"Everyone Has A Gimmick"

This is a bit of a "throwaway post," but I feel like I've got to get something down on Ye Old Blog, and I've just had a hard time writing anything lately. Oh, I've started a couple-three things...I've got a post titled "Time Warp," one called "Down Rabbit Holes," and a third called something like "World Without End." Oh yeah...something-something about encumbrance. But I really don't have the mental brain sweat at the moment to address all these potentially O-So-Profound subjects with the requisite gravitas they so richly deserve. 

So F it.

Instead, I'm going to hearken back to someone else's blog post of yesteryear, specifically this little doozie from Necropraxis called Only Ten from back in 2012. For some reason I've had this old post open on some random tab of my laptop for I-don't-know-how-long and I don't even remember why I was looking at it (let alone what I was thinking saving it). Maybe it came up when I was doing some search for Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play? I don't know...really I don't.

Anyway, for the disinterested, the gist of Necro's subject was the following question: if you could only keep 10 printed RPG books, which would make the cut?  Now I'm not sure about my lovely readers, but I happen to be a middle-aged dude who's been playing (and collecting) RPG material for close to 40 years, and while much of it has been sold, lost, or stolen over the years, I still hang on to a substantial amount of printed material. Enough to fill a bookshelf and a half plus a cupboard, and (perhaps) a large plastic crate or two.  And that's just the printed material. That's a LOT of books to pare down to just 10...and a particularly tall order for a packrat like myself.

Still, while I'm glad I don't actually have to burn the bulk of my library, it's an interesting thought exercise. And it's one I went through in my head earlier today: just what would I keep? Strangely enough, B/X didn't make the cut (due partly to me having memorized most of it, and partly having purchased PDFs from DriveThru...when I absolutely have to look something up these days, B/X is quite searchable on the ol' laptop). Mainly I was thinking of games that would allow me to play (or recreate) multiple genres of fantasy, interesting systems, or thoughtful design. Here's  my list at the moment (in no particular order of priority):

1. AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide
2. AD&D Players Handbook
3. AD&D Monster Manual
4. Heroes Unlimited
5. Maelstrom
6. Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader
7. Sorcerer
8. Vampire the Masquerade (1st edition)
9. Hollow Earth Expedition

I can't really bring myself to choose a 10th book...there are a few that could make the cut. The Fiend Folio, of course (and almost certainly would be). Deities & Demigods (the original) makes a strong case if only for its official ability score tables up to 25 and discussions on clerics, worship, and divine ascension. Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Gamma World, Deadlands could all go in there...even Ars Magica (1e), Orkworld, ElfQuest, or Over the Edge. And I hardly need not be mentioned how much I love both Ken St. Andre's Stormbringer (1e) and Marc Miller's Classic Traveller (I have the core book compilation from GDW)...that last one (Traveller) might even be able to edge out HEX in the #9 spot. 

Ugh...I completely forgot Twilight 2000. But it's box set technically consists of multiple books. If the original system had a single hardcover, it would leapfrog several of the "possibles" for the #10 slot. It just has a wonderful system for near-future post-apocalyptic games. 

The thing is, MANY of the games I own would be simple enough to recreate, and many could stand a rewrite using a different, more convenient system. Such was definitely the case with Shadowrun (my B/X style knockoff Cry Dark Future is a testament to that). Beyond the Supernatural or Gamma World could both be remade quite easily using B/X (see Mutant Future for an example of the latter). I've run great Top Secret games using the Story Engine system (first published with the Maelstrom RPG)...it can easily be used for other genres asking for "rules-light-story-heavy" mechanics. Of course, OD&D is easy enough to make out of AD&D...if one wanted...

Some may find it curious that 40K makes the list when it's not really an RPG. What can I say other than it provides exactly the kind of science fiction I want...one day, far in the future, I'll completely rewrite both it and HEX (Hollow Earth Expedition) using a different system from what they've been given. But I find their books to be incredibly imaginative and inspirational, as is. Nice art, too.

Folks might note there are no "supplements" making my list. I generally can write my own supplemental material (that's kind of what I do). That being said, I love Ron Edwards's Sorcerer supplements, especially Sorcerer & Sword. Unfortunately, Sorcerer makes the list because of its elegant design principles (and diabolic themes) more than because it's a game I play a lot (I don't). It's an inspirational reference, especially for its narrative sensibilities, and I like it better than other story driven games like Fiasco, Polaris, and Capes.

The real odd duck on the list though is (duh) Palladium's Heroes Unlimited, an RPG I've written enough of in the past. You'll note the cop out above where I don't pick any single particular edition of the game...there are a plethora of differences between 1e, "revised," and 2e HU, enough so as to really alter game play for the participants. 1e was the best written, but "revised's" tweaks to certain classes are really welcome (including the addition of the magical power set) and I would probably go with that. 2e is just a tad over-the-top...although if you want to include uber-powerful characters (equivalent to Thor or the Hulk) you really need to check out the "mega-hero" option in 2e. It's rather beastly, though nothing one couldn't work out for their own campaign (my buddies' long-running HU campaign in high school created their own "mega-powers" list using only the revised rules...long before the advent of a 2nd edition).

And, yeah, for those who hadn't already guessed, this is all just a rambling preamble to talk about superhero stuff.

As I wrote in my last post, my in-laws have been in town, and were supposed to fly back to Mexico on...mmm, Tuesday? Yeah, Tuesday last. But after our last road trip with them, the kids discovered that abuelo (their grandpa) hadn't watched any of the Marvel movies (The Avengers, etc.) and so decided to embark on an epic marathon of film watching...basically one movie per night for 2+ weeks (in chronological order), culminating in Avengers Endgame the night before they were supposed to leave town. And since it's summer time, and we still have things going on during the days and evenings (and we don't watch movies during dinner) this has meant starting 2-3 hour films around 10pm every night and not getting to bed till near 1am.  Um...yeah. And I still get up around 6:30 to take care of the one beagle I have left.

Consequently, I've been in something of a fugue state with a mind inundated by cinematic superheroics for much of the last month. Makes it a little hard to focus.

[hmm...wonder if that's had anything to do with my lack of a "will to write" lately. Certainly can't help]

Anyway: I am NOT about to start dipping back into designing superhero RPGs (again) as happened last April (wow! A month long tangent that started with this post!)...I've just got too many D&D irons in the fire at the moment (and little enough time for juggling those). But that Necropraxis article made me consider long and hard which hero game I'd bring with me to a desert island and I was, well, a little surprised at my own answer. Despite having written on or about the subject a thousand times in the past.

But in consideration for having the MCU force-shoved into my brain lately...well, sometimes I have to do something to spew the excess waste material from my cranium. Here are my current (as in, today, this morning) thoughts on the subject of superhero role-playing games (SRPGs):

• an SRPG should be run in real time, as much as possible. Day 1 of the campaign should start on a real world date (even if heroes/villains have been "training" or whatever for years). 
• an SRPG should be grounded in as much "reality" as possible (no picking up buildings by the corner, or flying faster than the speed of light). Super-technology can make impossible things possible, within reason, but shouldn't be readily accessible/understood by Earth humans (so as not to disrupt what passes for "daily life" in the real world)...at least when starting the campaign. Magic falls under the category of a "super-technology" (with the same stipulations).
• the campaign world should be set in the real world. Imaginary cities/countries (Metropolis, Atlantis, Wakanda) should be avoided. Extraterrestrial and extradimensional entities are okay, which can explain mythological-type beings (Thor or whatever).
• the campaign world should be allowed to spin out of control based on the occurrences of the game.
• all heroes/villains should start as "unknowns" to the general public, i.e. they have no reputation for being "super-anythings" before the start of play. Actions taken by characters will determine public perception.
• Day 1 marks the first appearance of super individuals in the campaign world
• an SRPG should be generally "free-wheeling" with logical consequences to follow
• no weapon fetishes: make and model of firearms and caliber of ammunition should have near zero impact on game play.
• experience increases effectiveness of characters. Active superpowers (things that turn on-and-off) either increase in scope/impact, or ability of character to use. Experience is gained through play. Time spent not playing will not result in experience.
• an SRPG is not a comic book. There is no plot immunity for characters.
• an SRPG is not a film. There are no guaranteed happy endings.
• an SRPG is a game about super (i.e. "greater than human") individuals in a human scale world and those individuals impact on the world. The PCs may become champions of the people or conquerors of the world. 
• The referee's job is to establish challenges for the PCs. For villainous PCs, these challenges can take the forms of law enforcement, task forces, and heroic super teams. Challenges should be commensurate with the scale of the PCs' abilities. Scale is determined by sphere of operation as mutually decided by the referee and the players.
• All PCs have a drive that allows them to push beyond the boundaries of ordinary humans.
• All PCs have a flaw that can be exploited by adversaries.
• All PCs have enough humanity to allow players (including the referee) to relate to the character. Thus, no artificial beings or alien creatures lacking human emotions, feelings, etc. The game is not about how well a player can portray a plant thing, inhuman monster, or celestial/infernal being. Likewise all PCs must be sentients of at least minimal intelligence for operating on planet Earth (the campaign setting); the game is not a comedy of errors based on an ignorance of cultural norms.
• There should be at least some randomness in determining a PCs particular "power set;" players are neither allowed, nor expected to come to the table with a fully formed character concept.

*Whew!*  Aaand...that's about it. I've decided that I'm no longer all that interested in forcing players to act cooperatively or assign them to super-powered task forces...I'm not even (particularly) interested in them acting as "heroes." Instead, I'd rather just offer them opportunities...multiple...just as one might with, say, an AD&D campaign setting. Being a planet such as we have, it's not like the PCs couldn't hop a plane and be most anywhere in less than 24 hours, so lot of possibilities for adventures are possible...and "story arcs" have nothing to do with any of it.

It's a little different from how I've thought about SRPGs in the past. 

Team Building

"Snowmageddon" appears to be winding down here in Seattle (at least in my neighborhood) and I've already been informed the schools will be open at the regular time tomorrow.

In the meantime, though, it's still All Day Kid Play at my house. Which mean (fun as that is), writing time is scarce. I'm stealing a few minutes right now while they eat soup and watch Johnny Quest.

[really need to get around to writing my thoughts on JQ one of these days. Add that to "the list"]

Once again I'm thinking about Heroes Unlimited (the original edition) and how I might adapt/repurpose the thing to my own tastes. Part of this has to do with being snowbound with the kids...been watching shows like 3 Below and Carmen SanDiego and getting a bit inspired (though the latter also makes me want to dig out Top Secret, I watched the former first, and it's definitely put me in an HU state of mind). Part of it is seeing trailers for things like Shazam and Captain Marvel. Part of it is the kids themselves: my boy keeps asking me "Why don't you design a superhero game we can play?"

[*sigh*]

And part of it is seeing other designers tackle superhero gaming. Ron Edwards has been doing his own "retro" stuff lately as he tinkers with early edition Champions (his equivalent of my B/X fixation), trying to incorporate his decades of experience with gaming, comics, and theory-bashing. This recent post of Edwards, Venn diagramming various super groups really got the gears in my head spinning, especially as I was already considering certain CDF mechanics would fit far better in a hero-type game than in a fantasy cyberpunk RPG.

What mechanics you ask? Well, individual rewards (tied to advancement) that provide players with the choice to either A) increase their own effectiveness, or B) improve the team's abilities. It's a holdover from when I was re-writing CDF as a post-apocalyptic "tribe building" game (yes, I know that probably sounds a little crazy...it didn't really work and is one of the reasons the thing was back-burnered so long, as well as one of the reasons I went back to its original design concept).

But while building one's tribe/family doesn't really work in a game about shadowy mercenaries doing dirty jobs in the grim-dark future, it's not a bad idea for a game that centers around the superhero team.

Here's the thing: if we look at D&D as a "successful" concept in tabletop RPGs, we can see that at least part of its appeal is how it draws the party together in cooperation for a common objective. And the way it does this is pretty darn simple: while there is "strength in numbers" (to spread the attrition around), the limitations of each individual class (or, in the positive, the powers and capabilities of each class) provides an incentive to work together to solve the conflicts and problems being thrown at the PCs in their quest for treasure. Mechanically, they're semi-forced to get along with each other, because survival...and success...becomes much more difficult without cooperation.

This concept isn't as effective, or compelling, in the superhero genre. Supers tend to be fairly capable individuals, able to handle whole swaths of mooks and villains on their own, only being held back by individual flaws (the elderly aunt or significant other that needs to protected, the power limitation against kryptonite or the color yellow, or whatever)...flaws that, more often than not, completely eliminate the character's effectiveness or ability to affect the in-game fiction in an effective fashion.

But for a team of heroes, such flaws rarely come up, because it would tend to throw one hero under the bus while her teammates heroically soldier on. Instead, the tendency is to simply throw one Giant Big Bad Threat at the team that requires the full might of the team to overcome: an Uber-Villain or a Villain Team (one foe for each hero!) or a Humongous Natural Disaster. Which, for me, gets old after a while.

Which is one of the reasons I keep looking at 1st edition HU. I like the idea of reducing the effectiveness of the PCs from the get-go, in part to give them MORE reason to rely on each other, and in part to open up a larger gambit of threats and challenges. But rather than simply allowing weak-ass beginning characters to "level up" over time, growing in power and effectiveness into Justice Leaguers, I'd like to see a way for characters to become more effective as a team over time...becoming more effective for their greater cooperation and ability to work together...becoming stronger as they develop stronger relationships within the group dynamic of the hero team.

This might be a little different from the approach of other "hero team" concepts. At least, it seems different to me; I don't usually see newly-formed teams stepping on each other's toes or having trouble coordinating their efforts in the field (their interpersonal relationships are, perhaps, another matter). Maybe you have a sidekick screwing up his mentor's activities (a way of giving the mentor additional challenge and providing the apprentice with a "teaching moment"), but in a "group of equals" it's rare that there's any significant time spent "team building" with the exception of young student types (the early X-Men, New Mutants, etc.).

Thing is, I don't want to run "hero school" for teenagers. I want a variety of different power types (hi-tech wonders, chemical spill mutations, aliens, etc.) brought together in the typical (for comics) paramilitary fashion (i.e. as an elite, supers-fighting task force) but without any kind of formal training...because there's nothing "formal" or "traditional" when it comes to supers of various different powers. Each super is unique; each group will need to find their own method of working together. Each team will have their own group dynamics born of differing personalities (often determined by how an individual hero reacts to the presence and effect of her own power set). Any "training" they receive is going to have to be "on the job;" I don't want any kind of alien tech created Danger Room.

[as an aside: has the Danger Room ever appeared in any of the various X-Man movies? I remember Cerebro being in the earlier films, but I stopped watching them a few years back]

Anyhoo...that's what I'm thinking about today. While I wait for the snow to finish melting.

The Ridiculous and The Sublime

Ron Edwards once wrote that (with regard to Fantasy Heartbreakers):

...nearly all of the listed games have one great idea buried in them somewhere. It's perhaps the central point...that yes, these games are not "only" AD&D knockoffs and hodgepodges of house rules. They are indeed the products of actual play, love for the medium, and determined creativity.

Emphasis added by Ron, BTW, not me.

Edwards suggested that every RPG designer has a FHB lurking inside themselves, wanting to be born, and that we should write them (though not necessarily publish them!), both as an exercise and as a bit of cathartic release.

Myself, I came to the conclusion that we might as well all be writing Heartbreakers...yes, ALL of us...AND publishing them because...well, you can read my first thoughts on "D&D Mine" way back here.

D&D Mine...ol' JB's rebuttal to "D&D Next." We've seen it all over the place in the last three years (gosh, was that really 2012? Sheesh...lots o water under Ye Old Bridge since then...)...self-published variations on the original fantasy RPG. Sure 5E has come out and procured a decent following for itself (are there still folks playing and loving the hell out of 4th Edition? If there are, I'd be curious as to how many) and Pathfinder appears to be as strong as ever. But the independent fantasy adventure games haven't stopped popping up...if anything, I think they've become more prolific.

Are they "diluting" the fantasy RPG marketplace? I don't really think so. What I think they ARE doing is:

• Giving people an outlet for their creative expression.
• Showing other folks what is possible.
• Providing good ideas into the collective headspace (to be acquired and added to our games).
• Demonstrating that you don't need to shell out cash for the latest-greatest.
• Inspiring others to do likewise.

As a dude who (long ago) decided to stand for the possibility of full and creative self-expression in all people, it warms my heart to see so many games.

[hell, even Edwards just self-published his own FHB (Circle of Hands). Ha!]

From Zero to Badass in under 40 pages.

Most recently, Venger Satanis provided me a copy of his entry into the retro-clone/D&D Mine/FHB realm: CRIMSON DRAGON SLAYER. Actually he provided me with several PDFs for review, but Crimson Dragon Slayer is the one I'm most interested in discussing. Because it's a damn mouthful, I'm going to abbreviate it CDS in this post (though Venger does not do so in his text).

Not all retroclones/FHBs are serious in nature; many either strive for parody or (perhaps more accurately) simply embrace the ridiculous and silliness inherent in the "Dungeons & Dragons genre" (is D&D a genre? I think it might be). Hackmaster was perhaps the first to not take itself seriously, but there are others...Drowning & Falling is one I find especially amusing. CDS falls into this "humorous" category of 'clone, as it seeks to create an emulation of 1980's fantasy...and I mean EARLY 80's fantasy. The default setting is 1983 and you (yes, you) have been sucked into your Commodore '64 in a Tron-like mishap, forced to adventure as your alter-ego through a land inspired by B-fantasy movies, Savage Sword of Conan comics, Lovecraft, Star Wars, and old video (arcade) games.

Gamers of my generation (born in the 70s) will find a lot of recognition in this kitsch: it's the stuff we grew up with and (as such) the stuff we threw into our early days of gaming in huge, heaping handfuls. That doesn't necessarily mean it will tickle your funny bone or anything...some people hate this kind of thing. But for me, it's a reminder of my roots in the hobby. I may (these days) wince at the sight of Marc Singer's oiled pecs and feathered hair in The Beastmaster, but shit like that was a tremendous inspiration "back in the day."

Heck, it's STILL an influence (note the "beast master" class in both The Complete B/X Adventurer and in the appendix of Five Ancient Kingdoms). I can TRY to appear all "literary" and say these things are an homage to ERB's Tarzan but, no, it's all f'ing Marc Singer, dude.

*ahem* Anyway, that's not what I want to talk about. You may dig the jokey nostalgia of CDS or not (kids born in the 90's are probably going to miss a lot of these references unless they're some kind of 80's-philes), depending on your temperament and stomach for such things. I want to talk about the game itself...there's some good stuff here.

First off, if you knock off the style of the thing, you find there's not a whole lot of cloning going on. CDS uses a D6 dice pool mechanic that's fairly cool. I've been working with similar dice pools in my own designs lately (probably makes me a bit biased), but Venger's got a neat one that still manages to link well with the 3D6attribute/class/race/level-thang. Basically, you roll a number of D6s based on the difficulty of the task being attempted and your character's effectiveness at such a task (usually no more than 4 dice) and count the highest number rolled on any single die to determine the result of the task.

Folks who've been around have seen this kind of thing before, of course; usually designers take one of two tacts with it:

• A binary pass-fail (like "all even numbers are successes") where one counts the total number of successes to determine the "quality" of success at a task. See games like HEX, Sorcerer, etc.
• An incremental quality based on the actual number rolled...like Extraordinary success, Good success, Partial success, etc...with a subjective (GM) interpretation of what exactly "extraordinary" versus "good" means. See games like Other Kind, InSpectres, etc. This kind of mechanic is one of the staples of "story games."

Venger's mechanic uses an incremental interpretation, but it's not subjective (at least not for successes). Instead, the die result has set-in-stone interpretation based on the actual number rolled.  A 5 or 6 is a success, for example, a 4 is a half success (like "half damage" in combat), a 3 is a minimal success (or what he calls a "mostly fail;" minimum damage or penalty to next action), a 2 is a straight fail, and a 1 is a critical fail (where the GM gets to subjectively hose the PC). Since you only look at the highest number rolled, rolling more dice gives you a much better chance of succeeding (i.e. "not failing")...and since you can boost your dice pool with "genre emulation" (in this case, making an 80s reference or using some sort of cheesy, B-fantasy one-liner), it encourages specific gameplay AND gives characters a chance to be pretty badass...again in the same way as the genre being emulated.

Another neat aspect of the mechanic is "dominance." Rolling a "6" doesn't just mean you succeed by you get to add a "perk" to the task (like double damage or triggering a stunt...there's a short list of six perks from which to choose). Rolling multiple 6s allows you to choose multiple perks, so your badass gets even MORE badass when you triple-up or quadruple-up on damage (for example). 666 really IS "the number of the beast" in CDS...and your character is the beast!

[by the way, I love having titles for specific dice pools: Advantaged, Super-Advantaged, Super-Duper-Advantaged, Advantage Supreme all make me chuckle...but it's useful as well as fun to put finite restrictions on dice pools]

The available classes are cool interpretations of classics. Of special note is both the thief (the way its sneak attack/backstab ability works) and the ranger (wow, who thought I'd ever have anything nice to say about a ranger?). In fact, the CDS ranger is cool enough that I'd probably adapt it to B/X (or any similar game)...low-powered (compared to most versions of the class), but interesting and effective in its own way.

[also, while the subclasses are interesting, I really like the shaman variation with its specific set of animal metamorphoses. It may be a "joke list"...how useful is it to turn into a turkey?...but the idea of limiting the shapes is a good one. The defender is a bit more practically useful, but less fun]

The idea of a three aspected alignment - what a character IS, what a character THINKS HE IS, and what other characters THINK OF HIM - is an especially interesting concept. It would be cool to develop this a bit (though it does have some practical aspects in CDS as written...a person who thinks they are good and righteous may find it impossible to activate a Holy Sword, based on the DM's determination of actual alignment), but regardless it's food for thought.

The simplified "effects" for weapon types (edged weapons explode, blunt weapons stun, etc.) are well done. Another thing worth stealing.

I really, really like the magic system, and it's quite adaptable to other old school games. Wizards can cast any spell equal to their level of experience or lower, but it costs them a number of Willpower ("Wisdom") points equal to the level of the spell. The mitigating factor to this is that wizards can siphon off willpower from living beings (blood magic!), as well as that a caster can "go negative" by casting a spell (which knocks the wiz out and requires a death saving throw). Wizards can ALSO cast spells higher than their level, though at three times the normal cost...so if your 3rd level mage wants to pull out an 8th level FACE MELT (yes, that's an actual spell), it's cost 24 points of Willpower (probably putting your character in a deep, dark hole of negative willpower).

[I like Venger's take on alchemy, too]

The spells themselves are pretty cool: three per level starting at 0 and going up to 10 (actually, there's only one 10th level spell: WISH). Many of these are pretty humorous in tone (the 6th level spell TASTE THE RAINBOW, for example, or the aforementioned FACE MELT), but level-wise they seem pretty well scaled. They're certainly cool enough that I wouldn't mind playing a wizard in this game.

Especially with the weapon proficiency rules. Yes, characters start out with limited proficiencies  based on class (save warriors: they start proficient with all weapons). However, if a character wields a particular weapon enough (i.e. in enough combats) and survives being disadvantaged, they'll earn the ability to use said weapon. That's a nice touch.

Let's see...armor does damage reduction which is sensible given the task resolution system (and easier than the alternative: a Warhammer-like armor save). Initiative (turn order) is determined by action taken, with similar actions being simultaneous. The equipment list is suitably nutty, but if you're going to reference the A-Team in the text, you should at least have the van on the equipment list (they've got an Air-Wolf chopper, after all).

Lastly, I wanted to review the advancement system, which is downright awesome: characters begin at 0 level (having just been sucked into their computers, natch), and then may advance as high as level 10. Leveling up gives your character more hit points, and a daily number of bonus dice (equal to level) to spend on boosting those task resolution rolls. Oh, yeah...most classes also have some sort of level-tied abilities (like wizards and their spells). While this is all well-n-good, the interesting part is the way characters advance in level. There are no experience points in CDS; instead, advancement is based solely on accomplishing specific actions. To me, that's The Oldest of Old School (when Arneson would award someone "hero" status based on finding a magic sword, for example). Gaining level one requires the PC to "adventure, explore, and kill a humanoid or creature without aid." Gaining level 8 requires the PC to "acquire an unbelievably powerful artifact or relic." The scale is pretty good, and requires characters act like their level title to gain their level title. For example, characters don't achieve the ability to build castles at 9th level...instead, they only gain 9th level by building a castle.

That's pretty hip, and in an FHB (where characters are supposed to kill and loot their way to the top) easily...or, at least, practically...accomplished within the parameters of game play.

The game is short...it's about 27 pages of rules plus a 7 page adventure. But there's no bestiary (that usually accounts for a third of OS rules' page count) and there's precious few magic item descriptions (though the ones there are tend to be "packed with flavor"). The adventure has plenty of monsters from which to extrapolate a whole world (if one wanted to use the setting), but CDS actually has more potential than the beer & pretzel use for which it seems destined. There's a stout little game foundation under all the smirky. I dig it.

Having said that...

I wrote a little post the other day about the latest Appleseed film, and how I disliked it, in large part due to the re-skinning of the main character's personality as well as the way she was drawn. After writing this, Venger emailed me to say that if I found such light fare as Appleseed Alpha "too sexualized" than I should burn his PDFs without bothering to open them. See, Venger makes no bones about the fact that he enjoys 'racy, sleazy, sexualized, objectifying "soft core porn" artwork' on his book covers. That's what he likes to look at, that's what he finds aesthetically pleasing. To put it mildly, Venger's a bit of a perv.

I point this out because there are folks who are turned off by his aesthetic...and yet, Crimson Dragon Slayer is surprisingly devoid of anything I deem terribly offensive. Yes, there are a couple "damsel in distress" type Conan drawings in the book (which is, if anything, part of the genre being emulated), but the male characters are as scantily clad as any of the female characters who (aside from the aforementioned damsels) are depicted in dynamic or bad-assy poses. CDS is a world of naked (or semi-naked) barbarian action heroes, and the aesthetic presented doesn't seem especially gratuitous.

Nor does the game system seem to be especially, offensively sexist. Yes, there are aphrodisiac spells and mechanics like needing sexual gratification with another person in order to refresh bonus dice, but such can be applied to either male or female protagonists. As the author points out, it's part of the R-rated, 80's genre. There's no objectification of "buxom serving wenches;" no "wandering harlot" tables, no treasure hoard consisting of "nubile slave girls." Still, if you find this genre (or the 80's!) patently offensive, then CDS probably isn't your cup of tea.

Honestly, it's not really to my taste these days (probably hasn't been since I was a teenager). But I've seen worse...and when I say worse I mean recently (within the last year) and blatantly (whether intentional or not) and perhaps even maliciously. I don't see that in Crimson Dragon Slayer.

Most of us have vices, and probably all of us have "guilty pleasures." Compared to a couple of his other works, Venger's RPG seems more the latter than the former, but regardless of how you feel about the style, there's some interesting things going on in the game. I only wish I'd gotten this review out sooner as he was selling the book at 50% off during the Memorial Day weekend.

You can pick up the PDF for $7 over at DriveThruRPG.

How to Run (Part 2)

Just picking up where I left off...

Let's get right to it.

The book being discussed.

How to Run comes in at a bit more than 350 pages, though that includes an index, table of contents, and bibliography. After the introduction, it is divided into five sections including an appendix, the total comprising fifteen chapters (the last chapter, a bit of an epilogue, is in the appendix). The first four sections are comprised of the following:

Part 1: The Art of Presentation
Part 2: Managing Yourself as DM
Part 3: Managing Your Players
Part 4: Worldbuilding

Each section is composed of several chapters relating to specific topics. In addition, each chapter ends with a "Keys to Success" section that emphasizes or elaborates on specific points raised in the chapter. It's a handy trick for remembering what was discussed, and lends to the overall "textbook" feel of the book.

The introduction nicely lays out what the book is about. How to Run is both genre and system neutral; it does not discuss specific rules or editions of D&D, and though it refers to GM position throughout as "Dungeon Master" or "DM," Smolensk is careful to note that the outlined principles can be used in running any table-top RPG. I know that for his own game Alexis uses heavily modified (1st edition) AD&D in a campaign setting firmly rooted in the historic 17th century Earth. He mentions little (with regard to the specifics) of his campaign setting in How to Run, and nothing at all of his house rules or system...the text really does strive to be applicable to any RPG a person might try to run.

Which reminds me: while it is never specifically defined, contextually Mr. Smolensk uses the term role-play to simply describe the act of playing a role-playing game. In other words, if you are playing an RPG you are engaging in "role-play," pure and simple. For the purpose of his book and its concepts that's just fine.

PART ONE: The Art of Presentation

This is the largest section of the book, and (in my opinion) the meatiest part in terms of presenting real tools that can be of use to folks wishing to run a game. It provides excellent advice and checklists for even experienced DMs, and raises a lot of questions for self-examination in us "old-timers." I found myself nodding quite often, noting the things I had done that worked well and likewise the areas where I  had stumbled in my own games; the codifying of these things (always with an eye towards the goal: facilitating engagement of the players) is well done.

Chapter 1: The Early Days discusses Alexis's own initiation into running games, and gives the young DM an idea of the attitude with which the task needs to be approached (it's not as hard as it looks, but it does require time and effort, even effort outside of learning the game). Chapter 2: The Carrot and the Donkey discusses how to motivating and enticing your players, providing the best environment for them to succeed at the goal (of engagement); note, there's no "stick" for the donkey, only carrots. Chapter 3: The Players describes some stereotypical personality types one might find at your table, how to recognize them, how to work towards their strengths, and how each can be used to build a strong gaming group (these are interesting "types" based on Mr. Smolensk's own experience and perception, not the usual archetypes found in Jungian psychology or whatnot). Chapter 4: Drama offers a method for creating a traditional three-act (play) structure for folks who want to create "stories" with their game sessions, but the author has come to the conclusion that such is a weaker form of role-play than long-term engagement and immersion (or, at least, more difficult to sustain over time). In dispensing, with the idea of "story creation," he begins to discuss cause and effect, and ways to empower the players by allowing their actions to matter in the campaign, outside the plot machinations of a story-minded DM. Chapter 5: Continuity discusses several tools for gripping your players, making them care about participating (i.e. engaging them emotionally) beyond simply offering them missions, as well as elaborating on the discussion of cause and effect and how it contributes to the ongoing participation and enjoyment of the gaming experience.

I want to pause here for a moment to discuss Mr. Smolensk in relationship to another respected (if sometimes controversial) game designer, Ron Edwards. I personally find the two remarkably similar,  something like flip-sides of the same coin. This shouldn't be too surprising considering similar personality archetypes (both are Virgos born in 1964...no, I won't get into astrology right now, but with my own background that's a tough lens for me to ignore). Both have their detractors and admirers. Both are very intelligent and thoughtful. Both can be be prickly hardliners when it comes to their own beliefs. And both are extremely devoted to the service of the players at their table. Both seek to walk that line of using mental focus to bring about emotional engagement...but their approach to the same is very different. Edwards is devoted to the principal of "story now:" creating game mechanics that requires players to step up and engage with the narrative being created around the table. Smolensk would seem to be a standard-bearer for what the old GNS model called simulationism, or "the right to dream," creating a world one can escape into and experience. However, he has a ready answer for Edwards's "hard questions" regarding what it's all for and how long it will last: bluntly, all the work the DM does is for achieving an emotional engagement from the players, and goes beyond simply allowing players to explore an imaginary world as wizards and warriors (or whatever). It lasts for as long as the DM has the energy to devote to facilitating this process (in one blog posts, Alexis postulated having to retire the DM chair in the next 15-20 years). In many ways, the "Tao" of Alexis Smolensk is the antithesis of Ron Edwards, though I'd say both have a devotion to the hobby and an incredible ability to "think outside the box" when it comes to pushing gaming in new directions.

*ahem*

Chapter 6: Pomp discusses actual presentation and the logistics of running a game...how to show up and make arrangements, and how taking care of real world issues can create a better (more engaging, less distracting) game environment. It talks about ways to facilitate engagement through your appearance and movement, and the benefits of preparation, as well as how best to set breaks and ground rules...things often left out of most RPG game manuals.. It's good stuff for anyone who plans on running a game.

All in all, I found a lot of good material in this section. It certainly gave me a lot of food for thought with regard to self-examination (as both a DM and player).

PART 2: Managing Yourself as DM

This section is only composed of two chapters, a total of 55 pages. For me, it was the first section that I found challenging. Not because it was hard to read or too abstract in concept (that comes later), but because it challenges you on what you really think about role-playing games and being a DM. While Part 1 requires you to approach the running of an RPG with a serious, non-casual approach, Part 2 requires you to approach idea of DM'ing almost as a vocation. It is not explicit in this, does not require you take any vows, but if you plan on following the prescribed course, you're basically committing yourself to making your game much more than a "mere game."

Chapter 7: Vigilance discusses how your game must always be "on" when you're at the table. Even when you are acting in service of your players (remember, that is one of the main thrusts of the book), you can't let little things like, say, "friendship" get in the way of your focus or attention to the task at hand. The vigilance Mr. Smolensk prescribes (with regard to oneself) is a near ruthless stance. He discusses stress in the game (both for players and DM) as a product of an engaging role-play experience, and its chemical effect on the brain and decision-making process.

This particular part did not ring true for me (perhaps because I tend to compartmentalize stress)...but then perhaps it's been a while since I had a truly engaging immersive role-play experience. I have to think back to my youth for examples of events that propelled extreme emotional outbursts in myself...though I have observed it in others to greater and lesser degrees over the years. Perhaps my decades of experience of telling myself "it's only a game" has done a bit to dull the shine, or perhaps I am simply out of practice when it comes to full-on emotional commitment in the last 15 years or so. However, I can see how my own response to players who "just want a fun night out" has caused (in the last couple years) a downward spiral in actual gaming quality, as I too forgot focus and allowed myself to lounge in the easy camaraderie and laissez-faire attitude of "dudes blowing off steam at the bar."

[that's something else that I don't have enough of in my life!]

But that's what I mean by "challenging." Without asking it outright, Alexis is posing a question: how seriously do you want to take your game? And what quality of play do you want to have? It's a valid question. I can do the indie one-off gaming thing very easily...I can likewise run a simple "dungeon excursion" with minimal effort...but is that satisfying? It's a hard question. If I'm being honest, the answer is: probably not. Certainly not always.

If you decide to buy into the effort described in Chapter 7, then Chapter 8: Decision Making provides additional practical tools to help with your game, from non-attachment (rolling with the unexpected), to anticipating patterns of behavior, to using checklists and worksheets (goes hand-in-hand with the management of stress-related mental slips).

Once again I see I'm running long, so I'm going to have to continue this till tomorrow. Sorry!

3 Stages of Exploration (Part 4)

[continued from here]

The types, the varieties of exploration offered by the D&D game are wonderful, but their design is terrible and terribly flawed, and this is because of the “organic” way in which those latter stages were “designed.” Basically they weren't…a dungeon delving game was designed, and when players wanted to do something more, extra rules got “tacked on.”

And I’m beginning to think this may be the ONLY way for Dungeons & Dragons to work “as intended,” i.e. to allow the campaign to organically evolve. When I was a kid, we played B/X (which is just OD&D with rule clarifications and better organization), and it worked great for us. The AD&D books were gradually added over time and that worked great, expanding our options. We took the game out of the dungeon, built up high level characters and meandered into Stage 3 play…all “organically” ourselves.

But since that time I’ve tried to start and run D&D campaigns that resembled that earlier “evolutionary” game and failed, failed, failed. You can’t do Stage 2 or Stage 3 in a new campaign without serious DM cream puffery and/or railroading and even doing that ends in a failure more often than not because players AREN’T INVESTED IN THEIR CHARACTERS...and not just because the characters are new and "history-less." It’s hard to get excited and enthused about a 1st level flunky that could get killed by an orc arrow on any unlucky roll, and I (and my adult players) just don’t have the time to devote to working characters “up the ladder” of development to get to these other stages of exploration.

D&D sucks this way. You’re forced to follow the parameters of the Basic stage (start off on the 1st level of a dungeon fighting ducks for chump change) and go through a long “dues paying” period before you can “get to the good stuff.” At least, if you’re playing the game as written. And tinkering with it too much just makes it…well, not D&D.

Case in point…when writing my own D&D (“D&D Mine”), long before I got around to thinking about these ideas (which has only been a couple days folks), I had already figured out the only way to make my game “work” like D&D was to create a setting for the game with a sprawling mega-dungeon built in. At the time, I wasn’t really grokking the WHY, I just knew that the WHAT (or rather the “HOW” as in “how the game is supposed to look and work”), only functioned properly with that. Or I should say, “functioned best.” And I was kind of surprised by that…surprised because I could see I was doing the same thing that had already been done long before me by Arneson (Blackmoor) and Gygax (Greyhawk) as well as plenty of others (for example, Maliszewski’s Dwimmermount).

Creating a city with built-in mega-dungeon and a local history, however, just doesn’t sit right with me. It doesn’t! And the REASON it doesn’t is because I want to play a fantasy adventure game, something that models the literary characters and heroic stories that D&D is supposed to be based on. How many times in Howard’s stories do you find Conan in some subterranean complex or mega-dungeon? Not very many, pal…he’s got more important things to do than crawl around a cobwebby dungeon with a torch. It certainly doesn't occupy the majority of his professional attention.

Recently, I’ve been playing in an on-line B/X game. My character, a cleric, is the closest of the party members to leveling up, but he’s still only 1st level and we’ve been playing since April. Actually, a couple of us (including me) have been playing since before then, as it was a table-top game that got converted to on-line in order to pick up additional players (and make it easier on our schedules).

There’s a large mega-dungeon we’ve been exploring, and a hometown, and a world history. However, at this point I’m choosing to make the mega-dungeon a secondary priority and spend most of my focus on proactively exploring the local politics; specifically, my intention to stir up a hornet’s nest by using treasure found in the ruins to fund a revolution to over-throw the invading Imperials that conquered my homeland a decade or so ago. Right now, my character is decked out in expensive (250gp) plate armor, riding a stout courser, and wielding a shiny dwarfsteel warhammer (when I’m not swinging my two-handed maul). I’ve acquired a normal human henchman from the local underground cult to which I belong and he’s outfitted on a draft horse with chainmail…he’s mainly for show, guarding the horses, and being my step-n-fetch. My character looks the part of a war leader and I’m trying to act the part in order to become the part…a kind of pseudo-medieval Pancho Villa. When last we left off, we were getting ready to jump a band of Imperial mercs encountered on the road, possibly risking being branded as outlaws by the local constabulary, but definitely striking a blow against “our oppressors.”

Did I mention my character’s 1st level? He’ll probably get hit by a lucky arrow shot and killed instantly. That’s what happened to the 1st level illusionist I started the campaign with.

The rules of D&D are not really conducive to this kind of play…and by that I mean, this type of play at 1st level (i.e. right out of the gate). And dammit, it should be. Why not? Personally, I plan on playing this game as if it were conducive until my character gets himself killed. And then…I don’t know, it will depend on the next character I roll up. But I’m not going to stunt my role-playing (head-thumping as the experience might be) just because the rules don’t cooperate.

D&D needs to be redesigned so that all the stages can be addressed at any time at any level. At least, I think it does. YOU may not. Hell, you may be reading this and saying, “I’m just trying to fight goblins and pick up gold, yo.” For how long? Until you get bored and decide you’ll stick it back up on the shelf for another 10-20 years? I guess if that’s your thought, than you’re probably not my target demographic.

There’s already a game-type game that gives you a chance to have tactical encounters in a dungeon (Basic Exploration) and roll dice: it’s called 4th Edition. There’s already a game that tries a hybrid between tactical encounters and rules-supported character development (still Basic exploration): it’s called D20 or Pathfinder. If that’s what you want, you’ve got it already folks. Heck, if you want an even simpler version with the same objective that doesn’t address character much at all, then you can play one of the various iterations of the board game Dungeon! which is plenty fun.

But for me, I don’t want those things. I want a nice, living, breathing game that uses a simple, abstract game system (sorry, Alexis) and yet addresses all three stages properly, allowing multiple forms of game play and exploration from all players, regardless of preference, right out of the gate.

Because you CAN be a low-level courtier, or wilderness scout…you shouldn’t have to wait till you're high level to try that type of game play. If I want to play a 16 year old Joan of Arc leading the French army to victory against the English, then dammit, there should be rules that allow that! What happened to “anything you can imagine?” What happened to fantastic fantasy adventure.

I keep coming back to this quote I recently (re-)read in Ron Edward’s second article on fantasy heartbreakers. I’ll reprint it here so you can see why it’s haunting me:

“I think it’s central to D&D fantasy that a character must start with a very high risk of dying and very little ability to change the world around him or her, and then increase in effectiveness, scope, and ability to sustain damage…the concept seems to be that the player must serve his or her time as a schlub, greatly risking the character’s existence, in order to enjoy the increased array and benefits of the powers, ability, and effectiveness that can only be accumulated through the reward-system. An enormous amount of the draw to play a particular game seems to be based on explicitly laying out what the character might be able to do, later, if he or she lives. I want to distinguish this paradigm very sharply from the baseline “character improves through time” found in most role-playing games. This is something much, much more specific.”

The thing that haunts me about this analysis (which seems accurate to me as well) is this:

Is this the real basis for D&D’s popularity?

This “draw,” this carrot that’s dangled in front of the players…is that what makes them come back for more? Because if it is, then ALL this discussion might very well be a waste of fucking precious time (and I’ve written this up as a 12 page, 7000 word essay). There is great potential within the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game (pre-1989, i.e. “old school” editions)…I know because I’ve observed it, I’ve played it. The same potential doesn’t exist within New D&D…the rules are designed to expand and improve the Stage 1 (basic) exploration and those same rules become extraneous or too complex for later Stage play (even if such was supported in the text of the rules…which it f’ing well is NOT). But there’s little way to GET to this potential style of play, even using “old school” rule sets, because they are accidents of design, not purposeful, and not well supported.

And maybe I’m retarded for even thinking about it. I’m not talking about piddling simulationist play…I’m talking about facing challenge on a variety of levels (i.e. “stages”): discovering the world outside the dungeon and becoming a ‘mover & shaker’ within that world. NOT limiting game-play to the challenge of exploring a Hazard Site. NOT simply figuring out how to defeat a particularly tricky puzzle (whether that “puzzle” is a tactical challenge against a superior opponent or a trick/trap not easily negotiated). Simply exploring a Hazard Site doesn’t allow you the depth of role-playing involved with Stage 2 and Stage 3 exploration when what you explore is Your Imaginary World and Your Characters’ Place In The World.

As I said, I know there are folks who don’t agree with me. Fortunately for you, the game as written is good enough for that Basic Exploration stage of play. Personally, I’d prefer to take the game up to the Expert and Master stages. However, I’m still mulling over exactly how to do that. I'll let you know if/when I figure it out.

; )

The Third Pillar – Escape

You know, I have a pretty good life. I have a beautiful family that I love very much. I have caring parents and in-laws. I have two (beagle) dogs who, while obnoxious at times, are a lot of fun and no more than what I deserve. I own a nice house. I have a car that runs. My wife and I both have decent jobs, and there’s food on our table every night. I have a large TV to watch large TV shows. I live in a city with professional sports teams that provide hours of entertainment. I have several bookshelves over-flowing with books and games. And if that wasn’t enough, I live in a pretty nice city with a lot of recreational activity, both indoors and out.

My life is fantastic, and I feel truly blessed to live it. And yet sometimes reality just isn’t good enough.

Welcome to Escapism 101.

There’s no getting around it (at least not to my mind): one of the major draws of the Dungeons & Dragons game is the fantasy of playing an imaginary character in an imaginary world where magic and monsters abound. The challenge and reward that are the first two pillars might keep folks coming back for more, but it’s the temptation to play a wizard or sword-wielding elf (or whatever) that sucks people in in the first place.

Now I (personally) use the term “fantasy role-playing” to discuss most RPGs. After all, the word fantasy simply means “the realm of imagination” or “make believe,” and pretending to be a secret agent or rugged cowboy is just as fantasy (for me) as pretending to be Bilbo Baggins.

But for purpose of the Third Pillar, when I use the term fantasy (and to be fair, it would probably be more clear to call the pillar “Fantasy Escape” instead of just “Escape”)…*ahem* When I use the term “fantasy” in reference to the Third Pillar, I’m talking about the literary term “fantasy,” which involves aspects of the supernatural and magic in addition to the imaginary or make-believe.

When it comes to fantasy literature, there are several sub-genres that are espoused, both in terms of theme and setting. Dungeons & Dragons, being originally inspired by fantasy literature, makes a clumsy swipe at the bunch and draws subgenres from both of those:

From the theme subgenre: Sword & Sorcery (example: Robert E. Howard)
From the setting subgenre: High Fantasy (example: J.R.R. Tolkien)

The reason why people have such a hard time deciding which it is, is because it is in fact BOTH…and comparing S&S to HF is comparing apples to oranges, not Braeburns to Granny Smiths.

[we’ll get back to the pillar in a moment; this needs a little set-up]

The high fantasy SETTING subgenre of literary fantasy fiction is defined by being set in an alternative world, one in which magic and the supernatural exists. Themes of high fantasy can include conflicts of epic scope, and generally have a “good vs. evil” thing going on. Protagonists are lone heroes that start young (or immature anyway) and grow into their abilities/confidence over time, sometimes walking the road of the Heroic Saga, and sometimes not.

The sword & sorcery THEME subgenre of literary fantasy fiction is characterized by fast paced action and danger that threatens its heroes on a personal level. The scope of conflict is immediate and immanent to the hero, not some looming Dark Lord. Sword & sorcery heroes tend to be competent wanderers, disinclined to settle down, instead going “where the action is.” Their adventures often include elements of magic and the supernatural (thus distinguishing them from historic adventure fiction and the like).

Got it? So what we have in D&D is a mash-up of THEME and SETTING…you get an alternate world filled with magic and the supernatural (elves and dragons and wizards, etc.). You have good versus evil. And you have heroes growing into their own, becoming important parts of the setting (at least if you choose to play the game into high levels, becoming kings and queens and whatnot). At the same time the scale of conflict is, more often than not, IMMEDIATE to what’s right in front of you. Do you defeat the antagonist? Do you set-off the trap? Do your party members find the gemstone you’ve hidden up your left nostril?

The fact that your characters are “competent wanderers” (at least in the mid-levels) and scurrilous rogues (default characterization for pre-1983 editions) makes characterization of PCs even more S&S-esque. You're Fafhrd, not Elrond, more often than not.

The third pillar upon which D&D is built…and without which, you don’t really have a D&D game…is its ability to allow you to escape into this fantasy mash-up. This escape...escape from our mundane lives, nice (or terrible) as they are…allows us to experience (vicariously, with our imagination) two very distinct things simultaneously:

1) What it means to live and breathe in a high fantasy world.
2) What it means to live the life of a rough-and-tumble, S&S hero.

Now THAT’s a powerful combination.

With only one of those things, you run the risk of losing part of the draw of the game.

For example, take out the high fantasy and leave only the S&S and you run the risk of players becoming incredibly cynical and callous to the game. Take the Stormbringer game for example. The original game was a great piece of sword & sorcery RPG…including the idea that life is short or transitory at best and often ends in messy spillage of organs. Having no “end game,” and very little character growth over time, players were expected to survive as long as possible while “adventuring” until meeting their inevitable gruesome demise (as occurs to all characters in Moorcock’s Elric books). I’ve played Stormbringer many times and enjoyed it, but it never turns into anything “long term.”

Ron Edwards’s supplement Sorcerer & Sword (for use with his Sorcerer game) is explicit in its attempt to emulate the S&S literary genre. It also is a “short-term” (3 or 5 session) game. This has quite a bit to do with Sorcerer’s game play aspects, but the rules eminently emulate the inspirational literature.

Contrast that with a game that leaves out the S&S and focuses only on the High Fantasy. Actually, that’s kind of a trick question as few RPGs will really spurn the individual character in order to pay honor the overarching setting. Perhaps MERPS, Star Wars (I consider it fantasy, even though set in space), or ElfQuest, might be examples. When I’ve played or run these games in the past, players (including moi) were often lost as to “well, what do we do now?” And especially with the licensed games, there’s a feeling of “none of my adventures matter, because it’s really Frodo/Luke/Cutter who’s going out and accomplishing the world changing/saving, breast-beating fantasy that I only wish I could.”

Sure, you can call this silly on my part; chalk it up to me not having enough imagination to revisit, say, Middle Earth and rework The Lord of the Rings' plot for the player characters to take the place of Frodo and company. But why should I bother? I mean, I have Dungeons & Dragons…here’s a system that does what I want it to do with very minimal tweaking. With its Tolkien species and its Vancian magic, not to mention Howardian shrines and tombs begging to be robbed of gold and jewels, D&D caries just about the right mix of heroic and epic for my fantasy escape.

And it’s easily customizable! Look at the archetypes (classes) that are available! Look at all the fantasy worlds available for exploration!

That last is the bit that appeals even to the guy tasked with the responsibility of DM. The participants taking the role of “player characters” get to live their daydream life in the fantasy world, swinging swords, slinging spells, talking smack to ogres, etc. You can fall off the edge of a cliff or get bitten by a giant spider or snake and still miraculously survive (with a lucky die roll or two)…unlike, say, real life. But while PCs get to run their characters, it’s the DM that gets to run the world.

And there are so many to choose from! When I was a kid we used Greyhawk, and as a teen we were exploring the Known World of Mystarra. But besides published ones (personally, I like the ideas behind Dark Sun and, to a lesser extent, Krynn and Shadow Dell) you have the whole range of fantasy literature to draw upon: CA Smith’s Averiogne, Howard’s Hyboria, the fantasy Scandanavia of Elizabeth Boyer, Tolkien, Lewis, Lahnkmer, Xanth, Darkover, Sanctuary. I’ve been reading Dave Chandler’s Ancient Blades trilogy lately (more on that later) and the deeper I get into it, the more I want to build a campaign setting based on HIS world.

But it’s just as easy and entertaining an escape to design and develop your OWN world. Personally, I dig on both my Goblin Wars and Land of Ice settings, but Raggi’s horrific New World and Wetmore's Anomalous Subsurface Dungeon and Jimm Johnson's Planet Eris are weird-cool-fun…and I’d love to do something with just a baseline version of Arneson’s Blackmoor (meaning just “OD&D + Supplement II”).

Escapism and “fantasy” are part of MOST RPGs, it’s true. But D&D’s particular brand of fantasy escapism…giant, high fantasy setting coupled with individual badass heroes…is one of the integral parts of the game. One of the *ahem* foundational pillars of the game. And something that needs to be accounted for when building any “new” edition of D&D. And part of accounting for that is in terms of actual game play.

Now this next bit may evoke some disagreement: I’m willing to live with that. I have said in the past that, despite its name, I don’t feel 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons really is “D&D.” Yes, it has the name. Yes, it has some of the tropes. But compared to the previous 5 to 8 editions (however, you choose to count ‘em), I don’t think the game AS WRITTEN provides the same game play experience. And the controversial part of that opinion is that I haven’t played it, and I haven’t skimmed more than a few pages of the text. But I have seen it played, and I’ve read reviews, and I’ve talked with people who have played it. And from that “hearsay” it would seem that both the challenge and reward pillars of earlier editions are dialed WAY DOWN in the 4th edition.

However, it’s when we come to the literary fantasy roots that make up the third pillar of D&D, that 4E REALLY seems to take a nosedive into something else. Gone is the exploration of a high fantasy setting…instead, we have set piece encounter followed by set piece encounter with little other “action.” Gone is the individual hero to be replaced by superheroes that mechanically are little different in effectiveness from each other, instead having individual color rather than true distinction. Even D20, for all its flaws, felt MORE like the fantasy escape I’ve grown to know over the years than 4th Edition, the latter of which seems (from appearance) to have all the heart-and-soul of a board game or war game (i.e. “not much”).

What I want…what a lot of folks who enjoy D&D, in any edition, want…is to get lost, temporarily, in a fantasy world. One separate and outside the one we live in. One filled with magic and wonder and the supernatural. One in which the individual counts for something, when one individual can make a serious difference…because in this story, your character is the protagonist and your choices and behavior are at the forefront of the saga.

Now, if we accept that “fantasy escape” is the third pillar, how do we incorporate that into the modular design of a new edition? Some possible examples might include:

- Specific setting add-ons that change the play of the game (changing game play, keeping it fresh, giving participants new “dimensions” to explore).
- Rules (or add-on systems) that allow individual behavior to have an impact on the world...things that encourage role-playing (i.e. escape into character), ideally non-class-specific but setting driven: luck points, sworn oaths and vows, one-on-one dueling, rules of attraction (for romance), aging and deterioration (character mortality)…all things that make the game more complicated, but richer in character
- Setting specific magic and supernatural effects
- Different ideas for challenges and rewards (the first two pillars) based on fantasy escape. How many of us in real life get to lead troops on a battlefield? How many of us get to jockey for status within the faerie courts? How many of us have ever had the opportunity to raise a dragon from the time it’s hatched to be a companion, mount, and/or supernatural familiar?

[here endeth the Third Pillar post...I have one more post in this series for tomorrow]

Honestly...Can I be a Bigger Nerd?

When I was a kid, it used to really irk me the way non-gamers (especially parents) would refer to all role-playing games as D&D. “What are you kids doing? Playing D&D?” No, we’re playing Marvel Superheroes. “Whatever. You know what I mean.”

Hmm, I’d think (as a know-it-all kid who would one day grow into a know-it-all adult), I may know what you mean, but do YOU know what you mean? YOU mean “role-playing game.” Dungeons & Dragons is just one of many.

In the 21st century, it’s equally irksome to hear people refer to RPGs as table-top RPGs with computer RPGs being the “default RPG.” From where I stand, nearly all computer games marketed as RPGs bear little resemblance to the term. WoW and similar MMORPGs ironically come closest to the original term as players choose different roles and work together in teams. Most console and PC games have only a single player in a single role (if Fable is an RPG, then so is Halo…your “role” is Master Chief!), and games where you control “parties of adventurers” (from Bards Tale up to the latest Final Ultima or whatever) bear a superficial resemblance to a particular type of true RPG (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons), but there’s no actual “role-playing” that occurs. It’s more of a resource management coupled with action/exploration. Whatever. As Stephen King says in his Gunslinger series, “the world has moved on.”

Well, somewhat anyway. There are those of us still playing, buying, and creating traditional RPGs (i.e. for the “table-top”) so not everyone is quite as eager to throw their imaginations out the window and jump into one giant pot of computer zoning…at least not as their only form of recreation.

And yet, there are problems in paradise. Bad blood. Disagreements that rear their heads and cause in-fighting and back-biting in something that (one would think) would be a strong brother-/sister-hood community. I refer of course to Dungeons & Dragons and the Eternal Edition Wars.

Why does D&D matter? Who cares? They’re all just games…can’t people leave well enough alone? Can’t we all just get along and agree to disagree?

The answer to the latter question is: of course. The answer to the former…well…

D&D is the granddaddy of RPGs. It is a touchstone and common piece of many gamers’ history. Even those that don’t play D&D anymore can relate (somewhat) to those that do based on a shared past. It is many, many gamers’ introduction to this hobby/industry called “role-playing.” Role-playing, to me, is much more than a simple game. It is a tool that can act to open one’s creative mind, in much the same as any of the traditional arts can. Which is why I consider it an “art.” Even D&D, a silly little game based on a ridiculous premise that there are dungeons to explore and treasures to win (i.e. “a buck to be made”) by defeating dragons and other fantasy opponents.

As a common touchstone to this hobby/art gamers share it would be nice to have some agreement on what it IS. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult as the game has gone through many, many iterations over its nearly 40 year history. This of itself wouldn’t be so difficult if players were to study the history of the game, but generally players are more concerned with PLAYING (that is the point of the game, of course!) and are content to work with the game “as is,” in whatever its current incarnation.

Fortunately or not, art has value to us and those players that do more than dabble in the hobby generally begin to attach meaning and sentiment to the game. And if that meaning and sentiment is concentrated in or attached to a single game (or a single edition!)…well, this is what leads to fierce battles of ideology, not to mention hurt feelings.

[kind of like the silliness of religious Holy Wars…oh, boy, we have all these different Holy Writings that tell people to “be good” in order to “find Heaven” but then we kill each other for taking our own distinct path. “No, no, you can only be saved through JESUS; can that Mohammed crap!” Silly, silly, silly.]

Rather than fighting blindly, it may be helpful for us to really consider what we actually think about Dungeons & Dragons. Over at the Mad Tower, Dave posted what defines D&D for him. I think this is a great exercise…certainly something to be considered by any player with a dog in the Edition Wars fight. I mean, it doesn’t help to just yell at someone for “being stupid” (even if it is cathartic) if you can’t even put into words why you think they’re crazy.

Take me, for example (you’ve read this far anyway). I have talked shit about pretty much every edition of D&D, and even though I prefer B/X today, in past years I had plenty of derogatory things to say about it (including and especially regarding the issue of “race as class”). Looking back, I can see that I was both young and stupid at the time (or rather, ignorant and “not thinking clearly”)…but even in those days I would still have considered B/X to be “Dungeons & Dragons.”

So what is D&D to me? Welp, I’ve been thinking of that since this morning (really!) trying to define it in my head. It’s not easy.

[and by the way, it’s no good to say “I know what it is NOT.” That’s a cop-out. If you’re going to do this exercise, let’s be positive and constructive, huh?]

First off, for my part I feel it’s necessary to be a bit more specific than Dave’s definition, which boiled down to “playing fantasy characters in a fantasy world kicking fantasy monster ass while rolling a D20.” That would certainly translate across every edition (to date) of Dungeons & Dragons, but would also include an awful lot of other fantasy RPGs. Unlike my parents, I don’t consider all role-playing games to be “D&D,” so I’ll need a more narrow definition.

The problem is, it’s damn hard to do so…especially considering the murky origins of the created in a primordial stew of various hobby groups prior to being codified in textual form. In the end, since we’re discussing Dungeons & Dragons specifically, not just role-playing (or Midwest War Gaming) in general, I am forced to rely somewhat on the authority of its main creator: Saint Gygax.

[all apologies to Dave Arneson… for better or worse, once Gygax took the reins he defined what “Dungeons & Dragons” was all about]

Now, I agree with Ron Edwards that there is no “archetypal” Dungeons & Dragons game…but there ARE recognizable trends in the game across multiple editions that I find mark the game as its own particular entity (albeit one that’s had a few nips and tucks). I look at these trends, rather than Gary’s specific “stamp of approval” because I find some later editions sans Gygax (like 2nd and 3rd edition) to still be fairly true to the game he shaped until the 1980s.

Plus, I don’t want to piss off even more people by saying “2nd edition isn’t D&D.”
; )

In my opinion, here are the elements that make any edition of Dungeons & Dragons specifically recognizable as a true member of the D&D family:

1. Theme/Premise: all games involve a team of adventurers exploring a fantasy world, overcoming a variety of challenges, and “improving” thereby. Adventurers face real and mortal danger in the form of monsters and traps, and mental challenges in the form of “tricks” or puzzles, and are rewarded with treasure. Often, the areas of exploration are underground (i.e. in a “dungeon”). Exploration of the unknown (and surviving what is found) is the key occupation of the players. Reward for good play allows increased effectiveness which increases range of exploration.

2. Character generation: includes a standard set of base attributes, randomly rolled. Characters may be a cut above your average “fantasy world citizen,” but in general they are very mortal peons that will need wit, skill, and luck to survive to higher levels of play (this is part of the “reward” system). Characters are classified by (duh) “class.” Class determines role in the party. Adventuring parties are expected to include members of several different classes, so as to fill several different roles. By necessity, the number of classes (and thus roles) are limited…fighter types, wizard types, skill monkey types, and clerical types (which provide certain special abilities). Basic playable species always included the allied peoples of Tolkien’s Middle Earth: Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits (“Halflings”), and Humans. Monster races are never a default player species, except when mixed with “human” blood (half-orcs, half-ogres).

3. Each character class has its own sphere of authority, areas in which they excel. Fighters fight, magic-users cast spells, thieves have “special skills,” and clerics have “special magic” (of the healing and undead fighting nature) unavailable to magic-users. Each class is of value in its role, though not necessarily able to stand toe-to-toe with other classes if not in its “sphere of authority.” For example, a fighter cannot waltz in and out of areas stealthily like a thief, even though she might bash open a lock/door rather than picking it.

4. Spell magic is based on the Jack Vance Dying Earth books…spells are memorized and then “lost” upon casting. This has been the basis of magic since the game’s origins. Other fantasy RPGs use different types of game mechanics for “magic systems;” D&D uses Vance. A character with more levels can cast more spells and more powerful spells.

5. Combat... is resolved through an initiative-attack roll-damage roll-hit point reduction system. Characters have an armor class, based on defenses, that determines the chance to hit. All damage is subtracted from hit points, an abstract measure of a character’s health, vitality, luck, and fatigue. There is no penalty to a character’s effectiveness for damage taken. Once hit points are reduced (a character’s luck has “run out”) characters are dead. Hit points are slow to recover except with the use of magic (potions, clerical spells). More experienced characters take a longer time to recover naturally than less experienced characters (perhaps due to an experienced player taking a blow that would sprain or break a limb while the novice has his limb severed, i.e. killing him). Armor class impacts whether or not hit points will be expended (i.e. whether or not a character will be hit and damage taken). In general, there are no defensive actions a character can take (for example, parries or dodges); this is factored based on armor worn and (usually) dexterity bonus. Combat is a necessary system, but left abstract, so as not to become the center-point of the game.

6. Also... Effects that may harm a character outside of physical combat offer characters the opportunity to make a “saving throw:” a throw of a 20-sided dice that may mitigate or eliminate the effect completely. Only rare and powerful effects force a character to forgo a saving throw. Saving throws include magical effects, poison, paralysis, petrification, and being caught within a blast of dragon fire. All of these effects use non-combat resolution methods (for example, spells and dragon breath do not require attack rolls), or are a last ditch chance to save someone from instant death (poison), or both (death magic, petrification). The amount needed to make a saving throw is based on character level with more experienced characters having easier chances to avoid effects, perhaps based on luck or heightened awareness. Different classes have differing effectiveness for specific types of saving throw.

7. “Game time” in the form of 10 minute “turns,” melee rounds and imaginary hours, days, and years are all formalized and their counting is a strict resource to be measured. IN-game time has impact on duration of spells and effects, light, food, the healing of hit points, and the recovery of spells and (in some editions) decreased effectiveness due to aging. Rate of movement is needed for characters, in part to help measure time within the confines of a “dungeon” environment. Time matters.

8. Improvement of character is measured in “Levels” like a Freemason or something. A low-level character is a shlub, a grunt, a peon. As a character gains experience points, level increases. Level is tied to in-game effectiveness. A higher level character is more effective and more difficult to kill (more hit points, better saves) thus opening up more game content for exploration (a low level character is confined to the easiest levels; high level character can go anywhere they damn well please).

9. Levels refer to “levels of explorative content” as well…the 3rd level of a dungeon is deeper and more menacing, providing new and interesting monsters and treasure than the 1st and 2nd level. Players’ reward for good or long play is improvement of one’s character level so as to open these new areas for exploration and find the more powerful monsters and treasure items. Good play = increased effectiveness = greater range of exploration. This is the basic reward pattern in D&D.

10. DM has final authority as referee over the game and is expected to play “the environment” and any imaginary individuals other than the player characters. The DM is expected to challenge players but to “be fair,” though enforcement of these ideals is left to individual gamers rather than codified in rules. Players are presumed to have full authority over the actions of their characters (presuming said characters are un-fettered by in-game effects).

11. Monsters operate under different principles from player characters. Monster hit points are generally considered to be a creature’s over-all toughness/vitality, though again measured abstractly. Monster attributes are fewer and simpler than those of player characters, generally allowing for ease and speed of handling by a DM that needs to “play everything except the PCs.” Certain monsters (e.g. goblins) have a tradition of being fodder, while others (e.g. dragons) are known for being formidable. Increased character effectiveness (i.e. “leveling up”) opens up new challenges to players as their characters are able to face these greater foes.

12. Skills are unnecessary or, at most, an optional component of game play. Character’s have the appropriate abilities for their class: good hit rolls for fighters, spells for magic-users, thieving abilities (whether percentage or circumstance based…backstabbing being an example of the latter) for thieves. Game systems are measured by utility, making use of all dice, rather than one particular type of dice roll.

13. Wealth accumulated is a measure of a character’s power, reputation, and ability. Magical items acquired provide the means to expand their power and influence beyond normal means. Character leveling increases effectiveness rapidly over the first few levels, gradually plateau-ing at the higher levels…acquisition of magic items allows effectiveness to continue to climb even at the higher levels. More powerful items are found in more dangerous areas providing greater rewards to characters with the increased effectiveness (and courage!) to seek them out.

14. No equipment needed to play except: paper, pencil, dice (of multiple shapes and utility), and the game text. Miniatures are useful but NEVER required. Imagination IS.

Now that’s about all I can think of right now…and let me tell you, I’ve been thinking about it a LOT today. Certain editions may stray a bit off track (2nd edition AD&D’s revised experience system, for example, makes the game fairly incoherent) especially with the addition of certain supplements. However, even "core" 3rd edition D&D adheres mostly to these “14 D&D Presumptions” (the inherent skill system being the one transgression, and the multi-classing madness pushing the boundaries of “class as role”).

For me, when you start knocking any of these off the list, the game ceases to be Dungeons & Dragons. For example, Palladium Fantasy screws the pooch on #3, #5, #12 and usually #11...it’s not even close. GURPS fantasy, even if used to create a similarly themed game, misses on #2, #4, #5, #8, #9, #11, #12, and generally #3. Yes, you can play an elvish warrior kicking dragon ass in a dungeon and making off with loot, but you’re playing a different game.

Of course, these games designers are NOT trying to pass themselves off as "D&D."

Since I don’t own 4E and can’t go over it line-by-line, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable folks than myself to decide if and when it fails to follow any of these “traditions.” Just from what I’ve read, it seems to miss on at least a couple, but maybe I’m mistaken.

You tell me.

; )

Quitting While I'm Behind

My recent posts on WotC's "Tomb of Horrors" and Gamer Generations both included some not-so-flattering remarks about 4th Edition "Dungeons & Dragons."

Now, long-time readers will of course be aware that I've denigrated many editions of Dungeons & Dragons in the past...most especially 2nd Edition AD&D (which I have often claimed to loathe with a passion) and D20 in both its 3.0 and 3.5 versions. Likewise, I'm no huge fan (anymore) of BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia, finding that Mentzer's system is a little too "kiddy-fied" for my taste. My preferred edition is B/X, hence the name of this blog, but 1st edition AD&D is the version of Dungeons & Dragons that I played most often in my youth and is the one with which I have the most actual play experience.

Now, a lot of times in this blog I talk about "good game design" and what makes a good game (these are table-top RPGs I'm talking about...just want to avoid any confusion out there). I own a LOT of games, and in the past I owned EVEN MORE, and there are some games I have played that I've NEVER OWNED (like say, GURPS). All of these RPGs were designed by real people, people with the best of intentions (I assume), and when I criticize a game I try to be objective about it.

Often I fail. That's just me...I get worked up sometimes.

However, just because I lambast or beat up or curse a game for some reason or another, it doesn't mean that I don't find something good and (God Help Me) "fun" about it. Case in point: I recently (within the last year) re-purchased Palladium's Rifts, a game I all-but-swore I'd never play again. It's STILL terrible and practically un-playable (except by masochistic 13-15 year olds...at least that was the "peak" of mine and my friends' Rifts experiments). But it's still representative of, not only history, but some real nuggets of powerful imaginary content...not to mention some sweet artwork and the chassis to run a post-apocalyptic Borg game (namely using Warlords of Russia).

And who wouldn't want to do that?

Not every game is good for every occasion...not even necessarily in the genre for which they're designed. Capes is a great little superhero game...unless you and the other players are interested in a superhero slugfest. Then its lack of permanence makes the end result O So Un-Satisfying (I know this from experience). Vampire was great at setting the Dark and Gothic Punk mood/ambience...and then turned into a superhero fang-banger game with lots of running gun battles. Hollow World Expedition (or HEX) is a fantastic-looking game, chock-full of inspiration for running a fast-and-furious pulpy adventure game...unless you really want fast-and-furious since the mechanics of action are a little on the clunky side. Castle Falkenstein appears to be a fantastic game all around...except that every time I try reading it I fall asleep.

These are games that I own and will continue to own, providing inspiration and possibly things to tinker with and get a game going with the right people. In some ways, I'm like the guy who collects old junker cars and has them spread all over the front yard, buying 'em for cheap with the idea that I'll fix 'em up "someday" and either sell 'em for a profit or (at the least) own a classic vehicle that is the envy of the local car show.

Yeah...I'm that guy.

Now regarding Dungeons & Dragons: I have owned, played, and run ever edition of Dungeons & Dragons EXCEPT the so-called "4th Edition." Did my faithful readers know I've actually run a 2nd edition game before? I know I've mentioned I've played and run both 3rd edition and 3.5, both at the table and over the internet.

In fact, D2o may have been my single-biggest RPG investment of all time...though I had almost every Vampire publication ever issued for the 1st & 2nd edition, and I had more than a dozen or so Rifts books at one time (not to mention a ton of AD&D stuff). And that's just the 3rd edition...I never bothered to buy 3.5 books (with the exception of the Complete Warrior and Adventurer books), instead just downloading and updating my 3rd edition stuff with the on-line System Reference Docs (SRD).

However, I stopped buying any WotC-issued D&D product long before 4th edition was even announced...and I mean I stopped buying cold, both new and used. Why? Because I wanted to stop the cash sink from a company intent on sucking every last dollar from my wallet? No...I continue to buy gaming product, both used and new, and even purchased Saga Star Wars last year. The jalopies continue to pile up in my game room, much to the wife's chagrin.

No, I stopped playing D20 because it sucked. Running it as a DM or playing as a PC. On-line or at the table. Every game came down to frustration and eventual disgust. With people that were friends, acquaintances, or even outright strangers.

Fortunately, my friends and I are still friends...we can all agree on our mutual dislike of D20.

; )

What was it about D20 I disliked so much? Well, I blogged about it a lot when I first started writing the ol' B/X Blackrazor, but in the end it comes down to a couple things: it emphasized character crafting over good play, combat over adventuring, and unwieldy mechanics over abstract models...the latter creating a steep learning curve that I find antithesis to creating easy access thus stifling the ability to grow the hobby.

Oh...that and WotC usurpation of every old RPG's system with their shiny D20 system. Yeah, I convert most existing games to B/X if I wanted (and I've known people that converted EVERY game to GURPS or Champions)...but just because you can doesn't mean you should...or that the result will be better.

However, setting aside my ideals and indie-gaming rhetoric for the moment, those other things I mentioned all led to a disturbing realization...the game was looking more and more (or trying harder and harder to be) like an MMORPG. You know, like a certain World of Warcraft game on the market?

Now let me be perfectly clear: I have played WoW. I have played it A LOT in the past. I see the attraction, especially for the lone gamer who, perhaps by chance circumstance, doesn't have a group of people with whom to game. Or for people that want a relaxing way to un-wind that takes no prep, imagination, or stress, yet is still a form of escapism that has an "interactive" quality over chilling on the couch in front of the television.

So yeah, I understand it. I've done it. And I know it for the complete soul-sucking waste that it is. Because at least with table-top RPGs you are connecting with humans, having human interaction, creating a community...in addition to stretching and flexing your creative muscles by being forced to use your own imagination and visualization, to create your own stories and decide for yourself which direction "the quest" may take.

Discussing the best group tactics for handling raids and such in an on-line game is not "role-playing." Planning and execution can be done in chess, too, but it lacks the richness and creativity of real role-playing. Of course, if you've never been exposed to that how would you know what you're missing...?

SO...4th edition. I've never played it. I've never DM'd it. I've never owned it, so I've never read it. I've read a lot of reviews of the individual books over at RPG.net. I've skimmed its core book pages at the local book store or game shop. I've had discussions with people that HAVE purchased it and read it. Nothing I've seen or heard has led me to consider investing in it.

And yet here I denigrate it and piss off the people that profess to play and love it. How dare I!

Well, what can I say? To me, it looks like its designed to appeal mainly to players of computer games. I've said this before, but I'll repeat it in this post: you can't make an RPG designed to play like a computer game that plays BETTER than a computer game. If people want a computer game, they'll play a computer game. Maybe WoW doesn't have a "dragon born" race yet, but when they DO (or something equally cool...like DEATH KNIGHTS), people will jump ship to play it. And if WotC and Hasbro design an on-line computer game that plays like 4th edition D&D...with all the races and classes and spells and magic items and cool powers...well, why would you need to play a table-top game if that were available? And why would WotC/Hasbro want to support it if they could get people to pay a $10-20 monthly subscription?

But, hey, that's just my objection to the game on principle...something I wasn't even talking about in those last couple posts. What I WAS saying (that upset some people) is A) 4th edition is not conducive to role-playing, and B) 4th edition isn't really "Dungeons & Dragons."

I suppose people have a point about the former...I haven't played the game so perhaps I shouldn't judge. However, I can say that D20 wasn't (very) conducive to role-playing, mainly due to its focus and emphasis (resolving challenges with combat and/or D20 rolls). But I suppose that really depends on how you define role-playing. And that's a much longer, and much more complicated post for another time.

As to my claim that "4th Edition isn't D&D," well, I stand by what I said. I suppose in a way this patently ridiculous as it DOES hold the title "Dungeons & Dragons," so it is in fact Dungeons & Dragons. But if Pepsi bought the rights to Coke and re-labeled their own drink "Coke" and burned the original Coke formula...well, is the drink in the can really Coca-Cola? People who'd had Coca-Cola in the past (Old School Gamers) would say, "no."

[and just to continue the analogy, Indie Gamers would ignore it and drink RC while Non-Gamers would drink beer...]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...but 4th edition doesn't walk the walk or quack the quack of older editions of D&D. Not even of D20, which was pretty far removed from the original game. It has elves and dwarves and gnomes? Sure...so do a number of other fantasy RPGs. It has classes and levels? Ditto that. You find monsters and fight treasure? There's a lot of RPGs on the market, past and present that operate with this premise...that doesn't make 'em Dungeons & Dragons. It just makes them "fantasy RPGs."

People: you're allowed to purchase and play whatever you want. But telling me that 4th edition is "the best edition of D&D there is" or that "this is the newest edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" is pretty absurd in my opinion. When I see people saying that, it reminds me of people who said, "D&D sucks, we should play Dragon Quest instead." Or Chaosium's Basic Fantasy RPG. Or Burning Wheel. Or Dangerous Journeys. Or Palladium Fantasy. Or RuneQuest. Or Fantasy Hero. Or MERPS. Or The Fantasy Trip. Or Rolemaster. Or Tunnels & Trolls. Or Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

Or whatever. A commentator in an earlier pointed out Ron Edwards's article on Why System Matters. I would instead point interested readers to Ron's discussions of what he calls Fantasy Heartbreakers. Now of course, 4th edition isn't a Fantasy "Heartbreaker;" this isn't a handful of guys self-publishing a labor of love that hopes to "fix" what is wrong with Dungeons & Dragons. But it IS similar if one considers the "fix" to be a necessary change/adaptation to the perceived idea of what gamers want in the 21st century. However, unlike the independent Fantasy Heartbreakers, by making use of the NAME (i.e. "milking the cash cow") they can ensure some degree of success, regardless of the content of their game, by branding alone.

At least until they drive the value of the brand down.

And whether or not THAT actually happens in my lifetime doesn't much matter to me, as the 4th edition game is not the type of gaming in which I'm interested.

Okay...that's enough for now. Here I was going to put up something more fun on the old blog and I'm talking about this stuff again. Sheesh!

; )