Dear Reddit

Just got back into town from a short vacation. Started writing two (three?) looong posts while I was gone, but abandoned all of them because...well, because I lost interest in my own thoughts (or the directions they were trending).

So rather than that...or writing an apology post to Ukraine on behalf of my country (which is what I've really wanted to do the last couple/few days)...I've decided to try something different.

From time to time, I get notifications of various reddit posts in my email box. I don't know why...I don't post or respond on reddit (I don't think I have a reddit account), and I don't even spend time there, and the notifications are on a variety of subjects. Probably I accidentally signed up for some mailing list or other, once upon a time...who knows? Anyway, occasionally, the subject line piques my interest and I'll check it out and even bother to read the comments. Generally a complete waste of my time, but then again, so is playing Tetris or any other stupid game app on my phone.

SO, since I've been so lax about posting lately, I am going to do something silly to fill space. I am going to pretend this most recent Reddit poster wrote to ME, specifically...as if I was some sort of Dear Abby for people seeking DM advice. I'm not going to post this on reddit (as I said, I don't do that anyway), so chances are the original poster will never get my answer. But perhaps this will prove an amusing exercise for me. 

Besides, I'm still kind of on "vacation time."

; )

Okay, here goes:

Dear JB:

So I run a pretty relaxed Homebrew , and we've recently had a new player who demands he should be able to cast spells in his wild shapes form, and thinks he should be able to turn into any creature, monster, beast... and I've been been really polite about it . Saying things like " That's just too broken. You gotta be balanced some how." Etc... and I don't necessarily wanna kick him from the campaign because he brings a fun energy every week. But I don't know how to get it through his head it's not gonna happen.

I'm Struggling

Hey Struggling:

Mm. While it would be easy to simply point out that the new player is an asshole and your gaming table would be better off without him, the fact is that there are TWO assholes in the situation you describe...and the other one is YOU.

There is no reason to be polite to this individual or humor him or attempt to reason with him. That you waste your group's time engaging with this disruptive behavior shows that what you're really struggling with is taking the reins of your own authority. YOU ARE THE DUNGEON MASTER. Do you not understand what this means? Do you not understand your own role and responsibility to the game you're running?

If you invited a player over to your home for a table game like, say, Monopoly and he insisted on re-rolling his dice, or giving himself an extra $200 out of the bank every time he made it past the Free Parking corner, or any other type of action that isn't part of the rules of the game, what would be your reaction? What would be the reaction of the other players at the table who had been playing by the rules? Would you tolerate this just because the d-bag brings "a fun energy?" If you invited him to play poker and he wanted to discard and draw multiple times because he didn't like the first set of cards he received, would you stand for that because he's "fun?"

As the Dungeon Master, you are responsible for being the arbiter of the game rules (whether those rules are RAW or "homebrew"). That's the job. And it's an important one! Because without rules, the game ceases to be a game, and becomes just a conversation of "let's pretend" around the table. That might be an enjoyable activity for some folks, but it's NOT Dungeons & Dragons.

So, Struggling, it's time you decide what exactly you plan on doing with your game night. If you're there to play a game, you need to buck up and lay down the law for this asshole. Stop being a wuss...it's not fair to your other players, it's not fair to your game, and it's not fair to you. Hell, it's not even fair to the new guy, who you are enabling and teaching that it's okay for him to wheedle and manipulate.

Do everyone a favor, Struggling, and grow the hell up.

Sincerely,

JB

Tuesday Morning Musings (On A Wednesday)

So...a real "throwback" post: I'm sitting at a restaurant, eating breakfast and blogging. Haven't done that for a while. 

But here I am, waiting on an eggs bennie while savoring my coffee and being glad to be out of the cold for a minute (it's about 10 degrees below freezing at the moment, despite the sunshine). 

[food just arrived]

[okay...food is finished]

I am out of practice, obviously. I cleaned my plate before reopening my laptop. Might have to order a piece of coffee cake, so that I can sit here a while.

Oh, who am I kidding. I was going to order the coffee cake regardless.

I think that judging the Adventure Site Contest took a bit out of me. Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. But I just haven't been all that interested in "adventure writing/design" since that last post posted. Now, of course, I have other things going on. The boy is getting ready to graduate (and has been applying to high schools). Volleyball season has started (both kids are playing; I'm, again, coaching). Snow. Travel (heading to California this weekend to see my father). Other stuff. Taxes are around the corner...although I already had to start some of that for the financial aid applications.

Gaming has been of the "war" variety. I've been revisiting BattleTech recently. The boy got the new BT set for Christmas, and we've yet to play...reading through it, I didn't see much difference (if any) from my own version of BT. And then, while cleaning out my mom's house, I found a brown paper-wrapped box set of classic BT (the 2E version, which was the version to carry the moniker BattleTech, rather than Battle Droids). The box included all the original box stuff (maps, counters, sheets, etc.) plus CityTech (and all its paraphernalia) AND a copy of first edition MechWarrior. I have no idea where any of this came from...I still possess all MY old BT stuff (including CT, AeroTech, and MW), and no one in my family (besides me) ever played...so where did this all come from? A real mystery.

[the paper wrapper, had "Battle Tech" handwritten on it in what appeared to be my brother's handwriting...however, he professed complete ignorance of it. Given the addled state of his brain these days, this may mean nothing...he's killed a lot of brain cells...but I'd think I would have known/remembered if he ever played. And so far as I recall, he never has]

Then there's Axis & Allies. The boy and I are once again engaged in battle for global supremacy the last couple-three days, though I expect it to end in the next turn or two. We aren't the hardcore type that play with "bids" and specific "opening moves" and both of us are too stubborn to simply concede after losing one capital or another. As the Allies, I made blunders allowing Italy to control the Mediterranean and most of Africa and the Middle East...meanwhile, Japan/Tokyo was just captured by ANZAC after successive waves of UK and US forces wiped out the Imperial Navy. Right now, it's a race for Moscow from every side, and while I'm pretty sure the "good guys" will prevail, fortune can be a fickle bitch. We'll see. 

Anyway, we've already decided to play another round (reversing our roles) and I'm anxious to show him "how it's done." He remains convinced that the Allies are "O.P." due to the financial might of the Americanos, and of course, there's some truth to that...if you play a cautious game and allow the Allies time to muster their resources. By the time Japan decided to go to war, I was dug in at Fortress Philippines and the Pacific was mine for the taking. 

[I will note that my son tends to beat me...or, at least, break even...when we play on only one side of the Global A&A (i.e. either Pacific OR Europe). However, when we play the entire world, I find it much easier to distract and harass him into making errors, using forces from one board to support the other...it was especially evident in this game where he was worried about putting down the "annoying" UK or Russian or Chinese forces instead of focusing on taking the Victory Cities he needed to win the game. I suppose that's an example of "playing the opponent;" I know I have MY weaknesses in play that he exploits, too]

Why are war games so fascinating? I suppose they're not...at least not to everybody...but, to me, they're such a different form of entertainment. In a way, they are like a puzzle one is trying to solve...while your opponent constantly changes the shape of that puzzle (and simultaneously competing against you). But to what end? So you can cheer and brag? We're just going to reset the puzzle and fight the (same) war again...as we've already done numerous times. 

War games are NOT like D&D. As a DM, I am "setting the board" for the players, but I am not trying to solve a puzzle in competition with them...only the players are working at puzzle solving. And I am not allowed to change that puzzle (in play)...as the DM, I am only allowed to run the puzzle, "playing" the puzzle (I suppose) to the best of the puzzles' ability. Actually, scratch that...I'm not playing anything. The puzzle plays itself; I just roll the dice and arbitrate results.

I guess I'm a puzzle creator?

Playing a war game...like A&A or WH40K or BattleTech or Blood Bowl or Car Wars or whatever...is very different from running an RPG. The players facing each other over the gaming table are adversarial (which is how I see my role as a DM, by the way...that's another post), BUT they are on equal footing. The forces may not be symmetrical, the level of skill/knowledge/experience may be different, but generally speaking, they are playing by the same rules. The opponents are competing to solve the same puzzle.

When I run D&D, I'm not trying to "solve" anything.

You do not have to be a puzzle creator (or have any ability to build puzzles) to run D&D as a Dungeon Master. And you need a lot more skills in your toolbox than just "puzzle building" to be a competent Dungeon Master. But refereeing an RPG is a very different animal from a playing a "war game." A very different animal indeed.

My thoughts of the morning.

[UPDATE (posted Wednesday): the war is all but lost for the Axis. The German forces have broken on the mass of infantry and Allied aircraft that defend Moscow, the Japanese forces reduced to three land units and a fighter, marauding in the USSR, Gibraltar has been taken, the German and Italian navies sunk, and the Americans just took Rome, while the UK marches through north Africa towards Cairo]

[Diego conceded this morning]

Adventure Site Contest Wrap-Up

While these review posts have been rolling out on the daily, I actually wrapped up reading, reviewing, and writing them back on January 13th...I didn't want to overwhelm everyone with multiple posts at once.

Welp, it's been a few days (I'm writing this post on January 17th), and I've had a moment to reflect on the contest and the various entries and compile some thoughts on the whole exercise.

The original ASC only had 18 entries...this year's has 30. I was not a judge in the prior year, but reading through the Adventure Sites I compilation, I can examine the top eight and compare their quality to my (personal) top 8-10 of this year's crop. Here are some things that (I think) are worth noting:

50% of the first ASC's top entries were written for AD&D, and all were "solid D&D"...the kind of entry I'd award four(+) stars. My only quibble with any of them, really, is that Lipply's Tavern needs to be set to a higher level than 2nd-4th based on the amount of danger AND the potential treasure take; but it's still a great adventure. Of the other four, one was S&W (also very good), two were for some form of Basic (though only one would get a 3* from me), and the last is a monstrosity that I would not have included, had it been my competition.

In comparison, less than half of the 30 entries for ASCII were for AD&D, and while four of those did crack my "top eight," only one of those would have rated as "solid" (4+) for me...the others were merely "playable" (3*). The other four in my top...two B/X and two OD&D...received better ratings generally.

Now, I want to choose my next words carefully: while there was definitely a lot of enthusiasm and creativity on display in ASC2...and I mean a LOT...I found myself somewhat disappointed by the overall results. The average number of stars awarded was 2.30 out of 5 possible and, just to be clear, THREE stars is what I deemed as the minimum for playable D&D. As in, an adventure that if you sat down at a table with the designated rulebook(s) you would be able to run the adventure for your table, without needing to cobble things "on the fly." If I removed the Stars Without Number entry (because it doesn't really fit with the overall treasure-seeking goals of old edition D&D), that number drops to 2.28. That's...not fantastic.

The best of the bunch (surprisingly to me) were the five OD&D/S&W entries: they scored a 2.80; three of the five were in the top 15, two of which had 4* ratings, and a fourth (The Two Spires) barely missing the cut. The fourteen AD&D/OSRIC entries ended up with 2.29, while the eight Basic entries clocked only a 2.00 average. If you were only to look at the best 18 (the same number as the submissions for the first ASC), the average is 2.94...but I'm sure that even the original contest had a few stinkers in it.

Would the ratings have been higher if we'd had some of last year's "best" writers return? Hard to say, but it's true no entries were submitted by Scott Marcley, Trent Smith, Grutzi, and GiantGoose. However, even past best nominees (DangerIsReal, Peter McDevitt, and Stooshie & Stramas) had a more difficult go of it, this time around.

One difference that really stood out was the extra pages that ASC2 entrants were afforded.  Last year's submissions were allowed three pages total, including the map...this year, we received three pages of text PLUS maps (some entries had two or three pages of maps!). This led to bigger entries, many of which stretched well outside the parameters of "adventure site," instead being more "mini-module." And for many authors, this brought with it a compulsion to create elaborate backgrounds, rumors, plots, NPCs, etc. The focus of "adventure site" is (with the possible exception of Lipply's) clearly evident in the original ASC's final compilation. For ASC2? Not so much. 

If I was going to advise Mr. Gibson of ways to improve the contest for ASC3, I'd tell him to tighten the parameters of the contest. I'd tell him to limit the contestants to an 8-15 encounter range...about all that can be done in "an evening's play," while still being larger than a simple "lair." I would limit the entries to ONE PAGE of maps, TWO PAGES of text, plus ONE PAGE of "appendix" to detail non-system monsters, treasures, or NPCs...four pages total unless authors wanted to attach a cover sheet. Lock it down, dial it in...I think that would help the designers set achievable objectives.

For the authors, I'd offer the following advice: pick a system, learn a system, write for the system. I don't care that "that's not how I run my game at home." You are not writing for your home table!  If you want to be a game designer/author, then you have to kowtow to your audience. My home game has a bunch of odds and ends and houserules, too. But when I write an adventure for the public (for a contest like ASC or NAP, for example), I can't put in my "house rules." Characters need alignment. Magic-users need the read magic spell. Etc. Allow your audience (the judges, the customers) decide what THEY want to modify to fit their Frankenstein mash-up at home...don't you do it for them!

And if you don't already have a system that you know and love...why not?  It's D&D, not rocket science. Learn B/X...it's the easiest and cheapest...and write for that, while you're learning the AD&D game. Or if you want something a little looser, check out S&W. I was impressed by the S&W adventures I saw in this contest, both how people used it and what it allowed. 

Or don't, I guess. You don't have to take my advice (duh). Heck, I'm not even sure Ben would want me judging again (after downgrading his adventure), so you needn't worry (much) about me saying "mean things" about your hard-wrought efforts.

REGARDLESS (i.e. regardless of whether or not you place any value in my advice AND regardless of whether or not I'm passing judgment on adventures in the future): please remember that the proof of whether or not ANY adventure is "good"...or worth a damn at all...is in the playing of the adventure. You really don't know HOW an adventure will play until you sit down at the table with some friends (new or old) and give it a whirl. Everything else...treasure counts, "interesting" encounters, level ranges, etc...is just guesstimating. At best.

Anyway.

Fun little contest. Nice to see so many people doing awesome stuff.  Lots of variety, different styles, nice maps, creative ideas. People playing these old D&D games are a pretty marvelous bunch...still. And that's great...that's hopeful. And all the enthusiasm...double the number of submissions as last year!...is also very cool. It would seem that a lot of folks have been hipped to Ben's contest, either through his web site, or the CAG server, or other people discussing it on-line. That's wonderful to see. Very positive.

Yeah.

All right, that's enough for now. I'm scheduling this to post February 3rd. Hope people found something useful in my reviews. For other reviews...focusing on different aspects of the same adventures, and many offering differing opinions from Yours Truly...you should check out the following links:

https://coldlightrpgpress.weebly.com/

https://thegloomyforest.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@OwenEdwardsBooks/videos

https://tinypinktentacle.wordpress.com/

Cheers, folks!

: )

ASC Review: The Tower in the Lake

The Tower in the Lake (Matthew Lake)

B/X for four to seven PCs of 3rd-5th level

And so we come to the end of our list. The Tower in the Lake was actually the 25th adventure received, but it was updated with a re-scanned map to make the walls clearer...no big deal. Will we go out with a bang or a whimper? That's the real question.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

I'll save you the suspense: this adventure is so good that I have almost no notes.

Only quibble would be with the Magical Library: magic mouth isn't a spell in B/X (although a wizard like Thassalius certainly might have researched one), and spell books don't work like this in B/X (PCs only know the spells they know)...but since they don't impact anything (not even treasure), that doesn't matter at all. 

B/X system mastery is on full display. Wonderful...really shows what can be done with the system. The problem with B/X is the lack of durability at low levels and the lack of long-term play value after reaching Name level. But for a small, mid-level adventure like this? B/X can be really effective. 

This is an adventure site, but it's a large one: 23 encounter areas. It will probably take more than one night to complete, but not necessarily because its many nods to verticality (pits, slides, whirlpools, etc.) can be used to bypass content. However, the adventure is so cool, players will probably want to plumb its (literal) depths.

Danger level is fairly high...but not impossible!...for this level range. Probably should take at least six PCs into this one. For a party of six 4th levels, I'd expect treasure take to be about 34K total. Treasure total? 40K (and up to 8K of that is destroyable). So...perfect?

Theme is tight and well done. Creativity is delightful. I'm not going to tell you anything about this adventure, because you should have your B/X DM run it for you. If you play a different edition, you can try converting it, although for AD&D you'll want to increase the level range...maybe a 5th-6th average with adjusted magic/treasure. Monster use is excellent, making good use of B/X stuff with a couple unique guys (well-described and fully statted) that are perfectly acceptable. Some DMs will complain there are no hit points listed for the monsters, but that doesn't bother me when everything can be found in the rule book.

This adventure is a triumph and gets the full five stars (out of five). Matthew Lake should be very proud of what he's wrought. Exceptionally nice way to finish these reviews.

*****

ASC Review: Tower of the Necromancer

Tower of the Necromancer (Riley)

S&W (OD&D) for three to four PCs of 1st-2nd level

Coming to the end of this review series; this Swords & Wizardry adventure was actually the 11th one submitted, but it was pulled back to have some bits cleaned up. The polish shows.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

Let's talk about the "rope-a-dope:" you show your opponent (in this case the players) one thing, but then you hit them with another. Here we have a nearby tower of a known figure (Santha the Conjurer) that seems to have been taken over by some necromantic forces: reports of undead sightings and the sounds of ghostly moaning leads the villagers to speculate some sort of Evil Force has taken over the place.

Now, if I'm the player of a 1st or 2nd level character, a "necromancer" (10th level magic-user, capable of casting 5th level spells like animate dead) sounds like bad news...like, really bad news. I've written necromancy-heavy adventures before that I had players walk away from...despite the promise of good spoils...simply because they decided "we don't have enough clerical power to handle this." Fear (of death) is a Real Thing in a properly run D&D campaign, and prudent players aren't ones to simply throw their characters into the fire because an adventure site is "there."

However, as suggested, it's all rope-a-dope: there is no necromancer. Santha the 4th level conjurer has been conducting some magical experiments using captured blink dogs; the result: potions of invisible flesh that makes Santha's hired mercenaries appear as skeletons. The moaning is just the howl of captive blink dogs howling in the caves beneath the hillside tower. It's still a low-level adventure site, perfectly suitable for the PCs...assuming they're bold enough to check it out.

Riley's system mastery of S&W is evident in his execution: The adventure is easily run using the S&W book and while I have some quibbles (how does Santha have a charmed ogre? Did he use a scroll of charm monster? Okay, what about the glyph that guards his chamber?) they are minor. Even the fact that a 4th level magic-user is "conducting magical experiments" is OK...S&W doesn't place any stipulation/minimum level on MUs pursuing this kind of activity. All good.

Danger level is fairly high for a party of only three to four PCs: parties could easily blunder into (up to) eight mercenaries in the tower (supported by a decent magic-user: love to see a low-level antagonist packing a sleep spell!), while the lower level features lairs with up to six giant ('smaller') spiders, all packing deadly (if weak) poison. And the humorously named quantum ogre (he blinks!) is a pretty rough fight for a group of only four PCs. But for seven or eight? I'm okay with that.

Treasure is low, even for low level PCs: I would like to see a bit more than 5,000 g.p. worth, and this one comes in at less than half (2,514). However, there are a handful of VERY nice magic items, not to mention blink dog puppies that can be rescued. ALSO: x.p. for monsters is fairly good at low levels (assuming the party can survive and defeat them...see the note about danger!). I think that, in this case, the trade-off is fine. Probably wouldn't use this as a first adventure for low-level characters, but it's a great second excursion...the kind of thing that could get the PCs that level up they're looking for (after already banking some experience). ALSO, it would be easy to throw in an extra 2K in treasure: a couple gems, a gold choker on the ogre, and a box of silver for the mercs can close the gap. It's not like trying to make up 10s (or 100s) of thousands of treasure discrepancy.

This is solid D&D, easily four stars (out of five). Taking it to the next level would be fine-tuning the encounters/treasure, and including some ideas for the long-term repercussions of PCs not interfering. But great job.

****

ASC Review: The Warm Caves of the Ts'Ai Dragons

The Warm Caves of the Ts'Ai Dragons (Sneedler Chuckworth)

"OD&D" for PCs of 5th-7th level

*facepalm*

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

We now reach the part of our program where adventures came in after the deadline for submission. This isn't going to have an impact on how I rate these adventures...if they're on the list, they're on the list and Mr. Gibson ("the Big Boss") has deemed them O.K. However, when it comes to tie-breakers and such in my final count, I'm going to give more weight to the adventures received earlier. Just a 'heads up.'

On to the show!

The author, one Sneedler Chuckworth, states this adventure is for OD&D. Except that every monster in it is from AD&D. Magic items list their x.p. and g.p. value as if they were from AD&D. Book magic items are taken from AD&D books like the UA. Spells are referenced that don't appear in any OD&D book...but do appear in AD&D.

This is not an OD&D adventure. Unless Chuckworth has no idea what the hell is in OD&D.

I am sorry to continue harping on this, but dammit, I'm going to continue harping on this: every edition of D&D is different. Yes, they have similarities. But they are different: they play different, they have different expectations of design, they have different levels of depth and complexity and different ramifications of long-term play. They are even designed with different objectives (comparing introductory Basic games with the more robust Advanced game, for instance). 

"Oh, it's all the same! It's all just D&D!"  No, it's not. 5E is different from 4E is different from 3E is different from 2E is different from 1E. Sure, 1E is more compatible with 2E than it is with 3rd or 4th or 5th...but it ain't the same. If you give a group a 2E PHB, DMG, and MM and then ask them to run something like A3: Aerie of the Slave Lords without any 1E books, they are going to haver a damn hard time. If my group plays OD&D and I buy an adventure that says "For OD&D" and then the monsters include quillans, sheet phantoms, fire toads, caryatid columns, earth dragons, and flail snails, then NO, I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THIS ADVENTURE.

"Just buy a Fiend Folio! You know those monsters are in the Fiend Folio!" Yes, I do. Because I am an old geezer who's been playing D&D for more than 40 years and who has played nearly every edition of D&D. But you know what? Writing this for ME is a stupid, stupid idea, because I play AD&D and if I see an adventure that's "written for OD&D" I'm going to ignore it...even though it's filled with AD&Disms. Because I Don't Play OD&D.

You want to write for AD&D? Write for AD&D. You want to include an AD&D monster in your OD&D game? Then fill out a stat block for it in the style of OD&D. Other designers have done that for this contest (see the Banshee entry for ShockTohp's ACKS adventure)...that's the RIGHT way to incorporate stuff from other editions. OR you could just write for the appropriate system, i.e the system from which you take the BULK of your material.

I feel for this author. When I used to run OD&D, I liked to use the Fiend Folio on occasion myself. But I was doing that for my home game, NOT for publication. Not for other people. 

Treasure for this adventure should be around 112K. Total treasure count is just under 154K, and that's ignoring the magical items x.p. amounts (because OD&D doesn't award x.p. for magic items...duh). Still, too much...and if it was an AD&D adventure it would be WAY too much.  But, in the end, I don't really care; I'm just annoyed. This should have been a pretty good adventure. Instead it shows me the designer doesn't know what they're doing.

One star (out of five). Do better. Show that you understand there's a difference between one type of D&D and another.

*

ASC Review: Galactic Funtime

Galactic Funtime (Shawn Metcalf)

SWN for four to six players of 3rd-5th level

Ugh...I haven't been looking forward to this one. Stars Without Number isn't my cup-o-tea and it's been a loooong time since I even looked at the rules. My apologies to the author in advance.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

My knowledge of SWN is pretty limited. I read it a while back, and thought it might make a good system for modeling the WH40K universe with a B/X chassis. But that ain't what this adventure is.

THIS adventure is Aliens (giant mutant spiders, actually) take over the local Chuck-E-Cheese. Players land their spaceship in the parking lot, decide to investigate, and hilarity ensues.

Um...

We have a map of the Galactic Funtime complex. Three types of spiders: "typical," "large," and the unique "Soapy the Spider," a huge, intelligent version...these are the only encounters you'll have. They're not poisonous or anything; they just do damage, sometimes attacking in swarms. 

Players that survive can carry off video game cabinets and sell them to collectors off-world for 1d4x1000 credits each. I have no idea if this is a lot of loot...my recollection of SWN was that x.p. was not awarded for loot, but rather for accomplishing "missions." So...what's the mission here? Getting loot? Killing spiders? No mission x.p. award is given in the adventure so, um...yeah.

I don't know why Gibson wanted SciFi submissions; they don't really grade out along the same scale as the D&D stuff. This thing seems...fine. But I don't know. It's outside of my wheelhouse and probably won't crack the top eight on my list.

Three stars (out of five) with a "-" because, while playable, it's boring, and I don't find myself as amused by the subject matter as some folks might be. 

***-