D&D with greater issues: It's okay to be gay

*NOTE: The intro subject of this post is old news by now (over 10 months old), but it's just coming to the attention of my family and relatives now (they're not as keen on 'the video games'). Seeing it again made me want to put in my two cents.

So this story from Bioware has been making the rounds on my Facebook page (linked from No More Lost) about David Gaider's response to a forum poster who felt that Dragon Age 2 had "Neglected the Straight Male Gamer" and that the developers should do more in the future to rectify such a thing.

David Gaider's response was polite, tactful, and absolutely bitchin'.

To put this in perspective, I have not played Dragon Age 2, or Dragon Age Origins for that matter. I have, however, watched my wife play both games, multiple times, to completion. I feel confidant in saying that I "get the gist" of Bioware's new epic-fantasy series, and the multitude of romance options it provides.

I've had to watch this happen over, and over, and over...

More than any other video game company at the moment, Bioware is on the forefront of presenting roleplaying games with the most sexual diversity and options for players. While other games like Fable, The Elder Scrolls series, and a handful of others dabble in "alternative" sexuality, Bioware's RPGs create deep, multi-faceted characters which one can essentially pursue a relationship with. Dragon Age 2 offers five romantic choices (three male, two female), almost all of whom are bisexual if swayed enough. These characters are (almost) never just broad gay stereotypes either; they're fully developed characters backed by real performances by competent and often very (very) skilled artists.

We get it Fenris. You're tortured and angsty because you crave cock. It's okay.

You know a game is good at presenting a relationship when typical heterosexual gamers are conflicted as to which relationship they should pursue (given the choice between a straight woman or a gay man) based on the characters first and their sexuality second.

Hell, my relationship between Shepard and Liara in Mass Effect is so deep that it falls just short of us getting married, arguing over Ikea furniture choices, and trying to decide if our children will get my ears or her head-fringe (though Mass Effect 3 is still on the horizon).

That reminds me. Mass Effect 3 better introduce the option for a gay male Shepard. While players who play Femshep are free to woo the feminine Asari or their bubbly female Yeoman Kelly Chambers, male Shepard (Manshep?) has been left with only heterosexual romance options (despite the abundance of hot guys, alien and human alike).

Here's hoping the new male squad member addition James Vega (voiced by Freddie Prinze Jr.) isn't opposed to a little more than just some "male bonding".

Everything about this guy screams fabulous.

He's tough, he's a no-nonsense marine, he's ripped, there is literally no reason for him not to also be gay. Plus, it's the future; 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' has been repealed for, like, a hundred years! If they want to make the character more complex, have him be conflicted about his sexuality (just like so many men in real life). It would give Manshep (I'm coining the term Manshep, dangit!) an opportunity to open up about his own sexual identity and become more of a complex character too.

Plus, if the Straight Male Gamer isn't into that, Vega can just be another tough bro to have on the mission. His sexuality needn't come up if not pursued by the player (even though it totally should).

Sorry, what was I talking about?

Oh, yeah, Dungeons & Dragons.

So has any kind of sex or sexual issues ever come up in one of your games? Provided you play with a table of mature (or immature) adults, it's something that may come up.

Wizards of the Coast has gone on the record of having D&D be as open and approachable a game as possible, with a decidedly PG-13 rating in all of its art, supplements, and novels (Wizards' parent company Hasbro makes toys, after all). However the game is flexible enough to include and incorporate sexual elements if the players/dm sees fit.

In previous editions, sexuality and sex tried to be incorporated into the game mechanically with an independent supplement called The Book of Erotic Fantasy. It was generally considered a laughable failure. Mostly because sexy fun times and number crunching usually don't go hand in hand.

That said, alternative sexuality (LGBT characters) have often been a part of my previously run games. I've had a number of players (both male and female) play openly or closeted gay or bisexual characters. This aspect of their character's personality is usually underplayed or subtle (akin to their character's secret love of wine, or infrequent kleptomania), but it is present nonetheless.

Other players and DMs have had similar experiences. James Raggi (of LotFP fame) has often shared an anecdote about one of his player's sexual orientation being magically flipped (and the player's surprisingly mature handling of it). Scott Kurtz played his famous dwarf fighter as being receptive to some gay male advances in the last PAX D&D Live Game as well (5:05). Even if at times these moments are comical, they're still present and usually not offensive or harmful.

So here's a little thought experiment for you.

Next time you make a D&D character to play in a campaign (or D&D Encounters, where it would be very nice to see), make the character exactly how you normally would, only this time, switch her or his sexual orientation around.

Make them gay (or straight if you normally play a homosexual character). If you're not big on roleplaying, keep the detail as simple as that. Your character is gay, and that doesn't affect their abilities in combat/puzzle-solving.

However, if you want to delve a little deeper, think about how your character's sexual identity matured. Ask yourself the following questions about your character and her/his backstory:

-Did they always know they were gay?

-Did they have to 'come-out' to their friends/family, or is homosexuality a given with their race?

-What kind of partners might they prefer?

-Did they ever have to struggle against bigotry?

-Are they insecure about who they are? (What does that insecurity make them do?)

-Are they brazen about their sex appeal and sexual interests? (Would they want to be?)

When you've got a firm grasp on who your character is and you get a chance to play them, reflect on how you played them. Was their sexual orientation a big part of their personality, or was it just another little detail amid all the others? Did other player characters (or players, for that matter) respond differently to you or your character while in game? Was their reaction positive or negative?

If you're a regular D&D player, or a new player wanting to try something different, give the above a try. If nothing else, it might make you think a little about others and their lives.

Remember, it's okay to be gay. Especially in D&D.

Oh boy, comments!

So I have a youtube channel featuring a D&D Encounters webseries (If you're visiting this blog and haven't checked it out, please do), and occasionally I'll receive some comments.

Most are quite encouraging.

Some are not.

I usually like to respond to said comments directly over my Youtube channel, but I figure it'd be more fun to do so over my blog. At the very least, it'll be more efficient.

Plus, y'know, trolls.

Comments on Episode 1

"4th Edition is lame"

cool story bro.

"why dident the wizards just use that light spell on the roof so the roof and floor so no shadows could come out : ) since they use the shadows"

Okay, I'm assuming this is about the shadow creeper monsters. This was a question we (as players) asked throughout the adventure. The easiest answer is "because magic, so shut up", but a more honest and accurate answer provided by the rules from Wizards of the Coast in the adventure is "because magic, so shut up".

"I am guessing you have to know alot about D and D to join the encounters. Me and the wife are "just" starting to get into it. I guess it would be wise to really learn it alot before going to these?"

Why did you put 'just' in quotations? Either way, I hear this a lot. D&D Encounters is a program specifically designed for newcomers and brand new players. The adventures are easy to grasp and are designed around introducing as many core concepts of the game to new players in an easy-going environment (each encounter is only about 2 hours long, max). If you've never played D&D before, D&D Encounters is actually a pretty good introduction on most nights. Please give it a try.

Honestly, the biggest hurdle for new players playing D&D Encounters is contending with experienced players who are also at the table. Most longtime fans of D&D treat the Encounters program as 'Free public D&D night', forgetting that it's designed for new players and people just getting into the game. I think it's assumed by Wizards that once you play in D&D Encounters for a bit, you'll want to start playing in your own game at home or with friends.

Instead, many people make Encounters their exclusive D&D night. While this is fine for them, it does sort of make D&D Encounters seem more like an exclusive, nerd members only club, warding away a lot of new players.

Honestly, my recommendation is that if you've played D&D Encounters for more than, say, three seasons, and continue to play it, please try to run your own game. Chances are you're now experienced enough with the game to try and be a dungeon master, and other players will appreciate the chance to play in a new campaign. Leave D&D Encounters for the kids and new players. You're ready to step up your game.

"well you cna handle it with your "heroics" but my guy (half-orc druid) has been alive even though the other 5 players have died thrice each, and you know what? i'm not doing any heroics to save the land i'm a freaking anti-palidin black guard who is also cursed with multible personality disorder in pladin lvls and is literaly headless (long story) and still kicking. so i got to deal with all that crap with a half orc palidin,anti-palidin,black guard whos is down a head, so i do my evil thing!"

"Hello! I am interested in playing with you guys..... I would want to know if im able to.. i am 13 and i live in Hamilton Ontario.. so Please inbox me"

Go to this site and check which store nearest you hosts D&D Encounters. Anyone can play, so long as they're not disruptive or have a body comprised entirely of pure energy and/or anti-matter.

"were is the place for that hobby shope?"

At the beginning of (almost) every one of my videos, there's an ad and link to Dueling Grounds. It's a Toronto based game store and is currently one of the only places that hosts D&D Encounters in Ontario's capital.

"To me playing 4th edition is nothing more then a mmorpg board game with a little pen and paper rpg thrown infor good measure . They went from 3.5 and hd a d&d minis game that was seprate but then they went and combined them together , simplified the rules way down . Now you have to go and buy lots and lots of diffrent minis just to play and then you have to reuse the maps over and over or buy tile sets just to play. What happend to just eolling up a character and roleplaying it with out minis ."

Yup. I hear that a lot.

I honestly don't care what edition of D&D people play, so long as they actually play it and enjoy it. I like Type IV D&D best, but that's mostly because it's the system I am the most familiar with.

I could argue that Type IV does not require miniatures to play (also, Wizards now provides a number of very inexpensive solutions to miniature combat with The Red Box and the Dungeon Master's Kit/Monster Vault), or that simplified rules mean that the game can be approached and played by a much wider audience, but I'm just tired of trying to change the opinions of angry nerds.

It's difficult, and I'm tired.

"Where's Triumph the Comic Insult Dog when you need him???"

He usually hangs out with Conan. Y'know, putting his comedy to good use rather than baiting D&D nerds like us.

Comments on rest of Dark Legacy of Evard videos

"ITS AWSOME BUT THE BACKROUND PEOPLE HAVE TO SHUT UP!!!!!!!!"

I would, but WWII miniature war-gamers scare me. Those guys are huge.

"Robbie played a swordmage, I have heard chatter about others playing a swordmage as well in this Dark Legacy campaign. However I was under the impression that 4E essentials doesn't support swordmage are you house ruling it?"

I let any player play any kind of character they want. Because fuck the man.

Though if one more little kid plays a Githzerai or a Dragonborn, I'm going to murder them.

"I just love your videos and I love the whole concept of Encounters in general. You're doing a great job as DM and it really, genuinely warms my heart to see a wide variety of people playing D&D! Kids, girls, guys, it doesn't matter and everyone is having fun! Ultimately, that is what roleplaying games are all about and in this era of videogames, it's wonderful to see people gathered around tables, face-to-face, rolling dice and having a good time."

Genuinely nice comment is genuinely nice ^_^ Thank you.

"Wonderful video. It's about time someone other than Chris Perkins got it right. Remember that a focus shot of the dice roll and the player's reaction afterwards is a D&D must have moment. It's great to laugh at."

D'awww, you guy. Thanks.

"awsome vids, finally a good story and u r explaining whats going on unlike some of those stupid random pieces of junk"

Random pieces of junk are dungeon mastering? Seriously, give them a break. I think it's impressive that bits of rubbish are attaining sentience, but even more impressive that they're using their sentient lives to play dungeons & dragons.

Comments on Lost Crown of Neverwinter Series

"If u were smart u would have cut a deal with wizards after dmming for them in san diego lol. Then atleast u'd be making some money."

If only being a dungeon master was a paying profession. That said, certainly wouldn't mind an opportunity like that. I hear Seattle's pretty nice.

"Margaret is like a hottie off the bat... but nothing's hotter than a gamer chick! Loving these vids! Keep them up! And we gotta love all your voice acting!"

Thanks for the compliment. And yes, Margaret is supremely awesome. Then again, so are all the players that grace my humble table. I would not be on the internet without them.

So those are all the comments of note from my assortment of Youtube videos. As for the future of the D&D Encounters video series, it's pretty much on a hiatus at the moment. I'm not able to cover the recent season with any real success, though I'm looking into a few other possibilities to keep the series going in one form or another.

Thanks to all of you who keep me (my videos, and this blog) going.

It's mah birfday! (NSFW)

I'm a year older today.

If I do get around to playing D&D today, I imagine it will look something like this below.

Artist is idrawmywife. Go favourite his works.

Real posts to come soon.

GM Questionnaire

Got this brief questionnaire from Playing D&D With Porn Stars, decided to answer it. If you have a roleplaying game blog, feel free to copy the questionnaire and answer it yourself.

1. If you had to pick a single invention in a game you were most proud of what would it be?

I use a lot of pre-published materials, so this is tough. I'd say it was the refugee city within the insides of a colossal purple worm that my PCs ventured into (and subsequently destroyed). That or sentient flying cake.

2. When was the last time you GMed?

The beginning of Beyond the Crystal Cave...so it's been a couple of months.

3. When was the last time you played?

Playthrough of D&D Lair Assault: Forge of the Dawn Titan. I died.

4. Give us a one-sentence pitch for an adventure you haven't run but would like to.

The abandoned Sea of Tranquility base on the moon in Gamma World, where it's rumored a nano-forge is still operational...though heavily guarded.

5. What do you do while you wait for players to do things?

If they take too long, I do NPC/Monster voices, challenging them/goading them on.

6. What, if anything, do you eat while you play?

Nothing, though I drink a tremendous amount of water. Those monster voices are dehydrating.

7. Do you find GMing physically exhausting?

Nope, though it is much more taxing when playing with younger teens and kids. Fuck kids.

8. What was the last interesting (to you, anyway) thing you remember a PC you were running doing?

My cleric in a Labyrinth Lord game did a bunch of brave exploring...before falling to his death.

9. Do your players take your serious setting and make it unserious? Vice versa? Neither?

I actively try to take the piss out of most serious settings, even in my own games. I guess doing so might make for a slightly schizophrenic DMing style, but it guarantees that no one is unamused.

10. What do you do with goblins?

I give them as much personality as possible, be it wretched or oddly dignified. Anything to make the PCs think twice about killing them at first (so said goblins can backstab them later). I freakin' love goblins.

11. What was the last non-RPG thing you saw that you converted into game material (background, setting, trap, etc.)?

Bulletstorm (for Xbox 360). I'm taking cues from that game and adapting them for Gamma World. Stupid, stupid game...but it is fun and kind of funny. Perfect fit for Gamma World.

12. What's the funniest table moment you can remember right now?

My PCs reaction to their Drow ship captain Drake Darkfell's real name turning out to be 'Yancy'.

13. What was the last game book you looked at--aside from things you referenced in a game--why were you looking at it?

The Book of Vile Darkness. I got it as a holiday present. Otherwise, wouldn't have bought it of my own volition.

14. Who's your idea of the perfect RPG illustrator?

Everyone who contributed to the Player's Strategy Guide from Wizards of the Coast. Because fuck dark and gritty art.

15. Does your game ever make your players genuinely afraid?

Only occasionally for their character's waistlines. Otherwise no.

16. What was the best time you ever had running an adventure you didn't write? (If ever)

Back when I first introduced my wife to D&D, we were playing the Everquest Roleplaying Game. I ran her and a friend through an old 3rd edition adventure, Wreck Ashore. Was the first time I was witness to some real creative problem solving in a D&D game. Made for a lot of fun. Also, adding sexy pirates certainly helped.

17. What would be the ideal physical set up to run a game in?

Large kitchen table, mostly well lit space. I've played and DM'd from enough couches, beds, floors, and standing positions to appreciate a large, sturdy table with chairs.

18. If you had to think of the two most disparate games or game products that you like what would they be?

Vornheim: The Complete City Kit & D&D: Player's Strategy Guide (4e).

19. If you had to think of the most disparate influences overall on your game, what would they be?

The Hobbit & Adventure Time (okay, maybe that's not as disparate as I thought...).

20. As a GM, what kind of player do you want at your table?

A player who's never played the game before, but has an open enough mind to at least give it a try and a big enough sense of humour to have fun with it.

21. What's a real life experience you've translated into game terms?

I got beat up a lot as a kid...I guess I've translated that into having most bandits and thugs just be caricatures of bullies.

22. Is there an RPG product that you wish existed but doesn't?

The Book of Erotic Fantasy for 4e. No, wait, no, that's just stupid...um..."4e character creation made dirt simple".

23. Is there anyone you know who you talk about RPGs with who doesn't play? How do those conversations go?

Everyone I talk to about the game either plays or has played in the past. Unless you count my cat. He often suggests more tuna themed adventures.

Thin ain't in: Being plus-sized in a D&D world

*NOTE: This post features a large number of images of women. Many of them are cheesecake in nature (Though I don't believe they're exploitative or derogatory in any way). To any of my female or gay male readers who don't approve, please say so in comments. Your feedback is always appreciated. That said, the following post is NSFW (nudity, sexualization, naughty bits, etc).

So anyway, just read Zak S's addition to his input on Type V D&D and seriously wish I'd had the foresight to say something similar first. It's something I genuinely believe in and wish would be more accepted with most major game publishers (be they RPG books, video games, series, etc).

Most of D&D's art in the past two editions has been quite normative and standard. It's colourful, reasonably evocative, and generally can be described as "perfectly fitting into a PG-13 rating". It features typical medieval fantasy creatures and peoples doing typical medieval fantasy things.

I will give credit to the art directors and creative types at Wizards of the Coast for at least keeping a fairly even balance of female to male characters (wearing realistic armor, no less), as well as a number of Black and Asian looking characters amid the sea of Caucasian folk. Any progress is still progress, and should be commended.

That said, there are no plus-sized women anywhere in these books.

And no, dwarves don't count.

One could argue that being an adventurer isn't conducive to a plumper frame, and that it isn't realistic. I find that arguing about realism in a game where people shoot magic missiles out of their fingertips, can climb walls like spiders, and can appreciate vistas of impossible geometry amid an astral sea is kind of dumb.

And that a person making such an argument is therefore dumb as well.

Most of the women I know in real life are not a size 0, and certainly don't conform to most standard 'ideals' of Western beauty, nor should they. Many of them have bellies, thunder thighs, big butts, some are over 200lbs, some even aspire to be even bigger (Scandalous!). All of them are beautiful and desire to feel confidant and secure about themselves and their bodies.

A lot of them also love to play Dungeons & Dragons.

So rather than provide "beautiful" examples of possible characters to play, arguing that it's a form of escapism, the better thing to do would be to provide numerous examples of plus-sized women in positive, heroic roles. By illustrating the empowerment of such characters, would it not make it more acceptable to play them? By extension, wouldn't that also lead many women to have fewer issues with their own body images given that they can emulate characters who are closer to their body type?

But don't let my feeble word mouth talkings convince you alone. Many artists have illustrated this point several times over. Here are some awesome examples:

So it's certainly not out of the question to play a plus-sized character in D&D, but I imagine there will always be a number of geeks and nerds who will want to point out that, realistically, playing a character who's over, say 200lbs, should incur some kind of weight penalty or something to her/his stats. I guess that's reasonable...

So what kind of bonuses/penalties might a plumper frame provide a D&D character in Type IV D&D?

Well, being heavier/larger might certainly make a rubenesque gal or guy easier to hit. Yeah, that does make sense. So maybe a -1 penalty to AC and/or Reflex defenses.

On the flip side of that, a hardier build might mean amount of fortitude, or perhaps a reliance on the strength of the mind and spirit. Might as well balance it out with a +1 bonus to Fortitude and Will defenses as well.

Speed might certainly take a penalty, just like it would when donning heavy armor. Though a larger character might gain a bonus to certain saving throws as well (poison, cold damage, certain types of spells).

Plus, larger warriors and amazons will have certainly trained to compensate for their size, and even use it to their advantage. A number of feats could certainly accommodate this.

Magic could also do the trick. When in doubt, magic can pretty much solve most problems. Is this a bit of a cheat? Yeah, but its one people have relied upon since this game was first introduced.

Bottom line, if/when the new iteration of D&D is introduced, I sincerely hope that the art directors and other people in charge of the art in the rule-books will take the time to broaden the body types of the women presented (and no that isn't a pun).

Beauty, strength, and appeal come in a variety of forms, and to only include a small number of them in the art that represents such a diverse and broadly appealing game is to do a disservice to both men and women everywhere. I'm glad that the people at Wizards of the Coast recognize that not everyone that plays the game is male and Caucasian, but they should also remember that not everyone who plays is a size 0 either. Nor do they want to play as such.

*NOTE: To any men offended or upset by the prospect of plus-sized female characters in D&D, need I remind you that a great deal of male D&D players are...ah, 'differently girthed' themselves. Let's try not to be hypocritical here.

Hopes and ideas for D&D 5th Edition

So I just signed up for an upcoming play test of what's being called "Dungeons & Dragons 5e" over on the main Wizards of the Coast D&D website (www.dndinsider.com).

I find it a little troubling that Type IV D&D has only been around for a little over four years, and already the company is at work developing a new iteration of the game. It's more than understandable from a business perspective, but indeed a little troubling.

This is, after all, not quite two years after Type IV D&D was supplemented with an additional set of classes/builds/rules/etc with D&D Essentials. While it's true that Essentials is considered more of a supplement to the existing rules than a new edition or game, a great deal of Type IV D&D rules now exclusively refer to the Essentials rules books rather than the original source rule books. Overall, it feels like this edition is coming out awfully soon.

That said, I'd still like to say I'm both excited and optimistic about the possibility of a new edition of D&D. I think it's a great opportunity to both refine and tinker with the existing tabletop rules, while also calling back to previous editions in an attempt to bring back a lot of fans of previous editions (tons of players still exclusively play Basic D&D, AD&D, and the equivalent of Type III).

So here are a few of my own personal hopes for this new edition. Some of them are a little more universal than others, but they all center around improving on what already exists in Type IV:

Keep the 'Powers' system

Type IV's biggest differentiation from previous editions was the inclusion of class specific combat powers. While it mechanized a great deal of the combat, making it a little more cumbersome in terms of play (and heavy on rules), it also made each class feel unique in terms of flavour, while also keeping them all fairly equal in terms of usefulness.

Fighters no longer were left to just 'hit enemies with sword' over and over, and Clerics became much more fun to play outside of just healing others. Some people dislike how it simplified the spells a Wizard or other magic user could know and use, while others preferred how it made those classes more approachable.

If it could be done, I'd think an interesting improvement might be to make a large selection of powers open to all the classes. Much like the 'Spells' chapters of previous D&D rulebooks, this selection of powers could be attained or chosen by almost any class, provided they meet certain mechanical requirements. This would allow for a great deal more customization than Type IV currently allows for (though it would definitely increase the amount of memorization and player/DM knowledge required).

Disregard/Dispose of Feats

Feats have been a hallmark of D&D character customization for a great deal of time. They're permanent added perks that improve a character, and can be accumulated over time. Mechanically, they're one of the few stats that can really differentiate one character from another.

Despite all that, they could probably be scrapped.

Feats in Type IV have become a bit redundant. Their use in previous editions seemed to be to help differentiate PCs from one another, as well as allow certain classes to improve their innate limitations over time (armor and weapon proficiencies, upgrades to abilities, etc). While these are still useful in Type IV, they also add another layer of complication in an already overly complicated character creation process. Their usefulness is also mitigated by class and racial features, as well as the effects of numerous powers and magic items.

Gamma World, which uses the Type IV game chassis (I like to refer to game systems as 'chassis'. It sounds cool), has no feats and it doesn't suffer at all from their absence. If anything, it helps to make character creation much faster. This is something I've said Type IV D&D needs desperately. So if anything should be on the chopping block, I'd say it should be feats.

Remove the '+ 1/2 level' bonus

This bonus just adds more math to an already math heavy game. Please remove it. With tweaks to other stats like defenses and hp, I can't imagine it will be missed.

Make the game more approachable

Say what you will about Type IV's release, one thing that was in its favour was introducing it to new players. The books were fairly accessible in terms of layout, the rules made a lot of sense with little room for re-interpretation, and the game was marketed in a lot of savvy ways (such as the Penny Arcade Podcasts, early play tests of the game, lots of Internet buzz, D&D Encounters, etc).

For Type V D&D, I hope that Wizards of the Coast improves even more upon this.

The game should be made as easy to approach as possible. This can certainly be done with some additions to the rulebooks (2-page character builder guide at the front of the book, write-ups on what a roleplaying game actually is, numerous examples of play). The new rulebooks should be able to picked up by, say, someone who's never played D&D before in their life, and easily digested by them.

In addition, Wizards should make full use of their Youtube and Facebook page to introduce rules tutorials and gameplay examples. The Penny Arcade podcasts were an incredible primer into the game, and especially useful for new players. Making use of accessible technology will broaden the player base beyond regular D&D players. Instead of just the typical 'word of mouth' marketing the game has been reliant upon for decades, a great series of Youtube videos could bring in a brand new audience.

Emphasize 'flavour' in addition to rules

A lot of people's biggest complaint with Type IV was that it mechanized actions that most veterans of the game felt should be better left to roleplaying and creative thinking. This includes things like improvised combat (throwing sand, using a trip-wire, oil and fire, etc), and discussion (actively roleplaying out scenarios that are now left to skill-challenges).

These kind of creative solutions listed above are a hallmark of previous editions, and a part of the game a lot of fans remember fondly.

The thing is, Type IV D&D accommodates all of the above quite well. Creative combat and improvisation isn't removed from the game at all. It just isn't emphasized like it seemed to be in previous editions. It's hard to come up with a creative combat solution when it might not be as effective as simply re-using one of your powers over and over again.

The easiest way around this isn't to change the game or remove the amount of hard game mechanics, but instead to simply emphasize that other problem solving methods are available and are as mechanically viable as using a player's attack powers.

A few brief tables, pages of text, and examples of play using these techniques, along with a primer on how a DM can best support or use them, would go a long way. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Re-release the Red Box

Again, if the focus of this new edition is accessibility and ease of use, then a re-release of the Red Box Basic Set is a no brainer.

The 2010 release of this Basic set was a great way to introduce all of the elements of the game in a very tidy, efficient, and inexpensive package. It came with everyone a person needed to learn and run the game. It wasn't perfect, but it was a superb step in the right direction.

Release this product again at the same price point ($20.00 USD/CND) and you'll make a lot of people quite happy.

Plus, that lovely nostalgic Metzner artwork is always a great way to lure in long time fans of the game.

If something wasn't mentioned in this little list, it's most likely because it's something about the current edition of the game I happen to be fond of and don't want to see changed. However, if you have a suggestion for the list, please leave it in comments.

The Book of Vile Darkness: A Brief Review

The Book of Vile Darkness is a supplement released by Wizards of the Coast in December of 2011. It contains a booklet for players and a booklet for dungeon masters.

It also contains a nicely detailed poster map. Those are always nice.

Overall, if you like supplements like Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild, you will probably dig the new Book of Vile Darkness supplement.

REVIEW OVER!

Okay, seriously, reviewing this book was difficult. Overly difficult. It even made me go over previous "reviews" I've posted on Dungeons & Donuts and contemplate reclassifying what I usually call a review.

My hesitation and difficulty comes not from The Book of Vile Darkness being bad. Oh no. But neither does it come from the product being overly good, either.

It just sort of...is. It's a product released in 2011 from Wizards of the Coast. Even though the whole book is focused on a very specific and 'unique' concept (playing in an Evil Campaign), it didn't really feel all that unique.

It contains some new character themes, some new magic items, some campaign and character advice, and it even included a short adventure in the back (complete with poster map). All of the information and art is well polished and looks professional. It's certainly a complete package, and it's probably worth its 30-40 dollar selling price.

Overall, I think my hesitation with reviewing the product comes mostly from its subject matter: evil characters and campaigns. It's a touchy subject with a lot of D&D fans. Some people like to revel in doing evil's work, while others find the entire concept repugnant. I will say this about The Book of Vile Darkness, however. It does a decent job of making the subject matter approachable from both sides. It provides the tools to play in and run an evil campaign for those who want to, while also presenting new monsters/curses/rules/etc for dungeon masters to use in their regular games. So at least there's that.

Overall, here's my thoughts on The Book of Vile Darkness, and my hesitation with it:

Is there a real demand to play evil characters?

Playing an "evil character" is something that doesn't particularly interest me. Not because I'm morally inflexible, but more because I don't necessarily understand the appeal.

See, I played a bunch of D&D in high school (like many people, I imagine), and there were a couple of guys I played with who really seemed to want to "be evil". They disregarded the provided quests from the DM, they actively tried to insult and kill NPCs, and made a kind of game out of burning down towns for the fun of it.

These were guys in their early teens. They also loved the Grand Theft Auto series for its ability to let players just 'dick around' in a world, blowing up things whenever they pleased. To them, being able to pick up prostitutes and then beat them to death with a baseball bat to regain their money was a laugh riot.

As such, it's difficult for me to separate those kind of players from the concept of playing in an 'evil campaign'. Players who actively want to make evil characters bring to mind the most juvenile kind of humour and gaming experiences for me. Such a thing isn't really my cup of tea.

And this is coming from the guy who made an adventure based around sentient magical cake.

The Book of Vile Darkness does a decent job of addressing this, however, stating multiple times in both books that while the above kind of play is certainly part of the appeal of an evil campaign, it isn't the only way to approach it. The writers address that while D&D is a game for teens and young adults, many mature adults still enjoy it, and crave something a little more 'mature' in tone and style. The Book of Vile Darkness facilitates this a little with a number of campaign and character theme suggestions that are better suited to deep roleplaying or methodical plotting/scheming.

That said, most of the people I've played with who enjoy playing evil (or at least disruptive) characters tend to enjoy themselves most when they're playing against the flow of the world. They actively ignore quests or kill good NPCs because the dungeon master implies that said quests/laws/characters have importance in the campaign world, and it's fun to fuck that up.

Fuck the man. Rules were made to be broken.

So when an entire campaign is designed around players actively committing evil deeds, does it hold the same appeal? As a player who wants to mess with the world at large, is it as rewarding to have a world that actively encourages you to do so, as opposed to one that suggests you shouldn't?

Yahtzee's review of Overlord 2 puts this a lot more succinctly than I can. I always thought that the appeal in playing an evil character was being able to get a reaction out of others (be they NPCs, your DM, or other players), but The Book of Vile Darkness presents playing evil characters and running an evil campaign differently, and in a way that might not fall in line with what players actively want.

Is there really a demand to play evil characters in a world that caters to them? Or even one that revolves around them and their mischief?

I don't know, but Wizards of the Coast has provided a book to do just that.

So I guess that's good.