[S]ine [N]omine: Scarlet Heroes

My friend, Rick, had his own campaign world. It was one of those things that was in development before he found D&D. Needless to say, it was deep and rich some 25 years later. It was its own thing. Rick bent D&D to his world, rather than his world to D&D. One thing I learned from many adventures in Rick's world: never, and I mean NEVER, fuck with anybody that was travelling alone. I called it the Rule of One, and much to my honor, it became a permanent part of the lore of his world.

The thing is, it can be hard to run games with 1 DM and 1 player. Far too often, they end up being one PC and a retinue of NPCs that the DM determines vital to success. The flip-side is a game that really is one character, but it means running from a lot of encounters. Neither is very satisfying.

Enter . . .

From the brilliant and prolific mind of Kevin Crawford, aka Sine Nomine, Scarlet Heroes offers a method for invoking the Rule of One in your games.

Scarlet Heroes starts with a chassis of B/X D&D. Sort of. It feels an awful lot like B/X, but when you get into the nuts and bolts it bears more of a philosophical resemblance than an actual one. It has the traditional six stats we all know and love. It has the B/X bonus scheme. It has the "core four" classes. The main four races are represented, as well as the Shou from the included setting. So far very B/X.

Now, here's where we start shifting our perceptions, because that is all that is really going on here. We still have hit dice, hit points, and weapons doing variable damage. You can take any D&D weapon not already on the equipment list and drop it right in. The difference is in how the numbers are used in Scarlet Heroes. For foes, monsters and mook-types, hit dice are hit points. So, a bandit can take one hit. A garden variety zombie, 2 points of damage. PCs have normal hit points and important/legendary foes may have hit points, as well.

Damage is determined differently, too. Weapons are still listed with their traditional damage ranges, 1d8 for a long sword, for example. However, rather than simply rolling and deducting that number from an opponent's hit points/hit dice, the roll is checked on a damage table. Thus:

This little table, and the damage dynamic that it applies to, is at the heart of what makes Scarlet Heroes sing. The other thing that really makes it work is the Fray Die. I love the Fray Die. It is a free damage roll PCs make every round, just because it is dangerous to stand too close to them. How awesome is that?

So, that small shift in the perception of hit dice/points and damage is pretty much the foundation that all the rest sits upon. There are other changes that essentially amount to making PC's better able to function alone. Traits add a skill-like element that can be used to mimic certain class-like abilities. There is a Defy Death roll which players can make when they reach an impasse that their character isn't able to handle. It becomes more difficult and dangerous every time the player relies on it to get the character out of a jam, though.

Scarlet Heroes is a complete game in and of itself. It includes everything you need to play, including monsters, magic items, and a taste of the Red Tide setting. There is also an extensive chapter on creating adventures, which includes a good-sized list of adventure tags, which are used in the construction of adventures. There is also a nice section on truly solo gaming, no GM needed.

I want to say one other thing about this before I wrap this up. This doesn't get mentioned much in any of the things I've read about Scarlet Heroes. The spell lists are totally awesome. They are loaded with new spells and new twists on old spells. He provides great, very evocative new names for all the spells. Some of them are really unique and could make a separate supplement of their own.

PS I forgot to mention, the system is suitable as is for one or two PCs. More than that and it gets too easy. However, it is a fine system in its own right, and by simply using hit dice/points and damage in the traditional manner, it could serve as a wonderful vehicle for a group of PCs.

I'm Back, Bitches

Call off the search. I have escaped the clutches of the dire time-villain known as the Christmas Peak.

Quick recap: I've been working 70+ hours per week since the beginning of November, so my reading time has been highly restricted. I've read some, but more as some relaxation before collapsing into a fitful slumber. I've briefly touched on several titles. My gaming ADD has an absolute field day under these conditions. Probably the runner-up for Biggest Interest Piquer (I made that word up, it isn't misspelled, so don't look) was  . . .

I love to read and think about Burning Wheel. I also love the hack Luke Crane came up with for Mouseguard. In practice, BW is too story-oriented for me, while paradoxically, it is extremely crunchy. A lot of moving parts, which depend on each other to a (much too) large degree. Torchbearer, though seems like viewing BW through a D&D lens. I didn't read all of it, let alone play it, but I did like what I did read.

Which brings me to the current focus of my creative energies . . .

These are my copies, and not some pic of someone else's I snagged.
Go me!

So, I am fully, firmly, and committedly in the 5E camp. I haven't dug too deeply into my hardbacks yet, but I have previously been reading the basic rules pdf. I want to give my initial impressions, though. Let's get started, shall we?

Nostalgia

Don't rally the villagers and dole out torches and pitchforks here, but I ordered these off Amazon. I don't have a local FLGS. There is a comic shop that probably carries it, as well as a shop that caters almost exclusively to Games Workshop miniature guys. They are both rather tightly focused on their core market (read: elitist), so I don't frequent them very much (read: not ever since the first time). My only other options were Books-A-Million and Barnes & Noble, which are every bit the chain-store giants that Amazon is, and they don't discount shit. How does this equate to the "Nostalgia" heading?

Well, as a younger man, I had to save allowance for D&D swag. I also had to either wrangle a ride to a game store, or order by mail. (Incidentally, I acquired a set of those old soft plastic dice by mail, as well as Eldritch Wizardry) That meant time spent in sweet, maddening anticipation. Waiting for my shipments from Amazon (they were all shipped separately), was very reminiscent of that anticipation. It was an awesome way to get into these books.

Taken as a Whole

My feeling at this time is that this really is a melding of all that has gone before.

It has the obvious roots in the LBBs, shared by all editions, in the concepts of the six stats, hit points, classes and levels.

Philosophically, it has the smoothness of B/X in its operation, ease of play, and ease of DMing.

  Its debt to AD&D I will discuss in the DMG heading.



From 2nd Edition we get kits, streamlined, balanced, and standardized in the form of Backgrounds. This new edition seems to evoke 2nd Edition to me somehow. The move from the baroque language of 1st Edition to the smooth, easy-reading of language of 2nd Edition is mirrored here. 5th Edition is much more pleasing to read than either the law-tome known as 3.5 or the tech manual of 4th Edition. It also uses the concept of colleges of magic and clerical domains, first appearing here.

From 3rd and 4th it draws concepts that unify and streamline. Ascending AC allows a much more unified mechanic. In a real way, the to-hit roll simply becomes another skill roll. The three saves being based on stats, found in 3.x, became the six stat-based saves of 5th. The idea of Feats was born in 3.x. Their appearance in 5th is much better implemented, and entirely optional.

4th even offers useful tidbits. The "rest" structure is alive and well, which I do like (blasphemy? Perhaps). One of the most irritating disconnects in D&D, for me, has always concerned hit points. On the one hand we're told the bulk of the damage a character takes represents minor nicks, close calls, and general fatigue. Yet, if depending on natural healing, it could take weeks to recover from a couple of fights. I have always liked the idea of regaining a chunk of hit points following a chance to catch your breath, take a pull from a wine flask, and slap on a bandage or two.

So, that is my thumbnail sketch of what got us here. I think I'm going to split my initial impressions into another post. I'm going to do it right now, so this isn't going to be one of those time I tease you with something I never deliver. Promise.

Delving Deeper Compendium

It's here! Actually it came in yesterday morning, but I was at work. This is a very initial impression. I plan to expound upon it, but for now, these are my thoughts.

First and foremost, this is v4 of the Reference Rules. I haven't noted any significant changes from the v3 rules. In point of fact, for anyone that pays any attention to this project, the changes have been available for some time. The project's author, Simon Bull, is very good about posting his ideas on his blog and on Delving Deeper's Google+ community.

I will say that I am undecided about the cover. It is a very nice piece, but I'm not sure it survived the reduction to booklet size very well. There are a lot of little details in the piece, and it is black and white. I'm absolutely certain that at a larger size, such as maybe 8.5x11, it would look fantastic. As it is, to me it looks good, but too dark and too "busy". I hate to be critical about a game I love so much, but that's my honest feeling about the cover.

Speaking of the cover, the stock seems a little "light". I routinely cover all my softback game books with clear shelf liner. I definitely recommend that here. It added just the right amount of weight to the cover.

I ordered this because I respect Simon's work on these rules, his respect for the original rules that his are derived from, and his scholarship in these matters. I have two sets of the v3 rules printed, and didn't intend to order anything until the Reliquary finally comes out. I felt like giving my feedback was the least I could do to support Simon's work, though. I'm very happy to order this, offer my thoughts, and get some of my houserules posted this weekend. We'll see how that part goes. I do have some ideas, but actually getting them typed up and posted. Well, therein lies the rub.

5E Basic: Rambling About Fighters

I've read up through the Classes chapter. I don't really want to discuss races (sorry) except to say that for some reason the 5E dwarf speaks to me more than any dwarf ever has. In fact, the elf is appealing to me as well. I've been human-centric for a long time, mainly because I felt like the other races had become nothing more than optimization options (and this feeling goes back to 2nd Edition). With viable bonuses for all races, plus the old-school vibe (and please don't hate me for wanting an old-school vibe; I am old), I want to play dwarves and elves again.

One of the things I always look for, no matter the system, is to see if I can make a fighter to be feared. This shouldn't be news by now. Well, I believe the answer is yes, but can I make a fighter that is more fearful than one of the other classes? That's always the lurking question, isn't it? So, I'm going to jump the order and look at the fighter first.

With the Proficiency bonus anyone proficient with a given weapon has the same "to hit" bonus as a fighter of equal level. That's a bit unsettling, if considered in a vacuum. In truth, it is just a part of Bounded Accuracy, which basically means that a character's ability to emerge from a fight victorious isn't tied primarily to his ability to lay steel on an opponent once. Fighters get truly nasty starting at 5th level (unless I'm reading something wrong, chime in if I am). See, at 2nd level fighters get Action Surge, which they can use once per rest (until 17th level). This allows them to take an extra action on their turn. Then, at 5th level, they get an extra attack, when they take the Attack action. So, one action (Attack) and they get two attacks. I guess you see where I'm going with this. Use the Action Surge for an Attack action and make four attack rolls. Now, if we couple all this with the Champion Archetype, it gets even more nasty. See, at 3rd level a Champion scores a critical hit on a 19 or 20. Suppose a Champion with Great Weapon Fighting is involved. In a nutshell, he can roll 4 attacks in one round, with a 10% of doing a critical with each, rolling 4d6 if he does crit AND re-rolling any of those that come up a 1 or 2.

Ok, so that could seem a bit contrived, maybe borderline min-maxing, but I don't think so. It isn't twisting up some weird combination that has zero roleplaying verisimilitude. It's pretty much a natural progression along a path set upon during character generation.

Here's my take on the new fighter.

• He is proficient with all weapons, which is something of an advantage, but no class is really screwed concerning weapon choice, so it isn't a great big deal.
• He is the only class proficient with heavy armor (the mountain dwarf has such proficiency)
• Fighting Styles will make him marginally better than any other class in a narrowly-defined area
• The Action Surge/Extra Attack dynamic will be what really sets them apart as death-dealers
• Martial Archetypes will further distance them as Not-to-be-Trifled-With

One other thing: the cleric and wizard gain five Ability Score Improvements at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. The rogue gains six, at 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 19. The fighter gains a whopping seven, at 4, 6, 8, 12,14, 16, and 19. So, when the other classes are getting their second, the fighter will be getting his third. This essentially means that any fighter can easily have his primary combat ability maxed out by 6th level, if his starting score is decent and the player concentrated the improvements there.

I think the new fighter should rightly be feared as he advances. I'm looking forward to seeing the other archetypes on offer in the upcoming PHB. It seems like it would be a simple matter to homebrew some as well.

By the way, the cover I posted earlier is not the one I went with. Here is the cover I ultimately made and went with:

Some (Very Early) Thoughts on Dungeon World

I've been reading my printed pdf a bit, and studying forums, reviews, and blog posts. One of the biggest problems I am having is that I didn't take the plunge with this game sooner.

I really dig the core mechanic, from concept through implementation. I'm a big fan of the bell curve, so naturally a 2d6 resolution mechanic is right in my wheelhouse. I also really like the graduated results. Just in case you didn't know, to resolve an action roll 2d6 + relevant stat bonus. If the roll is 10+ you succeed as desired. A 7-9 means you succeed, but with some sort of complication. On a 6 or less, it is the GM's call. Maybe you succeed but with a cost of some sort, or maybe you suffer humiliating defeat. (This may sound arbitrary, but the rules hammer the notion of "the fiction". So, the GM's response to a 6- roll should be logically consistent with the scene as it is being played out.)

In the last campaign I played in we had a situation wherein this type of mechanic would have been useful. We were playing my friend's heavily houseruled AD&D 1e/2e mash-up. I consider my friend a completely awesome DM. He knows his world inside and out, being immediately ready with details like the best vintages from particular wine regions, through giving little clues buried in ancient dialects in lost writings. One of is "soft spots" his in strict interpretation of the dice. In this campaign, our first "encounter" was . . . frustrating.

There was a room which was obviously trapped. He didn't allow a detect trap type roll unless and until we described exactly what we were doing. Now, as a principle that is keeping with the finest old school tradition. But, there was a very specific method to this trap. We spent over an hour of that session mucking about with that trap.

I'm not busting on my friend. I would leap at the chance to play in one of his campaigns, any place, any time. I also know that his way is not the only way to DM situations like that. My only point is that a graduated mechanic, like that in DW, would have mitigated that situation and kept the game moving. When this type of mechanic is hard-wired into the rules, and everyone at the table knows it, the expectations change. When the expectations change, the dynamic changes, and thus the game itself changes.

I can see the other side of this argument. If we, as a group, had approached that room/trap with the expectation that we would get past it in one turn, even if it meant "something bad" happened, it would change how we approached it. However, it doesn't work that way. If you roll a 6-, as GM it is my option for how things progress. It is incumbent on me to exercise that option in keeping with the established fiction, though.

To return to the room for a moment: the room was large and filled with stone columns. The trap was that the columns would start falling before we could cross the room. My character (an 8th level fighter) had a column fall on him. He took quite a bit of damage, but, being a fighter, had the HP to cover it. So, he was described as being pinned, and had to be pulled out.

If this would have been DW, and we had rolled a 6- to defy the dangers of the trap, I would have been rolling up a new character. The fiction would demand it. A 2-ton granite column falls on you and it is time for your companions to salvage any of your gear that isn't flattened.

Of course, my friend could have narrated it that way. That's not the D&D way, though. That's not a criticism of D&D, just a contrast of two different games. D&D is about shaping the narration to fit the numbers, while DW is about using the fiction to inform the numbers. So, in the campaign, my guy took about 60% of his HP, obviously he was still alive since he still had HP. So, my friend had to narrate it that he was pinned under a chunk of granite. In DW the fiction states that 2 tons of granite falls on you and you're screwed. Period.

That may not sit well with some of you. Hell, when my ADD swings again, it may not sit well with me. However, on this rainy Sunday morning, it sits very well with me.

Ranging Far Afield

It occasionally happens that I become hyperfocused on OSR. My attention zeroes in on D&D and all of its direct descendants. The term is vague enough to encompass anything the person using it should desire. Does it refer to games with a particular progenitor? Uh-huh. Does it refer to a specific play-style? Sometimes. Can it refer to a specific period of time? Sure, why not.

Even in the face of bouts of being hyperfocused, it has never been my aim with this blog to limit myself to any narrow definition of OSR. This post is a direct result of looking beyond where I had previously focused my attentions.

Who remembers this? I can't recall exactly when I became aware of this. It wasn't in the form pictured here. It was an advert for Arms Law as a stand-alone product. It was billed as a drop-in replacement for the combat system of whatever RPG one happened to be playing. In all honesty, at that point in the hobby, it was aimed squarely at D&D. RQ and D&D were the only two with serious crunch and market presence, and RQ already had a crunchy percentile combat system. It promised a combat system that resolved all attacks in melee with no more than two rolls.

It achieved this by having the attack roll also indicate damage. The system's take on armor was quite interesting, and still very solid in its conception. Simply put, heavier armor actually makes you easier to strike, but much harder to critically injure. You'll take more "exhausting" damage as you get knocked around inside the armor, but your squishy bits are more protected.

The second roll (if required) was the critical roll. It was based on the type of damage a weapon caused (slashing, piercing, or krushing), and a letter value based on the severity of the hit. There were separate tables for the damage types.

This isn't really intended to be about Arms Law, despite the amount of time I've spent describing it.

I had a very serious flirtation with Rolemaster, the unification of all the "Laws" into a single system. During my first great break with D&D, I loved RM's supposed realism, its ability to model a wide variety of character concepts, and the "nerd" value of using such a chart and math intensive system. I had some friends that were into it, too, and we played some. Not much, nor regularly, as we lived a few hours apart. Eventually RM fell into my regular ADD rotation and would get some attention every few months. Even that waned once I lost all my old ICE products. I never really worried about replacing the materials due to my preferences moving toward "lighter" systems.

One of the things I always loved about RM was the house setting for it: Kulthea, the Shadow World. There are a number of concepts I still love in this setting. The geography for one. I mean, look at that map. It makes me want to be there. The peoples of the world are often times isolated and cut off from one another by powerful flows of magical energies, as well as forbidding geography. There are world-spanning organizations, such as the Navigators, who have learned to travel using these magical energy currents. There are the Loremasters, dedicated to recovering and recording knowledge from across the breadth of Kulthea.

If you've read much of my ramblings, you know it is a sad fact of my life that I don't have any second-hand stores that make a point of catering to gamers. There is one used book store in Huntsville that is of any real use to me. There are actually a fair number of used book stores, but all save the aforementioned one cater mainly to used romance paperbacks. I sporadically drop into the Booklegger because they do have a very small game section (populated primarily with World of Darkness titles). Hope springs eternal, and I did actually find a softback copy of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay there.

You can imagine where this is going, and you're (mostly) right. I found a copy of High Adventure Role Playing, HARP, in there for $10. It is the older ICE edition, not the newer one published by the Guild Companion. I don't have a clue what the differences are. I believe the GC edition has a slightly larger page count.

HARP is its own game. It borrows from RM, even to the point of using it as foundation. It is not a "lite" version. I guess in a way it is to RM what Castles & Crusades is to AD&D (HARP is in no way OGL, though). It is a streamlining and re-imagining, not a replacement nor is it some sort of quick-start.

I still haven't read it all the way through. It claims to be complete. It contains stats for over 40 creatures. It contains six individual spell lists for the spell using classes, but there are some spells that appear on more than one list. There is a very serviceable treasure section, including mundane treasures.

Characters are a combination of class/level and skill based. Skills are all-important, and any character has the ability to learn any skill. Class and level govern the development costs of individual skills and when development points are gained, respectively. Thus, it is easier for a fighter to learn weapon skills (lower development point cost) than for him to learn a spell. He can learn the spell, but it will greatly impact his development in his chosen profession.

The skill list isn't particularly burdensome. Skills are divided up into 10 categories, with between 3-9 skills per category. The categories are important as they inform the types of things a given class is naturally predisposed to.

There are nine classes, five have spell lists, and thus use magic in some capacity. The class descriptions are very brief and setting agnostic.

The usual races are present, along with a unique system for mixed-race characters.

Ok, so I didn't intend to go into this kind of depth with this post. I just wanted to ramble about another game from my past and a younger cousin of it I recently found. If anyone wants to know more about the game I'll be glad to share, but for now, I think I'm going to get back to reading.

Late to the Party (again)

As usual, I'm late to the party where new games are concerned (actually where everything is concerned, but we all have our crosses to bear). Here I am speaking specifically of Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures.

At this point I can tell you very little about it. For the paltry sum of $7.99 it can be had at Drive Thru RPG. That gets you the core rules plus a bestiary. There are also several free add-ons available, so you can get it all bundled into a single download (I did).

My limited exposure leads me to believe that character generation is a focal point of the designers. They have developed something reminiscent of a lifepath type system. Not as in-depth as a true lifepath system, but it definitely smacks of one. Certain points in character generation also inform the creation of the characters' home village. So, it is created right alongside them, which, if well done, would definitely invest the players in the nascent campaign from inception. Very groovy.

It is definitely based on D&D, with the expected attributes and other descriptive factors, such as class/level, hit points, etc. From my horribly brief perusal it seems to be based on a blend of B/X, with the unified attribute bonuses a la Moldvay, and 3.x, with ascending AC and BtH. It does have the Five Saving Throw scheme, but includes the Three-Fold Save scheme from 3.x as an optional rule.

It also includes some ideas unique to it. There is a section on True Names, which I find endlessly fascinating and underused. I can't comment on it beyond its inclusion, but the fact that is there is a good start. Reviews indicate that the magic/spell system is somewhat different, so that may be fun.

All in all, this should provide, at the very least, some new ideas and an interesting read. I would say that I'll post more about this at a later time, but we all know how those promises play out. So, I won't say it.

Thoughts on the Rules Cyclopedia

First a little background. Sometime or another in the late '80's I discovered Frank Mentzer's BECMI. I love collecting games and reading them, even if there is little chance I'll ever play a given title. The Larry Elmore covers, especially on the BEC boxes, were awesome to me (they still are).

The group I played with was very anachronistic. You couldn't turn a page without finding something that had been house ruled. This was done on a foundation of 1E AD&D, and later a mash-up of 1E and 2E. Pretty much anything went when it came to characters. No level limits for demi-humans, humans could multi-class, anybody could use weapon specialization, etc, etc, etc.

At some point in time, I decided I wanted a simpler game. Originally, I wanted to play AD&D as written and just see how it would work if played as intended. I didn't get any traction with that idea. So, since my exploration into a simpler method had officially become my personal mental exercise, I figured I may as well go all the way. Immortals didn't really interest me, but I loved BECM. I did not hesitate when the Cyclopedia came out. The idea of such a complete version of D&D for (then) $25 was attractive enough. The fact that it was the collected BECM was the cherry on top.

Late in 1992 I gave my copy of the Cyclopedia to the son of a friend.


 I don't remember exactly when I learned of Dark Dungeons. I received a print copy via Lulu about a year and a half ago. I haven't read it as thoroughly as 18 months allows, but I do like what I've seen. There is an extensive list of changes between the RC and DD, but they are almost exclusively limited to clarity issues.

Anyway, this isn't intended to be a review of either title, or a compare/contrast piece. It is just some thought on some things I have read on the web concerning them. Pretty much anything that applies to the RC applies to DD by extension, so it seemed logical to discuss them together.

One of the biggest knocks I see against the RC/DD is that it is too complete. The perception is out there that it includes rules for everything, thus removing the game from the DM and putting it in the rule book, a la 3.x or Pathfinder. After spending some time with my RC pdf, and DD, I don't see that. Yes, there are more rules for things that commonly come up in play. I think, though, that the extra heft in the books comes from subsystems that are very specific. For example, pages 169-194 of DD are chapters covering mass battles and immortals, topics that will be a long time coming in campaigns beginning at 1st level.

There is also a lot made about the rules covering character levels up to 36th. Many players prefer a shallower power curve. I myself have discussed that very thought. Upon further reflection, I can definitely see where a longer power curve can bring something to the game. With a 36-level spread, I find it much less troubling to assign levels to special, yet non-pivotal, NPCs. A captain of the guard could be 6th level, which allows him to be accurately represented relative to those under his command. With a 14-level curve, the same captain would probably be no more than 4th level, probably 3rd. That doesn't leave much room to represent the lieutenants and sergeants in his unit.

So, that just a couple of thoughts on these two rules sets.

Mongoose Legend

I was meandering around the net this morning and stumbled across some mention of Legend. It is Mongoose's open-source version of RuneQuest. Mongoose did not renew their license for RQ after RQ2, instead opting to do their own thing with it. It is really cool that they went open-source with it. The coolest thing, though, is that the core book is available for $1 at DriveThru RPG. I snapped that up when I first read about it. I even had it printed. Then I promptly forgot all about it. Until this morning.

In a nutshell, if you like RQ, you will likely enjoy Legend as well. Sure, there may be some points of friction, but it is still the same basic percentile system purring away under the hood. I'm no authority on RQ. It was the equivalent of an Epic Quest for me and my buddy John to cobble together enough hand-written notes and photocopied pages to play D&D. We weren't about to abandon all that hard-won loot for another system.


In later years I wanted to try RQ. A roommate I had at one time had the 2nd edition rules and we tried to make up characters. By the time he got to the part about me being able to join a guild and take out a student loan (which is exactly how his description hit me), I was glassy eyed. This was when my gaming circle was into AD&D and had been for years. We could go from "Hey, let's play D&D" to a finished party of 1st level wanna-be's in no time. So, that flirtation with RQ was short.

Then, Avalon Hill came out with RQ3. Little known secret: My gaming career started with Avalon Hill wargames. Tobruk was an early favorite, along with Tactics II and Blitzkrieg. Anyway, I liked the look of the blurb on the box, and I was an Avalon Hill fanboy. Unfortunately, my group was D&D or die, so RQ3 never really got any traction. I bought a lot of the supplements (because that's what I do), and I really liked the feel of the game. It seemed to me to be very clunky (based solely on reading), but I broke it out every now and then to see if my perceptions had changed. I thought Glorantha was really interesting, even though there were a few things that offended my sensibilities. I'm not sure if the things were "true" Glorantha, or part of Avalon Hill's take on it. Either way, by and large, I loved it as something to read and feel inspired by.

Which brings me back to Legend. As you may glean from this rambling monologue, I have wanted to like RuneQuest for a long time. So far I am happy with Legend. I haven't gotten very far into re-reading the pdf, but I like what I'm seeing. Plus, the pdf is produced in digest format, which I love. The cover (as seen at the top of this post) is very sublimated, which makes reading the game in public much more "stealthy". The core book is complete in and of itself. At least it is sold that way. It is well-supported, however, with several supplements (available in pdf, though not for $1, they are still reasonably priced). There is also a fairly active forum, located here.

For a slim buck, this is worth a look, especially if you're curious about RQ.

Crypts & Things

Some of you may remember certain comments I made concerning Crypts & Things, by D101 Games. I did, and still do, disagree with the notion of taking ideas freely given to the gaming community and making a proprietary title from them. I believe that some sort of free pdf should be made available, based on the spirit that made the game possible in the first place. Without the good will of Matt Finch and Akrasia, there wouldn't be C&T. I understand that the author developed an original setting,tweaked monsters and spells to better reflect the genre, and added descriptive fluff to be more evocative. If a free pdf that didn't include such things, then so be it. Not including that sort of artistry would be understandable.

Why have I decided to bang this tired old drum again? Because I broke down and bought the pdf of C&T. Philosophical differences aside, I love what Newt Newport has done here (so far. I haven't finished reading it yet).In this game, I have found something I have long wanted: a swords & sorcery D&D. I love Barbarians of Lemuria, I think Legends of Steel is a good implementation of the genre, but I've wanted Dungeons & Dragons swords & sorcery. I've tried many times, as most of you know, to develop my own house rules. Some of mine are amazingly close to some of Akrasia's, but mine never gelled like his do, taken as a whole. Plus it is one thing to take his rules and paste them into White Box, it is quite another to have them baked right in.

I had thought about doing one of my quasi-reviews, because there really aren't that many. The reviews that are out there (which are linked to on the D101 webpage) all say pretty much the same thing. "Great game", "excellent s&s rules", "magic system rocks", "best barbarian class ever", "really creepy monsters". Well, the fact is, that sums it up. It is a great game, and if I did review it, I would be saying the same thing all the others have said.

Stars Without Number

I'm late to the game (as usual) with this title. Better late then never, especially in the case. I have to admit that as much as I enjoy classic gaming in general and OD&D in particular, I was very leery of this game. Something about the idea of using the OD&D engine left me a little skeptical. There aren't very many class-and-level sci-fi games. It seemed to me that shoe-horning a sci-fi theme into an OD&D mechanic wouldn't really satisfy.

I was wrong. Kevin Crawford, the game's designer, explained that he decided to use the tried-and-true OD&D engine because it is so ubiquitous. Everybody that games knows what HPs are and how AC works, whether you like the systems or not. It isn't fully OD&D. It uses the Target20 method to-hit, and 2d6 for skill rolls. The Big Six stats are there in all their 3d6 glory. The bonuses range from -2 to +2. There are three classes, each with their own hit dice and experience table. All very familiar and comfortable. Which is the point: they are so ingrained in most gamers that these systems fade into the background without any effort.

The games greatest strength, aside from its prolific and talented designer, is its support for sandbox play. There are tables for randomly determining the barest details of alien worlds, such as atmosphere, size, biosphere, etc. There are also some tables that I'm not accustomed to seeing. There are extensive rules for generating Factions, and their operation. One of my favorite ideas here, though, are the guidelines for World Tags. These are just a simple sentence or two intended to almost immediately evoke something interesting about the world.

I've always enjoyed randomly determining star sectors and the rules for such are one of the make-or-break points in a sci-fi game for me. The problem I've always had, though, is coming up with unique worlds circling the randomly determined star systems. After a few solar systems I start running out of fresh ideas. These tags should definitely help with that. With these it will be easy to custom design key worlds in the sector and use the random tables for the rest.

There are complete rules for starship design and combat. There is also a supplement Skyward Steel covering naval architecture and warfare in greater detail. It isn't free, as are the rest of the things the links below point to. The pdf is only $9.99, though, and it is tightly focused on its topic, so it is definitely worth it if your campaign will feature naval themes.

All in all, this is a very good sci-fi RPG. There are many elements I haven't even mentioned, but by now there are many fine reviews. Besides which the pdf is free. If you're looking for a good sci-fi game that supports free-wheeling sandbox play, look no further.

SWN Free Edition
Everything you need. Period.

Infinite Stars
Formerly a free e-zine, now a blog. It covers more than just Stars Without Number.

Online Sector Generator
Generates a sector map, world index, NPCs, Corps, Politics, Religions, and Aliens. All with a single click of the mouse (ok, two clicks if you want to change the seed).

Mandate Archives
These free mini-supplements (about 8 pages in length) offer a very focused look at a specific campaign feature. They can be used as-is or tweaked to fit your individual campaign sector. The link points to one of the Archives, but links to the rest of them are found on that page.

Skyward Steel
Advanced rules for stellar naval operations and ship design.

Early Thoughts on D&D Next

So, I've skimmed through Next and wanted to share my initial impressions. These are subject to change. I should have a more in-depth perspective next weekend. If we get to playtest today, that is.

I had the entire thing printed at OfficeDepot. It clocked it at well over 300 pages, including the Caves of Chaos playtest adventure. For the $30 pricetag I got a pretty damn complete game. Characters that can advance to 20th level, in a variety of classes. Spells of up to 9th level for clerics, druids, and wizards, along with abbreviated lists for paladins and rangers. A full range of monsters is in the bestiary, including demons, devils, and dragons. Finally, there is a decent assortment of magic items. An experienced DM could get a lot of mileage out of this playtest packet as-is.

Some of the things I am happy with (in no particular order)

Skills and Backgrounds

I like when skills exist to define a character. I want them to mean that a character is better at something than a character who isn't skilled at that same something. I do not like it when skills exclude characters from certain activities. For example, if my guy has the Ride skill, it just means he is particularly apt at riding. If he doesn't, he can still ride, but might encounter problems if he is forced to charge into battle.

The Skill Die is a pretty cool idea. It opens the door for someone to really knock a skill check out of the park, but doesn't remove the possibility of catastrophic failure. It also avoids the pitfall of the escalating DC in lock-step with the improving skill ability.

Backgrounds are ok. They provide a logical framework to hang skills on, as well as providing a minor game effect, mostly tied to role playing. They don't provide any sort of bonus or mechanical interface, which I like. They exist only to tie the character to the setting. Since they aren't mechanical in nature, it would also be easy enough to ignore them altogether.

Feats and Specialties

One of the things that turned me off 3.x was Feats. Not in principle, because I actually like the idea. They were too vital in 3.x, though. And not just in and of themselves, but the right combinations were crucial to player enjoyment. In this playtest packet they are more in line with my desire for them. Like skills, they add a dimension to the character. In fact, I'm not so sure that some of them shouldn't be skills. I think I get why they're not, but I want to wait until I have a firmer grasp before I comment further.

For now, the list is mercifully short, and there are no complicated "feat trees". In fact, there are only seven with other feats as prerequisites, and none of those have other feats as prereqs. Mostly, the prereqs are either a certain level (class not specified), a stat minimum, and/or a certain class ability.

The feats are broken out into four categories: General, Expert, Magic, and Martial. The categories do not seem to exist as "barriers", but moreso to direct class-based bonus feats. For example, any class can take martial feats, but fighters get bonus martial feats at certain levels.

Specialties are pretty much the feat equivalent of backgrounds related skills. They don't provide any benefits whatsoever (beyond what an individual DM or player may read into them). They suggest a list of feats at each "feat level", but it is strictly a suggestion. Specialties would be even easier to ignore than backgrounds. They seem to exist as a "jumping off point" to help a player get into character. As such, they seem to be something new players would benefit from more than experienced players.

Miscellany

• There are only 12 Conditions

• Classes get a +1 to any stat, although it is highly recommended that the bonus be taken in a class relevant stat.

I know there were some other odds and ends I noted, but they slip my mind right now. I'll be back with more later.

More Gushing About DCC

My reading continues. I finished the Combat chapter last night. Here are some more of my thoughts.

• The equipment chapter is sparse, but I'm OK with it. It contains lists for weapons, ammo for missile weapons, armor, and mounts and related gear. Aside from that, there is a single table with precisely 24 items of a more general nature. They are all items that are useful, if not essential, to the successful dungeon crawler. There's a geek in me that likes extensive equipment lists, I have to be honest. But I can also appreciate the brevity of a list like this. After all, equipment lists are everywhere in this hobby, and with DCC's stated target audience, it is a certainty that anyone with this game has access to more than two or three extensive equipment lists. I know I do.
• The writing style is direct without being terse. For example, in many games there is a multi-page section in the combat chapter dealing with odds and ends. Things like fire, falling, charging, shooting into a melee. These things are described in detail, either for those new to the hobby, or those with lawyerly aspirations. Not here.  All of these peripheral combat relations are given a grand total of a full column plus about half another. In that span you will find rules for: Ability Loss, Catching Fire, Charge, Dropping a Torch, Falling, Firing Into Melee, Grappling, Recovering Armor, Recovering Missile Weapons, Subdual Damage, and Unarmed Combat. All that in a column-and-a-half.
• A lot has been said about the art and layout, so I won't rehash stuff you've probably already read. Both are superb. The thing I do want to say about it (two things, actually) is this: The fonts are outstanding. I'm a total font geek and the ones in this book are near perfect. Easy to read and definitely evocative of an old school experience. The layout is genius. Most of the time it is 2-column, but every now and then it slips out to single column to better wrap a particular art piece. Sometimes the text is part of the art,  as in the descriptions of the fighting orders under the Warrior class. So far, I haven't seen that effect used on anything "crunchy", it has been limited to parts that are implying the background.
• Back to the writing style, for all it's brevity, it is not dull or lifeless. This is not a technical manual on fantasy gaming. It is a big ass set of guidelines for having a good time playing a gonzo fantasy game. The prose is loaded with dry, sarcastic humor (which is right up my alley). Several times I have laughed out loud while reading.

For my last item, I give you the paragraph on falling damage. I woke my wife up laughing last night as I read this.

Falling causes 1d6 for every 10' fallen. For every damage die that comes up a 6, the victim breaks a bone. For each broken bone, the victim permanently loses 1 point of Strength or Agility (player's choice). The affected limb, rib, or vertebrae never heals quite right and affects the character in some fashion from then on.

OK, we all know that one of the oft-lamented facts of D&D is that a character with enough hit points can jump from a known height without fear of the damage. If I have 83 HP, I can just step off that 50' cliff without a blink because the worst it will be is 30 points of damage. There have been all sorts of work-arounds and house rules for this problem. This particular solution is, to me, pure genius. There is no other rolls, no math, nothing else to consider. Roll the d6's and get on with it. Yet, it introduces a truly sobering random element. Go ahead Mr. 83HP, step off and let's see what happens. I just rolled 5d6 and came up with 19 points of damage, but guess what. One was a 6, so OUCH! That 50' jump was a little more serious than it first looked. In fact, I did that little experiment five times and had broken bones on all but the last time. One time had two breaks. That is a fairly elegant solution, I think.

There you have it. There is a lot more I am loving about this game, but that's all I am posting this time. I think the Mighty Deeds of Arms probably needs a post all to itself. Plus, I'll be digging into the magic chapter today. I am a little intimidated by it, but it is an exciting sort of intimidation, like a rock climber staring up at a formidable cliff face.

Speaking of which, there is one more thing I wanted to say. When I started playing D&D, when I wanted to try to introduce a friend to it, I always said something along the lines of "you can do whatever you want to". Somewhere along the way that sense of derring-do became lost in a mountain of rules designed to adjudicate "whatever you want to". Not just D&D, but pretty much every game out there. Games went from players saying "I want to try to . . ." to them saying "Can I . . .?" That's just no good. Nobody told Indiana Jones that a whip only does d3 damage and he shouldn't waste a proficiency slot on it. Nobody told him he couldn't snap his whip out and wrap it around a bunch of electrical wires and swing around to the room next door, in the pouring rain. He just did it. That's adventure. Trying the shit nobody else thinks of, or would dare even if they did think of it. Too many rules kills that spirit of adventure, that sense of "you can do whatever you want to". Simple rules, elegantly applied, will carry the day every time.

DCC: 2nd Impressions

I've finished reading the classes, and I am really digging what they've done. In no particular order, here are some of the things that caught my eye:

• Clerics seem like a unique class, rather than a sort of Fighter/Magic-user. They are mechanically tied to their deity (and not just with the lame ass areas of power or whatever it was called). There are real mechanical consequences for a cleric pissing off his deity, which I think is awesome. Equally awesome is that the clerics spells are fundamentally different from wizard spells because of the Disapproval mechanic. I have always thought that the cleric shouldn't memorize his prayers like a magic-user does his spells. It makes no sense for the cleric to wake up in the morning and think "Hmm, I think I might need to pray for some food later today. Better memorize the prayer for that. " I've always thought the cleric's spells should be more like very specific god-calls, and that's pretty much the way this game portrays them.
• The warrior's Deeds die has been talked about a LOT, so I won't go into detail. I'll just say that I love the idea of the fighter being able to try anything. One of the things I detested about Feats was the notion that I had to give up ten things in order to do one. Not so with Deeds. Total flexibility and ease of use. Win-win.
• Wizards and the magic system ROCK. I can totally see playing an Elric-type character under these rules. Wizards are tied to a patron, whether that patron is an evil god, an elemental force, or a demon from the Pit. They can also call directly on their patron for aid, but at a price. Blood and souls for my lord, Arioch!
• The race-as-class demi-humans look interesting and, more importantly, fun. Too often they look like an exercise in tit-for-tat, and any real thought about them is an after-thought. These seem fun, but still balanced.

All in all, I am as excited by this game as I have been since I first played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. So far, this seems like a set of rules I could either play or run and never have to worry about being pumped up and ready for the next session. Everything I've read so far just screams FUN! I can't wait to read more.

Collected Thoughts on LotFP

I've read some more of the game (Grindhouse edition), and I have a few random thoughts I wanted to share, in no particular order.

• I still love the way that fighters are the only class that ever get better at combat. Even though I posted about liking it, there was a snotty-nosed little whiner in me that was afraid to fully embrace the concept, just based on the fact that dwarves should be decent fighters. Then I read a little deeper and saw that there are such things as combat maneuvers. Some of them are pretty basic and anyone can do them. Some however, do require a certain combination of steely-eyed moxy and presumed combat experience from the character. In other words, they are restricted to classes that could be considered "decent fighters". Dwarves, for example. So, with a good Strength and judicious use of these maneuvers, certain classes can manage to fight fairly well.

• Specialist (read: Thief) skills are known by all. That was pointed out in a comment to my previous post. Specialists, however, are the only ones that can actually get better at the quintessential skills. In a way it is like fighting and Fighters. Everybody can fight, but only Fighters can get better at it. What's more, the Specialist is useful at low levels, unlike the crippled Thief. While I'm not crazy about the name, this is a version of the Thief that I can get on-board with.

• The power curve seems so delightfully low. I'm a huge fan of the notion that 10th level characters are near-legend, but that there are still things that they should fear. In LotFP all magic items are assumed to be rare and unique. With that base assumption, PCs aren't running around trying to decide which magic weapon they want to use today, and they aren't sporting an AC of -3 at 8th level. This in turn means that their foes don't have to possess a d8/d8/2d12 attack routine with an AC of -5 and a to-hit bonus of +11 in order to be a threat. All that self-serving power inflation is gone. Granted, the lower power curve is common to the older editions that LotFP is based on, but it is taken to another level in these rules.

• Lastly, for this post, I love the way that the Old World from WFRP (1st edition) is such an awesome fit for this game. The implied setting is late Renaissance/early modern, and just dovetails perfectly into the Empire of the Old World. The game's take on alignments is a good fit with the Old World's views, as well. The careers even provide a ready-made framework for backgrounds. They also suggest possible bonuses, such as a Dwarven Trollslayer getting a combat bonus in certain, very specific, situations. Dwarves are decent fighters, after all. 

I'll leave you with one of my favorite color pieces from the Rules book. This one also happens to scream "Old World!" to me.

A Grim World of Weird Adventure

DragonQuest

I stumbled across this game in 1982, at the KB Toys in Parkway City Mall, Huntsville, AL. Our hobby is in the midst of a great time right now. The internet has made thing such as open playtests and retro-clones realities. Yet, the dark side of this great time is that many of our FLGS are gone. Mine in Huntsville closed 2 1/2 years ago. There was a time when retail outlets were a gaming nexus. Since there was no Amazon or Half-Price Books online, storefronts were the main outlets. You could mail order, but without dozens of reviews, unboxing videos, or forums gushing about a title, it was hard to know if you were getting the next best thing or not. So, we went to stores. We could hold the objects of our desires, read the blurbs on the back, and try to divine for ourselves if we wanted to drop the dime.

Games weren't exactly everywhere back then. But, on the plus side, the hobby was still in a period of booming growth and there was plenty of market to go around. So, games were showing up in some non-traditional places, like KB Toys and Games.

But, that's not the point of this post.

I found this game in '82. I'm not sure just when, but it was warm. Being the Tennessee Valley that narrows it down to about ten possible months. Anyway, I found the boxed set for the staggering sum of $10. It included the rulebook, an adventure, a couple of dice, and I'm not sure what else. I know I could easily look it up, but this isn't a review.

I loved this game right off. I was a huge fan of The Fantasy Trip and its combat component, Melee, back then, so the hex-grid combat was easily grasped. I remember thinking that magic was restrictive because a wizard could only belong to one college. Maybe I misread that part, I don't know.

I loved the open-endedness of it, especially from a GM's point of view. Back then I was more prone to try to shoe-horn my campaign work into the rules I was using, rather than house rule the system to fit my campaign work. So, open ended games that allowed me to just create campaign stuff without being concerned with how it would fit with the rules was a huge boon.

I ended up buying an adventure made for the game, and the "campaign" for it. It was a map and some of the most barebones descriptions of the entries on the map you will ever see. It is freely available on the net. It is pretty neat as a starting point, and with the minimal development included, you can morph it into whatever you need without worrying about invalidating any critical components.

DragonQuest had a number of unique ideas, that at the time were cutting edge, if not revolutionary. It was its own game, based on its own ideas. I still love it and enjoy reading it. I doubt I'll have a chance to play it, considering that those I am most likely to play with would be put off by the level of tactical detail. Still and all, I love it now for the same reasons I did then. Mainly that it is easy to develop campaigns for.

The official 2nd and 3rd editions can be downloaded here along with an unofficial revised edition. As far as I know, the site is legit, it has been up for a while with (apparently) no corporate bullying. Since KB Toys and Games is no longer in Parkway City Mall (and in fact the mall is gone, as well) I highly recommend you stop by the site and download the copy of your choice.

Next Thoughts: Spells

I've done an initial read-through of the playtest docs. I think I like what I see, so far. There are some things I am uneasy about, but I'll save that for another post, after I've had time to reread and reconsider.

For now, I want to talk about spells, two in particular.

Next casts cantrips as at-will spells. I'm ok with that, in concept, because I think magic-users should be able to use magic in a fairly organic way and not only in the burn-your-balls-to-cinders way. One of the cantrips, though, is Magic Missile. It is relatively unchanged from any previous version, doing d4+1 damage, at a range of 100'. I don't like it being auto-hit and at-will. The damage may not seem like much, but d4+1 adds up, and the caster gets an extra missile every three levels. So, at 6th level, the caster is automatically inflicting d4+1 on up to three separate targets, or all on a single target. No to-hit roll, no saving throw. If the spell is going to remain a cantrip, I would say require a to-hit roll, otherwise make it a level one spell and require it to be prepared. In that case, maybe add the caster's magic bonus to the damage.

The other spell is Sleep. Maybe they had a good reason to castrate the venerable Sleep spell, I don't know. Good reason or not, castrate it they did. They reduced the range, as well as limiting the effects to a 20' radius sphere. As if that weren't enough, rather than effecting a number of creatures based on HD, it now will not affect any creature with more than 10 HP. The most grievous change of all, though: now targets are allowed a saving throw. I think this weak-ass version of Sleep is more suited to being a cantrip than Magic Missile.

Next Hit Dice Tomfoolery

I've read over the playtest stuff a little more. There are a couple of things dealing with Hit Dice that caught my eye. It may be due to the incompleteness of the document, in fact I am sure one of these quibbles is a first-release oversight. Even so, they raise some questions about the direction of the rules concerning Hit Dice, hit points, and healing.

First off, hit points. This one is short and sweet. The rules state that beginning hit points are equal to CON + CON modifier. Survivability boost. I get it. It then goes on to say that when a character gains a level, roll the appropriate HD and add it to the total. If the roll is less than the CON modifier, add the modifier instead (emphasis mine). So, CON mods aren't added to hp after 1st level?

Then, under Resting, it mentions that during a Short Rest a character may be treated using a healer's kit. Each such treatment allows the character to expend one HD. Each HD expended is basically rolled like a, well, like a hit die, and deducted from the character's damage. I can't find any other mention of "expending hit dice" outside the section on Resting, so I'm unclear about the overall effects. It seems like it is just a limiter on non-magical healing. Sort of a reskinning of the Healing Surges, just less potent. More info on it would help.

Oh, one more thing. Also under Resting, it states that after a Long Rest (8 hours) all damage is healed. You do have to have at least one hit point to take a long rest, so if you're at 0 you won't wake up feeling any better.

Let the Games Begin

It's May 24th and we all know what that means. I've looked over the playtest documents. I'll keep this brief.

It looks to me as if their design philosophy was to take the 3.x engine and add some chrome from 4E Essentials. Hit dice are back, as opposed to the fixed hit points of 4E. The magic-user is back to remembering spells. Saving Throws mean what they did pre-4E, although they can be based on any stat. It appears that Healing Surges are gone. Cure Light Wounds once again simply restores 1d8 hps.

There is this notion of Advantages/Disadvantages. Essentially in either case you roll 2d20 rather than one whenever attempting the action in question. If you're Advantaged you keep the better roll, if Disadvantaged you keep the lesser roll. That, my friends, is straight out of Barbarians of Lemuria. I think it is a very neat idea, and have considered it for some of my house rules. Here, though, it leaves me a little flat.

In fact, the wole thing has me scratching my head. I'm predisposed to distrusting big-business rpgs. I have a case of splatbook burnout that will never go away. I desperately want to love every edition of D&D that sees the light of day, though. It is more than the words and art on the page, the same way I am more than the sum of my parts. I love all my OSR stuff, but if a version of D&D came out that I could really get behind I would be all over it. It will have to overcome that predisposed distrust, though. These playtest docs don't really give me much hope that this version is the one.

Like I said in the opening, it strikes me as 3.x with 4E Essentials elements house ruled in. Then there's the Ad/Disad thing. If I want to assemble my own rule set from pieces and parts, I will (see my previous post, which, btw, was written before I saw the playtest docs). I know this is just the first release, but it is the foundation they're going to build on, so while it may change over time, this is fundamentally what Next will look like.

I don't think they're worried about us OSR folks. That's not what the "uniting the editions" crap was all about. After seeing this, I think it is all about trying to lure the disgruntled 3.x folks back from Pathfinder. That's ok, too. Life out here on the fringe ain't so bad.

More ACKS Thoughts

I read the magic chapter last night (minus all the spell descriptions). In a nutshell, I like it. It is a pleasing combination of Vancian magic and something a bit more free-form.

The biggest eyebrow raiser was the INT bonus. It surprised me to learn that the INT bonus provides a number of spells equal to the bonus at each spell level, as soon as the ability to cast that level is obtained. So, a mage with a +2 INT bonus, upon obtaining 5th level can suddenly cast three spells. That combined with the free-form nature of casting seems to make mages more powerful than their traditional OSR ancestors. That's not necessarily a criticism, I'm just wondering if it affects play.

My favorite thing about ACKS magic, bar none, is the flavor. According to the flavor text:

For an arcane spellcaster to have a spell in his repertoire, he
must keep track of complex astrological movements and star
signs that are constantly changing; he must daily appease
various ghosts and spirits that power certain dweomers; he must
remember and obey special taboos that each spell dictates. All
of these strictures, and they are many, can vary with the season,
the lunar cycle, the caster’s location, and more. Having a spell
in the repertoire is thus an ongoing effort . . .

So, it isn't a matter of constant re-memorization for an ACKS mage. When he has his nose buried in his spellbooks he is actually checking to see which planet is over his left shoulder and the affect it will have on his Sleep spell. Very cool to me.

Oh yes, that brings me to the repertoire. This is the concept whereby free-form casting works. Mages in ACKS still have a chart showing number of spells per day. Now that I look at the chart closer, it is a bit slower progression than some others, notably the LBB, but the same as Dark Dungeons and Labyrinth Lord. Maybe that INT bonus I mentioned earlier is intended to provide a little something extra to mages with the right stuff.

Anyway, the familiar spells-per-day is now the mage's repertoire. It represents not only how many times per day he can cast spells of a given level, it also represents how many he may "keep in mind" of a given level. For example, a 1st level mage with a +2 INT bonus has three 1st level spells in his repertoire. He may cast three first level spells per day. Let's just assume he has Charm Person, Light, Magic Missile, and Sleep in his spellbook. He would designate three of the four to be in his repertoire, meaning he could cast any of the three, as desired, up to three times per day, total. So, the player still has to think about which spells he believes will be most useful, as with the Vancian system, but he has a little more wiggle room when doing so. No more using all your 3rd level slots on Fireballs only to discover you really Water Breathing.

As an aside, if you happen to like ACKS, but prefer traditional Vancian magic, it would be easy to use it, since the spells-per-day chart is already there.

The last thing about the spell system I'm going to cover in this post is spell signatures. They represent tell-tale signs in how a spell actually manifests. Is your mage's Magic Missile shards of glass, or maybe tiny laughing skulls? Whatever it happens to be, it has no mechanical effect on the function of the spell. It is possible to divine something about an unknown caster from studying the signature. Signatures can vary by campaign, meaning that they can be based on the individual, magical philosophy, the college where your mage studied, or any other factor you can think of. So, in my world of Aranor, signatures would be based on college. I suppose within that "college signature" framework it is acceptable to allow individualization, such as the shards-of-glass magic missile being a certain color for a certain mage.

Anyway, there you have it, my first impression on my first read of the magic chapter. More to come as I continue my way through ACKS.