zompist bboard

Question for Zompist. I noticed the Rhuk 17e Cheltei Shrayomei mentioned in your Secret History of Verduria. Do you have Castles for the first 16 evil wizards? If not, and if nobody else has asked you this yet, would it be OK if I as a kind of tribute had the Sixteen Castles of the Sixteen Evil Wizards in my conworld?

You haven't done much D&Ding, have you?

It is, as Mark says, a reference to D&D campaigning, which seems to have a curiously large number of evil wizards and other bad people. It's part of the history of Almea.
That said, I have done something similar, namely take the legend of dragon origins from Jeerio's tale (though that whole area is in flux in my conworld ATM).


Of course, if you have D&Ded, then I apologise.

You're absolutely right. I have done zero pen and paper D&D. I have played a few computer RPG's (like Angband, Moria, Exile, if your familiar with any of those), but no D&D (the computer games however did have alot of evil mages, wizards, asf). I did understand that it was meant to be a reference to D&D, fairy tales, and the like with their multitudinous sorcerors, but it is still his idea and I don't want to steal it without his permission.

Wow, not too many old Moria folks about anymore...

linguofreak wrote:If not, and if nobody else has asked you this yet, would it be OK if I as a kind of tribute had the Sixteen Castles of the Sixteen Evil Wizards in my conworld?

You can certainly have 16 evil wizards, but of course they will not be the same 16 wizards...

So in your particular game were there actually 17 (or more) evil wizards? Were they important to the game, or were they more like side characters? Forgive my dumb questions, I've never played D&D.

con quesa wrote:So in your particular game were there actually 17 (or more) evil wizards? Were they important to the game, or were they more like side characters? Forgive my dumb questions, I've never played D&D.

The adventurers didn't actually make it to the Castle of the 17th Evil Wizard... though they were only three hexes away.

OK then. 16 evil wizards, but not the same. I had kinda been hoping to explain where the other 16 wizards had got to and why #17 was hiding all by his lonesome out in the Tel Ď?rimac, but if you don't like that then they will be 16 different wizards. Just out of curiosity, do you have anything on the other 16? I realize that you pretty much drew the number 17 out of a hat as a joke about the ridiculous number of evil wizards in D&D, but if the Verdurians are going to be calling some place Rhuk 17e Cheltei Shrayomei, they must have some sense of there having been 16 other Chelti Shrayomi. And giving a joke a backstory makes it funnier.

linguofreak wrote:And giving a joke a backstory makes it funnier.

I have to whole-heartedly disagree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's over-elaborations on good off-hand one-liners will know what I mean.

I've suddenly realised that part of the history of my conworld rests on a bunch of evil wizards. I suppose there should now be fifteen of them? Is this leading somewhere?

linguofreak wrote: And giving a joke a backstory makes it funnier.

I have to whole-heartedly agree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's brilliant elaboration of already good offhand one-liners will know what I mean.

So Haleza Grise wrote: I have to whole-heartedly disagree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's over-elaborations on good off-hand one-liners will know what I mean.

Salmoneus wrote: I have to whole-heartedly agree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's brilliant elaboration of already good offhand one-liners will know what I mean.

ROTF and shaking uncontrolably with laughter.

Salmoneus wrote:

linguofreak wrote: And giving a joke a backstory makes it funnier.

I have to whole-heartedly agree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's brilliant elaboration of already good offhand one-liners will know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an enormous Pterry/Adams fan. But you can't tell me So Long and thanks for all the Fish made the Hitchiker series *better*. I mean - a detailed explanation of Brockian Ultra-Cricket? The magic of HHG is that it *is* so random.

And as for Pratchett, his one flaw is running a good joke into the ground. It doesn't get any more funny if you hear it more often, and even if it's rephrased, it's still the same joke.

So Haleza Grise wrote:

Salmoneus wrote:

linguofreak wrote: And giving a joke a backstory makes it funnier.

I have to whole-heartedly agree there. Anyone who's read Douglas Adams' or Terry Pratchett's brilliant elaboration of already good offhand one-liners will know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an enormous Pterry/Adams fan. But you can't tell me So Long and thanks for all the Fish made the Hitchiker series *better*. I mean - a detailed explanation of Brockian Ultra-Cricket? The magic of HHG is that it *is* so random.

And as for Pratchett, his one flaw is running a good joke into the ground. It doesn't get any more funny if you hear it more often, and even if it's rephrased, it's still the same joke.

I think he is a bit too ... I think it'd be better if he used less direct parodies of stuff like 'The Phantom at the Opera' and stuff like that. Original, non-parodic storylines are the thing that fit the genre best, and when he starts doing stuff like that you can be sure he'll run it into the ground.

Miekko wrote: I think he is a bit too ... I think it'd be better if he used less direct parodies of stuff like 'The Phantom at the Opera' and stuff like that. Original, non-parodic storylines are the thing that fit the genre best, and when he starts doing stuff like that you can be sure he'll run it into the ground.

I dunno. I really enjoyed Maskerade. Terry Pratchett didn't so much send up Phantom as rewrite it - and do better than the original.

So Haleza Grise wrote:But you can't tell me So Long and thanks for all the Fish made the Hitchiker series *better*. I mean - a detailed explanation of Brockian Ultra-Cricket?

That was in Life, the Universe, and Everything. And I don't see how the detailed explanation detracts from the original joke. It's a separate joke on the same subject -- and I enjoyed both.

So Haleza Grise wrote:And as for Pratchett, his one flaw is running a good joke into the ground. It doesn't get any more funny if you hear it more often, and even if it's rephrased, it's still the same joke.

No, I disagree. I think Pratchett's greatest genius lies in his ability to take an off-hand comment, usually a joke, and turn it into part of the structure of his conworld. For just two examples, think of the Librarian's species (apparently the result of two seconds' thought along the lines of "What's something funny I could turn him into?") or dwarf gender issues.