Tabletop Rpgs - Blog Posts

Here's a redraw of an old D&D character I made

This is so cool! Reblogging to remember this. 

I love that RPG race trail rations post, and it got me thinking about non-Eurocentric fantasy trail rations. I focused on Central and South Asian cuisines (as I also needed the information for a project I’m working on). I looked for foods that were easy to carry (dry or dehydrated), easily obtainable in markets/easily foraged, easy to cook/not needing cooking at all, and high in protein/generally filling. Many foods had language-specific names and some overlapped into different regions, so I bare-bones’d the names. This is what I came up with: 

Dried curd comes in many forms – kashk, aaruul, quroot, etc. – and was of particular interest to me, since I learned it was used since (and before) medieval times as a trail ration for soldiers and travelers because it is lightweight and high in protein. The more you know. 🌈

Tempeh is one of my favorite food options, but I should note that it originates from Southeastern Asia, Indonesia in particular. 

Bamboo is extremely handy for use as both a carrying and cooking vessel, and would save a character the hassle of bringing a skillet with them (provided the character is in an area with large bamboo and a water source). It’s a method still used today because it’s extremely efficient. Storing eggs in rice is a good way to travel with them and keep them from cracking for a short time. 

These are just some basics and I’m only scratching the surface, so if anyone has foods to add from these regions (East and Southeast Asia, too!), or any non-European region honestly, don’t hesitate to add them! 

Nerf that Ring of Flight by making it the ring itself that flies, while wearing it, you can move the ring through the air in any direction at will. How the character manages to keep the ring on their finger, and their finger on their hand, is the player's problem.

are either of these stories good? cause they sound really interesting

On the one hand, it's true that the way Dungeons & Dragons defines terms like "sorcerer" and "warlock" and "wizard" is really only relevant to Dungeons & Dragons and its associated media – indeed, how these terms are used isn't even consistent between editions of D&D! – and trying to apply them in other contexts is rarely productive.

On the other hand, it's not true that these sorts of fine-grained taxonomies of types of magic are strictly a D&D-ism and never occur elsewhere. That folks make this argument is typically a symptom of being unfamiliar with Dungeons & Dragons' source material. D&D's main inspirations are American literary sword and sorcery fantasy spanning roughly the 1930s through the early 1980s, and fine-grained taxonomies of magic users absolutely do appear in these sources; they just aren't anything like as consistent as the folks who try to cram everything into the sorcerer/warlock/wizard model would prefer.

For example, in Lydon Hardy's "Five Magics" series, the five types of magical practitioners are:

Alchemists: Drawing forth the hidden virtues of common materials to craft magic potions; limited by the fact that the outcomes of their formulas are partially random.

Magicians: Crafting enchanted items through complex manufacturing procedures; limited by the fact that each step in the procedure must be performed perfectly with no margin for error.

Sorcerers: Speaking verbal formulas to basically hack other people's minds, permitting illusion-craft and mind control; limited by the fact that the exercise of their art eventually kills them.

Thaumaturges: Shaping matter by manipulating miniature models; limited by the need to draw on outside sources like fires or flywheels to make up the resulting kinetic energy deficit.

Wizards: Summoning and binding demons from other dimensions; limited by the fact that the binding ritual exposes them to mental domination by the summoned demon if their will is weak.

"Warlock", meanwhile, isn't a type of practitioner, but does appear as pejorative term for a wizard who's lost a contest of wills with one of their own summoned demons.

Conversely, Lawrence Watt-Evans' "Legends of Ethshar" series includes such types of magic-users as:

Sorcerers: Channelling power through metal talismans to produce fixed effects; in the time of the novels, talisman-craft is largely a lost art, and most sorcerers use found or inherited talismans.

Theurges: Summoning gods; the setting's gods have no interest in human worship, but are bound not to interfere in the mortal world unless summoned, and are thus amenable to cutting deals.

Warlocks: Wielding X-Men style psychokinesis by virtue of their attunement to the telepathic whispers emanating from the wreckage of a crashed alien starship. (They're the edgy ones!)

Witches: Producing improvisational effects mostly related to healing, telepathy, precognition, and minor telekinesis by drawing on their own internal energy.

Wizards: Drawing down the infinite power of Chaos and shaping it with complex rituals. Basically D&D wizards, albeit with a much greater propensity for exploding.

You'll note that both taxonomies include something called a "sorcerer", something called a "warlock", and something called a "wizard", but what those terms mean in their respective contexts agrees neither with the Dungeons & Dragons definitions, nor with each other.

(Admittedly, these examples are from the 1980s, and are thus not free of D&D's influence; I picked them because they both happened to use all three of the terms in question in ways that are at odds with how D&D uses them. You can find similar taxonomies of magic use in earlier works, but I would have had to use many more examples to offer multiple competing definitions of each of "sorcerer", "warlock" and "wizard", and this post is already long enough!)

So basically what I'm saying is giving people a hard time about using these terms "wrong" – particularly if your objection is that they're not using them in a way that's congruent with however D&D's flavour of the week uses them – makes you a dick, but simply having this sort of taxonomy has a rich history within the genre. Wizard phylogeny is a time-honoured tradition!

Cool

Space Gerbils (Working Title)

A game for 3–5 players, plus optional GM

Edited 2021-08-15: Modified how the Commander role works – thanks to @we-arerevolutionary for the suggestions. Check the linked PDF in the “What You’ll Need” section if you’re still seeing the old role summary in the image above.

You’re the galaxy’s most famous bounty hunter, but nobody knows your real name, or what your real voice sounds like. In fact, you’ve never taken your helmet off in public, at least as far as anybody knows!

The interstellar tabloids have accused any number of public figures of secretly being you. They are, of course, all wrong. The real reason you never remove your helmet is that you’re actually a bunch of space gerbils operating a human-size mech suit.

You‘re very keen on not letting this get out.

(Special thanks to Caro Asercion, whose cyberpunk micro-RPG Dwindle inspired this game’s core mechanics. At the time of this posting, Dwindle is available as part of Nonbinary TTRPG Month’s Designers of Color bundle on itch.io – go check it out!)

Keep reading