Reboot - Restarting the Campaign

Our DM got frustrated with the rules last Saturday and asked for someone else to take the reins.  To tell the truth, last week I wasn't even sure if there was going to be a game tonight.  I knew I wasn't going to be stepping up - I have a plan as to start running two campaigns myself in the next month or so, a third will kill me ;)

Luckily, one of the other players stepped up to take on the DM's Mantle.  I'm sticking with my Dwarven Cleric - no need to reroll or rebuild this way and I already have his personality sorted out, such as it is.

So, it's a new start, new DM, new campaign - same PC.

Should be fun :)

Real Dwarven Ale - Burdisson's Dwarven Ale

Have I mentioned in the past that my brother in law is a regional manager at one of the larger beer distributors in the NYC metro area?  Well, he is, and at times it has some pretty cool benefits.

Fantasy Brewmasters from Garrattsville, NY have released Burdisson's Dwarven Ale.  To my taste buds, it similar to a winter brew, although I am sure real beer fans can break that down more than I can.  It's a tasty brew, but I don't think I could have more than two in a sitting, as it feel kinda heavy.

If your state allows for beer to be shipped to your door, they'll arrange to have it shipped to you.

www.dwarfbrew.com

Picking Nits From Mike Mearl's Blog Post - Save or Die II - Die and Die Again!

Tell Me This Isn't a Save or Die Situation

Mike posted this on Tuesday as a follow up to his weekly column post on Save or Die - lets see what his further thoughts are, shall we?

Last week, I wrote about save or die mechanics in D&D and how I might approach them in my home campaign (let's call it what it is - a test to see if these mechanics will work in D&D 5e). There have been a lot of interesting discussions online about the mechanics and the general role of save or die in campaigns (yep, on a few blogs that I noticed- might be nice if you would link some of the discussions Mike).

Regarding 4E-Style Save or Die: The hit point threshold actually follows this model fairly closely. It simplifies things by focusing only on hit points rather than leaning exclusively on status effects (but it complicates things compared to regular / classic Save or Die effects). Status effects can come into play as needed rather than as a default. (this makes no sense to me.  does this mean we have a choice in when to use them?)

Using hit points also makes the steps between the beginning of a save or die sequence and its end less predictable.  Sometimes an effect might take a while to overwhelm you, while other times it takes a few attacks or failed saves for it to set in (sweet - I love extra stuff to have to track as a DM). It also means that healing a character is a good way to ward off a save or die effect that is wearing him or her down (so as long as I'm being healed I can stare the basilisk in the eyes?).

Save or Die and Scaling: The really nice thing about using hit points is that it allows monsters to scale much better. If a basilisk is a mid-level threat, it poses less of a threat to a high-level adventurer or a powerful monster (it would be less of a threat even without the "hit point power save or possibly if you are really unlock die".  As you level your chance to kill it quicker goes up, as well as your chance to save.  So I again fail to see the need to redefine Save or Die). In terms of world building, it helps explain why there is a hierarchy of monsters. (HUH?  WTF?  That needs an explanation). In terms of spells or other character abilities, it means that save or die can exist at lower levels without crowding out other options, even higher level ones. (okay, don't bother to explain)

Save or Die in Campaigns: Ideally, we can find an expression of stuff such as a medusa’s gaze or a ghoul’s touch that adds tension to the game without distorting things (I don't understand.  Heck, there's a lot I don't understand with Mike's approach). Things that are strictly save or die can be kept in a few monsters, allowing DMs to use them as they see fit (if you don't like save or die in your campaigns, don't use monsters or poisons or magic that has that effect). For character abilities, I have a hard time seeing a strict “roll well or die” ability in the game short of the very highest levels. One of the headaches of high-level D&D is that a caster can load up on save or die (or its cousin, save or suck), load up on feats to mess with saving throws, and take out creatures with a single action or a short sequence of actions (spells that cause damage aren't going to have the same effect at high levels?  am I missing something?). I much prefer abilities that require a build up or some sort of threshold, rather than leaning on a single die roll on the first round of combat to determine who wins.

Ideally, players don’t have access to “I win” buttons and DMs can use save or die as they see fit in their campaigns  (isn't it the same thing if the DM has access to "I Win buttons"?).

Why Hit Points? I have to admit that the idea of using hit points came from my 4th Edition campaign. In one adventure, the characters explored a temple of an evil earth deity. In the main temple, there was a set of statues with glowing, gem eyes that turned heretics to stone. The 4E mechanic of characters slowly turning to stone worked well, especially when combined with the earth elementals and skeletons that attacked the party.

I felt that in play, however, the threats posed by the trap and the monsters were too separate. The cleric was using actions to heal other characters and grant them more saves. A character could be in danger from one source but safe from the other. The encounter felt a little disjointed. My hope is that by focusing on hit points, that sort of encounter would feel more dangerous (I don't know 4e from shine-ola.  Healing grants more saves?  I thought Second Wind was healing in 4e.  I'm really fucking lost now)

In game terms, I imagine that the statues would either attack or force a saving throw from a character, inflicting damage as the character is slowly turned to stone (so they can attack OR force a save for damage?  how does that work?) If the damage reduces the character below a certain threshold, he or she has to make another save or be petrified (I'm really so not looking forward to having to track yet another thing during the game as a DM.  I thought 5e was going to simplify things).

In Summary: Save or die is obviously a topic that polarizes people (no shit!). It’s one of the many areas where we’re looking to players and DMs to give us feedback (no you don't.  you just want people to take stupid polls so they can be happy with the stroke job.  The polls are worthless). The material I wrote about earlier this week, and the ideas I put forward in later columns, are starting points. The game is a work in progress, and it won’t be complete without a thorough play test. (here's the thing though - we only get these little snippets that they throw out there for "discussion" and "polling".  What about the other 99% of the tweaks that we won't hear about until it's too late to make a change?)

Free OSR - Myth & Magic (AD&D 2e Clone - Kinda)

Myth & Magic hit the virtual bookshelves at RPGNow today.  It bills itself as inspired by AD&D 2E, with new bells and whistles bolted on.  I haven't given it much more than a cursory examination at this point, but it doesn't seem to hew too close to the original source to my glance.

Stat bonuses don't line up and bonus spells for high stats seems excessive (I'd have to break out my 2e rules to verify the bonus spell part).

It looks to be professionally put together and I would call the PDF "printer friendly".  It comes in 2 volumes:  a Player's Starter Guide and a Gamemaster's Starter Guide.  It only covers up to level 10, so I suspect there will be more to come later.

I'll try to give Myth & Magic a review over the next few days, but with Savage Worlds on my plate to read and my travels through the OD&D White Box, I might not get that chance for a while.  Still, the books are free, so if you have the inclination to read it, there's no risk involved ;)

From the blurb:

Myth & Magic is an update and expansion to the 2nd Edition of the World’s Most Popular Roleplaying Game. It maintains the tone and atmosphere for classic storytelling, yet cleans up and modernizes some of the rules with new and improved mechanics.  We here at NHG started our gaming careers in the 1989 rules. We have tremendous love for that edition and that love is evident in the quality of the Myth & Magic experience. For anyone who has played 2E and enjoyed the countless avenues a good story and some good friends can take in a campaign, you will love Myth & Magic. For anyone who missed the 2E experience, Myth & Magic is a must-play. The 2E experience is unique and Myth & Magic does a great job of preserving that experience while providing a fresh set of rules.

The Player's Starter Guide contains ten levels worth of gaming goodness for the cleric, fighter, thief and wizard. At 148 pages, it is a mere taste of what is to come.

Download it now and then hop over to newhavengames.com to share your experiences and gain access to exclusive member content.

Join the Campaign!

The Original 7 - Dungeons & Dragons "White Box" - Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff

Book 2 of the 3 volume set of the D&D "White Box is titled Monsters & Treasure.  Within we will see what we can kill, and the kinds of loot we may find when we kill things.  Huzzah!

One thing I never realized until today, even though it has literally stared me in the face since I started reading the little 3 booklets, is the subheading under "Dungeons & Dragons" on each of the cover pages:

Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures

See, the first RPG didn't even know it was a role playing game.  It was a war-game, just played on a different scale than most.  Never doubt the war-game roots of RPGs, as they are deep and strong.

Anyhow, back to Book 2.

We are given our monsters as a list which is vaguely grouped by type.  The list takes up two pages, and goes from left to right with the following headers:

Monster Type   # Appearing   Armor Class  Move in Inches  Hit Die  % in Liar  Type or Amount of
                                                                                                                                         Treasure

Notice the "% in Liar".  That's not a typo.  Or rather, it is a typo, but from the original source.  This % in Lair crap carried over to AD&D.  I didn't see it's use then, I don't see it now.  Ah well.

Monster descriptions are generally two to three sentences long, although some (like dragons) are major exceptions.  More than a handful refer the reader to Chainmail for further info.      

I like the description of the Gray Ooze, it part because it makes little sense:

A seeping horror which closely resembles wet stone and is thus difficult to detect. (if it is in an area with wet stone.  put it on a wooden floor and it becomes obvious) It will not be spread by non-harmful weaponry (what the hell does this mean?  is it spread like butter otherwise?  what the f' is "non-harmful weaponry"?), but it is subject only to lightning bolts or cuts and chops by weaponry, for it is impervious to cold or fire.  It does not harm wood or stone, but it corrodes metal at the same rate that Black Pudding does (so those weapons you used to kill it?  gone...).  It does two dice damage to exposed flesh for every turn it is in contact with it.  This sucker kicks ass and takes name.  Evil, evil little beast.               

Treasure Types Table - these never made sense to me in any version of the game and I don't recall published adventures ever appearing to follow these tables.  I will admit to using the ones in AD&D back in my teen years, but than I was also putting mature dragons in 10' square rooms and allowing the party to fully engage.  Still, if I was going to pick my favorite treasure type, I'd choose "H".  Best chance of hitting Megamillions (alright, 10's of thousands of GPs)

(i'll pick up with the magic treasures in the next part)

Damn You Happy Jack's Podcast! I am a Step Closer to Being Savaged!

The f'ers over at the Happy Jack's podcast are big Savage Worlds fans.  Really big.  They do play other games (Traveller, D&D 4e and such) but their favorite game system is Savage Worlds.

I've been pretty steadfast in my "I will not be running a Savage Worlds campaign" mantra, but the boys have been wearing me down.  Listening to last falls podcast with Shane Hensley (Savage Worlds author) certainly didn't help.  I found myself ordering a dead tree copy of the Savage Worlds Deluxe ruleset from Amazon, despite the fact that I already have a PDF copy.

I know the rules are good and fairly flexible.  I know there are a bunch of different genre sourcebooks for it.  Heck, I have some of the classic ones (I like the concept of EverNight, but it's such a damn rail road I don't think I could stomach running it).

Ah well, I can always leave the book handy for bathroom reading ;)

The Core 4 Classes - Less 1

We're starting up a new campaign this weekend using just the 4 core classes, and it got me thinking that in the OD&D Boxed set there were just 3 core classes - thieves didn't exist yet.

What roles did thieves fill that wasn't filled prior to their introduction?

Trap Finding? A 10' pole and some cautious players will do much better than a 1st level thief will in finding traps.

Trap Disabling? Same idea. Smart players will find ways to disable or harmlessly set off traps.

Open locks? Isn't that what a hammer is for? As for locked doors, bring your crow bar.

Climb Walls? How many walls are being climbed in dungeons anyway?

Hear Noise? Make sure you have an elf in the party and you are covered.

Pick Pockets? More trouble than it's worth.

Backstab? Almost impossible to set up in the older systems.

I've grown accustomed to thieves in the party, but it's the once core class who's absence probably won't be missed.

D&D Next - This One Goes To...

In Spinal Tap, the amp in question went to eleven.  From what little we've seen discussed about D&D Next, the new edition doesn't look to be amping up the character power like 4e did, but instead it seems to be ratcheting it back.

They want the basic monsters to be effective over a larger swath of levels.  Not by, apparently, giving us mooks, elites, bosses and such, but by actually having the base monster be an effective threat over multiple levels.

The only way you can accomplish this is by doing away with, or greatly slowing down, the THAC0 (to-hit) increases that the classes get.  Gone are the days of +1 per level to all the classes like you see in 4e.  I suspect that the +1  per level that fighters have gotten since AD&D is gone too.

The neutering of Save or Die mechanics.

The depowering of "Turn Undead".

The idea of set skill targets for skill challenges.  If the PC has a skill score that meets or beats the skill target, it's an automatic success.  No roll needed.  (this isn't empowering, it is disempowering - because the moment the skill target is out of reach, your chance of success is nearly nil).

The thing is, if they can keep characters leveling slower, or leveling at a somewhat normal speed with a slower increase to their actual power levels, no longer will modules be written for levels 1 - 3 but 1-6 or 1-8.  It's going to be a wide band, but I suspect those bands will have cut off points where the power level "jumps" to the next tier.

It almost seems as if someone on the design team spent some time reading up on E6, the game inside D&D.  They want to keep the game at it's initial sweet spot, then they will jump it to the next tier and keep it at that sweet spot, and so on.  Yes, I'm talking outa my ass... I know that.  That being said, I strongly suspect I am right on this.

Bring Out Your (Un)Dead!

Mike Mearls is looking at giving the Turn Undead ability of clerics a major reworking in D&D Next. I find myself still asking the question "Why"? in many forms...

Why make a fairly simple and easy to resolve power more complicated?

Why make a historically much maligned class even less desirable to play?

Why add an effect to each undead monster description that applies to an effect generated by only one class?

Why do we need two types of each undead monster ("natural" and "summoned")?

Why fix what isn't broken?

Why is Mike trying to make a Dawn of the Undead Dragons RPG? Why not use the acronym DUD? ;)

Why is it that designers that claim to understand Old School D&D are doing their damnedest to remove Old School D&D from D&D Next?

Picking Nits From Mike Mearl's Latest Column - Turning & Churning

you can see the original article here

---

Clerics have been able to turn undead since the earliest days of the game. (which was useful, especially when Clerics couldn't cast spells at 1st level) Of course, that doesn't mean I like the turn undead mechanics. I have to admit that I am horribly biased. I love undead monsters. I have more painted undead metal minis than any other type of critter. (That's because undead are some of the easiest miniatures to paint ;) Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite all-time movies. There's something compelling about a creepy, ancient crypt, but nothing kills that sense of dread and fear for me like a cleric flicking his or her holy symbol at the endless, devouring hordes of the living dead and turning them into piles of ash or, even worse in my eyes, the equivalent of whimpering puppies. (but this is one area (offensively) where Clerics always had the chance to shine...) Dragons and orcs get to keep their dignity in defeat. Why must my carefully painted undead (see, like I said - easier to pain than the living) cower in terror at the sight of a holy symbol?


As I'm starting up my D&D campaign (as I described last week), I've decided to introduce a new take on turn undead. I've created it to fill what I see as the role the ability plays in the world of D&D. Here are the key beats I want to hit:

• I like the literal idea of turning, as in turning away the undead from the cleric rather than blasting them with holy energy. (they only get blasted when the cleric is much more powerful than the undead - in which case, they probably weren't much of a threat in the first place)
• When undead show up, the cleric's first impulse should be to at least consider turning them. On the other side of the screen, the DM shouldn't feel that turning makes undead-themed adventures a chore to create. (it's no more a chore than any other type of adventure)
• The mechanic must be both simple to use and something that makes undead-heavy adventures more interesting with a cleric, rather than simply easier (again, if the cleric and the undead are equal, the cleric will only succeed half the time or so and even then it's just to flee- I don't see the issue here).
• Turn undead is its own thing. It's not a specific use of a channel energy type ability, which goes away under my rules (that's fine.  all that shit got introduced in 3e and 4e and aint my bag anyway).

In my mind, the challenge with turning undead is that it has morphed over time from a tool to ward off skeletons and zombies to a sort of fireball tuned specifically for the undead. (the undead get blasted when the result is automatic in 1e, which means the cleric greatly outleveles the undead in question.  where is the problem?) That progression makes a lot of sense. It's fun to blast monsters! On the other hand, I think having turn undead work like a fireball makes turning a little too much like a spell (maybe the fireballing undead issue is a 3e or 4e problem...). In my mind, turn undead should either become a spell or become something unique. I've opted for the latter in my home game. Here's what I have:


When a cleric attempts to turn the undead, he or she makes a Charisma check (presumably with a bonus based on cleric level—maybe +1 per 2 levels?). All the undead within a 30-foot cone in front of the cleric are subject to the turn attempt. Each undead creature has a turn DC embedded in its description. If the cleric succeeds against a creature, the creature suffers the effects described alongside its turn DC. If the check fails, the cleric's attempts to turn that specific creature automatically fail for the next 24 hours.  (so, I  guess going back to the old turning charts is outa the question?  sorry, just asking)


This approach places the effects related to a turn attempt within the individual creature's description, which allows DMs and designers to determine what happens when you turn a specific type of undead monster. Here are some examples that I've created:


Skeletons and Zombies: They can do nothing but move away from the cleric, and they stop moving when they can't see the cleric anymore. If attacked, the turn effect immediately ends.  (so, level 10 cleric, level 1 skelli - Get running bag o' bones, cause I can't turns you to dust no more!)


Ghouls: Ghouls move at least 20 feet away from the cleric and they approach no closer. They can take all other actions (including ranged attacks if they have them) as normal.  (i'm detecting the neutering of the cleric.  damn, I could never get anyone to play a cleric in my AD&D campaigns and I see less of a reason here)


Ghosts: Ghosts phase out of existence for 5 minutes. If they are possessing a creature, that effect ends. (so, turning doesn't do anything more than putting the problem off until later)


Keep in mind that these are rough and serve more to show that each undead creature has its own DC and special effect when turned. I haven't considered durations yet, and I haven't decided whether the cleric has to keep spending effort to ward away the undead (excellent idea- make the cleric really useless).
I like this approach for a few reasons:

• We can create effects that are useful but that don't give an automatic victory to the cleric. In most cases, turning is a good tool for evading or escaping the undead. (again, by removing one of the few ways a cleric can shine while not playing a healbot role, you are giving less reasons to play a cleric)
• The cleric player needs to learn only one simple mechanic (are players really so dumb they can't handle a slightly more complicate and fulfilling game mechanic?). The DM has the effects of turning embedded in a stat block.

The first point is really big for me. As I mentioned earlier, I love using undead in my adventures. I think the first point resolves the tension between making turning useful and preventing turning from becoming overpowered. Ideally, clerics see turning undead as a way to gain an advantage over the undead—a tool used to help achieve success rather than an "I win" button (it was only an "i win" button when the clerics greatly out powered the undead in the first place.  mike, how is it that you just don't get that simple fact?)

What about evil clerics? Traditionally, turning has allowed them to seize control of the undead. I thought about that a bit, and my thoughts veered to the spell animate dead. Rather than allow evil clerics to control vampires and other intelligent undead, why not build a rule into the spell or ritual that sets a DC for others who attempt to control such undead? That same DC could also allow good or neutral clerics to undo the spell and dust the undead (wait, I thought clerics couldn't "dust" the undead?). With this rule, we keep the idea of destroying undead but limit it to effects created by spells or rituals. This rule also marks a big difference between undead created by a caster and those that have other origins. (oh lord.  yeah, that certainly simplifies shit.  let's use 2 methods.  let's see:  these skeletons run away - they're "natural undead".  These other skeletons go up in flames - there must be an evil necromancer nearby.  mike, you are over thinking this shit)

When expanding on the concept of building a rule for controlling undead into a spell or ritual, I like the idea of including similar mechanics in spells or rituals that allow casters to summon and bind undead (sweet, so evil PCs are definitely in the game). For example, a creature that you can summon or bind might have both a DC and the benefits for binding that creature included in its description (now we are getting into dangerous territory mike.  i thought WotC like keeping things safe in the 4e era). I always liked the references to true names, compelling demonic service, and so forth in older editions. In some ways, by giving concrete benefits for binding a vrock, you might tempt more PC casters into trying it (assuming alignment doesn't have much bearing on the game, sure.  good and neutral PCs binding devils and demons?  Has Carcosa embedded itself in D&D Next?). Even better, those benefits don't have to be only that "the monster fights for you" but instead can be more flavorful and subtle. A vrock can grant you the ability to fly, and a devil might give you better stats, a magic item, or magical abilities as part of a bargain. This topic goes beyond turning undead, but it's something I'll think about more as I plan my campaign.

Mike is highlighting change for the sake of change, and calls it a simplification which he immediately follows by a huge complicate (2 types of undead - natural and summoned).


Recipe for metagaming and a neutering of clerics.  But that's okay, because Mike is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist in the earlier editions of the game.


I

How Dungeons & Dragons Online Ruined Me For 3.5E

I was thinking that nearly all of my experience with 3.5e was via DDO. Not good.

Spell Points, not Spell Slots - how can a game call itself D&D and not have Vancian Magic (yeah, yeah -4e. whatever)?

Bardic Superman - use all weapons, heal, color spray and fascinate. I like bards, but this was too optimized.

Rogue 1 plus any other class - were Rogues ever really needed in DDO?

Repetition - how many times can you complete the same adventure? To infinity and beyond - almost.

Yeah, I know it's gone free to play. I'm actually surprised that it survived the 4e age. I can't imagine it will still be kicking when D&D Next arrives.

The Original 7 - Dungeons & Dragons "White Box" - And So It Begins

Before I actually started the process of delving neck deep into the Original 7 RPGs, I thought about the scholarly approach I was going to take.  Let me start right now by saying "that shit ain't happening!"  Or, it may, but only as circumstances permit.  I find myself enjoying my trip far too much to make this a purely scholarly project.

In any case, I've been working my way through Dungeons & Dragons Volume 1 - Men and Magic, and finding the nuggets that, to my eyes, are the most insightful.

Number of Players:  At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts.  (holy shit!  50 players?!?  1 ref to every 20 players ?!?  I have trouble running a game with more than 5 sitting at my table these days)

Under Recommended Equipment - Imagination and 1 Patient Referee ;)

Elves:  They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users.  (as elves swapped out their classes, choosing between being fighters and magic-users in between adventures, the magic armor perk is pretty powerful)

Other Character Types:  There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided that they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begging as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.  (hmmm... by the time AD&D was introduced, this little gem was forgotten.)

Strength gives no bonus to hit or damage.

6 levels of Magic-User spells and 5 levels of Cleric spells take up 11 1/2 pages.  About one spell level per page.  Digest sized.  How come we can't write stuff as concisely these days?

Apocalypse World - It DOES Play Better Than It Is Written

Last night I played in a session of Apocalypse World GM'ed by Charles Jaimet (who's working on an excellent gaming interface for G+ Hangout). It was certainly a wee bit intimidating to be in a group containing Greg Christopher(Chubby Funster), Tavis Allison (ACKS) and Peter Adkison (GenCon, former owner of WotC). I just tried to hold my own ;)

It was one of the best roleplaying experiences I can recall being a part of. Obviously the group of players involved was a major part of that, but I must admit, the system was too.

Apocalypse World pretty much forces your to role-play, but in such a natural manner you hardly even realize it.

I stand behind my earlier comments about the presentation and writing of AW - it is so hard to work your way through the rules that I had to put them down multiple through sheer frustration. Someone needs to do a rewrite to make it user friendly. Still, as many told me earlier, it plays so much better than it reads. I stand partially corrected ;)

An Early Spring, Complete With Hiccups

I'm not even sure if winter ever fully settled in this year.  Very little snow, no ice - heck, I never even broke out my winter jacket.  I survived with my fall fleece (although I doubled up on the fleece a handful of days).

Now it's March 11th and my front yard is in full bloom.  This is NYC, mind you, so I'm just happy I have a front yard that can grow flowers ;)

Spring often brings new and / or fresh starts, which I might be looking for.  Looks like the Saturday Night game is wrapping up, not due to any sort of player issues but more to the tune of "system issues".  It's been a great group to play with and the party truly gelled but no one is all that satisfied with the system.  We'll see what happens next.

Hey, I wanted to start up a campaign or two in any case.  I may just have to accelerate the process ;)

Dwimmermount & ACKS - A Perfect Fit

I really have my fingers in too many Kickstarter Projects those days.  Well, at least my monetary fingers, as I have found way too many projects to support these days.  I'm not complaining, mind you. If the projects weren't awesome, I wouldn't be supporting them.

Dwimmermount is James Mal's homebrewed megadungeon that is seeing the publishing light of day with the help of Tavis from Autarch, better known as the company that brought us the Adventurer Conqueror Kings System.  I think Dwimmermount might have set a Kickstarter record for the speed it which it met it's primary funding goal ;)

Dwimmermount will be released via Kickstarter in both Labyrinth Lord and ACKS flavors.

As a backer, I've gotten a peek already at some of the first level of Dwimmermount.  It's damn nice.  Lets see, if I uses ACKS as the system, Dwimmermount and Barrowmaze as the two megadungeons, Christian's Hex 000 hex crawling sandbox setting from Loviatar and The Toys For the Sandbox to fill in when needed - I going to have a pretty rocking campaign.

I may need to start this before the Querp campaign I was thinking of...

Mini Review - Toys For The Sandbox #7: The Coachman's Inn

I'm a big fan of the Toys For the Sandbox series and have been since the first one.  The fine folks at Occult Moon Games also have added a free "# 00" to the series, so you can always check it out for free to see if you may like the series.

Alright, onward to The Coachman's Inn.  As usual, we get a map, 6 possible hooks (each with 3 possible twists), 4 NPCs, a rumor table and random table for special items available on the market.  The usual good stuff from the Toys For the Sandbox series.

What's really nice about The Coachman's Inn is that the plot hooks could work at pretty much any inn or tavern, they aren't limited to the scenario / setting presented.

If I have one complaint, and it's minor, is that the default location calls for The Coachman's Inn to lie at a sort of neutral ground where the borders of four kingdoms meet.  While it sounds kinda neat in theory, it's also damn rare, especially when boundaries would usually follow terrain features.  Easy enough to hand wave away, but when you are trying to make something easy to drop into a campaign, less detailed... details... would have worked better.

Still, love the hooks and the twists.  Overall, another excellent effort (with the one minor quibble).

Feast or Famine - At What Point Do You Have to Say "No" to Gaming?

I went though a number of years where I wasn't able to get any table top RPGing in.  Whether it was face to face or a virtual table top, my gaming was nonexistent.

From there I found myself some fairly regular gaming via Fantasy Grounds, which was cool while it lasted.  I followed that up with a dry spell.

Virtually the same week I started playing in a weekly D&D game via G+ Hangout I also started attending weekly sessions of Games That Can Not Be Named.  I went from no gaming to gaming twice a week, and an opportunity for a third session - my wife, who had encouraged me to get myself back into gaming, would have rightfully killed me if I had opted for the third.

I'm down to just the Saturday night game now, so when I was offered a spot in a Apocalypse World game this sunday night via G+ Hangout with some really great gamers (more on that after the game) I couldn't say no.  I guess I'll see if it really does play better than the mess it is written as ;)

Mere hours afterwards, I got an invite to James Mal's Dwimmermount game for tonight via G+ Hangout.  Hangout is outa control!  heh.  I had to pass until a later time with James, as gaming all three nights on the weekend would have gotten me some wife agro.  I might be knew to this, but I'm a quick learner.

So, what's your weekly limit of gaming goodness?

Mini Review - Loviatar #8

Christian has outdone himself with the latest issue of Loviatar.  Not only is the cover awesome but the contents rise up to the same standard.  Nicely done.

Issue 8 is an "All Hex Crawl" issue (just like Issue 7 was).  It isn't what Christian set out to do, but sometimes these things write themselves, and this one certainly did, to the tune of 24 pages Basic D&D goodness.

Issue 8 wins hands down with the NPC personalities presented.  They are so well rounded, as a GM I could play them without hesitation.  I know what they think and why and how they will react to the PCs with just a few short paragraphs of description.  They feel alive.

Personally, I've always Otyughs as a means of garbage disposal.  This issue shows a town's innovative use of such, and the dung they get in return.  Oh, and "high hobbits" and the return of the gnomes ;)
 
The latest issue details Hex 004 (the previous 3 issues gave us hexes 001-003).  If you haven't yet started reading Loviatar, you are missing out on a very organic sandbox setting that you can witness the birth off.

Besides, it's just 3.50 an issue (much less if you subscribe).  He mails it to you.  It's on actual goddamn paper!  What are you waiting for?

Monster Stock Art & Minis Kickstarter is in It's Final Stretch

As I type this, there are 5 days left in the Monster Stock Art & Minis Kickstarter Campaign.  It's already hit it's second stretch goal, and the third is in sight.

I'm in on the high end, as I do have plans to write and publish gaming stuff at some point, even if it is a bit further down the line than even "remotely soon".  I just like to plan things out well in advance when I can.

I also bit at the 400 laminated miniatures for 25 bucks.  I don't think I could hope to meet that price for the quality art being used.  Besides, I have neither the time, money or space to buy and paint 400 metal miniatures.  For that, I'd have to outsource, like the Chivalry & Sorcery blog discusses here ;)  (more on this later).

Here's some of the latest pieces of art from the Kickstarter Project:

Mini Review - Hammerax: The Ancient World

Hammerax: The Ancient World is a RPG setting that is powered by QUERP.  You don't need to pick up Querp to run it, as everything you need is self contained.  So in a sense, it is both a setting and an RPG.

This is a world where pretty much every fantasy race you can think of has been killed off.  No halflings, dwarves or elves - but their ruins remain, as do their artifacts.  It's an interesting twist on a humo-centric setting while still keeping (distant) roots to the usual fantasy tropes.

For me, I could have done with less space used on world history and more on the current timeframe, but I understand why it was done.  The intention is to allow the GM to tweak the current setting to his needs.  I do, however, have "lazy GM tendencies", and would have preferred a bit more in depth for the current timeframe.

The new classes added to the QUERP lineup are decent, and certainly fit the setting.  I would suggest using the core classes from Querp (if you have it) for the majority of the NPC, as I suspect not every skilled character will be as specialized as the classes in Hammerax.

I do have issues, one minor, the other less so.

The minor issue is the warding of expo in half points and points, but spending it in whole numbers.  This is a carry over from QUERP.  You can easily fix the half point problem by doubling improvement costs, and awarding expo in whole numbers.  The human mind does not like fractions.

The other issue isn't so minor.  For me, it's damn annoying.  I've bitched about this before, but presentation goes a long way, and artsy for the sake of artsy is not a selling point, and it pleases no one but the person who is being artsy.

What am I talking about this time?  Not the style of writing, which is fine.  It's how some of that writing is presented.  The damn Title Font that was used should be taken out and shot.  I shouldn't have to decipher each section title as I come to it simply because someone thought it would look cool.  It might look cool, but it's damn near impossible to read and its everywhere in this book, often multiple times per page.  Enough.  Please.  Reading should not be turned into a chore.  (edit: I'm going from the dead tree version - I see based on a review over at RPGNow that the issue has been corrected in the PDF version.  So, I'm going to suggest you pass on the dead tree version and stick with PDF in this case, even for you print -grognards out there)

So, overall Hammerax is a nice self contained setting for someone that wants to give QUERP a look, as everything you need to run a campaign is here - system, setting, a solo adventure and a group adventure.

Looking Back at Dragon Dice

I remember when Dragon Dice came out.  I must have bought 2 or 3 sets, with the expectation they would be a hit amongst my gaming group.

They weren't.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they weren't a big hit anywhere.  TSR's attempt to cash in on the Magic the Gathering craze wasn't the success they were hoping it would be.  Amazingly enough, there is another company that has picked up the rights to Dragon Dice and are selling (relatively?) new sets for it.

My dice are long gone, except for 1 or 2, so I splurged and grabbed an incomplete set from ebay.  If nothing else, the d8s can still be used in a regular gaming session as they are numbered.  If they had only numbered the other sizes I could be adding some sweet looking dice to my tabletop gaming sessions ;)

Free Toys For the Sandbox: Wizards Tower

Yep, the fine folks over at Occult Moon are giving away their latest Toys For the Sandbox:  Wizard Tower for free.  You heard that right.  Free.

Now, truth be told they cost less than a buck each normally, which is a bargain and a half.  If you read this blog of mine, you know I love the series.  Heck, I even gave away 10 copies in my latest contest - winners got to choose their pick.

Today, Occult Moon gives their latest away for free.  There's a bonus involved too.  If they can get 250 downloads in the first 24 hours, the folks that picked up their free copy in those 24 hours will be receiving a second Toys For the Sandbox for free.  That second one will be an exclusive for those that helps hit the 250 mark.  How's that for an incentive to try something that is free?

Get one free... and get another for free ;)

Hey, I want my exclusive!  So go get some!

Best Laid Plans and All That Crap

I felt like crap when I went to bed last night - the cold from hell had hit on Sunday night and yesterday it was in full swing.

Last night I had some bouts of the sweats, which I usually get when I have a cold that breaks.  When I woke, I figured I'd play it safe and take a personal day, get some stuff done around the house, read some gaming material, possibly start writing the OD&D post for the Original 7 Series.

You know, the good stuff.

Than my wife decided to take the day off too.

I got nothing done and I still have a damn cold.

Sigh.

I'll see if I can get some reading done before I crash early tonight.  Heck, lets see if I even make it to work tomorrow.

As a side note, the wife was happy with the company ;)

The Problem With The Paladin's Detect Evil Power in AD&D

As I flip through my newly acquired second copy of the AD&D Player's Handbook, I find myself stopping on page 23.  You know the page.  I shouldn't have to tell you.  One of the most famous AD&D Core Books pieces of art - A Paladin in Hell.  I just love it.  The only problem with it?  The Paladin.

Why is the Paladin a problem.  You mean, besides the minimum scores of Int 9, Con 9, Str 12, Wis 13 and Cha 17?  Try rolling that with best 3 out of 4d6.  You be there for a nice long time.  So as kids, we cheated.  Still, that's not the big problem.  The big problem?  Detect Evil.

Detect evil at up to 60' distance, as often as desired, but only when the Paladin in concentrating on the presence of evil and seeking to detect it in the right general direction.

What is he, Green Lantern? "No evil shall escape my sight"

Think about it.  You'll (as a DM) never be able to infiltrate the party with an evil NPC.  Every character, every creature he encounters, he can just plop his detection power on and and weed out the evil.  He's more effective than a black light at a crime scene.

At least with Detect Magic, it's a spell that has to be memorized.  It eats up a spell slot.  It has limited uses - it's not at will.

Detect Invisibility, Detect Illusion, even Detect Lie - all take a spell slot, all have fairly limited uses (but work really well when they are on target).

Why the hell did Paladins get this as an at will power?  The issues to game balance are huge.  Not that I thought about that was as a kid, but today I'd be Detecting Evil behind every door, before I make any turn in a corridor, before I gave the stable big my horse.

I'll rant about the continuing emanation of a Protection From Evil in a 1" radius around the Paladin later (is that 1" as in an inch, or 1" as in AD&D 10'?).

All this and a cold from hell.  I could have used that Protection From Evil shit, or the immunity to disease.  Sigh.

Whats the Big Deal About Save or Die Anyway?

Mike Mearl's Column from yesterday (which I commented on - but I'm using an iPad, so no links - just look at yesterday's posts) was about the good old Save or Die! effects.

While Mike seems to like them, as they add spices, stress and drama to The Game, he also stresses that the fighter dropping to a Save or Die effect can open the party to a TPK.

So what?

How is that different than the fighter dropping due to loss of Hit Points? Same TPK risk (unless you are playing 4e, in which case there is little if any risk of the fighter, or anyone else, dropping).

Hmm, actually, when you drop due to HP loss, there is still a chance to save you until -10 hp, or neg con hp, or whatever 4e uses.

Maybe that's the change that could be made. Not so much Save or Die but Save or Drop. The poison doesn't kill outright, but it drops the fighter (or whoever) out of the fight and without prompt attention he will die. The petrification doesn't happen right away, but when the save is failed the body is motionless and in a few rounds will turn to stone. Time for dispel magic, or rock to flesh.

See, I think the issue isn't taking someone out of the encounter prematurely, its the idea of taking a character out of the campaign prematurely.

Obviously, a party will not have a counter effect for all Save or Down effects - which would progress to Die in a few rounds.

Eh, or maybe I'm just talking outta my ass.

I have no real issue with Save or Die! as long as it isn't overused. Once every 2 to 4 sessions, maybe. It is the great equalizer, but all things do not have to be equal.

Announcing the Winners of the 200+ Tavern Followers Contest - Name Your Favorite Non-OSR RPG

My God, but that was a long title :)

Alright, we have a total of 13 prizes to give away.  Between 27 entries on the blog, 12 entries via G+ and one via email.  That gives us an even 40 - d20 and a d6 for the win :)

First up is the $10 Gift Certificate to RPGNow - and the winner is - Drance!

Next is the Dead Tree copy of Castle of the Dead - A Tunnels & Trolls Solo.  As an unannounced bonus, I'm throwing in an original copy of T&T 4e (I have two) - The Tunnels & Trolls Print Combo goes to  - Tim Shorts!  (Tim will need to get me his snail mail address - everyone else will need to get me email addresses)

Next up is Red Tide for Labyrinth Lord - and the winner is - James Kennedy (over at G+)

Congrats folks!

Now for the winners of their pick of Toys For the Sandbox (follow the link and tell me which (1)one you want)

Sylvaeon


Matt


Kelvin Green


Michael Bolam


Red


Bob


Mythusmage


Andrew


Ben McKee (G+)


Christopher Wood (G+)


Congrats to all!

So, what you need to do is email me at erikATtrubluniteDOTnet

I need the email address that is associated with your RPGNow / DriveThruRPG account.  In the case of the gift certificate, you'll get an email from the kind folks at RPGNow with the certificate code you will use to enter the credit on your account.

For the rest, I need it so I can purchase the gift and have it applied to the account that matches your email.

Except for Tim.  He needs to send me his snail mail.

Be kinda and reply promptly, so I can save a little cash buying these at GM Day Sale prices ;)

Picking Nits From Mike Mearls Latest Column - Save or Die!

(Mike Mearls is playing the role of Monte Cook in today's Legends & Lore Column, which you can read in it's unadulterated form here)


It's been awhile since I've written an article like this for the community, so I thought it would be worth mentioning what I've been up to. As senior manager for the D&D R&D team, I'm in charge of overseeing the development of every D&D product. The next iteration of the game is currently the biggest thing on my plate (probably nearly all of the plate). As part of my job, I take a broad view of the project, with an eye toward making sure we're hitting our primary goal of building a game that can encompass a wide array of player and DM styles. As we move into the next stage of development, Monte is going to be even more focused on design, so I'm going to lighten his load and resume writing this column for the time being (is this an acknowledgement that Monte's posts were doing more harm that good with the marketing talk he was spewing?) This also gives me the chance to test out a few ideas I've been mulling over with the team.


Usually, I chime into the design process when the team is at a crossroads, when it faces some particularly vexing issue, or when it just wants additional ideas. That's where this article comes in. We haven't looked at the topic I'm addressing in this article in depth in the design process yet (as the article's title is Save or Die! it seems like a fairly big issue in the blogoshere - I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet in their design process), so I thought I would throw an idea out and see if it sticks.


First, to give you some insight into where I'm coming from, I take the idea of approaching the entirety of D&D's history very seriously. I'm about to start a new D&D campaign at the office, and I'm using the 1981 basic D&D rules as a starting point (now this is a fricking cool idea!). As I plan the campaign and (eventually) run adventures, I plan on making house rules, adopting rules from other editions, and shifting the rules to match how the game moves along (so, it's like a home-brewed 5e then). In some ways, it's a reality check against the ideas I see proposed for the next iteration. Would I want them in my campaign? Do they work for my group (as it's a group of fellow game designers, I'm not sure if it's an accurate reflection of the rpg player pool, but you work with what you got)?


Obviously, this represents only one DM and gaming group. The aim is to give myself a perspective just removed enough from the design work that I can strike a midpoint between the community of D&D fans and the people working on the game (eh, he answered my previous statement). With that in mind, I have a few issues that have come up in my prep work. I'd like to talk about one of them this week.


If you came to D&D with 4th Edition, you might not have heard someone say "save or die." (or "this encounter will take less than 4 hours to complete" or "TPK" or even "Holy Shit dude!  You died!  This is 4e, that ain't supposed to happen!")  It dates back to the earliest days of the game, where some traps, monster attacks, and spells required a successful saving throw or the hapless target was instantly killed, turned to stone, reduced to a pile of dust, and so forth. (yep, good stuff when used in moderation)


The save or die effect represents an interesting point in D&D mechanics. On one hand, fighting a critter with a save or die attack is tense and exciting. Or at least, it can be. A good DM makes a fight like this into something that can grow into a gaming legend over the years. Players will remember how their characters valiantly fended off attacks and either hoped for lucky rolls or came up with a cunning plan to defeat or avoid the critter.  (yeah, 4e isn't much on avoidance, is it?)


On the other hand, the save or die mechanic can be incredibly boring. (how the hell is it boring?  annoying if you die, but not boring) With a few dice rolls, the evening could screech to a halt as the vagaries of luck wipe out the party. A save or die situation can also cause a cascade effect. Once the fighter drops, the rest of the party's inferior AC and saving throws can lead to a TPK (TPKs are not inherently bad.  Constant TPKs are the issue).


I really like the save or die mechanic because, in my experience, most DMs know how to handle it well (DM empowerment?  DM responsibility?  This is the opposite of 4e). They use it as a spice: something that can keep an adventure interesting or that can serve as a pitfall for foolhardy play. The mere appearance of a medusa or a giant spider changes the game, leaving even the most confident player nervous. Great triumphs require great adversity, and the threat of instant death is one of the game's toughest challenges. (Mike is speaking "to me" more than Monte ever did in his posts)


I do have sympathy for players and DMs who don't like it, however. I've played in campaigns where such threats never showed up because the DM edited the mechanic out of the game by trimming the monster list (which is fine and dandy.  I do the same for level draining). Players and DMs who want a directed narrative, where the characters are the clear stars of the story, have little use for giving chance such a big role in the game (in a game with To Hit rolls and Saves, chance is part of the game). At the same time, it's a pity that such dramatic threats don't necessarily play well with campaigns that pull the focus away from the dice.


When I put my designer hat on, I have to admit that the save or die mechanic rubs me the wrong way (don't fall victim to the "designer ways" Mike.  Use the Force). I like that hit points give me an easy gauge to judge a character's or creature's status. Some save or die effects, such as poison, can simply deal damage. But what about something such as a medusa's gaze? Is there some way that we can tie a save or die effect to hit points? Is that even a good idea? (let me see what you got first)


Here's my idea. A save or die effect kicks in only if a character is at or below a certain hit point threshold, and that threshold is determined by the power of the effect and the creature. We can extend the effect to things such as paralysis, which can take you out of the fight. Like this:


If a ghoul's claw damage reduces a creature to 10 or fewer hit points, the creature must make a save or be paralyzed.


The medusa's gaze forces creatures currently at 25 or fewer hit points to make a save or be turned to stone.


A creature hit by Tiamat's tail stinger must make a save or die. (Powerful creatures might lack any hit point limit for their save or die attacks.)


(alright - I must admit to being intrigued by this)


There are a few advantages to this approach:

• It ties the save or die mechanic to hit points, meaning that a monster has to attack you a few times before it can kill you or take you out. (as a balance issue, I'm okay with this)
• The same applies to spells. The fighter hacks away at a troll for a few rounds before the wizard uses flesh to stone on it. (not sure I agree with this. PCs and monsters do not need to follow the same rules)
• It allows monsters to better scale with level. A powerful monster is scary to low-level PCs because it can defeat them with one attack. High-level characters must still approach the monster with caution, but they can stay out of the danger zone through smart play. (keeping with the whole "orcs should be viable threats for multiple levels theme)
• It creates a rising sense of tension at the table. Running low on hit points becomes even more dangerous. (tension is a good thing in gaming)
• We can design monsters to model their power in the world. A medusa turns the town guards to stone, but the hero accompanying them has a fighting chance. (again, no complaint from me)
• It allows us to strip away a lot of the immunities that cluttered monsters, especially in 3rd Edition. Many of those immunities served to deter one-spell victories (eh, I am not a 3e scholar - I'll take Mike's word on this)

The biggest drawback is that spellcasters and monsters have to be aware of a target's hit points to decide if an attack makes sense. For most monsters, you can make a save or die effect sit on top of a damaging attack (a wyvern's tail stinger) or trigger automatically each round (a basilisk's gaze). The same can't be said for expendable spells, and the save or die mechanic is likely too powerful for spells you can reuse. For spells, you could state that a creature above the hit point threshold automatically succeeds at a saving throw or the spell's attack automatically misses. The spell could then have an effect on a miss or successful save, giving the caster something for his or her effort. (Again, PCs and Monsters do not need to follow the same set of rules when it comes to Save or Die.  Monsters do get a Saving Throw I assume)


K, color me surprised.  Very little marketing bullshit.  Let me correct myself.  No detectable marketing bullshit.  This is actually an informative article that doesn't contradict itself or any previous articles or statements.  Even if I never play 5e, I may use some of this in the ext OSR game I run.

Just a Reminder...

The last chance to add a comment on the "The Tavern Has Over 200 Followers and I'm Giving Away Some Free Shit" post from Saturday is today.

I'll be closing the post to new entries around 830 tonight NYC time and then randomly determining who get's some gifting.

If you haven't added your comment yet, what are you waiting for?

Mini Review - The World of Torn: Hand Drawn Maps Volume 1

As I sit at my desk, thinking of the two campaigns (and two different game systems) I am planning for the end of April / early May, I realize my mapping skills suck.  I'm not just talking as a player, I mean as a "Dungeon Designer".  I suck at free hand and I'm not much better with the mapping programs I've bought over the years.  They really need one for the mapping inept.

I have a huge appreciation for those that cam produce amazing looking maps freehand.  What someone like Matt Jackson can do in 20 minutes, I'd never accomplish in 20 years.  Simple truth.  It's not where my talents lie.

So, when I saw a hand drawn map pack on RPGNow, I had to grab it.  I'm glad I did.

The World of Torn: Hand Drawn Maps Volume 1 is actually 5 dungeon / cavern maps in one package.  The are hand drawn by Alyssa Faden.  I never heard of her before, but she draws a quality map.  They are keyed with traps and flooded areas, but the DM has to stock them and figure out the history behind them.

My first issue was a difficulty matching up the connections between the levels (assuming you want to use them as one complex and not individual location).  It took some studying to figure them out, and I'm still not 100% sure.  I probably need to print them out and let them on top of another.  For the next volume, these connections should be cleanly marked to cut down on the minor frustration factor.

The maps come both in a PDF booklet and individual jpegs, which should allow for easy integration into a VTT of your choice.  Well, except for the fact that the traps are marked.  This is my second issue.  Maybe traps should be left out of the next volume, as the GM is more than able to add his own.  Icluding them kinda defeats the whole VTT angle.

Overall its a nice collection of hand drawn maps.

From the blurb:

Description:

The Torn World Presents series features artwork from our creative staff for use in your home-brew games; regardless of your gaming system and era, these will be of use to you. "Hand-Drawn Dungeons: Volume I" features the artwork of Alyssa Faden - the Torn World creator and cartographer.
In her spare time, Alyssa just loves drawing detailed maps; cities, dungeons, wilderness environments ... it really doesn't matter, it just needs to be on a microscopic level and a completely different world. And due to popular demand we are making them available to you in high resolution format.

• For use in your Torn World gaming session, or equally suited for dungeonmasters looking for dungeon maps for any alternate systems. 
• FIVE hand-drawn dungeon maps in PDF & JPEG format. These are all from the "Hellhound caves". Use them independently or together as a multi-tiered ancient dungeon where the top level connects to the bottom only via a deep plunging waterfall ...

Above all - ENJOY and have a fantastic gaming session! If you download these - thank you - please be sure to let Alyssa know on her Facebook page how your session went! 

Tip Toe Around the NDA

Its funny.  You sign an NDA and you can't discuss your game experiences from the POV of the rules, although you can probably post in broad swaths, as long as those broad swaths avoid anything rule like.

Heck, I'm not even sure if you can discuss the name of the game covered by the NDA, but if I say I'm playing in a game covered by an NDA, it should be an easy guess.

Hmmm... I can't even tell you if the game plays well.  Can I even tell you who my GM is?  Probably not.

Alright, how about the Google+ Hangout with battle grid and dice roller?  That works extremely well, independent of system.  Still in beta and not released upon the masses, but no NDA there.  Last night the game broke down into pure silliness.  The same silliness that would occasionally break open in a session of my face to face games.  It means the group has bonded.  We are comfortable enough to let our hair down, so to speak.

So, Dragons For Dinner will be a great tool within Google+ Hangout for RPG sessions once it's fully tweaked.  We can see the potential, and it is real.  As for the thing behind the NDA?  I can't say.   No, really, I can't say.  Says so in the NDA.

Weekend Picks For RPGNow's DM Sale

Well, it's sunday and half the weekend is gone, but it's not too late for weekend picks ;)

Advanced Adventures #1:  The Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom - this and pretty much everything else from Expeditious Retreat Press is on sale.  The Pod-Caverns is an excellent Old School Adventure that uses the OSRIC system, but is usable with any of the OSR clones.

Dungeon Crawl Classic #0:  Legends are Made, Not Born - this and the rest of Goodman Games' assorted products are 25% off for the GM Day Sale.  Goodman Games puts out some great Old School adventures.

Fat Dragon Games -  whether you are looking for terrain, fold up dungeon walls or a Dice Tower, Fat Dragon has some pretty cool shit.  I just wish I had the room to display some of the stuff.

Alright, that's the weekend picks.  Back after I nap.  Late game last night ;)