Notes augmented
We've enhanced and de-bugged Notes. If you haven't tried it yet, now's the time! You can create a private note when you ban multiple users. You can also delete multiple notes at once. Lastly, paid users have the option to add a note (visible only to you) whenever you add or remove a friend (guaranteed to avoid embarrassing social mishaps). If you don't currently have a paid account, you can upgrade now! It only takes a few minutes and costs less than a bad shopping mall haircut (plus, it's way more fashionable)!
Product tweaks and bug kill
- In another effort to zap spam, comments containing links from domains LiveJournal deems untrustworthy are now automatically screened
- If you sign up to get notifications of the Writer's Block question of the day, you'll now see the daily question in the email notification, so you'll have a little extra time to ponder before you post. You can subscribe to Writers Block notifications here
- The issue causing random comments to vanish has been fixed!
- If you visit a LiveJournal page and get prompted to log in, you'll be returned to the same page after you sign in (Thanks, Dreamwidth)!
- If you don't edit the timestamp for an entry at all, the entry timestamp will indicate the time the entry was posted instead of the time the Update Journal page was loaded
- Comments with paddings/backgrounds render correctly within the comment box (and will no longer wrap outside the box and break frames/margins)
New FCK fixes rich text editor!
- We've updated our RTE (Rich Text Editor) to FCKeditor version 2.6.5
- When switching from the RTE to HTML editor, links for syndicated feeds are no longer broken
- RTE now functions properly in Safari 4.0
- An extra line/space will not be auto-inserted whenever you switch from RTE to HTML editor
- The insert image link now works correctly in all browsers
LiveJournal Cares
We’re pleased to introduce you to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
lj_cares, a new LiveJournal community dedicated to raising awareness and funds for U.S. charitable organizations that improve the health and well-being of people around the world. Each month, we’ll spotlight a nonprofit that is making a significant global impact through medical research, public outreach, and/or humanitarian social programs. Charities will be selected in accordance with the U.S. calendar of national health observances based on a high rating (of over 60%) on Charity Navigator and global scope of impact.
In this, our inaugural month of November, we will celebrate national adoption month by offering a charitable virtual gift (priced at $2.99) to support Love Without Boundaries, an organization that saves the lives of orphans with life-threatening diseases and places them in loving homes around the world. LiveJournal will donate 100% of the proceeds from the sale of charitable vgifts (we'll cover the cost of credit card transaction fees). To learn more about Love Without Boundaries, please visit lj_cares and read about how they helped save Baby Kang and the Rainbow Twins from fatal illnesses, who are now thriving in nurturing families. You can purchase your Love Without Boundaries gifts in the Virtual Gift shop.
Papered in postcards
A couple of weeks ago, we asked you to send in postcards to surround us with LiveJournal community. Thanks for coming through! We've received postcards all the way from Germany, Finland, and Canada and from all over the US, including Texas, Florida, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Indiana, Hawaii, and Oklahoma just to name just a handful. We're thrilled with our improved decor.
Please keep the love coming for one more week by writing to Frank the Goat, Esq., c/o LiveJournal, Inc., 539 Bryant Street, Suite 210, San Francisco, CA 94107. Be sure to include your username, since we'll be drawing the names of ten random contributors next Thursday to win paid account credits!
Photos of the week
We have more dazzling images posted by talented LiveJournal photographers from around the world. We're hoping to span the entire globe, so please continue posting and tagging. Of course, you can also sit back and enjoy the view at lj_photophile.
You can see a sample of this week's gorgeous photos and check out spotlight communities and awesome user content after the jump!
( Read more... )Curtains
We thank you, once again, for joining us. See you next week!
When I began my Dwimmermount campaign nearly a year ago, I intended it to be an experiment of sorts, an attempt to experience for myself what it might have been like to play OD&D in the early days of the hobby. Of course, I couldn't truly recreate that experience for myself, as I entered the hobby post-LBBs and I brought to the game lots of assumptions and knowledge born out of the hobby as I experienced it. Moreover, as I know well, there's no single "early days of the hobby." Rather, there's a morass of such things, many of them complementary and compatible and some of them not. Thus, my experience would, at best, give me only a particular experience of those early days and not necessarily a particularly authentic one.
Still, I thought then -- and do now -- that it was a worthwhile endeavor in its own right. As someone who entered the hobby after those glory days and whose tastes now are more in tune with them, I wanted to give myself every opportunity to appreciate the unique virtues of those times in the only way I could. I'd say that, by and large, my Dwimmermount campaign has succeeded in its original purpose. After 21 sessions (I'll post a session summary of the most recent one soon), it shows no signs of stopping and everyone is enjoying themselves, which is the only real measure of a campaign's worth. In addition, I've learned quite a lot about what works and what doesn't, both within OD&D specifically and old school games generally. And I've acquired a number of new methods and approaches that I somehow never learned in my formative years as a referee.
The process of "unlearning" is sometimes a difficult one, particularly when it comes to world-building. I am an inveterate world-builder. I love to create new worlds and am always turning over ideas for such things in my head. It's a great blessing in many ways but it's also a curse, particularly when running a campaign, like Dwimmermount, where I'm philosophically committed to letting things evolve naturally and not according to some master plan beforehand. Consequently, the setting of the campaign is still quite limited and fuzzy beyond a certain point. Indeed, only Dwimmermount, Adamas, and Muntburg have much detail at all and while the players have heard of the existence of other places, like Yethlyreom, City of the Necromancers, or Thule, the ghost-haunted island whose ancient inhabitants forged an empire for the ages, they've never traveled there or learned much about them.
The result is a very focused campaign and I think that's part of the secret of its success. Dwimmermount is the centerpiece of the campaign and it's where the characters go, week after week, in their quest for adventure. This has also made it very easy for me to run, since I know precisely where the PCs are headed and I can prepare accordingly -- or not, as the case may be, since, depending on how far the PCs have gotten, a megadungeon-oriented campaign may not require the creation of new material on a weekly basis, previously created material not having been exhausted yet. It's a very different way of playing, to be sure, but it's been quite satisfying and it's helped me clarify quite a few things in my own mind as a result.
But old habits die hard and there's a part of me that finds it difficult to restrain myself and not flesh out the world beyond Dwimmermount more than is necessary for weekly play. I find myself fiddling with maps, imagining other city-states and nations, creating exotic religions, and conjuring up strange vistas beyond the horizon. It's hard not to do this, because I enjoy doing it and because, for most of my time in the hobby, creating worlds was what referees were expected to do. Now, don't misunderstand: I am regularly creating a world for the Dwimmermount campaign. Every time I populate a room in the megadungeon, for example, I'm adding little details that give the greater whole depth and context that it wouldn't otherwise have and I enjoy this. The difficulty is that I find myself wanting to go beyond this and detail more than my players need -- or likely will ever need -- to play enjoyably in the campaign.
So far, I've (largely) resisted the urge to go hog wild and detail the entire world. There's simply no need to do so and I've come to accept that, the less that is set in stone, the better, as it gives me a lot more freedom in my refereeing. Every detail I establish before it's needed is a link in a chain that restricts my future movement and that of my players. It's better to be patient, focus on the here and now, and fill in details of gods and nations and other worlds only when there's an immediate need to do so. It's a very different way of creating worlds than I am used to -- or temperamentally inclined towards -- but it's also a very rewarding one and one, I suspect, that's closer to the way things were done back in the early days. Even if it isn't, I've learned a lot by adopting it and highly recommend it to others, if they've never done so themselves.
Still, I thought then -- and do now -- that it was a worthwhile endeavor in its own right. As someone who entered the hobby after those glory days and whose tastes now are more in tune with them, I wanted to give myself every opportunity to appreciate the unique virtues of those times in the only way I could. I'd say that, by and large, my Dwimmermount campaign has succeeded in its original purpose. After 21 sessions (I'll post a session summary of the most recent one soon), it shows no signs of stopping and everyone is enjoying themselves, which is the only real measure of a campaign's worth. In addition, I've learned quite a lot about what works and what doesn't, both within OD&D specifically and old school games generally. And I've acquired a number of new methods and approaches that I somehow never learned in my formative years as a referee.
The process of "unlearning" is sometimes a difficult one, particularly when it comes to world-building. I am an inveterate world-builder. I love to create new worlds and am always turning over ideas for such things in my head. It's a great blessing in many ways but it's also a curse, particularly when running a campaign, like Dwimmermount, where I'm philosophically committed to letting things evolve naturally and not according to some master plan beforehand. Consequently, the setting of the campaign is still quite limited and fuzzy beyond a certain point. Indeed, only Dwimmermount, Adamas, and Muntburg have much detail at all and while the players have heard of the existence of other places, like Yethlyreom, City of the Necromancers, or Thule, the ghost-haunted island whose ancient inhabitants forged an empire for the ages, they've never traveled there or learned much about them.
The result is a very focused campaign and I think that's part of the secret of its success. Dwimmermount is the centerpiece of the campaign and it's where the characters go, week after week, in their quest for adventure. This has also made it very easy for me to run, since I know precisely where the PCs are headed and I can prepare accordingly -- or not, as the case may be, since, depending on how far the PCs have gotten, a megadungeon-oriented campaign may not require the creation of new material on a weekly basis, previously created material not having been exhausted yet. It's a very different way of playing, to be sure, but it's been quite satisfying and it's helped me clarify quite a few things in my own mind as a result.
But old habits die hard and there's a part of me that finds it difficult to restrain myself and not flesh out the world beyond Dwimmermount more than is necessary for weekly play. I find myself fiddling with maps, imagining other city-states and nations, creating exotic religions, and conjuring up strange vistas beyond the horizon. It's hard not to do this, because I enjoy doing it and because, for most of my time in the hobby, creating worlds was what referees were expected to do. Now, don't misunderstand: I am regularly creating a world for the Dwimmermount campaign. Every time I populate a room in the megadungeon, for example, I'm adding little details that give the greater whole depth and context that it wouldn't otherwise have and I enjoy this. The difficulty is that I find myself wanting to go beyond this and detail more than my players need -- or likely will ever need -- to play enjoyably in the campaign.
So far, I've (largely) resisted the urge to go hog wild and detail the entire world. There's simply no need to do so and I've come to accept that, the less that is set in stone, the better, as it gives me a lot more freedom in my refereeing. Every detail I establish before it's needed is a link in a chain that restricts my future movement and that of my players. It's better to be patient, focus on the here and now, and fill in details of gods and nations and other worlds only when there's an immediate need to do so. It's a very different way of creating worlds than I am used to -- or temperamentally inclined towards -- but it's also a very rewarding one and one, I suspect, that's closer to the way things were done back in the early days. Even if it isn't, I've learned a lot by adopting it and highly recommend it to others, if they've never done so themselves.
- 10:08 "We say goodbye to those that now belong to Eternity." Awesome speech by the President: tinyurl.com/yktpl7d #fb #
- 13:57 Played #DnD w/ the Things using the 4e intro set. Kids had a good time but liked the 3e intro set more because of minis. (more) #
- 13:58 Thing 1 and 2 got the rules down quick and even Thing 3 figured out his DB paladin quick enough. Thing 2 is a great tactical player. #dnd #
- 13:59 On her own she figured out how to use her Fey Step power with Burning Hands to take out a bunch of minions. Made her dad proud. :) #dnd #
- 19:58 Took the kids to see the new Xmas Carol. I liked it a lot, one of the better versions out there. 2 thumbs up. #
On Saturday the 14th at 4AM UTC/GMT we will be upgrading the operating system of our network load balancers to a newer version, one that will allow us to use both CPUs! Nifty, because multiprocessing is nice.
Since we have 2 load balancers, the plan is to upgrade 1 at a time, and there really should be very little impact to our website. Hopefully you won't notice a thing and I'll get to go back to the hotel and watch some wonderful late night infomercials.
We've got a lot of exciting projects coming up for 2010 and we're hoping that we'll be able to deliver them all to you, that you will find it useful/cool/lovely and then you will use the site even more. Behind-the-scenes work like this will give us the capacity to handle the anticipated traffic, so expect a few more maintenance windows especially in the beginning of next year as we've got some neat ideas to improve performance around here! We had the recent 30-45 minute outage yesterday due to one of our logging databases filling up disk space -- not so great design coupled with my human error in handling the initial problem -- and it looks like we're going to finally have some resources to eliminate stuff like that. I can't wait!
As usual, I will be updating status.livejournal.org before and after, just in case you are not able to reach our main website during the work.
Since we have 2 load balancers, the plan is to upgrade 1 at a time, and there really should be very little impact to our website. Hopefully you won't notice a thing and I'll get to go back to the hotel and watch some wonderful late night infomercials.
We've got a lot of exciting projects coming up for 2010 and we're hoping that we'll be able to deliver them all to you, that you will find it useful/cool/lovely and then you will use the site even more. Behind-the-scenes work like this will give us the capacity to handle the anticipated traffic, so expect a few more maintenance windows especially in the beginning of next year as we've got some neat ideas to improve performance around here! We had the recent 30-45 minute outage yesterday due to one of our logging databases filling up disk space -- not so great design coupled with my human error in handling the initial problem -- and it looks like we're going to finally have some resources to eliminate stuff like that. I can't wait!
As usual, I will be updating status.livejournal.org before and after, just in case you are not able to reach our main website during the work.
Anyone out there ever used Hexographer? It looks rather nifty and might be just the little program I want for designing the kinds of wilderness maps I prefer, but I'd prefer to hear some firsthand opinions about the program before I shell out any money for it.
So I bought myself a copy of the 75th anniversary edition DVD of Dracula with a gift card I was given by my sister for my 40th birthday. I'll talk later about my opinion of the film after having watched it for the first time in probably decades, but I wanted to quickly mention something I noticed when I looked at the DVD.
The film was released in 1931 by Universal Studios and includes a note indicating, "Copyright 1931, Universal Studios," as you'd expect. This is followed by "Renewed 1958 by Universal Studios." Now, I know of the existence of copyright renewal. However, this is the first time I recall a renewal notice being stated like that. I'm not sure whether a renewal notice is required by law or not. I'm assuming it isn't, since I so rarely see such things. Or maybe I'm just not very observant. In any case, I found it interesting and more than a little wistful about a world in which Universal Studios actually had to apply for a copyright renewal 28 years after one of its films was released.
The film was released in 1931 by Universal Studios and includes a note indicating, "Copyright 1931, Universal Studios," as you'd expect. This is followed by "Renewed 1958 by Universal Studios." Now, I know of the existence of copyright renewal. However, this is the first time I recall a renewal notice being stated like that. I'm not sure whether a renewal notice is required by law or not. I'm assuming it isn't, since I so rarely see such things. Or maybe I'm just not very observant. In any case, I found it interesting and more than a little wistful about a world in which Universal Studios actually had to apply for a copyright renewal 28 years after one of its films was released.
That roleplaying games grew out of miniatures wargaming is well-known, a fact that's quite obvious to anyone who's read the little brown books of OD&D. What's less well-known is that that connection to wargaming wasn't immediately displaced once people started to wrap their heads around the idea of roleplaying. Many RPG designs from the 1970s still show a clear connection to miniatures wargaming, such as Boot Hill. Another such game is GDW's En Garde!First published in 1975, which makes it a close contemporary of OD&D, En Garde! is an unusual game. Subtitled "Being in the Main a Game of the Life and Times of a Gentleman Adventurer and his Several Companions," it's basically a man-to-man combat simulation of dueling in 17th century Paris but with roleplaying-oriented options for things outside of dueling, such as carousing at the social club, wooing potential mistresses, and going off to war with the military. Dueling is the most complex mechanic in the game, though, and the game's combat system is actually quite cleverly done. Each player chooses a weapon and a series of twelve maneuvers. These pre-plotted moves are then revealed and cross-referenced on a table that adjudicates their relative effectiveness. It's simple, certainly, but it allows for the use of tactics, as players can get a sense of which attacks or defenses work best against others. There were also rules for aborting certain moves in response to those of one's opponent, so dueling was not wholly "mechanized."
At its heart, though, En Garde! is a game of social climbing. Acquiring status in the form of social influence, wealth, and position is the main motivation for character action. Every activity in the game is thus geared toward that end, providing increases or decreases to one's status, depending on one's success or failure. Each activity is the subject of a table and simple mechanic and you can definitely see the beginnings of Traveller in these rules. Military service, for example, involved choosing between safe (or cowardly) assignments to ensure survival and dangerous ones that could reap huge status rewards if your character survived. These rules are simple too, but, like dueling, players must make cost-benefit analyses of their character's actions and, thanks to the use of random tables, even the most conservative choices won't necessarily end well.
Compared even to OD&D, En Garde! is much more of a wargame than what we'd consider an RPG today. That is, its "game-y" aspects weigh heavily upon it and, while I know it's quite possible to squeeze a lot of life out of its rules, it would also be quite possible to treat it all as little more than a game of chance. Perhaps unsurprisingly, En Garde! was well suited to play by mail games, acquiring a kind of afterlife once GDW ceased producing it in 1983. The game also proved very popular at conventions, particularly in the UK. Indeed, the game lives on today through a British company that produces a new edition of it, which can be purchased here. I'm surprised I haven't seen more online examples of En Garde! as I think it'd work well in that context. Heck, I imagine it'd be fairly easy to produce a simple app that ran the game on a website and it'd probably be a lot of fun.
- 14:48 @philipjreed There are ways to solve your Munchkin problem. :) #
For some unknown reason, Tunnels & Trolls, a game I do not now nor have I ever played with any regularity, has always impressed me by its inclusion of small dice.
I can't quite say why, but I simply love the fact that, going back to its fifth edition at least, one of its integral components is a set of tinier-than-normal six-siders. It's utterly silly to be impressed by this, I know, and yet I am.
I can't quite say why, but I simply love the fact that, going back to its fifth edition at least, one of its integral components is a set of tinier-than-normal six-siders. It's utterly silly to be impressed by this, I know, and yet I am.
Firstly, thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts in yesterday's post on this question. It's both good to see I'm not alone in my apprehension and that there are a variety of different solutions to the "problem" I see in the rules as written.
As I've said before, I have no issue with changing OD&D's rules. I've done it before and I'm likely to do it again. Through play, I've found that some rules don't work as well as I'd like and so I've altered them so that they do work more to my satisfaction. That's par for the course with OD&D and one of the reasons why I find the game so enjoyable these days.
Nevertheless, I try very hard not to change rules too much. That is, I prefer it when my house rules are recognizably derived from OD&D, as opposed to being completely out of left field. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that, while OD&D is far from perfect, it's generally a good idea to avoid changing rules with abandon, because it's often not immediately obvious what repercussions might result. That's why I'm philosophically opposed to rationalizing OD&D's rules, even if I'm sorely tempted to do so quite often.
My gut tells me that, like a rug with a bit of fraying at the edges, pulling a loose strand in order to improve the tidiness of the whole could just as easily result in the whole thing's coming apart. I've seen too many attempts to "fix" Dungeons & Dragons over the years -- sometimes from official sources -- that, in the end, had adverse effects on other parts of the game. I don't want to participate in that sort of game mechanical vandalism, which is why I'm so reluctant to make big changes, even to mechanics, like ability scores, that, on first blush, seem in need of fixing.
This is why I am deeply leery of turning ability scores into the locus of a skill system or universal mechanic of any kind. Such mechanics "break the frame" for me when playing D&D. In my opinion, old school games are (generally) characterized by the use of several systems that exist side by side but nevertheless work in tandem rather than by a single system. So, perhaps it might be possible to construct a collection of related systems that use ability scores in a more substantive way, but I instinctively recoil from any attempt to introduce a single, overarching system that uses ability scores to cover a variety of in-game situations. Call it irrational, if you will -- and I recognize that, on some level, it is -- but a universal mechanic is deal breaker for me when playing OD&D. It just doesn't feel right.
So where does that leave me? Well, I've pretty well decided to eliminate the XP bonuses from high scores. I think it's a problematic rule on many levels and its loss won't make a huge difference in the final analysis. I've also decided that, much as I think a Strength 18 Fighter ought to get more of a mechanical benefit from his great strength than a Strength 10 Fighter, too much of a benefit turns the game into an ability score "arm's race." That's one of my big beefs with AD&D. This is made clear early on in the Players Handbook where Gygax notes that having 15 or more in no fewer than two ability scores is "usually essential to the character's survival." This approach places too much emphasis on ability scores in my opinion, so I'd like a more "toned down" approach, where +2 is the top modifier and it's not limited to characters with 18 in their ability score.
Related to this is another concern. My feeling is that, in any game calling itself D&D, class and level should mean more than ability scores. Whatever mechanical benefit ability scores give, they should be more along the lines of "icing on the cake" rather than the cake itself, if that makes sense. Ideally, these benefits would be broad and small enough to be universally applicable, not just to one class or a group of classes. I find myself reminded (once again) of Empire of the Petal Throne, where several abilities, not just Strength, gives bonuses to hit and damage, so that a clever but weak magic-user, for example, might nevertheless be an effective combatant. If the bonuses are kept limited, I think this would go a long way toward making ability scores relevant without making the game revolve around them.
More thinking is needed, though.
As I've said before, I have no issue with changing OD&D's rules. I've done it before and I'm likely to do it again. Through play, I've found that some rules don't work as well as I'd like and so I've altered them so that they do work more to my satisfaction. That's par for the course with OD&D and one of the reasons why I find the game so enjoyable these days.
Nevertheless, I try very hard not to change rules too much. That is, I prefer it when my house rules are recognizably derived from OD&D, as opposed to being completely out of left field. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that, while OD&D is far from perfect, it's generally a good idea to avoid changing rules with abandon, because it's often not immediately obvious what repercussions might result. That's why I'm philosophically opposed to rationalizing OD&D's rules, even if I'm sorely tempted to do so quite often.
My gut tells me that, like a rug with a bit of fraying at the edges, pulling a loose strand in order to improve the tidiness of the whole could just as easily result in the whole thing's coming apart. I've seen too many attempts to "fix" Dungeons & Dragons over the years -- sometimes from official sources -- that, in the end, had adverse effects on other parts of the game. I don't want to participate in that sort of game mechanical vandalism, which is why I'm so reluctant to make big changes, even to mechanics, like ability scores, that, on first blush, seem in need of fixing.
This is why I am deeply leery of turning ability scores into the locus of a skill system or universal mechanic of any kind. Such mechanics "break the frame" for me when playing D&D. In my opinion, old school games are (generally) characterized by the use of several systems that exist side by side but nevertheless work in tandem rather than by a single system. So, perhaps it might be possible to construct a collection of related systems that use ability scores in a more substantive way, but I instinctively recoil from any attempt to introduce a single, overarching system that uses ability scores to cover a variety of in-game situations. Call it irrational, if you will -- and I recognize that, on some level, it is -- but a universal mechanic is deal breaker for me when playing OD&D. It just doesn't feel right.
So where does that leave me? Well, I've pretty well decided to eliminate the XP bonuses from high scores. I think it's a problematic rule on many levels and its loss won't make a huge difference in the final analysis. I've also decided that, much as I think a Strength 18 Fighter ought to get more of a mechanical benefit from his great strength than a Strength 10 Fighter, too much of a benefit turns the game into an ability score "arm's race." That's one of my big beefs with AD&D. This is made clear early on in the Players Handbook where Gygax notes that having 15 or more in no fewer than two ability scores is "usually essential to the character's survival." This approach places too much emphasis on ability scores in my opinion, so I'd like a more "toned down" approach, where +2 is the top modifier and it's not limited to characters with 18 in their ability score.
Related to this is another concern. My feeling is that, in any game calling itself D&D, class and level should mean more than ability scores. Whatever mechanical benefit ability scores give, they should be more along the lines of "icing on the cake" rather than the cake itself, if that makes sense. Ideally, these benefits would be broad and small enough to be universally applicable, not just to one class or a group of classes. I find myself reminded (once again) of Empire of the Petal Throne, where several abilities, not just Strength, gives bonuses to hit and damage, so that a clever but weak magic-user, for example, might nevertheless be an effective combatant. If the bonuses are kept limited, I think this would go a long way toward making ability scores relevant without making the game revolve around them.
More thinking is needed, though.
Ecstatic Days Blog post by Lavie Tidhar: Excited About International SF
DearAuthor has a reader recommendation post for Multicultural Books
Troyce has another job interview today, so everybody think lucky thoughts.
DearAuthor has a reader recommendation post for Multicultural Books
Troyce has another job interview today, so everybody think lucky thoughts.
- 10:16 @mforbeck Sounds like a SyFy movie for Saturday night. :) #
- 10:18 @richard_iorio I finally got sick of ATT DSL and switched to Cox. Paying a bit more but have 3x more speed and it works. #
- 10:19 @stannex Get a pack for me. :) #
- 13:09 SGG site gets updated: www.supergeniusgames.com/?p=141 #
- 16:23 @stannex Huzzah! Welcome home amigo. #
I figure my generation (late Gen-X) is the last to have any real memory of the Cold War and its impact on US-Soviet relations. For my kids terrorism and wars in the Middle East will be the defining conflict in their memories. Even I don't remember most of the fear of the Cold War, just the sense that America was winning as the Soviets lost in Afghanistan and slowly introduced more and more freedoms via glasnost and peristroika. Still, I remember Red Dawn and reading Red Storm Rising, stories about actual US-Soviet conflicts. 20 years ago today though the end of Soviet tyranny began with the people of Berlin (East and West) rising up to tear down the wall that separated them for so long. Presidents Reagan and Kennedy gave two of the most remembered speeches pertaining to the Wall.
First Reagan:
Kennedy:
The Cold War didn't end with bullets or bombs or missiles. It ended with People demanding freedom. Pretty fitting I think.
.
First Reagan:
Kennedy:
The Cold War didn't end with bullets or bombs or missiles. It ended with People demanding freedom. Pretty fitting I think.
.
We've put up the first draft cover and one of the interior pieces to Snows of an Early Winter (formally October Surprise), our next Call of Cthulhu adventure. Check it out here:
http://www.supergeniusgames.com
.
http://www.supergeniusgames.com
.
In OD&D, all characters possess six ability scores: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Of these six, only the last three have any game mechanical benefit. The first three are all prime requisites, each one tied to one of the game's three classes: Strength for Fighters, Intelligence for Magic-Users, and Wisdom for Clerics. The only benefit these abilities provide is in the form of XP bonuses to members of the class that have that ability as a prime requisite. Thus, a Fighter with an Intelligence of 5 suffers no specific game mechanical penalties, although individual referees might choose to reflect the character's limited mental capacity in various ways. According to the rules, though, having an Intelligence of 5 means nothing unless the character is a Magic-User, in which case he suffers a penalty to earned XP.
Leaving all other issues aside, this system works well enough until Supplement I comes along. Supplement I gives us the Thief class, which uses Dexterity as its prime requisite. Unfortunately, the LBBs had already given Dexterity a game mechanical benefit -- missile accuracy -- meaning that Thieves with high Dexterity gained not only an XP bonus but also a bonus to hit with bows and slings (assuming they could use such weapons; OD&D is non-commital on this point). Furthermore, Supplement I itself gives most of the other abilities additional game mechanical benefits above and beyond being XP boosters for certain classes (Wisdom, oddly, is the exception). Consequently, Supplement I not only increases the importance of ability scores generally but also allows classes to "double dip" when it comes to prime requisites.
Let me say here that I actually like ability scores having some value beyond being XP boosters. I think in the case of the Fighter particularly, it's important that a character gain game mechanical benefits from having above average scores. At the same time, the double dipping aspect bugs me, which makes me think I ought to just ditch the idea of prime requisites and XP bonuses entirely. I haven't yet done that in my Dwimmermount campaign, partially because XP gains are glacial enough as it is that the small bonuses that high prime requisites give serve a useful purpose.
I won't deny that I find the way post-Supplement I OD&D handles ability scores and prime requisites to be infelicitous. Moreso than most mechanics, it feels very "half-baked," as if there were several different goals and intentions present, none of which quite dominates enough to bring some degree of rationality to the whole. Granted, I think over-arching rationality in mechanics is overrated, but I can't shake the feeling that the situation created by Supplement I is untenable and indeed unstable.
I find myself of two minds about the whole thing. Part of me just wants to leave well enough alone and not worry too much about the worrying tendencies I see in OD&D + Supplement I, which make high ability scores ever more important. Any problems that arise can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis and, truthfully, the issues haven't played any real role in my Dwimmermount campaign, so why worry? Another part of me, though, wants to try and tinker with it all so that it finally "makes sense." Yes, I realize that's a Quixotic endeavor for a lot of reasons and probably one that will yield worse results than just letting things be. Still, like many gamers, I'm a tinkerer by nature and seeing something like the mess that is OD&D ability scores, I can hardly resist the temptation to "fix" them.
Anyone else have similar feelings on the matter or am I the lone weirdo here?
Leaving all other issues aside, this system works well enough until Supplement I comes along. Supplement I gives us the Thief class, which uses Dexterity as its prime requisite. Unfortunately, the LBBs had already given Dexterity a game mechanical benefit -- missile accuracy -- meaning that Thieves with high Dexterity gained not only an XP bonus but also a bonus to hit with bows and slings (assuming they could use such weapons; OD&D is non-commital on this point). Furthermore, Supplement I itself gives most of the other abilities additional game mechanical benefits above and beyond being XP boosters for certain classes (Wisdom, oddly, is the exception). Consequently, Supplement I not only increases the importance of ability scores generally but also allows classes to "double dip" when it comes to prime requisites.
Let me say here that I actually like ability scores having some value beyond being XP boosters. I think in the case of the Fighter particularly, it's important that a character gain game mechanical benefits from having above average scores. At the same time, the double dipping aspect bugs me, which makes me think I ought to just ditch the idea of prime requisites and XP bonuses entirely. I haven't yet done that in my Dwimmermount campaign, partially because XP gains are glacial enough as it is that the small bonuses that high prime requisites give serve a useful purpose.
I won't deny that I find the way post-Supplement I OD&D handles ability scores and prime requisites to be infelicitous. Moreso than most mechanics, it feels very "half-baked," as if there were several different goals and intentions present, none of which quite dominates enough to bring some degree of rationality to the whole. Granted, I think over-arching rationality in mechanics is overrated, but I can't shake the feeling that the situation created by Supplement I is untenable and indeed unstable.
I find myself of two minds about the whole thing. Part of me just wants to leave well enough alone and not worry too much about the worrying tendencies I see in OD&D + Supplement I, which make high ability scores ever more important. Any problems that arise can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis and, truthfully, the issues haven't played any real role in my Dwimmermount campaign, so why worry? Another part of me, though, wants to try and tinker with it all so that it finally "makes sense." Yes, I realize that's a Quixotic endeavor for a lot of reasons and probably one that will yield worse results than just letting things be. Still, like many gamers, I'm a tinkerer by nature and seeing something like the mess that is OD&D ability scores, I can hardly resist the temptation to "fix" them.
Anyone else have similar feelings on the matter or am I the lone weirdo here?
Someone just sent me this link for the Anne Taintor page. The magnets give you the best overview. Some of my favorites:
"she was one cocktail away from proving his mother right"
"I believe we have an opportunity to make some extremely poor choices"
"it would, of course, have to look like an accident"
"the secret ingredient is resentment"
"she was one cocktail away from proving his mother right"
"I believe we have an opportunity to make some extremely poor choices"
"it would, of course, have to look like an accident"
"the secret ingredient is resentment"
I was recently given several very kind donations through my PayPal link. Thanks to everyone who contributed; I very much appreciate this. Usually, I spend my donations on new old school products that I can then review, but this time I think I'm going to buy some Otherworld miniatures, particularly since they have a sale running between now and early December. The problem is I'm not sure what I should buy, so I'd like some suggestions.
My donations, while generous, aren't quite enough to reach the free shipping mark for £75 worth of purchases, so I can't go crazy. However, I'm still willing to be somewhat indulgent, since the minis are put to good use in my Dwimmermount campaign and I'll certainly be sharing images of the paint jobs done by one of my players. I currently own a goodly supply of pig-faced orcs, as well as skeletons, gnolls, harpies, and various vermin, such as oozes, giant rats, beetles, etc. So, what next?
There are so many options that it's hard to decide. I'm sorely tempted by the Type I and (especially) Type II demons. The goblins and kobolds are also to my liking, since goblins play a big role in Dwimmermount and I've always had a soft spot for kobolds. And of course a gelatinous cube would very cool. It's hard to decide!
Suggestions are thus greatly appreciated.
My donations, while generous, aren't quite enough to reach the free shipping mark for £75 worth of purchases, so I can't go crazy. However, I'm still willing to be somewhat indulgent, since the minis are put to good use in my Dwimmermount campaign and I'll certainly be sharing images of the paint jobs done by one of my players. I currently own a goodly supply of pig-faced orcs, as well as skeletons, gnolls, harpies, and various vermin, such as oozes, giant rats, beetles, etc. So, what next?
There are so many options that it's hard to decide. I'm sorely tempted by the Type I and (especially) Type II demons. The goblins and kobolds are also to my liking, since goblins play a big role in Dwimmermount and I've always had a soft spot for kobolds. And of course a gelatinous cube would very cool. It's hard to decide!
Suggestions are thus greatly appreciated.
An odd little dragon, the crimson drake, makes it's appearance on KQ.com today, with art by Hugo Solis AKA ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
butterfrog. Take a bow, little dragon. After two weeks of 4E and 3E horrors, ghosts, and deadly mycolids, maybe it's time for a somewhat more traditional beast.
Mini-dragons: worthy foe or tasty snack?
butterfrog. Take a bow, little dragon. After two weeks of 4E and 3E horrors, ghosts, and deadly mycolids, maybe it's time for a somewhat more traditional beast.Mini-dragons: worthy foe or tasty snack?
Rob Kuntz's Pied Piper Publishing is getting ready to publish a new product line called Dungeon Sets, the first two examples of which will be available on November 15. The products are, according to their description, "un-keyed, color maps with integration notes and a comprehensive legend that are presented as a contiguous, and exacting, dungeon setting." Basically, they're a series of maps to aid referees in creating their own megadungeons and designed with that purpose in mind. I'll admit that sounds intriguing to me, since I hate making my own maps -- and lack the skill to do so anyway -- and I regularly swipe maps from a variety of sources to use as inspiration for my own efforts.
Much more intriguing, though, is Kuntz's mention that future product in the line will be "a treatise—an in depth essay—on dungeon-crafting in its many facets should be of interest, so we are gathering notes to add to my already 10,000+ word MS which describes the creation of Greyhawk™ Castle, Castle El Raja Key and Maure Castle™. This historical and instructive treatise will cover the beginnings of this honored endeavor and track some of the changes that have taken effect with the modernization of the game." That sounds almost like the kind of product that could answer some of the problems I noted in my Schrödinger's Dungeon post. A lot will depend, of course, on just how the treatise is structured and what it contains, but, in principle, I like the idea of such a product. It's that one I'll be keeping my eye on.
Much more intriguing, though, is Kuntz's mention that future product in the line will be "a treatise—an in depth essay—on dungeon-crafting in its many facets should be of interest, so we are gathering notes to add to my already 10,000+ word MS which describes the creation of Greyhawk™ Castle, Castle El Raja Key and Maure Castle™. This historical and instructive treatise will cover the beginnings of this honored endeavor and track some of the changes that have taken effect with the modernization of the game." That sounds almost like the kind of product that could answer some of the problems I noted in my Schrödinger's Dungeon post. A lot will depend, of course, on just how the treatise is structured and what it contains, but, in principle, I like the idea of such a product. It's that one I'll be keeping my eye on.
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/newsinfo.gif)
news :: theljstaff : LiveJournal Major Notes: Notes, Tweaks, Bug Kills, LJ_Cares! [+85] ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif)
grognardia : Resisting the Urge [+0] - savageplanet : (no subject) [+0]
- lj_maintenance :: dwell : Network Maintenance: Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 04:00-06:00 UTC/GMT [+34]
- grognardia : Hexographer? [+0]
- grognardia : An Odd Sighting [+0]
- grognardia : 11/11 [+0]
- grognardia : Retrospective: En Garde! [+0]
- savageplanet : (no subject) [+0]
- grognardia : A Silly Thing [+0]
- grognardia : More Musings on Ability Scores [+0]
- marthawells : (no subject) [+3]
- savageplanet : (no subject) [+0]
- savageplanet : 20 Years [+0]
- savageplanet : SGG Site Updated [+1]
- grognardia : My Problem with Ability Scores [+0]
- marthawells : (no subject) [+6]
- grognardia : Help Me Spend Some Money [+0]
- open_design : KOBOLD: The Crimson Drake [+0]
- grognardia : PPP Announces Dungeon Sets [+0]