Recently my band of merry roleplayers has taken it upon themselves to record our sessions. I purchased a very expensive audio recording device with built in microphones and we use that twice a week to record our sessions. It's pretty amazing how long we actually roleplay each night. Most of our sessions are at least 5 hours in length and that is with minimal distractions and or side-tracking. I have listened to a few of the sessions and I realize how much we actually get done in a night of roleplaying.
My friend, who is writing the book on roleplaying, is going to use some of our sessions as reference once we get a few more under our belts. I hope this experiment works out well for all of us. I just hope we have enough hard drive space to hold these 650MB+ bi-weekly sessions.
Michael
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Revenant
Revenant has been my favorite character since his inception a couple of years ago. I based him a little on the Blade movies and a little on Mulder from X-Files. He's not a vampire, or a FBI agent who thinks the whole world is full of aliens though. One of the Revenants main powers is his ridiculous regenerative powers. He literally heals ANY wound within seconds. Much more so than even Wolverine heals.
Another of his powers is ability to sense and control wards. His body is covered in tattoos of various types. The giant Eagle on his back, was done using his own blood, to eliminate an immediate rejection of ink from his body due to his extreme healing factor. This Eagle is his way to see into the astral world and sense anything ethereal in his immediate area.
On his left hand he has a 16 pointed sun, also inked in his own blood, that helps me force his way through wards and can actually damage other worldly creature with his willpower. On his chest is a large Celtic cross which wards away vampires and werewolves. Each part of his body holds other tattoos which do various things to protect him from the undead.
I recently started playing this character again and instantly fell in love. My only problem is that I can't seem to find the original version of this character. I know that I am missing certain things and aspects of him that were cool but I have long since forgot. I was only able to play this character for a few hours one night and since then he has been resting in my created characters but rarely used graveyard. I just need to know where to dig to find him.
Michael
Another of his powers is ability to sense and control wards. His body is covered in tattoos of various types. The giant Eagle on his back, was done using his own blood, to eliminate an immediate rejection of ink from his body due to his extreme healing factor. This Eagle is his way to see into the astral world and sense anything ethereal in his immediate area.
On his left hand he has a 16 pointed sun, also inked in his own blood, that helps me force his way through wards and can actually damage other worldly creature with his willpower. On his chest is a large Celtic cross which wards away vampires and werewolves. Each part of his body holds other tattoos which do various things to protect him from the undead.
I recently started playing this character again and instantly fell in love. My only problem is that I can't seem to find the original version of this character. I know that I am missing certain things and aspects of him that were cool but I have long since forgot. I was only able to play this character for a few hours one night and since then he has been resting in my created characters but rarely used graveyard. I just need to know where to dig to find him.
Michael
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A Whole New World
A friend and I are in the process of creating a whole new world for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. We want to incorporate all of the things into this world we loved from the days of yesteryear. All the Dungeons, Dragons, Castles, Undead Creatures and other Fantastical features a good world needs to be what we call "old school".
As of right now we have most of the land masses drawn out on a large sheet of paper. We have decided on the races which we want to include into this world and how they are going to interact with each other. Most of the places have yet to be fleshed out and no real cities have been transposed onto the map as of yet. This is going to be a long process which will probably take us into next year at least to finally finish the world enough for us to start playing in it.
As we always do this world will be realistic in nature. Just because the world is changing and we want more High Fantasy doesn't mean we are going to change the way we play. Our new challenge is to mix High Fantasy with realistic game play and actual roleplaying. This could be interesting.
For the three people who read this blog stay tuned for more updates as we continue to create the world.
Mike
As of right now we have most of the land masses drawn out on a large sheet of paper. We have decided on the races which we want to include into this world and how they are going to interact with each other. Most of the places have yet to be fleshed out and no real cities have been transposed onto the map as of yet. This is going to be a long process which will probably take us into next year at least to finally finish the world enough for us to start playing in it.
As we always do this world will be realistic in nature. Just because the world is changing and we want more High Fantasy doesn't mean we are going to change the way we play. Our new challenge is to mix High Fantasy with realistic game play and actual roleplaying. This could be interesting.
For the three people who read this blog stay tuned for more updates as we continue to create the world.
Mike
Friday, May 16, 2008
A Friends View On Todays Gamer
This is an excerpt from a friends book he is writing on a new roleplaying system which will hopefully allow all other systems to integrate into his. Here is what he has to say about todays gamer and why they are so much into ROLLplaying rather than actual ROLEplaying like the olden days....
Clint
The system you use has nothing to do with the content of the game. Strange that it seems so obvious after you say it, but stranger still is the fact that droves of allegedly creative people routinely feel the need to purchase and employ new gaming material as a means of changing, ostensibly to improve, the content of their games. It’s downright flabbergasting when you consider the fact that many of these gamers will gleefully memorize vast amounts of intricate information which ultimately accomplishes little more than further complication of the game.
Worse, this continual stream of supposedly new gaming material buries the genre deeper into eccentricity, and I find it immensely interesting that it behooves game publishers to do just that. Their demographic, the stereotypical gamer, is a creature of inherently lower social status (admit it; we’re all nerds to some degree). Most gamers, being thoroughly human, are saddened by this societal view of their identities. Like anyone else, we seek to alleviate this sadness. Whereas most people seek to improve their social status through group activity and conformity, our identities as gamers are strengthened through isolation, introspection and consistent diametric opposition to conformity (which is essentially our own brand of conformity). The natural response of the gaming industry is to offer increasingly eclectic products that advance this sense of isolation. Average gamers buy and study the new material because they feel it gives them a leg up on society at large. They weave bizarre gaming acronyms and exotic subject materials into what should be normal conversations with non-gamers, and derive a sense of intellectual superiority from the confusion they create. This ill-gotten feeling of intellectual superiority in turn establishes that ever elusive sense of self-worth in the average gamer. It is this sense of self-worth that modern game publishers are actually selling, and because of this, they’ve had to adopt a skewed inverse of market capitalism in order to perpetuate themselves; one which seeks to increase revenue not through the broadening of their product’s appeal, but through the reinforcement of their product’s eccentricity in order to appease an increasingly fanatical customer base. It’s an extremely unusual approach to marketing which will eventually bankrupt them if allowed to persist; as opposed to legitimately improving their product in such a way as to make it more appealing to a larger audience, they persist in churning out scores of trivial system revisions and progressively weirder supplemental materials.
The truth is, any system can be incorporated into any setting, which therefore renders the existence of multiple systems functionally irrelevant to a DM competent in any one system. A DM’s competence, in any system, can be measured by the extent to which his chosen system goes unnoticed during the course of play. Together, a DM and his system are only as valuable as their ability to get out of the Player’s way.
This truth is obviously not economically viable to a game publishing corporation, and hence, we have stores filled with supplemental material and expanded rule books, all marketed as fresh and cutting edge. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Look, it isn’t my goal to force these publisher’s out of business; quite the opposite. I’m pointing out their weaknesses because I sincerely hope that they correct them before they file for bankruptcy. I don’t see that happening without a major philosophical overhaul; they need to expand their fan base to include the average Joe before they drive themselves into obscurity.
Clint
Monday, March 24, 2008
The d20 System Part Two
I never take anything back that I write so I am just going to add on to my last entry. I still pretty much hate 3.0/3.5 as a version of D&D. It's too fucking complicated and a lot of times the DC numbers are just random and up to the DM to make up on the spot. That makes no sense to me. At least with the older rules, 1st and 2nd edition, you had a number to try and roll under. Lets use this as an example.
Lets say in second edition you have a Fire-building of 14. It's a windy day, and the wood is kind of damp. I say -4 to the roll. Okay the character needs to roll a 10 or lower and he is able to build a fire and get warm.
In 3.0 or 3.5 there is NO number for the character to even start with. The DC is completely up to the DM. So lets say the character has 4 in Fire-building, well then what is the number he needs to reach? Do I have to break out my calculator to figure out his 50/50 shot at making the number? Does that mean if the DC is supposed to start at 10, that I should make him roll a 6 or higher, or does a 4 translate to 14 in relative similarity? It just confuses the hell out of me. It's a complicated system of determining skills checks against NON-opposing forces.
I think it works great when you are talking about hitting and defending, cause you have a certain number you need to hit and it's pretty straight forward. You don't have to figure out two different things for each character like you do in 2nd edition. Each person has a number to reach and wham, right in the chiseled chin of my 14th level warrior.
I also like the idea of your stats giving you more additions and help in the lower levels. It was a VERY poor idea for 2nd edition to have you only get bonuses at 16 or higher. So it translated a dexterity of 8 as being the same as a dex of 14, which if you are using any modicum of common sense MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AT ALL! I know it was supposed to be an exponential rise in power as the stats went up, but just keep telling yourself that, it was an oversight in designing in the game that caused it and they used that lame exponential schtick to cover their asses.
Overall so far, and I am still hip deep in my investigation, both systems are quite good in certain ways and quite bad in others. I'm not sold on switching over just yet, but making a hybrid version of the game for myself is definitely in the near future. I am going to take the best of both systems and warp them together to make one that makes fucking sense. I have this bad feeling that most of the stuff I use is going to be from the new system though, cause you can tell they really went over it with a fine tooth comb and did their homework in a lot of ways. It's a good system, but I can make it better for the kinds of games I want to run.
Michael
Lets say in second edition you have a Fire-building of 14. It's a windy day, and the wood is kind of damp. I say -4 to the roll. Okay the character needs to roll a 10 or lower and he is able to build a fire and get warm.
In 3.0 or 3.5 there is NO number for the character to even start with. The DC is completely up to the DM. So lets say the character has 4 in Fire-building, well then what is the number he needs to reach? Do I have to break out my calculator to figure out his 50/50 shot at making the number? Does that mean if the DC is supposed to start at 10, that I should make him roll a 6 or higher, or does a 4 translate to 14 in relative similarity? It just confuses the hell out of me. It's a complicated system of determining skills checks against NON-opposing forces.
I think it works great when you are talking about hitting and defending, cause you have a certain number you need to hit and it's pretty straight forward. You don't have to figure out two different things for each character like you do in 2nd edition. Each person has a number to reach and wham, right in the chiseled chin of my 14th level warrior.
I also like the idea of your stats giving you more additions and help in the lower levels. It was a VERY poor idea for 2nd edition to have you only get bonuses at 16 or higher. So it translated a dexterity of 8 as being the same as a dex of 14, which if you are using any modicum of common sense MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AT ALL! I know it was supposed to be an exponential rise in power as the stats went up, but just keep telling yourself that, it was an oversight in designing in the game that caused it and they used that lame exponential schtick to cover their asses.
Overall so far, and I am still hip deep in my investigation, both systems are quite good in certain ways and quite bad in others. I'm not sold on switching over just yet, but making a hybrid version of the game for myself is definitely in the near future. I am going to take the best of both systems and warp them together to make one that makes fucking sense. I have this bad feeling that most of the stuff I use is going to be from the new system though, cause you can tell they really went over it with a fine tooth comb and did their homework in a lot of ways. It's a good system, but I can make it better for the kinds of games I want to run.
Michael
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The d20 system
I hate to admit this, but in the past couple of days I have been submersed in a game that uses the dreaded d20 system and I have to say I like it. I am a big enough man to admit when I might have been wrong about a system. Let's not get carried away and say that I like it BETTER than 2nd edition for AD&D, but for other systems I can see it working quite well. I am sure it would work just fine for AD&D but for me to switch would just be stupid on my part. I have fixed, adjusted and manipulated 2nd edition to work for me in my own way. To switch to another would flush all that hard work down the toilet.
I can say this however, I will not rip apart someone for using 3.5 anymore. I will however still defend what I said in my previous posts as to the evil nature of WOTC. I still agree with myself on the difference between ROLE playing and ROLL playing and that doesn't matter what system you use.
3.5 is still something that is supposed to be simpler than 2nd edition, but let me tell you it's not in many ways. You can get pretty deep into combat with 3.5. With that being said it can also be simplified just like 2nd edition and in many ways it works just as well if not better.
I might be a big man when it comes to admitting I am wrong, but that still doesn't mean I feel good about it. One good thing to come out of this is I am no longer afraid of learning the new system and I have on good authority that I will be getting some new 3.5 books for my birthday. Does this mean I will be switching my current campaign over to 3.5. HELL NO!!! This does mean that if a certain game or genre fits better with 3.5, or if I am running something for my friends who have switched to the darkside many years ago, I might use it. I MIGHT use it. I am open to using it now.
One thing that really made me investigate the system more was the rule about Vitality Points and Wound Points, which at first I thought was stupid, but after reviewing it's very solid. We have been doing the same thing for years, but we didn't have two different stats for what we called HIT POINTS. For example in 2nd edition I have a current character who is a 23rd level fighter and he has 167 hit points. Now even we knew that didn't mean he could take at least 16 full strength bastard sword hits, it was a number resembling his level and experience as to how badly he is injured. Scraps and bruises were much of the number. Even near misses in certain situations. We always played that if you were backstabbed and didn't have the ability to block a blow in any way, your HIT POINTS were almost useless. It was a call on the spot between the DM and the PC at that point.
In the 3.5 edition it's pretty clear which is which. For people with little experience in roleplaying, like newbies or someone switching from Rifts or AD&D it's a good way to explain why you get so many hit points in 2nd edition. I don't consider this a improvement on 2nd edition, more like a better explanation of how HIT POINTS worked. So now you get Wound points equal to your Constitution and however many Vitality Points you get for being a certain level fighter. My 23rd level fighter would have stats like this: Wound Points of 16 (Con) and 151 Vitality Points. Seems logical to me. WOTC had to tell others this, but we have been playing the same way for years and years, but here it's spelled out for the players, which is good.
In closing, 3.5 is not as evil on it's own as I claimed it once was. However WOTC is still an evil fucking company and I stand by what I said about switching systems whenever they tell you to. If you play 1st edition and it's working for you, save your money and stay where you are, same goes for people playing 3.5, just stick with what works and forget about the juggernaut called WOTC telling you need to buy a whole new set of books. FUCK THEM!!! Play what you like, and right now I like 2nd edition for AD&D, but I can see how people can like either 3.0 or 3.5. More power to you with whatever system you use.
Peace out
Michael
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Gary Gygax and my youth
From the beginning my friends and I have complained about the stupid tables and charts Gary Gygax put in his first edition rule book. He was the scapegoat of whatever we found wrong with the current system we were playing in. It was easy to complain about him from afar. But one thing holds true about all those statements, he was ALWAYS mentioned when it came to D&D and in some small way we all loved him.
A huge part of my life is role playing. Without D&D I would have never considered role playing. I wouldn't have hung out and met a lot of the people that now fill my life without that simple game which you play in your head with dice and a piece of paper. It's truly a sad day for my friends and I.
I speak for a lot of people in my corner of the world and say that without Gary and his insane tables and charts we would have never had anything to complain about. He was a genius in that he created something totally new and it brought out the geek in a lot of us through our young lives and into our adult ones as well.
Not many people can say this about their life, but this man, Gary Gygax will live forever in a game we will continue to play for years and years to come. What a legacy he has created with one simple book of rules in 1974.
You will be missed. You are now off the complaint list and your name will only be mentioned in good light from this moment on. From now on I will only complaint about Wizards of the Coast. They deserve it anyways.
We love you Gary, rest in peace.
Michael
On a related note to my last blog entry about 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I think Gary says it best in this interview from 2005 about the new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. If anyone has a right to comment on what is wrong with the new editions, it's the man that created the genre and the game itself.
Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?
Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book super heroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
Amen Brother, Amen
Michael
A huge part of my life is role playing. Without D&D I would have never considered role playing. I wouldn't have hung out and met a lot of the people that now fill my life without that simple game which you play in your head with dice and a piece of paper. It's truly a sad day for my friends and I.
I speak for a lot of people in my corner of the world and say that without Gary and his insane tables and charts we would have never had anything to complain about. He was a genius in that he created something totally new and it brought out the geek in a lot of us through our young lives and into our adult ones as well.
Not many people can say this about their life, but this man, Gary Gygax will live forever in a game we will continue to play for years and years to come. What a legacy he has created with one simple book of rules in 1974.
You will be missed. You are now off the complaint list and your name will only be mentioned in good light from this moment on. From now on I will only complaint about Wizards of the Coast. They deserve it anyways.
We love you Gary, rest in peace.
Michael
On a related note to my last blog entry about 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I think Gary says it best in this interview from 2005 about the new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. If anyone has a right to comment on what is wrong with the new editions, it's the man that created the genre and the game itself.
Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?
Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book super heroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
Amen Brother, Amen
Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)