"Last Words..."

"As two relative neophytes to the gaming industry, we aren't exactly sure what reception our baby...will get out there. Putting our time, energy, and scanty resources into this project has been an adventure for us, and it's now coming to an end, or rather to a climax. For now is the time of truth, the moment when we discover if others out their share our tastes, and if our thoughts were actually headed in the right direction all along. We must admit that we are tense with anxiety as we finally let this game slip from our sticky fingers and let it be at last completed. It is difficult indeed to stop working on a well-loved project that has taken more than two years of our lives to complete (in all four hemispheres of the earth!), and may take many more to be successful. If even at all.

"While we were designing, we had one main concept lodged tightly in our minds -- that was to make a role-playing game that helped us role-play, that let players immerse themselves in other people's lives, and for a time at least, vicariously live out those lives completely. Realism, playability, excitement, and personality were only included insofar as they move this game toward that goal.

"Now it only remains to be seen how many role-players there are out there, and how well this game suits their needs."


Jonathan Tweet and Mark Rein-Hagen
Ars Magica, first edition
1987

The wizard writes...

I think it's important for folks to remember that everyone starts somewhere; that we all have hopes and fears and doubts. And that we shouldn't let that stop us from putting out our labors of love even in the face of gigantic opposition or competition. 

Hopefully that inspires some folks. I know it inspires me.

; )

Spell Works (Part 2)

[continued from here]

Abstract magic systems can be a bit overwhelming for players used to more traditional (spell list type) magic systems. Plus it can just be tricky to provide the game information to know what is and isn’t possible…what fits within the scope of the game. To off-set this, you find many abstract systems will include a certain number or specific, named spells for players to choose. Ars Magica, for example, has each mage select a certain number of specific, named formula (spells)…though the presence of these spells does not prevent a character from  using spontaneous magic or developing new formula of their own.

On the other hand not all abstract systems do this. When playing Dresden recently, my pregen character simply had “air evocations” and “water evocations” and I was left to my own creativity in determining how this magic worked. For me, this provided a lot of freedom of expression and my character was damn effective…however, the other mage player ended up “sitting on the sidelines” most of the time, only using his magic in a reactive fashion (like offsetting the antagonist mage’s magic), despite having more raw power than my own character. Abstract systems don’t work for everyone.

But throwing a giant list of spells at players and saying “choose” can be at least as over-whelming as creative freedom.  The lists in D&D and other systems contain hundreds of spells…how would a new player be expected to choose their spell “inventory.” Usually, the offset to this is to limit access so that spells are digested in chunks: a 1^st level magic-user in D&D only needs to worry about the magic-user spell list, and only needs to select from the 1^st level spells. By the time the character reaches 3^rd level (which might take weeks or months) it can be presumed that the player is fairly familiar with the level one spells and is ready to move onto to spells of the 2^nd order of magnitude.

[my guess is that limited spell access in D&D has more to do with “game balance” and that particular game’s cosmology, but it DOES provide a mechanical way to introduce players – over time – to a gradually expanding content. Anyone who’s ever tried to start a “high level campaign” from scratch will know how painful it can be for a player to create a Start-at-10^th-or-12^th-level magic-user because of the time spent choosing spells]

On the other hand, some games with specific magic systems grant “full access” but simply limit the total number of options available to the player. A sorcerer in 1^st Edition Stormbringer has the possibility of possessing every spell I the book (especially Melniboneans or the priests of Pan Tang)…however, the total number of spells is limited to summon elemental, summon demon, summon elemental ruler, summon beast lord, and summon demon lord. Yes, there are four different elementals and six different demons meaning the total number of spells is 13, but as the mechanics for summoning a fire elemental or water elemental is exactly the same (as is the summoning of an attack demon or a defense demon, etc.), it’s hardly a huge amount of information that needs to be digested by the new player’s brain.

For the “introductory” game I’m talking about, I find myself torn between the two possible types of system as each has a number of drawbacks.

Abstract System

- Requires a creativity that might be hard for a new player (aimed at kids, remember?)

- Has the tendency or propensity for making mage characters too effective, shifting focus and upstaging other characters

- Can be a bitch to design and explain/write (I’ve tried my hand at this before, more than once)

Specific System

- Can be a long process (with regard to time and page count) creating all inclusive “spell lists”

- Limits player creativity somewhat (I didn’t really want to include “spell research” rules)

- Not sure it works with the themes I originally discussed, unless I open access to the whole “spell book” (thus risking over-whelming the new player).

I will say that I find the idea of doing an Ars Magica Lite really distasteful. For one thing, Ars is already quite well done. For another thing, I’ve found Ars mostly unplayable as an adventure-oriented RPG (which is kind of the point of my game). Plus, this game ain’t going to be any kind of “historic fantasy” game…I already did that with Five Ancient Kingdoms.

But the system I was dreaming up before…a riff off B/X, natch…welp, now that I’ve been thinking and mulling it over, I can anticipate some possible problems. What I wanted to do was base spell knowledge (i.e. spells known) on a combination of INT, character level, and age…regardless of spell magnitude. However, that means providing access to the whole spell book – which might not be too bad if I limit the number of spells in the game, but I wasn’t thinking of something as small as Stormbringer. More like B/X with 60-70 spells spread between five and seven orders of magnitude.

I think…I think that what I need to do is consider a few things about the game before I actually start working on the magic system. I mean, I’ve got the basics in mind, and I should still be able to write it up…getting the geezers I want, at least in a house-ruled type B/X game. But I want to take a few moments to think about something someone brought up a little bit ago.

In fact, it might require another rambling blog post to address.

; )

The Second Pillar – Reward

The second pillar that is fundamental to the integrity of the D&D game is reward. Participants who participate in game play (whether as a player character or Dungeon Master) can expect to be rewarded for their actions.

Some might say the act of play itself is its own reward, and to a certain degree that is true (we’ll address that in the 3rd Pillar). However, actual compensation for the merits of one’s in-game (imaginary) action has been true through almost every edition of the game and is an identifiable part of the D&D game’s foundation. If characters are not being rewarded for their action, I’m not sure what you’re playing can be called “D&D.”

Similar to what was discussed in the prior post, the rewards to be had are different depending on the role one takes when participating in the game; I’ll discuss each in turn.

For player characters, we can see that one’s reward is one of improved effectiveness, decisively tied (in most editions) to the player’s response and success to challenges issued. A player character that meets and overcomes all challenges will progress quickly in game effectiveness, gaining experience and thus level, increasing attack ability, saving throws, hit points, number of spells, etc. A player character that chooses to face fewer challenges will find his (or her) effectiveness increased at a slower rate, as will player characters that seek many challenges but fails at overcoming those challenges.

This has been the case since the earliest editions of the game, when PCs were considered scurrilous rogues seeking fortunes within dark dungeons. The measure of a character’s “score” was, in the main, directly attributable to the value of treasure brought out of the ground. Recover a great deal of treasure and your character received more points, increasing in level (game effectiveness) and allowing the character to recover MORE treasure…though with a gradually diminishing rate of return.

By the 3rd (D20) Edition of the game, the experience points awarded were solely due to overcoming challenges commensurate with ability; whether or not treasure was recovered was of secondary concern (at best), except with regard to magic items (we’ll get back to those in a moment).

In addition to in-game effectiveness, the reward of game play also includes MORE game play and DIFFERENT game play, as the rewards reaped open up greater avenues of exploration for the player characters. A character that increases in level (and thus effectiveness) is able to delve deeper, darker dungeons and face greater challenges, presumably reaping greater reward. A character that acquires a spell or magic item allowing planar travel can journey to other dimensions, even across game and genre boundaries (see the notes on Gamma World and Boot Hill crossover in the original Dungeon Masters Guide). A character that acquires Name (9th) level and enough gold to build a stronghold fortress can begin exploring the adventures only open to a ruler of men: opening territories for expansion, drafting armies for conquest, making treatise and alliances, and seeing about putting an heir on the throne.

“Reward” is a fundamental pillar of the D&D game. Reward informs play; it explains why it is that player characters take action, why they behave as they do. Reward provides the motivation for character activity; some players may be uninterested in facing a challenge simply for the sake of a challenge (not all of us are “adrenaline junkies,” even in our imaginary worlds!), but for the sake of REWARD they will participate.

The promise of power can be a strong lure for even the most recalcitrant adventurer. Spell-users, especially the unarmored, lightly armed magic-user, will find that the best way to increase his (or her) survivability is take on challenges, to act heroic rather than stay home studying their tomes for it is only through adventuring that the wizard’s spell-casting ability improves.

To some, this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense; the RPG Ars Magica, for example, makes the acquisition of magical power a product of staying shut-in for seasons at a time, poring over dusty scrolls and pursuing alchemical study and experimentation. Perfectly sensible and realistic, and Ars Magica is a very cool game (I’ve owned a couple editions). On the other hand, except as a mental exercise, this type of game play (tracking seasons and study points) is DEAD BORING to play. The Dungeons & Dragons game rewards active participation; it rewards PLAYING the game. As an activity of group participation, I prefer my RPG game play to have more player activity and less mental masturbation.

Since we’re on the subject of magic, I will mention that magic items in the D&D game are a stylistic trope that provides an additional “piece” of the reward system. After all, magic items are not simply gifted or sold to PCs (well, not in most editions of the game). Instead they must be found or earned/awarded through game play. They provide a similar bonus as experience points (i.e. they increase character effectiveness and open up other avenues of game play, depending on the effect of the item) and provide “crowing rights” to players: “Hey, I got a portable hole!” “Yeah, well I have a sword of sharpness, so there.”

Crowing (i.e. bragging) is part of the out-of-game reward that players receive; again referring back to the Forge article on the gamist creative agenda, players play the game in part to test their mettle and feel a sense of accomplishment at overcoming challenge. Whether that turns your crank or not, the game of D&D (at least in its pre-2007 editions) rewards players commensurate with the challenges tackled and the results achieved; whether or not you feel like bragging about it is entirely up to you.

For the Dungeon Master, there are rewards to game play as well:

• The reward of creatively expressing oneself through a rich fantasy environment, not to mention interesting settings and scenarios.
• The reward of cackling uproariously at your players’ expense when your fiendish challenge completely burns them.

The first item is something many GMs of other role-playing games can attest to as a “reward of play” (not all GMs…in some indie-style “story-games” the setting is too collaborative or too “set in stone” to allow much “world building”). But we’ll discuss some specific differences (with regard to D&D) when we get to the last pillar.

The second item, though, is something a lot fewer RPGs offer.

Because of the natural antagonist role placed on the DM by the Dungeons & Dragons game (i.e. the role of challenging the players), the DM has a chance to exercise his (or her) own personal brand of destruction in acting as an obstacle to the players. This can be in the form of a fiendish monster encounter or diabolical trap; it can be a cleverly mapped labyrinth or a moral quandary of epic consequence.

For an example of that last one, I advise checking out the fairly excellent Return to White Plume Mountain, the only 2nd edition book of any kind that still sits on my shelf. It forces players to make all sorts of ethical choices due to the nature of the adventure (wherein power is promised with a price, and mental possession is on the board for player characters)…and the climax (should the PCs reach it) is the real kicker: kill the baby or don’t kill the baby!

I mean, who would hurt a little baby?
; )

Anyway, as I said in the last post, the challenge of being a DM is in setting up challenges for the players that are neither overwhelming nor “softball.” The PAY-OFF (i.e. the “reward”) for the DM is in seeing those plans come to fruition and (if done correctly) feeling totally at ease with the self-indulgent hosing of the player characters.

Hey, I’m just being honest. A DM needs SOME kicks, after all…it’s not like we exist purely for the players’ entertainment, puffing them up with set pieces that are easy to knock down. We are required to “play fair” with the players (that’s explicit in every edition I've read), but providing we’re not throwing the might of the universe at ‘em, we’re obliged to try to knock the PCs down a peg. That’s OUR fun, and D&D is one of the few games that allow the referee to indulge in that kind of mayhem.

[in other RPGs, game moderators are working to build a world or story…sometimes in collaboration with players, other times “for the benefit of players” (and when the latter is done with respect to “story,” then you’ve got a railroad going on)]

Admittedly, not every DM “cackles” with glee (I was being superfluous there, though in my case it HAS been a literal truth at times), but DMs can take pride is their challenges and “stumping” the players, enjoying the push-and-pull of competition.

In building a new Dungeons & Dragons, care must be taken to build upon the pillar of reward, just as it is with the pillar of challenge…existing editions point to the way in which challenge is integrated with reward to provide a game that is both stimulating and motivating. If building the game in a modular fashion (as is the stated intention of current designers), modules can be developed that address this integral part of the D&D foundation. Some possible examples:

• Rewards for increased effectiveness at different levels of play (low, mid, high)
• Rewards coupled with new avenues of exploration (an example of such from the past might be the SpellJammer setting…by finding/building a space-worthy magic item or spell, it opens up “fantasy space” for exploration/exploitation by the party).
• Additional rewards in terms of level-based minor abilities (similar to D20’s feats)
• New methods of “keeping score,” new incentives to motivate players, “tournament style” add-ons for real crowing rights, etc.
• Instruction and information for DMs to better gauge challenges so that they can “crow” on their own; modules that offer different ideas of how to “stick it” to players, giving DMs alternatives to the standard method of counting “wins” (I can think of a few, but listing them will sound more self-indulgent and sadistic than I already do!)

All right, that's enough to chew over for today.

Next pillar up: ESCAPE.

Give me a reason...or a hundred!

You folks ever hear this one?

A cleric, a fighter, and a halfling all walk into a bar. The fighter asks the cleric...um, you doing anything Saturday? See, there's this dungeon thingy we were thinking of exploring...

Meanwhile the halfling is jumping up and down behind a table, waving his hands and trying to get their attention...

So many times, so many games, there's no reason given as to why a particular group of player characters are together. For good reason...there ain't nothing in the rules about it. The rules give you the ability to create "fantasy character" for your "fantasy game setting." Depending on what game (or edition) you're playing, most rules for the character creation process are fairly ego-centric...meaning they focus on the player making the character and who cares what anyone else is doing, anyway?

I mean, there are certainly SOME games that link player characters (more or less) during the chargen process. The latest Mongoose Traveller has some very wishy-washy links that might be rolled up during the "career phase." Amber requires everyone to be present from the get-go to determine how players relate to each other in their dysfunctional family. And TMNT gave players the option to be a small ninja band of the same species, a la their title characters.

But most games? Simply rely on players to "figure it out together" based on some sort of group consensus. Or worse (to me) rely on the GM/DM to answer the question, 'how and why exactly did these particular characters come together? What's their relationship to each other?'

Even Ars Magica, pioneer of "troupe style play" (whatever the hell that means to you) doesn't do much other than give the group a shared base of operations (the Covenant house) and an over-arching Order/Tribunal (just like the Camarilla!...). It doesn't tell you why these particular magi from different houses decided it would be just fine and dandy to co-exist together...and offers nothing at all as to why the Companions would have any links to these peculiar recluses.

Welp, I'm kind of sick of it all (though maybe I'm just grumpy 'cause it's August and it's been raining all weekend...). Personally, when I sit down at a gaming table (as I'll be doing in a bit less than three hours today), I have two goals in mind:

- I want to start play (i.e. "start having fun") quickly, AND

- I want to have the potential for actual role-playing.

And part of the latter means knowing the relationship of the player characters to each other.

Oh, sure...this can certainly develop IN PLAY, OVER TIME (at least if you're playing a non-4th edition version of D&D)...but why wait? And yet, sitting around the table for 60 minutes before hand kind of cuts into the first and primary objective (i.e. getting to the actual play)...and yet how else is one to do it? There just hasn't been a way for players to get to know each other...well, besides the ubiquitous "oh you all meet in a bar while scrounging for want ads" approach (which might be okay for 1st level characters, but even then it gets old after re-booting three or four times). Wouldn't it be nice if there was a handy little game mechanic or random table one could use? Too bad there hasn't been one.

Until now!

Once again, ol' JB has a random chart for my faithful readers (and for myself...I plan on using this in today's game). It works like this:

Go here to download the one-page 100 Reasons .pdf

THEN, when your players are all seated around the table, each rolls D% to determine the relationship of their character with the player sitting to their right. The player sitting to the left of the DM rolls for the player sitting to the right of the DM (unless the DM has some prominent NPC in the party, than he might check that as well...it's not necessary since the DM usually creates reasons for NPCs to be around...I hope!).

By doing this, you should create at least two relationships, possibly more (if the guy to my left is my brother, and the gal to his left is my sister, than she's MY sister, too). That's enough to start the ball rolling...everyone else in the party is simply the proverbial "friend-of-a-friend" until you've developed a working relationship in-game.

But at least now you'll care more when the dude with whom you once shared a prison cell falls into a spiked pit. Oh, no!

: )

The Compleat [sic] Spell Caster (#2)

That last bit was getting a little long so I decided to break it up. Here’s Part 2:

SO…as I was writing earlier…IDEAS are the thing that The Compleat Spell Caster (or TCSC) is chock full of. NEW ideas. Like that familiars are not “little bonded animals” but rather DEMONIC SLAVES (just like we thought of ‘em back during the Inquisition!).

Demons are a mix of the historical and the weird. No there are no “cambions” in the game, but the description of the Incubus/Succubus (dammit! I thought I would be the first one to publish the incubus with my B/X Companion!) clearly states that they are the product of a union between “a spell caster and an arch demon.” Oh, I love it!

MAJOR ARCANA: the concept that there are some spells that are “mythical” in nature…that may exist or may not and if so may be unknown to the normal practitioners of a particular spell caster class…is downright awesome. I’m tempted to lump all or most max level spells into this category and require spell research or adventuring to discover them.

Such a neat idea: it gives the DM the ability to actually limit the spell selection in his or her campaign (“oh, the Spell of Forlorn Encystment? That one really IS just a fairy tale made to scare children…”) or dangles a nice plump carrot/treasure for the characters to quest after (“the arch-mystic Waluu is the only caster known to have perfected the Negative Illusions spell”). The spells themselves are nothing way spectacular in my opinion…it’s the CONCEPT that I will completely rip off!

Less impressive are the “runes” and symbols section. The magic of writing just doesn’t feel very occult in a game world where any character with a 9 intelligence or greater can read. Runes (and magical writing in general) had much more power in a world where literacy was uncommon. Not so much in D&D…really.

I mean, can’t anyone scratch a copy of a symbol on a door? And if not why not? And if it’s necessary to focus one’s magical power (as opposed to just blasting someone with a spell effect), well that’s kind of a weak spell caster.

Regarding the specific, new classes (the mystic, witch/warlock, necromancer, sorcerer, and sage): I like the basic direction taken with each, and all would be worthy of some sort of conversion. Sorcerers are much more “old timey” (think Ron Edwards and his demon summoners, NOT Wizards of the Coast's Charisma-based weenies), which I approve, of course. Sages are akin to hedge wizards (being eclectic wise-man types ) while Mystics seem like the basis for the Rifts O.C.C. of the same name.

Witch and Warlock are listed as two included classes on the back cover, but they’re actually only one class (warlocks being male witches). Regardless, they are portrayed much more like the witches of the Wiccan religion, though still magical in nature. Much like druids, they derive their powers from the natural world…yet they have plenty of Wizard of Oz (good and evil sides both) in the class description. I really like this write-up actually and see them as an excellent foil to any campaign that includes Witch Hunters.

Finally, of course, we have the Necromancer. What can I say? Disappointing as almost always every version of this maligned mage has been (from WFRP, to Rifts, to various video games, to Necromantic specialists in 2nd edition AD&D) I have always been drawn to the concept of the necromancer. Even my long run NPC magic-user (Alejandro’s companion “Arioch”) was based on a “necromancer” design. And my best Ars Magica characters were always “death mage” types.

Now this, of course, can be chalked up to my Scorpio sun. Yes, yes I make fun of everyone else’s sign…might as well spill some dirt on the Scorpio drama queens. Everything’s “O So Life & Death” for us; every Scorpio can stand to “loosen up” no matter how loose you may already be (assuming, that is, that you’re not the self-destructive, self-stinging scorp type…they need to grow a pair and clean up their act).

Anyways, yes, Sex and Death are the two great stereotypical fascinations for the Scorpio person…and being a triple Scorp (Sun, Mercury, and Ascendant) as well as having the ruler of both my MidHeaven and South Node (though these are lesser influences) makes me no exception.

‘Course, every person has all 12 signs of the Zodiac in their natal chart, so we all have SOME degree of Scorp in us.
; )

So back to our deadly fascination with the necromutant…er, necromancer. How is it?

Pretty badass in some regards. These guys also make a good foil for the witch hunter (or paladins or lawful clerics). They have some interesting abilities one might expect (controlling undead, seeing in the dark, immunity to fear) and some you might not (attracting undead to their stronghold like a cleric attracts “faithful” followers, automatically rising from the grave as an undead when their mortal body is slain, fashioning golems from flesh, bone, and “graveyard clay”).

The necromancer’s spells are a mixed bag: Undead Shapechange (like the 9th level magic-user spell but only applicable to undead) seems a bit of a waste to me as a 7th (max) level spell. On the other hand, necromancers can Summon Arch-Demon (TCSC’s equivalent of a Demon Prince or Lord of Hell!) at only 6th level! Of course, such summoning generally cost the conjurer one-third of his soul or ten years servitude (in life)…unless the necromancer wants to attempt to coerce the demon (!!) into submission.

Anyway, adjustments are certainly necessary for any B/X conversions. Not in terms of “game balance” (who cares about that?) so much as consistency and cohesion. In other words, I’ll need to edit these guys down a bit if they’re going to fit into a B/X paradigm. As AD&D character classes they’re probably pretty close to “good as is.” Take that as you wish.

[Um, by the way…the Necromancer is probably not suitable for young children or 2nd edition AD&D player characters. But he/she sure makes a good villain in ANY game system. Dig it!]

Hairy Bottom RPG

So the new Harry Potter film is out and I have yet to see it (my wife made me promise to wait till she's back in town...sheesh!  Like I'd try fighting the lines opening weekend? Besides I've read the books; I know what happens).  But every time a new wave of HP madness sweeps the nation I wonder, where the hell is the Harry Potter RPG?

Yes, I'm aware that the internet is chock full o on-line "role-playing" sites.  Role-play is not the same as a role-playing game (yes, there are real definitions that distinguish play, game, and sport...I should bother to post them some time).   And while I was tempted to post a couple of the more disturbing images that popped up when I did a google search for "Harry Potter RPG;" well, I decided to keep it clean.  Well, as clean as I ever am, anyway.

Thing is: well first off there are IP issues that would need to be diving our by Rowling for a real RPG game, something I'm sure Wizards or Green Ronin has probably already done.  But even withOUT the rights, a company could create a game set in the magical castle school of "Hawthorne" or something, and players would take on the role of young wizards and witches, right?

But to whom would such a game appeal?  Certainly not the over-testosteroned 4E crowd!  An HP RPG (at least one created as a pastiche of the book) would have precious little combat in it. Maybe some stunning/dueling type hexes, and a couple of unspeakable curses.  But all you're doing is pointing your wand, make a roll to cast spell successfully, and make another roll to counter or dodge. 

No, Harry Potter would be "RPG-light;" something more like Teenagers From Outer Space. Certainly HP is at least that whimsical. 

And so, of course there's already a game that may be suited for a Hairy Bottom (excuse me, Harry Potter) RPG...Big Eyes, Small Mouth.  I just picked up a used copy Saturday for $4 and on someone else's blog (no link; sorry!) I said it would seem perfect for running an RPG version of High School Musical.  Well, scratch that...it would be even better for an HP RPG.

No, no Harry Potter isn't anime or manga (despite many, many illustrations on HP Role-Play sites), but it shares many of the same tropes.  You got matters of magic mixed in with matters of high school (teen romance, homework, tests, pranking, bullies, expulsion) mixed in with silly humor (back-firing hexes and such)...there're even hints of danger from the Death Eaters and basilisk and such, should you want a more edgy school. All of these things you can find in Japanimation, and that's exactly what BESM is designed to run...it's not all giant robots and space cruisers!

I had always figured I would need to heavily modify Ars Magica if I wanted a real Harry Potter RPG.  But BESM does the job quicker than you can say, "Eye of Newt."  For those who've been looking for a way to run Harry Potter as a game, not just an interactive fan fic, you might want to check it out.

Over The Edge

O folks...so I read the whole Jonathan Tweet thread that touched off so much commentary, and I don't think there is nearly the cause for drama it has inspired. Perhaps a poorly worded thread, but not the slander that has some OSR folks so upset.  And I say this as a person who expects to never purchase another D&D book from WotC/Hasbro in my life.

Tweet is a game designer...an f'ing brilliant one at that. I have a little copy of OTE in a place of honor on my gaming shelf, despite only having run it 2-3 times. I have the Atlas 4th edition of Ars Magica, a game that came in part from Tweet's creative genius.  And yes, I have a copy of the 3E PHB, designed by Jonathan Tweet.

I took that last one off the shelf tonight. Although I doubt I'll ever again run something so complex (it just doesn't perform as I'd like at either the low level or the high level ends of the spectrum), I cannot deny the book is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship. A LOT of time, energy, cash, and love went into making that particular product.  I don't know that we will ever again see the like of 3rd Edition D&D.

Tweet is a designer, and any critique one reads into his thread appears to me to be his personal take from a design standpoint...not a stab at S&W or even a hawking of Paizo.  Just an honest, if off-the-cuff and superficial, appraisal.

So I give JT a pass on everything.  For the record, I prefer DESCENDING armor class in MY D&D (it's just so badass to say, 'well MINE is -8, pal!').

Now this Mearls guy, on the other hand (never heard of him till I read James's post over at LotFP), seems like an asshole.  And I use that not in the American way of "purposefully malicious," but in my wife's way, like when she's watching her favorite soccer team play poorly and says, "they're playing like assholes."  A dumb fuck...pardon my French.  I appreciate James V's explanation (sorry JV...didn't want to link to your food blog), but Mearls seems to have really missed the point of Keep on the Borderlands, which I feel is pretty elementary to either a D&D player OR a game designer.  I mean, what an asshole, right?