On Magic Items and a Sense of Wonder

An old post at d20 Source talks about "bringing back the magic" to D&D. Essentially, it laments that the "magic" of magic items has been lost since magic items are treated little better than beefed-up mundane equipment and offers some suggestions for making magic items more "magical".

While I don't disagree with anything in the article, it seems to overlook the fact that magic items in D&D are treated the way they are because that's one of the memes of the game - namely, a plethora of magic items is part of the expected norm of the game. This started well before WoW made it standard that all your gear was at least "green" even at very low levels. It was common in 3.x, and quite common in previous editions, despite grognard arguments to the contrary. 3.x even codified it with the "Wealth by Level" table (granted, all wealth doesn't have to be in magic items, but it's an easy way to distribute treasure and players have come to expect it).

I would prefer D&D be more like Warhammer FRP or Tekumel, where magic is rare, unique, and always has a story as well. But if you want to stay within the bounds of the expected rules, that's not really an option with 3.x. 4E, at least, shrinks how many items you can wear, but (based off the character creation options), it still assumes a character is going to have at least three if they're higher than first level. There are some alternate suggestions in the DMG2, so that's an option...

One area where there's more of a "sense of wonder" is artifacts. Now, prior to 4E this wasn't much of an option - artifacts belonged to the realm of those of very high level, and even then it was generous to call them "extremely rare". In fact, I can't think of any game I've been a player in where we encountered an artifact, and I can count on one hand - and have fingers left over - the number of games I've put them in (not counting the deck of many things*, which I try to drop in once to each campaign I run). With 4E, you can finally get some mileage out of artifacts due to their "tiered" nature and the concordance mechanic. That's not to say they are or should be common - I haven't used any in my game yet, actually. But now they can be a little something more than an ultra-powerful magic item that a player reads about and thinks "well, there's something we'll never see."


*: So, where's the 4E version of the deck?

Skills != Role-playing

From here:

I would like an alternate skill list, one that more easily reflects the skills in 3.5. With specific skills in a subset of 4e large skills. It seems that such a thing would encourage roleplaying in those who feel like 4e left them in the cold. I don't think it would be too tough to impliment [sic], as this new skill list would still include the old ones, just allow for more refinement. As I'm writing this, I'm actually thinking of a way this could be done very easily.

Jeez..if you want to role-play, the solution isn't an expanded skills list. The solution is: role-play!

Why is that so hard for some people to figure out?

Harsh (But Accurate) Critique of Old School Criticism of a Balanced Campaign

I just read this post by Wax Banks, where he shares his thoughts on "zero-to-hero"gaming. In particular, he calls to task those grognards* who insist their game style is superior to later editions (i.e; 3.x/4E). It's rather harsh in spots, but I don't see much to disagree about.






*: Not all OSR folks are that way. But many are, so that post certainly applies to them.

4E: All Encounters Must Be Balanced to the Party's Level

From here (though taken slightly out of context, it's a good summary of an argument put forth by many 3x/4e detractors):

Recent versions of D&D have sought to promote the idea that parties of characters should be presented with a formulaic series of encounters with challenge ratings that are balanced according to their level, plus or minus a little.

Eh...not exactly. Granted, page 56 of the 4E DMG states:

Building an encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters and combining them in interesting and challenging ways.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every encounter for a party of Level 5 PCs must be balanced exactly. The fact that the book gives guidelines on what constitutes an "easy" encounter, a "standard" encounter, and a "hard" encounter contradicts that. Later, the DMG states:

It’s a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary other elements of encounters to keep things interesting...

Obviously, the game is going to be boring if every encounter is a pushover, or very frustrating if the party is handed its collective ass during each battle. This is the case regardless of what edition you're using, and generally a DM is going to want to have a mix of encounters - easy ones to make the party feel heroic (or diabolic), hard ones to show them there's always something tougher than them, and "standard" ones that move the game along. The nice thing about 3.x, and especially 4E, is that the DM is given the tools to make it easier for them to determine how tough or easy their encounters are. Whether they have to be completely "balanced" or otherwise is totally up to her.

The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons

Some excerpts from a recent article* on D&D:

I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it.

From the few bits and pieces about the...edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant.

I don't claim to know everything about the...edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). ... What I am is a concerned gamer. Concerned with the path Wizards of the Coast has chosen for my favorite roleplaying game of all time. What's next? Will Tiamat become the very model of a modern major general? Will Elminster become a necromancer? Will umberhulks become the choice pet for kings and queens the land over? How many licks does it take to get to the center of... OK, you get my point.


*: "Recent" being August, 2000. Of course, they're talking about 3rd Edition, not 4E. But while the mechanics may have changed, the arguments haven't (read the comments and see). This is yet another example of me pointing out that the edition wars surrounding 3x/4E are just the same old thing in different clothing. What's interesting is that many of the people who would dismiss the anti-3E arguments from this article and its comments use the same logic against 4E, without looking at the discussion from a higher level and putting things into perspective.

Quick Correction on a Random Blog Post Somewhere That's Quite Wrong

For the most part, your archetypal 4e player is looking for a mechanically streamlined system, the ability to throw some materials together and start playing quickly,

Yes...

a mostly tabletop-oriented experience that does not delve into grand sagas,

WTF does edition have to do with "grand sagas?" Wrong.

In short, the 4e crowd, on the whole is not composed of tinkerers but of people who are looking to play a game.

Also wrong. For players, sure. But 4E is far more malleable than 3.5, at least if you're looking at "tinkering" is the sense of easily changing existing mechanics to fit fluff. As a DM, I prefer 4E not because I don't like math or don't want to "tinker", but precisely because it's far easier to change things up without getting bogged down in the 3.5 mechanical minutiae.

Anyway, that's all I have time to say - no citations or essays. Simply, this post was wrong and I'm right.

D&D Endgame

Some comments based on the blog post here:

8. Most versions of OSD&D include rules for player characters’ strongholds and dominions. OSD&D has an ‘endgame,’ in the sense that high-level characters can establish strongholds and dominions, and thus become noteworthy political forces in the campaign setting. This provides a good place for a campaign to end – and allows past characters to have an impact on the overall history of the campaign setting (perhaps returning in a later campaigns as powerful patrons, or even foes). (Of course, it is not required that characters engage in this ‘endgame’ in OSD&D – they could keep adventuring, if the DM agrees – but it is a definite option. Moreover, other ‘end games’ are possible – e.g., BECM/RC D&D allows for the possibility of character becoming immortals!)

This is an OSR sentiment I do agree with. Pre-3E, it was pretty much a given that when you hit "name" level, you built a castle, or temple, or guild, or whatever was appropriate to your class (at least 1E and earlier; I don't recall if this was still a part of 2E). You didn't have to, but it was a cool aspect to the game that's somewhat lacking in later editions. WotC did have the stronghold builder's book in 3E, and some one (Eden maybe? Not even sure if they're still around) had a d20 book for having a barony/kingdom/whatever. But it was tacked-on at best, and even though 3.x sort of stopped at level 20, with the Epic Level book you could go on indefinitely. Given the volume of 4E material coming out and the experimentation WotC is doing here and there, it'd be nice to see a sourcebook come out that supports this sort of thing.

One thing, though - I'd argue that 4E has an endgame of sorts. The RAW assumes that at level 30, you're done - you've "won D&D" or somesuch. Along with that are the epic destinies which, to me, are sort of your adventurer's retirement plan - once they hit 30, they go off and do their destiny full-time. No more adventuring at that point. But I would think (and I recall reading this somewhere) that at that point your character is a part of the campaign setting - the great Archmage off in a secluded tower who so many seek our for wisdom or magical secrets, or a Demigod of the campaign pantheon, involved in the divine goings-on of the heavens.

The Rationale for Daily and Encounter Martial Powers

Best explained here:

A poster (Ferratus) on EnWorld described an important difference in the narrative between 3e and 4e. 3e tells you what your character can do, while 4e describes what happened. It’s not that a martial character forgets how to do something cool with his weapon after he did it once that day or has to memorize it the next day or whatever. It’s that the narrative comes together at one point, determined by when the PC uses that power, for him to do something special. Only once in a day, maybe, is your opponent perfectly positioned for you to Brute Strike him. You may make a series of brutal overhead swings, but you have to catch your enemy with his guard down, in a position where he can get his arms or weapons up to shield him, where his armor is askew or you can catch him blind so he doesn’t see it coming, to deliver that devestating[sic] damage.

Martial powers are no less arbitrary than the limits on spellcasting, we are just used to those and justify them with wonky but accepted conventions about compartmentalizing the mind and other justifications that simply make up for a strictly game-based limitation on casting power (levels, slots, etc). HPs themselves are quite dissociated. I reference the age old example of the high level fighter letting someone strike him in the head with a broadsword (hmph, 15 points of damage? I have 80 hit points, I laugh). It’s just the nature of the beast, especially D&D.

D&D Quote of the Day

"What's the point behind spending so much time arguing about which game is better? Play what you like."

4E: There's a difference between "rules" and "options"

...I miss the easy to digest rules. The new version is going to have a 3rd PHB coming out in 2010. Three?!

Tooooo many rules.

This sentiment annoys me. It annoyed me when people said it in 3.x, and it annoys me when people say it about 4E. C'mon - you're smarter than that.

"Rules" = "What's required to play".

For 4E, the only "rulebook" is the Player's Handbook. Everything else is completely optional: PHB2, Monster Manual 1/2, DMG, Adventurer's Vault 1/2, Arcane/Divine/Martial Power, Draconomicon, Open Grave, Dungeon Delve, Manual of the Planes, and everything else coming up: "options".

You could argue that the DMG and MM are "required" to play, but not really. They're handy (especially the MM), but you only need the PHB.

Why A Lack of Third Party 4E Support Doesn't Bother Me

The ongoing discussions concerning the GSL, the plans of Necromancer Games and Goodman Games, etc., got me to thinking - what would I like to see from third party publishers (TPPs)? Or publishers in general - honestly, if the content is good I don't care if it comes from WotC, Goodman, Paizo, or whoever.

First, to be perfectly blunt, it doesn't really bother me that much that TPPs don't have as much freedom with the GSL as they did the OGL. Obviously, it sucks for the publishers who were hoping to make some cash by riding the WotC D&D train, though I'd suggest that if the GSL isn't to your taste, nothing's keeping you from creating original material. I realize that the market for that isn't the same, but it never has been. The OGL/d20 period was really an anomaly, and an opportunity - the real winners from that are the companies that leveraged the D&D market to create their own brands (Mongoose and Green Ronin come to mind) such that once 4E and the GSL rolled around, they were successful enough with their own material that they didn't need to worry about WotC's business decisions. Basing your catalog on another company's property, however profitable, also means your business is subject to their whim and you should have a contingency plan in place to handle that risk.

But, I digress. So, why don't I care that much about TPPs and the GSL? The simple fact is that I'm not a big patron of third party material. Back in the 3.5 days, I ended up with more "official" material than I needed, much less third party stuff. The "Complete" series were a bit of a waste, mainly because I only used a portion of what they had (and that's only the first four; I didn't even buy the ones that came out after the first rogue book). As it stands now, between what I have for 4E (including a handful of 4E Goodman products) and everything I still have from 3.x (including some d20), 2nd Edition, 1st Edition, and original D&D, not to mention old Judges Guild stuff, Dragon and Dungeon (in print and from D&D Insider), and other fantasy systems (Rolemaster, WFRP, Empire of the Petal Throne, "systemless", etc.), I have more material than I could use in three lifetimes. Granted, a Judges Guild supplement from 1978 or a WFRP sourcebook on Chaos won't have 4E mechanical stats, meaning I need to convert non-fluff I want to use from them, but for ideas and inspiration, I've got plenty.

Along those lines, most of the material I saw with the d20 logo (and a fair amount of GSL products) are focused on new character options: races, classes, prestige classes/paragon paths, feats, spells/powers, etc. I don't run a "kitchen sink" setting so most of that is useless to me, and I don't have the time to peruse every new third party sourcebook to make sure the rules aren't broken or unbalanced. And, of course, I have my own imagination to provide me with ideas as well.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in any third party products. What would I like to see? Well, that's a thought for another post...

It's just NOW become a miniatures game?

Seems like it has been since the beginning:



"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures"

Who'd have guessed it? It's been a damn miniatures wargame for over 30 years! And not a single mention of the term "role-playing".

Time for a new system...

4E Alternate Treasure System

What follows is essentially my thinking out loud in the process of developing/refining my alternate treasure system for 4E. As such, it may be disjointed, messy, or both.

I'm not a fan of treasure parcels, the default treasure distribution method in 4E. I like the concept in and of itself, but it doesn't work if you don't keep everyone in the party at the same level (which is also the suggested default for 4E, but not something I care for, either) nor if the number of characters in the party fluctuates. So I've been thinking of an alternate system. I do prefer the "old" standard, which we've had in various forms from 1st Edition to 3.5, for the most part, except for the weirdness that occasionally results from the random tables. But the idea of "shifting" treasure around from opponents that wouldn't have much (or anything) to different parts of an adventure (like a treasure vault or dragon's lair) is a good idea, and essentially part of the 4E system, not to mention something I used to do myself.

So what's the solution? My idea is sort of a mix of the two, 4E and old. Essentially it still uses parcels, but for adventures, not for party levels. The plan is to come up with a "treasure budget" (similar to the budgets you have for encounter building), which is based on the monsters and traps in the adventure, and then distribute it within the adventure as appropriate.

The design is based on the following premises:

• A character will advance a level every 10 encounters.
• A character should gain a equal portion (based on the party size, 1/5 is the standard) of the total monetary value of a treasure parcel for a given level.
• One encounter should yield 1/10th of the treasure of a given treasure parcel.

Looking at the XP values for monsters, we can see that by reducing numbers to the level of the individual PC, a single PC can defeat 10 creatures of their level to advance one level. Since each of those "encounters" would yield 1/10th the value of a treasure parcel for that PC, each monster would provide 1/50 of the total treasure parcel's monetary worth (1/10th of the entire parcel, and 1/5 of that for the individual PC). Based on this, a level 1 monster would be responsible for 75.2 gp of treasure, while a level 10 monster would provide 1400 gp. (Note: "Monster" could be a monster, NPC, skill challenge, trap, or anything that provides XP). Note that "provide" and "be responsible" doesn't necessarily mean that the monsters would have that treasure on them. They might have that amount or less, or more (or even none). What it does mean is that within the context of the adventure that monster provides that amount of value to the "treasure budget".

Naturally, this system doesn't insure that the PCs will get all the treasure from a module, just as there's no assurance that they'll engage in every encounter. It's not perfect, but it's "close enough" in my estimation, which is fine for me. Also, I'm using the 1/5th as a standard (i.e.; a PC should get 1/5 of a parcel's value), even though the numbers don't work out the same if you don't have 5 PCs in the party (the proportions go up if you have 3 or 4 PCs, they go down if you have 6 or 7). But again, they're close enough that I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Based on all of that, we end up with the following:

1: 75 11: 1900 21: 47000
2: 100 12: 2700 22: 67000
3: 150 13: 3800 23: 95000
4: 200 14: 5250 24: 131000
5: 300 15: 7000 25: 175000
6: 375 16: 9400 26: 235000
7: 525 17: 13400 27: 285000
8: 750 18: 19000 28: 325000
9: 1050 19: 26200 29: 355000
10: 1400 20: 35000 30: 437500

Note that these numbers are for "standard" monsters. In accordance with their XP values, minions would provide 1/4th the amount to the budget, elites twice that amount, and solos five times the amount.

The next step is to go through the adventure you're planning for, and total up the treasure values for all of its monsters, traps, etc. based on the table above. The end total is the "treasure budget" for the adventure. Based on this, you can look through the PH, Adventurer's Vault, and whatever other sources you're using to put together the adventure's treasure. Where the treasure goes is up to you. Some may be on the monsters themselves, some may be hidden in secret caches, etc. What the treasure is is also up to you; I have some plans for a random generator, though in practice I figure I'll do a combination of random generation and manual selection.

Again, not a perfect system. But one that on "paper" seems good enough. Once I implement, we'll see how well it works.

The Outrage! Dwarven Wiz-er...I mean, Unaligned Metallics!!?!?

From the "Seriously? This Is A Big Deal?" Department

Apparently, the latest travesty being thrust upon us in 4E is the fact that metallic dragons aren't good or lawful good, but "unaligned". The chromatics are still evil - but unaligned metallics? The horror!

Or not. I admit I was surprised to see it, but who cares? It's easy enough to just say "Hey, gold dragons are good in my world." Has nothing to do with verisimilitude (neither does the way rust monsters work now, but that's another post). Tradition? That's a valid argument, but in retrospect, I rarely used metallic dragons anyway. When they did show up it was in some sort of role-playing/non-combat manner, such that I really didn't need stats for them to begin with.

In any case, Bahamut is still good (lawful good, to be exact), so there's still that.

(BTW, the title is in reference to the vitriol pre-3E about the fact that dwarves could be wizards. insert yet another use of the "more things change" saying)

On the other hand, why the duergar have quills now...TF? :)

The Continents, They Are A-Changin'

So, it's been quite some time since the last revision of Mythosa. Is it time for another one? Of course! I can hear the groans already...

OK, this one isn't as big as they've usually been. In fact, this is less a revision than a shuffling of a few items. There are a few parts of the latest incarnation with which I've never been entirely happy. Since I want to redraw the map in CC3 (so I can work with a more "practical" world map, versus the "artistic" one currently posted), I figured I'd take advantage of the situation and fix some things. These include:

• Atharys: The western landmass has always seemed sort of "tacked on". Originally it was intended to be similar to the continent in the Young Kingdoms that's west of Pan Tang. But it just seems...out of place. However, there's stuff there that I like that. New positions for them will be found in the re-organization. I don't want to get rid of the Sylvari-Kyrgar-Vykir conflict either, so Atharys will become a large island (or island chain) off Karnthas's western coast. The Free Cities will remain, though whether they stay where they're at I'm not sure (if I move them south I may have to break off Ivenmir, since Ice Wizards seem to belong in a northern region).
• Malgotha: It's always just been sitting out there, big and boring. I'm going to shrink it a bit, slide it slighty to the east, and pull the interesting ruins from Atharys (Temple of the Screaming Gods, etc.) down to it.
• Southern Karnathas: Most of this continent works for me, but the southern cities just ain't happening. Zeldora is fine (and long a Mythosa mainstay), but the rest will be merged with cities from Atharys. Grimthorn is probably gone, as is Stormhaven. Greyharbor will liked merge with another city. Valthas will end up down there, making its dreams of empire more of a direct threat to the continent.

That's about it. Not changes to Zarkhir (that whole area just "works" for me), the gods remain the same, history, etc. So the end result will simply be - more quality! No timeframe on when this will get done.

Everything Was Better in the Past...

From here:

If you characterize the game Dungeons and Dragons as a vehicle used to express your interests, then maybe latter day 3.5 and 4e are completely appropriate for today’s audience. They don’t get into the larger scope stuff in the core rules. It’s not about historical-based anything. It’s game mechanic based, where the game mechanic takes precedence over fantasy immersion, historical period immersion, or role-playing a character while in character, method-acting style, immersion. While you can use the core rules to make the game larger in scope, the core rules don’t have it as an assumption or an expectation that you would actually make a game as I described in the last sentence. The primary assumption seems to be that the bulk of the game is centered on tactical combat. The design of the game follows that assumption. As such, it seems to be that a lot of people trying to make a 4e game into another style of game other than tactical miniatures wargaming, are having a tougher time of it than in earlier editions.

Pardon my vulgarity, but are you fucking kidding me? Back in the early 90's (when the public was just starting to get onto the 'net en masse), when I was young enough to give a shit about gaming "holy wars", I spent an inordinate amount of time defending AD&D (1st and 2nd edition) against the people who claimed that you couldn't really role-play or induge yourself in the "alternate reality" of the game, particularly compared to their choice of game (often the World of Darkness games). As they saw it, AD&D was all about combat and hack-n-slash and shallow as a kiddie pool. Now, suddenly, it's the epitome of historic/fantastic/role-playing immersion, but 3.5+ isn't. Nice to see the cliche - "the more things change..." - is alive and well.

What the post really amounts to is "I like old things and new things scare me so here's why what I like is superior". I really shouldn't waste my time on that stuff - it just angries up the blood. But for some reason, it still annoys me. Maybe because it's the same damn thing, not just year after year, but decade after decade...

Some Thoughts on the "Old School Renaissance"

If you spend any amount of time in the fantasy/D&D on-line community you've no doubt heard of the "Old School Renaissance". I don't know that I can describe it properly (mainly because people are so anal about categorizing their niches these days), but it essentially consists of people who want to recreate the gaming experience of the early days of D&D and RPGs, generally when people were playing "Original D&D". Often it entails recreating rules-light clones ("retroclones") of old games with an eye towards modern sensibilities. Of course, the definition of "old school" varies; most seem to agree that OD&D is "old school" while many apply the label to 1st Edition AD&D as well. Some people even consider 2nd Edition to be "old school" (I don't, but to each his own). Some games that are considered "retroclones" include Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and OSRIC. Links at this post may explain it better.

I look at the Old School Renaissance with a mixture of interest and bemusement. The latter mainly due to, again, the anal nature of how some of its participants want to categorize and validate the various aspects of their hobby (not that this is new or restricted to the gaming community). One example that stands out is how upset some of the old schoolers are that Monte Cook's Dungeon-a-Day is billed as a "megadungeon", since he apparently doesn't have enough old school cred to use such a term or it can't be applied to something d20/3E, or whatever (I'm not sure of the specifics, and frankly I don't care; the argument is silly regardless of its reasons).

Snarkiness aside, as I said it bears a certain amount of interest for me. Part it is nostalgia, which I think is the subconscious appeal for a lot of folks: OD&D and the clones remind many people of a time in their lives when gaming was their only care in the world; they didn't have to worry about obligations to their spouses (well, wives, since most of these people are dudes), kids, lawn care, the economy, their health, etc. Nostalgia makes the crappy, amateurish rules systems they used as kids seem "better" than modern systems, since it's more of an association with what their lives were like back then rather than how "good" the rules systems were. I'm sure many of them would take offense to that and argue about why I'm wrong, though I'll wager the more enraged they are, the more right I am.

But nostalgia is certainly not the only draw. I think there was a different overall "feel" to the games of that time. It was a feeling more of mystery, of exploration, of discovery... I may not be describing it properly, but I would say it was more about the experience of immersing yourself in another world. The focus wasn't on "character builds" like it tends to be today (and has been since the "Complete" handbooks of 2nd Edition, if not earlier) but on interacting with the world - seeing what lies within that cave or what's over the next hill. Again, I may not be describing it well; I suspect people who cut their teeth on d20 or Warcraft might not get what I'm saying. Many who entered the hobby prior to that probably will.

Of course, it's easy to look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Were all campaigns about "immersion in worlds of imagination"? We all know the answer to that is "no". Hack-and-slash, min-maxing, and munchkinism have been a part of the game since the beginning and have always been the dominant play style. That's why games like WoW are and always will be more popular, and "true" RPGs (or mass market RPGs played the "right" way) will always be a niche. The difference, I think, is that these days there's a lot more support material for the style that emphasizes character "builds" (powers, feats, prestige classes, magic items, etc.). I wouldn't say there's LESS material for other aspects of the game, but the class-oriented splatbooks we've gotten for every version since 2E (specifically thinking of D&D/AD&D) imply otherwise. That's not a bad thing - it just is what it is. It's the evolution of how gamers approach the game coupled with the business models that WotC and other companies have found to be the most profitable.

Now does this mean I'm abandoning 4E and starting up a "Swords & Wizardry" campaign? Not at all. Besides the fact that I think my players would hate that (if we dropped 4E I doubt they'd want to go any farther back than 3.5), I don't have any desire to go back, other than as an occasional one-off shot of nostalgia. Mechanics may vary, but I believe that "feeling" is more a product of the presentation of a campaign than what ruleset you're using (though for me, I think achieving a particular feel is easier with 4E than 3.x or even 2nd Edition).

Peering into rec.games.frp.dnd

I was going to post about something I ran across on rec.games.frp.dnd awhile back, but when I checked Google Groups the original post was gone. Ah, well. It was someone complaining that their players were bored since 4E wasn't offering enough options for their PCs - powers, feats, whatever. I was going to make the point that the campaign should offer enough of interest that a lack of mechanical options didn't have to be a problem, but without the original post the point is a bit moot.

I poked around a little more to see what was being discussed. The population of that newsgroup is steadily declining, in sync with the ever-decreasing relevance of Usenet (something I've addressed before). Years ago I used to regularly read and post to the group, but these days I may at most pop in a few times a year to see what's being discussed. Given the type of people who still use Usenet, I wasn't surprised to see how many bytes were devoted to anti-4E rants, though I was somewhat disappointed to see some long-time veterans spewing out sophomoric vitriol that I would expect to see from grade school kids, not men in their 30's and 40's (yeah, yeah, I know - "welcome to the Internet!").

This is nothing new, but it still is something I don't get. From a gaming hobby standpoint, it's one thing to say you dislike a particular game or edition of a game. It's another to go to great lengths to show just how much you dislike it. You'd think people would spend that energy doing something for the things they do like. I mean, if that's how you want to spend your time, that's your business. Just seems like a waste to me (of course, for people who lack imagination or creativity, perhaps negativity is all they have...).

4E: Guess we're not doing it right

From here:

4e is ... designed not to kill or seriously harm your pc’s. There, I said it and I stand by it.

I think the players in my campaign would beg to differ. Between the TPK that ended our first 4E adventure and the death and near-deaths that occurred in our second adventure, proportionally this 4E campaign is far more deadly than our last 3.5 campaign (granted, in-game it hasn't lasted as long, so we'll see how it transpires).

Though I haven't seen the homogenization of all the classes or the "grind" of combat*, either, so I guess we're not doing it right...



*: There have been a couple of combats that I noticed became "going through the motions" after a few rounds, but we used to have that on occasion in 3.5.

Too Many Mechanics

Recently I picked up issue #8 of Kobold Quarterly, mainly for the article on Warlord battle cries. I love the idea of "battle cries" but I've rarely seen any that didn't sound stupid when actually used. Anyway, while reading through the article on "glyph magic", I was struck at how unappealing that particular article was to me. Mainly because, like so many articles in Dragon, pre-and-post 4E, it primarily was just more mechanical options; in this case, new spells. Now, there's nothing wrong with that (and I'm sure the article itself was done well), but 3.5 really burned me out on the piling on of more and more mechanics. While I do think the 3.5 Player's Handbook was a bit lacking (no more or less than the 4E one), I don't think twenty+ additional books of crunch were necessary (not even taking into account the third party books). Granted, everything beyond core is optional, but that's my point - there wasn't enough that appealed to me beyond core since so much was about new numbers you could apply to your PC. And I'm not talking about more fluff, either (though fluff is always cool); rather, I think I was looking for stuff that I could use outside of just buffing up an NPC. That's a problem I intended to avoid in 4E - buying too many books that I wasn't going to use. So far, I haven't been very successful at that - at this point I have pretty much every 4E hardcover out other than the FR campaign book (I do have the FR player's guide, though I may part with that since I can get the drow and swordmage rules - the reason I bought the book - from the Compendium in DDI). On the other hand, I am getting usefulness or seeing it in the books I've bought - we use Adventurer's Vault and Martial Power regularly, I like the content and potential in Manual of the Planes, and while I haven't gotten around to reading them yet I'm already making plans for using material in Draconomicon and Open Grave. Of course, as time goes on we'll see how much more I'll be getting...

Along those lines, I'd like to see Dragon return to more of a style it had in the '80s, when it was supporting 1E, with articles that weren't just mechanical enhancements to the game (the 3.x version had this same problem as well, so this is both a beef with WotC and Paizo). Maybe I'm not seeing it, but it seemed like they had a bit less crunch but more value to me in those days - articles to stimulate the imagination, or present historical (and fantastic) ways to handle coinage, communication, laws, etc. I understand the rationale behind the way Dragon has been for awhile, but still. Maybe KQ is like this - I haven't read through enough of it yet to know. If it's not, hopefully I can find something out there that is...

(OK, that kind of rambled. I'll try to do better in the future :)

Edit: This post (the first one, at least) at ENWorld ties in with what I'm saying above. It also calls to mind previous 3.x campaigns; when a new splatbook would come it, many of the players would scour them for "kewl powerz" - "character concept" generally didn't play into it. Now, if that's your thing, great, but not something that appeals to me (finding something cool and creating/shaping a character to fit that is something else entirely - for instance, I like the duskblade (3.5)/swordmage (4E) not because of they have "the most pluses" or anything like that, but because I like the concept).

Rant: Liking streamlined RPG Rules does not equal "casual play"

Just a little venting here:

Are streamlined/simplified/non-table-number-math-heavy rules more appealing to casual players? Of course.

Does that mean that only "casual players" prefer those sorts of rules? Of course not.

Just because you prefer 4E or Castles & Crusades or Original D&D or whatever does not make you a "casual player". It just makes you someone who prefers a system that isn't bogged down in rules and number crunching. Not that being a casual player is a bad thing - though that's the implication from the crowd that things that you're not "hardcore" if you're not playing a homebrew that's a mix of every 3.5 sourcebook, Hackmaster, and Rolemaster.

Hmm...I originally envisioned this post using the "f-bomb" a lot more. Yeah me for showing restraint :)

DDI: Character Builder Beta

Brace yourself: WotC has finally put together a decent piece of software!

Yeah, I know - right?

OK, seriously... I've been playing a little with the Character Builder, and it's actually pretty good. Kind of klunky but overall not bad. The best part is when you generate your character sheet you get power cards for your powers and cards for your magic items. Very cool.

DDI: How hard is it to put direct links to the PDFs?

Back when D&D Insider was free, I could tolerate some of the obstacles and problems with the site since, well, it was free. But now that I'm paying for it, using it - specifically downloading articles or complete issues of Dragon and Dungeon - is a pain in the ass.

When I want to download a PDF from DDI, is it as easy as right-clicking the link, selecting "Save Link As..." (or "target" in IE), and saving the file to my hard drive? Of course not. I have to:

- Click the link.
- Wait for DDI's ASP (ASP? Really? for a brand new site in 2008?) page to load the PDF into my browser.
- Save the PDF from the embedded reader to my hard drive (which never remembers that I'm not using "Bruce\Documents"); I also have to copy and paste the name from the URL prior to saving since my browser wants to just call it "download".

So...WotC doesn't know how to do security without using ASP? Seriously, this is a hassle that oddly enough, was never an issue with the print version (for obvious reasons). It's not the worst thing in the world, but given how much easier it can be done, it's frustrating. And isn't making our lives easier why we have computers in the first place?

4E: Identifying Magic Items

Previously, I talked about how appraisal works in 4E. In a similar vein, I was initially resistant to how identifying magic items was changed in 4E. No longer was ''identify'' or ''analyze dweomer'' necessary - if you think someone's magic, just take a rest, feel it up, and - voila! You know everything there is to know about the object (barring unique things like artifacts). That had to be wrong - it was too easy! Not to mention that that's the way it works in computer games. Thus, a bad idea - right?

Actually, no. Now, like appraisal, some people maintain that being able to easily identify magic items takes the mystery from the game. But again, I would say that if something is happening on a regular basis (and finding magic items in D&D - any edition - is generally a regular event), then it goes from "mystery" to "routine annoyance". Identification as it stood in 3.5 was simply a speed bump to keeping a few useful items and selling a bunch of other stuff as well as a siphon for monetary resources (for the 100gp pearls, whether to pay an NPC or for the party's wizard to use, at least until the PCs had access to analyze dweomer).

One nice thing about this technique is that it helps alleviate how a buyer of an item knows what they're getting is legit without having to spend the money or resources on identification magic. On the other hand, I can also see this being an issue with rules lawyers. According to the book, you don't have to know something is magic in order to handle it to determine its powers (thus undermining the primary use of the detect magic aspect of the Arcana skill). I can easily see a group of PCs scooping up everything that's not nailed down on an adventure and then "handling" all of it when they get a chance (we've all known people like that in our games; one in particular comes to mind for me). No need to detect magic on the treasure. That hasn't been a problem for my current group, but it's still something I think needs to be addressed. My current thought is that you can't handle something to identify it if you don't already know it's magic. It's a little contrived but it's simple and doesn't require additional die rolls, subsystems, or anything like that (and "knowing" something is magic extends to, say, the evil villain's sword - you don't have to make an Arcana check on it since you saw it burst into flame and fly around the room under its own power).

4E Economics: The Appraisal Skill

One of the myriad changes in 4E that I took particular note of was the elimination of the Appraisal skill. At first, my reaction was "how are PCs supposed to know the value of the items they find?" I soon realized that the answer was "You tell them." Given the over-emphasis I've placed on the importance of semi-realistic economics in D&D, the concept was at first appalling to me. But I shortly came to the conclusion that not only was the elimination of Appraisal a good idea, the introduction of the skill in 3.x was a bad idea in the first place. I suspect this may be why it was dropped in the new edition. Some would snarkily suggest that it was dropped because it was a "role-playing" skill, but that's a load of crap - Appraisal was nothing more than a drain on the game, as I'll illustrate below.

First of all, this may have been a problem that didn't exist for some people - how many people actually used the skill in their game anyway? For those who did, the usual results included the following:

• Two sets of records had to be maintained, one for the players perceived values and one for the DM's actual values
• Lots more dice-rolling to see what the PCs thought the items' values were
• PCs getting either the value of the items or less (if their appraisal was too low, they got short-changed; if too high, few if any DMs would give them their asking price)
• Going through the process of selling each item one at a time rather than the player just saying "OK, we're selling this loot" and handling the accounting themselves

More realistic? Sure, but at what cost? More bookkeeping, more dice-rolling, and more time spent on something that doesn't add to the fun of the game. And in the end, the result is the same or worse as not having an Appraisal skill - the PCs get the value of the items or possibly less. On top of that, one or more (usually two at most) of the PCs end up having to tie up skill ranks in Appraisal that they could be using for more useful skills (including those used for "role-playing").

One argument in favor of something like Appraisal is that it maintains a "sense of mystery". Bullocks. There's no mystery in Appraisal - the PCs know that they're not going to find the Greyhawk equivalent of the Cullinan Diamond in the horde of the 5th-level bandits they just killed. Mysteries occur infrequently - that's why they're mysteries. And their rarity makes them interesting. Something that happens regularly (like having to appraise your loot) is mundane and routine. And given that adventurers regularly are dealing with non-monetary treasures - gems, jewelry, objets d'art, etc., it's not unreasonable to assume that they get an eye for the value of those sorts of things. Not a necessary rationalization but useful if you don't feel entirely comfortable with the hand-waving.

Of course, if your group likes having to appraise everything it finds and feels that the "mystery" or "realism" adds to the game, more power to you! For me, this is one aspect of the economic changes in 4E that I have no problem accepting (more on the ones I do have a problem with in another post).

4E: DM's Screen

Nice! 4-panels of the same cardstock as the cover of a hardcover book. Looks to be of good quality and useful.

Also picked up Goodman's "Points of Light" and a Celtic Warband boxed set from Renegade Miniatures. Not relevant to the DM screen, but I'm in a Twittering mood.

4E: The magic item table formula - revealed!

The secret THEY didn't want you to know!

OK, I'm being a tad overdramatic. Anyway, there's a table in the PHB that lists magic item prices by item level (page 223). There's a definite pattern there, so I sat down and figured out what the formula was. Can it be useful? Eh...hard to say. It was a fun puzzle for me, so I thought I'd share it:

160*POWER(5,TRUNC((Level-1)/5))*(2.25+MOD(Level-1,5))

It's in an Excel format, but it should be easy enough to decipher. Obviously, "Level" is the item level. "TRUNC" means to truncate (drop the decimal) of "(Level-1)/5". POWER means take the first value ("5") to the power of the second value "(TRUNC((Level-1)/5)"). And "MOD" is the modulus formula; take the remainder of "Level-1" divided by 5 (so "3" would be "2", "12" would be "1", "21" would be "0", etc.).

Like I said, not necessarily very useful. But I figured I did the work so I'd share it.

4E: Roleplaying

One of the prevailing anti-4E arguments is that the 4E rules "don't support role-playing". It's amusing because the implication is that the rules in the previous editions did. Really? The central theme of D&D since the beginning has been "kill things, take their stuff" (from a core POV, which is all you can compare 4E with since that's all that's out for it at this point). Role-playing has always been something that the group brought to the table. This is an old, old argument. I remember that flame wars on Usenet in the early 90's about how AD&D (1 or 2) was all hack-n-slash and that only games like Vampire and that ilk allowed you to truly "role-play".

You don't need rules to tell you how to role-play. If you want to RP, you can and probably will. If not, then you won't (or you'll do the bare minimum). It's as simple as that.

One of the best 4E reviews I've seen so far...

If your character's name is "my guy" as in "my guy hits the monster," or "my guy grabs the treasure," this might be for you.

If you prefer video games to other people, and think interactive storytelling is for wussies, buy it.

But if you're an actual role-player, and especially if you've loved the previous D&D games, buy Pathfinder instead. D&D 4e is the worst pile of drek I've ever wasted money on. I'm taking my copy back for a refund.

Very informative and not the least bit confrontational!

Seriously, what is it with nerds and 4E? There's plenty of rational discourse and commentary about it (such as here and here), but there's so much of this unsupported, vitriolic, emotionally-unhinged ranting. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to human nature and isn't limited to gamers (I live in Chicago and have seen how Cubs and White Sox fans act at times), but it still seems so ridiculous. It's one thing not to like something, but to go on at length about how it sucks without providing any substance to your reasoning...I don't get it.

What does the author think a "review" like this will accomplish, anyway? A rational person isn't going to consider it if they're trying to find out information on 4E; anyone who takes it to heart will simply be doing so to reinforce their own bias against the game. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but why not say why you dislike it? I keep hearing the detractors saying "4E is just like a video game". OK...in what way? Try to support your argument with examples, otherwise you just sound like a raving loon.

4E Random Comments

I've had the books now for a week now and I've been reading them when I can. Some random thoughts in no particular order follow:

• Alignment: I'm cool with the alignment changes but the naming is wonky. It's obvious now that they kept the "corner" alignments and renamed "neutral" to "unaligned". Presumably CN has been rolled into "unaligned" and NG was merged with CG (though just called "good" now). Not sure about LN, but I'd guess most people ended up playing LN as LG or LE so they didn't see a need for it, and NE was probably absorbed by either LE (now "evil") or CE. I'm OK with the changes, but why call CG "good" rather than "chaotic good"? Or he opposite for the evil alignments? The implication is that alignment follows a linear model, like the first edition of WFRP, like "LG-G-U-E-CE", whereas it's really a square with U in the middle. Not sure, but not a big deal.
• Disease: Actually more complicated than 3.x, but a lot cooler. I also like the idea that if you roll poorly enough on your Heal check when performing the Cure Disease ritual you could actually kill the person you're trying to cure.
• Masterwork armor: Seems a little odd, but you can get by with the mundane for quite some time. The "second tier" armor is no more weird than mithril and adamantine (and you can't get it until level 16), and from what I can see you wouldn't be dealing with the "third tier" until the late 20's anyway, at which point you're wearing it to have dinner with the gods. In any case, they're all just sets of numbers so the names and fluff are easily changed.
• Skill system: In 3E, the idea was good but I always felt the implementation was flawed. I much prefer the consolidation and static increases of 4E.
• Opportunity Attacks: From what I can see, only three things provoke OAs: ranged attacks, area attacks, and movement. I may be wrong (I haven't fully read the combat chapter yet), but a definite improvement if not. AoOs were something that seemed like a good idea but their implementation took more away from gameplay than it added.

More comments as I finish the books. I've skimmed all three but I've only been thoroughly reading the PHB so far.