Common Courtesy

When I was younger I used to get pretty miffed when people would commit to a game I was running, and then at the last moment bail. Sometimes it was cause to cancel, and sometimes it wasn't. But it was always disruptive in some way, shape or form.

We've all run games where we're NPCing a PC. It's no fun. Not for the DM (extra work), and not for the players (missing a comrade who might pull their bacon out of the fire). Either way, it's always better having the entire compliment of gamers at the table. Plus, heck, it's just a lot more fun having the whole gang there. After all, it is a social game, right?

As I grew older it became more and more difficult to schedule a game. People end up having commitments....that's reality. I get it. But there was an interim period there where people were approaching the game in a "sophomoric" manner while engaged in a more grown-up schedule. In other words, they'd often "forget" to call, or just plain old not show up. In high-school and college this was, while not commonplace, understandable. But as time moved ever onward, and we all had lives outside of gaming, it became a hassle.

Fast forward to today. Here we are, many of us are "grown up" with lives of our own. Some have families. Many have jobs and responsibilities. Those days of just not calling or showing up late (or not at all) w/out a word of warning, are plain ol not acceptable. Scheduling games is just not an easy thing anymore. But if you leave a whole gaggle of adults out to dry w/out any excuse or advanced warning, you're not making any friends.

How many chances should a person get before this becomes a hassle that is left by the wayside of life? My initial response is two. I would say, that if a person completely messes up twice and inconveniences a group of people to the extent that they're sitting around for hours twiddling their thumbs (and making calls to a turned-off cell phone), something needs to change.

If you haven't guessed yet, our DM bailed on us last night. This has NEVER happened to me. I know, odd. But seriously, in 30+ years of gaming, I've never had a DM just not show up w/ no word of warning. So we sat around last night chatting for about an hour and a half, then gathered up our things, walked outside to our cars, and drove away into the night.

With a simple phone call we all would have been mollified.

4E - Is change possible?

I've been agonizing over this post, but the time is ripe for me to jot down a few observations on what I see as specific weak points in 4E. I say this because our group is going through a possible metamorphosis.

Or more to the point, I'd like to stay with the group, they're playing 4E, so we're collectively (at least the DM and I), thinking about how to make tweaks to the game. The end result that we're trying to achieve is a game that makes everyone happy. But there needs to be a systematic, session by session recap of those things that I think need to be changed.

Unfortunately, and maybe glaringly, this sounds like a completely selfish exercise. Most (if not all) of the guys currently sitting at the table are quite happy with the game. They like the way the game plays. I'm the turd in the punch bowl here. And for the record, I've offered to bow out. But the majority has opted towards changing the game in order to make the whole "happy". In the end though, bowing out might have been the least painful choice.

Anyway, on with the examination.

We played this Tuesday and I've let my thoughts roll around inside my head, like magnets in a jar. I've hopefully let them coalesce into something a bit more cogent and supportive of meaningful change. Overall, I liked the session. We didn't have a single combat encounter, not one. And personally, I liked it a lot. Combat is 4E's glaring weak spot in my mind. But that's a topic for a different day.

Two things leaped to mind though regarding Tuesday's session.

1. We didn't waste time with minis and drawing mats or location pieces.
2. Magic items are now completely mundane.

I'll try and keep my thoughts and opinions on the straight and narrow here, and stick to those two topics. Minis and their supporting pieces are not a new phenomenon in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, and as my current DM often claims, they're a natural extension of the original Chainmail game. It was after all a war game.

I'd have to say that, yes, he's right...And wrong. While the game claims many of its mechanics from the war game Chainmail, it is not at all meant to be played as a war game. This is clearly stated in the earliest of editions. Miniatures are supporting pieces only, the meat and bones of game play is meant to come from your imagination.

This might be a completely subjective observation, but I find that when someone throws a bunch of minis down on a map of some sort, I wander away from the rich tapestry of the mind. I start paying more attention to what's going on at the tactical level and wander away from the realm of imagination.

And that is one of the root issues I have with 3rd and 4th edition, they've taken a game of imagination and forcefully combined it with a war game. You're constantly asked to move back and forth between idioms. Many people like that...Heck, there are times when I've certainly welcomed the change. But most of the time, I like to keep the pace by maintaining the same medium.

It's tough to maintain the mood when you're adventuring through an alien landscape, you round a corner and WHAM!.... Please break for the DM to set up the minis and draw the map... Tick, tick, tick. Wow, what a buzz-kill. All of the sudden that cool momentum you had is washed down the toilet. And that was one of the strengths of Tuesday's session. We never brought out a map or minis. Cool.

Now, to the second point: Magic Items, and the way that 4E has totally stripped the "magic" from them.

We garnered quite a load of loot during our foray into the slime encrusted demesne beneath Kaldrak Lyres, known affectionately as the sewer. A slew of magic items were won. I understand what our DM is doing, he's balancing the scales. Loot is cool. We all love coming away w/ stuff.

Oh boy, this is going to be a tough one to nail down. But, I'll start with one of the things that I heard that 4E was "fixing" when it was initially announced. A claim that I distinctly remember reading was that they were attempting to pull the characters away from "being" their magic items. Apparently many older addition characters were defined by the items that they carried, and used with regularity. So in essence, a character was just a mobile platform for a powerful item of one type or another.

I can see that as being an issue with some people. I get it. But WotC's answer to that is this sad little plug-and-play methodology. They've taken magic items and cut the usage back to once per encounter, once per day, or something similar. So, you see what's happened is that they've swapped abilities and magic item powers. Now each character has a few abilities that they're able to pull off at-will. Meaning that you can shoot magic missiles (if you're a mage) forever, without stopping. And THAT used to be the realm of a wand...until the charges ran out, and you were forced to either toss it, or refill it. Which could have opened up new adventure opportunities.

The feeling that the new system engenders is quite literally plug-and-play. Your character has a bunch of "slots" that can be filled by the appropriate "level" item. Each of these items has a very specific role to play within the overall structure of the rules. All in the name of balance.

Furthermore, you can "drain" the magic from an item. You come away with some type of "stuff" called residuum...Or something like that. Your character can use this like money, or you can use it as a generalized component in some of your rituals, or magic item creation. Talk about taking an item that was at one time wondrous...something that you pondered over...that opened your eyes and made you go "Oooo! Ahhh!", and turning it into something as mundane as a coin. Phhbbbt.

They've even taken away the wonder by putting all of the magic items in the PHB. You're actually encouraged to go through and take a look as a character, and choose the items that you think might best slot into your current build. "Sigh". Whatever happened to the magic ring that you couldn't quite figure out? That was the impetus of many a journey to witch doctors in deep, primal forests, or crooked, dark wizards in tottering ancient towers. Now, it's just an item under glass at your corner Wal Mart.

How to change this...CAN you change it? Not sure, I'll have to do some thinking.

Lose one, lose them all?

It's been awhile. I've been away from my computer for over two weeks and it's been a wonderful thing. Vacation can really help clear the head. I had a great time if anybody is asking.

Well I've been back only a few days, and have even played once with the main group of guys that I generally game with every other Tuesday. There's been a new "situation" though, and it's this that I would like to speak about if I may.

As some of you are more than aware, I'm not a fan of 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. I've given it plenty of chances, it just has not succeeded in winning my allegiance. There are just far too many gulfs to span between the rules as written and the way I envision a game of dungeons and dragons proceeding.

Well, the "situation" is that I've finally spilled the beans to the group. I did not pose it as some type of ultimatum though. I simply stated that I do not prefer 4E and that if the group wishes to play with that system further, then I will gracefully extricate myself. Not happily, but I'd do it since I was the odd man out.

One thing that I certainly do NOT want to do is to break the group up. This is an exemplary group of guys...I'd certainly prefer to stick with them and keep playing. But 4E is just too high a hurdle and, after all, it's a game, aren't I supposed to be deriving some type of fun out of it?

I selfishly mentioned that I'd love to stick around if we chose another system. Not 3E or 4E though. I've had my fill and I'm no longer interested in either of those choices. What does that leave? Our group is strictly interested in Dungeons and Dragons. We're all pretty hard core fantasists. And, for the most part, we all grew up on Dungeons and Dragons. We're loyal to the core.

This of course has started a conversation surrounding what system we would like to play. It's likely confined to either a retro-clone or to an earlier version of D&D. I'm not sure how it's going to shake out. We have 4 fairly vocal members, out of 7.

But what I'm circuitously coming around to is that IF we decide to change systems, and this is by no means a foregone conclusion, then it'll be 7 guys changing from one system to another. What does this mean? Well, in my humble opinion, that if you value group over game, and we all know how hard it is to find a good group these days compared to finding a "game" (online, your local brick and mortar, etc.), then you're likely more willing to change games.

Now I know that no game or company can please everyone. But imagine if WotC decided to support two editions of the game. They'd still have 7 guys playing "their" game.

I'll keep you up to date with how this shakes out. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Like I said above, it's hell trying to find a decent group of guys to game with.

Wizards pulls a fast one

OK, I'm no lawyer, but I AM a loyal customer who is willing to purchase products (and often does) via the interwebs. Yeah, I'm talking PDFs here. You know the evil electronic format. Sure, I like books, and when they're available I'll buy them. But I am not financially secure enough to go and dump $100+ on one of the LBBs. Sorry...

Well, to the point: WotC has pulled the licensing for the resale of all Dungeons and Dragons PDFs. In other words, you can no longer purchase any type of Dungeons and Dragons related PDF from anywhere...Not from Paizo, or from RPG Now, or from Drive Thru RPG, or anywhere else for that matter.

The crazy thing is that these companies were notified TODAY that they had to pull the plug on all of their customers by April 6! What the hell? That's, uh let me see, I'm not too good at that math-type stuff, but isn't that like 0 days of warning? How asinine is that?

I mean this kind of thing drives me up a wall. This sudden pulling of the rug out from under my feet w/out a word of warning is getting a little OLD WotC!

Sorry....I'm a little hot under the collar at the moment. They MIGHT have a valid, affordable alternative that's ready to roll out tomorrow. But even if this is so, why didn't they warn the rest of us? Why spring it on us? To cut down on "piracy"? I mean c'mon man... If SONY can't get a grip on piracy then you can't seriously think that WotC's got a chance in hell.

On the other hand, there's suddenly a HUGE void that's begging to be filled. Hint, hint all you old school worker bees out there. ;-)

Make mine insivible please.

Well, interesting things afoot at the Circle-K these days boys and girls. Within the last month, I've had two 4E sessions that I actually enjoyed more than agonized over. And here's why: We stayed away from the RAW (rules as written) and just gamed. Yes that's right, the "rules" were transparent, or invisible if you will.

The first session was w/ a group of guys that I infrequently game with, many that I've known since I was 12 (and that's a long long time). We've gone through all the versions since AD@D together and are now playing 4E. We don't meet all that often, maybe once-a-month, if we're lucky. And we're not much into continuity, story, plot, character development, etc. We just don't meet often enough to care.

Escape was the major premise of the scenario and the DM wasn't interested in utilizing 4E's skill challenge mechanic. Traps and obstacles were encountered the entire way and the navigation of each was laid at the player's feet. There was only one combat the entire session, and that happened at the very end. The memorable part was the escape though. We rolled dice only a few times and rarely relied upon PC skills or feats. It was refreshing to say the least.

Well, last night was a replay of the experience, and again, it was refreshing. Granted, I'm a big fan of puzzles and scenarios that make the player think. Falling back on using the mechanics to escape fate is a cop-out in my opinion. I love it when a group of people put their heads together to figure something out and the DM never once rolls dice. Don't get me wrong, I like combat as much as the next guy. But a game that's completely focussed on combat eventually dulls the excitement of the encounter due to repetition.

Anyway, last night's scenario (only 4 of 6 players could make it) had the players enter a town at the end of an adventure. Once there, the PCs were immediately identified as "adventurers" and as such, were invited to take part in a competition put on by the local "Adventurer's Guild".

Consisting of 10 separate challenges, the competition was scored on a points basis, with the highest scoring team taking the pot. (which was a load of gold and access to some of the Guild's maps and resources) So we started the thing and to be honest, it turned out to be a gas. I loved it. I realize that you can't run a campaign simply on puzzles and cerebral challenges, but they sure help as contrast to those nitty-gritty combat sequences.

Our DM has said that he's going to attempt to subsume the rules in order to focus more on the adventure itself. This is a superb idea and in truth, is one that I've secretly wished for all along. I'll be interested to see how the rest of the game proceeds. I might be a bit skeptical to start out with, due to my 7 month tenure with the game, but I'm hopeful. I'd like nothing more than to really get into a game that's running 4E under the hood.

I'll keep you up to date w/ the progress. Stay tuned...

Differences in versions

Well this is going to be an odd post. It was inspired by a post over at Grognardia where James was talking about his Dwimmermount Session. He was mentioning how quickly combat between nearly 30 different individuals progressed and one of the comments to that post stated that, while 4E has a fairly streamlined combat system, they would be hard pressed to pull off a combat that included 30 different combatants in 30 minutes.

I have some experience with 4E, I've been playing it for about 7 months now in a 3x / month campaign. The DM is incredibly knowledgeable in the game, in fact you could say that it's sort of his religion. He takes it very seriously, keeps up with all of the current click-clack, and knows the rules inside out.

It occurred to me that one of the new features talked about extensively at 4E's release was that the combat was very streamlined and therefore it could run very quickly. So, I got to thinking, could our DM run the same combat that James described in his post as quickly and smoothly under 4E as James had under Swords and Wizardry?

My conclusion: No way in hell. I don't have any empirical data with which to back this statement up. But I do have experience. And I have participated in combats in 4E, with far fewer combatants that have run much much longer. I began to think about why that may be, why does 4E, with it's new and improved melee system run slower than OD&D's system? After all, isn't newer better? Wasn't the intent to get back to D&D's roots?

I'm sure many of you are saying to yourselves, this guy's a hater. He's just one of those head-in-the-sand grognards that is stubborn and tries, with every blog post, to discredit 4E. Let me state for the record that I actually liked 4E when it first came out. I honestly wanted to keep liking it and to continue using the rules. I mean after all, my group wanted to use it, and the DM was VERY impressed and spoke volumes about the improvements to the game.

At the same time, I was trying out all sorts of the retro-clone rules. I ran a short campaign of Castles and Crusades, I played a game of microlite20, a few one shots of Sword and Wizardry and am still running my home campaign on Labyrinth Lord. So I could do some "on the ground" compare and contrast tests.

Back to the combat and why it's slower in 4E than its predecessor versions. I've included a few illustrations to help make my point. Now I'm not claiming to be a deep thinker when it comes to things like this. But, I certainly know what I've experienced, and that experience logically draws me to the following point.

---

Older editions allowed that the source of the "effect" (or result) came from the DM. And how did it do this? Well, the rules were very broad in scope and weren't at all focussed on the minutia, but rather on allowing for interpretation.

The PC (player character) took a broad action that was roughly described in the rules (e.g. attack) and further defined what they were doing as it was taking place (e.g. "I duck under the edge of the table for a bit of cover and thrust out with my sword towards the orc's midsection...").

The DM in turn would take this situation and dictate the effect. It was pretty straight forward and therefore "fast".

---

Now we move on to the 4E example. In the 4E rules it gives each of the players a selection of abilities that they can attempt at any given time during a confrontation. Now of course you could ignore any of these abilities and just plain ol swing that sword and make a basic melee attack. But you would be missing out on all of the nifty effects that each of these powers produces.

Teamwork and the inter-relationships of the powers themselves plays a VERY big part of 4E combat, and therefore it is incumbent upon the players to be very tactically minded, know their powers intimately, and know their party member's power effects as well. You must keep a close eye on spacing, distances, terrain, time, opposing conditions (action points, surges, bloodied, etc.), your condition (HPs, bloodied, etc.), resources (action points, surges, potions, etc.) among a few other things.

Let me explain the illustration. (I don't suppose I really NEED to explain the illustration given for the older version do I?)

1. Represents the tight interaction between the PC's powers. What I do will affect much of what other PCs will do. EXAMPLE: Let's say you're a fighter and will be utilizing a simple at-will power called 'Tide of Iron': "1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size category larger. You can shift into the space that the target occupied." Now all of these things have an affect upon the battle field and your compatriot's actions. So now there are rules that do not depend upon the DM interdiction. They do require pretty detailed knowledge of the rules though.


2. Represents the interaction between the opponent's (monster, NPC, etc.) powers, condition, etc. and the player's actions (power effects). These are tightly woven and balanced. The outcome between these powers' effects is what determines the DM's options, and therefore his / her reaction to what's going on.


3. Represents the DM's response to the situation. Which in turn affects how the players again respond. It's all very well balanced and constructed to work smoothly within the given parameters.

Does this look and sound a little more involved than the above example? I think it is, and therefore it's the reason that combats don't run as quickly under the 4E rules as they do under older (pre-2E at least.) rule sets.

---

This is obviously a simplified example. There are facets of each that are not illustrated or explained fully. But overall, it is no fallacy to say that there are MANY more rules surrounding player options in a 4E combat.

When I was young I played a lot of Napoleonic war games with a group of older gentlemen. As I stood above the table the other night, looking down on the tableau unfolding in front of me, running through the options in my head, and all of the previously listed elements of battle, I had a deja-vue moment. I felt just like I did as a kid standing above the war game table. I was playing a war game. Or something that's very similar in makeup once you enter into combat.

Now of course OD&D was derived from a war game's rule set. But I don't ever recall feeling like I was playing a war game when I either played in or ran combats under those earlier rule's systems.

Everyone's Idea of Fun

I just thought of something, and rather than post it on someone else's blog and start a hate-war, I opted instead to post here and get my idea out in the open this way.

The thought that occurred to me as I posted a reply on Back in '81 was that yes, there's room for all of us to have a choice when it comes to our chosen game systems. Some of us like 4E while others like the LBB version of OD&D...and then there's everything in between. Now I'm not trying to be a doormat here, and you'll see the reason that I sort of lament the fact that there are so many "versions" out there.

IF TSR would have stayed on track and continued the tradition of both a "hobbyist" game as well as a "tourney" game then there would only ever be two flavors of the game. Those of us who adore the "hobbyist" type game could play our OD&D (or whatever) and those who like the crunchier rules-laden edition of AD&D could have fun with that version. No one's hurt. Everyone's clear on the division.

Now the problem, as I see it, comes when you take a game and make so many updates and iterations (improvements?) to it that it's no longer even remotely backwards compatible, you've inherently split the player base. This is a seriously unfortunate side effect. And it's one that I'm feeling right now.

I'm looking for a few people who might have the same "sensibilities" that I do when it comes to the "type" of game that I like to play in / run. Something that's not quite so structured w/ By-The-Book rules, that's a little more open to house ruling. But since there are so many different types of Dungeons and Dragons out there today, and they DO play quite differently, it's pretty darned tough to find a like-minded group of individuals willing to sit down at a table to play some of the "older" games.

The school of thought that I'm an adherent of goes something like this: I'd rather build something I prefer from a clean, bare bones foundation, than to grab something off the shelves that includes hundreds of pages of rules I know I won't need or want, try and strip it down, end up w/ a foundation that's shaped all wrong, and try to hack together something I'm looking for.

And this isn't saying that I sit around all night tinkering with rules. Far from it, these "house rules" that I'm referring to happen on the fly, right there in-game. And I'm pretty sure that because the original rules are fairly brief and easy to conceive, I'm not going to be worried about contradicting something on down the road that will be pointed out to me from a player who's had the inclination and time to read through the 400+ pages of rules.

Plus, you know what? I've got crap on my shelf from 30+ years ago that's screaming for the new generation to experience. Great stuff that hasn't lost its magic. And I'll guarantee you that it would take me ages to convert it to 4E should I have that energy, AND it'd likely break that "balance" tenet that seems to be so popular in the rules these days.

So yeah, I've always been a fan of "Play what you like"...but it makes me a little sad when I ask a bunch of people if they'd like to play Dungeons and Dragons and they all clamor for 4E. No interest whatsoever in the more basic game. Maybe I'm just not "selling" it right. I'll try for a different tact and keep you up to date.

Either way, keep playing. Gary would have liked it that way.

EGG and Levels

Well, as most of you are quite likely aware, this is the first anniversary of Gary Gygax's passing. So tip your hat, lift a pint, or roll some dice in remembrance. Either way, let's all just have a bit of fun for The DM.

Now, on to "levels". I was having a discussion with a pal of mine the other night and he was saying that he's not particularly enamored of the mechanic of level advancement. For some reason that just didn't sit right with me, but I couldn't put words to my discomfort at the time.

He explained that he wasn't keen on a character advancing to such a level as to negate the danger of a single knife thrust between the ribs. Or that one should NEVER come across any kind of a dragon and feel confident enough to actually take it head on. I don't actually know what I might call this, but I'd tend towards the term "realism" I suppose.

I was thinking about this and a few things come to mind. Has anyone heard of Bob Munden? He's a fast-draw gun specialist that holds 18 world records. His speed and accuracy with a handgun are not to be believed...until you see it. Well, he didn't attain that type of mastery through osmosis. No, he practiced and practiced. Getting better with time and a lot of patience.

The things he can do with a gun seem almost magical...he's THAT good. I can imagine that the things that a 8th level fighter might be able to do would seem like that to a 1st level fighter...he's THAT good. But there's another facet of leveling that I think my friend is uneasy with and that's hit points.

Combat and therefore character level are abstracted in Dungeons and Dragons. This has always been the way that it's worked. It's part of the "game". And personally I like that there's a built in mechanic for change in the game. But I can see my buddy's point as well. How can ANYONE ever walk straight up to a dragon, expect to go toe to toe, and not wake up sitting in the company of their god? Or fall 70 feet, stand up and walk away?

Sure, I've always been a little uncomfortable with that aspect of the game. Especially the falling bit. But to be truthful, it's a game after all, it's about surviving, growing and succeeding at whatever it is that you've put your sights on.

Going back to the gunfighter example, most, if not all, of the gunfighters throughout history were slain by a shot in the back. Could you do that to an 8th level fighter and expect the same results? No, probably not. At least not with one strike. And I'll agree, that's a bit unbalanced. If you're going to be scrapping and scraping for your life then that fear always has to be there.

I like levels actually. But that's me. And I do see where my friend takes exception to that specific mechanic. While I love a gritty game as much as the next person, I also like the evolution of a character, that they can eventually take on a dragon...maybe not toe to toe, but that eventually they can certainly expect a 50/50 shot of getting out of the scrap alive.

And that brings up another point. One of the built in mechanics of the game that keeps the wheels moving is the relationship between adventuring, finding treasure, and advancement. Sure it's gamist, but that's alright.

Consider for a moment that fighter that we've been talking about, he's out there stomping around day after day with his pals, hoping that some day he'll have enough stashed away to purchase that land from the Baron and start his keep. BUT, he needs to be 9th level and have enough money to do so. See the connection? Take that away and I'm not sure you've got the same game.

I can think of a few things that might work towards making that more "life like".

1. Hit Points increase very slowly and in small increments. e.g. 1st level 1d6 w/ +1 / level thereafter. High Constitution might give you a point more at each level.


2. Anyone that gets a knife from behind has a chance of dying. Maybe a save versus death after the HPs are applied.


3. A mechanic that allows for the fighter with a lot of experience to have the chance to dodge fate. His survivability quotient has risen to such levels that it's hard to kill the guy. He's got eyes in the back of his head, or has the presence of mind to reach out during his 70 foot fall and grab that stray root. Something maybe that's tied to level? Fate points maybe...


4. A different concept for armor. It can now absorb hit points as well as protect you. For instance, leather armor will still provide an AC of 7, but it will also provide for a total of 2 hp / strike of protection. (up to 30 hp maybe) Plate mail would be much more advanced and also MUCH more expensive. You wouldn't likely find someone under level 6 wearing a suit of this stuff. But it's THAT much better. And also costs THAT much more to fix. Now this isn't a new concept, and the thing I don't like about it is that it totally increases bookwork, for someone, and that in turn draws combat out unnecessarily.

Well, I'll have to do a bit more thinking on this. But to be completely truthful, I like the way characters advance in Dungeons and Dragons. I think it's up to the DM to keep that level of challenge commensurate with the advancement of the party. A good DM will keep you on the edge of your seats at all times. I don't see an issue with goblins being a non-threat as things advance. Unless of course it's a goblin blade in the dark from behind. ;-)

Late Edit: Another concern of mine is that a game that uses rules that make death a very sudden event (more life-like) conditions players for certain play styles. I realize that this is what my friend was looking for (ahem, he actually said this and I forgot to mention it). It also adds an enormous amount of risk if you have only a few players. You have a hair-thin safety margin when playing w/ only a couple of characters and you lose 1/2 of them in one round due to poor rolls.

I can totally understand the attraction of having a character act in a cautious, non-super heroic manner when confronted with a dangerous situation. That's cool. But, that threat of an immediate / sudden demise also forces characters into more desperate options. You're taking away half of their arsenal when you introduce that type of mechanic. They now act like mice in nearly every situation...and while this might create a sense of realism and grit, it also detracts from the fantasy portion of the game.

Again, more thought needs to be put into this.

What troubles me about our "tribe" (*An Opinion Post)

There's been some disagreement circulating amongst our little corner of the blogosphere regarding what I might term a general "intolerance".

It's been around for awhile, hell, for as long as there's been a hobby to criticize, there have been critics. I suppose it's our nature as humans; we just love to use our evolved brains like sledgehammers. But when the sources of cool, creative and wonderfully entertaining material, start taking up all their time arguing about minutiae and personal preference then I get a bit bummed out.

Who cares if I'm bummed out you say? Well, I'm a follower. I'm already "in", hook, line, and sinker. I read this stuff pretty religiously and have played the game(s) for over three decades, so for a person as passionate as me to get discouraged, it might be a sign that this stuff is headed in a self-destructive direction. Imagine a newbie stumbling upon this kind of thing?

I understand that the blog is a fantastic medium to "air it out" as it were. I get that...but maybe we ought to think about compartmentalizing this stuff a little more efficiently? If you want to wax philosophical and ruminate on days of yore then do so, but maybe under a "section" of your blog that is set aside for just this reason.

Now, some tools (blogging applications) don't allow this type of functionality. So how about labeling your posts appropriately? I'm going to start avoiding these long, strung out teeth gnashing sessions. There's enough vile shit going on in the real world for all of us, why add more tension and stress? This is, after all, a hobby. And weren't hobbies meant as an escape from those daily stresses we all experience from time to time?

Meh...One of the things that really bothers me is when people chime in with obvious derisive and destructive intent. If you're one of those folks who likes to make snide personal comments then do the world a favor; Write your virulent opinions down, hit "save" rather than "publish" and call it good. Or better yet, do it on your own turf and label it as such. Just warn the folks who read these things that they might possibly be stepping into a cesspool.

You know what really bothers me? The fact that people even take the time to deride others over their personal choices. I'm ALWAYS amazed and astounded at this type of behavior. It's like criticizing a type of music. You can certainly say that you don't prefer one type of music and it's understood. You don't need to get into some type of soap box diatribe about WHY you don't like it. It's going to be baseless.

Sure, you can state that in your personal opinion Rudolph Schenker has a way better voice than Rob Halford, and IMHO you'd be justified in doing so. But to say something as silly as Gregorian chants are dumb because they're "boring"...Is just plain ignorant. OK, fine, you don't like that style of music, but to try and pick it apart based on your personal tastes is just an exercise in futility. Don't waste your time on insulting people on their choices.

And PLEASE, don't waste ours.

My Favorite 10 Monsters

Alright, I'll bite. This has been going around and I think that I'd like to add my two cents.

10. Vampires: One of the most versatile monsters in the game, and therefore one of the most worthy foes, if played properly. I loved vampire movies as a kid, I guess that's carried over, along with a few other things eh? ;-)

9. Wererats: I'm going to have to agree with Amityville Mike on this one. Another monster that's got so much neat potential. I just love sneaks, thugs, cowardly attacks from the dark, and things of that ken, add in a dash of shape shifting and minor resistances and what's not to like?
*Also like Mike, one of my very favorite authors is Fritz Leiber.

8. Lizardmen: There's a bit of history behind this one. As a young teen I used to play Napoleonics and did a lot of painting for the group. (I wasn't all that good but I was willing.) Well the guy who ran the group knew I loved Tolkien, so he sent me this figurine that went to a game called Chainmail, and yeah you guessed it, it was a lizardman. I'd never seen anything like it and was immediately intrigued. The rest is history. That and the monster lives in one of the most difficult terrain types for characters to operate in. Love it.

7. Trolls: A giant, regenerating, eating machine that can rend a person limb from limb. They're so ferociously confident and ravenous that they never stop coming. Death wont stop these creatures...I remember the first time we put one of these things down and were walking away. Hint: Never turn your back on a troll, unless it's in a flaming heap.

6. The Venerable Red Dragon: Something about a reptilian, fire-breathing, intelligent, ancient, covetous creature that can snuff an entire town out in a fly-by just screams COOL! to me. I suppose it was Smaug that started it all, but the game was named after one of these creatures after all. Staid? Sure...but still awfully awe-inspiring.

5. The Evil Giant Tripartite: Hill, Frost and Fire. Against the Giants was a series of modules that I will never forget. I cut my teeth on these, and the giants therein were so vividly portrayed that I will forever think of Nosnra, the Frost Giant Jarl and of course King Snurre Iron Belly when running giants. Maybe it was Tramp's art...but it was certainly the magic that Gygax infused into his descriptions. If an evil human can be spooky, imagine a giant one!

4. Clay Golem: There's just something inherently creepy about this slick, deep-earth stinking, murderous automaton. A creature that can, all of the sudden, just go ape-shit and start delivering an up-tempo beat-down. And the fact that the wounds can't be healed by normal methods? That send chills down most adventurers spines...I know it certainly does mine.

3. Ghoul / Ghast: Tell me that eating the flesh of the dead just does not make your skin crawl. These are the penultimate threat at lower levels. The idea that they're never sated; the more they eat the more they hunger, just simply strikes a chord of fear deep inside me. That they're so accursed the charnel smell simply follows them wherever they go.

2. Effreti: For some reason when I think of an otherworldly, demonic creature, I think of these. Sure the fact that it was on the DMG might carry some weight with me, but overall these guys have power in spades at their beck and call, and the fact that they live in a City of Brass? Aw man...just too cool for school.

1. The Lich: I have a thing for the undead, maybe it's all those horror movies as a kid. But you add that with the fact that this creature is probably the baddest boy on the block, a serious power-lover's wet dream, you get something that's at the top of the food chain and at the bottom of all the vile deeds ever perpetrated.

I look over this list and I realize that it's pretty pedestrian, especially when you compare it to some of the others that are currently floating about, but you know what? I have a history with these guys listed above, and it's that they strike a chord of fear in me as well as a sense of history. These monsters might cause a few of the jaded folks to yawn and roll their eyes, but if they're smart, most of those same folks have a little alarm bell go off deep inside when they run across any of these...

fin

A thought about calendars and fantasy games

I was over at Valley of Blue Snails (Great work btw, go check it out if you haven't yet.) and noticed a posting about calendars. This is a topic that has always sort of bothered me.

I agree that saying February 23rd in game is always a bit of a disconnect. But on the other hand, I also loathe some of these convoluted creations that are used instead. They're completely confusing and are a pain to deal with. It seems to me that the effort one takes in creating a "calendar" system might better be spent elsewhere. I don't honestly think that I can remember a time when any of my players were specifically interested in the date. Maybe that's just a result of my play style. I don't know.

What I do know is that seasons make a LOT more sense in terms of in-game time keeping. Terms like: Approximately two moons left in the rainy season... The end of the grain harvest... Dead of winter... seem to ring more true to me than some made up date. After all, the majority of the populace in the middle ages had absolutely no way of knowing the date, nor did they give a hoot.

Maybe clergy members might care about the date. I could see wizards being interested in some arcane system of dating via astronomy and the study of entrails, in order to keep track of important events "elsewhere" (distant planes and such...). But for the common everyday adventurer, how is "The 23rd day of Plestance, in the 5th age of the Great Wyrm" going to make any difference in play?

Sure, this might be nit picking, but I've always run my games using weather and seasons as markers of time, and it's yet to fail me. I even had a case of the PCs traveling to a different plane where time ran at a slower pace. When they returned it was still high summer, but two years later. They figured it out via NPC reactions to their return and odd comments about dogs that had passed away of old age, of a failed harvest due to early snows, and things like that. No mention of time, just events. They caught on pretty quickly.

That's just my Wednesday $.02.