Question: how early have you introduced kids to roleplaying?

Hello all. So, the question of the day is: how early have you introduced kids to roleplaying? I ask because I've started talking more and more to my kids, ages five and seven, about the hobby. They've been asking about it more as they've gotten older: "Dad, what do you do when you go to 'game night'? What game are you playing?"

 

So, I've been considering an attempt to sit down with them with one of the Basic D&D sets, probably Mentzer's Red Box rules. I've thought about trying to explain the game to them, help them create some characters, and maybe run a short session or two. I'm expecting to do a lot of hand-holding throughout the process, given their ages.

 

I believe the Basic D&D sets are recommended for ages 10 and up. But I think I can at least make an attempt to show them the rudiments of the game. What do you think? If you've tried to roleplay with kids younger than the recommended age for the RPG, please let me know your experiences. Thanks!

Basic D&D and Greyhawk, anyone?

 

OK all you Greyhawk fanatics out there. Is it blasphemous for me to say that I'm thinking about using Basic D&D to run a Greyhawk campaign? Should Greyhawk, in your minds, only be run using Advanced D&D? I mean, I know that the most famous D&D modules set on Oerth were for AD&D, right? But weren't at least some of the Basic D&D modules placed originally in Greyhawk (or retconned to be so)? 

 

Keep in mind I'm a poor D&D history scholar when it comes to this stuff. That's due in part to laziness and also because of limited time that I'd rather use for other activities. So, therefore, I'm putting it out to the organic computing hive mind that is the blogosphere!

 

Anyway, no matter what you all have to say out there, I personally am thinking that Greyhawk could be just fine as a setting for some Basic D&D action. I suppose one could argue that any setting could be a Basic D&D setting...but for some reason, considering the use of, say, Forgotten Realms with Basic D&D seems, well, not so good! I guess that's just me.

 

In the recent past, I used Greyhawk as a setting for some sessions of a Castles & Crusades campaign I dubbed "Altered Oerth." The "altered" part came in the form of some changes to the setting, such as a trimming down of the pantheon of gods, and other modifications. That campaign, like others I had going, is on an indefinite break, of course. Ultimately, I found Greyhawk to have a lot of potential, even though I've always had more of a liking for Forgotten Realms over the years.

 

So, I'm looking forward to your thoughts, if you care to share!

 

A HUGE CAVEAT related to all of the above: I'm still forging ahead with my gaming hiatus in 2014/the foreseeable future, so these "plans" I have for another campaign are sooooo so very theoretical. I just can't stop my mind from running over scenarios for roleplaying. It's the ongoing addiction, people. I'm sure you can relate.

The Call of the D6

You know, I just noticed that I made my 400th post a couple days ago.* Funny that it was a post about how I created another blog! Well, I don't intend Ethereal Jaunt to be a replacement for Once More Unto the Breach (OMUtB for short). Rather, I intend to use it as a supplemental blog, one that focuses more on reviews of games, fantasy literature, etc. from my perspective. Meanwhile, OMUtB will continue to be a chronicle of my roleplaying (mis)adventures, musings, and occasional self-pity/whining.

 

ANYway, I'll now get to my point for this, my 401st post: it seems that, lately, I’ve had a strong renewed interest in games that use only six-sided dice. What?! Roleplaying without the sacred twenty-sider involved?! Blasphemy! ;-)

Anyway, the d6 games I'm most interested in include:

 

I felt a strong drive to run a game using the Dragon Age RPG, and held my first session last week.

 

I've owned Paolo Greco's cool and quirky Adventure Fantasy Game for some time now.

I also own the wonderful Heroes & Other Worlds.

 

I have a copy of Jonathan Becker's Five Ancient Kingdoms fantasy adventure game.

 

I've also felt the urge to investigate the Ennie-winning Dungeon World (though this does use some other polyhedrals for damage, I believe...but primarily uses the d6).

 

But before all of the above, I had a long-time interest in Barbarians of Lemuria.

Wow, seeing the list written out sure makes me think my d6 obsession is bigger than I thought! I don't know what it is; there is just something so very cool about gaming with just the d6, if you ask me. It feels like a harkening back to a "simpler" gaming age, before all the "strange" polyhedrals came to dominate. It also strikes me as damned practical: even the most "non-gamer" home will probably have some lying around.

I am going to try to do some reviews of the above systems eventually (hopefully a sooner-rather-than-later eventually). And, of course, those reviews will be posted at Ethereal Jaunt!

So, what d6-based games have YOU come to appreciate?

* Perhaps 400 is not such an impressive number, considering that my blog is over three years old! I'm not the most prolific of bloggers...

End-of-Week (NSFW?) Elmore and Question (8/23/13)

 

I've pretty much avoided showing any of Larry's many "cheesecake" illos on Fridays, just because I don't find them all that interesting or relevant to gaming. But I thought that, in light of what I'm going to ask all of you this week, one of Mr. Elmore's more "lascivious" pieces might be appropriate. Just a warning: the image that accompanies this post might be considered NSFW by someone out there, even though it is far more tame than some of his most risque offerings.
 

Anyway, Alexis at Tao of D&D wrote a post about sex in roleplaying, sort of a follow-up to an earlier post he did on the subject. I'm curious, folks: how has the subject of sex manifested itself in your games, and how has it been handled? What place, if any, do you think sex should have in RPGs?

 

Note: the D&D episode of "Community" had a pretty funny depiction of a roleplayed sex scene, actually.

 

For my own part, I think reluctance to explore sexual situations in RPGs can stem from the simple fact of a roleplayer's gender; i.e. a DM must "adjudicate" a sexual situation with a player of the same sex (and isn't attracted to others of the same sex). Some people, in that situation, can't maintain that "in-character versus out-of-character" separation...perhaps because of some ingrained "I don't want to appear homosexual" tripe, among other reasons. Beyond that, in single-sex groups or mixed-gender groups, the reluctance might stem from how well the people know each other.

 

In the example that Alexis gives at the end of his most recent post, the DM mostly describes the female NPC's actions/reactions, rather than speaking AS the NPC. I think some male DMs lose sight of the fact that they don't have to start speaking in a falsetto and pantomime provocative feminine body language ;-) If DM and players agree to that level of immersion, that's what they're comfortable with. But if they want to have sexual situations in-game, there are other ways to go about it that are perhaps less descriptive, but no less impactful. I would describe Alexis' example as being indicative of the latter.

 

As for me, when I gamed with my friends ages ago, there were times when sexual situations arose, and when that happened we did something similar to Alexis' example, and most often "faded to black" before the commencement of "the deed." These days, gaming with a new group of friends, I've mostly avoided the topic, except for the players running across NPCs that might be prostitutes. There's also been a couple brothels that the players have come across. And of course there's been double entendre and the like. But I am not sure the group would be comfortable with, say, the adjudication of an encounter that might involve sex.

 

So anyway, I'm interested to hear what you've experienced!

The Importance of Setting

What is the importance of setting for you, fellow gamer?

 

I'm not talking about whether you prefer a home-brewed setting, a published setting, or a hybrid of both that you create. I'm talking about the importance of setting to your immersion in a campaign.

 

For me, my connection/appreciation/enjoyment of a setting is vital to my connection/appreciation/enjoyment of a campaign.

 

I would be immensely happy to create my own home-brew world that incorporates what I love from my many sources of inspiration (novels, films, non-fiction/documentaries, etc). But alas, my current lifestyle does not afford me the time I need to create such a world to my own standards. If I can't do it "right" (i.e. in a way that lives up to my expectations of what a world should include, with the level of detail I want), I don't want to do it at all. Which is a shame, because I have ideas that I would like to flesh out into a campaign world. I am confident that such a self-crafted world would easily keep me inspired from week to week when game night comes around.

 

So, for some time now I've been exploring numerous campaign settings, seeking those that hit the right roleplaying buttons for me. I've run a goodly number of sessions in the Forgotten Realms, so I've gotten the most mileage out of that setting. I tried a few sessions in Greyhawk, but didn't find myself so taken with the setting after a relatively short amount of time. The Dragon Age setting has been of some interest to me of late. And I've found some things to like about the Dawnforge world, as well as the Midnight setting. Oh, and then there's the worlds of Golarion and, more recently, Midgard for the Pathfinder system (though I am confident I could easily use those settings while running Castles & Crusades).

 

All I know is, I'm feeling eager to stop the "setting merry-go-round" in my head and once again find a campaign world that makes me happy, keeps me coming back for more, and is ultimately worthy of my precious free time.

So, what settings, home-brew or otherwise, inspire you and keep your passion for the game alive?

Does every old copy of Unearthed Arcana in the world inevitably fall apart?

I was at Top Deck Games the other day, one of the few FLGS's in South Jersey, perusing their selection of OOP D&D materials. They've always got some good old stuff in there, at very reasonable prices. In the recent past I've picked up copies of the 1st and 2nd Edition D&D core books there.

 

Anyway, I saw they have an old copy of Unearthed Arcana there. I picked it up, and immediately pages were slipping out. What the hell? Does every single old copy of Unearthed Arcana really have the same problem? How is that possible? Is the damned thing cursed? I'm sure some of you D&D scholars out there have the answer.

 

Others have posted about the many reasons Unearthed Arcana bites the big one, but for more than just the binding. I'm sure the book isn't really universally reviled, as WotC just did a reprint of it. I'm guessing, at the very least, the new verion's binding will be vastly more durable!

Battle of the Bards: AD&D vs. C&C

Ok, maybe I should wait until I have the AD&D and C&C books in front of me before I get into this. Nah. I'm impatient and lazy, so I'm just going to riff on this one. Here goes:

So I'm playing a bard in a campaign using the awesome C&C rules. Anyone who's read this blog for any amount of time knows I love C&C. But now that I'm playing again, and playing a class that I've never played before in any version of D&D, I'm having some issues with some of the rule choices.

So yeah, I'm playing a bard for the first time ever in my gaming career. I thought it would be good to try something new. Anyway, there's this bard ability called "Exalt" that basically boils down to my bard chanting or singing or playing an instrument or something, and inspiring my companions. All well and good.

But this class power only seems to help companions with bonuses to saving throws and attribute checks, not combat bonuses. Somehow, that doesn't make sense to me. I mean, the description of the power mentions "battle cry" or something like that as one method of performing Exalt. So, you loose a battle cry but your companions only benefit via better saving throws? That just seems rather limited to me.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the AD&D bard (1E and/or 2E) have some similar ability that provided bonuses to combat for companions?

Overall, I'm finding the C&C bard sort of, well, bare. Meaning, there doesn't seem to be much that the bard can offer. Sure, Legend Lore is awesome. It allows a bard the potential to know vital tidbits of information during the course of a session. But that and Exalt are the only class powers that a bard has at low levels (I think...again, I don't have the C&C PHB in front of me at the moment).

This issue might seem minor, but there are other C&C class abilities that I'm having issues with here and there. This is sort of making me pine all the more for some Classic D&D. Less character class "powers" to deal with during a game, you know? Meaning, more room for player creativity, right?!

Anyway, any insight you wonderful folks out there can provide, that would be awesome, as per usual! What would I do with out our virtual collective consciousness/hive mind?

Question: Have you seen that session tracking sheet?

 

Maybe you know what I'm talking about. There's a certain RPG session tracking sheet, specifically for D&D-type games, that I spotted somewhere on the RPG/OSR blogosphere over the past year. I can't seem to find the sucker anymore. I remember thinking the thing was friggin' awesome. Why didn't I save it back then? Because I'm a d-bag, that's why.

 

I forget which blog I saw it on. It had a sort-of elaborate border that looked like...er...columns or something. And it was divided up into boxes for areas devoted to treasure found, monsters defeated, etc.

 

Anyone have an idea of what I am talking about? Or perhaps you know of at least some version of such a tracking sheet? I know, I know. I could make one of my own, or find some alternative. But I'm lazy and obsessive. What can I say?

 

Help is appreciated. Dumbass signing off.

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!

The House of the Wolfings

I might be one of the last people in the gaming blogosphere to learn about this book, but The House of the Wolfings is apparently one of the books that probably inspired J.R.R. Tolkien. You can download the book for free here at the awesome Project Gutenberg site. You can also get a print copy here.

So, has anyone heard of this book? Has anyone read it? I'd love to get some impressions of its merits/flaws.

So What's With the Basic D&D Classes?

OK, I've found some time to blog today, the eve of my birthday! Seems appropriate that I should have this little bit of luxury today, eh? Anyway, some thoughts occurred to me last night and I wanted to put this out there for the gaming blogosphere think tank, to get some comments back (I hope). I'm looking for people more steeped in D&D's creation lore than I am.

So, it seems the common wisdom regarding the Classic/Basic D&D classes is that there was no attempt to give them balance. Is this something that was confirmed by Gygax/Arneson? This whole thing seems counter-intuitive to me. It appears that, when looking at the classes, a party should really have a mix of classes, including the demi-humans. I mean, sure, you have the human classes that all serve distinct purposes. But I have to think that the demi-humans were in there for a reason other than to give people more fantasical character choices.

The inclusion of demi-humans, to me, takes away from the argument that Gygax wanted a human-centric game. I'm not as familiar with all the ins-and-outs of the demi-human classes, but I think they generally have better saves (especially the halfling), right? And the elves are the ur-version of the fighter-magic user combination in the D&D system, correct? Sort of the first occurance of dual-classing in the game, right? And sure there's the ability to see in the dark, being better at finding hidden doors, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the game's creators wanted players to see ALL the Basic classes as viable options, and therefore all the classes can play integral roles in a party. Some blog posts I've read over the last couple of years seem to poo-poo the demi-human classes as being bastardized versions of the human classes (with the exception of the cleric, which doesn't have a demi-human counterpart) that were shoehorned in so that the game would have more "fantasy" to it. I find it hard to believe that Gygax/Arneson would put the demi-human options into the game if they weren't intended to be of equal value during play. I think seeing the non-human classes as being second fiddle to the human classes is wrong-headed.

Now, I could be totally wrong. Maybe there's a Gygax interview out there where he explicitly states that the demi-humans were sort of bolted onto the game at first (in OD&D/the LBBs?) and then became solidified as the system was edited/revised.

So, there's my bit of rambling for the day. Sometimes I shock myself with how little I know about D&D lore. Any insight is appreciated. If there's a good blog post that someone's already written about this, please let me know. Don't want you all to have to reinvent the wheel to answer my questions.

Game Table Traditions: The Crown Royal Dice Bag

Roll to save versus intoxication...

I'm sure many of you have had these make an appearance at your game table: a Crown Royal bag used to carry dice...and usually a lot of dice, at that.

I'm curious: where did this tradition begin? Was it something that came about in one gaming group and spread across the whole RPG community? Or did the use of these bags spontaneously arise among multiple groups with no connection to each other? On the surface, it's not surprising that gamers would gravitate toward using these bags. Purple is after all a color oft associated with royalty (thus its use in conjunction with a product called "Crown Royal"). Add to that the "royal" velvet fabric and you have a ready-made dice bag fit for a monarch! Not to mention that those who like to collect hoards of polyhedrals probably could not find a bigger container as beauteous as this bag!

I wonder, though: was there also a bit of the rebellious about the use of such bags, something that goes beyond mere utility and the royalty gravitas? Was there something about the fact that the bags once contained a bottle of an alcoholic substance? I can see this being a selling point for underage gamers: "Yo, look what I got my hands on! This used to hold a bottle of WHISKY! Yeah, I'm the man."

At any rate, one of the guys I current game with has one of these bags exploding with a mountain of dice! It's awesome, and brings a smile to my face every time I see it.

Please, dear reader, share your own experiences at the table involving this beloved purple bag!

What's my hang-up when it comes to traditional D&D, eh?

I need to get something out. Maybe someone(s) out there can be my temporary RPG headshrinker... like a virtual Lucy van Pelt setting up her psychiatrist booth at a moment's notice, whenever there's a nickle to be earned from some Charlie Brown type.

I know I've written several posts recently about my internal flailings pertaining to D&D, but I felt like I needed more catharsis.

Anyway, here's my issue: I can't seem to shake the desire to do straight-up, traditional D&D. What I mean is, every time I think about running a sword & sorcery game using the Crypts & Things rules, or running a cyberpunk or post-apocalyptic future campaign using Savage Worlds, eventually something inside me moans "Oh but that's not D&D! You need to GM D&D!"

Am I fighting against simple inertia? What's my hang-up on D&D? I continually ask myself what I'm looking for, why I can't shake this feeling. What is the genesis of this yearning, this "fear" of branching out from D&D? Does anyone else out there feel this constant internal push to stick with the "original fantasy game?"

My latest yen is to run B/X D&D (with the B/X Companion and Complete B/X Adventurer from JB at B/X Blackrazor included) in the Dawnforge campaign world. It haunts me! Argh!

Look, I know most of you don't really know me and all the inner workings that make me an individual, so I know you can't really diagnose the specific origins of my obsession. I guess I'm just looking for a bit of "misery company." At the very least, you know that I struggle with Gamer ADD, and I'm sure that particular bogey man has something to do with this.

I am still relatively early in my return to the table-top after a long hiatus, so perhaps something inside me has determined that I am not yet done re-exploring my D&D roots, at least when it comes to being a game master. I currently have no problem being a player in games that are not D&D-centered. Therefore, I'm not sure how long it will be before I can run anything but D&D-esque games. There's also the fact of my life situation as a busy husband and father with full-time job and a mortgage, which lends a certain desperation to my gaming activities, as I have little time to prep and play RPGs.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. In the meantime, I'll be struggling internally...

What about the Consequences?

I'm just riffing here, so bear with me. This post may be a bit on the short side, but I hope to get my point across despite my need for brevity. Mostly, I want to get the crowd's thoughts on what I'm thinking about at the moment.

It occurred to me: there's lots of talk about the vaunted sandbox campaign and its virtues. I'm a believer in giving players lots of plot hooks to follow and freedom of choice, etc. I do believe in the idea of the sandbox and all the "player agency" goodness that is supposed to come with it.

But as far as I can see, there's not a lot of talk on the RPG blogosphere about the consequences of player actions. There's a lot of talk about letting players do what they want, but I haven't read much in the way of follow-through when it comes to the repercussions of player actions. Of course, I don't have my eye on every single RPG blog, and at least one of the most respected RPG blogs out there has included mention of consequences with regard to player actions (UPDATE: -C over at Hack & Slash actually posted about consequences as a result of my post).

Now, granted, any GM worth his/her salt should rightly see player actions as a chance to create resultant plot twists. But I dare to surmise that there are many sandbox games that occur in a consequence-free vacuum. That is, players wreak havoc in town, wilderness, and dungeon and the only thing they might face as a result is trouble with the city guard (and once those guards are "dealt with" by running away from them, bribing them, or even killing them, the problem is usually over).

If players cast a charm on a city official and convince him to grant them a pile of gold from the city coffers, he'll probably be pretty pissed when the charm wears off...not to mention that any of the official's underlings present during said "charm-and-grab" will be fully aware of what's going on. The players should expect to be hunted by the authorities, complete with wanted posters going up around town and a bounty on their heads. This is especially true depending on the ruler of the city in question. If said ruler is a hard-ass, players should think twice about pulling off flamboyant and highly-visible hijinks, lest they draw unwanted attention.

This is just one example of what form in-game consequences can take. Skilled players will take advantage of positive consequences of their actions and will adapt and work to overcome the negative consequences. Of course, the style of play for a specific campaign or group of gamers may call for purposeful disregard for consequences. I'm talking about what I might call the more "default" mode of roleplaying, where some aspect of cause and effect is considered an unspoken agreement.

So, my questions to you are:

What do you think of player agency/sandbox play and consequences?

Do you have any examples of such cause and effect in your own gaming experiences?

Have you ever roleplayed where you found yourself in a consequence-free environment?

Have I missed other blogs that talk about consequences stemming from player agency/sandbox play?

Any Thoughts on Non-Combat Initiative?

Hey out there! I posted about non-combat initiative this past Saturday, and I didn't get very many hits on the post (and no comments). I should save posts like this for the work week, eh? ;-) Anyway, I'm just hoping that you'll find the time to read that post and comment. Looking forward to advice/input. Thanks!

Non-Combat Initiative?

So, I'm considering using initiative in some non-combat situations in my upcoming Greyhawk campaign. Meaning, when it comes to moments during a session where players are all telling me (as GM) what they want to do pretty much all at once, there are times when I feel I need to give them some structure/order. There's so much going on at the table during a typical RPG session that I feel I need to do something to keep things organized. Mostly to make things easier on myself.

And it's not just my current group that has made me think about this. From the very beginning of my roleplaying life, I've felt some frustration when my players are all talking at once. So now I'm thinking I need some "democratic" way to determine who gets to talk to me first, second, etc. and not just "around the table from left to right." So, since this is an RPG, we let the dice decide.

I'm not saying my players are disorganized. I'm just thinking that sometimes they are all excited and have ideas they want to execute, and things get a bit disjointed. I think our sessions would benefit from determining just who gets to act in what order for non-combat situations.

I've been searching the blogosphere for prior mention of this concept but haven't found anything so far. I'm not thinking that I'm some great innovator with this idea, though. I'm sure someone else has thought of/used this before. I'm very curious to hear from someone who might have used this in a campaign.

I guess I'm wondering if this sort of thing could be considered too much of a "hand holding" on my part. I suppose one would say that the onus is on the players to discuss what they are doing and report their decisions/actions to me in as coherent a manner as they can muster. They need to be the ones to make sure they coordinate their efforts and act as a cohesive unit. And if they're all talking to me at once and declaring actions, then I need to tell them to take a moment and get organized.

And hey, sometimes that player "chaos" of indecision and overlapping/competing goals is great, and totally natural/realistic. That's why I'm saying that I won't use it all the time. Just when I'm feeling overwhelmed or if it seems the players are feeling overwhelmed, or both.

But sometimes there's the situation where one player wants to suddenly make a decision that could affect the whole party ("I'm going to pull that lever over there to see what happens.") and I want there to be a chance for someone else in the party to interject/intercede/ interrupt said action. That's one of the moments where I think I should say "Ok, everyone needs to roll initiative to see if someone gets to do something before you pull that lever."

And then there's the question: is this where the caller concept comes into play? I've tried using callers in my prior gaming life and in my current roleplaying endeavors, and it seems to not go over so well. The players still seem to want to talk directly to me. And truth be told I'm more comfortable with that.

Please let me know your thoughts! All advice is welcome.

Question Bomb: Merging the Railroad and the Sandbox?

Hello, I'm throwing out a "question bomb" for ya'll to respond to with thine opinions. Why call it a "bomb"? Because I hope to have an explosion of comments! Why am I doing this? Because I respect your opinion, that's why!

Here's the question: can one merge the techniques behind railroading and the sandbox style of roleplaying?

I will eventually share my own opinion, but I wanted to crowdsource this first.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

(NOTE: question bomb inspired by this post that I discovered while digging through the great Hack & Slash blog.)

Question: Leveling Up?

I've been running some searches in the blogosphere, and came across some interesting old stuff in the community. This post got me thinking once again about my issues with the millions of experience points needed to reach high levels in D&D.

I've gone back and forth on this topic. Sometimes I wonder if I want to stick to good old XP in order to play as close to rules-as-written as possible. But I've been playing with the idea of letting characters level up after their players have participated in a certain number of sessions. I was thinking of setting it at five sessions. I think this depends on the group and how frequently it meets. I've been pretty lucky to be able to game for a while now almost every week (once a week). So if you can do about 50 sessions in a year, that's 10th level in a year for all characters involved. Not too shabby, I think. Thoughts?

The Blogosphere is a Harsh Mistress

So, this post is an attempt on my part to get some more attention for two other recent posts I wrote! As I stated in the title of this post, the blogosphere is indeed a fickle bitch. Sometimes you'll work hard on a post and it gets no love from the good readers (i.e. comments). Other times you'll write a post in five minutes and a dozen people comment on it. I know all this depends on the vagaries of time of day, availability of readers on a day-to-day basis, etcetera.

But I'm raging against the dying of the light, here!

So, I'll shut up now and give you the links to the two recent posts that I humbly request you read and comment upon, should you so choose! You're feedback is much appreciated! Thanks, friends!

LINKS TO THE POSTS IN QUESTION:

FANTASY FROM ACROSS THE POND 

TO HOUSE RULE OR NOT TO HOUSE RULE?

Question of the Day: To House Rule or Not to House Rule?

Greetings, all! I don't have much time today, but I wanted to ask another question (geared mostly toward D&D and its spawn):

What is your stance on house rules? Do you avoid them totally, or do you use them to some degree? If you do use them, how extensive (or not) are your house rules? And what are the aspects of the game that you house rule?

For myself, I like to keep house rules to a minimum. I've limited myself to one 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper for house rules for my C&C campaign. And actually, only one side of the sheet has the house rules. The other side has rules from the Castle Keeper's Guide that I am using to augment the rules from the C&C Player's Handbook. So again, just one page of house rules.

My criteria these days for choosing a rule set to use is how much I would have to house rule to get a game I want to play. C&C is one of those games that I don't want to/need to house rule too much for it to do what I want it to do. When I find myself house ruling a game too much, that means (to me) that it's not one I want to play.

There is, however, something to be said for remembering to try playing a game for what it is (rules as written). Lord knows I have a hard time putting that into practice. I just dive automatically into tinkering for some reason. I'm trying to resolve/rethink that impulse in my mind right now with regard to Labyrinth Lord. I want to potentially run some LL games but I keep trying to house rule it too much (in my opinion). But I think I'm reaching a point where I'm accepting the game for what it is, rules as written.

Anyway, looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

P.S. I know JB at B/X Blackrazor has written about house rules, and his opinion is pretty clear, I think!