A Few Thoughts On A Game I Was Invited To...

As I mentioned last post, I have been invited to join a group that's playing through a 12th level 3.5-only campaign.

This could be fun. Epic (not in game-rule-sense) characters, trying to stabilize the world in the aftermath of war! Or cleaning up the remnants of the dark forces before they can rebuild their most devastating weapons! Or resealing the wards that lock down the ancient terror(s) that one army was trying to unleash upon the world!

Sounds cool, right? Any way that could go would be awesome, but the bad thing about the campaign is that, try as I might, I can't get any info about the setting from the person that runs the game. Info that even a character as high level as 12th would know. Not even day-to-day stuff.

Not only that, but I also can't get the information I need to make a character, so that I can bring something to the table and not have to drag the game down with time-consuming character choices.

This seems to be for multiple reasons. First, the person running the game is apparently writing a book, and seems to think that even IP that doesn't belong to her is her IP, and thus, is wary of sharing anything that could aid and expedite her game (character creation away from the table) and also seems to make arbitrary calls on what is and is not allowed in the game.

Granted, these calls could very well be made to uphold the flavor of the setting, but I just feel that this person is falling into a trap that many novice GMs fall into... the "My Game Is So Cool" trap. This is characterized, variously, by different things that GMs do to make sure the PCs don't mess up their campaign worlds.

Things like...

• GM PCs, characters created and ran by the GM to railroad the group into not doing things that the GM feels would spoil their world (i.e., takeovers, assassinations, etc.) These characters are generally characterized by being created outside the boundaries of player creation rules.
• Intense control of character options through every step of creation. On the outside, one might say that every GM does this, but usually not to the same extent. In these cases, very few limitations are actually communicated, but then crop up at every stage of character creation, limiting class, race, spells, and even feats and skills.
• Setting Static, in which no matter what you may do to disrupt person, place, or thing X, there is always answer Y to counter it, whether that be the person being immensely more powerful than they should be, protective wards on the location, or unforeseen NPCs ready to jump into any vacancies created by the PCs before they, themselves, have a chance to do so.

The fallacy here is that by putting up these things, that the GM invariably sees as non-restrictive, they are choking the life out of their own creativity and the creativity of their players, which can lead to bitterness between players, or between players and GMs.

The fact that it is a fallacy is upheld by the fact that, no matter how many limitations are put into place, the players, if they are not having fun, will begin to make the campaign fun for themselves, or will eventually end up dropping out of the group. To quote a classic paraphrase in the gaming community, "No campaign survives contact with the players."

Having said all that, it may seem that I am being very derisive toward the game and the persons running and playing in it, but that's not my intent. I'm merely putting forward an at-a-glace opinion of what I see.

I certainly do hope that the game is fun, and that all participating enjoy themselves, but ultimately, I feel that the game will fail on the points I have presented above. Already, one campaign was aborted after only a few meetings, and I just feel that, perhaps, there is too much on the plate of someone who seems new to the task of GMing.

A Word On Group/Character Cohesion

I know I've already griped about how character creation went for the Dark Heresy game last night, but I have a few more things I want to hit on, that I feel will affect the overall tone and perhaps enjoyment of the game, itself.

The issue is character cohesion.

Last night, I kept saying I would like for everyone to take group cohesion into mind, and after some thought, I really meant character cohesion. The group, I feel, could be interpreted as us as the players, which I don't think we'll have problems with at all. The group as a whole has been gaming together for years, and though we might disagree on things time to time, we certainly don't try to derail each other'a playing of the games, so that's a non-issue.

No, I was more pushing for character cohesion...complimentary skills and talents that would help cover the weaknesses of the other members of the group. Instead, we have half-melee oriented party, with me almost neglecting combat completely, and Taylor's character being a grenade chukker. I didn't get to look over skills and talents, so it might not be as bad as I envision it, but I'm seeing huge gaps that need to be covered early on, and I'm not sure who is going to fill them.

I know it seems unreasonable to think that they would need to be filled, or that people would need to build X character. It's true, I don't want anyone to play something they don't want to play just to cover a specific weakness, and David, who is running the game, doesn't either, else he would have restricted our creation choices...so I guess it just boils down to me being miffed at everyone ignoring my call for cohesive building.

Part of it is that I'm trying to figure out why an Inquisitor would send out a team of Acolytes consisting of a melee Assassin, a grenade throwing Assassin, an Arbite mostly skilled in "Public Relations" (shouting more than shooting/beating,) and a Guardsman prone to shredding people with a chainsword. Sure, I think we'll all have fun, but someone's either going to be hurt when a grenade is thrown into a crowd where the guardman and meleeAss are, or Taylor's going to have to forgo actions, and if everyone is insanely martial, how often am I going to be able to employ my social skills?

Dark Heresy is just the kind of game where I feel things like that are more important than they are in games like D&D. My two cents. Not like I don't think it's not going to be a blast or anything. I truly enjoy the game.

Posted for Truth and Posterity

The following is a quote by James Raggi that I feel is very important in context of a player-driven game like the Wilderlands campaign I run. I post it here for my players to see, and as a reminder to hold true to the style of game I want to run.

"If a player complains that he’s bored and that nothing is happening, look at him and say, 'I agree. So are you going to do something or not?'

It is not the referee’s job during a session to provide excitement for his playing group. His job is to administer the setting and resolve character actions. If the characters are taking no action and are not interacting with the setting, then the referee has literally nothing to do. The players are wasting his time."

New Characters in Non-Scaled Campaigns

I've not encountered any other usage of the terms "set" and "scaled" when dealing with roleplaying games (Except the scaled minions of Set!), but what I mean in this context is set and scaled encounters. The former being a trope of sandbox play in which Area X has Y encounters no matter when you show up there, which could mean that your 10th level party is running amok in the Caves of Chaos, whereas in the latter instance, your party could encounter advanced goblins (perhaps with character levels) or new denizens entirely, which would challenge your party at their level.

My primary concern with this post isn't the actual encounters themselves, but the level at which to start new characters in my game. I've mentioned before that I'm trying to cleave to "old school" ways when possible, and alot of what isn't informed by blogs and various readings of old rule books comes from my personal beginnings into the hobby. All my DMs made us start at 1st with new characters when our old one died or was irrevocably lost or we retired one in favor of another, cooler concept.

This wasn't anything to us, and in fact, we always felt that the DMs that started people out at higher level either were doing "crazy" stuff in their game, or we felt like we had to bring our game face, because we were getting into some shit. That feeling has been almost killed by the Adventure Path and the scaled encounters therein.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm fully aware that my preferred rules set brought about the dominance of the Adventure Path, and in fact...I have no true problem with them as a form of gaming. I just ran a campaign using one, myself, and it was one of the most fun runs I've had in my gaming history, but I digress.

The thing I really want to address here, and a cohesive point to all my rambling is this: Recently, Angela lost a character. She was upset at this, apparently...and it was made worse by my stating that she would have to start her new character at level 1.

Is the call unfair? I don't think so, but that's not to say I don't understand why someone would be iffy or upset about it.

The key factor in it not being a problem is because, as mentioned before, my world is set. Everything stays static until the PCs explore the area, so even if the party averages 5th level, they might still walk into a place overrun with 1st level encounters. This is an even easier transition because of how the experience chart scales, giving lower level characters a chance to "catch up" eventually. Starting at first level also promotes character growth through an extended progression, instead of trying to shoehorn who should be a fully developed character (someone with experience under their belt) into the campaign.

On the flip side, you're first level...danger is more dangerous, as it were. One or two hits might have you down for the count, you might not be able to make a necessary save, etc. The only other problem inherent in my Wilderlands game is that we use the Slow experience progression, so sure...it takes a bit to gain the xp to level, but that doesn't truly affect the power scale, since everyone else is, too.

I do believe that intelligent and cautious play can keep any level of character alive, but I can understand feeling left in the dust, hence I've decided that any player losing a character will make a new character at the level of thier old character - 5, or barring 5 levels....should any other player have a character of 6 level, the new character will enter at level 2, 11th for level 3, and so on (whichever method is better.) That's a big gap, yes...but not one that cannot be recovered from with the scaled xp progression.

This is a loose ruling. We'll see how it goes. Any thoughts from my players would be welcome!

In Which I Balk at Another's Point...

Still reading through Wayne Rossi's great, but sadly not currently active, blog Semper Initiativus Unum, and I came across the following quotes from this post:

...[sic] The hidden-map game is not just one mode of play in D&D....
...characters have well defined movement rates, there are rules about the rate of exploration, opening doors, listening at doors, setting off traps, finding secret doors, running into wandering monsters. There are a number of internal timers built into the game, including the time needed to search, various upkeep items (rations, torches etc), the break every 6th turn, and of course random encounters...
...Later games branded as Dungeons & Dragons didn't have this; they subsumed the hidden-map game into a larger "game system."

...this simple set of mechanics was at the center of a very light game engine. Other systems were developed for things like fighting monsters, determining treasure, casting magic spells and so forth - but in the early days of gaming these were not front and center. This is sharply differentiated from 3rd and 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. 3rd edition was not about exploring the hidden map to find what was on it (and whether you'd survive), as much as it was a character-building game in which the DM provided combat-based "challenges" to the carefully crafted PCs...

Now, I do realize I chopped the hell out of his post, but read the thing...I certainly didn't take it out of context.

I have no desire to call Mr. Rossi out on his opinions, or to flare up another battle in the long-fought "Edition Wars." but I do think there is quite a bit of disinformation in what was said regarding the newer editions of D&D. Take mind that I don't care to defend 4th Edition, but what I have to say on the matter is perhaps just as relevant to that system as it is to 3.x/Pathfinder.

In the above paraphrasing, Mr. Rossi seems to imply that only the older editions had elements that promoted exploration and the "bookkeeping" aspects of the game, such as how long light sources last, etc.

While yes, I understand that the point made in his post is that he feels the focus of the games have changed, as far as design is concerned...exploration, in Wayne's eyes, has been put on the back burner in favor of an encapsulating system that downplays the exploration aspect of the game, which in most old school gamer's minds is the key principle of the game, and brought to the fore more detailed combat rules, and so forth.

It's true that combat, character building and other aspects of the game did come to the front in 3rd edition, but it all stemmed as a natural rules progression from AD&D, in my opinion, and has little to no bearing how the game is actually played. Exploration and survival are still the keys of the game that I play, which I still gladly call Dungeons & Dragons, and I'm not so convinced that treasure and encounter generation weren't as, or even more, prevalent in older editions of the game. After all, the LBBs set forth that treasure was the key to advancement in the game, and that the guardians of said treasure were some of the primary obstacles to adventurers seeking it...even if sneaking past them was preferred.

My group tracks light, encumbrance, rations and water, we still run into random encounters and approach every door as if death itself waits behind it, and we explore the worlds laid out before us. Just because there are adventure paths out there doesn't mean that (even in the course of said path) players will stay on rails just because they play X system.

I guess my whole point is that it's fine to have opinions, and to have preferences, but one shouldn't disseminate misinformation, even if what is stated can be forgiven somewhat by ignorance on the subject at hand. These newer systems, while too crunchy for quite a few gamers out there, still have the ability to support a broad depth of play styles, even those adhering closely or paying homage to the "old school" way of play.

Pathfinderlands of High Fantasy...Or Something Of That Nature

Not so great a title, but I've not named the campaign yet, so you get a wonky title to the blog post.

For those of you who can't recall, and who can blame you, as I'm not the most dedicated poster...a while back I restarted a sandbox game using the 3.x D&D rules as the skeleton (albeit a beefy one.) When we picked the campaign up, I ran it primarily as 3.x with Pathfinder character building, giving the players more options, but as time has gone on, I have implemented many more Pathfinder rules and have been moving more toward what I feel an old school sandbox should feel like under a more modern rules set.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying I'm doing it right, by any means. Hell, I'm nowhere near the level of cool of the West Marches, if you ask me.

I have tried to work in the spirit of old school, however. I started this by concentrating on Reactionary DMing. This is nothing new, and I'm not trying to put a label to what most people just call "DMing," but my last campaign was an almost-weekly 57 session adventure path, using the first adventure path published by WotC under the 3.x rules (including The Sunless Citadel, The Forge of Fury, etc.) Sure, I tweaked the thing hard, and there were side quests and character development scenarios that weren't in the booklets, but pretty much everything else was cruise control for me.

I think this made me lazy. I'm a heavy-prep DM. I like to prepare. I like to have all possibilities covered, and since I prefer the 3.x rules, I like to have stat blocks ready when needed. With this new campaign, however, I'm willing to relax on that a little. I'm not gonna fret if the current course of action is abandoned, or if an NPC dies that maybe shouldn't have. I had almost forgotten what winging it felt like, because I was always concerned with keeping my players entertained. Everything was described as richly as I could manage. I would fill a whole notebook, sometimes 2, during the course of a campaign with session notes so that I was ready with this description or that, trying to cover every possibility...and that doesn't include my setting notes.

Anyway, I'm not gonna harsh on one style or the other, both are a great deal of fun to me, but I do like running this game loosey-goosey, not immediately giving the players anything, but waiting for what they want, then reacting accordingly, giving information as needed. It's been a few years since I ran a game like that, but it doesn't feel clunky. It just feels fun.

So far, I'm reacting, the players are exploring (YeY!), and it seems that good times are had by all.

A Psychological Dissection of Adventuring

Let's start with a hypothetical...

The world is one not so dissimilar from ours...we live our lives in the daily grind, going to school or work, paying bills and taxes, doing our shopping, going out with friends. It's not a bad life, because it's the safe life we've chosen for ourselves.

Let's imagine this world, the one like ours...has few or no cars. Few or no bridges. Few or no guns. Few or no actual roads. Now things are quite different, even if we have all the other modern advancements.

In this world, the quickest way to riches and fame is to venture outside your city or town, and traverse the wilds between settlements, plunder abandoned towns, go beneath the surface of the earth and find the most valuable of things.

To go alone is tantamount to suicide, so you find others. Likely, you happen upon them. They're strangers. Perhaps desperate, perhaps dangerous, strangers. People you have no acquaintance with, who you are about to trust with your life...

This is ridiculous to me. Not because I don't feel you can jump into situations that require yout o trust the person next to you with your life. I know those situations exist. Military personnel cope with that every day.

What is ridiculous to me is that nobody seems to roleplay this. Sure, there might be some "cut glances" while the old man at the tavern tells his newly-assembled dupes his story, but I've rarely seen players (and I'm not saying I'm above this, trust me) interject the psychological hardship that trusting strangers...often strangers of different races/obvious moral outlook/etc...with their lives.

This would be very hard for me, especially if...let's say...I've never met an elf before. What if I'm a yokel that's always heard that the faerie folk were baby-eating monsters, and that elves were just another form of faerie? Am I going to want to sleep with this thing guarding my back? The same could be true of dwarves if I've heard they're drunks, or a halfling will rob you blind, or gnomes have carnal relations with badgers? Those things would likely take you out of your comfort zone.

It's been my experience that most players will just fall into the "Well, here we are!" camp and act as if they were assigned to the group. This might be for ease of gameplay. Hell, it might be an artifact of the groups I've played with, but I want to know why. Is it a side-effect of it being part of a game? Or even it being part of the social gathering. We trust our friends, so why not trust our friends' character?

You've been on the road now for a few days. Your clothes and some of your gear are soaked through. Some of your food was spoiled because it got wet, and you find yourself running a little light on it. Thankfully, one of your group knows how to hunt. In fact, she should have been done and back about 30 minutes ago, according to "the plan."

Just as you rise and are about to tell your other companions that you're going to go find her, a scream issues from a stand of trees nearby, and she bursts from the underbrush, just to be cut down a second later by a tomahawk come whizzing out of the branches. Before you know it, the woods birth a group of grizzled looking savages, all carrying jagged blades and howling for blood as they charge your group...

These are the second and third things I believe would affect our intrepid adventurers: danger and death. The first, depending on magnitude and frequency, could be coped with marginally well. However, submission to continuous violence can have disastrous effects on ones psyche.

Now, I'm not a psychologist, but from what little I do know, I can surmise that continuous bouts of violence can lead to such psychoses as:
Isolationism - Perhaps due to distancing so as to "keep the others safe" when the one affected feels that either they attract the danger or they just don't want to get close in case of one's death, so as to avoid guilt or shame.
Dependency - On one's companions, perhaps feeling that without them, they have no hope of survival, or maybe just to feel safe. More dangerously, however, is dependency on the violence itself. This might be categorized differently, like I said, I'm not versed in the subject. In this case, however, the sufferer feels a need for the danger for one reason or another. Maybe simply to keep the group together.
Hero Complex - Not sure what this is called, but the victim will put themselves needlessly in harm's way simply to fulfill a need to protect those around them, which they perceive as weak. In extreme cases, those suffering from this complex might even create the situations they crave..by attracting enemies to their position, etc.
Explosive Rage Disorder or Intermittent Rage Disorder - The violence causes stressors that trigger violent outbursts in the individual, sometimes having the individual black out, giving rise to even more dangerous situations.

These are just a few of the things that combat can do to a person, and that's not even touching many of the varied symptoms of PTS. Struggle for life and death is traumatic, both physically and mentally, and even moreso (in some cases) is the act of causing or witnessing death.

Many who have served in the Armed Forces who do not wish to talk about their experiences choose not to share due to how much death they encountered when they were at war. This is because even the mention of death can send some people into near-hysterics. Death is a trauma that exacts its toll unlike any other, for it is all-too-often grisly, or brutal, or painful to those who witness it, and can cause quite a few mental problems for those witnessing it, including amnesia, in addition to all those listed before.

Many miles had brought you to this crone, her tattooed, wrinkled skin blending with the tattered, age-stained trappings of her house. Your companion lay stretched before the old lady on a small cot, and the witch had spread what looked and smelled like ground mustard and dill over your companion before beginning to chant and sway above your dead companion.

The corpse was beginning to turn due to travel in the sun, but the old lady gave you better than average odds that your companion could be saved. You had hesitantly agreed to the rite and provided what she needed, though it cost your band most of your take from the last plunder.

With a few rasping hisses, the old lady collapses on the floor, panting, just as your companion rises, as if from a nightmare, clammy and breathing hard. The corpse pallor slowly drains as she and you take in what just happened...

The fantastic, as a whole, is a marvelous and reality-twisting thing, and seeing someone brought back from the dead, in my opinion at least, is even more mind-warping than any other magic or miracle one can see.

Many things, in a natural state, cannot exist...or shouldn't, at any rate. Seeing one of these phenomena, be it a goblin or even the sweetening of tea without the means to do so outside of "magic" can affect the minds of those that witness such things. Someone who is affected by this might become delusional, believing that some magic or another will make everything easier, or even that they, themselves, have the ability to conjure forth such things. Then, there's the chance that fear and paranoia grips them and they either withdraw from the world in order to avoid magic/the fantastic, or they seek to destroy anything and everything associated with it.

Resurrection, reincarnation, and other magics that bring one back from the grave have a slightly different category in my mind. This is a far more serious, fearful, and potentially damaging event than simply seeing light spring forth from someone's hand.

Here, you have the potential for mass hysteria, stemming from those revived, those witnessing it, and those performing the rites to make it happen. One might understand that it is the will of the gods/the might of magic/the power of belief that has performed this miracle, but those involved inevitably have to consider what it was they witnessed. Paranoia might spring up within the arisen person...is it really them at all? A facsimile? Do they now share their body with whatever it was revived them? Have they lost a part of themselves in the process?

Certainly, those others involved will suffer the same thoughts. The one that performed the rite might pay a terrible toll in the form of sanity or their soul as they reach to the very limits of what magic can perform. The formerly deceased's compatriots might question all the things that the arisen has, also. It's a traumatizing event, and one that I think needs more consideration.


I realize this has been slightly rambly, and that perhaps the narrative is unnecessary, but I just wanted to give a picture of what I mean. Some context to what I was discussing, perhaps to allow you, my reader to slip into character and determine just how it is you would feel in those situations.

Racism/xenophobia, the stress of adventuring and the unknown, the realization that magic makes reality a tenuous thing, and of course...death. All these things, I feel are glossed over far too much in gaming, and I would like to remedy that, at least in my games.

The question, then, is how? I would like it to reflect in roleplay more than anything, but perhaps Sanity rules aren't such a stretch in most games, seeing what the average PC has to deal with, in any game. I realize most of my blogging is d20/3.x-centric, but even in Vampire, or Marvel Super Heroes or any other game, should the fantastic not be mundane.

Sorry for the (extremely) long post.

A Recent Purchase

About a year and a half ago, I tried...in vain, I might add...to acquire the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set that Judges Guild and Necromancer Games put out in 2005. There was a copy selling for a (then) low price of $300ish dollars.

Then, I went so far as to put my Magic collection up for trade to an interested person who might buy the boxed set. Everywhere else still had the thing at over $1k, so this was a great deal. Sadly, I was unsuccessful at that venture.

Fast forward to two weeks ago, when, as I was selling cards on eBay for the shop, I decided to do a quick search of D&D products and found a copy of the boxed set that the seller had listed in fairly poor condition for a little over $120. This is still a product that can fetch over $500, and does...regularly.

I spent over 3 days thinking about buying the thing, sending off a couple of questions to the seller and getting fairly curt, vague replies to each message. This didn't make me feel too good, as I was led to believe that only one of the books was included, or that the second book was pretty much trashed, but I knew all the maps were included, and that was really the reason that made me finally look back into it.

To my surprise, the item had been relisted for about $5 cheaper, so I hit "Buy it Now." Six days later, I took it from my mail lady, pretty much thinking I was an idiot for buying something I was sure was in shit condition. Boy, was I ever relieved when I opened it up to find a product that's damn near mint. Only the box, which has some shelf wear, shows any signs of it having been used before I owned it.

All that is awesome, and it's more than I could've asked for. I'm super happy with the purchase, and I didn't really know what to expect when I got it. I had heard what the product was like, but I hadn't seen it personally before, even in pdf. This boxed set really is as awesome as everyone says, and I highly recommend it to anyone who appreciates fantasy (gaming or not), or the "old school" styles of play, especially sandbox.

Now, I've already spoken quite a bit about this already, but the whole point of the post (other than nerdgasming via blog,) was to talk a little about sandboxing...

Being a fan of quite a few of the "Old School" rpg bloggers here on the webbernets, I had been intrigued with sandbox-style gaming using editions of D&D outside of the norm for the playstyle, namely D&D 3.x. The version of Wilderlands I own was written for 3.x, but everyone I have read about that uses it does so under OSRIC, OD&D, BASIC Fantasy, or some other retro-clone.

I've not really done alot of things with the style, but I know the basics. All the bloggers I read do this stuff in their sleep, and they've given me a wealth of information to work with.

What experience I do have comes from a game I ran last summer that lasted a total of 5 sessions, in which the players did a little bit of exploration in the Caves of Chaos and the surrounding area. I was just getting my feet wet when we quit that, but I since nabbing the Wilderlands box, I've been wanting to do something with it.

I've been tossing around the idea of running Wilderlands using the Pathfinder rules set, which has gotten a little bit of interest from a few people. I'm rambling about this. Kicking it around. Wondering if anyone reads this and has thoughts. More on it from me at a later time.

A Little More On Dark Sun's Fate...

I had mentioned previously that I thought the game was self-destructing, and that it felt like I was spinning wheels and some of the players (not all!) were just standing around and not helping push the thing forward. It's a frustrating feeling when everyone claims to be on-board for something, but their actions don't really show that commitment.

I had been thinking of many solutions to the problems inherent to the game so far, and along comes Josh D, a lover of Dark Sun, himself, and drops a comment the other day on it all. What he said had mirrored some of my own thoughts, and though it was one of the last things I wanted to do to get the players interested, I think perhaps he is right...railroading is sometimes the only option you have left. At this point, I can only throw out so many hooks...if none of those hooks work, then perhaps skydiving isn't for y....wait, wrong saying...

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that when you have lots of fish, but you aren't getting the bites on the hooks, sometimes you're better off slinging in the dynamite and forcing results...at least at first. I'm partially to blame, don't get me wrong. I just spent over a year running a game that followed the "Adventure Path" structure. Even though I tried to make that as loose as possible, I think, perhaps, that the cushion of direct storyline still acted as a crutch, as did party dynamics.

I can understand the phenomenon. It's hard to break from molds that you're used to, especially when you've got little experience. I'm also very aware that there are a million OSR blogs out there saying that what I want to do is doomed for failure out the gates because of the system I use (3.x,) but Ben Robbins proved that the model of sand box play fits it with his Western Marches. I think it all boils down to attitude.

I'm trying to...not force this on my players, but work them into the style, and give them the freedom to develop their characters in ways that the path or story-driven campaigns (I hate calling them that...isn't every campaign story-driven?) might not allow. To me, it looks like opportunity...to my players, I don't know? I feel like I failed in the pitch.

Josh is right, I think, but I keep thinking "What if that, fails, too?" Well, then I know that it's just not the right time or group to run the game with. That happens.
I'll give it a few more weeks before I call it. I really wanna see this game get out of the gates. I love the setting. I love the group I play with. I think that this can work, the game just needs a boot to the ass to get it going.

I hope...it's even gotten me doubting any game I might run in its stead if it fails, which is a horrible feeling. I've never, in my 13 years of DMing felt that. Blah.

Edit: Sorry this post is all over the place. Just one of those things.

Some Gaming Wisdom

The "mysterious" leaflet at Bald Man Games reminded me of something and I thought I would post it. This little jewel of Old School gaming insight comes from B1: In Search of the Unkown, and is printed at the back of that classic module. I think new players to D&D and to any RPG, really, should always be introduced to these extra "rules" of the game.

TIPS FOR PLAYERS
Beginning players would do well to profit from some basic advice before beginning their D&D careers, and with that in mind, the following points are offered for consideration:

1) Be an organized player. Keep accurate records on your character (experience, abilities, items possessed, etc.) for your own purposes and to aid the Dungeon Master.

2) Always keep in mind that the Dungeon Master is the moderator of the game, and as such, deserves the continued cooperation, consideration and respect of all the players. If you disagree with him or her, present your viewpoint with deference to the DM's position as game judge, but be prepared to accept his or her decision as final—after all, keep in mind that you may not know all aspects of the overall game situation, and in that case, not everything will always go your way!

3) Cooperate with your fellow players and work together when adventuring. Remember that on any foray into the dungeon or wilderness, a mix of character classes will be beneficial, since the special abilities of the various characters will complement each other and add to the overall effectiveness of the party.

4) Be neither too hasty nor too sluggish when adventuring. If you are too fast in your exploration, you may recklessly endanger yourself and your fellow adventurers and fall prone
to every trick and trap you encounter. If you are too slow, you will waste valuable time and may be waylaid by more than your share of wandering monsters without accomplishing
anything. As you gain playing experience you will learn the proper pace, but rely on your DM for guidance.

5) Avoid arguing. While disagreements about a course of action will certainly arise from time to time, players should quickly discuss their options and reach a consensus in order
to proceed. Bickering in the dungeon will only create noise which may well attract wandering monsters. Above all, remember that this is just a game and a little consideration will
go far toward avoiding any hard feelings . . .

6) Be on your guard. Don't be overly cautious, but be advised that some non-player characters may try to hoodwink you, players may doublecross you, and while adventuring, tricks and traps await the unwary. Of course, you won't avoid every such pitfall (dealing with the uncertainties is part of the fun and challenge of the game), but don't be surprised if everything is not always as It seems.

7) Treat any retainers or NPCs fairly. If you reward them generously and do not expose them to great risks of life and limb that your own character would not face, then you can expect
a continuing loyalty (although there may be exceptions, of course).

8) Know your limits. Your party may not be a match for every monster you encounter, and occasionally it pays to know when and how to run away from danger. Likewise, a dungeon
adventure may have to be cut short if your party suffers great adversity and/or depleted strength. Many times it will take more than one adventure to accomplish certain goals, and it will thus be necessary to come back out of a dungeon to heal wounds, restore magical abilities and spells, and reinforce a party's strength.

9) Use your head. Many of the characters' goals in the game can be accomplished through the strength of arms or magic. Others, however, demand common sense and shrewd judgment as well as logical deduction. The most successful players are those who can effectively use both aspects of the game to advantage.

10) The fun of a D&D game comes in playing your character's role. Take on your character's persona and immerse yourself in the game setting, enjoying the fantasy element and the interaction with your fellow players and the Dungeon Master.

Enjoy yourself, and good luck!

Concerns About Tuesday

So, I've been thinking more on my post from yesterday about Tuesday's campaign and how I would like to deal with it all. Obviously, I will have a quick chat with the guys after we assemble at the table, but that will be game night and I can't really just go "Okay, now that I know what you want, give me a few hours and I'll change the game to suit."

This leaves me with wondering how or even if I should change my notes to maybe work into the style that the group seems to want. I like combat in games. In fact, I think if I had to play an RPG that had absolutely NO combat, I just really wouldn't be into it at all. However, I also enjoy exploration of the setting and storylines to support the combat and exploration.

I don't buy fully into the GNS Theory or The Big Model's statements that any group will only play X type of game, dependent on what system they choose to play under. I think that there's a definte ability to play XYZ game and to have it be enjoyable. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe once Tuesday rolls around, we'll see what the players say and then I'll have to eat my words.

I've thrown so many bones to the PCs that have gone ignored or otherwise dismissed (maybe as minor occurrences that they don't need to mess with?), that I'm actually at a loss as to how to get them more into the game...and this is a fucking book campaign! I'm just trying to connect the adventures. Maybe I'll just say 'stuff it' and throw them at the beginning of the next adventure.

A Short Rant

You know, I've noticed a continuing trend that really brings up this wellspring of opinion and emotion whenever I see or hear it continue to worsen.

This "thing" is the elitism that seems to be gripping people by the crotch and leading them around within the hobby.

It's not like I lose sleep over it all, and it doesn't put me in a funk whenever I read or hear someone declaring the supremacy of mechanic v. mechanic, old school v. new school, et al., but it does disappoint me, I guess, that so many now...some, people who I valued the opinions of, championing that their way is the right way, when before, quite a few of these people were of the opinion that all games have the potential to be a good game, if you dig it.

I'm still of that opinion. I say that if you like it, then it's a good game. As gamers, I think we should all feel that way, at least a little. The game is what gives us our title, and we should at least accept the concepts behind that, rather that railing on something we don't really dig because it's "NOT" what you think it should be.

The "in" thing to do now is to bash D&D 3.x and 4E and Vampire/World of Darkness. Sure, those games might not be the D&D you played as a kid, and you might not like the dice pool system, but just because you feel that way, doesn't mean they're abominations to the hobby. To those who enjoy those systems, they present solid systems that facilitate the fun achieved around a game table with friends. I think, in spirit, that if a game can produce those results, then it's as good as it needs to be.

Everyone has preferences and opinions, but more and more, those opinions are coming down to hate, not just on the systems, but on the players who enjoy them, and I think that's when it has gone too far.

That's my opinion, and I know that not alot of people will read this, but you know? I don't really care. If anything, it will serve as a reminder to myself to not go down that road.

Gaming Philosophy

I wonder, sometimes, what people who just run across this here gameblog think about what I say. The synopses I post aren't really the focus of this, but I love sharing the fun I have. No, what I mean are my rants on function and form of games and setting.
While it's true that the blog swings almost entirely in the direction of 3.5 D&D, that's simply because it's what games I'm in on. I've had experience with plenty of other rpg systems, and game types, in general.
The reason this came to me is because I read various other gaming blogs and message boards and I contribute my opinion often enough on some of those, but when it comes down to it, I don't know if I'm like any other gamers who tend to slap their opinions out there. Sure, I can go with games as art, gaming theory, or any other topic handed to me, but at the core of it all, I know I really just don't care enough about all that.
I'm a gamer who loves games and loves to game. Hand me any game and I'll give it a try or seven. I just love the hobby, and I feel at ease when gaming. I don't have to care about how I'm so much better a gamer because I'm playing X rather than Y or because I understand the multitudes of theory about playing, game mastering, strategy, or more esoteric topics. I'm with my pals and we're having a blast.
Is there really any more to say other than "If you're having fun, that's what counts?"
It's not that I'm calling anyone out on their opinions, this is definitely just a rant. When the philosophy behind the game style becomes more important than the actual game, that's when I pack it in and find a greener game table.
I think I'm done...there's just so much one person can read like that in a few days.