Art: Ulfen - Midnight/Homebrew PC

Man, it's been a while.

I was invited to participate in a RPG campaign based primarily around the Midnight campaign setting, but incorporated a variety of other source material (D&D 2/3.5, Pathfinder, d20). Since it's been a while since my own group had a session, and even longer since I've actually participated as a PC, I couldn't say no.

There is a story-based reason for the hood, but at the risk of having my fellow PC's stumble across this post, I shall not divulge the reason here. Suffice it to say, he's proficient with a Dwarven Waraxe.

In other news:

• Progress on my novel is currently sitting at 31,116 words, according to the software's word count. I'm hoping to have it finished and possibly even edited before the year is out, but that's going to take some serious discipline on my part.
• I haven't played Firefall in a while, since there have been no additions (that I know of) made to the Assault Frames. I did start playing SW:TOR at my brother-in-law's suggestion (it being f2p to level 50), completed the first BioShock, something I was holding off on until I got my new laptop: a HP ENVY dv7. I'm also playing around with Path of Exile, a f2p spiritual successor to Diablo 2. I have some other games waiting to be played, but if the new XCOM goes on sale, that will probably jump to the top of the list.
• After more years than I care to count, I have stopped collecting comic books. I may write a stand-alone post about that later on, we'll see. Now, if I can just quit Mtn. Dew (and soft drinks in general) ...
• Saw the Hobbit; it was good, but some of the scenes (Stone giants, escaping the goblins in the caves) were just too overblown - they kinda took me out of the movie, same problem I had with Jackson's King Kong.
• After migrating my wife's blog into her Wordpress site, I've been considering doing the same with this blog, just to get it off blogspot.com and under my own domain. Don't know if there is any meaningful benefit to doing so, though.

DnD: Obligatory 5th ed. / D&D Next post

As per the stipulations of being a gamer and playing D&D, I am posting about the recent announcement that WoTC is working on a new edition of the game.

I've been around and heard people complain about new editions before. D&D is not the only game I play in which new editions are released every couple of years, either - Games Workshop's Warhammer (40,000) being the other edition-based game I play.

It's a business, so they need to produce new content to generate income. Additionally, no edition has been (or will be) "perfect" - there will always be something that could be tweaked or reworked to make the game better. (In GW's case, they have to shift the balance of the game to keep different armies viable, and therefore, marketable).

Personally, I don't see myself buying a whole new set of books. Rather, I would like to wait and see what works in 5e and try to incorporate that into my 4e game. I don't have any opinions about rumors that may or may not come true and the only thing on my new edition 'wishlist' is shorter, more streamlined combat. I am interested in learning about new game mechanics, though.

If I had a group that played on a regular basis, and if I weren't already stressed about a big life change (new job), I'm sure I'd have more to say and might care more - and that's fine if you do. I just don't happen to be in that place right now.

So there you go, one more inconsequential post about a new edition that doesn't really even exist yet.

DnD: Anti-Alignment Argument or Walking the Walk vs. Talking the Talk

What Is Alignment?

Alignment, as described in the two Essentials Player Handbooks*, describes a moral stance. It is a dedication to a set of moral principles, a universal force ‘bigger than deities or any other allegiance that a character might have.’ Further, ‘picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice.’ In game-play terms, if you have declared an Alignment, your PC is always going to make choices in a certain manner … or else.

The Problem

Or else what? The handbooks don’t say. There are also no guidelines on how DM’s should treat behavior that goes ‘against’ a PC’s declared Alignment. When I was playing a little (and a I mean very little) 3rd edition in college, ‘or else’ was being threatened with negative levels for wanting to cast sleep on a stable owner so I could steal a horse that he refused to sell me - despite the rest of my party rapidly outpacing me in pursuit of some critical mission element or other. Apparently, a neutral good character would “never do anything like that.”

That example illustrates one problem (of many) with dedicated Alignments. Unless everyone agrees beforehand on the exact definitions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the context of the game, they are subjective. When you have a defined element in a game system, you need also to have defined mechanics relating to that element - not so with Alignment. It simply is. How it actually affects a game - if it truly does at all - is anyone’s guess. However, the DM seems to have the most pull, by the sole virtue of his role. Besides, who else is going to enforce the proper Alignment-appropriate behavior?

Here’s another problem: what if a player wants to switch Alignments? What is required for that to happen? What forms get filled out and who processes them? What, if any, should be the penalties for Alignment-shifting? What about characters whose powers are derived from deities who themselves are aligned - Clerics for example? It seems like they would be most at risk for behavior that goes against their Alignment. Rogues, on the other hand, would be masochistic or just plain crazy to declare themselves ‘Lawful Good.’

Fixing Alignment

I see two solutions to the problem outlined above, neither of which are mutually exclusive:

First, if you are using declared Alignments in your game, when a PC makes a choice that goes against her declared Alignment - and sooner or later they will** - let them do it. Furthermore, let them get away with it. If you are going to have consequences, make them realistic. Negative levels and lost healing surges are not realistic. Getting chased by the City Watch because you stole something and end up going to prison is realistic. So are a Cleric’s prayers falling on deaf ears until he makes up for whatever it was she did to piss off her patron deity.

The second approach is more to my liking: Before the game even starts, establish with your players that Alignment is not something chosen beforehand, but develops throughout the course of the game as a result of their actions. Someone might claim to be good, and talk like a ‘good’ character - but do their actions bear that out? Do they ‘walk the walk?’

The Cleric may declare to be a follower of Bahamut, but do the decisions they make keep in line with the precepts of the order? If so, his powers should work (provided the rolling allows for it); if not, any faith-based skill checks might turn out to be harder than they thought they’d be. Maybe one (or all) of their prayers ceases to work at all. Of most interest, will the player figure out why this is happening to them - assuming you didn’t just up and tell them why.

What about the Warlock who willingly makes pacts with devils and demons, but ends up saving the kingdom from the powers of darkness? How might the source of his power be affected by acts of sacrifice and altruism? He might need to do some fast talking with his dark patrons to stay in their good*** graces.

What I like about this approach is that the players are a moral blank slate when the game starts. They are not tied down by a bunch of made-up backstory that often has little-to-nothing to do with the game and everyone is allowed to experience a path of self-discovery as both individuals and as a group.

Ripped from: http://www.likecool.com/Good_v_Evil--TShirt--Style.html

What if …?

A potential obstacle to the “no Alignment ‘till you earn it”**** approach involves the PC’s finding themselves in a situation that requires them to be clearly identified as being good or evil. This will likely not be an issue later in the game, but if the party has just started out, it is quite likely that they have not done anything to push themselves in either direction along the moral spectrum.

If such a case arises, I would have no problem telling the PC’s (via NPC’s, mystical means, etc.) that they need to prove themselves to continue.

Boom, side quest.

It then falls to the PC’s to decide for themselves if the effort needed to become good or evil is really worth it. Canny***** players may prevail with reasoning that their desire to complete the quest is itself proof of their Alignment.

Granted, if you like to run your campaign on rails, this might be more frustrating than not, and you should feel free to dispense with it.

Conclusion

A PC is not ‘good’ or ‘evil’ simply because they declare themselves as such; a PC is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ because that is how they act over the course of the campaign.

It can be quite exciting (and perversely exhilarating) to discover that the PC who thought he was a paragon of virtue actually turned out to be a greedy opportunist and fame whore - not because they had to act like that due to their predetermined Alignment, but because they chose to act that way.

* page 43 or 44, depending on which one you’re looking at.
** Especially if, like me, you enjoy throwing them into morally grey conundrums
*** Evil?
**** I really need a better name for it.
***** Or extremely lucky, depending on how their Diplomacy/Bluff check rolls out.

DnD: A New Approach to 4e Skill Challenges

I've read a lot of posts and tweets about making Combat more efficient in 4e; often frustrated that I didn't really have any good ideas or suggestions to offer. So I began to look at another oft-discussed aspect of the game: Skill Challenges and how to make them easier to manage for DM’s and provide a more organic, in-character experience for players.  

I am very interested in any and all feedback from DM’s and players concerning this approach.

Handling a Skill Challenge

A Skill Challenge is a discreet event that occurs within a role-playing session. They have a beginning, operate across a series of turns until a predefined end-state has been reached; at which point the consequences of the players’ performance is determined. I propose that this structure exists primarily for the benefit of the DM; helping them stay focused and organized as they direct the game.

But what about the players? Frankly, I feel that announcing the start of a structured experience - such as a Skill Challenge or Combat Encounter - takes the players out of the game. Handled carelessly, it is tantamount to saying “Okay, we’re going to stop role-playing now and start rolling dice.” Not only does that interrupt the narrative flow of the game, but I think it tends to put players in a meta-mentality and hurts spontaneous in-character role playing that might have otherwise occurred. (Feel free to disagree with me in the comments)

Consequently, I would not recommend announcing when you begin a Skill Challenge. Simply let the party know that there is a goal or objective that needs to be achieved, and that they will be using their skills to do so. If there is someway to impart this information to the PC’s through an NPC or environmental clue, so much the better.

In the same way, DM's shouldn't feel obligated to divulge every reward or penalty earned in the challenge. Obviously results that have an immediate impact on what's happening need to be conveyed to the group, but imagine your PC's surprise when an unexpected ally pops up in a dire situation due to their success in a Skill Challenge a while back - or their dismay when attempts to rally support in a village fall on deaf ears due to their inept handling of a negotiation in another region. Regardless of how a DM chooses to implement this, it needs to plausible.

Complexity

Complexity equals the number of rounds participants have to complete a Skill Challenge. Example: A Skill Challenge of Complexity 3 lasts 3 rounds; each player will make 3 skill checks. Likewise, if any opposing NPC’s or monsters are working against the PC’s in the challenge, they will also get 3 checks each to negate a PC’s individual success.

Complexity should be in direct proportion to the amount of effort or the number of smaller tasks the PC’s would ordinarily have to put forth in order to accomplish their goal. Note that Complexity is NOT the same thing as Difficulty - which is how hard a task is to complete. A Skill Challenge can be simple and hard, or complex-yet-easy to accomplish.

Skills

DM’s decide ahead of time which skills will be Primary Skills. The players WILL NOT know which skills are Primary, nor will they be given any pre-written examples of how to use a skill. Instead, a PC may use any skill she wishes. Primary skills will, naturally, be the most effective; Secondary skills are slightly less effective and take a -1 to their final score; Other skills are a bit of a gamble, but still have a chance to succeed - especially if the player using them offers a particularly clever description of what they are doing; in which case, no penalty should be subtracted.

Primary Skills	No penalty
Secondary Skills (optional)	-1
All other skills	-2

You may still wish to implement skills that auto-fail during a Challenge (which almost always seems to be Intimidate). I would recommend against letting players know how the scores are adjusted, but it is ultimately up to the DM.

DC’s (Difficulty)

How hard is it to accomplish some (or all) part(s) of a Skill Challenge?

Each skill listed as Primary or Secondary needs a DC assigned to it; the level of DC’s selected in a Skill Challenge remains the same. See pgs. 158-9 and 126 in the Essential Rules Compendium for details.

All other skills should default to a level-appropriate Medium DC, unless use of a particular skill is especially risky, in which case it should be Hard.

Accumulating Successes

There are two types of success : individual and group. Individual success occurs when a PC meets or beats a given DC in a round. Group success occurs when the majority of a party succeeds in a given round. If there are an even number of PC’s in a party, DM’s should decide ahead of time if an even split will result in a success (nice DM’s) or failure (mean DM’s). Regardless of the choice, STICK WITH IT - at the very least for the duration of the Skill Challenge; ideally for the entire campaign.

Success or Failure of the Challenge

The number of group successes needed is always two less than the Complexity, making things easy to remember. I would not recommend Skill Challenges of very high Complexities; instead, consider where it might make sense to increase DC’s.

Complexity	Group successes needed		Complexity	Group successes needed
3	1		9	7
4	2		10	8
5	3		...	...
6	4		n	n-2
7	5
8	6

Complexity 1 challenges are essentially a single Group Skill Check and thus, not included. A DM could run a Complexity 2 skill challenge, requiring one success - that might be easier to conceptualize as a Group Check with a ‘do over.’

Consequences: Success and Failure

There are four possible outcomes to every Skill Challenge:

1) Perfect: Target # of successes are accumulated with NO failures - The best possible outcome, this should be reward over and above the basic storyline goal of the Skill Challenge - perhaps with a boon or additional advantage to what the PC’s would normal get for accomplishing a Skill Challenge. DM’s may want to leave the Perfect finish off of Challenges of Complexity 1 or 2, since they are so easy to obtain.

2) Normal Success:  Target # of successes before failure - The PC’s did what they needed to do and the story may progress as they hoped it would. If any additional rewards are given, they should be to a lesser degree than they would get for a Perfect finish.

3) Normal Failure: Failing to accumulate target # of success before failing - The PC’s failed to do what needed to be done. The story continues, but now they are at a noticeable disadvantage. Additional penalties may be awarded, but - as with Normal Success - should be to a lesser extent than those awarded for a Critical Failure.

4) Critical Failure: NO successes accumulated before failing the Challenge - The PC’s blew it. Big time. Not only did they fail to accomplish their goal, but they  used up additional resources/goodwill in the process and took a blow to their reputation for it. The PC’s have additional negative results - such as damaged reputation with townsfolk, which causes prices to be higher when paying for goods and services - in addition to the now-altered story.

The consequences for failure should ALWAYS be considered when building a Skill Challenge and not put off until the moment the PC’s fail. The additional boons and penalties for particularly good or poor performance in a Skill Challenge can (and probably should) be generic and easily applicable to a variety of situations.

Example Skill Challenge

DM's Notes

Complexity: 4 (need 2 group successes)

Primary Skills (DC): Diplomacy (Med), Bluff (High), Insight (Med), Perception (Med)

Secondary Skills (DC): Arcana (High), History (Med), Streetwise (High)

* Intimidate will auto-fail

Goal: Keep the infected people on the wagon from entering the city

DM: An outbreak causing people to turn into zombies has begun to ravage the countryside. You three (PC's) must try and convince the guard at the gate to raise the draw bridge before a wagon full of plague-infected farmers crosses into the city. One of the city residents - a relative of the people on the wagon - refuses to believe that they are infected and is arguing to let them in; he will make an opposing check against one of you at the end of each round. The guard will listen for 4 rounds before making up his mind. So, PC-1, you start and we'll go around the table.

Round 1

PC-1: Guardsman! You've got to close that gate - many innocent lives will be put at risk if you let that wagon cross without verifying if those people are infected or not. I rolled a 12, add 5 to diplomacy; 17.

DM: (makes a check mark on a sheet of paper for the success) Surprised, the guard looks at the wagon. 'Really? Infected?' he asks, looking concerned.

PC-2: I climb the wall, granting me a better view of the wagon. It definitely looks like the people are unwell. I got a 16 on Athletics.

DM: (-2 since Athletics wasn't a listed skill, it’s a failure; makes an 'x' on beside the check mark) The guard looks at you skeptically.

PC-3: Sir, you must know that this same incident occurred five years ago in the kingdom to the north. If only they'd taken the extra precaution of stopping the wagon and checking the people, a village could've been saved. History check of 19!

DM: (-1 for a Secondary skill, but it still passes; DM puts a second check mark down) The guard seems to nod his head thoughfully. At this point, the man speaks up angrily.

Man (DM): Those people are loyal subjects of the crown and have every right to enter this city!' (10 for Diplomacy fails the check).

DM: You can tell the guard doesn't appreciate the man's tone. 'I need something else to go on before I can close the gate,'he turns back to the party. (2 successes is enough to win the round - 1 group success so far)

Round 2

PC-1: I can tell you're unsure, maybe even a little nervous about closing the city in the middle of the day - but this is the right thing to do! A ... 12 on Insight?

DM: (No penalty, but 12 is too low; so an 'x' is marked below the first three marks) The guard seems to have taken your words the wrong way. 'Nervous?' he asks, somewhat crossly.

PC-2: Look pal, we're trying to save this city! If you won't raise the bridge willingly, we'll make you! Sweet! Natual 20 for Intimidation!

DM: (A second 'x' mark, as Intimidate auto-fails) The guard takes a step back, but refuses to throw the lever, instead putting a hand on the hilt of his sword. 'Are you threatening me?'

PC-3: Sir, please, I am sensitive to magic and I tell you that the people headed towards this city have been infected by a dark spell! 24 for Arcana after bonuses!

DM: (Takes off -1, but it still passes; check mark) The guard takes in your attire and magical acourtrements and seems swayed.

Man (DM): Oh please! These people are outsiders to our city! Who knows what ulterior motives they have in shutting our kinsmen out like common highwaymen? (DM decides that Streetwise bets fits and rolls 19; a success - which negates PC-3's success; the PC's have been shut out this round)

DM: The guard considers the man's words and turns a cold eye on your party. 'I've nearly made up my mind,' he says, 'you've one last chance to convince me, else I let those people in and report you lot as troublemakers to the city watch.' (The group now has 1 success and 1 failure)

Round 3

PC-1: The wagon is close now - you can see how pale and sickly the people on it are! They do not look well! Perception of 22 after modifiers.

DM: (starts a third row of marks with a check)

PC-2: Have you not seen the fliers around town about the illness that has befallen the countryside? Citizens are being warned to stay in the city; this is common knowledge! Got a 19 for Bluff.

DM: (another check mark) The guard looks around the street. It does seem like an unusually small number of people have passed through the city's gates today.

PC-3: Look! In the sky! Those are vultures circling - they can smell the stink of illness and decay emanating from the wagon. You do not want that in the city. I rolled a 20 on Nature.

DM: (a third check mark) The guard looks to the birds, then to the wagon, then back to the birds. He seems to be considering your words.

Man (DM): Oh come on! Birds!? You're seriously going to consider raising a drawbridge because of a couple birds? I just came here from Gustav's stall in the market; he's not heard anything 'bout no 'dark magic' or 'infections' - and GUstav knows everything that happens around here! (natural 20 on Streewise nets the NPC a victory over one of the PC's individual successes; however, two other individual successes win the round for the PC's)

DM: The guard nods in agreement. 'You're right, I haven't heard anything about it. But,' he starts winching up the draw bridge, 'better safe than sorry! We'll check them out. If they're clean, they come in; if not, they can stay outside.' (There is no need for the fourth round as two group successes net a Normal Success for the party) The people on the wagon are checked and found to be in the process of turning into zombies! The mayor is grateful and asks if the PC's will help direct the city defenses should a horde of undead assault the city (which, of course, they will)

Follow-up:

When a large force of zombies assaults the town later that night, the PC's don't have to worry about a sudden zombie outbreak in the town; had they failed they would have been attacked from both sides.

So, there it is! I'd love to hear about any experiences in trying this approach - good or bad. 

DnD: Review - Soldiers of Fortune

There is something Matt James wants you to know: Being a mercenary does not make you a bad person. A fact he repeats often and emphatically in his new book Soldiers of Fortune. Despite the common stereotypes associated with soldiers for hire - that of unscrupulous, amoral cutthroats looking for easy money - this material encourages your PC's to dive into the often grim and gritty world of professional soldiers paid for their martial expertise and willingness to fight, and quite possibly die, for a cause not their own.

Written by Matt James and published by Kobold Quarterly

The supplement, written in the context of the Midgard campaign setting, is broadly divided into two parts: fluff and crunch. The fluff, comprised of the first three chapters of the book, starts off with a discussion about the reasons for war, the various Midgardian factions and alliances that often wage war upon one another, and strategies for successfully waging war. The last part of Chapter 2 being comprised of several skill challenges.

The second half, the crunch, occupies most of the book's 79 pages. Features in this section include new feats, powers and paths; magic items, rituals; and a slew* of new monsters and templates. Included in the crunch, but separate from the lists of new material is The Battle of Sanguine-Crag Pass, an adventure for five 7th-level characters.

Content

As someone who grew up hearing a lot of military stories (my father served in Vietnam and my brother currently serves in the National Guard), and eventually getting into table-top wargames myself, a lot of the background and information presented in the fluff about war in general was nothing particularly new to me. I realize, however, this may not be the case for a lot of readers. I will acknowledge, though, that the focus on the role of mercenaries in larger conflicts presented in this work was something I don't recall seeing before in material such as this.

The most welcome portion of the first three chapters, to my mind, were the Skill Challenges. I particularly liked the fact that the Besieged challenge - in which the PC's are tasked with holding a defensible location - could be flipped around to recast the PC's in the role of the besiegers. Another idea presented in this section that I'd like to experiment with is the long-form Skill Challenge which might be conducted in stages over the course of an adventure, or possibly even a campaign.

It is the final four chapters of the book - the crunchy portion - where I felt Soldiers of Fortune really succeeded as a source of inspiration. I frequently found myself stopping and mentally expanding or elaborating on material in the book. Magical banners and standards (including one for Gnolls!), rules and stats for siege engines, templates for PCs and NPCs alike, formations, minions on the battlefield; each of these sections fed my anticipation for my next campaign, and an opportunity for these ideas - some as-written, some tweaked or expanded - to be implemented.

Presentation

The book is laid out in a straightforward two-column format, with a fairly polished feel to it. I wasn't a fan of the page borders or the occasional 3/4 width image that had text crammed around it, but these are minor quibbles and shouldn't detract from the overall reading experience. Stat blocks with titles and descriptions split across pages were probably the most annoying thing; thankfully, this was a rare occurrence. I was also curious as to why certain sections, such as the Skill Challenges, were placed as they were within the overall structure of the book - again, not a deal breaker, just something I noticed.

The full-color cover by Malcom McClinton and interior black-and-white art by Joe Slucher, all original save for one stock image, are average-to-above-average in quality - my personal favorite being the image of the old man at the opening of Chapter 3. Each piece had at least one detail that really stood out and drew my attention.

Crystal Fraizier's encounter maps were well-done and easy to read. One gripe, though: there is no indication of where the PCs are supposed to start, on the map or in the encounter description.

Conclusion

Overall, I thought this was a solid effort. I would have liked to have seen some of the material elaborated and expanded upon, but taking it upon myself to do so draws me to the product in a way that it might not have otherwise if every possible detail were spelled out. I don't know if Matt James has written any other sourcebooks, but, should he continue to build upon and develop the skills and ideas demonstrated in Soldiers of Fortune, I feel certain that he could produce some great RPG material.

Buy Soldiers of Fortune if:
You are planning to run a military-themed campaign; your PC's enjoy the tactical nature of combat encounters; your group enjoys the role-playing opportunities that occur in a profession where money and violence are inextricably bound together; Your PC's have expressed an interest in operating heavy weapons; Your group would like to participate in epic, large-scale conflicts.

Consider Soldiers of Fortune if:
You appreciate reading others' ideas and tweaking them to fit your particular campaign or style of play. You want to give the forces that oppose your PC's some depth and character. You're considering increasing the scale of your combat encounters and skill challenges.

Avoid Soldiers of Fortune if:
Your PC's like to play wondering heroes answering a higher call - righting wrongs, dealing out justice, and slaying evil monsters; hate taking orders from NPC's (even ones paying for their services) and/or don't really care about the consequences of their actions (and you don't care to enforce them); Your group prefers small, quick encounters and simple resolutions to clearly defined problems.

I have included a link to the notes I took as I was reading Soldiers of Fortune, written as stream-of-consciousness observations:
SoF_impressions (9 Kb .txt, Mediafire)

Review Disclosure
I volunteered to review this product; no compensation has been asked for or given for this review. A link to an early version of the .pdf was provided to me by the author. All errors encountered in the text were shared with the author and publisher. I have been assured by the author that most, if not all, errors have been corrected in the final edition.
__________________________________________________________________________
*Slew, in this context, being defined as: 14 templates (2 for minions), 27 monsters, 3 siege engines

DnD: Through the Eyes of a Newb

The game group that was meeting at my house went on hiatus several months ago. I recently emailed them about getting back together. In order improve the experience for everyone, I sent them a brief survey of seven questions. Their responses follow. First, however, some demographic information about the players, all of whom were totally new to role-playing when I asked them to try out 4e with me (I, in turn, was totally new to being a DM). I will be using their PC names to identify them.

• Eponine (Half Elf Paladin, female) - female, married to Lucan IRL, 1 yo son, homemaker/babysitter/violinist, 25
  
• Erianya (Eladrin Wizard, female) - my lovely wife, School Psychologist, 31 (still looks mid-20's), 5 yo son & 3 yo daughter
  
• Lucan (Elven Cleric, male) - married to Eponine IRL, 1 yo son, Public Defender, 38
  
• Telfryn (Elven Ranger, male) - married, Statistics Professor, mid(?)50's, 1 son & 1 daughter - both grown. I referred to him as Teflon.

NOTE: Each player was informed beforehand that their responses would likely wind up on my blog.

1) What aspect of our role-playing sessions did you enjoy the most?

Erianya: I liked the dinner, getting together with friends, and the first half hour- so the set up. I liked seeing what [the DM] came up with and the creativity of it. Once there was a box with a logical problem to solve and I figured it out very quickly. I liked that.

Eponine: I enjoyed creating a character and witnessing others' creativity. The collaborative story-telling as well the exploring of the world you set up for us. I also really enjoyed the discovery of our unique roles within the group. I enjoyed being the strong defender. :-) I really enjoyed beginning to learn about the world of D&D -- it was fun how it opened up conversations with some neighbors and many of my college friends (I guess that says a lot about my friends). Thanks for sharing it with us.

Lucan: I agree with Telfryn and Erianya in that the getting together was the main thing. As for the game, I thought the unstructured, open nature of role playing games was challenging. I enjoyed the story-telling aspects of the game, too -- especially [the DM's] work creating the environment. Really the "cooperative story-telling" aspects were quite fun and a very interesting experience to reflect on.

Telfryn: The time together.

2) What aspect of our role-playing sessions did you enjoy the least?

Erianya: I didn't like being bored while everyone else was playing and I wasn't. I didn't like being expected to pay attention when I wasn't playing. I didn't like being expected to have done homework or know what is going on. I liked it better when I'm told "these are rules, here's your game piece, this is what you do, figure out a strategy on your own", rather than "figure out who you are by reading volumes of boring books, figure out what you do by sorting through volumes of boring books, and figure out the rules by reading volumes of boring books." I didn't really like fighting things either, and we did that a lot. The D&D world is vast and complicated. If you are interested in it, could be absorbing and exciting. However, as someone with no interest in those details- I want someone to tell me the minimum I have to learn in order to play, and then be expected to know that minimum- not more- and for that to be okay.

Eponine: The battles seemed to go on for a long time, and at times seemed monotonous and futile.

Lucan: Our mutual lack of experience made the game tedious at times. I suppose that is partly because we were not experienced enough acting in character to be able to know what they would do automatically. We were probably doing too much meta-thinking or at least we were too self-conscious.

Telfryn: The fact that the ads kept popping up on the digital board.

3) What changes would you recommend to make our D&D sessions more fun?

Erianya: Play other games, but we can still be in our character? Keep the sessions to 30 minutes? Here's a good one: When we fight, do speed rounds. Instead of everyone having a turn- set the timer for 2 minutes and everyone silently figures out our attack and then 30 seconds each person to describe the attack. Then the monsters have 2 minutes to decide how to attack all of us. Then we have 2 minutes to decide and 30 seconds to tell and so on. This will get us out of the boring fighting and back into the story. Maybe then I can more easily tolerate more than 30 minutes of play.

Eponine: As others have said - I would recommend shortening the fighting encounters.

Lucan: Shorter and more focused encounters would help probably. I liked using the table. Perhaps we could work the Wii Fit tasks into it, too. There could be adventures where you have to try to complete some Wii thing like flying to an island or something. I realize that is totally ridiculous from a D&D perspective ;-) The problem with D&D for me is that I am not able to really commit to inhabiting the imaginary world seriously enough to make the action happen spontaneously. I also enjoyed playing some of the other games that y'all have and new games that you would find from time to time -- Settlers of Catan comes to mind. And I don't think that we have to play a game -- I am open to other options, both indoors and out, for our time together. Outdoor activities like cook-outs in the park, drive-in movies, etc. all come to mind for the spring and summer. Of course, I also now have to think about [kid]-friendly activities.

Telfryn: I thought they were great fun, but it seemed like we got awfully bogged down sometimes talking things over and not staying focused.

4) Are there different settings/genres/styles of role-playing that you would prefer to D&D's standard hack-n-slash fantasy setting (please elaborate beyond a simple 'yes' or 'no')?

Erianya: Do not understand the question- but hack and slash does not sound like me.

Eponine: Yes, I am sure there are different settings/genres/styles that I would prefer to hack-n-slash fantasy. Like Lucan, I preferred the exploring part of the game, I don't know what genre would be more like that.

Lucan: I thought the exploring part of the game was more fun than the fighting part. Perhaps the fighting could be modified to go more quickly -- more real time. I like Erianya's suggestion. Also, see my comments on question 3.

Telfryn: Not sure, because I don't know what is out there. I am partial to "puzzle" games (al la "Raven" from several years ago), where there was a puzzle that we had to figure out. However, that doesn't lend itself to the sort of invent-as-you-go flavor of D&D. So...I'm happy with the genre we used.

5) Would having a more experienced role-player in the group make you more or less interested in playing?

Erianya: MUCH MUCH less interested. A more experienced role player would expect us to follow a certain set of complicated rules that I'm uninterested in learning. They would be annoyed with us and I'd be anxious over the fact that I was annoying them and then annoyed with them for being sticklers overs rules I don't care about. It seems too dangerous.

Eponine: Less.

Lucan: I agree with Telfryn and Erianya. I don't think we could handle them or they could handle us.

Telfryn: Having a more experienced role player might help us all learn more, but honestly, the real fun for me is in being together...less so than becoming really proficient in D&D. Not sure an experienced player on our team would be happy with our rather messy way of playing.

6) Did using the digital table make your role-playing experience more or less engaging?

Erianya: The digital table was useful and aesthetically pleasing.

Eponine: More. The table was really cool --- except for the pop up ad of course.

Lucan: Aside from the technical difficulties, I thought the table was a great addition.

Telfryn: I liked the digital table . . . with that birds-eye-view. Helped me visualize things (if we can just keep those pesky ads from popping up!).

7) Time and distance are big issues for our group, do you have any suggestions for overcoming these obstacles?

Erianya: I heard you can purchase a helicopter that you put together yourself for only 100,000. I can't verify this- it was just a facebook post.

Eponine: See Lucan's answer

Lucan: Well, with [our young son] this will only be more difficult in the near future -- particularly the time. I suspect that the game will have to allow for Eponine or I to come and go somehow. The distance isn't a huge obstacle. Obviously, it's not like we lived in the same neighborhood so our get-togethers have to be more planned than spontaneous, but the drive is not burdensome. Y'all's new house is certainly the most convenient in terms of space for kids and adults. Our house is pretty loud and chaotic with all that going on in what is essentially the same room.

Telfryn: Don't know how to over come the time/distance issue. Lucan and Eponine have the biggest hurdle. I'll defer to their ideas and needs.sk

DnD: Going Essentials. Now What?

I'll warn you upfront: This post contains no new material or free goodies. Heck, I didn't even get a picture for it. This is simply me asking for advice.

I've decided to go Essentials.

From what I've heard and read online (most of which comes from Twitter, I'll admit), Essentials is simply faster - both for character building and playing. On top of that, it sounds like it is easier for older edition elitists to swallow and easier for newbies (the only people I've gotten to play with) to grasp due to reduced options.

The question for me now, as it has been for every D&D player since Advanced Dungeons & Dragons came out, is 'what should I do with my pre-Essentials 4e books?'

I've got the 3 Player's Handbooks, 3 Monster Manuals, DMG 1 and 2, Open Grave, the DM screen, and Adventurer's Vault 2. I know this is a pittance compared to the hardcore players out there. But for a dilettante such as myself, it was a big investment for the 5 or so games I got out of them.

A lot of attention was paid to the fact that damage and stats were altered in MM3, making it more balanced and 'accurate' (if such a term could be applied), than the first two - so maybe I keep it? Or, maybe all three sold together on eBay would make for a more attractive purchase? I don't know.
Maybe they're worth keeping around as reference material? For the art?

What do people who have been role-playing for years do when they decide to upgrade or switch systems?

DnD: Compact Monster Knowledge Cards

I can't imagine any RPG people reading this blog who don't already know about Sly Flourish, a repository of awesome ideas to make running a D&D much better. One such idea are Monster Knowledge Cards, a simple idea that helps speed up combat by displaying a monster's defenses to the PC's.

Mike's cards are 5x8, folded in half and have a full-color image of the monster printed beside the stats. They look nice, but I'm far too poor/cheap and don't play enough to make something that can't be used as much as possible.

To that end, I've made a compact version (four to a page, eight if you print double-sided), with the intention of printing them on cardstock and having them laminated. They can then be filled in with dry erase markers and reused.

Click for full-size (849 KB .jpg, 2550px x 3300px)

Additionally, I think that the next time I get a game together (no idea when that will be, at this point) I'm going to increase monster damage while decreasing their HP's. This should make for shorter, more intense battles and help us get the most out of our sporadic gaming sessions.

DnD, Art: Card Game Preview - Enchantress

Congratulations on making it to 2011!

My resolution this year is to finish what I start. Including several projects I started last year. Of course, a big part of succeeding at this will be to avoid starting anything new until other projects already underway have been completed.

A factor in the success of a new resolution is having a victory, no matter how small, to celebrate and motivate one forward. To that end, I looked at all the irons I have in the fire and decided that finishing the remaining two designs for the fantasy card deck I've been working on will be the easiest to complete. It's simply a matter of sitting down and doing it.

And, what do you know? I finished another design! Originally intended to be a stereotypical old guy in a robe, I realized that I had no female designs. Thus, the Wizard turned into an Enchantress.

Only one design left before I have my first test deck printed up.

I've already got rules for one game pretty well set down. What I'd like to do is have three or four solid games for the deck before I sell it.

Art, DnD: Cover Art for Brother Ptolemy and the Hidden Kingdom

Cover art for the upcoming Nevermet Press release Brother Ptolemy and the Hidden Kingdom by yours truly. The book - an actual printed book with pages and everything! - is expected to hit shelves in January. The e-book may become available earlier.

DnD, 40k: DIY Dice Tower Step-by-Step

Geek Chic has some awesome handcrafted gaming goodies - none of which I can afford. And even if I could, I don't have a regular gaming group to justify the expense. Still, after seeing the fancy wooden dice towers they have for sale (one even making a cameo in the 2010 PAX Celebrity game) and having had my fill of rolling terribly in my games of Warhammer 40,000, I decided to make one for myself.

After sketching out my plans and recording measurements on a sheet of graph paper (which I neglected to scan for this post), I gathered my materials:

• 1 sheet of foamcore posterboard (only about 1/2 got used)
• 1 sheet of posterboard (less than 1/4 was needed)
• A fresh X-acto blade in my hobby knife
• Elmer's white glue
• Ruler
• Pencil
• Scissors

Step 1: I began by cutting the walls (two 3.5" wide and two 4" wide)of the tower and the base (4" wide) to which it would be glued. The picture for this step was actually taken after I had performed . . .

Step 2: One side of each tower wall was notched - that is, I cut away everything but a single layer of the posterboard covering. This was intended to allow the pieces to glue together in a way that forms a stronger bond than simply butting the corners up against each other.

Step 3: At this point, I selected the two short (3.5") sides of the tower and began measuring and marking where the various obstacles the dice would encounter would be. It was important to leave at least a 1" gap between each of the obstacles so any (average- or smaller-sized) dice would not get caught in the tower.

Step 4: Using some posterboard - or, in my case, part of a cereal box - I cut out patterns for the struts that would be supporting the ledges. This saved a LOT of time having to measure each of the pieces that needed to be cut out.

Step 5: I started by gluing the small corner pieces to one of the short sides of the tower. I also decided to glue the adjoining wall that shared the piece. I grabbed a couple of tissue boxes to hold the walls in places as they dried.

Step 6: Gluing continued until all the small pieces were in place. The third wall was glued in place, but not the final wall - as I would need to reach inside the tower to glue the posterboard shelves and struts.

Step 7: At this point I glued in the first posterboard shelf. Once it had dried, I added the struts. This was annoying because the posterboard wanted to pull away and had to be held in place until the glue dried. 

Step 8: Most of the ledges ran with the long wall of the tower. However, I wanted to include at least on ledge that sat perpendicular to the rest. It was quite a pain to hold the struts in place for this ledge. At this point, any poor measurements or sloppy cuts I made really started to come back to haunt me.

Step 9a: Finally having glued all the ledges and struts in place, I added the final wall of the tower. A 1" gap was included at the bottom.

Step 9b: Looking down into the tower from above, you can really see how working fast and tired leads to some shoddy results. Remember the golden rule of the craftsman: Measure twice, cut once.

Step 10: The tower is glued to the base.

Step 11: 1" walls are added to the base to catch the dice when the come tumbling out. At this point, the tower is perfectly functional, if a bit spare on detail.

Step 12: Some detail to spice things up a bit. When making cuts like this, the importance of a fresh blade cannot be overstated. I got a little too excited with how it was looking and took a picture before adding the final crenellation.

I have plans to add some more details and texture to the tower before painting to look like stone. I'll be happy to share pics of the final product if/when it happens.

Looking back over this project, the ledges were a huge pain. If I were to do this again, I would try to find a more efficient way to build them.  I was struck with an idea for making an even easier dice tower and hope to post about that in the near future. The cost will definitely be higher, but the frustration, time to build, and resultant mess will (I hope) be much lower.

If you have any question or comments, feel free to make them!