Would You Like to Play a Game? -- Hasbro's Original D&D Collector Box is a Part of a Corporate Vision

The new Original Edition D&D Premium Reprint from Wizards of the Coast is truly a wonder to behold, and it gives the buyer a good glimpse at Hasbro's D&D corporate strategy moving forward.  I'll discuss this a bit more in a minute, but first let's just have a look at the box.

The original three D&D booklets were sold as a part of a collector's edition which featured either a woodgrain box (super rare) or a white box (the version I have at home), and this new edition comes in an engraved wooden box that I found to be pretty spectacular.

One of the nice little features that stood out as a real highlight for me was the reflective image on the inside of the box top. Wizards/Hasbro could have let the wood alone speak for the product, and that would have been great, but this Wizardly image really sets a nice tone.

Here you get a glimpse of what the box looks like when the booklets are stored within. Notice the red ribbon? That ribbon will allow you to remove the 7 paper saddle stitched books without damaging the edges, this is a nice bit of design that like LORDS OF WATERDEEP demonstrates a significant amount of thought has been put into both presentation and utility.

The box itself contains the original 3 booklets as well as all four of the eventual supplements that were published for the original D&D game. This new edition provides new cover art for all of the booklets. The Eldritch Wizardry cover that freaked my neighbor out so much when I was a kid is no longer present, instead there is a picture of a Wizard summoning tentacles. This would probably still upset said neighbor, but it is a less controversial image. And the old cover is one that would stir up some serious discussions on my Facebook feed where the battle lines of some Lamentations of the Flame Princess fans would do virtual battle with some of the Athena Anthology supporters would debate its appropriateness. I won't enter that fray as I am a fan of LotFP and of many of the Progressive game design that has been created over the past few years. Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the Eldritch Wizardry cover, the Greyhawk cover is a beauty.

Covers aside, there is plenty to discuss regarding the interiors of the booklets which are unchanged from the original -- or largely unchanged. Part of me thinks this is endearing as it lets gamers see the art that inspired a 40 year old hobby. The other part of me thinks that if they were going to redo any of the art, they might as well have replaced the interior art. There are talented artists who could have done chiaroscuro work that was an homage to the old art, but didn't look like doodles that ...well...I drew. Then again, that might just be the point. Anyone is a good enough artist to draw visual monsters for their home campaign. All you need is suspension of disbelief.

There is no inclusion of the Chainmail rules set here, so you will have to play D&D using the "optional" combat system presented in the first booklet. Thankfully, that system was the basis for the modern d20 engine and can be easily learned by the modern gamer. Or, rather it can be created rather easily by the modern gamer as this game is nigh unplayable by itself without some interpretation and house rules. This is why there were articles written and an explosion of alternate RPGs. The modern gamer has 40 years of interpretation, precedent, and house rules to work with so we can actually use these rules, but I do warn you that they are a bit different from what you might be used to.

Which brings me to the point I hinted at during the opening paragraph. This product points to Hasbro's new corporate strategy -- or rather a better tactical application of their long time strategy -- they want to have "a D&D experience for every gamer at your table." They make this abundantly clear with an advertising flier containing that very quote. In the past, the tactic used by Hasbro to advance the strategy of "a D&D for everyone" was an attempt to create a "perfect D&D" that was balanced, appealed to old gamers, and was hip for new gamers. This was what 4th edition was trying to be, a D&D for everyone. That tactic failed. It insulted some gamers and further fractured the customer base.

The new tactic is very different and is what Hasbro should have been doing all along. That tactic is to provide products with D&D Intellectual Property and Brand that match the needs of various gamers.

Want old school games?

Cool. Hasbro will release old rule books in collectors editions and pdfs. You can play D&D as it was originally played.

Want to play 2nd through 4th edition? 

Those are being supported too in different ways.

Interested in D&D Next our new rules set that is a combination of old and new school design and fairly easily converted between editions?

That will be coming out this year.

Are you a Eurogamer?

Have you seen LORDS OF WATERDEEP?

Wargamer?

Have you seen CONQUEST OF NERATH?

Casual RPG/Board Gamer?

Our Ravenloft, Ashardalon, and Drizzt game is just right for you.

New to gaming?

Try DUNGEON out.

The same is true for video games etc. and I think that this is a wonderful approach by Hasbro. The games they have been designing to support their IP have been excellent. RAVENLOFT and LORDS OF WATERDEEP have been played several times by my group over the past two years and the digital app version of WATERDEEP is looking pretty compelling to me.

So how about it? Would you like to play a game?

Roleplaying and Player vs. Player Conflict

Everyone who has played a role playing game has at some point experienced sessions, or even campaigns, that contain Player vs. Player conflict.  When it comes to MMORPGs, there are some who claim that Player vs. Player is their favorite mode of play.  There are even Pen and Paper RPGs that have Player vs. Player treachery as the primary motivating factor for the game -- PARANOIA I'm looking at you.  There is definitely a time and a place for PvP play, it can be highly rewarding.  Much of the game industry is based on the assumption that the players will be playing against one another and not cooperatively.

One of the major innovations of RPGs was that they stressed player cooperation rather than competition.  A fact that many DMs didn't take enough to heart in the early days.  Which brings to mind how important it is to understand what your players expect from a game, and how to set expectations to minimize disappointment if a group has decided to embark on a PvP campaign experience.  After all, who hasn't lost a friend or two over a game of DIPLOMACY due to a breaking of that game's "magic circle" when someone used real world commitments/obligations to shape outcomes in the game.




Which brings me to the point of this post.  Player vs. Player conflict can be great in a game, but "inner party" strife can ruin a game.  If the players of a game are expecting this: 

And they get this as a part of adventure design:

You can end up with some very disappointed players.

I recently had this occur during a recent season of D&D Encounters (The Council of Spiders adventure).  The module is set up so that the characters distrust one another and have conflicting objectives.  To add to the intraparty conflict, WotC released "Treachery" cards that can be used during play.  The treachery cards cause bad things to happen to your fellow players -- or take advantage of bad things already happening to them -- and give you a benefit.  The intention is to create a sense of paranoia and drama.  It's a decent goal, but it can end with disappointed players.

This is due to a couple of reasons:

1. Player expectations -- Many people play RPGs because they want a collaborative experience where they work with others to achieve objectives.
2. Mary Sue Syndrome -- The descriptor might sound derogatory.  Don't take it that way.  Many players are playing romanticized versions of themselves.  This is true even when they aren't playing a character who seems remotely like themselves.  Players care about their characters and they want control over them.  When PvP erupts in an RPG it often makes a player feel threatened...and by other players no less.  This can lead "at the table" conflict to leave the magic circle of play and bleed over into real life.  This isn't good, and unless you're playing PARANOIA this is a real risk.  Let me restate this again.  Players play characters again and again because they like them.  If they perceive that character is being directly threatened, they may take it as a slight against themselves.
3. Most Players Don't Really Suspend Disbelief -- What separates good actors from bad actors?  One trait is the ability of good actors -- even ones who aren't "transformed" in each role -- is there ability to immerse themselves in a role and completely separate themselves from the actions of the character.  Most gamers aren't good actors.  The veil of suspended belief is thin.  They are usually not roleplaying.  They often take "roleplayed" moments more seriously than they should.  As a DM, I have roleplayed NPCs who were jerks to one or more players.  I have often had to go out of my way to let players -- who thought I was beating up on them -- know that it was only the character behaving this way, that I was acting.  This surprises some players as they expect you to do something like say "so and so says" rather than for you to affect a voice and act it out straight.
4. Metagaming -- Players will use information they don't have against their peers.  Did the Evil High Priest secretly tell player A to plant evidence that player B was a member of an evil cult?  Guess what.  If there has been time between sessions, player B will begin looking for that evidence.  This is true even if player B would have no idea the planting of evidence is occurring.  They will act on player information and be hurt when they are called on it.  Why?  See #3 and #4. Ask me about a Vampire LARP experience regarding this kind of conflict where players teamed up against a storyteller's character -- an Antediluvian Settite -- because characters were acting on player knowledge.   They had a big gathering.  Every vampire in the session knew the guy was a Settite.  Everyone.  Even though his power was to make people do stuff without knowing who told them to or why.  They were supposed to think it was their own idea.  It took some very skilled ad libbing from a co-storyteller to transform the narrative into making this "trial" the key piece of action.  The action was supposed to be around the Prince.  But people didn't want to "hurt" their friends, so they acted on player knowledge and reworked a whole narrative.  It worked.  No one's feelings were hurt, but it was still a mess. 

In my opinion, Player vs. Player conflict can be a powerful narrative tool.  After all, the source of all DRAMA is conflict.  Thing is in player vs. player conflict -- that isn't entirely pre-scripted and then acted out line by line by actors but is actually played -- things can get messy.  They often do get messy.  I would argue that setting up cases of player conflict should be rare.  I might even recommend avoiding them altogether.  You'll have a happier table, even if it is one that misses out on some "dramatic opportunities."

What Every Gamer Should Know About Probability

Given that most analog games -- whether role playing games or table top games -- use some form of randomizer in their determination of successful or unsuccessful outcomes, every gamer should have at least a basic understanding of probability and statistics.  One doesn't need learn enough to become a professor of statistics or a professional poker player, but if you have an opportunity to take an intro to statistics class I highly recommend it.

If you cannot afford either the time or the money to take a class on statistics, I recommend Reiner Knizia's "Dice Games Properly Explained" and "Scarne On Dice."  Both of these books have excellent chapters discussing dice and how to determine probabilities of outcomes.  These are vital books, especially if you wish to become a game designer.  I find that the biggest weakness of many games is the designer's lack of understanding of basic statistics (or bad application of them when the designer does have an understanding), or a failure to explain the underlying statistical engine of a game to the players.  The Dream Park role playing game by Mike Pondsmith is an example of an otherwise great game that has some serious statistics problems in its basic mechanics, and the otherwise brilliant Feng Shui game does a poor job of stating flat out that the average bonus toward success that a player's given die roll provides is zero.  For proper play, games like these either need tweaking or careful adventure design by the game master.  This is especially true in Feng Shui where the addition of a "mere" 3 points to a villains attributes/skills can significantly affect probabilities.  For example...did you know that in all "balanced" encounters in 4e Dungeons and Dragons, that level is essentially a meaningless construct?  Since the players and monsters advance on the same linear path, To hit = x + level, Defense = y + level, Skill DC = x + level...the probabilities set at first level essentially remain true throughout the game.  Only the length of combat changes.

Let me be the first to admit that I am no professor of statistics myself.  I have taken three courses on statistics, which makes me good enough at them to make stupid mistakes in algorithm designs but hopefully smart enough to admit when I've made a mistake.  This is one of the reason I often harass other gamers, who are in fact professors of statistics, to either review my stuff or to help design an analysis.  When I do have stuff reviewed, it tends to be very good.  When I don't...invariably there is an error.  Ugh.

This is because statistics aren't always intuitive.  One of the questions that Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has researched throughout his career is whether we have an "innate" or "subconscious" ability to make probabilistic determinations.  In his excellent book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman gives a nice overview of his life's work on the human mind's ability to count, make correlations, detect patterns, and whether we are good at "intuitive" statistics.  What he found, and others, is that the human capacity to recognize patterns and to make associations also makes us very poor at intuitive statistics.  Our mind can at a split second -- and without effort -- make all kinds of calculations and recognize associations, but to accurately figure out probabilities takes work.  Our very ability to make associations works against the skills needed to apply statistics.  Thankfully, we are good at analytical thought -- but that takes more effort than our associative abilities.

One of the key ways that our ability to recognize and induct from patterns, a wonderfully useful skill, is in the "law of averages."  There is no such thing.  It seems like there should be, but there isn't.  If the random events are independent of one another -- meaning that prior acts don't affect future ones -- it doesn't matter how many times you've flipped a coin and had it turn out to be heads.  The play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead plays with this concept wonderfully.

In fact, game designer and podcaster extraordinaire Geoff Engelstein has a nice discussion of this misleading "law" that often infects our minds as gamers.

Note that all of the above applies to the use of dice -- or other independent randomizers -- and not to the use of cards.  Cards aren't independent in their randomization.  What cards have been used affects what cards remain available -- but that is a discussion for another post.

ePawn: One Step Closer to an Affordable Digital Game Board

Even before I first saw the video of Carnegie Mellon students using the Microsoft Surface to play roleplaying games, I have been genuinely excited about the potential to have a fully interactive digital game board to use in my role playing an board gaming experiences.  The amount of storage space taken up with "dungeon tiles" and terrain on my gaming shelves is more than I'd like.  It includes cardboard tiles, printed cardstock tiles, and actual terrain pieces.  It would be nice to have a playing surface that projected the images, and only have to have 3-D terrain pieces on my shelf.

The main problem so far seems to be affordability, but based on this article at Tech Crunch affordability seems to be approaching.  The new ePawn pad plans to provide a decent playing area (26") for $400.   It also looks like it would be a great surface to play some of those app transitioned board games like "Small World."

What are your thoughts? Are you looking forward to integrated digital/physical gaming?

[Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D] Monster Manual 3 on a Business Card

One of the most frequent assertions you will read throughout my "Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D" columns is that levels don't matter.  The reason that this is true is that the game is designed to have the same level of risk for the characters no matter the level they have attained.  A 1st level character fighting level appropriate characters is just as likely to perish as a 30th level character fighting against foes of his or her level.

The game features a static risk profile, meaning that characters must always have some level of concern for their survival.  This is partially mitigated by the fact that the characters are fairly durable at all levels, but the level of danger always remains.  This is a good thing.  It also means that once you understand the underlying intentions of the game, and the math, it is very easy to run a 4e game without having characters actually gain levels beyond a certain point.


I will be writing a lot about this in the weeks to come and that writing will be presenting some of the underlying assumptions of the "power level" of characters and monsters.  Character power levels will be based on the recent Essentials products.  I am choosing them because while they are not "optimized" to the point of maxing out every possible point of damage from the system, they provide a nice base line for mechanical assumptions.  I will also be using the monster building information from the Monster Manual 3 update -- which you can read on page 7 of this document.  Even better, you can check out the Blog of Holding website where the author has taken all of the information in the MM3 update and condensed it into information that can fit on one side of a business card. 

That's right, you can build any monster you want -- for any level of foe- with nothing more than 8 lines of text.  That's pretty awesome, and that's how simple 4e is.  The only thing that the card lacks is how much damage an ongoing effect should do -- that's 5 hit points per tier of creature by the way -- and what special effects can be added to a given power.  That doesn't really matter though, because if you want a power to "daze" or "stun" or "push" an opponent you just have the attack do that (and possibly reduce the damage 25% to represent that effect).

[Rethinking 4e -- Freeform D&D] Diceless Skill Challenges

I recently visited one of my favorite gaming blogs Playing D&D with NSFW -- that's not the actual name of the site, and the site is surprisingly safe for work given its name -- and entered into a discussion with Zak who runs the site.


To make things brief, Zak reviewed The Slaying Stone, one of the modules for the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons that has come out in the past year or so.  Of the modules recently released by Wizards, The Slaying Stone has received some fairly positive reviews for the way it gives more freedom than many modern modules.  The module isn't as linear as many of Wizards, or Paizo's, offerings and is a nice move toward more open settings -- especially considering how linear most 3rd edition and 4th edition modules have been.  


While others may have been happy with the "open-ended" nature of the module, Zak was very critical.  Most of his points are valid, but most also apply to any written module.  Then again, Zak wants DMs to be more DIY than many are/can be.  His vision is that players be given freeform and interactive gaming experiences from their DMs, a vision that combines art and game in a way that would make Greg Stafford proud.  To put it another way, DMs are people with imaginations and not computers that are limited by the programmed choices they are given and they should act that way.


I get it.  I even agree...to a point.  Share that attitude in the Savage Worlds community and you'll get some support, but you'll also get blank stares from the working/gradschool attending/ fathers who make up a good part of that community.  They'll tell you that professional modules are a boon to their gaming livelihoods.  


I was fine with all of Zak's criticism of the module, until he wrote the following quote, "Because it [The Slaying Stone] demonstrates even with an author with the best will in the world making a conscious effort not to write a railroad the basic requirements of new D&D push published modules in the more-sucking direction."




In essence, Zak is stating that 4e's mechanics require that the game's adventures must follow certain rules.  That  is complete and utter balderdash, and this series of Rethinking 4e posts -- however slowly they come out -- is dedicated to eliminating that assumption.   [Edited after great clarifying exchange with Zak over on his blog -- additions are in italics below.]


Zak is criticizing WotC's module writing guidelines here as articulated on page 31 of The Slaying Stone, but there are those who would point to pages 189 and 202 of the Essential Dungeon Master's Book or pages 57 and 104 of the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide and argue that the phenomenon is endemic of the entire edition of the game.  They would argue that the rules of 4e make all adventures predictable and identical.  If it takes 8 - 10 encounters to gain a level and those encounters are all based on experience point "budgets," DMs are hindered.

Those who take Zak's criticism of module writing and extend it to how the game "must be played" are taking things too far.  

As Zak writes in his piece:

"Type IV DMs can run whatever adventures they want (just like everybody else) but if they want to get them published they have a ton of hurdles to jump."

His criticism is limited to writing for published modules, and rightly so.  WotC wants their modules written to the Rules as Written, and those are written with "safety wheels." 

Zak, and those who agree with him, Those who take the argument further than Zak are mistaking all of the "safety wheels" of 4e for the actual rules of the game.  You see, 4e has safety wheels all over the place.  From the way powers are written to the Essentials approach to the use of clearly articulated cards that instruct players how "powers" work, the game is set up for any DM to be able to walk into a random room of 5 people and to get them all playing the game within 10 minutes.  This is any random room.  No one other than the DM will need any gaming experience, or to have read any of the rules.  With its "safety wheels" 4e is quite simply one of the two easiest role playing games to teach ever written.


Rethinking 4e is about getting beyond these "safety wheels" and straight to the rules.  When you do that, a couple of amazing things happen.  First, levels almost completely disappear from the game.  I'll post on that in a later post, but suffice to say that since the danger level of the game is static throughout the level scaling that levels are now fluff.  Second, the game is extremely simple and free form.  Players may "want" to roll for skill challenges, but they don't have to.  Third, this game is easy and elegant.  It is elegant in a way that Fudge or FATE or Burning Wheel are elegant.  Fourth, it is ideal for creating storytelling games where "role playing" overpowers "roll playing," though it certainly allows for the latter as well.  


So...let's get to the "safety wheel" I want to address in this post...Skills and Skill Challenges.  Skill Challenges are one of the hardest things for people to grasp in the 4e system.  So much of the game seems centered on structured play that when you get to the Skills and Skill Challenges section where it essentially tells GMs to force players to create narrative that many people react in shock.  Skill Challenges almost seem out of place.  They belong in games like Burning Wheel, Mage the Ascension, and My Life with Master not in a "combat" game like 4e.  Players get so caught up in looking at 4e as a descendant of 3e/3.x that they forget that it is also a descendant of every role playing game ever written.  D&D has influenced every other role playing game, but many other rpgs have influenced 4e.  


Nowhere is that more apparent than the Skill Challenge, where players are asked to present ideas to solve a problem by using their skills.  Any player may use any Skill -- whether they are trained or not.  There are only small limitations on how skills may be used if untrained, only a couple of the skills have uses that can only be done by those trained in the skill.  For example, you can only "detect magic" and see the forces of magic flow through the world if you are Trained in Arcana.  But you can still use Arcana to cast a malevolent ritual if you are untrained.  You are less likely to succeed, but you can still try.  


The problem is that every Skill Challenge presents a list of sample Skills that can be used and Sample Difficulty Classes for those attempts.  They also provide information about what succeeding at those attempts mean.  Some read these as the "only" things that can be done that matter...that would be wrong.  That would be playing the game like a computer.  You are a DM, reward creativity.  Make stuff up.  It's okay.  Let the players use Skills in creative ways.  Look at the Skill Challenge to see what can be done and if a player finds another way of doing it, let them try.  


In fact...I recommend trying it without dice at all.  


Huh?  What?!  No dice, but that cannot be done!


Yes.  Yes it can. 


You see, there are two kinds of people in 4e, trained and untrained.  Anyone can attempt any action, but trained people are much better at things related to their skill.  


How much better?


In 4e players are expected to have a 65% chance of succeeding at an "Easy" Skill Challenge of their level.  What "of their level" means is up to the DM, but amounts to 1st level characters can hide from normal guards and 30th level characters can possibly hide from powerful arcanists with means of detecting infiltrators.  Low level characters can long jump 7 feet and Epic characters are straight out of Wuxia.  


By the way, that's any character -- trained or untrained -- who has a 65% chance of succeeding on an Easy challenge.  What about trained characters?  If they have a good statistic in the area, say Strength for Athletics checks, then they succeed 100% of the time.  A "natural 1" is meaningless on a Skill Check.    The difficulty of an "Easy" check at 1st level is 8.  You need to roll an 8 or better on a twenty-sided die, after modifiers.  A trained individual adds 5 to their roll, so only needs a 3 or better.  That means they only need to have a 14 in the related statistic to be able to succeed on an "Easy" task 100% of the time.  


A "Moderate" check requires a 12 or better, which means it is designed for a person with an 18 or higher in the related statistic to have a 65% chance to succeed (an 18 in a statistic adds +4 to rolls).  A trained person with no stat has a 70% chance and with an 18 has a 90% chance of success.  All of this is without help from friends, or the right equipment, or any number of other things that could alter the number.


A "Hard" check requires a 19 or better to succeed.  This means that an average person has a 10% chance of success, a high stat person has a 30% chance of success (15 or better for the 18 statistic).  A person who is trained, and has a high stat, has a 55% chance of success.  If that person has a +2 bonus from background or race, very likely given that "Hard" checks are supposed to be for those who are the best at what they do, then they have a 65% chance of success.


Though I provided the difficulty numbers for 1st level, it doesn't matter if the test is higher.  Why?  Because the difficulty increases scale with the assumed improvements of the characters as they go up in level.  In other words, levels don't matter for skill checks.


All that matters is the difficulty you want to set.  Is the test something that everyone in the group is capable of doing (Easy), something only the physically/mentally capable or trained are capable of doing easily (Moderate), or something that only the best of the best can do when conditions are right and their approach is good (Hard).  And in that description comes a hint as to how you can do Skill Challenges without rolling dice -- unless someone happens to want to know who does something "better" when they have equal ability.


If you want to run a diceless skill challenge.  First decide on the difficulties of doing certain actions.  Is finding the clue/jumping the chasm Easy, Moderate, or Hard based on the above criteria?  


Once you know that, have the players describe what they are doing as they use the ability and use that description in the place of the die roll.  The more difficult the task is for a particular individual, the more specific and elaborate they must be about how they are achieving their goal.  The low stat and untrained player can describe how his or her character is meticulously examining a crime scene, using their real world experience as a mystery novelist to aid them, and you can use that in the place of the roll.  That is, if you want the game to be about "player skill" rather than "character ability."  If you want to balance the two, you allow reasonable but within character explanations.  An unintelligent character isn't likely to examine a scene like a forensic investigator, so how would that character succeed at a "Hard" action?  They likely wouldn't, that's what training is for -- trained versus untrained.  If they happen to come up with a wild and creative way of achieving the task, then let them succeed but it is more likely that they follow the instructions of a skilled individual and "aid" that character.


Here are some guidelines for adjudicating Skill Challenges without dice, based on the difficulty and the stats/training of those attempting to use a skill.

Difficulty	Low Stat & Untrained	High Stat or Trained	High Stat & Trained
Easy	Moderate Detail	Any Plausible	Automatic
Moderate	Highly Detailed	Moderate Detail	Any Plausible
Hard	Improbable	Highly Detailed	Moderate Detail

Looking at the chart above, the DM could set the difficulty and allow the players to describe their actions and adjudicate success based on the solutions offered by the players.  Given that the players are, at some level, supposedly role playing the character on their sheet (meaning that a low intelligence character shouldn't act like a super genius), any offerings should be made within the context of the character's implied limitations.  

Taking the character's "persona" into account, the DM could adjudicate the investigation of a room by asking the players to explain what they are doing as they look for clues.  Let's say one character lacks training or Wisdom, one is a Wise Cleric, and the other is a high Wisdom Thief with training in Perception.  The players should describe their attempt in ways that are appropriate to their "persona," but if the check is easy and the non-Wise character give a moderately detailed description of what they are attempting you can reward that character with a clue that could "easily" be found.  The same goes for the other characters.

Key here is to make sure that the players are portraying their characters, and to reward them if they do.  If the low stat and untrained character has a player describe in wonderful and hilarious detail how they accomplish a task that is nigh-impossible, you can let them succeed.  The player will be happy, and the group will be entertained.  If it is a wonderful description, that doesn't quite fit with even an "improbable" description, then use this as a chance to have the character fail "spectacularly."  Don't punish good role play, but don't necessarily give success either.  The character might fail in an interesting way, a way that requires a High Stat & Trained character to provide a wonderfully detailed description of how they help the other character. 

This is a chance to really make the game far more free form, and it fits well within the rules.  Remember, all things being equal and routine a character has a 65% chance of performing a challenge of equal level so long as they have the right kind of character for the job.  You could even get rid of "stat values" if you wanted and replace them with descriptors and it would work easily.

But that is a discussion for another time.

G4 Unboxes "Conquest of Nerath"

I am really looking forward to the release of Wizards of the Coast's next board game Conquest of Nerath later this month. I am not only a fan of big box Axis and Allies style board games, but I want to see the "points of light" setting for the D&D 4th Edition game become more developed -- and it looks like this board game will continue Wizards' recent exercise of adding depth to that world.

One of the biggest mistakes that Wizards made with the release of 4e was the lack of focus on a setting with sufficient depth to form a meaningful connection with players. The reported reason for the vagueness of the setting was that it would allow DMs to create more of their own worlds and use the open "points of light" setting as a sandbox. In reality this concept may have appealed to a few gamers, but I believe it cost Wizards greatly. Recently, they have begun to increase the richness of the setting.

First, in the excellent Tiefling and Dragonborn sourcebooks -- products that weren't particularly successful in the market in part due to the fact that DMs had no way of knowing how much rich fluff these products were offering. This is especially true given the relative lightness of fluff in early core products.

Second, in the growing series of books based in the "points of light" setting. The books suffer from a lack of being able to draw on a rich setting, but each book adds more depth to the setting. As I mentioned earlier, reading the books is like watching world building in progress.

Third, products like the upcoming Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale are filled with rich narrative details -- the kinds of details that should have been in the game from the beginning.

One of the key reasons players enjoy sandboxing around Paizo's Golarion is because the setting has a rich, deep, and strong IP in which to play around. Wizards is finally making the "points of light" setting a richer place.

The G4 box opening makes the game look good, and I'm even more excited about the product itself. I saw a d12 being used and anything that uses d12s automatically gets a boost in my book, which is one reason why I own all the Rogue Games stuff.

You can ignore the last minute of the video where the staff of G4 pretend to play the game.

Game Trailers - E3 2011

Combat Maneuvers in 4th Edition D&D

One of the chief innovations of the 3rd Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons role playing game was the incorporation of robust mechanics for combat maneuvers. Earlier editions of D&D had vague rules for parrying blows, but little to no guidance with regard to how your character could disarm an opponent or trip a foe. To be fair, some products featured what I would call "patchwork" fixes that allowed for these activities (case in point the D&D "Master's Set" for the Mentzer edition), but the mechanics didn't seem organic to the system. With 3rd edition, this changed. The maneuvers weren't always easy to accomplish for all characters, and often contained a "feat tax" to perform them without consequences, but they were clearly defined and articulated.

Paizo's Pathfinder role playing game took the basic mechanics of the combat maneuvers in 3.5 and expanded them, clarified them, and aided Gamemasters by adding listings for "Combat Maneuver Defense" and "Combat Maneuver Bonus" which helped to speed up calculations during play. They also made some small adjustments to the system.

The combat maneuvers -- other than basic strikes -- that 3.x and Pathfinder presented mechanics for include: Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint. Each of these can add some narrative dynamics to combat that empower players to control the "story" of how combat takes place and they add to the excitement of the combat experience.

A chief complaint is that 4th Edition is that the system lacks a robust system like that presented in 3.x -- in fact it is one of the complaints I hear most frequently about 4e. The typical response to those who make this complaint is that the "basic combat maneuvers" of 3.x and Pathfinder are difficult to achieve without appropriate feats and that 4e "solved this" by incorporating the effects of most of these maneuvers into the "powers/maneuvers" of the classes for which these maneuvers are appropriate. After all, the line of argument goes, making a grappling mage in 3.x/Pathfinder isn't an easy thing to do -- the feat tax "trap" and the method of calculating basic attacks -- meant that it was primarily Fighters who were good at these maneuvers.

Both the complaint and the answer are deeply flawed and don't accurately represent the problem or solution. The problem isn't that the system lacks a robust system for using these maneuvers, nor is the solution that they've incorporated the maneuvers into powers/exploits of the various classes. The problem is that 4e does have the mechanics, and they even show you how to use them on page 42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, but that they only clearly articulate the rules for a couple of them and expect that DMs will follow the advice on page 42 for the remaining maneuvers -- or extrapolate them from the information contained in the rule books.

This is a problem of rule book drafting philosophy. As role playing games have grown as a hobby, many rules systems have become more specific in how combat maneuvers and abilities are expressed. In a manner of speaking, the mechanics of the game systems have become more like computer program subroutines and have become less subject to "DM interpretations" that may differ from group to group. The pinnacle of this style of mechanical subroutine presentation are the Hero System and GURPS, but 3.5 wasn't far behind. A key advantage to these systems is that groups can do narrative combat actions using the Rules As Written (RAW) rather than the Rules As Intended or even the Rules As Interpreted. This kind of design doesn't end rules arguments at gaming tables, but it does lessen them from the days of "rulings rather than rules." Neither the "rulings instead of rules" or "rules instead of rulings" philosophies are superior to the other, but each has its advocates and 3.x was pretty heavily on the "rules instead of rulings" side.

Surprisingly, to those who might think otherwise, 4e has a heavy "rules instead of rulings" philosophy. So much so that some gamers think of 4e as a board game or miniatures war game more than a role playing game. But the game also has a heavy -- and deep -- "rulings instead of rules" philosophy. The game tried to have the best of both worlds. It wanted the rules stability, balance, and statistical predictability of a game like Feng Shui -- where the "average" result of a character's action against a difficulty number is equal to their skill/ability score -- but they also wanted the narrative flow of a game like The Burning Wheel or Savage Worlds. In fact, once you understand the underlying math of the game it can be played entirely using the "Skill Challenge" system without ever using the combat rules -- but that is another post entirely.

The 4th Edition of D&D has a great deal of advice for playing with RAW, but they have moved beyond "Rules as Intended" or "Rules as Interpreted" and have many "Rules as Possible" which are a combination of written and interpreted rules that allow for DMs to recreate the maneuvers from the prior edition without ever creating new rules systems. To do it well, a DM does need to understand the underlying math of combat, but 4e has a pretty simple and a very static (from level to level) system. This is the game's greatest strength -- it makes designing balanced encounters easy -- and its greatest weakness.

The game provides specific examples for how Bull Rush and Grapple work in 4e, and they provide the mechanics for the rest -- but they never construct those remaining maneuvers. Page 42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide gives specific guidance on how to construct the maneuvers, but the specifics are left to the DM to construct.

The basic 4e combat math is as follows. Monsters will have an Armor Class equal to approximately 14 + level -- 15 for a Level 1 monster -- with some slight variation for the monster's "role." Monsters will have a base to hit bonus vs. Armor Class of 5 + Level -- +6 for a Level 1 monster -- and will attack other defenses at 3 + Level -- +4 for a Level 1 Monster. A Player Character will have between a 16 + Level and 20 + Level Armor Class -- depending on "role" -- and will have between a 5 + Level to 8 + bonus to hit an opponent's AC (2 less versus NADs). There is some variation of this, but these are fairly good baseline assumptions.

This means that a Monster -- attacking AC -- will be +6 vs. an AC of 17 to 21 thus hitting 30% to 50% of the time, while players will hit between 60% to 75% of the time. Tactics will modify both of these numbers upward with some roles ("Strikers") hitting 90% of the time. These percentages remain the same -- with very little variation -- throughout a character's "career." The game's progression is relatively level so that challenges have a similar character risk regardless of level, though the growth of Encounter and Daily Powers make the dynamics of combat change as the levels progress.

These assumptions are quite different than the underlying mathematical assumptions of 3.x/Pathfinder. 3.x combats are a little harder to balance, as the combat atop the Belltower in Paizo's first Adventure Path can attest, but they can be quite exciting. While high level threats in 4e might be as challenging to characters as threats were at low levels, they are still relatively narrow in tactical options -- each monster is only expected to live a certain number of rounds so there are only so many attack options given to each opponent -- whereas 3.x/Pathfinder opponents can become quite complex in their tactical offerings in later levels. Anyone who has stated up high level NPC or Dragons knows how detailed these characters can be. This level of granularity is refreshing to many players, and as an old Hero grognard I have a deep appreciation of it. This difference of granularity could be a post in and of itself, just let it be said that 4e characters are always at the same risk of death as they were at low levels and that 3.x characters encounter more tactically diverse (within a single opponent) challenges.

What is key here is that 3.x/Pathfinder is slightly harder to balance for as its combat system is looser. I'm going to use 3.x as a reference for constructing 4e versions of

So how do we bring Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint to the 4e table without actually creating new rules? How do we use the existing rules set to bring in more tactical options? Will it break the balance of the game?

I'll answer the last question first. Adding these maneuvers as powers will not break the game. There are already a number of classes, the two Essentials Rangers for example, who have "trip" effects as part of damaging powers, and the Essentials Knight has a Bull Rush capability added to one of its powers. Additionally, 4e does allow anyone to use Bull Rush and Grapple as maneuvers. We'll be using those mechanics to establish our guidelines. This leaves only Disarm, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint for us to create maneuvers for.

First, let's take Trip. Given that there are currently classes that -- at 1st level -- can Trip as a part of a normal attack action, it isn't game breaking to create a Trip Maneuver. Additionally, being knocked prone in 4e -- while bad -- isn't as horrible as being knocked prone in 3.x/Pathfinder.

TRIP

Essentially, Trip is an attack based on your combatant's Strength against your opponent's Reflex defense. If you hit, then you knock the opponent prone. No damage, just a prone opponent.

You might add a "Trip Training" feat that allows characters to use other statistics as the basis for tripping, just as the game has Combat Training to allow Basic Attacks to be based on alternate stats. I recommend doing so, and making it an Heroic feat.

I also recommend creating a "Sweeping Trip" power that can only be used by those who have the feat -- which I recommend be a Paragon level feat. This feat will allow a combatant to Trip anyone in a Blast 1.

It might also be wise to create feats that allow characters to used certain weapons with Trip attacks, thus gaining the proficiency bonus for those attacks. Weapons like Pole Arms and Staffs should have a "Trip Weapon Proficiency" feat, that lets you use their "Trip Weapon" feature.

Disarm is a little trickier, but not much. Given that damage for monsters is based on level, and not on weapon, a disarm attack's effect isn't just the removal of the weapon it also has an impact on damage dealt.

TRIP

I would represent this through the Weakened condition, which halves the damage done by character, that can be ended by spending a move action to pick up a weapon. In essence, the monster must choose between spending an action to pick up a weapon -- or doing less damage. I would also make the attack a little more difficult than a normal melee attack and give a -2 penalty to attack rolls. Given 4e's tendency to have Non-AC Defenses 2 lower than AC, and most weapons provide a Proficiency bonus of +2, this works nicely.

Feint could easily be represented as a Weapon Attack using Strength - 2 vs. Reflex attack that grants the next attack Combat Advantage. Given that there are feats that grant Combat Advantage in easy situations, and that Doppelgangers have a Minor Action that does just this effect, it seems in line with the game's intent.

Sunder would be a Strength vs. Reflex -2 attack that specifically targeted the opponent's weapon or shield. I will give this its own post, as calculating the HP and DC of the attack requires me to look through the Essential DM's book.

Overrun is also easy, but I'd like to give it its own post as well.

Wizards of the Coast Adds Vehicle Rules to Gamma World

Are you wondering what to do with all those pick up trucks that your players acquired during Gamma World character generation? Do you want to add a little dash of Car Wars into your Gamma Terra campaign? Are you and your players fans of Death Race: 2000, The Road Warrior, and Knight Riders? Are you a big fan of Wizards of the Coast's latest Gamma World offering?

If so, then the new rules posted on the D&D website this week are for you. Keeping in line with Gamma World's "Quick and Dirty 4e" adaptation, the vehicle rules provide a fun and workable system for running vehicles and vehicle combats/races without adding undue complexity. Rules for the damage caused by crashes and the effects of critical hits on vehicles are presented in an easy to use format. Stat blocks for a decent number of vehicles are provided, as are some "customization options" like "oil jets." These rules also bring the idea of "stunts" to the table. Stunts are out of the ordinary actions that characters can attempt to perform with their vehicle, like jumping the vehicle off an incline.

I know that my gaming group, SUPER TEAM GO!, will make good use of the offerings and will likely begin coming up with some of their own thoughts on customization options.

It's good to see Wizards supporting the game even after all of the products have been released. Let's home they continue.

Oh..and it's FREE.

A Defense of D&D Movies and Some Commentary on Playing Styles

Ever since I purchased a copy of Thousand Suns, I have been a big fan of James Maliszewski. It was obvious from this product, and his excellent Shadow, Sword, & Spell, that he and I share a deep affection for many of the same things. It didn't take me long to enter his name into a search engine and find his excellent blog Grognardia where he shares his love of Old School gaming and pulp fiction with an engaged and passionate audience. I'm a big fan of the site and cannot recommend it -- or the two games mentioned earlier -- highly enough.

Though we share affections, his explorations into pulp and old games usually discuss things found on my book shelves, I don't always agree with his critical opinions of new gaming systems. James is an ardent advocate of not merely "old school games," but also of what he considers "old school play." While I advocate owning and playing older games, I have no preference for old or new style play. James is a knowledgeable critic of the gaming industry, and I am a devoted Pollyanna.

A perfect Case Study for how our hobby opinions differ is his recent post regarding Dungeons and Dragons movies. In a post entitled "The Pointlessness of a D&D Movie," James argues that -- regardless of the quality of a D&D movie -- there is no real point to making a D&D movie since any such film would be D&D in name only. In his opinion, it would be difficult -- if at all possible -- to make a film that truly captured the essence of D&D. He argues that any D&D movie would likely be a "generic" fantasy film as much as it would be a D&D film. Therefore the exercise is largely pointless.

I both agree and disagree with his argument, and I disagree strongly with many of those who posted comments on his site -- especially with regard to what constitutes the "feel" of D&D.

While James is correct that most attempts to create a D&D inspired movie would likely be "merely" generic fantasy films, he would be wrong if he thought it were necessary that a D&D inspired film would be a generic fantasy film. To be fair, James asks his audience to give him an example of what such a film would be like rather than to assert that it is impossible.

In my opinion, a D&D inspired film would take one of two forms.

In the first case, one could create a film inspired by the intellectual properties associated with the D&D brand. One could make a Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Birthright, Eberron, Dark Sun, or Planescape movie. To be fair, it would be possible that any film set in these creations might end up defaulting to generic fantasy, but it isn't a necessary condition. A Greyhawk film that focused on Zagyg's quest for immortality, Iuz's plans, or on Mordenkainen and friends would be different enough in character to matter. Similarly a Forgotten Realms film about Drizz't or based on Paul Kemp's "Shadow" series would have as distinct a tone as is possible. As for Eberron, Dark Sun, or Planescape, each of these has a character so unique that they would stand out on their own. These settings are rich for exploration and would also have the marketing potential to bring in new gamers, as they have directly related products.

In the second case, I can imagine a film akin to Andre Norton's Quag Keep, L. Sprague DeCamp's Solomon's Stone, or Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame. In this scenario, players of a D&D game would be transported into a mystical world -- or the actions of players in the real world would be interposed on characters in the fantastic. I also think one could do something like the Gold web series where gaming is used as a setting for a larger story.

From a marketing perspective any of these would be desirable. The purpose of a film is to help build brand and provide revenue and this would be easily possible with any of the above strategies. Which comes down to the crux of it. It isn't pointless from a business perspective to make a D&D film because it can bring revenue for shareholders while providing entertainment -- and employment opportunities -- for stakeholders.

Almost no one reading James' blog approached the question in the above fashion. Looking at the responses from James' readers though, one is taken aback by a couple of things. First, the venom some of his posters had for existing D&D entertainment enterprises. Commenters disparaged the D&D movies, the Dragonlance animated film, and the D&D cartoon that aired in the 80s.

In future posts I will discuss the various D&D movies individually, but let me just put forward the following. I think that everyone involved in making those products wanted to make something entertaining, and many of them were gamers themselves. I agree that the first D&D movie was a disappointment (though it also had moments). I think that the second film was much better, and on a fraction of the budget. I think that the flaws of the Dragonlance movie stem from weaknesses in the first Dragonlance novel (the weakest of the first six books) and that the film is actually a good translation of that book. I deeply enjoy the cartoon series, as do my twin daughters. Lastly, I eagerly await the next D&D film and know that the people working on it want to make a good film. But I will elaborate on all of these in the future.

Another thing that struck me in the posts, in addition to the venom aimed at existing attempts, was the vision many of James' commenters had for what constitutes "D&D narrative."

Some examples include this one from commenter Johnstone:

A group of adventurers arrives at the mouth of a dungeon. They enter and explore rooms, get around traps, fight monsters, run away from monsters, find gold and treasure, and Black Dougal dies from poison. Then they fight two or three dragons at the end, after which only the fighter and the thief are still alive. The thief backstabs the fighter, grabs (some of/the best of) the treasure and books it. The end.

This one from Reverence Pavane:

Well a good movie about D&D would probably go back and examine the basic tropes of the game, rather than trying to fit a plot to the games. Such as the existence of dungeons. The fact that adventurers form up in small teams of highly egotistical individuals to go down into the dungeon and slay things, loot their victims and furnishings, and then return to the tavern.

This one from Lord Gwydion:

Personally, if I were to write a D&D script, I'd focus on these things:

No big 'save the world' plot.

No 'revenge' plot (although a subplot might involve revenge).

No 'hero's journey' plot.

Those three stances alone mean it would not be made by Hollywood (or they'd hire someone to come in after I was done and add all of those back in).

Each of these, and a couple of other posts, exemplifies a particular view of what constitutes the spirit of D&D play. They also depict a way of playing D&D that I haven't personally experienced since I was in high school. That doesn't mean that this style of play is an "immature" or "childish" way to play the game. In fact, this was a way of playing D&D that was popular among the adults who taught my friends and me how to play the game, but it was one my friends and I abandoned for heroic adventure. It is also a game style that is supported by the rules. One cannot help but to expect a game that gives experience points for how much money you acquire, in addition to how many creatures you kill, will do anything other than foster a "mercenary" style of play.

I call this style of play "D&D as Tomb Raiders," and I don't much like it. I understand that many do, but I think it goes against the grain of what the game is about. I blogged about J. Eric Holmes' opinions regarding game balance and the games spirit last week. To me D&D is a game of "Heroic Journeys," battles against evil, saving the world, and fighting the good fight. It isn't about wandering mercenaries plundering loot -- that's Tunnels and Trolls. D&D is a game that features Paladins battling the hordes of Hell.

In his book Role-Playing Mastery, Gary Gygax writes about how each role playing game rules set has its own "spirit." This spirit cannot often be described in bumper sticker terms, but it is something that will permeate the statistics, mechanics, descriptions included within a game. According to Gary, a game master, and player, is charged with learning more than just the rules of the game, but is also charged with learning the spirit of each game and attempting to play accordingly.

As I mentioned earlier when discussing the recent discussion at Grognardia, one might come to the conclusion that the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons was one of selfish mercenaries, tomb robbers, and skallywags. But this isn't the spirit that Gygax describes. He describes the spirit of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as follows:

I shall attempt to characterize the spirit of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game. This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies (dwarfs, elves, gnomes, etc.), are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans -- the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game. Although players can take the roles of "bad guys" if they so choose, and if the game master allows it, evil exists primarily as an obstacle for player characters to overcome...the goal of the forces of good can only be attained through cooperation, so that victory is a group achievement rather than an individual one.

I eagerly watch a D&D movie that embodied Gygax's D&D spirit, and I prefer to play in games that do so as well.

To me "classic D&D" is about saving villagers from ravaging hordes of Giants, only to learn that these Giants were being displaced by Dark Elves, and that the Queen of the Demonweb pits was weaving sophisticated plans that would bring down the forces of good in the world.

That style of play isn't for everyone, but it is a style of play that is fun and would make some good movies.

Of course a dark, brooding, heist film would be pretty good too.

D&D in Forbes?

Thanks to the recent episode of Community, the Dungeons & Dragons game is getting some buzz in mainstream pop culture.  Surprisingly the buzz has included the entertainment blog on the Forbes website. 

David Ewalt's recommendations might make some in the internetowebosphere who dislike Hasbro's business decisions in the past year groan.  Ewalt's advice is is a glowing recommendation for Wizards' "Red Box" release, their Encounters program, and praise for Wizards' decision to fight for Wal-Mart shelf space.

When your game is getting positive print time, even digital print time, at Forbes you know you are doing something right.  Though one has to wonder what this says about the role playing game market.  If Forbes -- which prides itself as being a leader in business reporting -- is promoting you game...does that mean that the future CEOs of America will be gamers?  Does it mean that the current crop of Executive VPs are gamers? 

Grognardia had a wonderful post recently about gaming's treatment in Sear catalogs of years past and how RPGs hadn't yet been "ghettoized" out of mainstream gaming. 

But if a Forbes blog that highlights the latest Barbie is promoting your game, haven't you begun to walk out of the ghetto?

The Community episode might have provided the context that allowed for the article, but if Hasbro hadn't made Essentials -- and the Encounters Program -- last year the article wouldn't be making as many recommendations for the novice.

[Heroes of Karameikos] Part 2 -- The Order of the Griffon

As you know, I am working on a set of house rules that adapt the old Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D rules and make them play more like a 4th edition campaign. I am calling these rules "Heroes of Karameikos" after a country in the Known World setting that was originally presented in the Moldvay/Cook sets. I have always enjoyed the Known World setting and my house rules will attempt to capture some of the flavor of the setting, but they will continually direct readers to the original rule books for additional rules.

Take my most recent addition, the Order of the Griffon, as an example. At the beginning of my Character Classes section, I make it clear that Player Characters are different from normal people. They have the potential to become heroes of legend. As such, most people are merely "Normal Men," and even special non-player characters are represented by the character classes presented in the Moldvay/Cook rules. My house rules tell you to use those rules for non-player characters, but they provide sub-classes specially designed for player characters. These sub-classes have abilities granted to them at every level in a way I believe reflects the 4th edition feel. I wanted the abilities to be significant enough to matter, but not so powerful as to make using them the equivalent of playing D&D on "easy."

For members of the Order of the Griffon, the military order of the Church of Karameikos (you can read more about them in the excellent Grand Duchy of Karameikos Gazetteer), they gain the following special abilities.

Order of the Griffon (Cleric)

• 1st Level – Cure Minor Wounds. A member of the Order of the Griffon may call upon the power of the immortals to heal up to 3 points of damage dealt to himself/herself or allies each encounter. These points of healing may be divided as the Cleric wishes.
• 2nd Level – Military Training. The member of the Order of the Griffon is now trained in the use of Normal Swords and can use them in combat.
• 3rd Level – Strike Against the Stained Soul. Once per Encounter, the Cleric may add +3 points of damage to a successful attack against an enemy of Chaotic alignment.

As always, you can find a working copy of my house rules here.

First Impression of the New Gamma World

I am in love!

Sweet Christmas!

Can't wait to play this tomorrow!

...why is the book so shabbily bound?

More will come next week after a proper playing.

New D&D Red Box Thoughts (Part 1)

As I mentioned in the last post, I have acquired a copy of the new Introductory Boxed Set for the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The packaging of this new boxed set is based on the 1980s "Mentzer" Red Box Basic D&D Set that TSR published in 1983 -- it even uses the same cover art. Wizards of the Coast has two hopes for the product.

First, the are hoping that the product serves as a key introductory product for a new generation of gamers and that this Red Box will be as important to these new gamers 17 years from now as the old Red Box is for many current gamers.

Second, they hope that the nostalgia some "hold out" gamer feel regarding the old Red Box will convince them to give the new edition of D&D a try and that the boxed set itself is of sufficient quality to win these hearts and minds.

It should be noted that the similarities between the two boxed sets is more than cosmetic. While both feature the same inspiring Larry Elmore artwork on the cover, both products are also structured in similar ways with regard to how they present the mechanics of the D&D roleplaying game.

Both the new Wyatt edition and the Mentzer edition use a "Choose Your Own Adventure" solo narrative as a method to introduce players to the concept of roleplaying and to the games mechanical systems. It was an innovation when Mentzer utilized it in the 80s, and Wyatt's design team have improved on the method -- if not on the underlying story. There were fewer "design" decisions for players in the Mentzer edition, but the story was more engaging in the older edition. Not to say that the new introductory narrative is bad, but it is "loose" and lacks a significant emotional punch. One doubts that players will be talking about Traevus the merchant in the same tones that older gamers mention Aleena the Cleric and Bargle the mage.

But players of the Mentzer boxed set can't refer to the time they chose between casting a Freezing Burst at goblin raiders or whether they decided to cast Stone Blood which partially solidifies the blood of ones enemies. Both games have their good moments in presentation, and both are effective in presenting the mechanics and a style of play.

Reading the new Red Box, as a 4e player who has been listening to the hushed rumors that this is a launch product for a 4.5 edition and that a 5th edition is only 2 years away, there were a couple of rules changes that jumped right out at me. These changes are purely from the Player's Book, the DM's book has some changes as well but those will be discussed in part 2.

First, in Paragraph 8 (a Fighter paragraph) the text mentions that the Fighter's weapon damage is equal to the weapon die plus both the character's Strength and Constitution bonus. Huh?! Is this a new ability for all Fighters, is this a change to Charge, or is this an error?

Second, I noticed that Humans now have an Encounter Power like all of the other races. The power is called "Human Versatility." While it isn't overpowered, it is a complete change to the human in the Player's Handbook. It isn't enough of a change to warrant 4.5 cries, especially given that it will be added to the "rules update" that is available for free online, but it is striking none the less.

Third, the new build of fighter is interesting and demonstrates one of the changes that Wizards is promoting in the Essentials line. The new Fighter build relies more on his Melee Basic Attack than PHB Fighters, his "at-will Powers" are stances that modify his Basic Attack rather than attacks in and of themselves. I have to say that this is a thematic change that I like. This seems to fit in with the fiction that D&D emulates. Fighters do use "maneuvers" from time to time, but they are more frequently using tactics or styles and the new Powers reflect that thematic element nicely. They also make Fighters easier for new players to play than in the PHB where all classes required equal book keeping.

I'll discuss more as I read through more of the class choices, but I can say that I am impressed with the presentation style of the product. Though it should be pointed out that this is very much an introductory product and that many experienced gamers -- who don't like reading through introductory style presentations -- will not find this product compelling.

Though I am an experienced gamer, I am enjoying this presentation and find it to be far superior to the "Starter Set" Wizards released in 2008. It compares well to the first Red Box so far, though it doesn't quite match the Denning Black Box in my esteem. Though, to be fair, that would be quite a feat.