This is the best review I've ever gotten for something I wrote -- Cyclopean Deeps vol 1 -- so I'm geeked. The first couple of paragraphs are about other things, but then it starts the review. The reviewer (who is apparently THE Pathfinder go-to reviewer) is covering the Pathfinder version of the book, not the Swords & Wizardry version, so there's some discussion of the mechanics, but as you'll see the review specifically focuses on the non-mechanical side. It's well timed, too, because the second volume is done and is an add-on to the Kickstarter for Cults of the Sundered Kingdoms, which is underway now.
But back to the review, 'cause I'm geeked. :)
"This manages to elicit a sense of cultural wonder akin to the writings
of the classic titans like Gygax, a breath of the magical and uncanny,
while also breathing the spirit of the mythos and classic pulp fiction
akin to Howard or Haggard. Cyclopean Deeps managed to evoke something I
almost never feel anymore these days – a sense of jamais-vu."
"As odd and alien the vistas portrayed herein are, they still feel
uncannily organic, realistic and alive – which drives further home the
point of this book being not only unique, but inspired in the very best
"...a sense of decrepitude, of civilizations most vile, fallen to magics
even worse, suffuses the paragraphs, with details upon details drawing a
picture of a world that could be another, a place so wildly different,
yet familiar, that it could be considered an escalation of the concept
of the uncanny.
"This massive tome breathes more unique ideas in a chapter than some whole series of books."
"Author Matthew J. Finch delivers quite frankly one of the most
imaginative, awesome books in the whole Frog God/Necromancer Games-canon"
Art is great (I love Jason Sholtis's eerie, dark, pen/ink work), writing is spot-on, cartography is very high quality, and adventures are excellent. The second adventure is a one-level lead in for you to add levels below if you choose (so be warned, it's "incomplete"), and the first module is complete in and of itself. This would be worth buying even if it were being sold purely for profit.
It's pay-what-you-want, but since it's a for-charity effort, please pay something for it. Half-price if you must, full price if you can, and something in between if $5 is a stretch for you. I paid $2.50, because my gaming budget doesn't cover enough modules for me to afford the full $5. If yours does, $5 is a very fair price for these two modules.
This year's headquarters over at Gamers & Grognards for Swords & Wizardry Appreciation Day!
Originally created by Erik Tenkar of Tenkar's Tavern fame a couple of years ago, today is the day when many old-school (and even not-so-old-school) bloggers post up thoughts about the game, resources for the game, and just plain interesting stuff. Ryan Thompson at Gamers & Grognards is keeping track of all the various blogs and events going on, and later this evening we're doing a live event.
Shortly I'm going to kick off some activity over at the Frog God Games Swords & Wizardry forum. I'm told that people can register for the forum without having to give out all the information required for actually buying stuff from Frog God (that has been a technical stumbling block for a while).
Some of our timing over at Frog God has been a bit screwy - we're also launching a Kickstarter today for a big campaign resource, Cults of the Sundered Kingdoms, and it wasn't supposed to be the same day as appreciation day, but it got delayed and managed to hit exactly the day I didn't want it to.
FORGOT TO MENTION: At the Frog God Website Use the coupon code (once only, and today only) "S&W-33%OFF" to get a 33% discount on everything Swords & Wizardry, including the new Quests of Doom book.
An optional approach to the Swords & Wizardry alignment
Not every official publication
contains official rules, and this is such
a case. I’m about to outline something I’m doing in our future Lost Lands setting as a tool for that
setting, not as a change or even an addition to the Swords & Wizardry rules themselves. What follows is something I
use myself, and it’s solidly grounded in the very late period of 0e, both in
Judges Guild and TSR products. My own interpretation of it might or might not be
on target, of course, but this is my take on the parenthetical alignment
notations describing good and evil “tendencies” as a modifier for Law,
Neutrality, and Chaos.
Why am I writing this? I’m not trying to tinker with the
game itself. I’m writing this because in the Lost Lands setting I realized that
the three-point alignment system wasn’t very predictive for some of the major
figures in the campaign. The actions and plans of an adventure-scenario villain
are almost always quite clear; they are integral to the module itself. For the
ruler of a province, in a campaign setting, however, things are much more
open-ended. An alignment on the three-alignment system, without respect to
human morality, doesn’t always give you enough to grab hold of as a Referee in
terms of how the ruler or significant NPC might react to things, or what their
rulership might look like in actual practice.
So, as was done in several of the 0e and early 1e products, in
the Lost Lands Campaign I’m planning to add a parenthetical notation at the end
of peoples’ alignment designation, for “good” and “evil” tendencies. Significantly,
these aren’t part of the actual alignment in game terms. They indicate a moral
tendency that has nothing to do with the person’s actual place in the true
cosmic struggle of Law and Chaos. The best illustration of this is that spells (at
least the ones in the book) cannot detect or affect a person’s moral tendency.
Moral tendencies don’t rule out any sort of action, they are just a general
description of a person’s internal moral compass.
Personal Morality vs.
The Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment system describes a battle
between cosmic and divine forces, in which human values such as “good” and “evil”
are either just synonyms for Law and Chaos, or else play no significant role at
all in terms of the game’s rules.
The word “alignment,” to my mind, has to do with one’s
position in a conflict of forces that are entirely beyond the human scope,
possibly beyond the scope of the gods themselves. Humans are no more than
pawns, and the gods are probably just higher-ranking chess pieces, to extend
the analogy. Alignment is a matter of whose pawn you are. There is an element
of destiny in that alignment, as well as the element of personal choice.
Magical forces can detect whether you are one of the black chess pieces or one
of the white ones, because the mark is dyed into your very spiritual essence,
even though you can change sides, or perhaps commit the lesser sin of being an
A moral tendency,
on the other hand, is entirely a matter of personal choice, and often has
nothing to do with your standing in the eternal war of Law and Chaos. Morality
is a human construct, and one that is shared by many of the gods, but it is
irrelevant to Law and Chaos, which are amoral forces of preservation and ruin.
That’s an important point, because it shows where I’m getting at something
different than the 9-point alignment system of first edition, where things like
“Lawful Good,” “Neutral Good,” and “Chaotic Good” are all different
supernatural, cosmic forces. A character’s alignment can click around on that
circular dial of 9 alignments based on actions and beliefs. Adding a tendency
toward Good or Evil doesn’t turn the Swords & Wizardry alignment system
into such a circular dial. Rather, it creates two completely separate gauges,
one of which is on a scale from Law to Chaos, and one of which is on a scale
from Good to Evil. The gauges have nothing to do with one another. The
Law-Chaos gauge is supernatural and cosmic, indicating which side you’re on,
and possibly that you’re under the risk of destinies and fates. The Good-Evil
gauge isn’t magical at all, other than the fact it might make you prefer one Lawful
god over another, and make them prefer you, too. It might create a faint aura,
based on your past actions, and it can be used to guess how a person would
react under certain circumstances, but that Good-Evil gauge is your role in
human-scale morality, not your role in the cosmic battle. Indeed, it is often
the reason why many of the pawns of Law and Chaos can be “unreliable,” since
they skitter off on moral issues. Many players have observed that the forces of
Law and Chaos are both somewhat genocidal, and I think this is a good way of
portraying cosmic struggles both in swords & sorcery pulp fiction and in a
game that depends on lots of excitement and combat. On the other hand, it
misses the subtler sort of issues that add depth to the game (and specifically
in this case, to a campaign setting). Perhaps a paladin actually has no
particular tendency toward good; interesting, that’s Solomon Kane. Druids can
suddenly be meaningfully divided among the ones who burn people in wicker
baskets and the ones who offer kindly advice to strangers from their roadside flower
gardens. All of these distinctions are still possible within the Law-Neutrality-Chaos
continuum, but they become easier to handle in game terms (especially for the
Referee) if there’s a label and some vocabulary to stick on that moral element
Where it Leads a
This all highlights an interesting world-view of the swords
& sorcery authors who first latched onto the portrayal of the universe on a
law-chaos axis instead of a good-evil one. It means that humankind lives in a
cosmos that is ultimately and essentially alien, distant, heartless, and
amoral. Both sides of the cosmic struggle are relentless, and neither side is
unambiguously always “right” from the perspective of the pawns. Humanity’s
destiny and alignment clearly lies with Law, in the end; but individual humans
can choose sides, or even decide that a personal morality requires rejection of
many of the dictates of cosmic Law. Proponents of Good may know that their
cause is ultimately doomed, as a final cosmic principle, but they can certainly
choose to go down fighting.
I look at it this way, with the intention and assumption
that you’ll take or leave it in your own game, as a matter of individual
preference. In the game, I see the social organization of humans as being a
muscle in the “body” of the forces of Law, a muscle that pushes at the wheel of
destiny, trying to shift it toward Law rather than Chaos. It’s the organization
of that muscle which gives it power, not whether the muscle provides mercy or
benefits to its component pieces, the little humans. Thus, a tyrant who keeps
order will in some cases be preferable, from the standpoint of the cosmos, to a
kind king whose realm is disorganized. This isn’t to say (again, the way I
play) that tyrants are the best servants of Law; I assume that civilized,
productive realms are the long-term play for Law, because they are stable. I
also see the arts and sciences as part of the social fabric that provides
strength to this metaphorical muscle I’m describing. However, I can see a
tyranny as one of Law’s stopgap measures, or the sort of thing that the forces
of Law might resort to in a desperate rearguard action for a world poised on
the brink of chaos, possibly fighting a delaying action until some hero or
other plan can be used to stave off utter ruin.
Here’s another interesting thought. First edition introduced
a split between “devils” and “demons,” to reflect that each point on the
nine-point alignment wheel is a separate cosmic force. Thus, if you’ve got a
couple of evil alignments you need the infernal-demonic monsters for those
forces to be different from each other. If you create that same distinction
between demons and devils in Swords & Wizardry, though, you suddenly have
these horrible devils who are actually on the side of Law in the cosmic battle.
How interesting is that? You could
also have some really nice, kindly angelic types battling on the side of
ultimate cosmic ruin because they will not abandon their conviction in mercy
and kindness. This really throws the universe into a morally ambiguous setting,
one that’s definitely NOT standard fantasy.
A final point, since I mentioned that the gods are chess
pieces like humans, albeit more powerful ones. I see many gods, although not
all, as having moral tendencies as humans do, although with a longer time
horizon and less passion for the details. From the Referee’s standpoint, this
makes for a much larger slate of deities, and more variety, which I think is a
good thing in terms of adding depth to a campaign world.
Anyway, that’s the thought for the day, and the little
warning that there will be some Swords & Wizardry products coming out that
have at least some mention of good and evil in them. Don’t panic, it’s not a
rules change, just a campaign tool.
In my opinion, A Red & Pleasant Land by Zak S. is the best D&D supplement that has ever been written to date (2014).
The book is extraordinarily difficult to describe adequately, because it's based within material that has been done virtually to death in RPGs, fiction, and movies -- Alice (yes, the Alice of Wonderland fame) and vampires. Taking Alice's world and mixing vampires into it sounds like a ridiculous idea, simultaneously unworkable and hackneyed. Then, you know, if that wasn't enough, why not just set your artwork alongside John Tenniel's, and your prose alongside Lewis Carroll's. But oh holy shit. Zak's book not only works, it makes other things work: like explaining the existence of a megadungeon that's weird, rich, huge, and incomprehensible without using "mad wizard in Arthurian countryside."
Let me say, quickly, that I'm reviewing a copy that I paid for, and that neither Zak nor Jim Raggi asked me to write a review.
Just about the only part of the book I don't like is the character class of "an Alice," which is done much better than it sounds, but doesn't fit the way I like to run a game, which is why I don't like it. Members of the Alice character class aren't needed, so one can simply ignore that part if one feels as I do, or pay attention to it otherwise.
The writing is phenomenal and evocative. The underlying idea is brilliant. The art -- and I only occasionally like Zak's art for fantasy -- works perfectly. Indeed, the entire book is a piece of art as well as a gaming resource.
One other point about this book: there are a few things that some people will see as strengths, and that others will see as weaknesses, depending on how you're going to use the book. Any gaming book has to find the right balance between the "table reference" use and the "enjoy reading the book" use. As Lewis Carroll does, so does Zak mention several important points as if they are asides, irrelevancies, or afterthoughts. It makes the book read very much like Lewis Carroll (and also like Gary Gygax) to encounter comments like, "If characters in Voivodja are, in the course of any adventure in Voivodja, ever looking for evidence of any kind of misdeed and happen to kill a pudding, the proof will be in the pudding." There are any number of important facts buried in the text to be encountered chronologically by a front-to-back reader, but somewhat hidden from the at-the-table DM who needs to find the answer to a specific question. A gaming book must be readable in the first instance, for if the DM puts it down as a book it will never be played as an adventure in the second instance. Zak had to make choices, and the 6x9 format makes it difficult to meld readability with reference quality. When you run this, you'll forget important things that Zak wrote: if you think this would make you a poor DM, or an inaccurate conduit for Zak's sage wisdom, or create undue complications, you aren't going to work well in this sandbox. This book is for people who (like Lewis Carroll's characters) consider themselves quite the author's equal when it comes to interpreting the author's work.
In other words, you're going to have to read it, assimilate it, and then be willing to make up all kinds of stuff once you start running it. It's not a module, it's a campaign setting, so it can no more be played out of the box than the old World of Greyhawk folio. It's about as user-friendly as the original JG City State of the Invincible Overlord, which is to say, it isn't very. You simply can't have something that is both a perfect reference tool and at the same time evokes a sense of wonder. Check out the Cetology chapter of Moby Dick for an evocation of this tension. Zak had to make some choices, and some readers will applaud the same decisions others deplore.
A couple of other points. (1) I haven't read it as an editor, but I have not spotted any typos in this book. Not any. (2) The physical quality of the book is stupendous.
If you absolutely can't stand Zak's art, or if you simply can't consider a gaming product well-written if it leaves gaps, then you might not like this book. However, I strongly suspect that ARPL will actually show some people what "old school" writing looks like in the modern gaming age, why it was written like that in the first place, and how it is a valid contrast with more modern, codified, game-writing.
If you want to read what OD&D looks like in the year 2014, it is A Red and Pleasant Land. My hat's off to you, Zak, this is a masterpiece.
Having finished Chapter 10 of the Cyclopean Deeps, I move on to Chapter 11, which already has 21,000 words written. Mainly it's a matter of filling in some gaps with the one exception of still having to write the "boss monster" as it were. So, hopefully, I'll have the chapter finished by the end of the month and be rolling into the last chapter (which is also mostly complete).
Source of art: http://adanai.com/video-games-and-marching-bands-a-nice-combo/
I just finished writing Chapter 10 of the Cyclopean Deeps. I tell you, when you finish writing an adventure module (which is what each chapter is), there's a period of time afterwards where you're a bit like a gaffed fish. "Is there something obvious that I missed?" "I should be working on ... wait, no, it's done." I need to send this to someone to read it, to make sure it's tight and organized. Yes, that's our editor, Jeff Harkness. Poor Jeff.