My girlfriend is incredibly interesting.

So I was blathering on and on about how much I enjoy the combat mechanics of The Riddle Of Steel today as my girlfriend Candace was practicing on her ukulele when she provided a pretty nifty 4e House Rule.

See, she was thinking a little bit more about the 4e Combat System of Powers and their usage constraints. We played a really sloppy and quick combat session on Tuesday with the usual group and sure enough, Candace the RPG Combat Hater^TM actually enjoyed what her Tiefling Wizard could do to control the battlefield.

Without further ado, I present a paraphrasing of her neat idea:

"I was thinking about the powers in 4e combat. You get your at-will, your encounter, and your daily powers, but what about a per-level power. An awesome, sort of David vs. Goliath thing for Clerics for instance."

Wow that sounds all kinds of cool. The economy of action in 4e virtually guarantees that players will be siphoning off their Encounter Powers toward the end of the battle, or their Dailies if an Extended Rest is eminent. But players only really have a rough idea of when they are actually going to level, so this might be something special that they want to hold on to "Just In Case."

I'm personally thinking about allowing this "Level" power to be chosen from the next level of Powers (daily, encounter, at-will, whatever is applicable to the situation). As a bonus it'll also help players get familiar with what they have to look forward to next level.

I've been blogging a bit 4e-centric lately, but don't worry, I haven't drank the flavor-aid just yet. I'll be returning to form very soon with a weekly "Rules Cyclopedia House Rules" column.

4e and Life Expectancy

Candace was casually thumbing through the Fourth Edition Players Handbook the other day at my request when she spotted something a little odd.

I needed her to give the book a glance because she's a set of relatively fresh eyes as far as Role Playing and Dungeons & Dragons are concerned. My reading of Fourth Edition materials tend to leave me either crumpled in a corner whimpering or foaming at the mouth and gnashing my teeth. Her perspective would have to be closest I could get to an unbiased view until I actually have a chance to play/run it.

She noticed that oddly, the life expectancies for virtually all of the pre-existing races had been reduced rather drastically. This wasn't too unusual really, as Fourth Edition seems to be more geared for "Heroic" play that centers on characters retiring at 30th level as challenging encounters dry up (granted, this could be rectified with future Paragon/Epic Tier Splats), so living to a ripe-old age is pretty out of the question.

However she did notice that Tieflings did not have a life-expectancy listed. This will probably be clarified and Errata'd into oblivion but it did get my gears turning after a fashion. Is it being tacitly implied that Tieflings are immortal barring hazard?

Odd.

Back and Fourth

I wonder if anyone is contemplating an OD&D conversion of H1: Keep on the Shadowfell.

On the various blogs and boards that I frequent, there seems to be a remarkable lack of understanding between the grognards (self-styled or otherwise) and the unaffectionately dubbed 4ons (before this, it was 3etards, which also got a giggle from me). I think some of this friction could be due to the lack of a shared vernacular when it comes down to what each edition contributed to the style of play.

Ask a grognard about "shifting" or "feats" and the best you'll get is a blank stare.

Ask a fan of fourth edition about re-rolling hit points at every level, or the concept of "Race as Class" and you'll be met with the same reaction.

Many of the conversations are one-sided, with the OD&D gamers sounding suitably venerable and crotchety (with frenetic exclamations that often begin with "back in my day") while the newer 4th Edition gamers who have migrated from a crunchier 3.5 are busy drooling over potential synergistic exploits and cool factor.

For instance, after the "shift" to Third Edition, character optimization became character concept. I fail to see anything really wrong with that. My OD&D players optimized the heck out of their characters whenever they were given the chance, and as a DM (a mantle that when worn, does not give you the game-given right to be an ass) I encouraged this. The magical sword found in the crypt in Chandlerwood, the musty tome of forgotten fire magics found in an abandoned monastery near the Lavafalls, a set of Gnomish Thieves Tools that when commanded would be wielded by small spectral gnomes who actually climbed into the lock to pick it, the players loved these things because they made the characters more awesome. I know, "These goodies were handed out based on DM fiat" you protest! "Players had no where near the control that they have now!" Wrong. The only thing limiting player control is the DM, and as "bringer of fun" it's your job to insure this happens, not to tell your story. Seriously, your story is only mildly interesting at best.

But back to our sheep, what would be nice, however daunting, would be some transcripts of Actual Play for each of the editions, for the same adventure. This would do wonders to eliminate some of the fluffiness that causes the veterans to weep and the greenhorns to cheer. The crunch is what could serve as a universal language, the much-maligned "Common Tongue." Even though OD&D didn't have rules for governing some of the things that the newer editions do, gamers and game masters everywhere still have the same baseline of creativity. All D&D games edition-neutered can be just as fun and memorable as each other, but very few have attempted to accept the challenge of dissecting why. Less rules in OD&D served as a springboard for creativity and house rules, but people are house-ruling things in 4e right out of the box. Why is this? The reasons seem to revolve around either More Balance or More Fun. The problem is Balance can be an enchantment applied to a FunBane sword. Just as Fun spells counter Balance.

A first level Mentzer Dwarf could Cleave as a critical hit house-rule (on a natural 20 naturally) with the approval of a non-adversarial referee. Is this balance, or is this fun? It is highly likely that 4th Edition is no more fun or balanced.

I think we all forget that there is no wrong way to have fun, and that D&D has been about fun since its conception. It is not now, nor will it ever be, "more fun." Rules and mechanics simply don't do that. Instead, rules and mechanics are there to tell you "how" and "when" and "where" a predetermined amount of fun can take place. While certain groups and play-styles may lend themselves to certain editions, they do not limit.

My initial reactionary thoughts on my WoAdWriMo contribution for this month were as follows:

A Chaotic Evil Dragonman Wizard and his Neutral Evil half-devil henchmen are disenchanting magical items across the land and systematically destroying the economy, it is up to our intrepid band of Neutral Good gnomish PCs to stop him.

Instead, I might try to eviscerate as much fluff and IP from H1 (a dangerous task, all things considered, as the last thing I want is to cleave through a swarm of legal minions). As purely a thought exercise, I believe that that Fellshadow Fortress is just begging to be a rollicking OD&D romp.

Or better yet, design an adventure that can be run in any version of D&D, so that my dreams of uniting players from all editions under a common banner may someday be realized, or at the very least, help to bridge the chasm of incredulity that players on both sides of Edition Canyon seem to be camped on.

Perhaps even better, an OD&D adventure with 4e feel and vice versa. Hmm.