Something New!

I have recently been inspired and might have something new here in a bit.

No details yet other than I am excited and hope to have something soon.

Dracula: B/X Companion

The new B/X Companion Rules give us the Greater Undead including a Greater Vampire.  This is awesome since it was also something I had done back when my Expert Set was still new.  Of all the Greater Vampires out there, what one is greater than Dracula himself?
Since I have been watching all the movies I figured now is a good time to see if my B/X skills are still good.

Dracula
Greater Vampire*
Armor Class: 0
Hit Dice: 18*** (135 hp)
Move: 150', 180' Flying
Attacks: 2 (or 3)
Damage: 1-10 + Special / 1-8 + life drain
No. Appearing: 1
Save As: Fighter 18
Morale: 12
Treasure Type: G+H (in lair only x2)
Alignment: Chaotic
XP: 6,000

Dracula is one of the most powerful of the greater Undead.  In life he was a great warrior and now in undeath he is even stronger.  Dracula can attack with claws doing 1-10 hit points of damage, if both claws hit, Dracula will then latch on with his fangs and drain blood from his victim equaling two energy levels.  He prefers to only drain his prey with his fangs; his claw attacks never drain life levels (though they can if he chooses).
Dracula is quite adept with a sword or spear, but prefers to use his bare hands.

If encountered in his castle he will also have 2-20 human gypsies to serve him (treat as Fighter 1) and his three vampiric brides (treat as normal vampires).   He will have double the normal treasure of his kind when encountered in his lair, but nothing on him outside of it.  He wears a ring of protection +1 with the Dracula family crest on it.

As per the Vampire, Dracula is immune to sleep, charm and hold spells.  HE may summon 10-100 rats (5-20 giant rats), 10-100 bats (3-18 giant bats) or 3-18 wolves (2-8 dire wolves).    Dracula may shapechange into a large bat or wolf, but his hit points remain unchanged.  Dracula may also regenerate 5 hit points per round as long as he has fed.

Dracula shares all the same weaknesses of other common and Greater vampires including revulsion to mirrors, holy items and garlic.  Running water will destroy him, but a stake in the heart will only immobilize him. Dracula may make a "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" check to remove the stake.  He must be beheaded.  Dracula can also move about during the daylight hours, but prefers not too since he cannot shape change.

B/X Companion is Mine!

I had this cool plan of doing some 4E writing tonight.  A couple of things that have been stewing in the back of my head.  That is till I came home to this:

Yes that is the B/X Companion in all her glory.  The product I think I have been waiting for for close to 30 years.  Sure I have had books that have covered the same ground, and books that made this book obsolete, but somewhere, deep in my psyche there is still that 12 year old version of me wishing he could take his cleric to 15th level.  

The B/X Companion does not disappoint.  Let me just say that if this isn't exactly how it was going to be, then I'd be hard pressed to know what it would have been.  I am reading through it all now and I am purposefully NOT comparing it to the BECMI version of the Companion rules.  Maybe later, maybe even later but before this is posted.  But right now I only want to compare it to the B/X books of which is it is, well, a companion too.

The cover of course is very much part of the original scheme.  The three principle characters, the fighter and the two wizards (or maybe she is a cleric, that could be a "light" spell, though she has a torch too) stand in front of their followers.  They braved the dungeon, the wilderness and now they are ready for the next adventure.  So are we.

For those of us that grew up with the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert sets, the Companion book feels very familiar.  The layout is similar, the flow is similar and even the art has a familiar feel.  If you own the Basic or Expert books then finding something in the Companion book is trivial.  I turned right to the character rules and took a glance at all the tables.  Yes sir they run from 15 to 36, just like promised.  Clerics still top out at 7th level spells, but eventually they get 9 of them.  Wizards still go to 9th level, and get 9 of those too.

Fighters get more attacks per round (as they should) and thieves get more abilities.

There are plenty of new spells here.  Many look like they take their inspiration from the products that came after, the Player's Handbook or the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, but nothing is an out right copy.  It does have the feel like Becker sat around one day and thought, what are some good spells and what level should they be.

There new monsters and advanced versions of some others.  The Greater Vampire nearly made me laugh out loud as I had done the exact same thing after reading and playing the Expert book for so long.  My Greater Vampire was a photocopy of Ptah from Deities and Demigods with some fangs drawn in.  I never claimed to be an artist.  Te monsters all seem to be appropriate for the levels, though a few more in the 30 HD range might have been nice, but not really needed.

The BIG additions here though are the ones that were most "advertised" back in the day. 

Running a High Level Game  is great advice for ANY edition of the game.  It gives this book the same place as say, the Epic Level Handbook for D&D 3.0 or even the Epic Tier for D&D 4.  Chances are very, very good I'll be using the B/X Companion in my next D&D 4 game in fact.

Related are running a domain and running large armies.  Battlesystem would later give us these rules for AD&D, but here they are much simpler to use.  Again, something to consider to port over to other versions of the game.

I loved the new magic items and can never get enough of those.  I also liked the part on the planes and how it is totally left up to design of the DM.  I wonder how many people out there will re-invent the Gygaxian Great Wheel for their B/X/C games?

Others have reviewed this book already and my insights won't add or subtract to those.  A particularly insightful one is by James over at Grognardia.  I concur with a lot of what he had to say, with the possible exception of his take on demi-humans and frankly I have no idea what I would have done in Becker's place as I am not fond of level limits or even demi-humans as classes.  That being said lets put this product in context.

I would have liked thicker covers to be honest. This book I am afraid will not wear so well.  I would also LOVE to have it as a PDF.  I don't bring a lot of books to the table anymore, I bring a laptop.  So can you hear me JB!  Sell me a PDF! :)

Companion to Basic/Expert Rules

Obviously this is where it works the best.  But there is something here that I don't think others have tapped into just yet.  Companion makes the Moldvay/Cook rules a complete game.  With these three books you now have a complete D&D game.  The only thing really missing is a "C1" module or maybe a BXC one.

Companion to Labyrinth Lord/Basic Fantasy

The new Becker Companion has a lot it owes to Labyrinth Lord (LL) and Basic Fantasy (BFRPG).  While maybe not directly, these two games showed that there is a market out there for "Basic" styles of play.  Both LL and BFRPG take the modern 1-20 level limit for human classes.  Companion is 15 to 36.  So some adjustments need to be made.  There are a few differences in the how each of these books calculate XP per level, and how they do spells.  But nothing so complicated that a a good DM couldn't figure out.  

Personally if I were playing a LL/BFRPG game, I'd go to 15th level and then switch over to B/X Companion. for the next levels to 36.  OR even go to 20 and use B/X Companion as a guide to levels 30 or even 36.

Frankly the homebrewiness of it all has me very excited for anyone that has decided to throw their lot in with "Basic" D&D.

The B/X Companion vs. the BECMI Companion

Ok, I know I said above I wasn't going to do this, but after re-reading James's post over at Grognardia and his post on the Mentzer Companion I felt it was worth a look.

Now I am no expert on the Mentzer era of the rules.  I had moved to AD&D by the time they were out and I never owned them.  I picked up the Rules Cyclopedia a while back and got all the BECMI boxes on PDF back when Wizards sold them on DriveThru.

Both Companions cover similar ground.  The spell progressions and XP look about the same (given that they use simple math, no surprise).   The BECMI Companion only goes to 25th level, not 36 like the B/X Companion. The BECMI Companion generally speaking has more detail than the B/X one, but that is not really a nitpick since the abstraction of the rules in B/X is greater to allow more with less; just like the B/X books it was modeled after.  

Final Tally

I like this book. A lot.  It makes me want to pull out my ratty Basic and Expert books and play Moldvay/Cook era Basic D&D again.   In the mean time, I think I'll just have to satisfy myself with converting some D&D 3.0 or 4e characters over to Companion,  just for the fun of it.

One thing that did disappoint me though was the lack of the OGL.  There is a lot of really cool stuff here and it could be shared.  I suppose that something like this, talking to Johnathan Becker is always the best the way to go.  

What is Old School?

I read a lot of old school and OSR (not always the same thing) blogs.  I admire the passion felt by these players and I can understand where they are coming from even if I can't honestly consider myself part of the "old school movement".  After all what I share with these folks, outside of age, is we all started out pretty much the same.  As the years went by we all tried different games.  The main difference is that these players went back to those older games and I kept going on.

I love my old D&D books, I love my clones, but I also like Pathfinder and D&D4 and a slew of other games that are no where near D&D.  But this all has gotten me thinking.

What is Old School?

Is it just playing an older, maybe unsupported, set of rules?  Is it a DIY thing related to the first point?  Is it objecting to a rules-set? (cause I have to say that by in large the old school crowd seems to bitch more about D&D4 than the D&D4 crowd does about old-school).  Is it doing more with less?

What makes you want to play OD&D or one of it's clones, cousins or copies?

I'll be blunt about my reasons, it's nostalgia, pure and simple.  I like to play the older games because I liked them 20+ years ago.

Tell me your reasons why you play an old-school version of D&D (original print or clone).

This will not end well

I like to keep an eye on the OSR movement since I like the spirit of what is going on, I love many of the products and most of the people involved are also very cool.

But this is something that will not end well at all.

http://www.diecastgamesinc.com/ADD-Adventures_c2.htm

I also saw this at Gen Con and wondered at first if this was an old TSR book that never saw the light of day or something new.
This issue here of course is using a trademark, "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" which is specifically prohibited by the OGL.

There are more discussions going about here:

• http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-cant-believe-im-rooting-for-wotc-to.html
• http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-not-to-use-ogl.html
• http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/08/kerfuffle-in-offing.html
• http://underdarkgazette.blogspot.com/2010/08/well-i-wonder-how-this-will-go-over-tsr.html

• http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=44132&sid=54adce16cc39c4cbfa3fdcdcd08093f4
• http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7268
• http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about10369-0-asc-0.html

Even people that don't like new D&D or WotC see this as a bad move.

There are a lot of problems with this, mostly effecting the OSR publishers wishing to reach out to new audiences.

This is one to keep an eye on.

There is an OSR debate?

So without linking or getting into any details I guess there is some sort of OSR debate going on.  Again.

See here is the thing about this kind of flare-ups.  If you don't hear about it it's like they are not even real.

Here is the OSR news I know and care about.
- I have my copy of "Palace of the Vampire Queen" now.  One more thing off my D&D-bucket list.
- OSR products are getting into some Borders. (by a company that also produces a ton of 4e products)
- I am going to run my kids through "Palace of the Silver Princess" orange version sometime in the next couple of weeks.
- There are some Ennie noms for some OSR-related products.  Good on them!
- There is a "homage/retro-clone" of 2nd Ed coming out.
- Tomb of Horrors for 4th ed is out now at my FLGS.  I am sure that is making someone out there foaming at the mouth in nerd rage.

Outside of that you don't hear anything about this in the stores (in fact you hear nothing) and most players (the ones that buy the products) don't care.

Arguing about it just makes the whole thing seem like an "us vs. them" and usually I find myself on the side of the people making the less noise. Or the ones that irritate me the less.

Personally, I am probably not part of the OSR.  Sure, I play old games, I also play the newest ones and indie games too.  I write for older games...and newer ones and small press. But I also have never bought into the "one-true-way" idea anyway and really neither do most game authors.

In the immortal words of Gary, "shut the fuck up and play." Oh wait, that was my old DM, not Gary.
Might as well burn my OSR membership card now and forget the secret handshake.

What if Gygax had done 2nd Ed?

Quick one for now. I am on my way to campus.

I have been following the OSR scene now for a while and have seen the attempts to do retellings of the most famous RPG in history. Associated with that is the wave of nostalgia for all things from the hands of the Old Masters (Gygax, Holmes, Arneson) and this had gotten me thinking.

What would 2nd Ed AD&D have looked like if Gygax had still been at TSR?

  

I suppose we should look at the variables.  What was TSR doing at the time (late 80s), what was Gygax doing (Mythus, Dangerous Journeys, and later Lejendary Adventures) and how would that have all blended into what could have been the 2nd Ed AD&D as written by Gary.

This is all speculation; I am not a Gygaxian scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But I am curious to know what you all think.

Would we have seen more classes? (I think so) More skills? (certainly) and I also think given the direction that TSR was headed and what Gygax did in DJ/Mythus that we would have seen more "world" books for different genres of play.  So instead of Spelljamer (D&D in space) we would have gotten a Space Opera game that used the AD&D 2ed rules.  Or not.

Thoughts?

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to Herb and Jason Vey.  They uncovered this link for me.
http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2009/02/ad-second-edition.html
I will have to read that in detail when I can.

Treasure Discovery!

So I found a disk I had burned a bunch stuff.  Mostly this was some writing I had done back in the days of the Buffy-Angel playtests and then later the Ghosts of Albion playtests.

Most of it will stay on the disk.  It is either too old or not really representative of the kinds of things I do now.  But here and there there are some gems I had forgotten about. So things that would make for some good posts. Mostly Unisystem, there is also some d20 stuff, a few other systems, and even I think something for AD&D 2nd ed.  Quite an assortment really.

It might take me a bit to sort it all out, and then a bit more to bring anything on it to post-able quality, but I am looking forward to it.

Reflection time!

Lot's going on around the ole' Other Side over the last few days. Let's recap.

New Followers
Welcome all new followers and thank you for your continued support to all!  If there is anything you would like to see me opine about, shoot me an email or a post.  I turned off moderation, which means I do get the occasional spammer, but I thought it would be better for ease of communications.

Ronnie Jame Dio
RJD died.  Truthfully he was as much an influence on my games as are names like Moorcock and Tolkien.  OK, maybe not that much, but he was still an influence.

Twilight the RPG
WOW. That struck a nerve.  I want to spend some more time on this one.  Just not sure what else I want to say yet.

Pathfinder weekend
Got to play Pathfinder with "the big kids" again this weekend.  I am just 125 XP for leveling up!   IT was a great time.  We were also just a table down from where Mike "Chgwiz" was playing his old school OSRIC game.  I didn't talk to him about his leaving the blog scene (I thought that would be rude), but it sounds like he has a hell of a game going.  So that is awesome.

More later today I think.

Gen Con 2010, Ghosts and more

So I bought my Gen Con tickets for myself and my family.  We are committed to going now.
Well I always was.

Talked to my regular GM and he also wants to run some Ghosts of Albion games.  So even more Ghosts fun this year!

Like everyone else it seems I am gaga over the new hotness that is Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion.  More on that soon.

And I am totally digging the new trailer for The Last Airbender, seen here at Hero Press.  http://www.heropress.net/2010/02/other-avatar.html

Monks come from Blackmoor, part 2

So reflecting on my previous post, Monks come from Blackmoor, I went back and looked over my new (new as of Gen Con) 4e Blackmoor book.  Right there, just as I remembered was the Mystic.  Not what I liked about this Mystic class is it reminded me so much of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia Mystic.  I am not sure how they stack up against the official 4e Monks, but right now that doesn't matter much to me since these Mystic look like they fit the bill I want as is, right now.  So well in fact I am going over my 4e Blackmoor book with a renewed interest.

Their power source is "Spiritual" rather than "Psychic", but that could just be splitting hairs.  The effect is largely the same for my use.  Though Spiritual is a bit better sounding for what I want to do with them.

They do compare well to some of the other 3rd party monk classes I have seen for 4e, so I Am inclined to say, balance or not, they are roughly compatible with the 4e monks.

Given the roots that Blackmoor share with Mystara I might even go out on a limb here and say Blackmoor has no clerics in the traditional sense.  The people of Blackmoor worship, or at least honor, immortals.  They are not gods and don't grant spells.  Clerics, normally the healers of a group, can be replaced by nobles  who have healing powers and the wokan who also have healing powers and herbalism.  This is not really a big issue as one might think.  D&D4 is using the paths to immortality that was fairly common in Basic D&D and with the Leader roll and everyone having access to healing now, the cleric can be left be things other than the party medic.  Nobles then could gain this as part of their background fluff.  They are trained as both healer and soldier. This also gives the the Nobel class something to do. The hands of the king are the hands of the healer anyone? The msytic/monk then can focus on the spiritual aspects of life.

The people then of Blackmoor do not believe in gods per se. They know their are supper powerful beings out there, but they are hardly owed worship.  Honor in some cases yes, for their deeds, not their words.

I like this idea to be honest with you. Sets up a very different sort of culture for Blackmoor and I like that.

My game world is taking shape.

What Should an OSR Witch Do or Be?

So Eldritch Witchery is on the (far) horizon and it has been getting me thinking.
What should an Old-School Witch do?

One of the strengths of the older games, and maybe something we have gotten away from in newer game design, is trying to do more with less.  The older games had four classes (give or take) and these represented roles of the characters, it was then up to the player to detail and refine those roles and characters.

Lets look at the class "Magic User" for a bit.  Magic User does not automatically mean "Wizard".  It took me a while to get that  (I blame 2nd Ed).  We lost this distinction in later versions of the game and even in popular thought during the "golden age".  But really Magic User should really mean anyone that uses magic, whether you call them Wizard, Wu-Jen, Sorcerer, Illusionist, Mystic, Necromancer or even Witch is up to the player (but not Cleric or Priest...).  For most people this is fine.  Others want more definition to the role.
In Spellcraft & Swordplay we already now have a Necromancer.  One could argue there is a bit of "divine" magic that a Necromancer must channel to do his job.  He is still a "magic user" just a very specific one.  Same was seen in AD&D 1st Ed with the Illusionist, but that was a separate class.  Druid, Ranger, Paladin and Assassin are the same way for their respective roles.  It is is easy to see why it happens and even why it needs to happen.  So accepting there are general roles and then some specific roles where can we go with a concept like a witch?

The witch then, as a class, should be something special.  When I write for Buffy, WitchCraft or even Witch Girls Adventures, the witch is the defacto magic using class, but in a world where magic is largely unknown.  In D&D and it's clones the Wizard is the main class.  The role of the witch then should be to provide that air of mystery and "otherness" that the wizard and other magic-users no longer supply*.
*The caveat here being "in many games", there is nothing saying you can't have mysterious wizards in your game.

When I did the witch for 2nd Ed AD&D, she was basically a type of divine spell caster with access to various arcane spells and occult powers.  In 3rd Ed/d20 I flipped that to make her an arcane spell caster with access to divine spells and occult powers.  The same seems mostly true for all the other d20/3.x witches I have seen over the years.  IF (that's a big if) I were to do a witch for 4th Ed then I would up the occult power angle with access to "divine" and "arcane" powers.

Looking to games like Spellcraft & Swordplay, Basic Fantasy RPG or Labyrinth Lord I think I want to keep the arcane power base, to make her mostly similar to the current "Magic Users" in those games, but continue to shuffle to spell list to offer some differences. Add things like some minor healing spells (at later levels than the Cleric gets them), and certainly increase her ability to make potions and other minor magics.  Someone has to be stocking all those dungeons with potions and Amulets of Protection.  To aid that air of mystery she should have some powers that wizards/magic-users don't have.  Something that when she uses them the other characters need to be thinking "how did she do that?"

One thing I don't want though is class bloat.  That seems too much against the Old-School thought.  I have an edition of D&D with 100s of classes.  Actually I have more than one edition.  But an OSR game should be tight. Add what is needed and no more than that.

So what is a witch in an old-school game?
She is an arcane spell caster. So she learns her magic from other agents, be they familiars sent by powers unknown, the powers themselves or handed down mother to daughter.  She also gains certain divine magics due her ties with the natural world. This puts her at odds with more traditional wizards, who see her as little more than a hedge wizard, and clerics, who see her as a heretic to their beliefs.  Witches also gain a set of occult powers, magical effects she can use like spells, but come without study or practice.  Witches learn in Traditions (how their magic is taught to them) and form Covens, groups of other, like minded witches.

The prime ability for magic-users is Intelligence.  For clerics it is Wisdom.  Witches have been called "the craft of the wise" and I have been using Wisdom as their prime ability for years.  But I think a strong case can be made for Charisma here. This is the section on charisma from Spellcraft & Swordplay:

Charisma is a combination of a character’s personal magnetism, presence, and appearance. The higher the charisma, the more impressive the character is. Whether this manifests as an ominous intimidation or an ethereal beauty is up to the player in question.

If the witch is dealing with other-worldly agents to learn her magic, then only the most successful ones are the ones with the personality to hold their own.  I think charisma then is the way to go here.  Plus if we have three magic using classes now (magic-user, cleric and now witch) then it makes sense that each one uses a different mental stat for their magic workings.  I would say though witches still need a high wisdom in order to be successful.  Of course this leads to the all witches are therefore good looking cliché seen all too often in games and stories.  Not that I have anything at all against a sexy witch (far from it), but Baba Yaga is also a witch and mentioned in the OD&D books.  Obviously then Baba Yaga has a very high charisma, but in the terrifying and intimidation sense, not in the hot witch sense.

Why do witches go on adventures?
In the pulps and related fictions that had an influence on the fathers of role-playing games, witches occurred fairly frequently.  But they were often the means of the quest, not on it.  The heroes went to the the witch, or she was the one sending them on the quest or the reason they were questing.  In games terms that puts them in the NPC category fairly squarely.    A witch though might want to go on adventures for the same reasons that wizards and other magic users do; to learn more magic.  Or maybe she is on a quest of her patron power.  Or she is on a pilgrimage to a sacred site.  In truth any reason why a wizard or cleric would adventure is a good reason for a witch.  And let's not forget the most tried and true reasons, to become a hero or at the very least kill things and take their stuff.

Do witches belong in D&D?  Well that would depend on your own games I think.  But given all the attempts over the years, from the earliest Dragon magazines to Paizo's latest playtest, I think there is certainly a desire to include her by many.

Here is hoping that Eldritch Witchery lives up to all of that!

Monks come from Blackmoor

I have been re-reading all my old original D&D books lately.  Fun stuff.
But I caught something today that I know I have read before, but now it jelled differently.

The Monk Class was introduced in the Blackmoor supplement.
Monks come from Blackmoor.

Now I am thinking for my Blackmoor, whether I use an OSR game or 4e, will have monks.  Sure it might not fit, but it is certainly an interesting concept.

Of course when most people think monks they think Kwai Chang Caine or Oriental Adventures. What if this sect of Monks were still psychic ascetics who trained their mind and body, not so much for a higher religious purpose, but more like something from the psychic awareness boom/New Age we saw in the 1970's.  So less Caine and more Uri Geller.

Yeah, the more I think about this idea the more I like it.   New Agey, crystal wearing hippie monks with psychic powers come from the "forgotten lands" of Blackmoor.  In the community of Blackmoor they replace the clerics as the spiritual leaders, getting people to work out their problems through peace, love and understanding.  When that doesn't work, they go all Neo on you and bend a spoon on your ass.  I'll look over  the "Mystic" class again in my 4e version of the Blackmoor book and see if there are any parallels that I can make work with this concept.

Blackmoor is quickly becoming my go to place for doing some cool Old School sandbox creating.

Elmore Art for Old School

I am working on Eldritch Witchery for Elf Lair Games and I have the bulk of it written now.  There are some editing issues and I need to tweak a few of the spells and monsters to fit the old school theme a bit better than when I originally wrote them.

But I do have a question to pose to the OSR.  Elmore art, use it or not?

I love the art in the Spellcraft and Swordplay and would love to have something very much like that in EW.  I also am a fan of Larry Elmore and since for as long as I can remember (or at least since 1986) I have wanted to do a witch book with Elmore art.  It's a thing.

I know that the original version of S&S that had Elmore art was criticized and the new art is a lot better, but Elmore and witches have such a close relationship in my mind that I would not be doing myself justice if I didn't include at least one piece.

I know many in the OSR equate the advent of certain artists to be indicative of "the end of the Golden Era" (mini rant here: Yeah like the art in the LBBs was so excellent it could never have been improved on!) Which I have to say is not very fair to the artists in question.

But at the same time I do respect the feelings the OSR has.  After all if it were not for that passion 90% of the old-school/retro-clone games would have never been made and I would not have had the chance to even do this book.

So Old Schoolers, what do you say?

Going (Up) to Hell? Cosmology

I was reading a very interesting post by Mike Mearls the other day about dropping the structure of the planes in favor of something more local. Read his post here, http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2010/01/kill-planes-abyss.html.

Ok? good.

I think his reasons of course are sound and fit nicely with something I have wanted to do forever. When I first picked up that 1^st Ed copy of Deities and Demigods I loved the Planes. It had so many interesting places and so many things to do. I got very attached to the Great Wheel cosmology that I began to evaluate fantasy and later horror on how closely it fit that model. Then I began to get lazy. Not in the sense that would not write, quite the opposite, I would come up with elaborate schemes to make things fit the model or not. Whether it needed to or not. Even in my AD&D Grand Opus Adventure the characters went to Hell to confront the evils that invaded their world there was still the Great Wheel. It worked, then, but now I feel it's limitations. Well along came 3^rd Edition and suddenly the planes are mutable, changing and even expected to be different depending on how you look at them; 4E changes this even more.

Mike Mearls mentions in his blog that one of the issues of the planes being "out there" that they lose some of their value. History tells us that demons, devils and other bad things came from under-ground, or beyond that mountain or from across the sea; here there be monsters. Monsters come from "beyond the sky" in Lovecraft related fiction, which is fine for tentacle horrors, but devils at least are concerned with the same things humans are. Devils need to be close. They need to be something the common man, woman and child fears. Not just because they are evil, but because they are nearby.

Mike says move the Abyss to your world, I say move Hell.

Hell in 4e now seems to be a planet floating somewhere in the Astral Sea. This puts it on par with everything else, even Heaven. Now I am not a religious person, but doesn't Hell lose some of what makes it Hell if it just a planet with bad environmental conditions? They describe it as planet some 7,000 miles in diameter with the "layers" lower and lower subterranean continent sized caverns. Like Mearls, I say take all that and shove it inside your world. Drill down a few hundred miles and there is the entry way to Hell. Just like Dante described. What keeps the devils in? Same thing that keeps them there now, gates. Like the roach motel it is, it is easy to get, impossible to get out. Or nearly such. Of course the point between the Underdark and Abyss sharing a nature is sound, I think I can get the same thing with the Nine Hells really. In fact I might even make Lolth more like a devil (she is more devil like than demon like anyway) given her status as former Goddess, cast out and down. Sound familiar? It certainly fits with what Hell is supposed to be better, an underground dungeon for the damned. The Abyss is a maelstrom of evil and chaos, it fits better in the planes.
Of course this is not without issues. First, and the one that concerns multi-versal games the most, is that Hell inside a planet means that for every copy/twin/multiverse that planet is in there is a corresponding Hell. This might be fine really. I don't care for some of the changes made to some of the Arch Dukes in the last few books (3 & 4), but I can write that off as that is just the way things are in that universe. Which is something we all do anyway, I am just making it explicit. Of course the new 4e cosmology also gives us the Shadowfell and the Feywild, which I like, but if they are dark and twisted reflections of our own world then what about the Hell for those worlds? I say that their Hells are ours. That if you drill down in the Shadowfell you end up in the same Hell as if you did it in the Feywild or the campaign world.
Back in the day there was a great series of Dragon articles about the various Arch Dukes and Dukes of Hell. The article began with a bit of fiction about a Paladin (a holy warrior for good) marching on to Hell to defeat evil at the source. This scene works better today than it even did then with Devils now generally evil rather than exclusively "Lawful Evil". And it works better if the Paladin is marching to Hell, not paying a wizard for an Astral Projection spell.

Sure *where* it is physically located might mean little to PCs and DMs with access to magical means of travel, but the world should make sense to normal people too. What is there to fear about a creature, evil and immortal or not, if it takes a great amount of magic to get them here.

Gygax was a reader of Dante, Milton and of Ovid. These authors, as much as anything and maybe more so, shaped what we think of when we think of Hell. "Planet Hell" inside the Earth/World then fits very well with all these writers. More than a plane "out there" somewhere. Which does bring up an interesting point. Here is a quote from Milton's "Paradise Lost",

"Orcus and Ades, and the dreaded name Of Demogorgon."

— John Milton, Paradise Lost II. 966.

So. Lucifer is cast out of Heaven and down into Hell, he meets up with these demons in some…what, ante-chamber of Hell, a place where Chaos rules with Night. Sounds like the Abyss, but where is that again? I have often wanted to merge Hell and they Abyss into one place where demons are the masses of creatures and devil are the upper-class. If I put Hell inside my world (or the Abyss like Mearls) then do I have room for both? Do I need both? Are they the same thing with different names? Then there are other issues I have avoided because of the aforementioned laziness. Tiamat is described in myth as "chaos" and her body is destroyed to make the firmament of the Earth. But then she gets tossed into Hell? Sure, it fits the outcast god model, but Tiamat is chaos. Lilith is also cast out, but she wants order, her own order, but order all the same; at least that is how I read it. Grazzt looks like a Devil, but is a Demon or maybe he is not. And there is the bit from Milton. So what is a world builder to do? And where is this antechamber of Hell were Demogorgon and Orcus act as the Welcome Wagon for Lucifer and the cast out Angels, now Devils? Hell has the River Styx, where the souls of the dead are ferried across, but now the souls of the dead move through the Shadowfell. This makes me want to break out the WitchCraft RPG seprioths and see if I can't make it all work.

Well here is my stab at it. The Antechamber is of course the Underdark. It is hundreds of miles below the surface of the planet. Here in the deepest pit was where the fallen angels were cast. It is here that they meet the demons. There is a great battle, Orcus (then a dark god) is killed only to come back from the dead, Demogorgon has his head cleaved in half (to regrow as two heads) and Ades…well that was the last anyone heard of him. The devils (as they are now known) take the realm once controlled by demons. Once there though the devils discover that Hell is not the home of the demons, it was only the realm they could control this close to the world. The devils seal the opening to the Abyss, place Tiamat there to guard against demonic entry and the devils themselves descend lower into Hell. Physically the Abyss and Hell (and Tarterus and Pluton and Gehenna) are all the same place locked deep within the Earth in a area were the Prime Material, Shadowfell and Feywild all intersect. The nine layers controlled by the Arch Dukes and Devils is known as Hell. Everything else is simply "The Underworld". The conditions are, well Hellish, it is inside a planet afterall, but great and powerful magics keep the denizens alive, though it warps other magic and prevents them from escaping. The areas known as the Abyss are open and there is much fighting, the area known as Hell is gated. It is supposed to be a prison after all.

At the bottom there is a dark chasm who feeds into the elemental chaos. I like the description of the Abyss in the new Manual of the Planes, it makes it sound like a black hole in the Astral.

It needs some work to be sure. Demons, like Demogorgon, Orcus, Pazuzu and others have more interest in human affairs than the mindless hoards of demons because they are more devil like, and thus, more human like. Older demons such as Dagon are more elemental chaos. Even Tiamat now is more demonic than diabolic. This helps explain the Bloodwar a bit better, explains the similarity between demons and devils and why in popular parlance (in the world) they are often confused. It also helps explain why some seem to switch sides every now and then. Or simply put, devils are the cast out immortals of good that betrayed or otherwise became evil. Demons always were evil.

Of course I could keep the Abyss as is in 4^th Ed. There are plenty of good reasons to keep it in the elemental chaos in the Astral. Demons are more elemental, more chaotic obviously and more alien. Of "demon" can just be a term to refer to anything that is evil that is not a devil. If I go that route then "Devils" would refer only to the Fallen and things like Ice Devils, Malebranche and the like are demons, just a different kind. After all, Succubi were demons and now they are devils, so it's not like there isn't precedent.
What does removing the demons and devils from the "outer planes" rob us of in D&D? Well, Planescape to a large degree would need to be rethought. To a lesser extent the nature of Tieflings will need to be changed, though maybe not. Typically to get to those outer planes takes characters of some power, so there is the build up to go to their home turf and fight that is now gone; ie. anyone can find the opening to Hell and stumble in.

OR maybe demons come the "Hells" of the Shadowfell and Feywild.

Of course there is one huge advantage of reshaping the planes. I can shape them in a way to work with either my 4^th Ed game or my OSR/Basic game or even something like Ghosts of Albion.

That is the fun thing about fantasy cosmology, it can be a mutable as I need it to be.

Why I still enjoy the OSR

I was going through a bunch of my OSR books the other day.  Played around with converting (again!) my Family D&D night over to some unholy version of D&D Rules Cyclopedia and Basic Fantasy Role-Playing, but dropped that idea for some good reasons (if my kids are going to play D&D in other places then I should start them out with the rules that are most popular in their school). I do really like the idea of picking up a "Basic" game sometime.  I figure using the D&DRC and starting everyone out at 5th or 6th level is close to the experience they would have with D&D 4th Ed.

Don't get me wrong. I am really enjoying D&D 4, and yes it is entirely possible to have an "old school experience" with this game.  It is less (to me) about the rules and more about what you do with them.  Yeah I know there are plenty of people out there that will tell how "wrong" that is or I am, but who cares? I am having fun.

I was also reading over my Original Edition D&D books this past weekend.  They are fun to have and one day I will play that version again.   The White Box edition of Swords & Wizardry is getting a lot of noise out in OSR land now and that is cool.  Spellcraft & Swordplay though is still my favorite OSR book and that is not just because I am friends with Jason, but because it really works for me.  I like the "garage band" feel of it.

I hope the OSR does not loose any steam anytime soon.  It has been very cool watching this grow and prosper over the last year or so.  The messages boards and blog posts are still going strong so that is a good sign.  The books also keep going out and that is the best sign of all.

Eldritch Witchery, Back to Basics

I am returning to work on Eldritch Witchery, my guide to witches and warlocks for the Spellcraft & Swordplay RPG. The idea is simple really; make a witch class for the game. But I want to do this class justice and not just do a retread of the material I have written for other games.


So I am going back to school.

I have been rereading old Dragon and White Dwarf magazines from the 70s to the early 80s to get a proper feel for the game as it was then. What were people talking about and doing in their games. I have also been going over my basic assumptions. Why is a witch needed if we already have Clerics and Wizards? What niche does a witch fill in a Sword and Sorcerery game? For this I am indebted to Jason Vey who has been giving me a crash course in all things Pulp related. Conan (whom I never really read and now understand I know next to nothing about), the works of Robert Howard and how they relate to Lovecraft. Plus I have been thinking a lot about my own influences for D&D. Clark Ashton Smith is a big one for me. I have been rereading all my old D&D books and notes. My first witch character was made in October of 1986, I wrote my first set of rules (20 pages) around her.

What has this done for me?

Well I have a pretty good idea what I want to do and how I want to do it and it is different than say my d20 version of the witch, or even the magic I wrote about in Ghosts of Albion. What does a witch do in the world of Spellcraft & Swordplay. Well the witch is more connected to the primal nature of magic. I hesitate to say “beyond good and evil” but maybe before good and evil. She is like nature. I also want to incorporate a lot of what is old folklore and fairy tales about witches. So these are defiantly more Baba Yaga than Sabrina.

What do Witches Do?

In any game you need to figure out where a character’s niche will be. What is it that the character will do, what can she do and what will she bring to the adventuring party. Where does she fit in this world organically. I also want keep in mind the classical or stereotypical powers of the witch; casting spells, making potions, the evil eye, curses, charms, turning people into animals, flying on brooms, consulting with familiar spirits. The witch then for me needs to provide that air of mystery in a world already full of magic and magical-using characters. She needs to have something special about her, I want the other characters in the group to say, “We need her, she is a witch!”

Hopefully players will say the same thing.

Next time, more on the occult powers of the witch class.

Scarecrow

"Scarecrow on a wooden cross, blackbird in the barn…" - John Mellencamp, Scarecrow

When I think back to Halloweens of my childhood one image keeps coming back to me. No not vampires or witches, those were more artifacts of my later years. No the image that kept my 4-5 year old self up at night is a Scarecrow. We had the cardboard, jointed Scarecrow that that was common in the 70's. We hung up in our house for a couple of Halloweens. Given the house, I had to have been 4 or 5 at the time. That thing scared the hell out me. I don't feel that fear now, nor even the memory of it, just the memory of the memory, devoid of fear. It's odd really. So this year we wanted to find a Scarecrow for our house, now some 35 years later. I have NEVER seen one though that can match up to the memory I have. So it should be no surprise that I have used Scarecrows in all my games. In fact, Larry Elmore was channeling me (of course!) with this famous cover to Dragon Magazine. I loved the witch on it (and no one can do a witch quite like Mr. Elmore) but that Scarecrow is just plain evil.

For this Halloween here is a collection of Scary Scarecrows to add to your games. Not every game is here, but some of the ones I have used in the past.

Ghosts of Albion/Cinematic Unisystem
Scarecrow

Razzle dazzle drazzle drone. Time for this one to come home.
Razzle dazzle drazzle die. Time for this one to come alive!
- Parchment found near a risen scarecrow

Scarecrows are basic guardians similar to druthers, but not nearly as powerful. Like mundane scarecrows, their bodies are made of straw and cloth. They stumble clumsily about their assigned area and attack most anything that wanders through it. Some scarecrows are bound to a post, and use their paralyzing (fear) gaze to imprison any trespassers.
Scarecrows are assigned to protect a particular area. They never leave the area, even when chasing an intruder. They will attack anything humanoid or animal-like in appearance that walks into it's territory, unless otherwise instructed by their creator.

Name: Scarecrow
Motivation: To follow orders
Creature Type: Magical Construct
Attributes: Strength 4, Dexterity 2, Constitution 6, Intelligence 0, Perception 1, Willpower 0
Ability Scores: Muscle 16, Combat 5, Brains 0
Life Points:
Drama Points: 1
Powers: Fear Gaze (paralyze), Hard to Kill 2, Immune to cold, fear, poisons, sleep, water, and any mind effecting spell, Vulnerability to fire.

Manoeuvres
Name Score Damage Notes
Punch 5 8 Bash
Slam tackle 5 8 Bash
Takedown 6 4
Dodge 6 Defence action
Grapple 7 Resisted by Dodge

A scarecrow can paralyze a victim with its gaze via its fear attack. The victim needs to make a Willpower check (doubled) with at least one success level.
Because of their straw bodies, scarecrows are extremely vulnerable to attacks from fire. They take double damage from all fire attacks. In addition, a scarecrow guardian will catch fire easily after any attack that would normally ignite mundane items.

Construction
A scarecrow can be created easily by a standard ritual. A basic scarecrow is used for the body. It usually takes a couple of hours to construct a scarecrow, not counting the time for the ritual.

Animate Scarecrow
Quick Cast: No
Power Level: 3
Philosophy: Witchcraft
Requirements: The creation of a scarecrows body and an hour long ritual.
Components: Common components.
Effect: The witch must prepare the scarecrows body out of hay, straw and old clothes. This should take at least an hour or two to gather materials and make the body. Longer times are needed for more complex scarecrows, but never more than three hours. Successful casting means the scarecrow is animated and will respond to the witchs commands.
Spell failure or backfire results in a scarecrow that can never be animated. The witch will need to burn the wood and start over.
Creation: Alteration, minor (+3), Casting Time (-2), Touch (-1), Permanent (+6), Unusual materials (-1), Philosophy ().

Witch Girls Adventures
Scarecrow (Rank 2 Monster)

Body: d8
Mind: d2
Senses: d2
Will: d2
Social: d2
Magic: d2

Life Points: 16
Reflex: 11
Resist Magic: 5
Zap: 10

Skills: Fighting +2, Scare +6

Abilities
Construct: Scarecrows are created and are immune to Mentalism magic. They also feel no pain, never grow tired and do not need to eat or sleep.
Vulnerability to Fire: Scarecrows take x3 damage from fire.
Fear: Scarecrows are surrounded by an aura of fear. (Scare Skill at +6)

Magic
None

Equipment
Whatever they made with. Some witches will equip their Scarecrows with a mowing scythe.

Description: Scarecrows look exactly like normal scarecrows, though those with the ability to see magical auras will notice an aura around the Scarecrow and possibly an evil looking glow in their eyes. Scarecrows can follow very simple orders. "Guard this field from trespassers." "Keep everyone but me and those I am with out of this barn." The words are not as important as the intent of the words. As long as it is simple and the witch can put it in a sentence or two then the Scarecrow will follow her commands.

• Cryptozoology fact: Scarecrows can be created by any witch with the proper spells, but regardless of the type of witch all Scarecrows "Seem" evil.


• Cryptozoology fact: Witches cannot turn people into Scarecrows nor bind their spirits to one, that is only rumor.


• Cryptozoology fact: Scarecrows are known for their fear causing effects and their difficulty to make; a Scarecrow in a field is a good sign that the witch that owns it is powerful.

Create Scarecrow Spell
Conjuration, Rank 3
The witch needs to construct a scarecrow and then use this spell in order to bring it to life. The spell is difficult to learn because it is no longer featured in most spell texts. The cost to make the Scarecrow materials and construct it is worth only 10 allowance points, but can take a couple of hours to fashion properly.

Spellcraft & Swordplay
Scarecrow

#App: 1 (1-2)
AL: N
SZ: M
AC: 3
Move: 40'
HD: 3 (13 hp)
Attacks: Slam (fists)
Special: Immune to sleep, charm, paralysis, compulsion
Treasure: None
XP: 20 + 39 (59)

Vulnerable (Fire)

D&D 3.x / d20
Scarecrow Guardian (From my "Liber Mysterium")
Medium-Sized Construct
Hit Dice: 3d10 (15 hp)
Initiative: -2 (Dex)
Speed: 30 ft.
AC: 10 (-2 Dex, +2 Natural)
Attacks: Slam +2
Damage: Slam 1d6
Face/Reach: 5 ft by 5 ft
Special Attacks: Paralyzing Gaze
Special Qualities: Construct, Fire Vulnerability, damage
reduction 15/+1
Saves: Fort +3, Ref -1, Will +4
Abilities: Str 10, Dex 6, Con --, Int --, Wis 16, Cha 1
______________________________________
Climate/Terrain: Any
Organization: Solitary or gang (2-4)
Challenge Rating: 4
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always Neutral
Advancement: 4-8 HD (Medium) 9-12 HD (Large)

Scarecrow Guardians are basic guardians similar to golems, but not nearly as powerful. Like typical scarecrows, their bodies are made of straw and cloth. The stumble about their assigned area poorly and attack most anything that wanders through it. Some Scarecrow Guardians are bound to a post, and use their paralyzing gaze to imprison any trespassers.

Combat
Scarecrow Guardians are assigned to protect a particular area. They never leave the area, even when chasing an intruder. They will attack anything, humanoid or animal like in appearance that walks into it's territory unless otherwise instructed by their creator. Paralyzing Gaze: Target can not move, as per the Hold Person spell as cast by a 10th level cleric, 30 ft., Will Save DC 15

Construct: Immune to mind-influencing effects, poison, disease, and similar effects. Not subject to critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, energy drain, or death from massive damage.
Fire Vulnerability: Because of their straw bodies, Scarecrow Guardians are extremely vulnerable to attacks from fire. They take double damage from all fire attacks.
In addition, a scarecrow guardian will catch fire easily after any attack that would normally ignite mundane items. A scarecrow on fire receives 2d6 damage each round (do not double this damage)

Undead ScarecrowSome Scarecrow Guardians are imbued with a spirit of a person. These scarecrows have all the same traits as a normal Scarecrow Guardian, except their creature type is undead, and have the same hit dice (though the type of die is changed to d12) and skills as their previous incarnations. Undead Scarecrows can still be bound to an area to protect, and still obey the commands of their creator. An Undead Scarecrow has the same CR as when he was living +1. An Undead Scarecrow whose master is killed has a 10% chance of being freed from his control, 25% chance of dying and a 65% chance of continuing to guard his specified area.

ConstructionA Scarecrow Guardian can be created easily by a standard ritual. A basic scarecrow is used for the body. The material components necessary for creating a Scarecrow Guardian costs 2,000 GP and require the Craft Wondrous Item feat. Understanding the ritual necessary for creating the Scarecrow can be done by a caster of at least 10th level. Completing the ritual drains 500 XP from the creator and requires the spell Animate Objects. The material components necessary for creating an Undead Scarecrow cost 10,000 GP and require the Craft Wondrous Item feat. Completing the ritual drains the creator of 1,200 XP and requires the spells Trap the Soul, Animate Objects, and Animate Dead, not to mention a living sacrifice (usually a small animal) which must be killed during the ritual to provide the life force.

AD&D 2^nd Ed
Witch's Scarecrow (from my "Complete Netbook of Witches & Warlocks")
CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Fields or Gardens (Sub-arctic to Sub-tropical, always near a witch's lair)
FREQUENCY: Very Rare
ORGANIZATION: Solitary
ACTIVITY CYCLE: Any
DIET: None
INTELLIGENCE: Low (5-7)
TREASURE: Nil
ALIGNMENT: Neutral
NO. APPEARING: 1
ARMOR CLASS: 8
MOVEMENT: 6"
HIT DICE: 2
THAC0: 18
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-4
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Scare, Fear
SPECIAL DEFENSES: Fascination
MAGIC RESISTANCE: Special
SIZE: M (4-6')
MORALE: Fearless (19)
XP VALUE: 200
PSIONICS: Nil, Immune to Psionics

Appearance: Witch's Scarecrows are motley creatures pieced together from a variety of materials. Sticks, twigs, old leaves, straw and similar materials are used to stuff old clothing into a manlike shape. Their heads are often stuffed bags with crude caricatures of a face or hollowed out, carved gourds or pumpkins. These creatures are usually set on a stout staff stuck in he ground, and look completely unremarkable. So unremarkable that only a Detect Magic or True Seeing allows someone to distinguish it from a normal scarecrow when it is not in motion. A moving Scarecrow has an odd grace, joint-less and fluid. It seems on the end of collapse yet continues to walk in defiance of what it ought to do.
Combat: Witch's Scarecrows made for combat, they're only supposed to scare things away. These creatures are surrounded a powerful fascination aura that they can employ whenever they are seen to move. Any intelligent being observing a moving Witch's Scarecrow must save vs. spells or be so overcome that they can do nothing but gape at the moving creature. Once this fascination has a hold of a victim, it lasts until one turn after the scarecrow leaves the area, the scarecrow remains still for a turn, the victim is scared by the scarecrow, or the victim suffers a damaging attack.
The Witch's Scarecrow has two forms of magical fear. It can cause anyone meeting its gaze to flee in utter fear for 1d4+10 rounds, with a chance (adjudicated by the DM) of dropping anything they have in hand while they panic. Only Witches, Priests, and victims with 6 or more hit dice, are allowed a saving throw against this attack. Whenever a Witch's Scarecrow is actually pressed into a fight its fascination aura becomes so intense that it acts as anyone approaching within ten feet becomes stricken by an identical magical fear. Things that have no fear, such as golems or undead, are immune to this effect.
These creatures are immune non-magical missiles of less than siege size, any harmful effects of the weather. They are immune to some spells, including Call Lightning, spells that cause sleep, charm, paralyze, or hold victims, as well as spells that require a biological target like the carious cause wounds spells.. They are resistant to most forms of fire (+2 saves, & half damage). They are vulnerable to the flames hand-wielded, non-magical torches, suffering 1d10 points of damage per strike. Additionally so long as their creator lives or a witch inhabits her nearby dwelling, these scarecrows neither decay nor show any signs of aging. Habitat/Society: Witch's Scarecrows are guardians created, not to force or harm intruders, but to frighten them away. Their nature limits the places they can inhabit, but within those limits they perform well. The ceremonies that allow one of these creatures to be animated fail if not performed in a field, garden, or other cultivated area of land. Thereafter, the creature regards this area as its home. While it will keep watch over it's maker and her dwelling while they are nearby, it will not travel with her if she leaves or wander off on its own.
Witch's Scarecrows are not violent by nature, and only attack if they are struck first. They seldom pursue fleeing opponents, only doing so if their maker has been slain in their sight. Those knowledgeable about such similar creatures find Witch's Scarecrows have a one distinctive behavior. They are themselves fascinated by children. They will neither harm nor attack them regardless of the children's actions. They will entertain children with pantomime and play along with any of their games as best they can. It will try to interpose itself between fighting children, and anything attacking a child in the presence of such a creature will be attacked it turn.
Ecology: Witch's Scarecrows have no need to eat, respire, or even breathe. Unlike most magical constructs, they have some small effect on the local ecology. Simply, they're excellent scarecrows. Most animals, for birds and foraging rodents to deer and even bears, will be quickly chased from any area the Scarecrow guards.
These creatures are created by witches to guard their lairs. The three part process requires a small stone (and any natural stone will do) to be consecrated by a Bless, then covered with layer after layer of certain leafy herbs, soaked in water to make them pliable and bound with twine. When this is the size of a proper heart a body must be built around it, a task which requires no special materials or effort. Finally, the scarecrow must be taken to a field the witch owns for its animation. This must be done on a moonless night sometime between planting and harvest or the ceremony will fail. The Witch must prop the scarecrow up on a staff and cast the following spells: Animate Object, Cloak of Fear, Resist Fire, Spook and Quest. If successful, the witch hears a slow, steady heartbeat for a short time.
Of course, a number of legends surround Witch's Scarecrows. The tales of these creatures becoming fierce avengers of their mistress' murders are certainly from some form of divine intervention rather than any inherent ability of their own. The report of one such creature, who was often used as a target by local archers, hurling arrowheads from its bodies was most likely the result of some singular enchantment. Lastly, legends that such creatures may freely use a the powers of a magical wand concealed within one of their forearms or similar staff that they are propped up with are probably not true.

New RPG Groups on Facebook

For the fans of Victorian era role-playing games I have made two new Facebook groups.

The Victorian Gamers Association is very new and is for any game set in the Victorian Era or is at least Victorian in feel and tone. So games would in include Cthulhu by Gaslight, Victorian Age Vampire, Ghosts of Albion, Ravenloft: the Masque of Red Death, Victoriana, Rippers as well as Forgotten Futures, For Faerie, Queen and Country for the Amazing Engine and Space: 1899.

Please come by and visit.

More dedicated is The Ghosts of Albion group. It is dedicated to the Ghosts of Albion RPG as well as all the animations and novels.

Plus I feel I should mention two groups of games I am a fan of, Spellcraft & Swordplay and Witch Girls Adventures. Fan them as well!

The Old School Renaissance Will Eat Itself

I love all the old school renaissance / retro-clone games out there. They are great fun to play AND are very clever adaptations of the very flexible OGL. There are some neat game-design choices too, such as Spellcraft & Swordplay's alternate evolution of OD&D or Basic Fantasy's middle ground between Basic D&D and Advanced D&D. I love these games.

It's the people I am not overly fond of.

Now to be fair, it isn't everyone, or even a majority, but rather a very, very small but very, very vocal minority that seems to have this "it's my way or the highway" mentality. Or that somehow the design changes of *D&D were done not to improve gameplay but rather some nefarious plot to screw Gygax, Arneson, or whomever or screw the players out of more money, or insert crazy conspiracy here. But there have been a few dust-ups of late on what the OSR "Really" is or what "playing D&D is really about". As a gamer and a designer I pay attention to these things, they are the pulse of what the customer likes. It is the closest thing I have to market research, but as a fan they really irritate me.

I LIKE the old school games. I liked them then and I like them now, both the originals and the clones. I like the divergent evolutions, the what-ifs and the thought experiments that we get in game design from the OSR.

I DO play them out of nostalgia. Don't know why "nostalgia" became such a bad word in the OSR, but I play these games because I enjoyed them when I was 10.

I DO play new games. I love D&D 4e. And to me it plays great, I have a wonderful "D&D experience" (what ever the fuck that is supposed to be) with it. I like minis, they make my game fun. And I used them back in the 80's too. So to me, they ARE old school.

I like to write for both. Every game I work on serves a different need, different function for me. If I am not going to quantify which one is "better" to me as the creator, then why should I expect the player to do so?

Lots of people would love to play these old games too. Why? Because they were fun, and still are. But trying to get a gamer to play by telling him or her that they should play this way or that way and the game they are playing now is for idiots isn't going to win you any fans. And if you are publishing then fans > customers, so the less you have one, the less you have of the others and customers mean sales.

I am not naming names at all, cause that is tacky (but man are there plenty of good examples), but we have some people in this movement that will be the death of this movement due to their own inflexible thinking. Which is odd, cause one of the reasons they claim to like the OSR was because the rules are more flexible. Actually it's not that odd at all come to think of it.

I just don't follow the logic of "the old-school/70's games were fun, therefore the newer games are crap".

It doesn't help that many of the OSR member are all up in arms about something that doesn't even exist: people playing new games calling their style crap. News Flash: The vast majority of gamers out there are not even aware of the OSR, and those that do I'd say the vast majority of them do not have an opinion.

Plus Edition Wars are the lowest form of Nerdrage. Better off arguing who would win in a fight, ninjas or Jedi.