The LEGO Analogy

Most of you are probably familiar with LEGO bricks. They often come in the form of kits, with instructions on how to build specific models. But one of the advantages of LEGO bricks is that you can build whatever you want with them. And people do.

Firetruck I created for my daughter when she was three.

With the announcement of D&D Next, WotC has stated that they’re hoping to build a modular ruleset, with an eye towards including legacy rules and play styles under a singular D&D umbrella. The current state of D&D is that this is what most of us are doing anyway. Like LEGO enthusiasts exploring options beyond the instructions that came with the kit, we’re creating our own games using our favorite rules and rule systems. Recognizing this state of the hobby, and creating a resource to aid gamers interested in that exploration seems like a logical step to me. And a good business strategy.

“The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.”

— Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979

Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, and their friends and colleagues tinkered with tabletop war games to create D&D. The fact that the hobby remains a vibrant and viable diversion with a dedicated community of players is tribute to that spirit of experimentation.

“This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only.”

— Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, 1978

Santa Yoda created for a promotion at Gizmodo

As we play with the bits and pieces of D&D, each group finds the elements that work for them, and those that don’t. But unifying it all are some basic RPG concepts, the “bricks” that make up the game. Like LEGO, you can buy or find these “bricks” individually online, or at your FLGS. Or, you can purchase the kits. Either way, the pieces are yours to play with, and to combine and recombine in any way that you find fun.

I suspect that WotC looked at the state of 4e D&D pre-Essentials and found that some players were overwhelmed by the number of choices and complexity of combinations. I also suspect that part of the intent of 4e was that GMs and players would impose limits on what options were available in their particular campaigns. I think Essentials was a roadmap towards the idea of selective use of the rules. Lesson learned at WotC: Creating a clear system of options for selective game-building is perhaps more important than creating a singular, integrated supergame.

This lesson, combined with the state of the hobby (in the form of active and vocal sub-communities devoted to historic variations of the game) has resulted in a change of course. Rather than continuing to pile options on to 4e, WotC will, with input from the community, endeavor to assemble a kit of rules from which players can build their games.

The Cost of Changing Course
I own a lot of gaming books. Admittedly, the vast bulk of them are D&D-related. If I count only the hardback volumes, I have 40 books. It’s a modest collection, but I suspect it is about average for GMs in the hobby. Assuming the books averaged between US$25 and $35 (accounting for the fact that some were purchased over 20 years ago, or more) we’re talking an investment of around US$1,100. I own plenty of splatbooks, modules, and other gaming paraphernalia (not including miniatures.) It’s pretty safe to assume I’ve spent at least $1,100 on that stuff. I’ve been involved in the hobby of RPGs since 1979 or so. It works out to about 32 years. So, cost per day of being in the hobby? About 19¢.

I know that most of you haven’t been in the hobby that long. Or you don’t have that many books. But even if your cost per day is five times mine, you’re talking a dollar a day. I think that’s pretty reasonable considering the entertainment value.

There are plenty of cynical complaints online about the profit motivations behind WotC’s announcement of D&D Next, coming a mere four years after the release of 4e. I know that many gamers have limited financial resources available to indulge in the hobby. There are so many ways to share the costs of the hobby that I feel justified in saying that I don’t find the complaints a legitimate indictment of WotC. Yes, they’ve mishandled customer relations and marketing, sometimes quite badly. But they also continue to publish useable, and in some cases, inspired material.

I’m happy to welcome D&D Next. Ready to explore the various mechanics that WotC has selected as representative of the game over the years. And, I’m interested in providing feedback to them as they finalize the components of the toolkit.

I still have my LEGOs. Many of them are older than my D&D books. It’s still fun to drag out the box every once in a while and just build something. My daughter enjoyed them when she was growing up, and added to the collection. Sometimes we tinker with them together. I’d love to hear your thoughts on rules toolkits, LEGOs, the state of the hobby, or all of the above!

Being a Game Master

One of my players recently approached me about wanting to learn to GM. He asked if he could sit out a session as a player, and watch what went on behind the screen during the game. Any opportunity to encourage those interested in GMing is golden, as far as I’m concerned. More GMs means more game choices.

However, I’m not sure how much can be learned from the GM’s side of the screen that isn’t already apparent to players. What would be apparent is where I diverged from my session notes, or “cheated” to tweak the tension in a combat encounter. But that would be apparent only after I explained it (not something that would be easy in-session.)

My first response to the request was “Sure!” My second thought was to grab a couple of GM’s guides from various games. The game this particular player is in is a 4e D&D game, so I grabbed the Dragon Age GM’s guide and the Pathfinder Beginner’s Box GM’s guide. Both of these books have a lot of useful info that is not specific to a particular ruleset. I also recommended the 4e D&D Dungeon Masters Guide 2, which I think has a lot of good info as well. Finally, since this player had played at my table during the last D&D Encounters program, I’m including the GM booklet from that. Then he can see how the encounters were set up, and have an idea where I diverged from them as written.

Playing Fair
With almost any tabletop RPG the rules are complex enough that the GM will not know them all. Knowing when to substitute mechanics, gloss over details, or defer to player knowledge is part of the art of GMing. The key is to be fair. Both to the players, and to the game. The only way that players will respect the GM and the game is if they feel it is fair and consistent. Being fair is, for me, a state of mind. I’m by nature a team player. I want to work with people to help them succeed.

When players propose a ridiculous action, perhaps to test my level of attention or to see if they can get something free, I need to respond in a way that’s fair. Think of the classic story of the djinni granting wishes. How the wishes are worded is vital to them working correctly. The consequences of poorly worded wishes are widely known. So, I take on the role of the djinni and dissect the player’s request, but I must do so while remaining neutral and without malice.

What are the consequences of the proposed action? “I want to leap onto the dragon’s back, and wrap the rope around its wings, so the beast cannot fly, and then leap off!” Heroic? Yes! Ridiculous? Probably. Looking at the request there are three or four components: Jump, Wrap (maybe Balance), Jump. I probably need to come up with three consequences. If the first jump fails, make an Acrobatics check or fall prone next to the dragon (granting an attack of opportunity.) If the wrap fails, make either an Athletics check to hang on, or an Acrobatics check to tumble clear (choose to stay on the dragon and try again, or get away.) Finally, make an Acrobatics check to tumble clear (with the same consequences as the first jump.)

I’m trying to be fair to the player by outlining the possible consequences in advance. I’m trying to be fair to the game by using game mechanics to quantify the action. And I’m trying to be fair to the story by leaving an avenue for heroic success that will be the stuff of legend for the duration of the campaign. Of course there are lots of different solutions to such an action request. Each GM may handle it a little differently. And each ruleset may have different mechanics. But, hopefully in all such cases, the GM will first and foremost strive to be fair.

As the campaign unfolds, players learn to trust the GM’s sense of what is fair. They learn that, within reason, they will be allowed to negotiate the consequences of proposed actions. But in each case something must be at risk, and consequences must result.

The Art of Fail
When I’ve participated in National Novel Writing Month, I’ve used Evan Marshall’s The Marshall Plan for Novel Writing. One of his best pieces of advice is using the (repeated!) failures of the protagonist to build the story. In fact, he says that in nearly every scene the protagonist should fail, until the end. We’ve kind of got RPGs arranged in the opposite way. And, when players min-max their characters, they do so specifically to ensure success. Unfortunately, that takes much of the drama out of the story or game. Only when we’re confronted with failure are we forced to scramble and come up with new strategies.

As a GM, you need to be on the lookout for these opportunities for failure. When they occur, you need to impose fair consequences. When a GM designs an encounter, they create a framework. When players engage in the encounter, they bring it to life — through their actions and the consequences of their choices.

Winging It
Bartoneus over at Critical Hits posted recently about the art of “winging it” as a GM. (http://critical-hits.com/2012/01/05/the-architect-dm-winging-it/) In addition to what he said there, I’d add that “winging it” should include listening to the actions your players propose, and allowing those actions and their consequences fill out the framework of the encounter. By definition, a player has an investment in a proposed action. They want to succeed. By recognizing those moments of opportunity, quantifying them in terms of game mechanics, and defining consequences, you’re on the way to GMing a successful game. Such opportunities are almost impossible to plan for, and usually require a bit of negotiation to adjudicate. But, being open to exploring them is one of the really fun of aspects GMing.

If you’ve got any advice for those that are eager to take up the mantle of GM, please post a comment. I’d love to hear your ideas on the art of GMing!

More on Rules and Roles

There is a compelling post by j-u-i-c-e over at HubPages on “Why RPG Gamers Fight All the Time”. The author breaks it down to rules and roles, uses examples from the CRPG Skyrim, and deftly illustrates the differences between rule gamers and role gamers while arguing the necessity of both.

On the one hand, the rule gamer is right: if you don't have rules and statistics, if you don't have attributes, classes, racial modifiers, and skill requirements, your role is undefined. That isn't role-playing, that's pretending the way kids pretend. There's no hard limit to push up against, no consequences for your decisions, no meaning to any of your actions. You might as well not play the game at all and just sit in the dark pretending your way through every conflict.

On the other hand, the role gamer is also right: if the rules prevent you from playing a desirable role, what's the point of playing? If there are too many arbitrary rules restricting your freedom of choice you're not really playing a role, you're just following a script. It might be a good action game, or a good strategy game, but it's not really a role-playing game if you can't make basic decisions about things like your character's skill development, what kind of armor they wear, or whether or not Absalem the melancholy Elf can reject his racial heritage and live in the cities as a drunk pimp with an Orc girlfriend and a gambling addiction.

 — j-u-i-c-e

Meanwhile, Greg Tito over at Escapist Magazine has written an interesting series on the past, present, and future of Dungeons & Dragons. I reference the future article here, because I think it makes some interesting points considering j-u-i-c-e’s comments above. Tito quotes Mike Mearls, head of Dungeons & Dragons development at WoTC, regarding the ways in which 4e D&D may have gotten out of balance. It is apparent from the article that the perception is that 4e D&D suffers from being too rules-oriented, per j-u-i-c-e’s definition.

According to the past-present-future articles, older versions of the game (and modern variations spawned by the Old School Renaissance) are more balanced in this regard, if perhaps hampered by somewhat arbitrary rules and/or too many allowances for the role gamer. J-u-i-c-e argues — in the context of Skyrim — that gamer immersion comes from a balance of both rule-gaming and role-gaming opportunities. Immersion being the nirvana that RPGs generally seek to achieve.

I think what immerses devotees of the OSR is the rich tradition and history of settings like Greyhawk (among many others), and the familiar mechanics of exploration, combat and magic as defined and refined by game masters from Gary Gygax to James Raggi. Such games include just enough rules to satisfy most rule gamers, while focusing on role gamers.

4e D&D, as originally released, emphasized rules in an effort to create a playing environment that included more gamers. But, as Mearl’s admits, "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG." In creating a rules game, they lost touch with the role game heritage of D&D.

Where Do We Go From Here?
Lest this devolve into yet another bashing of 4e D&D, I’d like to point out that there are many elements of that game that I, as a role gamer, find compelling. I have just enough rule gamer in me that some of the more arbitrary rules and game mechanics of the original editions of D&D (often perpetuated by the OSR, in my opinion) ruin my sense of immersion.

In my evolving homebrew rules, I’ve incorporated a core set of the conditions imposed by D&D spells and powers, as well as specific powers and effects that cause those conditions. Further, I’ve arranged it so that the player may tactically choose powers and effects that apply those conditions on the fly, in the form of customizable attacks and spells. For example, a weapon user might choose to sacrifice a die of damage in order to knock an opponent prone, if the situation warranted it. Or, a spellcaster might decide to expand the area of effect of a spell, sacrificing some duration, for a temporary advantage.

In the update I’m working on now, I’m tying skill development to defenses. For example, devote more of your skill development to lore-based skills such as history or spellcraft, and your Will defense will increase. Choose agility-based skills instead, and your Reflex defense is emphasized. Additionally I’m tying feats and powers into skill advancement, much as perks are used in Skyrim. When a player spends a point to advance a skill, they may have the option to select an associated feat or power. For example, a player might invest points in their character’s One-handed melee skill, and select the power “Disarm” as part of their advancement. Then, in play, the player would have the option to sacrifice a die of damage in order to disarm an opponent.

Ultimately, my goal is to have a rule system that contains a rich set of choices for rule gamers, while remaining straightforward and streamlined for role gamers. I try to invest as much of my development time in my campaign setting as I do in campaign rules, but finding the personal balance is as challenging as finding in-game balance.

The conflict between rules and roles seems central to dissension in the ranks of gamer hobbyists. Tabletop RPGs that try to become too rule-centric (like 4e D&D), and CRPGs that endeavor to be more role-centric (like Skyrim), inevitably cause a backlash from gamers dissatisfied with the attempts. However, I think it is important to keep trying, from both sides of the issue. If you have examples of games that you feel are nicely balanced in this regard, or thoughts on the matter, I’d love to hear them!

Emotional Investment in Character & Story

In addition to keeping the holiday fires burning for my family, I’ve been playing a bit of Skyrim and reading and thinking about role-playing. There was an interesting post on Bethesda Softworks’ (creators of Skyrim) forums that talked about the failings of the writers of the game. It was pretty well thought out, but I couldn’t help but feel that the poster may have missed the intent of the game designers.

Like some tabletop RPGs where the GM is creating a world as a canvas on which the players can “paint” their stories, Skyrim is a sandbox-style game. The NPCs and events of the world, taken on their own, are somewhat flat. As various posters in the thread above noted, there are many examples of games where some player choice is sacrificed in favor of a more compelling story (as determined by the writers of the game.) But, in true sandbox style, it is up to players to discover what compels them in Skyrim.

This is the approach I’ve tried to take with my tabletop game as well. By having my players create some background information, and noting how they interact with and influence NPCs, I’m able to get a read on what they value in their characters, and in the story. The stuff they’re emotionally invested in. Of course this is much easier to do in a tabletop game than in a CRPG. But I think it’s one of the keys to a successful campaign.

Jared von Hindman, who writes for WotC in various forms recently posted an article on character development, and some of the differences and connections between the game-mechanical aspects of characters, and the emotional investment in story I’m talking about here.

There your characters are, living out a story, which is presented by the DM. Yet those characters are living out a story that, if TVTropes has taught us anything, often follows certain narrative imperatives. Stories have power. A story told enough times can reshape the world. Your adventuring party is creating a story, touching elements of older, darker stories that they might never see the end of because that's not their story.

— Jared von Hindman

As a GM, I’m creating stories in my campaign that are independent of the characters, yet may be influenced by them. Oftentimes, as von Hindman says, there is a certain narrative imperative to the story that creates an informal agreement between players and GMs, and the campaign will, for a time, follow a certain path. This is, to some extent, a matter of convenience for both players and GMs. We have a limited time in which to play, and a certain amount of narrative imperative keeps the game in a context that provides the illusion of full freedom of choice within a realm that is manageable by a GM (who most likely has a job, family, and other commitments that need attention.)

Ultimately though, what will make the campaign work is the emotional investment of players in their characters, their characters’ stories, and in the stories of those around them. Balancing this with game mechanics, the dynamics of individual game sessions (influenced by factors like attendance, distractions, and player capabilities, to name just a few), and maintaining a sense of continuity, is what keeps the campaign juggling-act such a challenge.

So that’s my goal for 2012. To see if I can engineer a successful combination of these factors, in hopes that they’ll foster a greater emotional involvement for my players in both their characters and in the campaign. If you have any suggestions on how I might be better able to do that, or if you think I should try another direction entirely, please let me know!

Two Styles of Play

David Peterson's Mouse Guard

I've visited this issue several times in the short run of this blog, so I hope you're not bored with it. I find it fascinating. In short, there seem to be two major styles of play employed by those I game with:

1. These players are focused on the game-mechanical aspects of their characters and measure their success by additional mechanics enabled. 
2. These players focus on the story, both of their character (background) and achievements in the campaign.

Of course I'm simplifying this radically to make the point. In general, younger players tend to be #1's, while older players are more likely to be #2's. I play with more younger players than old. The ratio is about 3:1. Players assume characteristics of the other style at times.

My theory is that the younger players are more likely to have grown up with CRPGs, which focus on mechanics as a metric for character advancement, and tend to have less-personal stories. Older players are more likely to have played table-top RPGs first, and may have branched out to CRPGs.

This all makes for an interesting challenge as a GM. Some of my players get an immense amount of their game satisfaction from tracking progress, advancing capabilities, and poring over rules to find game-mechanical advantages for their characters. Others are daunted by this level of detail, find it a burden, or would happily remain oblivious to it. Games like CRPGs and 4e D&D put a lot of burden on the player to make sound game-mechanical choices in order to keep pace with the encounters the game provides. These games are predicated on the idea of character/challenge advancement.

So, as a GM I get the benefit of a system that empowers my players to define a lot of the rules that they'll be using (as a subset of the gamut of game rules), and puts the utilization of those rules in their hands. However, I am then burdened by the task of generating encounters that challenge the capabilities of these characters. Players expect that opportunities to use these capabilities will arise, and are usually disappointed when they do not. The knife has two edges.

WotC's 4e D&D

For those players who are content to focus on story or setting, I can easily sketch rich outlines that they then fill out with the results of their choices. Granted, these players assume that I will do so in a fair and impartial way. They are required to trust that I will do so, and I am bound to honor that trust. Anything less leads to disaster, as I'm sure anyone who played an RPG in middle school, or high school experienced first hand!

So, I'm sitting here with this knife in hand (Not literally. It's the figurative knife of modern game rules that make my life easy as a GM, as well as complicated.) And I'm wondering if there is a way to carve out a system that works for both styles of play?

What would you do if your favorite campaign was run using two different rule sets? If, for example, one session was a story-based system like the Mouse Guard RPG, while the following session used something more mechanical like 4e D&D? That's just a crazy idea I threw out. I don't have an answer yet, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Skyrim on the Tabletop, Pt 1

A Nord from Bethesda's Skyrim

The trouble with creating your own game rules is that creating a good game is much harder than it looks. My poor Friday night group has been subjected to several iterations of game rules, published and (mostly) unpublished, and yet they still turn out each month. I think I do a good-enough job of creating an interesting setting, and therefore they’re willing to put up with the eccentricities of my house rules.

My latest wild hair was inspired by the CRPG, Skyrim. Aside from the racial components, the characters are defined by three attributes and eighteen skills. This seems like an endearingly sleek setup, yet there are delicious complexities hidden within. Each of the skills has a tree of perks that may be unlocked, that give the character a unique flavor. I found myself wondering what a tabletop version of the game might look like. Green Ronin did it with Dragon Age, so why couldn’t something similar be done with Skyrim? (Keep in mind, this is all very sketchy at this point. More brainstorming than anything else.) What follows is influenced by Skyrim, 4e D&D, and my own house rules.

At 1st level you have 8 pts to distribute between the attributes of Health, Lore, Combat, and Agility (Strength, Constitution, and the other 4e attributes are not used). You may not put more than 5 points into any one attribute per level. After that, at each even-numbered level you gain 2 pts, and each odd-numbered level you gain 3 pts. That number becomes your bonus to d20 rolls for skill checks (and/or attacks) based on those attributes. In addition, you use those points in the skill trees to select specific talents or capabilities.

Example: A first level character might put 5 pts in Combat. Specifically, 2 pts in Block (unlocking the parry and small shield perks), 1 pt in Heavy Armor (unlocking the chainmail perk), and 2 pts in One-handed melee (unlocking d4 and d6 weapons such as daggers and short swords).

Fighting with a short sword (proficiency bonus +3), and adding the +5 for Combat proficiency, the player would add +8 when rolling to hit with a d20.

Attributes:
Combat (Combat Points) — AC
Health (Hit Points) Start with 20 — FORT
Lore (Magic/Knowledge Points) — WILL
Stealth (Stealth Points) — REFL

Skills:

Combat
Athletics (Initiative +1, +2, +3, +4)
Block (Parry, shields, sm, md, lg)
Endurance (Defender Aura)
Heavy Armor (Chain +5, scale +6, plate +8)
Martial Arts
One-handed melee (Weapons, d4, d6, d8)
Ranged (Weapons: d4, d6, d8, d10)
Smithing (Make armor, 5, 6, 8, or weapons, d4, d6, d8, d10, d12)
Two-handed melee (Weapons, 2d4, d10, d12)

Lore
Alchemy (Make potions or poisons, d4, d6, d8, d10, d12)
Arcane (Conjuration, Arcana)
Crafting (Non-weapon item, non-magical, +1, +2, +3)
Divine (Restoration, Arcana)
Elemental (Destruction, Arcana)
Heal
History
Nature
Primal (Alteration, Arcana)
Psionic (Enchanting, Arcana)
Religion
Shadow (Illusion, Arcana)

Stealth
Acrobatics (Agility, Balance)
Dungeoneering
Insight
Light Armor (hide +2, leather +3, studded leather +4)
Perception
Sneak (Including Move Quietly, Hide in Shadows, Back Stab, Sneak Attack)
Speech (Including Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, & Streetwise)
Thievery (Including Lockpicking & Pickpocket)


I've roughed in some basic perks above, but imagine extending those with some of the options from Skyrim, feats from D&D, or the combat options I derived from 4e that I use in my house rules. In my current system, players build their attack powers on the fly using the following menu of options and a point budget based on the character's level.

Weapon-based powers (1pt each):
The available attack powers are as follows ({M} indicates a melee power, {R} a ranged power, and {W} indicates a power useable both ways.)

All weapon users gain the following powers by default:
{W} 1 die damage (die-type based on weapon equipped)
{M} Grab (target restrained)
{M} Knock Prone (no move)

Additional attack powers may be selected from the following list:

{M} Back Stab — Minor Action
Trigger: You make a melee attack roll against an adjacent enemy using a light blade. The enemy must be granting combat advantage to you.
Effect: The enemy takes 1 die damage (weapon) + extra damage, based on level, if the attack hits.

{M} Blindside (gain combat advantage)

{M} Cleave (make a secondary melee attack against an additional target; target must be adjacent to attacker)

{M} Defender Aura — Minor Action
You project an aura 1 that lasts until you end it as a minor action or until you fall unconscious. While in the aura, any enemy takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls when it makes an attack that does not include among its targets either you or an ally of yours who has this aura active.

If an enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura, then you may make the following opportunity attack (range: melee 1):
Target: The triggering enemy
Effect: The target takes weapon damage equal to 3 + extra damage, based on level.

{M} Disarm (no attack)
 
{R} Favored Enemy — Minor Action
You can designate the nearest enemy to you that you can see as your favored enemy. You can designate one enemy at a time. The favored enemy effect remains active until the end of the encounter, until the enemy is defeated, or until you designate a different target as your favored enemy. If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled. If you have dealt Favored Enemy damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn.
Target: The designated enemy
Effect: The target takes extra weapon damage if the attack hits equal to 3 + extra damage, based on level.

{W} Fusillade (no sense)

{R} Hit and Run (shift a number of squares equal to 1 + Wisdom modifier)

{M} Intimidating Charge (when you charge, target suffers -2 on next attack)

{M} Press (push target 1 square and shift into the space that the target occupied)

{R} Sneak Attack — Minor Action
Trigger: You make a ranged attack roll against an enemy using a light blade, a hand crossbow, a shortbow, or a sling. You must be hidden from that enemy (make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception of the enemy. If the Stealth check succeeds, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack.)
Effect: The enemy takes 1 die damage (weapon) + extra damage, based on level, if the attack hits.

{M} Switch Positions (exchange positions with adjacent target)

{W} Tumble Past (shift 1 square)

{R} Volley Fire (make a secondary ranged attack against an additional target; target must be adjacent to, or the same as original target. Special: You can use this option only once per round. Only useable with a “load free” weapon.)

{R} Vulnerable Prey (when target has no adjacent allies, target suffers -2 on next attack)

Of course, there are a lot of questions to be answered about how this might work, but I hope to expand on the idea in future posts. As always, your insights are welcome!

Thank You, Dave

A couple of years ago I was verging on an episode of game master burnout. Running games, but not really getting any chances to play. I messed around with CRPGs and various MMOs, but I missed the easygoing nature of the tabletop. I decided I’d need to take a chance on an entirely new gaming group. I joined a D&D meetup list online and found a guy looking to start a game that sounded like it was a good fit. We both ended up at our FLGS on the same date, but for a different event. We touched base, and agreed that we’d get together. At the event I met another couple who were fun to play with, and connected them with the new game as well.

Dave was the game master, getting back into D&D after a long layoff. He brought a tremendous energy, a deep homebrew setting, and a friendly vibe to the table. Eventually, we became a group. Dave, Sarah, Andrew, Adam, Bob, and I. We had a great time. But, eventually Dave found himself in the same boat I had been in a few months earlier. I added another group to my campaign to get Dave some playing time, but the commitments of developing his own homebrew setting were outweighing the available time that Dave had, so we decided to shutter the campaign.

After a bit of negotiation we decided to go with the Dark Sun setting to take a little bit of the labor out of the creation part for Dave. Andrew and Sarah moved, and the group changed a bit. But Dave still brought his enthusiasm and energy to the game. Being a creative guy, Dave refused to settle for the easy route with Dark Sun, and had soon created his own town in the setting, and a bunch of new plot elements. We had a lot of fun with it. As our characters leveled up, we discovered things about 4e D&D that were less than satisfying to us. We chugged through it. There were some epic encounters and memorable NPCs. Dave started talking about winding up the campaign by year’s end, and revisiting his original setting concept.

So, yesterday we played an all-day Dark Sun D&D marathon. The like of which I haven’t played in since high school. Dave and his wife organized meals and gaming like the gracious hosts they’ve been for so many sessions before, but on an epic scale. The final fight was a great challenge, and pushed our characters to their limits. It was perfect.

Thank you, Dave. For all the work you’ve put in over the last few years on these campaigns. Thank you for inviting me to your table, and into your home. Thanks also for gathering a great group of people to game with, and keeping us gaming together with your creativity and generous spirit. Thank you for pursuing your gaming interests towards the next campaign you’re planning, and inviting me to participate in that as well.

A couple of years ago I was verging on an episode of game master burnout. Running games, but not really getting any chances to play. Thank you Dave for giving me the chance to play. But more important, thank you for reminding me why I play. To spend time with friends at the tabletop, laughing and telling stories and having a great time. And thanks to Sarah, Andrew, Adam, Bob, Neil, Aaron, and the other folks who’ve wandered in and out of the Dave’s campaigns. I hope we get more chances to play together in the future!