Dan and Christopher and I met for a brief D&D session last week, which I was thinking might lay the groundwork for the end of the adventure. To review, the previous sessions have been:

1. Our heroes fight strangely-acting hyenas on their way to a funeral: [D&D 3.0/3.5] The kid two houses down.
2. They discover some tragic secrets about the family concerning the evil grandfather, and that a wizard has been exploiting and confusing the family: [D&D 3.0/3.5] Skill combat and blood drinking.
3. They defeat the wizard in combat: [D&D 3.0/3.5] Spells and swords: fight!.

In this short bit, they went to meet Raetha, the estranged daughter of the family, who's been living in exile and seems to have become tight with a band of hyenas. We really didn't have much time to play, about an hour and a half.

The session began with a great character conflict with the son, Hathic, in the beginning - would he or wouldn't he accompany them to meet his sister. The players are well aware that they are facing an upcoming sticky-situation regarding who's heir to the lordship, and they initiated this conflict specifically to address the problem, hoping at least to get the siblings to meet as people, away from the castle. It ended up being a character's (non-existent) Diplomacy against Hathic's Bluff (he pretends he doesn't care), and Hathic won, so he didn't accompany them. Both Dan and Christopher exchanged worried glances, and Dan flatly stated, "That is definitely going to be a problem later."

I was really happy with this very short but significant interaction. I'd originally prepped Hathic to be a bit of a blowhard, then he ended up being a bit better than that in the second session, but in sum, according to Dan, just a little too wimpy to be a good lord. And yet, Christopher also rightly pointed out that his sister probably wouldn't be much of an appropriate leader based on a life running around with hyenas. I am making a special point of playing the family NPCs as solid characters with flexible reactions, but not outright tagging them as "good guy" or "bad guy." So I was pleased that they were thinking in terms of the NPCs' characters, the situation, and their own judgments based on my role-playing rather than simply following direct cues, or perceived ones.

In my never-ending quest actually to make use of the stuff on their character sheets, I figured that evil old Garfauld would have moved into action with his undead minions by about this point. So with a couple of Wilderness Lore and Listen skills, Vall (elf, cleric/paladin) perceived that something odd was stealthily pacing the group, scaring away local wildlife. Dan got tactical, and they set up a trap based on his character Corin's skills and magic familiar to bring the thing out into the open and surround it. Quite satisfyingly, the relevant rolls went well, but then they were less happy about the result: a huge, decaying zombie hyena. "Oh goody, we cornered it."

Why a zombie hyena? Actually, I'd asked Clinton to build me this thing all the way back before the first session. See, Raetha has her buddy hyenas, but now evil Garfauld, the grandfather, is killing them, thus killing her friends, and making zombies out of them. So this situation satisfied some very early prep notions about the content of this game, even though my mind-set at the moment had concerned meeting Raetha, not fighting anything. But hey! They wanted it, they acted on it, their skills were rolled, and here we were. I was good with that.

The fight was a lot more dangerous than they realized at first. This thing had 33 hit points, and their toughest hitter, Forin, was still sucking wind on his HP total. They're all armed with swords, and it had Damage Reduction worth 5 points. Their magic is fairly paltry in general, and doesn't do much against pile o'points undead. I thought to myself, h'm, this is probably going to hurt and even kill characters (no bad thing), and it'll probably take a long time (not ideal at this point). Oh well! No retroactive re-tooling, so on we went.

The zombie hyena ripped their asses up, man. I enjoyed myself thoroughly in planning its moves, taking attacks of opportunity (hah), and describing how impassively it acted upon taking damage. It bit them, it slammed them, it took some hits that shaved off points (so what!), and various characters' details were illustrated, like Joshua's fancy-footwork Feats that kept him alive through sensible maneuvering. I was just getting into it enough to anticipate using the critter's Trip attack ... when Christopher busted out the fact that he was playing clerics. So on Joshua's turn, it was, Holy symbol: out! Turn undead: on!

It was fun, because Christopher knew clerics could do something special to undead called "turning," and I think he got the basic idea of "undead" from video games and kidfic fantasy, but he didn't really have a clear idea of what any of this would be like. I pulled out the rules and went by'em carefully, because they've changed a lot from my old-skool notions. Basically, you have to roll to see how "much" undeadness you can turn, both for total levels and for number of individuals. OK, easy enough ... and Christopher rolled a 20. Well, well. Classic D&D moment. Joshua didn't have enough levels-oomph to disintegrate it, but he turned it plain and simple. Exit zombie hyena, and all praise Hieronymous! Given the intensity of the fight, and the general importance we've established about playing a cleric in this scenario, it was genuinely dramatic.

So, on to the meeting with Raetha. I'd given a little thought to it, and decided to make her a little piratical, probably Neutral Good without being too much of a patsy about it, a bit of a free spirit, with a wild streak (jargon-wise, "bordering on Chaotic"). The resulting role-playing was a lot of fun as I knew it would be - this was the first hot chick of the story, and I'm playing with (a) a dad who's enjoying the freedom of playing young single tough-guy characters, and (b) his son who's twelve and, although a bit cautious and bookish, all about the "girls" right on schedule. It added a little spice to things.

Their negotiation ultimately came down to another skill conflict, concerning whether and how Raetha would return with them to the castle for the funeral. I was impressed by Christopher offering to bring old Beezah back to the castle with them, supporting her return from exile, which the players know is a sore point for Lord Khoros. I'm not remembering exactly what Christopher rolled for Vall, but I do recall that I rolled Raetha's Sense Motive. And in this case, Vall won. Interesting! A negative, standoffish result for Hathic in the beginning, and at least the beginnings of a positive attitude on Raetha's part. The dialogue also solidly established the underlying situation with the hyenas, which worked out really well, folding Raetha's concern about her friends into the story as well, and playing up the "creeping evil" aspect of Garfauld, as yet unseen.

And finally, I had one last quiet Bang to deliver: when they went to fetch Beezah at her hut, she had died. Christopher again produced a spontaneous, no-argument decision about it: to bring the body back to the castle and to insist that Beezah receive an honored funeral with Lady Khoros, as a faithful servitor to the family who'd been unjustly treated. This kid's in-character speeches during play, at these moments, are impressive.

So for a short run, it was surprisingly eventful and rich in content. There were great skill rolls, both social and tactical; there was a fun fight that showcased the group's abilities in the face of actual danger; there was a lot of information to round out the whole "what's going on" picture; there was a moving death and a strong moral stance that is certainly relevant to every social conflict in the story; and the whole thing was framed by two crucial social-conflict skills, setting up content for the next session. And finally, I got what I really wanted out of the session and was briefly convinced wasn't going to happen (during my concern that the hyena fight would be prolonged): it ramped up the danger-based tension. They know Garfauld is going to strike at the family, and are now quite concerned about the funeral as a likely target.

I'm really liking the contrast, in this session, between the profanation of death (Garfauld, zombies) and the respect for death (Lady Khoros, Beezah).

Dare I have Garfauld seek to raise the corpse of Lady Khoros? I mean, standard as it would be among the pack of you gamers, it is grotesque in the context of this particular story and this particular group. They really care about their characters' relationship to this NPC they've never met.

Heh. I think you can see I've just answered my own question.

Best, Ron

P.S. I forgot to award the experience points from the previous session, but haven't forgotten them. They'll get 450 each for defeating Eladd, and 150 each for the scene with the guards. But hey! What should they get now, for the zombie hyena?

Ron wrote:
I'm really liking the contrast, in this session, between the profanation of death (Garfauld, zombies) and the respect for death (Lady Khoros, Beezah).

If the zombie hyena was built by the standard rules, it would be CR 1. By turning it, they defeated it, so should get full XP (which sounds like 300 XP assuming they're still 1st-3rd level).

Sounds like a really cool session. I've really been enjoying reading these writeups.

Frank

Ron wrote:
P.S. I forgot to award the experience points from the previous session, but haven't forgotten them. [...] But hey! What should they get now, for the zombie hyena?

Whoa.

WHOA. Stop, full stop, people.

I have been role-playing for almost thirty years and am fully steeped in the basic principles of D&D. You do not have to explain to me that "turn undead" means "defeat" in terms of experience points. I strongly recommend suppressing any instructional kindness you may be bringing to this thread.

I am requesting a total XP value for defeating this creature only because it seems to be so much fun for the participants on these threads. People seem to like conributing in this way. I am permitting them to do so.

Now, it does occur to me that I didn't tell you guys about the zombie hyena's features.

Size/Type: Medium Undead
Hit Dice: 4d12+4 (33 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+1 Dex, +2 natural, +2 undead), touch 11, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+4
Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d6+5) or Slam +5 melee (1d6+5)
Full Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d6+5) or Slam +5 melee (1d6+5)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Trip
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, Damage reduction 5/slashing,
SIngle actions only (move or attack - or charge at normal move, not double move)
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +4
Abilities: Str 16, Dex 13, Con -, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 1
Skills: None
Feats: Toughness

So that's the beast in question, defeated by four 3rd-level characters.

No more basic instruction in D&D. I'm asking for XP totals as a favor to you.

Best, Ron

Hi Judd,

You asked,

I just wanted to confirm something about those themes above.  They arrived through play, a surprise to you as much as to anyone else and were not premeditated.  Is that spot on?

Ron,

I've been following this series of threads with some interest.  The fact that you are playing with 2 players that have multiple characters is one of the things I find interesting.  Mostly because it is working out so well for you.  I've got a question or two...

1) Do the players give equal spotlight time to each of their characters? 
2) Have you run into any situations where a player has said, "Hey.  I think <insert character A> would want this one thing but <insert character B> would definately NOT want that."?  Where character A and B are both controlled by the same player.

I ask these things because they have been issues in my own games before.  With multiple characters per player I find that a player generally has 1 character they really like and then one that sort of becomes a utility character, simply there for the abilities it confers to the group.  I've also had the second situation occurr and it always seemed really odd to me for a player to be in conflict with himself.  If these things have come up for you, how have you dealt with them?  Were they even problems to you?

Hi Andrew,

Excellent questions, and I'm also happy about the answers.

Both players apparently have no trouble at all distinguishing between their two respective characters and playing them in recognizable ways.

Dan does so fully. Corin, the half-elf fighter-sorcerer, is a "do it sneaky" kind of character, who delivers a lot of wry humor. His half-orc barbarian half-brother, Forin, is macho bad-ass, although in a way that reserves the big guns for emergencies rather than just throwing his weight around. Both of these have factored into both social interactions and fighting tactics.

Christopher does so mainly in characterization. Vall, the elven paladin/cleric, is aloof, forbidding, and dignified. Joshua, the human fighter/cleric, is more of a "hands-on, street priest" kind of guy, who hobnobs with servants and young healers.

They tend not to fall into the idea that the group is an eight-legged creature, but the characters do definitely share a personal sense of justice and a personal interest in the larger social scale of the scenario. I get the idea that Christopher and Dan both like the fact that the scenario speaks to the characters' strengths and shared interests.

They have not encountered major within-person between-player sources of conflict so far. Based on all my observations above, though, I anticipate that they'd play out disagreements among characters fairly and with a good eye toward addressing the Premise-level content of any such scene (i.e. not merely posturing).

Best, Ron

Hey Ron,

In an earlier thread about this game, you said you wanted to talk a little bit about how you handle Alignment, but I think Forges & Dragons Madness 3.5 set in, and the thread wandered.  I'm curious to hear your take on it.

Ron wrote: What should they get now, for the zombie hyena?

Pointless nitpick here:

In D&D 3.5 you cross reference the character's level against the CR of the monster on the CR chart and then divide by the number of characters in the encounter.  Characters who died during the encounter count for this (although the XP doesn't help them much).  If you have characters who are in the same party but are different levels, you'll get different amounts of XP for each character.

In D&D 3.0 you took the average party level and compared it against the CR of the monster to get the total amount of XP handed out.  Then you divvied that up equally.  This could mean a party would get more XP by bringing a newbie along to reduce their average level relative to the monster fought.

A couple of things.
The zombie hyena was doing 2 points damage per attack mare than it should have! d6+3(medium bite/slam and 16 STR) and had 1 more Hp than it should have(Toughness is +3HP).  I know Ron didn't stat the beastie but I thought it was worth mentioning since you said it gave them a beating.

A 4 HD zombie is CR 1 according to SRD.  Having said that though the zombie version of the Hyena shouldnt have had trip(assuming improved trip?) as zombie don't get and of the special qualities or attacks of the base creatures.  I mentioning this so that a fair CR can be calculated.  Is +2 Damage, +1 Hp and Trip worth an extra point of Cr?  A CR 2 zombie is usually 6 HD.  The base creature doesnt matter much as the zombie doesn't get any of the extras.

Ron, if the player running the clerics had realised he could turn the beastie straight away would you still consider it to be a solid 2 CR? He could have turned it before the fight even started.

Ron said:
"  It bit them, it slammed them, it took some hits that shaved off points (so what!), and various characters' details were illustrated, like Joshua's fancy-footwork Feats that kept him alive through sensible maneuvering. I was just getting into it enough to anticipate using the critter's Trip attack "(sorry I cant quote properly!!)

If I'm reading this correctly it looks like the beastie didnt attempt a trip attack? A beastie with improved trip automatically attempts a trip attack without provoking an AOOP when it uses it primary attack.  If it bit them is should have tried to trip them.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "No more basic instruction in D&D. I'm asking for XP totals as a favor to you."  
A favour to you?
I posted this link in "How to convert" thread but thought it might also be appropriate here as it calculates XP.  Im not sure though, based on the above, that you need it but here it is anyway.

http://www.d20srd.org/encounterCalculator.htm

Hope that has been on some help

The alignment would be interesting to hear about, yes.

And the daily nitpicking...
[Correct stat block, changes in bold]

Size/Type: Medium Undead
Hit Dice: 4d12+3 (31 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+1 Dex, +4 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+5
Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d6+4) or Slam +5 melee (1d6+3) [not quite certain about the bonus damage]
Full Attack: Bite +5 melee (1d6+4) or Slam +5 melee (1d6+3)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Trip [Should officially be none, though it makes no sense]
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, Damage reduction 5/slashing,
SIngle actions only (move or attack - or charge at normal move, not double move), Darkvision
Saves: Fort +1, Ref +2, Will +4
Abilities: Str 16, Dex 13, Con -, Int -, Wis 10, Cha 1
Skills: None
Feats: Toughness

They're all armed with swords, and it had Damage Reduction worth 5 points.

Hiya,

Aaron and Tommi, you guys have weird notions about correct and incorrect. Clinton built the zombie hyena for me based on my description of what I needed, and I liked it. Who cares whether it "should" have +4 or +5 in something? It's his zombie hyena, not yours or the book's.

I think this difference in philosophy runs pretty deep. Let's say I want a young-ish copper dragon as an encounter in a later session. I go and build one from the book, and if he gets some spells, I pick a few, and so on. Then, looking him over, I say to myself, "H'm, he seems a little delicate." So I bump up his Armor Class by 1 and add a hit die. No rules exist for doing this, I just do it.

Was that "incorrect" as you guys see it? Is he now a "wrong" copper dragon? If so, then I recommmend, at least for purposes of these threads, wrenching yourself out of that mind-set and looking around in the new place you find yourself.

Hi Uffe, thanks for chiming in. Too bad about Damage Reduction. I read "slashing" and figured swords slashed. Unlike my Shield/Magic Missile error from the previous session, I'm happy about this one and consider it a correction rather than an error. It makes more sense to me that swords wouldn't hurt this hyena much, or any undead, and I suspect that swords were exempted from Damage Reduction/slashing just to keep whiny-bitch teens who play fighters from rising up in indignation.

Oh, and Uffe - fuck all this talk about "THE" Ron Edwards. Especially in combination with status-games about "who knows D&D better," in which rules-clarifications are subtle attacks. Both are poisonous concepts and exemplify serious social problems in gamer subculture. These threads are not about showcasing expertise, and I'm interested in your rules-discussions and clarifications, not threatened by them.

About the 3.0/3.5 difference in experience, I'm pretty sure people have been using the 3.0 model for my game so far. Even if it's switched back and forth, I don't mind. Remember that this isn't a long-term game, and they have a bit of a chance to make it to fourth level, but it's not a priority or immediate concern during play itself.

In fact, the players seem to have no idea at all that quantity and size of defeated foes matter. They really don't run around looking for opportunities to gain experience points. Many of their decisions are tactical, but always founded on thematic concerns.

I've decided the internet isn't ready for alignment talk. I'll probably do an impromptu seminar over beer at GenCon, or something similar.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
Hi Judd,

You asked,

I just wanted to confirm something about those themes above.  They arrived through play, a surprise to you as much as to anyone else and were not premeditated.  Is that spot on?

That question borders on the psychological and metaphysical, which are of minimal and nil interest (respectively) to me.

Clinton built the zombie hyena for me based on my description of what I needed, and I liked it. Who cares whether it "should" have +4 or +5 in something? It's his zombie hyena, not yours or the book's.

I've decided the internet isn't ready for alignment talk. I'll probably do an impromptu seminar over beer at GenCon, or something similar.

Ron wrote:
I've decided the internet isn't ready for alignment talk.

Hey, Ron.

Just a bit about notation.

In D&D 3.0 and such, the damage reduction is notated as (reduction number) / (type of attack which penetrates reduction).  So 5 / slashing is penetrated by slashing weapons.  And 5 / magic is penetrated by anything magical.  And 5 / elf-wielded weapons is penetrated by elves.

I'd give them extra XP from the misunderstanding, but I'm one of these limp-wristed molly-coddling GMs.

I like hearing the stories from these games.  They sound fun, especially 'cause I can picture the people involved.  I'm slightly unclear on where you want feedback, so I'm mostly just chiming in on technical bits.  Hope that's okay.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben wrote: In D&D 3.0 and such, the damage reduction is notated as (reduction number) / (type of attack which penetrates reduction). So 5 / slashing is penetrated by slashing weapons....

[Donning GNS hat, which doesn't quite fit me...]

It strikes me, though, that while Ron's "Vanilla Narrativist" group in this case probably doesn't mind, D&D's supposed to support some mix of Gamism and Simulationism -- and for both hardcore competitors and serious internally-consistent-world buffs, it's a real problem it's this easy for an experienced GM (e.g. Ron) to make mistakes (with the hyena's damage reduction vs. swords, with the mage's shield vs. magic missiles) about how tough a given adversary "really" is.

Hi Sydney,

Throughout it's existence, D&D has always relied upon trial and error on the part of the DM to develop enough experience with the system and the group to provide appropriate challenges.  There's so many stacked abilties in D20 that even the CR system can make it tough to gauge the encounter.  It's not unlike the level of expertise necessary in Magic the Gathering to tell which decks are generally strong and weak, and which are specifically stronger against certain others.

So, no surprise here.

Chris

Hi Ron,

What questions do you have? Some people have thought your account was a question of whether you did everything by the book, for example. To keep a D&D thread on track (what with all it's cargo culting), what's on your mind?

At this point, it doesn't matter much, Callan. I'm beginning to think D&D threads are Rorschach blots. Even the posts which are agreeing with me or trying to, are off-base.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
At this point, it doesn't matter much, Callan. I'm beginning to think D&D threads are Rorschach blots. Even the posts which are agreeing with me or trying to, are off-base.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
At this point, it doesn't matter much, Callan. I'm beginning to think D&D threads are Rorschach blots. Even the posts which are agreeing with me or trying to, are off-base.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
Aaron and Tommi, you guys have weird notions about correct and incorrect. Clinton built the zombie hyena for me based on my description of what I needed, and I liked it. Who cares whether it "should" have +4 or +5 in something? It's his zombie hyena, not yours or the book's.

I think this difference in philosophy runs pretty deep. Let's say I want a young-ish copper dragon as an encounter in a later session. I go and build one from the book, and if he gets some spells, I pick a few, and so on. Then, looking him over, I say to myself, "H'm, he seems a little delicate." So I bump up his Armor Class by 1 and add a hit die. No rules exist for doing this, I just do it.

Was that "incorrect" as you guys see it? Is he now a "wrong" copper dragon? If so, then I recommend, at least for purposes of these threads, wrenching yourself out of that mind-set and looking around in the new place you find yourself.

Ron wrote:
Hiya,

Aaron and Tommi, you guys have weird notions about correct and incorrect. Clinton built the zombie hyena for me based on my description of what I needed, and I liked it. Who cares whether it "should" have +4 or +5 in something? It's his zombie hyena, not yours or the book's.

I think this difference in philosophy runs pretty deep. Let's say I want a young-ish copper dragon as an encounter in a later session. I go and build one from the book, and if he gets some spells, I pick a few, and so on. Then, looking him over, I say to myself, "H'm, he seems a little delicate." So I bump up his Armor Class by 1 and add a hit die. No rules exist for doing this, I just do it.

Was that "incorrect" as you guys see it? Is he now a "wrong" copper dragon? If so, then I recommmend, at least for purposes of these threads, wrenching yourself out of that mind-set and looking around in the new place you find yourself.

buzz wrote: I'm still sort of confused by this.

Oh, geez.

Look.

Yes, the game is drifted, no question. But there are three sources of drift, and none of you are really flashing on them, and thus the discussion is all kerflooey.

1. Brace yourself: I don't really care about knowing and using all the rules of D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I picked up about as much as a human can on one solid read-through of the player's guide, and that's it. So I don't know jack about making up monsters, and I don't try - as I mentioned, Clinton made up the zombie hyena when I asked him too, and whether he followed the rules or pulled it entirely from his ass, I have no idea.

Does that mean I don't care about the rules and wing the whole thing? No. The rules I understood on that reading, and when I review, I follow. The spells have their listed ranges. The weapons do the listed damage. Levels cost the XPs they cost. And so on and on. When I figure out that I didn't get something, I change the way we do it to the way that's written there.

So one source of drift is simply the fact that I felt (and feel) no urge to worship at the altar of D&D, and to "do it right" as an act of such worship. I've never been sympathetic to the pious, pushy stink that rises from the conversations of those who consider themselves to have earned the rank of "real DM." Yet I do think I've made a good effort to understand a lot, and to apply that understanding.

Do you get that? It's not "ignore the rules in favor of what's fun." But neither is it the "obey and study the Torah," for criminy's sake. I get what I got, I play to the best of my undersanding, and I trust that further use and feedback will get me farther, within the limited context of this game (a few sessions, then done). I made no claims to being a D&D demigod from the outset. Remember, the effort you put into D&D 3.0, I put into Champions. I've done my time when it comes to honing my pompous expertise regarding recondite game texts, and once was enough.

2. Here's the other thing: plain mistakes. The Shield spell was the best example. It's something I should have remembered, but hey, I didn't, and that's how it worked out. The zombie hyena was not such a mistake - do you see the difference? When I saw "damage reduction" and looked it up, I wanted this monster to take less damage from swords. That's what happened.

But the Shield spell was simply a mistake, and you know what? Such a mistake isn't apostasy. It's not a sin. You guys get really, really hung up about this. I'd rather make no such mistakes, but as I mentioned earlier, we aren't discussing the national debt. A certain percent of such mistakes, with a rules-set of this complexity, is expected. I like learning about them through feedback because it helps me understand the game better.

Other examples include the business about initiative, i.e., not re-rolling it each round. That interested me, and I figured out why it's so, mainly because I didn't get it the first session. This is a positive cycle, not an occasion of repentance or Maoist self-criticism.

The trouble is, again, that pious shock that gets expressed in reaction, as if we were in some kind of sinlessness-competition. That interferes with the learning I'm talking about and pollutes the reasons we're on this forum in the first place. It only appears in D&D threads. You guys oughta consider that.

3. The final source is deliberate drift, of which there is one glaring example: we aren't playing long enough to go up a level. I dictated 3rd level because I wanted to see some Feats and spells in action, and they've gained about three thousand XPs by now, only about halfway to the next. I anticipate only one more session (or two more to post about; we played another just a couple hours ago).

That's drift, right there. That's real drift, not just casual indifference (#1 above) or whoops-error (#2). That's saying "we are playing this differently from how it's written and assumed." That has a huge impact on the nature of decisions during play and expresses more than anything how Creative Agenda gets realized.

But I will fight like a bastard to point out what is not such drift. My use of the skills rules is not. I maintain that my use of skills is rock solid by the book. I'm also aware that people read such claims as personal criticism, but there's nothing I can do about that.

So, in conclusion, there is drift in this D&D game, of three kinds. But any and all discussion of it - which also entails discussing the range of uses of the rules without drift (like skills) - is impossible, as long as that worshipful and status-driven element remains in the picture.

Best, Ron

venturing in with some trepidation, but:

- 3.x contains lots of interesting subsystems (e.g. monster design) which are neat/helpful when viewed as options.

- A lot of people who play 3.x don't view them as options, although many also do.

- Pretty much nobody objected in any pre 3.x game with the name "D&D" on it to the GM saying something like "this guy's a gargoyle with extra tough skin, 2 point AC improvement". I mean, you could find such people, but they were pretty rare. (The Champions analogy is thus apt, in more ways than this.)

- Whereas, one can find lots of people who will chew you out for giving a Large Beast a 2d8 bite (or whatever), and more than one 3e group I've read about on EnWorld or rpg.net has broken down because the GM wants to keep a tight rein on magic items and/or treasure and the players point out that the challenge rating system is designed with the expectation of x thousand gp worth of equipment at y level, etc. Despite the total shock this causes D&D traditionalists, they have a point based on the text of the DMG, MM, etc. as written.

- There's a lesson here for designers. The more stuff you codify into mechanics and subsystems, the more you will create groups of players who expect things to be the way they're codified and no other way.

That's all I got.

1. Brace yourself: I don't really care about knowing and using all the rules of D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I picked up about as much as a human can on one solid read-through of the player's guide, and that's it. So I don't know jack about making up monsters, and I don't try - as I mentioned, Clinton made up the zombie hyena when I asked him too, and whether he followed the rules or pulled it entirely from his ass, I have no idea.

But there are three sources of drift, and none of you are really flashing on them, and thus the discussion is all kerflooey.

Ron wrote:
3. The final source is deliberate drift, of which there is one glaring example: we aren't playing long enough to go up a level. I dictated 3rd level because I wanted to see some Feats and spells in action, and they've gained about three thousand XPs by now, only about halfway to the next. I anticipate only one more session (or two more to post about; we played another just a couple hours ago).

Typo, not misunderstanding, in this case. Blame my fingers and not looking it up as I typed. Fortunately, it's right on their sheets.

Incidentally, I had to read those rules over carefully. because I wasn't quite seeing whether "amass 10,000" for the Lyda example meant since the previous level or in total. With a re-read, I finally figured out it meant in total. For those taking notes, I'm using the experience point rules on pp. 58-60 of edition 3.5.

You all will be pleased to know that we ran a very short session last night, when they descended into Garfauld's lair (yay! a real dungeon at last!), and then another one just now, finishing up the game entirely. Christopher leaves for summer camp on Saturday and we all made time despite some schedule crunches.

I'll post about the final two sessions in some detail. To summarize for now, in the penultimate, they fought a gelatinous cube; in the ultimate, they finally confronted Garfauld and I had a bang-up time role-playing the two sibling NPCs. And I killed a player-character! Can you guess which one?

More posting later. Schedules, as I said ...

Best, Ron

Oh yeah - Storn, I agree that cherry picking is involved, but only as a side-effect I see it mainly as my #1, in that there are sections of rules I gravitated towards learning more enthusiastically, and tend to re-read, and others that are hard to process even when I try (and trying's more rare) due to lack of interest.

I have made a concerted effort not to cherry-pick in the sense you're describing. How well it's succeeded, no one can know, but I'm willing to bet that it's minimal compared to an uncritical "gee I'll learn these rules" approach.

Best, Ron

gravitated towards learning more enthusiastically, and tend to re-read, and others that are hard to process even when I try (and trying's more rare) due to lack of interest.