Beyond 2021

What to look forward to...

The start of a new year and its promise of good things to come is an aspect of winter months here where I live that makes the shorter periods of sunlight a little brighter. And, crowdfunding doesn't exactly "promise" anything, but it certainly can lead to expectations. Looking ahead to 2022, I am anticipating the arrival of a number of FRP game products which started life in crowdfunding. On my list of eagerly anticipated games are the following:

Savage Worlds Pathfinder

Combining the mechanical aspects of two major role-play system traditions, this game intrigues me more than most. Savage Worlds is a popular "generic" game system that has been successfully adapted to run the Palladium classic game Rifts as well as many others. It is perhaps best described as giving a "pulp" game feel and describes itself as "fast, fun and furious". Okay, sounds promising and I have purchased a couple of editions of SW, but have not yet played the system. Pathfinder, however, has been a favorite FRP game and I have logged many hours playing at that system. The SW PF leverages the first edition of Pathfinder in an attempt to offer the game community something new. The classic adventure path Rise of the Runelords is adapted for use with the new system and it accompanies the release of SW PF giving the hobby what promises to be a complete ready-to-run package.

Level Up Advanced 5e

Although the 5th edition of The World's Most Popular Role-Playing game is not my very "favorite" edition of that system, it is the FRP game I have played most frequently in 2021. As this 2021 draws to an end, I find myself currently running one campaign as its DM using 5e, and as a player in two (soon to be three) other 5e campaigns, but there are a number of things about this edition that I am not completely satisfied with. One solution ay be The Level Up Advanced 5e system which consists of four volumes and is essentially what the name implies, an "advanced 5e". Level Up is a complete FRP game. You do not need a copy of 5e to use this system, but at its core are game mechanics based on 5e, so it can be described as a "leveled up" version of the basic 5e standard rules. 

In Level Up Advanced 5e there are even more spells, more classes, more heritages and cultures and backgrounds, more monsters, more magic items, in other words the usual "more of everything" one often finds in a new "advanced" book and it's all 5e compatible so you can mine Level Up for homebrewing your own version of 5e. Rather than just a player's cornucopia of tricks and treats, Level Up is also more options for the DM/referee to use. If you are like me, there are things about your 5e that you would like to "fix", and Level Up may provide answers for us thereby making our 5e more satisfying to run and play than standard 5e -provided that is what you seek. Personally, I appreciate game complexity or "crunch" (unless I want a fast and rules-lite game!) and  Level Up Advanced 5e promises to be a game, that while resembling bog standard 5e in many ways, offers me more complexity in other ways. Level Up gives me an opportunity to experience fresh enthusiasm for a rules system that is at this point wearing a bit thin, and it has been for me.

(If you are a fan of 5e and desiring "more", but would rather stick with just the official products designed and released by the wise wizards on the coast, there is an expansion set up for preorder and should drop early in 2022 so that you also have something to look forward to.)

Hyperborea

For something new in old school goodness, and a FRP game that is centered around perhaps the best fictional setting I have personally seen in any game, try Hyperborea! It is the new name for a fresh looking two volume 3rd edition of Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea. I really am sorry to see that wonder of a mouth-filling, fun to say aloud title retired, but I think I understand why the name change is happening. Hyperborea (borrowed from Clark Ashton Smith, Plato and others) is a key selling point for Jeffrey Talanian's old school sword & sorcery version of what is an Open License version of our favorite old game system. I have been a fan of AS&SH since I first acquired the 2012 version which was published in a box (which includes some nice sharp-edge old school dice) and although I have only briefly ran the game for a short time after acquiring it, and I have only been an AS&SH player at conventions, I really am fond of this game and count it as among the best in its genre. The AS&SH rules deliver a proper feel for the Sword & Sorcery genre and as I implied, its inherent setting of Hyperborea is simply a masterpiece of world design. Of course you may disagree, but this is me writing this post!  

The One Ring 2nd edition

Another edition to update a FRP game, The One Ring 2e promises to improve on what I already consider to be a very good system for gaming in the world of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. The fictional setting of Middle-earth has arguably been a significant influence on popular culture in general and upon all literature and games, especially of the fantasy genre since its rise to popularity in the 1970's. Various FRP games have attempted to use the setting by name, but most have fallen short of achieving a good fit - at least in the eyes of its many fans. Having played quite a few of the published Middle-earth games, I find TOR and by extension its 5e adaptation, Adventures in Middle-earth, to offer perhaps the best adaptation to role-playing of what most gamers seem to feel are the essential characteristics that define Middle-earth and does so while also keeping faith with the particular narrative styling of J.R.R. Tolkien's work.

Having received digital versions of all these products in 2021, I feel reasonably certain that the physical books may be delivered in 2022. Anticipating good things to come is its own sort of enjoyment. 

So here's to anticipation and hoping for a Happy New Year!

Paizo & Pathfinder

Taking the Game Beyond Edition 3.5.
As this year draws to a close, I suppose it is appropriate to look back on what has recently passed in our gaming lives and also ahead to what the future may bring us in the coming year. I recently wrote about my experience with the 4th edition, mentioning briefly some of the controversies that are frequently associated with that version of the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and offering some of the reasons I still like the edition. Closely associated with the era of 4e in my thinking is Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. The 3rd edition of D&D is famously associated with the Open Game License which allows anyone to use the Standard Reference Document as the basis for a roleplaying game - giving appropriate credit as is due, of course. The OGL as it is often referred to, quickly became the basis for many roleplaying games, several remain with us today. Pathfinder is one of those.

Paizo Inc. began life as a publisher of the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. Founded during the 3e era (in 2002), Paizo during that time produced some of my favorite RPG magazine content of any era. The magazines published under Paizo's production were colorful and the art quality was top shelf. The writing was excellent and their adventures were often better than those being produced in-house by the brand holder and company publishing that famous parent game. Of course this is all just my humble opinion. YMMV - as the saying goes.

What is more a matter of record is that during that 3e era Paizo developed a loyal following and when the trade-mark brand holder decided to drop Paizo as their magazine publisher in 2007, the folks at Paizo struck out on their own and begin publishing their popular line of adventure paths on their own that continue to feature excellent writing and stellar fantasy art right up to the present. 

Without the contract to publish Dragon and Dungeon, Paizo soon began developing their own game based on the OGL and with significant fan-based playtesting and feedback. The finished product (seen by many as a successor to 3e) was published in 2009 as the Pathfinder RPG. For many of us in the hobby, Pathfinder arrived at a time when we were looking for a game that would scratch the itch we were feeling to play something that felt more like a familiar fantasy roleplay system than we were experiencing with 4e.

As I have been mentally walking down 4e memory lane, I find myself once again at the end of that journey standing before Pathfinder - and the Pathfinder memories come flooding back. As a smile breaks across my face, I recall the many new friends I made while playing Pathfinder, as well as  a number of the fun adventures (many of them published by Paizo) that we have shared together while playing this now older and so familiar version - we played Pathfinder for a number of years almost to the exclusion of all other games. Yes, Pathfinder has been a very good FRP experience for me, even though the system (much like 3e before it) eventually became bloated with so many supplements in print that it was almost impossible to master all the content. Then came a new playtest version followed by release of a second edition in 2019.

Prior to the pandemic, I was running and playing a lot of Pathfinder 2e, more so than of any other FRP game. The pandemic affected gaming for many of us hobbyists, often in surprising ways! An increase in solo play and playing online replaced regular game night gatherings as we sought to keep our group FRP gaming interests alive by changing our way of  engaging with our hobby and of "getting together". As I enter this new year, and face-to-face gathering again, I find that I am experiencing a great desire to resume some regular play of Pathfinder. It really is a good game in both its editions.

An Old School Heretic's Critical Look back at 4e...

...and why I still willingly play it!

I did not start with the 4th edition of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game, so my perspective is likely to differ significantly from those for whom 4e was their introduction to the hobby. I tread lightly even mentioning 4e. My hope is that this post will not be be taken as my attempt to argue the merits of one edition over another. For a variety of reasons, 4e seems to be the most "controversial" edition and it seems to be forever connected to the term "edition wars". This post is in no way an attempt to fan those flames and what follows is entirely the humble opinion of one person, me the writer, and nothing more. I write this out of sincere enthusiasm for our hobby and as an exercise in sorting through my own thoughts on the matter at hand. So if you are still curious about what my humble opinions on the matter are, keep reading. 

I will state from the beginning that I sincerely like 4e...and I also sincerely dislike 4e. For that simple reason, I am sympathetic to those who criticize this version of the game that we all enjoy, and I also understand the feelings of those who defend it. Like every other edition of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game, good things can be said of 4e, but 4e isn't without its flaws. The 4th edition is plagued by a volume of errata which will testify to its being far from a perfect game. Yet I find it an enormously fun game to play, provided everyone at the table is cooperative!

Powers

The publishers of 4e seem to have aspired to give us what essentially is a level-up of the game to a more "supers" feel. Characters in 4e start off at level 1 already as competent and heroic (levels 1-5 are termed the Heroic Tier of play in 4e). I will readily admit that it can be great fun to play an heroic character that feels super powerful. (I recall my surprise upon playing this edition for the first time as I saw how much damage my level-1 PC dealt out and absorbed!) Overall, my play experience with 4e satisfies a sometime desire to role-play a "superhero" and does so in a way that is harmonious with my preference for a setting that at least superficially resembles ancient or medieval times (fantasy!). This is one of the appeals of 4e for me and also one of the aspects which led me (and others) to eventually desire a more traditional FRP experience where low-level play is dangerous and it's a challenge just to survive to make level-2. I missed the feel of my old D&D.

A design goal of the 4e development team seems to have been to "standardize" the experience of playing the game by giving the DM certain tools that would make unnecessary much of the need for DM judgement calls. An attempt is made to balance character abilities across classes, balance encounters so that PCs will prevail, and to clearly spell out all mechanical procedures are however, accomplished imperfectly in the published books. Simply put, I have found DM fiat is still both necessary and desirable despite the 4e game's preference for a formulaic and standardized approach to the role of the DM. The goal of making all player experiences the same across all tables regardless of who is acting as the DM seems to have recently been somewhat abandoned post 4e even by the owners of the D&D brand as evidenced by the changes in approach to rules taken in the follow-up version, the most current 5th Edition.

Markers

As referee, I run most of my games relying on verbal description and imagination only, what we often call "theater-of-the-mind". Preference for this game style is perhaps a carry-over from my earliest days in the hobby when miniature figures representing fantastic creatures were very hard to come by. In their absence we simply made do without them. Dice would occasionally fill-in for the figures we didn't have, but we soon discovered that even such substitute representations could be dispensed with, and that the game worked perhaps even better without them. The rules in the earliest editions of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game accommodates the use of miniature figures and even lists game's distances in inches for ease of tabletop play, but lacking the appropriate miniature figures we seldom played this way. With the later advent of cheap, readily available plastic miniature figures, especially monster figures, and most recently the widespread use of virtual tabletops with their associated tokens, theater-of-the mind style play is becoming perhaps less common today. As time progressed, fantasy figures have become readily available and are now an industry in its own right.

Having said all of the above concerning theater-of-the-mind play, 4e practically insists that combat encounters be gamed using a tactical display or "grid" and that figures or tokens be used to represent the characters and monsters, as well as markers to represent the status of said creatures. Many of the powers and abilities of the characters and beasts are geared toward players counting squares and positioning their figures and templates. 

The 4th edition rules seem to excel when it comes to tactical play. It is a strength of the edition, but also a weakness as I see it. Moving figures, counting squares - it all takes time, not to mention player "analysis paralysis" that can accompany tactical decision making. Even smallish combats using 4e can easily take an hour or more to play to conclusion as each participant carefully considers, then positions their figures and any templates to maximum effect. Viewed solely on the basis of being a  game of tactical combat in a fantastic milieu, 4e is perhaps the ultimate gaming experience. It has become my preference for such skirmish style miniature game and even with its publisher moving forward to the next edition (5e), the core mechanics of 4e combat continues on as the basis of a series of board games which are still currently available, and which I enjoy both in group or solo play.

Combat using a tactical display (grid) can be great fun, but there are times when my desire is for a more open and free-wheeling role-playing style with occasional combats. One of the frequent complaints I hear from friends regarding 4e is that it does not encourage role-playing and places too much emphasis on combat. While combat seems to definitely dominate the rule mechanics of 4e (and honestly all other other editions of D&D), the very nature of role-playing itself, with its basis in the back-and-forth verbal exchange between players, definitely encourages, if not mechanically supports, a free dialogue between the referee/DM and players. Such verbal activity is at the heart of the hobby, at least I would argue that, and it is with that statement that I begin to express the way that I, as referee, prefer to use 4e (and really all RPGs). 

My view is that combat, even using 4e, does not always have to be epic, and it does not have to use a grid or figures. There is room for role-playing in any encounter, in any system, in fact I prefer to do just that. Sometimes a quick encounter using 4e may be played using only theater-of-the-mind, reserving the tactical display and full 4e mechanics for those important battles where tactics may decide a close outcome. Pushing through a small group of over-matched minions in order to clear the area for further exploration can be the end result of a series of verbal narrations together with a few dice rolls rather than an hour long tactical combat. 

Skill Challenges

I believe the presence of "skills" in a game inherently changes the nature of role-play. Players tend to look to their character sheet when it contains a list of skills, just to see if they can leverage any of those skills in order to roll for a success. Acting as referee I am fond of saying to such a player, "The answer is not on your character sheet. Tell me what you would like for your character to do and we will find a way to see if that works." 

My hope in such game situations is always that players will come up with some idea that will succeed with no dice involved - dice can be fickle! I like to encourage logical problem solving and creative thinking whenever possible (even outside of gaming) and see this opportunity as a strength of RPG. Reducing an important element of the game, such as creative thinking, to a series of connected dice rolls seems a loss of that opportunity to me.

On the other hand, a series of dice rolls may make sense in order to successfully navigate a number of difficult challenges as player characters strive for a successful conclusion to a complicated situation where coordination of effort and teamwork is necessary. The concept of the skill challenge is not inherently bad, but it can be poorly used, in my opinion.

The design idea behind the 4e skill challenge seems to have been to spread the opportunities for significant action during the game across all the players at the table rather than to facilitate one character who excels at one skill to dominate a given type of game situation. The idea of character "skills" harkens back to earlier editions (perhaps even borrowed from other games) and is probably here to stay for any future editions, but the idea is not among my favorite innovations.

In Summary

By picking and choosing from the available tools presented in the 4e books, I find the game can be very enjoyable. I don't worry much about errata and I frequently make referee rulings as I see the need for them - feeling no guilt in doing so. Is what I am DM-ing "by the book" 4th Edition, no, but I think it does provide some fantastic fun. The tactical miniatures game inherent in the 4e rule system is robust and it rewards clever play. In my experience combat generally runs along smoothly when players are cooperative and it really doesn't require very many referee judgement calls.

Each referee can decide how much game time they wish to devote to combat and by contrast to devote to other game related activities. Investigation, negotiation, exploration, even down-time can be as involved and time consuming as the players at the table prefer. Simply jumping from one combat encounter to the next can be a group's preferred style of play regardless of which edition they are playing, but so can playing a game emphasizing investigation or any other aspects of play.    

Bannerless Knight

An unfortunate aspect of my having an interest in playing several FRP systems, both old and new, is that I never have enough players who share in ALL of my varied game system passions. Fortunately I do have a number of friends who enjoy gaming and therefore I am able to play frequently - generally face-to-face again these days. The FRP game of choice (decided by consensus) is currently the most modern take on the world's most popular role-playing game. I do occasionally persuade a sub-set of my friends to indulge my interests in a less popular game title, but even so, there are a few on my list of favorites that seldom get any takers. 

The role-playing game King Arthur Pendragon (or simply called Pendragon) is one such system. Written by the late Greg Stafford using a variation on the Basic Role-Playing house engine, and first published by Chaosium, Pendragon is back in the hands of Chaosium where it is currently undergoing preparation for release of its 6th edition. Not surprisingly, each of the published editions seems to have its relative advantages and disadvantages and adherents who claim their favorite. I like them all, but seem to find myself drawn back again and again to the first edition.

Over a recent weekend I sat down with the first edition Pendragon rules and a kernel of an idea for a solo adventure, rolled some dice, consulted various useful tomes, and applied ample doses of imagination - making some notes along the way. What follows is my recollection of that solo foray into the days of King Arthur.

A Tale of King Arthur's Camelot

An austere youth of Saxon decent and a ward of King Arthur's court, Cenwulf (known as "the Cold") is often seen as somewhat distant and aloof except while in the company of a certain visiting Danish Prince.

As our story begins, a new priest appears in the capitol - one spreading the Christian gospel and saving souls. For a time he is the talk of Camelot. Money goes missing at the church and our young Saxon knight, Cenwulf, is suspected. Avoiding the accusing stares that seem to follow him both at court and in places of lower social status, and hoping to gain some needed glory to his credit, when word comes to court of bandit troubles, Cenwulf volunteers to assist the distressed village. 

Traveling henceforth from Camelot, he encounters a damsel - haughty and obviously in need of rescue. It occurs to Cenwulf that there is a shared attraction between himself and the fair maiden. A brief fight follows wherein the ribald band are thrashed and take flight. Cenwulf offers to escort the damsel to said village where she is to meet-up with her relatives. She speaks against Arthur, but Cenwulf finds her attractive and makes a display of his best courtesy.

Upon their arrival, the farmers of the village greet Cenwulf and his charge with hospitality. Trouble points to a dark place in the wood where Cenwulf finds a "hungry man". The wild man tells a tale of an old "tunnel", a sleeping dragon within, and of a brass key.

Overcoming his dread, and with the wild man as witness, Cenwulf seeks glory entering the tunnel where he soon discovers a dark cavern. A lit flame reveals it is empty except for some old bones and a small box of coins among which he finds an untarnished triple ring (that grants the wearer "witch sight").

Exiting the cave, Cenwulf wonders about the absence of any "dragon". 

Returning to the village, Wulf is confronted by the damsel's kin. A brief "disagreement" leads to a tense exchange of words. After proving himself by noble Word and Deed, the kin-folk offer Cenwulf their assistance. Searching together for the troublesome "bandits", they find their lair and defeat them.

In thanks the village priest gifts Cenwulf with a small rusty blade that he says once drew the blood of a saint. He adds, "It may have a healing power - if you believe." Cenwulf accepts the gift with the unstated intention of presenting the relic to the church at Camelot upon his return.

During the return journey, Cenwulf  meets an impoverished traveler on the road - one under a vow of vengeance. 

What lock - if any - does the key of brass open? What is the origin of the triple ring? Who is the poor traveler and is their cause just? What further adventure awaits the two as they enter Camelot?

Pendragon works quite well as a vehicle for solo RPG adventure. The game's personality traits and passions - both aspects of character development - allow for my rolling for Cenwulf's reaction rather than just deciding how I think he would act and the uncertainty in outcome adds to my sense of discovery during play. The two "useful tomes" that I consulted were Table Fables and Table Fables II both by Madeline Hale.

Zero Hit Points

Mostly Dead!

I usually start my hobby related discussions by referencing the original three little brown books, tomes which I, like many, started my journey into fantasy role-playing with. I find that the genesis of so many topics can be found in a careful reading of those texts. Volume I Men & Magic has the following to say about creating the character's hit points:

Dice for Accumulative Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which

are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. Pluses are

merely the number of pips to add to the total of all dice rolled not to each die. Thus

a Superhero gets 8 dice + 2; they are rolled and score 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6/totals

26 + 2 = 28, 28 being the number of points of damage the character could sustain

before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character

is left to the discretion of the referee.

In brief, hit points are therefore referred to as "how many hit points a character can take" - being a total of finite number that is reduced by randomly determining how much damage is inflicted by a successful attack. Also as "being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death". This statement implies that being brought to "zero" hit points equals death for the character - a position many subsequent versions of the game (but important to note that not all of them) have taken.

Parsing out the meaning or intent from these words has been a subject of debate for at least four decades. Part of the difficulty may rest with the author's use of inexact terms - for example "points of damage" - which is perhaps intentional. Abstraction is rampant in the original game's mechanics and serves a useful purpose in allowing each player to fill-in all missing detail by applying our imagination while at the same time keeping the game action flowing. 

The last sentence in the above quote from Volume I about referee discretion is important and serves as a good summary of the old school philosophy in FRP gaming. The phrase "is left to the discretion of the referee" invites each player acting in this capacity to modify the game to suit their particular tastes. Doing so is an important building block in the popularity of the hobby - I would argue.

Digging into the nature of original edition hit points a little deeper Volume III The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures says that healing or regaining of hit points associated with common wounds "can take a long time".

HEALING WOUNDS:

As noted previously, energy levels can only be regained by fresh experience, but

common wounds can be healed with the passage of time (or the use of magics

already explained). On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained,

but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is

completely healed. This can take a long time.

Applying logic (always a dangerous sport) I am confronted by a need to define the terms "damage" and "wound" while keeping in mind that ultimately this rests upon "the discretion of the referee". Many sources will separate damage and hit points as being somewhat separate from wounds. In other words they are not all the same thing. Hit points can be thought of as "one's ability to avoid the killing blow" - at least one prominent celebrity from the early days of TSR explains it just so and this is consistent with reading remarks made in the Dungeon Masters Guide to the Advanced game. Damage therefore reduces hit points bringing one closer to "the death blow". A wound would seem to imply some significant injury to the body and may be considered separate from what is meant by the term "damage". The taking of a "wound" requires either magical healing (which is relatively rare in the early edition) or considerable time to heal. So I am left to ponder - when does one suffer an actual "wound"?

Going outside the text - using the referee discretion clause - I like to "play around with" the idea that wounds happen when one reaches zero hit points. Some wounds are fatal and the character dies on the field of battle. Some may not result in death, but will require a long time to heal sans magic. Borrowing an idea, suppose the referee rules that upon reaching zero hit pints the character is down and out of the combat. Once the fight is over a comrade may "roll the body over" and discover the character's fate by applying a random result. I suggest a die roll on the following table:

1 - Dead

2 - Gaping wound - staunch flow or soon die

3 - Broken bone - limb useless until healed

4 - Unconscious - serious bump on head

Just how we choose to address the details implicit in such a table is entirely left open to the referee's preference just as it should be - although relying on common sense, fairness and consistency will obviously go a long way towards keeping one's players happy and content!

With its roots in wargaming where figures are generally either alive and functioning combatants or have become casualties and are essentially dead (for the purposes of the game), the original edition of the game treats character hit points as a resource that is whittled down on the way to becoming dead. The character (or creature) is fully functional (and is not impaired by the loss of hit points) right up to and until the magic number of zero is reached, at which point the unfortunate fellow becomes "dead". While this seemed intuitive to its audience of the day (1970s wargamers), the modern gamer often comes into the hobby with somewhat different prior experiences (including video games) hence we may have different expectations than those circa 1974. Adjusting the game to suit one's tastes is in keeping with the spirit of old school game philosophy and just how we address hit point loss and wounding in play at our table can reflect those preferences. 

"Avoid taking damage!" is the basic advice I like to offer players who express some concern over their character having a modest number of hit points. There seems a bit of "realism" to being concerned that a single violent blow may result in serious injury or death. This makes the game relatable - and believable! Yes, there are monsters and magic treasures, but the game having familiar reference points such as - "avoid taking damage or you could die" - are a great aspect of that style of play. It can be great fun to play while thinking about "life with one hit point". Players will often think more creatively about using different approaches to solving problems and conflicts when character life is more fragile.

Adventure Games

Our World, Only Skewed.

How do we do "Fantasy" fiction? There are of course many approaches that can be taken to address this question and one need not look too far to see the outcome of our many diverse takes on what Fantasy as a setting can be. Consult just a few novels or short stories selected from those labeled  the "fantasy genre" and a wide and diverse variety can readily be discovered - everything from the near historical Song of Fire and Ice written by George R.R. Martin, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth tales, to the other extreme to be found in the futuristic stories about Zothique written by Clark Ashton Smith and The Dying Earth tales by Jack Vance and we can see that any comparison between fantasy worlds can vary considerably. 

The authors of the FRP game Dragon Warriors describe their default setting as "our world only skewed" which for them is "what fantasy ought to be". A more magical version of our world, familiar to us through our shared personal experience as earthlings and through acquired knowledge of our cultural histories (DW borrows tropes from British history), provides us, as "adventure gamers" with a contextual foundation upon which to build our fantasies. Most things in the game's setting will work as they do on Earth and many elements will be as we perceive them to have been historically. The points where the fiction varies from reality is where the magic exists.  

Dragon Warriors is not alone in leveraging the familiar to anchor a magical setting for use in gaming. Columbia Games uses their setting of Harn which shares many aspects with medieval England and the Fighting Fantasy books and games are set in the world of Titan which contains many familiar tropes. 

Familiarity gives us the freedom to imagine, to create, to add twists in the fabric of reality that make sense because it is all grounded in the familiar. This is why writers of the supernatural will spend time on the mundane details that are so familiar to us (comfortably familiar in many cases) accessing mental images of various mundane things we know are real, only to set us up for the eventual shock of encountering the nearly unbelievable. It is this juxtaposition of the known and the unknown that causes a mental tension which we enjoy while reading (or gaming) comfortably seated in a familiar chair. 

The familiar, yet magically different setting called Lands of Legend, which is built into the game Dragon Warriors, facilitates a comfortable fantasy game experience in a way very similar to the fiction of Prof. Tolkien - familiar, yet slightly different in that magical way. I find that the familiarity of setting and tropes gives me more freedom to imagine , to create, and to add twists in reality that actually make sense (and is therefore more easily engaged with) because it is all quite grounded in the familiar. It also aids in conjuring up a dark and spooky flavor much like dimmed lighting can do in a familiar room. By building the setting into the rules (and vice versa) the "stage" and "cast of actors" fit nicely together, thus facilitating the sort of adventure stories one might want to explore together with one's friends while playing Dragon Warriors. Experience a comfortable (and safe) adventure while making some nice gaming memories in a familiar yet magical land.

The MELEE Action Economy

Tactical Combat played in a Logical Manner

Metagaming's MicroGame 3 - The Fantasy Trip MELEE is is described by its author Steve Jackson (also founder of Steve Jackson Games) as an arena game that "can also be used as a tactical aid to the various fantasy role-playing games...allowing tactical combat to be worked out in a logical manner." Much of what Mr. Jackson calls  'a logical manner" can be found in MELEE's turn sequence, and movement and engagement rules.

MELEE uses a hex-based tactical display and counters to represent the area where action takes place and the position of combatants. There is no simultaneous movement and players take their turn based on a die roll, high score makes their move first, then low score. Attacks are resolved in sequence starting with the figure with the highest adjusted Dex value.

The MELEE system identifies each figure as being in one of three states - Engaged, Non-engaged, or in Hand-to-hand (HtH).

Non-Engaged "figures" - those who are are NOT in a space adjacent to another figure - have the following Action options:

• Move up to their full move allowance - based on armor worn
• Charge Attack including up to 1/2 move
• Dodge - including 1/2 move
• Drop Prone - up to 1/2 move
• Ready Weapon - may move 1 or 2 spaces (hexes)
• Missile Attack - may move 1 hex/space
• Stand Up

Engaged "figures" are those who are in a space/hex that is adjacent to another figure and have the following Action options:

• shift one hex while staying engaged/adjacent and Attack
• one last shot Missile Attack
• Change Weapon - may shift one hex
• Disengage - move one hex away and no Attack
• Stand up
• Pick up dropped weapon or object
• attempt to move into occupied hex and HtH 

Figures that are in Hand-to-Hand (HtH) have the following Action options:

• Draw a dagger and make a HtH Attack
• Attack HtH
• Disengage

Note: Some Action attempts require a successful die roll to succeed (move into or out of HtH)

The modular nature of many FRP games allow for the substitution of one combat system for another. In my experience, the MELEE system works quite well with the original little brown books if one makes allowance for the manner in which the two games generate Strength and Dexterity ability scores.

Old-School Fantasy Rules

A Circular Journey or "There and Back Again"!

As I continue to play role-playing games of all sorts, both old and new, including the "improved" versions of older systems, retro-clones and newer editions of older favorites, and others that are completely new, I find myself returning time and again to the original game I started with. I have often heard others say, "You will always favor the very first game system that you play." I am not so sure that is a true statement for many, but it has mostly been true for me and my FRP game preference.

One reason I like to dispute the "your first game is always your favorite" theory, however, is that it doesn't hold true for me in any other area of gaming. Let me start by saying that I love games of all sorts. Even sports. My tastes have evolved over the half-century-plus of playing all kinds of games, and continues to do so today. 

Like many, I started playing kiddie games - I won't bother to mention more on this subject. With respect to the various games in the genre of "adult" gaming, I have left behind many - probably most - of the games that I started out with and several of the more recently acquired new ones as well. Of all the earliest "wargames" which  served as my gateway to other strategy and adventure games, I have little interest in returning to any of those very  early systems. Computer games of every ilk have all gotten better since I purchased "Bard's Tale" for the Commodore 64 and revisiting an early CRPG, or flight simulator, can have little appeal for me except as a brief bout of nostalgia.     

So what is it about the old-school fantasy game that appeals to me so? The following list includes the reasons I have been able to think of. 

• Character knowledge and player knowledge are aligned in old-school play. 
• There is an emphasis on referee rulings which are based on common sense and the natural laws of what is possible in "the real world".
• A class based character system that reflects classic archetypes.
• Game mechanics that are easily committed to memory, require little thought during play and readily recede into the background allowing the game's fiction to be foremost in my mind.
• It serves as a do-it-yourself outlet for creativity.

Role-play isn't "acting" for me. The RPG is a game we play and knowledge of the game should be useful - at least that's what I think. One of the reasons I tend to shy away from skill-based systems is that they separate what the character knows and is good at, from what the player knows. I find rolling dice to convince the guard to let you pass is less interesting than "role-playing" how your character goes about the "convincing". In a similar way, I also find rolling to search and rolling to detect whether an NPC is lying to be interior practices to the old-school alternative of "tell me how you search" and the referee giving "obvious" hints about how truthful the NPC is being - "wink, wink!"

No rule system can cover every conceivable action a player can imaginatively ask to try - nor should it. Such a tome would be immense and likely require constant consultation during play. Part of the art of running a game is to use one's creativity - making good on-the-spot rulings is exercising that creative muscle. Common sense and knowledge of the real world should guide such rulings unless there is something "magical" or supernatural at play. The magic is that much more powerful when most things follow the familiar way of the real world.

Classic archetypes have their antecedents in the subconscious mind. Also, they have many reflections that can readily be found throughout literature. Leveraging the power of the familiar aids in the believability of the fiction. By contrast, the bizarre is simply that, and usually produces little more than confusion.

For most, learning a new game can be fun, but it takes effort. Sports require training our bodies and tabletop games require training our minds. We learn the relationship of the parts, the procedures and hopefully commit them to memory lest the game be constantly interrupted by consulting the book. I find that it is only after the game is largely committed to memory does it function well as an "adventure" experience where-in one may temporarily suspend disbelief and imagine the shared fiction as if it were unfolding before you. Under these conditions, the "adventure game" or "RPG" can become much more than a game of "Monopoly" or "Life" played with fantasy "trolls and wizards".

Many games, including most boardgames, card games and sports, require a strict adherence to the "rules as written" to ensure "fairness". I see role-playing as a departure from this concept. The nature of those little brown books was "rules are to be added to". This was a common approach seen in many miniature wargames of the day (and so it continues to the present) and I - like many who played such games - assumed that it was/is expected that I use my own creativity to enhance the fun and realism for those who play when I act as referee. It is expected that the referee should draw-up maps - both dungeon and wilderness - and populate said dungeon and wilderness with fantastic creatures. Once the game evolved to the point where we sought to include life among the "civilized" towns and cities, various aspects of the imagined culture and society becomes important and the original rules-as-written (intentionally) say very little about that. Thus we referees are invited to become "world builders". 

This formula works well for me and has proved a good "fit" lending itself to over four decades of awesome gaming. I continue to consume many new publications each year and enthusiastically "borrow" from them all their new ideas and creative mechanical systems that seem likely to fit with and perhaps improve on those found in the original little brown books.

Who Wants to be Evil?

A Show of Hands

Suppose that Frodo puts on the ring and becomes "corrupted" - eventually becoming like Gollum! The king does not return, rather Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Gandalf, Merry and Pippin all die at the black gates along with the hope of  all the free peoples. The scouring of the shire goes unchecked, and the shadow falls across all of Middle-earth... what kind of story would that be?

Most of the fantastic fiction that I read features a protagonist, or several, who work against evil. They play the part of heroes. This inspires me to want to play "the hero" in my own fantasy fiction/ roleplaying. We all play games for different reasons, and there is usually an element of discovery to most role-playing  and even playing at "evil"  (however one defines that) can lead each of us to certain useful realizations about ourselves, or the nature of the "real" world in which we live.

As a referee, I like to present the players at our table with a setting or world under attack from an "evil" force that threatens and imperils others. This gives them a chance to play the part of heroes!

More often than not, it has been my experience that playing an evil character can be non-rewarding. One evil PC will be tempted to turn against their fellows. A party of evil doers will usually devolve into a free-for-all as they all turn to self-serving interest and likely homicide. Occasionally, it can be interesting to explore the grey areas where good and evil are poorly defined, but this practice can become unsettling in a game setting as well. Games are played mostly for entertainment value and becoming troubled or unsettled as a part of "play" seems counter-productive, especially if it happens very often.

A nice abstract, fictional and external "evil" is a more comfortable enemy. Defeating the "big bad" and playing the part of the hero who saves the day - to much positive accolade - is why many of us enjoy playing RPGs. I can definitely see some reasons to role-play the villains as well, especially as an alternative after playing the heroes many times. Or perhaps as a one-off or short pre-campaign one might invite the players flesh out the future villains through their role-play, perhaps as a set-up for later taking the role of defeating those same villains. This was suggested to me and could be quite interesting. 

On the other hand...

I find little appeal in the idea of playing the evil "mythos" cultist, one who strives to usher in the "old ones" just so they can watch them devour the world - my character included. But ultimately, who can say? I have actually never tried it. I have, however, played many a fang-faced goblin as they try to kill the heroic adventurers who are invading their "evil hand" goblin lair - what referee hasn't? 

And tell me that isn't fun...

Tone, Mood and Style

A "Feel" for the Game.

The tone, mood and style of a session or campaign are not as often discussed as they probably deserve to be for the tone (intent or approach to the game) or mood (how the game is perceived or experienced), or style of the game are game features which can add to or detract from a players enjoyment. 

Tone in a fictional sense can be defined as the attitude (or point-of-view) of the subject (player, PC, or referee, NPC) toward story events or other characters. Friendly and cooperative - hostile and suspicious - trusting and caring - these all convey tone in an interaction with the setting and its inhabitants. 

The mood speaks more to the atmosphere of the setting. Is it dark and dangerous, or not? Is the setting a bright and hopeful place where characters can be confident that good will ultimately prevail? Or does the game take place in a world of danger where hope is failing and ultimate doom seems to inevitably await? (Note: A feeling of hopelessness is to be avoided as it generally discourages any action on the part of the player characters.) 

Gaming in a grim-dark setting can be quite rewarding as long as the players feel the actions of their characters can effectively alter to eventual outcome in a positive way. A bright and hopeful place where folks treat each other with respect and kindness can also be interesting, especially if it is facing an external treat that seeks to upset this harmony. This scenario gives the player characters the chance to play the hero and restore order by eliminating the threat. 

Style can mean a lot of things, all pertaining to how the game system is actually played out at the table. Examples could be described as being crunchy with lots of details, or as light and containing lots of abstractions, as high in magic or low in magic, and as using old or new game technology - this last element frequently describes the mechanical techniques used in various elements of  the game and influencing the "game" play experience. It is often said that any game can be played in an "old school style" which generally means using creative interpretation of the system rules, which are frequently intentionally brief and do not cover all eventualities so that there is room left for referee input. 

The various elements of tone, mood and style can have a significant effect on how satisfying your experience of the game is and is worth giving some deliberate thought to - perhaps even including a discussion among players which can help to get everyone on the same page regarding expectations. 

On Dwarves, Elves and Men

A Consideration of the Antecedents of Milieu for Tolkien and Your Fantasy Game.

The source of inspiration for the so-called "Tolkienesque milieu" in fantasy role-playing games is obvious (at least to me). When reading both the World's First Role-Playing Game booklets and the Fantasy Supplement which preceded those three little brown booklets I can picture Middle-earth. The early printings of those games contain clear reference to ents, balrogs, and even hobbits - all clearly influenced by The Good Professor's popular fiction. Less obvious perhaps is the inclusion of the so-called demi-humans - elves and dwarves - in later printings and editions when-in the Tolkien specific names of specific creatures have been changed to avoid copyright infringement.. 

The "elf" and the "dwarf" are common staples of many stories found in folklore, fairy tales and various other sources and their use predates the life and work of J.R.R. Tolkien- who no doubt read about such creatures and developing his own version of same, includes them in his seminal works of fantastic fiction. Traditional characterization of elves (elfs) and dwarves (dwarfs) include Santa's helpers and the fairy-tale villain,  Rumplestiltskin. Elves and dwarves appear in Norse and other mythologies and in many works of fiction published prior to the works of Professor Tolkien. The exact nature, and stature of such creatures varies considerably depending upon the source and there is anything but a "standardized" depiction of them - at least prior to The Good Professor.

Through the creation of his world setting, Middle-earth, Prof. Tolkien has effectively set THE standard of interpretation regarding "elves" and "dwarves" and their relationship to men - an interpretation that has been followed in various works of several authors and film-makers each focusing on the popular epic fantasy genre, and by designers of fantasy role-playing games, all drawing inspiration from Middle-earth. Early evidence of such influence can be found in the fact that despite his arguing to the contrary, the author of the original Advanced Game tips his hand when he subdivides the elves in the game's default milieu into "high", "grey", and "woods", terms often applied by Tolkien and others to the Noldor, Sindar and Sylvan elves found in Middle-earth.

Borrowing inspiration from a variety of sources is a strength of The World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game and this is not a criticism of the practice. By combining influences from a variety of sources, the designers of the game have enabled the same basic system to be used to explore a myriad of themes, settings and stories through game play. Versatility is a chief element in the game's lasting appeal. Each player brings their own imagination, however colored by personal exposure and experience with their own unique set of inspirations, to the gaming table. Each draws upon that resource when they envision the setting, actors and actions that make up the game session. 

Whether your elves and dwarves closely resemble those of Professor Tolkien, or not, is part of the fun we discover when playing with various other people. It is part of the collective richness of the group activity to share, and be influenced by the vision of others. Whether one prefers a tightly defined milieu where individual character differences are slight and many constants exist among members of a group, or a much looser approach to what makes an elf and elf, how we each choose to play our own unique character is our decision alone. Does your character run strongly to type, or is your player character the exception?

Milieu is one of the more important decisions one must make about the game. Closely tied to setting, defining milieu is often the prerogative of the game's designer or of the referee or "player running the game" if it is set in a world of their choosing. Milieu not only defines who the actors are likely to be, it can establish expectations of behavior and relationships. Or not. How "predictable" do you want your game world? Do you have an "ideal" in mind? Perhaps that vision closely resembles Tolkien's Middle-earth or another work of fiction. Imitation has worked for many a world-builder.

Giving thought to the make-up of the game's milieu - its cast of characters - can only enhance to depth of the game experience and deepen your enjoyment. Knowing what each character is all about - what binds them together with others and what sets them apart - can be very helpful in deciding how they will react to the various situations they find themselves in during play. Whether you control a host of non-player characters as referee, or a single character as a player, the more you know about the fictional character, the better you are able to role-play a consistent and believable protagonist.

For Glory, Gold, and Adventure

Beyond the Gold Box

Sometimes a game comes along that perfectly fills a niche, leaving virtually no room for any other. Sometimes a game gives me just what I am looking for and nothing more, and nothing less. Sometimes, the game seems so perfect "as is" that I am not interested in looking for better, I am not even tempted to tinker with, or "house-rule" the system.

For me Tunnels & Trolls is this game. The incomparable Tunnels & Trolls, or "T&T" as it is lovingly referred to by its many fans, is just perfect for solo play. I believe its originators recognized this early on in T&T publication as the very first solo module I am aware of of any kind - Buffalo Castle - was written by Rick Loomis in 1976 for T&T.

The orange box was not my first copy of T&T. That introduction came in a spiral bound 4th edition paperback booklet that I picked up during a late 1970s Gencon trip to Kenosha, Wisconsin (1978 or '79?). The first edition of T&T was released in 1975 - just a year, if that long, after the publication of the World's First Role-Playing Game that came in the now-famous "wood-grain" box; Tunnels & Trolls quickly progressed through several editions leading up to the 5th edition (released in 1979) when they seemed to find the "sweet spot" and let things rest for a time. The 5th edition became the standard T&T for many of us and I believe it was in print and available through the original publisher Flying Buffalo until the Kickstarter for Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls happened in 2014-15.

The above pictured box contains the Flying Buffalo United Kingdom (F.B.U.K.) 5th edition rulebook - a saddle-stitched orange softcover slightly larger in size than a digest journal - packaged together with the solo adventure Buffalo Castle and included a couple of adventures designed for the T&T referee to run for their players - Trollstone Caverns, included as an example adventure in the rulebook, and the freestanding loose-leaf Dungeon of the Bear written by Jim "Bear" Peters - who incidentally was one of the original players of T&T and seems to have remains actively engaged with the game to this day. I have played both the included solo adventure and the mentioned group dungeon adventures many times and I find them entertaining (and to provide a little "tongue-in-cheek" humor at times).

Tunnels & Trolls has used the same basic system mechanic across all the editions. Therefore adventures written specifically for one edition are easily played using any other edition - older or newer. The mechanical edition changes have mostly been directed at "play balance" and consist of more tweaking than redesigning. From its first edition, T&T has used "roll the dice and compare the total" to resolve conflict between player characters and monsters. The rolls of players are added together and likewise all the monster dice are summed and the lower sum (loosing side) is subtracted from the higher sum (winning side). Hits are assigned based on the difference in the sums with the losing "team" distributing damage among its crew. 

I real genius in the system mechanics of the T&T game. Even better than combat is perhaps its saving throw mechanic. A T&T "Saving Throw" involves rolling two six-sided dice and comparing the total to a target number that is determined by subtracting an attribute score from a "Saving Throw" level number. An example of a common T&T Saving Throw as made during play could be found when either the player asks to make a "First Level Luck Saving Throw" in order to try some maneuver or is told to do so by the referee. Depending on the edition, the player may subtract their character's "Luck" score from either 20 or 25 and try to equal or exceed the difference on two dice - T&T uses only six-sided dice. Doubles on the dice add together and are rolled again with the new dice total added in again. This is an open-ended rolling technique used as long as doubles are rolled, thus "making the long shot" is always a possibility. A minimum score is required, such as a total of "five" on the two dice, in order to be considered a "success". The "Saving Throw" can be used to avoid a trap, or just about anything else the referee agrees to such as convincing a guard to "look the other way". 

The game of T&T works quite well with a group or as a solo game and I have also enjoyed playing T&T many times with friends, using either an adventure of my own making or one of the published modules for designed for group-play. I have also played the group-play adventures as a "solo" using my party of adventurers and acting as my own "GameMaster". (The unique game mechanics of T&T lend themselves quite well to one player rolling for multiple characters.) Although I do play other games in a solo style, T&T has remained my favorite for those games. It is a game I am always excited to play and is my "go-to" system pick for a rules-lite style game to introduce beginners to table-top adventure gaming. 

Expectation, Surprise and Disappointment

Anticipating a New Edition

As anyone who reads this blog is probably tired of hearing, I have been enjoying this wonderful hobby of ours for over four decades now and during that time I have seen a few games come and go - at least in-print and out-of-print. 

The good folks at Wiz Bros announced this week that the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game will be getting a new treatment in 2024 just in time for a much anticipated anniversary party. News which brings to my mind a number of previous occasions where I found myself looking forward to what the next iteration of my favorite FRP game would be like? 

Wondering: How would it be different? 

What would be improved? 

Would there be things left out of the new edition?

What would it look like?

So many other questions. 

Like many, I look forward to what is "yet to come", and I can't help but speculate about what might or probably will change in the new material. Once the much anticipated product arrives, I will no doubt be among those rushing to purchase and see what it all amounts to.

Many of us have been down this road before. Most of us can look back on some earlier release and recall things that we love and things that we are/were less than happy about finding in those "new" versions. 

For whatever reason, I find myself returning this week to 2008 and the release of the fourth edition volumes. My first memory of this sometimes "controversial" edition is that I really enjoyed reading the text introducing a fresh new approach to an old subject. I recall how useful I believed the defender, striker and controller ways of defining character class roles could be. The "powers" concept - daily, encounter and at-will - was a fresh new way of looking at the actions that your character could take during your turn. And I must admit, I was really excited about playing my first fire-breathing dragonborn character.

The new fun was not limited to just player characters in 2008. The 4e MM I welcomed as referee/DM and found full of surprises, some of which still delight me, and some of which have become part of the way I run the game - any game - to this day. Scaling monsters, that is making bigger, more deadly versions of any monster, (orcs and goblins are good examples) was a widely practiced theme in this edition allowing creatures to stay useful at higher levels of play and incidentally making the game more consistent with some popular fictional sources in which some orcs are way more deadly than others! Boss monsters in 4e are frequently attended by a number of "minions" - creatures with a single hit point who are good at "spreading the love" and controlling the battle grid. Players will find such "minions" in most games that I have run since 2008.

The 4e DMG is full of advice and for my money is one of the best of this kind of book for explaining how to set-up and run a game at your table. I rank this volume (together with the AD&D 1e DMG) as an essential resource for anyone occupying the post "behind the referee screen".

Unlike some, I do not have disdain for 4e. I enjoyed playing the game regularly for a number of years and give it credit for the part it played in the rise of the "old school" gaming scene. And to top it all off, I really loved (still do) those awesome 4e Wayne Reynolds illustrations!

A Resting Problem

Healing the Natural Way (and other mysteries.)

Healing in the original little brown books is commonly interpreted as occurring at the rate of one hit point per day. This is likely based on the following statement found in Volume III of the Little Brown Books. "On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time."

The nature of hit points is often discussed among gamers and the question of "What do the hit points represent?" is frequently pondered. Returning to the original source, the statement in Volume III that immediately precedes the above quote refers to healing "common wounds" by natural means. Turning to Volume I we find the following reference to hit points, "being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death." Reaching "zero" hit points must therefore mean that character death is imminent? That is the way it is often interpreted. As with many aspects of the original rules, much is left open ended and it seems the intent is for the referee to add additional detail where desired.

Under the heading "Hit Dice" the author of Volume I addresses this intent when he states, "Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee." will the character suffer a specific "wound" that limits their ability to move, engage in combat, cast magic or perform any other adventuring task is left to referee discretion - presumably by development of a personalized method (such as a random table) whereby the nature of any such injury will be adjudicated beyond the application of mere referee's whim (although nothing in the rules prevents just that). 

Let's suppose that our adventuring character is ruled to have sufferer a specific "wound" to their leg. (The classic, "arrow to the knee"?) Applying the rule that the character will recover no hit points on the first day of rest, but will "heal" one hit point each day spent resting following the first, we can imagine a somewhat natural healing of such an injury, especially if ours is an experienced adventurer with more than a dozen hit points that have been lost. 

An explanation of the "hit point" concept and the associated increase in HP corresponding with a rise in level can be found in many sources (and I have red and listened to a number) over the decades with a common one being something along the lines of the explanation given by the same author of those 3 LBBs in his Dungeon Masters Guide:

Because these (hit points) reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage — as indicated by constitution bonuses — and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.

"Skill in combat", the "sixth sense" that would allow a character to side-step danger and "sheer luck" or "divine protection" are all factored into the danger equation as hit points - a finite sum that can decrease to zero resulting in the character's death. Obviously not every incident of "damage" being deducted from the character's hit points need represent an actual wound. Some could be explained by using up one's luck, or divine favor, or what-ever. The accumulated loss of hit points would expose the character to a point where the "fatal blow" is delivered as hit points reach zero.

I must query, "How does the character die?" Provided the final hit point is lost at the point of an enemy's sword, is it a thrust through the heart? Death by a thousand cuts? Decapitation?

Ultimately this doesn't matter - dead is dead. But suppose zero hit points means fatally wounded instead? It is common practice for players to attempt to stabilize or "heal" a character who is at death's door - usually through the application of some magical means. Healing magics are included in the game and the question of whether it's "too late" seems seems legitimate.

With the single exception of rolling dice for ability scores, no aspect of the rules-as-written have received more attention than death. It is therefore essential that the referee give some thought to how death will be handled in the campaign - preferably prior to the first session. A discussion with the players can ensure that everyone is on the same page and will go a long way towards building trust - an essential aspect in any relationship.

Alongside "death" rests the topic of damage and healing. While it is not strictly necessary to discuss the nature of hit points and what they represent, it is a good idea to establish and discuss how lost hit points will be recovered. It certainly helps players to plan use of their resources - including magical healing. My experience with various editions has emphasized the vast difference between healing a single point of damage overnight and recovering all lost hit points after a long rest (usually defined as a single 6-8 hour period of inactivity). 

Resources other than hit points are associated with "resting". The so-called "Vancian" magic system deployed in the original 3 LBBs and continued through subsequent editions is a traditional part of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game mechanics. The authors of the original edition describe spells and character class levels in Volume I of the 3 LBBs in this way:

The number in each column opposite each applicable character indicates the number of spells of each level that can be used (remembered during any single adventure) by that character... A spell used once may not be reused in the same day.

The exact interpretation of the phrase "remembered during any single adventure" deserves close attention. The most common practice used in various editions that follow the original 3 LBBs is that a caster will consult a spell book and memorize a number of spells per day limited by level and may cast each memorized spell once. 

This method of handling spell memorization and recovery is explained in the Dungeon Masters Guide (printed 1979) to the first Advanced edition wherein the author states:

Spell recovery, whether cleric/druid or magic-user/illusionist, requires about the same period of time. In order to pray and meditate for a new spell to replace one used, or in order to study and memorize such a spell, it is necessary that the spell-user rest and revitalize his or her mental faculties.

The author goes on to establish a time frame for memorization as follows: 

Whether one or more spells are to be regained, the minimum time required for complete rest (usually sleep) is that required for the highest spell to be recovered. Minimum rest periods are shown below:

SPELL LEVEL    1-2        3-4        5-6          7-8            9

      Rest Time   4 hours  6 hours  8 hours  10 hours  12 hours

Thus we can see how the memorization method is established which has been followed since. Personally, I prefer to extrapolate upon the wording. Borrowing an idea found in sources of literature and other games, I wonder about the connection with certain supernatural beings who perhaps aid the magic user in acquiring the magic spell - in a manner rather similar to a cleric who prays to their patron deity for their spells. Is the magic user tapping into a relationship with some powerful entity which is assisting them in gaining their memorized spell (I am thinking about the Warlock class from later editions, perhaps)?

Once again while consulting the words I find in Volume I of the original 3 LBBs I postulate; what else might the phrase "during any single adventure" imply? 

I like to think that each spell is prepared in a laboratory or seclusium and involves a more extended and "magical" formula be followed than spending a few minutes with one's traveling spell book as described in the Advanced game. Once a spell is "remembered" in this manner, it may be cast once each day - at least as long as the material spell component supply holds out. This interpretation seems just as easy as the more popularized method and I find it more evocative of the tone I like to encourage in the games I run.

I hope this brief discussion highlights a couple of the interesting ways that our old tried and true rules can be re-examined and creatively recast to deliver a fresh and exciting new slant on fantasy gaming. The do-it-yourself spirit of the early days of role-playing is what grabbed my attention from the start and continues to keep me excited about the hobby forty-some years later.

(Im)Balance In the Game

Player verses the GM

What we often don't talk about, but probably should, is game balance or imbalance between the referee and their setting and the players and their  character's abilities. What I am specifically referring to is the idea that the current edition of the world's most popular role-playing game and those GMs who feel it leans heavily in favor of the players frequently express an opinion that the game seems to be only getting more unbalanced as each new volume has been released, that it is all the while giving players more options and meanwhile mostly neglects the GM/referee; and finally, the negative effect this is having on the GM's "fun factor". There are a number of reasons why I think this may be a common perception. In this post I will discuss what my view of those reasons are and I will offer some insight how the problem might be addressed. As is the usual case for this old gray-head, my perspective is informed by decades of experience with a number of RPG systems including all of the previous editions of the popular game in question. 

Using the currently published series of rule books, it often seems that each encounter is set up to present a very limited "challenge" to a party of adventurers which have most of their class-based resources ready at hand. The more difficult encounter seems to be designed to wear down the party's resources or perhaps cause a weakened party to experience one or more PCs to fall unconscious while entering the usually temporary game status of "dying" and its related "death saving throw" routine. The authors of the current edition have indicated that character death isn't fun and should therefore be avoided - perhaps at all costs? 

The 5e dying mechanic involves a number of saving throws (each at 55% to succeed - roll 10+ on a d20) and uses the "rule of three" - three failed rolls before three successful roll will result in the player character actually dying NPCs don't usually get death saves. If the character is "stabilized" or makes the three death saving rolls, they can pop back up ready to continue the fight (unless the DM imposes optional Fatigue rules to give the previously "dying" some lasting detriment).

Rests, short (1 hour) and long (6-8 hours), will reset many of the adventuring party's resources including most class abilities (spells, etc.) and renew some or all lost hit points. As a result, resting between encounters (especially the long rest which generally resets everything) means that the party will start each encounter in a fresh state. The idea of slowly wearing the party down and depleting their resources through attrition (and resulting tension) is therefore diminished and a large part of the original game, namely resource management, is lost.

Encounters in older editions are often randomly determined (roll on a table) and can produce monster encounters that are way above the ability of the characters to comfortably handle. The idea here is for players to cleverly avoid such potentially "deadly" encounters, which often offer little to no rewards even when defeated. Combat is something for players to carefully consider rather than jump right into, meanwhile weighing the odds of loss verses gain. When players are so confident that any encounter can be dealt with by a headlong charge into combat because it is all "balanced" for them to defeat, the entire nature of the game is arguably changed.

If "balanced" encounters are determined to be the preferred style of play, there are still other considerations which can/should be addressed regarding game balance. The character races and classes found in the current PHB are often augmented by including the optional Feats and Multiclassing rules. Using these "options" will often result in player characters with even more powers than those built using only the basic mechanics. This "over-powering" is often much to the liking of players, but can cause even more encounter balancing headaches for the GM. The character options which sell players on additional books and make the publisher money also further expand the challenges for the GM - both in terms of having to purchase and read/master the new material and in terms of adjusting game challenges to be in line with the newly enhanced PCs which are being built using all the latest options. (It can result in a situation I personally have found tiresome as I try to keep up with all the latest and greatest for the game.)

Giving away too much to the players is something GMs are warned against even back in the earliest days of the hobby. (Mr. Gygax did just this quite often.) A game that players find too easy will not long hold their interest - nor the interest of a GM who feels like all their best efforts get easily rolled over by the powerful PCs. It is indeed a "balancing act" for any game to keep everyone happy. I honestly believe that players old and new want to feel challenged, and to know that they have earned their character's survival, as well as any PC rewards, and advancement.

The default setting of 5e is assumed to be the Forgotten Realms, which incidentally has morphed into a world only slightly resembling the Realms of previous editions making comparisons across editions more difficult. For those newer to the hobby than me, this presents perhaps little to ponder, I suppose, but for those GMs who have established a degree of comfort with an older and familiar setting (either the published Forgotten Realms or one of their original design) the GM may be at odds with default assumptions as they appear in the recently published sources - including rules tomes. I personally see the setting, the fictional world and all its inhabitant NPCs and monsters, as my GM's "character" or playing piece in the game. It is through control of these setting elements that the tone and story are staged, and a preferred style of play is prompted. (Having some experience with narrative or "story" games where designing the world/setting is an endeavor shared among all the players and not just the GM, I think that such a play style differs significantly enough from what I am describing here as to constitute an altogether different kind of game.)

The nature of alignment has also changed drastically through the editions so that in the current game, it seems that the concept of alignment is often given only passing attention. Originally (in Chainmail and the three little brown books) alignment consisted of grouping all creatures into three alignments, namely those who adhere to the principals of Law, Chaos or Neutrality respectively. The various creatures who inhabit the game world under this system are divided along these lines with Law seen as the closest to "good" and Chaos being associated with "evil" - although the exact nature of the moral concept of what constitutes "good and evil" are usually left to players gathering at each individual table to define for themselves. By the time that we have the Advanced rules, good and evil are an additional axis on the alignment chart, equal in weight to law and chaos, and the concept of alignment has moved to become one that involves character behavior and personality. 

Under this Advanced system of alignment, GMs are encouraged to "police" the actions of characters for alignment consistency. (Along with many other aspects of the game, I much prefer alignment as it appears in the "original game" outlined in the three LBBs.) Perhaps as a reaction to practices of prior years and the Advanced editions, a more recent trend among DMs has been to move away from the use of alignment altogether, but I think this eliminates the central theme of organized conflict and factions from the game thereby resulting in a less satisfying game experience.

In the decades long history of our beloved game, the balancing of power (including that existing between GM and players) has been a frequent topic of discussion. Early versions of the world's most popular role-playing game often reflect a power structure weighted in favor of the gamemaster. In the original White Box version of the rules it is assumed that the referee/GM may be the only player with access to a copy of the complete set of rules - published and "in-house". In the Advanced 1e rules, a first attempt is made to "standardize" the game so that every table will use what is generally similar mechanics, but in this edition many of the essential rules, especially those regarding combat, are located in the Gamemasters Guide and not the Players Handbook. The Advanced 2e Players Handbook is distinctly different in this approach since it includes all essential rules (including combat) so that the rules necessary to play the game are all put into the players' hands. 

In the publishing era of 2e we see the world or setting become the primary means through which the gamemaster is encouraged to shape their unique style of play. Setting takes a more active role during the publication life of this edition as can be seen in the number of classic worlds that remain popular. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance Planescape, and even more, all serve to illustrate some of the varieties in play style that can be achieved through the use of individualized rules that are specific to one setting. 

The 3rd and 4th editions encourage an even more standardized play style (along with the implication that the setting will be one of the  few "official" ones published by WOTC). The default and assumed nature of "balanced" play is herein assumed to extend across all tables regardless of individual GM fiat, and includes a default availability of magic items connected to leveling -in 4e the players actually choose their character's magic items from a list as part of the reward earned during play. 

Balance is frequently interpreted quite differently and is a more important concept for some players than for others. What balance ultimately rests upon is the ability of each player to enjoy the game. Few players, referees included, enjoy a game that seems heavily skewed toward a pre-ordained outcome. It is generally less fun to go through what may seem to be "the motions" of play when there is little chance of failure - or maybe no chance of success! 

It is the challenge that engages a gamer. The opportunity to be surprised by the outcome and a feeling that good play and luck has paid off. It's precisely this element of wanting to know how t will turn out which can bring us back to a favored game time and again.

Location Based Adventure

The Winding Way: Setting the Stage

When I set up a role-playing game session, I try to anticipate what might happen once my players interact with it through the actions of their characters - with my locations, my NPCs and with whatever monstrous creatures I populate my setting with. Then we all "play to find out..."

The art of refereeing an RPG depends greatly upon one's ability to multi-task. A good referee will possess more than one skill set. Part of the job is creation; to create a setting, scenario or an entire world. The ability to excite others, to describe, to manage suspense, to react and to improvise, to apply the rules and to make fair rulings, are all aspects of the multi-faceted job of the referee.

The way I personally run a game is from the perspective that the rules are mostly about character creation and advancement and combat. Everything else is handled through discussion between referee and players and role-playing out those interactions with NPCs. This portion of the game requires very few (if any) rules. Occasionally I will call for a die roll, just to cover the chance (including all those elements beyond our ability to understand, control or account for) that luck plays in the outcome of any endeavor. It's just my preference and it seems to work for many players who have enjoyed playing at my table.

My preparation for play is generally focused on the location. I try to create some place that is both interesting and that I and my players can explore to find out more about. One method I use for this is to borrow a bit of inspiration from something in my real environment - preferably several somethings that when combined will feel original and at the same time, a bit familiar. This has the advantage of giving me a mental place to draw upon should I need additional detail (who can predict what players will ask?) while also containing some mystery. The more experiences the referee has, the better able we are to draw upon a wealth of data to fill in our improvisational descriptions!

With a location in mind, I will populate it with creatures. It may be an NPC, a monster, two quarreling factions, or something else for the player characters to interact with. Again, jotting down some notes based upon a mental image of the creature or thing will get me started and if it is something with a motive, I will have an idea what motivates it - hunger, curiosity, taking a prisoner, or gaining some treasure?

Frankly, that is usually about all I have to start with. A map, a few notes and a good idea from which to draw additional inspiration from allows me to go where ever my players decide to take their adventure. For me, that is player agency - decide what you would like your players to do in this location. Sometimes my players will decide "this isn't interesting" and move on to another location, so it helps for me to give some thought to the broader area. This is where remembering where I originally borrowed my idea from helps. Over the hill? Across the river or onto the next town. Grab some inspiration and start making some notes as you play. That is how I frequently build my setting.