Deal of the Day - Monte Cook's World of Darkness (D20)

Wow! I have a print copy of this, and I so wanted to run it. Sadly, I didn't have a game group at the time.

Monte Cook's World of Darkness, from a time when Monte created games, not publishing houses ;)

If you're interested in The World of Darkness but prefer a D20 or 3.x game system, this is a good fit for you. 

Typically, 13.99 in PDF, until tomorrow morning, Monte Cook's World of Darkness is on sale for $5.60

One year ago, eldritch horrors of cosmic malevolence called the Iconnu attempted to destroy our reality.

They failed, but the attempt left the world in rapidly darkening shadow. Dead souls returned to claim living bodies, creating blood-drinking undead fiends: vampires. Bestial spirits came as well, to create werewolves, and demons formed bodies from worldly matter. Magic crashed back into the world, and mages wield its power for whatever purpose suits them. Humans called the Awakened unknowingly keep the darkness at bay.

These supernatural creatures struggle against each other and clash in the shadows, most attempting to destroy the world, but a few fighting to preserve it. And over it all, the Iconnu still lurk, squeezing the world like an eggshell.

This book includes a complete setting: a new vision of the World of Darkness.

Characters play as vampires, mages, werewolves, demons or Awakened and wield frightening supernatural powers against their own kind.

The world is the one we know, but now much darker: destruction in the central United States, nightmares coming to life and beasts roaming shattered cityscapes.

This game uses a variation of the most popular roleplaying game system in the world.

The Tavern uses affiliate links

youtube.com/@TenkarsTavern?sub_confirmation=1

Support The Tavern: tenkarstavern.com/p/support

tenkars-tavern.games/DTRPG

Humble RPG Bundle: Invisible Sun by Monte Cook

Invisible Sun uses Monte's Cypher System, also used in Numenera. You can snag 10 books in the Invisible Sun collection for 18 bucks.

Gather your friends for endless adventure with this gigantic bundle of tabletop role-playing resources for the uber-popular title Invisible Sun. Our latest mega bundle by Monte Cook Games has everything you need to run the latest and greatest version of Invisible Sun. Get rulebooks, sourcebooks, and expansion campaigns like Secrets of Silent Streets, The Nightside, Book M, and more.

Invisible Sun is a surrealistic modern fantasy tabletop role-playing game written by Monte Cook, published in 2018.

The characters the players take on in the game are various types of magic-users, collectively called Vislae. The setting is called the Actuality, consisting of a series of differing worlds arranged in a pattern called The Path of Suns. Our world is seen as a pale and illusory reflection of these worlds. The center and starting point of the setting is Satyrine, a large city devastated by war. "The setting is surreal, bringing to mind post World War I decadent Berlin, Neil Gaiman's Sandman comics and the films of Guillermo del Toro", leaving our world behind. Characters slipping back into "Shadow", the game's name for our world, is used as an in-universe explanation for player absences. Another major theme is secrets, which the characters can pursue. The game material itself also contains mysteries for the players to figure out.

The Tavern is supported by readers like you. The easiest way to support The Tavern is to shop via our affiliate links. The Tavern DOES NOT do "Paid For" Articles and discloses personal connections to products and creators written about when applicable.

DTRPG, Amazon, and Humble Bundle are affiliate programs that support The Tavern.  You can catch the daily Tavern Chat cast on Rumble or YouTube - Tenkar 

Give Me an F'n Break! Monte Cook Games Posts it's Own Press Release and the Author Quotes Himself

I get it. Monte Cook Games is "The Shit". Really. Just ask them. They'll tell you that themselves.

So, what does a company that lives on press releases do when ENWorld, the site that lives to post press releases (really, they hire staff to find press releases), is offline for a few days do?

They post their own press release.

Really. And you know what is even better? Charles Ryan even quotes himself:

Yes, please toot your own horn even louder while you are at it.

Being that MCG apparently can't publish a game these days without "artistic watermarking" obscuring the majority of the relevant text, I'm surprised they can publish self pandering press releases that are legible.

Hey, look at that. A Kickstarter I'm not backing. Imagine.

Kickstarter - Invisible Sun (Full Monte is $539 - Anyone Jump a Shark?)

I've heard lots of talk recently about Monte Cooks new Kickstarter - Invisible Sun. What I've heard ranges from "It's Monte, it's got to be good!" to "What the fuck is he smoking?"

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Monte is a skilled game creator, of that there is little doubt (and no argument from me). Sometimes his presentation is spot on (Not Thank You Evil comes to mind) and at other times it is nigh unreadable (Numenera with it's God horrible watermarking)

Therein lies part of my issue with Monte's latest project - will I be able to read it easily, or will the watermarking be such a distraction that I'll put it down in the first 3 pages, never to pick it up again? Because at a minimum buy in of $197 (where you get the game but not the campaign and the campaign is the thing) there's a lot riding that "what if"?

That's the other huge issue - price. Folks bitch and moan about the cost of Frog God Games KSs, but they come in at half the price (less if you go for the PDF option - which there is none for this box of tricks).

I suspect, like many RPG purchases, this is aimed more to be placed on the shelf with a "look at me, ain't I cool?" attitude and to riffle through the cool pieces more so than actual play, at least for the $197 version. Why is that? Because you don't get the campaign with the initial buy in and without the campaign you're pretty much holding a choksi.

How much is the version with the campaign? $539

Mic drop.

Yeah. If you want the "Full Monte", and really, if you plan on playing Invisible Sun I assume you want the Full Monte, it's $539. Not including shipping costs if you are outside the US.

Anyhow, did I mention stretch goals are NOT included at the basic $197 buy in?

They are at $539

Basically, if you are a fan of Monte without a significant amount of disposable cash to throw at this project, convince your gaming group to chip in. Oh, and Master the Black Cube is $1,475.

Obviously Monte has found a cash cow (as I write this, the project is just short of a quarter of a million dollars in funding). The question will be a long term one - will this project alienate the fans that can't come up with nearly 200 for the crippleware version (or $539 for the Full Monte)? Will it hurt the bottom line more than help? Numenera had over 4,600 backers. Invisible Sun is sitting at just under 900 at the moment. I'm going to guess when all is said and done, Invisible Sun will come in between 1800 and 2000 backers, less than half that of Numenera.

OSR Christmas - Day Nine - Post 2 - Can You Break This Cypher? (Hardcover)

OSR Christmas - Morning of Day 9 - Cold is in full swing - All I want to do is sleep, but I have a full day planned - That full day includes - beer.

Ah, so what do we have in store for you this wonderful morning? (currently 67 degrees here in NYC)

+Mark Craddock , he of the Crossplanes blog, is putting a hardcover copy of Monte Cook's Cypher System into Santa's gift bag. How do you give yourself a chance to be gifted?

Simply head over to the Crossplanes blog and leave a comment. Damn, that's simple, ain't it?

Remember, it's not even 9am here in NYC and we already have our second OSR Christmas giveaway of the day. I'm giving something small to 5 random commenters on this post at The Tavern.

Interesting Post By Monte Cook at His Blog

Yes, I've been accused of reading between the lines and reading into stuff things that might no bethere.  I (or rather, Grumpy) have been told I always assume the worst when looking at WotC's latest postings about D&D Next.

So, I'm not going to read between the lines of this one.  Or rather, even if I am, I'll keep the thoughts to myself for now.

You can read Monte's full post here.

I'm just going to quote two parts that stick out to me.  I'll leave the commenting to others.

But overinflated egos can be a real problem in creative industries. Not only does it make one insufferable to be around, it's detrimental to one's interaction with the people one is actually creating for. It turns people away.

and

I find it difficult to navigate in a world surrounded by massive egos. I and my peers--whether it be in game design or fiction writing--are  at best big fish in ridiculously small ponds. In the past, I have tried to remind them of that, but it hardly wins me friends, let me tell you. So now I keep it to myself. Ego and who is "deserving" of it, ultimately, is all a matter of perspective. Unless you've saved a billion lives, maybe, keep some humility. 

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at Monte Cook's Latest - Designing Sometimes Means Listening

 Hey, like I said, I do requests.  This one was a specific request, so lets dig right in.

Designing Sometimes Means Listening

Not too long ago, I wrote an article called We Want What We Want. In it, I talked about how in all games, what the player wants is more important than what the game's designer wants to give him (I hope we aren't confusing "needs" and "wants".  Just because I want something, doesn't mean I should get it, or that is fills a need). A game designer can create the best game in the world, with the most elegant mechanics, but if it isn't what player wants to play, it's little more than an interesting curiosity. (yep, lots of Heartbreakers out there in the wilds)

One of the best things about tabletop rpgs is the ability for a GM and the players to change the way the game is played, tailoring it to their needs (Houserules for the win.  Shit, I aint even a tad grumpy yet). I started mucking around with the rules for D&D at a very early age myself, changing bits that I didn't like, grafting on parts of other games, and wholesale rewriting portions. (Not surprisingly, this quickly led to my writing of entirely new games on my own, but that's another story.) I think that's integral to the hobby. (I'd have to agree)
Which means, ultimately, that a good game's design starts with an examination of what players want (which is no easy task, as you can ask any 10 players and get 10 different lists of "wants".  you have to give them what they "need", although that is sometimes even harder to figure out). When I started designing games professionally 25 years ago, that information was difficult to get. Now, it's much easier. (I hesitate to say that it's easy, but the challenges of doing so are probably best left to another post as well). Designers come up with interesting ideas for mechanics all the time, but if they don't address the needs of the players, what's the point?

Designers do players a huge favor by giving them a game that comes out of a knowledge of what the players want. (hey, I may want to play "uber powered" pcs right from the start, but is it what I really need?  will it lead to sustained gameplay?) But there's more. Knowing that players are going to tinker anyway, why not provide them with a game that is easily customizable (aha!  D&D Next - The Chinese Restaurant Menu Game - I'll take one from column A and number six from column B.  Can I get that with brown rice, and a soup instead of the egg roll?)? If the designer learns that some gamers like a game that does something one way, and others like it a different way, why not give them a game that can do both? (are the different ways compatible?  balanced?  is there a reason the ways are different in the first place?) The thing about roleplaying games is that whatever way you want to play is the right way (fair enough). As soon as an rpg game designer says, "this is the way to play this game," or even, "this is the best way to play this game," my advice would be to run and hide. (i'm not so sure about that)
Listening to players is key. Playtesting and truly using the feedback provided ensures that gamers get the game they want (again I question the use of the word "want" as opposed to "need"), and not just something that designers want to give them. That doesn't mean, however, that players design the game. (thank God, because releasing a 20% completed game into the wilds for "feedback" sure seems like someone wants the players to design the damn game)That's the part where the designer really has to be a good listener. There's an interesting story about the game designers who designed the computer/console game Borderlands. Playtester feedback for the game was used extensively (which shows--it's a great game). But sometimes the playtesters gave bad feedback (what?  NEVER!). Or at least, feedback that called for changes that would have been bad for the game. For example, playtesters said that when a character's gun needed to be reloaded that it needed to go a lot faster. The game's designers knew that the reload was already really fast. Speeding it up would not only hurt realism, but gameplay as well. But they didn't dismiss the issue. Instead, they looked at the reason for why the testers said what the did. Reloading wasn't actually too slow. It was just too boring. So rather than speed it up, the designers added a lot more to the animation of the action. They made it look and feel (and sound) more interesting. Subsequent playtests showed that players loved it, and the complaints on reloading went away.  (Interesting.  The players got what the "needed" and not what they "wanted".  Monte knows, and he left the design team.  It says a lot about Monte, and it probably says a lot about why he left)

The point is, the designers didn't just allow playtesters to design the game for them, but they still listened and learned from them. The playtesters called for a change that wasn't a good idea, but in so doing they still pointed out a problem. And the designers listened. The game players got what they wanted.  (No Monte, they got what they needed.  Sigh, you were so close ;)
EDIT: This post is one of many I'll be posting about my game design philosophy (a sort of informal "series" I started many weeks ago) and is not meant to be an indictment on anyone else's approach, philosophy, or plans. It's also not a secret revelation of any kind of behind the scenes drama or whatever. (For those looking for such, there is none to find, I'm afraid.) It's just my own thoughts.

Mike Mearls' Responds to Monte's Leaving - When Visions Clash

How Dare You Tear Up Your Contract!  Don't You Know Who We Are?!?

Here's Mike Mearls response to Monte's decision to take his ball and go home:



I am surprised, and frankly saddened, by Monte’s decision to leave the D&D Next design team (if Mike was surprised, he must have missed a few signs.  Monte didn't come to this decision lightly). I’d like to thank him for his contribution, and we all wish him well (Monte, thanks for trying to make the FrankenGame work). As we close the first phase of the D&D Next project, I’m excited to share with you all what phase 2 has in store.


It is my pleasure to announce that our public playtest for the D&D Next project will commence on May 24th ("listen, we need to throw you all a bone, to calm the masses upset by Monte's decision to leave"). The playtest is the single most important part of the D&D Next process (I actually thought that would be writing the rules to the game that needs to be play tested, otherwise it's the cart before the horse). D&D is a game that has spanned 38 years of gaming, spawned countless campaigns, and launched an entire gaming genre.


Personally, I can’t count how many friends I’ve made through D&D, or how many hours I’ve spent playing the game, building worlds, or just talking about it with friends. Yet while D&D is an intensely personal game (here it comes... wait for it), taken as a whole it cannot afford to become something beholden to one team’s vision (one team, or "one man"?  or was it two different visions, Mike's and Monte's?). D&D is a tool for creativity. The game must embrace the entirety of its past, and the entirety of its fandom, in order to create a compelling future (trying to embrace all will leave you holding none.  at least we can see why Monte left - he saw the impossibility of designing one game that would satisfy the gaming desires of players of all editions.  One Game to Rule Them All is Mike's dream.  Apparently for Monte, he saw it as an impossible task). No one voice can rise above the others, unless it is the voice of D&D fans as a whole. (Well, now that Monte's voice has left the process, Mike can make sure his voice is heard the loudest.  Frankly, I had more confidence in Monte than Mike, even with Monte's schilling with his early posts.  He tried to be a "company guy" in the beginning, and wound up leaving because he had issues with the company line)


The public playtest is your chance to shape the future of D&D (yeah, I want a game designed by thousands of lemmings... didn't they just say at PAX that D&D Next is only 15-20% complete?  yep, lets throw it the masses.  let them think up some good ideas.  certainly saves salary on game designers), your opportunity to share with us your creative vision for the game. If there are creative differences between the designers and gamers, then surely the needs and vision of D&D gamers will win out (yep, it's in the hands of lemmings). D&D Next is your game. (or it will be when it hits the discount bin at my FLGS)


In the coming weeks, the Legends & Lore column will provide insight into the materials in the playtest and our plans to roll out content (so, no more Mike's Houserules entries?). The curtain is about to go up on our stage debut. On a personal level, and I think I speak for the entire D&D Next team – Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille – when I say that we are all excited to hear what you think about our progress. (less than 20%?  not much) We had a great response at D&D Experience, the UK D&D Tweetup, and PAX East, but those were dress rehearsals. You can never be sure of where you stand until you have a full, live audience in front of you (watch as the D&D Next Design Team follows a sea of lemmings off a virtual cliff). Maybe you’ll cheer, or maybe you’ll engage in heated and passionate debate (there's been a lot of that without even seeing the rules). In either case, we’re absolutely dedicated to making D&D Next a modular game (I'll bet a paycheck that Monte wasn't so committed), one rooted in the traditions of tabletop RPG play while poised to blaze a trail toward a vibrant, exciting future. In the end it is you, the audience, who will determine the future of D&D (it is us, the people that will or will not buy the game, that will truly determine it's future). The game is too big, and too important, to stand for anything less than that.


--Mike Mearls

Monte Cooks D&D Next's Goose

By now, I'm sure most you have heard Monte Cook has left Wizards of the Coast.  I'm going to do what I do, if not necessarily best, at least effectively and vaguely entertaining:  I'm going to look at Monte's post where he makes the announcement.

Change of Plans
Last week I decided that I would leave my contract position with Wizards of the Coast (so, this implies that his position was time limited, and it appears he is bowing out before the contract is up). I am no longer working on Dungeons & Dragons (bringing Monte in was the big news, almost bigger than the D&D Next announcement itself.  bringing in Monte also implied a return to 3e, at least as a base to build 5e upon), although I may provide occasional consultation in the future (unless it's to clear up a rule issue based upon his work on D&D Next, I really don't see this happening). My decision is one based on differences of opinion with the company (Which appears to mean his boss, Mike Mearls). However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell (see?  no mention of Mike). I enjoyed every moment of working with them over the past year. I have faith that they'll create a fun game (this is not a ringing endorsement.  A true endorsement would have been "Great Game" or a lesser "Good Game"). I'm rooting for them.

Due to my non-disclosure agreement, as well as a desire to keep things on a professional level (wow!  this speaks pages without just a few words.  I would guess the difference in opinion got heated recently), I have no intention of going into further detail at this time. (Mostly, I just hate drama, and would rather talk about more interesting things.)

As for what I'll be turning to next, I hope you'll stay tuned. I plan on having an interesting announcement in that regard in the near future (Monte has done some interesting stuff as a self publisher in the past.  imagine what he could raise using Kickstarter.  My money is on a release via Kickstarter).

What else can we surmise from this announcement?

It isn't easy to make One Game, All Editions.  It's even harder when people working on it have different opinions about the approach to take.  I don't think Mike and Monte were always on the same page.  I came to this conclusion when Mike removed Monte from the weekly Legends & Lore column.

If Monte had a fault with his weekly posts, it's that he started out using "marketing speak" and virtual soundbites to push D&D 5e as a system that would allow for all edition play in one set of rules.  A laudable goal, but a crock of smelly shit if you ask me.  I suspect that Monte, who is nothing if not professional from what I know of him and his work, came to a realization that a good game and the desires of the "powers that be" at WotC did not intersect.  Being associated with a steaming pile of poo when you've had an impressive career as a game designer isn't the feather in your cap that one desires.

Sure, this is 100% conjecture on my part.  But not really, as there is a lot to read between the lines in Monte's post, and the timing of his departure.  This does not bode well for D&D 5e, but than again, I haven't seen much recently that has.

Monte Cook Goes to Crazytown - Paladin VS Cleric: Fight!

(Again with the manufacturing issues that don't exist.  Clerics and Paladins have coexisted since the 70s.  If it aint broke, don't fix it)

Original article is here

Okay, so you’re not likely to see a paladin and a (good) cleric throw down. The fight referred to in the title isn’t a literal one. But there is the potential for conflict in concept. Recently, we wrote about the cleric being both an armor-wearing, mace-wielding crusader and a flamestrike-casting priest, and a lot of you suggested that the former cleric archetype steps on the toes of the paladin. Or the paladin steps on the toes of the cleric. Either way, it’s a fine point. The paladin is also an armor-wearing crusader. So how do we ensure that these types of characters are different? (are we giving clerics swords and lay on hands?  must all clerics be lawful good?  do clerics get combat maneuvers or whatever the f' they are going to call it in De Next version of De Game? are paladins getting boat loads of spells?)

One way is to focus more on the knightly aspect of the paladin: the cavalier in shining armor with a sword and a valorous battle cry, astride a mighty destrier (that horse is going to be awkward in dungeons, unless it is a classic summonable paladin steed). Thus, to distinguish them from clerics, we’d give them bonuses to mounted combat (and this will be useful exactly how often?), and maybe focus on their interest in protecting their allies. Maybe a paladin shares a shield bonus with those next to him or her, for example (that may work, and is definitely stolen from MMORPGs.  isn't that what folks accused 4e of). A knight in shining armor indeed. Such abilities, of course, would make paladin players want to fight from horseback (hard to do inside) (didn't i just say this?  and why do the abilities only have o work on horseback?). But it would also encourage them to think defensively and look at friends protectively. Perhaps as the paladin gains levels, the ability to protect allies from harm would increase—his or her mere presence could give bonuses to saving throws because allies are so encouraged by having him or her nearby. (wait, isn't that what Protection From Evil 10' radius already does?)

Or, perhaps we accept the idea that a holy warrior who smites evil foes is interesting enough that we allow both paladin and cleric embrace that archetype, just in different ways. The cleric’s got spells that aid him in combat, of course (as he always has), and the paladin has a unique ability to truly destroy her evil foes. A damage bonus against all evil foes she faces would certainly lay a clear path toward what a paladin is “supposed” to do, at least in the minds of some paladin fans (this makes more sense than the awkward mess above). 

These are all abilities paladins have had in various prior editions. We could also hop on the train to Crazytown (i have never this expression before.  where and what exactly is Crazytown?  There is a Crazytrain, but I guess WotC doesn't want to reference Ozzy) and give paladins really new and truly unique abilities. Perhaps the paladin’s holy nature protects him or her against evil to a degree that he or she resists damage from all evil foes (and eventually can extend that protection to allies). Or maybe a paladin gains huge skill and movement bonuses if he or she is moving toward a quest that involves fighting evil or protecting the weak (this is too metagamy for my tastes). Or maybe the paladin eventually gains the ability to teleport right to the nearest concentration of evil (now this idea is just plain stupid).

Like I said, Crazytown (or Stupid-Moronicville Village Idiot). But you see where I’m going, I think. The paladin offers some interesting opportunities for wild class abilities. Historically speaking, a paladin is likely second only to the monk for being the class with the most over-the-top inherent capabilities.

What follows in the original is a survey.  I hate WotC surveys.  If you want to answer the Village Idiot survey, take the Crazytrain to Crazytown, or just use the link that is at the top of this post.

Picking Nits From Monte's Latest - Putting the Vance in Advanced

(originally posted at the WotC website here)

Gary Gygax loved fantasy fiction. One of my favorite stories from the early days of TSR involves Gary at a Lake Geneva bookstore, browsing through the science fiction and fantasy section. He has a stack of new purchases with him. Along comes another fellow with a similar stack. The two begin chatting about the books they have in common as well as those they do not. By the end of the conversation, Gary offers the man a job at his new company. That man, James Ward (who single handedly destroyed Crusader Magazine for the Trolls, but I digress), not only takes the job but stays with the company for decades and produces, directly or indirectly, hundreds of wonderful products that still shape the game today.

So yes, fiction was important to Gary. (Okayyyy... weird segue)

He loved the works of Jack Vance. Vance wrote all sorts of fiction, but the ones most important to D&D are the books in the Dying Earth (I actually have the RPG in dead tree format - can anyone tell me if it's any good) series. In these books, wizards prepare spells with names like “The Excellent Prismatic Spray.” These spells are so complex that a skilled wizard can keep the components—the words, the gestures, and the mystical aspects—of only a few of these spells in his head at once. And once used, at least as Gary interpreted it (well, as Gary twisted it into game form), the spell was gone until prepared again.

And that's where D&D got the “Vancian” magic system. Wizards (and most other casters) prepare their spells ahead of time and once used, the spell is gone.

As great of a writer as Jack Vance is, D&D is not The Dying Earth role-playing game (as I said earlier, Dying Earth has it's own RPG.  I don't recall anyone ever calling D&D the Dying Earth RPG). For several reasons, other than just nostalgia, we are exploring putting Vancian spellcasting back into the game. It's good for gameplay. It requires casters to think about what spells they want to cast ahead of time. It requires them to use their abilities judiciously. In other words, smart play is rewarded (holy crap!  D&D 5e is being designed to reward smart play?  say it isn't so!  heh). You need to have an idea of what kind of adventure you are about to undertake to optimize your character, which often takes planning and perhaps research. But some players don't like that kind of play. Some Dungeon Masters don't reward it. And some players just don’t want to use their spells judiciously. (Makes sense.  So that means we'll have different classes that cast magic differently assume.)

As a result, we'd like to include Vancian spellcasting as only one type of magic in the game. And according to a recent poll here, a majority of you seem to agree—that we should incude both Vancian and non-Vancian spellcasting systems as part of the core. (You do know these surveys are bullshit, right?  It isn't drawing from a random pool)

For example, inspired by 4th Edition design (wait?  part of 5e is inspired by 4e?  yes, I'm being facetious), we want to give casters something interesting to do when they're not using their limited spells (wait... we are giving at will powers to all casters?). Something cool and magical, but not spells. This concept is particularly intriguing, because it opens a door to the idea that expressions of magic other than spells exist in the world and are available to characters (wait a fucking second... all characters get magic powers?  WTF?). It’s a fun notion to play around with both from a mechanical and a story perspective.

One idea we’re considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called Wizard Mark. This feat could indicate that a character is an arcane spellcaster, and it might grant him or her a minor, at-will ability. Maybe a minor blast of force (my issue with this is no other character has a free ranged attack when unarmed that they can use at will, forever... or wait, maybe they all do.  Magic Spittle Attack for the Fighters in the Party.  Saweet!  Not!). Maybe a telekinetic ability like mage hand. More potent feats could then be accessed later. Imagine a Disciple of Mordenkainen feat that grants a spellcaster a magical hound companion (a la Mordenkainen's faithful hound) (wouldn't that be a Familiar?) or a Disciple of Tenser feat that grants him or her a floating disk to use.

This concept accomplishes two things: First, it allows us to give new life to some spell effects that get lost in a traditional Vancian system compared to fireballs and magic missiles. (and sleep, burning hands, read magic, detect magic, color spray, rope trick, knock, wizard lock - the list goes on and on.  certainly more than just two spells) Second, it provides a way for casters to be magical even when they're not using their limited resources.

One of the most interesting aspects of this system is that it allows us to design a class that relies entirely on these magical feats instead of spells. Such a class would be far easier to play than the wizard (wait a second.  I thought Monte said folks played earlier editions of D&D because they had limited options and were in effect easier to play.  Now he's saying the Vancian caster requires more skill and thought.  See what happens when you let the marketing guys write your first few posts on 5e Monte?), with no spells to prepare, but would still have a number of interesting magical offensive, defensive, and utilitarian options to call upon. In effect, a non-Vancian caster with 4th-Edition-style arcane powers.

We see other possibilities that can live alongside casters that use the Vancian D&D approach. Casters that have other controls on their resources, such as the 3rd-Edition style sorcerer or a point-based caster like the old psion class, could easily exist in the same D&D world as a traditional wizard.

Monte's has posted far worse than this, but he still leaves me confused?  Are we getting pure Vancian casters in 5e, or is he putting peanut butter in my chocolate?

Picking Apart Monte's Latest Column - Uniting the Editions: Part 3

Alright, before I even get to Monte's latest missive, let me remind folks where I am coming from:  I'm commenting on what Monte is saying now, possibly compared to what was said earlier.  I'm commenting on the "Marketing Speak" that is in his posts when I find it, and calling "bullshit" where I feel it's appropriate.

In short, I'm trying to find the nuggets of corn in the stinky pile of poo.  Not because I have a desire to see 5E fail, but because I want it to succeed.  For it to succeed, it has to rise past the bullshit catch phrases of the numbers crunchers and the marketing gurus.  It can't be held down by the albatross of being the Great Unifier of Editions, The Rosetta Stone of D20 Gaming, The One RPG to Rule Them All.  It can't be all things to all players, for attempting such will give it a lot of shit many players don't like.

Yes, I have the games I truly love in the OSR.  I could never play 5E and still be immensely happy with my gaming.  I could also see the release of a truly innovative and enjoyable 5e and play, maybe even love that too.  Gamers are allowed to be polygamists.  It's in our nature.  We can love more then one RPG.  But we don't want pale imitations of the ones we love.

On to Monte's latest:


Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.

Stuff to Leave Behind

Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version of the game was absolutely golden.

For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback (not needed, agreed). Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better (math is easier the new way, and our schools are worse these days.  best to keep it simple). System shock rolls (eh). Racial level limits (could return as setting based). Gender-based ability score maximums (again, no argument). Lots of bonus types (I'm not exactly sure what Monte is referring to here). And so on. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong about that, get involved in the open playtest when it starts (it started - we know that - you mean the NEXT stage of play testing) and let us know. If you would like to see things like that be a part of the core rules set, or if you would use rules like that as optional modules, that's the kind of information we are looking for in order to make this a game you want to play.

Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class restrictions? Sure (but why?)(maybe because it kept multi classing and racial extra in balance?  Again, might be best if it were setting based). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?

New Material

We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past (again, stepping away from the initial idea of "play any edition with the 5E rules" - but this is promising). Faster, better, smarter.

But how much new material is too much? That's the question. How can we capture the feel and tone of your favorite edition if we add in mechanics or material that's never been in a prior edition (I've been pondering this myself)? And yet, how can we convince anyone to play a game that is just a rehash of what's come before? (Alright, this is NOT a marketing statement - this is a real, honest to God game designer question)

One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition. You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition (that doesn't seem like it would work, but I'll withhold final judgement). Or a game that has the character customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible.  (But is it PLAYABLE?)

We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and entirely new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for example, even though they've never been presented in any version of the class. For example, we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy but express that idea in a completely different way. (Or you might have different ways to express that, one in keeping with prior editions, and one for the new edition)

We are also experimenting with variations on task resolution. What if, for example, something that used to give you a bonus or a penalty instead modified the (number of or size of the) dice you roll? A bonus to your attack roll might be the ability to roll 2d20 and take the best roll, for example. Or maybe instead of having a flat bonus, you got a bonus die to roll and add (or, in the case of a penalty, subtract)? Would these brand-new mechanics be fun and add something new to the game? And most importantly, would they feel like D&D? (Alright, now he's trying to be innovative as opposed to just rehashing the game systems we already have.  Monte, build a great game and don't worry about the prior editions)

That's what lots of playtesting and player feedback will let us discover.

(Holy shit!  Nothing for me to tear into.  Little if any marketing bullshit.  Actual game designer thoughts and questions.  Color me surprised.  No ranting from me either.  ;)

Picking Apart My Picking Apart of Monte and 5E

I figured I'd explain some of yesterday's "rant".

When 5e was first announced, it was billed as a sort of Rosetta Stone of the various D&D systems. It isn't.

First, Monte tells us in reference to 5e "not talking about a bridge so you can play 1e and 4e at the same time". This was Monte correcting the marketing guys. And yes, it pissed me off, because that was the whole selling point.

The correction is that 5e deals with the "styles" of previous editions, which in this case comes down to "complexity". In my opinion, the different editions of D&D differ in more then just complexity but in goals and gameplay. Focusing on complexity will lose much of what makes each edition unique.

Then we have the whole issue of the DM deciding on which rules he's going to run with, and each player gets to decide which rules they want to design their characters with. That is not recipe for a successful game.

How do you balance an 0e styled PC with the powers of a 4e styled PC? Let alone make them both work in a game using 2e style as it's framework. BTW, how are the monsters being stated out? What is their default "style edition"?

Telling me that the default rules is to allow the players to use which ever "style" they want despite what the GM's "style" defaults to just pisses me off right there. Could it me an option? Sure. As the default, where the players will come in with that expectation and I'd have to immediately cut those expectations off at the knees - not a good decision on the part of WotC.

The DM buys the vast majority of the books and supplements in any edition. By empowering the PCs to play with various rules in the same game, the DM will have to know the rules for styles 0e-4e and the players will just have to know the "style" they chose? That's not empowering the players, that's burdening the DM.

WotC would be much better off designing the very best D&D game they can make, aimed at the targeted market that will give them the most success. Aiming to please all players of all editions will leave them pleasing few players of any editions.

I'm still pissed that I wont be able to seamlessly import modules from earlier editions. For me, this could be the game killer right there.

Picking Apart Monte's Latest Column - Uniting the Editions Part 2

  

Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions, and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time (See, this shit was NOT fuckin’ clear!). Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules (uhm... but I already have those rules, even 4e which I don’t  even want to play.  Why would I need a new set of rules to play D&D in a style that I already have.  First damn paragraph and my head is hurting.  Curse you Monte!). Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play (Wait, how can the players choose a style for the PCs if you just said he needs to choose a style for the game oh my God it’s going in circles!). In short, let's talk about style and D&D.

The way we want to accomplish handling the style of play is with a modular approach. If 3E style is about character customization and a tactical view of combat, options should allow you to customize characters with feats and skills, plus play with a grid and miniatures (and have rules that support threatened areas, attacks of opportunity, and so forth). But in a 2E-style game, some or all of these options would not be desirable. Because of this truly modular approach, it means you don't have to pick an edition style. You can have the simple, fast combat of 1E with the character customizing skills of 3E, or any other combination (but if the 3e feats require 3e movement and 3e facing, your 1e “handwaving” ain’t gonna cut it).

But where do you start? For this to work, there needs to be a basic core to the game upon which you layer these options. That's where distilling D&D down to its essence comes in (yep, 3d6 in order 6 times... that was easy). What are the things that you'd expect to overhear at a table of people playing D&D if you didn't know which version they were playing?

That's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards, and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.

In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style. Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely, but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D (“feel” is  a scary word, because it may feel like it, but it isnt it, and apparently won’t even be compatible with it.  So if I really wanted to “feel” OD&D, I should play OD&D)

From there, with that excellent foundation, we can build upward and outward. (Wait, so they are saying that they striped 4e  and 3e down to their Oe essential oils, and are building from that?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to really build from 0e if that were the case?)

I know you have a lot of questions, and frankly, so do I (Huh!?!  you’re the designer.  if you still have a lot of questions, that aint good). That's what the public playtest is about—finding the answers together. The next big question you might have, however, is that with everything being so customizable, who makes the decisions (why yes, Monte.  Who makes the decisions.  Inquiring minds want to know)?

I think some of the answers are player-provided answers, and some are DM-provided. This is tied in very closely with my philosophy of the game overall. Players should play the characters they want to play (with DM input), and DMs should run the games they want to run (with player input) (that all sounds all fine and dandy, but if we are building upon 0e, and you aren’t empowering the DM, you’re gonna fail)

Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player (no they are not.  if I don’t want that shit in my 0e touchy feely game, they have no place in it.  simple as that.  this is why, if 5e fails, it will fail.  You can’t run a 0e game with 4e feats, or a 4e game with 0e lack of feat... or what not). Some choices are up to the DM. If miniatures and a grid are used, that's a DM choice. If the adventures are going to be about grinding through a dungeon to get enough coppers to pay for tomorrow's meal or an epic quest across the planes to save the universe(s), that's a DM choice. (That latter choice might seem like flavor only, but it can determine which rules options are taken.)

So, the game is actually a matrix of these choices, with some made by the DM and some by the players, which will end up determining the feel of the overall game and might allow the group to "emulate" a prior edition (holy shit, talk about back tracking! now instead of getting a feel, you MIGHT emulate a certain edition). More importantly, though, these choices allow people to play what they want to play. In effect, the group can make their own edition of D&D. And that's really the most exciting part of it, I think.

Last Week's Polls

What's your favorite play style for your D&D games? Rate each of these on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all important" and 5 being "vital to the game."

(Let me summarize - Folks want “crunchy” but not too crunchy, heavily story based, with tactical options around those of 3e (but not 3.5e), no one is looking to be all that simulationist and in the end, they want heroic play.  Story and heroic action beat simulationist and tactical hands down)

Fast and simple
1	104	4.2%
2	327	13.3%
3	879	35.8%
4	695	28.3%
5	451	18.4%
Total	2456	100.0%

Story-based
1	69	2.8%
2	113	4.6%
3	380	15.5%
4	840	34.4%
5	1042	42.6%
Total	2444	100.0%

Tactical combat
1	174	7.1%
2	398	16.3%
3	775	31.8%
4	738	30.3%
5	353	14.5%
Total	2438	100.0%

Simulationist
1	426	17.7%
2	637	26.4%
3	750	31.1%
4	435	18.0%
5	164	6.8%
Total	2412	100.0%

Heroic and high action
1	95	3.9%
2	228	9.4%
3	496	20.4%
4	835	34.3%
5	781	32.1%
Total	2435	100.0%

If you could have only one of the following, which would you choose?
Story-based	1033	39.3%
Heroic and high action	734	27.9%
Fast and simple	440	16.7%
Tactical combat	272	10.4%
Simulationist	149	5.7%
Total	2628	100.0%