The Grumpy Dwarf Looks At Mike Mearls' Latest - Rogue Design Goals

Holy Shit, but this posting certainly got my Grumpy Up!


You can read the original here, without all my "grumpy-isms".

This week, the rogue takes center stage. Why the rogue? Well, I conducted a quick poll on Twitter to determine if I should tackle the wizard or the rogue next (enough with the polls!  alright,this poll really had no meaning in the long run, but the WotC polls are pretty much BS in general). I tallied the tweets, and the rogue won out! (Woot!  Not!)If you want to add your voice to the Twitter crew when I conduct these polls of mine, or if you want to get a sense of what the team is working on each day, you can hop on Twitter and follow @mikemearls and @Wizards_DnD. Just don't forget to add #dndnext whenever you join the conversation there or ask questions! Now I can't promise that I can get to everything, since my availability is determined by my work schedule and my wife's willingness to let me keep my nose in my laptop at night (alright, this I can relate to), but it's probably the best way to communicate with me.

So, what's up with the rogue in D&D?

1. The rogue doesn't fight fair.

Fighters, clerics, and wizards take it straight to their enemies in a fight. A fighter charges in with a sword or maybe unleashes a volley of arrows (yeah, I've never played a fighter that has snuck up on the enemy). A cleric wields a mace and throws a support spell (or Command, or Hold Person, or Rock to Mud), while a wizard blasts you with a lightning bolt (or casts Fly, or Mass Suggestion, or Mirror Image on the fighter) . The rogue prefers an indirect approach to a fight. A rogue thrives on tricks and misdirection. If a rogue can't attack from behind or with some other key advantage, he or she might be better off withdrawing or remaining out of sight until the opportunity for a surprise attack presents itself (if the rogue hides for the length of the combat the player is an asshole.  if you're that afraid, engage the weaker opponenets).

If a rogue can surprise an opponent with an attack, that attack might be overwhelmingly powerful (it might). If a rogue is cornered and forced to fight fair, he or she is at a huge disadvantage. In such a situation, most rogues would choose to run away rather than fight (run away and expose yourself to a free attack?  that makes sense how?  when did rogues / thieves become cowards?) .

Rogues are tricky opponents, because determining what they might do next is almost impossible. A smart rogue always keeps a few tricks in his or her back pocket, ready to spring them when the time is right. Whether it's throwing a handful of caltrops under a bugbear's feet as it tries to charge, leaping from an ambush to drive a blade into an ogre's back, or dodging beneath a dragon's claws and tumbling into the shadows to hide, a rogue always has a trick in mind (all good ideas, but why must he run away if he can't do a trick?).

2. Rogues are skilled.

Rogues have many different tricks up their sleeves, and no two rogues are identical. They can hide in shadows, squeeze out of manacles, scamper up walls, and adopt a disguise. You can never be fully certain of what a rogue might be able to do. If a rogue decides to master a mundane skill, he or she can reach a higher level of expertise than other characters. (i'm a bit confused, because earlier statements made it seem that even the usual rogue like specialties skills were open to all classes)

In many ways, a thief is simply a rogue who specializes in handling traps, opening locks, and getting past the opposition to reach a goal, such as the loot at the end of the adventure (isn't this the main use of a thief / rogue in a dungeon anyway?). Just as fighters might distinguish themselves by their choice of weapons, armor, and tactics, rogues are separated by the tricks and skills they have developed.

3. The rogue exists in a world of myth, fantasy, and legend.

This one showed up in the fighter goals, but it also applies to the rogue. The rogue can trick others, slip through shadows, and talk his or her way out of anything. Although these abilities are not magical in nature, a high-level rogue can transcend the limits of a mundane skill to achieve legendary heights of myth and legend. A wizard might use a spell to charm the king, but a dispel magic can free that king. The same king tricked into an alliance by a rogue is much harder to sway. A simple spell is not enough to counter the web of lies, half-truths, and fears that a cunning rogue might use to manipulate a way into the royal treasury. (isn't this what "role-playing" is supposed to be about?  shouldn't any class be able to pull this off with the right role-playing?  This whole paragraph confuses this dwarf)

4. The rogue makes the routine look trivial.

Rogue are in a class by themselves when it comes to attempting ability checks and using skills. Not only is a rogue more skilled than other classes, but he or she can achieve many difficult tasks without much exertion. To the rogue, luck and chance play no role in determining success. The rogue's talent and training make such concerns negligible.  (wait a second?  WTF does this mean?  rogues get auto-success with their skills?  how the fucking hell is that fun?  "hey, look at me!  that lock?  I picked it!  that deadly trap?  i gave it my scarey face and it just closed up and died!")

Traditionally, the mechanics of D&D have reflected better training by increasing the chance of success. That doesn't quite capture the rogue's level of talent. The rogue isn't just more likely to succeed. Instead, he or she takes success for granted in most cases. It's only when facing a real challenge that the rogue must worry about the outcome.  (wonderful.  so, basically a rogue is absolutely necessary in te party, cause he auto-successes 95% of the locks and traps, and sneaks 95% of the time, etc, etc, etc.  Sounds like a system I'd have to house rule the shit out of or just stay the fuck away from.  Riddle me this Batman?  How in the Nine Planes of Hairy Hell is this resembling "Old School" play in the least?)

A Little More on the Playtest

One thing to keep in mind about these design goals is that they are flexible and open to discussion. A big part of the playtest process tackles having us all make sure that the game feels like D&D (well, this write up certainly doesn't sound like any D&D I know of). If you've played rogues for ten years, ask yourself if the new rogue feels like the class you've played and loved (lets see - auto-success at 1st level?  nope). In addition to testing the core of the game, the early rounds of testing are geared toward making sure that the game is hitting the correct notes for all the classes. On May 24th, you'll get to see how we tried to hit these goals, whether we're on the mark at this early stage, and if the target we've aimed for is the correct one. (and if you are way off the fuckin' target, will you listen to feedback that tells you how to adjust your sight and aim better?)

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG in Hand!

I had read on the Goodman Games Forums from those that already got their copy of the DCC RPG that is was a solid book, but I had no idea how solid, how big, until mine arrived today.  So of course I hard to take picture of both it and it's accompanying free module.  As the rulebook also includes a 1st level adventure and a 5th level adventure, they start you off pretty well.

I really can't see myself running this on a regular basis, but it might be a lot of fun for a one-shot or a short story arc.

Still, I expect there are some things I can steal for my ACKS campaign.  Let my players beware ;)

Technology and Index Cards - Perfect Together

When I used to DM regularly, back in the Way Back (1980-1997) I took quickly to using index cards to keep PC (and significant NPC) information handy.

Most of the time, the index cards were paper clipped to my DM Screen, as I had already memorized most of the charts in question, and the screen was mostly there to keep certain dice rolls and dungeon maps out of the player's views.

Running an RPG via G+ Hangout (or really any VTT) pretty much does away with the need to hide rolls. If the interface allows for online dice rolling, and you need to keep the roll secret, just roll real dice off screen. Can't get more secret than that.

The need to view PC info or charts does take up valuable screen space if you are using your computer to run the game. Even with a 27" screen, I'd rather refer to my deadtree copy of ACKS, or print out the material I need for the session, than pull it up on the screen. I need the screen real estate to run the game, not read the material (obviously, if you are gaming in person, a laptop can be THE awesome game master aid).

So, time for me to go to the dollar store and get some index cards. Look at me be all organized and shit ;)

Holy Crap But The Trolls Fit a Lot in My C&C Classic Monsters Box!

I participated in the Castles & Crusades Classic Monsters Kickstarter and I just didn't realize how much I was getting for my $100 until the box arrived.  Shipping was $13.27 for this sucker.  I can only imagine what it's going to cost SJG to ship the OGRE boxes.

Classic Monsters is going to be the poor man's Tome of Horror's Complete in the OSR corner of out hobby, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.  For 25 bucks (or $15 in PDF).  Both books have the Flailsnail and the Flumph.  So if you are looking for some of the otherwise neglected monsters from some of TSR's later Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio, this has got them... or at least, some of them.  Enough to fill my needs, and I may just leave the Tome of Horrors Complete on the bookshelf for now, as I think Classic Monsters will fill the roll and not take up too much space.  Did I mention that my copy is the limited run with the 6 color plates of artwork?

The Castle Keepers Guide I still feel is overpriced for a PDF, but a quick flipping through of the hardback  has me interested in a number of tools that I can use in my current ACKS campaign.  Monster Ecology and the Worlds of Adventure: Dungeons  and WoA: City sections seem ripe for yoking into my ACKS campaign.  I have a very complete C&C collection, and it's the main game I've played over the past few years, so I'm sure I'll get use out of the CKG.  I'm not so sure how much value non -C&C players will get from it (its $40 in hardcover and $32 in PDF).

I also got a HCs of the current C&C Players Handbook and Monsters & Treasure Books.  All 4 books were signed by the author.  Which I have to admit is pretty cool.

Additionally, I received a copy of the adventure DA1, Dark Journey.  That wasn't signed by the author but who cares.  Oh, and a bunch of Troll Lord coins.  I have no idea what they are to be used for, but their kinda cute. They remind me of the tokens I used to get at the arcade to cash in for a prize.

Did I mention I also got a snazzy t-shirt?  I didn't take a picture of if it.  I'll have to do it as a follow up.

So, $127 dollars worth of gaming books, signed, plus the t-shirt and coins free shipping, no tax here in NYS.  Not too bad.  Wait, forgot I get electronic copies in the format of my choice of the 4 rulebooks.  Not too shabby.  Not too shabby at all.

Digging Deeper and Adjusting My Focus - A Re-Read of the ACKS Rules

There's a handful of things that stick out to me, especially as I go through the spell and magic item sections.

There really is a dearth healing spells in ACKS.  No Cure Critical Wounds, no Heal - it does make a deadly game system even more deadly, especially at the higher levels.  The best you get is the 4th level Cure Serious Wounds spell, which heals 2d6 +1 point per caster level.  Admittedly, that isn't all that bad.  Still, I see no reason why Cure Light Wounds couldn't heal 1d6 +1 half the caster's level.  This wouldn't even change the result of the roll until 4th level (as the base CLW spell heals 1d6+1).  Consider this a possible pending house rule.

The Sleep spell as per the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook gives is an area of effect of 3" diameter (15' radius).  "All creatures to be affect by the sleep spell must be within the 3" diameter circle).  I always assumed (possibly wrong but who knows) that the caster didn't have direct control over who the spell affected.  If PCs were present in the AOE, we determined randomly if they were dropped by the spell.  ACKS clears things up quite a big, by allowing the caster to affect one target or target a group of creature.  A group by this definition would usually exclude the other PCs.  This was something I had to read twice in game to make sure I was reading it right, and to doubly make sure I didn't default to my AD&D baseline.

Continual Light is not forever in ACKS, it's more like indefinite.  The caster can maintain one continual light spell per level of experience indefinitely without need for concentration.  No "every corner is lit by a conical light spell" in the cities in ACKS.  Guess I won't be playing an Eberron Campaign with these rules (not that I planned to).

The monster section is.  Yep, it simply is.  It's boring.  Alright, maybe not boring, but certainly uninspiring.  Then again, I have so many OSR games, and most of them have pretty uninspiring monster sections too.  However, I do have my Tome of Horrors Complete for Swords & Wizardry.  Much nicer selection to draw upon, complete with possible hooks and encounters.

The magic item section is cribbed fairly straight from the OGL.  How do I know?  It talks about Arcane Spell Scrolls holding spells of up to 9th level and Divine Spell Scrolls holding spells of up to 7th level.  In ACKS, Arcane Casters top of at 6th level spells, and Divine Casters top off with 5th level spells.

A similar dropping of the ball occurs during the mention of racial languages.  They include halflings in the mix, but there are no halfling PCs in the game.  They are there as NPCs, as a sort of human / dwarves mongrel racial hybrid, but you can't play them.  I actually thought they weren't even going to be in the monster section, so this bit caught me by surprise.

Swords and Armor don't go above a +3 bonus, which is quite in balance with a game that tops off at 14th level.  I very much like the Scavenging Treasures tables, as it puts some nice flavor to the non-magical stuff the players like to loot to make a few coins off of later.

Alright, all for now.  I need to add some more updates to the campaign's Obsidian Portal site.

Playing With Proficiencies in ACKS

Generic Adventuring Party
Our Party Has No Women or Hobbits
(That I Know Of ;)

I like to house rule.  That really isn't a secret.  The only difference is that 15 years away from the DM's chair has taught me to be organized right from the start of the campaign.  Notice I didn't use the phrase "more organized"?  Trust me, it wouldn't have applied back in the days of my gaming past.

It's kind funny, but when I read the Adventurer Conquerer Kings System rules the first couple of times, or at least did my usual chaotic flipping back and forth through the rule book style of reading, I never realized that proficiencies in the ACKS system do not get modified by a relevant ability score bonus (or penalty).  It wasn't until my players started making their characters that I realized this was not part of the rules.

Now, it could be that it isn't part of the rules because the assumption is you'll be rolling 3d6 for ability scores, and you'll be limiting the success of PCs that take proficiencies linked to abilities that give that particular character a penalty.  It could be the writers didn't want to stress the importance of ability score (which I don't see, as they certainly are an important bonus or penalty in combat).  If I'm going to run a campaign that is going to rely as much on "the role" as "the roll", this was something ripe for house ruling.

I didn't go through the list of proficiencies and assign relevant abilities to them.  Instead, as the use of the skill came up in game play, I suggested the ability that I felt was relevant and instructed the player to add their appropriate bonus or penalty to their roll.  If they thought another ability was just as relevant or more so, I would have been receptive to their line of thought if they could support it.  Of course, now that proficiencies such as Alchemy (Int) and Tracking (Int) have come into play, I'll need to make note of the decisions made.

As for the proficiencies themselves, I found the use of them strictly by the book was limiting.  I had no idea I would feel this way until the situations game up, but encouraging use of player skills and abilities outside the struck and limiting box of the written rules has always been an important part of play to me as a GM.

When the Elven Nightblade made his tracking roll, he wanted more than just direction of the tracks (direction was pretty useless in the limited mine they were investigating).  He was looking for relevant facts.  He rolled a decent success, and I explained the tracks were from a creature that apparently was reptilian, bipedal, with bare feet (clawed at that) with possible a slightly stooped gait when it moved.  I didn't spell out "troglodyte", but they were getting close.

When the Mage asked if he could use his Alchemy skill to inspect the especially stinky dung, as it might be component for a potion or such, that was exactly the types of skill use I want from my players.  I doubt that troglodyte dung is a common alchemical substance, but I am fairly sure it is a rare one, if not maybe even uncommon.  So I allowed the roll.  If he had just made it, I would have given him a vague answer, that coupled with other (previous) clues, may have allowed the party to reach the right conclusion.  But Greg aced his roll, and I told him exactly what it was.

So there we have it, a house rule we started the campaign with, and a house rule that came into play because it made sense for the type of game I like to run.

Games From the Basement - Warhammer Fantasy Battle (2nd Edition)

Somewhere , yet to be resdicovered, is a boxed set of the Warhammer 1st edition rules.  The ones that claimed to be an RPG but were barely functional as a war-game.  Still, I loved it.  Not for playing, just for the aura it gave off.

I remember buying the 2nd edition Warhammer rules, expecting it would have fixed the nearly nonexistent role play rules from the 1st edition.  The fixed it alright, by removing them completely.

I really wanted this to be the edition of Warhammer that worked for me.  It might have been a fine war-game, but my group didn't do war-games.

Yes, the Whole Box is in
Mint Condition
Curse Those Non-Wargamers
I Gamed With!

When Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was released, I finally had the game I (and my group) were looking for.  We played the crap out of the WFRP until we burned ourselves out on the system, and returned to our old standby, AD&D.

Some More Post Game Session Thoughts

Some further thoughts on last nite's ACKS session:

I really need to learn how to use the whiteboard feature in Tabletop Forge (i know i missed that - great save by Charles)

I really need to copy down the notes and scribbles I took last night before I forget what they mean.  It doesn't help that even I have trouble reading my handwriting, especially when written fast.  Penmanship is not my strongpoint.

Clerics aren't needed when the party doesn't take damage.  I expect that will change next session.

I have a bad habit of house ruling on the fly.  I need some sort of flypaper to make sure i make note of these damn house rules.

I do like the ACKS system.  It feels like a cross between B/X and AD&D, which works fine for me, as those are the systems I know best.

The party zigged when I fully expected them to zag in the very first scene.  Which means that the first session's direction went where I hadn't expected (but thankfully I had other provisions planned - it is a sandbox type campaign).  I can already tell my players are going to keep me on my toes.  Which is awesome, as it keeps the game fresh for me as well as the players.

I am truly glad I was prepared for a possible zag or two (although picking a fight in a bar was not the direction I expect).  I know what I'll be doing over the next week.  Preparing myself to expect the unexpected, as this group seems to thrive on going in those directions.

Back in the Saddle Again - Recapping the First Session of the ACKS Campaign

Wow.  Simply wow.  I have assembled an excellent group of players, which really shouldn't be a surprise, as I've played played with 3 of them for a while now, and the 4th I've known (via his blog at least) for years.  I'm very happy with how the first session turned out.

The party is currently composed of the following:

A Thrassian Gladiator who likes to brawl.  He actually got into a bar fight with a 3rd level Dwarven Vaultguard at the beginning of the session.  It was a close fight, but the gladiator won (and the dwarf now suffers from a permanent penalty to his initiative - do you think the party has a new nemesis with the dwarf and the rest of his party? ;)

An Elven Nightblade who is also the tracker in the party.  I'm allowing a high enough tracking roll to determine some details of the creature being tracked.

A Human Mage that certainly does not look the part.  A traveling companion of the gladiator from before the forming of the party, it is amazing he hasn't been an inadvertent casualty of said gladiator's desire to fight everything.  A sleep spell followed by a good set of manacles solves many a problem.

A Human Fighter.  The only party member native to the starting town.  Didn't get a chance to land a blow due to the well times sleep spell.  That will have to wait until next week.

I'm using Dark Times in Brighton for the starting town / sandbox and used the short adventure (with a few on the fly modifications) from The Manor #1.  Very little combat in the first session (the sleep spell took out the two troglodytes before any blows could be successfully struck), but the role play and the investigative aspects were definitely in full swing.  The damn party had me laughing hard at many points. I did learn a valuable lesson:  listen carefully to your players even while multitasking, or else you will miss the line "i'm searching the troglodyte's groin for valuables" as you will follow up with "you found a ring".  I don't think I've ever given out a "cockering" as a treasure before ;)

Rules-wise, I believe in empowering the players.  I allowed the successful use of the alchemy proficiency (it was a high roll) to identify the droppings as coming from a troglodyte.  Between the smells they were already dealing with, and a tracking roll that allowed the players the knowledge that the creature was humanoid, large, stooped with clawed feet, I figured they would all meet with the creature being identified.

Does alchemy or even tracking allow for such details as written in the rules?  No, but just because it isn't spelled out, doesn't mean it isn't part of the proficiency.

I'm also allowing appropriate stat bonuses to be used with proficiency rolls.  Doesn't unbalance anything in the grand scheme of things, and makes stats more important than just for combat.

In any case, I think we pulled off a successful start to a new campaign.  Not bad for a guy that hasn't DM'ed since 1997 ;)

(Troglodyte by Eric Quigley)

Organized Disorganziation

Like I tell me wife, there is a method to the mess on my desk, both home and at work.  It might appear to be random, but there is a method to the madness, usually.

This time, with my ACKS campaign that kicks off in just over 4 hrs, I want to try something different.  I want to be organized.  Well, let me qualify that.  Organized for me, which would still be a horrible chaos curse for many.

I need to consolidate my house rules, which are currently on different G+ threads.  I'll drop them into a pdf and post it... somewhere.

I need to keep my crap together in one place, especially as I am printing out stuff for use.  Thank God I have those Brave Halfling boxes... gonna be used today.

I wonder if i can get The Keep to run on my Mac?  need to give it a try.

Knowing me, I'll be making many hand written notes that I'll need to organize later.

Probably no more updates today, but I'll give a campaign update tomorrow if all goes well.  If it doesn't go well, I'm sure the update will be even more entertaining than otherwise ;)

Games From the Attic - The STAR WARS Sourcebook

I guess I should have posted this with all of the May the Fourth posts marking the 35th anniversary of Star Wars.  Story of my life, a day late and a dollar short.

Here's the kicker - I didn't even know I owned this until I pulled it out of the pile about 10 minutes ago.  From 1987 (the 10th anniversary of Star Wars, as indicated on the back cover) the book is in great shape, except for some slight warping.  I may need to put it under a proper pile of books to straighten in out.

Lots of pictures, lots of background info and minimal game stats, this would have been something that would have found it's way to any Star Wars fan's collection.  I never even know I had it.  Go figure.

It looks like a great read.  I may have to do more than just flip through it.  I may actually want to give this a good read, in honor of 35 years of Star Wars.

Final Preparation Before Opening the Sandbox

My new ACKS campaign kicks off tomorrow.  Needless to say, I keep on changing things up, trying to prepare myself for my players zigging when I'm prepared for a zag.

Then I realized... I don't have a starting location.  I have the immediate sandbox, I had the larger sandbox, lots of stuff for the sandbox to keep the players busy, but I didn't have a sizable town for them to start in.  What's a poor DM to do?

Dark Times in Brighton.  Actually printed it out double sided and stapled it together.  All proper like.  Did the same with some short 2 and 3 page adventures / locations /etc.

Not sure how much I'll use from Dark Times in Brighton besides the town, but there's enough to keep the party occupied for a bit as they find out about other hooks. Every trip, even in a sandbox, requires a starting point.  Now i have one :)

The Manor Issue #1 is on Sale (OSR Zine)

Tim from Gothridge Manor has released the first issue of his new zine, The Manor, today.  You can order the hard copy at his blog, or the PDF version at RPGNow.

I've already grabbed the PDF version, at it looks good at first glance, but I have other things occupying my time so far tonight.  I'll give it a proper review when I get to read it.  That being said, Tim's a good writer, so I expect only the best from him ;)

Games From the Basement - The Palladium Role-Playing Game (revised)

The Palladium Role-Playing Game was my one of my earlier non-D&D Fantasy RPGs (WFRP, MERP and Runequest II were the others).  Palladium RPG seemed to stick pretty close to D&D to my eyes, what with levels, hit points, classes, races - but it took everything up a notch.

It wan't the prettiest game in my collection at the time, but i found that there was always something I could steal from Palladium for D&D - Wolfen NPCs, Insanity Tables, alignment definitions - for an imperfect game, there was one heck of a lot of good stuff in this book (and the later source books).

I have a signed copy of the 2nd edition somewhere, to go along with my first print signed at GenCon RIFTS rpg.  Yep, lots of awesomely broken games from Palladium in my collection, including Recon and Mechanoids.  I just need to refind them ;)

Movie Review - The Avengers

Can I make this simple and to the point?

You'll laugh, you'll cry (and laugh), cheer, and laugh some more.

I drank a large (movie sized) soda and never once got up to pee.  There was no time to do so.  The movie MOVES constantly.

My one complaint:  Why is every NYC cop portrayed in movies as some late 1950's Brooklynite?  "Ey!  I'm talkin' ta youse!"  Sorry, I don't talk that way, 99% of my fellow officers don't talk that way, but the one talking scene with a NYPD Sergeant sounds like it's cribbed from a B&W movie I'd catch on AMC.

Yep, my only complaint.

As usual with the Marvel Movies these days, you need to sit through the credits.  So sit, don't fucking stand in front of your seats as the rest of us are fucking sitting as were watching the credits scroll by so we can catch the two epilogue easter eggs thrown in.  Sit, read some emails or send some texts on your phone, but just please sit!

Off to See The Avengers on the Morrow

Took off from work tomorrow, as I have things to do around the house and want to read up on some stuff in preparation for the kick off of my ACKS campaign this Saturday Night.

I mentioned I was off to a friend at work, who said he was also off, so he could catch the opening of The Avengers movie.  Yep, there are geeks and gamers on every job, every type of occupation ;)

Next thing I know,we have tickets to see it in IMAX 3D at 0930 in the morning.  Leaving me plenty of time for the other stuff I need to do later on.

I'll give you my review sometime tomorrow.

Frog God Goes Kickstarter - Rappan Athuk for S&W (and Pathfinder too)

Kickstarter is THE thing these days for RPG project funding & support.  If you have a good product that might be difficult to fund at the quality level you want, Kickstarter give you the tools to do it.

I got Frog God's email at 5:28 PM this afternoon, and when I clicked the link it was already supported at over $6k.  It is now 8:30 PM as I write this, and it's over $17K  18k  With 59 days to go.

"Holy shit!" does not come close to telling the story here.

Kickstarter and Indigogo have breathed new life into our hobby.  ACKS, LotFP Adventures, Dwimmermount, Barrowmaze, Myth & Magic, C&C Classic Monsters, OGRE - the list does not stop.

It is, as they say, a beautiful time to be a part of this. :)

Oh, and it can be expensive too.  Ouch!

Some Quick Thoughts on the Roll20 Virtual Table Top

As a Kickstarter supporter of the Roll20 VTT, I got my Beta invite yesterday and got to spend some time with the interface. It has a lot of potential, it has handful of quirks, and as I had to remind myself, it's still in beta.

It is beyond simple to add tokens and maps to the interface. Just type a search term into the search box (I used "kobold" and it comes back with a bunch of tokens you can grab from the net. Drag it and drop it onto the map area and you're done (unless you want to resize or such).

The same can be done with maps. It searches online directories with free gaming maps, and again, it's as simple as drag and drop. Then comes the map resizing, and the first quirk.

The few maps I dragged and dropped did not fit the default "map space" or whatever it is called. They weren't all that huge, maybe 12-15 rooms and corridors, but I couldn't enlarge them to the point that their grid matched the size of the VTT grid. That is going to be an issue, and one I assume will be addressed at some point in the beta,as I am sure it's not just an issue for me.

Another quirk / issue is with the marker for the maps. I like using whiteboards and markers for my campaigns to do a quick and dirty diagram / map of what the players see. With Roll20, the moment I release the mouse button as I'm using the marker, the pointer resets to no longer be a marker. So, back to the interface, click on the marker in the menu, draw another line - rinse and repeat. I'll be bringing this up on the forums, as this is more of an issue in my mind than the map issue. It's almost a game breaker. It's possible I'm missing a solution, and if so I'll post it if / when found.

Tabs for the different "boards" or maps is a great way to bounce back and forth between locations. Spot on.

I haven't tried the music / sound effects yet, not have i had a player log in yet to check the video / voice.

I'm just trying to feel Roll 20 out at the moment

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at the Latest Rule of Three - Feats, Skills and Monsters With Class

Fairy short set of answers in the latest Rule of Three question and answer posting.  Lets take a peek, shall we?

Original article is here

     Are themes just feat packages or is there more to them? What can we expect from feats for D&D Next—is it going to be what we're used to or are you spicing them up a bit?

The design right now delivers feats through themes—so yes, themes are the delivery device, just as themes in Dark Sun are a delivery device for some powers. (Interesting that they say "right now".  I guess there is still a hell of a lot of flux going on with D&D Next) Themes also do something great for character creation in that they really flesh out the story of your character and your character's place in the larger world. We've found (during the internal and expanded playtesting we've already done) that even experienced players enjoy that aspect of the themes, including when building their own theme feat-by-feat. (So, we no longer choose our own feats, but pick a theme?  I guess they are drawing from older editions - AD&D 2e and the Complete Handbook Series.  Hopefully themes have a better sense of balance)

As for feats, we want them to have a significant impact on how your character plays. We also want feats to allow some complexity customization (this is where we play with different editions in 5e i guess.  It's all in the feats). If you want to play a simple, streamlined character, we want to provide plenty of simple, streamlined feats for you to use. If you want a complex character, take complex feats. (I'm confused.  If the streamlined and complex feats are equal in power, why bother with the complex feats?  Flavor?  4e characters are more powerful than 3e characters, who are more powerful that 2e, and so on and so on.  If simple and complex are going to be equal, then you are going to have some disappointed players of later editions) Either way, we want you to feel like taking a feat really affects the way your character plays.

      If all characters can pick skills through backgrounds or just by cherry-picking what they want, is being the "skill monkey" no longer the rogue's thing?

We like the idea of rogues and skills being tied together as an aspect of the rogue's identity (but not the totality of that identity). (errr, o-kay.  so, rogues get skills, everyone gets skills.  so why be a rogue?)  Right now, we're experimenting with giving the rogue extra skills (but in 3e didn't rogues get like double or more the skill of the other classes?), on top of those that everyone gains, as a way to express that aspect of the class; we may also give the rogue some exclusive skills or skill-like abilities, but that is something we're still working on.  (does this mean every class can open locks, disarm traps, pick pockets and the like?  because that really is the rogue / thief niche, and to remove it removes a major reason to play the class)

      What other monster advancing ideas are you playing with beyond leveling them up with class levels?

Truthfully, we're not far enough into the game's design cycle to put too much work into monster advancement; up to this point, we've been more focused on creating the base versions of the monsters, making sure they work, etc. That said, I think we'd like to have many methods of advancing and altering monsters. Personally, I loved the idea behind templates from 3rd Edition, and really like the way we handle monster themes in 4E as a method of tinkering (please no minions and bosses bullshit.  if i wanted that I'll go back to MMORPGs). It's also pretty easy to just have rules for scaling up a monster's raw numbers.  Ideally, we're going to have a broad spectrum of ways for DMs to modify and scale up monsters, letting the DM choose his or her preferred method. (this "everything and the kitchen sink" method of building an RPG really scares me.  Do we really need multiple methods to tweak monsters?  multiple methods of gameplay?  of playing the classes?)

Which is More Important in Game Design - Player Wants or Player Needs?

After reading Monte's recent post on game design, he puts a heck of a lot of weight on the "wants" of players, then uses an example where game designers listen to the players and make a correction with a tweak.

The players in Monte's example did not get what they wanted (in this case, a faster reload time that would have been unbalancing and unrealistic) but got a tweak to the reload animation that did not change reload time. They got what they needed, not what they wanted.

Players want lots of stuff they don't need. They buy splat books with new classes, feats and the like because they want it. The splat books do serve a need - the need of WotC to bring in revenue. Which works until the game system gets crushed beneath the weight of the splats.

Which is why I'm very wary when game designers say they are designing games based upon what players "want". Designers need to look deeper, and find out what players really "need" in their games. I know the answer isn't as simple as it sounds, but it's the only way to make a game with lasting success in my opinion.

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

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

Designing Sometimes Means Listening

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

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

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

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

Tuesday is Sales Day! Castles & Crusades and More

Some quick "Player Service Announcements":

The Trolls are running a sale at RPGNow -

Holy Carolina! We are very happy to see the full release, print and pdf, of Classic Monsters! This book is blasting off the shelf...digital and physical. To celebrate and give everyone a chance to see what Castles and Crusades is all about we are launching a limited 30% off sale on the digital copies of the two core books: The Players Handbook and Monsters and Treasure. To boot we are dropping all adventure prices by 75%! (S2 - Dwarven Glory is $1.02, S4 Lion in the Ropes is $.99 - at these prices you can easily convert the adventures to other OSR systems if you want to)  This is a limited time offer so be sure to get yours today!

 Castles & Crusades is the Rosetta stone of RPGS. With its easy to use Siege Engine you'll see why the edition wars are meaningless as C&C offers you the game you want to play! Its bare knuckles role playing at its best!

But wait!  There's more!  Occult Moon has dropped the price on OSS:  The Forgotten Outpost to $2.99

In the hills around the city of Bear's Paw lies a long forgotten outpost that has fallen into ruins. There are many legends told about this hidden landmark, and rumors of treasures lying inside are told around warm fires. Many have made their way into the dark underbelly of this stony memorial seeking fortune and glory, but none have ever returned.  Will you be the first adventurers to uncover the secrets buried there?

Be prepared for a fight as you embark on this adventure to uncover the truth behind the legends. Kobolds, gnolls, traps, and secrets lay in wait for you in this dungeon crawl into The Forgotten Outpost! Adventure suitable for adventurers level 3 to 5 ish for what ever Old School Sh*t you play.

Edit:  LotFP has some "scuffed" specials going on at the moment: (thanks to Conner Uber on G+)

WF Grindhouse Edition is 20 euro (with free PDF), down from 32.50 euro  (I've said it before and I'll say it again, the LotFP WF Referee book is probably worth the price of admission alone - everything else is a bonus).
Carcosa is also 20 euro scuffed, down from 32 euro

Alright, back to regular posting.  The Grumpy Dwarf is already cracking his knuckles ;)

Slightly Tainted Ideas

I spoke at length with Michael Garcia of Occult Moon Games yesterday. Nope, it wasn't an interview (that's something I've yet to do on this blog. I'd have to "unlearn" some of my job training to make sure it was an interview and not an interrogation ;) Just two guys bouncing some thoughts off of each other.

One thing that did come up was the idea of running a "dark" or "chaos tinged" adventure(s). We weren't talking Lovecraft or Carcosa. Heck, I don't even think we were thinking Warhammer Fantasy Role Play (I'm a 1st edition fan, Mike is a 2nd edition fan, neither of us liked 3rd edition).

I guess the closest that I can think of that would fit my definition would be some of the stuff put out by James Raggi. More psychological than over the top, more hinted at than reveled. James does that well, except his default setting / background pretty much does away with the fantasy monsters we know. He throws the demihumans into LotFP's Weird Fantasy to satisfy the folks that would otherwise complain about their omission. It works because the slate he works off of is cleared of most fantasy tropes, all monsters are fairly unique, mysterious and dangerous.

So, can you write, let alone run, an effective classic fantasy adventure with a dark tint to it? Can you evoke some of those feelings of dread within the usual tropes of a D&D styled roleplaying system? Do you need to remove standard and classic D&D monsters from the palate?

Does this only work in a "low magic" campaign?

Can this style of adventure work in Greyhawk, The Forgotten Realms or Blackmarsh? A campaign that includes "mega-dungeons" and the like?

At which point do you break the spell? What is considered too much, or too dark, or not dark enough? Is less more?

These are questions I find bouncing around my head today. This is the challenge I've wandered blindly into. Once I start answering these questions I'll be that much closer to deciding if this is something I want to work into my campaign.

Apocalyptic Thoughts

Last night was another nite of Arcane Apocalypse, Charles Jaimet's hack of Apocalypse World into something more suitable for fantasy. It really is a blast, and when Charles releases his baby into the wild (I don't believe it has been yet) you do need to grab a copy. As an aside, I found it a much easier read than AW, but that may be partly due to my grounding in the fantasy genre.

Still, just like in AW, Arcane Apocalypse is a world of grey moral choices. Actually, let me rephrase that, it is a grey world full of complicated webs of intrigue, and the deck of life is stacked against those that try to maintain a sense of morality.

Maybe that's why I enjoy the sessions as much as I do. It's easy for your character to be "good", when being good is rewarded. It's much harder to maintain that goal, when being "good" probably isn't to your benefit.

We've had some amazing roleplaying so far, especially as characters try to do what is right (or at least not do what they perceive as wrong) and try to figure out how to survive being caught in a web without sacrificing your fellow players.

Great session lads, even if I was under the influence of heavy meds for my allergies from hell. God, I really hate this spring's wacky weather ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at Mike Mearls' Latest Post - Looking at Fighters

The Grumpy Dwarf here.  Long time poster, first time getting credit for it.   Yadda Yadda. Listen, if you want to know why I tear apart bullshit posts on Dungeons & Dragons from the Wizzies Guys, know this - WotC is putting a version of a game that "isn't close to done" in your hands in less than a month, so you can test it and make it better.  They don't need to hear fuckin' Cheer Bear, they need to know what needs to be fixed in MY opinion.  You want it closer to a game you want to play? Give them YOUR opinion, as often and as loud as you can.  Maybe the powers that be will hear you, but don't bet your gaming fun on it.  - The Grumpy Dwarf

Original article is here.

Last week, we announced that the D&D Next playtest will become open to the public on May 24th (aint that a scary thought?  the game, as per WotC is about 20% done, but they are putting it's future in your hands.  I'm no game designer, but if I were, I'd like to be a lot closer to being done before releasing my child into the wild)  This week, I’d like to talk a bit about the overall shape the playtest will take and what we need to get out of it. (lets see, a good game, a working game system, a marketable version of D&D that will let us save a few bodies from the Christmas Reaper that resides at WotC)

The playtest materials will initially consist of the basic core rules and a limited selection of classes and races (no surprise there - we are talking 1/5th of a game, and that fifth is subject to change). We’ll roll out the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue, along with the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling. (gnomes get the fuckin' shaft yet again!  I hate gnomes, but I feel for my cousins) In the earliest stages of the test, we’ll provide you with pregenerated characters. (that's a mixed bag.  it means the play test will be balanced, but isn't the point of a play test to find things that aren't in balance?  to "game the game" no, to prevent folks from "gaming the game" late?)

We are intentionally starting small so that we can collect feedback on specific portions of the game (you are starting small because you don't have much for folks to play with yet). To start with, we want the core rules to receive a thorough inspection. Obviously, if the basic rules of playing and DMing the game aren’t working, we need to know that sooner rather than later.the core better fuckin' work at this point, or else they have less than 20% - they have zero %)

As we collect feedback on the core rules, we’ll also release more material for players. We’ll start from a set of pregenerated characters, and then we plan on leveling up those characters to walk everyone through the first ten levels of the game (so if you die, just restart with the same one?  i know it's a beta test of sorts, but it is still a roleplaying experience, and character death and loss is part of that). Once that is done, we’ll then loop back and release material for building your own characters. (i wonder how fast this process will be, and I wonder how many groups are going to run many sessions with pregens)

In general, the playtest will start with the broad and then zero in on the specific. We want to make sure that the game feels right in terms of classes and races (they better not leave gnomes out yet again), ease of play at the table, the level of danger present in the game (which will be hard to evaluate fully with reboot able pregens, but whatever), and the flexibility of basic task resolution. Once we’ve established those baselines, we can start to look at player options, from classes to specific abilities, in more detail. (i'm going to assume the "we" referred to is the players, as if the game designers are part of that "we" and they are waiting on "us" it's going to be a longer process than it should be.)

Depending on the nature of feedback, we hope to maintain a relatively brisk pace of pushing new content out into the wild. (if they can keep to this, may the gods bless them and bear them many bearded children - if nothing else, it will give me post fodder ;)

Why are we going along this path rather than releasing the entire game at once? First of all, the game isn’t close to done. (SEE?  I said it wasn't nearly done, not even a quarter done.  Second, we want to make sure that each part of the game is thoroughly tested. (I can't complain about this in the least.  good call)  Releasing the material in small, controlled doses ensures that the feedback we receive is focused on a few specific areas. (alright, understandable - you don't want a bunch of Grumpy Dwarves swarming you with umpteen complaints and assorted issues at one time.)  It makes both our work and your testing efforts more efficient.

With that in mind, let’s keep talking about what you’re going to see in the upcoming playtest packet. Last week, I wrote about the cleric (oh boy.  yep, that was me last week). This week, it’s the fighter’s turn.

Fighter Design Goals

The fighter is one of my favorite classes, so I’m a little biased. I also think it is a class that has always suffered a bit compared to the spellcasters in the game (I dunno.  wizzies in my campaigns were always squishy and target first by intelligent advisories.  nobody wanted to play the cleric). Fighters represent the most iconic fantasy heroes, and it is perhaps the most popular class in the game (if they are so popular, are they really that week compared to casters?). Therefore, it’s important that we get the fighter right.

You can take a look at last week’s article to get a sense of our general approach to the classes. Here are the main points we’re looking at for the fighter.

1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!

This might sound like an obvious point, but the fighter should be the best character in a fight. Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class (hey, I agree with Mike.  Let's all have a beer!). A magic sword might make you better in a fight, but a fighter of the same level is still strictly better. Perhaps a spell such as haste lets you attack more often, but the fighter is still either making more attacks or his or her attacks are more accurate or powerful. (i dunno.  a hasted thief with backstab in the shadows can be an awesome thing)

2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic

Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed (somebody mark this down.  fighters won't be having an assortment of magical moves and abilities like they do in 4e.  gods damn but I can breath a sigh of relief now)  Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy.  (man, i always wanted my fighters to shoot laser beams!  maybe if i get a wish spell)

3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend

Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.  (wait, if "none can hope to stand against them" WTF is the point to playing the game?  if you pit two fighters against each other, does it cause a rift in the space / time continuum?  turning undead was too powerful a cleric ability as written, but fighters trump everything?)

4. The Fighter Is Versatile

The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.  (okay, i'll accept that.  so, fighters don't specialize in combat type.  they are generalists.  which works, because even if they used a spiked dildo, "none can hope to stand against them".  Not that they could find a spiked dildo in most campaigns, but it's just such a disturbing image, I had to keep it)

5. The Fighter Is the Toughest Character

The fighter gets the most hit points and is the most resilient character. A fighter’s skill extends to defense, allowing the class to wear the heaviest armor and use the best shields. The fighter’s many hit points and high AC renders many monsters’ attacks powerless (wait!  we aren't saying "less effective against fighters compared to other classes", instead we are told "renders many monsters attacks powerless" as well as "none can stand against them".  Mike, if you turn the fighter up to 11, then you have to turn the other classes up to 11 and we get 4e all over again just with tape over the serial numbers)

6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal

Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. (again, I haven't personally seen this issue, but it's probably because all of our whizzies were terrified of dying real fast) It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. (and then the survivors kill the wizzie with a blow or two - assuming the fighter failed his saves and doesn't kill the wizzie himself)  A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round (if the orcs are dumb enough to throw themselves in waves at the fighter round after round.  wait!  what about the overbearing rules.  there are overbearing  rules, aren't there?). Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. (how about we fit the new new D&D into D&D.  D&D has it's own tropes)  Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.  (so, whizzes can't kill a fighter?  but a fighter can kill a wizzie?  this balance shit is getting confusing as hell, as I fail to see the balance)

Sandbox Thoughts - There is no Grid in My Sandbox

That's right, there is no grid in my sandbox styled campaign, at least not how one is used in 3.5 and especially 4e D&D.

There is a reason Adventure Paths are popular with the 4e crowd (and started with the 3x crowd)- the adventures usually come with battle maps or tiles.

3.5e is nearly impossible to play with out a grid, and the amount of house ruling it would take to remove the grid from 4e would make it a totally different game (5e perhaps?).

It's hard to run a gridded game with a sandbox. Sure, you can use a battle mat and write it in washable marker, or maybe pull a map from your collection that you've used before that kinda fits the location, but it's not a great solution. Heck, you could map out battle maps for all of your possible random encounters, but then when would you have time to game?

Did anyone use a grid with G1-3? T1-4 (TOEE). None that I know did more than a sketch and a room description

That is why sandbox style play is very much "Old School", where counting hexes and spell templates are replaced by a quick description or sketch and the Theatre of the Mind.

Not that I have a total aversion to using a battle mat / map if it helps sort things out. I just don't want my players, my campaign, or myself being a slave to it.

The moment players start counting, measuring, checking facing or asking about spell area effect templates I know the map has gone from imagery to grid.

There is no room for a grid in my sandbox, but a map, mat, whiteboard and the like are welcome. Even if it has little hexes or squares on it. Just don't treat it as a grid.