Book Review: Of Dice and Men by David Ewalt

 

Yes, I do read actual books on occasion. I got this on the same day I finished my years-long quest to find a copy of MAR Barker’s The Man of Gold. (In short, it’s a fantasy novel, but utterly alien in setting and just as in depth as Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. This is what you get when language professors make up fantasy stories. I don’t know if you can apply anything in Man of Gold to your fantasy RPG campaign, but it’s inspirational nonetheless.)

I’d heard of this Dice book somewhere and it had a glowing review, so I was thrilled to find it in the RPG section of Coas Bookstore. I started reading it almost immediately and was just as quickly disappointed. If you don’t know anything about the history of D&D’s creation and history, this might be a nice primer, albeit laborious.

You see, it commits the most tone-deaf trope there is about gamers: the author spends way too many pages telling you about his character and his campaign. Forehead slap. Nobody cares about your campaign is an absolute truism when it comes to RPG conversation with strangers. Worse, the author is an elitist snob gamer. He’s an intellectual playing the game correctly and better than you. He’s not like you weirdoes playing the game.

Are there weirdoes playing the game? Sure. Are you better than them? Probably, though it depends on what you’re measuring. Do you want to play with them? Every gaming group discriminates on some basis or another. Regardless, you’re in the same community as these people you look down on. Maybe you should consider a different hobby if you’re embarrassed by the association, because it’s likely elitists are going to quit RPG’s when it’s no longer cool and the weirdoes will never leave it.

Did I learn something? Yeah, there were some little factoids I found interesting. Then the book waves explaining some of the legal wrangling before the dissolution of TSR and refers you to a website for further details. In a 250-page book, where at least a quarter of it describes the author’s home campaign, I expect the details to be in the book.

I’ve read so many articles and watched so many videos on the subject of D&D’s history, I was looking forward to an actual published book on the subject to make my knowledge somehow official. Maybe this was the first published history of D&D and its more prototype than finished product. Maybe it’s just a book for normies, not gamers, who do not need to be told what an RPG is. This is in the opening spiel of any rulebook.

The somewhat tragic part of the book is how well it is researched. The author cites volumes of articles and books. He interviewed many important people in the hobby. (Unfortunately, Gygax and Arneson had passed before this book came about.) He went to conventions and even had an advanced LARP experience.

Perhaps the worst element of the book is at the end, where it becomes a promo for D&D Next (which would become the Fifth Edition). The game designers at WOTC gave the author access to developer conferences and playtest material. For a history of D&D book, discussion of the future of the game should have been epilogue. Instead, it becomes an ad. Discussions about the breakdown of 3e, 3.5e being released as a fix, the failure of 4e, and the rise of the OSR are breezed over. This is what the gamers who bought the book wanted to read about! Oh, and this preview of the future dates a book which should have been timeless in its content as an official history book.

I was not the audience for this RPG book. Hand this book to your normie friends who are curious about D&D. They’ll think they’ve acquired some great knowledge and will likely become insufferable.

RPG Opinion: Tactical Retreat

Epic video located here.

So I posted about the D&D OGL situation last Thursday.  On Friday, WOTC completely capitulated.  They stated that they will make no changes to the OGL and to show their good faith, they rereleased the 5.1 SRD as a Creative Commons document.  That act put much of the 5e rules set, spells, and monsters into perpetual and irrevocable free and open usage for the D&D community.

 

You’re welcome.

 

Actually, I’m embarrassed by my post.  It was badly written, poorly thought out, and unnecessary given all the other much-more educated commentary.  I still basically stand behind what I said, just not how I pushed it out.  Let me offer an excuse: I was sick when I wrote it.  I was stuck at home waiting to recover and wrote my last two posts. 

 

(I felt like a dummy when I realized that there was a 5.1 SRD.  I didn’t know.  I was still using the 3.5 SRD when I wrote up my Robomeck game.  If I’d known, I might have done things differently.  Then I felt even dumber when I found out I’d actually downloaded that SRD years ago and remembered looking it over!  I can’t blame the flu on that oversight.) 

 

Really, it was a confluence of events that forced WOTC’s hand.  The fans were in an uproar.  Every D&D player and DM with a Youtube channel and a Twitter account was howling.  There were no exceptions in the outrage.  There were a rumored 40,000 people cancelling their D&D Beyond subscriptions, even with the website crashing and then hiding the “cancelation” button.  WOTC finally ran a fan poll about their new OGL that was cut off early after overwhelmingly critical results. 

 

Nearly all of D&D’s competitors had banded together.  Paizo had rallied other companies around a new OGL, called ORC.  WOTC’s biggest RPG competitor also announced that they’d sold out of all eight months’ worth of their Core Rulebook backstock in two weeks.  Kobold Press, 5e’s premier third party publisher, has announced Black Flag, a new open RPG.  (Whoa!  Sudden flashback of 4e/Pathfinder, dude!)  Critical Role, D&D’s biggest promoter, issued a cryptic statement, owing to their contractual obligations to WOTC, reminding everyone that they own their RPG publishing company.

 

Hasbro, WOTC’s owner, has a big budget D&D movie coming in a couple of months that was being prematurely boycotted.  (Hey, now I can go see the movie.)  Hasbro’s stock had plunged based on holiday sales and were getting ready for a 15% staff layoff.  Their biggest shareholder, an investment group, openly chastised the company for kneecapping their most profitable property.  Finally, with the leak of their draft of the updated OGL, interested lawyers were seriously questioning if WOTC had a leg to stand on in revoking the “perpetual” license.      

 

Little wonder WOTC decided to not only back off, but give in.  There may be more concessions to come even.  It really all was just a greedy corporate screw up.  There wasn’t a master plan.  I’m kind of shocked. 

 

What does all this mean?  We’ll find out when WOTC releases One D&D.  It looks like with this move that they are abandoning physical tabletop gaming.  They’re going to focus on the online version of the game and cultivate a new audience.  If Paizo and other companies take over the physical space, WOTC doesn’t care.  In all honesty, the tabletop market is small and perhaps tapped out compared to the nearly unlimited potential of a really good online RPG experience.  There are features and possibilities in convenience of play that will make the tabletop look Stone Age by comparison.  (Think of waiting by a land line telephone for a call versus having a cell phone.)

 

Will it still be the same D&D as our ancestors have played?  (Oh, wait.  That’s me!)  That’s a good question.  Does the hobby still have a bunch of “social” problems?  Oh yeah.  (Hopefully, the Woke all go play online and cancel each other.)  In the meantime, thank you, Ryan Dancey, for creating the OGL and foreseeing this day when Dungeons & Dragons had to be kept safe from its owners and retained for the players.  Forever.    

 

RPG Opinion: Let It Burn

 

I’m not going to bother going over the particulars of D&D’s OGL debacle.  I’ve watched plenty of videos about this, which you can hardly avoid if you’re an RPG fan.  (This one by the RPG Pundit is one of the best I’ve seen.)  Essentially, WOTC, who owns D&D, is revoking the Open Game License, which allows other creators to use D&D rules and IP royalty-free.  People are mad about this because the language of the OGL states it is “perpetual.”  Paizo started their very successful business off of it.  Other companies use it, along with a legion of small individual creators.  I used it and I wasn’t even selling anything.   

 

I don’t think WOTC really realized the depth of anger they were provoking.  It was instant and unanimous.  This has united factions of the hobby that hate each other.  However, WOTC has gotten what they wanted.  They wanted everyone to stop using the OGL.  Paizo has already capitalized on this and started their own version of the OGL (ORC) and have gotten a bunch of signers on it. 

 

WOTC must have underestimated how many people would care about this.  They’ve acquired a bunch of new players over the last five years, who only create characters for their games.  If 95% of D&D’s fanbase are players who don’t care about the OGL, the other 5% are the DM’s who make up all of the adventures and settings and do care.  And they all seem to have their own Youtube channels, where they’re screaming about this.  

 

Critical Role, who is responsible for much of D&D’s current popularity, seems to be one of the entities specifically targeted by the new OGL’s royalty scheme.  Given that CR is about to release Season 2 of their Vox Machina animated series, I’m sure Matt Mercer appreciates this great publicity.  CR started off using Paizo’s Pathfinder and they currently use a modified version of 5e.  Mercer is fully capable of making his own RPG to play on show and has been weeding out D&D’s IP from his game.  Mercer hasn’t really said anything and can’t, but as soon as his arrangement with 5e ends, I suspect he’ll have something to say.  Boy, does WOTC know how to make enemies.

 

The purpose of this self-immolating behavior seems two-fold (to me).  They’re setting up One D&D, the upcoming next version of D&D, to be an online game, where they will fully monetize every transaction.  If you can’t find a DM, a common problem today, no problem, WOTC will provide AI DM’s.  If you can’t find a group, you can play pick up with a group of random players worldwide.  There’s clauses in their new OGL that will ensure no competition in the digital realm.  (Why not just play Dark and Darker?)    

 

The other reason is that WOTC wants to like Games Workshop, who produce Warhammer 40k.  GW has a very successful business selling rules, little models, novels, and all sorts of other merchandise to an obsessed fanbase.  They are the only providers.  Likewise, WOTC no longer wants third party providers for D&D.  They make no money directly off those products and don’t have control over them.  Since this new version is supposed to be backward compatible with the current 5e, they can’t have “knock-off” real world versions of their online game floating around.    

 

After my own anger subsided a bit, I became more amused by the situation.  WOTC is totally compromised with wokeness.  They had groomed and served their large new liberal audience and they just calculatedly stabbed them all in the back.  I was listening to an incredibly informative commentary about the OGL, which was stopped cold by the guest correcting the host about somebody’s gender pronouns (and then apologizing himself for using the wrong pronouns). 

 

Somebody posted that the new morality clause in the updated OGL might eliminate gays from any aspect of the game.  I can assure you, there’s no chance WOTC will do that, not when they take orders from Woke Twitter.  It’s more likely it’ll go the other way with minimum diversity quotas.       

 

However this goes, the hobby is likely ruined.  It’s certainly united against WOTC, but hopelessly fractured regardless and filled with people who fundamentally hate each other because the hobby became political.  Worse, the people they’re bowing to are people who are going to eventually cancel one another.  Nobody left will want to play with each other.  Thank goodness for the AI DM’s.     

 

Don’t look for much help elsewhere.  Paizo eliminated the term “race” from the game before WOTC did.  (“Race” in D&D means stuff like elves, dwarves, and humans and such.  Nothing to do with skin color.)  And the company was always woke.  I know, because I was on their message boards when they started.  I hand Troll Lord Games (makers of Castles & Crusades) credit here.  When one of their writers made a political comment, management immediately disavowed it and basically said, “We sell to everybody.” 

 

Like comic books and fantasy, sci-fi, and superhero TV and movies, tabletop RPG’s were just another front in a culture war.  D&D was just something else to be infiltrated and ruined for everyone eventually.  The new players of the game were looking forward to excluding everyone who didn’t agree with them on all issues.  Now they’re locking arms with the Old School players against the company who just betrayed them all. 

 

Players are canceling their D&D Beyond subscriptions in enough numbers to make WOTC put out another OGL draft with slightly better terms.  Most of D&D’s competitors are joining forces on some level.  During the 4e era of D&D, Pathfinder did become the number one RPG, which prompted the creation of 5e.  WOTC may be happy to cede the physical tabletop market, as long as they own all of the online one.  This will definitively bifurcate the hobby between online players and tabletop players.  Or should I say, between knockoff WoW addicts and some grognards, whom mainstream journalists have already deemed to be r@cist$ because they’re not playing the official, current version of the game.  

 

None of this is settled, but none of it matters to me if the hobby doesn’t return to just playing the game and not pushing Agenda messages.  It will collapse and shrink just like comic books and so on.  As much as people worry about WOTC crushing all resistance eventually, that won’t be what crushes the hobby.  Thankfully, we have the books, especially all those produced under the OGL, to fall back on.   

Now what?

Perhaps I should have mentioned that Dark Continent Redux was going to be my last RPG project.  I was working RPG stuff daily for months.  The only thing that got me to the end was knowing that there was one.  I'd love to say that I have infinite wells of creativity to draw on and that RPG's are my life, but I'm done with this stuff for now for lack ideas and motivation.  Not to mention, I don't know how I could top Dark Continent.

Do I have any regrets?  Yes.  Endless Night was supposed to be a much bigger haunted house with a murder mystery and magical portholes to other lands.  However, the Azimuth House was easily the best map (first floor, second floor) I did, and I generally like the adventure as is.  I like the concept of trying to colonize a monster-filled Fantasy Australia, but my Southland setting, I'm a little skeptical of, but I can't put my finger on why.  Stone Grave, on the other hand, which the entire setting was based on, I outright apologize for.  Not only was it not the 10 level mega-dungeon I had envisioned, what I finally ended up with wasn't very good.  Pulp Fantasy Core, for all my enthusiasm, never really got off the ground, which is too bad, since I really wanted to roll up that Buckaroo Banzai character.  

I love the Fantasy Ireland setting.  I'm still not entirely sure if it's a good RPG setting.  I'd at least like to think that the Keeper Hill adventure somewhat redeemed Stone Grave.  Played correctly, it's something like a heist gone wrong with NPC's and Characters at each others' throats.  D&D is such a mish-mash of mythology, it's always tempting to make a setting with a single, coherent one.  Unfortunately, D&D is its own mythology at this point.  You have to take out and ignore so much game material, it's almost not worth it.

There was one thing I sort of left on the table.  I never wanted to make a Monster Manual, but I did want to do a listing of humanoids and demi-humans with a coherent mythology to go with them.  Unfortunately, this goes back to what I just mentioned about mythology.  It might have been nice to go with Fantasy Ireland, but even then, it didn't entirely fit into it.  Further, these creatures are so similar stat-wise, that all you're doing is putting pointless backstory to them.  Then I started thinking about doing full table levels for these creatures, and it suddenly wasn't worth the effort.  All that came out of that was the Otherworld Elf (again, don't use that as a playable Character class) and the Gnome, which were the only classes that are different enough to make them interesting. 

I am proud of some of my game material.  Fantasy Core itself, while highly not perfect, I think goes in the right direction for a fantasy RPG.  It's not far off from 5e, so I feel somewhat vindicated in producing it.  I truly doubt there will be any future revolutionary developments in tabletop RPG's for gamers.  There is, however, a wide-open opportunity for creating an RPG-like party and family game for non-gamers, and that will require revolutionary thinking.

I don't know what brought on Expedition to the Doomed Peaks, but it has my favorite encounter, the completely self-referential One of Each room.  The Jianghu setting, played correctly, would be an awesome challenge for the Players as they would be essentially trying to keep their honor and integrity in a highly partisan environment.  Cyber-Pulp was just a random idea I had that went completely out control in a good way.  The main good thing that came out of Pulp Fantasy Core was that it laid the groundwork for it.  What started as just a simple notion of adapting Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now also went completely off the rails.  Dark Continent turned out way better than I expected.  Lastly, the thing I did with most of the adventures and settings was that I explicitly stated the theme of them, like Mystery in the Southland, Personal Honor in the Jianghu, or Psychological Discomfort in Dark Continent.  If a specific setting or adventure will tell you that up front, and you stick with it while running it, it should be a more rewarding experience for everyone involved.            

I don't plan on doing any more RPG stuff, unless I'm actively playing, which I'm not right now.  I'll likely go with 5e or some other published RPG then.  I'll still be making various sports posts and maybe other stuff.  So this isn't a sign-off for now.

J.

5e Confessions

[I'm off Monday.  I plan on doing sports posts next week, and then posting the new setting mentioned here.]

I’ve got one last new setting (doesn’t that sound unintentionally ominous) ready to be posted.  It uses the Fantasy Core rules and has lots of monsters and NPC stats.  I’ll be putting it up shortly, but I thought I’d pause and reflect here for a moment.

Somewhere in the middle of this project, I completely lost confidence in my own rules.  I still think they’ll work reasonably well and would be fun, but over the course of stat’ing out a bunch of monsters, I started getting really frustrated.  There are certain limitations, not just with my own homebrew, but with the underlying system they’re based on, that just creak and moan with age and poor design.  These issues go straight back to the origin of the game and through every succeeding version. 

Don’t get me wrong.  The rules work well enough to provide an enjoyable time with friends and strangers, who will soon be friends, around the table.  Gygax and Arenson created a whole new genre of gaming, a highly impressive accomplishment.  That game was made from with adaptations of other games, and from drawing upon widely varied mythic sources.  It’s allowed the game to be changed to be whatever you want it to be and however you want to play it.  But there’s never been any real innovation since those original rules. There are any number of dopey conventions that gamers adhere to, not because they’re good, but out of tradition and familiarity.  D&D is like a ship with a leaky hull, still floating because of the mass of encrusted barnacles attached to it covering them.

Rules like Fantasy Core could be classified under the broad category of a “Fantasy Heartbreaker,” a D&D-like game that offers a few novel ideas, but ultimately disappoints.  I think everyone who’s really looked at D&D’s rules at least subconsciously recognizes that they’re fundamentally flawed in almost every aspect.  The mechanics are unsatisfying and unrealistic.  The milieu is a goulash that forces everything to be included.  The goals are arbitrary and self-defeating.  (The more powerful a character gets, the less fun the game gets.)  The Fantasy Heartbreaker tries to keep the inherent spirit of the game, while correcting some of these flaws.  They fail because the rules can’t be fixed.  It’s like sending reinforcements to the battlements of a sandcastle.  Maybe certain aspects can be improved, maybe not, but it doesn’t matter, if the whole initial concept has problems.

Here’s part of where 4e went wrong, in my opinion.  The rules were incompatible with the preceding versions of the game, but offered no real innovation.  It was a Fantasy Heartbreaker.  Pathfinder has been a success in the meantime, but only because they’re using 3.5 with some minor houserule adjustments.  They’ve since gone wild with supplements of the sort that have weighted down other editions.  Pathfinder is the hobbyist game with its complex layers of rules, because a newbie is going to have a steep learning curve just making their character, much less playing.    

That brings me to 5e.  I haven’t seen the rules yet.  I plan on acquiring the basic rules at some point in the near future.  (My Internet connection is through work and the WOTC site is blocked.  I’ll see if I can get them through a friend.)  I’ll consider buying the books if I’m impressed enough.  What I already know is that these rules are considered to be a “best of” mix of other versions with the addition of the new advantage/disadvantage mechanic. 

In other words, 5e is nothing really new.  The playtest was well, but cautiously, received.  The beginner box was panned instantly upon the announcement of its contents.  This grief turned to joy, as shortly thereafter, with the news of the online release of the basic rules.  I think most gamers were predisposed to being standoffish up to that point.  The new rules might have their merits, but aren’t especially better, in fact, simply a retread of familiar ground.  The free version meant you could try the rules, in large part whole, without any monetary obligation.  More importantly, these rules are now out in the wild forever, like the retroclones, so 5e is going to be around for a long while if you like it.

WOTC’s free release has been a boon to book sales.  With the basic rules being fairly simple and free, this should allow new players to be brought in easily.  New books will be brought out to expand options for continuing serious players.  But there is going to be a price to this.  5e will be last published version of D&D by WOTC. 

This version had a long development cycle, and the rules had to be given away to get gamers to try them.  Unless they intentionally put in a show-stopping broken feature, there’s not going to be a 5.5 version, much less 6e.  There’s going to be mild updates, but they’re not going to be able to change them radically.  The expectation is going to be that any rules changes are going to be put into that free version, which will have to be compatible with the books. 

WOTC will ride the high on this as long as they’re getting good sales.  But I have to think the executives have already got an exit strategy planned.  There’s no way they’re going to sit through another long development cycle/sales drought, like they did between 4e and 5e.  Gamers aren’t going to be interesting in another slightly improved nostalgic version of D&D, not five years from now, probably not even ten.  This is it.

I think WOTC is already handing out licenses to other RPG companies in preparation for this.  Right now, it’s for publishing 5e adventures.  I’d almost think they’d offer to work with Paizo again, whom they’ve worked well with before.  Paizo’s game world and adventures would surely make 5e an even bigger hit.  Perhaps that’s why they won’t.  Paizo has already proven they can do D&D better than they can.  Paizo would end up profiting off of all of WOTC’s development by simply converting their existing material and at little cost.  Again, remember the free rules and how locked in WOTC will be to those.  Their core rule book sales will taper, while Paizo 5e products could end up dominating the market. 

The real question is: What will WOTC do when 5e reaches the end of its product cycle?  Frankly, I’m hoping they consider selling the name and IP to another company to produce the traditional tabletop RPG.  Meanwhile, Hasbro (WOTC’s parent company) uses the name and IP to make other games, perhaps even a non-hobby version of the RPG (something that can be simply set up like a traditional board game, but allowing the free-form action and imagination of an RPG).  In sum, I think the RPG experience is great and it works as a hobby to tinker with, but the current legacy rules suck and need a complete makeover. 

For my part, I have a couple of other last projects in mind (though just a couple).  If I like the 5e rules, I may use those instead of Fantasy Core.  There’d probably be some dubious legitimacy in posting such an adventure here, even if I’m not selling it and there’s no advertising on the site.  It might be worth the risk anyway.  I’d still like to clean up, make a couple of changes, and make a pdf out of Fantasy Core, but with 5e being the thing, it seems like a waste of effort at the moment.  

Retro Post: Took It Too Far

From 5-21-12

[Holy crap! I wrote two of these blogs on the same day. I must have been positively constipated with opinion for some reason.]

White Wolf took the role-playing too far (still not sure how, since it’s really only the setting and not the rules that somehow demands it). It didn’t last, thankfully.

Dragonlance took the story aspect of adventures too far and legitimized railroading.

Pathfinder is doing well with their story adventures, but Pathfinder is almost a complete system (setting integrated with rules), which they have taken too far.

Forgotten Realms took setting too far. Tekumel did it first, but so few people have actually seen it or understand it, that it’s no where near the same level of influence. The boxed setting, supplements, adventures, novels, and comics (franchises within franchises), all created in such a way that (at least theoretically) all connects and is integral and impenetrable to new comers.

4e took the combat system too far and turned D&D into a tactical mini’s game with video game-like cut scenes (the role-playing and story stuff).

3e took character creation and enhancement and stat block creation too far to the point of fetish. The purpose of an adventure wasn’t to have an adventure, but to provide opportunities for XP to level up and play with your character build. Statting out monsters is the bane of many a DM. Then each encounter becomes a tiresome, battle of the stat blocks, becoming ever more onerous with each increasing level.

Planescape took the multiplicity of settings to the extreme by actually being a setting of other settings.

Old School took character creation and enhancement too far to the opposite extreme. Your character isn’t what you want, it’s what you roll. [Actually Old School took mega-dungeons, sandboxes, and blogs too far.]

Any of these extremes is distasteful to many players, but also enticing to maybe just as many. It perhaps all has to do with when you entered the hobby.

[I think I just ran out of room on the page that this was hand-written on, and wanted a quick conclusion. RPG’s may still be evolving and thus extremes in play styles are developed. Will it be a good thing, or a bad thing when these wild swings finally die down? D&D Next seems more like a step backward, or at best an accommodation of these different styles, rather than an innovation. This version may truly answer the question of whether RPG's have become a mature stable game or not.]

Retro Post: Mainstream

From 5-21-12

Pathfinder may have the right idea, just badly executed because they had to be backward compatible to 3e. They have an RPG that totally integrates rules, setting, adventures, and fictional properties and licensing into a cohesive whole. This set up might really have some mainstream appeal and be a consistent source of income beyond just selling rulebooks. The problem is that the rules are written for hobbyists (extreme ones at that) as opposed to people. [I seem to remember posting something close to this comment in somebody’s blog. They resented not being counted as people. Upon reflection, I stand behind my original statement.]

The Adventure Path adventures aren’t designed to be played quickly or over a long season. (Again, the rules wouldn’t support quick, easy play anyway.) There is the leveling aspect where certain abilities and skills are increased amongst a plethora of choices. Good for the hobbyist. Bad for casual players. Seemingly all adult players complain that they want to play, but the lack the time to do so. Coordinating session times and dates seem to be the biggest culprits. Hand-in-hand with that is simply the time it takes to play and how little gets accomplished in a single session.

Adventure creation is the biggest time sink, and one person is expected to do the work. A prepackaged adventure, written in a quickly comprehended and manageable fashion, would be ideal (especially for the publishers). Character creation, enhancement, and XP calculation are the time sinks for the players, and simply the time and scheduling it takes to play.

Imagine a simple, flexible set of rules. Characters start as strong archetypes, easily upgraded if campaign-style play is desired. Prepackaged scenarios that are playable in a night (with optional encounters for longer play). These could be part of a series or standalone as one shots. There are novels and setting books for wonks, but everything is playable with only the core rules. There is no library of splatbooks. Opportunities are there for hobbyists to make their own extensions, but they are their own.

[Not sure what brought this banal piece on, or why. I’ll sum it up. Why can’t there be a mainstream RPG? Why does it have to be a hobby? People routinely have fun, making fools of themselves playing any number of other party/family games. There’s casual Monopoly and there’s competitive Monopoly, while still being the same game.]

Retro Post: Why the Cleric?

[If you wondered by the Paladin class replaced the Cleric in Fantasy Core, here’s why.]


Seriously. Unlike the other D&D classes, this one has no real historical or fictional archetype upon which it is based. A crusader? The Paladin would fill that role, as he would that of agent of the Inquisition and demon hunter. An Exorcist? Friar Tuck? I’m just not seeing a mace-wielding, armored dude, flinging spells.

The Cleric has been around D&D since the beginning, but is seemingly just a pure invention of game mechanics. He is there to cast healing spells on the Fighter, protect the Wizard, and turn undead.

No wonder nobody wants to play the Cleric. There’s no mental image outside of the game to match the character, and he’s not a class, he’s a game function. While armored, his weapon selection and ability to fight are limited. May as well be a fighter. He casts spells, but they suck, except for raising the dead. Go ahead and roll up a Wizard. Fighting the undead? Turning doesn’t work well against the powerful ones anyway.

Pathfinder gave the Cleric a favored weapon, some of which are better than maces. Unfortunately, they also combined healing and turning into one crappy ability. I’m told this is great for the character, but I’m not seeing it, and it makes it even more of a game function. Even 4e has virtually done away the Cleric via healing surges and fighter defensive maneuvers.

So what to replace them with, since the game function is still needed? Make healing potions pervasive. Make natural healing more potent. Give flagons of ale healing abilities. Give the Paladin the Cleric’s healing and protection spells and ability to turn undead at level one. Do the same with the Druid. (Historically, we don’t really know anything about Druids, except second hand, but they did at least exist.) Give healing and protection spells to the Wizard. Allow holy symbols, plus high Wisdom, plus a good alignment a possibility to turn undead.

I could spot you getting rid of the Thief class, as some Old Schoolers are want. I can see the point. Not only do thieves fill an even more specific party role than the Cleric, but they potentially reduce actual player gaming, with only a die roll. Take a high dexterity fighter, give them leather armor, take away the shield and two-handed weapons. Let them have the backstab, a better chance at thieving skills than regular fighters, or anybody else, and there you go. Anytime they want to slip on chainmail and take up the bastard sword, they lose the thief bonus, but incur no other penalties.

Retro Post: DM’ing Versus Scripting

[Submitted for your approval, this trip into the Twilight Zone. There is no beginning and no end, only random mumbling.]


There’s no right way to play the game, as long as the group is having fun. If the pendulum swings widely in either direction, it’s okay, as long as everyone goes along with it. Where it goes wrong is when the DM or the players start to pull the game away from where they’re all happy.

“It’s what my character would do!” Or, role-playing versus acting. There’s a question of where the character begins and the player ends. At worst, you have the min-max’ing, power gaming, rules lawyering, munchkin, who refuses to recognize that it’s just game, and game is not Monopoly. Unfortunately, the other side of the spectrum isn’t much better: players who make dumb decisions or sabotage the group because of their class or alignment. Dealing with the first sort is easy: the DM says, “No you can’t. Shut up and play!” The power gamer will keep quiet, while they search out other ways of getting an edge on the rules. The frustrated actor, on the other hand, genuinely believes that they’re doing the right thing and will become a frustrated player if not allowed to play their character the way they want.

The game itself sets up these dichotomies. The rules do say to have fun and the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules at the table. No where within does it say, “Don’t be a dick.” The power gamer is definitely created by the rules. D&D utterly caters to them. Starting I suppose with 2e and character kits, moving to 3e feats and skills, and now 4e’s assortment of powers, the player doesn’t just have more choices than 1e and Rules Cyclopedia, they are actively forced to make decisions. Though 4e makes a severe effort at class balancing, there are bad decisions that can be made in character building. Hell, just look at the terminology. You used to roll up a character, now you have to build them. Essentials seems to be D&D’s acknowledgement of that. (And it’s still too complex.)

This is purely a business decision on D&D’s part. They’re book publishers and they need to sell books. Eventually, you’re going to run out of audience for the core books. Power gamers are willing to shell out for a book that might give them an advantage in character building. The decision to be a power gamer is a basic function of the rules. It is the leveling process that makes players play the game and not their characters. Just surviving the dungeon is way too Old School. You want to thrive and grow and hit the end game, whatever that is.

I have to think that this is antithetical to the original intention of D&D. Yes, your character can improve over time from adventuring. But no, the point of the improvement was to allow the characters to face greater challenges, not just to max out the advancement tables as quickly as possible. It’s not like this is a new thing. Monty Haul DM’s did this all the time in 1e games. In 4e, with treasure parcels and such, it’s now a matter of mathematical formula how often the characters should advance.

Let’s not forget though, killer DM’s also created the power gamer. As long as it was written down in an official rulebook, players could do something to check a sadistic DM in check. Old School typically seems to view characters as faceless minions. They are there to die quickly and cruelly, but for clever, prudent player actions. If they somehow survive a few levels, it is then that the player regrets not giving them a better name. Is it any wonder the power gamer was created? How many anonymous first level characters do you want to go through before you get a winner? How many dungeons do you want to fearfully creep around, hitting everything with a 10’ pole, never touching any levers, running away from giant rats, and fleeing to town after the first couple of rooms with one hp?

Following versions of the game have progressively helped the players more and more against the DM. Though the DM’s creatures have access to the same rules, it is the players who will fully exploit feats, skills, and spells. Finally with 4e, beginning characters are pretty hard to kill. Given the large number of choices in character creation and time taken to do so, they’d better be. Who would spend so much time on a character that could die pretty easily in their first encounter? So the problem is recursive. Near arbitrary character death at the hands of the DM is a no-no given the investment by the player in creating them. Thus, more powerful characters are needed. Thus, more challenging encounters are needed. Thus, 26 hp first level Orcs. Thus, more powerful characters are needed.

The sad fact is that there may not be a happy medium. In order for the game to be challenging, the characters have to be imperiled. As long as there are levels to be had, players will be working towards attaining them. And as long as there are greater challenges to be had, the characters will need those levels to face them.

[Was there a point in this somewhere? I assure you I found this funny for the same reason you did, “WTF was that about!”]

Retro Post: The Perfect Game Continued

Previously.

[Let's keep going with this theme and make a few wild allegations as well.]

Hard core gamers all fall into two categories: power gamers and drama queens. Everyone in-between that is either a new gamer or a casual gamer.

You will know when 4e has gone too far to be called a tabletop RPG anymore, when you feel the same way about your character as you do about your last saved game in a first person shooter. When the character simply becomes a vehicle to get to the end game and “win,” it’s time for D&D to go all digital.

You really can’t blame the players for being power gamers or drama queens. If you’re playing 3e or 4e, you’re pretty much forced into the role of power gamer, as both systems cater to that type of player. (Why not? They buy the books.) Given the number of options in creating a character, choices have to be made. Even with 4e’s emphasis on character balance, some builds are better than others, so discretion has to be used. With all of these edges, the system teaches you how to optimize your character and how to exploit those advantages. Teamwork is achieved by combining those advantages. But they all boil down to picking a power, rolling dice, and adding modifiers. Like chess or Monopoly, there's good strategies and best practices to be used in order to be successful.

The Old School ideal involves making a fairly generic character with a very limited skill set. They start off pretty weak and must be played very thoughtfully and cautiously if they are to survive and rise in level. As the character has few resources and encounters aren’t necessarily play balanced for character success, it is the player’s intelligence and imagination, which will have to give them an edge. In Old School, the character’s intelligence doesn’t dictate their life span, the player’s does. In reality, Old School players actually fall back on best practices (hitting everything with a 10’ pole and never touching levers) and running away. There’s little imagination involved. If a DM sets up a problem with a solution provided, there’s virtually going to have to be a sign and directions to go with it. And still the players won’t try it (mistrusting the DM), until there’s no other option.

Character is created for most players from play experience, the character is the sum of what they’ve done. In 4e, play has been so mechanically abstracted, your concept of character may be based on your most memorable die rolls. In any case, until the character does something notable, it’s just a bunch of stats and an archetype.

Some players may start off with the character concept and build the actual character around it. Perhaps they have a grand background and deep personal motivations. This stuff will be disregarded and irrelevant after the first session.

Regardless of the system, a character is more than just stats and abilities. This is where you see the divergence from wargames. This isn’t just a piece in a game; it’s your alter ego in the DM’s imaginary world. The relationship may be short. Emotional detachment may even start while rolling up abilities.

[Was there more to this?  It just sort of ends.  Probably just as well.  Go ahead and draw your own conclusions on this subject.]

Retro Post: The Perfect Game

[No date.  Dated material.  Rambling post.  Check, check, and check.] 

It’s out there. The only problem is that it’s not the same game for everyone. It depends on what you want out of an RPG.

Power gamers want lots of options and complex character builds. Ease of play is totally secondary to creating and enhancing their characters. Game companies love these guys. They buy all the books. So, you’ve got plenty of choice in choosing a system. The downside of catering to the power gamer is that it’s your entire market. Everyone else is pretty much shut out, including potential new gamers. Without a basic, simplified version of the rules to learn from, it’s going to be hard to expand beyond the base. Of course, present day marketers hate this kind of brand confusion, and the designers of power games aren’t the people to go to for an easier, teachable game.

For the frustrated actor, there needs to be built in emotional attachments to their characters and to the group. There need to be directorial hooks in the character to cue performance. Rewards and advancement are more narrative based than character based. Conflict is more about drama and intense character interaction. Unfortunately, there’s no mainstream RPG that provides this that any other type of player would want to play. Oh, there’s plenty of disconnected, irrelevant mechanics in most games to rift off of to annoy the other gamers, but nothing cohesive or integral to the game. There are highly praised, low selling indy RPG’s that specialize in theatrical play.

For Old School players, the good news is that there’s plenty of choices for D&D-ish systems. The bad news is that no two groups are playing the same game. An Old School game has to be less complex than the power gamer’s, because the more detailed, complex, and definitive the rules, the less room there is for house ruling them. The point of the Old School game is the ability to modify it to the group’s liking. Negotiation between player and DM is part of the game. Modern professional game designers hate that. They make games with “simple, but elegant mechanics” or “a high degree of crunchiness.” They don’t produce games with the tag, “Some assembly required,” or “Build to taste.” Other than competing against free games and trying to sell them to gamers who want their own specific version of the rules, I can’t imagine why more game companies aren’t marketing to this group.

What about the DM’s? Well, the systems that were DM centric were pre-3e. After that, the players had too much of an edge and the rules were too sharply defined for the DM to be the final arbiter of events. How could you arbitrarily kill a new character that it took the player an hour to build or create a backstory for? It cuts both ways though. Given the amount of time it takes to create a 3e or 4e encounter and the improbability of improvised or random ones, the characters are going to have little choice of action. So much for DM’ing by the seat of your pants. A frustrated novelist, control freak, railroading DM might do well here, except that the DM is as constrained by the rules and setting as the players. Certainly no one would want an adventure blown up by a failed spot check or skill check. Would a dungeon full of whimsical tricks and traps even work in this setting, or would the set up be too arduous for most DM’s to bother with?

Finally, what about new players and casual players? Their perfect system needs to be quick to learn, simple to master, and easy to remember. Unfortunately, there’s a reason why tabletop RPG’s are called a hobby. They’re just not like board games kept up in the closet. It takes time and tutelage to learn most of them. Anything simple will eventually bore most players after a few sessions without more character options or more emotional involvement. A simple RPG will also require a fairly nimble, clever DM to keep things running smoothly in the absence of concrete rules. That’s a pretty tall task for a novice or part-time player. But without new user-friendly versions of the game, not written for power gamers or drama queens, how does the game grow?

It doesn’t.

Continued.

Retro Post: The Party Game Continued

Previously.

[I'm not sure if I wrote this post before or after the previous one, so it's a bit dated. Anyway, no major breakthrough on how to create this fictional game unfortunately, but I still think it's a good idea. It's probably going to take some mainstream game designers like at Hasbro to figure out how to do it correctly.]

My local Barnes & Noble recently remodeled. They've cleared out a large swath in the center of the store and installed a selection of games. These are kid's, family, and party type games with a broad appeal. Where's D&D in the store you might wonder. It sits on one shelf in the Fantasy Vampire/Sci-Fi Vampire/Vampire novel bookcases. The selection was almost entirely 4e, though without a Players Handbook 1 or a Dungeon Masters Guide 1. No Basic Essential Box Sets either.

What I take away from this is that D&D and other RPG's are purely hobby games for dedicated RPG players. 4e has some appeal outside of this group, which is solely due to the hooks within the game that appeal to collectible card game players, WOW players, and miniatures gamers (not Napoleonic, I mean superhero "clickies"). (Not just a WOTC invention, an early playtest version of Paizo's Pathfinder actually did attempt to put video game like combo moves into the game. The players revolted.) So 4e's outreach to non-pen and paper RPGer's was just to other obsessive gamers.

I believe that RPG's could have more appeal than this. Ironically, the RPG computer games that were inspired by the analogue RPG games make the concept easy enough to grasp for just about everyone. Certainly D&D has been around long enough that best practice rules for easy comprehension could be written. Old School had the play style and the simplified play right. 3e brought in the D20 mechanic and got rid of the matrix tables. 4e removed Vancian magic and brought in a fairly good method for resolving non-standard combat and non-combat maneuvers.

What each version also brought was baggage. Old School is ripe with piles of little wonky rules for events that never happen, and no rules to handle things that often do. D20 is a simple mechanic buried under a preponderance of 3e effluvia of skills and feats. 4e? I'm convinced WOTC attempted to literally merge D&D with Magic the Gathering before cooler heads prevailed (for now). For every rule 4e streamlined or clarified, they added other elements that seemed to demand a control pad and infinite patience, such as whittling down a base goblin with 29 hit points.

Why can't a version of D&D be written with easy to learn, consistent rules? Further, where is it written that Basic boxed RPG sets have to be crippled versions of the full game? Why can't there be full advancement in a 64-page booklet?

My ideal Box set features a character booklet with rules and a full range of classes and races going up to 20th level. Advancement rules would be very simple, with the additional option of generating characters of specific levels. Necessarily, their powers will be simplified (especially magic users). Under these circumstances, maybe playability won't predictably break down at higher levels. There's a monster and magic items book, similarly cut down in stats. Finally, there's an adventure book. There's a sample adventure, but the main value of the book would be several large random tables and geomorphs for generating dungeons, traps, wildernesses, towns, and plots. Adventure and character generation should only take a matter of minutes. (Perhaps there could be a website companion for this.) Utility items, such as graph paper, tokens, dice, and a wipe sheet and marker (not that the rules should demand exact placement of combatants), should also be included.

The point is that this would be a complete game, not even easily compatible with the main line. This almost seems to cry out for a licensing tie-in. Conan has plenty of recognition and is low magic (no massive spell lists) to boot. Character, monster, adventure, and setting supplements could be produced, but won't be necessary for continuing the game.

Ideally, the box set sits up in the closet with Monopoly and other board games. It can be taken out, set up, and taught within 15 minutes. Play could last from an hour to however long you could stand it. Maybe the players play again tomorrow or next week with the same characters. Maybe it goes back in the closet for a few months and they play again new characters.

Hobbyists will always have their game (and even their preferred version of their game). Why can't there be a version for the casual player too?

Retro Post: The Party Game

I kind of stumbled on this link a little while ago, and it reminded me that I'd written about the notion of making a D&D party game a couple of years ago. I posted something on the Paizo messageboard, and they did not think well of the idea (yeah, 3e grognards enbracing a simpler game).


Pathfinder RPG: The Party Game

I just got back from a low-key, work-related party, which featured a party game.  I just suddenly had the thought, "Would it be possible to make an RPG party game?"

Okay, after everyone finishes spewing their Mountain Dew on their computer screen.

Really though. I haven't thought all this out (obviously) and may post more later, but I thought throw this out now and try to get some ideas.

Please don't post, "Go play 4e!"

The party game would need really quick, easy character creation, but with plenty of choices and some character variation. Combat would also have to be really simple, quick, concise, and definitive. It would also likely need to work without miniatures and a grid map, so heavy battlefield tactics would be discouraged. There would need to be character social interaction rules, but they should be quickly resolvable with a dice roll, on the assumption that people at a party are not going to want to heavily get into character (unless they've been drinking heavily).

Actually, these rules need to be learnable and playable by people who may be half-drunk, so also all record keeping for characters, monsters, and NPC's needs to pretty simple as well. In a similar vein, characters will probably need some "fate-like" points that can be played, in case they do something dumb in the first encounter that would otherwise get them killed.

I haven't played or seen any of the Pathfinder Society scenarios, but from what I've heard, this might be the kind of adventures that might work in this kind of setting. Something that could play inside of four hours, give the players a more than reasonable chance of success, no "shopping at the bazaar" during the adventure, just straight-up adventuring (fighting, parleying, puzzle solving), and a clear objective. Consider all these games to be one-shots, no leveling up.

Characters would be created at the appropriate power level for the adventure. Perhaps the idea of levels could be dispensed with altogether in some fashion.

Bottom line. Paizo creates "Pathfinder RPG: The Party Game" edition, a small softcover book. And then sells lots of easy to run, scenario pdf's for the game on their website. They make lots of money and RPG's become a mainstream, fad rage at parties everywhere.

[Boy, was that a weak ending.  I deserved whatever derision I got just for that last paragraph.]

To be continued.

Retro Post: 4e Might Be Right Continued

Previously.

[If you're actually reading these Retro posts, you are truly hardcore.  I salute you (and question your tastes).]

3e set the tone. The D20 mechanic really is an improvement in playability over older versions. Right up until you add in a bunch of modifiers, which are very hard to keep track of. Skills and feats are the ultimate in customizability and useless time wasting in character creation, advancement, and actual play. The worst aspect is that the player now plays a China Doll. After all the time that the player has put into creation and maintenance, the DM dare not kill them out of hand.

Bang, you’re dead! That’s Old School. You know what, it’s wrong. People get into this to indulge in an heroic fantasy, not an historical one. You play dumb and get your character killed, too bad. Your character goes down in a pitched battle with the big villain or protecting the helpless from a hoard of Orcs, you can write a ballad about it. “Ooops. The random encounter with the giant rats has overwhelmed the entire party. TPK. Okay, everybody roll up new characters.” Nobody plays the game for that thrill, not even the most sadistic DM.

The reliance on minis and mats, the craftsmanship involved in making up a character, and the unwieldy nature of creating and using NPC’s and some monsters has had a largely unrecognized effect on the 3e and 4e game. DM improvisation, players taking adventures of the rails, and random encounters are almost play styles of the past. Encounters have to be set up and planned to some extent in any version. 3e and 4e encounters require so much set up, that even the players understand that if they go “rogue” in an adventure, there may not be any encounters. Both version have made some attempt at making encounters “easier” to create and more “play balanced” for the party. The amount of effort expended in following those formulas and in playing them out, ensures that there will be few of them and they will be virtually mandatory if there'’ going to be any adventure.

Since characters are had to replace, if the dice have fated that they’ll die, it’s got to be meaningful. So no random encounters. That’s okay. As established, encounters are hard enough to make and mandated to the point that players can’t do whatever and DM’s can’t BS encounters in reaction. This sort of short circuits the current en vogue play style of Old School, the sandbox. This is where the DM does large amounts of prep work for an adventure setting and then the players immediately head straight off the map. How is this different than any other Old School game? In a larger sense, there isn’t any. For all the extra work, even if the players go along, the DM will still be improvising the whole session and each succeeding one. Over prep and under prep, the worst of both worlds. The properly run sandbox is essentially the DM playing by himself in a setting without the characters when the players aren’t looking.

As stated before, in 4e player choices amount to either engaging the DM’s planned encounters, or not having any encounters. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The typical low level, nearly helpless Old School characters getting wiped out by random encounters, while trying to figure out where to play in the sandbox, isn’t fun for anyone except the most cautious (and tedious or lucky) players. People are exhorted to be cautious in real life enough. Time to find some glory!

By contrast, low level 4e characters are nearly indestructible, assuming the recommended play balanced encounters. They’re not going to be able to take out Orcus, but it’s going to take a couple of rounds for him to kill them. The encounters and adventure will be mapped out well in advance. Player decisions will basically be all tactical. But they will look good and probably feel pretty superheroic cleaving through their opponents. Of course the trade off for this are fight scenes that play out like an epic paper cut death match. There might be a few too many hit points in 4e.

4e has also done away with having to stock the dungeon with treasure. By giving the characters whatever they want as long as it’s level appropriate. This strikes me a singularly lazy or alternately an almost complete dismissal of the DM and his role. May as well go play a board game or a computer game and finish the deal. Skill challenges essentially abrogate the role of the player, their thinking and role playing.

Collectible card gaming is slowly being worked into 4e, prototyped in Gamma World and now an optional accessory. Between that and the heavy emphasis on combat rules with battle mats and minis, official D&D seems more like a tactical strategy game than an RPG. Along with the lack of improvisation and simple character creation, little wonder fans of previous versions of the game don’t consider it real D&D. Even with some similarity to 3e, Pathfinder fans find 4e taken to too much of an extreme, without the game flexibility benefit.

But 4e gets it right in some areas. Powers and monsters are precisely defined (even if those powers all seem to involve moving pieces on a board like chess). Characters are built to heroic proportions. Adventures are designed to let them shine and eliminate nonsense and filler encounters.

Hard (not vague) rules that are easy to use. Characters that are tough and simple to create, play, and advance. Adventures that force the players to think and make decisions, but are free of fluff encounters. Settings that start small and grow via adventures played, not giant pre-made constructs. It’s hard to say if RPG’s are getting closer to something more mainstream acceptable. Or if the next official version of D&D will be a hobby fetish mess mandating minis, cards, and online content. Ooops. Already there. WOTC’s made their choice with the IP. We’ll see where Old School and Paizo take their games.

Retro Post: 4e Might Be Right

[No dancing around it.  This sucker rambles on for a while (and on to another post).  Not sure when I wrote this one either.  Again, I think it still has some (albeit dated) value.]

Notice how most people who don’t play 4e, don’t call it D&D? The brand may start to disintegrate into tribalized factions: 4e, Pathfinder, Old School. All of them D&D. None of them the true heir. What I mean is that the market has never matured. (Some of the players have, though perhaps not emotionally.) RPG’s are still more hobby than game. Meaning, you can’t just take the box down from the closet and play it on a rainy afternoon.

Players might take this as a feature rather than a bug. I would never advocate for doing away with DM’s and players producing reams of useless background material for adventures as long as people are enjoying themselves. What I’m talking about is people who don’t want to spend large amounts of their free time preparing for the game. Certainly D&D has been around long enough and been popularized by online RPG’s to the point that most non-tabletop players implicitly get the concept.

Why isn’t there a mainstream version of the game? Something along the lines of having pre-made or mix and match powers characters with pre-made adventures (with multiple options for encounters) that can be played in two to three hours. The rules would have to be rock solid and simple to learn (that is they keep the math to a minimum, like only one modifier per roll). There can still be a hobby version. More options and details, with about the same rules.

Characters can advance from adventure to adventure by a simple general enhancement or new characters could be used just for each adventure. Adventures can be modules, made up by the DM, or even randomly rolled. (Imagine a book of pre-made encounters and options.)

4e has taken D&D the closest to this possibility. The rules of the game are as clearly defined as they’ve ever been (except for skill challenges). It has only fallen down in that the game exclusively appeals to hobbyists. It is still filled with a bewildering array of character choices and options. That’s for the RPG’er, but a hard sell to the non-gamer. Would you play Monopoly if you had to spend any time rolling up and building your piece?

To play 4e you need at least three hardbacks. It is somewhat implied you need the others, along with minis, mats, and other physical pieces. Essentials trims to two softback books (maybe three), along with minis, mats, and other physical pieces. Either way it’s a substantial investment for someone who isn’t already a player.

Essentials was an attempt at building a simpler game. However, it’s still totally compatible with the full version, therefore making it functionally just as complex. While it makes characters easier to build and play, they still work and progress in the same fashion as regular characters. In short, I don’t know who this version of the game was written for. It’s less options for the gamer, while still too complex for the non-gamer.

Perhaps Essentials was only a further gouge of the hard core gamer, who is buying it for the rules update. And there are two more reasons for the non-gamer not to buy into D&D: constant mandatory updates (and the always impending threat of the new version) and having to pay for them. This segues into the worst problem of 4e in terms of new players, having to buy a subscription to the website. Oh no, it’s certainly not mandatory. You can make up a new character by hand. You don’t have to have the rules updates. Sort of. That experienced players turn to the character builder to create and advance their characters is a pretty harsh indictment. Essentials may make it easier to create, but not so much advance. The rules updates are for geeks, who you’re inevitably going to run into when you’re playing (or you are one). Since they have the rules to back them up, everyone has to go along with them.

As an aside, this is something of an improvement over 3e. You had to do your math yourself there. If there was a bunch of rules updates you’d have to buy a whole new set of books called (.5). It’s hard to fault WOTC for exploiting gamers, given their willingness to shell out for half-ass new versions of the game.

Continued.

Retro Post: In the Beginning

[While I was frustrated and locked out of the blog, I kept writing anyway.  So this is dated (not quite sure when), but perhaps somewhat interesting.] 


Old School D&D: The characters are all generic and fragile. Environments are big dungeons filled with monsters and treasure. Characters survived by caution, wits, and luck. The rules were vague and houseruled for each group. Player choices involved picking which dungeon passage to go down next. It’s the DM’s world. Role-playing happened, even though unsupported by the rules.

Around Second Edition: Characters are more personalized. The rules were better organized, more concise, with more options. The environment consists of pre-plotted story adventures. There is heavy Role-playing, though still unsupported by the rules. (Even Gygax penned an article in Dungeon once about “pushing the pendulum the other way” on getting too into character.) Characters survived by following the script. Not a whole lot of player choices as it’s even more the DM’s world.

Third Edition: The rules are now really detailed and complex in practice. Characters are no longer rolled, but built. Complex, highly personalized, and tougher. Of course, so are the monsters and NPC’s. Characters survived by being built well. Role-playing happened between encounters, with story linking the encounters. Player choices are very involved insofar as character creation and advancement. In game, either face the DM’s pre-planned encounters or get railroaded into them. It’s still the DM’s world, but he seems terribly overworked building encounters. Random encounters and improvisation are a thing of the past.

Indy games: Perhaps in reaction, or as an alternative, or perhaps finally to create an RPG where the Role-playing is supported by the rules, non-D&D games flourish (critically, not financially). Highly character centered. Conflict is more personality oriented than martially. The motivations, build up, and hype is more important than the fight itself. The players dictate the adventure.

Fourth Edition: Characters have more options than ever and are now indestructible. It is a computer encouraged (if not demanded) environment for creation. The game centers on tactical combat encounters. Survival is not really a problem. The rules are precise. Houserules are dead. Role-playing is there solely to kill time while setting up the next combat encounter. Players now willingly submit to the DM’s world, otherwise there’s no adventure. The DM is now more of an observer and a programmer of sorts.

Pathfinder: It’s Third Edition with better grappling rules. Cool default game world with interesting Adventure Paths, though.

OSR: Much like Old School, but the rules are better organized and streamlined. Sandbox play is encouraged to give players the maximum choice in adventuring. (Though I suspect this is not really used in practice. Settings are actually built through improvisation and actual play.)

The Future?: Fifth Edition features Pokemon-style gladiator-like tournaments in game stores using computers, minis, and collectible cards. The D&D name may even be scrapped at some point, since it has so much negative baggage attached to it. Pathfinder’s rules will crush under their own weight due to too many supplements. They will be forced to come out with a new edition and death spiral will begin. Indy? Are they still publishing? OSR fades into the background until it is rediscovered again. Perhaps the D&D name is bought by some company who comes out with a nice, simple, open-ended fantasy game that everyone, hobbyist and casual player, can enjoy.

[Don't laugh about that Fifth Edition prediction crack.  It came damn close to coming true.  4th edition (and even Pathfinder) were experimenting with making collectible cards and on-line content part of the game just before the new edition was announced.  I don't know what brought them back from the edge, but thank heavens.]

Finally on Adventuring Groups, Last One Promise

Get a Job!

[Apparently I hadn’t made the case against Adventuring Groups clear to myself up to this point, hence another rant.]

I’m talking about your characters, of course, your D&D ones specifically. Now, this might seem unnatural and awkward, but is only so in context of D&D, not other RPG’s, or real life.

In other game settings, the characters have professions: superhero, smuggler, trader, rebel, soldier, gunslinger, scientist, journalist, businessman, pirate, etc. Okay maybe in the White Wolf games, characters don’t have occupations, unless you consider being a vampire or a werewolf a full time job. (Being dark and brooding can take up a lot of time, but you’re not getting paid for it, unless you start a band.)

These characters, with different skill sets, form some sort of professional organization with a stated or implied purpose. The group’s function has a basis in the real world; past, present, or future. Even superheroes are essentially law enforcement or a defense organization. (Presumably, they keep secret identities so that they can earn a living, without whoring out their powers.)

In D&D though, the characters are adventurers. In the real world at any point in history, “adventurer” is a nebulous word, but it is always used in conjunction with a profession, like explorer, archaeologist, mercenary, or merchant. “Adventurer” is a gift word, like poet or lover. It’s something someone else calls you, in this case, after you’ve had adventures. The point is that it’s not a job.

Just to pick two literary fantasy examples. Conan was an adventurer. But he got that title while being a thief, a bandit, a pirate, a mercenary, and a soldier, and while in the company of other such people. The Fellowship of the Ring had adventures. They certainly went into a dungeon-like underground and killed Orcs. They’re even the prototype for the multi-classed, multi-raced adventuring group. (No Cleric though. They must have been using the 4e rules.) But, they weren’t looting all the way and looking for fights so they could level up. No, these guys had a purpose, a limited and sharply defined one. Their adventures came while pursuing that goal.

In either example, we see a company formed for a purpose and the characters joining to make it happen. The group may be part of a larger organization, like a warrior order, or perhaps just a couple thieves casing their next rich target. It could be a broad goal, like joining a pirate crew to plunder the seas, or maybe a narrow one, like a mercenary troop formed to escort a group of merchants to a destination. If the group has a narrow task and completes it, they can move on to getting another job, task, or quest, or even managing the consequences of their success.

Fortune or fate, incurred by the characters’ actions or perhaps outside of their control, may dissolve or evolve a long-standing group into a new group, like Conan’s horsemen raiders getting wiped out and while on the run, he ends up joining a group of pirates. Or, after the Fellowship to destroy the ring is broken up, Frodo and Sam decide to carry on, while Aragorn and the others focus on rallying Rohan against Sauroman.

[Well, this is at least a bit more coherent and convincing. What are my current thoughts on the subject? Standard Adventuring Groups are okay, I guess, but really, can we do at least a little better just strangers in tavern, gathered to investigate a rumor, or worse, a bunch of characters with voluminous, unrelated backstories before the adventures even begin?]

Your patience is about to be rewarded.  Next up is the Fantasy Island setting.  Yes, your characters will be sent to an island where all their dreams will come true.  Or will they? 

Wait. 

I misread that. 

Next up is the Fantasy Ireland setting.  Okay, that makes more sense.  I remember doing a whole 10 minutes of research on Wikipedia about Ireland, so I'm pretty much an expert on the subject.  Yeah, Fantasy Island would be way harder.  I'd have to stat up Mr. Roarke and Tattoo, because you know the first thing the players would do is try to kill them to take over the island.  How much XP for Ricardo Montalban anyway?  What's the AC of that white suit?  It's gotta be magical.  Nevermind, just have a pint of green beer ready for a belated St. Patrick's Day post.

Yet Still More on Adventuring Groups

[Okay, at last this thing starts to peter out.]


The DM’s complaint against a group with a job is obvious: adventures aren’t written that way. Well, now you don’t have to use any of those cheesy plot hooks to get the players to do something. I think most adventures may play out about the same way, but now there’s a distinct goal for the characters to work towards. Some change to the XP system may be needed to reflect this, as killing things and taking their stuff may no longer be appropriate.

From the players’ standpoint, they’ve lost some freedom of action. Moreover, they now have something to lose in adventuring other than their characters’ lives: their jobs and social status. Whenever they fail in a goal, or make a bad decision, it may directly effect them economically or worse. As freebooting adventurers certainly you could gain a bad reputation, but you’re not going any lower socially. As a group with a direction though, you may start off with legitimacy, authority, status, and even wealth.

With the directed group, there will automatically be a mechanism for cycling in replacement characters, as opposed to just finding random people in random places to replace dead members. A sandbox setting should come to life. Instead of the characters being a contaminant in a sterile system, they’re introduced as fully active participants in it.

How does this work with a big dungeon? Depends on why the group wants to go in. Looting and killing will probably still occur, but now there’s a goal and the group may need to show some results.

As the group becomes more enmeshed in the setting, their status in it will change, for better or worse. The group should be working towards a goal. It might somewhat vague and general, long term, or quite limited and specific. The group may dissolve upon the completion or resolution of the goal. They could become another kind of group, or find another goal for their existing one.

There should be a real threat of losing the group’s jobs or status based on the characters’ actions. Outside events and beyond the characters’ control can disrupt their status.

[That’s it. It just sort of stops there. I must have broken a fingernail or ran out of scotch. No, I don’t feel like adding to this or cleaning it up. Don’t go yet though, there’s still a little more on this topic.]

Still More on Adventuring Groups

[The promised blathering continues from the previous post.]


There’s no worthwhile direction in any version of D&D explaining how or why the players’ characters should become a group and go adventuring. Therefore, this is the implied setting of the game. Random people get together randomly and decide to go kill monsters and find treasure. This setup doesn’t happen in every game, or even any game, but that’s what most of them boil down to. A few tiny bits of motivation can be artificially grafted on, or the DM can create a big railroad setting. Doesn’t matter. The players have little say in it or it’s ignored.

By virtue of these directionless parties, all published D&D adventures have no real motivation for the characters other than a few lame, cheesy plot hooks. The players might not bite, after all their group has no motivation to do anything. So, the DM may have to force it or engage in some creative improvisation.

Adventures created by the DM suffer the same problem. He might create a sandbox, but can’t write in what the characters’ place in it is, since they don’t have one. How could they? No profession, no motivation, no objective that isn’t meta-gaming?

By giving no group direction to allow complete freedom of choice in adventuring, you’re actually forced into only one choice: a completely generic set of adventurers. With no inherent motivation in the group, the DM is forced to run a vanilla adventure with nothing in it that’s really personal to the characters.

A game which is trying to be all things to all players, ends up being nothing to everyone.

Group creation needs a seat at the gaming table, a prominent one and settled before the first adventure. Since there’s nothing concrete in a rulebook concerning this, anyone who agrees with this premise, is left to their own devices. Go Old School. After rolling 3d6 in order to make up characters, roll on another table of professions for the group. Maybe another to determine the characters’ relationship to one another, and another to give them starting motivation. Alternatively, the DM may pitch possible settings and the players pitch groups for the setting. Or vice versa. Or something totally different. The important thing is that there is agreement among the players and with DM about why the characters are together and what they’re doing.

The group doesn’t have to be stuck with a choice forever. In fact, there may be tremendous anxiety in keeping their jobs or social status, which is what motivates their adventuring.

[Wait. There’s more coming.]