I Looked at the 5th Edition D&D Books, and I Liked It

 

So I was in Barnes & Noble today, and I picked up the 5E Player's Handbook. And as I flipped through it, I really liked what I saw. Really, the full-page illustrations took me back to the D&D 2nd Edition books, man. Seriously. And I liked the style of the art as well.

 

Is any of this heretical? I dunno, and don't care really. My current divorce from the gaming world, both online and in the flesh, has really done something unexpected to my gamer's heart: it's opened it even more than it ever was before. It's been great to get away from the navel-gazing and echo chambers and edition-shaming. I'm not pointing fingers at the community, mind you. Just those that perpetuate the true nerdery of this or ANY hobby.

 

To me, being a nerd about something (gaming, comics, soap operas, fantasy sports, watching sports, cars, etc.) is about being a snob about something. To ridicule others who don't see your hobby the way you see it. Those that don't participate with your level of micro-management and elitism. Nerdery is really about taking the fun out of something.

 

Anyway, sheesh, I didn't want to get on the soap box on my first time back to the blog in some time. I just want to say that I'm celebrating the latest incarnation of D&D. I'm thinking it will be a good idea for me to buy the books. Damn, I almost forgot I bought the Starter Set all the way back in early July! Might need to crack that bad boy open again, take a gander again.

 

Then again, reading RPG stuff these days is tantamount to torture! I need to get some gaming on, even if I'm just a player. I would love to see the new D&D in actual action!

 

Hope you're all well out there, and gaming happily!

End-of-Week Elmore (12/20/13)

Larry's take on that classic D&D alignment illustration

 

Just a few days before Christmas, and we get the news about the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons coming out next summer (from Forbes, no less).

 

You know what? I'm excited. Maybe it's my newfound dedication to a radically positive attitude toward life. But I'm feeling happy that D&D is still in print. Yes, I'm not all that interested in playing the new edition, but I'm sure I'll give it a good look, and give thanks for the game that has been more than a game in my life.

 

Am I going to worry about the in-print version of D&D not conforming enough to the older versions that I prefer? No. There's still going to be some connection, at least if it's just a name/brand and some of the basic mechanics. But if we REALLY want new generations of gamers to appreciate the roots of the game, then those of us who love those older editions need to spread the word. Those who are interested will be willing to listen, and those who do not should not be dismissed outright. It's that simple. You want change? Be the change you want.

 

In other words, don't be a stereotypical grognard. Stop grumbling, and get out there and tell the kids about the OOP versions of D&D. Teach them the virtues of D&D's earlier iterations. Tell them about the history of the game and the hobby it created. There's no better time than the coming 40th anniversary, in my opinion.

 

All this from the guy who is basically going on another hiatus from roleplaying for an indeterminate time right? ;-)  I'll be back someday. But this time around, I won't be turning my back on the hobby. I'll be watching, waiting, and planning my return...with an open mind.

One final thought (I'm sure I'm not the first person to consider this, so don't think I believe myself to be some RPG Sherlock Holmes): perhaps this will be WotC's D&D masterstroke. Maybe they were all amped up about this version being the "one edition to encompass them all" because of the 40th anniversary. So they could release an edition of the game that could pay homage (if not do justice) to all the iterations of the game, on the occasion of its 40 birthday, in a time where "geek" is becoming more and more "chic." I'm sure they'll try their best to connect this edition with the anniversary.

Heck, I'm willing to bet that at least some of the marketing materials WotC puts out will make reference to this being an "anniversary edition." Double heck, they might wind up calling this "Dungeons & Dragons: Anniversary Edition." I sure hope they don't, but you never know...

30 Day D&D Challenge, Day 7: Favorite Edition

New Edition, of course!

 

Oh, what edition of D&D? Sorry for the confusion.

 

My favorite edition of D&D is....

 

CASTLES & CRUSADES!

 

I've written about my love for C&C before, as well as how "it's all D&D to me." I don't care what you call the game you're playing. If it has the D&D "DNA" (i.e. based on D&D mechanics), then you are playing D&D. And C&C is my preferred version of AD&D, these days. It does what I need it to do, period. And it's the spiritual successor to AD&D. If you've never checked it out, do yourself a favor and take a look!

Audio: GenCon 2013 D&D Next R&D Q&A Seminar

Have you heard this yet? I'd suggest you check it out, even if you don't have too strong of an interest in the next iteration of D&D. I listened to this recording today, and I have to admit I was encouraged by what I heard. I found myself believing the claims that WotC is attempting to honor all the editions of D&D, especially when the speakers went into examples of just how they were making that attempt.

 

Now, I say this as a person who signed up for the D&D Next playtest but didn't keep up with the playtest packets. Why? Mostly because I'm busy with life as well as spending my spare time running RPG sessions with game systems that aren't in development (in fact, I had a similar situation when I was offered a chance to playtest an OSR game while it was in development, i.e. I had to pass due to lack of time). If I was in a position to actually playtest D&D Next, I might have kept up with the process, answered their surveys, etc. Looking back, I wish I had tried to at least find some time to run, say, some one-off playtest sessions, or whatever (same with that OSR game I mentioned). Oh well.

 

Anyway, yes, I definitely like what I heard while listening to this seminar. So much so that I'm looking forward to eventually seeing the final form of D&D Next. How about you?

Did 2E AD&D Introduce the Natural 20?

One of the big reasons I created this blog was to be able to pose questions to the RPG blogosphere, and get some feedback from the collective mind we have going on here. I am in no way a scholar of D&D Edition Comparitive Studies, although I would like to be such an expert. I just don't have the free time these days to devote myself to memorizing the similarities and differences between the editions. I'm hoping that someone out there has the edition knowledge to answer my question. 

 

So anyway, I've been flipping through my recently acquired (or rather "re-aquired" after my old copies went missing ages ago) 2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, and came across pages 90-91 where it says (under the header "Impossible To-Hit Numbers"):

"...a roll of 20 is always considered a hit and a roll of 1 is always a miss, unless the DM rules otherwise. Under most circumstances, a natural 20 hits and a natural 1 misses, regardless of any modifiers applied to the die roll."

 

Here's my question (again, because I don't really have the time at the moment to dig through all the D&D editions before 2E to figure this out): Is this the first mention of "natural 20" (and natural 1) in Dungeons & Dragons (Basic and Advanced)?

It pains me that I don't know this bit of information. I am sorta ashamed I have to ask it! But I am really curious to get the skinny on this subject. I look forward to your input, folks!

Thanksgiving Holiday RPG Musings

As I’m sure most of us do, I’m thinking deeply about my life during the Thanksgiving holiday. In particular, I’m thinking about my relationship with RPGs. Perhaps my mind is dwelling on this subject because for several weeks now I have not been able to meet with my usual RPG group. So it may be that I’m suffering from withdrawal, and this is making me pine for all things roleplaying. So, here’s what’s on my mind:

 

I believe that I am prone to fits of RPG assumptions. I think since I returned to table-top RPGs in July 2010, I’ve been focusing on retroclones and other modern recreations of out-of-print versions of Dungeons & Dragons, rather than a re-exploration of the actual Dungeons & Dragons games.

I’ve been assuming that retroclones are the direction I MUST go with regard to my return to gaming. I’ve also been assuming, perhaps in a mostly unconscious way, that retroclones are “superior” to the original D&D versions. This applies in particular to Castles & Crusades, which I’ve allowed myself to believe is “better” than Advanced D&D.

 

I think I’m moving away from this superiority belief and moving toward deeper and deeper desire to engage in an in-depth study of the Basic/Advanced D&D editions. I’ve been assuming that I know those systems already. I’ve overestimated my understanding of those original rules. I may know the general concepts pretty well, but my knowledge of the finer aspects of D&D is sorely lacking.

I now think my focus on retroclones has been purely a matter of expediency. They are what’s in print and readily available, and they are often more streamlined that the original versions. This, as I’ve mentioned on this blog before, is no doubt due to my current life as a busy adult. When it comes to C&C, there’s also the fact that it makes some changes I like to the Advanced D&D classes, as well as a unified modern mechanic.

 

Of late, I’ve had a growing urge to study, of all things, Second Edition D&D. In the epilogue to my gamer testimonial, I professed a disdain for that edition. I have to say that this supposed disdain is probably based on a tendency to turn away from a pastime after inundating myself with said pastime. This is especially true when it comes to me and RPGs. I think I just immerse myself so deeply in an activity that I burn myself out.

But this rejection of 2^nd Edition AD&D also comes from my weakness for novelty and perhaps a bit of attention deficit disorder. I’m not just talking about Gamer ADD, but just generalized ADD. I think my retroclone focus was based on a tendency I’ve always had to cling to a “newer is better” mentality/habit. I go through phases in life where I cannot focus well on things. But I also labored long under a tendency to assume that prior versions of D&D, or indeed D&D itself, is somehow “childish.” From reading other blogs, I don’t think I’m alone in this. There was a time when I left D&D behind and moved on to RPGs that I thought were more “adult,” such as Amber Diceless RPG and the White Wolf Storyteller games.

 

I know I’ve been rambling here, but this post is probably more for me to talk things out to myself rather than be a coherent read for others. However I would love to hear feedback from readers. To sum up: I’m going to stop assuming I have a deep understanding of the Basic and Advanced versions of D&D, and actually read up on them. I know I have limited time to do so, but I’m going to make the commitment. I’m also going to rethink my prejudice toward 2^nd Edition AD&D and give that system another chance. It is, after all, the version of D&D I played the most besides 1^st Edition AD&D.

Wish me luck as I delve into the depths of my RPG motivations!

The D&D Love/Hate Goes On...

I love D&D. And I hate it.

Ok, hate is really too strong a word. I guess what I'm feeling is a lot of mixed emotions, plus a big dash of my old foe Gamer ADD stalking me from the dark depths of my subconscious.

I'm really a D&D man, above all. Of course, like many, it was my first RPG. I've played other RPGs and have really like other systems, but something calls me back to D&D. I know that there's a lot of nostalgia in this whole mix, but I don't want it to become the bad sort of nostalgia that makes me lose sight of my current gaming potential. D&D will always have pride of place in my gamer's heart.

I really am tempted to play games like Savage Worlds, Dragon Age RPG, and Barbarians of Lemuria. These games have no mechanical relationship to D&D, and that is very appealing. Why? Because I've played the hell out of D&D-like games, so I've spent a lot of time with variations of D&D mechanics. And familiarity breeds contempt, my friends. This familiarity, I think, gives me an uncontrollable urge to tinker and tinker and tinker with those old D&D mechanics.

I'm getting tired of the tinkering. I just don't know if I can play D&D rules as written ever again...at least, the rules as they exist in the out-of-print editions. Granted, I've done a decent job of keeping my D&D house rules limited, but I seem to be constantly fine tuning even those few house rules. I don't like tormenting players with new house rule sheets every couple weeks.

BUT...the thought of not playing D&D is simultaneously intriguing and saddening. As if it would be a "betrayal" on my part. At least when it comes to me running a game. I've played Savage Worlds recently and that's a fun system. But to spend, say, a year running a non-D&D game? It seems out of reach for me.

I think a lot of this is, of course, related to the fact that I have limited time as an adult. I want to experience as much gaming as possible with my limited time, and this causes a problem when I start feeling like I want to play every game I am interested in. So, with limited time, there's a feeling that I need to be sure I'm playing/running a game worthy of my precious time.

On a side note, I would really love to PLAY in a D&D-like game again. I haven't done so since last summer, when GM Rich was running us through City State of the Invincible Overlord using C&C rules. I've  been playing in my friend Bill's Savage Worlds game, and it's really cool. But I would really like to play a D&D character again.

All this brings me to D&D 5th Edition/Next. I can't help it, but I have a lot of desire for the next D&D edition to do really well. I have all the playtest stuff and I really want to run it, and I am feeling like I want to give my feedback. Call it some latent desire to be a game designer, whatever. But I want D&D to live on. I'm trying to be positive and believe that Wizards of the Coast can make good on promises of tapping back into the roots of the game. Heck, at Gen Con today they apparently said they're going to make the old editions available (in what format remains to be seen).

I've read the 5E playtest rules a bit, and I like a lot of what I see. I've had issues with Vancian magic again of late, and the tweaks to Vancian magic in D&D Next are interesting to me. Yes, I understand the concept of "a player playing a magic-user needs to be more than just dependant on spells per day." But there's room for change in the old rules we know and love. And I know I'm not alone when it comes to old school gamers. Old school gaming is not just about a set of mechanics. It's about a creative, open-ended style of play, an attitude of problem solving, fun and immersion in shared imagination and adventure.

I don't think the OSR needs to be so opposed to the current iteration of in-print D&D. I think that we have a chance to have our voices heard and try to help cement the old school mentality in a modern product. Other modern games like Dragon Age RPG claim such a pedigree. If that upstart RPG can claim that, then D&D can as well.

Ok, I've rambled enough for now. More thoughts to come, of course...

In the Mind of a Mad Gamer

"Oh, and Game Master, just one more thing: love your campaign!"  

Perhaps the excessive heat the US has been suffering under has broken my brain. Perhaps seeing the bickering of my family over parental issues (that's all I'll say on the matter here) has broken my spirit. Whatever the cause(s), I've found my brain severely unfocused as of late. As a result, my mind has been spinning on all levels, and this includes my gaming life.

When I was young, my hobbies were a true escape from a tumultuous family life. I read books voraciously. I found solace in places like, well, Solace, the tree-top village in the Dragonlance Chronicles. Yes, reading was a hobby, and linked to that was a "hobby" of self-imposed isolation. To be hidden in the depths of a library, secluded among stout walls made of book shelves with a book in hand, was to be in paradise for a short time. I also liked to write fantasical stories, an interest that I'm sure I shared with many young people who enjoyed Dungeons & Dragons.

When I discovered Dungeons & Dragons, I was often in the role of Dungeon Master, as my enjoyment of crafting plots was the greatest among my childhood group. As with many of us, the game gave us a means to develop creatively and socially.

I suppose reading is still an escape for me, and roleplaying is still something of an escape and a creative outlet, as well as a great social event (I can't say enough about how much I enjoy being around my current group of players). Though now I'm escaping the sometimes onerous grind of adult responsibility/bullsh*t.

ANYway, to continue on from my recent post about self revelation, of late I've found myself feeling pulled in many directions with regard to what I want to run as a game master. I feel really upset at myself for putting my still-young Labyrinth Lord game on hold. I didn't want to do that to my players. But I also had to be true to myself with regard to the fact that I felt unfulfilled with what I was running.

After a lot of rumination on the more nebulous aspects of my feelings, I think I've reached some clarity on things. I suppose not many people out there will be interested in hearing a 30-something man go on and on about roleplaying woes, but this is more for my own sanity, I think. I need to lay out what's on my mind in some organized form. I hope this will alleviate the swirling miasma of Gamer ADD. I've been inspired by Chris at Classic RPG Realms, who isn't afraid to talk out his struggles regarding what system to use.

Again, I consider anything with D&D "DNA" to be D&D wearing a mask. All that being said, here's my thought process as of right now:

Basic D&D

I have come to realize that I really want to run a game using actual Classic/Basic D&D rules. The retroclone thing wasn't cutting it. This came as something of a shock to me, as I'm a big fan of the 'clones. But I can no longer hide from myself the fact that I want to play "pure" if I'm going to play Basic D&D.

If I'm going to deal with the somewhat arcane mechanics of Basic D&D, then I want to be actually playing Basic D&D. That means using the original rulebooks. I have a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia that I'm dying to use, and I have PDFs of the individual Mentzer box sets that I can print out (or have done so already).

I'm not sure if this sounds shallow or bizarre, but yes, I want to use those original books. I don't want to use a retroclone. There, I said it. Again, I have nothing against the 'clones. They're great, and they're the impetus behind looking back to explore early D&D.

But I want to see that Larry Elmore/Terry Dykstra artwork when I'm flipping through the books. I want to see the fonts they used. I want the beholder in the monster section! I want that authentic D&D experience, which to me means using the original books.

And in using the original books, I want to stay as close to rules as written as I can. I really want to cut down my house rules and just do rulings on the fly as needed. I think the majority of my house rules will pertain to the classes, to give them a bit more "oomph."

Again, I'm feeling very guilty about putting my Labyrinth Lord game on hold after only a handful of sessions. I think I owe it to my group to give Basic more of a fair shot. But to me that means actually using those original rule books. Once more, I ask: is this insane?

I'll include the DCC RPG here, because it uses Basic's race-as-class feature and many other connections to Basic. I really like what Goodman Games has done to the D&D chassis. But I feel like it has more rules crunch than I'm willing to deal with at the moment. I have an urge to run some DCC RPG in the future, but not right now. I don't want to deal with the crunch.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

When it comes to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, for some reason I currently have the opposite desire: I do NOT want to run a game using actual AD&D rules. I would much, much rather use Castles & Crusades. I'm not sure if this is a strange divergence from my "NEED PURE BASIC D&D!" feelings. But there you have it. At any rate, I have no desire right now to GM an AD&D/C&C game.

D&D Mine

Every once in a while I get the urge to make my own "edition" of D&D. Who in our blogosphere community hasn't felt that urge, right? I want to take the Swords & Wizardry clone as a foundation and put in all the tweaks I want and make my own game! I was inspired recently by JB at B/X Blackrazor when he proposed the D&D Mine concept.

But at the moment, this still is a case of "MUST PLAY PURE BASIC D&D!" eating at my brain. So this recurring urge is, once again, pushed aside.

Other RPGS

I really like Savage Worlds and the Dragon Age RPG. Their allure is that they offer an alternative to those games that are variations on D&D (i.e. those games that use mechanics very similar to D&D, either Basic or Advanced). And this appeals, because I have no deep-seated desire to immediately house rule either of these non-D&D RPGs, because they aren't D&D!

I think that I'm so familiar with the D&D rules that I can't help myself when it comes to house ruling. I'm sort of tired of this uncontrollable need on my part to endlessly tweak the D&D design. So, to me, the logical solution is to try another RPG for a while, and take a break from D&D in all its forms.

Yet my desire to play these games, strangely enough, makes me yearn for D&D. I'm really feeling insane...

Conclusion

I try to tell myself that I don't have a time limit on my new gaming life. I can run one sort of game/RPG for a while and then switch to another at some point down the road.

Ultimately, I'm sorry to subject my poor gaming group to the results of my scattered mind. I'm feeling like a very divided self, with my attention pulled in too many directions. This is frustrating to no end.

Any advice is very much appreciated.

Self Revelations: D&D, the OSR, and Me

I started this blog to chronicle my return to roleplaying. I really had no idea what my attempt to return to the fold would entail, or how successful I would be. As far as success is concerned, I've got a steady group of fellow gamers that I play with on a fairly regular basis. So I consider that a success.

Note, of course, that I had no idea there was an OSR when I came back to gaming within the last few years. When I first made my concerted effort to return to the table-top, my first exposure was with Pathfinder (which I found to be interesting but too crunchy for my tastes...I had never played 3E either, for the same crunchy reason). It was this lack of fulfillment with an in-print game that caused me to wonder about the out-of-print games from my past. I decided to dig around online for those older editions, and the rest is history...

Since I've come back to roleplaying, I think I've learned some things about my current gaming self. The following is very subject to change, however, as I'm nothing if not mutable:

The Old Rules
At the moment, I don't really want to go back and use the old D&D rules as written, be they Basic or Advanced D&D. Sure, I have strong feelings of nostalgia for those old rule sets. Like so many of us, it was my first RPG. There's a certain lure to the thought of playing actual D&D instead of a retroclone, but again, that's probably just a bit of "bad" nostalgia. In re-reading the Rules Cyclopedia, Moldvay/Cook/ Marsh B/X, and AD&D, I find myself balking at the "clunkyness" (or what I personally perceive/define as clunkyness) of the rules. I've also run into that balking feeling while running some Labyrinth Lord recently. So I've reached a point where my issues with the rules have overcome the gravitas, the prestige, the tradition, the whatever-you-want-to-call-it of playing actual D&D or those retroclones that cleave close to it (i.e. the "first wave" of clones = OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord).

I say all the above with not a little sadness, because I blame my current state of life as being the culprit behind my inability to grok the old rules. I can't seem to retain the little idiosyncrasies of the old rules. I know this seems lame, but it's a sad truth for me. I've got some personal things in my life that are taking up a fair bit of brain power of late. Maybe this ineptitude on my part will abate someday, but for now...

I have to admit, though, that I've felt a recent urge to get the original AD&D books, in order to add them back to my collection. The books my teenage group shared years ago were destroyed by a friend who became a hardcore born-again Christian. After so many years of not having the hallowed words of Gary Gygax in my library, I feel the need to own them once more.

I'm not sure why, even though I know how old school games are about rulings and not rules, that I just can't feel totally at peace with playing D&D rules as written OR with house rules that make them more to my tastes. Maybe it's some disillusionment with the rules, or being tired of the same old D&D rules appearing over and over in the vast number of OSR publications, or a combination of the two. Don't get me wrong, I love the wondrous variety of the OSR and believe it is a positive aspect of the movement. 

I think familiarity does breed contempt, and I've been around the D&D rules for so long that I'm probably getting a bit tired of them. I probably need a break from them. I can't seem to help the urge to tinker. I know, the prevailing thought process is that older D&D rules were pretty much made to be just guidelines, and made to be tinkered with. But I just don't have the stomach for too many house rules of late. Maybe it's my current time crunch that makes me get upset if I have to craft too many house rules. Granted, I don't think I've played with too many house rules, but still...I feel the need to find a game that doesn't give me the overwhelming urge to tweak. This feeling alone probably strips away a good portion of my OSR cred (if I ever had any).

The Rules with D&D DNA
Again, I've no urge to use the original D&D/AD&D rules in a current game. For my AD&D needs, I have Castles & Crusades. It is the game that had Gary's blessings as the successor to D&D, after all (at least, according to the Troll Lords, who were close to Gary before he passed).

Yes, the only version of AD&D I really dig is Castles & Crusades. It's a wonderful amalgam of 1E (classes, races, overall aesthetic) and 3.5 (more modern unified mechanic), with some new ideas/twists thrown in (example: rangers don't cast spells...that's awesome...never could stand spellcasting rangers) and an old-school mentality surrounding it.

The other game that's made a big impression on me is DCC RPG. I really like this "second generation" clone! I am definitely liking it more than the original/first wave of clones, and I know that statement may raise some hackles. I know, DCC is not supposed to be a clone, but come on folks...call a clone a clone. I'm not ready to actually run DCC RPG at the moment, but I have the itch (and some of those Zocchi dice as well).

Both of the games mentioned above use a much more unified mechanic than the old versions of D&D/AD&D. And these days, I'm loving me some unified mechanic. This is due to being busy with adult life, which leaves me with minimal brain space to use for storage of various mechanics. I know, lame, right? Oh well, it's my truth. And to thine own self be true.

The less I feel the need to house rule, the more I like the RPG. I do like to play with some minimal house rules for C&C (one sheet of paper front and back is my limit!), and DCC seems like a game I wouldn't want to house rule much at all.

But C&C and DCC have that D&D DNA, and of late that's bothered me. So I have to conclude that I'm having an issue with D&D, deep down.

Other Rules and New Rules
Lord knows that, over the years, I've played a bunch of other games that weren't D&D-based. I played a lot of Palladium (TMNT, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies) and also Amber Diceless RPG. Most recently I've been playing Savage Worlds. So my experience with the other RPG possibilities out there is probably part of my current urge to look elsewhere. Look, I learned a lot about rulings not rules and other concepts favored by the OSR through my experience with a non-D&D game like Amber Diceless Roleplaying. With no dice and just four attributes, the ADRPG GM has to make a lot of rulings.

Bottom line: I'm really curious about newer, non-D&D based systems like Savage Worlds and Dragon Age. I feel the urge to break away from the D&D "hegemony"...at least for a while. These games also have unified mechanics (with Dragon Age going so far as only using the d6, rather than Savage World's use of the other polyhedrals we all know and love...I have to admit I'm going to miss all those other dice while we play Dragon Age).

I know there are a lot of OSR folks who clamor about player vs. character skill, and a system like Dragon Age can lend itself quite easily to players depending on the character stats and associated skill rolls. But I'm here to tell you that my thoughts towards character stats and skill rolls are also tied to my current gaming status. I'm a busy adult playing with busy adults. We don't have all the time we used to have in order to lean mostly on player skill and searching every cranny of a dungeon.

I guess you could say we don't have time to be incredibly clever. We have time to be somewhat clever. My players are very creative and come up with really inventive solutions to things, be they battles or negotiations with NPCs or solving puzzles. But if they sometimes want to lean on the dice mechanic, I'm not going to stop them. Because in our limited time we want the adventure to press forward, and not worry about exploring all the minutia that "pure" old school D&D play demands.

I do encourage a combination of player and character skill, a compromise if you will. These two roleplaying concepts don't need to be mutually exclusive. Player ideas improve dice roll success or eliminate the need for dice. I guess I am not purely of the OSR when it comes to mechanics, but I am when it comes to the style, the spirit. Not that labels matter, though. The gaming is what really matters.

Conclusion...For Now...
I'm not sure if I'm getting across all my feelings as clearly as I wanted, but I made an effort here. Mostly for my benefit, but I'm also wondering what others think. You may think I'm a cop out when it comes to the OSR, but again, I'm thinking that I'm more of an omnivorous gamer rather than just a consumer of the old ways. Maybe I'm not really an OSR gamer at heart. I don't know. Not that there's a strict membership guideline for the movement, right? ;-)

I'm not knocking those who want the pure OSR feeling/gameplay. I'm just realizing that I'm different...at least for the moment. Someday, I'm sure, I'll want to play C&C or DCC or maybe even Labyrinth Lord again. I think I just need some time away from the same rules I've been using for so many years. Hell, I might want to try my hand at original AD&D again. Who the heck knows, right? I'm nothing if not a sufferer of chronic Gamer ADD!

But for the time being, I talked to my group and they seem interested in me running some Dragon Age RPG. And I'm having a blast with my friend Bill's Savage World of Solomon Kane game. Both games may owe their existence to D&D (like all other RPGs), but they don't owe much in the way of mechanics. And I'm really, really liking that fact.

Wish me luck on this latest phase of my gaming life. Until we meet again, happy gaming!

OSR Blasphemies: Saying No to Old-Fashioned Vancian Magic

I suppose I'm about to commit a mortal OSR sin by stating that I'm not really into Vancian magic anymore. At least, I'm not into Vancian magic "rules as written" as portrayed in most editions of D&D (except 4th Edition with its at-will powers, I suppose).

I just don't like the "fire and forget" thing anymore. I know, you're going to call me a D&D Nancy-boy and tell me I can't hang. You're going to tell me that I'm missing the point of D&D, especially OD&D/Basic D&D, where resource management is king, and where limited spells per day at low levels means players have to flex their creative muscles in order to survive.

But to hell with all that. I don't care. My current self wants something new. My old self might have been OK with it. Back in the day, I remember a lot of player decisions to camp for the rest of the day/night so the casters could recharge ("Ok, speed up time, Mr. GM! Is it morning yet? What, what do you mean there was random encounter while we were asleep?!"). It was crazy how many days would pass in a single session because the magic users and clerics needed to rememorize spells.

Hey, here's my cure for the "15 minute work day": no more old-fashioned Vancian magic.

Gimme the Adventurer Conqueror King system for casting spells with its "spell repertoire," for the love of God. Or even better than that, gimme the system from Myth & Magic!

In my current Labyrinth Lord campaign, I'm borrowing from the Myth & Magic system (what I think is supposed to be a sorta-clone of 2E D&D). The following is an OPTIONAL rule from Myth & Magic (so no, kids, you are not forced to use it if you want good old fashioned Vancian action):

Spell Rememorization [Optional]: Once a memorized spell is cast and a slot opens up, the wizard may attempt to fill the slot if he has his spellbook and ample time to study. An Intelligence check is rolled against an Exceptional (TC 20) task. Success indicates a new memorized spell. Failure removes the chance to fill that spell slot until the next day. The wizard is required to have absolute silence while he studies for a continuous, uninterrupted 10 minutes per spell level. Any interruption, whether it be from loud noises or physical harm, removes the chance to rememorize the spell slot.

In place of the d20 INT check, I have my LL players roll under the INT score (modified by the level of the spell to be rememorized; so a wizard with INT of 17 rememorizing a 2nd level spell would have to roll under a 15).

Oh, or even better than Myth & Magic is the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG system, right? Well, not sure it's better, but just different... different in a much more risky spell casting sense. But I like that riskiness! It adds some spice to things, eh?! Bottom line: you don't automatically lose the spell for the rest of the day. Sounds good to me, risk or no risk.

As much as I ragged on DCC in the past, I think it's system is the most attractive to me right now.

I guess the "second generation" retroclones (I don't want to argue about whether or not DCC RPG is a retroclone or not, please) fit into the style of play that I want these days. I guess I'm not an OSR purist after all. And that's not because I've been brainwashed by playing modern-era D&D, which I haven't done at all, ever! Hell, I've only returned to roleplaying within the last couple years and I've been playing C&C, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and now Labyrinth Lord!

I guess what I have been doing is reading other games, and fondly wishing for something more than old Vancian magic. Damn that reading nonsense! Dad always told me it would get me into trouble.

I want my casters to have the flexibility of spell casting more often in a day, and I don't care who disagrees! 'Nuff said.

Early D&D and Feeling Left Out

I feel like there's something of an "inner circle" in the OSR. There's guys steeped in the early editions/versions of the game (OD&D/the LBBs, Holmes, Moldvay) and early supplements, and I am just now scratching the surface of that era in the game's history.

As I explore, I'm becoming more and more interested in stepping away, at least for a while, from my AD&D roots (which I'm currently expressing through AD&D's modern counterpart, Castles & Crusades). I'm becoming more interested in using the old rituals, so to speak, of Basic D&D.

Besides a yen to actually play in/run games using Basic D&D rules for the first time, I've also wondered about the reality behind names like Tekumel, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Arduin. I see the veneration for these items that some people have expressed, and I feel a certain envy, not having been exposed to those things when a young man starting out in the hobby.

Now, I've read up on the meat of Tekumel and Arduin, and further study has not garnered any particular interest on my part. Some of the mystery has been stripped away and I guess I wasn't too impressed. The same goes for my delvings into OD&D and Holmes...they just don't seem to do too much for me. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X is where I really seem to start liking things, and on through the Mentzer era culminating in the Rules Cyclopedia.

As far as clones go, I like the style and passion that comes from Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, and also the magic that seems to be infused into the pages of Dan Proctor's Labyrinth Lord. As for "second generation" clones, I really like Adventurer Conqueror King, and Newt Newport's Crypts & Things is up there too.

But I'll always feel like I missed out on something as a kid, for not having experienced Basic D&D all those years ago, during my formative time in the hobby. Ah well. Here's to making up for lost time! GAME ON!

Why do I love the RC? XP for Roleplaying (and More)!

It seems like lately I've been reading some blog posts blasting D&D for not having rules for earning XP beyond killing things and taking their stuff (don't ask me to point out specific blog posts, I can't do it, so you'll have to trust me on this one).

Perhaps these bloggers were referring to OD&D or Moldvay/Cook/ Marsh BX. Why do I say that?

Because the Rules Cyclopedia (a consolidation of Mentzer's BECMI) has an experience chapter (Chapter 10) that breaks down how characters earn experience thusly:

1. By Role-Playing Well
2. By Achieving Party Goals
3. By Defeating Monsters and Opponents
4. By Acquiring Treasure
5. By Performing Exceptional Actions

So, as you can clearly see, earning XP from killing monsters and getting treasure are numbers 3 and 4 on the Rules Cyclopedia list! The chapter goes on to give the details on how exactly XP of all types is actually determined (I can't get into it now, sorta busy with work and all).

Thinking back through the misty fog of my memory, I seem to recally that, though I never played using the RC rules (again, being firmly an AD&D kid) I nonetheless read the Cyclopedia and mined it for information. This includes the experience chapter.

My love for the RC grows and grows...

Question of the Day: Can you use B/X and Labyrinth Lord together?

Hi all, don't have much time to post today. But I wanted to ask another question, this one inspired by my re-readings of late. I've been delving once again into the pages of both the original B/X books as well as Labyrinth Lord. But since I have such limited time, one thing escapes me: true knowledge how the two would work together in actual use during a game session.

What I mean is, say I'm using the B/X books for reference and the players have copies of LL for reference. What problems would we run into, if any?

So, the question: can one safely use B/X and LL simultaneously during a game session and not get into trouble?

Between hope, wonder, and ambivalence...

That's where I find myself, folks, in light of Wizards of the Coast's latest move: the announcement that they will be reprinting the 1E AD&D books that St. Gary laid down all those years ago. Wow. I really feel like this is surreal. Let's talk about this, shall we?

What is WotC up to? That's my gut reaction. Sorry to be cynical. But seriously. Are they really finally taking a page from the OSR, admitting that old editions have their place in the gaming world and not just some fringe movement? Are they giving props to the OSR, actually listening to long-time fans of the game's many incarnations from the last few decades? Do they want to play nice and live in harmony with fans of all editions of D&D? Is this an extension of the squishy 5E feelings that they're pushing?

Or is all this some ploy to steal the OSR's thunder? Because as expected, the news of 1E's reprinting (albeit a limited release, supposedly) has some OSR diehards crying foul. Why? Because, the diehards say, this will make OSRIC obsolete. Uh, I personally am not so sure about that. I can see how some might consider WotC re-releasing OOP edition as a move to quash the OSR. Every group has conspiracy theorists, right? I'm not so sure it would mean the end of all the retroclones, though. Ironically, some might find the clones to be more user-friendly, having given the old rules better organization, etc.

For me, these days, if I wanted to play in the 1E style, I would just keep playing Castles & Crusades. For me, C&C takes the spirit of 1E and blends it seamlessly with the best of the 3E mechanics (I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, with the C&C love I constantly spout). I'm not sure I would even want to go back to the old 1E rules as originally written, as heretical as that may sound to some. But, let's keep in mind that Gary gave the C&C guys his blessings back in the day, so...there you go.

Is WotC just jumping on the bandwagon? That would be something of a victory for the OSR, eh? The movement has become something that WotC can no longer ignore, eh? I wonder what all the "This Is A Dying Hobby" doomsayers are thinking right now.

I've been so busy today that I haven't had time to do any reading on the 1E situation, so I don't know if WotC has released a longer statement as to why they are reprinting Gary's masterpiece. But between this and their "kumbaya" 5E love-fest ("it will bring all D&D lover's together!"), I'm really feeling a bit like I'm dreaming. I really don't know what to think at the moment. It seems to good to be true. Or at least to good to be kosher.

So I just wanted to vent. I sit here between hope, wonder, and ambivalence about all of these recent developments, and frankly I just don't know what to think. And I know I'm not alone. Thanks for listening to me babble. I'd love it if someone would babble back, to let me know what you're all thinking out there.

Interesting times we live in, eh?

UPDATE: Since I can't seem to post a comment to my own blog at the moment, I'll respond to all the people who stopped by through this update.

Chris Creel: Glad you got a laugh outta that! And I agree that there's a good likelyhood that 5E will take some inspiration from C&C (this opinion is no surprise given my *ahem* boner for C&C ;-).

Greyhawk Knight: Thanks for the insight, specifically the reminder that this is a limited print run. And those who don't want to plunk down the cash on the Hasbro of the Coast altar can also take up the OSRIC cause.

Martin: Hey there! Good to hear from you! How are things? Agreed on the hype factor on the part of WotC, the canny bastards! And you worked with WotC before, right (no judgement there, of course)? Who better than you to know their tactics? Yeah, this 1E reprint thing smacks of another olive branch that is designed to test the OSR interest in "official" D&D.

To Gwydion and all: thanks for the reminders of the real purpose behind the clones.

James and Tenkar: thats for stopping by and for helping to put things into perspective!

It's All D&D to Me

I'm just gonna go off here a bit. Just a short tidbit of brain spew, sort of an offspring of the post I wrote yesterday regarding what I consider the "flavors" of D&D (including Castles & Crusades, my preferred flavor, and the upcoming 5th edition of D&D). Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Here goes, according to my brain:

OSRIC is D&D.

Labyrinth Lord is D&D.

Swords & Wizardry is D&D.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is D&D.

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is D&D.

[Insert title of D&D-inspired rule set] is D&D.

Are you seeing a theme here? A common thread?

Bottom line: for me, I don't care what you call it, it's all D&D. Like Shakespeare wrote, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I don't care that there are small, medium, or large differences between the clones and the rules they emulate. I don't care how crazy the "house rules" found in rule sets like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, and their ilk may be.

It's no accident that images of the original D&D Red Box grace the front of the three-ring binders I use for my GM's screen during my Castles & Crusades games. C&C is in many ways the successor of D&D. It's is a successor from a mechanics standpoint, as well as the spiritual successor. So when I'm using those rules, if someone asks me what I'm playing, I usually say "A version of D&D" or just "Dungeons and Dragons." If they ask for more detail, I'll get down to the nitty gritty, but otherwise, I see no difference between C&C and the system that gave birth to it/inspired it.

The same goes for all the clones and clones of clones out there. That's the main reason the Edition Wars make no sense to me.

Back to Castles & Crusades: It may have a different name, have some different terms scattered throughout (i.e. Castle Keeper instead of Dungeon Master), and differ in mechanics in some ways. But in the end, it captures the feel of both 1E and 3.X D&D, paying homage to both iterations. Yet, at the same time, it has aspects that make it its own creature, especially the mechanics of the SIEGE Engine.

I know this is all my opinion, and I'm not some sort of missionary that seeks to show others the "true way." This is just MY path to D&D nirvana. Yours no doubt differs.

I am curious to see what 5E will be. Heck, I may even get into the playtesting if I am able. But I already have my version of D&D that I enjoy above all others. And it's called Castles & Crusades.

Does anyone else out there feel the same? I'm sure I am not breaking any new ground here. Does anyone disagree? I know I've probably written the same sentiments on this blog before, but sometimes we need to be reminded of things. Lemme know your thoughts. Or am I just shouting into the void here?

*EDIT: I should mention that I also consider Pathfinder to be D&D by another name (wait, is that a stupid statement?). I would even venture to say the unthinkable: 4E is even D&D to me, though a vastly altered version. I can hear the outrage at that statement! I don't say 4E is D&D because it has the brand name and is currently in print (for a little while longer, at least). I say it because it bears at least some resemblance to the editions of the past. Though I would never play 4E, it still gets grudging acknowledgement from me. Heresy, I know...

New Year Ruminations

What’s up, fellow gamers? I’ve been silent lately mostly due to being struck by a plague of sorts. I won’t go into the sucky details, but it’s been a pisser, let me tell you. I haven’t been prolific of late anyway, what with family life and my job kicking it up a notch.

Blah blah blah, whatever, right? Anyway, I wanted to get the new year started with regard to posting, so here goes with some general thoughts and stuff:

1) I need to get the Session 13 report up for my Paragons of Waterdeep campaign. Now that the holidays are over, I’m looking forward to having our game sessions get back to “normal.” Meaning that our group should be able to get together more often again, with a full complement of players. Here’s hoping…

2) I’ve been banging my head against the “edition wall” again, thanks to my old nemesis: gamer ADD. I’ve been obtaining all sorts of D&D editions/clones over the last year or so, and I’ve gone through a merry-go-round of dabbling in all of the stuff. When it comes to yours truly, I think the proliferation of clones only serves to confound me. Perhaps it’s my stage of life, and the inherent lack of time to devote to the hobby. I’ve speculated about all this before, but I don’t feel any closer to a solution. It’s a hard pill to swallow for me, being afflicted with such distractibility. Chalk it up to “bad” nostalgia, perhaps.

The bottom line? I am happy that there are a lot of clones out there, some of which represent rule sets close to the originals (i.e. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, S&W) and those that could perhaps be considered published house rules (i.e. LotFP, Delving Deeper, ACK, DCC RPG, Crypts & Things, etc.). It makes for a heady mix of options from which we can all pick and choose, until one finds the right rules to suit one’s unique fancies.

For those that can keep a clear head while exploring all of the options out there, godspeed and enjoy! I envy you! But for me, I just find myself going into this house rule “death spiral” that goes on and on. As I’ve said before, my personal requirements make me seek out rules that I don’t have to tweak all that much. For me, that flavor is Castles & Crusades. It does what I want it to do, without me having to spend a lot of time on house rules. And as I’ve been toying with other systems, I find myself house ruling them to make them more like C&C. So I keep thinking to myself “I should just stick with C&C and not waste my time making other games more like C&C!” Ugh, I’m such a spaz.

Your results may vary. Different strokes and all that. I’m not going to go out and yell at people that my way is the one true way, though I’m not shy about telling people how much I love C&C and why I think it’s so great. It’s a solid system that I am proud to use/support, created by some great people. But again, I wish that I could divine the source of my gamer ADD and turn it off for once. I go through spells of it that are really annoying. It takes away from the time I should be devoting to C&C and my current campaign. The struggle goes on…

3) And of course there’s the news that has the blogosphere buzzing: the announcement that a 5th Edition of D&D is/has been in the works (as usual, Akrasia has the news well covered). I signed up for the “playtesting” thing. We’ll see what comes of this. I for one am trying to be open minded. I usually defer to the “giving them the benefit of the doubt” side of things. I would love it if D&D got some of its “cred” back. From reading other blogs, it seems like at least some of you out there agree with me. Of course, there are some of you who think failure is inevitable. I don’t think that WotC could ever create “one game to rule them all” and end the Edition Wars, but from what I’ve read it seems they are aspiring to that very goal. I think they got caught up in marketing-speak madness, which usually makes people spout all sorts of pie-in-the-sky claims. Good luck with all that, Mike Mearls… So, at the moment I’m trying to remain optimistic. But I’m sure that it won’t be good for my gamer ADD…

Ok, folks, that’s all for now. As usual, I will try my best to blog as much as I can in the weeks to come. Happy gaming!

Readin' Up on Basic/Classic/Just Plain D&D

I was recently chastized for referring to Moldvay and Mentzer's sets as OD&D, and perhaps rightly so. Mea culpa. Again, I never actually played OD&D or Moldvay/Mentzer in my gaming career. I started out with AD&D from the get-go. I may have collected things such as the Rules Cyclopedia and the Big Black Box, but never played those versions.

[Just as an aside, I would personally like to call Moldvay / Mentzer's versions D&D, rather than Basic or Classic D&D. Basic doesn't seem to fit to me, since Moldvay had an Expert set, and Mentzer had the Expert / Companion / Master / Immortal sets to follow up his Basic. I would prefer to call the iterations Original D&D, D&D, and AD&D...but I suppose that might not be clear enough. Ah heck, I guess I'll stick to Classic D&D, then.]

It's only now that I'm dabbling in Original and Classic D&D. I purchased Lamentations of the Flame Princess as well as Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry. As stated above, I have a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia at home, and even managed to snag some PDFs of the books in Moldvay and Mentzer's sets. So now I have piles of original versions as well as clones...and I need to start studying up!

I know in the past I declared Mentzer's version of Classic D&D to be my go-to once I was ready to run some plain-old D&D, either using the RC or the books from the sets. Well, now I'm not so sure.

So, I've decided to start really reading up on the old Classic material. I'm picking a starting point as of now, and that is Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. I'm not really sure where I will go from there. Any advice would be very welcome!

And BTW, where's Holmes fit in with all this? I frankly have no real interest in considering Holmes. I've glanced at his version, and seemed like just a jumble.

Anyway, I'm off to start studying. If I have time, I'll post some impressions. Wish me luck on my journey of discovery...

EDIT: I suppose I should have included a status update of where my head is at currently with regard to "preferred" editions, eh? At this point, Labyrinth Lord seems to have risen above the rest of the pack, both original editions and clones, in my estimation. But I would like to read Moldvay to see how things were originally published. Mentzer and the RC call out to me, perhaps just from nostalgia. But from my prior superficial scans of the contents of LL, the Mentzer-era stuff doesn't seem as "shiny" anymore...at least at the moment.

As for Swords & Wizardry, it's sort of slipping further down on the rungs of my affection. I like some aspects of it, but these aspects (spells, some class options) may be things that I steal for use with a game founded on LL. And I have no interest in gaining access to the original books that S&W is based upon. Is that heresy?

When it comes to Lamentations of the Flame Princess, it too is probably something from which I will steal ideas. For instance, I may use Raggi's d6-based thief skills instead of percentiles. That would probably be the major borrowing.

See how this can all be quite maddening?! Curse you once again, Gamer ADD!

A Yen for OD&D

As you may know, I've been a part of a group that's been campaigning using Castles & Crusades since early this year. I've been a player and a GM in the group, and I have to say it's been an incredible experience. We're a small group, but what we lack in size we make up for in creativity, camaraderie, and lots of RPG experience. This group has fulfilled my long-time goal of finally gaming with new people. Until this year, I had only gamed with childhood friends. And it's been the true vehicle for the return to table-top roleplaying that I have yearned for since around 2007.

All that being said, there's the eternal spectre of Gamer ADD. I think I am a more-than-moderate sufferer of this dreaded condition.

So, perhaps I've fallen under the influence of JB over at B/X Blackrazor, but I've decided that, once our current C&C campaign runs its course, I would like to propose an OD&D game to my group.

This is my chance to finally game using OD&D rules, which I never really did...unless you count my recent, short-term use of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Deluxe Edition rules when gaming with a couple old friends on a few occasions. OD&D represents a more "mythic" play style to me, where characters are more archetypal, more "primal" if you will. This taps into my strong belief that game system plays a large role in determining style of play (a topic I've been meaning to post about for some time now, but haven't yet gotten around to it).

First of all, I'm pondering what system(s) to use. Do I use the original games, or do I use a retroclone? There's a certain something to the thought of playing with the originally published rules. But then again, there's the often greater clarity of rules and presentation of retroclones. At the moment, I'm considering a foundation of Labyrinth Lord with some aspects of Swords & Wizardry thrown in for good measure. But my goal now is to read up on original B/X as well as the retroclones I like (Labyrinth Lord and S&W) to see which has the functionality I need. Oops, almost forgot: I've also got the Rules Cyclopedia as well as the books from the Mentzer Basic and Expert sets. So, I've got some readin' and decidin' to do, as well as battlin' with nostalgia over practicality.

Any suggestions/advice would be welcome! (this includes my request for advice on dwarves from this recent post)

As for the world in which I would place the campaign, I am thinking that I will do a homebrew world. Roleplaying has been a way to fulfill my creative urges. There's a level of creativity in designing adventures and plot hooks. But then there's another level in worldbuilding that I've been missing. I have been worried about lack of time, but I think I have some ideas to get this going.

But again, all of this is just very preliminary. I have no intention of abandoning my current campaign, and expect our C&C goodness to keep rolling for a good while. Still, there's something to be said for a little daydream-brainstorm for future adventures...

Facing Down the Beast

So, instead of bitching about gamer ADD like I've been prone to do in the past, I decided to man-up and do what I should have done before: take all the RPGs that have been plaguing my mind and literally spreading them all out in front of me. Like a lineup of the usual suspects. And I gave them a good hard look, and some thought, and I was determined to come to some conclusions. And I think I've finally regained mastery of my gaming domain.

First there's Castles & Crusades, my number one game. The Sancho Panza to my Don Quixote. The Little John to my Robin Hood. The Riker to my Picard. I started out my gaming career with AD&D 1E/2E, and C&C to me is a near-perfect reimagining of those editions of the game. I like what Troll Lord Games has done with the system by incorporating the SIEGE Engine mechanic, bringing some 3E into the mix. I don't have to do much in the way of house ruling to get it to where I need it to be at my table. I will never need to go back to AD&D, because C&C has become the ideal version of those editions, to me.

Now, as I've said before, until recently I never actually played any version of basic/original/non-Advanced D&D. I bought the Rules Cyclopedia when it came out in the early 90's, and also bought the "Black Box" version of D&D, but never actually played them. I missed out on the whole boxed set thing entirely when I was a kid. The LBBs and all that Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, etc. jive was something I would have appreciated back then, I think...but I missed it all. I was just never exposed to it.

But looking back now, and having dabbled in OD&D (especially via Swords & Wizardry and Lamentations of the Flame Princess), I have become more and more enamored of OD&D and its clones. But looking through Moldvay, Mentzer, the Rules Cyclopedia, clones like Labyrinth Lord and S&W and LotFP and all the rest, I think that I feel strongly about actually using the original Mentzer books rather than a clone. I just like the look of the game, the layout of the books, the style, the art (as a confessed Elmore nut). There's just something about it that calls to me.

So, when I get the chance to run some OD&D, I'm going to use Mentzer, with some house rules I'm mulling over to add a bit of spice to things. I'm taking inspiration for my house rules from many sources on the web and blogosphere, as well as from other games. This includes the beta version of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.

Now, there are some other various games that have also been tempting me with their shininess. Games such as Barbarians of Lemuria, Dragon Age, and even that game based in Middle Earth called The One Ring that I just learned about YESTERDAY! Yes, gamer ADD has no mercy. Heck, I just really discovered a lot to like about Dragon Age less than a week ago, on Free RPG Day. All of these various other games I have lumped together as potential candidates, but I have used a bit of reality to temper my expectations. These miscellaneous games are nice and all, but I either don't own them, they haven't been published yet, or they would take time to learn that I just don't seem to have these days.

Above all, I'm totally dedicated to the Dragonlance game I am currently running, and have no intention of sacrificing it in order to jump into OD&D right now. And especially not for some new shiny game that would require a whole new cycle of reading rules, learning rules, teaching rules to others, etc. I've been waiting a looooong time to do a Dragonlance campaign,  and I have met a great group of gamers who make running the game a pleasure.

Wow, it feels good to get that all out! All it took was standing up to the beast!

System, Style of Play, and Heroes

So, yeah, a LOT of bloggers have written about their thoughts on the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG beta since its release yesterday morning. Akrasia put together a small list of blogs besides his own that commented on DCC, but now the number of bloggers that have “reviewed” the beta rules has exploded! Yes, for good or ill, the DCC RPG has stirred up the blogosphere. Every blog from Grognardia to Your Dungeon is Suck has chimed in on the subject.

I still think that it’s sort of gimmicky, and an attempt to tap into the ever-growing OSR movement. I’m not faulting Goodman Games for the attempt. But I think they really turned on the spin machine. The beta version of the game seems, to me, to be trying too hard to be old school, whatever old school really is. Seriously, the definition of old school (not that I think there should be one) is a moving target. Does old school refer to games from a certain era? Is it a style of play? Is it rules light? Is it a combination of these things? I suppose the real answer is that old school gaming is whatever each gamer wants it to be. So trying to publish a "truly" old school game is like trying to hit a rapidly moving target. What Goodman Games has done is put forth its own version of an old school game. I know that it’s great for people to be passionate about what they do. But I think Goodman went a little too heavy on the hype, and it may be that they’ve sort of created a level of expectation that no game can live up to. Or I could be totally wrong.

Some have taken issue with DCC’s statement that player characters using the system are not heroes. Again, I think the company took hold of what it thought are the foundation stones of old school gaming and ran with those ideas. But they might have run too far. Are they saying that in old school gaming the PCs are not heroic? Does game system determine such a thing as whether or not a player can create/play a heroic character?

I’m a huge Joseph Campbell fan. I loved Hero with a Thousand Faces. After I read that book, I looked at the early versions of D&D as being about playing archetypes. The strict division of classes brings forth very archetypal roles: the warrior, the healer, the trickster, the magician…and also mythological beings such as dwarves, elves, etc. I’m not really sure off the top of my head the genesis behind the classes that Gygax and Arneson created for their original game (maybe someone can enlighten me!), but they do seem to tap into some ancient archetypes.

Sure, those early versions of D&D gave you most of your experience from treasure and killing things. But is that because the creators were still steeped in the more mechanical world of wargaming? Did they not really consider the roleplaying aspect in those early days? I guess what I’m saying is that they probably didn’t purposefully make D&D just about slaying and treasure. The game was a new offshoot of miniature gaming, which probably never really involved a lot of roleplaying.

So for Goodman Games to make it such a badge of honor, and declare characters as not being heroes, just seems a bit, well, short sighted. It seems wrong-headed.

All of this makes me think of some recent posts I read regarding system and style of play. I totally agree that the rules of particular game systems can indeed lend themselves to different styles of play. The early D&D games lend themselves to more hack and slash styles of play, perhaps, as well as a focus on gaining treasure. But as time went on, some gamers sought to add more “depth” to characters and their games. The later versions of the game began to focus on making characters more like individuals, rather than broad archetypes. The characters started to develop whole lives, with backgrounds that could become quite detailed. I think Pathfinder made 3rd Edition more "cinematic," so characters are still individuals but more like those you see in movies (i.e. larger than life). Now, 4E has pushed the characters into the realm of superheroes, who are powerful right from the start.

And this is ok, because change is natural. This is why I’m a believer in the recent “I’m with D&D” pseudo-movement (something of a reaction against Edition Wars). There’s no reason to deride those who play different editions, because different editions facilitate different styles of play.

Now, can you play a long campaign that’s heavy on plots and intrigue and interaction with NPCs using OD&D? Absolutely. Can you use 3.5 Edition to just do dungeon crawls? Sure! Therein lies the power of imagination and the individual tastes of gamers. So it is possible to overcome the influence of system on style of play.

So I believe that gamers just need to pick the system they're most comfortable with and have fun. I think each system has its obvious pros and cons. But they also have their own variation on the theme of heroes. Yes, that’s right, I said heroes. There are many different types of heroes. And they all need not be knights in shining armor. Some can be uncivilized or even self-serving. But does that mean that they cannot be heroes? And speaking of knights, don’t they need to gather up treasure too?

So again, to assume that old school roleplaying is not populated by at least some heroes is sort of strange. It makes Goodman Games seem somewhat out of touch with the real roots and motivations of the OSR.

To take my own admonition to “play and let play” to heart, I won’t fault anyone who falls in love with DCC and makes it their game of choice. I just think it was a poor choice on the part of Goodman Games to make it seem like they sought to create the “perfect” old school game that would tap into some conception of an OSR zeitgeist. Now, I know that the company never stated such a thing. But it sure seemed like they were trying really hard to make all of us think so.

NOTE: The DCC RPG's stance on heroes has sparked something of a "side" controversy, and other people besides me are giving their opinions on the matter. Things are getting more and more meta all the time ;-) Take a look here and here, for example.