I'm Here to Chew Bubblegum and Kick Ass

 . . . and I'm all out of bubblegum

Hello, again. How long has it been, my friends? You may be wondering, what motivated me to write again. Self-reflection. I've always has a knack for self awareness and being dialed in to my own bullshit. That didn't really stop me from indulging in it, but it did provide grist for self loathing. Self, self, self.

Anyway, I won't bore you with the minutia, but I have discovered the joys of AI assistance the last few months. One of the things I've been using it for is game design. It's been a tremendous collaboration. It's prompted me to resurrect many old ideas that had grown cumbersome over the decades due to so many disparate notes scrawled on too many pieces of paper, impossible to collate, cross-reference, or index. In other words, unusable. AI can do all that. I just have to upload all the ideas, thoughts, and random musings, and AI can focus it all into something I can actually work on.

In the gathering of these notes, I walked these dusty halls, seeking things I had written for my world of Aranor, this being the only remaining place where some of it was stored. In so doing, I reread some of my posts on 5E, and thus we approach the crux of this post.

2014

I won't bore you with self-serving cross links. I was very excited (to say the least) by the release of 5E. Sadly, my enthusiasm for new rules, in any game, rarely survives reality. What I mean is, I rarely actually play anything new. I rarely play anything at all, in fact, but if I do, I usually opt for something familiar. I believe that stems from social anxiety, but this is not the time to open that can of worms.

Regardless, I was very pleased with 5E, as a rules set. Until. This is where some of you will possibly be tempted to write me off. If so, no hard feelings. I have never been political here. I'm fairly conservative, somewhere between Libertarian and Republican. Socially, I am personally conservative, but I don't really care how anyone else lives their life. Like a lot of people, I only ask to not be subjected to someone else's lifestyle. You do you, and I'll do me. When I saw the blurb in 5E about the game being open to all sexual and gender identities, it flew all over me. I've been gaming since 1976. When I started, the LBBs was all there was. Never in all that long history of gaming had I ever encountered anything prohibiting or limiting a player from playing a character that was gay or identified differently in any way. For that matter, I had gamed with many people whose character was of the opposite sex or a different race (as in societally, black, white, Asian, etc), and there were never any problems. I failed to see the need to have it spelled out so explicitly. It struck me as proselytizing, at best, or brow beating, at worst. In a reactionary move, I decided I didn't want to have a game that preached to me from what its writers deemed to be the moral high ground. So, I got rid of my 5E stuff.

The next few years (up until recently) my attention stayed on clones, mostly, for a D&D fix. I even have a couple of 5E clones. In the meantime, I started a new job, and one of my co-workers is a 5E guy. It's all he's played. Listening to him made me start thinking that maybe I had cheated myself. I wasn't convinced, though. I had really swallowed all the bad press about 5E, all the negatives that internet folk fixated on. His stories of his sessions were starting to make me wonder. I had started considering re-acquiring the core books, at least.

Then, the buzz about One D&D started. I was still heavily dialed into an internet crowd that was extremely anti-Hasbro and WotC, and that ire stained anything they produced. They would pick apart the smallest details, in a vacuum, and then make broad assertions. Thus it was that I wrote off One D&D as a non-starter for me.

At some point, about 3 or 4 weeks ago, there was a shift in my thinking. I can't explain it, or even pinpoint a catalyst. Something in my mind switched, and I realized that I dont give a single skinny shit about the politics of Hasbro or WotC. I never even knew the politics of TSR. All I care about is a set of rules to act as an effective lens to view my world through. Most of the criticism I see about the new edition is mainly the "little guy" having beef with the "evil corporation", which really doesn't factor. Sheepishly, I admitted to myself that I had attributed far too much influence to spurious criticism. So, I bought the One D&D core books. 

I'm still in the early stages of familiarity, but so far, so good. I want to put my thoughts on One D&D into a clean post devoted to only those thoughts, though. This is more of a journal entry, giving insight to myself and anyone else willing to read it, about the thoughts and attitudes that move me.

If you made it this far, thank you. I'm hoping to get back to posting here, but only time will tell. I have a lot of catching up to do.

Breaking My Own Convention

There is a game, a game I've never talked about. I absolutely love this game. The reason I've never talked about it is that it violates one of my principle desires in a rules system: it isn't freely available. Even D&D is free now, so this is a bit of a sticking point. It is OGL, though, so maybe that's worth something. Anyway, the game is . . .

I have admired this game from afar for some time. Quite some time. I really dig the art, and just the "feel" of the game. Something about it just feels so much like AD&D to me. No matter how many times I flirted with it over the years, I never really reached critical mass with it. Ascending armor class and base attack bonuses give me 3.x flashbacks right out of the gate. So, I would flip through it wistfully, but never sank my teeth into it.

Well, it isn't 3.x. It is built on the OGL, but apparently not the SRD. It has no interest in touting compatibility with 3.x. In fact, in some ways, it sits somewhere between OD&D and AD&D, power level wise, as near as I can tell. I'm currently perusing a couple of modules (praise to the powers that be, they refer to them as "modules"!) and so far the most significant stat I've seen in an NPC is a 16. One time. The baseline for character generation is 3d6 arrange to suit.

Something I have always liked about the system are the character classes. There are a slew of them, which admittedly is a love/hate thing for me, but you can't have an AD&D experience without them. I feel the fighter is underpowered (of course), but easily fixed. Plus, and a BIG plus, the ranger is non-casting. He's just a badass in the woods. As he should be.

There are no feats or skills. Skills are covered by the SIEGE engine mechanic. I am quite certain that if you read passed the logo above, you already have an interest in C&C and thus are familiar with the SIEGE engine. Having not played the game, I can't comment on either the rapture of such a flexible and elegant system, nor on the supposed burden it promises to some readers. Apparently one loves it or one hates it. I remain undecided in fact, but love it in theory.

One thing I have seen talked about is the math. It seems the game is based on the underlying math of 3.x and there is a concern that it breaks down at higher levels. I am interested in this, in an academic sense. It is doubtful I will ever have a group to explore the system with, let alone get to high enough level that the system begins to unravel. I am curious, though.

So, there it is. My secret revealed. I love a game that isn't free. I almost forgot to mention another selling point for me. This is a little silly to some perhaps, but meaningful to me. Troll Lord Games is based in Little Rock, AR. I am a Southern boy, born and bred, and I like the fact that a game I like comes from the south. I'm not sure if the Chenault boys are from the south, but their game is, which gets it marks from me.

Cyclopean Ruins

Almost two weeks ago I posted a query concerning Numenera. My interest in that book has cooled somewhat, but not the quote that I shared in that post.

I simply can not shake the image of a small band traversing a flat, windswept landscape. The wind howls, pulling at their cloaks as they clutch them desperately around their bodies. The light is failing, and in its twilight seems somehow thin, washed out. They arrive at a cliff face, not more than 10-12' high, curving away to either side, fading into the wan light.

They quickly negotiate that smooth face, gaining its summit. Continuing on their course, a short time later they arrive at a precipice. The lip curves away, behind them this time, symmetrical and smooth, lost in the gathering darkness. One of them takes a tube from a fold in his cloak and places it to one of his eyes. Instantly the distance shrinks before him and he can gaze upon far vistas as if they were at arm's length. There at the edge of his extended vision, he sees another precipice. This one, while curving beyond the limits of his vision, is marked by deep indentations, uniformly spaced and consistent in their depth. They march along the edge of that far cliff, fading from sight.

The view of this scene pulls back, revealing the group to be standing on a giant gear.

So, here is my idea: a post-apocalyptic fantasy set among the cyclopean ruins of an advanced previous civilization. The system I think would be suit my vision? Well, this is a weird, bleak, somewhat hopeless, blend of fantasy with a dash of sci-fi post apoc. It is over-the-top in-your-face balls-to-the-wall and a lot of other hyphenated descriptors. So, naturally, I'm thinking DCC.

Spell Lists

So, I'm thinking. We have colleges of magic that provide a handy way to "channel" magic users onto a particular path to power. We have clerical domains which define a cleric's deific proclivities. Didn't spell lists do that back in the misty ages of yore? At least sort of.

Look at the Illusionist. I'm too lazy to go rooting about for more examples. If you read this blog, you already know. You may not agree with my assumptions, but you know that there are a multitude of unique spell lists fine-tuned for specific classes. I believe that spell lists were an early effort to "univeralize" at least one aspect of AD&D. Second edition took the colleges of magic established in 1st edition and used them as a tool for defining "subclasses" of magic users. It extended the concept to clerics with the notion of Domains.

Now, I want to make clear: I think it was a good direction. Unfortunately, the more one-size-fits-all a thing gets, the more likely it is to not fit quite right. There may be a certain group of spells that a class should be able to cast, but they belong in a category with spells that have no place in the class concept. Perhaps you want a class to have limited spell casting, not just categorically, but in absolute variety, as well. That is where individualized spell lists come in.

With individualized spell lists running hither and yon throughout a campaign, the question becomes "Can my magic user learn/use spells from a subclass' spell list?" My personal answer to that is "Sort of". My ruling would be that a character could learn from another's spell list if it is of a compatible type of casting, clerical or arcane. If that condition is met, then the character has to research the spell, essentially converting the spell into a format they can utilize. The character would receive a bonus to his research attempt should he have access to a spell book containing the spell, or expert instruction from a caster who knows the spell.

I'm thinking more and more about implementing limited spell lists for certain classes, or ones less limited but still unique, a la the illusionist. I'm not dead set against rangers or paladins having some spell-like abilities, I just feel more comfortable with the idea that they have a much narrower selection. In my mind it makes it easier to view them more as magical abilities, rather than spells. I hate to paint it this way, but I will: they are like Daily Powers. There, I said it.

2300AD Throwback (but not because it's Thursday)

I absolute adored this game when it came out. I tend to like my sci-fi a bit more gritty than the typical Traveller-esque space opera (although I have a serious nostalgia soft spot for that game). This cover, from the original edition, roped me in the moment I laid eyes on it.

The chick looks coolly dangerous, with that big ass gun and dog-thing. The guy looks a little less capable, holding his big ass gun with both hands and looking like that is as high as he can get it. His helmet looks entirely too big, and his entire impression is of a kid playing with his daddy's military gear. But that chick can probably take care of whatever happens without him, anyway.

Their ship is at a very awkward angle, but it has "REBCO SAR" stenciled on the hull, so I'm OK with it. SAR stands for Search and Rescue (in case you didn't know). The early edition of this game was more focused on exploration than anything else. Naturally, some of those explorations would encounter problems and need rescue. This was, and is, an ideal campaign premise for me. A rescue team with a landing ship (the interstellar ships in 2300 aren't landers) being shuttled to a potentially hostile location to rescue some wayward explorers. Awesome stuff.

The choice of background was odd, though. It is a city on the second-most advanced and populated world in the 2300 universe. Rising near the right edge is the Beanstalk, one of two space elevators in the setting. Why someone needs such a well-armed and equipped SAR team less than 5 miles from a major population center is a bit curious.

Even so, this cover screamed my kind of sci-fi, and did not disappoint. However, like Star Frontiers, it did not include starship rules. Those came later, in the form of . . .

I really wanted to like Star Cruiser. That's not to imply that I didn't (or don't), it's just that I never played it. It's written from a very military/stellar navy perspective, to the point that most of the tech is of two types: military and old military. Obviously, the cutting edge tech is almost all military, while most of the best civilian tech is second-generation military. 2300AD never seems to have been intended to play out the merchant-prince type games Traveller supported. These rules didn't do anything for that, which didn't particularly bother me.

Owing to the harder sci-fi paradigm of the system, the only artificial gravity on these ships is inertially induced, mainly via spin-habitat crew quarters. I like this idea quite a bit to this day.

Mongoose came out with a version of 2300AD, as a supplement for its core Traveller rules. I haven't seen it, but it seems to have been well-received, aside from not being complete in itself. There is also a free fanzine, Colonial Times, that can be found on Drivethru RPG.

I've left out a lot about this game. Some of what I've said may be off a little, too. It's been far too long since I spent any time with it. If you like hard(ish) sci-fi, this one is well worth a look, even if you just adapt the fluff to your preferred system.

Circular Logic

The draw and appeal of LBB D&D is undeniable to me. Every single time I read a post from Delta's D&D Hotspot or any of the other old schoolers I read regularly I want to put everything else on the bookshelf and never look back. In fact, I seriously considered doing that this past week.

I was reading the new rules booklet in the Starter Set. It occurred to me that I really don't enjoy reading rules that much anymore. I think the problem is with patience. A lot of rules these days are written to be very friendly. I get this. Our hobby needs new blood, plus it is not populated merely by people that get off on reading rules. I prefer rules that are written in a conversational, yet very straight-forward manner. Delving Deeper and Lamentations of the Flame Princess are two examples, though they have quite dissimilar "voices". One of the reasons I never really make the leap with Alternity is the excessively nurturing writing.

But, I digress. So, I had decided to just pass on 5E, even though I really like its direction, because I just want to stick with something I've been intimately familiar with for almost 40 years. No muss, no worries. No rules that are almost like they used to be, but you need to read them again like you've never read them before, lest you miss a significant detail. OK, good, so that's what I'll do. I think, though, I'll incorporate some house rules I've been knocking around a while now. Such as:

• This one which makes each of the four main classes the "starting point" for what your character will ultimately become
• All my many ideas for making fighters Fighters
• My ideas for bringing some variety to magic-users, including such things as increasing spell efficacy based on ability, forcing mages to be more focused, and making them more combat-survivable

Plus, I do like the way 5E handles Feats (at least in the playtest) and I like the idea of Advantage/Disadvantage.

It then became evident to me that all my house rules have been implemented into 5E to some degree or another. That, along with the things I would drop into any old school house tules I cook up, brought me full circle. Honestly, I don't like house rule documents all that much. I love cooking them up, but at the table, I think it can be a pain to get everyone on the same page (pardon the pun). Plus, for me, I have an easier time trusting a DM (and claiming DM authority) when working as closely as possible with the RAW. Personal limitation, I suppose, but there it is.

The final solution here, which is probably obvious, is for me to stop reading the Starter Set rules document. It is specifically targeted at people that need their hands held by a friendly presentation. Moving forward, I'll be sticking to the Basic pdf for my rules needs. At least until the Big Three drop. After that, all bets are off.

Are DMs or Are We Mice?

There's a lot being said around the interwebs about 5E. Some of it good, some not. Some sensible, some not. Some reasoned, and some reactionary nonsense. I want to touch on something I'm seeing a lot, but I want it known here and now: this isn't endemic merely to 5E as it relates to any older edition. This is equally relevant to any two editions, or entirely different games, for that matter. 5E is just the most current topic of this sort.

After that preamble, my point is quite simple. Old school DMs are imaginative and independent thinkers. We blaze our own way through our own worlds, even if "our own world" is our own version of a published world. We take it all and make it our own. So, why, then, do detractors want to cite certain aspects of 5E as "robbing" us of our self-determination? They report the following:

• The Standard Array takes the dice out of the players' hands from the outset of character generation
• There is a lot of grumbling that the default hit points per level is just a little too attractive to pass up
• The equipment by class and background limits player choice further
• The Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws tables with each Background totally restrict player creativity

 This brings me to the point of this post. All of those points would be among the easiest houseruled things to work with. Most of them simply aren't even true. Observe:

• 4d6, drop the low roll and arrange to suit is given as the first method of generating ability scores, standard array and point-buy are given as options to that
• We all know that the average roll on a given die is 1/2 that die, plus .5, so the average of a d10 is 5.5, for example. The default hit points for each class simply use this, rounded up. This causes some concern, since it means there is no risk with taking the default value. I say "So what?" If you want your character to be average, knock yourself out. But, seriously, we're old school DMs here. Can't we just reduce that default hp value by 1 on the fly, and move the hell on?
• The equipment packages are offered simply to speed things up when no one wants to take a lot of time hand-selecting equipment that is likely in the packages anyway. Generating starting funds and purchasing equipment piece-by-piece is fully supported in the equipment chapter. And if it wasn't, So What? Prices are given and we all know how to roll for starting gold
• The Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws tables are there for either players that don't have a firm idea in mind, or NPCs. Now, the RAW don't exactly spell that out, but c'mon, they do say we're not bound to use these options (pg 35, second paragraph). If you're an old school DM and feel absolutely shackled to those tables, maybe you should step outside the box. One of the oft-overlooked aspects of roleplaying old-style was discovering your character through play. It was a process with a certain degree of randomness to it. I like these tables for that reason

The last thing I want to pontificate about is the quick leveling up to 3rd level. It is an established design paradigm that characters are essentially "apprentices" during the first three levels, finding their way in their chosen profession. Some old-schoolers complain about losing the white-knuckle excitement of those low level adventures. Posh! For me, with 37 years at the dice, those levels are tedious as hell. In fact, in every campaign I've played in for almost 20 years, if we started at 1st, we were given either a hp "kicker" of up to 20 hps, a supply of healing potions, or both. And this doesn't even consider the poor wizard, who has but 2 options once a fight breaks out 1) Cast, 2) Pray to not be attacked.

If it sounds like I'm edition warring, please accept my sincerest apologies. I stated in a post a long time ago, I don't mind criticism, as long as it is reasonable. I don't like it when something is picked apart and/or held to the strictest possible interpretation just to make it look bad compared to a liberal and generous interpretation of someone's favorite something.

I like 5E, not just because it looks like a good system. I like it, too, for what it means to the game that has been a steady and constant friend to me, telling stories together lo these many years.

Moderation and Randomization

There is a curious dichotomy  in most gaming philosophies. It is the roleplay vs roleplay, that age-old argument.

Consider this:

The party enters a seemingly empty room, which the DM describes thus:
"It appears to have served as sleeping quarters. There is what appears to be the remains of a rough cot, along with a shattered chest, and curiously, a moose head hanging askew on the wall to your right. What do you do?"

Party A
(Thief) "I give the moose head a good once-over."
(DM rolls a successful check, but knows there is nothing there) "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary."
(Thief) "No hidden compartments or triggers or anything?"
(DM) "Nope. Just a lot of dust and a definite funk in the air."
(Thief) "Alright, how's about that cot?"

Party B
(Thief) "I carefully approach the moose head and, without touching it, look at it carefully for any signs of tripwires or disturbance on the wall where it is mounted."
(DM, going strictly with player description to inform what the character perceives) "You don't notice anything unusual."
(Thief) "Ok. How many spikes are on the antlers? I carefully move the left ear clockwise. The right counter clockwise. Both of them at the same time in opposing directions. If there is a tongue, I pull it out and swirl it around. I try to push in the eyes." Etc etc etc for the next 15 minutes.
(DM knows there is nothing there) "You don't notice anything out of the ordinary."
(Thief) "Let's move on to that cot."

Why are these two methods always portrayed as being mutually exclusive? It is odd to me that a lot of gamers are fine with randomly determining some things, but call random determination of others utter bullshit. A lot of old schoolers despise the idea of any kind of Spot/Notice/Search checks. I've read of some that won't allow a thief player to roll to disarm a trap unless the player describes how he's doing it.

By the same token, I don't like the notion of the party arriving at a tavern and having the bard's player say "I toss 20 gp at the barman for a round for the house. That should give me a +2 on my Learn Rumors roll. Aha! 20! What rumors do I hear?" I prefer a game where player description and roleplay are part of the process, not ignored and not all of the process. A game where a brief description of looking in the moose's mouth and twisting its ears might grant a bonus.

Nothing should be automatic, based solely on player description. I have been looking directly at something I've been searching for and still not seen it. I've dumped everything in my backpack on the ground and still not found the Clif Bar lurking around in a nook in the thing. A thorough description by the player shouldn't grant automatic success. I like some randomness. It makes me feel more like I'm exploring and discovering the dungeon right along with the players.

The bottom line is, RPGs are, at their core, playing make-believe. The rules for rolls and randomizations keep us from devolving into the arguments we had as children. "I shot you!" "uh-UH, I shot you first! I already called it!"

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.

And Now for Something Completely Different

I'm a fighter guy. Nothing different there. One of the things I always hated about my old group was the wild disrespect they had for niche protection. Especially where combat rules were concerned. There was zero effort expended to make sure my fighters were consistently better at fighting. I can dig the thief backstabbing or a magic user with a Staff of Striking. Sure, my fighter won't mete out more damage than everyone else, every single round. But when it comes to laying down the hurt reliably, there should be no substitute for the fighter. I mean, it's right there in his name.

Now, for the "completely different" part . . .

I have noticed this game from afar for quite some time. It seemed far too narrativist for me, though. Even though I was seeing a lot, and I mean lot, of mad love for it, I couldn't get past the product description. There was a part of the blurb that said something to the effect that the players and GM collaborate on the world/setting when the campaign kicks off. Whoa! That kind of talk is like the Black Knight solemnly intoning "None shall pass".

That kind of talk rankles my referee nerves. One thing I despise about the narrativist movement is when it goes overboard with player agency. Said agency is a good thing, in moderation. In many cases, though, it goes too far, to the point that the referee is present to manage the players' entertainment. We're all there to have fun, and that includes the referee. I get it if the players don't want to play in a post-apoc dystopia, and the referee shouldn't be a dick about trying to force it. By the same token, maybe the referee doesn't want to run a game set in Candyland. Obviously, there is plenty of middle ground in which to meet, it's just that I've seen too many systems that think player agency should be Almighty.

Well, something happened (I can't say what happened because I don't know) that prompted me to give Dungeon World another look. I took up arms and approached the Black Knight, intent on passing and learning the secrets he was guarding.

I've Become Aware of a Disturbing Trend

I can be lazy. No, really, it's ok, I can admit my faults. I started my gaming life as a wargamer. Of course, that led directly to roleplaying. Now, with old school wargaming you played with heavy cardboard counters maneuvered around on a map. Prerequisite to this movement was the set-up. The counters had to be sorted and appropriately placed. In many cases this was very specific, based on which unit was historically present at a given location. For some games this could literally take hours (the Longest Day game, from Avalon Hill, is an excellent, and extreme, example).

Over time I discovered that I was playing less due to the tediousness of the set-up. I still wanted to play, or more specifically, I wanted the fun of playing. In other words, I wanted fond memories of a well-played game, but was increasingly put-off by setting up the game.

Fast-forward to this Weekend

This weekend I went bat-shit with [S.]ine [N.]omine. I already had Stars Without Number and several Mandate Archives. I nabbed the pdfs of Skyward Steel, Other Dust, Red Tide, An Echo Resounding, Darkness Visible, and Suns of Gold. I also picked up more recent Mandate Archives, along with Black Streams for Red Tide and Codex of the New Earth for Other Dust. It's been quite a haul. In case it isn't obvious, I've become quite a fan of Mr. Crawford's work.

How does this fit in with the title of the post, and the blurb about wargaming? Good question. Here is the answer in a nutshell:

I've been spending more time reading about the above titles rather than actually reading the titles.

An obvious side-effect to my employment with FedEx has been a sharp decline in my posting here. It has been a necessary, and lamentable, sacrifice. It is actually a by-product of the real sacrifice: a near-total lack of time to devote to gaming on any level. The weekend is the only time I have to squeeze in any time for anything game-related.

I guess we could safely file this post under "Whiny Little Bitch". If you've reached this point in reading this and feel like it has been a total waste of your time, you have my sincerest apologies. It's just been one of those things I needed to vocalize, in hopes that it will help me move past it.

Dang it! I forgot!

DrivethruRPG is having a sale thru March 15. 30% off selected items. All of the [S.]ine [N.]omine things I mentioned (that aren't already free) are included in the sale. If you kicked yourself for missing the Stars Without Number Bundle of Holding, now's your chance to do-over.

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.

The Value of Hit Points

This has been rattling about in my head for a week or more, but I never remember to post it. Until now . . .

While I do understand the math of "more hit points" being an advantage, I never truly appreciated it as something that made Fighting-Men better fighters. I recently saw the light whilst watching a marathon of The Unit.

Two men were engaged in a fist-fight. One was younger and clearly more capable. The other was older, and while a seasoned fighter, wasn't the man he used to be. Both men were basically beating the shit out of each other, but the punishment was more telling with the older man. Eventually the younger man gained the upper hand, even though the older man was landing solid blows.

Watching this, and putting it into an OD&D perspective, I was reminded that OD&D combat is about results. The fundamental truth is this: statistically speaking, the better fighter will still be standing at the end of the fight. Period. It is that simple. So, maybe we have similar, or even identical, chances to-hit, but if I have more HD (and therefore hit points, presumably), I should win.

I feel like I should expound on this further, but I can't really see what that would serve right now. So, let's just leave it at this, shall we?

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.

A Couple of Thoughts on Magic-Users

Just a couple of random things that fit together better than into their own posts.

When it comes to agonizing over the concept of "which spell to memorize", I tend to forget one simple concept: the magic-user has his spell book with him. When slots are limited, memorize the spell(s) that are most likely to be needed in the thick of things. If a situation arises that requires a more utilitarian spell, such as Knock, or Comprehend Languages, the magic-user can simply "swap out" by studying his spell book. Of course, this does absolutely no good if he has used his available slot(s). Likewise, once the utility spell is memorized and cast, that slot is used for the day. So, the dilemma of when to cast that precious spell remains. . .

I haven't read any of Jack Vance's work. I have certain impressions from quotes and excerpts, though. I'm not sure how "accurate" these impressions are, and I'm not claiming any of this is particularly original or mine, but they are just my thoughts based on the impressions:

 Each spell is almost like some alien life form that the magic-user must literally force into his mind. When someone sees a spell without the benefit of Read Magic it can look like anything from mad gibberish, to poetry, to doodles, to a blank page. When read with the benefit of Read Magic, however, it is seen as literally writhing on the page, pulsing and squirming with arcane intent. It is entirely alien to the mind of the caster and his brain must be forced to contain it, forced by sheer effort of will. That is what memorizing a spell is all about.

It isn't easy or pleasant to watch, either. The effects vary with caster level and spell level. The more advanced the caster, and more basic the spell, the less dramatic the process. A 10th level magic-user studying Sleep is hardly noticed. The closer the caster gets to the limit of his abilities, the more dramatic. The process can be downright frightening to behold. "Study" could appear as any of the following:

• Weeping blood as their eyes are forced to take in the eldritch horror;
• Sweating profusely, literally pouring from the magic-user;
• Laughing maniacally and/or speaking gibberish;
• Hair falling out;
• Eyes blackening, as if charred;
• Hair standing on end;
• Grasping his spell book for dear life, eyes opened unnaturally wide, bulging and bloodshot, hair flying back as if a hurricane was issuing from the spell book.

That is just a few ideas off the top of my head as I write this. None of this should have a direct mechanical effect, it is more for dressing. Some of these could have in-play consequences, but they shouldn't become the center point of a session. 

All of these realizations have shown me that Vancian magic isn't nearly as limiting or vanilla as I had thought.

Rambling On About House Rules

I've recently began a complete reading of Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. I'm not sure if it was DCC's relationship to that set of rules, or maybe just the fact that I never played or refereed them. It is quite difficult to do any sort of OSR-related reading and not run headlong into a B/X lovefest. So, I am working with just that, thinking about how a dungeon, wilderness, and/or entire campaign would have been in 1981, with those rules. I may post about that this weekend, as well, since I have been so remiss this past month.

Anyway, an inevitable aspect of any sort of webispheric study of original rules is that subject of house rules. There is a school of thought that if one is going to actually game with original rules, whether LBB, B/X, BECMI, or even Traveller, the rules should be used as-written. Even if only briefly, simply for the sake of the experience. I've seen a lot of words spent on the notion that if a person changes some certain aspect of B/X then they aren't playing B/X anymore. The logic then goes "so what's the point of calling yourself playing B/X in the first place? Use the rules as written, as intended."

This really started me thinking about the very nature of house rules. Here is my conclusion: I submit to you that ALL forms/version/editions of OD&D/AD&D/D&D, including the retroclones (free and pay) are nothing more than house rules. The early versions admitted such outright by calling themselves guidelines. It was only later that they began calling themselves "rules". Here is how I arrived at this conclusion:

The LBBs sprang from Chainmail. That, as we know, was a set of rules for medieval miniature battles. It was based on real-world, historical, actions. It is quite easy to determine, even if anecdotally, how far a medieval soldier could expect to travel in a given amount of time. Their morale was also simply a matter of assigning an algorithm to historical evidence. Things were abstracted, but the abstractions were based on actual, historical, evidence.

Then came the desire to include fantastic elements in the Chainmail games. Mr. Gygax and Arneson had to decide how a fireball worked, how a unit of orcs or dwarves compared to a unit of human soldiers. There is nothing historical to go by, so they tinkered until they found what worked best for them. Isn't that the very essence of a house rule? So, by my reckoning, since every single edition or version is built on the LBBs, at least philosophically, they are all house rules.

This isn't particularly important, since most of us play our games our way, and aren't subject to internet-based fanatical puritanism. I just found it an interesting thought to ponder on, and wanted to share it.

DCC Tables

A lot has been made about all the tables in DCC. The opinions vary from bleakly negative to wildly positive. I figured I would toss my 2 coppers into the pot.

On first blush, I thought they looked like great fun. The "over the top" aspect looked like it could bring some laughs, not to mention some moments of genuine relief when an insanely high roll turns a disaster into a victory. Of course, it can go the other way, too, but that's the stuff of high drama.

Then, I started thinking about it. There is a table for almost everything. That can lead to a lot of table look-ups, which has the potential to slow a game down. Adding to that is the fact that most of the high drama moments I mentioned could having the energy sapped from them by a drawn-out table sequence (Spell Duels, I'm looking at you).

Now, I'm sure I've left you with the impression that I'm no longer a fan of all the tables. For a brief moment that was true. I had started buying in to all the nay-sayers and my own apprehension. I had another epiphany, though. The tables are used in relatively small doses. For example, every single spell has its own casting table. That comes up to over 220 pages, just for the Wizard spells. There are 5 pages of critical hit tables just for characters. The thing that I realized is that very few of the tables are actually necessary at any given time. A Wizard character is only going to know a small handful of spells. A character is only going to need one critical hit table at a time, and most of the classes will only ever need one critical table. Once that realization had dawned on me, I was off to the races with DCC.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I printed out the reference sheets from People Them with Monsters. I finally printed them out, with a twist. I found some blue paper laying around and printed the cover on that. It gave  it a certain old school vibe of its own, printed in grayscale on a sheet of solid color. I also printed What to Roll, which I used for my back cover.

I also did a mod on this limited edition cover to use as a cover for my spell tables booklet. If I ever do run the game, especially on a regular basis, I'll have a copy of the Tables for the players, plus one for my quick reference. The spell tables will be mine. The players will learn the extents of their spells through trial-and-error.

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.

With Bated Breath

Preface
     It is indeed "Bated Breath". I looked it up and this is what I found.

On With the Show
     I don't like Father's Day. It is a privilege to be a father, it is its own reward. I don't need a day to "honor" me for it. However, my wife informs me every year that I have to not only humbly accept the fact that our kids want to honor me, I also have to designate a gift. (They claim I am notoriously difficult to buy for. Posh! I say. Get me an RPG or action/historical war movie and call it done.) So, last Sunday morning I duly ordered Dungeon Crawl Classics Core rulebook. I ordered it off Amazon. The particular seller I chose claimed to ship within 24 hours, the chief reason I chose them.
     I didn't really expect that to happen, since I ordered on Sunday. I didn't expect it to go out Tuesday, either, which it did. I was really hoping to have it by yesterday at the latest, so I could get some quality time with it this weekend. Alas, it was not the case. Of course, I have the pdf. I even have it printed and in a binder. I want to hold the book. There is a certain je ne sais qiou about having the real deal. A certain mystique of the bound tome.

Thus it is that I wait. Tomorrow must surely be the day. In the meantime, in addition to the binder, I have been catching up on forums and the like. One thing that strikes me in a lot of the forum threads is the brewhaha over the dice. There is only one die type that can't be fully emulated with the dice already in any roleplayer's collection. The d7/d14 is the lone hold-out. I will order 2 or 3 d14's, half them for d7 rolls, and call it a day. In the meantime, I'll just use a d8 and re-roll 8's. Yet something so simple is very polarizing for a lot of people.

Another head-scratcher for me is all the carrying-on about "all the tables". I know it is a lot of tables, but how many are used at the same time? In the same turn? In the same encounter? I'm sure there will be occasional times when more than a couple are in play, but I suspect not all that often. Couple that with the fact that a lot of them are more "player focused", which evens out the responsibility for their use. Give each player a copy of the relevant crit table for his race/class, spell tables as appropriate, and the "table burden" is much more evenly distributed.

Back to waiting, pondering, and reading about the game, while I await the tome.

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.