Mini Review - Advanced Adventures #23: Down the Shadowvein (OSRIC)

Down the Shadowvein is the follow up to AA#1: The Podmaster of the Sinister Shroom, and can be used to follow that adventure or on it's own.  All the GM needs to supply is an underground river they can canoe down and a map leading to treasure down river.  Its for character levels 3 to 5.

I really wish I could find my copy of PotSS, but it's packed in a box somewhere in storage.  Ah well, onward to Down the Shadowvein.

The GM's map (and the Player's map too) is a hex map, inducing the river and adventure locations and passages.  It's weird but cool that the underground map is similar to an above ground map, even though the party is going to be thinking "dungeon".

If it reminds me of any classic adventure, it's D1-2, when the party travelled through the underdark.  There is much of that feel here, as the random encounters the party may interact with include merchant trains.  Merchant trains underground, ya gotta love it. :)

The main encounter areas are mapped out like dungeons, so your players (and you) will be in comfortable surroundings at times.  In truth, this plays out (almost) like a sandbox campaign underground, as the players have choices in the directions they will take.

Still, it is not the usual sort of adventure, and it may be awkward for some GMs to run it.  It is underground, and most travel will probably be via river, but there are also numerous passages for the party to stumble through.

Depending on how thoroughly the party explores their sandbox, this could take two to three 4 hour sessions to complete.  There really is a lot to explore in the two dozen pages in this adventure.

You also get 2 new magic items and 4 new monsters.

From the blurb:

Down the Shadowvein is an OSRIC(tm) module designed for 6-10 adventures of levels 3-5.

You carefully load your canoes and launch into the fast-moving waters of the underground river named Shadowvein. The Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom behind you, the veracity of the map that is to be your guide into the dark unknown will soon be tested. Hopefully what is written is accurate, but if it is not, your wits, wile, and brawn should serve you well as you journey down the Shadowvein!

Down the Shadowvein picks up where The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom left off, but it can be played by those who have not explored that module. Down the Shadowvein continues in The Mouth of the Shadowvein.

Free Stock Art - Horror / Gothic - "The Prayer"

It's not often that you find free stock art for commercial and personal use.  This is one of those rare occasions.  You can grab "The Prayer" and use it your your projects.

I'll let the artwork speak for itself:

from the blurb:

This file contains two versions of the image “The Prayer” - the original file and a bonus version with a watercolour effect. Either image may be used for commercial or personal products as per the included license.

TITLE: The Prayer

SIZE: 1348 × 1684 pixels

FILE TYPE & RESOLUTION: jpg, 300ppi

some images used with permission from Wooden Vampire Games.

Hollow Earth Expedition RPG at First Glance

Let's see how fast Amazon gets me the Hollow Earth Expedition Rulebook. In the meantime, I've looked at the 2008 and 2009 Free RPG Day Quickstarts for HEX, and I must say I'm really impressed. It looks to be a truly quick and easy system to run.

I'm hoping when I have the rules in hand I'll have a better idea if this can be hacked (I know there is a 3 Musketeers version out there) into sci-fi space opera or even high fantasy. I need to look closer.

Still, I like what I see thus far.

Looking Back at What Almost Was: Adventure Games Journal #1 and The Wilderlands of High Adventure

Is it four years since the first (only?) issue of the Adventure Games Journal?

Let me catch folks up on AGJ, it's publisher Adventure Games Publishing and the one man show behind it all, James Mishler.  James had the idea of licensing Judges Guild's Wilderlands, which in turn was going to use the Castles & Crusades license, to produce a line of gaming supplements.  And so he did.  Excellent stuff.  Well written stuff.  Well presented stuff.  For printed products, fairly priced stuff.

To pay for future publishing, and I'm sure hoping he had lightning in a barrel, as the reviews from Grognardia and elsewhere were damn near perfect, James offered a subscription scheme.  You even got yourself an ID number of sorts (which was a matter of pride for those of us that had one).  Everything was looking great.

Until it no longer did.  Apparently, James ran short of funds to print items that were due to subscribers, and the direct to PDF supplements I'm assuming didn't bring in the cash that was expected.  By mid 2009, he had gone waay from the subscriptions (which were converted to credit for other releases) and then James went away for a bit.  He came back, hoping to get things moving again, and it just never happened.

He planned to pay out subscribers with either products or a refund as his finances permitted, I believe in subscriber number order.  Unless I missed an email, it never reached me.  Amazingly, I really don't care about the cash and I would have told him such if it ad reached me.  I just wish James was still producing product.

His stuff was good.  I would have really enjoyed watching him rework a corner of the Wilderlands.  Heck, I'd love to see him produce his very own Sandbox Styled Campaign.  If he did it via Kickstarter, I'd be the first to put my money down.  Yes, I mean it.  It was that good.

I have no idea hat James is doing now, although I assume it is far and away from RPGs.  Damn shame.  James was an excellent writer.  His business sense might not have been up there will his skill as a game designer, but that doesn't detract from the skill that he has.  It just makes it stand out more.

Looking Back at The Morrow Project

Over the next couple of days I'll be posting pics of some of the older or more obscure stuff in my gaming collection.  This one is of The Morrow Project.

One of my friends dearly wanted to play in a Morrow Project campaign.  He owned the books, I didn't, but he gave them to me with the understanding that I would run, or at least "attempt to run" it as a campaign.  It never happened.

I just couldn't find the "system" within the rulebook.  Sure, I can find blood transfusion charts, radiation exposure charts and numerous weapon charts, but it's a confusing mass of rules that is nearly impossible to navigate.  It required way too much effort, especially after Twilight 2000 was released by GDW.  Although far from a perfect system, Twilight 2000 allowed for a gaming experience that was "after the bomb" so to speak.

This got put on a shelf and pretty much forgotten about, until I pulled it from a box destined for storage this morning.

Lot's of memories even if it was never played.

Looking Back and Forward at the Temple of Elemental Evil

I took today off to move yet more stuff to storage.  Slowly but surely, things are returning to normal.  I'm putting about 90% of my gaming goodies into storage, but I'm doing quick looks through the boxes that I hastily packed up in November to make sure nothing "overly awesome" is going to be lost in the abyss.

One of the books I pulled from a box today was T1-4, The Temple of Elemental Evil.  I must have ran this nearly a half dozen times for different groups.  It's beat to crap, but that's from use, not shelf wear.

Notice the cover of the 16 page map booklet that accompanied it?  Not only does it include at the dungeon maps, 2 town maps, a map of an inn, a church, a guard tower, a trader's establishment and numerous ruins, it also includes a nice sandbox hex map with such labels as: "Beware Evil", "Danger" and "Evil Lurks Here".  This is how to make a sandbox work: you give leads to the players and see where it goes.

Now, ToEE wasn't much of a sandbox.  No, the sucker is one hell of a megadungeon, with many different factions at work within.  Still, it was placed within a micro-sandbox if you will.

When I take the Hex Series from Loviatar, mix in some Toys For the Sandbox, Barrowmaze and Dwimmermount, the players will have choices, but I'll be ready for 95% of the choices they make (you can never be ready for everything).

Hmm... do I want to make ToEE a third megadungeon in the area?  Nah... too much mega, too little space. But I could use the Moathouse.  Actually, I think I will use the Moathouse.  ToEE never gets old :)

Catching Up With "The Rule of Three" - Complexity, Dreaded Monster Abilities and Smart Play

original article is here


What kind of steps are you guys taking to make sure we don't see a big difference in complexity between classes like the fighter and the wizard (and why shouldn't there be a complexity difference between the two?), and what are you doing to avoid the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue ? (I have no idea what the fuck they are talking about here)

One of the challenges when talking about these kinds of issues is terminology, and the tendency for concepts to get lumped in with one another when they can be quite separate issues. Complexity is a separate issue than power; I can design an incredibly complex class that isn't very powerful, and some very simple things that are extremely powerful. Take a look at feats in 4th Edition; the original Weapon Expertise feat is an incredibly simple feat, yet many people would argue that it is one of the most powerful feats because it provides a raw numerical upgrade to accuracy that is not contingent on meeting certain conditions, and that cascades throughout the entirety of the attack system (yeah, uhm... i guess i am glad i skipped 4e). Additionally, there is a difference between symmetry and parity. When looking to design two classes, I may want to make sure that there is parity between the options available to each class, without needing to be symmetrical and give them the exact same kinds of options in the same frequency (most players can't tell the difference). Parity and symmetry can be applied to both power and complexity, making these two axes of design. Personally, my experience with games (both RPGs and board games) is that symmetry is not essential for parity, and in many cases the game can often be made more exciting by asymmetrical mechanics (funny how Mike and Monte can write and be understood by the masses, and here I feel like I'm back in college calculus.  I understand what he is saying, but there are much easier ways to say it without sounding... pompous)


The linear fighter/quadratic wizard phrase, for those of you unfamiliar with it, refers to an environment where the fighter progresses at a steady pace, with its output increasing by a relatively set amount at each level. The quadratic wizard, on the other hand, gains output increases both from additional spells (more spells = more output) but also from those spells dealing more damage and having more powerful effects (turning people to stone, instant death, etc.). Thus, the wizard eventually outstrips the fighter in output thanks to an ever-increasing series of gains over many levels (ah, the classic "weak as shit as a newbie, but a powerhouse at higher levels".  ever notice that intelligent adversaries always target the casters when the DM plays them right?).


To address the first part of the question, I think it's OK for it to be possible to have a big difference in complexity between the fighter and the wizard, if that is what the player wants. (but couldn't we just design a variant caster class, say "sorcerer", and have that be the simple wizzie?) What is important is that if the player chooses this path, we want to ensure that there remains parity in his effectiveness despite the difference in complexity. We've already shown how this is possible with the slayer fighter from Essentials; complexity of options is lower with the slayer, but the slayer can still retain parity of effectiveness with the other classes. I've said it before, but one of the best things we gained from the design and development of 4th Edition is a handle on how to examine the math behind a character's effectiveness (again, IMHO, removing the "soul" from the game), and there are even more steps we can take to accurately gauge a character's capabilities given the last five years of experience working on that game. Whether a player chooses to play a complex character or a simple character, making sure that character has parity with the effectiveness of the other members of the party should always be a goal. (does this mean everyone is just as effective as everyone else, both in and out of combat?  was there any out of combat actions in 4e that weren't "combat" with the serial number scraped off?)


When we look at providing options for character building, however, symmetry does not need to be a goal. The goal should be to provide a satisfying experience that does what the players want. Take, for example, the fighter. In a previous column, I mentioned that the fighter could serve the need for a low complexity class, and also have options to serve the needs of those who want a high complexity class. It is important when examining ways to build in that complexity that we focus not on symmetry, but on the needs of the player who plays the more complex character. I would argue that what the player looking to play a complex fighter needs (in broad, generalized terms; I full well realize that every single player's needs are different) includes things like having multiple options for things to do on their turn, have some expendable resources, have the ability to expend those resources for great effect, and have some ability to customize a fighting style to match their vision of the character. (Note that I chose to focus on combat here, but the same points can apply to exploration and interaction). Those goals can then be married with story goals, and verisimilitude (SAT word for the win) needs, and a host of other goals to, hopefully, produce the fighter that meets the players' needs. (I feel this whole paragraph is a bunch of over thinking by a game designer.  make the game fun, and the rest will take care of itself)


There is a challenge in making sure that higher-level non-spellcasters have a good variety of unique, and compelling options available to them (if the wizard can fly, teleport, and travel the planes, what does the rogue do?) (umm, roguish shit perhaps?), but that's something we solve by making available those creative options; again, parity of compelling options, not symmetry of mechanics. I think we see some great examples of compelling mechanics for non-spellcasters at higher levels in 4E, especially in epic destinies. Take the Thief of Legend's ability to steal intangible things, or to basically be so good of a thief that he can steal something and have it appear in a place of his choosing. (so, the thief in 4e gets magical powers?  now I'm really glad I skipped 4e)

I was wondering about some of the more dreaded monster abilities that made some previous edition monsters scary. Are you guys looking at the return of things like level drain, instant death effects, harmful polymorph spells or abilities, etc?

In general, I think that monsters should do what fans of D&D lore expect them to do, and if that means being really scary mechanically then so be it (good answer so far). I think there's room in the game for monsters that simply are more dangerous and deadly than others, just as I think there's room in the game for monsters whose purpose is to be interacted with, not fought. I also think it's good for monsters to exist that you don't want to face in a straight-up fight, but that you need to be prepared for or figure out a clever way to outwit rather than going in spells a-blazin'. (hey, this sounds like "Old School" gaming shit here) There needs to be an element of danger in the world in order for the game to feel exciting, and unpredictability is important for sustaining engagement. (holy crap!  does this mean characters "Can Die!?!)


We have some game tech developed for 4E that helps a lot here; for example, rather than being petrified instantly, we might use the method that requires you to fail two saving throws before becoming petrified, allowing the player (and his or her allies) to try and intervene in the process (I hope the first fail is at least the equivalent of a slow spell). And we may look at something like level drain and say, "Here's a mechanic that is both scary, and causes some game play issues," and then try and find a new solution that retains its sense of danger without using the exact same mechanics.  (I'll reserve judgement so far.  little info here)


The other important element when dealing with monsters that have scary abilities is education. We need to be able to communicate to the DM when a particular monster is suitable for a straight-up fight, and when it should be used more carefully. For example, if a medusa can instantly turn you to stone, that's fine, provided that the DM knows that a medusa shouldn't be just casually tossed into an adventure without first dropping hints to the players (allowing them to be prepared for the medusa when encountered) or being aware of the consequences of using a monster that instantly petrifies foes. (actually, this is also very "Old School" in nature.  forewarned is forearmed)

It was mentioned in the recent Legends and Lore that Vancian magic rewards smart play for wizards. What kinds of things are you working on to reward smart play for fighters? For other classes?

I prefer not to use the term "smart play," because even if I decide I don't want to carefully mete out my resources doesn't mean I'm not playing smart—it just means I am not as interested in the game-centric aspects of D&D (er, but vancian magic is about managing resources.  and D&D is still a game, right?  isn't that why they are using mathematical formulas, to prove they can balance the game). To address the question of what we're going to do to engage players of other classes looking for a more strategic play experience, it's going to depend on the class, truthfully, and the play style of the character. For example, the fighter might be concerned with things like the preservation of hit points, which not only includes making strategic choices at character creation, but also might involve managing a pool of self-healing resources, or using defense-based options to mitigate damage while still occupying an enemy's attention (thus also mitigating the damage that enemy could do to the fighter's allies) (MMORPG Tank type class) . The rogue might be more concerned with the management of risks, moving into a dangerous fray to fell a dangerous foe vs. sitting back and playing it safe, but not dropping an enemy as quickly. However, those need to be meaningful decisions; if it's always simply the right thing to do, there's no real reward for thinking strategically or tactically. (i'll accept these ideas.  they sound like fun additions to the game)


Resource expenditure is not the only source of fulfilling tactical and strategic play, but it is a perfectly valid one. Just as valid are things like target selection, knowing when to take risks, choosing the right tool for the job, knowing how to mitigate randomness, having backups ready in case of failure, and balancing a trade-off between accuracy, damage, and defenses. Moreover, it's a perfectly valid choice to decide that one wants to eschew all of that and focus more on the narrative of the character. This touches again on the symmetry issue from the first question: giving a class a fulfilling strategic or tactical play option is not about mirroring the options of other classes, but creating a satisfying experience for that class. (from what I understand, this is a lesson learned from mistakes in 4e) Who is the ultimate judge of what is satisfying? Well, you are, which is why we want to use the playtesting process to make sure we are achieving that goal.

Free Quick Start - Faith & Demons: The Rising (Savage Worlds Setting)

Usually when you find a Quick Start Guide, its to introduce you to a new system.  In the case of Faith & Demons, it's to introduce you to a new setting for the Savage Worlds Rules.

So, what kind of setting is Faith & Demons?  Well, it's our world, around the years 1000 AD (the authors don't use C.E. dating, and I applaud them for it).  The Dark ages might be owing to an end, but creatures from the dark have made it into our world.  It's a world of magic (many types of magic).  It's a world in trouble, and it's up to your players to help stem the tide of the undead and other evil that walks the world.

It's historical in it's foundation, but obviously strays far and wide in this setting, which is fine.  It's a fantasy setting will roots players can relate to.

The quick start includes a short introduction to the setting, a short adventure and 6 pregens.  The one small complaint I have is that the pregens are caster heavy - 4 of the 6 characters are casters.  Maybe it's my roots in D&D, but I feel that the numbers should be reversed.  Well, that and the only part of Savage Worlds I have difficulty grokking is the casting.  Go figure ;)

Still, not bad for free and looks like an interesting setting for Savage Worlds.

From the blurb:

As if the power vacuum created by Rome’s fall isn’t enough, the survivors are fighting against multiple forces. Religious persecution has reared its head with claims of heresy against those who are just worshiping as they always have. Tribal conflicts threaten to tear asunder tenuous allegiances. The land is suffering from the fall-out of it all making nomadic life more difficult than typical. The undead armies, horrific demons, and a host of once mythological creatures stalking the landscape create tension from shore to shore. Someone needs to do something. And the lords have decided your party counts as ‘someone.’

Your characters have it in them to be more than a survivor. Lead your nomadic tribe’s defense against all sides to become a legendary warrior. Best a demon lord. Quell the lich’s vampire army. Call down the angels of heaven to fight at your side. Or maybe call upon the denizens of hell to tear apart your foes.

The Faith & Demons: The Rising Quick Start Guide serves as an introduction and a primer to the Faith & Demons: The Rising plot point setting for Savage Worlds. The Quick Start Guide contains everything the GM and players need to begin their campaign through the gothic fantasy version of Earth's Dark Ages including 6 pre-generated characters, new mechanics, and an adventure.

Are you up for the challenge? Join in the fight to destroy the armies of chaos!

LotFP's Indiegogo Project is Fully Funded - And Then Some

Leave it to me to wait for (nearly) the last possible minute to jump into the waters of Jim Raggi's crowd sourced project The Monolith Beyond Time and Space plus The God That Crawls.

It's not that Raggi doesn't do good shit - he does.  Production qualities are always aces and I've like (if not really liked) nearly everything that Raggi has written.  I haven't been as happy with the writing when he's published for third parties, but even in these cases, production qualities were top notch (although I still scratch my head about the overly purple map included with Carcosa).

So, when I saw that there were only about 9 hours left to fund this project (it was funded, just pushing towards it's second bonus goal, which I think I helped push it over) I bit the bullet and funded for the print and PDF copies of the two books.

Yep, I've become a crowd source addict.

Ah well, could be worse.  I mean, Raggi does good writing, finds amazing artists and the physical copies of his stuff is well worth leaving on a coffee table for the reaction alone.  If this was written my a third party, I might have opted in for the PDFs only.

Some Words of Wisdom From the Deadlands Reloaded: Marshal's Handbook

Ever read something and go "these words of wisdom are something everyone should read?"  Well, I've been reading through the Deadlands Reloaded: Marshall's Handbook (review will be forth coming) and I had one of those moments.

The advice given can be applied to any game, assuming you trust you GM to be able to follow them.

You  might  be  wondering  about  the difficulty of  the encounters listed throughout this book.     Are     they intended    for    characters    of    Novice Rank? Seasoned?

The answer is none of the above. The encounters  are  created  to  reflect  the natural  (or  in  some  cases  unnatural) organization of the characters or creatures listed.  That means your group had best be warned that this isn’t like certain other games that automatically set  the  challenge  level  to  something they  can  deal    with.    Sometimes  a horrific  abomination  simply  needs  to be avoided,  or  clever  tactics  or  hired guns employed to defeat it.

We  do  this  both  because  it’s  more natural  and  it’s  more  of  a  challenge. Besides,  any  system  we  create  would have a difficult time fitting the nature of  your  posse.  If  a  big  game  hunter hires on a squad of expert riflemen to cover  his  back,  it  doesn’t  make  sense hat  suddenly  every  rattler  has  four buddies as well. That means that just as with a larger party is safer (though it might not fit your posse’s plans to keep a low profile). Of course, it also means the heroes have to feed the Extras and provide food,   water,   and   ammo   for them as well. And don’t forget some of these apples are no doubt rotten.

All   that   said,   the   Marshal   should tweak  encounters  to  fit  the  nature  of his party. You’ll have a good handle on what your party can manage after a few sessions,  without  the  need  for  some sort of formula.

Almost seems like sandbox style game advice.  No charts to balance encounters, no CR ratings.  What is a GM to do?

Do what we always did before the charts and CRs were added.  Follow you gut and make the game fun.

This Game Starts At Level Three...

Don't Touch Anything Kiddies - We Will Hold Your Hands Until Level 3
The Rest of You Can Cut the Line and Skip the First 2 Levels

One of Rodney Thompson's comments from the last Rules of Three that I covered (not the last Rules Of Three that was published, as I am apparently a bit out of order) has been bouncing around in my head the last few days, and not because I like it:

we're looking at having the classes gradually layer in more capabilities over the first two or three levels, rather than providing a large number of class features at level 1, so that players new to the class have a short period of time to learn the basics of their class through play.  Experienced players could simply start at 3rd level if they want to leap right into a more advanced starting experience.

Now, excuse my vulgarities, but why the fuck would I want to shorten my long term campaign experience by wiping the first 2 levels of play off my plate before the game even starts?  Does WotC think most of their players in 5e are going to be new players to the hobby, let alone D&D?

If 4e was WotC attempt to make a table top RPG play more like a MMORPG, is D&D 5e going to be like children's sports these days, where it gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and everyone gets a trophy?

Are levels 1 and 2 now the same as Zero Level Characters?

That's an idea.  That concept of "Zero Level" PCs that was thrown around in a different question, why don't you use THAT to introduce new players.  Include a hand holding "Mini-Campaign" that takes them from Level 0-B to 0-A to level 1.  Bingo!  Newbies get the hand holding they need and some extra in game play so that when they hit level 1, they are on the same level playing field as everyone else.

Look at that... a solution to the "skip these levels if they are too simple for you" concept.

Savage Thoughts, Infinite Worlds

The more I look at Savage Worlds, the more I like it.  SW and Open D6 may become my main alternate rulesets for my second slot of gaming.

Why Open D6?  I had some experience with it back in the days of the old West End Games, ran some Star Wars D6 and had a few of the other D6 (Masterwork) powered games.  The fact that it is free these days means that my players should have no excuse in not having a copy of the rules ;)

Why Savage Worlds?  It's a highly supported system.  It has what appears to be an infinite number of settings, either official or fan supported.  There is a lot of strong third party material for the system.

Besides that, the Savage Worlds Test Drive rules are an excellent introduction to the system.  A player could probably get away with never going beyond such (so long as the GM was willing to help with character gen or provide pregens).

I really like the idea of short arcs to keep things fresh, and universal systems allow you to do so.  I like the idea of a short arc using Solomon Kane, as the fiction is pretty much all short stories (short "arcs" if you will).  I'm considering checking into the Mars setting (what with John Carter getting some push theses days) as well as Deadlands (a setting I haven't really checked out since it's old days when it was it's own system).

Now, quick questions to all the Savage Worlds junkies:

Should I be looking to pick up SW Horror?  I see it is recommended / required for Deadlands, and would probably be useful for Solomon Kane.

For gaming via G+ Hangout - what's the alternative for using a deck of cards for initiative?  Since everyone can't share the same deck, this would be an issue.  Of course, if I used Fantasy Grounds, that's built in, but then not everyone has a large enough computer screen to squeeze in both a VTT and the video from the Hangout.

Oh, and anyone have thoughts on Reality Blur's Old School Fantasy for Savage Worlds?

Another Oh, I found a Savage Worlds Primer - Saweet!

How Many Savage Worlds Are There?

I'm referring to the number of settings and plot point adventures available for Savage Worlds.  From what I can see it is right up there with the number available for D&D / D20 / OGL, which I find just a bit overwhelming, especially coming to the party late in my case.

Any suggestions on the best ones?

I'm looking for something that will work well in short arcs (2 to 4 sessions) that I plan to run via Google+ Hangouts, while mixing some other RPG systems into the mix too.

I'm figuring short arcs will allow for changing pace and work for those that can commit to short arcs but not a longer campaign.

Catching Up On "The Rule of Three": re: D&D 5e (3/12/12)

I've been neglectful in failing to keep up with the Rule of Three questions and answers series that Rodney Thompson has been doing on a weekly basis for WotC.  Why have I neglected it?  Because it was bouncing between 5e and 4e, and I have little to no interest in 4e (it's the edition that passed me by).  So when I started seeing a bunch of 4e stuff, I kinda forgot about the recurring feature.  It looks like I have some catching up to do ;)

Without further interruption, here's the 3/12/12 article, with my insightful and occasionally annoying comments.  You can peek at the original article here.


What are your thoughts on critical failures and things like injury charts and tables? Is this something that you could see living in the core of D&D Next or a module?

Those are two great examples of things that probably wouldn't be core assumptions, but could live as modules, albeit in a core book (I thought the modules were going to be published separate from the core.  and is it just me that has an issue with the term "modules" referring to optional rules after TSR and WotC have been using it to describe adventures for years?). Neither of those two have been consistent in their presence across the breadth of D&D (I'd argue they never really where there, except as optional and / or house rules), but while I wouldn't consider their presence to be core to the assumptions of the D&D game, they're prevalent enough in auxiliary materials throughout the years that they seem like good candidates for things that DMs should have available to add into their games (my lord, but this sentence is so full of fluff.  "They were never core, but enough people house ruled it in we figured we'd give you the option to play with out house rules").

   What have you guys learned about reaction and interrupt actions in 4E, and how do you think it will affect things for D&D Next?

Off-turn actions of all kinds can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be exciting to be able to break the turn order and step in when you normally couldn't, giving the player a lot more control over the situation. On the other hand, off-turn actions are one of the primary sources of game play slowdown—not simply in their resolution, but in the player's need to keep them in his or her mind all the time (this would certainly effect their "60 Minute D&D Session"in a negative fashion). We've all seen the situations where the DM is well into resolving an attack when one player says, "Oh wait! I have a power that lets me stop that."(I've never seen that, but I don't play 4e and barely played 3e) That's not so bad when a single player has a single off-turn action, but when they proliferate across multiple characters (with some characters stocking up on off-turn actions), you can see how something that is good in moderation can bring the game grinding to a crawl. (is this why 4e combat takes so long?)

I think one of the good things that off-turn actions do is give a sense of that the PC has active defenses; I don't just sit and take the punishment that the DM dishes out, I have a chance to protect myself thanks to the character building choices I made. This is one of the methods by which saving throws as presented in editions prior to 4th Edition actually have a positive impact on the players' game play experience. (I don't see how a Saving Throw is part of a character's "building choices", as it was always built on a set table based on class)

Going forward, I think we'll want to address the challenges associated with off-turn actions in a couple of different ways. First, I think we'll want to be more cautious with how many we inject into the game. ("Because we see how slow encounters have played out in 4e, and we don't want a repeat in 5e") In order to retain the benefits of the "active defense" side of off-turn actions, we can look to saving throws as a method of providing that feeling, and then build mechanics that ride on top of the saving throw if the player chooses them (I'm interested in seeing how this actually develop, as it makes no sense to me as stated, but maybe it's because Rodney "knows" but can't explain it yet)

   With 4E we saw some successful experiments with a 0 level that helps you create your character and inform you on the character's past and motivations. Is that something you'd like to see continued into the next iteration - a level 0 for bringing new people into the game and fleshing out a character?

While I don't think level 0 play will be an assumed part of the core game (0 level play is always a bit weird, as the character suddenly "levels" into a class), I think it's perfectly viable as an optional rules module. However, I'd also like to point out that themes (I don't do 4e.  are themes like kits from 2e?) do a lot for creating the kinds of character history that you're talking about. Themes, as presented in 4E, work best when they say something about your character's role in the world. Themes are something we want to be a core part of character creation in the next iteration of the game, chosen right alongside class and race, that adds a layer of depth to the character that we've seen great success with in 4E.

Additionally, we're looking at having the classes gradually layer in more capabilities over the first two or three levels, rather than providing a large number of class features at level 1, so that players new to the class have a short period of time to learn the basics of their class through play (but that can also result in 1st level characters that feel very "vanilla"). Experienced players could simply start at 3rd level if they want to leap right into a more advanced starting experience. (I'm sorry, but it's never right to "force" players to jump levels if they want the full game experience.  Why not add the slower ability advancement as one of their optional "modules", which they seem willing to do with critical failures and injury charts)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to everyone for their input :)

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

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

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

 Surprisingly, we do have a few choices:

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

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

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


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

(Edit)

Additional Suggestions

Neoclassical Geek Revival

Old School Hack

Toon

Fiasco

Weird West

Basic Fantasy RPG

How Long Are Your RPG Sessions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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