The Grumpy Dwarf Chews The Chat - Mike Mearls D&D Next Chat Session (Part 2)

link to part 1 of the chat, with Grumpyisms ;)

11:31
Mearls: Next!

11:32
Jeremy Crawford:
My favorite new condition is intoxicated. ;)  (isn't it for most dwarves? ;)11:32
Comment From Mike 
How are we going to provide feedback on the open playtest?
11:33
Mearls: We'll have a series of surveys we're sending out  OMFG!  Enough with the fuckin' surveys!  Have you read the surveys at the WotC site Mike? 

Do you take potty breaks during your D&D Sessions?  YES ? NO?  

Should D&D sessions be shorted to eliminate the need for potty breaks?  YES?  NO?  MAY I FUCK A TURNIP?

I also think that we might have a dedicated forum on the site for discussion, but I think Trevor might now more about that. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for us to capture feedback, while also reaching as wide an audience as possible.  (wide audience = open playtest w/o NDA or sign up requirements)
11:33
Mearls: BTW, the surveys are being put together by the folks at WotC who do that for a living (shit!  that means the same asses that write them at the end of every post on the WotC site... sigh).

11:33
Mearls: Next!

11:34
Comment From The Mormegil 
I know your top one priority is making the game feel like D&D, but those of us who do not notice any distinctive feel in D&D (which may also be true of those hoping to find a D&D feel in the game) and would like to help too may need a direction for their efforts. What are you looking for in this playtest? What do you expect from it?

11:35
Jeremy Crawford: We also want to know whether the game is enjoyable for you, whether the rules make sense, and whether is evokes a swords-and-sorcery feel. (has D&D really been a Swords & Sorcery game by default?)

11:36
Mearls: There are two ways to look at it.

if you're a long-time D&D fan, the playtest should feel like you're coming home again. (long time 4e?  3e?  old school?  can you really accomplish that with such divergent expectations?) We want the rules to be easy to use, rulings simple to make, and the game to move at a good pace. All while feeling like D&D at its heart.  (how about feeling like D&D in its Soul?)
if you don't have a particular attachment to D&D or its specific feel, then the game should be fun to play, interesting to run, and an overall good fantasy RPG.

Our biggest goal is making sure that the core rules are easy to understand, easy to use, and fully functional.  (that should apply to any set of RPG rules)

11:36
Mearls: Next!

11:36
Comment From Tara 
What were some of the major changes from the last few days?  (did you all catch this in the first part of the chat?  major fucking changes the week before putting the play test in the public's hands!  that does not bode well)

11:36
Jeremy Crawford:
Haha!

11:36
Mearls: Hmmm... is there anything we haven't changed in the past few days?

11:37
Jeremy Crawford:
One of my favorite changes from this week is adding more flavorful effects to some of the cantrips.

11:37
Mearls: I did a review of our weapon table, and I think the spear was the one weapon I didn't comment on. Probably the biggest things are rogue schemes (no idea what this is - must have missed something when i read the rogue write up) and cleric domains.

11:38
Jeremy Crawford:
Yeah, the rogue has really come into focus this week. (just in time for the playtest)
11:38
Mearls: Yes, cantrips that you use to attack are basically utility cantrips that have a way you can use them against creatures. The ignite cantrip lets you start fires, whether its lighting a torch or a goblin's butt. (of course, because as we know, every D&D game session needs fire and torture - and burning the goblin's ass covers both)
11:38
Mearls: Next!

11:38
Comment From Kamikaze Midget 
Can you tell us about anything you guys have discovered in focusing the game on the entire adventure, rather than on the individual encounter? (hasn't the focus usually been the entire adventure, or did that change with 4e?  wait, 4e has Encounters as an RPGA event.  never mind)

11:38
Jeremy Crawford:
The poor goblin and his butt.

11:40
Mearls: The biggest thing is making it OK for one character to own a particularly encounter. If the wizard casts sleep and KOs a group of six kobolds, that's OK. In the next encounter, the rogue might sneak up on the kobold shaman and gank him, or the fighter blocks a doorway and takes down a wave of attackers. Same goes for characters with good social abilities, and so on.  (wow.  you mean characters don't have to be balanced by the encounter, but but the adventure as a whole?  that's novel.  yes, i'm being sarcastic, as this is nothing new)

11:40
Mearls: It also means for a much faster game - characters contribute in each encounter, but we can let someone shine without feeling that everyone must have at least 4 or 5 turns to do their thing. (4e, they are talking to you kid!)

11:41
Jeremy Crawford: There is a tremendous amount of world texture that we can include when there isn't pressure to make everything count in every single combat encounter (my god but 4e must be a tedious fucking game). We can include character options that speak to social situations, exploration, traveling on the high seas, hopping into other planes of existence, and so on, without segregating those options into little buckets. (okay - I'll take your word for this jerry)

11:42
Mearls: It also means that "unbalanced" options are more viable. For instance, in one adventure the characters fought a gang of hobgoblins. One of the hobgobs was a beast master who used a whip and a prod to drive a pair of giant scorpions forward. The rogue sniped the beast master, so the scorpions turned around and had their revenge on the tribe. (but a wizard casting glitterspray and grease to take out the evil cleric is overpowered?  overpowered or just a bit of prejudice against spell casters?  which is it Mr Iron Heroes?)

11:43
Mearls: It ended the fight pretty quickly, but it made for a fun adventure. The characters ended up luring the scorpions into a room with a window, locking them in there while the rogue climbed out. (sounds like a little DM Fiat in use there.  not complaining, just remarking)
11:43
Mearls: Next!

11:43
Comment From Brian 
How do you plan on handling the discrepancy between the 4e-style spells for wizards/sorcerors (Powers) vs the older-style spells (A lot of very unique and varied spells)? Would both styles of play get along nicely in a game?

11:43
Jeremy Crawford:
Yes, they get along together very nicely. :) (glad you think so jerry)

11:44
Mearls: We have some potentially interesting ideas for the warlock vs. sorcerer vs. the wizard. I can't say much, but when you have two or three classes using arcane magic, you have room to maneuver. In 3e the warlock was sort of 4e-like, as was the binder. I think we can make room for both in a way that makes those classes unique and fun. (whatever... the real question is which method is used with the core class?)
11:45
Mearls: The great thing about classes is that you can have a spell slot system, a spell point system, and a power system all in the same game. (just so long as it's not in the same class)

11:45
Mearls: Next!

11:45
Comment From Somnambulant gamer 
Everyone's incredibly excited about this initial offering, do we know what kind of timeframe we're looking at for materials to generate new characters and a chance to see more of the core classes that will be released?

11:45
Jeremy Crawford:
Even in the playtest spells, you will see elements from classic spells and elements from powers.

11:45
Mearls: Let me check our schedule. It's on a white board on the other side of my desk... AFK

11:46
Jeremy Crawford: We plan to roll out character-customization options this summer.  (this will be the point where we do more than just kick the tires - this will be the true test drive)

11:46
Mearls: OK, if things go smoothly you'll have that stuff before the end of the summer. Keep in mind that feedback is a part of this, and it's all contingent on how much we need to change based on round 1.

11:46
Mearls: Next!

11:47
Jeremy Crawford: And we'll roll out other classes bit by bit. Since our focus is on collecting feedback, we are not going to release too much at once. We want to make sure each part of the game gets the love it deserves.

11:47
Comment From Andrew 
Can you comment on adventure pacing versus the wonder of magic? In 3e, PCs were often required to rest after the cleric/wizard were out of spells, regardless of the state of the rest of the party. In 4e, everyone can keep going until out of surges, but there was less "magical pizazz" across the classes -- a sword being a magic missile being a druid's claw.

11:49
Jeremy Crawford: We have been striving to connect pacing to concrete things in the game world: magical resources, such as spells; hit points; and various options that might rely on a character expending some of his or her vitality.  (point system code word?)
11:49
Mearls: That's a great question. We want magical to feel magical yet rooted in the world. The cantrip thing ties into this. Cantrips aren't specifically made to blast people, but a cantrip you use to create a small amount of acid as part of an alchemy experiment can also be a useful weapon. Spells should feel magical and maybe even mysterious in some way.  (this sounds intrguing.  i like it.  see, i'm not a total fucking grump)
11:49
Mearls: For instance, going back to cantrips, we specifically didn't want to just make a spell that was the same as a crossbow but it did fire damage. That sells magic short, IMO.

11:49
Mearls: Next!

11:49
Comment From Somnambulant gamer 
You mentioned all casters have at-will spell "options" now. Are these class features, or tied into the themes or backgrounds?

11:50
Jeremy Crawford: Both!  (huh?)
11:50
Jeremy Crawford: The cleric and the wizard get them, and some backgrounds and themes offer them.

11:51
Mearls: Yes, both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt into that if they want (wait, all classes can get "at will magic powers?  isn't this 4 e in just a new package?). I'd also like to at some point offer an option for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent. (largely independent of any edition prior to 3e perhaps? so mike, this is the game that will bring back the old school players, cause i dont see it)
11:51
Mearls: Next!

11:52
Comment From Preston 
What races will be in the play test? Do you see race or culture as being a driving force behind a characters mechanics?

11:52
Jeremy Crawford: Yeah, when playing a spellcaster, many people like to feel like a spellcaster all the time and not have to resort to a crossbow--or a dart! (huh?  oh, this is an answer to the previous question)
11:53
Jeremy Crawford: The classic four will be in the playtest: dwarf, elf, halfling, and human. (gnomes always get the short stick)

11:53
Mearls: Halfling, human, dwarf, and elf. We're actually doing a mix of race and culture with our approach. A high elf and a wood elf share some innately elf things, but also get some things distinct to their specific culture.  (again, no complaints with this approach)

11:53
Jeremy Crawford: Right out of the gate, you'll see the high elf, for instance.

11:53
Mearls: Next!

11:53
Comment From HustontheTodd 
What I love about 4e is the ease with which I can throw an encounter together. What can I expect from dndnext to make adventure building fun?

11:54
Jeremy Crawford: While Mike answers that, I'll say something else about race. A thing I love about our current approach is that you don't just pick your race, such as dwarf. You also pick what kind of dwarf you are.  (Hill, Mountain, Dueger?)

11:55
Mearls: 4e provides the standard we're using for DM tools and adventure building. My goal is to do a mix of basic D&D - which was fairly step-by-step - combined with 4e's approach, though focusing more on the adventure as a whole rather than encounters. We also know that DM experience plays a big role in how people approach adventure and campaign design, so we want to offer a lot of options including "roll lots of dice and randomly determine everything" to "do whatever you want."  (i'm not really sure what to make of this - mark this as a wait and see)

11:55
Mearls: Next!

11:55
Comment From RupertDnD 
Are Fighters getting cool stuff too, like powers or maneuvers?

11:56
Jeremy Crawford:
The fighter gets to carry my wizard's tea! (now that's fucking funny!)

11:57
Mearls: Right now, we're keeping the fighter fairly basic but giving you those options in feats. (wait, i thought you could only get feats in a kit - or whatever the hell they call them in 5e) However, the fighter does get a couple unique mechanics to make him different. This is definitely an area where we're looking at feedback, but so far people seemed more concerned with getting at-will magic that in making manuevers something all fighters automatically get.  (more about the at-will magic... sigh)
11:57
Mearls: And to be clear, right now if you spend a feat for maneuvers you're getting a whole suite of options to use, not just one thing. (so, it's not just kits then)

11:58
Mearls: Also, I don't think the first pregen fighter has maneuvers to start with.  (psych!!!)
11:58
Mearls: Next!

11:58
Jeremy Crawford: We're committed to giving fighter players interesting tactical options, but we also want to make it possible to play the simple basher. Feedback is usually split on wanting both types of fighter.

11:58
Comment From Jozh 
Prestige Classes/Paragon Paths? In or out?

11:59
Mearls: We're not sure yet. One of our next big tasks is to look at high level play and how things might evolve beyond class. If we do paths or prestige classes, we want to make sure that they fit into the overall Next system in an organic way, We don't want to just bolt them in.  (they just finished the 1st level pretest characters between last week and this week - i'd be afraid if they were thinking high level,as low levelisn't even set in sand yet)11:59
Mearls: OK, one more question then I have a lunch meeting.

12:00
Comment From EdofDoom 
Are there any obvious tanking mechanics in the new edition? Something that guarentees a wizard in the back doesn't get ganged up on by people running past the fighter?  (Ah, obligatory MMORPG question)
12:00
Jeremy Crawford: Our initial high-level playtests were a hoot and included elements similar to paragon paths / prestige classes, but we're still exploring options.

12:01
Jeremy Crawford: There are definitely ways for one character to protect another. We have a whole theme dedicated to the concept, in fact, but you won't see a tank per se in the first batch of five characters.  (and depending on the feedback, that theme may be invalidated.  please call back later)

12:02
Mearls: There are two things. First, creatures grant cover. So, cowering behind people is a good idea. (now that's heroic gameplay for ya!) That said, the basic option for that rests in a theme right now. My feeling on tanks is that it's best if a player wants to do that, rather than saying an entire swatch of characters are assigned that when a player might want to be a fighter to be good in combat.

I'd rather it be clear that a player has taken a theme to do that and is getting into it because that's what the player enjoys doing in D&D.
12:02
Mearls: Thanks for the questions, everyone. This was a lot of fun. I've asked Trevor to capture the questions we couldn't get to so we can cover them before the playtest launches.  (they sure as hell wont be answering any of mine)12:02
Jeremy Crawford:
Yes, thank you, everyone!
12:03
Trevor: Alright, that wraps things up for the Q&A! Thanks everyone for all the great questions. We weren't able to get to them all, but as Mike mentioned, we will be trying to answer as many as we can in future articles and conversations.

Closing the Circle on Some Lapsed Gamers

In two days I'll be running the third session of my ACKS campaign. I know it's hitting the right buttons as I'm able to visualize the encounters in my mind's eye just like I would with a good book. And like a good book, the characters seem alive and constantly surprise me. The blessing of a good group of role players at my virtual table.

I find it interesting and exciting that members of my old face to face RPG group have been following the relevant postings on this blog.

The group itself switched to MMORPGs like Everquest, DDO, Warhammer and Star Wars as the years past, and even has added a pair of Texans and a Washingtonian to what is now a multilayered gaming group. One thing in common? Everyone cut their teeth on D&D.

I think I might be able to drag them away from the latest Star Wars MMORPG one friday night and show them the fine wonders of gaming via Google+ or one of the other fine VTTs out there.

I just know that for me, Everquest and the rest just don't hold a candle to true role playing.

I'll see if I can return a few lapsed gamers into the fold ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Chews The Chat - Mike Mearls D&D Next Chat Session (Part 1)

This is a long chat to chew.  I may have to break this into two separate parts.  Lets see how much actual meat there is as I chew the fat ;)


Original chat is here

10:51
Trevor: I've just opened the chat so people should be making their way in now. Once we're about to start, I'll do another couple announcements.

10:55
Trevor: Hah! You're all awesome with your questions, but we haven't started quite yet. You can keep them coming in, just know that we'll be starting this party in about five to ten minutes.

11:00
Trevor: For a few of you asking about a transcript - yes, the contents of this chat will be available on the site after we're done.

11:01
Mearls: Hello world. (Hello Nurse!)

11:01
Trevor: There's Mike Mearls, one of the stars of the show!

11:01
Mearls: Jeremy Crawford will be a little late. We just finished up a meeting on the playtest packet.

11:03
Trevor: You want to regale us with any playtest tidbits while we wait for him, Mike?

11:04
Mearls: Hmmm... let's see. I've been DMing mostly, and the rules have changed a lot over the past few days (this is a very scary statement.  if they've changed a lot over the last few days, we can probably roll back that 20% complete number they were throwing around the other week). Probably the funniest thing was guest starring as a librarian in a playtest game at DDXP. (k, color me clueless on this remark) Also, I got to test the DR (damage resistance?  difficulty rating?  dead rat rules?) rules when the players had to cut open a dead wererat's stomach to find a gem it had swallowed. That was not how I expected to test those rules.

11:05
Mearls: Trevor, you can go ahead with questions. Jeremy will be here shortly, and I can defer to him as needed.

11:06
Trevor: Alright, lets get the intro blurb in there and get started then.

11:06
Trevor: Welcome everyone to the Q&A for the next iteration of D&D and the upcoming playtest! I'm Trevor Kidd, Community Manager for Wizards and D&D and I'll be facilitating the chat. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford from the D&D design and development teams will be fielding Your questions.

11:06
Jeremy Crawford: Hello, everyone!

11:07
Trevor: This is a moderated chat, which means every comment or question you make is seen on our end of things, but you won't see it until we publish it to the room for Mike and/or Jeremy to talk about. With all that said, let me get out of the way and let Mike and Jeremy introduce themselves and say a few words. After that, we'll start fielding your questions!

11:07
Trevor: And there we have Jeremy!

11:07
Trevor: Alright - I'll leave the floor to you two. When you're done with introductions let me know and I'll get on to the questions.

11:07
Mearls: I'm Mike Mearls and I'm the senior manager for the D&D team. My job is to oversee the development of the game and make sure all the teams work together.

11:08
Jeremy Crawford: And I'm Jeremy Crawford, head of editing and development for D&D products. (well, at least we know who Jeremy is now)

11:08
Mearls: I also pitch in as needed to get work done. For instance, my other open window has the rules text for rituals, though those won't be in the initial playtest. (because 1st level characters wouldn't be casting rituals.  at least, i hope they wont)
11:08
Jeremy Crawford: I do enjoy trying to get Mike to work as a writer still. :)

11:08
Mearls: I think we're ready for questions.

11:09
Trevor: To cover a lot of very basic questions out there, can you remind us when the playtest starts and give us a little information about what people can expect from this first playtest packet?

11:09
Mearls: The playtests starts on the 24th. That's next Thursday. Which is much sooner than it seems. Much, much sooner.  (yep, assuming there isnt an NDA on this playtest, it should make for some very interesting discussion)
11:09
Jeremy Crawford: Here's what to expect in the packet . . .

11:09
Jeremy Crawford: Five pregenerated characters (all right - first thing of note - they are blanacing for parties of 5 - if you have 6 or more players in your group and you want to playtest, you'll need to double up)
11:10
Jeremy Crawford: The Caves of Chaos adventure (that's the same that was run at D&D Experience - it was in all of the ENWorld photos posted - well, some of the photos - sigh - whatever)
11:10
Jeremy Crawford: A bestiary to accompany the adventure (this could be cool - will be interesting to see the fluff / crunch ratio)

11:10
Jeremy Crawford: And rules of play, both for players and DMs

11:10
Mearls: We're doing two clerics to test the range of the domain/deity system.

11:11
Jeremy Crawford: One of the clerics is more of an armor-and-mace fellow, and the other is more of a mystic (i would expect the mystic to be more squishy - it will be interesting to see how they can balance the two)
11:11
Jeremy Crawford: The five characters will feature the background and theme system that we've alluded to in the past few months.  (break out those AD&D 2e Complete Handbooks if you want a preview ;)
11:12
Mearls: Next question!  (why do I hear Frau Blucker's voice? ;)
11:12
Trevor: Another very popular set of questions from many in the room: Who can play in the playtest, and how are we going to distribute the playtest information to people?

11:13
Jeremy Crawford: We hope everyone will play! (we also hope everyone will PAY when the time comes...)

11:13
Mearls: The playtest is open to anyone who signs up, and the information will be available digitally. As part of signing up, there will be an online playtest agreement (is this an NDA?  my googlefu is weak, and i can find no info on an online playtest agreement for Dungeon Command) similar to the one we used for Dungeon Command last year.

11:13
Mearls: Next question!

11:13
Comment From monstermanual
What level of complexity will we see in the first wave playtest PCs, and what options will we have to adjust them to our taste?

11:14
Jeremy Crawford: There will be a range of complexity, from a relatively straightforward fighter to a class wizard. (k, this is the first "true" bullshit answer.  this question was asking about complexity within the classes - the 0e feel playing with the 3e feel playing with the 4e feel.  Jeremy, your answer fails)

11:14
Jeremy Crawford: By "class" I mean "classic". :)

11:14
Mearls: Character customization will come in a bit later. To start with, we're focusing on the core system. (as originally presented, the most important part of the D&D Next system was the ability to adjust the complexity of the character classes to play "your edition" to some extent.  I thought that was "the core".  Guess not.  Now I know why my question asking if they were backing off the idea of evoking different editions in the core system was never presented - well, that and i asked one question as Erik Tenkar and one as The Grumpy Dwarf.  I probably should have used D&DNext4Ever as my handle ;)
11:15
Jeremy Crawford: We will roll out adjustment options in the next few months. For now, we'd like people to play with the pregens.

11:15
Comment From OngoingDamage
How different will the 5/24 playtest materials be from what we saw at PAX East? Did any of the PAX East playtest feedback get incorporated into the current version?

11:16
Jeremy Crawford: There will be many differences, both in the core mechanics and in the characters. 

11:16
Mearls: Yes, we incorporated that feedback. The playtest will look fairly different in terms of characters. Mostly, things will look a little simpler for DMs. The classes, themes, and backgrounds are a little better organized, and we've done some work in figuring out what parts of a character sit where. (themes and backgrounds sound redundant, but maybe that's just me)
11:17
Comment From shamsael
How much can we expect the rules to change from the start of public playtesting to final release? To put it differently, how much of the system at this point is set in stone and how much is free to be tweaked or rewritten at this point?

11:17
Mearls: Probably the biggest change is in the mechanic for advantage and disadvantage. We've also have done a lot to the cleric, fleshing out domains and making those a bigger part of the class that changes a lot of stuff. (we've seen mike's thoughts on the cleric - he may as well be a eunuch if mike gets his way - unless the domains add back more than enough o make up for the snipping that make already planned for the poor schmucks).

11:17
Jeremy Crawford: An example change: Spellcasters all have at-will spell options now. (yeah, that works for all editions prior to 4e - NOT!)

11:18
Mearls: Nothing is set in stone. Since we're starting simple, we can make huge changes without massively reworking tons of text. We're taking it slowly precisely because we expect to release rules, incorporate feedback, than use that to drive the next wave of material.  (game design by the opinion of the masses.)

11:18
Mearls: Next question!

11:18
Comment From John Sussenberger
Will we be able to run play tests in public locations, such as a game store or convention?

11:19
Jeremy Crawford: Addressing the previous question: The only things we won't budge on are the things set in D&D's stone, such as using the d20 or that the game contains wizards. :)

11:19
Mearls: I believe we're working on that option now. Right now, for the playtest each person taking part should sign up. We're working on something right now that will allow cons and stores to run stuff. (if you have to sign up, and can't play without signing up, you are obviously signing away something.  whether it is the right to talk about aspect of the game, or your right to any ideas you give back to them in feedback, you are signing something away.  i'm interested more in the agreement than the rules at this point)

11:20
Mearls: Next!

11:20
Comment From Gerardo
Hi, thanks for making this live chat. (hey, I know who asked this!  how did an actual question get past the screener? ;) I've been following the character class design post and I'm intrigued to know how you measure balance. How do you know a class is balanced or not? Some number or value attached to powers that you add up and say OK it's good, or is it more a gut feeling based on the designers experience and playtest feedback?

11:20
Jeremy Crawford: It's a mix of math, playtest feedback, and a dash of intuition.  (Voodoo, Tarot Cards and some tea leaves)11:21
Mearls: It's a combination of the two. D&D covers so much ground, that we can balance stuff based on combat without actually balancing anything for a specific campaign. We're looking at each area of the game - combat, exploration, interaction - and making sure that characters can contribute in each area. It's maybe 50/50 art and science.  (and 100% bullshit.  good question, pretty worthless answer)
11:21
Mearls: Feedback will be the biggest, important factor for us.

11:22
Mearls: next question

11:22
Comment From The Mormegil
Can you tell us more about movement and positioning in D&D Next? What will it look like?What about attacks of opportunity? What are your thoughts about interrupts and other out-of-turn actions?

11:23
Jeremy Crawford: That's a Russian nesting doll of questions!

11:23
Jeremy Crawford: Mike and I are conferring . . . (dude, did we even get to this in the rules yet?)11:24
Jeremy Crawford: Our desks are next to each other, so we're chatting at the same time.

11:25
Jeremy Crawford: The simple stuff first: Attacks of opportunity are not in this playtest, but the system does have rules that point to the peril of making ranged attacks in melee, for instance. (what does ranged attacks have to do with attacks of opportunity?)

11:25
Mearls: Ha! Jeremy will love this question. I'm really not a fan of giving people extra turns in addition to their own turn. I think it really slows the game down. For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such.  (interesting things to move to and around?  what the hell is he talking about?)

There are off-turn actions in the game, but the philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you have to set up (sounds like a blast mike - please, tell us more). For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn, you get one opportunity attack for the next round." (but wouldn't you have a normal attack on the next round anyway?  basically, you can retreat in most circumstances without any risk now.  hell, i was giving AOO to players and monsters when I ran AD&D 1e and 2e.  is it really that unbalancing if both sides get it?  as for increasing the length of combat, i just don't see it.  roll a fucking d20 and if you hit roll damage - what is that?  30 to 60 seconds?)

A rogue might have this - you can move away from an enemy that moves next to you, but you lose your move on your next turn. (which means the enemy moves next to you next turn and you can do nothing?  or you can still attack, but you cant move.  seems more trouble than it is worth)
11:26
Comment From Arbanax 
Can I ask how Monsters will be handled in terms of stat blocks and information, the off table help and fluff and the at table crunch?

11:27
Jeremy Crawford: In this playtest, you'll see shortened stat blocks in the adventure, and then full stat blocks in the bestiary.  (that's they way it should be.  i can think of a new OSR styled publishing company that should follow this)

11:27
Jeremy Crawford: The bestiary includes both mechanical information and lore.  (okay, this actually sounds pretty cool)11:27
Jeremy Crawford: What you'll see is just a starting point. We expect the stat block format and the lore information to evolve quite a bit in response to playtesting.

11:28
Jeremy Crawford: Next question!

11:28
Comment From Jools 
I'd love to know what your thoughts are on conditions in 5e. Something spoilery would be nice!

11:29
Jeremy Crawford:
We've been discussing conditions quite a bit lately. They're certainly in the game. I'll be revising them this afternoon, in fact. (now that's a non-answer)

11:30
Jeremy Crawford: We're fans of conditions that make sense both as game mechanics and as something in the world. Prone, for example, is a useful game concept, and it matches what's going in the story. You're knocked on your butt! (i thought most conditions matched something in the real world, or did 4e change that?)
11:31
Mearls: We're trying to keep the list of conditions slim and make it apply to things that are obvious changes in the world. For instance, right now invisible and ethereal are on the list of conditions. We also added intoxicated. Basically, what are things that when they happen to you have a clear effect on how you interact with the world?

here's another thing - with stuff like paralyzed, we're dealing more in describing what happens rather than trying to make everything mechanical. So paralyzed says that you can' t move your limbs. Spellcasting specifies that you need to move your arms to cast a spell. Thus, a paralyzed creature can't cast spells.

The idea is that we give the DM clear mechanics, but also make it clear what's happening in the world so the DM can make any judgment calls as needed. (I like the idea of DM judgement calls.  Lots of 4e players will not like this idea.  As I've seen little OSR / Old School sensibility in 5e so far, this is mildly reassuring)



Alright, that the end of part 1 - i'll get to part 2 tomorrow.  there's just so much this Grumpy Dwarf can stomach at one time!

Showing a Little More Sand in the Campaign

I suspect that my players will wrap up the current adventure this Saturday. They've already accomplished much of the current scenario and have indicated a desire to move up the game's start time - as 4 hrs of gaming was a hard place to stop last week. The next session will last as long as it needs to last I suspect.

So, afterwards, it will be time to lift the curtain, so to speak, and allow my players to explore more than just the initial surroundings of their starting town.

Initially, my plan was to use Christian's HEX 000 Series as is, but I think it will serve my purposes better to break the hexes up and use them where I need them. Christian's decision to draw the series to a close with the 7th installment made it an easier decision to make, as I want an opportunity to use all of the quirky stuff he's included so far. Breaking them up will allow me to do so.

I've been going through the Toys For the Sandbox series to see which ones fit my view of the setting I'm using.

To some extent I feel a bit like the painter Bob Ross - "Maybe some pacifist Kobolds live over here. Time to use some Magic White." Not that I have pacifist kobolds planned for any of the hexes. Really. Cross my heart.

I'd like to say AD&D 2e's Deck of Encounters rounds things out, and it will definitely find use, but I need more.

Megadungeons? Check

Mini-Dungeons? Check

Some Tombs? Check

Rumors and seeds? Planting in progress.

Still, I'm always open to more resources. Because more is better, and even stuff I don't use immediately or directly still gets to bounce around my head (Tome of Adventure, I'm talking to you!)

So, any indispensable resources for a nice sandbox styled campaign I might be missing?

Mini Review - Toys For the Sandbox - The Abandoned Mine (OSR Generic)

I'm simply amazed that The Abandoned Mine is the 19th release in the Toys For the Sandbox release.  There's a few reasons for that amazement.  Let me count the ways:

I'm amazed that the series has hit 19 issues, as I've missed the last few between The Grumpy Dwarf riffing on D&D 5e and my own preparations for my recently kicked off ACKS campaign.

I'm also amazed that Quinn Conklin can keep on coming up with new and interesting locations and events, let alone 6 hooks or possibilities and 3 twists for each one.  That's one hell of a lot of creative juice.  Do each of the 18 combinations work for me?  No, but each release has had several possible combinations that got my mind going in many different directions on how to flesh them out.  This issue is no exception.

I'm also amazed that we've now reached the point where it's 10 pages of brain storming goodness.  The first release was a mere 4 pages.

The backstory of the Abandoned Mine is excellent, as is the main hook.  Uncovering an ancient evil and the various possible effects set up most of the hooks.  In theory, you could even use more than one hook to set this up and really reinforce the backstory that is given.

I already know where this is being placed in my sandbox.  I'll be changing the type of valuable being mined to fit my setting, but that is mere window dressing.  There is a lot of "meat and potatoes" to be found in The Abandoned Mine, and I think I can squeeze at least two uses other than the main one.  I really love the options available.

NPCs are nicely detailed, even more so than usual, as the extra page count allows for the extra detail.  A Rumor Table and an Encounter Table round out the current release.  Wait, I forgot the section on items.  Nice.  Cursed.  Different.

All is not prefect.  I like the map, and as it is a mine map, it is shown vertically, which is a nice change.  Regretfully, due to the needs to fit the map properly on the page (I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure none the less), the map is 90 degrees off kilter.  I can't turn my monitor 90 degrees, so I'll need to print this one out. I was probably going to do so when using this in game anyway ;)

Also, the price has increased to $1.99.  It's still an excellent value for the investment and the extra page length is definitely put to good use.

Edit:  Did I mention it comes in both print friendly and regular versions in the same package?  Course not! I forgot since it's new.  Oh, and very handy.

Another Edit:  It also comes with a coupon for a free copy of Toys For the Sandbox #5 - The Secret Library (I failed to pay attention as I already have #5)

From the blurb:

Toys for the Sandbox is not a module, it is not a campaign setting, instead it is a framework for GMs to use to reinforce their own imaginations. Sometimes players zig when you expect them to zag, other times they take your plot point into a back alley and leave it penniless and bleeding. Each week we present a new location with a map and some flavor text. In addition we add 4 NPCs with a bit of history and a few simple thoughts on how to stat them for whatever game you are playing. There are also 6 plot hooks each with 3 ways to twist them. Added to that there is usually a table or two filled with rumors and encounters.

This week we delve into an abandoned mine that used to be owned by a pair of second generation adventurers. We have awakened evil, strange singing, blood cults, and more precious stones then you will know what to do with. Come to the Abandoned Mines for the treasure, stay for the Dragon God.

Mike Mearls Live Chat 1100 - 1200 PDT May 16 (Tomorrow)

Yep, Mike Mearls and Some Other Guy are going to be having a chat about D&D Next and the upcoming play test tomorrow, May 16 from 1100 am to 1200 pm in a chat format with moderated questions.

Now, as the hours are such that most folks gainfully employed are working, I suspect the Q&A isn't so much intended to elicit true questions about the direction of the game, but more likely it will turn into a sort of posted FAQ for the play test after the fact.

Do I think that most of the questions will be from "ringers"?  Yes.  Or at the very least, the only questions that will make it through moderation will be "ringer" type questions.  But hey, I'm working during the chat, so I'll never get to ask MY questions:

Are you no longer attempting to design a game that can evoke the play styles of all the D&D Editions prior to D&D Next?

Since when are a first level and a second level Magic User spell considered "high level"?

Is "The Lazer Cleric" the reason you redesigned the cleric to be damn near useless?  Wouldn't it have been easier to just design the rules to prevent a "Lazer Cleric" repeat instead of nerfing the entire class?

What is your real issue with Turn Undead?

Why did Monte REALLY leave?

and of course:  Mike, who do you have in the 2012 WotC Christmas Termination Pool?

What are your questions? ;)

Is DnD 5e Retreating From Its Goal of Encompassing All Editions Feel in One Set of Rules?

I'm still a bit confused by Mike Mearls' latest article about Wizards in 5e.

I thought the plan was to have a Vancian styled wizard with minor at will powers like a bolt of force (so the wizard isn't useless when his memorized spells are spend - L&L Column from 2/27). Or maybe if he has a different specialty, he might instead get something like Tenser's Floating Disk as an at will.

Now it seems like the at will powers are being bumped up, and the vancian styled spells are getting throttled back.

It and of itself, not a big deal. It's a new edition, I expect change. However, it doesn't fit the initially stated goal of one system allowing for play of the different editions, at least in feel.

I'll make an uniformed guess that the release of the public beta play test rules for D&D 5e at the end of this month will also indicate a change of direction for 5e.

There will be less of an emphasis of trying to squeeze nearly 40 years of previous D&D gameplay experience and expectations into one core rule set. It's an impossible goal if you ask me, and one that has been holding the design team back.

Not that I expect 5e to be a game I will want to play. I've seen very little in Mike's articles that describe a game that fills my desires.

That being said, I have little desire to play Pathfinder (although I would play PF Basic Box in a second - it is really good) but it is the most successful game out there right now.

I am most likely not the audience that WotC needs to target for a successful 5e. Now the question becomes - can they actually design a successful 5e?

The Grumpy Dwarf Remarks on Mike Mearls' Attempt to Balance the Wizard in 5e

 Mike's doing it again.  Fixing problems that don't exists, or maybe do exist, but not to the extent that he believes.  Still, game designers must tilt windmills at times, and Mike is good at such.  Let's look at his latest, shall we?

You can read the original here.

Over the past few weeks, I've talked about the design goals for the core classes in D&D (yep, and each article has moved away from the initial design goals that were stated for D&D Doppleganger, the game that is all editions, all the time). This week, it's the wizard's turn. I'm going to do something a little different, though. The wizard's design goals are different from the other three classes (so, was it a useless poll that made the wizard the last to be looked at, or the fact that he's being treated different than the other three core classes?). The issue we see with this class isn't that it needs clarity on what it does. After all, it's fairly obvious that wizards cast arcane spells. The challenge lies in making sure that wizards don't grow too powerful as they level (this seems like an argument on par with that of Lazer Clerics.  Is it a problem with the class, or a problem with the game, or not a  problem at all?) In many campaigns, a caster can use the right combination of spells and magic items to become more powerful than the rest of the group combined. Needless to say, that's not a situation that most DMs or players enjoy (I think they doth protest too much, but we shall see.)

First of all, the concept of caster dominance is something that we must approach carefully. Many gaming groups simply don't see the problem (wow!  i'll give Mike credit for this statement). For instance, I've played in groups where the wizard took some of the most popular spells—fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile—and the character never stood out as overly powerful. Sure the wizard could blast a bunch of monsters, but he or she needed the rest of the party to keep him around. (yes, because the wizzie is all offense and little or no defense.  he goes "squish!" really easy)

Second, caster dominance shows up at high levels. In my experience, it comes to the fore when a caster has enough spells to unleash powerful combinations. For instance, I remember turning what was supposed to be a deadly fight in 3E against an iron golem into a cakewalk simply by throwing grease and glitterdust (okay, this is a bizarre pair of spells to use as an example - grease is a level 1 spell, glitterdust is a level 2 spell - so a 3rd level Wizard is high level?  Can you blind a Golem?  It has to fail 2 saves for this uber effect to take effect to happen.  Two rounds of casting.  This is over powered how?) at the thing. I've seen similar things happen in 4E. The first spell creates a zone that creatures can't escape, the second one creates another zone that damages or shuts down creatures trapped within the zone. (again, two saves need to be failed for this to happen.  each creature gets two saves.  this is not automatic.  Mike, enjoying the windmill yet?)

Any approach we take to reducing caster dominance must first start by making sure that gaming groups that don't see it as an issue aren't burdened by complex new rules, arbitrary restrictions, or seemingly pointless new systems (but hey, lets change a core concept of the game - allowing wizard's players, like other classes, to think of new uses of their powers). We don't want addressing caster dominance to have the reverse effect, with groups that didn't see it left unhappy by a host of new or changed mechanics. (and how will you accomplish this Master Mike?)

So, what are we doing? Like many things in game design, it involves both a give and take. This topic in particular will be an important focus in the playtest. The system must not only work on paper, but also it must work well at the gaming table. (well, yeah, if it doesn't work at the gaming table, it doesn't work)

Cantrips as At-Will Magic: We're hoping to keep the concept of cantrips for wizards, and expand it to include some nifty attack and utility spells (can a "nifty" at will attack be all that effective?). Wizards would be able to cast spells at will, much as they do in 4E. We think that making cantrips a bit more powerful, while also making them at-will, will go a long way toward making restrictions on prepared spells more palatable for groups that don't see caster dominance as an issue. (o-kay?  and this allows for "old school play" how exactly?  this doesn't seem to be one of the famous "modules" they've been hyping since the start, talking about modular play.  this is changing the core concept of wizards / mages / magic-users.  well, at least as far as 3x and earlier is concerned.  can't speak knowledgeably for 4e, so i won't)

We also look at at-will magic as a key tool in keeping the adventure moving forward. You can still unleash all your prepared spells in rapid succession, but that doesn't leave you powerless.  (just leaves you much less useful.  unless the prepared spells as the useless ones.  now wouldn't THAT be an interesting twist?)

Keep Spells Under Control: This is an obvious first step, but we need to make sure that spells are of the appropriate power level and that they don't abuse the system in some way. For instance, the 3E grease spell required a DC 10 Balance check to avoid some of its effects. That seems reasonable, until you realize that grease was a 1st-level spell and that a 15th-level NPC cleric might have a total Balance check modifier of –8. We need to make sure that spells don't create an effect that is too powerful or include loopholes that make them overwhelmingly powerful for their level.  (you will not close every loophole, but it is a nice thought.  the grease issues should have been caught in playtesting, but i assume their playest sample was small in the creating of 3e)

Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.  (so, the chance for wizard characters to shine, to do something different from the next wizard is going to shrink drastically, as cantrips are now going to be the wizard's core power base?  wow - color me not impressed.)

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: We're thinking that wizard spells scale only if they are prepared with higher-level slots. That would mean that a wizard's spells don't all become more powerful as he or she levels up. The wizard would gain some new, more powerful spells. The wizard would not gain those spells while also making the rest of the spell list more powerful.  (this means we can remove a crapload of spells from the initial list for wizards, as they won't be needed.  which also allows us to keep a tight rein on the wizards power level.  and allow us to playtest the game with less of a chance of innovative players finding a combination that may break the system.  cantrips for the win.  sigh.  this is very far from being anything like any of the previous editions of wizards.  i don't think you can play this wizard as an older edition styled magic-user.   at least we now know they are throwing out much of the idea of modularity, which was an albatross around the neck of the New Edition with it's conflicting goals.  not saying I like the changes, but if this is a sign they are moving away from the One Game To Rule Them All concept, there might be something salvageable)

Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. (wait?  so, we are removing a bunch of spell slots from the wizards casting ability AND we are thinking about bringing back the idea of spell failure when taking damage.  so, are we going to do the same now for the other classes?  if they take damage, their abilities might fail?  because the other classes - except for the neutered cleric, seem to have been empowered.  shit, i thought the cleric was fucked with until I read today's article) A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.

The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way. (since we removed much of your spell casting ability, just stick with the cantrips we are giving you.  it should be exciting, no?)

Keep Magic Items Under Control: There's a good chance that magic item creation will be a rules module that DMs can opt into. At the very least, items such as scrolls and wands will likely change in the following ways.

Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day. (Yes!  lets remove even more power from the casters!)

Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. (this makes sense.)  The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.  (this makes no sense when paired to the previous sentence - something is missing from the explanation)

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: We want to make sure that spells such as haste and invisibility are useful without making other classes' key abilities redundant. An invisible creature that makes noise or otherwise gives away its location might not get much of a defensive benefit. Instead, an invisible creature is best off if it has a rogue's excellent bonuses to stealth. In this case, invisibility works as a spell that makes a scout or sneaky character much harder to find. It does not become a huge defensive buff. (see, we've cut back on your available spell slots, we won't allow spells to scale and now we are going to remove much of the usefulness of the buff spells.)

Haste might grant extra attacks, but at a penalty that makes the fighter's ability to attack multiple times come out ahead. The cleric in the group fights much better with haste, but she still can't match the fighter's martial skill.  On the other hand, casting haste on a fighter is a great idea. It augments the fighter's already deadly weapon skill.  (keep on neutering those spells)

Spells such as stoneskin, shield, and blur are great for wizards because they make casting less hazardous and help counter the class's low AC and hit points. A wizard might throw such spells on the rest of the party, giving up some of his or her own defensive options to help the rest of the party thrive.  (he might as well, as he has little left to offer the bprty that isnt a cantrip)

Creativity, Not Dominance: Finally, on a personal level, I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching. A web spell entangles the bandit chief's horse, cutting off his best chance to escape. Grease allows a rogue caught in a giant crab's claw to wriggle free with ease. If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities. Hopefully, reining in some of the mechanical challenges that D&D has faced in the past makes it easier to encourage creative use of spells in a compelling, immersive way  (wait!  this requires DM Fiat to work.  and all the number crunching has already removed much of the spell casting ability of the wizard.  i'm really fucking confused by the current goals for D&D Next.  Is it still modular?  Because all I see here is a dumbing down of the wizard class.  Not simplifying but damn near neutering.)

I think we are seeing the balance of 4e returning in 5e, under a whole set of new tweaks to a 3e base.  I'm more confused now then at any point in the past about the direction that 5e is going in. 

Level Advancement - Trying to Find the Right Pace

Well, the new ACKS campaign seems to be off to a strong start. Two sessions down, and I think the PCs have a chance to hit level 2 upon completion of the third session.

Assuming they level every third session (we skip one Saturday a month) and assuming the campaign remains vibrant, we could be looking at a game that covers all levels of play in about 12 months.

I have no idea if the leveling will stay at the same rate. As it is, I'n addition to the usual expo for overcoming adversaries and treasure looted, I'm also awarding expo for completing adventures, minor expo for successful proficiency use and a 10% bonus for completing weekly adventure logs at the Obsidian Portal site. All that, and the third session should allow them to hit level 2. It isn't guaranteed.

A level a month of mostly weekly gaming sounds about right to me, I just hope it fits with my players' expectations too.

When it comes to OSR style gaming, what is the rate of advancement in your campaigns?

(I'm avoiding 3x and 4e, as they are their own beasts, especially with the rate of advancement)

The Official Adventurer Conqueror King OR DIE! Obsidian Portal Page is Up

Yep, our little Obsidian Portal page is up and running.  Adventurer Conqueror King or Die! is just 2 sessions old, but I'm blessed with highly skilled, entertaining and funny as all hell role-players in my group.  To say I'm blessed is an understatement, as their game play brings out the best in me as a GM.  If this is how the game is going after 2 sessions, I can only imagine the delightful insanity we will be experiencing after 20 ;)

So come, look at the psychotic lizard man gladiator, he who would box his own shadow if it would give him a fight.  See the mage that seems so unlike a mage, yet has knowledge like a sage (and a goblin servant too).  Observe the shadow blade as he single handedly disables a slavers cart (as disabling a slaver would be too easy a maneuver).  Watch as the warrior manages to impale a goblin through the neck in an upright position.  Wait with the rest of us as two others join the ranks (as those following along from home can probably tell, the party lacks any kind of healing... hint).

Yes, join us.  Well, read the exploits.  You can't really join us, as I think my capacity for effective GMing is around 6 players in total.  No worries though, as the wife has given me the blessing to run a second game in a month or so.  Probably not ACKS, but at least you'll have an idea if my table is one you might want to sit at.  In a virtual manner.  As this is via G+ at the moment.  My kitchen table is damn small and only fits 4, but the wife and I like it that way ;)

An OSR Styled Abstract Combat Map For Your Review

Ian Dimitri was kind enough to take me up on my challenge in regards to an OSR styled Abstract Combat Map.  I really do like the resulting "map" Ian came up with, and I may start experimenting with this in my Google+ Hangout (using Tabletop Forge for the VTT) ACKS Campaign.

Shane Magnus also pointed me to one that he had created that was inspired by  3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars, but I think Ian is closer to what I need in an OSR style game.  Thanks for the peek Shane, I appreciate it.  I think yours works better with other system, and I may experiment with it when I run an Savage Worlds or Hollow Earth Expedition game.

Ian explains his suggested use as follows:

In this version you could represent folks sneaking into a position by putting them all the way to the left and those in position to deliver a backstab by putting them in the "Behind" row and to the left of the enemy's position in their area. The enemy area is also arranged from closest to farthest. I would use simple tokens placed next to the characters or enemies to represent things such as "high ground", "in cover", "prone" etc. Very simple. Very usable.

So, thoughts?  Feedback?  Suggestions?  Other Abstract Combat Maps to add to the equation?

ACKS Session 2 Recap - Playing With Tortured Fire

Remember a few months back when I remarked that just about every D&D session has either fire or torture i it, almost invariably introduced by the PCs themselves?  Last night my party managed to introduce both, and in the same scene yet!

Investigating the reports that goblins were accessing the basement under the church in town, the PCs discovered a hole in the wall adjacent to the twins sewer.  They waited in am bust for the return of said goblins, and when they made their entrance the party's mage threw a flask of oil, striking the wall just above the hole the gob's were entering from.  As the gob's lost their footing, he followed it with a well placed lob of a lit torch.  Four gobs were crispy excrement covered corpses, and the fifth (the first through the whole) was alive and captured by the PCs.  Amazingly enough, they did not set the church on fire, but I'm not sure if that was from lack of trying.

After asking (1), one, uno, ein question and not liking the answer, the night blade cut off one of the gob's pinkies.  Literally within minutes, we able to mark both "fire" and "torture" of the list of things for the PCs to do ;)

Ah, the things that PCs do.  Afterwards, they were summoned to meet the mayor, who asked them to travel to the Goblin Halls and do away with the goblins that were reestablishing themselves there as well as poisoning the town's water supply.  After a sizable upfront payment, they agreed, and set forth for the Goblin Halls.

They encountered goblin slavers on the way to the Halls.  The night blade made an amazing surprise attack on the slavers' cart, impaling an arrow into the cart's wooden wheel and causing it to abruptly stop. The fact that he was aiming at a goblin guard and not the wheel is inconsequential to this story, as between the lizard man gladiator with a death wish and the mage with a sleep spell, there were no living goblins left to be concerned about the cart.  The capture red miner within the cage of the cart was released and sent back to town.  We was, needless to say, extremely grateful.

Shorty thereafter the party arrived at the Goblin Halls.  After discussing possibly alternative access points other than the one that had been obviously recently reopened, the party decided to enter within.  In the first room they discovered a bullying incident, with nearly a half dozen goblins beating upon a much smaller than usual goblin.  Before the bully's knew what was happening, bits and pieces of goblin were everywhere.  The mage made an offer to the goblin runt, which equated to "serve me or die".  The offer was quickly accepted.  The runt is as smart as he is small, and he was alb to sketch out a quick map of the Halls for the party, giving them an advantage they lacked prior.

Next they entered the "practice room", where goblin recruits practiced on living (or recently deceased) "dummies", otherwise known as captives.  On captive was still living, and after giving him a healing potion, the warden (who had attempted to investigate these halls a few days earlier) was now an extra sword arm for the party.  Things were certainly looking up.

The temple area was uneventful, except for the the robed figure that instructed the party to sit (in goblin) when they entered.  In the end, the robed figured was an animated skeleton that made no attempt to defend itself against the party's attack, and it was quickly destroyed.  It's destruction did leave them with a message "tell my daughter i love her".  See, now the players get to be messenger men too ;)

Well, maybe not totally uneventful, as they did discover a secret treasure room.  Most of the items inside had rotted over the years, but the gold and river were still in fine shape and ripe for the taking.  Which brought to life to smallish wooden dogs, which were dispatch fairly quickly, but not before giving the gladiator a nice splinter (and the first wound suffered by the party)

Next up were two barracks rooms.  The first held a half dozen sleeping goblins that stood no chance when the gladiator tore through them.  He also tore through most of their belongings.  I guess we will never know if that was a potion or poison.

The party then moved on to a sort of burial room.  While moving coffins in search of goodies, a goblin patrol came across the party.  As the leader put a horn to his lips, the gladiator proceeded to push the horn down said leader's throat.  The survivors tried to flee, but were struck down by the PCs, or in the case of one, pinned through his neck to the floor by a javelin thrown by the party's warrior.

Yep, things are certainly getting a bit more exciting for the party compared to the first session.  We started at 930 pm and ended shortly after 130 am - and i had totally lost track of time.

Some Further Thoughts on The Abstract Battle Map

I'm not so sure if the Ancient Odysseys Conflict Action Map works perfectly as is for D&D and all of it's offspring, but it does plant the seed for a compromise between the Battle Grid and the Theatre of the Mind world views on running combat encounters.

My feeling is that the CAM as presented doesn't offer the GM enough options for adversary placement.  This could be addressed by moving the enemies in combat to the lower edge of The Enemy section, leaving those not engaged or using missile / spells in the middle of The Enemy section and moving any engaged in a backstab styled attack on the right side of the section.  I'd reserve the top of The Enemy section for enemies that are engage with PCs attacking from advantage.

Still, I think there is an OSR styled CAM residing in the mind of one of the readers of this post that would address the needs of a D&D styled game and still maintain the simplicity of the Ancient Odysseys Conflict Action Map.

Any up for the challenge?  ;)

Delving Into Ancient Odysseys For an Abstract Battle Map

I'm beginning to wonder if an abstract "Battle Map" works best for a D&D type game.  To the left is the Conflict Action Map from the Ancient Odysseys RPG.

AO is a fairly simple game, which can be played with a GM, w/o a GM or even solo, although I expect it would shine fairly well with a GM, especially as a pick up game or a con game (or even a pick up game via G+ Hangout).  It isn't deep enough for me to want to run it as a long term campaign, but it's got more than enough meat for a couple of game sessions.

What I really like about Ancient Odysseys is the Combat Action Map.  It breaks things down into "zones".

Closest are the front line, they engage the enemy in melee.

Farthest are those using missile weapons, spells or having a desire to be in the back and avoid things.

Sneaking is for "sneaking".  This is for the characters looking to put themselves behind their adversaries.  You move from Sneaking to Behind.

Behind is for characters positioned for backstabbing or whatever your system calls it.

This should work both in a face to face game session and a virtual (online) game session.  It gives characters an idea where they are in relation to their enemies.  It would still really more on Theatre of the Mind than a true battle map, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Abstract, yet defined.

I may try this out on my ACKS group in the coming weeks.

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at Bruce Cordel's Goblins

Goblins Care Only About Your Axe (original article here)

I’ve played a lot of D&D lately (as Bruce works at WotC, i expect he plays a lot of D&D all of the time). But even when using rules prone to design iteration (in other words, different D&D Next versions), one thing has remained constant throughout: When I swing my axe at a goblin neck, the goblin’s going down if I hit. (goblins used to have 1d6+1 hd - they should survive an axe swing just about half the time - unless they are 1HP minions like in 4e - now thats a thought)
That’s true whether the fight occurs in the theater of the mind (TotM), in TotM with the aid of scratch paper to show general position (my preferred method, also know as a Whiteboard when using a VTT), in a hybrid TotM-minis system, or with minis on a grid.

As was pointed out by my previous blog about the grid vs. imagination and the discussions it engendered, the system surrounding my goblin combat can dramatically change many other elements of the fight. The foremost difference is the amount of table time the fight takes to resolve overall, and the amount of tactical decision-making the environment provides my axe-wielding goblin killer. (more detail  = more time needed)
The tension between these two elements is real, and it can’t be swept under the rug. Narratively speaking, sometimes it’s simply too much effort to break out the minis and gridded terrain map to deal with two goblin guards at a cave mouth (maybe, but I suspect there are some 4e players that will call "foul!" if the DM refuses to do just that). The “story” of the situation isn’t really about tactics, unless the DM specifically changes the encounter to make it so (again, 4e is all about tactics - does this mean that 5e is going to put less of an emphasis on tactics?). Indeed, two guards at a doorway (and other “low power” encounters) are precisely the sort of encounters that grid-only combat tends to weed out of the game. (interesting observation.  i didn't realize 4e did away with smaller encounters.  damn shame.  i weep for my 4e brothers and sisters) Because the DM and adventure designer know it’s not worth the effort to break out minis for a simple interaction with two goblin guards (or even five goblin guards), the encounter either goes away entirely, or it faces pressure to become part of some other, larger encounter. (because more is always better?) This means that players, when they see minis on the table, always know it’s going to be some kind of fight, regardless of anything else. (you know, this is an extremely valid point, more so that anything else that has been said thus far.  miniatures being set on a battle-grid really do take away the suspense)

Other times, the story is about tactics. I do want to exactly know where the vampire lord is in relation to the acid pit, the windows through which afternoon sunlight slashes, the vampire’s dominated spell-casting thralls, and her various spawn slinking through an advancing line of rolling mist. Pushing or being pushed 5 feet (does anyone realize how far 5' is in real life?  that's one heck of a push)  can make the difference between winning and losing this fight, depending on whether I’ve been pushed into the acid, or if I can push the vampire into the sunlight.  (here's the big bull shit fallacy about battle grids.  if this was a real life fight to the finish, all you would see is your immediate surroundings - you wouldn't have the time to figure out complicated moves to push the vamp into a sliver of sunlight.  You don't see a whole 60'x40' room, 360 degrees around you and make your choices.  in TotM, you could tell the DM what you want to accomplish, he tells you what you need to roll to accomplishsuch (if it can be accomplished)and it's done.  Yep, it's that evil DM Fiat.  But hey, whatever floats your stone boat down the Halls of the Latest D&D)

Based on the poll we conducted on my last grid-focused blog (holy fucking shit!  hey, is there anything they won't do a poll on at WotC?  how about a poll on picking corn kernels from shit?  wait, that might have been done already), a majority of you agrees that different encounters have different needs when it comes to encounter rules. That’s cool, because we feel the same way. (i bet everyone feels like their concerns are validated now) Assuming we move forward with this line of thinking, we’ll end up with a core conflict resolution system that can encompass both TotM and the grid. Imagine a combat system not too different from previous editions that relied almost solely on the use of the grid, but tweaked so that it works seamlessly (this word carries a hell of a lot of weight) for those fights where minis are not used or expected.

This means, to answer one line of questions raised in the grid discussions, that switching between TotM and the grid must be easy and seamless, both for groups that prefer to switch between modes, and for groups who want to primarily stick to one or the other conflict resolution system. It’s not our job to pick a winner or loser in any sort of false “grid vs. TotM” contest, and thereby create a sub-group of D&D players who don’t have the rules support they deserve. Instead, it’s our job to create a straightforward environment where both styles of play prosper and can be used.  (good luck... remember, the grid plays havoc with the "one hour game session" goal.  see, that's part of the problem with D&D Doppleganger - each added goal conflicts with a previously stated goal)

For instance, if a fighter uses an ability that seems to make sense on the grid, we should design that same ability to also be useful in the TotM. (notice Bruce doesn't say "have the same effect, or just as effective", just that it be useful)  In a fight that takes place next to a curtain of green slime (can you actually HAVE a curtain of green slime?  i'm very curious.  how about a table cloth of green slime, or maybe even coasters?), even in TotM, it’s not as important how far I can push a foe with an ability as it is important that I can push a foe at all (kinda goes with my "do you have any idea how far a 5' push is in real life?"). If my “hack and shove maneuver” results in the goblin stumbling backward, then, regardless of distance in feet or whether this happens on the grid or in the players’ imaginations, the goblin has just discovered that green slime is not its friend. (i thought the whole point of this article was about axes? ;)

A Town By Any Other Name...

Greg Christopher has a thread on G+ asking for folks to throw out ideas for a the name of a town that sits on a hill over a dungeon. It got me thinking, Google has a perfect tool for naming places in your fantasy world - It's the Google Translate Tool at translate.google.com

Personally, I think German makes for some decent sounding location names (this coming from my perspective as a German-American Mutt - YMMV).

Hill Dungeon becomes - Hugel Verlies or shortened to Ver Hugel.

Crag Stone Dungeon becomes - Felsen Stein Verlies, which I can shorten to Felstein Verlies or maybe Ver Felstein.

Sounds much better than a bunch of made up crap ;)

Thanks Greg for kickstarting my brain!

Interesting Post By Monte Cook at His Blog

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

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

You can read Monte's full post here.

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

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

and

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

How Do I Determine If I'm Running a Successful Campaign?

How do I know I kicked off a fairly successful ACKS Campaign last Saturday night?

It wasn't just the bouts of laughter the players got from me during game play.

I wasn't just the great role playing I witnessed.

It isn't just the the numerous G+ threads we have about the game.

It isn't just the awesome character write-ups and recaps my players have posted on the Obsidian Portal site.

No, last night was the kicker, as my players asked - no, more precisely demanded, that I log into a G+ Hangout so the mage in the party could roll against his Magical Engineering proficiency to determine the nature of the magical ring they found. My protest that i was shirtless and in my underwear as I was getting ready for bed fell on deaf ears.

Successful roll by the mage. +1 Ring of Protection, 5' Radius was revealed to the party.

Yeah, I'd judge the new campaign a success ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Looks at The Rule of Three - What's Next, What Happened, What Are You Doing?

The Grump Dwarf here.  Time to look at the latest Rule of Three from WotC.  Remember, I'm not just a Dwarf, I'm Grumpy too ;)  Original link here.

Will any products for D&D Next release this year (2012)?

 

No. We have no products planned in 2012 for the next iteration of the game. (I'm sure this surprises some folks.  This is actually very good news.  Hopefully they don't put out some lame "non-edition intro books" as a quick cash grab as they've done in the past) First of all, that would make it completely impossible for us to integrate feedback gathered from the playtesting process, something I want to reiterate is a significant priority for us. (open play test starts on may 24th folks.  don't bitch about the game when it's finally released if you don't bother at least reading the play test material and giving your feedback) Second, we want to make sure that the game doesn't release until it's ready to release, (okay, while they might actually mean this, they have a date already set "somewhere" and it will ship on that date, ready or not, here it comes!) and that means that we want to give ourselves plenty of time when working on everything from the game's design to art to layout and beyond before releasing the product.(again, I expect they believe this, but I don't believe it will ship one day later than they have already told the Hasbro Overlords)

As an aside, I'd like to note that we won't be able to talk about products related to D&D Next (in Rule-of-Three, or elsewhere) until the game is ready, so it may be a while before we start dealing with product specifics.  (Lets makes some guesses - Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and a Monster Manual for the opening trilogy.  Do I win a prize?)

 

Whatever happened to the idea of the priest, or a cleric who doesn't wear armor and smites enemies with holy power from a distance (aka laser cleric)?  (who ever thought up the term "laser cleric" deserves a kick in the nether regions)

 

Right now, we're looking at ways to let players make that decision within a class. Choices made during character building and play should allow you to choose one type of cleric or another. An easy way to handle this is spell choice; do I choose spells that make my melee attacks better, or spells that let me zap from a distance? (I know they are trying to keep this stuff simple to describe, but "zap from a distance?")  Beyond that, we'll want some class mechanics to speak to one type of cleric or another. For example, we're tinkering with the idea that a cleric's domain choice might steer play style slightly. Take the healing domain, be the best healer. Take the war domain, be a great melee cleric. (why be a melee cleric?  isn't melee reserved for fighters to be the uber class?) Take the sun domain, be a great laser cleric. (i'm going to guess that wizards make better "lazers") It's still in process, but that's one line of thought.

What are you doing to make sure that the cleric and other magic users don't step on the toes of the other classes? If a cleric can be sneaky and use a bow, what place does the ranger or rogue have?

 

It's important to remember when talking about competence in particular areas that there is a distinction between being good at something and being the best at something. We want to make sure that each character class shines in certain arenas, and as a result while you might build a cleric who can sneak and use a bow (to use your example), and your cleric might be very good at those things, the ranger or rogue will probably still be better (wait, the ranger and the rogue are going to share skills at the same level?  i thought based upon all of these articles that D&D Doppleganger is going to be all about "niche protection", at least at the highest levels of the skill) . We want to give plenty of flexibility for people to be able to build the characters they want to build, that are good at the things they want them to be good at, while still providing ways for all the classes to have certain realms in which they are the best.

I'm Not Going to Roll, I'll Just Choose to Succeed!

So, I did some further thinking on Mike Mearls' latest post, which also led to me thinking about one of Monte's earlier posts, right before the announcement of D&D Doppleganger, which changes form to suit the designer / DM / players / etc. Why this desire to auto-adjudicate success?

As a side note, if we are going the auto-adjudicate success route, does it matter that thieves are better at skills than others? No one is rolling 95% of the time anyway.

(BTW, 95% is a number I pulled out of the Grumpy Dwarf's Ass - it may be 90%, it may be 99%, we won't know until the 24th)

I understand the desire to improve upon the starting thief's ability success chance at low levels. I'd even go so far as to double the starting success chance, and half the advancement rate. WotC won't do that, as it would require switching skills to a percentile roll as opposed to a D20 role. Still, I think it would go far to solve the problem (i may consider such in my ACKS campaign, but this houserule is not a priority at the moment.

Auto success arguably speeds up gameplay. But it does so at the expense of the game. What thrill, what edge of the seat excitement, is gained when the thief (rogue, whatever) can pick every lock, disarm every trap?

D&D is not an Endless Quest books. It more more than just a series of choices and decisions, it is also a game where some things are left to fate.

Unless Mike plans to auto-adjudicate combat too. Now that would certainly speed up gameplay, and that is the goal of D&D D, correct? Remove the dice rolling and that one hour game session is certainly more than doable. Assuming you can find players to sit down for the one hour game session.

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?)