Back in the Saddle and 5th Edition

There is no excuse for a 15 month blogging absence -- a virtual blog lifetime.  Other life elements intrude, excuses abound.  But like a bad case of the clap, I keep coming back to D&D.  Or it to me.

I have been sucked back, simply, due to 5th edition D&D (I refuse to call it "Next," unless they promise to call the next version after that "Last."). 

While the playtest versions (as of now) are only about 60-70% complete at best, it is in playable form finally and I like what I am seeing.  It's enough to get me to run a campaign using it.

Good News Part 1: the game has taken many of the best elements from prior editions and mostly merged them:

* ability checks a la many OSR systems are the new default, making skills both relevant and simple to execute
* simplification (relative to 3e and 4e, anyway)
* return to class-based design rather than MMO-inspired "role"-based design of 4e
* cribbing from a few of 4e's strengths such as at-will spells
* A flatter power curve (more like OD&D/2nd edition)

In sum, it feels like a streamlined version of 3e with 4e/OSR elements.  What is still lacking:

* The monsters overall have relatively low ACs.  This may be intentional.
* Multiclassing is still an unknown.  Whether it will look like AD&D (level up in multiple classes simultaneously, splitting xp), 3e (add a class as you go) or 4e (get a little multiclass functionality from a feat) is anyone's guess.  I am guessing it will be more 3e-ish, though the only way that worked for spellcasters was to use prestige classes or take feats to boost their caster levels.  I would be open to an AD&D version too, though once you took your classes you were locked in ...
* We still need a few more "core" classes, like the bard and (for me, anyway) the sorcerer.  I wouldn't mind seeing a warlock, either.  Essentially, if a class' features can't be added as a subclass to an existing class, or if it has some unusual mechanic, it needs to be its own class.  For my money, the 3e bard (bardic music effects), sorcerer (spontaneous casting/wizard alternative), warlock (eldritch blast, unique warlock powers and invocations) all justify their own classes; they can't be wizard variants, other than possibly the sorcerer.
* The spell list, magic items, and bestiary are sparse.  More content will be needed to justify an end product.

All in all, I am encouraged.  I want to play this version of the game. Moreover, I am encouraged that the designers are taking their time and listening to feedback.

Adventure Formats and the OSR

Some of the obvious accouterments of the old school renaissance have included intentional graphical and layout throwbacks to the previous era, particularly the Gygaxian format of adventure presentation.

OSR Format (roughly 1977 through 1983)

Using the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief as a template, the following format emerges as the traditional standard:

• Cardstock front and back cover with artwork/description
• Maps, typically on inside front and back covers (though sometimes at the end of the booklet)
• Booklet, staple-bound
• Short Introduction/DM Notes
• Fairly Short Background (Setting the scene, placement within game world, getting the PCs involved, etc.)
• Map Key, including wandering monsters, room descriptions, and descriptive artwork.  Text within the map key was kept brief except where further explanation was needed.
• Appendices (New spells, monsters, treasures, player handouts and artwork, etc.)

This is fairly typical of pre-Hickman TSR fare, all of which can be fairly said to be within the OSR wheelhouse.  Judges Guild materials of that era follow an analogous format, although virtually none had a cover and maps were usually printed inside the booklet or were separate fold-out affairs.

Later Tweaks & Content Bloat

As the game matured, the format of adventures was tweaked.  The biggest changes were in two areas: backround/story-related material (for Hickmanesque storyline-driven games) and in the quantity and bulk of text included in the product.

Once adventures became less site-based/sandboxy and more story-based, larger amounts of background and story material were required to guide DMs through various story flowcharts and matrices.  NPCs, in particular, became much more fleshed out and given a life of their own.  While the point of this was to enhance the "story" and dramatic aspects of the game, it undoubtedly contributed to content bloat within published adventures.  It further made the products less adaptable for individual DMs -- more story details require more work to customize to one's own game-world.

The other content infusion of note was the addition of descriptive "boxed text."  While the goal was laudable -- to provide greater immersion and verisimilitude -- the inclusion of subjective descriptors left some DMs (and many more players!) feeling that they were reading from a script and trapped by the content.  If the author was not both brief and evocative, boxed text became a millstone around DMs' necks.

Other tweaks to the format included improved quality maps and experiments with different types of maps, such as the famous quasi-3D iso maps of Ravenloft.

Encounter Format

One of the more irritating-to-grognards developments in late 3rd and most 4th edition adventures was the advent of what can be called "encounter format," in which everything needed to run a particular encounter was generally (though not always) on one page or two facing pages.  Thus, a detailed dungeon room, its monsters (and their game stats) and all tactics and "developments" were listed in one place.

While generally hated by the OSR due to the "encounter" nomenclature and the size of stat blocks necessitated by later editions of the game, the encounter format has one big advantage -- utility.  All of the traditional formats require a DM to juggle no less than three documents -- the map, the key, and at least one rulebook (usually the DMG or Monster Manual).  The encounter format eliminated that juggling and allows a DM to focus on the players, the flow, and the game rather than shuffling papers about.  This philosophy has developed its own subculture of sorts via the "One Page Dungeon" contest.

Building a Composite OSR Format: Goals

My mission statement, therefore: 

OSR content should be adaptable, easy to use, evocative, creative, and customizable. 

I would further add that we, as consumers of said content, should value such publications on these merits alone and not, say, by its sheer size or bulk.  Furthermore, OSR publications must by necessity adhere to the OGL -- requiring either close adherence to OGL rules or a more generic approach so as not to violate the license.  I advocate the generic approach simply because everyone is seemingly playing a different game.  Within the OSR itself there are at least three major subsets -- white box, Basic, and AD&D systems -- and substantial variation in basic game mechanics.

I therefore propose the following format for OSR site-based adventures:

• Notes/Introduction
• Background (brief)
• Small-scale overland map (optional)
• Unified large-scale map showing the entire site and labelling its sections
• Sectional small-scale maps done in "one page dungeon" style (i.e., "show me don't tell me") with clear links to other sections
• Appendices

By eliminating the Gygaxian map-and-key format and later hyper-wordy formats, the DM is given what he needs -- introductory materials to read and digest for application into his own game-world, and in-game materials to use while sitting at the table playing.  The "one page" sectional map format, by necessity, will provide brief information in order to avoid OGL problems and to keep it adaptable, it should be as generic as possible in terms of game mechanics and statistics.  The downside to this, of course, is that it will require that the DM either adapt the content to his rules system beforehand or have the rulebooks handy during play.

For those wanting to inject a "plotline" into OSR adventures, a slightly expanded background section and a one-page story flowchart is recommended for in-game reference.

So what do you think?  Would you consider buying and using a scenario in my format as described?  How strong is the pull of sentimentality of the Gygaxian format?  Is the size/bulk of a publication relevant to your perception of its value?

What he said

4th Edition debriefing -- planting the seeds

After my whining, I have to say the 4th edition game was not as horrid as I was expecting.  We managed to get through four encounters or so in a 4-5 hour slot interspersed with a short meal break.  But I managed to have a short conversation with Brodie, the DM, afterwords.

I proffered this pearl of wisdom: we could have played the entire session under any version of D&D rules.  Given the setting (dungeon-like tombs, filled with tricks and traps and magical power nodes), there was nothing 4e-specific.  Brodie admitted this was true and related a tale that he enjoyed 2nd edition the best, simply because he could strip it down and houserule it to let it run the way he wanted.  He also owned up to the fact that he was not able to use all of the 4e critters' powers optimally because of their quantity and his limited preparation time due to his real life schedule.

I then offered that the battlemat was required in 4e (as it was, for the most part, in 3.x).  He agreed and reflected that they didn't even use miniatures in his house game until 3e came out.  In fact, the battlemat actually got in the way of the game -- we became so habituated to looking at it instead of listening to the DM's description that we missed something incredibly obvious that nearly caused a character death. 

Another factor, for me anyway: flipping through pages of "power cards" was not really adding to my gaming experience -- and I've been playing this character for the last six of his 11 levels.  I had played 4e previously, too.  I had that moment where I realized I understood 4e as much as I was going to and I had no desire to learn more.  And that level of knowledge is inadequate for my comfort level.

Looking back, the game mechanics that were actually utilized in this session were essentially combat, spells (combat and rituals, in 4e parlance) and skill usage.  We could have played the same game, the same story, and had a better pace and a lot more FUN with a leaner, stripped down, less wargamey system.

It was a moment of clarity for me and I think a realization for Brodie, too.  Among my epiphanies: anyone publishing content needs to make it as rule-neutral as possible, since everyone houserules, and to not design settings, scenarios, and even monsters and treasures with game mechanics in mind.

My Regular Game and the 4th Edition Rant

My longest-running regular game meets today.  Run by my friend (and best man) Brodie, it's a homebrew 4th edition campaign.  It's story-heavy, which is the only thing that's kept me in the game beyond friendship. The group itself is wonderful. Of the six players, two are women. Everyone is an adult in their 40s with jobs and their own personal living space. I enjoy their company and have socialized with all of them in non-gaming settings.

And yet I have to drag myself to this game -- my loathing for 4th edition is that strong.

The "I hate 4th edition" ship has sailed long ago.  Like many in my demographic, I tried to like it.  I bought the PHB and the Martial Powers warrior builder book.  I have suffered through two campaigns using this ridiculous rule system.  I have a mind to show up today with my Red Box (Erol Otus cover) Basic Set or Pathfinder and dare Brodie to switch rule systems.

My character -- a tiefling wizard I inherited -- has hit 11th level.  So now I must choose a "Paragon Path."  None of the paths in the PHB fit my concept.  My character is an egotistical bastard with an occasional nice streak.  I suppose I'll have to search on Brodie's WotC "insider" program to find an acceptable path from the various supplemental material out there.

The case against 4th edition:

• "Roles"
• "Encounters"
• Everything keyed to challenge ratings
• Near-impossibility of death
• Paragon Paths
• The entire "powers" concept -- I feel like a pro wrestler with my own finishing moves.
• The game serves the rules, rather than the reverse
• Tactical wargame feel
• Combat takes forever
• Binary Skill system does not allow for customization
• No saving throws -- DM rolls an attack roll.  "Save" to end an effect.
• No save or die
• wholesale changes to established settings to shoehorn Dragonborn and Tiefling into the mix
• abandonment of Greyhawk

The case for 4th edition:  Higher level play is slightly less bulky than 3.x.  Also, I like the way passive perception and insight are handled in-game.

The "Explorer" Wildlands Campaign and the Campaign Hexagon System

I've long been a fan of the D&D campaign based around exploration, both on a micro (dungeon) and macro (wilderness) level.  No publisher highlighted this aspect of D&D better than Judges Guild, whose Wilderlands of High Fantasy setting was built around the idea that there was a lot of unexplored stuff out there.  Sure, there were cities -- big ones, too -- but there was space.  Bob Bledsaw's crowning achievement (other than the City State of the Invincible Overlord) was the Campaign Hexagon System and its specific implementation in the Wilderlands.

Be assured that the system was more than mere wilderness maps on hex paper.  The first benefit of the system was that it was scalar, taking the DM from large-scale campaign hex maps to individual hex maps of a particular campaign hex to two scales of square-grid map for city plans and small scale dungeon floorplans.  Like a nested Russian doll, the map scales all fit within each other.

The second benefit of the system was that Judges Guild published maps and blank sheets (the Fantasy Cartographer's Guide is simply wonderful) for keying said maps in large, easy-to-use booklets, and provided numerous tables and charts to help DMs populate those maps with terrain, features, monsters, and treasures as needed.

Lastly, Bledsaw ensured that all JG "content" publications actually used the Campaign Hexagon system, and took it to the next level with the inclusion of TWO maps for every wilderness area -- a DM's map and a player's map that was blank, other than coastlines and known features.  Talk about an incentive to explore -- there was a whole map to fill out!  And after that, 15 more in the Wilderlands setting.  For my money, the Wilderlands Setting was the ultimate sandbox for OSR-style gaming.  JG products were at their strongest when providing game aids to enable this style of sandbox play.

I am a huge fan of Greyhawk, but the exploration element and sense of the unknown is largely missing (at least in the aboveground of the Eastern Flanaess).  The Greyhawk setting (and Faerun too, for the most part) is one of nations; the Wilderlands is one of wilderness, and is therefore the first setting that comes to mind when the "points of light" concept is bandied about. 

Sadly, exploration as a player and character motivator seemingly became phased out as the game transformed into one of character customization and battlemat-driven tactical combat.  I honestly can't remember the last time someone actually mapped in a 3.x game.  I wonder if a raised-on-4th-edition player would even understand the point of mapping.

5th Edition Hopes and Fears

Like many gamers in my age demographic, I await news of D&D 5th edition with a mix of hope and trepidation.  On the one hand, Monte is at the helm; it won't suck.  On the other hand, its stated goal of unifying the various editions -- and thereby providing something for everybody -- runs the risk of pleasing no one at all.

As of this writing, my favorite editions remain 3.5 and Pathfinder, for one big reason: character creation.  I find that 3.5/PF deliver the most ability for PCs to create the character they want within a fantasy world framework.  While this is sacrelige in many OSR circles, I like feats and skills as presented in 3rd Edition and its progeny.  Is 3.5/PF perfect?  No -- the oft-stated objections (rules bloat, wargaming feel, challenge rating/build-the-adventures-around-the-PCs, the power curve, high-level play wonkiness) are mostly valid in my experience as a player and DM.  But that sweet spot (say, level 3-10 or so) was awesome.

I have gone back and reviewed many of my Basic Set / 1st Edition materials, and downloaded and reviewed several of the carefully-crafted OSR retro-clone products, including Labyrinth Lord and Joe Bloch's Adventures Dark and Deep.  I value the original and OSR products for their relative simplicity, flavor, nostalgia, and sense of real danger to the PCs.  However, I like a product with a little more meat on the bones, particularly regarding skills and adjudicating non-combat actions.  Adventures Dark and Deep has taken the step of adopting a alternative skill system based on xp expenditure that is partially tied to ability scores -- thus, for many of the skills, it is cheaper to train if your best ability score is that skill's prime requisite.

Mixing and matching these elements then, as Monte in fact says he is doing, my fantasy 5th edition would look something like this:

• Same core design re: six ability scores, hit points, saves, armor class, etc.
• Feats, or some mechanism to customize characters to provide unique abilities
• Skills or ability check modifiers to allow resolution of non-combat actions
• Ability to run 0/1st edition style gameplay (i.e., battlemap/miniatures optional) for quicker play
• Flattening of the power curve
• Deadliness -- the game needs to be dangerous
• Rewards should go back to pre-3e: xp for treasure, to encourage alternate means of "winning" other than monster-slaying, which begets the Challenge Rating/match-the-encounter-to-the-PCs thinking.