End-of-Week Lofgren and Poag (2/12/17): White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game

Yeah, this is a late Sunday edition of my EoW post (usually on Fridays). But it's worth it, because I ordered two copies of a little retroclone heartbreaker called *inhales deeply* White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.

Yeah, that's a mouthful!

Anyone who has watched/read my blog for a while knows I've cut way down on gaming and game blogging over the last couple years. This has mainly been due to my kids getting older and the accompanying increase in their extracurriculars, as well as the slow-and-steady implementation of plans to make a career change.

But damn, gaming is a part of my soul, man! I can't stay away! I have to dip back into the RPG well now and then, or I go MAD!

So, this past week I dipped back in...and caught wind of White Box: FMAG!

Now, I've acquired a lot of gaming goodness lately that I've been meaning to blog about: the 4th printing Kickstarter delivery (long delayed) of Dungeon Crawl Classics AS WELL AS the huge Kickstarter delivery (very long delayed) of the Conan board game that raised millions of dollars.

But thanks to my gamer ADD, White Box has gained pride-of-place (for now) in my fevered gamer's mind! I went online, did a quick bit of digging, and found out the game is currently on sale AT COST.

WHAT? Oh yeah! For about $10 I got two copies off Amazon! The image at the top of the post shows two of the three possible covers, with art by OSR darling Stefan Poag and a gent named Eric Lofgren.

As other OSR bloggers have pointed out, WB:FMAG contains sort of a "greatest hits" mishmash of aspects from other clones and puts them into a well-organized, tight layout. A welcome thing for this particular part-time gamer who doesn't have time to whip up his own heartbreaker, or to be a scholar of the intricacies of how the original clones and DIY gaming blogs have created subsequent waves of new clones...

(Note that Tenkar's Tavern called WB:FMAG an "excellent houserules/rewrite of Swords & Wizardry White Box," and who am I to argue with Erik?)

So, I read on the blog of WB:FMAG creator Charlie Mason that the current version of his game (which is Mr. Mason's riff on Swords & Wizardry) is only available until February 22nd. A new version is coming out this year, and will apparently be a complete overhaul. This includes a new name for the game.

I'm not sure why even the name is changing, but I'm sure there's good reason (perhaps legal?).

At any rate, I think it was well worth it to get under the wire before this current version goes away.
I've had an ambivalent relationship with original D&D and its clones. It has some appeal, but I've always preferred the Basic D&D versions of Moldvay and Mentzer.

And yet...there's a part of me that still plans on someday running a good old, gritty campaign using some variant of OD&D! When that happens, I have White Box as part of my arsenal! I really dig this little compact package that Mr. Mason has pulled together! Well done, sir! You have a fan in me!

End-of-Week Elmore No More!

"Fee fie foe fum! I smell a general unfamiliarity with the basic human form!"

I'm done with Larry Elmore.

I can't take it anymore. All the cheesecake he puts out? Intolerable.

From now on, I'm dedicating my end-of-week art posts to all the other D&D artists except Elmore. That said, I'm going to be going in chronological order by version. So, this week I'm starting with original D&D. 

As the weeks progress, I'll be posting every piece of art from every edition. Not sure how long this will take me, but here goes nothing! Hope you enjoy the ride!

Behold the might of Swords & Wizardry!

The inspiration begins with the cover...

Swords & Wizardry got me back into roleplaying. Period. It was the first retro-clone I picked up. Not because it was the first one I encountered (that honor goes to OSRIC), but because it was the most persuasive. Reading Matt Finch's words was (and still is) pure inspiration. And I'm just talking about the Swords & Wizardry rules themselves. Let's not forget about his Quick Primer for Old School Gaming...but that's a whole other discussion.

Confession: I never cared about the fabled Little Brown Books. Not at all. But Swords & Wizardry (hereafter referred to as S&W) made me want to care. It made me care about the mutable simplicity of Original D&D mechanics, and more importantly, it made me fall in love again with the old-school way of roleplaying.

BTW: What I still don't care about, and never will, is that S&W is not as close to the OD&D rules as it could be. Who cares?! I, for one, am GLAD it isn't! It takes those old rules and makes them alive again, something vital and fresh, thanks to Mr. Finch's take on those original rules.

What sets Swords & Wizardry apart in my view? Here are some major points for me (based on my favorite flavor of the rules, the May 2011 printing):

Matt Finch's writing is welcoming and flavorful. When reading it, I feel like I'm being guided through the rules by a friendly narrator.

Also, the suggestion boxes that give alternate rules are awesome, such as the "Continued Level Advancement Options for Non-Human Characters" and his historical notes on how S&W differs from the original rules.

Then there's even more options. Options for combat sequence. Options for spellcasting. Options, options, options! What I'm saying is, S&W has flexibility, but it also gives you suggestions on how that flexibility can manifest itself! That's what this particular busy adult roleplayer needs!

Wanna create your own creatures to throw at hapless players? It's easy, and not just because of the "lightness" of the rules. Matt Finch has, again, conveniently given you some suggested guidelines for creating monsters. Here's a monster for you:

Skullcrab

HD: 1
AC: 5 [14]
Atk: 2 claws (1d6)
Move: 6 (Jump 12)
Save: 16
AL: N
CL/XP: 3/100
Special: Attach/blood drain (1d4/round), paralysis

There are cyclopean cliffs that rise above the ocean, riddled with caverns of unknown depth. Adventurers who have died plumbing these sodden depths have had their remains defiled by the aberrations that dwell where the ocean sucks at the land. One such creature is the skullcrab, a type of mutated mollusk that uses the skulls of the dead as protective shells. When not hiding in a skull, the creature resembles a large snail with crab-like claws and beaked mouth.

Those who discover the bones of the fallen should be wary when searching through the remains. A skullcrab inhabiting a skull will more often than not surprise the unwary, using its muscular body to leap at a victim. The creatures are surprisingly quick, and victims will not soon forget the sight of a death's head hurtling towards them.

A player must make a saving throw if a skullcrab makes two successful claw attacks against a character in a round. An unsuccessful save means the skullcrab has attached to the victim, and will begin to drain blood using a needle-like proboscis that extends from its beak (1d4 damage per round) until it is killed and releases its grip.

After one round of blood draining, the victim must make another save. If unsuccessful, they become paralyzed by the skullcrab's anesthetizing saliva. The victim will stay paralyzed if the creature is not removed; once removed, the victim will come out of the paralysis after 1 turn.

Voila! Light on stat block, heavy on description/flavor...as it should be when it comes to old-school roleplaying!

I might just post another S&W creature later tonight...I'll keep you all in suspense!

Yes, I love me some Swords & Wizardry, and I know you will too, if you give it a read. Come, join usssss... 

P.S. A final musing I wanted to run past you, dear readers: if OSRIC was the "first retro-clone" (as seems to be the case based on publication dates and OSR lore I've read on blogs), then S&W was the second. I wonder if it's a coincidence that WotC's first premium reprint was AD&D (which OSRIC emulates), followed by that fancy OD&D box (covered by Swords & Wizardy). Is WotC mimicking the publication order of the retro-clones? Hmmm...it may sound far-fetched, and I do so love a good conspiracy theory, but...you never know!

UPDATE: Well, it looks like Labyrinth Lord was published after OSRIC, and last came S&W. Oh well, so much for my cockamamie theory!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early D&D and Feeling Left Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Yen for OD&D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facing Down the Beast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are YOU with D&D?

Hi all. I haven't been able to post over the last few days due to work and family. I am becoming much busier by the day at my new job, so that unfortunately means that my blogging during the day will be slowing down/sporadic. I have to sacrifice something in favor of spending time to actually game/prepare to game. As always, I do what I can when I can. Anyway, enough of all that. On to the real topic of this post:

Has anyone read the "I'm with D&D" post over at The Other Side blog? Take a look if you haven't, and let me know your thoughts. What is your stance on the many editions of D&D? Are you an egalitarian, or a staunch partisan? I for one have a "play and let play" stance on things for the most part. Any kind of D&D is D&D, alright! What's most important to me is that people are actually playing! Now, does that mean I love the 4E incarnation? No. I am not a huge fan of editions 2 through 4 of D&D, actually. And I have just truly started to delve into OD&D, and find some issues with that venerable beast as well. Give me 1E any day! But if people are as passionate about other versions, so be it. Who am I to tell them what should be their game of choice? I could write posts that go on about what I find offensive about a particular edition, but always with the caveat of "this is my opinion." If you love it, play it.

I've been called "mealy" for my opinions. So be it. Mealy I may be, but at least I'm not a "flaming" uber-nerd who's sole purpose is to extend one's ire for a D&D edition to actually attacking those who play said edition. That's a level of meta-dorkness to which I will not descend.

Currently, I am playing using Castles & Crusades, which has been dubbed a 1E/3.5E hybrid. But I am also increasingly interested in Labyrinth Lord, a clone of Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. I see C&C as a means to do more "story-driven" roleplaying, whereas LL to me would be used at my table for a more "traditional" version of D&D that focuses on the sandbox-y, dungeon crawl "slay and loot" approach. I know some of you are groaning right now at my mention of story in conjunction with D&D. I might need to do a separate post on my thoughts regarding the use of certain editions depending on what style of game you want to run. This post may also include my thoughts on playing strong archetypes versus more "individualized" characters, etc. I may have to rethink my stance on other editions, and accept that each has their merit based on what style of play you seek to foster.

Early-Afternoon Reflections & Some Gamer ADD

Well, as I near my 100th post, I've been reflecting on the events in my renewed roleplaying career since June of last year. That's when I started this blog. I don't really have time to do a year-in-review post at the moment, but I might do something like that for the actual 100th post. I want to take a look at my progress over the last year as far as actual gaming is concerned, refocus on the purpose of my blog and consider what I might do differently going forward, and perhaps make some predictions on what the future may hold. On the matter of roleplaying, I definitely feel like I need to make my own destiny, so the future will truly only be what I make it. And there's a part of me that is saying "You've been doing this for a year and you only have 100 posts?! Weak!"

I also wanted to report that I am currently suffering Gamer ADD again. This time, of all things, I find myself longing to possess the Mentzer Basic and Expert box sets. I know, I know, there are those out there that are going to start saying that the Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert are superior, and that Mentzer's work is a "kiddified" version of D&D. I wish I had copies of all of those sets, so I could compare for myself. QUESTION: can anyone give me a summary of the differences, and the pros and cons of each? I am sure that there has to be such a comparison out there in the blogosphere. Oh, and I'm not sure if I should bring the Holmes thing into the mix...ugh.

I have a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, so I technically don't need the Mentzer stuff. But I dug up some PDFs of the Mentzer books on the Internet, and I find myself enamored by them. Why? I have to admit that I'm not really sure. It might be pure nostalgia, and not necessarily the good kind. As some of you may know by now, I never really played "regular" D&D. I started out playing Advanced D&D as a kid. I may have been around the D&D books (like the Rules Cyclopedia) but my friends and I never used that other stuff. We were 1E PHB, DMG, and MM all the way.

Maybe the Mentzer stuff appeals on a very shallow level, since they contain a lot of art from Larry Elmore. Elmore was also the primary artist for the early Dragonlance novels, and we all know how I feel about Dragonlance by now.

It's only in recent years that I've payed more attention to the OD&D works. I've stated here before that I didn't really care to learn the difference between Holmes and Moldvay and Mentzer, but it's sort of seeping in through osmosis. Yet I find myself getting more and more curious about those box sets. Maybe it's a seed of gamer puritanism within me. Sure, I could use Labyrinth Lord or Swords & Wizardry or some other retroclone. But there's something about using the original books that somehow appeals.

Oy, it's enough to drive one insane! For now, I need to return a bit to reality and stick to the good gaming I have going on at the moment. Enough with the grass is greener stuff, right?

TotW Session 5 and Other Updates

Well, we had our fifth session of my Tales of the Wanderers campaign last Thursday (I think I stated that in a recent post already, but, there you are!). The guys couldn't make it over last night, so next session is set for next Thursday, gods willing! You know how the permutations of adulthood can stalk and kill free time. In the meantime, I need to find the time to do an adventure log for the last session, add in NPCs, etc. Then prepare for the next session. Sheesh.

Things are going well, the guys and I seem to be shaking off the rust and are having a great time. I still sometimes wish we had at least one other player (and in particular a certain old friend who used to be one of our core players growing up), but for now things are going very well.

Anyone who's been reading my blog (thank you, the few of you who do so!) may have detected a recent bit of flip flopping, however. First, there was this last post on how I am now determined to switch the campaign from S&W/Flame Princess to Castles & Crusades. In a few other posts (here and here) you can see my turmoil between settling on S&W/Flame Princess or C&C. I almost feel like I want to change my stance on whether or not an ever-growing number of clones is a good thing (I currently think that more is merrier...but that might change). There has been recent debate again on the blogosphere regarding the matter of retroclone proliferation...no doubt you've seen it.

On the other hand, I can't fault the plethora of clones for being the source of my Gamer ADD. I have always been this way, getting distracted by a new campaign setting or game system that rears its head. This has been true for my entire gaming career, long before the current retroclone explosion.

But I think that my roots in 1E AD&D are finally coming out. So, even though it can be argued that C&C adds in a dash of 3.5 Edition, etc, it's got that 1E feel, with the added benefit of being more organized and less dense than the original AD&D books...and easier to get ahold of for the most part (CKG being the long-time exception, of course).

I'm not saying that I won't someday revisit the OD&D clones of my choice (S&W/Flame Princess) but they were inspired by a version of D&D that I didn't really experience in my formative years. Nostalgia trumps all, I guess, in this case.

Then there was my recent encounter with Barbarians of Lemuria, which indeed drove me into ADD overdrive! And also, always lurking in the back of my mind, is the vow I made to myself to finally run a Dragonlance campaign. I read the Dragonlance novel Stormblade 20 years ago, and it was the real spark that turned me on to D&D. I plan to read it again soon, and I am also planning on that campaign before my next birthday. How I will make it happen is still beyond me, but dammit, I am DETERMINED!

All of this inner turmoil has not caused a collapse in the campaign I am running...so far. And I want to keep it that way. So far, the guys seem to be having fun, so things are well. But the worst thing I could do right now is keep switching things around on them. They seem fine with a move to C&C, but I don't think they would appreciate being teleported to a new campaign world again or yet another game system. And I am also not sure they would want to be in two simultaneous campaigns. So I need to hold steady with the TotW campaign for a while, and be patient. Argh!

Anyway, another reason for my attention being drawn again to C&C is TrollCon East! Finally, a Con in my part of NJ! Can't wait to meet those guys!

That's all for now. As you can see, there's a lot going on. But you know, in the end, I'm loving it all!

Brainstormin'

Hey folks! Sorry I've been so silent on ye olde blog. But I've been busy brainstorming for my upcoming play-by-chat campaign, which I've dubbed "Legendary Domains."

I'm rereading the LotFP Rules book (still hoping to do a thorough review of the game), and trying to minimize my house rules for the time being. I'm taking to heart the advice on Philotomy's OD&D Musings, specifically those found under the "Considering OD&D?" section.

I'm really trying to take the "Restrain yourself" advice and "play it for what it is" as much as possible (i.e. keep house ruling to a minimum at the beginning). I'm a big believer in letting additional house rules grow organically as play progresses in the campaign.

At this point, I'm really just tweaking demi-human abilities slightly, and also tacking on Talents, which are basically a combination of feats and skills from D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. The selection of these Talents is a highly interactive process between GM and player. Fighters, Specialists, Clerics, and Magic-Users start out with 2 and gain another Talent at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc. Demi-humans start with 1 Talent and progress in the same way.

I was also thinking of limiting demi-humans in some ways. For instance, I was thinking of limiting ability scores thusly:

Elves: maximum Con = 15
Dwarves: maximum Dex = 15
Halflings: maximum Str = 15

This means that the maximum modifier in these abilities for each race is +1. What do you think of that? Just thinking that, with no level limits for demi-humans in this game (which I like), I should limit them in some way or ways (i.e. only one starting Talent, ability score limits).

OK, back to my nefarious plans...