New Monster: The Gloam

I thought I'd share this write-up for a monster which I finished recently. It's noteworthy for two reasons: firstly, it was my winning entry for round 2 of the aborted "OSR Superstar" contest at Tenkar's Tavern; secondly, it is a preview of material from the forthcoming third issue of my & Greg Gorgonmilk's zine, Wormskin. (You can get hold of issue one here and issue two here.)

For those of you who aren't yet familiar with Wormskin: along with the expected list of statistics (Armour Class, Hit Dice, and so on), monsters in the zine are presented with some additional pieces of information:

• Number Appearing: Monsters may be encountered alone or in groups and abroad or in their lair. Occasionally, a monster’s lair may be discovered unguarded. To determine the exact conditions, an eight-sided die is rolled and the result looked up under encounters for the monster in question. For example, a monster’s description may state: “Number Appearing: 1-3: abroad (2d4), 4-7: lair (2d10), 8: lair (empty)”. Thus, a d8 roll resulting in a 1 to 3 means that 2d4 individuals are encountered abroad, a roll resulting in 4 to 7 means that the PCs have stumbled upon 2d10 monsters in their lair, and a roll of 8 means that the empty lair has been discovered.
• Possessions: Denotes the items or treasures typically carried by an individual about its business. These are the kind of things that a search of the monster’s pockets, packs, etc will turn up.
• Hoard: For monsters with a lair, this indicates the treasures which are kept there. Valuables kept by intelligent monsters will most likely be well hidden. Hoards are listed with the standard B/X treasure type (a letter code from A-V) followed by the equivalent Labyrinth Lord hoard class (a Roman numeral, from I-XXII). A descriptor is also listed for some hoards; these hoard variants will be discussed in a future issue of Wormskin, along with charts of trinkets.
• Encounters / Lairs: Some quick ideas for encounters with the monster (either abroad or in its lair) are given here, providing an inspirational seed for the referee to work from. The suggested encounters generally describe fairly specific situations and should each only be used once. (The judge may cross off or replace encounters once they have occurred.)
• Traits: One or more charts of distinguishing features of individuals are given, for added descriptive flavour and ease of distinguishing individuals when a group of monsters of the same kind is encountered.

So, here we go, the gloam...

Gloam
HD: 7
AC: 5
Attacks: 2 × 1d10 (claws) or 1 × 1d4 (swarm attack)
Move: 120’ (40’) / 180’ (60’) -- flying
Morale: 9

Number Appearing: 1-5: abroad (1), 6-7: lair (1), 8: lair (empty)
Alignment: N
Intelligence: Obsessive
Size: M
XP: 1,840
Possessions: Trinkets (eerie), collected items (see below)
Hoard: E/XVIII (eerie), collected items (see below)

Gloams are undead entities formed from the corpses of a multitude of crows, ravens, or magpies. They have two forms, at times appearing as a flock of ragged, cawing birds and at other times in the guise of a tall, gaunt man, constructed from the agglomerated feathers, bones, and beaks of the flock. Both manifestations are wreathed in shadow and accompanied by a creeping sensation of dread.

Possessing a cunning and single-minded intellect of human degree, gloams are able to speak both the common tongue and the cawing language of crow-like birds. Unlike many undead creatures, gloams are not inherently evil. They are, however, possessed of a ruthlessly avaricious nature, which oftentimes leads them into conflict with mortals. Gloams are obsessive collectors, with macabre and idiosyncratic taste. Some examples of the type of objects a gloam may collect are:

1. The corpses of children, which it binds with string and hangs in its roost.
2. Wedding rings and other tokens of love.
3. Condemned murderers, whom it abducts and keeps captive, tormented and on the edge of starvation.
4. Human corneas, dried and sewn into the dead eye sockets of its own constituent birds.
5. The mummified or stuffed bodies of animals, which it arranges in peculiar dioramas.
6. The teeth of the devoutly religious.

Special Abilities
Charm Innocent: Gloams have a curious connection with mortals of innocent mind -- typically young children, but sometimes the mentally handicapped or, more rarely, adults of pure morals (each gloam has specific tastes in this matter) -- who do not perceive the sinister atmosphere which surrounds the monster and are thus vulnerable to its charm-like ability, manifested by the twinkling of an eye. A saving throw versus spells is allowed to resist the charm, with failure indicating that the target places its implicit trust in the gloam, seeing it as a beloved parent or mentor. One who resists a gloam's charm becomes suddenly aware of its true nature.

Damage Reduction: Gloams suffer only half damage from normal weapons – silver or magical weapons inflict standard damage.

Transformation: A gloam can change freely between its two forms. The transformation between humanoid and flock takes a single round, during which a gloam may perform no other actions.

Flock Form: When in the form of a flock, a gloam can only be harmed by area effects such as flaming oil, breath weapons, or fireball spells. It is also able to make a swarm attack, targeting characters within a 20' radius of each other. One target may be attacked per 5 hit points the gloam possesses (rounded up).

Disease: The touch of a gloam carries a disease which can infect mortals, causing flesh to blacken and drop off in flaky chunks. Anyone damaged by a gloam in combat must save versus poison or be infected. The disease leads to death over a span of 1d6 weeks and can only be cured by magic.

Traits

1. Dresses in finery. (The garments fly with the flock, when transformed.)
2. Smoulders when exposed to light.
3. Hovers ominously a few inches above the ground.
4. Streaked with blood, which drips incessantly from the creature's eyes.
5. Largely skeletal: all bleached, white bones and shiny beaks, with only small, ragged clumps of feathers.
6. The creature's shadow moves independently of its bodily motion, shifting into forms expressive of its emotional state.

Encounters

1. A tall, sinister man (the gloam in humanoid form) offers bright candy canes to a pair of wide-eyed, young children who are gathering kindling in the woods near their home.
2. 2d4 youths of less than normal mental capacity attempting to release a raggedy man, near death, from an iron cage strung up on the branch of a great oak. A flock of sinister ravens roosts in the tree, overseeing the proceedings with almost-word-like caws.
3. The smoking remains of an old barn in an isolated wood, freshly razed. A dark figure (the gloam in humanoid form) sits nearby, weeping raggedly at the ruination of its home and precious items.
4. A gloam inspects the wares of a travelling pedlar of curiosities, taking especial interest in the collection of stuffed animals.

Lairs

1. The ruins of an old watchtower, standing now more by virtue of the brambles and wild roses which clad its surface then by any structural integrity of its own. The gloam roosts in the upper floors and hangs its treasures in branches of nearby trees. A lone maid lives in a makeshift camp nearby and is serenaded by the gloam at dawn and dusk.
2. A cluster of tall, twisted pines at the centre of a sinister, desolate wood. Several large colonies of songbirds live in the surrounding trees, driven to strange, bloodthirsty behaviour by the presence of the gloam.
3. An old wayside inn beside a little-used woodland road. The gloam lairs in the rafters of the attic, surrounded by its prizes: the carefully preserved and displayed skeletons of adulterers. The inn’s proprietor, an aging woman who was betrayed by her former husband (now a part of the gloam’s collection), lives in harmony with the monster, providing it a source of victims in exchange for its protection.
4. An oddly-shaped, tumbledown manor atop a rocky outcropping. The place is the former residence of a black magician and greatly feared by local people. The magician is long dead, but his legacy survives in the form of the gloam, which is the result of a summoning gone awry. The monster now lives as master of the manse and continues the wizard's occult research. It is accompanied by 2d6 children, whom it treats as pupils, schooling them in the black arts.

B/X Rogue Class: Coming Soon!

A few weeks back, I wrote a post which sketched out an idea for a rogue class to replace (and subsume) the classic thief and its various subclasses. Here's the original post.

Well, I've been thinking about it a lot more, refining the ideas, adding more talents, adding rules for magic use (in the arcane dabbler vein of the Gray Mouser or the song magic vein of the traditional bard class), etc. It's developed into a fully written-up class in the form of a 20 page PDF! Having come this far, I plan to give the class a proper publication -- illustrations and all.

I'm not yet sure exactly when it'll be ready for publication, so this is just a heads up that it's on the horizon. (Also that I'm still out here, working on stuff, even though this blog has been nigh silent of late!)

More news when it comes...

OSR Rogue Class: Part 1

Periodically, in my musings on D&D, I feel the need to create a new thief / rogue class, often mixing in elements of other rogue types such as assassins, acrobats, and bards. Well, the stars have aligned just right, and the following has been bouncing around in my head.

Rogue Class

Instead of a fixed set of skills advancing at a predetermined rate (like the standard thief class), the character has an expanding set of largely non-advancing skills. A 1st level rogue knows four of the skills below (player's choice). One more skill is learned at each level increase. From 5th level, the character may choose from the list of advanced skills (those marked with an asterisk). Learning an advanced skill requires that the rogue first learn the associated normal skill (e.g. move silently requires move quietly).

Pick pockets: requires a successful DEX check. The victim may save versus spells to notice the attempt.

Sleight of hand: used to surreptitiously manipulate items, perform tricks of legerdemain, delicately extract or swap out objects from pressure plates, etc. A DEX check is required for success.

Mimic voice: general accents can be mimicked with ease. To convincingly mimic an individual, you must listen to them speaking for at least ten minutes. If there is any uncertainty, listeners may make a saving throw versus spells to detect the ruse.

Move quietly: when lightly encumbered, you can sneak quietly. (Other characters may attempt to sneak, but without guaranteed success.) In an environment with no ambient noise to mask your movement, an attentive listener may notice you -- save versus wands.

Move silently *: when lightly encumbered, you can sneak absolutely silently.

Back stab: when attacking a humanoid victim who is unaware of your presence, you get a +4 bonus to attack with a dagger. If the attack succeeds, the precision of your strike inflicts extra damage: 1d4 + your level.

Sniper: works the same as back stab (above), but for fired missile weapons (bows, crossbows).

Garrote: when attacking a humanoid victim who is unaware of your presence, you can attempt to strangle them with a garrote or similar weapon. Make an attack roll. If the attack succeeds, you have the garrote in place, causing 1d4 damage. Each subsequent round, the victim suffers 1d4 damage and must save versus paralysis or fall unconscious (if you garrote an unconscious victim for one more round, they die). While conscious, the victim may fight back with their fists, small weapons, or by wrestling. All such attacks are at -2, but success indicates they've broken free of your garrote (in addition to normal damage, etc.).

Black jack: when attacking a humanoid victim who is unaware of your presence and who is not wearing a helmet, you can attempt to knock them out with a cosh, black jack, or similar implement. Make an attack roll. If it succeeds, the victim suffers 1d4 damage and must save versus paralysis. Failure indicates that they're knocked unconscious.

Tight rope walking: expert balance allows you to easily walk or dash across narrow beams. With a DEX check, you can walk across right ropes or beams of less than 6 inches width.

Blind fighting: training in the unusual art of fighting while blindfolded reduces the penalty to attacks against foes whom you cannot see. Instead of the usual -4 penalty, you only suffer -2 when making melee attacks.

Climb rock faces: when lightly encumbered, you can climb rough rock faces with a successful DEX check. You can climb easier surfaces without a check.

Climb rough walls *: your climbing skills are so advanced that you can scale sheer surfaces with only minimal handholds such as the cracks between stone blocks. This requires a DEX check. You can climb easier surfaces without a check.

Find hidden mechanisms: your chance of detecting secret doors or mechanical traps when searching is increased by 1 in 6. (Note that you may be able to find such mechanisms without a roll by describing to the referee exactly how you search.)

Pick locks: with decent lock picks and a turn of work, you can attempt to open locks without the appropriate key. A DEX roll is required. You may retry, if you fail.

Disable small mechanical traps: with a set of thieves' tools and a turn off work, you can attempt to bypass or disable small mechanical traps such as those found on locks. A DEX roll is required. If you fail, save versus wands to avoid setting the trap off. You may retry.

Decipher foreign text: with an INT check, you can figure out the gist of a text written in foreign languages which are related to a language you know.

Decipher obscure text *: as above, but applies to ancient or obscure languages, at the referee's discretion.

Read magic: you can decipher arcane inscriptions, including those on magic-user scrolls or in spell books. There is a 1 in 6 chance of your understanding being inaccurate. This skill does not allow you to cast spells.

Activate magic scrolls *: you can cast spells from magic-user scrolls with a 90% chance of success.

Detect magic: with a turn of concentration, you have a 2 in 6 chance of detecting the presence of magic in a 10' area or on a specific object. You may retry.

Hear noise: your chance of hearing noises when listening at doors is increased by 1 in 6.

Coming In Part 2

More skills...

Mimic behaviour

Hide

Hide in shadows *

Forgery

Disguise

Escape bonds

Identify common poisons
Identify rare poisons *
Lore

(...and anything else that comes to my mind in the meantime)

New Spell: Raise Petty God

Gorgonmilk has offered to take the Petty Gods mantle and get this thing finished.

Anyone who contributed content / art, see here!

Desktop Books Meme!

It seems I'm something of a purist compared to the other people who've posted photos in this meme. The photo to the right  is what's on my desk... very minimal. Labyrinth Lord, the Advanced Edition Companion, Mutant Future and Theorems & Thaumaturgy. Those are what I refer to 90% of the time when writing RPG stuff.

Oh, and you can also see London and its Environs 1900 in the background, which I sometimes use for my on-going Victorian era horror campaign.

And a bag of dice.

One metre to the right of the desk I have another shelf which houses my RPG library proper. I guess I don't really consider myself to be a collector particularly, so I don't think my collection is particularly extensive. Most of the core AD&D books, likewise for 2nd edition AD&D (and, thankfully, splatbookless), the complete Wizard's Spell Compendium, the B/X and Holmes basic D&D sets, a couple of Savage Worlds books, and a few miscellaneous items like Carcosa, Vornheim, Call of Cthulhu, The Dungeon Alphabet.

D&D Previous & the "Core Mechanic"

Yeah, so as you may guess from the title of this post, I wasn't at all impressed by the D&D Next playtest rules. As I've seen some other people opining, it seems to be a kind of D&D 3 "lite". Which is fair enough if you like that kind of thing -- and actually I think they've done a good job so far of D&D 3 "lite", if that's their intention. I guess there's a big market for that kind of game.

Two things in particular grate for me though.

Firstly their insistence on giving monsters ability scores. This leads to a plethora of ludicrosities (such as having to decide how charismatic a beetle is), and apparently is only for the benefit of opposed rolls (sicK) and saving throws. The latter could obviously have easily been implemented using a different system (in fact I'd say that for monsters who ever needs more than a single save value, really?).

The second, and primary reaction I have to the playtest rules actually just reminds me what I dislike so much about all WotC incarnations of D&D: this idea of a "core mechanic". I find it hard to explain exactly why I find this so distasteful, but here are some reasons:

1. It makes the game bland. Imagine a game of monopoly where all rules subsystems (such as the auctions and the various types of cards) were replaced by a simple 2d6 roll... Charmless.
2. It leads to players having a knee-jerk instinct to start rolling d20s whenever their character does anything. Before the referee has even told them if it will "just work", is impossible or will require some kind of roll.
3. It makes some things which should be easy too hard, and makes some things which should be hard too easy. I'm no expert on mathematics or probability, but whenever I've played d20-based games (which D&D Next is, from what we've seen so far) I've gotten this annoying feeling of my character not being able to do anything successfully. The to hit roll in combat, which is where the whole d20 roll originates, is designed to be very random. Other things in life just aren't that random. Using one single die type for everything assumes that everything is equally random. I find it extremely unpleasant to play with such a system.
4. It leads to a kind of fallacy that rules simplicity == a core mechanic. (D&D 3.5 was undoubtedly the most complex and fiddly form of D&D so far, yet had a veneer of having been "optimised" and "rationalised".)

I mean, regarding D&D Next, I wasn't expecting anything different to be honest, and I wasn't expecting to like it (though totally open to being surprised).

I guess my point is that, though they've made this big deal about having modular rules systems which can be added and removed to taste (like the "feats" and "skills" systems), I find the core of the game (as far as we can see it now) inherently unpleasant.

It has definitely reinforced my love of TSR D&D though, which is a nice thing :)

Long live B/X, AD&D, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardy, LotFP Weird Fantasy, etc etc!

Fight On! hardcover compilations

Just spreading the word that issues 1-12 of Fight On! are available until Feb 23rd in the form of limited edition hardcover compilations, each book containing 4 issues.

Each book costs $39.99 / £25.83, and has over 400 pages, so that's pretty good value for money I reckon! They are, of course, stuffed with awesomeness.

There's also, conveniently, a Lulu code for 20% off: SWEETUK305 is the UK version, SWEET305 for the US.

Links to Lulu:

Issues 1-4

Issues 5-8

Issues 9-12

UK OSR con?

After Newt at 101 games made the suggestion recently of a UK OSR convention, I've been thinking about it some more. Now, that's not to say that my thoughts have led to anything hugely insightful or progressive. They have mostly focussed on "how awesome would that be!?". I can't imagine ever going to one of the old-school cons in America, but I always think it must be such a great opportunity to meet lots of fellow old-school enthusiasts / bloggers, so would love to go to something like that in Europe.

My imaginary favourite special guests would be: James Raggi, Russ Nicholson, Steve Jackson, Ian Livingstone :) Fighting Fantasy games would be played :)

5e -- why should I care?

Yes, the obligatory 5e post ;)

My reaction is: I have a kind of theoretical interest in what WotC might get up to with D&D 5e, but otherwise:

Why should I be interested in a new "version" of D&D?
I have the Labyrinth Lord books which I use to run my games.
I also have loads of AD&D books.
I also have all the important AD&D 2e books, for that matter.
If I really need it, the important bits of 3e (the SRD) are freely available online.
I also have free downloads of any number of other rule sets (S&W, OSRIC, LOTFP, etc) available.

Basically I have far more rule books than I will ever need, and the ability to house rule stuff together to cover bits I don't like or feel like modifying. So why should I be interested in a new "version" of D&D?

I just don't really get it... what do WotC want people to be interested in here? (And I'm not just talking about us OSR grognard types... same goes for people still playing 3rd edition, Pathfinder, 4th edition...)

I guess they're just relying on gamer ADD, the search for something new and perhaps "better".

Maybe there is a good reason why I should care about 5e, that I've not thought of yet. But for now, I'll stick with the plentiful gaming material I've already got... no reason to change.

As to what I would be interested in seeing WotC produce, well, personally nothing. I just don't tend to buy gaming materials apart from the rulebooks I use to run games. But I know lots of people like to buy campaign settings and adventures.

To be honest it surprises me that they think what people really want is another set of rules! Strange.

2011 retrospective

2011 was the year I properly launched myself into the OSR. On Jan 16th I DMed my first game of Labyrinth Lord, and that, as they say, was that -- I've not looked back since.

As some others in the blogosphere have been doing, I thought I'd kick off 2012 with a look back at what I got up to in the previous year. Just looking through the posts I made last year, I've picked out one or two each month, which for me are defining moments.

1. In January, I played old-school D&D for the first time in many years, and put the finishing touches on my Tome of the Spider Mage.
2. In February, I published a PDF of my Elementalist class for Labyrinth Lord, and wrote about psychoactive substances for adventurers.
3. In March, I wrote some nice illusionist spells dealing with prisms.
4. In April, I participated in the A-Z challenge, which ended up in the publication of a PDF with a load of new spells: An Arcane Alphabet.
5. In May, I decided to run my first game at a con, and wrote an amusing little historical piece about orcs in my campaign world.
6. In June, I decided to write a book!
7. In July, I won something.
8. In August, I published a PDF of my Necromancer class for Labyrinth Lord.
9. In September, I didn't do that much, but I did name the book.
10. In October, I had an idea for an online collection of old-school monsters, which Alex Schröder kindly realised during the night, while I slept! It unfortunately hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, so go and check it out right now!
11. In November, I finished the draft version of my book, and had some amusing conversation about what happens to playerless PCs in a dungeon.
12. In December, I didn't do much, but I did draw a funny picture.

All in all 2011 was a great year for my old-school gaming activities! Looking forward to more this year -- including, of course, the completion and publication of Theorems & Thaumaturgy!

Happy 2012 everyone!

It lives!

Alex & I have been on a frenzy of creativity, and the result is the shiny new Old-school Monster Wiki!

So far all the monsters from Labyrinth Lord + the AEC are in there, all tagged up by creature type.

All it needs now is:

• More monsters! Get in there and add your crazy home-brew monstrosities! (Alex is looking into how to import more monsters from various tomes automatically...)
• More tags! Get in there and get tagging... wilderness environments especially needed at the moment.
• Spread the word :)

Enjoy!

A database of old-school monsters?

I've recently been musing on the possibility of creating encounter tables for specific dungeon environments -- in the same way as there are tons of tables for various types of wilderness environments, from swamps to arctic tundra, I thought it'd be very useful to have tables for things like fungoid caverns, volcanic rifts, lost tombs, etc. There's loads of prototypical dungeon environments which could easily have their own table.

I had in mind using these tables as an aid while stocking dungeons, for which I often use the normal dungeon encounter tables. I tend to find these a little limited and generic though, hence the idea of different tables for different types of dungeon.

But: I just had what seems like an even better idea, and one that could be immensely useful for all sorts of things.

An online old-school monster database, with tags.

The tags are the important thing. The fact that monsters are usually only indexed by name is what makes coming up with suitably themed collections of them tricky. I realised this when looking at the extensive monster lists in the AD&D Monster Manual II. There's this huge list of monster names, sorted alphabetically or by hit dice or by wilderness environment. But to use the lists successfully you really need to know what the monsters are like, just from their names. For instance, I came across quite a few stumbling blocks in the list of 1st level dungeon monsters: rothe, vilstrak, vulchling, tween...? A lookup in the fiend folio and I now know what these things are, but it's slow work.

But what if there were a database where you could just search for monsters of 1 to 3 HD with the tags "fungus" or "whimsical"? Such a tool could be used to whip up encounter tables in a jiffy, or to get quick inspiration for encounters of any sort. I think this could be a seriously useful tool, if set up right.

So, a couple of questions:

1. Does anyone know if anything like this already exists? (I've never heard of anything like it, but you never know... I imagine possibly a resource like this may exist for 3.5th or 4th edition.)
2. Any thoughts on what software / system would be good for something like this? A freely available, easy to use, multi-user, wiki-style, online system would be perfect, but something that works as a database as opposed to a page / post based wiki or blog.

I'd imagine including a foundation of monsters from the OSR clone books (LL, AEC, S&W, OSRIC), supplemented with links to any freely available old-school OGL stuff that could be found online. (Possibly also stuff from the AD&D monster books, though that's not freely available.) The idea is that at the beginning it'd simply be a list of all the monsters (their names, hit dice and source -- either a url or a page reference in a book), but that then people could add tags to them, gradually increasing the worth of the database.

Any thoughts?

Wow I won something!

The only thing I recall winning in my life up till now was tickets to go and see a theatrical version of "The Hobbit" in about 1985, which I won (as a kid) by entering a competition to colour in a picture of Smaug!

However I can now add to that esteemed colouring-in accolade... I just checked out the results of the Fight On! random tables contest and discovered that I've won an "Elite Honorable Mention" for my Magical Research Results table, and won PDFs of all back-issues of Fight On! magazine plus their short stories compilation Roll the Bones! I'm super pleased about this, especially as I don't think I've ever read a single issue of Fight On! before (but have of course been very interested in it), so will now have a glorious quantity of new D&D related reading / material! I think I'll get them all printed and bound into one monster book for my reading pleasure (if they'll fit -- I guess it'll come to hundreds of pages!).

Big thanks to everyone who organised and judged the contest -- you have one delighted elitely and honourably mentioned here :)

I can't wait to see the compilation of all the entries -- there are some extremely intriguing sounding names in there!

A comparison of old and new D&D

I was recently asked by the guy who's organising the con I'm running a game at if I'd like to write something about old-school RPGs for their blog. At first I wasn't sure what to write, as I'm not the great philosopher type, but then I thought I'd simply write about my own experiences with various editions of D&D, and the things I prefer about the older style. For the interest of readers of this blog, here's what I wrote!

(By the way, I just realised that this is probably my first ever "OSR philosophy" post on this blog! ;)

Back to the old-school!

A comparison of old and new D&D

As a long-time D&D player who has returned to playing a 30 years old version of the game, I thought it would be interesting to write a bit about my experiences with the venerable game, and why I'm now so much happier to be playing a very early incarnation of it.

A bit of background to my experiences with D&D: I started playing in the early 1980s, with the Basic / Expert sets. AD&D was also around at this time, and while I did buy a couple of the books I found them a bit overwhelming at that young age, and only got into AD&D when the second edition came out. I played "2e" a lot during my teens, and then gradually drifted away from roleplaying in my twenties.

When I returned to the hobby several years ago, D&D 4 was the big new thing. I duly tried it out, and also tried out the 3rd edition, and Pathfinder. The games I played were fun, sure, but somehow I found that none of these versions of the game really had that spark which the older editions had.

So here are a few thoughts on the differences I've found between the older and newer styles of D&D, and why my personal preference lies with the old. (I'm sure a lot of people prefer the newer style, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here, just expressing my love of “the old ways”.)

The defining factor seems to be the terseness and sparsity of the older D&D rules, especially if you look at the original version of the game (OD&D) or the basic game which was released during the late 1970s to early 1980s. They don't cover very much, and rarely go into much depth. Later versions of the game progressively filled in these gaps (whether with the minutiae of AD&D, or the systemic rationalisation and "core mechanics" of D&D 3 / 4). However the early game solved the issue of "how to determine what happens in situation X" in a very different way: make something up on the spot! Need to know if a character can jump over a pit (there's no jumping skill)? – the DM has many options: just say yes, just say no way, roll vs DEX, give a 2 in 6 chance, etc. Completely dependant on the situation at hand.

There are many things about this system (or lack of system!), which create a play experience which I personally enjoy very much.

This is not a game of rules. The lack of specific rules and reliance on the DM to make improvised "rulings", rather than relying on pre-defined "rules", brings home an extremely important feature of old-school RPGs: the atmosphere of the game is far more immersive and mysterious if the players are thinking in terms of being their character, rather than in terms of what they're allowed to do by the rules. That's why in AD&D, for example, the players handbook only has rules for creating characters. All the other rules of the game are in the dungeon masters guide.

Improvisation. One of the things I enjoy most about the roleplaying hobby as a whole is the act of making stuff up on the spot with a group of people. It's much more fun than looking things up in books :)

Growing characters vs character builds. When the procedure for character creation is as simple as: 1. roll ability scores in order, 2. choose a class, 3. buy equipment, there's no room for the mechanical tweaking which has come to be known in later editions as "character builds" (which is, I believe, something of a game in itself!). This further brings home the fact that this game is not about rules and mechanics. Your character is differentiated from others by how you play him / her, and what experiences you go through with the character in the game, not by what numbers you have written on your character sheet. In effect you're growing or "building" your character as you play.

Less is more. Another effect of this lack of mechanically stated character options is that it actually in practice tends to give characters more options, flexibility and creativity. Characters are free to try things which, in more rules-strict editions of the game, they just wouldn't bother with, due to perhaps not having enough ranks in a certain skill, or not knowing a certain feat. As a result the game tends to feel a lot more open and free-form.

Saying yes. The lack of specific character abilities, in terms of “skills” or “feats”, has another, perhaps surprising, side-effect: it allows the DM to simply let characters do cool stuff, when appropriate. Can my wizard read the ancient magical script of the Zagdobar people? Of course he can! (As opposed to: well, let me see, how many ranks do you have in read languages?) Can my fighter do a spinning attack and try to hit the three temple guards surrounding him? He can try for sure! – make a DEX check, and if you succeed you can make an attack roll at -2 for each of them. (As opposed to: well, let me see, isn't there a feat for that?) This point can be especially relevant where success at a certain action is important for the progression of a story.

Saying no. Of course, the other side of the coin is that if a player hasn't got specific abilities written down, then the DM is equally likely to just say “no way”. Common sense generally prevails.

Making the game your own. When the "official rule book" is ambiguous and vague, DMs have a chance to interpret as necessary and as they see fit. This can give each campaign a unique flavour, as rules are interpreted in different ways.

Rules where necessary. The lack of specifics in the rule books allows the DM to expand them, if areas come up during play which are important enough to demand further rules. The end effect is that you're starting from a very rules-light system, and expanding it if needed, rather than trying to comprehend or cut down a very rules-heavy system. For example, the "official rules" for wizards creating magic items say little more than "it's up to the DM how much it costs, how long it takes, and what components or equipment are needed". If a particular group feels like this is too vague, then they can come up with something that suits their campaign. (Though I feel that this system is absolutely perfect as it is, as it allows the DM to suggest something completely tailored to the character in question.)

So that covers, in my experience, some of the big differences in style between older and newer editions of D&D. If anyone also finds this kind of style appealing, I'll be running a Labyrinth Lord game at BurgCon 20, come and join in!

European old-school blogs

I'm starting a little collection here... If you turn your gaze to the bottom of the "widgets" column on the right, you will see a new section entitled "European Old-School Blogs". Something I've noticed recently is that most of the blogs I read are, as far as I can gather, written by people based in the US. There's a few Canadians in there too (notably James Maliszewski), but I find myself wondering how many people writing about old-school RPGs there are in Europe.

As a European (a Brit living in Germany, in fact) I thought it'd be nice to build up a bit of a picture of who's in the local(ish) vicinity. To start it off I've added a few old-school related blogs that I know of, which are written by people living in Europe. (Note that this specification includes people of non-European origin who call this continent home, such as James Raggi.)

It's a pretty small list at present, but I'm sure that is due to my ignorance, rather than a lack of extant Euro old-school blogs. Further links and suggestions most welcome!

I guess if the list grows gradually and lots of non-English blogs get added I might split it into one list per language, if that becomes necessary. We'll see...