details to your game, your goal should be to have enough volume so that the descriptions blur together into a patina of verbal imagery. Texture cannot exist in a vacuum; if one part of an image has texture and the remainder does not, it will be obvious. Players should not be able to pick out what is important to their plot based on the level of detail in your description. For example, pretend your gamemaster gave you the following description:
+
+*You enter the wizard's study. There are some bookcases, a desk, and a chair. There are books all over the place, and a single red quill pen, eight inches in length, stands in a brass pot of ink on the desk.*
+
+Nine out of ten players will go immediately for the pen. Why? Because it was the only item in the room truly given texture. The rest of the area was painted in only in the broadest of strokes. If the gamemaster was trying to set that quill up as a clue of some kind, he has now robbed the players of the opportunity to discover that on their own. Now, consider the following alternative:
+
+*You enter the wizard's study. A musty smell fills the air, and swirls of dust follow you as you move. A pair of oak bookcases sit on opposite sides of the room, each filled with leather-bound tomes of assorted shades of brown. On the left bookcase, one shelf has broken, spilling its contents over the shelf below and the floor. A massive desk, at least seven feet in length, fills the center of the room, with dozens of tiny brass-handled drawers. A large book lies open on the desk, near a single red quill pen, eight inches in length, standing in a brass pot of ink.*
+
+The gamemaster has given the exact same description of the pen, but has instead hidden its importance by giving detailed accounts of the room's furnishings. He knows that the only important clue in the room is the pen, but the players do not. Their actions will thus deal with the entirety of the room rather than the metagame thinking that would lead them to the pen. One might decide to check out the broken bookshelf, another might want to check the desk drawers. If they eventually look at the pen and discover its relevance, they will feel that much more of a sense of accomplishment.
+
+This example also illustrates one of the key features of texture: it is most often irrelevant. In other words, if the players have a mission to accomplish, most of the texture you put into your descriptions will have no direct bearing on that mission. But that's the point; if I go to mail my phone bill, the fact that I pass a parked police car on the way to the mailbox isn't important. It does, however, tell me something about the immediate area and what might be going on there. This is why adding texture to your game creates the illusion of reality; you are basically giving players proof that the world is turning with or without them.
+
+Here are 5 simple ways you can add texture to a room or character description:
+
+1. **Color:** People spend a lot of energy making sure the things they own are a pleasing color. Anywhere intelligent beings live, there is the opportunity for changing the color of the walls, the doors, the furniture, the upholstery, the curtains, etc. Of course, natural settings can also have a bewildering variety of unexpected color. Why talk about a tree when you can talk about a grey-barked tree with yellowish-green leaves?
+2. **Brokenness:** Things break, often. Whether they have been repaired or not is a good indicator to the players about the level of attention a room receives. How well they are fixed might also be a clue; if the bookshelf was propped up with another book but generally left broken, it says that the owner doesn't care too much.
+3. **Juryrigging:** Spaces are often not used in the manner for which they were designed. People tend to adapt a room or object to the purpose they require, rather than the crafter's intent. This is especially true of dungeons, where the current inhabitants almost certainly did not build the place. Think about how they may have altered the room's purpose, and what changes they might have made as a result.
+4. **Bodily Functions:** Living creatures need to eat, sleep, eliminate, and possibly mate. If you set up a monster's lair in a location where the occupant cannot realistically achieve all of these needs, it will be far less believable. Likewise, NPCs also need to fulfill these functions, and often at the worst possible time.
+5. **Scars:** Creatures who fight regularly should be scarred, especially if they do not have access to healing magic. Scars hint at a story that the player's don't know; they imply that the creature has lived an entire life up to the point when it appears "on screen". An owlbear with a jagged scar across its beak is more memorable, and perhaps more fearsome, than one without.
+
+Those are just my opening thoughts on the subject. Next time, I'll discuss breathing life into NPCs by giving them illogical emotional responses. In the meantime, why not head to the message board and tell everyone about a bit of description of which you are particularly proud?
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > making the tough decisions
+
+### Making the Tough Decisions
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Since this series was originally conceived as a series for DMs, I was thinking "Texture for Players" would be a one-article subject. But as I got into it, I started to see more and more ways that a little extra thought about your character can improve the game. So I'm going to start here with a few thoughts about **making decisions**. Really, that's 90% of what a player does in a roleplaying game; he or she makes decisions. But too often, players fall into the mistaken belief that certain decisions are not really theirs to make, or are foregone conclusions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two ways in which you can always choose for your character to act differently, which will add an extra level of realism and fun to your game.
+
+**Throw Caution to the Wind:** One of the most common problems I see is when a player thinks of "roleplaying" as what you do during a diplomacy scene, completely separated from what you do during combat. Bzzz! Wrong answer. Everything you do, when talking or when swinging your sword, is roleplaying. A well-developed character will have a fighting style that extends beyond his selection of feats, and will have a consistent and believable response to any obstacle they encounter. If you turn off your character's personality just because the dice come out, you are missing out on a whole range of roleplaying possibilities that would add depth to your character.
+
+A good place to start when thinking about your character's combat roleplaying style is to consider what your character thinks of as an "acceptable loss." Does your character balk at the thought of being wounded, running to the cleric whenever he's hit, or does he stand in melee long after he probably should have withdrawn? Is his focus on staying alive at all costs, or defeating the enemy no matter what? This could partly be determined by alignment, but a particularly stubborn character might fight to the bitter end despite being Neutral.
+
+Another choice concerns how willing he is to use renewable (or nonrenewable) resources, such as spells, potions, scrolls, wand charges, rage uses, etc. He may have a cavalier attitude, feeling the party will always be able to rest or restock, or he might never use any resource if he can win a fight without it. A barbarian, for example, might rage as soon as he sees a tough band of foes, or he might wait until he is wounded and could use the extra hit points. The choice reflects his personality: if he saves his rage, he might be a cautious pessimist who knows that things always get worse, but if he rages right away, he may be saying that he is confident that the heroes will win quickly. If he's a spellcaster, does he liberally burn a spell every round, even in an easy battle, or does he miserly save his spells for desperate situations? A sorcerer who revels in his magic and flaunts it at every opportunity probably falls into the former category, while a greedy wizard who covets all magical knowledge might be the latter.
+
+What these issues boil down to is how cautious the character is. Caution is at once very important and entirely overrated. It is important for players to be interested in the imaginary world and be invested in their characters' lives. But at the same time, too often players let caution overwhelm them, spending hours carefully proceeding in a calculated manner that may well belay their characters' stated personalities. The key, then, is to forget about succeeding. Your goal as a player in a roleplaying game is not to succeed; your goal is to have fun. An entertaining defeat is **better** than a boring victory, so let go of the need to always take the most effective route every time, and try taking the route your character would, even at great cost to that character.
+
+Obviously, that's hard to do. There's a natural desire to do well, and really, your character *does* want to succeed every time. The key is to separate in your mind what your character thinks from what you think. That's how you add texture, by giving your character views on how to proceed in battle that are different than your views. Your character will take every advantage that he or she perceives, but you, as the player, have the benefit of determining what sort of advantages are within your character's perception.
+
+Some examples might help. I recently finished a year-long campaign playing a samurai. On the very first adventure, the child the samurai was supposed to guard was kidnapped, and as one might expect, Isawa Shojo was willing to sacrifice anything to get him back. Now, the DM had set up this long series of tunnels that were trapped repeatedly. I ran right into the first trap, because we didn't know any better. Once we knew the tunnel was trapped, the prevailing opinion was to slow down and have the party rogue search for traps. At this point, though, I made a decision that would more or less define my character's reaction to danger: I kept running down the hall, *knowing* that there were more traps. As a player, I knew this was probably a Bad Idea, but I decided that my honorable samurai felt that getting hit with the trap was acceptable when weighed against the need to hurry. He reasoned that even if the traps killed him, he would have sprung the traps and allowed his allies to get to the end safely. By having him react without caution, I was able to show that he was a man who was willing to sacrifice his life for his duty. As the campaign continued, Isawa often ran headfirst into danger, not because he was foolish, but because he was willing to die if it meant success for his team.
+A caveat, however: if you decide to play a character who takes risks or acts rashly, you should let yourself get talked out of it from time to time by the more level-headed characters. Isawa, for example, often suggested wildly inappropriate courses of action, which the far more cautious paladin Adhemar would convince me to not enact. Throwing caution to the wind is fun once in a while, but if done during every encounter, it gets annoying to the other players.
+
+**Decide to React Differently:** Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.
+
+However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.
+
+When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.
+
+Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.
+
+Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.
+
+Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning.
+
+If the paladin is to blame for the last problem, this one belongs to the druid. Druids have such a specific set of principles that players often mistake them for being a free pass to demand that each adventure revolve around their goals. Raiding a dungeon for gold doesn't appeal to the druid mindset, so what are you to do if you play one and are presented with that goal? You improvise. Maybe the gold will enable you to purchase magic items that will let you protect the wilderness. Maybe the ruins contain unnatural monsters that need to be killed regardless of the treasure. Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked.
+
+So if you're really paying attention, you may be thinking, "Hey, don't those two points contradict one another? First he says to separate what your character thinks from what you think, but then he says your character doesn't have its own reactions." Well, no. Separate your character's thoughts from your own thoughts, but don't forget who is in control of both personalities. The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.
+
+OK, so I originally said this article would be about backgrounds, but it ended up about something else. Next time, I promise.
--- /dev/null
+[za3k](/) > [archive](/archive) > [rich burlew's articles](/richburlew) > villain workshop
+
+### Villain Workshop
+by Rich Burlew - originally from [GiantITP.com](https://www.giantitp.com/)
+
+Today we're going to talk about villains. When I say the word "villain," I mean a very specific kind of antagonist. Generally, I'm talking about character that not only serves an adversary, but also does so repeatedly, either in person or through his or her secondary influence. Villains usually have an ongoing agenda beyond, "I want to survive my next fight with the heroes." In other words, the ogre in the cave that you fight is not a villain, but the ogre who swears revenge on the heroes for killing his brother in the cave is.
+
+Creating villains is easy; we've all seen enough movies to be able to whip up a threatening guy in a black cloak who wants to conquer the world. This article is about creating villains that go beyond stereotypes and clichés, and who are fully realized characters with their own internal logic and emotional depth. It also deals with ways to keep every villain you make from accidentally having the same modus operandi; you can only throw your players against so many evil clerics of evil gods who hate everything good and pure before it starts to get stale!
+
+In the interest of making this easy for anyone to use, I'm going to go through a step-by-step procedure for creating a villain for your own campaign. Along the way, I will use a single example from my own campaign: the Fire King, a half-devil elf sorcerer/fighter.
+
+**Step X: What is the villain's race or class?** I am putting this first not because I think it should necessarily be the first thing determined, but because there is no "right" time to make this choice. Sometimes, the villain will flow out of the choice of creature, other times the creature type will flow out of the villainous plot you have created. Often, you will determine bits and pieces of this as you go through the other steps.
+
+The Fire King began as a half-fiend of some kind, but other than that, I had no preconceptions when I began working on him as to his eventual stats.
+
+**Step 1: Start with two emotions.** I really believe all great characters begin with one emotion that drives them. By choosing this first, you make sure your villain will stay true to the very reason he became a villain in the first place. It's kind of a cop out after a while to have villains who are just evil for evil's sake; *something* had to drive them to be evil in the first place. Options for their primary driving emotion might include Anger, Angst, Greed, Jealousy, Lust, Hatred, Regret, Revenge, Shame, and Sorrow. Feel free to narrow these down as much as possible to get to the core of the villain's persona: Anger is fairly broad; Resentment is a much more specific emotion. Don't forget that "positive" emotions (such as Love or Honor) might lead to villainy as well, if taken too far.
+But I did say TWO emotions. So what's the second one? The emotion you intend to inspire in your players when they encounter the villain. Not all villains need to be universally loathed by the heroes, and even those that are often have that loathing colored by another emotion.
+
+The Fire King began with the driving emotion of Shame, with a good mix of Insecurity and Revenge. He was created from the beginning to inspire stark raving Terror in the players.
+
+**Step 2: What events in the villain's past brought about this emotion?** Whatever emotion you picked, there must be a reason the villain feels that way. It does not need to be necessarily logical, and it certainly does not need to be something you personally agree with. In fact, often the villains I create will personify an emotional response that I specifically find inappropriate. Part of the fun for me is creating characters with a "twist" away from the expected reaction to the events in their past. Still, it needs to at least be consistent with responses that might be natural for someone, somewhere. The goal is to create a history that sounds reasonable when you read it, but might not be completely obvious when bits and pieces are uncovered over the course of the campaign.
+
+I decided that the Fire King was ashamed of his half-breed status. The twist was that rather than being embarrassed for being half-fiend, he was embarrassed because he was half-*something else*. In his eyes, he didn't live up to the legacy of his father, a powerful fiend of some kind, because he was half-mortal. Without getting into specifics, I decided that he had been through at least one traumatic childhood meeting with other full-blooded fiends, where he was ridiculed or even attacked for his hybrid nature. I also decided that both of his parents were deceased, since it made it easier to give him that "alienated" status.
+
+**Step 3: What is the villain's scale?** Decide on what level you want the villain's actions to have repercussions. Is this a villain that will only harass the heroes and their immediate friends? Is this a villain that threatens a nation? Is it a villain that threatens all of existence? The answer will depend on how often you want this villain's actions to interject into the campaign. If the entire campaign is an epic struggle against this villain, chances are he's going to need to have a scale greater than just one village. On the other hand, the greater the scale, the more likely powerful NPCs will take notice of the villain, and it becomes more difficult to justify them not swooping in to aid the heroes. This question will also help decide what Challenge Rating you should assign to the villain.
+
+The Fire King was intended as the primary villain for the entire campaign (which ended up lasting 38 sessions). I decided he worked on a scale that threatened the entire world, but not every other plane of existence.
+
+**Step 4: What is the villain's goal?** Every villain needs a final goal, no matter how grand or insignificant. Keeping in mind the villain's scale, determine what he wants to see happen. It can be as simple as wanting to be very wealthy, wanting to kill a specific person, or wanting to seize as much power as possible. Many goals are completely unattainable, such as winning a specific person's admiration or being the most powerful wizard anywhere. The villain can still cause a lot of heartache for the heroes on the path towards that goal, though. Remember that the villain only needs to believe their goal is attainable; it is necessary that it actually be so.
+
+I determined that the Fire King ultimately wanted to live up to his father's expectations, as well as come to dominate the full-blooded fiends who mocked him. Therefore, his final goal was to seize control of his home plane, Hell.
+
+**Step 5: What does the villain need in order to be able to achieve this goal?** In order to devise an appropriate plan, it is crucial to understand what the villain thinks he needs in order to pull off the "end stage" of the plot. If the villain wants to destroy the multiverse, he needs to have some source of power that allows this. If the villain wants to drive the gnomes out of Sunlight Valley, she needs something that will make the gnomes want to leave. By visualizing what resources the villain needs in order to make the goal a reality, you firm up what steps the villain will need to take along the way. Note there will almost certainly be multiple paths to accomplish the goal, so your villain has chosen either a.) only one, or b.) to enact multiple simultaneous plans as a failsafe.
+Often, the means to accomplish the goal will be fairly esoteric; feel free to make up whatever powerful artifact, lost magic, or obscure ritual you need to give the villain the tools he needs. These are the things that the players will need to stop, or delay, or what have you, and from there, adventures will be easily derived. You can also break the goal into several "subgoals," each with its own requirements.
+
+The Fire King determined that he needed virtually unlimited magical power to accomplish his goal; at least as much power as that of the current rulers of Hell combined. To that end, he learned of a ritual to absorb all of the world's magical energy. The ritual had very stringent requirements: it could only be undertaken by a sorcerer who was genetically unique in the world and a native to that plane, but a mortal could not survive the inherent energies involved. As a native outsider, however, the Fire King was uniquely suited to the task. I would later decide, due to the high level of coincidence that this created, that his father had spawned him specifically to serve as the focus for this ritual as part of an older, failed domination plot.
+
+**Step 6: What obstacles must the villain overcome?** The easy answer here is, "the heroes," but it isn't the right answer. The fact is, the heroes won't even know to oppose the villain until they encounter some other part of the plan. There needs to be something (anything) standing between the villain and his goals, or else they will be achieved with no chance for interference on the part of the heroes. Since your goal is to create opportunities for conflict, that won't fly.
+Once you establish the obstacle, you can then go back to Step 5 and determine what steps need to be taken to overcome that obstacle. Then back to Step 6 for what obstacles are in the way of those steps. And so on and so forth, until you have enough steps to flesh out a fully realized plan of action.
+
+The big stumbling block for the Fire King was the line in his ritual about being "unique." I decided being a half-fiend wasn't sufficient; he needed for his base creature type to be the only one in existence. Obviously, that was not the case currently. His solution, then, was somewhat grandiose but befitting the scale I had chosen for him: slay all creatures of the same base type, everywhere.
+
+It was at this point that I decided he would be half elf, half devil. The elves in my campaign world are somewhat unpleasant, and I liked the idea of one villain trying to wipe out a race that others would find inherently villainous in the first place. Plus, it set up another automatic obstacle: there were certainly plenty of high-level elven wizards walking around the world, meaning that the Fire King could not simply start slaughtering elves left and right without attracting their attention.
+
+**Step 7: What is the villain's primary means of projecting influence?** The final step before setting down the villain's ultimate plan is to decide what sort of actions he or she prefers to take to set things in motion. Is the villain a manipulator, turning others to his end without their knowledge? Is he a leader, convincing others to side with him through strength of personality? Does she use her own personal power to accomplish her ends or does she rely on others to do her dirty work? Does he move openly or in secret?
+
+The Fire King was primarily a manipulator. While I decided he would be a very powerful sorcerer by this point, he was aware that if he moved openly with his plan for genocide, the heroes who would act against him would number in the dozens (or hundreds). He could not stand against that kind of power, so he worked to turn those who would interfere with his plan against one another, whittling down their power until it was safe to reveal himself.
+
+**Step 8: What are the villain's resources?** This step's importance cannot be underestimated. If the villain has infinite resources available, they are essentially omnipotent. Limiting the people, places, and things the villain can successfully use to enact his will leads directly to adventures, because the villain must then use these resources in such a way that allows him or her to acquire more. Don't forget to include abstract resources, such as "genius-level intelligence" or "knowledge of the future."
+
+I decided quickly that I would differentiate the Fire King from other stereotypical villains by sharply limiting his starting resources. This was not to be a villain with an entire organization fanatically backing him; this was a guy with the equivalent of the shirt on his back. I listed his resources as the following:
+
+- Genius-level intelligence and a fine strategic mind
+- Superb leadership and deception skills
+- The power of a 12th level Red Sorcerer (that is, mostly fire-oriented spells), including appropriate magic items.
+- The ability to pass in elven society without being detected as anything other than an elf, even via magic.
+- The inherent tension between the human and elven civilizations, a result of centuries of enslavement in the distant past. Also, the natural dissatisfaction of the elves with the state of the world.
+- A handful of minor devils who had owed loyalty to his father and were willing to throw their lot in with the son as well.
+- His sister, another half-devil elf, with the skills of a 9th level rogue and a knack for seduction.
+
+As the campaign began, he also reestablished the loyalty of another powerful villain, with his own elaborate backstory, that had worked with his father. While he later came to manipulate large armies of elves, I didn't count these as true resources because the elves were not part of his plot; they were the victims of his plot.
+
+**Step 9: If no heroes were to interfere, what would the villain's plan to achieve this goal be?** Now that you know all of the goals that need to be accomplished and the primary means by which the villain intends to do exactly that, you can set down the villain's plan in loose terms. Try to not take into account the specific actions of the players; even if the villain hatches his plot with full knowledge of the heroes, he is unlikely to assume that they will defeat him. It is entirely likely, however, that he might take general steps to limit their interference.
+This step is likely to produce the most work, because in effect it is an outline of the way in which the villain will interact with the heroes and the campaign world. The villain's plan might have dozens of steps to it, and each may turn into one or more adventures for the players. If you find the plot has more steps than the number of times you would like this villain to show up, simply decide that the villain has already accomplished one or more steps before the heroes are even in play. Alternately, you could have some steps occur "off-camera," but you run the risk of the heroes deciding to take steps to stop them when you really haven't planned to run that particular adventure.
+The Fire King's plan began years before the heroes began adventuring. Finding his greatest asset to be his ability to work within the very society he was attempting to wipe out, the Fire King spent 20 years infiltrating the house of an elven noble, until such time as he quietly seized control of the elf's noble title. With this title, he was able to attend gatherings of the elven emperor's court, where he quickly made a name for himself with several outspoken opinions that he used his other resources to make happen exactly as he had predicted. The Fire King further endeared himself to the boy-emperor by introducing him to his half-fiend sister, who easily seduced the young elf. Soon, the emperor began listening to the Fire King's advice almost exclusively, and then the plan moved into high gear.
+
+Whispering lies into the emperor's ears, the Fire King convinced him that the empire needed to recover past glories or die out. He began gathering and training a new elven army, which he then used to lash out at the neighboring humans, destroying border towns and killing hundreds. The emperor was easily impressed by these early victories, and ordered the invasion of a nearby human nation. The Fire King manipulated events so that only "soft" targets were attacked, lulling the elven court into believing that a full-scale war against humans could be won when he knew that the human nations were more powerful. He took control of the invading armies personally, urging elven commanders to commit horrible atrocities that would incense other nations. In this way, the Fire King hoped to provoke the humans into slaughtering the elves for him, thus achieving his goal.
+
+Meanwhile, he began personally seeking out and eliminating threats to the plan. While the drums of war began to beat between the humans and the elves, he struck at various power centers on either side that might be able to bring the rush to war to a halt. It was through these strikes that the heroes learned of him and his plans. Had nothing gone awry, the Fire King would have struck down or manipulated those with an interest in stopping the war, allowing the humans and elves to fight it out in a bloody war to the end. Eventually, the Fire King would have been able to simply mop up the surviving elves and enact the ritual that allowed him to seize all magical power in the world. With this power at his command, he could transform the planet into a training ground for an army of billions with which he could conquer Hell.
+
+**Step 10: What are the villain's boundaries?** There should be at least one thing the villain is not willing to do to achieve his goals. They may have a code of honor, or simply have a strong distaste for some kind of act. This detail will give your villain a realistic feel, as well as crossing off certain options that might be difficult for the heroes to eliminate through their actions. For example, the villain may be unwilling to traffic with demons, which helps you explain why he doesn't just summon a bunch of balors to do his dirty work.
+
+The Fire King was intensely loyal to his friends. Growing up as basically an outcast wherever he went, he was not about to throw away friendships over something as minor as world domination. Thus, he was not ever going to betray anyone who was within his inner circle of confidence, and he did not consider any of them expendable.
+
+**Step 11: What is the villain's personal threat level?** In other words, is the villain a danger to the heroes if encountered personally? How much of a danger? Some villains might be just puppeteers, capable of influencing the world but unable to stand up in a fight; think of this as the "Lex Luthor" model. Others might be equal in power to the party, while still others may be so much more powerful than the party that a direct confrontation would be suicide. This last option is ideal if you want the players to become aware of the villain long before you expect them to defeat him.
+
+The Fire King was a serious physical threat by any standard. When first encountered, he wreaked such destruction on a village that further encounters with him prompted the heroes to simply run away. As the campaign progressed, he gained in power but at a slower rate than the heroes, so that by about the time the heroes were 12th level, he was a beatable (but still very difficult) challenge. Often, I put their encounters in the context not of direct combat, but of achieving goals. The heroes once managed to rescue an NPC that was about to rat out the Fire King's plans by being able to outrun him, for example.
+
+**Step 12: How does the villain treat his minions? How do the minions feel about the villain?** Not all villains inspire loyalty to the death. Giving the villain servants who are less than blindly obedient can increase the opportunity for roleplaying, as heroes try to convince henchmen to abandon their evil ways (or at least accept a healthy bribe). Whether or not the villain treats them well will influence this decision heavily. A villain who sends his servants on suicide missions time after time had better be powerful or charismatic enough to ensure their absolute obedience, or else he will find himself on the wrong end of a mutiny.
+
+I had already determine that the Fire King had a good relationship with his true allies, so this step was kind of redundant for him. Although I did clarify that he was willing (in fact, eager) to send as many of the elven soldiers serving in his army to their horrible deaths as he could.
+
+**Step 13: What are the villain's visual quirks?** A good villain has a look that will be remembered long after the campaign is over. Once the players are aware of the villain, further direct encounters should be recognizable solely based on his look. Try finding things that distinguish him from others of his race and class. Also, methods of fighting and preferred tactics can add to the villain's style. Using a unique weapon or a favorite spell not only flesh out the character, it gives the players the opportunity to plan a countermeasure for their next meeting with the villain. The character thus becomes a part of their world in a fundamental way.
+
+The Fire King, as his name implies, always used fire-based evocations when attacking. Because he was immune to fire himself, he enjoyed casting fireball as a melee spell. He also wore black adamantine full plate armor while doing so, which terrified the more metagaming-prone players. They spent a lot of energy figuring out how he was able to cast arcane spells in armor, which kept him alive in their thoughts even when he was not "on-screen".
+
+**Step 13a: What would the villain's theme music sound like?** OK, this one really isn't a necessary step, but it's one that helps me imagine the villain properly. Whether you intend to actually play it during the game or not, come up with a song or orchestral piece that evokes the emotional impact of the villain. I've found that playing the song for myself before I DM a game where the villain makes an appearance helps me roleplay him.
+
+If you've ever played Final Fantasy 8, you have heard the Fire King's theme music. I chose the theme from one of that game's early villains (Edea, who later becomes a friend) as the Fire King's theme because I felt it represented the right mixture of cunning manipulation and raw personal power. As the driving force behind a massive elven army that was marching to its untimely end, the piece's chanting helped convey to me a sense of impending doom. To this day, I think of the Fire King when I hear it, not Final Fantasy 8.
+
+**Step 14: What is the villain's escape plan?** This is semi-optional too, but if you intend to have the players encounter a villain repeatedly without a decisive victory, you need to think about it. I cannot emphasize, however, that such a plan needs to be keeping within the rules of the game AND within the villain's reasonable expectations for the future, or else your player's will cry foul. Just having the villain run away and not letting the players follow feels cheap. On the other hand, if your villain is a powerful wizard, making sure he prepares at least one teleport for those sticky situations is not only helpful; anything less would be foolhardy. Even then, it is usually helpful to have such an emergency plan come with a price: the villain must abandon his goal or one of resources to save his own skin. Thus, even when he escapes, the heroes have earned a victory.
+
+Early in the game, the Fire King was so much more powerful than the heroes that he didn't run from them, they ran from him. As time went on, he learned to teleport away once he could no longer accomplish his goal.
+
+**Step 15: What is the villain's name?** Trickier said than done, coming up with a good name can make or break a villain. Anything that can be easily mocked will lessen his impact. Anything too complex will lower the chance that the players can remember it, and they can't fear what they can't remember. Ideally, a good name should inspire respect. Also, give some thought as to when you will reveal the villain's name; during their first meeting, or at some later point?
+
+I decided at this point that this character didn't need a name as much as he needed a title; a self-proclaimed station to attempt to live up to. With his inherent embarrassment over his elven blood, he would seek to escape from whatever name he had been given by his mortal mother and forge a new identity for himself. Hence, I named him the Fire King, which I thought had the right sense of dominance without actually being a real title. Of course, this was his name for himself, and he used a different title when among the elves. Early on, the heroes had no idea what his name was at all, and referred to him simply as the Red Wizard (they didn't know he was a sorcerer) for months.
+
+By this point, you should have a very good idea of who your villain is and what he needs to do in your game. With all of the plotting you have done so far, you should have created the rough framework from which you can build a series of adventures without having any foregone conclusions or railroading. By understanding the villain and his aims, you can have him or her organically alter their plans based on how the heroes manage to thwart sections of it, all without pre-ordaining the outcome.
+
+As a way of working further on these issues, I'm going to go and create a completely new villain over on the message board, using this checklist as a guide. If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to enter the Villain Design Contest I am going to hold on the message board; feel free to use either these guidelines or your own methods to come up with the most badass bad guy ever.
+
+Next time, I'll talk about texture for players (rather than DMs), also known as "How to Have Seven Classes and Have Each of Them Make Sense."
projects / za3k.git / commitdiff
