Kids on Bikes

So I was down at Cafe Mox yesterday, AKA Card Kingdom, AKA what passes for the WotC retail store in Seattle these days. After my last post, I thought I'd just take a quick look at what RPGs were out on display, and it wasn't a terrible selection (though not all of the books were recent releases) spanning a variety of genres, game companies, and layout style. A couple even caught my eye enough to make a purchase (a semi-regular occurrence, given my penchant for a) collecting RPGs, and b) supporting independent and small-press game publishers), and while I came close to picking Tiny Frontiers: Revised, it ultimately remained on table. After all, I've got my own micro-space opera game, right?

[maybe I should polish that up one of these days]

Instead I picked up Kids on Bikes.

[as I started digging into the background of this game, I found a lot to pique my interest...enough that I'm considering a sequel, biz-related post. No promises]

I picked up Kids on Bikes for a number of reasons. It is a beautiful book, first and foremost. Small, 80 pages, soft cover, and beautifully illustrated by Heather Vaughan (really...fabulous stuff). Just about the perfect shape and size for a game of this type with the scope of what I expected/hoped from it.

Which is why I am so frustrated by the actual game itself.

Yeah, it appears I'm going to be that guy this week: Mister Cranky. Ah, well...no such thing as bad publicity, right? Besides, it's not like they didn't get my money.

The game is weak. I guess that's my final, pithy analysis of it. It's a lot weaker than it could have been. And I'm not talking about the system (which is of the "rules-light" variety)...character and setting creation is actually fairly robust for a story-telling game of this type. And the resolution system, while simple, uses failure and adversity in a nice way that I don't remember seeing before (though there are certainly shades of it in games like Capes and With Great Power...). No, it's the execution of the concept that comes up short for me.

Mm. Let me just go through the thing and give a capsule review.

Here's the description from the back cover (repeated on the first page):

In Kids on Bikes, you'll take on the roles of everyday people grappling with strange, terrifying, and very, very powerful forces that they cannot defeat, control, or even fully understand. The only way to face them is to work together, use your strengths, and know when you just have to run as fast as you can.

In their kickstarter video, the creators explain the game is their "homage to all the really great stories about young kids going on big adventures...things like Goonies, or Stranger Things, or E.T., or Paper Girls." From the kickstarter, it appears the game may have originally carried the subtitle Strange Adventure in the '80s, but that has been dropped and the game's scope widened to pretty much "any point in history before everyone had a video camera in their pockets." Indeed, nothing stops you from setting the game in an urban environment (as opposed to rural small town) or in our cell phone-equipped present day...the game simply suggests that might not yield the type of game you want.

Okay...so, great. It's a role-playing game that's trying to capture all the magic of the Stranger Things series from Netflix. Totally understandable...after all, Stranger Things achieved a huge degree of success, not only for its rich story-telling, wonderful ensemble cast, and trope subversion, but also for the nostalgia being mined from its setting, style, and subject matter. Tales from the Loop has attempted to capitalize on Stranger Things as well (I've had multiple people pitch me TftL as a "Stranger Things RPG"), even though it was developed separately, and from the paintings of a concept artist, and that it's premise bears more resemblance to the old SciFy show Eureka than anything Stranger Things draws from.

[heck, Tales from the Loop might make a good inspiration for a Kids on Bikes game...if you didn't dig the TftL system, I mean]

But broadening the scope of Kids on Bikes beyond Stranger Things gets you plenty of grist for the mill, especially just diving into the genre stories that inspired Stranger Things. Personally, I think the heart of these stories...and what makes them so powerful and entertaining...is that we're talking about kids. Being a kid can be awful, even for the most fortunate of us.

My childhood was pretty damn idyllic. My family was stable and "nuclear" up until age 17. My father was always employed; my mother stayed at home till I and my brother were older, then went back to work. There were no instances of death or tragedy in our family or immediate social circle; there was no substance abuse, or domestic abuse, or sexual abuse, bouts of homelessness, or mental health issues, or even bad blood with the relatives or neighbors. We went to good schools, where we did pretty good; we had active social lives and friends and a non-crazy church and team sports and Boy Scouts and family vacations and bikes and books and TV and movies and (of course) role-playing games like D&D. And, of course, I grew up white and straight and Christian and male in the United States...doesn't get much more privileged than that.

And yet even with all those blessings, there were dark times for me in adolescence...times I considered the idea of killing myself. Just sadness...or depression. Or being overwhelmed by shit. Or...I don't know, probably hormonal imbalances (I never exhibited behavior that would cause me to get taken to a shrink so I was never diagnosed or analyzed, so who knows). I can remember thinking of ways to commit suicide that would be quick and easy and...well, whatever. I never actually got around to doing it, and I eventually grew up and became a bit better adjusted to handling life: both its rigors and its sadness. I think most folks do.

So...childhood can suck. And many of these "adventure shows" feature the sucky-ness of childhood: the bullies, the broken homes, the unfortunate "adult issues" that end up spilling down to (and greatly impacting) the child protagonists. The "strange," "terrifying," and "powerful" forces that conflict child protagonists are an additional complication in their already complicated lives..something that causes them to (momentarily) transcend their mundane issues to confront a more pressing, menacing one.

And in a way this is wonderful: it helps us lose ourselves in the escapism, identifying with the young protagonist (for whom we have sympathy due to the character's brutalized innocence) who can momentarily forget dad's out of work or mom's drinking problem or the classroom bullies or the handsy uncle or whatever is the trauma they were dealing with in order to deal with a REALLY BAD PROBLEM and perhaps, maybe get a win for once. And if not...well, at least it was a diversion (hopefully the kid doesn't get eaten or maimed too badly).

So, I was expecting something of THIS kind of thing in Kids on Bikes...something of the darkness. Something to help tell cathartic stories, build a little inter-player empathy, pull out these nasty parts of childhood and explore them in the safe environment that is tabletop role-playing.

Nah. They don't do that.

The designers' choice was to deliberately shy away from anything sticky or messy or painful. The first page is devoted to "setting boundaries;" it is, in fact the first true part of play (immediately preceding the collaborative world building and character building), and while I'm a fan of Ron Edwards's "lines and veils" (and think the whole idea of an "x-card" is generally a good thing), for a game of this type I find it all...well, inappropriate. A game of this type should be pushing boundaries, not setting them. Carry a "trigger warning" label or something on the front cover ("this game carries the possibility of Very Bad Things happening to humans, especially children") rather than requiring the game be played  "in a way that will be comfortable for everyone." I want the game to make me uncomfortable...to me that's part of the genre.

[I understand about not throwing terrible stuff at children, by the way...this, to me, isn't really a kid's game. I have met very few kids (none, off the top of my head) that ever wanted to play children in RPGs, not even teens. Not even something bizarre like Teenagers from Outer Space ("Why would I want to play that I'm in high school? I AM in high school!"). I realize there are RPGs (like No Thank You Evil) designed for kids where the PCs are kids, but I've never played with children who this kind of role-playing appealed to]

The designers might say that I am welcome to play the game however I want, but that some people have limits they want to respect and honor. The text discusses setting the tone of the game from dark to "lighthearted." To which I say: okay. But if I wanted lighthearted, I'd probably be playing Bubblegumshoe; I thought I was getting an RPG designed to model Steven King's IT.

[you just can't do Steven King with Nicotine Girls]

It is fine...it's just a little weak (as said); I'd prefer stronger design choices. The "tropes" (character classes) of the game are fairly "eh." The Plastic Beauty. The Wannabe. The Bully. The Popular Kid. The Brilliant Mathlete. These don't do much for me. I would have liked to see you forced to play as outcasts types...where's The Gimp? The Fat Kid? The Delinquent? The Tramp? The Foster Kid? Etc.

The system already thrives on adversity (and, for my money, it looks like these characters are a little too competent, though it's hard to judge without playing) and I would have like to see a razor-focus on "building the failure" so that the players could have bigger (more dramatic) successes later on.

ANYway...the game is weak in other ways, too. Despite its collaborative world building, Kids on Bikes does have a game master who facilitates play and, presumably, sets the conflict and runs the antagonists. I say "presumably" because the game advises the GM to cede narrative control, at times, to the players. It doesn't give specifics as to when or why this done, just that it is "typical" of the way the game is played and that the GM should "whenever possible, try to encourage players to create the story with you, not just react to what's going on around them." Again, I find this to be weak design, not because of the shared narrative control, but because of the utter lack of guidelines and loosey-goosey-ness of it. The game points out that dice rolls DO take the narrative control out of the hands of all parties (players and GM)...but as dice results are negotiated (especially in combat/opposed rolls) and target numbers are set by the usual GM fiat, well...

Kind of weak.

Then there's the fact that the rules actually provides little in the way of ideas, and nothing at all for pre-generated antagonists (no examples of those "very, very powerful forces" from the introduction). Unlike a game like, say InSpectres, where only the players are rolling dice, the PCs here are making opposed rolls every time they are in a combat situation, rolling their stats against an opponent's opposing stats...but no such stats are provided, and no guidelines as to what would be appropriate for modeling a government spook versus a bumbling thief versus some Demogorgan-like creature. There are no sample adventures in the game (which makes sense due to the collaborative nature of the setting creation), and while there are many, many examples of how the few systems in the game are executed (I reckon about 25% of the rules text proper is taken up with example text), there are no examples of how to actually run a session, introduce conflict or twists, or bring a session to a close (other than "work together as a group to find a suitable coda")...just some faint advice about paying attention to what interests your players and riffing off it.

That's real weak.

There's also the bit about introducing and playing a "powered character" that just pops up in the middle of the book (page 41...right before the beginning of the GM section proper). The gist is such a character becomes a shared character with each player getting to control various aspects. There are pretty specific rules regarding control and use of the character's powers and aspects, but no information about how such a character is created, let alone why, how, or when to introduce such a character into one's game. Presumably these six pages of rules (and seven pages of appendices! Appendix B, C, and D all relate to powered characters) were added to account for characters like Eleven, E.T., and Sloth showing up in one's adventure.

"Baby Ruth!"

[again, I say "presumably" because it's not really explained why this section suddenly appears, and there's certainly no examples provided (I just pulled those three from my knowledge of the films the creators cite as inspiration). The book could sure use a bit of a "suggested reading/watching" list...I think that in many sections the authors are simply making assumptions that the reader is going to grok what all this is about]

It's not a bad way to handle such a character, and it's a versatile enough that I can see it working to model everything from the aforementioned characters to, say, The Iron Giant, or that witch-lady in Troll. I'm making an assumption here that the "powered character" is always an ally/companion/friend of the player characters, though the text isn't explicit about this. All it says is:

Players cannot create a character with powers to play throughout the campaign. But, early in the first session, the GM will introduce a powered character that will then be co-controlled by all of the players.

Which aspect covers "floating?"

I don't imagine the authors intend the powered character to be a villain (like the monstrous Pennywise in IT) that is co-controlled by the players (rather than the GM)...though I find that thought somewhat amusing. There are no rules as to how to run a powered villain (no examples, remember?), certainly nothing like the Psychic Energy Token system found in this section. Nor are there any rules given for introducing an additional powered character (like Eleven's "sister," Kali) who might become another companion.

I'm also not sure I dig the choice to not allow players to run powered characters. While I don't think Kids on Bikes is the proper vehicle for a "young X-men" style campaign, something like the film Chronicle wouldn't be a terrible fit, and I can certainly see using it for something like the new Netflix series Sabrina, which has a mix of witches and muggles (er, "mortals").

SO...yeah, overall I'm pretty frustrated with this game. Mainly because it's so damn beautiful. I can think of a lot of ways that I would re-design it, but I can't see how my poor publishing ability could match the sheer quality of the book. And, yes, there are a couple-four nice system pieces here. But even if you dig its overall aesthetic and "safe" play, Kids on Bikes as presented doesn't have quite enough meat on the bones. I understand the publisher has an "adventure book" for sale that may provide a bit more guideline to actually running the game (in addition to "20 unique towns?" What about the whole collaborative-setting-building thing?). However, since it's advertised as "non-core" and I can't imagine my self playing this sucker anytime soon, I'll probably hold off on buying.

All right, that's enough.

Back to the Mox...and WotC

There’s no easy way to say this except to say it: I played WotC’s “D&D Next” last night.

Luke, one of my former-regular players at the Baranof, is moving back to the Midwest…not immediately, but within the next couple-few weeks…and I wanted to see him before he left and my schedule is pretty swamped all July.

[in fact, I hadn’t even planned on going out last night because my father is in town and Thursday was the only day that worked with HIS schedule to get together. However, I managed to finish dinner and get the family home by 9 allowing me a couple-three hours of “out” time]

So I headed back to the Mox Café where I haven’t gamed in a loooong-ass time. And I got to see some of the old boys (and girl) and take in a little gaming. And what they were running was D&D Next, WotC’s play-test shenanigans that is supposed to magically morph into 5^th Edition.

*sigh* Where to start?

As is obvious from my posting, I did not spontaneously combust at the sight of a miniature-strewn battle map. Yes, I had fun (aka “a good time”)…though it certainly helped that I’d had a couple beers before showing up and a couple more thereafter. Was it enough fun that I’d play it again…?

*sigh* (again)… Hmmm…I’m having a hard time articulating at the moment. Maybe there isn’t a good place to “start” this “review” and I should just meander a bit. Yeah, let’s do that.

I actually signed up to be part of the D&D Next play-test a while back and was receiving regular email updates, though I haven’t for a few months now. Probably because I chose to “unsubscribe” and report WotC as “spam” in my gmail account. I just wasn’t very impressed with what they were doing. Duh…that’s why I decided to do the whole D&D Mine thing and why I wrote 5AK.

So because I haven’t “kept my hand in” with D&D Next, much of this was new to me. Well, “new” is probably not the most accurate term…but I’ll get to that in a moment. This was definitely my first opportunity to actually play-test DDN in any capacity…and my first time playing any WotC version of D&D since…well, probably since before 2005 (in all honesty, I don’t remember).

Ugh. I AM having a hard time with this. I’m trying to sum up the “gist” of the game in a couple sentences, in order to give my overall impression, after which I would write my usual “elaboration” but there are simply too many pithy phrases coming to mind. I guess I can just list them (in no particular order):

-        It’s a board game.

-        It’s less frustrating than DCC.

-        It’s D&D3 light.

-        Magic-users shoot lasers.

-        It’s the newly revised Revised Chainmail.

-        It’s not an RPG.

-        It’s a hot mess.

(note that any of these phrases could include the words “kind of” after the word “it’s” but I’m trying to be less wishy-washy in my prose)

Okay, let me describe the game play first; then I’ll talk about my thoughts on the thing.

Dan was acting as DM. It was a good sized group: six players, including myself. There was a halfling rogue (natch), an elven ranger, a human cleric, a wizard, and a paladin. I played a 2^nd level dwarf fighter that was handed to me (someone else’s PC from the week prior). The characters appear to have been pre-gens created by the DDN people as I received a 1^st level print-out that broke down how all my PC’s traits and feats worked, but then I also received a (hand-written) character sheet that included changes from prior adventures (including those from “leveling up”).

The adventure (which I entered in media res) was a large subterranean complex, the center of which was a svirfneblin (deep gnome) city that had apparently fallen on hard times. Us surface-worlders were down there looking for jobs and adventure and had several possible mission options. When I arrived at the table (late), I found the five already-present PCs having their asses handed to them by a pack of five orcs. Once I entered, we quickly mopped up (more on combat later) and looted the bodies for something like 12 silver pieces each (I contemptuously allowed the other party members to divvy my share amongst themselves…what the hell was 12sp to me? My character sheet said I was a “noble” and/or “knight”).

After healing ourselves nearly to full power using a short rest, the party decided to retreat back to (gnome) town…the reason being that we were running “low on spells.” After a long rest (these are technical terms with specific game mechanics) we* decided to enter the largest, most dangerous looking cavern on the board, to retrieve a lost gnomish crown for the local strongman/honcho type looking to legitimize his rule.

[*in this case “we” is more of the “royal we,” if you know what I mean]

The party encountered two zombie orcs that weren’t nearly as tough as the earlier live ones, and we quickly put them down. At that point, the group called it a night. From what I gathered, there had been an earlier confrontation with stirges that I had missed (and that the PCs found easy) and one with kobolds (also easy thanks to a “sleep” spell), but I’m not sure if those took place in the same game session (before I showed up) or in the week prior.

OKAY…so that’s what HAPPENED in the session which (if you’ll notice) isn’t a whole lot for two hours of game play (the length of time I was there). Half a fight against less than half a dozen orcs. Some recuperation. A (short) deliberation on objectives. A 2^nd (extremely short) fight. Fini.

There was precious little that could be called “role-playing” that occurred at the table. The players had formed a definite opinion of their gnome warden employer (in short: “a dick, and we should try to double-cross him”), which I presumed was from previous interaction. Some inane war cries were bandied about in combat (that was my contribution). And…um…fini.

What the game really boiled down to was a table-top, skirmish level (i.e. small scale) combat game that has a context (i.e. “setting”) and a number of different and variable options for use in combat. In many ways, it’s no different from a small scale version of World of Warcraft, save that it’s turn based rather than real time (i.e. you can consider your actions without a velociraptor beating on you), and it involves moving miniatures on a board instead of pixels on a screen.

The rules were simple enough that it took me almost no time at all to jump in to the action. It’s just a “lite” version of DND3 with respect to movement and tactical maneuvering…and the whole thing about opportunity attacks and threatened areas are a “no-brainer” to an old hand at Blood Bowl with its movement and “tackle zones.” In fact, I don’t know why they bother giving movement and ranges in feet at all when the scale is always 5’ squares. Why not just say that my dwarf “moves five” and can throw his axe “four” (or 12 with a penalty)? Why bother saying the wizard’s laser blast is 30’ when you can just say “six” (i.e. “six squares”)?

Are the designers afraid that will make the game sound less “role-playey” and more like a board game? Um, designers? This IS a board game.

My PC had as much character as a playing piece in the Dungeon! boardgame…he just had more options on what to do. Julie, playing the elf ranger bless her heart, did NOTHING in the game except wait for her turn to come up in initiative order, at which time she’d roll a D20 to hit and (if successful) roll damage. That’s it. Oh, she used her “hunter’s mark” power as a swift action to give herself a bonus once or twice, but otherwise she exercised no creativity, contributed nothing to the imaginary game world …simply chose a target and rolled a D20 and then damage or not. When her turn came up. Once per round.

I didn’t take the time to ask her (and wouldn’t have wanted to look like a prat anyway), but I wanted to shout: “Is this fun? Are you really having fun? Are you getting anything out of this? And if so, what?”

There were some neat effects in the game that were still kind of dumb. The orcs had a racial trait called “relentless” that allowed them to continue attacking (and making opportunity attacks) one round after being mortally wounded. It’s kind of dumb simply because there seemed to be no rules for “over-killing” the creatures…if I mortally wound the orc and my three comrades continue to attack him, hacking off his arms and head, should it really be allowed an additional attack “just because?” If you want a tougher orc, why not just give it an extra wound…er…hit die…er…(sorry, I’m using terms from my own game which don’t really apply to DDN)…er, more hit points? I don’t really get it…in my opinion it would be a cooler trait for a PC than for a monster.

Rules-wise the game was very basic and very light-weight (though not in comparison to, say, B/X) Tactically, it’s simply about maneuvering efficiently through tackle zones and then “pulling the correct trigger” when it comes to your special abilities. The other players were dithering about what to do with the zombies shuffling towards us. I pointed out they were too slow to actually reach us so long as we kept moving and using ranged attacks. If this is D&D, then it’s “no-brainer” D&D.

And that’s why…even though it was fun and I had a good time and it was less frustrating (system-wise) than DCC…given a choice between playing D&D Next again and playing pretty much anything else, I’d probably pick the “else.” Probably. If it was another board game that had a high set-up time, maybe not. If it was an uber-crunchy RPG (like Champions) requiring hours of prep, probably not.

Then again, if my option was between D&D Next and Champions I’d probably opt to stay home…or watch a sporting event in the bar instead.

None of which, by the way, should be construed as a negative reflection on the players at the table. Most of my fun was in interacting and playing with the people around me. I singled out Julie not to point out Julie as a “bad role-player” or “boring person” but as an example of how the game does nothing to encourage role-playing…or anything…besides waiting for your turn. Other players had the same lack of “stuff going on.” Luke was doing the same thing with his thief…waiting for his turn to come so that he could roll a D20. He was in melee however (unlike the ranger) so had the extra “stuff” happening of taking damage every round. At least the wizard tactically (and cowardly) removed himself from combat when he felt he’d taken too much damage from orc arrows.

Of the group, the cleric, paladin, and fighter exhibited the most in-game effectiveness: the cleric had a variety of different effects he could do (both with spells and divine channeling), the paladin had group healing spells in addition to being a rock-hard bulwark, and the dwarf dealt a good deal of extra damage (which he was allowed to do because of his shit-ton of hit points). But the EFFECTIVENESS (or lack thereof) doesn’t mean the GAME was any more or less INTERESTING. Trying to puzzle out a sphinx’s riddle or figure out an alternative method of defeating a magical monster (that is immune to normal weapons)…these are interesting challenges. I don’t find it challenging to figure out how best to overcome a few beasties in a tactical skirmish. That’s nothing more than a jazzed up version of Space Hulk.

Now, I also said the game was a bit of a “hot mess.” What I mean is…well, it is in the play-testing stage still, but it feels like there’s been very little direction or over-sight to the design process.  Like either the designers don’t understand what they’re trying to build, or else they know but they’re so focused on minutia processes that they’re missing the Big Picture view. They’ve got a grab-bag of stuff from 1^st and 3^rd and 4^th edition, and they’re trying to blend it and patch it and update it with a “twist” and yet streamline it at the same time. If there’s a head designer he’s got ADD or he’s completely out of his element. If there are multiple designers they may not be on the same page. If this game is being designed mainly from fan feedback through the DDN play-test process that would explain a lot…but explaining it doesn’t EXCUSE it.

All right, this is long enough. Pretty meandering and not very articulate, as I predicted…but I’ve got a lot of mixed feelings on the whole thing. Allow me to wax positive for a moment: hot mess or not, it’s NOT an un-fun game. It’s just not a role-playing game and it doesn’t feel much like “Dungeons & Dragons” to me (probably because it’s not really a role-playing game). It has the tropes of D&D…dwarves and elves and fighters and clerics and armor class and saves…but it doesn’t play like D&D. It plays like a souped-up boardgame. Which is a lot less than I had expected of this project.

Still, I was glad I bothered to go. It was nice to see "how the other side games" and the group was a very good one…tight, friendly, witty, and welcoming. They had a cool group dynamic, everyone got along well, and none of the ribbing was mean-spirited. Luke asked (as we were packing up) if I’d gotten enough for a “scathing blog review” and I suppose there IS a lot of negativity on display here. But I had a good time and it’s hard to be too scathing when such is the case.

: )

The Dungeon Master Art

Not as easy as it looks.

Randy was our DM tonight (or rather, our "Labyrinth Lord" as we were playing LL tonight). We used the Advanced Edition Companion, so the game had a lot of similarities to the ol' hodge-podge mash-up of B/X and AD&D of my youth.

Wellll...kind of, not really. In my youth, the LAST book we acquired was the Players Handbook, the tome which features rather prominently in the AEC. My friends and I played pretty much straight B/X with the addition of the Monster Manual and DMG for a year or two prior to adding "race-not-as-class" and new-fangled classes and fancy armor and spells above 5th and 6th level.

And, yeah, having done it that way really does give me a slightly different perspective. I know a lot of folks who got into D&D about the same time as myself did the "mash-up" thing and I've read several reviews praising the AEC for the way it reminds them of their past, albeit in a more coherent form. For me, it just feels like "AD&D Lite." That's not a terrible thing, by the way...it's just not "how I used to play as a kid."

Anyway, we played tonight and Randy ran the game; his first time running a game. Wow. It has been a loooong time since I've seen a completely virgin DM run a game. God...you forget how damn tricky it can be (especially with eight players sitting around the table!).

I mean, I've been doing it for 30 years (shit, that's a long time) and even when I have "rust" from a couple year plus hiatus, it's not that hard to get back into it. I mean it really breaks down to:

a) knowing the rules,

b) managing the game/adventure, and

c) managing the players

Now, I'm a pretty hard grader, but my gut reaction is Randy still deserves a B+ for the outing. He gets a ton of props for managing a game with a group that size in that kind of environment. My knowledge of the rules was probably about the same (or less) than his my first time out, and I only had two players. And, no, just because we're adults and mature and friendly doesn't make it a walk in the park. Not at all.

A couple years back I introduced D&D to a couple teenage friends (my "nephews") and they positively loved it. Quit their World of Warcraft accounts even. Their family moved to Virginia (Arlington) and I gave 'em a copy of Labyrinth Lord for the road. A few months or a year later, my wife and I were back east visiting their family and I asked if they were still playing and they said, no. Appears S. (the younger) just could not grasp the rules and Z. (the older) just "didn't do it right" (according to his younger brother)...and Z. admitted it was a lot harder than I made it look.

I guess. But Z was twice as old as I was when I started playing.

Randy called the game a "clusterf***" and, sure, it was if one wanted to play "by the book." He haphazardly made up rules ("roll a D6 for that") or bluffed or just made spot rulings. But that didn't matter because there were really only two players at the table (myself and Luke) who had any DM experience or a clear grasp of the rules. And for the most part we just kept our mouths shut.

And so Randy did what good DMs do: he played with a shit-ton of panache. He kept the players in line. He made rulings on what they could and couldn't do. He didn't dismiss things out of hand, but he didn't let "bossy" players (like *ahem* me) push him around or dictate how the game was to be played. He included everyone. He listened. He narrated and described. He ran combat pretty f'ing fast-and-loose (a guy after my own heart there). And his adventure was nice and succinct being wrapped up in a single evening.

It was also pretty damn creative/interesting from a background perspective. Oh, he ripped off (at least partially) the plot of some fantasy book I've never heard of...and he included zombies of a more cinematic (as in movie) type (Randy digs on the walking dead), so it wasn't crazy original spun from his own brain. But it was pretty different from most anything I'VE ever played in a D&D game...at least for 1st level characters. It takes a lot of balls to tell players that they've been locked in an asylum because they've been infected with a mystic disease that will eventually turn them into psychotic zombies...and, oh yeah, you have no equipment or gear. At least my character had his spells tattooed on his arm, since he had no spell book. F'ing brilliant stuff that!

A couple of us died, but were brought back to life during the course of the adventure...another nice touch (instead of making the 1st level scenario super easy and survivable he just included ways to "get back in the game"). Oh, yeah, and we fought a giant demon and killed it...with "lightning powder" we spread on the small cache of weapons we managed to acquire scrounging through the ruins of the asylum.

I've said I would love to run or play the old TSR module A4: Dungeon of the Slave Lords. Randy's scenario was better (or at least on par).

But, man, it is hard. Having all those eyes on you, wanting you to entertain them and wanting to do a good job...or at least not look terrible doing it. As a fellow Scorpio, I'm well aware how fragile the ego can be in these kind of situations (not that we'd ever show it...or any kind of breakdown!...in public). But he did a great job and everyone had fun and now that we're out of the asylum, we all want to come back and see what he's got for us next week!

Of course, Matt and Josh may well be back, so then the group will be back up to ten. Eleven if Dan's wife shows up.

All right, that's enough of a "puff piece" for ol' Randy. I'll be harder on him next week if he doesn't get the surprise system right. But I still want to play...I like my character quite well: a gnome assassin-illusionist.

; )

G'night folks.

Nuance

A subtle or slight variation, as in meaning, color, or quality; a graduation

- The American Heritage Dictionary

[I’m not writing dictionary meanings to seem intellectual…I’m doing it ‘cause I had to look up the word this morning to make sure I was using the term correctly. I wasn’t an English major and I screw up terms and definitions all the time; putting the meaning at the top of the post keeps me focused]

NUANCE. Slight or subtle variation. This, to me, is a good way to label the difference between most editions of Dungeons & Dragons…even those that don’t carry the name “Dungeons & Dragons.”

I was reading through my copies of Labyrinth Lord this morning in preparation for Randy’s new game Thursday (Randy, who I’ve mentioned before on this blog, is new to the DM hot-seat, but he is an exceptionally creative, smart, and funny individual and many of us have been looking forward to him running a game). Fortunately, I am still being allowed at the table (though with the stipulation I play a gnome due to the persona non grata status I’ve recently acquired) and so I wanted to brush up on the LL rules because there are nuances the distinguish it from the B/X game.

I LIKE Labyrinth Lord. There’s a lot about it I like: the presentation, the artwork, the motivation behind it and its adherence to the original B/X rules. But there are also things about it that really irritate the hell out of me. Because they are so few, I’m going to just enumerate ‘em:

- Clerics receiving a spell at 1st level. I understand why some folks like this; I know the reasons why this is preferable for some players. My reason for not liking it is two-fold: #1 I think the class is stylistically stronger to have to work for that 1st level spell (though I know many players don’t give a rat’s ass about “style”), #2 I think it immediately puts a clerical player in a position of “oh, you’re the medic (as opposed to an armored, righteous butt-kicker with a secret weapon against the undead).” Personally, when I’ve played a cleric I don’t like being placed in that role…but I probably have a poor temperament for the class in general (I know a lot of cleric players ENJOY the support role, and the extra spell is quite welcome).

- Unlimited class levels. Big whoop, right? Few campaigns were going to get up to the B/X-stipulated level 36 anyway, so who cares if classes go to 100 or 1000 or infinity? But it just makes the demihuman classes look even more undesirable…I would have preferred changing the human classes to a maximum of level 14 (the end of B/X) or even stopping at level 20 (where the LL class tables end) rather than going on “forever.” Again, this is simply a matter of taste.

- The combat matrix for player characters.

- The increased costs for armor. Why should plate mail be unaffordable for a 1st level character? Because it’s more “realistic?” There aren’t any 1st level youngsters that have inherited a suit of plate from their knightly parent? If you want to limit the amount of plate (and other heavy armor) allowed into the game simply say PCs can’t spend more than half their starting gold on any single piece of equipment; hell, set the 50% limit and stipulate they need to retain 10-20% of their starting wealth as coinage…this will limit plate mail to characters who roll a 13+ for starting gold (upper class types) and 10+ for chain mail (middle class warriors).

But that’s it…and THAT’s just nit-picking (you’ll note I didn’t list my complaints for the combat matrix; my reasoning is just a little too esoteric for this particular post). Four complaints over-all ain’t bad; the rest of the book, including all other differences from B/X (of which there are few) are things I can totally live with. And I don’t have ANY issues at all with the Advanced Edition Companion as a complement to LL (I was reading that last night, too, but I think I’ll be picking up a print copy today).If one wants to use AD&D in a B/X fashion, AEC is the way to go (sorry, Barrataria).

And ALL those complaints I’d put firmly in the category of nuance. And I can live with nuance.

Same with BECMI, an edition I have derided many times, here and elsewhere. The difference between B/X and the first two volumes of Mentzer’s opus for the most part is simply one of color…Mentzer’s book is aimed for a younger audience. Why that’s so irritating to me (now) is a matter of my own silly foibles…I’ve played BECMI before and enjoyed it, especially at low levels (we found it a bit tougher to adapt to some of the “CMI” deviations at higher levels).

Sometimes these nuances are important differences; they can have major impact on the face of the game. When the paladin class was first introduced (in the first OD&D supplement, Greyhawk) it was simply a sub-class, open to any fighter with a Lawful alignment and a 17 Charisma that was willing to live by the paladin’s rather strict requirements (never act evil, give all your wealth to the poor, limit yourself to a handful of magic items). Meet those prerequisites and you reaped the benefits of the sub-class.

Since the fighter class (or “fighting man” as it is called in OD&D) is one that's open to all PC races, one can infer that paladin status could be conferred on ANY character that met the requirements: dwarf, elf, and halfling included. Maybe I missed something in the text, but I re-read Supplement I a couple times looking for anything indicating paladins were limited to the human race and couldn’t find anything. It’s only in the AD&D Players Handbook that the paladin is prohibited to any race but human.

I actually like the OD&D paladin quite well (and THAT’s a feeling I’ve never had for the paladin class in any other edition). Compared to later versions with its spell acquisition and clerical abilities, I feel this character is well-balanced, and restricted enough (for the minor bonuses) that there’s no need to “beef up” the fighter class with weapon specializations and what-not. Plus, why shouldn’t the class be open to all who are willing to devote themselves to righteous service and duty? Why limit it to humans?

I wonder what players of dwarf paladins thought when they picked up a copy of the PHB for the first time. Probably the same way I feel every time Games Workshop comes out with a new edition of WH40K that renders my army officially unplayable.

[and, hey, if anyone sees where I missed the page in Greyhawk proscribing paladins from any race but human, please point it out to me]

But even with THAT change from one edition (OD&D+) to another (AD&D), it’s still just a nuance: a slight variation (if not a particularly subtle one). There are still paladins in both versions. The paladins have the same, basic requirements. The paladins have (mostly) the same special abilities. And what HASN’T changed is the role the class takes in the game. When you meet “Fred the Paladin,” regardless of the edition, you’ll probably be able to pin a few expectations on how he’s going to act in various circumstances, due to the behavioral requirements of the class. The slight changes in rules are just that: slight changes.

Luke, one of the guys I play with down at the Mox, has pointed out that part of the fun in playing these games (and playing different games) is achieving mastery of a game’s particular nuances. Learning the rules so as to have a higher level of play (whatever that means to you). I tend to agree with him…at least for the “gamist-types” out there (and I definitely fall into that category).

But for others who don’t care overly much about specific rules…for instance, people who just want to play a halfling thief, but don’t spend a lot of time mastering the 5’ maneuvers, flat-footed catching, attacks of opportunity, etc. that makes the rogue class strong in 3rd Edition…for the people who don’t CARE about rule "mastery," the STRENGTH of the Dungeons & Dragons line IS that the differences are simply ones of nuance. I can sit down at a table that’s using LL or B/X or AD&D or some hybrid (like Heron’s game which uses Labyrinth Lord’s AEC Illusionists but no Halflings, for example), and with very minor input I can start playing. I don’t have to learn elaborate dice pools or bidding systems or rules for “scene resolution” (not that any of these are “bad things,” mind you…just saying I don’t have to LEARN any of them) to play a game of “Dungeons & Dragons.”

Even D20 with its additional complexities is very much the same game. Classes, hit points, saving throws, attack rolls, initiative, XP, level, spell books, monsters. It’s hard to say the difference is simply one of nuance, especially when the game play is so slow and “clunky” compared to earlier, easier editions. But for the most part, the essentials (that which makes the game “D&D”) hasn’t changed. Barring a magic spell or potion, your character is still dead if you take more damage than you have hit points, and you’re going to be rolling another set of six ability scores.

For me, the nuances are important to which edition or version or variation of the game I prefer. But, as I said, I can live with nuance (well, with most nuance). And the more I play (and play different editions/variations), the more I begin to really appreciate the game of D&D and its nuances.

Not from a design standpoint…as a designer, this kind of variation and constant change and craziness makes me want to cringe at least or go play something better designed at worst. But from the perspective of a game player, there is a real power in this variation and inelegance. It allows players to play across boundaries with pretty minimal fuss, AND it shows players that the rules are NOT sacrosanct and freely customizable and here, take half a dozen different editions and cobble together something that works for YOU.

There is a lot to be said for consistency and elegance in design. And then there’s this heaping, steaming pile of Dungeons & Dragons. Much as I prefer the former, I seem to keep coming back to the latter. Maybe by being as messy as it is, it’s more true to life.

Just my thoughts of the day.

Damn Holidays...

[no, not really]

Just about everyone bailed on me for my play-test last night (including one guy just as I was leaving the house...jeez, H!), but I still ended up going down to the Mox last night because, well, beer and because I didn't want to stand up the one stand-up guy that was hanging out and waiting for me at the bar.

Eating a big-ass sandwich. Thanks, Matthew.

[Besides Tebow was playing on the Mox television and, yes, I was able to catch that fourth quarter knife in the heart of Jets fans. In a season where the Seahawks are once again hit with more than its fair share of bad luck (after two weeks of the best offensive line production in years, we lose the two starters on the right side for the season plus...who tears their ACL on a Wednesday practice drill in Week 10? Who does that?!)...welp, I'll take any NFL chuckles I can get, and seeing the AFC implode and the Pats (again) rising to the top is plenty entertaining. I hope Tebow & Co. slaps 'em down in the play-offs. If he can somehow lead the Broncos to a Superbowl win one of these years, we're probably looking at a future Republican candidate for VP...Congress at least (from Colorado, of course).]

Since it was just Matthew and I and he'd never had a chance to play MDR or Out of Time, I went over the basic DMI rules with him, including the new and improved updates I've thrown in. Here's something neat: he was excited and engaged just in discussing game play. He thought it sounded neat, and is looking forward to playing...just by describing the card/dice mechanic, over a hand of cards. Now...that's cool.

At least, I think so. A lot of game designers attempt to suck people in...um, "engage their clients"...by providing them with a cool premise. "It's Star Wars!" or "It's fighting Nazis and dinosaurs in the Hollow Earth!"or "It's undead cowboys in an alternate history world called the Weird West with magic-slinging gamblers and mad scientists and steam-punk!"

I don't fault them for that, by the way...I buy games like Deadlands and HEX and other weirdness, based on cool premise just like the next person. Airship pirates are cool, dammit. I want to experience that world for an evening or two for the fun of it.

But what you don't see much of...at least I don't...is designers hawking their game system based on its ability to engage players in a cool role-playing experience. Oh, you see designers promoting their systems based on "universality" (GURPS, HERO), or simplicity (FATE, FUDGE), or attendant slew of compatible IPA and ability to model cool settings (Storyteller system, Savage Worlds).

I mean there are some: the One Roll Engine (Wild Talents, Godlike) and GUMSHOE (Mutant City Blues, Trail of Cthulhu) are two that spring to mind. But again, they entice you in with the premise, the story of the game first...then they talk up their "unique game system" and how it contributes to the game play.

My approach is going to be similar but lazier: it's space opera, dude.

Anyway, the explaining stuff went down pretty easy and I caught Matthew saying, "cool" or "neat" or "wow, I like that" on more than a couple occasions...to which I replied, "I know, right?!"

So that was promising.

Unfortunately, we won't know how it REALLY works in practice until we get a chance to play-test, which (because of Thanksgiving) is probably not going to be for two weeks. Damn holidays! Actually, Matthew was trying to talk me into running the game next Thursday anyway, it IS a holiday after all.

Dude has got to cultivate a healthier interest in football. My man is originally from Michigan and the Lions are playing their first meaningful Thanksgiving day game in decades!

Again, though, I appreciate the interest AND the enthusiasm; I was pretty excited to try the game myself and bummed that it didn't go down. But this is the time of year when people are winging around the country (or getting stuck in the Occupy Seattle traffic...when are folks going to Occupy Walmart? That's what I want to see...burn that shit down...) and we just have to bite the bullet on that one. But I definitely have some encouragement for continuing the writing.

All right...gotta' get to work, as I'm already running a bit behind (the wife and baby are still sick, so I was up both very late and early this morning getting everyone to sleep). Glad I've got holiday time to spend!

; )

Tim Tebow

My buddy, Steve-O, is no great football fan, but he does love to socialize and is happy to do so on Sunday mornings while watching football with Yours Truly and others. And since he's gregarious and a kind of "go with the flow" type...and as susceptible to mob rule and passion as anyone...I've turned him into a Seahawk watcher over the last few years.

Actually, Steve was (at one point) more of a football fan than myself, insomuch as he went to a Division I school, while my alma mater had no football team at all. Being a former WSU Cougar, you'd think he'd get all excited when Fall rolls around, but as with many former Cougars, he spent most of his five or six years in Pullman skipping class and partying like a rock star and doesn't remember much more than a deep abiding hatred for the Huskies. Oh, yeah...and Ryan Leaf. Steve-O was the same class and, boy, has he got some stories about that guy.

Anyway, recently Steve (who really is not much of a football fan, college or otherwise) has become smitten with Tim Tebow and the whole mystique surrounding the polarizing quarterback. Me, I could give a rats ass about young Tim's politics (I was and am a Hasselbeck fan and he is just about as dyed-in-the-wool Republican as they come...barf). For myself, I'm following the whole Broncos-Tebow story because I keep waiting for Denver to go down in flames. Sorry, old habits die hard and as a lifelong (since '73) Seattleite, I will probably carry a special loathing for all things Orange for the rest of my days.

And yet, Tebow continues to win despite being...well, is inept too strong a word? I mean, there is a certain idea about the role of the quarterback in the National Football League, and Tebow ain't it. Sorry, running backs are supposed to run, receivers are supposed to catch, etc. Young Tim ain't living up to the billing of a starting QB by anyone's stretch of the imagination.

So, yeah, "inept." And yet he continues to win...3 of his last 4 games. I find myself hoping that he will lead the Broncos past the implosive Chargers and Chiefs as well as the cast-off Raiders and into the AFC playoffs. Not because I like Denver (as I said, I don't) and not because I like to root for an "underdog" (I don't like that either).

What I DO like is people who can "shake things up" and throw off the expectations and perceptions of others. Like when the Seahawks blow up the Giants or the Ravens when everyone expects 'em to tank (including me). It's not that Tebow's detractors are wrong...he IS a terrible quarterback relative to the caliber of NFL starting QBs (including Seattle's own terrible, terrible passers). The detractors are right, he's terrible...but he is turning the league on its ear when it comes to showing what one needs to win in the League. Maybe you don't need an Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. Maybe you can win with a guy who completes two passes in a game...even though the starting two running backs are injured.

I wouldn't call it inspiring, exactly. But it makes me glad to know that some people can still, through their very actions and effort of being true to themselves, give all those set-in-stone presumptions a big middle finger.

For a guy who writes pen-and-paper RPGs in a world of increasingly complex video games, there's a lesson there.

Anyway, Steve-O called me twice today, which is very unusual. His first cal was to find a fried chicken place in Greenwood; his 2nd was to to tell me Thursday was Tim Tebow day. I had to remind him that I do NOT get the NFL cable package, so the game won't be on at my house AND ALSO remind him that Thursday is gaming night.

Of course, Cafe Mox does get the NFL cable package, so Tebow will be playing on their TV screens. Perhaps, that will be enough enticement to get Steve to come help me playtest the space opera game this week.

; )

Dinoriffic

Last night (Thursday) I was out gaming again, but I was back at the Baranof again, for the first time in many moons, and my usual table of players was nowhere to be found. That's because they're still back at Cafe Mox enjoying Dungeon Crawl Classics and I...well, I wanted to try something different.

Yes, I've made a split from my gaming group...an amicable split (I hope). But after doing DCC for a few (six) weeks, I've decided I've had enough and want to get back to something else; however, most of the other players are still greatly enjoying the game and I want them to keep playing/enjoying it if that floats their boat. I am about encouraging table-top role-playing and growing the hobby, after all.

: )

So, I've withdrawn from that group (for the time being anyway) and now find myself back where I initially started, more than a year ago: in a booth at the Baranof, sitting across from a single player with a pitcher of beer between the two of us.

[the bartender was so happy to have us back, SHE bought the pitcher...nice!]

There were a couple-three differences between that 1st session at Baranof's and this week. For one, the player at the table was Josh from the regular Thursday night group instead of my brother (who doesn't show up anymore). For another thing, I'm not feeling like "oh the group will never grow to be bigger than me and one dude." I've done the "build-from-scratch" thing once already and know it works (too well...the regular group has just gotten bigger and bigger over time!).

The main difference, though, is we were playing my new micro-game, Out of Time, instead of B/X. Really wanted to try out the dinosaur thing (in case you haven't gathered that from my recent posts).

All things considered, the game worked pretty good, even with only one person. Josh hadn't actually bothered to read the rules (one page, dude! C'mon!) but it took very little time to explain things and character creation was extremely quick (as designed). The most difficult part for me was the prep time involved in creating an "adventure;" however, even that yielded some good thoughts/fodder for game design theory, and I'll be posting a series here shortly about RPG objectives...or rather the lack thereof in many (most?) RPGs.

For this first session, I limited the character concept somewhat in that all PCs (in this case, just Josh) would have to be someone who'd be found in a Humvee driving around Afghanistan. This could be US army, UN peacekeepers, imbedded reporters or foreign correspondents, etc. Josh's character turned out to be an army engineer/demolitions guy and (as a sergeant) the highest ranking enlisted man in the Humvee.

There were three other army guys in the Humvee (NPCs): Sally the driver/greasemonkey, "Tex" (he had another name, but I can't remember now) manning the coaxial machine gun, and Bill who had some medical training (at least, he was the guy carrying the medkit). While in hot pursuit of some Afghani patriots...er, "insurgents"...the Humvee crew managed to drive through a dimensional warp and into the Land of the Lost, smashing their rig into a huge-ass, prehistoric tree.

Much hilarity ensued.

I like the system of the micro-game a lot, and I'm thinking of ways to incorporate it into other, non-dinosaur-themed games. Josh was rolling well all night, and never had to burn cards to get "extra effort," nor did he spend them to offset the damage he took in the single actual combat encounter (a fight with some dire wolves that killed good ol' Bill). Combat worked well, though I had to invent some spot morale rules (which were fine). It sure is tough to hit a pursuing t-rex with a vehicle-mounted machine gun while bouncing across a grassy savannah at 50 mph.

Anyway, that's enough for now...I need to catch up on some sleep. More later.

Hand-Waving Rewards

I realize that several of my regular Thursday night table-mates read my blog, so I need to preface this post a bit. I’ve got some harsh words…or at least “potentially inflammatory” ones…regarding our recent forays into the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, and most of these are going to be directed at the style of our GM, Luke, because it illustrates something I want to write about. I want to be clear that I do not mean this post as an indictment of Luke’s GM skills or his ability to run a fun game; I’ve been having fun along with the rest of you, and I wouldn’t bother showing up if I thought his game was total garbage.

That being said, I’m going to be blunt here and, anyway, Luke’s a big boy.

All right, let’s get down to it.

Thursday night’s game had the usual cast of DCC miscreants at the table. I had missed last week (being in Montana), but I wasn’t the only one. As with the last two sessions that I attended we started in town. Luke (our GM) asked who wanted to “carouse” (a random roll that spends money and has the potential to earn you XP…though there’s a better than average chance of an interesting “mishap” occurring). This particular game mechanism is one Luke first adopted a couple weeks back. As I did previously, I chose to abstain from carousal; though this time I was doing so due to a lack of funds (in the earlier session, I spent my cash instead on a suit of chain mail…go figure).

A couple members of our party suffered misfortune due to their carousal checks, earning the enmity of a local cult. To atone for their sins, they were tasked with stomping out a slave ring at a rival temple. They in turn got the rest of the party involved; we invaded the place, and kicked everyone’s ass. A couple of PCs were knocked out in the process, but all ofthe character’s survived.

At the end of the session, the evil shrine had been all but cleaned out and our charming of the high priestess ensured we took every available scrap of treasure. Luke said he didn’t want to bother adding up all the treasure in the module and simply ruled we each received 100 gold pieces worth of treasure. He then awarded XP and informed us we each had earned 200xp for the evening.

This was not an unusual evening as far as rewards go. Luke always hands out XP at the end of a session, and the amount we have received has always been some flat, arbitrary number. This was the 2nd time I had used this particular character (since he became 1st level). In my prior session he had received 300xp.

Arbitrary, flat numbers. Regardless of character action.

Some of the PCs have a LOT more experience points (for those who don’t already know, in DCC you earn XP in order to go up in level, just like in D&D). The guy sitting next to me had 1300 by the end of the night…close to three times my character’s total. Part of this has to do with his character being present for an extra session or two compared to mine. Part of this has to do with him “hitting it big” on the carousal table and earning an extra couple-three hundred XP (or more).

Um…what exactly is our goal here?

Hmm…perhaps the question isn’t really specific enough. How about this:

What is our motivation for playing this game? What is the objective of play? In-game, what the hell are we trying to do?

Reward systems influence behavior. That’s not up for debate; if you don’t agree with it, you’re probably reading the wrong blog. Systems of REWARD in a game INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR. Period. If your game provides “reward mechanics” it is going to have an influence on player behavior, i.e. the actions they take within a game.

For me, good game design includes system mechanics that reward behavior meeting the designer’s objectives of play (JB's Axiom #3 of good game design…remember those?). The reason why it’s “good” game design? Because the reward will influence behavior, and if that behavior enforces the game designer’s objectives, then you have designed a system that will get people to play the way you (the designer) want it to be played.

In Old School D&D, the reward players play for is increased effectiveness. Characters go up in level and gain the ability of having more dramatic impact on the imaginary game environment. While the acquisition of magical equipment often provides increased effectiveness, such acquisition is generally left at the (arbitrary) mercy of the DM’s generosity/stinginess. However, ALL players can count on LEVEL improving their characters’ effectiveness, and they know the way to gain level: by earning experience points through the accumulation of monetary treasure and the defeat of opponents. Gaining XP is a non-subjective means of earning reward: if I acquire 2000 gold pieces, then I acquire 2000 experience points, and if I am a fighter, that will mean I advance to second level.

So what does that compel me to do? Fight monsters and look for treasure of course!

Now if I simply receive X amount of experience for showing up and sitting down, what does that compel me to do? Show up and sit down, sure. What does it compel me to do in the GAME, though?

Not a goddamn thing.

Why bother formulating plans or carrying on elaborate manipulations of a charmed enemy if the GM is simply going to award you a set amount of gold? Why bother taking risks, or doing ANYthing interesting/courageous if the GM is going to award the same amount of XP to you as the guy who holds the torch and fires his crossbow every other round?

Right now, my character has absolutely ZERO motivation to take any kind of bold action, or attempt anything particularly clever. Hell, right now, the MAIN things I can choose to do (as a player) to increase my character’s effectiveness is A) make sure I show up (and survive) every single week, and B) spend as much money as possible on carousal rolls and hope I get lucky. These are the only two things that will bring my character the promised reward of increased in-game effectiveness.

Not that you really need “in-game effectiveness” when your main actions alternate between drinking/whoring and cowering in the back of the party.

[actually, I believe character level IS added to the carousal roll meaning you party better as you go up in level, and extra hit points DO mean extra survivability while cowering…still, that's not exactly what I call “adventure”]

What a bunch of horseshit.

Now, it may sound like I’m railing against good ol’ Luke’s style of reward allocation (and I am) but this is not the first time I’ve heard of this…only the first time I’ve experienced it. Many times I’ve read posted (both on my blog and elsewhere) with ideas of XP allocation for similar non-merit play. Ideas like:

• “I just level PCs up after a certain number of sessions,” or
• “I just hand out X number of experience points per hour,” or
• “I just reward PCs for the completion of missions (sometimes the same amount whether they succeed or fail!).”

Every time I read one of these suggestions, I cringed inwardly at the thought off what it would do to the game play experience. Now, though, I’ve actually had a chance to experience this style of reward system and I can tell you exactly how it makes me feel:

Pretty irritable.

Not outright angered perhaps, but definitely annoyed. And it has nothing to do with an anti-commie agenda or anything…it doesn’t piss me off that everyone receives the same reward regardless of action and/or merit. That doesn’t irritate me…in fact, if you’re handing out arbitrary rewards, I think you’d BETTER do it consistently.

What does irritate me is this: my actions make no goddamn difference.

Regardless of whether I play smart or stupid or cautious or reckless or brilliant or bonehead. Regardless of whether I crit every roll or fumble every roll. Regardless of whether or not I play in alignment or whether or not I even play cooperatively with my fellow players…or instead try to stab them all in the back. Regardless of ANYthing…

Flat 200xp. Thanks for showing up.

Galling is what it is. The whole bonus-XP-for-random-carousal-die-roll is hardly worth mentioning in light of the main issue. At least with THAT you can make a statement about your character by whether or not you choose to participate.

I suppose for some people, the idea of hanging out with their buddies, rolling dice, laughing, and drinking beer is enough…that the fun of the game is NOT in any imaginary objective, but in imagining you are a big strong warrior, or a furtive thief, or a mutated sorcerer, or whatever. I suppose that there is enjoyment to be had in “playing pretend” with likeminded adults in a safe, non-judgmental environment, and that the game mechanics are present simply to provide some structure for what would otherwise certainly devolve into something sordid…or worse, “zany.”

Hell, what am I saying? “Suppose?” OF COURSE, there is enjoyment to be found in exactly these things…that’s why I still enjoy showing up to the game despite the overall pointlessness of the exercise! But even so, I find myself wanting more from my game (otherwise I wouldn’t bother venting my complaints across the blog-o-sphere!). I mean, if all I want to do is drink and blow off steam and shout obscenities and make off-color jokes, I could do that over a game of pool or darts or in a karaoke bar. If all I wanted to do was imagine myself as a strapping fighter, I could daydream or write short stories with myself as the hero.

Getting handed a couple hundred XP after a moment’s reflection from the GM makes me think, “why bother?” It feels condescending. To me, it’s pretty f’ing lame.

*sigh* I’m sure I’m going to catch flak for this post.

[by the way, one thing I didn’t point out is that the DCC RPG…at least in its Beta form…does NOT have any type of reward “system” built-in. It has levels, it has XP needed to earn levels, but it has no rules on how that XP is acquired. Luke’s decision to hand out flat amounts of XP per session is a perfectly valid choice…as I said at the beginning of this post, this is not meant to be an indictment of him. What I AM trying to indict is the whole “play for pay” idea and what an irritating concept it is. I say this having experienced it firsthand…I think it SUCKS and believe that any reward given without merit or deed is a pretty damn paltry reward]

Old School? Really?

Another good time at the Mox last night. It’s always a good night when you don’t get fragged by your fellow player characters (well, truth be told, it’s often a pretty good night when you ARE fragged by your fellows…so long as you get in on some of the fragging yourself!).

However, good time or not, I am starting to get disenchanted with DCC.

I think Luke (our game master) is doing a good job of moderating/ref’ing the game, but it’s just not wowing me as a game. And I can point to a couple reasons why (gripes I don’t think I’ve aired till now):

1. Too many random tables.

Not only does the sheer bulk of tables cut down on the search & handling time of the game (i.e. it makes game play slower), it feels so, well, random at times. Now understand there are benefits to random tables, and I can think of several good reasons for a designer to include them:

• It prevents “boring” same-old-same-old game play by changing up the possible result of any given action.
• It provides the impartiality of a random roll, as opposed to leaving the craziness of low rolls or “fumbles” up to GM fiat (the latter of which might lead to hurt feelings).
• It provides real surprises (both good and bad).
• It showcases the designers’ creativity.

But it’s still too much random for my taste. Everything in moderation, right?

There are very few random tables I use in my own games. Um…like none really (really? Yeah, I guess not). Even the placement of treasure and monsters is done “by hand;” I suppose I do use tables for wandering monsters on occasion (it’s rare that I use wandering monsters at all, actually), but that’s about it. My random dice rolls are left for the frenzy of combat, the resolution of negotiation, and the riskiness of saving throws.

Everything else is pretty un-random in my games.

Sure, character generation has its random elements, and I’ve made my own random tables to aid in quick-building characters (random hats and peer associations for example). However, character creation is (generally speaking) PRE-play activity; once we call Game On, there won’t be a random roll until we need to check surprise.

With DCC, you roll randomly every time you cast a spell, or fumble, or crit, or invoke a clerical ability. Hell, we had to roll randomly for how well we CAROUSED last night…apparently, some of the characters party better than others.

Even if it wasn’t distracting looking up tables in the rules, I think “random” still gets tired pretty quickly.

2. Too much fiddly.

At what point does a game go from being Old School with D20 sensibilities to simply “D20 Light?” Is DCC supposed to be Old School just because it has some random tables and dwarf is a class instead of a race?

Maybe it’s supposed to be Old School because it has the terms “Dungeon Crawl” and “Classic” in the title?

I don’t know, man. But here’s what the blurb at Goodman Games says:

"Blah-blah-blah…your character is a treasure hunting rogue, etc...THEN:

Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page…"

Okay, let’s take that 2nd paragraph apart a piece at a time.

“Return to the glory days of fantasy…”

Not sure which glory days Goodman is referencing, but I note that it says glory days of fantasy, not glory days of fantasy role-playing. That’s a fairly important difference.

“Adventure as 1974 intended you to…”

Again, what does this mean? When I first glossed over it in my reading I thought, “oh, it’s some kind of return to OD&D, right?” But maybe what they are really referring to is fantasy in the year 1974 and not fantasy role-playing.

Why? Because I can’t for the life of me how they figure OD&D intended people to adventure like THIS.

I’ve been rereading my Little Brown Books a bit lately…they’re a solid reference for anyone designing fantasy heartbreaker…and they look a LOT different from DCC. They are incredibly abstract, often incomplete, certainly open-ended. If they “intend” anything, it would seem they intend people to design and adventure in their own fantasy world with little to guide them but the roughest of rule outlines.

DCC is full of specific fiddly bits as well as specific systems for doing things…even if those systems are nothing more than “roll on this random table.” I mean, wow, it took a long ass time for the guy next to me to write up his 1st level elf (even with me helping) just because there are so many BITS. Action dice, attack dice, crit range, crit table, crit dice, initiative modifier, ability modifiers, saving throws, luck modifiers, luck type, luck dice, spells known, spells manifestation, mercurial magic, blah, blah, blah.

In 1974 you would have rolled six ability scores, picked a class, rolled gold and chose equipment, and then given your dude a name and alignment. I don’t think anyone could claim the game designers in 1974 intended the chargen (or game play) to be this specific.

“…with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery.”

I think THIS may be the key part of the blurb. Modern rules (read “D20” or post-WotC certainly) coupled with the dark, weird, pulpy fantasy of the original literature: Smith, Leiber, Howard, Lovecraft. The choice of literary background/flavor is great and very different from the usual heroic inspirations: Dragonlance, Eberon, Forgotten Realms, whatever. And maybe it is this inspirational source material that requires the extensive use of randomness (in order to mimic the psychedelic craziness of old school S&S).

Then again, didn’t Raggi manage a “weird” version of D&D while still using a true Old School chassis for his game?

“Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you…”

I really, really don’t know what this is supposed to mean. I mean, is it totally disingenuous or what? Play is fastER than D20, capable of handling 7-8 players without slowing to a glacial pace. But I certainly wouldn’t call it “fast.” We spent a long hour (plus) on our single combat encounter last night, and the battle included both area effect spells and truly weak-sauce opponents (scrap-metal automatons).

“Cryptic secrets?” The only real secret is how XP is supposed to be doled out…well, that and what the actual page count for spells will be in the final version (the Beta uses a single page for each spell…it spends 33 pages and only covers 1st level spells. Could the full book have 150+ pages for 5 levels of spells?!).

“Mysterious past?” My character last week was a pig herder. Any mystery was added by Yours Truly. This week’s character was a former indentured servant-turned-warrior. I suppose it’s mysterious how he became skilled with all weapons just a couple days after being barely proficient with a cudgel.

“Turn the page…”

I assume this means the reader is supposed to close the chapter on other games (like Pathfinder and 4th Edition D&D) and start a new one with DCC? Personally, I don’t mind the pretention and DCC isn’t terrible…especially when compared to the fiddlyness of PF and 4E.

But, man, after three weeks of play-testing, I am pretty sure DCC won’t be replacing B/X for me. It feels like it wants to be fun in a beer & pretzels kind of way, but just like HackMaster it’s a little too mentally intensive to allow that kind of play. Even cutting down the number of characters-to-players (none of us brought more than one this week), even having a couple-three weeks of practice with the rules (four weeks for some players), even with each of us having our own copy of the Beta rules right at hand (many having it on their eBooks)…even with ALL that AND a GM who was completely sober, even then…

*sigh*

I guess I just have mixed feelings. We (*I*) did have a lot of fun, BUT a lot of that was the company and the chemistry and, let’s face it, the constant flow of the liquid libation. And when you’re having fun, you can have a lot of patience for the failings of a game.

Until you run out of patience, I guess.

"Hey...Bon Jovi was a cleric, TOO!"

"Lay your hands on me...lay your hands on me...lay your hands on me..."

This from one of last night's players who reads my blog (yes, he was drinking).

Have a great Friday folks!

: )

Pretty Good Game Last Thursday

No, I’m not talking about the Seahawks game which, despite the win, saw offensive tackle Russle Okung injured yet again, Tavaris Jackson get sacked half a dozen times, and Kelly Jennings being run over, run through, and generally being beaten like a red-headed step child every play.

No, THAT game showed me the ‘Hawks have a lot o work to get through over the next three weeks.

[as a side note, how about them Tennessee Titans? Matt Hasselbeck looking pretty sharp, huh? And how ‘bout that Jake Locker kid?]

No, I’m talking about our Thursday night game in which we played the Dungeon Crawl Classics beta.

Not bad.

Very, VERY minor complaints so far, and some of these might simply be a matter of “style preference.” DCC is a strange juxtaposition of several things:

- A B/X foundation (including styling and recycled artwork from the Moldvay book)
- House rules ‘ported straight from D20 (and later) editions
- Random tables a la what might be found in the OSR blog-o-sphere and on-line publications
- Indie-style narrative tools coupled with alternative random number generation

The end result feels a bit schizophrenic to me…at least when reading it.

But we didn’t use most of the rules…Thursday we were still in the “funnel” stage. Eight players sat down to the table with a total of 22 PCs between the bunch of us…the DM also provided us with a couple of NPCs to round out the party to an even two dozen. Of the bunch, I believe all but four of us were 0-level (two of the players had played in the prior DCC try-out when I was out of Mexico) but as it was, there were too many PCs for me to get an accurate gauge of who or what everyone was (fortunately, I didn't have to GM).

Not that there’s any real difference between the characters at 0 level. Personally, I found it great to play “normal humans.” I’ve always felt that the simpler the system, the more the game becomes about your character actions and interactions. And playing the equivalent of B/X “Normal Men” still offered great opportunity for characterization…though it didn’t go quite the way I’d initially expected.

Luke, our GM, came back from GenCon with a copy of Patrick Wetmore’s Anomalous Subsurface Environment, and he’s adapted DCC to the Land of One Thousand Towers. Which put MY initial assumptions about my characters a little “off.”

For example, when I originally rolled up my two dwarf pig herders (“Old Orin” and “Young Yorin”) I figured they were a fairly peaceful pair of father-son farmers, not hardened adventurers. I mean an occupation like “dwarf herder” sounds like something they’ve done for awhile, right? If they were hardened ex-mercs they’d be a little tougher.

But that was before I learned about the goth-zombie demihumans, coupled with DCC’s own description of what the dwarf background is all about. When I first created the characters, I never bothered reviewing the classes so stopped at 0-level character creation + “Neutral alignment” (which made them feel like nature-worshipping, druidish types). Now I’m like Oh, they’re short Drow with beards, exiled to the surface world and forced to raise pigs for humans.

These guys are SPITEFUL.

My third character, Bow-Legged Bill, was originally conceived as a Lawful caravan guard…an outrider, born to the saddle (literally, based on his luck). A protector of travelers in a strange land.

Then we got introduced to our NPCs…fellow caravan guards, buddies of Bill’s, who told the story of a caravan being recently wiped out and a good load of gold being available to loot because of it. Opportunists looking for a score at the expense of the very folk they were hired to protect.

These are my character’s buddies?

They were also, inexplicably, armed and armored much better than myself with splint mail, shields and flails (as a zero level flunky, I had a short sword and a couple dozen copper pieces). As we set out on our excursion to liberate the cash of the fallen from the raiders that took it (the unfortunately named “Mock-Tards,” some kind of gnoll-like monster), I realized my initial assumptions about my characters had been way off. Bow-legged Bill was like a dirty cop…and a rookie one at that, only starting to learn how to get in on the take.

It wasn’t too long before we had our first combat encounter…a pack of hungry wild dogs. The DM tried to make us feel bad about killing DOGS but I wasn’t having any of that (I’ve been menaced by wild dogs before…in the woods in Mexico…and they’re not cool). Especially considering my characters were unarmored and only had 1 hit point apiece.

Afterwards, we found that our caravan buddies had been hiding out in their splint mail while the rest of us were fighting for our lives and decided that they weren’t deserving of their high priced gear, and it would be of more use to other party members.

So I mugged ‘em.

Well, maybe I should be a little more specific: my emo dwarves and bad seed security guard lured one of the dudes behind a copse of trees and then brutally murdered him. After that we intimidated his buddy into giving over his armor and weapon and making him walk point for the party.

This, unfortunately, did not sit well with some of my other 20 party members and payback would come later in the evening.

Let’s see, how did that go down again? Oh, yeah…we found the mock-tards’ lair and proceeded to explore it in a huge pile of people. There was some early suggestion of using my pig-sows for setting off traps, but we already had the naked caravan guard up front so I was able to put ‘em off (my pig farmers were rather attached to their pets). There was a trap door that went off at a crossroads and then a couple mock-tards and a wolf came out of the shadows and attacked. A bunch of chaos ensued due to the incredible amount of people and the D20-style initiative rules. All my characters had agility scores under 9 (short-legged dwarves and bow-legged human), so I was generally among the last to act. People died. One guy was trying to keep the trap door open rather than just writing off the guys inside and getting into the fight…I think I tried to kill him, but I was at the “back of the pack” and the GM ruled I couldn’t get up there.

The melee eventually thinned out. Old Orin charged one of the mock-tards and bull-rushed it into the pit, landing his full weight on it and driving it onto the spear of one of the peons climbing out. Unfortunately, Old Orin only had 1 hit point (Stamina/CON of 3) and broke his neck in the attempt.

Bow-legged Bill used a flail on another mock-tard and brained the shit out of it, killing it. The splint mail seemed to fit just fine.

Randy’s characters decided to kill Bow-Legged Bill because he seemed a murderous loose cannon. His first character's assassination attempt resulted in fumbling and stabbing himself in the brain with his own knife. His second assassination attempt…um…I think he missed. However, his third guy, Stiles, was able to hit, and Bill was felled by foul play (he only had one hit point, too).

By this time, all the mock-tards were dead and the party was probably down to half its original size. We found a big ol’ box of treasure and some radioactive rock (identified by Young Yorin the dwarf) which we stashed in a lead box we found. For some reason, Yorin was spared from the bloody purge that claimed Bill, perhaps due to his youth and the thought that he’d been “led astray.” Sure.

Having completed our first outing, the survivors were advanced to 1st level and everyone got to pick a class. Well, everyone but the demihumans (my character’s class is Dwarf…go figure). We found enough treasure to purchase anything “up to scale mail.” Damage in DCC is variable by weapon, so it only makes gamist sense to pick up a long sword and shield. My character has gone from “assistant pig-keeper” to ShadowFell-ish Badass, in a single session…yeah, that’s kind of a weird transition, but that’s the game.

I’ll be interested to see how things go this week, and I am looking forward to another session (this time with more than 1 hit point). We'll see whether I can put paid to the trecherous Stiles or not.

“Spiteful.” That’s the word of the week.

: )