Here's Why You World Build

Dennis's blog post today referenced my recent world building post and offered the following observation:

The question Adam raised was, why world-build when character backstories aren't encouraged? And JB, instead of answering directly, started off by musing on why bother playing D&D at all...

Dammit. 

SO...what is probably unclear, O My Gentle Readers, is that what I was addressing in my post (with my first two questions) was some of the underlying reasons why world building is necessary, and that my third question ("why world build?") was more of a "why spend copious amounts of time and energy crafting the imaginary setting for your D&D campaign?"

In other words: Why is it desirable to do more work than sketching out Town X, Dungeon Y, and the distance between the two points?

What I did NOT address (re-reading my post) is the absolute NEED to build a world. In D&D.

I have very little time this morning, but I'm going to try to address it. Succinctly, if possible.

D&D "out of the box" doesn't come with a world. It has some assumptions about the setting that can be inferred from the rules (magic works a certain way, certain species and monsters abound) but there's really little more than instructions on how to play the game. In the Original and Basic versions, the DM was directed to create a dungeon, and then advised that after a while, players would want to move OUT of the dungeon and explore the larger world and that the DM should prepare a "wilderness" (though one with towns and cities and castles) for this purpose.

Anyone who has played D&D for a long enough time will probably tell you this isn't sufficient. Playing the game like this is little more than a board game without a (player facing) board.

For a deeper engagement, one needs a world. 

These days, of course, there are plenty of "worlds" available for purchase: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Krynn, etc. Much easier to BUY a built world than to construct your own. I'll talk about that in a later post. However, there is a reason why there is a market for such products: a world is necessary for serious (i.e. non-superficial) game play. People buying the these products are LOOKING for a world (or ideas for their own creation) because they have played long enough to understand the need for a world.

The newbie player doesn't get this. They're just trying to figure out how the mechanics of the game work. Players need to figure out not just how to roll D20s to attack, what "AC" means and how to pick the right spells, but how to judge risk-reward when it comes to perilous danger of the D&D world. So that their character doesn't die and...instead...succeeds in the game.

The newbie DM has even MORE they have to learn when first picking up the game: not only the lingo and mechanics and extra rules for monsters, but how to craft scenarios that aren't too deadly, too easy, too rewarding, etc AND how to manage a table of unruly ruffian players. That ain't easy. The DM has "absolute power" in the D&D game...but abuse that player and the players walk and there is no game. Give away that power to the players (let the players push the DM around) and they'll still walk once they get tired of manipulating their punching-bag DM (and assuming the DM doesn't quit in frustration and self-disgust first).

It takes time and effort to learn how to be players and DMs (and the latter requiring substantially MORE time and effort than the former). But once you've got it down, once you have all that tuned, you'll find there's still a piece missing from the game: the world. Only the most superficially engaged players are satisfied with just step-and-fetch quests or killing trolls for gold, once they're done learning the ropes. If that's ALL they want, they might as well be playing a MMORPG like World of Warcraft. You still get camaraderie, you still get laughs, you still get to team up for challenges, you still kill shit for money and incremental achievement. And all it costs you is the initial outlay of funds and a couple bucks a month for the subscription. That's a need that the market's filled...there are lots of MMORPGs one can choose from (and probably more on the way as VR tech advances).

To get beyond that requires a deeper engagement with the game which can ONLY happen if there is a world to explore. And the better built the world, the more there is to explore...not just in terms of geography but in managing history, politics, culture, metaphysics, etc...the deeper the engagement that can be achieved.

I'll draw a quick parallel with real life: most of us are pretty attached to living. Regardless of the state of your being, and your beliefs about the afterlife, few people are truly ready to "shuffle off this mortal coil" at the drop of a hat. Why? Are you a bazillionaire with a harem of love slaves and the respect and adoration of millions? Do you live in some tropical paradise where the weather's always perfect, surrounded by loving friends and family with not a care in the world?

Regardless of how shitty our lives may get, we're pretty attached to them. We're invested in them. We want to keep living them...for as long as we can. I mean, there's always the potential for things to get better, right? Always the hope of fun, happiness, love, whatever...yeah?

Ideally, one's game world should be built well enough that the players become invested in a similar way.

[and don't worry about the DM. The DM gets invested just by dint of the time and effort being put into world construction]

A lot of RPGs don't require any substantial amount of world building...the world is already built for them. The World of Darkness games (Vampire, etc.), most Palladium games (Rifts, etc.), Shadowrun, BattleTech, Star Wars, MERP, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Over The Edge, etc. All have a world (or worlds) built in. All have histories (and conflicts based on those histories) baked in. Very, very few RPGs require the same kind of world building in order to offer engagement...for the GM, all that's needed is to create some NPCs and write some scenarios based on the existing world of the game.

For PLAYERS of these games, the main thing needed (besides learning the mechanics) is some sort of "buy-in" to the world being presented. Character backstories can facilitate insertion into the game's setting, but I think it's debatable the benefit that is achieved in/by doing so.

For D&D, where no backstory is required (or, in my opinion, desired) the blank slate of the character allows the game to focus squarely on the players in the present moment: the action is NOW and what the character is doing, not on what the character was or has done in the past.

Because here's the thing: we build emotional investment through our experiences. I get cut from the soccer team in high school...that affects me. I have sex for the first time...that affects me. I travel to a foreign country (where I don't speak the language)...that affects me.  And all of it impacts my life and how I act and react going forward.

But a fictional background or backstory created by a player (or DM) has NOT been experienced. The only thing experienced in the game is the actual experiences that occur IN PLAY, AT THE TABLE. My half-elf's mother was killed by orcs and my father hates me for being half-human and exiled me from the Woodland Realm? None of that matters to ME (the player) because I didn't actually experience them. My father abandoned my family, out-of-the-blue, when I was 17...sneaking away like a thief in the night...and that DOES affect me...because I experienced it myself!

The only thing that you can experience in an RPG...the only thing that will change and transform your character and your personality and your approach/action/reaction to the ongoing game IS THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME. Conflicts with the game world. Conflicts with your fellow players. Events that occur that are humorous, exciting, tragic, whatever. These things can and will affect players and deepen that investment in the game.

The world building is necessary to facilitate this. Otherwise, players simply see D&D as a challenging game of kill or be killed. There can still be emotional investment (we enjoy becoming great killers) but it won't have the deep attachments it might otherwise have.

Okay...that's all I have time for right now. Happy Friday folks!

: )

[edited to correct the link to Dennis's blog]

Delving 4E (Part 5)

It's only fitting that this fifth post be the last installment in this series, seeing as how there's only five editions of Dungeons & Dragons. What - there's more than five editions? Well, the most recent one appears to be something called "fifth edition" and Wizards of the Coast (current holders of the brand name) has an official forum for "Fifth Edition" D&D, so I'll defer to them as the experts on the matter.

Point is, I think I can finish up this series on 4E in one more post. Yes, it will include my (positive) thoughts on the DMG and MM. Maybe some of the less than positive ones, too.

First, the combat/adventuring system found in the PHB: meh. Compared to the other sections I've discussed, there's not a lot here that I find all that cool, interesting, or portable (other than things I might have mentioned in earlier posts). I've seen tactical rules like this before...3E had plenty...but while my impression is that 4E is a simpler system, it sure appears to be complex (talking about presentation here).

I'll reiterate again that I'm kind of intrigued by the way 3E "saving throws" have been rolled into "defenses" and how the actual 4th Edition "save" works. It allows for some interesting effects (like catching hold of something when knocked off a cliff...that's neat). The whole defining action thing (standard, move, and minor) and the currency between them is pretty tidy, if only necessary due to the general excessiveness of combat (appropriate, mind you, due to the emphasis of the game). I like the "shift" action as an evolution of the fighting withdrawal (used to move without provoking an attack of opportunity). Opportunity attacks seem a little simpler than 3E, but it's been a while since I read the 3rd edition...

And that's pretty much all I need to say, with the exception of healing (surges) and the art of dying. Man, it is hard to die in this game...or, rather, it should be hard given the system. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of the three-step death process with saves and whatnot...a (for my money) overly complex system for a pretty faulty concept. Just take death off the table, if that's what you want: PCs reduced to 0 hit points or less are simply knocked out or incapacitated, not killed.

OR (if you want to retain the slim chance of death), simply have an incapacitated PC roll a D20: on a result of 1 or 2 the character dies. That is a fair representation of the character's chance of dying using the 4E system. As it is, you need to fail an unmodified "death save" three times (rolling less than 10 on a D20) in order to give up the ghost...45%x45%x45% equals 9%, the equivalent of rolling a 1 or 2 on the D20. Hey, designers: it doesn't have to be so hard.

The healing surges are another matter. Yes, there are probably too many of them, especially considering how they interact with the short rest and long rest systems. BUT the 4E designers have really just run with the whole concept of abstract hit points, an idea I can get behind. Keeping HPs an abstract measurement of PCs' "staying power" (as opposed to actual measurement of health) allows you do do all sorts of neat tricks: like allowing a PC to gain a few bonus HPs from quaffing a vial of holy water (presuming they're not Chaotic), or granting a PC an extra D4 hit points from downing a jug of wine ("Dutch courage"). It allows my warlord character to give flagging companions a boost by righteously pounding the crap out of someone, and it allows fatigued individuals a chance to recover their second wind in the middle of a fight.

For the record, I like the second wind concept (the ability to expend a healing surge once per encounter to recover one-quarter your HPs mid-combat). I think using it in conjunction with an abstract vision of HPs is about the only way to model someone gaining a "second wind" in the midst of strenuous activity (fighting, in this case). However, as executed, it's excessive...how many times can one really "dig down" for that extra resolve? I'd say once per day with the exception of some fairly unique individuals (modeled with an appropriate feat, perhaps).

No player character in 4E begins with fewer than six healing surges, a number I'm sure is based on the game's paradigm of "two encounters per session." At that rate, even the weakest (in terms of healing) party member can count on two second winds per session (one per encounter), plus as many as four between the encounters to heal HPs back to full for encounter #2 (since each healing surge heals a character one-quarter its HPs). If the final encounter of the day depletes the character of all HPs (and surges), they can still count on ending the session with a long rest to recover all lost resources (HPs, surges, and powers) setting a "fresh slate" for the next get together.

There's not a lot of risk there.

But there's another point to such "safety mechanics" besides simple survivability. Perhaps, they exist to allow longer, deeper delves...bigger adventures without the need for constant retreat and recovery. I mean, that's a positive thing to shoot for, yeah?

Except the 4E DMG belies that presumption with the basic setup of adventures and encounters. Things are built with an eye towards balancing encounters against each other and against the player characters in a manner that provides a steady rate of mechanical challenge at an estimated pace of one hour per encounter. Maybe that's a conservative estimate...especially at low levels when opponents should be fewer, smaller, and possessed of lesser special abilities...but I can also see the possibility of encounters taking longer, especially in situations where PCs have expended their "finishing moves" earlier (or ineffectively) or due to higher numbers of adversaries (on either side) or higher complexity in the numbers of creature roles.

Complexity. Man, that is a key word, here. I've now read the DMG a couple times and I've got to wonder again at the design choices, especially in light of what I know of the designers' objectives. Here's the specific quote I'm thinking about from 4E designer Andy Collins:

People today, the young kids today, are coming into exposure from D&D after having playing games that have very similar themes, often have very similar mechanics ... they understand the concepts of the game. So in some ways they are much more advanced as potential game players. But in other ways, they are also coming from a background that is short attention span, perhaps, less likely interested in reading the rules of the game before playing.   

And I'm not just talking about younger players now, but anybody. I know when I jump into a new console game, for instance, the last thing I want to do is read the book. I want to start playing. And that's a relatively new development in game playing and game learning. And we've been working to adapt to that, the changing expectations of the new gamer.

First of all, I realize there are people like Mr. Collins...my brother, for instance...who can't be bothered to read the instructions on their video games. I'm not one of them. And because I prefer to read the instructions first, I tend have an easier time and excel faster then the dudes that just "jump right in." But, okay, whatever...say stodgy old me isn't their target demographic. Say their game (4E) was designed for the impatient, energy-drink-swilling, short-attention-span kid. How the holy fuck could they expect such a person to digest and run a game of the complexity that is 4E? How are they going to put together adventures and interesting encounters just "off the cuff" with the careful balancing act required for the gig?

It's taken me quite a bit of brain power to parse out the (adventure) design structure presented in the DMG, to the point that I think I could put something together, and I'm no rank novice when it comes to D&D or DMing in general. And I think the 4E DMG is pretty well-written...some of the stuff in here on running the game, designing campaigns, and advice on being a DM is quite good, perhaps the best I've seen in any edition of D&D. I especially like the section on the D&D world and the "core assumptions" of the game...it goes a long way towards creating a coherent gestalt of the kitchen sink fantasy elements that have crammed the game's pages since the beginning.

Could a complete newbie to tabletop role-playing just sit down, open up the 4E DMG and MM and craft/run an adventure for a few friends? I guess anything's possible, but it's hard for me to see it. In my estimation 4E requires a greater degree of sophistication than earlier editions. I had no problem DMing B/X as a nine-year old, nor AD&D as an 12-13 year old...but 4E is a very different animal. I think it is safe to say it's built to emulate (in many ways) MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. The difference, though, is that WoW has a host of programmers building a world for exploration and adventure for the people that pay to play, while D&D's "world" is supposed to be built and run by the same people that put their money down for the books. With the level of complexity 4E presents, the level of study required to make it accessible, I just can't see how this meets the designers objective of appealing to "the new gamer."

[maybe the idea was to sell a lot of pre-written adventures?]

OKAY. Things, I liked. Much of the writing, non-specific to the mechanics (just advice information on running a D&D game) was "good stuff." I like the core world assumptions. I like how they handle artifacts in 4E, and the idea of concordance, though I initially liked BECMI's universal method of handling artifacts also (as a repository of power points) and in practice found it pretty boring...artifacts should break some rules.

I think that the direction 4E went with monsters and monster scaling is actually more versatile and less complicated than 3rd edition...which, all things considered, is pretty impressive. Even so, the monster roles are pretty bland, even if they're descriptive of the way creatures are used in play. The idea of elites (double power monsters) and solos (quintuple power monsters) is a concept I recognize from MMORPGs, of course, but I wonder if it isn't something that couldn't be adapted to good effect. It's certainly easier (and more sensical, IMO) than "adding levels" to monsters. It reminds me a bit of the rules for gargantuan monsters (Mentzer's Companion set) and paragon monsters (Mentzer's Immortal set).

I do like the D6 die roll for recharging monster powers...makes it easier for DMs to be objective when it comes to hosing players with an adversary's best powers.
; )

If only I could grok his stat block.

Oh, yeah...I quite like the way 4E has taken Orcus and made him a focus, arch-antagonist of the setting. But that's something (along with the 4E cosmology) that I want to talk about in a "non-4E" post.

And that's about it.  I'll check the DMG2 later to see if there's anything else I'd like to note. Expect a follow-up addendum to this series.

Quitting While I'm Behind

My recent posts on WotC's "Tomb of Horrors" and Gamer Generations both included some not-so-flattering remarks about 4th Edition "Dungeons & Dragons."

Now, long-time readers will of course be aware that I've denigrated many editions of Dungeons & Dragons in the past...most especially 2nd Edition AD&D (which I have often claimed to loathe with a passion) and D20 in both its 3.0 and 3.5 versions. Likewise, I'm no huge fan (anymore) of BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia, finding that Mentzer's system is a little too "kiddy-fied" for my taste. My preferred edition is B/X, hence the name of this blog, but 1st edition AD&D is the version of Dungeons & Dragons that I played most often in my youth and is the one with which I have the most actual play experience.

Now, a lot of times in this blog I talk about "good game design" and what makes a good game (these are table-top RPGs I'm talking about...just want to avoid any confusion out there). I own a LOT of games, and in the past I owned EVEN MORE, and there are some games I have played that I've NEVER OWNED (like say, GURPS). All of these RPGs were designed by real people, people with the best of intentions (I assume), and when I criticize a game I try to be objective about it.

Often I fail. That's just me...I get worked up sometimes.

However, just because I lambast or beat up or curse a game for some reason or another, it doesn't mean that I don't find something good and (God Help Me) "fun" about it. Case in point: I recently (within the last year) re-purchased Palladium's Rifts, a game I all-but-swore I'd never play again. It's STILL terrible and practically un-playable (except by masochistic 13-15 year olds...at least that was the "peak" of mine and my friends' Rifts experiments). But it's still representative of, not only history, but some real nuggets of powerful imaginary content...not to mention some sweet artwork and the chassis to run a post-apocalyptic Borg game (namely using Warlords of Russia).

And who wouldn't want to do that?

Not every game is good for every occasion...not even necessarily in the genre for which they're designed. Capes is a great little superhero game...unless you and the other players are interested in a superhero slugfest. Then its lack of permanence makes the end result O So Un-Satisfying (I know this from experience). Vampire was great at setting the Dark and Gothic Punk mood/ambience...and then turned into a superhero fang-banger game with lots of running gun battles. Hollow World Expedition (or HEX) is a fantastic-looking game, chock-full of inspiration for running a fast-and-furious pulpy adventure game...unless you really want fast-and-furious since the mechanics of action are a little on the clunky side. Castle Falkenstein appears to be a fantastic game all around...except that every time I try reading it I fall asleep.

These are games that I own and will continue to own, providing inspiration and possibly things to tinker with and get a game going with the right people. In some ways, I'm like the guy who collects old junker cars and has them spread all over the front yard, buying 'em for cheap with the idea that I'll fix 'em up "someday" and either sell 'em for a profit or (at the least) own a classic vehicle that is the envy of the local car show.

Yeah...I'm that guy.

Now regarding Dungeons & Dragons: I have owned, played, and run ever edition of Dungeons & Dragons EXCEPT the so-called "4th Edition." Did my faithful readers know I've actually run a 2nd edition game before? I know I've mentioned I've played and run both 3rd edition and 3.5, both at the table and over the internet.

In fact, D2o may have been my single-biggest RPG investment of all time...though I had almost every Vampire publication ever issued for the 1st & 2nd edition, and I had more than a dozen or so Rifts books at one time (not to mention a ton of AD&D stuff). And that's just the 3rd edition...I never bothered to buy 3.5 books (with the exception of the Complete Warrior and Adventurer books), instead just downloading and updating my 3rd edition stuff with the on-line System Reference Docs (SRD).

However, I stopped buying any WotC-issued D&D product long before 4th edition was even announced...and I mean I stopped buying cold, both new and used. Why? Because I wanted to stop the cash sink from a company intent on sucking every last dollar from my wallet? No...I continue to buy gaming product, both used and new, and even purchased Saga Star Wars last year. The jalopies continue to pile up in my game room, much to the wife's chagrin.

No, I stopped playing D20 because it sucked. Running it as a DM or playing as a PC. On-line or at the table. Every game came down to frustration and eventual disgust. With people that were friends, acquaintances, or even outright strangers.

Fortunately, my friends and I are still friends...we can all agree on our mutual dislike of D20.

; )

What was it about D20 I disliked so much? Well, I blogged about it a lot when I first started writing the ol' B/X Blackrazor, but in the end it comes down to a couple things: it emphasized character crafting over good play, combat over adventuring, and unwieldy mechanics over abstract models...the latter creating a steep learning curve that I find antithesis to creating easy access thus stifling the ability to grow the hobby.

Oh...that and WotC usurpation of every old RPG's system with their shiny D20 system. Yeah, I convert most existing games to B/X if I wanted (and I've known people that converted EVERY game to GURPS or Champions)...but just because you can doesn't mean you should...or that the result will be better.

However, setting aside my ideals and indie-gaming rhetoric for the moment, those other things I mentioned all led to a disturbing realization...the game was looking more and more (or trying harder and harder to be) like an MMORPG. You know, like a certain World of Warcraft game on the market?

Now let me be perfectly clear: I have played WoW. I have played it A LOT in the past. I see the attraction, especially for the lone gamer who, perhaps by chance circumstance, doesn't have a group of people with whom to game. Or for people that want a relaxing way to un-wind that takes no prep, imagination, or stress, yet is still a form of escapism that has an "interactive" quality over chilling on the couch in front of the television.

So yeah, I understand it. I've done it. And I know it for the complete soul-sucking waste that it is. Because at least with table-top RPGs you are connecting with humans, having human interaction, creating a community...in addition to stretching and flexing your creative muscles by being forced to use your own imagination and visualization, to create your own stories and decide for yourself which direction "the quest" may take.

Discussing the best group tactics for handling raids and such in an on-line game is not "role-playing." Planning and execution can be done in chess, too, but it lacks the richness and creativity of real role-playing. Of course, if you've never been exposed to that how would you know what you're missing...?

SO...4th edition. I've never played it. I've never DM'd it. I've never owned it, so I've never read it. I've read a lot of reviews of the individual books over at RPG.net. I've skimmed its core book pages at the local book store or game shop. I've had discussions with people that HAVE purchased it and read it. Nothing I've seen or heard has led me to consider investing in it.

And yet here I denigrate it and piss off the people that profess to play and love it. How dare I!

Well, what can I say? To me, it looks like its designed to appeal mainly to players of computer games. I've said this before, but I'll repeat it in this post: you can't make an RPG designed to play like a computer game that plays BETTER than a computer game. If people want a computer game, they'll play a computer game. Maybe WoW doesn't have a "dragon born" race yet, but when they DO (or something equally cool...like DEATH KNIGHTS), people will jump ship to play it. And if WotC and Hasbro design an on-line computer game that plays like 4th edition D&D...with all the races and classes and spells and magic items and cool powers...well, why would you need to play a table-top game if that were available? And why would WotC/Hasbro want to support it if they could get people to pay a $10-20 monthly subscription?

But, hey, that's just my objection to the game on principle...something I wasn't even talking about in those last couple posts. What I WAS saying (that upset some people) is A) 4th edition is not conducive to role-playing, and B) 4th edition isn't really "Dungeons & Dragons."

I suppose people have a point about the former...I haven't played the game so perhaps I shouldn't judge. However, I can say that D20 wasn't (very) conducive to role-playing, mainly due to its focus and emphasis (resolving challenges with combat and/or D20 rolls). But I suppose that really depends on how you define role-playing. And that's a much longer, and much more complicated post for another time.

As to my claim that "4th Edition isn't D&D," well, I stand by what I said. I suppose in a way this patently ridiculous as it DOES hold the title "Dungeons & Dragons," so it is in fact Dungeons & Dragons. But if Pepsi bought the rights to Coke and re-labeled their own drink "Coke" and burned the original Coke formula...well, is the drink in the can really Coca-Cola? People who'd had Coca-Cola in the past (Old School Gamers) would say, "no."

[and just to continue the analogy, Indie Gamers would ignore it and drink RC while Non-Gamers would drink beer...]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...but 4th edition doesn't walk the walk or quack the quack of older editions of D&D. Not even of D20, which was pretty far removed from the original game. It has elves and dwarves and gnomes? Sure...so do a number of other fantasy RPGs. It has classes and levels? Ditto that. You find monsters and fight treasure? There's a lot of RPGs on the market, past and present that operate with this premise...that doesn't make 'em Dungeons & Dragons. It just makes them "fantasy RPGs."

People: you're allowed to purchase and play whatever you want. But telling me that 4th edition is "the best edition of D&D there is" or that "this is the newest edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" is pretty absurd in my opinion. When I see people saying that, it reminds me of people who said, "D&D sucks, we should play Dragon Quest instead." Or Chaosium's Basic Fantasy RPG. Or Burning Wheel. Or Dangerous Journeys. Or Palladium Fantasy. Or RuneQuest. Or Fantasy Hero. Or MERPS. Or The Fantasy Trip. Or Rolemaster. Or Tunnels & Trolls. Or Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

Or whatever. A commentator in an earlier pointed out Ron Edwards's article on Why System Matters. I would instead point interested readers to Ron's discussions of what he calls Fantasy Heartbreakers. Now of course, 4th edition isn't a Fantasy "Heartbreaker;" this isn't a handful of guys self-publishing a labor of love that hopes to "fix" what is wrong with Dungeons & Dragons. But it IS similar if one considers the "fix" to be a necessary change/adaptation to the perceived idea of what gamers want in the 21st century. However, unlike the independent Fantasy Heartbreakers, by making use of the NAME (i.e. "milking the cash cow") they can ensure some degree of success, regardless of the content of their game, by branding alone.

At least until they drive the value of the brand down.

And whether or not THAT actually happens in my lifetime doesn't much matter to me, as the 4th edition game is not the type of gaming in which I'm interested.

Okay...that's enough for now. Here I was going to put up something more fun on the old blog and I'm talking about this stuff again. Sheesh!

; )

Warhammers Are Totally "BOSS!"

Welp, I’m back in cold, gray, pouring rain Seattle, WA again.

It’s good to be home.

Even if it does mean I’m back to the daily grind (hey, at least I’ve still got a job!). Tonight is Fiddler on the Roof at the 5th Avenue Theater which has got to be my first taste of culture and the arts in many moons…despite breaking her foot in D.C. my wife is excited to get out to the show (rain or not). I’m sure looking forward to it.

Just wanted to throw up some quick notes on Ye Old B/X Games of the weekend:

#1 D6 Damage Convert: This weekend for the first time EVER (as far as I can remember) I had all weapons do 1D6 damage with the exception of daggers, which only did 1D4 (‘cause they were smaller). Playing B/X with non-experienced gamers, they had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with this…in fact, they said it “made sense” that two-handed weapons were harder to use (I DID use my “two-handed weapon gets to add double strength bonus” rule, which everyone also agreed was both cool and sensible). End result: combat (and equipment selection, see below) was a lot simpler with newbies that didn’t have to ask, “how much does weapon x, y, or z do.” And since I’m one of those DMs that rolls all damage myself, the D6 only rule made combat much cleaner and faster. Loved it…I am fully converted to this type of play.

#2 Warhammers Are Boss!: So anyone remember my little ramblings about axes getting short-changed? Well, apparently, I am not the only one interested in non-sword weapons. Everyone wanted to wield a damn warhammer, and none o these kids are medieval history majors or any way versed on the finer application of hamer-to-armor ratios. “War hammers are just cool.” I did not disagree (and anyway, I’d already decided all weapons would do D6 damage, so who cares?). Party #1 had Gimly [sic] the dwarf and “Elfy” the elf wielding warhammers. Party #2 had Carl the cleric, “Elfy Jr.” and Burl the Burley all wielding warhammers. Party #3 (7th and 8th level characters) would have used normal warhammers, but I offered the elf a flaming sword for variety and he jumped on that. He DID ask if it could be a flaming warhammer. No. But I allowed the cleric to have a warhammer +1. Jeez. Oh…and while the elf had a “back-up dagger” hidden on his person, the cleric wanted a “little hammer” for the same purpose (wanted to use the “small hammer” that comes with iron spikes as a hidden weapon…no).

#3 Never Read That Before: Spencer pointed out the following paragraph at the bottom of the Basic set equipment list:

Sometimes the characters may wish to buy an item not on this list. In this case, the DM must carefully consider if such an item could be found for sale and, if so, how much it would cost. The item should then be added to this list.

Ok, Spence, what is it you want to buy? “A two-handed warhammer!” Like a big maul or war sledge? “Yeah!” Ok…um, we’ll call it 10gp for rarity and sturdiness of manufacture. They purchased one for Burl the Burley.

#4 No "Dump Stats" in B/X: Heard around the table (while rolling for ability scores): “Come on, come on Charisma!” While the kids had to be reminded of the difference between Dexterity and Constitution (they got these confused…hey, it’s not my fault kids these days don’t read much), EVERYONE wanted a high Charisma. “That’s how you get to hire people to fight for you!” Presumably armed with warhammers.

ALSO: the biggest crowing rights came over the character with the 18 Intelligence and the biggest egg-on-face from the guy with the 7 Intelligence. “Ah, lame, my guy can’t read!” Hahaha. This despite the fact that Intelligence offers no mechanical bonuses other than languages, and we didn’t even use THAT as I (in the mood to expedite play) skipped over the language selection part of character creation. So the 18 intelligence had 0 mechanical bonus except for bragging rights.

That being said, there were MULTIPLE times when I called for ability score checks, and Intelligence and Dexterity were the two most often used, so the high Int DID have an impact. Reaction checks (with regard to monsters, NPC enemies, and townsfolk) were also extremely frequent, and the 13 Charisma elf with a +1 reaction bonus was extremely handy.

#5 Race as Class: “Can I be an elven cleric?” No. Since these kids have never played anything but B/X and Labyrinth Lord (sans AEC), there is only one place they would have ever heard of such a thing: World of Warcraft. How many reasons are there to curse this foul tool of Satan? Ugh.

Elves don’t have clerics, I explain…they’re immortal unless they get killed so why do they need to believe in an afterlife or have priests? Spencer (who has not been raised with ANY religion at all) says: “that’s too bad…you elves could have gone to heaven.” No one wanted the dwarf to be anything other than a dwarf.

#6 And Speaking of Clerics: Asked what alignment the cleric wants to be, Spence says, “Chaotic…like a Death Knight!” (damn you World of Warcraft…) Upon explaining the spell restrictions clerics have regarding reversed spells, Spencer decides to be Lawful after all, so he can use the healing spells as his default. Elfy Jr. on the other hand? Chaotic (apparently because elves don’t believe in God…where’s Father Dave? We need to do something about these heathen children!).

#7 You Can Tell A LOT About A PC By His Spell Book: When embarking upon our 3rd B/X adventure (Total Party Kills did NOT deter these guys in the slightest…reminds me of MY younger days), it was decided players would be allowed to create higher level characters due to the difficulty of the adventure. Man, were they stoked to pick out more spells! Here is how the spell casters rolled in our group:

Elfy (1st level Elf): Charm Person

Elfy Jr. (2nd level Elf): Charm Person, Magic Missile (both were used to great effect before the adventure concluded).

Elfy III (7th level Elf): 1st – Charm Person, Magic Missile, Ventriloquism; 2nd – ESP, Phantasmal Force; 3rd – Invisibility 10’ Radius, Fly; 4th – Polymorph Self

What? No fireball? No lightning bolt? No sleep?! Nope, but charm person was cast in every single session and both 3rd level spells were used (and to great effect) before the end of the Black Rock Island adventure.

I was surprised he knew what “polymorph” was…but then, he’s a big Harry Potter fan.

#8 Old War Stories Alive and Well: Z. continued to talk about how “boss” his old Thief character had been (this being a D4 hit dice thief of 1st or 2nd level). He had school or I’m sure we could have enticed him to the table.

#9 High Level Play is Cool: The kids were fairly impressed with the draft copy of my B/X Companion and thought the idea of characters going up to level 36 was totally badass. They also liked the illustrations a lot. “I want to be that guy” (regarding the black orc bruiser). “Is that plate mail? Cool!” and “Why does the death knight have horns?” I’ll have to get ‘em a copy once it’s completed.

#10 Always Be Prepared: I had not really anticipated playing D&D when I packed for my trip, but I had my books along in order to do some “work” on the computer. And, yes, I DID have an extra set of dice with me…I guess there’s still a bit of that Boy Scout training stowed away in the ‘ol noggin. It was a spanking good time for everyone with a lot of laughter and wa-hoo moments as well as grim and hideous death for nearly all the PCs. Thank goodness B/X character gen was so short and sweet…down-time for character loss was extremely minimal.



***FINAL NOTES ON WHAT I LEARNED***

B/X is definitely a good “gateway RPG” into the role-playing hobby. Simple enough that anyone can learn, but structured enough that no one has a problem playing, and “rules light” enough that you can do most anything you want with the engine…at least in small scale.

Compared to AD&D (or later editions), B/X spell use is fairly limited. A 7th level magic-user only has eight spells for example. However, the simplicity of the game allows the DM to handle larger parties, with NPCs and multi-PC players, and with enough bodies you have PLENTY of “magical power.”

Kids whose main/only intro to fantasy RPGs is an MMORPG like World of Warcraft have difficulty with non-video game type challenges, pure and simple. They do NOT lack imagination…they’ve just been programmed (no pun intended) to play a certain, simplified way. And NPCs in D&D don’t have those big “quest” ?s or !s floating over their heads, you know?

At one point, the PCs discovered a magic statue that asked a riddle. Answering the riddle correctly opened a door, missing it sprayed everyone with a damaging acid/poison. While I consider the riddle fairly simple, (“I am so fragile, say my name and I am broken…what am I?”) they were absolutely stumped for 20-30 minutes. Fortunately, they could also break the statue to open the door…however, I had to suggest this idea as well.

I think solving these kinds of puzzles is an acquired skill…like the ability to do a crossword you have to practice and train your brain a bit. This is the kind of thing I want to see MORE of within adventure modules, not less.

Finally, the D6 damage for all weapons, D4 for daggers, and double strength bonus for two-handers was a great, great system. I plan on using it in all my games from now on. ALSO, the N1 “house rule” that characters reduced to 0 could be knocked out (and captured) rather than killed was also neat, so long as ample opportunities were given for clever characters to escape/overcome their captors (knocked out characters awaken with 1D4 hit points). It turns back-stabbing thieves from assassins into black-jack packing sucker-punchers.

Due to the excellence of the universal (D6) damage system, I’m considering installing a rather radical house-rule with respect to magic weapons. Instead of giving a bonus to both attack and damage, the “+” of a weapon will modify the attack roll (as normal) and increase the dice used for damage. It works like this:

Normal Sword (or warhammer, or whatever) – 1D6 damage
Sword +1 – 1D8 damage, +1 to attack roll
Sword +2 – 1D10 damage, +2 to attack roll
Sword +3 – 1D12 damage, +3 to attack roll

This allows players to use all their differently shaped dice (which is fun), gives magic weapons a real whopping potential for damage (possibly doubling what would be the normal damage roll), while also leaving the possibility of a minimal roll (after all, not every successful attack is with the enchanted edge of one’s magic blade…sometimes you’re just thumping someone with a fist full of steel). I don’t feel particularly bad about increasing the damage output of magic weapons as A) it will shorten fights between high level characters and tough monsters, B) B/X damage bonuses from high strength is already slim compared to AD&D counterparts, C) the AVERAGE damage inflicted is no greater than that of a universal D6 weapon with the appropriate bonus (for example: a D6 sword averages 3.5 damage; D6+1 averages 4.5 which is the same as D8, etc.).

When using this rule, I would not allow weapons beyond the +3 range, though “slayer” type weapons (+1, +4 versus dragons or whatever), might bump the damage category up one additional step to 1D20 against the specific enemy type ONLY.

Vindication (For Me, At Least)

I'm starting to see there's some commercial value to elves.

So, it appears I've managed to corrupt yet another of America's youth with the lure of Dungeons & Dragons. This time a teenage girl, age 14.

I should explain that while my wife and I don't have any children of our own (yet!), we have many friends that do, for whom we often act as surrogate parents, baby sitters, or "uncle and aunt." This comes about from knowing our friends for a long time, and their kids since they were just wee little ones. My "nephews" who I've blogged about before are not actual blood relations, though they do call me Uncle even when talking of me in the third person. Hey folks, it takes a village, right?

So yesterday, yet another kid we know and love spent the day with us (well, and the night, too...she's sleeping upstairs as I type) to hang out and be merry and practice her Spanish with my in-laws. One of the reasons we haven't seen a lot of L. (as I'll call her) in recent years is she and her fam moved down to Argentina for a year...but they didn't like it too much and eventually returned to Seattle. Their two daughters (both teenaged) enjoyed it a bit more, perhaps, and did pretty good at picking up the language, but they don't get as much opportunity to practice here as they could. ANYWAY...

We had a great time and stayed up long into the night after a day of exciting fun for the whole family. However, what is pertinent to this post is L. saw my Companion project on the ol' Mac and wanted to know what I was writing. A game, I explained, which completely piqued her curiosity (L likes games) as she had never seen such a weird looking game.

So I explained to her what an RPG is. She knows of World of Warcraft (she has a friend she thinks is silly for the amount of time he spends on it), but she prefers games like Rock Band and Halo, being an active kind of kid (she doesn't tweet, she plays basketball and soccer, and the latter at a high level having gone to the State finals this year). And she's HEARD of Dungeons and Dragons...apparently there's a commercial on TV for the latest version?!!

So I showed her B/X and explained how the game is played as well as the difference between B/X and the current edition and its craziness (I find my old 3rd edition hardcovers are making great visual aids for these kids).

And she's down. Oh, she is totally down. She thinks B/X is super cool, thinks my Companion project is super cool, says I should try to get black and white interior art but do a cool color cover in the style of the original Erol Otus drawings (yeah, kid, we're already on the same page).

AND she wants to play. Hell, she wanted to know if we were going to use props, like costumes! She TOTALLY wants to play an Elf...perhaps with a pet faerie. But the idea that she can play any character (and play a different character every session) and explore a fantasy world has her totally intrigued. The imagination part is what's charged her batteries.

Well, my wife's input about her elf character helped. What is it about girls and elves and fairies anyway?

So now it appears we will be organizing a game with L and my nephews sometime in the coming months so that she can have a chance to play Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe I'll have to buy her a copy of Labyrinth Lord as well.

; )

By the way, quick note to Hasbro/WotC: America's youth does not seem to have the patience to learn to play 4th edition D&D. It is too damn big, complex, and intimidating. If they want something like a video game program, they'll just play a video game. Sheesh!

Wizards of Marketing

So I "took possession" of my nephews yestereve (their parents are in Spain for the next ten days), which means I was up making breakfast before school this morning at 7am after being up till 1am or so organizing Magic Cards and watching Project Runway.

[yet another side note: I watch three reality shows with startling regularity: Top Chef, Project Runway, and The Amazing Race. The first two are simply an exercise in bottled creativity, and results are judged by experts of the field rather than BS call-in proletariat...something I love. The latter show is about a group of competing cooperative couples ("parties") traveling around the world ("adventuring") exploring crazy locales and overcoming obstacles ("tricks/traps" and sometimes "monsters") in order to win a million dollars ("acquire treasure")...YOU do the math]

Ten days of watching the (teenage) kids means ten days of entertainment for yours truly, though it also means a dearth of my own side projects I'm afraid. Sorry...I unfortunately continue to belong to the non-gaming rat race (unlike some lucky Old Schoolers) and consequently need to put in 50 hours or so (including commute/lunch time) per week doing things other than writing and gaming in order to maintain my wife, beagles, and mortgage in the manner to which they've become accustomed (my wife works even more, so I thank my lucky stars...of course, she gets to travel).

However, the little extra stress of caring for two kids with football practice and high school dances (not to mention fixing real meals and getting 'em to school/bed on time) is small potatoes compared to the fun factor. My wife is already telling them (the kids) that they should take the opportunity to start "a series" with me (her word for a D&D Campaign). They (the kids) are very enthusiastic...in fact, the 15.5 year old may forgo hanging out with his hoodlum friends after school in order to get home early and play with Uncle JB.

Of course, D&D won't be the only game we play. For one thing, the kids brought their Wii over to the house. Normally, I would work covertly to ensure the game system never got turned on (distraction and attention is an amazing way to keep kids off the vids, I've found) but this time it appears we'll be playing it as they brought over Rock Band which my wife loves and has been jonesing to play ever since our XBx 360 burned out.

*sigh*

Another thing is the kids' personal vices. For S, this is Warhammer 40K which he ALWAYS wants to play when he comes over (I've put that off for over a year, but the minis might be coming out this week). For Z., this is Magic: the Gathering and THAT's already out (as I said). He made sure to bring his shoebox of cards and is anxious to test his "kick-ass black & white" deck against me. Poor (6' tall) kid...I've got FOUR shoeboxes full of cards. I should probably just put together a deck of Swamp-walk and Plains-walk banding critters to shut him up.

>: )

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I'm from Seattle which is fairly near the birth place of Wizards of the Coast (I'm not sure exactly where it started, but their headquarters were located in Renton for a looong time and they had several flagship stores in the greater Seattle area for years). Strangely enough, I came pretty late the the Magic Card craze. I wouldn't buy my first deck until 1999 or so, more than six years after the initial release of the game.

I had been aware of Magic Cards, of course. The first time I saw them was my third year of college, which would have been...well, 1994 come to think of it. The guy who ran the Call o Cthulhu game at one of the dorms was the roommate of my (non-gamer) buddy, Matt. O, jeez...I can't remember that guy's name! Paul? Maybe...he was from Kelso, Washington which is pretty much saying "from the sticks." I had to ask Matt "what the hell are those?" To which he told me, "some sort of card game, I don't know, he plays ALL the time." I never saw Paul play. He did end up joining a very short-lived Vampire game (mmm...that one's a LONG story...), but he never "showed me the Magic."

Actually, come to think of it, my buddy Joel also had some Magic cards, but when I asked him about them he showed complete disdain for his own collection (Big Joel was always big on disdain regarding a LOT of things besides peace and justice and throwing down "the man"). Of course, most of the time I was with Joel was spent drinking and perusing...um..."other pastimes." He WAS rather passionate about Ars Magica, come to think of it, and he introduced me to that game back then....

So I managed to get through all of college with never buying or playing Magic at all.

It wasn't until I was unemployed and living in a house with two WSU non-alums circa 1999 that I picked up my first deck and laid land to laminate. Steve and Salter were non-gamers (though Steve had played some Rifts with me back in high school), but all of us were heavy drinkers and two of us were between jobs, so we had to find something to do.

Salt worked as a part-time caterer while going to cooking school, and he was the guy with Magic cards. He pulled them out one night after we'd been drinking a lot (I don't know what it is about Seattle-types being so nervous about being judged by others...maybe because we're so judgmental ourselves? Probably) and wanted something to do besides watching Strangers With Candy and smoking cigarettes. I think we probably ended up playing till dawn.

Of course, after that we were sold. Steve and I used Salt's spare cards to construct decks that we would play against each other and Salt, then we'd tweak 'em between games to better take on our opponent(s), then we'd rinse and repeat. My wife (at the time "girlfriend") got into it as well, and Steve, M. and I would show up at Baranoff's in Greenwood, eat a hearty (if greasy) breakfast and play Magic for two-three hours. We'd buy used cards from the local game shop (20 for a dollar? Something like that) and never actually gave WotC so much as a red cent all while enjoying the hell out of ourselves.

This went on for a couple months till we'd all found jobs. But it was definitely fun while it lasted!

It was also much MORE fun than playing computer games on-line, IMO. There's nothing like throwing down some big-ass monster with "trample" and seeing the crushed look on your opponent's face, or making bird "skraw" noises every time one of us summoned up a flying creature. We all had personal nicknames for our best cards. M. loved her blue deck specifically for this flying djinn card she somehow always managed to pull; she referred to him as "Superman" and still does (as she did last night...and she hasn't touched a Magic deck in close to ten years!). Good times.

Here's the interesting thing...the actual initial point of this post before I got a little side-tracked: Magic the Gathering has an incredibly low buy-in for its amount of fun/addiction. Kind of like Tom Moldvay's Basic set. Meanwhile, D&D in other formats also has a high fun/addiction factor but a terribly high buy-in. Most people just don't want to spend the money or the time necessary to learn the game themselves.

Case in point: my nephews. They LOVE D&D. If I had to ask, I think it would be one of their top two or three games of all time after only having played TWICE (by the way: they have BOTH cancelled their World o Warcraft subscriptions and sworn off the game). But even though I bought them their very own Labyrinth Lord (AND dice), they haven't yet read the rules or tried running games themselves.

Now, I haven't questioned 'em too closely about this (as I said, we just got 'em last night and they only had time for dinner, homework, and a some Must See TV before bedtime). But the impression I got is they simply don't have the patience to learn the game from a book. And this is Labyrinth Lord we're talking about...not even AD&D or Pathfinder! That's a pretty short book!

It reminds me of my brother and his console games...he enjoys video games but he never bothers to read the instructions. And these are SHORT instruction books. I read 'em and operate his console games better than him right out of the gate; he doesn't have the patience to learn the many intricacies until (maybe!) several hours of gameplay have elapsed. Are we just that impatient as a culture? That would probably explain my questions regarding WoW the other day (people just don't have the time and energy to play table-top RPGs or "create imaginary worlds"). Still and all, I find that pretty sad if it's the case.

Ah, well...enough whining. I'm heading for home to build some Magic decks.

: )

In Praise of Gygaxian Combat (Part 2)

I was running out the door to catch a bus this morning, so I figured I’d take a little extra time to elaborate on my earlier post. I said that the Gygaxian combat system was elegant, purposeful, and heroic. Here’s what I meant:

Elegance: an abstract combat system, it boils down all the strikes, feints, dodges, sucker punches, kicks, etc. into one attack roll. In fact, “to hit” is a pretty misleading term (one of the reasons I dislike “THAC0”)…the roll describes whether or not you are able to do damage to your opponent in a particular round. In this way, all those complaints people have about “armor absorbs damage, it doesn’t make it harder to hit” are moot. Gygax’s “armor class” takes damage prevention into account by reducing one’s chance of reducing hit points in a given round (by reducing the chance an attack will succeed). The thing that D&D players (including DMs) need to get away from is the idea that one roll = one swing of the sword/mace/staff. Stop saying, “I swing at him;” the narrative of combat can be much more flavorful despite its simple base mechanic. It doesn’t have to be boring!

Purposeful: Gygax outlines that indeed one could devise a combat system that is more granular, and in fact states that other game systems that do so. His does not. This is a clear look at behind the curtain of game design…D&D in its early form was not conceived to model blow-by-blow combat. Gygax cites his reasons, but in practice (say…with D20 or TROS) I have experienced that, from a practical standpoint, combats run faster and character effectiveness (in this case the ability of the player to enjoy the game at full capacity) doesn’t diminish. D&D combat wasn’t designed unconsciously.

Heroic: the abstract design of the system certainly allows for heroic action on the part of the player characters. As Gygax writes later in the DMG (regarding hit points), a single sword thrust can kill anyone. The abstract manner of hit point deduction without penalty allows characters of high level to stand heroically against many such sword thrusts that would kill an ordinary mortal. But for me, that’s not the most interesting, or heroic part of the section.

In re-reading page 61, it caught my eye that this combat system does not (and I presume was not intended) to model equally for both players and monsters. A human or elf might not be able to survive a single sword thrust through the belly, but a dragon or giant certainly could. Hit points in most monsters represent actual capacity to take damage. The implication is subtle yet profound…an experienced character can stand toe-to-toe with the Titans of the Age and fight on a roughly equal footing. Whereas a normal man would be torn apart by, say, a manticore, a 10th level fighter could certainly hold his own and triumph in one-on-one combat.

D&D characters ARE heroic..the simple (but encompassing), purposeful combat system allows players to represent many of the literary and cinematic masterpieces of fantasy.

It’s too bad that video games like WoW, so clearly drawn from D&D roots, have failed to grasp or implicate this basic combat system…instead it labors under the one attack = one swing delusion and characters with hundreds of “health” points are shown unrealistically absorbing damage from bites, claws, sword thrusts, arrows, etc.. But I suppose that’s comparing apples to oranges. Video games are a different (and much more limited) medium than D&D and the human imagination.

Now what does that say about D20 and its movement towards a more video game-like system?

Labyrinth Lord

Despite having already downloaded a free copy, I was quick to purchase Labyrinth Lord when I saw it on the shelf at my local game shop a couple weeks ago...along with a full set of cool, swirly purple dice that beautifully matched the cover.  Note to Goblinoid Games: remember the days of boxed sets that included dice, a game book, and a module?  Stuff a copy o LL  in a box with an Erol Otis cover and sell the thing at Toys R' Us.  Maybe you can even work out some type of deal with Brave Halfling Publishing for a compatible adventure module.

Anyway, I did feel slightly bad about removing the only copy from the shop...after all, Labyrinth Lord is "preaching to the choir" with me...my Moldvay/Cook rules have been riding constant shotgun the last month or so as I gear up to re-enter the world of D&D gaming (been in the middle of selling one residence and moving into another).  Has my purchase deprived some young Turk of discovering the joys of Old School gaming?

Well, personally, I felt I had a stronger duty to support these retro-clone folks where I could.  Hopefully the shop will re-order LL having sold the first so quickly (I know they did with both Trail of Cthulhu and Mutant City Blues, but Pelgrane Press is Pelgrane Press).  Plus, I fully intend to pass it off to a pair of young Turks I know, as soon as I have a chance to demonstrate the game to them.  They're practically the perfect age (pre-driving) and have the right temperament...they also dig fantasy of the "young adult" variety and have recently given up World Of Warcraft (so they say) as being too cheesy and repetitive. "Not gritty enough" said the older one.  Hey, I couldn't agree more.

Meanwhile, I as an adult with a readily disposable income can always buy another copy of LL, on-line if necessary.

Tangentially speaking (sorry), it's funny how quickly this stuff can spread.  I had a couple long conversations with a friend of mine living in Oregon (hi, Kris!) about Old School gaming, he having met his own disenchantment both with D20 and on-line gaming.  He's been in the process of introducing his neighbor to D&D gaming, but needed something a bit simpler.  I hipped him to Labyrinth Lord (the free version) and he's liking it a lot.  Who knows what type of old school conflagration might be touched off in Prineville.

Anyway, regarding LL, I find it quite a worthy clone of its predecessor, though I still prefer the original.  Not because of its art, or the author's writing, both of which I find to be excellent.  I just likes me my 36th level cap and my incremental increase in armor costs. Sorry, that's just me.  Otherwise, it's all good in the hood and I look forward to play-testing some of the new stuff, especially the higher level spells.  I've got my own supplement/writing project in mind (as soon as I finish un-packing the new house!), and LL is going to be a fine resource.

Thanks, guys!