When people fall asleep...

Sunday's D&D game was less great than I'd hoped. I had hoped we'd be playing through some Eberron adventures, but one player was writing essays for his university course, and another played had just come off working at McDonalds for many, many hours - stupid McHappy Day - and actually fell asleep during the session! I'd decided early on that because of the essay-writer, we'd play through a Greyhawk dungeon of my own design, but I hadn't counted on the effects of McHappy Day.

So, that left Greg, Adam and myself (not counting the snoring Ben) in a 1st level dungeon that was quickly turning into to "kill the next kobold" rather than a memorable experience. There actually was a point to the dungeon, but I find running a session with only two players to be extremely difficult and depressing. So, after they'd finished their third expedition into the dungeon, I declared that we'd stop playing D&D and go back to playing board games.

"Talisman!" they cried, including Ben, somewhat sleepily. "You don't want to play Settlers of Catan?" I asked, hopefully. "Talisman!" they replied. Ben woke up more fully. "Talisman!" he chirped.

There are advantages in (a) being the DM and (b) owning all the board games. You actually get to choose the game to play - we'd have a quick game of Settlers and follow it with Talisman.

If you're not familiar with those board games, I've bad news for you: Talisman is no longer being made. Settlers of Catan is, however, and I really recommend it.

In Settlers, you are building settlements on a small island, trying to get the most of the resources that randomly appear. Each hex of the island produces one of five different resources, and a number on the hex indicates when the resource appears. Thus, if an eight is rolled on 2d6 at the start of each turn, each hex with an "8" on it produces a resource for those who have built settlements next to it.

Because you need all five resources at different points of the game, and no-one has good access to all five, trading is a big part of the game. It is also, unlike Talisman, a game that I tend to win more than the others. The game we played on Sunday night was an interesting one. I'd set up my settlements to take advantage of the resources that would be good in the late game, but I was cut off entirely from the early-game resources: which each of the other three players had in spades.

I was getting rather worried as roads and settlements were being built extremely quickly, cutting off my access to further resources. Luckily, I had two advantages that game.

The first was because I was in such a bad position, it was much easier to work against the other players. The second was because the person who was best able to work against me would also work against his own position when he did so.

If you've already guessed the outcome of the game, you're probably right: I won. It was close, and Greg almost beat me at the end, but I prevailed.

"Talisman!" chirped the other three, almost in unison. (Ben was still somewhat sleepy). Why someone can be awake for a board game but not D&D is beyond me. (Actually, not entirely true: the D&D session that day wasn't one of my finest. I'm looking forward to next session when we'll have our second Eberron game).

Because my edition of Talisman is the first, and because I've owned it since 1986 or so, and, more importantly, because I used to take it to school in my bag, the box is no more. Instead, it's currently inside the Seafarers of Catan box. (Seafarers is sitting in the Cities and Knights of Catan box, sharing it with C&K).

Talisman is one of the great fantasy board-games - probably the great fantasy board-game, as I don't know another its equal. The players all take the part of adventurers trying to reach the mystical Crown of Command and use it to rule the land and destroy all opposition (the other players). If your character dies in Talisman before the Crown is reached, you just start again with a new character. The basic game has fourteen different characters, of which you choose one randomly.

There were also many expansions to Talisman, of which I possess bits and pieces. Thus, for this game I played the Assassin and Greg played the Amazon. Ben and Adam played other characters - I think the Sorceress and the Fighter, though I might be getting things confused.

It was a fun game. Talisman can take quite a while to play, and it did. Greg was the leader for most of the game. He acquired the Wand - you always have a spell - and used it unmercifully on us. Especially me. Then we started playing "Grab the Wand". Ben would beguile the wand away from Greg, then I'd attack Ben and take the Wand for myself... shortly to see Greg get the wand back again.

This circuit continued a couple of times, before Greg finally decided that he was ready to attain the Crown of Command. He got there, too, while I languished in the Outer Region of the board because some Random spell had turned me into a Toad - thanks, Greg!

Greg started using Command spells on us. "Submit or perish!" Ben perished, and went back to catching up on his sleep. Adam shortly perished... but I met a Demigod who gave me the Acquistion spell, which allowed me to take the Wand.

For the rest of the game, I mercilessly used the Wand to heal myself, random Greg, and otherwise try to turn him into a toad. Greg just couldn't stop me... and eventually I crowned myself, over the Amazon's corpse, the ruler of the world!

Talisman is a fun game when you win. It's also fun when you're playing it... although, as one of my friends has remarked: "It doesn't matter who you think is winning, you always stop Merric!"

Heh.

I've just received an e-mail from another group of friends, wondering if I want to play some boardgame with them on Thursday night. Well, I'm always up for a nice gaming session, so what game do they want to play? Talisman...

I just wonder what edition it is?

Just the core rulebooks, please!

There is a possibility that D&D can be sold as a "classic" game, with only the core rulebooks on sale and no updates, ever. No supplemental support is needed. Although D&D has never been sold in that manner, I can see it becoming that way in the future.

I've seen many statements from those in control of D&D about how small the proportion of gamers is that actually buy supplemental books and adventures is. That's mainly because the core books provide all most people need for years of fun. When someone says, "I don't want Frostburn - it doesn't offer anything to me that I need", this is actually pretty normal. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. People like myself, who really enjoy new D&D material (almost no matter its nature!) aren't so common.

(We do exist, though, which is why I get annoyed by the people who say "Frostburn sucks! They shouldn't have made it!")

The main audience for D&D who buy only the core books, and then there are the people who want more optional books. A certain respectable profit can be made out of just selling the core books; various game designers can make a living out of the optional books.

When the audience for the optional books drops below the point at which they are profitable, then D&D moves closer to becoming a "classic" game - by which I mean it is not further developed, only the core rulebooks are printed - and possibly a couple of evergreen supplements.

Now, a new edition might revitalise the market for a while, but such things are tricky. D&D supplements work at present, but it's not assured they'll work in the future.

Incidentally, D&D Miniatures seek to tap into another group of D&D players (as they are accessories, not supplements), though their purpose is confused by also being advertisements for the Latest, Greatest supplements. When you see an Eberron miniature, it is a pointer to have a look at the Eberron campaign setting - in addition to being a miniature you might be able to use.

Because of the wide variety of tastes amongst D&D players, the overall picture is somewhat confused. Wizards are currently trying to provide different products for different groups of people, whilst hoping that the groups are big enough (or overlap enough) to keep the supplements profitable.

This is somewhat different than the 2e approach, which had the effect of artificially splitting the market through many competing campaign settings. The end result of Wizards' strategy could be the same, of course.

D&D 4E is coming!

Heh. Of course 4E is coming... and, I'm thankful for it. (How much worse would it be if D&D stopped being produced?)

However, the recent "New Releases" list from Wizards has made it fairly clear to me that 4E is some way off. There are a great number of interesting products there - and the start of a few more series of products.

What are these new series?

Weapons of Legacy is the first of the D&D Magic Series
Battlefield Adventures is the first of the D&D Genre Series

Meanwhile, we conclude the Hero Series with Complete Adventurer; and the Races Series with Races of the Wild - or Races of Eberron, depending on how you count it.

Codex Anathema continies the Ecology series (though it doesn't have a formal name, to my knowledge), and the D&D Environment Series continues with Sandstorm and Maelstrom.

It looks like the business plan put forward at GAMA last year has certainly changed the way D&D books are arranged- and I am extremly pleased with the results. Sure, I don't want every book Wizards are making - but there are now plenty of options.

Interestingly, there is no Map Folio planned for the first eight months of next year (not that surprising given the reaction to the first two); unfortunately there is only Grasp of the Emerald Claw as an adventure. I hope that we'll see more of them, though.

So, where does this leave 4E? Given the product plan through 2005, it seems that Wizards should be well set through 2006 and possibly the early part of 2007. Perhaps we'll see 4E in 2007 or 2008, but later than that is still a distinct possibility!

However, because of this wealth of material, it becomes less and less likely that the d20 System will be abandoned or seriously modified in 4E. Aspects of it might be changed, of course, but the core balances are likely to remain.

Of course, I'm an optimist...

The mechanical problems with Multiclassing in D&D 3E

With the recent flood of new classes from Wizards, the problems with the 3e multi-classing system have become readily apparent.

Of course, these may not be considered as problems by all. However, the problems that the Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were designed to fix have become what might be a troubling part of the 3.5e system.

What are these issues, and are they indeed problems? That depends on how flexible you want the system to be.

Historically, 1E had a multi-class system that required player choice from first level. It actually worked better than the 2E system, due to two reasons:

* Multi-class fighter/wizards could wear armour (one of the few reasons to take that combination)

* Character retirement and level limits meant 12th level was the end of most campaigns.

The XP system for multi-classing broke down at high levels (10+); this was not properly compensated for in 2E's expanded level limits.

1E and 2E did not allow "free" multiclassing. There were very definite limits on what combinations were allowed. This is an important point to consider as we move to 3E and the "free" multiclassing it initially appeared to support.

In 3E, there are no main restrictions as to which classes you combine (with the slight exception of alignment-based incompatibilities). This may lead many to thinking that they can combine any classes they like and get an effective character. This is not the case.

3E multi-classing works by an additive process: you add together the benefits of being in each class.

This works fine for the primary attributes of D&D characters: Hit points, Skills, Saving Throws and Attack Bonus. They are designed with this additive process in mind. Other abilities, such as Sneak Attack, also are additive in nature.

However, most abilities are written specifically for a class, and are not additive in nature. The most obvious offender here is Spellcasting, but it also applies to Bardic Knowledge, Turn Undead, Monk unarmed damage and some other very class-specific abilities, such as the Soulknife's mind blade.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, this has become extremely pronounced with the new class options. If you multi-class or take a prestige class, it is most likely that these non-additive abilities are not increasing in power, although there are exceptions.

The ostensible freedom of 3e is instead restricted. There are classes, like the 1e Paladin, that cannot be multi-classed with effectively.

Although some prestige classes have mitigated this, whenever a new class ability is added the problem reoccurs.

However, is this really a problem? Although the idea of freely multiclassing is attractive, conceptually there is not a problem with some classes not making good multi-class characters. Of course, there should be some combinations that must be addressed (such as the fighter/wizard example), but all in all it may not be the problem that it could be considered to be.

Was indeed 1e's solution to this the correct one? Should multi-classing be allowed freely?

This is an issue that should be discussed over the coming years, and resolved when the 4th edition is published. It is not a crisis by any means, but instead a decision that should be made on a major part of the 3E system.

And I'm still waiting...

Mainly to be paid again. I have one starter + 1 single from Aberrations. It's another week until I get paid again - not that I can spend much on games, as I still have some significant debts. Oh well. Hopefully my cheque for Maze4 will clear soon.

Comments on the Mark of Heroes FAQ

In the last few months, I've joined the RPGA and started running various RPGA-sanctioned games (Dungeon Magazine adventures, Living Greyhawk, Legacy of the Green Regent) in addition to my regular campaigning.

The adventures have had problems, but generally we've enjoyed them. It's also brought me new gaming friends in Ballarat, something I'm very grateful for.

Being somewhat interested in Eberron - but being unwilling to discard my current campaign for it - I've been looking forward to the RPGA sanctioned Eberron campaigns. In particular, the Mark of Heroes campaign.

The first FAQ has been posted for the campaign. You can find it here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?.../moh20041018faq

There are some things in it that jump out at me...

Wizards love the Whisper Gnome
While not a core option, it's something allowed by the Campaign Cards. Given how wonderful some people find the race - I'm dubious to its balance, but I still think it's fun - it's amusing to find it available.

There's a Kobold Champion fastplay character
Well, I could be wrong. It might be a Kobold Sorcerer... but I think the champion is far more likely.

Psionics!
Again, it's a campaign card option, but it is another sign that the XPH finally "got it right" and psionics is being more integrated into the core D&D experience.

Design your own adventures
Very, very interesting. Traditionally, RPGA adventures are pre-written for you. Now, with the DM's Mark concept, a DM can create their own adventure for their group within the structure of the campaign. I'll be very interested to see how they approach this. Obviously, it isn't a free-for-all, but it's a positive step IMO.

This may also help mitigate against the "holes" that have appeared in the Legacy of the Green Regent adventure schedule.

Are there likely to be problems with the Eberron Campaign? Yes, I'd say it's quite possible. However, it does open up another way to play D&D for those who can't play in normal campaigns, and I'm very grateful to anything that increases the potential audience of the game.

When the rules can go hang...

I was happily running a RPGA (LGR) adventure last Saturday when the barbarian decided to charge an opponent.

The opponent was in water. Okay, perhaps the barbarian can jump that far. (Makes roll) nope. Oh well, perhaps after landing, he can do a Thorpie and swim the remaining distance. 5 foot short? Oh well.

Would it be more fun if he made it? Yep. Very well, I'll do that - and ignore the reach of the creature as the barbarian has only a few hit points left.

The barbarian ran, flew and swam towards the opponent, and hit it with his greatsword. Threat. Critical confirmed. Ouch.

Then, ever so gently, the opponent critted the barbarian in return and bit his head off.

Was that fun? I thought so. The players thought so.

I love keeping the play of the game accurate to what the rules say, but every so often, someone does something so stupid (and fun) that the rulebook can go out the window whilst people enjoy the game.