Jeff's Cool S**t

It really irritates me when I write a comment on someone's blog and the whole thing shows up on my G+ stream. I realize this is probably on ME and my lack of ability with the whole social media thing (i.e. I'm sure there's something I should be turning off to get it to stop)...but that's part of the irritation: it points out my ignorance and incompetence, in addition to sharing my one-line witticisms that were really only meant for the blogger I'm reading.

Such was the case recently when the immeasurably talented Jeff Rients posted his recent series on random advancement for B/X character classes (here's the post with the compiled documents).

His thinking behind these can be found in his first post in the series in which he writes:

A problem in old school D&D that has been intuited by nearly everyone but only occasionally spoken out loud is that sometimes you can go up a level and it's a dud. Reaching 2nd level as a fighter is pretty exciting the first time, because you have the opportunity to double your hit points. But third level is just more of the same. Sure you get better to hits (slowly) and multiple attacks (even more slowly). Meanwhile the spellcasters get more spell slots every level and new spell levels are even more exciting. Even the lowly, crappy thief gets incremental increases in percentage skills (plus things like reading languages and magic, better back stabs).  

Meanwhile, all players and many DMs agree that going up a level should be awesome. That's how we ended up going down the road of WotC D&D with its feats and whatnot...

Welp, I am one of those folks who tried articulating this a while back, though that was in the midst of designing a new FHB. The idea that I had was that, with so much "white space" between levels, you might as well cut-back on the levels in the game and simply play for the "power-ups" limited to about five times per career.

The main problem with that approach is that folks want to advance more than five levels over the course of a campaign.

The other thing Jeff appears to be attempting (which may not be articulated as well) is to make leveling up more interesting. Not just in the actual increases of effectiveness that occur, but in the way those increases are bestowed and how they show up...helping to distinguish "cookie-cutter" B/X classes from one another via random tables loaded with cool stuff.

In the past, I've tried front-loading this kind of monotony-breaking system via something I called exceptional traits (folks who own The Complete B/X Adventurer will see this is one of several systems developed "on-blog" that made it into the book). Other folks have done similar random tables that influence chargen (Alexis uses extensive random charts and a simple Excel formula to quickly generate distinct weirdness from hundreds of possible options).

I think I may have even addressed the idea of PCs getting new "exceptional traits" at higher levels (though I never actually implemented this at the gaming table)...but I never suggested a completely randomized leveling process like Jeff (and Zak) have. Part of this is due to me having a hard time thinking in truly gonzo concepts on a regular basis (much to my chagrin). But another part is simply due to a difference in philosophy: I have no objection whatsoever to random character generation, but I have strong reservations about random character development.

Part of the challenge of playing old school D&D is bucking up and working with what the dice giveth. One of my favorite characters that I never had the chance to play (well, not more than once or twice), was a 2nd level fighter with a constitution of 3. I decided to define him as an elderly warrior, only newly minted as an adventurer, describing him as looking somewhat like that geezer King Haggard in the animated Last Unicorn film. As my children are fond of saying, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."

[I think Diego learned that in kindergarten. It's applicable to a variety of life's arenas, however]

And considering that your player character in D&D is supposed to be an adult (presumably with some life experiences that has gone into shaping him or her), starting with a randomly created origin is perfectly acceptable...saves time so that one can get to playing. But random development? The whole point of play (well, one of the points of play) is developing your character from a rank beginner into a potent adventurer, and it is the game play that describes this development. And as I have a say in how my character plays (Do I attack the bugbears? Do I loot the gemstone?) so, too, I should have a say in how my character develops.

If I work my ass off to go up in level and then (randomly) learn how to bake cookies instead of acquiring a new spell? Well, that kind of sucks. Likewise, if I spend my time carefully negotiating with NPCs, cultivating a respectable demeanor only to discover that I morph into some sort of tattooed berserker. Or whatever.

Having said that: I still love a lot of the stuff that's found on these random tables. And in a campaign setting where the megadungeon exists as a kind of "mythic underworld" and inexplicable, random strangeness is a regular, expected occurrence, I can totally get behind a system of randomized development like the one Jeff is suggesting. And, yes, it certainly makes advancement a lot more interesting.

Check it out when you have the chance. It's definitely worth the read.
: )

Castle Gargantua

I started writing a post about Batgirl on Friday, but due to events and sickness (yes, I'm still sick, as is the rest of my family), I haven't got around to finishing it. Which is fine because it's a big, heaping wreck that needs to be rewritten anyway.

SO...this morning, finally had a chance to read Kabuki Kaiser's new monster of an adventure, Castle Gargantua. If the name is familiar, you may recall a prior review I did of his Ruins of the Undercity, back in 2013. Truth be told, as I reread what I wrote about RotU, it may not have been the most flattering review I could have given the thing, but I did like the book. There's nothing wrong with creatively adapting existing work (Fiend Folio, DMG) to a new type of madness. Then again, the place I was in (at the time) wasn't probably the best place for giving puffy reviews.

Today I'm in an even fouler mood...but I think I can still up the positivity. I only have a few minutes to write, however.

"Kabuki's Big Adventure"

Castle Gargantua is a huge (by my standards) adventure that clocks in at a bit more than 100 pages featuring a truly monumental site for exploration...a gigantic soaring castle, as tall as the Empire State Bulding with a scale six to eight times "normal." The adventurers enter through a pair of 90' high doors and can work their way through it's massive labyrinthine structure seeking anything that may still be left to be looted (the Castle has been plundered many times in the past, and it's a little picked over).

Sounds like some sort of typical, vanity-project megadungeon, yeah? Sure it does...but it's not.

While the game includes maps (by Dyson Logos, whose work is excellent, as usual), these are only used for a handful of specific locations/scenarios. For the most part, Castle Gargantua goes un-mapped, instead being coded with a number of themed areas: stone, blood, wine, gold, etc. When one enters an area, a handful of dice are rolled to generate the contents based on specific tables tied to the theme. Yes, this is random seeding of the dungeon (Castle Gargantua owes part of its inspiration to In Search of the Unknown), resulting in a different experience each time the dungeon is delved by a different group of players.

The themes repeat multiple times, but the exact order does not, and the whole thing is tracked on a simple "Chutes and Ladders" (i.e. "Snakes and Ladders") style table, color coded by theme and numbered from 1 (the entrance) to 35 (the "end," more or less). The random dungeon pieces Kaiser used in Ruins has been simplified and streamlined...you still have random room-shapes, but the organized theme helps give unity to the whole thing.

And the themes are pretty crazy...this is psychedelic-Gothic-mumbo-jumbo of a very high level. Bloodstone megaliths and hybrid golems, leprous troglodytes and monstrous angora cats, with wandering clockwork guardsmen that are rarely the same appearance twice. Plus the massive scale of the thing...where there are maps, it's 60' to the square with gigantic furniture designed to make one feel insignificant (or, at least, small and nervous). Personally, I love the idea, especially the idea that there are windows and balconies that might lead to unexpected methods of egress (or ingress) for enterprising players.

Unlike some products that feature random tables heavily, Castle Gargantua is not one where the rolling is required so often as to disrupt game play. In fact, a DM could simply plot the game ahead of time (via the random tables) in preparation for a session (not unlike the random stocking of B1 that is part of that module's prep). I guess I'd say the randomness is only as intrusive as you'd like it to be, unlike some adventures, or even systems (DCC, I'm looking at you).

All in all, it's a very tasty adventure, and the first "megadungeon" I've seen that I'd actually be interested in running. Castle Gargantua is ostensibly "system neutral," though it has a definite Lamentations of the Flame Princess vibe to it (not only with the gothic-horror themes but the use of terms like "specialist" instead of "thief." It's level neutral as well, being designed to scale based on the average party level, which makes it pretty nice for groups in the low-mid range. For me, I'd like to run it with Michael Thomas's Blueholme Prentice Rules...for all the gore and scandal, I think there's plenty of whimsy in the adventure, too. It reads much more like a dark fairytale to me than...well, than anything else I can remember seeing for Dungeons & Dragons, save (perhaps) for some of the old UK modules (still, those weren't terribly "dark"). It's still D&D, however.

If I have any real criticism of the thing (other than the fact that it will take more prep than most packaged adventures), it's that some of the encounters/weird traps look a little tough/tricky to run...problematic, even. This may just be me being sick and stuffed up in the head, but I had trouble grokking a couple of the set encounter areas (Mirror, Mirror and Third Lodge). And the Hall of Wondrous Pools just looks like a bear given the sheer size and scale of the thing. Even so, the thing is neat enough I'd be willing to give it a shot.

The PDF for Castle Gargantua can be purchased here for a measly $5 ($10 if you want it softcover, $20 for hardcover; PDF also comes with the print copy).

Joop, Joop-I-Doop, Joopy-Jupiter

And speaking of random space opera...

I spent a lot of yesterday morning watching videos of movie trailers for upcoming films. This is a ridiculous waste of time for many reasons (not the least of which is my free time for actually seeing films these days is next-to-zero), but mainly because, well, I could have been writing instead. But hey: I blame Jay over at Gamma World War! for his constant Man Max updates...you just know I love me some post-apocalyptic goodness, and after that I just "follow the links."

So it was that one link led me to a trailer for the space opera flick, Jupiter Ascending (latest release date sometime in February).

Now it's pretty ridiculous to "review" trailers of not-yet-released movies [*ahem*] but certainly I count on trailers to pique my interest...with the effort it takes me to get to the movies these days, something better really wow me (except in the rare instance when it appeals to some personal interest of mine). Strange as it may seem, given the overall geekyness of my blog, my general film interests only rarely run the vein of fantasy or space opera. Historical pieces like In the Heart of the Sea or quirky character pieces like Inherent Vice are much more my speed.

Having said that...

Watching this trailer for Jupiter Ascending, I found the premise of the setting to be very intriguing. I'm trying to remember if I've seen this particular "speculative fiction creation myth" in fiction before. Sure there's a lot of shades of The Matrix, here (as one might expect from the same dudes who wrote that trilogy), but while The Matrix was kind of a GenX take on Plato's Allegory of the Cave, this feels much more Flash Gordon-esque...which is something I really dig.

I don't know why (I dig it). I'm not of George Lucas's generation, did not grow up on FG serials or comic strips. But I've always enjoyed the idea of intergalactic empires operating "just beyond the ken of Earth knowledge." Secret space battles/intrigues on a titanic scale that only a few privileged Earth folks have discovered. Think of the Marvel comic character Corsair becoming embroiled in the Shiar Empire. In many ways it's similar to the "stranger in a strange land" sword & planet epics of Burroughs (John Carter), Moorcock (Michael Kane), and John Norman (Tarl Cabot)...yet the scale is so much larger, spanning multiple planets and systems and often including that "ship-to-ship" action that appeals to the pirate fetish so many of us have.

But it's not just the action. When you're dealing with the technology to deal deathblows to whole planets and star systems (whether we're talking Star Wars or the Lensmen), one hero's ability to wield a sword, laser or otherwise, scarcely matters (unless granted license by the author, that is). Instead, being able to navigate intergalactic politics...one's interactions with the people in power...is the important part of the equation.

And who doesn't love the associated difficulties with governing an interstellar empire? See Dune, Foundation, Star Wars, etc. for examples.

So that's cool. And Jupiter Ascending has been in development long enough that there are plenty of spoilers about the characters (like how they've been genetically spliced with various animals to make better warriors, trackers, etc.). Which is also cool.

Having said that...the over-the-top super-sci-fi action sequences on display in the trailer I find to be terribly uninteresting. So much so that it detracts from the things that ARE interesting. It's like the recent Hobbit trilogy...it's as if the filmmakers don't trust that the subject matter is interesting enough to engage audiences without bombarding them with complicated blue-screen mayhem. I don't know how many ways I can say it:

Including action for the sake of including action is BORING. It fucking-A is.

Sure, I'm an old geezer that has no idea what the kids want these days. Perhaps the market research shows that the only folks who'd be interested in such a film  play too many high octane action video games and want to see the same kind of thing on the screen. I can tell you that after seeing the action sequences on display, and especially after watching this other trailer for the film, I'm actually turned off from watching the film, despite the cool setting. And sure, it's grossly unfair to judge a film by its previews alone...but isn't the preview the thing that's supposed to grip you and reel you in? I've spoken with a lot of folks who skipped an otherwise good movie because the trailer "sold them" poorly (or sold them on the wrong thing)...I know I'm not alone in that particular brand of superficiality.

Thus, unless I read some truly stellar reviews, I will probably not be watching Jupiter Ascending, unless it's available on one of those 12 hour plane flights that I seem to take with alarming frequency these days. I'm just shallow like that.

Jupiter Descending

[sorry, I just have space opera on the brain these days...that and superheroes, but who wants to hear about Aquaman?]

Chop! Staves and Spells

[this is my final post in a series discussing the removal of "saving throws" from your D&D game. You can see the formative thoughts here and here; links to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3...plus a four part series on "dragon breath"...um...here, here, here, and here. Let's get to it]

Well, it's about time...a few ten thousands of words and a couple weeks later, we're finally down to the last saving throw on the chopping block: Staves and Spells. I managed to get both kids to sleep (Sofia is literally "rocking out" to Don Felder's Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride) next to me), so the beer's been cracked and the laptop's been fired up. Let's see if I can get through this before people start waking up.

I'll start with the easy one first: Staves. A magic staff is just a lesser extension of the magic-user's might...if we can get rid of magic wands (either because we don't need saves to dodge magic ray-guns or because we're rolling them into the overall category of "magic") then we can easily drop the longer version.

*CHOP*

Now let's take a step back for a moment and talk about dice rolling, that hoary tool for randomly resolving in-game happenings. Fortune (as the injection of random chance is called) is a great little bit of impartiality and surprise...a little somethin'-somethin' to keep everyone on the edge of their seat during a game, even when the DM's narrative abilities fall short. Gamers of all stripes are prone to dislike too much random chance...we've outgrown the strategy-less days of Candy Land and Chutes & Ladders, after all. Allow us at least some (and hopefully more) input into what happens...otherwise, why not just hit the casino down the street and throw some cash at the roulette table?

[*ahem* okay that's a ridiculous apples-to-bowling balls comparison. Forget I mentioned it]

Let's put it a different way: while we like some randomness - to surprise us, to thrill us, to not leave things up to GM fiat (see Amber: Diceless Role-Playing) - it's certainly not the dice-rolling that drives our interest in role-playing games. Even when we hear the phrase, "Let's hurry up and get to some dice rolling," what's being asked is that we get to one of the exciting, active parts of the game...because those are the times when dice-rolling (for the most part) are going to take place. This IS a "fantasy adventure" game we're talking about, ja?

SO...we don't want too much randomness...just enough. That's one of the reasons I wanted to cut damage rolls out of combat: find a way to incorporate the resolution of random damage (if you even want random damage...see my Five Ancient Kingdoms for a different option) into the attack roll, rather than random roll followed by random roll (followed by random roll again, if you're using an "initiative" mechanic). It's one of the reasons that I hate things like "dodge/parry" rolls (sorry Rifts, Chaosium, etc.). Let's just get to the meat of the action: it's your turn in the combat round, you get one roll to see how successful you are, then it's someone else's turn. Period.

I'm not a minimalist...I still want some back-and-forth in a resisted sequence of action (which is what combat is), rather than "one roll scene resolution" (see Story Engine as an example). I just want things tightened up, okay?

[and, yes, there are sometimes when extra dice rolls are cool with me: usually games that involve lots of gunfire and bullets and rolls to see how riddled with holes you are...but that's not sword-swinging fantasy, 'kay?]

And so now we get back to our topic at hand, and the problematic issue of D&D's Vancian magic. See, when we look at Chainmail we see that magic was divided into two, one-roll type actions:

• Fireball/lightning throws from a wizard wherein certain targets (Heroes and whatnot) received a "save" roll, and
• Other spells that had no save, but required a dice roll from the wizard to succeed.

Wizard takes a spell (or spell-like) action and one die roll determines whether or not it is successful. In the former it's a save roll, in the latter it's the wizard's own casting roll.

What D&D did with its adaptation of Chainmail magic was to remove casting rolls (and counter-spelling, but that's its own story) and instead limit spell-casters in other ways...namely, quantity of spells and spell accessibility. Chainmail had some limits in quantity of spells (though even the most insignificant of Seers still had unlimited fireballs and the ability to turn invisible at will), but any wizard, regardless of power, could know the spell cloudkill or anti-magic shell (for example), not just spell-casters of "high level."

By implementing this Vancian sensibility (spell-casting is not so much a matter of the character's skill, but a matter of storage capacity), it makes it a lot harder to CHOP magic saving throws. I mean, if you make magic-users roll a D20 to cast spells (the way fighters have to roll a D20 to successfully damage someone), then its simple to say, hey, no save allowed buddy. Because...well, I've asked this question before in this series (several times) so I guess I can do it once more: what the hell does this saving throw versus magic represent?

My 11th level magic-user has memorized the spell Flesh to Stone, successfully implanting the living, wriggling bit of magic in my noggin. What is the difference between casting it at a 1st level fighter rather than a 10th level fighter? What does the one with the "10" saving throw have that the one with the "16" doesn't?

"Must...not...turn...to...stone!"

Absurd. The magic is the magic. For that matter, what does it mean that the 1st level fighter makes his saving throw? If it's a matter of willpower "resisting the magic" then Why O Why does a save versus a lightning bolt still mean the character takes half damage? Why doesn't the same principle of resistance (no effect) apply?

This bullshit is further confused with 3rd edition and its different saves (Reflex for lightning bolt...as if someone could dodge a flash of lightning...versus Will for imprisonment), and compounded in 5th edition with different ability saves for different spells (Constitution, Dexterity, Wisdom, whatever).

"Dodge this, pal."

"It's just magic, dude...get over it." Bullshit, I say. It's not "magic"...it's game design and lazy game design at that. You have a resource (magic) that has an in-game effect and you're giving the target an "out" (saving throw). But just as we can read a fantasy novel and say, hmmm, this plot is full of holes and doesn't make sense logically we can say, boy this design is full of inconsistencies. Sure...there's magic and it works "magically" (the way a "hyperdrive" in space opera works on scientific principles that can't be explained in real life). But if they don't have internal consistency, they're rendered absurd or ridiculous or whatever you choose to use as your derogatory term. Do you want to play Steve Jackson's Munchkin? Or do you want to explore a fantasy environment that works on consistent natural (and supernatural) laws? Sure, sometimes the beer & pretzel game is fun, but if you want satisfying, long-term play you need to hold your game to a higher standard than just, "well, this works."

Because that's what you're doing now: oh, we want magic to automatically work BUT we don't want it to automatically work. Dude...figure it the fuck out.

Now, I've got my own take for the new fantasy heartbreaker, but my magic works on different principles than the Vancian model. For purpose of illustration I'll describe it a bit...though keep in mind that mine's a different animal from standard "wa-hoo" D&D:

Magic is hard, but not relegated to people with a natural "gift." Anyone who falls into the "above average" education level will know some magic, but only dedicated scholars are going to know more than a handful of spells. Similar to mathematics (in our real world), magical knowledge is gradually built upon a foundation of knowledge...you need to learn "prerequisite" spells before you can learn the higher arts. There are different "levels" of spells (three, in fact), but they are not restricted to a particular character level...a higher spell level just means a more difficult spell to cast. This difficulty is modeled by the target number a spell-caster must roll to successfully create the spell. Having a higher level of experience means its easier to cast the spell (like a high level fighter has an easier time hitting a low armor class).

Now, keeping in mind that this is how magic operates in my heartbreaker, where would a saving throw fit? If a fighter hits you with a sword, do you receive a saving throw to avoid taking damage or (God forbid!) death? No, of course not. If you failed to wear adequate armor, picked a fight with a dangerous warrior, and stayed within sword-reach, well...that's on you, buddy. Why should magic be any different?

As it is, the arbitrariness of saving throws in D&D is pretty ridiculous. The only thing that doesn't keep a DM from achieving a TPK with a 1st level magic-user using a (save-less) sleep spell on a group of 1st - 3rd level adventurers and then slitting their thieving throats is the sheer kindness of the DM. Why shouldn't the NPCs arm themselves with the exact same repertoire of magic as the average PC adventuring party? Magic-users are supposed to be highly intelligent right? Why play them stupidly? Have the orc shaman throw an auto-hit magic missile at the 1st level party's magic-user and watch that "sleep bomb" go down the toilet.

But noooo, "that's not fair." You'd much rather have a game where the PCs go into the dungeon, fire off a sleep spell at a group of goblins, retreat, rest for the night, then come back and do it again. Boy, am I tired of that.

SO...I don't have (or need) saving throws versus magic for my new heartbreaker. If a character wants to resist a command while under a mind control spell (as is depicted so often in Conan-style fantasy), they have a (limited) resource called Grit that they can spend. But that doesn't help you folks who are still playing D&D. How can you chop saves, while sticking with your Vancian paradigm?

Well, let's look at the B/X spells that would give saves and see if we can just get rid of 'em (the way the designers have already done away with saves for 1st level spells sleep and magic missile). Okay, my list shows the following: Charm Person, Light/Darkness (in the eyes), Continual Light/Darkness (same deal), Phantasmal Force (disbelieve), Web, Fireball, Hold Person, Lightning Bolt, Charm Monster, Confusion, Dimension Door, Polymorph Other, Curse, Cloudkill, Hold Monster, Magic Jar, Death Spell, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, and Geas. Oh, wait: web doesn't have a saving throw in B/X...good. Cleric spells with saves include the same ones listed, plus Silence 15' Radius (if cast on a person), Cause Disease, Dispel Evil, Finger of Death, and Quest. With a few slight alterations, we should be able to axe all the saving throws here.

[sorry, I could go through all of OD&D and AD&D and BECMI but that would take a much longer series of posts than what I really want to do. You should be able to extrapolate as necessary]

Magic-user spells first:

Charm Person: this spell basically gives the caster a "12" reaction roll ("Enthusiastic Friendship") and should be treated as such: the monster is charmed, not dominated. Any command/request that goes against something the creature would normally do should break the spell. Creatures with a high intelligence should never be charmed for more than a day.
Light/Darkness, etc.: don't allow this to target a creature...period. Cursing someone with blindness is a 4th level spell; why would you allow the PCs to do so with a cheap Continual Darkness?
Fireball/Lightning Bolt: reduce overall damage to D6 per two levels (round up). No saving throw.
Hold Person (or Monster): limit this to creatures whose HD do not exceed the caster's level.
Phantasmal Force: just don't allow it to do harm. If it's touched, it's dispelled; forget "disbelieving."
Charm Monster: as charm person, but again limited to no more HD than caster level. Groups must have less than half HD/level.
Confusion: problematic for a number of reasons. Just limit it to creatures of 2HD or less (or reduce the duration for larger creatures). More useful as a battlefield spell (see Chainmail).
Dimension Door: don't allow its use on others.
Polymorph Other: do not allow targeting of creatures with more HD/level than caster.
Curse: why should a player receive a save when there's no save against a cursed scroll? Answer: they shouldn't.
Cloudkill: limit poison to damage. Duh.
Magic Jar: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Telekinesis: no save allowed.
Death: this doesn't need a save; use as written.
Disintegrate: limit to single creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Flesh to Stone: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.
Geas: limit to creature with HD/level not exceeding caster's level.

Cleric spells next (I should probably note that I dislike the idea of giving saving throws to clerical spells in general...this IS the divine will of the gods we're talking about!):

Silence 15' Radius: can't cast it on a person.
Cause Disease: no saving throw.
Dispel Evil: total HD affected cannot exceed caster's level.
Finger of Death: total HD/level of creature cannot exceed caster's level.
Quest: no save, but must be same alignment (and/or religion) as caster.

Does this make spell-casters more dangerous? Sure...but that's to the good, in my opinion. Anyway, the average party of adventurers is going to outnumber the number of auto-kill spells a caster is going to throw at a party...and I'm sure the players with spell casters will appreciate not having their spells thwarted by a good DM saving roll (ask my old player Luke how frustrating that can be).

However, there is the matter of the use of a high Wisdom since (in B/X) its only benefit outside the cleric class in providing a bonus to saving throws versus spells. My thought? Use it to award "grit" points to PCs that can be used to automatically resist a magic spell that would otherwise de-protagonize the character (that is: mentally control the PC or transform their body in some way). In B/X it would look like this:

13-15 +1 grit point
16-17 +2 grit points
18 +3 grit points

Give ALL player characters one or two grit to start (a below average WIS would result in a lesser starting amount). Grit is regenerated at the beginning of each game session. Sound good? Sounds good to me.

*CHOP*

: )

RPGs - Pity About the Art

No, I am not exiting my (self-imposed) hiatus. My family still requires more attention than blogging allows at the moment, but...well, sometimes something just strikes a nerve and I've got to vent my personals all over the internet.

Somewhere back in the past, I got subscribed to an email newsletter called Story Games Weekly. I probably signed up for it 'cause they do free promotion of one's gaming products and I thought "hey, easy marketing!" Of course, I've never bothered to email them a news item or publication announcement (have I not explained before how terrible I am at self-promotion?). Anyway, I still continue to read through it every week, because there's (usually) at least three or four items that strike my interest.

This week, one blurb led me to this post by Patrick Stuart, author of Deep Carbon Observatory, in which he discusses an ideal ("utopian") framework for designing adventures (or any other gaming product). His Step One is to have a powerful idea that fires the imagination (I'm paraphrasing his thing about generating "psychic energy"). His second step? Artwork.

[*head in hands*]

I understand that Mr. Stuart is a big believer in the inspiring power of art within games. I read his essay on Art In Games, and I can grok his hypothesis. BUT...

Oh, God. How to start without seeming like a completely hopeless, obsolete luddite grognard.

[sigh...I really can't, can I?]

Back in the days of MY youth (when we had to walk ten miles to school, barefoot, in the snow...and uphill both ways, don't forget)...back then we used to have these here "adventure module" thingies that may or may not have had much in the way of great or inspiring art, but what art they had certainly had FUCKALL little to do with the adventures in which they appeared.

How many illustrations are there in The Keep on the Borderlands? Five? Not counting the cover? Again I wish I had the module with me in Paraguay so I could check. I love the Dee illo of the minotaur in the chain shirt with the spear because its badass, sure. You know what else is badass? The whole Chaotic temple complex which doesn't have (or require) a single illustration to influence your imagination. Same with the ogre encounter. Or the hobgoblin torturers. Or the kobolds with their traps and rats and spears. There's plenty of "psychic energy" to be found within the adventure...energy that has made B2 an adventure staple with plenty of "replay" value over the years. I can't even count the number of expeditions I've sent out to the Caves.

The artwork in these early adventures...the ones us old timers consider "classics"...was scant, and often damn misleading. I'm not just talking about the cover leaf to Keep on the Borderlands (in which a halfling wields a pole arm and the owlbear appears in a worked stone dungeon rather than its cave lair). The cover itself shows some sort of showdown with orcs in the hills...there's no such encounter. Tomb of Horrors has some sort of crowned lich on the cover...WTF? Shrine of Tamoachan's cover leaf has the party engaged with a giant bat thing...no such encounter exists. The cover for Queen of the Demonwebs depicts the party battling Lolth in a forest with a bunch of arachnid helpers...no, no, this never occurs in the adventure.

Is there a single image of a fire giant in Hall of the Fire Giants? I can't recall any...but I can certainly recall several memorable NPCs from that module: the king, his decapitating queen, the torturer, a certain dwarf by the name of Obmi, and Eclavdra (of course). Oh, yeah...maybe there's one throwaway picture of a mustachioed giant with his hellhounds...but that image isn't what's firing my imagination. I'm getting enthused by my mental picture of characters trying to coax mules into harnesses to winch their beasts and spelunking gear across a subterranean river of glowing lava. The Drow with male-pattern baldness isn't nearly as inspiring as Gygax's description of the dark elves' tentacled temple.

Those illustration inserts they included with a couple of those old modules? Sure we used them, but they were gimmicky props and more often detracted from play, rather than enhancing it. Not because the art was bad or uninspiring, but because they SLOWED play (especially for adventures where the ills were keyed differently from the map key) for little real gain. Again, it wasn't a drawing of a four armed gargoyle that made Tomb of Horrors memorable to the players.

Here's how I see it, folks: artwork in gaming products is overrated.

Not unimportant, mind you: please put down your pitchforks, all my illustrator friends! Art does have importance, especially in the basic gaming manual for any setting-specific game where the author/designer is attempting to convey the mood and ambience (and express his or her own visual imaginings) to the reader. Artwork is important for understanding what a game is all about.

But I do not lend it the same importance that Stuart and others...like the general game consuming public...lends to it. That's right, I'm not just trying to pick on one man (well, not this time anyway). I'm talking about a commercial trend that Stuart is simply providing with a high-minded justification.

I mean, who the hell is supposed to be reading the "adventure product" anyway? Who is supposed to be getting the benefit generated from the artwork therein? Last time I checked, adventures were supposed to be studied by game masters and off-limit to the players (who wanted to "explore" the adventure's mysteries). So you're going to commission a bunch of artwork for the benefit of one guy, huh?

Well sorry to waste your time, man, but I'm kind of on the same page with Jeff Rients when it comes to illustrations. Give me LESS to work with...don't fill in all the blanks for me! If you do that, how am I supposed to fire the pistons in this old and feeble mind of mine? What's more, don't give me a picture that I just show to the players and say, "here, it looks like this, you dolts!" Let me just give them a brief verbal description and allow the players' imaginations to fill in the blank spots...that way the magic and monsters and traps and perils and whatnot become more personal and more affecting to the people at the table.

What is this constant handholding? What is this coddling? Why do we not trust that players can do this imaginary heavy lifting all by themselves? Why must every single monster have an illustration...I can guess what a "giant slug" looks like! No, you do not need to paint me a picture of it!

I know, I know: I am hopelessly old and decrepit in my thought. People have "grown to expect" a certain degree of "professional polish" in their gaming product, including high quality artwork and a glossy finish. And, yes, these types of products sell better, and these types of products are more likely to find more shelf space in nicer stores, while the "amateur hour" productions are relegated to print-on-demand or ebook status.

[and, yes, Mr. Stuart, it would be nice if all the art was soulful enough to transcend the reader]

I'm not completely stupid and ignorant. I'm just a curmudgeon who can't draw.

Also, I am a curmudgeon who was very sad to learn that Greg Irons died way back in 1984, after I was considering trying to track him down for a project of mine (no not an adventure). What a talent lost!

This is great, but the D&D Coloring Book was psycoholic!

Okay, okay...I am now resuming my hiatus. You may feel free to comment, but I can't guarantee swift response. No, I'm not going to change my mind on this: any artwork in a published "adventure" should be far down on Ye Old List of Design Priorities.

[hope everyone is doing well!]

Ruins of the Undercity

The new micro-game is coming along swimmingly...usually, I can knock one out in a day, but I didn't have as much time to work on it Friday as I wanted, and my entire weekend was taken up with Good Ol' Family Time (Happy Birthday, D!)...and the problem with doing a one-page Supers game is figuring out how (or if) to list a good enough slate of powers.

Anyhoo, right now I'm taking a break from that because, well, because I've got other projects on my mind. Several have been bouncing around the cranial sphere of late (i.e. the last year) with progress occurring on 1st one, then another, then a third...often with results that end up causing me to go back and modify (or even re-write) an earlier project. Not necessarily because I'm "wishy-washy" (though I admit that may be part of it) but because my thought on game design continues to evolve.

Recently, I've been rethinking about delving back into D&D Mine...something that's been on-hold since I started bouncing around the three-way triangle of dinosaur pulp-space opera-superhero fantasy games I've been working. I just haven't been in much of a "D&D mood" of late for a number of reasons, two of which are:

- my growing dissatisfaction with even B/X D&D (leading me to write D&D Mine), and
- the lack of a rule set that can do what I want it to do

The latter of which is one of those terrible circular traps: I'm out of the mood of writing D&D because I'm frustrated with the lack of a good rule set for D&D because I haven't completed the writing of my own rule set for D&D because I'm out of the mood of writing D&D. See what I mean?

In fact, I just spent an hour or so blowing off steam on the subject with an employee at the local game shop...which sucks for my readers, of course, because (having already vented my thoughts out loud) I have little left to write on the subject.

But PRIOR to that, I did take the time to read a game supplement someone has recently published and sent me requesting a review. That someone is Kabuki Kaiser and that supplement is Ruins of the Undercity. While I am generally slow at getting to (and often less-than-complimentary) this kind of thing, I've decided to make an exception and say a few words on the book...possibly to avoid making a decision on what other writing I should be pursuing at the moment.

Ruins of the Undercity is compatible with Labyrinth Lord (the B/X-retroclone) and provides a Random DM-less  Dungeon Generator for One Player or More. It does this mainly by adapting the old random dungeon generation rules from Gygax's 1st edition DMG, putting them in a specific game world/setting and updating them to be both LL friendly and compatible. Those of you who, like me, owned the old DMG and used the random dungeon generator for solo play on days when you didn't have your regular game group available and couldn't get enough D&D will remember those old random tables generating quirky maps with twisting corridors and ill-fitting and strangely shaped rooms. I'm not really interested in talking about THAT part of the book...it may be done fine or not, but it's not terribly original (save that Kaiser adds additional random town tables for both before and after a delve). Instead, I want to talk a bit about the setting specific stuff.

Actually, let me back up a bit...I want to talk about D&D Mine first. Those of you who recall me blogging about that project (5 or 6 months back) will recall I was having some frustration with reconciling the fantasy setting with the basic tenets of D&D, namely how to to reconcile the background setting (an ancient Arabia/Persia setting) with the basic conceit of the game (going into holes looking for treasure). Or perhaps you DON'T remember, because perhaps I never got around to discussing it. Well, suffice is to say it WAS frustrating for me...D&D in its most basic (i.e. primordial) form...doesn't do well with the idea of wandering free-booting adventures because it's original incarnation (after Chainmail) was with the static delve site of Arneson's Blackmoor. And Gygax's Greyhawk. And whatever-it-is Rob Kuntz called his basic mega-dungeon. The rules and regulations, the mechanic limitations of the game, were created for a particular type of exploration...and don't work as well once you pull the PCs out of the dungeon and start expanding their "fantasy world." Since the time players got bored with the initial premise and started looking "outside the box" designers (both the Founding Fathers and their descendant designers) have been tweaking and adjusting and modifying trying to find away to "make it work;" the subsequent evolution of the game has done some good things and many, many bad things ever since.

[that is REALLY abstract and over-simplified, but it's not the point of the post and I just want to get on with it, not rehash earlier blog thoughts]

In the end, I figured the only way to do my D&D Mine in a way that even VAGUELY resembled D&D (and still make sense) was to factor a similar "ancient mega-dungeon" into the game's setting...an Arabian Nights inspired fiction containing both the post-Islam Bagdad and the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia. And the way to do that would be to set everything in  one huge and fabulous city of ancient origin (like Sinbad's Bagdad) built upon the site of an earlier ancient and awful (and necromantic) ruin and city. GMs would still have full leeway to design the dungeon (entrances would be dotted all about the town), but would have justification for the adventuring action of professional treasure seekers. It wasn't what I had initially wanted, but it would be a possible "out" for me.

Still it was frustrating, and I never got around to writing it up, instead adapting old AD&D modules (like Dwellers of the Forbidden City) to the new game rules for play-testing. Figured I'd finish making sure things worked before bothering to write up the setting.

So now we return to Ruins of the Undercity, which basically beats me to the punch.

The premise of RotUC is remarkably similar to my own Big Fat Idea...an ancient and huge city, built upon the ruined heap of an older, more ancient ruin, providing all the "home base" stuff up top (not to mention places to work one's standard D&D endgame scenarios) with a huge "adventure complex" (to be randomly generated) underneath. RotUC also has a similar "flavor" to it, skipping the more Western Europe flavored monsters in exchange for something more Middle Eastern or east Indian (love-love-love the magic turbans). Even leaving out the random dungeon generation stuff (and rules for "solo play") it's a tasty game setting, and one I wouldn't mind stealing from...absolutely adored the "lich thieves" (though their metal masks was a little to Frank Miller 300 for my taste).

A lot of his monsters (Kaiser provides a fairly fat bestiary) are recognizably cribbed from the Fiend Folio, though it would appear he only took his favorite ones that might do well in the setting (two thumbs up from moi). He adds a few of his own, setting-specific ones, however, and is happy to change the modify the original FF critters to suit his purpose...he also provides combat tactic lists for the non-straightforward monsters (the better to use them in solo play; very serviceable), which is a nice little default to have on-hand.

However, there's nothing absolutely special about the first 64 pages of the book...most anyone with a Fiend Folio and DMG could come up with something similar (including the random town events) with a little mental effort and the time and energy to put it all together (most anyone could do it, but I haven't seen it in such a nice little compilation before; it makes for a good supplement/setting book). What IS impressive (to me) was what came AFTER those first 64 pages, specifically the Appendix A with regard to campaign play, specifically with regard to a codified system of personal objectives for player characters. Long term game goals is something I like to see (and encourage) in my players, but it's something I rarely encounter: most players are too busy learning the game rules, are trying to stay alive or finding gold coins to bother thinking about such things. Kaiser puts together a specific list of high level goals (many of which can be accomplished prior to achieving Name level) for adventurers, as well as the specific mechanics required for accomplishing these objectives. Some examples include: becoming a high priest of the city's patron deity (available even to non-clerics), becoming a member of the city council or even the city's ruler, founding or taking control of a guild house, becoming a city folk hero, achieving immortality through undeath, or wedding a king/queen in a distant country. All of these are cool and will appeal to different personalities (and might evolve out of random events); some PCs might accomplish multiple long-term objectives (I don't think any are mutually exclusive) and they all provide role-playing rewards outside the normal D&D "box" without breaking the D&D game system. That's cool and new and I wish I'd thought to do it first.

[well, I HAVE thought of similar goals/objectives, but I haven't codified them like Kaiser has; and certainly not in such a way that they work directly with the campaign setting for which he's created them]

So that was cool. Coupled with the nice game setting, the sensible monster lists, and some out-o-the-box magic items (fairly pulp fantasy stuff with good and bad benefits of the kind usual to folklore and NOT found in modern D&D editions) this is a nice little book to pick up and run a campaign. The random dungeon creation and solo play rules are fine, but nothing I'd proclaim as a reason for getting the game (my days of solo gaming are long behind me...I don't have time for that anymore!). I did like the random town events (easy to use and more sensible than a lot of the tables I've seen on the internet the last couple years), and Ruins of the Undercity is probably something I would use...if I hadn't already decided to re-write the rules of D&D to my own personal purposes.

But I'll certainly be checking out parts of RotUC if and when I ever get back to finishing up my version of D&D Mine...especially the rules in aforementioned Appendix A.

[Ruins of the Undercity available for purchase here]

Random Fate

Watching the home team get swept in a three game series is actually pretty anticlimactic after watching them get shut-out in the first game, and completely self-destruct in the 9th inning of the second. Even so, after last night's fiasco, I skipped game three (which, as I said, they lost) and instead spent the day at the Northwest Folklife Festival. The weather was beautiful, the fiddle music and sea chanteys were great, and the smell of corn dogs and cannabis mingled to give a carnival atmosphere to an event that, in recent years, has become an absolute crush of thousands of people. The family had fun, especially the boy, who was only four month old at last year's Folklife...he spent his entire bath routine babbling about what a great time he had (or so we assume from his pantomime and answer to our own queries).

As I was saying, it sure beats the hell out of watching your ball club lose its third straight in as many days. But you know, I will watch more Mariners games this year (at least if they're on in the pub at the same time I'm eating dinner). And it's not because I'm a big baseball fan, either (I'm not). The M's have been terrible for years, being incredibly deficient in the way of hitting (something kind of important for winning games). But even though they don't always win...hell, even though they have a propensity for losing games...it's still fun to watch. Because there's always the chance they'll win. They do win sometimes...sometimes blowing up even good teams (they swept Detroit and beat the hell out of Texas this year, for example). There's always a chance, and it's fun to see how that chance plays out. I'm not talking about betting or odds-making (I'm not into gambling)...I'm just talking about the entertainment value of watching events unfold; events over which you have little (if any) personal control.

Sooo...have I talked about dice before?

Probably not any more than in passing. Which is fine...they're truly a very small part of the role-playing experience (some RPGs don't even bother with 'em), despite the pages and pages of text often devoted to various (dice-driven) mechanics in an RPG.

In case you haven't noticed the badge I wear on this blog, I'm one of those gamers who are content to let the dice fall where they may. I don't "fudge" dice rolls. That is to say, if I'm running a game (as a DM or GM) and the situation calls for a die roll, then the result of the die roll stands...it doesn't get adjusted by my fiat to result in something more "appropriate."

Is this about fairness and impartiality? It is not. I'm going to paraphrase the game designer Greg Stolze from his essay in Wild Talents: the dice may be impartial, but their application and interpretation sure isn't. And part of the GM's responsibility (and the reason he/she's often stuck with the job of interpreting those dice) is to provide a structure to the game that enforces the logic of your particular game's setting.

Stolze is a pretty smart guy. He points out (in the same essay) that if what you really cared about was "fairness" and "impartiality" you could simply flip a coin whenever there's a dispute that needs resolution to come up with a simple yes/no, succeed/fail answer. Of course, no one wants to give Lois Lane even odds of knocking out Superman with one sucker punch, so we have rules and randomization to determine (what Stolze calls) "degrees of likelihood." After all, it should be tougher to take down Jimmy Olsen than Superman, right?

And as Mr. Stolze also points out, gauging these "degrees of likelihood" and working the odds (and playing these odds) is a fun and entertaining pastime.

Now, please allow me to expand a bit on Mr. Stolze point of view:

The use of dice as a "randomizer" is only appropriate when all possible outcomes are interesting and acceptable.

Got that? The same applies to other methods of fortune generation (drawing cards, flipping coins, whatever). If the possible result of the randomizer doesn't produce an interesting and acceptable result, then you shouldn't bother with the randomizer. Period.

I'll give a quick example: let's say you're playing a game like, say, Mutants & Masterminds. Ol' Captain Protonik is fighting a number of street thugs because, well, they were doing something thuggish. Say, Protonik's player is having a really bad day rolling dice...he loses initiative to the street thugs. All three manage to hit him, and despite only needing to roll a 4 or better to save versus damage (the thugs are using pipe wrenches), he rolls a 1, 2, and 3 and gets all bruised up. Then he misses with his super punch, by rolling a really low roll. Say the next round goes similarly bad and now when he rolls a 1 or 2 on his damage save he is stunned, losing his actions for the round. What if things just get progressively worse with Protonik being bludgeoned unconscious in the alley? This is the equivalent of seeing some street toughs kick the crap out of Superman. Except that you'd never see that happen in a Superman comic unless kryptonite is involved.

But in M&M it IS possible. Sure, it's unlikely...like it's unlikely the Mariners will go on a tear and win the pennant this year. But unlikely doesn't mean impossible. I've seen player characters go whole sessions, with multiple multi-round combats and challenges, and fail every single die roll they attempted (attacks, saves, initiative, skills, etc.). That happens. It's bad luck or an off day. Heck, the PC might still be an effective, contributing member of the party...assuming they are proactive with their other (non-rolling) input and ideas.

But is it acceptable and interesting for Superman to get thumped by the likes of Turk and Grotto? (old school Marvel players will catch that reference) No, not really. I mean, yeah it's entertaining (personally, I'd get a kick out of it) but it's certainly not appropriate in terms of logic of the game setting. And if I, the player, wanted my character to BE the equivalent of Superman, I'd be pissed off at being humiliated in this way. That's not what I signed up for!

But that's part of the M&M game; that's the way the system is designed. You can ignore (i.e. "fudge") the die roll...but then why bother rolling the dice at all? If failure and humiliation are not possibilities, then why make those things possibilities of the randomizing force? Don't bother making the player roll a die if you already know what the end result is.

Of course, some might ask why you bother playing the game at all, when you could just be writing a short story detailing what happens to the characters.

Ugh...it's nearly 2:30am. I started this post a little late, and my brain is shutting down. I'll catch it up tomorrow after I've had some sleep.

From Desert to Downpour

Welp we're back, safe & sound from the dry heat of southern California. The temperature where we were this morning is 91 degrees...the current Seattle temperature is 49. Cold enough we could see our breath outside the airport. Oh, yeah..and it's pouring rain. Yay...Spring!

Still, it's good to be home...after a nightmare two hour commute (in the rain, with baby and luggage). The beagles are always very affectionate after even a short absence. "Man's best friend," you know? They're both curled up to me as I type, warming these poor, rain-soaked bones of mine. And, of course, I have my own bed waiting for me, which is nice. Too bad I have to vacate it for my regular work day in the morning.

But there I go, complaining again. Junior Seau died today, and here I didn't even notice till I was ordering Thai take-out from a local Greenwood establishment. I'm sure if we'd spent a few more hours in San Diego today we would have heard the news. That's...well, I'm not sure what adjective to use to describe it. Certainly it's not good news. I guess "sad" is the most appropriate term. Any other word I might use would carry some possible judgmental attachment. And I want to save up my judgment for other things.

I hope you all have had a good week. Looking forward to getting back to normal on my end.

Hot Buttered Writing

I’m down at the Baranof on a snowy Thursday night, drinking, and doubting that anyone is going to be showing up. Not surprising due to the snow (not to mention I really didn’t make much of an effort to organize anything…been too busy the last couple days). But that’s fine…it gives me a chance to do some writing, which I’ve been missing for awhile.

It’s 9:03pm…I don’t know when this post will go up since I have no access to the internet at the moment (a bunch of closed WiFi networks surrounding me…once upon a time they were open, and I never needed to ask the local businesses for passwords. Now, they’re all closed for the evening). However, this is just a “warm-up” missive anyway (as I finish my drink)…after this I’ll be getting down to some other stuff.

I’ve had the opportunity to consider the whole AD&D re-print thing (yes, I first read about it early this morning, just wanted a bit of time to digest). I’m honestly not sure what my feelings on the matter are. But here are my thoughts for those who care:

- I played AD&D for a looong time. Even after 2nd edition I continued to play 1st edition. Even in college (early to mid-90s) on the few occasions we played D&D at all. Later on, too, in the 21st century I had the opportunity to play and run AD&D 1st edition with like-minded folks who, like myself, got fed up with some of the aspects of 3rd edition. Call AD&D my “first love” when it comes to the on-again-off-again romance of D&D.

- Having said that, I’ve played no edition but B/X since 2009, and for good reason. If AD&D was my first love, it’s one of those neurotic types that are really bad for you, that keeps dragging you back into bad habits rather than helping you grow and progress as a self-actualized human being. I’ve had one or two of those in my life (um, with regard to girlfriends, that is). This is something I think most of us grow out of, and you don’t feel all that bad letting it go.

- Having said THAT, does that mean I’d never play AD&D again? Umm…I honestly don’t know. I retain my old AD&D books, both for reference and for nostalgia and “just in case” (so I don’t have to buy them on eBay should the whimsy strike me). Would I like them to be in better condition? Yeah…thumbing through one or two recently, I was surprised and a bit horrified to find that somehow they were missing chunks of pages.

- Is it worth the money to pick up new copies of the original books with (presumably) great new cover art? Probably not. UNLESS WotC/Hasbro is going to allow some AD&D-version of the OGL (in which case, it might be good to have references for writing AD&D modules or something).

- Or not. I actually have no interest in writing adventures for AD&D. I just don’t like the system all that much compared to B/X.

- Is it ETHICALLY worth it to purchase the new books? (*sigh*) Probably not. I happen to agree with a lot of what Sword & Shield has to say on the subject. Not only that, but I’ve written before that the only way to get a point across to WotC/Hasbro is to VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. That is, don’t buy their shit. Don’t buy it and then complain about it. Don’t buy it and wish it were better. Simply close your wallet and put your money into something you really want to support. I don’t want to support WotC’s craziness, but they don’t give a shit if they’re making money…it’s a business, folks, not a goddamn labor of love (as much of the OSR stuff is). Close your wallet and support something that cares about more than its f’ing profit-margin.

- WHY is WotC doing this exactly? I’m guessing they want a cash infusion and feel they can milk the nostalgia of folks that once played the game. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the Red Box 4th Edition with the Elmore cover art probably suckered a lot of people…and surprised Hasbro with the response. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I’m going to guess this is simply a canny business move, something like “well, we got a lot of positive feedback (ca$h) simply using the recycled look, but hardback books have more profit in them than box sets and there’s this huge nostalgic following of people who played (and still play) AD&D and who would TOTALLY buy new copies of the old books…at Barnes & Nobles or Amazon or whatever…simply to have a fresh copy, rather than a stinky eBay wreck. AND so long as we don’t support the line, we don’t have to worry about it wrecking our 5th Edition plans…if anything, it might get people’s mouths watering for MORE “D&D” and drive them right into the waiting sales department of our 5E Marketing team. A win-win situation: fire & forget, ca$h infusion, Pavlov dog-bell salivation. Let’s do it!”

- Does that sound cynical?

- And here’s the real kick in the ass, people. I LIKE that WotC is doing this. I won’t buy their books, for reasons of both principle and practicality, but if they were to, say, re-print the B/X boxed sets that I got for my 9th/10th birthdays as a kid, I would TOTALLY pick them up, EVEN THOUGH the same cynical thoughts would be in my head. But that’s not the “kick in the ass” (that’s just my admission of hypocracy)…the KICK is this: they will NEVER re-issue B/X, because if they release any version of “basic D&D” it will be the Frank Mentzer BECMI version. Why? Because most folks consider them identical, with Mentzer’s version simply being an update and reorganization. Such is not the case (and the last couple days I’ve been getting into heated discussions on the issue at an unnamed Classic D&D on-line forum), for reasons I have explained on this blog over the last several years…but just because *I* can distinguish the difference doesn’t mean anyone at Hasbro can…all they will see is “basic D&D” and the fact that BECMI sold the most copies of any basic D&D set of all time (probably due to it reaching the height of its popularity and coinciding its release with a certain Saturday Morning cartoon). So even though I’d sell out myself to get a fresh box or two of B/X, I probably will never get the opportunity.

- AND (last thought), if *I* am such a flawed individual that I would compromise my principles on the matter, I can only imagine that WotC/Hasbro is going to make a killing on their AD&D reissue. It seems a bit ironic (disgusting?) that money from the sales will go to building a Gygax Memorial, even as they donate that money from whoring out his works in base fashion.

No, you don’t think so. Okay, that’s your opinion. Me, I’m going to go get another hot buttered rum, and then work on an RPG project or two. Cheers.

: )

POST SCRIPT (9:51pm…just sipping my second drinky):

It occurs to me that the things I’ve written (in this post and in others regarding game design) may incite resentment and anger in other game designers. I realize, for example, that there are people that like skill systems A LOT and could not conceive of writing an RPG that didn’t include one. There are designers that simply build on what they already know or have experienced in games, rather than puzzling out the reason why something was an initial choice of design in the first place. They don’t CARE, and what they DO care about is that the game works and is fun and if they play-test it and it meets those requirements than who am I to piss all over their efforts?

I could rant against people being crazy or ignorant or simply selfish and/or obtuse…despite being nice, intelligent people who probably make more money than me…but even if they were guilty of those things, who am I to judge? I’m self-centered and selfish and ignorant in my own ways as well. And the games I design may be just as insipid and retarded and downright stupid in their own way…moreso, because I waste a ton of time considering things that may need no consideration and spending hours of my short mortal life crafting something that will only make me a small handful of money…not even enough to pay my mortgage.

Look, I can’t turn it off, folks. I’m going to say things that sometimes sound (or are) hurtful, because I have very strong opinions on things I care about…this silly hobby for one…and my opinion may be diametrically opposed to your own. But I do want to say, just for the record, that I really, REALLY appreciate the effort and creativity that 99% of game designers put into their work. Frankly, I’m in awe every time I walk into Gary’s Games, something I try to do several times a week, even when nothing new has come in to the store. The sheer amount of creativity and artistry on display is overwhelming to consider…the hours and hours that hundreds (thousands?) of people have put into these immensely imaginative works for such a very, very little money. Now THAT will blow your mind…it blows mine.

AND it makes me even more resentful of WotC/Hasbro and their “easy road” of brandification and recycling ideas just to PREY on consumers in pursuit of profit. Wow…how can that NOT make you angry? Pathfinder may be a dumb game (in my opinion), but at least they’re putting out original work.

Okay. That’s enough ranting. Later, 'gators.

Old School? Really?

Another good time at the Mox last night. It’s always a good night when you don’t get fragged by your fellow player characters (well, truth be told, it’s often a pretty good night when you ARE fragged by your fellows…so long as you get in on some of the fragging yourself!).

However, good time or not, I am starting to get disenchanted with DCC.

I think Luke (our game master) is doing a good job of moderating/ref’ing the game, but it’s just not wowing me as a game. And I can point to a couple reasons why (gripes I don’t think I’ve aired till now):

1. Too many random tables.

Not only does the sheer bulk of tables cut down on the search & handling time of the game (i.e. it makes game play slower), it feels so, well, random at times. Now understand there are benefits to random tables, and I can think of several good reasons for a designer to include them:

• It prevents “boring” same-old-same-old game play by changing up the possible result of any given action.
• It provides the impartiality of a random roll, as opposed to leaving the craziness of low rolls or “fumbles” up to GM fiat (the latter of which might lead to hurt feelings).
• It provides real surprises (both good and bad).
• It showcases the designers’ creativity.

But it’s still too much random for my taste. Everything in moderation, right?

There are very few random tables I use in my own games. Um…like none really (really? Yeah, I guess not). Even the placement of treasure and monsters is done “by hand;” I suppose I do use tables for wandering monsters on occasion (it’s rare that I use wandering monsters at all, actually), but that’s about it. My random dice rolls are left for the frenzy of combat, the resolution of negotiation, and the riskiness of saving throws.

Everything else is pretty un-random in my games.

Sure, character generation has its random elements, and I’ve made my own random tables to aid in quick-building characters (random hats and peer associations for example). However, character creation is (generally speaking) PRE-play activity; once we call Game On, there won’t be a random roll until we need to check surprise.

With DCC, you roll randomly every time you cast a spell, or fumble, or crit, or invoke a clerical ability. Hell, we had to roll randomly for how well we CAROUSED last night…apparently, some of the characters party better than others.

Even if it wasn’t distracting looking up tables in the rules, I think “random” still gets tired pretty quickly.

2. Too much fiddly.

At what point does a game go from being Old School with D20 sensibilities to simply “D20 Light?” Is DCC supposed to be Old School just because it has some random tables and dwarf is a class instead of a race?

Maybe it’s supposed to be Old School because it has the terms “Dungeon Crawl” and “Classic” in the title?

I don’t know, man. But here’s what the blurb at Goodman Games says:

"Blah-blah-blah…your character is a treasure hunting rogue, etc...THEN:

Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page…"

Okay, let’s take that 2nd paragraph apart a piece at a time.

“Return to the glory days of fantasy…”

Not sure which glory days Goodman is referencing, but I note that it says glory days of fantasy, not glory days of fantasy role-playing. That’s a fairly important difference.

“Adventure as 1974 intended you to…”

Again, what does this mean? When I first glossed over it in my reading I thought, “oh, it’s some kind of return to OD&D, right?” But maybe what they are really referring to is fantasy in the year 1974 and not fantasy role-playing.

Why? Because I can’t for the life of me how they figure OD&D intended people to adventure like THIS.

I’ve been rereading my Little Brown Books a bit lately…they’re a solid reference for anyone designing fantasy heartbreaker…and they look a LOT different from DCC. They are incredibly abstract, often incomplete, certainly open-ended. If they “intend” anything, it would seem they intend people to design and adventure in their own fantasy world with little to guide them but the roughest of rule outlines.

DCC is full of specific fiddly bits as well as specific systems for doing things…even if those systems are nothing more than “roll on this random table.” I mean, wow, it took a long ass time for the guy next to me to write up his 1st level elf (even with me helping) just because there are so many BITS. Action dice, attack dice, crit range, crit table, crit dice, initiative modifier, ability modifiers, saving throws, luck modifiers, luck type, luck dice, spells known, spells manifestation, mercurial magic, blah, blah, blah.

In 1974 you would have rolled six ability scores, picked a class, rolled gold and chose equipment, and then given your dude a name and alignment. I don’t think anyone could claim the game designers in 1974 intended the chargen (or game play) to be this specific.

“…with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery.”

I think THIS may be the key part of the blurb. Modern rules (read “D20” or post-WotC certainly) coupled with the dark, weird, pulpy fantasy of the original literature: Smith, Leiber, Howard, Lovecraft. The choice of literary background/flavor is great and very different from the usual heroic inspirations: Dragonlance, Eberon, Forgotten Realms, whatever. And maybe it is this inspirational source material that requires the extensive use of randomness (in order to mimic the psychedelic craziness of old school S&S).

Then again, didn’t Raggi manage a “weird” version of D&D while still using a true Old School chassis for his game?

“Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you…”

I really, really don’t know what this is supposed to mean. I mean, is it totally disingenuous or what? Play is fastER than D20, capable of handling 7-8 players without slowing to a glacial pace. But I certainly wouldn’t call it “fast.” We spent a long hour (plus) on our single combat encounter last night, and the battle included both area effect spells and truly weak-sauce opponents (scrap-metal automatons).

“Cryptic secrets?” The only real secret is how XP is supposed to be doled out…well, that and what the actual page count for spells will be in the final version (the Beta uses a single page for each spell…it spends 33 pages and only covers 1st level spells. Could the full book have 150+ pages for 5 levels of spells?!).

“Mysterious past?” My character last week was a pig herder. Any mystery was added by Yours Truly. This week’s character was a former indentured servant-turned-warrior. I suppose it’s mysterious how he became skilled with all weapons just a couple days after being barely proficient with a cudgel.

“Turn the page…”

I assume this means the reader is supposed to close the chapter on other games (like Pathfinder and 4th Edition D&D) and start a new one with DCC? Personally, I don’t mind the pretention and DCC isn’t terrible…especially when compared to the fiddlyness of PF and 4E.

But, man, after three weeks of play-testing, I am pretty sure DCC won’t be replacing B/X for me. It feels like it wants to be fun in a beer & pretzels kind of way, but just like HackMaster it’s a little too mentally intensive to allow that kind of play. Even cutting down the number of characters-to-players (none of us brought more than one this week), even having a couple-three weeks of practice with the rules (four weeks for some players), even with each of us having our own copy of the Beta rules right at hand (many having it on their eBooks)…even with ALL that AND a GM who was completely sober, even then…

*sigh*

I guess I just have mixed feelings. We (*I*) did have a lot of fun, BUT a lot of that was the company and the chemistry and, let’s face it, the constant flow of the liquid libation. And when you’re having fun, you can have a lot of patience for the failings of a game.

Until you run out of patience, I guess.

Dice Man

Is there anything more nerdy than a guy who writes games based in large part on an out-o-print RPG from 1981?

Yes. Yes, there is.

How about a guy who's decided to go into the dice making business...and blogs about it?

Holy crap...if you enjoy physical creativity and artistic pursuits of a different stripe (or if you're just looking for some cool, funky dice), check out Dicecreator's Blog. It's like Dyson stopped making maps and started laser-cutting plastic. I wonder if I should ask him for a special order of some sort?

; )