RPGNow

Showing posts with label grumpy dwarf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grumpy dwarf. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Kickstarter - Myth & Magic Player's Guide - New Update Breaks 13 Months of Silence - Complete With Grumpy Dwarf Commentary



Over 13 months of radio silence on the Myth & Magic Player's Guide Kickstarter. 13 fucking months. Then today, we get two updates (the second was a link to get a no cost PDF of the M&M PG at RPGNow. That link and update are NOT being posted here)

So, why has Tom been silent for over 13 months? Damned if I know. It wasn't addressed. However, if Tom wasn't getting your messages via Kickstarter, it's because they had an old email addy. I kid you not.

Here's the "Backers Only"update from today. I woke up Grumpy to assist and he's in a foul mood. I'd ask you to forgive him ahead of time but he just told me to "fuck off ya lazy sod!" - Tenkar


Update on PG and GMG - 2016



Hi All,

I just wanted everyone to know that I'm still here and Jeff (who the hell is Jeff?) and I are working hard to get a finalized PDF of the GMG to the GMG backers (wait! this shite is STILL hanging? I thought this was ready to be printed years ago! WTF? Who can throw a grumpy dwarf a lifeline and give me an update on this project that's been comatose for a year), as well as to ensure that all backers are shipped their Player's Guides if they ordered one (this is a joke, right? the list of those that aven't received what they paid for is longer the line outside Tom tax office - wait, it's tax season! expect nothing to ship for 3 to 6 months, then not at all) We've had additional setbacks on the GMG side of things but a new artist is trying to wrap it up. Over the last few months though we have made great strides to complete the book. (where were the updates? Nothing since July 2015 on the GM book side of this KS fiasco)

I thought we tackled the shipping issues back in '15 (and 2013 and 2014 - what a load of fooking shite!), but I guess not. After the last round of shipments, the focus shifted to the GMG (sure), but I understand now from a backer (a single backer! more shite!) that I need to look into the orders again and pour through the emails/comments here to see who legitimately needs a PG shipped out. (ack! just from the comments on this update there are 9 10 backers, overseas or those that ordered 4 copies, that never got their shite! I call shenanigans on Tom for being so full of shite that the gas station bathroom would turn him away!)

I changed the settings here on KS to ensure that all emails and notifications go to the right email address now, which was not the case apparently. (The lack of logging in for so long meant KS had a defunct email address - not good and I apologize for that.) (how the fook can ya not log into your KS account if you aven't fullfilled yer fooking KS!?! My God man, we're choking on shite now! it's an excuse written like a lawyer)

The GMG is almost done. We're waiting on the last round of the art before compiling the PDF. (the check's in the mail and I swear she said she's on the pill!)

I know this certainly doesn't stand as a hugely informative and earth-shattering update, but I wanted to simply let everyone know that I'm still here and still working on things, albeit slowly. You should know that. (bloody fucking silence for over a year and a quick stroke job!?!  Ya can explain away being slow as shite. Ya can explain away you failures in shipping. Ya can't explain away 13 months of friggin' silence by "I had a bad email addy, but it's all fixed now. Yep, all done. We're good. No worries. If you didn't get your ghost shipment in 2013 I'll get you now. Carry on." Christ, I need a drink! - Grumpy)

-T

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Predictions From the Privy Pool - 2015 as Seen from The Tavern's Outhouse

+Charles Akins , the man behind the excellent Dyvers blog and occasional columnist for ENWorld, recently posted his 15 Roleplaying Game Predictions for 2015. Not to be out done, Grumpy has decided he wants to make his own too.

So, without further delay, here's GRUMPY!

1 - LotFP's new motto for 2015 will be "All Reprints, All the Time!"

2 - Goodman Games will publish deluxe Tunnels & Trolls as a deluxe reprint BEFORE the deluxe Tunnels & Trolls Kickstarter actually ships.

3 - Someone will Kickstart cardboard dice to go along will the cardboard tables and cardboard stools. Leave it to the Italians.

4 - Troll Lord Games will hire an editor that can read. When told he needs to edit all of the current and previous releases, he will quit before collecting his first pay check.

5 - The OGL, when finally released for D&D 5e, will stand for "Ogre Gaming License." The logo will be an Ogre menacingly holding a large stick.

6 - Goodman Games will have a kickstarter for a boxed set of +Doug Kovacs art prints. Hey, a dwarf can dream, cant he?!?

7 - Every dungeon will have a 5% slope.

8 - That Kickstarter you are still waiting on? Far West, dT&T, Powerchords, Myth & Magic, "your late Kickstarter here" - you'll still be waiting

9 - Drama, drama, drama. Followed by uncircling, unfriending and more drama

That's it. Grumpy ran out of fingers to count with...

Friday, January 2, 2015

The Grumpy Dwarf Critiques - Kickstarter "Spam" - Letters From the Mindless Marketers and Amateur Manipulators - Part the First



No, I ain't referin' to "spam" such as you get from certain "trolls" every time they launch a new Kickstarter severely in need of editing. No, I'm talking about the shite sent directly to Kickstarter creators, promising everything from raising millions of dollars to larger penises.

Lets all given some of these gems a look, shall we?

Hello there (gotta luv the impersonal greeting),

My name is Nick and I'm the lead crowdfunding Ad Specialist (me, myself and I) with Kick Me in the Nuts (not their real name). We're a unique service that specializes in launching highly targeted Facebook promotions for live Kickstarter campaigns like yours (yes, you Kickstarter campaign that we know nothing about).

Your project caught the attention of myself and my team (hey! look, we might have a new mark!). We noticed that you're not driving as many supporters from Facebook as you could be (because we have special powers), so we wanted to get in touch. How is your campaign going so far (we have no idea, so we need to have you tell us)?

If you want to cover all your bases, our targeted Facebook promotions are a very inexpensive and aggressive way get in front of your target market and drive new supporters. Learn more about our program here: Kickmeinthenuts.com/HowItWorks

It really doesn't get any better than our guaranteed reach too (or out reach around) (especially when you're crowdfunding on Kickstarter). I wanted to say that based on everything I've seen with your campaign and how many days you have remaining (because if we gave details, we'd actually have to look at your project, and we ain't wasting time on that shit), our promotions seem like a perfect fit for you.

Please take a look at our 3 different packages available (our most popular being the "Drive Supporters" package) on our website here: www.Kickmeintheasss.com/budget

Let me know which one you're most interested in (the one where you never email anyone ever again). I'd also like to talk more about your campaign and what your biggest headache has been when it comes to getting new supporters (I suspect emails like this)!
__

Looking forward to your reply,

Nick -- Ads Team

Call Us: (800) 999-Nevermind
Email: Nick@Kickmeinthenuts.com
Kickmeinthenuts.com -- We Make it Easy to Crowdfund with Facebook!

P.S. I'm always available to help! We've especially had a lot of success with campaigns
like yours in the Games category (we have absolutely no idea what your project is about)! Checkout some of our recent clients and testimonials here

unsubscribe from this list  (this means someone subscribed you to a list - naughty naughty)

Talk about an obnoxious pice of shit. Nick needs to get kicked in the nuts.
__________________________________________________________________________
JerryTheDick says:
I don't notice very much related to your project from a advertising perspective. You may possibly want to have a look at these crowd funding professionals (the only crowdfunding professional I know of is The Pundit - cough! cough! gag)

www.goo.gl/IEatPaint

they do a excellent job on social media. You could tweet to over 1 million targeted members for basically $10 "basically $10 (as in, "not really $10 but it sounds nice"). I've noticed them supporting other projects with crafting and publishing press releases as well.


Good luck!

At least Jerry is short - and still doesn't give a shit about who he is talking to. Yet ANOTHER form letter.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lali says:
Hi (faceless dude behind a Kickstarter),
Kickstarter uses an algorithm to rank campaigns on featured sections, the algorithm takes into account the number of contributions, social shares, unique site visits and other campaign activity. We offer services to boost those factors, starting at only $5!
We will make you a complementary contribution to your campaign (pay us $5 to support your project at the $1 level), we will share your project on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn with a combined total of 28 thousand followers (awesome - dumb fuck - I've got over 9k on G+, and they aren't paid or zombie nor do they expect to be constantly spammed by a spammer. Oh my God. Shit like this just pisses me off). If you are interested visit the link below to order my service.
http://bit.ly/kickstarterinthebutt

You will not receive any more messages from us unless you contact us.

I wish you lots of luck with your campaign!


Cheers

What the fuck is it with the impersonal form letter shit? I mean, if you want to manipulate someone, at least try to do so on a personal level.
____________________________________________________________________________
Scott Shitberg says:
Hello Niche (note - this is being addressed to +Pete Spahn at Small Niche Games),
congratulations on your success! (we don't need no proper capitalization!)- Guidebook to the City of Dolmvay
I have a great idea too, but I don't have enough funds to build the prototype (prototype?).
I am trying to raise money by selling the book I wrote (it's a fucking book! the prototype is the written words printed out on paper - if you can't fund that, Kickstarter can't help you)- http://goo.gl/griftingformoney
To be honest it's nothing special, but your support will be greatly appreciated http://goo.gl/griftingformoney)

Thank You!

No, thank you!

Alright, thus ends Part the First. Thanks Niche!


Monday, June 2, 2014

Gamerstable RPG Podcast - OSR Episode - Corrections, Clarifications and Comments by The Grumpy Dwarf



Last week, Gamerstable RPG Podcast aired an "OSR" episode. It was... interesting. It was similar to watching folks discuss Star Wars and Star Trek as if they were the same franchise - and yet still have little knowledge of either.

This was the first episode of Gamerstable that I've listened to, and they hosts do seem to have a good chemistry between them. I'll need to give a listen to an episode where they have some actual knowledge of the topic they devote an entire episode to ;)

Anyway, on to the corrections, clarifications and comments, as relayed by The Grumpy Dwarf:

"we are totally not prepared to talk about this" - Truer words were never spoken

"anything we get wrong we can get corrected on it later" - ouch!

not quite sure what the SRD is apparently, but it ties into the OGL

"are we going to upset people because we get so much wrong and they are so into it?" - Grumpy is not upset. Grumpy has been handed a shit ton of entertainment value based on the show's near total lack of knowledge. I almost expect that this episode was recorded as a goof, because really, except on talk radio, who talks this much about a subject they have so little knowledge of it?

"OSR is not about playing 1st edition D&D... because old school games change the original game" - the differences between the original clones / simulacrums are minimal. The original clone (OSRIC) was written to enable publishers to write adventures for AD&D within the OGL. There ARE rulesets that step beyond just revisiting the original material and move beyond. OSR gaming is about the original rules, their clones, new interpretations and expansions and the like. The OSR is not, however, Dungeon World (a fine game in it's own right)

"It is as much about creating something new as it is about playing something old" - now that is a prefect definition right there - they may actually have a clue

Labyrinth Lord is NOT the ruleset with the art that makes "decent folk" cringe. That is LotFP Weird Fantasy. LL IS however, put out by Goblinoid Games, who also publishes GORE and Mutant Future, so that part is right.

Dungeon World is not OSR - yeah, I said it earlier, but it bears repeating.

Retroclones ARE OSR - so if C&C is a retroclone, it is OSR (now, whether folks feel C&C is a true retro-cone is another kettle of fish)

Troll Lord Games is NOT Gary Gygax's new company after TSR, although he did work with TLG on certain projects - and yes, Castle Zagyg was one of them.

"One of the old School tenets is Quick Character Generation, which is why I think Dungeon World probably applies". God, I think I just puked in my mouth just a little bit. Dungeon World doesn't emulate any of the Old School rulesets - it isn't OSR and it isn't Old School - it's New Wave Dungeon Crawling, which is fine, but it is not Old School.

Shit, not even 9 minutes int the 32 minute podcast and I need to take a break. I didn't catch all of this with my casual listen last night


Monday, January 13, 2014

The Grumpy Dwarf Peers into the Scrying Pool for 2014

Grumpy nearly forgot to give his predictions for 2014 in the world of RPGs. I've sent him to the scrying pool, otherwise known as the Tavern's Outhouse, to make his observations for 2014.

Here are the results:

1 - Far West will finally release in 2014. It will be over 2 years late and no one will notice, because no one cares anymore.

2 - D&D Next will release at NTRPG Con in June. It will be a re-reprinting of the AD&D 1e books. Optional modules will include the re-reprinting of 2e and 3.5e, as well as a reprinting of 4e. All are the New D&D according to WotC.

3 - Dwimmermount will dim further, before being rescued by none other than James Mal himself. It will be rewritten for James's Thousand Suns RPG and be reskinned as a abandoned space dreadnought. Kickstarter backers won't be amused.

4 - There will be 2d6+1 OSR rulesets released in 2014. At least one will attempt to recreate My Little Pony.

5 - Myth & Magic will still be shipping at the end of 2014

6 - Mike Nystul will attempt to run a "real life dungeon" in some random cave complex. Funding will be via Indiegogo.

7 - RPG Kickstarters will have funding issues in 2014, as backers money will still be tied to unfilled Kickstarters from 2012

8 - WotC will license the FATE rules for a special "tho shalt not die" edition of the D&D rules. Afterwards, the FATE system will simply fade away.

9 - Someone will invent a D31 die - just because. The D31 will supplant the D31, and cause all D30 tables to be revised.

10 - Two months after the release of D&D Next, the first OGL reskinning of D&D Next will occur. There will be much teeth grinding at WotC and burning of the OGL in effigy. The OGL'ed reskin of Next will outsell next itself.

11 - It will be a cold December in Seattle. The yearly purges will return.


Sunday, January 12, 2014

Grumpy Returns and Looks at "Roleplaying in D&D Next" (a Mike Mearls article)

Yes, the infamous Grumpy Dwarf has been on hiatus for a while. Is he still as grumpy as he was? Let's find out, shall we?

Roleplaying in D&D Next <- Original article link without the Grumpy-isms

Mike Mearls

During the holiday season, we're looking back at some of the most popular articles this year, within each column. Today's Legends & Lore originally ran back on September 22. (see how long it's been since I've looked at this shit? - oh, and I guess the Holiday Season means "filler articles" - hey, how about I dig up some old posts and spread them out again?)

We look forward to seeing you again in the new year!

It's pretty obvious that D&D began its life as a roleplaying game. It has grown to include toys, novels, comics, video games, and board games. At the core of D&D, though, rests an RPG. (D&D is just a marketing brand these days. The D&D RPG hopefully is an RPG)

So, if D&D is an RPG, what do the rules need to do to encourage you to roleplay your character? (roleplaying is in the eye of the beholder, and what one player considers roleplaying, another may consider "wasting time when dice could be rolling and swords be a swinging") Like a lot of things relating to D&D rules design, the answer lies somewhere between providing no encouragement and demanding players to play act personalities that are distinct from their own.

To start with, I think that D&D is more fun when players adopt characters with distinct mannerisms, traits, and goals. (which is fine, and I'm glad mike states it as an opinion, and not a fact) As a DM, I love it when a player ties a character to the setting in a meaningful way.

For instance, in my current campaign, the rogue is a former member of the duke's secret police. He turned in evidence of a plot that resulted in the execution of his former comrades for treason. One member of the secret police escaped arrest and has sworn to kill the rogue. That gives me a ready-made villain to throw into my campaign. It also means that when the player characters visit towns or villages where the secret police installed a reign of terror, he had best watch his back.

One of my current characters, the wizard Kel Kendeen, is fun because of his personality and mannerisms. His mechanics reflect his abilities as a wizard, and I love slinging fireball spells and using disguise self spells, but five years from now I'll remember him more for his ardent dedication to anarchy, chaos, and freedom. He's fun to play not because he can cast the disguise self spell. He's fun to play because he's a radical anarchist who uses that disguise self spell to mimic petty officials and undermine hierarchical organizations.

If the rules give us tools to use in a campaign, our character's personalities tell us why and how to use those tools. Without that layer, D&D is no longer an RPG but simply a fantasy world simulator or a skirmish battle game (sounds like 4e - doh!). It doesn't take much to make that work, but it's a layer of play that brings the game to life in a way that no other type of game can match.

Of course, every group has different standards for roleplaying. Our goal is to give you guidance and ideas to inspire you to roleplay a character with a compelling backstory and provide you with mechanics that have a light touch in terms of helping you shape your game. We want to encourage you to roleplay your character without mandating it. (carrot but no stick I guess)

In the current draft of the game, as part of character creation, you also flesh out a few things beyond alignment. Your bonds are your character's ties to the world, people, places, or things that are meaningful to your character in some way. Your flaws are your character's weaknesses, while your ideals represent the things that keep your character going when things are at their worst.

In essence, these concepts flesh out the starting point provided by alignment. They translate those abstract ideals into actions, things, and beliefs that are tied to the campaign world.

To make things easier, our current draft of backgrounds includes tables you can use to flesh out your character's bonds to the world. Additional tables use alignment as the starting point for ideals and flaws. For instance, as the member of a craft guild you might be intensely loyal to the patron noble house that sponsored your guild membership. On the flip side, you've made an enemy of the criminal cartel that wants to disrupt your guild. DMs with the time and inclination can fill out their own tables as starting points for characters. As usual, you can also choose to make stuff up if nothing on the tables is appealing, or simply roll on them and accept the results. (actually, pretty cool, and seems to be something you find in RQ6 and the like)

A final table provides your character with something that sparks the beginning of your adventuring career and gives your character a key problem or question that needs an immediate solution. Perhaps you left the guild because your master was murdered under circumstances that point to you as a suspect. You might have been sent as an undercover agent to infiltrate the cartel that is working to undermine the guild. (if everyone has this huge type event in their backstory then none of these events are huge, or unique)Your DM could also give you ideas based on the campaign, or you could come up with something on your own. (tailoring to the campaign is almost always better)

Mechanically, we're looking at a fairly simply system that we're calling inspiration. (shit! here comes the New Age / touchy feely / aspect driven crap) When you have your character do something that reflects your character's personality, goals, or beliefs, the DM can reward you with inspiration. (this of course is based on the DM's opinion, which will often not match that of the player in question) The key lies in describing your action in an interesting way, acting out your character's dialogue, or otherwise helping to bring the game to life by adding some panache to your play. (great! time to improv at the table) By demonstrating that the events in the game are critical to your character's goals and beliefs, you can allow your character to tap into reserves of energy and determination to carry the day.

You can spend inspiration to gain advantage on a check, saving throw, or attack attached to your action. Alternatively, you can bank it to use on a roll that happens during the current encounter or scene. Additionally, you can choose to pass the inspiration along to a different character during the scene. In this case, your character's determination serves as an inspiration for the other party members. You can have only one inspiration at a time. (and if the player isn't the type to ham it up, or is shy, or just isn't into this shit - they don't get the bonus)

It's up to the DM to reward inspiration, but as a rule of thumb, a player can gain it once per significant scene or important combat. Inspiration fades quickly, so you must spend it within a few minutes in game time before you lose it. (and folks complain about DM Fiat in OSR games - this is no better, because again, awarded at the DM's whim)

Just as a DM chooses when to reward inspiration, the DM also chooses why to award inspiration. You can use it as described above, or adapt it to other things that your group finds help bring the game to life, keep the action moving, or otherwise make the game more enjoyable for everyone. (Fuck it! "Nat 20" for the win!)

Like many things in the DM's hands, inspiration is a tool that requires more finesse and art rather than science to properly apply. A good DM uses inspiration to encourage play that makes the game better for everyone at the table. Think of it like a micro-reward, something short of experience but still a useful reward for good play. (very open to abuse and too ill-defined in my know it all opinion) 

The inspiration mechanic is a simple gateway to deeper rewards for roleplaying your character. Groups that want a more narrative game (see, I told you we were talking indi game / new age bullshit) can reward inspiration freely or adapt it for other uses. You can even give players a pool of inspiration that they can spend only to reward other players for good roleplaying moments. (time to hold hands and sing kumbaya)  By baking inspiration into the core of the game, we have the basic structure needed to provide for more in-depth rules modules.

Damn, but Grumpy is out of practice!

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Drinking Some "Ginger Beard" English Beer


I don't do many beer posts, but when I do, I hope to make them count ;)

The label on Ginger Beard is of a red headed dwarf complete with braided beard. You don't get more "fantasy dwarf" than that.

It's a sweet beer with a ginger burn on the tail end. I'm currently sipping it out of a scotch glass. If I'm going to cut back on beer due to calorie intake, beers like Ginger Beard that are made for sipping are the way I'm going to go.

Four tankards and a half pint out of five for this one (the extra half is for the awesome label).

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

"The Grumpy Dwarf" Tries His Hand at Publishing



Yep, I'll be putting some gaming stuff out under my own "label" if you will. I'm still involved with Dead Rat Publishing, but certain projects work better under different set ups. The Grump Dwarf will allow for those projects.

Huge thanks to +Greg Christopher who put the above together without being asked. It is inspirational :)

I'll have another announcement later today with a bit more substance ;)

Friday, April 5, 2013

Grumpy the Dwarf Looks at WotC's D&D Next "Design a Character Sheet Contest"

Props to +Eric Franklin of the Kicksnarker Community over on G+ for bringing it to my (and Grumpy's) attention.

WotC is crowdsourcing the design of the D&D Next Character Sheet, and the winner gets to sign all rights to said sheet away for free, have their name and home town used in promotions of WotC desires and the awesome prize is seeing your sheet in an upcoming playtest release.

You are part of the D&D Next Playtest, aren't you? Cause if you aren't, you'll never see your work.

Lets pull out some highlights:

(Grumpy the Dwarf here. It looks like it's time for me to poke my head in)
If your character sheet is selected as the winner, it will be made available to thousands of D&D Next playtesters for use in an upcoming D&D publication. (awesome - you do the work, WotC reaps all of the benefits - and you dont't get paid a dime)
To be eligible, the entrant selected as the Winner must also assign to Wizards their rights, including their copyrights and renewal rights, in the character sheet submitted for consideration in this Contest. (I see what's in it for them, but WTF is in it for you to do their work for free AND give away ALL rights to said work)

To enter, use the Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet Contest Application on the official Dungeons and Dragons Facebook... (Holy fuck! Not only do i get to do the work for free, I need to go to Facebook in order to give away my work to WotC?)
Contest Prize Information: Subject to verification of eligibility status and Entrant’s assignment of copyright to Wizards, the Winner will have the Submission based on his or her design published in the Publication (“PublicationRight”) and receive a copy of the Publication (the playtest is all PDF, so you get the "Publication" that everyone else is getting and you would have gotten anyway, but you get "bragging rights" is return for you copyright - how the hell does that balance out?)

Marketing Rights: By entering this Contest, Entrant specifically acknowledges and agrees that Wizards will have the right, without restriction, to use, reproduce, and publish Entries submitted without payment of any compensation or consideration to any Entrant or any other person or entity (except the prizes awarded to the Winners pursuant to these Official Rules There is no fucking prize!) on a worldwide basis in connection with advertising, promoting, publicizing or discussing the Contest. (It's the old Marvel Comics "No Prize". Spend your time making a One Page Dungeon Entry. You keep the copyright and can actually win a real prize for YOUR WORK)
Formatting issues are due to the way the contest rules were formatted - probably to make this very post and ones like it frustrating as all shit ;)


 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Grumpy Looks at Mearls' Piece on Magic Items in D&D Next


Grumpy the Dwarf here. I've been lax in checking out Mage Mearls' latest magic tricks regarding D&D next. Last week he was discussing Magic Items. Let's look, shall we?

Our next playtest packet is ready to download. Head on over to download the pack and add a fleet of magic items to your game. This packet represents a more incremental approach that we'll use at times, where we add a specific element to the game rather than build out more character options. (Did I mention I'd given up on the playtest material for D&D Next? Come to think of it, I see less and less blog posts and G+ posts about D&D Next these days? Has the new car smell worn off while it's still in Beta?)

We've shown a few magic items in prior packets, such as the treasures available in The Caves of Chaos. Those items were placeholders (if I recall correctly, they were pretty much your usual D&D type "+ whatever types). This magic item packet represents our first attempt at creating a complete system for magic items. (sounds exciting. no, really.) It gives you an overview of how items work, our new rules that are specific to magic items, and a small catalog of sample items.

Our overall goal for magic items is to make finding them interesting and exciting (what, you mean make them unique and special? something that's been posted once a week, heck - earlier today even-  at this very blog since the summer. and other blogs. and other products, and so on). Magic tems—aside from simple items like potions—should make everyone at the table sit up and take notice. We do not want magic items to feel mundane or dull (that's good). So, what are we doing to make them exciting?

To make magic items more interesting, we've done a few things. To start with, we've removed any assumptions that the system math makes about magic items. In other words, we have created a system where magic items simply make you more powerful. A 9th-level fighter doesn't "need" a suit of +1 armor, a +2 weapon, and an item that grants +2 to Strength in order to match that class's expected power. (alright, lets stop right there. once magic items have "plusses", they become part of the power curve. It's inevitable. To claim otherwise is simple bullshit. You may strive to keep the bonuses smaller, but once you start increasing the "to hit", you wind up having to balance the "AC".  It's a  fucking viscouscycle, and to pretend your doing away with the cycle is a disservice to the players) 

That change means we can avoid items that simply give you a power-up to match the system's pace. Even better, we don't need to give nonplayer characters (NPCs) magic items (you don't, which is great. but then why will players have stuff that NPCs won't have?). All of our items can therefore afford to be a little more complex and nuanced, since we don't need to worry about adding a lot of complexity to every NPC or character in the game. Items that simply give +1 to attack rolls or Armor Class can fall by the wayside. (but wait for the examples that follow - they still have "plusses")

Even more importantly, we can afford to design more items that give flavorful benefits or interesting uses, comfortable in knowing that the DM isn't keeping the characters from hitting their expected power level. (flavorful magic items are great - I'm all for it. Keeping the power levels in check means more than just the plusses) The characters don't need to march through a proscribed arsenal to keep up with monsters and NPCs. Again, that introduces a world of flexibility in design.

Beyond those shifts in our approach to items, we've also introduced a new concept to the game that seeks to help DMs rein in items while also making items more flavorful: attunement.

Attunement

The D&D Next magic item rules introduce the concept of attunement to the game. Attunement represents a magic item entangling its power with its wielder's essence, bonding to the wielder and allowing him or her to unlock the item's true potential (this has been done before). Until you attune to an item, you might get the sense that it has a secret lurking within it. It might flash with arcane power, or perhaps you hear a vague whispering in your mind each time you handle it.

Of course, attunement carries some risk. Perhaps the item is cursed to grant a terrible bloodlust to whoever wields it, which is a legacy of the berserk warrior who died wielding it. Maybe the item was crafted for an order of paladins, and straying from the path of justice causes it to compel you to undertake a quest of atonement. Perhaps the item has a slumbering purpose. It might allow you to call down gouts of flame to blast your enemies, but when you next battle a white dragon, the item roars to life with new powers and an insatiable desire to destroy the wyrm. Not every item that requires attunement has such wrinkles and hazards, but the chance that it might makes using any item a risk. (it sounds a bit like artifacts in AD&D)

If an item is well designed, it brings with it a sense of history and purpose combined with a unique identity.

On top of that, a character can attune only three items at once (holy crap - this is like binding items in an MMO). Although many items do not require attunement, the most powerful ones will need it to unlock their greatest benefits. With the limit on attunement, we can provide some limit on how much more powerful a character can grow through magic items.

Items as Treasure

As I mentioned above, we want to make items more interesting to discover. The following items are from a playtest adventure that we are slated to release in a few weeks. They do not use the rules for attunement—these items represent a mid-point step in our development of the rules. In other words, they show you the kinds of items you can expect to see in published adventures. Whenever possible, we'll err on the side of taking the time to design new, unique items for adventures, rather than give out treasure that you could simply pluck from another source.

Pontus

This ornate short sword's blade appears to be made of solidified water.

Sea elves forged several blades like this, which were given as gifts to certain land-dwelling kings in return for various concessions long ago.

Effect: Pontus is a +1 short sword.

This blade grants the wielder the ability to breathe underwater, and moreover, descend to any depth without coming to harm.

Whenever an aquatic creature takes damage from an attack using Pontus, the creature takes an additional 1d8 damage. (so, this is a +1 sword with a snazzy description, a short history and a few rolls on the Sword Abilities and Powers Tables on page 167 of the AD&D DMG)

Fimbric

Although this longsword's blade is metallic, it is veined like marble. Dwarven runes lightly etched into the blade spell out the sword's name, Fimbric. It was forged for a prospector named Alrika of Stonehill, who made a minor name for herself a hundred years ago by locating several mines rich in gold, silver, and gems.

Effect: Fimbric is a +1 longsword.

If commanded to find precious raw mineral ore, the blade makes a sound like ringing steel if such ore is within 100 feet.

The wielder gains the benefit of the feather fall spell up to three times per day. If the wielder falls from a height of 10 feet or more without commanding the sword to suppress this effect, the sword automatically activates the spell. (yep, revise the tables in the old DMG with a few more spell like abilities, and you too can design D&D Next magic items. What's old is new again. But why does this feel like something I've already been doing?)

Watch for these items and more to hit your playtest packet soon! We're looking forward to hearing what you have to say about them.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Some Current Observations on D&D Next - Or "Where the F' Has Grumpy Gone?"

A "Not So Grumpy Dwarf by Stephan Alvarado
FYI - The Grumpy Dwarf is still around - he just isn't looking at D&D Next much. Why? Because Mike (and Monte, who is long gone) is no longer pulling game design concepts out of his ass. WotC is no longer promising the world and the stars - their design goals seem to be closer to home.  Heck, even the current posting by Mike makes sense.

Yes, I dared to say it. Mike Mearls Makes Sense. Say that five times fast.

Lets look at Mikes' "Pearls of Wisdom" from this past Monday (yes, I am making light of it, but his observations are spot on. Just giving credit where credit is due):


The rules shall make things easier for the DM. This might seem like a funny concept, but it’s something that is a huge distinguishing point between RPGs and other types of games. In an RPG, the rules should help move things along, serve as a useful tool for the DM, make things clear and easy to understand for players, and enable the sort of creative, unpredictable, and evocative gaming that has kept tabletop RPGs going for 38 years.

The rules guiding a good RPG fade into the background. Once you learn the rules, you can apply them logically and easily. A good rule is easy to extend to situations that sit near it, giving the DM an easy tool to cover the gaps and any weird situations that arise. The rule doesn’t call attention to itself, disrupt the game, or cause extra work.

An RPG rule’s greatest goal is to ensure that the game is better for its presence. If you didn’t have that rule, you’d want it in the game.

This point is important because RPGs are the most open-ended form of game. The DM needs to make judgment calls and apply the rules, and having rules that are easy to extend or modify makes that much simpler.

I sincerely doubt that D&D Next will "my kind of RPG", but if Mike can accomplish this, he'll go a long way to bringing players back from all the editions of the D&D.


The rules shall balance character options, within reason. D&D gives players classes, races, spells, and other options to build characters. Although the game isn’t competitive, it’s supposed to give players a chance to take on a role as an adventurer in a fantasy setting. Some people want to be wizards, and others want to be warriors. The game should ensure that no single option, or small group of them, completely overshadows the rest. The game is about the adventures of fighters, rogues, wizards, and clerics, not a wizard and his or her lackeys.

In other words, the game shouldn’t punish someone for deciding that he or she wants a character like Sir Lancelot rather than someone based on Raistlin Majere (or vice versa). Whether your DM runs an absolutely killer dungeon or hands out artifacts like candy, the characters should each have the same basic opportunities to contribute to the adventure, stand out, and feel effective.

On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else. When a broken combination appears, R&D needs to judge whether it’s a pervasive enough problem that it requires errata or another major fix. In the meantime, we can give DMs guidance and advice on dealing with overpowered characters. We can also issue suggested changes to tide groups over. It’s fine for players to find powerful combinations. R&D needs to determine if those combos are powerful enough to distort the game or transform one character class into the absolutely most powerful option (This is Grumpy sticking my head in to the conversation - notice how they are treating D&D Next like a MMORPG with this - I suspect there will be a big push to provide the rules in whatever electronic format WotC can use to lock them down and provide updates via subscription - whatever method that WotC uses to distribue this - and all the back catalogue they are promising - will probably not be consumer friendly)

Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game. Additionally, the moment where a character does something notable is a moment created by localized imbalance. It’s interesting when the wizard uses feather fall to allow the rogue to float silently on to a hill giant’s back and stab it in the back from above. It’s heroic for a fighter to block a dungeon corridor and singlehandedly hold back a dozen ogres while the rest of the party retreats. We want our characters to shine. The rules step in to make that happen by giving the character the chance to accomplish something unique.

The rules fall down when, through no special effort, one character outshines everyone else combined. There’s also a problem when entire classes don’t have much to contribute. The system works if the average gamer can put together a character and have a good time. Thus, overall the classes should be balanced by giving them unique and interesting things to do that allow each one to stand out in its own way.

Not aiming for perfect balance. Targeting the average gamer?  Good stuff :)

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Grumpy Beats a Dead Horse - The Resurrection of Mazes & Perils

Nothing pisses me off so much as thievery. But what's even worse than general thievery is stealing from the dead. Not once. But twice.

There is a version of the Holmes D&D rules that can be found on the internet. Edited and enhanced a bit to be a "What if?" type of rule set, but credited to Dr. Holmes, as it should be.

What's pretty fuckin' amazing is that the original theft (Mazel & Perils 1e) was nearly a word for word, page for page copy of the Holmes 77 rules you could find online. Heck, the charts look like were a copy + paste from the source right into Mazes & Perils. So, not even an original theft, but stealing someone else's reworking of Holmes D&D.

So, now what does Vincent do? Changes a few numbers, moves charts around and repeats his claim as author and copyright holder. He had to do this because the document he used as source material took passages and tables verbatim from the source material - which is why it got pulled last fall.

Why bother changing stuff around? We already know it's basically stolen.

You know what, let me screen shot the 3 tables of contents, then you can decide if Vinnie was doing an original work derived from another, or if he's a straight up thief.

From left to right - Holmes 77, M&P 1e and M&P 2e

Yep, as I thought - he's a straight up fuckin' thief.

Holmes 77 states "This version edited by Eric Holmes, Retro-organized by RC Pinnell

Mazes & Perils states "By Vincent Florio, Contributors: R.C. Pinnell" then at the end "Original System and Rules Authors: Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax and Dr. John E. Holmes". Being that the work was all done by Dr. Holmes and enhanced by RC Pinnell, I fail to see how the fuck Vinnie can claim "he wrote it". Unless he means "I changed some wording and made it mine - just like those term papers I bought in college that I handed in."

Vincent - just because you claim you wrote it doesn't make it so.

Shit, I need to go back to reading the 5e updates. At least there I didn't have to deal with outright thievery.
       
                                                                                                The Grumpy Dwarf

Friday, June 29, 2012

The Grumpy Dwarf Remarks on Mike Mearls Latest D&D Next Interview (Part One)

Nothing pisses off a Grumpy Dwarf more than a blog post that screws up the font, the colors and all that other shit.  So, I'm going to try using yet a different browser today.  Lets see if it fucks up yet again, shall we?


Oh, this is Mike Mearls' latest interview.  Mike can talk.  Have I mentioned that before?  Yes?  Well, I'm going to state it again.  He's like the Everready Bunny.


On June 15th, we conducted an interview over Skype with Mike Mearls, head of Research & Design of D&D at Wizards of the Coast. Also during that day, Mike was participating in an “Ask Me Anything” thread on Reddit, (Mike is a multi-tasking madman!) so some of the answers make reference to that. This interview has been transcribed, paraphrased, and edited by us from the call (so it's just the meat I suppose). We chose to mainly focus on the process of playtesting and design for D&D Next for this interview.

Critical Hits: How is the AMA on Reddit going?

Mike Mearls: It doesn’t matter how many questions I answer- more stuff just keeps showing up (which shows a lot of interest in D&D Next.  No matter how much I may biatch about 5e, I'm glad to see Mike is swamped with questions). It’s funny, I think most of the answers have boiled down to “yes, we’re giving the Fighter maneuvers, we just haven’t gotten to it yet.” Which fits the playtest feedback too, where I think 80% of the surveys said they wanted it too (which seems awfully huge, as I doubt 80% of playtesters played fighters to any extent.  Then again, most of the playtesters are probably current 4e players, and they are accustomed to front loaded options). Even players of older editions are saying that. It’s just funny to see it (is 3x older?  probably.  I suspect the further one goes back in edition preference, the lower the numbers of people that want to be loaded down with upfront power and options.  then again {yet again} when you aren't increasing the fighter's chance to hit, he needs something to show that he is progressing in levels. I think that is the main reason folks what more options and maneuvers for fighters - they simply don't get better otherwise in D&D Next) .

CH: Let’s talk about some of the new rules, like Advantage/Disadvantage (this should be interesting). When the survey responses come in, is most of the feedback focused on those new rules, or is more about the older rules that have been brought forward?

MM: It’s a mix, yeah. One of the things we did with the playtester base was to set the framework based on the questions we asked. The first thing we want to look at is the new mechanics: Advantage, action economy (i'm sure someone will define this, but it just seems like a strange phrase to me), and so on because it’s a change from what D&D has been doing the past few editions. We’re mainly taking the temperature of the room, asking “do you like this or not?” Then deciding where we want to go from there.

Healing has been one area that’s been getting tons of attention (that shouldn't be a surprise). It’s funny, if you went back to the days of 2nd edition and gave those players the D&D Next document exactly as it is now, I think people would be like “woah, there’s so much healing, I have these hit dice I can spend.” (the result would be "whoa, there's too much healing - we'll never die now!"  but i was 19 or so when 2e came out, and we were still Monte Haul back in the day, so it would have been fun for a few months.  Then we would have moved on to WFRP or Traveller)  But now that they’ve played 4th edition (this one sentence should tell you the edition segment that will have the most influence on D&D Next - and it ain't the old farts in the OSR), they’re just like “there’s not enough healing in this game.” It’s one of those things that has changed. It’s interesting to get people’s perception of what D&D “is” and see that it has changed over time (not so much changed as there are now multiple opinions out there.  that's what you get when you change editions and rule sets faster than folks change cars).

The really interesting thing is that preferred edition plays some role in it, but it’s nowhere as big of an effect as you’d think (I'd like to see a percentage of 4e self identifying players in the 5e playtest.  I'm going to guess it's around 80%.  Who wants in on the over / under?). Like, everyone loves at-will spells (because nearly everyone is a 4e player Mike.  who do you think signed up in droves for the playtest?), it’s one of the most positive things. Even players who played OD&D or 1st edition, it’s not like they’re 90% (75% maybe?  it's a weird number for mike to pull out) against it. There’s still some shifts, but it’s overall positive among all those groups. It’s interesting to see what’s new to different people too.

CH: All the surveys I’ve seen have asked how long have you played D&D. You’re saying the differences haven’t been that pronounced?

MM: Yeah. To give you an example, we have a lot of people who say they want the Fighter to have more options. It’s the most pronounced among players who have played 3rd and 4th, but you still see more than half the players who played 2nd or 1st saying that as well (again, without an increase in THAC0, how else will a fighter improve in combat?  more options or maneuvers is the only way.  Self fulfilling prophecy)  . I think it’s because even though 1st edition didn’t have that, they know what they want to play (yes - a fighter that gets better as they level). So a player who plays a newer edition with a simple Fighter says “if I wanted that, I could play AD&D” (Exactly Mike - you hit the nail on the fucking head! This is the very reason trying to appease all players of all editions will fail.  All of the previous editions are still in print in one form of another and will be FOREVER because of the OGJ.  Well, maybe not 4e in that case but 3x and prior) but in this context of playing a newer edition, I want that thing, so just go ahead and give it to me.

Doing the AMA today has shown that- I don’t want to call the questions boring, but a lot of them have been the same. Like “why is the Fighter boring?” (because 4e players expect every class to be equally good at everything, and fighters don't have the "flash" of clerics and wizards) OK, we’re going to add maneuvers to answer that, so I’ll move on. Then the other question is “if we’re already playing an edition of D&D we like, why should we switch?” (didn't I already answer this?) What it comes down to is that those editions have a very specific flavor (sure, it's flavor from the RULES.  If I want to show 4e players what a 0e game was like, D&D Next may get me to the parking lot of the ballpark.  Swords & Wizardry White Box Edition will not only get me in the ballpark, but put me on the ball field. Did I mention it's free? Mike, in using DND 5e to recreate the "feel" of earlier editions, you neglect to acknowledge that you are competing with OGL / OSR rule sets that are extremely faithful to the source material and are available for free in PDF. You remember what PDFs are, right? Those are the things WotC removed from RPGNow on short notice, and left many of us without access to our legitimate purchases. Now I now why you don't like PDFs. It's not the piracy, its the competition ;) In Next, if we do it right, you’ll be able to make your own edition of D&D, and maybe in a way you weren’t able to before, just because it’s more than house rules (wait, WotC makes optional rules, they are legit.  A DM or RPG group make optional rules, and the are illegitimate?).

And thus ends Part One of the interview.  This is too long to do as a single piece, and my comments are longer than is usual.  Damn you Moe T! 


heh ;)


This has been The Grumpy Dwarf

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Grumpy Dwarf Look at Mike Mearls Latest Interview (He's Mr. Media!)



YES!!! Another PR Bag of Poop from Mike, this time at Examiner.com.  You can read the unadulterated Poop Here!.  Join me, The Grumpy Dwarf, as we follow Mike in his latest interview...
I had the opportunity to catch up with Mike Mearls, senior manager of Dungeons & Dragons research and development. Mike and I last worked together years ago on AEG's d20 supplement, Relics. In this interview he gives an update on the playtest and the surprising places we might see old and new versions of D&D.
Michael Tresca (MT): How's the playtest going so far?
Mike Mearls (MM): So far, it has gone very well and the response to the first playtest survey has been overwhelming. People seem happy so far (at least 60%, but that's a whole nother conversation), but ready to see more options added to the system.
MT: The public playtest has generated quite a bit of press. ("See Mike?  It worked!) Have you seen this reflected at all in consumption of Dungeons & Dragons content (online site traffic, product purchases, etc.)?
MM: We’ve definitely seen a surge of interest in D&D across the board (I'm willing to guess that sales are not part of that "board".  who is going to buy D&D 4e shit when 5e is around the corner?). The playtest has been a great way to spark interest. A good chunk of the people responding to the playtest survey are former D&D players (how many are pathfinder players?  are they really "former"?), so the word is definitely getting out there.
MT: The publication of the collectible Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books generated a lot of excitement (that aren't for sale yet, and i don't think they are "published yet). Given that D&D Next will be compatible with older editions (WTF?!?  Wasn't this rumor beaten and killed months ago?  it will NOT be compatible with OLDER editions), can we expect reprints of older editions?
MM: We aren’t announcing any specifics right now, but we do plan to bring back more fan favorite content throughout the year. (Wait, Mike didn't address an obviously very wrong compatibility statement?  For shame Mike.  For Shame!)
MT: In a similar vein, Wizards withdrew completely from the online marketplace. Any chance D&D will return to PDF publishing of older editions with the new release?
MM: I don’t have any information on that at this time, but we’re always exploring our options (Which means, our lawyers still don't understand how this internet thing works).
MT: Thanks for extending the playtest to support online play (that initially was our lawyers again not understanding this internet thing). Are you seeing a shift towards more online play of D&D?
MM: We haven’t tried to gather specific information on that, but I think it makes sense given how digital media and the Internet have evolved (but again, dont ask us about PDFs or God forbid, our Virtual Table Top) It’s much easier to get a game going if you don’t have to worry about driving to someone’s house or finishing up early because of time constraints. We’ve tried to focus our design efforts on making adventures about an hour long (which again seems like a waste to me, but 2 1/2 to 3 hrs seems to work fine, so what the fuck do I know?)knowing that shorter sessions become more viable if people are able to just meet online to play. (I wouldn't get together for a one hour session, in person or online - too much work for too little in return)
MT: What's been the most surprising feedback you've received so far from the playtest group?
MM: The level of positive feedback about the core system so far has been exciting. We aimed for simple, fast game-play with this system. My initial sense was that 3e and 4e left people wanting more complexity. (not surprising) Most of the feedback we’re seeing is centered on character options, however, rather than system detail. That was surprising, but in a good way.
MT: How are the races and classes shaping up? Any of the non-traditional core archetypes that were introduced in later editions likely to make an early appearance?
MM: We’re sticking to the meat and potatoes of classes and races right now. (i'll give mike credit, this was the best decision they could have made)
MT: Will we see a new introductory boxed set?
MM: I can’t talk about specific products (because it's too early in the game to even know), but in my ideal world there’s a game called D&D that you find in stores. It’s simple enough that you can just start playing, but deep enough that you feel that the next layer of stuff adds to it, rather than replaces it like going from a starter set to a Player’s Handbook has traditionally done.
MT: Fantasy Flight Games has led a shift towards creating detailed boxed sets of accessories supporting their role-playing games. Can we expect deluxe editions of D&D Next?
MM: We’re so focused on playtesting right now that we don’t really know what the final product will look like yet. If accessories are a part of it, I just know that I’d want them to be things that bring the game to life in ways that people are still talking about and using years down the line (if they go the Warhammer FRP route i'm not touching it - over priced and too system specific).
MT: Will we ever see D&D Next on toy store shelves again like they were in the 80s? Or even in bookstores…if there are any left?
MM: I don’t have any information on where/how D&D Next will be available yet (but if we go with a boxed set, the hopeful answer is yes - if there are any toy stores or bookstores left when we release D&D Next), but in recent years we’ve had a great relationship with hobby/game stores. They provide a great resource for local customers who are looking to purchase our games, get more information about them, and even take part in in-store play programs.
MT: What can we expect next from the playtest?
MM: We’re going over the playtest feedback right now to focus on areas that need some attention. You can expect to see revisions to the classes, mainly fighter but the cleric and rogue are getting some tweaks. We also have new drafts of the armor system in the works (was there anything strange with armor in the current playtest?  it it going to absorb damage in the next one).
MT: Anything else you'd like to add?
MM: Without the playtesting feedback we’ve received, we wouldn’t be in a position to improve the game and make D&D something that everyone wants to play (I think you should be happy with "a majority of D&D players want to play"). The feedback has been a huge help so far, so for those of you who are currently playtesting and giving us feedback, thanks! And if you’re not playtesting yet, it’s not too late to get involved. Just go to dndnext.com. (and maybe they won't fuck up the release of the playtest materials this time around)

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Grumpy Dwarf Chops Away at Mike Mearls Q&A on Reddit (Part 2)

Yep, The Grumpy Dwarf here, back with part 2 of Mike Mearls' endless Reddit Q&A.  There's more after this post, as a Dwarf can only do so much in one (or it it two now?) sittings ;)


Answer 5 (of the answers I'm picking - skipping a few)

We're looking at a set of maneuvers that characters can dip into to gain more concrete options in fights, along with options that you can use to push yourself beyond your limits for an action or two per encounter (encounter powers make their return - 4e players, this is for you - enjoying the crumbs?).

We're strongly considering adding a free attack if someone breaks away from a melee (isn't this an "Attack of Opportunity?  I never even realized they removed it). The playtest feedback has been a little soured on letting people move around without consequence. (ya think?) However, the rule would be much simpler than attacks of opportunity - likely it'll be that if you start your turn in someone's reach, they get an attack on you if you try to leave their reach using an action to withdraw. (so you can run by or run through them without consequence?  i so much prefer Theatre of the Mind)

Answer 6

I think that as the game takes shape, the breadth of mechanical options for DMs will make this game stand out as the next step in D&D's progression (time will tell).

This is the first time that we're building D&D from the bottom up to account for house rules and expansion. The simple rules we've shown off so far are about as complex as we want the core (so this is the OSR or 0e game they are trying to emulate? because if it is, they got it wrong). I want the game to be easy to understand not just from the POV of learning how to play, but also in terms of understanding how all the parts work together.

Once you understand that, you can much more easily house rule, add rules modules, tinker with things, and otherwise make the game yours. Really, our goal isn't to make everyone happy by making a game (now there's a surprise). It's to make a range of options that any individual DM can modify and reconfigure to make the specific type of D&D they always wanted and that no other edition was able to exactly deliver. (but i get to do that with a handful of house rules to ACKS - they are going to do an OSR style game better with the current base rule set?)

Of course, some people will be perfectly happy with an older edition. (yep) If that game is perfect for them, I'm not going to try to force them to buy into Next or leave the game they love. (but we'd love for you to check it out and buy a copy - just in case ;)

In some ways, this is a shift back to independence, back to the 0e feel, but with a really welcoming starting point for people who have never played D&D before. (0e "rewritten", such as S&W White Box is pretty simple to understand and is fairly welcoming)

Answer 7 (re: 4e)

As I mentioned above, we're working right now on a maneuver system for fighters and other characters (is this a feats deal?). In addition, we're looking at alternate magic systems for casters other than the wizard and cleric.

Also, we're 100% committed to taking the same approach to balancing the math behind the game (do we really need the game to be so closely balanced?  doesn't that take some of the soul from the game?) and improving upon the 4e tools for encounter, NPC/monster, and adventure design (sweet!  recipes for perfectly balanced encounters! sigh).

 Answer 8


For caster supremacy, the key lies in attacking it from both ends. We can do a lot by reining in the most abusive spells and making it harder for casters to chain things together in abusive combos (if this is anything like the combo that mike talked about it one of his posts, i saw nothing wrong with the combo - it was smart play - and the saves required should have made it a rarely successful occurrence). The other end is making sure that we make an honest comparison of the casters to the non-casters.

For instance, if a wizard can turn invisible we have to be cool with rogues having an almost entirely assured chance of success to hide or sneak up on people (how is this unbalanced?  the game was like this up to at least 3.5e, and it played fine). It's unbalanced if the guy who is supposed to be stealthy has a real chance of failure, while the wizard's magic has 100% chance of success of turning someone invisible (skills have no limit to use - spells have a limited number of castings - therein lies the balance) .

For skills, we definitely will have them in some form to give people pointers to the non-combat stuff they are good at. Right now, classes give skills as appropriate but most of your skills come form your background. Backgrounds are not linked to class, so a fighter can choose the criminal background to become stealthy or good at picking locks (so what is a thief / rogue good at anyway?  or are we going to give spells to all the classes to?).

The key discussion we're having right now with skills boils down to this - does a skill make you better than you otherwise would be at something, or does it make you strictly good at it?

Making you better would be a +3 bonus, which is then stacked on top of an ability modifier. So, a Wis 9 rogue (ahem) would be better at finding traps, but still only at +2 (wouldn't INT be just as useful for finding taps if not more so?).

The second path removes abilities from the equation. The rogue would just have +5 to find traps. You'd use either an ability mod or your skill, rather than stacking them. (which makes ability mods relatively useless outside of combat)

We've been arguing back and forth on which path works better. Neither has emerged as a clear front runner.

Thats the end of Part 2 - more tomorrow night




Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Grumpy Dwarf Chops Away at Mike Mearls Q&A on Reddit (Part 1)

Food For Dwarven Thought ;)
My God but Mike had a shitload to say at Reddit!  I'm going to go through this in pieces, because a dwarf needs to make sure he doesn't get buried in a pile of dung - it's the whole height issue if you must know.

Now, lets hear Mike's Words of Wizzdom

Answer One (because the questions are just too fucking long and rambling)


First, I think it's important that we learn from the past and guard against those mistakes. So, we've seen the sort of mechanics that cause issues in 3e and 4e. (I've seen some of those mistakes crop up in 5e.  Wait - those are features now, my bad!)

Second, we've made a big effort this time to define what exists within each piece of a character - race, class, feat, spell, magic item, and so on. Before, there were a lot of grey areas. For instance, in 4e powers were fairly well defined, but feats were all over the place. (but this means that 4e was defective.  oh, i get it.  every edition prior to what ever edition that is being worked on now id defective)

So, the key lies in establishing the limits in each area and then, most importantly, throttling way back on the flood of mechanics (whoa!  i thought the whole mechanics BS was the bread and butter of the design team). We have to consider each spell, theme, or whatever with the same attention that the Magic team regards a new card (comparing D&D to MtG is not a good sign in my book).

By keeping the core options under control and expanding slowly, we can keep a handle on the worst excesses.

This ties back into class support, where we want to release overall less stuff (dumb question - where is the money in a New Edition if you don't release the usual pile of useless shit to go with it?  isn't that where the bottom line is made?), and the stuff we do release make as usable across classes as possible. So, we're more likely to introduce new themes that any class can take rather than spells for one specific class.

The math will be baked into the class and race. Since those are the only things that are 100% required for the game, between the two of them they contain all the math that we assume.

We 100% will support sliding complexity within classes, though with some limits (wizards and clerics are inherently a little more complex than non-casters). (i will believe this when i see it - sliding complexity with parity among the complexities)

Balancing the simple vs. the complex is tricky. The important thing is to keep the math level and make the simple character feel effective, even if the experienced played who takes a few maneuvers and applies them intelligently comes out ahead. We have to allow for skill and experience -otherwise the game gets stale - but I think we can mitigate that if the beginner feels like he has an effective characters and has some obvious, clearly useful things he can do.

For instance - the pregen fighter's damage on a miss. A beginner player always feels like he or she is contributing in a fight. (that is the reason?  are we moving our RPGs to the type of Little League where everyone gets a trophy?  why not just make every roll auto-hit?  hell, lets just make every monster a one hit and it's dead wonder. Mike, if there is no chance to fail, there is not true chance to succeed)

Answer Two

I can't say any specific about digital tools, but we're 100% committed to making them happen. I think the easiest way to make D&D fade would be to mistake the core thing about D&D with the way it's delivered. (but don't expect anything in PDF ever again - because PDFs are tools of the Devil!  They make people steal!  It has nothing to do with fairly pricing our products in PDF format.)

D&D has survived and thrived over the years because it engages the imagination and brings people together in a really unique way. It would be foolish to lose that by equating those things with physical books. (But WotC has a history of foolishness in such matters)

Of course, people do like physical products and there's no reason to stop those, but the reverse is also true - we aren't making book lovers happy by pissing off people who want the game delivered digitally, with a robust set of tools. (Mike, we trust WotC to piss off a large bunch of people before they figure out what to do digitally.  Just accept it, you'll feel better)

(Hey Mike, how's that Virtual Table Top thing going for ya?)

Answer Three

Ah yes, the rats. Sometimes, playtests reveal subtle issues. Other times, they hit you over the head.
This is a pretty big issue, because the monster design is aiming to keep hordes of orcs/goblins/etc a viable threat at high levels. So, at level 1 it might be 18 rats, but at level 10 it might be 18 orcs. (wait, keeping orcs viable at higher level is to turn them into "swarms"?)

I'd like to incorporate a core "swarm" rule into the game, an easy way for DMs to group up monsters into single attacks. For instance, something that lets you combine X attacks into one die roll, with some small amount of damage even on a miss to make that an appealing option. (again with this fucking success on a failure shit, but now on the DM's side of things)

Hopefully, that solves the rat issue and also the humanoid horde issue at higher levels. (personally, I suggest going back to the drawing board on this one)

Answer Four

Probably the most surprising thing has been the positive reaction to having fairly slimmed down rules. I was expecting a lot of people to feel that the game was incomplete - and obviously it's just a first draft - but I think a lot of people are pretty happy with a simple, fast game. That's been cool to see.

The feedback on long rests has primarily been that they are far too forgiving. (you think!?!  you didn't find this out in the earlier playtests?) It feels lame that the party can be on the edge of death, sleep for eight hours, and bounce back up to full strength.

The thing I loved and had to see go away - there's been a few. I wanted to go back to the name magic-user because it is so uniquely D&D, but cooler heads prevailed (magic-user is cooler than wizard in some ways, but whatever). Some for thief, though thief is an option under rogue. (rogue is so - bleh!)

I really liked one of the drafts of the auto success system we had early on, but it was hard for DMs to grok it. An auto success mechanic is something I still want to see in the game, but making it work without making it too good is a tricky thing to balance. (auto success can be extremely unbalancing, especially if the extremes are Auto and Miracle Time)


Alright, that's all The Grumpy Dwarf has time for today.  More tomorrow ;)


Tenkar's Tavern is supported by various affiliate programs, including Amazon, RPGNow,
and Humble Bundle as well as Patreon. Your patronage is appreciated and helps keep the
lights on and the taps flowing. Your Humble Bartender, Tenkar

Blogs of Inspiration & Erudition