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!

In the Mind of a Mad Gamer

"Oh, and Game Master, just one more thing: love your campaign!"  

Perhaps the excessive heat the US has been suffering under has broken my brain. Perhaps seeing the bickering of my family over parental issues (that's all I'll say on the matter here) has broken my spirit. Whatever the cause(s), I've found my brain severely unfocused as of late. As a result, my mind has been spinning on all levels, and this includes my gaming life.

When I was young, my hobbies were a true escape from a tumultuous family life. I read books voraciously. I found solace in places like, well, Solace, the tree-top village in the Dragonlance Chronicles. Yes, reading was a hobby, and linked to that was a "hobby" of self-imposed isolation. To be hidden in the depths of a library, secluded among stout walls made of book shelves with a book in hand, was to be in paradise for a short time. I also liked to write fantasical stories, an interest that I'm sure I shared with many young people who enjoyed Dungeons & Dragons.

When I discovered Dungeons & Dragons, I was often in the role of Dungeon Master, as my enjoyment of crafting plots was the greatest among my childhood group. As with many of us, the game gave us a means to develop creatively and socially.

I suppose reading is still an escape for me, and roleplaying is still something of an escape and a creative outlet, as well as a great social event (I can't say enough about how much I enjoy being around my current group of players). Though now I'm escaping the sometimes onerous grind of adult responsibility/bullsh*t.

ANYway, to continue on from my recent post about self revelation, of late I've found myself feeling pulled in many directions with regard to what I want to run as a game master. I feel really upset at myself for putting my still-young Labyrinth Lord game on hold. I didn't want to do that to my players. But I also had to be true to myself with regard to the fact that I felt unfulfilled with what I was running.

After a lot of rumination on the more nebulous aspects of my feelings, I think I've reached some clarity on things. I suppose not many people out there will be interested in hearing a 30-something man go on and on about roleplaying woes, but this is more for my own sanity, I think. I need to lay out what's on my mind in some organized form. I hope this will alleviate the swirling miasma of Gamer ADD. I've been inspired by Chris at Classic RPG Realms, who isn't afraid to talk out his struggles regarding what system to use.

Again, I consider anything with D&D "DNA" to be D&D wearing a mask. All that being said, here's my thought process as of right now:

Basic D&D

I have come to realize that I really want to run a game using actual Classic/Basic D&D rules. The retroclone thing wasn't cutting it. This came as something of a shock to me, as I'm a big fan of the 'clones. But I can no longer hide from myself the fact that I want to play "pure" if I'm going to play Basic D&D.

If I'm going to deal with the somewhat arcane mechanics of Basic D&D, then I want to be actually playing Basic D&D. That means using the original rulebooks. I have a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia that I'm dying to use, and I have PDFs of the individual Mentzer box sets that I can print out (or have done so already).

I'm not sure if this sounds shallow or bizarre, but yes, I want to use those original books. I don't want to use a retroclone. There, I said it. Again, I have nothing against the 'clones. They're great, and they're the impetus behind looking back to explore early D&D.

But I want to see that Larry Elmore/Terry Dykstra artwork when I'm flipping through the books. I want to see the fonts they used. I want the beholder in the monster section! I want that authentic D&D experience, which to me means using the original books.

And in using the original books, I want to stay as close to rules as written as I can. I really want to cut down my house rules and just do rulings on the fly as needed. I think the majority of my house rules will pertain to the classes, to give them a bit more "oomph."

Again, I'm feeling very guilty about putting my Labyrinth Lord game on hold after only a handful of sessions. I think I owe it to my group to give Basic more of a fair shot. But to me that means actually using those original rule books. Once more, I ask: is this insane?

I'll include the DCC RPG here, because it uses Basic's race-as-class feature and many other connections to Basic. I really like what Goodman Games has done to the D&D chassis. But I feel like it has more rules crunch than I'm willing to deal with at the moment. I have an urge to run some DCC RPG in the future, but not right now. I don't want to deal with the crunch.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

When it comes to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, for some reason I currently have the opposite desire: I do NOT want to run a game using actual AD&D rules. I would much, much rather use Castles & Crusades. I'm not sure if this is a strange divergence from my "NEED PURE BASIC D&D!" feelings. But there you have it. At any rate, I have no desire right now to GM an AD&D/C&C game.

D&D Mine

Every once in a while I get the urge to make my own "edition" of D&D. Who in our blogosphere community hasn't felt that urge, right? I want to take the Swords & Wizardry clone as a foundation and put in all the tweaks I want and make my own game! I was inspired recently by JB at B/X Blackrazor when he proposed the D&D Mine concept.

But at the moment, this still is a case of "MUST PLAY PURE BASIC D&D!" eating at my brain. So this recurring urge is, once again, pushed aside.

Other RPGS

I really like Savage Worlds and the Dragon Age RPG. Their allure is that they offer an alternative to those games that are variations on D&D (i.e. those games that use mechanics very similar to D&D, either Basic or Advanced). And this appeals, because I have no deep-seated desire to immediately house rule either of these non-D&D RPGs, because they aren't D&D!

I think that I'm so familiar with the D&D rules that I can't help myself when it comes to house ruling. I'm sort of tired of this uncontrollable need on my part to endlessly tweak the D&D design. So, to me, the logical solution is to try another RPG for a while, and take a break from D&D in all its forms.

Yet my desire to play these games, strangely enough, makes me yearn for D&D. I'm really feeling insane...

Conclusion

I try to tell myself that I don't have a time limit on my new gaming life. I can run one sort of game/RPG for a while and then switch to another at some point down the road.

Ultimately, I'm sorry to subject my poor gaming group to the results of my scattered mind. I'm feeling like a very divided self, with my attention pulled in too many directions. This is frustrating to no end.

Any advice is very much appreciated.

Self Revelations: D&D, the OSR, and Me

I started this blog to chronicle my return to roleplaying. I really had no idea what my attempt to return to the fold would entail, or how successful I would be. As far as success is concerned, I've got a steady group of fellow gamers that I play with on a fairly regular basis. So I consider that a success.

Note, of course, that I had no idea there was an OSR when I came back to gaming within the last few years. When I first made my concerted effort to return to the table-top, my first exposure was with Pathfinder (which I found to be interesting but too crunchy for my tastes...I had never played 3E either, for the same crunchy reason). It was this lack of fulfillment with an in-print game that caused me to wonder about the out-of-print games from my past. I decided to dig around online for those older editions, and the rest is history...

Since I've come back to roleplaying, I think I've learned some things about my current gaming self. The following is very subject to change, however, as I'm nothing if not mutable:

The Old Rules
At the moment, I don't really want to go back and use the old D&D rules as written, be they Basic or Advanced D&D. Sure, I have strong feelings of nostalgia for those old rule sets. Like so many of us, it was my first RPG. There's a certain lure to the thought of playing actual D&D instead of a retroclone, but again, that's probably just a bit of "bad" nostalgia. In re-reading the Rules Cyclopedia, Moldvay/Cook/ Marsh B/X, and AD&D, I find myself balking at the "clunkyness" (or what I personally perceive/define as clunkyness) of the rules. I've also run into that balking feeling while running some Labyrinth Lord recently. So I've reached a point where my issues with the rules have overcome the gravitas, the prestige, the tradition, the whatever-you-want-to-call-it of playing actual D&D or those retroclones that cleave close to it (i.e. the "first wave" of clones = OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord).

I say all the above with not a little sadness, because I blame my current state of life as being the culprit behind my inability to grok the old rules. I can't seem to retain the little idiosyncrasies of the old rules. I know this seems lame, but it's a sad truth for me. I've got some personal things in my life that are taking up a fair bit of brain power of late. Maybe this ineptitude on my part will abate someday, but for now...

I have to admit, though, that I've felt a recent urge to get the original AD&D books, in order to add them back to my collection. The books my teenage group shared years ago were destroyed by a friend who became a hardcore born-again Christian. After so many years of not having the hallowed words of Gary Gygax in my library, I feel the need to own them once more.

I'm not sure why, even though I know how old school games are about rulings and not rules, that I just can't feel totally at peace with playing D&D rules as written OR with house rules that make them more to my tastes. Maybe it's some disillusionment with the rules, or being tired of the same old D&D rules appearing over and over in the vast number of OSR publications, or a combination of the two. Don't get me wrong, I love the wondrous variety of the OSR and believe it is a positive aspect of the movement. 

I think familiarity does breed contempt, and I've been around the D&D rules for so long that I'm probably getting a bit tired of them. I probably need a break from them. I can't seem to help the urge to tinker. I know, the prevailing thought process is that older D&D rules were pretty much made to be just guidelines, and made to be tinkered with. But I just don't have the stomach for too many house rules of late. Maybe it's my current time crunch that makes me get upset if I have to craft too many house rules. Granted, I don't think I've played with too many house rules, but still...I feel the need to find a game that doesn't give me the overwhelming urge to tweak. This feeling alone probably strips away a good portion of my OSR cred (if I ever had any).

The Rules with D&D DNA
Again, I've no urge to use the original D&D/AD&D rules in a current game. For my AD&D needs, I have Castles & Crusades. It is the game that had Gary's blessings as the successor to D&D, after all (at least, according to the Troll Lords, who were close to Gary before he passed).

Yes, the only version of AD&D I really dig is Castles & Crusades. It's a wonderful amalgam of 1E (classes, races, overall aesthetic) and 3.5 (more modern unified mechanic), with some new ideas/twists thrown in (example: rangers don't cast spells...that's awesome...never could stand spellcasting rangers) and an old-school mentality surrounding it.

The other game that's made a big impression on me is DCC RPG. I really like this "second generation" clone! I am definitely liking it more than the original/first wave of clones, and I know that statement may raise some hackles. I know, DCC is not supposed to be a clone, but come on folks...call a clone a clone. I'm not ready to actually run DCC RPG at the moment, but I have the itch (and some of those Zocchi dice as well).

Both of the games mentioned above use a much more unified mechanic than the old versions of D&D/AD&D. And these days, I'm loving me some unified mechanic. This is due to being busy with adult life, which leaves me with minimal brain space to use for storage of various mechanics. I know, lame, right? Oh well, it's my truth. And to thine own self be true.

The less I feel the need to house rule, the more I like the RPG. I do like to play with some minimal house rules for C&C (one sheet of paper front and back is my limit!), and DCC seems like a game I wouldn't want to house rule much at all.

But C&C and DCC have that D&D DNA, and of late that's bothered me. So I have to conclude that I'm having an issue with D&D, deep down.

Other Rules and New Rules
Lord knows that, over the years, I've played a bunch of other games that weren't D&D-based. I played a lot of Palladium (TMNT, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies) and also Amber Diceless RPG. Most recently I've been playing Savage Worlds. So my experience with the other RPG possibilities out there is probably part of my current urge to look elsewhere. Look, I learned a lot about rulings not rules and other concepts favored by the OSR through my experience with a non-D&D game like Amber Diceless Roleplaying. With no dice and just four attributes, the ADRPG GM has to make a lot of rulings.

Bottom line: I'm really curious about newer, non-D&D based systems like Savage Worlds and Dragon Age. I feel the urge to break away from the D&D "hegemony"...at least for a while. These games also have unified mechanics (with Dragon Age going so far as only using the d6, rather than Savage World's use of the other polyhedrals we all know and love...I have to admit I'm going to miss all those other dice while we play Dragon Age).

I know there are a lot of OSR folks who clamor about player vs. character skill, and a system like Dragon Age can lend itself quite easily to players depending on the character stats and associated skill rolls. But I'm here to tell you that my thoughts towards character stats and skill rolls are also tied to my current gaming status. I'm a busy adult playing with busy adults. We don't have all the time we used to have in order to lean mostly on player skill and searching every cranny of a dungeon.

I guess you could say we don't have time to be incredibly clever. We have time to be somewhat clever. My players are very creative and come up with really inventive solutions to things, be they battles or negotiations with NPCs or solving puzzles. But if they sometimes want to lean on the dice mechanic, I'm not going to stop them. Because in our limited time we want the adventure to press forward, and not worry about exploring all the minutia that "pure" old school D&D play demands.

I do encourage a combination of player and character skill, a compromise if you will. These two roleplaying concepts don't need to be mutually exclusive. Player ideas improve dice roll success or eliminate the need for dice. I guess I am not purely of the OSR when it comes to mechanics, but I am when it comes to the style, the spirit. Not that labels matter, though. The gaming is what really matters.

Conclusion...For Now...
I'm not sure if I'm getting across all my feelings as clearly as I wanted, but I made an effort here. Mostly for my benefit, but I'm also wondering what others think. You may think I'm a cop out when it comes to the OSR, but again, I'm thinking that I'm more of an omnivorous gamer rather than just a consumer of the old ways. Maybe I'm not really an OSR gamer at heart. I don't know. Not that there's a strict membership guideline for the movement, right? ;-)

I'm not knocking those who want the pure OSR feeling/gameplay. I'm just realizing that I'm different...at least for the moment. Someday, I'm sure, I'll want to play C&C or DCC or maybe even Labyrinth Lord again. I think I just need some time away from the same rules I've been using for so many years. Hell, I might want to try my hand at original AD&D again. Who the heck knows, right? I'm nothing if not a sufferer of chronic Gamer ADD!

But for the time being, I talked to my group and they seem interested in me running some Dragon Age RPG. And I'm having a blast with my friend Bill's Savage World of Solomon Kane game. Both games may owe their existence to D&D (like all other RPGs), but they don't owe much in the way of mechanics. And I'm really, really liking that fact.

Wish me luck on this latest phase of my gaming life. Until we meet again, happy gaming!

Two Rosetta Stones?

I think it should be apparent to anyone who's been reading my blog that I have a deep love of Castles & Crusades. Some may even know that I have been developing a deeper appreciation for Labyrinth Lord. In studying both systems for some time now, I came across an interesting tidbit: both games claim to be "Rosetta Stones." Want proof?

Look here (where it says "The Rosetta Stone of Roleplaying Games") on the Troll Lord page for C&C, and here (where it says "The Rosetta Stone of Old-School Fantasy Role-Playing Games!") on the Goblinoid Games page for LL. In light of this, one might say it's no coincidence that I am so attracted to both games. ;-)

 

Now, looking deeper, one notices that Troll Lord claims that C&C is the Rosetta Stone of Roleplaying Games. That statement seems to include ALL roleplaying games. Whether or not the Trolls wanted to make as grand a statement as that seems, I'm not sure (though the Trolls are so in touch with their fans that it wouldn't be hard to ask them!).

Whereas Goblinoid claims that LL is the Rosetta Stone of Old-School Fantasy Role-Playing Games, a much more focused and distinct segment of the roleplaying pantheon. Goblinoid has firmly placed their game in the ranks of the old-school, "D&D-esque" fantasy gaming realm.

But upon reading Troll Lords' game, one realizes that Castles & Crusades also seeks to promote an old-school style of play. Indeed, the game seems to combine a bit of 1E AD&D and a bit of 3E D&D as well. Many consider the game to be as much of a retroclone as Labyrinth Lord. I'm not so sure I agree with that, as there are deviations from the AD&D classes to consider (C&C rangers do not cast spells, which I totally agree with...that's just one example of many) and the C&C SIEGE Engine attribute check mechanic is not exactly like the 3E d20 roll versus DC mechanic.

This might all be "duh" stuff and me just thinking too much about this. I'm not really trying to get too analytical about this or foster a debate as to what these two companies intended to state when they wrote those words. I'm not sure how much thought was put into these Rosetta Stone statements. I'm not trying to get too deep into this, I really just thought it was a fun tidbit of information.

However, as lighthearted as I am about the whole thing, I would love to hear what others have to say. Please chime in if you are at all interested. Thanks!

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...

Crypts & Things available for pre-order!

The Swords & Wizardry variant Crypts & Things is now available for pre-order! I've been very excited about the arrival of Newt Newport's brainchild, I have to say! It has me daydreaming of running some savage sword & sorcery-style adventures!

I've placed MY order! Go here to order YOURS!

In Praise of Castles & Crusades

As I've mentioned in some recent posts, I've been dabbling in some Classic/Basic D&D (to use the terms interchangeably) and retroclones, with the idea that I may want to someday run a Classic D&D game. I have been feeling an urge to play Basic D&D, which I never really did back in my formative years. I've been yearning to do it up, with race-as-class and the rest of it.

But I have to say, as I've read through the original rules sets and their clones, I've found myself doing a lot of house ruling in my head. I've been trying to fight that impulse, and taking the advice of Philotomy to "play it for what it is." I've found that a lot of this mental house ruling stems from my good experiences playing Castles & Crusades.

It should be no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I love C&C. It is elegant. It is modular. I've been thinking that if, say, I want the race-as-class experience, I can use C&C for that. I can just restrict the races and classes that players are allowed to play (and not have to worry about pesky level limits to boot, something I'm not quite sure if I like). Ultimately, I have no fear that I can use C&C to emulate any era of D&D play. And frankly, I don't think it's harder to teach someone to play C&C than teaching them to play Classic D&D. In fact (at least for me at this point in time), it might even be easier to teach C&C to new players.

But still, there seems to just be something about the thought of actually using, say, the Moldvay Basic rules. But what is that something, exactly? Is it just the "bad" type of nostalgia that makes me want to play Basic D&D? Is it just the appeal of the "street cred" or gravitas that seems to come from playing the actual, original editions? Or is it something else?

I assume others out there have experienced this pattern of thought, this questioning of systems, this wondering if one is motivated by a dark form of nostalgia. If so, how have you dealt with this affliction? Please, let me know how you have fought with this questioning, this Gamer ADD, the rose-colored glasses.

In the end, I return to my old adage that any gaming is good gaming. I try to remember that I have a good bit of gaming going on almost every week, and I should be thankful for that. Because there are a lot of gamers out there who do not have the current luxury of being able to game even once a week, such as I do.

Again, I'm not anywhere near giving up on C&C and the current campaign I am running using those rules. But there's still something lurking in me that is thinking about running one-shots using Classic D&D rules. What is the impetus of this impulse, I ask you? The questioning continues...

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...

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.

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!

The Flame Princess Cometh!

Woohoo! Can you tell that I got my copy of Lamentations of the Flame Princess Weird Fantasy Roleplaying?! If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you must have just come out of a dungeon after a few weeks of being under the earth. Thanks to Mr. James Raggi for a great-looking game. And I've already gotten a few chuckles out of the warning and welcome page, and found myself feeling interested in what I've read so far in the Tutorial. The writing is already great!

Other initial reactions include:

The box/books are smaller than I expected, but that's not a bad thing. I never really had experience with digest-sized books. But it's a nice change of pace from the big cumbersome books that most games come in. It's easier to transport in terms of weight, but for the moment I am insisting that I carry around the box and contents in their entirety, because I am a perfectionist nerd that needs to grasp his new possessions like Gollum and the One Ring! I am protecting the game box by using it's shipping package as a protective shell.

Wait for it:

Anyway, my other initial chuckle came from looking at the tiny dice that came with the game! They're so little and, well, just plain adorable. Sure, I will probably never use them in a game, but I might turn them into a nice charm bracelet for the wife. Just kidding, honey. I would make them into a necklace...for me.

In summation, I'm already enjoying the product, and I haven't even scratched the surface! More impressions/reviews soon. If anyone else out there has the game, let me know what you think.

A State of RPG Anomie?

In my senior year of high school I took a Sociology class. One of my favorite concepts from that class that stuck with me over the years was "anomie." A simplistic definition of anomie is lawlessness, but it really doesn't quite describe the concept very well. The term is defined by Websters as "social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also : personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals."

More often that not anomie is not a general "anarchy" that permeates the entirety of a society, but rather its an uncertainty of how to behave focused on a specific aspect of a society. My Sociology teacher made certain to point out that anomie can occur within a society that has too few or TOO MANY rules pertaining to a given aspect, such as sexuality, ethnic relations, etc.

I always found the thought of people being uncertain how to behave due to the existence of too many rules to be the more fascinating scenario. Tangentially, I'm definitely a big believer in the concept of too many rules being the cause of the very behaviors that those rules were meant to curtail.

What does all of this have to do with roleplaying, you ask? Well, I was reading this post at Jeff's Gameblog today, and I started wondering if there are too many RPGs out there...specifically fantasy RPGs, whether they are related to D&D mechanically or not.

Question: Could the ever-growing plethora of retro-clones and other D&D-esgue games freeze players in their tracks, unable to actually run/play games because they don't know what system to use?

Now, I am definitely a supporter of variety, diversity, freedom of speech, etc. But seriously, does anyone else ever sit back and wonder if there's just too much of a good thing? I'm going to sound like an old guy here, but I remember a time when D&D was pretty much the only game in town. Sure there were other game systems out there, but they all paled before the grandfather of RPGs. You gave deference to D&D as pretty much the go-to game, but could dabble in burgeoning systems (in the ancient days when I was a kid) like Palladium, etc. Or maybe all of this is a biased perception based on my personal experience.

All I know is, when the 1990s came along, D&D was well into the 2nd Edition, and TSR was releasing a sh*tstorm of material. As was Palladium. And I think we can agree that no where near all of that stuff was good. Come on, some of it was sheer crap! But you could only determine that by poring over tome after tome after tome. And let's not forget all the other game companies with their own systems making a push to stand as equals (or superiors) to D&D, flooding the market with their own RPGs. We drowned in it all, many gamers burning out on the glut of material!

I've been thinking that "RPG anomie" can vary greatly from person to person depending on a whole host of factors, such as amount of time available for gaming, the amount of house ruling a person wants to have to do, etc. These factors are just the tip of the iceberg, however.

But getting back to Jeff. He seems to be having the same problem I've been struggling with since the beginning of the year. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog, early this year I made my personal discovery of the OSR and retro-clones. And looking back I certainly did slip into a state of anomie! I didn't know what to play! There seemed to be so many options. And I'm what I consider at veteran gamer, but even I wasn't immune to the shock. This relates back to the debates I've seen on the blogosphere about the OSR's ability (or lack thereof) to bring new (young?) players into roleplaying. With so many choices, a returning vet or a fresh-faced newbie may sit in a coma-like state, unsure of what to choose. There's the chance that this may cause them to not even bother to move ahead into the gaming world.

I spent months vacillating between potential game systems, from Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and Basic Fantasy to Microlite74, Hackmaster, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Dragon Warriors, Dungeonslayers, and on and on and on! When I would tentatively decide on one, I went into a vicious circle of failed house rule attempts.

Finally I checked out Castles & Crusades and liked what I saw, and decided that it had the rules set that appealed to me the most. A big factor was the fact that I was happy with most of the rules as published, so I could do minimal house ruling. I'd rather spend the time preparing and running adventures rather than house ruling.

But then Finnish firebrand and rising RPG auteur James Raggi waved the Lamentations of the Flame Princess carrot in front of me, and like the good donkey I am I bought his boxed set! Now I'm second guessing whether or not I'll be using C&C in the near future!

Here's something else to consider: combine lots of game system options floating around the Web (including all the variations on the D&D rules thanks to retroclones) with a bunch of gregarious players, and you may find that your gaming circle has become a democracy, where players begin putting out their opinions on just what rules set the group should be using! It's good to want to please the players, but is this a recipe for disaster? Do I spell potential mutinies in the future? Could disagreements between GMs and players over what system to play cause the break up of gaming groups everywhere?! Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, MASS HYSTERIA!

OK, I think I need to wrap up this post. Seriously, everyone, I would really like your thoughts on this. What are the effects of so many RPGs being available? Do you see any potential problems, or do you think otherwise?

Game with A Thousand Faces

I have to admit, for a while this year I was sort of stressing out about the fact that I don't quite have a handle on the vagaries of the development of D&D. Or maybe it's clearer to say that I don't really have the mental power anymore to commit the D&D "family tree" to memory. Or maybe I don't have the time. Or the interest. I am sure if I really put my mind to it, I could get it more orderly in my head.

Many of my fellow RPG bloggers, especially James Maliszewski at Grognardia, make it seem so easy. They seem to be D&D scholars/geneologists! Mr. Maliszewski is especially regarded as something of an expert. He and others have written detailed, in-depth reviews/analyses of the various versions of D&D. But then again, James and his scholarly brethren seem to have been continuously gaming for many years and/or are either currently creating/publishing D&D-compatible materials. Things I certainly have not been doing.

But as it turns out, I really don't have to become a scholar of the game. For one thing, there are plenty of resources on the Web that one can refer to if one needs to delve into the twisting path of the oldest role-playing game's development. And for another thing...I really don't need to know all of this stuff in order to enjoy the game! So, I convinced myself to stop worrying about it!

So, in the interest of trying to compile a nifty list for my own reference (and perhaps the reference of others), here's some links I think are handy in keeping track of things:

D&D History:

Lyberty.com D&D History

Tome of Treasures
TSR Archive

D&D's Early Years by Erik Mona and an accompanying Riposte


The following are links to charts that try to map D&D's evolution:

Adventures in Gaming

Jeff's Gameblog


Retro-Clones:

RetroRoleplaying

Old is New Again

Attack of the Retro-Clones

Video Overview at WittySparks (this last link is pretty comprehensive, touching on more games than the other three links above)

There you have it, folks. Now, on to worrying about actually gaming, rather than about the game itself!

Status Report: 7/16/10

Now that I've told my life story as it pertains to gaming, I thought it might be good to start thinking about my current status, with regard to where I am in the gaming flux in which I find myself.

"Me as Player" Status: As I stated in the third part of my testimonial, I reached out through the Internets and came across a friend of a friend who is, in all appearances, a gamemastering superman! Seriously, this fellow runs three games, and plays in several others. He's gaming several times a week! I am very, VERY jealous. Anyway, I had a sit-down with him within the last week in order to see if I was a good fit for one of his games, a Pathfinder game using the Council of Thieves adventure path, and I think we hit it off very well. So, the next step is character creation. We talked about possibilities (I think I'm leaning toward a sorceror) and determined the next step would be another meeting (probably over phone, actually) in order to create my character.

As a player, Pathfinder wasn't my first choice of games to get into. I never really played 3rd Edition/3.5; I just collected the core rule books. But at this point I am just eager to get into a group with good people and start building up my roleplaying chops again, as well as grow a network of potential players, so that when I do start a campaign, I might have a good pool of people to mine.

Pathfinder might be a bit more complex of a game system than I like, but I think I'll be fine as a player. On the other hand, I definitely know that I would have NO interest in running a Pathfinder game. I couldn't handle it, with regard to rules.

At any rate, there's a game session on July 24th, and that might be my first session! Can't wait! I'm nervous and excited. I feel like a little schoolgirl.

"Me as Gamemaster" Status: Check out my post from last night. It pretty much sums up where I'm at with gamemastering at the moment. In summary: I know my gamemastering skills are rusty as heck, so I am holding off on starting a campaign of my own indefinitely. Realistically, I probably won't start a campaign until 2011, but you never know. It sort of depends on how things go with the Pathfinder game I am trying to get into. I pretty much can't run a game and play in one at the same time. That's just the reality of my life right now. So, I figure I'll play in a game, see how long that lasts, and let that help shake off some of the rust. Then, when it comes time to move on from that game, I'll turn my attention to gamemastering.

In the meantime, I am still very relieved that the furious months I spent this year vacillating between potential game systems, specifically the retro-clones (Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy, etc.) and went into a vicious circle of failed house rule attempts. Then I checked out Castles & Crusades and liked what I saw, determined that it had the rules set that appealed to me the most, and started buying. I'm still reading the C&C PHB at this point, but I'd like to give a review here before too long.

But again, along came James Raggi and his cursedly enchanting product! Now I'm second guessing myself, and I haven't even gotten my boxed set from him yet! I can be so fickle sometimes...at any rate, I'll try to keep reading my C&C while I wait for LotFP to arrive.

That's it for now! As always, happy gaming!

Siren Song of the Lamenting Princess

I always was a sucker for redheads. Especially grim-faced, sword-wielding, demon-slaying redheads. Heck, I married one.

So, I am one of the growing number of hapless souls to have become ensorcelled by a little game called Lamentations of the Flame Princess: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing (aka LotFP). I am sure you know all about it by now, if you are anywhere in the gaming blogosphere. If not, I won't go into the whole history of the game's development, just go here and see for yourself.

Suffice to say I felt compelled to order a copy of this game. Until recently, I hadn't purchased any gaming books in quite a long time. But about a month ago I picked up Troll Lord Games' Castles & Crusades Player's Handbook, and not long after that I got C&C's Monsters & Treasure. I've said elsewhere in this blog that I settled on C&C because, after having delved into retro-clones like Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and others, I felt that I had to do too much house ruling of those games to get to the rule set I wanted. Upon studying C&C, I discovered that I liked its rule set (i.e. therefore I will only need to do minimal house ruling) and tentatively decided to make it my game of choice for any campaigns I may want to run in the near future. I could now use my precious free time to prepare a campaign rather than struggle to create house rules.

Then I came across LotFP. The game is the brainchild of one James Raggi, a somewhat irrascible Finnish fellow that has become, some might say, quite notorious. He's unapologetically outspoken about his opinions on what the old school renaissance (OSR) is and is not. He's been the source of not a little bit of controversy, especially in recent weeks. Go here for just one example.

Mr. Raggi is brash, indeed. But that's part of his appeal. His gung-ho style can be infectious. And while I don't claim to agree with all of his opinions (for instance, I could care less about a clearly defined OSR), there's much to be said for such a strong-willed, determined gamer who says he wants to develop his own contribution to the OSR and then actually follows through with it.

Ultimately, he won me over. I have to say, he's thrown a monkey wrench into my gears with his game! I was just fine with my Castles & Crusades until you came along, Mr. Raggi! Now you've gone and made me all uncertain about what set of rules I'll be using for my games!

James has, in all seriousness, created what I believe is a solid product. I look forward to getting my copy. Once I do, I'll post a review.

With that, I'll stop my ramblings for another day and get the heck to bed...

Regarding the "Edition Wars"

I didn't really want to get into my thoughts on what is often called the "Edition Wars" across the D&D blogosphere just yet, but a recent post (or rather posts, of which these are but two of many) I read has sort of pushed my feelings to the fore. I felt like I needed to repeat here a longer version of what I have posted on other blogs:

I just don't get all the vitriol being bandied about within the fantasy RPG hobby, specifically with regard to Dungeons & Dragons. There are so many people at each other's virtual throats over what is "pure" D&D and other such nonsense. There's fighting over whether or not 4th edition is truly D&D. There are those who feel like the Old School Renaissance has "improved" upon the works on which they are based. There are staunch supporters for every edition of the game, and many of them are not satisfied with just gaming. No, these individuals, for some reason, have taken it upon themselves to champion their favored edition (or retro-clone of said edition) to the point that they attack other editions and/or the people that play them. And I have to say that I am frankly confused as fuck about the whole business. If you have a favorite version of the game, just play it. Period. What's the point in attacking other versions/gamers for what they choose to play?

The point of this blog is that I've been out of the hobby for a while and have decided to get back into it after a long hiatus. I've spent the better part of this year researching and reading all about Original D&D (which I never really played, having gotten my start with AD&D 1st Edition and moving on to 2nd Edition) and delving into the retro-clones. I spent some time trying to start house-ruling different retro-clones (mostly Swords & Wizardry) with the intention of starting a campaign sometime in the hopefully near future. But I discovered that I didn't have the time to really do such an effort justice, with all the adult responsibilities of my life. I just didn't have the time I would need, like I did when I was in my teens (and even most of my 20s for that matter). It was a tough fact to confront, but then I realized that I could just search through all the great games people have been resurrecting/producing and settle on one that most closely fit what I wanted in a game.

I have settled on Castles & Crusades for the game I think I want to run. I know that it's not really a retro-clone (I think). But I feel like, for what I want to do as a dungeon master/game master/referee/castle keeper/whatever, it's the D&D-esque game that will allow me to do the least amount of house ruling as possible. So I can focus on game prep and actual gaming. I feel like C&C is "rules light" enough (or I can make it so) and yet has some aspects of more recent versions of D&D (3.0-3.5) that makes it unique. Believe me, I was happy to finally settle on a game.

At the same time, I put out a call on the web about my desire to meet up with new gamers, since all my old gaming pals have scattered to the four winds. And I was contacted by a guy who I had spoken to briefly not too long ago with regard to play-by-email gaming. He asked if I was interested in joining one of his Pathfinder games, and I've pretty much agreed to do so. And I am pretty excited about the opportunity. Now, would I ever want to run a Pathfinder game? Probably not. As a GM I know that I want to run something like the older editions of D&D. But damn it, I am itching to get back into the gaming scene, and therefore I have leapt at the chance to get back to the tabletop. Even if it means I will be playing a more recent edition. Which is more than fine by me.

You know why? Because in the end, it's all D&D, no matter what name it goes by!

I hate to repeat myself, but I just don't get all the fighting. It's really making me very depressed. Shouldn't we all just be glad at the fact that Dungeons & Dragons is being played at all, that it's survived (and thrived) this long? And isn't it great that people are playing so many different versions of it, be it from the old TSR books, the new WotC books, or the stuff being produced in the retro-clones? Who cares what you play, as long as you are playing and having fun? Isn't that what it's all about?

I'm about to wax philosophical: why does everything humanity puts its hands to turn into this type of petty bickering? Do I have to bring up the "it's just a game" argument as well? Seriously, everybody shut the fuck up and JUST PLAY! Revel in the wondrous variety that has come from that old Gygax-Arneson Ur-game. We should be unutterably happy for those two late gentlemen, because their creation has given so so many people happiness, and D&D has gone forth and multiplied into so many great games, and has inspired so many. No one is doing it "better" than anyone else, no one version of the game is more "pure" than another. All the shouting voices of the naysayers and haters sound like the braying of the stereotypical nerds that people outside the RPG world believe we are. We need to stop arguing over obscure minutia. Here's a revelation for you: No one cares!

So for the love of the game, give it a rest, already! 'Nuff said.