Thaevrizhax's Lair

Since the inception of the game that would come to be known as D&D, players have sought to uncover how the game is meant to be played. Players close to Gygax and Arneson, both proximally and in terms of game knowledge, had a very solid grasp of what it meant to play D&D.  Others, exemplified by the Arduin Grimoires, had no idea what the game was, even after reading the rules.  Elsewhere, the incredible looseness of the OD&D ruleset has been showcased through Coins & Scrolls intentional mis-interpretation .  The Basic Expert has shown how Chainmail was meant to interface with OD&D, but even then only through un-published material. This illustrates only how confusing the original rules were, moving on: The second era of D&D was the Basic/Advanced split in the 80s (by my observation), and this created even more confusion and headache for the players of the game.  Many saw the Advanced system as the 'better' version of the game (when they we...

 I had a breakthrough: To recap, from There are only three gaming cultures , I stated that there are wargamers (simulationists), powergamers (min-maxxers), and storygamers (theater kids).  Now, this is in specific reference to the  players , not the games themselves.  In this way, my theory differs from GNS theory which states there are three types of  games  (gamist, narrativist, simulationist). I was reading a post by B/X Blackrazor , where he was saying how, for himself and the people he played with (back in the day), the rules were the point.  This made me think: could the same be said for all wargamers? The answer to this, is  yes . Why?  Aside from the evidences provided in Blackrazor's own post, I can also point to the Arduin grimoires , which contain seemingly nothing other than rules for the sake of rules.  As well, there is my own experimentation, a ~140 page document of just rule changes that I am constantly tweaking and chan...

This may be a few months  a year after, but it still feels like riding off of the Mythlands of Erce review of the same... Starting with what little I've read, and off of the general sense I get from the game. ACKSII offers a vision of strength.  Its in the name, not just adventurers, but conquerors and kings are set to rise from the ashes of previous kingdoms.   One of the most memorable aspects of these three books is the setting.  It is omnipresent, which I, for one, do not mind.  My own house rule document, a tenth of the length under the current draft, is bland and flavorless gruel by comparison.  Every inch of the text here paints a clear picture of what the setting is about.  If there was any doubt in reading through ACKS (the first) that it was Rome by a different name, here, the artwork alone conveys that message loud and CLEAR.  Speaking of the artwork, the chapter cover art is the lowest point for me, as I have a personal distaste ...

 Instead of finishing my reviews of ACKSII, I picked up the Stormlight Handbook (part of the Cosmere RPG), hoping to find a Heroic Fantasy RPG but finding instead yet another RPG with a full-blown identity crisis.  First, why was I expecting a heroic game?  Two main reasons, the complex one first: D&D 5e had an identity crisis of its own, it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be an heroic fantasy quest-hopping world-saving game, or a gritty, dungeon-crawling tomb-robbing game. It ended up being neither.  With the advent of OSR games  during  the life of 5e, the people who wanted a gritty game, or a game about dungeon-crawling or tomb-robbing, or about bloody world conquest, had their games.  An innumerable, ever-expanding morass of games. BUT,  after  the life of 5e, there was, and still is, I would argue, a Heroic Fantasy shaped hole left behind.  6e/5.5e is utter trash, and so fails to fill that hole.  Other game blatantly s...

 After ranting and raving for ...the past five posts... I figured it was about time I actually put forward some ideas rather than criticizing others. Starting with an ability score generation method:  I have heard the sentiment of the ideal character being one with low, medium, and high stats, not just one of the three.  I myself, agreeing with this sentiment, have devised the following:    Start with six scores: 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 Add 1d6 to each, Roll 1d6 to assign: 1: Str, 2: Dex, 3: Con, 4: Int, 5: Wis, 6: Cha Reroll or roll different dice as the ‘open’ stats are filled.  (So, starting with [12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2], you would add 1d6 [14, 11, 14, 8, 8, 3], roll 1d6[1 being Str, 2 being Dex, 3 being Con...] to determine the placement of the first number [I rolled a 4, so Int becomes a 14] rolling 1d5 [1d6-reroll-6] to determine the placement of the second number [with the order now being Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha; I rolled a 3 so Con is now a...

There is a certain mindset which I believe I have noticed in a few old-school DMs.  An idea is present within their minds that anything the player characters obtain is just another means to attack the characters. Did you hire a henchman? Well, now he may or may not betray you. Did you build a stronghold? Well, now it might just get attacked. Did you get treasure from the dungeon?  Well, now it might be stolen in the night, or while you're away from your stronghold. Is this a problem? No. But, if you choose to run the game like this, your players will stop going to get treasure, stop hiring henchmen and stop building strongholds. How can you be so sure?  Because that is exactly what happened.  Here is how I think things went: The old-school DMs ran their games, and then in the 90s the players coming into the hobby, with the majority being power-gamers , saw the weaknesses of treasure, strongholds and henchmen for what they were, and simply stopped using them.  Co...