Musings on 5AK

For those who are curious, the electricians finally showed up (9:20am)...only a little more than two days late. Fast Paraguayan fun fact: the average annual rainfall in Asuncion is more than that of Seattle, WA...however, it rains a lot fewer days during the year and, what with the crappy roads and crappier drainage, the streets run like rivers on rainy days. It's as dangerous as flash floods...usually you can count on one or two fatalities every time it rains.

[no, I'm not joking]

It's been raining for a couple days now, which means my boy has been home in the mornings and I've been unable to do much writing. I did write a few hundred words on revamping ability scores, but I've since lost my train of thought on the subject, and to be honest it was kind of a meandering waste of space. Yesterday, I did get an interesting idea about the undead, causing me to go back and review my PDF files of Five Ancient Kingdoms (Book 2), but that completely derailed me, as I spent all my spare time last night rereading my own book. It's really one helluva' good read. And it makes me wonder:

Why has there been so little said about it, dammit?

People continue to buy it, after all...at least the PDF copies are still selling over at DriveThruRPG. The print copies (including dice!) sell less than print copies of The Complete B/X Adventurer (which I plan on uploading as a cheap, B&W PDF one of these days). But it IS selling...and thank you so much to those who've purchased it. I just find it...well, a little weird that I've received so little feedback. Not even negative feedback.

I guess apathy is a form of feedback. But at least I'd hope someone would say, "F you, dude, for taking my money! What a waste!"

Hell, someone (not me!) even bothered to add the 5AK books over at RPGGeek, but they didn't bother to actually review them. Oh, wait...they added a different "comment" on each separate entry; here's what Martin Ralya wrote:

This is a tight, clear OD&D retroclone with an Arabian fantasy spin, and it's a great little booklet. It's full of clever touches, notably using only d6s, those d6s having ZERO in place of one (and the accompanying rules for zeroing out), and being able to "push" rolls for extra dice with the tradeoff being that if you fail, you fail hard.

As a boxed set with all three booklets needed for the game, I'd rate the whole shebang an 8 as well.

[that's 8 out of 10, by the way]

Thanks, Martin!

But I do wish people would discuss more of those "little touches." Tenkar's Tavern started an in depth review, but never even made it through Book 1. Necropraxis gave probably the most complete summary I've seen (at least, in English). I haven't heard of anyone actually playing the game or stealing/hacking its contents.

The reason I was referencing it at all was to see how I approached the undead for possible inclusion in a new, project (I like to look back at my earlier work for ideas, because that way I don't have to reinvent the ol' wheel, you know?). What I found was a great, great monster section, and really one that I don't think I could really improve upon. Really! The work I put into those 27 pages...making them concise yet consistent with the cosmology of the setting, balancing them against the system, the streamlined stat table, the assignation of treasure hoard types (which, by the way, is handled quite a bit different from what you find in B/X and its ilk)...makes it one of the sections in which I take the most pride. But I suppose people probably skim over this section, seeing it as the "same old same old." Well, I suppose I did use the same "hit dice" for many monsters that are found in early D&D...but HD in my game operate a bit differently than in early D&D!

Oh, well...cry me a river, right? Plenty of people are publishing things and NOT making a buck on 'em. Five Ancient Kingdoms was written and laid out by Yours Truly, using only (beautiful) public domain art and with only a couple-three proof readers for help...and people are still buying it. I'm sure it doesn't help that the web site is still not up-and-running (maybe that will be my project for the week the wife is in Montevideo...she's taking the baby with her)...there aren't any forums to discuss or talk about the game or ask questions or provide feedback. Gosh, my original idea was to shoot it off into space as a "fire-and-forget" game, so why do I care anyway? It's a damn fantasy heartbreaker after all, what was I expecting?!

Actually, maybe the real reason I was thinking about it was due to a post by ChicagoWiz back in the day titled "Where's Our EPT and Blackmoor?" lamenting (in part) that the OSR wasn't doing enough to push the envelope. Granted, he was writing this in 2011 and plenty of weird and exciting product has hit the market since then, but maybe I was feeling that my little contribution to the collective "stuff" floating around the internet was kind of...uh..."pushy" and I was hoping it could be a spark for something.

But you know what? 5AK ain't a perfect game anyway. Even now, loving it as I do, there are things I'd like to have done differently and ways I coulda'-woulda'-shoulda' tightened it up. I feel like it needs a simpler, more accessible, less far-reaching version. Something a little more objective-specific. Something a bit more...how to say...basic?

Hmmm.

More later. Once again, I'm out of time.

Wanting Better Fantasy

I started writing a big ol’, rambling post yesterday but forget all that noise. I’ve got something else on my mind.

People who have picked up Five Ancient Kingdoms and read its contents (or, God forbid, played the game) will have certainly noticed its departure from “traditional” D&D in many facets. No, I’m not talking about the inclusion of skills or “non-weapon proficiencies;” that kind of filler is something I can do without in my games.

No, here are some of the rule differences:

• No dice other than D6s (no D20, D4, D8, D10, etc.)
• Rule Zero (already discussed)
• HPs limited to player characters
• HPs rolled every game session (no carry-over)
• Hit Dice repurposed as all-encompassing multi-use combat stats
• Combat based (roughly) on Chainmail
• Magic inspired (roughly) by Chainmail and non-Vancian
• Unlimited magic for magicians
• Treasure tables removed (treasure types for monsters remain)
• Magic item creation combined into a single table-system
• Different saving throws (and based on 2D6 roll)
• XP earned for treasure/monsters scaled by level (less XP received as PCs advance)
• Additional XP bonuses for “experiences” that don’t scale
• Motivations that have (light!) mechanical impact
• Romance rules
• Warfare rules based on scaled up combat (simplified Chainmail in other words)

Those are the major rule departures; there are many more minor differences (like coinage, encumbrance, and movement rules). I’m also probably leaving out other major differences, but it’s not the point of this post to enumerate every deviance of design.

Now in case anyone’s wondering, most of these differences were created due to:

A) Repurposing to patch problems and inconsistencies

B) Removal of patches of the original designers for things not broken, and/or

C) Setting specific changes (especially regarding spells, equipment, monsters, costs, etc.)

I understand that for many people, the particular edition of D&D they’re currently playing (with or without additional house rules) is perfectly fine and dandy…it’s been working for ten or 20 or 30 or 40(!) years and they’re not interested in changing that now or anytime soon. The reasons I wrote 5AK was not an attempt to usurp the existing editions’ (nor clones’) place in the hearts and minds of role-players. Nope. My original motivation (as I’ve probably noted elsewhere on this blog) included a combination of 1) throwing my particular heartbreaker hat into the ring (i.e. my own ego), and 2) showing that such a thing could be done (and I mean, showing myself as well as others, BTW). AND I was truly irritated by the whole D&D Next thing and decided it would be a more constructive exercise to quit my bitching and just do my own version of D&D…D&D Mine, I called it.

[literally…that’s how the files are labeled on my computer]

But somewhere along the line, my original motivation morphed into something a bit different, due in no small part to the pride I’ve taken in this creation. It IS a complete game, after all…something I plan on supporting via a web site (currently under construction) and soliciting contributions for. There are FIVE ancient kingdoms after all…each could certainly use its own supplement book!

Five Ancient Kingdoms was written to be a standalone game; a cheap, packaged product (including dice) that people could pick up and use as an alternative to their standard fantasy fare. And for folks not interested in the specific setting of 5AK, I wanted the game to have a rule set that could be readily adapted to anyone’s normal D&D campaign, should they choose to roll with my deconstructed-reconstructed rules (hell, some of ‘em can simply be “dropped in” with no sweat expenditure necessary). But even more than that, my morphing motivation said: I want this to be a game for NEW PLAYERS...for people who haven’t played D&D or who don’t have preconceived notions about these things we call “table-top role-playing games.” THAT’s my main goal: distributing this game to non-players in an enticing package that says, “check this out; it’s interesting, fun, and easy to play.” That is the motivation that started percolating after I had looked upon this thing I wrought. In fact, at this point this might be the thing that matters most to me.

And dammit, that’s not what I’ve got!

You see, this is why it’s so ridiculous to try switching gears mid-stream (or even after the fact). I did not set out to create a game that was user-friendly to newbies; that wasn’t my intention, that wasn’t my initial motivation. My intention was to thumb my nose at WotC/Hasbro, and that’s what I did. I made a game that is exceptionally playable and much more affordable then the inevitable multi-volume 5^th edition that Hasbro will eventually be rolling out. Easy to use? Check. Nice handling with small books. Check. Tastefully illustrated. Triple-check (all thanks to the Arabian Nights Entertainment being dumped into the public domain). If a person can get past the lack of skills, slick color plates, and the title “D&D” on the cover, I daresay a person would select my books over 5E…assuming, that is, that they’re looking to get into something new.

But would it appeal to a new player? I don’t think so. It operates under too many assumptions; it apes too many tropes of D&D (even its look is based on OD&D). It’s designed for players who are already familiar with D&D…hell, the target audience are the people who read this blog. Sure, other folks might pick it up and check it out…people who see it on the shelf of a game shop or hear about it on the internet or who are drawn to a fantasy adventure game with Middle Eastern flavor. But that’s not hitting the market that my shifting motivations want to target.

Kids. I want to target kids.

And not just kids. People who enjoy fantasy and fairy tales and fiction based on something other than D&D-derived fiction. And by “D&D-derived,” I am not simply referring to officially licensed books based on Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms and whatnot. I’m talking about stuff like Game of Thrones. I’m talking about The Ranger’s Apprentice (and similar) that stocks the shelf and the grocery store check-out counter.

I want Russian folklore. I want The Last Unicorn. I want The Hobbit (not The Lord of the Rings). I want Vainamoinen. I want a backwards-aging, half-demon Merlin. I want Robin McKinley. I want Halloween. Is that too much to ask?

And here’s the thing: the beauty of Dungeons & Dragons is that, despite the silliness of its premise (characters go into unexplored adventure site…over-and-over-and-over again) is two-fold. First, the adventure site (i.e. “the dungeon”) is still an excellent game convention, for all the reasons Arneson outlined in various published commentaries. Second, the concept of intrepid adventurers plunging into darkness is based off a literary stable of fantasy literature (often of the “swords & sorcery” or “weird fiction” variety) which is itself based off the older mythology and folklore I’m craving.

Which means (if you kind of reverse engineer my weird-ass logic) that there must be a way to build a fantasy-based D&D-style heartbreaker that doesn't cannibalize itself. That works under different assumptions than those that it has established for itself...over-and-over-and-over again.

Maybe that doesn't make sense. Let me try putting it a different way

I'm aware of the Beyond the Wall RPG. I don't own it. I haven't read it. I've read about it. And I've looked at the downloadable character sheet. It looks just like a B/X D&D character sheet. Regardless of how it gets there (with neat, Lloyd Alexander-like character generation) it appears to be the same game. It's just D&D. And I want something more.

I've got some ideas for getting there, but I've got to do some more thinking. I keep coming back to Holmes...Holmes Basic is about the scale of the thing I want. I've read and reread and reviewed Blue Holmes and Mazes & Perils and Holmes itself and I like all of it, but I don't think they do what I want. But they're my inspiration at the moment.

That and Faust. More on this in a bit.

What exactly am I saying here? Am I going to be dumping 5AK anytime soon? No, no...like I said, I'm still damn proud of it and will continue to sell it for the foreseeable future (in print form that is...electronically, it's already available forever). But, stupid as the idea is (and I feel stupid just typing this) I'm considering writing another fantasy heartbreaker. As if one wasn't enough of a waste. I'm considering writing one with a completely different target audience...and different objective...firmly in mind.

Ugh.

Top 10 Troll Questions - 5AK

It's been a long day.

But a good one. I mean, we made it back to Seattle safe and sound and found our house hadn't burned down and the beagles hadn't run away and because of a small bout of food poisoning my wife gets to put off flying to South America for at least one more day.

[even sick time with the family is better than no time]

We got up at 6ish after being awake and active till close to three so that we could make the early ferry ride back to Seattle. All went as planned and I managed to keep my eyes open the entire drive (the rest of the fam were crashed out in the back seat) which is, of course, a good thing.

However, even with a siesta this afternoon it's been a looong day. And, yes, I realize no one really wants to hear about that.

We're on a countdown now till the release of 5AK, my only (current) entry into that category of games called D&D Mine or (more prosaically) Fantasy Heartbreakers. That's right: it's really difficult to consider 5AK something much more than a "fantasy heartbreaker," though it bears fairly little resemblance to 1st edition AD&D (the mark of many FHBs)...it's still just another fantasy adventure game with a "team-up and step-up" mentality that does NOT bear the "D&D" stamp of name recognition and so is destined to for second-class (or third-class) status.

Which is fine. The train has left the station, so to speak (or rather, the car is rolling down the hill with the keys locked in the ignition) and there's really no stopping it. I've got a bunch of dice manufactured for the thing, filling bags in my office. The manuscripts are at the printer for their first print run and I will be charged for it, using the money made in my earlier publishing ventures (no "kickstarter" for me!). And...well, that's it. The rewrites are done...I can't change what will be coming out of the print shop at this point. The first printing is going to be as good (or as bad) as it will be and it's pretty much out of my hands.

All I can do now is hock my wares.

To this end, I've decided to dedicate the next few days (and next few blog entries) to talking about 5AK, using topics of conversation I might normally take but solely applying them to the subject of my own game. This will, of course, irritate some of my good readers who could care less about a new fantasy heartbreaker and who want more D&D style subject matter (and who are already tired of my random digressions on all things that pull my attention). So be it. One thing I did NOT do a whole helluva' lot of with my 2nd book (The Complete B/X Adventurer) that I did with my first book (the B/X Companion) was talk about it much, or blog about it much, or mention it in other peoples' blogs or on various forums or whatnot. And you know what? It didn't sell half as well (even counting "print only;" the B/X Companion has sold far more electronic copies than it ever sold in print). Even though there's stuff in TCBXA that is useful to most folks B/X or LL campaigns (unlike the B/X Companion which is mostly only useful to high level campaigns).

So, yeah, I think I'll have to talk it up a bit (or talk about it anyway). I'll try to do a post a day until it comes out, but...well, we'll see what time allows of me.

To start off, we'll try a softball post: Random Wizard threw up a ten question poll on his blog that a bunch of people have been using as fodder for their own blogs, and I'm going to do the same (I did say, "softball," right?)...except that I'm going to apply all the questions to 5AK. This should be at least a little fun, because RW tried to take the most contentious topics for his list of questions. Perhaps it will pique the interest of folks who are curious. Here goes:

1) Race (Elf, Dward, Halfling) as a class? Yes or no? There are no "races" in 5AK, only classifications of adventurers, and there are no "demi-humans" in the default setting, solely in an appendix of optional rules. If the optional rules are used, each is a subclass of a main adventurer class.

2) Do demi-humans have souls? All sentient beings in 5AK have souls, including jinni. Demons, as fallen angels, technically are souls.

3) Ascending or descending armor class? There is no "AC" stat in 5AK, ascending or descending. A character's class of armor (light, heavy, or none) makes it tougher for an opponent to inflict damage (i.e. "to hit" or make a successful attack) but combat is based on the original CHAINMAIL rules, not the alternative combat tables first seen in Book 1 of OD&D.

4) Demi-human level limits? If the optional rules are used, the demi-human subclasses are limited in the maximum level they can achieve.

5) Should thief be a class? Thief is a major class; it has two subclasses.

6) Do characters get non-weapon skills? Thieves (and thief subclasses) have non-weapon, "thief skills." New characters start the game with random advantages that can sometimes resemble (or are, i  fact) "skills."

7) Are magic-users more powerful than fighters (and, if yes, what level do they take the lead)? This is an apples-oranges question. Magic-users use magic. Fighters fight. If you want to do something magical, call on a magician; if you want to kill something, call on a fighter. They have different arenas of specialty in 5AK with very little over-lap. A mage can swing a sword or axe (and if they want to attack/kill something, that's the best way to do so)...but a hero is a lot better at it.

8) Do you use alignment language? No.

9) XP for gold, or XP for objectives (thieves disarming traps, etc.)? Define "objectives." There are some XP bonuses in 5AK (usually for one-time experiences), including "milestones," that might be an objective of play, but no one gets XP solely for disarming a trap. XP is awarded for gold and monsters, but the amount of XP awarded diminishes as PCs gain experience (i.e. "go up in level").

10) Which is the best edition: ODD, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, 1E ADD, 2E ADD, 3E ADD, 4E ADD, Next? Well, I'd like to think 5AK is pretty good. Many early editions have their own special charm to them. To answer "which is the best" I need to know "the best what?" Different editions are better (or worse) depending on what you're looking for.

Bonus Question: unified XP level tables or individual XP level tables for each class? There are three distinct XP level tables in 5AK, though thieves and clerics share the same one.

All right...well, that was fun. Tomorrow, I hope to do something a little less softball, and a little more weighty. But right now, it's time to hit the hay. Later!

; )

Old School Hacking

Things have been quiet lately because, well, I've been focusing my writing efforts on...um...writing, rather than blogging. Not that this is ALL I've done with my free time this week; I managed to make it to the Mariners game last night (I know, I know...) and I've spent a considerable amount of time simultaneously moping for my missing family and seething at the Pete Carroll's handling of the Seahawks' quarterbacks.

Anyway, I'm still reading the commentary on the blog (thanks for reading) and I had one reader call me to task for dismissing out-of-hand the Old School Hack role-playing game (which can be downloaded here, by the way...at least the beta version)...so I spent some time this evening to actually read it.

Can I dismiss it out of hand now?

That's a joke, that's a joke...look, I'll stand by what I wrote in my earlier blog post (including, as I wrote, that it was a stupid post, which was my final assessment). OSH does not look very much at all like B/X D&D mechanic-wise, but I think it operates from the same stance and with the same sensibilities (fight monsters, find treasure)...if not, then what exactly is it supposed to be about? Yes, there are a number of random adventuring goals to "fill out" your character. Yes, "leveling up" is accomplished through being "awesome" rather than through acquiring treasure or kills. But it's still:

"...a world where fantastic dangers exist in a multitude of old ruins and underground lairs."

Listen, I think the basic OSH game is neat. I like that the characters simply earn new "talents" through leveling while everything else remains the same. I think the "awesome point" mechanic, as written, is just fine for the freewheeling objective of the game designer. Interestingly enough (at least, interesting to me), I've included a very similar mechanic with similar objectives in the game I've been working on the last couple days (I call mine "freebie points," for what it's worth)...though mine are a little more rigid in their mechanics. And the inspiration for mine come from a combo of Deadlands' poker chips and HEX's "style points" (just in case anyone cares).

However, the game my "freebies" are appearing in are NOT my version of D&D Mine but a more freewheeling, cinematic game where (I think) they feel appropriate. I've already said I'm a lot less inclined to "freewheel" in my fantasy games (where gritty death is more the order).

But that doesn't mean such a mechanic doesn't work for OSH...it works just fine for OSH. But as I said, it doesn't particularly excite me. Which isn't saying a whole lot, by the way...it just means it doesn't have the "juice" to get me cranked. I will say this for Old School Hack: it has fairly elegant game design and some very pretty graphics for the rules, and if given a choice between playing OSH and DCC I would choose the OSH beta, hands down. It has the same irreverence but the "fun" is amped up a bit higher. And it has a lot fewer random tables and fiddly rules (less "search & handling" time).

But, hey, that's just my subjective opinion.

Still haven't picked up a copy of ACKS yet, so I'll have to blog an apologetic post for that game later. Right now, I'm off to the 74th Street Ale House to do some writing. Later, gators!

; )

The New "Heartbreakers"

I am extremely tired, a result of staying up till after 1am the last few nights watching Olympics coverage and then getting up early-early-early (today was 4:30…beagles!). It’s all good stuff with a ton o compelling stories (natch), but my brain is doing a bit of a swimmy thing right now, so just bear with me as I meander a bit.

Spent much of the morning reading on-line reviews for two different RPGs: Adventurer-Conquerer-King System (ACKS) and Old School Hack (OSH). I don’t own either of these games (I don’t think…I might have downloaded OSH a while back, but if I did I don’t remember), and haven’t personally read ‘em (or have forgotten what I read), so you’ll have to take anything I say on either with a heaping grain of salt.

Both of these games could be considered part and parcel to what I call “D&D Mine” – that is, they’re new versions of old edition D&D games, deconstructed and rebuilt (not just re-flavored) by individuals who aren’t buying into the WotC program, understand the limitations of Old School D&D, and aren’t afraid to divorce themselves from standard D&D tropes. Unlike most Fantasy Heartbreakers (to which they certainly bear a certain resemblance) they seem built off a B/X or BECMI base foundation (including race-as-class design preference), though often borrowing mechanics from later editions (including 3rd & 4th edition). Also different from heartbreakers (at least as described by Ron Edwards) they make no great claims to innovations, but instead claim to ape, emulate, or conjure “Old School” flavor or values through the use of 21st century game design…in other words, bringing a post-modern sensibility to contribute to the old school “fun” of the game.

Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) also falls into this category, as far as I’m concerned, and possibly Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP). As with ACKS and OSH (wow, quite a proliferation of acronyms, huh?) I have yet to purchase either of these books…though I’ve read (and played) the Beta version of DCC and perused (briefly) the text of LotFP.

The question I suppose I’m circling around, deciding how to parse is this: just what do I think of this development?

NOT “what do I think of these games specifically?” because, as I said, I really haven’t taken a close enough look at any of ‘em (well, I did play the DCC beta for several weeks and my views were decidedly mixed and, in the end, more to the negative side). But rather what do I think of the tact of these publishers? What do I think of the idea as a CONCEPT?

And just to be clear, here’s the concept I’m talking about:

- Take B/X (or the early stages of BECMI/RC).
- Manipulate the rules to taste using 21st century sensibilities and old school attitude.
- Self-publish in an extremely polished, beautiful packaged form.

Do you see the difference between this and a “fantasy heartbreaker?” These games are not shy about paying tribute to their roots (even, one presumes, including boilerplate OGL language “just in case”). However, they are very different from retro-clones, which attempt to emulate their original editions as best as possible while a) filing off serial numbers, and b) correcting “over-sights” based on existing edition rules (see S&W and LL’s AEC for examples of what I mean).

So what do I think about the concept? Um…does it say something that I haven’t purchased any of ‘em?

On the one hand, they face the same challenge to their business model as an actual fantasy heartbreaker. Heck, they may be more challenged, since their target demographic isn’t newbies, but rather Old School aficionados who already have their favorite edition, retro-clone, or personal heartbreaker for use. On the other hand, the OSR as a group feels much more kind-hearted and open-minded and seem ready to regularly purchase books from their compatriots if only to support designers, steal ideas, and keep the movement going. It IS heady, inspiring stuff…not just the ease with which people can create and publish their games, but the sheer amount of creativity being shared around.

However, I still can’t help but feel that…well, shit…I don’t really know what I want to say here. Let me talk about each of these games in turn:

DCC: I’ve played this game and there’s a lot to like, especially some of the new ideas and concepts included in the game. Unfortunately, I dislike the execution of most of ‘em. For me, having played the game I will probably never buy it, despite the fantastic appearance of the book: it’s too big, too random, too bulky for the kind of game I like to run these days.

LotFP: Knowing what this game is all about and having read a couple of Raggi’s adventures, it would be difficult for me to purchase this one (except for the killer artwork), because I will probably never run it/play it. I’m just not that into the weird/horror genre as far as gaming goes. I mean, I love weird horror having grown up with Lovecraft and the Swamp Thing and those eerie Golden Key comics and Weird Tales and horror comics and such. But I’ve yet to find the game system that does the genre credit (No, Call of Cthulhu does not. No, World of Darkness does not. No, all those various zombie games on the market do not. No, just providing instruction to the GM as to how to set the mood is NOT enough). For Raggi, this is probably a fantastic system, facilitating him in the type of games he’d run anyway using a (tweaked) D&D system. For me, it’s not enough.

OSH: I’ll probably have to search my hard drive at home and see if I already have this, but jeez, I’m just not feeling the “awesome” that people dig on this game. I’m NOT really about the free-wheeling style, and so the central feature of the game (the “awesome” mechanic) doesn’t appeal to me much…just as the Feng Shui RPG doesn’t really do it for me. I already tried some similar ideas a while back but, well, my experience is that not all players ARE “awesome.” I’d rather provide players with CHOICES to make than wide-open metagame mechanics.

ACKS: ACKS, oh ACKS. I remember now (after reading half a dozen detailed reviews) why I didn’t pick this game up. Too depressing. From what I’ve read, it sounds A LOT like what my first stab at D&D Mine was going to look like: compressing BXC (including my B/X Companion) into the 14 levels of B/X and using tiers to distinguish different stages of development. There are other similarities, too (including high level “ritual magic” and undead that only go up to vampire), but this isn’t what bums me out. 270 pages. That’s just so…ugh. Not that I think my version of D&D Mine is going to be fitting into 64 pages (and that’s by design…I’d rather emulate the LBB format with the work I’m currently penning), but I really don’t expect it to be over 100 pages.

Is it fair to downgrade a product for a high page count? I don’t know…what I feel is that it’s pretty weird for these types of games to run to the length of ACKS or DCC or Hackmaster Basic. I know the page count gives the publisher the ability to include more art and a bigger font and longer, more detailed examples of play, etc. I know there’s precious little “padding” in these games and a book should include “just as many rules as it needs” to run an effective game.

And anyway, I’m rambling now (tired, right?). Like I said, I don’t know what I feel about these games. Except this: none of them really excite me. Not enough to make me want to play ‘em, let alone buy ‘em…but that’s not saying a whole lot. It’s been awhile since the last time I came across a game that really excited me (one of the reasons I keep writing my own); certainly I would not discourage someone from writing and publishing these games.

Do I think it’s a lost cause to do so? No. And I mean that on a number of levels: it’s a good mental exercise. While you may not make a living doing it, you can certainly make SOME money. And these games ARE fun (for some folks) to play…if only the games’ authors (which is why I call this concept “D&D Mine”). On the contrary, I want to see MORE of these things. Where’s Urutsk for goodness sake?

[that’s rhetorical…it is apparently in an editing phase at the moment]

Writing is a good thing. Sharing one’s creativity with others is a good thing. Supporting another’s art is a good thing. Playing games with others is (generally) a good thing. Building an open-minded, inspired and creative community is a good thing.

But excitement helps.

You know what? This is a stupid post. It’s obvious I need to get some sleep.

"Hard Mode"

AKA "Revisiting the Value of Character Death"

Just bear with me for a moment.

In writing a fantasy heartbreaker, or ANY old school style RPG for a combat heavy genre (Space Opera, Magic-Punk, Cyber-Western, etc.) I find myself approaching certain systems with design ideas based on my own experiences in gaming, and my exposure to other games and design theory.

One of the theory things I'm always trying to get at is "design the game so it does what you want it to do." God, that can be hard sometimes. You don't WANT the game to be tweaked or fudged in-play...for example, my Shadowrun-esque game fell down on its face for being TOO close to 1st edition SR, specifically with regard to the initiative/extra action rules, which allowed some cyber-roided (and physical adept characters) outshine all the non-wired kids in the party.

End result? A lot of disgruntlement and comments like, "my next character is going to make sure to have X, Y, and Z implants"...regardless of the player's character concept.

See, that's MY failing as a designer. If you build the game in a certain way, that confers certain advantages, then make those advantages necessary as par survival (due to a heavy combat style to the game)...well, of course, your game is going to devolve into a min-max twink-fest. Which is NOT what I was aiming for, by the way.

[and which is why that particular game needs a lot of work before being publishable]

Now I look at a game like Stars Without Number, which is a fine and dandy piece of work. For me, I can see it being used to play a particular style of space opera...something akin to B/X Warhammer 40,000. Why? Because the way the game is written player mortality is going to be exceptionally high. Character starting out with single digit hit points are going to get splattered by the weapons involved in the game. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is A thing...a thing that should be noted.

And yet, folks (including the designer) feel that with the right "massaging" the game can be used for most genres of space opera. I disagree...but then I prefer to play with rules as written, without tweaking or fudging or "drifting" to get the desired effect.

That's why I try to be ultra-specific in my game design.

SO...back to the original reason for my post: revisiting character death in RPGs. I find myself lately adding all sorts of "take backs" and metagame mechanics into my designs which will increase PC survivability. Something that irritates me to no end about myself. For a guy that totes "character death" as a FEATURE of the B/X game system, why would I get all wishy-washy with my own fantasy heartbreaker, adding things like "luck points" to the game.

*sigh*

Because not everyone wants to die.

I enjoy the challenge of a game where my PC might die...it's like playing imaginary Russian Roulette (at least I get to walk away from the table, even if my character doesn't). But the truth of the matter is, I spend much more time running games than playing 'em, and not everyone shares my weirdness.

In fact (news flash!) some people like to play fantasy adventure games because they like to imagine themselves as some sort of heroic fantasy character! Wow, you never would have guessed that, right? These people want to play a fantasy RPG, AND they want a simple fantasy RPG (like B/X or similar) AND they would prefer NOT to die.

Really. Really, really, really.

[I am repeating this for myself, folks, so I can wrap my head around it]

Role-playing is a type of entertainment, it's a method of social interaction, it's a form of escapism that allows us to shrug off the shackles of our mundane life for a few hours and pretend we're someone doing amazing things in incredible environments. And, no, the threat of death does NOT have to be present for players to get a charge out of it.

[...really, really, really...]

Now having acknowledged that, and acknowledged that some people might enjoy playing this game for nickels instead of going all-in with the family mortgage payment, shouldn't the ones willing to risk more get something greater in return?

Shouldn't we reward the folks with the balls to step into the death match?

In video games (a comparison to RPGs I hate to make but oh, well, there it is) you often see different game settings, like Easy, Medium, Hard, Suicidal, etc. Kind of like different degrees of spiciness at a Thai restaurant. How much heat can you take?

What about including a "Hard Mode" in role-playing games?

In my current fantasy heartbreaker project (up to page 8...I'll try to keep it under 64 pages), there are classes and levels (max 5, right?) and experience points awarded to track those levels. What if the XP awarded was determined by whether or not players were playing on Easy or Hard mode? What if level maximums were capped based on a player's chosen style of play?

I'm just throwing the idea out there...I haven't included anything in the book, yet (hell, I can always delete the wimpy "save your bacon" points if I decide to go "all hard"). But this is me tossing a bone to people who want to play fantasy characters in a fantasy world without getting bitten in half by a purple worm when they least expect (or want!) it to happen.

Here's what I'm considering:

• Default Easy: Players who choose to play on Hard Mode (no luck points, critical damage tables, instant death on failed saves, no re-rolls) earn DOUBLE the normal XP.
• Default Hard: Players who choose to play on Easy Mode (taking all the bennies listed above) earn only ONE-HALF the normal XP.
• Max Level: Players who choose to play on Easy Mode have their max level capped...possibly as low as 2nd or 3rd level. Without real risk, why do they need increased effectiveness?

What do y'all think? Am I talking crazy (again)?

: )

Completely Forgot to Mention...

RE: Compressing character levels in my fantasy heartbreaker project.

Faoladh commented:

The only qualm I'd have is if you still included level drain effects. Fear would have to be generated in some other way.

Yeah, um, forgot to mention:

There will be no level drain in the game.

Level drain...as a threat, consequence, danger, penalty...in B/X or any other "old school" edition of D&D is just fine and dandy by me, as I've written many times before. Why? Because it's just one more way of attacking a certain aspect of player characters, and it's a penalty from which recovery is relatively easy (just earn some more XP, dude). And anyway, in a world where character levels go from 1-36 (or 1-20 or 1-infinity-and-beyond) a lost level or two isn't going to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, I know many people have differing opinions.

But for MY fantasy heartbreaker, there will be no level drain. For a number of reasons (none of which pertain to the statement "level drain sucks!"). Here's why I'm leaving it out:

• While the idea of "negative energy" undead was kind of cool in the original game, it was used inconsistently (i.e. not every "negative energy" undead creature drained levels).
• If you're not going to be consistent with a concept (ghouls and mummies don't drain levels) than it seems a bit lazy not to come up with unique dangers/threats from each individual undead.
• Fantasy heartbreakers give designers the chance to "clean up" the imperfections they find in the original (D&D) game...and I plan on taking advantage and doing the same. This ain't no retroclone, it's a fantasy heartbreaker yo! One thing I can do is look at the source material and change it to be more in line with MY take on traditional monster mythology. And I intend to do so.
• Finally, with only five total levels in the game (less for demihumans) the issue of "keeping PCs power in check" becomes much less about reigning in levels. There are plenty more ways to cripple PCs (and more permanently!) than using level drain.

So right...no level drain. There WILL be undead in the game (even though this is its own game, I plan on using stat blocks for monsters eerily similar to the B/X game...just in case anyone wants to convert with ease). The creatures of the night that I intend to use include the following:

Skeletons

Zombies

Ghouls

Wights (renamed Draugr)

Wraiths

Mummies

Spectres

Vampires

In other words, the same basic undead found in both OD&D and B/X.

By the way...did I mention there is no "cleric" class in the new game?

; )

Compression

So...shit, do I even want to write this?

Ah, well.

Tell me true, gentle readers: would it kill you (or your players) if the whole of D&D game play was compressed into less than half-a-dozen levels of experience?

Let me explain EXACTLY what I mean, just to make sure my question is clear. In B/X, the whole of player character experience has a maximum potential career of 36 levels (for human character classes); less if one chooses to ignore levels beyond 14 (the final levels detailed in the original Cook/Marsh expert set). In D20 characters were capped at 20 levels of experience, which is considered the "effective max" in 2nd edition also, if I'm not mistaken (and excluding supplemental "epic play"). In AD&D and OD&D most classes had no maximum level, unless one chose to play a demihuman character, but even those could reach 8th or 10th or higher levels depending on class and ability scores.

Lots of levels. Lots and lots of levels. And "high level" generally not considered until PCs reach the double digits, at which point truly cool adventuring can be expected to occur: the GDQ modules, not to mention endgame scenarios like building castles, conquering territory, and exploring paths to immortality.

Okay, so...given that THIS is what D&D is kind of all about, in its current (myriad) incarnations, how do y'all feel about the idea of compressing that entire career into, say, 3-5 levels? Or more specifically, 5 levels for human characters and fewer (than 5) levels for demihumans?

I only ask, 'cause that's what I'm doing.

[I've also compressed the class list down to 3 (total) with a potential "bonus type" (about the same as rolling psionics...except not psionics). And no, there are no "skills" at this point, nor any plans for the inclusion of skills]

Now understand this isn't terribly original...the idea comes from DCC (whose level titles are compressed down to 5 levels) and Holmes Basic (and the idea of playing HB "straight"...with 3rd level being the maximum level in a world that still has trolls and vampires and purple worms). I have some ideas for putting a twist or two on the concept, but the end result still remains: player characters' progression in an adventuring career is limited to no more than 5 levels.

Anyone have a problem with that?

I mean is there a particular reason characters need to go to level 10 or 14? If you want "drawn out" play, you can make the XP gaps between levels larger (or the XP awards for monsters and treasure smaller). Why make attack and save progression every 3 or 4 levels when you can make it every single level? Heck, you could have PCs roll 3 dice for hit points every "level up" instead of one die if you wanted to keep pace with the original D&D design (I am NOT doing that, though I have other thoughts on increasing character durability).

Granular spell progress? I'm already changing the magic system based on player wants; it probably won't resemble the Vancian system (or DCC, for that matter).

Granular thief skills? Leaving aside whether or not there will be a "thief" class at all, I find this one of the weakest aspects of the Old School D&D anyway.

No, I'm pretty sure I can make stuff work with 5 levels. To give you an idea, the degree of character effectiveness roughly maps like this:

1st level = 1st through 3rd (Basic level play)

2nd level = 4th through 6th

3rd level = 7th through 9th (Expert level play)

4th level = 10th through 12th (Name level)

5th level = 13th through 15th (Companion level play)

The main question I have is: do people hate that they can't have an 8th level or 19th level or 42nd level character? I mean, World of Warcraft has 80 or 90 levels of play, and people really seem to dig on that. I want to make the game less like a video game, but still with a method of "measuring power." But I know Americans like high scoring games (basketball, football) more than low scoring ones (soccer)...they like the feel of constant "progress" and accolades and awards. Maybe they prefer multiple, less effective levels.

Mmm...actually, I don't care if they do. My game, my rules. I guess the REAL question is not "do you hate the idea," but:

A) How much do you hate the idea? and

B) Are there other reasons for including a multitude of levels that I am not considering?

Thanks for your input.

[now, back to jury duty...]

Terribly Distracted

Sorry for the lack of posts...it's just been awfully busy around my neck o the woods and my mind's been elsewhere (well, other than the nagging worry that I should be throwing something up on my blog...). That being said, posting will still probably be minimal over the next week or two as I work on some other stuff.

HA. "Work?" I'll be honest: I've just been enjoying the summertime weather. And vegging out with Seattle sports on TV when I'm not out enjoying the sunshine. The Sounders are playing well, the Seahawks are playing like crap (but O So many interesting storylines there), and the Mariners, while completely out of any playoff hunt months ago, have at least found some offense so they're fun to watch. Especially while enjoying a beer at the pub with the doors open to let in the sunshine, etc.

But my own (real life) job has been a bear of late, and I just haven't gotten around to buying any lottery tickets so it looks like it will be awhile before I can quite and just blog/game full-time. The downtime (and long walks) have been exceptionally necessary to recharge my batteries and keep me sane and mellow. Besides, with Luke handling the GMing on Thursday nights the pressure has been "eased off" for the constant creativity on my end.

Not that I haven't had time to do some stuff "off-stage"...

But I'll blog about that more later. I DO want to get down some thoughts from last week's DCC session while I have the opportunity (currently hanging outside a local coffee shop with my infant asleep in the stroller next to me). Let's see, where to start:

As I mentioned before, Luke's using the Anomalous Subsurface Environment megadungeon as our adventure. This is one I don't own and with which I am completely unfamiliar save for a review or two I've read. Still, it's plenty cool and I'm digging it.

Though it seems a bit of a waste to use it with DCC. Admittedly, this is a personal gripe: I would like to PLAY B/X not just run it, and ASE was designed for use with the B/X retro-clone Labyrinth Lord. What an opportunity! For me (I mean)! But Luke has said often enough that there are many parts of the BX/LL system he does not enjoy and that he prefers some of the more fiddly bits of D20...for him, DCC is a nice little hybrid of the two and I don't fault him for wanting to use it.

And as I said in my last post on the subject, there are a LOT of very cool things about DCC.

This session, we went into the game with newly advanced PCs; those that survived the first outing were advanced to 1st level. Since I only had one survivor, I chose to bring along my 4th 0-level character ("Derrick the Blue") as a henchman/servant of my dwarf, Yorin the Young, now re-Christened Yorin Steeltoe. We made our way to the adventure site, fought a couple/three bears (black and degenerated by radiation sickness, they weren't much of a fight), found some secret doors, broke up some aggressive robots...the usual, ya' know?

ANYway, as 1st level characters, we got to experience some of the frills of the system. As a dwarf, this meant trying out "Mighty Deeds" (a semi-narrative game mechanic attached to the random attack roll)...not to mention sniffing for precious gold, seeing in the dark (much improved "infravision"), and generally acting as a tough guy with my 12 hit points. For other characters, it meant seeing spells and corruption in action, as well as "thief skills."

Hoo-boy.

So thief skills first ('cause it's the shortest): the thief didn't use any skills. As with standard D&D, assigning low percentages to actually accomplishing anything makes it ill-advised to act as a thief. Fortunately, Itchy Blackburn started his career as a 0-level minstrel, and he was able to play us a jaunty marching tune on his banjo while we were exploring.

Now magic: hmmm.

I mentioned before that I've been bit with the bug to design a fantasy heartbreaker of my own. This still holds true, and I've been jotting down notes on the game for the last few days. But I've come to a serious roadblock in the design process: designing magic systems is TOUGH. I mean, if you are trying to do something non-derivative. Not just "non-Vancian" but non-Stormbringer, non-Ars Magica, non-"Spell Points." It's tough.

The boys playing spell-casters in DCC found a lot that they liked. Which is a GOOD thing.

There was also more than a couple brushes with serious corruption (open lesions/sores, and manifestations of certain spells that made them more-or-less un-castable). The final analysis: plusses and minuses both.

But I'll have to write more specifically about that later. As I said, I've been terribly distracted as of late, and right now I've got some errands to run (specifically, a wife to pick up from work and a son who's awake and in need of holding). I'll write more later, folks.

Um...hopefully.

; )

Breaking My F***ing Heart

I was originally going to write up a post entitled "Three RPGs That Suck," but my brain has been preempted today by thought that has taken root and has given me no peace a'tall: designing my own fantasty heartbreaker.

No, not a retroclone. I've already considered writing up my own retro-version of B/X for mass production (something to go hand-in-hand with The B/X Companion) and discarded the idea due to A) the sheer amount of (well done) B/X clones already floating around, and B) laziness. Nope I'm talking a real-live fantasy heartbreaker of the variety described by Ron Edwards.

Just to get it out of my system.

Why now? What's prompted this? Well, truthfully the whole DCC system...it is waaay inspiring in a way that other D&D deritives (like C&C, Palladium, and HackMaster Basic) are totally NOT. I'm mainly just curious if I can work it out right now to where it would be...um...exceptionally fun. I don't know that I'd ever publish it.

Now, just so everyone knows: this is completely a hush-hush side project that needs to be kept on the DL. My wife has already laid down the law that I'm not supposed to be starting any more projects until I've finished my current ones (*sigh*) AND I need to focus on only one at a time (*double sigh*). It seems I've been stretching myself too thin lately, and until Baby D learns to sleep through the night it's important that at least one of us gets some snoozing done at night.

HOWEVER, this is just a little something I'll be tinkering with in my "doodle time" ...you know, during work meetings and afternoon breaks when I've got little better to do than fool around with stuff. Besides, I don't even have a numerologically superior name for this one...can't publish without a good name!

Okay that's it...this was just a quick "check-in" post. Tomorrow, I'll write about the three disappointing RPGs.

: )