Looking At the "Latest Rule-of-Three" Re: D&D 5E

This can be found in it's original form here.

   Another awesome 4E innovation—minions (I most certainly wouldn't refer to "minions" as an awesome 4e innovation). How are these one hit wonders influencing monster design for the next iteration of D&D?
One of the things we're exploring in the game is what we refer to as a bounded accuracy system. Effectively, we're looking into whether or not we can strip out the assumption of accuracy and defense scaling by level, and let progression rest largely within the scaling damage, hit points, and capabilities of both characters and monsters. (Basically, so long as THACO isn't increasing, you don't need the magical christmas tree of wondrous items to balance it out)

When you have this, any monster whose hit points are less than the damage you deal is, effectively, a minion (yeah, I guess so.  So, for all intents and purposes, kobolds have been minions from the start of the game). Thus, we might not need a specific minion rule, because we would simply design monsters with hit points that rest below average damage for certain levels and let that take care of it (in other words, we do want monsters in the game that do what minions do for us). (what is it exactly that minions do do? or is that doodoo?  ) At the same time, since as the player characters gain levels their damage numbers are going up, monsters that previously were not "minions" become "minions" by virtue of player damage outstripping their hit points (okay, but not to all characters in the group at the same time, as i assume fighters will do more combat damage that clerics... or is that a bad assumption?). Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up, the orc that you fight at 1st level that took three hits to kill may only take 1 hit to kill at 6th level, making it a "minion" for heroes of that level.  (so he's just as hard to hit, but more likely to kill with one blow.  and where is this "3 hit shit" coming from?  weapon damage is still going to be variable, isn't it?)

   One of the earlier conversations touched on alignment. Will Alignment be in D&D Next? If so, will it be the classic nine alignments? And will it have a mechanical impact for characters? For monsters?
The classic nine alignments are planned to be the default alignment assumptions (woot!) (though personally I also have a soft spot for "Unaligned" as well). As for mechanical impact, I think that there's an assumption in the history, world, and cosmology ofDungeons & Dragons that there are tangible, elemental forces of good, evil, law, and chaos, etc. Some of D&D's best stories are built on it; see the war between Law and Chaos that led to the creation of the Rod of Seven Parts. Having mechanics that interact with a fundamental force of existence makes sense, much in the same way that having mechanics that interact with fire, lightning, etc. make sense. However, we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way (alright... I think this lost me.  alignment will have repercussions, but only if you stray really really bad?). Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses. (yeah, i may just want to treat it along the classic AD&D lines)

   How important is it to the team that different classes have different mechanics? What kind of ideas would you like to explore to give different classes a different feel?
The important thing about class mechanics is not simply that they be different, but that the mechanics of a class produce the best and most iconic experience of playing that class (folks throw around the word "iconic" way to often in games these days.  design fun classes, and they will be iconic on their own). It's OK to re-use mechanics between classes; for example, our current vision for both the fighter and the rogue includes access to a system of combat maneuvers. Clerics and paladins both should have access to divine spells. That's something the classes need to have because they are different; it's not a choice made simply so that they would be different. (the iconic part is what I assume is being referred to here)
As for how to give different classes different feels, that's all going to come down to how the systems work. For example, if you substitute maneuvers in for individual attacks, the fighter class plays more like a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped (you do realize that combat like this isn't going to fit into the "60 minutes session" mike is working on, right?). Spells, on the other hand, are likely to be focused more on big effects, so that the cleric is more likely to cast a single flame strike spell that consumes much of what she does for that round.


Wow.  I'm actually intrigued by the Bounded Accuracy System, which has been hinted at before, but this is the first time I've seen it named.

What Do Y'all Think About a Rotating Game Nite?

I know I want to run Adventurer Conqueror King System as my main game, but I've also been thinking about running a secondary game.

I've also been accused more than once of having Gamer's ADD or something similar, as I express interest in many different systems.  What can I say?  I like RPGs.  Heh.

So, what I was thinking was I'd have a steady game (ACKS) and run a second game nite of one shots or short story arcs, using other systems.

Probably looking at Savage Worlds, QUERP, Ancient Odysseys, Tunnels & Trolls and the like for the side games.  For the most part, games that are easy to explain, yet aren't D&D or one of it's numerous clones.

ACKS would be a steady group, the side games would allow people to drop in and out.

G+ Hangout with possibly a VTT on the side.  All I really need is a whiteboard.

Any thoughts?  Suggestions?  Desire to make fun of my Gamer's ADD? ;)

The Results Are In - Average RPG Session Among Respondents Just Over 4 Hours

My totally unscientific poll was conducted over G+ and my blog, and I received responses via the G+ thread, the blog post comments section and via email.

48 Different game sessions / campaigns were indicated, with either average length of game session indicated or a range of times. If someone stated that included dinner / meal break, I knocked off 30 minutes unless they indicate otherwise. If someone offered a range, I used the average. If someone offered a huge range, but stated it was usually on the lower end, I added an hour to the low end and used that number.

The average comes out to 4.16 hours, or roughly 4hrs, 10 minutes per session.

I stand by this survey, as it was at least as scientific as anything WotC runs on their site (although I will admit they do get a larger sampling and neither survey is all that scientific).

It looks like 4hrs is still the length of the average RPG session. After bullshitting and snack gathering, I'd guess most gamers get in just about 3 1/2 hrs of gaming per session.

I don't think I have enough data to definitively say that online sessions are shorter or longer than face to face sessions (as not everyone indicated whether the sessions were in person or online). My gut tells me online sessions are shorter on average, but that will have to wait for another poll.

Thanks to everyone for their input :)

RPGs That Can Be Played in 90 Minutes (or Less)

I don't want to say "an hour" because lets be truthful, the first 15-30 minutes of just about every game session is the catching up and bullshitting part of the game.  RPGs are a social experience, and part of that experience is socializing and bonding.  Therefore, I'm going with 90 minutes, as I doubt most of us have access to disciplined game designers at our place of employment that we can game with over lunch time ;)

So, where does that leave us before Mike and Monte gift us with the new and improved D&D Edition, the edition to unite all editions, which can be played in 60 minutes and comes in more flavors than Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream?  The rules need to be simple and combat resolution needs to go quickly.  Nearly any game can be run in 90 minutes, but a few will actually allow you to accomplish stuff and progress the adventure.

 Surprisingly, we do have a few choices:

I'd suggest that one try the Original Dungeons &  Dragons White Box Edition, but that's going to set you back over $100+ on Ebay.  Instead, I'm going to point you to Swords & Wizardry White Box Edition.  It's a nice, cleaned up clone of OD&D, and best of all, it's free in PDF.  It's much easier to grok than the original ruleset from 1974, and you can even grab the rules in MS Word Format - so you can insert your own house rules and pass them off to your players.

Tunnels & Trolls is another fine choice.  Character generation is a breeze and combat is simple.  Stick with T&T 5.5e or earlier, as the "monster death spiral" is more pronounced.  What this means is that as monsters take damage, they do less damage.  As damage is given to the losing side when dice pools are compared, the "monster death spiral" can greatly speed up combats, especially when the final resolution is obvious.  Monsters are simplified as an Monster Rating (MR) which quickly translates into Combat Dice and Combat Adds.  Once you understand the the system it is easy as pie and all you need are a bunch of d6's.  You can check out the T&T Quickstart Rules for free here.

Ancient Odysseys: Treasure Awaits! is a more recent title from Precis Intermedia.  It has an Old School feel with some New School mechanics.  They system is fairly simple, using d6's.  You get the the standard fantasy races, three character classes (warrior, wizard and rogue), a basic skill system, a simple resolution system and simplified tactical (non-tactical) map.  It's a sweet system, which can be played solo (just like T&T) but I think works much better in group play.  The PDF is $6.95 (and includes a version ready to be printed out in double sided digest size).


Warrior, Rogue & Mage is a system that I really wish I have had a chance to play.  It's a streamlined system that looks to my gaming eyes as something that could be played in an hour and a half or two, and yet still get the feeling of having played a longer session.  Did I mention that all you need are d6's?  Seems to be a trend ;)  Resolute, Adventurer & Genius is the pulp version of the rules.  Did I mention that both of these rule sets are free?

(Edit)

Additional Suggestions

Neoclassical Geek Revival

Old School Hack

Toon

Fiasco

Weird West

Basic Fantasy RPG

How Long Are Your RPG Sessions?

After yesterday's fairly vocal discussion regarding Mike Mearl's One Hour Game Session article, I realized that the default 4 hour session may no longer be the default these days.

So, how long are your gaming sessions and what game system do you use?

(I'll be posting later my thoughts on some game systems that I feel are suited for shorter game sessions)

The Original 7 - Dungeons & Dragons "White Box" - Going Deep in the Underworld

Well, enough about the next incarnation of D&D.  Let's continue our look back at the Original Edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

So, what does Volume 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures give us?

Well, we get a cross section of a dungeon.  Six levels (and side levels) and connections (Stairs, chutes and the like).  I never mapped out a cross section of any of the dungeons I've run.  Most didn't go beyond three levels (if that). Still, and interesting view of how it could be done.

The sample dungeon level is more corridors than rooms.  Heck, if the PCs can't find the first secret door, it's going to be a very small dungeon for them.  That being said, it is a well explained dungeon level.  It is also an example of "do as we say, not as we do":

5.  The combinations here are really vicious, and unless you are out to get your players it is not suggested for actual use.  Passage south "D" is a slanting corridor which will take them at least one level deeper, and if the slope is gentle, even dwarves won't recognize it.  Room "E" is a transporter, two ways, to just about anywhere the referee likes, including the center of the earth or the moon.  The passage south containing "F" is a one-way transporter, and the poor dupes will never realize it unless a very large party (over 50' in length) is entering it.  (This is sure-fire fits for the map makers among the participants.)

Do you mind if I say "Holy Shit!  Ouch!"  Thank the Gods they tell you NOT to use it ;)

Then three's this little tidbit about Tricks and Traps:

The fear of "death", its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of this game.  It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival).  For example, there is no question that a player's character could easily be killed by falling into a pit thirty feet deep or into a shallow pit filled with poisoned spikes, and this is quite undesirable in most instances.

Risk is good.  Killer DM not so much fun.  Good advice, and something that most people don't seem to associate with Old SChool D&D.

When building a dungeon, place the main encounters, then randomly distribute monsters and treasure to the as yet unkeyed rooms.  1 in 3 rooms will have monsters (and half the monster rooms will have some sort of treasure) and 1 in 6 unoccupied rooms will have some sort of treasure.  Which I guess means half of all rooms half nothing at all.

It takes 10 minutes to move 2 moves or 120' for a fully armored character, twice that rate if running and not mapping.  So, you can run at a rate of 24' a minute if you pass on the mapping, or 12 ' a minute if you are mapping.  Did anyone ever stop and figure out how slow 24' a minute is when they wrote this game.  Assuming you are running with torches and lanterns, and making lots of noise with the jingling of armor, 24' a minute is the equivalent of taking a minute to cross a four lane crosswalk.  Or thirty seconds to cross a room.

Ah well, this book is going to take a couple of posts to progress through at 12' a minute ;)

My Thoughts on the One Hour RPG Session

Mike Mearls wrote about (and I critiqued) One Hour D&D Gaming Sessions yesterday. Actually, it was more like a 45 minute session of gaming, as character generation took up like 15 minutes (he's currently using his own houseruled version of Basic D&D (1981).

I want that to sink in for a moment. 45 minute session of gaming.

It takes me that long to get to a session of gaming near me ;)

What Mike is doing is gaming at work during the lunch hour. That's actually kinda cool, but than again, he works at a gaming company.

For the rest of us, you might be able to run sessions that short via Google+ Hangout, but otherwise it's just not practical for most groups.

What I'm apprehensive of is that Mike wants to design D&D Next with 1 hour sessions, or 1 hour building blocks, as it's core.

It all has to do with the math. The math behind the expo. The math being the Vancian magic. The math behind the party resources. The math...

Ideally, if you want to run a short session, you limit the party's choices and limit the number of encounters.

Still, the last / current edition of D&D, a single encounter takes an hour plus, and Mike claims he snuck 6 encounters plus roleplaying into 45 minutes. How the hell did he do that?

1 - He's using Basic D&D, which plays pretty fast, especially at low levels. Limited choices and limited resources will lead to faster gameplay than more complicated games. Question - How will Mike make that work in a game that plans on keeping 4e style combat as an option?

2 - I'm guessing railroad. He moved the party along a predesigned path in the adventure. Comment - I hate fucking railroads.

3 - Automatic success for skills. Monte talked about this leading up the the 5e announcement. If your skill in spot or disarm is high enough, you don't need to roll to succeed. Mike doesn't mention this one way or another in his write up, except for mentioning (undefined) houserules. Auto success will speed things up. Comment - Auto success also neuters the game and makes it bland. If there is no risk, the reward isn't very rewarding.

4 - The math. Mike has his expo spreadsheet and has it all worked out. Question - Is the One Hour math going to work the same over Four Hours? I don't think so.

5 - Disciplined Players. They see each other every day at work. Very little small talk. Question - What happens when you haven't talked to or seen the people in your gaming group for the last week or two? Everyone has to catch up on real life. RPGs are social games by nature. Unless your One Hour sessions are daily at a place very convenient for your group, you are going to lose time to the social aspect of gaming.

One Hour RPG Games have their place, but it's limited.

Mike sees One Hour D&D sessions as the core of D&D Next, while admitting some may want to play longer sessions.

I have news for you Mike - I'm not hopping on a train or in my car for 45 minutes each way to play for 45 minutes to an hour. I don't know of anyone who is. I don't know anyone that works with a group of gamers that can game daily during lunch.

Mike, you seem to forget that your gaming circumstances are not the norm.

But hey, it's your houserules. Enjoy them. Just don't expect many to buy them.

Picking Nits From Mike Mearls Latest Column - The One Hour D&D Game

"Can You Speed It Up?  We've Got To Wrap This Up in An Hour!"

Here's the link to the article without my comments ;)

This week, I'd like to talk about one of our design goals in general terms so that you can gain a sense of how we're approaching the next iteration of the game. (would it be wrong to refer to this as the "weekly stroke job"? ;)

Replaying the 1981 Basic Set recently has been eye opening (I'm sure). Even including the rules I've added to the game, character creation took somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes (That's about right up to and including AD&D 1e, so long as you know what you want to play ahead of time - and aren't using the UA method of "class directed character generation) In about 45 minutes of play, we created an entire party of adventurers (dwarf fighter, human magic-user, halfling thief), (halfing thief in Basic D&D?) kicked off an adventure with the characters just outside of a ruined keep, and explored six different rooms in a small dungeon. That exploration included two battles with goblins and hobgoblins. We played at a fairly relaxed pace (apparently there's no goofing around or catching up with the other players). There was plenty of roleplaying between the characters and frequent questions on the rules as the players navigated both basic D&D and my house rules.

In my mind, D&D must absolutely support this type of play (you will have to keep complexity at OD&D levels - no grid, no dozens of options). By no means should it be the only way to play D&D, but it must be an enjoyable way to play the game that doesn't come across as a crippled or incomplete experience (I don't see how a 45 minute game can compete with a 4hr game, but it should be interesting). You should be able to play a complete adventure in an hour. Not a single encounter, not a character creation session, but a complete scenario that would strike any reasonable player as an adventure with a beginning, middle, and end (I'm going to put this on the same level as "the one game to rule them all" - more marketing bullshit). That statement was one of the guiding principles that helped launch this entire process.

So what exactly should happen in an hour? One of the first proof of concept adventures I ran captures what I'm aiming at. In this adventure, the characters bought a treasure map from a halfling, traveled through a forest to the purported location of an orc lord's tomb, dodged a few traps in the tomb and solved a puzzle needed to gain access to the inner sanctum, battled skeletons that ambushed them, and then defeated the vengeful spirit of the orc lord and the animated statues that guarded his tomb. With the orc lord laid to his final rest, the characters claimed his magical axe and a small cache of gems (all this in 45 minutes, with a game that is going to support 4e style tactics?  wanna buy a bridge?)

This sort of adventure is exactly what I'd like players to experience in the next iteration of the game (did Mike nerf Turning the Undead for this adventure?) . In the adventure I ran, there was an NPC to interact with, a puzzle to solve, a couple of tense battles, and a reward at the end of the line (I'm not sure you can play a board game in 45 minutes). It shouldn't surprise you that the three pillars of D&D that we've talked about—combat, exploration, and interaction—all played a key role in the adventure. Best of all, the adventure created a consistent sense of tension. The fights were brief but sharp, with the characters pushed to the edge of defeat before rallying to victory (they were first level characters.  will fights be just as quick at 5th, at 10th?). The puzzle in the tomb and the interaction with the halfling each took about as much time as both of the fights.

Ideally, if we aim for a complete adventure in an hour, we hit a few important milestones:

• The core rules are easy to use. They create a game that moves quickly but is still satisfying. (tastes great, less filling?)
• Character complexity doesn't spill on to the table and slow the game down. (er, but if the complexity doesn't hit the table, it probably isn't really all that complex) It's OK for someone to have a complex character. It's irritating if that character takes significantly longer to resolve typical actions. (guess they aren't going to be using 4e style combat and challenge resolutions)
• Monsters are easy to understand at the table. This relates to the statement about characters above. It's OK for some monsters to be complex, but that complexity should give the DM a flexible, challenging monster, not one that needs lots of time to resolve at the table. (I'll believe this when I see it)
• The DM needs rules that can allow for adventures with as many fights as needed, from a single big brawl to a number of shorter fights. I'd like to see an adventure design system that gives me a suggested total XP value for monsters and traps to use so that I can push the characters to the limit of their abilities (formulating encounters is not the way to go.  it takes the soul out of the game.  but as the soul's been missing since 2e, I guess I shouldn't have expected different). I can then spend that XP for one battle, lots of little battles, or just sprinkle monsters in an environment as I choose. (sounds like the Bob Ross style of adventure design)

Of course, I don't expect everyone to give up how they've been playing D&D for years to focus on running one-hour adventures (why not?  Save or Die tweaked to death, Turning Undead nerfed, multi-edition feel at one table - yes, I think you expect one hour sessions to be the new norm). By focusing on this benchmark, however, we create a starting point that we can use to expand to longer sessions of play. It's much easier to create a game that supports a one-hour session, and then use that to build out to two-hour, four-hour, or day-long gaming (gaming is usually around 4 hours give or take, and has been since 1974.  So working off a 4 hours standard session would have been the norm).

Ideally, focusing on the adventure as the basic unit of DM design also helps us cover different campaign styles. A sandbox DM can stock a region as one or more adventures, using higher-level XP targets to map the peril inherent in an area (again with this XP target bullshit.  it seems less like a RPG and more like a spreadsheet). The forest next to town might be built with enough monsters and treasures to equal one or two 1st-level adventures, while the forbidding mountains to the south are stocked with the equivalent of a 10th-level adventure. By focusing on an adventure—or a play session, depending on how you approach things—we can build a system that is more flexible and better matches the different styles that DMs bring to the table. (but a 1 hour adventure and a 4 hour adventure aren't going to be stocked the same, or offer the same challenge - why do I hear the boys in marketing throwing more bullshit our way?  "Hey, lets aim to do 1 hour gaming sessions, because everyone knows time is short these days.  so with 1 hour sessions, we can get more people to play.  and if it takes them 14 1 hr sessions to level, so much the better, as they'll be coming back for more and more!"  Bleh!)

And So It Was Said: "Let There Be an ACKS Campaign"

and it was good.

Or, at least, I hope it will be good.

We collectively decided to pull the plug on the current Saturday Night game.  We tried to give it a shot as a reboot, but that wasn't satisfactory.  The same issues were there in the last session that were there in the previous one.  It wasn't the GM, it just "was".

So, looks like I'm up.  I'll be starting up an Adventurer Conqueror King System Campaign.  As I'd like to have a updated hard copy (last summer's Gen Con pre-release i'd have to compare to the latest PDF version) and that should be coming sometime around the end of the month (along with the pre-release of the Adventurer's Companion) I'm figuring about 3 weeks or so before I'm up and ready.  It's a bit sooner than I had planned, but as a natural procrastinator I'd never lock myself down to a date if I didn't do it now ;)

That should also give me enough time to get the next issue of Loviatar in hand along with the next installment of the Hex 000 series.

I'll let it be known if there is a call for players.  I already have 3 committed from the current group, and there may be more.  I'd like to go with a full party of 5 or 6, so we can survive the occasional "real life random events" knocking 1 or 2 out on any given week.

Google+ Hangout handles gaming pretty well.  I may want to have a whiteboard available for use, and I'm leaning towards Gametable at the moment.  It's cross platform and free.  From my experience, a whiteboard is more important than an imported map, chat client, dice roller - any of that stuff.

Well, the video and voice is even more important than the whiteboard actually.  Video and voice bring the game alive, and gives you a true tabletop experience.

In any case, I'll have a second game of some sorts up and running at some point after the first.

72 Degrees in NYC and It's Not Even Spring Yet...

Heck, I never went beyond wearing a fall fleece jacket this winter.

Spring has been here for like 2 weeks already, if not longer, and winter never really showed itself.

Ah well, it was a good excuse to leave work early today.  Maybe I'll sit on the front porch with my cat and get some RPG reading in ;)

An Open Letter to Mike Mearl's Regarding "Save or Die" (and other crap)

Not the True Cover for D&D Next, But it Could Be

Mike,

I have a real simple solution for you.

If you don't like Save or Die as it has existed for decades, don't use it in the games you run or use it sparingly.

Simple, right?

If you don't like level draining undead in the campaigns you run, don't use them.  Holy crap!  Novel concept.

You don't need to rework a system that works just because you are a game designer and you like to tinker.  Tinkering with rules invariably adds complications that aren't needed, to address problems that aren't really there.

Before you work on shit that ain't broke, how about you show us how you are going to bring the players from 0e to 4e to one table, playing the with the same (new) edition of the game and keeping everyone happy.  We've seen a lot of talk about this lofty goal, but you are way off base if you think the only differences in the different editions is "rules complexity".

Show us how this will be accomplished.  Enough with the hype already.  Stop with the articles showing the latest "tweak" to a subsystem that has been around since 1974.  We want to see how the "one game to rule them all" will bring everyone together under one system.

Let's be honest:  all your articles (and Monte's) show is that WE WILL NOT be uniting behind the new system.  Change for the sake of change is worthless, and I for one will not spend money on a game that has no worth.  Show us something of value or don't show us anything at all.

Signed,

A Frustrated Gamer

Mini Review - Toys For the Sandbox #9 - Dormant Volcano / The Nodelith Caldera (Generic OSRish)

Yeah, I've fallen behind in my Toys For the Sandbox reviews.  I think the folks over at Occult Moon are up to #11 and I'm just hitting #9.  Ah well, I'll catch up at some point.

Dormant Volcano (which is how it is titled at RPGNow) also goes by the name The Nodelith Caldera (which is the actual title of the PDF - confusing, aint it?).  In this case the name of the dormant volcano is Mount Nodelith, which should clear some things up.  The Nodelith Caldera is the floor of the volcano.  Simple, eh?

Well, this caldera has a galleon (a ship) embedded in it's rock wall.

As usual with the Toys for the Sandbox series we get a map, 6 hooks with 3 twists each (giving the GM 18 different possibilities to play with.  The nice thing about this entry in the series is that the hooks aren't exclusive... you can run with more that one, which gives this a lot of gaming potential.  We also get 4 NPCs, an encounter table and a rumor table.

It's hard to go wrong ;)

From the blurb:


From the steamy green of the southern Jungle the long dormant volcanic cone of Mount Nordelith rises. This once fiery mountain holds many secrets including a shipwreck, tales of the Ghost Dragon and a flying squirrel with a problem.


In the 9th issue of Toys for the Sandbox our exploration of this dormant volcano reveals flavor text, maps, 6 adventure hooks with 3 twists, a list of rumors and possible encounters.


Like the rest of the series you get all of this for 99 cents.

The Original 7 - Dungeons & Dragons "White Box" - Uh Oh It's Magic!

Yep, I'm still digging my way through Volume 2 - Monsters & Treasure.  Specifically, I'm looking at the magic goodies in this book.

Some things to note - fully 20% of magic items are magic swords.  Yep, 1 in 5 magic items is a sword.  I can see where fighters (and thieves to some extent) have a head start in magic items.  It should also be noted that maces only come in a +2 variety ;)

Hmm - 17% of magic swords are cursed.  Ouch!  That being said, there is no cursed armor or cursed miscellaneous weapons.  Go figure.

Clerics get 25% of the spell scrolls, which means magic-users gets 75% of the spell scrolls.  Ain't that a case for discrimination?  And what is this?  "The referee must take extreme care in handling Scrolls with an eye towards duping the players when a Curse Scroll is found.  The curse takes effect immediately upon reading the Scroll; therefore having non-Curse Scrolls disappear on occasion if not identified will help force reading of Curse Scrolls."  Holy shit!  You basically are being told to take away legitimate non-cursed items to force players to activate cursed items!

The Curse isn't some lame shit either:

Range 3" (30 feet)

1 or 2   Any monster of the referee's choice

3 or 4   Disease.  Fatal in 3 turns unless healed (this is a party killer.  no indication if party members get a chance to save)

5 or 6   Polymorph into insect of referee's choice (another party killer)

7          Transportation 1,000 miles, random direction (the ref better have a new setting in mind)

8          Transportation to another planet (campaign reboot here we come)

Did I mention that 1 in 10 scrolls are cursed?

You have a 1% chance that the ring you find is a Ring of Many Wishes.  Roll 4d6 and the sum is the number of wishes you just gave the party.  May as well end the campaign right now, because either they are going to achieve some major unbalancing power with the wishes (average 14) or the referee is going to so screw them over by using the "literal translation of the wish in order to fuck over the party" method, at which point it's going to be campaign over.

All swords (no other weapons) are intelligent and have an alignment.  Most swords are lawful.  Fully half of all swords are intelligent enough to have one or more powers and be able to communicate with their owners.  I thing EGG was greatly influenced by Elric's Stormbringer  and such, especially when 10% of swords have a purpose (slay clerics or defeat law and such).

Wands are assumed to have 100 charges and staves are assumed to have 200 charges.  I'm damn sure staves were cut down in later editions.

Holy crap but they fit a lot into 40 pages - monsters and magical treasures.  Well done!

Next - Tiptoe through the Underworld and the Wilderness.

Reboot Leads to Near TPK

The reboot I spoke of yesterday was using one of the earlier Adventure Paths.  I'm not sure which one, it may have been Age of Worms.  I figure the less I know, the less chance I'll inadvertently metagame.  We could have used some metagaming. ;)

We discovered a windtunnel trap with a pressure point BEFORE setting off the trap, so the party decided to anchor itself and tie themselves off and THEN set off the pressure plate.  Problem there is debris (such as flying PCs) and hurricane force winds don't mix well.  Heck, being tethered in a tunnel with 100+ MPH winds leads to much knocking around.

In the end the fighter was dead, the cleric was unconscious and I believe the other 2 PCs combined for 5 HPs - all for a trap we knew about and took protections against.  Oh, did I mention the trap also hypnotized players that failed their saves, resulting in 3 of the 4 PCs waiting on the wind to beat the crap out of them?  Oh, and the trap wasn't protecting anything that we could find.  If I figure out which AP this is and who wrote it, I'll be giving them a piece of my mind.  Grrrrrr!!!

Good news is, we try it all again next week ;)

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 ;)