ASC Review: Pyramid of Peril

Patracleo's Peregrinating Pyramid of Peril (Matthew Lake)

Seven Voyages of Zylarthen adventure for three to six PCs of levels 5th-6th

I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.

Once again, Matthew Lake takes the final submission spot. Last year's entry was the best of the bunch and a decisive winner of the contest. This year? Well...

I'll make this brief, because I've already spent way too much time on this one. The idea here isn't bad: an undead AEgyptian princess zips around the world in her flying pyramid, picking up dummies to run a gauntlet/obstacle course for her immortal amusement. Okay, actually writing that out it looks worse than the concept actually is (I mean, D&D's premise isn't the greatest...). 

The problem with this one (well, my MAIN problem) is that A) it's written for Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, which requires some 'transduction' for me to grok, and B) the re-skinned monsters which need to be translated to 7VZ just so that I can translate them again to D&D terms. Which is a pain in the ass.

When I'm picking up a pre-written adventure for use at my table, I don't want UNDERSTANDING the module to be a "pain in the ass."

I will not quibble overmuch about 7VZ as an entry, because while NO, its system is NOT compatible with TSR-era D&D (its combat system functions differently), that doesn't matter terribly when looking at the adventure itself. All I see is "bugbear 12 HPs" or "gold ankh 500gp" or "save vs. spells or dance madly for 2-12 turns." These things all translate as "standard" D&D, and if you are playing this using OD&D, you don't need to know the funky 7VZ rules, nor does it matter that 7VZ doesn't use clerics or whatever.

No, the two biggest issues here are just monsters and treasures. 

All the damn re-skins. "Scarabites" as goblins. "Stag-Scarabites" as hobgoblins. "Bear-bugs" as bugbears. "Scarabite flyers" as...winged goblins, I guess? Infrared scarabs (invisible goblins). I mean, I get it, you've got a bug theme going on here. I'm trying to play D&D, and I keep seeing paragraphs full of unfamiliar mouthful of words and I have to remember if Rhino-Scarabs are the ones that get ridden (they are) or are those the Stag-Scarabs (no, they're the riders). Scarab-scarab-scarab...sheesh.

But that just makes the thing a headache to parse. The other issue is the treasure.

7VZ uses a "silver standard," which NO is NOT the same as an TSR-era edition of D&D but whatever, I can do math. So players have to SPEND money to earn x.p. (*sigh*) and they get 1 x.p. for every 1 silver piece spent. So, easy right? Just add up the s.p. value and treat it like g.p. for seeing if the treasure totals are good for this adventure, right?

Except that the author isn't CONSISTENT with his nomenclature. He gives some items' values in gold piece, some values in silver pieces, and then there are coppers thrown in the mix just to piss me off (because in Zylarthen, five CPs = 1 SP, meaning that UNLIKE normal D&D, 100K in copper is worth a phat score of 20K experience points, rather than just something to weigh down bodies in the river...). As a reviewer I have to assume that the author did not just typo his way through this thing and meant every scrap of loot to be worth its exact value which, besides being a pain in the ass, GROSSLY OVERVALUES the treasure yield of this adventure...should be 43K in silver and instead you've got 110K.

Of course, if you were just using it as an OD&D adventure than it's grossly UNDERvalued at a paltry 11K in gold pieces. Bleah.

Matthew, you did a great job last year, and you're a creative guy, but this one needs work. For me, it's not even playable...but I don't play Seven Voyages, even if it IS the "new hotness" amongst classic adventure gamers. However, some people do and...as with the ACKS submissions...I'll defer to other reviewers and simply mark this as *** assuming its appropriately functional (if over-treasured) for 7VZers.

The end.

Why NOT Shadowdark

Not a "Dear JB" letter per se, but Ilya asked the following on a different post a couple days ago:

Hi JB, I’ve been enjoying reading your thoughts on old editions of D&D, and as someone fairly new to the older editions, I really value your perspective.

I’ve been looking into Shadowdark. Due to my lack of experiences, the systems feel very similar. Both have light rules, use dungeon turn structure and overland travel rules. The big shift seems to be that Shadowdark streamlines things by combining saves, attacks, and skills into a single d20 roll 

I was wondering if you might have a moment to share why you would not recommend Shadowdark?

Shadowdark, from what I can gather is the latest, greatest hotness in the OSR...not quite OSE in level of popularity but it seems to be quite well-liked by the more serious minded of "rules lite" aficionados. 

However, while I've already given an overview of why I (JB) spurn "rules light" games, Ilya is asking for a specific recommendation (or non-recommendation) on a specific game system. Far be it from me to hesitate when it comes sharing an opinion! So here it is: the brass tacks, the full skinny, the real McCoy:

BUT FIRST. Let's pause for a moment.

It should be understood by everyone reading this post (yes, here's where the meandering starts) that folks are free to play any game they choose. You can play Monopoly. You can play chess. You can play Axis & Allies. Lot of games out there...a LOT of games. It's the holiday season, and I always try to pick up a new game or two for my household (much to the chagrin of my wife). 

There are a LOT of games, and a lot of different ways to occupy our time. Pickleball, for example...that's fun. And it gives you a little light exercise. Ilya you can play pickleball just as readily as you can play Shadowdark.

But maybe your knees are worse than mine, or maybe you don't have a pickleball court near you, or the ones you have always seem to be occupied (pickleball is pretty popular out in my neck of the woods)...even in December with an "atmospheric river" bringing floods to the region. Or maybe you just don't like playing pickleball in the rain. I don't.

So you want to play an indoor game...and you want to play an RPG. Because you're an imaginative sort of person. Okay. Lots of RPGs on the market...a TON of RPGs on the market. I own scores of them myself (I honestly have never tried to come up with an exact count...). Apologies to all the GURPS and HERO and D20 fans on the internet, but I'm not a big believer in universal systems; I find they tend to make for dull gaming. Instead, I prefer RPGs that are focused around their own individual themes, with rules tailored to their objectives of game play. Yeah, I'm an old fuddy-duddy that way.

SO...why would I not recommend Shadowdark? Why would I recommend Shadowdark? 

What's Shadowdark about? Well, let's see...(*ahem*):

WHAT IS SHADOWDARK?

Shadowdark RPG is a fantasy adventure game where you and your companions delve into buried ruins, lost cities, spider-infested forests, and even fearsome dragon lairs in search of gold and glory.

The Shadowdark is any place where danger and darkness hold sway. It clutches ancient secrets and dusty treasures in its rotting claws, daring fortune seekers to tempt their fates.

With your adventuring companions at your side, you confront the Shadowdark's sinister traps, formidable magics, and ruthless monsters.

If you survive, you'll bring back untold riches plucked from the jaws of death itself. And before long, you'll hear the Shadowdark's call once again!

(from the Shadowdark Player Quickstart Guide, page 7)

Huh. That sounds an awful lot like this game called Dungeons & Dragons.

So, there's this game called Dungeons & Dragons...great game, love it. You and your friends make characters and go into "dungeons" (a euphemism for subterranean adventure locales) and face danger and monsters and traps and magical threats, searching for treasures that you can bring back to the surface world. It's a lot of fun, even if you only play it in its most BASIC fashion...which is what "dungeon delving" is.

It's also HELLA easy to learn. You can pick up the Moldvay Basic book for under $5 on DriveThruRPG, and it gives you all the procedural info you need to run the game in its Basic form...and when you're ready to get out of the dungeon and explore the perilous wilderness you can pick up the Cook/Marsh Expert set (also under $5, but in print form for $13.99) and continue the adventures all the way up to level 14. Heck, if you like that simple system, you could even pick up something like my B/X Companion book to continue adventuring beyond those levels...although my book, sadly, is not as cheap ($12.99 for the PDF...but it IS a 'platinum bestseller' and people seem to dig it).

Each of these books (yes, even mine) clock in at 64 pages apiece, and they are an easy read...the Moldvay book especially has some lovely examples that can teach even a kid as young as 10 how to play the game (I was able to figure it out at age 9, but I was a sharp young lad). This Shadowdark RPG? The Quickstart Players Guide alone is 66 pages...so's the Quickstart Masters Guide.  I don't have a copy of the Shadowdark RPG "core rulebook," but my Google machine tells me it's 330 pages long.

Okay. 330 pages to learn how to play Basic D&D? Hm.

Of course, these days I don't play B/X, I play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D), which has a lot of similarities in theme and objectives to Basic Dungeons & Dragons, but provides you with a more robust system for longer, more extended game play. It's a little heftier than B/X...about 350 pages in the PHB and DMG combined, plus the various "monster guides"...but it can provide you with decades of entertaining game play. 

See, here's the thing Ilya: it's not that I recommend you pass on Shadowdark; what I'm actually recommending is that you play AD&D. That's pretty much what I'm recommending to EVERYONE these days...unless you don't yet know the basics (in which case, I always recommend reading Moldvay's Basic instructions to set you on the path). Maybe Shadowdark is a great system...I couldn't tell you, having never played it. What I CAN tell you, is that AD&D is a great system, one that I've been playing for 40+ years.

If what you want is:

• a role-playing game
• of fantasy adventure
• searching for treasure in the dark
• fighting monsters, avoiding traps, etc.
• while taking on the persona of a fantasy hero
• played cooperatively with your friends

Then you probably are looking for a game like Dungeons & Dragons. And fortunately for you, that game already exists. And if you want to take the game to the "next level," then you should probably pick up a copy of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and start learning its system. 

Uh-oh...I can hear my readers yelling at me from across the ethers: "But JB! Old D&D...especially AD&D...is so clunky! Even if I was willing to parse Gygax's ruminations, or organize the dishevelment that is 1E, its systems are all wonky and weird. Look at how easy these "new" games are with their streamlined mechanics! That makes it EASIER to play...and we want easier!"

Sure. I get it. I mean, here's a "unified mechanic" for you: give every monster a kill number and when you encounter it, you roll 2d6 to try to exceed that number...if you do, the fight's over, you win! Otherwise you roll on a random table (you folks just LOVE your random tables, don't you) to determine what kind of injury/loss you sustained before escaping with your life. Hey, there may even be ONE result on the loss table that results in DEATH...but it's a low probability (maybe if you roll 'snake eyes' or something).

[this game system already exists, just by the way...it's called Dungeon!, the board game]

Even EASIER would be to just have you roll a die (die type decided by class and level) against the Dungeon Master (rolling a die type determined by how dangerous the monster is). Easy-peasy, as they say. Why bother with all that back-and-forth initiative junk? 

I mean, why not just flip a coin every time a character tries to do something with a chance of failure? Doesn't get much easier than that, does it?  "Can I free climb the fortress wall?" Sure...so long as the quarter comes up 'heads!'

D&D (and AD&D) both came out a long time ago. And almost immediately, there were people who said "these game mechanics stink...I can write a better system than THIS." Thus you have all the many imitators: Tunnels & Trolls. Arduin. RuneQuest. Talislanta. All the various "fantasy heartbreakers" that have been published over the years...so, so many. Shadowdark is yet another such fantasy heartbreaker; the only difference is that with the branding and marketing of the "OSR" machine (which is nothing but a marketing brand at this point), it's been able to make some money.  It's still the same game. Just with a better publicist and a dumbed-down system.

"Dumbed-down, JB? You just said you've never played it! What you call simple, I call elegant!" Okay, let's take a look under the hood:

Mm.

Okay, I've read through both Quickstarter guides. If you were to take out the padding, the illustrations, and the random tables (most of which I'd also call "padding"), you could probably write the entirety of the rules as a one-page micro-game (I say this having penned many such games in the past). It's a really, really simple system...and one that relies mostly on subjective referee fiat, which I hate.

"Fiat? But there are hard target numbers!" Sure...challenges might be "easy" or "hard" or "normal" or "extreme." But those are all determined by the GM (possibly after discussion with the player). That's garbage...you're not playing a game at that point, you're playing the GM. When I play D&D (which is what Shadowdark is, regardless of its name), I like having a hard target for finding a secret door, or picking a lock, or lifting a portcullis...I don't want to have to rely on the arbitrary whim of the DM.

And shall we talk about the advancement system? Again, it's all subjective DM fiat. An "unexciting" treasure is worth 0 XP...but "unexciting" to whom? The player? The DM? All the players in consensus? Same goes for the "clever thinking award." Being a jerk with a low opinion of "cleverness" amongst players, I'd probably NEVER award this XP.

Not that it matters...the whole system is boring. And advantage/disadvantage is one of the laziest, worst mechanics ever invented (I've changed my mind on this over the years). The fact that they do their whole thing about "Total Darkness"...and then make it nothing more than disadvantage(!) is outrageous. If I'm fighting an invisible opponent, do I simply have "disadvantage?" Because, let me tell you, in total darkness EVERYONE is effectively invisible. Just crap.

Look, here are the things to understand:

1. Life is not simple. Life is complicated and messy. Depending on where you are and what you are doing, it operates under different rules. If you're stranded in the middle of a wilderness, you act differently from how you do at your 9 to 5 office job, or how you do in Vegas hanging with your buddies. There's no "one streamlined system" for life...I think everyone can understand that. Games model particular aspects of life (the parts to which the game pertains, or imagines), and if it models MULTIPLE aspects of life, it may well need multiple systems...this helps give the game verisimilitude which, I would argue, is IMPORTANT in a role-playing game where the players are trying to put themselves in the shoes/mindset of their characters.
2. Because life is life and games are games, our mechanics and rules are, at best, imperfect in their modeling...and that's okay! And it's okay to boil something down to (for example) a single die roll that combines many different abstract concepts into one: the D&D combat roll is an example of such a mechanic, as is the D&D initiative roll, the D&D saving throw, etc. That's fine.
3. It is also quite all right to take these mechanics and make them simple, especially when introducing these concepts. When we teach little kids to play baseball, we start them off hitting the ball off a tee, rather than pitching to them. When we start little kids in soccer, they use smaller fields, with fewer players, and don't worry about teaching them "off-sides" rules. This is normal.  Basic (B/X) D&D...which is as much a basis for Shadowdark as 5th Edition...is a similar example when it comes to teaching role-playing games to beginners.
4. Having said THAT, there comes a time when you're ready to move from tee-ball to actual pitching. Simplified systems only satisfy for so long. At least, that's been MY experience over the last few decades. There's a reason I prefer chess to checkers. There's a reason my days of playing CandyLand are far behind me. And there's a reason I'm done playing B/X, even though I like and appreciate the system for what it is: an introductory rule set to the greatest game ever published.

Shadowdark is just another version of B/X with a couple 5Eisms hammered on (and a few bits and pieces from other games...I see some DCC in the magic system). Don't be wowed by the random tables. The magic item list is pathetic...I was doing that kind of thing in my 2014 game Five Ancient Kingdoms, but I provided over 100 different items on MY random tables, not just a D20 roll. Random tables don't wow me...they are insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Better that you teach a man to fish, rather than give him a D20 roll to see what kind of sea life ends up on the skillet.

Hell. This starter set has 52 monsters. It has 36 spells. It has 19 magic items. That's in 132 pages of text. The Moldvay Basic book, in 64 pages, provides 100 monsters, 38 spells, and 54 magic items. If you want to include the Expert set (another 64 pages), you can increase those totals to nearly 200 monsters, over 100 spells, and over 100 magic items NOT including magic weapons, swords, or armor. That's just a lot more bang for your buck.

And the B/X edition of D&D cannot hold a candle to the sheer numbers and varieties of these items found in the AD&D books. As I said, AD&D gives you material for YEARS of play.

SO...Ilya. You asked why I would not recommend Shadowdark, and the answer is simple: there's already a game on the market that gives you everything Shadowdark purports to do, except that it does it BETTER, and gives you MORE, and has been successfully played by folks for DECADES. Given that, why would you...why would anyone, really...want to waste their time with something of lesser value? Just because you dig on the artwork? Um...

[please note: I said lesser "value" not "cost." The core AD&D books cost slightly more...you can buy PDFs of the PHB, DMG, and MM for a total of $29.97, but a PDF of the Shadowdark RPG is only $29.00. For me, though, AD&D is well-worth the extra buck...]

Anyway...that's about all I have to say on the subject of Shadowdark. Time to call it a night.

ASC Review: The Calid Cryo-Caves

Z4: The Calid Cryo-Caves (Jeff Simpson)

Seven Voyages of Zylarthen for PCs of 3rd-5th level

I changed my mind...I'm just going to review all of the adventures in the order they were submitted regardless of the system for which they're written. This one's up next.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

Oh, man. A little Seven Voyages of Zylarthen entry. Oakes Spalding's fantasy heartbreaker has gained some adherents in the decade since I last looked at it; I know several sessions of the system was run at the last Cauldron convention, and this one is by none other than Buddyscott Entertainment Group (i.e. Ye Old Jeff Simpson), prolific publisher of self-illustrated FREE adventures. I'm familiar with some of Jeff's past work, which tends to be clever and whimsical. This one though...?

I'm just confused.

We get an 11 encounter cave complex, crudely drawn (no scale given). Some notes regarding various hot and cold temperatures (but are these in Celsius? I thought Jeff was Canadian...). No hooks. A bunch of really random-ass monsters and treasure that don't seem to go together for any particular reason.

[***EDIT: Jeff has pointed out that the adventure does say, "...temperatures in this dungeon, given in farenheit [sic]..." which I missed. And then, when I later searched the document for Fahrenheit it didn't come up, of course, due to the spelling...***]

[***EDIT: Jeff also notes that the adventure DOES make note of its five foot scale. And he's right: the note is buried in a paragraph detailing some of the various cave effects; it looks like this:

Certain passages are given with two percentage values; the first is the chance of getting stuck, the second the chance of getting un-stuck. If stuck, the character will take 1-6 damage each turn. If an ally pushes and/or pulls the stuck character, an additional 5% is added to the un-sticking chance (maximum 10%). Skeletons here not affected by clerical spells as they are creatures of stone, not bone. The grid-map uses a 5-foot scale and will be provided at the end of this booklet. New items will be described at the back of this booklet and any creatures with a * following their AC can only be hit by magical weapons.

Emphasis added by me. This does not improve usability issues; the adventure would be better served by noting this separately...perhaps on the map?...or make it more searchable by writing 5' (since all other distances in the adventure use the "'" designation when given in the text: 20', 5', etc.***]

I'm not grokking this one. Perhaps I'm not clever enough; perhaps I'm not into the wahoo gonzo that is 7VoZ. Living fossils. "Grizzly-boars." Fisher-spider and cryo-magmic golems. A magic "sword of tempering" that is +3 against plant creatures and makes icy stepping stones when thrust into water. Why is there a small coffer of 1,000 silver pieces in a hot spring? Why is there a "druidic scroll of rejuvenation" tucked behind some rocks with another 1,000 silver and an opal-set platinum ring worth 6,000 silver? Why are we on a silver standard?  Because collecting thousands and thousands of silver pieces somehow makes more sense than thousands and thousands of gold pieces?

Sorry, Jeff. I don't get it. I've liked some of your other offerings, but I don't like this one. I'm not even sure it meets the contest criteria of TSR-edition D&D or "very close retroclone."  One star out of five.

*

ADDENDUM:  Jeff made a request for quality feedback, and perhaps my review wasn't specific enough. Here are (most of) my issues:  treasure amounts (assuming a silver standard for x.p.) are too low...by about half.  Usability is a bit of an issue (though a minor knock). New monsters, new magic, new mechanics (getting stuck, penalties for temperature) all add to the DM's plate, and questions the designer's ability to simply work with the system (if 7VoZ is this much removed from OD&D, it should probably be excluded as an acceptable system for the contest). Map has no scale, nor even cardinal points (I guess...just pick something?). Unspoken mechanics for new monsters (how long for paralysis? How does the fisher-spider's web function?). Subversion of tropes (are "living fossils" undead? A golem is a construct, how does that become an "elemental beast?"). What is it that leads parties to this particular cave within the Mountains of Kush?  Is this just a random thing to plop down and screw with players? Nothing found in the entrance would entice people to go spelunking in this hot/cold death trap.

Sorry but, for me, this one rates under ** ("needs work"). 

Mix N Match

I've (probably) mentioned this in the past, but I really enjoy watching the reality show Top Chef. Personally, I'm not much of a cook, and while I'm not adverse to learning how to cook, cooking good food generally takes a loooong time...more time than I like to spend preparing my fuel. Sure this is yet another personal flaw...I don't grow my veggies or slaughter my own meat either...but while I may not have a "full appreciation" of my food, I can honestly say I have a great respect for people who do. Also, I like to eat at their restaurants whenever I can afford it.

Anyway, the thing about Top Chef is that (in addition to the sheer expression of creativity on display), is that it's fun to watch the various challenges, which usually involve a specific ingredient (or ingredients), a particular theme, or both. Top Chef's main imitator (which I don't like as much but do occasionally watch) is a show called Chopped which has pared the premise down to a specific format: cook three courses (starter, entree, and dessert) over three rounds, each round containing three specific ingredients that must be used in the dish. Each round, one of the four contestants is "chopped" till there's only one left.

[Chopped is really more of a poor man's Iron Chef. The original, mind you...I have never been able to sit through the American version and Bobby Flay is such a fraud]

I was thinking just how much fantasy these days, and especially fantasy in, of, and for role-playing games tends to echo this formula: authors and designers are taking the same "fantasy ingredients" and attempt to produce a "winning dish" (i.e. something that sells well) by "cooking" them up in different ways. Which elements exactly? Something like fighters, wizards, elves, dwarves, hobbits, monsters, treasure, good, and evil. Often thieves and cleric-ish types, too.

Now, I loves me my Tolkien: his work is inspiring, his writing often beautiful, and his world (and language) building pretty off-the-chart. But while his stuff is mythic in scope and I enjoy reading it, I can't say it's my favorite fantasy. Middle Earth isn't even the kind of fantasy world I'd want to play in or a base a campaign off.

Still, some authors dig Tolkien enough to throw their own "spin" at his epic (Brooks, Donaldson, Jordon...I'm looking at you) and there's no doubt his world has left an impression that's hard to escape. But Tolkien emulators aside, is there a point we reach when we stop liking the taste of the ingredients, no matter how well or original the manner in which they're cooked?

Maybe it's a silly question. For the author or game designer, there's something about the challenge of working with familiar elements that gets our juices flowing. And there's been some great art created from these elements: I look at Wendy Pini's "space elves," or Bakshi's Wizards, or even David Chandler's Ancient Blades trilogy (which, to my eyes is clearly inspired by B/X Dungeons & Dragons). Even the television show Game of Thrones is a ton of fun and offers yet another take on elves and monsters and gold acquisition (I find Martin's books to be a bit less fun).

But, silly question or not, I think it's worth asking: is it sustainable? Giving the fantasy critters guns and bionic implants worked for Shadowrun. Blowing up the fantasy world and making the hobbits cannibals and the dwarves into gladiators worked (somewhat) for Dark Sun. But there are more than a few games and game settings that the fantasy ingredients didn't work for. I'd be interested in seeing the financials for Al-Qadim...there's been no release of AQ material (as far as I know) since it was published with 2nd edition AD&D, and there was quite a bit of material written for it in the TSR days (material that could easily be swiped and re-purposed, as WotC likes to do).

Still without elves
...or audience!

On the other hand fantasy games that don't include these familiar ingredients simply haven't found the same level of popularity. Tekumel and Talislanta have their niche market, but it's a small niche; I would guess that the folks currently running an "old school" D&D campaign probably outnumber the total number of players who have ever run a game in M.A.R. Barker's world, but what I know is that it's really hard to find ANY blogs about Talislanta on Ye Old Internet. People may be playing fantasy with "no elves," but they sure aren't talking much about it.

Yes, yes...I realize there are more kinds of "fantasy" than just the sword-swinging type. I've been reading a lot of Scooby Apocalypse lately (more on that later), and awesome fantasy that it is, there's nary a sword to be seen. But what I'm most interested in, gaming-wise (which is kind of the point of this post...and this blog) is the sword-swinging brand of fantasy...and you just don't see all that much of that kind of thing without some sort of pointy eared, elfin-types running around.

[yes, Shadowrun has swords, too...magic swords even]

I guess I'm just wondering this morning (as I scratch around for something to write about besides tieflings...again), does the inclusion of Tolkien elements automatically make something "knockoff fantasy?" If it's a game that includes these elements is it basically just a re-imagined form of D&D (and thus, a form of fantasy heartbreaker)? And does it matter? Should it matter?

Maybe it doesn't; maybe there are more important things to be concerned about. I was wandering around the internet today (looking for ANY kind of Talislanta stuff), and I accidentally fell down the "Alt-Right rabbit hole" of blogging, SciFi, and gaming. Wow, just...wow. So much fucking awful. I'd rather spend any amount of time with tiefling/dragonborn-loving players then spend an hour in a room with those folks. Box of stupid indeed! I know atheists who are doing God's will on this planet better than these "Christians" (making a kinder, gentler, more compassionate world). What a pile of anger and hatred...a steaming, stinking pile.  Fuck...that...noise.

*ahem*

ANYhoo, my daughter has a playdate with her friend today (the daughter of my son's First Communion teacher), so I've got some vacuuming and straightening up to do; their plan is to play "pirates" ...we don't have any Barbie stuff in my house...and I need to make sure they've got all their cutlasses and costumes ready to go. I'll try to write something more useful later today, though I can't guarantee it won't be about tieflings.
; )

Back to Levels

It is so quiet here.

The house in which we reside in Paraguay is this cavernous, concrete, wood, and tile conglomeration in which sound echoes and carries. And my family (excepting the wife) is loud anyway. Here, even with beagles, you can sit in one part of our home and know next-to-nothing about what's going on in a different section. Right now, the loudest sound is the tapping of keys on my laptop. In fact, I might have to move so I don't wake the boy (who is sleeping in the bed in which I currently write).

Anyway...this is the first post I've written since being back in Seattle (just too much to see and do). It's a cold, Sunday morning with football starting in a couple hours and oh, how I miss days like this. By next Saturday I'll be back in Paraguay with the heat and bugs and...ugh, I just don't want to think about it. Too depressing. Best to enjoy the moment.

SO...levels.

When I started writing EID, my latest-greatest in fantasy heartbreakers, I was working within a different paradigm...specifically one that didn't use levels, as in "levels of experience." It had other ways to increase competence over time, through accomplishment (the basics? providing a replenishing resource pool that increased as characters met various milestones, said resource being available for a number of different purposes: buying off damage (extra HPs), increasing attack/save rolls (extra competence), gaining more "skills" (think "feats"), etc.).

However, after working with Holmes the last couple-three weeks. I find again that I really dig the ease of levels, even though there are problematic aspects to it. Problematic? Yeah...like the artificial progression of advancement, across a set spectrum/range. What if I'm a wizard who spends ten years to learn one high level spell, rather than the accumulation of a plethora of low-level spells? What if I'm a thief who focuses on a particular skill at the expense of others? What if I'm a fighter that specializes in a particular style and weapon? Etc., etc. Real world people seldom progress in such broad - and tidily packaged - style.

But, whatever...it's a game. I finished reading Alexis's The Dungeon's Front Door a few days ago (I'll write some sort of review in a bit), and if there's one thing he emphasized for me...has been emphasizing lately...it's the essential game nature of Dungeons & Dragons. Not that the game is "just a game;" D&D is much more than a game of Risk or Gin-Rummy. But it's not reality, either...whether purposefully designed as such or not, it delivers a particular experience to the players and the main product of that experience should be, must be fun. A strange type of "fun," perhaps, to people who've never played, but fun nonetheless.

Levels are fun. Treasure (not treasure units) is fun. Dungeons are fun.

We already know these things aren't "realistic;" realism isn't what we're striving for in a game of magic and monsters. Are they sensible? Probably not...but even ridiculous nonsense can be fun to people who dislike such things so long as it is contained within the proper context. And in the context of a game designed (even by accident) to deliver a particular experience, these things are appropriate (perhaps even essential) to increasing the fun factor. And if your design would otherwise diminish fun, Why O Why would anyone be interested in playing?

So...the 48 page FHB? Probably dying a stillborn death on my hard drive. Sorry, folks.

Note, when I say "probably," I mean with 99.9% certainty...however, there are aspects, snippets that might make it into something else. However, even so, one has to ask: WHY? Why, why, why would I want to write Yet Another class-based, level-based game based on D&D?

Talk about spinning your wheels! The EID project was, at least, different...a different paradigm, maybe even a more sensible paradigm. But if it's not as fun as D&D, if it doesn't offer the same fun potential as D&D, what's the point? Really. Practice? Well...

At the moment, I've got an idea for something that (even I think) is really dumb. I mean, truly stupid. And, no, it has nothing to do with megadungeons, if that's what you're wondering. But I'm a little in love with the idea. Let me see if I can make any headway with it (probably after I get back to Paraguay) before I discuss it more. But it really is pretty stupid, so don't get too excited.

All right, that's it for now. The boy just woke up so we're going to go play a game.
: )

48 Pages to Glory

There have been many excellent designers who've worked on Dungeons & Dragons over the years, from the initial concepts of Dave Arneson all the way down to...well, to whoever is working on the 5E design now. For the most part, it's taken a village to put together any version of D&D, even in the earliest editions: play testers, artists, editors, layout folks, etc. all had to come together to make a finished product that people could pick up and play. Singling out individuals as being "more valuable" is a little silly because none of 'em did it alone.

Be that as it may, I still hold four names in higher esteem than the others for their work. They are:

Arneson, Gygax, Holmes, and Moldvay

...and if that is terribly unfair of me, I apologize. It is what it is, and I have spent at least a little time criticizing each of them over the years for various design "missteps." Usually gently, but no one's perfect.

I have, at this point in my life, written a few game books...books heavily influenced by the work of these four men. My B/X Companion was done in the style of Moldvay's 64 page rule book, and my Five Ancient Kingdoms was written in the small, three volume fashion of the original D&D books. As I begin my newest project (stupidly, ridiculously...I have so many other irons in the fire), I set my eyes on the work of the one author whose work I've never used at the table, the one man who may have done more singly than any D&D designer in history, with the sole exception of E. Gary Gygax:

That would be John Eric Holmes.

Holmes Basic is a 48 page masterpiece. There, I've said it. Previously, I've referred to it as the "badass edition" of Dungeons & Dragons (that's meant as a compliment); these days, I don't think I've gone far enough in my praise. It is exquisitely concise, and provides near everything needed for a game. Well, a game that goes to 3rd level...but there's certainly enough here to build upon (as many folks have). I've seen many D&D campaigns (my own and others) fail to chart past the 3rd level.

What Holmes did in 48 pages is amazing. Of course, he was a brain surgeon...I think most folks would expect a bit of brilliance. Personally, I'm no rocket scientist...heck, I'm not even employed at the moment...but even so, I want to take a swing at doing this, doing what Holmes did: writing an adult fantasy role-playing game in 48 pages. That doesn't sound terribly hard does it? Even for someone of my hack writing skills?

Of course, it won't be a retroclone of Holmes...the Blueholme Prentice Rules already does a fine job of cloning John Eric. No, this will be using that "different paradigm" I was starting to talk about last month. And it will be a game designed to emulate (if possible) the feeling/style of those "good old days" I was waxing on about a couple days ago...something I want to play, in other words. Though I admit that trying to convey style AND rules in 48 pages is a pretty tall order. Really tall.

Yeah, maybe it's a pipe dream. But I'm going to give it a shot. We'll see what happens.

The plan is to go down swinging.

If any Holmes knowledgeable folks can hip me to the proper font and type size for such a project (assuming an emulation of style), I'd really appreciate the information. Not sure what I'll do about artwork at this point, though Holmes himself only used 14 or 15 small pieces (including maps). Probably more important that I just leave some blank spaces for insertion of illustrations.

More to come (I hope)!

FHB Rundown (Part 2)

Just picking up where we left off...

The third heartbreaker I picked up Tuesday was Seven Voyages of Zylarthen by Oakes Spalding (copyright 2014). I should note that, up until four or five hours ago, I really knew nothing about Mr. Spaulding; apparently he has suffered some backlash for his various opinions (political, religious, and gamer-related). After spending some time reading through both his blogs today, I can safely say that I strongly disagree with most of his views, despite our shared religion. Yeah, for a Catholic he's kind of an asshole...but every religion has its share of assholes (like those Muslim assholes that blew up the Twin Towers a few years back).

Anyway, this post isn't about describing or debating our disagreements, it's about reviewing his fantasy heartbreaker. There's some good stuff there.

Spalding has taken some similar approaches to what I did with my Five Ancient Kingdoms: he aped the look of the OD&D books (the title is inspired by the sample character, Xylarthen, found in Volume 1), and he uses public domain art from a single, 19th century illustrator (though he uses John D. Batten, while mine came from Henry J. Ford). His book, however, comes in at four books, not three...a total of 228 pages (not counting covers), though these are half-sized pages like the LBBs. Also, despite the evocative title, there is no specific campaign setting (other than some sort of "Old Earth" ravaged by "Ancient Wars") for Seven Voyages, and it is quite the kitchen sink, including androids, cyborgs, and Jupiterian aliens along with all the standard favorite monsters and a slew of deities from across the various pantheons of Deities & Demigods.

[his Campaign Book (volume 4), does have a section on How to Create a "World" in One Hour using a computer program called Hexographer]

Despite its similar format, there are more than a few changes from 0E (or S&W). For one thing, Spalding limits the available classes to Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Thieves (and "thief skills" have been heavily edited, being limited to hiding, picking locks, attack bonus with surprise, "luck," and the ability to read magic scrolls at 10th level). Magic-User spells include many of the spells normally found on the cleric spell list, though notably there's no raise dead spell.

All characters are considered to be Lawful in the "Chaos-represents-Cosmic-Evil" kind of way. The ability to turn undead is a skill available to all characters, provided they carry a proper holy symbol. Wisdom (high and low) adjusts a character's ability to turn, which is otherwise based on level. That's something I was doing in an earlier FHB draft of my own (using the "holy person" as a kind of class overlay for all classes), but I gave it a very high WIS requirement to gain "saintly powers." I think I prefer Spalding's version.

His combat system is also new using a Weapon versus Armor Class matrix adapted from CHAINMAIL's Man-to-Man Melee table, but using a D20 (similar to early edition Gamma World), yet still accounting for increased combat effectiveness based on class and level with B/X standard increments. It is very elegant and well done, allowing Weapon Class to influence first attack (a la CHAINMAIL) and giving real differences to weapons while retaining both D6 damage and weapon distinction...it's well worth stealing. Some of the other combat stuff is fiddly, but this is a definite highlight, IMO. Reduction of HPs results in a roll on the Zero Hits table, rather than instant death...very similar to Bezio's X-Plorers.

Magic is Vancian and pretty standard, though again he makes an interesting choice of creating separate spell lists for monsters "Evil High Priests," "High Priests," and "Witches" each of which include some spells not normally available to PC magic-users (NPC only). It's a decision that says, look, there are these other magics in the world, but its magic that's only used by non-adventurers. I like that. Similarly, the monster list includes paladins and rangers, they're just not available as PCs.

Everything else is fairly standard, though cleaner and better laid out then the original LBBs. All in all, not a bad entry into the FHB scene.

30 years in the writing.

The last game I want to talk about is definitely the shortest of the bunch. Creatures & Caverns by Peter Schweighofer weighs in at a whopping 26 pages (including the full color cover and two full adventures). While the copyright is 2012, the author explains that the basics of the game was written in 1982 at the age of 13 as he tried to emulate the Dungeons & Dragons game he'd witnessed. C&C is thus far from a retro-clone and more like other "inspired" FHBs Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium Fantasy, etc.

There have been a few reviews of the game over the years with its two class (Knights and Wizards), D6-based system. It is, as others have pointed out, much closer to a board game than an RPG, with an exposed board, and pawns kicking in doors (a la Dungeon!). However, it has some interesting systems...the dual attack/parry combat, the HP/XP currency exchange (Heal yourself by killing monsters! Trade in HPs for skills!)...as well as a real "charm" or personality. I wish I had been this talented at game design at age 13.

It's definitely playable, and easy enough that even a young kid could grok. I really only have two gripes with the thing: #1 I really wish he'd divide all the damn numbers by 25. Everything is in increments of 25 anyway (with the sole exception of XP awards for a couple of the small monsters, which is set at 10). Why start the characters at 250hps when you could start at 10? Why have daggers (the weakest weapon of the game) do 25 damage when you could set the baseline at 1? Setting the numbers so high denies easy access to younger kids (my 4 year old can handle numbers up to 20 or so, but these triple-digits will just overwhelm him!).

The other gripe is more of a nitpick: if the wizards' use of fire and shield are unlimited and have the same attack/fend chance, then there's zero reason for a wizard to ever use a dagger. It's not like any of the monsters are immune to fire (though perhaps some should be).

These gripes aside, Creatures & Caverns is a solid game with a good foundation that could be expanded fairly easily (it has nice art, too). It was impressive enough that I started checking out Schweighofer's other games and Valley of the Ape (an adventurous war game for young kids) is slated for an evening play-test tomorrow. My boy is VERY excited.
: )

All right, that's enough for now. Returning to Moldvay tomorrow (hopefully).

FHB Rundown (Part 1)

Tuesdays are tough days for posting, just because of my schedule; however, I did catch up on a lot of my (blog) reading...which for me includes traipsing around the "outskirts" of the OSR blogging community. And O my, what's lurking around out in "the Outer Dark." I came back with not one, not two, not three, but four...yes, four!...fantasy heartbreakers. Or what I like to call, entries into the arena of D&D Mine. All were published after 2012, so I feel safe in categorizing them as such (i.e. post-announcement of "D&D Next") regardless of when their authors initiated the work on 'em. The point is, 5E was on the horizon and the creators of these games didn't care. I appreciate that.

So, I've spent the last couple days reading and I thought I'd try something a little different and talk about 'em all. Call these mini-reviews, though mainly it'll just be my first pass impressions/thoughts on the things. All of them are available for free or Pay What You Want, so it's easy enough for people to pick them up if something strikes their interest.

Let's jump right in.

First up is Fantasy Heroes & Witchery Retro-RPG (Version 2.0) by Dominique Crouzet, copyright 2012/14. The free version omits most of the Table of Contents and Spell Index. There's been quite a bit written about FH&W around the web so I won't spend too much time on it, especially as this was my least favorite book of the four I checked out. It is an absolutely huge tome: 425 pages. The work itself is a hodgepodge of multiple editions of D&D, including 1st and 2nd Edition, B/X, 3E, and 5E. There is no bestiary of monsters, nor list of magic items, the game takes pains to remain "backwardly compatible" with earlier editions and suggests picking up your favorite Monster Manual or retro-clone for this type of info. It is more "kitchen sink" than any game I've seen, with one exception, yet it doesn't appear to have any concrete setting, other than what is implied by the classes, and alignment cosmology. Instead it's like a generic FAG with a D&D-ish chassis.

I don't see much here that's new, just a mash-up of various tastes. In fact, it looks about the way I expected 5E to look. Pretty though: much of the art is good, especially the Jim Holloway pieces.

Next, we have For Gold & Glory (Old School Roleplaying) by Justen Brown, copyright 2014. FG&G is a retro-clone of 2nd Edition AD&D. It is NOT very pretty to look at: much of the art is of the "cheap" variety (there are no illustrators credited, and appears the illustrations may be hand-drawn by the author and his buddies), and there are lots of blank spaces that appear were reserved for art that never materialized. At a whopping 374 pages, it is the second biggest FHB on my list, so we're talking a lot of ugly. I point this out because there are more than a few people that are put off by poor presentation, and here it is noteworthy. Having said that...

No Elmore/Easley Art

Looking back over the blog, the only times I've devoted any real time to 2E is to talk about how terrible it is, how much I dislike it, all the things wrong with it, etc. Yeah, things go to the dark side pretty quickly 'round these parts. Here's what I haven't told you:

I stopped playing Dungeons & Dragons circa 1987...a couple years before Second Edition hit the market. Around 1997 (ten years later), I decided I wanted to get back into the game and I picked up all the core 2E books from the local shop. Despite the changes from 1st edition that (years later) I would come to loathe, when I first opened the books I felt goddamn delight. All those little blue bars, succinct rules and clean organization, full color art plates and a consistent feel and layout throughout the entirety of the system. It kindled not just joy in me, but a newfound excitement. My 1st Edition books had long ago become nothing more than a tool for play...to this day, I require no index to find the most obscure passage in the PHB and DMG because I've reread them so many times and know where to turn to by heart. Reading the Second Edition books reignited a sense of fantasy in me, a sense of possibility that hadn't been there for a long time...a chance to start over, fresh, with something of real quality. Nearly 20 years later, I am O-So-Quick to point out the missteps I feel "Zeb" Cook took when it came to certain design choices in the game, but that wasn't my original feelings on 2E...the slight pangs of "missing pieces" from 1E were secondary to the overall product held in my hands. And while I won't say I regret my decision to chuck all my 2E books a few years later (because I'd grown tired of its clinical, PC-ish, "high fantasy" sensibilities...not to mention my preference for earlier editions), it would be unfair of me to say I never enjoyed that edition. One of my most memorable...and fun...one-off games as a player was using the 2nd Edition rules.

I say this because, as I scrolled through Justen's retro-clone of 2E I felt the same sense of interest and excitement that I did the first time I read through the 2E PHB. Those same feelings again bubbled to the surface: a "new" type of D&D, still recognizable with its core (1E) roots, but with a fresh take on system. For Gold & Glory is very much 2nd Edition AD&D; other than the mandatory IP changes ("Gazers" instead of Beholders, for example) everything should be pretty familiar to the veteran 2E players, right down to Warriors, Wizards, and Priests (Hey! Specialist Mages! Remember those? I want an Evoker!). Some changes are notable, though: gone is the old 2E system of class-specific XP; found are demons and devils in the monster section. And there's also an assassin available for hire as a specialist that I don't recall in my 2E books...but I might be misremembering that.

If you want 2E in one, complete tome (kind of like Pathfinder for 3E...except with monsters) then For Gold & Glory might be your (ugly) bag.

Seven Voyages of Zylarthen by Oakes Spaulding (copyright 2014) is the next entry on my list...but I see this is another post I'm going to need to turn into a "two-parter."

[to be continued]

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.

Crazy Train

Now where was I...oh, right: going off the rails.

The last couple days have been spent mostly researching ancient history, and the pseudo-science "archaeological" study of goofy, woo-woo lost cultures (like Atlantis). It would just be so useful if we had real, working time machines and an ability to go back and truly document ancient history (you know, when exactly did the dinosaurs die, who built the damn Giza pyramids, who was mining copper out of the Americas and exporting it to Eurasia to fuel the bronze age, etc.). I don't even need to go back and see Jesus healing lepers and such...just let me fly around the globe circa 9000 BCE and see what was going on. I promise I won't try to put modern Egyptologists out of business. Heck, I'll even agree to stay west of the Prime Meridian; I never had much interest in China anyway.

*sigh* So many people arguing so many crazy things on the internet. So much history tainted with bias and agendas. And so so soooo much of our history unknown. Radiocarbon dating isn't wholly  accurate, and our written material (what we can translate) just doesn't withstand the forces of entropy for more than a few centuries. Unless they're inscribed in gold, or other precious metal, that is...but then, such "books" of that type were likely melted down for ready cash long ago by folks who couldn't decipher them anyway. Or confiscated by the Vatican. Or whatever.

But you folks don't want to to hear about all that stuff...let's talk about games!

SO...one of the purposes in writing the new fantasy heartbreaker (recall that I've already got a pseudo-heartbreaker under my belt with Five Ancient Kingdoms), was to get something down that was more like "Basic" D&D. Yes, funhouse-style gaming...though, now the specifics of the setting are starting to make this look like a long-term sandbox-style campaign setting. ANYway...part of getting back to "basics" was going back to those funny-shaped dice that D&D helped popularize...all those D8s, D4s, and D12s (not to mention D20s!). I wanted to make a game that people would recognize, even if it was a "little different."

Then I started looking at Star Wars.

Specifically Fantasy Flight Game's new Star Wars RPGs (Edge of Empire, Age of Rebellion, etc.). I could find surprisingly little posted on-line about these games (considering the production value and general popularity of the setting)...then again, I didn't spend time perusing the FFG forums. I know there are people playing it. I know there are even more people who simply own it (I want to own it...the artwork and production values are stunning!). The main knock people seem to have (and there aren't all that many negative reviews out there, please realize) is the proprietary dice required to play with their weird symbols (as opposed to numbers or pips).

Personally, I'm not terribly into a this kind of gimmick (says the guy who has special "zero dice" commissioned for sale with 5AK...hypocrite, much?). *AHEM* Personally, I am NOT really into this kind of gimmick when it leads to overly-complicated mechanics that are hard to decipher (how hard is it to read "zero" on a six-sided die? Not bloody-damn hard!), but the REASON behind it (to introduce narrative aspects into the standard mechanics of the game with a single simple dice roll) isn't a bad one. Just one that was kind of clunkily executed.

So I started brainstorming an easier way to do the same thing. And that's where my "basic" idea starts to fall apart.

See, one thing I really wanted to return to was the "roll D20" to hit, to save, to everything. People love those little 20-sided dice and I wanted to give 'em to them. There were three main mechanics in Moon, and all of them used a D20 mechanic. I was intending to keep these mechanics for the new iteration. But now...well, now it's going to be a "roll 2D10" instead.

Bell curves. Nerds like me who look at dice and percentages (well, and maybe some hard-core gamblers, too) know that rolling 2D10 is a lot different from rolling a D20 (and not just because 'you can't roll a 1'). When rolling a D20, each number (1-20) has an equal chance of being rolled (5%) and all "+"s and "-"s from, say, ability scores or level move the needle in simple increments of 5%.

2D10 is different. The percentage chance of rolling very high or very low is much smaller compared to numbers "in the middle." Which, when considering a "roll over target number" scenario (as is my basic mechanic), means easy rolls get easier to make, and harder rolls get harder.

Blah blah blah...what does that mean, JB? Let's look at a basic example: combat. Attack rolls versus armor class (though I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with the "AC" term in the final document). At the moment, you've got three basic target numbers when fighting an armored man:

10 (unarmored)
13 (light armor)
16 (heavy armor)

with a shield adding +1 to those numbers (11, 14, and 17, in other words).

Needing to "roll over" the target number to hit means a dice roll of 11+, 14+, or 17+ against non-shield wielding opponents. Since all PCs get at least a +1 to their attack roll (bonus is level-class-based), this means that, effectively, each character type needs to roll a result equal to the actual AC of the target to make a successful attack (for example, if the PC tries to damage a dude wearing heavy armor and a shield, she needs to roll 17, as 17+1 = 18). We can see that with a straight D20 roll the chance of success for each AC is:

10 (11) - 55% (50%)
13 (14) - 40% (35%)
16 (17) - 25% (20%)

With the bell curve of 2D10, this looks fairly different:

10 (11) - 64% (55%)
13 (14) - 36% (28%)
16 (17) - 15% (10%)

Armor becomes substantially more effective, and the +1 AC bonus from a shield makes a bigger difference...though with a diminishing "rate of return" (only a 5% bump if already wearing "heavy armor" - but you're basically forcing your 1st level opponent to roll the equivalent of a 19+ on a standard D20 to do damage).

Because of the bell curves, smaller adjustments (a +2 versus a +1) make a bigger difference. While at the "top end" (+5ish) it works out to be about the same success chance against hard difficulties as a D20 system, the success against easy target numbers is much greater...in the +10%-15% range. That's the equivalent of giving the D20 character an extra +2 or +3 against easy-medium targets without needing to resort to inflation of effectiveness by making sure everyone has more potent magic weapons (if sticking with the combat example). 

For DMs that don't want to clutter their campaigns with needless enchanted items (just for the sake of meeting expectations of character effectiveness) this is a bit of a godsend...and at the same time makes sure that the harder challenges remain appropriately hard (plate armor doesn't suddenly become useless unless upgraded to mithril, etc.).

Of course, that's just the effective outcome of switching from a D20 base to a 2D10 base for "stunt" rolls (what I call the action mechanic: attack stunts, magic stunts, and physical stunts). The whole reason for switching to a 2D10 mechanic was to enable me to create additional outcomes (similar to FFGs "advantage," "threat," "triumph," and "despair" results) at the same time as determining success/failure. Rolling two dice instead of one allows me to do this by allowing me to compare the results of each die separately (to its partner) in addition to examining the sum total of the roll.

At this point, I'm keeping it simple (it's supposed to be a "basic" game, right?) and just looking at "doubles" rolls (double 10, double 4, etc.) in relationship to two factors: whether or not the end result was a success-failure, and the character's level (I'm tempted to add a 3rd factor: a comparison based on class and type of stunt, but haven't developed the idea yet). Since doubles get rolled 1 in 10 times on a 2D10, that gives a 10% chance of "something interesting" happening on any particular stunt roll...not particularly over-whelming and not much different from saying a D20 roll of "20" is a "critical" and a roll of "1" is a "fumble." It just allows me to be a bit more nuanced with my effects.

SO...I've decided that I'm going to stick with it. The 2D10 thing instead of D20, that is. I realize this puts me outside the normal FHB model (again, jeez...just like what happened with 5AK), but I think the end result will better model what I want it to model.

Which is treasure hunting descendants of Atlantean colonists fighting the monstrous creations of older Atlantean migrations in the South American wilderness with orcichalcum spears and bronze armor, 11,000 years before present. Oh yeah...and sorcery, of course. Got to have sorcery.

More later.

A little too long in the jungle.

The Big Six

As I look towards writing a "new" Fantasy Heartbreaker (or, more accurately, converting a conversion of a conversion), I find myself looking back at D&D editions over the years to see how ability scores were handled. Of course, I always start with OD&D (the Little Brown Books) because, well, that's where it all originates, yeah?

So in looking at the Big Six ability scores I notice something that I have (of course) noted in the past: namely that the Great Three Prime Requisites have absolutely zero effect on characters other than "rate of advancement" (i.e. XP gain). Which, just for the record, is no MINOR mechanical effect, BUT is really small potatoes compared to the mechanical effects of later editions and the incredible importance and weight these attributes carry. Things like attack and damage bonuses, number of spells known, and potential power limits of spell-casters.

I hate all that.

I especially hate the whole Strength bonus thang, not the least-wise because it got me into stupid trouble in the past. Nope, I hate it because The Game is soooo combat-oriented that it is just a matter of time before one's character gets embroiled in a melee and the importance of being able to hit and inflict damage gains life-and-death importance and thus becomes a paramount mechanical adjustment for ALL characters. When really, the only thing I want to use to model attacking ability is: A) character's training (class), and B) experience (level).

[there's also the issue of the resentment I've seen at the table due to the random strength roll. The fighter with the 13-15 STR, for instance, who looks at the cleric with the 16 STR and sees that healer is a better melee fighter for three levels of play, despite the focus of their careers. In reality, there have been plenty of small statured warriors who were better at inflicting damage with a single blow than incompetent, larger individuals. Ask any U.S. marine about that sometime!]

SO...since I wasn't planning on using Prime Requisites in the FHB, I thought I might simply DROP the whole stat from the character sheet. Just ix-nay the issue all together in a Gordion Knot kind of way. If there's no mechanical bonus to be derived from the attribute, why bother rolling the 3D6? Issue resolved.

Likewise, I figured I could do the same, axe-wise, with Intelligence and Wisdom. After all, I've decided to take a hint from folks like Alexis (and 3rd Edition Pendragon) and just realize that the whole "challenge" of not being able to speak another sentient's language isn't all that fun. Or rather, it detracts from an aspect of what IS fun: namely, being able to negotiate and bargain with potential allies and adversaries encountered. If a creature is sentient, it's going to speak the language of the region, not some weird "other tongue." Besides, do creatures with a split-tongue and a mouthful of fangs or tentacles really have the ability to form words like a "foreign human" would? It's all just fantasy, yo...let 'em talk "real people speak." Give 'em an accent, if it suits you.

So...axe, axe. The Lesser Three attributes were a different story. Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma have ALWAYS carried in-game mechanical bonuses: Dex adjusted missile attack rolls, Con adjusted rolled HPs (and "surviving adversity"), and Cha adjusted maximum number of hirelings and said hirelings loyalty base. Since I was trying to move away from ability scores adjusting combat rolls, I was pretty certain I wanted to cut Dexterity from the game.

IN ADDITION, I had to consider the "new" ability scores I'd dreamed up back in my last go around with this project: Agility (which had replaced DEX), Learning (which had replaced INT), Spirit (which is really its own thing), and Wit (which had...more or less...replaced WIS). Of these, I really only considered Spirit a "must have"...it really represents something new that I want. And Agility and Learning were tied to classes (and class abilities) that I've kind of decided to do away with. Oh...and I find myself hating Dex/Agility bonuses to Armor Class (whatever you call it in your game) these days. Just armor, folks. Just armor. Axe.

SO, I found that I only really had three ability scores I wanted to use in the new FHB:

Charisma
Constitution
Spirit

But was I getting too far away from the roots of this fantasy adventure game?

The designer in me would say that such is an irrelevant question. BUT...even if I don't like the mechanical benefits derived from most of these ability scores, as simple NUMBERS, they still provide a ready, short-hand description of one's character. Something that could quickly identify (as in "create an identity") the words on the paper into an image in a player's mind. And those three by themselves, really aren't enough.

Then I came across GusL's abstract encumbrance mechanic based on Strength that I mentioned in my earlier post, and I realized that maybe there was a way to make a descriptive number of the stat useful without being mechanically overwhelming (i.e. by not being of benefit in combat, but of retaining a mechanical advantage for exploration, as described in the follow-up post). Strength added back. It also turns out that Wit, then, still proves useful for abstract accounting of items brought along (previously, I had thought I'd need to go back to old school, granular, encumbrance and resource accumulation to model the treasure acquisition that would be the focus of the new FHB iteration). All of a sudden, I was back up to five ability scores...and if I was going to get all "traditional" like that, why not just find a sixth to complete the batch.

GusL's "skill tree" system (my term not his)...which I have yet to blog about...convinced me to add back Learning, and develop my own similar system (it's not a super-original take...see both 1st edition Empire of the Petal Throne and World of Warcraft, but in a simplified way it adds a nice little variety). I haven't yet talked about "classes" (that's another post), but the return to "roguish" roots has meant that the heroic "everyone-gets-magic" idea has been dropped by the wayside. Acquired skills ("dabbling") puts a little bit of this back, and having a LRN stat models the characters who benefited from early education (its availability and/or their level of focus) over those who did not. Which I like.

OKAY: we've got Strength (for representing that strong back). We've got Learning (instead of "Intelligence"). We've got Wit (instead of "Wisdom"). We've got Spirit (my own, personal deal...but one that I really like). And we've got Constitution and Charisma, largely unchanged...

Wait a sec...Constitution? No, no...we can fold its traits (and mechanical bonus of +1 HP per level) into Strength. Back down to five.

So...still looking for that sixth trait apparently. And there's ol' Dexterity staring me in the face. I don't want Agility because (again) the game has moved away from the heroic swashbuckling I once envisioned (and the help of uber-AC bonuses I was...previously...going to provide).

[sorry Boris Vallejo hero-types...y'all need real armor in this version]

What the hell exactly was "dexterity" back in the days before it became the second most preferred combat stat (after strength)? Well, Gygax's description in Men & Magic states simply:

Dexterity applies to both manual speed and conjuration. It will indicate the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.

No chainmail bikins. DEX is speed only.

This is all very nice, but with the exception of missile fire (+1 to attack rolls for DEX >13, -1 for DEX <9) absolutely none of this is mechanically modeled within the OD&D books. Chainmail (the default combat system for OD&D) has no such "speed" rules in it; first attack in combat goes to the dude with the longer weapon or that is behind cover (like a castle wall), or else (if neither of those apply) then whoever attacked first (i.e. whose turn was it that decided to move into melee). It isn't till Holmes Basic, that DEX really starts to see the mechanical benefit as applied to "speed of action." In addition to the aforementioned missile fire adjustment (which remains the same in Holmes), melee combat is determined in order of descending DEX.

This inclusion of "melee speed" as part of dexterity's purview is a Holmesian addition, and not a terrible one. What I think is especially interesting is the part in Holmes where

if dexterities are within 1 or 2 points of each other a 6-sided die is rolled for each opponent and the higher score gains initiative - first blow.

Which is actually different from what is portrayed in Holmse's combat example (where Mogo the Mighty with DEX 9 simply strikes after the giant spider with DEX 10). I like the idea that two folks, close in natural "speed" ability have a more-or-less chance of getting their "go" before the other. Of course, I also like Arrowflight's spot rule that in cases of ties (with regard to speed) the guy with the lighter armor gets first go (wow...an Arrowflight reference. That might be a first for this blog!). Yeah, probably some combination of all these is what I'm going for...

Aaand...I suppose that means dexterity is back in the game.

So there you have it...I went from "my own" five, up to six (with Charisma), down to three, back up six, almost all of which are the same as the original "Big Six" of D&D:

Strength
Learning (in place of Intelligence)
Wit (in place of Wisdom)
Dexterity
Charisma
Spirit

I'm not sure they'll appear in exactly that order (alphabetical makes a lot more sense, don't you think?) but that's where I am at the moment. Cue snickers and usual jibes about "reinventing wheels."

Just wait till I get to my post on the classes that are going to make an appearance.