I Survived Con of the North

I didn't run anything. I only played one game.

Okay, let me clarify a bit: There's a guy from a local game store who runs a drop-in drop-out D&D 3.5 game at all the local cons. I first encountered this two years ago, at MarsCon. I started a bard (at first level, naturally) and by the time that con was over, he was 3rd.

Well, going into this con he was 4th; coming out, he just made 6th. But that was at 10:00 pm on Sunday.

(I later calculated that I spend 28 hours in the game this weekend. And 26 hours in the hotel NOT in the game...)

Overall, I had a good time. I had hoped to make 6th level, and I did.


But I did rediscover the thing that I don't like about 3.5 (and I hasten to add that this is not necessarily a problem with the rules as written, it's more a problem with me):

It brings out the rules lawyer in me.

Now, I was raised by a pack of wild rules lawyers, back in the early 80's when I got started playing AD&D. If there was a rule, somebody could quote it (I got really good at the rules for two weapon fighting...)

One of the rules I loved best was the one at the very end of the DMG, about how the DM is in charge of the game and should make it his own. We all discussed that, but rarely applied it. We pretty much played by the book.

But there were arguments about rules! Even back then, we argued. (I think that could be the appropriate collective noun for roleplayers. You have a pride of lions, and a murder of crows; well, you could easily have an argument of roleplayers...)

And this weekend, I found myself falling back on the old ways, of reading the rules whenever anybody didn't know exactly how something worked -- the problem is, then I'd want to beat the offending party over the head with the rule. Not very social, I know. And it wasn't even my game, so it really wasn't my place to do so...so I tried not to.

But there was this one guy who really ticked me off. I got into a bad mood and it stayed through most of Monday. (But I'm feeling MUCH better, now!)

Anyway, that's my con report.

Con of the North

Con of the North is a local gaming convention. No panels, no cosplay, no GOH; just gaming. By gamers for gamers.

I never have my act together in time to definitely say that I'll run something. Last year I pulled a dungeon out of thin air and ran OD&D for some people, but that's about it.

I hope I get in the Holmes game a guy I know is running, but don't yet know. Also, the 3.5 game I often play in should be running, so there will be something. But I'm not sure exactly what.

Anyway, gotta pack; we leave tomorrow and I wanna sleep late.

Deadlines? Oh, yeah; deadlines...

Some of you may even remember this post. But I'm guessing most of you will not.

(Hey, I could be wrong; I have no idea if anyone actually reads this unless I get comments. It would probably help if I updated more often, like on any sort of an actual schedule. But I feel that leads to long parenthetical navel-gazing entries on the state of my life, which changes very little, and ... oh, wait ... damn.)

Anyway, I finally got off my butt this weekend and produced the third installment of my comic strip for Fight On! magazine. It's called The Education of a Magic-User, and so far I haven't named the main character. Or his sidekicks. (I really ought to do something about that.) Maybe put up one of those "Characters" pages that the webcomics do.

But anyway, the point is, if you get the fourth issue of Fight On! (when it comes out), I'll have another comic strip in it.

This means that I have work in all four issues to date. I'm kind of proud of that.

I play

Sunday, January 18, at The Source Comics and Games.

Here are photos; in the first one, I'm the guy at the end of the table, directly between the camera and the pop machines.

The DM (with the little laptop) is Kesher, from the Original D&D Discussion Forum. We're playing the original D&D rules, from 1974, and the adventure is James Maliszewski's Ruined Monastery, from Fight On! number 1.

A good time was had by all.

Re-reading D&D

If you're at all interested in the Original D&D game, you've probably been reading Sham's Grog and Blog and his D&D Cover to Cover project.

If not, make haste over there! The man makes some good points and some shrewd observations.

Fight On!

Fight On! Issue three is available now. Get your copy now!

At 148 pages, it's the biggest issue yet (and quite possibly will be the biggest issue ever.)

As a point of comparison, the original AD&D Player's Handbook was only 128 pages. This gives you 20 pages more!

Observations on the 4e Starter Set

I've seen a few starter sets (or basic sets, as they called them in my day). The old ones, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer -- these were the classics.

Later on, TSR started putting the bare bones of the rules in such sets. They started the pregenerated character thing (it wasn't WOTC; I still have such a set). (Of course, WOTC/Hasbro is still doing it...)

It's as if somebody said "Give 'em less!"

Now, the function of a starter set is to get people interested in a game. You give them the basics and let them try it. I can kind of see not including character generation.

Let's compare this one with the 3.5 starter set:

3.5 had a dungeon. Lay out these tiles is this order. These are the encounters; don't skip any or the characters won't make second level. It didn't say what to do if the Harpy (!) wiped out all the pc's the first time they encountered her! That's what happened the first time I ran it.

So, we've got a railroad with monsters too powerful for the fragile characters. There's no exploration, you just move on to the next encounter (with it's next dungeon tile). This is a good thing? I admit, I liked the props. And if you're going to insist on using a square grid, then saying how many squares a character can move works.

Okay, so how is 4e different?

First of all, there are five characters, instead of four. (Oddly, the text flat out states that five characters is best. But they don't give you any criteria for such a statement.) There are tokens, instead of figures, but this way you can have more.

Instead of a few dungeon tiles, there are punch-out cards containing really thick, plastic coated dungeon segments, including rooms, corridors, doors, a pit, a bearskin rug, a bedroom, etc. The kind of thing you can lay out and the players immediately see where they're at. I approve.

The dice in both versions are exactly the same (so now I have a pair of each...)

The DM book for 4e is where the game really shines. There's a scenario, of course, and this one has more of a background than "You're exploring this dungeon..." like 3.5 had. (If I recall correctly.)

There is discussion of how to design your own adventures, which is nice. There are plenty of monsters, which is nice. The characters are still pre-gens, but at least you can advance them to third level, which is kind of nice. There are still skills, but a vastly reduced list, so it doesn't overwhelm play like in 3.5.

But what really got me was on page three of the DM's book. I'll reproduce it here for your consideration:

DM RULES TO GAME BY

The DM is the final authority when it comes to rules questions or disputes. Here are some guidelines to help you arbitrate issues as they come up.

* When it doubt, make it up! It's better to keep the game moving than to get bogged down in a rules issue.

* Have fun! D&D is a game, after all.

* Use ability checks. When players try something not covered by the rules, ability checks should be used to determine success.

* It's not a competition. The DM isn't competing against the player characters. You're there to run the monsters, referee the rules, and keep the story moving.

* It's not your story. It's the group's story, so let theplayers contribute to the outcome through the actions of their characters.

* Be consistent. If you decide that a rule works a certain way in one session, make sure it works that way the next time it comes into play.

* Don't play favorites. Make sure that every character has a fair chance to shine.

* Be fair. Above all else, use your powers as Dungeon Master only for good. Treat the rules and the players in a fair and impartial manner, and everyone will have fun.


There's some really good stuff there. I could quibble about the ability checks thing, but on the whole, that's just some damn good advice, no matter which edition of which game you're running.


Bottom line, America: I don't hate the 4e Starter Set. I could run a game using this for a good long time (I could improvise some character creation rules, and I'm planning on collaborating with a guy to do just that...).


But it still doesn't beat the original three little books. They're still my favorites.