In Which The Warlock Refocuses His Ire...

In a few past blog entries (mainly here and here), I've spent some significant time discussing--let's be honest, reputing--a series of articles by Mike Mearls, made as part of the "Legends and Lore" series on Wizards of the Coast's D&D site. 

Well, for those of you that have been following their site, you may have noticed that the column has changed hands.  In a somewhat baffling move, WotC has handed this column off to a new/old staffer--Monte Cook. 

Those of you that played 2nd or 3rd Edition D&D probably know Cook very well.  Cook was one of the lead designers on 3e, and spent a fair amount of time with TSR, particularly on the glorious Planescape campaign setting, which tossed Victorian-era philosophy and conspiracy into the planar backdrop of the Great Wheel.

Unfortunately, Cook's return to WotC has been...well, rough, to say the least. 

Cook's first article showed almost a complete lack of understanding of the 4e skill system.  While Cook could be excused for this, if he were working on Pathfinder or on a product for his own company--Malhavoc Press--this is the company that wrote 4e!  For Cook to actually have the gall (or ignorance) to put forward the idea of "passive perception" as a new concept--which has existed in D&D for the past 4, almost 5 years--shows a lack of understanding of one of the basic skill systems in the game.  Further, for something like that to pass by WotC's editorial staff is almost embarrassing.  Was no one really aware that he said something like this?  That's almost unfathomable...

Unfortunately, Cook's two most recently articles aren't much better in quality.  Cook expounds upon the nature of magic items, as well as waxing nostalgic about Gygax's original concepts of a team-based game.  But neither article provides many new ideas or innovation; rather, they simply rehash ideas that have been discussed at length again and again, on role-playing blogs, on forums, and even by these authors themselves.

However, all of this raises a greater question:  why is Cook back with WotC?  What benefit does it bring them to have him back in the fold?

Therein lies the rub.  According to currently circulating rumors, Cook was brought on board for a new version of D&D, set to hit playtest in 2012.  Margaret Weis apparently thinks so, and it's a little odd for a company like WotC to utterly deny access to a fairly prolific game designer.  But, on top of this, WotC's release schedule is currently blank--there are no products on the calendar for 2012 whatsoever.  Even WotC's monthly "In the Works" column has been shifting decidedly away from actual previews and more towards subsidiary material--statuettes, comic books, and other paraphernalia. 

If this is the case--as I believe it is--I'm going to go ahead and make my prediction here and now:
Cook has been brought on board to write 5th edition, which will be announced at GenCon 2012.  This edition will be billed as "D&D Anniversary Edition" and will premier in the summer of 2013--5 years after the debut of 4e.

And, if I'm wrong...well, we'll see, eh? 

In Which The Warlock Postulates on Punctuality...

Okay, fellow gamers...I've got to get this off of my chest.

I haven't gamed in over two weeks, and it's driving me nuts. 

Note that this isn't for a lack of trying, friends and neighbors.  As you probably know, if you've been following this blog, I'm currently GMing three games a week--two sessions of Cold Steel Wardens, which is making its way through the paces of alpha testing, as well as a weekly session of Deadlands, as my Friday night group makes its way through "The Flood". 

For the most part, the prep for these hasn't been too overwhelming.  "The Flood" is a pre-made campaign, which means that stats, plotlines and the like are already generated; it's just a matter of executing the game, and making it amusing at the table.  My CSW campaign, by and large, is running primarily on cliches--while I do have to stat up adversaries and the like, the plotlines that my Heroes are working their way through are deliberately stereotypical for the Iron Age, meant more to put the system through its paces than to put forward a "masterpiece" campaign.

Neither campaign has gone anywhere in nearly 3 weeks.

This doesn't bother me, under usual circumstances.  I'm well aware that life gets in the way of gaming many times, and that sometimes you just have to call it a day.  But, these past few weeks, the circumstances surrounding our cancelled sessions have been beyond frustrating. 

Mostly, this is because of an utter lack of notice.  I don't have any problem with a player missing a session, but when we're around the table, asking each other "Hey, does anyone know if Jim Bob is coming?", that brings the action to a grinding halt and starts us looking for other plans.  This has been the case twice in a row our Friday night game, and has left us looking for alternate entertainment.  I'm lucky enough to have a large enough game library to accomodate spur-of-the-moment games, but still...I want to run Deadlands!

Worse still is when this happens in my Saturday session, as it did this past Saturday.  I got a text message from one of my players just after I woke up, which was fine--I had four other players, which would make for a perfectly viable session.  As such, I packed my materials and headed over to Wittenberg...

...only to get a second text message, as I sat waiting for security to unlock the door to the classroom we use.  Another player gone.  Waiting patiently for the other three...only one showed up.  Kung-Fu Jake told me that he'd heard that a second of our players was going to be running significantly late.  Our last player was nowhere in sight.  After fifteen minutes of waiting, I called the session.

Listen, this is absurdity.  If you can't have the common courtesy to at least tell someone when you're running late or can't make a session, why should you expect me to run game for you?  I'd love to be able to roll out the chase rules or the other investigation forms for Cold Steel Wardens, but right now I can't even get enough players together for a single session!  Hell's bells!

Sorry.  I really needed to get that off of my chest.  If you have some advice or some ideas on how to change things up, by all means, comment for me!

Oh, and since there's no media for this entry, here's a great perspective on the DC reboot that the PlatinumChick had on her Facebook page.  Enjoy:

A 7-year-old girl responds to the DC Reboot

In Which The Warlock Rants Just a Little Bit...

This is going to sound like heresy to some of my gaming friends, particularly in the Springfield area. Really, this is going to sound like heresy to the PlatinumChick even, as it's going to sound a little off-putting, even though it fits.

I, your friendly neighborhood Warlock, can't stand EuroGames.

By EuroGames, I'm referring to the genre of board games that have been coming out of Europe for the past decade or more, which include "Settlers of Catan", "Carcassonne", and "Galaxy Truckers". U.S. developers and the like have been creating these as well, with games like "Kingsburg" and the like. Eurogames are epitomized by their 'friendly' nature--they're built for the family and the like to sit around and kibitz. They're rarely competitive, because people are only rarely "knocked out" of the gameplay. They're rarely involved, because they're meant for a whole family to play, which means that they tend to be unfocused.

They bore me. To tears.

The passive agressive nature of conflict in these games aggravates me beyond belief. Even the most aggressive PvP player in "Settlers of Catan" can only build from their own starting position, and only pursue other players with The Robber when the dice allow. Strategy isn't involved--it's pure dice luck, as you're more focused on building up your own cities.

"Kingsburg" is a really killer in that nature. For the entirety of the game, you have no contact with the other players, aside from placing your dice. And, even then, the most aggressive that you can get is placing your dice in a space that another desires.

That's miserable. That's sad.

Conflict is, and must be, at the root of all games. It's human nature to want to win, and to use our wits (and other resources) to do it. When a game removes that conflict, it becomes nothing more than a table-piece--something to decorate your room with.

Without conflict, what's the point?

As I set out on the 5th (and hopefully submission!) draft of "Dungeon Slam!", I've been keeping this idea deeply in mind. "DS" has really become something different than everything out there. At every level of the game--from start to finish, and from high to low powered--there are ways to interfere with other players. Even a freshly dead, weakened character can make the life of a fully beefed-out champion into a living hell.

Smirk and Dagger Games have always done a great job with this, as have a few other companies, such as Fantasy Flight. Of course, Steve Jackson's "Munchkin" series emphasizes this philosophy, but it's a true rarity in a sea of Euro-trash. Most uniquely, "Arkham Horror" (and games of its ilk, like "Fury of Dracula") include conflict, but rather force the players to group together, as they attempt to defeat the game itself. Conflict remains, whereas games like "Settlers" leave me wanting.

Alack, alas, fellow gamers...a great void exists for us cut-throat bastards, who want nothing more than to stab their brethren in the back, betray them in underhanded manners, and break their words. With any luck, "Dungeon Slam!" and its follower "SunnyVale Acres" will break new/old ground in the gaming world!