Invoking St. Gygax and Seeking Advice

Thus spake Gygax: "I cannot stress too much the importance of having mystery in the world setting...what the fantasy game world setting must provide is the environment to enable the participant to regain that feeling of the marvelous and inexplicable. The milieu is the vast stage upon which will be played countless dramas, and a few comedies and tragedies as well. What awaits, who will triumph, how events will turn out must never be fully answered. To do so brings one to an end as surely as does the last page of a novel...the milieu will be never-ending, unfold gradually, and always have some new mystery to explore, some challenge to overcome."

I saw the above quote on Grendelwulf's blog recently, and it really lit the fires of inspiration in me. It made me eager to game, and it made me anxious to experience that sense of wonder Gary talks about in connection with gaming. In it I hear the echoes of Bilbo Baggins singing about how the road goes ever on...

I feel like I need some good mojo from St. Gygax soon, since I volunteered to run a Castles & Crusades session on Free RPG Day next Saturday. I'll be running the session at All Things Fun, of course. The owners, Ed and Dina Evans, really wanted C&C to be represented that day.

So on Free RPG Day, I want to foster the sense of wonder that is the hallmark of a good gaming session. And I want to do a good job and represent the game system well, as I have a lot of admiration for Troll Lord Games and their game (not to mention that I really like Ed and Dina and their store).

Am I putting to much pressure on myself? I think that's probably the case, since I know myself and I have a tendency to be my own worst critic.

I've decided that I want to treat Free RPG Day at All Things Fun like a miniature convention. I want to prepare a good session, and enable anyone who plays to get a good idea of the system as well as get a character together quickly, so that we can maximize actual playing time.

So, I'm asking you all for advice on how I can make the most of the session next Saturday. I've never run a game for strangers at an event like this, so this is going to be another milestone for me. I figured I would perhaps bring some pregenerated characters. That seemed to be the most sensible thing to do. But what else should I do to prepare, what should I expect, etc. Any input is much appreciated!

Why do we bother with all this blogging?

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

The Elitist

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

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

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

The Nihilist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

System, Style of Play, and Heroes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Impressions of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG

Yep, it’s time to talk about the elephant in the blogosphere.

Perhaps something of a caveat is in order before I get into my impressions on Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (hereafter referred to as DCC), the latest and arguably greatest roleplaying phenomenon to come down the proverbial pike since…take your pick: Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Castles & Crusades, Hackmaster Basic, OpenQuest, etcetera etcetera ad infinitum.

Here’s the caveat: I’m grumpy today. It’s in the 90’s here in good old Southern New Jersey. It’s not even summer. These temperatures are no doubt going to be the norm from now on thanks to climate change. I miss my nice full springtime. I dread the disappearance of the equinoxes. Another part of the caveat: perhaps the massive solar flare of yesterday has affected my mind.

Now the third and perhaps most pertinent part of the caveat: for good or ill, I usually don’t react well to hype. Whenever something seems to be super popular (or infamous), my gut reaction is to distrust said hype (again, whether the hype is positive or negative). But I’m trying to set that knee-jerk reaction aside, as well as my grumpiness, when I write about DCC in a moment. I am not going to do an in-depth review per se, but I wanted to give some impressions as I scan through it, in the spirit of sharing.

Let me open by saying that there certainly was a lot of blogosphere hype leading up to the game’s beta release today. I think we can all agree on that. That hype did ignite my knee-jerk negativity toward anything trendy. But even putting that aside, there still seems something a wee bit suspect about how much positive press DCC was getting seemingly sight unseen. To me, it sounded like a few DCC insiders were active in the blogosphere in order to lay some groundwork before the release. I guess that could be considered “astroturfing” (i.e. a false grass roots movement) to get the OSR crowd primed for the game.

Now all that said, I’m trying not to be so skeptical. I don’t really want to believe all that. But it’s still strange to me that there was so much of a positive buzz surrounding the game before the beta. I guess some of the big OSR movers and shakers could have gotten advance copies of the beta, given their influence in the blogosphere. Anyway, just something to think about…

Now that I’ve gotten all that off my chest, let me spend some time going over some impressions as I go through the beta.

First of all, the art. I know there’s been some negative and positive reactions to the art. Some see it as too plentiful and/or too “professional” for a game that claims to be “old school.” Personally, I like it. I never got the whole “old school must equal amateur art” thing. I think those who feel that way are just being overwhelmed by nostalgia. To me, the art is not too obtrusive, adding just the right amount of balance and breaking up the text nicely. I like the juxtaposition of the comic strip pieces and the more serious depictions of adventurers. The comics seem inspired by the old strips one might find in the old Dragon magazines. I really love the little touches of homage, like the drawing on page 17 that’s a recreation of the AD&D alignment drawing.

I’m not down with the Zocchi dice thing. If I actually play the game, I’ll be resorting to rolling the appropriate old fashioned, even-numbered dice and dividing as needed (if possible, as I believe there are some Zocchi dice that are not so easily divisible). Ultimately, my opinion is that this usage of "weird" dice is mostly just a gimmick, and that just doesn't sit well with me.

I like the “How is this game different” bit near the beginning. That was quite helpful. BUT it also sort of telegraphs the fact that the game is really for gamers, don’t you think? It makes it seem to me that there was never any real hope that the game will be discovered by newbies to the hobby. This might tap into one of the broader arguments in the OSR regarding whether or not the old-school gaming phenomenon will be able to pull in many new gamers (or if those who make up the OSR really want to have new blood brought in at all). On the other hand, perhaps Goodman Games is hoping the veterans will seek to introduce a new generation of gamers to the old-school style. That’s the possibility that makes me feel the happiest, and I hope that was the intention, since I’m one of those bleeding heart old school gamers who wants everyone to just get along when it comes to roleplaying (translation: screw the edition wars!).

Anyway, I’m glad that the game goes out of its way to proclaim that there are no attacks of opportunity. I HATE attacks of opportunity above all other latter-day D&D “additions.” This and some of the other declarations make it seem like the guys at Goodman Games are tapped into the OSR zeitgeist, if there is such a thing. All I know is, it made me smile. But that’s all because of personal preference.

I was intrigued by the mechanic that would allow wizards to NOT lose spells once they are cast. It’s like some semi-Vancian magic system, something that might appeal to gamers who are perennially turned off by the relative weakness of low-level magic users.

The game seems rather complicated in some areas, at least when it comes to the usual simplicity of old school games. For instance, I’ve tried to think about a quick and easy counterspell mechanic that can be used with Castles & Crusades. I’ve always dreamed of having mage duels in my games. It was cool to see the spell duel rules in DCC. I’m heartened to see someone feels the way I do. BUT their spell dueling system seems complicated to me. Lots of steps involved. Now, I may just be getting old and have limited free time, and that’s why I prefer very rules-light systems. So take all this with a grain of salt.

I know, I know, I’ve stumbled into the dangerous realm of “does old school mean rules light or not.” I don’t necessarily think that old school games need to be super-duper rules light, but they are at least lighter for the most part. Let’s not get into that whole mess right now.

As far as skill checks are concerned, I wasn’t impressed with what was shown in the beta rules. They’re just ported over from D&D 3.0/3.5 whole cloth. Blah. I’m not really upset by the use of skill checks. I just don’t see anything innovative about what DCC is doing here. Heck, my beloved Castles & Crusades uses skill checks, just a slightly different take on the mechanic. I just hope that they don’t go touting this aspect of the game as revolutionary.

This and other aspects of the game that I’m reading don’t strike me as terribly different from what has come before. And wasn’t DCC touted as being something innovative? To tell you the truth, it really seems like someone did a really professional job on a house-ruled, “Frankenstein’s monster” system that borrows a little bit of everything from the various fantasy RPGs that have existed over the last three or so decades.

So bottom line: I don’t feel a real urge to play this game once the full version comes out. I think there was a lot of hype about it being innovative, but that was mostly just advertising for lack of a better word. I don’t fault Goodman Games for trying to add another facet to the OSR diamond. I won’t even get all skeptical and cynical and claim that Goodman just did it to cash in on the OSR (unlike WotC, who I am convinced are trying to cash in on the OSR). I am sure that the Goodman folks are passionate and honest folk with good intentions. But while I can appreciate the homage to the origins of the hobby, and I think there are some ideas they put forth that are intriguing and fresh, there isn’t enough “new” when it comes to DCC to truly make it the game-changer (no pun intended) it was made out to be. It’s another potentially solid addition to the wondrous variety of games on the market. Now, depending on your stance on the whole topic of whether or not there can be too many games to choose from, this can be a good or bad thing. Me, I can sometimes swing back and forth, but most of the time I think the more the merrier.

Of course, this is all based on the beta rules. I might take a look at a copy of the full rules once they hit the street.

So there you have it. I’ve added my opinion to the growing cacophony. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on DCC if you’re so inclined.

UPDATE: I also forgot to mention that I'm also grumpy because I didn't get to go to my regular Wednesday Night C&C session! Grrr...

What I (Re)discovered When Looking at 1E and 2E AD&D

Just a quick note about my lack of recall regarding 1E and 2E AD&D and how I was shocked to relearn something about those two editions: I was flipping through PDFs of the 1E and 2E Player's Handbooks last night. I was looking at character classes and races. And I was shocked that I had forgotten that 1E is pretty restrictive when it comes to what classes the demihuman races can take. It's not much different from what was in OD&D, as far as I am concerned. Then I looked at the 2E PHB and saw it was much less restrictive.

During my return to gaming over the last couple years, I was under the impression that 1E and 2E were very similar when it came to allowed race/class combinations. My memory was obviously flawed! Despite my disdain for 2E (which is probably due mostly to the unsavory characters I was gaming with during my 2E era), I think I would much rather play that edition that 1E due to the difference in race/class restrictions. In its own way, 2E is closer to my current game of choice, Castles & Crusades, than 1E.

I feel pretty sheepish at the moment. Ah, what a journey of rediscovery I am on!

Question: Alignment in RPGs?

Hail one and all! So, as usual, I don't have the time to write at length about anything (and trust me, I have a lot of ideas and it's killing me). But I feel like my blog's getting more traffic these days, so I thought I'd just put up a question to pose to the readers on days when I can't write much. I've tried to ask a lot of questions on the blog over the last year, but didn't have much hope of getting answers until now. I've even thought about either reposting old questions or seeing if people would be willing to comment on old question posts. Everyone is welcome to check out my old posts with the "questions" tag.

Anyway, today's question is: what do you think about alignment in RPGs? Personally, it's one of those rules that I've sort of had players address on their character sheets (like encumbrance) but never really bothered to enforce or use very often during the course of play. And I don't see any practical application in the game, except when it comes to spells that repel/detect certain alignments.

So is alignment just supposed to be a mechanical device, or is it supposed to also serve as some sort of roleplaying guide/aspect? I guess the best answer would be that alignment, like any other rule in a game, is a suggestion only, and gamers are free to pick and choose what they want to use.

So what role, if any, does alignment play in your games?

After the Dawning: Session 1

I can't write nearly as much as I'd like about this milestone, but I wanted to report that I ran the first session of my After the Dawning campaign last night. It takes place in the Dragonlance setting. The usual Wednesday Night C&C gang (of which I am happily a part) at All Things Fun! got down to business on the world of Krynn! Thanks once again to the group for letting me take on the GM's chair.

It may sound strange, but this was pretty much the first time I ever ran a table-top game for players other than my friends from childhood/high school. It sounds strange when I read it! Sure, I've run PBEM/play-by-chat games on and off since 2007, but that's of course much different than sitting face-to-face with new acquaintances.

I feel that I'm very fortunate to have found a group of like-minded gamers who are not only great gamers but great people. This experience has helped me get over the last shreds of my trepidation regarding extending my gaming realm beyond my long-time friends.

Regarding my statement of not being able to write much, I fear that will be a trend with regard to my writing on the blog in general, not to mention when it comes to recaps. I'd love to do detailed, well-written recaps, but that might not be in the cards (at least not for the near future). With limited free time, I need to prioritize my efforts. Prepping for game time and actually playing are my priorities. That means writing on the blog and keeping my campaign's Obsidian Portal page up to date are going to have to fall by the wayside.

That being said, I know that at least one of my players intends to do some recaps in the voice of his character, a certain not-so-humble Knight of Solamnia! If any of my other players would ever see fit to do the same, that would be wonderful (no pressure, though, seriously guys)!

Speaking of the knight, he had the best line of the session. When a goblin was taunting the group from afar and licked the blade of his rusty short sword, the knight yelled out "You'll get lockjaw!"

That's all I can write for now. MAYBE I can get some time coming up to write an addendum to this post in order to give at least a bit more detail about the session. I just didn't want too much time to pass before I wrote at least something about the session. Talk to you soon, and happy gaming!