War and How to Wage It
March’s RPG Blog Carnival on War, hosted by The Book of Rev, will soon be drawing to a close. Before it does, here’s that post I promised about war within a fantasy setting. The typical D&D campaign is set in a fantastic version of late-medieval to early-Renaissance Europe, so that’s the setting I’m considering. Gunpowder isn’t a factor, but magic and mythological creatures are. This is bound to change the way a war is conducted.
For instance, let’s take castles and fortifications. These are, essentially, walls. Walls can prove very effective at protecting one army from another, helping to defend a strategic point even against larger forces. They’re cover for allies and an obstacle to enemies. Confronted with a strong castle full of defenders, many armies of the middle ages were forced to respond with besiegement — what could be a long process of waiting for the defenders’ supplies to run out, or for their commanders to make a mistake. The other major option, if the enemy could not be drawn out, was the use of siege engines, devices intended to breach or circumvent the walls.
But in a game like Dungeons & Dragons, a siege might not make sense. If the army has a complement of flying creatures, for instance, walls become much less of an obstacle. Similarly, there are many creatures that can teleport or tunnel. What impact would this have on the game world?
Categories: Advice, Philosophy and Rants, War Week | Comments (3)
What D&D Is (To Me)
Bookending my previous post, in which I speculated about what D&D means to different groups of players. I didn’t think this post was necessary, originally, but a comment by Brian Gleichman has convinced me otherwise. Tempting as it was to dismiss it, between the veiled insults and a self-evident failure on Brian’s part to read the page very carefully (in case any of the rest of you were wondering: I am not Ambrose Bierce, the renowned satirist who died in the early 20th century), I think it’s probably better addressed, because he raises at least one good point. I spent a fair amount of time talking about what I think D&D isn’t, but I left what I think it is mostly between the lines. It’s probably better to be clear, especially when making statements such as “the import of mechanics is limited.”
As an initial clarification, I’ll say: That’s not the same as “the rules don’t matter.” More on that in a little while, though.
What is D&D? To me, it isn’t any of those rules in my last post. It’s not 3d6 chargen, or 4d6, or point-buy. It’s not level draining, or lack thereof. It’s not wandering monsters and random treasure, or the absence of same. Those are just elements, and every one of them is dispensable. To re-use a metaphor I threw at Brian, they’re like team uniforms in baseball. It might (arguably) not be the Yankees without the pinstripes, but it’s still baseball. It might not be OD&D without level drains (at least, some people would say it wasn’t), but it’s still D&D.
Categories: Philosophy and Rants | Comments (11)
What is D&D, Anyway?
Jeff Rients of Jeff’s Gameblog, who ordinarily has interesting things to say, recently decided to instead rant about 4th edition in a couple of posts, starting with positing an unbridgeable gap between old-school and new-school. All of this was founded, mind you, on a misinterpretation of a single post by Trask of Living Dice. (Later he added a second post based on an editorial by someone at Wizards of the Coast.) Buried in the comments, though, he said something that’s actually thought-provoking and worth responding to:
3d6 chargen. Wandering monsters. Save or die. Rust monsters eatng my sword. Level draining. Random treasure (possibly no treasure). Dave the Game may be right and what I’m talking about is a ‘playstyle’ issue, but the playstyle that I learned from D&D is no longer one supported by D&D.
I find this interesting because it is, for the most part, a list of those things that I found most senseless and annoying as both a player and a GM in past editions. If this is how the “old school” contingent (and we really need a better name for them — too many of them, judging from other comments on Jeff’s post, are too ignorant or too vested in the One True Way of Gaming to allow them to co-opt “old school”) defines D&D, then I think it’s no surprise that the game no longer feels like D&D to them.
Categories: Philosophy and Rants | Comments (33)
Ten Monsters I Love (But Rarely Use)
I thought I’d chip in on the latest subject to be making its way around the RPG blogs. Instead of just my favorite ten monsters, which would include common reliables like kobolds, dragons, and vampires, though, I thought I’d list the ones that are favorites of mine but that I rarely find myself using. They might be too specialized, or might not fit the flavor of my plots often enough, or might just be obscure, but I love the concepts anyway.
Categories: My Campaigns, Philosophy and Rants | Comments (5)
Review: Imperium Chronicles
And now for something completely different.
A couple of months ago, I was given a copy of the Imperium Chronicles Basic Rules, along with a request that I review it. After my experience with Dread, I was determined to play a session or two before offering any opinions. Turns out it’s a busy time of year, but we’ve finally completed a short plot, so here’s my belated review.
Categories: Reviews | Comments (3)
