Playing some 4E (v.1)

Played a game of 4E D&D last night...Well, "played" is a rather rough translation of what I did. Mostly, I just fumbled around with my character trying to finish him up and then struggled to figure him out.

The learning curve for 4E is a steep one when it comes to all of the crazy interconnected relationships between powers, feats and skills. Especially when you create a 12th level character and try to play them out of the gate. Not to mention that the character that I played is still in the beta stage for the most part: The Assassin. There's a lot of discovery going on at this stage in the game. At least there is for me.

While that sounds like it's a rather harsh critique of the system, I rather think that it's a statement about my lack of preparedness. I generally utilize the character builder, and rely upon the software to tell me all available options. Well, the assassin hasn't been uploaded yet to the character builder, so it was the old process of doing everything by hand. But since I don't have all the books and resources, it was mainly an exercise in trying to gather all the information available from all the wide-spread resources.

Complex and in-depth character building is something that a lot of people really like; they dig fiddling with the little things. Getting the numbers just right, finding the proper items, feats and powers to maximize their impact upon the game.

Me? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I dig getting excited while building a character. I love imagining the persona as you're rolling up the attributes and picturing the PC in your mind as you lovingly fill out the character sheet. But the process for 4E is just too bloody long. There are far too many sources for me to keep track of. Sure I could've strictly gone right out of the PHB and probably been a happy camper. And now, upon reflection, maybe I should have.

But at 12th level, with all those shiny new items and options available, why (as a conscientious American consumer) not go for the gew gaws? I did. And I paid the price. I had so many papers, powers and cards laying on the table in front of me that I was bewildered 99% of the play time. Which frankly, was a shame.

That's the downside of 4E for me. Just a lot of stuff that's very tightly integrated into how the game plays, that you really need to pay attention to. It's just very character-centric.

Here's the cool thing though, we're just starting up Mike Mearl's revisiting of the seminal Against the Giants series. This is the 4E version...and I'll tell you what, I'm absolutely jonesed about this. I LOVED the Giant series by Gary Gygax...some of the best memories I have of Dungeons and Dragons are playing through that entire series in high school. There's a steep expectation of what we're getting into because of that experience.

I can tell you this, I love my character. Sure it's not old school in any sense of the word. But he's cool: 'The Shrike of Ur' is his name. He's what they call Shadar-Kai, which is a fancy name for some race that's been living in the shadow plane. Pale, drawn out and colorless, he over compensates by being a brash and out spoken braggart. Oh, he's also an assassin. Which is cool.

Again, yeah, this isn't the usual stuff that I get into. I really do like this character though. I just need to figure him out. He's very complex and has a bunch of options open to him in any given situation. I'm not super keen on all that, but the idea of the character is just plain ol fun...

<----------------------- SPOILER ALERT ------------------------>

If you are ever thinking about playing in the WotC module Revenge of the Giants, then don't read any further.

To the module: It's early yet. More specifically, we've just been sent on our "mission" by some kind of mage who's interested in an old city called Argent. (sp?) Our first encounter was with some kind of lion-headed giant who was beset upon by some earth and fire elementals, all lead by another type of elemental(ish) humanoid-type guy. Our group whooped up on them. But, it took us quite a long time to do it. The battle lasted for nearly 2.5 hours and took up the vast majority of the night. At this pace we'll be done by 2013. Kidding.

Seriously though, while I think there are some cool little set pieces here, my first impression is that it's very heavily scripted. "Group A" is hired. They leave for city on map. Travel and "stumble" into encounter. Wherein they are introduced to creature with means to get to city and an "invitation to heroes" to aid in defense of said city. (What happened to the first mission: Finding city and looting it for mage?)

Seem a little hoakey to you? Jury's still out on this one. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Our DM is a very proactive type, and I have full confidence that he'll fix those glaring "railroad" issues, as they pop up.

I really like the guys I play with. I really like the DM. I really WANT to like the adventure. We'll see what happens. Either way though, I'm going to have fun.

I'll keep you updated.

B/X Dungeons and Dragons Observation

Hey, check this out...Apparently a "Protection from Evil" spell (1st level cleric spell) is a pretty nice spell in B/X. This has some potential to be a seriously powerful spell.

"This spell circles the cleric with a magic barrier. This barrier will move with the caster. The spell serves as some protection from "evil" attacks (attacks by monsters of some alignment other than the cleric's alignment) by adding 1 to the clerics' saving throws, and subtracting 1 from the "to hit" die roll of these opponents."

So that's pretty great eh? Nothing too surprising besides the statement talking about "alignments other than the cleric's...", which is a pretty strong ability. But, that's not the kicker, the following text is even better:

"The spell will also keep out hand-to-hand attacks from enchanted (summoned or created) monsters (such as living statues), but not missile fire attacks from these creatures (see COMBAT)."

Wow...I mean really, that's awesome. So if I'm following this correctly, they're talking about all sorts of creatures. Things like golems, elementals, demons, devils, effritis, djinns, etc. That's a pretty potent group of creatures to be held at bay with a 1st level spell.

Anyway, I really do love B/X. I'm reading through it for the first time in a LOT of years, and finding all sorts of little gems.

Consider the "Light" spell. You cast it on a creature's eyes (it DOES get a save) and it's blinded for 12 turns. AND, in Basic, if you're blinded you do NOT get an attack! Range 120 and you don't even really have to aim it. Now THAT'S what I call a utility spell.

Playing the 4E

This is going to be a short post...Mostly because I'm done "*making strange" with 4E. (*My grandma used to say that about babies that didn't seem to "like" someone. I've always thought that was such a wonderful colloquialism)

On with the post. The Longmont group held our monthly game of Dungeons and Dragons again last night. I hadn't played in the previous one but HAD been there the time before that. Odd thing is, the map looked exactly the same as it had the last time I left. In other words, it took two sessions to run an encounter.

This is not a new observation. Not too long ago I wrote a very similar posting regarding the same exact thing. Our group has the habit of sitting around and chatting more than we play. I think I know why. The "story" that the DM is weaving is, for the most part, forgotten from session to session. It's just that too much time passes between games for us, and when he attempts to bring us back up to speed, many of us tune out.

This is never done on purpose. Unfortunately we just don't have much invested in the story. If we play once a month (or less) then it's tough to keep any kind of emotional attachment to what's going on. Heck, most of us don't even remember our characters. So a lot of time is spent trying to bring everybody back up to speed with what's currently going on. It's a very involved story and we're a tough audience. (Again though, NOT intentionally.)

One thing that happened last night really opened my eyes to something that I've only just touched upon before. You know how in 4E each character has a slew of powers? Last night my buddy, who was sitting next to me, looks over and observes all of my powers, which are cut into individual "cards", and says "Dude, holy shit! How many powers do you have?!?" I counted through them...22. This didn't include my magic items that I had also cut out and laid out in the same format. Or my Second Wind. Or my Action Points.

I think that you can see where I'm going with this.

We're 13th level characters, so of course we're going to have a plethora of choices open to us. Especially the magic slingers, and I was playing a cleric. I said as much to my buddy. He's playing a sword mage, so he counts through his "cards" and comes up with the same number...and then my friend on the other side counts his up, 22. And he's playing a paladin.

It dawned on me then as I looked around the table. Since many of us had taken our powers and cut them out into cards and placed them in sleeves, it served as a very good physical representation of just how MANY powers each of us had. Therein lay another reason that our games took so darned long. Each of us basically had to relearn our characters each and every time we played.

As I've said above, I'm done banging the anti-4E drum. Many people actually like the fact that they have all of these options spelled out for them. And it's obvious that we've sort of shot ourselves in the collective foot by playing as infrequently as we do. What I've realized from all of this is that 4E is a game that NEEDS to be played much more frequently than pre-3E games. There's just a LOT of stuff to keep track of.

If someone needs to reacquaint themselves with their character, and / or take minutes looking through their options, then the game is stalling. As an example, last night, I was looking through some of the things that I can "do" and wasn't paying one whit of attention to the DM. I looked up while he was 1/2 through and sentence and realized what it is that I had been doing. I put my stuff down and tuned back in.

Maybe it's my fault that I don't have a photographic memory. Let's just chalk it up to that. Shall we?

Until next time, adieu.

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.

Exactly!

This is a point that I read on Alex Schroeder's blog (link):

"Rare Healing: Players need to avoid wandering monsters and avoid unnecessary fighting. This makes strategic decisions (when to fight) more important than tactical decisions (how to fight)."

I've never been able to put my finger on the thing in 4E that troublels me so much. But Alex hit the nail on the head: "Healing"

In 4E you get a bunch of "surges" which are in essence a mechanic that allows characters to "recharge" from encounter to encounter in order to keep the pace. Now, while this might not sound bad, it is a distinct deviation from older editions of play.

It is MUCH more tactical in play than strategic. Due to this difference, the focus of the game shifts from adventuring (older strategic based game) and trying to get from point A to point B without using up your super vital resources, to encounter to encounter type play and worrying about resources that "refresh".

I know I've read this before and that this is certainly not a new observation. But for some reason Alex's post just suddenly jumped out at me and I hit the "Ah Ha!" moment.

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.

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.

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.