+- The Comeback Inn (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums)
+-- Forum: The Garnet Room - Blackmoor General Forum (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+--- Forum: General Blackmoor Discussions (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Provinces of the Great Kingdom (/showthread.php?tid=890)
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Havard - 03-07-2012
Aldarron Wrote:Lately I've been mulling something over.
I've mentioned before that I'm not thrilled with calling the Great Empire "Thonia" as a formal name; mostly because that name was slapped on by TSR fanboys in the mid 1980's and has no history with the setting. I don't mind using it as a name of a race or class of people (high Thonians, etc.), but have only reluctantly used it for the Great Kingdom.
At this point I think it is fair to say that it is pretty clear that we are interested in different things from Blackmoor.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but if our discussions are to get any further it might be useful to clarify where we stand. Perhaps instead of focusing on discovering a "True Blackmoor" we could move on to discuss different continuities of Blackmoor according to our own preferences.
Personally I will always use Thonia for my Blackmoor.. It is not a name invented by Dave Arneson, but since Dave didnt make up a specific name for his Great Kingdom (except Geneva maybe...) I have no problem using it. Especially since it is used both in the DA modules and the D20 line.
If you want to use the Great Kingdom of Aerdy for your continuity, I think that is fair. You should probably know that this is very much in line with the Greyhawk setting. Greyhawk did have a Great Kingdom of Aerdy (old Aerdy) which at one point covered almost the entire continent of Flanaess. Using the name Aerdy does suggest that your continuity is closer to Gygax' vision of their shared world.
I also think it is unfair to refer to David Ritchie as a TSR fanboy with no history with the setting.
-Havard
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Rafael - 03-07-2012
That's all not that difficult:
Indeed, the C&C's "The Great Kingdom" encompassed the entire Greyhawk map - because the group was of DMs was coordinating their games with one another.
All the conflicts, and the like, that we see in later Greyhawk publications,
came through the overall course of the different campaigns.
Like, the Greyhawk war, and the end of the Naelax/Ivid/Ovar kingdom was the very subject of Mr Kuntz' Kalibruhn campaign,
as was the civil war with the provinces (a trope we later see repeated in Blackmoor).
Also, take note that the king of the Great Kingdom is really "Dave"... "Ivid",
because he was the one who started the first metaplots.
That's really about everything there is.
I for my part prefer to use "The Great Kingdom" as well, but simply because "Thonia" sounds pretty retarded in German.
Also, I tend to use "Thonia" more as a term for a specific era, as seen in the LFC.
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Havard - 03-07-2012
Le Noir Faineant Wrote:That's all not that difficult:
Indeed, the C&C's "The Great Kingdom" encompassed the entire Greyhawk map - because the group was of DMs was coordinating their games with one another.
Except it wasnt the Greyhawk map.
Quote:Also, take note that the king of the Great Kingdom is really "Dave"... "Ivid",
because he was the one who started the first metaplots.
That's really about everything there is.
I dont know who invented Ivid (Gary?), but it makes sense that it is a nod to Dave in the Greyhawk publications. Dave himself referred only to King Robert, as we all know is a nod to Kuntz.
IMC I use Emperor Iyx I as I prefer using published Blackmoor material whenever possible regardless of whether it was from Arneson's campaign or not. Iyx ascended the throne after the FFC years anyway.
-Havard
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Rafael - 03-07-2012
Quote:Except it wasnt the Greyhawk map.
Yeah, of course. You know what I meant.
Quote:I dont know who invented Ivid (Gary?), but it makes sense that it is a nod to Dave in the Greyhawk publications. Dave himself referred only to King Robert, as we all know is a nod to Kuntz.
IIRC, Ivid was a RJK invention, which he later didn't use because of copyright issues.
Quote:IMC I use Emperor Iyx I as I prefer using published Blackmoor material whenever possible regardless of whether it was from Arneson's campaign or not. Iyx ascended the throne after the FFC years anyway.
I tend to use the DA version of the setting anyway, too, simply because it's most accessible.
I borrow from all sources I think are interesting, though.
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - aldarron - 03-07-2012
Havard Wrote:At this point I think it is fair to say that it is pretty clear that we are interested in different things from Blackmoor. -Havard
Isn’t everybody? :?
Havard Wrote:I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but if our discussions are to get any further it might be useful to clarify where we stand. Perhaps instead of focusing on discovering a "True Blackmoor" we could move on to discuss different continuities of Blackmoor according to our own preferences. -Havard
Precisely what I’ve been advocating. I like to approach questions regarding the setting by asking what is your starting point. Is it d20 Blackmoor, DA series Blackmoor, FFC Blackmoor, Greyhawk Blackmoor, a homebrew, or something else entirely. What version you prefer to start with will prioritize what information, if any you might take from other sources. Sources that might include geographical references from early Greyhawk, such as Rauxes and Aerdy.
Havard Wrote:Personally I will always use Thonia for my Blackmoor.. It is not a name invented by Dave Arneson, but since Dave didnt make up a specific name for his Great Kingdom (except Geneva maybe...) I have no problem using it. Especially since it is used both in the DA modules and the D20 line.
If you want to use the Great Kingdom of Aerdy for your continuity, I think that is fair. You should probably know that this is very much in line with the Greyhawk setting. Greyhawk did have a Great Kingdom of Aerdy (old Aerdy) which at one point covered almost the entire continent of Flanaess. Using the name Aerdy does suggest that your continuity is closer to Gygax' vision of their shared world. -Havard
Given that Dave did very little to flesh out the Great Kingdom, whereas Gygax did a bit in the 1970’s when the settings were still connected, I don’t feel any particular need to separate Dave’s Great Kingdom from Gygax’s, at least as far as the early stuff goes. I tend to prioritize Original over Revised, (depending somewhat on who authorized the revision) but that is merely my preference.
Havard Wrote:I also think it is unfair to refer to David Ritchie as a TSR fanboy with no history with the setting. -Havard
Uh, you may have misread me. I meant “Thonia” has no previous history as a name for the setting. I was also under the impression that there was uncertainty about who first choose the name Thonia for the Great Kingdom, but if it was David Ritchie, I’m sure he was a fan and no disrespect was intended in saying so.
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Rafael - 03-08-2012
I think you guys should squash that out.
Dave never actually defined the kingdom in which he set his Blackmoor anyway other than in iuxtaposition to the core setting;
meaning, the kingdom had any abilities he needed it to have to for his stories - which, mind you, were mostly a slim frame for dungeon action.
Nor had Gary one, at least not in the Lake Geneva campaign, according to RJK.
The GK was really created as an artificial construct to facilitate crossover gaming among the C&C guys,
but, as a campaign setting, was always in a stage of redefining - because it was really just a flexible backdrop.
RJK's Kalibruhn, however, doesn't necessarily have to be the same place as any of the Great Kingdoms from any of the settings,
or the one where Gary's short stories from the initial Dragon are set.
This is mainly because in either case, the Maze of Zayene series, allegedly being the written version of RJK's home campaign,
would technically take place AFTER the Greyhawk box, which, by itself takes place in an alternate continuity years AFTER
the FFC gets expelled to Lake Gloomy:
Still following me?
Okay, then...
The plot of the Maze of Zayene series is basically the secret assassination of High King Ivid,
which basically leads to the Greyhawk Wars. (Note the many "basically"; I am not going to write you a novel here, gentlemen.)
That is ten years after 1e WoG, and, probably, a few hundred years after the FFC.
So, we have no indication to believe that this is ALSO HAPPENING in published 1e Greyhawk, or any version of published Blackmoor.
That Carl Sargent made this part of 2e Greyhawk lore speaks for his value as an author,
because it's a nod to Kuntz. But it is also nothing more.
While GGK = BMGK is an interesting theory, there is no factual evidence for it.
You might note, though, that I indeed draw upon all of this a lot in the LFC:
Basically, Ran is my version's Xaene. (Again, if you don't know who that is, google is your friend.)
I do so, though, as a fan service, not because I was trying to depict "true" Blackmoor, or "perfectly symbiotic" Blackmoor,
for that matter. The truth is, Blackmoor, as a setting, is so small, and so little about is defined, that you have to add
things for playability's sake, and I took this idea over because I thought it was cool.
That I think I did so in a more sophisticated way than others doesn't mean I value my idea - per se -
as more fitting on a pure gaming level, even if it might be on a meta-gaming one.
But, keep that in mind, folks, before you get lost again:
A dense metastructure doesn't necessarily make for a better story, or, in our case, for a better game.
I would recommend both of you guys to aim to create more stuff that is actually playable, instead of beating the metahorse to death. :wink:
Let's write an adventure together, or something!
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - aldarron - 03-08-2012
Le Noir Faineant Wrote:I think you guys should squash that out.
Dave never actually defined the kingdom in which he set his Blackmoor anyway other than in iuxtaposition to the core setting;
meaning, the kingdom had any abilities he needed it to have to for his stories - which, mind you, were mostly a slim frame for dungeon action.
Nor had Gary one, at least not in the Lake Geneva campaign, according to RJK.
The GK was really created as an artificial construct to facilitate crossover gaming among the C&C guys,
but, as a campaign setting, was always in a stage of redefining - because it was really just a flexible backdrop.
RJK's Kalibruhn, however, doesn't necessarily have to be the same place as any of the Great Kingdoms from any of the settings,
or the one where Gary's short stories from the initial Dragon are set.
This is mainly because in either case, the Maze of Zayene series, allegedly being the written version of RJK's home campaign,
would technically take place AFTER the Greyhawk box, which, by itself takes place in an alternate continuity years AFTER
the FFC gets expelled to Lake Gloomy:
Still following me?
Absolutely, except that reminds me of another question. Wouldn’t Khalibruhn also be a potential candidate as the name of a province of the GK?
Le Noir Faineant Wrote:...
But, keep that in mind, folks, before you get lost again:
A dense metastructure doesn't necessarily make for a better story, or, in our case, for a better game.
I would recommend both of you guys to aim to create more stuff that is actually playable, instead of beating the metahorse to death. :wink:
Let's write an adventure together, or something!
True that. What I meant to hint at with the Aerdy post is that if you have unnamed provinces to assign names to it’s a possible candidate. The benefit of having both Aerdy as the name of the home province of the Capital City, the heart of the empire, and the population of Aerdy as Thonians is that one could refer to the Great Kingdom as the Great Kingdom of Aerdy and/or the Great Kingdom of Thonia or Thonians according to one’s preference. It would tie some of the metahistory together without creating an either or situation.
But yeah, adventures would be cool. Maybe we should start a thread…
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Rafael - 03-08-2012
Aldarron Wrote:Absolutely, except that reminds me of another question. Wouldn’t Khalibruhn also be a potential candidate as the name of a province of the GK?
Hmmm... It's a world name, IIRC. Not quite what I was looking for.
Quote:True that. What I meant to hint at with the Aerdy post is that if you have unnamed provinces to assign names to it’s a possible candidate. The benefit of having both Aerdy as the name of the home province of the Capital City, the heart of the empire, and the population of Aerdy as Thonians is that one could refer to the Great Kingdom as the Great Kingdom of Aerdy and/or the Great Kingdom of Thonia or Thonians according to one’s preference. It would tie some of the metahistory together without creating an either or situation.
But yeah, adventures would be cool. Maybe we should start a thread…
Yeah, but then again, what could that bring, in terms of playability?
The question is always, could the players handle the information to their benefit. With stuff like that, or general, most meta-stuff.
In our campaign here, I couldn't resist screwing around with that, and named one of the characters after a Mystaran god.
Ooooh, my players flipped, it was fun to see.
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Havard - 03-09-2012
Le Noir Faineant Wrote:Yeah, but then again, what could that bring, in terms of playability?
The question is always, could the players handle the information to their benefit. With stuff like that, or general, most meta-stuff.
In our campaign here, I couldn't resist screwing around with that, and named one of the characters after a Mystaran god.
Ooooh, my players flipped, it was fun to see.
To be honest Rafe,
your "screwing around with Mystara references" was my least favorite part of your campaign. I am saying this because it is such an overall great campaign and you are doing a fantastic job as a DM. But if there is one thing I didnt like, it was the inclusion of various Mystara elements without staying true to them. This should perhaps not be surprising as I have been heavily dedicated to Mystara since the 1980s. But when I am still part of the LFC that should say something about the games other achievements.
I disagree with you if you are saying that information that the players can handle is all that is relevant. I think DM discussions of campaign background, even if these are things that the PCs will never learn about can be helpful, both to create an atmosphere of a consistant and more importantly to help the DM generate ideas. But I agree with you that things do need to ultimately lead back to the game and that too philosophical discussions are probably useless and perhaps even destructive.
-Havard
Re: Provinces of the Great Kingdom - Rafael - 03-09-2012
Quote:...it is such an overall great campaign and you are doing a fantastic job as a DM.
Go on...
Quote: But if there is one thing I didnt like, it was the inclusion of various Mystara elements without staying true to them.
RAAAAAAAH.
:wink:
Nah, not a problem. The deal is, though, I, as a DM, plant seeds that my players then let grow - or not.
All the Mystara elements in the campaign remained rather undeveloped - but mainly, at least from POV,
because the group didn't go after them.
Like, Ixion the android had a whole individual backstory that, in the end, we didn't see.
The same goes for Ka the Immortal, or, the actual origin of the rain of great fire.
The party decided to skip all those plots pretty much completely (or the plot involving the vampire Fang),
and I didn't really want to force them onto the group either. In retrospect, I should probably simply have left this kind of stuff out,
in order not to overcomplicate an already pretty broad plot, but I think it is important to keep players involved by introducing new stuff.
Suffice to say, on a gaming table, this would have been completely different.
Quote:I disagree with you if you are saying that information that the players can handle is all that is relevant. I think DM discussions of campaign background, even if these are things that the PCs will never learn about can be helpful, both to create an atmosphere of a consistant and more importantly to help the DM generate ideas. But I agree with you that things do need to ultimately lead back to the game and that too philosophical discussions are probably useless and perhaps even destructive.
Nono, I agree with you completely there.
Now, for us here, it's a special case, I think, because Blackmoor is such an occult setting, and because,
let's face it, we here are all RPG snobs that feel a dstinctive part of the game consists in this metagaming thrill we get
from figuring out the overall composition of a setting or a campaign.
However, I would certainly welcome it if we would concentrate on more things that have direct effects on the game -
like the detailing of the provinces, for example. At the same time, we have developed sucha level of metadiscussion,
that we always ask first "would Arneson have done that" before we go to the actual designing process,
that it is increasingly difficult for us to accept fresh ideas.
Like, most of the MMRPG episodes, or "The Redwood Scar", the one published adventure for BM in the ZG era,
are really, really generic in nature, and could be set anywhere. - Would you guys accept that kind of stuff if it didn't come with the
official logo? :wink:
I don't think so.