D&D 5E Revelations & Coverage Beyond the Covers

 

Okay, by now everybody knows about the revelations WotC released regarding the D&D 5E books, right? So, no need to rehash it here. Instead, I want to get all "meta" about the discussion burning across the roleplaying blogosphere. I want to weigh in on what D&D still means to the roleplaying world, if I can, and what the new edition might mean for both the veterans and new gamers alike.

Alright, the current buzz is primarily focused on the cover art, right?

Some people - specifically older gamers who were young when the earlier editions of the game were in print - are complaining that the new D&D covers "don't do it for them." In other words, they personally are not inspired by them, like they were inspired by the covers from their OOP edition of choice.

Oh well. Too bad for you.

Do I, personally, like the new covers all that much? Nah, not really. Why? Because, like the other uninspired veterans, they won't replace within me the feelings I get when I see the covers and other illustrations from 1st Edition and especially 2nd Edition. Those were the editions I played the most as a kid.

The art of 2E from the likes of Elmore, Parkinson, and Caldwell are what I experienced as a youth. The work of those artists became the lens through which I viewed the game, and since I encountered their work at an early and impressionable age, they were burned into my mind and heart and soul. Their association within me is nigh irrevocable. In short, those 2E images MEAN D&D TO ME.

But does that mean the art used to illustrate subsequent editions is pure junk? No. Could the 5E covers be a bit more subtle and evocative? Sure they could. But that doesn't mean they have no artistic or inspirational value at all.

The new covers are not D&D to me, but nor are they terrible abominations. I think this sentiment is most pervasive amongst the bloggers I've read. But for those who are veritably dry-heaving over the art...get over it.

Why should they get over it? To paraphrase JFK (probably in poor taste on my part): "Ask not what the covers do for you. Ask what the covers do for the next generation."

Clearly, WotC has had a tall order for themselves with this latest edition. They're trying to include disparate demographics in their bid for "one edition to rule them all." They're trying to appeal to the youth of today, who have been exposed to a much different graphic aesthetic (thus the style chosen for the cover art) and conception of what it means to play a game. At the same time, WotC is also trying to appeal to older gamers and their love for the earlier versions of the game.

I'm not sure how successful WotC will be in their ambitions, but I give them props for making the attempt. And I wish them good luck, because I for one like seeing a game called D&D in print.

The young gamers today have experienced the legacy of D&D mostly through video games. They don't know that the terms hit points and armor class and such came from D&D.

So let's teach them about that legacy, and so much more.

To once again paraphrase JFK: "Ask not what the covers can do for the hobby. Ask what YOU can do for the hobby!"

This comes back, once again, to my impatience for the doomsayers who cyclically come out of the rotted woodwork to declare that the end is nigh for D&D, if not roleplaying in general. Funnily enough, it is the rare doomsayer who actually states the following sentiment: "It seems that roleplaying as a hobby is dying. Therefore, I'm going to go out and do something about it!"

That's my biggest frustration with my fellow veteran gamers: they'll sit around and bemoan the fate of the hobby, BUT THEY WON'T GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. Even if roleplaying is fated for extinction, didn't you guys learn anything from all the heroic fantasy you've read? Didn't all that reading teach you that HEROES FIGHT NO MATTER THE FACT THAT DOOM IS CERTAIN. One must still fight, even in the face of "assured defeat."

Because you know what? Quite often, what we thought was assured defeat is not really the case at all.

Rather than sit back and see whether or not freaking roleplaying book cover illustrations can  entice a new generation to play, perhaps we as veteran gamers should go out and actively help young, potential gamers discover the game. Let's be more active and not passive. Let's help the kids discover what makes these books really cool: the contents, and the history behind the contents. Let's teach them there's more to these books than cool covers. Let's teach them the value of stepping away from the console and to the table-top.

And once the young players of today are at the table, we have the chance to say, "yeah, this new D&D edition is pretty cool, but let me tell you about this other version..."

To wrap this rant up, here's a final thought: the release of 5th Edition is a chance to open up the dialogue about the hobby to a more mainstream audience. In conjunction with the 40th birthday of D&D, we have an opportunity to maybe, just maybe, do something to keep the hobby alive once us old-heads are gone.

I'm doing my part to spread the good word of the previous versions of D&D, with my own children as well as with kids at the FLGS when I can.

What are YOU doing?

Debunking Dragonlance Misconceptions: Kender don't have to be stupid

And by stupid, I mean lame. Kender don't have to be lame. Particularly as a PC race.

Every kender doesn't have to be as vapid as Tasslehoff Burrfoot always seemed to be. Hell, every kender doesn't have to be Tasslehoff Burrfoot, period. But I think that's the prevailing perception.

 

I'm continually dumbfounded whenever I encounter the paradoxical thinking process of some gamers. There are gamers that spout off about how roleplaying is not about slavishly following rules, but rather about treating published rules as guidelines rather than strictures.

 

AND YET, I've heard the same gamers complain about the "problems" of this or that PC race.

 

Folks, if you don't like something about the rules pertaining to a race, change it. It's just more rules to be used as needed, bent to your whim, etc.

 

Um...NO.

So, let's apply this to kender. If you don't want them to be giggling, air-headed kleptomaniacs in your game, then they don't have to be.

 

I can't be the only person who has figured this out. Why do I have to explain house ruling to you guys?

 

So, what do you want your kender to be like? And by extension, how else does YOUR version of Krynn differ in your games from what's depicted in the published fiction?

 

Are your kender capable of the entire range of personalities, from happy-go-lucky to dark and brooding?

 

Do your kender barely have an urge to "acquire" objects, unlike the light-fingered filching freaks they are sometimes made out to be in the novels?

 

Make them your own, for the love of Paladine! Stop whining about their foibles and, uh, change what you don't like. Work with players who want to be kender, and (wow, concept here) ask THEM how they want their kender to behave. And let them play the little bastard that way.

Picture kender as ruthless villains, aloof assassins, whatever. Make them painfully conscious of their race's genetic urge to pilfer objects, and make them DESPISE the impulse, which they cannot control.

Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are not going to sue you for messing with the kender stereotype, I promise.

Now get out of here, and play kender YOUR way.

The End

Brought to you by a Google search for "kender."

Arguing over the sandbox...again?!

This is cute. Adults arguing over the "right" way to play pretend is NOT cute.

 

This is something I've been meaning to post, given a recent resurgence of bickering that amounts to pedantry. Specifically, pedantry over exactly what a sandbox really is, as it pertains to roleplaying.

 

Sheesh. Here we go again.

 

I don't know why some of our fellow game geeks seek to make our wonderful pass-time an arena for nasty argument! There are those that needlessly complicate things, aren't there?!

Come now, folks. We all know, deep down, that a sandbox is a state of mind, a type of play, that unfolds organically between GM and his/her players if they are in that magical roleplaying "zone" we've all experienced at some point. Look, it's an interaction of the GM's prep and his ability to think on the fly when players inevitably go in their own direction. For some groups it's a rare thing, for others it happens most of the time. It depends on the delicate interplay of the unique individuals at any particular table at any time out there in gamerland.

A good GM will give players options/plot hooks/choices/paths/ whatever you want to call them. A good GM will be open to the unexpected directions that players will take when they choose which hooks to follow. A good GM can make any module into a sandbox.

Good players will trust their GM, if that GM is doing right by them and giving them lots of options to choose from. Good players will give them GM benefit of the doubt when it comes to the hard work of GMing.

If things aren't working out in a group, and the sandbox style you love suffers, then find another group, right? Sometimes this is easier said than done, but given perseverance, roleplaying hope springs eternal.

Come on, people, this is all pretty much self evident and, with decades of roleplaying experience under our belts, it's become a sort of RPG common sense. For most of us, at least. But there are those that, for some reason, just like to argue for the sake of argument. I pity them. I truly do.

A short OSR Second Wave "Manifesto"

I was cruising around the blogosphere, and came across this post again by the inestimable Matt Finch. I read this post a while back and meant to comment on it, but never got around to it. So, here goes:

I like what Matt is saying: we now have plenty of "tools" (gaming products, especially the retroclones and supporting materials). The next step is spreading the good word, or what we might call "edition thumping" (just because I want to come up with a "clever" term).

Yes, us "old schoolers" need to be out there playing. We need to be in the game stores, libraries, etc. with our old school-style gaming materials showing loud and proud. That's why I created a GM screen using three-ring binders with the cover of the Mentzer Red Box in all the front slip covers. I've gotten a lot of curious looks when I'm gaming in my FLGS, since every other game in the store is (for the most part) D&D 4E. And some people came up to ask what we were playing, and expressed interest in joining. Now, at the moment I'm running Labyrinth Lord and I'm using the "official" Goblinoid Games screen. That also attracts some curiosity.

 

The point is that we need to be recruiting. Plain and simple. We can't just be grognards and sit around complaining about "kids these days." We need to be nice people, open to new gamers and their many questions. We can't be stuck in our little niches grumbling anymore.

There are those who continually prognosticate the death of the hobby, but what are they doing to stave off that demise, besides being doomsayers? You want to find more players for the OSR? Create them. Nurture them. Show them the true TAO of D&D (Tao meaning "the way," right?)

 

If you want roleplaying to survive, do something to keep it alive! Don't just sit back as some silent, inscrutable "master" of an OOP game. Be a truly enlightened gamer and get out and recruit! Be the solution, be part of a movement that strives to save the hobby from extinction! Otherwise, shut up with the "RPG apocalypse" crap!

Enough with the Anti-Paladins, already!

This guy's called a "blackguard"...that's better than "anti-paladin."

 

I wanted to share a thought for the day:

 

I never understood the need for the "anti" in "anti-paladin." I know that, traditionally in the real world, the term paladin was used to describe those considered virtuous or holy warriors, such as Charlemagne's Paladins. But, ask the Saracens if the Paladins were holy; you'd get a different opinion!

 

Anyway, the Merriam-Webster definitions for paladin are: 1) a trusted military leader and 2) a leading champion of a cause. That second definition supports my point here: it doesn't say "champion of a GOOD cause." A paladin is a champion of a belief, cause, religion, whatever. So, even if that religion is evil, they are still just a paladin!

 

Ugh, in my long-gone Second Edition AD&D days, there was a guy who always, ALWAYS played a drow anti-paladin. Blech. As it turns out, that meant he was pretty much a douche, both IN and OUT of the game.

Let me leave you with a parting thought: do you call a cleric of an evil religion an "anti-cleric"?!
 

So, what do you all think?

Yes, RPGs should be balanced...

I think Tom Baxa drew this...I hate Tom Baxa's artwork. Oh well...it serves my purposes.

 

...upon the GM and the players, that is. That's where true game balance exists.

 

It should not exist in the mechanics of an RPG. Indeed, there are many that believe (including me) balanced game mechanics are an unattainable goal, a mirage-like Holy Grail that will never feel the grasp of human hands.

 

Those who consider themselves part of the old-school roleplaying scene should not dismiss the concept of balance in roleplaying. We should espouse a balance among the participants in roleplaying games.

 

What do I mean by all this?

 

The balance to which I refer exists in the strengths of the participants, and how they work together as a unit in order to create the unique experience of playing RPGs. I don't need to tell you that one of the most vital aspects of roleplaying, which differentiates it from board games or the often-solitary pastime of video games, is communal storytelling.

 

Whether you think "story" means the "path" or plot (or railroad, if you prefer the negative term) that the GM has laid out before the players, or what results from a well-executed sandbox-style campaign, it doesn't matter. Roleplaying taps into our primal, innate need to be social, even for those of us whose social abilities may be less developed. Indeed, like any other creative outlet, roleplaying can serve as the means for awkward folks to come out of their shells and express themselves.

 

So, if GMs and players want their games to be examples of what good roleplaying is all about, they need to do some work getting to know each other. If this involves becoming good friends, or just taking time to learn each other's style of play, it doesn't matter. The point is to find a balance between the players and what they, literally, bring to the table. A good GM will facilitiate this process. Speaking of GMs, he or she should inform players as to what they can expect from campaigns, i.e. what sort of campaigns that GM likes to run.

 

Anyway, once all participants know each other's tabletop "talents," expectations, and assumptions, there is a much greater chance that they will strike that precious balance of camaraderie that fosters great roleplaying. If a game session is going well, roleplayers really can't help but get into the game, let down their barriers, cooperate and concentrate on the game, and enjoy themselves (and each other). It's really just a natural progression that flows from people that understand what each person wants from the experience.

 

The older RPG systems necessitated getting to know your fellow gamers, because there weren't rules for everything, and more often than not (especially in the case of D&D) the classes weren't designed to stand alone. You needed to depend on each other for creative play in order to survive. Modern RPGs seem to have attempted to remove this need for cooperation, ironically, from a pastime where cooperation and shared solution-making are just some of the good reasons to play in the first place! The later editions of D&D seem to favor some sort of gamer "rugged individualism" that seems to completely miss the point of roleplaying.

 

So OSR folks, don't dismiss the word "balance" outright. Rather, teach others where RPG balance truly exists.

MyOSRTM

JB of B/X Blackrazor fame coined the term "D&D Mine" last year, after D&D Next ("5th Edition") was announced. JB put forth the opinion that gamers can create their own "version" of D&D, without the need for WotC or anybody else to help things along.

 

Now, if you're like me, you've seen the occasional discussions/disagreements regarding the question: "What is the OSR?" And I got to thinking (as an extension of what JB put forth): if one can create their own custom version of D&D, why not create your own conception of what the OSR is to you? Let's call it "MyOSR"!

 

I suppose the folks in the blogosphere have already been working under their own understandings of what the OSR means to them. I say, keep on truckin', folks! This is just another debate that really serves no purpose.

 

I don't care if you've been with the movement since the beginning, or just getting into the scene. Your OSR is just as valid as anyone else's OSR, whether you think it stands for Old School Revival, Old School Renaissance, Old School Revolution, or whatever. What matters, what holds us old-school RPG types together, is our love for the older systems and styles of play. And that connection persists no matter what the acronym means to you.

 

So screw the labels, and game on!

The OSR Version of the "Story Game"

This post, over at Carjacked Seraphim, got me thinking again about something that's a regular topic across the RPG blogosphere...a topic that I might not have commented on before. That's about to be remedied.

I'm going to try to make sense. Since I have such little time for RPG musings these days, I feel like I don't have enough time to write in as cogent a manner as I would like. Therefore, I'm never quite satisfied with my treatment of topics I want to discuss...never satisfied that I clearly communicated what was bouncing around my brain. Oh well, enough caveatting. Here goes:

One of the sacred cows of the OSR is the "sandbox" style of roleplaying, where (in my definition) the GM creates an open world for players to wander hither and yon as they see fit. I am a believer in this style of play, and even wrote one of my rare substantive posts (damned lack of free time!) about a pitfall that unwary GMs can encounter when running sandbox campaigns (i.e., sometimes GMs can forget the value of consequences stemming from players' actions).

The topic I want to focus on is a widely-perceived division between sandbox campaigns and "story-driven campaigns," in which (my definition) GMs create a "predetermined" overarching plot that the characters react to/interact with. Many gamers equate story games with railroading, but I'm not sure it's that simple. Sure, in the hands of a careless GM, a story-driven campaign can devolve into players living out a frustrated novelist's unpublished opus. But I think that fate is not inevitable.

There's a tangent in here about how some RPG systems lend themselves to sandbox play and others to story-game play (I suppose the White Wolf World of Darkness games are the paragons of the latter style), but I won't get into that here.

I argue that a sandbox campaign is a type of story-driven campaign. But instead of the story being fleshed out significantly by the GM at the beginning of the campaign, the story unfolds over the course of play. Indeed, if done right, the full "story" of a sandbox campaign isn't known until the end of a campaign.

I suppose my current point (others may resurface from the quagmire of my brain at a later date) is that gamers should see that play/campaign styles are not that different from each other, if one takes the time to look.
 

I guess that was a lot of build-up for a statement that was pretty short. I feel that there was something more I wanted to say but can't formulate the thoughts into words. Again, I'm having trouble finding time to focus and craft longer posts, but wanted to get the thoughts out there, to get some thoughts from the community. I hope I'm not just stating the most obvious facts in the world.

A (Character) Fate Worse Than Death?

This post is a loooong time coming for me. It's a testament to how behind I am with things I want to blog about. Anyway, Tim at Gothridge Manor wrote a post about character creation a while back. In particular, the following struck a cord with me:

 

"Unlike the current trend of character funneling in DCC [RPG], we put a lot of planning into the creation of characters. It's fun and makes you really invest a bit more. Nothing wrong with funneling and it can be a ton of fun, but so is sculpting a character you want to play for a while."

So, of course, this being the OSR blogosphere, the above statement begs the question: does this investment of time in "sculpting a character" mean there's an associated lessening in character mortality? I'm not asking to be a d-bag, I'm just asking in order to preempt the more hardcore OSR types from getting their grognard comments in ;-)

Seriously, I'm all about style of play, but campaigns that encourage character building/design/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it often get the stink-eye from hardline OSR folks. I'm not one of those folks.

 

I am asking because I'm just curious. As for me, I enjoy letting characters be a little more hardy if the campaign is one of those types that might be called "character" or "story-driven." However, in those types of games, the characters CAN STILL DIE, but it usually means they did something really rash.

 

However, I'm getting more and more interested these days in a "traditional" old school D&D game, with the assumption that it is deadlier due to lower hit points, lack of balance concerns, the "letting the dice fall where they may/no dice fudging" attitude/expectation, etc.

ALSO however, I think the OSR worships character death way too much. Come on, folks. There are other fates in the game that can be worse than death: level drain, maiming, imprisonment, becoming outlaws, making powerful enemies, etc. What makes these worse than death? Players characters need to LIVE with these results of their actions. The onus is on the DM to impose these consequences on PCs in order to give characters hazards other than death. I think having threats other than death makes a campaign more of a living, breathing place, not to mention a more fulfilling experience.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that a DM who focuses heavily on character death as a consequence is an unimaginative DM. A character living with consequences seems, to me, much more interesting.

 

Please let me know your thoughts on the matter of fates worse than death in RPGs, especially with regard to D&D (of course).

OSR Apocalypse? Again? *facepalm*

Here we go again. Why do human beings insist on being obsessed with the demise of things?

I know I'm a bit behind on commenting on the latest round of "OSR is dead" doomsaying. I just shake my head at the whole nonsense. If it's not "OSR is doomed!" talk, it's "Roleplaying in general is doomed!" jibberjabber. People, let's stop worrying and start playing.

To those of you who realize that the OSR is actually CHANGING instead of simply DYING, hats off to you rational folk. Thanks for bringing an appreciation of the concept of balance to the discussion. Again, it seems some people are spending too much time on gaming theory (or in this case gaming eschatology) rather than on actually gaming.

I'm not even going to bother linking to any of the myriad of recent posts on this non-topic. Come on, folks. The movement will continue to evolve, as any human activity should. For we humans are nothing if not adaptable.

Do things ever truly die? Most often, things metamorphose into something else. That something else may be so unrecognizable to us that we think something has died...and yet it lives on in some other way. There will be those who recognize the changes and see that which has changed for what it is: a new version of the old. The OSR in 2011 was different from the OSR when it first began, and the 2012 OSR is different from what it was last year. If you no longer consider the current version of the movement to be the OSR, that's your own perception. Someone else is living in their own OSR utopia right now, guaranteed.

The OSR is just adapting and shifting. Will the forthcoming "electronic format" reissue of prior D&D rule sets by WotC cause the *gasp* death of the OSR? No. But it will cause change. And what's so bad about that?

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?

You're no hero...yet. But you're already a veteran.

A couple concepts that seem to be held sacred by many in the OSR include:

1. Low-level PCs are inexperienced bumpkins.

2. PCs are not heroes.

The perpetuation of these supposed "Old School RPG truisms" is getting old. I've been stewing about this for a long time. Let me finally chime in on the matter. This isn't going to be a huge diatribe. I suppose I just need to vent, and get my two cents out there, for all that they're worth.

Low-level PCs are Inexperience Bumpkins

Certain windy old pundits will tell you that low-level PCs are just up-jumped peasants. This idea has even taken concrete form in the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, with its 0-level characters. I don't care if this is how someone likes to play, but I take issue with those that hold this up as some sort of "gold standard" of old-school play.

I would argue that low-level PCs in D&D-related games, especially 1st-level PCs, have already been through some trials that push them beyond the pale of normal folk. I believe that this was the intention behind every iteration of D&D, back to the LBBs.

Look at the B/X level titles. Take, for example, the fact that in B/X the first level fighter is called a "veteran." OK, veteran implies he's seen some combat, right? Even level titles like acolyte, medium, and apprentice (cleric, magic -user, and thief respectively) don't necessarily indicate the lowest possible level of those professions. To be accepted into a religious order or a guild, doesn't one usually have to be somewhat accomplished in their chosen profession to be chosen in the first place?

So when a player portrays a 1st-level character as one jaded by harsh experience, that's just as valid as a player who wants their 1st-level character to be a wide-eyed innocent.

These low-level PCs may be inexperienced in terms of game mechanics, but that shouldn't have to equate to players acting out characters as totally inexperienced within their chosen professions/ classes.

PCs are Not Heroes

The windy old pundits will also tell you that PCs are not heroes. I think what most OSR folks mean is that PCs are not SUPERheroes, as portrayed mechanically in later iterations of D&D (especially 4E).

What is a hero, really? An evil person can be a hero to individuals of the same persuasion, no? Look at the DCC RPG. For each alignment, a cleric turns whatever is "unholy" to his/her alignment.

And the moniker of "hero" is more often than not foisted onto a person without their agreement/consent. Indeed, a true hero is someone who denies the fact of said heroism. This denial can come from true humility or one's refusal to be labeled by a society with which they take issue.

I find it interesting that there are still those that will try to tell you the game is just about being "looters." If you read the forward to Moldvay Basic, he holds up the (albeit cliched) example of the adventurer (dare I say hero?) slaying a dragon and saving a maiden. Does that sound like someone who thinks a game is just about killing things and taking their stuff?

But playing a stereotypical hero shouldn't be the default way to play any more than being a glorified tomb robber. Play what you want to play, and let the DM sort it out!

Again, you can play your character any way you want. If you want your old-school character to be a traditional lawful hero, go for it. If you want to be a brooding anti-hero, do it. If you want to be an amoral sort, do it. But just don't let someone tell you that you can't be a hero. Be whatever you define as being a hero.

Conclusion

Look, if there are those that want new characters to be those unheroic peasants at low levels, I say play on. Just don't hold that up to the rest of us as the "one true way." That's utter garbage.

OSR Blasphemies: Saying No to Old-Fashioned Vancian Magic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W is for Wonder

The feeling of descending into the dark entrance to a dungeon. Seeing a dragon swoop down from the sky toward your party. Surviving through countless adventures to become a paragon of sword or spell (or both). All of this, and so much more, delivers a sense of wonder to many D&D players.

But for some, the wonder may be over. I feel for those people.

Look, I'm not superhuman when it comes to my emotions. There are many days when I don't feel the wonder. It's buried under the stresses of daily adult life. Sometimes you have to work to find a place of peace, and let yourself be open to wonder.

And when it finds you again, there's nothing quite like it.

I've read a lot of doubt, scorn, and pre-judgment directed toward D&D Next/5E. It really is baffling to me how so many people have been making judgments on a game they haven't even seen/read/played. Even if you do a word-by-word analysis of every piece of writing that Mike Mearls has released up to now, does that really give anyone a full idea of what this new edition is actually like?

I'm sorry, but nothing can replace having the rules (even playtest rules) actually in your hands. I'll reserve judgment until then. Right now I'm waiting for an email to come my way and get my copy of the playtest rules. And I'm maintaining my open mind, my positive hopes, and my cautious optimism.

I just don't get why so many people seem so negative about the hobby, or any product being released for it. I guess I'm not a true grognard!

I guess I'm in the minority in our corner of the blogosphere. I dunno, I feel so excited, so lucky, to be involved with the hobby again. I've been back for a couple years and I'm so jazzed because I get to play again, I get to explore a bunch of new products that come out all the time (both OSR and otherwise). I've helped proofread a recently-released RPG. And now I'm going to be involved with two playtests coming up (D&D Next and a game being developed by a creator in the OSR firmament).

All told, this is another part of the wonder for me. This is stuff I dreamed about as a kid, especially when it comes to the proofreading and playtesting. It taps into my younger self's desire to actually "work" for a game company. I won't get paid for what I do, but I will be able to say I helped out with the growth of the hobby. And that sounds great to me. I feel really lucky to have an active gaming life right now, and I'm wondering if a lot of others are taking things for granted.

Let's face it: with a hobby that often seems under threat of disappearing due to lack of interest (or so the doomsayers announce every now and then), why would any of us seek to quickly disparage any game company or their products? Why not strive to be positive? If the hobby is in danger of becoming extinct, then shouldn't any roleplaying be considered good roleplaying? I don't think we have the luxury of being so negative or closed-minded about new releases like D&D Next.

Do I blindly believe in the purity of Wizards of the Coast's goals/motivations for D&D Next? No. But am I going to dismiss it sight-unseen? No. And nor, in my opinion, should anyone who considers themselves a gamer. I very willing to bet that a lot of the nay-sayers will be signing up for the 5E playtest.

Those are my thoughts at the moment. What do you think?

It's All D&D to Me

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

Here goes, according to my brain:

OSRIC is D&D.

Labyrinth Lord is D&D.

Swords & Wizardry is D&D.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is D&D.

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is D&D.

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

Are you seeing a theme here? A common thread?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the NON-Stick in the Mud of the Week Award goes to...

Chris at Classic RPG Realms. In this post he laments not being able to continue to run a local school gaming club for kids. Now here's a person who's not sitting in some ivory tower, simply spouting tired and mean-spirited rhetoric (do I have to mention names of usual suspects at this point?). Here's a person who has been fighting the good fight, getting out and making an effort to game. And not only actually gaming, but spreading the gaming goodness to a new generation! That's more than commendable in my book. By doing what he's been doing, he is accomplishing so much more than any pontificating loud-mouth could ever hope to achieve when it comes to advancing the hobby.

So all of the above is the reason why I've given Chris the first-ever NON-Stick in the Mud of the Week Award (I know, I haven't actually been doing this award thing every week. Mea culpa). Keep up the good work, Chris, and get some well-deserved rest!

And the Stick in the Mud of the Week Award goes to...

Alexis at Tao of D&D. In this post he derides the recent "Build a Better GM" trend that hit the RPG blogosphere. He seems to have the impression that it was a fruitless effort. Or at least that's what I took from reading the post. I encourage everyone to read it and let me know what you think.

I for one felt the Build a Better GM meme was very enlightening, as it gave many perspectives on the art of running roleplaying games. It gave some food for thought, advice, and tips. But unlike Alexis, I didn't think anyone was trying to define in stone what makes "the perfect GM."

I don't understand this guy at all. Who spends so much time being so...angry? Standoffish? Curmudgeonly? Whatever you want to call it, I just can't fathom why someone would want to waste precious moments of life being so downright grumpy about a hobby. Being a grognard is one thing. But being Alexis is something entirely different.

In the past, I've tried to communicate with Alexis in what I thought to be a rational manner, questioning his particular scathing approach to RPG blogging. For my desire to understand more of his motivations and perhaps offer a different viewpoint, I've been "permabanned." He pretty much won't let any of my comments on his posts see the light of day. In fact, I take credit for his switch to moderating comments. So, in light of my inability to comment on his blog directly, I've decided to comment about his posts on my own blog. As Alexis might say, "My house, my rules."

(By the way, regarding the standoffish "my house, my rules, I can do whatever I want" approach to blogging: when you invite someone into your home, do you slap them in the face when they compliment your wallpaper? Just because you own a "domain," be it a home or a blog, doesn't necessarily mean that you have carte blanche to lash out at "guests" and be rude to them, even those guests that disagree with you. If you want to consider a blog to be a virtual house, then what about the ancient tradition of hospitality? Let me put things another way: I bet Gary Heidnik was a big believer in "my house, my rules, I can do whatever I want.")

On another level, I don't understand why so many people put up with his attitude. There are so many people who comment on his blog that he, in turn, berates. It's like going to a "wise man" (and I'm nowhere near actually considering Alexis a wise man) in order to obtain wisdom and being verbally abused at the same time.

Why do I care? I guess I keep expecting there to be a bottom to Alexis' well of disdain. I check in once in a while to see what vitriol he's spouting, and he never fails to deliver. I also think that the guy has a lot of good stuff to offer the blogosphere, but he wraps it in such a noxious package. Thus, there's also a failed opportunity here, in my opinion.

Isn't one of the myriad reasons we blog to connect with our fellows and share thoughts and celebrate our hobby together? But wherever humans gather, there are those who seek to deride for the sake of derision.

He's given tidbits of information about his motivations, and I feel like he's an incredibly intelligent person with a lot of personal pain from his past. So he's no longer much of a conundrum for me, I suppose. I guess I'm just confused why someone would take what most would consider a positive thing (sharing opinions/advice regarding GMing) and see it as something ultimately futile. Like Raistlin's hourglass eyes, which doomed him to see the decay in all things...

I guess everything truly is a matter of perception.

Alexis has stated that I seek to "change" him. That's not true at all. I wouldn't presume to try such a thing. Rather, my eternal statement to him is this: you don't like something in the blogosphere, so be it. But that doesn't mean you are better or smarter than the rest of us who do like it. And it definitely does not mean you are the arbiter of what is, and what is not, a worthwhile topic.

UPDATE: Alexis posted a "rebuttal" to this post, and someone commented "i would rather have a person be harsh and honest then nice and lie about what he truly thinks of things."

To this I ask: why do "harsh" and "honest" need to go together? Can't you be "nice" and "honest"? Is that's what becoming part of our culture, a belief that you have to be harsh to be honest? That's really depressing, if it has any truth to it.

Dragon Age for free! DCC...not so much...

Just thought I'd point something out:

The Free RPG Day offering for Dragon Age is available for free (35-page PDF) on DriveThruRPG.

The Free RPG Day offering for Dungeon Crawl Classics is available for $4.99 (16-page PDF) on RPG Now.

Hmm. Funny how some things are no longer free now that Free RPG Day is over. You get much more RPG goodness from the Dragon Age offering, including over twice the page count, for zero dollars. 'Nuff said, as far as I'm concerned. I have to say that I continue to be underwhelmed by the hype machine that is DCC. The system may be innovative and playable and have a great old school pedigree and flavor, but there's just something about how Goodman Games is going about "selling" the game that just rubs me the wrong way. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this...

Why do we bother with all this blogging?

Over the past year, I've encountered two different kinds of bloggers that confuse me to no end. Let's call these two types the "elitist" and the "nihilist."

The Elitist

The elitist in the RPG blogoshere is the person who does not just give their opinion. If these types of bloggers just gave their opinions on things, they would be like the rest of us in the majority (or what I would like to consider to be the majority): gamers having civil discourse and tolerating the opinions of others, and ultimately engaging in lively conversation and calm debate.

The elitist expresses their opinion AND attacks the opinions of others, and/or attacks other people personally. I'm continually dumbfounded that some people have the gall to think that they are the ultimate arbiters of some sort of universal truth when it comes to gaming. They seem to think they know what the best game system is, or what the best way to game is, and declare those who don't think otherwise as being idiots.

But the elitist is perhaps more easily understood than the nihilist. The nihilist's motivations are much murkier. The elitist is perhaps most often motivated by pride or vanity. But the nihilist is a more perplexing creature.

The Nihilist

The nihilist is a blogger who expresses confusion at why other people have opinions. These types will go out of their way to declare whole topics of conversation as being pointless. They usually tend to chime in on any of the topic trends that periodically sweep the blogosphere (such as the recent arrival of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG on the scene, or the controversial Lamentations of the Flame Princess Grindhouse Edition). But when they chime in, it's to state that the whole discussion is totally without merit and they can't understand why people are talking about the subject at hand. And that's it.

Again, the elitist seems to be much more understandable. They're here to attempt to lord over a scrap of the Internet, they hold forth and make declarations from their ivory towers, and demand to be acknowledged as masters  of the subject matter.

But I guess the nihilist is so confusing to me because I wonder why they even bother to be a part of the blogosphere. Are they just trying to be sticks in the mud? This last thought is not satisfying to me, because there are at least bloggers like the minds behind Your Dungeon is Suck and Joeskythedungeonbrawler who are clearly putting on a persona and actually can be entertaining to read. They can actually be creative in their bashing and obviously put effort into their blogs. And their level of dedication to gaming is obvious (to me at least), so their apparent loathing for other gamers or certain game systems is really (to my understanding) rooted in a deep-seated love for the hobby.

The nihilist is really not that entertaining when they are poo-pooing topics, and they put no effort into their posts. And more often than not, they don't seem to really enjoy gaming.

Why do the nihilists stick around? If they are that confounded and are so unwilling to converse other than to say "this is stupid," they why don't they just stop reading/writing and do something else with their time? I guess I'm just so mindful of how I spend my limited free time that I guess I just couldn't fathom spending that time on something from which I derive no pleasure.

So why ARE we all doing this blogging thing? I believe it's because gamers are often people for whom gaming was/is a bit of solace. A safe harbor where imagination can soar and remove us temporarily from the pressures of life. They are those who appreciate the ancient tradition of storytelling. Or they just get a kick out of slaying and reaping kingly reward. Whatever the case may be, blogging allows our eclectic group of hobbyists to share thoughts, read other people's perspectives, seek advice, commiserate, celebrate, find kindred spirits, etcetera.

Anyone want to put forth any thoughts on these types, especially the nihilist? Am I just being naive? Are these types more often than not putting on facades and just playing roles? I guess that last possibility is somewhat ironic, eh?

System, Style of Play, and Heroes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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