Delving 4E (Part 2)

Since last Thursday, I've been trying to figure out how I wanted to approach the follow-up to my Part 1 post on 4th Edition D&D. In the end, it's a fairly silly question any way you slice it. Most folks ain't playing 4E these days and it is (currently) an unsupported and unpopular line. In other words, "who cares?" Write however you want as most folks have moved on to something different (5E, Pathfinder, S&W, etc.) anyway.

Mmm. I care, I guess. At least enough to keep me somewhat focused on a particular path of discussion.

I want to first start with an admission or two. I dig on war-games. I've played war games (mostly Warhammer 40K) and I dig on the maneuver of forces and the crushing of enemies. I like (fantasy) combat in general. Many of my old RPG designs get started when I think of some new, interesting, or innovative way to run combats. This is, perhaps, the stupidest way to originate a new RPG, by the way (since RPGs are, or should be, about more than "fighting stuff"), but I know I'm not the only designer that gets the buzzing bonnet from a single element of game mechanic/system. My particular interests tend towards the violent. Don't ask me why...I can only explain it in terms of astrology.

[for the curious: a 5th house Mars in Ares, un-aspected, save for a direct opposition to Uranus. Make what jokes you must]

Well that and my dad used to watch a lot of old John Wayne movies on the TV (back in the non-cable days of three or four channels). The Battle of the Bulge, Davy Crocket, etc. Who knows how that might have warped me in my formative years.

So, in case it's not terribly obvious, any objections I have to 4E ain't necessarily regarding its conceptualization as an encounter-based game of combat on the small (skirmish) scale. It's not D&D (unless, I suppose, you are one of those unfortunate few introduced to the brand with the 4th Edition, and thus have no other frame of reference), but that doesn't mean it ain't an enjoyable, playable tabletop game.

That being said, the point of this post is NOT to laud it "as a game" unrelated to D&D. Neither is the point of this post meant to bash it for all the ways 4E "isn't D&D." No, the point of this post (and maybe the point of this series) is to talk about the elements I find within 4E that I like, appreciate, find interesting, and/or wouldn't mind adapting to the Dungeons & Dragons game. That is to say, to something I consider a "real" (i.e. traditional) edition of D&D...or perhaps another fantasy heartbreaker.

[what's a "real" edition? See this old post where I listed the identifiable common elements of D&D. While my perspective may have evolved in the last five years, that's a good enough place to start]

As the song says, these are a few of my favorite things. Just starting with the 4E Players Handbook [*takes moment to pour wine*]:

Let's start with Chapter 1 (no, I'm not going to discuss the art/look of the thing. The 4E books are pretty to look at, and fairly inclusive gender-wise, if pretty underrepresented of human-like "people" of color). The first seven pages are the best introduction to any edition of D&D ever. It's a bit of a flimflam (having a DM doesn't make the D&D game "unique" in 2008, and there's a lot left unsaid about how much of the D&D experience the game intends to shortcut), but man if it doesn't make one excited to be cracking the book. In fact, it's actually pretty darn inspiring right up until the section in Page 9 marked How to Play, where it all falls apart. Since I'm trying to be positive (i.e. constructive) I'm going to skip most of the rest of this.

The idea of a Core Mechanic is not a terrible one. D&D nearly made the jump to this with 3rd Edition, and it certainly cuts down on the "search and handling" time. While it's fun to have a bunch of different, arcane systems (surprise versus initiative versus reaction versus attacks versus saves versus spells) to represent different elements of Old School play, there's something to be said for tightening things up...especially if its in aid of easier mechanical play to allow more time in imaginative "free play." However, that doesn't appear to be the reason for the streamlining...certainly not the main reason.

NOW, before I get to "Making Characters" I need to have an aside. I LOVE tactics. I'm GOOD AT playing tactically. BUT I'm pretty f'ing terrible at strategy. Or rather, strategy (in war games and RPGs) is definitely a secondary consideration for me (in addition to being a weak suit). My primary priority, especially in games, is playing something I think is "cool" or "interesting" and then making it work to the best of its ability. Optimizing army/character builds isn't what I do: I play themes and fluff. I like creating unique (often "sub-optimal") forces and then trying to win with them. This makes me absolutely hopeless when it comes to being munchkin-y...and yet my "compete level" is a little too high for non-munchkin players.

SO, for example, I like point buy attributes (as long as its quick math) because they allow me to create characters of my own concept, but I hate min-maxing strategies (in both myself and others). I like the amount of customization 4E gives, and the fact that is limited in scope (you get a choice from three or four options every level), but I hate that most often the people to whom this game appeals are going to be taking optimal choices, that the game encourages hardcore gamism so as not to be left out of the loop of shining your own light in the encounters which define the arena for (pretty much) all play in 4E. Yes, I could make the baddest-ass dracoform warlord in the game, but I don't want to. But if I don't (or at least make something comparable) I face potential ridicule (or deprotagonism) unless I'm playing with folks who have the same weird sensibilities as myself. And if we all have those sensibilities 4E is set up to penalize us for not possessing the right mix of abilities. Subject to a lot of DM fiat and adjustment, of course.

OKAY...so in theory I like the tact 4E takes. I like the limiting of options and builds. I like the easy core mechanic (half level + adjustments added to D20 roll). For the most part, I like most of the classes and "builds" that are on display (the same cannot be said for the races or handling of the races...for the most part, I really dislike these). But I'm going to have to talk about specific classes in another post, or this will get too long.

I like how 4E takes (what had been) 3E's "saving throws" and simply makes them passive defenses (the same as armor class), though I'd be tempted to alter the exact list. I've written before about chopping saves (all of last September, in fact), and while 4E does it a different trail, it's headed to the same destination (getting rid of an extra random die roll). 4E's actual "saving throw" (a D20 roll made to see if a sustained effect wears off, checked at the end of a turn) isn't a bad idea, and I find its implementation "realistic" (i.e. level does nothing to improve the chance, but something like "dwarves resistance to poison" does). Oh Just By The Way...just regarding defenses, I really like how the applicable ability modifier is your choice of two (higher of INT or DEX for reflex defense, for example)...all the ability scores have their usefulness, and this either/or mechanic both makes sense AND stops penalizing players for a particular choice (and cuts down on min-maxing benefits).

I actually dig 4E's five-fold alignment quite well. Thank you, thank you for getting rid of "Chaotic Good" and "Lawful Evil" and all the various "neutrals." Unaligned makes so much more sense as does having only two extremes (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil). Not that it yet provides any mechanical benefit, but if you're going to have the arbitrary ethical description, this isn't a bad way to present it, IMO.

I really like the way 4E handles multiple languages (everyone starts with 2 or 3, depending on race, and then more can be added through a Linguist feat). Besides Ugly Americans like myself, it's fairly common for people to speak two languages, and has been throughout human history, regardless of "intelligence." On the flip side, having a high intelligence is no guarantee of speaking multiple languages, as such is really a matter of training (emphasis) and practice. Too bad 4E's not really about communication...

[yeah, all that stuff about social interaction, mannerisms, and backgrounds seems out-o-place for this game]

"Retraining" is a nice mechanic, but only necessary given the extreme customization that occurs over the course of a character's career. [Hmm, running low on wine here...]

We're skipping classes for the moment...SKILLS. I'm not a fan of skill systems for D&D (sorry), but if you really want one, this is the best I've seen. A limited selection with some "blanket skills" (like Athletics and Thievery), and a simple one-time bonus of +5 for being trained in a particular skill (the equivalent of adding 10 levels of adventuring experience). I have some quibbles: opposed checks seem silly given that you could use the same core mechanic for skills against a "defense value," for example, and I dislike things like Perception and Insight being learned "skills" (this isn't Sherlock Holmes...plus they're kind of the same thing, no? Just make them a defense called Perception with an either/or of INT/WIS!). But I certainly like these better than both 3E's version and the "non-weapon proficiencies" of earlier editions.

Oh, yeah...and can Intimidate be used on bloodied PCs to force them to surrender?! From everything I read, the answer would seem to be "yes" which is both awesome and de-protagonizing at the same time. It's the first time I've seen an edition of D&D apply capitulation mechanics to player characters (outside of a failed save versus fear magic or the equivalent). While most people probably ignore this kind of thing, intimidation/morale mechanics is something I love working with (in my own designs)...fights just shouldn't be "to the death" all that often (intelligent beings surrender and unintelligent ones flee).

[by the way, I would love to run 4E in an uber-antagonistic way that aims for TPKs in the "fairest" way possible. More on that if I get around to discussing the DMG]

Feats are a nice, short list, limited further in that many feats are class or race specific. Considering 4E's reputation for super heroic action, I found these surprisingly restrained (compared to 3E). Limits and restraints are "good things" when it comes to skills. I also think I prefer this version of multi-classing; I'd have to see how it works in-play. While it appears a little clunky, I suspect that's more based on unfamiliarity (compared to 3E's mechanics, with which I am very familiar but which I dislike). But it looks to bring some sanity back to the concept of the adventuring archetype that "picks up a little bit of X" for their repertoire.

Not much to say in an equipment section surprisingly light on 10' poles and hemp rope (there ain't none), except perhaps that a lot of creativity is on display in this book with all these different enchantment types (though to me, much of the magic rings as hollow as a game of Diablo).

I'll have to deal with combat in a later post (if at all), but with regard to the chapter on Adventuring, I've got a couple thoughts. Action points are kind of interesting, but being tied to milestones (which for 4E is dependent on the whole encounter structure of the system) makes for a bit of a "no go" for me...trying to play 4E in a true D&D style would necessitate creating a different system for awarding action points, probably along the lines of X number per session dependent on PC's level of experience, or the anticipated number of encounters in a session (however, their emphasis on increased combat effectiveness might mean they should get the axe entirely).

I actually like the whole idea of "short rests" and "long rests," though I don't see why short rests have been cut down to five minutes in length (in B/X and other old editions, characters are presumed to spend time resting after an encounter, though always for a minimum of one turn, i.e. ten minutes...failure results in characters becoming fatigued). Actually, counting the time spent resting can lead to old school-type resource management, regarding food and light sources and whatnot...though it's pretty clear that no self-respecting 4E party should hit the Underdark without a wizard and his/her unlimited Light cantrip. "Keeping Watch" is another example of where a simple Perception defense would be appropriate.

Rituals also add an element of time/resource management that I like...but I'll talk about those in a later post, as this is already waaaay loooong.

Getting Folks Down

[AKA "Considering the Role of Unarmed Attacks in Abstract Combat"]

I'm a combat-phile. I'm a pacifist in real life and spend mucho time explaining to my child why violence is a terrible, terrible thing. I'm anti-war, anti-gun...hell, I'm pretty much anti-professional fighting (including boxing).

[yes, I realize there is a degree of violence in American football and that this is part of its appeal as a sport...we all draw the line at the hypocrisies we're willing to live with]

And yet the study of violence, weapons, and combat...both historical and present day...is a personal, unreasonable, serious interest of mine. Actually, "interest" might not be a strong enough term, though "passion" is probably too strong. I've previously speculated that in a past life I was probably some sort of bookie or super-fan of gladiatorial death sports, and this contributes to my semi-obsession. If I was an actual warrior (or someone who died by violence) I would likely not be so attracted to combat this life around.

But, ya' know what? Past life speculation is mostly mental masturbation, if perhaps slightly more practical (from a developmental standpoint) than researching poleaxes. I accept the dichotomy of my weirdness. And besides, this is a gaming blog with an emphasis on D&D, right? My readers will forgive my masturbatory research on bloodletting a lot faster than my digressions on goofy woo-woo New Age stuff.

Such is the blog-o-sphere in which we reside.

So...I'm a combat-phile: a real Martian (i.e. of the Mars persuasion), at least when it comes to favorite subjects of study. And so it is that I dig on trying to model cool combat stuff in my gaming, even as I try to make gaming about something other than combat.

[maybe I should be playing 4th Edition...Jeez!]

And when I find another combat-phile (professed or not) floating around the blog-o-sphere, I can purloin "food for thought" for days. Such is the case with Mr. Taylor's Spells & Steel blog. The particular blog posts I'm waxing on today can be found here and here. The quick summary:

• Even in armed combat, the empty hand and grappling (locks, throws, and strikes) was immensely important to medieval combat, and
• His design concepts for allowing unarmed maneuvers to occur on "critical" attack rolls (and how he chooses to model these types of attack)

Now for me, I am not interested in modeling actual, specific, blow-by-blow combat...my opinion has been (and continues to be) that abstract combat system plus active imagination provides the potential for far more realism than turn-by-turn, tactical detail...and at the same time has the greater potential for cinematic, flamboyant combat, too.

[sorry, Brian Gleichman...this is not the least of things on which we disagree]

An attack roll tells you whether or not you were successful at inflicting damage on your opponent (and using my revised combat system, it also tells you how successful you were if you did, in fact, succeed). The detail of what happens in a given round is a matter of the narration provided by the DM (and/or player) based on the amount of damage inflicted. It is presumed that a proficient fighter using an arming sword (or whatever) is elbowing and punching and rapping the guy with the pommel in addition to "cutting-and-thrusting." If the damage inflicted is less than mortal, the narration can (and maybe should) include some sort of unarmed, non-blade/bloodletting action.

Having said that, there's something about the concept of downing your opponent that begs to be modeled.

Historically, armored knights were juggernauts on the battlefield...man-sized tanks in an age that was conspicuously lacking in efficient anti-tank weapons. The best, surest way to kill an armored man was to get him on him back and drive a long, sharp weapon through a visor slit or a chink in the guy's carapace. Even Chainmail (ahh...again with the much-beloved Chainmail) models this in their man-to-man combat mechanics. The 2D6 roll needed to kill a man in plate armor is:

Dagger: 12

Sword: 10

Spear: 11

Pole Arm: 9

However, in all of these weapons, the target number drops to 7 if the opponent is "dismounted and prone." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell there are no rules in Chainmail for getting a man prone.

Footing, or lack thereof, can be a decisive factor in hand-to-hand combat. Bad footing (specifically, being bogged down in a muddy battlefield) is what allowed Henry V to achieve such an incredibly lopsided victory against the French in the Battle of Agincourt. 

And, so it is that I've been spending a little time working on the subject of how to get folks down...as in down on the ground.

The number of weapons in my new heartbreaker are fairly limited...moreso even than the weapon list of B/X (which is quite a bit more limited than later editions of D&D). The reasons for this will (perhaps) be explained in a later post...but for the most part, weapons have a maximum damage rating of six, meaning that (without adjustment for high strength) the best damage one can achieve is six points, by rolling six over the defensive class ("AC") of an opponent. Just to reiterate, the "attack roll" is your die roll to see how effective you were at inflicting damage upon your opponent in the (10 second) melee round...a minimal success means only minimal damage was inflicted. In terms of locks  (for damage) and strikes (for damage), this is inclusively assumed within the (gauged success) of the attack roll. Breaking a dude's arm, or giving him deep bleeder might be the result of 4 or 5 damage (depending on the number of HPs the opponent has) while punching him in the gut or clubbing him with the hilt of you weapon might represent 1 or 2 damage. Okay?

But what about throws and takedowns? These bestow an effect on an opponent (what 5th Edition might call "conditions") along with the possible addition of damage (depending on how hard the opponent hits the dirt). I don't have "critical hits" like Mr. Taylor (though rolling high is a better success than just barely hitting one's target number), so I have to consider a different mechanic to impose my will on my opponent, and I think the best way to do so is by sacrificing damage inflicted.

SO...as an attacker, you can choose to lose four points from the damage of a successful attack in order to down your opponent. This means you cannot "down" an opponent unless your attack roll is at least moderately successful (four over the target needed to hit), and it limits the amount of damage inflicted to 0-2 (unless the person doing the throwing is exceptionally strong and skilled)...in which case you might break the poor fool's neck or dislocate one of his joints.

Now there is a caveat here...a trained fighter isn't likely to be flipped by a peasant, no matter how lucky the attack roll. To represent this, an opponent cannot be downed unless the attacker's attack bonus equals or exceeds the attack bonus of the opponent. Attack bonus (for PCs) is determined by class and level: +1 per level for fighters; +1 per two levels for all others. Using multiple attackers (ganging up on the tough guy) can boost your attack rating for this purpose, but you're still going to need a lot of peasants to take down a veteran warrior.

"That tickles!"

[takedowns should also be limited to humanoids of "usual anatomy" that do not exceed a certain size...I don't really see ogres being subject to judo throws]

This actually melds well with the combat system as it stands. I said most weapons have a max damage of six. Unarmed attacks actually have a max damage of two (and suffer a -4 penalty to their attack rolls...it's really tough to knock someone out with your fists when their wearing full battle kit). This means its easier to takedown someone when you're using a weapon...whether because you can hook their leg or their arm or achieve a lock or use the weapon's leverage or because you just don't have a disadvantage of wading in empty-handed. True, this means that a character lacking strength cannot achieve a takedown without a weapon to assist (because the maximum damage that can be inflicted doesn't equal four)...but if you really want your aikido master character, you can choose to specialize in unarmed combat, which increases you max damage with a weapon by +2. So there.

[having said that, I might need to add in some sort of exception for the cinematic "running tackle" maneuver...maybe allow a character's full damage bonus for such a maneuver, rather than half? This would allow characters with STR 14 to takedown an opponent with an unarmed attack, though the attacker would likewise end up prone. Heck, maybe just give a +2 attack/damage to such a suicidal tactic...something to thing about]

So what happens once you get your opponent down on the ground? Do we get a 2D6 auto-kill result like Chainmail? That hardly seems fair (or appropriate) for my heroic fantasy game. If I was using 5E's advantage/disadvantage mechanic in this game, I'd be tempted to bring that into play against a fallen target (that is, in fact, what 5E does for the "prone" condition)...but so far I've been able to hold off on using A/D in this game (I am using it all over the place in my rewrite of Cry Dark Future).

I think that what I want to do is give a substantial bonus to attacks against the downed opponent...something like +4 to the attack roll until the defender can get back on his feet. The prone dude needs to lose his action/attack if he's going to regain his footing...and you can't fight with a two-handed weapon from a prone position (you can, but you won't have the same leverage/damage inflicting ability). You probably can't use a shield either while prone (at least, not while making attacks from the ground). A +4 bonus is pretty substantial...it doesn't negate the wearing of heavy armor completely (that would be +6), but it renders it less effective than "light armor" (you lose the ability to increase distance between yourself and your opponent). It means you're going to have a better chance of inflicting serious damage on your downed foe...which is, after all, what I was aiming for here.

"Who's laughing now, buddy?"

Neat, huh?

: )

Warriors of the Red Planet Beta

Thomas Denmark's Warriors of the Red Planet is now available as a Beta version from Lulu for a measly $4. I follow the man's Original Edition Fantasy blog solely for the beautiful artwork, and WotRP looks like a fantastic piece of work...especially exciting, if you're interested in a Sword & Planet type game based on Burrough's Barsoom (who isn't?) using an OD&D style ruleset (ditto).

Unfortunately, being in Paraguay means I can't get this myself. Dammit.

I had some all-too-brief rules in Book 3 of Five Ancient Kingdoms for converting 5AK to this kind of setting, but Thomas has chosen to go "whole hog" and I salute him for it. Hopefully, some version of Warriors of the Red Planet will be available when I get back to the States.

You can purchase it here. The forum for discussion on gameplay is here.

Sword & Gun fantasy on the Red Frontier!

News Flash:Play-Testing Makes You Feel Good

Doubt…self doubt…is a terrible thing.

Two Wednesdays ago, I woke up feeling great. Well, kind of. Certainly I’d gotten too little sleep (and too much beer) the night before, resulting in an upset stomach and severe headache the entire day. This didn’t do much for the chronic neck and back pain I’ve been suffering. It was grey and drizzly all day after several days of sunshine, and my phone at work was ringing off the hook all day (which, as I’m not in a sales profession, is NOT a good thing).

But regardless, I was feeling good. There was a lightness…hell, a bounce…to my step, even as I was dragging my sorry ass into work a little late. And it was due entirely to the good play-testing the night before.

Now good gaming is its own reward for the most part. I’ve certainly blogged before about the elation and deep satisfaction I feel after a good gaming session, whether I’m running the game or playing in someone else’s. I’ve also written how disappointed or even ANGRY I get when a game session doesn’t go well…it’s like I wasted several hours of time, including the build-up and anticipation beforehand. I LOVE to game. Who knows why? For some folks, it’s an enjoyable, occasional pastime. For me…I don’t know. It’s just something more. A needed escape, I guess; a means of creative expression. Maybe just a chance to stretch my “imagination muscle.”

Astrologically, I would probably point to the emphasized Mars in the 5th house…a person with Pluto in the 5th house would be one of those people who have a hard-time “growing up.” With Mars in that location…well, it indicates this is where I gain or lose energy (and where I’m prone to upset when thwarted). There’s also a lot of ego surrounding an Aries Mars in the 5th house…which is par for the course with a 10th house Pluto and Capricorn 2nd containing Venus, I might add.

Whatever; the why doesn’t really matter all that much. The mental result does. And I get off on good gaming and get pissed about games that go poorly.

But it’s taking it to a whole ‘nother level when you’re dealing with your own game, one that you’ve designed and written yourself. So when a play-test goes well…especially with a game that you’ve been tinkering with for more than a year due to the flaws and frustrations it’s caused…well, it’s enough to make you forget (mostly) about a raging hangover.

Because CDF (the game we’ve beep play-testing) has caused me frustration. And that frustration can lead to self-doubt: doubt about whether you have completely wasted your time. Doubt about whether or not anyone would even enjoy such a game. Doubt about whether or not you should even spend your energy on “design.” I mean, you still have B/X (or LL or AD&D or Pathfinder or whatever)…just house rule it and run with it forever, Amen, right? Throw in a game of Traveller or Boot Hill every now and then for a change-up but just stick to what works and forget the idea of writing anything besides flowery character backgrounds or adventure scenarios for your existing game. Forget your compulsion to do anything more…’cause dammit, you’re just not good enough.

See that? Follow that line of thinking you end up hiding your light under a bush.

I’m not saying every gamer is a designer waiting to bloom. I’m saying that every human has a means (or two) of creative expression and when you find it (and usually you’ll know what it is, deep down, ‘cause it excites your passion) you have to find a way to pursue it in spite of any reservations that might stifle you…things like not being good enough, or smart enough, or educated enough. No, you may not “succeed” and make oodles of money or acquire fame, but you’ll be a helluva’ lot more satisfied with your life…much moreso than if you allow your own nay-saying doubts stop you from pursuing something you enjoy.

I recently had the opportunity to re-read Thomas Sugrue’s biography of Edgar Cayce, There is a River (I highly recommend it to anyone…a good, quick read and both fascinating and enjoyable). Reading about Cayce’s self-doubts about his own unconventional work…despite the great good and help he did for so many people…really helps put your own BS in perspective and (to me anyway) demonstrates how important the MEANS is, not just the END. We’re all going to end our present lives eventually anyway; how do you want to look back at the way you lived it?

I’m going to stand for courageous creativity.

So, regarding the play-test: it went great. As with my previous play-test, I’ve been running an old Shadowrun adventure, converted over to my own system. This particular adventure is Demon in a Bottle, which is kind-of-bad-but-not-terrible. It’s very flavorful due mainly to Tim Bradstreet’s artwork (the story narrative sounds both poorly written and banal to my ear), and an interesting not-quite-McGuffin combined with the usual SR triple-cross-SNAFU isn’t quite demolished by some ham-fisted railroading.

Or maybe it is. After all, in the original adventure it’s up to an NPC to come in and be the “hero” in the end.

But, as said, that’s the original adventure. I ran the opening scenes twice (over two game sessions with different players) in order to test some things, and have decided the rest of the mission will be completely “off-book” (i.e. I’ll be spinning the rest from whole cloth). Hopefully, when we meet next

[Note to Players: TOMMOROW (Tuesday) at the BARANOF, 8PM or thereabouts]

…hopefully, they’ll enjoy the session at least as much as I enjoyed our last one. Highlights from the last session (for me) included the following:

• Players really embracing the Alignment rules (and earning the bennies of playing in character).


• Vehicle evasion/skill rules working the way I wanted…quick, loose, and fun while still defined.


• Having a boost ganger perform a boarding action on a moving vehicle and subsequently getting blown away by a hail of bullets.


• Good (and creative) use of the witchcraft rules by the witch play-tester


• Surprise and Initiative rules


• NPC rules


• Illusion spells and flux working the way I intended


• Learning what other “fat” needs to be cut out of the rules

Regarding the latter, I’ve now found over multiple play-tests that I never use the shock/stun rules…which tells me, um, why should I even bother including ‘em? Cut. Keeping track of ammo/bullets expended also seems to be something we neglect in the heat of the moment…I’m thinking of knocking that out, too (or just stream-lining it). I’m going to play around with that tomorrow, I think.

While I was in California last week, K had the opportunity to run another play-test session of CDF with her group, and reported they, too, had a very enjoyable time. They have also skipped the shock rules and stopped counting bullets, which leads me to think I’m on the right track dropping and updating the rules. She says they had a lot of fun with grenades (who doesn’t?) and that the sorcerer was able to knock himself out with flux for most of the session while still contributing mightily to the success of the mission. She also says the two players with prior Shadowrun experience enjoy the rules and are having a blast…which, of course, makes me uber-feliz.

They’re going to continue playing for at least the next couple weeks, which should give ‘em a good chance to work with the development/advancement and mission creation rules. I’m going to need to get on the ball to catch up!
: )

So, yeah: play-testing will re-commence tomorrow at the usual time. Folks in the Seattle area who are interested should email me...I still have a couple-three spots open for players.

Doesn't Everyone Have A "Robilar?"

I know that at least in one long-running campaign, I was Robilar.

I’ve been reading up on Gygax and Kuntz today…not too unusual for me, but perhaps that seems strange to some readers. Personally, I enjoy reading accounts of other people’s game-play (what one might call “actual play”) though rather than a blow-by-blow I prefer to hear “war stories.” You know, like “we went here and THIS happened and while that was going on here’s a funny anecdote or two.”

Some people don’t like hearing about someone else’s camping trip or vacation (or, God Knows, their D&D adventure), but this is the kind of fun conversation I like…so long as it doesn’t go with a three hour photo slide-show (a picture may be “worth a thousand words” but a good short story told with the humor of hindsight is worth a thousand pictures).

Anyway…reading interviews or stories or articles about the players of the early days are just as fun (for me) as reading about someone’s exploits in the Tomb of Horrors (and how their character died an agonizing and possibly humorous death). Not only does it give me insight into those “early days of the hobby,” it helps me feel connected to those primogenitors as a fellow role-player…and I like that.

So today I was reading about Gygax and Kuntz and how Gary liked to play 7+ sessions per week “back in the day,” and how Kuntz, perhaps frustrated by other players’ “lack of interest” did a lot of “solo adventuring” – and likewise, how the two would trade-off as Dungeon Master running each other’s favorite character through fiendish adventures.

The end result? Robilar and Mordenkainen had many adventures, amassed a great deal of power and treasure, rose to high levels, and became living legends in their campaign world…a campaign world (Greyhawk) that has been shared with the gaming world for many years now.

Doesn’t everyone’s long-running campaign have a Kuntz/Robilar player in it?

For whatever reason, some of us are more “into” this silly role-playing thing than others. Why do I have so many thoughts and stories on the game even though I stopped playing more than one-off games close to 20 years ago? Because when I was running long-term campaigns I was INTO IT, man.

I read somewhere on the internet (that old thing) how people these days have just too busy of schedules to put time into role-playing. Well, maybe that’s true (I guess it depends on one’s priority…certainly adults with kids and jobs have less time), but I sure had A LOT of time back then. Every day I would devote several hours to the role-playing hobby. Of course that was back before there was Facebook to update, or blogs/news reels to check, or blogs to post, or digital On Demand TV to watch…I think people just piss away their free time a lot these days. I know I do.

Dig: back in the day, I didn’t have all these “distractions.” Oh, I had a TV but I didn’t watch much of it. After school work, sports, Scouts, Church, and family dinners, most of my free time was divided between reading books and playing role-playing games…and I generally only read when no one was available to play. Even if we couldn’t meet face-to-face, we would talk on the phone for HOURS, tying up the land line (no cells in those days). Our parents eventually got “call waiting” – and then we’d do three-way calls! When one of us was out of “local call” range (generally because we were on family vacations somewhere…everyone took a couple on an annual basis) we would correspond by LETTER WRITING.

Talk about oldest school. You know how I blog? Well, that’s how I used to write letters: wordy and ranty and often. I’d fire off three to five page missives a day or every other day…and boy would my hand get cramped from writing. I did have fairly good handwriting, though.

The point is, this is how we gamed. D&D (and other RPGs to a lesser extent) was the King of entertainment. And those of us who were into it, were REALLY into it. And there were some of us…like my co-DM Jocelyn and myself…who were the “impatient types,” like Gygax and Kuntz. Who had to have it 7+ times per week.

That’s what I mean by “I was Robilar.” Maybe I should say I was Mordenkainen since, like Gary, I started as the DM and only got to play after Jocelyn (my Kuntz analogue) started acting as co-DM.

Whatever…either way, our personal characters (which, like Robilar and Mordenkainen, shared the same campaign world) grew to be rich and powerful (mainly through the extra attention rather than extraordinary play) and eventually became the legends of the campaign world.

Kind of ugly.

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings (certainly not those of Mr. Kuntz!), but in hindsight this appears (to me) to be, well, kind of a “DM’s Pet” thing. Though honestly, it’s only really bad when the DM plays favorites with their “diva player” while other players are present. Hopefully, that’s not the case. I know from personal experience that the DM tends to be HARDER on these “star” PCs when other players are at the table, for several reasons:

- The DM wants to avoid any claims of partiality
- The DM over-compensates for any perceived inequities (real or not)
- The other players’ resentment of the diva gets emphasized by the DM
- The diva player isn’t used to competing for attention from the DM

I don’t know if that’s how things rolled for Gary and Rob…certainly some of the Robilar “war stories” (like being chased over half the world) sounds like the kind of thing I experienced as a Robilar-type badass.

By the way, I’ve seen this kind of thing inside other gaming groups, too (the reason for the title of this post). With my buddies Ben, Mike, and Michael, it seemed obvious that Michael and Ben echoed this dynamic (I always felt somewhat of a “2nd fiddle” when I was in their Palladium games, and Mike may have felt the same). Likewise, when I played Stormbringer with those guys, it was Michael and I that spent more time “bonding,” though this may have simply been due to our shared interest/love in the material.

These days, I haven’t played or run a campaign (of ANY game) long enough to see who rises to the rank of “DM’s Pet” (to use a derogatory term…sorry), but I assume the DM-Diva relationship still shows up now and again in long-term play. I don’t think it’s necessarily a “bad thing” and it can be mitigated somewhat by the DM running solo adventures with other interested players…both I and my friend Jocelyn used to do this, we just didn’t do it AS MUCH with the other players as with each other. And, anyway, shouldn’t players who devote more time and energy to a game be rewarded for it?

Maybe. In the past, I wouldn’t say D&D was a game that rewarded “just showing up at the table” (now…who knows!). It was supposed to reward good play. Playing more often meant an increased risk of dying (more saving throws versus poison to take…)…but still, there’s playing hard and playing soft, and favoring one player over another will generally lead to resentment and rifts in the game group.

I just wanted to point out it wasn’t a unique phenomenon. And in MY old campaign, I was “that guy.” In the past, I always felt my actions were “good for the war stories.” After all, it gave the other players someone to hate and conspire against. Now, well…I hope that I didn’t completely ruin shit for folks. We always seemed to have had a good time, but how would I know…when I cared less about other players’ fun than my own?

Well, whatever (I can’t beat myself up about the past all day)…for me, at least, I can chalk up part of this to my personality. It’s the same thing that drives me prefer (playing) individual sports to team sports…or that makes me forgo networked computer games in favor of solo play…or that makes me beat my own head against a wall for twelve months to put out a book that might have been done in half the time if I’d allowed a few people to collaborate. The astrology tells the tale for me: I’ve got my Mars in Aries in the House of Leo…I’m a guy that wants the freedom to charge ahead, whenever the F he feels like it (and hopefully look good doing it). Having Mars in direct opposition to a certain “U” planet, just means I have the propensity for alienating others in my quest for personal freedom.

Any other “Robilars” out there? What’s YOUR excuse, douche bag?

; )

(and yes, if you are a Lone Wolf Aries or a Big Phat Leo, you may use astrology as your excuse…we forgive you!)

Axe Meanderings

Welp, its Tuesday again which (for those in the astrological know) means it’s a MARS day. Tuesday, is of course the English form of “Tyr’s Day,” Tyr being the closest equivalent to the Roman god of war. According to Wikipedia, it was considered bad luck for the 13th of the month to fall on a Tuesday (probably due to the intersection of Martian and Uranian energies). Great…I was born on a Tuesday the 13th. That’s probably why I’m considered an “Earthquake” in Mesoamerican (Mayan/Aztec) astrology.

And I seem to be feeling the Martian pull today. Perhaps due to having Frazetta on the mind, I’ve been researching axe cultures (Viking and otherwise) all morning, as well as the technical differences between the various types of axe used in warfare, past and present (apparently the U.S. Marines dig on an updated version of the Amerindian tomahawk…go figure).

The axe is probably the most under-appreciated weapon in pre-D20 Dungeons & Dragons. Well I know I failed to appreciate it in my youth. Once one gets to D20, you have all sorts of players signing up to wield the weapon due to A) size rules allowing it to be wielded one-handed, and B) increased critical damage. Sure, there’s a trade-off as the axe has a lower crit threshold than the sword (only talking martial weapons here), but as far as the ability to do huge amounts of damage at random, the axe became king in D20.

Which, of course, makes it the ideal weapon to stick in the hands of monstrous (ORC) hordes if you’re a not-so-nice DM.

To explain, one has to understand that randomly rolled critical hits favors the DM side of the screen. Why? Because of the numeric superiority of the DM’s infinite monster list. No matter how many foes are slain, the DM can always whip up a new batch of encounters, all of the appropriate level. BUT level means little when one is only worried about rolling a 20.

BAB +1 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.
BAB +5 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.
BAB +9 versus AC 20…needs a 20 to achieve a critical threat with axe.

See how that works? The trick is to get as many attacks rolling as possible to increase that chance of the critical being met (i.e. to increase the chance of a 20 being rolled). Then you get that big damage multiplier (nice when accompanied by a high strength humanoid like, say, an orc).

Anyhoo, I don’t play those new-fangled versions of D&D anymore, so fortunately I don’t have to give a shit about the math involved. Let’s talk about the “old-fangled” version.

In OD&D, all weapons do 1D6 damage, so whether you want an axe or a sword, you’re doing pretty much the same thing.

In B/X (my game of choice) almost everyone uses the Variable Damage by Weapon rules. Here’s how the axe breaks down:

Hand Axe, 1D6 damage, can be thrown
Battle Axe, 1D8 damage, two-handed (no shield, strikes last)

Compared to:

Normal Sword, 1D8 damage

Now since any class in B/X can use the normal sword (except clerics and magic-users, neither of whom can use axes either), Why O Why would anyone choose an axe over the straight-forward blade?

Style? Maybe. In my experience, no one does. Like it or not, B/X facilitates a gamist creative agenda which means “winning” (or “overcoming challenges”) is a serious component to game play, and people will spring that extra 3gps from their wallets for a normal sword over a battle axe EVERY TIME. Sure some fighters might pick up the two-handed sword or pole arm (pole AXE) for the extra damage, but dwarves and halflings never pull a 2-handed battle axe over a 1-handed sword…why the hell should they?

Because dwarves are depicted with axes? Well, yeah, they’re depicted as short Vikings…and the Viking axe was ubiquitous because it was cheap and available compared to swords. Swords were status symbols as much as they were tools of warfare…if you could get your grubby gauntlets on one, you would.

Which I suppose makes it appropriate that all adventurers carry swords. After all, adventures are NOT “Normal Men.”

Still, while swords may have been the weapon of status in the “old days” they weren’t always the weapon of choice on the field of battle. The English housecarls of the 11th century used the battle axe as their primary weapon and the axe was (in general) a better weapon against heavily armored opponents than a standard arming sword.

[of course, the mace and warhammer were the melee weapons of choice to use against an opponent in plate armor…something not really modeled in B/X Dungeons & Dragons either]

1st edition AD&D does provide tables showing increased/decreased effectiveness of various types of weapon against different armor types. But I’ve met plenty of folks that pay no attention to these tables (hell, I don’t even know if they’re present in OSRIC), and I know that I, too, have been guilty of ignoring/forgetting to check these while “in the heat of battle.” And if they’re not being used (along with speed factor and weapon length/space required) than what’s the point of looking at anything besides the damage roll? Again…is “style” the only thing that makes a difference in the PCs choice of an axe?

Well, it did for me…eventually. Though I was drinking at the time and in a “devil-may-care” type of mood. The one time I played 2nd edition AD&D as a player (not as a DM) I was told to roll up an 8th level fighter and pick a “kit” for him using one of those brown books. I decided I would model the character’s look and feel off Frazetta's Death Dealer. I believe I used a “barbarian kit” (I really don’t remember) and as my “starting magic items” I requested (and was granted) a +2 battle axe and a great helm that worked like a ring of protection +1 (I think I also got a couple healing potions that were never used). With an 18/50-something strength and some sort of “axe bonus” from my kit (I really don’t remember the exact 2nd edition mumbo-jumbo), my fighter was a veritable whirlwind of destruction, carving through high level clerics and random driders/Drow-types in single combat, while the ranger plinked away with less-than-effective arrows and the thief hung back looking for something to steal (there were only three players and no NPCs).

It was actually one of the more fun adventure sessions I can remember playing.

And this despite using an “optimal weapon” or any inherent advantage in the weapon type (like D20’s greater threat range/greater crit damage deal). I honestly can’t recall if 2nd edition AD&D uses “weapon type vs. armor” but the DM on this occasion certainly did NOT…and there’s something that’s just viscerally satisfying about hacking someone down with a tool normally used for felling trees. Especially when folks are laughing at your choice of weapon.

; )