Pass the Book?

We have both the Legend RPG and the $1 Legend PDF available over at RPGNow. Which one do we use more? I can't say we have even opened the softcover book yet.

The PDF? On my tablet and phone, and each chapter is printed out and stabled together in handy booklets. We could even have more than one copy of the character creation chapter printed out so more than one player can reference it when building characters.

You don't know how nice it is to be able to hand someone the skills chapter, someone else the character creation chapter, and keep the combat and adventuring chapters open to pages and ready for use. It's like someone has revolutionized our gaming experience, and I just can't force myself to go back to the hardcover "single user" soft or hardcover book way of doing things again.

And if the character creation chapter ever gets worn out, ripped, and stained I do not care at all, as I can always print out another copy. That isn't so easy with a $50 hardcover. I also have these on a secure and private little place in cloud storage so I can access them anywhere I go. My D&D 5 books? On my shelf, at home. With a PDF, if I have Internet access and optionally a printer I can play.

I like collecting things, and I like collecting books. I like the feel of them, and I like reading them. As I collect more, it gets harder to justify new ones. And for playing with them? I collect, so I always worry about them getting damaged - and many are. But PDFs? PDFs don't get damaged during play. I can collect a lot more PDFs than I can books. And PDFs are way more useful during play. So much so I find it hard to play games that aren't on PDF.

Now there is a limitation to all this. 1,000+ page games need not apply for my PDF good feelings and excitement, as those are way too huge to print out and own in a usable form with just the PDF. I like short, tight, simple games where more of the rules are in a core 64-128 page form, and easily printable and dividable into sections. I feel PDFs for larger games are only good for reference material or online reading, as printing out the spells of even basic Pathfinder would take reams of paper and be a nightmare to use at the table. Even though I have many Pathfinder PDFs, they are not as useful as PDFs of shorter and simpler games.

So there is a sweet spot for PDF games. Short enough to print out everything and organized enough that dividing the book up makes sense and allows players to pass chapters around as needed. The future isn't the traditional coffee-table RPG book collection for our groups, it is taking the form of a smaller, lighter, and easier to use and play with set of electronic documents that can be used how and in the forms we want to use.

Simplifying

I am in a process of simplifying the number of games I play, and the amount of books I want to play with. Going back in the box are games we never play, and on our shelves will be only the basics.

I mean "just the books you need to play" and nothing more.

Pathfinder is now just the main book and the Bestiary 1, and possibly the Gamemastery Guide. D&D 4 is just the first three books. D&D 5 is just the first three as well. D&D 3.5 is that nice foil-covered collector's set.

Legend is up on the shelf because we like the game, but my PDF printouts are seeing more use than the main book so go figure. Our World of Darkness collection is up there too in its madness and glory, along with Exalted.

The rest of the books? Away from the core books and in another room, but on a shelf in case we need them. I don't want them out, I don't want them creating a wall of "play me" and intimidating us with their weight and presence.

Games have gotten way to fat nowadays, super-sized and written primarily for the collector's market. Who plays these things anyways? Even with the basic three books, many of the big-name fantasy games are pushing 1,000 pages of rules and content, and you wonder where that simple game went, the one we started this hobby with.

Game designers love to hear themselves talk, I guess.

But seriously, simplification is a good thing. Without a ton of books weighing you down, you are free to improvise and use your imagination. That's the point of this hobby, to make stuff up and have fun, no matter what game you play.

I like to collect, but I would never play with my collection - even just a single game. I like simple games, ones where we make up what happens next, and we don't have to navigate down a path of rules, treasure, or options to find something 'legal' and 'by the rules' to add to the night's festivities.

This is why Legend is so interesting for us right now. It is sort of a Traveller take on fantasy, and there isn't much in there. We are free to make most of the stuff up, and we are having a blast. With an active imagination, it is a great little game, and open for many possibilities. I don't want to sort through a thousand pages of monsters, spells, and magic items just to provide a sea of meaningless options to a game we have an idea for and want to keep it focused.

It is pretty hard to focus a D&D game on a single topic, say pirates, because there is so much stuff in the game that says "not pirates" to us. When the Drow crawl out of a cave, wizards start using teleport to skip ahead to the next port, and someone pulls out a flying carpet the players who want the focused pirates-on-the-seven-seas-experience are sitting there saying, "well...yar, I guess." Yes you can focus the game, but then you get into a game of "yes or no" on 95% of the content in the books.

So simplify.

Put away books you bought only to collect.

Focus your fun on the things that you enjoy.

You may find yourself a little happier and actually playing those games on your shelf.

D&D 5: A Cultural Icon?

From yesterday:

Why one of D&D's biggest video game devs thinks that tabletop game has lost its way

I read this, and it is an interesting read. My first thought, of course he wants to push Pathfinder, he's making a game with Paizo. That's not a surprise. But he is connected to the D&D community, the creators there, and he has a long history with the brand.

He wonders if D&D can survive in such a big corporate structure. Now, Disney is also pretty huge, but they also own other huge things and they are good at running big things, like Marvel, Pixar, the Muppets, and now Star Wars. Big companies can run big things. But can they run small things? Or do these small things need to become big?

He wonders if D&D will never be as big as an evergreen and always profitable Monopoly, and thinks if the game was run by a smaller, TSR-like entity things would be better. Part of me wonders if this isn't some frustration over the electronic gaming for the brand (which has always been locked up in one way of another), but I do feel there is a genuine feeling of concern here.

Monopoly is a different game than D&D. It's more a collection of ideas under a common theme. You can argue it is more marketing and a pop-culture phenomenon than it is a game. It's like Pokemon in a way, Pokemon can be a lot of things, and it is a product that can be turned into a million different products since it is a strong brand with identifiable pop-culture icons. Same thing with Monopoly, the Monopoly guy, the car, the board, the look, the colors, the way it's played, the shoe, chance cards, and the dog. All those pieces can be reshuffled and remixed into a billion Monopoly products.

Forever.

Now D&D.

What is it? If you strike out all the things that are not in the public domain or SRD (and thus in Pathfinder), it is the unique collection of sort-of copyrightable product identity. Beholders. Mind flayers. Owlbears. Drow. And basically anything unique to the game that can't appear anywhere else, such as the game worlds and other trademarked pieces. I don't feel those are a unique and identifiable set of cultural icons, they are just funny-shaped monsters and a couple worlds that once dominated the NYT fiction charts.

I don't feel the 'product identity' pieces of D&D will ever achieve cultural icon status. Pathfinder didn't need them, and it is hard to get excited about a monster you are supposed to hate. A beholder is no Pikachu. D&D's problem is that the 'cultural icons' are the player characters, each one is player created, unique, and it is hard to market an icon that every player creates a unique instance of. If you were playing Elminster or Ash Ketchum, fine, but D&D for every player is a unique player character.

And these player characters exist in every roleplaying game, Pathfinder, GURPS, Legend, Traveller, and so on.

D&D is not every fantasy adventure. It tries to be because it is so generic and malleable, but the same experience exists in a million other games. It exists in World of Warcraft. It exists in Game of Thrones. Assassins Creed. Any dungeon crawling game on Steam. Any Final Fantasy. You can get that D&D experience anywhere, because fantasy roleplaying is not defined by having a beholder and drows or any other piece of product identity attacking the player characters.

Those are just monsters, and they can be any monster in any world, because it doesn't matter anymore. People don't care that the creature in the next room is an 'official' D&D brand displacer beast. Again, Pathfinder proved you can create a whole new mythos to replace D&D's and people will accept it and be excited by it. They are just monsters, they are infinitely replaceable by a new shape with a scowl, fangs and horns.

The worlds are something else. Those are fiction. Those are stories. To me, they feel like a complete mess since 4th Edition, and their futures are unclear, except as being legacy supported settings with little real future support. They need a reboot badly. They need their timelines wiped out. They need a creative team to recreate them for this generation. Like Batman, they need to become cultural properties of their own, and reset from time to time to keep them relevant and fresh.

The worlds and unique NPC characters are likely the best path out of this quandary, but those exist often as a force hostile to player characters. Nobody wants powerful GM-NPCs competing with their player characters. Nobody wants railroad-like modules that force a story on a party.

Roleplaying and D&D is like a box of art supplies. You create what you want to create with it, and one crayon is as replacable than the next. It doesn't matter to your picture if your red crayon came from a box of non-Crayola brand colors. It's a crayon. You roleplay. In a fantasy world. With a set of rules. Specifics do not matter. It's a hobby.

To some, it matters that they are all Crayola crayons. Fine, if that is how you want to color your picture, it's cool. If you want to play D&D and your group enjoys the experience, very cool and more power to you. It is a good game and enjoy it. But for the huge population of players enjoying fantasy gaming and roleplaying, it is a larger community with many diverse options where everything can be played and enjoyed. As a company trying to make something in this environment "big" like Monopoly "big", I don't see how you do it since everything is so replaceable and individual-player creator-focused.

Maybe D&D has lost its way, or maybe it is still relevant and on the path, but in another way. It inspired a million other games and worlds, and on this fertile ground a garden of options and opportunities grew. As a large cultural phenomenon I can get excited about, like a Star Wars?

No. I don't feel it.

As an interesting set of rules that gives me a new option to play with others? I can handle that, along with all the other games I enjoy. "Monopoly big" really doesn't matter to me.

D&D 5: Thoughts by Feargus Urquhart on the Game

Check out this story over on Polygon about D&D 5, it is a good one by Brian Crecente interviewing Feargus Urquhart:

Why one of D&D's biggest video game devs thinks that tabletop game has lost its way

Great stuff to think about, and it is an interesting take.

D&D 5: The Past Ain't Really Better

One small thing that bothers me about how D&D 5 is being sold is the over reliance on nostalgia. Yes, I like old-school gaming. But there is a nostalgia that dungeons such as the venerable Tomb of Horrors or the Temple of Elemental Evil were somehow great dungeons that stand up to the test of time. I also like the classic settings like Grayhawk and Faerun, but another part of me feels these settings just don't hold up very well today. Do they have any cultural impact or relevance today? Are they places that speak to today's fantasy stories, or just yesterday's?

It is the danger of nostalgia. We have strong feelings about it, since this is what we grew up with. Of course the Tomb of Horrors is great, because it was great. Right? Does it speak to anyone today? Is it something the thousandth play through is as exciting as Skyrim or Minecraft is to today's game players?

I will take Skyrim and Minecraft over a deathtrap dungeon that has seen its better days in older versions of the game. The new games speak to me. They provide new challenges, force me to look at the world in different ways, and in the case of Minecraft, give me unbounded shared creativity with others. They are relevant, and they are the canvases where stories that mean things to people are told today.

Now yes, you make your own stories with D&D 5. You don't have to use the old settings and modules, and that is great. There was also a classic sense of 'role balance' in the older versions of the game that is brought up-to-date in the current edition. There is a lot of good stuff and great ideas there, and the new creative team tried to update that while still keeping a sense of creative continuity in the game's feeling. It's good, and a nod to the popularity of the OGR games that kept the faith and the original spirit of D&D alive.

So why am I restless? I guess because I want something that speaks to me. I want a new campaign setting like Planescape that shakes up how I think of D&D, and the stories I can tell with it. I want a creative team that challenges my preconceived notion of D&D being a game that is the best way to re-play nostalgia like a classic 80's arcade game collection, to something that speaks to me as a fantasy gamer today.

There's a line in the new DMG that says Game of Thrones is an inspiration, but to me, the world of Westeros isn't D&D. It just doesn't feel like it, not in this version which feels more like Pathfinder light and a greatest hits of D&D 1-4 to me - and both of those are good things, mind you. But Game of Thrones isn't everything I think a new D&D could be. It is so much more.

I feel that D&D 5 is a good game without a great setting. It is missing something, a sense of place and adventure unique to the rules and built by a creative team that challenges our assumptions of what D&D can be, and what it can mean to us.

Take a look at computer games. There was sandbox gaming and fantasy roleplaying before Minecraft and Skyrim, and sandbox and fantasy roleplaying after those games. They made such a huge impact they changed their genres forever, everything before and after will be compared to them. This is cultural impact. This is what I want in a fantasy setting.

I feel it isn't enough to redefine the past with a new set of rules and a new coat of paint on classic modules and settings. I want a game and setting that defines the future and how we speak about fantasy gaming for years to come.

Legend: Play Test Report #2

I love the random tables in this game. It harkens back to an age where roleplaying games were sort of trippy, "what happens next" sort of shared storytelling activities. We were playing around withe the excellent Pirates of Legend supplement and had a unique and entertaining ship journey full of strange encounters with other boats, storms at sea, meetings with rowboats filled with cheap wine, and fun little "the tables did what?" moments that gave us a great time.

Who cares that it didn't make much sense? It was fun.

The book actually tells you to ignore the charts if they ruined your game or didn't make much sense. This gave me the opportunity (like a great game master) to ignore the advice the book gives you and just run with it. If it didn't make sense, all the better. Our game world is now  full of strange little encounters on the open sea, meetings with ships that could possibly be pirates, and other nationalities sailing about and a sense of "what could happen next?" when the players take a trip by ship to anywhere. It was quirky and silly and my players loved it.

The game-mastering section for this game is short and almost inconsequential. This game really needs a better game master guide. It is so short I wonder why it was even put in, I feel this is one of those "if you can't do it correctly, don't do it" type of things.  The game is unique in that it should focus on community, family, and social bonds (and in some way for us it does), but the short section at the end of the book isn't long or detailed enough to drive that point home and show us how it should be played.

We are having more fun with Legend as a "Traveller random chart fantasy adventure" type of game honestly. Contrast this with most adventure modules written for D&D 5 or Pathfinder. They are heavily story-based and expect you to 'play along' with the adventure writer's vision. You get into issues like player motivation, interest in finishing it, and railroading with strict story-based adventures.

With the game run by random event charts, the world feels like a sandbox. My players are motivated enough to find their own way through the world, and they are already taking sides, aligning themselves with factions, making allies and enemies, and planning for the future. With the lack of a story, my players are creating one themselves. Yes, I have great players, but this also highlights that giving players a little freedom lets them do the things that interest them.

If they want to go off and be pirates, go ahead. If they want to go off and hunt pirates, that's fine by me too. Get in good graces with the island governors on the British, Spanish, French, or other sides? You go guys, run with it. I don't have a story to run on you, and you are free to explore this strange and wonderful world as far as your sails will take you.

Legend: Play Test Report #1

We had some fun with the Legend system over the weekend, and I wanted to share our experiences.

The combat system is fun to play and run, it has this 'medieval armor simulation' thing going on, and it also allows for way more player involvement than your standard D&D or Pathfinder combat. It does feel like combat is very old-school with hit locations and sectional hit points, but we were amazed at the constant choices the game gave you when it came to offensive and defensive special moves.

Players had choice in how they wanted a blow to land, or what special way they wanted to put an enemy at a disadvantage. Enemies had this choice as well, which makes the game very deadly and tactical. It all depends on skill and being able to get a roll good enough to start pushing the combat the way you wanted it to go, with the possibility out there of a lucky hit sending your entire plan into the garbage bin.

My players preferred it instantly to D&D and Pathfinder's combat system, and had a lot more fun with it the first couple fights.

I can see this system not surviving players used to D&D on the first night, it is shocking to see your "average Joe" go down in one hit. It is also very satisfying to dispatch an goblin with a bonk to the head with a club, knocking the monster out. It is a system that takes time to learn and get good at, and there is a point where you know how it works but not how to be great in it that could lead you down the path of frustration.

As a simulation-ist combat system, it is a blast and incredibly fun to play and learn. It also is an eye-opener for players used to the "hit it and forget it" style of D&D, where atomic rolls happen and have little lasting impact other than taking the enemy's hit points down by a couple points.

And then we hit a small snag.

We had an issue where a player reported he felt he needed armor to survive, and felt the game forced him down that path. This was a tough one to deal with, because of the simulation-ist nature of the game, of course you need armor. It was true then in combat, and it is true today. But it didn't fit his character concept of an Assassin's Creed style character to start dolling up in plate armor. But this character got taken down in a single blow because he wasn't wearing armor. But isn't that realistic? But is that fun? But that's how this game works, and to be honest, D&D forces you to wear the best armor as well. But I don't like feeling forced to wear plate armor for a game benefit. But soldiers need armor and helmets! But I feel something is wrong, and I am being forced into this. But your character is an average low-level guy. But it still feels wrong.

You can see where this went.

Stealthy lightly-armored assassins are possible in this game, but I got the feeling this type of character only opens up at higher levels of play. You are not going to start out a ninja in this game, and you will be lucky to survive your first encounter with rats. If you are fighting anything intelligent with weapons and smarts, be prepared for a 50-50 fight if you are matched in numbers. This is very much a "medieval weapon simulator" at low levels, and you need to don the ye olde armored vest and helm in order to survive. It feels a lot like Warhammer Fantasy in that regards.

Part of it feels like a collision between not knowing the combat options well enough to be able to survive, and having a lower-level character in play who frankly can't survive being hit with a wet rat on a stick. This is one of those common points when learning a roleplaying game where you understand the dicing and game systems, but not much about how the rules can help you survive. It is that 'deadly phase' where you do all sorts of stupid stuff later on you would laugh at (if you are still playing the game and didn't get discouraged), and this takes real effort to get over and achieve that golden chalice of 'system mastery'.

This is also the time where players flee back to other games and go with what they know and feels right. It is the danger of unfamiliarity, and wanting to play a game that gives that immediate gratification and supports notions of character concepts as seen in video games, TV, and movies. If a game supports the notion of the Assassin's Creed character better and easier (at low level) than this game does, then that game is a better game. Right?

There's a danger in fantasy that caters to fantasy, where the fantasy is so divorced from reality that some player's notion of what's real becomes the fantasy.

For a game that is more focused on delivering a semi-realistic experience such as Legend, it is a problem. Expectations are all out of whack, and players come into the game expecting what they see in video games and in the movies to be the 'game reality'. This applies to in-game choices, such as an expectation of all armor choices to be of equal value, even 'no armor' versus plate. Video games give us this option and put clear benefits behind wearing no armor, such as increased movement, dodge rates, and a package of other benefits making the 'no armor' choice equally attractive when compared to 'full armor'. If it is this way in Call of Duty then it should work the same way in tabletop games, right?

But you get on a real-life IRL battlefield a thousand years ago or today, and the notion of 'no armor' being a equal and valid choice to adequate protection starts to seem pretty silly. Yes, some soldiers are lighter armored than others on every battlefield, but the ones up on the front lines (in every age) typically wore good stuff. To be fair, Legend has some benefits for the 'no armor' choice, but still, armor is generally a good thing to have, and this comes from real life medieval warfare simulation and history.

But it is a fantasy game!

But this game is supposed to be realistic.

But games are supposed to be fun! Realism does not equal fun.

I like realistic combat simulators, in both RPGs and computer games. There is a tactical challenge you are trying to overcome, an impossible world you are trying to survive in, and a set of behaviors you are bleeding through in order to beat the system and come out on top. I am reminded of classic games like X-Com, Jagged Alliance, and others that gave you those tough and deadly choices to make, and many hard lessons to learn. Easier games may give you that 'feels good' easy-mode story and action focused experience with the same weapons and scenarios, but this doesn't 'feel right' to me.

I like story-based and action-based games for lighthearted fun and movie-like entertainment as well. But I like hard-core tactical realism also.

It is a problem I don't feel we are going to get past with this game. I hope we do, because I like the system a lot. I just see other games being easier for players to get their 'expected fantasy experience' from, and Legend becoming an interesting experiment.

Maybe it's me as a referee, maybe I am playing this too hard-core. Maybe I should be fudging dice rolls, or handing out tons of hero points to spend for cinematic action. A hero point can take the place of a helmet in this game, so maybe players should have that many to throw around.

And so it goes. I think the real issue here is my expectations as a referee versus my player's expectations as fantasy gamers.