Community

I’ve written a fair bit about skills in 4e, and how I personally think the math behind skills is a little shakier than, well, anything else in the edition. You can find some of my earlier blogs here and here. One I’d specifically like to point out is this on reinventing skills in 4e.

It might seem a little late to be thinking about house rules for 4th Edition, but I don’t believe so. Not everyone will be making the switch from 4e to 5e, and even those that do might decide to play the occasional short adventure or micro-campaign in 4e. No matter of the final quality of 5e, there will be some adventures and stories that might be better served by 4e. And if the system can be made a little more playable that’s only a bonus.

The Problem

Here’s a quick summary of the problem with skills in 4e. Sorry for anyone who’s read this six times already. I’ll keep in brief.

TL;DR: The numbers are too large too fast and there’s a disparity between trained and untrained that only increases.

You add your ability bonus (which for 4e was at least 16 but often 20) and a training bonus of +5. This means from level 1 the difference between someone trained or skilled and someone untrained and unskilled as much as +5 and a trained and skilled PC could be +10. While, in theory, this doesn’t increase (unlike 3e) as you only add 1/2 your level to skills there are no shortage of other bonuses. Feats regularly give skill bonuses, often as a side perk. Races and backgrounds give skill bonuses. Magic items give bonuses equal to their plus – again often as a side bonus. And there are the stat boosts that bump primary attributes, further adding to the disparity.

As low as level 10 the difference between trained & skilled and untrained & unskilled could be as high as +20, which means a DC the trained character cannot fail even on a “1” the other character cannot succeed even on a “20”.  

The Rule

Start by dumping the bonus from skill training. It goes away. Gone.

Instead, when a character makes a roll with a trained skill they roll two dice and take the higher of the two results, just like Advantage like in 5e.

This is easily done in the Character Builder but not choosing any trained skills and marking printed copies with a check but not changing the numbers.

The Reasoning

Just like in 5e, lowering the numbers reduces the math and allows everyone to participate with skills. The expert doesn’t need to be challenged by increasingly improbably problems that the rest of the party cannot contribute with, and neither does the expert need to sit out in situations that should be good as just because the DCs have to be low enough to challenge everyone else. 

This also means that while training increases your chances for success, it does not increase your maximum beyond physical limits. A trained yet weak long jumper might not be able to jump as far as a strong yet untrained jumper but a trained jumper will have more average and consistent results. There’s still the potential for a lucky amateur and clumsy expert, but it’s reduced as the expert has odds of success with a bell curve. I like this because training is not the equivalent of natural talent. No matter how hard you practice on the parallel bars, if you’re not naturally agile you won’t be as good as someone with raw natural talent having a good day.

As was pointed out by the Online DM the math behind rolling two d20s is roughly equivalent to a +5 in the middle of the bell curve (8-12), so two d20s and keeping the highest is equivalent to a +5 for average DCs. This is important as it means Advantage training is equivalent to the +5 training bonus. So in practice it’s roughly average to the +5 without having to inflate the DCs to accommodate.

Other Possible Changes

A trickier change that would make the math easier would be halving the bonuses from feats and other sources. Instead of the standard +2 bonus granted by races, backgrounds, and many feats this becomes a smaller +1. It’s still a bonus but the numbers do not get as high as fast.

This is trickier, as it cannot be easily done in the Character Builder. So it works if most of the table makes their characters by hand or is comfortable writing in skill bonuses.

If your table prefers to use the Character Builder and doesn’t like writing in bonuses it’s probably best to keep the standard bonuses but just ban feats and magic items that only grant bonuses to a skills, and limit those that grant skill bonuses as a secondary option. Backgrounds might be limited to only providing skill training and not bonuses.

Skill Cap

One other option I quite like but might be a little complicated is the idea of a “skill cap”. Specifically, there is a limit to bonuses you can gain on a skill. This option would not ban feats, items, backgrounds and related options that grant skill bonuses, but would instead cap the bonuses and mostly limit those options to character that are not already optimized for that skill.

This is an idea pulled from World of Warcraft but that shows up in other games, typically ones with heavy gear optimization. In those games you can add and stack bonuses to a certain ability again and again up until a hard limit where additional bonuses either confer no additional benefit or you experience diminishing returns. Such as fire resistance. You can only have so much fire resistance before you either stop taking fire damage or only take minimum fire damage.

As the baseline example, we’ll say the skill cap on skills will be the maximum ability bonus of that level. So the person with magic items, racial bonuses, and the like can make-up for a sub-par ability score to become the equivalent of someone with natural talent but not surpass them, and someone with a high ability score would not be able to get that much better.

So the cap would be 5 + 1 at levels 8, 14, 20, and 28. Simpler but less accurate options might be 5 + 2/tier.

This gives players a little more with items and feats and allows players to build characters closer to what they would want, and allows character to still take options that might allow them to catch-up, which would otherwise be banned.

The problem with this method is it stretches verisimilitude a little. Magic items that make someone stronger of faster (and thus give a skill bonus) won’t function on someone already strong. Which is odd and a little silly. If this is an issue, a variant would a higher cap that would also allow a character with a high ability score to slip on a bonus from somewhere, but not more than one. But, for the reasons stated in an earlier section, it probably shouldn’t be too much higher.

The New DCs

Let’s start to look at what a table of DCs might look like.

Here’s a quick table of the skill numbers assuming an 18 in the request ability score. This is likely the average results. 

Level	Talented	Talented + 1/2 level	Untalented	Untalented + 1/2 level	Disparity
1	4	4	0	0	4
4	4	6	0	2	4
8	5	9	0	4	5
10	5	10	0	5	5
14	6	13	0	7	6
18	6	15	0	9	6
20	7	17	1	11	6
24	7	19	1	13	6
28	8	22	1	15	7
30	9	23	1	16	7

Higher or lower ability scores change the disparity (a 20 in the talented and 8 in the untalented can skew the results and would be the biggest disparity). Likewise, race, feats, and the like can also increase the disparity.

For the chart I’ll start with the basic round numbers: 5, 10, 15, 20. The chances of success for someone with a +4 bonus in the skill would thus be 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%, and for someone with no bonus would be 80%, 55%, 30%, and 5%. As the disparity still increases a little, I’ll have to increase the DC of Hard and Very Hard check, making those harder for non-trained. After about level 8, someone with a penalty and no other bonuses will no longer be able to make a Very Hard check, but that’s a catch of the system. But they can still succeed at Hard checks until the very end, and talented characters still have to make checks to succeed Moderate DCs at the end.

Level	Easy	Moderate	Hard	Very Hard
1	5	10	15	20
2-3	6	11	16	21
4-5	7	12	17	22
6-7	8	13	18	23
8-9	9	14	20	25
10-11	10	15	21	26
12-13	11	16	22	27
14-15	12	17	24	29
16-17	13	18	25	30
18-19	14	19	26	31
20	15	20	27	32
21	16	21	28	33
22-23	17	23	29	34
24-25	18	24	30	35
26-27	19	25	31	36
28-29	20	28	33	38
30	21	27	34	39

 For precision I start with level 1 and have a new column every even level, when skills increase. The only anomaly is level 21, when characters hit the epic tier and everyone gets their second mass stat boost, which does shift the numbers a little.

Eventually, when designing a new fantasy campaign world, you’ll want to map things out. For many this is just doodling on paper or in Photoshop or turning to a campaign cartography or fractal mapping program. But let’s look a little deeper at maps and charting your world, to avoid some of the common pitfalls and mistakes.

This is the third chapter on a series on world building.

Chapters

Below a links to the previous chapters in this series

Introduction

Part 1: The Hook

Part 1.5: Factors

Part 2: Conflict

Part 3: Geography

Part 4: Races

Part 5: Nations

Part 6: Room for monsters

Part 7: Deities

Part 8: Cities

Part 9: Factions

Part 10: History

Part 11: Economics

Part 12: Culture

Part 13: Starting Zone

Part 14: Player's Guide

Continental Basics

Let’s start by jumping ahead to continents. If you’re planning a Bottom-Up campaign this won’t be of much use – but that would make for much shorter and less fun blog series.

There are two major styles of continents that seem to have gained prominence: the partial continent and the ovoid continent.

Partial Continents include worlds such as Greyhawk, Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Paizo’s Golarion, and the Wheel of Time’s Randland. Oval continent include Dragonlance (twice), Eberron (4 times), Birthright, Returned Abeir in the Forgotten Realms and technically Ravenloft.

Partial Continents suggests that the map cannot contain the full world at an adequate scale. This is a little like Europe, which is kinda sorta its own continent despite being physically connected to Asia. Given much of fantasy fiction evokes medieval Europe making the map analogous means there can be similar cultures and familiar trade. They offer a nice landmass to explore but suggest there might be more “out there”, beyond the borders of the map. They’re a world with room to expand. It’s not a world (or continent) in a bubble. Plus, since Lord of the Rings did it first it’s kinda a convention.

The ovoid continent is also a big convention of fantasy fiction. Look at a map of the earth. There’s not a lot of oval continents (pretty much just Antartica and Australia, but the latter has all the island chains of Oceana nearby), so it’s breaking farther away from the familiar. Ovoid continents are so ubiquitous due to the conventions of publishing: they fit nicely on a poster map, a landscape page, or a two-page spread. They’re also nicely self-contained, for those who don’t want to worry about players charging right for the unmapped areas to “see what’s out there.”

It’s tempting to just start drawing islands, randomly doodling coastlines and slapping sub-continents and island chains in various places. But often this results in a map akin to Terra from Might & Magic III with a bunch of unrelated landmasses that are just there.



The above works as a world but for the sake of detail and realism let’s look a little deeper.

Understanding Geography

Let me start by saying I am not a geologist and have no formal training in Earth Sciences. So there'll be some gross oversimplifications at work here.

Continents are composed of one or more tectonic plates and mountains form where plates meet and press together. Regions where plates meet are unstable and prone to earthquakes and volcanoes, as seen in the West Coast or Hawaii. Newer mountains and steep and craggy (like the rocky mountains) but over time the weather erodes and rounds mountains into smoother peaks (like the Appalachians).

When planning a Top-Down campaign world it’s not that much more work to sketch out a few tectonic plates and the direction they’re moving. You don’t need to map out the path of continental drift over the past hundred million years, you just need to know where the stress points are and what plates are pushing together, or pushing apart, or pushing over. Once you know where the plates interact you can draw mountains and island chains.

(As always it’s more complicated than that, as mountains can be around a really, really long time. For example, the Appalachians are in the middle of plate and date back to the supercontinent of Pangaea when northern Africa was squishing against what would become the East Coast of America before the North America plate pushed away and expanded. So if you want more mountains in the wrong place you can add an ancient range.)

Coasts can be tricky. There’s a surprising variety of coastlines, but it’s a good idea to keep them rough and irregular. Within reason. As was noted in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Fjords aren’t very equatorial. It’s easy enough to look at a comparable landmass in the real world and add comparable crinkliness to your continent.

Fjords are the result of rivers and erosion from glaciers, which have had an equal impact on North American terrain. I shouldn’t have to say this but I will anyway: rivers flow downhill. They start as small mountain streams and joining other streams to form rivers. Rivers are like reverse trees, starting out as many smaller branches and getting fewer and fewer and larger and larger.

A very common fantasy cartography mistake is to have rivers branch and split: this is pretty damn rare as water is lazy and takes the path of least resistance. If a river is forced to fork one path – the easier one – will become the new route of the river and the other route will dry out and die. Rivers are also seldom straight, and wind and curve following the terrain.

Here’s a couple images from a 3D map. They’re not 100% accurate and the painter made some of the aforementioned goofs with the smaller rivers but it gives you an idea how rivers look. Check out Google maps as well and look at some rivers.



 
 

Lakes and ponds are tied to rivers, being fed by rivers (inlets) where the water pools until it essentially overflows from the lake out of an outlet. Lakes typically only have a single outlet, but multiple rivers can feed them.

As an example of how easy it is to make a mistake, here's a scan from an early Greyhawk product showing either a river flowing into the mountains and a lake, or two rivers flowing out of a lake.

Seas are salt water bodies, opposed to lakes that tend to be freshwater. They're often connected to the ocean through a channel, but they're often lakes that lack an outlet and have become saline instead of fresh water due to accumulated minerals. Seas are often smaller regions of the ocean that are bordered by land on two or more sides. Inland seas occur in dryer regions, where flowing water isn't so common that the sea overfills and develops an outlet. In temperate areas there are typically large lakes instead of seas, as regular winter runoffs cycle out the water preventing salt accumulation.

In larger bodies of water (oceans) there are also water currents. These are typically clockwise in northern latitudes and counter-clockwise in southern latitudes. This is important for shipping lanes and knowing if currents and bringing cold or warm water. It's handy to know but less important on world building.

Jumping back to rivers for a second, I should not that most rain falls on one side of the mountains. Wet air is blown by the wind from the ocean until it hits mountains where the air is pushed up, cools, and becomes rain. So there are more streams and rivers along the wetter side of mountains. So the air after the mountains is drier. While there might be rivers (from mountain streams) there is less rain in the rain shadow. To figure out where that would be I need to talk about how air moves.

Understanding Climate

Geology is hard but climate is harder. Geology is consistent but climate is affected by a vast multitude of small interrelated factors. This is why we cannot predict the weather accurately and why we cannot be exact on the effects of Climate Change from Global Warming on a small regional scale. There was a solid documentary on this on Discovery a while back called Earth from Space if you can track it down.

As such, it’s pretty much impossible to make a fake world entirely realistic. But this also means once you establish the big zones and obvious climatology you can fudge the rest under the guise of dozens of small invisible systems at work.

At its core, climate is governed by the wind. The tropical winds blow one direction (west) while the temperate winds blow another (east).

 

The air also circulates and flows, being pulled up in an endless cycle.

Notice the gaps between the major wind currents, the zones where the tropics become the temperate zones. These are the horse latitudes which contributes to the arid regions at those locations.

What all this means is that we can divide the globe into three zones: the tropic, the temperate, and the polar with deserts in the high pressure regions where the tropics become temperate.

Understanding Scale

This is more of a pet peeve than a big point for world building. I once offered to purty up some maps for a friend of mine’s fantasy world. He hadn’t really travelled much, maybe five hours drive from our city. And, being a North American used to cars he has a pretty skewed sense of scale (what with our hundreds of kilometres of plains endlessly stretching across the continent). So he tossed out some numbers that seemed impressive, pegging his continent at roughly 8,000 km by 8,000 km. Or, put in prespetive, about the size of one-and-a-half Asias.

It’s also possible to low-ball the scale. Dragonlance is an excellent example with the continent of Ansalon being half the size of Australia. I’ve heard it compared to Western Europe but it’s really more comparable to Spain, France, and Britain with the border between England and Scotland flooded and a big water-filled gap in eastern France where the Blood Sea would be. Which would be fine if it was built around being a small land, but the southern tip of the continent is by icefields while the northern regions are tropical. So the entire planet is tiny.

It’s been said that to an America a hundred years is a long period of history and a hundred miles is a short distance, but to a European a hundred years is a short period of history and a hundred miles is a long distance. World building emphasises this.

Remember that in D&D, the average person can travel somewhere between 30-60 km each day (20-40 miles). If something is more than 80km away (50 miles) it’s a two day trip. For us, that’s a couple hour drive. People commute longer than that.

When designing a fantasy world remember that at its peak, Rome was only 5 million square kilometres, a unwieldy size for the ancient world but around half the size of the United States. While magic can be used to justify faster travel, easier communication and the like transporting food and goods for the common folk will still be a slow arduous process. Work and plan accordingly.

Geography in War World

As I’m building this world for a blog and likely not for use in my homegame anytime soon, I’ll be cheating on my geography a little. Rather than designing a brand new continent from scratch, I’m starting with South America flipped vertically. It’s not the standard oval shape of fantasy contintesm – which is a nice change – but serves a similar function. Being long and narrow lends itself well to this blog site (which tends to narrow pictures).

I’ll also move the continent north a little, so the tip is well within the Antarctic circle. This means more of the continent is in the Temperate zone and closer to the European and North America climate. The Equator moves from Ecuador to the Guatemala area.

I’ll draw on the plates, mimicking the ones in real life. But to simply a little I’ll remove the small Scotia plate. And to add some extra mountains and shake things up, I’ll add a landmass to the Cocos plate and slam that into the southern end of my continent as a subcontinent like India.

I’ll draw some lines onto the map where the plates interact and form mountains. The Andes should be familiar and unchanged, but I’ll add some mountains where I smashed in the subcontinent. I’ll add some small, old mountains in the region that used to be southern Brazil for reasons similar to the Appalachian Mountains. Just to add some diversity to the terrain.

Now onto the climate. Flipping and moving the continent would normally radically change the climate, moving the direction of the prevailing winds. However, because I flipped and moved the continent the winds are roughly in the same position, although the horse latitude shifts down (from what was Southern Brazil to what was Northern Brazil).

What was Southern Argentina becomes dry tundra in the rain shadow of the Andes. The arbitrary mountains I threw into the Southern Brazil region would catch much of the remaining moisture in the clouds creating rain, so there would be a number of streams. The lowlands of Northern Argentina and Paraguay would become rife with rivers. There might be some marshland here as well as temperate to boreal forests.

Bolivia and much of south-central Brazil would likely be temperate forests and plains, possibly resembling the central United States. Peru, being in the horse latitude and a rain shadow would be arid desert. It would be dry well into Brazil before the desert would likely give way to plains with forests near the many large rivers now flowing to Venezuela or Central Brazil. This area might be prone to tornadoes as well, likely funnelled north by the mountains.

Northern Brazil with would be heavy forest and jungle with its many rivers from the double mountains and the wet south-westerly wind dumping rain. Venezuela and Columbia would see some rain and be the focus of rivers channelled down the continent. They’ll likely be more than a little swampy, like hotter and more equatorial Louisianas.

This all sounds complex but doesn’t take that long or nearly as much effort as it looks. It doesn’t take long to draw out the map, figure out the scale, and compare its position (in terms of longitude) to someplace in the real world. They sketch out how the air flows and you have a pretty good idea of what the weather and climate would be like. It took me significantly longer to write (and draw in a presentable manner) than it took to sketch out the terrain and air currents on a piece of scrap paper. It’s a little extra work but it’s nice knowing that players won’t look at the world and go “hey, that river is flowing upstream” or “why is there a forest in the rain shadow of that mountain range?” There’s only so often you can answer “magic” to justify slapping terrain wherever. The point of enchanted forests is that they’re supposed to be special, not a crutch for people unwilling to browse Wikipedia. 
**

Shameless Plug
Check out my webcomic at its new url: www.5mwd.com
New Comics posted Tuesday and Thursday.

 

Let’s talk about the upcoming changes to the Forgotten Realms. This isn’t really a topical subject, being some time after the announcement at GenCon and some time before the novels and adventures are released. I had planned it earlier but kept delaying this piece to write other blogs. Oops.

If you hadn’t heard, the forthcoming revamp of the Realms was revealed at the GenCon Keynote address and mentioned in a couple panels on the Realms. They’re doing an event called “the Sundering” which is designed to both transition the Realms to 5e but also bring the Forgotten Realms back to basics.

Yeah... I’m experiencing a little déjà vu here.

The Nuking the Realms

For 4e, the Forgotten Realms was altered via a trilogy of modules published for 3e, where the god Cyric conspired kill the god Mystra, which caused the Spellplague that altered the world. This upheaval also promoted Toril to partially merge with its twin, Abeir. This was a pretty major retcon, as the world of the Realms was previously known as “Abeir-Toril” and just shorted to “Toril”.

To summarize the other changes I’ll be quoting from Wikipedia: 

The fourth edition of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, released in 2008, saw major changes to the geography of Faerûn and the world of Abeir-Toril. Due to a magical cataclysm known as the Spellplague, the southern parts of Faerûn were devastated. Chult became an island detached from the mainland, the kingdom of Halruaa was utterly destroyed, and parts of the Sea of Fallen Stars drained into the Underdark. The northern Realms were less affected by the Spellplague, but during the 100-year gap between the third and fourth editions of the setting it was revealed that the Netherese wizards of the city of Shade had eliminated the desert of Anauroch, returning the land to its pre-Fall state. The borders of some of the kingdoms were changed to reflect this. In addition to these changes, floating islands of earth known as 'earthmotes' appeared in the skies above Faerûn and the continent of Maztica across the western ocean vanished along with the Faerûnian colonies on its east coast

The majority of the changes for the 4e Realms were designed to make the Realms more accessible to new players while simultaneously addressing common complaints with the world.

The vast pantheons were cut back to a single group of gods, with the smaller side-pantheons fading away. Gods were merged or altered, as portfolios changed hands.

The real-world analogues were replaced by new nations (giving homelands to the dragonborn and genasi), altered in a way as to distance them from their real world counterparts, or they were destroyed by the Spellplague and reduced to Plaguelands.

The time jump ahead a century also served to remove many of the high level NPCs from the world, countering the oft-recited complaint that any problem in the Realms should be instantly fixed by an Epic-level hero.

Lastly, the largest complaint with the Realms was always that there was so much information. To run a campaign in the Realms, it was felt a DM needed to read a dozen novels or canon would be violated. To solve that, the time jump and changes served a final function: they adding mystery back to the Realms. With so many new places or altered places, there was much more room to explore and new stories to be told: DMs weren’t violating canon, things had just changed in the century-long gap. As most locales that were undetailed after the jump, it was far easier for DMs to make places their own without conflict.

Dragonlanced

Unsurprisingly, the changes were not well loved. Nations and lands people had enjoyed were removed, gods that were personal favourites vanished, beloved NPCs died, and campaigns had to be changed. It forced gaming groups to make the unenviable choices to abandon personal canon and stories to advance their campaigns the same 104 years, or remain behind and unsupported by future content.

Ironically, the people hurt most by the changes were the fans who had dedicated themselves to the Realms. Suddenly, their hard-earned lore was less useful, their novels less topical, and their wealth of products from the FR back catalogue were dated and unusable. This isn't really surprising when you think about it. WotC was focusing the changes on problems people had with the Realms, meaning they were making the changes for people who were not using the Realms not for people who were using the Realms.

The funny thing is TSR had done this once before. With Dragonlance. With similar results.

To support that world and make it stand out (and give it a standalone game system) TSR removed all the gods and existing magic systems, had the world taken over by massive dragons of incredible power, and advanced the timeline by 30-odd years.

The fans didn’t like that very much either (although the 5^th Age/ Age of Mortals does have its fans). Plus it also split the Dragonlance audience away from the standard D&D products, as the games with incompatible. Supporting multiple incompatible product lines is a production no-no. So, when 3^rd Edition was released they quickly un-did many of the changes bringing back the gods and the magic and removing as many of the changes as possible. However, because they did not want to admit the potential mistake or discard fans of the new status quo they kept as many of the new additions as possible, leading to a very crowded world.

I should note that the big difference between Dragonlance and the Realms was that the Dragonlance changes and Events were largely tied to the novels. The change that led from 2e to SAGA were in Dragons of Summer Flame and the return of the gods was handled in the War of Souls novels. The gaming material was generally focused on the after-effects. In contrast, the Realms changes between 3e and 4e were handled by gaming material with little novel support that I can see. Given the large Realms fanbase that only consumes the novels this might have been a mistake.

Currently, Dragonlance is pretty much in an un-publishable state as a result of the changes. There are the three major time periods, each with ardent fans, with content that is incompatible. Some fans want a return to the classic era of the War of the Lance, while others are tired of era having seen it too many times already and want the setting to continue to advance and change. Many regions are unrecognisable between eras, so generic descriptions are difficult. It would be impossible to easily publish a setting book without upsetting one fanbase or another.

This is the problem the Realms is running headlong into.

Un-Nuking

WotC is in a position I do not envy. They had even been warned. Members of the Dragonlance community, seeing a similar tone in the air, contacted Rich Baker, warning him the changes to the Realms were similar to what had been done with Dragonlance, but Mr. Baker replied it would be okay as the fans of the Realms were dedicated and used to the idea it was a living changing world, that they’d follow the changes regardless because it was still the Realms.

And the changes to the Realms really weren’t that bad, and most of the changes were understandable given the goals: add mystery, allow DMs to make the world their own, and reduce the number of Name NPCs. The term “nuking” is more than a little overly dramatic. It’s hard to point to any one change and say “that was unarguably a mistake.”

Now they want to bring the Realms back to basics, restoring some of the feel that had been lost. An admirable goal, one all of the D&D brand seems to be embracing. They’re being coy about what this involves, but suggest there will be wars and upheavals but most of the actual novels and stories will involve characters reacting to the changes.

The catch with changing things back is that invariably some people will have liked the some of the changes. Or newcomers to the Realms will react badly to these changes. It’s very much a Catch-22 situation, with WotC having to satisfy two very different audiences.

From the logo of the Sundering, it looks like they’re going to pull Abeir and Toril back apart. This might be the easy out, justifying changes back by saying it’s a bit of Toril that had been on Abeir for the past century and is now back. But if they keep Abeir around and make it more of a presence, they can keep the new elements and nations around, albeit through the looking glass.

Your World

One of the hooks WotC is using to promote the change is allowing the Realms to belong to the fans. During the keynote address they repeatedly said that the Realms was "Your world", and that they would be using the reported outcome of adventures to determine the future of the setting. They would be allowing the players to determine the future.

It's certainly a cool idea. WotC publishes a series of adventures with variable outcomes, gives the fans a period to play the adventures and report in (hopefully longer than 3 months), and uses the outcome to help write the campaign guide and plan future content. It does remind me of a couple things.

First, WotC tried this already with LFR. Remember how LFR was supposed to be "canon" and affect the Realms. That the outcome of modules or events of modules were meant to be mentioned in fiction and future products. Yeah... that never happened. And LFR quickly got shoved into the un-canon box before being dumped as the preferred organized play program in favour of Encounters.

I'm also reminded a little of Legend of the 5 Rings. One of the hooks with that brand is that organized play (in conventions and special events) is used to determine the future storylines. The world evolves due to the wishes of the community and both the card game and the RPG can generate change. Due to player actions a minor clan became a major clan before becoming the ruling Imperial clan. While I don't think the winners of tournaments should decide the outcome of the Realms it's still an interesting idea.

Looking at both options it might be really fun to have regular modules that can affect the Realms, letting players and groups determine the outcome of key events. And, taking a page from L5R, conventions might be a fun place to also allow this to take place. There could be the big Realms special event at GenCon (that could be repeated at Pax and other big cons) while smaller events could be ordered online for local convention play, with one or two each year.

It's a fun idea, but it's hard if people come into things late, or for those big Realms fans who don't have a group that plays in the Realms. And it puts some of the fate of the novel line in the hands of the RPG player base, which is a partially unrelated audience. Still, given the choice between no player influence and problematic player influence I'd go for the latter every time. It's an interesting idea and it will be fun to see how WotC can manage the events. I just hope the effects are major and interesting and they're not just giving the fanbase influence over the fate of Chult or something. Determining the new ruler of Cormyr or the freedom of Sembia would be much more interesting.

Paired with the player influence over the setting, the focus of the world is moving more to what is needed for groups of players. The attention is on individual adventurers shaping and changing the world: the stories of gaming groups rather than gods and powerful heroes from the novels. WotC really wants the big heroes of your Realms campaign to be your PCs. As such, there will be less meddling from the gods and no more world shaking / Realms changing events.

...

Until the next change happens.

Let's face it, the focus on players being the heroes of the Realms was also a huge focus of the 4e Realms. And while WotC is hyping how the novels are going to focus on the personal problems of the protagonists and not massive world-shaping events or huge catastrophes, the same could be said for the majority of the 4e Realms novels as well. Maybe 10% of the FR novels in the last five years have focused on big Realms shaking events with the protagonists effecting major change. Right up until this event. If you remove the Sundering from the equation there's not much of a change in attitude. In many ways, the Sundering is a return to world altering stories in the novels.

And the attitude of "make the Realms your own" echoes from 1st and 2nd edition, where Semia was going to be left untouched and becomes the place where everyone could play around while still having a canon game. In the 2e Realms boxed set (the light grey one) they even mentioned how they received a lot of flak for the Horde invasion of that region as it infringed on many people's Sembia games and recommitted themselves to only describing the basics and leaving the land alone. 3e reversed that policy with novels detailing Sembia while 4e ignored it completely and radically changed Sembia.

Much of this is just me being cynical and more than a little dead inside. But while the initiative sounds all well and good it will last only as long as the current management keep their positions and/or the Realms' sales numbers don't dip. Five years from now, if there's someone new in the Big Seat and Realms sales aren't doing as well as she believe they could, she'll say "Hey, remember how well big Realms shaking events always sold well? Let's do one. With some meddling gods. And Elminster right in the middle." And while they said they didn't feel the need to change the Realms with every edition just to explain the changes to magic or the rules, I'm sure if the game makes it to 6th Edition we'll see another big change to the Realms.

Moving Forward

It's going to be interesting to see how WotC handles the change, and how the fans react to the change. Again. While the changes for 4e were undoubtedly designed to increase the fanbase of the Realms, this likely came at the cost of many longtime fans. And while many FR fans stuck around and enjoyed the changes or new freedom it wasn't universal praise. 

Any new changes will need to be done carefully not to lose either the new fans or any more old fans, while also luring back lapsed fans and earning still newer fans. It's not impossible but it's unenviablely hard.

Surveys might be a good idea. Similar to how they're getting feedback from the playtests, they could see how people have already used and changed the 4e Realms (for example, how many have brought back Mystra or replaced her with a new god of magic) and respond accordingly. Rather than guess at the changes people were happy with and unhappy with they can poll and respond accordingly. See what people actually want with the Realms instead of just guessing. Telling people what they wanted was how WotC got into the mess of the last four years. They literally cannot afford to remake this mistake. 

All stories are driven by conflict. Fiction is driven by narrative conflict and games are driven by the conflict between either the players at the table or – in the case of most RPGs – between the GM and the players, be it directly or indirectly.

This is the second chapter on a blog series on World Building.

Chapters

Below a links to the previous chapters in this series

Introduction

Part 1: The Hook

Part 1.5: Factors

Part 2: Conflict

Part 3: Geography

Part 4: Races

Part 5: Nations

Part 6: Room for monsters

Part 7: Deities

Part 8: Cities

Part 9: Factions

Part 10: History

Part 11: Economics

Part 12: Culture

Part 13: Starting Zone

Part 14: Player's Guide

Conflicted

In D&D, much of the conflict comes in the form of story or the monsters, with the exact ratio being determined by the type of game. In a classic old school dungeon crawl, the vast majority of the conflict will occur between monsters and the PCs, as the party moves from room to room. In a more narrative game, the conflict might be driven by many different factors and monsters might be a minority – if they exist at all! Given dungeon crawls can occur on any world, very little world building thought needs to be given to dungeon-based conflict: it can be handled on an adventure-by-adventure basis. However, conflict in a larger world is much harder to add spontaneously. The more conflicts and potential conflicts in a world, the more potential adventure hooks and adversaries the DM has to work with and the more ideas that can be drawn on for inspiration.

Why Start with Conflict?

This might seem like an odd topic for the second part of the series. I began with “the Hook” and am pushing conflict before thinking of nations or the races or the role of the various classes. Why start thinking about potential conflict in the world so soon?

The reason is conflict informs so much else in the world. The scope of a campaign world – its usability for multiple stories, adventures, or campaigns – is dependent on the number of conflicts. Conflict is something that informs so much of the later design that its importance needs to be emphasised early. It’s not as foundational as “the Hook” but is pretty darn important.

I’m going to abuse Greyhawk and Dragonlance for my examples here, which will likely upset a few people. Both are great examples of worlds with little diversity in their built-in conflict.

Dragonlance was really an Adventure Path (the first AP!) that spun off into a setting. It wasn’t intended to be a fully fleshed-out campaign world: it was pitched as a short series of adventures design to tell a single story and focus on dragons. As Chris Perkins has noted, Dragonlance has the one really big story: the War of the Lance. There have been many other stories told and additional epic events have rocked the landscape of Ansalon, but most involve newly arisen foes, previously unknown menaces, or the same faces seen during the War of the Lance. The later conflicts are tacked-on.

Meanwhile, in Greyhawk there were a large number of competing nations, but little variety beyond rampaging monsters. Most of the powerful NPCs were former Player Characters whose story was focused on killing monsters & exploring the depths of Castle Greyhawk or the rivalry between three city-states. To liven up the setting during the Greyhawk Wars event, TSR had a couple noteworthy heroes turn evil and increased tension between the various rival nations. But the world was still focused on dungeon crawls and national politics.

(Although, it defence of Greyhawk, it was left blank on purpose so DMs could make it their own. In the eyes of Gygax, the lack of built-in story and conflict was a feature not a bug.)

It’s easy to have lengthy campaigns in both, easily adding new threats and menaces to drive the story, but that requires a little more work (semi-defeating the purpose of using a published world), or the campaign runs the risk of over-using the few Name bad guys of each setting. It’s a little like Transformers or G.I.Joe where in every episode the bad guy is the same: “something mysterious is happening somewhere in the world, gee I wonder if a Decepticon/Cobra is involved?”

In contrast, an example of a campaign world with more pre-built conflict is the Forgotten Realms, which was created around the same time as Greyhawk and published around the same time as Dragonlance. The Realms has the Zhentarim, the Red Wizards, the Cult of the Dragon, thieves’ guilds, evil merchants, the clerics of various evil gods, and more. All in the first boxed set, and in addition to the usual suspects of dragons, devils, and assorted other monsters. It isn’t just Takhisis and her armies again and again.

But it goes beyond that. Even in the “good guy” nation of Cormyr there is tension between the crown and the squabbling noble families vying for power, the familial tension between the king and the daughter that wants to be an adventurer, and the national tension with neighbouring Sembia and independant Dalelands.

A Realms campaign can feature multiple different opponents, sometimes even in the same adventure, with a great deal of variety in enemies and their goals. And all have strong ties to the world, its lore and history, and the setting in general: the conflict is integral not additive.

In short, the more potential adversaries and opponents in a setting, the more varied and diverse the campaign and story and the easier it is for the DM to be flexible

Types of Conflict

Having established the need for baseline conflict let’s briefly pause and look at the potential areas to add conflict and tension to a world. As everyone should have learned in Elementary school, there are three types of conflict. Man versus Man, Man versus Nature, and Man versus Himself.

The last one (man vs. himself) isn’t particularly useful on a worldbuilding scale, so we’ll skip heavy discussion on that type. It is useful for character building though, so it’s handy to establish a cultural baseline for races, so players have something they can base their character on: either to stand out from or embody as a common member of a race. That drives personal conflict, either as the odd-man out or striving to live up to the ideals of your people.

Starting with the middle, the embodiment of Man vs. Nature is Dark Sun where the setting itself is the worst enemy the players will face. But even more mundane places can add some environmental hazards to the game, with large deserts, barren tundra, frozen glaciers, and the like. There should be places where just day-to-day life is dangerous and adventurers are challenged to even survive. In many worlds the Underdark qualifies, but the Mournlands in Eberron is a good example. Likewise, unintelligent monsters are as much a factor of vs. Nature conflict as a precocious marlin and some sharks. As such, there should be some wild areas where monsters run free and civilization has no hold, as is demonstrated by the theme of Points of Light in the Nentir Vale setting.

Even if Nature is not directly slapping the PCs in the face it can drive conflict. Scarcity of resources always drives tension and can fuel other tension. Dangerous trade routes or resource monopolies are great examples of easy tension. Strategic locales can also drive conflict and stories. Look at Constantinople/Istanbul for a famous city that has changed hands many times and been the focus of much conflict due to its location.

More than likely, Man vs. Man will be the driving conflict of most worlds. This can be subdivided into Man vs. Man and Man vs. Society. The first is the common evil people doing bad things, but would also include good people doing bad things (for “good” reasons), selfish people doing selfish things, misguided people doing bad things, and the like. It might be limited to individuals but would also include groups of varying sizes. Evil foreign powers would also count.

Man vs. Society is a little more complicated, not just being conflict with the people in the society but their philosophy; the conflict is almost Man vs. Idea. This takes place when the heroes are fighting the evil nation of evil as inhabitants and not representatives & champions of the neighbouring good nation. It starts with the “Resistance” style campaign, where the heroes are working to overthrow a government (legitimate or occupational) but could also include campaigns where the heroes have a different philosophy from the rest of the nation (honest folk in the city of corrupt schemers, noble souls in the back-stabbing drow nation, free thinkers in the dogmatic theocracy, etc).

There’s also the scale of conflict. In a 4e game this equates with Tier, but 5^th Edition might have a different tier system as we haven’t heard anything about its level range, but it’s safe to say we’ll eventually have some form of epic high level play.

Conflict can start small, on a local scale. This includes family tension, politics limited to a single village or small city, and drama between small households. Moving a step larger there is large feuding families ala Romeo & Juliet and politics in a large city. Large merchant guilds might also come into play here, as would various urban organizations. Beyond that things go to a national scale, with conflict between cities or regions in a single nation. Merchant houses that control trade between cities, nobles fighting for power over entire regions. Church officials that hold power over multiple parishes. The scope keeps increasing, and conflict goes international and the rivalries of nations take presence. Then the problems of entire continents become apparent, or the conflict moves to a planetary or planar scale. At the upper end of the conflict scale there’s church against church in a massive holy war or the collective armies of multiple nations being used like pawns on a cosmic chessboard.

This isn't to say the problems of common people stop mattering to high level parties (although they often do) but that there needs to be room for the conflict to go and problems set-up for various level ranges and power levels. If the primary conflict in a world is divine in nature and revolves around competing deities then by the time the party can actually impact and resolve the conflict they will have been dealing with it for years of real time. It might easily grow stale. Instead, a the larger conflict might trickle down, having ripples on a smaller scale that can be noticed and solved while leading to the larger problems. Speaking of which...

Engineering Conflict

When designing a world it’s a good idea to slip in a few different types of conflict and a few layers of conflict. There should be small personal conflicts that can be easily resolved or escalate into larger problems. There’s should be larger problems that are affecting things on a regional and local scale. Even if the larger problems are not a focus of the campaign or something the PCs can influence, having this larger conflict as a backdrop gives the sense of a larger, living world. 

As an example, the second World War drives and influences the plot of Casablanca but the actual war itself is really a backdrop as the real story is the romantic love triangle. Any conflict could replace WWII in the story and the plot would move forward (as can be seen in any of the half-dozen Cassablanca clones). The PCs don’t have to be fighting in a conflict – or even picking sides – to have it influence the story.

Conflict should be both past and present. It’s a good idea to have some ideas of old conflicts with lingering resentment that might build-up to renewed conflict. It helps establish relationships and assumptions between nations and races: despite being at peace for 200-years, the prior centuries of continual war still influence British and French perceptions of each other.  England and Scotland have been one nation for 300-years but the old animosity remains. 

Not all conflict needs to be entirely justified either. Propaganda and assumptions are powerful weapons. The Crusades were all about freeing the “Holy Land” from the non-Christian heathens despite Muslims respecting Christ and Islam being one of the three Abrahamic religions. It’s always fun to tell PCs that the neighbouring nation is full of “baby-eating heretic savages” or “evil virgin-sacrificing wizards” only to reveal their homeland is actually intolerant or misguided.

It’s also a good idea to create a few “wild card” opponents, bad guys or evil organizations that are mobile or operate on an international level that can be dropped in anywhere, such as the Zhentarim or Scarlet Brotherhood – although I’ll write much more on this in the eventual Organizations part of the series.

As I’ll discuss much more in the nation building chapter, no country should be all-good. Even the noblest most decent nation run by kitten-hugging paladins of Pelor will have its tensions and conflicts somewhere. It’s human nature to divide ourselves into opposed tribes. There should be seedy underbellies, competition for rank and prestige, concerns over trade, and the like. The kitten-hugging pallys might be anti-dogs, or compete for places in the church hierarchy, or fight over the best quests and charities to support. In real world terms, America the “land of the free” is a nation divided on every major issue by a binary political system of deeply entrenched parties (essentially “the incumbent” and “the opposition” ) and still fractured from a 150-year-old war and years of racial inequality while struggling with massive financial problems that have resulted into staggering debt and inequal distribution of wealth. And all of the above makes for great narrative conflict and potential stories. Lots of fodder for the worldbuilder as utopias make for crappy stories.

Conflict is not a step in and of itself, but something that needs to be considered with all future steps. As discussed last time, when adding an element to the world, such as describing a race and nation, a good world builder should ask themselves “How does this reflect, complement, or contrast the Hook?” And just like that, when creating some element, a world builder should ask themselves “Where is the conflict?” For nations they should be able to answer the question “Where is the conflict against nature, and where is the conflict against people?” For races they should be able to ask “What are the major conflicts with this race?”

Conflict in War World

To wrap-up this chapter, we’ll return to my example world, tentatively named “War World”. At this point, I can only work in generalities as I’ll be describing the races or nations in those chapters and am trying not to think too far ahead so I can best reflect the discussion points in my chapters. As such, I’ll have to keep the idea of “conflict” in mind while doing those examples. Which is the point.

Much of the conflict for this world is easy because of the Hook: there need to be nations that are currently at war. But the conflict shouldn’t end there. There needs to be varied and layered conflict.

There should also be nations that were at war regularly over the past but are currently at peace, possibly because one nation is at war with someone else and does not wish to wage a two-front war. That makes for great stories and tension. One nation might be considering breaking the peace to trap the other nation in the aforementioned two-front war, viewing it as an opportunity for decisive victory. Other factions might push for an alliance, viewing it as a chance for lasting peace. The third nation might be trying for an alliance themselves against their mutual enemy, or trying to orchestrate a war through deception. That's conflict without open conflict right there, and many of those ideas could play out at the same time with various factions competing with contrary goals.

In lengthy war, there’s also the tension from occupied countries or regions. Occupied France during WWII is a good modern example, as would be Iraq during the recent invasion. There’s always the resistance movements and those seen as collaborators. In wider wars there might be foreign involvement, with aid supplied by 3rd Party nations – such as the aid offered to Afghani rebels during the Soviet occupation of that country. Seized territory is always a point of contention; after a few generations the “occupiers” become the “inhabitants” and the true ownership of the land becomes tricky. This might be especially fun in a D&D fantasy world where a generation for one race is significantly shorter than for other races.

In a world where warfare is the expected behaviour pacifistic movements are another point of tension. Just look at the peace movement of the ‘60s, a direct reaction to the Vietnam War. And even in a world torn apart by war there might be pacifistic neutral nations – such as Switzerland in most modern wars. The Swiss are neutral because their country is really a mix of four different ethnicities and is bordered by six modern countries. They don’t take sides as the inhabitants typically have ties to both sides.

A race or nation of mercenaries would also cause some lovely tension, not being trusted by many – as they were “the enemy” until recently – but would be +necessary to win otherwise equal battles. Plus there’s the inherent conflict of someone raised in such a culture picking a side or fighting for a cause other than money, which is a nice hook for a PC (an understated but important step in worldbuilding is seeding the writing with character hooks and roles to inspire creativity).

Something that’s less reflective of the real world might be people without a nation. Vaguely similar to the Roma or Hebrew people, in the War World this might better resemble the people of Cyre from Eberron. Their nation might have been brutally occupied and annexed and the population fled or became slaves. Or it might have been laid waste by mundane or magical means (or a mix of both; I’m imagining squads of flying dragons salting the earth).

This is all in addition to the standard small-scale personal problems, merchants struggling with bandits, monsters raiding settlements, families with secrets and personal problems, and all the little stories that continue despite the larger problems. 

**

Shameless Plug
Check out my webcomic at its new url: www.5mwd.com
New Comics posted Tuesday and Thursday.

 

I was really excited by the creative design space offered by the 5e fighter’s expertise dice mechanic, but I was much more interested by the improvisational space it created. It was a fluid, flexible mechanic, a spendable yet rechargeable resource designed to be burned for varied combat actions. It was as simple as the player wanted it to be and changed depending on desired role: it kept damage off the tank, added damage to the brute, and could be used for mob control by the defender.

But there’s a problem. No sooner was it created but content and options were heaped on the character and the potential to improv was removed as room to stunt shrunk. Is this an issue? Maybe. It depends on the type of game you like. D&D has always been a very codified game with rules for everything (excluding Basic D&D) so this is likely not a problem for much of the audience, especially fans of the last two editions. But if D&D wants to grow its audience beyond the constraints of its current fanbase, plus embrace what separates tabletop RPGs from video and board games (a dedicated human referee who can adjudicate and narrate) then it's something to think about.

As a head’s up, this blog has spun out of my earlier piece on “DM May I” play, including discussion in the comments. So if you hated that piece you might want to listen to some calming music while drinking soothing tea during your reading.

Stunted Stunting

Here’s the thesis of this blog: too much content limits the ability to improv. The more options and powers a character has, the larger the minimum number of choices, the harder it becomes to improvise actions in combat.

Imagine the fighter is locked in brutal mortal combat with an armoured skeleton. No matter what the player does, he cannot land a significant enough hit to get past the armour or damage reduction of the monster. So he opts for a spontaneous change of tactics and tries to trip the skeleton. In 1e and 2e there weren’t really rules for that action, so the DM could make it up. Opposed Strength checks worked well. 3e had the strict codified rules that made it a possibility but a suboptimal choice; anyone could attempt a trip attack, but unless the character was built for it the chances of success would be lower and the enemy typically got a free attack. In 4e tripping was reserved for characters with a power that knocked an enemy prone, so doing so without a power required DM fiat, a skill check, and likely wouldn’t do any damage. Just like 3e, you could try tripping if you really, really wanted, but it was a suboptimal choice.

Nothing in 4e prevents a DM from saying “it’s balanced for a power to allow you to attack and knock an enemy prone, so I’ll let you improv that” but there’s the subtle implication that skill is required, that a character needs particular training to trip reflected in knowing a related power. Otherwise, what was the benefit of taking that power? Few DMs would allow a wizard to make-up a spell or cast something they did not know, so why are fighters (and rogues and rangers) different?

The number of powers is also an impediment. It’s one thing for a DM to allow a player to attempt an At-Will power untrained, but an Encounter power is something else. But with the sheer number of Encounter powers in the game, it becomes harder and harder to know exactly what should and should not be possible. It becomes easier to just say “no” rather than admit to being uncertain if something is equivalent to an At-Will or an Encounter or a feat or a Paragon feature.

As mentioned, a solid DM can work around the power limitation, calling for a skill check or imposing a penalty on the attack (or, like 3e, allowing the monster to make a free attack). But requiring skilled DMing is the kind of “DM May I?” play that adding options was meant to circumvent. It’s an ironic situation: to prevent DM fiat and unskilled DMs from limiting player options the number of inherent options is increased, which makes it harder for DM fiat to allow additional options or requires an even more adept DM.

Moving on to 5e, the fighter’s combat superiority seems like a flexible stuntable mechanic. If the player want to attempt something cinematic but powerful (or combat changing), then the DM can call for them to sacrifice an expertise die or two. (This might be a bit too much like a plot coupon mechanic, but I rather like “plot points” and similar narrative manipulation mechanics.) However, the designers quickly latched onto the mechanic and wrote-up a number of combat manoeuvres that allow the expertise dice to be spent for specific benefits.

Working with the above example, a fighter can spend an expertise die to knock an enemy prone. Again, it’s harder to justify stunting if there’s a power that does exactly what the stunt would be.

Room to Bloat

The combat superiority mechanic has been in public hands for a month, and there’s already a dozen options for the first five levels. It’s very easy to imagine many, many additional powers being added, quickly covering every conceivable manoeuvre. As mentioned above, the more content there is in the game, the easier it is for a DM to be overwhelmed by potential rule abuse or precedent-setting of a bad call. But there are other issues.

Nature abhors a vacuum and game designers abhor a design gap. They design games: it’s their reason for living, it’s their very nature. When crossing rivers on the backs of frogs, game designers don’t sting but devise games related to river crossing or riding frogs. A fresh blank mechanic calls out to them like sirens calling with an offer of beer and pizza. Content must be created, their imaginations burst with ideas that simply must be added to the game.

Expect many more fighter combat manoeuvres in the future, each one encroaching a little farther into the territory of stunting.

Additionally, fighter combat manoeuvres are unique to the fighter. Currently, only the fighter has tumble. The rogue doesn’t. Let me repeat and emphasise that: rogues cannot tumble in 5e. By sticking the fighter tricks in the fighter section and codifying most combat tricks and stunts as expressions of spent expertise dice, the question becomes: how can rogues pull off a combat stunt? Or a ranger or barbarian or even a wizard? Having separate combat manoeuvres for each class – or even just the weapon-based classes – would lead to the bloat of 4e, where every option or trick was presented two or even three times, sometimes with very little mechanical difference. Having three different versions of fireball with slightly different names was a waste of pages, and having three different versions of “tumble” or “knockdown” is equally problematic.

Designed Gaps

What’s the solution? There really isn’t one apart from not generating content and deliberately leaving gaps in the rules. This doesn’t seem like a satisfactory solution for much of the audience who clamour more codification.

Moving some of the codification to rules modules might be one option, aiming for a minimum baked-in design and options – such as a minimal number of fighter combat manoeuvres and much overlap across builds – to leave room for improvisation and stunting. This could not just be implied, but would need to be stated outright. There would have to be a codification of the lack of codification to encourage and allow DMs to narratively fill those gaps. Serious advice on improvisation and the balance of certain actions, a look behind the designer’s curtain at what they allowed (and why) and what they purposely did not allow.

I really don’t see that as happening. Gaps last a finite period until the next round of splatbooks – as every accessory needs to add a brand new mechanic – or the next managerial change when the policy of the company shifts. It’s too easy to imagine designers looking at the fighter’s combat expertise mechanic, looking at the rogue and then saying “hey, what if the rogue could give up sneak attack dice to impose conditions?” Suddenly we have additional rogue schemes or feats that offer those options, with rogues trading a dice of sneak damage to knock an enemy prone. And just as suddenly rogues can no longer trip enemies without special training.

Again, as the internet saying goes, your mileage may vary. This may not be a problem or even a potential issue depending on your group and playstyle. But it's worth remembering and musing about during the upcoming months and future playtesting.

***

Shameless Plug

Check out my webcomic: 5 Minute Workday.

New comics posted Tuesdays and Thursdays.

5mwd.blogspot.ca/

The is the first part on my new series on world building. In the introduction, I discussed Top-Down and Bottom-Up design, as well as some of the pros and cons of each.

Today I’m going to discuss “The Hook”.

Chapters

Below a links to the previous chapters in this series 

Introduction

Part 1: The Hook

Part 1.5: Factors

Part 2: Conflict

Part 3: Geography

Part 4: Races

Part 5: Nations

Part 6: Room for monsters

Part 7: Deities

Part 8: Cities

Part 9: Factions

Part 10: History

Part 11: Economics

Part 12: Culture

Part 13: Starting Zone

Part 14: Player's Guide

The Hook

Every new campaign world needs a “hook”: a concept or theme on which to base the world and differentiate it from every other cookie-cutter fantasy world. The hooks is what makes the world stand out and be unique, and establishes its tropes and conventions. It’s how you sell the setting and explain what makes it cool and fun. The hook is your setting’s tagline; if your campaign setting was a movie trailer, the hook would follow the announce declaring “In a world where...”

A hook can be as simple as “D&D meets film noir and pulp fantasy”, which describes much of Eberron. Or it can be as dramatic and busy as “post-apocalyptic D&D where magic has destroyed the world, evil has won, and psionics are common” like Dark Sun. Both settings have very solid hooks that make the settings what they are.

Using Dark Sun for a related example, much of it could be removed from the wasteland. The story of the sorcerer kings, The Dragon, and the slave uprising in Tyr – along with all the dangerous wilderness – could work just as well in a metal-heavy world with dark primeval forests and all familiar fantasy tropes. What makes Dark Sun special and memorable is its hook.

What Makes a Good Hook?

A good hook creates ideas and inspires the imagination. It paints a picture of the world, but does so in as few words as possible. A good hook should almost be a sound bite: a quick description no longer than a sentence or two that instantly grabs the attention. You shouldn’t have to preface the hook with too much explanation or exposition.

The tightness and simplicity of a hook is important; you want to grab your players’ attention as quickly as possible. There are a lot of distractions in the world – even at the gaming table – so you need to get your point across as soon as possible, before minds start wandering and people start checking their e-mail, stacking dice into little towers, or playing Angry Birds. You want to get your players excited to play, with the hook alone firing imaginations and generating character ideas. You want them asking questions and engaging and listening to what you say next.

Too much work also shouldn't be involved. If the hook requires you re-writing the basic assumptions of the game, such as the planes  or how magic works, or even the mundane realities of life then things get complicated. For example, in the Game of Thrones world winter comes every few years but also might last years, so there are multiple growing seasons for crops which have to be stockpiled for the winter. Cool hook, but questions are raised: how did life survive without stockpiling, how do wild animals survive, etc. This is doable, but the more changes a hook makes to the default assumptions of life the more thinking that has to be done in advance, and the more answers a DM has to have prepared.

Of course, the hook alone is not the be-all, end-all of world building. Once it’s been established you should build on foundation of the initial hook, adding other ideas that can grab and inspire. Less of a singular hook and more of a meme coat rack.

Eberron is a good go-to example as its hook is so small and tight, yet you can expand on the initial “pulp fantasy and film noir” with extra descriptions: interwar period, magic as technology, draconic prophecy, and guilds of magic families. These are secondary but no less important to the story. And most the secondary descriptions complementary to / influenced by the initial hook; the interwar aspect of Eberron mirrors the world in the noir era sandwiched between two World Wars, while the magitech emulates much of the innovation of the ‘20s.

Do I Need a Hook?

Yes, there are many worlds without a “hook”. TSR published three or four campaign settings that were essentially hook-less. The “generic fantasy” worlds that, in many ways, are more or less interchangeable.

With so many existing generic worlds already out there, making another generic world feels, well, lazy. It’s certainly a viable option for those uninterested in world building, whose setting is a backdrop for adventure and don’t care much about the setting itself. Or those who plan on dropping in published adventures and want to keep their setting generic so as to avoid having to change too much of the published modules.

But for anyone interested in actually creating a world, a true setting, then some kind of hook is needed.

A hook doesn’t just separate the world from Greyhawk or Mystara but also provides consistency. The hook acts as a framework for the setting, the design conforms to the hook for a more uniform feel to the world. With a solid hook in place, elements that do not work with the hook are easy to notice and can be avoided or downplayed. The world feels more interconnected, slightly more uniform, and thus more real. Any places that are different are deliberate, created for contrast and thus also emphasising the hook. It’s the common element, the plot thread or theme or event, which connects places and races across the world.

There’s also the “fall back” for creativity. When in doubt you can default to the baseline assumptions of the hook. You don’t want the hook to become a crutch that you rely on for all your ideas, or a straightjacket that you cannot escape from. But when other inspiration fails, the hook is there.

For example, let’s discuss shardminds for a second. They’re a new race created for 4e, and as such have not been detailed or included in any published campaign setting (although, I believe there might be an article in Dragon on this subject). If playing an Eberron game with a player who is considering a shardmind suddenly the DM has to consider how this race fits into that world, especially as the default fluff doesn’t mesh with Eberron ‘s flavour – the Living Gate seems a poor fit with Eberron ‘s rotating and mobile planes. The DM can fall back to Eberron ‘s hook: D&D meets film noir and pulp fantasy. Looking at the common ideas of both reveal lost civilizations and mad scientists to be common. Edgar Rice Burrows also did a lot of work for pulps, especially his John Carter of Mars series. With that in mind, the DM might pitch the idea of Eberron shardminds as either experiments (the next generation of warforged), a lost civilization from a distant continent (say Sarlona) or alien beings from a different a plane/planet. Alternatively, instead of a different planet, they could be from the Ring of Siberys, fulfilling the role of moon men in Eberron.

Picking-a-Hook

As I mention in the first part, during this series I'll also be creating a new fantasy world at the same time to demonstrate related points.

In a recent blog I was feeling creative and tossed out a few possible ideas for campaign settings, but I also considered a few other ideas such as Sky Pirates raiding cloud castles, fantasy super heroes ala Battle Chasers, and a world where the standard D&D arcane magic is brand new.

The first seemed a little too much like the Astral Sea or generic aquatic campaigns (only where being knocked overboard is more serious). Fun but a lot of challenges. It'd be neat to sail between mobile islands where charts are only good for weeks and include motion  look like a meteorologist's map. Plus it would make later articles harder to do.

The middle idea is fun, but is really focused on players and characters more than the world. It's a character driven world, which is not something D&D as well, unless there's a strong DM/player partnership. Gotham and Metropolis are both generic urban locations that fit the needs of their protagonist’s genre.

The last seemed awkward, since it changes so many of the base assumptions of the game, which means a heck of a lot of work. If arcane magic is new, where do magical creatures come from? Like the owlbear. Could dragons and the like use magic? Without magic, where so all the improbable dungeons of the world come from?

Instead of a new idea, I'm using one of the simple ideas from the above linked blog: War World.

Sample World

The hook behind the world is simple: the main continent of the world has been caught in a war that has been raging for generations. Like many good hooks, this isn't exactly a new idea (and there's a TV Trope for it, but it's fairly untapped territory for D&D.

This is different from Eberron's Last War in two key respects. Firstly, the war is ongoing. There's not many D&D worlds with current wars; most campaign settings begin with war looming or war ending (or both in the case of Eberron).Second, the war has been raging much longer. So long that it's generational even for such long-lived species as elves and dwarves. Using the 5e playtest documents, this puts the duration of the war at over 700-years. If the war has been raging on-and-off for 850 years that means an elf child born at the start of the war would have died of old age before the current era, so few living things remember a time when there was true peace. For the short lived races like humans, inevitable and eventual war has become their culture and peace is just a time to rebuild armies and prepare for the next offensive.

Imagine it: a world where lasting peace is unknown and no area has been spared the ravages of war. Statues and monuments have been melted down to make weapons and there has been no time to rebuild damaged cities and regions. Every nation and city bears the scars of brutal magical and mundane warfare. Art is unknown. Music and culture are seen as decadent at best.

With that established as the central key hook, I can start adding other elements. These will be kept generic for the moment as I’m trying not to work too far ahead (to keep the design focused on the article topics).

The standard element of the Forever Wars trope (referenced in the link) is that the origins of the war are long forgotten. I.e. the trigger point of the war has become irrelevant and only the war matters. I think I’ll avoid that for this world, as a way of twisting the trope into something slightly more unique; after all, in the real world we can trace back the seemingly endless wars of the Middle East (such as the continual Iraq/Iran hostility) back over a thousand years without too much effort.

Because of the myriad races of D&D it’s also possible to expand the war outward from the standard “us versus them” of most Forever Wars – or the human kingdoms versus human kingdoms of most fantasy worlds’ continent-wide wars. The War might have started as several smaller wars and conflicts – some potentially much older than base thousand years – that became interconnected through alliances or territorial overlap. And over the years alliances have shifted in a series of betrayals and reversals, dragging more and more races and regions into the conflict.

The above is handy for a couple reasons. By spreading out the conflict, there can be areas of relative peace if needed, where there is a ceasefire going on, or open warfare has moved elsewhere for a time. It also helps enable some of the standard fantasy assumptions, such as the elven/dwarven rivalries while still enabling parties to work together. It’s easy to say that elves and dwarves were at war for much of the past millennia but are currently uneasy allies, justifying both the fun role-playing animosity yet allowing an excuse for the party to work together.
 

My next blog will be something different before I return to this series. Next time in the series I’ll discuss conflict driving stories and the world. 
**

Shameless Plug
Check out my webcomic at its new url: www.5mwd.com
New Comics posted Tuesday and Thursday.

 

This is the start of a new series discussing world building and the creation of campaign settings.

With 4th Edition winding down and many new campaigns looming on the horizon, ready to start when 5th Edition officially launches (or there's enough playtesting material) I imagine many DMs are thinking about where they'll set their campaign, what world they want to play in, and the nuances of creating their own campaign setting.

This blog series is designed to offer advice and suggestions on the art of world building. Each blog will discuss an element of design, and I’ll also demonstrate the advice by loosely designing a brand new world just for this blog.

Chapters

Below is a list of chapters (to be edited into links when I continue this series)

Introduction

Part 1: The Hook

Part 1.5: Factors

Part 2: Conflict

Part 3: Geography

Part 4: Races

Part 5: Nations

Part 6: Room for monsters

Part 7: Deities

Part 8: Cities

Part 9: Factions

Part 10: History

Part 11: Economics

Part 12: Culture

Part 13: Starting Zone

Part 14: Player's Guide
 

The First Step

When making a campaign world, Step 0 is settling on your level of complexity: how much time and effort you want to put into making the world. 

The easiest way to create a world is Bottom-Up design. This is beginning with a town or small locale region and expanding outward as the need arises. The 4th Edition setting-ette of Nentir Vale is a good example of this, with a handful of small settlements in a (relatively) small area with a variety of terrain. The campaign can spend a number of levels there (or the entire heroic tier) before moving outward. If the campaign needs there to be a major metropolis at the end of the Trade Road then there can be said local capital a few days ride away. If instead the campaign needs a barren wasteland there, then the DM can add that instead. The world is governed by the needs of the campaign and story.

One of the major strengths of a Bottom-Up world – other than the ease on the DM – is the freedom it allows the players. The DM should encourage players to add elements to the world, especially through their back-story.  Look at the first Star Wars movie (Episode IV: A New Hope) where Obiwan "old Ben" Kenobi makes a throw-away reference to the "Clone Wars". Irrelevant to that plot and the entire trilogy, this was such an interesting and heavy bit of world building that it drove the following prequels. Another example is Escape from New York where someone rhetorically asks Snake "You flew the Gullfire over Leningrad, didn't you?" In a Bottom-Up world, the players can add those same elements. The fighter might have "survived the Battle of Blightwater Gorge" while the wizard "saw the dragon-fog burn Etherguard to ash." and the rogue was born in “the slums in the Shadow of the Tower.” They might have some idea what it means, or it might be up to the DM to add meaning and depth to these otherwise throw-away lines.

The problem with Bottom-Down worlds is the potential for illogical design, and the need for DMs to continually improvise. It does not matter if you're off your game, hung over, and weary after a long work week with mandatory overtime; if your players want to venture south into uncharted territory you'd better think-up some territory to chart. The illogical design comes hand-in-hand with the spontaneous placement of designs. Bottom-Up worlds are unlikely to be ecologically viable, with deserts too close to fertile farmland and rivers flowing uphill because the story needed a sea in the wrong place, or the terrifying expansionist military nation sharing a border with the untamed wilderness populated by sparse numbers of agrarian farmers armed with scornful looks and dirt clods.

The opposite number of a Bottom-Up world is a Top-Down world. In this kind of world, the DM plans out the world in greater detail from the onset of the campaign. They might still start in a small region, but they've planned out the surrounding areas, know the history of the world, and could potentially start the campaign in a number of places. The DM of this kind of world would know that north of Nentir is the Winterbole Forest that stretches for hundreds of miles north until it reaches the Dawnforge mountains. To the east of the vale is Mithralfast and the fallen nation of Vor Rukoth, both set on the Dragondawn Coast across from the nation of Karkoth and its seven kings.

In practice, most published campaign settings are Top-Down worlds.

Top-Down worlds are a lot more work. While this is fine if you enjoy world building and don't mind spending days creating nations or places your players are unlikely to ever see (I can't think of a better way to spend a weekend myself), so it isn't the most effective use of time. If your game is a week away, unless you're unemployed fast typist with severe insomnia and an energy drink addiction, you probably shouldn't start a Top-Down world. But, with 5th Edition still almost two years away from launch, there's certainly time to start making a world.

One of the major strengths of Top-Down worlds is a little more entry level freedom for players. In a Bottom-Up world there's more freedom later on, but where they’re starting is likely established. In a Top-Down campaign, the starting place for the campaign is less set in stone, and the DM can offer a few possible locations for the campaign.

Players can also feel a little more a part of the world; instead of adding elements to their character which can be integrated into the setting, PCs can have world elements influence their character. They might have a tie to a major location, or Name NPC, or have aspirations of joining a prestigious organization. How many rookie Dragonlance Player Characters have started with the desire to become a Wizard of High Sorcerer or to join the Knighthood? It's an instant character motivation.

Getting this information across to players can be tricky, so writing a Player's Guide is a good idea, as is providing a campaign Wiki for the interested. But don't make either too long. Players will seldom read your Wiki, regardless of how awesome you make it.

There's also a middle ground approach. You start with a simple Top-Down design, sketching out the major history, regions, nations, and the like but leave vast swaths of the land sparsely detailed, with little more than a one-sentence description (a sound bite). The starting nation receives much more detail, and the starting area receiving the most. Think of it like a dartboard; the middle starting area (the bulls eye) is very well detailed but the as you move farther from the start (onto next ring) details become lighter, and farther from that (the third ring) there's little more than the barebones description.

This has much of the weaknesses of both, with the starting area being more locked in (like a Bottom-Up world) but there’s still some time consuming prep (like a Top-Down world), but is still reasonably fast to make and has enough open areas for players to fill with their own details and ideas.

This is likely the approach I'll be taking with my example world.

Background

A little on me here.

I love world building. I love campaign settings. I love reading new world guides and seeing what creators did with familiar races and classes. I love doodling continents and maps, and was drawing maps for fantasy worlds as young as twelve – often for bad fantasy stories I was writing.

When I first started playing D&D (2nd Edition) I quickly created a fantasy world for my campaigns, and ran at least two groups through adventures there. Whenever I get really bored and need a project, I tend to brainstorm or think of new fantasy worlds. Mostly just as thought experiments now.

I wrote about my most recent campaign world in an earlier, unfocused series of blogs on world building. There's eight or so posts, scattered throughout my first year of blogging: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Don't feel pressured to read those; I'll reiterate all the key points when I feel the need.

I started the campaign setting mentioned above at the tail end of 2e – again, as the result of boredom – but I was quickly forced to update it to 3e. When 4e launched I completely reimagined the world for that edition, changing and refocusing much of the world. (For the curious with too much free time, a chunk of what I wrote ended up on my Obsidian Portal wiki although I quickly grew lazy and stopped updating the adventure log).

Altogether I've created three different fully fleshed-out campaign worlds (and completely reimagined two of those over the years) I'm still likely behind the likes of Ed Greenwood and Rich Burlew. But I feel confident enough to do this series. Plus it’s a lovely chance to write in a much more positive tone. When writing advice pieces, you do have to focus on the problem areas where advice is needed, which can come off as overly negative.

In addition to my own work, I’m quite fond of a larger a number of published worlds.  I enjoy thinking of potential campaigns and reading about other cultures and histories; I minored in Anthropology in University, so this passion for information on cultures, societies, and history is broader than just D&D. But I love the structure and thought that only comes with artificial history (my major was in English), the ability to add that perfect storm of events that causes disaster or the small events rippling outward to topple empires .

My first D&D world was Dragonlance, which helped get me into gaming through the novels. However, the first campaign setting I bought was Ravenloft, which remains my personal favourite. For the first time in years I’m running a campaign set in Ravenloft and loving every second of it.

I spent a number of years adventuring through the Forgotten Realms as the embittered (and later alcoholic) paladin Blade, so that world has a strong nostalgic appeal to me, and I ran a one-on-one Realms campaign for some time. I have a soft spot for Dark Sun and Eberron despite never having run a game in either. I have no ideas for Dark Sun adventures. None. But the world is cool. And after I got over my initial illogical and reactionary hate for Eberron (yeah... I foolishly bought into the silly "halflings on dinosaurs?!" hate) I found the actually setting rather fun. It’s a great example of how to design a setting with numerous plots and regions for adventure; you could run a dozen campaigns in Eberron and seldom overlap in themes and place save the underlying Eberron-isms.

I also adore the 3PP d20 world of Midnight which still has the best hook of any campaign setting ever. I need to run a campaign there sometime. But at the rate I'm going, that'll be for 6e...

And that's me.

 

Next time I’ll write about your world’s hook, the needed concept for your concept world.

**

Shameless Plug
Check out my webcomic at its new url: www.5mwd.com
New Comics posted Tuesday and Thursday.

 

A term I keep hearing around the interwebs and on the message boards is "DM May I?" It's based around rules lite systems where there is less baked in PC options, and player must ask if they can do something. This is seen as a bad thing because of the risk of rigid DMs who won't let players do anything and will shoot down ideas. This is also because some players don't want to have to ask if they can do something – or have to think of actions – they just want to act.

I’ve also heard this referred to as “mother may I?” A term that seems deliberately inflammatory, designed to provoke a negative emotional reaction and thus establish without argument that the style is bad. So I’m sticking to “DM”.

No two gaming groups play D&D exactly alike. There is a wide range of play styles, a wide range of involvement of the rules. Some groups challenge the player, while other groups challenge the character. Some rely on dice as the primary determining factor of success or failure, while others rely more on creative thought and problem solving. Some groups have a focus on combat, while others have a focus on storytelling or on role-playing. And many groups move between extremes on a session-by-session basis (or campaign-by-campaign basis), lacking a single defining overriding play style.

DMMI falls a little into a group's play style, although it definitely has some influence on the system and from the system. Games and editions can be designed to encourage or discourage DMMI play.

Player Perspective

One of the arguments against DMMI is the limited options provided in open systems: typically for fighter and rogue classes, but also in regards to interactions with the environment. Both 3e and 4e had firm rules for interactions with terrain, NPCs, monsters, and the like. 3e especially tried to have a rule for every situation. There were firm rules for climbing walls, opening doors, attacking objects, and like.

There's the concern that without firm rules, a DMs might prevent ideas from working: NPCs will be unswayed regardless of the argument (or Diplomacy check result), PCs will be unable to batter down doors, and creative options in combat will not work.

In a DMMI game, the players can ask to do anything. There’s an infinite amount of actions. Even if half the suggestions are rejected, half of infinity is still infinity. There is a finite number of actions in a closed system that discourages improvisation or does not encourage DM fiat. So, even without the rule mandated baked-in options, a DMMI game provides far more options than the restrictive game, especially almost every option and attack provided by the baked-in rules might be equally attempted in an improvisational setting. In 2e, there’s nothing but creativity and an open DM standing between a player and a cleave or a trip attempt.

Games with baked in options arguably restrict creativity. This is too large of a topic to enter into here (I’ll do a blog on it later), but in short, a large number of options discourage breaking from those options. If there’s a fighter power that knocks an enemy prone or immobilizes or blinds then it’s harder to justifying imposing that effect or condition: if the player wanted to they’d need that power. It suggests special training is required. "Page 42" only discusses adding skill checks to attack rolls to deal improvised damage (and sub-optimal damage compared to powers), and doesn’t discuss imposing conditions. And there’s no untrained Trip attack in the combat section, only Bull Rush and Grab (and the later likely only included so 4e could say how much better it’s grab system was than 3e’s grapple).

I’m using 4e for this example as the power system and the sheer amount of option creep makes ad hoc ruling difficult (“Can you do that? I don’t know, let me trawl through the Compendium and see if there’s a feat, power, class feature, or paragon feature that does that.” ) But the exact same comments could be used when discussing 3e or Pathfinder. (“Gee, I would let your rogue do that, but there’s a rogue trick designed around that.” )

As a player, I tend to like DMMI as it rewards creative thought. I enjoy doing weird things and using the environment. I always had the most fun with D&D when it allowed me to be crazy and employing out-of-the-box solutions.  The game should enable and encourage the DM to reward creative thinking and original ideas.

DM Perspective

The basis of the game is through the lens of the DM. Regardless of DMMI, all actions require the DM’s permission, or at least his enabling. Have a melee fighter? Gee, this fight features a bunch of hovering harpies. Pyromancer? Meet an elder fire elemental immune to fire who deals fire damage in an aura when hit by attacks that deal fire damage. The DM is always enabling or disabling a party's ability to function.

Whenever a party enters a room, they rely on the DM to describe the room and the terrain and play fair, not omitting traps or obvious hazards. Forgetting to mention the pool of acid or the statues that come alive and attack.

Option heavy games are trickier to run, as the DM needs to be aware of all the options and abilities their players have access to, to properly challenge and engage their players. The more abilities characters have, the more the DM needs to be aware of. The prep is harder. In a more option-lite game, or one where only certain classes have more options, the prep is easier as there are fewer variables. But it can become harder to run at the table, having to adjudicate creative thinking and DMMI play. It's certainly easier for the DM to say no. But it's also easier to design adventures without thinking of a party's abilities and strengths/weaknesses, which can lead to a very unsatisfying and impersonal game.

DMs need to be taught to allow actions, or if PC cannot do something, there must be a very valid reason. DMs need to be taught and encouraged and given advice on how to make DMMI work. It's not instinctive.

No Bad DMs?

In my time gaming, I've played with over twenty-eight different DMs. Possibly as many as 30 or even 35. So I've seen my fair share of bad DMs.

The vast majority of the terrible ones were in Organized Play (Living Greyhawk, Xen'Drick Expeditions, Living Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder Society, etc). Some of them were "terrible" due to differing play styles, which makes it unfair to say they're "bad", but rather "bad for me". Others were bad because they were not organized, or good speakers. Organized Play seems to attract a disproportionate number of stutterers, stammerers, and mumblers (including me). And, because Organized Play is less of a DMing commitment than a full home game, I think many players opt to run to test themselves as a DM, to see if they like it before committing to full DM status.

Regardless, I've seen the most rigid DMs in organized play, than in other play. Typically, they tend to feel bound to the published module, causing even those solutions backed by rules to fail because it's beyond the limits of the mod. As such, hard rules and player empowerment just led to rules lawyering and arguments, or the DM freezing as something was not covered and they had no idea how to handle it. And the strict rules of play really tend to discourage creative thought, to maintain the game's comparable and consistent play.

In home play I've seen less of a range. Some DMs stuck firmly to the rules, but most were open to "stunting" and creative though, and were even willing to bend the rules to accommodate a cool idea. The "Rule of Cool" trumping other laws, as it were. Most of the terrible ones were bad because they were young and often inexperienced. So in terms of my homegames, the difference between all my bad DMs and my good DMs was experience and education.

Removed from Organized Play, the DM's knowledge of the rules decreased. Organized Play DMs really seem to learn all the rules – which is needed to adjudicate without bias – and, of course, cannot vary from them. In home play I've seen many, many more DMs with only a passing knowledge of the rules, and very little knowledge of how classes work or some spells work. Many more home DMs rely on the players for the rules, and the DM power only comes into play for adjudication or resolving non-standard actions.

From personal experience, ignorance of the rules really seems to enable creative play. The fewer rules a DM knows, the more they seem willing to say "that seems cool, why not?" or "sure, make a check."

Final Thoughts

As there is such a range of play styles, there should always be classes with baked-in options. Not everyone want to stunt, or think creatively. Some people want to just relax and play the game with their brains on neutral. That's a fair and as valid a play style as any other. Somedays I've not been fully there at the table, being off my game, and I was very thankful for the options my 4e psion provided. That said, there should be a range, with some classes having more onus on creative though and enabling of imaginative players. Symmetry of design leads to a symmetry of play, which can be boring. 

The only real advantage baked in options has over DMMI is for people who don’t want to improvise. While that is a fair play style, improv and creative thinking is such a huge part of what makes D&D and RPGs a unique game, downplaying them or working around them seems to take away from what makes the game special.

However, it is always easier to ignorea rule than it is to create a fair and balanced rule on the spot. So the book should do its best to be simple yet comprehensive, with firm guidelines when adjudication is needed. But, at the same point, there needs to be solid advice on when to stick to the rules and when to ignore the rules, suggestions on when to rule against the players and rule in favour of the players. Telling the DMs to "say yes" is excellent advice, but it is only the first step. 
 

***

Shameless Plug

Check out my new gaming webcomic: 5 Minute Workday. New comics posted Tuesdays and Thursdays.

5mwd.blogspot.ca/

I had a chance to play the new package of the D&D playtest at GenCon and really see most of the classes at work. I helped friends make characters and spent some time reading through the options.

Additionally, before the convention, in the event of a dead evening, I adapted an old 1e module to 5e, updating monsters via reflavouring or adding some environmental effects, loosely playing with the encounter building rules.

With all the changes, it's felt like time for another quick review.

There's an Update?

In case you hadn't heard, we're on playtest 2.1, as WotC slipped the warlock and sorcerer into the package (along with an adventure) after the start of GenCon. Of course, as WotC wasn't really updating their website during the last week, you might not have noticed.

Given we're required to provide e-mail addresses to access the playtest material, I wonder why there's no automated mailing list feature. An "e-mail me when the package is updated" option. WotC seems to be working under the assumption fans are keeping themselves informed and regularly visiting the website to read the articles (specifically Legends & Lore) or watching the keynote address video and learn of the packages that way. But, if the fans aren't they might be unaware of the update, or the second package, or even the playtest itself.

-Edit- Since writing the above, I've received the latest survey which does have an update on the playtest and notification of new content. So I'm eating crow.

Basic Rules

Most of the basic rules seem fairy identical to what has come before. Usage of Advantage seems to have decreased, which is nice as it was good but just too common. It's so easy to add onto actions it's preferable to hold it back whenever possible.

Hit points were certainly reduced for this package. It did make the heroes feel fairly fragile compared to monster damage – which I rather like for that old school feel. If you don't like it, start at level 3 or add extra hit dice.

However, most monsters (even level 3 monsters like orcs) frequently went down in a single hit. I imagine this will change when we experience some higher level play, but most of the monsters in the playtest seem like pushovers now.

Critical hits still seem anticlimactic. Max damage is solid but they just need a little extra oomf as you can get max damage on any hit. This could be something something as simple as just adding a d6 of extra damage. That works as a nice base option that can be modified, such as knocking a monster prone with a crit at the cost of the d6. This could be further modified by later content such as feats or just left to the players.

Surprise got changed again to a more 3e/4e free round. Nice and sleeker than the penalty to initiative. But in prior editions there were more types of action, so a surprise round might have consisted of just moving into position or a non-optimal attack. In 5e there is only the one action, so surprise al but grants a free round. And, at low levels most fights only last a round and whomever gets off an ambush wins. I'm personally fond of either giving ambushers Advantage when rolling initiate or giving surprised creatures Disadvantage. It offers a wider range of results and doesn't shut one side out of the action for a turn.
The DCs also need some scaling. The highest DC is 25, which certainly is not "Nearly Impossible" as a good character (16 stat and skill training) can nail it on a 19+. And with a 18-20 it gets even easier. And you can succeed on a  Hard checks 40-50% of the time. Hardly "hard". Okay, harder for Ability checks but with much more prevalent skill list I can see fewer ability checks being made.

Skills

There's a full list now. Meh.

I guess I see the need. For consistency and all. And they're still freeform on the characters sheets making it easier to add brand new skills through new backgrounds and classes, such as "Psi Lore" or "Dream Lore" or the like. And it's still quite hackable for focused campaigns that might need a dedicated "Gambling" or "Fortune Telling" skill.

I liked the initial idea of backgrounds giving a narrative skill title which could apply in different and varied situations. "Commerce" covering appraise, dealing with customers, haggling, managing a shop and the like. Bonuses that could apply to different ability checks.  

Okay, moving back to what we have. Let's start with the bonus. +3 still seems high. 5e seems to have pulled down the math and bonuses from 4e, so a 16 stat is high compared to the 18-20s that were common in 4e. I'm unsure if training should be equal to natural talent, at least not at first level. Lowering it to a +2 should be more than enough.

Some skills seem superfluous. Survival overlaps with Nature Lore, Geography Lore, and Spot (and Spot should probably be called Perception). Streetwise could be renamed Street Lore or folded into both Local and Societal Lore.

Character Creation

I like rolling. I missed rolling for stats. But an array would be nice for the playtest.

I also wonder if the max of 20 is too high, especially given only one race grants a +2. A cap of 19 might be nice, both reiterating that humans cannot be better than every other race but also making 4th level characters potentially more interesting (being the point characters can surpass their initial limits).

Role-playing continues to be segregated in the "everything else" section of character creation. Pick your equipment (if you don't take the default package) and describe your character. I'd like these separated a little. Step 6 should be equipment, mentioning the default packages or directing the player to that section. A little explanation of currency. Step 7 should be "Details" with a summary of height, weight, age, and the like as well as short lists of potential quirks or distinct features. And name. Name can go here. Step 8 should be "Personality" which includes alignment, motivation, connection to the party, how the character got into adventuring, family, and the like.

Additionally, there needs to be a name for class build: the rogue scheme, the fighter's fighting style, the cleric's domain, and the wizard's school. Repeatedly during the playtest I saw people assuming that was their speciality, as there is some design overlap. There needs to be an overall name for the build choice, and there needs to be a blank location on the character sheet to fill in said name, preferably in the "class" column.

Classes Design

While many 4e fans are hard on D&D Next for "moving backwards" in design, the classes in the playtest are very much built like 4e classes, and are very similar to Essentials classes. Players make one choice of build at first level and from there all later powers are unlocked. There seem to be few later choices, and gaining levels in your class just improves existing powers.

It's an okay design, but I'd like more options upon levelling separate from the "build", levels where you just get something fightery or clericy: additional class feature and generic options.

Builds should be important, but they shouldn't carry the full weight of options when levelling up, because that makes them larger and harder to write. As they're unique to individual classes – often with options separate from other builds – they can be real space hogs. The more space builds consume, the less space there is for other classes.

4e showed quite clearly, if each class' powers and abilities are unique there's a lot of needless overlap between powers. For example, both the fighter and rogue have a shifting power (tumble for the fighter and hit and run for the rogue). You can bet there will be more and that the ranger and barbarian will have similar powers. It seems more space conscious to have "martial practices" akin to spells that are a list other classes can draw from, awarded in place of a build option.    

Likewise, the bigger builds are the more space in each book an individual PC will not be able to use. If I chose the one-handed fighter route in 4e, the vast majority of options for the fighter just didn't apply to me as they were often build specific. There was little impetus to buy Martial Power or Martial Power 2 as most powers were for the tempest fighter or battlerager or grappler fighter. The new content replaced options I used (having been granted at 1st level) or offered powers for the new replacement options.

It makes sense to have some levels just have generic class options separate from builds, as that is content that can be expanded on in later books providing options for existing characters.

As such, builds should do one of two things. They should provide options for otherwise dead levels, which they are currently doing very nicely. So half the time the base class provides a feature and the other half of the time the build provides a feature. Or they should modify a class feature. As an example, every cleric might get the channel divinity feature, which might improve or have additional options at higher levels. At certain levels, instead of something new, domains might just augment the channel divinity power.

Individual Classes

I don't have much to say about the wizard as we haven't seen their school/traditions yet. I'm hoping for something similar to specialist wizards in earlier editions or Essentials, but hope there is a "generalist" or "universalist" option.

I do miss 4e implements and hope they factor in some way. I loved having wands be more than just spells in a can. For lack of a better analogy, they felt very Harry Potter. In a good way. Wizards should waggle wands, hold books, waggle staffs, and the like.

I do like the differentiation between cleric domains. It allows small easy changes to the cleric and enables people to easily play either a smashy melee cleric or a lightly armoured spellcaster cleric. The sun domain is by far the superior choice: sun clerics deal comparable damage but from a distance, having a similar AC at low levels (assuming a decent Dex) and gain fire & radiant resistance. The war domain's shields, weapons, and heavier armour seem lacklustre in comparison.

I'm unimpressed by the cleric's channel divinity healing. It is nice that a healer cleric can use healing word and channel divinity and cure light wounds to really heal the crap out of the party. But just increasing the uses per day and the dice seems ineffective and inflexible. What if just the number of dice went up faster and the cleric was allowed to heal multiple creatures with one action? For example, at they could heal one ally for 3d8 or three for 1d8, or two for 1d8 and save a d8 for later, or an ally for 2d8 while damaging an undead for 1d8. Really make the healing flexible. There could be a cap (no more d8s than hit dice? Level?), but the flexibility would be nice and it would limit overhealing (a problem in earlier editions and with a static number of dice). The overall healing per day might not change but the action economy would, and the flexibility could potentially help the cleric feel useful: one action to heal everyone instead of three, freeing up later actions to do something else.

The revised fighter is pretty cool. I love the addition of combat superiority and the fighting styles. Glancing blow is a little weak at the moment, with its minimal number too high: if you rolled a 10 you likely hit.

The first thing I noticed about the rogue, was the name overlap between backgrounds and rogue schemes. That should probably be corrected. Skill mastery still requires a little work. In a game where the default seems to be rolling stats, a +3 bonus is too high. Even if the player rolls well and uses their second highest ability score the +3 might be better. Taking 10 is also off, as it is pretty much automatic. Having it take longer to use might work well. So it's something the rogue can do out of combat when they have extra time, but not something they can do under stress. Another alternative is having them choose before rolling, so they have to decide to take 10 or roll.

The sorcerer fluff is weak. The hook of "becoming" your bloodline when you run low on willpower is... interesting. But it's not very sorcerery. It's a neat idea for some sorcerers or a variant sorcerer but it's not something that really meshes with the flavour of established sorcerers.

The sorcerer is an example of 4e class design and thinking. By which I mean narrow classes with descriptions better suited to a character than a class. 4e classes were narrow. Which was fine early in that edition, as classes were much more focused. But with a new edition where a fighter can effortless be a tank or damage dealer, melee or ranged, Strength-based or Dexterity-based, then the sorcerer should be equally flexible.

The transformation idea feels very much like a compromise mechanic. Someone likely had the idea of tying a mechanic to the sorcerer's depletion of their spell points, something that happens as the sorcerer gets "weaker". But they didn't want to make characters additionally weaker as they expended resources so it became this buffing ability. It doesn't match many established sorcerers in D&D fiction, not to mention other related fiction. For example, Xyklon from Order of the Stick doesn't change or shift as he expends spells. If fits the dragon disciple prestige class from 3e, which is pretty darn obscure as the basis for an entire class.

There's a longer blog on the subject here that brings up some neat points and emphasises the differences between the playtest fluff and the flavour in the related Legends & Lore article, and how there's not a lot of meshing between the two. Likely, the Legends & Lore article is the newer take, but in that case it reads more like a justification for an established mechanic than building a mechanic around the story or having both story and mechanic inform the other.

Having something happen as willpower drops is cool, and a workable mechanical hook for the class. Given sorcerers are always described as barely being in control of their power, some kind of surge or random element being added to spells might be neat. After spending # willpower, there's an n% chance to add effect X. After spending #+7 willpower, there's an n% chance to add effect Y. Or they could only have some bloodlines lead to a physical change while others have a mental change. It'd be interesting to have a sorcerer drifting into madness (ala male channellers in the Wheel of Time) or experiencing personality shifts as their willpower drops.

The warlock seems fine, although care needs to be taken it doesn't overlap too much with the rogue (although their damage seems high). Including details on the pact entity was cool (although, the sample one is a bit of obscure D&D lore), but very specialized.

The pact is very specific. I worry that we might see multiple fey pacts, each with a different patron. That's a bit much (and seems like a lazy way of adding additional builds). It might be more interesting to keep them more generic and have lists of patrons and their quirks – although a case could be made for more evocative and detailed pacts that can be altered or reflavoured, a best of both worlds. So, I'm okay with Verenestra sticking around but accompanied with a list of other potential archfey and what they traffic in for reflavouring (and, they can always release alternate powers later, akin to Pathfinder's archetypes, where they could swap the level 3 boon for an alternate level 3 boon better suited to a different patron).

Races

I think humans have dominated my thoughts on races. They're freakin' amazing. +1 to all with an extra +1 to an ability of their choice?! In a game with flatter math based around ability scores, they're amazing. Every human is more agile than a halfling, tougher than a dwarf, and smarter than an elf. Yikes. Couldn't they get an extra skill or something?

(Okay, the reason they don't get an extra skill or feat is that the related mechanics – backgrounds and specialities respectively – are technically optional so they don't want to tie the race to an optional set of rules).

With the other races having sub-cultures, I wonder why we couldn't see something similar in humans. Couldn't there be civilized human and a barbarian/ nomad human. Dragonlance was known for doing this. This might work well with the ability scores. Humans inherently get +1 to a score of their choice and urban humans gain an additional +1 to a mental stat while rural humans gain a +1 to a physical stat. This is equivalent to the +1 to two of other races, although humans still lack the bonuses of other races. Perhaps

Halfling also bug me. We have the lightfood halfling (aka the kender) who is good at stealth and the stout halfling (aka hobbit) who is fearless. Wha...? Hobbits be stealthy (that's why they're burglars) while kender are renowned for their fearlessness. The powers bonuses totally need to be flipped (or the names/descriptions).

Spells

I wonder about buff spells. That was one of the issues that hasn't been well resolved in any edition. It was very easy to stack buffs in 3e, for an aura of magical invincibility. But tracking was often easier as buffs lasted for multiple rounds or even minutes so you could just write down the revised numbers and move on. In 4e you couldn't pile on buffs so that was simpler, however there were numerous small powers that stacked but changed and shifted from round to round.

I've wondered about this for a while, and seen a proposed suggestion that buffs from same power source don't stack, which seems like a middle ground. The character can get an arcane buff from the wizard and a divine buff from the cleric, which overlap as they're different types of magic, but if the cleric uses another buff spell the old one is superseded. It's a lovely balancing mechanic which has a nice inherent flavour: similar enchantments and types of magic can cancel each other out. As clerics and other leader classes might be dependent on buffing or supporting allies, there could be options that allow more buffs, or even have the limit based on level, so a higher level character can take more buffs.

Monsters

We've just started seeing the flavour of monsters, as well as some of the concept art.

I like the orcs and gnolls, although we don't get much of a cultural feel for either. The art looks good so far, except for the goblin who looks far too orc-ish without any sense of scale. The scaleyfolk articles mention the overlap between lizardmen and troglodytes. I thought they fixed that in 4e with the bulkier and more thugish troglodytes (in addition to troglos regularly being slimy and a dingy unhealthy grey colour).

I do wonder why kobolds and lizardfolk have their own gods. Do we need more gods? Lizardfolk could easily practise animism or worship spirits.

The idea of spirits of the natural world – initially tied to the 4e Primal Power source – was good, and could probably easily mesh with the core, especially for more savage races. D&D could use a more focused spirit world. 4e added primordials and archfey to take the burden off gods, and 5e should definitely expand that to Name spirits & totemic beings.

(And both the monster lore articles and the playtest document continue to suggest Greyhawk deities when Forgotten Realms deities might be more apt.)

Monsters also lack skills and only rely on ability scores. This does mean unless all high level monsters are extremely wise, they'll never be able to spot even a mid-level rogue. As players typically get so many resources to boost skills through feats and items and statboosts and levels, they'll be disproportionately able to affect monsters.

Monsters also seem artificially limited stat-wise. Much like 4e monsters who had an ability score cap tied to their level, meaning many heroic tier giants weren't actually giant strength. Ogres, minotaurs, and trolls all seem exceptionally weak.

Monster Statblocks

We did get a look at the new statblock, which is much more 4e and much less 3e.

Monster powers are much less descriptive and information much more terse. Which is fine for simple powers like "claw" or "longsword" but gets annoying for less simply described powers which need flavour and description. Look at the wight and it's supremely lackluster energy drain. It's pretty much identical to its longsword save the healing. There's no explanation for how the damage is dealt.

Some of the 4e presentation also feels needless. We don't need to be told in every single power "(reach 5 ft.; one creature)". If a monster has longer reach, have a "reach" line earlier in the statblock and include ranged attack info only for ranged powers. Likewise, we only need to know the number of targets if more than one.

Much of the statblocks suffer from heavy gamist language. One power reads: "If The attack hits, that target must also make a DC 12 Strength saving throw. Failed Save: The target is knocked prone." which could be phrased "If the attack hits, the target must make a DC 12 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone." There's a lot of separation of 4e-style language through terms. Look at every attack line: " Melee Attack—Greataxe: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature). Hit: 1d12 + 2 slashing damage." It could easily read "Melee—Greataxe: +2 to hit (1d12 + 2 slashing damage)."

Having armour in the AC line seems crowded and unnecessary. I'd like to have a "possessions" line with various equipment. The bonus from the armour can also be included there, so the DM can do some quick math and figure out how much AC is armour and how much is natural without cracking open the equipment section.

There's also no role-playing information. It'd be great to have a "Personality" or "Temperament" line in the statblock.

Questions & Miscellaneous

I'm still fuzzy on a couple of the rules. Most prominently: does using a reaction like hold the line use your action? Or is it only certain reactions.

I wonder why initiative is tied to Dexterity. Ostensibly, it's because Dex means you're quicker and this must react faster. However, you could make an argument that Wisdom (sensing danger) or Intelligence (spotting logical sites for ambush or thinking quickly) could be even more appropriate. Given most combats start with a Perception check, using that for Initiative would speed things along. 

***

Shameless Plug: Check out my newly started webcoming, found here.

I'm back from my first GenCon.

After almost a year of saving and planning and anticipation, I can now count myself among the lucky few who have wandered the halls, rolled dice, attended panels, and braved the exhibit floor. I am a GenConner.

And it was awesome.

I initially thought about doing a "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" regarding GenCon, but I can honestly only think of a short nitpicky list of "bad" let alone "ugly". I feel fine and seem to have avoided most Con Crud, and encountered little gamer musk. While I did smell my fair share of odours, these were mild to what I've encountered on, say, public transit or at other cons. Even the low point of my trip (losing my iPod) turned out to be a false alarm (it had slid out of sight when I closed a drawer and has been recovered).

As such, this has become more of a highlight reel of fun memories.

The Problems

Let's get the nitpicking out of the way quickly and rapid fire.

The only *real* problems were unrelated to the actual con. My flights were terrible, with a connection being shorted at the last minute. The second flight started boarding two minutes before the doors on my first flight opened and was well across the terminal (the time was shorted after we had bought the tickets). We ran over a mile in eight or so minutes. Thank you so much United (and for the record, charging for bags is B.S. Everyone just gets bigger carryon then things get slowed as the overhead compartments get filled and things get slower).

United also "lost" the luggage of myself and my travelling companion. It showed up at 2am, but there was a moment of panic. My other hotel roommate found that the TSA had searched his bags and apparently done it in the rain (or inside a shower) as much of his stuff was wet. A gaming book, several card games, and his leather hat and iPad case were all damaged from the water.

The PFS special was meh with a less prepared GM. Specials are very rapid-fire timed affairs to emulate some of the feel of a classic tournament module, so having him unfamiliar with chase rules, with no ready maps, and frequently stopping to read for 5-minutes before each scene hurt.

I'm always torn on organized play, as it is so very static. Overly reliant on d20s to determine success with very little player skill. It's often a worst-case-scenario of relying on skills over the narrative. LFR is a little better as it encourages DMs to make the scenario their own and tweak to fit the players. PFS can be much more restrictive in that sense.

The Keynote address was a bit of a gong show. The music felt like someone's get-psyched mix tape from the late '70s and the smoke machine was pure cheese. The change in venue for the keynote address was unfortunate and poorly advertised, with the location not listed on the GenCon app or simmilar places.

The very first thing my friend/ roomie did was head to AEG for some L5R books, and got overcharged by $200. Thankfully, this was quickly refunded a few days later.

D&D next playtest was 33% testing character generation and 66% actually playing. There was no easy place to offer feedback or respond and, since we were not asked for e-mails, we might not be signed-up for the survey.

The WotC booth was a joke, as always. It felt much more like Cryptic's Neverwinter Nights MMO booth than the booth for both Magic and D&D. I did not see Menzoberanzan anywhere at the convention and new 4e books seemed to be in short supply. WotC really needs to get over of its phobia of taking money and actually offer some product at its booth. The number of stores in attendance is a small fraction of the exhibit hall, and most made their presence known in ways other than selling the latest book.

Putting Faces to Names

Getting back to the positive, I think my favourite part of the con was meeting fellow gamming bloggers and internet personalities. While I'm a small fish in that pond, it was still nice meeting them and shaking hands.

Over the course of the con I briefly met Chatty DM, Parrim, Tracy Barnett as well as Chris Perkins and James Wyatt (both great guys and kudos to Mr. Wyatt for being so approachable when some stranger starts talking to him in an airport line!) I passed by both Ed Greenwood and Dungeon Bastard but they looked too busy (and I was too politely Canadian) to interrupt them.

I also got to hang with Jeff Greiner, Mike Shea, Randall Walker, Online DM, Id DM after the  Behind the DM screen recording and join them for dinner.

Cool Book

A long while back, on my honeymoon in Paris, I wandered into a gaming store. We had a hotel that must have been in the "nerd district" because there were no less than three comic stores and one gaming store within a five-block radius. I needed reading, saw the Pathfinder playtest, and grabbed it on a whim.

With that book now in tow, I hit the Paizo booth and had it signed by as many people as I could find with names in the credits. James Jacobs and Eric Mona both commented on what good condition the book was in (impressive as it had travelled between continents).

 

Even Cooler Book

When running a game, I once sat my iPad on top of a gaming book and noticed they were close to the same size. I realized how easy it would be to make a hollow book iPad case out of a gaming book.

And if you're going to do that, why settle for anything less than the best gaming book?

I showed it off to everyone, including Chris Perkins, James Jacobs, James Wyatt, the staff at the Geek Chic booth, and almost everyone I gamed with. Many photos of it were snapped. I was told more than once I had "won" GenCon.

Mr. Perkins had the best description, saying it was "a mix of coolness and blasphemy." A statement I cannot disagree with: cutting into the book was hard.

Seeing New Games

I have a couple GenCon regrets. The first is missing True Dungeon but the second is just not finding enough time to wander the game halls and pick-up game rooms and find new games. I didn't get to play many non-scheduled events (D&D Next and Pathfinder mostly).

I did manage to try

Chaos & Alchemy which was simple and fun. A solid indy game that will hopefully soon be a little less indy.

My roomie got a couple cheap copies of Nightfall and it looks fun, with beautiful art.

And we ended the con with Artemis, the bridge simulation game. It's like LARPing with computers. Adding a little RP to a LAN party. Soooo much fun.

Buying TOO Much

I spent way too much money drifting a little over budget in the first day. I picked-up some missing Ravenloft modules I had been looking for as well as some Dragon and Dungeon articles on the same. I found a cheap copy of the Tome of Magic to replace one I foolishly sold in my 20s. I also grabbed a copy of the 1e Fiend Folio & Monster Manual 2  that I promise not to cut up.

At one of the cheap game booths I found all the Midnight books I was missing as well. I am fond of that world.

I grabbed some Game science dice, some metal minis, and capped off my spending with the massive purchase of three sets of Terraclips.

But that wasn't all...

No Really, Buying TOO Much

Has everyone heard of GeekChic? Great furniture. Not just all wood gaming tables but also excellent drawers and solid construction and tonnes of added features like the recessed play surfaces with covering leaves and built in cup holders.

They had a sale during the Con: put a deposit on a table before the end of GenCon and get 10% off the base price of the table. And when the base price is $4k that's a nice discount. Free shipping at least.

I've been considering a really nice gaming table for some time. Gaming has really become my primary hobby and source of disposable income. A nice, solid table would be good. But I wasn't planning on getting one for over a year, waiting until I had recovered from GenCon and had a nice space fat stack of cash.

But 10%.

My wife loves me and kicks so much ass. She needed very little convincing. Because 10%.

We put the deposit down. My wallet hates me. But I'm getting a Geek Chic table.

The Forgotten Highlight

Oops, almost forgot this one (and by "almost" I mean "completely did and edited it in after the fact".

Over the course of the Con, there was a balloon sculpter making a giant balloon dragon. Massive. Like eight feet tall and breathing fire. And, on the last day of the con, when it was completed. They invited some cosplayers to slay the dragon. They did a good job, but more help was needed, as can be seen below.

Video 1

Video 2
 

Fin

Excellent hotel experience. The JW Marriott was excellent and the staff was friendly and superb. The con was great and everyone treated me well.

There's a few complaints but most are nitpicking and overall the experience has been phenomenal. I would do it again in a heartbeat and would do it again next year if I was not going to be in debt for the foreseeable future.

While there's much I would like to do and see, the people really made the convention for me. Whether they were running a game, signing a book, or just generally chatting. It's good to remember that gaming is first and foremost a social activity and GenCon is a place to meet people and socialize, sometimes around a gaming table and sometimes over a pint. 

*** 
Shameless Plug: Check out my new webcoming, found here.