Campaign Settings: The Fantasy Western

Recently, a good friend of mine pointed out one of the musical pieces from the recent Quentin Tarantino movie, Django Unchained. Like he usually does, Tarantino used musical pieces from a variety of older films. He was pointing out how the track "I Giorni Dell'ira," composed by Riziero Ortolani for the Italian western I Giorni Dell'ira, sounded suspiciously familiar to a musical piece we both knew from our teenage years. This started me thinking about the Western genre and how, despite being exceptionally well represented in film, it rarely finds it way to the gaming table. With the exception of Deadlands (and its progeny), the only real Western role-playing out there came out of generic systems like GURPS. Having been a big fan of the few Western themed fantasy console role-playing games coming out of Japan, I thought it was appropriate to try and build a campaign setting for people who wanted to try something a little bit different.

Not the most common RPG setting...

Most followers of the blog know that I have been heavily steeped in Dungeons & Dragons in the past few years, running a multi-party campaign set in the Forgotten Realms and participating in several other games set in other iconic fantasy settings. Part of my desire to try something different has been my growing interest in playing 13th Age. I really like a lot of what 13th Age does and the setting is actually pretty interesting to me as a player, but I have been hankering for something that is very different than the typical swords & sorcery fantasy. For some reason, the notion of an "old west" themed fantasy setting sounds especially compelling to me. Therefore, I hope to present a Western themed, fantasy inspired setting that could be adapted for any game system but will focus on game mechanics of 13th Age.

This, but add some fantastic elements.

I want to start by specifying a few things about this project. This is meant to be a western themed, tabletop RPG setting. It is meant to be the kind of setting that stands alongside settings such as Eberron, Faerûn, Golarion, and even the various Earths of Deadlands. As a fan of collaborative story telling, I intend to create a basic framework for a campaign setting that gives players enough to work with but does not specify too much as to take away from a player's ability to adapt it to fit her own character. One of the frustrations I find with heavily fleshed out settings like the Forgotten Realms or Deadlands is that it is too easy to get blocked up by existing canon.

That's why, to a certain extent, I'm using 13th Age as a framework. 13th Age is a game system that really promotes collaborative narrative control of a role-playing game. Mechanics like One Unique Thing and Icon Relationship dice give players an opportunity to influence the overarching story in ways that more standard role-playing games do not. Despite the preference for 13th Age, these articles will focus more on non-mechanical aspects wherever possible, so a crafty game master could utilize what I do here for any system.

Campaign Settings: Neverwinter in 13th Age

Recently, I became involved in a conversation regarding converting the Forgotten Realms to 13th Age. Specifically, the discussion centered on Icons in that setting. The Icon system is an important part of 13th Age because it shifts some of the narrative control over to players, making their choice of relationships become part of the overall campaign story. I became interested in the conversation because I run a Neverwinter/Waterdeep D&D 4E campaign and I continue to think about how I would shift it over to 13th Age if the situation ever presented itself.

Keith Baker addressed the use of Icons in Eberron back in October. He makes the good point that Eberron, as a setting, does not lend itself well to a simple transition to 13th Age. Instead, he suggests that icons should be determined based on the focus of the campaign. Who the important players are in the game will determine what icons are relevant. If the campaign focuses on the power of the Dragonmarked Houses, than they would fit nicely as icons. However, if the campaign has some other focus, other icons would be more appropriate. This seemed especially important to me in determining how Icons would be developed for a campaign similar to my own.

Considering my own Neverwinter campaign and the material presented in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting, I thought I would lay out a potential list of Icons for a 13th Age game set in post-Spellplague Neverwinter. In doing so, I have tried to present them less as specific people and more as icons, referring to them by general terms. In general, I associate each Icon with a specific character presented in the campaign setting, but as is true with the Icons, its less important who they are but rather what they organization, faction, or even ideology they represent in the greater setting.

The Lord Protector

This is the current ruler of Neverwinter, a powerful man from another place that seeks to rebuild Neverwinter in his own image. The Lord Protector is a force of order in the city, but it is foreign. Some view the Lord Protector as a great boon to the city, helping to rebuild the Jewel of the North to its greater glory. Others view the Lord Protector as an usurper, come to take away Neverwinter's liberty. As written in the campaign setting, this would be Lord Neverember, Open Lord of Waterdeep. However, as with all of the icons, the specific person is less important than the ideology that they represent.

The Lord Protector is the Icon of ORDER in Neverwinter.

The Rebel

The Rebel is a direct political contrast to the Lord Protector. As an Icon, he opposes the Lord Protector's designs for Neverwinter. Ideologically, the Rebel represents an opposition to the Lord Protector's authoritarian role rather than opposition to order. Officially, they claim that true rulers of Neverwinter must descend from the line established by Nasher Alagondar. Some view the Rebel as a force of chaos, attempting to tear down everything that the Lord Protector attempts to build. Others see the Rebel as a hero of the people of Neverwinter, doing his (or her) best to stop the Lord Protector from seizing what last bit of freedom the people still have. Arlon Bladeshaper, the leader of the Sons of Alagondar, or the Lost Heir of Neverwinter (Selda Tylmarande) could both be potential Rebels taken from the campaign setting.

The Lich King

Valindra, the "regional" Lich King

Thay's influence in Neverwinter is important to the region. The Lich King represents that force encroaching upon the city. Like many Icons, the Lich King's interest is directly opposed to the Lord Protector. Quite frankly, the Lich King is directly opposed to most of the Icons as nobody much cares for a city of the dead. Szass Tam is the obvious choice for the Lich King, but a campaign that is more locally focused could adopt Valindra, Szass Tam's agent on the Sword Coast, as the "regional" Lich King.


The Dead Rat

The Dead Rat is the leader of the most significant criminal community within Neverwinter. The Dead Rat primarily works to garner himself power and profit and embolden his position as the most powerful person in Luskan. This is typically against the interests of the more civilizing Icons of Neverwinter, but the Dead Rat is not opposed to working with another Icon in the short term if it brings him more power. King Toytere of Luskan would be the best example of the Dead Rat as written in the campaign setting.

The Lords of Waterdeep

Using the Lords of Waterdeep as an Icon is, perhaps, a bit sketchy given the content of the Neverwinter Campaign Setting sourcebook. However, their influence is still extremely important in the city, especially if you assume that the Lord Protector, one of the Lords of Waterdeep, began the expedition into Waterdeep without their approval or consent. Having an Icon relationship with the Lords of Waterdeep could be a very interesting way to add some uncertainty to the game, especially when you consider that the Lords of Waterdeep are never of a single mind. Ostensibly, they support Neverember's mission to Neverwinter, but it is just as likely that they do not and work against his interests.

The Prophet

The Abolethic Sovereignty is a major player in Neverwinter, even if most people do not realize that they are. The Prophet, as an Icon, takes the character of Rohini the Healer and makes her, more directly, the leader of the Abolethic Sovereignty. The Prophet seeks to spread the abolethic corruption throughout the rest of Neverwinter, using it as a base to corrupt the whole of Faerûn. Like the Lich King, most people view the Prophet as a danger to Neverwinter. However, it may very well be that an Icon like the Lord Protector could ally with the Prophet under the old adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The Infernal Prince

The Infernal Prince of Neverwinter.

The Infernal Prince, leader of the Cult of Asmodeus, has great plans for the Neverwinter region. From their plans to free the primordial Magera to aspirations to seize control of Neverwinter, the Infernal Prince is an important Icon to consider. Mordai Vell is an obvious choice for the Infernal Prince, but as with all of the Icons, it is not the specific person that matters but more the role. The Infernal Prince is interesting because, as with all devil related matters, he opposes chaos in the city. This could bring him in line with other Icons, such as the Lord Protector, that would normally not be expected.

The Shadow Lord

The Netherese only recently returned to Faerûn, but under the rule of the Shadow Lord, their ambition has already struck fear into the hearts of many. Although the Shadow Lord seeks to conquer the entire continent, Neverwinter is of great importance. This puts him in conflict with the Lich King, the Lord Protector, and many of the other greater powers of the region. That being said, as with all of the iconic enemies of Neverwinter, a relationship with the Shadow Lord could be useful where the Lich King or the Infernal Prince are major villains. Clariburnus is the natural fit for the Shadow Lord in the default Neverwinter setting.

The Gray Alpha

The Gray Alpha is the leader of the Gray Wolf Uthgardt. Unlike most of the Icons presented here, the Gray Alpha is a slight deviation from the material presented in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting. As the Gray Wolf tribes have generally allied themselves with the forces of the Shadow Lord, the Gray Alpha likely sees their alliance as a source of power for himself and the tribes. However, just as some of the Gray Wolf tribes are divided over their alliance, the Gray Alpha himself could be conflicted. Perhaps, akin to the Forsworn tribes, the Gray Alpha could be persuaded to turn against their allies and join some sort of organized resistance.

Other Icons

Want Harpers? Make them an Icon!

There are numerous other major characters within the Neverwinter setting that could be easily adapted into important Icons. The leader of Bregan D'aerthe could easily fit a role similar to that of the Prince of Shadows. The Warchief of the Many-Arrow Orcs could be fit in to a similar role as the Orc Lord. The various factions residing in Gauntlgrym could be made into major players sufficient to warrant an Icon. In that capacity, it is important for a group to determine what factions on the Sword Coast are relevant to the game they want to play. Does the group not want to involve the Shadowfell and its associated Netherese incursion? Remove the Shadow Lord. Want to make the Harpers a major player? Make them more present in the affairs of Neverwinter and make the Harper Council (or something similar) as an Icon within the setting.

The 13th Age Icon system is a way to allow players narrative control over the story arc. It lets them, as players, define which organizations and personalities they want to have as major players in the game. The Icons presented hear, as based on the background, character themes, and other content presented in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting, is the simplest way to bring that sort of structure to a 13th Age based game set in post-Spellplague Neverwinter.

Scoring the Scene: Fantasy Sims

A few months ago, I wrote a bit about scoring a tabletop role-playing game session. Playing music in the background can often bring an extra dimension to the play experience. Today, I thought I would showcase an album that can be easily inserted into any fantasy themed tabletop game: the original score soundtrack to The Sims: Medieval, by John Debney.

The Sims: Medieval is full of "generic medieval" music.

I will admit that I have never actually played The Sims: Medieval. I ran across the soundtrack while browsing the iTunes store. Sold in two parts, each priced at $2.99, I felt like taking a chance with it. The excerpts playable from the iTunes store sounded like they could easily work in my Dungeons & Dragons campaign. I was quite surprised with the results.

What to Expect...

Most of my players have come to learn that I prefer video game scores for my Dungeons & Dragons games. Since this type of music usually has to play somewhat dynamically it tends to be the kind of songs that can be readily repeated without becoming quickly irritating. This can be convenient when you want to spend thirty minutes having a meaningful encounter without having to worry about controlling your playlist. In that regard, The Sims: Medieval provides a solid musical foundation.

Having not played The Sims: Medieval, I cannot say in what context these musical arrangements appear in the game. There appears to be a fair mix of "royal court" mixed in with "village montage." A few of the pieces stray a bit from that theme. For example, the track "Incantus Magicus" sounds like a light-hearted take on the world of Harry Potter. Some of the others go off in their own direction. However, they do not stray too far from the medieval village/town theme. This album successfully captures enough of the the musical stylings of a medieval community.

If your D&D game has a lot of this, then this album
would be perfect for your gaming group.

What Not to Expect...

Although the score to The Sims: Medieval covers an important part of the fantasy adventure world, there are significant parts of the Dungeons & Dragons experience that it does not touch. Although these light-hearted melodies work great for a trip to town or a visit to royal court, nothing in the album does much for the mysterious exploration of dungeons or the dangers of combat. Do not expect to be rocking out The Sims: Medieval when your D&D group fights the mighty dragon or explores the grim cave outside of town.

Strangely, not a lot of this was featured on the album.

The music on this album tends to run a bit on the shorter end. Unlike some albums, the vast majority of the tracks in this album are two minutes long or less.  Although they are pretty short when compared to a lot of music out there, it is not that significant a concern. It is relatively simple to keep four or five of them on loop during an extended encounter in a civilized area. Thus, when your Dungeons & Dragons game heads to town, The Sims: Medieval is there to provide the background flavor.

In the End

The Sims: Medieval offers music for a somewhat limited range of the Dungeons & Dragons game experience. However, it is surprisingly inexpensive and can be acquired quite readily. Keeping all this in mind, this album is a nice compliment to a set of medieval themed albums. It can be surprisingly difficult to find good "around town and castle" music, so I was quite pleased to have this album thrown into my mix. Hopefully, your gaming group will agree. Overall, this is a good album to have for the price.

RPG Review: Star Wars: Edge of the Empire

I recently got my hands on the new Star Wars role-playing game by Fantasy Flight Games. This new product, the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire Beginner's Game, is specifically an introductory product. As I have spent the past few weeks running introductory sessions of the game at my local game shop, I thought I would take some time and discuss my impressions of the product and, as much as I can, the new Star Wars RPG as it has been so far presented.

Star Wars, Fantasy Flight style.

The Contents of the Box

The Beginner Game has everything a new group of players needs to get started. There are four character folios, featuring notable Star Wars aliens and "fringe" character types. A bounty hunter, a smuggler, a colonist, and a hired gun make up the arrangement of ne'er-do-wells provided with this set. There are also two additional character folios featured on the game's website. An adventure book provides a potential Game Master content to slowly introduce players to the game. There is also a rulebook that summarizes the basic game rules and provides additional information for a group to use after they finish the introductory adventure. To round it off, there is a sheet of tokens, a map of locations featured in the adventure, and some game dice.

Everything in the box, plus two bonus characters.

When you look at it, this is essentially the "Red Box" of Fantasy Flight's new Star Wars RPG. It has introductory content that is simple to learn as you go. Once you get the basic system down, it gives you some additional content and rules to keep playing your own adventures. That being said, like the original D&D Red Box, it only goes so far. It will not take a typical gaming group that long to find the limits of what is provided in the Beginner Game rulebook. With the Core Rulebook still not available, interested players will just have to do their best.

Adventure book and rulebook. Just enough to
get you started with the game...

There are some less stellar aspects to the contents of the Beginner Game. Unlike the classic Red Box, there is no simple introductory solo play materials to familiarize the would-be Game Master. I never found the solo-play content of the classic D&D Red Box to be especially compelling, but it was a convenient way to learn how to play before inviting my friends over. Although the Star Wars Beginner Game does a great job of introducing the game via its introductory adventure, it requires a Game Master to already have some fluency with the game. As a Game Master, I found it frustrating that I was essentially learning the game as I was trying to explain it. It is a small complaint but one that still managed to frustrate me.

Custom Dice and Multi-Level Success

There is also the matter of the dice. Like the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game, the new Star Wars RPG uses custom dice. These dice are used to build dice pools based on talent, skill, difficulty, and other challenges. There are "good" dice (green, yellow, and light blue) and "bad" dice (purple, red, and black). On any skill check, a player will build a pool of good dice based on his character's abilities and then add bad dice based on the difficulty of the challenge faced.

Colorful dice with custom faces.

The dice have a variety of symbols that measure success. What is interesting is that the two-tiered system from WFRP was utilized in this game. Some of the symbols represent success or failure at the task; success and failure symbols cancel each other and the remaining symbol determines the outcome. However, there are also symbols for "advantage" and "threat." This is an independent determination from success or failure. At the most basic level, advantage and threat cause or relieve the character's strain (a measure of fatigue). However, they can also be used to cause other effects that benefit or hinder the character's allies or enemies.

Let's assume somebody failed
her skill check on this one.

Let me provide an example to illustrate the effect. While aboard a freighter owned by a rather unpleasant Trandoshan, Sasha the Explorer shot her slugthrower at him. The player made his dice pool and rolled, resulting in two successes, three failures, four advantage, and two threat. Sasha had missed (since the failures cancelled out the successes) but had two advantage. Sasha's player decided that although the shot had missed, it hit some steam piping behind the Trandoshan, blowing a bunch of steam in his face and making his next attack more difficult (represented by an added bad die).

As a fan of story games and collaborative narratives in role-playing games, the dice mechanics became a very interesting way for players to adapt the story to their dice. To a certain extent, it became a measured amount of "fail forward" with some "succeed backwards" thrown in for effect. When one player attempted to distract the local junk dealer with Charm, he rolled a number of successes but also a handful of threat (disadvantage). He succeeded at the distraction but creatively interpreted the threat as the junk dealer misinterpreting the charm as a thinly-veiled sexual advance. A group that is flexible in their narrative can use the success/advantage and failure/threat mechanics to really drive interesting narratives within the Star Wars universe.

FFG and Three-book Monte

The interesting thing about what Fantasy Flight has announced regarding the Star Wars RPG is the peculiar way that they seem to be designing and marketing the game. Edge of the Empire is the first of three role-playing game rulebooks that they intend to publish. In addition, they have announced Star Wars: Age of Rebellion and Star Wars: Force and Destiny. Edge of the Empire specifically focuses on smugglers, traders, bounty hunters, and other sorts of "fringers" within the Rebellion-era Star Wars universe. Essentially, FFG has provided us Star Wars: Scoundrels, the role-playing game.

FFG must have been big fans of this kind of thing.

My issue with this release schedule is the manner in which the chose to "break up" the Star Wars RPG. Instead of books focusing on eras of play (the Old Republic, the Clone Wars, or the New Jedi Order, for example), the books are all focused on the Rebellion Era but seemingly divide up the film's characters (Smugglers, Soldiers, and Jedi). Under this schedule, a group that wanted to play a story akin to Star Wars: A New Hope, in which two smugglers, a rebellion diplomat/princess, a Jedi, two droids, and a kid farmer/Jedi-in-training fight the Empire would require all three rulebooks (!). Players trying to create a story set in the Clone Wars, Old Republic, or New Jedi Order eras will likely face similar difficulty given the limits of Edge of the Empire.

Not the sort of campaign your group is expected to play.

My biggest question about the trisected rulebooks is how the final book, Star Wars: Force and Destiny, will work as a stand-alone product set in the Rebellion Era of Star Wars. There are not many force users featured in the original trilogy. Even the expanded universe has added very few additional Jedi to the mix; an entire game group of force-users seems highly improbable given the setting. Of course, as that product is still on the far horizon, I have plenty of time to continue to wonder about it.

Overall, a Good Introduction

Fantasy Flight has provided a good introductory product for their upcoming Star Wars RPG. It comes with content that familiarizes players with the rules of the new Star Wars RPG in a relatively simple way. It takes the Star Wars universe and carves out a specific niche for players to have adventures in. This niche may not make sit right with the general view of the Star Wars universe, but it is an interesting take on the setting and one that is sure to appeal to a variety of different Star Wars fans. The mechanics are peculiar at first but eventually become an interesting way to share narrative control over the game. Given what has been provided, I look forward to the Core Rulebook when it becomes available later this year.

Nobody said I could not run my own version of
Star Wars: Edge of the Republic...

Legal Issues in Gaming: The Open Game License

Since I started writing about legal issues in tabletop gaming, several people have asked me about the Open Game License because some of my other posts seem inconsistent with what everybody knows about the OGL. After giving it some thought, I have decided that I should address it sooner rather than later. As a background, it may be relevant to review my introduction to copyright and gaming.

The Origin of the OGL

The Open Game License was first given life during the creation of the Third Edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Built on the idea of the GPL (GNU's General Public License), Wizards of the Coast intended to create a sort of generic version of the new ruleset, dubbed the d20 System, and allow third parties to create content for that system that is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. Ryan Dancey, one of the (former) WotC employees who motivated the OGL, spoke to the overall intent of the license:

The Trademark.

The net result is that D20 becomes a rosetta stone for making products that will be compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, without requiring us to issue a blanket license for the D&D trademarks. In other words, we want to use the trademarks of D&D to hold the value of the business, rather than the rules themselves.

In this way, Wizards of the Coast would make a remarkable change from previous legal stances regarding Dungeons & Dragons and the law. TSR, Inc. had a reputation for threatening lawsuits against people releasing D&D adventures, modules, or other content without a proper license. The OGL as presented to the public seemed to be a very public way to change the relationship between the owners of D&D and the larger community. Like the GPL, the OGL was intended to make the d20 System the Open Source of the tabletop RPG world.

A Tale of Two Types of Content

Wizards of the Coast provided the Open Game License, version 1.0a, for anybody to utilize in their product. Although it contains a significant amount of legal language, an important part of the license is the first paragraph. The license differentiates between two types of content in role-playing games: Open Game Content and Product Identity content. Generally, the creator of content allows other parties to utilize Open Game Content while Product Identity elements remain protected and controlled. Knowing what falls within each type of content is important to knowing what the OGL does and does not do for content creators.

Product Identity is simple enough of an idea to make it worth discussing first. The OGL uses quite a lot of language to describe PI but it can be more readily summarized as creative expressions, such as characters, stories, and other creative content protected by copyright or trademark. From a legal perspective, Product Identity is not terribly interesting because its essentially just copyrighted content and the OGL does not allow third parties to utilize that content. However, contrast the idea of Product Identity with that of Open Game Content (OGC).

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

This important process is what the OGL
is all about sharing, right?

OGL 1.0a, 1(d). Based on this definition, OGC includes a wide variety of content. Most people understand OGC to include all of the game mechanics of a system, from rolling specific dice for specific situations, creating characters in specific ways, and methods for resolving conflicts. When looking at the language of the definition, it is worth contrasting it with the following section of copyright law.

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

17 USC §102(b). The definition of OGC also includes some suspicious patent language, such as referencing a specific embodiment or prior art. Perhaps, a better way to describe OGC is to say it includes all of the content that does not fall under copyright or trademark protection, including any patentable content, and anything else specified by the creator.

Given all this, it may be helpful to describe Open Game Content and Product Identity a little bit differently. Product Identity is specifically content protected by copyright and trademark while Open Game Content is specifically content that is legally unprotectable or protectable via a patent.

License to Breathe

Perhaps the most interesting aspect about the OGL is the fact that a majority of the content that the license gives permission to use (the Open Game Content) is content that the creator had no legal control over to begin with. As noted podcast Law of the Geek described it, the OGL was a license to breathe. The permissions granted over Open Game Content was no more a grant than had existed without the OGL. If that is the case, what's the point of the OGL?

If somebody were to devise the rules to a role-playing game system and patent it, the OGL would be a way for them to retain their legal protection while allowing third parties to publish content in compliance with the license. Of course, patenting rules to a game has its own share of problems and thats why its rarely ever done. After a brief search through Google Patents, I cannot find anything that could be interpreted as a role-playing game. So, if nobody is patenting the rules to a role-playing game, why the OGL? Simple answer: TSR, Inc.

This is why people *think* we need the OGL.

TSR and the Law: A Brief Historical

TSR, Inc. had a long history of trying trying to protect the D&D line through licensing agreements, trademark disputes, and other legal action. The earliest example comes from a licensing agreement between TSR and a company called Judges Guild. Judges Guild was, for all intents and purposes, the first company to conceive of writing and publishing adventure modules for the D&D game. Founded by a man named Bob Bledsaw in 1976, he specifically went to TSR to seek some sort of agreed license to publish this kind of content. They agreed and the license remained in place until 1982, the point that TSR realized there was money to be made in adventure content and they cancelled the license.

Only a few years after Judges Guild, TSR had a new upstart competitor by the name of Mayfair Games. Founded by an attorney named Darwin Bromley, one of Mayfair's earliest products was a series of AD&D adventures known as Role Aids. Within two years, TSR was already threatening legal action against Mayfair. The result from that dispute was the 1984 trademark agreement, an agreement between Mayfair and TSR that allowed Mayfair to utilize the TSR and D&D trademarks in a limited fashion. The important element in this potential suit and future agreement was that it centered around trademark use and infringement. Nothing here concerned rules, game systems, or the like.

This is what it looks like to publish a product
for AD&D without a license or OGL.

In 1992-93, TSR brought suits against two different companies: Game Designers Workshop, for developing a game by Gary Gygax called Dangerous Dimensions, and Mayfair Games, for allegedly violating the terms of their 1984 trademark agreement. Neither case went to trial but were, instead, settled out of court. Both settlements saw TSR buying out the other parties entire interest in the contested property. From a legal perspective, these cases suggest very little because nothing was ever really decided by a court. But, from the perspective of a fledgling game publisher, these cases tell you that you'd best play ball with TSR or you'll get sued and bought out.

The Concession that is the OGL

When Wizards of the Coast created the OGL in 2000, it did a strange thing. The owner of Dungeons & Dragons was saying to the world, "We will allow you to utilize this game system as long as you abide by this simple, harmless license. We concede." From that concession came the Year of d20. New companies, new imprints, and many new products continued to appear on game store shelves. From what can be seen, the OGL ushered in a new era of Dungeons & Dragons.

Despite this era of good feelings, the reality is that the concession that was the OGL was really no concession at all. The OGL granted no rights or privileges to third party publishers that they did not already have. TSR's history of legal action never focused on the rules of the games or copyright issues but instead on trademark infringement/confusion. WotC did not give up any legitimate legal rights or protections when they allowed the world to publish under the OGL. [Note: They did agree not to bring suit against licensees, but since the suit would be without merit, that is not much of a right to surrender.] The OGL only became the backbone of the modern RPG community because Wizards of the Coast (specifically, Ryan Dancey) convinced the RPG community that it was the best idea.

Conclusion

This brings up the question: what's the point of the OGL? At this point, the OGL is a relevant issue in the modern tabletop RPG community because people think it is necessary. Mutants and Masterminds could have existed without the OGL. Pathfinder could have existed without the OGL. Fate could have existed without the OGL. 13th Age could have existed without the OGL. All the OGL did was let people know that they could do the things they could already do.

Does the tabletop RPG community need the OGL? Probably not. Like several legal minds have said, it's nothing more than a license to breathe. But, for a community that thought it could not breathe without permission, the OGL serves an important purpose. It let's the gaming community feel safe about publishing game content, something that has had a long history of being a quasi-dangerous game.

The statements made in this article are the opinions of the author (and the author alone) and do not constitute legal advice. Comments posted on this article do not create an attorney-client relationship. Much of the historical information in this post come from a series of articles written by Shannon Appelcline. For additional historical information, look for his upcoming four volume work Designers & Dragons, coming in 2013.

Design Thoughts: Returning to Alignment

Like any big-headed Dungeons & Dragons player, I have spent my fair share of time debating with people regarding the merits of an alignment system within the game framework. After the Head Wizard of D&D R&D addressed the issue of alignment in the current iteration of the D&D Next, debating the merits of an alignment system became the topic du jour in the twitter-verse. Everybody had an opinion to argue or defend on the issue. During one of these heated discussions, I ended up tweeting some things from the hip that got me thinking:

My problem with alignment comes when people disagree on what is good, evil, or otherwise. If the game is not morally ambiguous enough to raise the question, then you don't need alignment. If it is morally ambiguous enough, then the alignment system is more burdensome than not.

Of course, this is just my current viewpoint on the issue. As I thought of it, I thought it would be important to explain my stance on this a little bit better.

Alignment through the Ages

There are many different versions of
the alignment chart but I went for this one.

In one context, alignment gives every character a sort of quick summary of a character's moral compass. Does she abide by the law whenever possible, or is she a free spirit? Does she put the needs of others before her own, or is she selfish to the core? For decades, players in AD&D have had the pleasure (or frustration) of pinning their character on the nine-point alignment chart.

Of course, how alignment applies to a character depends a great deal on the ruleset and the players. In the Third Edition, alignment was considered a guideline for how a character views the world. "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." Hypertext d20 SRD, Alignment. The rules even go further, stating that two characters of the same alignment can have very different perspectives.

The modern rendition of AD&D (First Edition) captured in the Old School Reference and Index Compilation (OSRIC) has a more firm stance on alignment. "Alignment is more than a philosophy; evil and good are palpably real in the game world." OSRIC, pg 42. It is a bit heavier handed than the presentation given in the Third Edition, but there are generally no particular consequences given for characters that deviate from their chosen alignment. To that end, it's primary purpose is to provide a guideline for character roleplay.

As simply a guideline for roleplaying, alignment does not present any major issues because it is a wide field. "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other." Hypertext d20 SRD, Alignment. If one person things interprets "Good" to have one meaning while another interprets it to mean another, it does not really matter because at the end of the day alignment has no in-game ramification. Alignment does not create any issues in this context because it does not matter.

Where Alignment Matters: The Paladin's Dilemma

Older editions of Dungeons & Dragons have a few situations where alignment does make a big deal. There are a number of iconic examples, such as spells that detect specific alignments or deal extra damage to specific alignments, but many of the best examples come from a single source: the Paladin. From abilities that specifically target evil to the restriction of not being able to associate with characters of Evil alignment, the Paladin is replete with alignment-heavy concerns.

Who would have guessed such an iconic
class would have so many problems?

The best example is that of the Paladin's alignment restriction. The holy warrior has the restriction that he be of Lawful Good alignment. "A paladin is a paragon of righteousness sworn to be, and always to remain, Lawful Good. If this vow is ever breached, the paladin must atone and perform penance to be decided by a powerful NPC cleric of the same alignment—unless the breach was intentional, in which case the paladin instantly loses his or her enhanced status as a paladin and may never regain it." OSRIC, p34. Suddenly, what constitutes Good or Evil is fundamentally important and not just a matter of roleplaying. Was that act Good enough, or does Sir Paladin suddenly become Sir Fighter?

There are plenty of iconic examples of "Which is the Good choice?" in the Dungeons & Dragons community. Many a message board post has been spent debating the moral value of saving orc children in a nursery or killing people overcome by evil curses. What is a Paladin to do when faced with these difficult moral choices? Which is the Good and which is the Evil? Or, perhaps, are they all different shades of grey?

What is a Paladin to do in this situation?

I have found that a lot of players do not want to have this debate at the game table. It can often be a personal discussion, as most players will base their decision on their own personal views. As a former student of philosophy, I actually appreciate moral dilemmas. I like the idea that a player would be concerned about the ramifications of his character's actions beyond that of "did it get me more XP?"

As both a player and DM, I find it easier to consider the Paladin's Dilemma in the context of the Paladin's vows and the concerns of his god instead of an arbitrary alignment. The choice of a Dwarf Paladin of Moradin regarding orc babies would likely differ greatly than that of a Human Paladin of Ilmater. Despite that both Paladins are Good servants of Good gods, it is likely that they will choose opposed actions. Neither case really focused on the concept of Good as much as it did the views of each respective god.

But Does Alignment Matter?

It is interesting to me to contrast these two different perspectives on alignment in-game. On one hand, alignment does not really matter because its merely a guide to role-playing. Furthermore, there is a great deal of flexibility within each specific alignment, so a player has a lot of latitude in playing to his character's alignment. This is the simple way to address alignment. Each player is simply using the words to his or her best understanding but that those words have no meaning outside of a player's mind. It seems to me that in this context, it would be just as fair to say your alignment is "Awesome Nice" as it would be to say "Neutral Good." If alignment is going to have such expansive definitions and no ramifications, it actually serves no purpose.

On the other hand, where specific game effects are tied to alignment and require explanation, it can become difficult. Did the Paladin maintain his Lawful Good values? Did the Monk maintain a Lawful perspective? Was the Assassin sufficiently Evil? What choices constitute the Good choices? In these kind of situations, such as the question of the orc babies, alignment suddenly feels more burdensome to play than anything. Spending time questioning the moral value of choices within the context of specific alignments can be difficult, frustrating, or even game-breaking. Usually, the best answers involve disregarding the Alignment system and considering a character's faith, belief, or social history. If alignment is going to have such constrained yet nebulous function as to require leaving it behind in favor of alternatives, it actually serves no purpose.

The Ultimate Alignment Chart.

There are other ways to get around the issue that can be satisfying and entertaining. I have heard of at least one group where the Paladin decided how his actions fell on the alignment spectrum, allowing him some measure of control over the narrative. Of course, if that's the solution, it sounds like that group has essentially disregarded the alignment system in favor of an alternative. Some groups have adopted a belief system comparable to the Mouseguard RPG. The Distinction system used in the Cortex Plus ruleset (comparable to the Fate system's Aspects) is another interesting way to promote role-playing.

There are many interesting ways to find motivations for your character and help promote role-playing. Although the classic D&D alignment system is a way to do it, I reiterate my original statement regarding alignment:

My problem with alignment comes when people disagree on what is good, evil, or otherwise. If the game is not morally ambiguous enough to raise the question, then you don't need alignment. If it is morally ambiguous enough, then the alignment system is more burdensome than not.

But now I ask the question: How has alignment served at your game table? Is it something that people disregard or do players strictly adhere to their alignment? Do questions of alignment come up, or are issues of alignment not the kind of thing your group cares about?

On the Horizon: D&D Next Adventure Design

I recently had an opportunity to participate in a playtest of the upcoming iteration of Dungeons & Dragons. It took me this long to get it to it because I had previously participated in a "Friends & Family" playtest back in March that left me very disillusioned with the future of Dungeons & Dragons. I thought I should organize my thoughts and impressions and put them up on the blog. Despite my misgivings about the legitimacy of the playtest Non-Discloure Agreement, I still feel the need to avoid discussing non-public content. Some of this may get slightly vague as I describe my thoughts and impressions of D&D Next.

After writing a great deal about my playtest experience, I realize it would be more useful if I broke it up into different posts. This post focuses on the adventure content included with the playtest. Future posts will address other aspects of my playtest experience.

The Adventure's the Thing

I have come to appreciate that the usefulness of introductory adventures. Oftentimes, the first adventure you play through sets the tone for all future interactions with that game system. When I got my first Dungeons & Dragons Red Box in 1988, the introductory solo adventure was explicitly a room-by-room dungeon crawl. That set the tone for how many people, myself included, interacted with Dungeons & Dragons. In contrast, tthe upcoming RPG 13th Age features an introductory adventure Blood and Lightning that is very loosely organized and emphasizes a lot of the improvisational qualities of the game. Although these introductory adventures are not definitive, as many players will ignore them, they are important as a starting-off point for many players of the game. They are important in shaping how players see the game and, to that extent, how it is played.

One of the things I really came to appreciate in late-era Fourth Edition was that published adventure content provided a variety of interesting characters and scenarios for groups to build adventures around, with focus more on particular events and scenarios than maps of a dungeon are the promise of vast treasures. The Neverwinter Campaign Setting or The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond were both interesting collections of encounters, characters, plots, and schemes that a party could slowly poke their way around and from it build a unique story. They targeted a very different style of gameplay, one that takes advantage of the fact that Dungeons & Dragon is a creative social game. I find this kind of sandbox content very evocative because it provides a wide array of options in which players and DM alike can develop their own narrative.

Lord Neverember doesn't care about exploring dungeons.
He wants you to rebuild Neverwinter with (or for) him.

Given my fondness for this kind of gaming content, it is no surprise that the adventures currently included with the Dungeons & Dragons public playtest worry me. When they included remakes of classic modules (dungeon crawls) like Caves of Chaos and Isle of Dread, I had assumed they did this for purely nostalgic reasons. As I played through portions of Reclaiming Blingdenstone, however, I really got the sense that this classic style of play was the intended direction of the newest Dungeons & Dragons. A direction that, given my own play style, is a disconcerting sign of the future of the game.

The Unfortunate Adventures in Blingdenstone

This guy lives in Blingdenstone
and he probably wants you to gather
ten Kobold scalps or something.

The playtest group I was with had already been playing for two or three sessions prior to my arrival. They were well into the included module Reclaiming Blingdenstone and, as I understood, were quite satisfied with it. With my trusty character in hand, I joined the table in hopes of finding the joy that my old comrades from long ago had found with this new D&D.

I will quickly say that I found the entire session of Dungeons & Dragons (roughly six hours of play throughout the afternoon/evening) to be surprisingly not fun. A significant part of my experience stemmed from my immense dissatisfaction over the adventure, Reclaiming Blingdenstone. It seemed to be steeped in pointless combat with a lot of mundane "quests" to tie it together. To be blunt, it had the feel of something like Diablo or World of Warcraft. "Warden Cardigan wants you to bring back 10 crystals from the Crystal Cave." When you repeat the activity a sufficient number of times and return them to the quest giver, you get a reward and something changes (potentially unlocking another important quest!).

It can be said that I am generalizing the adventure, but as somebody who has taken his Dungeons & Dragons game and influenced it heavily with story games, indie RPG ideology, and other recent ideas within the tabletop RPG scene, I could not help but feel that the adventure was regressive. It felt like the kind of D&D my friends and I played back in 1992, before we had sophisticated dungeon-crawling computer games. The reason I bring this up is that this heavily colored my playtest experience.

[Note: It is worthy of note that the other adventures provided, The Caves of Chaos and The Isle of Dread, are classic adventures from the early days of Dungeons & Dragons. They are even more historical in focus, emphasizing the "dungeon crawl" aspect of the game. From my perspective, I am lucky not to have played that.]

My one major concern with Blingdenstone was that it had such a strong emphasis on wandering through caverns collecting things and killing monsters for experience points and treasure. I suppose my concern rises out of the fact that Blingdenstone was, from all I can tell, written recently. The only writer credits given were Robert J. Schwalb and James Wyatt, both contemporary D&D writers. Given that, it was disconcerting that the provided module would emphasize a dungeon-crawl monster killing style of play.

More or less how I felt after six hours of Blingdenstone.

I do not mean to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with having a dungeon crawl style play experience. Clearly, there are many people that value that gameplay experience. However, the included playtest adventure says more about the design philosophy of the game than any mechanical considerations. As I see it, this is the style of play that they want at the core of the product. And that's what really got me thinking.

Having played games like Descent: Journeys in The Dark and the D&D Adventure System board games, I can appreciate a tabletop dungeon crawl. Both games (and the many related games out there) do well at capturing the dungeon crawl experience in a concise yet sufficient manner. But, in light of the growth in the tabletop role-playing and story gaming industry of the past ten years (including the Indie RPG scene, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, story gaming, Fantasy Flight's RPG lines, and even the developments of D&D 4E), it seems strange to me that the new D&D would be actively targeting a style of role-playing game that has become somewhat niche.

What's Old is New Again (Whether You Wanted It Or Not)

The Dungeons & Dragons game has been slowly moving away from its old school origins since its early days. Much credit could be given to the work of Tracy and Laura Hickman for making story and plot central to the adventure, elevating it beyond a mere dungeon crawl. To that end, the game has come a far way from its origins as a medieval battle simulator with heavy doses of cartography.

Who needs a story when I have a gridded map
to sketch based on vague DM description alone!

By the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, the game openly addressed different styles of play and welcomed story and narrative based play in the introductory chapters of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Even more interesting in the progression was the less popular Dungeon Master's Guide 2, co-written by RPG design guru Robin D. Laws. Although a bulk of the book focused on more mechanical considerations, from monster themes to trap designs, it featured several sections providing guidance and suggestions for DMs new and old. Among other things, it discusses the ideas of collaborative campaign design, having encounters matter, cooperative world building, and other interesting ideas that felt more like they came from the indie RPG community than ivory tower of the D&D Old School.

The reason I mention this, in light of Blingdenstone and its potential progeny, is to highlight how big a step away from those ideas this new material seems to be. For example, consider this paragraph on how to use encounters in a D&D game:

A well-crafted encounter is a key scene in the story of your adventure and in the overarching story of the characters in your campaign. If you build your adventure like a structured fantasy story, sharing a similar dramatic structure with novels, movies, and plays, then an encounter equals a scene in that story. The encounter acts as a discrete element in which tension builds in steady increments toward the climax of the adventure.

That is guidance taken from the second page of the DMG2 chapter on building encounters. Now, contrast the with these two excerpts taken from Chapter 6 of Reclaiming Blingdenstone:

The trip [to Mantol-Derith] takes twenty hours of travel. Every eight hours, whether the adventurers are traveling or resting, roll 1d10. On a result of 1 or 2, consult the “Underdark Encounters” table in appendix 1.

The return from Mantol-Derith takes as much time and has the same potential for random encounters as the trek to the trading post. 

Having a collection of random encounters with trolls, orcs, and giant centipedes seemed anything but relevant to the plight of the deep gnomes. As a player, the only relevance the random encounter served was to waste time and resources. I honestly cannot imagine a legitimate reason why running into a grey ooze or a pack of centipedes would be especially important in advancing the situation in Blingdenstone. Granted, a more astute DM could have implemented a more interesting, engaging encounter that somehow tied to the story and purpose of the adventure, but the fact that the adventure as written suggests a flurry of random encounters as bookends to an essential chapter of the adventure says a lot to me about what the new Dungeons & Dragons is going to be about.

The end of my D&D Next playtest experience, as
presented by the Frost Wizards of Irvine.

Adventure Design: Conclusion

Reclaiming Blingdenstone is not necessarily representative of the new direction of Dungeons & Dragons. However, when you consider that all three adventures provided for testers to use follow a similar format, it does suggest that it might very well be the new (old) direction of the game. I can only hope that future iterations of the playtest begin to include adventures more geared towards an engaging and interesting storytelling experience and less on the amount of treasure and experience a player can amass in a four hour period. To that end, only time will tell.

Luckily, as with any tabletop RPG, what you get out of it depends a lot on what you put into it. Designing a game that is focused on trolling through dungeons looking for monsters to slay and treasures to gather will not impact my ability to play the game I want to play. But, as several friends continue to remind me, the new D&D is not being designed for people like me. That only raises the question of what motivation do I have to stick it through to the end?