MichaelSomething

So I was browsing Star City Games and I found this article and its resulting disscussion. It's about a person discouraging a high level of optimization in the casual format he created. That set off a fairly large online discussion where people with different play styles collided; sounds familiar? While I can use this to springboard into a dozen different topics, I'm gonna focus on one specific thing; the pros and cons of centralized and/or local rulings.

Centralized rulings are when a central authority creates the rules. In Dungeons and Dragons, the RPGA would be the most obvious example. Local rulings is just a weird term I made up to mean House Rules. You know, when a group creates their own rules to modify the game more to their liking. Through out D&D’s history, both approaches have been used in varying degrees. Each approach has its advantages and weaknesses.

The main strength of centralized rulings is commonality. Commonality is very important. Having a focused set of ideas is required in order to construct something with a solid foundation. Enworld exists because we have something in common; D&D. We all agree D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game and we all like fantasy roleplaying so we formed this community around that. It’s important to have a common basis to work with.

Centralized rulings does have its flaws though. If you don’t like what the centralized ruling is, you options are limited. Many don’t like 4th Edition because thy disagree with the rules WOTC made. Centralized rulings are also lead to less flexibility. A common basis isn’t common if no one follow it. Centralized rulings does place limits on what you can do.

The alternative is local rulings aka “House rules” or “DM’s judgment.” The strengths of this approach is flexibility and customizability. With this approach, you can get exactly what you want because you make it yourself for yourself. Some people enjoy the “do it yourself” approach.

Local rulings also have their flaws. Making your own rules requires that the rule maker have both the skillset and the time to do so. Not everyone has the time to devote to tinkering nor the ability to do it well. You also have to deal with everyone having different opinions on how to do something. What do you when your friend wants to play a Dwarf in your Dwarf-free game? If you’re gonna customize your game, you’re gonna have to re-explain it every time you get a new player and that can get tiring. Local rulings requires work; too much work for some people.

Obviously, this issue is fairly complex. D&D has never been completely one or other. It has always been some combination of the two. 3.5, despite being hailed for it customizability, probably wasn’t designed with the Batman Wizard or Codzilla in mind. 4th Edition, despite being considered limited, does satisfy a good deal of players and is an another option for play groups to choose from. It’s definitely not as black and white as I may make it appear to be. I wrote it that way to help explain the concepts.

What type of rulings you want to accept depends largely on your goals and gaming philosophy. The author of the mentioned article, being a founder of the format, always had the option of simply banning the elements (aka certain Magic cards) that he felt was hurting the format. Yet he choose not too. He felt that even though those elements were easily abuseable, that banning them would deny people who weren’t abusing them the right to use those elements. It’s suppose to be a casual format, and in the spirit and intention of being a casual format, less formal rules are better. If you know your goal, you can pick the best approach for it.

When Raven Crowking announced that he was making his own RPG, I made a promise to myself that I would write a review of it once it finally came out. Lo and behold, he did so here I am. After reading through it, this is my review of Raven Crowking’s Fantasy Game (RCFG). To state the obvious, it’s a role playing game written by Raven Crowking.

On one level, the RCFG is simply yet another Fantasy Heartbreaker. That means that while the creator did pour his heart and soul into the project and came up with a few innovative ideas; it is mostly a rehash of traditional D&D concepts. Seriously, I felt like I read it all before. I think he typed it all up himself but it’s hard to tell since it’s so much like previous D&D material. The heartbreak occurs when the game is ignored by the public due to a combination of no brand name and being very similar to D&D itself. Most RPG players will generally go “why play this when we can just play D&D instead?”

On another level, RCFG is like Pathfinder. It may be very similar to D&D, but that is entirely intentional. It contains a lot of subtle changes you won’t notice unless you look for them or see them in actual play. It also has the much more realistic goal of attracting a small subset of roleplayers who feel disenfranchised with D&D as done by WOTC.

Looking at the system itself, the first thing that sticks out is how old-school it is. Every class gains minions/followers, literature is regularly quoted, and a third of the book is just for spells :P The art, layout, and general voice of the whole work is all about the old-school sensibilities. Yet if you look, you can see influences of new-school design ideas. Martial characters can regularly choose talent/options; abilities actually scale well, and there are even mechanics that resemble/simulate healing surges and skill challenges. You’ll also notice the level of detail for things. I’m surprised (in a good way) by rules for cover fire; then I’m amazed at why I haven’t seen them sooner. There’s also rules for guns and siege weapons if you’re into that type of thing. It certainly cover its bases.

The combat system deserves special mention for being a fairly unique system. For one, all characters can naturally use different attack styles, focusing on hitting, damage, defense, etc. depending on the weapon. This reduces the need for feats, which don’t exist in this game (by the way). Initiative is rolled every round to determine how many actions a character has (higher int = more actions). Creative use of skills in combat (or stunting) is strongly encouraged. I’m not gonna explain every detail of the combat system. It’s fairly unique but not too hard to learn if your willing to read through it.

If you are planning on reading through it, I suggest you start on page 96, the "Exploration and Adventuring" chapter. That and the following sections put considerable focus on things like adventuring advice, RPG philosophy, the concept of magic, and stuff of that ilk. You know; fluff. If you’re the type who has to have reading material in their RPG games, this is the place for you. There are also plenty of asides and boxes that explain the idea behind the rule or game theory and are also worth checking out. For example, there one section that has rules for sacrificing people to pay the EXP cost for spells (heh heh heh). It’s a solid, if basic, treatment of traditional fantasy adventure.

That last sentence basically sums up RCFG to a large extent. If you’re looking for that type of thing, you could do a good deal worse. Chances are, you’re not gonna end up playing this game. I’m not saying it’s a bad game for playing. I just can’t say how well it plays until I actually play it. I know I’ll never find three to five players who both know about RCFG and are willing to play it. If you manage to do so; you sir, have a higher diplomacy score then I do. Most likely, you’ll probably just read it and maybe steal a few ideas for your own game. If you don’t mind the Déjà vu, there is a good deal of ideas to mine. It’s also solid RPG reading material.

One thing I would like to note is that the version I’m reviewing is the “Pre-Release Release” or Alpha version. That means it’s not done yet so expect revisions and additions in the future. However, it is largely complete; except for an introduction and maybe a clearer explanation of the morale rules. It may require minor tweaks unless a problem arises during play. On the whole though, it covers everything an RPG should cover and then some.

The last thing I would like to note that is largely a one man project. Putting out a two hundred page plus Open Gaming Licensed project for free (say that five times fast!) takes a lot dedication and hard work. Say what you will about the project; simply getting this far is worth some credit and he’s not even done yet. It seem Raven Crowking is planning to put out a Monster Book as well as an “RCFG Game Master’s Handbook” sometime in the future. Looks like he’s not done yet; not by a long shot…

A Battle of Wits

Set-Up
Skill Challenge Level: Variable
Complexity:3
Number of Successes:9
Number of Failures:3
Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight
Important NPCs: Your foe, a mysterious man dressed only in black; the hostage(s)

Let’s suppose you and your opponent were unable to act against each other due one or the other having a hostage. You are unable to reach an arrangement, and therefore, are at an impasse. To break this impasse, your foe challenges you to a battle of wits; for the hostage(s); and to the death. He pours two glasses of wine and then pulls out a small vial before saying the following. “This is Iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.” He then takes both glasses and turns his back towards you. A moment later he returns both glasses to a nearby table. “All right; where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right, and who is dead.”

Skill Challenge

Bluff (DC Hard): A well placed lie is always useful when playing mind games. However, this masked man is no fool and will not be easily tricked.

Diplomacy (DC Hard or Normal): Talking is always an option when dealing with people. If the PC(s) use diplomacy in order to discern clues about which cup is poisoned use the hard DCs and limit them to two successes with this skill. The masked man is not willing to give away much if any information. If the PC(s) persue a peaceful compromise to end the impasse use the normal DCs. If four successes are achieved this way, the skill challenge immediately ends due to the PC(s) and the masked man reaching an agreement of some type.

Insight (DC Normal): By observing the masked man, you can learn his dispostion and motives. Up to three successes can be achieved this way. After each success, give the PCs one of the followin tibits...

1. The masked man is still willing to persue a peacful solution to the situation. The PC(s) learn that Diplomacy can still be used to achieve a compromise.

2. The masked man is both smart and wise. The PC(s) learn that Bluff is set at the Hard DC.

3. The masked man is quite calm and relaxed for a life or death situation; perhaps too relaxed?

Nature (Normal DC): Knowledge about the poison may be helpful. The PC(s) can learn where the posion comes from as well as other trivia related to it. The DM generally should customize the information to suit his/her campaign world. A successful check does not count as a success (or failure) but does add a +2 bonus to the next Insight check made.

Streetwise (Normal DC): PC(s) can use their knowledge of local culture (or any knowledge skill, depending on how the PCs justsify it) to figure out the masked man's mindset. A successful check does not count as a success (or failure) but does add a +2 bonus to the next check made.

Of course, the DM can allow other skills to be used if PC(s) can jusify their reasoning for using it well enough and/or roleplay it out in an entertaining manner.

Ending the Challenge

Success: The PC(s) successfully aquire nine successes trying to figure out which cup is poisioned, they instead figured out that battle of wits is a shell game. In that event, the PC(s) and the masked man are back at square one. If the PC(s) aquire four diplomacy checks trying to reach a peaceful settlement, then they do so. The terms of the agreement is left up to the PC(s) and DM to decide.

Failure: If the PC(s) have drank from any of the glasses; they gussed wrong. Both cups of wine were poisioned. The masked man has developed an immunity to the posion. By drinking from any wine cup, they fell for the trap. The posion takes its full effect on the PC(s).

Experience Points

If successful, the PC(s) earn expereince points equal to defeating three monster at the level of the Skill Challenge.

Customizing the Skill Challenge

Based upon a Dungeon Master's needs, the DM may need to alter the Skill Challenge. He/she may remove the option to come to a compromise via diplomacy. The DM should also consider what to do if the PCs complete the skill challenge and return to the previous impasse. Lastly, the DM may wish to alter the effect of the poision. The Skill Challenge assume the poision is strictly instant death but it can easily be changed to do other things like drain healing surges, curse a PC, or be a very slow acting poison requiring a rare herb to cure (and requiring adventuring to find).

If there’s one thing I find strange, it’s 3.5 (as in the 3.5 Edition of Dungeons and Dragons) players who don‘t like 4E as well as the 3.5 Bard class(I imagine it's a small group if it exists at all but just go with me for a moment). As a person who played a 3.5 Bard from levels one to nine; I feel that it is my duty to defend this classic class. The Bard may seem like it doesn’t fit in 3.5 but I must disagree with them. In fact, the Bard is the embodiment of the 3.5 philosophy! To reject the Bard is to reject 3.5 itself! The reasons for this are varied and many; and listed below…


1. The Bard defies the rigidness of the “role.” While all 4E classes are designed to fit snuggly into one of the pre-defined roles; the Bard rejects them wholesale. Who’s to say what the Bard can and cannot do! The Bard is capable of doing fighting, healing, arcane support, or skill use during a single session, nay, a single hour even! The Bard is also free to pursue any specialty s/he pleases! Thanks to the endless supply of 3.5 Prestige Classes, it is possible for a Bard to transform themselves into whatever they desire! When you are a Bard, there is no limit to what you can do!

2. Bards have freedom of character! While every 4E class is a cappable action hero, the Bard is capable of rejecting that premise for an entirely different one! For Gygax's sake, you walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who can take that seriously?

3. The Bard's power level is completely customizable! While 4E classes are generally designed to all be within the same level of effectiveness, the Bard can become as powerful or as weak as the player desires! The Bard may appear weak to some players but this can easily be addressed! WOTC has released over a dozen splat books over the life of 3.5. Almost every book contains an option that can increase the Bard's power level! You simple take more options until you reach the level of power that you desire. It's perfect for rewarding players who enjoy examining the system or those who have large RPG book collections.

4. The Bard class caters to different play styles. While every 4th Edition class is designed to be usable by every player in nearly every campaign, the Bard is a totally different play experience for those who seek soemething new and refreshing. While some people may never feel the need to play a Bard, it is there for those who wish to experience a more artistic character.


It should be clear that the Bard is a vital part of 3.5! I say one cannot truely understand 3.5 until they played a Bard for themselves. The Bard is the embodiment of freedom in character creation. It will always be a part of Dungeons and Dragons. After all, someone has to provide the soundtrack...

There I was, playing the Song of Ice and Fire RPG at an older friend's house. It was a standard warm-up session. Characters were rolled up and we when through a combat and some social action to get used to the system. I was very tire so I couldn't really get into it, but it was fun and I was looking forward to future sessions. The Song of Ice and Fire is a good change in pace for those who tire of D&D but still enjoy fantasy roleplaying.

Afterwords, we hung out and talked about stuff to pass the time before we parted ways. Inevitably we talked about RPGs, including D&D. Since we were all talking about it, the older friend decided to pull something out of his gaming closet to show us. What he showed us was the White Box. THE. WHITE. BOX.. Also known as OD&D; the first and original Dungeons and Dragons product. I never thought I would actually see it. I felt like I was staring as some lost ancient treasure. This thing was in mint condition too. It wasn't worn down to torn as all. It looked like it opened for the very first time. It was shocking and incredible at the same time.

The first thing I said was, "Wow, you should sell that thing! You would make a killing!" The older friend responded by saying, "yeah, relatively speaking." He knew he could get a nice hunk of change by selling it online. He said he got that during his college days. If he wanted to sell it, he would have done so earlier. However, as a collector's items, it could very well be considered priceless.

The White box consists of a white cardboard box with several small booklets in it. Each booklet covered a different part of the rules. One of the booklets that caught my eye was the one for BlackMoor, the original setting. I grabbed a random book and began to read and look through it. I was only able to read a part of the first intro page. If given enough time, I might have read all of it. It must really be an enjoyable read.

My younger friend (and the Game master for the game) was also awe-stuck by The White Box. I can clearly remember him saying that it was awesome. I feel the same way. To be in the presence of the White Box is to stare at a piece of history. It goes far beyond cool. In fact, calling it cool would severally understate how amazing it is. Diaglo is right; all others pale in comparison to OD&D.