Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[EnderAndrew]

Possibly. I haven't played L5R, but aren't they basically the same system and same world?

[Darque]

Possibly.  I haven't played L5R, but aren't they basically the same system and same world?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no.

 

They both roll and keep and that's about it for "the same"

[EnderAndrew]

I've never even seen a copy of the pen-and-paper game, but I have seen plenty of L5R LARP groups.

[Lancer]

It's ironic that the same people who belittle 2ndEd and 3e so much are the same people quick to point out that GURPS is unneedlessly complicated when it comes to combat and Shadowrun is horribly complicated all over (even 3rd edition).

 

This whole debate I find is ridiculous because it depends so much on personal taste and particular campaign circumstances. In my case, I don't really care for absolute freedom in character creation for the setting I play in (Mystara) where such said class restrictions are vital to its feel. Maybe it would be more important in another game like a Fallout PnP, Shadowrun, or GURPS but for canon Mystara it makes much less sense. So to use arguments such as how unbalanced dual/multi-classed characters are in 2ndEd to criticize it just doesn't register in my particular case since such characters don't even exist in Mystara canon.

 

This coupled with the fact that it has been so long ago I that I resolved what I didn't like about 2ndEd that it has come to a point where I really *like* my resultant system and prefer it to something like 3E. This is in sharp contrast to Jediphile, for instance, who never got 2ndEd working exactly the way he wants it and admits sticking to it (for now)only out of nostalgia.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with Jediphile or I,... Say what you will.. Perhaps he is much pickier than I am, or I am more purist when it comes to Mystara's feel, or whatever.. But the heart of the matter is that two people can view the same system in a completely different light because of their individual preferences and peeves.

 

So, yes, my situation is not a typical one, Mystara was not even the typical (it was the only one made for OD&D) Dungeons and Dragons setting. To understand my argument you would have really had to start off with OD&D Mystara, play it for many years, and then and only then can you begin to understand.

Since, total and utter customizability has never been absolutely vital to me and I realize that it is even detrimental to a setting like Mystara it makes no sense to have it there IMHO. Because it uses an older ruleset, Mystara was designed from its inception to be more restrictive than any of TSR's settings. And these restrictions have become as much a part of its feel as anything else in the setting. This is precisely why a "restrictive" class-based ruleset like AD&D or OD&D is *perfect* for it. So where a skill-based ruleset and complete customizability is important for other games, it doesn't work as well in my Mystara.

 

I bet that Jediphile finds it especially difficult because he has probably always been torn between trying to maintain Mystara's feel and having all that customizability that he desires so much. This I guess is his main beef about 2ndEd.

[Darque]

I've never even seen a copy of the pen-and-paper game, but I have seen plenty of L5R LARP groups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well who's fault is that?

 

Go buy a copy :D

[Darque]

It's ironic that the same people who belittle 2ndEd and 3e so much are the same people quick to point out that GURPS is unneedlessly complicated when it comes to combat and Shadowrun is horribly complicated all over (even 3rd edition). 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know about complicated, my problem with GURPS is that it's bland.

 

Dry.

 

Dull.

 

And maybe a little too dumbed down.

 

Shadowrun is a bit complicated, until you actually learn the system.

[EnderAndrew]

You need the core rule book. Then you need two more books for magic, one for cybernetics, one for deckers, one for riggers, and then you might be able to start playing.

[Darque]

What are you babbling about?

 

You can play Shadowrun with one book.

 

GURPS on the other hand...

[EnderAndrew]

If you're only playing something like a Street Samurai or Physical Adept. If you want to play a Decker, you need to be able to build your own deck, and you need rules for decking...

 

The damage and soak rules are rather akward, and some of the specific systems like decking or rigging are pretty damned complicated.

 

I really like the magic system however, and I really like the setting.

[alanschu]

Errrr......

 

 

SPECIAL gud!

 

(not a PnP gamer....my only experience was rather sh!te)

[Darque]

I'm not really a PnP gamer either (only played a few games a few times)

 

but I love to read them, especially the in game "histories".

 

With the exception of GURPS books of course, those are actually pretty good reference materials.

[EnderAndrew]

I loved the flavor-text and stories in the Shadowrun books. That was the best part.

[alanschu]

Yes, there can be some interesting reads out there for PnP stuff....

 

 

:ph34r:

[EnderAndrew]

Those are good stories!

[alanschu]

Some of the best IMO.

 

Some have killer endings, and others have fantastic beginnings

[Jediphile]

Again, I don't care for hit points in level-based systems.

 

L5R is the only system I like with hit points, and L5R is not a level-based system.

 

Anyone in that game can be taken down at any given time with one good katana strike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but to me that sounds like a contradiction. You say that you don't mind hit points in level-based systems, and then you cite their use in a game that is not level based as an example...

 

FYI, GURPS too can be said to have hit points in the sense that there are points assigned to the various parts of the body, but the number of points they have is based on your stats and not accumulated automatically as you progress through the game. If a commoner has, say, about 8 hp on average, while a hard warrior can have up to 12 or 13, but also has tons of skill to avoid being hit at all, then that's fine by me - it's realistic since the PC doesn't automatically become a god next to the common man, he just knows how to defend himself. But if he's in a situation that doesn't involve combat, like drinking poison or caught in an avalance, then he's just as likely to die as anyone else because his combat skill is not going to be relevant.

 

In 3e, however, your experience is a universal shield against any sort of threat, and that is completely silly. It's slightly better than 2e since poisons and such tend to cause ability loss, which can kill if reduced to zero, but then the PCs do tend to have higher stats anyway, and they even improve them automatically as the progress through the game, so it's still not very convincing. I don't mind that the heroes have a better chance of survival in these situations, that's okay, but they shouldn't be impervious to things that would be fatal to ordinary people.

 

A fireball would be a terrible and horrible thing in a realistic setting, but in D&D it won't matter much to experienced characters - they just note down the damage and then continue as if nothing had happened, when they should have severe burns and be caught in the middle of a fire. A 10th level warrior surrounded by 15 orcs can easily let his wizard friend cast a fireball at him, because he will hardly take a scratch, while all the orcs are guaranteed to die even if they make their saves (which the warrior is all but certain to make). Again, silly.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

It depends on the massive damage rules used. That wizard who casts that 10d6 fireball at his 10th level fighter friend, who happens to have a 14 Con, would easily kill his friend if a more realistic Massive Damage threshold is used.

 

Average roll of that fireball is 30 hit points damage, which is 16 points higher than the fighter's Constitution. Base Fortitude DC would be 15 + 1 point for every five points of damage that exceeds the Damage threshold for a total of DC 18. Another rule is that the Fortitude DC is equal to the damage dealt.

[Lancer]

I don't know about complicated, my problem with GURPS is that it's bland.

 

Dry.

 

Dull.

 

And maybe a little too dumbed down.

 

GURPS? Dumbed down? It is quite the contrary! It ain't dumbed down enough!

 

 

Shadowrun is a bit complicated, until you actually learn the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If a simple car chase scene takes over an hour to run and you need to consult the rulebook over and over again then the rules are too complicated. Netrunning and magic rules are also too complex. I have never been a big fan of rolling a whole bunch of die at once and counting successes..etc

 

Cyberspace and Cyberpunk both have much efficient, more intuitive rules than Shadowrun.

[Lancer]

You need the core rule book.  Then you need two more books for magic, one for cybernetics, one for deckers, one for riggers, and then you might be able to start playing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must agree with Ender here.. If you want to be able to actually run the game you need all of these in addition to the core Shadowrun book.

 

This does not include campaign specific sourcebooks like "Shadows of North America" and "Shadows of Europe...etc"

[Jediphile]

This whole debate I find is ridiculous because it depends so much on personal taste and particular campaign circumstances.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personal taste is always important, but if we're going argue our tastes, then the discussion becomes as pointless as a cleric's weapon (unless you use Player Option rules...), since it will just be descriptions of what each of us tend to like. I'd rather we argued from a more objective base, since that can serve to lead us to useful conclusions about what a good RPG is or not. So far I've heard people argue that it depends on personal preference or GM inginuity. All good and true, but such comments don't add anything useful to the discussion, I think. I don't mind (as people probably know by now) writing pages of why I like this or that, but it's not helpful unless looked at as examples of why something is good or bad in a game.

 

In my case, I don't really care for absolute freedom in character creation for the setting I play in (Mystara) where such said class restrictions are vital to its feel. Maybe it would be more important in another game like a Fallout PnP, Shadowrun, or GURPS but for canon Mystara it makes much less sense.  So to use arguments such as how unbalanced dual/multi-classed characters are in 2ndEd to criticize it just doesn't register in my particular case since such characters don't even exist in Mystara canon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough. Canon Mystara is OD&D and doesn't have multi/dual classes at all. That means it's even more restrictive to play than later editions. However, you won't see that on the surface, since all of the NPCs fall into the categories set up for them, and because entirely new classes are invented as needed in the various gazetteers. Alphatia's council of 1000 archmages grew out of the rules, for example, as did the gladiators and other warriors of Thyatis. That doesn't make them impossible in a broader game structure, however, and they would instead serve to emphasize the value of focusing on a particular area of expertise (wizardry/magic in the first and combat/fighting skill in the second). Indeed, it would be harder to separate Mystara from D&D magic, since it is essential to some lands. Alphatia is founded on the exploitation of magic, for example, while Glantri is impossible without the Radiance.

 

This coupled with the fact that it has been so long ago I that I resolved what I didn't like about 2ndEd that it has come to a point where I really *like* my resultant system and prefer it to something like 3E. This is in sharp contrast to Jediphile, for instance, who never got  2ndEd working exactly the way he wants it and admits sticking to it (for now)only out of nostalgia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, nostalgia is only secondary to me. It's much more significant that some of the characters in my campaign were made with 2e multi-class options or other rules that would make them impossible to convert fairly to another system. One character is a 16th-level ex-minotaur fighter, for example ("ex" because he lifted his minotaur curse and is now a really large human). In 3e a minotaur is actually counted as an 8th-level character (IIRC), which means he would only get 8 levels of warrior skill in the conversion, which is blantantly unfair on the player - he created the character on the basis that he would be able to take levels in the same manner as anyone else, so suddenly removing is to betray his character. I would do that if I switched to 3e. The same is true for the level 12/12 dwarven fighter/cleric - in 3e he would have about 15 levels to distribute among his fighter and cleric classes, and that is just unfair to the basis he created the character on. So I'm stuck in 2e until those characters leave the campaign whether I like it or not. But even if they were, I still wouldn't see much reason to switch to 3e - it's simply not enough of an improvement for that.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with Jediphile or I,... Say what you will.. Perhaps he is much pickier than I am, or I am more purist when it comes to Mystara's feel, or whatever.. But the heart of the matter is that two people can view the same system in a completely different light because of their individual preferences and peeves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I see it, only the magic system ties Mystara closely to D&D. The campaign is tied directly to some of the spells of the game in some cases, and you have to come up with something similar if you change the system. But beyond that there is no reason why you couldn't switch the system. Mystara is certainly rich enough to allow for the diversity (unlike some D&D campaign worlds). Indeed, there are characters in Mystara, that fit so well into the D&D structure. Empress Eriadna or King Stefan both fit their archetypes well, but Chancellor Corwyn Mauntea of Darokin doesn't strike you much as a thief, when you read his description, and he seems rather to have been made into one simply because the other classes were even more improbable for him. This is an example of a character that was made to fit the setting, but which the fixed and rigid class structure of the game couldn't provide a fitting archetype for.

 

Since, total and utter customizability has never been absolutely vital to me and I realize that it is even detrimental to a setting like Mystara it makes no sense to have it there IMHO.

Because it uses an older ruleset, Mystara was designed from its inception to be more restrictive than any of TSR's settings. And these restrictions have become as much a part of its feel as anything else in the setting. This is precisely why a "restrictive" class-based ruleset like AD&D or OD&D is  *perfect* for it.  So where a skill-based ruleset and complete customizability is important for other games, it doesn't work as well in my Mystara.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't possibly disagree more - of all of the D&D campaign worlds, Mystara is the one that would best accept a broad system for customizable characters, since several of the nations are founded on a historic basis rather than a rules-heavy one. Alphatia and Glantri are clearly tied to D&D magic, yes, but nations like Ethengar, Darokin, Karameikos, Ylaruam, Sind, Atruaghin Clans, Ostland, Vestland, Soderfjord and even Thyatis are based far more historic reference than on D&D rules systems. It's quite the opposite in FR, where the nationalities are based first on alignment considerations and historic inspiration second or in DL, where everything is centered on the neverending war between good dragons and evil dragons. The inspiration for Mystara was not based on D&D classes but on history. Sure, it may seem so if you look at lands like Glantri, Alfheim, Rockhome, or the Five Shires, but that is more because those are based on magic, elves, dwarves, and halflings respectively, and as long as those are kept in focus for those nations, it really won't matter which rules you use - the dwarves of Rockhome will be just as effective and compelling under GURPS rules as their are in D&D, which underlines that Rockhome was written with the dwarven race as a focus and not the dwarven OD&D class.

 

I bet that Jediphile finds it especially difficult because he has probably always been torn between trying to maintain Mystara's feel and having all that customizability that he desires so much. This I guess is his main beef about 2ndEd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the problem is that I fairly convert the main PCs to another system. I could switch Mystara to GURPS rules tomorrow or even today without much trouble, if I were to begin a new campaign. In fact, only the heavy focus on magic in Glantri and Alphatia (and Thyatis to a lesser extent) would be problematic. But since we rarely adventure in any of those nations, it would not be a major obstacle.

[Lancer]

I loved the flavor-text and stories in the Shadowrun books.  That was the best part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't get me wrong I like the setting (minus the magic component) and it is by far the most detailed and supported setting made in the genre. If I ever get around to it I'll probably convert it to another ruleset though.. To Cyberspace or one of the unversal roleplaying systems..

[Jediphile]

I don't know about complicated, my problem with GURPS is that it's bland.

 

Dry.

 

Dull.

 

And maybe a little too dumbed down.

 

GURPS? Dumbed down? It is quite the contrary! It ain't dumbed down enough!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree.. that it's not dumbed down. Not that it isn't dumbed down enough, though

 

Shadowrun is a bit complicated, until you actually learn the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If a simple car chase scene takes over an hour to run and you need to consult the rulebook over and over again then the rules are too complicated. Netrunning and magic rules are also too complex. I have never been a big fan of rolling a whole bunch of die at once and counting successes..etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I feel the same way, pretty much as I do with Vampire, Exalted and the other WoD games... But then I don't like the Shadowrun setting either, too much of a confusing mess of odd races thrown in with cyberpunk future stuff. Always seemed half-cooked to me...

[Lancer]

I don't know about complicated, my problem with GURPS is that it's bland.

 

Dry.

 

Dull.

 

And maybe a little too dumbed down.

 

GURPS? Dumbed down? It is quite the contrary! It ain't dumbed down enough!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree.. that it's not dumbed down. Not that it isn't dumbed down enough, though

 

Semantics! You know what I meant!

 

 

Yeah, I feel the same way, pretty much as I do with Vampire, Exalted and the other WoD games... But then I don't like the Shadowrun setting either, too much of a confusing mess of odd races thrown in with cyberpunk future stuff. Always seemed half-cooked to me...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The one thing I don't like about the Shadowrun setting is its cyberpunk/fantasy mix. When I get around to it, I'll make my own house rules for *that* as well including revamping the ruleset to something else and getting rid of that stupid magic element. Failing that, I'll just play Cyberpunk 2020 or Cyberspace and cull elements from Shadowrun source material.

 

I'll try running the new WoD stuff (I've got the new Dark Ages line) and if the die-rolling becomes as annoying as Shadowrun.. (from reading some of the rules, it does look like it will be) I might have to fiddle with that one too.

[Lancer]

True enough. Canon Mystara is OD&D and doesn't have multi/dual classes at all. That means it's even more restrictive to play than later editions. However, you won't see that on the surface, since all of the NPCs fall into the categories set up for them, and because entirely new classes are invented as needed in the various gazetteers. Alphatia's council of 1000 archmages grew out of the rules, for example, as did the gladiators and other warriors of Thyatis. That doesn't make them impossible in a broader game structure, however, and they would instead serve to emphasize the value of focusing on a particular area of expertise (wizardry/magic in the first and combat/fighting skill in the second). Indeed, it would be harder to separate Mystara from D&D magic, since it is essential to some lands. Alphatia is founded on the exploitation of magic, for example, while Glantri is impossible without the Radiance.

 

Exactly.. Which is why using the classes that were constantly being created in the GAZs renders using 2ndEd dual/multi-classing rules nearly irrelevant. I rather liked this feature of Mystara.

 

Actually, nostalgia is only secondary to me. It's much more significant that some of the characters in my campaign were made with 2e multi-class options or other rules that would make them impossible to convert fairly to another system. One character is a 16th-level ex-minotaur fighter, for example ("ex" because he lifted his minotaur curse and is now a really large human). In 3e a minotaur is actually counted as an 8th-level character (IIRC), which means he would only get 8 levels of warrior skill in the conversion, which is blantantly unfair on the player - he created the character on the basis that he would be able to take levels in the same manner as anyone else, so suddenly removing is to betray his character. I would do that if I switched to 3e. The same is true for the level 12/12 dwarven fighter/cleric - in 3e he would have about 15 levels to distribute among his fighter and cleric classes, and that is just unfair to the basis he created the character on. So I'm stuck in 2e until those characters leave the campaign whether I like it or not. But even if they were, I still wouldn't see much reason to switch to 3e - it's simply not enough of an improvement for that.

 

Right. I am glad you realized that switching to 3E is a pointless exercise in futility.

But seriously speaking... The problem you mentioned could be partially attributed to your usage of dual/multi-classing rules in your campaign. I'd imagine converting OD&D Mystara classes to 3E wouldn't have been that bad to do.

This appears to me to be a result of the ruleset you employed.

 

I couldn't possibly disagree more - of all of the D&D campaign worlds, Mystara is the one that would best accept a broad system for customizable characters, since several of the nations are founded on a historic basis rather than a rules-heavy one. Alphatia and Glantri are clearly tied to D&D magic, yes, but nations like Ethengar, Darokin, Karameikos, Ylaruam, Sind, Atruaghin Clans, Ostland, Vestland, Soderfjord and even Thyatis are based far more historic reference than on D&D rules systems. It's quite the opposite in FR, where the nationalities are based first on alignment considerations and historic inspiration second or in DL, where everything is centered on the neverending war between good dragons and evil dragons. The inspiration for Mystara was not based on D&D classes but on history. Sure, it may seem so if you look at lands like Glantri, Alfheim, Rockhome, or the Five Shires, but that is more because those are based on magic, elves, dwarves, and halflings respectively, and as long as those are kept in focus for those nations, it really won't matter which rules you use - the dwarves of Rockhome will be just as effective and compelling under GURPS rules as their are in D&D, which underlines that Rockhome was written with the dwarven race as a focus and not the dwarven OD&D class.

 

Regardless....There is still significant magical components in most these nations even the ones you mentioned with a strong historical basis that need to be addressed. Unless you fudge them somehow for your conversions.

OD&D Mystics are quite different from martial artists as described in GURPS Martial Arts or even 3E monks. I am not sure how you would convert them to those systems. The only good thing I suppose is that Sind's different monastic orders were never given full statistics in the CoM boxed set and as such these different classes can be constructed from scratch, IIRC.

Karameikos is not Glantri or Alphatia per se but it still has the School of Magecraft...

The Atruaghin Clans actually depend a lot on magic.

Just because magic is not the centerpiece in a given nations' overall way of life doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless an important part of it. But then, I have never tried converting Mystara to 3E or GURPS (nor would I) so this is just my best guess.

 

 

No, the problem is that I fairly convert the main PCs to another system. I could switch Mystara to GURPS rules tomorrow or even today without much trouble, if I were to begin a new campaign. In fact, only the heavy focus on magic in Glantri and Alphatia (and Thyatis to a lesser extent) would be problematic. But since we rarely adventure in any of those nations, it would not be a major obstacle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In our campaigns magic is quite a big deal. We did adventure in Glantri a lot so magic was usually a pretty big part of our campaigns (And I am more of a fighter type of guy!). But then again, this depends on campaign style and preferences. I still maintain that most countries in Mystara have significant magical components to it. Enough so that it is just best to stick with either 2ndEd or even better, OD&D.

[Jediphile]

But seriously speaking... The problem you mentioned could be partially attributed to your usage of dual/multi-classing rules in your campaign. I'd imagine converting OD&D Mystara classes to 3E wouldn't have been that bad to do.

This appears to me to be a result of the ruleset you employed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem lies in the multi/dual class systems, which are completely different in 2e and 3e, and in the way monster-races are fit into the rules in each incarnation. In 2e, a 1st level warrior is a 1st level character, no matter which race he belongs to, while in 3e, the race, if powerful, is considered to be worth a number of experience levels. I checked this, and IIRC a minotaur is considered to be an 8th-level character as a base, so a 3rd-level minotaur fighter would be considered 11th-level (8+3) and have to earn xp according to that. This means that I cannot fairly convert a 16th-level 2e minotaur fighter (who would drop eight levels to be a mere 8th level fighter) or a 12/12-level 2e dwarven fighter/cleric, since his classes would add up to 24 levels, which is far too much in 3e.

 

Regardless....There is still significant magical components in most these nations even the ones you mentioned with a strong historical basis that need to be addressed. Unless you fudge them somehow for your conversions.

OD&D Mystics are quite different from martial artists as described in GURPS Martial Arts or even  3E monks. I am not sure how you would convert them to those systems. The only good thing I suppose is that Sind's different monastic orders were never given full statistics in the CoM boxed set and as such these different classes can be constructed from scratch, IIRC.

Karameikos is not Glantri or Alphatia per se but it still has the School of Magecraft...

The Atruaghin Clans actually depend a lot on magic.

Just because magic is not the centerpiece in a given nations' overall way of life doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless an important part of it. But then, I have never tried converting Mystara to 3E or GURPS (nor would I) so this is just my best guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Karameikan school of magecraft did not exist in the original OD&D system, and even after it was invented, it has had next to no effect on the campaign world. Even the last pusblished PWAs give it next to no significance, and what magic is taught there was never touched upon in OD&D - it wasn't until the 2e box you got those hated kits to sort out the karameikan mages.

 

The Atruaghin Clans don't depend on magic at all. They have shamans, but they their effect on their society is built entirely on their social functions and not on power levels or D&D class structures. The shaman class is described, but it's not essential to the setting and can easily be replaced by something similar in another game.

 

Only Glantri and Alphatia can be said to be based heavily on D&D-specific magic, but then even the Radiance falls outside standard D&D rules and is described only in Gaz3 for OD&D and G:KoM for 2e. Otherwise both Glantri and Alphatia is founded heavily on magic, and so this is the one area where you would have to present a good substitute if you switch to another system. Taking those over to, for instance, GURPS rules will need some conversion, since the nations are tied closely to some specific D&D spells in certain cases.

 

In our campaigns magic is quite a big deal. We did adventure in Glantri a lot so magic was usually a pretty big part of our campaigns (And I am more of a fighter type of guy!). But then again, this depends on campaign style and preferences. I still maintain that most countries in Mystara have significant magical components to it. Enough so that it is just best to stick with either 2ndEd or even better, OD&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, Glantri is a problem for my campaign, since one PC is a dwarven fighter/cleric... and you know how much they just love clerics and dwarves there, and vice versa

 

As for magical component, I don't agree. Yes, they have magic in most of those nations, but just how much does it matter in those societies, and how much is it tied to D&D magic that you cannot alter? We know there are guilds for wizards in both Minrothad and Darokin, but they have next to no detectable influence on society beyond being accepted as beneficial in some circumstances. The same is true in Thyatis, which has some truly powerful wizards, but who just don't matter much to the general life in their society.