Looping the Hen Games

Good game last night. Definitely a little harder without the Sorcerer, though it looks like the Druid can blast with the best of them. Although I looked in the Player's Handbook today and couldn't find a druid spell that did 5d10 with a 40ft radius. Flame Strike would have done 9d6, very close to the same damage, but in a 10ft radius. So I'll need to check the spell description if it is in another book.

Also, my fault and I need to remember is that its dark; pitch dark, and I am not sure how y'all are targeting spells with no light.

Other than that I thought the tactics of the party were very good; hit and run working well. The hobgoblins' equipment and tactics are set up more toward pitched battles. I need to remember night is the Dark Dwarves favorite time and use more appropriately. Move silent checks and hide checks will come into play more next time on this type of mission, as well as search checks to continue to locate the enemy.

Overall I had fun, though need to do less Amberbock; 4am is a pretty late night!

I'll put up a new schedule based on Eric's time; Rodney, let me know if we can switch things around yet one more time! Tammy was happy starting later and she didn't feel so rushed all day, so we'll continue the 6:30pm start time.

I'll be working this week on finishing up the town and then doing the RIversang area, as that is where a lot of the action is generated from.

Thanks everyone!

Posted by at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

This is an interesting book I've come across reading through various RPG sites. It peaked my interest reading the reviews on Amazon, because some of the classes sound similar to what I have attempted to create with the Jin and the Pyromancer.

Instead of having a class like a fighter, which has x, y, and z abilities at 1st, 5th, and 10th, each level is more like laying a foundation and building a house.

For example, the Pyromancer has only 3 basic abilities: Fire Bolt, Fire Shield and Fire Craft. Fire Bolt is their standard attack, Fire Shield is their standard defense, and Fire Craft is an elemental they can manifest as a fighter/protector. Instead of increasing their powers with more spells or abilities, when they level they gain options about how to use their power. At 2nd level for example, they can pick improvements for 2 of their 3 abilities, such as 'Twin-Targeting' for their Fire Bolt power and 'Damage Wood' for their Fire Shield.

As a Pyromancer levels, they can determine whether they will be heavy on defense, offense, or a combination, and will have radically different abilities depending on how they choose their skills. I'm sure it doesn't match for the complexity and balance of the ones in that book, but I do think it's interesting that I've become focused on 'natural progression' type NPC's as opposed to buckshot characters. I think that is even part of the reason for the huge discussions we've had with players wanting to rework their characters. I do believe the #1 reason for those requests was to increase relative power levels, but I think an additional reason was that people felt their characters didn't meld well.

Although feats allow a lot of flexibility for the classes in D&D, I've never thought they were a very elegant solution as to how to incrementally power up a character. Most provide a moderate benefit, but often they don't seem to 'click' with a character, and half the time when I make NPC's now, they are left off because they don't seem to have a heavy impact. In fact, maxing concentration on a spellcaster seems more important than picking a meta-magic feat. (although I do think the metamagic and spell focusing feats are more interesting and in-tune with their class than the fighter feats)

It might be a huge undertaking, but I may try to finally reach for my Holy Grail of character creation: completely customizable characters, probably point-based, with every ability thrown into a giant pile. For example, say every character starts with 100 points. If I want the character to be a brawler, and ultra-survivable, I might choose something like this as my 1st level character:

I start him with +1 BAB that is worth 10 points, a d12 HD worth 20 more, and good saving throws (+2) across the board for 10 more points each. With my 35 remaining points I take a +1 natural AC, a +2 constitution bonus, 2 Spell Points and the Mage Armor Spell.

At each level there would be a natural cost for something, and then a cost to choose something higher than a player's natural level. For example, Base Attack Bonuses natural level is +1 (currently what a fighter gets each level according to the PHB). However, if I really wanted to be vicious, I could take a +2 bonus at first level at a cost of 30 points, where if I waited until 2nd level to take the 2nd +1, it would only cost me 20 total points.

The hard part of creating this system is simply determing how many 'points' everything is worth. For example, I would estimate an Arcane spellcasting level as probably the highest-point item a player can take, with a Divine spellcasting level as #2. (A rough guess would be 40-50% of a mage's or cleric's power.) A feat may be worth 10 points, or 1/4 a spellcasting level; each skill point is probably worth 1/25th of a spellcasting level, or 1/5th of feat.

One interesting variable is ability scores. For example, a Wizard currently gets more benefit out of an 18 intelligence than a Fighter does. They get not only the +4 skill points a Fighter gets, but at 7th level they will have 10 additional spell points (one bonus spell of each level 1-4) as well as a +4 spell DC. It might even be that each benefit of a high ability score is broken down into components. For example, I would have to say a +1 to hit and damage from a 12 strength is much more valuable than +1 skill points is at 12 intelligence. Maybe a +1 to hit and damage is worth 10 points, while a +1 dodge AC is worth 7 and a +1 skill point is worth 1.

Anyhoo, maybe everyone sees where I am going with this. Crazy? Not crazy? There are obviously a lot of interactions that may 'break' the concept, but I figure if everything is costed right, it should work. Going up levels might need to provide more skill points the higher level one is. (For example, going from 1st to 2nd level arcane spells is not as powerful as going from 2nd to 3rd, where the staple combat spells of the game reside). In this way, we could totally do away with class completely, as every character is truly a unique creation. Specific races could be chosen at 1st level for a certain portion (or even all) of a player's character creation points.

Okay, rambling now, I'm going!

Posted by at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Beorheim Character Creation Page.

To be more consistent with 3.5 rules, races will have a CL change based on their power level. For example, Beorheim have a CL +2 (Possibly +3, will know more after playtesting). This means a PC Beorheim starts at the equivalent of level 3, and would need 4,000 exp to go from level 1 to 2. (Equivalent to 3 to 4)

Caeleim will have a CL +2 and Frost Dwarves CL +1.

All new campaigns will have a rule there will be no more than CL +3 races/classes per party. (For example, they could have one Elf plus one player with a class that has a CL +1)

Posted by at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

This is the area the player's currently live in.

My scale was a little off as we've played in the past; this is the correct map regardless. The Ogres and Witches are really only a day or three away.

Map here!

And this is the entire island.

Posted by at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Ok, I appreciate your comments on the NPC post Mikaela, however I will have to submit that again, I think you are again striving to limit the DM's creative options, for what reason I am not sure.

The comment in question:

I didn't read all of these comments but regarding the first two, I think it is in violation of the spirit of D&D to say that this is a class but you can't choose it. If its a class I can choose it and if its not then neither can they. You are as much as admitting that you min maxed these classes if your npc's can be them, but they are to broken for us to take levels in right?

I thought I would add a comment in regard to Eric's, however again it suggests another huge breakdown between our points of view and one we need to come to an agreement on.

If as a DM I want to create a Fire Giant Mage, that in no way means a PC needs to be allowed to be a Fire Giant Mage. If I want to create a Devilmancer, why do PC's need to be allowed to be the same? They are an evil class, and thus the rules of my game preclude creating one, because they disallow evil characters.

Jin don't like to adventure and don't work too well in groups; those are also both traits not allowed of PC's per a previous post. Certainly ingame you may ask them to teach you their secrets, but there is no particular reason you should be able to make a PC Jin.

This is really something we need to get to the bottom of, as one of my main points during the huge discussion is that the DM has (and needs) absolute control when it comes to creation and population of the universe.

If the Githyanki have a different class available only to Githyanki, there is no reason I need to provide the same option to a PC. The mechanics allow DM's to create NPC's, templates, and classes that have a 'level adjustment' to determine how tough they are.

For example, an Ogre Mage Sorcerer can have a half-demon template and go from a CR of 6 to a CR of 14. Putting an Ogre Mage Sorcerer in the world with more powers than a standard Ogre Mage is not min/maxing. If I add 3 points of strength to a kobold because he is strong, that is not min-maxing. If I give a hill giant a +3 club, that is not min-maxing. All of that is called being a DM, and its my job. When I have Darwin make someone a magic weapon, is that min-maxing? Why not? Making a monster that is more powerful than the PCs, no matter how I do it, with spells, better ac, more HD, additional classes, templates or magic items, is not min-maxing. If it was, the world would be populated by kobolds and commoners and there would be no reason to play.

Classes are just another tool in a DM's kit. A class that is more powerful than a standard class simply adds to a creature's CR and ECL. Thus, even if a PC could take it, they would start at 1st level, but not be able to level to 2nd until they hit 10,000 (or 15,000, or 21,000) exp, or 4th level for any standard character.

Just like adding the inherent ability to cast a lighting bolt to a particular goblin if I feel the world needs it, I have every right to add classes as well, and it is not min-maxing.

As for 'violating the spirit of D&D', I have to completely disagree, and would say the designer's of the current system would also. Players have a Player's Handbook (and many other books) from which to pick their class, race, and spells. As a DM I have modified those options, with Frost Dwarves, Elemental Elves, etc. However, having someone be a Half-Ogre Mage/Half Alfheim like Alfamane is not in the spirit of the game (for PC's), thus not allowed. This is not min-maxing. First, the race is not balanced and would have an level modifier of something on the order of +8 (so a player wouldn't go up to 2nd level until they have 28,000 or so exp.) 2nd, they are beings with a backstory that precludes me from wanting to introduce them at will into the campaign.

I guess I just don't understand your point of view of the game. The game is not about everyone being equal, and its not supposed to be. You have more freedom than you would in most standard D&D games. I would submit 'the spirit of D&D' as it is in a straight-by-the-book game is MUCH more limiting than mine is. If someone is going to argue that they should be able to be any race or any class, then the 'freedom' thing has really gone too far, because it takes away from the DM's ability to run a world with mysteries and secrets beyond the PC. Again, without that ability, there is no game.

I've seen games run where there is so little magic that spellcaster classes are disallowed. I've seen high-magic campaigns where a player can be any race in the book, including dragons, demons or beholders. I've seen realistic-type campaigns where there are no heal spells and players can only be human. Mine is a gritty, dark campaign where the PC's are at a disadvantage from the day they roll their character. Even though each of these is different, all of these campaigns are being run 'in the spirit of D&D'. Establishing a universe, including the boundaries of the PC's is an integral part of a DM's responsibility.

Posted by at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Maybe this will help, how does this schedule work for everyone?

Oct 28 - 6:30pm Nihilat (This is the name of the evil world; it's never really come up!)
Nov 4 - 7:00pm WLD
Nov 11 - 6:30pm Nihilat
Nov 25 - 6:30pm Nihilat (If anyone wants to play Friday instead and if Rodney has off we could start as early as anyone likes)
Dec 2 - 7:00pm WLD
Dec 9 - 6:30pm Nihilat
Dec 16 - I'm open for anything here, as I will be in Connecticut for Dec. 22-New Years. Next game after this would be Jan 6 WLD and Jan 13 for Nihilat.

Posted by at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Ok, looks like no game this weekend; keeping the other half happy!

Next session October 28, 6:30pm (28th Day of Scales for those keeping track)...beware the Hollow-Night when you play next time. All Necromantic spells will be double-effectiveness in range, damage, and duration on the Scales Fini (Last day of Scales, also known as Scorpius Rising) and all shadow and necromantic creatures will have all sorts of bonuses. Turning undead will be next to impossible. Good spellcasters (including wizards/sorcs) cast at -20%. Dark Druids/Thaumaturges/Evil Spellcasters cast at +20%. Also, don't die. Resurrection is impossible on this day as well (and no, you can't just wait until the next day). Small potential for coming back as a ghoul, ghast, ghost or something similar, though.

For Mikaela and Gribble, all spellcasting will be at -5% until Sagita 21, the Day of Pitch, or Black Day, after which it will be at -10% until the end of winter. (Read: 70% and 65% respectively) Exceptions are the Day of Thanks (23rd day of Scorpius), which benefits clerics and druids and good creatures in general and the Winterlight Festival (16th-24th day of Sagita...except the 21st, which is Black Day, and bad things happen then).

L8er!

Posted by at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (794)

I've been debating whether to post some of my NPC character classes. For example, the Jin Necromancer's class or Merilee's Pyromancer class.

On occasion I'll decide I want a particular character in the game, but none of the classes really enable what I want. For example, the Jin focus on creating skeletal undead, and while a wizard and cleric can certainly do it, they don't have the correct 'flavor' for the class. A Jin is a craftsman, desiging and creating each skeleton more like a golem than just raising them from the dead. Additionally, I picture the Jin casting very few spells in comparison to the standard arcane and divine classes. They have more in common with Darwin's Arcane Blacksmith class (as yet uncreated) than they do with most other class types.

The same with Merilee. She is a Pyromancer (that I picture in my head), and while there are some rules for elemental type classes in some of the expanded magic books, they don't do a good job of allowing her the level of control over her creations as I envision her having.

So in those two cases, I created NPC classes all the way to level 20. Are they balanced? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the circumstance. Certainly Merilee will soon be able to blast with the best Sorcerer and create elementals as well as any conjurer, but I am thinking that as some of the NPC classes in the DMG are meant to be weaker than PC's, some could very well be stronger. (For example, in all the campaigns I have used Ashuan-Eri, they are definitely more powerful level over level than a standard Psion).

In any case, one of the reasons I've done this is to do my best to continue my 'consistent npc' policy. A 12th level Jin may be the equal to a 14th level Necromancer PC or a 10th level Wizard PC, but a 12th level Jin will always have that same (or approximately the same) power level, so there shouldn't be radically differing abilities.

Anyhow, I'm interested in people's opinions on whether posting the class descriptions would spoil the mystery of encountering these types of NPC's. Especially as the characters themselves have very little knowledge of both these classes and will be strictly controlled on the amount of min/maxing they do when encountering them.

Posted by at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (550)

Per Mikaela's inquries:

Weapons Shipment:

The shipment is leaving on the 25th Day of Scales from Azure-Thri keep (home of the Blue Dacon, where y'all just rescued the elf from). It will travel north to the northernmost daek on the island, around 150 miles away. Travel is likely to take over 2 weeks. Likely guard will be a half-dozen Dark Dwarf fighters, a dozen hobgoblins, 3 or 4 shocker lizards, and a Gargoyle captain. No more word on the captives that might be travelling with the caravan.

Freedom Tourney:

Notable contestants other than Ssyeress will be Throgg, a barbarian hill giant with a penchant for throwing large rocks; Terefon, a half-demon ogre mage who attempts to befuddle and confuse with spells before closing for combat; Baccarat, a dark human assassin who uses a variety of poisons, dusts, and trinkets (including several Dimension Door trinkets created by your best friend) you heard about through Ryld; and a half-fiend manticore who is rumored to just want to make top 3 to become a dark templar to the lich.

Combat is not always to the death, as many use this tournament as a way to acquire powerful servants. Any creature subdued and not slain is required to serve the victor for 1 year. (So yes, the Dark Templar created by the Lich will end up having some cohorts with them)

Posted by at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (52)

One thing I never want to do is bog the game down with unneccesary details. However, I do want to make it so the world is breathing, moving, and important places like cities and strongholds act importantly. If you all decide this information does nobody any good, I will do away with the system; if you decide you like it, all of the places you are likely to venture will have this type of information associated with it.

I am working on assigning every major stronghold and city on the island a resource value. Basically, I am using a modified version of Civilization IV's city system, where each city and its surrounding area generates one or more resources. Some are necessary to survive, such as food and water, while others allow you to produce certain goods, such as iron and copper. Some even provide morale (happiness in Civ IV) in the city, such as luxury goods like silk and spices. Morale is important when it comes time to recruit militia or expand the city.

I am not going to a huge level of detail, but here is Freedom City's current resource chart:

Population: 2500
Morale: 3 (poor) (+1 freedom, +1 spirits, +1 herbs)
+5 food (capable of supporting 5000 people): +3 from environs (the area around the city), +1 from trade with Riversang, and +1 from Goblin Tribute.
+1 iron from Riversang
+1 spirits from Ogres (+1 happiness)
+1 leather from environs
+1 meat from environs
+1 wood from environs
+1 rock from Goblins
+1 herbs from Druids (+1 happiness)

Now, taking a look at this, one notices you have food for 5000 people, but only 2500 living in the city. This means you could potentially negotiate with another city or stronghold a point or two of food for something else. The +1 Iron, Leather, Wood and Rock means you really only have enough materials to support basic infrastructure improvements and repair what equipment you have for your troops and militia. If you had a +2 iron, for example, you would be able to create stocks of armor or weapons to trade, potentially at a higher value than trading food. If you had +2 copper or wood you be able to create some trade goods. If you had more stone you could add to the city faster. Etc.

Everyone please give their opinion whether any of this matters or you would rather just be concerned with role-playing and adventuring. Either way is fine with me, and the whole chart for the area didn't take much time, so it's something I can easily work in if it is useful.

Also starting this week, I've come up with random events for Freedom Province City that will occur once every session. They can be good or bad, effect the players, the populace, the main NPC's or the city. It can effect the trade levels, goods available, and happiness. I think it could be good fun, and some will generate combat to defend the city and its environs, some will generate possible quests, some will provide the PC's or NPC's with additional resources. Anyhow, we'll see!

Posted by at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Iskujel Dverve character creation page.

Posted by at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Caeleim character creation page.

I'll do a narrative if someone likes, but I've decided getting to the meat of the matter is more important as the race should be fleshed out in-game. Also, as I have multiple worlds with this race, a particular history won't necessarily suffice.

Posted by at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

One of the reasons I adopted a strictly extemporaneous DM'ing style is twofold. First, if I had pre-planned adventures and scenarios created, I feared I would push players toward them and that would curtail some of their freedom. Additionally, I worried that even if I didn't force them into a particular direction, I would feel some resentment if I did a huge amount of work and none of it ever mattered because players always ended up doing something else. Secondly, a good campaign world can require huge investments of time and effort for potentially very little use if there is a waning of interest, lack of players, or other vagaries associated with trying to run a regular D&D game. My steadfast refusal (until I started DM'ing the World's Largest Dungeon) to use 3rd party settings or modules also hasn't helped things.

As I have gotten older and decided I needed to to branch out and balance multiple hobbies requiring time commitments (running, business ventures, blogging, poker, ebay) as well as relationships with family and friends (and girlfriend!), I can no longer spend 6 hours a day working on a D&D campaign like I did in some earlier years. The problem has always been that some amount of planning is necessary to develop a cohesive storyline, timeline, and other thematic elements.

I've found that the mixture of only light planning and off-the-cuff dm'ing really starts to show around character level 10. Some monster and NPC faction leaders are often near this level. Even if they are of higher levels, they need to start taking notice of adventuring parties near this level as possible threats or allies. Many powerful creatures that would prefer to be out seeking powerful magic items, unique spell or alchemical components, or great wealth are instead stuck in their strongholds dealing with minions, overseeing estates, and keeping up politically with the joneses. Thus, some may like to enlist the characters as 'Tomb Raiders' while others would like them killed to prevent possible interference against their own adventuring parties.

I hope I have finally found a solution to many of my design and planning issues. I bet many DM's have done something similar for many years, and I just missed it. Similar to many MMOG's, I am starting to design modular faction templates. For example, say my current campaign needs a warlord to rule a campaign area. First, I create the warlord, say a 13th level fighter. I assign him a stronghold (with floorplan if possible; more on maps in a later post) with one or more economic activities associated with it (vineyard, mine, crafthall, armory, plantation). Doing so, I can reasonably assume it is self-sufficient (unless game conditions indicate otherwise). It also allows a way for the PC party to disrupt, enchance or protect a region's economic activity through missions.

Next, I give him some followers. If the followers have character levels (a 9th level fighter (Colonel), a 6th level Ranger (Scout), a 7th level Paladin (Knight), for example) but aren't storyline-level entities, I have found some great random NPC generators that create workable characters. Another random generator allows for some decent equipment options based on level and class. After I have a main npc's important followers, I can assign troops and other associated critters 'by-the-book'. For example, I might give a baron 250 0-level militia, 150 1st-level line troops, 15 3rd level sergeants, and 5 5th level lieutenants. As war in a magical world entails some specific challenges, I usually assume a major NPC has access to a few combat spellcasters (e.g. 5 7th-level Sorcerers) and air support (a half-dozen hippogriffs or some long range ballista), and maybe a few special combatants (a dozen owlbear hunters or a lizard-riding pixie knight).

At this point I have a basically complete 'faction', ready to drop into any campaign world I may have running. End-to-end, it takes about 3-4 hours (most of that is designing the faction head), but gives me a fully-fleshed NPC, his lair, followers he can send on missions, multiple adventure hooks, and most importantly, an inifinitely reusable generic warlord. This way I know that even if one group of players never interacts with him, another might.

To give a particular 'faction' a place in any current world, I plug him into one or more levels of the 'Faction Template' I have designed. For the current campaign I have running, there are two levels of factions: Minor and Major. Minor factions are those which the PC's have interacted with, but are not really significant in terms of the direction of the campaign. For example, the Stark Knob Witch, the Ogrish Whiskeymakers, the Light Temple and the Goblin Village are all minor factions. The major factions are those which rule large portions of the campaign area and include the Riversang Lich and his vassals, a Hobgoblin Warlord and Greater Barghest, as well as other major players, including Freedom Province and the Jin.

I have created a grid containing all of the major and minor factions and how they interact with each other. For example, even though the Lich is in charge, there are other factions which undermine him if possible or quarrel with his vassals. Currently, all of the major factions relate to Freedom Province (the PCs' home) with Tension, Hatred, or Neutrality. A few of the minor ones are counted on as Allies (Druid Coven, Temple of Light) or Friendly (Goblin Village and Ogrish Whiskeymakers).

All this to say that when I have a good cadre of NPC's and their factions created, when designing a new world I won't have to worry so much about 'starting from scratch' as I would have many of the bases covered. Certainly, each world has its unique characters (The Riversang Lich, for example) or characteristics (a low-magic world might have NPC's with fewer magic items or a high-magic world would have more), but most worlds I can imagine would need one or more human warlords, hobgoblin generals, or wizards guilds, and I will have an electronic file folder containing exactly that..

Anyhoo, that is what I have been working on for the past several weeks. I have around 5 complete factions so far, as well as a complete faction grid for Riversang Island. This should allow the players to consistently interact with most of the major groups within 100 miles of their home. We'll certainly see how it goes and whether this ends up in the 'good idea' or 'bad idea' category!

Posted by at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (457)

I don't remember the last time I DM'd for 7 people; its not something I like to do all the time (err, ever!). It is hard to personally interact with that number of people. It is especially hard as two of them were brand new players, and they tend to be ultra-withdrawn to start. I always end up feeling guilty for not finding a better way to pull them into the adventure right off the bat. One of them also ended up dying at the first trap (rare in my games; this was part of the experiment), which is never fun, though I let her know in private that was likely to happen. (1st level char starting; average char level is 7)

Still, overall I think the session went well. It was an experiment of sorts, as well as a farewell to Raistca, who is moving to Seattle.

I am interested in anyones impressions!

And more later!

Posted by at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From the SRD (best website ever and is helping me greatly on my new NPC's and things)

Oops. I guess its not as bad as I thought. When I played Temple of Elemental Evil, entangled meant immobile.

Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell.

Posted by at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

Well, now I've ranted and gotten it all out in the open. If you all still want to play with the rules that are now on the table, then let's do as Eric suggests and try it and see what happens. If I've offended anyone too thoroughly, my apologies.

Let me know!

Posted by at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I think it's time I went back to beginning; this may be a long post, so beware. It will, however, explain why I have decided it is time to redraw the lines my games are built on, and why it doesn’t work when they are crossed too often.

I think I was nine when I got the D&D Basic Set. It had a reddish box and came with Keep on the Borderlands, what I thought was the coolest module ever at the time. I don't know if I played right away, but I read all the stuff over and over. I ran as a player under my brother Todd for a few sessions. I ran a game for G and another friend or two, badly.

Eventually G and I started looking for games in town, as we knew we weren’t doing too well figuring it out on our own. We found one at the public library. We heard it had 'the best DM ever' and looked forward to playing. I made a character. In the 2nd room, I died. I rolled up a new character. In the third room, I died again. For some reason or another, I wasn't having a lot of fun. The DM kept telling me what my character was doing, and even still, my character kept dying. That was the last time I played that game.

I found another game not long after, and it was the opposite experience. I got magic items and loot by the truckload. I was fighting demigods after around 4 weeks of playing. I'm surprised I didn't give up D&D completely after this game, because there was something just as wrong with this game, even if I couldn't name the problem at the time (Monty Haul).

Still, I loved D&D and was desperate to play. I ended up rolling up a character and putting myself through Keep on the Borderlands and some of the Expert Modules I had acquired by this time. Funny, it was more satisfying to do that than it was to play in the 2 real games I had. I bought a ton of 'choose your own adventure books', including the advanced kind where you actually had to have dice to go through the books. I still have those books on my bookshelf (-1 that is lost). I kept thinking D&D should be a place to do anything I could think of; however, for some reason, every game I got into pushed my character into directions I didn't want to go and that didn't feel right to me.

I think I gave up for a couple of years, frustrated by my inability to find a good group. Around 7th grade, I decided to try DMing again. G played, and our friend Ralph, and Andrew (G's brother), and maybe Sean. It was the first game, at least for me, that clicked. We still fumbled through the rules, still made our characters a little wrong, but for the first time, we 'played' D&D. I made the world and the players made the story.

Based on my early frustrating games, one of the first things I decided was that players had to be allowed to do what they want. The thought was not as codified then as it was years later, or today, but I knew instinctually the players needed freedom if it was to thrive. I think it was around 15 when we had our first 'memorable' games. G created Lord O' Leisure and Banzai; we had started playing 2nd Edition at this point, and were exploring the original Unearthed Arcana book that had the cavalier and barbarian in it. I was making my own maps, npc's and monsters. Some good, some not, but they were all my own.

During the next 5 or 6 years I learned a lot about how I wanted to run a game, and how not to run one. I had my first rules-lawyer play, and it ruined a lot of sessions. The immortal words 'I don't think my horse reacts that way,' were first uttered. A player was trying to charge down a hill into the middle of a throng of bad guys; he wanted to hook his horse up to the drawbridge in the middle of this fight and pull it down or something. Anyhoo, something very complex. I told him to roll a reaction for his horse due to the smell of blood and the sight of monsters. The horse became skittish and wouldn't charge down the hill. My player didn't think this was the right reaction, and we spent the next 2 hours arguing about it.

I added 'no rules lawyers', to my list of gaming requirements.

When I left college and moved in with my first fiance, G, Tina, Jon, Kenny and I started our first 'hardcore' campaign. I introduced a brand new world and invented the 4 races of elves. G created Na'ag, perhaps the most memorable character I have ever played with. The players interacted on a level I had only hoped for. They became part of the landscape, part of the storyline. They interacted with psionic town sheriffs and queens. They lit 25% of a continent on fire, and it burns to this day. They averted a war, and started one. One became a loyal baron to the rodent-queen, and the others turned evil. They had lands, and vineyards, and men-at-arms. The baron bartered for an Iron Golem to protect his lands. The necromancer flew on a not-so-well-crafted undead manticore that could only stay 5 feet above the ground. The female cleric had a giant bunny named Fiver.

And it all worked, because we spent all our time playing, and none of it arguing. More than once, rulings made up on the spot were accepted, and in some cases became house rules.

Eventually that game ended and I started my period of moving around. I didn't play for 4 years until I moved to Bowling Green, KY. I found a group, but they already had a DM, so I tried to play once more. This time, the story was much better and the DM knew what he was doing, but it was still not 'my' story or the way I liked to play. The DM had the storyline all planned out, and it was simply up to the players to implement that storyline. I rolled up a pacifistic psionic monk, and the DM couldn't adapt to my playstyle.

Eventually I stopped playing and let everyone know why. They asked me to DM another game with them, and I did. It was fun, except for the other player that was the DM in the first game was a rules lawyer, and wanted to argue everything I did. Again, we wasted a lot of hours we could have been playing. Eventually that game came to an end also, due to personal reasons.

2 years later I was playing Magic the Gathering in a local store and some people started asking about D&D. I said I would DM and teach them to play on a few very simple conditions. The main condition? No rules lawyering. I explained that I did things different from many DM's and asked if that was ok with them. They all agreed and we started to play. We had a good run and the players got to about 8th level in their first campaign. Interest died down and we quit playing.

A year later we started a new campaign, my current one. My new world was a radical idea, and one I didn't know if it would work. I explained again that the world had what it had in it, and that the players would be outgunned almost all the time and that sometimes the party might have to run instead of fight.

We hadn’t played for 2 hours before we had our first argument. A player didn’t like the way Alfamane reacted to him. Time wasted: 3 hours. A player didn’t like it that his temple was taken over by a demon: 5 hours. Argument over the nature of magic and the planes: 4 hours. Polymorph and hp’s: 2 hours.

This last session I made the decision darkness imposed a –4 attack: 30 minutes (that was 2nd edition rule; new rules say you get concealment 5...guess what that equates to? -4 attack). Centaur not having enough hp (refer back to Polymorph discussion): 20 minutes. And these were just the memorable arguments. There have been plenty more about spells, magic item creation, and just recently, whether or not players should be able to alter their characters mid-campaign from 9th level fighter/clerics to 9th level monks and psions.

And then a complaint after I spend 2 hours of my personal time working up a major npc that my lich shouldn’t have a +5 ring because ‘Tobias the person’ gave it to him because I have a psychological need to win. Dude, wtf? Please tell me what you would find acceptable for a 140 year old 16th level lich to have, because I’m curious now? +3 gauze armor? A wand of butterflies? Do you know what an average 16th level fighter would need to hit the lich’s huge 27 armor class? BAB +16, +5 strength, +2 bulls strength, +2 sword. Hmm, sounds like a 3 or better. Add in weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization and the fighter only misses on a 1. And that is somehow broken and the only reason I gave it to him is because I have psychological issues? You need to step off, because you’re talking about things you have no idea about. You even suggested I need to roll randomly my creatures' stats and items. Do you have any idea what you’re suggesting? If you want a random world go get some graph paper and start rolling; I can point you to some great monster and treasure generators. I don’t remember anyone complaining about the powerful staff of thunder and lighting Gribble has. Is that too powerful for a 9th level character? How about Tina’s sword? Never heard an argument about that. A bauble that holds a pixie and resurrected someone? Not a peep.

You can’t have it both ways. Either a DM has the power to create a world, the creatures, and the items in it, or you go play Baldur’s Gate. Did you write emails to the designers complaining that the dragons were too tough in the game? Did you complain that your character couldn’t open every lock? Heck maybe you did. I just did what everyone else did if something was too powerful. Go get a few levels elsewhere and then come back and fight the harder monster.

I have never once said it was unacceptable to argue a point, and I appreciate that at least all this came about out of session. What I have said is that it is unacceptable to rules lawyer, and that’s what y’all do, every time we play. You say you are ‘beyond 1st level play’, whatever that means. What that really sounds like to me is that you have stopped playing D&D for the characters and the story, and started to play it for the little +4’s and +5’s on your character sheet. You’ve played how many 1st level characters in your life? Two, three? Maybe four? That hardly qualifies anyone as an ‘expert’, because all it shows is you’ve missed the point of the game.

Every game is different, as is every character. You want a 9th level monk? Then earn it through playing a monk for a year and learning what it means to be a powerful monk. Being a 9th level fighter/cleric in no way earns you the right to a 9th level monk, or mage, or anything else. It doesn’t earn you the right to skip playing lower level characters ever again. What it earns you is a 9th level fighter/cleric who is adored by kobolds, respected by goblins, hated by trolls, befriended by ogres and is a hero to his town. No more, no less. Those relationships don’t form if you don’t play levels 1-8. And if you don’t have those pivotal relationships, you don’t have a character, whether he is 5th or 15th level. Because a character is not about the numbers, it is about the time you have spent playing it.

Heck, you should go read Rodney’s blog, as he is starting a campaign where the characters don’t even get to start as 1st level anything. They start as commoners and have to work up from there. That is brilliant, and that is D&D at its finest. Starting a 9th level character from scratch is not D&D, at least not the way I will play it. A 9th level character is a hero. If you didn't play to get him there and he shows up fully formed, he is a hero without a story.

I failed, somehow, to instill the viewpoint that the game is more than the numbers on the page, because all everyone thinks about now is ‘my character isn’t powerful enough.’

It hit me on my way to work this morning the main crux of this. This party is having the same issues I had when I started playing all those years ago. You feel constrained, for whatever reason. So what did I do when I felt constrained? I stopped playing, and started DM’ing. If you really feel that so much is wrong with my game that you all feel the need to argue about it all the time, then you need to be a DM. Make your own rules. Give the lich his Gauze Armor and a 16 AC and 14 hp. Have Papa Smurf come out and hand everyone 25,000 exp for defeating Gargamel the 2nd level cosmetician. Whatever you want.

And it will be right, because it will be your world, that you can run as you choose.

Posted by at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (21)

Okay, the below comment as left on another post pretty much settles it for me. This campaign is over.

Have you even played the same game I did?

Arion responds with befuddlement and caution. Ryld responds with a combination of respect and secrecy. The slave-daek absolutely responded with fear, as did the trinket-maker and some of the early townsfolk. Alfamane treated with disdain those that deserved it and with respect from those that earned it. Biff acts irrationally. Brooke acts rationally. The Lich of Riversang, as you never took the time to realize, was acting diplomatically and doing his best to ensure the survival of your little town. Dar-win acted as a gruff father-figure. The townsfolk now act with respect. The goblins and kobolds act with something akin to awe. The ogres adopted one creed, the blood cultists adopted someone else's creed.

If you feel those are all 'the same reaction', so be it.

Perhaps what is really happening is when a player treats everyone the same or expects to be treated in a certain way, they tend to get different reactions than they hoped for. If I was playing to win, you would all be dead, and there would be no game. I do play to challenge, as that is one my roles. As you have grown in power, the town has grown to respect you. However, you cannot expect to bully every creature you run across, as they have no idea who or what you are.

In any case, I won't play a game with someone who believes what is written below, because if you believe what you say, I am a contemptible person, and an even worse DM. I hope you find someone more amenable to running a game as you see fit. I expended a ton of effort in the past few days alone to move to a middle ground; however it is apparent that some don't want a middle ground. They want their horse to act that way, and nothing else.

All this Nerf this and nerf that aside, I have come to the realization that the problem here is that as a DM, you have to think like a DM, a dm has no vested interest in how the game progresses or its outcome so long as it progresses smoothly and seamlessly. You on the other hand have a constant desire to play the game as you dm it. Exemplified in the fact that almost all npc's react to similiar situations in identical fashions; ie: all npc's react to threats with indignation, and never with subservience, why is this? Because all the npc's rather than being the captain of the gaurd or the boy thief running the streets are infact Tobias, and Tobias responds to threats with indignaton. I will again convey (from when we spoke) my sense that the changes you have made to "Give us what we asked for" are infact designed to prove to us that your way is better. I think this is a poorly planned approach that will have little good efect on the game. Remember that the smooth flow of the game is the province of the dungeon Master. You are trying to play to win and the game provides no win condition for the dungeon master. It's a lot to think on. It was suggested that I would have just as much fun playing at home by myself in a totally randomly generated world. If this becomes true then I see no point in continuing to play. As for now I plan to attend this weeks session with a wait and see attitude. I have always enjoyed this game and the company associated with it. I think that the attitudes that we bring to the table (including mine) are wholly unproductive. And should be rectified with all haste. It is my personal opinion that since we started this game 2 years ago, I have personally progressed and grown as a player in leaps and bounds experiencing a game of kind has requird me to rise to the occasion and play to the best of my ability, I have had to adjust and change to meet the standards required by the dm. I hope that he in turn will rise to meet the demand of characters who are growing in power and influence and not let the game stagnate into a world of perpetual ativism. Lets move beyond the world of level one. D&D is a game of fantasy and of wit of courage and of battle, A game of diplomacy, a game of friendship and of fun. And if it cant be that then we have betrayed the idea upon which it was built. and that Idea was that people across the nation and even the world would be able to sit as friends and enjoy themselves playing a game. I think everyon involved has forgotten that.

Posted by at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Okay, that was the last frustrating rules/storyline/content conversation I will have with Group 1. If you don't see the need to have a DM with the ability to create a world as he sees fit, then this game doesn't work. If you choose to continue to play with me, the rules questions and arguing (or discussing, or whatever we are calling it now) are done.

I went out and spent 50 hours of my time and a hundred dollars buying books so that I could fix some of what I agreed was wrong with our game, and accomodate some of the players concerns. I started to create monsters and characters (good ones also, not just bad guys) I thought appropriate to the game. For someone to ascribe me with a negative trait and say that I just created a creature and gave it items to kill the party does not understand me, or my game, at all. I didn't do it consciously, or subconsciously. If I wanted to kill a party, I would just do it. I could have a dragon, or Demogorgon, or a pack of Mind Flayers show up and kill everyone. Has that happened?

The funny thing is, the npc in particular is one whose first line of engagement is diplomacy (14 ranks), and who will only fight if provoked. I created an NPC of a long-standing storyline and gave him appropriate skills, spells, abilities and magic items. Why? Because y'all were tired of me winging it. So now instead I am told it has stuff someone feels is inappropriate. Of course, it could have a non-magical item with more effect than the magical one I gave it, but I didn't feel that a lich would have plate mail when it could have a (less effective) magic ring instead. If my intent was to kill you, unconsciously or consciously, I would have given it both.

In any case, this particular argument is neither here nor there. I'm sick of discussing the game to death; I for one would rather play. Whether you care to admit it or not, if the DM (any DM, not just me) doesn't have the unarguable power of creation, then we don't have a game. You can go roll monsters randomly off a chart, randomly roll some treasure, and fight them with your newly min-maxed characters. Or you can have faith that I try to run the most enjoyable game I can and provide more freedom than 99% of DM's out there.. A place where the players have impact and are a large part of the storyline, but also one where there is danger, intrigue, and the possibility of death.

So the choice is yours. We go for at least 3 sessions without an argument (or discussion) that lasts more than 30 seconds, or we close this campaign.

My apologies for an emotional post, but I just can't take the bickering anymore. One thing I have always stressed, even from our first session, is that I can't tolerate rules lawyering.

We used to laugh about 'I don't think my horse would react that way.' I can't laugh about it now, because this game has gotten worse than that.

Posted by at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I meant to do this when I started the gaming blog, and seeing Rodney do it makes me feel guilty for slacking! My regular campaign games tend to have a lot of stuff happen in between game sessions, and having a 'rumor-mill' style posting series makes sense.

I hope to do one of these in between each session.

Month of Scales, Day 9

Weapons Shipment
A shipment of arms and equipment is being transferred between Riversang and one of the northernmost garrison's on the island. It is expected to be heavily guarded, but your informant says it should include over 50 sets of armor, including 1 set of plate for the garrison commander, 3 sets of half-plate for the subcommanders, and a combination of chain, banded and studded leather for various other militia. Informant says there is a 50% chance of a captive dwarf armorer being transferred with the caravan, otherwise there will be a human armorer present.

Beware of Hollow-Night
It is the night of transition between the Month of Scales and the Month of Scorpion. Necromantic and shadow power is at its height and light magic at its 2nd weakest point of the year, and the boundaries between the lands of the living and those of the dead are very weak. It is rumored each year the Riversang Lich visits the Aravant Barrow and sacrifices 12 virgins and raises them as ghouls.

The Freedom Tourney
Flyers posted within easy reach of your town announce a great tournament to be held on Gluttony High, the 23rd day of Scorpion. If a humanoid wins the tournament, he/she will be granted a functional estate on the boundaries of Riversang City. If a human wins, he/she will be granted official freedom to travel and dwell on the isle of Riversang. Ssyeress, Rakshasa Magi and Baron of Sengir Estate, will be returning this year to defend his title and add to his lands. As happens each year, the 3 runner-ups will be raised as Dark Templars to the Lich, serving him for 1 year before regaining their (albeit undead) freedom.

The Golden Manticore
It is rumored a extraplanar creature of good and his retinue has taken up residence in Demonbreun Glade, purpose unknown.

The Werewolf of Garibald Fork
A creature has been sighted in the woods outside of town, drinking water from a creek.

Posted by at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Player Revolt!

Okay, so maybe I had it coming. My players are now convinced that I am constantly nerfing them. (A term coined by players of Everquest I think, when the developers would come in and change something that made their characters weaker) So to protest (I gather), they spent the entire session last Friday arguing with me. Over. Every. Little. Thing. I think part of it was also because they get mad when some monsters don't receive an 'appropriate level' of nerfage. Of course, I'm not sure how much fun the game would be if all the monsters were weaker than them.

While I can handle a good-natured revolt now and again, we didn't get much actual playing done.

In the spirit of goodwill, and a desire to not play that type of session ever again (especially since the session the week before was one of my favorite ever and one of the more successful) I will attempt to answer (and address) some of their concerns.

First, why do I 'nerf'? Well, like the Everquest (and every other game) developers, I seek a balance in my game. I allow the characters a good bit of freedom in their characters, including cleric and elf special abilities, ability for most characters to try to create magic items, increases in skills and crafting during downtime, luck points, ability to round out characters through traits, unusual familiars and the ability to influence fantastic events through prayer and luck.

However, this freedom causes some balance issues and makes the characters more powerful than equivalently levelled characters straight out of the Player's Handbook. So, if something is messing with the general feel of the game and making it not challenging enough, I will change, limit, or otherwise alter an ability, spell, or item to tune it into the spirit of the gameworld.

As I have actually begun to familiarize myself with the current ruleset as the players advance to the higher levels (They are at 9th or so), the other choice to nerfing is to revert to the rules entirely. I'm not entirely opposed to that idea, although I prefer players to have more individuality than the rules currently provide.

Other general concerns deal with my monsters. Most of them are home-grown on the fly, and I agree some of them can get out of hand. Although I won't stop creating my own monsters, I will create a template so that monsters will at least act internally consistent. For example, the first Draconian fought last session I thought was very good, and I had him mapped out, with abilities, prior to the fight. The 2nd Draconian, as the main enemy of the adventure, had to be buffed (opposite of nerfed) due to the new powers of the Psion. Being able to effectively immobilize any opponent for 5 rounds for 1pp is broken. To compensate and still have a creature that didn't just die from ranged attacks, he got unlimited range acid attacks. (Eric was right, these generally would have been limited to every third round or 3-4 times a day.)

Now, I know it will create more work on my part, but I have to admit my players have a point. Where I can, I will have all the major npc's and local creatures outlined and documented. (I've actually started this with some of the bigger Riversang npc's) This will be both good and bad for y'all, but at least it will be more consistent. For example, expect more spell resistant creatures (would give a creature a 50% chance of avoiding the immobilizing effect), more dispel effects, and more spellcasters. (these are hard to do by the seat of my pants, although I like using them) Expect better tactics, creatures calling for reinforcements where they can, and preplanned escape items and routes a la the blue Draconian. At the same time, from this you can expect more consistent loot and valuables if you defeat them, as well as having enemies with better motivations and backgrounds.

Anyhoo, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts, as we've had some changes going on in our game and I don't want anyone to feel as if they don't have a voice in it.

Your humble nerfer, T

Posted by at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)