Bloodletting

Quick Note: The Complete B/X Adventurer will be back in stock this week...the new print run should be ready by Thursday. Had some issues with my printer misplacing the files for the book, but they've got 'em now. The button on the side of the blog has been updated.

Second Note: Wow, Seahawks. Just terrible. 

Russell Wilson was awful yesterday (and the last three weeks). But the Jamal Adams trade is looking worse and worse as the season goes on. Despite making the occasional spectacular play, the defense is even more terrible when he's on the field...and that is saying something. Giving up three draft picks (including two first rounders!) plus Bradley McDougall (an adequate cover safety) just to get a guy who can make flashes before giving up big pass plays and passing on opportunities to tackle? Garbage. 

Here's his Blood Bowl profile:

#33 Goblin: MA 7 ST 2 AG 3 AV 8  Skills: Dodge, Stunty, Right Stuff, Dauntless, Durable*, Leader, Pass Rush*, Strip Ball

* These are new skills pertinent to my NAFL version of the rules (yet unpublished...sorry about that!). Durable allows casualty type to be rerolled (kind of like a personal apothecary); it may not be used in conjunction with an apothecary. Pass rush allows a player to pass block (move three spaces when an opponent announces a pass) even when engaged (in an opponent's tackle zone) but only downfield (i.e. towards the quarterback). 

Such a player IS an asset to the team...he's fast and can take on players that are bigger than himself (there's a reason Adams isn't a linebacker, despite wanting to play like one). But it's not enough. Not when you have 2nd and 3rd string lineorcs playing cornerback and free safety and you're playing against an offense competent enough to respond to the blitz. Just...rough.

And for the record...can I just say I really dislike the Rams? And have since the days of Marc Bulger?

[***EDIT*** Having now seen the full season play out, my assessment of the Jamal Adams acquisition remains pretty much the same (garbage) and would, in fact, remove the "durability" skill from his profile seeing how often he was hurt...so much so that he became a total liability on the defense in the playoff game, allowing a backup QB with a broken thumb to do just fine en route to a 30-20 point game that wasn't even THAT close. And, yes, part of that was a pick-six and a short field from a fumbled punt return. But when YOU are the guy that allows a walk-in touchdown with no attempted hit/tackle and YOU are the closest defender in 78 out of 79 passing yards, and YOU have no sacks despite being a "great blitzer"...well, sorry, I'm going to judge you harshly in the biggest game of the season. ALSO: still really dislike the Rams.]

Finally:

Played some Dungeons & Dragons this weekend, specifically the Advanced (1st edition) version of the game. It's...been a while. And I'm taking it slow...not only because of my own rust, but because I'm teaching the game to my children. 

Cool monster.

No, I'm NOT running a Dragonlance campaign...although my daughter continues to insist her halfling is a kender and wears shoes. Which is fine. And I might steal some DL dungeons, just to throw in the game...Xak Tsaroth is fine as a lair for a black dragon, for example. But I see how other folks...folks much smarter than me...have thrown up their hands at trying to remake the setting.

And honestly...who has the time? 

Well, perhaps someone does, but I am (at this point) unwilling to do so; I'd rather just play. 

So, I'm not (remaking DL, that is). Instead, I'm settling back into AD&D. Very, very slowly. Right now, that means using (or repurposing) pre-written adventures. There really isn't much out there for 1st level characters, but a short scenario from issue #1 of Flipping & Turning (I'll have to talk at length about Grogtalk some time) was sufficient to start the ball rolling. We are now on the two part Alderweg series (UK2 and UK3), though I'm modifying it somewhat (mainly adjusting Fiend Folio monsters. Why the heck do we need xvarts? They're just goblins (if blue). And ogrillons aren't anything more than strong orcs, really...), and I'm just hodge-podging the world together in an eclectic fashion. That's good enough for now, while I get my feet back under me.

[hmm...just by the way, Xak Tsaroth IS kind of a crumby dungeon. And the map is very hard to read on a PDF. Skullcap, however (from DL3) is pretty groovy, and that's an adventure I have in hardcopy. Perhaps I'll change out the shadow dragon for a black. I really do like black dragons]

All right, that's all. Hope everyone's doing well. Later.

Sold Out -- Again

Apologies for the spotty posting lately. Pretty busy with something at the moment.

However, just wanted to say my last print run of The Complete B/X Adventurer is totally sold out. Not sure when I'll be able to get another order; however, the PDF is still available at DriveThruRPG. Some on-line retailers may still have print copies...interested folks can check with Noble Knight or Wayne's Books.

Sorry about that, folks. Thanks to all my wonderful customers who've given me their business!

Hunter of Men

Just continuing the series started Tuesday...

Are rangers the only character class able to track in an AD&D campaign?

Clearly other intelligent humanoids...especially humans...will have some means of tracking prey. Hunting has long been a means of providing meat for the table, and the ability to find and recognize tracks is nearly as pertinent to the practice as the ability to bring down the target. People have been hunting since the stone age and it is too far-fetched (from my perspective) to restrict the skill to individuals of exceptional ability and supernatural power (i.e. rangers).

Of course, this doesn't mean folks of non-exceptional ability are as good at tracking as rangers. The class as presented in the PHB provides a 90% base chance to track in the outdoors (Unearthed Arcana adjusts this to level based, though I'm inclined to ignore most of the UA). The Expert rule book (Cook/Marsh) provides a straight 1 in 6 chance per day of successfully hunting with a far higher likelihood of the turning up a hostile predator than a tasty antelope. Foraging for nuts and berries (also a 1 in 6 chance in B/X) is a safer bet.

Still, my takeaway is that it's possible for anyone (i.e. non-rangers) to find tracks (at least obvious ones), though their ability to make any sense of sign...or successfully follow it...may be far more limited than the sturdy ranger. And while there may be professional hunters or pathfinders...something equivalent to an expert hireling...these are probably little more than an NPC with the appropriate "secondary skill" (from page 12 of the DMG): something like forester, hunter/fisher, or trapper/furrier. Any PC has about a 15% of acquiring one of these skills, should the DM decide to include these in the campaign (we always did, back in my old AD&D days).

However, it's entirely possible that a player might desire more than a random secondary skill and less than the "full ranger" experience. While the clear winner of the man-hunter category is the assassin class (duh), I know there's been a long-held interest in the bring-em-back-alive archetype, usually embodied in the bounty hunter archetype.

A typical bounty hunter.

The bounty hunter is no stranger to the D&D game: aside from the Michael Sechi version (which inspired my adaptation in The Complete B/X Adventurer), I found no less than THREE different versions of the class waaaaay back in Dragon magazine #52 (August, 1981). Later editions continued to produce their own versions, first as a "kit" in the second edition (The Complete Thief's Handbook), then as one of several similarly themed prestige classes (the "Bloodhound," etc.) in third edition. There just seems to be something appealing to the concept of what is (essentially) a paid vigilante. It goes back at least as far as the Western genre, and remains active in the imagination of the TV and movie-going public (see The Mandalorian as the most recent example).

For an "advanced" D&D campaign, I think it's a bit more interesting to add such a character type to the list of permissible classes than to tweak or alter an existing class (e.g. by lifting the alignment restrictions on rangers and/or assassins). The reason I find it more interesting is that adds specificity, an additional layer to the setting. What does it say about the world that such a character type exists? If execution of wanted criminals was the only result needed, why would anyone require more than an assassin? A specialist in tracking and trapping targets can sometimes be useful, especially if one requires more information out of the subject than can be gained through a speak with dead spell. And it almost goes without saying that there are times an employer will want to engage the services of a professional kidnapper for the capture of an individual no goody-two-shoes ranger would ever touch.

Personally, I like the idea a lot. They'd use D8s for hit dice and be open to the same races (with similar level restrictions) as the assassin class, probably with a non-lawful alignment restriction. I like the idea of a multi-class or dual class bounty hunter, and can easily see the class paired with a cleric or magic-user to give them a kind of "witch hunter" vibe (without actually needing to create a new witch hunter class). Yeah, the more I think about it (and I have been thinking about bounty hunters a lot the last two-three days) the more I think I'm going to write it up...possibly for free, but perhaps as a download for my Patreon supporters. It's about time I showed them a little tangible gratitude.

More later.

Doing Things Over

It's been a miserable last few days. The wife got back to town (a good thing) but she was sick when she left and worse when she got back. Both kids have been sick (fevers, sore throats, sniffles), which is tough to deal with when you add in the general heat, mosquitos, and throat-drying AC units. Then the baby's getting her canines in which is...well, let's just say she hasn't slept much and neither have I. Oh, yeah...and my boy was pushed off a two meter high platform by another kid at a birthday party (Friday). Fortunately he didn't land on an arm or leg (or head) but flat on his back, knocking his wind out and giving him some soreness, but no other injury. When I was D's age, I broke bones just rolling out of bed...he's a tough kid. But it was pretty scary, and my wife...well, she was a little beside herself by the whole thing. The kid who pushed D just gloated and laughed over my child's stunned form, and while his parents were apologetic later, they weren't even at the party. In the typical fashion of Paraguayan parenting, they'd simply dropped off their kid with his nanny, who was off eating somewhere at the time rather than watching the action.

[I was recently reading an (American) friend's blog decrying our tendency to micro-manage and "hover" too much about our children these days, but I've seen the opposite end of the spectrum down here, and the end result ain't pretty. Clearly some sort of happy medium is desirable]

I'm not sure how much longer we're going to be down here in Paraguay. There's some stuff going on with my wife's work (the reason we're here), and while they want us here and are willing to pay big bucks (well, by our standards) and seem intent on extending our time here, we're fairly anxious to get back. We're getting two weeks in Seattle in November (we'll be there for the Thanksgiving holiday), and we've been spending a lot of time lately talking about all the things we want to do (and eat!) when we're back in town. It's sad just how much there is to miss in Sea-town...and how little there is to miss here. Cost of living, I suppose. Really big chunks of grilled meat. Chipa (which, by the way, I didn't miss at all when I was home in June). Very tasty malbecs. That deliciously rich cordero dish over a bed of risotto that I order at my favorite restaurant every week.

In the final analysis, it's not enough to keep us here. Hell, nothing they have here (food-wise) measures up to Ivar's fish-n-chips with a pint of fresh pulled Pyramid hefeweizen (slice of lemon mandatory). And I don't even LIKE hefeweizen all that much.

The world's best fish n chips. Sorry, England.

No, we ain't staying. Seattle (and the U.S.) has its share of problems, but the "pros" definitely outweigh the "cons." NOW, one might ask if it was worth it for us to come down here at all? Was it good for us? Did it make our lives better to have this experience? If we had it to do over would we have done things differently?

Much as I miss the mountains, much as I would have liked to be in town for the parade after the Super Bowl win, much as I wish I wasn't going to have to look for a new job (ugh) when we get back...I think we made the right decision to come down here. I think it HAS been good for us, for our family. I think it has been very good for me personally...having to deal with all my personal frustration on so many fronts (most of which I have NOT blogged about), has made me a stronger, hopefully better (and nicer) person. I'm glad we came down here.

But I'm anxious to get home, anxious to get back into my house. Anxious to see the beagles again.

Similarly, I find myself considering the things I've done these last few years with my writing and publications. I find myself of the opinion that the B/X game (of which I've blogged so extensively), may in fact be a game that best balances if it ends at "X." That a game that goes behind 14 levels really isn't needed...not just because of the impracticality involved in advancing PCs into levels 20-something, but because the game itself can suffer when stretched to this scale. Certainly, I'm of the opinion that an 8th level halfling, 10th level elf, and 12th level dwarf are decent matches for any of the 14th level human classes in the B/X game...extending human levels out to 36 makes them far less relevant and the suggested "fixes" (allowing demihumans to advance beyond their maximums or using BECMI-style attack/save bonuses) are poor. While my B/X Companion did the job I intended it to do (providing a rulebook for high level play more in line with the original B/X system), there's a part of me that feels (now) like the thing was unnecessary to satisfying B/X play.

Likewise, there are things I'd have changed in The Complete B/X Adventurer, complexities in some of the new classes that I wish I'd streamlined or reconsidered. It's a neat book, with lots of neat ideas, but much of it feels a bit like a vanity project (despite the work I put into it) adding little value.

However, as with this trip to Paraguay, I'm glad that I did these books. Looking back on them after a few years, there's a lot that leaves me unsatisfied (now), but they were good experiences, growing experiences for me. If I hadn't published them, well, I'm not sure I would have ever published anything. Doing the first book showed me what was possible. Doing the second book showed me it wasn't just a "one time" thing.

The current project...let's just call it "Darkness," for the moment...might look like a small one. And at the physical level it is supposed to be a small one; I'm kind of tired of these games looking more like text books for a college course than like instructions for a game. The challenge is communicating everything I need to within the limited space available, giving the player ENOUGH information to make the game work, and work at a high level. And I'm doing it by breaking a bunch of standard D&D paradigms.

Levels, for example. There aren't any. In fact, in the current (25 page) document, I haven't had the need to use the word "level" even once.

[and no, it doesn't have some percentage based skill system like BRP, either. I told you it's a different paradigm]

The concepts found in the book include things that I've been futzing around with in a variety of (unpublished) projects. I'm just trying to pull it all together to make something that's both interesting and sound, with enough detail to catapult one's imagination, and enough system to see you through. As I said before, given the maximum page count, it's going to be tight trying to meet these goals. The game itself is going to need to be tight.

God, it's going to need some serious play-testing.

In other news, both gaming and Paraguayan, Alexis over at the Tao of D&D has been doing some fantastic maps of Paraguay, as a favor (or rather "a present") for Yours Truly. I can't express how flattered I am by this attention. Remember, this is the same guy who kicked me out of his on-line campaign for being an asshole. And, me, a guy who hasn't even gotten around to buying his latest book. Now that I've shit-canned my South American-based FHB in favor of the "Darkness" project, a guy does me a solid with this beautiful hexagonal rendering? Man, I am a jerk.

So, obviously, I will have to return to the SA-project in a different format...probably as a campaign setting supplement for B/X. Because I just can't let good material go to waste. Waste not, want not, right?

[of course, tell that to my other campaign settings sitting on the shelf: Land of Ash, Land of Ice, Goblin Wars, etc.]

Still, it's Alexis, so I'll try to make more than a half-assed effort.

Oh-oh! The baby's awake again! Got to go comfort! Later, gators!

Might and Magic (Part 2)

[continued from here]

People may notice that the list of blogs listed in the sidebar include a random sampling of non-active blogs that probably need to be deleted...and perhaps someday they will, if I ever get around to getting active on Patreon (and want to make blog listing a "reward" for some level of support). However, I still hold out hope that these might "fire up" again, at some point in the future. And sometimes, I still reference them for their old posts.

Such is the case with long dead Grognardia. As I wrote in Part 1, I was up till the wee hours combing through old (digital) copies of The Dragon, and I was using some of James's old posts to add a bit of additional perspective. Just in random passing, I came across this old post of his and (especially in view of my recent thoughts, dissatisfaction with magic-users as is/was) it reminded me of something. I hate the lumping of spell-casters into one or (at most) two types "magic paradigm."

See my post on this back in 2010. At the time, I was working on The Complete B/X Adventurer (man, THAT has been selling like hotcakes the last two months, just by the way) and in an effort to add more content to a skinny book, decided to throw in some different types of spell-casting classes. I ended up with five total (gnomes, mystics, summoners, tattoo mages, and witches), each with their own variant form of magic...not just "magic-users with different spell lists," but completely different approaches to the form and function of magic. The bee in my bonnet (at the time) was this idea that isn't it Goddamn boring to have everything simply be arcane or divine?

Let me answer that: Yes. Yes it is.

This is the reason you don't find illusionists in D&D after 1st edition (at least, not as a core class). First, ya' fold all their spells under a heading called "arcane," then you say:

"Hey, if you want to specialize in illusion magic, pick illusion spells."

Much as I want a certain cosmology in my game world, I don't want a unified field theory of magic.

[hmm...I say this after already creating a brand-new variant magic system for the current project consisting of a single list of spells: the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Sigh...back to the drawing board...again]

I like the idea of different magical schools, each dedicated to a different brand of enchantment. Fire mages, necromancers, druids, etc. It's not a terribly original concept, I realize: I believe I first saw this kind of paradigm circa 1983 with DragonQuest (I created a stone giant who was a member of the Earth Magic college...sadly, we never had the chance to do more than chargen that day...). Ars Magica does a little of this, too, and I've used the concept a couple times in past FHBs I was developing ("LORE," which I briefly mentioned before, had some of this). The original WHFRP had demonologists, necromancers, battle mages, etc. each with their own separate spell list, skills, and (in some cases) horrifying drawbacks.

I dig this...it has a very old school (please, PLEASE forgive the use of that term!) pulp fantasy vibe. Like the rival wizard guilds in a Leiber story trying to show off why their magic is supreme (shades of 70's Hong Kong flicks with feuding martial art schools). Heck, it's the kind of thing that could work well with the concept of "wizard duels." Forget counter-spells: an illusionist doesn't know the first thing about countering a fire mage's spell. But create a mechanic to simulate dueling, and you can still have two mages of different backgrounds duking it out.

Now that I think of it, this is a big part of why I dug Magic Cards, waaaay back: the idea that you were a Red Mage or a Blue Mage or whatever, and the deck represented your spell book. I always liked working with a "theme;" but then, I've long been one of those people that prefer the fluff of a game over practical application (often to my detriment). Hmm...now that reminds me of the Rankin-Bass film Flight of Dragons with its different colored "wizard brothers."

Of course, that just reminds me of Tolkien (again) with its grey, white, brown, and blue wizards...and weren't Frank Baum's witches color-coded as well? Differing magic by color has a long and distinguished tradition, I suppose...

*ahem*

And to tie this back to the last post... One thing I was considering (just an idea, mind you), is providing more static spell lists for magicians. Limiting them (I suppose you'd say) rather than throwing this huge list of spells at players, only to have them (mostly) choose the same spells over and over. There would be some variation, of course (just as fighters get to choose what weapons they want to carry), and perhaps different lists depending on theme (a druid style list versus the illusionist, for example). Magicians would still acquire effectiveness with experience, though perhaps not so much a greater repertoire of spells. And the spells that would be gained (with increase in level) would be equally limited...something akin to Barker's EPT (1st edition) skill trees, building on knowledge already known.

No necromancers, though...otherwise everyone wants to be one.

The trade-off here...or, rather, what would be gained...would be an increased effectiveness from the get-go. Your magician (or pyromancer or whatever), would have a number of spells at his or her disposal right from 1st level...perhaps the equivalent (in D&D terms) of seven or eight spells ranging in magnitude of 1st through 3rd level. Something fairly equivalent to Gandalf, in other words. None of these would be over-powering, "game changing" sort (unless applied in creative fashion)...most would be of the "utility" type (said utility being determined by the school or "theme" of magic).

Anyway, just an idea I have...I'll see if I can work up some sample lists in the next couple days and post 'em to the blog. I have a strong suspicion that long-time players of the MU class in D&D might hate-hate-hate this concept for a number of reasons: it undermines the work they've put into mastering spell lists, it reduces the choices/options they have, it penalizes the creative strategies they've developed over years of play, it doesn't have the same feel as Vancian D&D, etc. And if folks DO raise these objections, I say: FINE. Go play D&D.

Take your 1st level sleep bomber or charm personer with your bandolier of throwing knives and go play D&D. Pick your edition...it's all the same (except that recent ones let you shoot lasers...um, "cantrips"...just like Harry Potter). Go skulk behind the fighters and clerics for umpteen game sessions until you've acquired enough points that you can be effective. Go do it...I'm not going to stop you! And when you've reached the lofty level where you outclass the non-spell-casters and there's the potential threat of grumbling, you can always incorporate feats and maneuvers and weapon specialization and be a merry band spending an entire game session on a single battle that will be a challenge for your immensely talented party.

That's one way to play (and a time honored one, to be sure). I'm just trying to work on a different way: one that appeals to me. I'm a guy who doesn't play magic-users...like never ever ever. And not because I don't like magic or something. I love stories of wizards and sorcerers and magicians and witches (well, most such stories...sorry, Ms. Rowling). Gandalf is a personal favorite...in fact, I lied! I did...once...play a wizard in 3rd Edition, and I modeled the character on Gandalf, right down to taking Martial Weapon Proficiency: Sword.

[I believe I related this story in the past? We couldn't get past the first obstacle in the adventure because I, as the party wizard, had not taken the "correct" spells. 'What do you mean you don't have fly? You're seventh level!' The DM, folded the adventure in disgust and our session ended. It was the last time I've ever played a straight wizard PC]

I don't like magic-users in D&D. I don't like the way they're conceptualized, I don't like their mechanics, I don't particularly like their steep power curve (and I'm a person that likes power!). So, I want to make a magician class that I'd like to play. That's all this is, folks.
: )

Nice Review of TCBXA

M Blackburn did a nice review of The Complete B/X Adventurer over at his blog. By "nice," I mean "more than fair." He actually wrote the piece back in April, but I've just been too busy to mention it (or even comment on the post!) until just now. Heck, I'm still too busy...I need to get to work!

If you haven't purchased a copy and want some insight into what another buyer thought about it, check it out. I've still got books to sell!
; )

For those who don't know what I'm talking about.

Exceptional B/X Classes (P. 1)

People who were kind enough to purchase my last book, The Complete B/X Adventurer, were treated to a number of new classes for their B/X campaign. The list includes B/X write-ups of some of the variant classes found in Bard Games’ The Compleat Adventurer (the obvious inspiration for my volume), plus a handful of new spell-casters, a couple-three new demihumans, and variants of AD&D classes NOT already found in Goblinoid Games’ Advanced Edition Companion (specifically, the acrobat, barbarian, and bard). Plus the mountebank…always have to include a mountebank variant in anything I do these days (though I’ve yet to see anyone play one…*sigh*).

 When creating these…what? Sixteen?...classes, my design objectives included the following:

-        I wanted to create fun, “fantasy classes” of types that would be recognizable to people who enjoy fantasy literature, comics, and film.

-        I wanted to create B/X classes that did not already exist in another form (for example, I considered adding an illusionist class but GG already has an illusionist for LL so why duplicate the work?).

-        I wanted to create classes in the B/X style…short and simple, with a few abilities and restrictions, nothing overly complicated (i.e. something more streamlined than the classes found in the AD&D PHB).

-        I wanted to make sure the classes were “balanced” (*shudder*) compared to the original classes of B/X. That is, I did not want to create “exceptional variants” like the paladin or ranger that would render the standard fighter “redundant.”

Personally, I think I was able to accomplish these objectives. It was fun to do it…as I picked up each class I asked, ‘How can I make this a unique choice that will be fun for a player? How can I make the class simple and “B/X” in style?’ And when I look at the compilation of classes and creativity, I’m pretty proud of it. Even if folks don’t use it exactly as written, I’m sure folks can find some inspiration for their own house-ruled classes…which was a lot of my motivation for doing the thing.

Of course, now I wish I’d done it differently.

; )

Well, not exactly, but…well, let me put it this way: regular readers are aware that I’m in the process of producing my own “version of D&D” under the title 5AK. 5AK has a very specific setting, with magic and monsters and classes that (I felt) were appropriate to that setting. Fortunately, the setting (inspired by the Arabian Nights stories) is fairly wide-open as far as “fantasy adventure” is concerned…giants and dragons and ghouls and demons and jinn all work within the setting, for example, as does sorcery, witchcraft, and saintly miracles. However, cool as it is, there’s a part of me that says, “man, it’s not fantastic enough.” Or rather, there’s the second guessing that says the fantasy is too much like an Arabian fairy tale (‘too much Ali Baba’)…which, understand, I’ve always loved but, well, it’s not Tolkien. It’s not King Arthur. Maybe there’s just not enough Beowulf.

My personal background is one of American Anglo-Saxonish descent. Yes, I’m Catholic from my maternal Austrian roots (well, and my paternal grandmother converted to Catholicism due to being placed in a Catholic orphanage as a child. No, she wasn’t an orphan…that was kind of a substitute for foster care “back in the day”). It’s hard to imagine how I would have been different as a Lutheran or Episcopalian…but I digress. The point is, despite my “Roman” religion, I am very much a plain, white-bread type; a boring Englishman-descendant whose ancestors had a little bit of ambition (and not a lot of prospects) forcing them to push their way out to the western coast of the American continent. The folklore that is my heritage is mostly a cross between the Arthurian and Brothers Grimm and most everything else…leprechauns or genies or Norse giants and Greek gods…are extremely tertiary to my upbringing.

[hell, my REAL folklore, I suppose is more American folklore like Paul Bunyan…a good axe-man, that one]

So while flying carpets and giant snakes and lamp-bound genies and turbans and curvy swords are all things that fire my imagination, there’s a definite part of me that misses having the knight in shiny armor charging the fire-breathing dragon on horseback. Not that I’m going to suddenly stop writing 5AK or throw out all the mid-eastern “flavor”…as Tim down at Gary’s pointed out, there are folks to whom the setting will resonate. But maybe I’ve missed an opportunity here with the tact I’ve taken. Certainly, it would be tricky to do parts of “traditional D&D” (at least in the style I've traditionally played it) using the rules I’ve written.

After all, the system is much more Chainmail/OD&D than it is B/X.

So it is that my recent thoughts on “subclasses” and “exceptional variants” have led me to think again about D&D Mine, but from a perspective of remaking B/X. Now this is, of course, an even more useless exercise than the current endeavor: at least with 5AK, there may be people who want to play it for the setting or novelty, who then adapt its rules to their normal gaming...whereas people interested in B/X already have B/X or its equivalent (Labyrinth Lord) ready to fulfill their gaming fantasies. And I do NOT want to do an Eberron/Forgotten Realms/Tolkien-style “setting book” for B/X…people can use B/X to do that themselves. Truth is, anything I ended up doing in this vein would probably end up looking like “B/X Talislanta” or “B/X Game of Thrones” (or both), either of which would be kind of dumb. Still, my mind has been having interesting thoughts on ways to remake B/X without remaking the system (as 5AK does) that might be worth a quick gander…

[boy, it takes me a long time to come to the point, doesn’t it?]

Remember how, the other day, I was writing about the way the AD&D subclasses aren’t really “sub-“ anything? How they’re either so wildly divergent as to be separate classes, OR their advantages are so substantial as to make them superior to the basic class? And then remember me saying (in THIS post) how I strove to find “niche” categories for my new classes that did not render the base B/X classes redundant? WHAT IF, instead of the tact I took with TCBXA, I decided to create exceptional variants similar to the AD&D classes…but ones that included the FILTERS I was talking about earlier?

How would that look? Well…

First, we’d have to define our basic classes for the project…um, let’s call it New B/X (as opposed to B/X Next or something), or NBX for short. Let’s go with:

Fighter

Holy Man (or Woman)

Magician

Thief

Each with a maximum of nine hit dice and 14 levels (because 36 is kind of outrageous unless you plan on playing the same campaign for 20 years or handing out a dragon hoard’s value in treasure every week). We’ll also include the demihuman classes as “basic classes” (with attributes and restrictions similar to B/X)…because THEN, if you want your “Halfling Thief” or “Dwarf Troll-Slayer,” you can create it as an exceptional variant class.

; )

[to be continued]

Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 1)

Dammit...sometimes my blog-hopping takes me farther afield than I normally "surf" and I end up leaving comments somewhere that...later...I can't find anywhere. Which is too bad, because I like to give credit when I'm ripping off someone else's thoughts and musings.

Oh well.

[EDIT: Thanks to Red for the suggestion...have I mentioned how terrible I am with this computer stuff? The "dude" in question was Talysman (duh) over at Nine and Thirty Kingdoms. Jeez, JB...here's the link to the post, along with my half-assed comments at the time]

So some dude was writing recently that he's having a hard time with the ability score prerequisites for subclasses. Which, I'd gather, means he's playing/complaining about AD&D (at least one of its iterations) since that's the only edition that really has "subclasses." Well, okay, both Supplement II (Blackmoor) and Supplement III (Eldritch Wizardry) use the terms "sub-class" when referring to the monk, assassin, and druid classes...and these, too, have ability score prerequisites...so I guess he might have been playing OD&D. But the term and concept is more ubiquitous to AD&D.

Anyway...

B/X doesn't, of course, have subclasses, only classes, and except for the demihumans (dwarf, elf, and halfling) it doesn't even have ability prerequisites. Do you want to play a skinny fighter? A clumsy thief? A stupid magic-user? Sure, you can do that...it's a longer, slower row to hoe (with that prime requisite XP penalty) but you can certainly do it.

Ahem...

BUT, there are no subclasses. Even my B/X supplements (the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer) steer clear of the term "subclass." The former has a full enough plate just dealing with a rules expansion for the basic B/X classes...and the NEW classes in TCBXA are just that: "new classes," i.e. classifications of adventurer. The scout is not a subclass of anything, nor is the bounty hunter, nor the summoner. I suppose I could call them "subclasses" but that's not how they were designed. Like the beastmaster or gnome, all were created to fill specific niches not already covered in the B/X rule book.

But what if you wanted to adapt subclasses to your B/X game? Certainly, the Advanced Edition Companion (AEC) for Labyrinth Lord provides all the AD&D subclasses cut to the B/X mold, though they are inconsistently referred to as "subtypes," "types of," "varieties of," and "sub-types." Not that the lingo matters terribly; they're the same things you find in AD&D. The real question is, are they really subclasses? And if they are, is this the best way to present them?

We'll get to what I mean by "presentation" in a second. My own game, 5AK, does indeed have subclasses, but they are true "subclasses." Each main class has two subclasses, the subclass being the exact same as the main class, save that each loses a few class features while gaining a couple (minor) advantages not present in the usual class. This is generally done in order to provide niche or setting specific concepts for the players. For example, the mountebank subclass fills the concept of the magician that failed out of his apprenticeship (he couldn't hack it for whatever reason), but turned to thievery and flimflammery with the few "tricks" he learned in order to have an adventuring career. As a subclass of the thief class, the mountebank is exactly like the thief (same HPs, saves, attacks, skills, etc.) but he's spent less time honing his thieving abilities, in exchange for some of the knowledge of an apprentice magician.

[as a side note, the reverse concept...i.e. the thief taken off the streets and apprenticed to become a true magician...is NOT represented by a subclass. Instead such a character would simply be a magician with the randomly generated advantage, "misspent youth." Becoming a true magician takes years of study compared to picking up some minor ability at picking pockets. But I digress]

Similarly my temple knight subclass (the closest thing 5AK has to a "paladin") provides additional martial training not found in the saint/shaman class, at a cost of some of the divine favors (spells) the saint would normally access. No, it is not a subclass of fighter.

See that's one of the things that irk me about AD&D...the subclasses aren't really "sub-" in the true meaning of the prefix, which would indicate beneath, below, imperfect (as in subpar), or subordinate to. Paladins and rangers aren't subordinate to fighters...they fight the same, have the same or better saves, and have additional bonuses and powers that make them superior to the fighter class. An assassin has all the abilities of a thief, albeit as two levels lower, but has the ability to use all weapons, shields, the express ability to use and manufacture poisons, as well as the ability to disguise and assassinate targets. How does that make an assassin a "sub-" thief?

Other subclasses...like the druid and illusionist...are so expressly different from their parent classes that they might as well be their own. I suspect the reason monks were deemed to be their own class (as opposed to a subclass of cleric as originally stated in Supplement II) was for exactly this reason.

[to be continued]

Reviews & Typos

So I was recently flooded with a rash of orders for my most recent book The Complete B/X Adventurer which immediately made me figure Mr. Maliszewski over at Grognardia must have gotten around to doing a review (he purchased a copy a few weeks back, but I generally don't solicit reviews and I know he's got an already busy blogging schedule so I haven't been bugging him). Lo and behold, there it is...not nearly as favorable as his review for my earlier B/X Companion, but still fairly complimentary and I am extremely appreciative of his kind words.

One thing though that he pointed out...and that I have had others point out as well, both in on-line reviews and pointed emails...is the issue of damage for firearms (rules for which are included in the book). True, I generally use the "all weapons do D6 damage" standard rule in my own B/X games, but I did have a variable damage option in my original firearms blog post (from which the section in the book is derived). Unfortunately, the single sentence got "eaten" by an illustration of a flintlock that I threw into the text, and none of my proof readers caught the omission (and why would they? They were mainly checking for grammar and spelling errors).

So here it is, for those who'd like it...sorry about the delay (it will be corrected in future printings, I promise!):

If using the optional Variable Weapon Damage rule, all weapons listed here do 1D8 damage.
 

 All right, hope that answers that. Of course, not having such a sentence, people who buy the book can freely pencil in whatever damage they feel is appropriate for their own game, and certainly one might consider D6 or D10 to be a fair range of damage potential. I mean, whatever floats your goat, right?

; )

More Reviews of The Complete B/X Adventurer

Hopefully, I'll have more interesting stuff to blog about later today (had a good play-test on Thursday with the new game I've been working on this week)...but my time is kind of limited right at the moment. Plus I have a ton of Seahawk thoughts swirling through my brain at the moment and if I start writing at all, that stuff will probably end up spilling out all over my nice, little game blog.

SO...here are a couple more detailed reviews for The Complete B/X Adventurer. There are still a couple copies down at Gary's Games in Seattle (for locals who don't want to pay shipping & handling charges), but at least one of the copies is looking a little beat-up. I was told today that, other than the new Big Edition books, my little book gets more "thumb-thrus" than anything else on the shelf.

Okay, okay...here are the links:

Tim Brannan's more detailed review

Warduke's detailed review Part 1

Warduke's detailed review Part 2

Been meaning to post those for a while now (sorry)...but (as Tim might say) it's been one of those months.

; )

Two Reviews for The Complete B/X Adventurer

Found two reviews so far for the new book:

Tim's Review

Mike's Review

Both are short and scant of detail (Tim promises he'll be putting up a more extensive one later), but both are positive which is definitely a good thing (and really, is there such a thing as bad publicity?).

If anyone else has a posted or vlogged a review of The Complete B/X Adventurer (positive or not), please email me a link so I can check it out and note it here. Thanks, folks...I appreciate it!

: )

Forgive Me Father, For I Have Sinned...

I said I wouldn't put any more money into the pockets of WotC/Hasbro, and yet today I dropped over a hundred bucks to pick up the shrink-wrapped, leather-bound, re-issuing of the AD&D Players Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide, and Monster Manual...three books I already own in duplicate (variant covers).

And, of course, I don't even play AD&D anymore.

Well, I haven't yet broken the shrink-wrap, and I've decided to give myself a couple days to decide whether or not to return them to the store (for now, I guess you can say I'm removing them from the marketplace). And I was feeling pretty generous...since putting it on sale Thursday I've sold more than 10% of the print run for The Complete B/X Adventurer...sight unseen and with zero reviews. My readers' faith in me is fairly astounding (considering this print run was double the size of any of my previous ones for my B/X Companion). I really, really hope they find it useful to their games, inspiring and fun. That was my goal anyway (oh, yeah...and to make enough money to fund my next book).

So with cash in my pocket, I figured I could afford to pick up the new AD&D books. While I haven't opened my own copies yet, I did have a chance to look through an opened copy of the Monster Manual. The quality of the pages is, well, meh...the equivalent of the 2nd edition Vampire book (kind of shiny without being nice) and everything appears to have been scanned (which is probably the case)...and the fact you can tell it's scanned should inform you on the quality of the scan.

Still the gold leaf and leather is great and if I decide to hang on to 'em they look sturdy and completely useable. My own copies (all of 'em) have water damage and ripped (or removed) pages and pencil marks (and erasures) scattered throughout. The binding on the originals is still quality but the volumes look like they've been well-used (and hard use at that)...which is, of course, the truth.

The marketing department of WotC has let it be known that purchasing these books will support the Gygax Memorial Fund, though I am skeptical about just how much of the profits are going to said fund. 1%? $1 per book? The Gygax family isn't saying (and why should they? ANY extra money for the fund, I'm sure, is welcome...even a pithy amount), and neither is WotC. Which leads me to think that this is mostly a stunt to milk the ca$h cow one more time (like they did with the "fake Basic set box") and inject their own accounts with a little capital provided by the nostalgic.

At least this time buyers will actually be getting the game they grew up playing. If I was a 35-45 year old who had somehow missed the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions and wanted to return to the game of my youth (perhaps to play with my own kids or old friends) this would be the set to buy to "get back into the game." And I am still amazed at how much goodness is packed into these slim volumes. Stacked on top of each other, they're still not as thick as the Pathfinder core rules...and Pathfinder's core doesn't even include a monster list. You can play for years with the information in these three books...I know because I did. And with all the old school web sites and forums existing these days, you can probably find good insights for cutting the dross and running the game (helpful considering the organization of info within the AD&D books).

I wonder if WotC understands the possible consequences of their money grab. I mean, 4th edition alienated a large group of fans from the D&D flagship, and while an AD&D release might bring back customers, it's just as likely (in my opinion) to drive them away from playing 4th or 5th edition. I mean, AD&D IS the real deal after all. But perhaps they're cagier than I give 'em credit for. It's not like they're re-publishing the most coherent earlier edition of D&D: 2nd edition or B/X or BECMI are much more thought out and better organized.

On the other hand, maybe it IS all on the "up-and-up;" no other edition is as associated with Gary Gygax as AD&D. His name is the one on the AD&D books, not Arneson's. With the exception of The Keep on the Borderlands, all his adventure modules were penned for the 1st edition AD&D game, as was his World of Greyhawk. If you really wanted to collect some scratch for a Gygax memorial, this would be the (appropriate) edition to use.

*sigh* Obviously I am a jaded cynic that needs to stop worrying about other game companies and focus on my own enterprise. Hell, I just found out this afternoon that I was nominated for an Ennie award (fan favorite publisher: Running Beagle Games). This I was informed of when I was at Gary's Games today (apparently, it had been the subject of some in-store discussion). If they hadn't told me, I wouldn't have even known...are nominees not informed of their nominations? Am I eligible for a cash prize of some sort? And if not, is being nominated recognition enough or does one have to actually win to have any kind of crowing rights?

And who the hell nominated my company anyway when I've published exactly two books (and the second only a couple days ago)?

[I suppose someone might have been counting my one-page micro-games published on the blog over the last couple years...]

Ah, well...the Ennies are a subject for a different blog post (if that...); the subject of this blog post was the confession of my WotC support (by purchasing their books). I haven't even taken them out of the bag since I got 'em, I'm that ashamed. Either I'm a big-ass hypocrite, OR I'm a fawning nostalgic, OR I'm a weak-willed waffler who can't stick to my guns when it comes to my principles.

And it just gets worse when...as I write this...I find myself leaning more and more towards keeping the books.

Hmm...maybe there's some way I can atone for my transgression. Baby D and I went out for a beer tonight with one of my old high school/college buddies (an ex-gamer...no he did not buy a copy of the new book) and our discussion reminded me of much of the dumb-assedness of AD&D. Maybe I need to actually RUN an AD&D game and house-rule the hell out of it...publish a series of posts or PDFs or "corrections & clarifications" in aid of those who would rather run the familiar game of their youth but have hard time reconciling its craziness with their mature, adult minds.

Maybe.

Damn, there are so many things I want to do, or wish I had more time to do. But we all do, right? Just the usual pain associated with growing up.

Thank goodness you can grow up without growing old.

; )

The Complete B/X Adventurer

Now available from Running Beagle Games:

The Complete B/X Adventurer is a gaming supplement for use with your B/X (and B/X compatible retro-clones) fantasy adventure game. It contains new material for use with your B/X game...material designed to inspire and add to your existing fantasy campaign, almost all of it for the player character (PC)...though certainly there is good fodder for any Dragon Masters worthy of the name "DM."

The book is 62 pages, most of which is content: new classes, new spells, new character options, rules for fleshing out beginning characters. Long-time readers of the blog will recognize some of this material...part of what prompted me to write it was input from readers asking me to collect some of this material into a single volume. This I have done (with some tweaks), as well as adding a bunch of other material.

The bulk of the book is new B/X classes, including five new spell-casting classes. Nearly half of the book is devoted to spell lists and and there are more than 110 new spells (not counting reverse spells). To put that in perspective, the original B/X books contained only 106 spells...and each of the new spell-casting classes has a unique method of using magic, not simply being limited to "divine" or "arcane" spell-casting types.

Other than the spell-casters, there are a dozen other classes for a total of 17. Most of these are human adventurer-types; three are demihumans. They represent adventuring archetypes found in fantasy fiction that are not already represented in B/X (nor are they found in the Advanced Edition Companion for Labyrinth Lord published by Goblinoid Games). All have information for including them at Basic, Expert, or even Companion level adventurers, so you can use them "right out of the box." However, if playing classes above 14th level, one will want to invest in a copy of my B/X Companion or a similar fantasy game detailing high level adventures. Indeed, some of the higher level spells available make reference to material found in the B/X Companion; if you don't already own a copy of that book, you can download a PDF (for half price!) from RPGNow.com.

To purchase a copy of The Complete B/X Adventurer, simply click on the PayPal button to the right. The price includes shipping & handling, and now that I'm going to be a legitimate Washington State business, I'll worry about the sales tax for Washington residents. You'll notice the price per book has gone up from (by $1) from the cost of the last book...that's because shipping costs have increased. As before, Canadian buyers get a break on the deal and, yes, you're all very welcome.

Cover art is by Brian DeClercq, just to head off any questions on that score. Interior art is done by a number of local artists, plus Kelvin Green. They all have my very great thanks (and copies of the book).

: )

Getting It Together

I know that there's been a lot of interest in the new book...there are even a couple people in town who are trying to pick up a copy before they hit the road for Toronto! Unfortunately, I've got a few last things to put into place before I can begin offering it for sale. Keep watching the blog...soon, soon!
: )

Birthing the New Product

The expected due date for the new B/X book is a week from today. More updates will follow in the next few days, but right now I just want y'all to be quivering with anticipation. Go ahead and set your calendar alerts.

; )

Companion Now Only A Click Away

I've updated the blog, so you can now click on the B/X Companion picture (right) to get directly to RPGNow, if you want to download a (PDF) copy of the book.

And hopefully, I'll have a NEW button for the NEW book, sometime today. Hopefully...as usual there appears to be a last minute computer SNAFU between myself and the printer. We're working it out.

: )

Saddle-Stitch? Not this time.

Met with my printer today to talk about the new book and get an estimate. The new book turned out to be more pages than I'd initially anticipated (60 instead of 40) due in large part to the inclusion of spell lists for several new spell-casting classes, but at least it was able to come in at under 64 pages, and managed to include everything I wanted in it.

Unlike the B/X Companion book (still needing to get that uploaded somewhere as a PDF...soon! soon!), the new book will be perfect-bound instead of saddle-stitched. For those new to the "printing lingo," that means no staples down the middle...instead, it will look like your usual RPG supplement or splat book. Doing the book perfect-bound means the cost for book will increase, but I'm doing a larger print-run this time to off-set the costs (we'll see how many extra books I end up having left over...). It also means less chance of getting defective copies (something that happened all too often with the last book).

Right now, I'm just waiting to hear back from my cover artist regarding some last minute additions to the cover format, and then the order will be off to the printer and I can go about figuring how to put a new PayPal button on the blog.

Wow...as I told Brian today, there were times when I started to think this particular project was never going to get finished. After finishing the B/X Companion, this one was a helluva' lot easier to write...but finding the time to put it all together was just sooooo irksome. It sure is tough trying to work a hobby/2nd job on the side when you've got a new baby needing love and attention...everything just seems to move at quarter speed.

Ah, well, it's pretty hard to complain when A) the kid is my favorite thing in the world, and B) the book got done anyway. I know my artists are all excited to see the end result in print form. I'm hopeful it will meet their expectations.

More news on this coming as it gets wrapped up.

: )

Home Stretch on the New Book

The new book is nearing total completion. The art is there, the formatting is done, and the page numbers are loaded. I've got two more charts to stuff, a table of contents to write, and some credits to give, but I hope to have all that done by tomorrow.

Which would be a very good thing, since I have an appointment with my printer on Monday.

I won't bore you with another movie review (saw Rock of Ages today...for a film set in 1987, they sure had a lot of stuff from 1988-90. As usual, the biggest surprise was Tom Cruise, whose pipes on Wanted Dead or Alive were pretty good...it was a better rendition than your usual karaoke and his tenor felt metal enough I wondered if it was actually a "stunt voice" coming out of his mouth. Unfortunately, his other songs weren't as good, though he was entertaining enough as rock god Stacie Jaxx).

Instead, I'm going to get back to finishing up those charts. Later, Gators.

B/X Compatible?

Looking over The Complete B/X Adventurer (as I put the new book together), I am of course struck by the awesomeness that sometimes spews forth from my brain (duh) and the creativity that spews from the pens of my artists (double-duh). It’s a nice little bit (or bunch) of “extra stuff” to throw into anyone’s B/X or Labyrinth Lord campaign…heck, it would probably work with BECMI or the RC or even the LBBs with minimal fuss and muss...and it’s neat enough to make me want to break out the ‘ol B/X books again and stop messing around with all these play-testing shenanigans.

But, but, but (isn’t there always a “but?”)…BUT then I went and opened up my old D&D Mine documents to look through my own “5E Variation” rules I’d been working on a couple months back. And the reason I was doing that was because I had a fantastic brainstorm of how to make the combat system into a simple, yet cinematic, D6 base system that still utilized levels and Hit Dice while cutting out all the extra dice rolling that goes into combat. And I wanted to see what I’d done with the combat system before so that I had something with which to compare the new idea…and, well, I couldn’t well remember what I’d thrown in the ol’ D&D Mine book previously.

[yes, yes, I’ll explain how this relates to the new book soon]

Let me take one more step off into a blue tangent before pulling this back and tying it all together.

I’m kind of tired of D&D combat. I know I’ve written about this before (to varying degrees) and certainly planned several blog posts (that I haven’t had a chance to write) on the subject, but I’ve been finding the base mechanics of D&D’s combat system unsatisfying of late. And I’m talking about the base system, found in pretty much all editions:

- Roll Initiative
- Roll D20 to attack
- Roll damage
- Subtract damage from hit points
- Rinse and repeat ad nauseum

Without active narrative, the system is pretty gutless. Against larger (or large numbers of) opponents, it can become tedious in the extreme…just a long series of dice rolling to see who wins the war of attrition. In the old days, fights could be sped up with judicious use of morale rules; later editions rely instead on critical strikes to help finish fights quicker. But those are just patches on a system issue.

Why should it take me 10 or 20 minutes to fight an orc? As we strive to get initiative from each other and then roll-roll-roll until we finally hit and then subtract a couple points and then roll-roll-roll, over and over hoping our luck (with rolling) will overcome our opponent’s armor class…just for the sake of a few coins in the creature’s belt pouch.

Recently, I’ve been participating in a play-by-post game using (slightly modified) Labyrinth Lord. As people who’ve tried PBP know, it can be sloooow going, even with the DM making the dice rolls. Our characters are 1st level, we’re in the middle of a dungeon delve…the usual fare, in other words. And I have found the only thing that makes the combats short enough to be bearable is A) the hefty attack/damage bonuses we receive (using the standard B/X ability adjustments) coupled with B) the very low (3-5) hit points (and AC) of our opposition. My character has a 16 strength and gains a +2 to attack and damage bonuses, meaning he hits AC 6 (average goblin) 50% of the time, often killing the suckers. But if I miss, then Ope! Got to wait till next round. And my character has one of the higher strength scores. Via PBP, a combat with half-a-dozen sprogs takes a couple-three days to play out.

And that’s just too long. I mean, heroes in stories (or movies) mow through runtlings like they’re reaping wheat, even when they’re not using “magic swords.” Even at mid-levels this kind of scene isn’t really possible in D&D, unless your character is ‘roided out (huge strength bonus) and/or armed with magic gear. Even then, if your opposition is “scaled up” (say, a handful of ogres) you get bogged down in the same tedium of attrition, unless your party contains spell-casters sporting beefy area-effect spells.

[which aren't very Sword & Sorcery might I add? Just as an aside...]

Look, I’m sounding harsher than I probably mean to sound…but when my imaginary character FINALLY hits someone in the game, I want the opponent to go down with a crushed skull, not hang around taunting me to hit it again. Assuming we're not talking about some sort of giant troll or dragon or something.

Which is why I started thinking up a whole new method of combat.

But then (as I wrote earlier) I started reading through my beautifully scripted Book 1 of my "new edition" of D&D and the very nicely written combat rules and I realized, gosh, not only would I have to over-haul everything to include this new “D6 system” in the book, but:

1) The already written, close-to-B/X-rules are pretty well done as is, and
2) If this really IS supposed to be “D&D,” shouldn’t it resemble D&D?

In other words, shouldn’t it include an Initiative roll, a D20 attack roll, and a damage roll (with said damage being subtracted from a hit point pool)? Isn’t that what D&D combat is all about?

And THEN I was thinking: wow, even though I do NOT plan on publishing my D&D Mine for any type of monetary gain, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make it at least moderately B/X compatible? Not just so other people will use it, but so that it can be used in conjunction with my other B/X books like the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer?

[see, I told you this all tied together]

And now I come to the point of this post, in the form of a question: How compatible do you want your D&D “stuff” (i.e. books, supplements, retro-knock-offs) to be with your preferred version of the Original Fantasy Role-Playing Game?

I mean, you don’t need to use “kits” when playing 2nd Edition AD&D…you don’t need to add non-weapon proficiencies to early editions. Monsters in earlier editions are nearly all covered in 3rd and 3.5 edition books (with the possible exception of that three-headed monstrosity from module B3)…it’s not hard to convert back-and-forth between most editions. Plate mail and shield comes up AC 3 in all editions with descending armor class and a +3 dwarven thrower is always a +3 dwarven thrower.

Do you need your D20 roll to hit? For that matter do you need dice of unusual sidedness? Certainly it’s fun (and novel) to play a game requiring dice of different sides, but is it NECESSARY for the game to “feel” like D&D and not, say, GURPS Fantasy?

Those are not rhetorical questions: I'm looking for feedback.
; )

Hmmm…for a moment there, I thought I was going to end this post with my queries, but I decided I wanted to bring up one more bit of thought to consider:

When D&D was first published (in the format we now call OD&D, consisting of three Little Brown Books or LBBs), the rules presumed its participants would be using the Chainmail rules to resolve combat, though it presented an “alternate system” of combat. Over the years, the alternate has become the standard, all the way down to the 21st century (with a lot of add-ons and doo-dads). It wasn’t always the form of “roll D20 to hit, roll for damage” and who’s to say that is (or ever was) the best method of resolving small-scale skirmishes? At the time, it allowed players to use those neat new dice (Chainmail only rolled D6s) and the level of simplicity in OD&D allowed it to move pretty swiftly (roll, check table, subtract D6 damage from characters/monsters whose hit points had not yet been terribly inflated). But since then, those two (small!) pages of combat rules have suffered the most amazing amount of “rules bloat” I can find in any RPG published in multiple editions. How many pages are needed in 4E to provide a primer on combat in comparison to the game's original form? That’s kind of disgusting.

Okay, end last aside...now, back to the compatibility question (and thanks for your indulgence).

News from the Summerlands

I started writing a post yesterday, but instead was over-taken by the wonderful weather and spent much of the day outside walking or working; it was an absolutely gorgeous day in Seattle...one of the days where people finally say, O Yeah, now I see why we tolerate the rain for nine months out of the year. I just couldn't sit in front of a computer under those kind of conditions.

However, it wasn't just the weather that made the day so glorious. First, my family returned to Seattle (in late afternoon) safe and sound, which made MY day. Very glad to have them back with me, even though my infant son broke my fast by shoving a piece of garlic bread down my throat at dinner (I'm still fasting today, but I may have blown the whole detox cycle...sigh...at least I'm laying off the donuts at work).

The OTHER bit of news that will be of more interest to my readers is this: I've finally got all the artwork in for my new book The Complete B/X Adventurer! And it is some swell stuff, let me tell you! Hopefully, I'll be able to get the formatting and proofing done by this weekend, and then it will be off to the printer.

Stay tuned for more info! This one's been a loooong time coming!
: )