Review: Elves With Shotguns

Posted on May 14, 2012 by greywulf

I’ve been playing rather a lot of Torchlight lately. Partly that is in anticipation of the imminent release of Torchlight II, but also because it happens to be one of my youngest son’s favourite games. That’s my excuse anyway.

For those of you who don’t know, Torchlight is set in a fantasy world much like that found in D&D, with one notable exception: guns. Your hero is as likely to be equipped with a Flintlock Pistol or Blunderbuss as they are with a Shortbow. Add in other steampunk elements, and this is one game which just begs to be given the D&D Campaign Setting treatment.

This is (in a roundabout way) where Elves With Shotguns comes in. This is a 44-page supplement by Randomology Games which adds guns to Fourth Edition D&D, and does it extremely well indeed. In fact, if the only thing it did was “give me guns in D&D like Torchlight” and nothing else it would be worth the $8 (currently discounted to $5) asking price, but it does so much more. Don’t be fooled by the page count.

Rather than present a single set of rules for firearms, it offers three distinct “Eras” of play. and the GM has free reign to pick which one (or more) best reflect how guns work in the campaign setting.

Era 1 represents firearms in their earliest stage of development. Guns are powerful, barely controlled things which take an age to reload. These are the early flintlock, wheel-lock and matchlock pistols, muskets and blunderbusses, and in D&D terms they operate just like Magic Items. Reloading is possible during combat, but as it takes 5 Move Actions it is more likely the user will open combat by firing then switch to a melee weapon to wade into the action. If you want to run a gritty Napoleonic-era 4e D&D campaign, this is a great way to do it.

In Era 2, firearms become much more reliable and easy to reload (either one or two Move Actions) and are treated just like any other weapon, with the sole restriction that they cannot be used with any multi-attack Powers – single shot, single targets only. If you want a setting where firearms are reasonably common but don’t necessarily overshadow Bows and Crossbows, this is a good option.

When we reach Era 3, all bets are off and the firearm is king. Here with get Revolvers, Carbines and Pump-Action Shotguns, and they all have multi-attack capability. The age of the Longbow is dead.

I can see a use for all three Eras, and applaud Michel for recognising the different levels which guns can be included in a campaign. I can picture a regular D&D adventure where the heroes face off against Orcs with Era 1 Blunderbusses, a kickass Pirate campaign using Era 2 Pistols and Muskets or a full-blown Fantasy Noir setting using the Era 3 weapons and rules.

Brilliant.

And we’re only up to Page 15.

What follows is coverage of firearms-related Equipment (Ammo Boxes, Bandoliers, etc), Magic Items (different kinds of Black Powder, firearms-specific Magic Items, Ammo and more). There are items inspired by everything from Warhammer to The Matrix. And it all works in 4e D&D. The breadth of options in this section is excellent, and it really helps show how firearms can be used to enhance and integrate into D&D.

Chapter 3 presents Character Options, and presents Alternate Class features for the major Core classes. The Fighter, for example, could replace his Shield Proficiency and Combat Challenge with the ability to use Strength (rather than DEX) for two-handed firearms and gain the Artillery Taunt At-Will Power. This isn’t just a Fighter, but a Fighter with a really big gun! Paladins can become Bullet Knights (shades of Equilibrium, perhaps?), Rangers can take the Musketeer Fighting Style, Rogues can take the Gunslinger Talent, and so on. New Feats include Double-Tap and Firearms Novice (a Firearm Multiclass Feat chain) which opens gun use to every class. I like.

The whole supplement is written is a style that perfectly combines game mechanics with flavour text and friendly sidebars that explain the rationale and available options along the way. This is clearly a labour of love. While it lacks the layout and polish of a commercial RPG house, the sheer quality and attention to detail the content shine through.

The download includes both colour and B&W printed-friendly versions of the PDF, as well as a bundle of all the images used in the text for your own personal use. Nice touch.

This is one highly recommended product.

Go get it.

What is Playtesting anyway?

Posted on May 3, 2012 by greywulf

On 24th May, the future Edition of D&D embarks on the next stage of its journey toward completion. This is when Wizards of The Coast begins the first Open Playtest of D&D Next. With that in mind, it’s worth looking at what playtesting involves. After all, if you are going to be playing a part in the future direction of D&D, perhaps it’s worth knowing what you are getting into ahead of time.

Technopedia defines playtesting as:

Playtesting is a method of quality control that takes place at many points during the video game design process. A selected group of users play unfinished versions of a game to work out flaws in gameplay, level design and other basic elements, as well as to discover and resolve bugs and glitches. In addition, the process mainly involves clarifying the vague points, adding fun elements or reducing boredom, balancing the victory situations, and so on.

When D&D Next launches, I expect blogs, forums and Twitter to erupt with people complaining that “this doesn’t work”, “it’s all broken”, “bring back 3rd Edition”, “5e sucks”, etc. Every single one of these people are entirely missing the point of playtesting. The objective is to find out what does and doesn’t work, not to give something for the interwebs to gripe about. Don’t be That Guy.

Playtesting is for the benefit of the designers

It’s not about you, dude. It’s about the game. The goal is to improve the game by getting as many eyeballs (see Linus’ Law) as possible on the rules so that the vast majority of issues are fixed ahead of time. This means actually playing the game rather than merely reading it (though that can be quite helpful too). All too often RPG rules can read just fine, but when it comes to playing the game there’s too much room for misinterpretation or confusion. If something isn’t clear or you think may be improved by wording it differently, say so through the correct channels.

One common goal of playtesting is to fine-tune the user experience. In a FPS computer game that may mean refining the heads-up display so that important information is clearly visible and in your eye-line at all times. In pencil-and-paper RPGs it’s more nebulous, but no less important. Is the character sheet easy to understand? Do the rules permit you to participate in every session or round of combat? Are you having fun or feeling frustrated, and if so, why?

Feeding back your positive user-experience is (I’m sure) very rewarding for the game designers to hear, because it means they’re doing something right – but it’s the negative user-experience they will want to hear about, even if it’ll give them headaches. These are the elements which need sorting, and that’s why you’re playtesting in the first place.

You help them by giving them more headaches. Trust me. They will thank you for it in the end.

Playtesting usually has a fixed purpose

Most (but not all) playtests come with a set of instructions or a request of which features the designers want to see if you can break. I suspect the Open Playtest for D&D Next will be no different (though I have no specific knowledge, and could be wrong).

It could be as simple as “run through this adventure and tell us what problems you had”, or as specific as “kill this roomful of goblins 20 times. Did combat speed up as you became familiar with the rules and what was the average time your last five combats lasted?”. Again, I dunno, but that’s how I would do it (disclaimer: I’m a business analyst. Testing things is what I do. I know this stuff).

Sometimes it is to the benefit of the designers not to state their purpose. This eliminates the problem where actually stating the goal causes the problem itself. For example, if the designers asked “Did the fight with the Ogre take too long?” they are more likely to get “Yes” replies than if they say nothing, but listen out for comments about the length of the Ogre fight. Asking the question sets a degree of anticipation in the players’ mind, which then increases the likelihood of the perceived issue occurring. Let’s call it Quantum Playtesting, or something.

The initial Open Playtest will contain pre-generated characters, and for good reason. This means every single playtesting group will be on exactly the same page, both literally and figuratively. Your Rogue will be the same as everyone else’s so if there’s a problem with a certain ability or feature, it should be widely reported. A single group having an issue may well just be a blip on the radar or a misreading of the rules, but if 500 groups find the same thing is a problem, that’s a whole different kettle of orcs.

As the playtest continues, I expect to see playtests of higher levels, character generation and all of the various subsystems which make up D&D Next. Fingers crossed, Open Playtesting will carry on after launch for future books and modules. That depends on you, willing playtester, and the success (or failure) of the Open Playtest itself.

Playtesting only works if you provide feedback through the established channels

The most important aspect of Playtesting is feedback, and this has to be through the communication channels stated by Wizards of The Coast. Putting your opinions and thoughts about the game on your blog, Twitter and forums is one thing, but before you do that PLEASE feed it back to the Coastal Wizards in the format they ask.

I doubt the designers have time to spend their days surfing the net looking for comments about D&D Next wherever they may be. If you are going to play by the rules, play by the rules. That will make the designers’ job so much easier, and guarantee that your feedback will be heard. Putting it up on your blog won’t.

Playtesting will make the game better, and that is to everyone’s benefit

If you care about D&D, regardless of Edition, play style or preference, please take part in the D&D Next Open Playtest and help to make it a game to be proud of.

This is your chance to shape the future of the hobby as a whole. Why not participate, and be a part of gaming history?

Thanks for listening.

Should D&D be sexist?

Posted on May 2, 2012 by greywulf

If you want it to be, yes.

It should also be racist, violent, malevolent, and threatening if you want it to be and it fits the tone of your campaign and maturity of the people you game with. After all, if your villains are “Evil” but all they do is wear dark clothing and look different to the Good Guy Races, isn’t that just being Racist (not to mention Gothist, if there’s such a thing) by another name?

And if you don’t want it to be, no. It’s your game, when all is said and done.

The role-playing hobby is somewhat unique in that it provides a “safe” environment in which to explore issues such as racism, sexism, slavery and other such evils that exist in the real world. We can look at such things and let our Heroic PC personas make a stand for Good where in our daily lives all too often we look the other way.

Perhaps just a little of that Heroic might just rub off too. Who knows?

Ok, so should the players be sexist? The Gamer Code of Conduct (written or unwritten) should insist that players should be polite around the table at all times, and that includes not being a jerk about the opposite sex. That’s not the same as what goes on in the Theatre of The Mind. Your Barbarian might well be leering at the Barmaid (are we still allowed to call them Tavern Wenches now? Ah crap), because he’s from a culture where Male Dominance Rules (and he’s never seen a women who washes her hair before), but that doesn’t mean the player is “being sexist”. He’s playing his character, who is. That’s a part of what role-playing is all about – being someone who isn’t you, for just a while.

Oh course, playing a Barbarian who breaks that particular stereotype is even cooler, but that’s up to the player, and I don’t think that’s a decision which should be forced upon us by Political Correctness. I don’t know about you, but my Medieval Fantasy settings aren’t democratically elected Utopias where everyone is born equal and free regardless of race, sex, colour or creed. And nor would I want them to be.

What of D&D art? Should that be sexist?

Hmmmm. Here’s where I turn the fire hose on myself. Good thing I brought a towel.

All too often, art is labelled “sexist” because it shows a large amount of bare female flesh. To me (a white male, and therefore possessing no opinion worth a damn), that’s not sexist at all. That’s other people being prudish, and I had hoped such Victorian values died out with…. well, with the Victorians.

That being said, I do wish that fantasy art depicted women wearing clothing that at least partially resembled their male counterparts. Women in plate armour should not wear nothing but panties from the waist down!

That’s not sexist. It’s silly.

Of course, one person’s definition of sexist might not be the same as another’s, and that’s a part of the problem. Sexism means different things to different people, in different cultures, in different places. Reconciling all of that too often legitimizes the lowest common denominator, and that’s a shame. The person with the strictest views isn’t necessarily the one who is the most right.

Sexism is demeaning. It is depowering. It is ridiculing and enforcing the stereotype that a woman is weaker than a man, and belongs in the home with the children. That’s sexist, and wrong, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate D&D art ever showing a woman in a lesser position to anyone.

The age of the Damsel in Distress is dead, and long may it Rest in Peace.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks to for Joe Schindehette opening the thorny topic of Sexism in Fantasy. I look forward to hearing your views.

Drow are raiding the UK!

Posted on April 28, 2012 by greywulf

The Drowathon is drawing near, folks! Grab your trusty dice and get yourself to Nottingham to join the best of UK gamers for a day of role-playing goodness.

The Drowathon is a free event for new and existing players to Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. Its is being run on Saturday 12th May at Mondo Comico on Heathcoat Street in Nottingham. Games are due to start by 11am and will run throughout the day with a view to finishing by 4pm so we can adjourn to the nearby Pitcher and Piano to have some food and drink.

Full information and details, right here.

Time to get your Drow on!

I come not to bury 4e, but to praise it

Posted on April 22, 2012 by greywulf

Fourth Edition D&D is brilliant. I have said it, and mean it sincerely too. History will look back at your tenure of the D&D name in much the same way we look back at Sylvester McCoy’s Doctor Who, a spark of sheer magic ill-recognised at the time.

Sylvester McCoy, the 4e of Doctor Who

As an aside, in my mental image of each Edition of D&D as Doctor Who, White Box is William Hartnell, Red Box is Patrick Troughton, Molvday is Jon Pertwee, AD&D is Tom Baker, 3e is David Tennant and #DnDNext is Matt Smith.

Where was I? Oh yes……..

As with any Edition of the game, 4e is a product of the age which wrought it. Just like the Naughties decade in which is was born, 4e is bright and brash but for many people turned out to be an altogether shallow affair. Fourth Edition promised us much, and to its credit it lived up to many of those promises whether we wanted it to or not.

Yet to those of us who dug deeper, 4e delivered. The character generation stands up as being one of the most flexible systems D&D has ever seen. The rules themselves are solid; compare the number of clarifications and questions asked of Third Edition on forums in its heyday with that of 4e, and I would argue there is a dramatic drop. The 4e rules are both simpler and more consistent. The one fly in that particular ointment was the overly aggressive push of Errata (sorry, I mean “Updates”) down our throats by the Coastal Wizards. I’m convinced that these regular (and largely pointless) Errata dumps did more to harm the system than improve it. If it ain’t a typo or a major fubar (the Skill DCs, for example) leave well alone guys, and fix on next printing.

4e is the product of taking the road travelled by Third Edition to its natural conclusion. It offers us a system where Battlemats and Minis are the norm, and your PCs are Heroes with a capital H first, foremost and central. Every class is has its own special set of abilities and Powers so that even a lowly Fighter has the same boasting rights as a Wizard. That’s a laudable goal, but not without its own set of problems. To paraphrase The Incredibles: when everyone has Powers, no one has. I’m sure there’s a lesson to be learned in there somewhere.

Was 4e truly a system for everyone? No, certainly not. But no Edition of D&D ever is, and that is just as it should be. We all have our game preferences and nuances and it’s to the full credit of Dungeons & Dragons that we have Editions (and clones, and retro-clones, and Pathfinder, and whatnot) that cater for all. This is a strength, not a weakness as it is so often made out to be. D&D is your game, however you want to play. There is an Edition for all, and for everyone an Edition.

Oh Fourth Edition. You will forever remain in my heart alongside your fellow brother Editions of Dungeons & Dragons as yet one more brilliant, but flawed, gem of a game.

Here’s to you sir. Here’s to you.

Bursting the Grid Bubble

Posted on April 16, 2012 by greywulf

Role-playing gamers, generally speaking, fall into two categories: those who prefer to play using miniatures and battlemats, and those who don’t. Some folks favour the idea of running most combats using the Power of Imagination alone, but breaking out the minis or tokens for the more complex and/or climactic battles where miniatures add a level of showmanship to the game.

That’s good in theory, but when sat around the table and playing it’s a bit of a faf. Everything slows to a crawl while you clear a space on the table for just that one combat, set up the minis, ask the players to get their figures out, one player has always forgotten his so uses a Kuo-Toa mini as a substitute, set the minis in place, wait for the gamer who nipped to the toilet while the table was cleared and the other one who is updating Facebook on his phone and…..

You get the idea. By the time everything is set up, the encounter could have been played through using imagination. The game has broken pace. Is it really worth it?

Ah! Say the battlemat fans. Using minis is more tactical. It’s a more accurate experience with less room for error and doubt. That is a Good Thing.

This is where the bubble bursts. They’re wrong.

Using a battlemat is far LESS accurate than using imagination, because being in combat is full of just that level of error and doubt. History is full of tales of highly skilled warriors and soldiers who became disoriented in combat and barely knew whether the guy next to him was friend or foe. There are no accurate measurements, much less a grid, in battle.

The Fog of War begins at the tip of your nose and everything beyond that is chaos and blood. Warriors in battle don’t know that the Orcs are exactly 40′ away from them and just standing their waiting to be charged. At that distance, those orcs are little more than peripheral blobs. What matters is anything entering your personal space with intent to harm.

Using imaginative play, the player might say “Are those Orcs close enough to charge?” and the GM reply “You think so, but they’ve spotted you and look set to run at you as well. Meet in the middle and whoever hits gets +1d6 damage.” That’s an on-the-fly rules call which reflects the fluid nature of battle. Using a battlemat the very idea of allowing simultaneous movement is anathema.

When the battle is all in the mind there is room for doubt, and that more accurately reflects the uncertainty of the battlefield. Yes, you could argue that battlemat play is more tactical, but only if you’ve never played in a session where “In your head” gamers pull such stunts as:

Sending an Illusion of a Rogue up ahead to scout for an ambush while the real Rogue follows on in the shadows, ready to pounce
Tripwire + Portable Hole = instant trap!
Fire a grappling hook & line at a Beholder with the other end tied to a boulder perched precariously on the edge of a cliff. One good push by the fighter, and…..

This is great tactical play at work! Those are just a few examples, all from my own game sessions. I would argue that while any of these could happen in a battlemat session, it’s extremely rare that they do. The battlemat stifles the very creativity which the game relies on to thrive.

Battlemats and minis come from the wargame hobby where the player is a hypothetical General with a high vantage point over the whole battlefield¹ and Fog of War is conveniently ignored (by most rules sets, at least). In Role-playing games the hero is not a General but a soldier in the midst of the conflict where his viewpoint is far more limited. Battlemats confuse the two. In my opinion, that’s to the detriment of the game.

What do you think? Which is more tactical and “realistic”? Battlemats, or imagination?

And going further back from Chess, but that is a political simulator rather than a battle engine. But I digress. ↩

Building a better Class system

Posted on April 12, 2012 by greywulf

Let’s talk for a minute (ok, maybe more than a minute unless you can read really quickly) about the D&D Class system and how it would look in my mythical ideal Next Edition of the game.

We begin with the four core Classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. They have been at the cornerstone of the game since almost ever and there’s no reason for them to change. There is a zen-like beauty to the way they work together; they represent the Four Elements (Fighter = Earth, Rogue = Air, Cleric = Water and Wizard = Fire) and it’s only right that they should be the building blocks for all things Class related¹.

Just like a Class-themed version of Alchemy, if we combine those core Elements, interesting things happen. In D&D terms we have something akin to old-school Dual-Classes where PC gain partial advancement in two Classes each time they level up. What if we give each of those Dual-Class(-ish) combos special names along with a couple of abilities to make them unique.

If your PC is a Swordmage, for example, he is a Dual-Class Fighter/Wizard with the additional schtick that he can cast spells through his weapon of choice. He gains fewer spells per level and lower combat bonuses than either the Wizard or the Fighter, but that’s balanced by the fact he’s a frickin’ Swordmage.

Want a Paladin? That’s just the posh name for a Dual-Classed Cleric/Fighter who has traded some of the Divine spell-casting capability for a bit more stabby-stabby. Simple.

The Ranger is an interesting Class because historically it’s a bit all over the place. Is the Class a nature-loving bow wielder, a twin-blade wielding dervish of vengeance or an urban hunter? The Ranger Class is all of this, but each individual Ranger is usually one thing or another. If your Ranger is more of a Stealthy hunter who does damage against certain foes (in 3e Terms, she has a Favoured Enemy) then she is a Dual-Class Fighter/Thief. If she gains a bonus depending on terrain (3e: Favoured Environment) then she’s a Fighter/Druid. More on those in a moment.

Now it’s time to complicate things a little with Specialities. Every PC can take an optional Speciality at certain levels (say 3rd, 7th, 12th, etc). They each offer a boon in return for a penalty, and help further define the character’s place in the world.

Specialities cover a lot of ground. Fighters may specialize in certain weapons or fighting styles (Archer, Swashbuckler, Knight, Dervish, etc) while Rogues focus on certain aspects of their Roguely nature (Assassin, Burglar, Trapsmith, Conman).

Specialist Clerics generally become Clerics of a particular deity (Cleric of Pelor, for example) and would gain proficiency in their deity’s weapon of choice (WP:Suntan Lotion) and a bonus to certain types of spells, in return for adherence to religious strictures. Other specialities include the Priest (more spell power in return for loss of combat ability) and Druid (gain Shape-change and a deep love of nature, lose right to eat bacon and all self-respect).

A Pyromancer (specialist Wizard) could gain +2 bonus with Fire-based spells, but be unable to cast Water spells. An Axeman (specialist Fighter) does extra damage with Axes but has to wear a lumberjack shirt at all times. A Thief-Taker (specialist Rogue) is immune to Sneak Attacks but can never join a Guild, etc.

If further Specialities are taken at later levels, all restrictions must be followed. Your Pyronecromancer might not be able to cast Water or Life spells, but they can Summon Flaming Zombies, so that’s ok.

The Dual-Class variants can take Specialities of either of their parent Base Classes along with any which are unique to themselves. The Paladin could become a Paladin of Pelor, a Knight Paladin, or Holy Champion Paladin, or even take all three when high enough level and be a Holy Champion Knight Paladin of Pelor. Hope you left enough room on the Character Sheet in the box marked Class..

Unlike Dual-Classing (which create a new, unique Class by combining elements of two others), Multi-Classing refers to advancing levels in several Classes, but only one at a time. A Rogue could elect to take levels as a Wizard, for example, rather than improving in Roguely things. Any Class can choose to Multi-Class – taking a couple of levels in Fighter is a good way for a Paladin (Fighter/Cleric) to show that he favours Martial might over his Divine training.

What is tricky about Multi-Classing is that pesky 1st Level.

Y’know what – I’ll talk about that another time. My minute is up.

This is also the make-up of the Fantastic Four (Thing = Earth, Invisible Girl = Air, Reed Richards = Water, Human Torch = Fire), which just goes to show that good party composition crosses all genres. ↩

Did I ever tell you about the Arrow of Returning?

Posted on April 8, 2012 by greywulf

I have a thing for quirky magic items. In a world where curmudgeonly old fools are apt to possess great magical prowess, it’s pretty likely that for every well crafted Longword +1 there’s bound to be another item that is less obviously useful, if not downright head scratchingly dangerous. The road to Spell Casting Mastery, as they say, is paved with good intentions (and the corpses of those who had the misfortune to try those good intentions out).

I remember, for example, the Potion of Create Water I put in one small treasure pile. In my defense, it was clearly labelled “Do not drink”, though I confess that just guaranteed one of the PCs would do just that. I know my players, and I even had the drowning rules bookmarked ready. It pays to be prepared.

This time though, it was the player’s own fault.

I gave them a useful enough magic item – an Arrow of Returning +1. When the arrow was fired, it returned the following round; straight into the bow if it was drawn, or into the quiver (or other receptacle) if not. It meant that our Ranger only needed that single arrow unless he was using some kind of Multi-Shot ability.

That was until the party faced off against Trolls, and our Ranger (whose name I have long since forgotten) thought it would be a good idea to set fire to his Arrow of Returning. With an Everburning Torch.

Now, we had ruled that Everburning Torches could set fire to things, but the fire died down and otherwise behaved as ordinary flames. But setting fire to another magic item….. that’s a whole different ball game. Our Ranger has unwittingly created an Everburning Arrow of Returning, and that’s just asking for trouble.

He liked the Arrow a lot during that battle where he fired, hit, and the flaming arrow returned to his bow to be fired again. After combat though, it returned to his quiver. And promptly set it on fire.

He doused it in water. It continued to burn. He dropped it to the ground, buried it and walked away. When he was 100′ away, it returned to his backpack, setting that alight. He gave it to another PC to carry and all was well until they separated and it appeared in the Ranger’s belt and set his pants on fire too.

For a while he dragged the blasted Everburning Arrow of Returning by a rope behind him before compromising and using it as a torch when not in combat and as ammo when fighting. It was, as far as self-inflicted cursed items go, pretty darned useful.

After a while, I relented and said the Arrow was keyed to the bow. Both the Arrow and the bow found pride of place on a shelf in the Ranger’s Hall, illuminating a corner for ever more.

I like to think they’re still there.

My D&D Next wishlist

Posted on April 6, 2012 by greywulf

Dear Easter Bunny/Killer Clown/Santa/Greg* (delete where applicable),

Please bring to me:

A core D&D system that is as simple as the simplest of retro-clones and goes all the way from 1st to 20th/30th/761st level. Don’t make it “simple up to 3rd but then the options start piling on”. If I want a 23rd level PC with little more than hit points, armour class and a bigass sword, let me build and play him
Let me take that core and add modules to take the game in interesting directions. Give me a battlemat & minis module I can slot into any combat which needs it, and ignore when it’s not required. Give me a module for flying Spelljammers between worlds. Or one where the PCs are anthropomorphic samurai, or modern-day people with guns
Give me new magic systems as modules that lets me choose how my Wizard casts his spells. Make the core system Vancian by all means, but how about a module where the Wizard knows arcane Verbs and Nouns and creates spells on the fly by combining them (“Create Fire”, “Detect Fire”, “Create Life”, “Detect Life”, etc), or one that uses Spell Points or bound demonsouls stored in tiny jars
Heck, give me a license so I can create my own modules and release them for free or profit. Let me quote from the core system provided these sections account for no more than 1/20th of the total word count. This would mean a 64 page Third Party could contain no more than around 3 pages of quoted Licensed text. That’s fair.
Give me animals in the Monster Manual, dammit
…and Templates. Lots of Templates. Make them simple, and push them to the forefront of encounter design. Make iconic D&D traits as Templates (“Giant”, “Dire”, “Half-”, “Winged”, “Aquatic”, “Champion”, “Zombie”, “Vampire”, “Red”, Green”, Gold”, etc) which add features and properties to the monster. Suggest prerequisites, but stress they are merely guidelines. If I want to create a Zombie Gold Orc Champion, don’t let people on forums say I can’t.
Give me elements from Classic D&D which have passed by the wayside but should be part of the D&D experience. Give me stronghold building rules and domain management. domain events, mass combat (as a module, of course) and morale for henchmen
Give me random encounters that use the Templates (if you want – if not, don’t roll on the Template column). I want to roll dice and say “You encounter 3d6 Winged Gelatinous Cubes” with a straight face. Ok, straight-ish
Recognise the Dual-Class elements in certain Classes. A Paladin is a Dual-Class Fighter/Cleric; a Swordmage is a Dual-Class Fighter/Wizard; a Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue, etc. Build other Dual-Class classes (Thief/Cleric, please!) then add new base classes (Druid, Psion, Monk, etc) and build new Dual-Classes off those as well. Booyah.
Bring me a hardback book containing a full adventure path from 1st to 20th/30th/761st level. Rather than rest on the laurels of old classic adventures (Tomb of Horrors, etc) make new classic adventures. Yes, let us play the old ones too, but how about something exciting, wonderful and new? Please.
Oh, and make all of it good. If you only do one thing on the list, make it this one.

Thanks!

Wizards of the Coast announce D&D Next licensing model

Posted on April 1, 2012 by greywulf

Breaking News: Wizards of The Coast have today released information regarding the new licensing model to be used with the entire D&D Next product line.

In an exclusive interview, an unnamed source told Greywulf Towers: “The OGL didn’t work for us, the GSL didn’t work for you, and D&D Next is about bringing all of that together.”

Building on the success of the Playtest, I can reveal that the new license will be called the NDAGL. This will allow players to do whatever they want with D&D Next products, with the minor stipulation that they can’t tell anyone about it.

“D&D is an exclusive club, and we are going to make it even more exclusive. This takes D&D Insider and puts it right into the core game. Digital products will be encrypted with a unique key available only through submission of a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement, and we are working with our print staff to offer the same functionality with our hardback and softcover products. We aim to have the books fully encrypted at launch, with the decryption keys (using technology developed by our Game Table team) available soon afterwards.”

Third Party developers have yet to comment on the new license.

Greywulf's Lair

Category Archives: RPG