Thursday, October 22, 2026

Awakening of Madness

Although I'm mostly basing the D&D campaign that I'm running off of my old Cult of Undeath outline, it's sufficiently different in system and tone that I don't really want to call it the same thing, and I reserve the right to make changes—possibly even radical ones—on the fly. So, I came up with another name for it. I might yet change it, but I dunno. Maybe not.

I feel like the title itself is kind of a spoiler. But we'll see; and maybe it's not. I also feel like maybe it's too dramatic. But; it is also quite descriptive of Otto von Szell's actual goal of awakening Gol-Goroth, a Lovecraftian being of madness sequestered in the swamp, which serves as a slightly less dramatic setting than the bottom of the ocean. But otherwise, there's a lot that's deliberately echoing several Lovecraft stories in Eltdown; the Snake Cultists of Heqet and the raising of Gol-Goroth from where he lies slumbering deep in the swamp where mortals cannot go.

I can't help it. I just can't run 5e, or any other heroic fantasy system without dragging it through at least a superficial horror wringer. Sure, sure, the system won't really back me up on this one, but it's the best I can do.

BioWare... no longer BioLogically viable

BioWare is dead. Announced yesterday. Really kind of a surprise to no one. They hadn't been successful in the launch of anything in quite a long time.

Someone who worked with them, not as an employee, but as part of Infogrames/Atari who distributed some of their games, I believe, posted this picture of early BioWare vs. a recent BioWare staff picture.

It's possible that nothing more needs to be said. The top picture is the staff that made the original Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights, and even Star Wars: The Old Republic.

I'm not super thrilled with some of the changes that BioWare obviously had here; Jade Empire was disappointing after KOTOR, and SWTOR, as much as I've loved playing it, it had a number of mis-steps too. Many of them were corporate mis steps, but there were lots of ridiculous culture wars mis steps too. Anyway, curiously, SWTOR was moved to Broadsword for maintenance about three years or so ago. It will curiously outlive the company that built it. Baldur's Gate, of course, had a massively successful second sequel recently, although of course, not developed by BioWare either. BioWare launched... Dragon Age: Veilguard, one of the most mocked launches of the last many years.

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

Chicago

I have an interesting history with Chicago. My wife and I went and saw them in concert at the Toledo Zoo, of all places, where they have an amphitheater, and it was a pretty good concert. I can't remember when that was, but I think it was one of the early public events after all the covid lockdown nonsense finally ended. Being that I'm a pretty average (in terms of age) Gen-X, according to the older reckoning before they decided to eliminate generations like Gen-Y and Generation Jones and consolidate them (unfairly and to great confusion, in my opinion), naturally I'm familiar with Chicago from their string of hits in the 80s, mostly (but not solely) torch songs that I slow danced to as a teenager all through the 80s. Songs like "You're the Inspiration", "It's Hard to Say I'm Sorry", "Hard Habit to Break," "Look Away", "If She Would Have Been Faithful" etc. At some point in the early 90s, I picked up Chicago 20, also known as Greatest Hits 1982-1989. At the concert, about half of what they played was familiar to me and my wife from this era. Good stuff, if you like that kind of thing. I always did, but I rarely loved it, and I can't say that I've played that 20 CD all that often, honestly, or given the band a ton of thought. I liked Chicago because, as I said, they made competent pop hits during the years I was a teenager, that were very popular to play as slow songs at the many dances that I went to, so I got to dance to a lot of girls while listening to Chicago in the background. I never felt the kind of pretentious contempt that guys my age often felt for bands like New Kids on the Block or anything, but I never really took Chicago super seriously as a fan either. They were an important part of the "background noise" of my youth, and my appreciation for them is as much about the nostalgia of remembering that era of my life as it is for the music itself. But don't get me wrong; the music is quite good, and as I've occasionally listened to it in the years since, I've appreciated it more than I did then. (I've even come to appreciate New Kids as pretty good musicians, who know their audience quite well in the years since. Of course, my wife was a fan as a teenager, so otherwise I doubt I'd even have gotten that exposure.) 

Actually, it probably took that concert in Toledo for me to kind of remember Chicago, honestly, and recognize that my music collection on my phone didn't actually have a lot of the Chicago songs that I remembered on it, so I re-burned some of them and beefed up my collection.

What my phone did not have at all was the other ~50% or so of what they played, most of which would have been from the track-list of Chicago IX. My wife didn't recognize any of these songs at all, but I did. My dad was a reasonably big fan of Chicago from this era, and I know that he played Chicago IX quite a bit when I was growing up. One of the things that my dad used to do quite frequently when we were all younger and he was at home and in a good mood was throw on one of his vinyls, crank up the volume, and fill the whole house with whatever he was in the mood to listen to like some kind of family party or something. Some of that music me and my brothers and sister grew to dislike tremendously (Joe and Eddie immediately springs to mind, but I wasn't much of a fan of Creedence Clearwater Revival or Three Dog Night and certainly have mixed feelings about Little River Band and Bachman-Turner Overdrive too) but I always kind of liked this Chicago stuff. Chicago IX was also a compilation, and its subtitle is Chicago's Greatest Hits. In the same format as the later one, it could be called Greatest Hits 1969-1975. (There was also a second greatest hits in between these two that was the second half of the 70s and the earliest 80s, but I'm not familiar with it really.) Like I said, my wife didn't know any of these songs, but I did, although I hadn't heard them in years, if not decades when I heard them at this concert, so I went out and got them.

All of this comes up because I just added a bunch of Chicago songs to my playlist on my phone for the commute home (I listen to other stuff on the morning commute) and I've mostly heard some of these earlier songs so far. These include well-known (at least they used to be) songs like "Just You'n'Me", "Make Me Smile", "Feelin' Stronger Everyday" (a particular favorite of mine) the cozy "Saturday In the Park" and the enigmatic "25 or 6 to 4". In fact, that last one I heard both last night as I pulled up at the house, and because I wasn't quite done with it, I put it on for the last few minutes as I was pulling up to the office this morning too. (There are two versions of the song that are commonly available; a short one that's just under three minutes and a longer one that's right about at five. Other than the length, they both sound very similar; I recommend the longer one as the one I grew up with, among other things.)

Sadly, while the title and lyrics are quite enigmatic and have apparently been the subject of a lot of fan theories (and even a ban in Singapore due to supposed veiled references to drugs or something), the reality isn't nearly as interesting according to the songwriter  Robert Lamm; it's really just a song about sitting up in the middle of the night trying to write a song and struggling with the lyrics, and feeling exhausted and stressed out, etc., and looking at the clock and seeing that it's "twenty-five or (twenty)-six to four (AM)". If there's some kind of double entendre meaning or code, it hasn't been confirmed by the band, who are all in their 80s now and are unlikely to tell us before they die. (They're all a year or two older than my parents. My mom will probably live for another ten plus years, well into her 90s, but my dad died earlier this year. It's what happens to people that age, unfortunately.) The opening guitar riff of "25 or 6 to 4" is also quite distinctive. It's quite an interesting song, actually. If you don't know this early 70s Chicago, you should pull up YouTube or Spotify and listen to Chicago IX, the greatest hits stuff and get to know it a bit. As they themselves are fond of saying, they're just about the only rock and roll band to have a full horn section as a integral part of their sound—something that they'd largely lost by the 80s when they came back into prominence in the wake of their hit album Chicago 17 for a number of years. They really are kind of a unique band, and while I don't know that they've entered the halls of "pop music canon" that will be remembered for decades, they were a big deal for many years, had a string of hits lasting decades, their sound was quite unique, and musically they're pretty cool. 

"Chicago 27", The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning with remastered songs (2002) is probably the one to get if you just want a collection of everything; a two-disc 39-track retrospective of their entire career. I mean, any band that can put out six greatest hits albums and not have it seem like they're really reaching, has got something going on. I'm a huge Duran Duran fan for instance, and they were a huge band for many years too (decades, really) and they've only done two; one at the end of the 80s and a better one at the end of the 90s, as a point of reference.

Tuesday, October 20, 2026

New Shadow of Old Night book

I hate these days where I have executive scheduled meetings all through lunch. I have one now (12:00-12:45) one at 12:30, one at 1:00, one at 2:00... maybe I can squeeze a quick lunch out at 3? (I'll snack while on mute with my camera turned off, actually, during at least one of these.) I need the break, though. Work has been, for the better part of the last twelve months, non-stop exhausting all of the time. Getting a decent lunch break—which isn't really as much about eating as it is about just taking a good, solid, at least hour-long break during the middle of the day—is pretty important to me, and I tend to feel very frustrated and tired on days when I can't get that. Most of that I blame on my director. He's one of the worst "bosses" I've ever worked for, and the layer in between him and me is not as good at protecting us from his BS as the one who hired me and who I worked for for about a year before she left. When she left, I literally had nobody between us for four months or so and then they reorganized, and a guy who was already here picked up this scope. He's OK. I think he's more reasonable and sensible, but he also gets riled up by the director, and doesn't shield us from the flow of BS. Anyway... vent over, I guess. While I'm on a call that I really shouldn't have to be on, but I need to be here quietly for political reasons of being seen to be supportive, I'm trying to make this post and not be too frustrated. 

Anyway, this is kind of a scattershot post, while I post about a bunch of crap in unrelated dot point style.

  • I've made a new file for the actual Shadow of Old Night pdf book. I mostly wanted to focus on layout, (even though I don't use real layout software; it's just LibreOffice Doc). I'm mostly done, actually. I'll go another scan/read through it and see if there are any errors or slight corrections to make while I'm at it, but I'm mostly at the point of adding ancillary material, i.e., creating the covers, the table of contents, etc. I'm probably going to create those as separate pdfs, and then combine them in PDF24 as a single file. Anyway, I'm a little bit excited about the new look and feel of the game, but I'm still working on some issues of "trade dress" if you will; i.e., that's part of the reason I made the last post about all of the fonts, because I'm trying to decide how to create my cover and what I want it to look like. 

  • I'll also add the image that I'll probably use for my cover art, although I may still wait until I can generate some more AI options just in case I can get a better one than this. It is more difficult sometimes than people think to get a prompt that actually gives you what you want, and it often takes many iterations. Of course, often the more you ask AI to edit existing images, the more the quality rapidly degrades. AI is great for "democratizing" the accessibility of professional quality (or nearly so, anyway) art to just Joe Blow dude with an internet connection, but it still isn't the same as actually having access to a real artist. As you can see, I've got plenty of room at the top of the image for the title, but I'm redesigning that too. Although that's just me deciding on a font, and stuff like that, nothing necessarily too radical. 

  • Which is why I was playing around with fonts last night, hence that post I made. I think I've decided on changing the font, because I'm more excited right now about some other ones that I acquired more recently. I think it's going to be one of these two shown below, but I need to still determine the color and texture. The cover art is quite dark and cool, so I'm wondering if bright and warm—maybe a fiery red-orange or something like that, is the way to go, like the Raiders of the Lost Ark title... although that seems like that's not really tee vibe I'm going for on a game who's tagline or subtitle is fantasy + horror + madness. I do, however, have a nice rusty reddish texture/color image that I can use as the "fill" for the letters; maybe I'll go with that. I dunno. I'll play around and see what I get.

  • I also finished the next book in the Paizo setting trawl recently and now I'm reading Horror Adventures, because it's October. At the rate I'm going I may not finish that before the month's over, but we'll see. It is perhaps not quite as useful as Occult Advenures because it doesn't have a bunch of new classes, but it has been, so far, easier to read, for whatever that's worth.

UPDATE: Here's the front and back covers, revised. I obviously ended up using the second of those two fonts, and I even made a new blog banner using it too.




Monday, October 19, 2026

Blackletter fonts

It's a little bit silly, but every since I saw the ShadowDark font, and realized that it's the same font that Labyrinth Lord used (JSL Blackletter) I've been fascinated with these kinds of Medieval blackletter type fonts, especially is they are a little "rough" looking, as if hand written by a tired old monk or something. I've collected quite the collection of them. Here's a very small sampling. I have many more, but these are among the ones that are most similar to the ShadowDark font, but in many cases, better or at least a little bit more interesting. The first one is the "official" font, but then I have a few other options too.

Not meant to be exhaustive, but here's some of the ones I have that are more or less similar to each other. There are other medieval blackletters that look substantially different yet. I especially concentrated on fonts that had an S with that double section.





Appendix II

This post is a draft for an Appendix II. I'm redoing my rulebook slightly; less to update the text, and more to update the look, feel and layout. Although I did make a minor change or two; I noticed that somehow I'd let Teleport in as a 5th level spell. My first thought was to delete it entirely, but then I decided to move it to the Ritual Only spells instead, where it makes more sense, as well as greatly reduce the range to which you can teleport. Rather than 100 miles/level, it's 10 miles/level, so a top level character can still only teleport up to 100 miles. That's a nice distance, but considerably less than 1,000 miles. I also fixed a few minor typos and an even fewer amount of poorly worded sections. It's an extremely minor revision; like I said, it's more for the layout, look and feel than for anything else. And I'm doing it primarily as a pdf, although it's possible that I'll send it to Lulu and get a POD of it just because. 

Rather, what I'm going to mostly do new as part of the text is add a new Appendix, or maybe even two new Appendices, to add to the existing Appendix, which has some discussion on how to play as well as some optional rules, including the travel system, a few "exotic" races like the woodwoses, seraphs, dhampyrs, etc. Appendix II, this appendix that I'm using this post as a draft for, would be a discussion of playstyle and how the rules differ from other games that gamers might be more familiar with, and how that impacts the game at the table. Appendix III, if I write it, would be a brief summary of the Old Night setting, or the Three Realms+ as I tend to frequently call it, since I've gradually added a few other regions to the original Three Realms that I'll end up getting campaigns and therefore becoming "core" to the setting; the Corsair Coast (including Porhomok in the interior), Nizrekh, and "the North" including Lower Kurushat and a bit of Hyperborea. That makes for an awkward count; should I call it the Six Realms? The Eight? Anyway, that's for later. For now; how to play for 5e and for OSR players, respectively.

Also, I generated some more images for my new layout, mostly with Gemini, because Nano Banana 2 doesn't seem to run out of generations nearly as quickly, so I can keep going long after Grok and ChatGPT have shut me down. I don't always like the Nano Banana 2 images as much, but this crop is actually quite good, so I'll add some to this draft for visual interest. The actual text in the actual document will have new images, because these are already in other sections of the document. Mostly in the monster section.

Players who are new to the hobby might not have any expectations on how this all works, and may not need this appendix, but I seriously doubt that anyone new to the hobby will ever read or play this game, so I'm addressing this appendix to people who come from already inside the hobby who have experience with some other game. In particular, I believe that people will look at the rules and think that this looks quite a bit like Dungeons & Dragons; either "modern" D&D like Fifth Edition, or retro D&D like the various OSR games (Old School Essentials, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy, Sword & Wizardry and numerous others, all quite similar and broadly compatible with each other.) However, the game isn't really like either of those, in many ways, nor is it meant to be played like either of them, because I don't really enjoy the default play style inherent in either of them enough to try and mimic it; I made this game specifically because neither of them really did exactly what I wanted it to.

All roleplaying games have to, ultimately, answer the most fundamental question for their players; what is it that the characters actually do? And how does that differ in this game than from other games that you might be more used to playing, and how does that change how the game actually happens at the table?

Fifth Edition D&D (5e) is a game that's fundamentally about being big-time heroes. It's a game about telling epic stories about saving the world, involving characters who are heavily inspired by super-hero stories and which offer power fantasies to their players, who can expect to have characters who have mechanics to allow them to do cool, dramatic things, that if put to screen, would be CGI fests of crazy action and super-powered nonsense. Even at relatively low level, characters are extremely capable, heroic, and have access to all kinds of magical power fantasy f/x. 

The published campaigns for 5e all follow a similar, albeit admittedly not identical pattern; the player characters meet extremely colorful and exotic characters who need help against equally colorful and exotic villains, and as they knock down one wave of villains they discover that there is more going on than they initially thought and they now have to investigate and shut down further waves of more powerful villains, to stop a conspiracy to lay waste to the world through some evil god or equally bad and powerful mega-super-villain. Halaster Blackcloak, the "Mad Mage" himself under Waterdeep, and Count Strahd, the iconic vampire-wizard supervillain are among the least colorful and more grounded of this assemblage of arch-villains, which also includes half a dozen iconic demon lords in one campaign, Tiamat, Goddess-Queen of Evil Dragons Who Lives In Literal Hell in another campaign, Tharizdun, the powerful Chained God of Madness and his four godlike elemental lords, one for each element, who he has manipulated into serving him unknowingly is another. The famous archlich Acererak has cursed death itself, causing people to be unable to become resurrected by routine D&D magic in another. It goes on and on. Even the anthology "campaigns" tend to offer similar story arcs, although less epic, because they are shorter and meant to be lower level. 

5e is fundamentally a game about extremely colorful, unusual, highly fantastic super-heroes saving the world from cosmic threats that are capable of literally threatening the entire world all at once, and being the Big Time superheroes who are the only ones, for some reason, who can do so. When I'm feeling less charitable, I call this mode of play The Avengers meets the Muppets. 5e has also started to develop an alternate mode of play, although it is less represented in the actual campaigns, it has been heavily represented in some of the art and other "ancillary" material for the game lately, which embraces the trend of cozy fantasy. In this version, "heroes" are just characters, and they don't save the world, or really do much of anything unusual; in fact, that's kind of the whole idea. It's Fantasy SIMS, and you just run these bizarre and highly fantastic characters in a bizarre and highly fantastic world, but you just run a business, or do other little low stakes and often whimsical and colorful things. I don't know; this adds an element of My Little Pony to the otherwise Avengers meets the Muppets vibe. 

This mode of play is well established and supported by not just the structure of the adventures, but also by the rules and mechanics. Characters are very durable, difficult to kill, can immediately do all kinds of "cool things", and only add to their ability to do "cool things" as they level up, quite quickly, I might add. Almost every character is overtly magical and highly fantastic, and although "traditional" races exist in the game, of course, even the "boring" human option (actually the most commonly played, I'm told) but every addition to the game makes it more colorful, more fantastic and more whimsical. I don't begrudge this style of play, but since 5e does it very well, there really isn't any real reason for me to try and do the same thing; if that's what I wanted, why not just play more 5e instead? Keep in mind that although the game looks superficially similar in some ways to 5e, you are not expected to play Shadow of Old Night in this manner, and it will no doubt frustrate and disappoint you if you try. That's not what I mean for it to do.

The OSR, or Old School Revival (or Renaissance, depending on who you ask, or sometimes even Revolution) is perhaps a little fuzzier on what exactly it is, but ultimately I think I can make some handwavy generalizations. Because the Shadow of Old Night also resembles an OSR game superficially, it's important, I think, to compare it to that as well. What do OSR characters do? Well, first off, OSR characters are usually not nearly as colorful a 5e characters. They're often quite grounded, low fantasy, even occasionally leaning almost into grimdark territory, where the idea of an exotic race is something like a goblin, and they otherwise focus on very traditional, old-school types of characters with low access to magic, low access to "cool things", and the OSR makes a big deal of contrasting its sword & sorcery roots to 5e's high fantasy; although that's not exactly true either (Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser were all three over-the-top heroic characters that are more similar to super-heroes than OSR gamers are often willing to admit.)

There really isn't any such thing as the "iconic campaign" for an OSR game the same way that there is for 5e. What "campaigns" do exist are not written at all like 5e campaigns. There isn't really any story at all, there's just locations full of interesting challenges. You certainly don't save the world from super-villains. You may not even save a handful of villagers. In general, the gist of the game is to go explore "dungeons" for no other reason than the joy of discovery, the fun of the challenge, and the material rewards for your characters that they expect to get out of it. The "dungeon" itself becomes the super-villain, a bizarre environment that is unremittingly hostile in nonsensical and ridiculous ways, which serve no other purpose than to create challenges for the players to overcome with their characters. Ultimately, that is what the most important activity of the characters is; to overcome challenges for the sake of it, not because it creates an interesting narrative, or tells an interesting story, or meaningfully develops even the characters, who ultimately might end up being kind of disposable. Because overcoming challenges through player cleverness rather than through character coolness is the objective OSR players often brag about riding the struggle bus. Their characters are the opposite in some ways from 5e characters. Not necessarily colorful, or even interesting, they are often more like playing pieces, and they are quite fragile in comparison. OSR games aren't imaginatively living a power fantasy, it's bragging about how clever you were as a player to solve ludicrous and random challenges. And sometimes, the challenges take their toll, and that's part of the whole experience; you have to replace characters sometimes because you lose them due to not quite being clever enough, not quite being prepared enough, or perhaps most often, just not quite being lucky enough and having bad rolls come your way. If you don't set the proper watch and have the proper preparation, your character can die randomly due to a literal random encounter with a random wild animal, and that's the way it's supposed to be. You shrug and roll up a new character and jump right back in and try again. If you're successful, your characters gain treasure (gold pieces, or gp) and experience (XP) both of which mean that you become better at going in and doing it again, except now with even more difficult challenges, presumably, or at least you can address challenges that you had to avoid before. Rinse and repeat. 

So, although Shadow of Old Night resembles D&D in both of these iterations in many ways, it isn't really meant to be played like either of them. There is both a game and a famous (albeit old now) TV show that best emulate what I expect a Shadow of Old Night game to be like. The game is Call of Cthulhu (CoC) and characters there are not power fantasies at all; they are rather pointedly normal people in over their heads, and the purpose of the game is not that they acquire anything really. They're not overcoming challenges for its own sake, or to raise their status through treasure and experience (gp and XP). Ironically, they do sometimes attempt to save the world from horrific world-ending threats, although not being super-heroes like 5e characters, the vibe is tremendously different. Sometimes you do not, though, often the threats are much more subtle or localized. Maybe the whole world isn't under immediate threat, although it could be under a longer term threat as ancient and alien creatures who have little interest in humanity other than to consider them a pest or a speed bump to their own agendas. Investigation and mystery is what the PCs are spending the majority of their time doing, often followed by hectic and desperate action that may leave you several characters short when all is said and done, because Call of Cthulhu is meant to be a game of desperate supernatural horror. 

The X-files is the TV show, and it differs in some respects from CoC. The characters can be more capable. Rather than being in-over-their heads normal Joes caught up in things that they're not supposed to know, they can be well trained and well educated federal agents, to so speak; trained and authorized to investigate and stop these supernatural threats, and capable of doing so, after a fashion, but they need to be lucky, careful, and usually have a better plan that just going in guns blazing. You do expect more continuity of characters; you don't get near the lethality of say an OSR game or a CoC game. Monsters are still overwhelming and characters are still in over their heads, but through careful research, investigation, and finding the monsters' weaknesses, they can at least be stopped or thwarted, if not destroyed, and the world can go on for a time, without having most of the characters either die or go insane, like they do in CoC. It's not unlike CoC in most respects, other than that the characters are a bit more capable and are expected to (mostly) survive the experience, although often at cost to themselves.

This is the model that Shadow of Old Night is meant to emulate. You need to be careful with your characters, but not in the OSR sense where you're attempting to tactically solve challenges like traps and stuff like that, but rather in the sense that you need to investigate first before going in fighting, because if you Leeroy Jenkins your way into it, it will go badly for you most likely. But by being more cautious, you can be expected to survive and maybe even prevail. Again, not long term, perhaps, but you can hold off the long defeat for another day. What you spend your time doing is investigating shady conspiracies, secret supernatural threats, and investigating in a fantasy world that maybe doesn't necessarily believe that the threats are real. It's supernatural federal agents and black ops in a grounded, low fantasy world, and you do it because it has to be done. You're not the Big Time Heroes, you're the secret heroes that few if any truly recognize for what you do for them. If anything, they may fear you more than like you (how much do you want a federal agent knocking on your door talking about aliens, Bigfoot or ghosts?) You don't get rich doing this. You don't get powerful. You do get more capable, but only modestly, as time goes on. The point isn't to have characters that advance for its own sake, that's just an emulation of more organic and "realistic" character growth over time as you survive more investigations. 

Although the mechanics superficially resemble D&D mechanics, they don't really play like them, and you're not even meant to play the high lethality OSR type game with them; you're meant to play a game that is more like a fantasy horror game, a fantasy Call of Cthulhu or fantasy X-files if you will. I like the idea of the characters being capable, swashbuckling equivalents to Fox Mulder who persist (mostly) from season to season, if you will, rather than like fainting old professors who are likely to die before the adventure ends, but you should never feel like your characters have any real plot or mechanical immunity to having bad things happen to them. If you try and play Shadow of Old Night like 5e, you'll find that your characters are frustratingly fragile and maybe even kind of bland compared to the flashing lights and super-powers that you're used to. If you try and play Shadow of Old Night like an OSR game... actually, it would probably work reasonably well, but then again, it's not meant to be played that way, and I don't envision ever running Old Night like that. It's just a coincidence, if you will, that an OSR ruleset is closer to what I want mechanically to do something very different from a playstyle experience. Old Night is its own game; meant to have D&D-like mechanics (old-fashioned D&D mechanics, anyway) but meant to be played as if it were Call of Cthulhu and not any version of D&D really at all.

Friday, October 16, 2026

Gaming and reading updates

Marshal Hathaway
(not a character in this campaign)
Last night was supposed to be the next session of our game. Well, it was, but it wasn't as good as I'd hoped. A couple of days ago, the 6th player, who came from the original group that I "inherited" confirmed that he's not going to be available for at least the short term, although the timing is indefinite. So, we're five players, and I've had all five of the characters in a session already at least twice now.  The other "new" player came again, and this was her second session. Another guy was iffy; he's got a lot of work issues going on, and his availability is, in general, kind of flaky. He didn't come. Another guy we knew was traveling for work, but he was supposed to be back yesterday, and there was hope that he'd join the session. He didn't make it. So, we were down to the husband/wife team, and the "new" lady... except when I got there, the husband had a migraine, and although there was "hope" that he'd join later, he never did and I didn't see him. So, where I'm now in theory only a single session away from finishing the "first" adventure of my campaign, I only had two players, and we didn't even have access to anyone else's character sheet, so I was definitely reluctant to get them in over their heads, or move too aggressively towards the conclusion. I spent some time getting them to flesh out their character backgrounds a little more; mostly in terms of giving me things that will be interesting for me to play with as GM. Tanya's character Ombra, for example, was raised as an orphan in a weird shadar-kai monastery village. While she thinks she knows her background, she was very explicit that her character could very well be wrong about what she thinks. By the luck of the dice, her character was picked as the lookalike for the Enemy Within Kastor Lieberung caper... but now I'm thinking of adding to it the Mako SWTOR stuff, i.e., not only is "Fraulein Benedicta" a lookalike, but there will be other lookalikes that pop up, with hints of a shady conspiracy that led to these "cloned" versions all being created for some purpose... but then they somehow got out into the wild. I don't have any development for this yet, but I've got plenty of time to think about it.

Erika's character doesn't remember anything from the last couple of weeks or so. Last she remembers, she was with her "clan" in a part of the world that is unfamiliar, and then she woke up in the basement of the insane asylum where the other PCs found her last session. I don't know if Erika herself didn't get it, or if this was part of her character's confusion, but even though I said flat out that this was not in the Forgotten Realms (I'm a little miffed, honestly, that FR and D&D in the latest edition is treated as if it is one and the same) so her character kept talking about Faerun and stuff. Nobody knew what she was talking about. This could easily be her being confused and/or crazy. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if all of the memories that she has are actually fake, implanted, and maybe something about the same group that created the clones messed around with her too. But we'll see. This is till the introductory adventure. It's not even the "real" chapter 1. I've got time to figure that out, and without the time we had last night, I wouldn't have had all of these juicy character options to bite in to.

We also had them running around looking for clues, investigating and generally getting into some trouble, but not too much, because I didn't really want to do any combat with just the two of them. I really hope, however, that we have enough people to actually run the true introductory concluding session and I can set them up to start the real chapter one.

Who else do I have as characters? Jared's character, who will be one of my most reliable guys, I think, is a gnome cleric of Tyr named Vorgin Jones. Or maybe Vorjin Jones, since that's how he pronounces it. He also pronounces Tyr like Twr. I think he's trying to approximate the actual Old Norse pronunciation, which would be more like the German vowel ü, so Tür. There isn't any such sound in English which is part of the problem, but Twr isn't really  the closest approximation of it. I think he mostly just wants something that he can say that isn't exactly "teer" like people would normally say. Whatever. It's not like he's going to go around preaching the doctrine of Tyr as a major character trait, or meet the guy, so I don't care how he pronounces it; it'll almost never come up. He's a gnome too. He admits that he hasn't yet really gotten a roleplaying handle on his character, or what his deal is, and that he doesn't think that he's quite yet an interesting character, honestly. In his own words. 

John's character, Fenwick Hallstedder, is a human monk, with a noble background of some sort. He's either slumming, or perhaps on some kind of penance or temporary exile, or "you're in time out until you grow up and straighten up your behavior" kind of thing, but he's missed the last two sessions, all of them since we started doing this campaign "for real" so he's not a character that I have a real handle on anything interesting to do with either... although I'm thinking some branch of his family might be involved in the shenanigans with Ombra and ... whats-her-name.

Justin's character is the one that I'm obviously the least interested in, and the rest of the group kind of feels the same way as near as I can tell. What can you do? He's a nice enough guy, and I inherited him as part of the group, but he's obviously not the kind of player that I normally look for. His character is named... "Hey, new guy." Apparently, he ran a whole campaign with the group with a character named Pastrami on Rye. He's obviously the kind of guy who likes hanging out with the group, getting some social time in, and interacting mechanically with the game, but I have a funny feeling that the rest of us will all spend most of our time ignoring his character, and mostly pretending like he doesn't exist, except in combat and occasionally here and there when he helps with solving some puzzle or investigation or whatever. Sigh. Getting any meaningful roleplaying out of him may not be worth the effort, so I'm unlikely to really engage much on that front unless he starts engaging first. 

Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining that I have him. I don't mind him being in the game. But from the perspective of the "story" of the game, he clearly doesn't fit, isn't meant to be taken very seriously, and so... won't be. If the game were ever converted to a story or screenplay, like the Critical Role show, his character wouldn't even make an appearance at all.

So, we'll see what happens next week. Tanya, who's usually my most engaged roleplayer and most engaging character (and the DM of the Tyranny of Dragons game) isn't available, but we think that she's the only one who will be missing. Kind of a shame, but I don't want to not hold the session for one player, even if she is otherwise the most consistent and most engaged of the whole group. This is, after all, the finale, sure, but just the finale of the introduction. There's plenty more that I have planned going on.

Oh, I also tagged this as reading. I did finish "House of the Beast" last night before going over to the game. I also finished some of the other material in the book, but I still have about twenty pages or so of "supplemental material", namely the "set piece" mini adventure, the Elaine Cunningham short fiction, and the Bestiary. It was significantly better to read than Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, but it's still not as engaging as I'd like, because it was still a dungeon-crawl, after all. I'm much more interested in the (we'll see, but claimed) urban intrigue adventure that's the next one in the trawl as soon as I finish the last little batch of minor sections that are in the book but which follow and are supplemental to the adventure itself. 

While I have some other products from other trawls queued up in my SumatraPDF reader, I'm not likely to read them until I finish these last Paizo D&D 3.5 products. I've got four Campaign books to read, four stand-alone modules, and four more chapters of Legacy of Fire. After I cross the Rubicon of D&D 3.5 to PFRPG, I won't care quite as much about keeping them in synch; I'll mostly just be reading which trawl products in which trawl that I'm interested in. I don't believe that I'll really do a lot of stuff out of order, necessarily, but I'll only dip into the trawl that I feel like reading next rather than trying to keep them in lock step. Once I finish this Paizo stuff, I'll at least read a new Eberron book and a new Forgotten Realms book (as well as finishing the Dark Worlds SPCM campaign) and probably also read Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and Curse of Strahd and Monster Manual IV. That means that it'll be a few weeks before I dive back in to Paizo. 

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Dungeoncrawling

I finished Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, which was a very tedious dungeon-crawl to read. I was excited to finish it and move on to what I expected to be a more trad-style adventure in the next chapter (two) of the Legacy of Fire adventure path, "House of the Beast" I think it's called. And... right off the bat, the introduction is a love-letter to dungeon-crawls and a proclamation that this one is a dungeon-crawl. I tried to read it, but I found my mind wandering a lot, and it was hard. It's hard to read dungeon-crawl adventures as reading material, although I can understand how they can be played. I still don't enjoy them a lot, but again, as reading material, they are dreadfully tedious. I had to stop reading partway through and tell myself that I'd come back to it later. That was disappointing. Not that reading modules is always the most exciting thing, and I know that every adventure path probably has at least some degree of dungeon-crawling, but it was disappointing when I wanted to cleanse my palette from a very tedious dungeon-crawl to immediately turn to another one, even if it isn't as tedious as the one I just read by a long shot. I'm not sure how much this particular adventure path is really my speed, to be honest with you. I think the next adventure after this one looks better, but the whole genies and Arabian Nights vibe is... well, it's OK, but it's not my favorite. In spite of the fact that hiking in the desert is a hobby of mine (at least in the winter, when the weather is cool, if we're talking about the American southwestern desert. I've had great trips to Moab, Hanksville, Grand Junction and Big Bend National Park, and I'd love to do more in Arizona and New Mexico in particular.)


I don't want to skip ahead, but of the upcoming adventure paths, I think the next one, Council of Thieves, will be fun to read, even if it's not necessarily a highly regarded campaign. I never was going to run it as written anyway. After that is Kingmaker, which seems to be one of the absolute favorites, but ironically, I am wary that it isn't really my thing. Serpent's Skull and Carrion Crown are next, both of which I've read in the past, but not for many years, followed by Jade Regent; another one that I don't think I'll enjoy as much... although we'll see. Sometimes these can be better to read than to play (or vice versa) so I'm trying to be open-minded instead of just focusing on themes and stuff that I already know that I enjoy.

Skull & Shackles is after that, which I expect to like, followed by Shattered Star (lots of dungeon-crawls again) and Reign of Winter (which I already know that I'm annoyed by one of the final chapters where you literally travel to the Bolshevik Revolution in real world Russia in 1918 and fight Rasputin, which seems hoaky beyond belief.) Anyway; that will keep me busy for a while. If I really finish all of those before the end of 2027, I'll be doing really well, without looking at the rest of them beyond that. Even if I have a pretty good clip of reading these, I doubt I'll finish the PFRPG adventure paths before the end of 2028. Then I can decide if I want to read the 2e ones, or take a break. Especially considering all of the other gamebooks that I also want to read during this period.

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Wages of feminism, once again

I mean, there really isn't anything more that needs to be said, is there? Grumble, grumble. Formatted with the "Show More" nonsense. Here's the full text.

Step back and think about the things women fight for harder than anything:

1. The right to murder their children through abortion 

2. The right to have absolutely no accountability for anything, ever (see Lindsay Clancy

3. The right to be a whore (see Jane Doe/Cornell)

4. The right to dress like a prostitute everywhere (see Shane Gillis)

And their reactions to be called out for it exposes them further and further. 

Look, ladies, the things you fight for most say a lot about you. It speaks to your values. And the point is... you don't have any.

*this is not every single women everywhere who has ever lived all the time, just most of you, so don't bother with the low IQ responses.

D&D 3.5 vs PFRPG

Well, I'm the better part of twenty years too late to write this, but what the heck, amirite? I'm re-reading a lot of 3.5 and PFRPG products right now, and I still prefer it to D&D 5e, which I don't really like because it feels like running 3.5 except without most of the character customization options, and to 4e and PFRPG2, which I have no interest in at all. As far as I'm concerned, "d20" is still D&D, and by far the version of D&D that I prefer. But it's a "family" of games. Just like B/X. BECMI, AD&D and even OD&D were all broadly compatible, used the same system with a bunch of customization unique to each, and you could easily hybridize (and almost everyone actually did) amongst them because if their high compatibility, I see D&D 3.5 and PFRPG as being in the exact same situation. Some things I like better in one system, and some in another, and I've been saying that all along, but it's still true. But I never really systematically described what I liked better in one system vs the other; I just made a few handwavy comparisons back in the late 00s when Pathfinder was new.

So, I found an old reddit post (although not that old. It's nice to see that the two systems still have their fans). While it doesn't pretend to be comprehensive, it kinda sorta mostly is, so I thought I'd use it as a springboard from which to make my own analysis. So, this will kind of be a "fisking" post, where I talk about what I think about what he says.

I both DM and play mainly a mix of Pathfinder 1e with 3.5 included. If there is a Pathfinder version we tend to use that. There are some obvious differences that make Pathfinder seem like a better thought out system, but it still has its base in the 3.5 materials.

CMB and CMD streamline the entire grapple system of 3.5 and make it easier to use. It is still a bit complex, but you dont need a page-sized flow chart for grappling like you do in 3.5. Just an index card lol.

This is one of the things that I've always agreed with; the combat maneuvers procedure from PFRPG is simply better all around than whatever 3.5 did. There was a reason while playing 3.5 that I almost never attempted any of those maneuvers. Not only were they too complicated to remember how to pull off, the rules-as-written were honestly too punitive. It never felt like it was worth it to make the attempt, because it was never as good as just attacking. 

Skills - Class skills and trained skills are easier to understand. 3.5 had it to where you get 4x the normal skill point per level amount of your class at first level where PF1e just makes it a +3 misc. in class skills you have at least a skill point. This ends up making you have the same effective possible bonuses without more math, and lets you just limit max points in a skill your current character level instead of that + 3. Yet because of this numbers being the same, you can still easily convert over feats and prestige classes from 3.5 and just count the misc. +3 as skill points for prerequisites.

They also changed Concentration to being a flat Caster level +casting stat modifier instead of a skill relying on CON which many casters are bad at.

Because I rarely play casters, I don't have a strong opinion on Concentration, but I think the "it's less math" idea is kind of dumb. I don't know that I think one system is better than the other between the two skill points at 1st level schemes, but 3.5 certainly allows for a marginal bit of more customization, and I never once thought of it as difficult to do. That change strikes me as a pointless one, and the main reason I oppose it is because it doesn't actually offer an improvement, and it's difficult to remember that it's different for people who (like me) made tons of characters in 3.5. Why change things if it's just a change for change's sake? I'm sure that they thought it was an improvement, but I fail to see how.

Listen and Spot were combined into Perception.

Hide and Move Silently were combined into Stealth.

Balance, Jump, and Tumble were combined into Acrobatics.

Decipher Script, Forgery, and Speak Language were combined into Linguistics.

Search was dropped, but I add it back in for my homebrew character sheets.

Use Rope I don't think has a direct translation, but I have seen most DMs use Sleight of Hand or a simple CMB check for most of its applications.

Gather Information was folded into both Diplomacy and Knowledge Local depending on how its done.

Open Lock was combined into Disable Device.

Listen/Spot combined is a no-brainer. Hide/Move Silently too. Balance and Tumble too, I think, but I guess I don't mind putting Jump in there too. Although at some point; why not swim too? Why not Climb too? Why not every physical skill? I'm not going to complain about Jump being in there, but I think that it isn't as obvious.

 I always thought Decipher Script and Speak Language were kind of silly skills, honestly, but I have no idea why Forgery is now Linguistics. I'd honestly prefer some other method of adding extra languages than spending skill points, which was always kind of wonky in d20. Decipher script was another one that never made much sense to me. You either can read a language or you can't; you can't make a "skill check" to read a language you don't know. I think that there's room for a reworked linguistics that uses some elements of decipher script and speak language, but which made both make more sense. Forgery, on the other hand, has no relation to either.

I presume that we're meant to use Perception in place of Search, and that's fine, I suppose. I hardly ever used Use Rope, but as someone else pointed out in a comment to this post, the most common usage of it was to tie someone up, so CMB/CMD applied, I guess. The other combinations either made sense or at least I have absolutely no problem with. I, in general, don't mind thrifting of the skill list, and of course, my own homebrew has an even more radical thrifting, down to merely six skills. But my own homebrew is meant to be specifically rules lite, so that's not really apples to apples. The whole reason to play a system like these d20s instead of a rules lite alternative is to have more character definition, and the skill list is a big part of giving us that... as long as the skills don't step on each others toes. Come to think of it, that's part of the reason I like the 3.5 way of doing skill assignment rather than PFRPG. It gives you just a bit more fine-tuned control and granularity.

One thing that I thought of years ago but which I've never really heard anyone say anything about, is that high skill characters like rogues end up having so many skill points to spend, however, that with an abbreviated skill list, they can basically take almost anything that they want. Their effective "wealth" in terms of skill points to spend is increased when there are fewer skills to spend them on, but they still have just as many points to spend. I'm not sure if that's good or bad; there's still room to customize what a rogue is and does, but it's worth pointing out, at least. 

The Class System - While some classes in 3.5 had a racial alternative feature or options leveling up, there were not many options when you took a class for customization aside from multiclassing or going into prestige classes. This is the main part of how the system came to "bloat" as some put it as instead of having archetypes or subclasses there were just entire classes and prestige classes created for varying versions of the same play style.

Pathfinder, to my knowledge, introduced archetypes that exchange class features of the base class instead of making entirely new versions of the class. On top of that, the classes themselves have many more features than the base classes. Looking at any of the original classes, they all have more choices and features just in the base versions over the 3.5 versions of the same class, let alone the ability to switch some of them out. PF1e classes have between 10 and 80 archetypes, many of which stack, and some of which exchange nearly all the main features of the class to play entirely different.

Actually, the idea debuted in a modern d20 context in the Player's Handbook 2 for 3.5, although I'll give Paizo credit for actually seeing and unlocking the potential in the idea through archetypes. Archetypes are a great idea, and as far as I'm concerned, should be seen as making prestige classes (and many alternate classes in general) completely obsolete and pointless. Although arguably there is some bloat in terms of archetypes by now. I mean, 80 archetypes for a single class? C'mon. 

The power scale of classes have increased in Pathfinder 1e from 3.5.

I'd argue that that's the biggest con of PFRPG vs. 3.5. That was completely and totally unnecessary.

The lowest hit die of a class is now a d6 instead of a d4.

Some classes probably need a bump (rogue's d6 to d8 makes some sense, for example) but wizards et al were not one of them.

You gain a feat every odd level instead of every 3rd. So by level 20, ignoring extra from races or classes, you now have 10 feats instead of 6.

Too many feats as it is. Not a fan. 

Level 0 spells can be cast infinitely.

Not a fan. D&D is already too high fantasy magical. 

The end cap of classes have been buffed and there exist a group of choices available outside class restrictions.

I don't even know for sure what he's trying to say with this one, but if it's (as I think) related to high level, I don't really care. I never want to play another high level game ever again, honestly

Crafting PCs, namely wizards, are no longer behind the party since magic items and spells no longer require xp to make or use.

This is probably good on paper, but I never actually played with a group who had crafting PCs. We were always too busy adventuring to sit around crafting. We'd find loot and if it wasn't what we wanted, we sold it and bought magic items, not crafted them.

Most classes get an much larger amount of features. Rogues have talents, monks have ki powers, Magus' have arcanas...

This is by and large a welcome change. I don't care quite as much about the "scourge" of dead levels, but having more options to choose from rather than simply... not having them, is certainly better. Really bland classes like the fighter are considerably more interesting in PFRPG compared to D&D 3.5. 

Rules are more systemized in Pathfinder

Polymorph rules are the biggest in this group. 3.5 had a lot of trouble limiting the power of certain builds and druids because of how PCs could gain the stats of creatures. But the rules of polymorphing in Pathfinder codified wild shape and other morphing abilities to match spells which have specific limitations and buffs to the PCs' stats instead.

I guess I've heard that polymorph and wild shape were OP, but I never really experienced it myself. Then again, I didn't play with powergamers, or even very many druid players, for that matter, so maybe I just never experienced the problems that other people talked about a lot.

Races are built using race points (RP) that allow the DM to know exactly how powerful it might be instead of level adjustment. Though I use both and consider 15 RP to be equivalent to +0 LA, 16-30 as +1, and 31+ as +2 and allow templates after I approve them.

The LA+x system was one that I never liked, but I'm also not a fan of the power bump in racial design, honestly. Then again, I haven't really looked at the Advanced Race Guide in some time, and I don't remember how it works very well. I like lots of races so that I can have lots of options in world-building, but in actual play, I definitely prefer a more limited palette of races anyway. I just am, honesty, a little bored with the 3.5 and PFRPG core rule races and want to see different ones. Not necessarily more races, but also not necessary the "Tolkien group + gnomes" racial mix.

Monday, October 12, 2026

Burning out... 2e or 3e; which is truly transitional?

I read, this weekend, a number of game books, some of them kind of short. I finished Guide to Absalom and the short stand-alone module, "Hugry Are the Dead" (although stand-alone is a bit of a misnomer; it's third in a linked series. While it can be played as stand-alone, and they go out of their way to point that out, it was neither written nor intended to be so.) I also read much of 3e's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. This is a pretty hefty book, as a pdf. I have the entire book, which is 165-170 or so pages, many pages of maps, and of course there is also an associated Dragon Magazine article, and the web enhancement pdf. I got into pdf24 and chunked all of the latter on the tail end of the pdf of the book, so my version is now more than 240 pages; but of course, I'll not "read" all the pages with the maps, so it's probably more like 200 or so of actual pages to read. And a number of those are just NPC stats, which I'll also skip/skim. So... 180 or so actual pages to read? Maybe a little less? Very rough estimate. In any case, I'm on somewhere over page 100, so I'm at least 60% done, even counting the Dragon article and web enhancement. 

It has been extremely tedious to read, I'll admit. I'm not really enjoying it. I've read 10; almost 11 of the 3e officially published adventures now. There were less than thirty published, and at least half a dozen of them are the super short "Fantastic Locations" adventures, although many of the later ones are longer; more like 5e campaigns, really (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft being directly comparable, of course, to Curse of Strahd). I'm not counting officially published adventures for other settings; I've read most of the Eberron ones as part of my trawl, except for a couple of late additions that are still to come, and there were a few for Forgotten Realms; next book on my FR trawl is, in fact, a long-form adventure, City of the Spider Queen. I believe that the Return to the Temple... that I'm reading right now is the last (other than the web adventures) module published officially by WotC for 3e as opposed to 3.5, for what that's worth. While I'd never read those, and I did want to do it, I admit that in retrospect, I don't think it was worth the trouble. Other than "Speaker in Dreams" I didn't really like any of them, and haven't thought they were worth reading. I really hope that the FR module, when I read it somewhat shortly, is structured more like the later modules, and actually has more of a "story" rather than just being random site-based stuff. But I don't know. In any case, I'm certainly burning out on reading these modules. They're not fun, and this Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in particular has not been fun. I'm feeling totally burned out on reading adventures because of it, and even somewhat burned out on RPG products in general. I think I need to take a break for a few days and read something else. Almost anything else. Time to pick up a novel, or something.

That said, it did give me reason to wonder about a philosophical discussion of sorts. Second Edition (AD&D) is often held out as a transitional edition. The rules themselves are not very modern; it's mostly just re-organized and slightly cleaned up First Edition AD&D, and mechanically it retains the broad compatibility that all old versions of D&D do, but the presentation and much of the non-mechanical elements of the game were much more "modern." Modules were no longer site-based by default, and the whole trad-storytelling vibe that was popular especially during the 90s suffused most of the products. And I think that that assessment is fair and accurate; no problems from me. However, I'm surprised at how old school this crop of modules is. I doubt that if I'd read them at the time, it would really have occurred to me; it only feels very old now after reading much more modern modules and/or campaigns. I knew that "back to the dungeon" was a motto of 3e at the time, but I'm surprised how much the presentation and structure of how the game was supposed to be played, as indicated by the modules, anyway, is so old school even as the rules are the first version of D&D to be considered "modern"—although even that is debatable in retrospect in many respects. But let's for the sake of argument suggest that it is; that means that it's just as transitional as 2e was, just in different ways; it was, in fact, in many ways the mirror image of 2e.

Of course, that didn't last forever, and by the end of the 3e era, it was being presented in a much more "modern" way, which is why I like reading, for example, the Paizo adventure paths. They're just much more easy to read, and they tend to scratch the itch of what I want a module to be much more than the massive dungeon-crawls with random monsters sitting in rooms, like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil really is, honestly.

Saturday, October 10, 2026

System and setting

I just finished two books this weekend; Paizo's system book Occult Adventures and the second part of the SPCM Dark World campaign; all of the first five of the first of which come in four slim books; the sixth and final coming in a single thicker book. The capsule quick and dirty reviews of them are as follows:

Occult Adventures: an interesting book if you're really into the PFRPG system. Otherwise, the book is extremely heavy on mechanics and doesn't actually offer very much other than mechanics. I'm not completely against the PFRPG mechanics; it is, after all, the spiritual (and in most cases literal) continuation of the d20 system, which I played almost exclusively for the better part of 16-17 years, would probably be happy playing again today, and didn't really mind, with some caveats. That said, it is certainly difficult to read some of those super mechanics heavy books, even when they're offering mechanics that I'm interested in potentially using, and the psychic classes and occult "system", if you will, especially as a potential replacement for "normal" D&D magic, is compelling. I still like the idea of my STRANGE AFFAIRS OF THE UNSEEN BEYOND as an alternative mini-system, or house-rule set, and does exactly that and would come with a mini-setting that is built around the concept of such. 

I probably need to redo this with the background faded a bit more...

In any case, I'm also picking up Horror Adventures to read and it'll be the hardcover book that I carry around, but I'm not actually going to read it until I read the three softcover Paizo books that are in my backback first, the next of which, which I hope to read also this weekend, is Guide to Absalom. Dark Markets: Guide to Katapesh and The Great Beyond, are also in that group, and they, along with Dragons Revisited and Dungeon Denizens Revisited complete the D&D 3.5 compatible Pathfinder Chronicles books that I have on deck to read. I'm working on finishing that little group, along with the next five stand-alone modules, and the 2-6 chapters of Legacy of Fire all at the same time, and then all three of those particular trawls will migrate from D&D 3.5 compatible to PFRPG compatible. Which, as noted above, is a bit of a misnomer, since PFRPG is largely compatible with D&D 3.5; it's just a bit more complicated and certainly noticeably over-powered from a PC perspective. 

Sandy Petersen Cthulhu Mythos Saga 3: Dark Worlds, Part 2: Nithon: Pfew, that's a lot to type. This is the third of the SPCM Mythos Sagas that I've started now. The first one was an interesting idea, but with relatively poor execution and ultimately didn't impress me very much. The second one also had execution issues, I think, but was a much more interesting idea, and I'm convinced now that when combined creatively with the Serpent's Skull adventure path (which I'm not that far away from reaching, and which I have read before a number of years ago) I'd have an absolutely bangin' campaign themed around fighting serpent people and dinosaurs and jungles and all that stuff. Dark Worlds, which I guess I'm now officially halfway through, on the other hand, I'm finding lacking; possibly even more difficult to imagine how I would use than the first one, Ghouls Island. Still, as an avowed fan of Lovecraftian themes, I'll continue to read them until I read all six, of course, and the next one, with the Tsathoggua themed stuff, I'll hope to find is better. But we'll see. The SPCM has been more miss than hit for me in general. In fact, although I know why he (they?) made the decision to do so, I'm not really convinced that making it D&D 5e compatible in the first place was ever really the right call. 

But I'm still excited about using Yig Snake Granddaddy, in spite of it's obviously stupid name. I've even got an upcoming campaign based around that very idea.

In addition to the book reviews, I've also given some thought to an interesting phenomena. Or at least, I think it's interesting. I've never really thought about any D&D as being setting intrinsic. I've always seen D&D as setting agnostic. In the past, it was overtly and explicitly so. Lately, it's only kinda sorta so. Now, non-D&D games were never intended to be setting agnostic, unless they were explicitly intended to be so, like GURPS or something. My copies of, for example, MERP, Star Wars d20, Shadowrun or Werewolf: The Apocalypse were obviously all built to come with a setting, and although the rules could be used in a different setting if you wanted to, it wasn't intended that way. D&D, on the other hand, was never like that. While possibly some early D&D stuff was implicitly set in the Greyhawk setting, the reality is that the Greyhawk setting didn't exist in a form that we would associate with the modern understanding of setting until the World of Greyhawk product in 1980, and even that's probably iffy, as it still lacked much of the detail that we expect from a setting to be useable. Throughout the 70s, Greyhawk, if it existed at all, was just Gary Gygax's home game. 1980 was, I suppose, a watershed moment, but you could also argue that it wasn't until the 1983 boxed set that Greyhawk really became a setting as we know it today. 

And while adventures were nominally set in Greyhawk and may have made offhand references to a Greyhawk geographical feature here and there, those adventures were deliberately featured to not really have any setting stuff in them other than the immediate needs and setting around the adventure site itself. The "basic" line of D&D (as opposed to AD&D) had Mystara, or the "Known World", a completely different setting, as it's implied setting, although again, there was little need to refer to any setting most of the time, until actual setting material, like the Gazetteer series, started getting published. Even then, that stuff was all very optional, and almost nothing of the modules or rules needed any of it, or even referred to it, for the most part, with the exception of the Grand Duchy of Karameikos being a kind of "sample" for overlanding in the Expert set. During 2e, of course, the publication of settings was a big deal, and they published all kinds of them; continuing with Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, which had come out earlier, and adding to it Birthright, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, and many others. But all of them were deliberately kept somewhat separated from the rules, and existed alongside it, modifying the game for use within that setting, but otherwise leaving D&D itself alone, which continued to be pretty setting agnostic (minus all of the things that were implied by the rules, of course.)

A PFRPG brawler

During the 3e era, Greyhawk was once again the default setting, but they were very explicit about not pushing that as anything other than an example, and made it as unobtrusive as possible. The only exception here may have been in many of the Dungeon adventures, and a handful of adventures that were more explicitly set in Greyhawk, but then again, 3e almost immediately published a whole lengthy Forgotten Realms line of products alongside the "regular" D&D products that established it as an alternate and popular setting, and the only official one in print for a few years, until they came out with Eberron after the launch of 3.5 and the setting search activity. Because of the OGL and the SRD, unofficial settings proliferated too, as well as even semi-official settings, like Rokugan (part of the Oriental Adventures book, and then a semi-official OGL product by Alderac Entertainment Group), but I also have settings published in this era like Midnight, Dragonstar, Sovereign Stone, Freeport, Iron Kingdoms, Scarred Lands, and more. 4e also came with a built in setting, but it was deliberately unobtrusive, and if anything, fans are a little bit upset that there isn't more information developed for the "Nentir Vale" setting and it is as lightly treated as it is. I'm even kind of one of them.

Which is why it's a little odd to me that Pathfinder and even 5e seem to be much more overtly tied to settings than anything else by D&D. Pathfinder, being a continuation of the mechanics of 3.5 meant that I would have thought that I'd just keep using it to play in whatever setting my 3.5 games were in if I wanted to upgrade. It would give me options, like if I wanted to use the aforementioned occult classes, or heck, something as cool as a brawler, as a class in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or even my own homebrew setting, well I could, because ultimately it was really just a rule system, like the older versions of D&D. And honestly, you could, of course, treat it that way, and just get the mechanics books and ignore many of the other books like the Player's Companions, the Setting/Chronicles line, or of course the many adventures. But, of course, Paizo in many ways built their entire company on adventures, and the adventure paths in particular, which were their signature type of product, and adventure paths, like any published campaign, have to be somewhat setting specific. Even the attempts to suggest that the earlier Dungeon magazine adventure paths could be adapted to not take place in Greyhawk felt kind of half-hearted, as they were more and more explicitly included loads of Greyhawk references and even foundational, bedrock setting elements. Rise of the Runelords, and the subsequent adventure paths never even made any attempt to be anything other than Golarion specific campaigns, and Golarion lore was a huge part of them, to the extent that I really think of Pathfinder as the game set in Golarion. While I could use it as a "generic" D&D, I wonder how many people do, indeed, even make any attempt to do so. I say in spite of the fact that I do have PFRPG compatible Freeport products which do, in fact, do exactly that. I know some smaller companies published Pathfinder compatible stuff, and even larger companies like Kobold Press made a lot of Pathfinder versions of stuff that I associate more strongly with 5e now, of course. But looking around at actual plays and discussions about the game, etc. I see more and more that most people just assume that Pathfinder = Golarion, even though of course it doesn't necessarily have to. But I think Paizo have kind of deliberately cultivated that attitude; certainly they haven't published anything for Pathfinder that implies any other setting (other than WWI Russia briefly during the Reign of Winter adventure path, lol) except for extremely discrete and oblique references to "standard" D&D elements like Orcus, or Lovecraftian stuff which is very lightly implied to actually take place in the real world.

5e has, of course, done the same thing with the Forgotten Realms. Although they have published a handful of Eberron products, even most DM's Guild 3pp stuff actually takes place in the FR, and most lore videos on YouTube have the annoying habit of talking about D&D and FR as if they were one and the same and not that one is a partial subset of the other.

I dunno; maybe I'm overthinking this, and it's either not a big deal, or just a perception bias kind of thing. 

As an offhand epilogue aside on a totally different topic, I was surprised to find out on Thursday that my players didn't really know what a genasi is, even though I'm actually playing one in a game that one of them was running. When I told them that genasi were to genies and other elemental creatures what tieflings are to demons, devils and other fiends, that seemed like a major reveal. I guess it goes to show you; I get a little too invested in D&D sometimes, and take for granted stuff that other players may not.

Friday, October 09, 2026

Playing and Actual Play

Well, I ran the next session of my game, which it looks like is gradually turning into an actual campaign. I feel like after a few sessions, I'm starting to hit my stride. Which is unusual given the situation; last night we were missing two of my regular players, one of the "new" players (that I actually have not ever had yet) and another new player, along with two regulars. A bit of a sketchy attendance. After several sessions that were really quite action packed, I had one last night with no combat and only a handful of skill checks required any dice rolls at all. I do felt like I really got into my stride with roleplaying and pacing, though. I had a good time last night. 

Sadly, the new player, and I didn't say anything, so I kind of expected that this would happen, brought basically a character that I'd run for her in a one-shot before, a dragonborn druid. I wouldn't have had any dragonborn at all in my setting, but this isn't really my setting; it's kind of a strange D&D 5e reflection of my setting. So, y'know. Like my setting, but with superheroes, Muppets and My Little Pony. In fact, a lot of the characters I have with this group are recycled, essentially. I have a "variant human" celestial patron warlock...who apparently is a concept he's played before. The dragonborn druid is recycled. The shadow elf/shadar-kai sorceress is recycled. Then again, my campaign is being somewhat recycled, so I don't fault the players for picking up something already made. When we started this, we had no idea of this necessarily being a long term campaign or not, although now it looks like it probably will be.

Anyway, I had a good time last night and I'm reasonably happy with how it turned out. I still have one character to add, and I have no idea what he'll be. I like the guy who will play this new character well enough, although his attendance seems to be kind of flaky, but I'm thinking that I've only ever seen him play Muppets before. His kenku characters literally come across to me like Gonzo.

—(  †  )—

I've been listening to the Hideous Laughter Podcast's playthrough of Carrion Crown. They're about to finish book 2, and it's early 2000 as of the time of recording, which I heard them mention offhand just an episode or two ago. While I mostly like it, and they're charismatic voice actors, if you will, and have good chemistry with each other, there are a few things that routinely bug me. First, some of the pronunciations start to drive me crazy. Gorillon is not a Spanish word, so it's not "goriyon"; it's like gorilla with an -on instead of a -a at end. "Larry" isn't a "flesh gollum", he's a flesh golem. The game and modules themselves are also a little silly. They've been doing the "finale" in the Schloss Cromarch or whatever it's called for at least half a dozen hour-long episodes. It's starting to get tedious to run through this dungeon fighting relatively random monsters.

Golem is not pronounced Gollum

Otherwise, it's a good podcast, and I do like it. But it's a little on the long side. That's what we need to do to make adventure paths workable; trim them a bit, downgrade the level requirements, and make the entire procedure more streamlined.

—(  †  )—

Lastly, I wonder if, for my D&D 3.5 and PFRPG hybrid, if it's actually worthwhile to limit levels of spellcasters to keep the magic level low (i.e., force them not to start spellcasters at level one, to make sure that none of them get access to 3rd level spells), or if it would be better to just line item veto certain spells and let people take whatever class levels they want. If I'm doing E6, 3rd level spells for fullcasters are available at the top end, but I'd eliminate:

  • Goodberry
  • Create Food and Water
  • Fly
  • Levitate (maybe)
  • Speak with Dead
  • (Leomund's) Tiny Hut (maybe)
  • Mount (maybe)
  • Rope trick
  • Detect thoughts
  • Zone of truth
There's more spells that are probably a problem in terms of invalidating challenges in additional books, if they shortcut common challenges that I'd much rather have replicated via the skill system (which is what it is for); those are just the Core Rules spells, but again, they'll be line item veto. I can keep the low magic without it being that low, and I can do it much more simply by not creating such a complicated way of accessing spellcasting classes.

As long as I keep characters capped at 6th level, and manually treat any higher level spells, if needed, as Incantations or Rituals, I think it's low enough. Again, with some judicious line item vetos on specific spells. 

It hadn't really occurred to me; I was going to not migrate magic to PFRPG vs D&D 3.5, but if I'm going Pathfinder classes, then I probably need to have Pathfinder spells, since they will coincide with each other much better without causing mismatches that I'd have to paper over. This is particularly true if I'm using an unusual Pathfinder class, like any of the psychic magic classes, for instance.