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.
; )

The Compleat [sic] Spell Caster (#1)

[okay, deleting EVERYTHING and starting “from the top”]

I want to play a magic-user.

I’ve never had a player character magic-user in an old school game, and it’s time I tried one out. I’ve heard/read that the magic-user is the preferred class of the “power gamer,” but even at my most munchkin-y, I never got around to playing one. Personally I found them to be rather BORING.

I mean, no armor, no weapons, no balls…um…I mean, you know, “skulking around in the back.” Just not my style. Now, if I’d been introduced to the example of Gygax’s own Mordenkainen, or Ian McKellan’s portrayal of Gandalf…well, I might have seen some different possibilities for the class.

Unfortunately, I didn’t (the players who ran MUs in our games…especially ones that started with 1st level characters…learned the “skulking habit” from an early age).

[SIDE NOTE: probably an interesting avenue of gamer anthropology/psychology there to explore]

Besides…who wants to play some elderly scarecrow with a Father Time beard?

And anyway… a “magic-user?” How generic a term is that? Well, “fighter” is pretty generic, too…but I didn’t play them back in the day, either. D20 and its Feats helped open the joys of fighters to me (and even after Feats helped drive me away, I still have a great appreciation for the fighter and its malleable nature), but not the magic-user. Shit, ever character in the game has the ability to “use magic,” including barbarians!

But I understand that the original character classes were just that: CLASSES of adventurer. Not “careers” or “professions.” Not “skill sets.” They were CLASSIFICATIONS. What does this guy look like Bob? “He’s a fighter.” OR “he’s a magic-user.” OR (in B/X) “he’s a dwarf. What you don’t know what a dwarf is? Short, bearded Viking-types with axes and hammers! Sheesh!”

Now, of course I have the wisdom and maturity to see the magic-user ARCHETYPE like the fighter, can be configured to a wide variety of personalities and appearances, especially in B/X play (man, I LOVE you, B/X!). There’s no minimum Intelligence for the B/X magic-user (all INT influences is rate of XP gain!) so your magic-user can literally look like any other character…well, without the armor and weapons, of course.

Still, I’ve got to say that one needs a little imagination and creativity to roll with a “non-traditional” magic-user. And some folks could sure use a little inspiration or “jumpstart” to go that path.

The Compleat Spell Caster IS that jumpstart.

Published in 1983 (yes, an actual copyright this time!) by Stephan Michael Sechi and Vernie Taylor of Bard Games (a non-TSR publisher), this little supplement carries the promise of injecting a little magic into your fantasy adventure game (my phrasing, not theirs). It includes several new classes, new spells, magic items, and a ton of interesting demons (uh-oh!) all for the bargain basement price of $3.

Well, it was $3 used anyway.

Here’s the thing: At first glance, The Compleat Adventurer (the other Bard Games supplement I possess) has more immediately useful and useable information. The classes are cool, thought provoking, and have interesting effects (when adapted) without breaking any of the existing rules of the game. That’s cool.

By contrast, The Compleat Spell Caster has a bunch more stuff that I would leave on the sideline. Demons? Meh…AD&D has ‘em (and they’re fairly easy to adapt to B/X). Familiars? The same. Magic items? Meh. New classes? Well, there’s only five (though they list six). Even the spell lists seem to contain (at first glance) a LOT of “dross.”

However, after checking it once, and checking it twice, and giving it one more skim I see something of really excellent value here.

Ideas. New ideas.

New directions to go. Magic-users may be generic and archetypal, as are clerics (men of the cloth, “faith users,” “miracle workers,” whatever you want to call ‘em).

The Complete Spell Caster says: “Hey, what if classes were professions?”

Which of course is what AD&D did, too (a druid is specific type of cleric, an assassin is a specific type of rogue…these aren’t “CLASSES” of adventurer). But TCSC goes one better; it re-classifies all spell-casting adventurers as, well, “spell casters.”

Check this out – Forget the following table:

CLERIC
- Druid
MAGIC-USER
- Illusionist

We’ll rename magic-user to “Wizard” (just go with me on this) and clarify a cleric to be a specific type of spell-caster (NOT a “divine caster”), and instead check THIS paradigm:

DEMIHUMAN
- Dwarf
- Elf
- Halfling
FIGHTER
SPELL-CASTER (“magic users”)
- Cleric
- Druid
- Illusionist
- Mystic
- Necromancer
- Sage
- Sorcerer
- Witch/Warlock
- Wizard
THIEF
[now, of course I could add in the new classes from The Compleat Adventurer, as well as any existing fighter and thief “sub-professions,” but we’re just checking out Spell Casters in this post]

How cool is that? Personally, I think it’s pretty darn cool. No longer is Magic-User the top dog and other spell casters simple knock-offs. They’re all just spell-casters, of which the Wizard is but one type.

I’ve always liked games that had different types of magi. It appeals to me…it seems more “real world.” After all, there ARE various traditions of magic in real life (Hermetic mages, Wiccans, Kabalists, voodoo doctors, Christian mystics, Taoist sorcerers, whatever). They all work magic in their own style, with their own specialties, based on their own traditions and rituals. That’s cool. That’s strange and arcane. That’s something I WANT in my fantasy game.

Warhammer Fantasy RPG (the original) has a TERRIBLE magic system based on the Warhammer war game. But it has a super-cool list of magical professions, including the Necromancer and the Demonologist. Come on…who DOESN’T want to be a demonologist?

Heck, even the old ECA video game Bard’s Tale, HEAVILY based on D&D, didn’t have simple “magic-users.” Instead you had Magicians, Conjurers, Sorcerers, Wizards, and (in later sequels) Chronomancers and Geomancers. Each had their own spell list. Each had their own (cool) specialty.

Why can’t D&D be the same?

2nd edition AD&D tried doing specialist wizards, but personally, I always found these SUCKED. That’s because they tried to categorize specialists by simple spell categorization type (“abjuration, evocation, conjuration, divination, etc.”). All 2nd edition did was take the MU class, and tried to break it into component parts…how frigging unimaginative is that?

God, 2nd edition is a soul-less bitch of a game sometimes.

What would have been COOLER (albeit harder, poor over-worked game designers of 1987) would have been to make multiple specialist spell-casters and give each their own coherent, distinct spell lists. Like what Sechi and Taylor have done with TCSC.

Personally, I’m not sure they (Sechi, Taylor, and Bard Games) go far enough. I know I’ve blogged about doing an updated, complete conversion and compilation of The Compleat Adventurer for B/X. THAT might have to be put on-hold for a truly updated conversion of TCSC, first.

In fact, I’m slightly annoyed with myself now. My B/X Companion…while still super-cool, don’t get me wrong…goes the “traditional” way of detailing Magic-User spells up to 9th level and Clerics up to 7th level. Why? Why would I do this? Why not make both go up to 7th…or both go up to 9th? Why make magic-users the spell-casting power houses of the game.

Well, actually, because they are. I mean, in B/X that’s ALL they’ve got…whereas clerics have a lot of other goodies.

Um…so why give ‘em (MUs) such a leg up over Illusionists in AD&D? That I can’t answer. I wonder if Gygax could have justified it.

Witch Hunters!

So I spent an inordinate amount of time perusing a hardcover game called Witch Hunter today over at Ye Old Game Shoppe (that's Gary's Games in Greenwood for those who haven't been reading for awhile). "Inordinate," says I, because it is the type of game I have venomously derided many times on this very blog...you know, the giant, slickly-produced, glossy hard cover tome, thicker than a college Calculus text and full of a mind-numbingly painful skill system.

In other words, the standard recognizable descendent of White Wolf Game Studio.

And not surprising, really, considering that Paradigm Concepts (the responsible company of whom I've never heard) appears to be based out of Florida, somewhat the same region as WW's Georgia location. Maybe they all game at the same local venues and cons?

Well, anyway, I didn't buy it (the game or the design), but the black-and-white artwork inside was wonderful, reminding me of something but not anything I could put my finger on...the old GW Slaves to Darkness, maybe? No...something more consistent. Even the print technique itself. Honestly, I don't know, but I flipped through the book gazing long and lovingly at some very cool artwork.

The CONCEPT of the Witch Hunter and 16th-17th century role-playing in general is a pretty cool one...at least I'M a sucker for this particular genre. On the other hand, I also am big into witches, and a new not-so-secret game project I've been mulling over is one based solely around witches living in the 1980s...you know, the old crone ones, not the little minxes of Charmed or something. The conflict...between the witch and the hunter...I find it makes for some fine, cool drama.

Which is why I find the Compleat Adventurer's witch hunter entry a huge and cool boon to anyone's B/X campaign. Talk about "flavor country;" I find the text for this character class to be the most inspiring (from a "adventure/campaign inspiration" standpoint) of any of the new classes presented. For the benefits of folks that don't own the book (now out-o-print) I'll quote some of it (written by Stephan Michael Sechi):

Witch hunters are an unusual class of characters who combine tracking skill with a knowledge of mysticism and ritual magic. There are two distinct types of witch hunters: those who are lawful good and the unscrupulous type known as chaotics.

Lawful good witch hunters work primarily out of devotion to their church and deity. Like paladins, they will only have close associates with those of their own alignment. As their motives are religious (rather than financial) in nature, lawful good witch hunters will not accept work that in any way conflicts with their alignment or beliefs. They may be employed to find missing persons, retrieve lost or stolen holy items, hunt down necromancers and other spell casters of evil alignment, or to perform any sort of missions which will be of benefit to the church. Though they may charge for their services [they] will usually donate at least half of their monies to the church, keeping only what they need to live...

Chaotic witch hunters on the other hand, have no ties with any organized church or religious group. Like bounty hunters, most of these individuals will accept nearly any sort of work providing there is money to be made. While chaotic neutral witch hunters are usually no worse (or better) than the average bounty hunter, their chaotic evil counterparts are dangerous fanatics who prey upon the superstitious beliefs of commoners and nobility alike. These witch hunters will often travel to villages and towns and "volunteer" to rid the area of witches, warlocks, and other spell casters, citing the dangers which such "devil-worshippers" present to the god-fearing populace. As proof of their good intentions, they will usually accept no fee until such time as they capture, bring to trial, and convict their first "witch." As students of history will recall, most witch trials consisted solely of torture, false accusations, and the subsequent execution of the defendant. There is a 50% chance that any such trial will strip up the demand for further trials [JB: wow!] thus ensuring the witch hunter's continued employment in the area. Not surprisingly, such witch hunters are much despised by spell casters of all alignments, and are occasionally subject to vengeful counterattacks.

That's just awesome stuff.

Witch hunters in CA are limited to human race and Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil alignment. Interestingly, they all have the same exact abilities regardless of how they are aligned...the real difference (and there is a REAL difference between the Lawfuls and Chaotics!) is how they put those abilities to use.

Now some may feel the "witch hunter" character wouldn't be an appropriate fit for the pseudo-medieval fantasy world of D&D (though somehow monks do fit). However, I'd actually take a page from the original Dragon Lance books on this score...the early stories of Weiss and Hickman featured several witch hunts/trials/persecutions, even of main characters (notably Raistlin and Crysania). Hell, it's D&D. There's plate armor and no gunpowder. Might as well throw witch hunters in as well!

Even the Chaotic Neutral witch hunter (which for B/X D&D I would simply consider a "Neutral") sounds like a great character, similar to many of the witch-hunters found in Japanese manga and anime (the wandering "ghost slayer" or "vampire hunter" or whatnot). Solomon Kane is also a great inspiration of course, as is Van Helsing (in all his various incarnations). Dig it. You could have a whole campaign just centered around witch hunters of various alignments, perhaps companioned with other adventurers (including spell casters) of similar alignment and temperament. Or a Chaotic Evil (straight "Chaotic" in B/X) could be hunting a lawful party due to the "witches" in their midst, or even certain "evil" magic relics in their possession.

Anyway, I like it. I especially like that Sechi's witch hunter is not immediately assumed to be some goody-goody "fighting the forces of evil" or whatnot (a la Paradigm Concepts massive RPG). Just as with the other classes in (B/X and Original) D&D, you have the full spectrum of humanity available for the class, for good or ill. That's totally hip.

Now I should probably work up the class...

: )

The Compleat [sic] Adventurer

In celebration of Tax Day, finally being finished (yes, it only took me till the 15th to finish the damn thing...long story that I won't go into)...I took a stroll through Lake City and specifically American Eagle games by way of treating myself.

Lake City, for those who don't know, is yet another North Seattle neighborhood, like Ballard or Fremont or Greenwood (where I reside)...but it's a bit farther north and...well...a bit shabbier.

"Shabby" really is the best word I can think of to describe the area. For whatever reason, it just depresses me a little bit. Oh, there's nice new store fronts on occasion, but there sure seems to be a lot of "used" places...used car dealerships, used game shops, pawn shops, a couple thrift shops as well as a huge Goodwill. One just gets the feeling that the neighborhood has either a) seen better days, of b) has passed its prime, but so have the residents and they simply don't care. Whatever...I just get weird vibes there, and don't get down there that often.

When I DO, I always try to stop into American Eagle, a huge hobby shop, mainly catering to models and military wargames (as in TRUE "grognard" stuff). They also have a rather large selection of RPG products, almost all of which are for out-of-print games...there's a large selection of old Marvel Superhero modules, for instance, or adventures for the original Twilight 2000, as well as the Buck Rogers RPG and quite a bit of 2nd edition AD&D. All in mint condition...simply inventory that they've had on hand for a looooong time. As with the rest of Lake City, it just feels like a store that's been "left behind" somehow...at least back to 1988 or so.

[today I noticed the fliers calling for Civil War re-enactors. In Seattle! Wow...]

But even being familiar with the Lake City vibe and the crazy RPG inventory, I was totally taken aback when I saw a copy of Stephan Michael Sechi's The Compleat Adventurer.

Excuse me, not one copy but THREE. All first run prints, shrink-wrapped and in mint condition.

The last time I saw this book was well over 20 years ago. This was one my buddy, Matt, had. In fact, I believe his D&D character Bryant (the last major introduction to my AD&D Campaign of Old) was a hunter of the scout sub-class. Yes, I remember this book well.

Damn. It's so old it doesn't even have a copyright date.

I, of course, purchased a copy (for $5 and change!). Asking the proprietor if this was being printed again as I hadn't seen a copy since I was 13, I was told, "no it's probably that old, we just had some extra stuff we pulled out of the basement recently." Wow. I wonder what else is still down there.

For those unfamiliar with the book, Sechi (author of Bard Games' Talislanta) has put together a 41 page book supplement intended to expand the range of character options for "your favorite fantasy role-playing game system." It does this by providing 13 new character classes (each with half to full page illustrations), loosely adaptable to D&D (specifically AD&D or OD&D + Supplements) or even more loosely adapted to other OLD Old School RPGs that use similar structure but % based systems.

Wow. What a find.

This is actually the third book in a three part series published by Sechi and Bard Games, the first two being The Compleat Alchemist and The Compleat Spell Caster. The character classes presented here are of the non-magical variety for the most part, but they are the kind of thing any enterprising young game-tinker would want to throw in his or her D&D campaign. They are:

- Beastmaster

- Buccaneer

- Bounty Hunter

- Gladiator

- Harlequin

- Knight

- Martial Artist

- Rogue (Ha! No...this is a REAL "rogue!")

- Scout

- Spy

- Swordsman

- Warrior

- Witch Hunter

In fact, it would appear that these classes are intended to supplant the traditional D&D classes(!), something I infer from the inclusion of the warrior, the knight, the rogue, the martial artist, and the spy, all of which would seem to replace basic adventuring classes found in D&D. However, I'd need The Compleat Spell Caster to really verify this.

What a great bunch of inspirational material! For my taste, it's a little too clunky to use "as is," but I believe it would provide very nice, simple, and useable options for folks willing to take a little time to polish it up. Really.

I got an email from Norm the other day asking if I had any sort of compilation of variant classes for B/X D&D...to which I replied that I really hadn't worked too much on variant classes at all! HOWEVER, I wouldn't be against doing up some B/X sketches of the classes in this book...simply as an exercise you understand (B/X is perfect as written, of course...at least up till level 14).

; )

If I do this, though, I will not be including ALL the classes...the warrior or knight, for example, are little more than fighters with some optional add-ons. However, the following classes would be excellent additions to any B/X game: the Beastmaster, the Scout/Bounty Hunter (I'd probably combine these as a single "hunter" class), the Spy, the Swordsman, and the Witch-Hunter...heck, even the Rogue. I dislike having a Buccaneer class as there is already a buccaneer monster and the harlequin has...well...um, challenges. But maybe this can be a possible side project.

Yeah, when I have nothing else to do. Sheesh!

: )