Characters

David will be playing Inky, a Dragonborn (black) barbarian. Inky is a hermit who has led a life of seclusion. He is the caretaker of an ancient relic. When his family was destroyed, he grew up with a "migrant" dwarven family of barbarians, but left when he came of age. He lives to protect his family heirloom and its ties to his families. The heirloom is a suit of Hide Armor, that he doesn't know how to work, or what it does.
For personality traits, he is oblivious to etiquette and social expectations, and because of his long isolation, rarely talks and speaks only with the occasional grunt. His ideal power: solitude and isolation are the path to power. He has developed great insight into an evil only he can destroy, and his flaw is that he harbors dark and bloodthirsty thoughts that his isolation failed to quell.
His weapon of choice is a halberd.

On Motivations and Rewards

Some thoughts on rewards and motivations. The question starts with this: why should the party go off to some dark hole in the ground to fight goblins and orcs? And second - when they do - what should they get out of it? What can they get out of it?

I can think of three answers to this.

1) They go for the treasure. This is the simple answer - straightforward: they go because they expect to profit. And they do profit. That's kind of how we have always played - you fight things for the rewards, straight up - XP and GP. Magic. It's simple, logical enough, practical enough, but it does have drawbacks - it can become abstract: what do you do with your gold and magic? assuming lots of it gets handed out. And it warps the world around you - here's first edition Leif, with 193,685 GP - what's that - two tons of gold? You either ignore the facts or you invent an elaborate society that can accommodate a bunch of people shlepping around 2 or 3 tons of gold. Or you invent credit and banks and checks and the like, the way the real world did. That is - if you're going to play wealth and power, you have to figure out how it fits in the world - and you're off #1 whether you want to be or not.

2) Personal motivation. Backgrounds help with this. But this also gets to what I think is an important part of this problem - it's like this: why would some character go on some kind of high risk expedition without any idea what they are going to get out of it? Well - the truth is - because it's what they do. Why do adventurers go on adventures? because they are adventurers. But what this is doing, I think, is moving the question back a level - why is Bono heading off into the wilderness to kill stuff? because he's an adventurer - he heads off into the wilderness to kill stuff. The question is - why is he an adventurer? why does he do this? That's where the backgrounds come in what made these people adventurers? Maybe it's simple - they want power and money and women and castles; maybe it isn't simple - they want vengeance on the southern lord who drove their family off their land and left them impoverished and desperate in a foreign country. Or specific - they want to find the 6 fingered man and kill him. The idea is that these background motivations are ends, ends that provide short term motivations. To do those things - get wealth, power, vengeance, liberate their homeland, become king - they need to become strong. They become strong by adventuring - so in the present, they go off and kill orcs. The best thing about this is that it can go either way: thinking of backgrounds as motivations to take up adventuring keeps you moving through the normal run of dungeons and such; but the specifics of the motivations remain in the back of your mind. You fight orcs and you look for clues about the 6 fingered man. You break up a smuggling ring and win the approval of some merchant who can help you reestablish contact with your home town. You drag off a chest full of coin, which you can use to buy land and some cows. Etc.

3) The World’s Motivations. This is related to the others, but oriented toward the overall setting. For adventurers it might be straightforward - you're being paid to clean out a next of monsters and made the river safe again. But that second part is the world's motivation. That motivation (cleaning out monsters, say) can exists regardless of the character's interest. Now, it might be the character's motivation too - a paladin righting wrongs will share the desire to destroy the monsters - but it's still outwardly directed, and the character's motivations don't matter. The PCs can share it or not - they might be doing it for the money (and XP and such), but there is another motivation at work as well - which, against regardless of the character's commitment - is going to have further repercussions on the story. To be sure - if the characters don't share the broader goals, you have to find their reasons as well - so this is usually grafted onto the first two - but it still shapes the way the campaign goes.

So: when building an adventure, I think you can use any of these. Though all require some work and thought, to make them become important. For #1 - you have to have an economy. You have to understand the economy and work on making it all fit. That means - you have to think about how much gold or magic is in circulation, and how much of out might accumulate in some old mine or crypt. And you have to have an idea what happens if a party finds 10,000 GP somewhere - what are they going to do with it? I don’t just mean, how do they get it out of the place - I mean - how do they use it? what can they buy? That kind of thing.

Same with personal motivations, though this is clearly more in the hands of the player. You should have these built ahead of time, and keep them in mind. Granted, they may often be superfluous to the adventure at hand - but they should still be there - at some level the characters should be thinking about how this adventure is going to serve them in the future. Maybe it just makes them stronger and richer - maybe it takes them a tangible step closer to something they want. The more of that you can work into the game, the more interesting it becomes.

Finally - Campaign Plots and the like are worth keeping in mind. Maybe in the large sense (whether in an ongoing storyline, or just in terms of building the world around individual adventurers), but even in the smaller sense. If you can make one adventure feed into another - create situations that generate more trials for the characters, more challenges, opportunities and so on - that will help build a better world, a more engaging campaign. Even relatively loose links from one dungeon to the next give the game texture, make it better.

Party Building

I want to run an adventure, set in Lenay, on it's south-east, across a large bay from the city of Bayport. I see this starting in the same place we started in when we played in July - with a bit more detail. WE start in the town of Whelker's Deep, on the coast; this is 5-6 miles south of Clamdigger Cove, which has been sacked by pirates, and is now something of a lurking place for various bands of troublemakers - smugglers, pirates, orcs and goblins and kobolds, wandering monsters, bandits, etc. The part can meet at something called the Gypsy Arms, just outside Whelker's Deep, a little inn, and go from there.

What I want to do now is start to put a party together, so we can be set up to play when I get up there again. So I hope we can pick characters and work out their backgrounds, and so on, before we start to play. (If I could find a way, I'd try to play some non-combat stuff now, over the internet - not sure it works, but who knows.) Anyway - I'd like to set up characters now; work out backgrounds, and so on. For a couple reasons - to start thinking about D&D and see if there are ways to advance campaigns remotely like this - that's part of it... but also to get the party set up. People can use what characters they want - they don't have to be the same ones we played in July (though if you want to, go for it; those characters all hit second level, so I can see it...) But I know that one we put together kind of quickly, and with limited rules, so other characters make sense.

I want to set up the party ahead of time, with some care. I want to come as close to everyone playing one character as possible - and try to make it so everyone is playing the character they want to play. I am trying to make this more of a role-playing and exploration type of adventure (though with plenty of mayhem - I'm inclined to make it a dungeon crawl), and that works better with fewer characters and without multiple characters. And - if we all decide what we want to play ahead of time, we can figure out how to balance out the party if we need to. No harm in adding an extra character or two - someone playing two, or adding an NPC or so - but this is easier if we decide what we want, then fill in the blanks. So if we get a thief, a fighter, a barbarian and a wizard, we'll know we need an extra cleric - but better to add an extra cleric than to saddle someone with a cleric because they picked last...

And finally - I also kind of want to try to work out more of the background details of things, both the characters and the setting. even if it's just at the level of the old days in Waynesburg and Farmington, I want to try to relate where characters are from to where they are - involve them more in the world, etc. Backgrounds have some promise on this - and it's something we could work out ahead of time and online like this. (Here, through Facebook, email, IM, something.) It's also (and this might be very metagamy, but I don't care) a way to know how to pull the characters into the adventure - the kind of characters people play might change the purpose of the adventure - I haven't done this in a long time, and I don't trust myself to come up with a hook impromptu....

So I think this is what we need to do before hand:

1) Decide what we are playing - name, class, race, and so on.
2) work out backgrounds from the game - pick them, and the details (bonds and flaws and so on), etc. (These can be expanded maybe, if people like.)
3) add some additional background details related to the setting - where people are from, how they got to Whelker's Deep, and why they're sitting in this tavern with these other people.

For the third: I think we want to decide where our characters are from, broadly speaking; this information could lead to benefits or disadvantages - I'll try to note some as I think of them. Options might be:
1) strictly local - somewhere within 20-30 miles of where they are. This might give you extra knowledge about the area - might also give you enemies or entanglements to complicate matters. This is stuff to think about, I think.
2) Somewhere in Lenay, but not local - west coast, highlands, far south, capital city - again, this might let you know things; might create ties and so on - some of these details might fit with the book's bonds and flaws and such too.
3) A neighboring area - such as Oceanside (to the south) - or Bayport or its environs (to the east) - maybe the fjords and high mountains to north of the bay, etc.
4) Somewhere more remote - Waynesburg or Hillsburg maybe; the southern Kingdom; the south seas.

Again, these choices can influence the specifics of the backgrounds.

And so, this is an example - this is the character I want to play, with this kind of info built in:

I will play Bono - human, male, fighter. He has a soldier's background; he's from the west coast of Lenay. He is a pole-arm specialist. Basic story is - he was a soldier in some lord's army; but as Lenay's troubles mounted (the king is being held for ransom abroad; his brother is raising money to ransom him - or maybe not - and causing unrest), this lord's force broke up. Bono headed to the east coast to establish himself as an independent adventurer.

That's the basics, and the starting point.

Keystone rule books

"Dungeons & Dragons has always consisted of three books: The Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master's Guide. Of those, the Player's Handbook - colloquially called the PHB - has always been the keystone." (from a review of the new PHB in The Escapist)

I was asking myself this question a few days ago, I think because I had seen a similar comment in another location. It got me thinking at the time, and this reminded me of that internal conversation. I have to disagree. I loved my original Player's Handbook, but the book that stood out from first edition was the Dungeon Master's Guide. It had the combat charts, rules on random dungeon generation, not to mention rules on gaming and gambling. That is where I learned to rank hands in poker. But the most interesting section was the pages of tables and descriptions of magic items. The magic items were wonderful, but the ability to create intelligent weapons with special abilities, curses, etc. was a powerful aspect of the game which faded as the game aged.

For the second edition, the book that stands out for me is the Monstrous Compendium. Each monster had its own page, illustrated with great artwork, and as Karen points out, full of humorous and quirky details. I liked the non-weapon proficiencies, and playing with Ed, we got the most out of the PHB, but the book that sticks in the mind from that edition was the Monstrous Compendium.

In the third edition, the PHB came into its own. For that edition, the statement above is accurate. The DMG for 3E was relegated to obscurity. You could have played third edition with nothing but the PHB. That was one of the selling points of that version. Fourth edition carried on this emphasis on the PHB. It has become a truism of the game that the PHB is the keystone rule book, and given that the game has always needed characters to be played, it has always been relevant, but I still think it is Monday morning coaching to retroactively elevate the importance of the Player's Handbook over its companions.

Players Handbook

I had better luck with the Player's Handbook early release than the Starter Set - Pandemonium had them early, and now, so do I!

I'm very happy with it. The book itself is nice - the art is respectable - the prose reasonably well done. So far, the rules have made sense - haven't found any ambiguous workings, etc. That seems good. The organization is pretty good, though I sometimes get confused about where skills and feats and equipment are tucked in, relative to one another. Little things. It has an index - 3-4 pages of it, which may be very useful, though I can't read it without a magnifying glass... Lots of interesting material in the back - planes and gods, and a bunch of gods - different fantasy worlds, historical pantheons, and so on - a section on conditions, with helpful illustrations (in case you wondered what "unconscious" looks like) - even a set of beasts and undead, with their stat blocks - all of it pretty impressive.

But what really matters are the rules. The game looked promising from the starter set and basic rules, but they were missing a lot - this was the moment of truth. And I'd say - it works. In the broad sense - I already knew it played pretty quickly and easily - that still seems to be so. Even the optional parts run easily - there are quite a few classes with "dice" of some kind - inspiration dice for bards; superiority dice for fighters - but this is a reasonably obvious mechanic, and easy to keep track of. If you have 6 superiority dice, you can just lay out 6 dice, and play 'em as you go. Easy enough.

The options are key: the basic version of the game is okay, but would tend to go rather flat, I think, over time. It's nice to build some variation among characters - feats and 4E powers give you some of that in the old versions. Do they here? They do - I paid most attention to the fighters and rangers (sure that comes as a surprise) - and like the way they work. Fighters in particular have real choices - they may be something of the backbone of the game - but they can take on a lot of specific forms here. I like the way the game handles maneuvers - and seeing their feats, I think they have done that well too. Both often seem to be replicating 4th Edition powers (and some 3rd edition rules) - there are feats and maneuvers that replicate cleave (take an extra swing at someone else; or an extra swing if you drop someone), shield bash, powers to knock people prone or move them around, even features like charging - which is given some bite. Other feats replicate things like taking extra proficiencies - usually with a minor ability boost as well. (You give up your 2 points of ability boosting for a feat - though many of the feats give you one of the boosts, to a specific ability.) They're well done - they usually give you a fairly defined ability that has quite a bit of use. I like them. I'm not sure there are enough of them - but I imagine the splat books will take care of that when they start coming out. And frankly - I don't think they would be hard to make up for yourself - the principal seems pretty clear.

I found one of my hobby horses, too - Pole Arm master - for the halberd fans among us. which does 2 things, basically: 1) it gives you an extra bonus attack if you are using a reach weapon - you get to whack the guy with the butt end of the halberd for d4 damage. 2) And you get to make opportunity attacks against people entering your reach - now that is what a pole arm is for: keep people away from you. I am very happy, and intend to play a glaive or halberd wielding brute as soon as possible!

Going back - the book includes the stuff you would expect - the importance races are there (Goliaths might be the only one people played very much that isn't); the classes you would expect - bards and barbarians, druids, monks, paladins, rangers, sorcerers and warlocks, along with the basics. All of them seem to work the way you would expect - though I haven't really read through the warlock and sorcerer. They seem a bit complicated - we'll see. The options for the classes are fine - though some of them struck me as rather bland. Though most classes have an option or two that looks like it would be particularly appealing to play.

And finally - to go back to the game as a whole - I played around with some of this, played a little fight - and the more I play with it, the more it seems to be really easy to work with. It seems very easy to work out how to handle an unusual situation - the advantage/disadvantage rule is a godsend. I played a little fight, with my new rangers and pole arm fighters and what not: a simple brawl, 5 characters vs. 3 orcs and a bugbear in a tavern. The monsters were in a back room - I brought the PCs in, rolling for perception and so on until they found each other. The Orcs came out - they set to. The ranger and a magic user were on a balcony, shooting; the rest on the floor - the fighter charged, the orcs charged - the bugbear went around and went for the second line (cleric and thief). They all whack and shoot away at one another... One of the orcs charged the ranger, who was on the second level, at the top of a ladder -I had the orc char gem and figured he'd try to fight from the ladder. The ranger responded by trying to push orc and ladder over.

That's the sort of thing that would have taken half an hour to figure out how to play in 3E, and 4E too - what penalties does the orc have on the ladder? what check opposes what to knock the thing over? But here - easy: give the orc disadvantage. Disadvantage to hit; disadvantage when the ranger made a push check against his strength. Worked well. Then I tried having the orc do some derring-do - jumping off the ladder onto the thief: simple enough, jump check - he failed and fell, and so on. And again - all of this played quick and simple. It wasn't a big battle, but it was reasonably elaborate - PCs and monsters moving around the room; opportunity attacks with that pole arm; business on a ladder; attempted jump; a character 0'd out and healed (then 0'd out again), before the orcs were finished off - all of it done, though, in, oh - half an hour, including all the set up and fights with the cat? It was a fairly rewarding little encounter, that didn't drag, offered chances to experiment - I think it works well. The non-combat stuff too - I didn't emphasize that, but tried to think about it - and it should work well.

In short - the more I see of DD5, the more I like it. I think they have succeeded.

A Couple Links

A couple quick links today:

This is a nifty site - rules momentary; D&D history; resources. Today's post is very useful: 5th Edition DM screen inserts.

And - in the spirit of pet shaming - Dice Shaming. Yeah: "I made the ranger with a 20 dex fall off a ladder." That kind of thing.

New Website for D&D

Dungeons and Dragons has relaunched their website with a new layout. This was a very welcome thing to see after nearly four years of the same old page. Hopefully, the new design is followed up with new content...

Along this line, there seem to be encouraging signs. There are links to many of the new features of 5e that they have been touting of late, though most are still bare or dead ends. I'd like to think the paucity of info let out over the last few weeks and months is tied to this relaunch, and now that it is in place, actual relevant information will be more forthcoming. With two weeks plus until the actual release date of the Player's Handbook, I'm not expecting anything major. Still, there doesn't seem to be much point in redesigning everything without intending to update content more often than they have recently.

Many of the threads seem to point in that direction. Now, considering they are pushing their Adventurer's League and systems of organized play, it may not matter much when they start adding content, since it will enrich those aspects rather than general play. It is yet another tease of what the game can be with a taste of how wrongly it could be realized.

Given that I'm not likely to be playing at a local retailer anytime soon, and unlikely to attend any conventions, I'd rather see content geared toward home play... modules, backstory, encounter maps, etc. Still, its an encouraging thing to see, and I look forward to further updates and additions in the coming weeks.

First Try - Comments on Adventure Building

I've said a couple times, that 5th Edition seems to be built around the idea of exploring. That kind of play requires a good deal of preparation - but the effort is rewarded by a more interesting and varied style of play. You could get away with winging it in 4E - pick a map, and a set of encounters and challenges, and roll the dice. The actual combat was a pretty good war game - but it started to feel barren after a while. Looking at this version, reading through the Starter Set (skimming it anyway), this version looks like it offers a richer experience, if you do it right.

I've been thinking about the mini-adventure e played when the basic rules came out - thinking about how it could have gone, or how you would develop it, if you were making a full fledged adventure out of it. What we did itself was pretty basic - more combat than not, but with some other bits mixed in. A couple "skill challenge" type things (crossing a ruined bridge), some interaction with NPCs and monsters - the combat worked fine; the other stuff... It was promising, though it showed what was missing. As soon as we start playing non-combat activity, you start to notice all the ways you could be doing it right. I suppose the trick is to do the prep work first.

So let’s go through what happened - and look at what was really happening, and how you could prepare for it.

We started in a bar - just a bar. The old timers asked for news - asked if we’d heard anything about Stan and Ollie, a couple adventurers who might have wandered down into Clamdigger Cove, a town that had been laid waste by pirates some time back, and was now something of a trouble spot. We didn’t knopw anything, but of course we headed off that way.

This stuff was all off the cuff, and did its work that way - but it would have been better with more prep. (And remembering how to play; stuff comes back to me after the fact sometimes, which doesn’t help.) Starting with the PCs - who are we? Where are we? Who do we think we are, and where do we think we are? We didn’t have to think about that at all with 4E - we didn’t do it all that explicitly back in 82 when we started, but it appeared quickly - the names of towns; the names of bars in towns; some kind of lines on a map to show us where we were. The characters we ended up playing a lot quickly took on personality. You need some of that - you need to at least establish who the characters are, where they are, and have an idea of what they know, as background information. Now - it’s easy enough to assume that PCs are strangers in the area where they start adventuring - but they still should know basic things. You have to think of the intros - like in the Starter Set - you're hired to bring a wagon of stuff to a town to meet someone. You don't have to know much more - a kind of orientation to your base, an idea about where you would be going... In our case - the PCs should know that they are not too far from the Ocean; that they are in a hilly country, hills running down to the ocean, sometimes in steep inlets from the sea. They might know at least general information about pirates and such - though how much might depend on where they are from. The players can decide some of that - But it’s something to think about.

Anyway - the party set off toward Clamdigger Cove. On the way, they ran into a bunch of goblins at an old tower; then a couple gnolls at a ruined bridge. Then, after some more walking, they came to the town. All of this, I think, went about the way it should - the party’s purpose was simple (get to the town), and these were just some random encounters and challenges along the way. A bit more geography and scenery would help, but that always helps...

In town - the first time, we spotted something in the water, and went down - found a body. There were a number of buildings standing by the waterfront - we explored, killed a couple stray kobolds, then stayed the night. In the morning, we started prowling around - ran into a couple orcs. Then explored a bit, and ran into a gang of kobolds - had a big fight - and called it a night. We then went back to the tavern, or the town (or both) - disposed of the body we found (Ollie, I guess), and got a reason to go back to Clamdigger Cove. So back to the tavern - picked up a new party member and bought some potions - and headed out. Another encounter on the road, and back to town. This part could have benefitted from more clarity on the situation, though again, it worked out all right - the situation isn't all that complicated - ruined town, wandering troublemakers, etc.

Back in town, this is where preparation would have made the most difference. What we did - we looked around, found a dead orc on the side of a hill, then spotted some people in the buildings where we had been the day before, so went down and dealt with them. They talked - cagy conversation about stuff and money, that was interesting enough, though a bit too tentative - followed by the arrival of a couple orcs with a prisoner. A fight - we killed the orcs (though had to cure up Rosco from 0 twice to do it) - then noticed the sailors running away. In their haste they dropped a chest into the water - they rowed away, leaving you with the chest, full of some kind of treasure. Hooray! You are rich!

Okay. In principal, this is all right (and worked for the extremely basic purpose we intended.) But it also has the seeds of a much better encounter. What needed to happen to make it really work? Well - 1) I think where it could have been interesting would be to have things to find in the town. I needed to prepare the town - draw at least a general map - decide what the condition of the place was. That’s important here - the idea is, the town had been raided some time back, much of it burned, with a couple areas still standing - the waterfront; probably the church, maybe a couple other stone buildings. The party should have been able to move through the town - check out buildings - and find things: monsters, refugees, interesting detritus, and so on. As well as dealing with hazards and traps - floors on the verge of collapse; unsprung traps; that sort of thing. What they found - could constitute this adventure, or could point them to another adventure - pointing them to a full kobold or goblin lair, say, that they would go and clear out. Or provide information about the pirates, or smugglers, or someone else, who have been using the place for nefarious purposes.

2) on the waterfront - what actually happened? The conversation worked okay in principal, though again - planning out the nature of the encounter more would have helped. So what happened? And what was actually going on? Or should have been going on? You went into a building - you met 3 sailors. The sailors were - I think (though I couldn't make up my mind at the time) - deserters from a smuggling boat. They stole some booty - they came here, hoping to meet a Halfling (whom they had never met) who had promised to buy stuff if they had it. As it happens, Clamdigger Cove is used these days as a drop off/meet up point for various shady characters. So - they saw the party, saw a Halfling, and wondered if this was the fence - they tried to find out (while the party tried to figure out their angle) - they were mostly convinced you weren’t the fence when the orcs arrived. So the party fought the orcs, and the sailors waited to see what happened - they probably hoped everyone would die, but figured when you took out the orcs that they were next, so headed out to sea - a bit too hastily, as it turned out. As for the Orcs - they had Stan in hand; he had begged for his life by promising to take them to someone who had lots of money - he led them here, hoping his friends could rescue him, or, if the orcs won, they’d let him go, because he helped them get rich. Something like that. This part - other than having a clearer idea of the backstory of the Orcs and Stan, and maybe some ideas about how to tie this story to further stories - is straightforward enough.

The point of all this is to think about how the game should play. I think this version is set up to encourage more of this kind of interaction, exploration, etc. - the combat rules are simplified, combat itself runs fast - fights are resolved quickly and easily. They don’t seem to have the self-contained heft of 4E. And the higher lethality of the game makes it wiser to do more thinking - skulking about - trying to skirt fights, solve problems, find things. So building these kinds of adventures - like what this could be: a mostly abandoned and ruined town, used by various factions as a kind of meeting place, maybe, with wandering monsters and the like still hanging around, as well as hints for other adventures - makes the most out of the game.

Remembering how to do all that - and then doing it - is the next step.

Shipment Arrived!

Good thing UPS delivers late on Saturdays - found this outside my door today....



Others, it must be said, are equally excited.



A quick glance through it shows a couple useful bits of information - monsters are pretty consistently more impressive than they were in the play test sets. A Young Green Dragon has an 18 AC, 136 HP - things like that - which sounds about right. That is the apex monster in this box - which seems to allow characters to advance to about 5th level - but that sounds about right. The set has its merits - a decent looking pre-made adventure, some okay pre made characters... It's clearly designed for newcomers, though also made to allow veterans to get a taste of the game - lots of explanation of basic concepts, though not really in an annoying way. A good start, I suppose. I await the player's handbook...

Though some of us seem to be ready to play now:

Adding to your initial points...

Decent summary. One thing I've noticed in reading over the material a second time is how much 4th edition is still there. They've been careful to go to great lengths to write "around" it, which can be amusing. The section on "Space" in the Combat chapter is particularly illustrative.
"A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide... there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat... eight creatures can fir in a 5-foot radius around another one." So... your character takes up one square on a grid, and only one creature can occupy each of the eight around it. It was much easier in 4e to use a picture of a grid, but this is "Theater of the Mind" gameplay, and they have to explain the obvious. They even have a variant rules sidebar here to explain what a grid system is. They are presenting themselves as if 4e never existed, and no one uses miniatures.
Cantrips are another example of this. They put a paragraph explaining how they are used, when all they need to say is "Cantrips are At Will Powers." Anyone who played 4e would immediately understand. But I think that is a central element of this version, to disavow any association with 4e. It bombed for them, and they are overreacting in their counter to that fact. I went to the local game store on Tuesday to pick up a copy of the Starter Set. They said they didn't carry D&D products, there was no demand for them. Hopefully, that changes with this set.
I also wonder about the shift of power. It does feel like spell casters have become much more central in this edition. I'm not sure I like that, but am prepared to play out several encounters to see if it is true or an illusion. There does seem to be a built-in need to play multiple encounters strung together in order to balance the classes out. That seems logical, but I worry that it is an artificial contrivance to force some balance into the system. It will work fine for the 20-somethings running regular campaigns, but for those of us squeezing in the odd gaming session, it feels like an over shift toward spells.
I'm glad they strengthened the casters, and gave them more relevance, especially early in their advancement, but it seems like they may have overdone it a bit.
I had thought of building some higher level characters to test that out myself, but haven't developed enough to get a read yet. I really don't expect a different conclusion than what you've given. I did notice Help as an action you can take that gives advantage to another party member who acts before your next turn. This sounds like it might be their replacement for flanking. I'm holding out hope that the Player's Handbook will allow a broader implementation of optional rules for situations like this. From what I've read online, it sounds like Feats will be an optional game element. That feels like a bad idea in the long haul, but if it allows for a better encounter experience, I'll be happy. My concern is that it will create an untenable core gaming mechanic.
I'm worried that they've created a system through play testing that will work well at low levels, but fall off at higher levels. They've set a cap at 20th level, they have limits on proficiency bonuses, ability bonuses, etc., that seem low. Combined with AC bonuses on play test monsters that seem fixed at low values, it appears the game will either stall after 6 or 7 levels and flat line, with increased level and power of monsters and characters expressed in HP alone, or become something more arbitrary and inexpressive with magic items used to separate higher levels. With the limits in place, it feels like old Basic D&D. I used that once to make a character, then bought the Expert Rules. This satisfied me for a month or two until I found out about Advanced D&D. This rule set has that simple feel. Hopefully, the options give it the flexibility of AD&D or this edition will have one final thing in common with 4e... a quick death.

D&D Fifth Edition - Opening Observations

It is out - at least the Basic Rules. I am going to try to put up a comment a week at least - starting with general comments.

1) I like the basics of the game. It's familiar enough - it's back to the main stream of D&D, everything looks like Editions 1-3x, same mechanics and so on. It's managed to streamline things - much simpler than 3.5, simpler too than the older versions - all the years of rationalization had helped. It feels very nimble - character creation is straightforward; combat is very fast; the game gets out of the way. Now, this might not all be golden - sometimes, it seems to have gone a little too far for simplification - though it's hard to tell from the existing material. The basic rules, and what I have seen of the Starter Set, seem to be missing a lot of what you would expect in the full game. There are references to things - feats, multi classing, multiple class options, and so on, that aren't in the preliminary rules. When they come out, hopefully they will restore some of the options. The simplicity is good - but as it stands, it might be too much. A lot of the fun, especially of 3.5, is the amount of personalization the rules allow - you can create characters in many shapes and forms, lots of options, etc. Losing that would be a shame - so I hope it comes back.

2) As for play - combat is very quick, and feels pretty fair. Part of the speed comes from returning the game to the lethality of earlier versions - characters are back down to one hit dice, with weapons and monsters able to drop a character in a single round. It becomes very fraught at first level - a hit or miss here or there, a bad damage roll, can be the difference between life and death. I suppose that was true in 4E, too - it just took you 2 hours of rolling to get there. Here - it comes or not in a couple rounds, which pass quickly. I like it, generally - the combat system worked well. It did play quickly; it left you with enough options to keep interesting; the rules were simple to understand and interpret. Again, though - some of this comes because there are fewer options - at first level - and in general. There aren't a lot of choices to make - magic users and clerics have to choose which spells house (and when) - fighters and thieves, mostly just get into position and whack. I don't particularly miss 4th edition's array of options, and certainly don't miss the complicated rules surrounding all the options you had in 3.x - but I hope some of it turns up again. The game still has a shove and trip option (which are now the same mechanic), and a grappling option - both are handled elegantly and simply, and convincingly, I think. I hope they bring in some of the other options - charges and bull rushes and sundering and disarming - and use the same straightforward mechanic. I see no reason why they can't. Those options were interesting in 3, but the rules were intimidating; they were incorporated into powers in 4, but that illustrates the problem with 4 and its powers: what if you just wanted to trip someone? Again - I wait for the full rules, but I like what I see so far.

I also played around with higher level characters, writing up a party of 9th level characters and fighting them against a couple fire giants. This was also encouraging - still went pretty quickly, went about the way you would expect it to: a fighter got 0'd out, but the party took the monsters down... It did reveal a couple things I will come back to - let's just say, the wizard took out the monsters while the rest of them avoided death... But again - in general, it looks like the combat system will continue to work pretty well at higher levels - it's very quick; it could use more options and variation, but it seems to work well.

3) Magic? I like the new magic system - you still have to prepare the spells you can cast, but you can cast any of them, as long as you have the spell slots. This makes sense. It feels right. At first level, not surprisingly, this leaves wizards needing to be very careful about how they expend their powers - but at higher levels, this starts to turn the other way. Those 9th level magic users (clerics too) have a ton of spells - 13 a day; since you can scale spells up (casting 3rd level spells with 4th or 5th level slots), that gives you, say, 7 lightning bolt or fireball attacks a day. Lightning bolt (useful in my test against fire giants) does 8d6 points of damage, against multiple targets, half damage with a save: that can be brutal. Now - playing individual encounters like that warps your resource allocation - you're not going to be so cavalier with big spells if you know you have to do this 5 more times before dark - but still: you can do a lot of damage. I don't know how this is going to play out over time. Spells in general seem to do a pile of damage - first level area spells doing 4d6? And those are scalable - cast them at a higher level and do more damage - which makes a lot of sense, I admit.

4) Healing - this is also done well. The cleric spells are nicely designed - strong touch spells (cure spells); weaker spells you can cast at a distance (healing word spells); all scaleable. Characters are also able to heal themselves, between battles - a version of the healing surge of 4E - you get to bring back your hit dice basically. You do this between fights - but it's a nice mechanic.

5) As for some of the new rules: I think I really like Advantage/Disadvantage. It provides a very good way of handling things that give you, well, advantages and disadvantages. It's simple - it's quick and easy to remember - it's something that probably lends itself to on the fly rule-making. Things not in the rules - you can give advantages and disadvantages - it's a lot easier than trying to figure out DCs and the like. I can think of a number of good uses for it.

So - okay: what about the areas I have reservations? I will say - all of these, I think, might be completely because of the state of the rules - when the full rules come out, many of these questions might be dispelled. But I am not sure - and for now, they look dubious.

1) Fighters seem very weak at higher levels. That 9th level experiment - the wizard is putting down 8d6 points of damage (or half that); the cleric does 4d6 with guiding bolt, the updated version of lance of faith; even the thief, if he gets a sneak attack, adds 5d6 damage. The fighter - gets d8+8 (this one did, anyway). He gets 2 attacks, sure - meaning if he hits twice, he gets 2d8+16. Against one monster (unlike the area attacks the others had.) And so on. Now - fighters have some advantages - AC, hit points, hit rolls - but these are not all that dramatic, not as big as you might expect. I don't know: this is an area where the more advanced options might prove very telling - feats and builds could well bring in new ways of adding damage, improving your hit bonuses (not likely, though, as the game seems to be trying to flatted out hit and AC modifiers), getting more attacks, or being able to have other effects with attacks (knocking people down, moving them around, that sort of thing, which 4E had plenty of, for good or ill.) I don't know. I also don't know how this plays out in real dungeons - when you have to play a series of encounters in a day - the fact that a fighter is the same at the end of the day as at the beginning might make a significant difference there. We shall see. But what I see - fighters are life savers at first level - they are noticeably weaker at 9th.

2) I am not so sure about "bounded accuracy" - the decision to try to keep the success and failure rolls fairly consistent. Thus - low ACs, with few means of getting past 20 or so - limits on hit bonuses - limits on abilities - things like that. The idea makes sense - differences in levels are put into damage and hit points, rather than hitting and missing - but I don't know how it will play out in fact. It makes a lot more sense for most skill checks - if it takes a 20 to open a door with brute strength, obviously the fighter's 18 should be more successful than a wizard with 9 - and that shouldn't change just because the wizard is 12th level. But I don't know about attacks. The idea of a red dragon with a 16 AC (which comes from the play test info, so might not be in the final game) seems off. But this is something you definitely need to see played out. The truth is, by itself, it didn't seem all that disruptive in the 9th level fight I played - so I may just be wrong about it.

3) Critical Hits - I have been thinking about this, especially in relation to the fighter damage. You roll the dice twice - reasonable enough. Though again - your poor fighter has just that one dice - adding another d8 isn't going to make a huge amount of difference - especially compared to the thief, doubling up his sneak attack, etc. D&D has gone through a lot of systems for critical hits - I can't find the real rules for 1st edition, but I remember doing double damage on a 20, dropping your weapon on a 1; by 3, you had to roll again, and if you hit again you rolled extra damage. 4E did max damage if you rolled a 20 (with some weapons having expanded crits), and magic weapons doled out extra dice; 5 is back to the extra dice (without a second roll.) In the earlier versions, the doubled dice or damage seemed right - partly because fighters had so many attacks at higher levels. 4's max damage worked well enough, and the extra dice from magic items could be devastating. In 5E - again, compared to the amount of routine damage magic seems to do - seems small again. That fighter - I dunno. 2d8 every 20 rolls seems low, especially since you don't get all your damage bonuses doubled. This is one I think I could come up with a better rule for - better than any of them. If you roll a crit, you get an extra attack, at advantage (maybe) - every 20 you roll - you get another roll. Or maybe you get to choose - max damage or extra attacks. For characters with high damage roll bonuses, this could be a lot more useful than another weapon die.

4) Opportunity attacks and flanking. I'll lump them together, because they seem to have been changed for similar reasons. This has been highly simplified in 5E - flanking is gone, at least in the rules so far. Opportunity attacks have been reduced - they only take affect when the target leaves the reach of the opportunistic attacker. The attacker uses a Reaction to make an opportunity attack - can make one in a round. The target can also avoid opportunity attacks by using the disengage action. All of this is simpler than 3 or 4 - though it's hard to see the advantage of the change. Flanking can be complicated, especially with large creatures - but it seems excessive to eliminate it. YOu want the game to reflect something like the real world it is representing - and getting both sides of something in a fight is going to give you an advantage. This is something I hope they bring back in the full rules - some version of it. It lends itself well to the advantage/disadvantage rules: you could treat it like they treat ranged attacks in melee in 5E - you make ranges (or spell) attacks at disadvantage if someone is next to you. Makes sense.

But opportunity attacks - one of my pet peeves with 4 was that they changed the rule to only allow opportunity attacks against characters moving out of an adjacent square - and specifically, eliminated the idea of being able to make opportunity attacks against anyone within reach of you. 5E sounds like they have gone back to the 3.x version - but really haven't. They've just moved the zone you can attack out one. But you have less control over those spaces than you had in 3. Take those fire giants - they have a reach of 2 (or 10 feet in 5E) - in 3E, they got to hit you when you left that square 10 feet away - when you charged the giant, for instance. In 4 - they lost that: they only got to hit you when you broke immediate contact - or when you cast a spell or shot an arrow directly adjacent to them. 10 feet away - they could hit you on their turn, but not when you shot at them. All this is still there - I don't like it. I think opportunity attacks should be available against any threatened square - and I don't see the advantage of letting characters move around at will once they are inside the other one's reach.

There's some suggestion that it allows for more movement in combat, makes combat less static - maybe, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that eliminating the ability of a character (or monster) to control the space around it makes tactical movement less important. Where you go - and the powers (in 4E) or abilities and actions (in 5E - like disengage) that let you move through threatened squares - matter more in 3E style games. Thieve's Cunning Action in 5E looks very interesting - but its value(being able to disengage as an extra action in a turn) is diminished by this reduction in the times it is needed. We played 4E by 3E's rules for years - and I think tactical movement was always more challenging and interesting playing by those rules. The 4E rules made it easy to get next to monsters and just stay there - it may have made movement easier, but it made it less useful. 5E seems to be continuing this, possibly expanding it. This is another one I am hoping I am reading wrong....

All right - that's enough for now. Next time, I will try to write more about the actual adventure we played. Both from a rules perspective, and from the perspective of the game, and how to design adventures.... For now - this is enough.

World Cup Final

We're down to the end of the World Cup. Holland beat Brazil for third place, 3-0 - that wasn't much closer than that. Tomorrow, we get the final, Germany vs. Argentina, coming in off very different wins - Germany's 7-1 demolition of the hosts; Argentina's 0-0 penalty win over the Netherlands. It's an interesting matchup.

I think Argentina is the story of the tournament. They came in built around Messi and their fantastic forward line - Higuain, DiMaria, Aguero - hoping to run people over, in front of a suspect defense. Instead? they started slowly - winning their group games narrowly, being shut down by Iran, being put under pressure by Nigeria - all the way looking very questionable in the back, and very dull up front. Messi did his work - but the rest of them were completely MIA, and Messi himself looked increasingly human. (Or completely surrounded most of the time; and the rest of the team didn't do anything to free him.) Then - they shut down Switzerland, shut down Belgium - and did both with increasingly organized, strong defensive work. And did the same with Holland. All of a sudden, they look like one of the best defensive teams in the tournament. It's been fascinating - 4 years ago, they poured in the goals, but the first organized team they played took them apart. This time - the goals dried up early, and they've turned themselves into Italy. Everyone still talks about this being Messi and 10 guys, but the last couple games have been Mascherano, the defense, and some other guys. (And Messi started turning up in front of his own penalty area...)

As for Brazil - they are being treated as the story after their collapse, but it's an odd collapse. They were thrashed by the Germans, beaten by Holland - but neither of those results look very surprising. They were coming - Brazil showed very little up to that point - the real story is probably their ability to outlast Chile and upset Columbia. Those games fooled me a bit - made me think that Brazil was getting cynical - willing and able to take the air out of the ball and win on set pieces... Not that that tactic would ever beat Germany, but it can keep a respectable scoreline. Instead, they decided to play all in attack against overwhelmingly good counterattacking sides, first Germany then Holland. They got their deserts.

And it was interesting in the third place game, watching the end - Brazil this time managed to hang around, though never looking all that strong. But in the last 10-15 minutes, the Dutch were still playing, and Brazil seemed to be looking for the exits. It brought the third goal - and summed things up. Brazil seemed completely lost in those games - willing to attack, especially early, but lost on defense, and once they fell behind, with no answers. Not enough offense to overcome a lead (they never mounted the kind of rally other teams did - look how the US reacted to being down 0-2, or Columbia, or look at the end of the Mexico-Holland game, or the end of the Switzerland-Argentina game, or even Greece when they went behind) - and still unwilling to play defense. They just folded up.

Anyway. Holland, meanwhile, had a nice world cup - beating Spain out of the gate gave them a nice path through the tourney, and they took advantage of it. Arjen Robben showed up - he was probably the best forward outside of James Rodriguez, and was again today.

And Germany? has done what they were supposed to do - they have been by far the best team, able to shut people down, able to score, able to play fast or slow, good on set pieces, good counter attacking, and good at ball control. They've done everything right. They are a game away from winning it all - and seem a good bet to do it. The way Argentina has been playing - they might shut the Germans down, but that is going to be harder than shutting down Holland or Belgium. Unless something changes, it is hard to see them scoring a goal - maybe a set piece, but that's less likely against Germany than most teams. And Messi? teams have handled him, especially in the second round. Germany should do it better than the rest. So - a good chance for a 1-0 German win, maybe they'll get 2, who knows. That's the likelier result, but Argentina is certainly capable of a win, whether through penalties, or a goal here or there. It should be a good game.

World Cup Semis

It's been a lively first couple rounds of the knockout rounds - that have somehow ended up with all the favorites going through. It took some strange things to happen - from Chile and the US hitting the woodwork at the very end of regulation; a cheap penalty for the Netherlands against Mexico; some close misses and some spectacular goaltending to keep teams out - it's been amazingly tight, and all the more amazing for all the favorites to go through.

So now? it could still happen - Argentina against Belgium looked the best they have in the whole tournament; Holland had to go to penalties (and get some heroics out of Tim Krul, brought in specifically for the penalties) to beat Costa Rica (who were about the best defensive team in the field, when all is said and done.) Brazil is missing Neymar (a result of a bad foul at the end of a horribly reefed game, full of hacks and dives that were called but not carded, which just kept encouraging the violence), and Tiago Silva - they are deep and steering though, and have won the last two on possession and pragmatism as much as talent - which is Germany's plan as well - they could win. But it could also be time for the upsets - if Germany winning can be called an upset. Holland winning might be one, but not a huge one - they have scuffled at times, but Robben might be the second best player in the tourney to date (the best was James Rodriguez, by a significant margin - what a joy he has been to watch!), and Argentina has not been all that dominant - but they have won everything - same as Holland. It is going to be a corker, at least if the refs do their jobs. They have for the most part - the Brazil-Columbia game has been the only real stinker in the knockout stages. Should be fun.

World Cup Game 2

Picking up where we left off I guess - lots of goals; not as many comebacks, though still a couple - and lots of late drama; 4 draws, instead of 2, though that includes what was just about the game of the game of the tournament, and a last second equalizer; plus upsets, near upsets, and so on. Plenty of football being played, and though there have been some grinders, even they have been tight and dramatic. It's been good stuff.

The story, I suppose, is Spain being out. It isn't surprising, watching them play - they were static and dull against Holland; they were run off the field by Chile. You can see the reasons, retrospectively - lack of defensive steel; not really getting Costa integrated with the team; maybe some of the central players getting old. And sometimes, good teams lay an egg - look at Holland in 2012 - and look where they are now. Meanwhile, England is out too - and gnashing their teeth about it. It looked a close thing in the first one - not the second one though. Strange coaching decisions in there - in the Italy game, it as obvious quickly that Rooney wasn't playing any defense on his side of the field. They had an answer - move Sterling out there - but didn't take it. Then, against Uruguay - they switched their places. It makes no sense - why make the change you needed against Italy against Uruguay? Who are exposed by a fast central player in their first game - I don't know. A few other good teams have underachieved - Portugal is alive buy the skin of their teeth; Italy and Uruguay have to play to get through, and neither has been exactly dominant. Bosnia is out, despite looking like a pretty good side - and so on.

On the other side, the good side - it is very cool to see Costa Rica in the second round already - well deserved, as well. Chile, Columbia are going on, maybe not surprisingly, but both looking very dangerous. France seem to be establishing an on/off/on/off pattern at these cups - after being horrible in South Africa, they have looked great - scoring all over the place, looking good doing it. Some of the big teams have been a bit less convincing - Brazil got shut out by Mexico (who are looking for real) after looking average against Croatia; Holland let the Aussies make a very tight game of it; then Argentina and Belgium both had to wait almost to the end to take their 3 points - the latter two showing the value of the superstar, Messi making a spectacular goal; Hazard creating a pretty nice one for Origi. It's been a neat tournament for the small fry - Costa Rica; Algeria winning big; Iran almost getting a point off Argentina. And, in the second round, we've seen Africa's resurrection - Nigeria and Algeria winning, and Ghana playing one of the games of the tourney.

That game - what a game. Germany is Germany; Ghana looked better in the US game than the result showed - and kept it up against Germany. Meanwhile, the US reverted to their early and late goal allowing ways, and let what looked like a very nice win turn into a point - but that's better than I would have expected. They are still in a good place for the last game. The tournament has, indeed, confirmed this as the group of death - a couple other groups tried to claim it, but this one has delivered. Portugal was awful in the first game, and looked vulnerable in the US game - but they got their point; they are still dangerous. The other three teams have all looked like the real deal - Germany has done very little to dispel its place as one of the favorites - Ghana looked great coming in, looked strong against the US, and ever better against Portugal; the US has looked solid - showing a good deal more steel than you might expect, and more than a little creativity going forward. If Altidore were healthy - they might be looking even better. Though there isn't much to complain about as it is.

World Cup Round 1

Well - most of the first round is done - it's been a lively one! Especially compared to the last outing - 6 draws, no comebacks (to win), 4 teams scoring more than once - etc. This time? 14 of 16 games - we've had one draw; 5 comebacks to win, including a winner in extra time; 12 of 14 teams have scored 2 or more; 6 have scored 3. There have been 6 shutouts - vs. 13 last time. It's all good - it makes for entertaining soccer. Things got more open in 2010 in the later games - if that happens here, we could see some wild ones.

I wonder what is causing it? I suspect a couple factors: Spain and Germany - whose influence brought in possession and strong attacking/counterattacking football - lots of teams seem to be set up around one of those plans... Though I suspect another part of it is that a lot of teams seem to be going younger - look at England, France, Italy, the USA - all of them playing younger players, faster, more offensive minded, less experience. Which is the other side - all those young teams are playing young defenders, with all the problems that can arise from that... Could be.

In any case - it's been interesting. A couple shockers - Uruguay's loss is a shock; Spain's loss is less shocking (Holland is very good), but the scoreline is shocking. So was Portugal's loss, in a way. Though they are liable to give up when things are against them. Uruguay looks to be in real trouble - England and Italy both looked good, Costa Rica is no pushover - unless Uruguay beats England, they are done. Spain and Portugal, the other prominent losers, are in better shape - they both would have come in expecting the hardest time in that first game, and thinking they can win out. Portugal has troubles, with injuries and Pepe suspended, and both the US and Ghana looking pretty capable - but the US has injures too. We'll see.

At the top end - Holland and Germany did their thing - I picked against Holland, almost arbitrarily at the beginning - I have no problem being wrong about that. If they show up, they are a very good team, and I guess they showed up. Germany just did what Germany does. The other favorites, Brazil and Argentina, say, were less convincing. Brazil won on an awful penalty call, a PK off the goalie's hands, and two dribblers; they looked very vulnerable - if Mandzukic had played, they might have given up another goal or two. Argentina? won easily enough, but the first goal was blind luck, they weren't exactly untouchable on defense - and though Messi scored a beautiful goal, most of the game, their offense looked quite solvable. Everything went right up the middle through Messi - they only got one goal out of it, and how well is that going to work in the second round, when they start to see better defensive teams? For all that - both teams look quite strong, and likely to grow into the tournament - but they are not as convincing as Holland the Germany were.

And outside the favorites - Columbia looks very strong; Mexico should have won 3-0 - they look capable of doing things; so did Croatia, though they need better keeping. Italy looked very strong - England let then run rampant down the right, but looked very dangerous on attack. France played a good game; US and Ghana played solid games - it's been an interesting cup. Looking forward to the next round.

World Cup

WEll - before we start - let's out it in writing:

Group A: Brazil should win this, for obvious reasons. They should win it all. Behind them, I think Mexico is going to get through - they have been awful in qualifying, but they have too much talent to stay awful, I think. Though Croatia is a good team. I am familiar with their stars - I have read that their defense is suspect, and can believe it. Cameroon is hung out to dry here - not a can again. bad team, but hard pressed to get much in this group. they could be spoilers - a win, a tie or two, and they could settle someone's fate. I expect Brazil and Mexico, though.

Group B: Spain and Netherlands start off this tourney where they left off last one. Hopefully with less of a brawl, though I expect the results to be the same. I am not at all sure what to expect from Holland - repeat of 2010? repeat of the 2012 Euros disaster? probably neither. The kicker is Chile - who were a revaluation in 2010, and have a good squad coming into this world cup - I've seen lots of backing for them to get out of this group instead of one of the favorites - I tend to agree. I think Spain will get through, probably easily enough - but I think Chile will sneak past Holland - beat them - or score an extra goal or two somewhere. Australia, meanwhile, is always tough but probably not a factor - right? Spain - Chile is my pick.

Group C: Columbia would be clear favorites of Falcao had made it back; I think they are still favorites without him - I think they have a decent squad. Though I had hoped to see him play in this. Oh well. The rest of the group is tough, in a minor sort of way. I think Japan will get out - they have risen to the occasion in a coupe of these tournaments and I think they can again. But Greece is a hard team to get past; and Cote D'Ivoire has plenty of high end players - though they might be getting long in the tooth. It would hardly be an upset if they did go through. But I expect Columbia and Japan.

Group D: This is one of the hardest groups to pick in the tournament. I think Uruguay should win it - they are almost at home, they are confident and tough and they have Luis Suarez and Edinson Cavani, assuming they are healthy (and Forlan if Suarex has to miss a couple games) - and the competition is not what it could be. England and Italy seem broadly similar to me - traditional powers who have been somewhat underwhelming in recent years - not bad, just hard to figure out. Young? but with canny vets? either one would rise to the occasion and go deeper int he tourney than you'd think - either one could flame out. Hell, both could flame out and Costa Rica might go through. That would be amusing. I expect, though, that England will do all right - Uruguay to win, then, England to take second.

Group E: This is a soft group, though teams can surprise. I think France will do all right - they are unlikely to be a force, but they should be good enough to win the group. Switzerland should take second. I don't really know much about Ecuador - Honduras seems to be over their heads anywhere - but either of them could surprise. Still - the French seem to alternate tournaments - this is one of their good ones. France - Switzerland.

Group F: Argentina has an easy path to the second round. Behind them - Nigeria is a modest threat, but Bosnia-Herzogovena looks like a very strong dark horse. Iran I suspect is going to enjoy the ride. I think this might be there easiest to predict of the bunch - it is hard to picture either Nigeria or Iran getting out of this group. Argentina - Bosnia.

Group G: The group of death! not the hardest to predict - truth is, the predictions are pretty easy - Germany wins, Portugal takes second - but they will have to beat good teams to do it. Ghana seems once again the best of the African teams - a serious threat to get out of any of the other groups, I think; here they might be the fourth best team. The US is in the same boat - quite capable of taking at least second almost anywhere else (maybe not group B, though they would be serious underdog threats there), but facing a daunting challenge here. At least it should create a really good game or two - the Ghana-USA match should be a thriller - both teams have to get the 3 points and are likely to go for it with all their might. Portugal, on the other hand - well - I expect their usual tactic - shut games down and let Ronaldo win it for them on the counter attack. That will probably work. Germany is way too good not to be a favorite, though Portugal might frustrate them, and that might give Portugal a chance to steal that game too - which could give the winner of the other game a shot. Stranger things have happened. There should be some good football in this group - though I suspect there will be a couple stinkers, probably involving the home team. (Home team for my part of Cambridge-Somerville: it's only a question here of whether the Portuguese outnumber the Brazilians...) So - Germany to win, Portugal #2.

Group H: Another soft group - I would have thought South Korea was a decent team, but watching Ghana abuse them the other night - maybe not. Which leaves it to Belgium and Russia, I think - though Algeria could sneak through - or Korea could wake up. I doubt it.

SO I could map out the rest of the tournament based on that - I did on a couple fantasy sites... Why not? Though this is obviously subject to much second guessing as the games start:

Brazil beats Chile
England beats Columbia (a radical call, but you need a couple)
Bosnia beats France
Germany beats Russia
Spain over Mexico
Uruguay over Japan
Argentina beats Switzerland
Portugal beats Belgium (poor Belgians, if this is right - winning their group to get Portugal, who I think are a very dangerous squad this year.)

then? courage rears its ugly head in here...
Brazil beats England, that's easy enough
Germany beats Bosnia, ending their run
... but now the courage comes in:
Uruguay over Spain
Portugal over Argentina - why? I say - 1) Uruguay is very good, has a lot of punch; Spain is still a great team, but have been a bit lacking in finishing the last couple tournaments, and teams are figuring them out - and Xavi is getting old. Obviously, third pick depends on Suarez playing at a high level, which isn't a given; but I think it's possible. 2) As for Portugal beating Argentina - the latter can score; can they defend? And what happens when Portugal parks the bus and counter attacks? can Argentina stop Ronaldo? I think Portugal can exploit their weaknesses. I think. We'll see. My rooting interests here are mixed - I do like Uruguay, and dearly want to see them succeed; Portugal is almost the home team in my part of the world - though Argentina could be a very fine team,a nd if they are good, they will be very entertaining. So - there's really no bad result here.

In the semis: Brazil beats Germany and - is this another upset? I think Uruguay will beat Portugal. I suspect this will be a nasty game, though.

Leaving Brazil to avenge itself on its tiny neighbor for 1950.

Neymar the man of the tournament, he and Suarez likely to contend for the most goals, etc. And - I hope - all of it as entertaining as possible.

More 2014 predictions

AL East

1-Boston

2-Baltimore

3-New York

4-Toronto

5-Tampa Bay

AL Central

1-Detroit

2-Cleveland

3-Kansas City

4-Minnesota

5-Chicago

AL West

1-Los Angeles

2-Seattle

3-Texas

4-Oakland

5-Houston

NL East

1-Washington

2-Philadelphia

3-Atlanta

4-New York

5-Miami

NL Central

1-St Louis

2-Cincinnati

3-Pittsburgh

4-Chicago

5-Milwaukee

NL West

1-Los Angeles

2-San Francisco

3-San Diego

4-Colorado

5-Arizona

Boston repeats over Washington

Baseball Predictions 2014

Spring is here, you know - though the wind is howling outside, it's still frigging cold, and there's still been snow flying around (though most of it went out to sea - up to Nova Scotia, judging from what my cousins up there are saying...) - but it is spring: baseball season is underway, and all is well. Better anyway.

So what do I think will happen this year? well - roughly:

AL East:

Boston - last year, all my Red Sox Ifs came true - they stayed healthy, the solid pros they brought in all performed to reasonable expectations, Farrell stabilized the pitching staff, and so on. This year - they brought back most of the team, and I'd say, most of the same ifs apply. If they stay healthy - if people perform to expectations... It took a lot of luck to do what they did last year - but it's at least partly luck they made. They stocked up on players - they had cover for the positions where people were hurt (filling up the bullpen like they did.) They've done much the same thing this year - bringing in Mujica and Badenhop and Capuano to stock the pen, bringing in position players, and so on - and they have a deep farm system, that's a year further along. They have risks - Ortiz and Uehara are not young; Napoli, Victorino, Lackey, the catchers have been around the block a few times as well - but they have a good team and lots of depth and should be in the running once more, and might as well be the favorites.

Tampa - as always, they don't have a lot of room for error, but they have a really good core and outstanding pitching - so they should be fine. There's nothing there to make you think they won't be in the thick of things.

Toronto - after making fools of many a prognosticator last year (me included), people are likely to write them off - but I don't think they are hopeless. If they get a bit of luck this year, they could get back to respectability or better. Though they are quite capable of another stink bomb.

NY - I look forward to their decline every year and was finally rewarded last year. Sort of. They had a strange off-season - bringing in a bunch of outfielders and letting Cano walk, which is an odd approach, given that they had decent outfielders last year and nothing beyond Cano in the infield. This year could be grim, unless they put Soriano back at second. Still - it comes down to pitching, and there is at least a chance that could be solid. Or awful - is a crap shoot. Will Sabathia decline? Will Tanaka be Darvish or Dice-K? what kind of pen can they field? I don't think they will be awful (alas), but I don't see a lot of ways they can get into the post-season.

Baltimore - I wish they had more pitching - they could get past the Yankees. They have a nice team on the field - but the pitching seems more than a little suspect. They strike me as being in a difficult race with Toronto and NY for the honor of being the best last place team in baseball.

AL Central:

Detroit - they remain prohibitive favorites. Building on last year - excellent starting pitching; a better bullpen; good lineup, probably balanced better than last year, and better with the gloves (though losing Iglesias hurts.) A solid team in a weak division, and, I think, the safest post-season berth in the game. And a real chance at the world series.

KC - they made great strides last year, and I think they will hang around this year. Maybe slip on the hill, improve with the sticks - who knows. Still - they aren't far off respectability.

Cleveland - likely to regress, but there's still enough talent, and Terry Francona, to be respectable.

Minnesota - I think they could sneak back into the high 70s this year, though probably not much more - they tend to be capable of over-achieving, and I can see people like Hughes and Nolasco giving them a definite bump.

Chicago - they have Chris Sale, right? Actually, they have some interesting young outfielders, who may or may not get them past awfulness.

AL West:

Texas - I think they will do all right. Just as the Tigers are better balanced with Kinsler than Fielder, I think Texas is better balanced with Fielder than Kinsler - that trade should help them. They might not be great, but I think they have the best chance of staying clear of the rest of the division.

Anaheim - can't stay sucky forever. Though soon enough they are going to suck and have to pay Albert Pujols to do nothing: but I suspect before that day arrives he has a throwback season or two. If he and Hamilton have their throwback seasons together, they could be dangerous.

Oakland - they are deep and well put together, but they have been a bit lucky with the pitching the last couple years, and that luck might run out on them. They have some injuries - and a bit like Tampa, I don;t think they have the resources to absorb too many losses. Though they do a very good job of rooting up has beens who still are...

Seattle - there are hints and signs that they could be in a position to improve - they certainly laid out a lot of cash. They should be decent - if they got a dose of luck, they might improve dramatically.

Houston - not much to talk about here yet. Might be in a couple years.

NL East:

Washington - they sort of disappeared for a lot of last year, but were coming on fast at the end - they have arms and talent and should be back at the top this year. It helps to have the competition fall apart of course...

Atlanta - They lost some players (McCann notably), and their pitching has been slammed this year - 2 Tommy Johns so far? They're still pretty good - and could get better, if Heyward and the Uptons bounce back - but probably not past second.

Philadelphia - they haven't really addressed their problems, but have talent hanging around - and the rest of the division is not good.

NY - they added a few people, but not really from the top drawer. Unless Granderson returns to form, which is possible, or Colon's deal with the devil still has some years to run.

Miami - I hope they lose, anyway. They deserve to lose. They don't deserve players like Stanton and Fernandez. They probably won't have them more than a year or so more.

NL Central:

St. Louis - they moved some pieces around, but basically brought back the team, all those young arms - if they stay healthy and develop, they should stay good for a while.

Pittsburgh - they need to make the transition from developing into a good team to staying a good team, which is the hardest thing to do. They should still be pretty good this year, though.

Cincinnati - solid team that should stay solid for a while. As usual, the health of the pitching is probably the difference.

Milwaukee - one of the real wild cards, I think - I expect Braun to pick up where he left off (I'm inclined to think steroids, if they have an effect, mostly keep players on the field, and inflate the overall offensive numbers - individuals tend to stay around where they were, relative to everyone else. Maybe spend more time on the DL. So while Braun's numbers might be down, everyone's numbers are down, and he should stay roughly where he always was, relative to the league.) I hope Segura develops, and Davis too (since I drafted both of them for fantasy...) They could be very good - they could be completely irrelevant. I think. Probably 77 wins and utter mediocrity - the Blue Jays! - but you never know.

Chicago - they seem to add a player a year, though someone else seems to regress. Not likely to factor in any pennant races.

NL West:

Dodgers - yes, they do look very good. I don;t like the Dodgers, but there's not much to say against this team.

San Francisco - this is their On year, right? they still don't have much offense, they still have a bunch of good arms - we'll see. They like the even numbers...

Colorado - why not.

Arizona - Corbin's out - there's not much going on there.

San Diego - they could be a bit better than this - they could menace .500.

Playoffs:
AL: Boston - Detroit - Texas + Tampa and Anaheim, I suspect. I'll pick Boston to come out of it, because I want them to, though Detroit, Texas and Tampa are all quite capable.

NL: Washington - St. Louis - LA + Pittsburgh - San Francisco. I want Washington to come out, but suspect SL and SF have the advantages. Not LA, for all their talent.

Awards:
AL MVP - should be Trout, for the third year in a row.
NL MVP - likely to be McCutcheon again, I think.

AL Cy Young - there are lots of candidates, really - I suppose Verlander is the default choice, but Scherzer, King Felix, Darvish are all good choices, Price maybe, even Lester maybe - Anibel Sanchez - Weaver. Right?
NL Cy Young - all Kershaw until he fails. Though Strasbourg, Cain, Wainwright, Fernandez etc. will be hanging around.

AL Rookie - might as well be Bogaerts. or Tanaka, I suppose.
NL Rookie - Wacha? why not?

And World Series Champions? Time for the Red Sox to go back to back! though - it's unlikely - they still need a bit too much luck. a couple years, when Bogaerts is established, and they've traded for Jose Fernandez, then - you know... now - Boston's still the best team if everything goes to plan - but since going to plan twice in a row would be very rare - Detroit is my safety pick.

Cross-posted.

Time and Space, Real and Fantastic

Lately I have been rather obsessed with world building. It would probably be more useful to work on building adventures - dungeons or town adventures or campaigns - but I can't help it. It's hard to say what sparked it - I suppose trying to imagine the transition from the old editions we played in to 4th edition was part of it. That and building a pirate campaign - that requires coast lines, shipping lanes, trade routes, and all the economics and politics that goes with it. And - when you start trying to steal pirate ideas, you generally find most of the existing material assuming something of a real historical setting - which means, Caribbean, colonial era. And that means - well, an invitation to imagine the world south of the usual campaign setting. It probably didn't help that one of the history channels was running a show on Krakatoa last week - oooh! ring of fire! there's an idea! And so - more maps ensue. Like this one:



So what does that mean? Well - you have the old setting where it always is, 40-60 north latitude, basically. Plus a great big bunch of desert, off to the southeast, a new, jungle continent to the southwest, and a string of islands, probably volcanic, between. None of which I imagine will ever have the least impact on any actual D&D playing, though who knows. I've always tended to get lost in the background anyway - I guess this is no different.

But - since I have been reading about the invention of the printing press - it got me thinking about other things. For instance - how many versions of that continent have I drawn in my life? Over and over - Waynesburg changing locations (relative to the geography, though not the latitude, usually) every year for 30 years. Now it's on a river - now on a lake - now on a small lake - now on a land and a river - now back on the big lake - now there's another town between it and Hillsburg - now the town is gone - now it's on hills, now in a swamp, maybe it should be on the ocean - on and on. And that's just me - you've drawn your own maps, going off mine or not, as long as I have.

But this is the thing that occurred to me, reading about the invention of printing: that was the normal state of things before the 16th century. There might have been good maps - but they were local and limited, even within the known world. If someone made a good map - it was unique, one object - that was either locked up and protected, or copied, by hand, with all the problems that attended copying. Knowledge, even very good knowledge, had a very difficult time spreading - a map (say) might be very carefully made, but only of the areas the mapmakers would personally visit and check. And it was very hard to connect one good map to another good map.

That all changed with printing. Now - maps were made and distributed. Maybe, at first, as many bad maps were made as good - but maps now could be used by travelers, checked by travelers, compared to other maps, their information correlated and corrected - and printed again, in a permanent form that could be distributed and examined in turn. It made it possible for their to be definitive maps. It made it possible (one of the points in Eisenstein's book) to identify the difference between real places and fantastic places - people stopped putting Paradise on their maps. (It's a great book - worth tracking down and looking at.)

Anyway - it's worth keeping in my head: that the variation in maps, in geography and boundaries, in histories and societies, is all perfectly consistent with the way the world was perceived in the age of manuscripts. And for the people living in that world - I'm not sure if you can make a distinction between how the world was perceived and what it was. For someone in Waynesburg or Oceanside, those islands off the southwest coast, or the jungle continent are as remote as Atlantis or the moon. And really - for most people in Oceanside, Waynesburg is as remote as the moon. Even the people who went there, would probably experience the journey as something occurring in time - 3 weeks ride - as distance. It's fascinating to think about...