...here there be dragons...

School is winding down for my little guys and that means the summer of no school, no homework and no reading right?

Wrong!

You can't be the kid of an educator and not expect something.  But this time it was my son that surprised me.  I was talking with him the other day and he wants to write a book, and not just any book.  He wants to write one on dragons.
 
Liam has been playing D&D now for years.  He loves dragons and has read dozens of books on them and of course he is the original Dragonslayer in my games.  

We talked and I talked with teacher, so this summer Liam will be writing his first book, "Here There Be Dragons".  There will be stats, histories and all sorts of goodies about dragons.  He wants to do it all for Pathfinder and maybe 4e.  I also suggested doing it for OSRIC and Basic era games too.

He wants spells, prestige classes and even has come up with some very specialized dragon hunting weapons including the dragon hunter's spear ("Because getting close enough to a dragon to use a sword is stupid.")

I will be doing the layout and editing, but all the ideas will be his.

The best part?

We are going to make the book available to everyone.

I don't know all the details yet.  But expect a book of dragons coming from us sometime later in the summer.

Post 666

I have reached a momentous milestone here at the Other Side.  This is my 666th post.  I feel compelled (by the Power of Satan!) to post about something devilish.

I have talked about Hell before and some of it's inhabitants and some potential inhabitants.  If I follow this logic then devils would be the ultimate foe for the elves.  Not that I don't mind this idea at all. But I think I might focus it a bit more.   Combine the story of Dante's Inferno, Milton's Paradise Lost and Lolth's shunning/betrayal and I can paint a pretty detailed idea of what Hell is in my world.

Hell is the ultimate prison for the fallen.  Gods, Angels and other powers are cast out and into hell.

Let's start with a couple of Goddess that give me some problems.

Tiamat is a Goddess and Queen of all evil dragons.  She has always been listed as having a domain on the first level of Hell.  I have never really liked that to be honest.  Tiamat is in Babylonian myth primal Chaos.  If anything she should be in the Abyss.  Using the new 4e cosmology that would place her in the Elemental Chaos, which is really the perfect place for her.  In Dragonlance her home was always called "the Abyss".  In my games I always called her realm Tehom, which means Abyss in Hebrew and is associated with the mythical Tiamat.  So she really has no place in Hell.  Who should replace her?

Lolth on the other hand is better fit.  Her story is more in line with the casting out of the Angels into Hell.  Though I am not sure I want her in Hell proper, maybe more of the Ante-chamber to Hell, near the Underdark. This would be similar to the first level of Hell that Dante claimed the Pagans went too.  So I am trading a giant dragon for a giant spider.   For a bit of tongue in cheek continuity I would make Tiamat and Lolth allies.  They have different goals and motivations, but I see them as felling they have a common history so if it benefits them to share an alliance, then they would. Lolth's realm is still called the Demonweb and she still has a number of demons in her employ.

Devils in my Game
Demons are easy.  They are evil, chaotic outsiders bent on destruction of everything.  Devils are much more complicated.  I say in my game Devils are only Fallen Angels.  That means there are a finite number of them and once they are gone, that is it.  There are a lot of creatures that are called devils, but most of them are demons pressed into service.  Since they have been forced into service by the Devils they have changed, they can evolve into greater forms.  Pit Fiends are those fiends that have reason up in ranks.  The True Devils still look down on them.

Since I started this post, Dreams of the Lich House posted a bit about using Satan/The Tempter in your games.  It is a good read.  It also ties in nicely with the Milton/Dante-ish cosmology I want to use for Hell.  I would keep the 9 layers.  The top most being the "Ante-Chamber of Hell" and the rest each ruled by an Arch Duke.  Also each Arch Duke is responsible for one of the Seven Deadly sins.

Layer	Name	Arch-Duke	Deadly Sin
1	Avernus	none	na
2	Dis	Dispater	Envy
3	Minauros	Mammon	Greed
4	Phlegethos	Belial	Sloth
5	Stygia	Geryon	Wrath
6	Malbolge	Glayssa	Lust
7	Maladomini	Baalzebul/Beelzebub	Gluttony
8	Cania	Mephistopheles	Pride
9	Nessus	Asmodeus	*

Glayssa was given Lust, Asmodeus' old sin since he is now in charge.  His though is the sin of betrayal.
In the 4e cosmology Asmodeus was the angel guarding the prison that Tharizdun was held in.  Tharizdûn corrupted him and Asmodues and his angels all fell.  I have decided that Tharizdun is still chained, but the greatest deceit is that he is not where all the gods think he is.  He is in fact buried deep in Hell where Asmodeus taps his power. This is how he has been elevated to near Godhood.  Of course this might be Tharizdun plan to to trap Asmodeus in his thrall even more.

Chances are good that the Dragonslayers will run into the cult of Tharizdun sometime soon.  I just need something to do with them.

I am not planning on the Dragonslayers going to Hell anytime soon, so this all might be for nothing.

Updated Plans

Not much to this post, I am looking over the Big Plan^TM I have for my Kids' D&D games.

I detailed my plan first here and then updated it here.  Since then I have played some of the adventures listed, just not in the order I had them.

Of the plan I have completed:

• B3 Palace of the Silver Princess
• X1 The Ilse of Dread
• S2 White Plume Mountain

Removed from rotation are (and detailed here):

• C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness.  I am going to be running this under the Doctor Who RPG as "The Ghost Tower of Inverness, Illinois"  (the castle, the Ghost Tower)
• B2 Keep on the Borderlands.  Been done a 1000 times.  I want to run it under Army of Darkness rules.
• I6 Ravenloft. Will run this as Ghosts of Albion: Ravenloft for Ghosts of Albion.

Games I'll run under my Basic Levels plan:

• T1 Village of Hommlet (and come back to it later using the 4th ed version)
• B1 In Search of the Unknown (great dungeon crawl)
• L1 Secret of Bone Hill (been wanting to run this one forever)

Then on to some D&D4 adventures.

Basic Levels: Background and Themes

To continue on with my idea of Basic Levels for D&D4 I want to look at two features of the D&D4 game that came after the PHB was published.  Backgrounds and Themes.

When you are 1st level in D&D4 you get to choose some skills to be trained in.  This gives you a +5 in those skills.  As you move up in level all your skills are your appropriate modifier + 1/2 your level.  So regardless a 30th level character has +15 minimum on every skill and +20 (15+5) on trained skills.

A background is a bit of role-playing that asks what were you before you were an adventurer? Most times it gives you a +2 in two (or sometimes just 1) skills.  So maybe a fighter was once the apprentice of nere'do well Bard and spent his childhood stealing magical items.  He would have a +2 to Arcana and +2 to Thievery

Themes are new from issue #399 of Dragon Magazine (seems odd to call it a magazine anymore) and they are more or less like kits were in AD&D2.  You choose a theme and it gives you some pluses to skills and then at later levels you can choose different powers at different levels.   not exactly a sub-class but more of a flavor.

To do these in the Basic Level model players need to have fairly good ideas of what their character was (or is since we are starting them younger) and where they want to take their character.

At Basic Level 1 they get their Background and maybe training in 1 skill.  If the class has a "default" skill then it will be that one; ie Religion for Clerics, Arcana for Wizards and Thievery for Rogues.  Clerics get their Channel Divinity power (Turn Undead), but no spells yet (just like Basic). Wizards get a spell.

At Basic Level 2 they get training in two more skills (or maybe just one, still looking at the options).  Clerics get a spell as do wizards.  Rogues and Fighters fight get one of their combat styles.

The idea here is to build up that list of trained and background skills and introduce the Themes to the character.  In the end you want all the elements in place for that 1st level character.

While I consider the details here are the past posts that have lead me to this point.

• Character Life-Span development, this was more for modern games, but certainly good for D&D too.
• Immortal Level D&D. My first post on mixing D&D4 with D&D Basic.
• Playing D&D with Kids. Where I first mention my desire to play both D&D4 and Basic D&D.

Plus it gives me a good excuse to use all of these together.

Basic Levels: D&D4 by way of D&D Basic

Consider this quote from The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

Think of the heroes of modern myth, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, even Bilbo Baggins and the kids from the Narnia books (well the first few). They follow this hero's journey more or less the same way.  Even Darth Vader followed the same path, but failed the final tests.  The point here though is not the journey (yet) but the beginnings.  Anikin began as a slave, Luke a farm boy, Harry a baby and then a 10 year old boy with no idea of his potential.  Each were a "chosen one" of their tales, but all had humble beginnings.

Depending on who you ask the raised power structure in D&D 4 is either a feature or it is "broken".  D&D 4 characters start out as very capable.  They have skills, powers and a variety of things they can do right away.  To some this is a great thing, now all characters can do something.  To others it is a sign of power creep.

I don't buy the power creep argument.  In fact if you compare D&D4 to D&D Rule Cyclopedia you see that they have similar power curves.  A 30th level D&D4 Wizard could go toe to toe with a 36th level D&DRC Magic User, and both may be on paths to immortality.  In fact D&D 4 seems more like D&D RC IF you look at it from the point of view of D&D4 characters starting at about 4th to 6th level.

Let's compare a bit.

Here are the basic skills and powers of a 1st level D&D Basic/RC character.
Magic-User Level 1
Weapons: Dagger 1d4 (1 per attack)
Spell: Magic Missile (1 per day)
HP: 1d4 + con mod (4 to 7)

Not a lot.

How about 1st level D&D4 character.
Wizard (Mage) Level 1
Weapon: Dagger (1 per attack)
Spells: At will: Suggestion, Ghost Sound, Light, Arc Lightning, Freezing Burst.
Per Encounter: Charm of Misplaced Wrath, Burning Hands.
Daily: Fountain of Flame, Phantom Chasm
Skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Insight, Religion
HP: 10 + con score (18 to 28 using the default arrays)

9 spells and four skills that this character knows out of the gate.  And that is not counting any of the new backgrounds (which gives +2 to a skill or two) or other rules to help out the 4e character further.

Just as a quick and dirty comparison, a D&D RC Magic User would need to be 7th level and be able to cast 1 4th level spell to equal the D&D 4e 1st level Wizard (Mage).  Now if you use the cantrip rules I  created (or just ignore cantrips) then the character is more of a 5th level Magic User.

Fighters are not much different really.
In Basic/RC the fighter gets a sword and told which end is pointy and which end to hold on to.
In 4e fighters (Knights) get a sword and 3 different battle stances (think of them as advanced fighting techniques) that make them more than a guy with a sword.  These stances imply martial training.

So the D&D 4 characters are not just "fresh of the moisture farm", they have training, they have skills.  This is something the designers of D&D4 wanted and it was an implicit design philosophy.

But sometimes you want to build up to something special.

People have used this argument as a full on indictment of all of D&D4, but to me that is throwing out too much good stuff, but I also like the feel of the early editions, especially Basic D&D.  SO why not have my cake and eat it too.

Basic Training and Levels

Basic levels are the "training" levels for character.  They will break up the powers of the 1st level 4e characters into smaller chunks to represent training.

For my Hero's Journey game, the characters will start out exactly like they do for every single edition of D&D.  Roll a 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange for 6 stats.  I will use the "archetypes" from Basic and 4e and these will be the only characters allowed.  So fighter, magic-user, thief, cleric.  From here they can move on to other "full" classes.  Fighter (and I might even call it "fighting man") wold lead to knights, paladins, rangers, fighters, marshals, and so on.  Magic-Users lead to Warlocks, Wizards, mages, sorcerers.  You get the idea. Or I could divide them up my how they train for their power, Martial, Divine and Arcane.  I like that idea better.

There would be 3 basic levels.  I would divide the powers and skills up so they are getting something new each basic level.  So new skill, new spell or martial stance.  I would include Backgrounds and any other ways to get skills at Basic 1. I would also include all the racial perks.

This is not without precedent, the old Cavalier had levels that came before 1st level so that you had to work your way up to them.

I'd have to put them up in a table so that by the time you completed Basic 3 and then moved to Level 1 you could gain the last powers needed to make Level 1 seem like a big leap.

Basic Levels as Normal People
Having basic levels also make for a good way to represent normal people. The village blacksmith isn't a 0 level human or even a 1st level Knight, he is something in between.  Maybe he has some training, and he is certainly stronger than his fellows, so he could be a Martial Class, Basic Level 2.  Or something.
This makes for a good way to emulate the NPC classes from the D&D 3.x DMG.

I think this needs more work, but I like what I have so far.

Why Do it?
Other than the reasons mentioned above there is also a pragmatic reason.  To play T1, B1 and B2 as intended.  Maybe that is what I can do.  Not worry about XP, but level up on Basic Level after a completed adventure.  I could also pull out the Black Box D&D I got at the last auction as a good intro set.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.  Then they get to Level 1 and the Adventure arc begins.

ETA: Rob Donoghue had some similar thoughts earlier this month. Please also read his post.
http://rdonoghue.blogspot.com/2011/05/leveling-up-to-1.html

Divine Intervention and the Nature of Dieties

How do you do divine intervention in your games?

Following up on the post about Clerics I have thought about how Gods interact with mortals.  Typically I give any character a base 1% chance to get divine intervention when they ask for it.  This is modified by how well they adhere to the tenets of their faith, the nature of their god, and even level (higher level characters can do more).  Of course nothing comes without a price.

In my 4e game coming up I am thinking that that the players will be visited often by the Raven Queen's avatar, in the form of a young girl ala Death from DC's Vertigo line and borrowing heavily from Amber Benson's "Death's Daughter" books.   I might even introduce her in the current adventure arc.

Presently the Dragonslayers are going after Tiamat. While they acknowledge that she is the "Goddess of Evil Dragons"  to them that just makes her bigger and more powerful to kill.  I am thinking I am ok with that for the most part.  It could be that Gods in my game are beings that just got really, really powerful.

If that is the case why do they need worshipers?  What purpose then is divine intervention for?

I had a character once who I took briefly into the Planescape setting.  Basically he was a jerk and didn't think that gods were anything special (sound familiar?), just powerful humans (or humanoids).  I later expanded his belief into an entire Plansescape faction, The Hermetic Order of Sigil, though he was not a member.

Interesting that all these years later I am still going back to the basic assumptions of my games and trying to figure out the underlying realities.

I'm with D&D

This is not a big surprise.

I saw this banner again today on Christian Lindke's Cinerati blog about to uselessness of edition wars. The image is from TheWeem.com and it is to support D&D, any D&D, any edition.  Even if your D&D is actually called Basic Fantasy, S&W or Pathfinder.

Enjoy your game!

Clerics in D&D

There has been a lot of talk of clerics and their value in a D&D game.  This ranges from the the old school of whether or not the Cleric is an appropriate trope for a fantasy game to the new school of whether a cleric is needed in a game that also has healing surges.

Here are some posts to illustrate what I mean,
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110426
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110503#74170
http://lawfulindifferent.blogspot.com/2011/04/god-i-hate-clerics.html
http://daegames.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-wants-to-play-cleric_26.html
http://theresdungeonsdownunder.blogspot.com/2011/05/making-cleric-cleric-blank-religion.html

I am firmly in the camp of Clerics are as much a part of D&D as Fighters, Wizards and Thieves.

My first character ever was Father Johan Weper, Cleric of the God of the Sun, Hunter of the Undead. He was a bit of a generic cleric to be honest, and I choose the sun god because I thought that as a quasi-medieval priest  the sun would be a major feature of all the is holy, bright and good.  Plus I had been reading a bunch of Greek Myths and I though Apollo would make for a good god.  But the real reason I choose the cleric; Turning Undead.  That was an AWESOME power in my pre-teen mind.   So that has colored my views of the cleric ever since.

In real life I am an atheist, but I like the play the religious character.  So clerics, witches, druids, all fascinate me.  But clerics are where it all started.

Clerics as Occult Researchers

In nearly every other game I have ever played there have been occult researchers.  There is usually someone that is the pary's muscle, the magic-guy, the sneaky guy and then the smart guy.  Sometime the magic guy and smart guy are the same, sometimes though they are not.  The Cleric takes on the roll of the Smart Guy or the Occult Researcher.  The books, the ill fitting glasses, and the wisdom to know what to do is the roll of the cleric.

It is fairly well known that the idea behind clerical undead turning  came from Peter Cushing's Van Helsing characters in the various Hammer Dracula films.  Why not extend the metaphor to include the rest of Van Helsing's portfolio.  As a class that puts a high value on Wisdom then the cleric should be a font of knowledge. Sure, this can also be done by the Magic-User / Wiazard,  but the cleric's input should not be understated.

In D&D 3 and 4 knowledge of the undead fall within the Knowledge (Religion) or just Religion category.   These characters tend to have more training in this area than other characters.  While wizards are typically the font of magical knowledge, clerics should be the source of knowledge beyond the ken of mortal man and into the realm of the gods.

Clerics as the Party Leader
The cleric also can serve the roll as the leader. While the cleric can run the gamut of influential high priest to crazy street prophet to diabolic cult leader, players typically take on the roll of the cleric of the local church, usually good.  Certainly that is what D&D4 wants you to do and that is fine.  This type of cleric also works as the default leader, whether he/she is or not. So if this is the hand you are dealt, then play it because clerics make great leaders. Under most circumstances they access to power, money, a hierarchy and can expect a modicum of respect from the locals.  All this adds up to instant authority figure.  Even if they are not.

Cleric as the Party Medic

The obvious role.  Clerics have healing magic in earlier editions of the game, have spontaneous healing spells in the 3.x era and can activate healing surges in 4th.  The role of the cleric cannot be overstated.  Parties with out a cleric die.
During my run between 1st and 2nd Ed I created a Healer class.  It shared a number of features that my Witch class did including the ability to heal by touch as she went up in level.  Completely unneeded in 3.x of course, but in 2nd Ed it was quite a game changer.  I also made an NPC healer a pacifist.  She would never raise a weapon to any creature, unless of course it was undead and then she went all Peter Cushing on them.  But running that class and character (she was the only character I ever made for that class) showed me how important the healing aspect was.  There was not just the regaining hit points, there was the player morale.  Also since the character was an NPC it was easy not to have her fight, but the Players really did everything they could to protect her.

BTW. Her name was Celene Weper and she was the youngest daughter of Father Werper above.  Yes clerics in my world get married and have kids, since it is a life affirming thing.
Plus keep in mind that Clerics as Healers has a long tradition even in our own world.  If ever a character decided to become a pure healing cleric and take an oath of non violence then I would give them XP for every hitpoint cured and a share of combat XP.  I would also give them 2x the starting funds (even though they would give what they don't spend back to the church) to represent the investment their churches/hospitals have made in them.  After all, can't send a healer out into the world with shoddy armor. Reflects bad on their organization.

Clerics as Combatants?
It almost seems counter to the above, but clerics are the second best major class when it comes to fighting.  Only fighters (and their related classes) are better.  The get good saves vs. magic due to their high wisdom, or Will saves for the same reason and their saves are pretty decent to start with.   Plus they have one thing fighters don't have, the  ability to use magic.  So what you say, so can Wizards and even your favorite witch.  Yes, but can they do it in field plate armor?  Clerics can.  Sure they do not get the combat spells the wizard gets, but they have a few good ones too.  Creeping Doom is a nasty little spell for Druids.  Finger of Death and reversed Heal spells can also ruin someone's day.
In games without Paladins, Clerics are the "righteous fist of (their) god".  Wizards don't smite.
Clerics can also be one of the few character types that can actually kill monsters with out the moral hnagups.  Even fighters, who get paid, and thieves, that might be working as assassins, don't get the same kind of "get out of jail free card" as do clerics operating within the doctrines of their faith and church.  Think back to the Crusades and the Inquisition, the faithful got away with murder, torture and even more horrible crimes in the name of their God and the law had little to say about it or were in collusion with them.

Clerics might then be one of the more well rounded characters in the group.

Fortune favors the bold

A while back I mentioned that I had gotten paid to write a some D&D material for WotC, well that article is now up.  http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20110427#viewSingle116268921

In it I talk about how my boys and I used the new D&D Fortune Cards while playing Moldvay/Cook D&D (Basic and Expert).
Also posted are other uses for Fortune Cards by other bloggers, all of which are pretty cool.

Have a look at their pages as well and see what they are saying.

http://www.sarahdarkmagic.com/

http://greywulf.net/

http://critical-hits.com/2011/04/27/i-am-fortunes-fool/

Class Compendium: Warlord

Back a bit ago WotC announced they were cutting some books and the minis line and other things and the cry went out far and wide that they were doomed.  To be fair if WotC had changed the name of a book or the cover art there would be people out there on teh internets claiming it was a sign of their near death.

One of the books that met the gallows that day was "Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell".  It's purpose was to update some of the earlier PHB classes to the new Essentials format.  It was never high on my list as something to get; PHB classes and Essentials classes are still equal.  But it would have been nice to see some of the content.

So Wizards has released the Marshal, which is the Essentials version of the Warlord.
And they have done it for free.  In Dragon Magazine 397.

You can download the Marshal from Wizard's site here, http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dra/201103warlord

I checked from other browsers to make sure my DDI password was not cached in.  It is free.

So if you have not looked into the Essentials classes yet here is a good example.

Wanted to Trade

Hey out there!

So I have a couple copies of the 4th Edition "Manual of the Planes" and a copy of the 1st Edition "Manual of the Planes" that I'd like to trade for a 3rd edition version.

The 4e one is in very good condition. A couple of the pages have had some corners bent by accident, but I have it sandwiched between some heavy books and that should fix it.  That is all that is keeping it from being in Mint status.

The 1st Ed one is in really sad shape.  It has one of those "Dragon Skin" covers on it that has melted to the cover.  The book is stained a bit and the binding is loose. It is in poor to fair shape.  You can still turn the pages and read them all.  But I don't want to play this one up, it is in sad shape.

I'd like a 3e version if anyone would part with one.  Just email me or post something below.

I am not at home at the moment, or otherwise I'd post pictures.

White Plume Mountain, I challenge you to do this!

So.  Been a really busy week for me.  Work. School. Family.

I took a mental health break from it all last night around 8:00pm and was looking through all my material for the White Plume Mountain and I realized something.

Edition wars are fundamentally bullshit.

The concept of an "edition war" is based on the idea that one edition of a game is better/worse than another.
My running of White Plume Mountain flies in the face of this.

Here are the materials I am using:

Rule base: D&D 3.0 (not 3.5, just 3.0).
Module: White Plume Mountain, 1st Ed AD&D, with 3rd Ed D&D updates and an extension, Dragotha's Lair, written for 2nd Ed. AD&D.
Characters: A Pathfinder Ranger, a 3.5 ed Paladin that is a 4e race (Dragonborn), a 3.0 witch, a couple of converted elemental sorcerers (were M&M 2ed, now Pathfinder), and a Star Wars revised ed bounty hunter.
Dragotha (Big Bad 1): D&D 4e stats from the Draconomicon.
Keraptis (Big Bad 2): BASIC D&D Witch that I am playtesting.
Plus I am using D&D 4e fortune cards.
Also maps released under GSL and minis from at least 5 or 6 different sources (which are all of course edition-free).

Everything so far has run nice and smooth and everyone is having a blast.

So.  Either I am some Mad Scientist, Super-Genius-level DM that can make all these conversions on the fly  OR there is just not as many differences between these systems as some people think.

You may not like a particular edition, but that doesn't actually devalue it nor change it's worth to others.

Anyone else out there do this kind of D&D freestyle mixing of editions?  What were your experiences?  Did it work? Did it fail miserably?  If none of the above would you be interested in trying it out?

There goes the last shred of my OSR-ness

I am beholden to the man now.

Just got paid for writing some D&D 4e stuff.  Not a lot as you can see, but I didn't write a lot either.

Now if I can just get paid some of the other things I did for companies I'd be very happy.

Last night we stormed Castle Ravenloft

Or at least we did in the board game.

I got the Castle Ravenloft board game for Christmas and I had not played it all yet.  The boys wanted to play some D&D last night (so much so they they were each writing their own adventures when I told them I had nothing ready) but I have something like 65,000 courses to work on before the term starts back up on Monday (out that might be a stretch...48,000).   So we compromised a bit.  I pulled out the Ravenloft Board Game.

I knew we could set up it up and run it in under an hour and my boys love the old "Dungeon" game so I figured what the heck.

We had a great time.

The mere fact that one of the characters is blue colored Dragonborn is enough for my oldest.  I let my youngest use the new elf-archer mini I got for him over the weekend to be the ranger.  I played the Dwarf cleric and we went after the Dracolich.  Since I also have the dracolich mini we used that instead of the non-painted version that came in the box.  The game is D&D4-ish and moves really fast.  Game play is about like Dungeon.  The boys loved that the monsters were random and that combat was fast.  We all liked the "build you own dungeon" feel of it too.

The thing that gets me though...why Ravenloft?  Other than vampires, hags some undead and things like that I see no reason why this had to be set in Castle Ravenloft.  I get the dungeon-crawlyness of it, and I understand the desire to tie it in with a Classic product; but the game could have just as easily been the Tomb of Horrors Board Game or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks Board Game.  Frankly, I could swap out Strahd for Acererak and kept everything else the same (hear that WotC, your next boxed Board Game can be Tomb of Horrors and I want a cut!).   Of course their is obvious reason.  I got this pretty much sight unseen and wanted it largely because it was Ravenloft.  Now that I do have I am much more interested in Wrath of Ashardalon and the Legend of Drizzt one coming out in the Fall.

Yeah, yeah I hear the peanut gallery out there already smirking and saying they thought D&D$ was already a board game...whatever, that argument is old and no longer has any interest to me.  This was more akin to other adventure board games, like Dungeon really.  Plus it was fun.

Looking forward to taking on Strahd sometime soon.  Though I am torn.  If I ever run the original Castle Ravenloft for my boys I don't want the experience to be lack-luster for them.  I mean if they kill Strahd once in the board game, defeating him in his proper element might not have the same weight.

Weekend Recap

Had our first Northlands game group on Saturday.  It was fun. We are playing Pathfinder and have a good group. I am looking forward to more.  The world we are in is one the GM has made, so there are some familiar names mixed in with some that are not, so I am looking forward to seeing how this all works out.

Speaking of Pathfinder. I went to one of the closing Borders books here in the Chicago area and picked up a new Pathfinder core book for my kids to have. It was 30% off.

Mike Mearls has a new column up on WotC's D&D page called "Legends and Lore" which is designed to talk about D&D and it's past, present and future.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110208
Of course, as expected the OSR glitterati have weighed in, most with predictable comments.
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/02/legends-and-lore.html
http://platinumwarlock.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-which-warlock-has-bone-to-pick.html
http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/2011/02/mike-mearls-plea-for-unity.html
http://moldyvale.blogspot.com/2011/02/mike-mearls-whines-for-solidarity.html
http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2011/02/oh-yeah-mearles-then-put-your-money.html
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2011/02/wizards-needs-to-take-leadership.html

I am one of those people that sees more similarities in the games than I do differences, so Mearls' post, while written toward me is not actually directed at me if you know what I mean.  Nor is it really directed at the OSR (which is frankly  too small to be a concern).  While most of the reaction is the same knee-jerk stuff I'd expect, there is a point that nearly everyone makes that I think is worth WotC's time to look in to.  Bringing back older edition in PDF form.  Yes the cynic in me says why should they bother to sell rules to people who already own them, the deeper cynic in me knows that people will buy them anyway (I have) and make money for WotC.
I think a perfect world in WotC's eyes would be that people play what they want, but still buy a DDi subscription.

Gonna be a busy week.  Posting might be light.

Playing D&D with Kids, Part 3 New Old or Old New?

So I am going to chat with my regular DM this weekend (the start of our new Northlands game) and he has run tons of games for kids.

But I wanted to catch the opinion/pulse of all of you.

What "D&D" should I play?

I kinda want to run old Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert to be honest.  I'd make the characters, and do a old timey dungeon crawl.  But truthfully other than my want there is no reason why is has to be B/X.

Should I run it as a newer Retro-Clone (something the kids can go buy)?  As D&D 4 (something they could buy and I know is fun for kids)? Or keep it as B/X?

Basic Fantasy is my current favorite retro-clone, but Labyrinth Lord runs a very close second.
Spellcraft and Swordplay is also a huge fave of mine for Original D&D feel, but I think for this I want to go with something in the Basic realm (which is why I am also not opting for OSRIC).

Thoughts?

D&D Fortune Cards for non-4e D&D

So I picked up a couple of packs of D&D fortune cards the other day.

So far I fail to see what the big deal is.  It adds another random element to play that can be fun.  They are really not all that different than say playing with Drama points, except that you don't get choose the effect they have when you use them.

Basically you start with a deck say of 30, 40 or 50 and then you shuffle them and draw a card each round.  You can hold or play your card.  Some have conditions that need to be met (you or an ally make a skill check) or when something happens to you (you are moved or teleported) or in combat.
Some negate some bad effect, other add a +2 to a roll or even say you can have 1/2 damage or extra damage depending on another roll.

So far I have seen a single card that I would say is a balance or game breaker.  There are some that might give a character an undo advantage, but I also see it as a way to help make combats interesting and constantly changing.

I also didn't see a thing in them that screamed "this is for 4e only".  In fact outside of some minor terminology I could see these working in any version of D&D you care to play.  Sure some would need to be tweaked, shifting has a particular meaning in 4e and saving throws mean something different.  But others would be perfectly fine to use in your favorite retro clone.

There have been some images of cards posted by Wizards, so lets look at them.
Here are two.

Get a Grip - Every version of D&D has a Saving Throw.  They might mean something different, but they have them and making them is good, not making them is bad.  If an ally fails their save, then play this card and they get a second chance.  Yeah-yeah you "save or you die" types are squealing, but frankly these cards were never for you to start with.

Grim Determination needs more definition, but not so much if you just say "bloodied mean half your hit points are gone".

While I may never use these cards in my 4e game, I am going to make a point of trying them out in at least one old-school game sometime soon just to see if they work out.

New Game Group

Tonight will be the first meeting of my new game group.  Well, not so much new and not really mine.
"The Northlands Gaming Group" will be the same members of my "adult" Pathfinder/D&D4 group which is a larger set of my normal Unisystem playtest group.  The DM will be Greg aka Rhonin84.

Tonight is the prep meeting over some Chicago-style pizza.  I am expecting we will be doing more in Greg's own world, which will be a treat.  What I am not sure of yet is which system we will be using.  I have narrowed it down to a few guesses though.

D&D4
Why?  Well we both play it with our own kids separately now and when we get them together. It would be easy to do and between the two of us we have everything.  Plus we had a good Essentials based game recently that was a lot of fun.
Why not? For exactly the same reasons.
My take: I get to play a lot of D&D4 and with this group we will spend a lot of time in combat.  D&D4 combats do take a long time but there are ways to speed it up.

Pathfinder
Why? This is the odds on favorite I think. This is the system that this group started out in.
Why not? These reasons are fewer.  The main reason would be that one of the other systems has something in it that PF does not.
My take:  I like Pathfinder and unless we do it here I am not sure when I'd ever play it.

Retro-Clone
Why? Greg has been telling me for weeks now how much of a fan he is of OSRIC and S&W.  We both love the new B/X Companion. So there is some traction here.
Why Not? The other players are not as familiar with these games as we are.
My Take: I'd love to play in retro-clone game; if done right.

I think I am going to opt for a Paladin in this group; something against my typical witch or wizard.

Looking forward to the first meeting of the new Northlands Gaming Group!

Hold Me Closer Tiny Dancey

Ryan Dancey, the spiritual father of the OGL and in many minds the guy who saved D&D is on ENWorld speaking his mind.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/299860-4-hours-w-rsd-who-am-i-2.html
and some commentary here, http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2011/01/ryand-on-4e.html

Now Ryan is a very knowledgeable guy but he has been accused of Dooming and Glooming in the past (see here as one example).  But he does make a very good point and one WotC needs to answer a bit better.

If I were a noob getting into D&D4, where should I start?  The obvious answer is "the Red Box", but the trouble is the Red Box doesn't look anything like the rest of the line.

If I were not such a noob and want to get started with D&D4 then where do I start?  Essentials? PHB?

These questions are trivial to me and really anyone that reads this blog, but they are not trivial to someone with 20 bucks to spend and wants to play D&D.  They could buy any game, WotC needs to be clear (and clear to whom is also a good question) what someone needs to buy.

Now I *think* that what WotC wanted to have happen is have everyone go to Essentials.  Which is fine and I can see that.  Can everyone?

Here is a quasi-related question that I would like to hear some thoughts on.

If D&D were discontinued what effect would that have on the RPG landscape?

Conventional wisdom says that as D&D goes, so goes the industry.  The same had been said of IBM too.  But is that still true today?

ETA: A similar post by Jason Vey.
http://wastedlandsfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/01/d-demise-would-be-good-for-industry.html

Little Witches

So a while back I mentioned I needed some minis painted.
http://timbrannan.blogspot.com/2010/11/need-some-minis-painted.html

Alisha Ard emailed me some pics of her work and I took her up on her offer, and I am so glad I did.  Here are the witches she painted for me.
First up the Dark Sword Halloween 2009 Witch.  This is my newest Hexblade character.

For the 3.x game I am in with my boys this witch is mother of the one above, I have a few different versions of her since she is also my play-test character for any new magic rules I am working on.

The Laurana Sorceres mini from Reaper,

and my personal favorite, the Larry Elmore Early Snow from Dark Sword,

I think she did a fantastic job on these!  The detail is amazing. If you look at the Laurana one above you can see her spellbook in her bag and see pages.  The reflected glow of my hexblade's magical sword is just too cool.

Here are all three together on my game table.

And here are three of the same character (plus my older Elmore Dark Sword mini).

Even though done by two different painters, I am pleased with how well they look together.  You can't see it here, but there is a streak of grey in the hair of the last mini.  I guess I have them in Maiden, Mother and Crone alignment here.

I want to thank Alisha Ard for painting these.  They look so awesome that I can't wait to play some this weekend.