Time for Part III of Picking Apart the 5e Seminar - Modules

Q: How will roleplaying, combat and exploration be supported?

Mike: If we support those three things, we've covered about 90% of what's important in the game. The customization comes in at the table level. DM makes choices along with the players to craft their game. (What is the other 10%, do tell)

Jeremy: If a group wants more social interaction, the DM can choose the module that support that. If the group wants more tactical combat, then the group chooses those modules.  (Not to knock 4e, but it was designed to put an emphasis on combat.  Use of battle maps / grids left may DMs opting for pre-written adventures.  Doing your own in 4e is a PITA BTB.  Allowing for more social interactions is great, but using the term “module” is disconcerting for those of us raised on a “module” referring to The Tomb of Horrors such.)

Mike: For example, a mass combat expansion would have a basic, core system. Choose modules to play generals, etc. Are you seeing the mass combat from the top down, or from an individual's POV?  (So, you can have more then one mass combat module?  Yep, they've found an expandable market for themselves)

Monte: These choices have helped influence class design as well. This lets a combat-heavy fighter and an exploration-based rogue to both fulfill their roles well. Bards can still kick ass. Depending on what a player wants to do in/out of combat, there will be classes that well support that.  (This sounds like they aren’t trying to make every class equally effective in combat {4E}.  That’s awesome!  If I want to excel as a support class, I can.)

Mike: Swap the core class bits to make the character you want to play.  (I’d like to see this simple sentence in action)

Q: How will high level play work? 

Monte: Every edition of the game "breaks down" at a certain level. I don't think it breaks down, I just think it changes. I think 4E does the best of highlighting that high level change and being clear that things are changing. I think that we can run with that for the future and have a list of options for classes/characters that open up when you hit a certain level. We can also have other options, like building a castle, having followers and vassals. We can build that into what high level characters get. (I can be a 9th level Lord and have my troops and collect taxes again?  Nice!  Wait, this also sounds like there will be levels that are demarcation lines of sort.  Not so sweet)

Mike: I think Monte hit on the really important point with saying that different people mean different things when they say the game breaks down at high levels. Some people are excited that their characters get really powerful. The question is what should that change really be? How should the game change at high levels? What should it look like and how should we build the breadth of options to cover that? Those are the real questions we're trying to answer when addressing high level play.  (They don’t have the answer yet, but they are working on it.  That not really much of an answer)

I’m thrilled that everyone being equally effective in combat is going the way of the dodo.  If I play a Bard or a Cleric, I don’t expect to deal the damage that a Fighter can.

I’m very interested in seeing how well this new idea of “modules” will work in actual play.  I can see it has the potential of making WotC some decent cash, as it can be released gradually as add-ons to the new edition.

Picking Apart the 5E Seminar - Part II - Ending the THAC0 Escalation

I'm going to jump ahead for now (I'll go back up the list later) to address what I think is one of the more revealing facts revealed in the seminar (formatting sucks - I'm working form my iPad - I'll try and neaten up later).

ON MONSTERS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

Monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.

Jeremy: The Monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.


Did you see Monte's comment about the to hit bonus for fighters going up gradually, while adding (attack) options as fighters level? Addressing the Illusion of THAC0 that I posted about last week.

If THAC0 doesn't climb at a fast rate, AC doesn't have to improve at a fast rate. So long as Monster THAC0 improves at a rate similar to Player THAC0, it removed the need for ever more powerful magic armor and weapons.

It also keeps the same monster as a viable threat for a longer level stretch than any of the previous editions.

In theory, it should also allow for a greater range of levels in the same party, as well as a greater / wider range of suitable levels for published adventures.

If they are slowing down THAC0, are they also slowing down spell acquisition by the casting classes?

Picking Apart the 5E Seminar - Part I

Morrus and the other fine folks at ENWorld have done a superb job of piecing together the Dungeons & Dragons 5E seminar taking place at Dungeons & Dragons Experience.  What I'm going to do is pick apart certain answers / statements and try to get a fuller picture of what D&D 5E will be, or what WotC are attempting to make it be.  If you want some pics of D&D 5E at "the table", check this post.

My comments will be in italics, either after someone's answer or after the completed answer (or both):

Q: What needs to be preserved from older editions? Player/DM relationship?

Monte: The core mechanic of #dnd is: player says 'I want to X' and DM responds. Therein lie the stories. 

Mike: Offering a wide variety of options so every player can play the way they want to. 

Jeremy: The game being a toolbox for players/DMs to create stories together. And fireballs. 

There are certain themes that stick out, because they come up as answers to other questions - options for players and DMs and toolbox. 

Q: How can we achieve balance in such a modular, flexible game?

Jeremy: What's important to know is that module approach is a spectrum of play styles.

There's a baseline game that provides the foundation. From there, you add on what you want. The seeds are there.  (so there is a core game, to which you can add complexity.  Basically it’s houserules and they are giving you the houserules to choose from)

Monte: For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful.  (you can go with the default fighter progression, or you can tweak it to more of the concept that you envision - which I shall assume is similar for all the classes)

Jeremy: The DM should be able to create the experience that their group wants. The players should be able to choose their level of complexity, and have it work no matter the options chosen. (this is tough, because from my experience, the DM sets the tone and style of gameplay, not the players)

Mike: You can see expressions of character types that are found in other editions.  (This I bolded, because it plainly states you are NOT going to be playing older edition characters, but MAY be able to recreate the feel of one)

Monte: The DM says: we're using grid, mat and minis. The players can then choose options that match the DM's style. (see, now this is in conflict with Jeremy's answer just above this one - Monte is saying what I said, the DM sets the tone and style of gameplay, the players then chose options to match - there might be some disagreement in the team as to who leads, the players or the DM - but us OSR guys already know that answer)

Mike: If we get this right, everyone is sort of playing their own edition of the game. All at the same table. 

This is going to be one heck of a win if they can allow a group to field a party that is “sort of playing their own edition of the game.  All at the same table.”  Rumor has it they are aiming for a GenCon 2013  release for this.  I might have to actually attend for the first time in 20 years ;)

D&D 5E at DDXP

I like how the character sheets are "golden".  Reminds me of my AD&D days. ;)

In any case, EnWorld has pretty good coverage of the D&D Experience Con that is going on through this Sunday.  5E is obviously the hot topic.

A Pic of D&D 5E in Action at DDXP
Originally Posted at EnWorld.org

Crap!  Battlemaps in 5E!  Noooo!!!!
Heh ;)
Originally Posted at EnWorld.org

So long as battle maps are optional I'll be okay ;)

Do I See EGG On the Cover?
Originally Posted at EnWorld.org

Alright, time for me to read what's new and pick through the pieces.  Still, I loved the pics ;)

Roll a Little Dice, Have Fun Tonight

Last night I attended the Games That Can't Be Named event at the SoHo Digital Arts Gallery on Sullivan Street in NYC. It was a blast!

I met some really cool gamers, had some excellent Tunnels & Trolls conversations (last thing I expected to find), saw some amazing Old School D&D art from the likes of Peter Mullen (rendered on digital screens) and got some gaming in.

I wish I could talk about the RPG I played a session of, but I can't (NDA and all that). I will say it was a lot of fun and a blast to play.

Lessons learned?

I should bring an old notebook, more then 2 sets of dice, gem dice don't read so well depending on the light at my semi-advanced age and gamers are gamers no matter the age.

Most important lesson?

My wife is awesome! Thanks for encouraging me to attend ;)

Picking Thru "The Rule of Three" - Looking at Damage Types

For my next trick... I'm going to take a look at the question and answer dealing with "Damage Types" and I'll be pulling out pieces and addressing them.

In previous editions, different weapon types mattered. For example, slashing weapons had different qualities than bludgeoning weapons, or worked better against certain monsters. Is this an element of D&D that you would like to see returned to the front lines?

I chose this question to answer because it's something we've been talking about recently. I actually like the idea of weapon damage types a lot, and damage types in general. Damage types are a low-impact way of conveying a lot of narrative through game mechanics. If I have a spell that deals fire damage, I immediately have an idea of how to describe it, and what other effects might be associated with it. At the same time, damage types are—by and large—simply a keyword that is referred to by other effects. They are also flags to the DM that can indicate when there is an opportunity for something interesting to happen. If I deal acid damage to a monster, the DM can easily jump in with a description of the acid spattering and weakening the floor beneath that monster—which, in turn, is a flag for the players to consider smashing the weakened floor to drop the monster through. That's an example of damage types at their best.

There have been many times since the inception of 4E where we'd wished we had some kind of damage type for physical damage, a point that was driven home especially well when we did the design and development of the Gamma World game, which does have a physical damage type. I think the step that previous editions could have taken, but didn't, is to treat slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage types just like acid, cold, fire, etc. damage. That way, weapon users get a few more interesting choices in the weapons they wield, just like spellcasters have when making spell selections. Plus, there's something very satisfying to me for the cleric wielding the mace to be able to step forward and smash through skeletons that are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. While there's nothing set in stone about the next iteration of D&D, those are some of the kinds of things we are thinking about.

Damage types are a low-impact way of conveying a lot of narrative through game mechanics.

Uhm, I thought "narratives" in gaming was for "Indie" type games.  In any case, prior to 3e, there really wasn't much though put to "damage types" beyond fire, cold and lightning.  3e added a few.  Don't know 4e well enough to say.

 If I deal acid damage to a monster, the DM can easily jump in with a description of the acid spattering and weakening the floor beneath that monster—which, in turn, is a flag for the players to consider smashing the weakened floor to drop the monster through. That's an example of damage types at their best.

Great image for them to draw upon.  But then we need to see what the floor is made out of, did it make it's save, how many hit points did it have, how is the party going to damage it, etc.  I'm looking forward to official D&D modules with damage ratings for the floors, walls and ceilings ;)

I think the step that previous editions could have taken, but didn't, is to treat slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage types just like acid, cold, fire, etc. damage. That way, weapon users get a few more interesting choices in the weapons they wield, just like spellcasters have when making spell selections.

Do we need to bring back AC adjustments for Armor Types vs Weapon Types?  If I recall, it was in 2e, but we stopped using it as in only came into play with humanoid opponents that wore armor.  Will 5e monsters be given an equivalent AC type regardless of actual AC for damage type purposes?

there's something very satisfying to me for the cleric wielding the mace to be able to step forward and smash through skeletons that are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. 

That was always called "slashing / piercing do half damage to skellies".  Blunt weapons were therefore twice as effective.

Do we make opponents harder to hit with the Armor Type / Weapon Type chart, or do we use a Damage Resistance / Reduction effect?

Balance versus Niche Protection

Do all classes need to be equally effective in combat? Here lies the issue of balance versus niche.

I'll say right from the start that the answer is, in my opinion at least, somewhere between the two.

4e is well known for its balanced character classes - each is pretty balanced compared to the others in combat encounters. As Matt Finch said in a comment to my last post, what works in board games doesn't translate so well to RPGs. It makes for a bland, boring game.

On the other extreme we have LotFP's Weird Fantasy. Here, there is no attempt to balance character classes. Instead, each class has a niche that is their's and their's alone.

Fighters get to hit progression while leveling, no other class does.

Specialists get a pool of skills, no other class does.

Clerics and Magic-Users get Cleric and MU spells respectively.

Dwarves excel at Hit Points, Halflings at saves (lamest niche in the book) and elves can cast MU spells (which is a bit of an overlapping niche).

A Dwarf or Halfling does not match up to a Fighter in power level. LotFP's WF is not an example of a balanced RPG, and it isnt meant to be.

Which game would I rather play?

Do you really need to ask? Heh. I want balance as in "you'll have fun playing in a group", not as in "you'll be just as effective as anyone else in your group."

For me, balance means giving all classes and players the potential to shine, not giving them all the same opportunities to shine.

Balance takes away the need to always push yourself as a gamer, to think of unique solutions, to consider role-play before roll-play.

I'm sure MANY of you disagree with the above ;)

Feel free to add your thoughts below.

Picking Thru "The Rule of Three" - Looking at Balance

WotC plans on answering 3 questions a week about the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons 5e release - and I plan on picking thru their answers.  Today I want to look at the question and answer about "balance" in 5e.

 4E was balanced incredibly well when compared to the other systems. In the next iteration of D&D, will balance be as important or will we see some classes being noticeably more powerful than others again?

One of the best things that 4E did for us as designers was that it taught us a lot about game balance. Taking what we've learned over the course of 4E's design, development, and evolution, we can apply those lessons about game balance to the next iteration of D&D. In many ways, one of 4E's biggest contributions was putting new tools in our toolboxes for designing and developing the game—tools that weren't there before. More than that, we've learned how to apply that balance in different ways, allowing us to simply do more than we could before while still remaining balanced.

In my mind, game balance is not about symmetry, but about validating choices. Players want to feel like their choices have value, and especially in a cooperative game it's important to avoid traps that make players feel like they've made a "wrong" choice. Making a different choice, however, is vital. One of the things 4E does well is providing choices that, while not 100% equal, are equally valid, and reflect the play style of the player making choices. As the game evolved, we've found new ways to provide different—but still valid—choices for players looking for something that stands out more, or for something that better fits their play style. We want to take the things we've learned through that process and then apply that to the design of the next iteration of the game.

Balance is in the eye of the beholder. It's a good tool and a valuable thing to have in the game, but it can't come at the price of making the game feel bland or dull. One of the big reasons for our playtest is to ensure that as we balance the system, we attain the right kind of balance, not simply balance as we expect it or balance based purely on numbers.

The other thing about balance is that it should be a tool, and not a handcuff. There are certain things about D&D that are intrinsic properties of the game, things that are a part of D&D because they are D&D. In the process of making the next iteration of the game, we're going to focus on taking all of those intrinsic elements of the game and making the best game possible that includes all of those elements, as they should be. We use the game balance tool to then make sure that we're providing a satisfying experience using all of those elements. To address the specific example in your question, we'll want to make every attempt to make sure that choosing one class or another is still a valid choice, so I would say that class balance is an important thing that we'll be working on.

Lets look at the pieces I bolded in order:
 "In many ways, one of 4E's biggest contributions was putting new tools in our toolboxes for designing and developing the game—tools that weren't there before. "


I thought one of 4E's biggest contributions was giving us Pathfinder as an alternative - but I digress. ;)  I'm going to assume this includes some or all of the following: at will powers, encounter powers, mooks and bosses, equalized progression of "to hit" / "spell penetration" / whatever your class uses to cause damage to the bad guys.


"In my mind, game balance is not about symmetry, but about validating choices."


Alright, this looks to be a step away from 4E, at least in character design.  All classes being pretty much equally effective in combat encounters (flavor may differ) and challenges.  Does this mean some classes may be more effective in combat encounters and others may be more effective in  non-combat situations?  I don't know, but that does seem to be a step away from 4E.

"Balance is in the eye of the beholder. It's a good tool and a valuable thing to have in the game, but it can't come at the price of making the game feel bland or dull. "


This is a slap at 4E.  Balance is the big draw (or push away) for 4E.  Balanced classes, balanced encounters.  When is balance not good?  When it isn't as much fun as not being balanced.  I never got into the 4E rules as they seemed bland to me, despite the flavor on all the powers.  


The other thing about balance is that it should be a tool, and not a handcuff. There are certain things about D&D that are intrinsic properties of the game, things that are a part of D&D because they are D&D.


What would these things be?  My guesses (from my play experience and prejudices):  random stat generation, random Hit Points at each level, random weapon damage - do you notice a theme here?  Randomness - which can be balanced overall, but at the same time is unbalancing.  Vancian magic, spells per level, core races (dwarves, elves, halflings, humans and yes - gnomes).  Races don't need to be 100% balanced in combat, so long as the non combat bonuses give them an edge in those situations.


Of course, the other biggies at the six stats (comeliness can stay away), levels and classes.


It appears that advancements from 4E are the tools that will bring this package together.  How?  I have no friggin' idea, as I see 0e thru 3.5e as an evolution, and 4e as a divergence that has little left of it's roots.  I might be wrong on that assessment (and I'm sure fans of 4E don't see it as I do), but our opinions aren't the concern.  It's how Monte and the rest of the designers feel.


Monte did 3e, then followed with his own redo with Arcana Unearthed (edit: and later Unearthed Arcana - he's rewritten the rules TWICE already)  He's a solid 3e guy.  4e is NOT his child.  It will be interesting to see how his new design progresses.

Gnomes in 5E - Garden Gnomes or Something More Sinister

Remember the marketing for the D&D 4e rules? The mocking of Gnomes and general tearing apart of all things 3.5e.

Do you think WotC has learned their lesson?

Will they actually be able to introduce a new edition without they themselves fanning the flames of the next edition war like they fanned the flames in the last edition war?

Will gnomes be brought back as a core race, or relegated to the MM as they were at the start of 4e?

Does it even matter?

Have any of you actually played a Gnome in any edition of Dungeons & Dragons?

Do you own a Garden Gnome?

Do Garden Gnomes scare you?

The fate of 5e rests in your hands...

The Myth of THAC0 - E6'ing the OSR (First Thoughts)

First things first - here is a link to the E6 rules (all 13 pages including the OGL).  It a fairly quick read.  Essentially, it is a series of house rules to enable you to have your 3X campaign max out at 6th level, yet still allow for character improvement.

A few things to note from the OSR side of things - it uses feats.  After hitting 6th level, players will spend newly earned expo on attaining new feats.  We in the OSR despise feats.  Or, at the very least, we don't feel we need them.

Still, the examples used for spell casters are well thought out, and can easily carry over to an OSR version of the rules as they grant new spells known or spell casting slots (remember, standard progression ends at 6th level)

An E6 OSR game would have the following benefits:
   
     THAC0 capped at sixth level, giving a character a max to hit adjustment for level of +6
     Hit Dice capped at 6th level, reducing the potential of excessive hit point pool
     Appropriate Armor Class should stay reasonable
     Casters come into their own and are effective without the game busting spells of the higher levels
     Thieves have decent class ability without being excessive

Still, part of the fun of roleplaying is character advancement and improvement.  Without feats to draw upon, what can characters spend expo on to improve?

Fighter / Fighter sub classes could spend on weapon of choice, specialization, improved attack rate, a small (1 or 2 point) HP bump and possibly some specifically chosen (limited number) of feats from 3e, like Power Attack and Cleave

Clerics could spend on a weapon of choice (deity specific), new spell slots, improved turning, improved healing, minor magic item creation

Thieves could spend on increasing their thieving abilities and backstab, two weapon fighting feat

Magic Users could spend on new (extra) spell slots, new learned spells, minor magic item creation

Also small stat bumps could be bought, not to exceed racial maximums.

I'm sure there are other benefits these classes could learn to keep the improvement going without the class leveling / hps / THAC0 and AC going much past what is appropriate for level 6.  Let me know of any you might think of.

Yes, its an artificial ceiling.  But as a few have pointed out in the comments to the other Myth of THAC0 posts, some of the best campaigns top out in the mid levels.  This is a way to keep the campaign at that sweet point.

Let me know what you think.  I'm looking at a simple set of guidelines that would work with any of the OSR / Basic / Advanced rules.  I've got ideas, but I'm always willing to work with yours.

The Myth of THAC0 - And the Compounding of Hit Points

There were a lot of really great comments on my first two Myth of THAC0 posts. A few touched on the issue of buckets of Hit Points.

As bad as it was in AD&D 1e & 2e, especially with Rangers that had a CON bonus, it's gotten worse with later editions.

Up until 2e, HD capped at name level (generally between 9th and 11th levels). 3e kept the dice rolling with each level gained, there was no limit, and a high CON's bonus to Hit Points just increased the never ending pool.

Pathfinder adds even more HP, increasing the HD size of all classes but the fighter and cleric one size up, so a rogue with d6 in 3e now has a d8. Max HP are given at first level also.

D&D 4e starts players with 15 + CON, so figure an average of 25 HP at first level.

Higher HP will lead to longer combats unless offset by increasing THAC0 or lowering the effects of armor. All three are intricately connected. The last thing a game at my table needs is longer combats.

Still, excessive HP can still be a problem even in OSR style games. How do we keep the game in it's sweet spot - the lower and mid levels?

I'll be taking a look over the next few days at E6, the OGL game that tops out at 6th level, with the idea of seeing if the concepts can be applied to OSR gaming.

The Myth of THAC0 - Complications of Removal

If you accept the idea that an improving THAC0 is not needed by most classes depending on the type of campaign run (especially low magic / low fantasy type settings), there is still an unforeseen complication - Strength becomes a prime stat for the middle combatant classes (clerics / rogues and the like).  (The Myth of THAC0)

If THAC0 will never increase for these classes (or has a slowed increase as in Castles & Crusades), a Strength Bonus is more important than it would be if these classes had their normal progression.  A +2 bonus to hit from Strength may be the only bonus a cleric or specialist (let alone any of the demi-human classes) will ever see to their ability to hit opponents in combat in LotFP's Weird Fantasy (by default a very low magic setting).  Actually, in WF, clerics really get no class related bonuses for a high wisdom (except crafting at higher levels), so one would be best served by putting their best score in Strength to become a viable 2nd line combatant.

Interestingly, neither Castles & Crusades nor Weird Fantasy slows down the combat progression of the fighter class.  You still have a class capable of mowing down mooks, as well as improving in their ability to hit level appropriate enemies in Weird Fantasy.  Castles & Crusades is different, as non fighter classes do increase in THAC0 (although slower then in classic D&D systems) and magic items (weapons and armor) are assumed in the system.

My feeling is that THAC0 means much less in Weird Fantasy then any off the other OSR style games, and is therefore less of a perk than it appears.  Sure, they'll be nearly auto-hitting most opponents at higher levels, but the damage output will remain fairly static as hit points rise on both sides of the combat.  Combats are going to be decided by attrition (which happens in many high level D&D style games, but without a corresponding increase in damage output it's going to be longer then usual.

Which then leads to the following thought.  Armor Class, Bonus to Hit and Hit Points all impact on each other.  You tweak one, and it effects all in some manner or form.  If you tweak the THAC0 to be less powerful, do you need to do the same with AC or HP to keep balance?  Or do you just accept the idea that combats will take longer?

(The post at the Howling Tower that got me thinking...)

The Myth of THAC0

I read on another blog a few days ago (very new blog from 2012 - if you know it PLEASE let me know!) that BAB / BtH / THAC0 are all pretty much bullshit.  You aren't climbing a ladder when your character's chance to hit increases, because your level appropriate adversaries see a corresponding increase in Armor Class protection.  In effect, you are running up a down escalator.

The first game in the Dungeons & Dragons family that seem to recognize this was Castles & Crusades.  The combat bonus rate of increase for all classes with the exception of fighter based classes took a sizable hit from the D&D norm.  The cleric took the most noticeable hit his combat abilities from the D&D norm. I'm sure the main reason for this chance was to give the fighting classes a more noticeable niche of their own.  Still, it takes some of the importance off of AC / BtH.  As long as ACs don't increase at huge rate, there is less need to increase BtH and less need to pile on the magic items.

Raggi's Lamentations of the Flame Princess' Weird Fantasy RPG takes it a huge step further.  He totally removes any kind of combat skill advancement from all classes but the Fighter.  My initial reaction to this was a severe need and desire to house rule combat advancement back for the rest of the classes (and I probably would for Dwarves and Halfling, as they really have nothing going for them as it stands).  After taking a step back (and a few months away from my initial reaction) I realized this system works in the default setting of LotFP's Weird Fantasy RPG - 95% of your adversaries are normal men and such, fantastic creatures are unique and custom made and the world is magic poor.  Adversaries aren't going to be increasing in Armor Class all that greatly as the PCs level, and neither will the parties AC be changing all that much.  In some ways, the Fighter's niche of combat advancement is smaller then expected, as it is less valuable in a system that keeps Armor Class numbers within the realm of the non-fantasic.

It's an elegant solution to running up the down escalator.

I remember playing AD&D, back in my younger days, and if the party's front line wasn't in the negative numbers for AC by the time they were nearing name level, they were going to be hurting.  Just to maintain their place in the THAC0 / AC race, the need to dump magic armor and weapons an them was huge.  Such was the start of the Christmas Tree PCs  that were much the talk in 3e.  There are no Christmas Tree PCs in Weird Fantasy.

So, when your Fighter increases in his BAB in Swords & Wizardry, remember it's basically a wash.  Maybe not when fighting the mooks, but then they are books for a reason.  Your Fighter's increase in his to hit bonus has just been offset by a decrease in your level appropriate adversary's Armor Class.  Holy Shit!  Raggi was right! ;)

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Feltothraxis The Dragon Looks at Carocoa (and Dungeonmorph Dice)

Yep, Feltothraxis is back and he's got some help this time.  Ashley the Cat and Boo Boo the Psychic Police Bear are there for the assist.  Together, they take a look at Carcosa and some Dungeonmorph Dice.

Enjoy!

Mini Review - The Ruined Hamlet / Terror in the Glooming (OSR Adventure)

From the guy that brought us the Companion Expansion, we get the free adventure / starter area called The Ruined Hamlet / Terror in the Glooming for levels 1-3.

From what I can gather, the products being released for free at RPGNow have been sitting on the author's website for a bit previously.  So if you are someone that trolls the web looking for gaming goodies, you might have already come across this.  For the rest of us, this is new stuff.

If I have one complaint, and this applies to many of the adventures one gets in PDF format, is that the keyed maps are stuck in the back.  So I'm reading keyed descriptions without any idea where the corresponding map is.  Not a killer issue, but it is an annoyance.  I'd suggest if you are going to read this with an idea to run it, print the maps our for reference.

The maps themselves are serviceable, and there is even a blank map for use by the players, which is a nice touch (it's basically graph paper, but still, a nice touch).

The adventure assumes a silver standard (so something that would cost 10 GP in the rulebook will instead cost 10SP).  It does state, however, that expo is based on GOLD, not silver.  This may cause some leveling issues.


From the blurb:

Into the Unknown! The wilderness around the cave stronghold called Gold Hill Trading Post is dangerous and scattered with ruins of large and small settlements. Will your party find fame and fortune, solve ancient mysteries, or just disappear into the Borderlands like so many that came before? This module contains underground and wilderness maps that form a detailed adventure and mini-campaign for beginning characters, including an abandoned village, haunted graveyard, ruined church, traders’ camp, wilderness encounters, and monster lairs. It also includes a ruined keep and dungeon as well as a mapped and detailed “base camp” stronghold. 


The module is designed for use with all “classic” fantasy roleplaying game rulebooks or sets for Basic- and Expert-level players and gamemasters. It can be converted for use with “Advanced” fantasy game rules and compatible systems with a minimum of effort. Cover art by William McAusland! Print version available at www.barrataria.com

Friday Night Movie at the Tavern - Cowboys & Aliens

The wife and I snuggled in for a movie via Amazon Direct earlier tonight.  The movie of choice was Cowboys & Aliens.  We had intended to see in in the theatre, but somehow it slipped us by in the rush of wedding preparations and such.  Diet coke, goldfish crackers and a dachshund that wouldn't settle in were our move accessories.

How was it?  Surprisingly, my wife enjoyed it more then me.  See didn't much like action movies until we started dating, and now she takes more enjoyment from the ride then I do.  Part of my problem is I do the "Gamer Overthink".  What would a gamer do if this was a RPG session.  Rarely does it match the plot of the movie ;)

In this case, my initial (and main) issue was Harrison Ford's overacting in his first few scenes.  I'm a mad mother fucker and I'll prove it!  Yeah yeah.  Go draw and quarter some other schmuck.

Still, I enjoyed the plot device / arm cannon that Daniel Craig had.  Definitely something that had to be roomed at the end of the adventure. or else it would just ruin a campaign.  Or maybe this would work best as a one-shot, as one of the characters has to sacrifice themselves for the PCs... I mean, the story's main characters, to survive (of, and for the survival of earth).

Still, I don't understand Olivia Wilde's character.  How the hell did she get to earth?  If she can travel the stars, how did the scary aliens destroy her race?  Shapechanging?  How did the indians know to burn her body to resurrect her?  How did she know how to destroy the bad aliens?  Why the fuck is she so hot?  Must be the eyes.  Don't tell my wife ;)

Not a bad movie.  Lot's of fun, and certainly some ideas that can be stolen for an RPG session, it just leaves me with questions that I have no answers for.

Making An OSR "Stew"

I was thinking of the feasibility of running a game using / allowing the use of ALL of the OSR rules available.

I know Zak has the Flailsnail Concord or some such, allowing the use of characters from different rule sets and campaigns in Constacon sessions with some conversion if necessary, but I'm thinking more like a regular, coherent campaign that allows for the use of multiple OSR RPG rules by the players.

For example, John wants to play a fighter from Labyrinth Lord, Advanced Edition Characters, Tom wants to play a magic-user from Basic Fantasy RPG, Cindy wants to grab a cleric from Swords & Wizardry Complete and Adam isn't sure what class he wants to play, but he knows he wants to use the Adventurer Conqueror King Systems for his.

I'm figuring except for AC, everything should work fairly well. AC would need to be converted to one of the systems in use.

As long as no one becomes a rules lawyer over minor hiccups, the DM should be able to hand wave any inconsistencies.

Your thoughts?

Monster Stand Ins - A Kickstarter Project

Do you remember the pictures of those funny looking yet extremely cool Dungeonmorph Dice I posted a few weeks back?

Well, the same man (Joe Wetzel) behind those dice has a new project:

Monster Stand-Ins.  Think plastic, lay flat when not in use, color miniatures that you can tote around to your game while taking up very little space.  Heck, you can even mark them up and erase them.  Cool stuff.

Joe has some excellent artwork line up for this project, as you can see below:

Thats some pretty hot art.  Not all is to scale, but I'm already thinking of uses for it.

And here's a picture of the prototypes in action:

What are Monster Stand-Ins?

Monster Stand-Ins are a set of plastic card (same thickness as most credit cards) miniatures of creatures for role-playing games or war games or board games. Use them when you don't have enough miniatures or don't have the right miniature. The front of each will have a full-color picture of a creature and the back will have a matching silhouette.

Ever Buy a Gaming Product and Go: "What the F' Did I Waste My Money On?!?"

Don't you just hate that?

For me the worst was Monster Coliseum for Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill Runequest).  This pile of poo was so bad I actually went back to my game store and demanded my money back.  I don't remember much about it except that it was fairly expensive and totally useless, and that as a college student with a part time job I couldn't afford to squander away my hard earned gaming dollars.

Now I have a quandary.  I get access to reviewer copies of games (mostly in PDF) and for the most part, I only take reviewer copies of stuff I feel I'll actually enjoy.  I've gotten pretty good at this.  Once in a while I fail, and fail bad.

I failed bad the other night.  Bad as in "What the Fuck did I Get?"

Not even bad as in funny bad.  Not bad as in stupid bad.  Bad as in the publisher is pretty clueless as to the minimum qualities expected from a game publisher of any sort of amateur status.  Bad as in if I had downloaded this free, I'd still be upset with the quality.  Bad as in "they have HOW MANY products to their credit and they still can't get it right?" bad.  There might be something worthwhile behind the abysmal presentation, but I'm not wasting my time or patience to find it.

No, I won't mention the name of the product, or the publisher.  The saying you can't judge a book by it's cover certainly applies here.

If you track me down via email, I may tell you if your guess is right.

WotC to Reprint Core AD&D 1E Rulebooks

You can read the article here: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/21954.html

Figure about $115 for the DMG, PH and MM. Sales will benefit the Gygax Memorial Fund.

Some see this as a way for WotC to test the waters, to tell if there is money to be scraped out of the old editions. I'd rather take this at face value, a way to remember the man that got this hobby started.

No OSR games will be harmed when I purchase my copies of the AD&D reprints - I promise ;)

Im All In the Google+ Swimming Pool

It took me a while, but I'm now fully embracing G+ after being not quite sure what to make of it initially. Well, that, and I remember the fate of Google Wave. Ouch!

It's more certainly not Facebook. G+ actually seems to encourage conversations (Facebook seems to be much less effective at that) and by mirroring my Blogger posts on G+, I find that I have rewarding conversations on both sides of the posts.

I also find myself with WAY more distractions, as Google+ alerts are constantly hitting my phone, but I embrace it like a mad man. I love to talk gaming, even if it does happen during work hours (shhhhh! don't tell anyone).

You can find me at +Erik Tenkar on Google+

Oh, and you can find me at the Tavern every day too ;)

A Look at Jaws of the Six Serpents (PDQ System)

This isn't going to be a true review, some I'm not titling it as such (but will tag it as one, 'cause it's close enough).  I just got my softcover copy of Jaws of the Six Serpents - Silver Branch Games was offering a discount to those that had purchased the PDF copy of the game, and that certainly included me.

The PDQ System (which I first came across in Questers of the Middle Realms) one of those, dare I say it, Indie Game Systems.  PDQ - Prose Descriptive Qualities.  In this case it's almost like a structure red freeform type system - you define your characters standout traits and qualities (good and bad) using the included rules and distributing points and "Wallah!" you have a character.  It's pretty open and flexible.  Which means I'm sure it can be gamed by Munchkins, but then again, so can most systems out there.  All you need are a handful of D6, so it should be an easy enough system to grass if you can get past your D&D roots.  That shit always holds me back ;)

Anyhow, I really like the Swords & Sorcery feel of Jaws of the Six Serpents.  It does a great job in a relatively small amount of space (the entire book is about 130 pages).  I suspect it runs pretty quickly and painlessly with a GM that is conversant with the rules, which would make it a decent choice to run via a Virtual Table Top or Google+ Hangouts, as I've noticed, at least with VTTs, the games tend to run slower.  With voice or without, the pace slows from a face to face game.  With a system that runs fairly fast in the first place, that might be less of an issue.

You can check out the Core PDQ Rules for free here.

I Get To Play In a Sandbox!

I'll be playing in a new campaign starting this coming Saturday. We'll be using Google+ Hangout.

Our GM has given us a quick overview of the starting area, and we even get to chose our starting location out of a handful that are detailed. Which means we are in a sandbox right from the start. Should be fun and an Old School feel.

Of course, the actual rules system has yet to be nailed down. As long as it includes dice rolls, some numerical stats and a spell list, I should be able to adapt ;)

Eh, who am I kidding. It's going to be a D&D game, we just need the DM to nail down the system. I'd vote for Crypts & Things, but I think the setting is more standard fantasy, so it probably wouldn't be a good fit.

No SOPA For You!

Today is the day of action for those concerned about the pending SOPA legislation. I signed my online petition, I sent a letter to my congressman and I'm mentioning it on my blog.

What more can one man do? Not much. What more can many men (and women) do? Much more. There is strength in numbers. Let your voice be heard.

Remember those shaky OSR products (and I use the term loosely) that violated copyright? The ones that got quickly pulled from RPGNow when the violations were brought to their attention? Theoretically, SOPA could have taken down RPGNow for the violations (at least, that's how I read it).

One dick and everyone pays.

SOPA is like a cure for cancer that kills the host in order to save him.The cure is worse then the disease. As a cancer survivor, I'm rather pleased that the cure didn't kill me. ;)

Mini Review - Hackmaster 5e Quickstart Guide (Kenzer Co)

I am far from the Hackmaster expert.  I remember reading about the fictitious game in the early Knights of the Diner Table (probably back in Shadis Magazine).  It was very obviously a take on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons ramped up to 11.  Then one day, Hackmaster actually appeared in gaming stores across the nation.  Fake game became real game, and it really was AD&D turned up to 11.

Flash forward to now.  Hackmaster reached it's 5th edition with it's release of Hackmaster Basic in 2010.  Kenzer is hard at work on releasing the full HM 4e rules (and I got some flack last year for not knowing rules for levels beyond 5 were available from Kenzer Co's website - ah well).  See, you CAN play 5e now!

Hackmaster's old edition could be considered fairly rules heavy.  From my reading of the Hackmaster Basic Book, I'd say the 4e rules are even heavier, at least at character generation.  What's a new Hackmaster player to do?

May we present to you the Hackmaster Quickstart Guide (for HM 5e).  It's an attempt to bring some sanity and order to the confusion that may just slam a new player in the gut.  Does it succeed in doing so?

Yes and no.

I'll explain the no first.  Hackmaster character generation is a convoluted, confusing system.  That's not a design flaw, it's actually a feature and it was designed that way.  You would probably need 40 pages alone to walk someone thru character generation, and replicating the charts would take up even more space.  So no, The Quickstart Guide doesn't show one haw to create a Hackmaster Character, but it does give you an assortment of fully stated and generated PCs with quirks and all, so you have an idea what to expect in the full game.  Character generation is beyond the scope of this Quickstart.

Now for the success.  It gives a very nice overview of how to actually play (and possibly run) a Hackmaster session.  41 pages on everything from how to read your character sheet, combat rules, spells in combat, spells... screw it, here's the table of contents:

1.1 Introduction Page 03

1.2 Basic Character Classes Page 04

The Basic Fighter Page 04

The Basic Thief Page 06

The Basic Mage Page 08

The Basic Cleric Page 10

1.3 QuickStart Mage Spells Page 13

1.4 QuickStart Clerical Spells Page 14

1.5 QuicksStart Skills Page 15

2.1 Learning the QuickStart Rules Page 23

2.2 Misc. Rules Page 23

2.3 Skill Checks Page 24

2.4 Combat Rules Page 25

2.4.1 Roll for Initiative Page 25

2.4.2 The Count Up Page 25

2.4.3 Movement in Combat Page 26

2.4.4 Rules of Engagement Page 26

2.4.5 Rolling for Attack & Defense in Melee Page 26

2.4.6 Ranged Attack Page 27

2.4.7 Spells in Combat Page 28

2.4.8 Taking Wounds Page 28

2.4.9 Using Luck and Honor Page 28

2.5 Advanced Option Rules Page 28

Knock-backs Page 28

Threhold of Pain Page 29

Alignment rules Page 29

2.6 Running Encounters in HackMaster Page 29

3.1 Appendix Page 30

How to fill out a character sheet Page 30

Glossary Page 32

Hacklopedia entry on Kobolds Page 35

PC Record Sheet Page 39

Pretty full Quickstart.  Doesn't even include an adventure and still hits 41 pages.  Did I mention it's free?  Hell, add it to your Quickstart PDF Collection ;)

If you want to give Hackmaster a peek and aren't sure if you want to pay the buy in, give the Hackmaster Quickstart a check.  It's free. and you might find something you'll enjoy playing as you await 5e (Hackmaster Advanced, D&D, Runequest - or some other RPG hitting high edition numbers - Tunnels & Trolls is already at 7.5 ;)

Interesting Note on My Reviews...

They actually get less traffic then just about anything else I post.  That being said, last night's quick peek at the free Companion Expansion did get a lot of views.

Can't say it's the subject matter, because most of my reviews are OSR related.

Ah well, another review is probably coming later tonight ;)

D&D 5E? Theres an App for That! (maybe)

Alright, so the authorities won't let me fill my Tavern's basement scrying pool with privy runoff. What do health inspectors know anyway? I'll just fill it in a more... direct manner.

We all know how gun shy WotC is with releasing their IP in PDF format. I was part of the mad rush to make sure I had downloaded copies of my legacy purchases at RPGNow when they pulled the plug. The thing is, digital IS the wave of the future.

Comic Book stores are facing many of the same problems that Hobby and Game stores are. What has DC Comics recently done? They are now releasing their titles simultaneously in print and digital. They've embraced the future (and I hope it works for them).

I expect WotC to do something similar, allowing their latest D&D edition and it's supplements to be accessed via Apps (PC/OSX/iOS/Android). Whether thye go to per product purchasing or subscription based like the DDI, they need to have their products available on tablets / smartphones / laptops /; etc. It might not be their main market, but it is a sizable chunk of change and one that should not be ignored.

Hmm, maybe those guys from the health department are on to something. I think I might have an infection in my hand from having to stir the waters.

I better go to a "Cleric in a Box" and have this looked at. Good thing my "Adventurer's Health Plan" covers this with a small copay ;)

Mini Review - Companion Expansion - (For B/X - OSR)

Want to add Druids, Illusionists or Bards to your B/X game (or most any OSR that doesn't already include them)?  Gnomes as Class, as well as Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Half-Ogres?  Well, the Companion Expansion is here to help you do so.

Oh, did I mention it also includes levels through 36 for the base B/X classes?  Yep, it does.  As well as the spell lists to fill in any gaps through level 9 you might have.

New monsters and treasures too.  Oh my!

Did I mention the price of this PDF?  Free.

No bookmarks in this PDF, but at the price of "free" I can't really be all that picky.

Looks good at first glance with a definite B/X look to the typeface.

From the blurb:

Presenting additional creatures and magical items for fantasy roleplaying games for basic- and expert-level players and gamemasters, including 7 additional character classes (bard, druid, gnome, half-elf/half-orc, half-ogre, illusionist, scout), expanded experience tables, two additional types of magic (druid and illusion) and additional magic-user and cleric spells (90 in all), over 130 new or additional creatures, dozens of new or additional magic items, and a complete treasure generation system!

Also includes expanded spell lists for three free "retro-clone" rulebooks and expanded combat, saving throw, and other tables. Use these rules to expand your campaign in the WORLD OF STRONGHOLD or wherever your games are set! Note: this free download version does not contain art. Print version available at www.barrataria.com.

Someone Took a Dump in the Taverns D&D 5E Scrying Pool

Joe the Lawyer (and occasional shite stirrer - he says so himself) brought to my attention Monte Cook's latest column over at the WotC website. No links, as the iPad sucks for linking, but they are easy enough to find on your own.

In summary, D&D 5E is going to be modular, so you can add or subtract to it, and even players in the same campaign don't need to be playing with the same rules. My 0e fighter, your 3e cleric and her 4e wizzie can all play in my 5e game. Or something to that effect.

I can see players using less modules (or an earlier edition) then the GM, but I suspect whatever the default system the GM is using / emulating / has modules for is the maximum generation the PCs can use.

Still, all that's not the point. The point is this. In my 5e campaign, you could bring your Pathfinder character intact.

Well played WotC. Well played.

One game to rule them all, and in the basement bind them ;)

(the actual article from the WotC website)

Looking at the Past and the Future

Legends and Lore

Monte Cook

---

If you haven't already done so, please read this announcement from Mike Mearls.
So, now you have a little better idea what I've been working on. For many of you, what you already suspected has simply been confirmed. In any event, I can't tell you how exciting and challenging it’s been getting this project off the ground—and how thrilling it will continue to be as we move forward.

Of course, I'm not doing this alone. While I am working with a lot of great people at Wizards of the Coast in this endeavor, at this point in the process, I spend most of my time with two excellent designers, Bruce Cordell and Rob Schwalb. It's a team effort to be sure, and we’ll be including more talented designers, developers, and editors as things progress.
In the weeks and months ahead, I want to elaborate on some of the goals that Mike put forth in his announcement. This week, however, I just want to hit the highlights of what I think is particularly exciting about the development of the next iteration of the game.

First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to playDungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there.

In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so.
This new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. It's about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They're not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games. We talk about the green devil mouth in the Tomb of Horrors. The diabolical plans of Strahd in Ravenloft. The cowardly kobold Meepo in Sunless Citadel. These stories bring us together. As D&D players, we shouldn't allow rule preferences to separate us. In the end, we have a lot more in common than we have differences, even if some of us prefer the simple-yet-wahoo style of old school Basic D&D and others the carefully balanced elegance of 4th Edition—or anything in between.

So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire.

Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.

Finally, we're seeking your feedback to help guide us as we move ahead. You can play a part in shaping the direction of D&D. I can't stress this enough. We're going to be doing extensive playtesting and engaging in open discussion about our ideas for this iteration of D&D. We want real feedback from our players, because if the goal is to make a game that all D&D players want to play, it's not going to work unless we actually hear from a wide variety of D&D players. So tell your friends. Tell the guy down the street who still plays OD&D. Tell the girl at the game store who left D&D to play other systems. We want to hear from them too. Spread the word!

Time For Some Paranoid Reading

Allen Varney was kind enough to give me three of his novels (in Kindle format) set in the Paranoia game setting to review. It's nice and slow at work today, so I expect I'll actually take a meal away from my desk and get some reading in.

I have high hopes for the novels. If they can hit anywhere near the humor and lunacy of the 1st Edition Paranoia Boxed Set, the man will have a winning set of novels.

Hopefully the Computer won't notice this post...

Getting My Game On

I'm pretty psyched as I'll be back to regular gaming this coming Saturday via Google+ Hangout.  I've never actually gamed via G+ yet (and only used the Hangout feature once), so thankfully I'm a player and not a GM.

At the same time, I'm getting the itch to run a game myself.  I guess that kinda explains my afternoon of Virtual Table Top experimentation.  I've noticed that "simple" and "full featured" tend not to be in the same product despite the designers' best intentions.

I am most familiar with Fantasy Grounds, but as a player, not a GM.  You can hand hold a player, but you can't hand hold the guy running the show.  BattleGroundsRPG is something I purchased a while ago, and it's come long way.  I think I need to watch the training videos for both of these, as I always learn better watching over reading.

And yes, I'll check out MapTools again, although I was never all that found of it's set up.  And Epic Table.  And D20Pro.  Klooge is so ugly even with the floating licenses I have I'll probably never use it.  Oh, and iTableTop (did they drop the Pandoren label now?)

I'm still juggling systems in my head.  So much coolness to choose from I probably can't go wrong ;)

Best Laid Plans (and all that crap)

So, the wife was out with her friends this afternoon, and my intent was to get a Feltothraxis video done, maybe some reading, write the next post from Saturday Knight Special... you know.  Be productive.

Instead I spent some time online with Star Wars - The Old Republic (because my son is out-leveling my ass) and a heck of a lot of time tooling around with various Virtual Table Tops.  Now that I have my iMac botcamped, I can use Windows and OSX programs.

I was never able to get Fantasy Grounds to work via Crossover, nor was I able to get Battlegrounds RPG running on OSX, so having access to two of the big guys is very helpful (and distracting).  And others.  So many others. 

Well, that and I was checking out all the new blogs that were brought to my attention.  I need to redo my Blog Roll in sections to make it a bit more manageable.

Mini Review - Toys For the Sandbox: Apothecary (Generic / Sandbox)

Toys For the Sandbox: Apothecary is another, short, sandbox scenario from Occult Moon.  Like Fairy Glade, it comes in at 4 pages for 99 cents.

As in Fairy Glade, it packs a lot into 3 pages (remove one for the cover).  Background and keyed map of the shop is one page, six different hooks each with three different ways to play them is another and the NPC write ups and encounter and rumor tables are the last page.

What I really like about this series so far is that most of the hooks and twists can be reused, or rather, used later.  If you're a GM that likes to work of the cuff, a sentence or two may be all you need to get your creative juices flowing in the right direction.  So yes, it's one adventure, but in reality it's at least 18 seeds for your imagination.  Well worth your 99 cents.

From the Blurb:


It is Game Night, you have spent the week developing an adventure for that will blow the party’s mind. Then it happens, they zig when you thought they would zag, and wind up traveling away from the dungeon you spent all week making.


Toys for the Sandbox is here to help. Each one contains a map, named NPCs, rumors, encounters and plot hooks all centered on a different location. With Toys for the Sandbox you can look prepared even when you are not.