Undead, Energy Drain and Bloodlines

[Starfox]

Christoph Tiemann <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE> wrote at 02-09-11 05.14:

> That most rumors in D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to
> do with the fact that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good
> adventure idea. Wasting an idea with potential on a red herring is something
> most DMs would rather avoid.

For me, this is also an important part of the fantasy genre. First, you hear
stories of the bad monster of the woods - then, almost inevitably, you
encounter it.

I like it. It makes the world seem fantastic. It is a sort of foreshadowing
that everyone was doing, way before Hollywood overused it.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Actually, I prefer that most rumors be false. Lots of
the published hint material I regard as false rumors.
Generally, bad game ideas make good false rumors. Think
about what someone said somewhere else that you would
never want in your game, and that`s a fine false rumor.
The other kind of false rumor is the kind of thing that
would put characters in the wrong place with regard to
your scenario. Just make sure that false rumors are
always mouthed by NPC`s, because the DM ought not trick
players. NPC`s on the other hand, ought to trick PC`s.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
> Christoph Tiemann <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE> wrote at 02-09-11 05.14:
>
> > That most rumors in D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to
> > do with the fact that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good
> > adventure idea. Wasting an idea with potential on a red herring is something
> > most DMs would rather avoid.
>
> For me, this is also an important part of the fantasy genre. First, you hear
> stories of the bad monster of the woods - then, almost inevitably, you
> encounter it.
>
> I like it. It makes the world seem fantastic. It is a sort of foreshadowing
> that everyone was doing, way before Hollywood overused it.
>
> /Carl
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

<< Nevertheless, there is no inherent logic that a certain type of monster
has
to exist, because an awnshegh (got the singular right at last) shares the
same name. As BR is a setting where magic is rare, some DMs might wish to
limit the number of mythical creatures that can be found in Cerilia as well
(or maybe they just hate a certain kind of monster). I still don`t see any
obligation for them to include any monster an awnshegh might be named
after.:)
>>

At the same time, I still don`t see any reason for them *not* to include any
monster an awnshegh might be named after.
Besides that, your last sentence seems like a contradiction in terms
again, to me. If you admit that the awnshegh is named after a certain
monster, how can that monster not exist? :)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Starfox]

the Falcon <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL> wrote at 02-09-13 10.35:

> Besides that, your last sentence seems like a contradiction in terms
> again, to me. If you admit that the awnshegh is named after a certain
> monster, how can that monster not exist?

I support yor general idea that there certainly can exists monsters
patterned after the awnshegh, but the thext quoted here is not a good
argument.

Awnshegh are not "Named after" monsters - the name first appears in Cerillia
as the name of the awnshegh. The "naming after" is a metagaming thing -
since the players know what a chimera is, we[again the players]
automatically have a hunch what The Chimera is. That does not mean that
chimeras existed in Cerilia before The Chimera did.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: Undead, Energy Drain and Bloodlines


>>> Actually, I prefer that most rumors be false. [snip]
> Generally, bad game ideas make good false rumors. Think
> about what someone said somewhere else that you would
> never want in your game, and that`s a fine false rumor.<<<

Generally, I agree with this statement, but whether rumors are entirely
false or partly true depends on the kind of rumor we`re talking about. When
you present a rumor to your players about a place or event (like `the
townsfolk tell you of an old ruin in direction X that is infested by Y`) and
they go chasing after it, you have to confront them with something, making
the rumor at least partly true (There is indeed something out there). Mostly
I prefer to present rumors as alternatives, similar to the way they`re often
described in the BR rule books (e.g. there are several explanations for the
spells of the Sons of the Serpent, nobody knows for sure what Mad Maeve is
up to and everyone will tell you something different). The truth of course
may be something entirely different.

One of the best uses for rumors I found so far was to let players choose the
directions they want to follow. When I`m short for ideas of my own I can
usually find several suitable published adventures that I could work into
the Campaign with little difficulty. I can then present the players with
rumors that lead in different directions. This has two advantages. First the
players can choose which path to follow (this is more important I guess with
non-regent campaigns, as most regent players should and often do come up
with ideas of their own). Second the players get the feeling that the game
world is alive, that things happen that are beyond their sphere of
influence. Hm, on second reading this sounds rather obvious, but anyway here
it is.

> The other kind of false rumor is the kind of thing that
> would put characters in the wrong place with regard to
> your scenario. Just make sure that false rumors are
> always mouthed by NPC`s, because the DM ought not trick
> players. NPC`s on the other hand, ought to trick PC`s.
>
Here I agree wholeheartedly. Any PC who takes a rumor for the truth and
prepares accordingly deserves what he gets.

Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

<< Awnshegh are not "Named after" monsters - the name first appears in
Cerillia
as the name of the awnshegh. The "naming after" is a metagaming thing -
since the players know what a chimera is, we[again the players]
automatically have a hunch what The Chimera is. That does not mean that
chimeras existed in Cerilia before The Chimera did.
>>

Then why call it *the* Chimaera, and not just Chimaera? In Greek mythology
Medusa`s just plain "Medusa", and not *the* Medusa. She`s *a* Gorgon,
though. If the monsters are named after the awnshegh, or there are no
equivalent monsters, I don`t think the awnshegh would be referred to as
*the*, but simply as.
Or is that not a valid train of thought?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "the Falcon" <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 AM


> Then why call it *the* Chimaera, and not just Chimaera? In Greek mythology
> Medusa`s just plain "Medusa", and not *the* Medusa. She`s *a* Gorgon,
> though. If the monsters are named after the awnshegh, or there are no
> equivalent monsters, I don`t think the awnshegh would be referred to as
> *the*, but simply as.
> Or is that not a valid train of thought?

Medusa was a Gorgon`s name. She also had sisters. Perhaps if she were
unique she would be more commonly refered to as the Gorgon, rather than a
Gorgon, since "the" is the definite article. Danita Kusor is the Chimaera`s
name. It is because she is unique that she is refered to with the definite
article, "the".

But such grammatical ramblings really have no limit on which creatures the
DM chooses to place in his campaign and which he rejects. Its a choice not
limited by or determined by the names selected for the abominations.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Starfox]

medusa was the only one of the gorgons who were immortal - her two sisters
wer mortals (but still monsters). So, she was unique, but also named.
Because she was so unique, the monster was named after her ,and not after
her "class" of creature (gorgon).

Or perhaps it was only becayse gary Gygax & Co had no clue? :-)

We will never know.

/Carl

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-09-16 14.29:

> Medusa was a Gorgon`s name. She also had sisters. Perhaps if she were
> unique she would be more commonly refered to as the Gorgon, rather than a
> Gorgon, since "the" is the definite article. Danita Kusor is the Chimaera`s
> name. It is because she is unique that she is refered to with the definite
> article, "the".

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

<< Or perhaps it was only becayse gary Gygax & Co had no clue? :-) >>

Actually, that seems to be the case with a lot of old D&D monsters. And not
just the ones from Gygax, Arneson & Partners. :)


"I will be the mighty Gygax!!"
- Dexter`s choice of character

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.