ASC Review: Bones of the Mountain

Bones of the Mountain (Jakob McFarland)

S&W adventure for PCs of 5th level

I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.

This one's okay. Starts out with a banger of a premise...feels very mythic/folklore. Seven wights ride down from the Black Mountain every full moon on the back of their giant wolves, carrying off women from the valley below; a mad Sherpa claims he can lead you to their dark fortress for 100 gold coins.

Site is biggish (18 encounter areas) but it is still a "small" fortress. Draugr are just "wights" in my book (literally in my book...if you read my Five Ancient Kingdoms, you'll find I've replaced the "wight" entry with "draug." Well, druj really...had to go all Zorastrian, after all...but draug is what the Northmen call them. Oh, yeah...here, too), but in THIS adventure they are:

Frozen undead soldiers. They shall be statted as zombies with 3HD.

What exactly does this mean to be "statted as zombies?" They don't share the same AC or HD as zombies. Does the author mean they can be turned as zombies? Do they always attack last like zombies?

The mythic/folklore feeling persists throughout the adventure and helps make any weirdness (the friendly werewolves, the illusion-generating spider) seem like part of some dark fairytale rather than gonzo bullshit. No, the real problem lies with the treasure count. The scenario doesn't say how many PCs it assumes, but seven seems about the right number and that would mean some 67K in treasure for a site this size. Instead, we get less than 20% of that as potential take...far, far too little.

McFarland's adventure is still playable D&D, and has got some nice theming going for it. But the treasure is way off and despite some pretty beefy encounters (the worgs, wights, and draugr are nasty), it could probably stand to contain one or two more threats/hazards. Three stars (***) with definite potential.

ASC Review: Secret of Glassmaking

The Secret of Glassmaking (Billinger Bence)

S&W adventure for three to six PCs of 4th level

I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.

A simple little piece with a glassmaking theme. Tacoma-native Dale Chilhuly has had a pretty profound impact on my locale, so I know a bit about the glassmaking biz (I've been down to his workshop and galleries), and can appreciate the concept...there IS something magical about the art. Though this one feels a bit more Venice than T-Town.

Took me a minute to figure out the map...thought I was looking at an archipelago before figuring out AHA, this is the whole (flooded) island, and what I'm looking at are the parts that haven't been submerged. Makes sense...and makes for a novel method of exploration. Presumably via canoe or raft. Dig it.

14 encounter areas...great. About eight of areas have some sort of danger present (good ratio of monsters to traps), all pretty much level appropriate.

Treasure is too light...should be closer to 17K and it's barely more than 7K. There are some rather nice magic items, but magic items don't award x.p. in S&W. 

This one is nicely done. It's clean, clear, playable D&D...perfect for an evening's entertainment. It gets three stars (***) with a "+" and could easily be upped to the "solid" (4-star) level by fixing the treasure...I'd suggest putting more in the warehouse (with the glass golem), adding a forgotten chest to the empty shipwreck, and throwing a bone in the secret room (seeing as how the players have to go to the trouble to FIND the secret room...maybe left over gambling loot?). But overall this is a pretty good concept.

ASC Review: Tower of the Necromancer

Tower of the Necromancer (Riley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

Dispel Myth(s)

Just picking up where I left off...

Yesterday I asked a not-so-rhetorical question "have people forgotten how to play D&D?" The pat answer is "Of course not, people all over the world are still playing D&D and enjoying the heck out of it!" The evidence is fairly clear: tons of book sales, tons of convention goers (when pandemics aren't getting in the way), tons of presence on social media platforms, blogs, web forums, etc. The game is again being sold in toy stores and there's all sorts of attached merch and related D&D product.

Clearly the game is enjoying a popularity unseen since the 1980s. Doesn't that indicate people are playing the game? Isn't that popularity coming from the enjoyment folks feel playing the game?

Perhaps. But I'm inclined to think rather differently. 

Regardless (the marketing of D&D is probably a subject for its own post) today I'm writing about folks who are actually playing the game, and specifically to folks who gravitate in the group referred to as "the Old School" or "the OSR" (for short). The OSR is just another marketing term, another badge of identity politics. I know my published works (including blog posts) ties me to the OSR label, too, but I honestly don't identify much with it. I am a gamer...a middle-aged gamer (I'll be 48 this year). I've been playing RPGs with dice since 1981...that's coming up on 40 years. My journey...my love affair...with RPGs started with B/X but it has run the gamut over many, MANY different games though the years.

I'm just a geezer that likes escapist fantasy games. 

And D&D is the one I know best. Not only because it's the one I've played the longest, but because over the last dozen years I've spent a LOT of time and energy "deep diving" the game, researching its workings, its history, its development. Because I love it, and because I find it fascinating, and because it has had such a dramatic impact on our culture...not just "gamer culture" or "geek culture" but world culture. For me, Dungeons & Dragons has importance...in much the same way that a theologian feels about the Bible or a historian feels about classic treatise written by ancient Greek and Latin scholars. It's worth my study.

SO...the OSR. A movement, a market, and (originally) an umbrella term for folks who like to play an older version of D&D. Not an older style, mind you...simply an older version. 

[because "style" is largely a matter of taste...different styles of play have been around since the early days of the hobby...read about or listen to interviews with various TSR luminaries to see what I'm talking about]

As the OSR has moved from an identifier of game preference to an industry, there has been a loss of knowledge about the fundamentals of how to play the game.

And part of the reason for this is this strange and nutty adaption of (and adherence to) a set of stylistic assumptions/guidelines used to define "old school" play. Things like "rulings over rules," "heroic not superheroic," "unbalanced combat," "emphasis on player agency," "high lethality," etc.  These ideas have been taken to heart, cherished, and championed by members of the OSR pretty much since 2008 when Matt Finch published his Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.

I combed Ye Old Blog this morning, but found no mention of the Quick Primer and nothing about Finch, except for an off-hand remark that I'm not a big Swords & Wizardry fan. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of Finch's work: I've both S&W and the Primer downloaded on the hard drive and have read them before. But, especially with regard to the Primer, I think a little context is needed for BOTH of these works.

Finch wrote S&W in 2008 because the OD&D rules were out-of-print at that time. He used Wizards of the Coast's OGL to release the rules so that folks could have and play the game (the original books have since been made available in PDF format). 

The Quick Primer was released alongside S&W in part to explain to "modern" (post-2000 players) the differences between new versions of the game and ORIGINAL (OD&D, 0e, White Box, etc.) Dungeons & Dragons...an edition of the game that was primordial and not yet fully formed.  In this context, as an overview for modern players coming to OD&D needing a radical perspective change, it works fine as a "quick primer" (hence the name). But treating it as a treatise on the subject of "old school play," or as gospel truth, or even as being applicable to other old editions of Dungeons & Dragons (B/X, Holmes, AD&D, etc.) is a catastrophic, erroneous leap to make...let alone foundation on which to build a gaming paradigm.

Let's examine some of the accepted ideas  of "old school" D&D gaming that have sprung from this false understanding and see if we can't destroy their fallacies.

Simple or Few Rules: while older edition versions of D&D do not have nearly the "bloat" found in later editions, calling them "rules light" is hardly appropriate. Setting aside BASIC games (Holmes, B/X, BECMI) which were specifically written as beginning instruction manuals for new players you will find that both OD&D and AD&D did nothing BUT add rules to the game over time: OD&D added five supplements in addition to additional instruction presented in The Strategic Review magazine, nearly all of which were eventually incorporated, and AD&D added manual after manual all the way up to the 2nd edition, which would take the same tack. Even Mentzer's BECMI had an ever-expanding list of instructional texts (not just the Companion-Master-Immortal sets, but the new rules provided in Gazetteers, some of which...non-weapon skills...would later be incorporated into the Rules Cyclopedia). The fact that some people prefer simpler rule sets (like B/X as a standalone game) is NOT endemic of "old school play."

Rulings not Rules: perhaps the worst phrase ever coined in the Old School lexicon. Gygax's instructions to create one's own rules for situations not covered in the textual rules is probably the most misunderstood part of old texts. His admonition "why let us do more of your imagining for you?" was a proscriptive against folks writing to TSR for rules arbitration (in effect, he was saying "Figure it out yourself!"). But just because the rules can't cover EVERYTHING doesn't mean they don't cover SOMEthings...and for many things (like combat) there were existing rules...and more were being added all the time (see above). Finch's statement in this regard was regarding the incompleteness of the OD&D system.

Heroic not Superheroic: another oft-quoted "gem" about how old school PCs are aspiring to be Batman, not Superman. Rubbish. Superheroes are super because they have inherent supernatural powers, and there are PLENTY on display in the D&D game: magic-users, clerics, druids, illusionists, paladins, rangers, monks, and bards all have "super powers" not found in ordinary folks. So do characters with psionics. And if you don't think a high level fighter's ability to cut a swath through 10 or 15 or 20 mooks in a single round isn't "superheroic" (see the rules in both Chainmail and AD&D) than I guess we have very different ideas of the human possibility spectrum. Old school PCs of the mid-high level range are hopping through other dimensions, fighting dragons and demon princes, running kingdoms and commanding armies...this is not "Batman level" stuff. Old school characters are larger than life, much as their inspirations (Conan, etc.) were.

"Forget Game Balance:" and this is why we end up seeing so many published adventures that pit low level PCs against godlike super-beings. Just because encounters aren't "engineered" to allow PCs to win (see 4E, 5E, and 3E's Challenge Rating system) does NOT mean that combats or challenges are "unbalanced." If I throw a dragon in the first chamber of my dungeon meant for 1st and 2nd level characters, that's not "old school;" it's being a crap Dungeon Master! The D&D played using old edition rules is very much about risk assessment and threat management, and about players having the choice of how to approach perils to life and limb. But part of the art of DM'ing is in designing challenges that are difficult without being impossible. And rewards should certainly be commensurate with the challenges being presented, in order to tempt PCs into untenable/difficult situations.

High Lethality: this one, I suppose, is a bit in the mind of the beholder. If you're the type that sees ANY player character death as being "highly lethal" (because you're used to an edition of D&D with "death saves" and "healing surges" and whatnot), then sure...old edition D&D is "highly lethal." But if your definition of "high lethality" equates to "Total Party Kill" (or near-TPK) than, no...old edition D&D does NOT necessarily have a high degree of lethality. Death in D&D is a fail state for the players; it generally indicates 'you screwed up.' It is a possible penalty of poor (or unlucky) play. However, it is easily mitigated by the ample number of ways to bring PCs back from the dead, and by the relative ease with which new characters can be created and advanced. I have found AD&D to be especially forgiving with regard to PC death (due to higher hit points per die, more clerical healing at low levels, and the use of negative hit points as a "buffer")...but even with B/X the game need not be "highly lethal." DMs must still balance encounters based on party's experience and ability.

Emphasis on Player Agency: um...what? If you mean players aren't laboring under a DM practicing illusionism than I don't think that's something very specific to "old school" play. But regarding PCs having a "choice" in what they do in-game (again, not something specific to old editions of D&D!) there are plenty of ways that player agency is restricted and curtailed in old edition D&D: see charm spells, hold spells, paralysis, petrifaction, and (yes) death. Plenty of ways exist to take a player out of play for short (or long) durations. If you're talking about an "open sandbox world" unfettered and unconstrained, I'd counter with a plethora of published old edition adventures featuring "trapped" player characters, including Castle Amber, Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Ravenloft, Dungeon of the Slave Lords, the Desert of Desolation series, the premise for Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, etc. 

Referee Impartiality: um...again, is this indicative of "old school" play? I think not. However, while I am a strong proponent of not fudging the dice...ever (and you should be, too!) I have to say that I love my players and I want them to succeed at overcoming challenges (yes, even though I cackle with glee when their characters die). Why? Because for me (as a DM), allowing players to succeed allows their character to advance which in turn allows me to open up new content and newer more cunning challenges and situations. It's a win-win for everyone. Likewise, it's really tough to run a long-term viable campaign if you let ONLY dice dictate what monsters and treasures are encountered by your players...as a DM you must be willing to set the ship's course; the fun is in seeing how the PCs navigate the waters. And reading Gygax's text in the 1E DMG, I think he was pretty much of a similar mind.

Aaaaand...that's about it. Any other long-standing precious beliefs about ostensibly "old school" game play that I need to stomp all over? If you think of some let me know. Otherwise, please feel free to grump about how wrong I am in bashing OSR-approval-stamped credentials of "real D&D play."

Next Post: I hope to start writing a series about actual "fundamentals" of game play (at least for older editions; sorry, 5E...you can suck it). Need to fill this newly created void with some constructive stuff. Stay tuned!

: )

Page By F**ing Page

Happy Holy Week to folks. I suppose we all have reasons to send up prayers to our respective deities these days (though, don't we always?). I'm pretty bummed at the lack of Mass and such (I can't quite bring myself to stream church services...it's just not the same as participating in the celebration), but to be perfectly honest I'm fairly numb to the state of spiritual life these days. I totally grok the defiance of some religious leaders in wanting to keep their institutions open and functioning (even though I disagree with the decision to do so)...stubbornly clinging to habits has often been a bastion against the fears, sadness, and traumas that threaten our functionality.

[as with all human traits, there are reasons for the various evolutional developments of our psychology]

ANYway...more classic (original) D&D last night. I'll recount an amusing anecdote: the PCs, in making their third excursion to a reportedly "haunted" island, were making their way to the ruined tower on the central mountain when a wandering encounter resulted in several beastmen emerging from the jungle. Surprised, they found themselves immediately engaged in melee and thus unable to use their crossbows. As the entire party was bloodied in the first round, the party magic-user decided to flee back through the jungle to their boat, figuring it was every adventurer for herself. "Dabby" the fighting-man likewise tried to flee (after seeing both the party's mercenaries slain), but since he was wearing plate armor, the beastmen were easily able to keep up, bashing him all the way.

After a round or two of this he decided to stand his ground and fight, whereupon he discovered that sometimes the best defense is a good offense (the plate stood up just fine to the beastmen's clubs and he was able to kill all three in single combat). Unfortunately for Dabby, the magic-user had given him up for dead, and by the time the warrior reached the beach, the boat was gone. Knowing it would be impossible to swim the 25 miles back to the mainland, he resigned himself to his fate as a castaway. A wandering encounter in the night with a giant poison snake ended his melancholy situation.

[I'll point out that while Diego was justifiably irritated at being left behind on the island, his sister didn't strand him maliciously: she honestly figured he was a dead duck and was just trying to save her self from the same fate. D also learned valuable lessons about speed, evasion, and encumbrance and his new character...also a fighter...decided to go with chain armor instead of plate]

Anyway...

Regarding the title of this post, I've decided that my new stupid gaming project is to rewrite Original D&D, and I mean that in the most literal sense of the term. I am copying the exact text, line-by-line, chart-by-chart, page-by-f'ing-page into an A5 sized word document. I may (or may not) attempt to copy the illustrations, but for the time being, I'm mainly concerned with the text.

Rewriting

There are several reasons behind this madness, not a single one of which involves "profit." Aside from allowing me to get a deeper dive (and, hopefully, understanding) of the rules and system, my intention is to have a working document I can edit as necessary to meet the needs of my game. I really, really like the format of the original three books...I find them far more practical than a fat volume rulebook (like, say, Swords & Wizardry). But while I own (and actually use at table) copies of the original LBBs, they are in danger of falling apart from age and I'm intensely hesitant to mark them up with changes.  Putting them in a Word doc will allow me to cut, paste, and edit as I want, order monsters, spells, etc. alphabetically, clean up text formatting I don't like...plus add rule updates from later supplements (if I desire) or cut things (that I don't).  It will allow me to print copies that I and my children can use or even (some day, if I'm lucky) distribute to other players that might sit at my table.

Anyway, it's not a huge project. Book I is only 36 (A5) pages in length, much of which is not text, and I'm more than two-thirds the way through after only a couple mornings of working on the thing. It's not a bad exercise...it's helped clear up a few things, and refreshed my memory on certain procedures. And it's kept my mind thinking and percolating with regard to Dungeons & Dragons, rather than simply succumbing to ennui and depression and numbness. Which I'm sure all of us are staring down the barrel at on some level or other.

So there. My other books...well, I've been getting some good updates from my artists (apparently they're still finding time to draw), so I might be able to release a couple eBooks in the near future. I'm going to shoot for something earlier than Summer; we'll see what happens.

Warriors of the Red Planet Beta

Thomas Denmark's Warriors of the Red Planet is now available as a Beta version from Lulu for a measly $4. I follow the man's Original Edition Fantasy blog solely for the beautiful artwork, and WotRP looks like a fantastic piece of work...especially exciting, if you're interested in a Sword & Planet type game based on Burrough's Barsoom (who isn't?) using an OD&D style ruleset (ditto).

Unfortunately, being in Paraguay means I can't get this myself. Dammit.

I had some all-too-brief rules in Book 3 of Five Ancient Kingdoms for converting 5AK to this kind of setting, but Thomas has chosen to go "whole hog" and I salute him for it. Hopefully, some version of Warriors of the Red Planet will be available when I get back to the States.

You can purchase it here. The forum for discussion on gameplay is here.

Sword & Gun fantasy on the Red Frontier!

Of Fathers and Monsters

Welp, it’s time to start gearing up for June. Yeah, I realize it’s a little late to start “getting ready for June” but just take that as an indication of how busy the last couple weeks have been. Hell, I even missed FREE RPG DAY (more on that in a minute) not because I was busy but because I didn’t even realize it was going on!

I did have a happy Father’s Day, and I hope other folks did, too. Not to rub it in anyone’s face, but mine was very enjoyable…the family let me sleep in (all told I got something like 25 or 26 hours of sleep since Friday night…including naps…which is about double plus my usual amount over that same span). The wife made me breakfast, the boy and I got a long walk and some play-time, another nap, then a looong, much-needed massage followed by Guinness and meat pie at the local English-style pub, before picking up the boy from Grandma’s house.

Oh, yeah…and a new electric toothbrush. It’s been months since my teeth felt so clean.

I also had time to reflect a bit on fatherhood and my relationship with my own father. I got pampered a bit thanks to my (relatively easy) siring of a child, but really Father’s Day is about remembering our own fathers, much as we dads might think it’s about getting a day to hit the golf course, free of the usual household chores. 

All of us have fathers – men that without whom we wouldn’t be walking around, breathing air and reading blogs. It’s an inescapable, biological fact. Even if our fathers disappeared from our lives years ago (or even before we were born), they are responsible for our existence…as responsible as our mothers…and regardless of what judgment we might have on their ability at being a PARENT, we can be appreciative of the role they had in bringing us into this world. I mean, unless you wish you’d never been born or something (I think most of us enjoy living most of the time).

And yet there is so often a melancholy association with our fathers…even those of us with the great fortune to have fathers who were loving and present and not prone to raging bouts of asshole-ism. It’s different from dealing with one’s mother who we often continue to feel a certain amount of tenderness, even into adulthood (not to mention a need to please and the guilt of “not being a good enough child”). With one’s father, to have “tenderness” or “compassion” is almost to feel like having condescension or pity for the man…and that would seem to undermine that traditional role of “strength” that the father is supposed to have in the family dynamic. Offering your father sentimentality can feel like you’re calling the man weak…and so we instead try to approach him with a degree of “respect for his manliness” and (in practice) a certain aloof indifference to his own emotional needs.

And woe-betide the poor man whose made tragic choices in his life…whether ones that affected himself or his family or (most likely) both. He may already feel like a shlub and our only choice of behavior is either to A) pile onto the shit he already feels or B) ignore any pain or regret or guilt he may be feeling for the sake of maintaining that illusion of “father as strong man.”

Because I think we want our fathers to be strong men. Children grow up thinking of their parents as godlike, perfect beings anyway, but mother is allowed to be the comforter and tender-loving care-giver and father is supposed to be a solid rock. And while we lose illusions of our parents’ infallibility as we grow older and wiser and see them as “normal human beings” we still want them (perhaps subconsciously) to meet our idealistic expectations. Because we are their offspring. With respect to our fathers we want to be descended from “strong men.” That doesn’t mean “warriors” necessarily, and certainly not “angry tyrants” but STRONG…in their convictions perhaps, certainly in their ability to endure. Whether we are their sons or daughters, their genetics are in our DNA, and I don’t think there is a single person, in their secret heart-of-hearts, that wants to say “my father was a weak man.” Even if he abandoned our mother…even if he abandoned his children…we want to be able to chalk it up to youth, or ignorance, or an indiscretion, or a lack of compatibility.  Or even just that the man was an asshole…at least saying a person is stubborn and pig-headed and self-centered shows a type of strength (even if it’s not a very nice, good, or effective one).

But no one wants to say: my father was weak. Because what does that say about us, his children?

And because we won’t (secretly) allow our fathers the luxury of weakness, we often prevent ourselves from having an intimacy and closeness we might otherwise have. Perhaps it’s easier for daughters to enjoy MORE closeness with their fathers but regardless, if only one party in a relationship is given the space to be vulnerable, it’s tough to achieve a true intimacy. Even for those of us who enjoy an otherwise “good relationship” with our dear old dads.

Now having written all this, I should point out this is simply a reflection on “the state of things,” not a manifesto on how we need to change the world. By the time a person is in their 30s (and probably before that) we intellectually understand that our fathers are “only human.”

[we also intellectually know that someday we are going to DIE and we hide that from ourselves as well, pushing it to the back of our minds as a “low priority” consideration]

It’s not incredibly necessary (or even appropriate) to suddenly start denigrating our fathers (at least not any more than we already do), but I think it’s okay to acknowledge not only their lack of perfection (or strength), but ALSO:

A)     Our personal need and desire for them to be unreasonably strong (an unreasonable desire), and

B)     Our debt of gratitude to them for our lives…regardless of whether or not they meet our ideals or not, regardless of how competent or powerful or righteous or “strong” they are…or not.

Whether or not YOU are a good person or not (by which I mean “make positive choices in your action” or not), has nothing to do with your father…you have free will to make whatever choice of action you wish. On the other hand, without your father, you would not have been given the opportunity to make ANY choice AT ALL…because you owe your existence to him, like it or not.

*ahem* And that’s the extent of my Father’s Day reflections for this year.

[by the way…I could have waxed on for a few more pages about my own father’s foibles and fuck-ups and my on-going relationship with him, but I’ve decided to spare folks THAT, not out of embarrassment or shame but under the realization that my own father is far more interesting to ME than it is to my readers]

So...I missed Free RPG Day on Saturday which is just…ugh…now THAT is embarrassing. Usually, I’m there when the store opens and taking first swipe at any and all goodies on display. This year, I had no idea it was even this weekend…I haven’t been spending a lot o time on the internets the last week or so and it just wasn’t even on my radar. Sunday, I walked into Gary’s Games and saw a copy of LotFP’s adventure, Better Than Any Man, on display and was like, wow, you guys got THAT in stock? And I was told: No, it was part of the offerings for Free RPG Day the day before…the copy on display was the only one left over.

Crap.

Of course, I immediately picked it up, as well as Hall of Bones, a free adventure scenario for S&W. Other than these, the only thing left from Saturday was the Cosmic Patrol quickstart that I picked up (and blogged about) last year, which means my total haul for this years ended with a pair of OSR-generated adventures. Seeing as how it was Father’s Day and my family gave me time to lay on the couch and read uninterrupted (another infrequent luxury at my house) I can offer a couple thoughts on these two products:

“Hall of Bones” (for Swords & Wizardry): a fairly basic, low-level adventure. For me, the best part is the smooth inclusion of a basic rules overview (plus pre-gen characters) making this a fairly standalone game-adventure (just add dice and players).

I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of S&W. I know a LOT of OSR-types like to ride that pony, but despite the art, layout, and modern sensibilities of game design, I prefer the original LBBs. And not just the romanticism of having brown-covered books…I mean I prefer the original scope and content of the rules. S&W over-steps (for my taste) in certain blanks...but those blanks are part  of the charm of the original game. Hmmm…I don’t mean this post to turn into a referendum/review of S&W so I’ll leave it at that.

The simplicity of S&W means that rules for “how to play” can be included in a 20 page adventure book making for a complete game, which is a pretty sweet feat. That being said, I found the adventure itself underwhelming. Yes, I realize it is an introductory adventure for 1^st level characters. It still felt a bit of “challenge lacking” for my taste, and the new monsters…well, I’ve created “intro scenarios” with unusual variations that I thought were better, so I guess that’s what I’m judging on. I’m a jerk…sue me.

“Better Than Any Man” (for Lamentations of the Flame Princess): I was truly surprised that this was even available a day later, though I’ve seen commenters on other blogs stating they’d choose to wait for a PDF rather than pick up a print-version. I guess their shelves are more crowded than my own (though the idea would seem crazy to anyone who’s actually seen my “game room” – my wife compares me to those hoarders you see on TV).

Better Than Any Man is an impressive piece of work. Not impressive in the quality of the art and production for a free offering on Free RPG Day…I think Raggi’s earned enough credit over the years that he can get such products funded via KickStarter with (comparatively) minimal effort. Even if I was NOT phobic of KS on general, technophobic principle, I don’t think my following would be enough to do what he does (plus, my following is a bit less focused than fans of LotFP). But, no, I don’t think an ambitious, free product like this is out of the scope of his ability.

No, what’s impressive is the adventure itself. I’ll be honest: I haven’t kept up with everything Raggi’s published. The last thing I actually paid for was Death Frost Doom…I came close to getting Vornheim, harcover Carcosa, and Grindhouse Edition LotFP when I ran across them at the game shop but two main considerations stopped me:

-        My funds have been tight enough of late to keep me from getting every impulsive want, and

-        LotFP is a version of D&D that I will probably never play.

Not because it’s not well done or doesn’t have great potential as a fantastic setting or even that LotFP’s house rules “tweaks” are bad. Most of ‘em are to the good. No, it’s just that B/X (or Holmes or OD&D) work good and are readily customizable, and I don’t need a “weird-horror” version of D&D seeing as that’s not my usual genre of fantasy adventuring.

[that being said, if I ever wanted to do a 15^th – 17^th century fantasy adventure game of the type typified in White Wolf “historical” WoD settings or even the more recent WITCH HUNTER of which I’ve blogged, I’d probably pick up SOME version of LotFP to use for the system. Right now I’ve been a little too busy with my own play-testing to try to entice my players into this type of game/setting]

However, lacking Raggi’s actual books, I lose the overall view of Raggi’s gradual development over time and numerous products. Reading an adventure like Better Than Any Man compared to Death Frost Doom just shows (to me anyway) a marked change in growth and maturity. DFD is special because it was waaaaay outside the box as far as adventures go and wasn’t afraid to plunge one’s campaign setting into an undead Armageddon by allowing the thing to run its (most natural) course. But even so, it felt much less like a “D&D” adventure and much more like Call of Cthulhu (or a CofC-style “investigation”) in a pseudo-fantasy-medieval setting. Which, as said, was pretty different, but somewhat unplayable depending on your average player’s expectation of game play.

BTAM, on the other hand, is definitely D&D. It is D&D with a setting and context, but it is still D&D. People may say it has a WHFRPG feel to it…from my point of view, WHFRPG was simply someone’s D&D heartbreaker set in a pseudo-historic setting. BTAM does away with the “pseudo” and works with actual historic events (like the 30 Year War), which is hip ‘cause…well, ‘cause I like that approach (it’s similar to what I’m doing with my 5AK setting, though Raggi doesn’t bother changing the names of countries and historic personas). BTAM actually provides several different types of adventure for exploration: a wilderness fraught by war (and including many random encounters) a couple dungeons (restrained in scope while still being interesting and carrying the signature creepiness of LotFP) and a political conflict of heroic proportions with the potential to save thousands of at-risk individuals from that most despicable of monsters, the human war machine. Nice.

Nice Familiar!

I only skimmed over the tentacled monsters (of which the one on the cover is but a single example), but drank deeply of the rest of the adventure. I found The Seven to be deep and well-written. and a fantastic, challenging puzzle for the PCs. I found the Mound to be the kind of adventure Hall of Bones wanted to be but wasn’t (sorry…). I found Goblin Hill to be the weakest part of the adventure, not because it’s not a suitable adventure, but because it feels a little cliché, both due to the over-the-top grisly horror and the insect-type villain that conjures to mind everything from Shadowrun’s  Queen Euphoria and District Nine to Naked Lunch and Kafka’s Metamorphosis. I found the wilderness encounters (like the Baroness) and the descriptions of towns caught in the throes of war and witch hysteria to be excellent.

There’s a LOT of good stuff in Better Than Any Man…it’s a nice little setting for a mini-campaign, and certainly one that can be expanded into major, year-spanning campaign involving the Swedish invasion, the 30 Year War, the horrors of organized religion unleashed by unscrupulous (or ignorant) zealots, and the underground cults of daemonic religions and eldritch horrors. In many ways, BTAM feels like the kind of game that WHFRPG always wanted to be, but never could be due to its failure to create adequate small-scale adventuring rules (especially with regard to magic) and its cumbersome career mechanic.

[oh, yeah…and the simple firearms mechanics Raggi includes are just about perfect, by the way…if I use firearms in my future B/X games, I’ll probably just steal these, assuming I’m not using LotFP as my base system. If Gygax/Arneson had used a simple system like this in OD&D, it might have saved decades of debate down the line]

If you didn’t have the chance to pick up Better Than Any Man at Free RPG Day, you might try finding it, if only as an example of what can be done to create a small campaign setting that provides a lot of meat for players without a shit-ton of dross. In some ways, it reminds me of my old Goblin-Wars campaign, but much more thoughtful and better organized. I’m not sure I’m terribly enthused about Raggi’s game world and themes, but the quality of the material is damn fine, and well worth looking at and possibly emulating.

ALL RIGHT…now that I’ve written up all that, I can get back to my planning of the month of June. Got a lot of stuff that needs “gearing up,” as I said.

: )

Falling in Love...

...with OD&D is pretty easy.

At least, if you have already played the other editions and found them (at times) wanting or too bulky, there's just a certain romantic charm to those three Little Brown Books and their utter simplicity.

On the other hand, I can see how having no prior experience with the game could lead one to more than a little bit of frustration...and how different DMs using the same "basic" rule set as the LBBs could create wildly diverging systems with their own house rules.

Which I find utterly charming and a little horrifying at the same time.

: )

Anyway, as I work on D&D Mine, I find myself drawn more and more to the LBBs as my base, my foundation. It's just hard not to appreciate these little books and how damn "portable" they are. I checked out Swords & Wizardry (again) and it is a fairly impressive compilation...especially with its side bar notes and extra options. The artwork, too, is great (and a step up from that of the original books, I have to admit). Still, at 150 pages, it's more rule book than I want...certainly more than I need, personally. It's a good piece of work, but I'm still going to do my own.

Tomorrow, I'm going to have a good, long chunk of time to write and I'm spending my free time today thinking up my itinerary of writing projects. In fact, the blog will probably be off-line until Wednesday (probably...we'll see). Just so you folks know.

Happy Presidents Day!